DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


littps://archive.org/details/theocloretilsonvs31tilt 


0 


Theodore  Tiltox 


YS. 


Henry  Ward  Beecher 

ACTIOX  FOR  GRIM.  COX 

TRIED  IN  THE  CITY  COURT  OF  BROOKLYN, 

Chief  Jcstice  JOSEPH  NEILSOX  Presiding. 

Verbatim    Report    by   the   Official  Stenographer. 


A^OJL.  Ill 


TTITH  PORTRAITS  OF 

Hon.  TTM.        KVAETS.  JOHX  L.  HILL.  Esq. 

Hon.  TVM.  A.  BEACH,  HEXEY  C.  BOWEX. 

THOMAS  E.  PEAESALL. 


NEW  YORK: 

McDIYITT,  CAMPBELL  k  CO.,   LAW  PUBLISHERS, 
Ko.  79  Nassau  Street, 
1875. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1875,  br 

McDIVITT,  CAMPBELL  &  CO., 
m  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  i\ 


IJhambers,  the  City  Court  of  Brooklyn. 

Brooklyn,  February  22d,  1875. 

"TiLTON  vs.  BeECHER." 

The  nambers  of  your  report  have  been  of  great  use  to  me 
The  testimony  is  given,  as  in  the  N.  Y.  Tribune,  with  substantia) 
correctness.    In  thanking  you  for  your  courtesy,  I  beg  to  express  my 
respect  for  your  enterprise. 

Very  truly  yours, 

J.  NEILSON,  Ch.  J. 
To  McDiviTT,  Campbell  &  Co.,  Nassau  St.,  N.  Y. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


HENRY  WARD  B^EOHEii. 

CBOSS-EX  AMINATK3N  Page  3 

Why  Mr.  Beecher  Preferred  the  New  England  Form  of 

Oath   5 

Mrs.  Beecher 's  Absence  in  1871   5 

Mr.  Tllton's  Religious  Defection   6 

Dissatisfaction  with  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  Northwest   6 

Mr.  Tilton's  Publications  on  Marriage  and  Divorce   6 

Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  take  Buggy  Rides   10 

Visit  to  Mrs.  Tilton  in  August,  1870   11 

The  Advice  Given  Mrs.  Tilton   14 

Mrs.  Morse's  Letter  to  Mr.  Beecher   16 

Mr.  Beecher '8  Answer  to  Mrs.  Morse   18 

Joseph  Richards  Contradicted   18 

Mr.  Beecher' 8  Intimacy  with  Mrs.  Tilton   19 

Mr,  Beecher's  Whereabouts  in  October,  1868   21 

Mr.  Moulton's  Peremptory  Invitation  on  December  30. . .  23 

Interview  at  Moulton's  25-27 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Retraction   31 

The  Interview  of  December  31   36 

Why  Mr.  Beecher  Trusted  Mr.  Moulton   39 

The  Famous  Pistol  Scene   40 

The  Interview  of  January  1   42 

The  Letter  of  Apology   44 

Mr.  Moulton's  Short  Statement   50 

Interview  at  Mr.  ^noulton's  House  ;   57 

Mr.  Beecher's  Letter  to  Mr.  Bowen   59 

Conversation  with  Mr.  Francis  D.  Carpenter   60 

The  Charge  of  Adultery   62 

Proposed  Settlement  of  the  Diflaculty   63 

The  Agreement  to  Write  the  Letters  of  Feb.  7,  1871   65 

Mr.  Beecher's  Expectations  of  Death   68 

Interview  with  Mr.  Tilton  in  February,  1871   70 

The  May  Interview   71 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Letters   73 

Mr.  Beecher  Gives  Mrs.  Tilton  a  Picture   74 

Explaining  the  Letters   75 

The  Clandestine  Letters   78 

Why  the  Letters  were  Kept  Secret   79 

Mr*.  Morse's  Letter   82 

The  First  Blush  of  the  Scandal   83 

Mrs.  Woodhull's  Card   84 

The  Charge  of  Adultery   86 

The  Charge  of  Improper  Advances   89 

Conversations  with  Mr.  Moulton   94 

The  "  Ragged  Edge  "  Letter   92 

The  Read  ng  of  the  True  Story  ^  93 

Mr.  Beecher's  Letter  Declining  the  Pastorate   95 

Interview  with  Mrs,  Moulton   95 

The  Sofa  and  Kissing  Scenes   95 

No  Remarks  about  a  Contession  to  the  Church   97 

The  West  Charges   97 

The  Card  Published  in  The  Eagle  99 

Mr.  Beecher  Swears  that  he  was  Not  at  Mr.  Moulton's 

House  on  June  2,  1873   100 

Appointment  of  the  Investigating  Committee   100 

Gen.  Batler  Proffers  his  Services  to  Mr,  Beecher  105; 

Mr.  Beecher's  Walks  with  Mrs.  Tilton   104: 

Beecher  givea  Mr.  Tilton  Financial  Aid   lOt 

Mortgage  on  Mr.  Tilton's  House   107 

Discussion  Concerning  "  The  Golden  Age  "   lOJ; 

The  Question  of  Blackmail   11] 

Mr.  Beecher's  Sermons  Introducsd  !  11}; 

Beecher's  Meeting  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  ] .  120 

Condition  of  Mr.  Beecher's  Health  in  1873  !  12i> 

Re-Direct  Examination   13i) 

Mrs.  Tilton  and  the  Charge  of  Undue  Affection   13.J 

Mr.  Beecher's  Habits   13;i 

Meetings  with  Mr,  Tilton   13) 

The  Payment  of  $5,000  13tj 

SAMUEL  D.  PARTRIDGE. 

Direct  Examination   137 

HERMAN  O.  ARMOUR. 

Direct  Examination   143 

HENRY  M.  CLEVi-LAND. 

Direct  Examination   150 

Oross-Examination  153 


His  Interview  with  Mr.  Beecher  on  June  2,  1873.... Page  158 


Mr.  Beecher  Sends  for  Mr.  Carpenter....  164 

Publication  of  the  Tripartite  Covenant   155 

The  Investigating  Committee  Appointed   162 

The  West  Charges   166 

The  Committee  and  Mrs.  Tilton's  Statement  169 

Mr.  Tilton  before  the  Committee   170 

The  Action  of  the  Committee  ,   171 

New  Documentary  Evidence   174 

JAMES  L,  LITTLE. 

Dibect  Examination   175 

Cross-Examination   176 

Re-direct  Examination   177 

HENRY  M.  CLEVELAND  (Recalled)   178 

Mr,  Cleveland's  Commission  to  Boston   178 

Mr,  Beecher's  Instructions  to  Mr,  Cleveland   181 

The  Charges  of  Blackmail   182 

Telegrams  in  Latin  and  English  188 

Rumored  Threats  by  Mr.  Cleveland  Denied   185 

Report  of  the  Investigating  Committee   185 

The  Evidence  before  the  Committee   189 

Mr,  Tilton's  Letter  to  the  Church  ,  191 

Mr.  Shearman's  Card  in  the  Independent   193 

Mr.  Beecher's  Reconciliation  with  Mr.  Bowen   194 

Re-dieect  Examination   194 

Formation  and  Meetings  of  the  Committee   197 

Re-cross  Examination   199 

FRANCIS  D.  MOULTON  (Recalled)   200 

SAMUEL  D.  PARTRIDGE  (Recalled)   208 

Cross-examination   204 

Appearance  of  the  Bowen  Check   209 

History  of  the  Yellow  Paper   210 

Conversation  about  Tilton  and  the  Spiritualists   213 

Re-direct  Examination   216 

EDWARD  J.  WRIGHT. 

Direct  Examination   217 

Cross-Examination  217 

ELIZABETH  LAPIERRE  PALMER. 

Direct  Examination   219 

The  Golden  Age  to  support  the  Spiritualists  ,   220 

Fauailiarities  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull   221 

Mr,  Tilton  Denies  Mrs,  Woodhull's  Charges   222 

Proofs  of  the  Scandal  Shown  the  Witness   222 

Cross-Examination  223 

The  Witness  a  Clairvoyant   225 

Tlie  Witness's  Introduction  to  Mr.  Tilton   228 

Ttie  Freedom  between  the  Woodhalls  and  Mr.  Tilton   2i0 

The  Talk  about  Making  Mr.  Tilton's  Paper  Radical   232 

The  Exhibition  Made  of  the  Proof  Sheets  234 

Se-dibect  Examination   235 

Ee-cross-Examination   235 

GS^.  B.  F.  TRACY. 

r  irect  Examination     236 

J,  iTRANCIS  ST.  GEORGE, 

I  irect  Examination   288 

C  ross-Examination   239 

GE-^.  B.  F.  TRACY  (Recalled)  V.   243 

Fii  it  Meeting  at  Gen,  Tracy's  House   244 

Co  isultation  at  Moulton's  House   244 

Th  )  Pistol  Scene  Described  to  Gen,  Tracy   246 

Pa  ts  of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  Story  Denied  246 

Ui.  Moulion  Denies  being  Mrs,  Woodhull's  Informant,..  248 

Mi.  Tilton  Displays  "  The  True  Story"   248 

On.iissions  in  the  Preserved  Copy  of  The  True  Story   251 

Mr.  Tilton  Denies  being  Mrs.  Woodhull's  Informant  251 

What  Mr.  Tilton  could  not  Deny  ,  252 

Ml .  Tilton  Wants  the  Paper  Preserved   263 

ftli  3,  Morse  Named  as  Mrs,  Woodhull's  Informant  254 

Th  3  Policy  of  Separate  Denials  256 

Gea,  Tracy's  Alleged  Remark  on  Lying   255 

MRS.  MARIA  N.  OVINGTON  (Recalled). 

Cross-Examination   256 

Re-direct  Examination   267 


IV 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Re-cboss-Examination  Page  258 

Ee-be-dirkct  Examination   258 

GEN.  B.  F.  TRACY. 

DiEECT  Examination  (Resumed)  261 

Contradictions  of  Mr.  Woodruff.  261 

Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  Declared  to  be  One   263 

How  Gen.  Tracy  Became  Counsel  for  Mr.  Beecher   272 

Gen.  Tracy's  Interview  with  Mr.  Tiiton   273 

Contradictions  of  Mr.  Tilton   275 

Mr.  Tilton's  Proposed  Statement  for  the  Committee. ...  .  277 
Mr.  Beecher' s  Payments  of  Money  Damaging  to  Mr. 

Moulton   2^9 

The  Interview  at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel   280 

Ckoss-Examination    281 

Gen.  Tracy's  First  Consultation  with  Mr.  Beecher   282 

Gen.  Tracy's  Pledge  to  Mr.  Tilton   283 

Gen.  Tracy's  Idea  of  the  Original  Charge   285 

More  about  Gen.  Tracy's  Original  Pledge   285 

Why  Gen.  Tracy  Became  a  Witness   286 

Adultery  Not  Mentioned  as  the  Charge  by  Mr.  Woodruff.  287 

The  True  Story  as  Shown  to  Gen.  Tracy   288 

Gen.  Tracy  Seeks  to  Suppress  the  Scandal   289 

Gen.  Tracy  Goes  to  Boston  to  See  Gen.  Butler  291 

The  Interview  with  Gen.  Butler   293 

A  Statement  Dictated  by  Gen.  Butler  294 

An  Offer  to  Show  the  Witness's  Animus   296 

What  was  Not  said  between  Gen.  Tracy  and  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton   301 

Moulton's  Short  Statement  ,   301 

Mr.  Richard's  A^ipearance  Before  the  Committee   303 

Mr.  Woodruff's  Information  about  the  Money  Transac- 
tions  304 

Gen.  Butler's  Written  opinion   304 

Gen.  Tracy's  Activity  in  Mr.  Beecher's  Behalf   ...  305 

Re-direct  Examination   308 

Gen.  Tracy  advises  Mrs.  Moulton  about  Mr.  Tilton.  An 
Injunction  to  prevent  the  Destruction  of  the  Papers. . .  310 

The  Conversations  with  Mrs.  Moulton  August  18   311 

WILLIAM  A.  BEACH. 

Couseuts  that  Mrs.  Tilton  may  Testify   313 

WILLIAM  M.  EVARTS. 

Declines  to  call  Mrs.  Tilton   313 

CHARLES  C.  STANLEY. 

Direct  Examination   315 

Cross-Ex AMINATION   816 

GEORGE  W.  MADDOX. 

Direct  Examination  319 

Cross- Examination   320 

JOHN  SWINTON. 

Direct  Examination   322 

Cboss-Examination   322 

ALBERT  BERGHAUS. 

Direct  Examination   325 

Cross- Examination   326 

HENRY  OTIS  FOX. 

Direct  Examination   329 

Cross-Examination   330 

WILLIAM  FORCE. 

Direct  Examination   322 

Cross-Examination   333 

LAWRENCE  S.  KANE. 

Direct  Examination   334 

Cross-examination   334 

THEODORE  H.  BANKS. 

Direct  Examination   335 

Cboss-Examination   337 

Re-dieect  Examination  ,  238 

JAMES  W.  STILLMAN. 

Direct  Examination  ,   338 

Cross-examination   339 

HENRY  P.  McMANUS. 

Direct  Examination   34O 

Cross-Examination  ,   341 

ALBERT  B.  MARTIN. 

Direct  Examination  342 

Cross-examination  ]  345 

FRANKLIN  WOODRUFF  (Recalled)   347 

DiRBOT  Examination   347 

Cboss-Examination   hss 

Gen.  Tracy's  Interview  in  the  Union   ... ... . . . ....  359 


The  $5,000  long  a  mystery  to  Mr.  Woodruff  Page  368 

Mr.  Beecher's  Gift  of  $500  to  Mr.  Tilton's  Family   364 

What  the  $500  was  for  365 

The  Checks  for  Bessie  Turner's  School  Bills   866 

A  Mortgage  on  Mr.  Tilton's  House  367 

The  Accounts  with  WoodruH"  &  Robinson   367 

Mr.  South  wick  Censured  for  giving  Mr.  Tracy  Points   372 

Re-Direct  Examination   372 

Re-Cross  Examination   373 

HANNAH.  M.  MIDDLEBROOK. 

Direct  Examination   374 

A  Gathering  of  Spirituali.sts  ai  Mrs.  Woodhull's  375 

The  Witness  Cowley  Contradicted   375 

Mrs.  WoodhuU  Publicly  Discusses  the  Scandal  in  Boston.  375 

choss-examination  876 

Re-Direct  Examination   379 

Re  CBOS8  Examination   379 

JOSEPH  H.  RICHARDS  (Recalled)   379 

JOHN  BREMER. 

Direct  Examination  385 

Cross-Examination   385 

STEPHEN  PEARL  ANDREWS. 

Direct  Examination   389 

Meeting  of  sociologists  at  Mr.  Tilton's   389 

Mrs.  Woodhull's  Visitors  named   391 

Mr.  Tilton's  Visitors   392 

Mr.  Tilton's  Introduction  to  Mrs.  WoodhuU   393 

Important  Contradictions  of  the  Witness  Woodley— The 

Writing  of  the  WoodhuU  Scandal   394 

The  Scandal  Article  Written  by  Mrs.  WoodhuU  and  Mf. 

Andrews     394 

The  Cowley  Interview  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's   396 

The  Rossel  Procession ,   397 

Mr.  Claflin's  Call  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  ,   398 

Cross-Examination   399 

Mr.  Andrews'  Relations  to  the  WoodhuU  Paper  

The  Mediumistic  Exhibition  400 

Mr.  Tilton's  Terms  of  Familiarity  Used— Mr.  Tilton  and 

Mrs.  WoodhuU  401 

More  about  the  Writing  of  the  Scandal   402 

Mr.  Tilton's  Sympathy  with  Mrs.  Woodhull's  Reforms  40S 

Mr.  Andrews'  Labors  for  Social  Reforms   404 

Re-Direct  Examination   404 

Mrs.  Woodhull's  First  Allusion  to  the  Scandal  „  

MRS.  S.  A.  BRADSHAW  (RecaUed)   406 

JOHN  WOOD. 

Direct-Examination  410 

Cboss-Examination  411 

HENRY  C.  BO  WEN. 

Direct-Examination  412 

The  Resignation  Letter  Delivered  at  a  Pre-arranged  Meet- 
ing  412 

No  Advice  by  Mr.  Beecher  that  Mr.  Tiiton  be  Discharged.  415 
Mr.  Bowen  Tells  how  he  Presented  the  Summons  to  Mr, 

Beecher     416 

Bessie  Turner's  Charges  not  Mentioned  at  the  Interview.  417 

The  Arbitration  418 

The  Tripartite  Covenant   419 

Inconsistencies  in  Mr.  Belcher's  Letter  to  Mr.  Bowen.. .  422 
Mr.  Bowen's  Manifestations  of  Friendship  423 

Cross-Ex  AMINATION  424 

The  Appointment  to  Meet  Mr.  Beecher  425 

The  Meeting  at  Deacon  Freeland's   425 

Mr.  Tilton  told  of  his  Removal  426 

The  Formal  Announcements  of  Removal  427 

No  Admission  of  Indebtedness  to  Mr.  Tilton  by  Mr.  Bowen  428 

Mr.  Bowen's  Thoughts  on  the  Arbitration   429 

The  Naming  of  the  Arbitrators  430 

The  Woodstock  Letter  Returned  431 

Mr.  Bowen's  Signing  of  the  Covenant   431 

The  Meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  433 

The  Announcement  of  the  Award   434 

No  Stipulation  Made  about  Burning  Papers   435 

The  Covenant  not  Mentioned  at  the  Arbitration— Contra- 
dictions of  Me8^sr8.  Storrsand  Clafiin  43« 

Some  Things  Mr.  Bowen  does  not  Remember  TelUng  Dr. 

Eggle  -ton   457 

The  Conversation  when  Mr.  Tilton's  Letter  was  DeUvered  438 
Mr.  Bowen's  Call  on  Mr.  Beecher   440 

Re- Direct  Examination  441 

What  Mr.  Bowen  Refused  to  Sign  442 

Mr.  Bowen  Ignorant  of  the  Scandal  Letters  443 

Mr.  Bowen's  AUegod  Imputations  on  Mr.  Beecher  Ex- 
cluded  444 

Re-Cbos»  Examination   44v 


TABLE  OF  COXTENTS. 


JOHN  NAPOLEON  LONGHI. 
Direct  EsAMrs-ATiox    Page 

CBOSt-EXAMiNATION  

GEORGE  A.  BELL  (RecaUed)  

Mr,  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton's  Domestic  Troubles  

LEWIS  C.  JANES. 

DiKECT  EXAHIKATION'  

ilr.  Beecher's  Alibi  Disputed  

Cbo^-s-Examixation  

Mr.  Beecher's  Look  of  Trouble  

JEEEillAH  P.  ROBINSON  (Recalled)  

MRS.  SARAH  C.  EDl'Y. 

Direct  Examtsatiok  

Ceoss-Exami>"atio>'  

MRS.  EMMA  C.  MOULTON  (Recalled)  

Ceoss-Exami>'ation.  

FREDERICK  W.  MITCHELL. 

DlEECT  EXAMTS'ATIOIf  

CROSS-EXAiII>-ATIOX  

MARY  c.  Mcdonald. 

Direct  Ex\mi>-atiox  

Ceos  -Exaxikatiok  

THEODORE  TILTON  (Recalled). 

DiEECT  EXAMKATIOK  

Mr.  Tilton's  Whereabouts  in  1871-1872  

Contradiction  of  the  Witu'^-sses  Giles,  Gray  and  C>)ok., . . . . 

Contradiction  of  Mrs.  Palmer  

Contradictions  of  Gen.  Tracy  

Oonversations  ■with  Mrs.  Ovinpton  

Mr.  Tilton's  Counterpart— Theodore  H.  Tilton  

The  Red  Lounge  Interview  Denied  in  Toti  

Mr.  Tilton  Denies  telling  Bessie  Turner  of  his  Troubles. . 

A  Description  of  the  Tilton  House  _  

Miss  Turner  absent  during  Horace  Greeley's  Visit  

Oliver  Johnson  Contradi-^ted  ^  

Mr.  Beecher  sits  on  Mr,  Tilton's  Knee  

Nothing  said  at  the  Arbitration  about  Burning  Papers. . . . 

The  Dating  of  the  Covenant  

Mr.  Wilkeson'a  Testimony  Disputed  

VICTORIA  WOODHULL  appears  with  some  Letters  

JOHN  NAPOLEON  LONGHI  (Recalled). 

DiEECT  EXAMI>-ATI0y  

FRANCIS  D.  MOULTON  (Recalled). 

DiEECT  EXAIIIXATIOX  

The  Writing  of  th^  Letter  of  Contrition  

The  Interview  of  Feb.  3,  1872,  Denied  

Other  Contradictions  of  Mr.  Beecher  

G-n.  Tracy  Contradicted  

STEPHEN  PEARL  ANDREWS  (Recalled). 

DiBF.CT  E-AMI>-ATrOS-  

Cross-  Ex  amikatiok  

JAME«  FREELAND  (Recalled). 
Deeect  ExAinN^Tioy  

CROeS-EXAllIVATIOX  

Re-Disect  Examination-  

MRS.  MARIA  N.  OVINGION  (Recalled). 

DiBECT  Examination  

Mr.  Martin's  Testimony  Disputed  

CEOSS-EXAillNATION  . '  

CALVIN  J.  MILLS. 

Direct  ExAitiNATioy  

HENRY  C.  BOWEN  (-Recalled). 

Cross-Examination  

Be-Dieect  Examination  

EDWARD  EGGLESTON  (Recalled). 

Direct  Examination.  

Mr.  Bowen  Contradicted  

Ceos  ■  -Examination  

Dr.  Fggleston's  Relations  to  Mr.  Boweii  

Dr.  Eggleston's  New  Pastorate  

Re-dibect  Examination  

HORACE  B.  CLAFL'N  (Recalled). 

DiEECT  Examination  

CHARLES  STORRS  (Recalled). 

Direct  Examination  

Cros-- Examination  

Be-DIEECI  EXAiONATION  V. ..  .  .'.  .*.'.    ' '  ,  . 


Wd 

450 
451 
452 
454 
456 

472 
473 
474 
474 


474 

475 


476 
479 


481 

482 
484 
485 
489 
493 
493 
497 
499 
499 
.^00 
501 

.^ni 

502 
502 
504 


508 
512 

512 

513 
514 
515 
516 

518 
519 


519 
520 
525 


527 
528 
531 

535 


587 
538 


540 
541 
543 
543 
544 


544 


545 
547 
548 


GEORGE  W.  UHLEE. 

Direct  Examination  Pag©  548 

Cboss-Examination  

WALLACE  E.  CALDWELL.  " 
I'Ibect  Examination   5fi8 

JOHN  ELIOT  BOWEN. 

Direct  Exam  nation   65ft 

Ceo-s-Esamination   651 

MARSHALL  J.  MORRELL. 

Direct  examination,   551 

Ceoss-Examinatiok   653 

JOHN  C.  SOCTHWICK  (Recalled), 
Direct  Examination   553 

JOHN  K.  PORTER. 

Summing  up  for  the  Defence   55T 

A  Glance  at  the  Groap  of  Accusers   557 

Mr.  Beecher's  Supporters   55R 

Obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  Accusers   658 

Mr.  Beecher's  Early  Struggles   55« 

Improbabilities  in  the  Case   561 

How  the  Letters  were  spread  Broadcast   'yd^ 

Mrs,  Tilton '8  Letters  and.  their  Lessons   563 

Mr.  Tilton's  Friends  Desert  Him   664 

Mr.  Tilton  Compared  tD  the  Deity   564 

Mrs,  Tilton's  Devotion  to  her  Husband  

Mr.  Tilton's  Purpose ih  Publishing  his  own  Letters   567 

The  Evenintr  of  Mutual  Confessions   668 

The  Origin  of  the  Charge   568 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Descriptions  of  Mr.  Beecher's  Calls   669 

A  Letter  with  an  Unfortunate  Date   571 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Sin   571 

Mr.  Tilton's    Ragged  Edge  "  Letter   571 

Mr,  Tilton  Expresses  Jealousy   572 

Mr.  Tilton  Grateful  for  Mr.  Beecher's  Visits   57S 

Mr.  Bowen  the  Harlequin  of  the  Case   673 

Mrs.  Tilton  on  Mr.  Beecher's  Faults   674 

Mr.  Tilton's  Chief  Misery   575 

A  Glance  at  Mr.  Tilton's  Better  Days   676 

The  Letter  to  the  Orthodox  Wife   677 

Mrs,  Tilton's  Sorrow  over  her  Shortcomings   578 

Mr.  Tilton's  Alien  Loves    579 

Ingenuity  in  the  Selection  of  Dates   579 

Praif  e  of  Bessie  Turner   ^81 

The  Advances  to  Bessie  Turner. ,   581 

The  Contradictions  of  Bessie  Turner   683 

Mrs.  Tilton's  t^eturn  from  Marietta   685 

The  Stormy  Scene  in  the  Parlor   888 

Mrs.  Til'OD  Driven  to  her  Mother's  House   688 

Bessie  Tu  ner  Int-rcedes  for  Mrs.  Tilton   688 

Bessie  Turner's  Disclosures   689 

Mr  Bowen's  Testimony   690 

How  Mr.  Bowen  w,i-  to'be  Used  by  the  Plaintiff   693 

Mr.  Bowen  Presents  Mr.  Tiltou's  Letter   598 

Tbe  Fateful  Act  of  Sending  the  Letter   695 

The  Walkt.i  Mr.  Moulton's   596 

Preeumpt  on  in  Favor  of  Innocence   698 

Mrs.  Til  on's  Re'ract  on   598 

Procuring  of  the  A' ology   599 

Peculiarities  of  the  Lette   of  Contrition   604 

Tilton  and  Moulton  Compared   605 

Counterfeit  Phrase  imputed  to  Mr.  Beecher   606 

N-st-Hiding  Defined   607 

The  Original  Form  of  the  Contrition  Letter   6G9 

Eea  ons  fo-  Disbelieving  Mr.  Ti  ton   610 

Mr.  Tilton's  ebmity  for  Mr,  Beecher   611 

Mrs.  Beecher's  Distruct  of  Mr.  Tihon   612 

Mr.  Tilton  thinks  Mr.  Beecher  should  support  Mrs.  Tilton  613 

Mr.  Moulton'  -  Threats  against  Mr.  Beecher   614 

Mrs.  Moulton's  Advice  to  Mr.  Beecher  to  Confess  to  his 

Church   615 

Mr.  Woodruff's  Tet-timony   616 

The  Defer  to  the  Friend  in  the  West   619 

The  "  True  Story  '   602 

The  Short  Repo'rt   621 

The  "Long  R-port  "  for  the  Committee   622 

Mr.  Tilton's  Recantation   634 

Mrs.  Mor-e  Described   625 

Mr.  Moulton's  Attitude  to  the  Case. ,  626 

How  Mr.  Tilton  Brought  Mr.  Bowen  to  Terms    629 

Why  Bessie  Turner  was  s-nt  Wt-st   630 

Mr.  Beecher's  Letters  of  Resignat  on   631 

Mr.  Moulton  makes  a  Slip  of  the  Tongue   631 

Mrs.  Moulton's  Intimacy  with  Mr,  Beecher   632 

The  Changing  of  the  Charge   632 

Mr.  Moulton  Turns  on  Mr.  Bef  cher  -   635 

Mr.  Moulton  Refuses  Mr.  Beecher  Acctss  to  the  Papers..  635 
Mr.  Beecher's  Answer  to  the  Refusal   637 


Tl 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


The  Charge  of  Blackmail  reavowed  Page  637 

The  Reasons  for  Charging  Blackmail   637 

Promises  made  in  the  Plaintiffs  Opening  not  Fulfilled. . .  641 

The  Attempt  to  Blackmail  Persistent   642 

The  Developments  of  the  Blackmail  Plot   644 

The  Carpenter  Card   645 

Mrs.  Moulton's  Position   646 

Mrs.  Moulton's  Testimony  Analyzed   646 

Charitable  View  of  Mrs.  Moulton  s  Testimony   648 

Conspiracy  to  Bring  a  Crim.  Con.  Suit   649 

Vindication  of  General  Tracy  651 

WILLIAM  M.  EVARTS. 
Argument  fob  thk  Defence. 

Disturbing  Influences  of  this  Case.   655 

Argumeut  of  Natural  Propensity  Met   655 

The  Most  Partisan  Defender  of  Mr.  Beecher   656 

The  Committee's  Vindication  of  Mr.  Beecher   657 

The  Two  Sampsons  of  the  Case   658 

The  Charge  Analyzed     659 

Reasons  for  Making  the  Charge   660 

The  Charge  Incredible  under  the  Circumstances   661 

Illogical  Propositions  made  by  the  Plaintiff   663 

Legal  Aspects  of  the  Suit   664 

The  Circumstantial  Evidence   667 

Joseph  Richards'  Testimony   668 

Mr.  Beecher's  calls  on  Mrs.  Tilton   670 

Mr.  Beecher's  Gifts  to  Mrs.  Tilton   671 

First  Outcroppjngs  of  Malace  a  d  Envy   671 

Mr.  Tilton  Acknowledges  Mr.  Beecher's  Benefits   673 

Katy  McDonald's  Testimony   678 

The  Rossel  Procession   679 

Mr.  Tllton's  Policy  of  Silence   680 

The  Theory  of  the  Defence   681 

Letters  in  the  Case   684 

Was  Mrs.  Tilton's  Resort  to  her  Mother's  House  a  Deser- 
tion  687 

The  Beech ers  Advise  Separrtion   688 

How  Mr.  Tilton  Took  the  Advice  of  Scparaiion  '.   690 

The  Stories  that  Mr.  Boweu  knew  to  Mr.  Tilton's  DIs- 

credit   691 

Mr.  Tilton's  Financial  Position  in  1872   691 

Mr.  Beecher's  Susceptible  Point  ,  693 

Some  Instances  of  Bad  Memory   694 

The  Win stea  Scandal  695 

The  Writing  and  Presentation  of  the  Resignation  Letter.  697 

Consequences  of  the  Resignation  Letter   699 

Destruction  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  Written  Accusation   702 

The  Interview  of  December  30     704 

How  it  is  Alleged  Mrs.  Tilton  Awoke  to  her  Sin   715 

Mrs.  filton's  Alleged  Intercession  for  Mr.  Beecher   716 

Mr,  Tilton's  Apology  for  his  Wife   717 

Mr.  Beecher's  Version  of  the  Interview  719 

Who  Suggested  Mr.  Beecher's  Midnight  Visit  to  Mrs. 

Tilton   720 

The  Contents  of  Mr-.  Tilton's  Written  A<;cusation   722 

Mr.  Beecher  Invited  to  go  and  see  Mrs.  Tilton   724 

The  Procurement  of  the  Retraction   725 

The  Law  ou  a  Wife's  Confessions   727 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Recantation   73) 

Significance  of  the  Destruction  of  the  Accusation   73  5 

The  Interview  of  December  31   "73) 

TheCitharine  Gaunt  Letter   741 

Deductions  from  the  Policy  of  Silence.   745 

"  Nest  Hiding  "  Interpreted  \  745 

Mr.  Beecher's  Remorse  745 

The  Getting  of  the  Contrition  Letter   747 

Mr.  Tilton's  Threat  to  Mr.  WDkeson   748 

The  Source  of  Mr.  Beecher's  Remorse     751 

Mr.  Tilton's  Distress  ]  753 

The  Contrition  Letter  Analyzed   754 

A  New  Year's  Gift  for  Mr.  Bovven  '   7.57 

The  Second  Meeting  at  Air.  Moulton's . ;  .  758 

Inquest  on  the  Paternity  of  the  Child  Ralph   763 

Mr.  Beecher  never  Verbally  Accused  of  Adultery.   765 

Th-j  Renewed  Social  Relations   767 

Source  of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  Icformati -n               768 

Mrs.  WoodhuU's  Relations  with  the  Principals   772 

The  Policy  of  Silence  (Considered   Hi 

Where  the  Policy  of  Silence  was  Disregarded             776 

Gen.  Tracy's  Appearance  on  the  Scene   778 

Gen.  Tracy  Again  Defended  '  735 

The  Ragged  Edge  Letter   . '  786 

Mr.  Moulton's  Shrewd  Financial  Policy   [  787 

The  Ragged  Edge  Letter  Analyzed   .,  .*.'*.'*..  788 

Mr.  Beecher  Writes  Again  in  a  Hopeless  Strain   71 

Mr.  Beecher's  Spirit  Aroused  ,   793 

Mr.  Moulton's  Confidence  in  Mr.  Beecher's  Case .  .".V. '. '. '. '.  795 

Mr.  Beecher's  Statement  to  the  Committee  ,   796 

Mrs.  Moulton's  Testimony  .*."."  793 


Mr.  Beecher's  Alibi  Page  199 

The  Interview  of  June  10  800 

Mrs.  Tilton  Advised  by  Mrs.  Moulton  802 

Mrs.  Moulton  Calls  on  Mrs.  Woodhull  803 

Mr.  Tilton's  True  Story  805 

Important  Witnesses  Excluded  by  the  Law  807 

Mr.  Beecher's  Bearing  Under  Fire  808 

The  Last  Plea  for  Mr.  Beecher  809 

WILLIAM  A.  BEACH. 

Closing  Argument  roB  the  Plaintiff  8U 

A  Personal  Appeal  to  Foreman  Carpenter   815 

Closing  Arguments  for  Mr.  Beecher  Criticised   816 

How  Mr.  Beecher  Observed  the  Policy  of  Silence   817 

Mr.  Beecher  not  Entitled  to  the  Presumption  of  Innocence  818 

The  Publishing  of  the  Wife's  Letters   819 

Alleged  Shrewdness  In  Selecting  Dates  821 

Alleged  Misinterpretations  of  the  Testimony  in  the  Argu- 
ments   821 

The  Charge  of  Garbling  the  Letters   822 

Mr.  Tilton's  Public  Defenders  823 

Mr.  Beecher's  Brother  Clergymen  against  him  824 

Mrs.  Tilion's  Recent  Attitude  Towards  her  Husband  ...  825 
Where  the  Expression  "  True  Inwardness  "  Originated. . .  826 

Mr.  Tilton  not  Actuated  by  Revenge  827 

The  Early  Struggle  in  Plymouth  Church  828 

The  True  Story  828 

The  Alleged  Garbling  of  the  Leiter  of  Contrition   829 

The  Announcement  that  the  Charge  was  Adultry   830 

Mrs.  Moulton's  Opinion  of  Mr.  Tilton  831 

Expressions  Imputed  to  Mr.  Beecher  and  Denied   833 

Mr.  Tilton's  Speculations  on  the  Life  of  Christ   837 

Epithets  Applied  by  Mr.  Moulton  to  Mr.  Beecher   838 

Why  Mr.  Carpenter  was  not  put  on  the  Stand   839 

Mr.  Evart's  Argument  Considered   840 

How  Character  should  be  Considered   841 

Outside  Opinions  on  the  Case   843 

Examples  of   lerical  Depravity   844 

Mr.  Bee  her'sTemperame  it   847 

Mr.  Beecher's  Utterances  about  Love   848 

The  Evidence  against  Mr.  Tilton  s  Character   849 

Mr.  Beecher's  Temperament  Compared  with  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's  860 

The  Absence  of  Love  Letters  850 

The  Assertion  that  the  Plaintiff  has  no  Proof   851 

The  Requests  to  Burn  the  Papers   853 

Mr.  Beecher's  Affairs  not  broght  before  the  Arbitrators..  855 

Mr.  Tilton's  Version  of  the  Interview  of  December  30  857 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Love  of  Mr.  Beecher  861 

The  Grandeur  of  Writing  the  Letter  of  December  26   863 

The  Paper  Read  at  the  Interview  863 

Mr.  Evarts'  Comments  on  the  Wife's  Confession   863 

Where  Memory  is  Strong   866 

Alleged  Mutilation  of  the  Catherine  Gaunt  Letter   868 

Mr.  Beecher's  Ci^nquests  in  England   869 

Drift  of  Public  Opinion  on  the  Case  871 

The  Argument  that  M  .  Beecher  had  not  time  to  Sin  872 

Mr.  Tilton  not  a  Cruel  Husband  873 

Strictures  upon  Mr.  Richards  Answerr  d   876 

A.  B.  Vlarlin  Defende  1  877 

Mr.  Moulton's  Reflections  on  Miss  Proctor   878 

The  Publication  of  the  Woodhull  Scandal   879 

To  Whom  Mr.  B  -wen's  $7,000  went  881 

C  'mm  nts  on  the  Plymouth  Section   882 

Ttie  Powerful  Influence  of  a  Great  Intellect.   885 

Dr.  E.  B.  Fairfield  on  Plymouth  Church   887 

Mrs.  Tilton  887 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Temptation   890 

The  ^est  Charges   893 

The  Council  896 

The  Effect  of  Dr.  Bacon's  Articles   897 

The  Investigating  Committee  898 

The  Bowen  Letter   899 

Justification  for  the  Bowen  Letter  901 

Investigating  Committee  Criticised   902 

The  Law  Bearing  on  the  Case   904 

The  Real  Issue  Defined  907 

The  Charge  of  Conspiracy   908 

Direct  Charge  of  Blackmail   910 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Confession   913 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Retraction   917 

Other  Alleged  Confessions  by  the  Wife   919 

Mrs.  Tilton's  Denial  to  Mr.  Moulton   920 

The  Destruction  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  Confession   921 

Mr.  Beecher's  Alleged  Efforts  at  Supp  ession   922 

How  Mrs.  Tilton  might  have  been  made  a  Witness   923 

Mr.  Beecher's  Confessions  925 

The  Letter  of  Contrition    926 

Mr.  Beecher's  Gratitude  for  Mr.  Moulton's  Services   930 

The  Ragged  Edge  Letter,  ii,     931 


TABLE  OF 


CONTENTS. 


Uxamples  Drawn  from  the  Bible  Page  932 

Vivid  Pictures  of  Remorse   933 

Mr.  Beecher's  Criticism  of  Dr.  Storrs   937 

The  Lack  of  Denials  by  Mr.  Beech er   938 

Mr.  Beecher's  Offence  not  Unnamed   939 

Mr.  Beecher's  Observance  of  the  Policy  of  Silence   941 

The  Judgment  Day  Letter   943 

The  Danger  to  be  Averted,   945 

How  Open  Confession  would  have  been  Received   946 

The  Break  between  Beecher  and  Moulton   949 

Mr.  Moulton's  Short  Statement   950 

Mr.  Til  ton's  Short  Report  for  the  Committee   951 

Mr.  Moulton  as  the  Custodian  of  the  Papers   955 

Gen.  Tracy's  Remarks  about  Mr.  Moulton    956 

Mrs.  Moulton's  T  stimony   958 

Mr.  Beecher's  Esteem  for  Mrs.  Moulton   959 

Mr.  Beecher's  Advice  of  Separation   951 

Mr.  Beecher's  Alibi   963 

Alleged  Available  Testimony  not  Produced  865 

Mr.  Tilton's  Religious  Creed   968 

Mr.  Tilton's  Forgiveness  of  his  Wife   969 

Mr.  Tilton's  Self-Est  em   969 

The  Charge  of  Improper  Proposals   970 

Mr.  Tiltm's  Challenge  to  Mr.  Beecher  in  Plymouth 

Church   972 

Mrs.  Hooker's  Threat  to  Invade  her  Brother's  Pulpit. . . .  972 

Mrs.  Bradshaw's  Letter  to  Mr.  Beecher   973 

Mr.  Beecher's  Offer  to  Resign   974 

The  Clandestine  Letters   975 


The  " True  Inwardness  Letter"  Page  981 

The  Term  "Nest  HifMng  "  982 

Mrs.  Kate  Carey's  Tistimouy   983 

Joseph  Richard's  Testimony.  983 

Mr.  Redpath's  Testimony...   984 

Mrs.  Morse's  Letters   986 

The  Demand  that  Beecher  Resign   988 

Mr.  Be  cher's  Testimony  about  the  Blackmail   990 

Bessie  Turner   991 

Mr.  Beecher's  Testimony   992 

Mr.  Beecher  on  Coufesslon   995 

Mr.  Beecher's  Orthc  doxy   996 

Mr  Beecher's  Serenity  while  under  Fire  1010 

Gen.  Tracy  Criticised  10 11 

Mr.  Beach's  Pereration  1017 

Requests  to  Charge  by  the  Defense  1018 

JXTDGE  NeILSON's  ChaKGE  TO  THE  JURT  1027 

The  Writings  of  the  Case  1027 

The  Implied  and  Oral  Admissions   1028 

The  Defendant's  Conduct  1029 

Statements  of  Witnesses  1031 

The  Question  of  Damages   1033 

The  Charge  of  Blackmail  1033 

Testimony  Unworthy  of  Consideration   1034 

The  Investigating  Committee  1034 

The  Request  to  Charge  :  1035 

Thb  Jubt  Retires  to  Diliberate  1039 

The  Jury  Disagree  and  are  Discharged    1042 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED  ON  THE  TRIAL 


Anonymous,  17  Abb.,  48,  58  Vol. 

Babbott  V.  Thomas,  31  Barb.,  277   " 

Babcock  v.  Booth,  2  Hill,  181   " 

Baker  v.  Morley,  Buller  N.  P.,  28   " 

Barbat  v.  Allen,  7  Exchg.  609;  10  Eng.  L. 

&Eq.,  596   " 

Baxter  v.  Baxter,  1  Mass.,  346   " 

Barton  v.  Gledill,  12  Abb.,  246   " 

Bell??.  Bell,  1  S.  &  T.,  565   " 

Bennett  v.  Smith,  21  Barb.,  439   " 

Bently  v.  Bently,  7  Cow.,  701   " 

Berckmans  v.  Berckmans,  17  N.  J.  Eq.,  453  " 

Betts  V.  Betts,  1  Johns.  Ch.,  197   " 

Billings  V.  Billings,  11  Pick.,  401   " 

Blackburn     Beall,  21  Md.,  208.   " 

Blade  v.  Nolan,  12  Wend.,  173   " 

Boulting  V.  Boulting,  3  Swabey  &  Tr.,  336  " 

Boyd  V.  Colt,  20  How.,  384   " 

Boynton  v.  Boynton,  43  N.  S.,  380   " 

Bramwell  v.  Bramwell,  3  Hagg.  Ecc,  618.  " 

Broadwell  v.  Stiles,  3  Halst.  (N.  J.),  58. . .  " 

Bunnell  v.  Greathead,  49  Barb.,  106   " 

Burgess  ■y.  Burgess,  2  Hagg.  Con.  ,529,  534.  " 

Burriell  v.  Bull,  3  Sandf.  Ch.,  15.   " 

Butler  V.  Truslow,  55  Barb.,  293   " 

B— n  V.  B— n,  1  Spinks,  248,  251;  2  Rob. 

Ecc,  580,  586   " 

Campbell  v.  Campbell,  1  Sc.  &  D.  Ap.,  182  " 

Cain  u.  State,  18  Tex.,  387   " 

Card  V.  Card,  39  N.  Y.,  317   " 

Carpenter  v.  Ward,  30  N.  Y.,  243   " 

Carpenter  v.  White,  46  Barb.,  292   " 

Cassin  v.  Delaney,  1  Daly,  225  ;  38  N.Y., 

179   " 

Caton  V.  Caton,  7  Notes  of  Cas.,  16,  21.  -j 

Clare  v.  Clare,  19  N.  J.  Eq.,  37   " 

Cobbett  V.  Hudson,  1  Ellis  &  B.,  14   " 

CoUins  V.  Stevenson,  74  Mass.,  438   " 

Cooper  •y.  Cooper,  10  La.  (O.  S.),  249   " 

Corbin  v.  Jackson,  14  Wend.,  65dl   " 

Count  Johannes  v.   Bennett,  5  Allen 

(Mass.),  169   " 

Grossman  1?.  Bradley,  53  Barb.,  125   " 

Cummings  v.  Cummings,  15  N.J.  Eq.,  138  " 

Curtis  V.  Curtis,  4  Swabey  &  Tr.,  234. ...  " 

Dalnot  V.  Cotesworth,  1  P.  Wis.,  731   " 

Dalton  V.  Dalton,  Sup.  Ct.  (Mass.),  1857. .  " 

Dann  v.  Kingdom,  1  N.  Y.  Sup.,  492   " 

Davidson  v.  Davidson,  IDeane.  Ecc,  132  " 

Davis  V.  Dinwoody,  4  T.  R.,  678   " 


nL.1,020,  1,021 

1  361 

1  356 

in  1,022 

I..!  354 

III  1,022 

I  360 

II  472 

II  747 

m  1,019 

IIL. 1,020,  1,024 

III  1,022 

in..906,  1,023 

III  1,020 

1  394 

IIL. 1,023,  1,024 
III.. 1,022,  1,024 

1  164 

ni...906,  1,021 

1  394 

1  367 

ni  905,  906 

1  356 

III  464 

m  1,023 

III  1,023 

m  1,022 

1  360 

n  293 

1  361 

m  729 

ni.1,020,  1,021, 
1,022,  1,023 

ni  1,020 

m  1,013 

m   496 

m  1,020 

m  1,022 

I  394,  m  1,022 

m  1,020 

III.. 1,023,  1,024 

m  728 

m  1,022 

in..l,019,  1,021 
1  358,  366 

m  1,020 

1  353 


Dawson  'v.  Hall,  2  Mich.  Sup.  Ct.,  390. .  .Vol.    I.  390 

Day  V.  Day,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  (3  Greene),  444. .  "    III  906 

Dennison  i'.  Page,  29  Penn.  St.,  420   "      1  355 

Derby  v.  Derby,  21  N.  J.  Eq.,  36   "    III  727,  799 

Dillon  v.  Dillon,  1  Notes  of  Ecc.  &  M.... 

Cas.,  415,  439,  442   "  lU.. 1,020,  1,023 

Doe  V.  Roe,  1  Johns.  Cas..  25   "    HE  1,022 

Downs  i;.  N.  Y.  C.  R.  R.,  47N.  Y.,  83....  "      1  642 

Doker  v.  Hasler,  1  Ry.  &  M.,  198   "      I   353 

Dreher?;.Townof  Fitchburg,  22Wis.,  675  "    III  1,022 

Dudley  v.  Bolles,  24  Wend.,  471   "  I  696,  III  464 

Earle  v.  Picken,  5  Car.  and  P.,  542   "    III  1,022 

Edwards  v.  Crock,  4  Esp.,  39    "      1  676 

Evans -y.  Evans,  41  Cal.,  103   "    III  1,022 

Farrari;.  Farrar.  4  N.  H.,  191   "       1   394 

Faussett  v.  Faussett,  Ecc  Cas.,  72  N.  Y.  "      1  381 

Faussett    Faussett,  7  Notes  of  Cas.,  88, 

94   "  111.1,020,  1,021 

Ferguson  v.  Ferguson,  3  Sandf.,  307   "    III  1,021 

Ferrers -y.  Ferrers,  1  Hagg.,  Con.,  130... .  "    III  1,024 

Freeman  v.  Freeman,  31  Wis.,  235,  246...  "  ni....669,  1,020 

Gaudolpho  v.  Appleton,  40  N.  Y.,  553   "    III  .'. .  348 

Gardner  v.  Klutts,  8  Jones  L.  (N.  C),  375  "      1  890 

Gilchrist  D.  Bale,  8  Watts  (Pa.),  366   "     II  747 

Giles  V.  Giles,  6  Notes  of  Ecc.  and  M. 

Cas.,  97,  161   "  m... 766,  1,023 

Grant  v.  Grant,  2  Curt.  Ecc,  16   "  III.. 1,021,  1,023 

Green  v.  Green,  26  Mich.,  437   "    III  1,020 

Grover  v.  Grover,  5  Notes  of  Cas.,  263. . .  "    III  1,023 

Hadley  v.  Carter,  8  N.  H.,  40   "     n  747 

Hallt;.  HaL,  3OH0W.,  59   "      I....  360 

Hammerton  v.  Hammerton,  2  Hagg.  Ecc, 

8   "  m. .1,020,  1,021 

Harris  v.  Harris,  2  Hagg.  Ecc,  410   "    III  904 

Harris  v.  Rupel,  14  Ind.,  209    "    m  1,023 

Hasbrook  v.  Vandevoort,  9  N.  Y.,  153, 154  "      1  353,  356 

Hicks  V.  Bradner,  2  Abb.  (Ct.  of  App.), 

362   "      I  383 

Hooper  d.  Hooper,  43  Barb.,  297   "      1  360 

Horner  v.  Speed,  2  Pat.  &  H.,  616   "    III  1,022 

Houliston  V.  Smyth,  3  Bing.,  127   "    III  1,023 

Hunt  V.  Hunt,  1  Deane,Ecc.,  121,129   "    III  1,020 

Inre.  Rideout's  Trusts,  10 Eq.  Cas.  (Eng.), 

44   "       1  380 

Inskeep  v.  Inskeep,  5  Clarke  (la.),  204. . .  "    in  1,071 

Jinkings  v.  Jinkings,  1  Pr.  &  D,,  330  ;  36 

Law  Journal  Mat.  Cas.,  48   "    HI  1,022 

Kelly  V.  The  People,  55  N.  Y.,  565   "      1  127 

King  V.  Inhabitants  of  Cliviger,  2  Durnf. 

&E.,133   "       1  356 

King  V.  Inhabitants  of  Kea,  11  East.,  132  "      1  365 


Tiii 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED  OK  THE  TRIAL. 


King  v.  King,  10  Rob.  Ecc  153  Vol 

King  V.  King,  4  Scotch  Sess.  Cas.,  (2d 

Series),  582,  583....-   " 

King  V.  Luffe,  8  East.,  193   " 

King  V.  Parker,  13  Doug.,  242   " 

Law  V.  Merrills,  6  Wend.,  268   " 

Little  V.  McKeon,  1  Sandf.,  607   " 

Lovedon  v.  Lovedon,  2  Hagg.  Con,,  1   " 

Lowe  V.  Massey,  62  111.,  47   " 

Lucus  V.  Brooks,  18  Wallace  (U.  S.),  452.  " 

Lyon  V.  Lyon,  62  Barb.,  138   " 

Malin  v.  Malin,  1  Wend.,  625,  652   " 

Mai  Chester  v.  Manchester,  24  Vt.,  649. . .  " 
Matteson  v.  N.  Y.  C.  E.  R.,  62  Barb.,  364  ; 

35  N.  Y.,  487   " 

Maverick  v.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  R.  Co.,  36  N. 

Y.,  378   " 

Mayer  v.  Mayer,  21 N.  J.  Eq.,  246   " 

McKee  v.  Ni  Ison,  4  Cowen,  355   " 

McVey  v.  Blair,  17  Ind.,  590   " 

Meyers 'y.  Baker,  Hardin,  544   " 

Montgomery -y.  Montgomery,  3  Barb.  Ch., 

133   " 

Morris  v.  Miller,  4  Burr.,  2,057   " 

Mortimer  v.  Mortimer,  2  Hagg.  Con., 

310,  313  Vol.  III.. 

Moser  v.  Moser,  29  Ala.,  313  Vol. 

Moss  V.  Stone,  5  Barb.,  516   " 

Munroe  v.  Twistleton,  2  Peake's  N.  P. 

Cas.,  219   " 

Nesbitt  V.  Stringer,  2  Duer,  26    " 

Newcomb  v.  Griswold,  24  N.  Y.,  298. . .  {  \\ 

O'Connor  v.  Maioribanks,  4  M.  &  G.,  435.  " 

Partridge  v.  Badger,  25  Barb.,  146   " 

People  ex  rd.  Smith  v.  Pease,  27  N.  Y., 

45;  30  Barb.,  588   " 

People  V.  Badficley,  16  Wend.,  53   " 

People  v.  Bennett,  49  N.  Y.,  144,  137   " 

People  V.  Chamberlain,  23  N.  Y.,  85   " 

People  V.  Davis,  15  Wend.,  607   " 

People  V.  Evans,  40  N.  Y.,  1   " 

People  V.  Finnegan,  1  Parker,  147   " 

People  V.  Hennessey,  15  Wend.,  174   " 

People  1).  Mercein,  8  Paige,  50   " 

People  v.  Sanders,  3  Hun.  16   " 

People  V.  Schriver,  42  N.  Y.,  5   " 

People  'V.  Vane,  12  Wend.,  78   " 

Perry  v.  Gibson,  1  Ad.  &  E.,  48   " 

Petrie  v.  Howe,  4  N.  Y.Sup.,  85   " 

Pope  'D.  Pope,  1  Moody  &  Ry.,  269   " 

Potter  &  Marsh,  30  Barb.,  506  :  24  How., 

610..   " 

Potter  V.  Ware,  1  Cush.  (Mass.),  524   " 

Purcell  V.  Purcell,  4  Hen.  &  M.,  511. ....  " 

Queen's  Case,  The  2  Brod.  &  Bing.,  284. .  " 
Reid  V.  Calcock,  1  Nott.  &  McCord  (S.  C), 

597     " 

Renner  v.  Bank  of  Columbia,  9  Wheat., 

581...   " 

Rex.  V.  All  Saints,  6  M.  &  S.,  194   " 


,    1  381 

III..  1,019  1,022 

1  354 

III  462 

III  1,022 

III.. 1,014, 1,018 
III... .906,  1,021 

III  1,019 

1  380 

m..  1,022  1,(123 

III  1,022 

1  380 

I  .361 

1  361 

III  1,021 

II  472 

in  1,022 

III  1,022 

in  1,022 

m.. 1,020,  1,023 

905,  1,023,  1,024 

ni  1,021 

1  678 

I...  353 

III  266 

n  250 

III  101 

1  354,  381 

n  429 

III  1,019 

III  1,023 

ni...667,  1,021 

1  360,  379 

1  1,024 

m  1.024 

III  458,  469 

ni  1,023 

1  354 

III  924 

m  819 

III.... 457.  466 

III  509 

1  367 

1  355 

1  360 

m  1,014 

III  1,020 

n  250,  111  101 

III  1,014 

I   394 

1  368 


Rex.  V.  Bath  wick,  2  B.  &  A.,  639  Vol. 

Rex.  V.  Hilditch,  Eng.  Com.  L.  R.,  575 ; 

5C.  «fe  P.,  299   " 

Robb  V.  Hackley,  23  Wend.,  50   " 

Robinson  v,  Dauchy,  3  Barb.,  20   " 

Robinson  v.  Robinson,  1  Swabry  &  Tr., 

362   " 

Rockwell  V.  Brown,  36  N.  Y.,  207   " 

Rouse  V.  Whiteel,  25  N.  Y.,  170   " 

Royal  Ins.  Co.  v.  Noble,  5  Abb.  (N.  S.),  55  " 

Sawyer  v.  Sawyer,  Walk.  Ch.,  52   " 

Schaffer  v.  Renter,  37  Barb.,  44   " 

Schultes  V.  Hodgson,  1  Ad.  Ecc,  105   " 

Searle  v.  Price,  2  Hagg.  Con..  189   " 

Sheffield  v.  Sheffield,  3  Tex.,  79   " 

Shirly  v.  \  ail,  30  How.,  407   *' 

Shoemaker  v.  McKee.  19  How.,  86   " 

Simmons     Simmons,  1  Rob.  Ecc,  566; 

5  Notes  of  Cas.,  324  ;  6  Notes  of  Cas. 

578   " 

Smith  V.  Smith,  15  How.,  165   " 

Smith  'V.  Stickney,  17  Barb.,  189   " 

Somers  v.  Mosely,  4  Tyrwhitt,  168   " 

Southard  v.  Rexford,  6  Cow.,  254   " 

Southwick  r).  Southwick,  49  N.  Y.,  510. . .  " 

t-tacy  V.  Graham,  14  N.  Y.,  501   " 

Stapl  ton  V.  Croft,  21  Law  Journ:)!  (N.  S.), 

247   " 

State  V.  Briggs,  9  R.  I.,  361   " 

States;.  Herman,  13  Iredell,  (N.  C),  502...  " 

State  V.  Jolly,  3  Dev.  &  B.  (N.  C),  110. . .  " 

State  V.  Marvin,  .35  N.  H.,  22   " 

State  V.  Pettaway,  3  Hawks,  (N.  C),  623.  " 

State  V.  Wilson,  2  Vroom  (N.  J.),  77   " 

State  V.  Woodside.  9  Iredell  (N.  C),  496.  " 

Stein  v.  Bowman,  13  Peters,  209   " 

Stone  V.  Byron,  4  Dowl.  &  L..  393   " 

Stone  V.  Ramsey,  4  Monroe  iKy.),  237   " 

Stone  V.  Stone,  3  Notes  of  Ecc.  &  M.... 

Case,  278,  304   " 

Taylor  v.  Jennings,  7  Rob.,  581   " 

Tavlor    Riggs,  9  Wheat.,  483   " 

Tell  V.  Treadwell,  5  Wend.,  676   " 

Thayer Thayer,  101  Mass.,  Ill   " 

Trelawnay  v.  Coleman,  1  B.  «fe  Aid.,  90  ;  2 

Stark.,  191   " 

Trustees  of  St.  Mary's  ^j.  Cagger,  6  Barb., 

576   " 

Wehrkampt  'v.  Willett,  4  Abb.  (Ct.  of 

App.),  548    " 

White  V.  Stafford,  35  Barb.,  419   " 

Williams  v.  Williams,  1  Hagg.  Con.,  299 

306   " 

Wilson  V.  Wilson,  1  Wright  Vh.  (O.),  128.  " 
Winscomb  v.  Winscomb,  3  S.  &  T.  380; 

10  Jur.  (N.  S.)  321;  33  L.  J.  Mat.  Cas. 

45,  12  W.  R.  535;  10  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  100..  " 

Winsmore  v.  Greenbank,  Willes,  577,  581  " 


I 

  368 

in 

353 

I 
III 

397 

III  458, 
462,  466 
1,018 

III. 
II 

.1,( 

320,  1,022 
710 

1   646 

I 

III 

.368,  381 
.  1,022 

I 

361 

I 

  382 

in 

,.,  1,022 

III 

. .  1,022 

I 

361 

I 

.qfi1 

ni. 

I 

.1,020,  1,031 
  .<?fii 

111458,462,464, 
467 

ni  .'iin 

I 

 382 

I 

373 

in 

, , ,  950 

I 

354 

I 

368 

I 

355 

I 

 356 

in 

.  .1,023 

I 

355 

I 

369 

I 

 355 

III 

....1,018 

in 

. . ,  .1,022 

in. 
I 
I 

III 

.1,C 

20,  1,021 
,375,  383 
.393,  395 
..  ,1.014 

III 

1,021 

I 

68( 

),  n..472 

n 

,  429 

I 
I 

861,  373 
360 

III 

....906 

III 

,  1,020 

III 

1,023 

III 

....1,019 

THEODORE  TILTON 

against 

HEISTRY  WARD  BEECHER. 


SIXTI-FODRTH   DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

[Continued  from  Volume  Two.J 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  BEECHER. 
When  the  answer  to  the  last  question  was 
fiven.  Mr.  Evarts  bowed,  and,  without  saying  a  word, 
sat  down.  Seeing  the  movement,  Mr.  Fullerton  under- 
stood that  the  direct  examination  was  finished,  and,  open- 
ing a  large  portfolio,  containmg  sheets  of  foolscap,  with 
elippings  from  The  Tribune's  report  pasted  on  them,  and 
comments  in  pencil  in  the  margins,  he  rose  and  began  the 
croBB-examlnatlon,  as  follows : 

WHY  MR.  BEECHER  PREFERRED  THE  NEW- 
ENGLAND  FORM  OF  OATH. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Mr.  Beecher,  when  the  Bible 
•was  presented  to  you  with  a  view  to  administer  the  oath,  I 
believe  you  refused  to  swear  upon  it— preferred  to  swear 
"With  the  uplifted  hand.  Has  that  been  your  custom  else- 
where in  taking  an  oath  ?  A.  I  had  never  taken— I  had 
no  custom  of  taking  oaths  ;  I  had  never  to  my  memory 
taken  an  oath  until  this  suit  began,  except  to  swear  to  a 
document  or  something  of  that  kind,  and  always  then  I 
liad  been  called  to  swear  by  the  uplifted  hand. 

Q.  Did  you  appear  before  the  Grand  Jury  when  the  In- 
dictment was  found  against  Theodore  Tilton  t  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  then  and  there  swear  upon  the  Gospels  t  A. 
I  presume  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  you  did  ?  A.  I  do  not  rec 
ollect  distinctly,  but  I  presimie  that  I  did. 

Q.  You  did  not  state  then  and  there  that  you  had  con- 
scientious scruples  against  swearing  upon  the  Bible  f  A. 

did  not. 

Q.  Have  you  no  recollection  upon  the  subject  as  to 
•whether  you  did  then  and  there  swear  on  the  Gospels  1 
A.  I  have  none  at  all.  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Fullerton]— What  were  his  conscien- 
tious scruples  I 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes ;  what  were  your  conscientious 
scruples  when  you  were  asked  to  take  an  oath  in  this 
case  %  A.  It  did  not  appear  to  me,  Mr.  Fullerton,  until 
after  I  came  into  court  here  and  heard  the  various  •wit- 
nesses swearing  to  examine  into  the  oath  minutely,  and 


when  I  came  to  swear  I  felt  that  I  was  unwilUng  to  swear 
except  by  affirmation ;  I  should— my  private  preference 
would  have  been  the  oath,  but  if  I  swore  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  term  "  swearing,"  by  nothing  else  than  by 
God,  and  not  by  any  lower  form  or  symbol  of  the  Divine 
presence. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  how  you  swore  to  the  document 
that  you  speak  of— whether  by  the  uplifted  hand  or  uiK>a 
the  Gospels  1  A.  To  what  document.  Sir  1 

Q.  The  one  that  you  alluded  to.  I  refer  to  the  answer 
in  this  case  1  A.  I  don't  take  your  meaning,  Sir ;  ezonM 
me. 

Q.  The  answer  that  you  put  in  to  the  complaint  of  the 
plaintiff  In  this  case  is  a  sworn  answer  t  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  It  was  not  sworn  upon  the  Gospels  when  you  affixed 
your  name  and  swore  to  the  contents  of  it,  was  it  t  A.  I 
think  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  upon  the  subject !  A.  I 
recoUect  of  the  time  of  swearing  to  it,  and  where  I  swore 
to  it,  but  I  don't  recollect  swearing  upon  the  Gospels. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  that  you  did  not  swear  upon  the 
Gospels !  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  you  have  no  recollection  on  the  subject,  I 
take  it  1  A.  I  have  a  recollection  of  everything  except 
the  particular  form  in  which  I  took  the  oath.  It  was  ad- 
ministered to  me  in  New-Hampshire,  and  whatever  the 
customary  form  there  is,  that  I  took. 


MRS.  BEECHER'S  ABSENCE  IN  1871. 

Q.  Following  the  course  of  the  direct  exam- 
ination, I  -will  now  ask  you  whether  Mrs.  Beecher  was  not 
absent  in  the  early  part  of  1871  from  this  city  and  from 
this  country— from  this  city  %  A.  The  early  part  of  1871 1 
She  may  have  been  gone  in  the  month  of  January,  1871, 
but  I  cannot  speak  assuredly  from  memory  now.  She 
was  not  gone  until  about  that  time. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Moulton  met 
Mrs.  Beecher  In  Florida  during  their  absence  in  the  early 
part  of  1871 !  A.  I  recollect  that  Mr.  Moiilton  spoke  to 
me  and  my  wife  afterward  of  a  meeting  there,  but  Mrs. 
Beecher  went  down  early  In  the  year  of  1871,  and  Mr. 
Moulton  in  March  of  1871,  and  It  was  somewhere  after 
the  1st  of  March,  probably  In  April,  that  they  met  la 
Florida. 


6  TE:E  T1LT0N-B2 

You  are  not  able  to  state,  as  I  understand  you,  the 
particular  time  when  Mrs.  Beeoher  did  leave  for  the  South 
fn  that  year  I  A.  I  think  I  could,  probably,  if  you  will 
ftllow  me  to  look  at  my  chronology. 
Mr.  PuUerton— Certainly. 

The  Witness— It  may  have  been  put  down  there.  There 

are  a  few  of  those        [Eeferring  to  a  paper.]  I  don't  see 

any  record  of  it  given,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  duration  of  her  absence  at 
that  time!  A.  I  think  she  returned  in  May,  Sir,  but  I  can- 
not be  very  certain  of  it. 

Q.  Can  you  state  who  was  your  housekeeper  during  that 
absence  of  Mrs.  Beeoher  I  A.  It  was  May,  in  1871.  [After 
thinking.]  Icannot  recall  who  it  was. 

Q.  Was  it  not  one  of  your  sisters?  A.  My  sister,  Mrs. 
Perkins,  kept  house  for  me  during  two  seasons,  two 
absences,  but  I  cannot  just  at  this  moment  fix  the  date  of 
them. 

Q.  Was  she  the  only  sister  who  kept  house  for  you  dur- 
ing any  absence  of  Mrs.  Beeoher?  A.  She  was. 

Q.  Can  you  now  st^ite  that  Mrs.  Perkins  did  not  keep 
house  for  you  in  the  latter  part  of  1871,  when  Mrs. 
Beecher  was  absent  in  the  South?  A.  I  don't  at  present 
feel  willing  to  make  a  definite  statement  on  that  matter, 
because  it  may  have  been  in  1872,  the  Winters  of  1872-3 
and  1873-4,  but  I  do  not  remember  distinctly  now. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Beecher  ever  absent  at  the  South  without 
your  having  a  housekeeper?  A.  She  was  not;  I  think 
not.  My  daughter  kept  house  for  me  one  season,  Mrs. 
Perkins  two  seasons. 

Q.  And  can  you  name  any  other  person?  A.  I  don't 
recollect  any  now.  ^ 

MR.  TILTON'S  RELIGIOUS  DEFECTION. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  liear  anything  to  the 
effect  that  Theodore  Tflton  had  fallen  from  the  orthodox 
faith  ?  A.  Well,  in  that  very  broad  form,  I  don't  know 
that  I  exactly  had  heard  of  it  until  quite  late,  but  sugges- 
tions of  looseness  and  of  dangerous  tendencies  I  heard  as 
early  as  1865. 

Q.  Looseness  in  what  respect  ?  A.  Looseness  in  regard 
to  his  theological  views. 

Q.  Well,  then,  you  don't  regard  tham  as  orthodox,  if  he 

was  loose         A.  I  did,  substantially,  in  the  early  part. 

I  thought  only  that  he  was  going  through  that  fermenta- 
tion of  mind  which  every  ingenuous  and  active-minded 
man  goes  through,  or  ought  to  go  through,  by  which  the 
traditionary  beliefs  are  changed  to  his  present  beliefs. 

Q.  When  did  you  hear  that  he  had  got  through?  A.  I 
have  never  heard  it.  Sir.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  You  never  heard,  then,  that  he  was  not  orthodox  in 
his  faith  ?  A,  I  have  heard,  certainly,  that  he  was  not 
orthodox  in  his  faith;  but  you  asked  me  when  he  got 
through  that  fermentation. 

Q.  Have  you  not  heard,  and  frequently  heard,  that  he 
bad  settled  down  upon  what  might  be  termed  infidel 


EGEEB  TRIAL. 

notions  in  regard  to  religion?  A'  No,  Sir;  I  don't  know 
that  I  have. 

Q.  In  your  direct  examination  you  spoke  of  some  arti- 
cles of  his  published  in  The  Independent  which  excited 
some  comment  in  the  North- West.  Among  others  you 
alluded  to  your  brother.  Dr.  Edward  Beecher.  Do  you 
recollect  what  those  articles  were,  the  subject  of  them? 
A.  If  I  recollect  aright,  those  articles— I  never  have  read 
them  since  the  day  that  they  were  published,  that  I  now 
recall— they  were  giving  the  idea  of  the  catholic  mission 
of  TTie  Independent,  of  the  largeness  of  its  catholicity, 
and  the  comprehensiveness  of  the  minds  that  it  meant  to 
include;  and  I  recollect  very  distinctly  saying  that  I 
regarded  Mr.  Tilton  as  stating  what  probably  was  a  truo 
and  safe  thing  in  an  inexperienced  manner  that  would 
excite  the  fears  and  alarm  the  prejudices  of  a  great  many 
good  men. 

Q.  The  doctrine  there  taught  In  those  articles  you  ap- 
proved of  ?  A.  There  was  no  doctrine  in  them,  in  the 
technical  sense  of  the  term. 

Q.  The  policy?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  did  not  think  the  policj 
was  wise. 

Q.  Did  you  think  it  was  sound  ?  A.  If  it  was  not  wise 
it  was  not  sound. 

Q.  Then  you  thought  it  was  unsound,  did  you?  A.  I 
thought  it  was  unsound  in  the  sense  of  policy. 

Q.  Did  you  think  the  sentiments  were  true  or  imtrue 
therein  expressed?  A.  It  was  not  a  question  of  senti- 
ment. Sir ;  it  was  a  question  of  policy,  the  conduct  of  the 
paper. 

Q.  Did  you  think  the  criticisms  of  your  brother.  Dr. 
Edward  Beecher,  were  well  foimded  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  did 
not,  because  the  criticisms  were  upon  me. 

Q.  Supposing  you  to  be  responsible  for  the  paper  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir ;  he  thought  I  stiU  was  responsible  for  the  paper 
to  a  degree. 

Q.  WeU,  did  you  approve  of  the  criticisms,  so  far  as  the 
articles  themselves  were  concerned,  irrespective  of  any 
question  that  was  imputed  to  you  ?  A.  Did  I  

Q.  Approve  of  the  articles  ?  A.  Of  the  articles  ? 

Q.  Yes,  Sir  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  T  don't  recall  that  I  ever  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  in  The  Independent  any  article  Im- 
puted to  Theodore  Tilton  which  you  thought  to  be  un- 
sound in  religious  doctrine  ?  A.  I  do  not  recall  now  that 
I  ever  had  brought  to  my  attention  any  article  that  dl»- 
oussed  doctrinal  questions  by  him. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  read  any  of  his  teachings  that  you 
thought  were  pernicious  in  their  effect?  A.  I  don't  now 
recall  anything  except  that  which  I  criticised  on  the 
ground  of  an  iiyudiciousness  in  the  conduct  of  the  paper, 
or  a  partial  or  an  imf  air  statement  of  truths  which  I 
thought  he  could  have  stated  conscientiously  better 

Q.  To  what  extent  were  complaints  made  of  his  relig>- 
ious  doctrines  and  teachings  ?  A.  That  I  am  not  able  to 
say.  Sir,  except  

Q.  So  far  as  they  came  to  your  knowledge  1  A.  I  hart 


TESTIMONY  OF  HENEY  WARD  BEEOHEB. 


T 


«n  Impression  that  -with  -whskt  are  called  tlie  rigorously 
orthodox  of  New-England,  and  with  what  were  called  the 
orthodox  of  the  North-West,  there  was  a  growing  dis- 
favor to  his  teachings ;  it  was  my  general  impression. 

Q.  Didn't  they  excite  distrust  in  Mr.  Tilton  as  a 
religious  teacher  t  A.  Did  they  not  in  the  mind  of  these 
men! 

Q.  Generally,  so  far  as  you  were  informed  of  the  eflfeot 
of  his  articles  1  A.  My  impression  was  that  the  more  rig- 
orous orthodox  were  steadily  being  set  against  him,  but 
that  their  place  was  being  taken  by  what  would  be  called 
the  progressive  wing  of  the  Church. 

Q.  Well,  judging  from  what  you  heard  as  to  the  effects 
of  his  teachings  upon  the  public  or  Christian  mind,  did 
you  think  that  he  was  a  safe  Christian  teacher  t  A.  I 
"would  not  have  said  that  I  thought  him  to  be  a  safe  pub- 
lic teacher  of  doctrinal  matters,  but  from  the  time  that 
Ike  assumed  the  chief  management  of  TJie  Independent, 
namely,  from  1874  to  1875  

Mr.  Evarts— 1864. 

The  Witness— I  beg  your  pardon— 1864  and  1865 ;  I  did 
not  think  of  him  in  the  light  of  a  doctrinal  teacher ;  I 
thought  of  him  In  the  light  of  one  who  applied  ethical 
matter  to  practical  things. 

Q.  He  was  the  editor  of  The  Independent,  was  he  not? 
He  was. 

Q.  And  it  was  a  religious  paper  t  A.  Not  in  the  sense 
of  a  radically  religious  paper. 

Q.  In  any  sense  was  it  a  religious  paper  1  A.  Yes,  Sir, 
I  think  it  was  in  some  sense. 

Q.  Was  it  not  regarded  as  a  religious  paper  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir;  it  passed  in  that  class  unquestionably. 

Q.  Didn't  it  promulgate  the  special  doctrines  of  a  class 
of  Christians  1  A.  It  did  when  it  was  under  the  direction 
of  Dr.  Bacon,  Dr.  Storrs,  and  Dr.  Thompson. 

Q.  Under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Tilton  9  A.  I  don't  think 
ttdid. 

Q.  Before  that  it  did,  you  say  ?  A.  Before  it  passed 
out  of  the  hands  of  those  gentlemen  it  did. 

Q.  Had  it  fallen  from  grace  in  that  respect  1  A-  It  had 
fallen  from  the  grace  of  doctrinal  teaching. 

Q.  And  assumed  what  character  t  A.  It  assumed  far 
more  a  question  of  vital  religious  form  and  of  vital 
public  ethics,  and  discussed  living  questions  from  the 
•tandpoint  of  Christian  truth. 

Q.  Then,  you  never  saw  anything  in  T7t^  Independent 
as  coming  from  Theodore  Tilton,  and  never  heard  of  any- 
thing, as  I  understand  you,  from  any  quarter,  in  the  way 
of  criticisms  upon  his  teachings  and  sentiments,  that 
caused  you  to  distrust  the  soundness  of  his  religious 
views!  A.  No,  Sir;  you  don't  understand  me  right  it 
you  understand  me  so. 

Q.  Then,  please  set  me  right  by  what  you  have  to  say 
upon  that  subject !  A.  I  said  that  I  regarded  him  as 
being  in  a  transitional  state,  and  as  holding  imperfect 
▼lews  which  would  gradually  be  ripened  and  beoome 


more  perfect,  but  I  had  hope  of  him  la  his  eareer,  how« 
ever  much  I  might  think  that  certain  parts  of  it  were  Im- 
practical or  crude. 

Q.  Did  you  think  that  he  expressed  his  real  sentiments 
in  the  articles  that  appeared  In  TJie  Independent  t 
Undoubtedly. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  hear  of  his  wife  complaining  of 
him  in  respect  to  his  religious  doctrines  !  A.  I  cannot 
give  you  any  further  special  date,  Sir  ;  I  think  as  early  as 
—it  may  have  been  as  early  as  1865  or  1866,  along  there 
somewhere. 

Q.  When  was  it  she  consulted  you  as  to  whether  it  was 
safe  for  her  to  briag  up  her  children  under  such  influences 
as  he  exerted  in  respect  to  religious  doctrine!  A.  I 
could  not  recollect  it  any  more  than  to  say  it  was  between 
a  term  of  years. 

Q.  Locate  it  as  near  as  you  can !  A.  I  should  say  be- 
tween 1865  and  1869. 

Q.  Did  you  then  learn  specifically  what  his  views  were! 
A.  I  had  learned  from  him  during  that  time  more  or  less 
of  the  unsettlement  of  his  faith  in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
I  learned  also  from  him  that  he  was  inclined  to  what 
might  be  called  not  an  unbelief  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  what  is  called  a  loose  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion. 

Q.  Well,  is  not  a  loose  doctrine  unbelief ,  in  yourjudg«» 
ment !  A.  It  depends  upon  how  loose  it  is. 

Q.  Well,  as  loose  as  Theodore  Tilton's  was!  A,  That  Is 
too  remote.  Sir,  and  the  question  itself  is  so  precise  

Q.  As  loose  as  you  learned  it  to  be  from  him  or  from  his 
wife!  A.  I  regarded  his  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ  as  worse  than  loose;  I  thought  that  to  be 
heretical. 

Q.  And  you  learned  that  as  early  as  what  year!  A.  I 
cannot  say,  Sir. 

Q.  Prior  to  1869, 1  understand  you!  A.  Prior  to  1869, 
I  think,  but  I  will  not  be  very  positive. 

Q.  Well,  that  being  his  belief  upon  that  subject,  do  yon 
think  that  he  was  a  fit  man  to  be  at  the  head  of  a  re- 
ligious newspaper?  A,  I  think  that  if  he  was  at  the 
head  of  a  theological  magazine  he  would  be  the  last  man 
that  was  fit  for  it,  but  as  the  head  of  a  paper  that  didn't 
undertake  to  expound  theology,  but  only  the  application 
of  Christian  ethics,  I  didn't  see  anything  m  that. 

Q.  You  thought  it  was  well  enough  !  A  No,  Sir,  not 
well  enough. 

Q.  It  might  be  better!  A.  But  it  was  tolerable. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  tolerable ;  that  is  all ;  it  could  be  en- 
dured ?  A  It  was  a  thing  to  be  endured. 

Q.  Did  you  not  think  it  would  be  better  to  have  soma 
sounder  man  at  the  head  of  that  paper!  A.  I  do  not 
know  that  It  occurred  to  me. 

Q.  You  road  The  Independent,  did  you  not  1  A.  Kot 
much  after  I  left  It. 

Q.  Didn't  its  views  accord  with  your  own  I  A.  Yes, 


8 


THE  TILTON-BWECHER  TBIAL, 


Sir,  I  Biippose  thejr  did;  I  miglit  haye  picked  out  of  it  a 
rast  amount  that  did,  but  I  didn't  read  it. 


DISSATISFACTION  WITH  MR.  TILTON  IN  THE 
NORTH-WEST. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  in  that  connection  I 
desire  to  call  your  attention  to  sometliing  that  has  been 
said  lieretofore.  Please  look  at  tliat  passage  marked  in 
red,  and  state  whether  it  refreshes  your  recollection  as 
to  the  

Mr.  Evarts— What  page  is  it  f 

Mr.  Fullerton  [showing  book  to  Mr.  Evarts]— The 
pages  are  imlike.  [To  the  witness.]  See  if  you  re- 
member at  any  time  of  having  said  anything  to  this 
effect:  [Reading.] 

Some  years  before  any  open  trouble  between  Mr. 
Tilton  and  myself,  his  doctrines,  aa  set  forth  in  the 
leaders  of  TJie  Independent,  aroused  a  storm  of 
indignation  among  the  representative  Congregation- 
alists  in  the  West;  and  as  the  paper  was  still 
very  largely  supposed  to  be  my  organ,  I  was 
"Written  to  on  the  subject.  In  reply  I  indignantly  dis- 
claimed all  responsibility  for  the  views  expressed  by 
Mr.  Tilton.  My  brother  Edward,  then  living  in  Illinois, 
was  prominent  in  the  remonstrance  addressed  to  Mr. 
Bowen  concerning  the  course  of  his  paper  under  Mr. 
TUton's  management.  It  was  understood  that  Mr.  Bowen 
agreed,  in  consequence  of  proceedings  arising  out  of  this 
remonstrance,  to  remove  Mr.  Tilton  or  suppress  his 
peculiar  views,  but  Instead  of  that,  Theodore  seemed 
firmer  in  the  saddle  than  before,  and  his  loose  notions 
of  marriage  and  divorce  began  to  be  shadowed  edi- 
torially. This  led  to  the  starting  of  T?ie  Advance  in 
Chicago,  to  supersede  TTie  Independent  in  the  North- 
west, and  Mr.  Bowen  was  made  to  feel  that  Mr.  Tilton's 
management  was  seriously  ipjuring  the  business,  and 
Mr.  Tilton  may  have  felt  that  his  position  was  betag 
undermined  by  opponents  of  his  views  with  whom  he 
subsequently  pretended  to  believe  I  was  in  league. 

Do  you  recollect  that  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  substantially  that. 

Q.  Was  that  substantially  true  I  A.  It  was.  Sir,  sub- 
Btantially  true. 

Q.  There  was,  then,  a  storm  of  indignation  among  the 
Congregationalists  with  regard  to  his  views  f  A.  Of  the 
Korth-Westl 

Q.  Of  the  North-West— and  you  indignantly  disclaimed 
all  responsibility  for  the  views  expressed  by  Mr.  Tilton, 
did  you  1  A.  I  did,  to  my  brother  Edward ;  I  was  never 
brought  into  any  relations  with  Congregationalists  of 
the  North-West,  as  such. 

Q.  What  gave  rise  to  your  indignation?  A.  Because  my 
brother  wrote  me  a  very  severe  letter. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  not  indignant  at  your  brother  !  A.  I 
was. 

Q.  Indignant  at  him— is  that  the  sentiment  expressed 
liere  which  I  have  read  !  A.  I  don't  know  how.  Sir. 

Q.  [Reading.]  "In reply  I  indignantly  disclaimed  all 
responsibility  for  the  views  expressed  by  Mr.  Tilton  1"  A. 
In  reply  I  indignantly  expressed— disclaimed  all  respon- 
sibility—for the  views  expressed  by  Mr.  Tilton;  my 


brother  Edward,  then  living  in  Illinois,  was  prominent  In 
the  remonstrance  addressed  to  Mr.  Bowen  concerning  th6 
course  of  his  paper;  I  never  was  remonstrated  with  by- 
anybody  but  my  brother  Edward. 

Q.  That  is  not  the  point— whether  yo\ir  indignation  wa« 
directed  to  your  brother  Edward  for  having  accused  you 
of  being  responsible  for  these  doctrines,  or  whether  you 
were  indignant  at  the  doctrines  themselves  t  A.  I  was 
indignant  at  the  fact  that,  knowing  that  there  was  an  up- 
rising throughout  the  North-West  upon  the  subject,  my 
brother  Edward  undertook,  in  a  private  letter,  to  hold  me 
responsible  for  Mr.  Tilton's  views,  and  for  the  publication 
of  his  views  ia  the  paper. 

Q.  Well,  If  his  views  had  been  correct  you  would  not 
have  been  indignant  because  you  were  held  responsible 
for  them,  would  you?  A.  I  should  be  indignant  to  be 
held  responsible  for  anybody's  views,  if  I  were  held 
responsible  and  blamewOTthy  for  them  ■when  I  was  not 
responsible  nor  blameworthy. 

Q.  Suppose  the  views  were  correct,  wouldn't  you  defend 
yourself  against  the  charge  f  A.  I  might,  or  I  might  not^ 
according;  to  circumstances. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  didn'cyou  understand  that  The  Advanu 
in  Chicago  was  started  to  supersede  TTie  Independent 
because  of  the  particular  or  peculiar  views  of  Mr.  Tilton 
on  religious  subjects  1  A.  Partly. 

Q.  Growing  out  of  that  dissatisfaction,  wasn't  itt 
A.  Partly,  and  only  partly. 

Q.  Well,  partly?  A.  Partly. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  I  read  again.  [Reading.]  "  This  led  to 
the  starting  of  The  Advance  in  Chicago  to  supersede  The 
Independent  in  the  North-West,  and  Mr.  Bowen  was  made 
to  feel  that  Mr.  Tilton's  management  was  seriously  iiyur- 
Ing  the  business,  &c.1"  A.  Mr.  Bowan  made  a  visit  to  the 
North-West  on  that  account  

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  don't  care  about  Bowen's  visit. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  has  no  question  been  asked. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir.  [To  the  Witness.]  After  my 
reading  that  are  you  still  disposed  to  say  that  The  Advance 
was  started  only  partly  for  the  purpose  of  superseding 
The  Independent?  A.  I  am,  if  I  am  rightly  informed. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  your  information  at  the  time  of  the 
writing  of  this  article  ?  A.  In  regard  to  what,  Sir. 

Q.  In  regard  to  the  object  and  purpose  in  starting  The 
A  dtJance— whether  it  was  to  supersede  The  Independent  t 
A.  It  was  in  part ;  this  was  not  designed  to  give  a  do- 
tailed  and  perfect  history,  but  a  general  history,  a 
sketch,  and  it  left  out  a  multitude  of  things. 

MR.  TILTON'S  PUBLICATIONS  ON  MARRIAGE 
AND  DIVORCE. 

Q.  Yes,  very  well,  now,  what  had  you  heard 
at  that  time  as  to  his  notions  in  regard  to  marriage  and 
divorce,  prior  to  December,  1870—1  mean  from  TTie  In- 
dependent ?  A.  I  had  heard  from  various  sources  


TJESTIMOFI  OF  HE  NET   WARD  BEECHEE. 


9 


Q.  Prom  The  Independent  t  A.  What,  Sirl 

Q.  What  were  Ms  teachings  in  The  Independent  in  re 
gard  to  marriage  and  divorce,  as  you  understood  It !  A 
Do  you  ask  me  what  was  the  opinion  that  at  the  time  I 
formed  in  regard  to  those  teachings  ? 

Q.  What  were  the  teachings  of  The  Independent  under 
the  direction  of  Mr.  Tilton,  in  regard  to  marriage  and  di- 
vorce, as  you  understood  themi  A.  I  did  not  myself  in- 
vestigate his  teachings,  and  I  only  took  up  that  which 
I  heard  spoken  about  them  by  others ;  I  saw  that  there 
was  dissatisfaction  with  them. 

Q.  What  did  you  believe  in  December,  1870,  his 
opinions  to  be  upon  that  subject— namely,  marriage  and 
divorce  ?  A.  I  supposed  them  to  be  in  1870 — I  cannot 
give  any  very  close  description  of  what  my  belief 
then  was,  only  that  I  believed  that  he  had  enlarged  the 
causes  of  divorce,  and  made  it  so  facile  that  I  regarded 
It  as  being,  in  its  practical  tendency,  very  mischievous. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir ;  loose  did  you  not  think  they  were  t  A.  I 
thought  they  were  very  much  too  loose. 

Q.  And  did  you  not  judge  so  from  his  articles  in  The 
Independent f  A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  did;  for  I  am— I 
imust  confess  that  I  was  not  a  great  reader  of  them. 

Q.  Didn't  you  know  what  they  were  without  having 
read  them  t  A.  Only  as  I  gathered  it  from  the  conversa- 
tion of  others. 

Q.  WeU,  as  you  gathered  it  from  the  conversation  of 
others,  did  you  not  think  these  doctrines,  in  that  regard, 
were  pernicious  in  the  extreme?  A.  I  knew  that  that 
was  the  impression  about  them  in  the  community ;  and. 
If  I  was  correctly  informed,  that  he  held  a  doctrine  of 
divorce  that  made  It  facile,  and  that  caused  It  or  put  it 
all  on  the  individual  wish  and  volition;  I  should  hold 
that  to  be  a  very  dangerous  doctrine. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  think  a  man  that  taught  those  doc- 
trines        A.  My  own — excuse  me. 

Q.  Did  you  think  that  a  man  that  taught  those  doc- 
trines was  fit  to  be  at  the  head  of  a  paper  such  as  The 
Independent  was  1  A.  If  he  had  held  doctrines  of  

Q.  No,  no ;  I  don't  want  any  answer  of  that  character- 
not  "  if  he  had  held  doctrines"— but  I  am  alluding  to  the 
doctrines  which  you  believed  that  he  at  that  time  held 
and  inculcated.  A.  I  did  not  believe  in  any  definite  doc- 
trines that  he  held  and  inculcated ;  as  I  have  said,  I  was 
not  a  close  reader  of  his  articles ;  I  was  not  apprised  

Q.  I  am  not  referring  to  what  you  learned  from  reading 
^e  articles  ;  I  am  referring  to  the  conviction  which  you 
had  at  that  time— whether  from  reading  the  articles,  con- 
Tsrsing  with  Mr.  Tilton,  or  the  common  speech  of  people 
—judging  from  the  information  that  you  had  at  that  time, 
did  you  think  him  to  be  a  fit  moral  or  religious  teacher  1 
A.  I  cannot  answer  your  question  very  closely,  Mr,  Ful- 
lerton,  because  the  question  whether  he  was  a  fit  moral 
teacher,  based  on  groimds  which  I  had  not  particidarly 
examined,  did  not  come  to  my  mind. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  to  give  any  opinion  growing  out 


of  a  particular  examination  of  his  doctrines ;  I  am  asking 
your  judgment,  based  upon  the  views  that  you  enter- 
tained at  that  time,  from  what  you  had  seen,  heard,  or 
read!  A.  It  did  not  affect  in  my  mind  his  general  fitness 
for  the  conduct  of  a  great  paper ;  It  put  him  Into  the 
school— the  great— on  this  one  subject  there  are  the  two 
extremes  in  tho  great  school. 

Q.  Well,  we  won't  go  into  extremes  In  the  schools,  or  in 
the  answers ;  but,  let  me  ask  you  if  he  did  not  begin  at 
that  time  to  shadow  forth,  editorially,  his  loose  opinions 
of  marriage  and  divorce  1  A.  I  imderstood  that  he  did. 

Q.  WeU!  A.  He  shadowed  those  things  which  became 
substantial  afterward. 

Q.  WeU,  did  you  think  that,  shadowing  forth  those 
loose  opinions  in  a  great  paper  Uke  The  Independent,  that 
he  was  fit  to  be  at  the  head  of  it !  A.  It  might  have  been. 
Sir,  in  a  man  that  was  so  young  and  that  was  in  the  field 
of  discussion. 

Q.  Did  you  think  his  doctrines- the  effect  that  his  doc- 
trines would  produce  upon  the  pubUo  mind,  would  depend 
upon  his  age!  A.  If  his  understanding  depended  upon 
his  age,  it  would. 

Q.  So  that  if  a  person  is  young  they  may  with  impunity 
teach  improper  doctrines !  A.  A  man  that  is  young  may 
with  impunity  teach  crude  doctrines. 

Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  crude  doctrines,  Mr.  Beecher; 
I  am  talking  about  shadowing  forth  editorially  his  loose 
opinions  of  marriage  and  divorce  !  A.  I  understand  it. 
Sir. 

Q.  Now,  then  A.  And  I  understood  that  the  shadow- 
ing forth  was  a  crude  holding  of  certain  views  of  divorce 
which  I  beUeved  age  might  correct ;  and,  at  any  rate,  not 
yet  expressed  in  any  such  form  as  to  be  definitely  dan- 
gerous. 

Q.  You  heard  read  the  article  from  The  Independent  by 
your  counsel  in  this  case,  did  you  not— published  prior  to 
that  time !  A.  I  heard  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  think  that  that  doctrine  was  dangerous  t 
A.  I  have  forgotten  it.  Sir. 

Q.  You  heard  it  read,  did  you  not !  A.  I  heard  it  read. 

Q.  Have  you  forgotten,  so  that  you  cannot  caUto  mlnd^ 
the  particular  features  of  it !  A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  You  understood,  did  you  not,  that  it  was  read  here 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  to  this  jury  that  Mr.  TUton's 
doctrines  at  that  time  were  pernicious!  A.  I  did  not  un- 
derstand it  so.  Sir. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  think  they  were  !  A.  I  don't  remem- 
ber the  article.  Sir ! 

Q.  Nor  its  meaning!  A.  I  do  not  remember  the  arti- 
cle—of course,  I  could  not  know  its  meaning. 

Q.  You  have  forgotten  it  since  it  was  read !  A.  I  have 
forgotten  it,  Sir ;  but  wUl  read  it  and  express  at  a  later 
period,  if  you  desire  

Oh,  no,  Sir;  I  am  afraid  you  would  forget  it  again.  A. 
I  surely  would  in  less  than  a  week. 

Q.  Now,  what  did  you  learn  from  Mrs.  TUton,  at  the 


10 


IHB   IILION'BEEGMEB  lElAL, 


time  that  she  consulted  you,  as  to  ^vhetlier  it  was  sale  for 
lier  to  bring  up  her  children  under  such  influences,  in 
respect  to  his  doctrines  in  relation  to  marriage  and  di- 
vorce ?  A.  I  don't  think  that  that  came  so  prominently, 
if  at  all,  into  our  conversation.  I  think  that  her  mind 


MRS.    TILTON  AND    MR.    BEECHER  TAKE 
BUGGY  RIDES. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  enougli  then.  You  have 
spoken,  Mr.  Beecher,  of  two  occasions  when  you  took 
Mrs.  Tilton  out  to  ride ;  I  ask  you  to  give,  as  near  as  you 
can  now,  the  dates  of  those  respective  rides.  A.  I  cannot 
give  you  the  dates.  Sir;  I  can  do  it  by  referring  to  my 
memorandum,  I  think. 

Q.  Can  you  give  me  the  year  1  A.  I  think  it  was  in  the 
early  part  of  1870,  Sir;  hut  T  will  not  he  sure. 

Q.  Just  refer  to  your  memorandum,  please  I  A.  I  don't 
seem  to  see  

Q.  Well,  how  early  in  1870  do  you  think  they  were  1  A. 
They  were  in  the  early  part  of  the  year,  if  I  recall  it 
aright,  Sir ;  I  thought  that  there  was  a  memorandum 
made  of  these  in  my  record,  and  there  maybe,  but  I  don't 
see  it. 

Q.  Those  rides,  as  I  understand  you  to  say,  were  in  a 
buggy?  A.  Yes, Sir. 

Q.  In  each  instance  1  A.  In  each  instance,  I  think, 
Sir. 

Q,  Did  you  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  on  either  of  those  occasions, 
alight  from  the  buggy  during  your  absence  t  A.  I  do  not 
remember.  Sir. 

Q.  I  wish  you  would  tax  your  recollection  upon  that 
subject.  A.  Well,  Sir ;  I  should  be  very  glad  to  answer  it, 
tout  it  is  perfectly  blank. 

Q.  State  where  you  went  on  the  first  occasion.  A.  I 
■went,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect,  on  both  occasions,  to  the 
Park. 

Q.  And  did  you  go  beyond  the  Park  at  all  1  A.  Not 
that  I  remember.  Sir. 

Q.  On  either  of  those  occasions  did  you  go  to  Green- 
wood ?  Not  that  I  recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  Cannot  you  now  recall  that  you  went  to  Greenwood 
upon  one  of  those  occasions  ?  A  No,  Sir;  I  d-^n't  remem- 
ber it. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  now  recall  whether  yon  alighted 
from  the  buggy  on  either  of  those  occasions  1  A.  No, 
8tr ;  I  have  no  recollection  at  all  of  the  details  of  the 
ride,  except  of  the  fact  of  going. 

Q.  Cannot  you  state  how  long  a  time  was  consumed  in 
these  rides  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Are  they  the  only  rides  that  you  ever  took  with  Mrs. 
Tilton  f  A.  I  think  that  before  these  I  had  taken  some 
fides,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  them  definitely. 

Q.  In  what  year  did  they  occur  i  A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  How  long  before  the  two  ridea  in  the  buggy  were 


these  other  rides  that  you  speak  oft  A.  That  Is  man 
than  I  could  tell  yom 

Q.  In  what  kind  of  a  vehicle  did  you  take  her  riding 
upon  these  occasions  f  A.  I  don^  recollect  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Were  not  those  rides  that  you  speak  of  in  a  close  car- 
riage t  A.  The  rides  past  t 

Q.  Other  than  the  rides  in  the  buggy  ?  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  whatever,  Sir,  of  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  where  you  got  the  carriage  from! 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  who  the  driver  was!  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Can  you  recoUect  whether  any  other  person  accom- 
panied you  besides  Mrs.  Tilton  1  A.  I  don't  rcall  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  how  many  instances  can  you  recollect  when 
you  took  Mrs.  Tilton  riding,  other  than  the  two  rides  in 
the  buggy  1  A.  Two— before,  none;  two  in  the  buggy, 
and  I  recollect  none  others. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  intimate  in  answer  to  a  question 
that  I  put  to  you  that  you  did  recall  other  iastances.  A. 
I  believe  that  I  made  others  ;  I  don't  recall  the  instances. 

Q.  Did  you  take  her  riding  at  any  time  when  one  or 
more  of  the  children  accompanied  youl  A.  I  don't  recall 
any  such. 

Q.  Don't  you  recoUeot  of  taking  Mrs.  Tilton  out  riding 
in  the  year  1868  la  a  close  carriage  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  do 
not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  take  her  riding  when  she  entered  the 
carriage  at  any  place  other  than  at  her  dwelling  ?  A.  I 
never  remember  any  such  occasion,  Sir, 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  occasion  when  Mrs.  Tilton  left 
the  carriage  other  than  at  her  own  dwelling  1  A.  I  have 
no  recollection  of  it. 

MR.  BEECHER  NEVER  AT  A  PHOTOGRAPH 
GALLERY  WITH  MRS.  TILTON. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Tilton  ever  visit  you  at  Peeks- 
kill?  A.  Never,  I  think,  Sir. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  of  any  such  visit  1  A,  I 
am  quite  sure  there  was  no  such  visit  there— that  is, 
during  my  presence  there. 

Q.  Did  she  ever  accompany  you  to  a  photograph  gid- 
lery  %  A..  1  have  an  impression  that  she  did. 

Q.  Well  A.  Either  that  or  else  that  she— I  recollect 

a  conversation  about  photographs,  and  it  may  have  been 
that  she  told  me  where  

Q.  Well,  I  don't  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  going 

to  a  photograph  gallery  except  a  very  vague  one,  and 
whether  it  was  produced  by  the  conversation  or  the  visit 
I  cannot  recall.  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  of  her  visiting  a  photograph  gal- 
lery with  you  and  being  present  when  your  picture  was 
taken  ?  A.  A.  I  do  not  recall  it,  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  she  accompany  you  to  Sarony's  in  New- 
York  1  A.  Not  that  ever  I  recollect.  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  recall  now  any  occasion  wIkmi  sIha 


T^STlMONr  OF  HEl 

Moompanied  you  to  a  photograpli  gallery!  A.  No,  Sir ;  I 
cannot  recall  any  occasion. 

Q.  Either  Sarony's  or  any  other,  as  I  understand  you  ? 
A.  I  recall  no  oocaalon  in  which  we  were  in  a  gallery  to- 
gether. _ 

THE  VISIT  TO  MRS.  TILTOJ^  IN  AUGUST,  1870. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  a  visit  to  Mrs.  Til- 
ton  in  AuguBt,  1870;  how  do  you  fix  the  date  of  that  visit ! 
A.  How  I  came  to  the  date  I  cannot  at  present  recollect, 
but  I  recollect  making  an  inquiry  about  it  and  fixing  on 
about  that  date ;  I  had  an  impression  that  it  was  in  July, 
and  then  I  investigated,  or  had  it  investigated,  and  fixed 
niwn  August  as  the— early  in  August. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  received  a  note 
from  Mrs.  Tilton  requesting  you  to  visit  her  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  looked  for  that  note  1  A.  I  have  not 
looked  for  that  special  note.  I  have  looked  for  every 
scrap  of  paper  that  was  connected  with  the  case. 

Q.  Where  did  she  address  the  note  to  you?  A.  At 
PeeksMU  ;  I  had  gone  to  my  vacation  there. 

Q.  Yes ;  you  cannot  say  whether  you  preserved  that 
note  ornott  A.  I  presume  it  is  gone,  destroyed ;  I  have 
never  seen  it  since. 

Q.  Did  she  disclose  to  you  in  that  note  that  she  was  ill  1 
A.  She  said  that  she  was  ill,  and  should  be  glad  to  see  me 
if  I  came  down  to  the  city. 

Q.  How  long  after  you  received  that  note  before  you 
came  to  the  city  1  A.  I  cannot  precisely  say ;  I  have  an 
impression  that  I  was  coming  to  the  city  the  next  day,  at 
any  rate,  and  that  I  went  on  the  joint  errand,  but  I  can- 
not say  with  definiteness. 

Q.  Did  you  not  come  on  purpose  to  see  her  I  A.  That 
was  an  added  reason ;  I  was  coming  at  any  rate. 

Q.  You  have  no  distinct  recollection  of  that  now  ?  A.  I 
recollect  that  I  was  coming  down  to  the  city,  and  that  I 
joined  the  two  together. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  you  were  going  to  visit  the 
city  for  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  do  not  recall  it. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  then  been  at  PeekskUl  1  A.  That 
I  cannot  say,  unless  I  can  ascertain  the  date  in  which  my 
vacation  began ;  it  varied  by  vote  of  the  church. 

Q.  Well,  it  had  commenced  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  was  there ; 
the  month  of  August  originally  was  my  whole  vacation, 
but  it  had  insensibly  enlarged  both  ways. 

Q.  You  were  not  in  the  habit  of  visiting  your  parishion- 
ers during  your  vacation,  were  you  %  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  some 
of  them ;  Mr.  Claflin,  if  there  was  a  funeral  or  sickness,  I 
should  come  to  see  him,  or  any  of  my  near  friends,  I 
should  go  to  see  them. 

Q.  Well,  not  what  you  should  do  ?  A.  I  did  do. 

Q.  I  ask  what  you  wero  in  the  habit  of  doing!  A. 
When  any  of  my  friends,  within  that  circle  that  I  should 
call  like  my  own  family  friends,  were  in  trouble  and  sent 
xub  any  word,  I  should,  without  hesitation,  visit  them. 


BJ    WABB  BEEGHEE.  U 

Q.  Did  you  find  Mrs.  Tilton  confined  to  her  bed!  A. 
No,  Sir ;  to  her  couch,  or  sofa. 
Q.  In  what  room!  A.  In  the  receiving  room,  in  tlia 

second  story. 

Q.  And  how  long  did  that  visit  continue !  A.  Perlu^ 
half  an  hour. 

Q.  Did  you  return  to  PeeksMll  that  day !  A.  That  I 
could  not  say. 
Q.  Have  you  no  recollection  !  A.  No,  I  did  not. 
Q.  When  did  you  return !  A.  I  think  it  must  have  be«ii 

the  next  day. 

Q.  Did  you  call  to  see  her  more  than  once  !  A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  with  reference  to  the  first  call  did  you  mako 
the  second  one !  A.  About  the  same  time  the  next  day. 

Q.  Then  I  believe  you  did  not  see  her !  A.  No,  I  did  nol 
see  her ;  no. 

Q.  Have  you  now  in  your  possession  any  letters  written 
to  you  by  Mrs.  Tilton  which  have  not  been  produced  ia 
evidence !  A.  Not  a  single  one  that  I  know  of,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  looked  for  the  purpose  of  finding  !  A.  I 
scoured  my  house  with  my  eyes  to  find  letters  that  would 
bear  upon  the  matter. 

Q.  And  did  you  find  none  1  A.  I  found  none,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  returned  to  Mrs.  Tilton  any  letters 
which  she  wrote  to  you!  A.  No,  Sir,  not  within  my 
knowledge. 

Q.  Has  she  ever  returned  any  letters  to  you  which  yon 
wrote  to  her !  A.  No,  Sir  ;  not  to  my  knowledge  ;  that  ifl* 
I  have  never  received  any. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  on  the  second  occasion 
when  you  called  upon  her  in  August  that  she  sent  down  a 
note  to  you  ?  A.  It  scarcely  could  be  called  a  note. 

Q.  Well  ?  A.  A  scrap  of  paper — chance  scrap  of  irregn- 
lar  form  on  which  she  wrote. 

Q.  Did  you  preserve  it !  A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  What  became  of  it !  A.  I  don't  know.  Sir,  I  am 
sure  ;  I  am  not  a  preserver  of  papers  or  letters. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

BESSIE    TUENEE   AS   MES.    MOESE'S  MES- 
SENGEE. 

The  Court  met  at  2  o'clock,  pursuant  to  ad- 
jouinment.  Mr.  Beecher  was  recalled  and  the  cross* 
examination  continued. 

Mr.  FuUerton— I  come  now,  Mr.  Beecher,  to  your  visit 
to  Mrs.  Tilton  in  December,  1870.  By  whom  were  yoa 
requested  to  make  that  visit  1   A.  By  Mr.  TUton. 

Q.  December,  1870 ;  the  first  visit  to  Mrs.  Tilton  in 
December,  1870!  A.  Oh,  I  beg  your  pardon ;  I  did  not 
recall  the  visit  that  you  had  reference  to,  Sir ;  I  was  re- 
quested to  come  by  Mrs.  Morse,  through  Bessie  Turner. 

Q.  Where  did  Bessie  Turner  find  you !   A.  At  my  house. 

Q.  And  what  did  Bessie  Turner  say  when  she  called 
upon  you!  A.  She  said  that  she  had  called  at  Mrs. 
Morse's  request— I  am  not  using  her  language— who 


12 


IHE  TlLTON'BhJEGHBB  TBIAL. 


urifihed  me  to  come  to  her  house  and  see  her ;  that  Mrs. 
Tllton  was  there,  and  that  she  had  left  her  husband. 

Q.  Is  that  all  that  you  recollect  she  said  at  that  time  ! 
A.  No,  Sir;  that  was  the  call;  I  then  expressed  my  as- 
tonishment at  such  a  state  of  affairs ;  she  proceeded  to 
Bay  very  strong— in  strong  and  positive  language  to  jus- 
tify Mrs.  Tilton  in  doing  it. 

Q.  What  did  she  say  1  A.  She  said  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had 
heen  so  treated  at  home  that  she  thought  she  ought  to 
have  taken  some  such  step,  or  was  justified  in  taking 
some  such  step ;  that  was  the  substance  of  the  represen- 
tation; that  Mr.  Tilton  had  abused  her,  and  that  Mr. 
Tilton  had  struck  her,  Bessie,  describing  the  passions 
into  which  he  was  accustomed — often  fell. 

Q.  I  want  the  words,  Mr.  Beecher  t  A.  I  cannot  give 
you  the  words. 

Q.  The  substance  1    A.  I  am  giving  you  the  substance. 

Q.  Well,  you  say  "describing;"  that  is  not  giving  the 
fiubstance  1  A.  Declared,  that  Mr.  Tilton  in  his  passion 
had  on  one  occasion  struck  her ;  and  that  he  had  done 
more;  that  he  had  made  solicitation  of  an  improper 
character  to  her,  namely,  Bessie  Turner,  and  that  he  had 
on  two  occasions  done  it.  I  said  something  to  her  of  the 
—there  might  be  a  mistake,  or  something.  She  stated— 
gave  me  some  description  of  what  the  solicitation  was. 

Q.  Now,  please  state  what  that  was  f  A.  She  gave  me 
some  statement  of  it. 

Q.  Yes;  the  substance  of  that  statement)  A.  That  he 
had  come  to  her  bed  and  had  told  her  the  matter  that  he 
eolicited  was  no  more — ^it  was  just  as  much  an  expression 
of  love  and  affection  as  a  kiss  or  as  a  caress.  I  think  that 
phrase  is  very  nearly  in  her  own  language,  but  generally 
I  do  not  give  her  language. 

Q.  I  want  the  whole  of  the  interview  f  A.  I  do  not  at 
this  moment  recall  more  than  this,  for  substance. 

Q.  Well,  this  was  done  by  Bessie  when  she  gave  you 
the  account  of  this  solicitation,  with  a  downcast  look, 
wasn't  iti  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Modestly  said?  A.  It  was  modestly  said. 

Q.  Did  she  state  anything  else  at  that  time  I  A.  I  do 
not  now  recaU  anything. 

Q.  Did  she  enter  into  any  particulars  aa  to  the  ill-treat- 
ment of  Mr.  Tilton  of  his  wife  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  there  was 
more ;  it  was  enlarged,  but  that  was  the  substance  of  it, 
and  I  cannot  give  further  particulars  or  the  language. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  any  particulars  at  aU  of  the  iU- 
treatmenti  A.  No,  I  cannot  give  you  any  particulars. 

Q.  Well,  she  told  you  what  she  had  seen,  did  she  not, 
herself  1  A.  She  told  me  that  she  had  seen  him  treating 
his  wife  with  great  rudeness  and  cruelty. 

Q.  Did  she  speak  of  great  abuse,  too  ?  A.  I  cannot  say 
that  word,  Sir ;  the  whole  of  it  was  of  abuse. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  at  the  time  that  you  were  shocked 
at  this  information  t  A.  Of  com^se  I  was  shocked  at  it. 

Q.  Did  you  believe  what  Bessie  Turner  told  you  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  supposed  it  was  so ;  I  feared  it  was. 


Q.  Now,  did  she  tell  you  

Mr.  Beach— No,  he  modifies  that.  Did  he  believe  It. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  believe  it  was  true !  A.  I  !>©•' 
lieved  it  just  ae  a  man  believes  a  thing  which  he  has  not 
yet  verified;  I  supposed  it  to  be  so. 

Q.  Did  Bessie  Turner  visit  yon  more  than  once  at  that 
time! 

Mr.  Beach— About  that  time. 

A.  I  cannot  say  as  to  that.  Sir.  I  remember  distinctly 
but  one  visit. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  an  indistiact  recollection,  or  an  im- 
pression that  there  was  another  visit  of  Bessie  Turner  to 
you?  A.  No,  I  cannot  say  that  I  have  fairly;  I  have 
looked  at  that,  but  the  more  I  look  at  it  the  less  it  seems- 
to  me  there  was  two ;  but  I  have  had  an  impression  that 
there  was  two,  but  I  recall  no  other  visit— the  contents  of 
it— but  this  one. 

Q.  Did  she,  in  that  conversation,  tell  you  anything  that 
Mr.  Tilton  had  said  to  his  wife  f  A.  She  may  have  done 
so,  but  I  do  not  now  recall  it,  Sir,  further  than  I  have 
stated,  for  substance. 

Q.  Can't  you  recall  anything  upon  that  subject  t  A.  No^ 
Sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  received  this  messageff 
A.  I  told  her  I  would  come. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  VISIT  TO  MRS.  TILTON  AT 
HER  MOTHER'S. 

Q.  And  did  you  go  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  received  the  message!  A.  I 
cannot  say ;  either  that  day  or  the  next  day. 

Q.  And  where  did  you  find  her  t  A.  I  found  her  at  her 
mother's. 

Q.  Now,  what  time  did  you  arrive  at  her  mother's  f  A» 

I  don't  know.  Sir. 

Q.  Up  to  that  time,  had  the  relations  between  you  and 
Mr.  Tilton  been  friendly!  A.  I  can  scarcely  say  that  we 
had  been  intimate;  there  was  an  external  friendliness. 

Q.  Well,  it  is  for  you  to  say  whether  they  had  been 
friendly  or  not  1  A.  I  have  stated  it  as  it  was. 

Q.  Extem&Uy  there  was  friendliness  between  you!  A. 
There  was  an  external  friendliness. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  as  to  the  sincerity  of  that  friendliness ; 
was  it  sincere  upon  your  part  ?  A.  On  my  part;  he  had 
my  best  wishes,  my  kindliest  wishes. 

Q.  And  you  felt  friendly  toward  him,  did  you  t  A.  I 

felt  friendly  toward  him  in  regard  to         Yes,  I  can  say 

that. 

Q.  When  did  you  last  see  him  before  your  visit  to  Mrs. 
Tilton  at  Mrs.  Morse's  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  to  have  seen 
him  to  speak  with  him  since— well,  over  six  months  be 
fore  that. 

Q.  Before  that ;  and  where  did  you  last  see  him  before 
that?  A.  I  passed  him  in  the  street ;  I  did  not  stop. 

Q.  There  had  been  no  open  rupture  between  you  t 
No.  A 


THJSIIMOIST  OF  HEISBY  WABD  BEEGHEB. 


13 


Q.  No  expression  of  ill-feeling  1  A.  No,  Sir, 
Q.  Now,  -vrhom  did  you  find  at  Mrs.  Morse's  when  you 
igot  there  f  A.  I  found  Mrs.  Morse  and  Mrs.  Tilton. 
Q.  Any  one  else  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Bessie  Turner  there  if  A.  I  did  not,  or 
I  did,  I  do  not  recaU  it. 

Q.  Were  Mrs.  Morse  and  Mrs.  Tilton  together  when  you 
Baw  them  first  1  A.  I  think  they  were,  Sir ;  at  any  rate 
they  were  very  soon  together.  I  do  not  remember 
whether  they  were  actually  together  at  the  moment  I  en- 
tered. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  a  memorable  interview,  was  it  not, 
Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  One  that  is  impressed  upon  your  mind  1  A.  Cer- 
tainly it  was. 

Q.  Then  you  will  be  able,  probably,  to  give  us  the  par- 
ticulars of  what  occurred  while  you  were  there  1  A.  No, 
Sir ;  that  don't  follow. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  do  the  best  you  can  on  that  subject.  I 
want  to  know  all  that  occurred  from  the  time  you  entered 
untU  you  left  the  house.  A.  I  entered  into  some  conver- 
sation ;  I  stated  what  had  brought  me,  and  I  expressed 
some  regret. 

Q.  Just  please  state  what  regret  you  did  express  1  A. 
I  cannot  state  to  you  the  language  that  I  used. 

Q.  Well,  the  substance  of  it.  A.  It  was  the  regret  that 
there  had  been  any  occasion  to  call  me  to  such  a  visit ; 
that  is,  that  there  was  a  misunderstanding  between  Mr. 
Tilton  and  his  wife ;  Mrs.  Morse  did  most  of  the  conver- 
sation, and  she,  in  her  practical,  incisive  and  earnest  way, 
gave  me  some  statements  of  

Q.  Now,  what  were  the  statements  %  A.  I  cannot  give 
them  to  you,  Sir. 

Q.  Give  us  the  substance  of  them.  A.  I  am  proceeding 
to  give  you  the  substance  

Mr.  Beach— Well,  the  substance  of  the  statements,  not 
the  substance  of  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Fullerton— As  to  the  substance  of  the  statements 
that  Mrs.  Morse  made  to  you.  A.  The  substance  of  the 
statements  was  that  her  daughter  had  lived  a  life  of  great 
unhappiness,  that  she  was  subject  to  great  cruelty,  and 
to  deprivation,  and  that  her  life  with  Mr.  Tilton  had  be- 
come intolerable  to  her,  and  that  she  had  come  to  the 
conclusion  to  separate  from  him. 

Q.  Did  she  not  descend  to  particulars  as  to  this  cruelty? 
A-  She  did  somewhat  so,  Sir,  but  I  cannot  recall  the  par- 
ticulars. 

Q.  Can't  you  state  the  nature  of  them  !  A.  I  have. 

Q.  What  the  cruelty  consisted  oft  A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Did  it  consist  of  words  or  blows  1  A.  I  do  not  re- 
member that  she  charged  him  with  having  struck  her. 

Q.  Well,  can't  you  recall  what  she  said  as  to  the  nature 
Of  the  cruelty,  how  it  was  inflicted  ?  A.  The  violence  of 
his  temper  was  one  of  the  elements ;  the  failure  to  be  a 
good  provider  for  her  was  another,  and  it  ranged  over  

Q.  No,  no,  dont  range  it  over.  Tell  us  the  particulars, 


and  then  we  will  range  it  for  ourselves  t  A.  I  should  bo 
very  glad  to  recall  and  give  you  all  the  particulars. 

Q.  You  have  already  given  us  two  particulars  which  a 
moment  ago  you  said  you  could  not.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher, 
see  if  you  cannot  give  us  all  the  particulars.  A.  I  will 
endeavor  to  do  so.  Sir,  with  your  help ;  I  do  not  now  re- 
call anything  else  than  what  I  have  stated. 

Q.  Did  she  repeat  any  charges  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  made 
against  her  f  A.  I  do  not  recall  now  anything  of  that 
kind. 

Q.  Did  she  not  say  that  Mr.  Tilton  Imputed  to  her  con- 
duct unbecoming  of  a  wife,  in  some  respects  1  A.  That 
what  % 

Q.  That  he  imputed  to  her,  charged  her  with  conduct 
unbecoming  of  a  wife  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  any  such 
language  as  that.  Sir. 

Q.  WeU  give  us  the  substance  of  what  was  said  on  that 
subject.  A.  I  have  given  you  as  nearly  as  I  can  now  the 
substance  of  it.  I  might  by  suggestions  or  otherwise, 
perhaps,  recall  something  else,  but  I  do  not  recall  any- 
thing else  now. 

Q.  Well,  she  suffered  from  exhibitions  of  his  bad  tem- 
per, and         A.  Prom  the  effects  of  it ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  failure  on  his  part  to  provide  properly  1  A. 
To  provide  properly ;  and  there  was  more,  but  I  cannot 
recall  the  more. 

Q.  You  cannot  recall  the  nature  of  itf  A.  Nothing  fur- 
ther than  I  have  stated  to  you.  Sir. 

Q.  Anything  said  about  the  housekeeper  1  A.  I  think— 
I  cannot  tell,  Sir,  whether  I  heard  it  then  or  whether  that 
came  to  me  soon  after.  I  heard  about  the  houBekeeper, 
but  I  cannot  determine  whether  I  heard  it  then  or  after 

Q.  Well,  you  have  related  now  what  Mrs.  Morse  said  f 
A.  Mrs.  Tilton  sat  by  and  said  very  little. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  that  very  little  1  A,  I  don't  know 
Sir ;  it  was  in  acquiescence. 

Mr.  Beach— Have  that  struck  out. 

Mr.  PuUerton— I  want  to  know  what  was  said.  A.  I  do 
not  recoUect  now  a  single  sentence  that  she  spoke.  Mra. 
Morse  was  the  spokesman,  I  said. 

Q.  Well,  we  have  got  through  with  Mrs.  Morse ;  you 
have  told  us  what  she  said.  I  want  to  know  what,  if  any- 
thing, Mrs.  Tilton  said  on  that  occasion,  or  the  substance 
of  it  t  A.  I  do  not  recall,  except  that  she  said  very  li  cle. 

Q.  Well,  it  is  that  "very  little"  that  I  want.  A.  I  should 
be  glad  to  give  it  to  you. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Beecher,  this  was  an  occasion  which  ex 
cited  you  somewhat ;  you  were  learning  something  that 
you  did  not  expect,  I  suppose,  from  this  family  t  A.  I 
was. 

Q.  Well,  can  you  have  f  orgotton  all  that  Mrs.  Tilton,  or 
anything  that  Mrs.  Tilton  said  upon  the  subject  of  her  iU- 
treatment  from  her  husband  1  A.  I  don't  think  that  she 
entered  into  that,  but— though  I  am  ashamed  to  say  that 
I  ought  not  to  have  foi^gotten,  I  must  say  it— that  I  have 
forgotten  it. 


14 


IRE   TILION-BEEOHEB  TRIAL. 


Q.  You  have  forgotten  it  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Cannot  recall  anything  tliat  Mrs.  Tilton  said  ?  A.  I 
do  not  recall  that ;  indeed,  if  you  will  allow  me  

Q.  Well,  I  don't  know  until  I  hear  what  it  is ;  then  I 
•will  tell.  A.  WeU,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  we  had  better  have  answers  to  the 
questions. 

Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  after  Mrs.  Tilton  got  through  with 
whatever  she  had  to  say,  did  Mrs.  Morse  take  up  the  sub- 
ject again !  A.  I  don't  recollect  it  so  accurately,  in  its 
joints  and  sections,  as  that,  Sir ;  it  was  a  brief  interview. 

Q.  Let  me  read  to  you  and  see  whether  this  refreshes 
your  recollection : 

I  immediately  visited  Mrs.  Tilton  at  her  mother's,  and 
received  an  account  of  her  home  life,  and  of  the  despotism 
of  her  husband,  and  of  the  management  of  a  woman 
whom  he  had  made  housekeei>er,  which  seemed  like  a 
nightmare  dream. 

Is  that  correct  t  A.  Do  you  mean  whether  I  remember 
it  now? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  No,  I  cannot  say  that  I  remember  it  now, 
any  other  than  in  the  way  I  have  already  expressed  it. 

Q.  WeU,  reading  that,  does  it  not  recaU  to  your  recol- 
lection something  more  than  you  have  given  us  here  of 
the  interview?  A.  It  does  not,  Sir.  I  have  said  that  in 
regard  to  that  housekeeper  I  could  not  teU  whether  it  was 
then  that  I  heard  it  or  soon  after,  hut  that  I  had  heard  of 
it,  I  was  sure. 

Q.  WeU,  what  was  the  question  under  consideration  at 
that  interview  ?  A.  They  wanted  advice  of  me. 

Q.  Upon  what  subject?  A.  On  the  subject  of  perpetu- 
ating the  separation  which  had  begun. 

Q.  WeU,  have  you  given  aU  that  occurred  between  you 
and  either  of  those  persons  whUe  you  were  there,  that 
you  can  remember  ?  A.  AU  that  I  can  remember,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  remain  in  the  room  with  them  untU  you  re- 
tired? A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  long  did  the  interview  last !  A.  I  don't  know, 
Bir;  but  I  should  think  the  interview  did  not  exceed  a 
half  hour ;  but  I  am  very  uncertain  about  that. 

Q.  WeU,  Sir,  did  you  beUeve  what  Mrs.  Morse  told  you? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  believe  what  Mrs.  TUton  told  you  ?  A.  The 
impression  on  my  miud  was  that  they  had  made  a  true 
statement. 

Q.  WeU,  you  beUeved  them  then,  did  you  not  ?  A.  I 
iuppose  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  you  did?  A.  I  hold,  if  you 
mean  by  that  if  my  impression  was  that  these  things 
were  so,  it  was  very  impressive. 

Q.  WeU,  Sir,  did  not  that  impression  amount  to  the 
dignity  of  beUef  1  A.  Not  to  absolute  certainty,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  you  distrusted  Mrs.  Morse  a  Uttle,  didn't  you  ? 
A.  No,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Nor  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  A.  No ;  but  when  I  hear  one  side 
of  a  story  I  hear  itr-I  judge  of  it  by  its  probabiUties,  and 
it  is  an  approximate  beUef ,  or  a  heUef  with  many  "  ifs.** 


MR.  BEECHER  TAKES  HIS  WIFE  TO  SEE  MRS. 
TILTON. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  predicate  any  adyice  of 

what  you  then  heard  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  was  it  ?  A.  That  she  should  see  my  wife,  who 
was  a  much  better  adviser  about  domestic  affairs  than  I 
was. 

Q.  Did  she  see  your  wife  ?  A.  She  did. 

Q.  When  ?  A.  The  next  day. 

Q.  And  you  went  with  her,  I  heUeve  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  now,  what  statements  were  made  to  you  and 
Mrs.  Beecher  the  next  day,  when  you  got  there,  by  Mrs. 
Tilton  or  Mrs.  Morse  ?  A.  None  ;  not  to  us  together. 

Q.  To  you  alone  were  there  any  made  1  A.  They  were 
principally  made  to  my  wife. 

Q.  In  your  presence  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  complaints  did  you  hear  the  next  day  ?  A. 
Very  few  ;  hecause  

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  the  number  of  them  ?  A.  I  don't 
know  that  I  heard  any. 

Q.  Cannot  you  state  one  that  you  heard  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  you  heard  nothing  new  the  next  day,  did  you  ? 
A.  Nothing  new  the  next  day. 

Q.  And  even  the  old  complaints  were  not  repeated  to 
you  ?  A.  They  may  have  heen,  hut  I  do  not  recall  them. 

Q.  Where  did  Mrs.  Morse  talk  with  Mrs.  Beeecher  t  i. 
Up-stairs. 

Q.  She  took  her  by  herself,  did  she  ?  A.  Took  her  hy 
herself. 

Q.  Well,  did  Mrs.  TUton  make  any  complaints  to  you 
that  day?  A.  She  did  not  of  anything  that  I  re- 
member. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  remember  whether  she  did  make  any 
or  not  ?  A.  I  do  not  remember  any  definite— with  any 
deflniteness  the  substance  of  the  conversation  that 
passed. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  she  did  or  not  make  com- 
plaints against  her  husband  that  day  ?  A.  I  cannot  aay 
that  I  recollect, 

Q.  Whether  she  did  or  not?  A.  Whether  she  did  or 
not. 

Q.  Well,  what  occurred  as  the  result  of  that  interview 
before  you  left  ?  A.  Nothing,  except  that  I  prayed  with 
them, 

Q.  Well,  I  mean  a  result  other  than  that,  Mr. 
Beecher.  What  was  the  upshot  of  the  Interview! 
A.  That  we  would  go  home  and  talk  over  the  matter 
and  let  them  know  to  what  decision— or  what  advice  we 
should  give  them. 

THE  ADVICE  GIVEN  MRS.  TILTON. 

Q.  Yes ;  you  did  let  them  know  afterward  t 
A.  Yes,  Sir ;  my  wife  went  there  again  alone. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  say  to  her  before  she  left  to  go 
there  ?  A.  We  tsftlked  the  matter  over,  more  or  less,  I 
holdiag  that  it  was  not  best  to  break  up  the  family  rel»> 


TU81IM0NT  OF  HBI 

tton— she  InoUnlng,  from  wliat  had  been  told  her,  and 
irbioli  I  did  not  hear,  to  believe  that  Mrs.  Tilton  ought 
not  to  continne  Hying  with  her  husband,  and  that  was  a 
matter  of  some  considerable  interchange  of  views  be- 
tween us ;  but,  in  the  last  moment,  as  she  had  got  her 
things  on  to  go,  the  room  being— having  company  la  it, 
and  she  asking  me  what  my  last  word  was,  what  I  con- 
cluded about  it— I  wrote  on  a  little  scrap  of  paper  and 
banded  it  to  her. 
Q.  This  is  what  you  wrote,  I  believe : 

I  Incline  to  thint  that  your  view  is  right,  and  ihat  a 
■eparation  and  settlement  of  support  will  be  wisest  f 

A.  That,  I  think,  is  the  

Mr.  Evarts— A  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— A  part  of  it. 

The  Witness— A  part  of  it. 

Q.  As  far  as  it  has  been  given  in  evidence.  Now,  what 
did  Mrs.  Beecher  state  to  you  that  Mrs.  Morse  had  told 
lier  in  regard  to  this  J^*rfc*/tii.^nt  ?  A.  I  don't  think  my 
■wife  told  me  the  details;  I  know  she  did  not  tell  me  the 
details  of  her  conversation  with  Mrs.  Tilton. 

Q.  Then  you  gave  this  advice,  "  that  a  separation  and 
settlement  of  support  would  be  wisest,"  on  the  strength 
of  what  you  heard  the  day  before  from  Mrs.  Morse  and 
Mrs.  Tilton,  did  youl  A.  And  my  wife's  judgment. 

Q.  And  your  wife's  judgment  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  acted  upon  your  wife's  judgment  without 
getting  at  the  facts  of  which  that  judgment  was  predica- 
ted! A.  I  did  in  a  very  considerable  degi  ee.  I  had  very 
great  confidence  in  her  judgment  in  such  things. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  then  been  acquainted  with  Theo- 
dore Tilton  1  A.  I  don't  know,  Sir ;  over— this  was  '70— 
*60— some  twelve  or  fifteen  years,  I  think. 

Q.  Before  giving  the  advice  you  did  not  see  Mr.  Tilton  1 
A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Nor  communicate  with  him  f  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  In  any  way  f  A.  Not  in  any  way. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  day  of  the  month  of  this  !  A. 
This  was  about  the  middle  of  December,  Sir,  or  a  little 
earlier— varying. 

Q.  Of  1870  ?  A.  Of  1870. 

Q.  What  degree  of  intimacy  had  existed  between  Mrs. 
Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  up  to  that  time  ?  A.  No  great 
Intimacy ;  they  were  in  friendly  relations. 

Q.  Had  Mrs.  Beecher  been  in  the  habit  of  visiting  Mrs. 
Tilton  at  her  homet  A.  I  think  not.  Sir;  her  health  was 
such  that  she  could  visit  very  little  anywhere. 

Q.  Had  Mrs.  Tilton  been  in  the  habit  of  visiting  Mrs. 
Beecher  t  A.  Yes,  she  had  called  upon  her  several  times. 

Q.  Within  what  period  %  A.  That  I  cannot  say.  Sir* 

Q.  And  do  you  know  when  the  latest  call  was!  A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  Wni  you  state  the  date  of  the  latest  visit  that  you 
remember!  A.  No,  Sir;  I  could  not  give  any  date,  early 


BY   WAED  BEECEEB.  15 

Q.  Can  you  say  that  she  visited  Mrs.  Beecher  in  the 
year  1870  at  any  time !  A.  I  cannot. 
Q.  Or  in  18691  A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Can  you  state  that  she  visited  her  at  any  time  snbso- 
quent  to  those  years?  A.  I  cannot.  Sir  ;  I  have  no  associ* 
ation  with  time. 

Q.  Can  you  state  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  visited  Mrs. 
Beecher  within  three  years  prior  to  this  interview  at  tha 
house  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  cannot  state.  Sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher,  you  had  some  conversation  with  Mrs. 
Tilton,  had  you,  at  the  house  at  that  time  !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  of  giving  her  counsel  as  to  bear- 
ing and  conttniiing  patient  i  A.  I  recollect  saying  to  her 
that  I  thought  that  with  the  blessing  of  God  she  would  he 
able  to  see  light  yet.  She  was  very  despondent. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  that  question,  Mr.  Beecher.  A.  I  under- 
stood  you  to  ask  me  what  counsel  I  had  given. 

Q.  Yes,  but  I  didn't  ask  about  her  despondency.  A.  It 
was  the  foundation  on  which  I  gave  my  counsel. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  for  the  f oimdation  of  your  counseL 
A.  Pardon  me  ;  I  will  take  it  back. 

Q.  IwiU  forgive  you,  Sir.  I  want  to  know  what  you 
said  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  if  you  please  1  A.  I  cannot  tell  you. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  her,  "  Let  patience  have  her  perfect 
work  V*  A.  I  don't  remember  that  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  not  so  state  upon  your  direct  examination  t 
A.  How  ! 

Q.  Did  you  not  so  state  upon  your  direct  examination  tn 
this  case  %  A.  Not  any  such  language  ;  I  have  never  said 
that  I  gave  the  language. 

Q.  Well,  let  me  read. 

Mr.  Evarts— Do  you  read  from  the  direct  examination  f 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Evarts— What  passage  ! 

Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  I  cannot  designate  it,  ezeept  hy 
the  matter. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  have  found  it. 
Mr.  Fullerton— [Reading.! 

I  have  a  recollection  of  only  one  single  thing  that  I 
said  to  Mrs.  Tilton. 

Q.  When  alone  ?  A.  When  alone. 

"  How  is  it,"  I  said,  "  that  I  have  been  so  long  with  7(m 
and  you  never  alluded  before  to  me  about  distress  in 
your  household!"  and  she  said  that  she— her  general 
answer,  I  cannot  give  the  words— was  that  she  sought  to 
conceal,  in  the  hope  that  the  difficulty  would  pass  awaj. 
Then  I  talked  to  her  in  respect  to  the  household  relations. 
I  recollect  giving  her  some  advice  as  to  bearing  and  con- 
tinuing patient— "  let  patience  have  her  perfect  work," 
and  I  joined  with  her  in  prayer.  The  most  of  the  timo 
that  I  was  with  her  I  was  praying  with  her. 

A.  That  is  true.  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  advise,  then,  patience!  A.  I  advised  i»a- 
tienoe ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  forbearance;  that  was  after  yon  had  heard 
what  Mrs.  Morse  had  to  say!  A.  That  was  after;  it  was 
on  the  second  day. 

It  was  after  you  heard  all  that  Mrs.  Morse  and  Mrai. 


16 


THE   TILTO^-BBKCHEE  TRIAL. 


Tilton  had  to  say  with  reference  to  cruelty  !  A.  All  that 
they  had  to  say  to  me. 

Q.  Yes?  A.  I  had  not  heard  what  they  said  to  my 
wtfe. 

Q.  You  have  told  us  that  your  wife  did  not  tell  youl 
A.  She  did  not  in  detail ;  she  gave  me  some  general  

Q.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  that  advice  that  you  gave 
there,  for  patience  and  forbearance,  you  the  next  day  ad- 
vised the  separation,  did  you  1  A.  I  did. 

MRS.  MORSE'S  LETTER  TO  MR.  BEECHER. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  now  to  Exhibit  No. 
7— the  letter  of  Mrs.  Morse  to  yourself— and  to  this,clause 
of  it  

The  Witness— Will  you  be  Mnd  enough  to  pass  me  my 
little  satchel  there,  Mr.  Abbott  1  That  was  in  the  year 
1871,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  FuUerton— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— January  27,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fiillerton  LReading:] 

I  did  not  think  for  a  moment  when  I  asied  Mrs.  B.  as 
to  your  call  there,  supposing  she  knew  of  it,  of  course,  as 
she  said  you  would  not  go  there  without  her. 

Do  you  know  what  call  Mrs.  Morse  referred  to  In  that 
passage?  [A pause;  no  answer.] 

Mr.  FuUerton  [continuing]— I  read  still  further :  "  I 
was  innocent  of  making  any  misunderstanding  if  there 
was  any." 

A.  I  don't  recall  what  it  meant,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  imderstand  that  Mrs.  B.'»  there  refers  to 
Mrs.  Beecher?  A.  I  don't  know  of  anybody  else ;  I  pre- 
sume it  does. 

Q.  What  does  Mrs.  Morse  mean,  as  you  understand  it, 
by  saying,  "I  was  innocent  of  making  any  misunder- 
standing if  there  was  any ;  you  say  keep  quiet."  A.  I  do 
not  recall,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  you  directed  Mrs.  Morse  to  keep  quiet  with 
regard  to  any  call  of  yours  on  Mrs.  TUton  ?  A.  Not  that 
I  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  you  did  not  ask  her  to  keep  quiet 
about  any  such  caU.  ?  A.  I  never  asked  her  to  keep  quiet 
about  any  call  of  mine,  Sir. 

Q.  Can  you  explain  the  language  of  this  letter  writ- 
ten to  you  1  A.  I  cannot.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  call  you  had  made  upon  Mrs. 
Tilton,  to  which  Mrs.  Morse  referred  in  that  letter  ?  A.  I 
do  not. 

Q.  You  dont  understand  it  as  referring  to  the  call 
made  Id  pursuance  of  the  invitation  of  Mrs.  Morse, 
through  Bessie  Turner,  do  you  1  A.  I  don't  understand 
It,  at  aU. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  it  to  refer  to  the  call  of  the  fol- 
lowing day  when  you  and  Mrs.  Beecher  went  there?  A. 
I  do  not  understand  to  interpret  Mrs.  Morse's  letter. 

Q.  You  read  this  letter  when  you  received  it  t  A.  I 
Fresume  I  did. 


Q.  Don't  you  know  that  you  did  1  A.  I  don't  recoUeot 
it. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  taking  that  letter  to  Francis  D. 
Moulton  ?  A.  I  recollect  that  that  letter  went  to  FranciB 
D.  Moulton. 

Q.  Did  you  answer  this  letter?  A.  I  did  at  the  time, 
without  doubt,  and  no  doubt  I  understood  it  at  the  time. 

Q.  But  you  don't  understand  it  now?  A.  I  don't  recall 
the  circumstances. 

Q.  Did  you  call  on  Mrs.  Tilton  at  any  other  time,  about 
that  period,  other  than  when  you  called  at  the  solicita- 
tion of  Bessie  Turner,  and  when  you  went  with  your 
wtfe  the  day  following  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  Would  not  you  be  very  apt  to  remember  any  such 
caU  ?  A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  you  did  not?  A.  I  will  not 
swear  that  I  did  not  make  any  ;  I  will  say  that  I  do  not 
remember  to  have  made  any. 

Q.  I  think  your  answer  was  that  this  letter  of  Mrs. 
Morse  got  to  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  That  it  got  to  him  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  don't  know.  I  sent  the  letter  or  carried 
it  to  him. 

Q.  Are  you  enabled,  from  your  indorsement,  or  mem- 
orandum upon  it,  to  say  when  it  was  sent,  or  when  it  waa 
received  by  you  ?  A.  Well,  I  can't  tell  whether  that  is 
my  handwriting.  Sir,  there  is  so  little  of  it. 

Q.  You  mean  there  is  so  little"  of  it  there  ?  A.  So  little 
of  the  writing. 

Q.  There  %  A.  Yes,  Sir.  That  pencil-writing  is  nothing 
but  the  date. 

Q.  Can't  you  tell  whether  that  memorandum  is  in  your 
handwriting  or  not  1  A.  No,  Sir,  I  cannot  recognize  it ; 
part  of  it  is  Mr.  Moulton's  and  part  of  it  is  mine,  and 
they  both  look  bad  enough. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you 
now  recollect  no  reason  why  Mrs.  Morse  should  say  : 

I  did  not  think  for  a  moment  when  I  asked  Mr.  B.  as  to 
your  call  there,  supposing  she  knew  it  of  course,  as  she 
said  you  would  not  go  there  without  her.  I  was  inno- 
cent of  making  any  misunderstanding,  if  there  was  any; 
you  say  keep  quiet. 

I  imderstand  you  know  no  reason  and  recall  no  event 
which  justified  Mrs.  Morse  in  writing  that  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Fullerton]— He  says  part  of  this  Is 
in  his  handwriting,  and  part  of  it  in  Mr.  Moulton's. 

The  Witness— Appears  to  be,  but  I  cannot  say  with  cer- 
tainty. 

Mr.  Beach— If  there  is  any  part  of  that  which  yon 
thiuk  is  in  your  handwriting,  just  point  it  out.  A.  II 
there  is  any  part,  I  should  think  it  was  the  date. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Please  read  what  you  think  is  in 
your- handwriting.  A.  [Beading.]  "Received  January 
27th."  I  should  not  say  the  "71 "  was,  but  it  may  be. 

Q.  Was  it  received  in  January,  1871,  according  to  your 
recollection,  as  now  refreshed  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  think  it 
was  in  the  early  part  of  1871 ;  I  have  no  other  eyideno* 
ot  it  than  that. 


1ES11M0N7  OF  HEj\RI    WARD  BEEOEEB. 


17 


Q.  Did  you  call  on  Mrs.  Tilton  l>etween  the  1st  of  J an- 
vary,  1871,  and  the  27th  of  January,  1871,  when  that 
letter  seems  to  have  been  received  1  A.  Between  Jan.  1, 
1871,  and  the  27th  of  January  1 

Q.  Yes,  Sir,  when  that  letter  seems  to  have  been  re- 
ceived by  you.  A.  I  do  not  now  recall  any  other  visit- 
any  visit;  I  was  thinking  of  the  30th  of  December. 

Q.  This  difficulty  broke  out  on  the  night  of  the  30th  of 
December!  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Are  you  not  now  enabled  to  state  whether,  siibse- 
quent  to  that  date  and  prior  to  the  writing  of  tliis  lettei' 
of  Mrs.  Morse,  you  called  on  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  do  not 
recall  any  caJL 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  possible  that  you  could  have  called 
on  her  in  those  troublous  times  without  its  being  remem- 
bered by  you  now  f  A.  I  might  or  might  not  have  remem- 
bered it. 

Q.  Did  not  Mr.  Tilton,  about  that  time,  refuse  liis  house 
to  you  1  A.  I  understood,  of  course,  that  I  could  not  go 
there. 

Q.  Did  he  not,  ui  terms,  tell  you  not  to  call  at  his  house  ? 
A.  I  cannot  recall  that  he  did,  although  I  have  an  impres- 
sion that  that  was  either  conveyed  to  me  or  stated  to  me. 

Q.  When  was  that  conveyed  or  stated  to  you  ?  A.  I  can- 
not say. 

Q.  In  reference  to  the  30th  of  December,  1870,  when 
was  it  ?  A.  When  was  what.  Sir  % 

Q.  This  order  or  direction  of  Mr.  Tilton  that  you  should 
not  call  at  his  house  i  A.  I  cannot  recall,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  before  or  after  that  date?  A.  I  cannot  say. 
Sir ;  it  must,  I  think  from  reasoning  upon  it,  have  been 
after. 

Q.  Well,  how  long  after  1  A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  How  soon  after  was  it  1  A.  It  exists  in  my  mind 
simply  as  an  impression  that  there  was  such  an  injunc- 
tion. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  think  that  you  called  at  his  house  after 
that  injunction,  and  visited  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  have  forgot 
ten  it?  A.  I  certainly  have  forgotten  it,  if  I  called. 

Q.  But  you  cannot  now  state  that  you  did  not  call  ?  A. 
I  can  state  that  I  have  no  recollection  of  calling. 

Q.  And  that  is  as  far  as  you  will  go  1  A.  That  is  as  far 
as  I  C8;n  go. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  do  you  recollect  saying  this: 
[Reading.]  "  In  the  same  letter  of  February  7,  you  say : 
*0f  course,  I  cannot  expect  to  see  her  again  without  his 
permission,  and  I  do  not  know  that  even  then  it  would 
behest.'  Why  did  you  say  that?  A.  Because  either  at 
the  time  of  that  letter  from  Mr.  Bowen,  or  in  its  immedi- 
ate vicinity,  Mr.  Tilton,  as  I  have  the  impression  now, 
sent  word  by  Mr.  Bowen  (though  I  cannot  be 
sure  of  that),  forbidding  me  ever  to  enter  liis  house  again." 
Do  you  recoUect  such  a  c[uestion  being  put  to  you,  and 
giving  such  an  answer  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  it,  but  I 
presume  it  was  so,  if  it  is  in  the  examination ;  I  do  not 
recall  the  scenes  of  the  examination,  many  of  them. 

Q.  This  same  letter  of  Mrs.  Morse  I  again  refer  to,  and 
I  read  the  opening  sentence : 


As  you  have  not  seen  fit  to  pay  any  attention  to  the  re- 
quest I  left  at  your  house,  now  over  two  weeks  since,  I 
wUl  take  this  method  to  inform  you  of  the  state  of  things 
in  Livingston-st. 

Do  you  recollect  what  that  request  was  1  A.  I  do  noti 

Su' ;  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  received  one. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  a  verbal  or  a  written 
request  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  about  it. 

Q.  I  read  further : 

T.  has  sent  Bessie  with  the  others  away,  leaving  my 

sick  and  distressed  child  to  care  for  the  four  children 
night  and  day,  without  fire  in  the  furnace,  or  anything 
like  comfort  or  nourishment  in  the  house.  She  has  not 
seen  any  one.   He  says  she  is  mourning  for  her  sin. 

Did  you  know  what  interpretation  to  put  on  that !  A. 
I  did  not.  Mrs.  Morse's  report  of  Mr.  TUton's  saying 
this  was  as  I  understand. 

Q.  ]My  question  was  whether  you  knew  how  to  inter- 
pret Mrs.  Morse's  sayings  as  I  have  read  them  to  you  f 
A.  I  wanted  to  see  exactly  where  the  passage  was ;  I  had 
not  caught  the  passage  so  as  to  get  the  full  understanding 
of  your  question.   I  see  it  now. 

Q.  Well,  after  having  seen  the  passage  can  you  give  any 
other  answer  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  I  read  again : 

This  she  could  endure  and  thrive  imder,  but  the  pub- 
licity he  has  given  to  this  recent  and  most  crushing  of  cUl 
trouble,  is  what  is  taking  the  life  out  of  her. 

Do  you  know  what  she  referred  to  by  that  language  ? 
A.  Where  is  that.  Sir  ? 

Q.  "This  recent  and  most  crushing  of  all  troubl^'~it  ^ 
nearly  midway  in  the  letter.  A.  Oh,  I  see  it ;  I  do  not 
remember  what  I  thought  of  it  at  the  time.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  to  what  it  alluded  at  the  time  ?  A.  I 
do  not  recall  how  I  interpreted  it.  Undoubtedly  in  the 
light  of  the  circumstances  which  were  fresh  at  the 
time  

Mr.  Beach— Wait,  wait. 

Mr.  Fiillerton— If  you  know  how  you  did,  I  would  like 
to  know  now.    A.  I  do  not  know  how  I  did. 

Q.  Then  you  won't  tell  me  of  course?  A.  No,  Sir,  I 
won't. 

Q.  [Beading.]  I  know  of  twelve  persons  whom  he  has 
told,  and  they,  in  turn,  have  told  others. 

Did  you  understand  at  the  time  what  he  had  told  to 
twelve  persons  ?  A.  I  did  not ;  or  at  least  if  I  did,  I  do 
not  now,  though  I  have  my  own  supposition. 

Q.  I  imderstand  you  to  have  said  that  you  took  this  let- 
ter to  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  either  took  it,  or  it  was  con- 
veyed by  me. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  MoxQton  in 
respect  of  the  interpretation  of  that  clause  which  I  have 
just  read,  to  wit : 

This  she  could  endure  and  thi-ive  xmder,  but  the  public- 
ity he  has  given  to  this  recent  and  m^st  crushing  of  cUl 
trouble  is  what  is  taking  the  life  out  of  her.  I  know 
twelve  persons  whom  he  has  told,  and  they  in  turn  have 
told  others. 

A.  I  recollect  having  a  general  conversation  with  Mr. 


18 


THE  TimON'BEEGHEB  TBIAL. 


Movdton  on  tlio  subject  of,  not  this  letter,  but  allega- 
tions  

Q.  One  moment.  Then  it  is  not  an  appropriate  answer, 
because  my  question  is  "with,  reference  to  that  clause 
which  I  have  just  read  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  hairing  a  conversation  with 
Francis  D.  Moulton  with  reference  to  that  clause  ?  A.  I 
cannot  say  that  the  conversation  that  I  remember  sprung 
from  a  consideration  of  that  clause— that  is,  as  I  now 
recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  enterinsr  a  complaint  to  Mr. 
Moulton  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  done  as  is  here  imputed 
to  him,  namely,  had  told  twelve  persons  of  this  most 
crushing  trouble?  A.  I  do  not— with  such  a  definite 
nvunber,  and  such  a  special  and  definite  CLuestion. 

COUNSEL  AND  WITNESS  ON  THEIR  DIGNITY. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  sent 
for  to  know  whether  it  was  true  that  he  had  told  that 
story  to  twelve  persons  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  that  he  was 
sent  for. 

Q.  Do  you  Imow  that  he  was  present  when  this  sub- 
ject was  under  discussion  t  A.  Not  when  this  subject, 
butwhen  a  kindred  subject  was. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  talking  about  this  subject,  and  not  a 
kindred  subject.  A.  You  are  talking  about  this  letter,  I 
understand  you  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  And  refusing  to  aUow  me  to  go  outside  of 
the  letter. 

Q.  I  don't  want  you  to  go  outside  of  the  letter,  of 
course.  A.  That  is  the  reason  I  reply  as  I  do. 

Q.  Well,  if  you  don't  remember  anything  about  this 
letter  then  it  is  easy  for  you  to  say  so.  A.  I  have  said  it. 

Q.  But  you  want  to  go  outside  of  the  letter?  A.  Not  at 
all,  Sir ;  not  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  you  manifest  a  disposition  to  do  it,  I  think. 
Was  that  clause  of  that  letter  the  subject  of  considera. 
tion  between  you  and  Theodore  Tilton  and  Francis  D. 
Moulton?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  it  was. 

Q.  Did  not  Mr.  Tilton  explain  to  you  and  give  you  the 
names  of  the  persons  to  whom  he  had  told  this  story  1  A. 
Told  this  clause? 

Q.  Yes.   A.  No. 

Q.  Didn't  he  mention  the  name  of  Mrs.  Bradshaw  as 
one  of  those  persons?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  WiU  you  swear  that  he  did  not  mention  the  name  of 
Mrs.  Bradshaw  ?  A.  I  will  not  swear  that  he  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  mention  the  name  of  Oliver  Johnson  as  one 
of  those  persons  ?  A.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  did. 

Q.  After  the  receipt  ol  that  letter,  and  after  it  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  Francis  D.  Moulton,  was  not  the 
allegation  there  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  told  some  persons 
{whether  it  was  more  or  less  than  12)  a  story  in  regard 
to  yourself  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  the  subject  of  consideration? 
A.  The  allegation  


A.  No,  Sir;  I  do  not 
A.  Yes ;  Sir,  I  do  not 


Q  Answer  my  question,  please, 
recollect  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Very  well;  that  is  an  answer! 
recoUect  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Didn't  he  state  in  that  conversation  that  he 
had  told  the  story,  whatever  it  was,  to  Joseph  Bicli- 
ards  ?  A.  I  do  not  recoUect  that  he  did. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  ANSWER  TO  MRS.  MORSE. 

Q.  I  now  can  your  attention  to  Exhibit  No. 
8 ;  I  suppose  you  have  it  there.  A.  What  date,  if  you 
please  ? 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  without  date. 
Mr.  FuUerton— It  is  dateless.  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  immediately  after  the  Mrs.  Morse 
letter. 

Mr.  FuUerton— It  is  of  your  answer  to  Mrs.  Morse's 
letter. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  "  D,  Jan.  28 ;"  the  next  thing. 
The  Witness— What  date  did  you  say,  Mr.  Shearman  t 
Mr.  FuUerton— Look  for  it  under  Jan.  28. 
Mr.  Beach— You  wUl  probably  find  it  under  Jan.  28 ;  It 
is  the  next  paper  after  Mrs.  Morse's  letter. 
Mr.  Evarts— It  is  your  answer  to  this  letter. 
Mr.  FuUerton— Have  you  found  it  ? 
The  Witness— I  have. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you  whether  you  think  you  understood, 
at  the  time  of  the  receipt  of  Mrs.  Morse's  letter,  these 
aUusions  therein  made  to  "  this  recent  and  most  crushing 
of  aU  trouble,"  and  the  fact  that  it  was  aUeged  that  Mr. 
TUton  had  told  it  to  twelve  persons  ?  A.  What  do  I  under- 
stand the  question.  Sir  ? 

Q.  Did  you  understand,  at  the  time  of  the  receipt  ol 
that  letter,  to  what  Mrs.  Morse  alluded  ?  A.  I  cannot  say 
from  my  recollection,  that  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  that,  at  the  time  of  the  receipt 
of  that  letter,  you  understood  the  aUusions  made  by  Mrs. 
Morse  ?  A.  Have  I  now  any  doubt  ? 

Q.  Yes;  now?  A.  I  presume  that  I  did  understand 
them— that  is,  not  correctly,  necessarily,  but  that  I  had 
an  understanding. 

Q.  Did  you  refer  to  them  in  the  answer  to  that  letter  1 
A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  did. 

Mr.  Evarts— Has  he  answered  that  f 

Q.  I  wiU  read  it.  [Reading.] 

Mrs.  Judge  Mouse,— My  Dear  Madam :  I  should  be 
very  sorry  to  have  you  think  I  had  no  interest  in  your 
troubles.  My  course  toward  you  hitherto  should 
satisfy  you  that  I  have  sympathized  with  your 
distress.  But  Mrs.  Beecher  and  I,  after  full 
consideration,  are  of  one  mind — that,  under  present 
circumstances,  the  greatest  kindness  to  you  and  to  aU 
wiU  be,  in  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  to  leave  to  time  the 
rectification  of  aU  the  wrongs,  whether  they  prove  real  or 
imaginary. 

IbeUeve  that  is  the  last  of  it;  the  rest  Is  struck  out— 
"  whether  they  prove  real  or  imaginary ;"  you  didn't  ask 
her  for  any  explanation  of  anything  that  she  had  Inserted 


TESTIMOI^Y  OF  BE:^ 

ki  her  letter,  I  see !  A.  Do  you  ask  me  whether  I 
did! 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  did  not,  to  my  recollection. 
Q.  I  will  ask  you  one  other  question  in  regard  to  this 
letter :  [Ecading.] 

He  [Tilton]  swears,  so  soon  as  the  breath  leaves  her 
body,  lie  will  make  this  whole  thing  public ;  and  this 
prospect,  I  think,  is  one  thing  which  keeps  her  alive. 

Did  you  know,  at  the  time,  what  she  referred  to  there  ! 
A.  I  presume  I  did  ;  I  cannot  say  that  I  recollect  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  know  now  what  she  referred  to  1  A.  I  pre- 
sume I  could  make  out  a  theory  on  it.  Sir,  if  you  wish. 

Q.  Well,  I  think  you  could.    A.  I  think  I  could. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  to  make  out  a  theory  ;  I  asked  you 
whetht  r  you  knew,  now,  what  Mrs.  Morse's  meaning  was  ? 
A.  And  I  answered  you. 

Q.  That  you  coiild  make  out  a  theory.  A.  That  I  had  a 
theory  of  it. 

Q.  We  don't  indulge  in  theories  here.    A.  It  ia  a  ques- 
tion of  interpretation  of  that  letter. 
Mr.  Beach— Not  altogether. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  didn't  ask  you  whether  you  could 
mterpret  the  letter ;  hut  I  asked  you  whether  you  now 
knew  what  she  meant  at  the  time  she  wrote  this  letter, 
in  employing  that  language  ?  A.  I  have  only  an  opinion ; 
I  do  not  knorv. 

Q.  Did  you  know  a  servant  in  the  employ  of  Mr.  Tilton 
bj  the  name  of  Kate  Carey "  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  didn't  know  one  of  that  name  ?   A.  I  did  not. 

Mr,  Shearman — I  thought  there  was  no  such  person. 

Jtr,  Fullerton— I  am  not  accountable  for  what  you 
thought. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Beach  said  so.  He  said  she  gave 
her  name  as  Kate  Carey  Smith. 

Mr.  Fullerton— She  gave  her  name  as  Kate  Carey,  or  as 
Kate  Carey  Smith,  and  allowed  you  to  take  your  choice. 

Mr.  Evarts- We  have  no  choice. 

JOSEPH  RICHARDS  CONTRADICTED. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Then  you  have  no  right  to 
make  one.  [To  the  witness.]  Do  you  recollect  an  oc- 
casion when  you  were  visiting  Mrs.  Tilton,  when  Joseph 
H.  Richards  came  to  the  house  %  A.  I  do  not  recollect 
ever  to  have  seen  Mr.  Richards  in  that  house. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  occasion  when  he  came  to  the 
house  when  you  were  visiting  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  hearing  that  he  had  been  at  the 
house  at  any  time  when  you  were  visiting  Mrs.  Tilton '? 
A.  T  do  not ;  I  may  have  seen  him  there ;  I  have  an 
Indistinct  recollection  of  seeing  him,  but  nothing  that  I 
can  be  positive  about. 

Q.  Have  you  no  recollection  of  an  occasion  when  you 
were  visiting  Mrs.  Tilton  when  Mr.  Richards  came  to  the 
dooi  and  opened  it  and  found  you  in  company  with  Mrs. 
Tilton?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  have  none  whatsoever. 


BT    WABD  BEEGEEB.  19 

Q.  Can  you  say  that  he  did  not  open  the  door  ?  A.  I 
cannot  say  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  testimony  of  Joseph  H.  Eicftiardsf 
A.  No,  Sir;  I  did  not  hear  him. 

Q.  Have  you  read  the  testimony  as  reported?  A.  I 
have  only  read— I  think  I  have  not  even  read  it,  but  it 
has  been  stated  to  me. 

Q.  Now,  then,  I  want  you  to  state  whether  upon  a  cer- 
tain occasion  when  you  were  visiting  Mrs.  Tilton,  Joseph 
Richards  did  not  open  the  parlor  door  and  find  y^  a  in 
close  proximity  with  Mrs.  Tilton,  she  retreating  from  you 
in  hast^  ?  A.  I  recall  no  such  scene. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  no  such  scene  occurred?  A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher,  were  you  ia  the  habit  of  visiting  Mrs. 
Tilton  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Tilton?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  frequently  did  you  make  such  visits  ?  A.  I  can- 
not say  how  frequently. 

Q.  Well,  give  us  an  approximate  idea  of  the  nimiber  of 
visits,  or  their  frequency  ?  A.  I  should  say  in  general, 
that,  with  the  exception  of  one  season,  I  went  to  see  her, 
I  should  say,  once  in  two  or  three  weeks,  unless  there  was 
some  special  reason  for  going  oftener.  There  was  one 
season  in  which  I  was  requested,  and  that  season  I  went 
oftener. 

Q.  How  many  times  do  you  think  you  visited  her  in  Mr. 
Tilton's  absence  during  the  year  1870  ?  A.  I  have  no  in- 
formation, and  I  can  get  no  iaformation  on  that  subject, 
which  would  justify  me  in  making  any  definite  statement. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Tilton  ever  show  you  any  letters  that  she 
wrote  to  her  husband  before  sending  them?  A.  I  think 
not.  Sir. 

Q.  Are  you  certain  upon  that  subject?  A.  I  am  not. 

Q.  Did  she  ever  read  to  you  any  letter  or  letters  which 
she  had  prepared  to  send  to  her  husband,  or  parts  of  let- 
ters, relating  to  yom-self  ?  A.  I  do  not  recall  any. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  calling  upon  Mrs.  Tilton  on  an  occa- 
sion immediately  subsequent  to  your  call  upon  a  family 
by  the  name  of  Wheelocks  ?  A.  I  do  not  think  I  can  say 
that  I  do ;  and  yet  there  is  something  in  my  mind  about 
it,  but  I  cannot  tell  precisely  what  it  is. 

J^m.  BEECHER'S  INTIMACY  WLTU  MRS.  TILTON. 

Q.  Perhaps  I  can  recall  it  to  your  recollec* 
tion.   I  read  from  Exhibit  91 : 

To-day  has  been  a  quiet  day.  Mr.  Beecher  called.  He 
is  in  fine  spii-its,  making  calls.  He  devotes  Wednesdays 
and  Thursdays  until  further  notice.  Has  300  to  make. 
Made  20  to-day.  Enjoyed  it  immensely.  Called  on  the 
"S\Tieelocks  to-day,  and  kissed  them  all  around,  Lucy 
Wood  included,  he  said. 

Do  you  recoUect  that  circumstance !  A.  Yes,  Sir ; 
it  was  pleasant  enough  to  remember. 

Q.  And  did  you  state  it  thus  to  Mrs.  Tilton  t  A.  If  she 
says  so,  I  did. 

Q.  Don't  you  recallitf  A.  I  don't  recall  the  statement 

to  her. 


20 


IHJE   TILTOI^'BKEGHEB  TBIAL, 


Q.  Did  yon  at  tliat  time  Mas  Mrs.  Tilton !  A.  I  don't 
recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  say  you  did  not  I  A.  I  will  not  say  I  did 
not 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  habit  of  kissing  her?  A.  I  was 
when  I  had  been  absent  any  considerable  time, 

Q.  And  how  frequently  did  that  occur  I  A.  Very  much ; 
I  kissed  her  as  I  would  any  of  my  own  family. 

Q.  I  beg  your  pardon.  I  don't  want  you  to  tell  me  you 
Ussed  her  as  you  did  anybody  else.  I  want  to  Imow  if 
you  kissed  her.    A.  I  did  kiss  her. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  habit  of  kissing  her  when  you  went 
to  her  house  in  the  absence  of  her  husband?  A.  Some- 
times I  did,  and  sometimes  I  did  not. 

Q.  Well,  what  prevented  you  upon  the  occasions  when 
you  did  not  1  A.  It  may  be  that  the  children  were  there 
then;  it  might  be  that  she  did  not  seem  in  the— to  greet 
me  in  that  way. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  mean  by  that  that  you  didn't  kiss  her 
when  the  children  were  present  ?  A.  I  sometimes  did, 
and  sometimes  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  kiss  her  in  the  presence  of  the  servants  ?  A. 
Not  that  I  ever  recollect. 

Q.  Was  it  not  true  that  you  did  not  kiss  her  in  the 
presence  of  the  children  or  the  servants,  but  did  kiss  her 
when  she  was  not  in  their  presence  1  A.  No,  Sir,  it  is  not 
true  in  any— as  I  understand  your  question. 

Mr.  Beach— It  calls  for  a  mere  fact. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  don't  know  how  you  unde»"8tand  the 
question ;  it  is  about  as  plam  as  I  can  make  it.  Did  you 
not  pui'posely  omit  to  kiss  her  in  the  presence  of  the  chil- 
dren and  the  servants  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not ;  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  children,  certainly  not. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Fullerton]— Did  he  ever  kiss  her  be- 
fore Florence  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  ever  kiss  her  in  the  presence  of 
Florence,  the  oldest  daughter  ?  A.  I  don't  recall  ever 
having  Florence  there,  but  I  have  no  doubt  I  have  done  it. 

Q.  I  read  to  you  from  Exhibit  74,  being  a  letter  of  jMis. 
Tilton  to  her  husband. 

Mr,  Shearman— What  date  1 

Mr.  Fullerfcon— Dec.  28,  1866.  [To  the  witness.]  In 
speaking  of  yoiu'self  she  says  : 

During  these  early  years,  at  the  mention  of  his  name, 
to  meet  him,  or,  better  stUl,  a  visit  from  him,  my  cheek 
would  flush  with  pleasure— an  experience  common  to  all 
his  parishioners  of  both  sexes.  It  is  not  strange,  then, 
darling,  that  on  a  more  intimate  acquaintance  my  delight 
and  pleasure  should  increase. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  any  instance  in  which  these 
things  were  apparent  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Tilton  when  you 
visited  her  ?  A.  What  tliiags  1 

Q.  That  her  cheek  would  flush  with  pleasui-e  f  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  construe  that  into  any  undue  aflfection 
for  you  !  A.  I  did  not. 

,  Q.  You  thought  it  was  proper  and  right  f  A.  I  did. 


Q.  Do  you  remember  of  walking  out  with  Mrs.  TUton  on 
any  occasion  other  than  you  hare  mentioned  on  your 
direct  examination!  A.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Beach  (to  Mr.  Fullerton]— Does  he  think  he  lias 
not ! 

Mr.  Fullerton— Can  you  say  that  you  did  not !    A.  Oh, 

no  ;  I  cannot  say  that. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  FullertonJ— Has  he  any  Impres- 
sion about  that  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Have  you  any  impression  upon  the 
subject?  A.  Well,  do  I  understand  by  "walking  out,»» 
that  you  mean  going  with  her  on  calls  or  visits  1 

Mr.  Beach— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  mean  anything  in  that  line ;  I  mean 
walking  out  with  Mrs.  TUton. 

The  Witness— I  asked  you  that  question,  because  there 
are  two  distinct  things,  walking  out  and  going  out  on 
errands,  I  hold  to  be  very  different.  Walking  out  is  a 
stroll  for  pleasure,  or  going  with  her  to  see  a  sick  person 
or  to  see  a  friend ;  that  was  the  reason  I  asked  you  more 
distinctly  what  your  question  comprehended. 

Q.  It  comprehended  the  whole  thing.  Did  you  ever 
walk  out  with  IVIrs.  TUton  1  A.  Oh  I  I  have  walked  out 
with  Mrs.  Tilton. 

Q.  How  frequently?  A.  I  don't  know,  Sir ;  I  can  give 
you  no  gauge. 

Q.  How  many  times,  do  you  think?  A.  I  should  say 
not  very  frequently. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  going  with  her  to  look  at  the 
bast  of  Mr.  Tilton?   A.  T  do. 

Q.  Was  it  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  cannot 
say. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  he  was  home  or  not  t  A.  I 
do  not. 

Q.  I  will  call  your  attention  to  October,  1871,  if  you 
have  it  there.  A.  No,  Sir;  I  have  not  those  letters;  I 
have  them  at  home,  but  I  forgot  to  bring  them. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  read  to  you  this  sentence  from  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— What  date  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton- February  26, 1868  [reading]  : 

Mr.  B.  put  our  baby  to  sleep;  laid  him  down  and 
covered  him  up  the  last  time  he  was  here,  and  said  when- 
ever we  could  not  quiet  him  to  send  for  him  and  he  would 
come. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  that  visit?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  I  do  not  recall  it  now. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  kissing  Mrs.  Tilton  on  that  vlsltf 
A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  visit. 

Q.  You  do  not  recall  it?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  duration  of  your  visits  when  you 
caUed  there?  A.  From  five  minutes  to  half— three- 
quarters  of  an  hour. 

Q.  Never  longer  than  that  1  A.I  don't  reooUeot— I  should 
say  that  would  be  a  fair  statement  of  their  duration ; 
yes,  I  have,  sometimes— I  recollect  now,  sometimes  an 
hour. 


TBSTIMONT  OF  HENBJ    WARD  BEEOHEB. 


Q.  Did  you  ooirerpond  witli  Mrs.  Tilton  in  her  attsence! 
A.  In  her  absence ! 

Q.  Yes,  from  New- York  or  Brooklyn.  A.  I  do  not 
recollect  that  I  corresponded  with  her  more  than  once ; 
that  is,  that  I  wrote  to  her  more  than  once,  and  I  cannot 
§ay  positively  about  that 

Q.  Where  was  she  when  you  think  yon  wrote  to  her  1 
A.  I  think  I  wrote  to  her  when  she  was  at  Marietta. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  a  copy  of  that  letter  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  write  to  her  while  she  was  at  Monticello  % 
A  I  do  not  think  I  did,  but  I  may  have  done  so. 

Q.  I  read  to  you  Exhibit  100,  Aug.  15, 1869,  dated  at 
Monticello  [reading]  : 

Mr.  Beecher  wrote  me  a  very  simple,  characteristic  let- 
ter, which  I  would  inclose,  save  for  the  fear  that  you 
■would  lose  it. 

Do  you  recollect  that  instance  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  do  not 
recollect  it  any  better  now. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  that  that  was  true  %  A  Not  if 
Elizabeth  Tilton  said  so. 

ME.  BEECHER'S  WKEREABOUTS  IN  OCTOBER, 
1868. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say,  jVIt.  Beecher, 
that  you  were  in  the  City  of  Brooklyn  on  the  10th  of 
October,  1868.  How  do  you  recollect  tbat  you  were  in 
town  on  that  day?  A.  Well,  Sir,  I  only  recollect  now 
because  my  attention  was  called  to  it,  and  I  refi-esbed  my 
memory  by  conversations  and  documents,  and  my  re- 
freshed memory  is  that  I  was  in  town. 

Q.  And  you  recollect,  I  believe,  of  being  in  town  also  on 
the  17th  of  the  same  month  and  the  same  year  t  A.  In 
the  same  way  I  remember  it. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Tilton  ever  visit  you  at  your  house  diiring 
Mrs.  Beecher's  absence  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  she 
ever  did. 

Mr.  Beach  [t»  Mr.  FuUerton]— Will  he  swear  that  she 
did  not! 

Mr.  Fullerton— Will  you  swear  that  she  did  not  visit 
your  housed  A.  I  will  not. 

Q.  Can  you  say  that  she  did  not  visit  your  house  on 
the  17th  of  October,  1868  %  A.  I  cannot  say  so.  Sir,  but 
I  do  not  recollect  that  she  did. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  FuUerton]— Or  on  the  10th  of 
October  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Do  you  recollect  whether  or  not  yon 
viBited  Mrs.  Tilton  on  the  10th  of  October,  at  her  own 
dwelling  t  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Mr.  Beach— That  does  not  cover  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Can  you  say  that  you  did  not!  A.  I 
cannot. 

MR.  TILTON'S  LETTER  DEiMAXDING  RESIGNA- 
TION. 

Q.  I  now  come  to  tlie  letter  of  the  26th  of 
December,  1870,  Mr.  Beecher.  Where  were  you  when 


Mr.  Bowen  delivered  that  letter  to  youl    A  At  my 

house. 

Q.  And  on  what  day  of  the  month  was  it !  AX 
think  it  was  the  26th,  Sir. 

Q.  On  the  day  the  letter  bears  date!  A.  Yes.  Sir;  I 
think  it  was  that  day;  I  say"!  think,"  because  it  1b  a 
c^uestion  in  my  mind  whether  it  was  the  26th  or  27th ;  I 
incline  to  believe  it  was  the  26th. 

Q.  What  degree  of  intima<iy  had  existed  between  yon 
and  Mr.  Bowen  just  prior  to  the  delivery  of  that  letter  by 
him  to  you?  A.  Very  little;  there  had  been  an  inter- 
course between  us. 

Q.  Of  what  character !  A.  Mostly  an  intercourse  with 
relation  to  pubUc  affairs. 

Q.  Had  you  exchanged  friendly  visits !  A.  I  had  been, 
at  Ms  invitation,  at  his  house  in  Woodstock  in  order  to  be 
present  when  Gen.  Grant  should  make  his  visit  there. 

Q.  And  when  was  that !  A.  I  think  that  was  in  the 
Summer  of  1870,  and  Mr.  Bowen  requested  me  to  be  one 
of  his  guests. 

Q.  Was  there  not  a  coolness  existing  between  you  and 
Mr.  Bowen  just  prior  to  December.  1870 !  A.  Yes,  Sir, 
on  my  part. 

Q.  Had  he  visited  you  at  your  dwelling  in  Brooklyn! 
A.  He  had  not;  I  will  not  say  never;  but  I  will  say  it 
was  not  his  habit. 

Q.  Are  you  ciiiite  sure  that  this  letter  was  delivered  at 
your  dwelling  in  Brooklyn  ]   A.  I  am. 

Q.  Or  was  it  delivered  at  Mr.  Freeland's  house !  A.  Ko, 
Su',  at  my  house. 

Q.  How  far  apart  did  you  and  Mr.  Bowen  Uve  at  that 
time  ?  A.  Well,  about  a  block— a  block  and  a  half. 

Q.  Did  you  not  think  it  was  somewhat  strange  that  he 
should  be  the  bearer  of  a  letter  from  Theodore  Tilton  to 
you  ?   A.  In  the  first  instance  ? 

Q.  Ye<.  Sir.   A.  >'o.  Sir. 

Q.  He  had  not  been  in  the  habit  of  performing  the  offloe 
of  postman  or  letter  earner,  had  he  ?  A.  He  had  not, 
but  we  can  never  tell  what  a  man  may  do. 

Q.  No,  I  am  finding  that  out.  Did  you  read  the  letter 
in  his  presence?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  it  sealed  or  unsealed  when  he  handed  it  to  yout 
A.  It  was  sealed. 

Q.  Are  you  quite  sure  he  said  to  you  he  didn't  know  tlie 
contents  of  that  letter !  A.  I  am. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  do  immediately  aft^er  reading  Itf 
A.  Do  you  mean  what  did  I  say  i  I  did  nothing  except  to 
express  myself. 

Q.  Then,  why  don't  you  tell  me  what  yon  said !  A  I 
will  do  80  with  pleasure.  I  said,  "  This  is  sheer  insanity ; 
this  man  is  crazy,"  or  words  to  that  effect, 

Q.  Is  that  all  ?  A.  That  was  my  remark,  Sir. 

Q.  What  did  Mr.  Bowen  say  ?  A.  Mr.  Bowen  then  eaid 
that  he  was  not  aware  of  what  the  contents  were ;  that  Ite 
had  merely  taken  it  at  Mr.  Tilton's  request ;  that  he  -vraa 


2a  IBM  TILION-B 

<m  his  way  home,  and  that  was  the  substance  of  his  re- 
mark. 

Q.  Were  you  satisfied  with  that  explanation !  A.  Of 
course  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  further  conversation  in  respect  of 
that  letter  and  its  contents  that  evening?  A.  I  do  not 
think  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  answer  %  A.  I  do  not  think  I  did ;  I 
do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  from  Mr.  Bowen  where  he  had  heeni 
..  You  say  he  left  his  letter  on  his  way  home  !  A.  I  cannot 
say  that  I  learned  from  him.  I  know  what  my  impression 
was. 

Q.  Well,  what  conversation  did  you  have  with  Mr. 
Bowen  that  evening  after  the  reading  of  that  letter  % 
A.  Our  conversation  turned  entirely  upon  I\Ir.  Tilton. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  only  a  commencement.  A.  I  didn't  un- 
derstand you  wished  me  to  go  on. 

Q.  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  Mr.  Bowen, 
that  evening,  in  respect  of  that  letter  ?  A.  I  beg  your 
pardon.  Do  you  wish  me  to  state  it  in  the  whole,  as  near 
as  I  can  recollect  it  1 

Q.  I  want  you  to  state  what  conversation  you  had  with 
Mr.  Bowen,  that  evening,  in  regard  to  that  letter.  A. 
Yes,  Sir ;  I  imderstand  you  now.  Well,  Sir,  handing  the 
letter  to  Mr.  Bowen,  and  reading  it,  he  then,  I  think, 
himself— am  I  to  tell  his  conversation,  too  % 

Q.  I  want  you  to  tell  me  the  conversation  you  had  with 
Mr.  Bowen,  that  evening,  in  respect  of  that  letter.  A. 
I  have  told  you  the  conversation  we  had  respecting  that 
letter. 

Q.  Well,  subsequent  to  the  writing  of  that  letter,  what 
conversation  did  you  have?  A.  After  the  letter  was  laid 
aside  we  proceeded  to  talk  upon  Mr.  Tilton  and  his 
relations. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  well! 

Q.  I  want  to  know  what  was  said ;  you  are  giving  me 
the  subject  of  the  conversation  without  the  conversation. 
A.  I  will  try  to  give  you  the  substance. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  text;  I  want  to  know  the 
sermon. 

The  Witness— Well,  Sir,  now  I  wUl  preach.  WeU,  the 
conversation— I  am  trying  to  think  whether  it  began  with 
me  or  with  him.  He  said  he  had  been  having  an  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Tilton,  and  what  the  steps  of  the  conversa- 
tion were  that  led  to  it  I  cannot  tell  you,  but  it  came  to 
this :  He  began  to  tell  me  about  the  steps  which  he  had 
taken  to  disposses  Mr.  TUton  of  his  editorial  possession. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  don't  you  say  he  began  to  tell  you 
fomethlngl 

The  Witness— He  told  me  about  

Mr.  Fullerton— TeU  me  what  he  said— the  substance 
of  it. 

The  Witness— He  said,  in  substance,  that  he  fotmd  the 
paper  was  beine:  iniured  bv  Mr.  TUton's  editorial  course. 
That  was  the  substance.  That  he  had  at  last  been 


EEC  BE B  TBIAL. 

obliged  reluctantly  to  dispossess  him  from  the  editorial 
chair,  but  that  he  thought  he  could  retain  his  services  aa 
contributor,  and  make  him  almost  as  useful  as  if  he  were 
editor— or  in  substance  that ;  that  no  sooner,  however, 
had  it  become  known  that  he  and  Mr.  Tilton  had  so  far 
disagreed  as  that  he  had  been  put  a  contributor  rather 
than  an  editor,  than  he  was  congratulated  by  his  various 
friends,  and  that  they  began  to  tell  him  stories  about  Mr. 
Tilton  which  astonished  him,  and  that  he  was  amazed  to 
find  how  many  persons  knew  things  ill  of  him.  He  made 
the  remark  that  stories  poured  in  on  him  like  clouds.  He 
opened  one  to  instance  many  of  them.  He  alluded  to  the 
Winsted  affair.  He  alluded  to  an  affair  in  the  North- 
West,  which  he  did  not  go  into  nor  explain.  He  gave  me  an 
account  of  an  occurrence  that  took  place  in  his  own  oflace. 
I  also  expressed  to  him  my  astonishment,  and  said  that  it 
was  painfully  verified  in  some  knowledge  that  had  been 
conveyed  to  me.  I  told  him  of  the  visit  that  had  been 
made  to  me  by  Bessie  Turner,  and  the  substance  of  her 
statement.  I  told  him  that  there  were  rumors  afloat 
respecting  another  person,  which  I  heard  from  various 
sides,  but  I  did  not  know  how  much  truth  there  was  in 
thi'm,  and  that  I  had  always  hoped  for  the  best  in  regard 
to  such  things.  He  then  went  on  to  say  thafrMr.  TUton 
was  no  friend  of  mine ;  that  when  he  was  discussing  with 
Mr.  Tilton  the  subject  of  *his  changed  relation  in  the 
paper,  Mr.  Tilton's  expressions  and  manner  indicated 
great  feeling  against  me.  I  expressed  my  feelings  about 
Mr.  Tilton ;  my  long  acquaintance  with  him ;  my  exceed- 
ing regrets  at  the  way  things  were  shaping  themselves. 
I  told  him  that  I  thought  that  his  relations  to  The 
iQdependent— that  hia  judgment  was  just  in  re- 
gard tc  that ;  that  I  had  been  of  the  opinion 
for  some  time  that  Mr.  Tilton's  relations 
as  editor  were  taking  the  paper  out  of  the  old  channel— 
the  religious  channel— of  its  financial  matters  I  knew 
nothing ;  that  that  paper,  its  interests,  were  always  dear 
to  me,  because  of  my  long  connection  with  it  from  its 
foundation,  and  that  my  impression  was  that  he  scarcely 
would  stop  with  Tilton  upon  the  contributor  platform* 
He  then  spoke  of  The  Brooklyn  Union,  and  said  that  he 
had  been  turning  it  in  his  mind  whether  he  could  con- 
tinue him  there  even,  and  made  some  statements  which  I 
cannot  recall.  I  said  that  it  didn't  seem  to  me  that  a  man 
that  was  tainted  could  prosper  any  paper  of  his,  and  that 
I  did  not  believe  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  a  man  that  could 
work  with  men  unless  he  led  them,  and  that  as  a  con- 
ductor of  the  Republican  journal  in  Brooklyn  I  thought 
he  would  be  impracticable,  and  would  be  getting  the 
paper  into  trouble  continually.  We  then  returned  to  some 
topics  again  touching  morals,  and  I  said  that  my  wife 
was  better  acquainted  than  I  was  with  some  parts  of  Mr. 
Tilton's  alleged  history,  and  that  if  he  would  see  her  I 
thought  it  would,  perhaps,  give  him  some  light.  With 
that,  soon  after,  he  left,  shaking  hands  with  me  very  cor- 
dially, saying  that  he  would  be  my  friend,  whatever 


TF.simo:sY  OF  EEy 

might  happen  a-a  the  result  of  tliis  message.  That  is  sub- 
etautially  as  near  as  I  can  just  nov  recall  it. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Bowen  apeak  of  letters  ^Mch.  lie  had  re- 
ceived upon  the  subject  of  Mr.  Tilton's  moral  position  1 
A.  I  do  not  recall  that  definitely. 

Q.  Did  he  state  that  he  had  held  personal  interviews 
with  anybody  upon  the  subject !  A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  Did  he  state  with  whom  1  A.  I  do  not  know  bnt  he 
may,  but  I  don't  recall  anybody. 

You  believed  what  Mr.  Bowen  told  you  that  night, 
did  you  not !  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  the  observations  that  you  made  in  regard  to  the 
propriety  of  continuing  him  as  editor  or  proprietor  of 
The  Independent  was  in  good  faith  t  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  result  of  your  best  judgment  formed  at  that 
time,  was  it  not  ?  A.  At  that  time. 

Q.  What  you  said  in  regard  to  his  ability  to  conduct 
The  Brooklyn  Union  ia  harmony  with  the  policy  which  it 
represented  was  also  in  good  faith  1  A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  You  believed  what  you  said  at  the  time,  did  you 
not  ?  A.  Of  course  I  did. 

Q.  This  was  a  friendly  interview  betw^een  you  and  Mr. 
Bowen  !  A.  And  Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  Where  you  talked  freely  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton  1 
A.  We  did.  _ 

ME.  BEECHER'S   SENTIMEXTS  EESPECTING 
MR.  TILTOX'S  LETTER. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  what  feeling  did  that  let- 
ter of  the  26th,  written  by  IMr.  Tilton  to  you,  demanding 
that  you  should^eave  the  pulpit  and  quit  Brooklyn,  excite 
In  you?  A.  Well,  it  excited  in  me  the  feeling  that  the  man 
■was  beside  himself, 

Q.  Felt  it  was  an  insult  i  A.  Yes,  Sir,  in  that  category,  I 
should  say. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  of  any  cause  that  he  had  for  mak- 
ing that  demand  upon  you,  did  you  I  A.  No  justifying 
eause. 

Q.  No  justifying  cause,  and  therefore  you  felt  indig- 
nant that  he  wrote  such  a  letter  and  sent  it  in  that  way ! 
A.  I  was  greatly  surprised,  Sir  

Q.  Well,  leave  the  surprise  out  until  we  get  through 
•with  the  indignation.  I  ask  whether  you  did  not  feel  in- 
dignant 1  A.  Pure  and  simple  ? 

Q.  Did  you  feel  Indignant  1  A.  A  part  of  it  was  indig- 
nancy. 

Q.  Did  you  feel  angry !  A.  No,  Sir ;  indignation. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  step  after  the  receipt  of  that  letter 
and  the  interview  with  Mr.  Bowen  to  ascertain  what  Mr. 
Tilton  meant  by  that  demand !  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  go  to  see  him !  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  In  any  way  1  A.  In  no  way. 

Q.  You  took  no  measures,  adopted  no  means,  of  ascer- 
taining what  the  interpretation  of  all  that  was!  A. 
IFone  whatever,  Six. 


Y   WABD  BFECHEB,  ^ 

Q.  You  settled  down  tipon  your  indignation!  Oh,  no, 

Sir,  I  settled  down  on  my  work. 

Q.  On  your  work.  Very  well,  now,  when  did  you  next 
see  Mr.  Tilton!  A.  I  think  the  next  time  I  saw  Mr.  Til- 
ton was  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  on  the  30th  of  Deoem- 
ber. 

Q.  Of  the  same  month  1  A.  Of  the  same  month ;  yea, 
Sir. 

Q.  And  I  believe  it  was  on  Friday  night !  A.  On  Fridaj 
night,  Sir. 

ME.  MOULTON'S   PEEE:MPT0EY  INVITATION 
ON  DEC.  30. 

Q.  When  had  yon  last  seen  Mr.  Monlton  be- 
fore that !  A.  Well,  Sir,  I  can't  exactly  say,  but  my  im- 
pression is  that  I  had  not  seen  him  since  1869,  if  that  wa« 
the  time  when  I  sat  to  Mr.  Page. 

Q.  Then  you  were  not  intimate  with  him,  I  believe !  A. 
No,  Sir ;  I  was  acquainted  with  him,  but  not  any  time. 

Q.  You  had  never  exchanged  calls  with  him,  had  yout 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Somewhat  surprised  to  see  him  come  in  that  night  f 
A.  Oh,  no.  Sir ;  not  at  all  surprised. 

Q.  You  had  not  been  expecting  him !  A.  I  don't  expect 
one  in  ten  thousand  that  call. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  when  he  came  in  first  %  A.  "  Good 
evening,  Sir."  [Laughter.] 

Q.  Well,  what  foUowed  that!  A.  WeU,  Sir,  I  said  "Good 
evening,"  too. 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  will  you  please  be  quiet! 

The  Witness— And  then  do  you  -wish  me  to  state  the 
substance  of  the  whole  interview  ? 

Mr.  FuUerton— If  I  didn't  wish  you  to,  Sir,  I  shouldn't 
ask  you.  A.  WeU.  Sir,  I  am  so  constantly  afraid  of  doin* 
wrong  that  I  sometimes  do  wrong  just  from  my  anxiety 
to  do  right. 

Q.  It  is  an  unfortunate  condition  to  get  into ;  I  want 
you  to  teU  us  the  whole  of  that  interview.  A.  Yes,  Sir ; 
I  wilL 

Q.  And  fix:  your  recollection  so  as  to  give  it  in  detail  as 
nearly  as  you  can.  A.  Well,  it  wasn't  very  much  of  that; 
it  was  merely  that  Mr.  TUton  had  requested  him  to  call 
and  ask  me  to  come  down  and  see  him;  that  was  the 
substance  of  it.  I  then  said  to  him,  "  Why,  Mr. 
Moulton,  it  is  my  Friday  night  meeting,  and 
it  wiU  be  ver\'  inconvenient  for  me  to  do  so."  He 
said,  in  substance,  "I  think  the  matter  is  of  sufH- 
cient  unpoitance  for  you  to  forego  your  meeting," 
and  I  said,  "Well,  IwiU;  I  can  get  somebody;  Mr. 
Bell  is  near  by ;  t  can  get  some  one  to  take  my  meet- 
ing;" and  I  either  called  or  sent  to  Mr.  Bell  accordingly, 
and  I  accompanied  him.  The  conversation  was  about 
that. 

Q.  WeU,  Mr.  Be*Kiher,  the  Friday  night  prayer  meet* 
ing  in  Plymouth  Church  is  an  important  feature  ot  Itt 


24 


ItiE   TILTON-BEECEEB  IBIAL. 


•ervlces,  isn't  It  1  A.  It  is  now,  far  more  tlian  it  was 
then. 

Q.  Well,  wasn't  it  an  important  feature  then  %  A.  It 
was  important. 

Q.  Did  you  not  think  it  a  little  extraordinary  that  the 
man  who  had  Insulted  you  t>y  that  letter  on  tlie  26th, 
should  send  a  somewhat  peremptory  message  to  you  to 
come  and  see  him  at  the  house  of  a  stranger  f  A.  No, 
Sir;  I  thought  that  the  man  who  would  send  me  such 
a  letter  would  send  me  just  such  a  message. 

Q.  And  you  thought  that  you  would  leave  your  prayer 
meeting  and  answer  that  message,  did  you!  A.  I  de- 
termined to  leave  my  prayer  meeting  and  see  what  he 
had  to  say— or  hear. 

Q.  The  request  war  that  you  should  come  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's  house  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  regard  Mr.  Moulton  at  that  time  as  a 
friend  of  Mr.  Tilton's  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  An  intimate  friend  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  knew  he  had  been  a  classmate  of  Mr.  Tilton  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  his  early  life,  did  you  not  ?  A.  I  knew  that. 

Q.  Did  you  suppose  that  Mr.  Moulton,  at  that  time, 
knew  the  object  with  which  that  visit  was  requested! 
A.  I  don't  know  that  that  matter  passed  through  my 
mind  at  the  time  of  leaving. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  ask  Mr.  Moulton  what  Mr.  Tilton 
wanted  of  you,  and  see  whether  he  knew  i  A.  I  can  only 
gay  that  I  did  not. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  get  somebody  to  attend  the  prayer 
meeting  in  your  place  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  went  off  at  the  beck  of  the  man  who  had  in- 
sulted you  on  the  26th,  to  know  what  he  wanted!  A.  I 
did,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  the  manner  of  Mr.  Moulton  when  he 
came  there  %  A.  That  of  a  gentleman. 

Q.  WeU,  a  gentleman  can  sometimes  be  excited  and  be 
a  gentleman  still;  was  he  excited!  A.  No,  Sir;  not  any 
external  excitement. 

Q.  WeU,  was  there  any  internal  excitement!  A.  He 
had  the  manner  of  a  man  that  felt  that  he  had  an  impor- 
tant errand. 

Q.  Yes,  and  how  did  he  manifest  that!  A.  By  his 
tones ;  by  his  general  manner. 

Q.  Something  a  little  peremptory  in  his  tone  !  A.  Oh, 
no !  but  there  was  something  that  conveyed  to  me  the 
idea  that  he  felt  it  to  be  important. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  regard  it  as  probably  important !  A.  I 
could  tell  better  after  I  had  heard  it;  I  thought  it  suffi- 
ciently important  to  go. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  asking  what  you  regarded  it  before  you 
heard  it !  A.  I  thought  it  of  sufficient  importance  to  go. 

Q.  Well,  was  there  anything  in  the  manner  of  Mr. 
Moulton  on  that  occasion  which  attracted  your  attention, 
or  excited  your  observation  !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


Q.  Well,  what  was  it !  A.  It  was  that  he  had  brought 
me  a  message,  in  a  very  earnest  manner. 

Q.  In  a  very  earnest  manner !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  did  his  earnestness  manifest  itself!  A.  In  his 
tone  and  in  his  general  demeanor. 

Q.  Talk  loud!  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Excited!  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  was  a  gentleman. 

Q.  Well,  gentlemen  sometimes  talk  loud  and  get  excit- 
ed.   A.  But  then  they  are  not  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  yes  they  are,  I  beg  your  pardon. 

The  Witness— That  is  the  exceptional  part  of  the  

Mr.  Beach  [in  an  undertone]— I  am  afiaid  he  has  not 
been  a  gentleman  on  the  stand  all  the  time. 

The  Witness— We  aU.  of  us  come  shoi-t  in  spots. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  agree  in  your  definition. 

Mr.  Fullerton- Let  me  read  now  and  see  if  you  recog- 
nize the  description  given  of  this  meeting  on  another  oo- 
casion :  "  On  Tuesday  evening,  Dec.  30,  1870,  about  7 
o'clock  "—it  ought  to  be  "  Friday;"  "  on  Friday  evening," 
then  

The  Witness— There  are  many  errors  in  that  account 
from  which  you  are  reading. 

Mr.  Beach— We  are  only  reading  to  refresh  yourroool- 
lection. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton :  [Reading.] 

About  7  o'clock  Francis  D.  Moulton  called  at  my  house, 
and  with  intense  earnestness  said:  "I  wish  you  to  go 
with  me  and  see  Mr.  Tilton."  I  replied  that  I  ecu  id  not 
then,  as  I  was  just  going  to  my  prayer-meeting.  With  the 
most  positive  maimer  he  said:  "You  must  go;  somebody 
else  will  take  care  of  the  meeting." 

Do  you  recollect  that  that  was  about  the  way  that  the 
thing  occurred  at  that  time  %  A.  His  tones  and  emphasis 
were  not  like  yours,  Sir;  he  did  not  say  you  must  go. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  he  say  you  must  go !  A.  No,  Sir, 
neither  of  those. 

Q,  Well,  is  that  a  description  of  the  occurrence  that 
evening  without  the  emphasis !  A.  That  is  one  descrip- 
tion of  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Given  by  whom!  A.  I  suppose  it  was  given  by 
Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

Q.  Was  it  correct!  A.  According  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection  then. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  any  better  now,  do  you  !  A.  I 
recollect  as  I  have  now  stated  it. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  your  account  of  it  once,  was  it !  A.  I 
suppose  it  to  be  so,  if  it  was  the  account  given  before  the 
Committee. 

Q.  Well,  it  was.  Sir.  Well,  then  you  left,  did  you,  and 
went  with  him  !  A.  I  left  and  went  with  him,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  how  did  you  get  word  to  Mr.  Bell  to  take 
charge  of  the  prayer-meeting !  A.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know 
whether  I  sent  one  of  my  boys  or  servants  to  him,  or 
whether  I  called  at  the  door ;  I  had  to  go  right  past  th* 
door. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  your  object  in  going  down  to  see  ICr. 


TJESIIMONT   OF  ffENRT    WABD  BEECEBB, 


25 


Mlton  t  A.  To  see  "vrhat  Mr.  Tilton  Ixad  for  an  object  in 
sending  for  m©. 

Q.  You  didn't  surmise  that  olijeot,  I  suppose  1  A.  I  sus- 
pected many  tMngs,  Sir ;  I  thought  very  likely  the  letter 
of  the  26th  would  come  up. 

Q.  WeU,  why  didn't  you  say  to  Mr.  Moulton,  "I  will 
caU  to-morrow  evening,  "or  some  other  day  %  A.  Possibly, 
that  might  have  been  the  wiser  course;  but  it  was  not  the 
course  that  I  pursued. 

Q.  Well,  I  haven't  asked  you  about  the  wisdom  of  it.  I 
liave  made  up  my  mind  about  that.  I  only  ask  you  why 
you  didn't  say.  A.  I  cannot  say  why  I  did  not,  except 
iliat  it  did  not  occur  to  me. 

THE  WALK  TO  MR.  MOULTON'S. 
Q.  You  went  right  away.   Well,  did  you  go 
to  Mr.  Moulton's  house  1  A.  I  did,  Sir,  as  I  supposed,  and 
suppose. 

Q.  And  you  went  in  company  with  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  In 
company  with  Mr.  Moulton,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  time  in  the  evening  this 
was  1  A.  I  should  say  not  far  from  7  o'clock,  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  far  did  you  live  then  from  Mr.  Moulton's  % 
A.  Mr.  Moulton  then  lived  just  below— four  doors  below 
St  Ann's  Church,  on  Clinton-st.,  if  you  are  familiar  with 
Brooklyn. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  not ;  but  I  am  afraid  I  am  going  to  be- 
come so,  though.  A.  I  will  be  very  happy  to  have  you 
become  more  so. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  character  of  the  night  ?  A.  It 
was  a  snowy,  stormy  night. 

Q.  A  very  inclement  night,  was  it  not  %  A.  It  was  an 
Inclement  night. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  umbrella  1  A.  I  suspect  not— I 
usually  take  none. 

Q.  Don't  you  recoUect  that  you  got  very  wet  in  going 
down  there  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  don't. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  you  complained  of  the 
storm  going  down  there  1  A.  I  did  not ;  I  don't  think,  at 
least,  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  from  the  time  that  you  left  your  house  until 
your  arrival  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Moulton,  what  occurred 
between  you  and  Mr.  Moulton  %  A.  Well,  Sir,  I— I  cannot 
recall  any  considerable  conversation  between  Mr.  Moul- 
ton and  me  on  the  way  down  there,  but  I  have  an  indis- 
ttnet  recollection  of  some  conversation  respecting  Mr. 
Bowen,  but  whether  it  was  on  the  way  down  or  between 
Mr.  Moulton's  and  Mr.  Tilton's,  or  on  the  way  back,  or 
all  of  them  together,  I  cannot  very  well  separate  in  my 
mind  and  say;  that  Moulton  did  not  walk  mutely  by  me 
I  have  a  very  strong  impression,  and  that  he  conversed 
with  me,  but  that  it  did  not  relate  to  the  errand,  I  also 
recollect,  because  when  I  had  reached  about  Montague  or 
Remsen-st.,  I  asked  htm  what  it  was  th;;t  Mr.  Tilton 
wanted  to  see  me  for,  and  he  said  that  Mr.  Tilton  would 
state  it  when  I  reached  his  house,  or  to  that  substance. 


Q.  And  what  was  his  manner  and  tone  when  he  said 
that?  A.  There  was  nothing  very  special;  it  was  as 
one  gentleman  would  say  it  to  another. 

Q.  Was  it  not  peremptory  in  its  style?  A.  Oh,  no.  Sir; 
it  was  simply  the  style  of  a  man  that  in  a  gentlemanly 
way  defers  a  request,  and  refuses  a  request  for  informa- 
tion. 

Q.  Did  you  infer  from  his  answer,  namely,  "  Mr.  Tilton 
will  inform  you  when  you  get  there,"  that  he  knew  what 
the  subject  of  the  meeting  was  1  A.  I  don't  know  that  I 
inferred  one  thing  or  another ;  I  Inferred  that  he  did  not 
wish  to  converse  on  the  subject. 

Q.  Well,  what  inference  did  you  draw  from  that!  A.  I 
don't  think  that  I  carried  it  any  further,  Sir;  I  think  that 
the  train  of  thought  probably  ceased  there. 

Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Moulton,  on  the  way  from  your  house  to 
his,  say  to  you  in  substance,  in  reply  to  the  question  that 
you  put  to  him,  He  wishes  to  see  you  about  your  relar 
tions  with  his  wife  Elizabeth  1"  A.  He  never  said  such  a 
word. 

Q.  Did  he  say  in  substance,  "  He  wishes  to  see  yon  in 
regard  to  domestic  difficulties  ?"  A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  And  you  were,  then,  in  entire  ignorance  of  the  object 
of  that  visit,  so  far  as  anything  that  Mr.  Moulton  said, 
were  you  1  A.  I  can't  say  that  decisively;  I  was,  in  so 
far  as  anything  annoimced  as  theierrand  on  which  I  was 
going,  from  Mr.  Moulton  to  me;  I  was  absolutely 
ignorant. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  so  far  as  Mr.  Moulton  said  anythlncr 
during  that  journey.  A.  I  am  replying  to  that;  I  un- 
derstood that,  Sir,  and  so  far  as  he  said  anything  to  me 
disclosing  the  olyect  that  Mr.  Tilton  had,  I  was  in  pro- 
found ignorance. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  before  yon  started  from  your  house 
that  you  told  any  one  where  you  were  going!  A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  Were  any  of  the  members  of  your  family  at  home 
that  night  ?  A.  I  know  nothing  to  the  contrary  ;  I  do  not 

recall. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  BeU  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  whether  £ 
saw  him  or  not ;  I  heard  afterward  that  he  presided  at 
the  meeting. 

Q.  But  you  don't  recollect  of  seeing  him  !  A.  I  dont 

recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  or  communicating  with 
any  member  of  yotu*  family,  or  any  other  person,  aft^ 
receiving  this  message  from  Mr.  Moulton,  and  before  go- 
ing to  Mr.  Moulton's  house  %  A.  My  mind  is  unsettled  be- 
tween the  two,  whether  I  sent  one  of  the  boys,  or  whether 
I  called  myself,  but  I  cannot  determine  which  it  was. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  remember  of  giving  any  reason  to  any 
person  that  night  why  you  should  leave  your  prayer- 
meettag  to  go  to  Moulton's  t  A.  I  don't  recoUeot  of  giv- 
ing any  reason. 

Q.  To  any  one  ?  A.  To  any  one. 

Mr.  Fullerton— K  your  Honor  please,  before  going  to 


28  THE   TlLTON'BBF^aUEB  TEIAL, 

th&t  interview  at  the  house,  I  think  we  had  hetter  take  a  bility  of  answering  why  he  did  not  do  wliat  the 

little  rest.  counsel  thought  natural  under  tlie  circumstances, 
The  Court  hereupon  adjourned  until  11  o'clock  on         Beecher  was  considerably  badgered  and  a  little 

Wednesday  morning.  confused. 


SIXTY-FIFTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


CEOSS-EXAMINATION  OF  ME.  BEECHER  CON- 
TINUED. 

THE  SCENES  WITH  MB.  TILTON  AND  MR.  MOULTON 
AGAIN  REHEARSED— EFFORTS  OF  THE  COUNSEL 
TO  INDUCE  MR.  BEECHER  TO  EXPLAIN  WHY  HE 
DID  NOT  ACT  OTHERWISE  THAN  HE  DID— FUR- 
THER EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  APOLOGY. 

Wednesday,  April  14,  1875. 

A  great  crowd  listened  to-day  to  the  cross-ex- 
amination of  Mr.  Beecher,  wMch  was  continued  by 
Mr.  Fullerton.  The  scenes  with  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  on  Dec.  30 ;  tbe  pistol  scene  with  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  on  the  following  night,  and  the  scene  at  which 
the  "  apology "  was  written  on  Jan.  1,  1871,  were 
described.  Mr.  Beecher  was  pressed  strongly  and  at 
great  length  on  the  last  topic. 

The  interview  with  Mr.  Tilton  on  Dec.  30,  1870; 
that  with  his  wife  on  the  same  night;  the  Pistol 
Scene  with  Mr.  Moulton  on  the  next  evening ;  and 
the  circumstances  of  the  writing  of  the  letter  of 
"  apology,"  or  *'  contrition,"  were  the  subjects 
touched  upon  by  Mr.  Fullerton  this  morning. 
Letters  written  years  subsequently  and  Mr.  Beech- 
CP's  statement  before  the  Investigating  Committee, 
which  contained  references  to  these  scenes  and  the 
famous  document,  were  incidentally  mentioned,  and 
explanations  were  asked.  But  in  general  terms,  the 
scope  of  Mr.  Beecher's  examination  was  confined  to 
the  incidents  named  above. 

Matters  went  smoothly  and  quietly  untO  Mr. 
Beecher  was  led  up  to  the  explanation  of  his  famous 
letter  through  Mr.  Moulton  to  Mr.  Tilton.  The  exami- 
nation on  this  point  was  therefore  most  elaborate  and 
careful  and  very  skillful,  though  to  gain  his  point 
Mr.  Fullerton  was  frequently  compelled  to 
resort  to  what  is  generally  looked  upon 
as  a  strange  device  of  the  cross-exam- 
iner, to  require  categorical  answers  to  very 
intricate  questions.  Another  peculiarity  of  the 
<}ro8S-examination  was  evinced  in  the  frequent  de- 
mands of  Mr.  Fullerton,  after  Mr.  Beecher  had 
stated  what  he  had  done  in  particular  cases,  to  know 
why  he  did  not  do  otherwise.  Under  the  restric- 
tions which  prevented  him  from  explaining  his 
Miflwers  of  "  Yes "  or  "  No,"  and  the  imijossi- 


THE  PROCEEDINaS— VERBATIM. 


MR.  BEECHER  MAKES  A  CORRECTION. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Beeclier  was  recalled  for  further  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  your  Honor  please,  Mr.  Beacli  is  un- 
avoidably absent  tills  morning,  but  I  think  that  I  will  go 
on  without  him  for  a  short  time ;  I  think  he  will  be  in  in 
the  course  of  half  an  hour. 

Judge  Neilson— You  have  not  heard  from  him  this 
morning,  then  i 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir;  but  I  was  aware  yesterday 
afternoon  that  he  would  be  detained  a  few  minutes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Shearman  and  Mr.  Beach  are  both  de- 
tained in  court,  in  New-York,  in  a  matter  in  which  they 
are  on  the  same  side,  and  expect  to  be  detained  half  an 
hour  or  so. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Beecher  

The  Witness— Will  you  allow  me  to  interrupt  you.  Sir  t 
Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly. 

The  Witness— T  wish  to  make  a  correction  of  an  answer 
which  I  made  to  you  yesterday.  You  asked  me  whether 
I  had  any  letters  in  my  possession  from  Mrs.  Tilton,  and 
whether  I  had  made  diligent  search  for  any.  I  was  in- 
formed afterward  that  there  are  letters— several— in  the 
possession  of  my  counsel.  The  circumstance  that  led 
me  to  make  the  answer  was  that,  as  I  am  informed,  my 
wife  communicated  letters  to  the  counsel,  during  the  time 
last  Summer  when  the  Investigating  Committee  were  in 
session,  without  my  knowledge,  as  I  recollect  now ;  but 
after  tbis  trial  began  I  ransacked  the  house  for  letters, 
and  found  none. 

MR.  BEECHER  LOCKED  IN  WITH  MESSRS. 
MOULTON  AND  TILTON. 

Q.  When  you  arrived  at  the  house  of  Mr. 
Moulton,  on  the  night  of  the  30th  of  December,  did  yon 
enter  it  In  company  with  him  1   A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  after  entering  the  house  1  A.  Ho 
1-  -  ^  ^  tUo  door. 

'  I  you  see  him  lock  the  door  1  A.  I  did. 

«,    ^>.A  he  take  the  key  out  of  the  lock  1  A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  what  did  he  do  with  it  1  A.  I  cannot  aay  wluit 
he  then  did  with  it. 

A.  Did  you  not  notice  or  observe  what  he  did  with  itf 
A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  make  any  observation  when  he  took  the  key 
out  of  the  door  1  A.  I  think  the  observation  that  lie  made 
was  afterward,  when  he  unlorlc*  fi  i  .  < 


lESllMONY  OF  HEN 

<^  Did  you  not  think  It  strange  that  he  should  lock  the 
door  and  take  out  the  key  t  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  It  didn't  excite  your  ohservation— surprise  1  A. 
Nothing  8pe<jial]y. 

Q,  And  you  asked  him  no  question  in  regard  to  it  I  A. 
Certainly  not, 

Q.  You  submitted  to  it  -vrithout  any  remonstrance  !  A. 
Without  the  slightest  lemonstrance. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  form  of  the  question,  If  your  Honor 
please,  rather  conveys  an  insinuation— "  You  submitted 
to  it."  It  is  not  a  question  as  to  his  attitude.  It  is  as  to 
the  fact— what  happened. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Well,  it  is  a  fact  that  he  submitted 
to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts — Oh  !  no. 
Mr.  FuUerton— Oh !  yes. 

Judge  Neilson— You  use  the  term  In  the  sense  of 
**  acquiesce,"  I  suppose. 

Mr.  FuUerton— The  gentlemen  may  construe  it  upon 
the  other  side  in  their  own  way. 

The  Witness— Well,  my  reply  was  not  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  you  carried  by  "  submission "  anything  more 
than  that  acquiescence  which  every  gentleman  has  in  any 
ordinary  conduct  of  another  gentleman  in  his  own  house. 

Q.  Was  it  an  ordinary  thing  for  gentlemen,  after  asking 
you  as  Mr.  Moulton  did,  in  an  excited  and  emphatic  man- 
ner to  "  go  to  Mr.  TUton's  house — that  he  wishes  to  see 
you  "—to  Mr.  Moulton's  house  or  to  any  house,  that  he 
Bhouldlock  the  door  after  your  entrance  and  take  the  key 
out  of  the  door  1  A.  I  have  seen  gentlemen  not  only  lock 
the  door  but  put  the  chain  on  the  door  so  as  to  make  it 
doubly  sure. 

Q.  When  you  made  an  ordinary  calif  A.  When  I  have 
made  an  ordinary  call. 

Q.  You  didn't  regard  this  as  an  ordinary  call,  did  you  % 
A»  I  could  not  tell  what  the  call  was  to  be,  Sir. 

Q.  The  language  employed  when  the  invitation  was 
given  was  somewhat  peremptory  in  its  character,  was 
it  not?  A.  It  was  intense,  rather,  I  should  say — earnest 
and  intense. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Moulton  was  under  some  excitement  ?  A. 
Not  visible— an  excitement  that  showed  itself  la  his 
general  manner,  but  not  ia  any  such  way  as  would  de- 
velop itself  ia  extraordinary  action  or  anything  of  that 
told. 

Q.  WeU,  it  was  visible  if  he  showed  it  in  his  general 
manner  1  A.  To  that  extent ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  That  excitement,  however,  that  he  manifested,  did 
not  cause  you  to  iaquire  into  the  cause  of  it,  as  I  imder- 
*tandyou?  A.  It  did  not. 

Q.  Well,  after  the  door  was  locked  and  the  key  taken 
from  it,  where  d:d  you  go  f  A.  I  went  up  stari-s. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  to  you  to  cause  yoa  to  go  up 
stairs  !  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  Mr.  Moulton  requested  n^e  to  go  up 
said  that  Mr.  Tllton  waa  waiting  for  me  in  the  chamber 
above. 


Rl    WARD  BEECHEE.  ^ 

THE  SCENE  BETWEEN  MR.  BEECHER  AND 
MR.  TILTON. 

Q.  And  what  reply  did  you  make,  if  any,  to 
that  observation  of  his !  A.  I  asked  him  to  be  present 
at  the  interview,  whatever  it  might  be. 

Q.  And  what  did  he  say  in  answer  to  that  request?  A. 
He  said  he  thought  it  was  better  that  I  should  see  Tilton 
by  himself  substantially. 

Q.  Well,  why  did  you  want  a  witness  to  the  taterview ! 
A.  Supposing  that  I  was  to  have  a  bvisraess  discussion 
with  Mr.  Tilton  I  wanted  that  there  should  be  a  witnesa. 

Q.  What  business  relations  existed  between  yon  and 
Mr.  Tilton  at  the  time  1  A.  No  business  relations,  but  it 
was  a  discussion,  nevertheless,  about  business. 

Q.  WeU,  there  were  no  business  relations !  A.  We  "were 
not  connected  in  business  together. 

Q.  And  how  long  had  you  been  without  any  businea* 
connections?  A.  Since  1864r-'6o,  or  about  that  time. 

Q.  WeU,  was  there  anything  in  these  anticipated  bnst- 
ness  discussions  that  made  it  necessary,  in  your  judg- 
ment, for  you  to  have  a  witness  present  1  A.  It  made  it 
desirable  to  my  feelings  that  there  should  be. 

Q.  WeU,  Mr.  Moulton  didn't  go  up  with  you  1  A.  He 
did  not.  Sir,  that  I  recaU ;  I  think  he  did  not. 

Q.  Didn't  you  expect  that  the  letter  of  the  26th  of  De- 
cember would  be  brought  under  discussion?  A.  I  thought 
it  very  Ukely. 

Q.  And  did  you  want  a  witness  present  to  hear  that 
discussion  ?   A.  Yes ;  I  did. 

Q.  Where  did  Mr.  Moulton  go  when  you  went  up  stairs  f 
A.  I  do  not  know.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  observe  where  he  went  ?  A.  I  do  not 
recaU. 

Q.  Did  you  find  Mr.  TUton  in  the  room  indicated  hf 
Mr.  Moulton  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  how  long,  in  your  judgment,  did  that  interview 
last  1  A.  I  could  not  say  with  any  considerable  precision 
—half  an  hour,  three-quarters  of  an  hour — something  be* 
tween  half  an  hour  and  an  hour,  I  should  say. 

Q.  How  is  that  ?  A.  I  should  say  from  half  an  hour  to 
an  hour,  but  I  cannot  give  it  with  any  precision. 

Q.  There  was  no  other  person  present  besides  you  and 
Mr.  Tilton  ?   A.  Not  to  my  knowledge,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Moiilton's  f  amUy  at  home  at  the  time  ?  A, 
I  understood  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  other  member  of  the  famUy,  or  any 
other  person  than  Mr.  Tilton  and  3Ir.  Moulton,  whUst  yoa 
were  in  the  house  1   A.  No,  Sir;  not  that  I  recoUect. 

Q.  I  want  you  now  to  state,  Mr.  Beecher,  all  that  you 
said  from  the  time  that  you  entered  that  room,  on  the 
night  of  the  30th,  until  you  left  it  to  go  to  the  house  of 
Mr.  TUton.  A.  "I  did"— "This  is  a  dream;  I  don't 
beUeve  EUzabeth  ^  oiUd  say  such  an  untruth  of  me  "—I 
think  that  is  abouc  everything  I  said. 

Q.  Yes.   Well,  during  that  conversation,   Mr.  Tilton 


88  THE  TimON'B 

oharged  yon  with  making  improper  advances  to  Ms  mfe, 
did  lie  not !  A.  That  was  the  substance  of  the  charge. 

Q.  Give  us  the  language,  If  you  recollect  it,  in  which 
he  made  the  charge.  A.  The  language,  if  I  recollect  cor- 
rectly—I  cannot  state  it  correctly— hut  it  was  substan- 
tially this :  that  I  had  solicited  her  to  be  a  wife  to  me  to 
all  the  intfents  and  purposes  indicated  by  that  relation. 

Q.  And  that  charge  in  that  conversation  you  did  not 
deny  then  1  A.  Not  in  any  other  way  than  as  I  have 
stated. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  told  me  that  all  that  you  have  said 
while  you  were  in  that  room  during  that  interview  was, 
first,  "  I  did,"  and  second,  "  I  don't  believe  Elizabeth 
would  make  " 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  that  is  not  all  he  said. 

Mr.  Pullerton— Just  repeat  it,  then,  Mr.  Beeoher. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  already  there. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Well,  we  will  have  it  again. 

The  Witness— That  I  did  not  believe  that  Elizabeth  had 
made  charges  so  untrue  against  me. 

Q.  Well,  then,  I  am  

Mr.  Evarts—"  This  is  all  a  dream—''  you  omitted  trom 
your  recital  of  what  he  hadjust  told  you. 

Mr.  FuUerton— No ;  I  was  repeating  it  when  you  inter- 
rupted me.  [To  the  witness.]  That  was  the  only  method 
In  which  you  denied  the  charge  preferred  by  him  that  you 
had  made  improper  advances  1  A.  It  was,  Sir. 

Q.  You  felt  indignant  at  that  charge,  did  you  not  ?  A. 
I  felt  indignant  at  all  the  approaches  to  it;  but  I  was 
stunned  with  the  charge  itself  and  its  concomitants. 

Q.  Well,  he  charged  you  at  the  same  time  with  having 
won  the  affections  of  his  wife,  did  he  not  I  A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  feeling  did  that  excite  t  A.  The  feeling  that 
lie  was  a  violently  jealous  man. 

Q.  That  the  only  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  and  regret  and  sorrow. 

Q.  Have  you  said  referring  to  that  interview,  "  I  had 
listened  with  some  contempt,  under  the  impression  that 
he  was  trying  to  buUy  me  !"  A.  Very  likely  I  may  have 
said  so. 

Q.  Was  it  true  1  A.  In  regard  to  the  earlier  part  it 
waft. 

Q.  When  he  charged  you,  therefore,  with  having  in 
terferedwith  the  family  relation  and  produced  domestic 
discord  you  had  a  feeling  of  contempt  for  him  1  A.  No, 
Sir;  when  he  charged  me  with  having  been  listening  to 
stories  unfavorable  to  his  reputation,  and  having  In- 
fluenced Mr.  Bowen  to  the  course  which  he  had  pursued. 

Q.  It  was  that  that  gave  rise  to  the  feeling  of  con- 
tempt ?  A.  It  was  the  feeling  with  which  we  entered 
Into  the  discussion;  that  was  my  idea  of  about  what  that 
conversation  was  going  to  be. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  any  reason  for  having  made  that 
charge  to  you  that  night— any  one  of  those  charges  ?  A.  I 
don't  know  that  I  quite  take  in  the  intent  of  your  ques- 
tion, or  rather  its  scope ;  the  whole  thing  ^  as,  in  some 
fiense,  a  reason  for  the  interview. 


tJECMEE  TBIAL. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  any  reason  for  seeking  that  Intei^ 
view,  and  making  those  charges  1  A.  I  didn't  seek  thB 
interview. 

Q.  I  didn't  say  that  you  did ;  did  he  give  you  any  reason 
for  seeking  the  interview  1  A.  With  me  1 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  don't  recoUeot  that  he  gave  any  special 
reason,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that  night  that  he  had  previous  to 
that  interview  promised  his  wife  that  he  never  would 
disclose  the  relations  existing  between  you  and  her!  A. 
No,  Sir;  he  did  not. 

Q.  Did  not  he  tell  you  in  substance  that  the  writing  ol 
that  letter  to  Mr.  Bowen  on  the  26th  of  December  would, 
in  the  judgment  of  his  wife,  cause  a  revelation  to  be  made 
of  those  relations  which  existed  between  you  and  her  t 
A.  Not  a  word  of  it,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  he  not  tell  you  that  in  consequence  of  those 
fears  of  his  wife,  he  had  sent  for  you  to  recall  the  letter 
of  the  26th  t  A.  No,  Sir;  he  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  recall  the  letter  of  the  26th  1  A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  not  he  give  you  some  reason  for  so  doing  f  A. 
He  did  not,  anything  more  than  the  general  statement. 

Q.  Did  you  not  think  it  somewhat  strange  that  he 
should  write  you  a  letter  such  as  he  did  on  the  26th,  and 
then  on  the  30th  send  for  you  to  recaU  it  1  A.  I  waited 
to  see  what  his  account  of  the  matter  was. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  give  you  any  reason  for  recalling  it  f 
A.  No,  Sir ;  he  did  not  give  me  any  distinct  reason  for  re- 
calling it. 

Q.  Then,  not  having  given  you  any  distinct  reason, 
why  did  you  not  ask  a  reason  1  A.  I  was  waiting  to  hear 
what  he  had  to  say  to  me. 

Q.  Well,  after  you  did  hear  what  he  had  to  say  to  yon, 
why  did  you  not  ask  a  reason  for  that  strange  conduct! 
A.  Because  the  end  that  the  conversation  came  to  so 
superseded  everything  else  that  I  cared  for  no  part  of  the 
conversation  but  the  last. 

Q.  He  tore  up  the  paper  from  which  he  read,  I  ander* 
stood  you  to  say!  A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  threw  the  fragments  away  ?  A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  wlien  he  did  that  ?  A.  Whether  he 
said  it  before  he  did  it,  while  he  was  tearing  it,  or  in  the 
act  of  throwing  the  paper,  I  will  not  be  positive,  but  he 
said  in  that  connection  that  there  was  only  a  copy  of  the 
paper  which  his  wife  had  drawn  up,  the  other  being 
destroyed,  out  of  self-respect  and  affection  for  his  wife' 
;ind  now  he  tore  up,  or  should  tear  up,  or  had  torn  nj^ 
whichever  it  might  have  been,  this  paper,  so  that  there 
should  be  no  written  record  of  the  matter. 

Q,  WeU,  did  Mr.  Tilton  make  any  demand  upon  you 
lliat  night?  A.  None  that  I  recall  now. 

Q.  He  did  not  ask  that  you  should  do  anything^ 
did  he?  A.  No,  he  did  not  ask  that  I  should  do  anythini^ 
that  I  recall. 

Did  he  demand  that  you  should  do  anything  t  ▲.So* 
"h  e  did  not  demand ;  he  expressed  a  wish. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HEl 

<^  What  wish  did  lie  express  1  A.  "I  wisli  you  now  to 
go  down  and  see  Elizabeth." 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  wisli  lie  expressed  during  that 
evening  ?  A.  The  only  one  tliat  I  recall  at  present,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  Iby  actual  demand,  or  by  insinuation,  or 
intimation,  make  known  to  you  that  he  wanted  you  to 
do  anything  beyond  that  1  A.  I  do  not  recall  that  he  did, 
Sir,  at  present. 

Q.  He  made  no  demand  of  money  1  A.  Oh,  no. 

Q.  Nor  of  aid  of  any  Mnd  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  He  did  not  ask  you  to  see  Mr.  Bow  en  on  his  account? 
A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Or  any  otber  person  or  persons  ?  A.  Nor  any  other 
person  except  Elizabeth. 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher,  did  you  not  think  it  somewhat  strange 
that  during  that  long  interview  he  did  not  make  known 
some  object  that  he  had  in  view  in  seeking  it  1  A.  I  don't 
know  that  I  did. 

Q.  And  you  didnot  ask  for  any  explanation?  A.  I  asked 
for  no  explanation. 

Q.  You  lieard  these  charges  that  he  made  against  you  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Made  these  replies  that  you  have  given  us  ?  A.  I 
did. 

Q.  And  then  went  away  ?  A.  Then  went  down  to  see 
Elizabeth. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  ask  him  for  some  of  the  evidences 
that  you  had  won  his  wife's  affections  and  created  dis- 
cord in  the  family  ?  A.  I  was  not  allowed  to  talk,  you 
will  recollect,  Sir ;  when  once  or  twice  I  moved  it  I  was 
Imperiously  waived  silence. 

Q.  Well?  A.  I  was  getting  ready  to  do  it,  but  the  ter- 
mination of  that  discourse  was  such  as  that  there  was 
but  one  thing  in  it  that  could  move  me,  and  that  was 
that  termuiatiug  matter. 

Q.  And  then  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Tilton,  having  been 
Charged  with  that  grave  offense,  you  kept  silence  because 
he  waived  you  silence  ?  A.  I  kept  silent  until  he  had 
finished  his  statement  to  me. 
Q.  Did  you  not  keep  silence  because  he  waived  you 

silence?  A.  He  did  not  wish  the  conversation  

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  I  am  not  asking  you  for  his 
wishes ;  I  am  asking  for  your  action.  Did  you  not  keep 
silence  because  he  waived  you  to  keep  silence?  A.  I 
kept  silent  because  he  indicated  to  me  that  he  did  not 
wish  to  be  interrupted, 

Q.  Did  he  indicate  that  by  words  ?  A.  I  do  not— I  will 
not  speak  positively  about  that. 

Q.  Did  he  use  no  word  indicative  that  he  desired  you 
to  keep  silence  ?  A.  He  indicated  that  he  did  not  wish  to 
be  interrupted  by  that  which  was  stronger  than  words. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  answer  my  question.  A.  I  will. 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  indicate  it  by  words  ?  A.  I  say  again  I  do 
not  reooUect  that  he  did. 
Q.  Now,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  show  na  how  he 


BY   WARD  BEEORER.  39 

indicated  that  he  wanted  you  to  keep  silence?  A.  By  hia 
whole  manner,  and  by  a  kind  of  repressive  gesture. 

Q.  And  under  those  terrible  charges,  involving  your 
moral  character,  you  was  silent  under  a  gesture,  were 
you  ?  A.  I  did  not  consider  

Q.  Were  you  silent  under  a  gesture  ?  A.  I  was  silent 
under  the  intimation  of  Mr.  Tilton  that  he  wanted  to  tell 
the  whole  story. 

Q.  Yes,  and  after  he  got  through  with  the  whole  story 
involving  these  charges  against  you,  all  that  you  said  to 
him  you  have  given  us,  have  you?  A.  I  have,  Sir,  to  the 
best  of  my  recollection. 

Q.  Now,  before  leaving  the  house  that  night,  after  this 
interview,  did  you  believe  in  the  truth  of  any  one  of  these 
charges  1  A.  I  did  not,  except  so  far— I  did  not  be- 
lieve in  any  of  them ;  I  was  throvra  into  a  state  of  great 
astonishment,  rather  than  belief. 

Q.  You  did  not  believe  any  of  them.  Was  the  charge 
that  you  had  made  improper  advances  to  his  wife,  or 
solicited  her  to  be  a  wife,  with  all  that  that  term  implies, 
as  you  say  you  understand  the  charge  to  be,  that  night, 
true  or  false  ?  A.  It  was  false. 

Q.  Did  you  think  that  night  that  Theodore  Tilton  be- 
lieved it  to  be  true  or  false  ?  A.  I  thought  it  qtiite  likely 
that  he  believed  it  to  be  true,  but  I  was  very  much  per- 
plexed and  uncertain. 

Q.  You  thought,  then,  it  probable  that  his  wife  had 
made  to  him  that  charge  against  you,  did  you?  A.  I 
hardly  thought  it  probable. 

Q.  Then  how  did  you  think  or  suppose  that  he  thought 
that  it  was  true  ?  A.  That  was  the  very  question.  I  did  not 
believe  that  he  thought  it  so  in  full,  except  as  a  jealous  man 
wovild,  until  he  told  me  to  verify  it  by  going  down  to  see 
her  j  then  I  thought  that  he  would  not  dare  do  that  unless 
there  was  some  truth  ia  it— in  what  he  stated  in  respect 
to  his  wife. 

Q.  Now,  state  whether  or  not  you  did  leave  that  room 
that  night  in  the  belief  that  Theodore  Tilton  believed  in 
the  truth  of  the  charge  made  ?  A.  I  left  that  room  in  a 
divided  and  perplexed  state  of  mind;  if  his  wife  had  made 
those  charges,  I  could  not  doubt  that  he  believed  them ; 
if  he  stated  that  she  had  made  those  charges  when  she 
had  not,  then  I  should  not  believe  that  he  believed  them. 

THE  WALK  TO  MR.  TILTON^S  HOUSE. 

Q.  Now,  you  left  and  went  to  the  house  of 
IVIr.  Tilton,  I  understand  you  to  say?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  did  not  go  alone  1  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton,  you  say,  accompanied  you?  A.  He 
accompanied  me. 

Q.  How  did  it  happen  that  he  accompanied  you  from 
his  house  to  Mr.  Tilton's  ?  A.  He  volunteered  to  go. 

Q.  Before  starting  upon  that  journey  did  he  say  any- 
thing to  you?  A.  He  asked  me  If  I  was  going  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton's. 


80 


IRE   llLKhW-BEECHEB  lElAL. 


Q.  Had  you  said  notMng  about  going  to  Tilton's  up  to 
that  time  ?  A.  Notliing. 

Q.  You  thought  then  that  he  knew  where  you  were 
going  ?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  I  thought  so  or  not. 

Q.  Did  not  that  observation  warn  you  of  the  fact  that 
he  knew  where  you  were  going— where  you  were  proba- 
bly going  1  A.  It  naturally  would  follow  that  he  knew 
where  I  was  goiag,  but  it  was  not  a  subject  matter  of  re- 
flection. 

Q.  Before  -leaving  the  house  to  go  to  Mr.  Tilton's,  did 
you  not  say  to  him  in  substance,  "  Have  you  seen  Eliza- 
beth's confession  ?"  A.  No,  Sir,  I  neither  made  then  nor 
at  any  time  such  a  remark  to  him. 

Q.  Was  there  nothing  passed  between  you  upon  the 
subject  of  the  interview  which  had  just  closed  between 
you  and  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  Not  a  word  that  I  now  recall, 
Sir. 

Q.  He  did  not  ask  you  anything  with  regard  to  it,  nor 
you  did  not  disclose  anything  that  had  taken  place  ?  A. 
He  neither  asked  me  nor  did  I  tell  him  unasked. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  you  again,  Mr.  Beecher,  did  you  not 
think  after  that  interview  closed,  when  you  met  Mr. 
Moulton  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs,  that  he  knew  what  the 
subject  matter  of  that  interview  was,  or  had  been  ?  A.  I 
don't  know  that  I  thought  about  that  at  all. 

Q.  On  the  way  to  Mr.  Moulton's  house  that  night,  I  un- 
derstand you  

Mr.  Morris— To  Tilton's  house. 

Mr.  FuUerton— No,  to  Moulton's  house,  that  night,  I  un- 
derstand you  to  say  that  you  asked  him  what  Mr.  Tilton 
wanted  of  you?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  his  reply  was,  in  substance,  "It  is  better  for 
Mr.  Tilton  to  tell  you  himself  ? "  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  then,  did  not  you  infer  from  that,  that  he  was 
privy  to  the  object  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  sending  for  you  ?  A. 
No,  Sir  ;  I  cannot  say  privy  to  it.  It  was  very  evident  to 
my  mind  that  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  had  conferred, 
but  how  far  Mr.  Moulton  had  been  made  the  recipient  of 
Mr.  Tilton's  confidence  I  neither  knew  nor  had  I  the 
means  of  knowing. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  when  you  came  in  contact  with 
Moulton,  ask  him  the  question  1  A.  It  was  not  my  way  ; 
after  I  had  asked  a  gentleman,  and  he  politely  declined,  I 
did  not  choose  to  ask  any  further. 

Q.  The  interview  had  not  excited  enough  interest  in 
you,  then,  to  ask  Mr.  Moulton?  A.  It  had  not  taken 
place. 

Q.  I  mean  after  your  return,  after  you  came  down 
stairs  and  encountered  Mr.  Moulton.  A.  Oh,  my  mind 
was  full  of  a  far  more  important  thing  than  what  Mr. 
Moulton  was  thinking  about. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Moulton  accompanied  you,  did  he  I  A.  He 
went  with  me ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  To  Mr.  Tilton's  house  1   A.  To  Mr.  Tilton's  house. 

Q.  You  say  you  did  not  want  him  to  accompany  you  ? 
A.  I  meant  by  that,  or  I  mean  by  that,  that  it  was  not  at 


my  desire.  Mr.  Moulton's  company  was  always  agree- 
able enough,  but  it  was  not  at  my  request  or  desire. 

Q.  Didn't  you  think  it  somewhat  strange  that  he  should 
propose  to  accompany  you?  A.  I  thought  it  an  act  of 
politeness. 

Q.  Nothing  more  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 
Q.  WeU,  he  went  to  the  house  with  you,  did  he  ?  A.  He 
did,  Sir. 

Q.  He  did  not  enter  it,  I  believe  !  A.  I  believe  not,  Sir  j 
I  will  not  be  sure. 

THE  INTERVIEW  IN  MRS.   TILTON'S  SICK- 
ROOM. 

Q.  Well,  you  went  up  stairs  and  found  Mrs. 
Tilton  in  bed,  I  think  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  In  what  room  was  it,  Mr.  Beecher?  A.  The  left 
hand  room,  front,  as  you  go  up,  and  turn  toward  the 
street. 

Q.  As  I  imderstand  you,  you  then  informed  her  of  the 
charges  which  her  husband  had  mn,de  against  you?  A. 
That  was  the  result  of  our  interview. 

Q.  Had  Mrs.  Tilton  retired  for  the  night?  A.  I  am  sure 
I  do  not  know,  Sir;  she  was  in  bed. 

Q.  WeU?  A.  Your  question  implies  the  act  of  going  to 
bed. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  A.  I  know  nothing  about  that. 

Q.  Was  she  dressed  in  the  ordinary  costume  of  a  lady 
who  had  retired  for  the  night  ?  A.  She  was  dressed  in 
white;  whether  it  was  the  dressing  gown  of  a  sick-room 
or  a  night-gown,  I  do  not  recollect  that  that  occurred  to 
my  mind. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  evening  was  it  ?  A.  I  should  say 
not  far  from  9  o'clock,  or  in  that  neighborhood. 

Q.  She  was  ill,  was  she  not  ?  A.  She  was  ill ;  yes. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  suppose  that  she  had  retired  for 
the  night  ?  A.  I  supposed  that  she  was  in  bed  for  the 
night ;  my  impression  was  that  she  had  been  in  bed  all 
day,  being  HI. 

Q.  In  your  direct  examination  you  emphasized  the  fact 
that  "  she  was  dressed  in  pure  white ;  her  face  was  as 
white  as  the  bed?"  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  surprised  to  find  her  dressed  in  pure 
white  imder  those  circumstances  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  was  not 
surprised. 

Q.  What  did  you  first  say  to  her,  Mr.  Beecher,  after  ar« 
riving  in  the  room  ?  A»  I  don't  know  that  I  can  say 
what  I  did,  except  to  ask  her  good  evening. 

Q.  And  what  was  her  reply  ?  A.  Nothing. 

Q.  What  next  did  you  say?  A.  I  will  not  be  positive  as 
to  the  order  of  the  opening  remarks,  but  in  general  I  said 
that  I  bad  just  come  from  an  interview  with  her  husband, 
and  that  he  had  been  making  a  good  many  serious  charges 
against  me.  I  think  I  introduced  it  in  that  way. 

Q.  State  aU  that  you  said  before  she  made  any  answer! 
A.  I  can*t. 

Q.  All  that  you  recollect?  A.  I  can't  divide  It  in  that 


TUSTIMONI  OF  EENBY   WABD  BEECHEE, 


31 


way.  I  tlilnk  that  it  was  not  until  T  had  hegun  to  say  to 
her,  "  He  charges  me  with  improper— with  having  with- 
drawn your  affections  from  him,"  or  something  to  that 
effect.  I  think  It  was  only  then  that  she  hegan  to  show 
responsiveness. 

Q.  And  how  did  she  show  responsiveness  t  A.  By  the 
tears  falling  down  her  cheek,  and  toy  a  little  motion  of  her 
hands. 

Q,  Did  she  make  no  other  motion  I  A.  Not  that  I  re- 
Sir. 

Q,  Didn't  she  bow  her  head  ia  acqniescence  to  some- 
thing that  you  said  1  A.  Later  she  did. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Beecher,  I  want  you  to  give  us  the  whole 
of  that  interview,  as  you  now  recollect  it. 

[Mr.  Fullerton  here  paused,  and  asked  to  have  better 
^ventilation  la  the  room.] 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  will  you  give  us  the  interview 
between  yourself  and  Mrs.  TUton  as  it  occurred  on  that 
occasion !  A.  I  will  give  it  to  you  in  substance  as  near 
as  I  can  recollect ;  when  I  went  in,  and  after  a  saluta- 
tion, I  sat  down  by  her  side  and  said  to  her :  *'  Elizabeth, 
I  have  just  come  from  an  interview  with  your  husband, 
and  he  has  been  making  very  serious  charges  against 
me;"  I  do  not  now  remember  distiactly  whether  I  al- 
luded in  detail  to  busiaess  charges,  but  I  said :  "  He  has 
charged  me  with  having  withdrawn  your  affections  from 
him,  and  with  iaducing  great  distress  and  discord  in  his 
family,"  or  words  to  that  effect,  "and he— is  this  so?" 
she  made  no  response  to  it ;  I  said  to  her  ia  substance : 
"  Elizabeth,  he  says  that  youhave  told  him  that  I  had  won 
your  affections  from  him,  and  that  you  had  transferred 
your  wifely  affection  to  me,"  and  at  that,  I  think  it  was 
(though  I  will  not  be  certain  about  that  matter),  the  tears 
ran  down  her  cheek,  and  she  made  stUl  no  response ;  I 
went  on  and  said  to  her :  "  Elizabeth,  Mr.  Tilton  says 
that  you  have  declared  to  him  that  I  have  made  improper 
advances  toward  you;"  and  she  was  very  much  agi- 
tated. Said  I:  "Elizabeth,  have  you  ever  said  that  to 
your  husband?"  and  she  bowed  her  head,  and  then  it 
was  that  I  spoke  to  her  with  more  emphasis  than  I 
had  (for  she  was  a  sick  woman),  and  said  to  her,  "  Eliza- 
beth, what  could  have  tempted  you  to  do  such  a  thing  as 
that?  Wherein  have  I  acted  wrongly  toward  you?"  I 
said— I  expostulated  with  her  on  the  subject,  and  said  to 
her :  "  You  know  that  it  is  not  true  that  I  have  intention- 
ally drawn  you  away  from  him,  or  that  I  have  ever 
made— been  guilty  of  impropriety,  intentionally."  She 
then  began  slowly  to  speak,  or  at  about  that  time ;  she 
was  feeble,  and  her  conversation  was  somewhat  hesi- 
tating. I  plied  her  still— sne  seemed  reluctant  and  grief- 
ful,  and  I  still  dwelt  upon  those  charges,  and  my  aston- 
ishment at  her  making  such  charges,  and—"  How  could 
you  have  done  such  a  thing  ?"  She,  in  a  slow,  and  in  a 
sad  voice,  said,  "  I  could  not  help  it ;  I  was  tired  out  with 
his  persistence ;  he  pursued  me,  and  importuned  me  ;'* 
and  then  I  think  she  alluded  to  an  interview  of  the  Sum- 


mer before  about  which  I  was  not— I  yet  had  not  any 
clear  or  distinct  idea,  but  I  think  it  was  in  connection 
with  that  interview  that  she  said  that  he  had 
told  her  that  if  she  would  confess  to  him  her 
strong  and  undue  affection  for  me,  it  would 
toe  easier  for  him  to  confess  his  alien  loves,  and  that  they 
should,  standing  together  again  for  a  reformed  and  a  bet- 
ter life,  go  on  more  happily  than  they  had,  or  words  to 
that  effect,  which,  according  to  my  recollection,  referred 
to  the  interview  of  July  which  he  said  that  he  had  had 
with  her ;  1  plied  her  in  respect  to  that— that  is,  in  respect 
to  the  course  of  conduct  that  she  had  pursued  toward  me, 
and  she  said,  "  Well,  what  can  I  do  ?"  I  don't  know  but 
that  was  in  response  to  some  saying  of  mine  that  she 
ought  to  retract  iPi  '  ro  do  me  justice;  I  know  that  that 
occurred  somewliL  i  iri  the  conversation,  but  I  cannot  say 
in  that  order ;  but  at  any  rate,  the  question  came  up, 
"  What  can  I  do  ?"  and  I  said,  "  You  ought  to  make  a 
written  retraction,  as  you  have  made  written  charges." 
She  made  some  reply  in  respect  to  that,  that  it  would  be  an 
injury,  if  I  should  have  such  a  paper,  toward  her  husband ; 
and  my  general  reply  was  that  I  intended  it  not  for  an 
offensive  document  at  all ;  that  T  wanted  it  for  my  own 
justification ;  that  if  matters  should  ever,  by  rumor  or 
otherwise,  come  to  the  knowledge  of  friends,  or  of  the 
church,  I  ought  to  have  something  which  should  be  a 
clearance  of  me  from  her ;  or  words  to  that  effect.  She 
said  if  I  would  not  use  it  to  the  injury  of  her  husband, 
she  would  be  willing  to  give  me  such  a  statement,  and  I 
told  her  I  shovild  not,  certainly ;  that  that  was  not  my 
object,  but  simply  self-defense. 


THE  WEITING  OF  THE  EETRACTION. 
I  went,  by  her  direction,  to  the  little  private 

writing  desk  which  she  had  in  the  other  room,  which  was 
open,  and  took  out  the  note  paper  and  the  pen  and  the 
ink,  and  brought  them  to  her.  She  had  meanwhile  sat  up 
in  the  bed,  upheld  by  pillows  behind  her,  and  she  took  the 
paper  and  wrote  it  on  her  wrapper,  upon  her  knee,  and, 
reading  it  over,  she  held  out  her  hand  for  some  ink  (I  held 
the  inkstand,)  and  added  something  which— another  sen- 
tence—and then  signed  it  with  her  full  name.  Some  fur- 
ther, but  not  very  much  pertaining  to  that,  conversation 
took  place,  and  I  told  her  that  I  thought  she  had  only 
acted  justly  and  rightly  toward  me,  and  I  then  expressed 
solicitude  for  fear  the  excitement  of  this  interview  might 
be  of  injury  to  her  in  her  sickness,  and  I  took  my  leave. 

Q.  You  state  in  your  direct  examination  that  as  she  lay 
upon  the  bed  "she  appeared  as  one  dead;"  do  you 
remember  that?  A.  When  I  fii-st  entered  the  room,  yes. 
Sir. 

Q.  She  rose  up  in  bed  without  your  assistance,  did  she 
not,  to  write  that  paper  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Who  placed  the  piUows  behind  her  when  she  wrote 
it  ?  A.  I  don't  know.  Sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  she  do  it  herself  ?  A.  I  don't  know.  Sir. 


33  TEE  TILION-Bl 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  person  in  the  room  during  that 
interview  1  A.  Not  to  my  knowledge,  Sir.  I  can  give  you 
only  the  inference ;  I  saw  nothing. 

Q.  She  indicated  where  the  paper  and  the  ink  could  be 
found  ?  A.  She  simply  said  that  it  was  in  her  secretary ; 
I  knew  the  little  secretary  very  well;  I  was  familiar 
with  it. 

Q.  And  she  wrote  the  paper  in  your  presence  ?  A.  She 
wrote  the  paper  before  me. 

Q.  You  were  acquainted  with  her  handwriting,  were 
you  not  ?  A.  Oh,  yes. 

Q.  I  place  the  letter  in  your  hands,  and  I  ask  you 
whether  it  is  not  in  her  ordinary  handwriting  ?  A.  [Look- 
at  the  letter.]  I  recognize  it  as  her  handwriting,  but  not 
as  her  ordinary  handwriting. 

Q.  Not  as  her  ordinary  handwriting  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  between  it  and  the  ordinary 
handwriting?  A.  Well,  there  is  a  feebleness  and  a— the 
letters  are  not  full  formed ;  she  writes  a  strong,  bold  hand ; 
this  is  a  letter  of  weariness. 

Q.  That  is  your  judgment,  is  iti  A.  That  is  my  judg- 
ment. 

Q.  Do  you  discover  any  difference  between  the  hand- 
writing, anything  radicating  more  feebleness,  or  illness, 
in  the  one  than  in  the  other  i  [Handing  another  letter  to 
Witness.]  A.  Oh,  I  do— oh,  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  last  one  I  handed  to  you  is  Exhibit  No.  12  ? 
A.  Exhibit  No.  12  the  last  one ;  Exhibit  No.  5  or  6,  the 
other. 

Mr.  PuUerton— I  desire  the  jury  to  look  at  these  two 
specimens  of  handwriting  and  compare  them.  [Mr. 
Fullerton  here  handed  the  papers  to  the  foreman  of  the 
jury,  and  they  were  passed  from  hand  to  hand,  and  the 
jurors  spent  some  moments  iu  inspecting  and  comparing 
them.] 

Q.  Were  you  informed  at  that  time  that  the  attending 
physician  had  ceased  to  visit  her  on  that  day,  for  the 
reason  that  she  was  convalescent  ?  A.  No,  Sir, 

Q.  You  did  not  know  that  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

THE  EETRACTION  NOT  DICTATED. 

Q.  Did  you  suggest  any  part  of  that  letter  ? 
A.  No,  Sir ;  only  the  general  suggestion  that  she  ought  to 
give  me  something  that  should  be  an  effectual  retraction. 

Q.  When  she  wrote  the  first  part  of  it  did  she  pass  it 
over  to  you  to  read  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  think  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  upon  that  subject?  A.  According  to 
my  best  recollection  she  did  not. 

Q.  How  certain  are  you  of  that.  Mi.  Beecher  1  A.  Suf- 
ficiently certain  to  say  that,  accordtag  to  my  best  recol- 
lection, she  did  not.  I  remember— I  remember  nothing 
of  the  kind,  and  I  remember  some  things  that  are  incon- 
sistent with  it. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  that  you  were  made  aware  of  the 
contents  of  that  letter  before  the  supplementary  part  of 


EOEBE  TBIAL. 

it  was  written,  either  by  reading  it  yourself  or  by  heanng 
her  read  it  to  you  t  A.  No,  I  do  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  positively  and  directly  that  you  did 
not  dictate  any  part  of  that  letter  t  A.  IwilL 

Q.  I  show  you  Exhibit  No.  1,  and  ask  you  when  the 
contents  of  that  paper  were  first  made  known  to  you  1  A. 
[Looking  at  the  paper.]  I  suppose  that  this  letter  was 
read  to  me  by  Mr.  Moulton  on  the  31st--the  evening  o< 
the  31st. 

Q.  On  the  evening  of  the  Slstl  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  That  is  the  evening  next  following  %  A.  Next  fol- 
lowing. 

Q.  Next  following  the  interview  between  you  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  *?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  I  will  read  it,  because  I  want  to  ask  you  some  que«> 
tions  in  regard  to  it.  ^ 

[Reading.]  "Saturday  morning.  My  dear  friendt 
Frank"— referring  to  Mr.  Moulton,  I  suppose! 

The  Witness— That  is  not  for  me  to  say,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  for  you  to  say  what  you  think 
about  it. 

The  Witness— I  presume  it  did.  Sir. 
Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  enough. 
The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Fullerton  [again  reading] : 

I  want  you  to  do  me  the  greatest  possible  favor.  My 
letter  which  you  have,  and  the  one  I  gave  Mr.  Beecher, 
at  his  dictation  last  evening,  ought  both  to  be  destroyed. 
Please  bring  both  to  me,  and  I  wiU  burn  them.  Show 
this  note  to  Theodore  and  Mr.  Beecher,  They  will  see  the 
propriety  of  this  request.  Yours  truly,     E.  E.  Tilton. 

Now,  after  readmg  that  letter,  I  ask  you  whether  it 
refreshes  your  recollection  upon  the  subject  as  to  whether 
you  did  dictate  the  letter,  as  therein  declared  by  Mr  s. 
Tilton?  A.  It  does  not  refresh  my  recollection  at  all;  I 
know  that  I  did  not  dictate  it. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  observation  to  Mr.  Moulton  when 
he  read  that  letter  to  you,  in  regard  to  that  allegation! 
A.  I  do  not  recollect  making  any  statement  to  him  about 
that  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  regard  that  as  an  imputation  upon 
you— I  mean  the  charge  that  you  had  dictated  the  letter, 
as  contained  la  this  note  from  Mrs.  TUton  %  A.  Yes,  Sir; 
I  considered  the  word  as  a  very  suspicious  word. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  defend  yourself  to  Mr.  Moulton  at 
that  time  1  A.  I  did  not.  Sir, 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
Mrs.  Tilton  expressed  a  willingness  to  retract  the  charge 
if  you  did  not  use  it  to  the  tiyury  of  her  husband!  A.  I 
understood  it  so.  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  promised  not  to  so  use  it !  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you,  iu  consequence  of  that  promise,  conclude 
that  you  would  not  show  it  to  her  husband!  A.  I  cannot 
say  that. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  mean  when  you  obtatued  It  to  show  it 
to  him  1  A.  I  do  not  now  recaU  that  I  did ;  that  i«  a  line 
of  thought  that  is  now  first  suggested  to  me. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HEX. 
Q.  Wen,  70U  did  not  show  it  to  bim  tliat  niglit.  A.  Oli, 

AO. 

Q,  You  did  not  make  known  the  fact  to  Mm,  in  any 
way,  that  you  had  it  1  A.  No  ;  I  did  not  interchange  any 
further  conversation  with  him  that  night,  nor  do  I  recol- 
lect to  hare  seen  him,  even. 

Q.  Nor  did  you  the  next  day,  did  yout  A.  ISo,  Sir. 

Q.  When  you  left  Theodore  Tllton,  howeyer,  to  go  to 
Mrs.  Tilt  on,  you  were  under  the  Impression  that  he  might 
■beUere  the  charge  ?  A  That  if  hls  wif  e  had  made  such  j 
•tatements  to  him  really,  he  might  believe  the  charge.  | 

Q.  Well,  you  were  informed  by  her  that  she  had  made 
guch  statement-s !  A  I  was, 

Q,  And  yet  you  did  not  go  to  the  husband  to  disabuse 
his  mind  in  regard  to  those  charges  1   A.  2^0, 1  did  not. 

Q.  You  were  willing,  then,  to  put  tiiac  rerracrion  of 
Mrs.  Tilt  on  in  your  pocket  and  keep  it,  and  leavt-  the 
husband  in  ignoranc-e  of  the  fact  that  you  Mel  been  vin- 
dicated against  that  charge  ?  A.  is'ot  at  all.  Sir ;  I  wa> 
perfectly  willing  to  put  that  retraction  in  my  pocket,  and 
leave  the  husband  to  find  out  the  retraction  where  he 
found  out  the  charge.   [Murmurs  of  applause.] 

Q.  Ye.s.  You  were  willing,  then,  that  he  shoiild  rest 
under  the  idea  or  in  the  belief  that  you  had  committed 
this  offense,  were  you  %  A  No ;  I  was  not  willing  that  he 
should  do  so,  nor  did  I  think  that  he  would  do  it. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  think  after  you  left  Mrs.  Tilton, 
that  the  charge  was  made  in  good  faith,  did  you !  A.  I 
thought  that  whatever  might  have  been  the  circum- 
stances of  the  making  erf  the  charge,  all  that  had  tran- 
spired in  my  interview  with  Mrs.  Tilton  would  be  known 
to  him,  and  that  I  need  not  

Q.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  question,  Mr.  Beecher. 
When  you  left  the  presence  of  Mrs.  Tilton  with  the  re- 
traction in  your  hands,  did  you  then  believe  that  Theo- 
dore Tilton  had  made  the  charge  against  you  in  good 
faith  t  A  I  don't  suppose.  Sir,  that  I  had  that  thought 
In  my  mind  in  any  form. 

Q.  I>id  you  believe  that  she  was  wearied  with  importu- 
nity to  make  the  charge  !  A  I  did  not  know  what  to  11  - 
lieve. 

Q.  She  told  you  so  1  A  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  believe  her?  A  I  didn't  know  what  to 
believe,  Sir.  A  woman  that  had  made  the  charge,  and 
taken  it  back,  both,  lay  before  me,  and  I  didn't  knov^ 
•what  to  believe. 

Q.  She  was  ill,  was  she  not  ?  A.  She  was  ill 

Q  Didn't  she  tell  you  the  circumstances  attending  the 
fignlng  of  that  paper  which  she  had  given  to  her  hus- 
band, implicating  youl  A.  She  said  she  had  given  it  as 
the  result  of  persistent  persuasion,  and  that  she  had  given 
It,  and  that  it  was  not  true ;  and  she  then  reti'acte4.  it ; 
and  lay  before  me  as  a  person  capable  of  saying  first  the 
one  thing  and  then  the  other. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  regard,  then,  the  importunity  to 
▼hioh  she  had  been  anhjected  ai  an  exoose  for  'vziting 


RY   WARD   BEECHEB.  83 

this  paper,  although  untrue!  A  No;  11  Mr.  Tilton 

had  reason  to  suppose  that  there  was  something  wrong,  I 
might  object  to  the  mode  of  the  importunity ;  but  he  had 
the  right  to  guestion  his  wife  until  he  ascertained  what 
the  facta  were. 

Q.  Then  you  stiO.  thought  that,  probably,  he  believed  In 
the  charge,  did  you !  A.  I  do  not  think  that  Mr.  Tilton's 
state  of  mind,  and  his  special  belief  on  this  and  that  and 
the  other  suggestion,  came  into  my  mind  at  aU. 

Q.  And  you  had  no  desire  to  vindicate  yourself,  so  far 
as  he  was  concerned !   A.  Not  then. 

Q.  Nor  the  next  day?  A.  Well,  I  cant  say  whirt 
thoughts  passed  through  my  mind  the  next  day. 

Q.  You  did  not  act  upon  any  such  desire,  did  you!  A. 
No,  Sir;  I  did  not  have  any  interview  with  him,  nor  seek 
any. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  expressed  a  desire 
to  Mrs.  TUton  that  she  should  give  you  a  retraction  in 
writing,  inasmuch  as  the  charge  was  made  in  writing ! 
A.  Yes,  I  understood  so ;  I  will  not  be  perfectly  certain 
on  that  point;  I  understood  that  the  charge  had  been 
made  in  writing,  but  I  was— I  ^as  un  

Q.  I  am  asfcine  what  you  said  to  3Irs.  Tilton !  A.  Yes; 
I  think  that  I  said  that,  but  I  will  not  be  positive  that 
gave  lic-r  that  as  the  reason  of  making  it  in  writing. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say,  a  moment  ago,  that  you  said  to 
Mrs.  Tilton  that  you  wanted  that  retraction  in  writing, 
inasmuch  as  the  charge  was  in  writing  I  A.  Yes,  Sir  :  I 
said  that  I  made  that  general  statement,  or  that  state- 
ment in  substance.  I  now  correct  it  so  far  as  to  say  that 
while  it  is  my  impression  that  I  did,  I  am  not  positive. 

Q.  Before  the  writing  of  tliis  letter  by  Mrs.  Tilton,  on 
The  night  of  December  30,  the  retraction,  I  understand 
vou  to  say  that  she  had  explicitly  denied  the  charges 
^hich  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  against  you  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir — 
at  least,  I  charged  her  that  she  knew  that  they  were  not 
true,  and  she  admitted  it. 

Q.  Well,  you  regarded  that  as  a  full  denial  on  her  part 
didn't  youl  A.  Well,  I  regarded  it  as  a  denial  that  she 
had  made  those  chai'ges— I  mean  that  she  considered 
that  those  charges  which  she  had  made  were  true. 

WHAT    ME.   BEECHEE   THOUGHT   OF  THE 
CHAEGES. 

Q.  Yes,  and  she  afterward  put  the  denial  in 
^vl•iting,  as  appears  by  this  letter  1  A.  She  did. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  appears  by  the  letter.  The  letter 
-peaks  for  itself. 

Ml-.  Fullerton— Yes.  [To  the  Witness.]  Now,  Mr. 
Beecher,  up  to  that  time — up  to  the  time  of  the  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Tilton  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house — ^had  you  been 
made  aware  in  anj-  way  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  an  undue 
affection  for  youl  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  you,  from  any  cause  whatever,  ever  suspected 
such  a  thing!  A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  What  Mr.  Tilton  said  to  700*  then,  on  the  night  of  th^ 


84  THE  TILTON-P. 

SOtli,  upon  that  subject,  was  the  first  intimation  you  had 
everreceived  from  any  quarter  whatever,  that  such  was  the 
lact?  A.  I  think  it  was.  I  do  not  recall  any  other  hint 
or  intimation. 

Q.  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  was  the  only— the  first  man, 
and,  up  to  the  time  when  this  retraction  was  made,  the 
only  person,  who  had  ever  declared  that  such  a  thing  was 
a  faetl  A.  The  only  person  that  I  recall— that  is,  imdue 
affection. 

Q.  And  Mrs.  Tilton  had  denied  it  orally  and  in  writing 
to  you  1  A.  She  had. 

Q.  Did  you  believe  it  after  that  1  A.  I  have  stated  to 
you  alieady  that  I  was  more  in  a  state  of  perplexity  than 
of  helief. 

Q.  No,  no;  don't  get  us  all  into  a  state  of  perplexity  by 
a  wrong  answer.  [Laughter.]  Will  you  be  kind  enough 
to  state  whether,  after  the  denial  of  Mrs.  Tilton  of  the 
allegation  that  her  affections  had  been  transferred  to  you, 
you  then  believed  it  ?  A.  That  I  believed  that  she  had 
made  the  charges?  I  don't  take  your  point,  quite,  Sir. 

Q.  No.  Did  you  believe  that  her  affections  had  been 
transferred  to  you  1  A.  I  say  again.  Sir,  that  I  was  not 
in  a  condition  

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment. 

The  Witness  [continuing]  ^to  believe  one  way  or  the 

other. 

Q.  Did  you  believe  it  ?  A.  I  state  again,  Sir,  that  I  was 
In  a  state  of  perplexity  and  not  of  belief. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether,  or  not,  you  did  believe  that 
her  affection  had  been  transferred  to  you  1 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  answered  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— He  has  not  answered  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Why  not  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Why  not  ?  Don't  ask  me,  or  I  shall  give 
an  answer  that  you  won't  relish.   He  has  not  answered. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  draw  the  witness's  attention  distinct- 
ly to  a  psychological  proposition  whether  he  had  a  be- 
lief, and  he  has  answered  very  distinctly  that  he  was 
then  in  a  state  of  perplexity  and  not  of  belief.  I  don't 
know  any  better  answer  that  can  be  made,  if  it  is  true. 

Judge  Nellson— It  is  an  answer  so  far  as  it  goes,  but  he 
can  state  whether  he  believed  it  or  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  a  very  perfect  answer,  because  the 
pressure  is  upon  the  formed  belief. 

Judge  Nellson— Upon  the  existence  of  the  belief. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  the  existence  of  a  formed  belief. 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  whether  that  belief  did  or  did  not 
exist,  I  propose,  Sir,  to  find  out  by  having  a  direct  answer 
to  my  question. 

Judge  Nellsoa— The  witness  c^m  answer,  Sir,  according 
to  his  best  recollection,  whether  he  believed  it  or  not. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Yes,  Sir.  [To  the  witness.]  Now,  Mr. 
Bcecher,  I  put  the  question  to  you  again.  After  Mrs. 
Tilton  had  denied  orally  to  you,  and  in  writing,  that  these 
charges— denied  the  truth  of  these  charges,  revoked  them 
all,  did  you  believe  that  she  had  transferred  her  affections 


^HJfJirdR  TRIAL. 

to  you !  A.  I  state  again  tc  you,  Sir,  that  my  mind  wa«^ 
not  in  a  state  of  couvicttor. 

Q.  WoU,  will  you  state  whether  you  believed  it  or  not  t 
A.  I  will  state  that  I  had  both  the  belief  and  theunbeUel^ 
and  that  I  fluctuated  from  the  one  to  the  other. 

Q.  Did  you  regard  the  fact  that  she  had  charged  yott 
with  making  improper  advances  as  an  evidence  of  her 
affection  1  A.  I  do  not  think  that  entered  into  my  con- 
sideration, Sir. 

Q.  Did  it  not  enter  into  your  consideration  whether  her 
conduct  in  charging  you  wlthimmoral practices,  a  charge 
which,  if  true,  would  work  your  ruin,  was  an  evidence  or 
not  that  her  affection  had  been  transferred  to  you  1  A.  It 
certainly  was  an  evidence ;  and  yet  I  was  not  yet  ap- 
prised of  all  the  facts ;  I  felt  there  was  more  to  come  out 
than  I  knew  that  night. 

Q.  You  had  not  enough,  then,  to  form  a  iudgment  up  to 
that  timei  A.  If  these  were  all  the  facts  I  had ;  if  thej 
were  not  all  the  facts  I  had  not. 

Q.  Then  you  suspended  your  judgment,  did  youl  A.  I 
suspended  my  judgment  so  far  as  u  final  judgment.  At 
times  I  thought  that  here  was  the  evidence  that  she  had 
done  it ;  at  other  times  I  revolted  against  it,  and  found 
myself  moved  from  that  conviction. 

Q.  Well,  you  hadn't  the  highest  regard  for  Theodore 
Tilton  up  to  that  time,  had  you  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  that  I 
had  tJie  highest  regard  for  him. 

Q.  And  as  between  him  and  his  wife,  which  did  you 
think  would  be  the  most  likely  to  tell  a  falsehood  f  A. 
[Emphatically]  He. 

Q.  You  had  a  high  regard  for  Mrs.  Tilton,  did  you  not  t 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  had  admired  her  Christian  character  up  to  that 
time?  A.  I  had. 

Q.  You  had  regarded  her  as  a  woman  of  truthfulness  In 
every  respect  ?  A.  I  had. 

Q.  Of  exalted  piety  ?  A.  I  had. 

Q.  And  purity  ?  A.  I  had. 

Q.  And  yet  you  tell  me  that  when  she  told  you  verbally, 
and  put  it  in  writing,  that  these  charges  were  false,  and 
that  she  was  importuned  to  make  them  when  she  was 
sick.  It  did  not  convince  you  that  they  were  untrue  ?  A. 
She  had  made  charges,  Mr.  Fullerton,  distinctly,  and  ad- 
mitted it  

Q.  One  moment,  Mr.  Beecher. 

The  Witness  [continuing]— And  she  now  took  them 
back. 

Q.  One  moment.  Don't  review  the  ground;  tell  me 
whether  all  these  clrcimistances  did  not  induce  the  belief 
in  your  mind  that  the  charge  which  Mr.  Tilton  had  made 
against  you,  that  you  had  won  his  wife's  aflfeotion,  was 
untrue?  A.  No— and  yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Let  it  stand  that  way. 

Q.  When  did  you  expect  to  get  further  evidence  upon 
that  subject?  A.  I  had  definite  expectation  as  to  time. 
Sir. 


TESTIMONY   OF  EEI 

Q.  Did  yon  expect  to  get  any  further  evidence  upon 
the  subject?  A.  I  did  not  belteve  tMnps  would  rest 
there. 

Q.  How  did  you  expect  to  use  tTie  :.*etractiou  and  not 
use  it  against  tlie  husband  who  had  made  the  lalae  charge  ? 
A.  I  had.  no  plan  whatever  except  in  a  possible  contin- 
gency which  I  stated  to  her. 

Q.  Didn't  you  think  Theodore  Tilton  had  some  object 
in  making  that  charge !  A.  I  presumed  he  had,  but  he 
disclosed  none  to  me. 

Q.  What  object  did  you  think  he  had  in  \'iew  in  making 
that  charge  1  A.  I  waited  to  see. 

Q.  Had  you  no  opinion  on  it  1  A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  Didn't  you,  on  the  theory  that  the  charge  wa«  un- 
true, beUeve  that  he  had  an  improper  and  a  wicked  object 
in  making  the  charge  ?  A.  I  cannot  assert  that,  Sir.  I 
waited  to  see  what  was  to  be  the  end  of  these  things. 
He  certainly  had  not  disclosed  a  line  of  procedure  to 
me. 

Q.  Well,  after  you  went  away  that  night  with  the  re- 
traction in  your  pocket,  did  you  go  home  ?  A.  I  went 
fli"st  to  Mr.  Moulton's. 

Q.  And  from  there  did  you  go  home!  A.  I  went  home. 

Q.  You  considered  this  subject,  didn't  youl  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  consider  it  in  the  light  of  a  false 
charge,  known  to  be  so  by  Theodore  Tilton  1  A.  I  did 
not. 

Q.  Did  you  consider  it  as  a  charge  which  Mr.  Tilton  be- 
lie^'t  d  id  1  A.  Sometimes  I  did,  and  sometimes  I  did  not. 

Q.  Then  you  had  formed  no  opinion  about  it  at  that 
time  ?  A.  I  had  come  to  no  final  decision. 

ME.  BEECHER  EETUENS  TO  IVIE.  MOULTON'S. 

Q.  Now,  after  you  obtained  this  paper  you 
went  to  Mr.  Moulton's,  as  I  imderstand  you  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  go  to  Mr.  Moulton's  for  %  A.  At  his 

request. 

Q.  When  was  that  request  made  !  A.  When  he  left  me 
at  Mr.  Tilton's  door. 

Q.  In  what  form  did  he  make  the  request!  A.  As  near 
as  I  can  recollect,  he  said,  "  Will  you  step  in  when  you 

come  back?" 

Q.  And  what  did  you  reply?  A.  I  don't  remember ;  I 
presume  I  said  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  went  back  ?  A.  I  went  back. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you  again,  Mr.  Beecher,  when  you  re- 
turned to  the  house  of  Mr.  Moulton  with  that  retraction 
in  your  pocket,  did  you  not  suppose  that  Mr.  Moulton 
knew  of  the  natm-e  of  the  charge  which  Theodore  Tilton 
had  made  against  you?  A.  T  don't  think  I  thought  any- 
thing about  it,  Sir. 

Q.  You  didn't  give  the  subject  any  consideration?  A. 
I  don't  thmk  I  knew  anything  about  it ;  I  was  not  think- 
ixig  about  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  Were  you  not  thinking  of  the  only  man  who  prob- 
ably believed  in  these  charges     A.  No,  Sir,  I  was  not 


BT   WABD  B  EEC  BEE,  35 

Q.  You  had  no  desir  e,  then,  on  the  theory  that  Mr. 
Moulton  had  been  made  aware  of  these  gross  charges 
against  you,  to  viuui  :ate  yourself  in  his  mind  ?  A.  I  was 
not  aware  that  he  had  been  made  a  participant  of  any 
such  knowledge. 

Q.  Didn't  you  have  reason  to  believe,  as  you  then 
looked  upon  it?  A.  I  might  have  had  reason  to  believe, 
but  I  didn't  believe. 

Q.  You  didn't  argue  it  in  your  own  mind,  that  Theodore 
Tilton  had  probably  told  Mr.  Moulton  in  regard  to  it  ?  A. 
No,  Sii-,  I  did  not. 

Q.  That  Mr.  Tilton  told  Mr.  Moulton  of  all  this,  and  that 
Mr.  Moulton  believed  you  were  an  immoral  man,  and  you 
proceeded  to  vindicate  yourself  by  showing  him  Eliza- 
beth's retraction?  A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  You  were  willing,  then,  if  Mr.  Moulton  did  believe 
that  you  had  been  guilty  of  this  gross  charge,  that  he 
should  remain  in  that  belief,  so  far  as  you  were  con- 
cerned, were  you!  A.  So  far  as  Mr.  Moulton  was  con- 
cerned in  his  relations  to  it,  he  was  as  if  he  had  never 
keen  created.  I  neither  troubled  myself  to  think  what  he 
thought  of  it  or  what  he  knew  of  it. 

Q.  You  didn't  care  what  he  thought  of  it  ?  A.  That  ia 
another  question. 

Q.  Answer  another  question?  A.  If  I  had  supposed  he 
had  known  it,  I  shoiild  have  been  anxious  to  have 
learned  something  about  his  thoughts,  but  I  neither  knew 
what  he  knew,  nor  suspected  what  he  knew,  or  thought 
about  his  knowing  it. 

Q.  If  you  thought  of  his  knowing  it,  you  would  have 
showed  him  the  retraction  ?  A.  I  cannot  say.  That  ia  a 
hypothetical  case,  and  I  might  have  done  one  thing  or 
another. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  you  would  have  done  if  you 
thought  he  knew  of  it?  A.  I  cannot  say.  As  I  feel  now 
I  might  have  done  one  thing ;  as  I  felt  then  I  might  have 
done  another. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  what  I  think. 

The  Witness— I  am  sure  of  that.  [Laughter.] 

Judge  Neilson— Officer  Rogers,  you  will  have  to  see  to 
this  audience  somewhat.  This  is  very  unusual  just  at 
present. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  not  promise  Mrs.  Tilton  when 
you  obtained  that  retraction  that  yon  would  not  show  it 
to  her  husband.  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  What  was  the  exact  form  of  the  promise  that  you 
did  make  when  you  obtained  iti  A.  I  cannot  give  you 
the  exact  form. 

Q.  Give  us  the  substance  of  the  form!  A.  The  sub- 
stance of  the  form  was  a  response  to  her  objection  to  giv- 
ing any  paper  of  that  kind  clearing  me,  lest  it  might  be 
used  against  her  husband,  and  I  said  "  I  shall  not  use  it 
to  the  iniury  of  your  husband."  I  got  it  entirely  for  my 
own  self-defense,  in  case  at  any  future  time  this  matter 
of  these  charges  should  come  up,  and  it  should  be  in- 
fuired  into  by  my  church. 


86  TEE  TILION-B. 

Q.  Did  sli©  explain  that  that  paper  might  be  used  to 
the  injury  of  her  husband  %  A.  No,  Sir,  she  did  not  go  into 
It;  but  there  was  somethtug  about  it  that  I  did  not  under- 
stand, and  did  not  inquire  about. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  ask  her  why  that  paper  could  be 
nsedtotheiiyury  of  her  husband?  A.  Because  I  didn't 
think  it  meet,  imder  the  circumstances,  to  go  into  a  pro- 
longed investigation  with  that  woman  in  her  present 
state  of  feebleness. 

Q.  Did  you  have,  at  the  time,  in  your  own  mind,  any 
■way  in  which  that  paper  coald  be  used  to  the  injury  of 
her  husband  3  A.  I  do  not  reeoUect  that  I  had. 

Q.  And  you  told  her,  as  I  understand  you,  that  you 
wanted  it  for  your  own  self-defense  i  A.  In  a  contin- 
gency. 

Q,  What  contingency  1  A.  Should  it  ever  become  a 
matter  of  rumor  and  inq[uiry  among  my  people. 

Q.  Did  you  anticipate  that  it  might  become  a  rumor  % 
A.  I  didn't  know  what  might  happen. 

Q.  Or  a  subject  of  inquiry  among  your  people  ?  A.  I 
did  not ;  I  hoped  it  might  not,  but  if  it  should  

Q.  But  you  got  it  to  be  used  for  that  purpose,  if  the  con- 
tingency should  ever  happen  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  for  no  other  purpose  %  A.  For  no  other  purpose. 

Q.  And  you  thought  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  it 
for  that  purpose  1  A.  I  thought  it  certainly  would. 

Q.  I  show  you  now  Exhibit  No.  6,  known  as  the  "  Mid- 
night Letter,"  and  I  ask  you  when  you  first  became  ac- 
quainted with  the  existence  of  that  letter  ?  A.  I  cannot 
teU  you,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  no  recollection  upon  the  subject  ?  A.  I 
have  none.  Sir,  of  seeing  the  letter. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  didn't  ask  you  that,  Mr.  Beecher. 

The  Witness— I  beg  your  pardon.  What  was  the  ques- 
tion? 

Q.  My  question  is,  when  you  first  became  acquainted 
that  such  a  document  was  in  existence  ?  A.  Well,  Sir, 
that  a  doouBient  was  in  existence  I  knew  on  the  next 
night,  but  that  ii  -  ,cs  this  document  I  did  not  know  until 
I  had  seen  it.  I  could  not  know  unless  I  had  seen  it. 

Q.  How  did  you  learn  of  its  existence  the  next  night ; 
that  is,  the  night  of  the  31st  1  A.  I  cannot  say  that  I 
knew  of  the  existence  of  this  document.  I  knew  from  Mr. 
Mouiton  of  the  existence  of  a  document  of  substantially 
Uke  contents. 

THE  INTERYIEW  OF  DECEMBER  31. 

Q.  And  where  were  you  and  Mr.  Mouiton  when 
you  learned  that  fact  1  A.  At  my  house. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  evening  of  the  Slstl  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  what  occurred 
on  the  evening  of  the  Slst  between  you  and  Mr.  Moui- 
ton! A.  Mr.  Mouiton  came  to  my  house  about  7  o'clock 
again,  I  should  think,  or  a  little  after,  perhaps.  We  went 
to  my  bed-room— the  second  story  back  room.  He  stood 
-with  his  overcoat  on  by  the  bureau,  on  one  side,  and » 


ECHEE  TRIAL. 

stood  by  the  bureau  on  the  other.  He  said  that  he  was 
the  bearer  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Tilton,  which  he  would 
read  to  me.   He  then  read  a  letter  purporting  to  toe  from 

Mr.  Tilton,  reciting  

Mr.  Fullerton— Just  one  moment.  WeU,  go  on  with  the 
narrative. 

The  Witness— Reciting  an  alleged— or  stating  he  f  oimd, 
on  returning  home  the  evening  before,  from  his  wife  the 
nature  of  my  interview,  and  its  results,  with  her ;  and  I 
think  that  in  that  letter,  also,  were  some  of  the  state- 
ments that  are  in  tliis;  I  wiU  not  be  positive  of  that;  I 
will  not  be  certain  that  some  part  of  this  was  not  read; 
I  took  neither  of  the  papers  into  my  hand. 

Q.  You  mean  the  letter  in  your  hand?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  I 
took  neither— no  paper  that  he  had  with  him  then  was  in 
my  hand,  and  upon  the  reading  of  that  Mr.  Mouiton  said 
that  he  thought  my  conduct  last  night  was  not  either  dis- 
creet or  very  honorable,  in  substance;  that  I  had  no 
right  to  go  down  and  obtain  the  paper  or  retraction  that 
I  had.  I  think  he  asked  me  beforehand,  however, 
whether  I  had  obtained  a  retraction,  and  I  said  I  had, 
and  he  said  he  didn't  think  I  had  acted  discreetly  or 
wisely  in  that  matter,  not,  at  any  rate,  if  my  odSice  was 
pacification  and  reconciliation  ;  that  he  thought  it  had  a 
tendency,  on  the  contrary,  to  make  the  misunderstand- 
ings wider  and  the  feeling  severer,  in  substance  that.  I 
argued  the  point  with  him  on  the  ground  that  I  thought 
that  I  had  a  perfect  right  to  defend  myself  by  obtaining 
such  a  retraction  as  that.  He  said  that  he  thought  that 
it  was  taking  an  unfair  advantage,  and  I  said  I  thought 
an  unfair  advantage  had  been  taken  of  me, 
and  there  was  a  considerable  interchange  be- 
tween us  on  those  points;  I  aflu-med,  and  he 
dissented  in  the  matter.  I  asked  him— I  think  it  was 
then,  after  this  preliminary  talk,  that  he  drew  a  letter 
from  his  pocket  purporting  to  be  one  from  Elizabeth,  and 
read  it  to  me,  iu  which  she  requested  that  the  retraction 
shoTild  be  sent  back,  and  I  think  it  was  in  that  connection 
that  he  said  a  retraction  obtained  under  such  circum- 
stances, if  it  was  retained  it  would  be  an  act  of  menace, 
especially  upon  the  call  for  it  of  this  woman.  We  pro- 
ceeded with  some  further  remarks ;  I  cannot  give  them 
in  detail  at  this  present  moment,  but  I  said  to  him,  I 
know,  in  the  course  of  the  conversation :  "  What  shall  I 
do?  Suppose  those  charges  are  renewed,  or  brought  up." 
He  says :  "  You  let  me  have  the  retraction  and  I  will 
take  the  charges  and  the  retraction ;  I  wlU  either  bum 
them  in  your  presence,  or  I  will  defend  them.  They  shall 
go  together." 

Q.  Well  1  A.  I  do  not  give  his  language,  only  the  sub- 
stance of  what  was  said.  We  talked  some  few  moments 
more,  going  over  the  ground  again  and  again, 
and  I  concluded  to  let  him  have  the  retraction. 
He  represented  that  he  was  friendly  to  us  both ;  that  he 
desired  that  these  matters  should  be  settled  amicably,' 
^nd  that  I  might  rely  upon  it,  if  I  was  amenable  to  rea 


TBSTIMOHY  OF  Em 

•on,  that  I  shoTild  liare  his  friendsliip  and  Ids  best  oflScee 
In  preventing  any  mischief  from  coming  from  affairs  as 
they  had  progressed  thus  far ;  I  went  to  the  drawer  where 
I  kept  my  private  papers,  a  id  took  the  retraction  and 
brought  it  hack  and  gave  it  to  him ;  we  then  had  some 
farther  conversation,  and  soon  after  that  he  withdrew. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  you  think  this  letter,  or  a 
p8Tt  of  it,  was  read  to  you  1  A.  I  am  under  that  impres- 
sion ;  I  cannot  affirm  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  read  it : 

December  30, 1870— Midnight. 
My  Dear  Husband  :  I  desire  to  leave  with  you,  liefore 
going  to  sleep,  a  statement  that  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
called  upon  me  this  evening,  asked  me  if  I  would  de- 
lend  him  against  any  accusation  in  a  council  of  ministers. 

Did  you  ask  her  such  a  question  as  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  I  read  on : 

I  replied  solemnly  that  I  would,  in  case  the  accuser  was 
any  other  than  my  husband. 
Did  she  so  reply  to  you  1   A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  I  read  further  : 

He  (H.  W.  B.)  dictated  a  letter,  which  I  copied  as  my 
own,  to  be  used  by  him  as  against  any  other  accuser  ex- 
cept my  husband. 

Did  you  promise  that  you  would  only  \ise  that  against 
any  accuser  other  than  her  husband?  A.  No,  Sir;  I 
didn't  promise  to  use  it  as  against  anything  but  an  in- 
quiry among  my  own  friends  of  the  church. 

Q.  [Reading:] 

This  letter  was  designed  to  vindicate  Mr.  Beecher 
against  ail  other  persons  save  only  yourself. 

Was  that  expressed  by  her,  or  by  you,  in  that  conversa- 
tion?  A.  I  think  not.  Sir. 

Q.  [Beading.] 

I  was  ready  to  give  him  this  letter,  because  he  said, 
■with  pain,  that  niy  letter  in  your  hands,  addressed  to 
Mm,  dated  December  29,  "had  struck  him  dead  and 
ended  his  usefulness." 

Did  you  say  that  to  her !  A.  I  did  not. 
Q.  [Reading.] 

You  and  I  both  are  pledged  to  do  our  best  to  avoid 
publicity.  God  giant  a  speedy  end  to  all  further  anx- 
ieties. Affectionately,  Elizabeth. 

I  ask  you  again,  Mr.  Beecher,  whether  that  letter  was 
read  to  you  that  night,  or  its  contents  made  known  to 
you  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  that  it  was ;  I  have  an  impression 
that  some  part  of  it  was,  but  I  cannot  aflirm  it  more  than 
to  a  degree. 

Q.  Did  you  expect  the  caU  from  Mr.  Moulton  that 
night  ?  A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  I  did  or  did  not. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  went  up  stairs  Into 
your  bed-room  1  A.  We  did. 

Q.  And  I  believe  yon  closed  the  door !  A.  We  did. 

Q.  Why  did  you  go  to  your  bed-room  t  A.  It  was  the 
most  convenient  room  to  go  to. 

Q.  Did  you  usually  take  visitors  there  !  A.  Often. 

Q.  Did  you  usually  do  it  I  A.  Usually  took  them  in  the 
parlor. 


BY   WARD  BBEOBEB,  37 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  hold  this  interview  with  Mr.  Mool- 

ton  in  the  parlor  %  A.  Because  it  would  be  more  conve- 
nient to  hold  it  in  the  bed-room,  and  I  wished  it  to  be 
private. 

Q.  You  didn't  wish,  then,  any  one  to  know  what  that  In- 
terview was  to  be  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  You  did  not  know  what  it  was  to  be  t  A.  No,  Sir ;  I 

supposed  it  to  be  on  this  general  subject. 

Q.  Had  you  any  intimation  before  you  came  away  that 
he  was  coming  at  all  1  A.  I  don't  remember  that  I  had. 

Q.  Well,  I  understand  you  to  say  that  he  told  you  it  was 
not  honorable  for  you  to  get  a  retraction  as  you  got  thatt 
A.  In  some  part  of  the  conversation  I  remember  that  he 
made  that  allegation. 

Q.  Was  your  only  reply  that  you  thought  it  was  honora- 
ble? A.  I  discussed  with  him  the  right  of  my  having  a 
shield  against  such  a  charge. 

Q.  WeU,  upon  the  theory  that  the  charge  was  false  and 
that  you  were  innocent,  did  you  think  it  Avas  a  subject  for 
discussion?  A.  Innocence  had  nothing  to  do  with  it;  if 
the  charge  was  made  public,  and  was  believed  by  the 
public,  innocence  would  not  be  any  defense  to  me. 

Q.  Did  you  think  the  retraction  woidd  be  a  defense  to 
you  ?  A.  I  thought  it  certainly  laid  the  foundation  for  a 
proper  defense.  ' 

Q.  WeU,  he  said,  also,  that  to  give  it  up  would  piomote 
the  object  which  you  had  in  view,  namely,  a  reconcili- 
ation between  you  and  Mr,  Tilton.   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Evarts— He  didn't  say  that. 
Mr.  Fullerton — ^Yes ;  Mr.  Beecher  says  it. 
Mr.  Beach — He  says  so  now. 

Q.  Was  not  your  object  to  get  a  reconciliation?  A.  1^ 
object  was  to  have  peace. 

Q.  And  \ou  would  get  that  through  reconciliation, would 
you  not?  A.  Oh!  I  would  naturallj-  expect  it.  I  don't 
imdertake  to  say  I  then  thought  I  could  get  peace  through 
reconciliation.  That  is  a  modem  question,  and  it  didn't 
come  up  in  that  shape  in  my  mind  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  then  think  you  were  to  be  reconciled  to 
Theodore  Tilton?  A.  If  he  was  reconciled  to  me;  if  there 
was  a  reconciliation  it  would  have  to  be  on  both  sides. 

Q.  And,  in  order  to  get  a  reconciliation,  yon  gave  up 
the  retraction  ?  A.  In  order  to  get  a  reconciliation  through 
the  kind  offices— a  better  understanding  and  a  settlement 
of  all  misvmderstandings  through  Mr.  Moulton,  I  expected 
to  have  a  reconciliation. 

MR.  BEECHER  INTRUSTS  HIMSELF  TO  MB. 
MOULTON. 

Q.  Did  you  think  that  Theodore  Tilton  had  any 
just  cause  for  anger  because  you  had  obtained  this  re- 
traction? A.  I  didn't  think  that  he  had  a  just  cause  of 
anger  from  my  obtaining  that  retraction. 

Q.  Well,  then,  in  what  way  were  you  to  be  reconciled, 
you  two  gentlemen  1  A.  Through  the  kindly  offices  9i. 


38 


TEE   TILTON-BEFjGREB  TRIAL. 


Mr.  Moulton  bringing  us  together  and  having  explana- 
tions. 

Q.  And  80  you  gave  up  the  retraction  in  order  that  you* 
might  he  brought  together  and  have  explanations,  did 
you?  A.  No ;  I  gave  up  the  retraction  upon  persuasions 
to  that  eflfect,  namely,  that  that  would  be  better  accom- 
plished—a mutual  understanding  and  reconciliation— 
than  it  would  for  me  to  keep  the  retraction  and  leave  Mr. 
TUton  in  a  repugnant  and  excited  state  of  mind. 

Q.  In  what  sense  did  you  expect  to  have  a  reconcilia- 
tion, or  desire  a  reconciliation,  on  the  theory  that  the 
charge  was  false,  and  that  Theodore  Tilton  Imew  it  to  be 
false  1  A.  Ah !  I  knew  it  to  be  false. 

Q.  Well  1  A.  I  didn't  say  that  Theodore  Tilton  knew  it 
to  be  false. 

Q.  Before  giving  up  your  defense,  why  didn't  you  as- 
certam  something  about  that  and  investigate  iti  A. 
There  were  various  interviews  in  which  it  could  be 
come  at. 

Q.  I  ask  you  why  you  didn't  come  at  it  in  one  of  those 
various  interviews  ?  A.  Because  I  thought  I  could  do 
better. 

Q.  To  give  up  yom*  defense  to  Theodore  Tilton  1  A.  To 
give  up  the  whole  difficulty,  so  that  there  should  be  no 
need  of  a  defense, 

Q.  Would  you  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  if  it  were  a  false 
charge,  and  if  he  knew  it  to  be  false  1  A.  If  he  thought 
it  were  a  true  charge,  and  should  renew  it,  there  might 
be  difficulty. 

Q.  Did  you  not  contemplate  that  condition  of  things  as 
possible  1  A.  No,  I  don't  think  I  did ;  I  certainly  didn't 
think  the  whole  ease  through. 

Q.  Didn't  you  think  it  probable  that  he  would  renew 
the  charges  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  thought  that ; 
I  have  no  distinct  recollection  of  that.  I  did  think  that 
Mr.  Moulton  was  in  possession  of  the  ground,  and  with 
the  knowledge  that  I  had,  and  on  his  assurance  that  the 
matter  could  be  amicably  adjusted  through  his  kind 
offices,  I  did  nothing  to  continue  the  irritation  of  Mr. 
TUton. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beeoher,  Mr.  Moulton,  you  say,  was  a 
friend  of  Mr.  Tilton's  ?  A.  I  imderstood  so. 

Q.  And  an  intimate  friend  of  his  1  A.  I  understood  so. 

Q.  You  knew  he  represented  Mr.  Tilton  in  this  dif- 
ficulty 1  A.  I  understood  it  so. 

Q.  And  came  to  you  for  the  purpose  of  getting  you  to 
go  to  Mr.  Moultou's  house  ?  A.  I  understood  so. 

Q.  And  that  he  afterward  came  to  you  and  got  that  re- 
traction 1  A.  I  understood  that.  Sir. 

Q.  And  yet  you  were  willing  to  trust  your  defense  into 
the  hands  of  that  probable  enemy,  the  man  who  had 
brought  the  charges  against  you  ?  A.  He  was  not  my 
probable  enemy. 

Q.  Theodore  Tilton  was  not  your  probable  enemy  1  A. 
Mr.  Moulton  was  not  my  probable  enemy. 

Q.  I  aay  you  were  willing  to  trust  this  defense  of  yours 


into  the  hands  of  your  probable  enemy,  Theodore  Til- 
ton 1  A.  Mr.  Moulton  pledged  himself  on  his  honor  that 
that  should  remain  in  his  care  and  keeping  ;  the  one  with 
the  other. 

Q.  Or  destroyed  i  A.  Or  destroyed,  if  I  preferred. 

Q.  You  were  willing  to  give  it  up  to  the  friend  of  Theo- 
dore Tilton  t  A.  I  was  willing  to  give  it  up  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton under  the  persuasions  that  he  offered  to  me. 

Q.  Were  you  induced  to  give  up  this  retraction  in  con- 
sequence of  what  Elizabeth  said  in  this  note  that  you 
refer  to  1  A.  I  deferred  to  her  wish  in  that  matter  to  a 
considerable  extent. 

Q.  Very  well,  now,  when  you  deferred  to  the  wish  of 
the  woman  who  had  made  this  charge  against  you  in 
writing,  did  you  suppose  that  she  had  made  it  under 
coercion,  or  did  you  suppose  that  she  had  made  it  volun- 
tarily? A.  I  don't  recollect  that  that  train  of  thought 
passed  through  my  mind. 

Q.  Well,  wouldn't  you  probably  have  deterjnined  that 

question  in  your  own  mind  before  you         A.  I  hardly 

think  

Q.  One  moment— before  you  gratified  her  desire  in  that 
respect,  namely,  to  give  up  your  defense  ?  A.  Will  you 
be  kind  enough  to  state  the  question  again  ?  I  interrupted 
it,  so  that  the  connection  is  lost  in  my  naind. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  request  of  Mrs. 
Tilton,  in  this  letter  which  was  read  to  you,  that  you 
should  give  up  this  retraction,  had  something  to  do  with 
your  conclusion  to  give  it  up  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Very  well;  now  when  you  gave  it  up,  I  want  to 
know  whether  you  regarded  Mrs.  Tilton  as  haviag  made 
this  charge  against  you  under  coercion,  or  whether  you 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  she  made  it  voluntarily  ?  A. 
Well,  there  was  a  case  again.  Sir,  of  very  divided  judg- 
ment. 

Q.  Then  I  ask  you  this  question;  in  that  divided  judg- 
ment, why  didn't  you  ascertain  something  in  regard  to 
the  good  faith  of  Mrs.  Tilton— learn  whether  she  had 
acted  voluntarily  or  under  coercion  and  duress,  before 
you  gratified  her  wish  in  giving  up  that  which  was  to  de- 
fend you  against  the  world  ?  A.  A  woman  who  had  made 
a  charge  against  

Q.  No,  I  ask  why  you  did  not?  A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  You  don't  know;  weU,  that  is  satisfactory.  Sir. 
Moulton,  T  understand  you,  was  to  stand  between  you 
and  harm  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  harm  did  you  anticipate,  that  he  might  ward 
off?  A.  The  harm  of  being  charged  by  an  indignant  hus- 
band with  offering  improper  advances  to  his  wife,  with 
her  written  charge  at  his  back. 

Q.  You  thought  it  would  be  just  as  well  to  give  this  re- 
traction to  Mr.  Moulton,  for  him  to  keep,  as  to 
keep  it  yourself?  A.  I  thought  that  he  would  keep  It 
with  the  charge,  and  that,  as  a  gentleman  of  hon  )r 
pledged  to  me,  and  I  supposed  him  to  be  a  gontleraau  of 
honor,  and  of  high  honor,  I  considered  it  just  as  safe  ia 


TESTIMONY  OF  HENEF   WARD  BJ^JECUBB, 


89 


Ills  hands  as  it  would  be  in  mine,  and  lie  swore  that  they 
should  stand  together,  the  one  and  the  other. 

Q.  That  was  done  before  you  gave  it  to  him,  I  believe  1 
A.  That  was  done,  I  think,  before  I  gave  it  to  him,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  gave  it  to  him  although  you  thought  this 
charge  might  be  renewed  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  anticipated  then,  as  I  understand  you,  that  at 
some  future  day  Theodore  Tilton  might  renew  these 
charges  against  you  when  you  gave  up  the  retraction  1 
A.  I  don't  think  that  it  took  on  that  definite  form ;  I 
thought  that  trouble  might  come  from  the  knowledge  of 
such  a  charge  having  been  made ;  but  I  do  not  know  that 
I  definitely  thought  it  would  come  through  that  or  any 
other  channeL 

Q,  Let  me  read  to  you.  Do  you  remember  this  [read- 
ing]: 

Moreover,  from  the  anger  and  fury  of  Mr.  Tilton,  I  ap- 
prehended that  this  charge  was  made  by  him—"  as  made 
by  him,"  it  should  be,  of  course— and  supported  by  the 
accusation  of  his  wife,  was  to  be  publicly  pressed  against 
me ;  and  if  it  was,  I  had  nothing  but  my  simple  word  of 
denial  to  interpose  against  it. 

Do  yovi  remember  that  ?    A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  it,  and  see  if— [handing  a  book  to 
witness]— did  you  not  say  that  when  accounting  for  the 
condition  in  which  you  were  on  the  31st  December,  1870, 
and  the  Ist  of  January,  18711  A.  Very  likely;  but  I 
do  not  recall  it  now.  Sir ;  till  I  refresh  my  memory. 

Q.  Well,  refresh.  A.  [After  looking  at  the  book.]  I 
presume  that  this  is  so.  Sir. 

Q.  Is  it  true,  then,  that  anticipating  that  your  enemy 
might  renew  his  attack  you  gave  up  your  shield  of  de- 
fense! A.  This  is  

Q.  And  gave  it  up  for  that  reason  ?  A.  This  is .  an  ac- 
count, Sir— purports  to  be  an  account  of  my  feeling  the 
next  day. 

Q.  On  the  1st  of  January  %  A.  On  the  1st  of  January. 
Q.  The  next  day  ?  A.  The  next  day ;  yes. 
Q.  Well,  so  I  understand  it.    A.  Yes;  I  thought  you 
were  speaking  still  of  the  31st. 

"WHY  MR.  BEECHER  TRUSTED  MR.  MOULTOK 
Q.  Well,  I  ask  you  again,  Mr.  Beecher, 
■whether,  regarding  it  as  probable—  I  will  say,  even  an- 
ticipating on  your  part  that  the  charge  might  be  re- 
newed, did  you  consent  to  give  up  your  defense  !  A.  I 
consented  to  change  my  mode  of  defense,  and  to  have 
that  document  kept  by  a  faithful  friend,  on  his  word  of 
lionor,  to  be  used  if  ever  it  should  be  necessary,  so  that  I 
•bould  have  the  document  and  the  friend  also. 

Q.  And  you  chose  the  intimate  personal  friend  of  Mr. 
Tilton,  one  with  whom  you  had  a  very  slight  acquaint- 
ance, to  be  the  custodian  of  those  papers!  A.  I  chose  a 
gentleman  of— a  member  of  one  of  the  best  firms  in  the 
City  of  New- York,  whom  I  had  seen  on  several  occasions, 
and  believed  to  be  a  very  cultivated  literary  man,  as  well 
rhieRs  man,  whose  wife  was  a  member  of  my  church, 


and  whom  I  thought  to  be  a  good  man,  true  and  hon»r> 
able. 

Q.  You  did  not  then  suppose,  did  you,  that  he  knew  of 
the  nature  of  the  charge  against  you  1  A.  I  don't  suppose 
that  I  had  any  thought  about  that. 

Q.  Didn't  you  regard  it  as  impoiliant  to  ascertain 
whether  Mr.  Moulton  at  that  time  did  understand  the 
nature  of  the  charge !  A.  Whether  I  thought  it  im- 
portant or  not,  we  did  not  go  into  that  subject. 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton  was  not  a  member  of  your  church  t 
A.  He  was  not. 

Q.  Well,  why  didn't  you  select  some  other  person,  dome 
more  intimate  friend,  some  member  of  yom'  church,  to 
be  the  custodian  of  that  paper  ?  A.  I  did  not  select  any- 
body—I did  not  select  anybody. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  deposit  it  in  the  hands,  then,  of 
some  other  person  with  whom  you  were  more  acquainted  1 
A.  He  was  the  person  that  presented  himself  to  me  and 
seemed  to  me  as  fit  as  any  person  that  I  could  have 
selected. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  had  you  at  that  time  come  to  any 
conclusion  as  to  how  much  Mr.  Moulton  knew  in  regard 
to  the  nature  of  the  charges  which  Mr,  Tilton  had  pre- 
ferred against  you !  A.  I  did  not  know  how  much  he 
knew;  the  very  correspondence  that  he  brought  showed 
that  he  must  have  had  some  knowledge  of  it,  but  I  did 
not  ask  him  what  his— the  degree  of  his  knowledge  or 
the  history  of  it  were. 

Q.  Did  you  rest  vmder  the  impression  that  Mr.  Moulton 
believed  the  charge  which  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  against 
you?  A.  I  don't  recall  that  matter. 

Q.  Well,  Mr,  Moulton,  you  say,  was  a  very  worthy  and 
respectable  gentleman"  and  a  member  of  one  of  the 
largest  firms  in  Brooklyn  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  in  New- York. 

Q.  Did  you  not  think  it  of  some  consequence  that  yon 
should  vindicate  yourself  in  his  mind  if  he  were  ac- 
quainted with  those  gross  charges  against  you?  A.  I 
did  not. 

Q,  Well,  why  didn't  you  ask  him— why  didn't  you  say, 
"Mr.  Moulton,  do  you  know  about  this  business, 
and  what  do  you  believe  in  regard  to  myself,"  so  that  you 
might  vindicate  yourself?  A.  I  did  not  do  it ;  what  were 
the  special  reasons  acting  at  that  time  which  led  me  not 
to  do  it  I  cannot  recall. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  anxious,  of  course,  to  secure  and  en 
joy  his  good  opinion,  were  you  not  ?  A.  I  had  the  same 
anxiety  that  I  have  as  toward  you.  I  prefer  your  good 
opinion  to  your  bad,  and  I  would  his,  but  in  this  matter 
he  presented  himself  to  me  

Q,  Well,  I  understand  that,  I  know  he  presented  him- 
self. 

Mr,  Evarts— It  is  a  question  of  general  reasoning  in  the 
witness's  mind  why  he  did  not  do  a  certain  thing.  Now, 
if  he  cannot  be  allowed  to  answer  

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  has  a  right  to  assign  the 
reason  called  for,  imdoubtedly. 


40 


THE  TILTON-BEEOHEB  TRIAL. 


Mr.  FuUerton— The  simple  question  was  whether  he  was 
not  anxious  to  have  Mr.  Moulton's  good  opinion. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  are  not  inquiring  as  to  any  external 
Hact  at  all,  hut  are  trying  to  get  at  the  operations  of  his 
mind. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  then  where  the  witness  tries  to  give 
fhem  the  operations,  or  the  non-operations,  or  whatever 
there  was  in  the  matter  in  his  mind,  why,  they  say  that  it 
l8  not  an  answer  to  the  question.  His  mind  does  not 
operate  as  the  cross-examiner's  mind  operates.  Every 
man's  mind  operates  its  own  way,  and  you  must  deter- 
mine, before  you  undertake  to  fathom  a  man's  mental 
operations,  whether  you  will  take  his  answer  or  not. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  have  determined  that,  and  I 
have  got  his  answer,  and  don't  want  anything  more.  I 
bave  got  everything  that  is  an  answer  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Evarts  is  not  reasoning  from  the  ques- 
tion put  to  the  witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  his  difficulty  with  that  discus- 
ilon. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  will  take  care  of  my  difficulty.  Your  dif- 
ficulty is  the  precise  inquiry  put  to  the  witness— one  I  say 
the  witness  has  a  right  to  answer. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  say  I  do  not  interrupt  a  proper 
answer. 

Mr.  Eviirts— It  is  a  question  of  fact. 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  my  word  goes  as  far  upon  that 
Question  of  fact  as  anybody  else's. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  has  a  right  to  state  any- 
thing that  is  in  any  degree  responsive  to  the  question. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Certainly  he  has,  hut  he  has  no  right  to 
go  Into  a  long  discourse  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  question  of  length  has  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  You  have  asked  him  the  operations  of  his  mind ; 
if  it  takes  half  an  hour  to  give  them  you  must  take  them. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  asked  him  whether  he  was  not 
anxiovis  to  secure  and  enjoy  the  good  opinion  of  Mr. 
Moulton ;  that  is  a  simple  question,  and  neither  the  elo- 
guence  of  the  witness  nor  of  his  counsel  can  change  the 
nature  of  the  question,  nor  of  a  proper  answer. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  a  very  pointed  question. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir,  and  it  admits  of  yes  or  no; 
there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  you  say  it  has  been  answered  suf- 
ficiently. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  has  toeen  answered  sufficiently. 
Mr.  Evarts— Well,  but  you  stopped  him. 
Mr.  Fullerton— I  did  stop  him,  certainly ;  I  stopped  him 
"When  he  got  through. 
Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  no. 

Mr.  FuUerton— And  I  hope  to  have  even  success  with 
you. 

Mr.  Evarts— People  stop  themeelves  when  they  get 
through.  [Laughter.] 


I  Mr.  FuUerton— No,  there  are  some  people  who  dont 
stop  Avhen  they  get  through. 

The  Witness— Mr.  Fullerton,  wiU  you  be  kind  enough  to 
call  for  the  reading  of  my  answer  ? 

Mr.  FuUerton— Yes,  Sir ;  Mr.  Reporter,  the  witness  de- 
sires you  to  read  the  answer. 

Mr.  Beach— Read  the  question  and  answer. 

[Last  question  and  answer  read  by  the  Tribune  stan- 
ographer.J 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  commence 
a  new  topic,  Mr.  Fullerton.  [It  being  near  the  hour  of 
recess.] 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir,  inasmuch  as  we  haven't  got 
through  with  the  old  one. 
The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. Mr.  Beecher  was  recaUed,  and  his  croBs-examin»> 
tion  resumed. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Mr.  Beecher,  after  you  got  this  retrac- 
tion from  Mrs.  TUton,  did  you  show  it  to  any  one  before 
you  deUvered  it  up  to  Mr.  Moulton  1  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  any  person  upon  the  subject  of 
the  charge,  and  what  had  subsequently  occurred  in  refer- 
ence to  it,  before  the  visit  of  Mr.  Moulton  on  the  night  <rf 
the  31st?  A.  I  did  not 


THE  FAMOUS  PISTOL  SCENE. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  now  to  an  incident 
that  occurred  at  the  interview  when  this  retraction  was 
given  up,  and  I  read  your  direct  cross-examination,  with 
a  view  to  asking  you  further  upon  the  subject. 

[Reading:] 

After  some  Uttle  further  parley  I  went  to  the  drawer 
where  the  letter  was,  brought  it  out,  and  handed  it  to 
him.  He  had  been  sweating,  and  had  his  overcoat  on, 
and  about  this  point,  perhaps,  as  I  came  back  with  the 
letter,  he  took  off  his  overcoat,  and  in  doing  so  I  saw  the 
hilt  oj:  a  pistol  in  the  pocket  which  he  took  out  and  laid 
on  the  bureau,  without  words,  as  I  remember,  and  put 
his  overcoat  on  the  foot  of  the  bed. 

Is  that  a  correct  representation  of  that  part  of  the  in- 
terview ?  A.  I  wUl  not  affirm  it  to  be  absolutely ;  that  is 
my  present  recollection,  although  not  a  positive  one. 

Q.  It  is  as  you  recoUect  it  now  ?  A.  As  I  now  recall  . 
the  scene  that  is  about  the  order  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  pistol  yourself  ?  A.  I  saw  the  hUt 
of  it  first,  and  then  afterward  he  drew  it  out  and  laid  it 
upon  the  bureau. 

Q.  You  stiU  do  not  answer  the  question,  Mr.  Beecher. 
A.  I  did  not  understand  it,  then. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  pistol  ?  A.  I  saw  the  pistol. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  whole  of  it  ?   A.  When  he  laid  it  on 
the  bureau  I  saw  the  whole  of  it. 

Q.  He  was  in  a  profuse  perspiration,  was  he  not  ?  A.  I 
could  not  say  that ;  lie  secmeil  to  be  very  warm,  audi 


TESTIMONY  OF  EENRT    WARD  BEEOREB. 


41 


saw  x>er8piration  upoii  his  brow,  but  I  cannot  say 
whether  it  was  profuse  or  sparse. 

Q.  Did  you  think  he  removed  hifi  overcoat  on  aocount 
of  his  condition  as  to  heat!  A.  I  don't  know  whether  I 
did  or  not. 

Q.  Well,  what  do  you  think  nowt  A.  Well,  I  presume 
he  did. 

Q.  He  laid  it  on  the  foot  of  the  bed,  did  he  !  A.  He  laid 
it  on  the  bed. 

Q.  Then  he  sat  down  and  talked  with  you  some  con- 
siderable time,  did  he  not  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  how  long  did  he  talk  ?  A.  He  stood  up  and 
continued  talking;  I  don't  know,  it  might  have  been  five 
minutes,  possibly  ten;  not,  I  should  think,  more  than 
than  that. 

Q.  Did  you  think  it  extraordinary  or  noticeable  at  all, 
that  he  took  his  overcoat  off,  under  the  circumstances  ?  A. 
I  did  not  think  it  extraordinary  nor  noticeable,  in  the  or- 
dinary sense  of  that  term ;  I  noticed  it  or  I  should  not 
have  remembered  it. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  think  it  at  all  extraordinary  that  he 
should  remove  a  pistol  from  his  pocket  before  taking  the 
overcoat  off?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  cannot  say  that  I  did. 

Q.  He  did  noj  say  a  word  about  the  pistol  when  he  took 
it  out?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  He  made  no  threat  ?  A.  No  threat. 

Q.  Nor  did  he  make  any  gesture  whieh  indicated  that 
he  was  going  to  use  it  in  a  hostile  manner?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nor  did  you  think  that  he  used  it  for  the  purpose  of 
Intimidation  or  coercion  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not  think  so. 
Q.  Did  not  think  so  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  think  so  at  the  time,  and  you  do  not 
think  so  now,  do  you  1  A.  I  do  not  think  now  that  I 
thought  so  at  the  time. 

Q.  Well,  you  do  not  think  now  that  you  think  so  now, 
do  you?  A.  Excuse  me. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  about  it  now  ?  A.  That  he  meant 
to  intimidate  me? 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  A.  I  presume— I  think  he  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  regard,  then,  the  presentation  of  a 
pistol  to  your  view  in  any  hostile  light  upon  his  part  ? 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  recollect  heretofore  of  making  a  statement  in 
regard  to  that  part  of  the  interview,  I  suppose,  Mr. 
Beecher.  A.  I  recollect  of  making  a  statement  before  the 
CJommittee. 

Q.  See  tf  this  recalls  to  your  recoUeotion  what  that 
statement  was.  [Reading.] 

He  made  no  verbal  threats,  but  he  opened  his  overcoat, 
and,  with  some  emphatic  remark,  showed  a  pistol,  which 
afterward  he  took  out  and  laid  on  the  bureau  near  which 
he  stood.  I  gave  the  paper  to  him,  and  after  a  few 
moments'  talk  he  left. 

Do  you  reooUect  making  that  statement?  A.  I  don't 
recollect  making  it ;  I  presume  I  did. 
Q.  Well,  when  you  did  make  it,  didn't  you  intend  to 


have  it  inferred  that  that  pistol  was  used  for  some  pur- 
poses ot  intimidation  ?  A.  I  intended  to  express  in 
that  paper  precisely  what  at  that  time— what  remem- 
brance I  had  at  that  time  of  that  scene,  and  that  port 
of  it. 

Q.  That  is  no  answer  to  my  question,  Mr.  Beecher.  I 
am  speaking  now  of  a  question  of  interest.  Didn't  you 
intend  when  making  the  statement  which  I  have  Just 
read  to  you,  to  have  it  inferred,  at  least,  that  that  pistol 
w^s  taken  out  by  Mr.  Moulton  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
fluencing your  action  with  reference  to  the  retraction! 
A.  I  do  not  recall  that  T  did. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  making  this  statement,  re- 
ferring to  that  scene,  preceding  what  I  have  just  read, 
namely : 

He  was  under  great  excitement.  He  made  no  yerlMd 
threats,  but  he  opened  his  overcoat  and  with  some  em- 
phatic remarks  showed  a  pistol,  which  afterward  he 
took  out  and  laid  on  the  bureau,  near  which  he  stood. 

A.  I  do  not  remember  making  it ;  I  presume,  if  it  If 
printed  there  as  a  part  of  my  statement,  that  it  is,  8Ul>- 
stantially  as  I  made  it. 

Q.  And  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  did  not  make 
it,  then,  with  a  view  of  having  the  inference  drawn  that 
the  pistol  had  anything  to  do  with  the  return  of  the  paper! 
A.  So  far  as  I  can  recg»llect,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Yon  did  not  intend  at  that  time,  or  suppose,  that 
such  an  inference  wcftild  be  drawn  ?  A.  I  don't  remem- 
ber that  I  did. 

Q.  Why  did  you  deem  it  necessary,  then,  to  introduce 
that  pistol  scene  into  the  nan-ative  ?  A.  In  order  that  I 
might  give,  as  near  as  I  could,  the  picture  that  rose  to 
my  memory. 

Q.  I  imderstand  you  now  to  say  that  the  pistol  was  not 
exhibited  at  all,  even  the  butt  of  it,  until  after  you  had 
agreed  to  give  up  the  paper— had  got  it  from  your  private 
drawer  or  desk,  or  whatever  it  was,  and  was  returning  to 
hand  it  to  him  ?  A.  That  is  my  impression  now,  although 
I  am  not,  as  I  stated  before,  positive  that  I  have  got  the 
order  just  right. 

Q.  This  was  on  Saturday  night,  If  I  recollect  right,  Mr. 
Beecher?  A.  Saturday  night. 

Q.  Was  there  any  arrangement  that  you  should  see  Mr. 
Moulton  the  following  day  ?  A.  I  think  there  was.  Sir. 

Q.  Who  suggested  it !  A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Well,  what  object  had  you  iu  meeting  him  the  next 
day  ?  A.  I  say  I  don't  recollect.  I  only  know  that  the 
next  day  I  was  in  a  state  of  expectancy,  so  that  I  reason 
that  there  must  have  been  the  arrangement  the  night 
before,  but  I  do  not  remember  any  arrangement  making 
the  night  before. 

Q.  Well,  you  would  not  expect  him  unless  the  arrange* 
ment  had  been  made  ?  A.  No,  that  is  the  reason  I  saj 
that  I  think  an  arrangement  had  been. 

Q.  And  you  don't  know  what  object  was  to  be  aooom- 
plished  by  the  meeting  the  next  day  f  A.  I  do  not  recall 


43 


TUB  TILTON-BJ^EOHBB  IBIAL. 


Q.  Tou  don't  recall  what  was  to  toe  said  or  what  was  to 
be  done  t  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  what  wae  to  be  discussed!  A.  No  programme 
was  laid  out,  and  no  plan  suggested  that  I  recall,  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  was  the  hour  fixed  for  the  meeting  the  next 
day!  A.  I  recollect  expecting  him  in  the  afternoon;  that 
is  the  nearest  that  I  can  come  to  It. 

Q.  Well,  don't  you  think,  then,  that  an  hour  had  heeai 
appointed  in  the  afternoon?  A.  I  presume  that  there 
had  been  a  period,  perhaps  not  a  particular  hour,  but  to 
be  after  dinner  and  afternoon. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  on  Sunday,  was  it  not  t  A.  It  was  on 
Sunday. 

Q.  But  it  was  not  connected  with  any  religious  exercise 
that  he  came  there?  A.  Oh,  no,  Sir;  we  had  no  prayer, 
or  any  singing  gof  any  kind ;  it  was  entirely  a  conference 
—a  friendly  conference. 

THE  INTERVIEW  OF  JAN.  1. 
Q.  Well,  do  you  UBually  hold  friendly  con- 
ferences on  Sunday  of  that  character  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  oh, 
no.  Sir ;  I  very  seldom  hold  sttch  friendly  conferences  on 
any  day. 

Q.  The  reason  why  I  ask  you  the  question  is  to  know 
whether  the  object  of  that  meeting  then  would  not  be 
Impressed  upon  yoxir  memory  so  that  you  could  tell  us 
what  it  was  1  A.  No  ;  I  do  not  think  that  it  did.  Simday 
afternoons,  you  know,  are  my  leisure  afternoons  for  rest- 
ing. I  preach  only  morning  and  night,  and  seldom  T  am 
occupied  in  the  afternoon,  which  would  make  It  verj 
natural  that  if  there  was  to  be  an  appointment  the  next 
day,  it  should  follow  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Was  it  not  agreed  between  you  and  Mr.  Moulton  on 
the  night  of  the  31st,  when  you  separated,  that  he  should 
call  upon  you  the  following  Sunday  afternoon  and  report 
to  you  how  Tilton  received  the  return  of  that  retraction  ? 
A.  Very  likely,  but  I  have  no  remembrance  of  it  what- 
ever. 

Q.  Have  you  no  impression  upon  the  subject?  A. 
None,  except  that  it  springs  from  reasoning. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  recollect  what  time  he  arrived  there  on 
the  1st  ?  A.  Yes  ;  about  3  o'clock. 

Q.  And  where  did  your  interview  take  place  ?  A.  fn 
the  study,  third  story  back  room, 

Q.  In  the  presence  of  any  one  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  said  and  done  during  that  interview,  Mr. 
Beecher !  A.  Well,  Mr.  Fullerton,  I  shall  be  obliged  to 
say  again  as  I  said  before,  that,  in  many  respects,  the 
order  and  altogether  the  language  is  gone  from  me ;  I 
have  a  general  sense  of  the  order  of  the  topics,  but  I  will 
give  you  as  well  as  I  can  the  substance  of  the  conversa- 
tion that  took  place,  if  you  wish,  continuously;  or  shall  I 
follow  your  questions  1 

Q.  T^ell,  teU  us  how  the  conversation  opened.  A.  As 
nearly  as  I  can  recollect,  after  the  uaual  courtesies,  and 
some  few  words,  Mr.  Moulton  spoke  to  me  of.  the  wisdom 


of  my— that  the  wisdom  of  his  suggestions  the  night 
before  had  been  shown  by  the  way  in  which  Mr.  Tilton 
received  the  account  from  him,  and  also  the  retraction— 
or  an  account  of  the  retraction;  I  thtok  that  opened  it, 
and  it  passed  on,  but  by  what  stages,  I  can»ot  recall  now, 
to  the  discussion  of  Mr.  TUton's  position,  the  very  great 
reasons  that  he  had  for  excitement,  and  seA'^erity  even,  and 
that  he  was  suffering  unjustly  all  round ;  that  was  the 
impression  that  I  have  of  the  opening,  and  that  naturally- 
led  us  to  talk  of  Mr,  Bowen,  and  of  his  rela- 
tions to  Mr.  Bowen,  and  then  of  my  relationa 
to  Mr.  Bowen  in  regard  to  the  business  matter;  and  that 
led  me  to  give  a  description  to  him  of  the  interview  with 
Mr.  Bowen  on  the  26th,  if  that  was  the  date,  of  which  he 
was  very  particular,  and  wanted  the  interview  in  detail, 
and  I  undertook  to  give  it  to  him,  and  he  then  said  that 
Bowen  had  played  traitor  to  both  sides,  that  he  was  my 
enemy  and  that  he  was  his  enemy,  and  that  I  had  been 
misled,  and  I  had  done  very  great  wrong  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  especially  in  receiving  from  Mr,  Bowen  any  tales  or 
stories  respecting  Mr.  Tilton's  moral  character.  He  told 
me  that  he  had  been  his  schoolmate,  that  he  had  known 
him  from  childhood  therefore ;  he  spoke  with  very  great 
positiveness  and  eflFectiveness  about  that. ,  He  mentioned, 
I  think,  that  there  had  been  a  discontinuance  for  a  short 
time  because  of  their  changed  business  relations,  but  it 
had  been  an  intimacy  resumed,  and  he  said  that  he  was — 
he  assured  me  with  the  strongest  asseverations  that 
neither  in  regard  to  intemperance,  nor  in  regard  to  im- 
maculate chastity,  was  Mr.  Tilton  subject  to  the  criti- 
cisms or  the  stories  that  had  been  told  upon  him,  that 
they  were  base  slanders  and  outrages  upon  him;  and  he 
spoke  with  a  good  deal  of  feeling  on  the  subject,  and  I 
spoke  with  a  good  deal  of  feeling  on  the  subject.  He  re- 
ferred to  the  stories  that  had  been  circulated  about  ma 
by  Mr.  Bowen,  as  I  knew,  and  my  feeling,  when  conscious 
of  being  innocent,  at  having  such  tales  reported  about 
me,  and  how  much  more  in  the  case  of  a  man  like  Mr 
Tilton,  and  in  his  present  circumstances,  when  he 
had  been  stricken  off  from  his  profession,  and  in  a 
manner  that  left  a  stain  on  his  reputation,  and  was  now 
without  occupation,  and  without  means  of  subsistence, 
and  who  also  found  great  distress  in  his  household— not 
that  relief  which  a  man  might  in  times  of  distress  exi>eot 
in  his*  own  family.  He  went  into  some  special  statements 
in  regard  to  some  of  the  persons  whose  names  had  been 
mentioned.  He  told  me  that  he  had  personal  knowledge 
ol  the  falsity  of  some  of  those  stories,  and— I  will  not  say 
personal  knowledge,  but  that  he  of  his  own  self  knew 
that  they  were  false.  Well,  this  occupation  ran  through, 
I  should  think,  in  various  phases  and  forms— ran  through 
an  hour,  and  I  became  convinced,  if  I  had  not  been 

already,  that  I  had  joined  hands  in  

Q.  That  is  not  a  part  of  the  question.  A.  I  beg  pardon* 
Well,  I  told  him  substantially  that— not  in  those  words— 
that  I  was  satisfied  .on  his  testimony  that  I  had  bee* 


TESTIMONI  OF  HE^EZ   WARD  BEECEEB, 


greatly  misled ;  that  I  had  believed  those  stories  of  Mr. 
Bowen  I  admitted,  and  that  I  had  some  reason  for  be- 
lieving them,  because  I  had  received  such  an  account 
from  Miss  Bessie  Turner,  and  certain  stories  from  Mrs. 
Morse  in  regard  to  them.  He  assured  me  that  the  stories 
were  false. 

Q.  Well,  -svere  you  accounting  for  the  advice  that  you 
gave  as  to  a  separation  then  ?  A.  I  was  accounting — I 
cannot  say  about  that,  because  I  am  not  giving  now  any- 
thing more  than  the  substance  of  the  narrative ;  but 
when  he  spoke  to  me  in  respect  to  my  readv  credence  of 
Mr.  Bowen's  tales  regarding  IVIr.  Tilton,  I  recollect  that  I 
partly  defended  myself,  or  rather  Reused  myself  some- 
what feebly  by  saying  that  I  had  been  prepared  to  hear 
from  him  such  things  by  the  relations  of  Bessie  Turner  ; 
and  I  told  him  what  Bessie  had  said,  and  also  many 
statements  that  at  times  had  been  made  imder  great  ex- 
citement by  Mrs.  Morse. 

Q.  Well,  you  felt  grieved  that  day,  I  understand  you,  at 
something  that  you  had  done  towards  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I 
think  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  explain  that  to  him  i  A,  Well,  I  did ; 
I  do  not  know  that  I  explained  it ;  I  poui-ed  it  over  him; 
I  gave  expression,  not  so  much  of  an  analysis  and  a  bill 
of  items,  of  statements;  as  the  conversation  went  on  and 
T  became  more  and  more  free  to  speak  and  let  my  feelings 
out,  I  did  pour  out  

Q.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Beecher,  the  information  that  you 
got  from  Mr.  Bowen— had  you  used  that  in  any  way,  to 
the  prejudice  of  Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  I  had  lent  my  ear  to  it, 
and  had  advised  Mr.  Bowen  that  I  thought  that  he  was  a 
tainted  man,  and  that  it  would  not  be  practicable  to  keep 
him  on  The  Independent. 

Q.  Yes  %  A.  And,  probably,  not  on  The  Brooklyn  Vnion. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  advise  in  regard  to  The  Independent, 
tn  reference  to  the  articles  which  he  had  written,  and 
which  you  yourself  had  seen,  or  which  you  knew  of  1  A.  I 
do  not  recall,  now,  I  may  have  made  some  allusion  to 
those. 

Q.  Didn't  you  advise  him  with  reference  to  TTie  Brook- 
lyn ZTnion  in  the  light  of  your  own  observation  for  a 
series  of  years  prior  to  that  interview  1  A.  Didn't  I 
advise  Sir.  Bowen! 

Q.  Yes  1  A.  You  ask  me  whether  I  stated  to  Mr.  Moul- 
tonthatlhad! 

Q.  Didn't  you  advise  Mr.  Bowen  in  reference  to  the 
continuation  of  :Mr.  Tilton's  services  upon  The  Brooklyn 
Union  in  view  of  the  idiosyncrasies  and  peculiarities  of 
Mr.  Tilton  which  you  had  made  personal  observation  of, 
for  several  years  prior  to  that  Interview!  A.  Pardon 
me ;  do  I  understand  you  to  ask  me  this  question  now,  in- 
dependent of  this  interview  of  Jan.  1 ;  or,  do  you  go  back 
to  that  interview  of  Mr.  Bowen's,  and  ask  me  as  a  part  of 
that  Interview ! 

Q.  Why,  you  didn't  advise  Mr.  Bowen  on  any  occasion 
except  Dec.  26! 


Mr.  Evarts— He  asks  a  proper  question. 
Judge  Neilson— He  goes  back  to  the  interview  with  Mir; 
Bowen. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  am  speaking  of  yotir  aclvice  to  Mr, 
Bowen,  which  took  place  on  the  26th.  I  ask  you  whether 
you  did  give  the  advice  with  reference  to  the  continuar 
tion  of  the  services  of  Mr.  Tilton  on  The  Brooklyn  Unions 
in  the  light  of  your  own  experience  and  observation  of 
Mr.  Tilton's  peculiarities  1  A.  Yes ;  in  the  light  of  his 
peculiarities,  not  of  doctrinal  statement,  and  not  of 
socialistic  statement,  but  in  the  light  of  my  experience  of 
him  as  a  manager,  and  especially  as  a  cooperative  wo*ker 
in  a  party,  or  in  a  cause. 

MR.  MOULTON  EXCUSES  ME.  TILTON'S 
FREAKS. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  that  is  an  answer  now  f  A« 

Yes,  I  am  thankf  uL 

Q.  How  !  A.  I  am  glad  that  at  last  I  understand  yon. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  glad  that  you  are  glad.  That  advice, 
then,  was  not  given  upon  the  strength  of  anything  that 
:Mr.  Bowen  told  you !  A.  It  followed  tn  the  conversa- 
tion. 

Q.  It  was  not  given  on  the  strength  of  anything  that 
Mr.  Bowen  told  you,  was  it !  A.  In  tegard  to  The  Brooh- 
lyn  Vnion  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  It  was  given  on  the  

Q.  Now  I  ask  you  a  simple  question.  A.  I  am  going  to 
give  you  the  answer. 

Q.  Not  an  answer  to  my  question.  The  question  ad- 
mits of  an  answer  "  yes"  or  " no." 

Mr.  Evarts— It  does  not  require  an  answer  "  yes**  or 
"no." 

INIr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  require  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  you  have  no  right  to. 

Fullerton— Well,  I  think  I  have. 
The  Witness— WiU  you  repeat  the  question,  then,  that  I 
may  see ! 

Q.  Wa-3  the  advice  that  you  gave  to  Mr.  Bowen  on  that 
occasion  in  reference  to  the  continuation  of  the  services 
of  Mr.  Tilton  in  The  Brooklyn  Vnion  predicated  of  any 
thing  that  Mr.  Bowen  told  you?  A.  Partly. 

Q.  Partly!  A.  Partly. 

Q.  Did  he  teU  you  anything  that  induced  you  to  believe 
that  he  would  breed  discord  in  the  party !  A.  No. 

Q.  Did  he  ten  you  anything  that  induced  you  to  believe 
that  he  could  not  follow  but  must  lead !  A.  No. 

Q.  Nothing  of  ,that  kind!  A.  Oh !  that  is  another  ques- 
tion ;  there  was  something  of  that  kind,  but  that  was  not 
it. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  what  you  told  Mr.  Bowen,  wasn't  it  1 
A.  I  told  Mr.  Bowen  my  own  telling,  but  the  groimds  oa 
which  I  told  it  you  are  asking  after. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  And  I  say  in  part  it  was  what  Mr.  Bowen 
told  me — tn  part  it  was  what  I  knew. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir ;  now,  then,  did  Mr.  Tilton  convince  yon. 


44  THE  TILTON-B 

BOtwitlistaiiding  your  own  observation  and  experience 
with  Mr.  TUton,  that  he  was  a  flt  editor  1  A.  Mr.  Tlltont 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton,  I  should  say.  A.  I  beg  pardon.  Will 
jrou  repeat  the  question  t 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Moulton  convince  you  on  the  Ist  of  January 
that  Mr.  Tilton  was  a  fit  person  to  he  at  the  head  of  TTce 
Brooklyn  Union,  notwithstanding  your  own  observation 
and  experience  in  that  regard  1  A.  He  convinced  me  in 
80  far  as  the  reasons  were  moral. 

Q.  Well,  what  moral  reasons  were  there  which  induced 
you  to  advise  Mr.  Bowen  that  he  should  not  or  ought  not 
to  remain  in  The  Brooklyn  Union  ?  A.  That  he  was  a 
tainted  man  in  his  moral  habits. 

Q.  You  gave  that  as  a  reason  why  he  should  not  remain 
In  TTie  Brooklyn  Union,  did  you  1  A.  That  was  a  part  of 
the  whole  conversation,  and  the  whole  conversation  re- 
lated to  both  papers,  and  it  was  not  divided  up,  chapter 
and  verse,  so  much  for  The  Independent  and  so  much  for 
The  Union, 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Moulton  convince  you  on  the  first  of  Jan- 
uary that  the  story  of  Bessie  Turner  was  untrue  T  A.  He 
told  me  that  it  was  absolutely  untrue. 

Q.  He  convinced  you  of  it,  did  hei  A.  I  was  satisfied 
that  I  had  made  a  mistake. 

Q.  Were  you  satisfied  that  It  was  untrue  1  A.  I  didn't 
believe  it  to  be  true. 

Q.  You  believed  that  Bessie  Turner  had  told  you  a 
falsehood,  then  1  A.  I  believed  just  what  Mr.  Moulton 
Baid. 

Q.  Did  you  believe  that  Bessie  Turner  had  told  you  a 
falsehood?  A.  No;  I  believed  that  she  had  told  me  a 
Belf-deception. 

Q.  Deceived?  A.  That  she  was  deceived. 

Q.  You  thought  that  she  might  have  been  deceived  in 

Baying  that  she  was  taken  up  out  of  her  bed  and   A. 

Precisely  what  

Q.  One  moment.  We  can't  talk  two  at  a  time.  You 
thought  she  was  deceived  in  saying  that  she  was  taken 
In  his  arms  and  carried  from  her  room  iato  his,  did  you  1 
A.  In  the  construction  that  she  put  upon  it. 

Q.  You  thought  she  was  deceived  in  saying  that  he 
said  to  her  that  the  expression  of  his  love,  as  he  desired 
to  express  it,  was  as  natural  as  kissing  or  caressing,  did 
you?  A.  I  was  satisfied  that  she  had  misapprehended  it. 

Q.  Altogether?  A.  Altogether. 

Q.  Were  you  satisfied  that  no  such  thing  occurred?  A. 
No ;  I  don't  know  that  I  went  into  it  to  that  extent. 

Q.  You  thought  It  might  have  occurred,  and  that 
Bessie  T'UTier  was  under  a  wrong  impression  about  it, 
did  you?  A.  Tf  there  was  some  foundation,  and  then  it 
was  denied  by  Mr.  Moulton  to  me  

Q.  Did  Mr.  Moulton  tell  you  that  he  was  present  when 
that  occirrred,  and  knew  about  it  personally?  A.  No;  I 
don't  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  How  did  he  tell  you  that  he  knew  anything  about 
Itl  A.  He  spoke  as  of  his  own  knowledge. 


JEECHEB  TBIAL. 

j    Q.  Then  you  thought  he  must  have  been  present,  didn*l 
you?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  tell  me  what  argument  Mr.  Moulton  made  use 
of  on  that  day  to  convince  you  that  the  story  of  that 
young  girl  was  false  1  A.  That  is  precisely  what  I  want 
to  do. 

Q.  Well,  then,  you  are  gratified?  A.  I  shall  be  if  I  do 
it  successfully ;  he  said  that  there  was  something  that 
happened  of  that  kind,  and  that  Bessie  Turmer  never— it 
would  not  have  entered  her  head  that  it  was  an  impro- 
priety if  it  had  not  been  for  Mrs.  Morse,  and  that  she  had 
pointed  out— given  a  motive  to  it  that  led  Bessie  Turner 
to  think  worse  of  it  than  she  would  if  she  had  been  left 
to  her  natural  inclination. 

Q.  He  told  you  that  ?  A.  That  is  what  he  told  me. 

Q.  And  that  you  believed?  A.  That  I  took  for  tb« 
truth. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  how  he  knew  that  %  A.  He  did  not. 
Q.  Didn't  you  ask  hitn  ?  A.  I  don't  recoUect  that  I  did, 
Q.  Were  not  you  anxious  to  find  out  the  basis  of  his 

judgment  ?  A.  I  was  anxious  to  have  him  excuse  Mr. 

TUton. 

Q.  Were  not  you  anxious  to  find  out  the  basis  of  his 
judgment  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

A.  And  therefore  you  asked  no  question  ?  A.  I  did  not 
ask  any  question. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  convince  you  that  Mr.  TUton  had  not 
abused  his  wife,  as  was  represented  by  Mrs.  Morse 
and  Mrs.  Tilton  on  the  14th  of  December,  if 
that  was  the  date  when  you  were  there  1  A.  As 
it  regards  that,  I  have  only  an  indistinct  recoUcction 
that  he  said  to  me  something  like  this— that  "as  it 
respects  Mr.  Tilton  he  is  a  man  of  moods,  a  man  of 
genius."  I  don't  know  that  he  used  that  word,  but  he 
aUuded  to  his  peculiar  mental  constitution,  that  he  was 
a  hasty  man,  and  that  in  moods  he  may  have  done  rude 
things,  or  improper  things,  but  there  never  was  a  tender- 
er-hearted man,  he  told  me,  in  this  world ;  that  his  wife 
could  lead  Mm  with  a  thread,  if  she  would  only  take  the 
right  way,  and  that  he  said  he  had  been  a  kind 
husband  and  a  kind  father  to  his  family,  and  a  good  pro- 
vider for  them— not  in  those  words,  but  that  was  th« 
asseveration,  in  the  most  unmistakable  form,  that  Mr. 
Tilton,  while  he  might  at  home  have  the  infelicities  that 
husbands  sometimes  have,  who  are,  nevertheless,  aiy 
counted  very  good  men — ^that  stiU  he  was  at  home  an 
exceUent,  kind  husband  and  father. 

Q.  And  you  believed  it  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  he  say  that  he  knew  that  from  personal  obsei^ 
vation  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  you  disbelieved  what  Mrs.  Morse  said,  and  Mrs. 
TUton  1  A.  I  did  not  bring  them  mto  comparison. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  consider  what  you  had  heard  from 
Mrs.  TUton  and  Mrs.  Morse  ?  A,  I  did  not  enter  into  a 
comparison  of  what  I  had  heard  before  with  what  I  tbea 
heard. 


TU8TIM0NI   OF  EE:^- 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  to  Mr.  Moulton,  in  yindicarlon  of  | 
yourself,  •■'  Wtxy,  I  v^as  sent  for  ;  I  went  to  tlie  liouse  and 
heard  tMs  3tory  from  the  lips  of  tlie  wife  herself  and  her 
motlier^"  A.  I  don't  recollect  using  any  aucli  words. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  give  >iim  any  information  at  all  , 
upon  the  subject  as  to  what  led  you  to  give  the  advice 
that  you  had  given  as  to  separation  ?  A.  I  merely  recol- 
lect giving  Mm  a  general  statement  of  the  advice  th.at  I 
liad  given,  but  not  in  an  argumentative  nor  in  a  rhetori- 
cal form. 

Q.  You  relied  upon  what  he  told  you  as  a  matter  of 
hearsay  rather  than  upon  what  Mrs.  Morse  and  :Mrs. 
Tilton  told  you  as  a  matter  of  observation  andespeiience  i  i 
A.  I  certainly  took  his  word  at  that  time  against  all  | 
comers, 

Q.  Yes,  very  welL  Xow.^Ir.  Beecher,  you  have  given 
us  what  Mr.  Moulton  said  in  vindieation  of  Mr.  Tilton 
upon  that  occasion.  Did  you  say  anything  at  that  time 
in  regard  toyom*  grievance — namely,  the  ao-usatlon— the 
false  accusation,  as  you  say  it  was,  that  was  brought 
against  you,  of  improper  advanaes  to  his  wife  ?  A.  I 
stated,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect,  that  the  charge  of  | 
alienating  Mrs.   i 

Q.  Xow,  just  drop  that,  if  you  please  ;  that  is  not  the 
point  of  my  question.  I  am  talMng  about  the  improper 
advances  that  had  been  charged-  Did  you  say  one  word 
to  Francis  D.  Moulton  on  that  day  about  tliat  subject! 
A.  I  denied  it. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  so  state  it  in  your  direct  examina- 
tion ?  A.  I  don't  know  why  I  did  not.   There  are  a  good 
many  things  in  my  direct  examination  that  I  did  not  i 
state.  i 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  know  how  they  got  there.  A.  I  mean 
there  are  a  great  many  things  in  this  history  that  I  C'.d 
not  state. 

Q.  In  what  connection  did  you  deny  the  charge  on  the 
first  day  of  January  1  A.  I  don't  know,  Sir,  what  con- 
nection ;  I  don't  know  the  connection  ;  it  came  up  in  the 
course  of  the  conversations. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  in  what  language  you  framed  that 
denial  ?  A.  So,  Sir. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  in  what  connection  in  that  conversa- 
tion you  made  the  denial  i  A.  No.  Sir. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  what  brought  forth  the  denial  from 
you  ?  A.  The  general  conversation  took  that  drift. 

Q-  You  told  him  then  that  the  charge  was  false,  did  : 
you  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  say  what  the  charge  was  ?  A.  I  do  not  re- 
member that  I  repeated  the  charge. 

Mr.  Beach  fto  Mr.  Fullertonl— Was  the  term  used— 
**  improper  advances  ?  " 

Mr.  Fullerton— Wae  the  term  "  improper  advances  " 
used  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  that  phrase  was  used.  I 

Q.  Was  the  term  "improper  solicitation,"  or  any  i 
Wndred  term,  used?  A.  The  term  of  impropriety  of  con-  I 


RY   WABB  BEEGBEB.  45 

duct  toward  Mrs.  Tilton— in  what  phraae  I  cannot  say; 

but  that  subject  was  conversed  about 
Q.  Between  you  and  himi  A.  Between  mo  and  him* 

mostly  by  me. 

THE  LETTER  OF  APOLOGY. 

Q.  Xow,  under  what  circumstances  was  there 
anything  put  in  writing  on  that  day?  A.  At  the  close  of 
our  interview,  or  toward  the  close,  perhaps  twenty  min- 
utes to  half  an  hour,  somewhere  along  there ;  I  cannot 
state  distinctly  how  long. 

Q.  How  did  it  occur  that  anything  was  put  in  writing t 
A.  It  occurred  In  consecLuence  of  the  strength  of  my  feel- 
ings of  sorrow  and  of  regret.  He  said,  on  hesiring  it,  that, 
if  Mr.  Tilton  could  see  what  he  saw,  or  could  know  how  I 
felt,  as  he  believed  I  did  feel,  it  would  remove  from 
his  mind  the  conviction  that  I  was  his  sinister 
but  his  real  enemy,  and  that  gave  rise  to  some  conversa- 
tion further.  I  on  that  suggestion  made  manifold  direo- 
tlons  to  the  contrary,  and  at  last,  on  the  result  of  that,  he 
said:  "  Why  won't  you  write  this  to  Mr.  Tilton  ?  It  will 
bring  all  this  mischief  to  an  end.  He  thinks  you  are  his 
enemy,  and  that  you  are  determined— that  you  are  injur- 
ing him."  I  said— I  hesitated  a  moment,  and  then  I  de- 
clined. He  itrged  me  again  that  it  would  he  a  very  use- 
ful thing  if  I  would  make  a  representation  to  Mr.  Tilton 
of  my  real  dispositions  and  of  the  things  that  I  had  said 
in  that  conversation  to  him  ;  and  finally  I  said  to  him, 
"  Well,  make  a  memorandum  yourself  of  them,"  and  he 
took  the  pen  and  sat  down  at  the  table  and  commenced 
making  a  memorandum. 

I  was  walking  to  and  fro,  and  he  occasionally  would  ask 
me,  when  I  was  speaking  rapidly  and  with  some  empha- 
sis—he would  say,  ••'  Did  you  say"  so  and  sol  or  "  Do  you 
say?"  or  something  to  that  effect,  and  I  would  check  my- 
self for  a  moment  to  make  some  reply— "Yes,"  or  "  sub- 
stantially that,"  or  something  like  that,  and  then  would 
repeat— repeated  one  thought  and  another  thought,  at- 
tempting to  go  over  in  my  mind,  somewhat,  the  points  of 
the  conversation  that  had  immediately  preceded  this, 
and  which  concerned  my  feelings  toward  Mr.  Tilton  and 
his  family;  that  was  the  last  part  of  the  interview  before 
the  reading  of  the  memorandum. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  in  the  commencement  that  you. 
would  give  it  to  him  in  confidence  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  in  trust!  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Moulton  write  these  words  of  his  own  to 
Ution,  at  the  head  of  this  letter,  "  In  trust  with  F.  D. 
Moulton  ?"  A.  I  know  nothing  about  it. 

Q.  It  was  not  suggested  by  you  !  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  That  it  should  be  in  trust !   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nor  did  you  think  he  was  going  to  take  it  la  trtist, 
did  you  ?  A.  I  don't  know  that  I  thought  anything  ahont 
that  at  that  ttme. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  gaidupon  tliat  subject  1  A.  Not 
that  IrecalL 


^  THE  TILTO^-B 

Q.  Well,  did  you  repeat  to  Mm  what  you  expected  lie 
would  take  down  t  A.  I  repeated  to  Wm  my  sentiments 
on  the  topics  that  I  thought  he  would  take  down. 

Q.  Your  sentiments?  A.  I  repeated  to  him  my  feel- 
ings and  sentiments. 

Q.  Did  you  not  expect  that  he  would  use  the  words 
that  you  employed  ?  A.  I  knew  he  could  not.  I  am  a 
hard  man  for  a  reporter  to  follow,  and  he  certainly  could 
not  follow  me  in  writing. 

Q.  "Well,  under  the  circumstances  in  which  this  letter 
was  written,  you  might  wait  for  him  to  put  it  down, 
prohably,  if  you  wanted  him  to  record  it.  Did  you  not 
want  him  to  record  your  sentiments  in  your  language  t 
A.  No,  I  did  not ;  that  is,  I  should  have  had  no  ohjection 
if  he  could  have  recorded  it  in  my  language,  hut  I  did  not 
expect  that  he  would  attempt  to  do  it,  more  than  to  catch 
a  figure  here  and  there,  or  some  phrase. 

Q.  Were  you  not  very  anxious  that  the  exact  state  of 
your  feelings  should  he  conveyed  to  Mr.  Tiiton  ?  A.  I  re- 
lied upon  Mr.  Moulton  to  convey  them. 

Q.  Answer  my  question.  A.  I  was  not  anxious  that 
any  phrase  or  any  figure  should  he  conveyed. 

Q.  Answer  my  question.  A.  But  that  my /eeJm^f  should 
be  conveyed,  I  was  glad. 

Q.  You  were  very  anxious  that  that  should  he  done  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  done  properly  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  with  a  view  to  that  end  you  said  what  you  did 
Bay  to  Mr.  Moulton  t  A.  That  was  the  whole  ohject  of  the 
conversation. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  examine  the  paper  to  see  whether 
he  had  done  well  what  he  had  undertaken  to  do  ?  A.  I 
relied  upon  him. 

Q.  Entirely?  A.  Entirely. 

Q.  Did  you  not  fear  that  he  might  have  said  something 
there  that  you  would  not  he  willing  to  father  ?  A.  Well, 
I  hadn't  said  it. 

Q.  Well,  he  was  to  repeat  it  to  Mr.  Tiiton  as  a  thrag 
that  you  had  said  ?  A.  He  was  to  make  a  representation 
to  Mr.  Tiiton  of  the  substance  of  this  interview.  He 
might  have  made  a  mistake  in  the  whole  interview,  hut 
I  took  it  that  he  was  a  man  of  discretion,  and  would 
make  a  fair  report  of  my  feelings,  with  such  specifica- 
tions as  seemed  proper  to  him. 

Q.  Were  you  aware  of  the  form  in  wliich  he  clothed  it  ? 
A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Were  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  it  was  put  in  the 
form  of  a  letter,  and  that  its  salutation  was,  "  My  Dear 
Friend  Moulton  ]"  A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  You  were  ignorant,  then,  of  the  form  in  which  he 
clothed  this  matter?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  like  this  ?  [Reading.] 

I  ask,  through  you,  Theodore  Tilton's  forgiveness,  and 
I  humble  myself  before  him  as  I  do  before  my  God. 
A.  I  did  not  use  that  expression,  Sir. 
Q.  Any  expression  of  that  character  1  A.  I  used,  gen- 


hUWER  TRIAL. 

erally,  a  statemenr  of  this  kind— that  I  had,  for  my  error 
and  wrong  in  the  matter,  humhlcd  myself  before  (Jod, 
and  I  should  not  be  ashamed  to  humble  myself  before 
Theodore  Tiiton. 

Q.  You  had  discovered  your  wrong,  then,  before  Mr. 
Moulton  came  there  on  that  day,  had  you?  A.  There  had 
been,  in  

Q.  Had  you?  Had  you?  A.  Not  in  its  full  extent. 

Q.  Had  you  discovered  it  ?    A.  I  had  suspected  a  part. 

Q.  Well,  you  say  you  had  humbled  yom^self  before  God, 
in  consequence  of  the  wrong  you  had  done  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir,  I  had.  I  had  seen  enough  of  it  to  be  very  humble 
about  it. 

Q.  When  had  you  made  the  discoverv  1  A.  In  the  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Moulton,  on  the  night  on  whicli  I  went 
to  Moulton's  house,  and  in  the  subsequent — in  the  con- 
versation, in  some  parts  of  it,  on  the  night  of  the  31st, 
and  in  those  

Q.  What  had  been  said  on  that  subject  on  the  night  when 
you  went  to  Mr.  Moulton's  house  1  A.  He  had  talked  to 
me  about  Mr.  Bowen,  Wd  the  wrong  that  he  had  done  to 
Mr.  TRton. 

Q.  You  were  not  humbling  yourself  before  God  in  be- 
half of  Mr.  Bowen,  were  you  ?  A.  My  connection  with  it — 
yes. 

Q.  What  connection  had  you  with  that  ?  A.  I  had  ad- ' 
vised  it. 

Q.  And  then  you  discovered  that  that  was  wrong  ?  A. 
He  told  me  that  the  whole  thing  was  false. 

Q.  And  you  believed  that  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  any  reason  for  saying  that  ?  A.  Oh, 
no,  not  that  I  recall ;  that  is,  he  gave  me  his  assevera- 
tions—as I  supposed,  an  impartial  person. 

Q.  And  you  came  to  that  conclusion  on  that  night  ?  A. 
I  came  to  more  or  less  of  a  conclusion  that  night  that 
I  had  got  wrong,  and  that  I  had  been  the  injurer  of  Mr, 
Tiiton. 

Q.  You  did  not  think  of  the  injury  inflicted  upon  you  in 
charging  you  with  this  immoral  conduct,  did  you  ?  A.  I 
don't  recollect  that  I  specially  brought  that  into  connec- 
tion with  the  injmy  done  by  me  to  Mr.  Tiiton,  through 
Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  I  am  speaking  of  the  injury  inflicted  upon  you  by 
Mr.  Tiiton  iu  making  this  charge  against  you. 
Mr.  Evarts— He  has  answered. 

A.  If  the  charge  was  a  correct  one,  he  had  not  injured 
me. 

Q.  Was  it  correct  to  charge  you  with  making  improper 
solicitatious  with  his  wife  ?  A.  If  he  had  the  evidence  of 
it,  or  thought  he  had,  there  was  no  impropriety  in  charg- 
ing it  upon  me. 

Q.  Well,  when  this  letter  was  written  on  the  Ist  of 
January,  had  you  made  up  your  mind  then  whether  that 
charge  was  made  in  fcood  faith  or  in  bad  faitb  t  A.  I  sup 
posed  that  


TESTIMONY  OF  WARD  BEECREB. 


47 


Q.  Had  you  made  up  your  mind  t  A.  I  was  proceeding 
to  tell  you,  Sir. 

Q.  Answer  my  question.  You  can  tell  me  whether  you 
had  made  up  your  mind,  by  simply  answering  yes  or  no. 
A.  But  it  Is  not  true  of  the  first  part  of  the  interview,  and 
It  is  true  of  the  last. 

Q.  I  don't  understand  your  answer.  A.  That  shows 
tjiat  I  could  not  answer  it  hy  yes  or  no.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  Well,  it  shows  also  that  you  have  not  answered  it 
yet,  A.  In  the  opening  of  the  conversation  my  mind  was 
inclined  to  thjnk  that  T  had  got  myself  in  a  very  had 
pl;;-.;,  and  that  I  had  done  great  injustice  to  Mr.  Tilton; 
an  i  as  tlie  conversation  went  on  and  I  received  from  Mr. 
Moulton  light  on  one  and  another  topic,  I  became  entirely 
satisfied  that  I  had  done  wrong  to  Mr.  Tilton,  a  

Q.  Now,  jNIt.  Beecher,  that  is  as  foreign  from  my  ques- 
tion as  anything  can  possibly  be.  A.  I  was  coming  to  it. 

Q.  Coming  to  it  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  "Well,  you  start  too  far  off.  [Laughter.]  I  ask  you 
whether  on  tne  1st  of  January,  at  the  time  of  this  inter- 
Tiew,  you  had  made  up  your  mind  whether  the  charge 
against  you  was  made  In  good  or  in  bad  faith  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  the  precise  point  of  the  answer 
that  has  been  given,  that  at  one  part  of  the  Interview  he 
had  not,  and  at  another  he  had. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  did  he  stop  there  1 

Mr.  Shearman— He  has  answered  it,  and  then  you  ask 
him  to  explain,  and  when  he  explains,  you  are  not  satis- 
fled. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  didn't  know  that  you  had  arrived, 
Brother  Shearman.  [Laughter.]  [To  the  witness.]  Now, 
will  you  answer  my  question,  whether,  on  the  1st  of 
January,  at  the  time  of  this  interview,  you  had  made  up 
your  mind  whether  the  charge  against  you  of  improper 
solicitations  (if  that  were  it)  was  made  in  good  or  in  bad 
faith  ?  A.  At  one  period  of  the  day  of  the  1st  of  January 
I  had. 

Q.  Had  what— made  up  your  mind  1  A.  Made  up  my 
mind. 

Q.  What  was  your  conclusion  ?  A.  My  conclusion  was 
that  Mr.  Tilton  had  reason  for  making  that  charge,  that 
he  had  evidence  of  it  from  his  wife  that  justified  him  in 
making  inquisition  and  accusing  me. 

Q.  Well,  at  what  period  of  the  day  did  you  come  to  that 
conclusion  ?  A.  I  was  proceeding  to  tell  you,  and  now  I 
shall  finish  what  I  would  have  finished  in  a  word  

Q.  Tell  me  the  period  of  the  day.  A.  I  think  it  must 
have  been  about  half-past  3 — or  half-past  4, 1  should  say ; 
it  was  near  the  close  of  the  interview. 

Q.  Did  you  maintain  that  opinion  throughout  the  whole 
day?  A.  No,  Sir;  in  the  morning  I  did  not  think  about  it 
so  much,  nor  the  afternoon,  but  I,  from  that  time  forth, 
Miought  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  had  reason  to  believe  that  I 
hnd  ncted  wrongly  toward  his  household. 

Q.  In  Improper  advances  t  A  In  improper  advances. 

Q.  Improper  solicitations  1    A.  Improper  solicitations. 


Q.  How  did  you  think  he  had  come  to  that  conclusion — 
upon  the  strength  of  what  evidence  t  A.  Upon  his  wife's 

written  statement  to  liim. 

Q.  You  did  not  believe,  then,  that  that  statement  was 
coerced  from  her,  did  youl  A.  I  don't  know  what  you 
would  include  in  the  word  "coerced." 

Q.  What  do  you  include  in  it  1  Answer  my  question  In 
the  light  of  the  meaning  wbich  you  give  to  it.  A.  Coer- 
cion I  should  consider  a  degree  of  violence  that  never 
was  pretended  upon  her. 

Q.  Very  well ;  we  will  adopt  her  own  language,  then. 
Did  you  believe  that  it  was  obtained  through  importuni- 
ty—when she  was  "wearied  with  importunity,  and  weak- 
ened by  sickness  ?"  A.  I  had  no  doubt  that  it  had  been 
procured  from  her  when  she  was  weak  and  sick,  and  by 
persistent  inqidry. 

Q.  And  you  thought  that  she  had  told  a  falsehood  about 
it  to  Mr.  Tilton,  did  you  1  A.  I  certainly  did. 

Q.  And  you  remained  of  that  opinion  during  all  the 
New  Year's  Day  while  this  paper  was  being  prepared,  did 
you?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  during  the  time  that  that  was  in 
preparation. 

Q.  Then  you  supposed  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  acting  in 
good  faith  in  making  this  charge  against  you  ?  A.  I  sup- 
posed that  he  had  reason  to  think  that  I  had  been  a 
wronger  of  his  family. 

Q.  Then  I  will  ask  you  again,  when  you  came  to  that 
conclusion  that  Mrs.  TUton  had  told  a  falsehood  about  it, 
and  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  acting  in  good  faith  in  making 
the  charge  against  you,  why  didn't  you  hasten  to  vindi- 
cate yourself  to  him  by  telling  him  that  it  was  untrue  f 

Mi\  Evarts— Telling  whom  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  TUton. 

The  Witness— Will  you  be  good  enough  to  state  the 
question  again.  Sir  i 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will  let  the  stenographer  read  it. 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  last  question,  as 
quested. 

A.  I  thought  I  was  doing  it,  Sir. 

Q.  By  this  letter  of  January  1  ?   A.  By  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  By  Mr.  Moulton  ?   A.  By  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  In  what  way  1  A.  This  whole  interview  was  a  vin- 
dication and  explanation,  and  was  to  be  carried  by  him 
to  a  man  that  was  excited,  and  whose  interview  with  me 
would  not  be  likely  to  be  pacificatory  in  aU  respects. 

Q.  Well,  let  me  read  this  to  you,  and  I  want  you,  if  you 
please,  to  i)oint  out  as  I  go  along  where  there  is  any  ex« 
planation  to  Mr.  Tilton  to  convince  him  tliat  his  charge 
against  you  was  wrong :  [Reading.] 

I  ask,  through  you,  Theodore  TUton's  forgiveness,  and 
I  humble  myself  before  him  as  I  do  before  my  God.  He 
would  have  been  a  better  man,  in  my  circumstances,  than 
I  have  been.  I  can  ask  nothing  except  that  he  will  re- 
member aU  the  other  hearts  that  would  ache.  I  wUl  not 
plead  for  myself.  I  even  wish  I  were  dead ;  but  others 
must  live  and  suffer.  I  will  die  before  any  one  but  my- 
self shall  be  inculpated.    All  my  thoughts  are  running 


48 


TRB  TlLTON-BK'dJOREIi  IBIAL. 


toward  my  Mends,  towao-'d  the  poor  child  lying  there  and 
praying -with  her  folded  hands.  She  is  guiltless,  sinned 
against,  bearing  the  transgression  of  another.  Her  for- 
giveness I  have.  I  humbly  pray  to  God  that  he  may  put 
it  in  the  heart  of  her  husband  to  forgive  her. 
I  have  trusted  this  to  Moulton  in  confidence. 

Where  do  you  find  there  any  explanation  or  any  assever- 
ation upon  your  part  that  you  were  not  guilty  of  the 
ofltense  with  wliich  you  stood  charged  1  A.  That  is  not 
my  document. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say,  however,  that  you  had  a 
conversation  with  Mr.  Moulton  iu  which  you  expressed 
to  a  very  considerable  extent  the  sentiments  in  this  let- 
ter ?  A.  I  said  that  the  sentiments  in  that  letter  were  a 
part  of  my  conversation,  but  I  did  not  select  the  senti- 
ments that  he  was  to  report. 


ME.  BEECHER'S  DENIALS  WHEN  THE  APOL- 
OGY LETTER  WAS  WRITTEN. 

Q.  Now,  then,  wiU  you  tell  us,  if  you  please, 

what  it  was  that  you  said  to  Mr.  Moulton,  at  the  time 
that  this  letter  was  written,  exculpatory  of  yourself,  and 
vindicating  3'ourself  against  the  charge  that  had  been 
made  against  you  ?  A.  Nothing  at  the  time  the  letter 
was  writing,  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Before  the  letter  was  written  what  did  you  say  t  A. 
In  the  course  of  the  conversation  I  denied  the  truth  of 
Mr.  Tilton's  impression  that  I  had  done  wrong  to  liis 
household  intentionally. 

Q.  Did  you  deny  the  Improper  solicitations  1  A.  I  de- 
nied the  whole  charge  that  had  been  brought  against 
me. 

Q.  Did  you  aslr  him  to  convey  any  message  to  Mr.  TU- 
ton  upon  that  subject  %  A.  I  did  not,  that  I  recaU. 

Q.  In  dictating  the  points,  or  the  heads  of  what  you  j 
wanted  him  to  say  to  Mr.  Tilton,  did  you  dictate  anything  j 
exculpatory  of  yourself?  A.  I  never  dictated  a  point, 
nor  a  word,  nor  indicated  what  I  wanted  him  to  write. 

Q.  You  wanted  him  to  write  something,  didn't  you? 
A.  No,  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  knew  that  he  was  writing  something?  A.  It 
was  his  own  volition,  his  own  choice. 

Q.  You  knew  that  he  was  writing  something  to  use  with 
Mr.  Tilton,  didn't  you  1  A.  I  knew  that  he  was  makiag  a 
memorandum  for  his  own  use. 

Q.  With  Mr.  Tilton!  A.  With  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  For  the  purpose  of  conveying  to  Mr.  Tilton  your 
sentiments  %  A.  For  the  purpose  of  conveying  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton his  impres-ion  of  the  interview  with  me. 

Q.  Then,  why  didn't  you  convey  to  Blr.  Tilton,  through 
that  same  channel,  some  vindication  of  yourself?  A. 
How  did  I  know  but  it  was  there? 

Q.  Where  ?  A.  In  that  channeL 

Q.  I  have  asked  you  to  tell  me  what  you  said  In  the  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Moulton  vindicatory  of  yourseU.  A. 
And  I  have  told  you  that  I  expressed  to  him  my  convic- 


I  tion  that  I  had  not  intentionally  wronged  Mr.  Tilton  nor 

j  his  household. 

i    Q.  Did  you  charge  him  with  anything  to  say  to  Mr. 
i  Tilton  on  that  subject  ?  A.  I  did  not. 
I    Q.  Why  not  f  A.  Because  it  didn't  come  in  my  way  to 
I  do  it. 

I     Q.  You  were  not  anxious,  then,  to  vindioate  yourself 
I  with  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  That  does  not  f oUow, 
I    Q.  Well,  why  didn't  you  send  some  message  to  Mr. 
i  Tilton  that  this  charge,  although  you  thought  he  believed 
i  it  to  be  true,  was  untrue  ?  A.  The  whole  interview  would 
I  obliterate  that  if  it  were  faithfully  represented.  I  and 
i  Mr.  Tilton  were  not  in  controversy  personally,  then, 
directly.  Mr.  Moulton,  as  the  common  friend  of  the  two, 
was  a  peacemaker  between  us,  and  I  expressed  myself  to 
him  that  he  might  go  and  express  himself  as  he  thought 
wisest  to  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  You  expressed  your  sorrow  for  what  you  had  done  t 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  But  you  didn't  send  any  special  message  to  him  to 
vindicate  yourself  ?  A.  I  don't  recoUect  that  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  not  regard  that  as  important  f  A.  It  seems 
not. 

Q.  WeU,  don't  you  remember  whether  you  did  or  did 
I  not  at  that  time  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it,  Sir. 
I     Q.  Then  the  gravest  charge  that  was  brought  against 
;  you  was  lost  sight  of  in  your  grief  for  what  you  had  done 
against  him,  was  it  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  that  it  was. 

Q.  Now,  in  that  conversation  with  Mr.  Moulton  ou  that 
day,  was  the  term  "improper  relations,"  or  "improper 
advances,"  or  "  improper  soUoitations  "  used  ?  A.  I  can- 
not recall  that  the  words—those  phrases— were  used 
upon  that  occasion. 

Q.  Well,  you  regarded  that  as  the  most  serious  charge 
against  you,  did  you  not?    A.  The  substance  of  the 

charge  was  recognized;  but  whether  it  was  done  by  

Q.  Did  you  not  regard  that  as  the  most  serious  charge 

agains  fc  you  ?  A.  Whether  the  substance  of  the  charge   

Q.  Did  you  not  regard  that  as  the  most  serious  charge 

against  you?  A.  The  

Q.  Improper  solicitations  ?  A.  Certainly,  that  ■was  fbs 

most  serious  part  

Q.  And  yet  you  did  not  single  it  out  and  vindicate  yonr« 
self  against  it  by  sending  any  message  to  Mr.  Tilton  1  A* 
I  did  not  send  any  message  to  Mr.  Tilton.  I  understood 
that  Mr.  Moulton  was  my  message. 

Q.  But  what  message  did  you  give  him  to  Mr.  Tilton 
in  regard  to  the  charge  against  you  1  A.  Ko  message 
whatever.  ^ 

THE  EXPRESSIONS  IN  THE  LETTER  OP 
APOLOGY. 

Q.  Very  weU;  then  he  was  not  the  messen- 
ger for  that  purpose  1  A.  He  was  himself  a  message  in 
his  peaceful  feelings  toward  both  parties,  his  sympathy 


TESTIMONY   OF  HENBY    WARD  BEEOHEB, 


48 


iritli  both,  and  his  detenxdnatioiito  so  explain  matters  as 
tbat  both  should  be  reconciled. 

Q.  I  call  youx  attention  now,  Mr.  Beeoher,  still  further 
%o  this  document :  [Reading.]  "  He  would  have  been  a 
better  maa  in  my  circumstances  than  I  have  been."  Did 
you  say  anything  to  that  effect  t  A.  I  did  not  say  that 
sentence  that  I  recollect,  Sir,  but  I  said  something  which 
I  can  weU  understand  might  have  been  put  down,  for 
short,  in  that  sentence. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  that  conveyed  that  sentiment  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  I  read  another  sentence :  "  I  can  ask  nothing  except 
that  he  will  remember  aU  the  other  hearts  that  would 
ache."  Did  you  say  anything  that  conveyed  that  idea  ? 
A.  Not  in  that  bold  way, 

Q.  How  did  you  say  it  f  Did  you  say  that  in  substance  ? 
A.  Not  in  its  apothegmatic  form,  as  it  stands  there. 

Mr.  Beach— That  answer  refers  merely  to  the  form  of 
th«  expression. 

Mr.  Pullerton— Did  you  express  that  sentiment,  whether 
you  clothed  it  in  that  language  or  not  ?  A.  I  discussed 
with  him  

Q.  Did  you  express  that  sentiment  1  A.  No ;  not  in 
that  close  way  in  which  you  press  me  for  an  answer. 

Q.  Vfery  well.  Something  alrin  to  it?  A.  I  can  give 
f  on  almost  the  very  thing. 

Q.  Something  akin  to  it  %  A.  Something  in  that  neigh- 
borhood, Sir. 

Q.  I  read  again:  [Reading.]  "  I  will  not  plead  for  my- 
self. I  even  wish  that  I  were  dead,"  Did  you  express 
any  such  sentiment  as  that  %  A.  That  does  not  represent 
any  sentiment  that  I  expressed, 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  in  substance  like  this:  "But 
others  must  live  and  suffer  1"  A.  I  spoke  of  others  living 
and  suffering. 

Q.  Then,  again,  did  you  say  this  in  substance :  "  I  will 
die  before  anyone  but  myself  shaU  be  inculpated?"  A. 
No. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  of  that  nature  %  A.  I  said 
Bomethiag  in  that  neighborhood. 

Q.  Did  you  say  this :  "  All  my  thoughts  are  running  to- 
ward my  friends,  toward  the  poor  child  lying  there  and 
praying  with  her  folded  hands  1"  A.  That  reminds  me  of 
some  things  that  I  said  in  respect  of  Mrs.  Tilton. 

Q.  Something  of  that  character?  A.  Under  the  im- 
pression produced  upon  me  by  that  interview  that 
night. 

Again,  did  you  say  this :  [Reading.]  "  She  Is  guilt- 
less, sinned  against,  bearing  the  transgression  of 
another  1"  A.  No,  not  as  it  stands  there,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  of  the  same  meaning  %  A.  No, 
not  the  meaning  that  that  has  there. 

Q.  Didn't  you  intend  to  convey  that  idea  f  A.  I  did 
not,  in  any  such  sense  as  it  stands  there. 

Q.  But  in  some  other  sense  t  A.  I  intended  to  convey 
aaaother  sense  whioh  that  faila  to  express. 


Q.  Again :  [Reading.]  "  Her  forgiveness  I  have.  I  hum- 
bly pray  to  God  that  He  may  put  it  into  the  heart  of  her 
husband  to  forgive  me  V*  A.  No,  Sir, 

Q.  Did  you  say  nothing  of  that  kind  1  A.  Nothing  ol 
that  kind  in  the  fore  part  of  that  sentence  at  aU.  I  may 
have  expressed  a  desire  for  Theodore's  forgiveness  for 
any  injury  I  had  done  him  in  his  household. 

Q.  What  part  of  #  do  you  say  was  not  said  by  you  f  A. 
"  Her  forgiveness"— I  never  said  that  I  had  her  forgive- 
ness. 

Q.  That  was  an  invention  of  Moulton,  was  it  1  A.  I 
cannot  say  about  that,  Sir.  That  is  his  docviment,  whion 
he  can  answer  for  better  than  I. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  when  that  paper  was  finished,  do 
you  say  that  you  did  not  read  it  1  A.  I  say  that  I  did  not 
read  it. 

Q.  And  do  you  say  that  it  was  not  read  to  you !  A.  I 
say  it  was  not  read  to  me. 

Q.  WeU,  why  didn't  you  read  or  have  it  read  to  yonf 
A.  I  didn't  care  about  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  care  what  was  in  it?  A.  It  was— I  cared 
about  what  he  should  represent  to  Mr.  Tilton,  but  there 
were  notes  for  his  direction. 

Q.  But  you  put  your  name  to  it?  A.  Well,  Sir,  I  put 
my  name,  not  to  the  truth  of  that  statement,  but  to  the 
fact  that  I  had  given  this  in  trust  after  a  conversation 
with  him. 

Q.  And  you  gave  something  in  trust  to  Moulton  with- 
out knowing  what  you  gave  him  ?  A.  I  gave  him  that 
paper  in  trust,  to  signify  that  he  had  had  a  conversation 
with  me,  and  that  he  would  represent  to  Mr.  TUton  what 
were  the  results  of  that  conversation. 

Q.  You  gave  it  to  him  in  trust  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  regard  it  as  his  composition  or  yourst 
A.  I  regarded  it  as  his. 

Q.  Then  you  gave  his  property  to  him  in  trust  1  A.  He 
wanted  me  to  make  it  my  property. 

Q.  One  moment.  You  gave  Moulton's  property  to 
Moulton  in  trust,  did  you  ?  A.  I  did  not  f  egard  it  as 
property,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  production,  then. 

Mr.  Pullerton— Production  ?  A.  I  did  not  regard  it  in 
that  light  of  a  production. 

Q.  Well,  you  gave  this  paper,  whatever  it  was,  regard- 
ing it  as  Moulton's,  to  Moulton,  in  trust,  did  you  ?  A.  To 
Mr.  Moulton  ? 

Q.  Yes.   A.  No. 

Q.  You  know  what  the  meaning  of  the  words  "in  trust** 
is  of  course,  Mr.  Beecher,  don't  you  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  know  that  you  cannot  give  another  man's  prop- 
erty to  that  man  in  trust,  don't  you  ?  A.  I  know  that  I 
can  give  a  statement  of  an  interview,  a  memorandum  of 
which  he  has  made— I  can  authenticate  the  errand  on 
which  he  goes  with  that  memorandum  i^i  his  hand. 

Q.  Without  knowing  or  caring  what  is  in  it?  A.  On 
the  trust  that  I  had»  that  he  had  made  only  a  memoraa- 


50 


TEE   T1L10:N'BBE(JBER  TBIAL. 


dum  that  would  bring  back  to  Ms  mind  the  points,  the 
salient  points,  of  the  conversation,  that  he  wanted  to 
mse. 

^.  Bring  baok  to  his  mind  the  salient  points  of  the  con- 
versation that  he  wanted  to  use,  and  which  were  to  be 
used  for  your  benefit  1  A.  For  both  of  our  benefits. 

Q.  For  yours  as  well  as  his?  A.  For  both. 

Q.  Well,  for  yours  1  A.  For  both;  and  therefore  for 
mine. 

Q.  "And  therefore  for  yours;"  lam  glad  you  added 
that.  And  therefore  what  you  intrusted  to  him  to  be  used 
in  part  for  your  benefit,  you  did  not  know  or  care  what 
was  in  it  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  didn't  care  what  was 
In  it. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  so  a  moment  ago  ?  A.  You 
understood  me,  then,  when  I  was  speaking  less  heedfully 
than  I  am  now. 

Q.  That  is  not  my  fault.  A.  I  know  it  is  not,  Sir ;  it  is 
mine. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  discussion  is  unnecessary. 

Mr,  Fullerton— You  get  it  up  and  then  say  it  is  not 
necessary.  [To  the  witness.]  Didn't  you  put  your  name 
to  the  paper  for  the  purpose  of  authenticating  it  ?  A.  I 
put  my  name- — 

Mr.  Beach  [To  Mr.  Fullerton]— Oh,  make  hint  answer. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  ask  you  that  question,  and  I  want  you 
to  answer.  A.  I  did  not  put  my  name  to  that  paper  for 
the  sake  of  authenticating  the  form  of  its  contents. 

Q.  You  say,  "  I  have  trusted  this  to  Moulton  in  confi- 
dence." A.  Yea,  Sir. 

Q  That  is  your  handwriting,  I  believe  1  (Showing 
paper  to  witness.]  A.  I  think  it  is,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  any  doubt  about  it  1  A.  No,  Sii-,  I 
nave  no  doubt  about  it ;  I  think  it  is, 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  again,  Mr.  Beecher,  and  give  you  the 
opportunity  to  explain  it,  if  you  desire  to,  or  can,  why, 
upon  that  occasion,  in  an  interview  so  full  of  interest  to 
yourself  and  in  which  you  were  expressing  your  regret 
for  what  you  had  done,  you  didn't  take  some  step  through 
the  agency  of  your  mutual  friend,  as  he  has  been  called, 
to  convey  to  Mr.  Tilton  your  denial  of  having  made  any 
improper  solicitations  of  or  advances  to  his  wife  ?  A.  It 
was  a  part  of  the  interview. 

Q.  I  now  ask  you  again  to  give  to  this  jury  any  message 
that  you  sent  by  Mr.  Moulton,  any  word  that  you  spoke 
upon  that  subject  coupled  with  a  request  that  it  should 
be  communicated  to  Mt.  Tilton,  or  any  other  thing  that 
you  did  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  that  end—name- 
ly, your  own  vindication  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  I 
sent  not  one  line,  or  one  word,  that  I  remember,  to  Mr. 
Tilton ;  I— if  you  will  allow  me  to  go  on  

Q.  That  is  an  answer  to  my  question.  A.  That  is  suffi- 
cient. 


MR.  MOULTON'S  SHORT  STATEMEN  T. 

Q.  Mr.  Beeclier,  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
the  fii'st  statement  of  MP.  Moulton  was  read  over  to  you. 
on  the  13th  of  July,  1873— '741 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  what  you  call  the  short  statement  t 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  the  short  statement. 

Q.  Am  I  correct  I  A.  I  thought  you  expressed  a  judg- 
ment to  me,  Sir ;  I  beg  your  pardon  

Q.  Well,  I,  after  some  delay,  put  it  in  the  shape  of  an 
interrogatory.  Am  I  correct  in  supposing  that  you  said 
on  yom*  direct  examination  that  you  read  over  the  first 
statement  of  Mr.  Moulton  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  did  not  read  it 
over. 

Q.  Or  that  it  was  read  to  youl  A.  It  was  read  in  nay- 
presence. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  say  when  your  judgment  was 
asked  in  regard  to  it  1  A.  I  said  very  little.  Sir— very 
little?  my  judgment  was  not  asked  in  detail  about  it. 

Q.  WeU,  you  gave  it  in  bulk,  did  you  1  A.  I  gave  an 
answer  to  his  inquiry. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  the  inquiry  ?  A.  I  cannot  put  it  ex- 
actly, but  it  was  whether  I  thought  that  that  was  an 
honorable  and  fair  statement  to  make  (that  is,  if  I  have 
my  mind  upon  the  same  statement  that  you  have) ;  and  I 
replied  that  I— that  that  was  what  he  could  judge  of  as 
well  as  I,  or  that  he  must  determtae  by  his  own  sense  of 
honor  and  good  judgment. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  say  something  besides  thatf  A. 
Not  that  I  recall,  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  something  approbatory  of  it !  A.  I 
do  not  think  chat  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  so  down  stairs  in  the  presence  of 
Mrs.  MoulHon  ?  A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  read  over  to  you  ?  A.  It  was  read  to 
me. 

Q.  You  made  no  objection  to  iti  A.  I  made  no  ob- 
jection to  it. 

Q.  I  wiU  read  it,  and  then  ask  you  some  questions  in 
regard  to  it :  [Reading] 

Gentlemen  of  the  Committee  :  I  appear  before  you^ 
at  your  invitation,  to  make  a  statement,  which  I  have 
read  to  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  which  both  deem 
honorable,  and  in  the  fairness  and  propriety  of  which,  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  they  both  concur.  The  parties  in 
this  case  are  personal  friends  of  mine,  in  whose  behalf  I 
have  endeavored  to  act  as  the  umpire  and  peacemaker 
for  the  last  four  years,  with  a  conscientious  regard  for  all 
the  interests  involved. 

I  regret,  for  your  sakes,  the  responsibility  imposed 
on  me  of  appearing  here  to-night.  If  I  say  anything,  I 
must  speak  the  truth.  I  do  not  believe  that  fho  simple 
curiosity  of  the  world  at  large,  or  even  of  this  Committee, 
ought  to  be  gratified  through  any  recitation  by  me  of  the 
facts  which  are  in  my  possession,  necessarily  in  confi- 
dence, through  my  relations  to  the  parties,  the  personal 
dilferences  of  which  I  am  aware,  as  the  chosen  arbitra- 
tor, have  once  been  settled  honorably  between  the  par- 
ties, and  would  never  have  been  revived  except 
on  account  of  recent  attacks,  both  in  and 
out  of  Plymouth  Church,  made  upon  the  character 


TBSTIMONI   OF  RKXBY    WABD  BEECHEB. 


6i 


of  Theodore  Tilton,  to  whlcli  he  thouglit  a  reply 
nocemasy.  If  ttie  present  issue  is  to  t)e  settled, 
it  must  be,  in  my  opinion,  by  the  parties  themselves, 
either  together  or  separately,  before  your  Committee, 
each  taking  the  responsibility  of  his  own  utteictnces.  As 
I  am  full}'  conversant  with  the  facts  and  evidences,  I 
ghall,  as  between  these  parties,  if  necessary,  deem  it  my 
duty  to  state  the  truth,  in  order  to  final  settlement,  and 
that  the  world  may  be  well  informed  before  pronouncing 
its  judgment  with  reference  to  either.  I  therefore  sug- 
gest to  you  that  the  parties  first  be  heard ;  that  if  then  you 
deem  it  necessary  that  I  should  appear  before  you,  I  will 
do  so,  to  speali  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth.  I  hold  to-night,  as  I  have  held  hitherto, 
the  opinion  that  Mr.  Beecher  shoiQd  frankly  state  that 
he  had  eommirted  an  ofi"ense  against  Mr.  Tilton  for 
which  it  was  necessary  to  apologize,  and  for  which  he  did 
apologize  in  the  language  of  the  letter,  part  of  which  has 
been  quoted;  that  he  should  have  stated  frankly  that  he 
deemed  it  necessary  for  Mr.  Tilton  to  have  made  the  de- 
fense against  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon  which  he  did  make,  and 
That  he  (Mr.  Beecher)  should  refuse  -feo  be  a 
party  to  the  reopening  of  this  painful  sub- 
ject, n  he  had  made  this  statement,  he 
would  have  stated  no  more  than  the  truth,  and  it 
would  have  saved  him  and  you  the  responsibility  of  a 
further  inquiry.  It  is  better  now  that  the  Committee 
should  not  report ;  and,  in  place  of  a  report,  Mr.  Beecher 
himself  should  make  the  statement  which  I  have  suggest- 
ed ;  or  that  if  the  Committee  does  report,  the  report 
should  be  a  recommendation  to  Mr.  Beecher  to  make  such 
a  statement. 

Q,  This  was  read  to  you  on  the  13th  of  July,  1874 ;  that 
has  already  been  proved.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  when  that 
paper  was  read  to  you,  how  long  had  the  Bacon  letter 
been  published  ?  A.  T  do  not  loiow  that  that  paper  was 
read  to  me,  Sii-. 

Q.  Well,  A\hat  is  your  best  judgment  upon  the  subject? 
A.  A  paper  was  read  to  me  

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  that.  A.  But  whether  it  was  that 
paper,  or  the  whole  oi  that  paper,  T  cannot  state. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  judgment  upon  the  subject  %  A. 
My  best  judgment  is  that  that  paper  was  completed 
probably  after  the  substance  of  it  was  read  to  me,  but  I— 
that  is  only  a  supposition. 

Q.  Well,  I  did  not  ask  you  to  indulge  in  suppositions— 
now,  pardon  nic.  A.  You  asked  my  best  opinion— judg- 
ment, 

Q.  I  ask  yvtur  best  opinion  whether  that  paper  was  read 
to  you  1  A.  Parts  of  that  paper  I  recollect,  but  1  cannot 
affirm  that  it  was  all  read  to  me. 

Q.  Can  you  atTfiirm  that  it  was  not  aU  ceud  t.  yon  i  a  .  i 
cannot  affirm  that  it  was  not  all  read. 

Q.  What  18  your  best  judgment  whetLer  that  U  the 
paper  that  was  read  to  you  on  the  13th  of  July,  1874  ?  A. 
I  do  not  recall  a  good  deal  of  it. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  judgment  1  A.  My  best  judgment 
is  thpt  a  part  of  that  paper  was  read  to  me,  possibly  the 
wliole,  iiut  1  do  not  recall  the  wJioJe. 

W(.1l.  v\-heji  that  paper,  or  whatever  paper  it  was, 
WH^  rf>>k  i  <-o  you,  how  long  had  the  Bacon  letter  been  pub- 
lished? A.  I  do  not  now  remember,  dii-. 


Q.  Do  you  recoUect  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the 
Bacon  letter  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  don't  recall  it. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  long  prior  to  this,  wasn't  it  ?  A.  Well, 
that  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  prior  to  any  statements  before  the  Com- 
mittee, wasn't  it?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  of  course  it  was  prior  to 
that,  but  I  cannot  give  dates  without  refreshing  nay 
memory. 

Mr.  Sheai-man- It  was  June  21. 

Q.  You  read  the  Bacon  letter,  didn't  you?  A.  I  did  not. 
Q.  Anybody  read  it  to  you?  A.  I  heard  a  statement  of 
its  contents. 

Q.  You  knew  that  it  quoted  a  part  of  this  letter  of  Jan- 
uary 1,  did  you  not  ?  A.  I  was  told  that  it  did. 

Q.  Were  you  told  the  form  in  which  it  was  copied?  A. 
I  was  told  that  there  was  an  extract  from  that  memoran- 
dum of  Mr.  Moulton's  in  it. 

Q.  Who  told  you  of  it?  A.  I  have  forgotten  whether  it 
was  Mr.  Cleveland  or  Mr.  Shearman,  or  who  it  was;  I 
was  in  conference  with  several  gentlemen,  and  I  don't 
recall  which  one  informed  me. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  statement  of  the  contents  of  the  Ba- 
con letter  in  writing  ?  A.  The  drift  or  substance  of  it. 

Q.  Who  made  out  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Evarts — In  writing  ? 

The  Witness— I  didn't  have  it  in  writing. 

:Mi'.  Fullerton— Oh,  I  thought  you  did.  Well,  did  you 
leam  in  what  form  this  letter  of  January  1  was  quoted 
in  the  Bacon  letter  ?  A.  Only  that  there  .was  a  portion 
of  it. 

Q.  Y'es ;  did  yon  learn  the  form  of  the  portion  ?  A.  Not 
by  reading  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  leam  the  form  of  the  portion  of  it !  A.  I 
did  not.  Sir. 

Q.  Very  weU ;  you  knew  what  reference  was  made,  did 
you  not,  in  this  fii'st  statement  of  Mr.  Moulton  in  this  ex- 
pression : 

I  hold  to-night,  as  I  have  held  hitherto,  the  opinion 
that  Mr.  Beecher  should  fi-ankly  state  that  he  had  com- 
mitted an  offense  against  Mr.  Tilton  for  which  it  was 
necessary  to  apologize,  for  which  he  did  apologize  in  the 
lanaiiage  of  the  letter,  part  of  which  has  been  quoted. 

A.  I  don't  recollect  to  have  heard  that  sentence.  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  recollect  whether  it  was  read  to  you  or  not  ♦ 
A.  I  don't  recollect  it,  Sir-. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  when  did  you  first  hear  of  tills 
letter  of  January  1, 1871  ?  A.  This  memorandum  1 

Q.  Yes  1  A.  I  first— you  mean  after  it  left  

Q.  Your  hands  ?   A.  It  never  left  my  hands. 

Q.  Never  left  ?  Oh  !  WeU,  it  is  not  worth  while  to  play 
upon  words.  A.  I  know,  but  you  cornered  me  so  many 
times  that  I  was  afraid  of  you.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  No,  you  ain't  afraid— when  it  left  your  hotise  t  A. 
After  that  time  I  do  not  recall  seeing  it  until  1874  ;  I 
never  saw  the  original  document  again  until  I  saw  it  In 
thi^  room. 


63  THE  TILTON-B: 

Q.  Well,  upon  this  subject  of  its  liavmg  left  your  liands. 
Did  you  never  have  it  in  your  hands  ?  A.  I  don't  think 
that  I  did,  Sir.  I  had  my  hands  on  it,  if  you  will  not  think 
I  am  trilling. 

Q.  Well,  you        A.  I  signed  it,  of  oovu-se,  and  had  to 

toooh  it,  hut  other  than  that  I  don't  think  that  

Q,  What  did  you  do  with  it  when  you  signed  it  %  A.  Let 
it  alone. 

Q.  Did  not  hand  it  to  Mr.  Moulton  I  A.  No. 
Q.  Well,  then,  your  hands  left  Ut  A.  My  hands  left  it ; 
yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  it  after  your  hands  left  it? 
A.  In  the  court-room,  when  it  was  presented  in  evidence. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  hear  of  it  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  in 
December  of  1872. 

Q.  And  from  whom  did  you  hear  of  it  9  A.  From  Mr. 
Tracy. 

Q.  Mr.  B.  F.  Tracy?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  he  then  seen  it,  as  you  understood?  A.  I  can- 
not say. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  what  purported  to  be  its  contents  ? 
A.  No ;  he  did  not  recite  its  contents. 

Q.  And  no  part  of  its  contents?  A.  No ;  he  did  not  re- 
cite any  part  of  it. 

Q.  Did  he  recite  the  substance  of  it  ?  A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Very  weU ;  pass  from  that  then  to  the  next  occasion 
you  heard  of  it  from  any  other  person.  A.  Well,  then,  T 
—I  am  confused  about  that ;  I  don't  know  that  I  could 
tell  you  accuiately  after  that  when  I  next  heard  of  it. 

Q.  Well,  as  near  as  you  can  tell.  A.  I  heard  it  rumored 
that  there  was  a  paper  in  existence  that  was  very  damag- 
ing to  me. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  learn  its  contents?  A.  No. 
Q.  Nor  its  form?  A.  No. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  LATER  KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE 
APOLOGY. 

Q.  Well,  pass  from  that,  then,  now  to  any 

oilier  person  or  occasion  when  you  heard  of  it ;  please 
state  A..  The  only  time  that  I  ever  heard  of  it  with  any 
distinctness  that.  T  recoEoct  was  from  Mr.  Moulton  him- 
self. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?  A.  Immediately  after  Mr.  Tracy's 
visit  of  which  I  have  spoken. 

Q.  Did  he  show  it  to  you  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  said  it  was 
burned  up. 

Q.  That  is  the  next  that  you  heard  of  it  1  A.  That  is 
the  next  I  heard  of  it. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?  A.  It  was  a  day  or  two  after  I  had 
Been  Mr.  Tracy. 

Q.  In  the  Fall  of  1873— December,  1872 1  A.  It  was  in 
the  Winter  of  1872,  maybe  early  in  1873—1  cannot  say. 

Q.  Now,  of  whom  else  did  you  hear  anything  of  it?  A. 
I  don't  recollect.  Sir,  anytMng  of  it  again  unMl  I  heard 
that  there  was  to  be  an  extract  from  it  in  a  cferd  proposed 
to  be  printed  by  Mr.  TUton  about  June  of  1373. 


EGHEB  IBIAL, 

Q.  Did  you  see  that  extract?  A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  in  what  form  it  was,  or  shape  t  A. 

No,  I  did  not.  Sir ;  I  only  

Q.  That  is  an  answer;  pass  then  to  the  next  ocoaslon 

when  you  heard  of  it? 
]VIr.  Evarts— He  wishes  to  qualify  it. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  I  don't  object  to  his  qualifying  it  I 
The  Witness— I  heard  it  stated,  what  the  substance  of  it 

was. 

From  whom  ?  A.  From  Mr.  Kinsella. 

Q.  When?  A.  When  he  came  to  see  me  on  Monday 

morning,  the  2d  of  June. 
Q.  2d  of  June?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  state  the  substance  of  it  to  you?  A.  He 
stated— I  don't  know  that  he  stated  the  substance,  but 
he  stated  the  drift  of  it. 

Q.  The  drift  of  it  ?  A.  Yes,  Sii'. 

Q.  Didn't  he  give  you  a  copy  of  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  have  a  copy  of  it  ?  A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Did  he  state  to  you  in  what  form  it  was  written?  A. 
In  what  form  originally  ? 

Q.  The  memorandum  was— in  what  form  it  existed  ?  A. 
Oh,  no ;  it  did  not  enter  into  the  conversation  in  that 
form. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  the  2d  of  June,  1873  ?  A.  1873. 

Q.  Now,  have  you  narrated  to  me  all  that  you  ever 
leai-nedin  regard  to  that  paper  up  to  that  time?  A.  I 
don't  know  that  I  have. 

Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Claflin  teU  you  something  about  iti  A. 
He  inquired  about  it  of  me. 

Q.  But  gave  you  no  information  in  regard  to  it?  A.  He 
asked  information  of  me  rather  than  gave  me  any. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  tax  your  recollection,  because  it 
is  important.  If  you  have  omitted  to  state  any  informa- 
tion that  you  derived  in  regard  to  this  letter  or  memoran- 
dum, whatever  it  may  be  called,  at  any  time  within  the 
limits  inquired  of,  I  want  you  now  to  state  it.  A.  I  don't 
recall  it,  Sir,  except  the  statement  made  to  me  by  MT' 
Tracy. 

Q.  That  you  had  given  us?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  that  is  the 
most  distinct  that  I  recollect ;  and  then  I  should  say  the 
next  was,  perhaps,  Mr.  Claflin  

Q.  WeU,  he  inquired?  A.  He  inquired;  the  next  was 
my  brother,  Dr.  Edward  Beecher ;  he  inquired. 

Q.  WeU,  you  have  omitted  that  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  He  only  inquired  ?  A.  I  saw  him,  and  I  remembered 
it ;  he  inquired. 

Q.  He  gave  you  no  Information,  though?  A.  No;  same 
as  Mr.  caaflin. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Then,  that  which  I  have  mentioned  to 
you  of  1873 ;  these  inquiries  of  Mr.  Claflin,  I  think,  came 
after  '70— but ,  I  won't  be  certain  about  that ;  I  think 
tbe  next,  after  the  pubUcation  of  the  Bacon  letter,  I 
learned  from  Mr.  John  Russell  Young  of  T?ie  New  York 
Jlerald. 

Q.  When  was  thotl    A.  That  was  some  time  in  the 


TJSSTIMONY  OF  BEN  BY   WABD  BEECHBB. 


Sttmmer  of  1874 ;  probably  July,  but  I  won't  be  pos- 
itive. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  then  its  contents?  A.  I  did  not . 

Q.  Didn't  yon  see  a  copy  of  it  then?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Well,  bad  you  never,  up  to  that  time,  learned  its 
contents  I  A.  I  bad  learned  from  Mr.  Tracy  wbat  was 
tbe  drift  of  it. 

Q.  Tbe  diift  of  it,  but  not  its  contents?    A.  Not  its  

Q.  Only  tbe  substance  %  A.  Not  iu  detaiL 
Q.  Not  in  detain  A.  No. 

Q.  Wbat  did  Mr.  Tracy  say  to  you  in  regard  to  it!  A. 

He  spoiie  to  me  of  that  letter,  and  I  told  bim  tbat  

Mr.  Beacb— No,  not  wbat  you  told  bim. 

Mr.  FuUerton— What  did  Mr.  Tracy  say  to  you  ?  A.  I 
cannot  recall  tbe  language. 

Q.  Did  he  profess  to  repeat  it  in  tbe  language  in  which 
it  was  written  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  tbat  he  did  repeat  it 
in  so  many  words ;  I  know  tbat  be  made  such  a  state- 
ment of  it  tbat  I  got  quite  an  idea  of  wbat  it  was. 

A  LIVELY  ENCOUNTER  BETWEEN  COUNSEL 
AND  WITNESS. 
Q.  Did  lie  teU  you  it  purported  to  be  a  letter 

or  a  memorandum?  A.  I  don't  recall  tbat,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecber,  if  up  to  that  time,  June  1, 1873, 
you  bad  no  information  in  regard  to  tbat  letter  other 
than  wbat  you  have  told  us,  then  will  you  please  to  ac- 
count for  the  lang-uage  of  the  letter  you  wrote  on  that 
day  to  Mr.  Moulton,  which  was  as  follows  : 

^  Sunday  Morning,  June  1,  1873. 

My  Dear  Frank  :  The  whole  earth  is  tranquil  and  the 
heaven  is  serene,  as  befits  one  who  has  about  finished  bis 
world-life.  I  could  do  nothing  on  Saturday— my  head 
was  confused;  but  a  good  sleep  has  made  it  like  crystal. 
I  have  determined  to  make  no  more  resistance.  Theo- 
dore's temperament  is  such  that  the  future,  even  if  tem- 
porarily earned,  would  be  absolutely  worthless,  filled 
with  abrupt  charges,  and  rendering  me  liable  at  any  hour 
or  day  to  b&  obliged  to  stultify  all  the  devices  by  which 
we  have  saved  ourselves.  It  is  only  fair  that  be  should 
know  that  the  publication  of  the  card  which  he  proposes 
would  leave  him  far  worse  off  tl^an  before.  Tbe  agree- 
ment was  made  after  my  letter  through  you  was  written. 

Then,  did  you  know  at  tbat  time  that  it  was  in  the 
form  of  a  letter,  and  written  through  Moulton  1  A.  Why, 
it  was  very  simple,  Sir.  The  thing  was  called  a  letter.  It 
might  have  been  called  paper— anything;  but  I  bad 
already  bad  my  interview  with  Mr.  Tracy  in  the  Decem- 
ber of  1872,  and  that  letter  was  written  on  Sunday, 
June  1, 1873. 

Q.  But  you  have  told  us  tbat  Mr.  Tracy  did  not  give 
you  a  copy  of  it,  or  state  its  form  ?  A.  He  did  not  state 
its  form,  but  he  stated  its  substance  and  intent. 

Q.  Did  be  state  to  you  tbat  it  was  in  the  form  of  a  let- 
ter, written  through  Mr.  Moulton?  A.  I  do  not  recall  tbe 
designation  which  b©  gave  to  tbe  paper,  but  the  drift  and 
contents  of  the  paper  be  spoke  of  and  somewhat 
aaalyzed. 


Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  the  drift  or  contents;  I  am 
asking  you  this  question:  In  the  light  of  tbe  information 
which  you  say  you  bad  got  of  tbat  letter  up  to  June  1, 
1873,  how  did  you  oome  to  write  as  follows :  "  Tbe  agree- 
ment  was  made  after  my  letter  througt  you  was  written  t** 
A.  Very  obviously  I  gave  the  first— I  did  not  sit  down 
and  make  an  accurate  title  to  it;  I  took  tbe  title  tbat 
happened  to  come  to  my  mind. 

Q.  You  say  to-day  tbat  it  was  not  your  letter.  How 
did  you  come  to  think  on  tbe  1st  of  June,  1873,  that  it 
was  your  letter  ?  A.  It  was  spoken  of  to  me  as  sncb  by 
Mr.  Tracy. 

Q.  I  asked  you  but  a  moment  ago  whether  Mr.  Tracy 
informed  you  that  it  was  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  and  yon 
told  me  he  did  not.  A.  I  said  Mr.  Tracy  informed  me  of 
it  as  a  communication  from  me  through  Mr.  Moulton  to 
Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  When  did  you  say  tbat,  pray  ?  A.  I  say  it  now,  if  I 
didn't  say  it  before. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  a  moment  ago  that  Mr.  Tracy  gave 
you  such  information  ?  A.  I  said  to  you  that  Mr.  Tracy 
spoke  of  tbe  document,  without  quoting  it,  and  that  be 
gave  me  quite  an  analysis  of  it,  and  I  added  that  he 
stated  it  as  a  document  which  did  come  from  me  to  Mr 
Tilton. 

Q.  Didn't  I  put  tbe  direct  question  to  you,  in  so  many 
words,  "  Did  Mr.  Tracy  teU  you  tbat  it  was  in  the  form  of 
a  let  . er  written  through  Mr.  Moulton?"  and  did  you  not 
teU  me,  "  No,  he  did  not?"  A.  I  stUl  say  

Mr.  FuUerton— No,  no,  not  what  you  still  say;  it  Is 
what  you  did  say.  A.  I  don't  know.  Sir ;  I  cannot  t«ll 
about  tbat. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  now  say  tbat  you  remember  tbat  Mr. 
Tracy  told  you  it  was  in  the  form  of  a  letter  written 
through  Mr.  Moulton?  A.  I  cannot  say  that  be  used 
those  m>rds. 

Q.  Did  be  say  anything  that  conveyed  to  you  tbe  idea 
tbat  it  was  a  letter  written  by  you  through  Mr.  Moulton  t 
A.  He  conveyed  to  me  

Mr.  FuUerton— Answer  my  question.  Did  be  convey 
that  to  you? 

The  Witness — ^Excuse  me. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  have. 

The  Witness— WiU  you  repeat  the  question,  or  bave  tt 

read? 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will  have  it  read.   [To  tbe  Tribune 

stenograper.]  Please  read  the  question. 
The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  as  follows: 

Did  be  say  anything  tbat  conveyed  to  you  tbe  idea  that 
it  was  a  letter  written  by  you  through  Mr.  Moulton  t 
Tbe  Witness— You  wish  me  to  answer  that  1 
Mr.  Fullerton— You  asked  that  to  be  read  with  a  vienr 
of  answering  it? 

The  Witness— Yes,  Mr.  Tracy  spoke  of  tbe  document  

Mr.  P\illerton  [to  tbe  Tribune  stenographer] — IBmA 
tbe  question  again,  please. 


64  TEE  TILIOI^-B. 

The  Tribuno  atenograplier  read  the  question  as  follows: 

Did  lie  say  anytMng  that  conveyed  to  you  the  idea  that 
it  was  a  letter  written  hy  you  through  Mr.  Moulton  1 

The  Witness— He  said  to  me  

Mr.  Fullerton— No. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  asked  for  what  he  said. 
Mr.  Beach— We  don't  ask  for  what  he  said ;  we  ask  if  he 
said  that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  he  conveyed  that  idea  to  him. 

Mr.  Evarts  (to  Judge  Neilsonl- They  ask  him  not  what 
he  said,  but  ask  him  if  he  conveyed  an  idea  to  him  :  and 
when  he  undertakes  to  say  what  he  said,  they  object  to  it 
as  an  answer. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  exactly  we  do. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Is  that  a  proper  answer  1 

Mr.  Evarts — They  are  not  to  judge  if  it  didn't  convey  an 
idea. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  don't  ask  any  one  to  judge  but  the 
witness ;  I  ask  for  bis  judgment  as  to  what  it  conveyed 
at  the  time  of  the  communication,  and  no  one  else's. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  asked  whether  Mr.  Tracy  conveyed  to 
him  an  idea. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts — Not  whether  there  was  an  idea  conveyed. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  aslii^d  whether  Mr.  Tracy  conyoycd  the 
idea  that  it  was  a  letter  written  by  him  through  Mr. 
Moiilton. 

Mr.  Evarts— After  you  get  through  with  what  Mr. 
Tracy  conveyed  to  him,  then,  you  cdu  ask  him  that  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  thank  you  for  the  privilege,,  but  I  don't 
enjoy  it  until  I  get  through  with  tlie  question  I  have 
already  put. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  am  talking  of  the  question  you  asked 
liim— that  he  has  a  right  to  answer— what  Mr.  Tracy  told 
him. 

Mr.  Fullei-ton- He  has  no  right  to  answer  that.  I  don't 
want  to  know  what  Mr.  Tracy  told  him,  but  I  want  to 
kQow  the  fruit  of  what  Mr.  Tracy  told  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  fruit  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  the  fr>iit ;  did  he  get  the  idea  from 
from  what  Mr.  Tracy  told  him,  whether  it  is  in  that  form? 
Judge  Neilson— It  is  a  very  simple  question. 
Mr.  Fullerton— It  is. 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  think  it  calls  for  a  conversation. 
Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Although,  after  he  answers  your  ques- 
tton,  perhaps  he  may  state  in  regard  to  that.  [To  The 
Tribune  stenographer.]  Read  the  question. 

Mr.  Beach— Wait. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  get  the  idea,  from  what  Mr. 
Tracy  told  you,  that  this  paper  was  in  the  form  of  a  let- 
ter wiitten  by  you  through  Mr.  Moulton  1  A.  I  got  the 

Q.  Did  you  get  that  idea?  A.  No,  Sir 


EGHJBJB  TEIAL. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Very  well ;  that  Is  an  answer  to  ray 
question, 

Q.  Then,  Mr.  Beecher,  where  did  you  get  the  informa- 
tion from  that  enabled  you  to  say,  as  you  did  in  the  letter 
of  June  1,  1873  :  "  The  agreement  was  made  after  my 
letter  through  you  was  written  t»  A.  I  don't  hold  that 
that  was  the  accurate  language. 

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment.  I  ask  you  a  question. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  the  witness"!- You  mean  to  disclaim  that 
language  ?  A.  No,  I  don't  mean  to  disclaim  the  language ; 
I  mean  to  disclaim  an  idea  that  I  have  not  been  allowed 
to  teU. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  ask  you  where  you  got  the  information 

which  enabled  you  to  say  that  ?  A.  I  cannot  say, 

Q.  I  ask  you  this  question,  whether  it  was  not  from  a 
recollection  of  the  fact  that  j<)u  did  write  that  letter 
through  Mr.  Moultoa  ?   A.  No,  Sir,  it  was  not. 

Q.  Then,  tell  me  where  you  got  the  information  that 
enabled  you  to  say  that.    A.  I  cannot  tell  you. 

Mr.  Fullerton — Vf^ry  well. 

Mr.  Beach— Leave  it  there. 

Mr.  Fullerton— We  have  got  that. 

Q.  Now,  when  was  it  you  saw  Mr.  John  RusseU  Young 
in  regard  to  that  paper  t   A.  In  the  Summer  of  1874. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  the  month  ?  A.  I  do  not,  positively, 
but  I  think  it  was  in  July. 

Q.  And  Where  lid  you  see  himi  A.  At  my  house. 

Q.  In  Brooklyn  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  offer  you  a  copy  of  the  paper?  A.  He  did 
not. 

Q.  Did  he  offer  to  read  the  paper  to  you  1  A.  He  did 
not. 

Q.  Did  he  offer  in  any  way  to  make  known  the  contents 
of  that  paper  to  you  ?  A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  offer  in  any  way  whatever,  through  his  ovm 
agency  or  through  the  agency  of  any  other  person  or  per- 
sons, to  put  you  in  the  way  of  getting  at  the  exact  con- 
tents of  that  paper?  A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  Mr.  John  Russell  Young,  in  sub- 
stance, that  you  ditln't  wish  a  copy  of  that  paper,  or  that 
you  didn't  wish  to  see  it,  or  that  you  didn't  wish  to  learn 
its  contents— you  wanted  to  have  it  said  upon  the  trial  of 
the  case  that  you  had  never  seen  it  until  it  was  produced 
in  court?  A.  I  don't  recollect  saying  any  such  words  to 
him.  , 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  to  him  In  substance  t  A.  I  do  not 
think  I  did. 

Will  you  say  you  did  not  say  it?  A.  I  say,  according 
to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  not  profess  to  have  with  him  what  purported 
to  be  a  copy  of  that  letter  ?  A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  DM  he  tell  you  that  he  had  seen  a  copy  of  it,  or  the 
letter  itself?  A.  He  told  me  that  he  had  seen  an  original 
document. 

Q.  Of  yours  ?  A.  Of  mine ;  that  is,  signed  as  an  original 

document,  represented  to  be  mine. 


TESTlMOyi  OF  HE} 

Q.  Did  rell  7011  tliat  tie  had  examined  yoiir  signature 
to  that  document  to  see  whether  it  was  genuine.  A.  He 
did. 

Q.  And  did  you  imderstand  him  as  referring  to  the  let- 
ter of  Jan.  1, 1871 1  A.  I  did. 
Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  he  had  seen  it.  A.  He  did. 
Q.  Did  you  then  deny  its  authenticity  1  A.  I  did  not. 

Mr,  Beach  [to  Mr.  Fullerton]— Or  disclaim  it  in  any 
form, 

Jlr.  Fullerton— In  any  of  the  conversations  you  had  

Mr.  Beach  -With  Mr.  Young  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Either  with  Mr.  Young,  or  with  your 

brother,  or  with  Mr.  Claflin  

Mr.  Beach  With  Mr.  Yoimg, 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  disclaim  the  authenticity  of 
that  letter?  A.  I  don't  remember;  I  did  not  to  Mr. 
Toung, 

Q.  You  are  sure  of  that!  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  in  siibstanee  to  Mr.  Young  without 
reference  to  the  trial!  A.  I  had  no  conversation  with 
Mm  ah  out  the  trial. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  you  didn't  want  to  know  the  con- 
tents of  the  paper  at  all — wanted  to  be  in  a  position  to 
say  you  didn't  see  it  1  A.  I  dont  think  I  did. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind!  A.  Nothing  of  that  kind  that 
I  can  recall. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  I  call  your  attention 
to  this  first  statement  of  yours,  dated  July  15,  1874.  [To 
Judge  Neilson.]  If  your  Honor  please,  that  is  a  long 
document,  and  it  will  occupy  more  time  than  we  have 
left. 

Judge  NetLaon  [to  the  jury]— Get  ready  to  retire,  gen- 
tlemen.  Please  be  here  to-morrow  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

Mr.  Mallison  [the  Clerk]— The  court  stands  adjourned 
mitil  to-morrow  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

The  court  thereupon  adjourned  imtil  11  o'clock  on 
Thursday. 


SIXTY-SIXTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDIXGS. 

ADJOUENilEXT  UNTIL  APEIL  19. 

MB.  FULLKRTON  ILL— A^T  ATTACK  OF  VERTIGO  "WITH 
FEVER. 

Thuesday,  April  15,  1875. 
The  great  crowd  assembled  to-day  to  hear  the 
further  cross-exammation  of  ilr.  Beecher  was  disap- 
pointed at  an  adjournment  in  consequence  of  the  ill- 
ness of  Mr.  Fullerton.  He  was  attacked  on  the  night 
of  the  14th  with  vertigo,  to  which  he  is  subject ;  and 
yesterday  when  a  Tribu^te  reporter  saw  hira  was  suf- 
fering from  fever.  In  view  of  his  condition  it  was  sug- 
gCv^ted  tijat  the  court  should  adjourn  until  April  19, 
•nd  to  this  Judge  Xeilson  consented. 


:by  ward  beecher.  m 
THE  PEOCEEDiNas— ^t:rbatim. 

THE   COURT   ADJOUENED   TO  MONDAY. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  please,  I  am  very  much 
pained  to  say  that  Mr,  FiiLLerron  does  not  feel  well 
enough  to  proceed  with  the  further  examination  of  Mr. 
Beecher  to-day.  He  is,  as  your  Honor  knows,  subject  to 
attacks  of  rertigo,  and  has  suffered  from  one  of  them 
dui-ing  the  pendency  of  this  trial.  He  ha>  striven  very 
hard  to  force  himself  to  a  continuation  of  his  duty,  and  is 
now  iu  the  ante-room,  hut  feels  himself  in  such  a  condi- 
tion that  he  would  expose  himself  to  a  serious  catastro- 
phe if  he  shoidd  endeavor  further  to  labor  in  the  case 
during  the  day.  I  have  consulted  with  our  learned 
friends  upon  the  other  side  and  they  are  very  cordial  and 
emphatic  iu  the  expression  of  their  wish  that  Mr.  Fuller- 
ton  should  consult  his  own  physical  condition,  and  it  ha« 
been  suggested  between  ils  whether  it  would  be  proper  to 
adjourn  simply  for  the  day,  until  to-morrow  morning,  or, 
as  we  are  near  the  close  of  the  week,  to  take  a  recess  until 
Monday-next.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  the  condition  of  Mr, 
Fnllerton  is  such  that  it  wotild  be  very  doubtful  whether 
he  would  be  fit  to  proceed  with  the  trial t-o-morrow.  I,  how- 
ever, submit  that  entirely  to  the  wishes  of  my  learned  ad- 
versaries and  to  the  discretion  of  yoiu'  Honor,  expressing, 
however,  my  strong  conviction  that  it  would  be  desirable 
on  his  account  to  take  a  recess  until  Monday  next.  I 
would  very  gladly,  Sir,  undertake  the  discharge  of  his 
duty,  and  to  pursue  myself  the  further  examination  and 
endeavor  to  close  it  without  his  presence,  but  there  are 
j  two  reasons  which  dissuade  me  from  that  course.  Thd 
first  is,  that  I  have  not  prepare-d  myself  by  examining 
the  minutes  of  Mr.  Fullerton's  preparation  for  cros&- 
examination,  nor  do  I  myself  feel  as  if  it  would  be  safe 
for  me  to  undertake  that  duty. 

Mr,  Evarts — If  your  Honor  please,  it  is  well  understood 
in  our  profession  and  by  the  bench  that  a  lawyer  is 
imder  every  motive  to  carry  his  exertions  to  the  extreme 
of  endurance  and  exposure,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  Mr. 
Fullertoji  has  had  that  disposition.  But  we  cannot  on 
our  side  be  at  all  insensible  to  the  utter  impropriety  of  a 
lav^-ye^  who  finds  himself,  in  the  progress  of  a  case,  ex- 
posed to  be  reduced  in  strength  and  health,  going  on 
under  any  extraneous  considerations.  It  does  not  ad- 
vance the  cause ;  it  does  not  improve  the  prospects  of 
getting  through  to  go  on  when  the  result  may 
be  a  serious  impairment  of  health.  And  tmder  those  cir- 
cumstances we  think  on  our  side  that  Mr.  Ftillerton  and 
his  associat'CS  should  regard  really,  entirely,  the  coudi- 
tion  of  his  health,  and  in  respect  to  the  length  of  adjourn 
ment  should  consult  that  consideration  also. 

Judge  Xeilson— Then  we  will  adjourn  imtil  Monday 
morniug  at  11  o'clock,  gentlemen. 

The  Court  then  ad,1oumed  to  Monday. 


THE   TILlON-BKblOHER   TBI  AC. 


S6 

SIXTY-SEVENTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDIMS. 

ME.    BEECHER    AND    EX-JUDGE  FULLER- 
TON  AGAIN  FACE  TO  FACE. 

BESUMFnON  OF  THE  CROSS-EXAMINATION— EXPLA- 
NATIONS OF  THE  ALLEGED  CLANDESTINE  COR- 
RESPONDENCE. 

Monday,  April  19,  1875. 

The  knowledge  that  the  crisis  of  the  great  trial 
had  been  reached,  brought  together  a  crowd  that 
packed  the  Brooklyn  City  court-room.  The  corri- 
dors leading  to  it  were  thronged  with  a  noisy  crowd 
that  fought  for  admission  almost  desperately  when- 
ever the  door  was  opened  for  those  who  were  entitled 
to  enter.  During  the  recess,  a  dozen  men  taking  ad- 
vantage of  a  temporary  opening  of  the  outer  door, 
rushed  in,  and  attempted  to  push  their  way  into  the 
court-room.  The  doorkeeper  rallied  his  assistants, 
and  a  lively  scuffle  ensued  before  the  intruders 
could  be  expelled.  On  the  bench,  with  Judge 
Neilson,  sat  an  unusual  number  of  spectators, 
among  whom  were  the  Hon.  Thomas  H.  Nelson, 
of  Indiana,  formerly  United  States  Minister  to  Mex- 
ico ;  the  Hon.  William  C.  Williams  of  Syracuse,  N.  Y.; 
the  Hon.  E.  A.  Farrington  of  New-York,  Judge  John 
L.  Thompson  of  Chicago,  Judge  David  A.  De- 
pue  of  Newark,  N.  J.;  Judge  D.  S.  Wilson  of  Iowa, 
the  Hon.  Hendrick  B.  Wright  of  Pennsylvania,  the 
Hon.  R.  S.  Armstrong  of  Cuba,  N.  Y.;  J.  W.  Griffith 
of  Newark,  N.  J.;  A.  C.  Davis  of  New- York,  and 
Jushie  Yoshida  Kiyonari  of  Washington,  D.  C,  En- 
voy Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of 
Japan  to  the  United  States.  In  the  audience-room 
sat  the  Rev.  Edward  Eggleston,  the  Rev.  Thomas 
Armitage,  D.  D.;  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Storrs,  D.  D.; 
Col.  Henry  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Henry  Beecher,  and 
many  others.   Mrs.  Tilton  was  not  present. 

Mr.  Beecher,  before  the  court  opened,  stood  for 
several  minutes  in  earnest  consultation  with  some 
of  his  counsel,  while  Mr.  Tilton  sat  near  ex-Judge 
Morris,  busily  making  notes.  Upon  taking  the 
stand  Mr.  Beecher  bowed  low  to  the  Judge.  He  held 
in  his  hand  a  small  bouquet  of  delicate  flowers. 

In  resuming  the  cross-examination  Mr.  Fullerton 
who  exhibited  at  first  his  wonted  courtesy  of  mau- 
ler and  softness  of  voice,  but  perceiving  what  he 
considered  to  be  evasion  in  the  witness's  replies,  he 
assumed  a  sterner  demeanor,  and  put  his  questions 
rapidly  and  in  a  harsh  tone.  These  tactics  were 
not  without  their  effect  on  the  witness,  who 
stumbled  and  hesitated  in  his  speech  more  than  he  is 
accustomed  to  do.   Wlienever  the  witness  appeared 


to  hesitate  in  answering,  Mr.  lllton,  who  sat  facing 
him,  would  look  sternly  into  his  face.  There  were 
several  passages  at  arms  between  the  witness  and 
Mr.  Fullerton,  the  former  desiiing  to  extend  his  an- 
swers beyond  the  simple  words  "Yes,"  or  "No,'* 
while  the  skillful  cross-examiner  insisted  on  having 
short  replies.  Once  Mr.  Beecher,  who  seemed  to  feel 
hampered  by  this  mode  of  answering,  said  half -re- 
proachfully, "  Mr.  Fullerton,  I  want  to  get  at  just 
what  you  want,  and  if  I  seem  sometimes  to  evade 
you  it  is  because  I  am  either  dull  or  am  anxious  to 
tell  the  truth." 

The  cross-examination  was  intended  in  the  first 
place  to  draw  from  the  witness  what  he  considered 
the  charges  against  him  to  have  been  at  the  time 
of  the  interview  between  himself,  Mr.  Tilton,  and 
Mr.  Moulton  at  the  latter's  residence  in  January, 
1871,  and  at  what  time  he  became  aware  that  adul- 
tery was  charged.  The  details  of  that  interview, 
of  the  statement  prepared  soon  after  for  Mr.  Tilton 
at  Mr.  Moulton's  suggestion,  of  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  letters  of  Feb.  7, 1871,  were  writ- 
ten, and  of  the  interviews  between  himself  and  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Tilton  in  1871,  were  exhaustively 
gone  over ;  but  the  witness,  without  re- 
peating the  same  words,  gave  substantially 
the  same  account  of  these  circumstances 
that  he  had  on  the  direct  examination.  He  under- 
stood that  he  was  charged  with  improper  or  wicked 
proposals  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  not  by  Mr.  Tilton  person- 
ally, but  by  Mrs.  Tilton  in  a  letter  which  her  hus- 
band showed  him.  Personally  he  had  never  denied 
the  charge  to  Mr.  Tilton.  Jusfc  before  the  close  of 
the  afternoon  session  Mr.  Fullerton  read  from  the 
direct  examination  of  Mr.  Beecher  the  passage  de- 
scribing the  interview  with  Mr.  Tilton  in  January, 
1871,  in  which  after  stating  the  substance  of  Mr. 
Tilton's  charges  against  him,  he  used  these  words: 
"Then he  went  on  to  say  that  I  had  not  only  done 
all  this  but  that  I  had  made  overtures  to  his 
wife  of  an  improper  character."  A  similar  passage 
from  Mr.  Beecher's  statement  before  the  Examining 
Committee  last  Fall  was  also  read.  Mr.  Beecher  ad- 
mitted the  inconsistency  of  these  statements  with 
the  declaration  he  had  just  made  that  Mr.  Tilton  had 
not  charged  him  with  wicked  proposals  to  his  wife 
except  through  her  confession,  and  said  that  if  his 
testimony  on  the  direct  examination  contravened 
what  he  now  said,  it  was  not  what  he  intended  to 
say,  and  needed  correction.  Several  of  the  alleged 
clandestine  letters  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton 
were  agam  considered.    Mr.  Fullerton  in  reading 


lESlUWXY   OF  REX 


RI    WAED  BEECBEB. 


57 


these  letters  exerted  his  elocutionary  po^vers,  and  I 
the  auditors  listened  Tvith  undiminished  attention. 
Mr.  Beecher  in  explaining  the  e<iuiTocal  passages 
had  the  air  of  a  man  who  was  wearied  with  having 
to  tell  over  and  over  again  what  was  intended  to  he 
expressed  by  words  which  to  him  seemed  clear  as 
daylight.  He  steadily  asserted  that  he  had  no  recol-  j 
lection  of  what  meaning  he  had  attached  to  some  of 
these  passages  at  the  time  when  he  received  the 
letters. 

In  describing  the  interview  between  himself  and 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  in  which  they  kissed  one 
another  "all round,"  Mr.  Beecher  said  that  Mrs. 
Tilton  kissed  him  after  kissing  her  husband.  "  Did 
you  make  no  objection  ?"  asked  Air.  Fullerton.  "  2so, 
I  did  not,"  replied  the  witness,  stammering  and 
smiling  in  a  way  that  caused  the  audience  to  break 
out  laughing. 

At  another  time  Mr.  Evarts  had  said  that  he 
thought  counsel  might  get  along  without  scuffling. 
A  tilt  occurring  soon  afterward,  he  continued, 
•*  that  is  some  of  the  scuffliog  I  referred  to."  "  Well, 
Sir,"  replied  Mr.  Fullerton  quickly,  "  you  are  one  of 
the  scufders." 

THE   PROCEEDINGS— YERBATTM. 

The  Court  met  at  11  o'clock,  a.  m.,  pursuant 

to  a-djoui  nmeut. 

Juclgt  Xfil.-on— Will  the  gentlemen  please  keep  quiet! 
Are  you  ready  to  proceed,  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  Beeclier  was  recalled,  and  Ms  cross-examinatioii 
r«8umea. 

INTERVIEW  AT  ilE.  MOULTOX'S  HOUSE. 

Mr.  Fullerton — Mr.  Beecher,  I  now  come  to 
the  3d  of  January,  1S71,  and  call  your  attention  to  an  in- 
terview liad  witli  Z\Ir.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  at  Mr 
Moulton's  house.  How  did  it  happen  that  you  went  to 
Mr.  Moulton's  house  on  that  day?  A,  I  have  no  distinct 
jrecolleetion  of  the  reasons;  I  presmne  it  was  simply  to 
make  a  call  upon  him. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  whether  or  not  it  was  in  pursu- 
ance of  an  appointment?  A.  I  don't  rememher  that  it 
•was  la  pui'suance  of  an  appointment. 

Had  Mr.  Moulton  reported  to  you,  before  you  went 
to  his  house  on  the  3d  of  January,  the  effeet  which  the 
return  of  the  retraction  had  upon  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  do 
not  now  recall  anything  of  the  kind,  Sir. 

Q.  Ji^ow,  whom  did  you  first  see  on  the  3d  of  January, 
"Wlien  you  entered  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  a>ide  from  the 
•ervant  ?   A.  Mr.  Moult-on. 

Q.  In  his  room  1   A  In  his  room. 

Q.  What  conversation  occurred  between  you  and  Mr. 
Moulton  before  Mr.  Tilton  came  in  ?   A.  It  was  a  general 


conversation,  and  one  in  which  he  spoke— but  I  cannot 
recall  the  particulars  of  what  he  said— in  resi>ect  to  Mr. 
Tilton  and  his  state  of  feeling:  and  I  spoke  to  him  also 
in  confirmation  of  what  

Q.  Please  tell  us  what  you  said,  as  well  as  you  can, 
Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  Well,  I  expressed  my  great  sympathy  for 
Mr.  Tilton  and  my  great  resets  for  the  circumstances 
which  had  been  developed,  in  which  I  had  been  an  actor, 
and  for  the  injury  that  I  had  done  to  him,  and  for,  espe- 
cially, the  distress  and  ti^ouble  that  he  had  In  his  ovm. 
house  and  family,  and  expressed  myself  very -strongly 
as  being  an  unwilling  injurer  of  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Did  you  express  in  substance  the  apologies  whidl 
you  had  made  on  the  1st  of  January  in  Mr.  Moulton's 
presence  ?  A.  "Well,  I  went  over  the  same  topics— some 
of  them,  Sir— but  I  did  not  formulate  them. 

Q.  In  substance  were  your  apologies  or  explanatlCHM 
the  same  as  on  the  Istl  A.  They  were  substantially  tha 
expression  of  the  feelings  that  I  had,  only  modified  by 
the  reflection  of  a  dav  or  two. 

Q.  Did  you  regard  tne  apology  which  you  made  on  tJie 
1st  of  January,  and  those  which  you  made  afterward  on 
the  3d  of  January,  as  meeting  the  charge  which  had  been 
preferred  against  you  by  :Mr.  Tilton  on  the  night  of  the 
30th  uf  December  previous  ?  A.  As  meeting  the  charge 
of  the  alienation  of  his  wife's  affections,  of  bringing  dis- 
cord and  distress  into  his  house. 

Q.  You  did  not  regard  the  apology  then  as  meeting  the 
other  charge  of  undue  solicitations?  A.  The  other  charge 
of  undue  solicitations  

Q.  Did  you  regard  the  apology  as  meeting  that!  A, 
My  apology  that  I  sent  to  him,  having  denied  the  other, 
was  for  that  which  I  believed  to  be  true. 

Q.  Your  apology,  then,  was  not  designed  to  meet  the 
charge  of  undue  solicitations,  was  it?  A.  My  apology 
had  no  concern— it  neither  was  nor  was  not  designed  to 
meet  that ;  that  was  not  in  our  conversation. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  about  that  on  the  3d.  A.  I  dont 
recall  that  there  was  a  word  said  specifically  about  that 
on  the  3d. 

Q.  You  had  not  denied  it  then  to  Theodore  Tilton?  A. 
Personally  I  never  denied  it  to  Theodore  Tilton,  except 
on  the  1st. 

Q.  You  had  never  sent  any  denial  by  any  third  person 
to  him  as  I  understand  you  to  say  ?  A.  I  had  

Q.  Had  you?   A.  I  had  explicitly  

Q.  Had  you  sent  any  dbiaial  by  any  third  person  to  Mr. 
Tilton  ?  A.  I  had  sent  by  Mr.  Moulton  an  explicit  denial 
of  that  charge  on  the  1st  of  January. 

Q.  Tell  me  when  you  sent  it  ?  A.  On  the  1st  of  January. 

Q.  In  what  words  did  you  frame  it  t  A  I  cannot  tell 
you. 

Q.  Did  you  not  teU  me  the  other  day  that  yon  did  not 

send  any  such  explicit  denial  at  all  t  A.  I  told  you  

Q.  Did  you  not  teU  me  that  I    A.  T  did  not,  in  tluit 

sense. 


58  THE  TILTON-B 

Q.  Very  well.  Now,  was  tlie  subject  referred  to  on  the 
3d  when  Mr.  TUton  appeared  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house  1 
A.  It  was  not  according  to  my  memory,  Sir. 

Q.  When  Mr.  Tilton  appeared  in  the  room,  please  state 
what  occurred  I  A.  I  only  have  a  recollection  that  the 
eonversation  was  interrupted ;  that  he  turned  as  if  he 
would  leave.  My  impression  is  that  he  hesitated  as  if 
lie  would  not  come  in— that  Mr.  Moiilton  called  him  in  ; 
that  he  stated  to  him  that  I  had  heen  making  some  very 
—that  I  had  heen  making  remarks  about  him  that  he 
oujBrht  to  hear,  that  he  wished  he  might  hear ;  and  Mr. 
Tilton  came  to  Mr.  Moulton's  side  of  the  bed,  I  was  sit- 
ting on  the  other,  and  I  repeated  to  Mr.  Tilton  in  sub- 
stance this,  that  I  had  never  supposed  that  I  was  doing 
any  injury  to  his  household,  nor  to  him  in  his  business 
relations  ;  that  it  was  the  furthest  from  my  thought  of 
anything  in  the  world ;  that  in  so  far  as  I  had  uncon- 
sciously and  unintentionally  done  injury  to  his  wife,  and 
through  her  to  him,  I  very  heartily  was  sorry  for  it,  and 
I  asked  his  forgiveness  for  it.  That  was  the  substance 
of  it. 

Q.  Which  of  the  two  charges  did  you  regard  as  the 
more  serious,  the  undue  solicitations  or  winning  of  his 
wife's  affections  1  A.  It  depends  upon  what  "  serious" 
refers  to. 

Q.  Well,  refe*  it  to  whatever  you  please,  and  give  me 
an  answer.  A.  In  so  far  as  my  own  private  feelings  were 
concerned,  the  charge  of  alienation  of  a  man's  wife's 
affections  from  him  would  be  about  as  poignant  a  suffer- 
ing as  I  could  have  in  one  direction;  but  the  charge  of 
making  improper  advances,  in  so  far  as  it  affected  my 
relation  to  the  church  and  to  the  community,  would  be 
about  as  bad  as  it  could  be. 

Q.  How  did  it  happen,  then,  that  that  subject  was  not 
mentioned  in  terms  on  the  3d  of  January  1  A.  That  is 
for  them  to  answer. 

Q.  Well,  it  is  for  you  to  answer  now,  inasmuch  as  I  put 
■the  question  to  you.   A.  I  can  not  say. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  say  something  in  regard  to  that 
charge,  which  affected  your  moral  character  and  your 
standing  in  the  community?  A.  I  spoke  of  that  of  which 
I  felt  consciously  at  fault. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  vindicate  yourself  against  the 
eharge  if  you  knew  yourself  to  be  innocent  1  A.  The 
charge  was  not  urged  again. 

Q.  It  had  been  urged,  had  it  noti  A.  And  it  had  been 
explained  and  denied. 

Q.  Had  it  been  explained  and  denied  at  the  time  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir  ;  if  Mr.  Moulton  did  what  he  promised. 

Q.  If  Mr.  Moulton  did  what  he  promised!  A.  On 
Jan.  1. 

Q.  What  did  he  promise  to  do  with  refor' uoe— one  ujo- 
ment.  Sir— what  did  he  promise  to  lo  on  Jan.  1  with  ref- 
erence to  the  charge  of  improper  solicitu  ion  i  A_.  Spocifl- 
eally  iu  regard  to  no  one  topic  of  conversation  did  he  un- 
dertake—but he  did  undertake  to  represent  to  Mr.  Tilton 


WECHBR  TEIAL. 

the  whole  state  of  my  mind  in  regard  to  all  that  which 
had  taken  place  on  the  evening  of  the  30th  at  his 
house. 

Q.  Well,  you  had  made  apologies  on  the  1st  of  January, 
had  you  not,  as  to  the  winning  of  his  wife's  affection  t  A. 
I  had  made  

Q.  You  had,  had  you  not  I  A.  Not  in  the  strict  sense, 
apologies. 

Q.  Well,  whatever  they  were,  whatever  you  have  de- 
tailed here  as  the  conversation  on  that  day  took  place, 
did  it  not,  with  reference  to  the  supposed  charges  1  A. 
All  the  conversation  had  reference  to  the  supposed  state 
of  affairs  in  his  family. 

Q.  WeU,  why  did  you  renew  your  apologies  so  far  as  tho 
winning  of  his  wife's  affections  was  concerned  on  the  3d, 
without  renewing  your  denial  of  the  charge  of  improper 
solicitations  1  A.  One  was  a  charge  that  was  false,  and 
the  other  a  charge  that  I  supposed  true. 

Q.  And  the  false  charge  you  paid  little  attention  to  f 
A.  As  it  was  not  urged  again,  I  paid  no  attention  to  it. 

Q.  You  waited  for  it  to  be  urged  again  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Before  you  denied  it?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  do  not  deny 
things  that  are  not  urged,  nor  always  those  that  are. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  say  to  Mr.  Tilton  on  that  day,  when 
you  met  him  face  to  face,  "  Sir,  as  to  the  improper  ad- 
vances, this  charge  is  entirely  untrue?"  Whv  did  you 
wait  to  have  him  repeat  the  charge  before  you  said  any- 
thing ?  A.  I  had  come  to  that  interview  

Q.  Why  did  you?  A.  You  are  asking  me  and  I  am  an- 
swering. 

Q.  I  ask  you  why  you  didn't  do  that,  in  the  light  that 
you  had  then  and  there  1  A.  In  the  light  that  I  had  then 
and  there,  I  followed  the  circumstances  of  the  interview ; 
I  took  that  just  as  I  found  it,  as  it  was  broken  off  with 
Mr.  Moulton  ;  we  were  talking  together  in  respect  to  his 
business  relations,  and  in  respect  to  the  difficulty  between 
him  and  his  wife,  and  the  family,  and  my  agency  in  it, 
and  not  about  the  charge  of  improper  advances;  and 
when  Mr  Tilton  came  in  I  said  to  him  just  what  I  had 
been  saying  to  Mr,  Moulton  in  substance. 

Q.  Did  not  Mr.  Tilton  say  to  you  on  the  3d,  in  sub- 
stance, when  Mr.  Moulton  asked  him  to  accost  you :  "How 
can  T  speak  to  a  man  who  lias  thus  conducted  himself?*. 
In  substance  didn't  he  say  that  t  A.  He  may  have  said 
something  like  that ;  I  cannot  give  his  words. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  that  he  did  9  A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  not  state  upon  yourdirect  examination  t»  at 
Mr.  Tilton  on  that  occasion  said,  "  How  can  T  speah  to 
this  man?"  A.  Well,  I  say  now  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  WeU,  didn't  j'ou  suppose  that  this  language 
of  Mr.  Tilton  was  ba«i«d  upon  the  Idea  that  you  had  been 
guilty  of  improper  advauees,  as  well  as  winning  his  wife's 
affections?  A.  It  did  not  cover  impropet  a.lvancep  ml 
It  did  cover  

Q.  Did  you  not  supiKXie,  at  tLat  time*   A  [  did  lot 


Ti:ST12WyT  OF  s^x 

tMak  anytMnsr  about  it ;  1  was  tliiuking  of  tliat  wMcli 
iest<3d  mo^t  on  my  miii(L 

Q.  Not  tlie  defense  of  your  moral  cliaracterl  A.  Yes. 
Sir;  I  considerfd  my  moral  character  involved  in  vrinning 
Ms  wife's  affection. 

Q.  All,  but  you  did  it  unconsciouslv,  didn't  youl  A.  I 
did  it  unconsciously  wlien  I  should  have  been  conscious. 


ME.  BEECHER  DEXIES  WIXNIXG  MRS.  TIL- 
TOX'S  AEFECTIOXS. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  seen  anytMng  or  heard  of 
anything  from  Mrs.  Tilton,  either  in  word  or  gesture, 
that  intimated  to  you  that  she  was  placing  her  affections 
upon  you  ?  A.  Not  diu'ing  the  time  of  our  acquaintance. 

Q.  How  did  you  think  then  that  you  then  discovered 
•what  was  not  visible  i  A.  I  ought  to  have  been  more 
sensitive  to  things  that  I  did  not  see,  which  very  likely 
existed. 

Q.  Can  you  now  in  looking  back  upon  your  life  with 
Mrs.  Tilton  for  some  years  prior  to  the  30th  of  December, 
1870,  see  an\~thing  which  should  have  put  you  upon  your 
guard  i  A.  I  can  now  recollect  many  conversations  that  I 
should  not  have  had  if  I  had  supposed  that  they  would 
have  wrought  as  they  have  worked— as  I  suppose  they 
have  worked. 

Q.  Now  can  you  tell  us  what  they  were  ?  A.  I  cannot 
xeil  you  what  tiii\v  were. 

Q.  Canyon  give  us  the  substance  of  them?  A.  I  can 
tell  you  of  the  expressions  which  I  made  of  great  pleasure 
in  the  way  of  her  household,  and  what  a  place  of  peace  it 
was,  and  how  I  was  glad  to  resort  to  it,  and  that  it  was 
where  people  could  not  find  me ;  I  was  not  run  down  by 
people  that  were  at  my  door  aU  the  time ;  I  spoke  to  her 
also  in  regard  to  many  of  my  books  and  my  works ;  I 
spoke  to  her  in  great  admiration  of  some  of  her  letters 
which  she  showed  me,  of  her  own,  which  she'  had  writ- 
ten, one  in  particular;  and  a  variety  of  such  things;  it 
was  entering  into  her  life,  and  in  some  sense  giving  her 
an  insight  into  mine, 

Q.  How  long  did  that  interview  last  on  the  3d  ?  A 
Well,  I  cannot  say ;  I  should  say  half  an  hour— half  or 
three-quarters ;  might  have  been  a  little  more  or  a  little 
less. 

Q.  Well,  in  looking  back,  now,  upon  those  interviews 
with  Mrs.  Tiltun,  ore  you  enabled  now  to  discover  any- 
thing in  her  conduct  that  communicated  to  you  that  she 
was  transferring  her  affections — you  have  told  us  what 
you  said  and  what  you  did  I  A.  Well,  I  do  not  under- 
stand now  the  question. 

Q.  In  looking  back  to  those  various  interviews— of 
which  you  have  given  us  a  summary— with  Mrs.  Tilton, 
what  are  you  enabled  now  to  see  in  her  conduct  that  in- 
dicates to  you  that  you  ought  to  have  been  more  circum- 
sprct  I  A.  I  do  not  recall  anything  in  Mrs.  Tilton's  con- 
duct prior  to— anything— I  discover  now  no  act,  and  I  1 


T    WARD  BEECREB,  69 

recollect  no  ^ord,  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  that  would  indicate  an 
overweening  affection. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  LETTER  TO  MR.  BO^N'EN. 

Q.  At  wliose  suggestion  did  you  vsrite  the  let- 
ter to  Henry  C.  Bowen  on  ttie  2d  of  January,  1871 1 
A.  Well,  it  was,  I  suppose,  both  mine  and  Mr.  Moulton's 
suggestion ;  it  grew  out  of  the  conversation. 

Q.  Did  it  grow  out  of  the  conversation  on  the  Istf 
A.  Yes— No,  Sir— yes;  the  conversation  on  the  1st. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  say  to  Mr.  Moulton  with  refer- 
ence to  a  contemplated  letter  t-o  Mr.  Bowen  1  A.  I  do  not; 
recall  it;  all  my  recollection  is  that  in  discussing  these 
stories,  that  he  pronounced  utterly  false,  that  Mr.  Bowen 
had  told,  and  in  commenting  upon  the  addition  to  them 
that  I  had  made,  when  he  had:  stated  his  word  of  honor 
that  they  were  false,  and  in  regard  to  some  that  he  knew, 
personally,  that  they  were  false. 

Q.  Now,  win  yon  state  if  you  please  what  was  yonr 
object  in  writing  Mr.  Bowen  on  the  2d  of  January! 
A.  My  object  was  to  disabuse  his  mind  of  the  impressions 
that  I  had  left  upon  it,  I  supposed,  by  my  statements. 

Q.  Was  that  alll  A.  That  was  all  that  I  recollect  now. 

Q.  You  did  not  expect  to  effect  any  other  object  ?  A.  I 
do  not  recollect ;  I  do  not  now  recall  any  other  motive 
that  I  had  than  that,  to  right  a  wrong. 

Q.  You  did  not  expect  to  do  anything  else  than  to 
remove  any  impression  that  you  had  made  upon  the 
mind  of  Mr.  Bowen?  A.  So  far  as  I  recollect  now  that 
was  my  only  idea. 

Q.  Was  it  not  for  the  purpose  of  reinstating  htm  m  hia 
lost  position  1  A.  I  do  not  recall  any  such  motive  on  my 
part. 

Q.  Well,  how  did  it  happen,  if  you  were  so  overwhelmed 
with  grief  on  the  1st,  when  you  dictated  or  made  sugges- 
tions to  Mr.  3Ioulton  which  caused  him  to  write  the  letter 
called  "  The  Letter  of  Apology,"  or  "  Contrition,"  when 
you  were  walking  up  and  down  the  room  in  such  mental 
agony  and  distress,  weeping  profusely,  thinking  that 
you  were  about  to  lose  yotu'  intellect  because  of  what 
you  had  done  toward  Mr.  Tilton— how  did  it  happen  thai 
on  the  next  day  when  you  wrote  the  letter  to  Mr.  Bowen, 
you  did  not  manifest  some  of  that  feeling;  can  you  ex- 
plain that?  A.  I  was  writiag  to  Henry  C.  Bowen  in  one 
case,  and  I  was  talking  to  Mr.  Tilton's  representative  In 
the  other. 

Q.  Yes;  let  me  read  this  letter : 

Brooklyn,  Jan.  2, 1871. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Bowen  :  Since  I  saw  you  last  Tuesday 
I  have  reason  to  think  that  the  only  cases  of  which  T 
spoke  to  you  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton  were  exaggerated  in 
being  reported  to  me ;  and  I  should  be  unwilling  to  have 
anything  I  said,  though  it  was  but  little,  weigh  on  your 
mind  in  a  matter  so  important  to  his  welfare.  I  am  in- 
formed by  one  on  whose  judgment  and  integrity  I  greatly 
rely,  and  who  has  the  means  of  forming  an  opinion  l>et- 
ter  than  any  of  us,  that  he  knows  of  the  whole  matter 
about  Mrs.  B.,  and  that  the  stories  are  not  true,  and  that 


60 


THE  TILTOB-BEBGHEE  TRIAL. 


tlie  same  is  tbe  case  with  other  stories.  To  tliis  I  do  not 
wish  any  reply.  I  thought  it  only  due  to  justice  that  I 
Should  say  so  much. 

You  did  not  even  want  a  reply  from  Mr.  Bowen,  it 
seems  1  A.  I  did  not,  it  seems. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  want  to  learn  whether  you  did  re- 
move from  his  mind  any  impression  that  you  made  by 
what  you  said  to  him  !  A.  I  do  iipt  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  care  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that 
that  came  Into  my  mind  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  care  whether  your  letter  effected 
the  object  or  not?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  had  any 
eonsideration  of  that  kind. 

Q.  What  good  did  you  expect  that  letter  would  do  to 
Mr.  Tilton?  A.  It  would  take  away  the  strength— what- 
ever force  there  was  in  my  statements  to  Mr.  Bo  wen. 

Q,  Which  was  but  very  little,  you  say  %  A.  But  little, 
but  whatever  there  was  of  them. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  see  Mr.  Bowen  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Have  any  interview  with  him,  or  correspondence 
•with  him  upon  the  subject?  A.  None. 

Q.  And  that  is  all  that  you  said,  and  all  that  you  did, 
In  regard  to  the  injury  which  you  supposed  you  had  in- 
flicted upon  Mr.  Tilton  through  Mr.  Bowen?  A.  I  took  it 
all  back. 

Q.  Is  that  all  you  said  or  did?  A.  That  is  all  that  I 
said  or  did,  as  far  as  I  recollect  now. 

Q.  You  sought  no  interview  with  Mr.  Bowen  ?  A.  None 
at  all. 

Q.  Sent  no  message  ?  A.  Sent  no  message. 

Q.  And  had  no  correspondence  other  than  the  letter  I 
have  read  ?  A.  And  had  no  corresiwndence  other  than 
that,  so  far  as  my  memory  now  serves  me. 

CONTERSATION    WITH    FRANCIS    D.  CAR- 
PENTER. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  geDtleman  by  the  name 
of  Mr.  Carpenter;  Frank  Carpenter,  I  think,  he  is  called? 
A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  know  a  Mr.  Frank  Carpenter. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him,  about  the 
1st  of  June,  1873,  in  regard  to  this  difficulty  ?  A.  About 
the  Ist  of  June  

Q.  I  refer  to  a  conversation  in  Plymouth  Church.  A. 
I  have  but  an  indistinct  recollection  that  I  saw  him 
there. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  to  him  in  Plymouth  Church,  on  or 
about  the  Ist  of  June,  1873,  in  substance  as  follows : 

Have  you  seen  Theodore  ?  He  is  going  to  publish  my 
letter?"  A.  I  do  not  recall  any  such  expression. 

Q.  Are  you  enabled  to  say  that  you  did  not  make  use  of 
that  language  ?  A.  I  do  not  recall  it  at  all.  Sir ;  accord- 
ing to  the  best  of  my  recollection  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  in  reply  to  that  expression  of  yours  do  you  re- 
member of  Mr.  Carpenter's  saying :  "  What  of  it !"  A. 
Ko,  Sir. 

Q.  And  of  your  saying :  •*  It  will  ruin  me,  and  him,  too ; 


for  he  cannot  rise  upon  my  mini**  A.  I  do  not  reooUed 

any  such  thing,  Sir. 

Q.  Then,  I  must  ask  you  whether  in  such  a  conversa- 
tion you  did  not  mean  by  the  phrase  "my  letter,"  the 
letter  of  January  1, 1871 !  A.  I  do  not  admit  the  conver- 
sation, and  I  cannot  give  an  explanation  to  a  converse 
tion  I  do  not  admit. 

Q.  I  understand  you,  however,  that  you  do  not  denj 
positively  that  such  a  conversation  was  had  ?  A.  Ac- 
cording to  the  best  of  my  recollection  there  was  no  suoli 
conversation. 

Q.  Is  that  all  that  you  will  say  upon  that  subject  I  A. 
That  is  all  I  can  say,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  3^ou  recollect  after  this  conversation,  or  after  a 
conversation,  that  Mr.  Carpenter  walked  with  you  to  Ml. 
Moulton's  house  1  A.  I  remember  walking  either  to  Mr. 
Moulton's,  or  to  my  own,  one  evening  with  Mr.  Carpen- 
ter. 

Q.  One  Sunday  evening  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  either  a 
Friday  night  or  a  Sunday ;  it  was  after  some  meeting ; 

my  impression  is  

THE  PROPOSED  STATEMENT  FOR  MR.  TIL- 
TON. 

Q.  I  now  caU  your  attention  to  Exhibit  No. 

49,  and  ask  you  whether  it  is  in  your  handwriting! 
[Showing  paper  to  witness.]  A.  This  is  in  my  hand- 
writing. Sir. 

Q.  I  will  read  it,  because  I  wish  to  ask  you  some  ques- 
tions in  regard  to  it.  [Reading.]  "  The  statement  of  Mr. 
B.  being  read,  and  if  striking  favorably,  then  a  word  sent 
substantially  thus  to  the  Committee."  The  "  Mr.  B."  re- 
ferred to  there,  or  mentioned  there,  is  yourself  isn't  It  f 
A.  I  presume  so,  Sir ;  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Had  you  not  therefore  prepared  a  statement  to  be 
read  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  don't  know  anything 
—what  date  this  is.  Sir ;  there  is  no  date  given  to  it. 

Q.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  date;  I  am  speaking  ol 
the  substance  of  the  thing.  Don't  you  remember  that» 
before  writing  that,  you  had  prepared  a  statement  for 
the  Committee  ?  A.  No,  I  don't,  because  I  don't  kno-w 
when  this  was  written. 

Q.  Can't  you  tell  by  the  contents  when  It  was  written! 
A.  No;  I  think  very  likely  it  was  written  after  the  state- 
ment was  in  hand ;  it  might  have  been  written  after  the 
statement  was  given ;  I  cannot  give  the  date. 

Q.  Wasn't  it  written  with  reference  to  your  statement 
bearing  date  July  15, 1874  ?  A.  I  presume  it  was. 

Q.  Very  well ;  that  is  satisfactory.  Then  the  "  Mr.  B.** 
mentioned  there  was  yourself,  wasn't  it?  A.  I  presume 
it  was.  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  statement  referred  to— wasn't  it  the  state- 
ment that  you  had  prepared  for  the  Committee,  and 
which  has  been  given  in  evidence  here !  A.  That  doesn^ 
follow  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  I  ask  yon  whether  It  doesn't  follow!  A.  I 


TESTmo:NY  OF  rb:s 

oaimot  t-ell,  Sir,  unless  you  will  T€ll  me  wliat;  ttie  date  ol  | 
the  document  is ;  I  cannot  tell  wliettier  it  refers  to  tke 
statement  tliat  I  meant  to  make  or  to  the  statement  that 
I  did  draw  up  and  make. 

Q.  Don't  you  imow  whether  that  refers  to  a  statement 
that  had  already  Tieen  drawn  out— drawn  up  hy  you  1  A. 
I  do  not,  Sir,  nor  does  the  document  show  it. 

Well,  don't  reason  it.  A.  It  was  only  a  reason  in  the 
way  of  statem.ent. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  want  a  reason  la  the  way  of  statement, 
l)ecause  there  might  be  two  opiaions  ar^  to  whether  the 
document  stated  it  or  not,  and  I  cannot  stop  to  reason 
with  you  now.  fReading.J  "  I  have  been  tlMrough  years 
acting  imder  conviction  that  I  had  been  wronged,  but 
was  under  the  imputation  of  being  the  injurer.  I  learn 
from  a  friend  that  3Ir.  B."— that  is  Mr.  Beeclier,  isn't  it  ? 
A.  I  have  already  stated.  Sir,  that  

Q.  There  is  another  Jtlr.  B.  tliere,  if  you  please  ?  A.  I 
think  it  very  likely  to  be. 

Q.  Don't  you  suppose  it  was?  A.  I  presume  that  it 
■was,  Sir. 

Q.  [Beading.]  "I  learn  from  a  friend  that  Mr.  B.,  in 
Ms  statement  to  you,  has  reversed  this  and  has  done  me 
Justice.  I  am  willing,  should  he  consent,  to  appear  before 
you  with  him,  and,  dropping  the  further  statements  which 
I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty  to  make  for  my  own  clearance,  to 
settle  this  painful  domestic  difficulty,  wMch  never  ought 
to  liave  been  made  publicly,  tin  ally  and  amicably  "  

Mr.  Evarts — That  ought  to  be    made  public." 

Mr.  Fullerfl&n— Yes — "which  never  ought  to  have  been 
made  public,  finally  and  amicably  "—for  whom  did  you 
prepare  th^t  statement!  A.  I  cannot  state  certainly, 
Sir.  I  have  only  a  vague  recollection  of  circumstances 
which  led  to  some  such  coimsel  as  is  embodied  in  this. 

Q.  For  whom  did  you  prepare  the  statement  ?  A.  I  do 
not  know. 

Q.  Did  you  not  prepare  it  for  Mr.  Tilton  to  make  ?  A.  I 
cannot  say  with  certainty,  but  I  presume  so. 

Q.  Very  well,  wasn*t  it  to  be  submitted  to  the  CJommit- 
tee  after  your  statement  was  sent  in  ?  A.  I  cannot  state 
that  it  was,  Sir. 

Q.  "The  statement  of  Mr.  B.  being  read, and  if  striking 
favorably,  then  a  word  sent  substantially  thus  to  the 
Ciommittee  "—what  Committee  did  you  refer  to  there  1 
A.  Well,  Sir,  I  think  you  are  all  on  ilie  wrong  track 
about  tliis. 

Q.  WTiat  Committee  did  you  refer  to !  You  shall  not 
get  me  on  any  other  track  for  tlie  present.  A.  The  In- 
vestigating Committee. 
Q.  W^hat  Committee  did  you  refer  to  in  that  statement  \ 
Judge  ifeilson— Don't  make  observations,  Mr.  Fuller- 
ton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will  not  if  the  witness  does  not.  He 
•will  not  tell  iue  that  I  am  on  the  wrong  track  unless  I 
pat  him  on  The  right  one. 

The  Witness— I  made  it  mereiy  as  a  suggestion.  Mi*.  Ful- 
lerion. 


BY   WIBB  BEEGREB.  61 

I  Mr.  Fulierton— I  made  the  answer  merely  as  a  sugges- 
tion. Can  you  tell  me  what  Committee  you  referred  to 
when  you  penned  that  document  ?  A.  I  presume  that  the 
Committee  is  what  is  caUed  the  Investigating  Committe© 
of  Plymouth  Church. 
Q.  Of  Plymouth  Church?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Very  well  [reading]:  "The  statement  of  Mr.  B.  be- 
ing read,  and,  if  striking  favorably,  then  a  word  sent 
substantially  thus  to  the  Comsiittee"— you  designed,  did 
you  not,  that  your  statement  should  be  read  to  the  Com- 
mittee before  the  statement  referred  to  liere  was  made, 
did  you  not?  A.  WILL  you  be  kind  enougli to  say  tliat 
again,  Sir  % 

Q.  Let  me  read  it  again  [reading]:  "  The  statement  ol 
Mr.  B.  being  read,  and  if  striking  favorably,  then  a  word 
sent  substantially  thus  to  the  Committee"— you  designed 
before  the  word  was  sent  to  the  Committee  there  referred 
to,  that  this  statement  of  yours  should  be  read,  did  yoti 
not!  A.  This  statement  designed  it. 

Q.  The  statement  designed  it — very  well ;  and  that  waa 
a  statement  you  designed  for  Theodore  lilton  to  make  f 
A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  you  drew  that?  A.  If  I 
recollect  aright  I  was  witb.  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  For  what  purpose  did  you  draw  it  \  A.  Suggested 
by  him— drawn  up  to  see  how  it  would  look  and  how  it 
would  act. 

Q.  WeU,  have  you  made  up  your  mind  how  it  looks  by 
this  time  i  A.  Well,  it  looks  very  suspicious,  Sir,  as  you 
handle  it.  [Laugh.ter.1 

Q.  Yes,  I  think  it  does.  Was  tlie  statement  sent  to  the 
Committee!  A.  My  statement  was  sent  to  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Q.  I  show  you  the  statement  of  July  15, 1874,  and  ask 
you  whether  that  note  was  not  written  prior  to  the  writ- 
ing of  that  statement  I  A.  I  cannot  say,  :Mr.  Fulierton. 

Q.  Now,  on  your  direct  examination,  did  you  not  say 
that  you  read  this  statement,  '•' Exhibit  No.  49,"  to  Mr. 
Moulton?  A.  I  don't  recollect  what  I  said;  whether  I 
said  I  read  it  to  him— I  imtiuestionably  did  read  it  to  him. 
Q.  You  did  read  it  to  him  \  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Where  ?  A.  I  cannot  recall;  I  say  I  unquestionably 
did. 

Q.  Was  it  drawn,  then,  at  your  suggestion,  or  at  hist 
A.  His. 

Q.  Well,  were  you  willing  such  a  statement  should  be 
made  by  Mi-.  Tilton !  A.  I  was  willing  to  consider  it,  but 
I  never  perfected  it. 

Q.  Were  you  willing  that  that  statement  should  be  made 
by  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  I  do  not  recall  whether  I  was  or  not. 

Q.  WeU,  what  earthly  object  had  you  in  drawing  it  up  I 
A.  To  see  how  it  was,  as  a  basis  for  consideration. 

Q.  Very  well ;  after  you  drew  it  up,  and  formed  a  basU 
for  consideration,  did  you  consider  it  ?  A.  I  considered  it, 
but  nothing  ever  came  of  it. 
Q.  Were  you  willing  that  it  should  be  made  by  Mr.  Tfl. 


THE   TILTON-BEEORER  TBIAL. 


ton  to  the  Committee  !  A,  I  cannot  say  whether  I  was 
or  not,  from  any  recollection  that  I  have. 

Q.  Have  you  no  impression  upon  this  subject!  A.  A 
ya^e  impression. 

Q.  When  you  drew  that  paper,  did  you  know  that  the 
charge  against  you  was  adultery  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  it. 

Q.  Had  you  never  heard  of  it  up  to  that  time  1  A.  I 
think  that  the  first  that  I  heard— ^ 

Q.  No,  no,  no  ;  I  don't  ask  to  know  the  first  you  heard. 
A.  I  don't  know  what  time  that  was. 

Q.  With  reference  to  the  date,  and  judging  from  the 
contents  of  the  paper,  dial  you  know,  when  that  paper 
was  drawn,  that  the  charge  against  you  was  adultery  % 
A.  I  cannot  form  any  such  judgment  as  that  from  an  un- 
dated document  which  was  merely  a  tentative  docum«it, 
never  perfected. 

Q.  When  you  diew  the  paper  of  July  15,  did  you  know 
then  what  the  charge  was  %  A.  Of  July  15  % 

Q.  It  is  before  you  A.  Yes,  I  know  it  is.  Sir ;  there 
was— I  can't  say  unless  I  can  refresh  my  memory  as  to 
dates. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  prevent  you  from  doing  that  in  any  way 
you  can.  A.  Well,  I  can  only  do  it  by  ascertaining  what 
was  the  time  ta  which  Mr.  Redpath  came  to  see  me  at 
Peekskill. 

Q.  That  is  the  13th  1  A.  The  13th  i 

Q.  Yes,  accor<jfing  to  his  testimony.  A.  And  this  was 
on  the  15th? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Of  course,  then,  I  had  heard  that  they  pro- 
posed to  add  that  to  the  former  charges. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  allude  to  it  then  in  that  statement  ? 
A.  I  considered  the  statement  of  the  15th  as  sufficient, 
Sil-. 

Q.  How,  Sir?  A.  I  considered  the  statement  of  the 
15th  as  not  an  argument  at  all. 

Q.  A  statement  of  facts  ?  A.  It  was  a  statement  that 
should  put  in  possession  of  the  Committee  what  were 
the  original  grounds  of  the  dilflculty. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  state  to  that  Committee,  when  you 
undertook  to  give  them  information  as  to  this  difficulty, 
what  the  charge  was  against  you  ?  A.  The  charge  had 
not  been  made  then  against  me. 

THE  CHAKGE  OF  ADULTERY. 

Q.  Hadn't  you  heard  from  Mr.  Redpath  that 
you  were  to  be  charged  with  adultery  ?  A.  From  Red- 
path  I  heard— I  heard  from  Mr.  Redpath  that  w  iien  Mr. 
Tilton  said  he  should  bring  adultery,  Mr.  Moulton  did  not 
knock  him  down,  but  declared  that  he  should  do  no  such 
thing. 

Q.  You  heard  that  from  Mr.  Redpath  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  you  haven't  stated  it  yet  in  your  examination. 
A..  But  Mr.  Redpath  did. 

Q.  No,  I  beg  your  pardon,  he  did  not.  A.  Substantially 
that 


Q.  He  said  he  would  smite  the  one  who  crucified  the 
other ;  that  is  what  he  said.  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  write  any  statement  prior  to  this  on& 
of  the  15th  of  July,  1874,  for  the  Committee  f  A.  Ho, 
Sir,  I  think  not. 

Q.  Did  you  prepare  any  one,  or  part  of  one,  before  this  1 
A.  Not  that  I  recollect,  Sii-. 

Q.  Is  this  the  only  one  that  you  wrote  out  at  that  time  t 
A.  The  only  one  that  I  have  any  recollection  about  now. 

Q.  Then,  pray  tell  me  to  what  statement  this  "  Exhibit 
No.  49"  could  refer  save  to  this  one?  A.  I  presume  it  re- 
ferred to  that  one ;  I  have  had  the  honor  of  saying  that 
three  or  four  times. 

Q.  Well,  then,  in  this  statement,  why  was  not  reference 
made  to  the  charges  which  then  existed  against  yoa?  A. 
The  statement  itseK  tells  you  what  I  proposed  to  do. 

THE  STATEMENT  PREPARED  ONLY  FOR 
CONSIDERATION. 

Q.  The  statement  you  prepared  here  for  Mr. 
Tilton  ?  A.  This  one  I  did  not  prepare  for  Mr.  Tilton ;  I 
prepared  it  for  consideration. 

Q.  Well,  when  you  prepared  it  for  consideration,  why 
didn't  you  state  in  it  what  the  charge  was  against  you  t 
A.  Well,  it  was  a  sketch,  or  a  note,  made  up  in  consulta- 
tion with  Mr.  Moulton,  and  for  me  to  consider  whether  it 
was  best  tor  me  to  make  such  a  statement. 

Q.  I  understand  all  that,  and  there  is  no  necessity  for 
repeating  it.  You  must  come  back  to  the  question.  Why, 
when  you  prepared  that  for  consideration,  you  did  not 
state  the  charge  that  then  existed  against  you?  A.  I  pre- 
pared it  on  his  suggestion,  and  T  put  into  it  what  he  sug- 
gested in  order  that  I  might  form  afadgment  of  it. 

Q.  What  Moulton  suggested  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  no  suggestion  of  yours?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  It  did  not  represent  your  feelings?  A.  It  did  not 
that  I  recollect  now ;  I  do  not  remember  what  I  thought 
about  it  at  the  time. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  objection  to  it?  A.  I  made  no 
objection  so  far,  because  it  was  a  thing  to  be  considered. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  objection  to  it?  A.  It  was  a 
document  for  consideration  

Q.  Did  you  make  any  objection  then?  A.  And  any 
objection  

Q.  Did  you  make  any  objection  to  it,  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A. 
I  made  no  objection  to  the  drawing  up  of  the  document. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  objection  to  the  sentiments  or 
statements  contained  in  it  ?  A.  Not  on  that  occasion  that 
I  recollect. 

Q.  Now,  what  did  you  do  with  this  card  after  you  wrote 
it?  A.  This? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  don't  recollect  what  I  did  with  it. 

Q.  Didn't  you  give  it  to  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  you  did  not  give  it  to  Mr.  Moul* 
ton  ?   A.  I  will  not. 


TESTIMONY   OF  HBI 

Q.  Did  you  not  give  it  to  Mr.  Moulton  ^vitll  tlie  request 
that  he  should  consult  Theodore  Tilton,  and  learn  from 
him-svlietlier  lie  would  consent  to  make  such  a  statement  ? 
A.  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  "Will  you  say  that  you  did  not  1  A.  I  will  say  that 
my  impression  is  that  Mr.  Moulton  says :  *'  Now,  let  me 
take  that;  you  think  ahout  it,  and  I  will  show  it  to  Mr. 
Tilton." 

Q.  And  then  did  you  separate !  A.  I  do  not  recollect, 
Sir. 

Q.  Howl   A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  take  it  under  those  circumstances  do 
you  think  1  A.  I  don't  know,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  your  best  impression  upon  the  subject  1 
A.  I  have  no  impression. 

Q.  Hare  you  any  doubt  but  that  Mr.  Moulton  took  it  at 
that  time  to  show  it  to  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  have  no  evi- 
dence of  any  kind  whatever :  I  dnn't  recoil 'Ct  ever  hav- 
ing spoken  of  it  again,  nor  of  having  Mm  speak  to  me. 

Q.  Well,  you  think  that  Mr.  Moulton  made  use  of  that 
language — "Ixjt  me  take  it  and  show  it  to  Mr.  Tilton,"  do 
you  1  A.  I  think  very  likely ;  I  have  an  impression,  hut  I 
won't  swear'cven  to  that. 

Q.  Well,  you  didn't  object,  did  you?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect that  I  did. 

Q.  Was  no  further  attention  paid  to  that  card  after 
that?   A.  Nothing. 

Q.  Now,  don't  you  recollect  that  you  sent  for  Mr.  Moul- 
ton to  consider  this  card?  A.  I  do  not. 

A  LETTEE  TO  ME.  MOULTON. 
Q.  Look  at  the  paper  I  now  sliow  you,  and 
Bay  whether  you  did  not  write  that  to  Mr.  Moulton  for 
the  purpose  of  getting  his  consideration  of  this  card 
[showing  paper  to  witness]  ?  A.  I  don'i  think  it  is,  Sir — 
don't  think  it  does  at  all. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  that  note  was  written  for  ? 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fuller  ton— offer  that  in  evidence.    [Note  shown 
to  defendant's  counseL] 
[Readingj : 

July  16,  '74,  Thursday,  12—. 
My  Dear  Frank:  I  need  to  see  you.   Don't  fail  me — 
say  4  to  5  this  p.  m.      Yours,  ever,      H.  W.  Beecher. 

[Marked  Exhibit  118.] 

Q.  Now,  what  was  that  note  written  in  relation  to  %  A. 
Heaven  may  know,  but  I  do  not. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  not  examining  any  one  else  but  yourself 
at  present.  A.  I  absolutely  know  nothing  about  it. 

Q.  Wasn't  it  in  relation  to  this  difficulty  ?  A.  I  don't 
think  it  was,  Sir. 

Q.  What  other  business  had  you  with  Mr.  Moulton  at 
that  time  ?  A.  It  might  have  been  any  of  twenty  things. 

Q,  Well,  "s^ll  you  tell  me  what  other  business  you  had 
•with  him  at  the  time  that  should  call  for  such  a  note?  A. 
I  don't  know,  81rj  I  cannot  recoUeot  anything. 


RY    WARD  BEECEER,  69 

Q.  Well,  had  you,  in  fact,  any  other  business  with  Mr. 
Moul"  ;>n  except  this  domestic  difficulty  ?  A.  Why,  we 
had— this  was  the  predominant  topic,  but  this  topic  wao 
large  enough  for  me  to  have  wanted  to  see  hiia  on  twentj' 

points. 

Q.  Was  this  one  of  the  points  ?  A.  I  don't  know. 
Q.  Can  you  say  it  was  not?  A.  I  cannot  say  anything 
about  it. 

Q.  Cannot  you  recall  anything  now,  Mr.  Beecher,  in  re- 
gard to  which  you  wanted  to  see  iMr.  Moulton,  except  it 
was  this  difficulty  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Tilton  at 
that  time  ?  A.  I  cannot  sufficiently  recall  what  time  to 
say  that  I  remember  nothing— that  there  was  nothing— 
but  I  do  not  remember  

Q.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  ciuestion.  Can  you  now 
recall  anything  that  existed  at  that  time  I'hat  made  it 
necessary  that  you  should  write  this  note  to  Mr.  Moulton 
except  it  was  the  difficulty  that  was  then  in  hand  ?  A.  I 
do  not  recall  anything  that  specially  was  in  hand  but  thia 
domestic  trouble. 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  you  to  recall  specifically  anything ;  can 
you  recall  anything  generally  that  was  on  hand  at  that 
time  except  the  domestic  difficulty  that  occasioned  the 
writing  of  that?  A.  The  difficulty— I  presume  that  that 
note  to  Mr.  Moulton  had  regard  to  some  one  or  other  of 
the  developments  concerning  this  difficulty. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  enough.  A.  Somewhere  

Q.  That's  all  I  wanted.  A.  Well,  I  am  very  anxious  to 
know  just  what  you  want,  and  if  I  seem  sometimes  to 
wander,  it  is  not  because  I  want  to  evade  you  or  to  get 
rid  of  the  truth,  but  because  I  am  either  dull  or  because 
T  am  anxious  to  tell  the  truth. 


THE  PEOPOSED  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  DIF- 
FICULTY. 

Q  Now,  I  read  from  this  Exhibit  No.  45» 

[KeadingJ: 

I  have  been  through  years  acting  under  the  conviction 
that  I  had  been  wronged,  but  was  under  the  imputation 
of  being  the  injurer. 

Did  you  learn  that  from  Theodore  Tilton  ?  A.  Leara. 
what  ? 

Q.  What  I  have  read.  A.  Do  you  mean  that  I  got  that 
sentence  and  put  it  into  that  card  from  him  ? 

Q.  Did  you  learn  the  fact  from  him  that  he  had  been 
for  years  acting  under  the  conviction  that  lie  had  been 
wi'onge(i,  but  was  under  the  imputation  of  being  the  in- 
jurer? A.  I  do  not  recall  that  I  learned  that  specially 
from  him. 

Q.  [Reading]: 

I  learn  from  you  that  Mr.  B.  in  his  statement  to  you 
has  reversed  this,  and  has  done  me  justice. 

From  whom  did  you  get  that  statement  or  idea  t  A. 
Well,  I  got  pretty  much  the  whole  of  it  fi-om  Mr* 
Moulton. 

Q.  And  recorded  it  just  as  he  told  you  ?  A.  No ;  X 


64 


THE   TlLTOIi'BB^OHEB  TBIAL. 


ttirew  it  into  shape,  according  to  Ms  suggestion,  to  ex- 
press tMs  idea  and  that  idea. 
Q.  [Reading]: 

I  am  willing,  should  he  consent,  to  appear  before  you 
"vrith  him,  and,  dropping  the  further  statements  which  I 
felt  it  to  he  my  duty  to  make  for  my  own  clearance,  to 
settle  this  painful  domestic  difficulty,  which  never  ought 
to  have  been  made  public,  finally  and  amicably. 

Were  you  williug  that  Theodore  Tilton  should  make 
such  a  statement  as  that,  and  were  you  willing  that  the 
difficulty  should  be  settled  in  that  wayl  A.  After  the 
Committee  was  appointed,  I  was  

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beeoher,  if  you  please,  answer  my  ques. 
tion.  I  am  talking  about  the  time  when  this  was  written. 
A.  I  cannot  tell  you  what  my  trains  of  thought  operated 
on;  I  cannot  fix  the  date. 

Q.  Were  you  willing  when  you  wrote  this,  without  re- 
gard to  the  date,  that  the  difficulty  should  be  thus  set- 
tled? A.  I  was  wUling  that  the  difficulty  should  be  kept 
still  before  the  Committee. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  if  you  please,  were  you  willing 
that  the  difficulty  should  be  settled  as  herein  expressed? 
A.  I  was  not  willing  that  the  difficulty  should  be  settled 
in  any  other  way  than  by  an  Investigation  that  should 
satisfy  that  Committee, 

Q.  Were  you  willing  that  it  should  be  settled  as  herein 
expressed?  A.  That— I  cannot  answer  that  question,  be- 
cause it  is  not  part  and  parcel  of  any  of  my  record  of  re- 
membrance. 

Q.  If  you  were  unwUUng,  why  didn't  you  so  state  to 
Mr.  Moulton,  if  he  dictated  this  to  you  ?  A.  This  was  not 
a  matter  of  discussion  between  us,  but  of  suggestion  and 
reflection. 

Q.  Well,  if  he  was  to  take  it  to  Mr.  TUton  to  see  if  he 
was  wnhng,  and  if  you  were  xmwilling  to  settle  the  diffi- 
culty m  that  way,  why  didn't  you  make  it  a  matter  of 
-discussion?  A.  Because  at  that  time  I  had  ceased  to 
have  coafldenoe  in  the  generalship  of  Frank  Moulton, 
^d  I  knew  that  there  was  coming  a  tribimal  where  this 
thing  would  be  sifted. 

Q.  Then  you  were  willing  to  draw  up  this  paper,  under 
his  suggestion  that  it  should  be  settled  in  this  way,  after 
you  had  lost  confidence  in  his  generalship?  A.  Many 
and  many  a  suggestion  I  considered  

Q.  Were  you,  after  you  had  lost  confidence  in  his  gen- 
eralship, willing  to  draw  up  in  writing  what  he  dictated, 
embracing  the  terms  of  settlement  ?  A.  I  was  perfectly 
willing  to  put  in  writing  what  he  suggested. 

Q.  And  were  you  not  willing,  when  you  put  that  in 
writing,  to  have  this  difficulty  settled  in  that  way  ?  A.  T 
■was  not. 

Q.  And  yet  you  put  it  in  writing  ?  A.  I  put  it  in  writing, 
evidently. 

Q.  And  you  think  you  gave  it  to  him  to  sho  w  to  Mr. 
Tilton  for  him  to  consider  ?  A.  I  think  I  gave  it  back  to 
him  for  oonsulting  with  Mr.  Tilton«  or  with  anybody 


Q.  And  at  the  same  time  when  he  was  going  to  oftosult 
Mr.  Tilton  to  see  whether  he  was  wlUing  to  agree  to  it, 
youwereunwUlingto  agree  to  it  ?  A.  I  did  not  believe 
it  would  come  to  anything. 

Q.  Were  you  willing  to  drop  the  whole  thing  and  agree 
to  the  settlement  in  this  paper,  which  you  gave  him  and 
which  you  put  in  writing  at  his  suggestion  ?  A.  He  gave 
me  a  suggestion  that  it  should  be  settled  in  that  way,  and 
I  wrote  it  off  to  see  how  it  would  look,  and  gave  it  back 
to  him. 

Q.  At  the  same  time  in  your  heart  you  did  not  mean  to 
settle  it  in  that  way  ?  A.  At  the  same  time  I  didn't  be- 
lieve it  would  be  worth  that.  [Snapping  his  finger  and 
thimib.] 

Q.  Tell  me,  were  you  willing  to  accept  these  terms  of 
settlement  at  the  time  these  papers  were  drawn?  A.  I 
was  not  if  they  implied  a  lack  of  investigation. 

Q.  K  they  implied  a  lack  of  investigation?  Ans'vror 
my  question;  don't  try  to  evade  it. 


DIFFICULTIES  BETWEEN  LAWYERS. 

Judge  Neilson— The  word  "  evade  "  was  used 
.  to  a  witness  early  in  the  case  by  one  of  the  learned  coun- 
sel, and  the  cotmsel  then  was  requested  not  to  use  it. 
Mr.  Fullerton— How,  Sir ! 

Judge  Neilson— The  word  "evade,"  I  say,  was  used  by 
some  of  the  counsel  early  in  the  case  to  a  witness- 
Mr.  Beach— That  is  me.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson- And  the  counsel  was  requested  not  to 
use  it.  The  counsel  probably  forgot  that  request. 

Mr.  Fullerton- 1  did  not  forget  it,  Sir.  I  hope  I  never 
will  forget  a  word  from  the  Court  when  it  is  necessary. 

Judge  Neilson— It  was  not  addressed  to  you  at  that 
time;  but  you  are  requested  to  accept  it  as  addressed  to 
y©u  now. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  wiU,  Sir;  but  at  the  same  time  I  must 
confess  I  think  the  word  was  properly  us^  I  asked 
Mr.  Beecher  three  times  in  succession  a  distinct  and  em- 
phatic question,  and  three  times  I  did  not  get  an  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  got  an  answer. 

Judge  Neilson— You  should  remember  that  you  are  ex- 
amining a  layman,  and  that  he  is  in  a  new  atmosphere 
here. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Well,  Sir,  he  talks  more  than  half  tbe 

time. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  it  Is  his  profession  to  talk. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  is  not  a  trial  of  wits.  We  are  engaged 
in  a  solemn  proceeding.  The  counsel  has  very  great  priv- 
ileges and  the  witness  has  very  solemn  duties,  andcer^ 
tainly  we  ought  to  be  able  to  proceed  without  this  scuf- 
fling. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  understood. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  If  those  observations  of  the 
counsel  were  addressed  to  the  witness,  they  are  all  well 
enough,  and  I  hope  they  will  have  their  froitSk  the 


TJE8T1M0NF  OF  HEl^ 

wltnees.]  Now,  be  Mnd  enongli  to  tell  me,  Mr.  Beeclier, 
wlietlier,  when  you  delivered  tliat  paper  

The  Witness— I  wish  to  ask  Ids  Honor  whether  I  am 
under  rehuke  from  the  Court. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  Sir.  The  observation  that  I  made 
was  addressed  to  the  coxmseL  The  observation  which 
tttb  counsel  has  just  made  was  a  suggestion  that  Mr. 
Bvarts's  remark  might  be  beneficial  to  you.  I  don't  know 
about  that,  however. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  a  part  of  what  I  call  scuffling. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Well,  you  were  one  of  the  scufflers. 
.  Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  no. 

MB.  BEECHER'S  UNDERSTANDING  OF  THE 
PROPOSED  SETTLEMENT. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Q.  When  you  gave  that  state- 
ment [Exhibit  49]  to  Mr.  Moulton  to  show  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
were  you  willing  that  the  difficulty  should  be  settled 
as  indicated  in  the  paper  itself  1  A.  An  answer  yes  or 
no  cannot  make  the  truth  appear.  I  cannot  answer 
tihat  question  yes  or  no,  without  explaining. 

Judge  Neilson  [To  the  witness]— Answer  in  that  way, 
Sir.  A.  The  paper  was  a  suggestion  of  a  settlement, 
which  implied,  as  I  understood  it,  that  Mr.  TUton  should 
clear  me  before  the  Examining  Comiuittee  in  some  man- 
ner ;  and  I  was  quite  willing  to  have  any  clearance  from 
him  before  the  Examining  Committee  that  should  satisfy 
them. 

Q.  Well,  were  you  willing,  then,  that  the  whole  thing 
should  be  dropped  if  he  cleared  you  before  the  Examin- 
ing Committee!  A.  I  was  wilUng  to  have  it  dropped 
whenever  the  Examining  Committee  

Q.  Answer  my  question;  were  you  willing  to  have  the 
whole  investigation  dropped  if  he  cleared  you  before  the 
Committee  %  A.  If  he  satisfied  the  Coromittee. 

Q.  If  he  satisfied  the  Conmiittee  i  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Very  welL  Did  you  expect  him  to  satisfy  the  Com- 
mittee by  making  this  statement :   [Exhibit  49.] 

*♦  I  am  willing,  should  he  consent,  to  appear  before  you 
with  him,  and,  dropping  the  further  statement  which  I 
felt  it  my  duty  to  make  for  my  own  clearance,  to  settle 
this  painful  domestic  difficulty,  which  never  ought  to 
have  been  made  public,  finally  and  amicably." 

A.  Mr.  Fullerton,  that  would  depend  entirely— this 
was  not  any  proposition  of  mine;  it  was  not  a  determined 
document  

Q.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  question.  A.  I  am 
eoming  to  it.  I  was  perfectly  willing  if  he  would  go  be- 
fore the  Committee  and  make  such  a  statement  as  ex- 
onerated me,  la  their  judgment,  to  stop  all  furtl»r 
proceedings  and  statements. 

Q.  And  was  that  paper  drawn  with  a  view  to  have  it 
disposed  of  in  that  wayl  A.  That  was  Mr.  Moulton's 
plan,  as  I  imderstood  it. 

Q.  Wasn't  it  your  plan  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  willing  that  that  plan  should  be  eflBectuated 


UZ  WABD  BEEOHEB,  m 

when  you  handed  that  paper  to  Mr.  Moulton  t  A  I  waa 

willing  

Q.  Were  you  willing  that  that  plan  should  be  effeotop 
ated  when  you  handed  that  paper  to  Mr.  Moulton  1  A. 
As  I  have  explained  it,  I  was. 

Q.  Look  at  the  paper  I  now  show  you  and  say  In  whose 
handwriting  it  is,  if  you  know.  A.  I  don't  know,  Sir.  I 
don't  think  I  ever  saw  it  whatever. 

Q.  Wasn't  that  written  at  yous  Aonae,  in  your  presence  f 
A.  Not  that  I  recaU,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  written  on  paper  such  as  you  use  at  your 
house  ?  A.  WeU,  yes,  I  use  some  such,  or  have  used  it,  at 
various  times ;  it  is  what  we  call  common  French  note 
paper. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  it  as  having  been  written  in  your 

presence  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  There  is  one  question  that  I  omitted  to  ask  in  refer- 
ence to  the  interview  of  Januarys.  When  Mr.  Tilton 
manifested  an  indisposition  to  address  you,  and  Mr.  Moul- 
ton addressed  him,  didn't  Mr.  Moulton  say  to  him,  tn  sub- 
stance, **  You  ought  to  be  satisfied  .with  the  letter  which 
Mr.  Beecher  wrote  to  you  through  met"  A.  No,  Sir, 
nothing  like  it;  he  repeated  to  him— the  language  was— 
the  language  had  reference  to  the  statements  that  I  then 
and  there  made— that  I  had  made  an  apology  such  as  one 
gentleman  could  make  to  another,  and  that  one  gentle- 
man could  honorably  accept  from  another. 

Q.  And  the  former  letter  was  not  referred  to  I  A.  No, 
Sir.  ^ 

THE  AGREEMENT  TO  WRITE  THE  IjETTERS 
OF  FEB.  7,  1871.. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  now  to  the  letters  of 

Feb.  7, 1871.  [Exhibits  9, 10  and  11.]  I  wish  you  to  state 
what  preceded  the  writing  of  those  letters  which  caused 
them  to  be  written  ?  A.  WeU,  Sir,  the  question  of  the  es- 
tablishment of  Mr.  Tilton  in  business  was  a  question  up- 
permost in  our  minds,  largely,  and  the  restoration  of 
harmony  and  peace  and  comfort  ia  his  family  as  an  in- 
dispensable condition  of  doing  good  work.  I  had  learned 
from  Mr.  Moulton  that  Mr.  TUton's  wr£e  was  not  doing 
her  part,  and  that  he  was  subject,  aside  from  all  other 
harassments  and  anxieties,  to  be  received  with  sullen 
looks  and  distressful  complaints  at  home,  and  that  Mrs. 
Tilton  had  said  that  Mr.  TiLfcon  and  Mr.  Moulton  and  I 
were  consulting  together  for  the  interests  of  Jtlr.  Tilton, 
and  leaving  her  quite  out ;  and  that  it  was  indispensably 
necessary,  she  thought,  that  there  should  be  some  influ- 
ence brought  to  bear  upon  her,  that  she  might  do  her 
share  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  family  and  of  affairs  ;  and 
my  influence  with  her  was  invoked  in  order  to  lead  her 
to  feel  that  Mr.  Moulton,  who  coimseled  me,  was  a  good 
counselor  for  her  likewise  ;  and  on  that  suggestion  and  in 
that  spirit  those  letters  were  written. 
Q.  At  that  time  yoa  were  laboring  under  the  Imprcs* 


66  TEE  TILTOJ^'B. 

tion  that  you  had  won  this  lady's  affections,  were  you? 
A.  I  was. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  as  to  the  feeling  which  Mr.  Tilton 
entertained  toward  you  at  that  time!  A.  Was  anything 
•aid— where  do  you  mean,  Sirl 

Q.  I  am  talking  about  this  same  interview  that  you 
have  given  a  part  of  i  A.  You  were  asking  me  about  the 
letters  of  February  7! 

Q.  Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— In  what  the  witness  has  said  he  has  not 
referred  particularly  to  any  interview. 

Mr.  Beach— What  he  asked  him  was  about  the  prelimi- 
nary state  of  affairs  which  led  to  the  writing  of  these 
letters. 

The  Witness— I  beg  pardon  then.  This  was  not  a  single 
Interview ;  it  was  a  conversation. 

Mr.  PuUerton— Well,  in  any  of  those  conversations  an- 
terior to  the  writing  of  these  letters  of  Feb.  7,  was  there 
nothing  said  about  Mr.  Tilton's  feelings  toward  yonl  A. 
I  don't  recall  anything  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Was  it  not  agreed  that  there  should  be  three  letters 
written  ?  A.  It  was.  . 

Q.  By  whom  were  they  to  be  written  1  A.  I  was  to 
write  one  to  Mr.  Moulton  to  be  shown  to  Mr.  Tilton,  and 
Mr.  Tilton,  I  understood  from  Mr.  Moulton,  should  write 
one  also. 

Q.  To  be  shown  to  whom  ?  A.  I  don't  recall  to  whom. 

Q.  Was  it  not  to  be  shown  to  you  ?  A.  I  presume  so. 
Sir;  but  I  don't  distinctly  recall  about  that;  naturally  I 
know  what  my  own  letter  meant  better  than  I  know  his ; 
I  don't  recall  about  his. 

Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  what  the  letters  meant ;  I 
am  talking  about  the  agreement  to  write  the  letters.  A. 
Well,  the  agreement  

Q.  You  were  to  write  one,  were  you  not  ?  A.  I  was  to 
write  two. 

Q.  One  to  Mrs.  Tilton?  A.  One  to  go  to  Mrs.  Tilton. 

Q.  And  one  to  go  ?  A.  And  one  to  go  to  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  Mr.  Tilton  was  to  write  one  that  was  to  go  to  you, 
•was  he  not?  A.  He  was  to  write  one  that  was  to  go  to 
Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  Very  well.  Now  were  those  three  letters  written  ? 
A.  I  understood  so ;  my  two  were. 

Q.  Didn't  you  see  the  third  one?  A.  I  cannot  say 
whether  I  saw  it  at  that  time,  or  heard  it  at  that  time;  I 
have  seen  it. 

Q.  How  soon  after  that  did  you  see  it?  A.  I  cannot 
say. 

Q,  Did  you  not  see  it  very  soon  after  that  t  A.  I  cannot 
say  about  that. 

Q.  Didn't  you  see  it  at  the  time  it  was  written  !  A.  I 
i3or'!  tliink  I  did ;  I  c  vnnot  say;  I  don't  recollect  it. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  you  didn't  see  it  at  that  time  ? 
A.  1  will  not 

,    Q.  Was  it  not  shown  to  you  On  the  7th  of  February, 


'hJCHEB  TRIAL. 

1871,  by  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  il  wa«i, 
Sir.  ^ 

THE  LETTERS  READ. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  read  it,  and  see  if  that  will 
recall  it  to  your  recollection.   [Keading]  ; 

Brooklyn,  Feb.  7, 1871. 

My  Very  Dear  Friend:  In  several  conversations 
with  me  you  have  asked  me  about  my  feelings  toward 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  yesterday  you  said  the  time  had  come 
when  you  would  like  to  receive  from  me  an  expression  of 
them  in  writing.  I  say,  therefore,  very  cheerfully,  that, 
notwithstanding  the  great  suffering  which  he  has  caused 
to  Elizabeth  and  myself,  I  bear  him  no  malice,  shall  do  hun 
no  wrong,  shall  discountenance  every  project  (by  whom- 
soever proposed)  for  any  exposure  of  his  secret  to  the 
public,  and  (if  I  know  myself  at  all)  shall  endeavor  to  act 
toward  Mr.  Beecher  as  I  would  have  him  under  similar 
circumstances  act  toward  me. 

I  ought  to  add  that  your  own  good  offices  in  this  case 
have  led  me  to  a  higher  moral  feeling  than  I  might  other* 
wise  have  reached.  Ever  yours  affectionately, 

(Signed)  Theodore  Tilton.  ' 

To  Frank  Moulton. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  remember  that  that  letter  was  shown 
to  you  by  Mr.  Moulton  at  or  about  the  time  that  it  was 
written  ?  A.  I  do  not ;  I  hardly  think  it  was. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  one  that  you  wrote  to 
Mr.  Moulton  on  that  day.   [Reading]  : 

February  7, 1871. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Moulton  :  I  am  glad  to  send  you  a  book 
which  you  will  relish,  or  which  a  man  on  a  sick  bed  oxigM 
to  relish.  I  wish  I  had  more  like  it,  and  that  I  could  send 
you  one  every  day,  not  as  a  repayment  of  your  great  kind- 
ness to  me— for  that  can  never  be  repaid,  not  even  by  love^ 
which  I  give  you  freely. 

Many,  many  friends  has  God  raised  up  to  me ;  but  to 
no  one  of  them  has  he  ever  given  the  opportunity  and 
the  wisdom  so  to  serve  me  as  you  have.  My  trust  in  you 
is  implicit.  You  have  also  proved  yourself  Theodore's 
friend  and  Elizabeth's.  Does  God  look  down  from 
Heaven  on  three  unhappy  creatures  that  more  need  a 
friend  than  these  ? 

Is  it  not  an  intimation  of  God's  intent  of  mercy  to  all 
tliut  each  one  of  these  has  in  you  a  tried  and  proved 
frienil?  But  only  in  you  are  we  three  united.  Would  to 
God,  who  orders  all  hearts,  that,  by  your  kind  mediation, 
Theodore,  Elizabeth,  and  I  could  be  made  friends  again. 
Theodore  will  have  the  hardest  task  in  such  a  case ;  but 
has  he  not  proved  himself  capable  of  the  noblest  things! 

Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  at  that  time  this  charge  of  improper 
solicitations  was  still  resting  upon  you,  was  it  not  ?  A, 
No,  Sir ;  I  don't  think  it  was ;  it  certainly  was  not  urged. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  that.  Had  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  taken  it 
back  ?  A.  I  don't  know  that  he  had,  by  any  formal  act, 
taken  it  back. 

Q.  Answer  my  question.   Had  he  taken  that  charge 

back  ? 

Mr.  Ev£«rts— That  is  an  answer. 
Mr.  Fullerton— No.  it  is  not  an  answer. 
The  Witness— His  wife  had  taken  it  back. 
Q.  Had /te  taken  it  back?  I  aui  not  talking  about  hia 
wife  ?  A.  He  had  not  made  it. 


TESTlMOhY   OF  HE. 

Q.  Didn't  lie  make  it  on  the  nigM  of  the  30th  ?  A.  He 
made  it  a«  ti  statement  from  his  wife. 

Q.  Oh,  he  didn't  make  it  on  his  own  account,  then  %  A. 
He  made  it  on  her  authority. 

Q,  Did  you  regard  it  simply  as  a  charge  made  by  Mrs. 
Tilton  ?  A.  I  certainly  did. 

Q.  And  not  a  charge  of  Theodore  Tilton?  A.  As  a 
charge  that  he  repeated  to  me,  from  her. 

Q.  Didn't  you  understand  him  as  making  that  charge 
on  his  own  behalf  against  you  ?  A.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
he  supposed  the  charge  to  be  as  she  had  written  it  to  him, 
at  that  time. 

Q.  On  the  7th  of  February  did  you  suppose  that  he  then 
believed  in  the  charge?  A.  I  cannot  tell  about  that.  It 
certainly  did  not,  by  word  nor  conduct  

Q.  One  moment ;  I  am  not  asking  you  about  that.  Did 
you  believe,  on  the  7th  of  February,  when  you  wrote 
that  letter,  that  he  still  believed  in  that  charge  ?  Now  it 
is  either  yes  or  no,  Mr.  Beecher.  Either  you  believed  it, 
or  you  did  not  believe  it.  A.  Well,  I  don't  think  that  it  is 
yes  or  no. 

Q.  Well,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  yet,  but  I  hope  it  will 
be.  A.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  the  question 
again,  that  I  may  see  precisely  the  remits  of  it? 

Q.  I  will,  Sir.  On  the  7th  of  February,  1871,  when  you 
wrote  to  Mr.  Moulton  that  Theodore  Tilton  would  have 
the  hardest  task  in  such  case,  iiud  n  lleged  that  he  had 
proved  himself  capable  of  ihe  noblest  things,  did  you 
not  then  suppose  th-it  he  rested  under  thc^  belief  that  you 
had  made  improper  advances  toward  his  wife?  A.  I 
doubted  whether  he  believed  any  such  thing  as  that. 

Q.  It  was  a  mere  matter  of  doubt,  was  it  ?  A.  All  that 
was  a  matter  of  doubt  and  fluctuation. 

Q.  No,  Mr.  Beecher,  I  don't  want  all  that.  Did  you  be- 
lieve at  that  time  that  he  supposed  that  you  had  made 
imi»ropcr  advances  to  his  wife  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  answered  that. 

Mr.  Morris— Not  exactly. 

Tlie  Witness— I  don't  think  that  I  did  believe  so. 

Q.  At  that  time  ?  A.  At  that  time. 

Q.  How  did  you  suppose  at  that  time  that  the  impres- 
sion or  belief  had  been  removed  from  his  mind  i  A.  That 
I  did  not  reason  upon;  by  the  good  offices  probably  of 
Mr.  Moulton  

Q.  He  had  not  told  you  thai  he  did  not  believe  it?  a. 
No ;  we  had  no  

Q.  One  moment,  please.  He  had  not  told  you  this  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton  had  not  told  you  that  he  did  not  be 
lieveiti  A.  I  don't  recall  that  he  ever  made  a  specifLp 
denial  of  that. 

Q.  Upon  what,  then,  did  you  base  your  judgment  at 
that  time  that  he  did  not  believe  it?  A.  Because  he  and 
Mr,  .Moultou  were  willing  to  go  into  cooperation  with 
nie  in  a  manner  that  would'  imply  iufam  ii  they  be- 
lieved it. 


aiY    WARD   BEECHER,  67 

Q.  That  is  the  reason?   A.  That  is  the  reason. 

Q.  That  is  (  ii  i  .  reason,  is  it?  A.  That  is  enough, 
fSuppressed        ,.  use.] 

Q.  And  hence  you  said  nothing  about  it  ?  A.  Of  course, 
I  didn't. 

Q.  And  you  didn't  ask  Mr.  Tilton  whether  he  believed  It 
or  not  ?  A.  Of  course,  I  didn't. 

Q.  And  without  knowing  really  whether  the  impression 
was  removed  from  Mr.  Tilton's  mind  or  not,  you  wrot« 
that  letter?   A.  I  wrote  that  letter. 

Q.  And  without  knowing  whether  the  impression  had 
been  removed  from  Mr.  Tilton's  mind,  did  you?  A.  With- 
out knowing  in  any  such  sense  as  we  know  a  philosophi- 
cal or  a  luathematical  proposition. 
I  Q.  Did  you  come  to  a  conclusion  at  that  time  whether 
he  made  the  original  charge  in  good  faith  or  not  ?  A.  I 
had  reason  to  suppose  earlier  that  he  had  

Q.  No,  no,  I  am  asking  about  that  time.  Had  you  made 
up  your  mind  at  that  time  whether  he  had  made  the  origi- 
nal charge  in  good  faith  or  not  ?  A.  WeU,  Mr.  Fullerton, 
the  difficulty  in  answering  your  question  is  not  that  I  am 
imwilling,  but  it  is  that  you  frame  the  question  so  that 
you  ask  me  to  give  an  affirmative  or  a  negative  to  con- 
siderations that  had  no  existence. 

Q.  That  had  no  existence?  A.  Yes;  trains  of  thought 
that  would  perhaps  arise,  but  that  did  or  did  not,  or 
which,  if  they  did,  arose  only  as  speculations,  and  passed 
away. 

Q.  Then  can't  you  say  so  ?  A.  I  have  tried  to  once  or 
twice. 

Q.  Well,  whatever  you  try  to  say,  Mr.  Beecher,  you  gen- 
erally say  pretty  well.  Now,  I  put  the  question  to  you 
again.  On  the  7th  of  February,  1871,  when  you  wrote 
this  letter,  did  you  then  suppose  that  the  original  charge 
of  Theodore  Tilton— improper  advances— made  against 
you,  had  been  made  in  good  faith?  A.  T  don't  know  that 
that  came  into  my  mind  at  all  in  the  making  of  the  letter. 

Q,  And  you  were  in  doubt  at  that  time  whether  he  still 
believed  the  charges  true  ?  A.  I  don't  think  it  was  the 
subject  matter  of  consideration. 

Q.  You  did  not  think  of  it  then?  A.  I  made  the  letter* 
with  an  entirely  different  Intent. 

Q.  One  moment;  did  you  think  uf  it  at  that  time  f  A.  I 
can't  say  that  I  did  at  that  fcinie. 
I     Q.  Well,  did  you  care  at  that  time  whether  they  were 
made  in  good  faith  or  not  i  A.  Oh,  of  course  T  should,  if 
ill''  subject  had  been  broached  to  me. 

Q,.  Didn't  you  take  Interest  enough  in  the  subject  to 
broacli  it  yourself  1  A.  T  took  interest  In  It,  but  of  a 
different  sort. 

Q.  But  not  an  interest  that  led  you  to  broaoJi  the  sub- 
ject?  A.  Not  an  interest  that  led  me  every  time  that  I 
sat  down  to  write  a  letter  to  go  through  all  the  questions 
that  you  now  put  to  me. 
Q.  I  am  uot  talking  ubout  writing  letters  now ;  I  am 
:  ns^king  ahout  the  time  of  writing  the  letters  when  theao 


68  THE  TILION-Bl 

Interviews  -were  liad.  A.  I  can't  tell  you  what  I  thought 
of  Mr.  Tilton  at  that  period— you  are  asMng  me  what  I 
fbought  whUe  I  was  writing  that  letter. 

Q.  I  am  asMng  no  such  thing,  A.  Then  I  misappre- 
hended you. 

Q.  I  don't  mean  the  particular  moment  when  you  were 
Inditing  it  on  paper  ;  hut  at  that  period  did  you  believe 
that  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  those  charges  against  you  in 
good  faith  ?  A.  Mr.  TUton  had  repeated  his  wife's  charges 
against  me. 

Q.  That  won't  do,  Mr.  Beecher.  I  don't  want  any  such 
thing.  I  am  asMag  for  the  operation  of  your  mind  at 
that  time.  A.  Yes,  Sir,  and  I  am  trying  to  give  it  to  you. 

Q.  Yes.  Well,  tell  me  whether  at  that  time  it  was  a 
matter  of  belief  with  you  that  the  original  charge  of 
Theodore  Tilton  against  you  was  made  in  good  faith  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Of  improper  advances. 

The  Witness— Improper  advances!  That  charge  had 
sunk,  apparently,  out  of  sight. 

Mr.  Beach  \ to  Mr.  Fullerton]— Move  to  strike  that  out. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will.  I  do  move  to  strike  it  out,  and  I 
say  again  that  he  is  evading  my  questions. 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  think  he  is. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  can't  help  that.  If  your  Honor 
does  not  I  do,  and  I  will  act  upon  that  view. 

Mr.  Evarts— Keep  that  until  you  sura  up. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Witness]— The  iiuestion  involves 
whether  you  remember  andean  state  what  your  b(4ief 
was  upon  that  subject  at  that  time. 

The  Witness— My  general  recollection  is,  Sir,  that  at 
that  time  I  thought  the  charges  had  gone  under— gone 
down. 

Mr.  Fullerton- 1  move  to  strike  that  out. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Witnessl— The  inoLUiryls,  whether 
at  that  time  you  believed  that  the  charge  had  been  made 
by  Mr.  Tilton  m  good  faith— the  charge  of  Improper 
advances  ? 

The  Witness— Originally;  I  believed  that  he  originally 
made  it  in  good  faith. 

Judge  Neilson— At  the  time  of  the  writing  of  this  let- 
ter, or  about  that  ti^e  i 

The  Witness— At  the  time  of  writing  this  letter  I  sup- 
posed that  he  was  of  the  impression  

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  believe  at  the  time  when  you 
wrote  the  letter  that  he  had  made  the  origiual  charge  in 
good  faith  9   A.  When  he  originally  made  it  I  did. 

Q.  That  is  not  iiiy  anestlon. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

A.  At  the  time  of  the  writing  of  this  letter  t  believed 
that  he  had  made  it  in  good  faith  when  he  made  it  origi- 
nally. 

Bfr.  Fullerton— That  Is  an  answer. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  the  same  answer. 
Mr.  Tracy— It  is  the  same  answer. 


"^JEOREB  TBIAL. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir,  he  has  never  given  that  answer 

before. 

Mr.  Tracy— I  submit  that  he  has. 

Mr.  Fullerton— You  need  not  submit  anything  about  it. 

Mr.  Tracy— I  choose  to ;  and  I  shall  do  it  without  ask- 
ing your  permission. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  it  is  given  now. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir;  it  is  given  now. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  had  better  keep  that  until  yon 
sum  up. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Do  you  propose  to  sum  up  now  1 

Mr.  Evarts— No ;  but  I  suppose  this  is  summing  up. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Evarts]— If  you  want  to  sum  up, 
begin ;  it  is  your  turn. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state  to  this  jury  what  Mr.  Tilton  had 
done  up  to  that  time  which  caused  you  to  say  that  he 
proved  himseK  capable  of  the  noblest  things  %  A.  It  was 
the  representations  made  to  me  by  Mr.  Moulton  of  his 
state  of  mind  toward  Mr.  Bowen,  toward  his  own  pros- 
pects—his pluck  and  determination  to  work— toward  me, 
and  toward  his  own  house. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  did  think  Mr.  Tilton  was  acting,  or  en- 
deavoring to  act,  a  heroic  part. 

Q.  And  you  thought  that  he  would  have  the  hardest 
task,  did  you,  if  you  three  people  were  made  friends 
again  ?  A.  I  certainly  did. 

Q.  And  without  ascertaining  directly  from  him  whether, 
or  what  evidences  he  had  that  you  had  made  improper 
advances  to  his  wife?  A.  That  is  predicated  on  the 
ground  that  we  were  to  be  made  friends  again. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  To  be  made  friends  again  implies  a  state  of 
facts  that  is  totally  incompatible  with  his  continuing 
belief  in  the  charges. 

Q.  Didn't  he  say  he  wanted  tosavehis  wife  and  family 
from  exposure  1  A.  Didn't  he  say  so  when? 

Q.  In  conversation  with  you,  just  prior  to  the  7th  of 
February,  1871  ?  A.  He  certainly  said  he  wanted  to  pre- 
vent the  scandal  from  becoming  public. 

Q.  "^Vhat  did  you  understand  him  to  mean  to  say  in  his 
letter  of  February  7, 1871,  when  he  speaks  of  discounte- 
nancing every  project  for  any  exposure  of  yoirr  secret  to 
the  public  ?  A.  That  is  his  letter,  and  not  mine;  I  am  not 
conscious  oE  having  read  it. 

Q.  The  contents  of  it  were  not  made  known  to  youl  A. 
I  am  not  conscious  of  having  seen  it,  or  read  it,  or  heard 
it  read,  or  having  known  of  it  imtil  a  later  period. 

Q.  You  go  on  to  say  in  that  letter : 

"  Of  course  I  can  never  speak  with  her  again  except 
with  his  permission  ;  and  I  don't  know  that  even  then  It 
would  be  best." 

Was  there  any  arrangement  made  as  to  any  communi- 
cation between  you  and  her  1  A.  At  that  period  % 

Q.  Yes;  or  prior  to  that?  A.  From  some  source  or 
other,  I  cannot  determine  now  what,  I  had  understood 
that  Mr.  Tilton  didn't  wish  me  to  visit  tn  his  family. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HE 

Q.  Can  you  not  teE.  us  from  wliom  you  heard  it  1  A.  I 
cannot,  Su- ;  I  liave  searolied  in  vain  for  the  source  of  tkat 
Impression.  ^ 

MR.  TILTON'S  GENEROSITY. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  another  sentence 

in  that  letter . 

I  wonder  if  Elizabeth  knows  how  generously  he  has 
oarried  himself  toward  me. 

How  generously  had  he  oarried  himself  toward  you  ? 
Did  you  refer  to  the  original  charge  of  improper  ad- 
vances 1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  didn't  refer  to  any  retraction  of  any  charge, 
did  you,  that  he  had  made  ?  A.  I  referred  to  his  carriage 
toward  me,  in  view  of  the  alienation  of  his  wife's  affec- 
tion fi"om  him,  and  the  distress  which  he  had  foimd  in  his 
own  household,  and  my  complicity  with  Mr.  Bowen  in 
Injuring  him  in  Ms  business  prospects. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  consider  the  other  charge  of  im- 
proper advances,  did  you  1  A.  I  do  not  recall  that  that 
entered  into  my  mind  at  that  time,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  up  to  this  time  had  you  had  any  communica- 
tion with  Mrs.  Tilton  1  A.  Not  that  I  recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  think  you  would  have  recollected  it  if  you 
had  had  communication  with  her  1  A.  I  certainly  had 
not  been  to  the  house. 

Q.  Had  you  recolred  any  letter  from  herl  A.  Not  that 
I  recall. 

Q.  Had  you  written  to  her  i  A.  No,  Sir;  I  don't  think 
I  had. 

Q.  Had  you  received  through  any  other  person  any 
message  from  her?  A.  1  do  not,  except  through  Mr. 
Moulton,  recollect  that  I  had. 

Q.  Howl  A.  I  don't  know  that  I  had,  except  through 
Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  Well,  how  long  prior  to  the  writing  of  this  letter  of 
Feb.  7, 1871,  had  he  forbidden  you  to  visit  his  house  ?  A. 
I  don't  know;  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Well,  that  had  not  been  withdrawn  at  that  timej  had 
Itl  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  it  had,  Sir. 

Q.  How  had  he  acted  so  generously  toward  you  1  A. 
Through  Mr.  Moulton ;  the  attitude  of  his  mind  and  the 
expression  of  feeling  (which  I  derived  through  Mr.  Moid- 
ton),  and  his  willingness  to  restore  the  old  friendship 
and  cooperation. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  EXPECTATIONS  OF  DEATH. 

Q.  Then  comes  the  letter  about  Mrs.  Tilton 

of  the  same  date : 

Mt  Dear  Mrs.  Tilton:  When  I  saw  you  last  I  did  not 
expect  ever  to  see  you  again  or  to  be  alive  many  days. 
God  was  kinder  to  me  than  were  my  own  thoughts  

Q.  What  were  yoiu:  own  thoughts  to  which  you  referred 
at  that  time  1  A.  Those  tlmt  I  have  just  mentioned ;  a 
presentment  of  death  as  respected  both  her  and  myself. 
I  didn't  believe  she  would  live  long. 


NRT   WARD  BEEORER.  6> 

Q.  With  regard  to  youreelf  fivst— had  you  any  idea 
that  you  were  going  to  be  overtaken  suddenly  by  death! 
A.  I  did  a  good  many  times.  Sir. 

Q.  How  %  A.  I  did,  a  good  many  times. 

Q.  How  often?  A.  I  could  not  count  them,  Sir;  but  it 
is  not  an  imcommon  thing. 

Q.  WeU,  in  what  way  did  you  apprehend  death  1  A. 
At  this  time  evidently  in  the  exceeding  pressure  and  the 
exceeding  anxiety  that  I  felt. 

Q.  WeU: 

"God  was  kinder  to  me  than  were  my  own  thoughts." 

That  implies  that  your  own  thoughts  were  unkind. 
Can  you  explain  that  term  ?  A.  WeU,  I  don't  think  they 
seem  to  me  to  ieed  explanation,  but  I  wiU  make  it : 
God  was  kinder  than  I  thought  He  would  be. 

Q.  WeU,  if  a  man  apprehends  sudden  death  from  apo- 
plexy or  from  trouble,  do  you  think  his  thoughts  are  un- 
kind toward  him  1  A.  Well,  Sir,  that  is  afn  expression 
that  I  presume  would  be  tolerated  in  literature,  without 
being  scrutinized  very  closely. 

Q.  It  had  not  reference  at  aU  to  taking  your  own  Ufe  t 
A.  Oh,  no.  Sir. 

Q.  How  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind  ?  A.  Nothing  of  that  kind. 

Q.  But,  inasmuch  as  you  apprehended  sudden  death, 
you  thought  your  own  thoughts  were  unkind— you  con- 
sidered them  so,  did  you? 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  not  said  that. 

Mr.  FuUerton— I  ask  him  whether  he  did  so  consider 
them.   [To  the  Witness  :]  • 

"The  friend  whom  God  sent  to  me  [Moulton]  has 
proved,  above  all  other  friends  I  ever  had,  able  and  will- 
ing to  help  me  in  this  terrible  emergency  of  my  Ufe.  His 
hand  it  was  that  tied  up  the  storm  that  was  ready  to 
burst  upon  our  heads." 

By  the  word  "  our"  you  referred  to  your  own  and  Mrs. 
Tilton's  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  to  all  our  heads. 

Q.  Now,  don't  you  refer  to  the  lady  whom  you  were 
addressing?  A.  I  referred  to  aU  that  were  concerned  in 
the  trouble. 

Q.  What  storm  was  about  to  burst  upon  the  heads  Gt 
yourself  and  Mrs.  TUton  1  A.  Apparently  the  storm  of  a 
disclosure  of  a  family  diiflculty  which  would  be  scandal- 
ous and  dangerous  and  heart-piercing. 

Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Tilton  on  th«  night  of  the  30th  tear  np 
the  paper  and  say  that  that  was  the  end  of  it  t  A.  Yee, 
Sir— no  ;  he  didn't  say  that  was  the  end  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  Understand  that  that  charge  was  to  be  re> 
newed  against  you  after  that  ?  A.  I  did  not  understand 
anything  about  what  was  in  the  future.  There  was  no 
intimation  of  it.  It  was  an  interview  with  a  beginning 
and  without  an  ending ;  that  is,  the  results  to  which  we 
were  going  were  in  suspense. 

Q.  "  He "  fMoultonl  "will  be  as  true  a  friend  to  your 
honor  and  happiness  as  a  brother  could  be  to  a  sister'?  '* 
Did  you  think  that  the  honor  of  Mr.  Tilton  was  In- 


70 


TEE    llLlO^-BEmmER  lELAL. 


volved  ill  ciiis  matter  ?  A.  I  thought  it  was  in  very  great 
danger  of  being  dishonored  in  the  public  mind. 

Q.  Howl  A.  By  that  way  in  which  the  toug-ue  of  scan- 
dal represents  everything  about  a  woman. 

Q.  It  would  disho»or  her,  would  it,  if  it  was  charged 
that  you  had  made  improper  advances  and  she  had  re- 
sisted them?   A.  Yes,  Su* ;  I  think  it  would, 

Q.  And  that  is  the  reason  you  used  that  expression, 
is  it  I  A.  Not  that;  no,  Sir ;  you  ask  me  a  separate  ques- 
tion, and  you  cannot  carry  that  back  through  the  whole 
document. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  that  is  the  fli"st  communicaflon  that  you 
addressed  to  Mrs.  Tilton  after  th'e  night  of  the  30th,  I  un- 
derstand youl  A.  I  think  it  is,  Sir;  I  remember  no 
other. 

Q.  In  what  light,  Mr.  Beecher,  did  you  then  view  the 
conduct  of  Mrs.  Tillon  in  making  this  written  charge 
against  you,  and  which  Mr.  Tilton  had  on  the  night  of  the 
30th  ?  A.  I  viewed  it  in  this  light,  if  you  ask  me  what 
was  my  explanation  and  judgment  in  regard  to  the 
matter  

Q.  Yes.  A.  After  much  suspense  and  vacillation,  I  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  gradually  come 
into  a  state  of  affection  toward  me,  the  concealment  of 
which,  then  the  outbreaking  of  which,  and  the  anxiety 
Xhsiit  came  from  domestic  discord,  in  consequence  of 
which,  together  with  the  indignation  of  her  husband,  has 
shattered  her  both  in  body  and  in  mind  to  a  degree  in 
which  she  was  scarcely  responsible. 

Q.  That  was  the  conclusion  that  you  had  rested  under 
on  the  7th  of  February,  1871,  was  it  1  A.  That  was  the 
conclusion— I  will  not  say  at  that  definite  date,  but  when 
my  mind  at  last  subsided  into  a  recognized  theory. 

Q.  I  am  referring  to  the  letter  of  Feb.  7, 1871.  A.  At 
that  interview— I  didn't  recite  the  whole  of  that  inter- 
view of  which  I  now  speak. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  VIEWS  OF  MRS.  TILTON'S 
CONDUCT. 

Q.  Very  well ;  I  ask  you  in  what  light  you  then 
held  her  conduct  in  making  that  charge  against  you  ? 
A.  Oh,  I  held  her,  il  you  judged  her  as  you  would  ordi- 
nary persons,  a  very  guilty  person. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir. 

The  Witness— And  I  looked  upon  it  with  great  iadigna- 
tion. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  express  something  of  that  indigna- 
tion or  some  remonstrance,  or  make  some  allusion  to 
this  false  charge  which  she  had  made  against  you,  in  this 
letter  of  Feb.  7,  1871?  A.  On  the  simple  ground  that 
when  two  people  want  to  make  up  a  diflSculty,  they  don't 
fire  it  into  each  other's  faces  out  of  pistols,  or  call  up  all 
the  l  ank  and  harrowing  parts  of  it ;  they  let  go  aU  they 
^can  in  order  to  settle  the  thing  amicably. 
I  Q.  You  didn't  feel  disposed,  then,  to  say  one  word  to 
[the  lady  who  had  made  the  serious  charge  against  you,  in 


writing,  and  had  given  it  to  her  husband  ?  A.  And  took 
it  back  again,  and  renewed  it  again. 

Q.  And  renewed  it  agaiu  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Very  well;  then  it  was  left  where  it  was  before.  Why 
didn't  you  then  make  some  allusion  to  it  in  this  letter  of 
Feb.  71  A.  Because  my  business  was  to  win  Mrs.  TUton 
to  the  confidence  of  Frank  Moulton. 

Q.  And  not  to  vindicate  yourself?  A.  Not  by  any 
means  to  vindicate  myself. 

INTERVIEW  WITH  ME.  TILTON  IN  FEBRUARY, 
1871. 

Q.  You  have  stated,  Mr.  Beecher,  that  you 
had  a  memorable  inverview  with  Mr.  Tilton  at  his  house 
in  the  flist  part  of  February,  1871  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Can't  you  state  how  that  interview  was  brought 
about?  A.  No,  Sir;  my  impression  is  that  it  was  at  hia 
solicitation. 

Q.  Made  to  you  personally  or  by  letter?  A.  I  don't 
know. 

Q.  At  what  time  of  the  day  did  you  go  to  his  house  1  A. 
My  impressions  are  that  it  was  early  moming. 

Q.  In  what  room  did  you  have  the  interview  ?  A.  In 
two  rooms— a  back  bed-room  on  the  second  floor,  and  the 
front  room ;  left-hand  comer,  I  think  it  was ;  that  is,  the 
third  story. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Tilton  present  1  A  At  the  second  intei- 
view. 

Q.  Was  she  not  present  at  the  first  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  object  of  that  interview  before  you 
went  to  the  house  ?  A.  Not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  And  from  whom  did  you  learn  it  ?  A.  From  Mr 
Tilton. 

Q.  And  how  did  he  convey  it  to  youl  A.  He  didn'% 
state  at  all  what  the  object  was ;  he  went  into  a  conver- 
sation, and  I  inferred  the  object  after  he  got  through. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  he  say  ?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you  wha4 
he  said;  I  can  only  tell  you  the  substance  and  drift  of 
the  conversation. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  what  I  mean  by  asking  the 
question,  for  you  to  give  me  the  substance  of  it.  A.  It 
was  a  conversation,  whatever  the  introductory  parts 
were,  and  my  general  impressions  were  that  the  intro- 
ductory remarks  sprang  from  the  prospect  and  adjust- 
ment of  more  friendly  relations,  cooperation,  or  some- 
thing of  that  kind;  I  cannot  remember  definitely,  but  it 
passed  to  a  consideration  of  his  relations  to  Mr.  Bowen, 
and  the  great  wrong  Mr.  Bo  wen  had  done  to  him,  not  ex- 
cluding his  business  relations,  of  which  he  had  spoken, 
although  I  do  not  now  recall  so  much  about  that ;  I  only 
know  it  entered  in,  and  he  especially  felt  the  aspersion 
that  had  been  made  upon  his  reputation,  both  by  what 
Mr.  Bowen  had  said,  and  by  the  circumstances  umler 
which  he  was  ejected  from  the  two  icipers ;  and  it  seemed 
to  me  that  the  drift  of  his  wish  was  to  show  a:<i  that  ho 
was  not  subject  to  those  charges  justly.   He  e:.:patiated 


TESTIMONI   OF  HEN 

upon  the  stories.  He  went  into  aome  explanations  of  the 
^cliaiges  that  had  been  made,  not  by  Mr.  Bowen,  but  by 
others— the  charge  of  drunkenness,  for  instance,  that  had 
been  made,  he  said,  against  him;  Mr.  Bowen's  charge 
■of  the  Winsted  affair,  and  of  liis  conduct  in  the  North- 
West  during  his  lecture  season,  and  of  the  charge  relating 
to  the  woman  in  the  oflBce,  on  the  staff,  and  several  other 
points  which  now  escape  me. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  about  your  personal  diffi- 
culty with  himi  A.  That  was  implied  all  along. 

Q.  No,  was  there  anything  said  upon  that  subject?  A.  I 
don't  recall  it  now.  Sir. 

Q.  No  conversation  between  you  and  him  as  to  this 
charge  cf  improper  advances  1  A.  Why,  no;  that  had  all 
passed. 

Q.  When  had  it  passed?  A.  Well,  all  the  time;  it  had 
gone  down  by  non-user. 

Q.  And  was  not  alluded  to  upon  this  occasion  t  A.  Not 
that  I  now  recall. 

Q.  But  still  you  labored  under  the  impression  that  Mrs. 
Tilton  was  in  love  with  you  ?  A.  I  certainly  did  until 
1874,  but  then  

Mr.  Fuller  ton— That  is  an  answer. 

The  Witness— I  was  going  on  with  the  conversation 
that  you  aslfed  from  me. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Go  on  with  it,  then. 
The  Witness— I  will  pass  it  if  you  wish. 
Mr.  Fullerton— No. 

The  Witness— Or,  if  you  desire,  I  will  go  on. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Go  on. 

The  Witness— At  that  time  he  made  the  statement  that 
the  stories,  many  of  the  stories,  or  several,  at  any  rate, 
which  were  circulated  of  him,  were  true  of  another  Mr. 
Tilton  who  had  nearly  his  initials,  if  not  entirely,  and 
who,  as  he  understood,  or  as  I  understood  from  him,  was 
a  rakish  fellow,  and  dissipated  in  his  habits,  and  went 
about  the  country  doing  improper  things,  of  which  he 
[Theodore  Tilton]  got  the  credit,  and  he  I  think  after- 
ward—after  he  had  vindicated  himself  in  respect  to  all 
these  stories,  he  then  spoke  of  the  difficulties,  between 
him  and  me,  in  his  family.  It  was,  however,  general 
and  not  spef  ific;  his  trouble,  his  difficulty,  or  his  mis- 
understandings, and  his  disposition  to  have  everything 
healed,  and  to  renew  again  the  cordial  relations  which 
before  had  existed  between  us,  or  to  that  effect. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  then  take  occasion,  in  that  kind  of 
conversation,  to  say  to  him  anything  like  this  :  That  Mr. 
Tiltun's  charge  of  improper  advances  against  me  was 
unfounded  ?  A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  No  allusion  to  that  1  A.  No  allusion  was  made  by 
him,  and  none  by  me. 

Q.  Did  you  then  suppose  that  the  impression  had  been 
entirely  removed  from  his  mind  that  any  improper  ad- 
Tances  had  been  made  ?  A.  I  really  cannot  recall  what  I 
did  suppose  on  that  point. 

Q.  If  you  were  thus  laboring  under  the  Impression  that 


RT    WARD  BEKOHER.  71 

they  had  been  removed,  can  you  account  for  it  that  you 
didn't  say  something  on  that  subject?  A.  I  don't  know 
that  I  was  laboring  imder  the  impression,  and  I  cannot 
account  for  a  hypothetical  state  of  facts. 

Q.  Very  well.  That  seemed  to  be  a  healing  of  all  the 
difficulties,  did  it?  A.  It  looked  so. 

Q.  This  was  early  in  February  ?  A.  This  was  some- 
where toward  the  middle  of  February,  I  think ;  I  canmot 
give  the  date  precisely. 

Q.  You  thought  the  difficulty  then  was  all  settled  ?  A. 
On  the  way  to  being  settled ;  I  didn't  think  anything  but 
time  would  entirely  settle  it. 

Q.  In  your  direct  examination  I  think  you  said,  *'  I 
thought  the  difficulty  was  all  dissipated?"  A.  Oh,  well, 
I  said  so ;  I  presiune  you  don't  misunderstand  that  lan- 
guage. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  I  do  not. 

The  Witness— I  thought  it  was  in  the  way  of  settling, 
just  as  a  physician  says  a  man  is  well :  "  I  don't  need  t» 
come  and  see  you  any  more,"  but  the  man  ain't  well 
enough  to  go  out  for  days,  but  then  the  dangerous  symp- 
toms had  passed. 

Q.  You  thought  the  patient  was  well  enough  to  renew 
intercourse  with  the  family  ?   A.  I  did— no,  I  didn't. 

Q.  Well,  which  is  it  now  ?  A.  I  didn't. 

Q.  You  did  not?  A.  So  far  as  he  was  concerned,  I  did; 
so  far  as  Mrs.  Tilton  was  concerned,  I  didn't. 

Q.  Did  you  not  renew  intercourse  immediately  after 
that?  A.  No,  not  in  any  such  way. 

Q.  Did  you  not  on  that  day  permit  her  to  come  into  the 
room  and  kiss  you  ?  A.  No,  I  went  into  the  room  where 
she  was  mth  him,  and  then  the  final  scene  of  that  inter- 
view down  stairs  was  that  we  all  three  kissed  each  other, 
as  a  covenant  of  agreement. 

Q.  Let  me  call  yom-  attention  to  your  testimony  on  the 
direct.  You  sat  down  on  Mr.  Tilton's  knee,  didn't  you! 
A.  No,  you  have  got  another  story  entirely. 

Mr.  Shearman— Another  interview. 

The  Witness— An  entirely  different  interview. 

Mr.  FuUerton— This  is  put  down  here  so. 

The  Witness— It  is  put  down  wrong ;  they  have  misled 
you,  your  friends  have. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  was  the  May  interview. 

THE  MAY  INTERVIEW. 

Mr.  FuUerton— We  will  take  it  as  the  May 
interview,  then.  We  will  keep  on  this  as  it  is  recorded. 
What  occurred  at  the  Maj'  interview  ?  A.  That  was  a 
briefer  interview.  In  regard  to  the  date  of  that  I  am  not 
any  more  positive,  so  far  as  exact  dates  are  concerned, 
than  I  am  in  the  preceding  one,  but  the  interview  was 
one  which  I  don't  know  whether  it  came  to  pass— it  must 
have  come  by  a  call  from  Mr.  Tilton,  or,  as  it  might  per 
haps  be  more  properly  stated,  siimmons. 

Mr.  Beach— What  interview  I 

The  Witness— Somewhere  in  February. 


72 


lEE   TlLlON-BblEGEEB  TRIAL. 


Mr.  Fnllerton — Griv,e  us  an  account  of  tlie  May  inter- 

The  Witness— There  was  very  little  that  I  recollect,  ex- 
cept that  when  I  went  there,  Mr.  Tllton  was  up,  and 
rather  something  seemed  to  have  disturbed  him.  I  can- 
not recollect  the  subject  of  conversation  very  much;  I 
only  know  that  I  talked  for  perhaps  15  minutes  or  20,  and 
then  he  became  like  his  old  self,  and  that  in  the  cordial 
feelings  that  came  up,  or  in  some  remarks  I  made  to  him, 
I  came  up  to  him  and  sat  down  on  his  knee,  and  was  talk- 
ing to  him,  and  I  think  it  was  at  that  time  that  Mrs. 
Tilton  came  into  the  room  and  saw  me  sitting  on  his  knee 
and  burst  out  laughing. 

Q.  What  else  did  she  do  1  A.  She  came  1%  and  kissed 
me. 

Q.  You  made  no  objection!  A.  I  did  not;  no  Sir. 
piaughter.] 

Q.  You  didn't  say  a  word  about  the  impropriety  of  it  i 
A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  you  believed  then  she  had  been  very  deeply  tn 
love  with  you  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  that  that  affection  yet  created  the  domestic 
difficulty?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  upon  the  subject  then  1  A. 
No,  Sir;  I  never  lecture  on  a  kiss  when  it  is  given  to  me 
in  the  presence  of  the  husband. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Never  mind ;  I  don't  want  you  to  lec- 
ture on  a  kiss  here.  This  is  not  a  thing  for  byplay,  by  any 
means.  You  made  no  observation  either  to  the  husband 
or  to  the  wife  as  to  the  charge  that  had  been  made 
against  you  of  improper  solicitations,  or  of  winning  the 
wife's  affections !  A.  No,  Sir. 

CONVERSATION  OF  MR.  BEECHER,  ME.  TIL- 
TON  AND  MRS.  TILTON. 

Q.  Now,  we  wiU  go  back  to  Feb.  7. 

Mr.  Evarts— Feb.  7  ? 
The  Witness— Feb.  7  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes  ;  not  Feb.  7,  but  soon  after. 
The  Witness— Mid-February. 
Mr.  Fullerton— The  middle  of  February. 
The  Witness— Some  time  from  the  1st  to  the  middle. 
Q.  You  kissed  all  around  then,  did  you  f    A.  We  all 
three  kissed. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  object  of  that  kiss  1  A.  I  onder- 
Btood  it  to  be  amnesty  and  amity. 

Q.  Kisses  of  inspiration,  I  suppose  1  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  the  covenant  that  you  entered  Into 
there  1  A.  No  formal  covenant,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  informal  1   A.  No  informal  covenant. 

Q.  Well,  then,  what  kind  of  covenant  was  it  1  A.  No 
covenant  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  you  spoke  of  a  covenant  that  you  entered 
into?  A.  Not  in  any  technical  sense  of  the  term.  lam 
afraid  of  you  when  I  use  any  words,  that  you  will  Mive 


them  a  sharp  meaning.  I  would  use  it  in  a  literary  sense, 

not  in  a  strictly  legal  or  scientific  sense. 

Q.  Well,  what  took  place  between  you  three  persons  on 
that  occasion  whidh  led  you  to  kiss  aH  around  ?  A.  Mr. 
Tilton  came  down,  and  his  wife,  and  we  went  into  that 
room  together,  and  he  sat  down  and  entered  into  general 
conversation,  in  somewhat  this  way :  that  this  great  diffi- 
culty that  had  befallen  him  he  feared  might  be  the  termi- 
nation of  his  useful  life,  alluding  to  his  business  condi- 
tion; and  then,  after  setting  that  forth,  he  said  that  how- 
ever he  intended  to  recover  himself,  and  he  did  not  know 
but  that  *it  might,  on  the  whole,  prove  best  that  his 
trouble  in  his  household  had  threatened  to  separate 
him  and  his  wife,  but  he  did  not  know  but 
there  might  grow  out  of  this  very  trial  a  nobler 
affection,  and  by  and  by  their  love  and  their  household 
state  might  be  better  for  the  trial— words  to  that  Cilect  i 
and  then  he  said  to  his  wife  that  he  had  had  a  con- 
versation with  me  up-stairs  that  was  satisfactory,  and 
that  he  was  bound  to  say  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  taken  on 
himself  very  honorably  the  blame  of  the  trouble  that  had 
befallen  his  family,  and  exonerated  his  wife ;  and  then  he 
said  to  me :  "  I  feel  also  bound  to  say  that  Elizabeth  ex- 
onerates you  and  takes  the  blame  to  herself,"  and  other 
remarks  of  that  kind,  intended  to  be  cordial  all  around ; 
and  when  the  interview  terminated,  when  we  arose,  I 
kissed  him  and  he  kissed  me,  and  I  kissed  his  wife  and 
she  kissed  me,  and  I  believe  they  kissed  each  other. 
I  Laughter.] 

Q.  TMs  exoneration  that  was  spoken  of,  did  you  under- 
stand that  as  embracing  the  charge  of  improper  advances  1 
A.  I  don't  think  that  that  entered  my  mind  at  that  time, 
but  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Well,  when  Mr.  Tilton  told  his  wife  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  been  liberal  and  had  taken  all  the  blame  upon  him- 
self        A.  Had  been  honorable. 

Q.  Had  been  honorable,  and  had  taken  all  the  blame 
upon  himself,  did  you  regard  that  as  embracing  blame  for 
the  improper  advances  1  A.  There  had  been  no  improper 
advances. 

Q.  The  charge  of  Improper  advances  !  A.  That  was  not 

my  blame. 

Q.  Did  you  understand,  when  Mr.  Tilton  made  this  ob- 
servation to  his  wife,  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  acted  honora- 
bly and  taken  all  the  blame  upon  himself,  that  he  referred 
to  blame  for  the  charge  of  improi)er  advances  1  A.  No,  I 
did  not.  Sir ;  the  sense  that  I  took,  as  near  as  I  can  recol- 
lect, was  the  general  sense  that  by  my  presence  I  had 
alienated  his  wife  and  brought  discord  into  the  family, 
and  that  it  had  been  an  occasion  of  heartbreak  to  him, 
and  great  distress,  but  that .  I,  instead  of  saying  that 
Elizabeth  had  fallen  in  love  with  me,  took  the  blame 
to  myself  by  saying  that  I  ought  to  have  seen  to  it,  from 
my  age,  and  presence,  and  the  relations  of  a  spiritual 
pastor  to  her,  that  there  should  be  no  such  thing  as  that. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  think  it  strange  that  Mrs.  TUton  did 


tFjS1imo:sy  of  hfnby  ward  beecbeb. 


not  explain  to  yoa  either  in  February  or  in  May  that  this 
charge  was  false  that  she  had  given  her  affections  to  yout 
A.  I  should  have  thought  it  very  strange  if  she  had. 
Q.  You  would  1  A.  I  should. 

A.  Although  that  gave  rise  to  the  diflSculty  between 
you!  A.  That  had  given  rise  to  the  diflaculty,  but  the 
circumstances  were  an  explanation. 

Q.  Now  what  next  occurred  after  the  interview  of  the 
7th,  or  of  the  middle  of  February,  between  you  and  Mrs. 
Tiltoni  A.  I  don't  recall. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  time  Mr.  Moulton  left  the 
country !  A.  I  do  not  recall  the  date. 

Q.  He  has  sta>ted  that  it  W£is  the  2d  of  March ;  does 
your  recollection  conform  to  that !  A.  It  was  somewhere 
In  that  way.  I  only  can  judge  of  it,  not  because  I  saw  him 
go,  but  because  he  met  my  family  in  Florida. 


THE  DEPAETUEE  TO  THE  SOUTH. 

Q.  And  do  you  recollect  what  time  your 
family  left  1  A.  I  think  my  family  left  late  in— I  think 
they  left  in  February,  but  I  am  not  certain,  Sir ;  they 
raried  every  year ;  they  have  never  left  at  the  same  time, 
and  I  think  that  year  it  was  perhaps  in  February. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  one  occasion  when  you  met  the 
attending  physician  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  before  he 
left  for  the  South  1  A.  I  recollect  meeting  him  often  there, 
tout  I  don't  recollect  meeting  him  at  that  particular  time ; 
I  might  have  done  it,  but  I  do  not  recall  it. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  no  way  to  fix  the  date  of  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's departm-e  from  the  North?  A.  I  have  none;  no, 
Sir;  but  I  could  ascertain  for  you  from  data  that  are  sure. 

Q.  Have  you  the  data  with  you?  A.  I  don't  think  I 
baye.  Sir;  I  have  a  memorandimi. 

Q.  Please  look  and  see  if  you  can  fix  the  date  of  his  de- 
parture 1  A.  I  Producing  a  memorandum.]  This  is  one 
that  I  derived  not  from  my  own  personal  knowledge ;  it 
Is  put  down  here  March  2d,  "  Moulton  goes  to  Florida." 

Q.  That  corresponds  with  Mr.  Moulton's  testimony. 
How,  do  you  recollect  when  he  returned  ?  A.  I  have  it,  I 
think.  [Referring  to  the  memorandum.")  April  15. 
•Moulton  returns  from  Florida." 

Q.  Now,  between  his  departm-e  and  his  return  you 
leceived  this  letter,  which  has  been  marked  as  an  exhibit, 
from  Mrs.  Tilton,  did  you?  A.  I  don't  know  what  letter 
you  refer  to.  Sir,  unless  you  show  it  to  me. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  show  it  to  you.  Sir. 

Mp.  Beach— You  may  as  well  adjourn  now. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  might  as  weU. 

The  Witness— The  book  will  do  just  as  well,  Judge 
Follerton. 

Judge  Neilson— Will  the  jury  get  ready  to  retire  !  Gen- 
tlemen will  keep  their  seats.  Return  at  2  o'clock,  gentle- 
men. 

The  court  then  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 


THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pttrsuant  to  ad- 
journment. 
Mr.  Beeoher  recalled. 

MES.  TILTON'S  LETTERS. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  now  place  in  your  hands, 
Mr.  Beecher,  the  letter  which  I  aUuded  to  before  the  ad- 
journment. [Handing  witness  "Exhibit  12."]  Do  you 
recollect  of  receiving  that  letter  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  yourecoUect  the  fact  that  you  did  receive  It  I 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  handed  it  to  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  tndbrsement,  I  believe  it  was  stated,  is  In  your 
handwriting  ?  A.  I  think  it  likely  that  it  is.  Sir,  although 
it  was  evidently  written  not  as  freely  as  I  usually  write. 

Mr.  FuUerton  \B.eaA\VLg\—'' Wednesday.  My  Dbab 
Friend:  Does  your  heart  bound  toward  all  as  it  used!  8o 
does  muie !  I  am  myself  again.  I  did  not  dare  to  tell 
you  till  I  was  sure ;  but  the  bird  has  simg  in  my  heart 
these  four  weeks,  and  he  has  covenanted  with  me  never 
again  to  leave.  'Spring  has  come.'  Because  I  thought  it 
would  gladden  you  to  know  this  and  not  to  trouble  or 
embarrass  you  in  any  way,  I  now  write.  Of  com-se  I 
should  like  to  share  with  you  my  joy,  but  can  wait  for  the 
Beyond 1 

"When  dear  Frank  Bays  I  may  once  again  go  to  old 
Plymouth,  I  will  thank  the  dear  Father." 

I  now  show  you  "Exhibit  15,''  and  I  wish  to  consider 
them  together.  [Handing  witness  "Exhibit  15."]  Do 
yourecoUect  of  receiving  that  letter!  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect receiving  it.  Sir;  I  presume  I  received  it,  though. 

Q.  And  gave  it  to  Mr.  Moulton  !  A.  That  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  You  recollect  the  fact  that  you  received  such  a  let- 
ter. A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  recollect  the  act,  although 
seeing  the  letter,  or  hearing  It  spoken  of,  I  have  the  strong 
feeling  that  this  was  a  letter  written  to  me,  and  that  I 
gave  it  to  Mr.  Moulton. 

Mr.  FuUerton— [Reading] : 

"  May  3, 1871. 

"Mr.  Beecheb:  My  future  either  for  life  or  death 
would  be  happier,  could  I  but  feel  that  you  forgave  me 
while  you  forget  me.  In  all  the  sad  compUcations  of  the 
past  years,  my  endeavor  waa  entirely  to  keep  from  you 
all  suffering,  to  bear  myself  alone,  leavmg  you  forever 
ignorant  of  it.  My  weapons  were  love,  a  larger,  untiring 
generosity,  ^.n^  nest-hiding. 

"  That  I  failed  utterly,  we  both  know,  but  I  now  ask 
forgiveness." 

xMR.  BEECHER'S  NOVEL. 
Q.  Before  asking  you  any  questions  in  regard 
to  those  letters,  Mr.  Beeoher,  I  aak  you  when  you  coni- 
monced  writing  the  novel  "Norwood!"  At  what  time 
did  I! 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  A.  [Referring  to  memorandum.]  I  think 
it  was  published  in  TTie  Xeio-Tork  Ledger  in  1867— in  the 
process  of  1867,  during  the  year— and  in  the  book  form 

in  18GS. 

Q.  You  misapprehend  my  question,  Mr.  Beecher» 


74  IBE  TILTON-B 

When  did  you  commence  writing  that  book  1  A.  That  I 
oould  not  tell  you,  Sir ;  it  was  some  time  in  the  year,  I 
think,  of  1867. 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  you  read  that  book,  or  a  part 
of  it,  to  Mrs.  Tilton?  A.  I  read  portions  of  it ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  part  of  it  did  you  read  to  her  ?  A.  Well,  I  can- 
not say  how  much,  but  I  recollect  reading  one  chapter, 
and  that  was  the  chapter  on  the  birth  of  Rose  Went- 
worth. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  of  reading  other  chapters  to 
lieri  A.  Not  distinctly ;  I  have  an  impression  that  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  not  read  it  all  to  her?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  is  youi-  impression  as  to  the  parts  that  you 
did  read  1  A.  The  opening  chapters. 

Q.  Where  did  you  read  it  to  her  ?  A.  I  think  at  her 
house. 

Q.  In  the  day  or  in  the  night  time  f  A.  In  the  day  time, 
as  far  as  I  recollect. 

Q.  Was  her  husband  present  or  absent?  A.  4^don't 
recollect. 

Q.  Kose  Wentworth  was  the  heroine  of  that  story,  I 
l)elieve  %  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  that  is  what  I  tried  to  make  her. 

Q.  Do  you  remember,  in  writing  that  book,  of  borrow- 
ing from  the  habit  of  the  bird  in  hiding  its  nest  a  figure 
to  illustrate  the  way  that  love  might  be  concealed,  if  it 
were  necessary  ?  A.  I  do  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  describing  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Went- 
worth, and  especially  the  peculiarities  of  the  lady,  in  that 
lK)ok1  A.  No,  I  had  forgotten  it. 

Do  you  remember  using  this  language :  [Heading.] 

"  It  would  seem  as  if,  while  her  whole  life  centered 
upon  his  love,  she  would  hide  the  precious  secret  by  fling- 
ing over  it  vines  and  flowers,  by  mirth  and  raillery,  as  a 
bird  hides  its  nest  under  tufts  of  grass,  and  behind  leaves 
and  vines,  as  a  fence  against  prying  eyes." 

Do  you  recollect  of  writing  that  1  A.  I  do  not.  Sir ;  I 
have  never  read  the  book  since  the  day  it  came  out  of  the 
press. 

Q.  Well,  look  at  it  and  see  if  that  is  so.  [Handing  wit- 
ness the  book,  j  A.  Well,  Sir;  I  know  no  more  about  it 
than  you.  I  presume  it  is  my  pen.  It  is  in  my  book,  with 
my  name,  and  I  presume  it  is  mine. 

Q.  That  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  "Norwood,"  does  it 
not— that  novel?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  think  so. 

Q.  You  don't  think  that  has  been  interpolated  in  it  ? 
A.  No,  Sir;  I  don't  believe  it  has;  and  I  want  you  to  un- 
derstand that  I  think  it  probable  that  I  wrote  it;  but  be- 
fore you,  whom  I  have  learned  to  dread,  I  don't  want  to 
eay  it  with  emphatical  accuracy.  [Laughter.] 

ME.  BEECH ER  GIVES  MRS.  TILTON  A  PICTURE. 

Well,  I  don't  thinli  it  is  I  that  you  should 
dread,  Mr.  Beecher.  Did  you,  among  other  things,  present 
Mrs.  Tilton  with  a  picture  called  "  The  Trai  ILutf  Arbutus  I" 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  did  you  get  that  picture'   A.  Bostou. 

Q.  When  did  you  buy  iti  A.  I  think  I  had  Jiad  it  in  my 


lECEEB  IBIAL. 

house  for  some  time;  I  cannot  say  when  I  bought  it;  but 
that  is  an  impression  that  I  had  it  for  some  time  in  my 
house ;  it  was  rather  a  favorite  thing  of  mine. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  present  it  to  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  A. 
That  is  more  than  I  can  say  definitely ;  I  have  an  impres- 
sion it  was  somewhere  about  1866,  but  I  cannot  say  cer- 
tainly; 1866  or  '67,  or  along  there. 

Q.  When  did  you  commence  writing  that  novel?  A. 
1867 ;  it  must  be  later  that  I  gave  it  to  her. 

Q.  I  think  so ;  after  1867  considerably,  wasn't  it  ?  A. 
I  cannot  say  as  to  that,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  make  her  a  present  of  that  picture  until 
after  you  had  read  the  opening  chapter  of  "  Norwood  "  to 
her  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  it  was  subsequent  to  that. 

Q.  Subsequent  to  that?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  do  you  remember  of  describing  in  the  book  the 
perfume  of  the  flower  called  the  "  trailing  arbutus"  aa 
"the  breath^  of  love  ?"  A.  No,  I  don't  remember  it,  Sir ; 
but  if  it  is  there  I  shall  have  to  stand  it. 

Q.  Let  us  see  if  it  is  there.  Speaking  of  that  flower : 
[Reading.] 

"  It  is  content,  though  lying  upon  the  very  ground.  It 
braves  the  coldest  Winters.  All  the  Summers  cannot 
elaborate  a  perfume  so  sweet  as  that  which  seems  to 
have  been  born  of  the  very  Winter.  It  is  like  the  breath 
of  love.  The  pure  white  and  pink  blossoms,  in  sweet 
clusters,  lie  hidden  under  leaves  or  grass,  and  often  under 
untimely  snows.  Blessings  on  thee  1  Thou  art  the  fair- 
est, most  modest,  and  sweetest-breathed  of  all  our  flow- 
ers!" 

Do  you  recollect  that?  A.  No ;  I  don't  recollect  it,  but 
I  am  willing  to  own  it. 

Q.  That,  I  believe,  is  in  the  opening  chapter?  A.  I 
don't  know  how  that  is. 

Q.  Be  kind  enough  to  look  and  see.  [Handing  witness 
the  book."}  A.  I  know  that  this— if  you  will  excuse  my  in- 
terpolating a  word  

Q.  1  wm  hear  what  it  is  first.  A.  Well,  I  know  that  this 
chapter  was  one  that  I  read  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  especially  the 
chapter  containing  this  trailing  arbutus. 

Q.  That  I  understand  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  reason  I  called  your  attention  to  it, 
A.  I  know  it  was,  and  I  wanted  to  inform  you. 

Q.  Well,  what  I  know  you  needn't  tell  me.   A.  Yes. 

Q.  It  is  what  I  don't  know  that  I  w^ant  to  get  from  you. 
Is  that  in  the  opening  chapter]  A.  No,  Sir,  I  guess  not; 
it  is  Chapter  V. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  read  that  chapter?  A.  I  think  I  did; 
if  that  is  the  chapter  that  contains  the  birth  of  Rose,  I 
read  it. 

Q.  Well,  is  it  not  ?  You  will  see  that  Rose  is  boru  about 
five  minutes  after' that.  [Laughter.]  A.  Well,  Sir,  then 
that  is  the  chapter. 

Q.  And  after  reading  that  part  of  it  to  her,  describing 
the  perfume  of  the  arbutus  as  "the  breath  of  love,**  you 
{j'avc  her  the  painting?  A.  Yea ;  not  immediately. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  in  that  book  anywhere  spe.'ik  of  tlie 


TESTlMOyT  OF  HEX. 

Impression  wMch  a  flo-vs-er  makes  upon  a  sensitive  mind  1 
A-  I  don't  know  but  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whetlier  70U  did  or  not!  A.  I  do 
not;  I  sliaU  enjoy  the  re-reading  of  tlie  book  more  than  I 
anticipated,  Sir,  haying  the  pleasure  of  hearing  you 
read  it. 

Q.  Well,  you  force  me  to  say  that  I  doubt  whether  you 
will  enjoy  it  a  great  deal  in  the  end,  Sir.  If  you  won't 
make  such  observations  I  won't  reply  to  them.  Let  me 
read  it  again  :  [Reading.] 

**  The  image  which  a  flower  casts  upon  a  sensitive  plate 
Is  ;iimply  its  owm  splf-form  ;  but  cast  upon  a  more  (Sensi- 
tive human  soul,  it  leaves  there  not  mere  form,  but  feeling, 
excitement,  suggestion." 

Do  you  recollect  that  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  think  it  is  a  very 
good  idea,  [Laughter.] 

Q.  Perhaps  you  will  recollect  it  when  I  show  it  to  you  1 
[Handing  witness  the  book.]  A.  No,  I  don't  recollect  it ; 
but  I  tind  it  in  the  book. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  recollect  in  that  book  of  associating 
the  song  of  a  bird  with  a  "  love-call,"  as  it  is  termed  1  A. 
No,  Sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Let  me  read  and  see  if  you  can  remember  it.  Speak- 
ing of  the  characters  in  this  book,  it  goes  on  to  say : 

"  While  they  thus  sat  in  the  open  door,  talking  of  the 
loved  and  absent,,  and  both  of  them  thinking  down  deeply 
in  the  silence  of  the  heart,  of  other  things,  which  their 
lips  would  not  reveal,  a  robin  flew  into  one  of  the  trees  in 
the  meadow,  and  began  singing  that  plaintive  call  for  its 
mate  which  one  hears  so  often  in  Summer.  It  is  the 
robin's  sweetest  and  most  spirited  song,  and  few  strains 
there  are  that  surpass  it  in  tenderness,  clearness  and 
brilliancy.  Rose  had  always  associated  this  evening  robin 
eong  with  the  idea  of  a  love-call  to  one  absent.  To-night 
it  seemed  more  yearning  and  passionate  than  usual.  She 
followed  the  bird  with  her  eye.  At  first  he  sat  patiently 
and  sang.  Then,  as  if  sui-prised  that  no  response  fol- 
lowed, it  gave  new  force  to  its  calL  Now,  growing  rest- 
less, it  changed  its  place,  singing  in  turns,  from  several 
trees,  and  checking  itself  nervously,  as  if  really  alarmed 
at  last,  lest  it  were  forsaken.  It  seemed  to  Rose  to 
gay :  '  The  night  is  coming  on.  Where  is  my  love !  Oh  t 
ifi  he  harmed  %  Am  I  forsaken  V  "  Do  you  recollect  that  1 
A.  No,  Sir;  it  is  beautiful,  I  think,  whoever  wrote  it. 
[Laughter.]   I  am  willing  to  own  It,  Mr.  Fullerton. 

EXPLAmXG  THE  LETTERS. 

Q  And  don't  70U  ihluk  that  in  these  two 
letters  which  I  have  read  to  you  from  Mrs.  Tilton,  that 
she  borrowed  iJiese  figures  of  speech  from  that  book  in 
order  that  you  should  imderstand  them  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I 
don't  think  she  did. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  take  up  the  first  one  :  Does  your  heart 
bound  toward  all,  as  it  used  ?"  Do  you  know  what  she 
meant  by  that  i  A.  I  suppose  I  do. 

Q.  Please  tell  me  how  you  interpret  it  I  A.  Well,  Sii', 
-will  you  be  kind  enough  to  give  me  that  date  1 


EY   WAED  BF.ECEEB.  7S 

Q.  It  is  indorsed,  "  March  gth."  A.  Yes,  March  8th.  I 
suppose  it  to  refer  to  the  interruption  which  had  been 
happUy  teraainated  between  all  of  us,  of  concord  and 
friendliness,  and  that  we  were  coming  together  again  in 
kindly  relations,  and  that  there  wae  to  be  no  animosity 
left,  no  enmity. 

Q.  And  it  was  reopening  the  broken  associations,  wa« 
it  ?  A.  No,  Sir;  it  was  cementing  the  broken  chains. 

Q.  Very  well;  any  way.  You  are  familiar  with  the 
works  of  Hannah  More,  are  you!  A.  I  am  asliamed  to 
say  I  am  not. 
Q.  Have  you  read  them  1   A.  Never. 
Q.  Any  part  of  them  1  A.  No,  I  don't  think  I  ever  did, 
anything,  not  even  "  Cceleb's  in  Search  of  a  Wife." 

Q.  Well,  I  read  from  Exhibit  74,  being  a  letter  from  Mrs. 
Tilton  to  her  husband.   [Reading :] 

"  Mt  Eeloved  :  I  have  been  thinking  of  my  love  for  Mr. 
B.  considerably  of  late,  and  those  thoughts  you  shall 
have." 

The  Witness— What  date  is  that,  Sir  I 
Mr.  FuUerton— 1866.  [Reading:] 

"  I  remember  Hannah  More  says :   '  My  heart  in  Its  new 

sympathy  for  one  abounds  toward  all.' " 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  Hannah  More  expressed 
that  sentiment  at  the  time  that  she  fell  In  love!  A.  Do  I 
recollect  Hannah  More  expressing  that  when  she  fell  In 
lovel 

Q.  Yes,  in  one  of  her  works !  A.  I  never  read  them,  I 
informed  you. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Mrs.  Tilton  make  use  of  that 
expression?  A.  No,  Sir,  not  that  I  recaU. 

Q.  Have  you  no  other  interpretation,  then,  to  give,  than 
what  you  have  given,  of  this  first  sentence :  "  Does  your 
heart  botmd  toward  all  as  it  used!  So  does  mine."  A. 
That  is  the  only  meaning  that  I  suppose  it  had;  that  ia 
the  only  meaning  tha^  I  should  derive  from  it,  Sir,  wltii 
the  knowledge  of  the  surrounding  circumstances. 

Q.  [Reading:]  "lam  myself  again."  Did  you  interpret 
that  in  the  same  way !  A.  I  interpreted  that  to  be  the  re- 
covery from  that  state  of  despondency,  and,  as  it  wa« 
called,  sullenness  in  which  she  had  been. 

Q.  Did  any  explanation  of  it  pass  between  you  and  liei' 
in  regard  to  the  charge  that  she  made  of  improper  ad- 
vances %  A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind  !   A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  You  had  never  sought  any  explanation  1  A.  That 

which  she  explained,  as  I  understand  

Q.  Did  you  ever  seek  any  explanation  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  [Reading:]  "But  the  bird  has  sung  in  my  heart 
these  four  weeks.  I  did  not  dare  tell  you  till  I  was  sure." 
How  did  you  explain  that!  A.  She  did  not  dare  tell  me 
that  she  had  gained  a  victory  over  herself,  showing  that 
she  felt  like  a  Christian  woman,  until  she  had  put  it  to 
proof,  and  of  the  assurance  that  she  was  in  a  spirit  of 
love  toward  her  husband,  and  of  concord- 

Q.  Tliat  is  the  way  you  thought  it  i  A.  That  is  how  I 
Interpreted  it. 


W  TEE  TILTON'B 

Q.  "But  the  bird  has  snng  m  1117  heart  these  four 
•weeks."  Didn't  you  suppose  that  she  borrowed  that  from 
the  figure  that  you  used  in  this  book  that  you  read  to  her? 
A.  Bless  your  heart,  no;  it  was  about  four  weeks  ago 
that  we  had  had  the  interview. 

Q.  Exactly.  Was  not  she  rejoicing  over  the  fact  that 
you  had  made — as  you  say — up,  the  difiiculty  with  Theo- 
dore Tilton,  early  in  February,  1871  ?  A.  It  was  about 
lour  weeks  stace  the  difficulty  was  made  up,  and  she  was 
rejoicing  in  that  she  herself  was  in— by  the  making  up  of 
the  difficulty,  and  by  the  victory  over  herself,  she  was  in 
•  state  in  which  she  dared  to  tell  me  now,  her  pastor, 
that  she  was  happy,  and  it  was  permanent. 

Q.  But,  Mr.  Beecher,  the  difficulty  was  made  up  in  the 
first  half  of  February,  was  it  not?  A.  The  interview  

Q.  Was  it  not  made  up  then  1  A.  Well,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  not  that  the  time  that  you  kissed  aU  around  1  A. 
That  is  the  time  we  kissed  all  around. 

Q.  Very  well  %  A.  And  made  up,  externally. 

Q.  Very  well.  One  moment.  You  remember  that, 
don't  youl  A.  I  do.  Sir. 

Q.  It  was  about  the  fourth  week  after  that  she  wrote 
this  letter,  was  it  not !  A.  I  suppose  it  was.  Sir ;  I  am 
not  certain. 

Q.  How  did  It  happen,  do  you  think,  that  she  did  not 
make  it  known  to  you  before  the  lapse  of  four  weeks  1 
A.  She  had  to  test  herself. 

Q.  To  see  whether  it  was  real  or  not!  A.  To  see 
whether  it  was  real  or  not. 

Q.  WeU,  it  appeared  to  be  all  made  up,  so  far  as  ap- 
pearances were  concerned  ?  A.  Many  a  man  joins  the 
church  and  falls  from  grace. 

Q.  Well,  don't  join  the  church  now,  Mr.  Beecher ;  I  don't 
want  that  brought  in  here  at  all.  A.  But  I  am  answer 
Ing,  really,  the  spirit  of  your  question. 

Q.  You  needn't  illustrate  it.  The  kiss  went  around 
there,  and  tokens  of  amity  all  around  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  supposed  it  was  tben  all  made  up?  A.  I  did, 
Bir. 

Q.  **  The  Spring  has  come."  Do  you  say  that  that  is  an 
extract  from  "  Norwood  ?"  A.  I  will,  if  you  will  hand  it 
to  me.  Sir ;  I  don't  remember  it.   [Taking  the  book.] 

Q.  And  a  star  at  the  bottom  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  it  refers  to  ?  A.  No,  I  do  not, 
Bir. 

Q.  You  cannot  interpret  tbat  t  A.  I  c^not,  Sir. 

Q.  "Because  I  thought  it  would  gladden  you  to  know 
this,  and  not  to  trouble  or  embarrass  you  in  any  way,  I 
now  write."  How  did  you  imderstand  that?  A.  Well,  I 
understood  it  just  as  it  is,  if  I  understood  it  at  aU.  I  have 
no  disttact  recollection  of  running  through  an  interpreta- 
tive process  of  every  line  of  that  letter. 

Q.  I  ask  you  now  how  you  Interpret  iti  A.  How  I  now 
Interpret  it! 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Well,  I  Interpret  It  In  that  way. 

In  what  way!  A.  That  she  did  not  wish  to  give  me 


iJECHEB  TBIAL. 

concern,  and  wanted  to  reassure  me  that  everything  ynm 
right  with  her. 

Q.  Did  she  think  that  you  had  any  concern  after  lear- 
ing  there  In  February,  1871,  when  the  kiss  went  round  f 
A.  ShemightveryweU  think  that  I  would  be  concerned 
whether  or  not  she  and  her  husband  would  get  along  to- 
gether. 

Q.  "  Of  course  I  should  like  to  share  with  you  my  joy» 
but  can  wait  for  the  Beyond."  A.  That  is.  Heaven. 

Q.  Or  was  it  the  future  of  this  life !  A.  Oh,  no,  Sir;  It 
is  written  with  a  big  "  B "  there,  and  means  Heaveii. 
"  Beyond,  beyond  this  lower  sky,"  Watts  says. 

Q.  WeU,  let  us  not  have  a  hymn  given  out  now  1  [Langb- 
ter.]  A.  But  you  were  asking  me  what  it  meant. 

Q.  Exactly,  and  you  can  give  it  to  us  without  giving 
out  a  hymn,  I  take  it  ?   [Reading :] 

"When  Dear  Frank  says  I  may  once  again  go  to  old 
Plymouth,  I  will  thank  the  difeir  Father." 

Q.  What  was  the  arrangement,  if  any,  about  going  to 
old  Plymouth?  A.  I  don't  know;  that  was  something 
between  her  and  Frank  Moulton. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  heard  anything  upon  the  subject!  A. 
No,  Sir,  not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Nothing  in  relation  to  that  at  all?  A.  Not  that  I 
recollect.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  nothing  said  about  it  at  the  time  that  yon 
had  notice  not  to  visit  Mr.  TUton's  house  any  longer  I  A. 
Not  a  word;  no,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  we  will  take  up  the  other  letter  of  May  3» 
1871.  [Reading:] 

"  My  future,  either  for  life  or  death,  would  be  happier 
could  I  but  feel  that  you  forgave  me  while  you  forget 
me." 

Q.  How  did  you  interpret  that  f  A.  Well,  Sir,  I  cannot 
tell  you.  I  don't  remember  receiving  and  reading  the 
letter,  and  I  don't  remember  the  first  impression  upon  it» 

"  In  all  the  sad  complications  of  the  past  year  my  en- 
deavor was  entirely  to  keep  from  you  all  suffering,  to 
bear  myself  alone,  leaving  you  forever  ignorant  of  it." 

A.  Well,  Sir? 

Q.  Did  you  interpret  that  at  the  time  t  A.  I  presume  I 
did  at  the  time. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  the  interpretation  was  t  A. 
I  do  not  remember  what  the  interpretation  was  that  I 
made  at  the  time. 

Q.  Well,  can  you  give  us  the  one  that  you  make  now  t 
A.  I  will  If  you  will  be  kind  enough  to  let  me  see  the 
letter. 

Q.  Certainly.  [Handing  witness  the  letter.]  A.  Well, 
I  imderstand  it  that  she  felt  that  she  had  done  me 
wrong,  and  in  a  very  delicate  way  she  intimates  that 
consciousness,  and  asks  forgiveness,  and  she  says  during 
the  past  year  she  tried — she  knew  that  I  had  blamed  her— 
under  the  representations  made  to  me— for  her  not  taking 
her  share  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  family,  and  consulting 
private  feelings,  and  she  gives  her  general  and  delioatt 
allusion  to  that  in  these  words :  "  My  weapons  " 


TTJESm02^Y  OF  EiJJ^BJ   WABD  BEEOHEE. 


n 


0,  No,  no,  I  liave  not  got  to  tliat  1  A.  Oli,  I  beg  pardon. 
[Beading:] 

**  In  all  the  sad  complications  of  tlie  past  year  my  en- 
deavor was  to  entirely  keep  from  you  all  suffering,  to 
bear  myself  alone,  leaving  you  forever  ignorant  of  it." 

"Well,  tlie  troubles  tbat  came  up  in  ber  bousebold  during 
the  year  past,  so  far  as  possible  I  was  not  to  be  annoyed 
by. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  sent  for  on  tbe  14th  of  December  to 
go  to  the  house,  were  you  not !  A.  No,  Sir,  I  was  sent  for 
to  go  to  Mrs.  Morris's— I  mean  Mrs.  Morse's. 

Q.  Well,  I  said  to  the  house  where  she  was  !  A.  But 
then  she  is  not  referring  to  that  period. 

Q.  One  moment !  Don't  go  too  fast.  Her  diflBculties 
were  made  known  to  you  then,  were  they  not  1  A.  Some 
of  her  difficulties  were  made  known,  but  you  ask  me  the 
Interpretation  of  that  letter. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  And  I  interpret  it  by  saying  that  I  xmder- 
Btand  it  to  refer  not  to  the  period  of  1870,  but  to  the  se- 
quent period  fi'om  1S70  to  the  date. 

Q.  Why,  Sir,  it  is  written  on  May  3, 1871,  and  speaks  of 
the  complications  of  the  past  year  i  A.  Oh,  then,  it  does 
Include.  I  did  not  notice  the  date  of  it. 

Q.  It  does  include  I  A.  It  does  include  that. 

Q.  She  does  not,  as  you  think,  refer  to  the  fact  that  you 
were  there  in  the  December  previous  and  heard  what  do- 
mestic difficulties  there  existed,  did  you  i  A.  That  did 
not  occui"  to  me. 

Q.  Didn't  it  occur  to  you  that  there  was  some  other 
difficulty  that  she  was  laboring  under  that  she  alluded 
to?  A.  I  thought  it  very  likely  there  were  many,  and  I 
think  so  yet. 

Q.  Now,  don't  you  think  it  was  this  diffictilty  that  she 
had  confessed  to  her  husband  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  made  him  promise  not  to  reveal  iti  A.  I  don't 
believe  any  such  thing  as  that. 

Q.  You  do  not  1  A.  No,  Sii-;  I  believe  It  included  all  the 
scene  of  her  ti'ouble  with  her  husband  on  my  account. 

Q.  Well,  now,  will  you  tell  me,  if  you  please,  what  dif- 
ficulty or  what  trouble  or  what  suffering  there  had  been 
during  the  past  year— I  mean  the  year  preceding  the 
writing  of  this  letter  to  which  she  made  reference  and 
which  had  not  been  made  known  to  you  ?  A.  There  was 
a  great  deal.  Sir,  of  which  subsequently  I  became  aware. 

Q.  Subsequent  to  the  receipt  of  this  letter?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  interpret  it  in  the  light  of  that 
tnowledge  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  but  I  now  see. 

Q.  But  interpreting  the  letter  in  the  Light  of  the  knowl- 
edge that  you  had  on  the  day  that  it  was  received  A. 

I  say  

Q,  One  moment.  Will  you  t«ll  me  what  suffering  or 
•what  trouble  she  referred  to  there  that  had  not  been 
made  known  to  you?  A.  Mr.  FuUerton,  I  have  told  you 
already  that  whatever  she  meant  in  that  letter  I  do  not 
remember  what  I  interpreted  it  at  the  time  I  received  it, 
and  you  ask  me  what  I  interpret  It  now.  and  T  now  say  I  i 


understand  it  differently. 

Q.  I  don't  ask  you  what  you  interpret  It  now.  Didnt 
you  regard  it  as  referring  to  a  difficulty  between  hereelf 
and  her  htiaband  which  was  not  made  known  to  you  on 
the  14th  of  December,  when  you  were  Mt  Mrs.  Morse's  t 
A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  interpreted  it  so,  for  I  do  not  re- 
member what  impression  it  made  on  my  mind  at  the 
time. 

Q.  You  did  learn  afterward,  however,  that  Mrs.  TUton 
ha<i  confessed  to  her  husband  on  the  3d  of  July  of  that 
year,  1870,  did  you  not  1  A.  I  heard  that  she  had  during 
that  time  confessed  to  him  an  inordinate  affection  for 
me. 

Q.  Didn't  you  hear  that  she  confessed  to  him  that  yon 
had  made  improper  advances  ?  A.  I  don't  think  that  I 
understood  it  on  the  July  interview,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  not  understand  it  from  Theodore  Tilton  on  the 
night  of  December  30?  A.  No,  I  don't  think  that  I  did. 
It  may  have  been,  I  was  in  a  

Q.  Don't  speak  of  your  condition.  I  want  to  know  now 
positively  whether  you  did  understand  on  July  3, 1870, 
that  the  charge  of  improper  approaches  by  you  was  made 
against  you?  A.  Yes.   [With  a  rising  inflection.] 

Q.  Please  answer.  A.  My  reply  is  that  my  mind  was, 
as  I  recollect,  then  in  a  state  which  was  not  in  accord- 
ance with  the  truth ;  that  is,  I  did  not  understand  the 
truth,  as  it  subsequently  appeared  to  be. 

Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Tilton,  on  the  night  of  the  30tii  of  Decem- 
ber, say  to  you  that  you  had  made  improper  advances  to 
his  wife,  and  that  he  had  evidences  of  it — on  the  3d  of 
July  previous  ?  A.  No,  I  don't  recollect  that  as  accord- 
ing to  my  corrected  recollection. 

Q.  I  read  from  this  letter: 

"My  weapons  were  love,  a  larger  untiring  generosity, 

and  nest-hiding." 

What  do  you  understand  those  weapons  were  nsed  fori 
A.  I  now  tmderstand  what  they  were  used  for;  I  do  not 
remember  what  I  then  understood. 

Q.  She  says : 

"In  all  the  sad  complications  of  the  past  year,  my 
endeavor  was  to  entirely  keep  from  you  all  suffermg." 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  "  To  bear  myself  alone,  leaving  you  forever  igno- 
rant of  it.'*  "  My  weapons  "—I  suppose  to  effectuate  that 
endeavor,  was  it  not  1  A.  Well,  Sir,  that  is  

Q.  [Reading:]  "Mere  love,  a  larger  imtlring  gen- 
erosity, and  nest-hiding." 

Q.  Don't  you  understand  that  that  was  the  use  that  she 
put  these  weapons  to — namely,  to  effectuate  the  endeavor 
to  keep  from  you  all  suffering  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  what  I 
then  understood ;  I  know  perfectly  weU  what  the  letter 
seems  to  me  now  to  mean. 

Q.  Won't  you  be  kind  enough  to  explain  what  you  un- 
derstood, at  that  time,  "  nest-hiding"  to  mean  ?  A.  No, 
Sir,  I  cannot. 

Q.  Had  you  no  belief  upon  the  subject !  A.  I  have  no 


78 


mi)   TILION-BEEOEER  'lElAL 


recollection  of  the  state  of  mind  produced  by  tliat  letter. 

Q.  I  now  show  you  Exhitolt  No.  13  ;  do  you  recollect  of 
writing  that  letter  i  A.  I  recoUect  the  period  at  which  I 
wrote  it.  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  write  it  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  written 
8ome  time  in  the  latter  part  of  January,  1872. 

Q.  How  are  you  enabled  to  fix  that  date  1  A.  By  com- 
paring it  with  the  letters  that  passed  between  us. 

Q.  What  letters  passed  between  you  at  that  tune  %  A. 
There  was  a  letter  of  mine  to  her  about  the— well,  I  should 
say  about  the  last  third  of  January,  and  then  there  was  a 
reply  from  her,  and  this,  I  think,  is  the  answer  to  that 
reply. 

Q.  Will  you  state  why  you  did  not  commence  in  the 
ordinary  way  by  a  salutation  ?  A.  No,  Sii',  I  cannot. 

Q.  Well,  can  you  state  why  you  did  not  finish  it  in  the 
ordinary  way,  by  signing  your  name  ?  A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Was  there  no  object  in  omittiag  either  a  salutation 
or  signature  1  A.  I  don't  know  that  there  was,  Sir ;  I 
recollect  no  reason  why. 

Q.  "  Your  note  broke  like  Spring  upon  Winter,  and 
gave  me  an  inward  rebound  to  life."  You  had  just  re- 
ceived a  note  from  her,  had  you  ?  A.  I  had. 

Q.  How  many  letters  had  passed  between  you  prior  to 
the  writing  of  this  letter  ?  A.  I  had  written  once  and  she 
answered  it,  and  that  was  my  reply. 

Q.  Well,  up  to  that  time  had  you  supposed  that  Mrs.  TU- 
ton  had  transferred  her  affections  from  her  husband  to 
you?  A.  Up  tUl  this  time  ? 

Q.  Up  to  this  time  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Laboring  under  that  impression  at  the  time  of 
writing  this  letter  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  often  had  you  met  her  after  Deo.  30  up  to  the 
time  of  writing  this  letter  afterward  in  1872?  A.  I  could 
not  say,  Sir. 

Q.  About  how  many  times  ?  A.  That  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  recollect  of  having  met  her  at  all?  A. 
Yes,  I  had  met  her. 

Q.  You  met  her  the  first  week  in  February,  didn't  you  ? 
A.  Yes,  I  saw  her ;  I  saw  her  ta  

Q.  And  you  saw  her  in  May  afterward  ?  A,  In  May 
afterward. 

Q.  Now,  between  that  and  the  writing  of  this  letter, 
how  many  times  had  you  seen  her?  A.  I  only  recall  a 
single  time,  and  I  am  not  sure  whether  that  was  in  that 
year. 

Q.  Well,  when  was  it,  if  it  were  in  that  year?  A.  It 
probably  was ;  she  came  around  to  Mr.  Moulton's  with 
her  little  carriage  and  babe,  I  think— at  any  rate,  with 
one  of  the  children. 

Q.  Didn't  you  meet  her  in  the  Fall  of  1871 1  A.  It  is 
quite  possible,  but  I  do  not  recall  the  meeting. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  of  telling  on  your  direct  exami- 
nation that  you  did  go  to  her  house  in  the  FaU  of  1871 1 
A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  tJiink  that  there  was  once  In  November  that 
I  saw— I  think  1  did— I  think  it  was. 


Q.  It  was  in  the  Fall,  at  all  events  i  A.  I  think  it  was  in 
November;  that  is,!  was  uncertain;  but  that  was  my 
best  impression  at  the  time. 

Q.  Well,  you  saw  her  tlien?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  saw  her  at  a 
third  interview,  that  T  had  at  her  house ;  the  only  three 
times,  all  I  recoUect,  being  

Q.  And  how  long  did  that  interview  last!  A.  Well,  I 
think  perhaps  a  half  hour ;  it  was  a  short  interview. 

Q.  There  was  no  explanation  then  between  you,  was 
there,  as  to  this  charge  of  having  secured  her  affections! 
A.  None,  Sir;  none. 

Q.  Mrs.  Tilton  did  not  disavow  it?  A.  It  was  not  the 
subject  of  conversation  at  all, 

Q.  She  did  not  disavow  it  ?  A.  She  did  not. 

Q.  Did  not  say  a  word  upon  the  subject  ?  A.  Not  as  I 
recollect. 

Q.  Permitted  you  to  come  and  go  laboring  imder  the 
impression  that  you  had  secured  her  affections  away  from 
her  husband  an  I  given  rise  to  ail  this  difficulty  and 
trouble  ?  A.  That  was  certainly  my  impression  that  I  de 
rived. 

Q.  Well,  at  that  interview  in  the  Fall  of  1871,  was  any- 
one present  during  the  interview  besides  yourself  ?  A. 
Not  that  I  recall,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  at  that  interview  about  the 
charge  that  had  been  made  against  you  of  improper  ad- 
vances? A.  No,  Sir;  not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Don't  you  think  that  you  would  remember  it  if  such 
had  been  the  case?  A.  T  presume  I  should. 

Q.  Anything  said  to  her  about  the  charge  that  she  had 
made  in  writing,  and  the  retraction  of  that  charge  and 
the  recantation  of  the  retraction?  A.  Nothing. 

Q.  You  did  not  call  her  attention  to  it,  and  have  it  ex- 
plained?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  call  her  attention  to  the  fact  that  she 
had  told  a  falsehood  ?  A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  Or  written  a  falsehood?  A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  No  rebuke,  no  admonition,  no  word  upon  that  sub- 
ject? A.  No  word  of  admonition,  no  rebuke;  but  there 
was  an  admonition  of  Scripture. 

THE  CLANDESTINE  LETTERS. 
Q.  Yes,  I  read : 

Should  God  inspire  you  to  restore  and  rebuild  at  home* 
and,  while  doing  it,  to  cheer  and  sustain  outside  of  it 
another  who  sorely  needs  help  in  heart  and  spirit,  it  will 
prove  a  life  so  noble  as  few  are  able  to  live ;  and  in 
another  world  the  emancipated  soul  may  utter  thanks. 

Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  who  was  that  other  person  outside 
who  was  to  be  cheered  ?  A.  I  suppose  it  was  me.  Sir. 

Q.  You  suppose  it  was  you?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Can't  you  go  beyond  a  supposition  in  answering  that 
question?  A.  WeU,  if  you  ask  me  whether  I  recollect 
that  I  meant  that  to  mean  

Q.  No,  I  ask  you  this— I  ask  you  who  that  ped-sou  out^ 
side  was  that  this  lady  was  to  cheer  and  console  1  A» 
Well,  1  presume  it  was  me.  Sir. 


Don't  you  know  that  it  was  you!  A,  I  cannot  say 
tliat:  I  do  not  feeliDclined  to  use  it  in  so  strong  language 
as  that ;  tut  tliat  is  my  present  

Q.  Well,  do  you  tMnk  there  could  be  anybody  outside 
whom  you  wished  to  hare  cheered  by  Mrs.  Tilton  1  A. 
Oh,  there  were  plenty  of  them ;  but  I  do  not  suppose  that 
I  was  thinking  of  anybody  but  myself  in  that  phrase. 

Q.  You  are  not  willing  to  say  positirely  that  you  were 
thinking  of  yourself?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  do  not  like  to;  but 
then  I  give  you  aU  the  advantage  of  the  supposition, 
which  is  substantial  enough. 

Q.  "Well,  how  did  you  understand  (if  it  were  you)  that 
Mrs.  Tilton  was  to  cheer  and  sustain  you  I  A.  By  well- 
doing in  her  own  household. 

Q.  In  no  other  way?  A.  In  no  other  way;  nothing 
•would  comfort  me  more  than  that. 

Q.  Well,  let  us  go  on  and  see  if  you  expected  anything 
else. 

[Eeading  :]  "If  it  would  be  of  comfort  to  you  now  and 
then  to  send  me  a  letter  of  true  inwardness,  the  outcome 
of  your  inner  life,  it  would  be  safe." 


A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  expect  to  be  cheered  and  sustained  outside 
t)y  those  letters  of  true  inwardness  ?  A.  Kot  by  the  letters 
of  true  inwardness,  but  

Ml'.  Fullerton— That  is  an  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts— No. 
*  Mr.  Fullerton— Yes;  it  is. 

The  "Witness— It  is  not  an  answer. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  it  is  an  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  Ms  answer. 

Mr,  Fullerton— It  is  his  answer. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  can  explam  If  he  desires. 
The  "Witness— The  letter  to  which  that  was  an  an- 
swer  

Mr.  Fullerton— Iho  ;  I  don't  want  the  letter. 

The  "Witness— But  that  is  an  answer ;  you  cannot  have 
the  meaning  of  that  letter  unless  you  have  that  to  which 
it  is  an  answer. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  propose  to  have  an  answer  to  my  ques- 
tion first. 

Judge  2>eilson— Hehas  answered  your  question,  and  the 
Buggestion  is  that  he  may  wish  to  explain— which  you 
will  recognize  as  proper,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Fullerton — If  it  is  proper  I  will  recognize  it.  Sir. 
Under  present  circumstances,  when  he  says  "no,"  I  think 
that  is  a  full  answer;  if  it  is  not  a  full  answer,  he  can 
state  so. 

Mr.  Evans— The  witness  is  stopped  in  the  midst  of  an 
answer  which  he  has  a  right  to  make.  Counsel  finding 
enough  in  the  answer,  to  satisfy  him,  has  no  right  to  stop 
the  witness's  mouth. 

Mr.  Fullertcn— It  does  not  follow  that  it  is  wrong  to 
stop  the  witness  in  his  answer,  if  it  is  an  improper 
answer. 

Judge  Nellson— No ;  in  the  formal  sense  the  question  is 


OF  EENRT  WARD  BEECEER.  79 

answered;  but  yet,  if  the  witness,  for  his  own  protection 
and  benefit,  thinks  explanation  is  proper,  he  has  a  right 
to  give  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— An  explanation  of  that  answer. 
Judge  Neilson— Or  any  qualification. 
Mr.  Fullerton — Or  any  qualifleation  of  that  answer^ 
certainly ;  but  he  was  going  on.  Sir,  to  do  something  be- 
side that,  which  I  objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  know  what  would  be  the  effect 
of  what  he  was  going  to  do. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  are  assuming  that  he  was  going  to  do 
something  beside  that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  assume  it,  because  it  appeared  iu  the 
answer  as  far  as  it  had  gone. 

Mr.  Evarts— My  proposition  is  that  the  witness  has  a 
right  to  answer  a  question  and  not  be  controlled  in  that 
answer  unless  he  is  giving  illegal  evidence. 
Mr.  Fullerton— "Well,  that  is  my  proposition  exactly. 
Judge  Neilson— Well,  you  agree. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir;  and,  inasmuch  as  he  was  gi"ving 
illegal  evidence,  I  propose  to  stop  him. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  you  assume  by  stopping  him. 
Mr.  Fullerton— I  have  a  right  to  assume  it. 
Mr.  Evarts— No. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Let  us  go  back  and  have  that  question  and 
answer  read. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Witness]— Do  you  feel  that  you 
wish  to  make  any  explanation  in  regard  to  the  last  an- 
swer ? 

The  Witness— All  that  I  wished  to  say,  Su\  wa«  that  it 
was  impossible  for  me  to  explain  those  terms  unless  I  was 
allowed  to  say  what  I  had  in  my  mind  iu  writing  those 
terms. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  is  a  sufficient  exi^lanation. 


WHY  THE  LETTEES  WERE  KEPT  SECRET. 

Mr.  FiiUerton— Well,  that  is  not  tlie  evil  that 

I  was  trying  to  ward  off,  by  any  means.  "Why  did  you  say 
that  it  would  be  safe  for  her  to  do  it  \  A.  Because  she 
had  asked  me  not  to  let  the  letters  of  hers  which  related 
to  her  inward  and  private  feelings  be  seen  by  Mr.  Moul- 
ton. 

Q.  She  h^id  requested  that  ?  A.  She  had  requested  that 
in  the  letter  to  which  this  is  an  answer. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  ask  you  that ;  I  don't  propose  to  bring 
in  any  other  letters.  Was  there  no  other  reason  why  you. 
thought  it  would  be  safe  ?  A.  It  would  be  safe  also  be- 
cause I  was  so  much  away  that  her  letters  were  liable  to 
be — to  fall  into  other  hands  to  whom  confidential  com- 
munications of  this  kind,  delicate  ones,  should  not  fall ; 
and  it  was  both  that  her  letter  would  be  safe,  so  far  as 
that  is  concerned,  and  that  its  contents  should  be  safe,  so 
far  as  they  were  to  be  made  known  to  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  Wa.s  there  any  understanding,  then,  between  you 
and  Mrs.  Tilton,  that  some  of  her  letters  were  tiveu  to 


80  THE  TILTON-B 

Mr.  Moulton  f  A.  She  understood  that  I  had  given  them 
to  him. 

Q.  How  did  she  understand  it!  A.  Because  Mr.  Moul- 
ton had  talked  with  her  about  them. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  that  1  A.  Because  I  understood 
from  him  that  he  had. 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton  told  you,  then,  that  he  had  delivered  

A.  That  he  had  spoken  with  Elizabeth  about  letters  that 
came  from  her  to  me. 

Q.  And  what  did  he  tell  you  about  it  1  A.  I  don't  r 
member,  Sir,  except  the  fact  that  he  had  spoken  about 
talking  with  her. 

Q.  Can't  you  give  the  substance  of  what  he  said  1  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  only  recollect  the  fact  that  he  said  something 
upon  that  subject  ?  A.  That  is  all  that  I  recollect,  Sir. 
Q.  Well,  I  will  read  on : 

"  It  would  be  safe,  for  I  am  now  at  home  here  with  my 
sister." 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Well,  did  that  make  it  any  safer!  A.  A  great  deal 
safer. 

Q.  Your  wife  was  away,  was  she  not!  A.  She  was. 

Q.  And  that  would  not  have  been  so  safe,  would  It! 
A.  It  would  have  been  safe,  perfectly  eaf e  for  her,  but  if 
she  was  gone  and  my  sister  was  not  there,  the  letters 
were  liable,  therefore,  to  be  misled  or  lost,  or  might  fall 
Into  hands  that  ought  not  to  have  them. 

Q.  Who  opened  your  letters  in  the  absence  of  yourself 
and  your  wife  ?  A.  I  opened  them. 

Q.  In  the  absence  of  yourself  and  your  wife  !  A.  Oh,  I 
think  they  were  not  opened,  Sir ;  they  were  taken  by  the 
servants,  and,  or  ought  always  to  be,  put  where  they 
would  be  safe,  but  were  not  always. 

Q.  Well,  your  servants  had  no  authority  to  open  let- 
ters? A.  No,  Sir;  but  they  had  a  habit  of  misplacing  a 
good  many  papers. 

Q.  How?  A.  They  had  a  habit  of  misplacing  a  good 
many  letters  a«d  papers. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  where  your  wife  was  at  this  time ! 
A.  What  is  the  date,  Sir  ? 

Q.  Well         A.  Ohl  January;  I  presume  she  was  in 

Florida,  Sir. 

Q.  And  which  of  your  sisters  was  there  !  A.*  Mrs.  Per- 
kins. 

Q.  Now,  was  there  any  correspondence  between  you 
and  Mrs.  Tilton  after  this  letter  that  I  have  just  called 
your  attention  to !  A.  I  received  a  letter  from  her  after 
that ;  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  wrote  her  again. 

Q.  I  did  not  understand  your  answer,  A.  I  say  T  re- 
ceived a  letter  fi-om  her,  but  I  do  not  recollect  at  the 
present  moment  of  writing  any  other  myself. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  now  to  "Exhibit  No.  18."  A. 
Yes,  Sir;  I  know  what  that  is. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  writing  that  letter!  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 


WOHEB  TBIAL. 

Q.  It  Is  January,  1872, 1  belieye  It  Isl  A.  The  20fll  Of 

January,  1872. 
Q.  I  will  ask  you  here,  Mr.  Beecher,  how  you  sent  fheie 

letters  to  Mrs.  Tilton!  A.  I  do  not  recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  no  recollection  upon  the  subject  1  A.  Not 
the  slightest. 

Q.  Can't  you  teU  me  whether  you  sent  them  by  mail  or 
by  private  conveyance  !  A.  I  cannot ;  I  recollect  sending 
one  by  Mr.  Moulton— the  7th  of  February  letter ;  that  l9» 
I  put  that  into  his  hands,  but  I  do  not  recollect  In  regard 
to  the  others. 

Q.  Well,  were  you  in  the  habit  of  sending  her  letters  \sf 
mall?  A.  WeU,  I  wrote  so  few  that  a  habit  could  hardly 

be  predicated  about  it. 
Q.  You  state  ra  this  letter: 

"  I  shall  be  in  New-Haven  next  week  to  begin  my 
course  of  lectures  to  the  theological  classes  on  Preach- 
ing." 

How  did  it  happen  that  you  communicated  that  fact  to 
Mrs.  Tilton  !  A.  I  thought  she  would  be  interested  to 
know  it. 

Q.  Did  you  communicate  it  to  the  rest  ol  your  congre- 
gation by  private  letters  ?  A.  No  

Q.  You  did  not !  A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Mrs.  TUton— was  she  the  only  one  you  communi- 
cated the  fact  to !  A.  By  word  of  mouth  to  a  very 
many. 

Q.  Did  you  write  to  any  other  member  of  your  flock  f 
A.  I  don't  know  but  I  did,  and  I  don't  know  as  I  did. 

Q.  What  made  you  think  she  would  be  interested  to 
know  that  you  were  going  to  New-Haven!  A.  Weill 
flattered  myself  it  would  be  interesting  to  almost  an^ 
body  to  know  that  I  was  going  to  deliver  a  course  of  leo- 
tures  in  Yale. 

Q.  So  you  sat  down  and  wrote  that  fact  to  the  lady 
who,  you  thought,  had  transferred  her  affections  to  you, 
and  created  a  great  domestic  diflaculty  !  A.  When  I  was 
writing  to  that  lady  in  regard  to  matters,  I  mentioned 
that  incidentally  after  I  had  got  through  the  other 
thmgs. 

Q.  Did  you  not  want  to  account  to  her  for  your  absence  • 
A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Hadn't  you  called  upon  her  just  prior  to  thatt 
A.  I  had  called  to  see  her,  but  did  not  see  her. 

Q.  Did  you  go  by  appointment !  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  you  went  without  an  appointment !  A.  I  went 
without  an  appointment  as  near  as  I  can  recollect ;  I  do 
not  remember  any  appointment. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  the  time  of  day  yon  called  t  A.  I 
do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  reooUect  whom  you  saw  when  you  did  call  f 

A.  I  don't. 

Y.  Do  you  recollect  whether  or  not  you  had  been  re- 
quested to  call !  A.  1  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  yon  went  of  your  own  mo- 
tive !  A.  I  do  not,  though  I  suspect  I  did. 


TESTIMONY   OF  HEyRT   WARD  BEECHEB, 


81 


Q.  Don't  you  recollect  tliat  it  waa  tn  the  daytime  ?  A. 
I  don't,  but  I  presume  it  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Theodore  TUton  was  when  you 
went  t  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  went  to  make  a  call  upon  her,  did  you  I  A.  I 
•went  to  make  a  pastoral  call  upon  her. 

Q.  Well,  weren't  you  afraid  that  those  pastoral  calls 

would  result  in  the  same  difficulty  that         A.  Yes,  I  had 

tear,  and,  therefore,  I  never  allowed  myself  to  talk  with 
her  on  anything  but  religious  topics. 

Q.  Well,  how  did  you  think  that  she  would  be  interested 
In  knowing  that  your  wife  took  boat  for  Havana  and 
Florida  on  the  following  Thursday  ?  You  say  in  this  let- 
ter, "  My  wife  takes  boat  for  Havana  and  Florida  on 
Thursday!"  A.  Well,  just  at  that  time  it  was  the  most 
interesting  fact,  almost,  that  I  had,  and  I  natui-ally 
would  impart  it  to  a  friend. 

Q.  How  intimate  had  Mrs.  Tllton  and  Mrs.  Beecher  been 
prior  to  the  writing  of  this  lette-  ^  \.  I  cannot  say  that 
they  had  been  intimate,  but  they  were  acquaintances. 

Q.  Had  they  exchanged  calls  since  December  30, 1870  % 
A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  they  had  not !  A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  You  don't  know  of  any  such  caU,  however  1  A.  I 
don't  know  of  any. 

Q.  [Reading :]    I  called  on  Monday,  but  you  were  out." 

Mr,  Shearmai— It  should  be  "  Wednc-?day." 

Mr.  PuUerton— Weil,  "on  Wednesday,"'  then,  "  but  you 
were  out."  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

"  My  wife  takes  boat  for  Havana  and  Florida  on  Thurs- 
day"—" I  called  on  Monday,  but  you  were  out."  A.  On 
Wednesday. 

Q.  WeU,  did  you  go  to  New-Haven?  A.  I  presume  I 
did.  Sir ;  I  went  three  successive  Winters. 

Q.  Is  that  the  time  that  you  met  Theodore  Tilton  on 
the  cars  i   A.  January,  1872 ;  no,  Sii-. 

Q.  That  was  not  the  time  1   A.  No ;  I  thhik  not.  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  Mr.  Beecher.  you  did  not  permit  yourself  to 
talk  to  Mrs.  Tilton  upon  anything  but  religious  subjects  ? 
A-  WeU,  that  is  the  general  designatioii ;  I  don't  mean 
that— absolute  exclusion  of  any  reference  to  other  topics. 

Q.  WeU,  how  many  times  had  you  been  to  see  her  when 
such  conversations  were  had?  A.  I  think  I  had  seen  her 
but  three  times  before  the  writing  of  this  letter. 

Q.  But  three  times  ?  A.  I  think  that  was  the  extent. 

Q.  Now,  before  the  writing  of  this  letter,  in  any  of  the 
oaUs  that  you  made  was  there  any  aUusion  to  the  fact 
that  you  had  been  charged  with  improper  soUciations  1 
A.  Never;  not  once. 

Q.  No  explanation,  or  word?  A.  Not  one  particlei; 
never  an  aUusion  to  it— that  I  recall,  I  mean,  of  course. 

Q.  Let  me  show  you  Exhibit  No.  20  ?   A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  write  that?  A.  I  cannot  say  with 
■any  deflniteness.  Sir ;  I  can  only  give  my  impression. 

Q.  In  what  year  ?  A.  I  should  aay  that— I  can't  say 


(  certainly,  but  I  have  an  impression  that  this  was  written, 
in  the  FaU  of  1871,  but  I  cannot  say  certainly.  Sir. 

Q.  Why  do  you  fix  the  FaU  of  1871  as  the  probable  tune 
for  writing  that  letter  ?  A.  WeU,  the  grounds  for  it  are,  I 
admit,  not  very  stable,  and  I  take  them  because  I  cannot 
get  any  other,  for  I  reaUy  don't  recoUect  the  note ;  it  has 
no  date  to  it;  it  is  a  mere  bit  of  paper  

Q.  WeU.  I  am  asking  you  how  you  fix  the  time  as  hav- 
ing been  in  the  FaU  of  1871  ?  A.  Because  I  recoUect  that, 
at  the  time,  Florence  brought  me  a  Uttle  note;  I  think  it 
was  from  her  mother,  who  was  in  trouble  about  her 
mother,  and  wanted  to  see  me,  and  I— my  impression  is 
that  I  sent  back  this  note,  saying,  "  If  you  don't  see  me 
Friday  night,  you  wUl  next  week  Friday  night ;"  that  is 
my  prayer-meeting  night. 

Q.  [Reading:]  "My  Dhab  Mrs.  Tilton:  If  I  do  not 

see  you  to-morrow  night,  I  wiU  next  Friday,  for  I  shall 
be  gone  aU  the  forepart  of  next  week.  Yours,  truly, 

"  H.  W  B." 

Now,  have  you  a  recoUection  that  that  was  tn  reply  to 
a  note  brought  to  you  by  Florence  ?  A.  I  would  not  say 
it  positively,  but  I  have  an  impression  that  that  alludes 
to  a  scene  that  I  recoUect  of  that  kind ;  that  is  my  best 
recoUection. 

Q.  WeU,  why  did  you  fix  Friday  as  the  time  you  would 
see  her?  A.  Because  that  was  the  time  when  persons 
having  errands  with  me  stopped  aft^r  prayer-meeting  to 
talk  with  me. 

Q.  But  you  don't  say  Friday  evening!  A.  Didn't 
need  to. 

Q.  Well,  was  there  any  necessity  for  underscoring 
"  Fi'iday  ?"  A.  WeU,  it  is  the  next  week. 

Q.  Yes?  A.  "I  am  gone  aU  the  forepart  of  the  next 
week,  but  I  shaU  be  home  at  the  Friday  night  prayer- 
meeting,  and  wiU  see  you," 

Q.  Does  it  say  "  Friday  night  prayer-meeting ! "  A. 
No ;  Friday. 

Q.  WeU,  you  woiUdbe  home  Friday?  A.  That  would 
not  be  understood  by  you,  but  it  would  by  my  parish- 
ioners ;  the  habit  was  to  see  me  on  my  Friday  night 
meetings. 

Q.  But  you  don't  say  "  Friday  night "  there,  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  A.  I  know  I  don't. 

Q.  Please  look  at  "  Exhibit  No.  40."  Do  you  recoUect 
the  receipt  of  that  letter  !  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  the  fact  that  you  received  it !  A.  I 
do  not  recoUect  the  fact  that  I  received  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  what  you  did  with  it  ?  A.  No,  I 
don't.  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  take  it  to  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  presume 
so,  if  it  came  from  him. 

Q.  It  certainly  did.  A.  I  presume,  then,  I  took  it  to 
him. 

Q.  What  object  had  you  tn  view  in  taking  it  to  him  1 
A.  Same  object  I  had  In  taking  aU  my  papers  to  him. 
Q.  Please  state  what  it  was!  A.  That  it  might  he  safe. 


82 


TEB   TILTON-BEECREB  TBIAL. 


Q.  And  that  Is  the  object  you  had  in  giving  it  to  Mr.  j 
Moultonf  A.  That  is  the  object,  and  keeping  him  in- 
foriQ'ed  of  what  I  knew  in  respect  to  the  family. 

Q.  Did  you  explain  to  Mr,  Moulton  what  that  letter 
meant  as  you  understood  it!  A.  Not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  What  is  the  date  of  it,  Mr.  Beechert  A.  Oct.  20  or 
24;  it  is  very  indi8tino1>— 24th. 

Q.  What  is  the  year  f  A.  No  year  given. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  yearl  A.  I  do  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  no  way  of  fixing  the  year!  A.  Only  sug- 
gestively. 

Q.  Well ,  suggestively  fix  it.  A.  If  that  is  true  which  I 
suppose,  it  was  the  year  in  which  May  Bradshaw  was 
married ;  but  now  I  cannot  tell  you  what  that  year  was. 

Q.  Was  it  not  1871 1  A.  I  do  not  recall. 

Q.  Let  us  read  it,  and  see  if  it  will  brmg  it  to  your 
recollection.  [Reading :] 

MES.  MORSE'S  LETTER. 
"MtDear  Son"  

Perhaps  you  may  as  well  state  now  why  she  called  you 
her  son?  A.  Well,  we  were  at  a  wedding  which  I 
attended  (and  I  think  it  was  May  Bradshaw's,  but  I  am 
not  certain  about  that),  and  in  the  off  parlor,  the  back 
parlor,  Mrs.  Morse  and  I  were  thrown  together,  and  she 
was  stating  to  me  her  trials  and  troubles,  and,  among 
others,  that  she  was  separated  from  her  children,  and 
that  her  sons  were  not  living  with  her,  and  that  her 
daughter  was  substantially  separated  from  her,  and  she 
was  in  great  trial— she  had  nobody  to  advise  with  or  to 
consult,  and  I  said  to  her,  "  Well,  consult  with  me  as  tf  I 
was  your  son;  I  will  give  you  all  the  help  I  can." 

Q.  How  much  were  you  her  senior  ?  A.  That  is  a  ques- 
tion that  I  never  proposed  to  her,  and  I  have  not  the 
slightest  idea  how  old  she  was.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  You  were  her  senior,  were  you  not  1  A.  I  don't 
know,  Sir. 

Q.  You  have  no  judgment  upon  that  subject  1  A.  No, 
Sir,  none, 

Q.  You  think  that  is  the  way  she  came  to  address  you 
as  " my  dear  son?"  A.  I  know  no  other  way. 

Q.  Because  you  told  her  to  consult  you  as  if  you  were 
her  son  ?  A.  Because  she  came  to  me  saying  that  she  had 
no  son,  or  no  person  to  consult,  and  I  said,  *'  Consult  me." 

Q.  Well,  perhaps  this  last  sentence  will  throw  some 
light  upon  the  subject :  [Reading.] 

"  When  I  have  told  darling,  I  felt  if  I  could,  in  safety  to 
yourself  and  all  concerned,  you  would  be  to  me  all  this 
endearing  name.  Am  I  mistaken?  Mother." 

Was  there  any  suggestions  made  between  you  and  her, 
that  gave  rise  to  that  expression  1  A.  None  that  I  remem- 
ber, Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  answer  that  letter  1  A.  Not  that  I  recollect, 
Sir. 

Q.  I  will  read  another,  and  see  if  it  wUl  throw  any  light 
upon  the  subject.   [Reading  :J 


-  Do  you  know  T  think  it  strange  you  should  ask  me  to 
call  you  son?" 

Did  you  ask  her  to  call  you  *'  son  ?"  A.  In  no  other 
way  than  I  have  stated. 

Q.  No  other  way?  A.  No  other  way.  It  was  not  for 
my  sake ;  it  was  for  hors. 

Q.  But  she  says  in  her  letter : 

"  Do  you  know  I  think  it  strange  you  should  ask  me  to 
call  you  *  son ' "  1 

Had  you  asked  her  to  call  you  "  son?"    A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  explain  any  of  these  things  to  Mr.  Moulton 
when  you  carried  the  letter  to  him  ?  A.  I  don't  believe  I 
did.  To  explain  a  letter  of  Mrs.  Morse  to  Mr.  Moulton 
was  not  our  habit. 

Q.  She  says  in  this  letter: 

"  I  wiU  promise  that  the  *  secret  of  her  life.'  as  she  calls 
it,  shall  not  be  mentioned." 

Whose  life  did  she  refer  to  there,  as  you  interpreted  the 
letter?  A.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say,  for  I  don't  rec- 
ollect ;  it  is  not  my  language. 

Q.  The  language  was  addressed  to  you,  was  it  not  1  A. 
It  was. 

Q.  And  you  took  the  letter  to  Mr.  Moulton  to  have  it 
kept  safe?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  but  it  was  Mrs.  Morse's  letter  to 
me  about  what  Mrs.  Tilton  had  said,  and  now  you  ask  me 
to  say  what  two  women  said— what  I  thought  about  It. 

Q.  Yes,  I  ask  you  what  you  did  think  about  it  1  A, 
And  I  tell  you  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Did  you  know  then  ?   A.  I  don't  suppose  I  did. 

Q.  You  formed  no  opinion  about  it  ?  A.  I  don't  sup- 
pose I  did.  My  impression  is  that  I  did  not  read  the  let- 
ter. 

Q.  Let  us  read  a  little  further  [reading]: 

"  My  darling  spent  most  of  yesterday  with  me.  She 
said  all  she  had  in  the  way  of  money  was  $40  per  week, 
which  was  for  food  and  all  other  household  expenses 
aside  from  rent,  and  this  was  given  her  by  hand  by  Annie 
Tilton  every  Saturday.  If  you  know  anything  of  the 
amoimt  it  takes  to  find  food  for  eight  peo- 
ple, you  must  know  there's  little  left  for 
clothing.  She  told  me  lie  (T.)  did  not  take  any 
meals  home,  from  the  fact  she  could  not  get  such 
food  as  he  liked  to  nourish  his  brain  [laughter] ;  and  so 
he  took  his  meals  at  Moulton's.  Just  think  of  that!  I 
am  almost  crazy  with  the  thought.  Do  come  and  see 
me.  I  will  promise  that  the  'secret  of  her  life,'  as  she  calls 
it,  shall  not  be  mentioned.  I  know  it's  hard  to  bring  it  up, 
as  you  must  have  suffered  intensely,  and  we  all  wiU,  I 
fear,  till  released  by  death." 

Now,  did  you  know  what  she  referred  to  there,  in  thus 
addressing  you  ?  A.  Do  you.  ask  my  present  knowledge  f 

Q.  At  the  time  you  received  that  letter,  didn't  you 
know  what  Mrs.  Morse  referred  to  in  spenking  of  tlie 
secret  of  Mrs.  Tllton's  life,  which  she  was  not  to  mention 
in  your  presence  ?  A.  I  reply  to  you  specifically  about 
that  sentence,  what  I  have  told  you  generally  about  the 
whole  letter,  that  I  do  not  remember  what  I  thought 
about  the  contents  of  it. 

Q.  Di(ln'<^  you  think  it  referred  to  the  domestic  trouble 


TESTmONY  OF  EEXR 

fa  that  fainily  ?  A.  I  caDnot  say  that  I  thought  It  did, 
when  I  have  just  stated  th^t  I  don't  rememher  what  I 
thought. 

Q.  Never  mind  enlarging  upon  it.  Did  you  not  think  it 
referred  to  the  charge  that  Mr.  Tilton  had.  made  against 
you  of  Improper  solicitations!  A.  I  do  not  rememher 
what  I  thought  about  it  in  any  way,  manner,  or  sort. 

Q.  It  was  a  thing  tliat  did  not  make  any  impression 
n  your  mind,  was  it!  A.  My  impression  is  that  I 
did  not  even  read  it, 

=^ .  Ho  w  ?  A.  My  impression  is  tliat  I  never  read  tlie  let- 
\  tr  through. 

Q.  What  did  yon  want  it  kept  safe  and  take  it  to  Mr. 
Moulton  for,  then!  A.  Mr.  Moulton  was  the  depository 
•  iretty  much  of  all  the  papers  that  related  ia  any  way 
dii-ectly  or  indirectly  to  this  case. 

Q.  Oh !  did  this  letter  relate  to  this  case  1  A.  It  related 
to  it  by  this,  that  Mrs.  Morse  and  Mi'.  Tilton  were  adver- 
saries. 

Q.  "Well,  did  yon  read  It  far  enough  to  find  that  out  1  A. 
1  tnew  that,  Sir,  without  reading  that  letter. 
Q.  You  did!  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  instinctively  know,  without  reading  it,  what 
was  in  the  letter,  so  as  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
related  to  this  dilflculty,  and  so  take  it  to  Mr.  Moulton 
for  safe-keeping !  A.  A  letter  from  Mrs.  Morse  would  go 
t-o  Mr.  Moulton  anyhow,  whether  I  knew  the  contents  or 
not 

Q.  That  is  not  what  I  asked  you  t  A.  It  is  the  substance 
of  what  you  asked. 

Q.  Xo,  it  is  not.  If  yon  did  not  ascertain  the  contents 
of  that  letter  by  reading  it,  how  did  it  happen  that  you 
took  it  to  Mr.  Moulton  upon  the  theory  that  it  related  to 
some  difficulty  that  existed  between  yourself  and  Mr. 
Tilton.  or  between  Mrs.  Morse  and  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  Mr. 
Fuilei  ton,  you  take  a  letter  and.  glance  your  eye  over  it, 
and  see  what  its  contents  relate  to,  and  then  you  don't 
care  about  going  through  it  

Q.  Is  that  the  way  you  did !  A.  I  presume  that  is  the 
way ;  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  You  think  you  looked  into  it  far  enough  to  see  that 
it  r>-lated  to  this  matter  1  A.  Just  enough  to  see  that  it 
was  a  complaint  about  Mr.  Tilton  and  his  family. 

Q.  Did  you  look  at  that  letter  just  enough  to  see  that 
it  referred  to  the  difflcnlty  in  that  family,  speaking  of  this 
secret  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  which  was  not  to  be  mentioned  in 
your  presence  if  you  came  to  see  her !  A.  I  don't 
recollect  it. 

Q.  Now  did  yon  go  In  pursuance  of  that  letter!    A.  Go 

where  ? 

Q.  Where  the  letter  asked  you  to!  A.  I  don't  know  as 
it  did  ask  me  to  go  anywhere. 

Q.  WeU,  I  will  have  to  ask  you  to  read  it  and  see. 
[Otfering  witness  the  manuscript  letter.] 

The  Witness— I  beg  you  will  let  me  read  the  print,  Sir ; 
the  writing  is  very  fine,  and  with  very  pale  ink. 


7    WAED  BE  JSC  EBB.  83 

Mr.  PuUerton— Certainly,  Sir.  A.  [After  looking  at  the 
letter.]  I  don't  now  see  where  she  asks  me  to  go  any- 
where ;  T  don't  perceive  what  your  question  pertains  to. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  see  Mrs.  Morse  after  the  receipt  of 
that  letter!  A.  Not  that  I  know  of.  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  no  recollection  whether  you  did  or  not! 
A.  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  Where  was  Mrs.  Morse  residing  at  that  time !  A« 
That  I  cannot  say,  Sia 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  where  she  was  at  that 
time!  A.  I  have  none,  Sir. 

THE  riEST  BLUSH  OF  THE  SCAM)AL.  ^ 
Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beectier,  when  did  you  first 

hear  that  this  scandal  had  got  out!  A.  I  don't  know;  I 
should  have  to  think  that  matter  up. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  we  wlU  give  you  plenty  time  to  do  so.  A. 
[Aftei  a  pause. 1  Do  you  allude  to  the  fact  that  there  was 
a  difficulty  between  Mr.  Tilton's  family  and  mine— and 
myself  ? 

Q.  I  allude  to  this  scandal.  I  use  the  generic  term. 
Judge  Nf-il  son— In  any  form ! 

Mr.  Fullerton — In  any  of  its  forms  or  ramifications. 
The  Witness— I  think  the  first  iatimation  I  had  of  it  was 
the  card  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  ia  May,  187i. 
Q.  In  '71,  was  it !   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  that  was  the  first  1  A.  No,  Sir. 
That  is  the  first  that  comes  to  me. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  hearing  at  any  time  th.it  Mr.  Tilton 
had  told  it  to  any  number  of  persons  ?  A.  This  scandal ! 

Q.  Ygs.  "A.  I  do  not  now  recall  at  this  moment  any— I 
heard  of  his  repeating  injurious  stories  of  me. 

Q.  That  is  not  it?  A.  WeU,  that  is  what  I  want  to 
know,  whether  you  refer  to  that,  or  whether  you  refer  

Q.  I  am  referring  to  this  scandal  in  any  of  its  ramifica- 
tions ?  A.  Yes,  Sir.  I  do  not  recall  hearing  that  it  had  got 
out  nntU  the  intimations  of  the  card. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  letter  of  Mrs.  Morse,  to  which  I 
called  your  attention  last  week,  in  which  she  spoke  of 
twelve  persons  to  whom  Theodore  TiLton  had  told  thlA. 
story! 

Mr.  Sheai-man— No,  that  is  not  what  she  said. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  it  is  it  substantially. 

Mr.  Shearman— No .  Twelve  persons  whom  he  had  told, 
she  did  not  say  what. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mrs.  Morse  says :  "  I  know  of  twelve 
persons  whom  he  has  told,  and  they  in  turn  havo  told 
others !"   A.  Told  what,  Sir. 

Q.  I  am  not  under  examination.  A.  No,  but  I  ask  In 
order  to  be  able  to  answer  your  question. 

Q.  I  am  reading  all  that  there  is  here.  Do  you  recol- 
lect that  1   A.  Allow  me  to  see  it,  if  you  please.  Sir. 

Q.  Certainly,  Sir!  A.  [Having  looked  at  the  letter.]  I 
cannot  say  that  I  recollect  about  this  letter.  I  can  recol- 
lect that  there  was  a  time  in  which  the  subject  of  Mr. 
Tilton's  speaking  about  his  family  troubles  was  discussed 


84 


THE   TILTON-BEEGHEB  TBIAL. 


between  Mr.  Moulton  and  myself,  but  I  clon't  recollect  it 
as  associated  with  this  letter,  though  it  may  have  been 
80  and  probably  would  be. 

Q.  How  is  that  %  A.  I  recoUect  that  Mr.  Moulton  and  I 
talked  about  the  allegation  that  Mi-.  Tilton  had  disclosed 
the  family  diflSculties  that  existed  to  several  persons— to 
many  persons. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  that  he  had  disclosed  the  family 
difficulties,  and  at  the  same  time  disclosed  that  you  were 
the  author  of  the  difflculxiea  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  about 
that.  Of  couise  there  could  scarcely  be  any  other  under- 
•tanding  than  it. 

Q.  Did  you  not  take  this  letter  to  Mr.  Moulton  to  the 
end  that  he  might  ascertain  from  Mr.  Tilton  whether  the 
allegation  was  true  that  he  had  told  any  persons  of  the 
difficulty  1  A.  Very  likely;  though  at  this  moment  I 
don't  recall  that;  I  presume  that  was  the  reason  of 
taking  it  to  him. 

Q.  Don't  you  recoUect  that,  after  you  had  taken  it  to 
him,  Mr.  Moulton  sent  for  Mr.  TUton—and  don't  you 
recoUect  that  an  interview  foUowed  between  you  three 
gentlemen  1  A.  I  remember  that  there  was  an  interview 
between  us  on  the  subject  of  whether  he  had  made  re- 
ports, but  partly  it  was  whether  he  had  made  reports 
about  what  was  caUed  the  Bowen  scandal,  and  partly 
whether  he  had  also  spoken  about  the  difficulties  in  his 
own  family  as  connected  with  me. 

Q.  Now,  what  took  place  between  you  on  the  latter 
subject  I  A.  I  do  not  recaU  what  the  result  was,  except, 
tn  general,  that  I  received  from  Mr.  Moulton  the  assur- 
ance that  it  was  not  so. 

Q.  Was  not  Mr.  TUton,  after  he  came  there  and  became 
one  of  the  three,  asked  whether  he  had  told  the  story 
about  any  difficulties,  and  if  so,  to  whom  ?  A.  Very  pos- 
sibly, Sir,  but  I  don't  recall  it. 

Q.  Don't  you  recoUect  1  A.  I  do  not  recoUect  it. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  he  denied  having  told  it  to 
twelve  persons,  and  that  he  went  on  to  state  to  whom  he 
had  told  it  1  A.  I  do  not  recaUthat.  IrecaUin  general 
that  this  was  discussed  and  that  Mr.  Moulton  assured 
me,  either  then  or  afterwards,  that  that  statement  was 
exaggerated;  and  also  I  received  from  Mr.  TUton  a  denial 
of  the  substantial  aUegation  that  he  had  told  it  to  twelve 
persons— that  iw,  to  many  persons. 

Q.  Now,  my  question  is,  whether  it  was  not  the  subject 
of  discussion  there  as  to  whether  he  had  not  told  it  to 
some  persona  %  A.  I  do  not  remember  the  discussion  suf- 
ficiently distinctly  to  say. 

Q.  Do  you  not  recoUect  that  he  denied  having  told  it, 
except  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw  and  Oliver  Johnson  1  A.  I 
don't  recollect  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  that  their  names  were  used  ?  A.  I 
do  not  now  recall  that  I  knew  it  then;  it  might  have 
taken  place,  but  I  don't  recaU  it. 


MRS.  WOODHULL'S  CAED. 

Q.  Then  you  heard  it  first,  as  you  think,  in 
May,  1871,  when  Mrs.  Woodhuil  published  her  oardt  A* 
That,  I  think,  is  the  first,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  lirst  see  that  card  of  Mrs.  Woodhnllf 
A.  It  was  published  in  the  New- York  . 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  in  that  paper]  A.  I  either  saw  it, 
read  it,  or  some  one  stated  the  substance  of  it  to  me;  I  do 
not  recaU  the  act  of  reading  it. 

Q.  How  soon  after  the  pubUcation  of  that  card  did  yott 
see  Mr.  TUton f  A.  I  don't  know  that,  either,  definitely; 
it  was  within  a  short  period. 

Q.  Did  you  go  directly  to  see  him  1  A.  I  do  not  reooUeot 
that  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  see  Mr.  Moulton  1  A.  I  don't  recall ;  it 

is  quite  Ukely. 

Q.  Did  you  take,  as  you  now  remember,  any  step  what- 
ever In  regard  to  the  publication  of  that  card  1  A.  No,  I 
took  no  step ;  it  is  quite  likely  that  I  had  a  conference 
with  Mr.  Moulton  whether  anything  shoiUd  be  done,  but 
I  don't  recaU  the  conference. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  you  had  an  interview  with  Mr. 
Moulton,  and  that  it  was  agreed  that  Mrs.  WoodhuU 
should  be  seen  in  regard  to  it  f  A.  No,  I  do  not  recall. 
Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  recoUect  that  it  was  thought  advisable  that 
her  threatened  publication  should  be  averted  if  it  could 
be  accomplished  in  any  way  %  A.  I  do  not  recaU  it,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  learn  that  Mr.  TUton  had  seen 
Mrs.  WoodhuU  ?  A.  It  was  when  he  told  me  within  a  few 
days,  a  day  it  may  be,  or  a  few  days,  at  any  rate,  of  the 
interview;  he  described  it  to  me. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  he  described  it  to  you  I  A. 
That  I  forget,  but  I  presume  it  was  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house; 
I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Didn't  he  tell  you  in  substance  that  he  had  had  that 
interview  with  Mrs.  WoodhiUl  for  the  purpose  of  estah- 
Ushing  pleasant  relations  with  her,  so  as  to  avert  that 
blow  that  she  threatened  to  strike  1  A.  He  said  that  he 
meant,  as  I  recaU  it,  to  bring  to  bear  upon  her  an  influ- 
ence which  woiUd  restrain  her  from  meddling  with  the 
domestic  troubles  of  his  f amUy. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  approve  of  that)  A.  Yes,  Sir;  in 
the  light  I  then  had  I  thought  it  was  not  an  improper 
thing  to  do. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  thank  him  for  his  interference  1  A. 
Possibly  I  might ;  I  don't  remember  that  I  did. 

Q.  Did  he  at  that  time  disclose  to  you  your  plans— how 
that  kindly  influence  was  to  be  brought  about  ?  A.  I  un- 
derstood that  it  was  to  be  brought  about  by  the  exercise 
of  his  personal  influence  upon  Mrs.  WoodhuU,  and  by  stat- 
ing to  her  that  she  had  no  righlfto  attack  a  f eUow-laborer 
In  th£  same  field  with  hoi-self. 

Q.  Did  you  uudo  stiind  that  his  influence  was  to  be  ex- 
erted in  the  shape  of  argtmient  f  A.  Both ;  but  It  waa 


TESTIMONY  OF  HE2i 

more  than  that,  it  -was  to  be  personal  influence  as  di.- 
tlnguislied  from  argument. 

Q.  Didn't  he  tell  Tou  That  he -would  so  to  her  house  to 
8te  her  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  Will  Tou  state  that  he  did  not  t  A.  No. 

Q.  Will  you  state  that  he  did  not  disclose  to  you  his  in- 
tent to  go  to  the  house  and  see  Mrs.  Woodhull  for  the 
purpose  of  exerting  this  Influence  and  getting  a  control 
over  her  so  as  to  prevent  the  puhlieation  of  the  scandal, 
and  don't  you  recollect  that  you  approved  of  it  ?  A.  Xo, 
Sir ;  I  never  approved  of  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Tou  did  not  approve  of  his  going  there?  A.  No, 
Sir ;  I  don't  recollect  ever  approving  of  any  steps ;  they 
were  announced  to  me  after  they  ^vere  t-aten. 

Q.  I  am  speaking  of  ^hat  -^vas  said  to  you  before  Tie 
\eent  there.  A.  Nothing  that  I  recall -was  said  to  me  be- 
fore he  went  to  see  Mrs.  Woodhull;  the  fli'st  knowledge  I 
haA  of  his  seeing  her  was  the  historical  account  which  he 
gave  me  of  his  interview  with  her. 

Q.  Didn't  he  tell  you  before  he  went  that  he  was  going, 
and  make  known  to  you  what  object  he  meant  to  accom- 
plish? A.  No,  Sir:  I  recall  nothing  of  that  Mnd, 

Q.  Tou  say  you  do  not  recall  it;  do  you  mean  to  state 
positively  that  that  did  not  take  place  between  you  and 
Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  do  not  beUeve  it  took  place  between  me 
and  Mr.  TUton. 

Q.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  question.  A.  According 
to  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  did  not  take  place. 

Q.  Is  that  all  you  can  say!   A.  That  is  all  I  can  say. 

Q.  Tou  cannot  positively  deny  it,  then?  A.  According 
to  the  best  of  my  recollection  nothing  was  said  to  me 
before  his  going  to  see  her. 

Q.  Tou  cannot  positively  deny  that  it  did  take  place  i 
A.  That  is  as  far  as  I  feel  that  I  can  go,  Sir. 

Q.  Tou  have  no  positive  recollection  that  it  did  not  take 
place  !  No,  I  don't  know  that  I  have,  but  I  have  a  very 
positire  feeling  that  it  did  not. 

Not  so  positive  as  to  swear  to  it  ?   A.  No,  I  would 
not  like  to  swear  to  it. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  Mr.  Tilton  after  that  in- 
terview, in  regard  to  this  scandal  ?  A.  That  interview 
with  whom— his  with  Mrs.  Woodhull,  or  mine  with 
him! 

Q.  Mr.  Tilton'8  with  you  1    A.  Oh,  I  don't  recollect 
when  my  next  interview  with  him  was. 

Q,  When  did  you  next  hear  of  the  scandal  after  that 
publication  of  Mrs.  WoodhiiLl  ?   A.  I  don't  know.  Sir— 
I  am  speaking  now  at  a  venture  a  little— my  impression  is  j 
that  it  was  not  until  the  Fall— the  scandal,  you  mean,  as  a 
published  thing ! 

Q.  Tes.  A.  I  think  it  was  in  the  Fall  of  1872,  the  publi- 
cation of  it,  but  T  may  be  mistaken. 

Q.  Now,  intermediate  the  card  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  and 
the  publication  in  the  Fall  of  1872— did  you  hear  privately  j 
that  it  had  got  out  in  any  way!   A,  That  there  was  a  i 


BY   WABD  BEECRER.  85' 

difficulty  between  me  and  Mr.  Tilton,  I  heard  had  got 
out.  ■ 

Q.  From  whom  did  you  hear  that!  A.  I  cannot  say 
positiN  cly. 

Q.  What  did  you  hear  the  difficulty  was  that  had  got 
out?  A.  That  I  cannot  say— merely  that  there  was  talk 

about  it,  and  that  there  were  rumors  about  it. 

Q.  Can  you  state  what  the  difficulty  was,  as  you  heard 
it !   A.  No,  I  cannot. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  the  difficulty  before  the  publi- 
catl'.n  of  it  in  the  Fall  of  1872  by  Mrs.  Woodhull!  A. 
Nevpr,  in  any  detail 

Q.  Well,  in  general  did  you  hear  it  from  any  quarter  ! 
A.  Only  that  there  was  difficulty  ;  that  was  all 

Q.  Had  you  never  heard  that  Mr.  Tilton  charged  yon 
with  the  commission  of  this  offense  ?  A.  No  ;  not  that  I 
recall. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  receiving  a  letter  from  a  nephe'W 
of  yours,  F.  B.  Perktus  1   A.  Tes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  that  was  ?  A.  No,  Sir;  but  I 
can  tell  you. 

Mr.  Fallerton— Look  and  see,  please.   The  Witness— I 
have  got  it  down  here  somewhere  (referring  to  a  memo- 
randum). 
:Mr.  Beach— That  letter  is  on  exhibit. 
Mr.  Shearman— Exhibit  D,  46. 
The  Witness— What  date  ? 
Mr.  Shearman— Feb.  13. 
The  Witness — 1571 :  that  is  too  far  along. 
By  Mr.  Fullerton— Look  at  Exhibit  D,  46,  and  say 
whether  it  is  the  letter  that  you  received  from  your 
nephew?   [Handing  letter  to  witness.]   A.  I  presume  it 
is.  Sir ;  this  is  his  handwriting. 

Q.  Look  at  Exhibit  D,  47,  and  see  whether  it  is  yottr 
reply  to  it?  A.  This  is  my  handwiiting:  yes.  Sir,  imtil 
you  get  over  to  here ;  this,  I  think.  Sir,  is  the  first  draft 
of  a  letter,  Feb.  23.  1S71. 
Q.  How  !  A.  I  think  this  is  the  fir-st  draft  of  a  letter. 
Q.  In  reply  to  your  nephew's  ?  A.  In  reply  to  my 
nephew's. 

Now,  are  you  not  enabled  to  say  you  heard  of  thin 
scandal  in  1871,  in  February!   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Let  me  read  a  clause  from  your  nephew's  letter. 
[Pleading.] 

••  Theodore  has  been  justifying  or  excusing  hie  recent 
intrigues  with  women  by  alleging  that  you  have  been 
detected  in  the  like  adulteries,  the  same  having  been 
hushed  up  out  of  consideration  for  the  parties." 

j     A.  Tou  are  referring  to  the  Bowen  letter! 

Q.  Did  you  understiind  it  as  referring  to  the  Bowen 
letter  ?  A.  UnoLuestionably ;  the  letter  will  show  it, 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  don't  understand  that  it  does  show  It. 
"By  aUegtng  that  you  have  been  detected  in  the  like 
aniiilteries."   A.  Tes,  Sir. 
j     Q.  Bowen's  charges  had  been  hushed  up !  A.  Certainly 
i  they  had. 


86 


TEE   TlLTON-BMECaER  TRIAL. 


Q.  HoTT  had  they  been  hushed  up  %  A.  So  far  as  Mr. 
Tllton  was  concerned,  he  had  ceased  to  believe 
them,  and  there  was  no  publication  of  them 
directly  by  Mr.  Bowen,  except  by  being 
whispered  in  his  ear ;  they  had  never  gone  into  the  news- 
papers, nor,  that  I  know  of,  into  the  common  air.  They 
had  worked  aroimd  in  the  various  channels,  which  I  am 
ignorant  of,  by  which  newsmen  get  hold  of  things. 

Q.  How  had  they  been  hushed  upl  A.  They  had  been 
dropped. 

Q.  Howl  A.  I  didn't  say  how. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  didn't  say  that. 

Mr.  Pullerton— No,  but  he  is  saying  so  now. 

The  Witness— I  am  saying  now  that  I  don't  know  how 
they  were  hushed  up. 

(4.  You  did  not  regard  this,  then,  as  a  reference  at  all 
to  the  charge  against  you  by  Mr.  Tiltoni  A.  Not  as  I  re- 
call it. 

Q.  Well,  let  us  see  your  reply  t 

"  Feb.  23,  1871.— Whatever  Mr.  Tllton  formerly  said 
against  me — " 

The  Witness— Please  read  on. 

"  Whatever  Mr.  Tllton  formerly  said  against  me— and  I 
know  the  substance  of  it— he  has  withdrawn." 

A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  prior  to  that,  Mr.  Tllton  had  charged  you  with 
improper  relations  with  his  wife,  had  he  not  1  A.  That 
was  not  the  subflect  between  Mr.  Tllton  and  me. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— Read  the  whole  sentence. 

"  And  frankly  confessed  that  he  had  been  misled  by  the 
statements  of  one  who,  when  confronted,  backed  down 
from  his  charges." 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  know  what  the  sentence  is.  I  will  give 
you  a  great  many  more  than  you  want  before  I  get 
through. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  cannot, 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  am  going  to  ask  questions  in  i?egard  to 
this  in  detail. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  I  propose,  when  the  witness  is  asked 
concerning  a  written  letter,  that  half  a  sentence  shall  not 
be  put  to  him  as  if  it  were  a  whole  sentence. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  did  not  read  half  a  sentence  and  put 
it  to  him  as  if  it  was  a  whole  one. 

Judge  Neilson— You  have  a  right  to  frame  your  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  have  that  right,  and  I  will  enjoy  it. 
[To  the  witness.]  I  will  ask  you  this  question.  fReading.] 

"  Whatever  Mr.  Tilton  formerly  said  against  me— and  I 
know  the  substance  of  it — he  has  withdrawn." 

Now,  I  ask  you  whether  prior  to  the  date  of  this  letter 
he  had  not  charged  you  with  having  had  improper  rela- 
tions with  hia  wife?  A.— [To  Mr.  FullertonJ— I  cannot 
answer  the  truth  without  making  a  statement  besides 
yes  or  no. 


THE  CHARGE  OF  ADULTERY. 

Q.  Can  yon  tell  me  whether  the  charge  was 
made  prior  to  Feb.  23, 1871 1  A.  You  ask  me  for  the 
Interpretation  of  that  letter. 

Mr.  Fallerton— I  am  not  eisking  you  for  any  interpreta- 
tion at  all. 

The  Witness— It  is  an  interpretation  you  ask  of  me. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  not.  I  ask  you  whether,  prior  to 
February  23, 1871,  Mr.  Tilton  had  not  made  the  charge 
against  you  of  having  had  improper  relations  with  his 
wife  1   A.  He  never  made  such  a  charge  against  me. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  we  will  settle  that  question  now. 
Now  let  me  read  from  your  direct  examination ;  I  won't 
read  the  whole  of  it ;  "  that  I  had— that  in  consequence  of 
the  differences  which  had  sprung  up  by  reason  of  my 
conduct,  his  family  had  well  nigh  been  destroyed; 
that  I  had  suffered  my  wife  and  his  mother-in-law 
to  conspire  for  the  separation  of  the  family ;  that  I 
had  corrui>ted  Elizabeth,  teaching  her  to  He,  to  deceive 
him,  and  hide  under  fair  appearances  her  friendship  to 
me;  and  that  I  had  made  her  to  be— that  I  had— that  he 
had  married  her  one  of  the  simplest  and  purest  women 
that  he  ever  knew,  and  that  under  my  influence  she  had 
become  deceitful  and  untrustworthy ;  he  said  that  I  that 
had  tied  the  knot  in  the  sanctuary  of  God,  by  which  they 
were  to  be  bound  together  in  an  inseparable  love,  had 
also  reached  out  my  hand  to  untie  that  knot,  and  to  loose 
them  one  from  the  other  ;  he  then  went  on  to  say  that 
not  only  had  I  done  this,  but  that  I  had  made  overtures 
to  her  of  an  improper  character.*' 

Mr.  Evarts— Read  the  rest  of  that. 

The  Witness— Will  you  read  the  whole  of  it,  please.  Sir  f 

Mr.  Fullerton  [reading]—"  And  again  I  expressed  some 
surprise,  probably,  by  my  attitude— I  don't  recollect  that 
I  talked— but  he  drew  from  his  pocket  a  strip  of  payer 
about  that  [producing  a  paper  about  live  inches  by  one 
and  a  half]— like  that,  and  read  to  me  what  purported  to 
be  the  statement  of  his  wife  to  him  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  solicited  her  to  become  his  wife,  to  all  the  intents 
and  purposes  which  were  signified  by  that  term,  or  sub- 
stantially that." 

Q.  Now,  didn't  he  charge  you  with  improper  advances t 
A.  Strictly  speaking,  he  did  not. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  want  anything  but  strictly  speaking— 
I  want  you  to  strictly  speak,  and  answer  the  question  I 
put  to  you :  Didn't  he  charge  you  with  having  improper 
relations  with  his  wife  ?  A.  I  do  not  consider  that  he 
did,  strictly  and  literally  speaking. 

Q.  Did  you  give  the  evidence  that  I  have  just  read  in 
your  direct  examination!  A.  I  presume  I  did;  I  have 
not  read  it  since. 

Q.  Is  it  true  as  I  read  it  ?  A.  I  presume  it  is  true  in  the 
sense  in  which  I  meant  it. 

Q.  Ditln't  you  understaurl  yourself  as  saying  in  the  evi- 
dence tlmt  he  made  the  charg(>rtrf  t  and  then  fortified  it 


TIJSTIMOyF  OF  HFJyEF   WARD  BEECEEB. 


87 


by  producing  tlie  certificate  of  his  wife  I  A.  If  I  used 
the  word  "  oharge  "  

Q.  Did  jou  understand  yourself  as  saying  that  1  A. 
Please  repeat  the  riuestion. 

Q.  Didn't  you  understand  yourself  in  your  direct  ex- 
amination as  saying,  "  Mr.  Tilton  made  the  charge  of  im- 
proper overtures  to  his  wife,  and  then  produced  a  certifi- 
cate of  his  wife  in  substantiation  of  the  charge  ?"  A.  I 
didn't  intend  to  be  so  understood,  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  not ;  yery  weU  ;  let  it  stand  there.  Let  me 
read  to  you  and  see  whether  you  ever  said  this  at  any 
other  time 

He  then  declared  that  I  had  injured  him  in  his  family 
relations ;  had  joined  with  his  mother-in-law  in  producing 
discord  in  his  house  ;  had  advised  a  separation  ;  had 
alienated  his  wife's  affections  from  him  ;  had  led  her  to 
love  me  more  than  any  living  being  ;  had  corrupted  her 
moral  nature,  and  taught  her  to  be  insincere,  lying,  and 
hypocritical ;  and  ended  by  chai'ging  that  I  had  made 
wicked  pi-oposals  to  her  1" 

A.  Very  lifeely  I  said  so,  Sir. 

Q.  Now  in  saying  that,  did  you  refer  to  the  same  inter- 
view between  you  and  Mr.  Tilton  on  the  30th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1870?  A.  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Then  I  go  back  to  the  letter.  Well,  I  will  put  this 
question  to  you :  Do  you  mean  now  to  say  that  Mr.  Tilton 
did  not  on  the  night  of  the  30th  of  December,  1870, 
charge  you  with  having  made  wicked  proposals  to  his 
wife  ?  A.  I  mean  to  state  

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  state  that  that  didn't  take  place  ? 
A.  I  mean  to  state  that  he  charged  me,  according  to  my 
present  

Q.  No,  no ;  now,  Mr.  Beecher,  if  you  please ;  I  don't 
"want  what  you  suppose. 

AN  INACCURACY  IN  THE  DIEECT  EXAMINA- 
TION. 

Jndge  Neilson— That  is  the  only  way,  to  let  the 
witness  answer,  and  if  the  answer  is  not  proper  we  can 
strike  it  out,  or  a  part  of  the  answer. 

Mr.  Fullerton — I  ask  him  if  he  now  means  to  say  that 
Mr.  Tilton  did  not  make  that  charge  against  him  on  the 
night  of  the  30th  of  December,  1870.  He  either  means  it 
or  he  does  not  mean  it,  and  he  can  tell  us  by  a  simple 
answer 

Judge  Neilson— He  might  mean  it  in  one  sense  and  not 
mean  it  in  another  sense.  I  think  we  must  take  the 
answer. 

Mr.  Bcacli— Wv;  ask  him  if  he  didn't  mean  a  certain  spe- 
«iflc  thing,  and  V.  he rher  a  certain  specific  thing  did  not 
occur  upon  thai>  occasion.  He  begins  an  answer  by  say- 
ing, I  do  uicKii  tliis  or  that.  That  is  not  an  answer  to 
the  question.  3y  giviue:  a  different  sentence  or  a  differ- 
ent thing  that  he  lueana  is  not  answering  a  specific  ques- 
tton  whether  he  means  the  pai-ticular  thing  emboilied  in 
the  question.  I  snbmit  upon  a  cioss-oxamination  we  are 
'   :  'm'  tkI  to  accept  answers  of  Lhat  chai-acter.  I 


Judge  Neilson— The  Avitness  ought  to  answer  as  directly 
as  he  possibly  can  of  course. 
Mr.  Fullerton— If  he  did  n't  mean  it  he  can  say  BO. 
Mr.  Evarts— If  he  did  mean  it  he  can  say  so. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  if  he  did  mean  what  lie  iaf  going  to 

say  now  he  can  say  that.   That  he  can  do. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  think  the  coimsel  have  a  right  to 
catch  a  witness  between  a  "yes"  and  a  "no"  when 
neither  of  them  is  telli»g  the  truth. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  don't  know  what  your  object  may  be 
in  examining  a  witness.    That  i.s  not  my  object  now.  I 
know  without  any  aid  fi-om  the  counsel  on  the  other  side 
that  Mr.  Beecher  can  say  whether  he  meant  a  certain 
thing  by  what  he  said. 
Mr.  Evarts— He  can  if  you  will  let  him. 
Mr.  Fullerton— I  will. 
Mr.  Evarts— You  cannot  stop  his  mouth. 
Mr.  Fullerton— No,  I  cannot  stop  his  mouth,  and  that  is 
not  the  only  one  whose  mouth  I  have  not  been  successful 
in  stopping.   Your  Honor  will  perceive  that  Mr.  Beecher 
meant  to  say  that  he  was  charged  with  improper  ad- 
vances by  Theodore  Tilton  on  the  night  of  the  30th  of 
December,  1870,  or  he  wa^  not  so  charged  in  his  judg- 
ment. I  don't  want  any  oration  about  it.   I  wish  to 
know  simply  the  operation  of  his  own  mind,  the  judg- 
ment he  formed  in  regard  to  that  interview.   It  certainly 
is  a  very  simple  question. 

Judge  Neilson— What  you  readjust  now  was  not  from 
his  direct  examination. 

Mr.  Fullerton— What  I  read  first  was  from  the  direct 
examination.  What  I  read  in  the  second  place  was  what 
Mr.  Beecher  said  upon  another  occasion. 

Judge  NeUson  [to  the  Tribime  stenographer]— Read 
the  last  question,  Mr.  Stenographer. 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  CLuestion,  as 
follows  :  Q.  "  Do  you  mean  now  to  say  that  Mr.  TUton 
did  not,  on  the  night  of  the  30th  of  December,  1870, 
charge  you  with  having  made  wicked  proposalfii  to  hia 
wife  1" 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  is  aware  the  whole  inquiry 
has  been  upon  the  point  whether  the  husband  made  the 
charge,  as  distinct  from  making  the  charge  that  the  wife 
had  communicated  <  o  lilm. 

Judge  Neilson- Now,  suppose  the  witness  should  answer 
that  Mr.  TUton  slid  make  that  charge.  It  would  be  legiti- 
mate on  a  redirect  examiuation  to  inquire  on  what  he 
alleged  it  was  founded. 

Ml-.  Beach— Undoubtedly ;  but  this  difficulty,  if  your 
Honor  please,  arises  upon  the  volunteer  declaration  of 
the  witness  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  charge  him  with  mak- 
ing improper  proposals  to  bis  wife. 
Mr.  Evarts— Excepting  through  his  wife. 
Mr.  Beach— Not  excepting  through  his  wife,  but  that 
I  he  feud  a  paper  or  statement  of  bis  wife's  making  that 


88 


THE   TlLTOB-BEEflHEB    I  RIAL. 


Imputation.  Now  Ve  have  read  what  lie  stated  on  his 
direct  examination.  We  liave  read  wiiat  he  stated  upon 
another  occasion,  wherein  he  explicitly  declares 
that  Mr.  Tilton  did  mate  these  charges,  and  we 
now  ask  him,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  him  to 
rectify  or.  confirm  the  declaration  which  he  has 
made  within  a  few  minutes,  whether  he  meant 
to  say  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  upon  that  occasion  make  that 
accusation.  We  don't  ask  him  what  he  does  mean  to 
say ;  we  ask  him  whether  he  meant  to  say  that. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Witness]— Give  us  the  best  an- 
swer you  can. 

The  Witness— From  my  present  point  of  view  % 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

The  witness— I  do  not  regard  Mr.  Tilton  as  having 
made  that  charge  personally.  He  charged  

Mr.  FuUerton— One  moment.  Did  you  say  that?  [Read- 
ing.] 

*'  He  ended  by  alleging  that  I  had  made  wicked  pro- 
posals to  her.  Until  he  had  reached  this  I  had  listened 
with  some  contempt,  under  the  impression  that  he  was 
attempting  to  bully  me,  but  with  the  last  charge  he  pro- 
duced a  paper  purporting  to  be  a  certifled  statement  of  a 
previous  confession  made  to  him  by  his  wife  of  her  love 
lor  me  and  that  I  had  made  proposals  to  her  of  an  im- 
proper nature." 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  that  ?  A.  I  think  very  likely  those 
are  my  words. 

Q.  Precediag  the  confession  of  his  wife  or  the  produc- 
tion of  the  certificate  of  his  wife,  did  he  not  charge  you 
with  having  made  improper  proposals  to  his  wife  I  A. 
No ;  I  do  not  think  he  did,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Witness]— The  inquiry  is  whether 
he  said  anything  on  that  subject. 

The  Witness— I  know  it ;  I  can  tell  very  plainly  what 
the  whole  is,  but  I  am  not  allowed  to.  Sir.  It  is  a  very 
simple  matter,  indeed,  in  my  view,  but,  of  course,  I  must 
defer  to  the  better  judgment  of  counsel. 

Mr.  Fullerton— After  having  charged  you  with  making 
improper  proposals,  did  he  produce  a  paper  purporting 
to  be  a  certified  statement  of  a  previous  confession  made 
to  him  by  his  wife  1  A.  Do  you  ask  me  f 

Q.  Yes  !  A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  You  think  not?   A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  That  statement  then  is  not  the  truth  f  A.  1  think  it 
is  inaccurate 

Q.  And  your  direct  testimony  was  inaccurate  upon  that 
subject  1  A.  If  it  contravenes  what  I  state  now  it  needs 
correction. 

The  Court  here  adjourned  imtil  11  o'clock  on  Tuesday 
morning 


SIXIY-EIGHTH    DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  THE  DEFENDANT 
STJLL  IN  PROGRESS. 

NATUKE  OF  MK.  TILTON'S  ORIGINAL  ACCUSATION— 
THE  "  RAGGED  EDGE  "  LETTER— THE  PAYMENT  OF 
THE  MONEY  TO  MR.  MOULTON  FOB  THE  GOLDEN 
AGE— GEN.  BUILER'S  RELATIONS  TO  THE  CASE— 
THE  TESTIMONY  OF  MRS.  MOULTON  AGAIN  CON- 
TRADICTED—DEACON bell's  TESTIMONY  called 
IN  QUESTION. 

Tuesday,  April  20,  1875. 

Mr.  Fullerton  resnmed  the  cross-examination  with 
questions  concerning  Mr.  Beecher's  belief  as  to 
whether  Mr.  Tilton,  apart  from  Mrs.  Tilton's  letter 
of  confession,  had  personally  charged  him  with 
making  improper  proposals  to  her.  Mr.  Beecher  em- 
phatically repeated  his  previous  declaration  that 
Mr.  Tilton  had  not  personally  made  that  charge. 
When  questioned  as  to  what  he  meant  by  his  former 
testimony  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  ended  a  long  talk  by 
"  charging  him  with  wicked  proposals  to  his  wif  e,^^ 
Mr.  Beecher  explained  that  he  had  used  the  word 
"charge"  in  a  general  sense,  as  synonymous  with 
"state"  or  "declare."  It  was  not  used  in  a  "spe- 
cific," but  "  generic"  sense. 

Mr.  Beecher's  letter  of  Feb.  5,  1872,  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  was  brought  up  again  by  Mr.  Fullerton,  who 
made  the  witness  go  over  the  principal  parts  of  it 
almost  word  by  word.  Mr.  Beecher  explained 
that  his  proposed  resignation  of  his  pastorate 
was  only  conditional.  The  point  was  that  he  feared 
it  might  appear  that  he  was  using  his  church  as  a 
"smuggling  place,"  and  to  disprove  that  he  was 
willing  "to  step  down  and  out."  Mr.  Beecher  said  that 
it  was  his  custom  when  waiting  for  Mr.  Moulton  to  lie 
down  on  the  sofa,  and  on  account  of  his  hay-fever  he 
always  spread  a  newspaper  or  other  covering  over 
his  feet  to  keep  them  warm.  Perceiving  this  Mrs. 
Moulton  had  frequently  spread  a  shawl  or  something 
of  that  kind  over  his  feet  when  he  was  lying  down. 
Mr.  Beecher  distinctly  remembered  the  in- 
cidents of  the  interview  of  May  31,  1873. 
He  firmly  denied  that  he  had  told  Mrs. 
Moulton,  as  she  affirmed  in  her  testimony,  that  she 
was  to  him  a  section  of  the  day  of  judgment.  That 
he  lin.d  not  used  those  words  he  swore  positively, 
and  tit  iiie  best  of  his  recollection  he  had  not  u.sed 
any  expression  akin  to  that.  In  further  contradic- 
tion of  Mrs.  Moulton'a  testimony  Mr.  Beecher  re- 
iterated his  declaration,  on  the  direct  examination^ 


TESTIMONY   OF  HE2\ 

thaFt  lie  had  made  no  statement  or  confession  of 
adnlteiry  to  Mrs.  Moulton. 

The  circumstances  of  Mr.  Beecher'a  departmre  for 
Peekskill  on  June  2,  1873,  the  day  on  which  ]Mr8. 
Moulton  testified  that  he  called  at  her  house  and  had 
a  long  interview  with  her,  in  the  course  of  which  he 
said  he  had  a  poison-powder  at  home  which  he  would 
take,  were  rehearsed.  Mr.  Beecher  swore  positively 
that  he  was  not  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house  at  all  on  that 
day,  and  that  he  saw  no  lady  entering  the  house  as 
hie  was  leaving  it.  Mr.  Beecher  also  denied  that  he 
had  requested  Greorge  A.  Bell  to  prevent  a  meeting 
of  the  deacons  to  consider  the  "West  charges." 

One  of  the  most  interesting  passages  of  the  cross- 
examination  was  in  reference  to  the  appointment  of 
the  Investigating  Committee,  and  Mr.  Beecher's 
statements  made  before  that  Committee  about  the 
payment  of  money  for  Mr.  Tilton's  benefit.  The 
details  of  the  appomtment  of  the  Coiomit- 
tee  were  described  very  minutely,  and 
Mr.  Beecher's  relations  and  conversations  with  the 
various  members  of  it,  but  especially  with  Mr. 
Cleveland,  were  made  the  subjects  of  close  inquiry. 
The  fact  was  developed  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  told 
Mr.  Cleveland,  before  the  Committee  was 
appointed,  some  of  the  circumstances  of  his  relations 
with  Mr.  Moulton,  and  that  Mr.  Cleveland  had 
expressed  opinions  favorable  to  Mr.  Beecher.  The 
fact  was  also  brought  out  that  before  Mr. 
Beecher  made  his  statement  to  the  Committee 
Mr.  Cleveland  had  emphatically  expressed 
hifi  opinion  that  blackmail  had  been  levied  upon 
him.  Mr.  Beecher  said  that  he  had  never  read 
the  Committee's  report,  and  had  only  heard  gener- 
ally that  it  was  a  triumphant  acquittal  of  himself. 
He  had  never  heard  what  it  contained  about 
the  charge  of  blackmail  and  the  "pistol  scene." 
In  reference  to  the  payment  of  money  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton for  Mr.  Tilton,  Mr.  Beecher  declared  that  he  had 
made  the  payments  voluntarily,  as  an  act  of  kind- 
ness, and  without  thinking  that  he  was  being  black- 
mailed in  any  sense.  He  declared  that  if  he  had 
thought  the  payment  of  the  money  was  going  to  be 
used  as  a  means  of  bringing  about  a  settlement 
of  his  troubles  with  Mr.  Tilton,  he  "would  not 
have  paid  a  cent,  if  he  had  been  killed  for  it." 
The  witness  was  plied  with  questions  as  to  the  time 
when  he  first  began  to  think  that  blackmail  was 
being  levied  upon  him.  He  insisted  that  at  the  time 
he  made  the  payments,  amounting  in  all  to  $7,000, 
he  did  not  think  he  was  paying  blackmail,  although 
the  idea  had  flitted  through  his  mind  at  v«ious 


iY    WARD  BEBGREB,     .  89 

times,  which  were  not  very  well  fixed,  that  such 
might  be  the  case.  The  passage  in  his  statement  to 
the  Committee,  in  which  he  said  that  he  had 
paid  the  money  because  he  understood  that 
the  whole  difficulty  would  be  settled  by 
it,  was  read  by  Mr.  Fullerton,  and  Mr.  Beecher  ad- 
mitted that  it  was  not  the  same  statement  of  his 
motives  as  the  one  he  had  just  given,  but  said  that 
in  the  sense  he  then  intended  it  he  would  make  the 
same  statement  again.  Mr.  Beecher  remarked  that 
there  were  inaccuracies  in  his  statement  before  the 
Investigating  Committee. 

Mr.  Fullerton  finally  put  the  question  whether  Mr. 
Beecher  now  believed  that  Francis  D.  Moulton 
had  intended  to  blackmail  him.  There  was 
utter  silence  in  the  court-room.  At  last  Mr. 
Beecher  said,  hesitatingly,  "  I  am  afraid  he  did.* 
He  explained  that  his  confidence  in  ilr.  Moulton  had 
been  so  complete  that  sometimes,  even  now,  he 
could  scarcely  persuade  himself  that  he  had  been 
guilty  of  levying  blackmail.  Mr.  Fullerton  insist- 
ing on  a  more  direct  answer  to  his  question  whether 
he  believed  !Mr.  Moulton  had  intended  to 
levy  blackmail  upon  him,  Mr.  Beecher 
replied  slowly,  "  If  for  his  own  advantage, 
he  did  n't,  but  if  he  took  advantage  of  my  generous 
feelings  for  the  benefit  of  3Ir.  Tilton.  I  think  he  did." 


THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  prj^uant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Judge  Neilson— Are  you  ready  to  proceed,  Sir  f 
Mr.  Beecher  was  recalled.   Cross-examination  resumed. 
Judge  Neilson— Officer  Rogers,  you  must  enforce  silenoe 
to-day  with  this  audience,  on  some  terms. 

THE  CHARGE  OF  IMPROPER  ADVANCES. 

Mr.  Fullerton — Mr.  Beecher.  aft^r  a  night's 
reflection,  are  you  enabled  to  state  now  whether  you  re« 
garded  Theodore  Tilton  as  charging  you  with  improper 
advances  toward  his  wife  on  the  night  of  the  30th  of 
December,  1870  ?  A.  I  regard  him  as  maMng— as  com- 
municating to  me  

Q.  No ;  one  moment.   Now,  Mi'.  Beecher.  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  regard  bim  as  having  made  that  charge 
against  youl  A.  No,  Sir,  not  in  the  etrict  sense. 

Q.  Did  you  regard  him  as  ha  Ting  made  that  charge 
against  you  in  any  sense,  whether  etrict  or  otherwise  t 
A.  Yes,  in  a  general  way;  regarding  the  taterview  as  a 
general  narrative  and  interview,  I  should  use  that  lan- 
guage agaia. 

Q.  Y'est  A.  But  if  scrutinized  and  made  exact  in 
terms,  I  should  say  not— that  he  charged  me  with  tiiot^ 


THB  TILTON-BEEGHBB  TBIAL. 


things  which  he  personally  knew,  and  repeated  the  charge 
that  his  wife  had  made. 
Q.  Did  not  he  make  the  charge  in  his  own  behalf  ?  A. 

I  don't  think  that  he  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  profess  to  be  the  representative  of  his  wife  1 
A.  He  made  no  profession  whatever. 

Q.  You  regarded  this  charge  as  a  charge  made  by  him, 
did  you  not  1  A.  I  didn't  think  of  it  in  that  light,  Sir ;  it 
was  a  narrative. 

Q.  Well,  the  charge  was  tn  the  narrative,  was  it  not  f 
A.  Her  statement  was. 

Q.  He  repeated  it  to  you  before  he  read  the  narrative 
of  his  wife,  did  he  not,  or  the  confession  of  his  wife  ?  A. 
He  mentioned  that  she  had  made  charges  against  me. 

Q.  Did  he  not  charge  you  with  the  offense  before  he 
referred  to  his  wife's  statement  1  A.  He  did  not  charge 
me  in  that  sense  ;  he  said  that  his  wife  had  made  such 
statements  and  then  read  them. 

Q.  Now,  let  me  read  this  to  you  again,  Mr.  Beecher,  aild 
see  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong.  [Reading]: 

He  charged  me  in  substance,  that,  acting  for  a  long 
time  in  an  unfriendly  spirit,  that  I  had  sought  his  down- 
fall, had  spread  injurious  rumors  about  him,  was  using 
my  place  and  influence  to  undermine  him,  had  advised 
Mr.  Bowen  to  dismiss  him,  and  much  more  that  I  cannot 
remember.  He  then  declared  that  I  had  injured  him  in 
his  family  relations  ;  had  joined  with  his  mother-in-law 
In  producing  discord  in  his  house  ;  had  advised  a  separa- 
tion ;  had  alienated  his  wife's  affections  from  him;  had  led 
her  to  love  me  more  than  any  living  being ;  had  cor- 
rupted her  moral  nature,  and  taught  her  to  be  insincere, 
lying,  and  hypocritical ;  and  ended  by  charging  that  I 
liad  made  wicked  proposals  to  her. 

Is  that  narrative  true,  of  that  interview!  A.  WUlyou 
allow  me  to  see  that.  Sir  1 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  [Handing  witness  the  book.]  A.  The  term 
"declare"  and  "  charge"  I  use  as  equivalent  in  the  narra- 
tive here. 

Q.  Is  that  narrative  true  1  A.  As  it  is  here  1 

Q.  Yes,  as  I  read  it  ?  A.  In  the  general  it  is,  but  If  you 
give  a  specific  sense  to  '*  charge,"  not. 

Q.  One  moment ;  I  don't  give  anytliing ;  I  want  to  know 
whether  that  narrative  of  yours  is  true  1  A.  Subject  to  a 
correction.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evart«— He  has  a  right  to  answer,  Sir. 

Mr.  FuUerton— He  has  a  right  to  answer.  Sir,  and  I 
mesn  he  shall  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  may  state  how  far  he  regards  It  ae  true 
and  how  far  untrue. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Did  you  regard  it  as  true,  giving  the 
ordinary  significance  to  the  terms  you  employed  in  that 
Btatement?  A.  I  regarded  the  word  "  charge"  as  used  in 
that  last  place  as  only  a  synonym  foi  '  declare." 

Q.  Very  well ;  you  regarded  yourself  as  being  charged 
with  improper  advances,  did  you  not?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  I  called  your  attention  to  the  correspondence  be 
tween  yourself  and  Mr.  Perkins  last  night.  I  wish  tb  call 
your  attention  still  further  to  it.  The  letter  in  reply  to 


Mr.  Perkins  is  Feb.  23, 1871,  and  opens  with  this  expres 
sion: 

Whatever  Mr.  TUton  formerly  said  against  me— and  I 
know  the  substance  of  it— he  has  withdrawn,  and  frankly- 
confessed  that  he  had  been  misled  by  the  statements  of 
one  who,  when  confronted,  backed  down  from  his 
charges. 

Did  ^ou  mean  in  that  communication  to  convey  to  your 
nephew  the  idea  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  withdrawn  what  he 
had  said  against  you?  A.  I  understood  by  that  communi- 
cation that  Mr.  Tilton  had  withdrawn  the  charges  made 
by  Mr.  Bowen  and  repeated  by  him. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  refer  to  the  charges  that  Mr.  Tilton 
had  made,  or  Mrs.  Tilton  had  made  against  you  1  A.  It 
was  the  special  object  of  such  a  letter  as  that  not  to  have 
that  brought  out  into  public.  We  were  all  engaged  ia 
keeping  that  still. 

Q.  One  moment.  That  is  enough.  Your  object  was  not 
to  allude  to  iti  A.  I  will  not  say  that  was  the  specific  ob- 
ject of  the  letter,  but  that  was  a  part  of  the  advice,  and 
what — - 

Q.  I  am  talking  about  your  object!  A.  Yes,  I  know, 
but  it  was  a  joint  letter ;  the  letter  was  written  in  con- 
sultation with  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  And  your  object  was  not  to  embrace  within  the 
meaning  of  the  terms  used  here  what  Mr.  Tilton  or  Mrs. 
Tilton  had  charged  you  with!  A.  I  certainly  did  not  in- 
tend to  go  into  that,  as  I  understood  it.  WUl  you  allow 
me  to  see  that  letter  again,  please  1 

Q.  Undoubtedly,  Sir.  [Handing  witness  the  letter.]  A. 
[After  looking  at  the  letter.]  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  any  further  explanation  In  regard  to  it ! 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  I  caU  your  attention  now,  Mr.  Beecher,  to  another 
expression,  and  see  whether  you  did  not  at  one  time  con- 
sider the  charge  as  having  been  made  by  Mr.  Tilton.  I 
read : 

Moreover,  from  the  anger  and  fury  of  Mr.  Tilton,  I  ap- 
prehended that  this  charge  was  made  by  him  and  sup- 
ported by  the  accusation  of  hi«  wife  was  to  be  at  once 
publicly  pressed  against  me. 

Mr.  Shearman—"  As  made." 

Mr.  FuUerton— Yes,  "as  made,"  it  ought  to  be ;  it  is 
printed  wrong;  "as  made,"  "was  to  be  at  once  pub- 
licly pressed  against  me."  Did  you  not  regard  the  charge 
as  being  made  by  Mr.  Tilton  when  you  made  use  of  such 
language  as  that?  [Handing  witness  the  letter.)  A.  If 
the  charge  was  made— I  used  that  woid  in  the  generio 
sense. 

Q.  Now,  I  don't  use  it  in  any  sense.   A.  Well,  I  do. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  asking  you  whether  you  did  not  think 
then  that  the  charge  waa  made  by  Mr.  Tilton  in  rhe 
sense  in  which  you  used  that  language  !  A.  Not  in  the 
sense  in  which  I  am  now  using  the  term  "charge,"  but  in 
the  sense  

Q.  Mr.  Beecher,  I  am  not  asking  you  as  to  the  sense  in 
which  you  now  use  it.   You  understand  distinctly  that  I 


TESTIMONY   OF  EEl 

am  asking  you  as  to  the  meaning  of  that  phrase  in  the 
sense  in  which  you  then  used  the  terml  A.  That  was 
what  I  was  attempting  to  explain  to  you,  Sir ;  that  I 
then  used  the  term  in  the  generic,  and  as  equivalent  to 
"declare,"  or  "narrate,"  or  "state"  to  me  these  facts 
which  were,  in  a  general  way,  charges.  But,  now  I  un- 
derstand you  to  seek  for  a  more  specific,  not  generic,  and 
tn  that  regard  I  say  that,  while  Mr.  Tilton  narrated  to  me 
the  matters  that  were  under  his  own  knowledge,  he 
charged  only  by  reading  his  wife's  charge. 

Q.  Very  well,  what  matters  did  you  think  Mr,  Tilton 
knew  of  his  own  knowledge  at  that  time?  A.  The  dis- 
tress and  trouble  in  his  family ;  the  distress  and  trouble 
between  himself  and  Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  Yt)u  did  not  think  he  knew,  of  his  own  knowledge, 
that  you  were  the  cause  of  either  of  those  difficulties  ? 
A.  Well,  I  should  say  he  did. 

Q.  Of  his  own  knowledge?  A.  Of  his  own  knowledge  ; 
yes,  Sir ;  I  think  it  would  come  within  that  designation. 

CONVERSATIONS  WITH  MR.  MOULTON. 

Q.  I  caU  your  attention  now  to  the  letter  of 
February  5, 1872 ;  how  long  before  the  writing  of  that 
letter  was  it  that  you  met  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  cars  ?  A.  I 
met  him  in  the  cars,  I  think,  Sir,  in  the  forepart  of  Feb- 
ruary—I  mean  of  January. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  date?  A.  No,  I  do  not,  Sir ;  not 
exactly.  I  might  come  pretty  near  it.  I  only  know  that 
It  is  probably  the  first  half  of  January. 

Q.  Now  what  occurred  intermediate  the  time  when  you 
met  him  In  the  cars  and  the  writing  of  this  letter  of  Feb- 
ruary 5  in  regard  to  this  difficulty!  A.  There  occurred 
{sotto  ijocc]— January— there  occurred  a  good  deal  of  con- 
versation between  Mr.  Moulton  and  myself;  and,  if  I 
recollect  right,  there  occurred  the  letter  of  Mrs.  Tilton, 
before  they  left  for  the  West,  speaking  of  his  hardness  of 
feeling;  and  there  occurred  also — I  cannot  say  that  I 
recollect  now  that  there  occurred  any  interview  with 
himself  except  this  one;  there  may  have  done;  but 
T  was  put  in  imssossion  of  the  facts  through  Mr.  Monltou. 
and  through  tJiis  intimaTifT.  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  I  don't  know 
whether  I  saw  ^rrs  Tilton  or  not.  I  cannot  recall  nil  the 
circumstances,  bixt  I  was  in  iiossession  of  the  knowledge 
that  he  felt  very  greatly  dissatisfied,  and  that  he  was  say- 
ing that  the  difficulties  into  which  he  had  found  himself 
entangled  subsequently  to  his  publication  of  the  life  of 
Woodhull,  and  the  Steinway  Hall  meeting— the  pressure 
of  those  difficulties  he  was  attributing  to  me,  and  saying 
that  my  church  was  using  Its  great  influence  as  against 
him,  and  that  I  was  tolerating  my  friends  in  Injurious  rep- 
resentations of  him,  and  that,  while  he  had  been  the  injured 
man  and  T  the  Injurer,  I  was  allowing  people  to  think  that 
he  was  the  injurer  and  I  the  magnanimous  man  that 
boi-e  It. 

Q.  Had  the  scandal  then  in  any  way  permeated  the 


RY   WABD   BE  EC  HER,  91 

church  !  A.  The  scandal— I  don't  know  to  what  extent  11 
was  suspected,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  it  permeated  the  church  at  !  A.  I  cannot 
answer  that.  Sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  think  at  the  time  in  regard  to  thatt 
A.  I  don't  know  that  that— I  held  myself  so  aloof  that  I 
was  the  poorest  one  to  know  in  regard  to  that. 

Q.  Did  you  hold  yourself  aloof  purposely  1  A.  I  did;  I 
didn't  allow  myself  to  speak  of  it,  nor  allow  others  to 
speak  to  me,  for  the  most  part. 

Q.  You  didn't  mean  to  learn,  then,  if  the  scandal  were 
afloat  in  the  church !  A.  I  meant  to  maintain  absolute 
silence,  as  I  had  promised  to  do. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  regard  the  other  as  keeping  that  con- 
tract?  A.  The  other  side  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  did,  and  I  didn't. 

Q.  Well,  then,  you  didn't!  A.  Oh,  both. 

Q.  Well,  you  didn't ;  that  is,  one  part  of  it  1  A.  Yet, 
but  I  did,  too.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  Very  well ;  were  you  in  a  divided  judgment  about 
it!   A.  I  will  make  the  statement  exactly  

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Rogers,  you  will  remove  from  the 
court-room  any  person  that  interrupts  the  proceeding!, 
no  matter  who  it  is ;  I  won't  have  these  interruptions. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Except  the  counsel,  if  your  Honor 
please. 

Judge  Neilson— Except  the  counsel ;  yes.  Sir. 
Mr.  Beecher— And  the  witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Why  didn't  you  take  occasion,  then,  in 
this  new  phase  of  that  business,  to  consult  some  person 
other  than  the  friend  of  Mr,  Tilton  in  regard  to  it !  A.  I 
was  satisfied  with  the  consultation  that  I  had. 

Q.  You  still  had  confidence  in  him.  A.  Unbounded. 

Q.  Well,  if  you  had  been  guilty  of  no  improper  ad- 
vances, and  regarded  yourself  as  amenable  only  to  the 
charge  of  winning  this  woman's  affections,  which  was 
unconsciously  done,  why  didn't  you  make  a  statement  of 
that  fact,  so  as  to  satisfy  the  public  In  regard  to  this  mat- 
ter! A.  That  is  the  very  thing  Mr.  Moulton  insisted  on 
ought  not  to  be  done ;  that  it  could  not  be  touched  at  all 
without  opening  and  going  Into  an  investigation,  which 
he  thought  would  be  Injurious  all  round.  I  thought  It 
would  be  to  me,  and  he  thought  it  would  be  to  the  family 
interest. 

Q.  And  didn't  Mr.  Moulton,  at  that  time,  regard  the 
charges  against  you  as  of  a  more  serious  character  than 
improper  solicitations  !  A.  No,  I  don't  think  he  did,  Sip. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  he  didn't !  A.  Why,  I  don't  kno-w 
what  was  in  him,  but  he  never  made  any  manifestation 
to  me  of  It. 

Q.  Never  spoke  to  you  about  any  charge  more  serioua 
than  Improper  solicitations  !  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  didn't  speak 
to  me  even  of  that. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  suppose  Moulton  believed  in  re- 
gard to  this  scandal  at  that  time !  A.  Well,  I  believed 
that  Moulton  thought  there  had  been  difficulty,  and  tbat 


92 


TEE   TlLlOl^-BMErjEEB  TRIAL, 


— at  different  times,  I  thouglit  he  had  different  notions  in 
Ills  head  about  it,  but  I  never  aslied  him,  and  he  never 
told  me,  unasked,  and  it  was  merely  therefore  passing 
thoughts  in  my  mind. 

Q.  WeU,  pray,  why  didn't  you  learn  from  this  man 
what  his  conclusions  were  in  regard  to  this  difSculty  %  A. 
I  learned  them  enough  for  all  purposes  that  I  had  in 
view. 

Q.  WeU,  didn't  you  wish  to  vindicate  yourself  in  Ms 
opinion  if  you  came  to  the  conclusion  or  learned  that 
he         A.  I  had  vindicated  myself. 

Q.  One  moment — ^had  vindicated  ?  A.  I  was  an  inmate 
of  his  family,  his  personal  friend ;  he  admitted  me  to  his 
wife's  eonfldence  and  to  her  chamber ;  I  didn't  want  any- 
thing better  than  that. 

Q.  No,  even  though  he  believed  you  to  be  guilty  of  im- 
proper advances  1  A.  He  couldn't  believe  such  a  thing 
of  me. 

Q.  You  simply  infer  that  he  didn't  believe  it  from  his 
conduct  ?  A.  His  whole  conduct  was  that  of  a  man  who 
believed  me  to  be  iunocent. 

Q.  And  in  this  close  intimacy  between  you  and  Mr. 
Moulton,  resulting  in  almost  daily  conferences,  you  never 
asked  him  the  question  whether  he  believed  you  to  be 
guilty  ?  A.  Never  certainly  did. 

Q.  You  never  sought  to  find  out  1  A.  I  know  that. 

Q.  All  inference  ?  A.  That  is  all  you  could  find  out  by 
words— it  is  all  inference. 

Q.  V/ell,  I  am  trying  to  find  out  something  else.  A.  And 
not  succeeding  very  well. 

Q.  Not  very  well ;  no,  but  it  is  not  my  fault. 

THE  "RAGGED  EDGE" LETTER. 
Q.  Now  in  tMs  letter  of  February  5,  you 

state  as  follows : 

To  say  that  I  have  a  church  on  my  hands  is  simple 
enotigh— but  to  have  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  men 
pressing  me,  each  one  with  his  keen  suspicion,  or  anxiety, 
or  zeal ;  to  see  tendencies  which,  if  not  stopped,  would 
break  out  into  ruinous  defense  of  me;  to  stop 
them  without  seeming  to  do  it ;  to  pre- 
vent any  one  questioning  me;  to  meet  and 
allay  preiudioes  against  T.  which  had  their  begin- 
ning years  before  this ;  to  keep  serene,  as  if  I  was  not 
alarmed  or  disturbed ;  to  be  cheerful  at  home  and  among 
friends  when  I  was  suffering  the  torments  of  the  damned ; 
to  pass  sleepless  nights  often,  and  yet  to  come  up  fresh 
and  full  for  Sunday ;— aU  this  may  be  talked  about,  but 
the  real  thing  cannot  be  understood  from  the  outside,  nor 
its  wearing  and  grinding  on  the  nervous  system. 

Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  let  me  ask  you  what  was  the  keen 
suspicion  that  you  apprehended  each  one  of  these  per- 
sons might  indulge  ?  A.  Will  you  allow  me.  Sir,  a  copy 
of  it  1  You,  perhaps,  want  to  use  that.  Mr.  Shearman 
will  furnish  me  one.  I  can  get  one  in  my  satchel. 
[Searching  among  papers.)  Let  us  see ;  that  was  a  letter 
of  1872,  if  I  recoUect. 

Q.  Feb.  5, 1872  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Porter— Paragraph  about  the  middle. 


The  Witness— I  know  where  it  is.  Sir ;  I  am  reading  It. 
I  didn't  say  each  one  with  his  keen  suspicion,  as  if  each 
one  of  all  the  hundreds  had  the  keen  suspicion. 

By  Mr.  FuUerton— Mr.  Beecher,  you  need  not  explain 
that  1  A.  I  understood  that  to  be  your  question. 

Q.  What  you  said ;  oh,  no .  A.  No  ;  but  that  

Q.  I  asked  you  what  you  apprehended  was  the  keen 
suspicion  that  was  indulged  in  as  therein  stated.  A.  I 
beg  pardon,  I  thought  the  point  of  your  question  was  to 
find  out  about  the  keen  suspici'^n  which  each  one  of  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  of  men— [leadingl- 

To  have  the  huudieds  and  thousands  of  men  pressing 
me,  each  one  with  his  keen  suspicion. 

Q.  AVell,  what  was  the  keen  suspicion  1  A.  The  sus- 
picion that  some  of  them  had— of  these  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  men. 

Q.  Suspicion  of  what  ?  A.  Suspicion  of  my  moral  oonr 
duct  and  character. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  Well,  didn't  you  want  to  clear  up  that 
suspicion  ?  A.  I  wanted  to  have  it  cured,  unquestionably, 

Q.  Did  you  expect  to  cure  it  by  silence  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  yet  innocent  and  able  to  vindicate  yourself  t 
A.  Perfectly  innocent,  and  if  worst  came  to  worst,  I 
should  vindicate  myself. 

Q.  What  could  be  worse  than  a  keen  suspicion  running 
through  your  large  congregation?  A.  My  life  could — 
cotdd  kill  that,  if  I  was,  Sir,  to  go  right  on. 

Q.  Then,  by  silence,  and  going  right  on,  you  meant  to 
leave  this  keen  suspicion  afloat  through  the  whole  con- 
gregation ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  meant  to  make  it  die. 

Q.  Not  by  contradicting  these  stories  1  A.  Not  by  run- 
ning  after  stories. 

Q.  Not  by  telling  the  truth,  as  you  assert  1  A.  By  not 
telling  a  lie,  but  at  the  same  time  not  speaking  the  truth 
respecting  these  things. 

Q,  I  read  still  further  [Readingl : 

If  my  destruction  would  place  him  all  right,  that  shall 
not  stand  in  the  way.  I  am  willing  to  step  down  and  out. 
No  one  can  offer  more  than  that.  That  I  do  offer.  Sacri- 
fice me  without  hesitation  if  you  can  clearly  see  your 
way  to  his  safety  and  happiness  thereby. 

A.  **  His  happiness  and  safety  thereby." 

Q.  Well,  it  is  transposed  1  A.  Simply  transposed. 

Q.  That  is  the  way,  then,  you  expected  to  get  rid  of 
this  keen  suspicion  that  was  afloat  in  your  chiirch,  by 
stepping  down  and  out,  was  it  1   A.  No. 

Q.  You  were  willing  to  be  sacrificed,  were  you.  If  they 
could  see  thereby  the  safety  and  happiness  of  Mr.  Tilton  t 
A.  This  is  all  conditional— that  "  if  "  at  the  beginning. 

Q.  Well :  "  If  my  destruction  would  place  him  all  right, 
that  shall  not  stand  in  the  way  i"  A.  If  it  should ;  I  state 
it  and  then  answer  it. 

Q.  Yes ;  you  were  wiUtng,  then,  to  be  destroyed,  were 
youl  A.  That  was  the  feeling  that  I  had,  extravagantly 
expressed,  I  will  admit,  but  it  was  the  feeling. 

Q.  Yes;  and  was  willing  to  be  destroyed  rather  than 
meet  these  keen  saspicions  afloat  in  your  congregation  I 


TESTIMONY  OF  HEmiT   WAED  BEBCEEB. 


93 


Not  at  all;  tliQse  keen  auspicions  afloat  in  my  con^e- 
gation  respected  the  rumor  aet  on  foot  by  Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  By  Mr.  Bowen  1   A.  By  Mr.  Bowen,  principally. 

Q.  Oh,  then  it  had  no  reference  to  the  Tilton  matter! 
A.  It  might  have  drawn  that  in,  hut  that  waa  the  princi- 
pal trouble. 

Q.  The  principal  trouble  was  with  regard  to  Bowen  f 
A.  Mr.  Bowen's  rumors,  which  had  been  propagated  by 
Mr.  TUton. 

Q,  Yes;  it  had  no  connection,  then,  with  the  slander  or 
the  scandal?  A.  It  might  draw  that  in;  that  was  the 
danger,  that  it  would  do  it. 

Q.  Didn't  you  refer  to  it  here!  A.  I  don't  think  that  I 
had  that  in  my  mind. 

Q.  Oh,  not  at  all,  eh !  A.  I  don't  think  that  I  had  that  in 
my  mind.  Sir. 

Q,  Well,  "  Sacrifice  me,"  you  say,  "  without  hesitation 
If  you  can  clearly  see  your  way  to  his  safety  and  happi- 
ness thereby."  Was  that  Mr.  Bowen's  happiness  or  Mr. 
Tilton's?  A.  No ;  any  action  that  would  bring  the  whole 
matter  before  the  church  would  bring  out  aU  that  which 
we  had  kept  secret. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  think  you  had  to  do  before  the 
church,  except  to  tell  what  you  have  told  here  to  vindi- 
cate yourself  t  A.  I  thought,  8ir,  that  I  should  have  to 
meet  a  divided  church,  with  a  party  on  the  side  of  Mr. 
Bowen,  with  a  large  party  of  young  men  on  the  side  of 
Mr.  TUton,  and  with  a  large  class  in  the  church  that  are 
always  very  sensitive  to — or  of  the  congregation,  very 
sensitive  to  any  ill-rumors  that  relate  to  a  minister  who 
is  in  charge  of  them.  I  supposed  that  if  it  came  out  into 
the  church  it  would  go  through  the  re^ar  form  of  church 
trial.  I  thou^t  that  there  was  no  tribunal  on  earth  so 
unflt  to  Investigate  the  charges  that  then  would  come 
out,  with  statements  that  would  come  out,  as  a  Congrega- 
tional Church,  and  I  believed  at  that  time  and  for  a  long 
time  that  there  would  be  a  conflagration  that  would 
destroy  the  church,  and  me  too. 

Q.  You  preferred,  then,  as  I  understand  yon,  to  be  the 
subject  of  keen  suspicion  rather  than  to  defend  yourself 
before  the  church  !  A.  I  thought,  not  that  in  the  form  of 
a  deliberate  calculation,  but  I  thought  that  when  the 
Charge  was  made  aerains^  me  that  that  ereat  church  was 
my  smuggling  place,  and  that  I  permitted  out  of  that 
church  injurious  statements  and  criticisms  upon  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  that  I  was  not  careful  about  them,  and  I  did 
not  care  about  him  so  I  was  safe  ;  I  declared,  if  it  would— 
so  far  from  being  indlfl'erent— if  it  would  clear  him  and 
restore  him  to  his  happiness  again  in  his  family  and  in 
his  business,  I  would  be  wUiing  to  be  saoriflced.  The 
charge  was  that  I  was  saving  myself. 

Q.  Now,  answer  my  question;  just  answer  my  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Beecher.  You  were  willing  to  be  sacrificed, 
and  rest  under  those  suspicions  rather  than  defend  your- 
self before  the  church,  were  you!  A.  That  was  not  the 
point  of  sacrifice.   The  point  of  sacrifice  was  that  I  was 


using  that  church  to  save  myself  by  it,  and  sacrlflce  Mr. 

Tilton. 

Q.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  the  question,  Mr.  Beecher, 

at  all, 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is. 

Mr.  FuUerton— No,  it  is  not.  What  did  you  mean  by 
the  expression  that  yeu  were  willing  to  step  down  and 
out?— resign  your  pastorate ! 

Mr.  Evarts— Is  his  answer  to  be  taken  or  not! 

The  Witness— The  whole  passage  has  but  the  one 
meaning. 

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment,  Mr.  Beecher. 
The  Witness— I  was  willing  

Q.  One  moment;  what  did  you  mean  by  the  words  "I 
am  willing  to  step  down  and  out !"  Did  you  mean  that 
you  would  resign  yonr  pastorate!  A.  Yes,  Sir,  condition!' 
aUy. 

Q.  And  at  that  time,  Mr.  Beecher,  the  only  offense  that 
you  regarded  yourself  as  having  committed,  if  offense  It 
was,  was  that  you  had,  unconsciously  to  yourself,  won 
this  woman's  affections !  A.  No,  Sir ;  that  was  not  the 
way  it  presented  itself  to  my  mind.  By  unconsciously 
winning  her  affection  I  had  destroyed  her  and  the  honse- 
hold  and  the  man  that  was  at  the  head  of  it,  and  I  looked 
at  it  in  its  whole. 

Q.  You  say : 

I  am  weU-nigh  discouraged.  If  yon  too  cease  to  trust 
me— to  love  me— I  am  alone.  I  have  not  another  person 
in  the  world  to  whom  I  could  go. 

Why  could  not  you  go  to  some  relative,  or  some  friend, 
or  some  member  of  the  congregation,  and  explain  all  this 
thing!  A.  I  could  on  the  conditions  that  it  was  to  be 
exposed  to  the  public,  but  if  it  was  not  to  be,  I  could 
not ;  maintaining  my  honor  and  pledge  of  keeping  this 
silent  and  not  speaking  of  it,  I  had  no  one  else  to  go  to 
but  him,  and  I  did  go  to  no  one  but  him. 

Q.  Could  not  you  trust  any  member  of  yonr  congrega- 
tion? A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Not  one !  A.  Not  one,  in  the  condition  of  thiiigB. 

THE  READING  OF  THE  "  TEUE  STORY." 

Q.  Well,  It  is  well  to  know  that.  Now,  Mr. 
Beecher,  when  were  you  called  upon  to  hear  the  "  True 
Story"  read !  A.  I  cannot  give  you  the  precise  date.  Sir ; 
it  was  somewhere,  I  take  it,  in  November,  the  last,  or 
December,  the  first,  or  somewhere  near  that— in  that 
neighborhood— of  1872. 

Q.  It  was  after  the  publication  of  the  WoodhuU  scandal, 
wasn't  it!  A.  It  was.  Sir. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  when  that  story  waa 
read  to  you,  or  that  part  which  was  read  to  you,  that  he 
asked  you  whether  you  would  be  able  to  stand — ^if  a  par* 

ticular  passage  which  he  would  read  to  you         A.  No, 

he  did  not ;  I  did  not  say  so. 

Q.  WeU,  what  did  you  say  upon  that  subject  f  A.  I  said 
that  he  said  before  he  began  to  read  it  that  tf  I  conld 


94 


IBE   limOJS-BEEOHER  lELAL. 


stand  one  eentenoe  in  it  I  oonld  stand  tlie  wliole  ;  and 
then,  when  lie  went  on  and  read  it  and  came  to  that  sen- 
tence, he  told  me  that  that  was  the  sentence ;  and  I 
thought  myseK  I  oould  stand  the  whole  If  I  oould  stand 
that.  [Laughter.] 
Judge  Nellson— Silence  I 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes ;  I  read  from  your  direot  examina- 
tion • 

Mr.  Tilton  began,  sitting  on  the  sofa,  to  fix  Ms  papers, 
and  opened  the  matter  to  me  by  saying  that  there  was  one 
single  sentence  that  if  I  could  stand,  he  thought  I  would 
be  able  to  stand  the  whole  document ;  and  then  he  com- 
menced reading.  He  did  not  read  the  sentence  ;  he  be- 
gan reading  what  was  called  afterward  the  "True  Story," 
and  read  on  until  he  came  to  that  passage  in  which  I  was 
charged  with  asking  Mrs.  Tilton  to  be  a  wife  to  me  with 
all  that  is  implied  in  that  term  ;  and  he  looked  up  and 
said  :  "  That  is  the  sentence  that  if  you  can  stand 
the  rest  of  the  document  won't  hurt  you." 
I  made  no  reply.  I  was  lying  on  the 
bed  I  think.  He  went  on  reading,  I  getting  madder  and 
madder ;  and  when  he  had  finished  I  got  up  and  began  to 
walk  around  the  room;  and  I  said  nothing;  but,  finally,  I 
think  he  or  Mr.  Moulton  asked  me  what  I  had  to  say. 

Q.  Is  that  a  true  narration  of  what  occurred  there?  A. 
That  is  substantially  true,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Beecher,  how  did  it  happen  that  you  did  not 
rise  instantly  when  that  charge  was  made  against  you 
and  deny  it,  if  it  were  untrue?  A.  Mr.  Fullerton,  that  is 
not  my  habit  of  mind,  nor  my  method  of  dealing  with 
people  or  things. 

Q.  So  I  observe.  We  wlU  pass  on  then.  [Laughter.] 
Did  you  understand  that  that  was  for  publication  1  A.  I 
do  not  recollect  that  there  was  anything  definite  said 
about  that.  I  understood  either  for  publication  or  for 
showing;  I  do  not  think  there  was  anything  determinate 
said  on  the  subject. 

THE  PEOPOSITION  TO  PUBLISH  THE  "LET- 
TER OF  APOLOGY." 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  time  when  there  was 
a  threat  or  a  proposition  to  publish  the  "Letter  of 
Apology,"  so  called  ?  A.  May  31. 

Q.  That  was  the  date,  was  it  ?  A.  About  that,  Sir ;  or  in 
that  vicinity ;  I  am  not  

Q.  From  whom  did  you  learn  that  it  was  intended  to 
publish  that?  A.  I  cannot  recall  from  whom. 

Q.  That  was  after  the  publication  of  the  Tripartite 
Agreement,  wasn't  it?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  who  made  known  to  you  the  fact 
that  there  was  an  interest  to  publish  that  ?  A.  I  do  not 
now  recall,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  with  whom  did  you  converse  upon  that  sub- 
ject? A.  I  conversed  with  Mr.  Moulton  in  chief. 

Q.  Where  did  you  hold  the  conversation  ?  A.  At  his 
house. 

Q.  Did  you  then  imderstaaid  what  the  "Letter  of 
Apology"  contained?  A.  I  understood  that  it  con- 
tained  


Q.  Did  you  understand  what  it  contained!  A.  No;  I 
did  not  understand  it  in  the  full  sense. 

Q.  Who  made  use  of  the  term  "Letter  of  Apology*'  in 
that  conversation  ?  A.  I  do  not  know,  Sir. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  suggest  in  regard  to  it?  A.  I  do 
not  know  that  I  had  any  suggestion  made  in  regard  to 
that. 

Q.  Didn't  you  suggest  that  Mr.  Moulton  should  go  to 
see  Mr.  KinseUa  ?  A.  Ah ;  but  that  was  a  suggestion  ia 
regard  to  a  line  of  conduct ;  I  thought  your  cLuestion  re- 
lated to  the  letter  itself;  I  misunderstood  yon,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  steps  to  prevent  the  publication  of 
that  "  Letter  of  Apology  ?"  A.  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  suggest  in  regard  to  it  ?  A.  From 
what  had  been  told  me— the  card  was  never  read  to  me, 
but  from  what  

Q.  One  moment,  please.  What  steps  did  you  take  to 
prevent  its  publication?  A.  I  said  to  Mr.  Motdton  sub- 
stantially this :  "  That  if  that  is  published,  that  is  the  end 
of  things,  and  there  will  be  an  explosion.  If  you  don't 
want  that,  then  that  must  not  be  published ;"  and  he 
thought  that  he  could— he  told  me  that  he  could  hold  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  prevent  the  publication  of  it.  I  dotibted  it, 
and  I  said  to  him :  "  If  you  trust  to  Mr.  Tilton  he  wUI 
cheat  yon,"  or  words  to  that  effect ;  and  he  thought  not ; 
he  thought  he  had  got  a  hold  upon  him,  that  he  oould 
control  him.  I  said,  "No."  "  He  won't  publish  it  to-day 
anyhow."  Said  I:  "  You  better  make  that  thing  sure  "— 
words  to  that  effect—"  and  you  had  better  go  down  and 
see  Mr.  Kinsella,  and  see  that  he  don't  publish  until  yon 
have  had  time  to  turn  yomself  round  and  use  youi-  in- 
fluence." 

Q.  Then  it  had  been  made  known  to  you  at  that  period, 
had  it,  that  the  publication  was  to  be  in  The  Brooklyn 
Eagle,  Mr.  Kinsella's  paper  ?  A.  I  understood  it  was  to 
be,  from  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  the  card  that  it  was  proposed  to  pnb- 
Ush?   A.  I  had  not.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  it  was  then?  A.  I  don't  know 
where  that  was. 

Q.  Who  told  you  what  the  card  would  probably  con- 
tain ?  A.  I  have  said  already  I  did  not  know  who  first.  I 
had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Moulton  on  that  morning  in 
respect  to  it. 

Q.  I  tmderstand  you  to  say  you  also  at  that  time  made 
known  the  fact  that  if  that  card  was  published  you  would 
resign  your  pastorate  ?  A.  I  did  not  in  tliat  morning's 
statement,  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  During  that  day  ?  A.  During  that  evening  I— after 
Mr.  Moulton  went  down  to  Mr.  Kinsolla's,  I  drew  up  that 
card  upon  reflection— or  rather  that  declinative  of  further 
pastorate,  and  put  it  in  my  pocket,  and  at  evening  when 
I  went  down  to  Mr.  Moulton's  house.  I  then  showed  it 
to  hlnu 


TEsmwyY  OF  EEy 

ME.  BEECHEE'S  LETTER    DECLINING  HIS 
PASTOKATE. 

Q,  Now,  wiU  yoTi  be  kind  enough  to  produce 
that  resignation  ?  A.  I  cannot,  Sir. 

Q.  Haven't  yon  got  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  "WTien  did  you  last  see  it !  A.  I  don'treoollect  seeing 
it  since  tlie  evening  that  I  showed  it  to  Mm. 

Q.  Then,  how  are  yon  enabled  to  remember  its  contents 
•o  as  to  correct  the  copy  that  Mr.  Moulton  gave  nsl  A. 
WeU,  it  is  only  by  the  knowledge  of  precisely  what  I  had 
In  my  mind  at  that  time. 

Q.  Yon  recollect  of  writing  a  statement  for  the  Com- 
mittee of  Investigation,  don't  youl  A.  Do  you  refer  to 
the  first  statement,  Sir,  the  15th  of  July  statement  ? 

Q.  Yes.   A.  I  do,  Sir. 

Q.  Hadn't  you  that  resignation  before  you  then  %  A 
Not  that  I  recoUect,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  have  you  no  recollection  upon  the  subject  1  A. 
No,  Sir ;  I  don't  thlnli:  I  had,  but  I  have  no  recollection 
•which  would  authorize  me  to  be  positive. 

Q.  Well,  refer  to  the  other  statement— the  long  state- 
ment that  you  made  before  the  Committee.   A.  Yea,  Sir. 

Q.  Hadn't  you  it  then?  A.  Xo,  Sir,  I  had  not;  not 
within  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Well,  let  me  read  to  you.    [Reading] : 

I  wrote  a  letter  of  resignation,  not  referring  to  charges 
against  me,  but  declai'ing  that  I  had  striven  for  years  to 
maintain  secrecy  concerning  a  scandal  afLeciing  a  family 
in  the  church,  and  that,  as  I  lia:l  failed,  I  herewith  re- 
eigned.  The  letter  was  never  signed.  A  little  calmer 
thought  showed  me  how  futile  it  would  be  to  stop  the 
trouble — a  mere  useless  sell-sacrifice — buc  I  showed  it  to 
Mj\  Moulton  and  possibly  he  copied  it.  I  have  foimd  the 
original  of  it  in  my  house. 

A.  Evidently,  then,  I  had  it,  but  I  had  forgotten  that  I 
had  it ;  but  it  passed  out  of  my  hands,  and  I  never  have 
seen  it  from  that  day  to  this,  although  I  have  made  a 
thorough  search  for  every  paper  that  bears  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

Q.  Well,  you  didn't  give  Mr.  Moulton  the  original,  did 
you  1  A.  My  impression  is  that  I  did  not,  Sir;  I  put  it  in 
my  pocket  again. 

Q.  Well,  you  say  here  in  1874 1  A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  the  month  of  August,  I  think?  A.  In  the  month 
of  August  that  was  published ;  yes. 

Q.  [Reading.]  "I  have  found  the  original  of  it  in  my 
house."  Do  you  remember  when  yon  found  it!  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  fact  that  you  had  it  1  A.  I  do 
not  remember  to  have  seen  it  at  that  time.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  the  fact  that  you  had  it?  A.  No,  I 
don't ;  I  should  have  said — except  by  being  refreshed— I 
should  have  said  that  I  never  had  seen  it  nor  knew  of  it, 
from  the  evening  in  which  I  first  read  it  to  Mr.  Moulton ; 
that  was  my  memory,  but  by  that  statement  it  is  evident 
that  it  was  among  my  pai)er8. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  looked  for  it  lately?  A  Not  very 


'Y   WARD   BE  EG  EE  B.  95 

lately  T  haven't,  Sir,  heeause  I  to. kit  for  granted  it  waa 
a  thing  gone  forever. 

This  wa*  on  Saturday  evening,  was  It  1  A.  BatiLr> 

day  evening,  Slst  of  May. 

INTERVIEW  WITH  MRS.  MOULTON. 
Q.  Did  yon  see  Mrs.  Moulton  on  Saturday  t 

A.  I  sa^  her  Saturday  morning.  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  her  ?  A.  At  her  own  house.  Sir. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  house  ?  A  In  her  chamber. 

Q.  How  long  an  interview  did  you  have  with  her  1  A. 
15  or  20  minutes. 

Q.  Think  it  was  not  longer  than  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  in  great  distress  of  mind  at  that  time  ?  A. 
I  was  in  great  indignation  of  mind. 

Q.  Manifest  that  indignation  1  A.  Well,  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  By  words  and  conduct  ]  A.  Both,  as  I  recoUect  it. 
Sir ;  I  walked  up  and  down,  a  Uttle  storm  

Q.  Yes  ?  A.  I  denounced  Mr.  TUton. 

Q.  Say  anything  about  your  stifferings  of  the 
past  year  ?  A.  I  said  that  I  had  gone  through 
enough  in  attempting  to  keep  this  matter  quiet, 
and  that  it  was  treachery  on  his  part ;  he  wa«  insisting 
all  the  time  one  way  or  another  in  attempting  to  bring  it 
out.  I  told  Mrs.  Moulton  that  my  beUef  waa  that  Theo- 
dore TUton  wanted  to  have  the  credit  of  being  a  hero,  and 
that  he  wanted  somebody  to  get  out,  before  the  pubUo, 
the  trouble  in  his  f  amUv,  that  he  might  appear  to  have 
kept  it  secret  aU  the  time  and  been  suffering  under  it,  and 
that  it  was  that  sneaking  business  that  I  could  not  stand 
any  longer;  that  I  beUeved  him  to  he  treacherous  and 
rotten  to  the  root,  and  afterward  I  was  very  much  blamed 
by  Mr.  Moulton  for  it. 

THE  SOFA  AND  KISSING  SCENES. 
Q.  One  moment,  I  haven't  got  to  that.  Did 

you  Ue  down  upon  the  sofa  that  morning  1  A.  No,  Sir,  I 
did  not  Ue  down  on  anything  that  morning ;  I  bore  down 
on  Mr.  TUton. 

Q.  Well,  that  will  only  provoke  repUes,  Mr.  Beecher ;  so 
you  had  not  better  make  use  of  such  observations  as 
those.  At  any  time  when  you  were  in  the  presence  ol 
Mi's.  Moulton  did  you  lie  down  on  the  sofa  ?  A.  In  that 
interview  ? 

Q.  At  any  time  when  in  the  presence  of  Mrs.  Moulton  f 
A.  Oh !  yes.  Sir. 
Q.  At  any  time  did  she  cover  you  up  with  an  afghant 

A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  was  that?   A.  A  good  many  times. 

Q.  A  good  :^iany  times  ?  A.  Oh,  yes,  at  least  a  dozen, 
I  think ;  I  wiU  not  make  it  precise,  but  it  was  not  an  im- 
common  thing,  when  I  went  there  and  was  waiting  for 
Mr.  Moulton,  for  me  to  Ue  down  on  the  afghan  

Mr.  Beach  [Interrupting]— You  mean  the  sofa. 

The  Witness  [Continuing]- And  I  would  sometimes 
take  a  newspaper  or  something  and  throw  it  over  my 


06 


^©ct— for,  If  70U  will  allow  me  to  say  it,  sinoe  I  have  l>een 
ftflaicted  with  hay  fever  I  never  ean  lie  down  on  a  sofa 
without  my  feet  becoming  cold  and  bringing  on  a  fit  of 
sneezing,  and  so  I  always  put  some  covering  over  me, 
and  she  very  soon  saw  it,  and  it  used  to  be  quite  common 
for  her  to  throw  a  little  shawl  or  something  over  my  feet. 

Q.  On  how  many  occasions  do  you  suppose  that  oc- 
curred 1  A.  Well,  I  don't  suppose  that  there  was,  of  the 
times  that  I  was  there,  when  I  was  familiar  and  visiting 
there— I  don't  believe  there  was  a  month  when  she  did 
not  do  me  some  kindness  of  that  kind. 

Q.  When  Mr.  Moulton  was  absent  you  waited  for  him, 
did  you  ?   A.  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  When  was  it  that  Mrs.  Moulton  gave  you  this  "  kiss 
of  inspiration,"  as  yon  term  it?  A.  It  was  Saturday 
night,  the  Slst  of  May. 

Q.  Where  were  you  then  I  A.  In  Mr.  Moulton's  study. 

Q.  Did  you  lie  down  on  the  sofa  theni  A.  No,  Sir;  I 
was  sitting  at  the  table. 

Q.  At  the  time?  A.  At  the  time. 

Q.  But  were  you  at  any  time  during  that  evening  lying 
upon  the  sofa?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  have  a  distinct  recollection  of  that  1  A.  I  know 
I  was  not. 

Q.  Your  recollection  is  positive  upon  that  subject  1  A. 

It  is  very  positive.  Sir. 

Q.  You  ean  distinguish  between  that  visit  and  all  the 
other  visits  that  you  made  at  Mr.  Moulton's  1  A.  That 
visit  stamped  itself  very  Indelibly  on  my  mind  in  regard 
to  such  features  as  I  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  that  when  Mrs.  Moulton  was  on 
the  stand  she  was  asked  the  question  by  your  counsel 
whether  she  kissed  you  on  that  occasion  ?  A.  I  heard  but 
a  part,  myself,  of  her  testimony. 

Q.  How !  A.  I  heard  but  a  part  of  her  testimony. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  did  not  ask  her  whether  she  kissed  him 
on  that  occasion. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Or  any  other  occasion.  Do  you  remem- 
ber that  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  whether  I  did  or  not.  Sir  ; 
that  is  a  question  which  would  

Q.  Was  not  Mrs.  Moulton  asked  in  your  presence  in 
regard  to  kissing  you  ?  A.  I  cannot  now  say  whether  she 
was  asked  in  my  presence,  and  I  learned  it  from  hearing 
her,  or  whether  I  read  it  in  the  testimony,  and  learned 
it  so. 

Q.  Didn't  you  suggest  to  your  counsel  to  ask  her  that 
question  1   A.  It  may  be  that  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  did  or  noti  A.  I 
thmk  you  are  helping  my  memory. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  am  tryii,£?  to  do,  A.  O.  I  know,  Sir  ; 
you  and  I  together  will  get  i  c  out.  [Laughter.]  I  have 
an  impression  that  I  did  ask  my  counsel,  and,  therefore, 
that  I  must  have  heard  it. 

Q.  Didn't  you  write  it  on  a  slip  of  paper  and  hand  it  to 
himl  A.  I  won't  say  about  that;  whether  I  whispered  it 
or  wrote  it  on  a  slip  of  paper.  I  won't  afSrm ;  but  my  Im- 


lE^  TILTON-BEEOEBB  IBIAL. 

that  I  suggested  it,  and  therefore  I  most  liare 


presBion ; 
heard  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  use  this  expression  or  Its  equivalent  to 
Mrs.  Moulton,  that  she  seemed  to  you  like  "  a  section  of 
the  Day  of  Judgment  1"  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  heard  Mrs.  Moulton  use  that  phrase,  did 
you  not,  in  her  testimony  1  A.  I  am  just  in  the  same 
state  of  mind  about  that  that  I  was  in  about  the  other 
question;  whether  I  heard  her  or  not  does  not  at 
this  moment  occur  to  me ;  that  she  used  such  a  phrase 
I  either  knew  from  hearing  or  from  reading  the  testimony 
afterward. 

Q.  Didn't  you  use  some  such  expression  in  conversa- 
tion with  her?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  No  kindred  expression  f  A.  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  positively  that  you  did  not!  A. 
Well,  the  term  "  kindred  expression "  is  a  very  generio 
phrase,  and  I  cannot  tell  what  phrase  I  used  out  of 
which— out  of  which  her  imagination  may  have  framed 
that. 

Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  her  imagination.  I  am  talk- 
ing about  your  appreciation  of  the  terms.  A.  I  did  not 
use  any  such  phrase  as  that  she  was  a  "section  of  the  Day 
of  Judgment nor  do  I  recollect  that  I  used  any  phrase 
out  of  which  that  could  be  naturally  derived  or  made. 

Q.  Did  you  use  any  phrase  of  that  character  or  signifi- 
cation 1  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  wm  you  swear  that  you  did  not  ?  A.  I  will  swear 
that  I  made  use  of  no  phrase  that  would  justify  such  a 
statement  as  that. 

Q.  You  wUl  swear  positively  to  that!  A.  That  ia  my 
best  recollection,  Sii'. 

Q.  Is  that  all  you  mean  to  say,  that  that  Is  your  best 
recollection  ?  A.  I  mean  to  say  that  I  did  not  use  that 
phrase ;  and,  according  to  the  best  of  my  reooUeotion, 
nothing  of  that  kind. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again,  wiU  you  go  no  further  than  to  say 
that  you  don't  recollect  1  A.  I  will  say  that  I  did  not  say 
that  she  was  to  me  a  "  section  of  the  Day  of  Judgment." 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Beecher,you  are  quite  aware  that  that  was 
not  my  question  1  A.  No,  I  was  not;  I  thought  it  was. 

Q.  I  asked  you  whether  you  said  that,  or  something 
akin  to  it.  A.  Well,  I  said  that  I  did  not  say  that,  posi- 
tively ;  and  that  something  akin  to  it,  according  to  my 
best  recollection,  I  did  not  say,  either. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you  whether  you  will  go  beyond  your 
best  reeolleotion,  and  say  positively  that  you  did  not  f  A. 
In  regard  to  something  akin,  I  won't. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Very  well,  then,  I  bave  got  VL 
[Laughter.) 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HJE^i 

KO  REMARKS    ABOUT  A    CONFESSION  TO 
THE  CHUECBL 

Q.  Was  there  ever  anything  passed  between 
you  and  Jlrs.  Moulton  in  regard  to  a  confession  to  tlie 
oliarcli  i  A.  A  confession  on  my  part  f 

Q.  Yes.  A.  No,  Sir;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  anytMng  passed  between  you  and 
herin  reference  to  a  statement  ta  be  made  by  you  to 
the  cliuroli  i  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  no  suggestion  on  h.er  part  tbat  you  sbould 
make  a  statement  of  tMs  difficulty  to  tlie  dLureh,  so  as  to 
satisfy  your  people  ?  A  No,  Sir. 

Q.  That  was  never  the  subject  of  conversation  between 
you  and  her,  directly  nor  indirectly  1  A.  Neither  state- 
ment nor  confession. 

Q,  Nor  was  it  the  subject  of  conversation  1  A.  Not  the 
subject  of  conversation. 

Q.  In  the  course  of  the  examination  of  Mrs.  Moulton 
you  were  asked  by  your  counsel  whether  she  said  a  cer- 
tain thing  to  you,  and  your  reply  was  in  part,  "  Not  of 
her  own  accord."  A.  No,  Sir,  I  do  not ;  I  think,  Sir,  you 
have  made  a  mistake  in  your  designation  ;  you  say  in  the 
examination  of  Mrs.  Moulton,  and  I  think  you  have  made 
an  error. 

Q.  Perhaps  I  have ;  in  the  examination  of  yourself, 
then !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  were  asked  aa  to  whether  Mrs.  Moulton  did  not 
gay  a  certain  thing  to  you,  and  you  said,  in  substance, 
that  she  did  not,  or  she  "  never  did  of  her  own  accord;" 
do  you  recollect  the  circuin stance  1  A.  I  do,  Sii'. 

Q.  What  did  you  mean  by  the  words  "  not  of  her  own 
accord  1"  A.  Perhaps  I  meant  what  I  ought  not  to  have 
said  

Q.  Never  mind  that.  A.  [Continuing.]  But  this  is  what 
I  meant,  that  I  believed  that  Mrs.  Moulton  had  been 
made  to  make  that  statement  by  influence. 

Q.  Who  do  you  think  exerted  the  influence  upon  her? 
A.  I  think  that  Mr.  Moulton  did. 

Q.  And  when  do  you  think  he  did  it  ?  A  Ah !  I  don't 
know;  after  we  broke,  probably. 

Q.  In  the  Summer  of  1874?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  made  up  your  mind  as  to  what  par- 
ticular time  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  One  question  more  with  regard  to  the  resignation. 
Are  you  quite  sure  that  your  proposition  to  resign  was 
With  reference  to  the  publication  of  the  proposed  card, 
M  you  have  now  stated  it  t  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


THE  WEST  CHAEGES. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  stated  that  yon  proposed 
to  resign  in  reference  to  the  West  charges  t  A-  I  don't 
recollect.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  propose  to  resign  if  the  West  charges 
were  pressed  !  A.  I  don't  recollect.  Sir,  now. 


BY   WARD  BEECR-EE,  97 

Q.  Why,  cant  you  recall  to  mind  the  Important  fact 

whether  you  proposed  to  resign  your  pastorato  of  Plym- 
outh Chiu'ch  upon  any  occasion  ?  A  Yes,  Sir,  I  did,  on 

half  a  dozen. 

Q.  Connected  with  this  scandal?  A.  Connected  with, 
not  this  partictilar  one,  but  connected  with  the  antece- 
dents. 

Q.  Did  you  e-p-ar  write  any  proposed  resignation  other 

than  on  May  31, 1873  ?  A.  I  do  not  now  recall.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  propose  to  resign,  and  write  a  proposed 
resignation,  if  the  West  charges  were  pressed  ?  A.  I  can- 
not, without  some  refreshment  of  memory,  answer. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  willing  that  you  should  refresh  because  I 
desire  an  answer.  A.  I  have  no  opportunity  unless  you 
will  help  me,  Mr.  Fullerton. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  help  you.  I  read  as  follows  to  refresh 
yoiu:  memory.  Do  you  recollect,  speaking  of  the  West 
charges,  anything  of  this  kind:  [Reading:] 

I  felt  that  we  had  no  right  to  claim  him  [Tilton]  as  a 
member,  under  the  circumstances,  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
his  public  trial.  Zvlr.  Moulton  insisted  that  everything 
must  be  done  to  prevent  that  trial,  as  the  Examining 
Committee  was  litely  to  be  equally  divided,  whether  the 
facts  stistained  Mr.  Tilton's  plea,  whether  he  was  out  of 
the  church  or  not.  I  was  so  determined  to  carry  out  my 
pledge  to  Moulton  for  him,  and  do  aU  in  hirman  power  to 
save  him,  even  from  himself,  that  I  was  ready  to  resign 
if  that  would  stop  the  scandal.  I  wrote  a  letter  of  resig- 
nation, not  referring  to  charges  against  me,  but  declaring 
that  I  had  striven  for  years  to  maintain  secrecy  concern- 
ing a  scandal  affecting  a  family  in  the  church,  and  that, 
as  I  had  failed,  I  herewith  resigned. 

A.  That  evidently  refers  to  the  letter  of  May  31,  I 
should  say.  Sir. 
Q.  [Handing  book  to  witness. ,  Please  read  it  and  see 

whether  it  does  or  not?   A.  I  should  judge  so  by  internal 

evidence. 

Q.  You  wlLL  find  it  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  marked. 
Please  read  it.  A.  [Having  looked  at  the  book.]  This  is 
evidently  referring  to  that. 

Q.  Which  i  A.  The  letter  of  May  31— the  resignation 
of  May  31. 

Q.  It  does  not  refer  to  the  West  charges  ?  A.  The  West 
charges  had  originated  the  difficulties  which  brought 
about  this  decision.  It  did  not  refer  to  them  in  a  primary 
sense,  but  only  in  their  sequences.  The  West  charges 
brought  the  whole  church  more  or  less  into  a  state  of 
excitement,  and  the  state  of  things  in  the  church  was 
such  as  it  is  stated  there,  explicitly  ;  I  cannot  state  it  any 
better  than  it  is  stated  in  that  paragraph.  Sir. 

Q.  When  were  the  West  charges  made?  A.  The  West 
charges  were  made— he  movedflrst  in  the  Winter  of  1871, 
but  the  distinct  charges  were  made  in  the  Winter  of  1872 
and  ran  on— they  and  the  consequences  of  them  ran  on 
clear  to  the  Spring  of  1873. 

Q.  Yes  ?  A  And  he— yes,  they  ran  clear  into  the  Spring 
of  1873.  No,  let  me  think  a  moment. 

Mr.  Beach- Yes,  they  did. 


98 


IHE  TlLlOU'BEECaER  TRIAL, 


The  Witness— Mr.  West's  charges  1 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  they  were  pending  in  1873. 

The  "Witness— "What,  Sirl 

Mr.  Beach— They  were  pending  in  1873. 

The  Witness— Through  the  Winter  of  1873 1 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  '72  and  '73, 1  think. 

Mr.  Pullerton— Was  not  the  first  notification  of  Mr. 
West  that  he  was  going  to  press  these  charges  on  June 
27, 1873,  or  about  that  time?  A.  The  charges  that  were 
made,  that  were  formulated — there  was  notice  about  that 
time. 

Q.  Were  they  perfected  before  October,  18731  I  don't 
recollect. 

Mr.  Beach— Still  there  was  a  movement  by  West  in 
1871. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes.  [To  the  witness.]  Now  when  was 
this  resignation  that  you  speak  of  prepared  1  A.  This  one 
that  is  referred  to  there  evidently  refers  to  the  resigna- 
tion which  I  prepared  on  the  31st  of  May. 

Q.  What  year  1  A.  1873. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  not  write  a  letter  of  resignation  when 
the  West  charges  were  pressed?  A.  I  don't  recollect 
that  I  did,  Sir,  though  I  recollect  saying  that  in  certain 
contingencies  I  should  resign— saying  it  to  different  per- 
sons ;  but  I  don't  recollect  writing  any ;  I  may  have  done 
it,  may  have  drawn  up  something,  but  I  don't  recollect 
it,  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  see  the  West  charges  after  they  were  per- 
fected ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  from  no  one  what  they  were?  A.  No, 
Sir,  I  didn't  converse  about  them  particularly. 

Q.  Didn't  you  care  to  learn  what  the  charges  were?  A. 
I  was  not  particularly  careful,  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  imderstand  that  Mrs.  Bradshaw  was  to 
be  a  witness  to  prove  the  charges  against  Mr.  Tilton  1  A. 
I  don't  think  that  I  did,  except  so  far  as  her  letter  was 
concerned,  but  that  was  at  a  later  period,  if  I  recollect 
right. 

Q.  Look  at  that,  [Exhibit  47,J  and  say  If  you  recognize 
the  handwriting.  Do  you  recognize  that  paper?  A.  I 
recognize  the  handwriting;  it  is  mine. 

Q.  Yes.  I  read: 

The  Eagle  ought  to  have  nothing  to-night.  It  is  that 
meddling  which  stirs  up  our  folks.  Neither  you  nor  The- 
odore ought  to  be  troubled  by  the  side  which  you  served 
so  faithfully  in  public. 

The  Witness— Is  it  "  in  public,"  or  "  in  politics  ?" 
Mr.  Fullerton— In  public. 

The  Witness— WeU,  I  think  it  is  meant  for  "  politics," 
only  the  "  t "  is  not  crossed  ;  that  is  my  impression. 

Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  it  makes  no  difference  ;  I  make  no 
point  of  that. 

The  Witness— There  is  no  essential  difference. 

Mr.  Fullei-ton- [Reading.] 

The  deacons'  meeting  I  think  is  adjourned.  I  saw  BeU ; 
it  was  a  friendly  movement. 


Q.  What  deacons'  meeting  did  you  refer  to  there?  A.  I 
cannot  tell  you  what  it  was,  now. 

Q.  Was  it  not  a  deacons'  meeting  to  take  into  consider- 
ation the  West  charges  ?  A.  I  cannot  say.  I  suppose  it 
was,  but  I  don't  remember  this  conversation  with  Mr. 
Bell  about  matters,  except  that*  there  was  a  meeting  of 
the  deacons  in  respect  to  the  charges. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Bell  la  regard  to  it?  A.  No  doubt. 

Q.  Didn't  you  request  Bell  to  go  and  break  up  that 
deacons'  meeting  ?  A.  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  his  testimony  on  that  subject  ?  A.  Yea, 
Sir,  I  heard  it. 

Q.  Well,  don't  you  recoUect  that  what  he  stated  wa« 
true? 

Mr.  Evarts— Ah !  let  us  have  his  testimony. 

The  Witness— I  don't  remember  what  it  was.  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  you  stated  to  Mr.  Bell  tliat 
you  wanted  him  to  break  up  the  deacons'  meeting,  so  that 
the  West  charges  should  not  be  pressed  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Or  to  prevent  it. 

Q.  Or  to  prevent  it  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well  

Mr.  Fullerton- 1  have  a  right  to  put  the  question,  Sir. 
Q.  I  read  further :  [Reading.] 

The  only  next  near  danger  is  the  women,  Morrill,  Brad* 
shaw,  and  the  poor  dear  child. 

What  danger  did  you  apprehend  from  the  women!  A. 
Talking. 

Q.  About  what  ?  A.  About  me  and  the  church  and 
these  matters. 

Q.  Then  you  had  heard  that  Mrs.  Bradshaw  knew 
something  about  it?  A.  I  had  heard  that  Mrs.  Bradshaw 
was  talking, 

Q.  Didn't  you  hear  that  she  was  to  be  a  witness  in  the 
trial,  if  it  came  on,  against  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  I  don't  think 
I  did  at  the  time.  Sir. 

Q.  Hadn't  you  heard  such  a  story  as  that  ?  A.  I  may 
have,  but  I  don't  recall  it. 

Q.  I  read  to  you  now  the  third  specification  in  the 
West  charges,  with  a  view  of  asking  you  a  question: 
[Reading.  J 

Third :  At  an  interview  with  Mrs.  Andrew  Bradshaw, 
in  Thompson's  dining  saloon,  in  Clinton-st.,  on  or  about 
the  3d  of  August,  1870,  Theodore  Tilton  stated  that  he 
had  discovered  that  a  criminal  intimacy  existed  between 
his  wife  and  Mr.  Beecher.  Afterward,  in  November, 
1872,  referring  to  the  above  conversation,  Mr.  Tdton 
said  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw  that  he  etracted  none  of  the  ac- 
cusations which  he  fonnerly  made  against  Mr.  Beecher. 
Witness:  Mns.  M.  A.  Bradshaw. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  become  acquainted  with  that 
specification?  A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  You  have  not  become  acquainted  with  it  yet,  tUen  f 
A.  No,  Sir,  it  is  quite  a  stranger  to  me. 

Q.  And  is  yet  ?  A.  Is  yet.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  did  not  hear  me  read  tt  I  A* 

T  did  ;  but  I  am  not  acquainted  with  a  m  an  becauso  Thear 


TESTIMOXI   OF  EEXEY   WAED  BEECEEB. 


«9 


his  Liame.  nor  with  a  paragraph  because  I  lij^ve  heard  it 
read. 

Q  .  You  never  -were  made  acquainted  with  that  para- 
graph 1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  never  tnew  anything  ahout  that 
paragraph. 

Q.  Although  the  charges  were  made  by  a  member  of 
your  church,  affecting  yourself,  and  brought  before  a 
committee  of  your  church,  which  led,  as  you  say,  to  a 
good  deal  of  conversation  between  yourself  and  other 
members  of  the  church,  you  never  heard  what  that 
charge  was  1  A.  I  did  not  hear  that  specitication. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  that  charge  ?  A.  That  charge — no  ; 
that  was  an  after  addition. 

Q.  One  moment  if  you  please.  After  it  was  added  did 
you  bear  it.  My  question  covers  the  whole  ground.  Did 
you  not  hear  what  the  charge  was!  A.  No,  Sir;  I  did  not 
hear  it,  or  Imow  it. 

Q.  And  no  one  ever  intimated  to  you  that  such  a  charge 
was  in  existence  1  A.  Not  that  T  Imow. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  they  did  not?  A.  No,  I  will  8»y 
that  if  they  did,  it  made  no  lmpression  on  my  mind. 

Q.  A  i:baro:e  to  the  effect  that  Theodore  Tilton  had 
accused  you  of  sexual  intercoui'se  with  his  wife  

Mr.  Evarts— Xo,  no. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  criminal  Intimacy  with  his  wife — 
that  charge  would  malre  no  impression  upon  your  mind. 
Do  you  mean  that  ?   A.  I  do,  Sir. 

Q.  We'll  then  I  will  not  try  to  malre  any  impression  upon 
it.  [Laughter.]  Let  me  read  Iklr.  Bell's  statement. 
I  Reading.] 

Mr.  Beecher  stated  that  he  sent  for  me  because  he  had 
understood— he  had  heard,  I  think  the  day  before,  that 
tlifre  was  to  be  a  meeting  of  the  deacons  in  regard  to  tills 
niatter,  and  that  he  ^vas  very  anxious  that  no  meeting 
should  take  I'lace.  and  he  wished  me  to  go  and  see  Mr. 
Hrslli-day  and  arrange  with  him  that  the  meeting  should 
not  take  place. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  that?    A.I  do  not  recollect  it,  Sir. 

Q.  You  recollect  no  such  conversation  with  Mr.  Bell  ? 
A.  I  don't  recall  it. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  deny  that  this  conversation  occurred 
between  you  and  Mr.  Bell  ?  A.  I  don't  mean  to  deny  nor 
to  aflfirm  it.  I  merely  say  that  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Mr.  Evart«— Let  us  understand.  When  does  Mr.  Bell 
state  this  to  have  happened. 

Mr.  Beach— We  don't  make  that  a  part  of  our  inquiry. 
We  ask  if  he  remembers  any  such  conversation  at  any 
time. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  but  yon  asked  the  question  in  connec- 
tion with  these  West  charges,  as  reduced  to  writing. 

Mr.  Beach — Oh,  no  ;  it  was  not  in  connection  with  them. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  if  it  is  admitted  that  it  was  not  that 
•will  do. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  wa«  months  before  the  West  charges. 
Mr.  PuUerton— Ah !  the  West  charges  ran  through  a 
lone:  period  of  time. 
TVr-  Witness— Yes,  but  that  had  a  begtnmng. 


Mr.  Fiillerton— How,  Sir  !  A.  They  had  a  beginnine, 
however. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir ;  and  they  might  have  had  an  earlier  end  if 
they  had  been  tried. 

THE  CARD  PUBLISHED  IN  THE  EAGLE. 

You  have  spoken  of  the  2d  of  June;  what 
time  did  you  go  to  meet  Mr.  Kinsella  on  the  2d  of  June! 
A.  He  came  to  my  house  about  9  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

Q.  Did  you  send  for  him?  A.  It  was  understood  be- 
tween me  and  Mr.  Moulton  that  Mr.  Moulton  was  to  ask 
him  to  come. 

Q.  Where  were  you  and  Mr.  Moulton  when  that  took 
place  1  A.  I  was  in  my  own  house;  I  don't  know  where 
Mr.  Moulton  was. 

Q.  You  could  scarcely  have  an  understanding  unless 
you  were  together  1  A.  What  do  you  mean  by  "  when 
that  took  plaeel" 

Q.  I  mean  where  were  you  and  ]Mr.  Moulton  when  the 
understanding  was  entered  into  between  you.  A.  I  beg 
pardon ;  I  thought  you  meant  the  interview. 

Q.  No  ?  A.  I  was  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house. 

Q.  When  wa«  it  ?  A.  It  waa  Saturday  or  Sunday  night ; 
I  cannot  tell  which. 

Q.  The  arrangement  was  that  Mr.  Kinsella  wa«  to  meet 
you  at  your  house  on  Monday  morning?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  on 
his  way  to  his  oflace. 

Q.  And  you  say  he  did?  A.  Yes,  Sir :  he  came  to  me. 

Q.  About  9  o'clock?   A.  About  9  o'clock. 

Q.  How  are  you  enabled  to  fix  the  time  ?  A.  Well,  I 
have— it  is  fixed  because  I  recollect  thinking  about  the 
hours  that  he  kept,  having  an  evening  paper,  and  about 
the  time  that  he  would  come  down,  and  I  held  myself 
ready  for  the  interview  about  that  hour. 

Q.  How  long  did  the  interview  last  ?  A.  About  an  hour, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  was  done  during  that  interview.  A.  Conver- 
sation in  respect  to  Mi-.  Tilton  and  his  affairs. 

Q.  I  mean  what  was  written.  A.  The  card  that  ap- 
peared on  that  afternoon  in  The  Eagle. 

Q.  Who  prepared  It  ?  A.  I  prepared  it ;  I  wrote  it,  If  I 
recollect  right,  all  of  it. 

Q.  When  you  left  your  house,  after  this  interview  with 
Mr.  Moulton,  where  did  you  go  1  A.  T  went  over— weU,  I 
didn't  leave  immediately ;  I  had  to  do  up  some  little  mat- 
ters about  the  house  before  leaving,  as  I  was  not  expect- 
ing to— I  was  expecting  to  be  gone  for  a  fortnight,  with  a 
slight  intermission.  About  half-past  ten  I  went  over  to 
ITie  Christian  Union  office. 

Q.  How  do  you  recollect  yon  went  there  ahont  half-past 
ten?  A.  IrecoUect  of  going  there  about  half-past  ten, 
because  it  was  about  the  time  I  was  accustomed  to  go  on 
Mondays — which  wa«  my  editorial  day— to  TAe  Christian 
Union  ofiice,  and  because  I  expected  to  be  absent  for  two 
weeks,  and  had,  therefore,  more  to  do  than  usual. 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  way  you  recollect  the  hour  vou  went 


100  THE  TILTON-Bi 

to  the  office?  A.  That  is  tlie  only  way  I  judge  it  to  be 
about  that  time. 

Q.  Where  was  the  office  of  The  Ohristian  Union  then? 
A.  27  Park-place. 

Q.  In  New-York  Cityl  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  return  to  Brooklyn  that  day  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  went  from  there  to  the  depot  ?  A.  I  went  from 
there  to  lunch,  and  to  the  depot. 

Q.  Where  did  you  lunch  t  A.  That  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Where  were  you  accustomed  to  lunch  ?  A.  I  had  no 
custom.  I  seldom  took  lunch  in  New-York,  and  when  I 
did  I  more  often  than  any  other  way  took  lunch  in  a  dif- 
ferent place,  because  I  had  a  little  curiosity  to  see  what 
the  places  were. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  lunch  alone  that  day  i  A.  I  do  not 
recollect.  Sir,  of  lunching  except  when  I  went  up  on  the 
2  o'clock  train  I  arrived  in  PeekskUl  so  late  I  took  lunch 
in  New- York. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  taking  lunch  in  New- York  that 
day  ?  A.  I  do  not  recall  the  lunching. 

Q.  Why  do  you  say  you  lunched  ?  A.  That  was  my  cus- 
tom, and  I  presume  that  it  was  a  fact  that  I  did. 

Q.  Can  you  name  any  other  place  where  you  used  to 
lunch  in  New- York?  A.  I  have  lunched  in  Delmonico's, 
and  I  have  limched  at  the  corner  of  Tenth-st.,  u.p  stairs, 
and  Broadway  ;  I  have  lunched  at  a  little  place  on  the 
south  side  of  the  Forty-second-st.  Depot ;  there  is  a  very 
nice  little  house  there,  or  was  there  ;  and  I  have  lunched 
—I  don't  now  recall  them.  These  lunch-rooms  were  not 
so  famUiar  to  me  as  if  I  was  doing  business  in  New-York. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  leave  Brooklyn  to  go  to  the  office  ? 
You  said  you  got  to  the  office  about  half-past  ten.  A.  No, 
Sir;  I  left  here  about  half-past  ten,  and  got  there  at 
eleven, 

Q.  What  time  did  you  leave  the  Forty-second-st.  Depot  ? 
A.  I  cannot  say ;  I  know  I  was  over  there  an  hour.  I  had 
business  to  transact. 

ME.  BEECHER  SWEARS  THAT  HE  WAS  NOT 
AT  MR.  MOULTOlSrS  HOUSE  ON  JUNE  2, 
1873. 

Q.  You  are  very  sure  you  were  not  at  Mr. 
Moulton'.s  house  on  the  2d  of  June  ?  A.  Very  sure. 

Q.  Quite  positive  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  swear  to  it  positively  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  occasion  about  that  time, 
when  you  left  the  house  of  Mr.  Moulton,  of  meeting  a 
lady  who  was  about  entering  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  do  not. 

Q.  No  recollection  on  that  subject  i  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  At  no  time  t  A.  No,  Sir;  at  no  time. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  a  lady  as  you  were  about 
leaving  at  any  time  ?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  mean  on  leaving,  I 
have  seen  ladies  walking  up  and  down  the  street. 

Q.  No,  a  lady  about  entering,  or  having  entered  ?  A. 
No,  Sir ;  I  don't  recall  anythmg  of  that  kind. 

Q.  AtaUl   A.  No,  Sir. 


"^JiJGMEB  IBIAL. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  will  you  swear  that  on  the  2A 
day  of  June,  1873,  you  did  not  meet  a  lady  as  you  were 
coming  out  of  Mr.  Moulton's  house  who  was  about  enters 
ing?  A.  I  will  swear  that  I  dittnot  come  out  of  the  house 
on  that  day,  and  did  not  meet  a  lady  coming  out. 

THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  THE  INVESTIGATINa 
COMMITTEE. 
Q.  When  was  tMs  Committee  appointed,  Mr. 

Beecher  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  on  the  26th  of  June,  1874,  if 
you  refer  to  the  Church  Investigating  Committeee. 

Q.  When  was  it  made  public  ?  A.  Well,  not  for  some 
week  or  ten  days,  or  something  like  that ;  I  cannot  say 
precisely. 

Q.  Was  it  purposely  kept  secret  ?  A.  That  was  thetp 
work,  and  not  mine.  Sir ;  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Q.  Was  it  purposely  kept  secret?  A.  I  cannot  tell 
you. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  request  in  that  regard  %  A.  No, 
Sir  ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  of  it  openly,  if  you  did  not  1  A.  I  did 
not. 

Q.  Where  were  the  Committee  appointed  ?  A.  In  my 
house ;  that  is,  the  determination  of  who  should  be  on  the 
Committee  was  principally  arranged  in  my  house. 

Q.  And  whom  did  you  call  in  to  consult  with  in  that 
regard  %  A.  The  first  person  I  consulted  with  was  Mr. 
Cleveland,  and  on  that  Friday  night  of  the  26th  of  June, 
the  Bacon  letter  having  been  published  the  day  before.  I 
was  in  Peekskill  and  came  down— I  did  not  get  it  until 
Thursday  noon— and  came  down  the  next  day  and  called 
upon  Mr.  Cleveland  on  my  way  over  and  announced  to 
him  

Mr.  Fullerton— Not  what  you  said  to  him. 
The  Witness— I  was  only  going  to  express  to  you  what  I 
did. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  reason  I  object.  With  whom 
did  you  consult  ?  A.  With  no  one  ;  but  at  a  later  period 
in  the  evening  I  consulted  Mr.  Shearman  and  G^en. 
Tracy,  I  think ;  I  don't  know  whether  there  were  more 
than  two  or  not. 

Q.  Who  suggested  the  names  of  the  Committee?  A.  I 
suggested  them  in  the  first  instance,  with  the  help  and 
suggestion  of  Mr.  Cleveland.  Then,  in  the  second  inter- 
view, I  think  Mr.  Cleveland  suggested  various  names. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  don't  ask  what  was  suggested. 

The  Witness— In  the  second  interview,  if  I  recollect 
right,  they  were  suggested  either  by  Mr.  Cleveland— I 
think  Mr.  Cleveland  was  present  on  the  second  Inter- 
view, but  I  will  not  be  certain. 

Q.  Ho  w  many  persons  were  present  during  the  second 
Interview?  A.  Three,  if  Mr.  Cleveland  was  present;  two 
if  he  was  not ;  but  I  think  the  three  were. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  in  your  direct  examination 
that  after  the  publication  of  the  Bacon  letter  Mr.  Moul- 
ton was  full  of  schemes  and  devices  by  which  the  effect 


TESTlMOyT  OF  HENBY   WARD  BEEGEEB, 


m 


of  It  slioTild  "be  warded  off  1  A.  Will  yon  repeat  my  words, 
if  you  please,  Sir. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Yes,  I  dont  oise  the  exact  language. 
[Reading] : 

I  don't  reineml)er  mucli  about  wliat  "was  said  tliat  first 
evening,  Sir.  My  mind  was  running  on  other  things,  and 
Mr.  Moulton  had  his  plan,  and  I  had  dismissed  from  my 
mind  his  generalship,  and  yet  my  personal  relations  were 
very  cordial,  and  my  confidence  in  him  personally  was 
very  strong,  and  I  didn't  wish  in  any  way  to  hurt  him,  or 
to  he  indifferent  to  what  he  really  seemed  to  me  to  he 
laboring  to  accomplish;  yet  my  mind  was  set;  I  had 
come  to  the  end,  and  I  meant  to  have  no  more  intermedi- 
ate stages,  and  I  therefore,  when  this  was  first  brought  to 
my  notice,  said,  "I  will  consider  it ;  I  will  take  it  into  con- 
sideration." 

That  is  the  card. 

That,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  was  the  first  interview  sub- 
stantially. 
Then  again— 

Q.  What  further  passed  hetween  you  and  Mr.  Moulton 
In  regard  to  this  card  and  its  publication,  and  what  could 
he  done  or  would  be  done  if  you  assented  to  it  1  A.  At  a 
later— at  some  interview  later,  Mr.  Moulton  urged  me 
ver 3- strongly ;  as  I  recalled  the  conversation  it  was  suh- 
Btantially  this,  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  bound  himself  in  the 
presence  of  witnesses  if  I  would  publish  thnt  statement, 
that  he  would  he  content  himself,  and  Mr.  Moulton  said  if 
I  would  publish  that  statement  he  would  hum  everr 
document  that  he  had,  and  that  if  Mr.  Tilton  ever  imder- 
took  to  move  again  in  the  matter  he  would  take  sides  with 
me  and  fight  him.  He  expressed  himseK  very  strongly ; 
I  think  the  word  he  said,  he  would  "  smash"  him. 

Now,  is  that  a  correct  statement  of  what  you  said  and 
did,  and  of  what  Mr.  Moulton  said  and  did,  after  the  pub- 
lication of  the  Bacon  letter,  and  with  reference  to  its 
publication?  A.  It  was  substantially  coi'ivct,  I  think. 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton  had  then  a  plan  ior  the  purpose  of 
doing  away  with  the  effect  of  that  Bacon  letter,  had  he  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  approve  of  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  You  rejected  it  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  had  come  to  the  end?  A.  I  had  come  to  the  end. 

Q,  You  had  no  faith  in  his  generalship  ?  A.  No  faith  in 
Ms  generalship;  that  is,  in  the  past ;  I  didn't  know  what 
he  might  develop  in  the  future. 

Q.  Were  you  wtUing  to  he  guided  by  his  generalship  at 
that  time  ?  A.  If  he  had  suggested  anything  which  met 
my  approval,  I  was  willing. 

Q.  Were  you  willing  to  be  guided  by  his  generalship  at 
that  time  f  A.  I  was  not  willing  to  be  guided  by  any  plan 
that  he  suggested. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Very  well,  that  is  an  answer.  I  want  to 
call  your  attention  to  something  else  in  a  moment. 

Q.  Have  you  never  said  that  you  lost  confidence  in  Mr. 
Moulton  after  the  publication  of  the  Bacon  letter,  because 
be  suggested  no  plan  ? 

A  LEGAJL  DISCUSSION. 
Mr.  Shearman — One  moment.   I  object  to  that 
unless  the  paper  is  shown  to  the  witness. 


Mr.  Fullerton— What  paper? 

Mr.  Shearman— I  ask  if  it  is  in  writing.  I  object  to  the 
witness  proceeding.  If  we  are  to  have  the  question  up, 
this  is  as  good  a  time  as  any.  I  asked  you  [to  Mr.  Fuller- 
ton']  a  question  politely. 

Mr.  Beach— You  won't  get  an  answer. 

Mr.  Shearman — I  insist  upon  an  answer. 

Mr.  Morris— Insist. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  may  as  well  have  the  right  of 
coimsel  to  interrupt  settled.  This  question  has  been  de- 
cided once  before.  I  say  that  it  is  a  rule  of  law  that  has 
been  settled  for  50  years,  and  I  want  to  have  it  observed; 
and  when  I  last  cited  an  authority  on  that  point  (New- 
comb  agt.'  Griswold,  24  N.  Y. )  I  was  told  by  the  learned 
gentlemen  it  had  been  overruled  by  the  Court  of  Ap- 
peals. So  far  from  that  being  overruled,  it  was  con- 
firmed. 

Judge  Neilson— You  mean  the  rule  in  the  Queen  case, 
in  the  second  of  Brod.  and  Bing. 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  think  that  can  be  

Mr.  Shearman— If  my  friend  persists  in  his  question,  I 
insist  that  my  question  shall  be  answered,  whether  that 
statement  was  in  writing  or  not. 

Judge  Neilson— You  have  a  right  to  put  that  question 
preliminarily. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  have  a  right  to  put  that  question  to 
the  counsel,  and  to  have  it  answered ;  and  if  they  say  it 
is  not  in  writing,  they  have  no  right  aftei-ward  to  produce 
a  written  statement  to  the  contrary. 

M*.  Fullerton— Well,  I  cannot  reply  to  that,  because  it 
is  inappropriate  to  the  question  before  the  Court — entirely 
so.  I  have  asked  the  witness  whether  he  ever  said  such 
a  thing. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  that  question  unless  counsel 
means  to  say  whether  it  is  oral  or  in  writing. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  question  imports  an  oral 
statement,  to  ask  a  man  if  he  ever  said  a  thing. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  the  very  point  I  say  was  raised 
in  the  question.  The  question  was  put  to  the  witness  by 
Mr.  Brougham,  since  Lord  Brougham,  whether  he  had 
ever  said  such  and  such  a  thing.  Counsel  on  the  other 
side  intervened  and  demanded  that  it  should  be  first 
stated  whether  that  was  in  writing  or  oral;  and  the  coun- 
sel for  the  prosecution  in  that  case  declined  to  answer 
that  question,  and  it  was  upon  that  very  pohat  the  judges 
of  England  were  consulted,  and  it  was  held  the  counsel 
must  answer  whether  they  meant  to  allege  that  was  an 
oral  statement  or  a  verbal  statement. 

Judge  Neilson— Aud  if  they  do  not,  the  counsel  who 
has  raised  the  question  has  the  right,  preliminarily,  to 
ask  the  witness, 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes  ;  but  after  that  the  counsel  on  the 
other  side  cannot  take  advantage  of  that,  and  produce  a 
written  statement ;  they  must  stand  by  that.  That  is  the 
point. 


103 


TEE   TILION-BUJECHEE  TRIAL. 


Judge  Neilson  [To  Mr.  Fullerton]— Is  tills  in  writing,  or 
is  it  oral  1 

Mr,  Fullerton— I  aslr  Mm  if  lie  ever  said  a  thing. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  ask  the  question  he  put  whether  it  is 
in  writing  or  oral. 

Judge  Neilson— Ask  him  whether  he  ever  said  it,  inde- 
pendent of  the  writing. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  ever  say  to  any  person,  in  suh- 
stance,  that  you  had  lost  confidence  in  Francis  D.  Moul- 
ton  because  he  didn't  suggest  some  plan  to  get  out  of  the 
dlEBculty  created  by  the  publication  of  the  Bacon  letter  1 
A.  I  do  not  think  I  did,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  understand  the  question  to  be  asked 
under  your  Honor's  direction ;  if  it  was  a  statement  in 
writing  it  must  be  so  stated. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  shall  object. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  am  going  to  the  writing. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  this  has  reference  to  a  con- 
versation. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly. 

Mr.  Fullerton— In  addition  to  that,  didn't  you  write 
that  in  substance  at  one  time  ? 

Mr.  Shearman  [to  the  Witness]— You  will  not  answer 
until  the  Court  says  you  may. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Witness] — I  think  you  may  answer 
the  question. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will  put  another  question  : 

Q.  Did  you  ever  entertain  that  sentiment,  or  that  be- 
lief 1  A.  I  never  did,  Sir. 

Q.  See  if  that  refreshes  your  recollectiom  1  [Handing 
witness  a  paper.]  A.  I  think  it  likely  that  is  mine ;  I  pre- 
sume it  is. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  recollect  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Beach  [to  the  Witness]— Does  that  refresh  your 
recollection  1  A.  I  never  entertained  any  such  opinion  ; 
I  still  aflarm  what  I  said. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Fullerton]— Did  he  in  August,  1874, 
entertain  any  such  sentiment  * 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  in  August,  1874,  entertain  the 
belief  or  the  idea  ?  A.  What  idea  1 

MS.  MOULTON'S  SUGGESTIONS. 
Q.  That  Mr.  Moulton  was  not  worthy  of 
your  confidence,  because  he  had  faUed  to  suggest  any 
mode  of  getting  rid  of  the  effect  of  the  Bacon  letter  I 
A.  No,  Sir,  not  that. 
Q.  Did  you  ever  entertain  this  belief  or  idea  : 
When  I  brought  to  Moulton  what  seemed  to  be  the 
bad  and  treacherous  things  I  learned  of  Tilton,  he  said : 
Don't  believe  a  word  of  such  things ;  I  wiU  make  in- 
quiries, and  the  next  time  I  would  see  him  he  would  have 
a  plausible  explanation  of  the  whole  thing,  and  I  felt  as 
though  it  was  no  use  to  attaok  Tilton  ;  that  he  shed  every 
arrow  that  was  aimed  against  him.  I  have  said  this 
not  only  in  reference  to  the  impressions  he  pro- 
duced upon  me,  but  until  the  time  of  the  Council  I  was 
in  an  abiding  faith  of  Mrs.  Moulton's  truth.   Until  the 


reply  of  Mr.  Tilton  to  Bacon's  letter,  I  never  had  a  sus- 
picion of  his  good  faith,  and  of  the  sincerity  with  which 
he  was  dealing  with  me ;  and  when  that  letter  was  pub- 
lished, and  Mr.  Moulton,  on  my  visiting  him  in  reference 
to  it,  proposed  no  counter-operation — ^no  documents,  no 
help— I  was  staggered,  and  when  Tilton  subsequently 
published  his  statement,  after  he  came  to  this  Committee, 
when  that  came  out,  I  never  heard  a  word  from  Moulton ; 
he  never  sent  for  me  nor  visited  me,  nor  did  a  thing. 

A.  That  paragraph  covers  the  whole  period  from  the 
publication  of  the  Bacon  letter  down  to  at  least  the  early 
weeks  in  August. 

Q.  Well,  did  Mr.  Moulton  propose  any  counter-opera- 
tion when  the  Bacon  letter  was  published  i  A.  No  satis- 
fying— nothing. 

Q.  Did  he  propose  no  counter-operation  ?  A.  I  don't 
know  that  he  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  propose  no  document?  A.  By  document 
there,  I  did  not  

Mr.  Beach— No. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No.  Did  he  propose  no  document  %  A. 
Yes,  he  proposed  a  paper. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  that  is  an  answer. 
The  Witness— A  document. 

Q.  Did  he  propose  no  help  1  A.  Yes,  he  proposed  what 
he  considered  help. 

GEN.  B[JTLER  PROFFERS  HIS  SERYICES  AND 
ADYICE  TO  MR.  BEECHER. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  hear  of  Gen.  Butler 

in  connection  with  this  case  1  A.  I  think  it  was  about 
the  29th  of  Jime,  Sir. 

Q.  Of  what  year  1  A.  1874. 

Q.  And  through  whom  did  you  hear  it!  A.  Mr.  H.  A. 

Bowen. 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  did  you  hear  It  f  A.  I 
was  at  my  house,  in  conference  with  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr. 
Shearman,  and  I  think  Mr.  Cleveland  was  called  out  to 
see  a  gentleman,  who  proved  to  be  Mr.  H.  A.  Bowen. 

Q.  Didn't  he  come  by  appointment  with  you  f  A.  No,  Sip 
—not  that  I  recollect ;  I  don't  recall  that,  but  I  went  with 
him ;  he  said  he  had  something  he  wished  to  talk  with 
me  about,  and  he  went  with  me  to  my  study  above,  where 
we  were  in  conference,  and  stated  that  he  had  just  come 
from  Washington,  and  had  an  interview  with  Gen.  Butler, 
and  that  he,  Gen.  Butler,  told  him  that  he  felt  very  deeply 
interested  in  my  case,  that  he  thought  I  was  too  great  a 
man  to  be  sacrificed,  and  that  he  /elt  that  I  had  not  the 
best  advisers,  and  that  he  was  very  sure  that  he  could  be 
of  service  to  me,  and  that  he  should  be  in  New- York  la 
the  course  of  ten  days,  and  that  if  I  wished  he  would  give 
me  an  interview  at  that  time,  and  that  he  thought  he 
could  pull  me  out  of  these  matters  whatever  the  facts 
were.  That  was  the  substance  of  the  statement.  There 
was  some  more  conversation.  Mr.  Bowen  represented 
the  very  cordial  and  kindly  feelings  thnt  Gen.  Butler  hod 
toward  me. 


lESllMONJ   OF  HEN 

Q,  Difln't  Mr.  Bowen  tell  you  that  lie  asked  Gen.  But- 
ler's permission  to  repeat  the  conversation  wMch  lie  had 
with  Gen.  Butler  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  Didn't  he  say  to  you  this :  "  I  asked  Gen.  Butler  if  I 
might  say  this  to  Mr.  Beeoher  from  you;"  and  didn't 
Mr.  Bowen  say  that  Gen.  Butler  replied  in  substance  as 
follo"w^s :  "  I  feci  kindly  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  don't  feel 
like  seeing  him  brought  into  difficulty,  and  I  have  no  ob- 
jection to  your  sayiag  this  much  to  him :  Tell  him  to  go 
to  a  good  lawyer  and  take  his  advice  and  follow  it  closely, 
after  telling  htm  the  exact  facts  about  the  whole  matter ;" 
and  didn't  Mr.  Bowen  say  to  you :  "  I  have  come  to  you, 
and  have  now  told  you  what  Gen.  Butler  has  said  1"  A. 
No,  Sir ;  there  was  no  such  thing  as  that  said. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind  %  A.  No,  Sir ;  it  was  the  re- 
verse ;  it  was  as  I  have  stated  it. 

Q.  Did  you  say  in  reply  :  *'  That  is  a  great  relief  ;  and 
If  G^n.  Butler  will  act  as  my  friend  and  adviser  he  will 
be  the  Moses  that  takes  me  through  the  wilderness  f "  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  Mnd  1  A.  Nothing  !   Preposterous  ! 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  him,  in  substance,  "  Gen.  Butler  is  a 
great  man  ;  God  Almighty  permits  but  one  or  two  such 
men  to  be  born  in  a  century  f "  A.  No,  Sir ;  no,  Sir. 
[Laughter.] 

Q.  And  didn't  you  say,  "  I  wiU  follow  his  advice,  what- 
ever it  is."  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Bowen  say  to  you,  in  substance,  "  Gren. 
Butler  does  not  intrude  his  advice  or  opinion  upon  you  ?" 
A,  He  did  not,  to  my  recollection,  say  any  such  thing. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  reply,  in  substance,  '*  I  understand 
that  %  "  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  did  you  send  any  one  to  see  Gen. 
Butler  on  that  interview  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  request  anybody  to  go  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  anybody  go  on  your  ])ehalf  %  A.  There  did ;  or, 
as  I  understood  that,  there  did. 

Q.  Did  you  communicate  your  interview  with  Mr. 
Bowen  to  any  one  after  that  ?  A.  Immediately  I  went 
down  stairs  after  he  had  had  this  interview,  and  commu- 
nicated  

Q.  One  moment.   Did  3'ou  communicate  it  to  any  one  1 
.A-  I  did. 

Q.  And  did  that  person  to  whom  you  communicated  it 
go  to  Boston  to  see  Gen.  Butler  1  A.  One  of  them  did. 

Q.  Was  it  not  at  your  request  1  A.  Not  that  I  recollect. 
It  was  the  result  of  (■  >::. sultation. 

Q.  You  agreed  to  it,  did  you !  A.  I  didn't  make  any 
objection  to  it. 

Q.  Didn't  you  approve  of  it  I  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  presume  I 
did ;  but  I  don't  distinctly  recall  that. 

Q.  When  did  that  person  go  1  A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  How  soon  after  the  interview!  A.  That  I  cannot 
•oy ;  not  a  great  while. 

Q.  About  how  long  ?  A.  I  should  say  within  a  fort- 
3i>ght,  but  I  could  not  locate  It  more  definitely.  1 


RY    WABD  BEEGHEB.  103 

Q.  Can  you  not  fix  the  day  when  the  i)erson  wentt  A. 
No,  Sir,  I  cannot ;  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Did  the  person  report  to  you  after  his  return  f  A.  I 
have  a  recollection  of  hearuig— yes,  I  think  I  reeoUeot 
only  one  single  thing. 

Q.  Did  the  person  who  went  to  see  Qen.  Butler  report 
to  you  after  his  return  1  A.  He  talked  with  me  ;  he  did 
not  make  a  formal  report  to  me. 

Q.  I  don't  suppose  he  made  a  formal  report.  Did  he 
communicate  to  you  the  substance,  or  what  purported  to 
be  the  substance,  of  what  took  place  between  him  and 
Gen.  Butler  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  communicated  to  me  his 
impression  of  the  result. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  I  ask  you  that  question. 

The  Witness— He  did  not. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  FuUerton]— He  says  he  communi- 
cated the  result. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  he  commmnicate  the  result  of  the 
interview !  A.  He  communicated  to  me  the  impres- 
sion which  the  whole  interview  had  left  upon  his  mind. 

Q.  Without  telUng  you  what  took  place !  A.  Withomt 
teUing  me  what  took  place. 

Q.  Now,  who  was  that  person  that  went  to  Boston  f  A* 
Gen.  Tracy. 

Q.  Did  he  go  more  than  once  1  A.  I  do  not  know  that 
he  did. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with  Gen.  Butler  ?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Never  saw  him  upon  the  subject?  A.  Never  saw  ^Itt^ 
up»n  the  subject. 

Q.  Did  you  write  him  upon  the  subject  f  A.  Never 
wrote  htm. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  get  any  letter  from  him  upon  the  sub- 
ject ?  A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  in- 
stances in  which  you  walked  with  Mrs.  TUton  

[Mr.  Beach  here  made  a  whispered  suggestion  to  Mr. 
Fullerton.] 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  there  is  one  question  I  have  omit- 
ted. 

Q.  In  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Bowen,  did  you 
speak  of  Gen.  Tracy  as  your  eounsel  1  A.  I  do  not  recol- 
lect that  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  recoUect  of  Mi*.  Bowen  asking  you  who 
your  coimsel  was  1  A.  No,  I  don't  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  And  you  don't  recollect  of  teUtng  him  that  Gen. 
Tracy  was  your  counsel  t  A.  I  do  not  recoUect  it ;  it  is 
quite  possible,  but  I  don't  recall  it. 

Q.  It  is  quite  possible  1  A.  It  is  quite  possible,  but  I 
don't  recollect  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Tracy  your  counsel  at  that  time  ?  A.  No, 
Sir,  not  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  term ;  he  was  my 
personal  friend  and  adviser. 

Q.  He  was  advising  you  1  A.  He  advised  me  whenever 
I  asked  advice  of  htm. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  all  coimsel  can  do,  I  think.  Now,  do 


104 


TRE   TlLTON-RKR(]niJR  TFIAL. 


you  recollect  of  Mr.  Butler  being  at  Mr.  Tracy's  house '{ 
No,  Sir;  I  don't  know  wliere  Mr.  Tracy's  house  is. 

Q.  Ware  you  ever  at  Gen.  Tracy's  house  ]  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  On  no  occasion!  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  don't  know  wliere  lie 
lives  now. 

Q.  Were  you  at  any  house  in  Brooklyn  when  Gen.  But- 
ler was  there  t  A.  Not  that  I  recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  of  consultiug  Gen.  Tracy  in 
regard  to  your  difficulties  at  one  time  when  Gen.  Butler 
was  in  the  same  house,  in  another  room  1  A.  Not  that  I 
knew  of.  Sir. 

Q.  You  never  were  informed  of  that  fact  1  A.  I  was  not 
Informed  of  it.  _ 

MR.  BEECHER'S  WALKS  WITH  MRS.  TILTON. 

Q.  Now,  as  to  your  walks  witli  Mrs.  Tilton; 
when  did  they  occur  ?  A.  I  cannot  give  you  any  definite 
dates.  It  was  in  the  early  period,  but  whether  it  was  in 
the  Fall  of  1871,  or  anywhere  along  there,  I  cannot  say 
"With  certainty. 

Mr.  Evarts— 1871 1  He  don't  mean  1871. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  he  does  mean  1871. 

The  Witness— Yes,  I  am  speaking  of  walks  with  her 
subsequent  to  the  breaking  out  of  the  difficulty. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly.  What  time  in  the  Fall  of  that 
year  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  whether  it  was  in  the  Fall  or 
whether  it  was  in  tiie  early  Summer. 

Q.  Where  did  the  first  one  take  place?  A.  I  cannot  say 
which  was  the  first  one.  I  can  tell  you  where  one  of  them 
was. 

Q.  Well,  the  first  one  that  you  remember  of  1  A.  The 
first  that  I  tell  of  was  when  going  out  of  my  house,  I 
have  forgotten  for  what  errand,  just  about  sundown,  I 
met  Mrs.  Tilton  on  the  corner  of  Clark-st.  and  Colum- 
bia Heights.  She  was  going  over  toward  the  Heights, 
and  I  was  coming  away.  I  was  surprised.  We  stopped 
and  had  a  few  words  of  conversation,  and  she  turned  and 
walked  back  with  me,  and  I  think  walked  back  about  as 
far  as  Hicks-st.,  or  somewhere  there;  I  know  it  was  a  very 
short  walk.  That  was  one  of  them. 

Q.  And  there  you  separated  1  A.  There  we  separated. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  iti  A.  It  was,  as  I  have  said, 
Just  about  sundown. 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  us  the  season  of  the  year  t  A.  No,  I 
cannot  accurately. 

Q.  But  you  think  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  1871 1  A. 
I  should  say  it  was  some  time  between— I  should  say  even 
this  is  uncertain— but  my  best  recollection  is,  it  was  be- 
tween the  early  Summer  and  the  late  Autumn,  but  I  can- 
not say  certainly. 

Q.  When  do  you  recollect  of  another  walk  with  her  in 
the  street?  A.  I  recollect  meeting  her  somewliere,  I 
should  say  iu  the  vicinity  of  Montague  or  Remsen-st.,  on 
Cliiiton,  or  some  of  those  streets  there,  Henry  or  Clinton, 
and  walking  down  with  her— she  was  going  home,  I  think ; 


I  overtook  her  and  walked  down  with  her  ae  far  as  ber 
house,  and  left  her  there. 

Q.  And  how  far  was  that?  A.  I  should  say  it  waa 
about  as  tar  as  from  here  to  Montague-st. — the  comer  of 
Montague,  in  Brooklyn. 

Q.  How  many  blocks  is  thatl  A.  I  don't  know  how 
many  blocks  it  is. 

Q.  What  is  the  distance  in  yards  and  rods  1  A.  Well, 
dear  me  1  yards  and  rods  I  I  am  not  a  surveyor  that  I 
should  measure  the  distance. 

Q,  Well,  miles  then  ?  A.  Well,  it  is  less  than  a  hundred. 

Q.  Less  than  a  hundred  what!  A.  Miles;  it  was  from 
CUnton-st.,  in  Brooklyn,  or  about  there,  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, down  Livingston-st.  to  her  house. 

Q.  Well,  about  how  many  blocks?  What  is  the  dis- 
tance? Give  us  some  idea.  A.  That  is  what  I  was 
stating;  I  do  not  recall  the  particular  blocks;  and  then 
the  blocks  usually  are  irregular  and  of  different  sizes. 

Q.  A  dozen  blocks?  A.  O,  I  should  not  think  it  was  as 
much  as  that;  I  should  not  think  it  was  more  than  a  part 
of  a  block  to  Smith,  and  then  Isotto  voce}  one,  two,  three, 
four— four  or  five  blocks ;  it  may  be  a  little  more  or  a  lit- 
tle less. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  did  you  say  it  was  ?  A.  I  can- 
not recall  it,  Sir;  my  impression  is  it  was  in  the  after- 
noon. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  any  other  walk  t  A.  I  do  not 
recall  any  other.  Sir. 

Q.  You  left  her  at  her  dwelling?  A.  Ileftherather 
door;  I  did  not  go  into  the  gate. 

Q.  Where  were  you  going  on  that  occasion?  A.  I  don't 
recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  in  the  direction  of  your 
errand,  whatever  it  was  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  It  was  not  in  the  direction  of  your  house,  was  it  ? 
A.  No,  Sir ;  right  away  from  it. 

Q.  Eight  away  from  it  1  Were  you  walMng  away  from 
it  when  you  overtook  her?  A.  I  think  I  was ;  that  is  my 
impression. 

Q.  You  cannot  recollect  where  you  were  going  ?  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  You  conversed  with  Mrs.  Tilton  upon  those  occa- 
sions, did  you  not?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Any  explanation  of  the  scandal  at  all  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  seek  to  learn  from  her,  then,  whether 
the  charge  made  against  you,  of  having  won  her  affec- 
tions, was  true  ?   A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  You  took  it  for  ginnted  that  it  was  so  f  A.  I  as* 
sumed  it. 

Q.  And  yet  walked  in  the  public  streets  with  her  ?  A. 
I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  And  no  word  was  said  in  regard  to  the  difficulty  that 
existed  between  you  and  her?  A.  No  word  that  I  recall, 
or  allusion. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  walking  with  her  at  any  other 
time  ?  A.  I  do  not. 


TIJSTIMONF  OF  HFA 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher,  I  -vriU  now  ask  you  ■wh.etlier  you  recol- 
lect of  having  ridden  with  her  on  any  occasion  otlier 
tlian  the  two  buggy  rides  that  you  have  already  spoken 
of!  A.  I  don't  re<K)llect  any  other  occasions. 

Q.  You  do  not  recall  to  your  recollection  any  other  ? 
A.  I  have  a  faint  impression  that  I  went  out  to  Green- 
•wood  with  them  at  the  "burial  of  PaiiU  or  of  one  of  their 
children,  hut  that  is  a  fugitive  

Q.  I  am  speaking  of  rides  with  Mrs.  Tilton  when  no 
person  was  with  you  except  herself.  A.  I  recollect  only 
those  two. 

Q.  None  other!  A,  I  don't  recollect  any  other. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  now  of  heing  in  a  photograph  gal- 
lery with  her  in  the  City  of  New-York  or  Brooklyn  ?  A. 
I  do  not,  Sir. 

Q.  How  1  A.  I  don't  recoUect  it. 

Q.  You  recollect  of  no  occasion  when  your  likeness  was 
taken  in  her  presence !  A.  I  don't  recollect  any  occasion. 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  me  whether  she  was  at  Sarony's 
with  you  when  your  likeness  was  taken  there  I  A.  I  can 
tell  you  pretty  certainly  she  wasn't. 

Q.  On  no  occasion  ?  A.  On  no  occasion. 

Mr.  Fullerton  [Looking  at  the  clock.]  If  the  Court 
please  

Judge  Xeilson — Get  ready  to  retire.   Gentlemen  keep 
their  seats.   Return  at  2  o'clock,  gentlemen. 
The  Court  then  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 

THE  AFTERXOON  SESSION. 

The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.  pursuant  to  ad- 
loumment.  and  Mr.  Beecher  was  recalled. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Beecher,  did  you  walk  with  Mrs. 
Tilton  in  the  City  of  New-York  in  the  Autumn  of  1871, 
at  any  time  ?  A.  Not  that  I  recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  "^ere  yon  in  a  house  of  refreshment  or  an  oyster  sa- 
loon with  her  in  the  year  1871  or  1872 !  A.  Not  tliat  I 
recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  it  could  have  taken  place  and  you 
not  recoUect  it  ?  A.  I  don't  thtok  it  could. 

Q.  Well,  are  you  in  a  condition  to  swear  positively  that 
it  did  not  take  place  1  A.  According  to  the  "best  of  my 
recollection  no  such  thing  ever  took  place. 

Q.  That  is  as  far  as  you  go?  A.  That  is  as  far  as  I  go. 

Q.  In  these  walks  with  Mrs.  Tilton  of  which  you  have 
spoken,  or  in  these  conTersatlons  with  ]Mrs.  Tilton  of 
which  you  have  spoken,  did  you  admonish  her  against 
permitting  her  affections  to  be  enlisted  to  any  farther  ex- 
tent than  they  had  been  already  %   A.  I  did  not.  Sir. 

Q.  TVas  there  anything  upon  that  subject  sal^I  ?  A.  Not 
a  word. 

Q.  And  you  at  the  same  time,  as  I  understand  you,  was 
laboring  under  the  strong  conviction  that  she  had  given 
ber  affections  to  you !   A.  I  was,  Sir. 

Q.  TVell,  were  you  not  in  fear  that  they  WDuld  be  still 
to  a  greater  extent  enlisted  in  you  than  they  had  been ! 
A  No,  Sir  ;  not  to  a  greater  extent. 


IBJ    WAED  BEECHER.  105 

I  Q.  You  thought  that  no  evil  or  difficulty  woidd  result 
I  from  this  communication  with  her  ?  A.  I  thought  that 
!  some  good  might. 

Q.  Although  yon  did  not  warn  her  against  going  any 
further  in  that  direction  1  A.  Not  by  warning  her,  but 
by  bringing  to  bear  upon  her  mind  moral  inflnenoes  tliat 
would  lift  her  above  it. 

ME.  BEECHER  GIVES  ME,   TILTON  FINAN- 
CLiL  AID. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  yon  did  not 

learn  of  Bessie  Turner's  absence  imtil  the  letter  of  Mrs. 
Morse  was  written  to  you  in  January,  1871.  A.  I  believe 
I  said  so,  Sir ;  that  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  "Were  you  not  made  acquainted  with  the  fact  that 
she  had  been  sent  away  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  was  not. 

Q.  Until  you  received  that  letter  of  Mrs.  Morse  did  yon 
suppose  that  she  was  still  in  Mr.  Tilton's  family  1  A.  I 
don't  suppose  I  thought  anything  about  it.  Sir ;  I  had  no 
reason  to  suppose  but  that  she  was. 

Q.  Had  you  been  informed  by  herself,  or  by  any  other 
person,  that  she  knew  of  this  charge  that  had  been  pre* 
f erred  against  you  t  A,  I  was  not. 

Q.  Had  you  no  intimation  from  any  quarter  that  she 
was^          A.  Not  a  shadow  of  it, 

Q.  When  did  you  first  pay  out  any  money  in  connection 
with  Bessie  Turner  1  A.  I  don't  recollect,  Sir.  I  shs^ 
have  to  refer  to  a  memorandtun. 

Q.  Please  refer.  A.  [Referring  to  memorandmn]  I 
have  it  on  my  memorandum,  Jan.  23,  Sir. 

Q.  And  what  amount  did  yon  advance  at  that  time  t  A* 
I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  no  account  of  it!  A.  None. 

Q.  And  how  did  you  make  the  advance  ?  A.  To  Mr. 
Moult  on. 

Q.  By  check,  or  otherwise  !  A.  Sometimes  one  way  and 
sometimes  

Q.  No  ;  but  that  time  i  A.  I  cannot  say,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  a  check-book  ?  A.  I  do  keep  a  eheok- 
book. 

Q.  Did  you  make  entries  on  the  margin  ?  A.  I  do  now, 
biat  I  don't  know  whether  I  did  as  early  as  that. 

Q.  Haven't  you  examined  to  see  how  yoa  made  that 
first  payment  ?  A.  I  did  ;  that  is  one  way  that  I  exam- 
ined, or  rather  requested  my  son  to  examine, 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  find  a  stub  which  indicated  the 
amount  that  was  given  and  the  date  when  it  was  given  t 
A.  I  doubt— or  at  any  rate  I  cannot  speak  certainly  on 
that ;  I  requested  him  to  examine  all  my  return  checks 
mnning  back  to  that  year. 

Q.  I  am  not  speaking  of  return  checks,  I  am  speaking  ol 
the  stub  of  the  check-book.  A.  Well,  as  to  that,  I  have 
never  personally  exauiined  it  at  all ;  I  requested  my  old- 
est son.  who  has  charge  of  my  financial  ma4:ters,  to  make 
an  examination. 


106 


THE  TILION'BEEOHEB  TBIAL. 


Q.  Haven't  you  seen  a  olieck-book  tliat  you  had  at  tlia*» 
tlmel  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  don't  you  know  whetlier  the  stub  indicates  the 
time  and  the  amount  and  the  object  for  which  the  check 
was  given  1  A.  I  do  not,  that  I  recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  that  one  of  the  checks  that  you  gave  to  Moulton  1 
[Handing  witness  a  check.]   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  occurred  previous  to  the  giving  of  that  check 
which  resulted  in  your  giving  it  1  A.  He  said  to  me  in 
substance  that  the  term  bills  of  Bessie  Turner,  who  was 
In  the  West,  were  due,  and  that  it  would  be  embarrassing 
to  Mr.  Tilton  to  have  to  meet  them  in  his  state  of  affairs  ; 
that  he  had  already  advanced,  himself,  a  great  deal  of 
money,  and  he  thought  it  would  be  a  very  kind  thing  for 
me  if  I  would  pay  them.  I  told  him  that  I  should  do  it 
with  great  pleasure.  That  was  the  substance  of  the  rep- 
resentation. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  ask  at  that  time  why  he  was  educat- 
ing Bessie  Turner?  A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  it  occur  to  you  to  ask  anything  about  the  mat- 
ter i  No,  Sir ;  that  is  not  my  habit. 

Q.  Had  anything  taken  place  between  you  and  Mr. 
Moulton  prior  to  that  upon  the  subject  of  advancing 
money  ?  A.  I  only  recollect  one  thing,  and  that  was  that 
prior  to  that  he  had  spoken  about  the  mortgage  on  Mr. 
Tilton's  house,  and  said  he  thought  that  ought  to  be 
raised,  and  that  he  thought  that  Mr.  Tilton  would  be 
willing  to  settle  the  house  then  upon  his  wife.  I  told  him 
that  whenever  anything  of  that  kind  was  undertaken  by 
the  friends  of  Mr.  Tilton  I  wanted  to  be  counted  in,  I 
would  do  my  share. 

Q.  Well,  to  what  extent  were  you  willing  to  contribute? 
A.  Oh,  it  was  not  a  matter  that  came  to  thought. 

Q.  Well,  to  what  extent  do  you  think  you  would  have 
contributed  if  you  had  been  called  upon  1  A.  I  cannot 
tell  you,  Sir ;  I  cannot  begin  to  tell  you  four  years  after, 
what  I  think  I  would  have  done  if  it  had  been  brought  up 
to  my  mind  four  years  before. 

Q.  Is  that  all  that  occurred  between  you  and  Mr.  Moul- 
ton upon  the  subject  of  money  prior  to  giving  your  check 
dated  June  23,  1871 1   A.  All  that  I  recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  you  were  quite  willing  to  give  that  check  1  A. 
Very  willing.  Sir,  and  another  juSt  like  it. 

Q.  No  threat  was  made  at  the  time?  A.  Not  the 
alightest.  Sir ;  it  was  done  as  kindly  and  with  as  much 
gentlemanliness  as  I  ever  knew. 

Q.  There  was  no  suggestion  that  there  was  any  duty 
resting  upon  you?  A.  None  at  all,  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  it  freely  ?  A.  I  did  it  as  an  office  of  kind- 
ness ;  that  was  the  ground  upon  which  he  put  it. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  ground  upon  which  you  gave  it  ?  A. 
That  is  the  ground  upon  which  I  did  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  not  regard  that  as  blackmail,  then  ? 
A.  Oh,  I  did  not;  no.  Sir. 

ij.  He  told  you  distinctly  what  it  was  for,  I  understand 
you !  A.  I  knew  what  it  was  for.  We  did  not  go  into  any 


considerable  conversation  about  it.  It  did  not  take  three 
minutes,  the  whole  thing. 

Q.  But  had  there  been  no  suggestion  on  your  part  of  a 
general  nature,  that  you  wanted  to  contribute  to  the 
wants  or  necessities  of  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  think  not,  except 
in  the— in  regard  to  the  first,  that  is,  the  mortgage  on  his 
house.  There  may  have  been,  but  I  do  not  recall  any- 
thing. 

Q.  Didn't  you  state  to  him  generally  that  if  Mr.  Tilton 
wanted  any  assistance  you  were  willing  to  render  it? 
A.  I  did  at  some  part  of  otir  interviews ;  not  unfrequently 
at  certain  portions  of  our  interviews. 

Q.  Well,  don't  you  think  that  you  did  that  pretty  early 
in  the  history  of  the  difficulty?  A.  That  I  cannot 
say.  Sir. 

Q.  Your  best  judgment  upon  that  subject— what  is  it? 
A.  I  have  a  recollection  only  of  these  two  cases. 

Q.  Now,  the  question  that  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Beecher,  is 
whether  you  did  not  at  an  early  day  in  this  difficulty  sug- 
gest to  Mr.  Moulton  that  you  would  assist  if  assistance 
were  needed?  A.  I  do  not  think  I  did,  except  in  the 
instance  that  I  have  mentioned  to  you,  in  regard  to  the 
mortgage  on  the  house. 

Q.  And  before  the  giving  of  the  check  which  I  have 
|8hown  you,  in  Jime,  1871,  don't  you  think  that  you  had 
made  some  general  suggestion  about  assistance?  A.  I 
don't  remember  that  I  did.  Sir;  it  would  be  quite  a  possi- 
ble thing,  but  all  things  that  are  possible  are  not  actual. 

Q.  When  were  you  called  upon  the  second  time  ?  Please 
consult  your  memorandum.  A.  I  don't  know  whether  it 
gives  more  than  the  first.  I  don't  think  there  are  many 
others.  Sir,  that  are  given.  [Referring  to  the  memoran- 
dum.] Oh,  the  second  check  I  find  mentioned,  November 
10. 

Q.  What  year  ?  A.  November  10, 1871,  Sir. 

Q.  And  for  how  much  t  A.  It  don't  state. 

Q.  See  if  that  is  the  check  that  you  refer  to  ?  [Handing 
Witness  a  check.]  A.  I  presume  it  is,  Sir ;  it  is  my  signa- 
ture, and  it  is  to  Mr.  Moulton,  and  it  is  November  10, 
1871. 

Q.  Now  between  the  giving  of  the  check  in  June  and 
the  giving  of  this  check  in  November,  was  anything  said 
by  Mr.  Moulton  or  by  you  in  reference  to  other  advances 
to  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  was  gone  away  from  town  most  of 
the  time  between,  but  I  don't  recollect  that  there  was 
anything  said  in  the  fringes  of  time  that  remained. 

Q.  Well,  was  there  anything  said  in  the  interim  upon 
the  subject,  one  way  or  the  other  ?  A.  Not  that  I  know 
of,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  said  at  the  time  you  advanced  this 
money?  A.  I  don't  recoUeot  that  there  was  anything, 
except  he  merely  said  that  he  had  got  another  tenn  bill, 
and  would  like  me— giving  me  the  sum  probably. 

Q.  And  you  gave  a  check  ?   A.  I  presume  so.  Sir. 

Q.  Were  the  circumstances  attending  the  giving  of  this 
second  check  about  the  same  as  those  that  accompaniod 


TESTIMONY  OF  BEN. 

the  first  1  A.  I  presume  they  were,  Sir,  Sometimes  lie 
asked  me  by  a  note,  sometimes  personally,  and  I  cannot 
identify  one  from  the  other. 

Q.  Have  you  any  of  those  notes  that  he  wrote  to  you ! 
A.  I  think  there  is  one  in  evidence. 

Q.  Is  that  one  of  the  notes  written  to  you  in  regard  to 
that  subject?   [Handing  witness  a  paper.J   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  at  the  time  what  this  money 
was  for  1  A.  Yes,  I  supposed  it  was  to  be  for  the  educa- 
tion of  Bessie  Turner. 

Q.  Now,  subsequent  to  the  giving  of  the  check  of  No- 
vember 10, 1871— this  seems  to  be  dated  October   A. 

1872.  Sir. 

Q.  Subsequent  to  the  giving  of  the  check  of  November 
10, 1871,  and  up  to  the  time  of  writing  this  letter  of  Oc- 
tober 21,  1872,  had  anything  passed  between  you  and 
Mr.  Moultdn  upon  the  subject  of  advances  to  Mr.  Tilton? 
A.  I  presume  there  had,  Sir ;  I  cannot  locate.  I  gave  him 
money  in  currency  at  diflFerent  times. 

Q.  Wheni  A.  I  caimot  say.  Sir. 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  did  you  give  blm  money 
in  currency  ?  A.  Well,  under  the  same  circimistances, 
aubstantlally,  that  the  time  had  come  round  for  another 
bill. 

Q.  What  was  the  largest  amotiiit  that  yon  gave  to  him 
in  currency  1  A.  I  don't  remember.  Sir  ;  I  could  not  re- 
ean. 

Q.  I  think  you  mentioned  the  sum  of  $500  that  you 
gave  to  him  at  one  time  1  A.  Well,  I  suspect  I  did  not 
mention  it  as  a  positive  eimi,  but  that  my  impression  was 
that  it  was  about  that. 

Q.  Was  there  any  bin  of  Bessie  Turner,  or  for  Bessie 
Turner's  schooling,  which  amounted  to  that  sum  ?  A. 
Sometimes  they  ran  over,  and  two  were  Included  in  one, 
or  something  to  that  effect. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  any  instance  in  which  her  school- 
ing, whether  for  one  or  more  terms,  went  to  the  amount 
of  $500  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  never  made  any  inquiry  as  to 
that.  I  never  saw  a  term  bill,  nor  anything  of  the  kind. 
I  paid  to  Mr.  MoxHton  what  sum  he  said  he  wanted. 

Q.  Well,  in  all  instances  before  the  money  was  raised 
upon  tho  mortgage,  did  Mr.  Moulton  state  to  you  that 
the  sums  he  wanted  were  for  Bessie  Turner's  schooling  ? 
A.  I  don  t  know  that  he  did,  Sir ;  I  should  not  be  willing  to 
say  that  he  did. 

Q.  We"l,  do  you  remember  of  his  stating  any  other  ob- 
ject for  which  money  was  wanted  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Ca-uiot  recall  any  instance  of  that  kind?  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  in  all  of  these  instances  prior  to 
the  givins:  ;f  the  mortgage,  was  there  anything  said  to 
you  by  M-  Moulton,  either  by  way  of  intimidation  or  by 
way  of  onfercing  what  he  should  term  to  be  your  duty. 
In  givi.  g  Hiis  money  1   A.  Not  a  word. 

Q.  Was  it  all  entirely  voluntary  upon  your  part  ?  A. 
Entirely  upon  his  suggestion  of  anything  of  this  kind ;  it 


RY    WARD  BE  EC  HE E,    .  107 

was  always  suggested  to  me  in  the  most  delicate  manner, 
and  I  always  responded  to  it  promptly,  and  feeling  that 
I  was  cooperating  with  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  much  in  the  aggregate  you  gave 
to  Mr.  Moulton  for  Bessie  Turner's  schooling  f  A.  No, 
Sii",  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  no  account  of  itt  A.  None  whatever; 
I  never  kept  an  account  in  my  life. 

THE  MORTGAGE  ON  :^IE.  TILTON'S  HOUSE. 

Q.  Well,  now,  with  regard  to  this  mortgage, 
when  was  that  subject  first  broached  to  you  1  A.  It  never 
was  directly  broached  to  me ;  when  I  returned  in  that 
Spring  from  a  Western  tour  I  told  Mr.  Moulton  that  I  had 
had  a  fortunate  tour,  and  made  $12,000,  and  that  gave 
rise  to  some  conversation  in  respect  to  how  fortunate  I 
was,  and  how  easy  I  was,  and  naturally  in  respect  to  the 
different  situation  of  Mr.  Tilton ;  we  had  many  conversa- 
tions on  that  subject,  and  they  were  all  like  two  brothers 
talking  about  a  third  unfortunate  one. 

Q.  Didn't  you  suggest  to  Mr.  Moulton  at  that  time,  that, 
having  been  so  f  orttmate,  you  were  willing  to  contribute  t 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  of  thatMndl  A.  No,  Sir;  the  $12,000  had 
gone,  I  guess,  before  I  told  him  about  it. 

Q.  Well,  was  there  no  suggestion  at  that  time  on  yonp 
part  that  you  would  contribute  if  it  was  needed  ?  A.  No, 
Sir,  there  was  no  suggestion  that  I  recollect  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  how  was  the  subject  of  the  mortgage  brought 
up !  A.  It  never  was  brought  up  untU  after  I  had  ao 
complished  it  and  told  him  about  it. 

Q.  I  mean  that  mortgage  that  was  on  Mr.  Tilton's 
house.  You  misimderstand  me  f  A.  Oh  !  I  beg  pardon  I  I 
thought  you  meant  the  mortgage  that  is  on  mine. 

Q.  No.  A.  Well,  the  mortgage  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton'g 
house  was  brought  up  in  the  early  days  of  1871. 

Q.  How  early  do  you  think  1  A.  I  should  think  it  waa 
as  early  as  the  middle  of  January,  1871.  Some  of  those 
conversations  ran — with  me  and  Mr.  Moulton — ^there  were 
several  business  conversations,  and  I  should  think  it  waa 
about— not  later  than  the  middle  of  January. 

Q.  Of  1871 1   A.  Of  1871. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  suggest  that  there  was  a  mortgage 
upon  his  horse,  or  did  he  do  it  %  A.  He  told  me  that,  for  I 
didn't  know  it.  I  had  known  it  at  a  previous  date,  and  had 
vehemently  urged  Mr.  Tilton,  whDe  he  was  in  prosperity, 
to  take  that  mortgage  off— gave  htm  fatherly  advice  about 
money  matters,  and  supposed  it  probably  had  been  taken 
off. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  not  suppose  so,  when  Mr.  Moulton 
brought  it  up  for  consideration?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  thought 
that  my  good  advice  had  not  been  taken. 

Q.  In  what  terms  did  3klr.  MoTilton  make  kno'wn  to  you 
the  fact  that  there  was  a  mortgage  existing  there  1  A.  In 
a  general  conversation  as  to  the  condition  of  Mr.  Tilttm 


108  ,  THE  TILION-B] 

and  Ms  family— how  they  could  he  hest  helped.  That  is 
the  general  way  in  which  it  came  in. 

Q.  And  suggested  that  there  was  a  mortgage  upon  his 
property  ?  A.  That  should  he  lifted,  and  that  he  ought 
to  make  it  over  to  Elizabeth,  and  secure  it  to  her  and  the 
children. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  think  he  brought  up  that  subject  at 
that  time  to  impress  you  with  the  idea  that  there  was  an 
tftcumbranoe  upon  his  property,  and  that  you  ought  to 
contribute  to  pay  it  1  A.  No,  I  did  not  so  understand  it 
at  that  time. 

Q.  He  said  nothing  that  would  lead  you  to  understand 
It  in  that  way,  did  hel  A.  No,  Sir;  I  understood  it 
simply  that  it  was  an  act  of  Mndness  that  Mr.  Tilton's 
friends  ought  to  do  for  him  and  his  family. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  say  they  ought  to  do  it  ?  A.  No,  no ; 
oh,  there  was  not  the  slightest  pressure  brought  upon 
me. 

Q.  Well,  after  he  had  mentioned  this  mortgage  to  you, 
and  suggested  that  if  it  were  taken  off  that  he  would  con- 
vey the  property  unincumbered  to  Mrs.  Tilton         A.  He 

did  not  state  that;  he  said  that  he  thought  he  could  pui'- 
suade  Mr.  TUton  to  do  it. 

Q.  Well,  when  he  said  that,  what  did  you  reply?  A.  I 
replied  that  I  should  be  willing  to  stand  in  my  place ; 
whenever  any  movement  of  that  kind  was  made  I  would 
stand  in  my  place  and  do  my  part. 

Q.  That  suggestion,  then,  proceeded  from  you  entirely  ? 
A.  Of  cooperation? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Oh,  yes,  I  was  very  prompt  on  the  men- 
tioning of  that. 

Q.  Was  there  any  intimation  of  any  kind  or  character 
from  Mr.  Moulton  hefore  you  made  this  offer  that  you 
should  do  so  1  A.  Not  the  slightest. 

Q.  Or  was  there  anything  that  might  be  construed  into 
an  intimation  that  it  would  be  pleasant  if  you  would  do 
so  1  A.  He  said  that  he  thought  it  would  be  the  right 
thing  to  do  for  Mr.  Tilton's  friends— right  thing  to  do. 

Q.  He  did  not  suggest  that  you  were  one  of  his  friends 
who  should  do  it  ?  A.  Oh,  no  ;  no,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  did  Mr.  Moulton  ever  caU  upon  you  to  assist  in 
taking  up  this  mortgage  I  A.  He  never  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  recur  to  the  subject  afterward  1  A.  I  think 
once  I  mentioned  it  again. 

Q.  Now,  how  long  after  this  first  conversation  when 
the  mortgage  was  suggested  1  A.  I  have  not  the  slight- 
est ;  I  couldn't  tell  you  withia  two  years.  It  was  at  some 
later  period.  I  mentioned  it  because  I  thought  that  per- 
haps some  feeling  of  delicacy  on  his  part  hindered  him, 
and  I  made  the  suggestion  to  him,  "  Whenever  you  make 
that  movement  " 

Q.  Then  Mr.  Moulton's  conduct  in  regard  to  money  mat- 
ters was  of  that  character  which  induced  a  beUef  in  your 
mind  that  he  might  be  delicate  in  suggesting  it  f  A. 
Altogether  so.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  speak  more  than  once  to  him  upon 


EOHER  TBIAL, 

the  subject  of  that  mortgage,  after  It  was  first  brought  ta 
your  consideration  1  A.  I  think  not,  but  once.  Sir. 

Q.  I  think  you  stated  in  your  direct  examination,  "  H» 
never,  that  I  recall,  mentioned  it  to  me  again,  but  I  did 
to  him  once  or  twice,  but  I  cannot  tell  how  long  space 
after."  A.  My  impression  is  that  I  should  prefer  the 
once. 

Q.  Well,  you  asked  him,  if  I  recollect  aright,  if  anything 
had  been  made,  or  anything  was  going  to  be  done,  in  re- 
gard to  that  mortgage  1  A.  Well,  I  Cannot  state  distinct- 
ly about  that.  I  remember  distinctly  the  motive  that 
actuated  me  in  mentioning  it,  and  that  I  brought  it  to  his 
memory,  that  he  might  know  that  T  stood  ready  to  fulfill 
my  share  in  any  movement. 

Q.  You  brought  the  subject  then  up  for  his  considera- 
tion 1  A.  I  did,  Sir,  in  the  second  instance. 

Q.  Fearing  that  he  might  have  forgotten  it,  or  was  too 
delicate  to  speak  about  it  %  A.  Y^es,  Sir,  either. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  up  to  the  time  when  that  $5,000  was 
raised  and  paid,  as  you  have  stated,  did  Mr.  Moidton, 
at  any  time  or  place,  suggest  to  you  anything  more  than 
he  had  suggested  in  the  first  instance  in  respect  to  taking 
up  this  mortgage  by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  Not 
that  I  recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  The  mortgage,  I  understand  you,  was  dated  May, 
1873— the  money  was  paid  over  in  May,  1873 1  A.  On 
Mr.  Tilton's  house  1 

Q.  The  money,  the  $5,000.  A.  Oh,  I  did  not  know  that 
you  had  come  to  that  subject. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  believe  it  was.  Sir. 

Q.  Just  be  accurate  about  it,  please.  A.  May,  you  say, 
of  1873 1   [Keferring  to  a  memorandum.] 
Mr.  Shearman— May  1  or  2. 

The  Witness— May  1 ;  I  have  it  marked  here,  Sir; 
$5,000,  mortgage. 
Q.  1873?   A.  1873.  ^ 

DISCUSSION    CONCERNING    "THE  GOLDEN 
AGE." 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beeclier,  I  want  you  to  state 
what  occurred  prior  to  the  payment  of  that  $5,000  be- 
tween yourseif  and  Mr.  Moulton  which  led  you  to  mort- 
gage your  property  and  pay  it  over?  A.  There  were 
several  conversations  with  Mr.  Moulton  and  me,  as  it  re- 
spects the  pecuniary  condition  of  The  Golden  Age  and  of  Mr. 
Tilton ;  and  in  those  conversations  I  got  more  or  less  inf  oiv 
mationas  to  the  state  of  the  paper.  Mr.  Moulton  said  that 
he  thought— was  an  indispensable  to  Mr.  Tilton's  salva- 
tion—he must  have  some  work  to  do ;  he  must  have  some 
channel  through  which  to  communicate  to  the  public, 
and  things  were  dragging  heavily— I  think  he  said  that 
Mr.  Tilton  himself  did  not  know  what  was  the  real  con- 
dition of  his  paper,  but  that  he  himself  had  to  meet  bills 
for  paper,  and  for  other  things,  from  time  to  time ;  and 
he  knew  more  about  the  paper ;  and  that  became  a  topic 
of  conversation.  But,  as  I  understood  from  him.  It  yrm 


TESTIMONY  OF  HEN 


RY    WABB  BEECHEB. 


109 


a  matter  of  consultation  by  other  friends  of  Mr.  Tllton 
elsewhere ;  and  there  was  more  or  less  conversation  about 
putting  The  Golden  Age  on  to  its  feet,  so  that  it  should  he 
immovable— a  prosperous  paper ;  and  the  immediate  occa- 
sion, or  the  occasion  out  of  which  the  final  thought  in  my 
mind  sprang,  was  on  a  visit  one  evening  to  his  house,  when 
we  were  sitting  in  the  back  parlor,  and  with  the  tea-table 
uncovered,  of  course — cloth  removed— and  we  were  alone 
there,  and  he  introduced  the  matter  again  in  some  way ; 
I  have  forgotten  what  the  conversation  ran  over,  except 
it  was  generally  on  the  state  of  things;  he  then  drew  out 
a  letter  from  his  pocket  and  read  me  some  extracts  from 
it,  which  were,  as  I  recall  it,  a  statement  from  a  friend 
that  a  check— a  cash  check,  I  understood,  but  I  will  not 
be  positive  about  that— of  $2,000  had  been  sent, 
and  that  two  time-drafts  also  had  been  sent;  I 
understood  from— and  that  the  friend  presumed  that  they 
would  answer  the  purpose  just  as  well  as  if  they  were 
payable  at  once,  and  made  some  statement  about  the 
condition  of  money  matters  which  did  not  enable  the 
friend  to  make  it  aU  a  payment  at  once.  He  had  the  two 
time-drafts  before  him  on  the  table,  and  mentioned,  as 
near  as  I  can  recoUect,  but  I  will  not  be  positive  about 
this,  that  they  were  of  about  equal  sums  with  the  cash 
payment ;  and  I  said  to  him,  "Well,  you  will  use  these, 
will  you  not  i"  "No,"  he  said,  he  should  not;  said  it  would 
Jiot  do. 

Q.  That  is,  the  time-drafts  ?  A.  Yes.  I  did  not  ques- 
tion him  further  than  that;  but  I  understood  that  the  cash 
paid  had  been  applied  to  that  purpose,  and  after  he  had 
read  the  letter  and  spoke  about  the  papers,  he  brought 
his  hand  down  on  the  table  in  an  admiring  way,  and 
gaid,  "  That  is  what  I  call  friendship." 

Q.  Well,  that  is  what  you  would  caU  friendship,  too, 
wasn't  it  ?  A.  WeU,  I  should.  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  extraordinary  in  his  observation  2  A. 
What? 

Q.  There  was  nothing  extraordinary,  therefore,  in  his 
observation?  A.  No,  Sir;  No,  Sir;  it  seemed  very 
natural  to  me. 

Q.  The  Golden  Age  had  been  the  subject  of  conversa- 
tion between  you  and  him  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  for  a  consider- 
able length  of  time. 

Q.  Its  wants  had  been  the  subject  of  discussion  t  A. 
They  had. 

Q.  The  prosperity  of  the  project?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  You  took  an  interest  in  having  it  succeed  1  A.  I 
did. 

Q.  So  did  Mr.  Moulton?  A.  So  did  Mr.  Moulton;  I 
thought  we  were  of  one  spirit. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  think  it  at  all  extraordinary,  inasmuch 
AS  you  and  he  were  in  the  same  fi-ame  of  mind  upon  that 
subject,  that  he  should  show  you  any  evidences  of  the 
prosperity  of  the  paper  or  of  the  liberality  of  his  friends  1 
A.  I  did  not ;  I  was  very  much  pleased  to  learn  it. 

Q.  You  thought,  then,  it  was  a  natural  thing  for  him  to 


show  you  these  drafts,  to  give  you  an  aecount  cf  this 
money  which  had  been  received  for  the  paper,  did  yon 
not  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  that  exactly ;  it  did  not  strike  me 
as  at  all  unnatural,  because  it  did  not  occm'  to  me  any 
way,  you  know,  whether  natural  or  unnatural. 

Q.  But  it  did  not  excite  any  apprehension  on  your  part  t 
A.  Not  the  least ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  regard  it  as  a  hint  given  to  you  f  A.  I 
did  not,  although  I  took  a  hint  from  it ;  but  I  did  not 
think  that  he  intended  

Q.  You  (^d  not  think  that  he  intended  it  ?  A.  It  did  not 
occur  to  me  in  that  light  at  all. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  take  the  hint  right  away  t  A.  No  ; 
not  tiU  after  I  had  got  home. 

Q.  He  did  not  say  anything,  however,  upon  the  sub- 
ject ?   A.  No,  Sir ;  no,  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  intimate,  in  any  way  whatever,  did  he,  that 
you  ought  to  contribute  ?  A.  Oh,  no,  he  did  not. 

Q.  Nor  did  he  express  a  wish  that  you  might  coii- 
tidbute  ?  A.  He  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  contribution  that  was  subsequently  made 
by  you  was  entirely  voluntary  upon  your  part  1  A.  It 
was  entirely  so. 

Q.  Now,  have  you  told  us,  Mr.  Beecher,  all  that  Mr. 
Moulton  said  prior  to  the  contribution  of  that  $500  with 
reference  to  any  contribution  ?  A.  That  $5,000  you 
mean  ? 

Q.  $5,000— in  reference  to  any  conti-ibution  by  you  1 
A.  No,  not  aU ;  but  I  have  told  you  that  which  is  a  fair 
specimen. 

Q.  Now,  had  the  contribution  of  that  money  by  you 
anything  to  do  with  the  settlement  of  the  difficulties  be- 
tween you  and  Mr.  Tilton  growing  out  of  these  charges  t 
A.  I  did  not  understand  it  so.  Sir. 

Q.  No  connection  whatever  ?  A.  I  did  not  understand 
it  to  have  any  connection  of  that  kind. 

Q.  It  was  not  given  to  you  then  for  the  purpose  of  set- 
tling it  1 

Judge  Neilson— Given  by  you  % 

Q.  By  you,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  that  difficulty  t 
A.  Oh,  no.  Sir ;  no,  Sir.  It  was  given  to  me  as  

Q.  Well,  that  is  an  answer.  Nor  was  it  given  by  you 
with  any  idea  that  it  would  settle  the  personal  difficulty 
between  you  and  his  family  or  himself  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  it 
had  no  relation  to  that. 

Q.  Nor  you  were  not  told  anything  to  that  effect  f  A. 
Not  that  I  recollect,  Sir ;  I  think  not. 

Q.  Well,  if  anything  of  that  kind  had  taken  place  you 
would  be  apt  to  remember  it,  wouldn't  you?  A.  It 
never  would  have  taken  place  if  any  such  thing  as  that 
had  been  said. 

Q.  That  is,  you  v,-:)rJd  not  have  given  the  money?  A. 
Not  a  cent. 

Q.  You  would  have  rebelled  at  once  ?  A.  I  should. 
Q.  If  you  had  thoug'j' that  the  money  had  been  asked 
from  you.  or  was  to  be  received  from  you,  with  any  vie"W 


110  THB  TILTON'B 

of  settling  tliia  personal  diflSeulty,  or  settling  tliese 
troubles,  you  would  not  liave  given  it  ?  A.  I  would  not 
have  paid  a  cent  if  I  liad  been  killed  for  it ;  I  did  it  out  of 
the  purest  kindness,  and  I  thought  that  Mr.  Moulton  did 
it  out  of  the  purest  kindness  and  sympathy. 
Q.  See  if  you  recognize  this,  Mr.  Beecher.  [Reading.] 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  did  you  come  to  pay  the 
$5,000  in  one  sum  ?  A.  Because  it  was  represented  to 
me  that  the  whole  difficulty  could  be  now  settled  by  that 
amoimt  of  money ;  which  would  put  The  Golden  Age  on  a 
secure  footing ;  that  they  would  be  able  to  go  right  on, 
and  that  with  the  going  on  of  them,  the  safety  of  Tilton 
would  be  assured,  and  that  would  be  the  settlement  of 
the  whole  thins  

Do  you  remember  anything  of  that  kind?  A.  I  don't 
know  what  that  i-efers  to ;  I  cannot  say  unless  I  see  the 
writing. 

Q.  Perhaps  if  you  look  at  it  you  can  tell  ?  A.  Yes.  Sir. 
[Book  handed  to  witness.]  I  presume  this  is  substan- 
tially what  I  said. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  that  Is  an  answer.  A.  [Continuing.]  And 
'What  I  should  still  say. 

Q.  Were  you  asked  this  question,  also  :  [Reading.] 

Q.  Were  there  any  documents  shown  to  you  by  Moul- 
ton—what  did  he  show  you  before  you  made  the  pay- 
ments? A.  It  was  the  result  of  intimations  and  general 
statements,  and  I  finally  said  to  him,  "  I  am  willing  to 
pay  $5,000." 

A.  I  presume  I  said  so,  Sir,  if  it  is  there. 

Q.  Now,  how  long  after  that  interview  with  Mr.  Moul- 
ton, when  he  showed  you  the  time-drafts  and  the  letter, 
was  it  that  you  raised  the  $500  that  you  paid  to  him? 
A.  $5,0001 

Q.  $5,000.  A.  I  cannot  say  how  long,  Sir ;  I  think  that 
within  a  few  days  I  took  the  steps  toward  it. 

Q.  How  long  do  you  think  it  was  afterward!  A.  I  have 
no  gauge,  or  no  data,  by  which  I  could  tell,  except  that  it 
was  not  far  removed  from  it. 

Q.  And  where  did  you  find  Mr.  Moulton  when  you  gave 
Tiim  the  money  ?  A.  I  don't  remember ;  I  recollect  giving 
it  to  him,  but  I  don't  remember  where  he  was. 

Q.  Can't  you  tell  whether  he  was  at  his  house,  or  at 
your  house,  or  at  the  store  ?  A.  I  have  an  impression 
that  I  was  walking  with  him  in  the  street,  or  met  him, 
hut  I  cannot  say  that  certainly. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  say  to  him  at  the  time  that  you 
gave  him  the  $5,000 !  A.  I  don't  know  that  I  said  any- 
thing more  than  that  I  had  raised  this.  I  told  him,  you 
know,  immediately  that  I  was  going  to  do  it,  and  then  I 
brought  it  to  him. 

Q.  Well,  can't  you  teU  me  what  you  said  when  you 
brought  it  to  him  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  do  not  now  recall  any- 
thing, except  that  I  had  succeeded  in  obtaining  the 
money  which  I  gave  him. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  think  that  was  obtained  from  you  by 
Mr.  Moulton  in  any  improper  way  1  A.  Not— that  was 
not  my  feeling  then  at  aU,  Sir, 


'^ECREB  7EIAL. 

Q.  You  did  not  regard  it  as  blackmail  then !  A.  I  did 
not.  Sir, 

Q.  Well,  cannot  you  tell  us  how  much  you  paid  prior  to 
the  payment  of  the  $5,0001  A.  Not  accurately.  Sir ;  I 
have  an  impression  that  the  whole  sum  amounted  to 
about  $7,000 ;  over  rather  than  under. 

Q.  That  is  including  the  $5,0001  A.  Including  the 
$5,000. 

Q.  About  $2,000  before  the  payment  of  the  $5,000  1  A., 
That  is  my  impression.  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  did  you  pay  any  money  after  the  payment  ol 
the  $5,000  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  think  not. 

Q.  WeU,  up  to  the  time  that  you  paid  the  $5,000,  did 
you  look  upon  those  payments  at  all  in  the  light  of  black- 
mail 1  A.  I  did  not.  Sir. 

Q.  You  felt  entirely  satisfied  with  the  money  that  you 
had  given  1  A.  Oh,  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  fact  til-:  you  had  given  it  1  A.  I  rejoiced  to  be 
able  to  give  it. 

Q.  And  did  it  willingly  1  A,  I  did  it  cheerfully. 

Q.  And  rejoicingly  1  A.  And  rejoicingly. 

Q.  Without  finding  fault  with  anybody  1  A.  Without 
finding  the  slightest  fault. 

Q.  Or  thinking  that  you  had  in  ainy  wa)  been  taken  ad- 
vantage of  1  A.  I  did  not  dream  of  it. 

Q.  Or  imposed  upon  1  A.  Or  imposed  upon.  When  I 
say  that,  of  course  you  imderstand  me  to  say  that  this 
api>lies  to  my  thoughts  about  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  Yes,  certainly.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  I  must  ask  you 
again  whether  you  have  no  means  of  getting  at  the  exact 
sum  which  you  contributed  1  A.  No,  Sir;  I  have  not. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  think  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  any  agency 
in  getting  this  money  at  that  time— t|iat  is,  any  sum  that 
you  paid  1  A,  Well,  no  ;  no  agency  that  I  know  of.  The 
thought  occurred  to  me  at  times  in  regard— that  he  knew 
of  it. 

Q.  Well,  when  Mr.  Moulton  got  the  $5,000  from  you, 
didn't  he  tell  you  he  should  not  tell  Mr.  Tilton  where  it 
came  from  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  about  that.  Sir. 

Q.  I  wish  you  would  tax  your  recollection  upon  that 
subject.  Now,  didn't  he  say  to  you  that  be  should  not  in- 
form Mr.  Tilton  the  som-ce  from  which  that  sum  came  1 
A.  I  don't  recollect  about  that.  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  don't  you  think  something  took  place  upon 
that  subject?  A.  All  that  I  recall  now  is  that  he  should 
husband  that,  and  feed  it  out  to  Mr.  TUton  carefully  and 
r^rliriously, 

Q.  Yes,  and  you  beUeved  he  would  do  so,  didn't  you  f 
A.  I  did,  Sir ;  and  I  beUeved  him  to  be  as  good  a  friend  as 
need  be. 

Q.  And  he  did  not  say  anything  about  concealing  the 
source  from  whence  it  came,  that  you  recoUect  1  A.  I 
don't  recall  that  he  did.  Sir. 


TJ^STIMONF  OF  HENBJ    WARD  BEECHEB. 


Ill 


THE  QUESTION  OF  BLACKMAIL. 

Q,  Well,  did  you  think  that  Theodore  Til- 
ton,  up  to  tbe  time  you  paid  tlie  $5,000,  was  levying 
blaclmiail  upon  you  in  any  way  ?  A,  I  cannot  say  that  I 
tliouglitso. 

Q.  Had  you  any  reason  to  thini;  so  at  all  ?  A.  I  had  no 
reason,  and  I  don't  know  that  I  did.  I  may  have  had  the 
suggestion  flit  across  my  mind,  but  it  was  nothing  that 
made  any  serious  impressiftn,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  if  it  didn't  flit  then,  don't  let  us  have  it— any- 
thing more  than  flit.  Let  me  read  to  you  and  see  if  you 
recollect  this : 

[Rtadtug.j 

The  full  truth  of  this  history  requires  that  one  more 
fact  should  be  told,  especially  as  Mr.  Tilton  has  invited  it. 
Money  has  been  obtained  from  me  in  the  course  of  these 
aflairs  in  considerable  sums,  but  I  did  not  at  first  look 
upon 'the  suggestions  that  I  should  contribute  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton's  pecuniary  wants  as  savoring  of  blackmail.  This 
did  not  occur  to  me  until  I  had  paid,  perhaps,  $2,000. 

A.  It  only  occured  then. 

Q.  Did  It  occur  then  ?  A.  I  presume  that  that  thought 
flitted  through  my  mind  then. 

Q.  Did  it  occur  then  1  A.  It  occurred  in  that  sense- 
transient  thought. 

Q.  That  you  had  been  imposed  upon,  and  had  paid 
blackmail?  A.  That  Mr.  Tilton  was  receiving  money 
from  me, 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  if  you  please,  did  it  occur  to  you 
when  you  paid  the  $2,000  that  you  had  been  imposed 
upon,  and  that  blackmail  had  been  obtained  from  youf 
A.  Will  you  read  that,  if  you  please,  again.  Sir  ] 

Q.  I  will  [Reading] : 

The  full  truth  of  this  history  requires  that  one  more 
fact  should  be  told,  especially  as  Mr.  Tilton  has  invited  it. 
Money  has  been  obtained  from  me  in  the  course  of  these 
affairs  in  considerable  sums,  but  I  did  not  at  first  look 
upon  the  suggestions  that  I  should  contribute  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton's  pecuniary  wants  as  savoring  of  blackmail. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  not  said  so. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  wait  until  I  get  through.  [Read- 
ing]: 

This  did  not  occur  to  me  until  I  had  paid,  perhaps, 
$2,000. 

Now,  I  pause  there  and  ask  you  whether  it  did  occur  to 
you  that  those  payments  savored  of  blackmail  when  you 
paid  the  $2,000 1  A.  I  cannot  state  positively  as  to  the 
time ;  it  certainly  did  not  in  all  the  earlier  periods  of  my 
contribution. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you  whether  it  occurred  to  you  at  that 
time,  as  stated  here?  A.  I  am— that  which  is  stated 
there  is  stmirty  not  that  it  occurred ;  that  it  did  come  to 
me. 

Q.  Now,  I  beg  your  pardon ;  you  are  not  to  give  an  ex- 
position of  this  language,  A.  I  am  to  give  an  exposition 
of  my  meaning  of  the  language. 

O.  Xn,  you  are  not. 


Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Beecher's  statement  is  that  it  did 
not  occur  to  him  before  a  certain  time. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir ;  but  my  question  is  whether  it 
did  occur  to  him  at  that  time,  and  I  am  obliged  to 
you  for  commending  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  did  not  do  it  for  the  sake  of  politeness. 

Q.  I  want  an  answer  to  that  question ;  and  I  am  going 
to  have  an  answer  to  the  question,  as  to  whether  at  that 
time  it  occm'red  to  him  that  it  savored  of  blackmail. 

The  Witness— May  it  please  your  Honor,  I  am  not  avoid- 
ing the  answer  at  all;  I  only  want  to  have  the  distinction 
made  between  a  conviction — of  an  occurrence  of  that  kind 
making  a  permanent  conviction,  and  merely  the  thought 
passing  through  my  mind.  Up  to  that  time  I  had  not 
even  thought  of  such  a  thing ;  but  at  that  time  it  occm'red 
to  me;  the  thought  began  to  come  into  my  mind  whether 
he  was  not  making  use  of  me  for  his  advantage ;  it  was  a 
transient  impression. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  an  answer  to  my  question, 
although  addressed  to  the  Court.  I  understood  you  to  say 
a  moment  ago,  Mr.  Beecher,  that  up  to  the  time  of  the 
payment  of  the  $5,000  it  had  never  occurred  to  you  in 
any  shape  or  form         A.  That  Mr.  Moulton  

Q.  And  when  you  made  the  distinction,  I  went  to  Mr. 
Tilton  and  asked  whether  Mr.  Tilton  was  levying  black- 
mail upon  you  in  any  form  or  shape,  and  I  understood  you 
to  say,  "No." 

Mr.  Shearman— No,  he  did  not. 

The  Witness— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  one  moment. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  beg  pardon ;  but  I  have  taken  especial 
pains  to  look  over  this  gentleman's  statements;  and  I  say 
to  your  Honor,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  Court  and 
jury  

Mr.  Fullerton— But  I  object  to  these  assertions  In  the 
presence  of  the  Court ;  and  I  don't  believe  this  is  proper 
at  all.  I  am  examining  this  witness,  Sir,  and  I  have  a 
right  to  examine  him  without  interruption. 

Mr.  Shearman— And  I  to  speak  

Mr.  Fullerton— There  is  no  question  before  the  Court. 

Mr.  Sheannan— Ajid  X  shall  not  stop  because  of  the  In- 
solence of  the  counsel. 

Mr.  Fullerton— May  I  ask  your  Honor  now,  at  this 
stage,  to  stop  the  counsel  until  I  get  through  with  the 
examination.  There  is  no  question  before  the  Court  at 
aU. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  say  that  this  gentleman  has  mis- 
stated  

Mr.  Fullerton— I  insist  upon  it  that  he  shall  not  inform 
this  witness  what  there  is  in  this  paper.  It  is  evidently 
an  attempt  to  do  so. 

Judge  Neilson— The  whole  matter  is  simply  this :  Coun- 
sel thinks  that  you  were  mistaken  as  to  the  fact  embraced 
in  your  question.  That  is  all ;  it  is  very  simple. 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  your  Honor  please,  I  stated  to  the 


112 


THE   TILTON-BBECBER  TBIAL, 


witness  what  I  understood  him  to  say  in  order  that  he 
might  correct  it  if  I  were  incorrect. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  a  very  simple  matter. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  a  very  curious  coincidence  that, 
whenever  this  gentleman  undertakes  to  state  verbally, 
and  without  reference  to  the  minutes,  he  is  so  unfortunate 
as  not  to  be  able  to  state  it  correctly. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  quote  it  word  for  word,  and  then  hand 
it  to  the  witness  for  his  examination. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  should  like  to  see  It  quoted  word  for 
word. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  do  quote  It  word  for  word,  and  then 
hand  it  to  the  witness  for  examination. 

Mr.  Shearman— When  he  does  that  he  is  able  to  do  it 
correctly,  but  never  except  at  those  times  when  he  refers 
to  the  printed  record. 

Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  if  Brother  Shearman  cannot  be 
impertinent  he  is  not  anything ;  so  we  wiU  put  up  with 
his  impertinence.  I  have  not  misquoted  any  testimony ; 
I  have  not  misquoted  any  statement ;  I  have  with  the 
utmost  frankness  quoted  word  for  word  as  it  is  written 
in  the  book,  and  then  handed  it  to  the  witness  for  his 
examination. 

Judge  Neilson— I  observe  you  liave  done  that  pretty 
uniformly,  but  at  the  same  time  the  learned  counsel 
might  think  that,  although  you  intended  to  quote  it  cor- 
rectly, yet,  in  a  given  instance  like  this,  you  had  commit- 
ted a  mistake. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  what  Mr.  Shearman  might  think.  Sir, 
16  not  of  importance  enough  to  take  up  your  Honor's  at- 
tention, or  mine  either,  for  a  moment. 

Judge  Neilson— He  thinks  it  his  duty  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  don't  know  what  he  thinks;  I  only 
know  Avliat  he  says  is  very  impertinent  indeed,  and  that 

he  cannot  be  otherwise.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher  [To  the 

stenograplier.]  Will  you  recur  to  the  last  question  and  see 
whether  I  am  correct  % 

[Last  two  questions  and  answers  were  read  by  the 
Tribime  stenographer.] 

Q.  Now,  was  I  correct  in  my  understanding  of  what  you 
said  on  your  direct  examination?  A.  I  don't  know,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  when  did  you  first  become  convinced  or  im- 
pressed with  the  idea  that  this  money  had  been  obtained 
from  you  improperly  1  A.  I  think  it  was  some  time  late 
in  August,  1874, 

Q.  In  August,  18741  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  think  were  the  improper  means 
used  by  Mr.  Moulton  to  get  the  money  from  you?  A. 
Well,  Sir,  I  did  not  think— I  was  not— I  could  not  make 
myself  think  he  had  used  any  improper  means  to  get  the 
money  from  me. 

Q.  What  means  did  he  use  to  get  the  money  from  you 
that  you  thought  were  improper  ?  A.  He  used  no  means 
which  at  the  time  I  dreamed  were  improper. 

Q.  Did  he  suggest  to  you  the  payment  of  money? 


A.  He  did  not,  except  in  the  case  of  the  term  bills,  but 

not  of  the  $5,000. 

Q.  You  told  me  a  moment  ago  that  the  $2,000  and  the 
$5,000  (as  I  understood  you— if  I  am  incorrect  you  will 
correct  me)  were  paid  willingly  by  you.  A.  More  than 
wDlingly,  Sir ;  you  were  correct  in  your  understanding. 

Q.  You  sought  the  opportunity  of  paying  the  money, 
did  you  not  ?  A.  I  cannot  exactly^  say  that. 

Judge  Neilson— As  to  the  $5,000. 

The  Witness— Yes,  as  to  the  $5,000;  the  others  were 
brought,  from  time  to  time,  to  me. 

Q.  Ajid  didn't  you  teU  us  on  your  direct-examination 
that  you  chided  Mr.  Moulton  for  not  calling  upon  you  for 
aid,  as  you  had  offered  it?  A.  I  did.  Sir;  I  told  him  I 
thought  he  was  altogether  too  sensitive  and  too  delicate. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  believe  that  he  had  used  improper 
means  in  taking  this  money  from  you?  A.  I  did  not,  of 
my  own  self. 

Q.  Somebody  did  for  you,  is  that  it?  A.  I  was  told  that 
that  was  blackmail. 

Q.  I  don't  want  what  anybody  told  you.  don't  want 
to  get  into  a  controversy  with  Brother  Shearman  about 
it.   [Laughter.]  [Reading:] 

Money  has  been  obtained  from  me  in  the  course  of 
these  affairs,  in  conside^kble  sums,  but  I  did  not  at  first 
look  upon  the  suggestions  that  I  should  contribute  to 
Mr.  Tllton's  pecuniary  wants  as  savoring  of  blackraaiL 
This  did  not  occur  to  me  until  I  had  paid  perhaps  $2,000. 
Afterward  I  contributed  at  one  time  $5,000.  After  the 
money  had  been  paid  over,  in  five  $1,000  bUls,  to  raise 
which  I  mortgaged  the  house  I  live  in,  I  felt  very  much 
dissatisfied  with  myself  about  it. 

Now,  did  that  dissatisfaction  have  its  rise  in  1874,  as 
you  have  stated,  in  the  month  of  August!  A.  After- 
ward, Sir. 

Q.  And  in  the  month  of  August,  18741  A.  I  think  not 

before  that. 

Q.  Not  before  ?  A.  I  think  not.  There  are  other  inao> 
ciiracies  in  that  statement. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  if  it  flitted  through  your  mind  when  you 
had  paid  the  $2,000  that  blackmail  was  being  taken  from 
you,  how  did  it  happen  that  you  afterward  paid  the 
$5,000?  A.  I  did  not  consider  that  as  blackmail,  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  consider  what  as  blackmail!  A.  The 
$5,000. 

Q.  I  didu't  ask  you  that.  A.  You  asked  me  how,  If  I 
considered  it  as  blackmail,  I  paid  the  $5,000. 

A.  No;  you  misunderstood  me.  A.  I  wiU  be  corrected, 
then,  if  you  please. 

Q.  If  you  regarded  the  $2,000  as  blackmail,  how  did 
you  happen  to  pay  the  $5,000  afterward?  A.  I  did  not 
consider  that  as  blackmail,  nor  did  I  consider  the  other. 

Q.  Well,  we  will  employ  other  terms,  then.  If  it  had 
"flitted  through  your  mind"  that  perhaps  the  $2,000 
was  blackmail,  how  did  it  happen  that  you  paid  the 
$5,000  afterward  ?  A.  I  did  not  consider  that  Mr.  Moul* 
t>on,  in  levying  any  part  of  it  


TESTIMONY   OF  HEXBT    WABD  BEECHEB. 


113 


Q.  One  moment— leave  out  Mr.  Moulton,  if  you  please, 
Mid  everybody  else.  I  am  talking  about  tlie  abstract  pay- 
ment of  the  money.  A.  I  am  talking  about  the  same 
thing. 

Q.  Well,  then,  don't  bring  In  anybody.  I  ask  you  again 
if  it  flitted  through  your  mind  (to  employ  your  own  lan- 
guage) that  the  $2,000  had  been  obtained  from  you  by 
blackmail,  or  that  the  payment  of  the  $2,000  savored  of 
blackmail,  how  did  it  happen  that  you  paid  the  $5,000 
afterward!  A,  Because  did  not  savor  of  blackmail 
to  me  then,  nor  did  the  other  until  afterward. 

Q.  After  what  ?  A.  After  1  had  paid  it. 

Q.  Well,  after  you  paid  the  $2,000,  you  thought  it 
•avored  of  blackmail,  did  youl  A.  The  suggestions  came 
afterward. 

Q.  Wen,  now  I  ask  you,  after  those  suggestions  came  to 
your  mind  that  it  was  blackmail,  how  did  it  happen  that 
you  paid  further  money!  A.  The  suggestion  did  not 
oome  to  my  mind  ^hat  the  further  money  was  blackmail. 

Q.  Oh,  it  didn't  

Judge  Neilson— Did  not  the  suggestion  come  to  your 
mind  until  after  all  the  money  had  been  paid  over  ? 

The  Witness— The  suggestion  came  to  my  mind,  may  it 
please  your  Honor,  In  this  form— that  Mr.  Moulton  was 
pursuing  a  course  of  perfect  uprightness  toward  me,  and 
honor,  but  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  in  a  position  in  wMeh  he 
was  willing  to  U5e  my  help  for  himself;  and  when  Mr. 
Moulton,  in  the  conversation,  represented  the  great  ad 
vantage  which  would  be  had  in  setting  The  Golden  Age 
free  from  all  its  difflcultiea  by  an  inmediate  and  Liberal 
contribution,  and  ending,  therefore,  its  difficulties,  I  had 
not  the  slightest  thought  that  it  was  blackmail. 

Mr.  Pullerton— Why  did  Mr.  Moulton  tell  you  that 
liberal  and  immediate  contributions  would  setTA*  Golden 
Age  on  a  good  footing !  A.  He  told  me  that  the  friends 
of  Tfie  Golden  Age  were  taking  steps  to  do  it. 

Q.  That  is  what  he  told  you !  A.  That  is  the  substance 
of  it 

Q.  Now,  I  repeat  the  question :  If  the  thought  flitted 
through  your  mind  that  the  $2,000  savored  of  blackmail, 
why  did  you  pay  the  $5,000 !  A.  Because  I  did  not  think 
thai  savored  of  blackmaU. 

Q.  You  told  me  a  moment  ago  that  if  you  had  had  an 
Idea  that  any  of  those  sums  savored  of  blackmail,  yon 
•would  not  have  paid  them  at  aU!  A.  I  didnot  think  they 
did  savor  of  blackmail  until  after  they  had  been  paid. 

Q  VeryweU.  The  $2,000,  after  it  was  paid,  you  thought 
savored  of  blackmail !  A.  No,  I  did  not. 

Judge  Neilsoii— His  statement  is,  that  it  did  not  oocur 
to  him  until  after  $2,000  was  paid. 

Mr.  Fullerton— WeR,  then  it  did  occur  to  hlrn. 

Judge  Neilson— But  how  long  afterward ! 

Mr.  Pullerton— After  the  payment  of  the  $2,000,  and 
before  the  payment  of  the  $5,000. 

Mr.  Evarts — Oh,  no ;  that  does  not  appear. 

The  Witness— That  does  not  appear 


Mr.  Fullerton— It  does  appear.  I  put  the  question  to 

him  three  or  tour  times,  how  it  happened  that  he  paid  the 
$5,000  after  he  thought  that  the  $2,000  savored  of  black- 
mail, and  his  answer  has  invariably  been,  because  he  did 
not  think  that  the  $5,000  did  savor  of  blackmail.  That  is 
his  answer  over  and  over  again. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  Ms  answer. 

:Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  I  will  put  the  question  to  him 
again.  Mi\  Beecher,  did  it  occur  to  you,  or  did  the  thought 
occur  to  you,  or  come  to  your  mind  in  any  way,  that  the 
$2,000  savored  of  blackmail  before  or  after  you  paid  the 
$5,000  ?   A.  The  $2,000  that  I  had  paid  to  Mr.  Tilton  ! 

Q.  Paid  to  Mr.  Moulton!  A.  Not  under  that  designa- 
tion. 

Q.  Under  what  designation.  A.  I  don't  think  the 
'•  blacionail"  came  to  me  tmtil  after  the  Conmiittee's  in- 
vestigation in  1374. 

Q.  That  is  the  first  time!  A.  Idld  not  put  that  name 
on  it,  but  it  was  put  on  it,  and  I  spoke  of  it  because  we 
were  counseling  upon  the  subject  at  that  time,  and  I 
called  it  by  the  name  that  I  heard  it  called  by. 

A.  Who  put  it  on  1  A.  I  don't  know  which  of  them. 

Q.  Tell  tis  who  were  there,  and  let  them  diAlde  the 
honors.   [Laughter.]   Where  was  it,  and  who  were  pres- 
ent? A.  I  don't  know  of  any  particular  interview  that 
can  designate. 

Q.  Tell  me,  Mr.  Beecher,  if  you  please,  who  it  was  that 
suggested  to  you  that  the  payment  of  this  money  was 
blackmail!  A.  I  think  Mr.  Shearman  will  have  to  take  a 
part  of  it,  won't  he ! 

ME.  BEECHEE'S  EEFUSAL  TO  USE  THE  TEEM 
BLACOIAIL. 
Q.  I  thought  so.    Perhaps  the  whole  of  itt 
A.  No.  Then  I  spoke  with— it  must  have  been  Gen 
Tracy. 

Q.  Yes,  par  nobUe  flratrum.  A.  If  it  was  not  him  then 
it  was  somebody  else  that  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  You  cannot  remembOT  who  the  third  person  was 
A.  I  cannot.  Sir. 

Q.  It  never  occurred  to  you  that  the  payment  of  the 
money,  which  gave  you  so  much  joy  in  1871  and  1872, 
was  blackmail,  until  you  had  a  lawyer  tell  you!  A.  I 
was  fought  with  actually,  and  beaten  into  the  use  of  that 
term.  I  defended  Mi-.  Moulton  up  and  dovni,  and  said 
that  he  had  no  thought  of  that  kind ;  I  would  not  believe 
it  of  him ;  and  it  was  in  the  subsequent  conferences 
I  was  made  ashamed  of  my  simplicity— that  it  was— they 
told  me  that  I  was  green.  fLaughter.] 

Q.  Yes.  It  was  fought  into  you,  was  it!  A.  It  was 
beaten  into  me  by  good,  sound  admonitions. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  was  beaten  into  you  by  sound  argu- 
ment !  A.  I  don't  think  it  was  by  argument  exactly. 

Q.  Well,  has  it  stayed  in  you  ever  since  i  Do  you  now 
believe  it  was  blackmail!  A.  Well,  I  fall  from  grace 
every  once  in  a  while,  and  recover  n:iyself. 


114 


THE  TILION-BKEOHEB  TBIAL. 


Q.  Well,  recover  as  best  you  can,  and  tell  me  whether 
/on  believe  now  that  Francis  D.  Moulton  intended  to 
blackmail  you  in  obtaining  these  sums  of  money  from 
you  ?  A.  I  have  no— my  belief  is  

Q.  No.  Tell  me  whether  you  believe  it  now  !  A.  I  was 
going  to  tell  you,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  can  say  yes  or  no  to  it  1  A.  Well,  just  no^ 
I  have  no  thought  about  it— in  the  matter.  In  the  con- 
fusion and  excitement  of  your  questions  that  does  not 
rest  as  a  matter  upon  my  mind. 

Q.  I  will  give  you  ample  time  to  make  up  a  judgment 
upon  it,  and  to  consult  with  yom-  two  lawyers^  if  you 
choose ;  but  I  want  to  know  now  whether  you  think  that 
Francis  D.  Moulton  intended  to  levy  blackmail  upon 
you  in  obtaining  the  $7,000,  or  any  part  of  that  sum  ? 
A.  fWith  hesitation]  I  am  afraid  he  did. 

Q.  You  are  afraid  he  did  ?  A.  I  am  afraid  so.  I  don't 
want  to  say  so. 

Q.  That  is  not  an  answer.  I  did  not  appeal  to  your 
fears;  I  appealed  to  your  judgment?  A.  Well,  Sir,  I 
have,  on  that  subject,  no  hard,  immovable  judgment.  I 
found— Mr.  Moulton  made  such  an  impression  on  me  that 
to  think  evil  of  him  is  the  hardest  thing  that  I  can  do, 
and  therefore,  although  when  I  am  brought  up  to  the 
facts  by  others,  I  am  constrained  to  say  that  it  looks  like 
it,  yet,  when  I  am  left  to  myself,  my  other  thoughts  often 
get  the  ascendency. 

Q.  Now,  then,  when  these  thoughts  occur  to  you  that  he 
may  have  done  it,  will  you  be  good  enough  to  point  out 
any  act  or  word  of  Mr.  Moulton's  on  which  you  predi- 
cate that  thought  ?  A.  No,  I  cannot. 

Q.  You  cannot  1  A.  No,  I  cannot. 

Q.  Now  I  want  to  know,  therefore,  upon  what  this  sug- 
gestion rests  that  he  may  possibly  have  levied  blackmail  ? 
A.  It  is  upon  the  representation  that,  upon  such  a  man  as 
I  am,  the  way  to  levy  blackmail  is-  not  to  intimidate  him, 
but  to  work  upon  his  kindly  feelings,  and  that  by  such 
delicate  touches  my  feelings  were  worked  upon,  they 
knowing  that  generosity  was  a  weakness  of  mine,  and  so 
the  money  was  obtained  by  moral  blackmail. 

Q.  By  your  moral  blackmail  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  by  moral 
blackmail. 

Q.  Is  that  the  way  the  lawyers  argued  it  with  you  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  way  they  beat  you  into  it  1  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  the 
way  they  rubbed  it  into  me.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  The  way  they  fought  you  up  and  down  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir  ;  fought  me  up  and  down  until  I  surrendered. 

Q,  How  long  did  the  battle  last  before  you  surrendered  1 
A.  It  lasted  a  good  while. 

Q.  How  long  1  A.  It  ran  through  weeks. 

Q.  And  when  was  the  complete  victory  obtained!  A.  T 
thinlc  it  was  since  I  returned  from  the  White  Mountains. 

Q.  When  was  that  1   A.  That  was  in  October,  1874. 

Q.  Then  you  gave  up  i  A.  WeU,  I  gave  up  to  this  effect. 


that  I  did  not  say  in  their  presence,  any  more,  that  it  wa& 
not  blackmail. 

Q.  How?  A.  I  had  been  so  suitably  disciplined  hy 
them,  that  I  did  not  dare  to  say  in  their  presence  that  it 
was  not  blackmail. 

Q.  They  intimidated  you?  A.  Well,  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  They  treated  you  worse  than  MoiHton  did,  didn't 
they  ?  A.  A  great  deal  worse,  [Laughter.] 

[Here  Mr.  Fullerton  consulted  with  the  other  counsel 
for  the  plaintiff.] 

Q.  Mr.  Bee  Cher,  your  answer  to  the  question  which  I 
put  to  you,  whether  you  now  believe  that  Francis  Moul- 
ton intended  to  levy  blackmail  upon  you  has  not  been 
answered  satisfactorily  to  some  of  my  associates,  and  I 
put  it  to  you  again,  as  to  your  present  belief  t  A.  WeU, 
Sir,  if  you  mean  by  blackmail  that  he  levied  contribu- 
tions for  his  own  advantage  on  me,  I  do  not  IJiink  it;  but 
if  you  mean  

Mr.  FuUerton— That  is  

The  Witness  [Continuing]— But  if  you  mean  thao  he 
levied  money  upon  me,  using  my  generous  feelings  as  the 
instrument,  for  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Tilton,  I  think  he  did. 

Q.  Now,  when  did  he  take  advantage  of,  or  use,  your 
generous  feelings?  A.  Well,  I  think  he  did  in  regard  to 
the  $5,000,  though  it  did  not  at  the  time  seem  so  to  me, 
and  though  it  is  entirely  an  after  judgment  and  an 
artificial  judgment. 

Q.  Entirely  voluntary,  that  payment  was,  was  it  not! 
A.  Oh !  so  far  as  I  was  concerned,  perfectly  so. 

Q.  You  had  not  intimated  to  Mr.  Moulton  that  you  in- 
tended to  give  him  $5,000  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  had. 

Q.  Before  you  gave  it  ?   A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Before  you  gave  it  to  him  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  certainly. 

Q.  When  was  it  ?  A.  After  that  interview  I  told  him 
that  after  a  few  days  I  was  going  to  contribute  $5,000, 
and  then  I  took  steps  to  get  it. 

Q.  You  fixed  the  sum  yourself  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  He  did  not?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  could  have  fixed  it  at  $500  or  $1,0001  i 
could  have  fixed  it  at  $1,000,  or  any  other  sum  I  pleased. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  your  return  from  the  White 
Mountains— when  was  that  1  A.  In  October,  1874. 

Q.  And  it  was  not  until  after  that  that  your  lawyers 
subdued  you  into  the  belief  that  this  was  blackmail!  A. 
No,  Sir;  I  think  it  was  after  that  when  I  became  at  aU 
manageable  on  that  subject. 

Q.  Your  statement,  however,  was  before  that;  was  i 
not  in  the  month  of  August  ?  A.  My  statement ! 

Q.  Yes,  before  the  Committee?  A.  Yes,  Sir, it  was;  but 
you  know  that  during  this  

Q.  That  will  do ;  that  is  an  answer!  A.  Yes,  Sir,  that 
IS  an  answer. 

Q.  Did  you  not,  then,  before  you  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  was  blackmail  in  October,  state,  substance, 
that  you  thought  it  was  blackmail !  A.  Wir  rou  real  it, 
if  you  please! 


TJESTIMOSY  OF  H£XRY    WABD  BEECEEB. 


115 


Q.  Look,  please,  aud  see  what  you  said  upon  tliat  sub- 
ieet.  and  tell  me  whetlier  that  was  a  final  or  interlocutory 
iudgment  of  youi-s,  to  use  tlie  legal  plirase  1  A.  [Look- 
ing at  the  book.J  I  presume  this  is  my  statement,  sub- 
stantially. 

Q.  Now,  do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  when  you 
wrote  your  statement  in  August  you  had  not  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  blackmail  that  was  levied  upon 
you?  A.  My  statement  was  not  written  altogether,  Sir  ; 
it  was  written  and  extemporized  and  taken  down  by  a 
phonographer. 

Q.  Well,  I  didn't  know  that  it  made  any  difference 
Avliether  it  was  written  or  taken  down  by  a  phonog- 
rapher.  A.  You  asked  me  about  mj-  icritten  s'utement. 

Ql-  Well,  it  was  written  out,  was  it  not  ?   A.  Not  by  me. 

Q.  It  was  written  out,  was  it  not  ?   A.  Not  bj-  me. 

Q.  Was  it  not  written  out  1  A.  It  was  not  my  written 
statement. 

Q.  Was  it  written  out  i  A.  Not  when  I  deUvered  it. 

Q.  Was  it  afterward?  A.  It  became  a  written  state- 
ment, but  not  mine. 

Q.  'When?  A.  After  it  went  into  the  phonographer's 
hands. 

Q.  "^Tien  was  that  ?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you  exactly. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  ?   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  revise  it  ?   A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  After  the  stenographer  took  it  down  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Tell  me  now  when  that  was  as  near  as  you  can  ?  A. 
When  he  took  it  down  1 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  have  forgotten  the  date. 

Q.  What  month  ?   A.  It  was  about  the  14th  of  August. 

Q.  Then  it  became  a  written  statement,  didn't  it?  A. 
Became  a  written  statement. 

Q.  Very  weU.  When  it  became  a  written  statement,  I 
understand  you  to  say  you  had  not  made  up  your  mind 
that  it  was  blackmail.  Is  that  so  ?  A.  T  don't  recollect 
that  I  iiave  said  that. 

Q.  Y^ou  told  me  that  you  came  to  that  conclusion  on 
yom-  return  from  the  White  Mountains  in  October  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  I  now  ask  you  whether  la  August,  after  this  became 
a  written  statement,  you  thought  it  was  blackmail  ?  A. 
That  w;«  one  of  the  periods  m  which  I  thought  it  was 
blackmail. 

Q.  One  of  the  periods?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  have  stated  to 
you  that  it  was  a  fluctuating  state  of  mind. 

Q.  Periodical  ?  A.  Well,  not  quotidian  exactly ;  it  was 
fluctuating. 

Q.  Did  it  wax  and  wane  ^vith  the  moon  m  any  way  1 
[Laughter.]  A.  No,  I  think  not,  Sir.  I  more  days  thought 
it  was  not  than  I  did  that  it  was. 

Q.  When  you  began  to  falter  in  your  judgment,  did  the 
lawyers  come  to  the  attack  again  ?  A.  When  I  came  back 
and  talked  witt  them,  I  found  myself  strengthened  in  that 
conviction. 

0.  Were  you  settled  in  the  conviction  that  this  was 


blackmail  in  August,  1874,  when  youi-  statement  became 
a  written  statement  ?  A.  At  the  time  that  I  made  my 
written  statement  I  supposed  it  was  so. 

Q.  Were  you  settled  in  your  conviction  1  A.  Not  set- 
tled. 

Q.  Then  were  you  willing  to  make  a  statement  to  go 
forth  to  the  world  that  Francis  D.  Mouiton  had  levied 
blackmail  upon  you  without  its  being  a  settled  conviction 
in  your  mind  that  it  was  true  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  assuming  that  it  is  in  the  state- 
ment, 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  ia  the  statement. 
Mr.  Shearman— I  say  it  is  not  in  the  statement,  nor  any- 
thing like  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— We  will  put  it  in  another  form  then. 

Q.  Were  you  willing  m  August,  1874,  before  you 
had  a  settled  conviction  that  this  was  blackmail— were 
you  willing  to  say  what  you  did  say  upon  that  subject  in 
your  statement  ?  A.  When  I  said  what  I  said  in  that 
statement  I  said  it  upon  the  supposition  that  that  was 
my  fixed  impression. 

Q.  And  it  became  unfixed  afterward  ?  A.  Afterward. 

Q.  How  soon  afterward  ?  A.  I  don't  know.  Sir. 

Q.  Tell  me  about  how  soon  afterward?  A.  I  cannot 
say;  August — September— some  time  in  the  month  of 
September,  I  think,  I  vibrated  very  much  the  other  way. 

Q.  And  you  gave  up  this  contingent  conclusion,  did 
you  ?  A.  That  it  was  only  by  a  kind  of— well,  by  a  kind 
of  figure  of  speech. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  publish  anything  at  that  time  to  do 
justice  to  the  members  upon  whom  any  imputation  might 
rest  •?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  had  the  fear  of  my  lawyers  before  my 
eyes. 

Q  You  succumbed,  did  you  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Y^'ou  were  afraid  to  tell  what  you  thought  upon  that 
subject  ?  A.  Oh,  when  I  saw  them  they  made  me  think 
t'other  way;  they  thought  that  I  was  a  chicken-hearted 
man  about  such  things,  and  I  don't  think  their  opinion  of 
me  was  compliment  a  rj"^. 

CONYERSATIOXS   OF  MR.   BEECHEE  WITH 
HIS  LAWYERS  AND  THE  MEMBERS  OF 
THE  COMMITTEE. 
Q.  Don't  you  recollect  the  press  generally 
throughout  the  country,  so  far  as  it  fell  under  youi-  ob- 
servation, denounced,  in  the  bitterest  possible  terms,  Mr. 
Mouiton  for  having  levied  blackmail  upon  you?  A.  I 
don't  think  I  ever  read  a  newspaper  with  that  in  it. 

Q.  No  allusion  to  it  ?  A.  I  don't  think  I  read  a  news- 
paper during  all  that  time  that  touched  upon  that  sub- 
ject. 

Q.  Did  you  not  hear  from  various  quarters  that  Mr. 
Mouiton  was  condemned  in  unmeasured  terms  for  having 
levied  blackmail  upon  you !  A.  Not  much ;  I  was  oat  of 
town. 

Q.  Where  were  you  ?  A.  White  Mountains. 


116 


THE   Tim  ON-BRECREE  TBIAL. 


Q.  You  didn't  hear  it  tkere  1  A.  I  may  liave  heard  it, 
but  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  whether  you  did  hear  it  or  not  1 
A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  What  occurred  in  October,  1874,  which  brought  you 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  was  blackmail  1  A.  The  same 
tilings  that  had  operated  in  the  beginniag. 

Q.  The  talk  with  Mr,  Tracy  and  Mr.  Shearman,  was  it  ? 
A.  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Shearman,  and  Mr.  Winslow,  and 
Mr.  Sage,  and  Mr.  Storrs,  and  Mr.  Cleveland,  and— who 
else  did  I  talk  to  ?  I  know  I  didn't  talk  to  anybody  about 
this  time  that  did  not  push  me  in  that  direction. 

Q.  You  talked  to  them  aU  upon  this  subject  of  black- 
mail ?  A.  I  cannot  say  I  talked  to  them  all,  but  I  think 
it  quite  likely  I  talked  to  them ;  Mr.  Sage  I  recollect 
talking  with,  and  I  have  an  impression  I  talked  with  Mr. 
Winslow. 

Q.  He  was  another  lawyer  1  A.  He  was  another  law- 
yer. 

Q.  He  thought  it  blackmail,  didn't  he  f  A.  I  think  he 
did. 

Q.  Don't  you  recoUeot  whether  he  did  or  not  t  A.  I 
talked  also  with  Mr.  Bartlett. 
Q.  What  Mr.  Bartlett  ?  A.  O.  E.  Bartlett,  is  it  1 

Mr.  Shearman— W.  O.  Bartlett. 

Mr.  FuUerton— W.  O.  Bartlett. 

The  Witness— W.  O.  Bartlett  of  New-York. 

Mr.  Fullerton— When  did  you  talk  with  Mr.  Winslow 
about  it  1  A.  I  could  not  say  ;  it  was  some  time  

Q.  About  what  time  1  A.  I  talked  with  Mr.  Winslow 
about  it  during  the  month  of  August. 

Q.  And  he  thought  it  was  blackmail  then,  did  he!  A.  I 
have  an  impression  that  he'  did. 

Q.  You  talked  with  these  men  after  they  were  put  on 
the  Committee,  did  you?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  they  insisted  upon  it  to  you  that  this  was  black- 
mail i  A.  Members  of  the  Committee— I  do  not  think  I 
talked  with  them  so  much  as  I  did  with  the  lawyers  that 
were  employed  by  the  Committee. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  talk  with  members  of  the  Committee, 
whether  it  was  as  much  as  you  talked  with  the  lawyers, 
or  not  1  A.  I  think  I  talked  with  some  members  of  the 
Committee. 

Q  What  member  of  the  Committee  did  you  talk  with 
about  the  blackmail  1  A.  If  I  were  to  say  that  certainly 
of  any  one  I  should  say  with  Mr.  Cleveland  and  with  Mr. 
Sage. 

Q.  WeU,  now,  with  any  others  1  A.  I  cannot  say  posi- 
tively. Sir.  It  is  quite  possible  that  I  talked  with  Mr. 
Storrs,  although  I  do  not  recollect  it  distinctly. 

Q.  This  was  before  the  evidence  was  taken  before  the 
Committee,  was  it  not  1  A.  It  was  while  the  Committee 
were  taking  the  evidence. 

Q.  Was  it  before  your  evidence  was  taken  1  A.  I  cannot 
aay  positively  about  that. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  reooJVction  about  itt  A.  I  talked 


also  with  Mr.  Kossiter  Raymond— Bossiter  W.  Bujr- 

mond. 

Mr.  Fullei'ton— Yes,  a  very  excellent  man,  I  take  It. 
The  Witness— Yes ;  only  his  hand  was  heavy  on  me. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Wen,  you  had  a  hard  time  of  it,  no 
doubt. 
The  Witness— I  did. 

Q.  WiU  you  ten  me  what  other  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee you  talked  to  on  the  subject  of  blackmail?  A.  I 
cannot  tell  you  any  more  distinctly. 

Q.  And  whether  it  was  before  or  after  you  gave  your 
evidence  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  think  I  talked  with 
the  members  of  the  Committee,  with  the  exception  of 
Mr.  Cleveland  probably,  afterward,  but  I  think  that  

Q.  After  what  1  A.  I  talked  with  Mr.  Shearman,  with 
Mr.  Cleveland,  and  witu  Mr.  Raymond  while  I  was  mark- 
ing my  statement. 

Q.  While  you  were  preparing  it  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  before  you  delivered  it  to  the  Committee  1  A. 
Before  I  delivered  it  to  the  Committee. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Raymond  a  member  of  the  Committee!  A. 
No,  Su-. 

Q.  Mr.  Cleveland  was  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  relation  did  you  bear  to  Mr.  Cleveland  1  A.  I 
was  his  pastor. 

Q.  Any  other  relation  1  A.  No  other. 

Q.  Any  business  relation!  A.  1872;  at  that  time  lie 
was  

Mr.  Shearman— 1874. 

Mr.  FuUerton— 1874. 

The  Witness— In  1874  I  bore  no  direct  business  rela- 
tions with  him. 

Q.  Indirect,  did  you  bear  any  relations  to  him  !  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  he  was  employed  by  J.  B.  Ford  &  Co.,  who  were  the 
publishers  of  TTie  Christian  Union,  by  the  publishing 
association— the  managers. 

Q.  How  long  before  that  had  you  appointed  him  on  the 
Committee,  before  this  conversation  in  regard  to  black- 
mail ?  A.  I  requested  him  to  serve  on  the  Committee  on 
the  26th  of  June. 

Q.  Did  he  consent  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  rmdertake  to  convince  you  it  was  black- 
mail !  A.  He  never  had  any  other  opinion. 

Q.  Did  he  undertake  to  convince  you  it  was  blackmail ! 
A.  I  don't  remember  that  he  ever  made  a  set-to  on  me, 
but  that  was  the  constant  tendency  of  his  view  and  con- 
versation. 

Q.  And  that  was  before  you  made  your  statement  to  the 
Committee  !  A.  Before  I  made  my  statement  to  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Q.  How  did  he  learn  the  facts!  A.  In  regard  to  it! 

Q.  Yes.  A.  He  had  other  experiences  beside  mine. 

Q.  Had  he  learned  them  from  you  !  A.  He  had  learned 
from  me  the  facts  in  regard  to  my  raising  the  money. 

Q.  And  one  of  this  Committee  who  were  sitting  in  Judg*- 
ment  upon  this  case  was  trying,  before  you  made  your 


TE81IM0NJ   OF  Em 

statement  l)efore  the  Committee,  to  conyince  you  that 
you  had  been  blackmailed?  A.  Mr.  Cleveland  did  not 
labor  with  me  in  any  such  sense  as  did  Mr.  Shearman  and 
Mr.  Raymond. 

Q.  I  am  not  raising  any  question  of  the  comparative 
labor  they  performed;  I  am  only  asking  you  whether  he 
did  labor  more  or  less.  I  don't  suppose  he  was  as  effec- 
tive as  the  two  lawyers.  A.  No;  but  aU  he  did,  as  I 
remember,  was  to  express  emphatically  his  opinion  that 
tljat  was  blackmail. 

Q.  And  this  was  before  your  statement  was  given  to 
the  Committee  9  A.  Before  the  statement  was  made  to 
the  Committee. 

Q.  Now,  did  any  others  of  this  Conmilttee  state  that 
same  thing  to  you  I  A.  I  cannot  say  that  they  did;  I  can- 
not recall  it. 

Q.  Now,  had  you  not  stated  the  facts  to  Mr.  Cleveland 
before  the  Committee  was  formed?  A.  What  facta  1 

Q.  In  regard  to  the  payment  of  this  money.  A.  I  pre- 
sume I  had,  but  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Didn't  he  express  the  opinion  that  that  was  black- 
mail before  he  was  appointed  on  the  Committee  1  A. 
That  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  f  A.  I  have  no  recol- 
lection. 

Q.  What  opinion  did  he  express  about  this  statement 
you  made  to  him  before  he  was  appointed  on  the  Com- 
mittee ?  A.  I  don't  think  I  ever  made  a  detailed  state- 
ment to  him. 

Q.  1  didn't  ask  you  for  a  detailed  statement.  A.  I  don't 
think  I  ever  made  a  statement  of  the  whole  matter. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  whether  you  made  a  statement  of 
the  whole  matter.  Did  you  make  a  statement  to  Mr. 
Cleveland  before  he  was  appointed  on  the  Committee  i 
A.  $500. 

Q.  Well?  A.  On  aU  sorts  of  subjects. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  that  is  an  advantage  no"vr  that  you 
have  gained. 

Q.  Did  you  make  a  statement  of  the  facts  connected 
with  your  diflSculty  with  Mr.  Tilton  before  he  was  ap- 
pointed on  that  Committee?  A.  I  did  not  make  any  fuU 
•tatement. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  for  a  full  statement.  Did  you  make 
a  statement,  whether  it  was  full  or  not  ?  A.  I  made  some 
statements  of  some  facts  connected  with  it. 

Q.  Now,  did  he  express  an  opinion  upon  those  facts 
which  you  thus  stated  ?  A.  On  some  of  them  he  did. 

Q.  And  what  opinion  did  he  express  ?  A.  I  don't  recall 
it,  Sir. 

Q.  Can  you  not  tell  us  what  it  was  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  you  1  A.  Oti,  it 
was  probably  favorable  to  me.  He  was  a  good,  sensible 
man. 

Q.  Yes.  Upon  what  subject  did  he  express  a  favorable 
opinion  ?  A.  I  dont  recall  the  subjects  that  came  up  for 
oonvcrsation. 


BY   WARD  BEECHEB,  117 

\     Q.  The  subject  was  this  difficulty  between  you  and  Mr. 
Tilton?  A.  The  subject  was  this  difficulty— yes,  Sii'. 

Q.  Therefore  you  got  the  opinion  and  the  judgment  of 
one  of  the  Committeemen  before  you  appointed  him  on 
that  Committee  to  investigate  it  ?  A.  Not  upon  the  whole 
case. 

Q.  Upon  some  part  of  It?  A.  Upon  some  facts  in  it. 
Mr.  Fullerton— That  was  a  good  thing  to  do,  imdoubt* 
edly. 

The  Witneas— I  was  too  glad  to  get  any  idea  or  any  re- 
membrances. 

Q.  And  were  you  too  glad  to  get  an  opinion  which  char- 
acterized it  beforehand?  A.  I  was  very  glad  to  get  a 
man  who  had  an  opinion  worthy  to  be  expressed. 

Q.  Was  Ml*.  Sage  upon  this  Committee  ?  A.  He  was. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him  before  he  was  appointed  1  A. 
I  do  not  think  I  did  before.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  afterward?  A.  I  did  afterward. 

Q.  And  before  your  statement  was  made?  A.  I  think 
not 

Q.  After  your  statement  was  made  ?  A.  I  think  it  was 
after  my  statement  was  made,  but  I  will  not  be  definite 
about  that. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  any  other  member  of  the  Commit* 
tee  before  he  was  appointed?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that 
I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  any  other  member  of  the  Commit- 
tee after  he  was  appointed,  and  before  the  evidence  was 
given  by  you  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  do  not  recol- 
lect that  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  report  thatthe  Committee  read  after 
it  was  made  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Were  you  present  in  church  when  the  report  was 
made  ?  A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Did  they  not  read  the  report  to  you  ?  A.  They  did 
not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  read  it  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  never  have  read  the  report  of  the  Committee! 
A.  I  never  have. 

Q.  Were  the  contents  of  that  report  ever  stated  to  you  % 
A.  No,  not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  to-day  what  is  in  it  ?  A.  I  imder- 
stood  it  was  a  triumphant  acquittal. 

Q.  From  whom  did  you  understand  that  f  A.  I  under- 
stood it  from  IMr.  Rossiter  Baymond,  and  I  understood  It 
from  Mr.  Raymond's  friends,  who  gave  me  an  account 
of  all  their  doings  there  and  various  persons. 

Q.  Pray  tell  me  did  he  tell  you  what  was  In  that  report 
LQ  respect  to  blackmail  ?  A,  No,  Sir ;  I  dont  recollect  a 
word  about  it. 

Q.  Did  he  teU  you  what  was  in  that  report  in  respect  to 
the  pistol  scene  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  a  word  about  it. 

Q.  Never  heard  a  word  about  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  never 
read  it,  or  heard  it,  or  had  it  stated  to  me  by  analysis.  I 


118 


THE    TlLTON-BhKOEEB  TRIAL. 


can  only— it  satisfied  my  friends  and  tlie  chiuoli,  and  that 
satisfied  me. 

Q.  Wlxat  relation  did  you  bear  to  Mr.  Sage,  anotlier 
member  of  tlie  Committee?  A.  Tliat  of  friendship. 

Q.  A  member  of  the  church,  was  hel  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  No  business  relations  with  him  1  A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  Well,  wiU  you  be  good  enough  to  name  the  balance 
of  the  Committee  ?  By  the  way,  was  not  Mr.  Sage  a  part 
owner  of  The  Christian  Union  f  A.  He  was  a  stock- 
holder of  The  Christian  Union  Publishing  Association. 
He  held  four  shares  la  100. 

Q.  Now  what  other  members  of  the  Committee  were 
there ;  will  you  name  them  1  A.  Mr.  Henry  W.  Sage,  Mr. 
Horace  B.  Claflin,  Mr.  Augustus  Btorrs,  Mr.  Cleveland, 
Mr.  S.  V.  White,  and  Mr.  Winslow.  A  special  Providence 
enables  me  to  remember  those  six  names. 

Q.  How  i  A.  I  say  that  it  is  a  special  Providence  that 
helped  me  to  remember  those  six  names. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  wish  Providence  helped  you  before. 

The  Witness— That  has  been  my  wish  before  this  thing 
broke  out. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  hope  He  has  not  forgotten  you. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  SERMONS  INTRODUCED. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  you  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  publishing  your  sermons,  or  having  them  pub- 
lished? A.  Yes,  Sir;  in  the  habit  of  having  them  pub- 
lished. 

Q.  State  whether  that  is  a  volume  of  your  published 
sermons  ?   [Handing  book  to  witness.]   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Turn,  if  you  please,  and  see  whether  you  delivered  a 
sermon  upon  "  The  Nobility  of  Confession  ?"  A.  WeU,  if 
it  is  here,  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  is  it  there  ?  A.  There  is  a  sermon  of  that 
kind— "Nobility  of  Confession."  I  didn't  notice  the  head- 
line. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Let  me  read  a  passage  to  you,  and  see 
whether  you  recognize  it. 

Mr.  Evarts  [To  Mr.  Fullerton]— You  had  better  read  the 
book. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will  one  of  those  days,  and  preach  to 
you. 

The  Witness— I  would  be  very  happy  to  see  you  in  my 
pulpit. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Shearman  will  be  all  the  audience  I  will 
want  on  that  day. 
The  Witness  [sotto  voce]— And  perhaps  all  you  will  have. 
Mr.  Fullerton— What  1 

The  Witness— That  was  not  meant  for  you,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  I  should  convert  him  T  should  have 
my  hands  full.   [Reading :] 

Nor  are  we  commanded  to  confess  every  act  before 
men.  So  lifctle  has  there  been  taught,  and  so  ]ittl(!  dis- 
ci-imination  has  resulted  from  roflection,  or  from  rondiu-t, 
In  this  matter,  that  consciences  which  in  the 
first  rlaco  lay  dormant  through  years   and  years, 


not  noting  sin,  not  holding  back  their  possessors 
from  transgi'ession,  when  at  last  they  become  tremen- 
dously stimulated,  are  very  apt  to  go  to  the  other  ex- 
treme. And  having  slept  when  they  should  have 
watched,  they  bark  immensely  when  they  should  be  si- 
lent. Conscience,  therefore,  frequently  leads  men  to 
make  the  most  injudicious  confessions,  and  to  make  them 
to  the  most  injudicious  persons.  I  do  not  think  we  are 
bound  to  confess  crimes  in  such  a  way  that  they  will 
overtake  us  and  liU  us  with  dismay  and  confusion  and 
destruction ;  and  not  only  us,  but  those  who  are  socially 
connected  with  us.  If  your  conscience  is  aroused  and 
you  have  committed  a  crime,  your  first  step  is  to  cleanse 
your  hands  and  feet  fi'om  aU  participation  in 
any  wrong.  And  before  confessing  the  act  itself 
you  should  take  counsel,  and  find  out  wise  counsel.  It  is 
often  better  that  past  crimes  should  slumber,  so  far  as  the 
community  is  concerned.  And  that  which  is  true  of 
crimes  is  equally  true  of  vices.  There  be  many  things 
that  are  great  sins,  grievous  and  wounding,  which,  hav- 
ing been  committed,  the  conscience  of  the  actor  leads 
him  to  feel  that  there  is  a  kind  of  expiation,  or,  at  any 
rate,  a  justice,  which  requires  that  he  should,  with  open 
mouth,  confess  that  which  has  hitherto  been  secret.  For- 
sake, surely ;  to  God  confess  ;  but  it  does  not  follow,  es- 
pecially when  your  confession  would  entail  misery  and 
suffering  upon  all  that  are  connected  with  you,  that  you 
should  make  confession,  merely  for  the  sake  of  relieving 
your  own  conscience. 

Do  you  recollect  preaching  a  sermon  of  which  that  is 
a  part  1  A.  No,  Sir;  I  regard  it  as  sound  doctrine. 

Q.  And  will  you  tell  me  the  date  when  that  sermon 
was  preached,  if  you  please  t  A.  Simday  morning,  Oct. 
4,  is  the  date  put  here. 

Q.  Is  the  date  correct?  A.  I  have  no  reason  to  suppose 
it  is  not. 

Q.  What  year?  A.  1868. 

Q.  You  believe  that  to  be  correct,  do  you  not  ?  A.  I 
suppose  it  to  be  so.  Sir ;  there  is  no  reason  why  I  should 
doubt  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton  [To  Judge  Neilson]— There  is  not  gen- 
erally much  done.  Sir,  after  the  sermon  but  the  benedic- 
tion. 

Judge  Neilson  [To  the  jtirors]— Will  the  jury  get  ready 
to  retire  ?  [To  the  audience.]  Gentlemen  will  keep  their 
seats. 

The  Witness— There  has  been  no  collection  taken  up. 

Judge  Neilson  [To  the  jurors]— Gentle  men  of  the  jury, 
retui-n  at  11  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  MaUison  [the  Clerk]— The  Court  stands  ac^ourned 
until  to-morrow  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

The  Court  then  adjomned  until  Wednesday  at  H  o'olook. 


TTESniONT  OF  EEl^RY    WaED  BEECREB, 


119 


SIXlY-raTH  DAF'S  PROCEEDmGS. 

LAST  THREADS  OF  MR.  BEECHER'S  TESTI- 
MOiNY. 

CLOSE  OF  THE  CROSS-EXAMINATION— MES.  WOOD- 
HUIX'S  LETTERS  TO  HIM— FEARS  OF  SUDDEN 
DEATH— AN  INSURANCE  POLICY— THE  RE-DIRECT 
EXAMINATION— TESTIMONY  OF  S.  D.  PARTRIDGE, 
FORMERLY  CASHIER  OF  WOODRUFF  &  ROBINSON 
—A  MEMORANDUM  IN  MR.  TILTON'S  HAND- 
WRITING THAT  ACCOMPANIED  MR.  BOWEN'S 
CHECK  FOR  $7,000.  V    ]•>.,  vf* 

Wednesday,  April  21,  1875, 

The  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Beeclier  was  finished 
by  Mr.  Fullerton  to-day  about  12:30  p.  m.  The 
relations  between  IMr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Victoria  C. 
Woodhull  were  the  first  subject  of  inquiry.  Her  let- 
ters of  Nov.  19,  1871,  and  Dec.  30,  1871,  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  were  shown  to  him,  and  he  said  he  pre- 
sumed they  were  the  letters  which  he  had  received 
from  her,  one  asking  for  an  interview  with  him  in 
reference  to  matters  in  which  she  said  he  was  as  in- 
terested as  herself,  and  the  other  requesting  him 
to  go  to  Washington  and  use  his  influence  in  favor 
of  the  passage  of  a  declaratory  act  relating  to 
Woman's  Suffrage,  introduced  into  Congress  by  Gen. 
Butler.  The  details  of  Mr.  Moulton's  advice  in  ref- 
erence to  answering  these  letters  were  all  restated. 
Mr.  Beecher  said  that  he  had  told  Mrs.  Moulton, 
when  she  asked  him  about  the  propriety  of  her  asso- 
ciating with  Mrs.  Woodhull,  that  he  knew  httle 
about  the  latter  except  through  the  representations 
of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton,  who  thought  highly 
of  her,  and  he  did  n't  know  but  she  might  be  "  a 
diamond  in  the  rough." 

Another  subject  of  inquiry  was  Mr.  Beecher's 
health  during  the  year  1873,  and  his  fears  of  sudden 
death  expressed  at  various  times.  When  asked 
whether  he  anticipated  sudden  death  in  1873,  Mr. 
Beecher  said  thai  he  could  not  aaswer  by  saying  sim- 
ply "yes,"  or  "no,''  and  he  was  finally  allowed  to 
answer,  "In  a  certain  sense,  yes  and  no."  He  ex- 
plained that  his  fears  of  death  were  consequent 
upon  periods  of  depression.  An  application  on 
the  part  of  J.  B.  Ford  &  Co.  for  a  policy  of  insurance 
on  the  life  of  Mr.  Beecher  in  March,  1874,  was  in- 
troduced by  Mr.  Fullerton.  A  few  questions  were 
put  in  relation  ito  it,  and  then,  to  the  surprise  of 
everybody,  Mr.  Fullerto^)  announced  that  the  cross- 
examination  was  finished. 

Mr.  Evarts  at  one*  began  the  redirect  examina- 
tion, promising  to  close  before  the  hour  of  adjourn- 


ment, but  several  minor  objections  to  his  questions 
being  urged,  it  was  1^2  o'clock  before  the 
court  adjourned.  The  redirect  examination  of 
Mr.  Beecher  was  confined  to  a  few  ques- 
tions about  the  application  for  Ufe  insur- 
ance just  introduced  by  Mr.  Fullerton,  and 
fragmentary  matters.  The  remainder  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  memorandum  of  advice  concemrag  Mrs. 
Tilton's  separation  from  her  husband  was  put  in 
evidence  by  Mr,  Evarts.  The  first  part  of  this  mem- 
orandum was  introduced  in  the  direct  examination 
of  Mr.  Beecher,  but  the  remainder  was  then  ruled 
out.  Mr.  Beecher  testified  that  no  sister  of  his  acted 
as  housekeeper  or  resided  in  his  family  during  the 
Winter  of  1870  and  '71,  and  that  no  additional  su- 
perintendents were  employed  during  Mrs.  Beecher's 
absence  in  the  South  duimg  that  year.  Mr.  Beecher 
was  allowed  to  explain  on  the  redirect  exam- 
ination that  the  reason  he  had  never  read  the  report 
of  the  Investigating  Committee  was  because  of  his 
absence  in  the  White  Mountains  at  the  time  it  was 
made.  He  heard  that  it  acquitted  him,  and  that  his 
church  was  satisfied,  and  that  was  all  he  cared 
about.  He  also  said  that  on  looking  back  more 
critically  he  did  not  think  he  had  talked  with  Mr, 
Cleveland  about  his  payment  of  $5,000  for  Mr. 
Tilton,  before  the  appointment  of  the  Investigating 
Committee  in  1874.  The  statement  made  before  the 
Committee  that  he  paid  $5,000  for  TJie  Golden  Age  in 
one  sum  because  he  understood  it  would  settle  the 
whole  difficulty,  Mr.  Beecher  explained  to  mean  that 
he  thought  it  would  settle  Mr.  Tilton's  difficulties, 
by  financially  putting  him  on  his  feet  again. 

That  the  jurors  are  alive  to  the  developments  of 
the  trial  was  shown  yesterday,  when  one  of  them, 
Mr.  Halstead,  asked  whether  Mrs.  Beecher  had  joined 
in  the  mortgage  on  Mr.  Beecher's  house,  made  to 
raise  the  $5,000  for  The  Golden  Age.  Mr.  Beecher  re- 
plied that  she  had  done  so. 


A  NEW  WITNESS  ON  THE  STAND, 
There  was  some  surprise  in  court  when  the  defense 
introduced  as  their  next  witness,  not  Mr.  Cleveland, 
but  an  old,  gray-haired  man,  tall  and  round-shoul- 
dered, wearing  over  his  eyes  a  large  green  shade, 
and  giving  his  name  as  Samuel  Dwight  Partridge. 
JVlr.  Partridge  said  he  resided  iu  Orange,  N.  J., 
where  his  home  had  been  for  the  last  12  years. 
From  the  year  1849  up  to  Dec.  31,  1874,  he  said 
he  had  been  employed  by  the  firm  of  Woodruff  & 
Eobinson.  With  the  exception  of  a  period  of  about 
2I2  years  he  was  their  cashier.   He  remembered  re- 


120  THE  TILTON-B 

eeiving,  in  1872,  a  deposit  clieck  of  Henry  C.  Bowen 
for  $7,000.  It  was  handed  to  him,  he  thought,  by 
Franklin  Woodrulf.  Accompanying  that  check  there 
was  a  slip  of  paper.  When  Mr.  Evarts  produced  a 
piece  of  yellow  paper  about  six  inches  long  by  two 
wide,  torn  near  one  end  and  creased  from  frequent 
folding  and  unfolding,  and  handed  it  to 
the  witness,  everybody  leaned  forward  and 
fixed  his  eyes  upon  the  witness.  He  identified  it 
as  the  slip  of  paper  that  had  accompanied  Mr. 
Bo  wen's  check  for  $7,000.  The  paper  had  been  in 
his  possession  until  April  16, 1875,  when  he  deliv- 
ered it  to  Mr.  Shearman.  The  slip  was  handed 
to  the  plaintifi"'s  counsel,  who  inspected  it,  and 
Mr.  Evarts  then  offered  to  read  it,  but  was  checked 
by  Judge  Neilson,  who  asked  what  was  the  object 
of  presenting  the  paper  in  evidence.  Mr. 
Evarts  replied  that  he  wanted  to  show  the 
character  of  the  transaction  connected  with 
the  check.  Mr.  Beach  objected  to  its  in- 
troduction, and  Judge  Neilson  at  first  said  that 
he  could  not  understand  how  it  was  material,  and 
for  the  present  ruled  it  out.  After  a  few  more 
questions  had  been  asked  of  the  witness,  Mr.  Evarts 
again  offered  to  read  it  as  coming  from  the  firm  of 
Woodruff  <fc  Eobinson  to  its  agent ;  then,  too,  it  had 
been  written  by  Mr.  Tilton.  Mr.  Beach  said  that 
for  the  sake  of  argument  he  would  admit  that 
the  document  was  in  Mr.  Tilton's  handwriting, 
but  still  he  objected  to  its  introduction.  After  some 
further  sparring  between  counsel.  Judge  Neilson 
finally  allowed  the  paper  to  be  read  in  evidence. 
Turning  toward  the  jury,  raising  his  voice,  and 
enunciating  every  syllable  with  the  utmost  distinct- 
ness and  emphasis,  Mr.  Evarts  read  these  words : 
**  Spoils  from  ncfw  friends  for  the  enrichment  of  oZfZ." 
Then  Mr.  Evarts  handed  both  Mr.  Bowen's  check 
and  the  yellow  paper  to  the  jurymen,  asking  them 
to  notice  that  the  pin-holes  in  the  two  corresponded. 
Mr.  Beach  and  Mr.  Morris  said  that  the  pin- 
holes did  not  correspond,  and  humorously  moved 
to  strike  them  out.  "  Never  mind,"  said  Mr.  Evarts, 
"the  same  ray  of  light  will  come  through  both 
papers,  and  through  the  four  •  holes."  Mr. 
Evarts  then  attempted  to  proceed  with  the  ex- 
aminatioh  of  Mr.  Partridge,  but  was  again  inter- 
rupted by  an  objection  from  the  plaintiff's  counsel. 
Long  arguments  ensued  between  Mr.  Beach  and  Mr. 
Evarts,  the  former  insisting  that  Mr.  Partridge's 
testimony  would  be  collateral,  and  inadmissible, 
and  the  latter  strenuously  endeavoring  to  have  it 
admitted.     Mr.  Evarts  said  that  he  proposed  to  I 


EECHME  TRIAL, 

prove  by  this  witness  that  the  object  of  Messrs. 
Moulton  and  Tilton  in  their  relations  with  Mrs. 
Woodhull  was  not  to  placate  her,  and  per- 
suade her  to  keep  silent  about  the  scandal, 
but  that  there  was  a  kind  of  conspiracy  between 
them,  and  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  told  this  witness 
that  Mr.  Tilton  intended  to  place  himself  at  the  head 
of  the  Spiritualists  of  this  country,  who  were  far 
more  numerous  than  the  Congregationalisfcs. 
Judge  Neilson  finally  ruled  that  the  witness  could 
not  testify.  This  ruling  threw  out  the  testimony 
that  Mr.  Evarts  was  most  anxious  to  introduce.  A 
few  questions  were  then  put  to  the  witness  in  refer- 
ence to  his  having  entered  the  money,  by  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's  direction,  to  his  credit,  after  which  he  was  al- 
lowed to  go.  The  time  for  adjournment  having 
arrived,  Mr.  Cleveland  was  not  sworn,  although  he 
was  ready  in  court. 


THE  PROCEEDINaS—VERBATIM. 


The  Court  met  at  11  o'clock,  a.  m.,  pursuant 

to  adioiirnment. 
Mr.  Beeclier  recalled  and  cross-examination  resmned. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  MEETING  OF  MRS.  WOOD- 
HULL. 

Mr.  Piillerton — Mr.  Beeclier,  when  did  you 

first  see  Victoria  Woodhulll  A.  I  think  it  was  not  far 
from  the  month  of  June  of  1871,  so  far  as  I  know  now ;  I 
cannot  Ibe  certain  as  to  the  date. 

Q.  And  where  did  you  first  see  her  t  A.  At  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with  her  ?  A.  I  did. 
Q.  Was  it  before  or  after  the  publication  of  her  card  in 
TJie  New-York  World  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  after,  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  soon  after?  A.  That  is  more  than  I  could 
say,  for  I  cannot  fix  the  date ;  I  have  a  general  impres- 
sion that  it  was  after. 

Q.  Was  it  not  immediately  after?  A.  I  could  not  say 
about  that.  Sir,  because  the  date  of  the  interview  ie  xm- 
certain  in  my  mind. 

Q.  Was  not  that  interview  brought  about  in  consequence, 
or  by  reason  of  the  publication  of  that  card?  A.  That 
very  likely  might  be,  but  not  with  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Had  you  an  intimation  that  you  were  to  see  her  be-  • 
fore  you  were  taken  to  the  house  ?  A.  Almost  within  her 
reach. 

Q,  And  how  long  an  interview  did  you  have  with  her  f 
A.  It  might  have  been  ten  minutes ;  it  might  have  been 
fifteen,  but  I  think  not  much  more  than  ten  minutes. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  next  see  her  after  that?    A  I 
think  it  was  in  tho  Autumn  of  1871 ;  I  could  deter- 
I  mine  It  by— if  I  knew  about  the  yacht  sailing— the  dai*. 


i 

Mr.  Shearman— That  was  about  the  20th  of  October. 

The  Witness— About  the  20th  of  October,  1871. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Between  those  interviews  did  you 
receive  any  communication  from  her  ?  A.  I  cannot  say 
now,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  letters  in  your  possession  that  you 
liave  received  from  her  at  any  time !  A.  I  don't  think  I 
have ;  I  have  none  in  my  personal  possession,  and  I  am 
not  aware  that  my  counsel  have  any,  taut  they  may  have, 
Sir. 

Q.  Looli  at  the  paper  I  now  show  you  and  say  whether 
you  received  it  from  Victoria  Woodhull.  [Handing  witness 
a  paper.J  A.  I  think  that  this  is  it,  Sir.  I  am  not  famil- 
iar with  the  handwriting  enough  to  identify,  taut  that 
looks  like— the  tenor  of  the  contents  seems  to  me  to  be 
the  same. 

Mr.  Evarts— Let  me  see  that. 

[Mr.  Fullerton  hands  the  letter  to  Mr.  Evarts  for  inspec- 
tion, and  then  reads  it  in  evidence,  as  follows:] 

15  East  38th  Steeet,  19th,  11th,  1871. 
Rbv.  H.  W.  Beechee  : 

Dear  Sir  :  For  reasons  in  which  you  are  deeply  inter- 
ested, as  well  as  myself  and  the  cause  of  truth,  I  desire  to 
have  an  interview  with  you,  without  fail,  at  some  hour 
to-morrow.  Two  of  your  sisters  have  gone  out  of  their . 
way  to  assail  my  character  and  purposes,  both  by  the 
means  of  the  public  press,  and  by  numerous  private  let- 
ters written  to  various  persons  with  whom  they  seek  to 
tajvire  me,  and  thus  to  defeat  the  political  ends  at  which 
I  aim. 

You  doubtless  know  that  it  is  In  my  power  to  strike 
back,  and  in  ways  more  disastrous  than  anything  that 
can  come  to  me ;  but  I  do  not  desire  to  do  this.  I  simply 
desire  justice  from  those  from  whom  I  have  a  right  to 
expect  it ;  and  a  reasonable  course  on  your  part  wUl  as- 
sist nie  to  it.  I  speak  guardedly,  but  I  think  you  will  un- 
derstand me.  I  repeat  that  I  must  have  an  iuterview  to- 
morrow, siace  I  am  to  speak  to-morrow  evening  at  Stein- 
way  Hall ;  and  what  I  shall  or  shall  not  say  vnll  depend 
largely  upon  the  result  of  the  interview.  Yours  very 
truly,  Victoria  C.  Woodhull. 

P.  S.— Please  return  answer  by  bearer. 

[Marked  "Exhibit  119."1 

Q.  Did  you  answer  that  note  ?  A.  I  did  not.  Sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  letter  ?  A.  I  sent  it  to  Mr.* 
Moulton,  or  carried  it ;  if  I  sent  it  I  followed  it  soon  after 

Q.  Was  anything  said  between  you  two  in  regard  to  an 
answer  to  that  letter  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  proposed  to  write 
an  answer  and  counseled  him  about  it ;  he  said  that  he- 
he  declined ;  he  dissuaded  me  from  writing  an  answer, 
and  said  that  he  thought  he  could  manage  that  matter 
•  himself. 

Q.  And  how  did  he  say  he  thought  he  could  manage  it  i 
A.  He  said— how  did  he  say  it  ] 

Q.  How  did  he  say  that  he  thought  he  could  manage  it ! 
A.  Oh,  he  did  not  explain  to  me  at  all.  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  he  suggest  to  you  how  he  could  manage  it? 
A.  Oh,  no,  Sir:  no.  Sir;  he  did  not;  I  understood  that  he 
was  going  to  see  her  personally. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  understand  from  him  what  he  was 


121 

going  to  urge  upon  her  or  say  to  her?  A.  My  understand- 
ing was  

Q.  No ;  did  he  say  i  A.  No,  he  did  not  detail  to  me.  I 
told  him  distinctly  that  I  did  not  want  to  see  her ;  that  I 
did  not  want  to  have  anything  to  do  with  her  ;  and  he 
said  that  he  thought  that  an  answer  to  that — I  better  not 
write  one.  I  think  there  was  some  motion  toward  mak- 
ing an  answer,  but  he  said  in  substance  that  he  thought 
that  was  a  thing  that  he  could  manage  himself,  rather 
than  my  writing  an  answer. 

Q.  And  thus  took  it  oflf  of  your  hands,  did  he  1  A.  Took 

it  off  of  my  hands. 

Q.  Well,  why  did  you  consult  Moulton  in  regard  to  it  I 
A.  I  consulted  him  in  regard  to  everything. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  ioon 

after  that  ?  A.  The  next  morning. 

Q.  Where  ?  A.  Mr.  Moulton's  house. 

Q.  How  was  that  brought  about  i  A.  By  him,  I  siq>» 
pose,  Sir.  I  went  to  see  him  in  the  morning  to  know  how 
the  affair  stood,  and  he  then  was  of  a  different  mind  from 
what  he  had  been  the  day  before.  Of  the  day  before  he 
was  of  mind  that  I  should  write  an  answer ;  of  that 
morning— that  I  should  at  first  write  an  answer,  then 
that  I  better  not  write  an  answer— that  he  could  settle  it  j 
the  next  morning  he  said  that  he  thought  I  better  see 
Mrs.  Woodhull ;  that  that  would  settle  it  better  than  any 
other  way. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  he  told  you  that  %  A  I  don^ 
recollect  where. 

Q.  You  were  not  at  his  house,  were  you  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  he  told  you  that  t  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  he  told  you  you  had  better  see  her,  were  yon 
at  his  house  1  A.  Yes,  and  she,  too,  I  think. 

Q.  You  had  not  learned  from  him  then  that  his  idea  was 
that  you  should  see  her,  taef  ore  you  went  to  his  house  1  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  after  that  taef  ore  you  did  see  her  f  A.  I 
don't  know.  Sir. 

Q.  About  how  long  ?  A.  Well,  the  whole  thing  did  not 
take  three-CLuarters  of  an  hour,  I  don't  think. 

Q.  Was  she  at  Moulton's  house  at  the  time  1  A.  I  can- 
not say  positively;  she  either  was  there  or  came  in  im- 
mediately, but  my  impressions  are  that  she  was  there. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  have  an  interview  with  her  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  1  A.  In  the  second  story  front  room. 

Q.  Any  one  present  at  that  interview?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  it  last  1  A.  Half  an  hour ;  may  be  a 
little  more,  may  be  a  little  less. 

Q.  After  that  iaterview  where  did  you  go  f  A.  I  don*t 
know.  Sir  ;  I  suppose  I  went  home. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  any  other  part  of  Mr.  Moulton's  house  f 
A.  Not  that  I  recaU,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  you  said  upon  your  direct  ej^ 
aminationin  that  regard?  A.  Oh,  yes,  I  was  thinking 
whether  I  went  into  the  other  chamber— the  back  oham. 


tjhjsiimont  of  eenet  wabd  beegrer. 


122 

ber.  I  saw  Mr.  Moulton,  and  I  tMnk  Mr.  Tilton,  both, 
down  stairs,  after  tlie  termination  of  that. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  them?  A.  I  think  it  was  in  the 
parlors,  but  I  am  not  sure  about  that. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  Mrs.  WoodhuU  at  the  house  when  you 
lefti  A.  My  impression  is  that  she  took  a  carriage  and 
went  away. 

Q.  Look  at  that  letter  and  say  whether  you  received  it 
from  Mrs.  WoodhuU?  [Handing  witness  a  letter.]  A. 
I  cannot  say  as  to  this,  Sir— this  special  document.  I  re- 
ceived a  communication  from  Mrs.  WoodhuU  In  regard 
to  this  subject,  and  I  presume  this  is  it.  It  Was  accom- 
panied by  a  letter  from  my  sister. 

Mr.  Evarts— Let  us  look  at  that.  [Taking  the  letter 
from  Mr.  Fullerton.l 

Mr.  FuUerton— While  counsel  are  looking  at  that  I  wiU 
ask  you  if  you  did  not  relate  the  interview  which  you  had 
with  Mrs.  WoodhuU,  of  which  you  have  last  spoken,  to 
Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton?  A.  I  gave  them  some  ac- 
count of  the  interview. 

Q.  Where  and  when  ?  A.  Immediately  subsequent,  I 
think,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  ?  A.  Below,  my  Impression  is,  but  I  am  not 
sure  it  was  in  the  parlors;  it  is  possible  that  they  may 
have  come  up  into  the  room  after  she  left,  but  my  im- 
pression is  that  I  spoke  to  them  in  the  parlors  below,  but 
I  am  not  certain  about  that. 

Mr.  FuUerton  then  read  the  letter  in  evidence,  as  fol- 
lows: 

44  Broad  St.,  New- York,  12th,  30th,  1871. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Bebcher:  Mrs.  Stanton  and  I  have  just 
had  a  conference  about  who  ought  to  be  procured  to 
speak   at  the  Washington    Convention,  January  10, 
11, 12. 

You  are  aware  that  we  intend  to  use  every  effort  to 
persuade  or  force  Congi-ess  to  pass  the  Declaratory  Act 
just  introduced  by  Gen.  Butler.  No  single  person  wLom 
we  could  have  would  have  so  good  and  great  an  influence 
on  Congress  as  yourself,  and  we  hope  that  you  may  deem 
the  occasion  worthy  of  your  attention  and  presence.  We 
wiU  give  you  either  evening  to  yourself  and  arrange  it 
just  as  you  may  desire. 

Please  reply,  and  do  not  let  it  be  in  the  negative.  Let 
me  assure  you  you  wiU  never  regret  it. 

Yours,  faithfully, 

Victoria  C.  Woodhull. 

[Marked  "Exhibit  120."j 

Q.  Did  you  answer  that  letter?  A.  I  have  the  impres- 
sion that  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Before  answering  did  you  communicate  with  Mr. 
Moulton  ?  A.  I  think,  Sir,  I  made  my  answer  and  showed 
it  to  him,  or  I  had  some  conversation  with  him  about  it. 

Q.  Look  at  "  Exhibit  42,"  and  say  whether  that  is  the 
letter  you  wrote  to  Mr.  Moulton  after  receiving  the  letter 
from  Mrs.  Woodhull  which  was  last  read  1  [Handing  wit- 
ness "  Exhibit  42."]  A.  I  presume  this  is  mine.  Sir ;  but 
I  of  course  speak  with  such  reservation  as  one  would 
■without  the  document  before  him. 

.  Beach— WeU,  we  can  show  you  the  document. 


i 

The  Witness— No  matter ;  I  presume  that  Is  It. 

Mr.  FuUerton— [Reading  "  Exhibit  42."] 

Brooklyn,  Tuesday  Evening,  January  2, 1872. 

My  Dear  Moulton:  1.  I  send  you  V.  W.'s  lettv-.r  to  mo, 
and  a  reply,  which  I  submit  to  your  judgment.  TeU  me 
what  you  think.  Is  it  too  long?  Will  she  use  it  for  pub- 
Ushing  ?  I  do  not  wish  to  have  it  so  used.  I  do  not  mean 
to  speak  on  the  platform  of  ei^Aer  of  the  two  suffrage 
societies.  What  influence  I  exert  I  prefer  to  do  on  my 
own  hook,  and  I  do  not  mera'  to  train  with  either  party, 
and  it  will  not  be  fair  to  press  me  in  where  I  do  not  wish 
to  go.  But  I  leave  it  for  ymi.  Judge  for  me,  I  have 
leaned  on  you  hitherto,  and  never  been  sorry  for  it. 

2.  I  was  mistaken  about  The  Ch.  Union  commg 
out  so  early  that  I  could  not  gel  a  notice  of  O.  Age  in 
it.  It  was  just  the  other  way,  to  be  delayed,  and  I  send 
you  a  rough  proof  of  the  first  page  and  the  Star  article. 

In  the  paper  to-morrow  a  line  or  so  will  be  inserted  to 
soften  a  Uttle  the  touch  about  The  Lib.  Christian. 

3.  Do  you  think  I  ought  to  keep  a  copy  of  any  lettera  to 
V.  W.  ?  Do  you  think  it  would  be  better  to  write  it  again 
and  not  say  so  much?  Will  you  keep  the  letter  to  me 
and  send  the  other,  if  you  judge  it  wise  ? 

4.  Will  you  send  a  line  in  the  morning,  saying  what  yoa 
conclude  ? 

I  am  full  of  company. 

Yours,  truly  and  affectionately, 

(Signed,)  h.  w.  b. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  did  you  at  that  time  consult  Mr. 
Moulton  in  regard  to  anything  except  this  difficulty— this 
domestic  diificulty  ?  A.  That  was  not— that  was  not,  as  I 
recollect  now,  consulted  about  at  all. 

Q.  At  that  period ;  I  do  not  mean  on  this  occasion.  A, 
Oh,  yes,  I  talked  with  him  about  a  good  many  subjects. 

Q.  My  question,  Mr.  Beeoher,  was  whether  you  con- 
sulted with  him  in  regard  to  any  matters  pertaining  to 
yourself,  except  that  which  related  to  the  scandal  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir ;  I  consulted  him  about  The  Christian  Union 
affairs. 

Q.  About  how  it  should  be  managed  ?  A.  No,  I  wanted 
him  to  take  some  stock  in  it ;  I  told  him  I  should  be  glad, 
very  glad,  to  have  him  one  of  the  stockholders.  I  thought 
that  his  business  habits  would  be  a  good  deal  of  help 
to  me. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  regard  that  as  a  solicitation  ?  A.  I  do 
not  pretend  to  designate  things  so  exactly ;  it  was  cer- 
tainly a  conversation,  and  a  consultation  I  should  call  it ; 
if  I  went  to  talk  to  a  man  about  business,  I  should  say  in 
a  general  way  that  I  consulted  him  about  busiuess. 

Q.  You  solicited  a  man  to  subscribe  to  the  stock  of  the 
paper  in  which  you  were  interested,  and  you  call  it  a 
consultation,  or  a  solicitation?  A.  Well,  Sir,  if  I  was  on 
the  stand,  probably  I  should  say  solicitation ;  if  I  was  off 
it,  I  should  probablj^  say  consultation. 

Q.  Well,  please  remeuilier,  Mr.  Boecher,  that  you  are  on 
the  stand.  A.  Well,  I  am  not  saying  anythfng  now  about 
that. 

Q.  Well,  I  ask  you  whether  you  ever  consulted  Mr. 
Moulton,  using  the  word  "  consultation  "  in  its  ordinary 
signification,  in  regard  to  anything  except  this  scandal  f 
A.  WeU,  Sir,  I  consider  when  I  say  that  onthest  i  r 


TUB   TILTON-BEECEMR  IBIAL. 


tFjSIUiojsy  of  hen. 

ehonld  use  the  -word— I  should  use  it  out  of  deference  to 
your  desire  for  accuracy;  but  if  I  were  to  use  it  off  the 
stand  I  should  say  that  solicitation  and  consultation, 
under  the  circumstances,  were  substantially  the  same 
thing,  and  that  it  was  merely  a  play  upon  words  to  make 
the  distinction. 

Q.  Well,  we  will  get  at  it  in  another  way,  then. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Fullerton,  read  the  clause  in  that 
letter  to  which  your  question  really  relates ;  that  is  the 
best  way. 

Mr.  Fullerton— How,  Sir  % 

Judge  NeUaon— The  clause  in  the  letter  to  which  your 
question  really  relates.  If  you  read  that  in  connection 
with  it  or  embody  it  in  it. 

Mr.  Beach— The  c[uestion  does  not  refer  to  any  clause  in 
the  letter ;  it  was  only  to  a  previous  declaration  which 
the  witness  n^.ade  that  he  consulted  Mr.  Moulton  upon 
©p'orythinp    We  want,  to  find  out  what  the  things  were. 

The  Witness— Well,  I  would,  in  view  of  the  sweep  of 
that  question,  if  you  wUl  allow  me,  change  my  answer, 
and  say  that  I  consulted  Mr.  Moulton  about  some  things. 

Not  relatiug  to  the  scandal  I  A.  Not  relating  to  the 
acandal. 

Q.  What  were  they  1  A.  I  cannot  tell  you  all  of  them, 
tout  I  remember  that  for  a  single  one. 

Q.  Tell  us  some  of  them  %  A.  Well,  I  say  I  told  you  one 
l>ut  I  do  not  now  recall  others. 

Mr.  Beach— Any  others  ?  A.  No,  I  don't  recall  any 
others. 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  you  still  adhere  to  the  use  of  the 
word  "  consultation,"  with  reference  to  the  solicitation 
for  him  to  take  stock  in  The  Christian  Union,  do  you  1  A. 
I  adhere  to  that. 

Q.  Well,  then,  I  will  put  this  question  to  you :  Did  you 
not  write  this  letter  to  Mr.  Moulton  dated  the  2d  of  Janu- 
ary, 18721  A.  The  one  which  you  have  just  read  ? 

Q.  Yes  ;  in  which  you  inclosed  the  letter  of  Victoria 
Woodhull,  which  I  have  just  read,  because  in  your  judg- 
ment it  related  to  the  scandal.  A.  No  ;  I  don't  think  that 
I  had  in  my  mind  the  scandal  at  that  time. 

Q.  It  was  after  the  publication  of  her  card  in  1871  ?  A. 
1871  %  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Weren't  yon  apprehensive  at  that  time  that  she 
would  say  or  do  something  in  reference  to  that  scandal  1 
A.  I  was  not  specially  so. 

Q.  Were  you  so,  whether  it  was  specially  or  generally ! 
A.  I  don't  think  that  I  was  at  that  time. 

Q.  Had  you  entirely  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  she  was 
—that  she  professed  to  be  in  possession  of  some  of  the 
factB  in  regard  to  it  ?  A.  No,  I  did  not ;  but  I  was  imdcr 
influences  that  disarmed  those. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  when  you  wrote  this  letter  and  said,  "  I 
send  you  V.  W.'s  letter  to  me,  and  a  reply  which  I  submit 
to  your  judgmert,"  did  you  not  wish  his  judgment  in 
reference  to  that  rei^ly,  with  a  view  to  determine  its 
beaiing  upon  her  subsequent  action  in  reference  to  the 


Y  WABD  BEEGEEB,  123 

scandal  ?  A.  I  think  it  is  possible  that  that  may  have 
been  in  my  mind,  though  I  cannot  now  recall  it ;  that 
which  rests  in  my  mind  now  is  entirely  another  matter. 

Q.  Well,  when  I  ask  for  that  other  matter,  then  I  pre- 
sume we  will  get  it,  but  I  am  asking  for  another  thing 
now.  A.  Yes.  WeU,  I  don't  recall  that  that  was  in  my 
mind. 

Mr.  Beach— He  says  he  thinks  it  was  possible. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  don't  you  think  it  was  so  ?  A.  I 
cannot  say.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  the  receipt  of  a  letter  from  Victoria  WoodhuU 
asking  you  to  join  a  convention  at  Washington  a  matter 
of  so  much  importance  that  you  had  to  caU  in  some  one 
to  consult  as  to  the  nature  of  your  reply  I  A.  A  letter 
from  Mrs.  WoodhuU  accompanied  by  one  from  my  sister 
m'ging  me  to  attend  Washington,  not  on  the  general 
woman  suffrage  question,  but  with  reference  to  a  special 
theory  got  up  by  Gen.  Butler,  was  a  matter  for  a  consid- 
erable consideration. 

Q.  I  ask  you  whether  it  was  of  sufficient  importance  to 
caU  in  a  third  person  to  consult  with  ?  A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  it  had,  you  think,  no  reference  to  the  scandal  f 
A.  I  don't  say  that,  Sir ;  I  think  it  may  have,  but  I  cannot 
recall  that  that  entered  into  my  thought  at  that  time. 

Q.  Wasn't  j^our  idea  this,  to  placate  that  woman  bjr 
fashioning  an  answer  that  would  not  give  her  offense,  at 
the  same  time  refusing  her  request  %  A.  Quite  possibly, 
but  I  don't  recall  that  that  entered  into  my  thought  at  all 
at  the  time. 

Q.  WeU,  what  did  Mr.  Moulton  say  in  regard  to  your 
proposed  reply  1  A.  He  said  that  he  thought  that  my 
thinking  it  too  long  was— it  was  not  too  long ;  that  the 
remarks  which  I  made  in  favor  of  woman's  STiffiage  in 
general  were  all  very  well,  and,  he  thought,  opportune, 
and  that  he  regretted  that  the  reasons  for  not  going  ex- 
isted ;  he  thought  it  would  be  a  good  thing  for  me  to  go, 
but  if  I  had  other  engagements,  lecture  engagements 
and  others,  why  it  could  not  be  helped,  and  that,  under 
those  circumstances,  the  letter  was  good  enough. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  any  reason  for  saying  he  thought  It 
would  be  a  good  thhig  for  you  to  go  ?  A.  No,  I  don't  re- 
member that  he  did. 

Q.  Didn't  he  say  that  he  thought  it  would  be  a  good 
thing,  because  you  would  have  an  opportunity  of  exert- 
ing a  kindly  influence  over  that  woman  ?  A.  I  don't 
recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  WiU  you  say  that  he  did  not?  A.  I  can  say,  accord- 
ing to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  that  he  did  not. 

Q.  But  you  will  not  swear  positively  that  he  did  nott 
A.  I  wiU  not  swear  that  he  did  not,  positively. 

Q.  When  was  it  that  Mrs.  Moulton  asked  you  in  regard 
to  the  propriety  of  her  associating  with  Mrs.  WoodhuU! 
A.  That  I  cannot  quite  determine,  Sir  ? 

Q.  As  near  as  you  can,  please  determine  it !  A.  I  think 
it  was  in  the  year— it  was  in  the  Fall  of  1871  or  tn  the 
Summer  of  1872,  or  somewhere  along  there. 


124 


TEE   ULTON-BF^BOHEB  lElAL, 


Q.  Please  state  again  what  reply  you  made  to  Mrs. 
Moulton  when  she  questioned  you  upon  that  suhject.  A. 
I  said  that  I  didn't  know  much  about  Mrs.  Woodhull,  ex- 
cept from  the  representations  of  her  husband  and  Mr. 
Tilton;  that  they  thought  exceedingly  highly  of  her,  and 
that,  if  their  thoughts  were  correct,  I  supposed  that  she 
was  a  rough  diamond,  perhaps ;  but,  at  any  rate,  so  far 
as  she  was  concerned,  I  did  not  think  that  her  seeing  her 
at  her  house  would  iiyure  her. 

Q.  Had  you  the  fullest  confidence  in  Mrs.  Woodhvdl  at 
the  time?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  state  that  fact  to  Mrs.  Moulton  i  A.  I  don't 
know  that  I  had ;  I  think  I  stated  to  her  that  my  first 
feelings  about  Mrs.  Woodhull  had  not  been  favorable. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  [Continuing.]  And  that  the  modification 
Of  them,  and  the  suspended  state  that  I  was  in,  was  the 
result  of  the  very  positive  statements  of  Mr.  Moulton  and 
of  Mr.  Tilton  to  me. 

Q.  Well,  were  those  positive  statements  of  a  character 
which  induced  you  to  be  willing  to  associate  with  Mrs. 
Woodhull?  A.  No;  I  had  no  call;  I  am  in  a  situation  in 
which  I  cannot  associate  with  ten  thousand  most  worthy 
people. 

Q.  Now         A.  WeU,  letters  in  

HIS  REFUSAL  TO  PRESIDE  AT  STEINWAY 
HALL. 

Q.  But  had  you  been  asked  at  that  time  to 
preside  at  Stein  way  Hall?  A.  That  is  more  than  I  can 
Bay  to  you,  Sir ;  but  I  thiuk  not ;  I  don't  know  about  that, 
8tr ;  I  cannot  fix  the  date  near  enough. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  not  preside  at  Stetnway  HaU  1  A.  No, 
Bit,  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  you  have  given  us  the  reason,  I  believe  ?  A.  I 
think  I  have. 

Q.  That  you  did  not  believe  in  her  doctrines?  A.  So  far 
as  I  knew  them;  I  never  professed  to  know  what  they 
were. 

Q.  You  knew  them  far  enough  to  refuse,  did  you  not  ? 
A.  So  far  as  that  was  concerned  I  said  to  Mrs.  Woodhull 
that  it  was  not  my  habit  to  preside  at  public  meetings  at 
all,  and  I  saw  no  reason,  in  her  case,  why  I  should  change 
my  habit,  and  that  as  respects  the  appeal  which  she 
made ;  that  I  believed  in  her  views,  and  therefore,  as  it 
was  a  forlorn  hope  struggling  for  existence,  it  would  be 
In  accordance  with  my  life-long  habit  to  fight  on  the 
weak  side  for  the  reform  that  was  coming  up.  My  reply 
was  that  that  was  not  an  argument  to  me,  because  I  was 
not  apprised  of  aU  her  views ;  I  had  not  read  anything 
of  hers,  but  that  so  far  as  I  did  know,  as  I  presumed  her 
social  theories  were,  I  was  not  in  accord  with  them. 

Q.  Yes;  and  therefore  that  was  a  reason  why  you 
wotild  not  preside?  A.  That,  in  connection  with  the  uni- 
form habit  of  declining  aU  such  work;  I  declined  it  on 
this  ground,  that  it  was  not  convenient  for  me.  And 
then,  when  she  urged  it  on  the  groxind  that  I  was  in  sym- 


pathy with  her,  I  said  I  was  not,  for  I  was  not  informed 
of  her  views,  but  in  so  far  as  I  presumed  to  know  what 
they  were,  I  was  not  in  accordance  with  them. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  you  would  not  take  a  step  in  that 
direction?  A.  I  don't  reooUect  now;  I  mi^ht  hare 
used  

Q.  Didn't  you  say,  so  far  as  you  had  become  acquainted 
with  her  views,  that  you  loathed  and  abhorred  them! 
A.  In  so  far  as  her  views  at  that  time  were  concerned,  I 
don't  thmk  that  I  said  that,  though  I  may  possibly,  but  I 
don't  recall  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Very  well.  Why  didn't  you  state  to  Mrs.  Motdton, 
then,  what  your  views  were  in  regard  to  Mrs.  Woodhull, 
when  she  asked  your  advice  in  regard  to  associating  with 
her  ?  A.  That  was  not  the  question. 

Q.  How?  A.  That  was  not  the  question;  the  question 
that  she  proposed  to  me  was,  what  I  thought  about  Mrs. 
Moulton. 

Q.  Mrs.  WoodhTill  ?  A.  And  that  Prank  wanted— Mrs. 
Woodhull— and  that  Frank  wanted  to  have  her  in  hli 
house ;  and  that  at  first  she  had  been  disinclined  to  do  it, 
but  that  she  wanted  to  do  what  Frank  thought  was  best 
and  right,  and  wanted  to  know  what  I  thought  of  her. 
Well,  I  stated  to  her :  '*  I  don't  know  much  about  Mrs. 
Woodhull,  and  aU  that  T  do  know  I  have  derived  from 
Frank  and  Mr.  Tilton  in  regard  to  her;"  but,  at  any  rate, 
I  said,  I  did  not  think  her  meeting  her  occasionally  would 
be  any  damage  to  her.  We  did  not  go  into  the  question 
of  her  social  theories  a  particle. 

Q.  Now,  at  that  time,  didn't  Mrs.  Motdton  tell  you  the 
object  that  her  husband  had  in  view  in  wishing  her  to  aB> 
sociate  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  ?  A.  Not  at  all.  Sir. 

Q.  Wasn't  it  stated  to  you,  in  substance,  that  it  was  for 
the  purpose  of  exercising  a  kindly  influence  over  her  t 
A.  It  was  not,  Sir. 

Q.  And  controlling  her  action  with  reference  to  yont 
A.  It  was  not.  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind  was  said  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  nothlni; 
of  that  kind  was  said  ;  no  allusion  to  it. 

CONVERSATIONS  WITH  MRS.  WOODHULL. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state  what  other  meetings 
you  had  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  ?  A.  Let  me  see  ;  I  believe 
one  in  1871— one  in  Midsummer,  1871 ;  then  the  one  at 
the  dinner  at  Mr.  Moulton's.  I  do  not,  at  this  moment. 
Sir,  recall  except  those  two  ;  they  evidently  made  but 
little  impression  upon  my  mind ;  there  may  have  been  a 
third,  but  I  do  not  at  this  moment  recall  it. 

Q.  How  many  times  did  you  see  her  after  the  St.einway 
Hall  lecture  ?  A.  I  cannot  say.  Sir ;  I  cannot  say,  Sir  ;  I 
may  have  ;  by  looking  over  my  memoranda  I  may  find  it. 

Q.  Look  at  that  letter,  please,  purporting  to  have  been 
signed  by  you,  and  see  whether  it  is  the  letter  which  you 
wrote  to  Victoria  WoodhuU  in  reply  to  the  last  one  that  I 
read  in  evidence.  [Showing  witness  Woodhull  <&  Olaf- 
lilt's  Weekly,  of  the  date  of  Jan.  27, 1871,  in  a  bound  Tol- 


TE8TIM0I^Y  OF  Hb'XRY    WABL  BEEOEEB, 


125 


mne.]  A.  I  do  not  remember  it, Sir;  but  it  sounds— reads 
very  mucli  like  mine,  and  I  am  'trilling-  to  iudorse  it ;  I 
had  an  impression  in  recalling  my  letter  tliat  I  made  it 
nmcli  longer  tlian  tliat,  and  tliis  is  q^uite  stiort.  [Letter 
submitted  to  defendant's  counsel.] 

Mr.  Evarts— We  tiave  no  objection  to  liavlng  tMs  read 
a«  tf  it  were  the  original  manuscript. 

Mr.  Fullerton— [Eea<iing.] 

BBOOKLYif,  Jan.  1, 1872. 
Mt  Deak  Madam  ;  Your  letter  of  Dec  30,  in  wMcli, 
after  conference  witli  Mrs.  Stanton,  you  invite  me  to 
take  part  in  tbe  "WasMngton  Convention  in  behalf  of 
Woman's  Sufflrage,  is  duly  received.  I  am  engaged 
during  tlae  whole  week  of  .he  Convention,  with  lectures 
in  Massachusetts  and  Maine.  I  cannot  say  that  I  am  so 
sanguine  of  the  immediate  or  new  admission  of  women 
to  the  rights  of  suffrage,  but  of  its  ultimate  accomplish- 
ment I  have  no  doubt,  since  justice  and  expediency  com- 
bine in  requiring  it  That  method  is  on  the  whole  made 
better  and  stronger  by  a  direct  participation  in  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  of  active  citizenship,  notwithstand- 
ing incidental  evils,  is  becoming  the  sentiment  of  the 
civilized  world. 

The  Witness— Will  you  exctise  me  one  moment?  Did 
70U  begin  that  sentence  right  t  I  misheard  you,  if  you 
did ;  you  read  it  "  method,"  as  I  understood. 

Mr.  E\illerton—"  Manhood." 

The  Witness— Well,  I  beg  pardon ;  I  did  not  so  imder- 
stand  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Perhaps  I  misread  it.   [Reading  again] : 

That  manhood  is,  on  the  whole,  made  better  and 
stronger  by  a  direct  participation  in  the  duties  and  re- 
sponsibilities of  active  citizensbip,  notwithstanding  inci- 
dental evils,  is  becoming  the  sentiment  of  the  civilized 
world.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  doubt  that,  in  spite  of 
temporary  and  incidental  evils,  the  same  advantages 
would  accrue  to  womanhood.  In  every  wise  and  Christian 
government  for  the  education  and  enfranohiaement  of 
woman  I  hope  always  to  be  in  sympathy. 

The  Witness—"  Movement." 

Mr.  FuUerton— What  did  I  caU  it! 

The  Witness—"  Government." 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  it  is  "  movement."   (Eesuming] : 

I  am  respectfully  yours, 

Henet  Ward  Bebchek. 

Mrs.  Victoria  Woodhulh 

Q.  You  say  you  think  you  wrote  that  letter  much  long- 
er %  A.  The  impression  it  left  on  my  mind  was  that  it 
was  a  longer  letter. 

Q.  WeU,  is  it  not  a  fact  that  you  wrote  a  much  longer 
letter,  and  that  a  good  deal  of  it  was  eliminated  by  Mr. 
Moulton  1  A.  I  doubt  whether  Mr.  Moulton  eliminated 
anything. 

Q.  Well,  this  was  after  the  Stetnway  Hall  meeting, 
wasn't  it.    A.  What  is  the  date  of  that  letter  1 

Q.  January  1, 1872  ?  A.  And  the  Steinway  Hall  was  in 
November,  1871 ;  wasn't  it  I 

Q.  I  believe  it  was.  Sir  %    A.  Yes,  Sir ;  it  was  after  that. 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher,  do  you  recollect  of  receiving  a  letter 
from  Mrs.  Woodhull  inclosing  one  from  your  sister '?  A.  I 


had  an  impression  that  this  letter  was  accompanied  by 
one  from  my  sister. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  that  letter  had  reference  to 
Steinway  Hall  1  A,  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  recoUect  of  receiving  such  a  lett» 
from  her  ?  A.  I  recollect— yes,  I  recollect  either  by  me»- 
sage  or  by  letter,  and  I  think  rt  was  by  letter  that  I  re- 
ceived one  from  her — ^let  me  think  about  that  a  minute. 

Q.  I  can  recall  your  attention  to  it.  Do  you  recoUeot 
the  correction  that  you  made  one  morning  in  your  evi- 
dence on  the  direct  1 

[Some  conversation  here  took  place  between  counsel  In 
reference  to  a  letter  to  Mr.  Steinway  from  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  the  witness  did  not  answer  the  question.] 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  what  was  the  condition  of  your 
health  in  the  Summer  of  1873  t 

Mr.  Evarts — There  is  a  dispute  about  this  letter.  This 
letter,  as  I  imderstand  it,  Mr.  Fullerton,  which  you  are 
seeking  for,  and  supposed  we  had,  is  a  letter  written  by 
Mr.  Beecher  to  Mr.  Steiaway  % 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  nattiraUy  we  should  not  have  it,  of 

course. 

Mr.  Morris- No ;  but  we  understood  that  you  had  ob- 
tained it. 
Mr.  Evarts — No. 

Mr.  FuUerton— There  may  be  a  misapprehension  about 
it,  but  I  supposed  that  you  intended  to  be  imderstood 
that  you  had  that  letter  and  would  produce  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  I  didn't  intend  anything  about  it ;  we 
haven't  the  letter. 

IVIr.  Fullerton— WeU,  we  wiU  produce  it  hereafter,  be- 
cause it  is  in  existence. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  haven't  it. 

Mr.  FuUerton— WeU,  I  don't  complain  of  it  at  aU,  it  is  a 

misunderstanding.  [To  the  witness.] 

THE  CONDITION  OF  ]ME.  BEECHER'S  HEALTH 
IN  1873. 

Q.  Wliat  was  tlie  condition  of  your  health  in 
1873,  l^Ir.  Beecher?  A.  My  general  health  so  far  as  I  can 
recoUect,  Sir,  was  good. 

Q.  Did  you  at  that  time  anticipate  sudden  death!  A. 
In  the  same  way  

Q.  Never  mind  the  way;  just  answer  the  question, 
please !  A.  I  cannot  answer  it  truly  by  yes  or  no. 

Judge  NeUson — Can't  you  say,  in  a  certain  sense,  yes  or 
no,  and  then  he  wlU  ask  you  what  sense  1 

The  Witness— In  a  certain  sense,  yes,  and  no, 

Judge  NeUson— I  thought  I  would  try  and  help  you. 

The  Witness— You  always  help  me.  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  state  at  that  time,  that  you  sup- 
posed that  you  entered  the  pulpit  one  himdred  times 
when  you  never  would  leave  it  alive  1  A-  I  have  often 
entered  the  pulpit  

Q.  Did  you  state  that?  A.  Did  I  state  


126 


IHE   TILTON-BEECREB  IRIAL. 


Q.  Yes.  A.  As  belonging  to  1873  ! 

Q.  Yes.  A.  No,  Sir,  not  as  relating  to  that  

Q.  Did  you  ever  make  that  statement  ?  A.  I  don't  think 
I  did. 

Q.  Relating  to  any  period  of  time?  A.  I  may  have 
made  it  as  relating  to  my  life,  or  as  relating  to  long 
periods  of  time ;  hut,  as  it  related  to  1873,  you  should 
recollect,  Sir,  that  that  would  take  every  time  that  I  ever 
entered  the  pulpit,  about. 

Q.  I  can't  help  it  if  you  made  use  of  that  language.  A. 
Well,  if  I  did  it  was  very  careless,  and  I  should  not  be  dis- 
posed to  stand  by  it,  Sir. 

Q.  Let  me  read,  and  see  if  it  refreshes  your  recollection. 
[Reading :] 

In  my  letter  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  I  alluded  to  the  fact  that  I 
did  not  expect,  when  I  saw  her  last,  to  be  alive  many 
days.  That  statement  stands  connected  with  a  series  of 
symptoms  which  I  first  experienced  in  1856.  I  went 
through  the  Fremont  campaign,  speaking  in  the 
open  air,  three  hours  at  a  time,  three  days  in 
the  week.  On  renewing  my  literary  labors,  I 
felt  I  must  have  given  way;  I  very  seriously 
thought  that  I  was  going  to  have  apoplexy  or  paralysis,  or 
something  of  the  kind.  On  two  or  three  occasions,  while 
preaching,  I  should  have  fallen  in  the  pulpit  if  I  had  not 
held  on  to  the  table.  Very  often  I  came  near  falling  in 
the  streets.  During  the  last  fifteen  years  I  have  gone  into 
the  pulpit,  I  suppose  a  hundred  times,  with  a  very  strong 
impression  that  I  should  never  come  out  of  it  alive.  I  have 
preached  more  sermons  than  any  human  being  would 
believe,  when  I  felt  all  the  while  that  whatever  I  had  got 
to  say  to  my  people  I  must  say  it  then,  or  I  never  would 
have  another  chance  to  say  it.  If  I  had  consulted  a 
physician,  his  first  advice  would  have  been,  "You  must 
stop  work."  But  I  was  in  such  a  situation  that  I  could 
not  stop  work. 

Now  did  those  symptoms  continue  through  1873 1  A. 
I  do  not  recall.  Sir,  the  fact  that  they  did.  The  state  of 
mind  continued  through  that  year. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  please  talk  about  the  symptoms, 
and  not  about  the  state  of  mind.  A.  I  do  not  recall.  Sir, 
about  that. 

Q.  Didn't  you  connect  those  symptoms  with  the  writing 
of  the  letter  of  June  1, 1873,  in  the  statement  which  I 
have  just  read?  A.  I  do  not  recollect.  Sir,  connecting 
them  with  the  symptoms  in  that  year. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  asks  you  whether  the  statement  does 
not  connect  them. 

Mr.  Pullerton  [reading] : 

That  statement  stands  connected  with  a  series  of  symp- 
toms which  I  first  experienced  in  18.56  

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now  the  statement  is  this  A.  I  have  no  recol- 
lection of  the  statement. 
Q.  [Reading:! 

In  my  letter  to  Mrs.  Tilton  I  alluded  to  the  fact  that  I 
did  not  expect,  when  I  saw  her  last,  to  be  alive  many 
days. 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now.  what  period  did  that  refer  to,  this  statement : 
In  my  letter  to  Mrs.  Tilton  I  alluded  to  the  fact  that  I 


did  not  expect,  when  I  saw  her  last,  to  be  alive  many 
days. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  the  letter  of  February,  1871. 
Mr.  Fullerton— I  am  asking  him  when  it  referred  to. 
The  Witness— Well,  Sir,  I  don't  take  your  question  ex- 
actly. 

Q.  I  win  put  it  again.  [Reading.] 

In  my  letter  to  Mrs.  Tilton  I  alluded  to  the  fact  that  I 
did  not  expect,  when  I  saw  her  last,  to  be  alive  many 
days. 

Now,  what  letter  did  you  allude  tol  A.  I  do  not  no\r 
recall  the  letter. 
Q.  Was  it  not  the  letter  of  February  7, 1871 1 
Mr.  Evarts— Certainly. 

A.  If  it  was,  it  was ;  but  I  am  not  now  apprised  that  it 
was. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  the  language  of  the  letter  of 
Feb.  7, 1871  ?  A.  Oh,  yes;  but  this  is  a  question  about 
that  statement. 

Q.  Is  not  that  very  statement  in  it  1  Does  not  the  letter 
open  with  that  statement  %  A.  Well,  I  can't— if  it  does,  it 
does ;  but  I  don't  remember  the  letter  except  in  a  very 
general  way. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Please  produce  it,  and  let  us  show  it  to 
him. 

Mr.  Beach— Give  him  that  book. 

The  Witness— I  can  save  you  the  trouble  of  looking 
those  papers  over  by  taking  my  own,  if  you  please ;  what 
is  the  date  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Feb.  7,  1871. 

The  Witness— The  letter  isf 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Show  it  to  him  in  connection  with  the  letter 
which  he  has  before  him.  You  call  his  attention  to  a 
written  statement;  put  that  in  his  hand  and  let  him 
see  it. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again  now,  whether  the  letter  of  Feb.  7,. 
1871,  was  not  referred  to  when  you  used  this  language : 
"In  my  letter  to  Mrs.  Tilton  I  alluded  to  the  fact  that  I 
did  not  expect,  when  I  saw  her  last,  to  be  alive  many 
days?"  A.  I  presume  it  was.  Sir.  Will  you  allow  oie  to 
see  the  statement  1 

Q.  Yes.  ( Handing  witness  a  book.J  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  ^hat 
is  evidently  the  reference  made. 

Q.  To  that  letter  1  A.  To  that  letter. 

Q.  And  did  you  not  intend  to  connect  those  symptoms, 
forewarning  you  of  apoplexy,  with  the  period  when  you 
wrote  that  letter?  A.  I  do— I  hardly  think  that  would  be 
fair,  to  say  that  I  did,  or  that  I  did  not,  in  that  categor- 
ical way. 

Q.  Had  those  symptoms  all  disappeared  in  February, 
1871 1   A.  In  1871 1 

Q.  Yes ;  when  you  wrote  the  letter  of  Feb,  7,  1871 1 
A.  I  don't  recall  now  those  urgent  symptoms. 

Q.  I  don't  care  whether  they  were  urgent  or  not ;  I  am 
speaking  of  symptoms  of   which  you   li:ive  already 


lESimOXI   OF  HEy 

epotcen.  fA  pause.]  "VTliat  is  your  answer  1  A.  Well,  my 
trouble  is  tliis.  titatif  T  say  they  did  I  don't  express  the 
truth  ;  ii  I  say  they  did  not,  I  don't  express  the  truth. 

Q.  Well,  try  to  express  the  truth  in  some  way.  A. 
Well,  I  -will  if  you  wiU  allow  me  to  make  the  general 
ftatement. 

ILLUSIVE  SYMPTOMS  OF  APOPLEXY. 
Q.  I  surely  don't  interfere  with  yon?   A.  I  i 

had.  for  a  long  period  violenr  .-symptoms  which  I  misinter- 
preted, hut  which  afterward  I  fejiew  to  he  illnsive,  or 
rather  illusions.   That  I  had  and  have  to  this  day  periods 
in  which  I  thinli  that  I  am  s-oing  to  die.  xi/ftrrard.  and  oth-  I 
ers  of  depression  in  which  I  feel  that  I  have  come  to  j 
about  the  end  of  my  life,  dou-nu-ard.  is  true,    I  have  pre-  : 
seutiments  on  one  side,  and  I  have  periods  of  depression  ' 
in  which  I  thint  I  have  come  to  the  end  on  the  other.  I 

Q.  Are  they  not  founded  upon  some  symptoms  of  apo- 
plexy ?   A.  No. 

Q.  You  think  not  ?   A.  yot  now. 

Q.  Didn't  you  put  forth  those  s^nnptons  of  apoplexy  as 
an  excu-e  or  as  a  reason  for  writing  that  letter  ?  A.  In 
the  early  pt-rio*  I  did  thiuk  so. 

Q.  At  that  tim  :%  February,  1><71.  or  rather  at  the  time 
when  you  wrote  that  statement  ?   A,  I  

Q.  One  moment.   Didn't  you  put  forth  those  symptoms 
then  as  an  excuse  or  reason  for.  or  as  an  explanation  of,  | 
that  letter  ?   A.  I  don't  think  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Let  me  read  it  to  you.  and  see  whether  that  is  so. 
[Readmg :] 

In  my  letter  to  3Irs.  Tilton  f  which  you  say  was  the  let- 
ter of  Feb.  7,  1S71)  I  alluded  to  the  fact  that  I  did  not 
exi>ect  when  I  saw  her  last  to  be  ahve  m.my  days.  That 
statement  stands  connected  with  a  series  of  symptoms 
which  I  first  experienced  in  1S56.   I  went  through  the 
Fremont  campaign,  speakiui:  in  the  open  air  three  hours  i 
at  a  time,  three  days  in  a  week.    On  reu.-wing  my  lit-  i 
erary  labors  I  felt  I  must  have  given  way ;  I  very  ' 
seriously  thought  that  I  was  going  to  have  apoplexy  or 
paralysis  or  somctliing  of  that  kind. 

Xnw.Iput  the  question  to  you  again.  Didn't  you,  in 
that  statemi^ut,  put  forth  those  sjmaptoms  as  an  ex- 
planation of  the  letter  of  Feb.  7,  1671 1  A.  T  don't  think 
I  did,  in  the  broad  sense  of  the  term. 

Q.  And  when,  pray,  did  ycu  come  to  the  cunclusion 
that  this  apprehension  of  apoplexy  was  illnsive  ?  A.  I 
cannot  state  to  you  any  precise  time,  Sii\ 

Q.  Can't  you  get  at  the  time  ?   A.  No,  I  dont  thlak  I 
can ;  I  only  know  that  in  conversation  with  physicians  I 
talked  about  what  were  the  symptoms  of  apoplexy,  and  | 
what  were  the  symptoms  of  paralysis,  and  what  were  the  \ 
symptoms  of  simply  nervous  over-action,  without  going  ; 
Into  it  iu  reference  to  my  own  caae,  but  to  get  informa-  ; 
tion,  and  I  became  satisfied  that  what  in  the  earlier 
stijges  I  supposed  was  apoplexy,  or  paralysis,  was 
T'l-hing  m  the  world  but  the  result  of  excessive  cerebral 
•otivlty  and  fitlgne — over-action  of  mind. 

U-  f'on't  yon  know  that  that  is  the  superinducing  cause  i 


7?r   WAED  BEECH  EE.  127 

of  apoplexy  ?  A.  In  many  persons  it  is,  and  in  many  per 
sons  it  is  not. 

Q.  Were  you  told  distinctly  that  you  need  not  appre- 
hend apoplexy,  by  your  physician  1  A.  Well,  I  don't 
think  that  I  ever  had  but  one  conversation  with  any  pliy- 
sician. 

Q.  Were  you  told  distinctly  by  any  physician  that  you 
need  not  apprehend  apoplexy  ?   A.  I  don't  recall  that. 

Q.  Was  every  fear  removed  from  your  mind  that  yon 
would  fall  by  that  disease  ?  A,  No  ;  when  I  was  in  de- 
pression J  thought  likely  I  should— in  periods  of  depres- 
sion. 

Q.  Does  that  still  continue  1   A.  Yes  

Q,  It  does  ?   Very  well         A.  Not  that  I  suppose  now 

in  periods  of  depression  that  I  certainly  shall,  but  I  think 
that  I  am  going  to  die  by  everything  in  creation  when  I 
am  in  those  down  periods. 

Q.  If  you  will  be  good  enough  to  leave  out  everything 
in  creation  but  apoplexy.  Mr.  Beecher.  I  shall  be  satisfied 
with  your  answer.  I  ask  you  whether  you  have  now  any 
apprehension  of  apoplexy  at  any  time  ?  A.  I  do  not.  Sir. 

Q.  ^Tot  the  slightest  1  A.  I  am  Uable  to  it,  but  I  don't 
apprehend  it. 

Q.  Not  in  the  slightest  degree  ?  A.  I  don't  apprehen 
it  in  the  slightest  degree  ;  though  it  may  befall  me  as  it 
may  befall  any  other  person. 

Q.  Xow,  when  was  this  apprehension  removed  from 
your  mind  ?  A.  Well,  it  was  early ;  I  got  over  the  suppo- 
sition that  there  was  really  any  serionsness  in  that 
symptom ;  I  don't  know  the  time. 

Q.  About  when?  A,  I  don't  know  how  long  ago ;  but 
several  years— many  years  ago. 

Q.  How  long  ago?  A.  I  cannot  say  definitely,  because 
I  never  made  it  a  matter  of  record  or  of  consideration. 

Q.  Was  it  as  long  agoaslS72?  A.  Oh,  I  think  it  was 
before  that. 

Q.  Was  it  in  1S71  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  before  that. 
Q.  Before  that  ?   A.  I  think  so.  Sir. 

Q.  Then  this  premonition  of  death  of  which  you  speak 
in  your  letter  of  Feb.  7.  1S71,  did  not  relate  to  any  apo- 
plectic symptoms,  did  it?  A.  I  beg  your  pardon,  Sir;  will 
you  be  ^ood  enough  to  have  the  answer  read  ? 

Q.  I  cannot  read  the  answer  until  you  give  it.  A.  I 
mean  the  ciuestion. 

Juitge  ZSr«:-ilson — The  stenographer  will  read  the  question. 

The  Trioime  stenographer  read  the  question  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  TUlu  this  apprehension  of  death  of  which  you  speak 
in  your  Irtter  of  Feb.  7.  1871.  did  not  relate  to  any  ajKK 
piectic  symptoms,  did  it?" 

A.  It  did  not,  as  I  recollect. 

Q.  What  was  the  answer  ?  A.  As  I  recollect,  I  say  it 
did  not.  , 

Q.  It  did  not?  Well,  in  your  letter  on  the  1st  of  June, 
1873,  in  which  you  say  : 

T  have  a  strong  feeling  upon  ine,  and  it  brings  great: 


128 


TEE   TlJjlON-JiEEOMBB  TBIAL. 


peace  tliat  I  am  spending  my  last  Sunday,  and  preacMng 
my  last  sermon. 

A.  [Interrupting.]  Yes,  Sir ;  I  had  that  very  strong. 

Q.  Howl  A.  I  had  that  feeling  very  strong. 

Q.  What  did  you  think  was  going  to  be  the  cause  of 
your  departure  at  that  time  1  A.  Well,  the  sovereign  and 
releasing  hand  of  God. 

Q.  Through  what  instrumentality?  A.  I  did  not  know. 

Q.  You  hadn't  made  up  your  mind  %  A.  It  was  merely 
a  strong  spiritual  presentiment,  that  I  was  neat  the 
borders  of  Heaven. 

Q.  You  did  not  think,  then,  that  it  was  to  be  effected  by 
apoplexy  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  had  no  such  thought  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  no,  Sir. 

Q.  Nor  by  any  specific  disease  i  A.  Nor  by  any  specific 
disease. 

•  Q.  Well,  did  you  look  for  translation  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  As  Elijah  was  translated  1  A.  No  ;  but  as  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  would  be,  if  God  should  take  him. 

Q.  You  had  no  apprehension  of  apoplexy  at  that  time  % 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  speak  with  reference  to  those 
symptoms  which  you  had  felt  for  years  prior  to  that 
time  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  spoke  then  as  I  speak  often  in  the 
pulpit,  and  feel  oftener  than  I  speak,  that  I  am  near  the 
end;  sometimes  In  sadness,  sometimes  in  gladness. 

Q.  Now,  let  me  caU  your  attention  to  this,  Mr.  Beecher. 
On  the  Ist  of  Jime,  1873,  you  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  which  has  been  put  in  evidence,  and  which  is  marked 
Exhibit  No.  26,  and  I  read  to  see  if  this  refreshes  your 
recollection.   [Keadlng.l : 

There  are  intimations  in  the  beginning  and  at  the  end 
of  this  letter  that  I  felt  the  approach  of  death.  In  regard 
to  that  I  merely  refer  to  my  previous  statement  concern- 
ing my  bodUy  symptoms,  and  add  that  on  this  day  I  felt 
symptoms  upon  me. 

Now,  what  symptoms  had  you  reference  to,  except 
those  which  were  engendered  in  the  Fremont  campaign, 
when  you  apprehended  paralysis  and  apoplexy?  A. 
What  have  you  read  to  me.  Sir  1 

Q.  I  have  read  to  you  something  to  refresh  your  recol- 
lection. A.  Yes,  Sir ;  but  I  would  like  to  see  what  it  is. 

[Mr.  FuUerton  handed  the  book  to  the  witness.] 

The  Witness— I  do  not  see  it,  Mr.  Fullerton. 

Mr.  Fullerton~It  is  right  at  the  bottom  of  the  small 
type ;  the  first  sentence  following  the  initials,  "H.  W.  B." 

The  Witness— It  is  the  same  type,  only  it  Is  leaded. 
Will  you  be  kind  enouF:h  to  read  the  sentence  following? 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  tSr. 

The  Witness— All  right. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  answer  my 
question  ? 

The  Witness— What  is  the  question? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Will  the  stenographer  please  read  it  ? 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Q.  Now,  let  me  o^U  your  attention  to  this,  Mr. 


Beecher.  On  the  Ist  of  June,  1873,  you  wrote  a  letter 
to  Mr.  Moulton,  which  has  been  put  In  evidence,  and 
which  is  marked  Exhibit  No.  26,  and  I  read  to  see  if  thlt 
refreshes  your  recollection : 

There  are  intimations  in  the  beginning  and  at  the  end 
of  this  letter  that  I  felt  the  approach  of  death.  In  regard 
to  that  I  merely  refer  to  my  previous  statement  concern- 
ing my  bodily  symptoms,  and  add  that  on  this  day  I  felt 
the  symptoms  upon  me. 

Now,  what  symptoms  had  you  reference  to  except 
those  which  were  engendered  in  the  Fremont  campaign, 
when  you  apprehended  paralysis  and  apoplexy  ? " 

A.  I  included  in  that  term  the  general  designation  ol 
all  those  states  of  mind  which  were  premonitory,  or 
which  were— which  impressed  me  with  the  sense  of  being 
about  to  die. 

Q.  You  say :  "  It  merely  refers  to  my  previous  stat6> 
ment  concerning  my  bodily  symptoms  % "  A.  Yes,  Sir.  " 

Q.  What  previous  statement  did  you  refer  to  1  A.  I  do 
not  recall  what  it  was ;  I  am  not  in  a  situation  to  say. 

Q.  Was  it  not  the  statement  already  read  in  evidence 
in  respect  of  those  symptoms  which  grew  out  of  the 
labors  in  the  Fremont  campaign  1  A.  I  presume  it  wa«, 
that  general  class  of  symptoms,  that  general  state  of 
mind. 

Q.  Where  you  enumerated  apoplexy  or  paralysis  as  the 
natural  consequence  of  that  labor  f  A.  As  I  then,  in  the 
early  stage,  felt. 

Q.  ISIr.  Beecher,  did  you,  after  this  apprehension  ol 
death  from  those  causes,  get  your  life  insured  1  A.  I  do 
not  recall.  Sir,  whether  I  did  or  not. 

LIFE  INSUEANCE  POLICIES  ON  HIS  LIFE. 

Q.  Perhaps  tlie  paper  that  I  now  show  you 
will  enable  you  to  recall  it.  [Handing  witness  a  paper.) 
A.  What  date  Is  this.  Sir. 

Q.  It  speaks  for  itself,  I  believe.  A.  I  dare  say,  but  I 
cannot  find  the  date. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  some  place  there. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  March,  1874. 

The  Witness— I  have  made  no  insurance.  My  life  hae 
been  insured  in  the  interest  of  others,  and  I  presume  this 
is  one  of  them ;  I  don't  recoUect  that  I  have  insured  my 
life  since  1870,  at  aU. 

Q.  Is  that  your  signature  to  that  paper  1  A.  Yes,  Sliv 
that  is  my  signature. 

Q.  Was  it  an  application  for  life  Insurance  f  A.  I  pre- 
sume it  was. 

Q.  And  when  was  the  application  madet  A.  I  don't 
know  where  to  look  for  the  date. 
Q.  Look  at  the  bottom,  near  the  signature.  A.  March* 

1874. 

Q.  You  made  application  then  for  a  life  insuranoo  t  A. 
No,  Sir,  I  did  not. 
Q.  You  did  not  I 

Mr.  Evarts- Well,  it  Is  not  his  application. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HE:S 

lb.  Morris— Yes,  It  is ;  be  signs  it. 

The  Witness— The  applioation  was  made  by  J.  B.  Ford  ; 
A  Co. 

Mr.  Evarts— In  their  intereflt—anotlier  interest. 

Mr.  Fullerton— "Were  you  not  Interrogated  then  by  an 
agent  and  a  physician  !  A-  I  presume  T  -was. 

Q.  And  gave  answers  t  A.  I  presume  I  did. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  is  a  difference  between  the  paper 
being  his  statement  and  being  his  application. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  know  there  is,  and  it  is  that  difference 
tliat  I  mean  to  develop.  [To  the  Witness]— Does  not 
that  paper  contain  the  C[uestlons  and  answers  put  to  rou 
personally  relative  to  your  health  at  that  period,  with  a 
view  to  effect  that  insurance  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  an- 
swering them,  but  I  suppose  it  is  so  ;  I  don't  recollect 
going  through  the  examination. 

Q.  That  \s  your  signatui-e  i  A.  That  is  my  signature  ; 
and  I  presume  on  account  of  it,  that  I  did  go  through  the 
examination,  unless  the  oflScers  took  it  without,  which  I 
hardly  think  they  would. 

Q.  How  many  times  has  your  life  been  insured?  A.  I 
don't  know  but  three  times  that  I  have  ever,  of  my  own 
wish  

Q.  Now,  please  stat«  the  dates  of  those  respective  in- 
surances ?  A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  As  near  as  you  can  recoUect  ?  A.  WeU,  I  could  find 
out,  I  suppose,  from  my  son,  who  is  here,  exactly  the 
dates. 

Q  WeU,  an  approximate  statement  ?  A.  I  don't  know 
In  the  least;  I  may  be  liable  to  come  three  or  four  years 
out  of  the  way.  One  of  them  was  very  early,  when  I  in- 
sured in  the  I  think  about  the  year  1851  or  '2,  or 

somewhere  along  there  ;  then  there  was  a  second,  I  think 
about  1856,  or  somewhere  along  there  I  should  say  ;  and 
a  third  that  must  have  come  somewhere  in  the  last  of  the 
608,  or  in  '60,  or  somewhere  along,  but  I  cannot  come 
within  years  of  it,  accurately. 

Q.  In  any  of  those  applicatioiLS  did  you  state  these  pre- 
monitions of  apoplexy  f  A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts — That  is  his  statement,  but  it  is  not  an  appli- 
cation for  life  insurance  in  his  interest. 

Mt  Fullerton— I  did  not  say  it  was  in  his  interest. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  don't  mean  that  you  miscalled  it, 
but  you  spoke  of  it  as  his  application. 

Mr.  Beach— That  Is  not  the  point  of  the  inquiry  at  all. 

Mr.  FuUertpn— It  is  his  application  for  life  insurance. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  an  application,  as  he  stated,  iu 
another's  interest,  for  life  insurance,  in  which  he,  as  the 
party  whose  life  is  to  be  insured,  answers  certain  ques- 
tions. 

Mr.  Pullerton—Very  weU ;  that  Is  all  I  pretended  it 
was, 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  yoamisc^ed  it;  70a  spoke  of  it  as 
***  apptieation, 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  did  not;  it  is  an  application  for  an 
tnaitrance  on  his  life. 


^BY   WAEB   BEEGHEE,  129 

j    Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  somebody  else's  applioation,  and  bis 

t  uement  concerning  his  owu  health. 
I     Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  point.  Sir;  I  only  read  ft 

part  of  this  in  evidence. 
Mr.  Evarts— You  will  put  the  whole  paper  in. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Put  the  whole  paper  in ;  certainly. 
Judge  Netlsou— You  had  better  agree  that  a  copy  maj 
be  made  and  substituted  for  the  original.   The  insurance 
company  require  that  returned,  don't  they  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir;  Mr.  Shearman  will  make  • 
copy,  I  suppose. 
Judge  If  eilson— I  hardly  think  he  will. 
The  Witness— Then  it  will  be  well  done,  Sir. 
Mr.  FiQlertan— Of  course  it  will;  he  writes  the  only 
hand  that  '  an  be  read  among  us  aU.,  I  guess. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  is  a  question  of  evidence  here  which 
ought  to  be  considered,  I  think,  by  your  Honor.  The  in- 
quiry put  to  Ml*.  Beecher  concerning  his  own  life,  his  own 
feeliugs  or  views  or  opinions  or  symptoms  of  his  own 
health,  is  collateral,  and  they  take  his  answers  on  that. 
Now  they  bring  in  other  statements  of  his— extra-judicial 
statements  of  his— outside  of  this  trial;  and  so  they 
establish,  first,  on  a  collateral  point,  a  present  statement, 
under  oath— which  ends  the  matter  usually— and  then 
they  seek  to  disturb  that  by  extra-judicial  statements,  not 
imder  oath.  Now  that  is,  perhaps,  a  somewhat  new  form 
of  the  question  of  what  is  called  collateral  impeach- 
ment. The  general  proposition  is,  that  collateral 
Impeachment  end^  with  the  judicial  inquiry,  and 
does  not  allow  the  importation  of  extraneous  evidence,  or 
extra-judicial  statements.  If  that  be  the  rule  of  evidence 
applicable  here,  this  paper  would  be  excluded-  Now  the 
question  may  rise  on  our  side,  whether  that  state  of 
things  can  be  produced  by  counsel,  of  a  judicial  state- 
ment, a  statement  in  court  on  a  collateral  subject,  and 
then  an  inti'oduction  by  the  same  party  that  introduces 
that  statement  ra.  court  on  a  collateral  subject,  of  extra- 
jiidicial  statements  supposed  to  be  at  variance  with  it. 
This  is  a  matter  that  I  attach  no  importance  to  whatever ; 
but  it  is  a  proposition  which  your  Honor  will  dispose  of 
as  a  question  of  principle,  and  which  will  apply  to  our 
case  as  well  as  to  the  other. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  counsel,  in  examining  the 
witness,  can  me  this  paper ;  and  although  there  might  be 
some  reason  for  objection,  as  stated,  to  reading  it  io  evi- 
dence, I  think  he  has  a  right  to  examine  the  witness  upon 
that  pax>er,  and  upon  each  statement  contained  in  it,  by 
way  of  assisting  the  witness,  or  qualifying  what  he  has 
said. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  should  agree  to  that.  He  has  a 
right  to  ask  him  any  questions  whatever  about  the 
symptoms,  or  of  his  statements  concerning  them. 
Judge  Neilson— Or  his  statements  contained  there. 
Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  if  it  Is  understood  that  it  is  admitted 
because  it  is  lawfully  admitted,  and  after  we  have  raised 
the  question,  we  are  satisfied. 


130 


IBM   TILION-BBJECHEE  TRIAL, 


Judge  Neilson— Well.  Go  on,  Mr.  PuUerton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Some  of  the  questions  and  answers  in 
tliis  paper  are  as  follows : 

Has  the  party  been  afllicted  since  childhood  with  rup- 
ture, fits,  dropsy,  liver  complaint,  bilious  colic,  rheuma- 
tism, goat,  habitual  cough,  bronchitis,  asthma,  spitting 
of  blood,  consumption,  paralysis,  apoplexy,  insanity, 
fistula,  or  disease  of  the  kidneys  or  bladder;  if  so, 
which?    A.  No. 

Has  the  party  been  afflicted  with  the  disease  of  the 
heart  or  disease  of  any  of  the  vital  organs ;  if  so,  which  1 
A.  No. 

Has  the  party  been  afllicted,  during  the  last  ten  years, 
with  any  severe  or  constitutional  disease ;  if  so,  what  1 
A.  No. 

Is  the  party  now  afflicted  with  any  disease  or  disorder ; 
if  so,  vhat? 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  then  says,  written  across  here : 
No  sickness  except  "  hay  fever,"  and  not  that  the  last 
three  years. 
And  then,  below : 

It  is  hereby  de^ared  that  the  age  of  the  person  whose 
life  is  to  be  insured  is  correctly  stated ;  that  he  is  now  and 
does  ordinarily  enioy  good  health ;  and  that  in  the  above 
proposal  there  has  been  nothing  withheld  touching  the 
past  or  present  state  of  health  or  habits  of  said  person  with 
which  the  New-Jersey  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company 
ought  to  be  made  acquainted  in  order  to  effect  this  insur- 
ance. And  that  the  undersigned  has  an  insurable  interest 
in  the  life  of  the  person  proposed  to  be  insured  to  the  full 
amount  of  the  sum  specified  above. 

Also,  that  the  above  are  fair  and  true  answers  to  the 
foregoing  questions,  and  it  is  acknowledged  and  agreed 
by  the  undersigned,  that  the  above  statements  shall  form 
the  basis  of  the  contract  for  assurance,  and  also,  that  any 
untrue  and  fraudulent  answers,  any  suppression  of  facts 
in  regard  to  the  person's  health,  or  neglect  to  pay  the  pre- 
mium on  or  before  the  day  it  shall  become  due,  will  ren- 
der the  policy  null  and  void,  and  forfeit  aU  payments 
made  thereon,  except  as  provided  in  the  policy ;  and  it  is 
also  understood  and  agreed,  that  under  no  circumstances 
shall  the  policy  be  in  force  until  the  actual  payment  to 
and  acceptance  of  the  premium  by  the  company  or  its 
authorized  agent. 

It  is  signed  H.  W.  Beecher,  and  J.  B.  Ford  &  Co.,  and 
witnessed  by  some  person  who,  if  he  has  a  name,  has  not 
written  it  plain  enough  for  me  to  read  it. 

The  Witness  [Having  the  paper  in  his  hand]— Do  you 
offer  it  for  marking,  Mr.  Fullerton  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes. 

Judge  Neilson— The  copy  that  is  to  be  made  will  be 
marked  as  a  substitute  for  that.  Mr.  Fullerton  will  make 
that  copy. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will,  but  I  will  require  the  certificate 
of  the  Court  that  it  is  a  copy,  if  I  write  it. 

Mr.  Beecher-  I  will  write  it  for  you  and  sign  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— You  cannot  certify  to  it.  [To  Judge 
Neilson.]  If  your  Honor  please,  that  closes  the  cross- 
examination. 

The  paper  was  marked  Exhibit  No.  131. 


THE  RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION. 

Mr.  Evarts — If  your  Honor  please,  I  do  not 
expect  that  the  re-direct  will  take  very  long;  it  may  not 
exhaust  the  half  hour  between  now  and  the  time  of  ad- 
journment. But  when  I  am  through  I  shall  ask  for  an 
adjournment  because  the  next  witness  is  Mr.  Cleveland, 
and  we  don't  wish  to  bring  him  here— as  he  is  not  in  good 
health— a  few  moments  before  recess,  when  there  will  be 
no  prolonged  examination.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  obliged 
to  protract  this  examination  in  order  to  cover  the  time. 

Judge  Neilson— No.  When  you  close  we  will  take  our 
recess,  whofher  it  is  time  or  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  statement,  if  your  Honor  please,  has, 
among  its  requirements,  the  name  and  residence  of  the 
party,  the  usual  medical  attendants  or  the  medical  at 
tendant  of  his  family,  to  be  referred  to  for  information 
as  to  his  health.  "  Dr.  Jewett,  Brooklyn,"  is  Mr.  Beech- 
er's  answer ;  the  name,  residence  and  occupation  of  the 
party  in  whose  favor  the  insurcftice  is  proposed,  and  rela- 
tionship, if  any,  to  the  party  whose  life  is  proposed  to  be 
insured.  The  answer  to  which  is  :  "  J.  B.  Ford  &  Co., 
publishers,  27  Park-place,  New- York."  In  the  body  of 
the  paper  is  the  physician's  report  of  an  exumination  of 
Mr.  Beecher : 

Does  oscultation  and  percussion  of  the  chest  indicate 
any  disease  of  the  heart  or  respiratory  organs  1  No. 

Is  the  respiratory  murmur  clear  and  distinct  over  both 
lungs  1  Yes. 

Is  the  character  of  the  respiration  full,  easy  and  regu- 
lar 1  Yes. 

Are  there  any  indications  of  disease  in  the  organs  of 
respiration  1  No. 

Is  the  character  of  the  heart's  action  uniform,  free  and 
steady  1  Yes. 

Are  its  soimds  and  rhythms  regular  and  normal  t 
Yes. 

Are  there  any  indications  of  disease  in  this  organ,  or  of 
the  blood  vessels  1  No. 

State  the  rate  and  other  qualities  of  the  party's  pulse. 
Eighty  ;  soft  and  regular. 

Does  it  intermit,  become  irregular  or  unsteady!  No. 

Are  the  functions  of  the  brain  and  nervous  system  in  ft 
healthy  state  ?  Yes. 

Has  the  party  any  predisposition,  either  hereditary  or 
acquired,  to  any  constitutional  disease!  No. 

Has  the  party  ever  had  any  severe  iivjury  or  illness  I 
No. 

Has  the  medical  examiner  carefully  read  the  applies 
tion,  and  questioned  the  party  thereon!  Yes. 

Do  you  consider  the  applicant's  life  to  be  safely  insmv 
able,  and  do  you  recommend  that  a  policy  be  granted  f 
Yes ;  I  do. 

Signed  by  the  examiner  and  physician  of  the  New-Jer^ 

sey  Mutual  life  Insm^ance  Company. 

Judge  Neilson— What  is  the  date! 

Mr.  Evarts— The  date  of  it!  The  date  of  this  examlna^ 

tion  of  the  examined  is : 

Examined  at  Brooklyn,  New-York,  this  14th  day  of 
March,  1874. 


And  it  precedes  the  firtghature  of  Mr.  Beecho-.  That  In 
dated  at  New- York,  the  17th  day  of  March,  1874. 


TESTIMONI    Oil   HENEF   WABD  BEECUEE. 


131 


iTb-vv,  Mr.  Beeclier,  liad  you  any  interest  in  this  sul)- 
/ect  of  tlie  insurance  desired  and  entered  into  upon  your 
life?  A.  Not  the  sUglitest. 

Q.  WMat  'was  tlie  relation  of  J.  B.  Ford  &  Co.  to  you,  or 
any  work  of  yours,  tliat  gave  tliem  an  insurable  interest 
in  youi-  lite?  A.  My  "Life  of  Christ,"  I  presume,  was 
the  thing  then  in  their  mind  as  an  unfinished  work. 
That  v/as  in  1874,  and  my  general  relations— they  are 
my  publishers,  and  they  have  my  works  in  hand. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  relation  ?  A.  That  is  the  only  re- 
lation. 

Q.  They  are  not  creditors  otherwise  than  in  the  sense 
ot  having  an  interest  tn  your  future  life  and  labors  ?  A. 
That  is  all,  Sir. 

Q,.  Now,  Sir,  in  regard  to  the  facts  or  symptoms  con- 
cerning your  health  in  the  past,  or  opinions  and  appre- 
hensions concerning  your  health  in  the  past— imder 
which  head  do  your  feelings,  as  heretofore  held  or  ex- 
pressed on  that  subject,  fall  ?  Are  they  opinions  and 
fears,  or  have  you  knowledge  of  any  facts  concerning 
youi"  heart,  your  circulation,  or  your  bi-ain,  on  which  you 
formed  expectations  of  shortly  terminating  life  ? 
A.  Not  for  years.  There  was  a  period  in  which  I  thought 
that  the  constitutional  tendencies  to  despond- 
ency which  I  have  on  reactionary  days,  that 
there  were  developed  upon  that  certain  symp- 
toms, by  reason  of  excessive  work,  which  I 
In  my  ignorance  supposed,  perhaps,  to  be  paraly- 
sis or  apoplexy.  Besides  that,  I  am  short-necked ;  and  I 
am  admonished  by  my  friends  that  when  I  preach  I  do 
get  very  red  in  the  face,  and  I  am  liable  to  go  ;  and  it 
was  very  general,  and  at  those  times  I  was  under  the  im- 
pression that  those  very  likely  were ;  but  that  passed 
away,  and  I  became  subsequently  quite  satisfied  that 
there  was  no  such  tendency  as  that ;  and  only  in  liours  of 
despondency  did  it  ever  come  back  again,  as  probably  it 
was  m, 

Q.  Well,  now,  when  these  apprehensions  of  death 
formed  a  part  of  periods  of  despondency,  you  actually  at 
the  time  had  impressions  that  your  life  was  precarious, 
and  would  come  to  an  end,  had  you  not  ?  A.  Very  strong. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  ascertain  that  those  impressions  were 
the  symptoms  and  came  from  nervous  exhaustion,  and 
were  not  supported  by  any  facts  concerning  your  health 
A.  T  did,  Sir,  thoroughly. 

Q.  But.  T  suppose,  nevertheless,  in  periods  of  depres 
sio7i  you  jstlll  had  fears?   A.  I  had. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  that  is  a  matter  of  argument.  You 
had  better  argue  the  matter  than  be  putting  questions. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  bringing  the  matter  to  a  point 

Mr.  Beach— Yes. 

Tbe  Witness— As  a  matter  of  fact. 

•Mr.  EVarts— I  suppose  there  is  nothing  unfamiliar  in 
that  to  the  experience  of  counsel. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  what  can  you  now  say  as  to 
whether  any  sister  of  yours  was  housekeeper,  or  other- 


wise resident  in  your  family,  during  the  Winter  of  1871— 
that  is,  1870-'71  ?  A.  There  was  none. 

Q.  When  did  Mrs.  Beecher  leave  for  the  South  that 
year?  A.  In  March,  I  think ;  I  am  informed  by  credible 
authority. 

Q.  You  have  made  such  examination  as  you  had  the 
means  of  making?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  have  an  authority  that 
I  do  not  dispute. 

Q.  Who  had  charge  of  your  family  after  she  left  ?  A. 
Well,  the  household  arrangements  which  she  made  her- 
self and  supervised  by  correspondence  from  Florida; 
there  was  no  head  person  but  Mary,  who  was  the  cook, 
and  a  girl  that  had  long  lived  with  us  and  took  care  ol 
everything— she  had  the  management  of  aff"airs. 

Q.  And  you  had  no  additional  superintendence?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  on  the  cross-exam- 
ination of  our  learned  friends,  we  have  a  right  now  to  put 
in  the  rest  of  this  memorandum  of  Mr.  Beecher's  advice 
and  opinion  concerning  Mrs.  TUton's  separation  from  her 
husband. 

Judge  Neilson— They  put  tn  a  clause  of  that^the  first 
clause. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  were  allowed  to  put  in  a  clause  of  it, 
and  the  only  clause ;  and  now  we  say  on  cross-examinar 
tion  we  think  we  are  entitled  to  put  in  the  rest. 

Judge  NeUson— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  was  objected  to  and  ruled  out.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— 1  mean  there  is  no  impropriety  in  that.  We 
didn't  except.   I  don't  know  how  that  is. 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  question  was  up  and  discussed,  and 
youi"  Honor  passed  upon  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  say,  on  your  cross-examination,  we  say 
we  think  we  have  a  right  to  put  in  the  rest. 

Mr.  PuUerton— I  am  only  telling  the  history  of  the  case.. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  you  don't  object  we  will  go  on. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  objected  to,  of  coirrse. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  this  is  the  point :  he  is  asked  thl» 
Question  by  Mr  Fullerton  

"  Well,  what  was  the  upshot  of  the  mterview  ?"  that 
is,  the  interview  that  his  wife  and  he  had  with  Mrs.  Tilton 
and  Mrs.  Morse. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  he  gave  the  substance  of  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— [Reading.] : 

"That  we  would  go  home  and  talk  over  the  matter,  and 
let  them  know  what  decision  or  what  advice  we  should 
give  them."  Then  Mr.  Fullerton  proceeds:  "Yes,  you  did 
let  them  know  afterward  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  my  wife  went 
over  there  again. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  her  before  she  left  to  go  there  ! 
A.  We  talked  the  matter  over  more  or  less,  I  holding  it 
was  not  best  to  break  up  the  family  relations,  and  she'in- 
clining,  from  what  had  been  told  her,  and  which  I  did 
not  hear,  to  believe  Mrs.  Tilton  ought  not  to  continue 
living  with  her  husband.  It  was  a  matter  of  some  con- 
siderable interchange  of  views  between  us,  but  in  the 
last  moment,  as  she  had  got  on  her  things  to  go,  the  room 
having  company  in  it,  and  she  asking  me  what  my  last 
word  was— what  I  concluded  about  it— I  wrote  on  a  Uttle 


133  THE  TILTON-Bl 

•crap  of  paper  and  handed  It  to  her.  Mr.  Fullerton  says : 
"This  is  what  you  wrote,  I  believe,"  and  begins  to  read, 
or  it  is  read :  "  I  incline  to  think  your  view  is  right,  and 
that  a  separation  and  settlement  of  support  will  be 
wiaest.*'  Then  the  witness  proceeds  to  speak  

Mr.  Beach— I  withdraw  the  objection. 

llr.  Evarts— I  now  read  the  whole  memorandum. 

Ilncline  to  think  that  your  view  is  right,  that  a  separa- 
tion and  settlement  of  support  wUl  be  wisest  

Thus  far  we  read  before  : 

And  that  in  his  present  desperate  state  her  presence 
near  him  is  far  more  likely  to  produce  hatred  than  her  ab- 
aence. 

Memorandum  marked  "Exhibit  133." 

MES.  TILTON  AND  THE  CHAEGE  OF  UNDUE 
AJ^CTION. 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher,  I  want  to  call  your  attention 

to  a  point  in  the  cross-examination  and  ask  you  a  single 
question.  Now,  the  general  subject  seems  to  be  the 
charges  that  had  been  made  against  you.  The  learned 
counsel  asked  you  this.  To  avoid  reading  too  much,  I  wiU 
come  down  to  this  : 

Theodore  Til  ton  was  the  only  person  who  had  ever  de- 
clared that  such  a  thing  was  a  fact— the  only  person  I 
recall ;  that  is,  undue  affection. 

Q.  And  Mrs.  TUton  had  denied  it  orally  and  in  writing 
to  you?  A.  She  had. 

Q.  Did  you  believe  it  after  that  %  A.  I  have  stated  to 
you  already  that  I  was  more  in  a  state  of  perplexity  than 
of  belief.  ^  . 

Now,  had  Mrs.  Tilton  denied  the  undue  affection 
orally  and  in  writing  to  you  ?  A.  No,  I  think  not.  Sir. 
No,  she  had  not  denied  the  undue  affection. 

Q.  The  writing  that  you  had  from  her  was  that  retrac- 
tion, was  it  not  ?  A.  That  was  all. 

Q.  Yow  had  no  other  writing  of  retraction  or  denial  fi'om 
her  1  A.  No  other. 

Q.  From  her  at  all  ?  A.  No  other. 

Mr.  Evarts— That,  of  course,  wlU  speak  for  itself. 

Q.  Now,  you  had  an  interview  in  which,  as  a  part  of  the 
conversation  between  you  and  her,  you  mentioned  to  her 
her  husband's  Imputations  or  statement  to  you  that  you 
had  itiidiawn  her  affections,  or  unduly  engaged  her 
affections  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  she  deny  that !  A.  As  I  recollect  it,  Sir, 
she  simply  cried  

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment. 

The  Witness  [continuing]— Without  any  denial. 

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment.  That  is  not  a  proper  mode  of 
examination,  either  upon  the  direct  or  the  re-direct.  The 
conversation  between  these  two  persons  has  been  given  in 
evidence  in  detail,  and  whether  it  amounts  to  a  denial,  or 
not,  will  appear  from  an  inspection  of  the  language  used 
there.  It  is  not  for  the  witness  to  determine  that  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  the  difficulty  is  this,  if  your  Honor 
please.  The  witness  has  been  brought,  in  the  course  of  the 
examination,  to  a  question :    Mrs.  Tilton  had  denied  it 


lECHEB  TBIAL. 

oraUy  and  in  writing  to  youl  A.  She  had."  Then,  by 
running  the  matter  back,  you  may  see  that  that  may 
mean  she  denied  the  undue  affection. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  you  might  naturally  ask  him  how 
she  had  denied  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  I  want  to  know  whether—— 

Judge  NeUson— That  wiU  stand. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  want  to  know  whether  this  present  an- 
swer I  am  calling  his  attention  to  correctly  states  what  la 
the  fact,  as  he  understands  it,  that  he  ever  had  received 
either  an  oral  or  a  written  denial  of  the  engagement  of 
affections.  They  have  disposed  of  the  written  part  of  it 
by  saying  the  only  one  is  this  written  paper.  That,  of 
course,  will  speak  for  itself;  but  an  oral  one  might  be 
in  this  or  that  form  or  shape.  I  know  nothing  about  that. 
I  have  proved  what  passed  between  the  witness  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  on  the  night  of  the  30th ;  that  is  quite  true,  and  I 
don't  propose  to  vary  or  add  to  that.  That  stands.  I  am 
only  asking  him  whether  this  statement  that  he  makes, 
"  Had  denied  it  orally  and  in  writiug  to  you,"  covers  the 
fact,  or  alleged  fact,  of  the  engagement  of  affection. 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  anything  that  was  said  upon  that  oo- 
casion  has  been  withheld,  then  it  can  be  given,  and 
when  the  gentleman  gets  through  he  can  ask  the  question 
whether  that  was  aU  that  was  said;  and  then  the  jury 
wUldetermiue  whether  there  was  or  was  not  a  denial  of 
the  charge ;  but  to  give  all  that  was  said,  and  then  ask 
the  witness's  interpretation  of  it,  whether  there  was  a 
denial  of  the  charge,  is  certainly  violating  a  very  familiar 
and  frequently-applied  rule  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  no  occasion  or  desire  to  vary  or  add 
to  this  witness's  narative  of  the  actual  scone  of  the  30th; 
that  is  not  what  I  am  interfering  with,  but  my  view  is 
this,  that  in  the  witness's  examination  he  has  been 
speaking,  or  supposed  he  was  speaking,  concern- 
ing both  the  written  and  oral  denial  of  improper  advances; 
and  yet,  in  a  reading  of  the  testimony,  it  may  seem,  or 
may  be  so  properly  understood,  perhaps,  if  you  take  the 
mere  letter  of  the  examination,  that  the  witness  has  said 
he  had  received  an  oral .  ud  a  written  denial  from  her  of 
the  engagement  of  affection.  He  certainly  had  no  writ- 
ten denial  of  it  unless  this  letter  is  a  written  denial,  and, 
if  it  is,  why,  of  course  it  is.  The  point  of  inquiry,  there- 
fore, is  whether  he  had  received  any  oral  denial  of  the 
engagement  of  affection. 

Judge  NeUson— Other  than  that  recited  in  this  evi- 
dence ! 

Mr.  Evarts— Other  than  that  recited  in  hie  direct  ex- 
amination. If  it  be  here. 
Judge  Neilson— Well. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  aU. 

The  WitnoKS— No,  I  had  received  no  oral  deniaL 

Q.  Of  the  engagement  of  affection?   A.  Of  the  undue 

affection  of  her  for  me. 
Mr.  Evarts— Now,  a  referenc/e  to  the  narrative  of  thai 

night  will  show  us  what  was  said  and  done. 


TESTIMOJST  OF  BEN  BY   WARD  BEEGBEB. 


133 


Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  you  have  just  got  the  Improper  evi- 
dence whicli  we  have  objected  to,  but  I  don't  think  it  of 
much  importance. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  agree  that  your  objection  has  been  talcen, 
and  the  Court  decided  against  you. 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  Court  decided  the  objection  -was 
■well  taken,  and  you  went  on  and  took  a  wrong  answer. 

Mr.  Beach— Never  mind,  let  it  go. 

Mr.  Fullerton— You  have  got  It  now,  and  make  the  best 
of  it  you  can. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  Mr.  PullertonJ— "Was  there  any  oral 
denial  of  the  engaged  affections  except  what  he  has  re- 
cited In  his  testimony! 

Mr.  Beach— He  has  given  an  absolute  and  full  answer, 
but  we  don't  care  anything  about  it.  Let  it  stand. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  would  carrythe  impression  that  there 
was  some  denial  in  that,  and  we  don't  think  there  is.  We 
don't  wish  to  repeat  that. 

Q.  Duping  these  years,  Mr.  Beecher,  that  are  under  in- 
quiry here,  1871, 1872,  and  1873,  how  many  letters  on  an 
average,  or  as  a  usual  occurrence,  did  you  receive  1  Did 
you  receive  many  letters  every  dayl  A.  Do  you  mean 
from  these  parties  1 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh  I  no. 

The  Witness— Or  my  general  letters! 

Mr.  Evarts— In  general. 

The  Witness— Oh  1 1  cannot  state  that  correctly,  because 
they  varied  some  days;  but  I  should  think  I  got  from  15 
to  25  letters  a  day. 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  received  that  many  anonymous 
letters  some  days  in  regard  to  this  case. 

The  Witness  [to  Judge  Neilson]— You  are  a  much  more 
conspicuous  figure  In  the  case  than  I  am. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  is  one  advantage.  If  your  Honor 
please,  in  anonymous  letters,  that  any  number  of  them 
may  be  written  by  the  same  person. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  HABITS. 

Q.  Now,  when  yourself  and  your  wife  were 
absent,  what  was  done  with  these  letters  that  arrived  ! 
A.  The  servants  always  laid  them  on  my  writing  table  in 
the  back  parlor,  or  library  parlor,  as  we  call  it. 

Q.  Now,  in  opening  these  letters,  what  was  your  habit 
as  to  reading  or  disposing  of  them  1  A.  Well,  my  habit 
was — of  course  they  were  opened  in  my  absence  by  my 
wife  very  largely,  but,  as  to  my  own  self,  I  most  generally 
opened  letters,  and.  If  they  were  anonymous,  I  threw 
them  into  the  fire,  and  if  they  were  letters  on 
lectures,  I  merely  saw  it  wps  a  lecture  letter  and  threw  it 
right  over  to  her.  If  they  were  letters  on  business  of  any 
kind,  on  glancing  over  them  I  generally  threw  them  over 
to  her  care.  Now  and  then  there  would  be  letters  from 
"women,  the  character  of  which  I  thought  she  had  I  etter 
means  of  knowini^tban  I,  and  I  put  them  in  her  liands, 
and  the  other  letters  I  laid  nside  to  answer  and  forgwt. 


Q.  As  a  general  rule  f  A.  As  a  general  rule,  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  in  relation  to  your  church,  or  its  commiV 
tees,  or  its  business,  or  its  business  meetings,  what  wai 
your  habit  hi  regard  to  participation  in  them  1  A.  A  few 
of  the  important  meetings  occasionally  I  attended,  but 
my  custom  was  not  to  attend  them.  My  custom  was  to 
put  onto  my  church  everything  that  concerned  itself ,  and 
obliged  them  to  take  care  of  it  without  any  suggestion 
from  me,  never  refusing  to  give  advice  whenever  asked, 
but  never  going  there  to  influence  them ;  but  as  to  their 
records,  I  don't  think  I  ever  read  a  line  of  any  record,  of 
any  committee,  or  of  any  meeting,  or  in  the  church 
books — I  don't  think  I  ever  did,  a  single  line. 

Q.  And  as  to  any  papers  or  documents  relating  to  the 
business  or  duties  of  any  committees  of  the  church,  or  of 
the  church,  had  you  any  participation  or  habit  in  them! 
A.  No,  Sir  ;  no.  Sir.  The  only  Instance  in  which  I  took 
any  active  participation  was  in  the  correspondence  be- 
tween the  church  and  the  sister  churches  that  impleaded 
it.  I  did  in  connection  with  those  letters— those  docu- 
ments—but I  think  that  is  probably  the  solitary  instance. 

Q.  In  regard  to  any  proceedings  of  the  Examining 
Committee  on  the  West  charges,  what  course  did  you  take 
in  regard  to  participation  in,  or  getting  up,  any  knowledge 
of  those  proceedings  %  A.I  had  nothing ;  I  never  attended 
a  meeting  of  the  Examining  Committee  of  Deacons,  from 
the  time  they  were  first  suggested  to  this  day,  I  think, 
except  with  the  one  solitary  function  which  belonars  to 
the  Examining  Committee— namely,  examining  persons 
as  candidates  for  membership  in  the  church;  but  in  their 
executive  and  judicial  capacity  I  think  I  never  attended 
a  single  sitting ;  I  told  them  I  would  not 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  you  have  stated  on  the  cross-examinatioii 
that  you  did  not  read  the  Investigating  Committee's 
report.  By  that  we  mean  the  Investigating  Committee 
of  last  Summer,  and  the  report  that  they  made  upon  their 
inquiries.  Now,  Sir,  was  there  any  reason  why  you  did 
not  read  that  report*  A.  Well,  it  was  because  I  didn't 
read  any  of  the  documents  that  concerned  this  scandal, 
that  I  recollect,  to  any  extent,  as  it  is  not  my  habit  to 
read  such  things. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Witnessl— The  counsel  means 
any  special  reason  of  restraint.  a 

The  Witness— No,  Sir;  I  was  absent  in  the  White  Moun- 
tains  and  it  came  to  me  only  as  news,  and  I  was  satisfied 
with  knowing  that  they  had  reported  favorably,  and  that 
the  church  was  happy.  I  didn't  care  what  the  report 
was ;  I  never  read  it,  nor  did  I  anterior  to  that  read  the 
documents  that  appeared  from  time  to  time. 

Q.  What  is  your  habit  as  to  seeking  out  or  paying  atteik> 
tion  to  publications  concerning  yourself?  A.  When  I 
first  came  to  Brooklyn  I  thought  it  meet,  being  younger 
and  having  also .  my  standing  to  make  here,  to  pay  some 
attention  to  things  that  were  said;  but  after  a  few  years  I 
declined  to  read  either  the  complimentary  criticisms  or 
to  read  the  other  thing,  but  I  don't  think  I  ever  haTe 


134  THE  TILTOJS'B 

chased  a  story  for  twenty  years  that  was  told  to  me, 
because  I  very  soon  saw  that  I  should  have  nothing  else 
to  do. 

Q.  T  oaU  your  attention  now  to  a  point  in  the  cross- 
examination  : 

Q.  Well,  did  Mr.  Moulton  propose  any  counter-operation 
when  the  Bacon  letter  was  published  1  A.  No  satisfying 
— nothing. 

Q.  Did  he  propose  no  counter-operation  1  A.  I  don't 
jhnow  that  he  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  propose  no  document  1  A.  By  document 
there,  I  did  not  

Mr.  Beach— No. 

Mr.  FuUerton— No ;  did  he  propose  no  document  f  A. 
Yes,  he  proposed  a  paper. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  that  is  an  answer. 
The  Witness— A  document. 

Q.  Did  he  propose  no  help  !  A.  Yes,  he  proposed  what 
he  considered  help. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  what  did  occur  as  matter  of  fact 
oeming  any  counter-operation  or  any  proposition  of 
puhUcation,  or  otherwise,  in  respect  to  the  Bacon  letter, 
after  the  publication  of  the  Bacon  letter  on  Mr.  Moulton's 
parti  A.  He  made  many  suggestions  of  a  settlement 
that  he  thought  could  be  effected— several— but  I  think  I 
don't  recall  that  he  furnished  any.  He  made  suggestions 
and  sketches  of  papers. 

Mr.  Shearman— Wait  a  moment. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  how  was  this  in  respect  to  the  im- 
mediate period  after  the  Bacon  letter  came  out  as  dis 
tinguished  from  a  later  period  1  A.  Well,  he  made  some 
drafts  of  papers  and  submitted  me  to  them  

Q.  Submitted  them  to  you?  A.  Suggested  them  to  me, 
and  presented  them  to  me  for  my  consideration,  and  also 
made  suggestions  oraUy  to  me  for— that  might  be  called 
help;  but  later— if  that  is  included  also  in  your  question- 
when  I  wished  to  draw  up  my  statement,  and  appealed 
to  him  for  a  sight— a  copy  or  sight  of  the  originals  

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  not  ta  answer  to  the  question. 

The  Witness— I  understood  it  to  be  to  Mr.  Evarts's  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Beach— No. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  Mr,  Beach]— Number  34.  Have  you 
got itt 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  in  that  book  underneath. 

Q.  Look  at  Exhibit  34.  Did  he  propose  or  present  any 
other  paper  or  document  than  that — I  mean  at  that  time, 
after  the  publication  of  the  Bacon  letter  [handing  Exhibit 
34  to  the  witness]. 

Mr.  Beach— He  said  yes ;  he  proposed  several  sketches. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  now  caU  his  attention  to  that  one. 

The  Witness— I  cannot  say,  Sir,  that  there  was  any  other 
but  this,  or  whether  there  was. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  cannot  say  that  there  was,  or  whether 
there  was?  A.  No,  Sir,  not  definitely. 

Mr  I ; ,  ! rta— Very  well ;  that  is  an  end  of  it. 

Tli:  Witness— I  have  no  very  distinct  recollection ;  there 


'KCJHEE  TRIAL, 

were  conversations,  but  T  cannot  distinguish  in  my  m^ 
ory  between  conversations  and  documents  of  that  kind^ 

Mr.  Evarts — Now,  later  than  that,  but  in  reference  t<> 
the  situation  produced  by  the  publication  of  the  Bacow 
letter,  when  you  had  informed  Mr.  Moulton  of  your  pur- 
pose  of  an  investigation,  what  did  Mr.  Moulton  then  have 
to  say  or  do  about  any  plans  or  expedients  1  A.  That  waa 
the  time,  I  think,  he  wanted  me  to  write  a  card  admitting 
an  offense,  and  saying  that  it  had  been  apologized  for  and 
accepted,  and  that  if  I  would  do  that,  Mr.  Tilton  had 
promised,  in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  to  be  satisfied  in 
the  matter,  and  thaA  he  would  biirn  every  document  that 
there  was  ?n  the  matter. 

Q.  The  interview  which  you  have  given  in  detail  here,  f 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  But  between  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  Bacon 
letter  and  the  time  of  your  formed  and  announced  deter- 
mination to  have  an  investigation,  were  there  any  plans 
or  expedients  of  Mr.  Moulton  except  this  one  1  A.  No, 
Sir,  there  was  not  a  word  passed  between  him  and  me  un- 
til I  had  determined  the  Committee  in  its  crude  form  in 
conference  with  Mr.  Cleveland  at  my  house. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  was  Mr.  Cleveland  in  the  year 
1874  in  the  employment  of  Ford  &  Co.,  or  in  any  way 
connected  with  you?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  have  ascertained 
since  I  spoke  to  you  yesterday  that  he  left  in  December 
of  1873. 

Q.  December,  1873,  terminated  it  1  A.  If  I  recollect 
rightly. 

Q.  That  is  as  easily  ascertained,  I  suppose  1  A.  Yea, 
Sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  your  view  now!  A.  Yes,  Sir,  as  I  avu 

credibly  informed  and  believe. 

Q.  What,  in  1874,  was  his  business,  and  in  what  oonnec* 
tion  I  A.  He  was  a  partner  in  the  paper-house  of  Hurl- 
burt  &  Co. 

Q.  Not  connected  with  you  and  your  interest  Ik  any 
way  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  he  owned  one  share  in  the  stock. 

Q.  In  the  business  of  Hurlburt  &  Co.?  A.  No,  business 
other  than  that  he  and  I  were  members  of  a  p«iblishing 
house. 

Q.  But  he  did  own  one  share  in  your  newspaper  ?  A. 
One  share— not  in  the  newspaper. 

Q.  But  in  the  house  1  A.  In  The  Christian  Union  Pub- 
lishing Association,  which  is  very  distinct  from  the  firm 
of  J.  B.  Ford  &  Co.— entirely  distinct. 

CONVERSATIONS  WITH  MEMBERS  OF  THE 
INVESTIGATING  COMMITTEE. 
Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  ycu  were  a&ked  some- 
thing about  your  having  talked  with  Ml.  Cleveland  be- 
foi-e  his  appointment  as  one  of  your  Investigating  Com- 
mittee. Did  you,  in  fact,  talk  with  him  concerning  the 
money,  the  $2,000  or  the  $5,000,  or  either  of  them,  before 
that  appointment?  A.  Before  the  Coujinittee  waa  ap>- 
pointed. 


TUSimONY  OF  EENE7    WARD  BEECEER. 


135 


Q.  Before  the  Committee  was  appointed  t  A.  I  was 
Tery  mucft  at  a  loss  to  know  whom  I  talked  with,  or  who 
it  was  that  got  me  into  the  condition  of  believing  the  mat- 
ter yesterday,  hut  I  should  not  be  willing  to  say  with  cer- 
tainty that  I  did  talk  with  ]Mr.  Cleveland  at  that  time.  I 
noticed  that  I  made  several  statements  of  persons  that 
turned  out  not  to  be  so,  in  regard  to  who  it  was  that  sug- 
gested this  or  that  to  me,  but  I  made  the  general  declara- 
tion :  and  I  thmk  I  am  correct  yesterday  in  answer  to 
Mr.  Fullerton  of  who  led  me  to  believe  in  the  blackmail- 
ing, that  I  could  not  say  who  it  was,  but  my  impression 
was  that  I  talked  with  Mr.  Cleveland  and  with 
Mr.  Shearman.  I  am  this  morning,  I  think, 
better  qualified  to  say  that  the  person  who 
talked  with  me  first  and  influentially  was  Mr.  Bartlett 
and  that  my  impressions— I  should  say  now  that  I  did  not 
talk  with  Mr.  Cleveland,  probably. 

Q.  I  want  your  best  statement,  of  com-se,  Mr.  Beecher, 
from  your  recollection  this  morning  as  to  whether  you 
talked  with  Mr.  Cleveland  before  his  appointment  on  this 
Committee  in  reference  to  any  of  those  money  matters 

between  you  and  .   A.  I  don't  think  this  morning— I 

don't  think  that  I  did;  on  looking  back  more  critically. 

MEETINGS  WITH  MR.  TILTON. 

Q.  You  were  asked,  Mr.  Beecher,  quite  a 
number  of  questions,  I  think,  concerning  the  interviews, 
or  conversations  and  meetings,  between  Mrs.  TUton  and 
yourself  after  January,  1871,  on  the  point  of  whether 
you  did  or  did  not  talk  with  her  concerning  this  matter 
In  any  of  its  forms— the  trouble,  or  the  condition  of  the 
family,  &c.  That  is  probably  a  sufficient  reference  to  the 
matter  and  its  announcement  indirectly.  Now,  what  was 
the  course  and  the  motives  and  your  feelings  in  regard 
to  intercourse  or  interviews  with  Mrs.  Tilton  after  that 
tune  by  which  that  intercourse  was  regulated  % 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  I  object  to.  It  is  scarcely  neces- 
sary to  state  the  groimd  of  objection. 

Judge  Nellson— It  is  broader  than  yoiir  cross  was— much 
broader. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  if  you  look  more  carefully  at  the 
evidence  in  order  to  reach  the  point  

Mr.  FuUertou— I  propose  to  look  at  the  clock  before  I 
look  at  that. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  we  wiU  close  this  before  we  ad- 
journ. We  will  take  our  hour's  adjournment  then.  [To 
Mr.  Evarts.]  I  think  youi-  question  is  a  little  broader 
than  the  cross. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Beecher,  you  remember  in  gen- 
eral the  examination  that  was  proposed  to  you  yesterday, 
and  V,  hlch  you  answered.   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  the  intercourse  between  you  and 
Mrs.  Tilton  after  this  period  of  1871,  at  all  f 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  Is  objected  to,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  welL 


Mr.  Fullerton— There  is  nothing  in  the  cross-examtnar- 

tion  which  makes  that  proper. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  will  see. 

Judge  Neilson— He  means  in  respect  to  a  reference  tc 
the  proposed  securing  of  her  affections. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  will  read  a  question  and  answer,  if  your 
Honor  please,  which  will  perhaps  satisfy  you  it  is  right : 

Q.  In  these  walks  with  Mrs.  Tilton  of  which  you  have 
spoken,  or  in  these  conversations  with  Mrs.  Tilton  of 
which  you  have  spoken,  did  you  admonish  her  against 
permitting  her  affections  to  be  enlisted  to  any  further  ex- 
tent than  they  had  been  already  i   A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  upon  that  subject  said  %  A.  Not 
a  word. 

Q.  And  you  at  the  same  time,  as  I  understand  you,  was 
laboring  under  the  strong  conviction  that  she  had  given 
her  affections  to  you  1  A.  I  was,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  were  you  not  in  fear  that  they  would  be  still 
to  a  greater  extent  enlisted  in  you  than  they  had  been  I 
A.  Xo,  Sir  ;  not  to  a  greater  extent. 

Q.  You  thought  that  no  evil  or  difficulty  would  result 
from  this  communication  with  her  ?  A.  I  thought  that 
some  good  might. 

Q.  Although  you  did  not  warn  her  against  going  any 
further  in  that  direction?  A.  Not  by  warning  her,  but 
by  bringing  to  bear  upon  her  mind  moral  influences  that 
would  lift  her  above  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Don't  that  cover  the  whole  subject  1 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  I  have  a  right  to  ask  him  what  waa 
the  intercourse  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  himself  at  the 
period  to  which  this  inquiry  relates. 

Judge  Neilson— In  respect  to  that  matter. 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  your  Honor  please,  in  respect  to  what 
matter ! 

Mr.  Evarts— The  matter  covered  by  that  inquiry. 

Mr.  Fullerton— There  was  nothing  occurred  in  rMX>ect 
to  that  matter.  I  proved  indisputably  that  nothing  on 
that  subject  transpired  at  all. 

Judge  Neilson— And  the  witness  asssigned  a  reason  why 
not. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  was  not  read  by  the  coiinsel  on  tha 

other  side. 
Mr.  Evarts— Yea. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Can  it  be  possible,  when  I  prove  in  a 

conversation  between  two  people  that  a  certain  thing 
was  not  said  or  referred  to,  that  counsel  can  go  on,  there- 
fore, and  prove  what  was  said,  and  what  was  referred 
to  1  I  don't  think  he  can.  I  never  heai-d  of  such  a 
rule. 

Judge  Neilson— He  didn't  ask  what  was  said. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir ;  he  is  not  entitled  to  prove 
what  was  said ;  yoiu*  Honor  will  perceive  I  have  not 
proved  any  part  of  a  conversation  between  Mr.  Beecher 
and  Mrs.  Tilton.  I  have  only  proved  a  certain  subject 
was  not  referred  to ;  that  certain  things  were  not  said ; 
and  that  was  the  object  I  had  in  view. 

Judge  NeUson— He  don't  propose  to  give  the  oonversa 
tion. 

Mr.  Beach— He  asks  what  was  the  intercourse  and  mo> 

tive  and  reason. 


186 


THE   TlLTOI^-BEECHEJl  TBIAL. 


Mr.  Evarts— Ta  the  same  general  form  you  inquired. 
Judge  Neilson  [to  Mr.  Evarts]— You  mean  tHe  charac- 
ter of  tLe  intercourse  I 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  he  may  answer  so  far  as  the 
character  of  the  intercourse  is  concerned. 

Mr.  FuMerton— I  don't  understand  hy  what  right  they 
can  prove  what  occurred  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  when  we  have  not  proved  any  part  of  it. 

Judge  Neilson— They  cannot  give  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well. 

Judge  Neilson— The  inquiry  la  as  to  the  character  of  the 
intercourse- in  that  respect. 

The  Witness— Well,  Sir,  my  intercourse  with  her  was, 
In  the  first  place,  as  little  personal  as  possible,  because  I 
was  afraid  

Mr.  Fullerton— No. 

Mr.  Beach— Now  stop. 

The  Witness— Well,  in  that  intercourse  I  never  made 
any  allusion  with  her  to  past  difficulties,  and  I  wholly 
oonflned  myself— that  is,  wholly,  I  mainly,  and  almost 
exclusively,  confined  myself  to  bringing  to  bear  upon 
her  mind  influences  that  would  cheer  her,  and  encourage 
her,  and  excite  in  her  her  religious  feelings,  as  the  best 
mode  of  curing  her  of  any  lapse  of  affection  or  any  dls- 
eouragement  in  her  househoLL 

THE  PAYMENT  OF  $5,000. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  you  were  asked  some  questions 
on  the  cross-examination  concerning  this  payment  of 
$5,000,  and  this  statement— this  passage  in  your  state- 
ment—to wit,  your  answer : 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  did  you  come  to  pay  the 
$5,000  in  one  sumi  A.  Because  it  was  represented  to 
me  that  the  whole  diflSculty  could  now  be  settled  by  that 
amount  of  money,  which  would  put  The  Golden  Age  on  a 
secure  footing ;  that  they  would  be  able  to  go  right  on, 
and  that,  with  the  going  on  of  them,  the  safety  of  Tilton 
would  be  assured,  and  that  would  be  the  settlement  of 
the  whole  thing;  it  was  to  save  Tilton  pecuniarily. 

What  whole  thing— what  difficulty,  and  in  what  way 
was  the  $5,000  settled? 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  objected  to. 

Mr.  Evarts — I  have  asked  that  ctuestion. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  have  a  right  to  object  to  it. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  he  may  answer  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Does  your  Honor  permit  thati 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

The  Witness— I  understood  the  normal  avocation  and 
means  of  connection  between  him  and  his  profession  and 
the  public  was  imperatively  needful  to  The  Oolden  Age 
and  The  Oolden  Age  was  that— and  whatever  would  keep 
The  Golden  Age  afloat  and  give  it  a  fair  voyage  would  be 
a  direct  help  to  him,  and  would  finish  his  difficulties- his 
pe<^uniaTy  and  other  difficulties  of  that  kind— and  it  was 
with  reference  to  that  that  I  made,  as  I  supposed,  one 
among  others,  the  contribution  of  the  $5,000. 


Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Will  the  audience  keep  their  seats  H 
[To  the  jurors.]  Our  adjournment  will  be,  gentlemen,  to 
an  hour  from  this  time. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  one  of  the  Jurymett 
desires  a  question  to  be  asked. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— One  of  the  Jurymen,  Mr.  Halsted,  suggests 
this  question:  Whether  in  raising  the  $5,000  on  mort- 
gage on  your  property,  Mrs.  Beecher  joined  in  the  mort- 
gage %  A.  She  did— that  is,  I  think  I  recoUect  it ;  I  think 
I  recollect  some  questions  she  ought  never  to  have  asked 
me. 

Mr.  Evarts— Whatever  you  do  recollect  on  the  sabject^ 

the  record  of  course  will  show. 
The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  think  she  did  1  A.  Yes,  I  told  her  it  was  a  busi- 
ness operation. 

Mr.  Beach— One  moment.  T  understood  you  to  say,  la 
the  latter  part  of  your  answer,  you  told  your  wife  it  was 
a  business  operation  ?  A.  I  said  I  chatted  about  it. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  thati    A.  Not  in  any  strict  

Q.  Didn't  you  just  say  that— that  you  told  her  it  was  a 
business  operation  i 

Mr.  Evarts— We  will  read  the  record. 

Mr.  Beach— I  ask  him  whether  he  didn't  say  that. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir,  I  said  it  substantially. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  stenogropher]— Read  those  ques- 
tions and  answers. 

The  Tribime  stenographer  read  the  following  questions 
and  answers : 

Q.  One  of  the  jurymen  (Mr.  Halsted)  suggests  this  ques- 
tion: Whether  in  raising  the  $5,000  on  mortgage  on  your 
property  Mrs.  Beecher  joined  in  the  mortgage!  A.  She 
did ;  that  is,  I  think  I  recollect  it ;  I  think  I  recolleot 
some  questions  she  ought  never  to  have  asked  me. 

Q.  Whatever  you  do  recollect  on  the  subject,  the  record 
of  course  will  show  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  think  she  did  ?  A.  Yes,  I  told  her  it  was  a 
business  operation. 

The  Witness— I  should  like  to  state  still  further  that 
this  was  a  jocose  conversation  between  my  wife  and  me. 
She  said  she  didn't  understand  what  it  was  for,  and  I 
said,  "WeU,  women  don't  vinderstand  about  business 
operations;  this  is  a  business  operation;"  or  something 
like  that ;  but  it  was  simply  

Mr.  Beach— What  it  was.  That  is  all. 

The  Witness— It  was  a  little  social  jocose  remark  be- 
tween my  wife  and  me. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  aU. 

Mr.  Mallison— The  Court  will  now  take  a  recess  ontA 
2ifl  o'clock. 


TESTIMONY   OF  SAMUEL   D.  PARTRIDGE, 


137 


THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Court  met  at  2:30  p.  m.,  pursuant'  to  ad- 
journment. 

EXAMINATION  OF  SAMUEL  D.  PARTRIDGE. 

Samuel  Dwight  Partridge,  a  witness,  called 
and  sworn  on  behalf  of  tlie  defendant,  testified  as  fol- 
lows: 

Mr.  Evarts~Mr.  Partridge,  wliere  do  you  reside  »  A.  I 
reside  in  Orange,  N.  J. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  there  1  A.  I  have  been 
there  atoout  twelve  years. 

Q.  Up  to  January  last  in  what  mercantile  firm's  em- 
ployment were  you  i  A.  With  Woodruff  &  Kohinson. 

Q.  When  did  your  connection  with  that  firm's  employ- 
ment cease  ?  A.  On  the  31st  day  of  last  December. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  in  that  employment  before 
that  time  ?  A.  I  went  there  in  September,  1849,  and  I 
was  there  from  that  time  until  I  left,  "with  the  exception 
of  a  little  more  than  one  year. 

Q.  At  what  period  was  that  absence  of  a  year?  A.  It 
was  from  April  1, 1869,  to  April  11, 1870. 

Q.  And  in  the  year  1872,  tn  what  capacity  were  you  in 
that  firm's  employment  ?  A.  I  was  their  cashier. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  their  cashier?  A.  I  had 
been  their  cashier  the  whole  time,  with  the  exception  of 
the  year  that  I  was  out,  and  about  a  year  and  a  haK  that 
I  attended  to  the  city  collections. 

Q.  From  the  time  you  went  there  1  A.  From  the  time 
I  went  there ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  checks  and  moneys  for  deposit  pass  through 
your  hands  ?   A.  They  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  in  the  year  1872  receiving  a 
check  for  deposit  of  Mr.  Bowen's  for  $7,000  ?  A.  I  do.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  with  that  check  receive  any  slip  of  paper  at 
the  same  time  ?  A.  There  was  a  slip  of  pap^r  came  with 
It  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  Where  has  that  slip  of  paper  been  since  you  received 
It  until  now  t  A.  It  has  been  in  my  possession,  until  very 
recently. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  the  check  since  until  it  was 
•hown  you  five  minutes  ago  ?  A.  I  never  have.  Sir. 

Q.  Is  that  the  check,  Sir  1  [Handing  witness  a  cheek.] 
Your  eyesight  is,  I  believe,  very  imperfect?  A.  My  eye- 
sight is  very  poor.  [Examining  the  check.]  That  is  the 
che<5k. 

Q.  Look  at  that,  Sir,  and  say  if  it  is  the  slip  of  paper 
that  was  with  it.  [Handing  witness  a  paper.]  A. 
That  Is,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  that  pass  out  of  your  hands?  A.  Last 
Friday,  I  think. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  deliver  it  ?  A.  To  Mr.  SheaJ  man, 
tf  T  recollect  right. 

Mr.  Evarts  here  turned  to  Mr.  Shearman. 

Mr.  Shearman— That's  me. 


Mr.  Erarts— Now,  Sir,  the  check  was  deposited  !  A.  The 
check  was  deposited,  Sir. 

Q.  And  where,  when  you  received  the  two  papers  to- 
gether, did  you  put  them  ?  A.  I  put  them  both,  I  think, 
in  the  drawer,  but  I  think  that  I  put  that  strip  of  paper  In. 
the  back  side.  I  think  it  lay  there  a  while  before  I  put  It 
in  my  pocket. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  now  offer  to  read  this  paper. 

[Mr.  Evarts  hands  the  paper  to  plaintiff's  counsel  for  tB- 
spection.J 

Mr.  Beach— We  object  to  that.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— What  is  the  object,  Mr.  Evarts  1 

Mr.  Evarts— The  object  is  to  show  the  character  of  fbe 
transaction  of  this  check  to  which  this  memorandum 
refers,  and  which  we  shall  prove,  if  it  is  not  now  admit* 
ted,  to  be  in  Mr,  Tilton's  handwriting. 

Mr.  Beach— You  better  prove  that  first. 

Mr,  Evarts— I  don't  know  that.  We  have  proved  Htm 
fact  of  the  delivery  of  the  check  as  coming  through  Ml, 
Tilton  to  this  firm  for  deposit,  and  we  have  proved  that 
the  cashier  receives  it  in  his  capacity  for  deposit,  with 
this  slip  handed  at  the  same  time. 

Judge  Neilson— And,  for  aught  we  know,  they  may  have 
come  to  the  outer  olflce,  the  check  alone,  and  some  person 
tn  the  outer  oflBoe  appended  this  memorandum  to  it,  and 
sent  it  in  to  the  private  office  to  this  gentleman,  in  which 
case  it  would  not  be  receivable, 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Sir,  we  don't  know  everything  In 
advance,  but  I  have  proved  that  they  came  together. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  came  together  to  his  hands. 

Mr.  Evarts— To  this  man,  and  I  prove  that  the  check 
came  from  Mr.  Tilton  to  the  firm. 

Judge  Neilson— That  appears  before. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  appears  before. 

Judge  Neilson— If  it  appears  that  this  check  came  to  the 
firm  with  the  memorandum,  the  memorandum  would  be 
admissible,  because  the  two  papers  go  together  and  come 
together;  but  some  subordinate  clerk  might  have 
appended  this  to  the  check  before  sending  it  in. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  cannot  Imagine  that,  if  your  Honor 
please.  The  fact  is  that  the  two  came  together  to  the 
cashier  of  the  firm,  and  the  check  is  deposited. 

Judge  Neilson— WeU,  my  trouble  is,  I  cannot  see  how  it 
is  material. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  depends  upon  what  there  it 
in  it. 

Mr.  Beach— There  is  another  consideration,  if  your 
Honor  please,  connected  with  this  paper,  and  that  is  that 
it  relates  entirely  to  a  transaction  as  between  Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Bowen.  It  is  Mr.  Bowen's  check  for  the  ai> 
l  earages  d\ie  to  Mr.  Tilton  under  the  contracts  between 
Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Tilton;  and  the  inquiries  into  that 
matter,  I  submit  to  yom-  Honor,  have  been  hitherto  col- 
lateral, and  that  it  is  totally  immaterial  what  may  have 
been  that  transaction,  so  far  as  the  receipt  and  the  de- 
posit of  this  check  is  concerned.  It  relates  to  Mr.  Beeches 


188  THE  TILTON-B 

in  no  degree.  Mr.  Beeoher  liad  no  connection  with  it, 
and  by  what  right  we  could  pursae  into  these  collateral 
and  immaterial  details,  the  affair  as  beicween  Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Bowen  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be  important. 
Bnt  it  is  a  suflScient  objection  to  this  paper  now,  that 
which  is  suggested  by  your  Honor,  thatneither  Tilton,  nor 
Moulton,  nor  Beecher,  nor  anyone  else  connected  with  this 
suit,  had  any  relation  or  connection  with  this  paper. 

Mr.  Evarts— Why,  if  your  Honor  please,  the  whole 
transaction  has  been  proved  in  all  its  detaUs,  so  far  as 
those  details  have  been  brought  to  light.  I  now  add  this 
single  detail,  to  wit :  That  this  deposit  came  from  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  we  have  traced  it  in  its  origin,  in  the  circum- 
stances that  led  to  its  coming  into  his  hands,  and  have 
given  evidence  about  what  is  called  the  operation,  the 
influence  that  was  brought  about  to  get  it  from  Mr.  Bow- 
en,  and  that  it  was  deposited ;  and  now  I  propose  to  show 
that  the  cashier  of  that  firm,  of  which  Mr.  Moulton  was  a 
partner,  is  the  recipient  of  this  check,  with  this  paper, 
and  then  I  shall  show,  as  will  be  very  apparent,  when  the 
papers  are  compared,  that  they  were  appended  together. 

Judge  Neilson— I  cannot  see  that  it  is  material.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— That,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  think  must 
depend  upon  what  is  on  this  paper. 

Judge  Neilson— I  must  see  that  a  thing  is  material  be- 
fore I  admit  it,  objection  being  made. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  can  look  at  the  paper,  of 
course. 

Judge  NeUson— If  I  looked  I  couldn't  tell  who  wrote  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Couldn't  tell  what  1 

Judge  Neilson— I  couldn't  tell  who  wrote  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  propose  to  prove  that  it  was  written  by 
Mr.  Tilton. 

Judge  Neilson— That  don't  appear  yet. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  a  mere  question  of  handwriting. 

-Mr.  Beach— It  is  a  very  important  preliminary.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  witness  is  not  acquaiated  with  Mr. 
TUton's  handwriting ;  but  no  matter  whose  handwriting 
it  is,  if  it  comes  to  this  firm  with  the  deposit,  which  comes 
from  Mr.  Tilton,  it  is  a  communication  from  him,  pre- 
sumptively. 

Judge  Neilson— It  don't  appear  that  it  came  to  the  firm 
with  that  memorandum ;  it  came  to  this  gentleman. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  came  to  the  cashier  of  the  firm,  who  is 
agent  of  the  firm,  for  the  deposit ;  now,  Mr.  Partridge, 
how  did  this  check  and  this  paper  come  to  your  hands? 
A.  They  came  together,  Sir,  handed  me  by  the  same  indi- 
vidual. 

Q.  Yes,  handed  you  by  the  same  person  together?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  by  which  member  of  the  firm  was  it  handed 
to  you  1  A.  WeU,  I  couldn't— I  don't  remember  distinctly, 
Bir,  who  gave  it  to  me. 

Q.  What  is  the  best  of  your  recollection  upon  that  point  1 
A.  Well,  I  have  an  indistinct  recoUeotion  that  Mr.  Wood- 
ruff gave  it  to  me. 


EEGREB  TBIAL. 

Q.  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff  1  A.  Yes;  but  T  don't  reool 

lect  distinctly.  Sir. 

Q.  A  member  of  the  firm  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  it  from  the  firm  in  some  form  and 
for  deposit  %  A.  Well,  Sir,  if  I— I  don't  recollect  distinctly 
whom  I  did  receive  it  from;  I  think  that  I  received  it 
from  Mr.  Woodruff. 

Q.  Yes  ;  did  you  receive  it  from  any  person  outside  the 
firm  1  A.  Not  that  I  know  of.  Sir. 

Q.  No  recollection,  no  idea  of  that  kind?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  I  submit.  Sir,  that  I  have  proved  that 
it  was  handed  to  him  by  some  member  of  that  firm. 

Judge  Neilson— Can't  receive  it.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  does  your  Honor  say,  Sir  % 

Judge  Neilson— That  does  not  alter  th«  relation  of  it. 

Mr.  Evarts  [To  the  Witness.]— Is  this  in  the  handwrit- 
ing of  any  member  of  the  firm  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  of  anybody  in  their  employment  1  A.  No,  Sir  ; 
not  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Sir,  I  offer  to  read  it. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  it  is  immaterial. 

Mr.  Evarts— As  coming  to  this  firm  with  the  check. 

Judge  NeUson— It  is  immaterial. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  submit  to  your  Honor  that  the 
question  of  its  materiality  is  in  dispute.  The  payment  to 
the  firm  of  this  check,  its  receipt  and  its  aeposit,  has  been 
proved  and  is  in  proof,  and  is  material,  therefore.  Now, 
I  offer  to  prove  that  this  paper  accompanied  it. 

Judge  Neilson— It  has  been  proved  that  Mr.  Tilton  set 
up  a  claim  against  Mr.  Bowen,  partly  founded  on  con- 
tract; that  that  was  the  subject  of  negotiation  and 
finally  of  arbitration,  and  that  in  pursuance  of  the  deter- 
mination of  the  arbitration,  Mr.  [Here  the  Judge  was 

uiterrupted  by  a  slamming  of  windows,  long  continued 
and  annoying.  When  it  was  over,  he  resumed  as  fol- 
lows:] I  was  about  to  say  that  it  already  appears,  in 
painful  detail,  that  after  an  arbitration  this  check  w;is 
given,  and  given  as  claimed  by  Mr.  Tilton,  as  if  it  were 
due— awarded  by  the  arbitrators  as  if  it  were  due  to  him ; 
paid  by  Mr.  Bowen  on  the  same  theory ;  and  that  Mr. 
Tilton  deposited  it  with  Woodruff  &  Robinson,  and  that 
in  due  time  the  funds  were  drawn  and  used. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  this  paper  came  with  it. 

Judge  Neilson— It  don't  appear. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  gentleman  has  said  so. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  Sir.  Mr.  Tilton,  we  are  to  assume, 
sends  that  check  to  Woodruff  «fe  Robinson.  Now,  it  is  not 
material  what  instructions  he  sent,  but,  at  any  rate,  It 
don't  appear  that  he  sent  this. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  does  appear  that  this  was  received  by  the 
firm  of  Woodruff  &  Robinson,  with  this  paper  added. 

A  LEGAL  POINT  AS  TO  ADMLSSIBILITY. 
Judge    Neilson— Well,    that    presents  this 
question,  whether  the  particular  suggestions  or  instruc- 
tions which  the  firm  of  Woodruff  &  Robinson  may  make 


TESTIMONY   OF  SAI 

to  one  of  their  employes  In  sending  in  a  check  to  he  en- 
tered are  to  be  received  against  anybody  except  them- 
selves ;  that  is  all  there  is  about  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  I  have  shown  ex- 
pressly that  it  is  not  their  handwi'iting,  nor  does  it  pro- 
ceed from  them. 

Judge  Neilaon— It  does  not  appear  that  it  don't  pro- 
ceed from  them.  They  received  the  check  from  the 
hands  of  somebody,  and  passed  it  to  the  hands  of  this 
clerk,  or  cashier. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  received  it  from  Mr.  Tilton  ;  that  has 
been  proved  ;  they  received  the  check  from  Mr.  Tilton. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  but  it  nowhere  appears  that  they 
received  it  with  this  memorandum. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  they  put  it  in  the  course  of  deposit. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  the  channel  of  deposit  received  it 
from  one  of  the  firm  with  this  paper  with  it.  It  attends 
the  check ;  it  describes  the  check  in  the  character  that  it 
gives  10  the  money  transaction ;  that  is  what  it  does. 

Judge  Neilson— And  for  aught  we  know  it  originated 
after  the  check  had  been  in  the  hands  of  Woodruff  & 
Robinson. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  think  not. 

Judge  Neilson— For  aught  we  know  it  appears  so. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  means  absolute  verity,  in- 
capable of  contradiction  

Judge  Neilson— No,  I  don't ;  I  mean  for  all  that  now  ap- 
pears. 

Mr.  Evarts— By  all  that  now  appears ;  if  your  Honor 
please,  I  respectftilly  submit  that  it  appears  that  it  came 
to  the  firm  of  Woofliuflf  &  Robinson  

Judge  Neilson— No. 

Mr.  Pryor— Your  Honor  will  please  bear  in  mind  that 
our  objection  does  not  hinge  exclusively  upon  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Tilton  is  not  connected  with  this  memorandiun. 
Our  objection— the  strenuousness  of  our  objection,  the 
one  upon  which  we  rely— is  that  this  thing,  even  if 
properly  proved  and  connected  with  Mr.  TUton,  is  wholly 
immu  1  erial  to  this  issue. 

Judge  Neilson— So  I  understood  Mr.  Beach,  and  so  I  un- 
derstand you. 

Mr.  Pryor— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  they  may  think  the  check  is  immate- 
rial for  aught  I  know,  but  that  question  we  have  passed. 
Now,  Sir,  Mr.  Tilton's  handwriting  is  not  a  

J udge  Neilson— Now,  when  Mr.  Tilton  received  a  check 
for  $7,000  from  Mr.  Bowen,  ho  had  a  right  to  do  with  it 
pi-eeisely  what  he  pleased,  and  he  chose  to  deposit  it 
with  this  firm.  If  he  gave  any  instructions  whatever, 
that  is  immaterial ;  it  has  no  effect  upon  this  defendant. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  know  that;  it  is  not  a  question  of 
effect  on  the  defendant ;  it  is  a  question  of  effect  on  the 
plaintiff.   I  am  proving  it  afrainst  the  plaintiff. 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  see  how  that  is  proof. 

Mr.  Evacts— That  would  depend,  I  think,  very  much 


UEL   D,   PABTRIDGE.  139. 

on  what  is  here.  If  yom-  Honor  places  it  on  the  ground 
which  my  learned  fi-iends  apparently  do  not  wish  to 
stand  upon,  that  it  is  nut  Mr.  Tilton's  handwriting  

Judge  NeUson— No,  I  don't.  I  say  merely  I  don't  know, 
and  that  for  aught  that  appears  

Mr.  Evarts— I  say  if  your  Honor  puts  it  upon  that 
ground,  upon  which  apparently  my  learned  friends  do 
not  wish  to  stand,  that  it  is  not  Mr.  Tilton's  handwriting, 
as  yet,  that  is  one  thing. 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  not  assumed  anything  about  it. 
I  simply  spoke  witli  reference  to  the  materiality  of  the 
proof  before  me. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  properly  assumes  that  point, 
that  it  is  not  proved.  I  agree  that  it  is  not  proved. 

Mr.  Beach— My  learned  friend  suggests  that  we  do  not 
care  apparently  to  stand  upon  the  principal  objection 
which  we  have  hitherto  made  to  your  Honor  against  this 
paper.  I  am  very  free  to  admit  to  the  counsel,  for  the 
pm-pose  of  discussion,  that  the  paper  is  in  the  handwrit- 
ing of  Mr.  Tilton. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  then,  the  question  is  whether  we 
shall  not  receive  it  until  we  hear  whether  it  is  material ; 
that  is  the  point. 

Mr.  Beach— I  do  not  admit,  Sir,  that  that  paper  waa 
transferred  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  this  firm  in  company  with 
this  check,  or  that  this  memorandum  relates  to  this 
check,  or  the  transaction  indicated  by  this  check,  by  any 
means,  and  that  is  a  defect  in  the  proof  upon  the  other 
side  which  at  present  is  insuperable.  But  yet  we 
mean  to  insist  to  your  Honor  that,  even  If 
it  should  appear  that  this  paper  was  delivered  by 
Mr.  Tilton  in  company  with  this  check,  it  neverthelesj)  Is 
immaterial  and  incompetent  evidence;  that  whatever 
Mr.  Tilton  chose  to  do  with  this  check,  or  however  he 
might  choose  to  characterize  that  instrument,  or  to  vin- 
dicate the  nature,  quality,  source,  or  object  of  the  money 
which  was  represented  by  that  check,  is  totally  immate- 
rial to  this  controversy ;  and  when  that  question  shall 
arise,  why,  we  may  perhaps  desire  to  be  heard  further 
upon  it.  But  sufiicient  for  the  day.  Sir,  is  the  evil  thereof. 
Until  they  connect  this  paper  memorandum  with  this 
check  in  its  transfer  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  this  firm,  it  is  totally 
incompetent  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  cannot  imagine  an  objection  to  my  right  to 
prove  this,  when  it  is  admitted  to  be  in  Mr.  Tilton's  hand- 
writing. It  then  comes  from  him ;  the  check  comes  from 
hun,  as  he  has  testified,  and  the  check  and  the  paper  are 
in  the  hands  of  the  firm  and  handed  to  the  cashier  at  the 
same  time.  Now,  how  material  and  what  the  moral 
connection  between  this  paper  and  that  check  is,  must 
appear  and  be  judged  of  by  the  jury  when  the  paper 
itself  is  read,  and  when  the  internal  evidence  of  the  two 
papers  shows  that  they  were  attached  together. 

]Mr.  Beach— It  by  no  means  follows,  your  Honor,  bo- 
cause  Mr.  Tilton  may  have  said  or  written  anything  upon 
any  subject,  that  it  is  admissible  as  evidence  in  this  case. 


140 


IHE   TILTON-BEF.OEEE  IBIAL. 


The  counsel  says  lie  oannot  imagine  an  objection  to  tliia 
paper  when  it  is  admitted  that  it  was  written  by  Mr. 
Tilton. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  cannot  imagine,  after  you  have  seen  it. 
Mr.  Beach— I  am  quite  willing  the  Court  should  see  it. 
Mr.  Evarts— It  does  not  relate  to  a  horse  race ;  counsel 
know  that. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir,  I  Imow  it  does  not  relate  to  a  horse 
race. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  know  it  relates  to  this  matter. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  that  would  be  rather  a  violent  asser- 
tion. I  think  it  is  in  connection  with  my  learned  friend— 
the  suggestion  coming  from  him  that  we  are  not  dealing 
with  horse  races.  This  paper,  Sir,  relates,  I  sup- 
pose, from  what  T  see  of  it,  to  an  indefinite 
thing  designated  by  a  single  word.  Whether 
It  relates  to  money  or  to  a  material  thing, 
whether  it  relates  to  a  check  or  a  bank  bill,  or  any  other 
article,  is  not  apparent  from  the  paper.  True,  I  grant 
that  if  there  was  anything  in  the  paper  itself,  as  con- 
nected with  the  general  evidence  in  this  case,  from  which 
a  jury  might  be  allowed  to  infer  a  certain  association  be- 
tween it  and  any  material  transaction  in  the  case,  why 
then  I  would  consider  that  it  would  be  very  proper  to  be 
admitted  by  your  Honor  to  pass  to  the  jury.  But  your 
Honor  is  the  primary  judge  of  the  competency  and  ad- 
missibility of  evidence,  and  when  an  objection  is  raised 
to  a  species  of  evidence  it  is  the  prerogative  and  the  duty 
of  your  Honor  to  see  that  it  has  material  connection  with 
the  essential  issues  in  the  case.  Now,  here  is  a  scrap  of 
paper  having  no  definite  connection,  so  far  as  the  evi- 
dence goes,  with  any  particular  transaction— having  no 
possible  relation,  so  far  as  its  terms  indicate,  with  any 
transaction  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Bowen,  a  decla- 
ration in  writing  which  may  relate  to  a  thousand  imma- 
terial things  not  at  all  connected  with  this  issue  or  with 
the  parties  to  it,  which  they  offer  in  evidence,  to  go  to  the 
juiy,  to  be  construed  and  applied  as  the  jury  may  incline. 
Now,  I  submit,  Sir,  that  it  becomes  the  duty  of  your 
Honor,  before  this  instrument  shall  be  permitted  to  pass 
to  the  jury,  to  be  satisfied  yourself,  from  the  complexion 
of  the  paper,  its  contents,  its  subject,  and  the  evidence 
In  the  case,  whether  it  is  material  and  competent. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  doubtless  so.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion about  that.  I  suppose  this  examination  covers  all 
you  wish  with  this  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  know  that,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— If  something  else  la  proved  by  some 
one  else,  then  you  wUI,  perhaps,  be  in  a  position  to  offer 
the  paper. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  do  not  object  on.  the  score  of  hand> 
writing. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  I  am  not  speaking  about  that;  I 
am  speaking  of  the  last  objection. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  then,  it  stands  that  this  is  Mr.  Til- 
ton's  handwriting,  and  it  came  with  a  check  that  bears 


Mr.  Tilton's  indorsement,  the  whole  history  of  which  ha* 
been  given.  But  if  your  Honor  will  remember  how  Mr» 
Wilkeson  introduced  the  subject  of  the  threat  of  Mr. 
Tilton,  what  he  would  publish  if  justice  were  not  done 
him  

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Pryor,  I  will  look  at  it. 
[Paper  handed  to  the  Court.] 

Mr.  Evarts  [continuing]— And  aU  the  other  evidence 
that  bears  upon  the  question  of  whether  this  was  an  ex- 
traction from  Mr.  Bowen  by  the  pressure  of  this  influence. 
And  now,  Mr.  Tilton,  having  got  his  money  and  sending 
it  to  his  coadjutor,  Mr.  Moulton,  sends  that  oharaoteriza- 
tionof  the  source  and  the  quality  of  the  fund. 

Judge  Neilson— WeU,  Sir,  you  may  read  it  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— [Reading:) 

"  Spoils  from  '  new  friends '  for  the  enrichment  of  old." 
[Marked  Exhibit  D,  134.1 
Judge  Neilson— Procped,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  will  see 
that  the  pin-holes  of  those  two  papers  completely  corre- 
spond. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  generally  the  case  when  two 
papers  are  pinned  together. 

Mr.  Evarts— Nothing  has  been  said  about  their  being 
pinned  together,  if  your  Honor  please,  as  yet. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  there  was.  When  you  say  the  pliif 
holes  correspond,  it  is  a  strong  intimation  that  they  were 
pinned  together. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  weU,  no  matter  whether  they 
were  or  not.  I  think  in  the  end  I  can  instruct  the  jury 
what  this  means.  We  will  proceed  now.  It  is  one  of 
those  remote  things— collateral  things.  We  have  gone 
over  the  Woodruff  &  Robinson  account  

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor's  instructions  are  not  to  be 
given  now. 

Judge  Neilson  [continuing]— And  over  the  arbitration 
and  over  the  award,  until  my  very  soul  is  wearied  with 

them. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  wish  to  argae  this  evidence  wltll 

your  Honor  or  to  the  jury. 
Judge  NeUson— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Nor  can  I  now  except  to  your  Honor's  In* 
structions  to  the  jury,  because  they  are  not  given. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well ;  I  do  not  give  them.  Any> 
thing  more  with  this  witness,  Sir! 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  proceed. 

Mr.  Evarts— Before  you  received  this  check  and  memo* 
randum,  Mr.  Partridge,  had  you  known  or  heard  any- 
thing of  what  Mr.  Tilton  was  going  to  do  if  Mr.  Bowen 
did  not  pay  himi 

Mr.  Beach— From  whom!  Walt  a  minute. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  ask  him  whether  he  had  heard  it  In  aoj 
way. 

Mr.  Beach— I  object,  then. 

Judge  Neilson— Say  yes  or  no,  Mr.  Partridge. 


TESTIMONY   OF  SAMUEL  D,  FABTBlDi^E, 


141 


The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  had.  Now,  Mr.  Parti'idge,  you  did 
not  connect  these  papers  together  in  any  way  yoiu-self , 
did  you  ?  A.  Pin  them  together,  do  you  mean  1 

Q.  Pin  them  together  or  otherwise  connect  them 
together  1  A.  No,  Sir, 

Q.  And  do  you  remember  whether  when  they  came  to 
you  they  were  connected  by  a  pin,  or  in  a  common  en- 
velope, or  in  a  common  fold  1 »  A.  I  do  not  remember  how 
they  came. 

Q.  Mr.  Partridge,  do  you  remember  the  fact  of  the  pub- 
lication of  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  life  by  Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  do  you  remember  conversing  with  Mr.  Moulton 
<m  that  subject?  A.  I  remember  his  speaking  to  me 
ahout  it— in  my  view  I  spolce  to  him,  though,  in  the  first 
place. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  ?  A.  T  believe  I  spoke  to  him  in 
the  first  place,  I  think. 
Q.  What  did  Mr.  Moulton  say  to  you— — 
Mr.  Morris— That  is  objected,  to. 
Mr.  Evarts— Well,  wait,  won't  you  I 
Mr.  Morris  No ;  I  object  to  that. 
Mr.  Evarts — As  far  as  it  goes  % 
Mr.  Morris— I  do. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  think  these  pin-holes  correspond. 

Judge  Neil30u— Well,  I  guess  that  is  not  the  turning- 
point  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Evarts]— Well,  I  only  wanted  to  dis- 
sent from  yi)ur  remark  to  the  jury. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  don't  correspond  if  you  don't  put 
them  together.  If  you  do  put  them  together,  they  will 
correspond.  .., 

Mr.  Morris— If  your  Honor  please,  I  don't  think  they 
do  correspond.   I  move  to  strike  out  the  pin-holes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  there  is  no  trouble  about  it. 

Judge  Neils  on— This  question,  how  is  it  material? 

Mr.  Evarts— No  trouble  about  it.  The  same  ray  of 
light  will  come  through  both  papers  and  through  the  four 
holes. 

Judge  NeUson— The  question  now  objected  to  is  "  What 
did  Mr.  Moulton  say  ?" 

Mr.  Emrts— Yes,  Sir ;  I  haven't  asked  the  question  yet. 
(To  the  Witness.]  Did  Mr.  Moulton  say  anything  to  you 
on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Tilton's  olyeot  and  motives  In 
•writing  that  "  Life  ?"  A.  He  did. 

Mr.  Morris— Objected  to. 

Judge  NeUson— We  will  take  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Take  the  answer,  "  He  did."  What  did  he 
say? 

Mr.  Morris — Objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— We  will  take  that.   Go  on.  Sir. 

The  Witness— He  said  that  he  wrote  

Mr.  Morris— What  Moulton  said  in  Mr.  Tilton's  ab- 
•onoot 

Jndge  Neilson— Yes;  we  have  the  theory  by  Mr.  Tilton 


and  Mr.  Moulton  both— a  certain  theory  why  Mr.  Tilton 
wrote,  or  rewrote  rather,  the  Woodhull  biography. 

Mr.  Beach— But  surely,  your  Honor,  before  they  can 
show  the  declarations  of  Mr.  Moulton  upon  that  

Judge  Neilson— It  is  not  with  a  view  to  impeach. 

Mr.  Beach— Sir? 

Judge  NeUson- It  don't  come  in  as  a  matter  of  impeaoli- 

ment. 

Mr.  Beach— As  matter  of  impeachment?  It  cannot 
come  in  as  evidence  at  aU— the  declarations  of  Mr.  Moul- 
ton against  Mr.  TUton.  I  beg  your  Honor  to  consider. 

Judge  Neilson— WeU,  I  see  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I  submit  that,  untU  they  caU  the  attention 
of  Mr.  Moulton  to  the  aUeged  conversation  with  this  wit- 
ness, it  is  not  competent. 

Judge  NeUson— WeU,  that  is  the  objection,  is  it! 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  NeUson— That  would  seem  to  be  good. 
Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  collateral. 
Judge  NeUson— Oh,  of  course  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  if  your  Honor  please,  we  have  a  bit 
of  proof  here  on  the  subject  of  the  intercourse  estabUshed 
by  these  two  men  in  concert,  Mr.  TUton  and  Mr.  Moulton, 
out  of  which  it  is  alleged  as  the  sole  origin  and  motive, 
by  both  of  them,  the  -"life  of  Mrs.  Woodhull,"  by  Mr. 
Tilton,  sprang,  and  we  now  offer  to  prove  by  Mr.  Partridge 
what  Mr.  MoiUton  said  to  him  (Mr.  Partridge)  at  the  time 
when  the  pubUcation  was  fresh  and  was  the  subject  of 
conversation  between  them— what  Mr.  Tilton'a 
motive  was— to  wit,  notthatit  was  a  motive  in  reference  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  or  the  scandal,  or  in  his  interest  or  for  his 
objects,  but  for  certain  other  objects  of  his  own.  If  the 
testimony  is  believed,  as  it  certainly  wiU  be  when  it  is 
free  from  any  question  of  the  infirmity  of  memory,  it 
strikes  at  the  foundation  of  aU  the  pretenses  of  these  two 
concurring  witnesses  that  the  object  of  that  publication 
was  the  covering  of  this  scandal  and  the  humoring  of 
this  woman. 

Judge  NeUson— Well,  the  point  suggested  by  counsel 
remains  to  be  answered— to  wit,  that  it  is  coUateral. 

Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  it  Is  not  coUateral. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  collateral ;  that  I  have  decided. 

Mr,  Evarts— A  part  of  the  issue  against  Mr.  Beecher  In 
this  cause  is  to  prove  his  gyalt :  his  guilt  in  the  nature  of 
tacit  confession,  or  confession  by  action;  that 
those  men  dealt  with  the  WooodhuUs  under 
this  motive  and  for  this  object  j  and  that 
alone,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher  authorized,  approved 
and  applauded  it.  Now  I  propose  to  prove  what  one  of 
these  men  says  of  the  other  man's  object  and  motive  in 
writing  that  "Life,"  and  that  it  had  no  connection  with  Mr. 
Beecher  and  no  connection  with  humoring  this  woman, 
but  for  objects  of  his  (Mr.  Tilton's)  own,  and  I  am  unable 
to  understand  the  force  of  my  learned  friend's  suggestion 
that  this  is  a  coUateral  fact.  It  may  be  subordinate ;  it 
may  not  be  the  head  and  front  of  the  evidence  to  prove 


THE    TlLlOl^-BhJEnREB  TRIAL, 


Mr.  Beeclier  guilty,  but  its  sole  place  here,  as  Introduced 
by  them,  has  been  to  prove  a  part,  a  makeweight,  an  in- 
fluence from  which  guilt  is  to  be  Imputed  to  Mr.  Beecher 
on  the  principal  fact  by  this  conduct  of  his,  authorizing, 
ratifying  their  conduct.  Therefore  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  objection  of  collateral  has  no  place,  and  of  course  we 
cannot  discuss  the  question  of  the  absolute  or  compara- 
tive weight  of  items  of  testimony  that  bear  on  the  main 
issue.  It  bears  on  the  main  issue,  or  It  bears  nowhere. 

Mr.  Beach— Will  your  Eonor  permit  me  to  answer  a 
word  of  the  argument  ?  Admitting,  Sir,  for  the  moment, 
that  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  have  agreed  in  the 
declaration  of  the  purpose  for  which  their  intimacy  with 
Mrs.  WoodhuU  was  instituted  and  prosecuted,  I  then  sub- 
mit to  your  Honor  that  the  declarations  of  Mr.  Moulton, 
he  not  being  a  party  to  this  action,  or  in  any  degree  in- 
terested in  its  result,  except  collaterally  as  a  witness, 
his  declarations  as  against  the  interested  party,  Mr.  Til- 
ton,  are  not  receivable  upon  any  principle  of  law  or  logic 
or  justice.  It  is  an  invariable  and  general  rule 
of  evidence  that  the  declarations  of  a  third 
party  cannot  be  received  against  the  party  to  the  suit  un- 
less they  are  given  for  the  purpose  of  impeachment,  and 
then  only  when  his  attention  has  been  directed  to  those 
declarations,  and  he  has  either  affirmed  or  repudiated 
them.  But  does  the  principal  assumption  of  the  counsel 
upon  the  other  side  arise  from  this  evidence?  Where 
does  he  learn  in  this  case  that  Mr.  Moulton  ever  coim- 
seled  the  writing  of  the  "  Life  of  Mrs.  Woodhull,"  by  Mr. 
Tilton,  was  privy  to  it  in  any  degree,  and,  least  of  all,  ad- 
vised or  concmred  in  any  such  proceeding  for  the  pur- 
pose of  conciliating  and  placating  that  lady  ?  Why,  the 
evidence  In  this  case  is.  Sir,  that  Mr.  Motilton  had  no 
connection  with  or  knowledge  of  that  "  Life," 
except  when  it  was  written  and  nearly  completed,  and 
then  condemned  and  disapproved  it,  entered  his  protest 
against  it,  advised  Mr.  Tilton  not  to  write  it  and  not  to 
publish  it.  And  yet.  Sir,  when  he  thus  discountenanced 
It  and  disclaimed  it,  the  counsel  offers  to  prove  his  declara- 
tions as  if  he  was  a  party  to  this  transaction,  as  if  he  was 
a  party  to  this  action,  whose  rights  were  to  be  adjudged 
by  the  verdict  of  this  jury  and  the  judgment  of  jovlt 
Honor,  and  lie  asks  to  do  this  as  against  Mr.  Tilton ;  it  being 
plain  from  the  evidence  that  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton 
were  not  in  accord  with  reference  to  this  very  transac- 
tion about  which  he  asks  the  declaration  of  a  stranger  to 
the  action.  But  again,  Sir,  the  counsel  says  that  this 
theory  of  the  plaintiff  in  regard  to  the  motive  of  the 
action,  the  combrued  action,  as  between  Mr.  Tilton  and 
Mr.  Moulton,  is  to  throw  discredit  and  to  attach  crime 
to  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Evarts— To  prove  the  principal  issue,  I  said. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir;  you  said  to  impute  crime  or  wrong 
to  Mr.  Beecher.  To  prove  the  principal  issue,  Sir  I  How 
and  in  what  degree  1 

Mr.  Evarts— As  confession  tacitly,  and  by  action. 


Mr.  Beach— And  how  came  this,  Sir,  to  be  imtrodufceA, 
and  why  is  it  not  collateral  ?  Did  we,  on  the  part  of  the 
plaiatiff,  produce  evidence  in  regard  to  the  comneotion 
between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull! 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  yes.  Sir, 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir.  I  beg  your  pardon.  May  it  please 
the  counsel,  we  objected  to  that  issue.  Sir;  we  endeavor 
to  rule  out  the  intercourse  between  Mr.  TUton  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull,  and  it  was  upon  their  proposition  that  that 
issue  was  opened  and  the  evidence  in  regard  to  that  trans- 
action primarily  introduced. 

Mr.  Evarts— Turn  to  page  413. 

Mr.  Beach— I  may  be  mistaken.  Page  what,  Sirt 

Mr.  Evarts— 413,  examination  of  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Beach— That  was  in  regard  to  keeping  down  the 
threatened  publication.  I  admit  that.  Sir ;  but  what  has 
that  

Mr.  Morris— Of  the  scandal. 

Mr.  Beach— Tlic  threatened  publication  of  the  scandal 
which  was  intimated  by  the  card  published  in  The  World 
in  May,  1871;  that  then,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing 
the  publication  of  that  threatened  scandal,  Mr.  TUton 
and  Mr.  Moulton,  with  the  concurrence  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
entered  upon  a  course  of  conciliation  with  this  woman. 
What  has  that  to  do,  Sir,  with  the  publication  of  "  The 
Life  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  ?"  That  was  proven  by  them,  and 
your  Honor  recollects  with  what  stringency  we  opposed 
the  introduction  of  the  extracts  from  that  "  Life,"  which 
your  Honor  subsequently  admitted.  Now,  if  your  Honor 
please,  I  submit  with  great  confidence  that,  even  If  Mr. 
Moulton  had  been  interrogated  as  regards  his  declara- 
tions to  this  gentleman  concerning  the  writing  and  the 
publication  of  that  "  Life,"  contradictory  evidence 
would  not  be  received,  because  it  is  collateral. 
That  was  not  one  of  the  transactions  in  which 
Mr.  Moulton  cooperated  with  Mr.  Tilton.  It  was  contrary 
to  the  sense  and  the  judgment  of  that  gentleman,  and  is 
not  one  of  the  matters  in  regard  to  which  the  concurrence 
of  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  action  of  these  two  gentlemen  is 
alleged.  It  is  altogether  an  iadependent  and  a  separate 
transaction,  entered  upon  at  the  volition  alone  of  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  prosecuted  by  him  against  the  advice  of  Mr. 
Moulton,  and  against  the  concurrence  of  Mr.  Beecher,  as 
it  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  evidence.  Now,  whatever 
Mr.  Moulton  may  have  said  in  regard  to  that  "  Life,"  or 
the  purposes  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  writing  that  "  Life,"  under 
these  circumstances,  cannot  but  be  collateral  and  imma- 
terial; and,  in  any  view,  I  submit  to  your  Honor  it  is  in- 
admissible. 

Judge  Neilson— A  matter  that  would  not  be  collateral 

as  against  Mr.  Tilton  

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— A  matter  that  would  not  bo  collaterai 
as  against  Mr.  Tilton  if  the  inquiry  were  as  to  his  con- 
versation  

Mr.  Beach— Ah,  yes.  Sir. 


TESTIMONY  OF  8A1 

Jttdge  Nellson  [continiiing] — la  collateral  as  against 
Mr.  Moulton,  a  witness,  and  his  conversations  and  decla- 
rations are  not  evidence  in  any  point  of  view  against  the 
plaintiff,  in  his  absence,  unless  he  has  been  interrogated 
in  regard  to  them,  and  then,  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
Impeaching  and  contradicting  ;  and  that  is  not  the  atti- 
tude in  which  this  question  stands  now. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir ;  and  if  it  did  come  to  that  atti- 
tude, 11  your  Honor  please,  then,  it  being  collateral,  con- 
tradiction would  not  be  admissible. 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  not  prepared  to  say  how  that  is 
now.  I  rule  this  out  for  the  present. 

AEGUMENT  AND  OFFER  OF  PROOF  BY  MR. 
EVARTS. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  perhaps 
this  evidence  should  be  referred  to.  It  was  a  principal 
and  direct  part  of  the  plaintifPs  evidence  to  introduce 
his  relations  to  the  Woodhulls  in  all  its  parts,  as  evi- 
dence against  Mr.  Beeoher— to  wit,  to  show  from  that  the 
efforts  being  made  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  the 
scandal.  The  question  asked  by  the  counsel  of  the  wit- 
ness is : 

I  want  to  know  what  successive  steps  you  took,  and 
also  what  suggestions  Mr.  Beecher  made,  if  any,  from 
time  to  time,  with  regard  to  that  apprehended  danger  ? 
[Whiclji  was  the  publication  by  the  WoodhuUs.] 

Mr.  Evarts— Those  steps  which  Mr.  Beecher  did  not 
know  we  wiU  dispense  with. 

Mr.  Tilton— There  were  no  steps  ia  the  business  with 
•which  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  as  much  connected  as  either 
Mr.  Moulton  or  myself,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 

Then  they  go  on  and  state  various  things  that  were 
done  by  Mr.  Tilton  in  pursuance  of  this  confederacy  for 
the  object  in  view,  alleged  as  against  our  client,  to  exist 
between  himself  and  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  as  act- 
ing together.  Mr.  Tilton  has  authenticated  Mr.  Moidton's 
relations  to  him,  in  all  that  passed  in  reference  to  this 
matter  of  the  controversy  between  htm,  Mr.  Tilton  and 
Mr.  Beecher,  as  being  the  depository  of  his  confidence, 
the  agent  of  hia  action ;  and  they  go  on  and  prove  alflrma- 
tively  how  the  Woodhull  biography  was  written,  and 
give  it  the  characterization  of  being  one  of  the  steps  that 
Mr.  Beecher  knew  of,  under  the  *  motive,  and 
i»  accomplishing  the  object,  of  the  suppression. 
Now,  I  point  my  offer  (in  order  that  there  may 
be  no  passing  upon  this  question  without  relation  to  the 
very  evidence  that  T  propose)  to  the  question  of  whether 
this  action  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  upon  the 
Woodhulls  was  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  for  the 
suppression  of  the  scandal;  for  cause  Mr.  Moulton  gives 
it  as  the  true  reason  of  Sir.  Tilton,  and  thereby  makes 
himself  a  party  to  it — as  the  true  reason  of  the  common 
action— that  it  had  no  relation  to  Mr.  Beeoher;  no  rela- 
tion to  humoring  this  woman,  but  to  the  purposes  of  Mr. 
Tilton.  Now  I  offer  to  prove  by  this  witness  that  Mr. 
Moulton  told  him,  when  the  matter  was  fresh  and  the 


UEL   D.   FARTBIDQE.  143 

"Life"  was  just  published,  that  Mr.  Tilton's  motive  and 
object  were  to  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the  Spiritualists 
of  this  country,  and  that  they  were  more  numerous  than 
the  Congregationalists. 

Judge  Neilson— One  moment.  I  would  like  very  much 
if  the  coimsel  would  give  me  a  specific  reference  to  the 
evidence  given  by  Mr.  Moulton,  because  if  he  has  given 
evidence  of  that  character  you  may  contradict  it  by  this 
witness;  but  that  is  not  met  by  a  general  argument,  or 
an  illustration  even. 

Mr.  Evarts— But,  if  youj?  Honor  please,  Mr.  TUton  has 
given  this  publication  as  one  of  the  steps  by  Mr.  Moulton 
and  himseLf— not  that  Moxilton  approved  the  prudence  ot 
the  particular  step,  but  that  the  writing  of  "  The  Life"  was 
a  step  imder  the  motive  that  covered  the  action,  whether 
erroneous  and  mistaken  or  not.  It  did  not  remove  the 
action— the  purpose  of  action,  the  motive  or  character  of 
the  writing,  that  Mr.  Moulton  thought  it  was  injudicious, 
and  would  rather  that  that  particular  form  of  carrying 
out  a  common  purpose  had  not  been  adopted  or  pursued. 
But  the  point  is  by  this  testimony  that  Mr.  TUton  assigns 
a  reason,  which  Mr.  Moulton  asseverates  and  delivers  as 
the  true  reason.  Indeed,  I  don't  know  even  that  it  rests 
necessarily  upon  the  formal  words  or  statement  of  Mr. 
Tilton,  but  Mr.  Moulton  delivers  it  as  the  motive  of  Mr. 
Tilton  in  this  step  that  is  carried  to  the  account  of  Mr. 
Beecher  and  his  interests ;  and  so  it  is  given  here  under 
this  statement  that  I  have  read  in  the  diiect  examination 
that  there  was  not  any  step  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  as 
much  connected  with  as  any  of  them;  and  under  the 
final  statement  of  Mr.  Tilton,  on  redirect  examination, 
that,  "  before  God,"  Mr.  Beecher  was  as  responsible  for 
everything  done  with  the  Woodhidls  as  he  was. 

Judge  Neilson— If  you  can  show  me  anything  that  Mr. 
Moulton  said  in  his  examination  upon  that  subject,  you. 
are  at  liberty  to  contradict  that  by  this  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  will  look,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Judge  NeUson— Of  covirse,  I  am  obliged  to  rule  with 
reference  to  certain  settled  principles  of  the  law  of  evi- 
dence ;  but  if  Mr.  Moulton  has  said  anything  upon  that 
subject  which  this  witness  can  contradict,  you  are  at 
liberty  to.go  on. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  call  him  for  the  purpose  of  contra* 
dieting  Mr.  Moulton. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  I  rule  it  out. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  call  him  for  the  purpose  of  deUvertng  the 
truth,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  that  the 
personal  objects  of  Mr.  Tilton  were  the  source  and  the 
motive  of  the  writing  of  that  letter.  Mr.  Moulton  said 
[referring  to  the  bookl  

Judge  Neilson— Is  that  on  the  direct  or  the  cross-exam- 
ination 1 

Mr.  Evarts— The  passage  that  I  now  call  your  Honor's 
attention  to  is  on  the  cross-exataination,  at  page  227. 
This  is  what  Mr.  Moulton  says  about  Mr.  TUton's  state- 
ment, his  report  of  it  to  Mr.  Beecher  : 


144 


IRE   TlLmN-BEBGEEB  TEIAL. 


That  it  was  simply  a  revision  of  the  manuscript  of  lier 
husband  [that  is,  Mrs.  Woodhull's  husband];  that  he 
thought  that  people  would  detect  his  handiwork  in  it, 
and  therefore  he  thought  he  would  put  his  name  to  it ; 
and  I  told  him  that  I  did  not  think  that  that  was  a  very- 
good  reason.  He  said  he  would  take  the  responsibility  of 
it.  And  that  was  the  sum  and  suljstance  of  it,  with  the 
exception— and  he  said  it  was  a  friendly  act ;  he  said  it 
was  a  friendly  act,  and  right,  in  the  interest  of  the  re- 
pression of  the  scandal  against  Mr.  Beecher,  his  wife, 
and  himself ;  it  was  in  the  interest  of  Ms  family  and  Mr. 
Beecher  that  he  had  done  it,  and  if  he  had  made  a  mis- 
take, why,  that  was  aU  there  was  of  it. 

Now,  my  proposition  is  this,  and  I  say  it  is  not  in  the 

sense  of  impeachment,  it  is  not  what  we  call  a  collateral 
impeachment  on  independent  matter.  The  whole  matter 
is  a  part  of  the  plaintiff's  case  for  proving  the  principal 
crime  against  Mr.  Beecher,  to  wit :  the  arg  umentative 
confession  from  his  conduct  in  suppressing— in  maintain- 
ing relations  witli  these  women  by  themselves  (and  by 
himself,  if  you  please,  whatever  there  is  on  that  sub- 
ject)—as  coming  to  the  point  that  that  is  Insisted  upon  as 
a  confession,  and  that  these  acts  were  done  by  them  in 
that  motive,  in  that  character;  and  they  both  concur  in  it. 
Now,  there  was  a  difference  of  judgment.  If  the  Court 
please,  about  whether  It  was  iudiciousfor  the  common 
end  in  view  to  write  "The  life"— in  other  words, 
whether  it  was  not  giving  more  than  it  was  worth 
as  a  step  toward  the  oonmion  object.  That  is  a  ques- 
tion of  judgment;  and,  as  Mr.  TUton  said,  if 
there  was  a  mistake,  why  he  could  not  help 
it.  Now,  my  proposition  goes  to  the  point  that  Mr. 
Moulton  assigns  as  a  reason  for  the  writing  of  this 
"  Life,"  not  a  reason  connected  with  Mr.  Beecher  or  the 
suppression  of  the  scandal,  but  connected  with  Mr.  Til- 
ton's  ambitions,  to  put  himself  per  saltum  by  this  great 
transaction  at  the  head  of  the  Spiritualists  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  they  were  more  numerous  than  the  Con- 
gegationaUsts.  Now,  if  that  is  true,  it  strikes  through 
both  of  these  witnesses  who  have  undertaken  to  say  hero 
upon  oath  that  the  objects  were  of  a  kind  to  inculpate 
Mr.  Beecher  as  respomsible  for  them  and  as  in  his  inter- 
est. And  now  I  propose  to  show,  not  hearsay  of  a  stran- 
ger, but  the  action,  the  statement  of  Mr.  Moulton  identi- 
fied by  his  own  evidence,  identifled  by  Mr.  Tilton's  evi- 
dence, identified  by  every  argumeut  by  which  admissions 
of  evidence  in  a  hundred  cases  have  been  maintained 
and  defended  here  by  our  learned  opponents,  that  it  is 
a  common  action ;  and  then  we  have  their  words  for  this 
being  the  motive.  Now,  when  I  find  one  of  them  repre- 
senting as  the  motive  of  this  common  action  one  wholly 
Independent  of  that  assigned  in  the  evidence,  that  is  con- 
tradiction ;  but  beyond  that,  if  he  had  not  so  assigned  it, 
personally  himself,  it  would  have  been  a  rebut- 
tal, it  would  have  been  a  traverse  of  the 
alleged  motive  and  character  of  the  act  In  writing  the 
"  Life,"  without  which  motive  and  character,  as  assigned 
by  Mm  and  Mr.  Tiltou,  the  act  itself  would  have  been  im- 


material, and  could  not  have  been  introduced  by  them 
into  this  case.  They  brought  it  in  as  a  part  of  the  bve, 
direct  issue.  Why!  Because  Mr.  Beecher  authorized  it; 
Mr.  Beecher  approved  it ;  Mr.  Beecher  advised  it ;  it  waa 
a  part  of  the  policy  of  the  suppression  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  guilty  fact.  (At  this  point  Mr.  Abbott  directed 
Mr.  Evarts's  attention  to  a  point  in  the  evidence,  and 
handed  him  the  book.] 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Moulton  on  the  direct  examination 
said,  at  page  88.  [Reading:] 

Mr.  Tilton  came  to  me  and  said  that  he  had  been  sent 
for  by  Victoria  Woodhull ;  that  he  had  gone  to  see  her, 
and  that  she  had  poured  out  upon  him  stories  derogatory 
to  the  character  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  had  connected  his 
(Mr.  Tilton's)  wife's  name  with  Mr.  Beecher  as  it  was  con- 
nected in  this  article.  I  saw  Mr.  Beecher  about  it. 
^    And  then  he  goes  on  to  say: 

I  told  him  that  I  thought  it  would  be  necessary  in  some 
way  to  influence  that  woman  against  the  publication  of 
the  stories.  *  *  *  i  told  him  I  had  worked  a  fair  influ- 
ence upon  the  woman  ;  that  I  had  undertaken  to  show 
her  how  wrong  it  would  be  to  be  vindictive ;  there  waa 
nothing  to  be  gained  by  that. 


AliGUMENT  BY  MR.  BEACH. 
Mr.  Beacli — If  your  Honor  please,  and  I  can 
comprehend  the  argument  of  my  learned  friend,  it  rests 
upon  this  assumption,  that  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton 
and  Mr.  Beecher  entered  upon  a  common  operation,  for  a 
certain  assigned  motive;  that  they  were  in  league  and  a»- 
sociation  for  a  common  object,  to  be  pursued  by  common 
and  understood  means  ;  that,  in  other  words,  they  were 
in  a  confederacy  which,  applied  to  an  imlawful  transao 
tion,  might  be  termed  a  conspiracy;  and  the  counsel 
seeks  to  assimilate  the  rules  of  evidence  which  apply  to 
a  league  of  that  character,  to  this  association 
between  these  three  gentlemen.  Now,  if  that 
premise  was  assumed,  I  might  with  great 
propriety  admit  that  the  declarations  of  the 
parties  engaged  ia  the  common  trannsaction,  with 
a  common  purpose,  might  be  admissible;  though  I  do  not 
believe  it.  Sir— I  do  not  think  they  would  be.  I  do  not 
think  that  an  arrangement  of  this  character,  with  refer- 
ence to  a  lawful  and  a  private  purpose,  under  any  oir- 
cimistances,  makes  the  declaration  of  one  of  the  parties 
to  that  transaction  admissible  as  against  the  other,  when 
the  private  business  interests  of  one  of  them  are  raised 
and  involved  in  a  collateral  matter.  They  are  not  part* 
ners.  Sir.  They  are  no*  conspirators.  They  are  oo- 
actors  for  a  common  purpose.  Id  regard  to  an  admissible 
and  a  legal  objeet;  but  does  that  make  the  declarations  of 
either  evidence  as  against  the  other  in  a  collateral  and 
independent  transaction  I  Mr.  Tilton  prosecutes  Mr. 
Beecher  upon  an  alleged  cause  of  seduction.  It 
transpires  in  the  course  of  the  revelation  of 
the  affair  that  attempts  were  made  by  the 
two  parties  to  the  alleged  offense  and  action, 
and  a  friend  who  acted    in  the  interests  of  botlv 


TESTIMONY  OF  8AMVEL  D.  PABTBIJJGE. 


145 


VbxX  certain  steps  were  taken  for  the  purpose  of  siip- 
presslng  the  publication  of  the  aocnsation,  or  the  cironm- 
stancea  upon  which  the  aocnsation  rested.  Now,  I  sub- 
mit to  your  Honor  that  It  would  not  follow  that  in  the 
action  of  seduction  the  evidence  of  the  declarations  of 
these  various  parties,  on  the  side  of  the  immediate  par- 
ties to  the  action,  in  relation  to  the  cause  and  motives 
which  governed  their  transaction  in  the  attempt  to  sup- 
press the  scandal,  would  be  evidence  as  against  the 
others  ;  although  I  might  admit  It,  Sir,  for  the  purpose 
of  argument.  The  last  phrase  which  the  gentleman 
read  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moulton  shows  exactly 
what  the  arrangement  was  with  Mr.  Beecher  by  Mr. 
Moulton  in  regard  to  the  influences  and  the  manner  in 
which  those  influences  were  to  be  exerted  upon  Mrs. 
WoodhuU  to  prevent  the  notoi-iety  of  this  scandal. 

Q.  Alter  the  publication  of  that  card,  [that  is,  the  Wood- 
hull  card],  what  occurred  with  reference  to  yourself,  Mr. 
Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher?  A.  Mr.  Tilton  came  to  me  and 
•aid  that  he  had  been  sent  for  by  Victoria  Woodhull,  that 
he  had  gone  to  see  her,  and  that  she  had  poured  out  upon 
him  stories  derogatory  to  the  character  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
haci  connected  his  [Tilton'sJ  wife's  came  with  Mr.  Beecher, 
as  it  was  connected  in  this  article.  I  saw  Mr.  Beecher 
about  it.  I  told  him  that  it  would  be  necessary  in  some 
way  to  influence  that  woman  against  the  publication  of 
the  stories,  that  I  thought  I  ought  to.  see  her,  and  he  said 
he  hoped  I  would,  and  I  did  see  her,  in  conseauence  of 
my  consultation  with  Mr.  Beecher. 

In  the  course  of  the  evidence,  various  steps  have  been 
narrated  with  reference  to  the  intercourse  as  between 
Moulton  and  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull ;  and  those  two 
gentlemen  have  said  that  these  steps  were  taken  in  con- 
sequence of  this  arrangement;  and  I  am  giving  the  largest 
•cope.  Sir,  to  the  application  of  this  testimony  of  Mr. 
Moulton.  Then  we  come  to  a  particular  transaction,  that 
Ifl,  the  publication  of  the  "Life  of  Mrs.  Woodhull."  Now, 
according  to  the  admission  wliich  I  have  made  in  the  out- 
set of  this  argument,  Sir,  if  it  should  appear  that  the 
publication  of  that  "Ltfe"was  a  concurrent  act,  as  between 
these  three  parties— to  wit,  TUton  and  Moulton 
and  Beecher,  and  that  Tilton  and  Moulton  had  as- 
signed that  act  to  the  same  motive,  of  influencing  this  lady, 
and  suppressing  the  publication  of  this  scandal,  why, 
den,  my  admission  would  cover  that  evidence,  and  make 
It  possibly  material,  in  this  particular  aspect  of  the  argu- 
ment. But  refer  again.  Sir,  to  the  first  extract  which  the 
counsel  read  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moulton.  The 
question  was  asked  on  cross-examination  [reading] : 

Q.  Has  he  ever  talked  with  you  [that  is,  Tilton]  on  the 
subject  of  the  effect  that  the  publication  of  that  Life  had 
apon  the  prosperity  of  The  Golden  Agef  A.  I  talked 
with  him  about  it ;  he  didn't  with  me  at  the  time. 

Q.  You  talked  with  him,  but  he  did  not  with  yout  A. 
Tes,  Sir. 

Q.  Tell  us  what  yon  talked  to  himi  A.  I  told  hini  that 
I  thought  he  ought  not  to  have  published  it. 

Q.  Well,  why  1  A.  Well.  I  told  him  that  it  seemed— so 
many  statements  in  It  ••emed  extravagant  to  me— many 


statements  in  it  seemed  extravagant ;  I  did  not  think  It. 

was  a  necessary  work  to  do ;  and  his  replv  to  that — ^hls 
reply  to  that— when  I  say  that  he  didn't  talk  to  me,  I 
mean  that  he  didn't  open  the  subject ;  I  opened  the  sub- 
ject of  the  conversation ;  his  reply  to  me  was,  that  he  did 
it  as  a  friendly  act  to  Mrs.  Woodhull  from  the  manu- 
scripts furnished  by  her  husband,"  <fec. 

Now,  Sir,  that  disengages  that  transaction  entirely 
from  the  cooperation  of  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr,  TUton.  It 
was  an  independent  act,  upon  his  own  responsibility, 
adopted  by  Mr.  Tilton,  and  without  any  reference  or  con- 
currence to  or  with  Mr.  Moulton  or  Mr.  Beecher.  There 
is  no  allegation  in  this  evidence  that  Mr.  Beecher  ever 
approved  of  the  act,  that  he  was  ever  consulted  in  regard 
to  it.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Mr.  Moulton  ever  ap- 
proved of  this  act  as  one  of  the  means  which  were  to  be 
taken  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  the  common  ob- 
ject of  the  three  parties— to  wit,  the  conciliation  of  Mrs. 
WoodhuU.  Then,  Sir,  there  was  no  concurrent  purpose, 
there  was  no  unity  of  action  in  regard  to  the  publication 
of  this  "  Life,"  as  between  Tilton  and  Moulton  and  Mr. 
Beecher.  There  is  no  room  to  argue  on  our  part  that  Mr. 
Beecher  acceded  to  or  approved  this  publication,  or 
countenanced  it  as  a  justifiable  act,  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
pressing this  slander.  It  expressly  appears  that  Mr. 
Moulton  discountenanced  and  disapproved  it,  and  there 
is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  In  this  case  to  show  that  in 
any  of  the  stages  of  its  production  it  was  ever  brought  to 
the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Moulton  that  he  did  not  condemn 
it.  And  now,  what  is  offered.  Sir?  With  this  perfect  dis- 
integration of  these  two  parties,  with  this  perfect  inde- 
pendence of  action  upon  the  part  of  TUton  in 
regard  to  this  publication,  with  this  express 
ai\d  emphatic  discountenance  on  the  part  of 
Moulton  in  this  pubUcation,  they  ask  to  prove  the 
declaration  of  Mr.  Moulton  as  against  Mr.  TUton  for  the 
purpose  of  concluding  his  rights,  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
puting a  motive  to  his  action,  and  enabling  the  counsel  to 
reUeve  themselves  from  the  consequences  of  the  arrange- 
ment, so  far  as  it  was  made,  and  was  carried  out,  for  a 
specific  purpose,  as  between  these  three  parties.  And 
now.  Sir,  upon  what  principle  are  the  declarations  of  Mr. 
Moulton,  under  these  circumstances,  to  be  received 
against  Mr.  Tilton  ?  The  arrangement,  the  connection, 
the  league  between  the  parties  in  regard  to  this  particu- 
lar act,  being  dissolved,  there  being  this  discoimtenance 
on  the  part  of  Moulton,  and  this  hostility  of  purpose,  of 
policy,  as  between  TUton  and  Moulton,  by  what  principle 
shall  Tilton  be  concluded  by  inimical,  adverse  declara- 
tions of  Mr.  Moulton  in  regard  to  that  act  1  I  submit,  if 
your  Honor  please,  that  there  is  no  justice  or  principle  in 
the  admission  of  such  evidence  ;  and  it  is  a  very  grave 
question,  Sir,  whether  the  great  interests  of  a  party  in  a 
Utigation  are  to  be  thus  assaUed  and  destroyed  by  the 
declaration  of  an  antagonist  party  in  regard  to  the  par- 
ticular event  about  which  the  inquiry  is  made. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Moulton  an  antagonist  party! 


146  TEE  IILTOJS-BF. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Moulton  In  regard  to  that  transaction 
was  an  antagonist  party. 
Mr.  Pryor— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— And,  although  in  regard  to  other  matters, 
Blr,  in  matters  of  friendship  and  amity,  and  cooperation 
In  regard  to  this  scandal,  there  may  have  been  friendly 
Intimacy,  yet  that  by  no  means  justifies  the  declarations 
of  Moulton,  made  In  the  absence  of  Mr.  Tilton.  There 
must  be  some  closer,  more  intimate  legal  connection  be, 
tween  the  parties  to  justify  those  declarations; 
and  your  Honor  is  asked,  under  these  circumstances, 
to  permit  the  declarations  of  Mr.  Moulton, 
even  without  an  inquiry  from  him  in  regard 
to  them,  to  be  produced  in  hostility  to  Mr.  Tilton.  I  sub_ 
mlt  to  your  Honor  that  there  is  no  prkiciple  of  evidence, 
80  far  as  I  can  perceive,  and  no  sentiment  of  justice,  in 
the  admission  of  such  declarations.  We  are  to  be  judged. 
Sir,  by  legal  evidence,  by  our  own  acts,  and  by  our  own 
declarations;  and  no  man,  unless  authorized  by  us,  speak- 
ing in  our  interest  and  by  our  authentication,  can  confess 
or  declare  away  om'  rights.  If  these  declarations  may  be 
given  in  this  instance,  there  is  no  conceivable  instance 
where  parties  may  have  been  connected  in  relation  to 
any  matter  in  litigation,  where  these  outside  declarations 
of  strangers  in  legal  interest  may  not  be  received  to  cor- 
rupt a  righteous  and  a  just  cause  of  action. 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  already  intimated  that  it  is  very 
clear  to  me  that  the  examination  of  this  witness  must  be 
confined  to  contradictions  of  any  statements  which  it 
appears  that  Mr.  Moulton  made  when  imder  examina- 
tion. That  is  the  extent  to  which  you  can  go  with  this 
witness.  If  Mr.  Moulton  has  said  anything,  you  are  at 
liberty  to  contradict  it  by  this  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  has  our  offer,  and  overrules  it, 
as  I  understand? 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  we  except.    That  is  all  I  have  to  ask 
of  this  witness. 
Mr.  Beach— No  (luestions. 

CONCLUSION  OF  MR.  PARTRIDGE'S  TESTI- 
MONY. 

Judge  Neilson — That  is  all,  Mr.  Partridge. 

Mr.  Evarts— One  moment,  Mr.  Partridge.  There  is  one 
question.  Mr.  Partridge,  do  you  remember  making  an 
entry  of  this  $5,000  in  the  book  and  receiving  any  

Mr,  Beach— What  $5,000  ! 

Mr.  Evarts— $7,000.  [Consulting  with  Mr.  Shearman.] 
I  am  wrong.  Do  you  remember  the  payment  into  the 
firm's  account  of  the  $5,000  that  came  from  Mr.  Beecherf 
A.  I  do,  Sir. 

Q.  You  knew  at  the  time  that  it  came  from  Mr.  Beeoher, 
did  you  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  didn't  know  who  it  came  from. 

Q.  Well,  you  remember  a  $5,000  %  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  it  was 
in  May  ;  I  think  in  May— the  early  part  of  May ;  the  2d 
of  May,  I  think,  1873. 


EC  HER  TRIAL. 

Q.  Very  well;  there  is  no  dispute;  the  facts  are  all 
proven.  Now,  Mr.  Partridge,  did  you  make  an  entry  in 
the  books  of  the  firm,  under  Mr.  Moulton's  direction, 
respecting  that  $5,0001  A.  I  must  have  made  it  under 
his  direction,  because  

Mr.  Beach— Wait!  wait  I 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  a  matter  of  reasoning. 

Mr.  Beach — I  move  to  strike  that  out,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

The  Witness— I  credited  it  to  Mr.  Moulton. 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

The  Witness— I  cannot  remember  the  precise  language 
that  he  used  in  giving  the  direction. 

Q.  That  is  not  necessary.  A.  But  I  know  I  did  that  by 
his  direction. 

Q.  You  entered  it  to  his  credit?  A.  To  his  credit. 

Q.  By  Mr.  Moulton's  direction  1  A.  There  were  $5,300, 
if  I  recollect  right,  that  I  entered.  The  $300  was  a  check 
that  I  had  made  for  him  a  good  while  before,  and  I  sug- 
gested—he didn't  want  to  use  it  then,  and  I  had  kept  the 
check,  and  I  destroyed  the  check  at  that  time,  and  put  It 
to  his  credit. 

Q.  That  is         A.  Making  $5,300. 

Q.  That  is,  that  $5,000  and  this  $300         A.  All  were 

together. 

Q.  Which  you  had  charged  him  ?  A.  It  had  been  cred- 
ited to  him. 

Q.  And  that  was  by  his  direction  1  A.  The  $300— I  sug- 
gested that  myself.  • 

Q.  Well,  it  came  from  himi  A.  Yes,  Sir;  he  authorized 
me  to  do  that. 

Q.  When  the  money  which  thus  went  into  Mr.  Moulton's 
account,  this  $5,000,  was  paid  out,  did  you  receive  in- 
structions as  to— to  whom  it  should  be  charged  ?  A.  He 
told  me  the  next  day  to  make  a  check  for  $1,000  and 
charge  it  to  him  as  "  Paid  T.  T." 

Q.  And  so  afterward  for  other  payments!  A.  And 
afterward  ''  T.  T." 

Q.  Yes,  for  other  payments.  Very  well.  That  is  all, 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  alU 

Mr.  Evarts— Our  next  witness  is  Mr.  Cleveland,  if  your 
Honor  please,  and  perhaps  he  might  be  sworn,  but  we 
really  ha  ve  no  other  time  than  that. 

Judge  Neilson— There  will  be  no  object  In  that  unless 
you  think  you  can  proceed  with  him.  Do  you  prefer  not 
to  proceed  to-day,  Sir  1 

Mr.  Evarts— I  suppose  not. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Evarts  J— Do  you  want  to  work  any 

longer  I 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't.  The  jury  say  they  dont  want  to 
stay.  Mr.  Cleveland  would  rather  prefer  it,  but  the  jury 
do  not. 

Judge  Neilson — Gentlemen  please  keep  their  seats;  until 
the  Jury  retire.  Get  ready  to  retire.  To-morrow  morn- 
ing at  11,  gentlemen. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  Thursday  morning  at  1  i 
o'clock. 


tFjS11mo:ny  of  hekman  o.  aemoob. 


147 


SEVENTIETH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

THREE  NEW  WITNESSES. 

TESTIMONY  OF  H.  O.  ARMOUR,  HENRY  M.  CLEVEULND, 
AND  JAMES  L.  LITTLE,  M.  D.— MR.  MOULTON'S 
ALLEGED  THRE  ATS  AGAINST  A  WITNESS— ANOTHER 
LINK  IN  THE  ALIBI  CHAIN— MR.  BEECHER  AND 
MR.  CLEVELAND  TOGETHER  BETWEEN  ELEVEN 
AND  TWELVE  O'CLOCK  OX  THE  MORNING  OF 
JUNE  2,  1873— A  PROTRACTED  CROSS-EXAMINA- 
TION. 

Thursday,  April  22,  1875. 

H.  O.  Armour,  a  produce  mercliant  of  New- York ; 
Heiiry  M.  Cleveland,  a  member  of  the  Investigating 
Committee,  and  James  L.  Little,  M.  D.,  of  New- 
York,  were  examined  to-day.  Harmon  O.  Armour, 
an  old  gentleman  with  very  firm-set  features, 
stated  that  he  had  resided  in  Brooklyn  and  done 
business  at  No.  129  Broad-st.,  New-York,  as  a 
produce  merchant,  for  the  last  10  years.  He  had 
known  Mr.  Moulton  in  a  business  way  for  8  or  10 
years.  Last  November  he  had  conversed  with  Mr. 
Moulton  in  reference  to  this  suit.  In  the  course  of 
the  conversation,  which  related  to  the  papers  in 
this  case,  he  told  Mr.  Moulton  that  he  would  not 
believe  him  under  oath,  and  Mr.  Moulton  re- 
plied that  he  would  *'  make  it  hotter  than  h— 1 
for  him,  or  anybody  else  that  testified 
against  him."  Mr.  Moulton,  on  his  cross-examina- 
tion, had  testified  that  he  had  never  threatened  any 
person  who  might  testify  in  behalf  of  the  defend- 
ant; that  he  had  not  threatened  to  crush  Mr. 
Armour  if  the  latter  should  testify  against 
him,  and  that  he  did  not  think  he  had 
had  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Armour  about 
his  testimony.  The  plaintifPs  counsel  moved  to  strike 
out  Mr.  Armour's  testimony.  Judge  Neilson 
ruled  out  any  additional  testimony,  but  allowed  his 
statement  about  what  Mr.  Moulton  had  Lold  him  to 
stand.  Mr.  Evarts  excepted  to  the  first  ruling  of  the 
Court,  and  the  witness  was  dismissed  without  being 
cross-examined. 

Henry  M.  Cleveland,  having  sufficiently  recovered 
ti'om  his  illness  to  be  able  to  take  the  stand,  was  the 
second  witness.  He  looked  quite  emaciated  and 
was  very  nervous.  He  carried  a  cane,  upon  which 
he  leant  while  sitting  in  the  witness  chair,  and  sev- 
eral times  drank  from  a  small  bottle  of  medicine 
placed  near  him.  Several  times,  when  closely  pressed 
with  questions  on  the  cross-examination,  his  ner- 
vous prostration  became  painfully  apparent ;  he 
pressed  his  hand  to  his  brow,  and  was  only  able  to 


answer  by  a  strong  effort  of  the  will.  The  direct 
examination  was  conducted  by  Mr.  Shearman. 

Mr.  Cleveland  stated  that  he  was  now  connected 
with  the  paper  firm  of  H.  C.  Hurlbut  &  Co.  of  No 
13  Beekman-st.,  New- York.  His  business  connec- 
tion with  The  Christian  Union  and  Mr.  Beecher 
ceased  after  Jan.  1,  1874.  He  had  known  Mr.  Til- 
ton  10  or  12  years,  and  Mr.  Beecher  15  years.  He 
became  a  member  of  Plymouth  Church  in. 
1860.  He  was  intimately  acquainted  with  Mr. 
Beecher.  The  main  element  of  Mr.  Cleve- 
land's testimony  was  a  direct  contradiction  of 
the  alleged  interview  between  Mrs.  Moulton 
and  Mr.  Beecher  on  June  2,  1873.  He  swore 
that  on  that  day  he  had  an  interview  with 
Mr.  Beecher  between  11  and  12  o'clock  in 
the  morning  at  The  Chnstian  Union  office  in  New- 
York,  and  that  !Mr.  Beecher  directed  him  to  address 
letters  to  him  in  care  of  Bigelow  &  Kennard  in  Bos- 
ton. The  same  afternoon  on  returning  to  Brookljm 
he  purchased  an  I^agle  containing  Air.  Beecher' s  card 
of  that  date.  He  did  not  see  Mr.  Beecher  again 
until  the  next  week  at  the  Friday  evening  prayer- 
meeting.  The  Rev.  W.  H.  H.  Murray  of  Boston 
preached  in  Plymouth  Church  on  the  Sunday  follow- 
ing June  2,  and  I^Ir.  Beecher  was  not  present. 

The  cross-exanluiation  of  Mr.  Cleveland  was  con- 
ducted in  a  very  deliberate  manner  by  Mr.  Morris. 
]Mr.  Morris  held  in  his  hands  a  copy  of  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Cleveland  taken  several  days  ago  at  his 
house  in  anticipation  of  his  being  unable  to  attend 
as  a  witness  in  court.  The  witness  was  questioned 
very  closely  about  his  knowledge  of  the  tripartite 
covenant.  He  said  that  he  told  Mr.  Carpenter,  when,, 
at  Mr.  Beecher's  request,  he  took  him  to  a  confer- 
ence with  Mr.  Bowen  in  relation  to  the  scandals  cur- 
rent in  1873,  that  if  stories  affecting  Mr.  Beecher's 
moral  character  were  circulated  the  tripartite 
covenant  would  be  published.  The  circumstances  of 
Mr.  Cleveland's  taking  the  covenant  to  a  newspaper 
office  on  May  29, 1873,  were  exhaustively  consideredc 
The  names  of  the  persons  spoken  of  as  members  of 
the  Investigating  Committee  in  1874  were  stated 
and  restated  by  the  witness,  who  had  great  difficulty 
in  recollecting  them  all.  Mr.  Cleveland  testified 
positively  that  prior  to  the  afternoon  of 
June  26,  when  he  was  named  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Committee,  Mr.  Beecher  had  not 
addressed  him  with  reference  to  the  subject 
of  the  investigation.  On  that  afternoon  he  did  speak 
to  him  about  it.  The  work  of  the  Investigating 
Committee  was  also  a  subject  of  inquiry,  3klr.  Morrig 


I4d 


IBB   TILION-BEECEJEE  TBIAL. 


laying  that  lie  proposed  to  show  that  there  was  a 
conspiracy  to  induce  Mrs.  Tilton  to  leave  her  home. 

In  reference  to  Mr.  Cleveland's  visit  to  Boston  in 
the  Fall  of  1874  some  new  facts  were  brought  out. 
It  appeared  that  he  had  carried  with  him  a  docu- 
ment signed  by  Mr.  Beecher  giving  him  full  author- 
ity to  hear  and  determine  in  his  behalf  aU  matters 
whatsoever  relating  to  the  scandals  about  Mr. 
Beecher.  This  document  was  introduced  in  evi- 
dence by  Mr,  Morris.  Mr.  Cleveland  said 
it  was  his  credentials  to  Mr.  Redpath  of 
Boston  to  hear  anything  that  he  might  have 
to  say  about  the  scandal.  Some  telegrams, 
part  of  them  in  Latin,  relating  to  this  visit  of 
Mr.  Cleveland  to  Boston  as  Mr.  Beecher's  agent, 
were  introduced  but  not  identified,  as  Mr.  Cleve- 
land was  taken  from  the  stand  a  few  minutes  before 
the  hour  of  adjournment  in  order  to  allow  the  de- 
fense to  introduce  another  witness— James  L.  Little, 
a  physician,  of  No.  266  West  Forty-second-st.,  New- 
York.  The  substance  of  his  testimony  was  that  he 
had  seen  Theodore  Tilton  riding  in  a  carriage  in  a 
Communistic  procession  in  New- York;  with  a  lady 
who  was  pointed  out  to  htm  as  Miss  Claflin. 
Mrs.  Woodhull  walked  ahead  of  the  carriage  carry- 
ing a  flag. 

THE  PROCEEDINOS— VERBATIM. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
ourmnent. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HERMAN  O.  ARMOUR. 

Herman  0.  Armour,  a  witness,  called  and 
sworn  on  belialf  of  the  defendant,  testified  as  follows : 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Armour,  where  do  you  reside  1  A.  In 
this  city. 

Q.  And  where  do  you  carry  on  business  f  A.  In  New- 
York. 

Q.  What  place  1  A.  Do  you  want  my  entire  buslnesf*  ? 

Q.  No,  I  don't  want  anything  except  your  place  of 
business.  A.  129  Broad-st. 

Q.  What  line  of  business  are  you  in  1  A.  I  am  a  mer- 
chant. 

Q.  In  any  particular  linel  A.  Well,  T  am  a  packer  of 
beef  and  pork  in  the  Western  country. 

Q.  Connected  with  the  produce  trade?  A.  I  am  a 
packer  of  beef  and  pork  in  the  Western  country ;  that  is 
my  main  business. 

Q.  And  how  long  have  you  been  a  resident  here,  and 
how  long  in  business  in  New-York  t    A.  About  ten  years. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Francis  D.  Moulton  ?  A.  T  do. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  1  A.  From  eight  to 
ten  years. 


Q.  In  the  way  of  business  or  personal  interoourae,  or 
both  1  A.  In  the  way  of  business. 

Q.  Have  you  in  that  time  become  acquainted  with  hlmt 
A.  Somewhat. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  do  you  remember  the  fact  of  the  publica- 
tion of  what  is  called  the  Woodhull  scandal !  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Moulton 
about  last  November  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  reference  to  this  subject,  or  this  suit  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  was  that  conversation  1  A.  I  don't  know  that 
I  could  relate  it  in  whole. 

Q.  Give  the  substance  of  what  you  can  narrate  1  A. 
Mr.  Moulton  met  me  as  I  was  going  into  my  dinner,  want- 
ing me  to  go  to  his  house  to  examine  the  papers  that  he 
had  in  this  suit. 

Mr.  Morris— One  moment.  Mr.  Evarts,  what  do  you  re- 
fer to  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Page  281  of  the  pamphlet.  Do  you  wlsli 

us  to  wait  ? 
Mr,  Pryor— Yes,  Sir. 

[Plaintiff's  counsel  having  examined  the  testimony  ol 
Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Evarts  proceeded.l 

Q.  You  say  he  wanted  you  to  look  at  some  papers.  A. 
He  wanted  me  to  go  with  him  to  his  residence  and  exam- 
ine the  papers  in  this  case,  to  show  me  that  he  was  right 
in  his  general  position. 

Q.  Very  well ;  now  what  passed  between  youl  A.  Well, 
I  declined  to  go,  and  he  insisted  upon  bringing  the  pa- 
pers to  my  house  to  show  me  what  there  was  of  the  case, 
and  I  declined  then,  and  said  I  didn't  know  and  didn't 
care  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Well,  what  came  along  in  the  conversation— what 
did  you  finally  come  to  ?  A.  WeU,  he  kept  pressing  the 
point  of  my  examining  the  papers  to  such  an  extent  that 
finally  I  told  him  I  wouldn't  believe  him  under  oath. 

Q.  What  did  he  then  say  to  you  1  A.  He  said  he  would 
make  it  hotter  than  hell  for  me,  or  anybody  else  that  tes- 
tified against  him. 

Mr.  Morris— One  moment. 

Mr.  Evarts — Did  you  have  some  further  remarks  f  A. 
He  asked  me  1£  I  thought  that  he  had  blackmailed  Mr. 
Beecher;  and  I  told  him  no,  nor  nobody  else  that  knew 
him  thought  so,  but  that  I  thought  he  had  g6t  money  out 
of  Beecher  for  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  thati  A.  Well,  I  could  not  say 
what  his  reply  was. 

Q.  Was  there  any  reply  as  to  what  the  Produce  Ex- 
change        A.  Yes,  he  asked  me  about  the  opinions  ol 

people  there. 

Q.  Opinions  of  the  Produce  Exchange  people!  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  him  about  it  1 
Mr.  Beach— There  was  no  inquiry  of  Mr.  Moulton,  Sir, 
in  regard  to  declarations  of  this  character. 


TESimONl   OF  HERMAN  O.  ARMOUR. 


149 


Mr.  Evarts— This  lastt 

Mr.  Beaoh— Yes,  or  the  otlier. 

Mr.  Morris— The  other,  too— all. 

Mr.  Evarts— Threats  "hotter  than  hell"  and  "threats" 
•rethe  same. 
Mr.  Beach — Oh,  no. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  counsel  will  have  to  turn  to  Mr. 
Moulton's  examination  to  observe  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir,  we  have  it ;  we  have  looked  at  it. 

Mr.  Morris- We  have  looked  at  it  too,  and  there  is  no 
loundation  for  the  testimony  that  they  have  given  al- 
ready. 

Judge  NeUson— It  is  understood  now  that  the  inqmry 
will  be  directed  to  what  Mr.  Moulton  may  have  said  on 
being  interrogated. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  denied  having  any  conversation. 

Mr.  Morris— No,  no ;  you  are  mistaken. 

Mr.  Evarts — "Have  you  had -any  conversation  with 
him  about  his  being  a  witness  on  this  trial 

Mr.  Shearman—"  On  the  subject  of  his  testimony." 

Mr.  Evarts—"  On  the  subject  of  his  testimony."  Well, 
Sir,  I  will  ask  the  question,  and  if  my  friends  think  it 
transcends  the  rule,  they  will  raise  the  objection,  I  sup- 
pose. [To  the  witness.]  Did  he,  in  this  conversation, 
ask  you  anything  as  to  what  the  opinion  of  the  Produce 
Exchange  in  regard  to  him  and  in  regard  to  his  position 
in  the  matter  was  % 

Mr.  Morris— Objected  to. 

The  Witness— He  did. 

Mr.  Morris— Don't  answer;  we  object  to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  answers  to  the  fact  that  there  was  a 
conversation.  He  says  there  was  a  conversation.  Now. 
I  offer  to  give  what  passed  between  Mr.  Moulton  and  this 
witness  on  that  subject. 

Judge  NeUson— You  can  give  that  if  Mr.  Moulton  has 
been  interrogated.   I  don't  think  he  was. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  had  the  general  interrogation  as  to 
whether  he  had  a  conversation  with  this  gentleman, 
which  he  substantially  ignores. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  this  is  the  evidence,  if  your  Honor 
please,  and  all  of  it,  as  I  understand.  [Reading.! 

Mr.  Tracy— Have  you  ever  threatened  persons  with 
danger  to  themselves  if  they  should  testify  on  behalf  of 
the  defendant  1  A.  No,  I  have  not  threatened  persons  if 
they  should  testify  on  behalf  of  the  defendant. 

Q.  Have  you  threatened  any  person  ?  A.  No,  I  have 
not  threatened  any  person. 

Q,  Did  you  threaten  Mr.  Armour  that  you  would  crush 
him  if  he  should  testify  against  you  on  this  trial  1  A.  No, 
I  did  not  threaten  Mr.  Armour  that  I  would  crush  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  1  A.  Yes ;  he  is  not  the  man  to  be 
crushed  easUy. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  him  on  the 
subject  of  his  testimony  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  having  any 
conversation  with  him  on  the  subject  of  his  testimony.  T 
liad  a  conversation  with  him  in  regard  to  an  interview 
that  purported  to  come  from  him  in  the  paper. 

Q.  Yes;  did  you  state  to  him  that  you  would  crush 
him  t  A.  No. 


Q.  Did  you  ever  threaten  to  crush  him  for  anything  1 
A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  about  his  being  a 
witness  on  this  trial  1  A.  I  don't  think  I  said  anything  to 
him  about  his  being  a  witness  ;  no,  I  don't  think  I  did| 
he  is  not  a  man  I  would  use  such  language  to,  Mr.  Tracy.' 

Nothing  said  about  the  Produce  Exchange,  Sir,  or  the 
opinions  of  the  Produce  Exchange. 

Mr.  MoiTis— Now,  having  read  that,  I  move  that  the 
testimony  that  he  has  given  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Evarts — Let  us  dispose  of  this  present  question. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  cannot  give  it. 

Mr.  Morris— I  move  that  it  be  stricken  out. 

Judge  Neilson— A  part  of  what  has  been  received  would 
be  proper. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  has  not  been  objected  to,  is  one  reason. 
Mr.  Pryor— Well,  we  didn't  know. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  making  it  "  hotter  than  heU  "  is 
the  same  thing. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  I  don't  know  whether  it  is  the 
same  thing  or  not;  that  wUl  stand,  however,  in  the 
sense  that  it  reaches  some  portion  of  what  Mr.  Moulton 
said,  and  agrees  with  his  statement  as  to  other  portions. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  admit  that  this  present  question  is  some- 
what different  from  that  which  is  past,  and  which,  I  sup- 
pose, is  correctly  admitted, 

Mr.  Morris— Does  your  Honor  allow  the  evidence  to 
stand,  the  expression  that  this  witness  has  said  Mr. 
Moulton  made  to  him,  when  your  Honor  sees  now  there 
is  no  foundation  whatever  laid  for  it  1 

Judge  Neilson— A  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Morris— There  is  no  foundation  whatever  laid  for 
the  testimony  that  has  already  been  given  on  that  subject, 
not  a  particle  of  evidence;  not  interrogated  upon  the 
point  at  all ;  wholly  improper,  I  submit,  and  ought  to  be 
stricken  out, 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  won't  have  two  questions  up  at 
once.  We  are  now  talking  about  the  further  testimony. 
Your  Honor  excludes  this  f 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Be  so  good  as  to  note  our  exception. 
Mr.  Beach— The  point.  Sir,  of  the  motion  to  strike  out 
is  

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  am  going  to  ask  him. 
Mr.  Morris— We  want  to  dispose  of  the  other, 
Mr.  Beach— The  point,  if  I  understand  it,  is  that  Mr. 
Moulton  was  asked,  upon  the  stand,  whether  he  threat- 
ened to  crush,  any  one  who  should  testify  on  behalf  of  the 
defendant.  The  evidence  of  this  witness  is  that  Mr. 
Moulton  told  him— after  asking  him  whether  he  believed 
that  he  was  a  blackmailer,  &c. — told  him  that  any  one 
who  testified  against  him  (Moulton)  he  would  make  It 
"  hotter  than  hell ''  for.  There  is  no  relation  whatever 
to  any  person  who  was  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  de* 
fendant. 

Mr.  Morris-  He  means  that  If  they  testified  that  he  was 


150 


THE   TILTON-BEEOHER  lElAL, 


blaclcamailer.  It  is  evident  what  that  meant— the  remark 
of  Mr.  Moulton. 

Mr.  Beach— I  do  not  conceive  it  to  be  of  any  import- 
ance. 

Mr.  Evarts- "Well,  there  is  no  motion  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  Beach— Why,  yes,  there  is  a  motion. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  I  will  let  it  stand,  gentlemen. 
In  part  it  agrees  with  Mr.  Moulton,  and  in  part  it  departs 
from  and  goes  heyond  it. 

Mr.  Pryor- Your  Honor  will  please  observe  that  Mr. 
Moulton  never  denied  having  made  the  statement  now 
imputed  to  him.  Now  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  

Judge  Neilson— He  denied  making  quite  other  and  dif- 
ferent statements. 

Mr.  Prior— Exactly.  Non  constat,  but  he  would  admit 
making  this  statement  if  questioned  in  regard  to  it.  Now 
then,  by  admitting  this  testimony,  you  put  Mr.  Moulton 
in  the  position  before  the  jury  of  having  made  a  false 
statement. 

Judge  Neilson— No. 

Mr.  Pryor— They  wiU  claim  it  is  relevant  and  admissi- 
ble. If  it  be  the  declaration  of  a  third  party  out  of  court 
it  is  not  competent  evidence  against  this  plaintiff.  It  can 
be  made  competent  only  as  a  declaration  out  of  court 
contradictory  to  something  he  has  deposed  to  in  court. 
Now,  then,  it  does  not  contradict  any  thiog  that  he  has 
said  in  court ;  it  is  wholly  an  independent  and  uncon- 
nected declaration,  if  declaration  it  be,  with  any- 
thing that  he  has  testified  to  in  court, 
and  it  puts  Mr.  Moulton  in  a  false 
position,  I  respectfully  submit  to  your  Honor.  We 
don't  object  to  our  learned  friends  calling  Mr.  Moulton 
again  and  asking  him  if  he  said  that  thing  now.  We  wil 
raise  no  objection  to  that.  Then,  if  he  denies  having  said 
it,  they  may  ask  Mr.  Armour,  the  witness  on  the  stand. 
If  he  did.  But  as  it  stands  it  plainly  places  Mr.  Moulton 
In  a  false  and  embarrassing  position  before  the  jury. 

Judge  Neilson— I  will  let  it  stand,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Evarts— At  the  conclusion  of  this  conversation 
was  anything  said  by  Mr.  Moulton  as  to  what  you  would 
advise  him  to  do  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— That  I  object  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  let  us  hear  if  there  was ;  then  I  wiU 
ask  what  that  was. 

Judge  Neilson— WeU,  was  Mr.  Moulton  interrogated  on 
that  subject?  You  ought  to  take  the  book. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts- 1  don't  think  he  was  precisely  on  this 
point.  It  comes  under  the  general  proposition  about  his 
having  had  conversations  with  people. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Moulton  admitted  a  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  is  that  all  with  this  witness.* 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 


EXAMINATION  OF  HENRY  M.  CLEVELAND. 

Henry  M.  Cleveland  was  then  called  by  the 
defendant  and  sworn. 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  glad  to  see  you  are  in  better 
health. 

The  Witness — I  thank  you,  Judge, 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  couldn't  you  allow  to  be 
read  what  Mr.  Cleveland  has  already  testified  to,  and 
then  supplement  it  on  either  side  t 

Mr.  Shearman— I  take  it,  your  Honor,  that  we  shall 
make  the  examination  even  shorter  than  by  doing  so.  We 
propose  to  make  it  very  short  on  account  of  Mr.  Cleveland's 
health.  [To  the  witness.]  Mr.  Cleveland,  where  do  you 
reside  t  A.  My  legal  residence  is  in  Brooklyn,  Conn.;  I 
spend  my  time  in  New- York  in  bnsiness. 

Q.  Do  you  board  in  Brooklyn  !  A.  I  board  in  Brooklyn 
in  the  Summer. 

Q.  Where  do  you  carry  on  business  1  A.  No.  13  Beek- 
man-st..  New- York. 

Q.  And  are  you  a  partner  with  any  one?  A.  H.  C. 
Hulbert  &  Co. 

Q.  What  business!  A.  Paper  manufacturers  and  im- 
porters. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  partnership  with  them  1 
A.  Since  the  Ist  of  January,  1874. 

Q.  Previous  to  tue  Ist  of  January,  1874,  how  were  you 
engaged?  A.  I  was  two  years  business  manager  of  The 
Christian  Union. 

Q.  Did  you  terminate  your  entire  connection  as  man- 
ager of  The  Christian  Union  on  the  1st  of  January,  1874! 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Since  that  time  what  business  relations,  directly 
or  indirectly,  have  you  had  with  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  None 
whatever. 

Q.  What  relations  have  you  had  with  The  Christian 
Union     A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  Are  you  not  the  owner  of  somi;  stock  ?  A.  One  share 
of  stock. 

Q.  There  are  a  hundred  shares,  I  believe  f    A.  250,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  the  plaintiff  and  defend- 
ant in  this  case  respectively  1  A.  I  have  known  Mr.  Til- 
ton  ten  or  twelve  years;  I  have  known  Mr.  Beecher 
fifteen  years. 

Q.  I  ought  to  ask  you  how  long  have  you  been  a  resi- 
dent of  Connecticut  before  coming  to  New- York  I  A. 
Connecticut  is  my  native  State,  Sir. 

Q.  Resided  there  all  your  life  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  occupy  any  public  position  in  Connecticut 
part  of  that  time  1  A.  I  was  In  the  Legislature  one  ses- 
sion, 1867 ;  the  next  year  I  was  elected  to  the  State  Board 
of  Education  and  served  four  years,  term  expiring  in 
1871-1872. 

Q,  You  are  a  member  of  Plymouth  Church  1  A.  1  am. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  member  1  A.  Since  ISOO. 
Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  incidents  which  occurred  on 


TES'LIMOJ^J   OF  Rm 

the  second  day— on  Monday,  the  second  day  of 
Juni',  1873!  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Will  you  state  where  you  were  on  that  day  1  A.  At 
my  office  in  The  Christian  Union, 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  seeing  Henry  Ward  Beecher  on  that 
day  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  1  A.  At  my  office. 

Q.  About  what  time  of  day  1  A.  Between  11  and  12 
o'clock. 

Q.  How  long  an  interview  did  you  have  with  him  1  A. 
I  should  say  from  30  to  40  minutes. 

Q.  Did  you  have  much  conversation  with  him  !  A.  I 
did. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  on  that  day  whether  he  gave  you 
any  directions  as  to  addressing  letters  to  him  1  A.  He 
did. 

Q.  TMiat  directions  did  he  give  you  about  his  letters  ? 
Mr.  Beach— That  is  objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— We  will  take  it,  regarding  it  as  a  mere 
a«t. 

Q.  What  directions  did  he  give  you  about  his  letters  1 
A.  He  requested  me  to  send  his-  all  his  mail  matter  to 
the  care  of  Bigelow  <fc  Kennard,  in  Boston. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  do  you  recollect  gotug  over  to  Brooklyn  in 
the  afternoon  of  that  day  1  A.  I  do,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  purchasing  a  newspaper  that  after- 
noon) A.  I  do. 

Q.  What  newspaper  was  it  ?  A.  The  Brooklyn  Eagle. 

(4.  Did  you  cut  a  piece  out  of  that  paper  that  day?  A. 
I  did. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  do  with  it  1  A.  I  sent  it  to  Con- 
necticut. 

Q.  Look  at  this  slip  which  I  now  give  you  and  say 
whether  that  is  the  identical  slip  which  you  cut  from  the 
paper  which  you  purchased  on  that  2d  day  of  June,  1873 1 
A.  It  is,  Sir ;  that  is  my  mark  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  offer  this  in  evidence.  It  is  a  paper 
that  is  already  in  evidence,  but  I  offer  it  simply  for  the 
purpose  of  fixing  the  date  and  identifying  the  transac- 
tion; it  is  the  same  article  that  is  already  in  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  you  may  refer  to  it  as  the  paper 
numbered  by  a  certain  number  to  identify  it.  What  was 
the  number  when  it  was  put  in  1 

A  NEWSPAPER  IN  EVIDENCE. 
Mr.  Shearman— The  whole  thing  is  in  evi- 
dence—the whole  newspaper. 
Mr.  Beach— Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  not  perhaps  necessary  to  put  this 
Identical  piece  in  if  we  can  come  to  some  agreement 
about  it.  If  it  is  agreed  that  this  slip  is  identical  with 
the  paper  already  in  evidence  of  June  2, 1873  (Exhibit 
D,  130),  it  is  not  necessary  to  put  this  piece  in. 

Mr.  Morris— The  card  is  in  evidence,  of  June  2 ;  that  is 

an. 

Mr.  Beach— Why,  Sir,  there  ig  a  very  great  misimder- 


M.    CLEVELAND.  151 

standing  hetween  the  gentleman  and  ourselves.  He  con 
tends  that  the  whole  newspaper  containing  this  card  is  in 
evidence  in  this  case  as  legitimate  evidence.  Certainly 
we  have  no  such  understanding.  The  newspaper  con- 
taining the  card  was  offered  in  evidence  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  what  the  card  itself  proved. 

Mr.  Shearman— No,  no  ;  a  great  deal  more  than  that, 
your  Honor  ;  it  was  given  in  evidence  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  the  time  when  that  particular  newspaper  waa 
published,  because  that  was  the  2  o'clock  edition,  audit 
was  not  the  4  o'clock  edition ;  the  whole  newspaper  wiw 
put  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly,  Sir ;  but  the  whole  newspaper 
was  not  put  in  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the 
whole  contents  of  the  newspaper  in  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Oh,  no,  Sir,  The  Eagle  is  wont  to  contain 
a  good  deal  that  would  not  be  received  as  evidence. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  should  not  read  the  advertising 
matt-er. 

Mr.  Beach— Nor  the  editorial  neither.  The  gentleman 
shall  not,  unless  your  Honor  so  rules,  read  the  article 
which  contains  this  card  in  evidence.  That  has  never 
been  offered  in  evidence  except  through  the  medium  of 
the  general  newspaper,  which  was  received  for  the  pur- 
pose of  identifying  the  card  and  the  time  of  its  publica- 
tion. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  this,  then,  is  the  same  paper  that 
was  identified  by  a  certain  number,  and  if  that  is  put 
down  now,  that  will  answer  the  purpose. 

Mr.  Beach— I  presume  that  is  so,  if  Mr.  Shearman  saya 
so. 

Mr.  Morris- That  is  so,  and  the  evidence  upon  that 
point  stands ;  the  card  was  in  evidence  which  was  pub- 
lished in  the  paper  of  that  day,  your  Honor  ;  it  was  pub- 
lished at  2  o'clock  ;  that  is  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Shearman- 1  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  ac- 
ceding to  that  proposition,  because  I  shall  certainly  claim 
that  the  whole  of  this  article  is  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Beach— The  editorial  comments  of  The  Eagle  In 
evidence ! 

Mr.  Shearman— I  shall  certainly  so  claim.  They  are 
put  in  for  the  purpose  of  showing  by  the  comments  of  the 
editorial  article  the  time  when  this  card  was  received. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  proved  by  the  date  of  the  pajmr, 
and  the  fact  that  he  bought  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— Proved  by  the  date  of  the  paper,  and 
by  this  article,  which  shows  where  it  was  incorporated 
and  when  it  was  received. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  we  don't  propose  to  be  caught  by  any 
such  trap  as  that.  I  understand  the  gentleman  now  to 
say  that  he  insists  upon  the  editorial  portion  of  this 
paper,  containing  this  card,  to  be  in  evidence  and  legiti- 
mately to  be  used  by  him,  through  the  declai-ations  of 
the  editor  Ln  that  article,  to  show  at  what  time  that  card 
was  published. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  we  should  not  receive  it  as  evi- 


153  THE  TILTON-L 

dence  of  the  time  of  tlie  publication,  but  that  it  is  the 
same  that  this  gentleman  cut  out^the  date  of  the  paper- 
that  it  was  the  same  day,  may  be  taken. 
Mr.  Beach— Certainly. 

Judge  Neilson— But  the  sentiments  of  the  editor,  as  ex- 
pressed in  that  editorial,  we  could  not  take. 

Mr.  Beach— Not  the  sentiments,  the  counsel  says ;  the 
declarations.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  whatever.  I  have  great  confi- 
dence in  The  Eagle,  but  still  we  could  not  take  the  edito- 
rials. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  we  haven't  great  confidence,  if  yo\ir 
Honor  please. 

Judge  Neilson— We  could  not  take  the  editorials,  even 
If  we  had.  Go  on,  Mr.  Shearman ;  that  is  identified  by 
the  number. 

Mr.  Shearman— Of  course,  I  don't  offer  in  evidence  this 
piece  of  paper  for  anything  that  it  shows,  but  simply  as 
an  identification  of  the  time.  For  that  purpose  it  may  as 
well  be  marked. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  object  to  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  shall  not  offer  this  in  evidence,  not 
even  for  the  contents  of  the  card,  but  simply  have  it 
marked  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  identity  of  the 
paper  already  in  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes— the  question  being  the  question  of 
time. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all.  As  far  as  this  slip  is  con- 
cerned, I  do  not  offer  it  for  any  other  purpose. 

Mr.  Beach— This  slip  shows  nothing  in  regard  to  the 
time,  except  the  declaration  is  admitted  in  the  editorial 
part  of  the  slip. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  we  don't  take  that  but  in  connec- 
tion with  the  declarations  of  the  witness  to  fix  the  date. 

Mr.  Shearman— For  that  single  purpose ;  I  do  not  offer 
this  for  the  purpose  of  showing  a  word  that  it  contains, 
but  to  fix  the  time  when  Mr.  Cleveland  purchased  it,  by 
comparing  it  with  another  paper. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  it  comes  to  this ;  it  is  the  same  as 
though  Mr.  Cleveland  referred  to  any  other  Incident  or 
thing  occurring  tbat  afternoon. 

Mr.  Shearman — Certainly ;  this  is  all  I  offer  this  present 
statement  for. 

Mr.  Beach— In  the  handwriting  of  the  witness,  as  he 
says,  there  is  an  indorsement  on  this  slip—"  June  2, 1873." 
There  is  a  card  in  it  signed  "  Henry  Ward  Beecher."  So 
far  as  those  two  iteins  of  proof  are  concerned,  we  do 
not  object  to  this  article.  We  object  to  the  remainder 

f  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  I  think  that  will  do. 
Mr.Shearman— As  far  as  this  is  concerned.  This  will 
be  mark^*  

Mr.  Morrlb  Hadn't  we  better  have  the  whole  question 
definitely  settle  now  1  The  counsel  says  so  far  as  this 
particular  paper  s  concerned;  that  is  all  they  claim 


UFAJREB.  TBIAL, 

now.  Now,  is  it  understood  that  that  editorial  is  in  evt 

dence? 
Judge  Neilson— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— The  whole  paper,  they  say,  is  in. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  neither  is  in  except  as  it  tends  to 
show  the  time, 

Mr.  Beach— I  hope  your  Honor  wiQ  not  permit  the  edi- 
torial part  of  that  slip  of  paper  to  be  marked,  and  put  1b 
evidence  here  so  as  to  become  a  part  of  the  record  to  be 
published  as  a  portion  of  the  evidence  given  in  this  caset 

Judge  NeUson— Cei'tainly  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— This  particular  slip  is  not  to  be  used- 
As  to  the  other  matter,  that  is  past,  and  there  is  no  use 
discussing  it  while  Mr.  Cleveland  is  on  the  stand.  I  do 
not  understand  the  Court  to  rule  because  the  Court  has 
not  heard. 

[Paper  marked  "Ex.  D,  135. "1 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Cleveland,  can  you  say  when  jon 
next  saw  Mr.  Beecher  after  this  Monday,  the  2d  of  June,. 
]  873 1  A.  The  next  week,  on  Friday  evening,  the  prayer- 
meeting. 

Q.  Did  you  spend  all  that  week,  beginning  with  the  2d 
of  June,  in  Brooklyn— New-York  and  Brooklyn  1  A.  I 
did. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  habit  at  that  time  of  seeing  Mr. 
Beecher  frequently  and  iatimatelyl  A.  I  saw  him  fre- 
quently. 

Q.  Were  you  on  intimate  terms  with  Mr.  Beecher  t 
A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  you  didn't,  during  that  week  beginning  with 
the  2d  of  June,  see  him  after  that  Monday,  did  you  1  A, 
I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  attend  Plymouth  Church  on  the  Sunday 
following  the  2d  of  June  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Can  you  teU  who  preached  there  on  that  day  1  A. 
Rev.  William  H.  H.  Murray  of  Boston. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  in  the  church  at  a  i .  1  A. 
He  was  not,  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Did  you  address  any  papers  or  letters  to  the  care— 
for  Mr.  Beecher— to  the  care  of  Bigelow  &  Kennard, 
during  that  week  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  was  TJie  Christian  Union  office  at  that  time  t 
A.  No.  27  Park-place,  New-York  City. 

Q.  Comer  of  Church-st.l  A.  Comer  of  Church-st. 

Q.  Where  did  Mr.  Beecher  reside  at  that  timel  A.  No. 
124  Columbia  Hights. 

Q.  Brooklyn!  A.  Brooklyn. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  the  publication  of  the  card  signed 
by  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  30th  of  June,  1873  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher  with 
respect  to  that  card  prior  to  its  publication  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  did  that  interview  occur !  A.  In  the  house  of 
Moses  8.  Beach,  Columbia  Hights,  No.  90—1  forget  the 
number. 

Q.  Columbia  Hights,  Brooklyn,  No.  96.  When  did  that 
interview  occur  1  A.  On  the  morning  of  the  25th  of  J ime 


TESTIMONY   OF  HE:N 

Q.  Do  you  know  vtho  suggested  the  preparation  of  a 
eard  like  tliat  to  Mr.  Beeclier  at  that  tame  ?  A.  I  know 
that  I  did. 

Q.  Ahoutwhat  time  in  the  day  was  that!  A.  About 
GJfl  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

Q.  Ot  the  25th  of  June,  1873  !  A.  Of  the  25th  of  June, 
1873. 

Q.  As  you  went  out  of  the  house,  what  did  Mr.  Beecher 
do  after  you  made  that  suggestion?  A.  Went  Into  Mr. 
Beecher's  library. 

Q.  As  you  went  out  of  the  house,  did  you  meet  any 
person?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Who  was  it  ?  A.  Edward  L.  Ford  of  J.  B.  Ford  &  Co. 

Q.  Was  he  going  into  Mr.  Beecher's  house!  A.  He  was. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

ME.  CLEVELAND'S  CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Morris. 

Q.  Mr.  Cleveland,  you  were  examined  at  your  house  a 
week  or  two  ago  in  this  case,  were  you  not  ?  A.  Par- 
tially, yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  wholly  examined  so  far  as  the  direct 
examination  was  concerned,  were  you  nof?  A.  I  su]?- 
pose  I  was.  Sir. 

Q.  The  counsel  for  the  defendant  had  completed  their 
examination,  and  the  cross-examination  was  com- 
menced ?  A.  As  I  understood  it,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  your  attention  was  called  at  that  time,  was  it 
not,  to  the  time  of  day  that  Mr.  Beecher  called  at  the  of- 
fice of  The  Ohristian  Union,  and  what  did  you  state  ? 
A.  That  he  called  between  11  and  12  ;  that  my  interview 
with  him  was  between  11  and  12  o'clock. 

Q.  And  did  you  state  it  in  your  testimony  there  as  you 
have  here  ?  A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you,  since  you  gave  your  testimony  there 
read  it  over  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Has  it  been  read  over  to  you  ?  A.  It  has  not. 

Q.  Now,  are  you  quite  sure  that  you  have  given  that 
Interview,  or  the  time  that  you  saw  Mr.  Beecher,  there  as 
you  have  given  it  to-day  ?  A.  I  am. 

HIS  INTERVIEW  WITH  MR.    BEECHER  ON 
JUNE  2,  1873. 

Q.  Now  let  me  read  this  question  to  you  and 
•ee  if  this  question  was  asked  and  the  answer  following 
was  given  by  you  !  [Reading] : 

Q.  Please  state  the  time  of  day  when  he  came  and 
when  he  left,  as  nearly  as  you  can?  A.  I  should  say  that 
the  interview  that  we  had  on  that  day  was  between  11 
and  12  o'clock  tn  the  morning. 

Did  you  make  that  answer  to  the  question  that  I  have 
read  in  just  the  precise  language  that  I  have  read  It !  A. 
I  eannot  recollect  that.  Sir. 

<).  I  will  read  It  again. 


BJ  M.    CLEYELAKD,  153 

Q.  Please  state  the  time  of  day  when  he  came  and 
when  he  left,  as  nearly  as  you  can ! 

Now,  did  you  not  make  this  answer  to  that  question  tn 

the  precise  words  I  read: 

A.  I  should  say  that  the  interview  that  we  had  on  that 
day  was  between  11  and  12  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

Did  you  not  make  that  precise  answer!  A.  I  will 
accept  that  answer ;  I  do  not  recollect  whether  I  made 
it. 

Mr.  Beach— He  says  he  will  accept  It. 

Q.  Very  well.  Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  how  long,  a]>oilfe» 
does  it  take  to  go  from  Mr.  Beecher's  house  to  the  ofSoe 
ot  The  Christian  Union,  where  it  was  at  that  time!  A. 
That  depends  entirely  upon  the  boats— from  20  to  40 
minutes. 

Q.  Now,  you  were  questioned  by  counsel  with  reference 

to  that,  were  you  not !  A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  how  did  you  state  the  time  then  !  A.  I  said  20 
minutes,  more  or  less— less  or  more— depending  upon  tbe 
boats,  I  think. 

Q.  How  do  you  state  it  now  ?  A.  I  say  from  20  to  40 
minutes,  depending  upon  the  boats. 

Q.  Well,  did  not  you  say  from  15  to  20  minutes  !  A.  I 
think  I  did  not. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  of  that  ?  A.  If  I  did  I  desire  to  make 
the  correction. 

Q.  Well,  you  had  been  frequently  from  Mr.  Beecher'i 
to  The  Christian  Union  office?  A.  I  had. 

Q.  And  was  quite  famUiar  with  the  time  that  It  took! 
A.  I  never  measured  the  time. 

Q.  In  answer  to  the  question  put  by  the  counsel  as  to 
how  long  would  it  take,  did  you  not  make  this  answer: 

A.  Well,  I  think,  as  an  average  time,  you  could  go  from 
his  house  to  the  office  in  20  minutes— sometimes  shorter! 

A.  If  I  said  that,  1  desire  to  make  the  correction. 

Mr.  Beach— Read  the  question  and  answer. 

Mr.  Morris  [reading] : 

Q.  Just  describe  the  trip  which  you  make  to  get  from 
his  house  to  his  office.  A.  Well,  I  think,  as  an  average 
time,  you  could  go  from  his  house  to  the  office  in  20  min* 
utes— sometimes  shorter  and  sometimes  longer,  depend* 
ing  on  the  boats. 

A.  If  "  shorter,"  I  think  It  was  a  misreport. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  did  not  give  that  an- 
swer, in  those  precise  words  that  I  have  read  ?  A.  I  mean 
to  say  that  If  I  said  15  minutes,  I  desire  to  correct  tbe 
answer. 

Q.  No.  "  Sometimes  20  minutes— sometimes  shorter.** 

Mr.  Shearman— He  said  so. 

Q.  Did  you  use  that  language!  A.  I  don't  reooUeot 
that  I  did. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Shearman  says  he  did;  11  he  wants  t» 
correct  it  now  

Mr.  Shearman  [to  the  witness]- Yon  are  not  asked 
whether  what  you  said  then  was  jorreot,  but  what  yon 
said  then. 


154 


TEE   TILTON-BEEOREE  TBIAL. 


The  Witness— I  desire  merely  to  say  tliat  I  meant  to 
«ay  then  20  minutes  or  longer,  depending  on  the  boats. 

Q.  You  were  asked  also  on  that  examination,  with 
reference  to  the  time  you  saw  Mr.  Beecher  there,  this 
question,  were  you  not : 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  it  you  are  absolutely  certain  that  this 
Interview  which  you  mentioned  occurred  upon  the  2d  of 
June,  between  11  and  12  o'clock  1 

Do  you  recollect  that  question  being  put  to  you.  A. 
I  do. 

Q.  And  what  was  your  answer  ?  A.  I  do  not  recall  it. 

Q.  "  I  think  I  am was  that  the  answer  made  by  yout 
A.  I  do  not  deny  it. 

Q.  And  that  was  all  that  was  said  by  you  in  that  exam- 
ination upon  the  subject,  wasn't  it  ?  A.  I  do  not  recall. 

Q.  Where  were  you  residing  at  that  time  1  A.  At  the 
Mansion  House. 

ME.  BEECHEE  SEKDS  FOE  ME.  CAEPENTEE. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Carpenter?  A.  I  do. 

Q;  When  did  you  make  his  acquaintance  1  A.  On  Sun- 
day, the  25th  of  May,  1873. 

Q.  And  where         A.  In  the  City  of  New- York. 

Q.  did  you  make  his  acquaintance!   A.  In  the  City 

of  New-York. 

Q.  That  was  on  a  Sunday,  I  believe  1  A.  That  was  on 
Sunday  afternoon. 

Q.  And  how  came  you  to  goto  New-York  to  see  him? 
A.  I  went  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  And  how  did  you  go  1  With  what  conveyance  t  A. 
With  a  horse  and  carriage. 

Q.  Whose  1    A.  Mr.  Beecher's. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  afternoon  was  that  f  A.  Three  or 
four  o'clock  that  I  left  Brooklyn. 

Q.  Were  you  requested  to  bring  Mr.  Carpenter  to 
BrookljTi,  if  you  could  find  him  1   A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  where  were  you  to  bring  him  1  A.  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's. 

Q.  And  did  you  take  him  to  Mr.  Moulton's  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  did  you  leave  him  there  1  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Where  did  you  leave  him  1  A.  I  do  not  recollect ; 
he  left  the  carriage  after  we  drove  away  from  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's—where,  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  object  of  Mr.  Carpenter's  being 
brought  to  Brooklyn  on  the  25th  of  May  1  A.  I  do. 

Mr.  Shearman— Wait  a  moment. 

Mr.  Morris— What  was  the  purpose  of  bringing  him 
herel 

Mr.  Shearman— Wait  a  moment ;  I  object  to  that,  your 
Honor,  unless  Mr.  Beecher  is  connected  with  it ;  it  ap- 
pears not. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  yes ;  Mr.  Beecher  sent  for  him. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  that  is  what  was  the  object,  but 
whose  object— Mr.  Carpenter's  object,  or  Mr.  Cleveland's 
object,  or  Mr.  Beecher's  object! 

Judge  Neilson— That  should  appear. 

Did  Mr.  Beecher  express  to  you  any  reason,  state  or 


give  to  you  any  reason,  why  he  wanted  Mr.  Carpenter 
herel  A.  He  did. 
Q.  And  what  was  it  1  A.  To  have  him  come  and  see 

Mr.  Bowen  with  some  other  gentlemen. 

Q.  And  for  what  purpose  did  he  want  him  to  come  and 
see  Mr.  Bowen  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— We  object  to  that,  of  course.  He  should 
ask  what  Mr.  Beecher  expressed ;  that  is  the  proper  quee^ 
tion. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  that  is  implied  in  the  question. 
**  For  what  purpose  did  he  want  1"  it  implies  that  he 
said  it. 

Q,  Now,  answer  the  question,  if  you  please  1 
The  Witness— Will  the  stenographer  please  read  the 
question  1 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  as  follows: 
"  And  for  what  purpose  did  he  want  him  to  go  and  see 
Mr.  Bowen  1" 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  that.  That  does  not  identify 
Mr.  Beecher  with  the  purpose.  The  question  is  very 
easily  modified,  I  suppose ;  but  still,  we  should  confine 
ourselves  within  the  rule,  for  the  witness  would  feel 
bound  to  answer  

Mr.  Morrisr- Did  Mr.  Beecher  state  to  you  why  ha  * 
wanted  Mr.  Carpenter  to  see  Mr.  Bowen  ?  A.  He  did. 

Q.  Why  did  he  want  him  to  see  Mr.  Bowen— for  what 
purpof=e?  A.  In  relation  to  stories  that  he  had  heard 
that  Mr.  Bowen  was  reporting,  reviving. 

Q.  Give  Mr.  Beecher's  language  as  near  as  you  can.  A. 
That  is  the  substance,  as  near  as  I  can  give  it. 

Mr.  Beach— When  was  this  t 

Mr.  Morris- The  25th  of  Mar,  x873.  [To  the  witness.! 
Now  give  Mr.  Beecher's  language— what  he  said  upon 
that  subject,  as  near  as  you  can  ?  A.  That  is  as  near  as  I 
can  give  it. 

Q.  Just  repeat  that  again,  if  you  please  1  Just  repeat 
what  Mr.  Beecher  said  1  A.  That  he  desired  Mr.  Carpeur 
ter  to  go  to  Mr.  Bowen's  with  some  other  gentlemen,  to 
confer  with  him  in  regard  to  reports  that  he  had  heard 
from  Mr.  Bowen.   That  is  the  substance  of  it. 

Q.  With  reference  to  Mr.  Beecher  I  A.  With  referenoo 
to  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  Did  he  say  what  those  reports  were  1  A.  He  did  not. 

THE  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  "TEIPAETITB 
COVENANT." 
Q.  Was  anything  said  about  the  covenant^ 

the  "  Tripartite  Covenant  ?"   A.  Nothing. 
Q.  Between  you  and  Mr.  Carpenter  i  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  What  was  said  between  you  and  Mr.  Carpenter  1 
Mr.  Shearman— I  don't  think  that  is  competent,  unlOM 
it  is  still  further  connected  with  Mr.  Beecher. 
Mr.  Morris  [to  the  witness]— On  that  subject  1 
Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Beecher  does  not  appear  to  have  in- 
structed Mr.  Cleveland  to  have  any  conversation  at  all 
with  Mr.  Carpenter,  or  to  do  anything;  oertainly  not 


TUSTIMONF  OF  HE2\ 

about  tlie  "  Tripartite  Covenant.*'  So  far  as  appears,  lie 
simply  requested  him  to  bring  Mr.  Carpenter  over  to  see 
Mr.  Bowen, 

Mr.  Morris— I  propose  to  sbow  that  tbe  purpose,  wblcb 
will  appear,  I  think,  in  the  examination  of  this  witness- 
that  he  was  sent  over  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  bring  Mr.  Car- 
penter here  to  go  and  see  Mr.  Bowen,  in  company  with 
Mr.  Claflin  and  Mr.  Moulton,  and  that  If  Mr.  Bowen  still 
continued  to  repeat  the  stories,  or  adhered  to  them,  then 
the  Covenant  was  to  be  published ;  and  that  that  was  the 
object  Mr.  Beeeher  had  in  view  in  sending  Mr.  Cleveland 
over  after  Mr.  Carpenter  on  that  Sunday. 

Mr.  Shearman— Very  well  

Mr.  Morris— I  submit  that  we  have  a  right  to  show  the 
object  of  Mr.  Carpenter's  being  sent  for,  and  the  purpose 
of  his  interview  with  Mr.  Bowen. 

Judge  Nellson— You  have  not  laid  a  foundation  for  that 
—so  far  as  that  goes. 

Mr.  Morris— Does  your  Honor  think  that  that  is  not  a 
proper  question  % 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  think  you  have  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  a  conversation  m  regard  to  the  "  Tripartite  Cove- 
nant." 

Mr.  Morris— I  propose  to  show  the  fact  that  I  have 
«tated  by  this  witness,  and  I  can  only  show  it  by  succes- 
sive steps ;  I  cannot  show  it  by  a  single  question. 

Judge  Neilson— Do  you  propose  to  connect  it  with  Mr. 
Beecher  1 

Mr.  Morrisr-Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well ;  go  on. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  Mr,  Cleveland,  what  was  eald  upon 
the  subject  of  a  publication  of  that  Covenant  between  you 
and  Mr.  Carpenter  at  that  time?  A.  I  don't  recall  the 
words.  My  best  recollection  is  that  I  said  to  Mr.  Carpen- 
ter that  if  it  should  be  true  that  Mr,  Bowen  was  reviving 
the  stories,  the  old  stories  that  had  been  reported  against 
Mr.  Beecher,  that  then  the  Covenant  would  be  pub- 
lished. 

Q.  Now,  what  stories  were  you  referring  to  I  A.  Stories 
that  had  been  settled  by  the  Covenant. 

What  were  they  1  A.  I  do  not  recollect  them.  Sir. 

Q.  You  had  never  heard  what  they  were?  A.  I  had 
heard  in  general  terms— the  scandal. 

Q.  What  were  they  in  general  terms !  A.  The  scandal. 

^  Which  scandal?  A.  The  whole  scandal. 

Q.  WTiat  do  you  mean  by  the  whole  scandal  ?  Was  there 
more  than  one  scandal  ?  A.  Well,  that  is  simply  the  re- 
ports that  had  been  circulated. 

Q.  Reports  of  what  ?  A.  Affecting  the  character  of  Mr. 
Beecher. 

Q.  In  what  respect?  A.  Any. 

Q.  And  is  that  as  deHnite  as  you  can  be  on  the  subject? 
A.  That  is  as  definite  as  I  can  be. 

Q.  You  have  no  idea  as  to  any  particular  scandal  that 
was  included  in  that  matter?  A.  I  did  not  know  at  that 
time  what  the  pai-ticulars  of  the  scandal  were. 


?r  M.   CLE V BLAND.  ^  155 

Q.  You  had  never  heard  ?  A.  I  had  not. 
Q.  And  you  had  no  idea  1  A.  I  had  no  idea  of  the  de* 
tails. 

Q.  And  you  entered  into  conversation  with  Mr.  Carpen- 
ter upon  the  scandals  against  Mr.  Beecher  without  having 
any  knowledge  whatever  of  what  the  scandals  consisted 
of  ?  A.  I  knew  that  there  had  been  a  settlement  by  the 
Co^^ant,  and  that  it  had  been  violated  by  Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  What  had  been  settled  ?  A.  All  the  matters  betwe^ 
Mr.  

Q.  What  were  all  the  matters? 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  let  him  finish.  Between  whom  ? 

The  Witness— Any  matters  of  diflference  between  Mr, 
Bowen  and  Mr.  TUton  and  Mr.  Beeoher.  as  I  uaderstood 
it. 

Mr.  Morria— What  matters!  A.  That  is  all  I  can  say. 

Q.  Do  you  meaji  to  say  now  that  you  have  no  idea  as  to 
what  the  slanders  were  ?  A.  I  mean  to  say  

Mr.  Evarts— That  he  has  no  idea  now,  or  that  he  had  at 
that  conversation. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  had  you  at  that  conversation  !  I  am 
talking  about  that  period  when  you  were  conversing 
with  Mr.  Carpenter  in  reference  to  the  scandals  that  had 
been  settled  by  the  Covenant ;  had  you  no  idea  then  as  to 
what  the  slanders  were  ?  A.  I  had  not  ia  detaiL 

Q.  In  general?  A.  I  had  not  in  general,  except  tluit 
they  affected  the  character  of  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  In  what  respect  ?  A.  His  moral  character. 

Q.  How?  A,  By  being  in  

Q.  How  was  he  tuvolved- his  moral  character;  how 
was  it  involved  ?  A.  As  any  man's  would  be  who  had 
slanders  in  circulation  against  him. 

Q.  I  want  to  find  out  what  those  slanders  were  1  A.  T 
can't  tell  you. 

Q,  You  had  no  idea  at  thsbt  time,  when  you  were  con- 
versing about  that  ?  A.  I  had  the  idea  that  slanders  wm 
in  circulation  about  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  You  had  been  acquainted  with  Mr.  Beecher  how 
many  years  ?  A.  Fifteen. 

Q.  And  had  been  on  intimate  terms  with  him,  hadnt 
you  ?  A.  I  had,  for  five. 

Q.  Very  intimate  terms  ?  Had  you  not  considered  your* 
self  so  ?  A.  I  was  on  intimate  terms  with  him. 

Q.  And  a  visitor  at  his  house  ?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  you  were  then  connected  with  the — yon  were 
the  publisher  of  The  Christian  Union  /  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Of  which  paper  Mr.  Beecher  was  editor  ?  A.  He  wa« 
one  of  them. 

Q.  And  you  used  to  come  in  contact  with  him  very 
frequently?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  used  to  converse  with  him  about  matters  f  A. 
About  matters,  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hav«  any  conversation  with  him  im 
regard  to  any  of  these  slanders?  A.  Not  a  word,  in  do- 
tail. 


156 


TRE   TILTON-BEEGHEB  lElAL. 


Q.  In  general  1  A.  Not  in  general,  except  on  one  oc- 
OKfiion. 

Q.  When  was  that !  A.  The  1st  day  of  November,  1872. 

Q.  Tie  1st  day  of  November  \  A.  1872, 

Q.  1872.  What  scandals  did  you  talk  ahout  then  !  A. 
The  Woodhull  publication. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness]— Beyond  that,  you 
barely  knew  that  Mr.  Bowen  was  understood  to  have  cir- 
culated some  kind  of  scandal  unfavorable  to  Mr.  Beecher ! 
A.  I  simply  knew,  Sir,  that  there  were  reports  in  the  air 
affecting  the  moral  character  of  Mr.  Beecher  

Judge  Neilson— And  ascribed  to  Mr.  Bowen  1 

The  Witness— Ascribed  to  Mr.  Bowen;  and  that  in 
April,  1872,  their  matters  were  settled  by  that  Covenant. 

Judge  Neilson— WeU. 

Mr.  Morris— Then  you  were  referring  to  the  scandals 
that  you  understood  that  Mr.  Bowen  had  circulated 
against  Mr.  Beecher?  A.  I  do  not  understand  your  ques- 
tion. 

Q.  Then  yofl  were  referring,  in  your  conversation  with 
Mr.  Carpenter,  to  the  scandals  that  you  understood  that 
Mr.  Bowen  had  circulated  against  Mi-.  Beecher?  A.  That 
is  what  I  referred  to. 

Q.  And  were  the  names  of  any  ladies  connected  with 
that  scandal— I  do  not  ask  for  any  names,  but  did  you  un- 
derstand tiem  as  referring  to  Mr.  Beecher's  relations- 
immoral  relations,  with  women?   A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Then  if  they  affected  his  moral  character,  in  what 
respect  did  they  affect  it  ?  A.  I  understood  you  to  ask  if 
they  related  to  particulac  persons. 

Q.  No ;  my  question  was  whether  you  understood  that 
those  scandals  which  Mr.  Bowen  had  cii'culated  related 
to  Mr.  Beecher's  intercourse  with  women  ?  A.  They  did. 

Q.  Immoral  intercour  se  ?  A.  They  did.  • 

Q.  You  were  not  present  at  that  interview  ?  A.  I  was 
not. 

Q.  The  Covenant  was  published  shortly  after  that,  was 
It  not?  A.  It  was. 

Q.  On  the  30th  %  A.  On  the  30th  of  May. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  it  was  published  from  ?  A.  It 
■was  published  from  manuscript  in  the  hands  of  Sam 
Wilkeson. 

Q.  The  scandals  that  Mr.  Bowen  had  circulated  against 
Mr.  Beecher,  I  understand  you  to  say,  had  never  been  the 
subject  of  conversation  between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher 
prior  to  that  time  ?  A.  They  had  not,  at  that  time. 

Q.  They  never  had  been  referred  to  !  A.  Not  except  in 
general  terms. 

Q.  WeU,  state  how  they  were  referred  to  In  general 
terms?  A.  I  understood  from  Mr.  Beecher  that  Mr. 
Bowen  had  circulated  false  reports  relating  to  his  moral 
character. 

Q.  Was  that  all  that  was  ever  said  upon  the  subject  f 
A.  That  is  all,  in  substance. 

Q.  Prior  to  the  publication  of  that  Covenant  did  you 
have  an  interview  with  Mr.  Carpenter  at  the  office  of  The 


Christian  Union  f  A.  Quite  likely.  Sir ;  I  don't  reojdl 
Q.  Do  you  recollect  showing  him  a  copy  of  the  Covenant 

in  manuscript,  at  the  office  of  The  Christian  Union,  on 

the  29th  of  May? 
Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  this,  your  Honor.  I  do  not. 

see  that  it  has  anything  to  do  with  Mr.  Beecher. 
Mr.  Morris— We  ,vill  see. 

Judge  Neilson— We  might  take  that  simple  fact.  I  doat 
know  that  it  has  any  

Mr.  Shearman— Very  well. 

The  Witness— I  do  not  recall  that  occurrence. 

Q.  Did  you  take  the  Covenant  to  a  morning  newspaper 
office  for  the  purpose  of  having  it  published,  on  the  even- 
ing of  the  29th? 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  it. 

JudgeNeilson— We  will  take  it.  It  shows  the  attitude 
of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Shearman— Oh,  if  it  is  for  that  purpose  

The  Witness— I  do  not  think  I  did,  upon  my  latest  and 
best  recollection,  in  the  evening. 

Q.  You  were  at  a  newspaper  office?  A.  Not  I  think 
in  the  evening. 

Q.  Didn't  you  testify  at  your  house  that  you  went  to 
a  newspaper  office  in  the  evening  in  company  with 
either  Mr.  Howard  or  Mr.  Ford?  A.  I  testified  that  pos- 
sibly I  did;  I  had  a  faint  recollection  of  that. 

Q.  Didn't  you  testify  positively  that  you  did?  I  dont 
recollect  that  I  testified  positively  that  I  did ;  my  latest 
recollection  Is  that  I  went  to  the  office  in  the  middle  of 
the  day  on  the  29th  of  May. 

Q.  Very  well,  you  think  it  was  about  the  middle  Of  the 
day  ?  A.  Some  time  in  the  middle  of  the  day. 

Q.  Before  or  after  12,  do  you  think?  A.  I  cannot  recalL 

Q.  You  cannot  recall  that  fact  ?  A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  go  with  to  the  office  at  that  time  f 
I  went  alone. 

Q.  You  went  alone  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  it  in  connection  with  the  publication  of  fbe 
Covenant  that  you  went  ?  A.  The  publication  of  the 
Covenant  was  my  occasion  for  going. 

Q.  Was  it  in  connection  with  the  publication  of  the 
Covenant  that  yon  went  to  that  office  1  A.  That  was  the 
occasion  of  my  going. 

Q.  During  the  middle  of  the  day! 

Mr.  Shearman— He  says  that  was  the  occasion  of  hlf 
going. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes.  [To  the  witness.]  Did  you  take  the 
Covenant  with  you  then  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  did  you  deliver  it  to  the  editor  for  the  purpose 
of  publication !  A.  I  did  not,  in  that  sense. 

Q.  Did  you  deliver  it  to  him  in  any  sense!  A.  I  showed 
it  to  him— left  it  with  him. 

Q.  You  showed  it  to  him  and  left  it  with  himi  A. 
I  did. 

Q.  Why  did  you  leave  it  with  him!  A.  Because  I 
wanted  to  make  an  explanation  to  him  of  his — In  regard 


TESllMONY  OF  HEl 

to  his  misunderstanding  of  an  allusion  in  one  of  Mr. 
Beeclier'8  sermons  to  the  disclosures  about  the  Tweed 
Ring.  I  knew  he  was  laboring  under  that  misunder- 
standing, and  I  took  that  occasion  to  have  an  interview 
with  the  publisher. 

Q.  Was  that  subject  explained  in  the  Covenant  1  A. 
That  subject  was  explained  in  the  interview. 

Q.  "Was  the  Interview  with  the  publisher  %  A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  you  left  the  Covenant  with  him  for  the 
purpose  of  explaining  an  illusion  in  one  of  Mr.  Beeoher's 
sermons  concerning  the  Tweed  Ring !  A.  I  said  to 
him  that  

Q.  No,  no  ;  answer  the  question.  Was  that  the  object 
of  leaving  it  1  A.  The  object  of  that— the  interview— the 
object  

Mr.  Morris— One  moment. 

The  Witness— State  your  question. 

Mr.  Tracy— He  has  answered  the  question. 

Mr.  Morris— He  has  not.  [To  the  witness.]  Was  or 
was  not  the  object  of  leaving  the  Covenant  with 
liim  that  it  might  explain  an  allusion  in  one  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  sermons  concerning  the  Tweed  Ring  1  Yes, 
or  no. 

Mr.  Tracy— I  submit  that  he  is  not  obliged  to  answer 
yes  or  no. 

Mr.  Morris— H 'J  can  explain  afterward. 
Judge  NeUson  [to  the  witness] — Give  the  best  answer 
you  can. 

The  Witness— I  cannot  answer  by  yes  or  no. 
Mr.  Morris— T  submit  that  it  is  a  very  simple  question. 
Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness]— Give  the  best  answer 
you  can,  Sii-  ? 

Mr.  MoiTis— One  moment,  your  Honor.  I  submit  that  I 
am  entitled  to  a  correct  answer. 

Judge  Neilson — You  are  entitled  to  an  affirmative  or  a 
negative  answer.  The  exact  terms  of  the  answer  are  for 
the  witness. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  all  I  ask.  [To  the  witness.]  Now, 
did  you  or  did  you  not  leave  that  Covenant  with  him 
In  order  that  it  might  explain  this  allusion  in  Mr. 
Beecher's  sermon  to  the  Tweed  Ring?  A.  Not  in  that 
sense  at  all. 

Q.  Very  well,  that  answers  it.  Then  why  did  you  leave 
it  with  him  ?  A.  I  made— I  knew  that  the  Covenant  was 
going  from  Sam  Wilkeson  that  night  to  all  the  New- York 
papers  the  next  morning,  and  I  knew  a  New-York  paper 
was  laboring  under  a  misapprehension  in  regard  to  one 
of  Mr.  Beecher's  sermons,  in  which  he  alluded  to  the 
Tweed  Ring,  and  I  went  with  that  in  my  hand,  to  say  to 
the  publisher  that  

Q.  I  don't  care  about  that  I  A.I  ask  the  chance  to 
make  an  explanation. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  asked  him. 

Mr.  Mon-is— No,  no,  I  am  asking  why  he  left  the  Cove- 
nant. I  am  not  asking  why  he  went  to  explain  that  to 
the  publisher. 


EI  M.   OLEVBLAND.  ith 

Mr.  Bvarts— The  witness  is  giving  an  explanation.  He 
is  asked  for  his  motive.  Now,  he  has  a  right  to  give  all 

his  motives. 

Judge  NeUson  [to  the  witness!— Without  giving  the 
conversation  with  the  editor,  you  can  say  whether  it  waa 
for  that  purpose  of  explaining. 

The  Witness— I  made  that  the  means  of  an  interview 
with  the  publisher  to  make  an  explanation  in  regard  to 
that  sermon. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  an  answer. 

Mr.  Morris— Why  did  you  leave  the  Covenant  with  that 
publisher  1  A.  Because  I  wanted  to  say  to  him  that  now 
there  would  be  a  newspaper  war,  and  we  desired  that 
Mr.  Beecher  should  have  unprejudiced  treatment  at  the 
hands  of  the  press. 

Q.  Ah,  very  well,  but  that  does  not  yet  answer  my  ques- 
tion ;  for  what  purpose  did  you  leave  the  Covenant  with 
that  publisher  1  A.  I  did  not  leave  the  Covenant  with 
him  for  any  purpose.  I  took  it  with  me  as  a  means  ol 
communication  with  him. 

Q.  You  took  the  Covenant  as  an  excuse  to  have  an  In- 
terview with  him ;  is  that  it  1  A.  That's  it  exactly,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  him  before  ?  A.  I  had  seen  him. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  him  ?  A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  had  any  conversation  with  him  f  A. 
Never  a  word. 

Q.  And  you  thought  you  could  not  have  this  Interview 
with  him  without  taking  the  Covenant  with  you.  How 
did  you  introduce  that  conversation!  A.  Oh,  I  dont 
recollect  that. 

Q.  Now,  was  your  sole  object  in  taking  that  Covenant 
there  the  excuse  that  you  wanted  to  have  an  interview 
with  that  publisher  1  A.  The  sole  object. 

Q.  The  sole  object  ?   A.  The  sole  object. 

Q.  And  when  you  got  through  with  your  interview  you 
left  the  Covenant  with  hmil  A.  I  presume  I  did;  I  don't 
recollect  taking  it  away ;  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  upon  that  subject  t  A.  I  dont 
recollect  anj^hing  about  it. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  a  while  ago  that  you  left  It  with  biTn  f 
.  A.  I  think  I  did ;  but  that  was  a  matter  of  no  kind  of 
consequence  at  the  close  of  the  interview.  All  the  papers 
had  it  the  next  morning,  and  would  have  had  it  without 
any  regard  to  that  publisher  and  myself. 

Q.  That  is  not  the  question.  You  had  no  idea  when 
you  left  it  there  that  it  was  going  to  be  published  f  A.  I 
knew  it  would  be,  whether  I  left  it  or  took  it. 

Q.  You  knew  it  would  be  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Now,  IMr.  Cleveland,  didn't  you  testify  at  your  house 
positively  that  you  did  not  take  that  covenant  to  that 
publisher  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did.  If  I  did,  I  desire 
to  correct  it.  I  had  no  head  then,  and  haven't  more  than 
half  a  one  to-day. 

Q.  If  you  did  so  testify  it  was  not  correct  1  If  I  testi- 
fied differently  from  my  testimony  to-day  I  desire  to  ooiv 
rect  it. 


168  THE  TILION-B. 

Q.  Did  you  see  that  publisher  again  that  day  1  A.  I 
don't  think  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  didn't  you  say  to  him,  when  you  took 
Mm  that  covenant,  that  Mr.  Beecher  wanted  it  pub- 
lished! A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Your  recollection— your  head  is  perfectly  good  upon 
that  point,  is  it  t  A.  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  Didn't  you  testify,  Mr.  Cleveland,  that  you  went  to 
the  office  of  that  publisher  in  the  evening  with  Mr.  Ford  or 
Mr.  Howard  1  A.  I  did  not,  positively. 

Q.  Didn't  you  state  that  the  object  of  going  to  the  office 
was  to  read  the  proofs  ?  A.  I  testified  that  if  I  went  that 
evening  I  unquestionably  went  with  either  Mr.  Ford  or 
Mr.  Howard;  but  I  did  not  testify  that  I  did  go,  if  my 
memory  serves  me  now. 

Q.  Keflect  upon  that  a  moment,  Mr.  Cleveland.  Did 
you  not  state  that  you  went  there  in  the  evening  with 
either  one  of  those  gentlemen,  and  that  the  purpose  of 
going  was  to  read  the  proof  so  that  it  might  appear  cor- 
rectly in  the  paper  the  next  morning  ?  A.  I  testified  that 
I  had  a  partial  recollection  of  going  in  the  evening  with 
one  of  the  gentlemen  named,  who  went  to  read  the  proof. 
I  could  not  recollect  distinctly  that  I  did,  and  I  wouldn't 
Bwear  that  I  did  not,  nor  I  won't  now. 

Q.  You  have  no  present  recollection  upon  that  subject 
now,  have  you?  A.  I  don't  recall  it. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  to  Mr.  Carpenter,  on  the  29th,  that  IE 
he  would  look  in  the  papers  in  the  morning  he  would  sec 
the  biggest  sensation  since  the  war  ?  A.  Possibly ;  I  don't 
recaU  it. 

Q.  In  the  former  examination  at  your  house,  did  you 
say  anything  about  going  to  the  publisher  for  the  reason 
that  you  wanted  to  explain  to  him  the  expression  in  Mr. 
Beecher's  card  concerning  the  New-York  Kiag  ?  A.  I 
don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  the  circumstance  or  the  visit  to 
him  that  you  recollect  distinctly,  is  it  ?  A.  I  did  not 
testify  at  my  house  positively  that  I  went  to  him 
that  day. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  asked,  Mr.  Cleveland,  were  you  not, 
whether  you  went  to  his  office  with  the  Covenant, 
and  did  you  not  say  that  you  did  not  9  A.  I  don't  think 
I  did. 

Mr.  Morris— Very  well. 

The  Witness— I  may  be  mistaken. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  when  you  were  asked  about  going 
to  the  office  with  the  Covenant,  which  interview  was 
most  distinct  in  your  mind— the  one  during  the  middle  of 
the  day  when  you  went  to  explain  that  circumstance  to 
him,  or  the  one  on  the  evening  of  which  you  have 
now  but  a  shadowy  recollecfeion  1  A.  Neither  was  dis- 
tinct. 

Q.  Neither  was  distinct!  A.  Neither. 
Q.  Is  either  distinct  now !  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  perfectly. 
0,.  You  have  recalled  it  since  t  A.  I  have  verified  what 
I  state. 


ECHER  TBIAL. 

CONVERSATIONS  CONCERNING  THE  PUBLI- 
CATION. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  interview  that  I  have 
called  your  attention  to  at  your  house,  with  Mr.  Carpen- 
ter—at your  office,  I  should  say!  A.  Of  the  29th  of  Mayt 

Q.  The  29th.  A.  I  can  make  no  better  recollection  of 
that  than  when  you  were  at  my  house. 

Q.  You  recollect  of  Mr.  Ctrpenter  having  an  interview 
with  you  at  your  office  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  that. 

Q.  At  no  time?  A.  A  great  many  times— scores  of 
them. 

Q.  During  the  Spring  of  1873?  A.  Not  in  the  Spring, 
for  I  didn't  see  him  until  the  25th  of  May  in  my  life. 

Q.  That  is  Spring,  is  it  not !  A.  Very  good ;  that  is  the 
first  time  I  saw  him. 

Q.  Now,  following  that,  you  met  him  at  your  office,  did 
you  not?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  meet  him  at  your  office!  A.  I 
have  no  kind  of  idea. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  subject  of  the  interview !  A.  I 
do  not. 

Q.  Or  of  any  of  the  interviews !  A.  The  subject  of  most 
of  the  interviews. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  did  you  see  him  at  yom-  office, 
after  the  25th,  when  he  came  there !  A.  I  have  no  recol- 
lection, 

Q.  You  have  seen  him  there  a  number  of  times  ?  A.  A 
great  many. 

Q.  Can  you  state  what  hour  of  the  day  on  either  occa- 
sion 1  A.  I  cannot* 

Q.  Whether  it  was  in  the  forenoon  or  in  the  afternoon! 
A.  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  See  if  you  recollect  giving  this  testimony  at  your 
house  in  answer  to  a  question  put  by  his  Honor  Judge 
Neil  son : 

On  the  occasion,  just  prior  to  the  publication,  that  you 
went,  what  was  the  object  of  the  visit— that  is  the  visit 
to  the  office- and  did  you  not  make  this  answer,  "My 
recollection  of  that  is,  that  the  gentlemen  that  I  went 
with  wanted  to  read  proof  and  see  that  the  publication  of 
the  Covenant  the  ne::^  morning  was  correct,  that  it  ac- 
corded with  the  original  document! " 

A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Is  that  true!  A.  It  is  true  as  my  recollection  was 
then  and  is  to-day.   If  I  went  in  the  evening  

Q.  Not  if  you  went.    A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  went. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  it  without  the  "ifs  ?"  A.  I  dont 
recollect  of  going  in  the  evening. 

Q.  You  have  forgotten  since  you  testified  at  youT 
house  %  A.  If  I  swore  positively  that  I  went  in  the  even- 
ing it  was  a  mistake. 

Mr.  Shearman— You  did  not. 

The  Witness— I  did  not,  I  think. 

Mr.  Morris— It  was  a  mistake. 

Q.  You  were  examined  by  Mr.  Shearman  and  by  Mr.  Hill 
at  considerable  length,  were  you  not,  at  your  house  I  A. 
I  was  examined  by  them. 


TESTIMOJ^Y  OF  RENEY  M.  CLEVELAND. 


159 


Q.  At  considerable  length  ?  A.  I  don't  know  

Q.  How  long  were  you  in  giving  your  testimony  in 
answer  to  questions  by  Mr.  Hill  and  Mr.  Shearman  1  A. 
An  hour,  possibly,  or  more ;  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  An  hour  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  it  at  all.  I  attended 
the  examination ;  that  is  all  I  recollect,  and  hardlj^  that. 

Q.  You  have  not  seen  the  examination  since,  have  you  i 
A.  I  have  not,  to  read  it. 

Q.  Forty-seven  pages.  Have  you  conversed  with  the 
counsel,  or  either  ot  them,  eince  you  were  examined  at 
your  house  ?  A.  I  have. 

Q.  With  reference  to  your  testimony?  A.  Not  in  detail. 

Q.  With  reference  to  your  testimony?  A.  Not  in  detail. 

Q.  With  reference  to  your  testimony  ?   A.  Yes. 

Q.  Yes  ;  and  when  did  you  have  that  conversation  with 
them  ?  A.  I  have  had  two  or  three. 

Q.  Two  or  three  ?  A.  The  last  was  yesterday  morning, 
I  think. 

Q.  When  was  the  first  after  your  examination  ?  A.  I 
have  been  in  the  country  until  the  last  of  last  week. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  question. 

The  Witness— I  had  no  conversation  with  them  iintil 
since  I  returned. 

Q.  When  did  you  return  ?  A.  I  returned  on  Thur  sday 
night  of  last  week. 

Q.  Since  that  time  how  many  times  have  you  conversed 
with  either  of  the  counsel  ?  A.  I  think  four  or  five. 

Q.  Four  or  five  timee  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  with  reference  to  your  testimony  ?  A.  With 
reference  to  my  coming  here. 

Q.  With  reference  to  your  testimony  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  With  reference  to  the  testimony  you  had  given  at 
your  house  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  But  as  to  the  testimony  you  should  give  here  ?  A. 
Yes,  SiA 

Q.  Did  they  state  any  reasons  to  you  for  omitting  topics 
that  they  examined  you  upon  at  your  house  ?  A.  They 
did. 

INACCURACIES   IN  MR.  CLEVELAND'S  FOR- 
MER EXAMINATION. 

Mr.  Shearman— What  is  the  reason  of  this  1 
Mr.  Morris— The  reasons  will  appear  before  I  get 

through,  very  distinctly.   There  won't  be'  any  mistake 

about  it. 

Q.  Well,  was  the  hour  of  the  day  at  which  you  saw  Mr. 
Beecher  the  subject  of  conversation  between  you  and 
your  counsel  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  let  me  read  a  little  more,  Mr.*  Cleveland,  and 
see  ii  this  question  was  put  to  you : 

Now,  just  reflect  a  moment.  Did  you  not  yourself  take 
the  Covenant  in  manuscript  to  that  publisher  on  that 
night,  and  say  to  him  that  it  was  Mr.  Beecher's  wish  that 
It  be  published  1 

Mr.  Shearman— The  answer. 

l^Tovvis— The  answer:  "I  did  not."   Did  vou  make 


that  answer  to  that  question?  A.  Will  you  read  the 
question  again? 

Q.  Now,  j  ust  reflect  a  moment.  Did  you  not  yoirrself  take 
the  Covenant  in  manuscript  to  that  publisher  on  that 
night,  and  say  to  him  that  it  was  Mr.  Beecher's  wish  that 
it  be  published  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

A.  I  aflSrm  it  now. 

Q.  And  it  was  technically  correct  because  you  had  taken 
the  Covenant  in  the  afternoon  or  the  middle  of  the  day! 
A.  I  had. 

Q.  You  didn't  take  it  at  night  ?  A.  I  then  believed  I 
didn't. 

Q.  And  when  you  made  that  answer  did  you  recollect 
the  fact  that  you  had  taken  it  in  the  middle  of  the  day  ? 

Mr.  Shearman — I  object  to  the  question  as  put.  I  ought 
to  have  time  to  object  to  the  question.  As  to  whether 
that  was  technically  correct,  omitting  a  particular  pas- 
sage, I  object  to  that  form  of  question. 

Mr.  Mdrris — He  answered  it. 

Mr.  Porter— You  interrupted  him. 

Mr.  Shearman- He  was  going  on  with  something  more 
when  you  interrupted  him. 

Mr.  Morris — He  answered  the  question. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Witness.]— Do  you  wish  to  add 
anything  more  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  NeUson— Then  add  what  you  wish. 

The  Witness  [to  Mr.  Morris]— Will  you  put  the  ques- 
tion again? 

Mr.  Morrie— I  will  put  another  question ;  I  don't  wish  to 
put  a  question  again  that  has  been  answered. 

Mr.  Shearman — The  question  is  this :  Wasn't  it  tech- 
nically correct  to  say  that  you  took  that  manuscript  to 
the  publisher  and  said  to  him  that  it  was  Mr.  Beecher's 
wish  that  it  be  published.  That  is  the  substance  of  Mr. 
Morris's  question. 

Mr.  IVIorris — No,  it  was  whether  it  was  technically  cor- 
rect, because  he  had  taken  it  during  the  middle  of  the 
day  and  he  answered  that  once. 

The  Witness  fto  Judge  Neilsonl—Your  Honor,  I  desire 
to  say  that  I  never  took  the  Covenant  to  the  publisher 
with  a  request  from  Mr.  Beecher  to  publish  it.  T]»at  is 
what  I  wish  to  say. 

Q.  You  had  positively  testified  prior  to  tl^tthatyo  i 
didn't  take  the  Covenant  at  all,  had  you  not  ?  A.  I  didn  >t 
testify  positively  that  I  had  not;  if  I  did,  I  was  mistaken, 
for  I  have  since  ascertained  that  I  did  take  it  to  him. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  recollect  when  I  was  asking  you  those 
questions  that  you  had  taken  it  during  the  day  ?  A.  I 
did  not. 

Q.  The  circumstance  that  you  had  taken  it  as  an  excuse 
to  have  an  interview  with  the  publisher  concerning  Mr. 
Beecher's  sermon  referring  to  the  Ring  had  entirely  es- 
caped your  recollection,  had  it  ?  A.  It  had. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  that  publisher  since  1  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  has  been  seen  upon  the  sub- 
ject ?   A.  I  do  not. 


160  THE  TILTON-Bi 

Q.  Now,  didn't  the  publisher  object  to  publishing  that 
Covenant?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  say  to  him  that  it  was  Mr.  Beecher's 
"Wish  that  it  be  published  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Anything  to  that  effect  1  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  give  this  testimony  in  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion that  I  will  now  read : 

Q.  Did  you  take  with  you  and  deliver  to  the  publisher,  on 
the  night  of  the  29th  of  May,  a  copy  of  the  Covenant  for 
publication.  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did.  My  impres- 
sion is  that  I  went  with  Mr.  Howard— John  R.  Howard— 
or  E.  L.  Ford.   He  took  it. 

Q.  Did  you  give  that  testimony?  A.  I  presume  so,  if  it 
is  there ;  I  will  give  it  now. 

Q.  Do  you  state  now  positively  that  you  had  no  conver- 
sation with  the  publisher  in  regard  to  the  publication  of 
that  document  ?  A.  I  state  that  I  did  have  conversation 
with  him  in  regard  to  the  publication  of  that  document. 

Q.  In  the  middle  of  the  day  ?  A.  In  the  middle  of  the 
day,  if  that  was  the  time  I  saw  him ;  it  was  during  that 
interview. 

Q.  In  regard  to  publishing  it  t  A.  "With  regard  to  its 
publication. 

Q.  You  didn't  leave  it  for  publication,  did  youi  A.  I 
did  not  leave  it  for  publication. 

Q.  At  that  interview  did  the  publisher  make  any  objec- 
tion to  publishing  it  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  Just  reflect  for  a  moment ;  did  he  not  object  to  pub- 
lishing it?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  And  was  not  the  object  of  the  visit  to  the  office  in 
the  evening  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  him  to  publish 
it?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  It  was  not?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  if  you^:went  there  with  these  gentlemen  to  read 
tiie  proofs,  did  you  see  them  that  night  ?  A.  I  don't  know 
that  I  went  there. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  proofs  there  that  night  ?  A.  I  don't 
recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  WUl  you  say  that  you  did  not  ?  A.  I  will  not. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  you  didn't  say  to  that  publisher 
that  Mr.  Beecher  wanted  the  Covenant  published  ?  A.  I 
will. 

*  Mr.  «hearman— We  have  had  that  about  14  times,  your 
Honor,  and  I  submit  that  we  ought  not  to  have  it  any 
more. 

Mr.  ftlorris— We  will  mark  it  15  then,  and  stop. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  the  conversation  that 
occurred  at  the  office  in  the  evening  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  how  long  you  were  at  the  office  1  A. 
When? 

Q.  In  the  evening  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  being  in  the 
office. 

Q.  What  is  your  present  raeoUection  upon  that  point  ? 
A.  I  have  ifo  distinct  recollection  about  that  evening.  I 
have  a  partial  recollection  that  I  went  over  with  one  of 
tlic  gentlemen  named,  but  it  is  not  distinct  in  my  mind. 


EC  HER  TBIAL. 

Q.  Your  recollection,  then,  upon  that  subject  was  mora 
clear  when  you  testified  at  the  house  than  it  now  is  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— If  your  Honor  please,  this  is  about  the 
twentieth  time  we  have  had  this  question  brought  up. 
I  have  tried  to  be  patient  thus  far. 

Mr.  Morris— Don't  lose  your  patience  ;  don't  weary  in 
well  doing. 

Ms.  Shearman— If  the  twentieth  time  would  be  the  last 
time,  I  would  not  object.  It  seems  likely  to  be  asked  500 
times. 

Mr.  MoiTis— No,  I  will  limit  it  to  the  number  you  sug- 
gest. 

Mr.  Shearman— Limit  it  to  20  times  and  then  I  won't 
object. 

Q.  Was  your  recollection,  when  you  testified  at  the 
house  on  that  subject,  clearer  than  it  now  is  1  A.  I  don't 
think  it  was,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  then,  what  do  you  mean  by  this  : 

My  recollection  of  that  is,  that  the  gentleman  I  went 
with  went  to  read  proof  and  see  that  the  publication  of 
the  Covenant  the  next  morning  was  correct— that  it  ac- 
corded with  the  original. 

You  have  no  such  present  recollection  now  ?  A.  I  tes- 
tified, I  think,  that  I  had  a  partial  recollection  of  going 
to  the  offices  of  the  newspapers  in  the  evening  with  one 
of  the  gentlemen  named,  who  went  to  read  proof. 

Q.  Have  you  that  recollection  now  ?  A.  I  have  an  in- 
distinct recollection  now  of  going,  but  it  is  not  clear  in 
my  mind. 

Q.  And  that  that  was  the  purpose— to  read  proof  1  A. 
That  was  the  purpose,  if  I  went. 

Q.  You  saw  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  25th  of  June  ?  A.  I 
did. 

Q.  In  1873  ?   A.  1873. 

Q,  You  saw  him  on  the  26th  of  Jime,  I  believe.  1874, 
did  you  not?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  on  that  day,  first?  A.  I  saw 
him  at  his  house.  First,  I  saw  him  on  the  horse-cars, 
going  down  Beekman-st. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  was  that?  A.  About  4  o'clock, 
I  think. 

Q.  In  the  afternoon  ?  A.  In  the  afternoon. 

Q.  And  what  time  did  you  see  him  after  that  at  his 
house  ?  A.  Between  5  and  6. 

Q.  Did  you.  go  right  over  ?  A.  t  went  over  about  5 
o'clock. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  his  house?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  In  consequence  of  any  invitation?  A.  In  conse- 
quence of  an  invitation. 

Q.  What  is  that  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  what  I  understood  to  be 
an  invitation. 

Q.  In  the  afternoon  of  the  26th  of  June,  Mr.  Beecher 
suggested  the  names  of  certain  gentlemen,  did  he  not 
upon  whom  he  meant  to  call  to  investigate  the  charges 
contained  in  the  Bacon  letter?  A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  he  name  you  as  one  of  those  persons?  A.  He 
did. 


TESTTJIOXI    OF  HFXFY   M.  CLETFLAXD. 


161 


Q.  You  yreve  asked  tliat  question  -wlieii  you  \irere  ex- 
amined at  your  liouse,  were  you  not  J  A.  I  don't  re- 
member. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  ttiat  1 

Mr.  Shearman— XoTv.  your  Honor,  I  have  submitted  to 
a  great  many  ciuestions  being  asked  inthisindetinite^vay, 
but  I  noTv  insist  tliat  tlie  paper  siiall  be  siio^vn  to  tlie  -^t- 
ness. 

Mr.  Morris— I  will  do  that. 

Jud^e  Xeilson— Turn  to  the  question  and  answer. 
Mr.  Morris— I  will  do  that. 

Q.  "^ile  I  am  doing  this.  Mr.  Cleveland,  will  you  state 
the  names  oi  the  gentlemen  that  he  did  suggest  there  in 
the  afternoon  ?   A.  He  named  seven  or  eight,.  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris- That  does  not  hardly  answer  my  question. 

The  Witness— He  named  Hemw  TV.  Sage  ;  he  named 
Horace  B.  Claflin  ;  he  named,  in  fact,  all  the  members  of 
the  Coumiittee  but  one.  I  think. 

Q.  State  all  the  names  that  he  named?  A.  The  members 
of  the  Committee,  all  but  one,  I  think. 

Q.  Give  us  the  names  of  the  persons  that  he  named 
there  in  the  afternoon  ?  A.  He  named  all  the  members  of 
the  Committee— Mr.  Belcher,  ]!-Ir.  Hawkins,  Mr.  Shear- 
man. 

Q.  Which  Mr.  Shearman  ?  A.  Thomas  G.  Shearman. 

Q.  One  of  the  counsel  here.  Well,  have  you  named 
all  now  1  A.  That  is  as  I  recollect  it. 

Q.  You  say  3Ir.  Beecher  suggested  your  natne  ?  A.  I 
Think  he  did :  that  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  Any  doubt  al>out  it  ?  A.  I  haore  gi-eat  doubts  about 
anything  I  said  when  I  was  on  my  back. 

Q.  If  you  say  it  ncrw.  you  are  not  on  youxback  ?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  do  yoni  say  about  it  now  ?   A,  I  simply  state 
that  he  named  ?even  or  eight  gentlemen. 
Mr.  Morris— Xo.  no,  no  ;  that  is  not  my  question. 
Q.  Did  he  name  you  as  one  of  those  gentlemen  1 
Mr.  Shearman— He  has  answered  that  ali-eady. 
Mr.  Morris— How  has  he  answered  it? 
Mr.  Shearman— Hl^  said  he  did. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  now,  I  will  ask  you  this  question  : 
Can  you  recollect  any  name  he  suggested  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  he  has  m.entioned  the  names. 

Mr.  Morris— I  am  not  through  yet ;  I  will  go  back  p.  lit- 
tle further. 

Q.  Were  you  not  asked  this  question,  and  did  you  not 
make  the  following  answer  : 

Q.  What  names  did  he  suggest  ?   A.  I  cannot  recollect. 
Q.  Can  you  recollect  any  name  that  he  suggested  ?  A. 
I  cannot  state.  Sir. 
Q.  Didn't  he  suggest  you  ?   A.  He  did  not. 

A.  Then  I  desire  to  make  the  correction. 

Q.  That  is  not  correct?  Xow,  prior  to  his  naming  you 
at  one  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  the  afternoon 
ot  June  26,  had  Mr.  Beecher  advised  with  you  at  all  with 


reference  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  investigation?  A. 
Prior  to  that  afternoon  he  had  not. 

Q.  Did  he  that  afternoon  1   A.  He  did. 

Q.  Xow.  are  you  positive  that  prior  to  your  meeting 
him  at  his  house,  between  5  and  6  o'clock,  he  had  not 
advised  with  you  with  reference  to  thi  subject  matter  oi 
the  investigation?   A.  I  am  positive. 

Q.  You  are  positive  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— He  says  he  did.  If  I  understand  your 
question,  you  asked  him  if  he  did  not,  and  he  says  he  did. 

:Mr.  Beach— He  says  now  he  didn't. 

The  Witness— Will  you  repeat  the  question  1 

Mr.  Shearman— You  don't  understand  the  ciuestion. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  very  simple. 

M];.  Beach— The  question  is  plain  and  simple. 

Mr.  Evarts — Allow  me  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Morris,  will  you 
be  likely  to  be  through  with  the  witness  soon,  for  it  is  our 
usual  hotir  of  adjournment  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  no.  Sir ;  we  will  take  the  whole  after- 
noon. 

The  Witness— Will  you  please  finish  this  question  1 

Judge  Xeilson  [to  the  stenogrf^^her]— Bead  the  last 
few  questions  and  answers,  and  let  us  have  an  answer 
before  we  go. 

Mr.  Morris— Leave  it  as  it  is ;  it  is  right. 

:Mr,  Beach— Mr.  Cleveland  evidently  misunderstood  it. 

Judge  Xeilson— Let  the  stenographer  read  the  last  two 
questions  and  answers,  and  let  us  have  this  matter  fixed 
before  the  adjournment. 

Mr.  Mor!^— Bead  the  guestion. 

The  Tribime  stenographer  read  the  question  as  follows : 

"  Q.  Now,  prior  to  his  naming  you  as  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee,  on  the  afternoon  of  June  26,  had 
Mr.  Beecher  advised  with  you  at  all  tu  reference  to  the 
subject  matter  of  the  investigation?  A.  Prior  to  that 
afternoon  he  had  not. 

"  Q.  Did  he  that  afternoon?  A.  He  did. 

"  Q.  Now,  are  you  positive  that  prior  to  your  meeting 
him  afc  his  house  between  five  and  sis  o'clock  he  had  not 
advised  with  you  with  reference  to  the  subject  matter  of 
the  investigation  at  all  ?   A.  I  am  positive." 

Ju(](ge  Neilson — Are  these  answers  satisfactory? 

Mr.  Beach— He  says  he  met  him  in  the  course  of  that 
afternoon  prior  to  his  going  to  his  house. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  had  better  adjourn  now. 

Mr.  Morris— All  right.  It  is  time  for  recess,  and  we  will 
take  our  recess  accordingly. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  till  2  o'clock. 

THE  AFTEEXOOX  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Henry  M.  Cleveland  was  recalled  and  the  cross-ex- 
amination resumed. 

3Ir.  Morris— Mr.  Cleveland,  I  understand  jou  to  say 
that  you  saw  :Mi'.  Beecher  in  the  afternoon  of  the  26th  of 


162 


THE  TimON-BEblOHEB  TBIAL. 


June,  about  4  o'clock,  and  went  to  liis  house  between  5 
and  6.  You  said  that  you  went  by  invitation.  Will  you 
state  how  that  invitation  was  given  1  A.  By  a  beckoning 
from  a  car  in  Beekman-st. 

Q.  In  which  he  was  riding  %  A.  He  was  riding. 

Q.  And  that  you  think  was  about  4  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon ?  A.  As  I  recollect  it. 

Q.  And  you  went  to  his  house  in  consequence  of  his 
having  beckoned  to  you  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  your  former  testi- 
mony. Speaking  of  this  interview  at  Mr.  Beecher's 
house,  were  you  not  asked  this  question : 

"  Did  you  go  there  by  "  

Mr.  Shearman— "What  page  is  it  1 

Mr.  Morris— Page  90. 

*'  Did  you  go  there  by  invitation  ?  A.  I  did  not." 

Q.  Did  you  so  state  on  your  former  examiuation?  A.I 
don't  recollect ;  I  so  state  no-v5*-invitation  in  language. 

Q.  Well,  when  you  made  that  answer,  did  you  mean 
thart  you  had  not  been  invited  by  word  ?  A.I  did. 

Q.  And  you  at  that  time  did  not  regard  the  beckoning 
as  an  invitation,  as  you  now  regard  it  ?  A.  I  regarded  it 
as  an  act  of  invitation. 

Q.  Didryou  then  regard  ft  as  an  invitation  to  you  to  go 
and  see  him  ?  A.  An  invitation,  by  the  act. 

Q.  Yes,  and  you  said  that  you  did  not  go  by  invitation. 
Now  let  me  read  a  little  further: 

Had  you  seen  Mr.  Beecher  that  dayl  A.  I  saw  him 
that  day. 

Q.  Where?  A.  At  his  house. 

Q.  Before  you  went  to  his  house  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Did  you  so  testify  previously  ?  A.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  Beach— Show  him  the  minutes. 

Mr.  Morris— Look  there  at  the  minutes  and  say  whether 
you  did  or  not.  [Handing  witness  the  testimony.  |  It  is 
marked.  A.  I  meant  by  that  answer.  Sir,  that  I  had  no 
personal  meeting  or  conversation  with  Mr.  Beecher  that 
day  until  I  met  him  at  his  house. 

Q.  Ah !  This  question  is,  had  you  seen  him  before  you 
went  to  his  house  that  day,  and  you  answer  no ;  is  that 
true  ?  A.  I  could  not  have  answered  in  that  way. 

Q.  Well,  look  again,  and  say  whether  you  did  answer 
just  as  it  is  put  there.  A.  I  simply  say  in  regard  to 
that  

Q.  Didyoumaketheanswerjustasit  is  put  there,  in 
the  language  that  I  have  read  ?  A.  I  say  distinctly  

Q.  No,  no,  Mr.  Cleveland ;  did  you  answer  in  the  pre- 
cise language  as  recorded  there  by  the  stenographer  ?  A. 
If  I  

Q.  No,  no.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  1 
Judge  Neilson— State  your  recollection. 
Mr.  Morris— Did  you  or  did  you  not  ?    A.  I  may  have 
said  no,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  now  that  you  don't  recollect 
whether  you  did  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Morris,  I  don't  believe  this  can  be 
correctly  reported. 


Mr.  Morris— It  is  correctly  reported.  There  are  a  great 
many  things  that  you  imagine  are  not  correctly  reported. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  don't  believe,  if  your  Honor  please, 
that  this  can  be  a  correct  report. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  this  is  irregular. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  a  correct  report. 

Mr.  Beach— This  is  irregular. 

Mr.  Shearman— Why  is  it  iiregular  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Why,  for  you  to  dispute  the  stenographer's 
minutes  on  our  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  the  official  report  of  the  testimony 
taken  by  the  official  stenographer  of  this  Court,  and  is 
correct. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  go  on. 

Mr.  Shearman  [at  the  same  time]— I  say  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  I  say  it  is  correct.  Now,  Mr.  Cleve- 
land, is  it  true  that  you  had  not  seen  Mr,  Beecher  on  the 
26th  of  June,  before  you  went  to  his  house  between  5  and 
6  o'clock  ?  A.  It  ifl  not  true. 

Q.  It  is  not  true  ?   A.  That  is  not  a  true  answer. 

THE    INVESTIGATING    COMMITTEE  AP- 
POINTED. 

Q.  Very  well;  we  will  take  that.  You  have 
stated,  Mr.  Cleveland,  that  on  the  afternoon  at  your  in- 
terview with  Mr.  Beecher,  he  named  the  persons  who 
subsequently  acted  as  members  of  the  Investigating  Com- 
mittee, including  yourself.  Now,  were  any  additional 
names— persons  named  in  the  evening  by  Mr.  Beecher 
when  you  went  there  after  prayer-meeting?  A.  There 
were  seven  or  eight  names  discussed  at  the  interview  in 
the  afternoon,  and  again  in  the  evening. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  whether  

Judge  Neilson— He  says,  "  again  in  the  evening.'* 

Mr.  Morris  [continuing]— Whether  Mr.  Beecher  named 
any  persons  in  the  evening  who  subsequently  acted  as 
members  of  that  Committee? 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  answered  it. 

Mr.  Morris— How  did  he  answer? 

l\lv.  Evarts—"  Seven  or  eight  in  the  afternoon ;"  and 
they  were  discussed  again  in  the  evening. 

Mr.  Morris—"  Seven  or  eight  in  the  afternoon that  is 
not  an  answer, 

Mr.  Evarts—"  And  they  were  discussed  again  in  the 
evening." 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  an  answer. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  not  an  answer,  but  it  suggests 
another  question  to  me,  and  we  will  get  at  that.  Do  you 
say  that  there  were  seven  or  eight  named  in  the  after- 
noon ?   A.  I  do. 

Q.  Give  me  the  names  of  those. 

Mr.  Tracy— I  submit  that  the  witness  has  been  asked 
that  question. 
Mr.  Morris— No,  he  has  not  given  that, 
Mr.  Tracy— I  appeal  to  the  record. 
Mr.  Morris— Let  the  record  be  read. 


Ti:sTnioyF  of  he^ 

Judge  Neilson— He  said,  "  Seven  or  eight, " 
Mr.  Tracy— Seren  or  eiglit  ^vas  the  niun'ber  stated  by 
the  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  stated  all  the  number  that  were  ap- 
pointed  

.  Mr.  Morris— I  asked  hii-n  to  name  the  persons  whom  Mr. 
Beecher  suggested  in  the  afternoon,  and  he  gave  me 
some  names,  but  he  has  not  given  me  seven  or  eight. 
Now,  it  there  were  seven  or  eight  named  in  the  after- 
noon, I  want  to  Imow  who  they  were. 

Mr.  Evarts— Xow,  your  Honor,  this  is  a  pure  question 
of  fact. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  precisely  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  witness  testified  that  Mr.  Beecher 
named  all  the  persons  who  were  finally  on  the  Commit- 
tee, except  one,  and  then  gave  two  or  three  names  be- 
sides. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  what  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  makes  eight  people. 

Mr.  Beach— What  if  it  does  1 

IMi-.  Evarts— Mr.  Morris  said  it  did  not. 

Mr.  Beach— What  of  that? 

Mr.  Evarts— Nothing. 

Mr.  Morris— You  say  that  he  named  seven  or  eight  in 
the  afternoon;  I  dispute  it ;  now,  I  want  the  names. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  object. 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  recollect  how  many  he  named. 

Mr.  Tracy- T  appeal  to  the  record. 

Ml-.  Morris— We  both  appeal  to  it. 

Judge  Neilson— It  will  take  a  long  time  to  find  it. 

Mr.  Beach— We  have  another  fact  stated  in  regard  to  a 
transaction  in  the  evening,  and  we  want  to  bring  them 
together. 

Judge  Neilson— Can  you  readily  enuraerate  the  persons 
named  ia  the  afternoon  ? 

The  Witness— If  your  Honor  please,  I  wi]1  make  a  very 
short  statement  of  the  interview  in  the  afternoon  ? 

Judge  Neilson— He  wants  the  names. 

Mr.  Morris— I  am  not  asking  for  that,  Mr.  Cleveland. 

Judge  Neilson— Can  you  state  the  names  of  those 
named  in  the  afternoon  readily— the  names  under  discus- 
sion? 

]Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Cleveland,  wiU you aUow  me  to  caution 
you  to  name  only  those  whom  you  remember  to  have  been 
suggested  in  the  afternoon. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  in  the  afternoon.  They  were 
who? 

Mr.  Beach— That  is,  if  you  can  remember  them  as  dis- 
tinct from  those  named  in  the  evening. 

The  Witness— My  clearer  recollection  of  the  Interview 
in  the  afternoon— clearer  thari  when  T  was  examined 
upon  my  sick  bed— i--^  tjiut  

Mr  Morris— Mr.  Clevelam,  v.-ere  you  examined  upon 
your  feicl'  bed; 

Mr.  Tr-ic  •  i  cutmuT  tnat  Tlie  witness  should  be  permit- 
ted to  u,ii->  wer 


BY  M.    CLEYELAXB.  163 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  certainly.   Go  on. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  go  on ;  I  will  get  it  afterward 

Judge  Neilson— Go  on,  IVIr.  Cleveland. 

The  Witness— The  names  that  were  suggested  by  Mr. 
Beecher  that  afternoon  were  Henry  W.  Sage,  Horace  B. 
Claflin,  Augustus  Storrs,  Judge  Benedict,  Deacon  Haw- 
kins, Mr.  Garbut ;  I  am  not  clear  about  my  own ;  my 
name  was  mentioned  either  in  the  afternoon  or  in  the 
evening  ;  my  best  recollection  is  that  mine  came  in  tlie 
evening. 

Q.  Haven't  you  already  testified  that  you  were  named 
in  the  afternoon  ? 

Mr.  Evarts — Let  him  finish  his  answer. 

Mr.  Morris— He  has  got  through.  Haven't  you  already 
testified  that  you  were  named  by  Mr.  Beecher  in  the 
afternoon  ? 

Mr.  Evarts — Let  the  witness  answer  before  you  ask  an- 
other question. 

Mr.  Beach— If  any  other  names  were  stated,  he  can 
name  them. 

Mr.  Morris — I  understood  him  to  be  through. 

The  Witness — Those  were  the  principal  names. 

Q.  Any  others  named?  A.  I  cannot  swear  positively. 
There  were  some  seven  or  eight  or  nine  names  in  Mr. 
Beecher's  mind  that  afternoon. 

Q.  Now,  have  you  given  the  list  of  names  of  persons 
that  you  gave  on  your  examination  before  at  your  house  % 
A,  I  am  not  sure  that  I  have. 

Q.  Now,  who  were  named  in  the  evening  by  Mr. 
Beecher?  A.  About  the  same  list  of  names  was  dis- 
cussed in  the  evening ;  there  may  have  been  one  or  two 
changes. 

Q.  Did  he  name  any  additional  names  in  the  evening 
that  had  not  been  named  ia  the  afternoon  by  him  1  A. 
My  mind  is  not  clear  on  that. 

Q.  Didn't  he  name  Mr.  Winslowi  A.  Mr.  Wiaslow's 
name  was  before  the  conJerence  in  the  evening. 

Q.  Mr.  TSTiite.  Was  there  a  conference  in  the  evening 
with  reference  to  the  names  who  should  be  upon  the 
Committee?  .A.  That  question  was  discussed  in  the 
evening. 

Q.  Was  there  a  conference  upon  that  subject !  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  I  understood  you  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  named  aU 
the  persons  who  acted  upon  the  Committee  %  A.  You  un- 
derstood me  

Mr.  Shearman— With  one  exception. 

^Ir.  Morris— What  exception  was  tliat  t 

The  Witness— What  was  the  questioa  ? 

Q.  What  person  nid  not  Mr.  Beecher  name  who  formed 
a  part  of  that  Committee  ?  A.  My  recollection  Is  that  the 
name  of  :Mr.  Winslow  was  suggested  by  somebody 

Q.  Who  suggested  it  ?   A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Now  haven't  you  sworn,  3Ii'.  Cleveland,  that  yon 
suggested  no  name  of  that  Committee  f 

Mr.  Shearman-  Wair;  a  moment ;  I  object  to  that. 


164 


IBM   TILTON-BEBGEEB  TBIAL. 


ISx.  Morris— I  ask  you  the  question. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  it. 

Mr  Morris— What  is  the  objection  1 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  on  the  ground  that  it  must  be 
shown  to  the  witness ;  what  he  has  said  on  that  subject- 
ISO  pages  of  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Morris— We  will  find  it.  [To  the  witness.]  Is  that 
the  only  name  that  was  suggested  to  Mr.  Beecher  1  A. 
I  cannot  give  all  the  details  of  the  discussion  of  names 
that  afternoon  and  evening. 

Q.  I  am  not  aslring  you  about  that.  Is  that  the  only 
name  that  was  suggested  to  Mr.  Beecher  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Does  that  question  mean  at  any  time  1 

Mr.  Morris— At  the  conference  in  the  evening. 

Judge  Neilson— In  other  words,  do  you  recollect  any 
other  name.  Mr.  Cleveland,  that  was  suggested,  besides 
Mr.  Winslow's  ?  A.  It  is  true,  in  fact,  that  all  the  names 
were  suggested  to  Mr.  Beecher ;  that  is  to  say,  the  names 
were  in  the  minds  of  other  gentlemen  interested  in  that 
matter,  leading  names  in  Plymouth  Church  and  society, 
which  occurred  also  to  Mr.  Beecher  when  he  made  up  his 
mind  to  demand  an  investigation. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you  again  who  first  suggested  the  names 
who  acted  upon  that  Investigating  Committee,  with  the 
exception  of  Mr.  Winslow's  name? 

Mr.  Shearman— I  ask  that  the  counsel  let  the  witness 
understand  whether  he  is  referring  to  a  particular  inter- 
view, or  any  interview.  Of  course,  that  makes  a  material 
diflference. 

Mr.  Morris— I  am  referring  to  what  the  question  im- 
plies. I  ask  him  who  first  suggested  the  names  of  the 
persons  who  composed  that  Committee,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Mr.  Winslow.   That  is  a  very  simple  question. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  take  it  that  means  at  any  interview. 

Mr.  Morris- It  means  just  what  it  says. 

Judge  Neilson— It  must  be  either  the  afternoon  or  even- 
ing. You  are  really  inquiring  about  the  evening.  WeU, 
Mr.  Cleveland. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  means  at  any  interview. 

^tr.  :m orris— Oh,  never  mind,  Mr.  Shearman.  We  will 
get  along. 

Mr.  Slioarman— Wei!,  we  are  tiying  to  get  along. 

Mr.  Morris— I  dnn't  want  any  assistance.  [Examining 
the  testiiJiony  taken  at  Mr.  Cleveland's  house.J 

Ml .  Evarts— That  is  not  neces.sai-y. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  made  necessary  by  the  last  answer  of 
the  wrtiTiess. 

Mr.  Shearman— If  your  Honor  please,  this  remark  of 
counsel  obliges  me  to  say  tiiat  it  is  really  made  necessary 
by  the  fact  that  coimsel  undertakes  first  to  ask  separately 
ab<iut  two  interviews,  and  Mr.  Cleveland  answers  that 
diiivna  zhe  afternoon  interview  Mr.  Beecher  suggested 
ttuun-H.  that  at  the  evening  Interviews  names  were  sug- 
gested to  Mr.  Beecher.  Now  he  is  asked  a  question  as  to 
who  first  suggested  names ;  and  it  lea\'  es  the  matter  in 


doubt  in  the  witness's  mind  whether  he  is  asked  as  to 
one  interview,  or  to  botli  interviews. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  not  my  question.  My  question  is, 
Mr.  Cleveland,  who  first  suggested  the  names  of  the  gen- 
tlemen who  acted  upon  that  Committee,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Mr.  Winslow  ?  I  don't  think  there ,  is  any  am- 
biguity about  that  question. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  say  it  means  at  any  time. 

Mr.  Morris— Never  mind  what  it  means. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  do  mind  what  it  means. 

Mr.  Evarts— Of  course  it  is  important  what  it  means. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  a  very  simple  question. 

Judge  Neilson- You  must  allow  Mr.  Shearman,  how- 
ever, to  object,  when  he  thinks  there  is  occasion  for  it. 

Mr.  Morris— He  can  make  his  objection,  but  it  is  not 
proper  that  he  should  be  continuing  these  observations. 
Now,  I  ask  an  answer  to  that  question  in  that  precise 
form. 

Judge  Neilson— It  stands  this  way,  Mr.  Cleveland :  You 
think  you  suggested  Mr.  Winslow's  name.  Now  the  ques- 
tion is,  who  suggested  the  other  names?  A.  If  your 
Honor  please,  in  the  afternoon  interview  Mr.  Beecher 
named  seven  or  eight  persons  in  his  church  and  society 
out  of  whom  he  should  hope  to  find  a  Committee  that 
should  investigate  that  whole  matter. 

Mr.  Morris— My  

Mr.  Evarts  [to  the  Witness]— Well,  go  on. 

Mr.  Morris— Was  that  the  first  suggestion  as  to  the 
names  ?  A.  That  was  the  first  interview,  in  the  after- 
noon. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you  the  question  again.  Who  first  sug- 
gested the  names  of  the  persons  who  composed  the  Com- 
mittee, with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Winslow  ? 

Mr.  Tracy— I  submit  the  witness  has  answered  that 
question. 

Mr.  Morris— He  has  not. 

Mr.  Tracy— This  is-  the  third  time  it  has  been  put  and 
distinctly  answered. 

Mr.  Morris— It  has  not  yet  been  answered. 

Mr.  Tracy— If  the  policy  of  the  coimsel  is  to  repeat  the 
same  question  and  get  the  same  answer  all  day,  why,  let 
us  know  that.  The  witness  has  distinctly  stated  who 
were  the  names  that  were  first  suggested,  and  by  whom— 
Mr.  Beecher— in  the  afternoon  of  that  day.  That  was  the 
first  suggestion  that  had  been  made  of  names. 

Mr.  Beach— This  imputation.  Sir,  ought  not  to  be  per- 
mitted to  rest  upon  us.  We  ask  this  gentleman  who  first 
suggested  the  names  composing  this  Committee,  with  the 
exception  of  Mr.  Winslow.  Instead  of  answering  that 
question,  he  says  that  Mr.  Beecher,  in  the  afternoon,  sug- 
gested seven  or  eight  names  from  whom  he  hoped  the 
Committee  would  be  formed.  That  is  not  an  answer  to 
our  question.  Sir.  We  ask  who  suggested  the  names  that 
ultimately  formed  the  Committee,  with  the  exception  of 
Mr.  Winslow,  who  was  suggested  by  the  witness.  If  he 
will  make  an  answer  to  the  simple  question,  in  a  direct 


TESTIMO^NY  OF  HEN 

way,  it  mil  end  tlie  inquiry  on  tliat  subject,  and  not  till 
then. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  acting  on  that 
suggestion. 

Mr.  Shearman  [to  Mr.  Beach]— He  says  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Beach— I  know  he  says  Mr.  Beecher.  Why  can't  he 
say  so  at  once  1 

The  Witness— I  simply  say  in  answer  to  that  question 
that  Mr.  Beecher  named  in  the  first  interview  all  the  per- 
sons whose  names  I  have  given. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  not  the  question. 

Judge  Neilson— Proceed  ;  go  on,  Sir.  And  in  the  even- 
ing ?  A.  In  the  evening  that  list  of  names  was  discussed. 
I  cannot  remember  distinctly  what  the  suggestions  by 
other  gentlemen  were  in  the  evening.  There  was  a  con- 
ference in  the  evening  at  half -past  9. 

Mr.  Morris— Then,  Mr.  Cleveland  

Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment.  [To  the  witness.]  You 
are  not  certain,  I  understand,  Mr.  Cleveland,  whether 
your  name  was  mentioned  in  the  afternoon  or  the  even- 
ing, but  you  thought  in  the  evening,  I  understood  you  ? 
A.  It  was  in  the  afternoon  or  evening ;  I  am  not  posi- 
tive. 

Q.  Then  from  the  persons  thus  named,  as  you  have 
stated,  the  Committee  was  ultimately  selected?  A.  With 
the  exception  of  Judge  Benedict. 

Q.  He  was  one  of  those  named,  but  from  the  names 
thus  mentioned  the  Committee  was  ultimately  formed  1 
A.  It  was. 

[Mr.  Beach  here  turned  and  spoke  to  defendant's  coim- 
sel.l 

Mr.  Tracy  [to  Mr.  BeachJ— Sam.  Morris  wiU  repeat  that 
question  right  over. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  when  he  says  that  "  Sam.  Morris  wiU 
repeat  that  question  right  over,"  I  don't  notice  such  an 
insult  coming  fi-om  such  a  quarter.  A  man  that  stands 
in  that  position  has  no  right  to  offer  such  an  insult. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  stands  in  a  position  in  which  you 
will  never  stand  so  long  as  you  Uve. 

Judge  Neilson— One  moment. 

Mr.  Morris— I  say  it  is  a  gross  insult  for  counsel  to 
liave  made  that  remark. 

Judge  Neilson— Go  on,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Beach— This  is  getting  rather  personal. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  then,  Mr.  Cleveland,  I  imderstand 
you  as  saying  that  Mr.  Beecher  suggested  all  the  names 
in  the  afternoon  that  subsequently  composed  this  Com- 
mittee. Do  you  recollect  of  testifying  to  this  on  your 
former  examination : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  or  not  any  or  all  of  the 
names  of  the  Investigating  Committee  were  suggested 
to  Mr.  Beecher  by  the  persons  then  present  or  not  ?  A.  I 
think  they  were,  mainly. 

That  is  the  interview  in  the  evening.  Did  you  so  tes- 
tify] A.  I  think  likely. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  the  gentlemen  here  named  is 


BY  M.    CLEVELAND.  165 

members  of  this  Committee  were  the  same,  with  one  ex- 
ception, ^iS  those  who  had  been  suggested  to  Mr.  Beecher 
by  yourself  and  the  two  other  persons  present  on  Friday 
evening  1  A.  1  think  they  were. 

Did  you  so  testify  1  A.  I  don't  think  I  testified  that 
two  other  persona  

Q.  Look  at  it  and  see  if  you  think  that  was  it— on  your 
direct  examination  by  Mr.  Shearman.  [Handing  witness 
the  testimony."!  A.  I  beg  your  pardon,  Sir;  I  thought 
you  read  it  "  three  other  persons,"  which  included  

Q.  Well,  you  so  testified  as  I  have  read  then,  did  youl 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  that  correct  ?  A.  Correct  in  this  way,  that  the 
names  of  all  the  gentlemen  mentioned  by  both  sidea 
were  discussed  in  the  evening. 

Q.  All  the  names  mentioned  by  both  sides?  A.  By  Mr. 
Shearman  and  myself— Mr.  Beecher,  Mr.  Shearman,  and 
myself ;  the  names  were  discussed  in  the  evening. 

Q.  The  names  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  suggested  in  the 
afternoon  ?  A.  Came  up  in  the  evening. 

Q.  Who  took  part  in  that  discussion  in  the  evening!  A. 
Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Shearman. 

Q.  Who  1  A.  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  Who  else  1  A.  Mr.  Shearman. 

Q.  Who  else  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  how  much  I  had  to 

say  about  it. 

Q.  Who  else  was  present  ?  A.  Present  t  Gen.  Tracy. 

Q.  Did  he  take  any  part  in  the  discussion  ?  A.  He  did 
not ;  not  about  that. 

Q.  WeU,  Mr.  Cleveland,  how  came  that  meeting  about 
in  the  afternoon— how  was  It  brought  about  1  A.  It  came 
about  by  my  inviting  Mr.  Shearman  and  Gen.  Tracy,  I 
think,  to  go  over  to  Mr.  Beecher's. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  about  that?  That  is  my  recol- 
lection. 

Q.  And  that  was  after  the  Friday  night  prayer-meeting  t 
A.  That  was  after  the  Friday  night  prayer-meeting. 

Q.  And  how  came  you  to  invito  them  to  go  to  Mr, 
Beecher's  ?  A.  I  think  the  matter  came  up  between  Mr. 
Beecher  and  myself  in  the  afternoon  interview. 

Q.  And  in  consequence  of  that  interview  you  invited 
Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Shearman  to  go  around  there.  Mr, 
Shearman's  name  was  suggested  as  one  of  the  Committee 
also,  was  it  not  ?  A.  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Now,  you  are  sure  that  this  was  on  the  26th  of  June! 
A.  I  am  sure. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  invite  them  around  to  Mr.  Beecher's 
for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  proper  persons  to  be 
appointed  on  that  Committee  1  A.  No,  Sir,  not  specifically. 

Q.  For  that  purpose  ?  A.  Mr.  Beecher  desired  to  con- 
sult them. 

Q.  Well,  with  reference  to  the  appointment  of  the  Com- 
mittee—the pi'oper  persons  to  be  appointed?  A,  With 
reference  to  various  matters. 

Q.  What  matters— that  among  others,  was  It!  A. 
That  as  far  as— yes,  that  among  others. 


166 


TEE    ULTON-BEECHER  IRLAL. 


Q.  Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  let  us  look  a  little  further. 
You  are  sure  about  that,  are  you,  that  that  was  one  of 
the  topics  to  he  discussed  that  evening  with  Gen  Tracy  ? 
A.  I  am  sure  that  the  question  of  the  Committee  was  dis- 
cussed. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  that  was  one  of  the  topics  that  Mr. 
^carman's  and  Mr.  Tracy's  presence  was  desired  to  dis- 
cuss—the selection  of  proper  persons  to  compose  the 
Committee  ? 

Sir.  Shearman— One  moment,  if  your  Honor  please.  I 
object  to  this  question.  This  is  a  question  as  to  what 
Gen.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Shearman  proposed  to  discuss. 

Mr.  Morris— No,  no ;  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— They  are  not  fortunate  enough  to  be 
Henry  Ward  Beecher.  I  have  no  objection  to  any  ques- 
tion as  to  what  Mr.  Beecher  desired  to  discuss ;  but  what 
they  desired  to  discuss  is  of  no  importance. 

Mr.  Morris— You  say  that  you  invited  them  around  in 
consequence  of  your  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher,  Now, 
I  ask  you  agaia  if  the  question  as  to  the  selection  of 
proper  persons  to  compose  the  Committee  was  one  of  the 
reasons  that  Mr.  Tracy's  and  Mr.  Shearman's  presence 
was  desired  at  Mr.  Beecher's  that  night  ?  A.  Mr. 
Beecher  gave  no  special  reasons  for  their  being  there  that 
evening,  except  that  he  wanted  to  consult  some  of  his 
legal  friends. 

Q.  With  reference  to  what  ?  A.  With  reference  to  this 
matter. 

Q.  What  matter  ?  A.  The  matter  of  investigation. 
Q.  What  matter— wasn't  it  mentioned  ? 
Mr.  Shearman— He  just  stated. 
The  Witness— The  investigation. 

Q.  Well,  what  about  that  did  he  want  to  discuss  ?  A. 
It  was  a  matter  that  I  did  not  ask  him  specially. 

Q,.  Had  he  any  doubt  upon  any  questions  that  were 
suggested  ?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  he  had  or  not. 

Q.  Were  any  suggested  1  A.  He  wanted  to  take  legal 
advice. 

Q.  To  what  end— he  wanted  to  take  legal  advice,  and 
Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Shearman  were  invited  around  for 
that  purpose,  to  give  him  the  legal  advice  that  he  de- 
sired %  A.  They  were  invited  around. 

Q.  To  give  the  legal  advice  that  he  desired  1  A.  To  see 
Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  And  to  give  the  legal  advice  that  he  desired  ?  A.  To 
do  what  Mr.  Beecher  wanted  to  do,  I  suppose. 

Q.  Were  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Tracy  that  day 
had  published  a  statement  declaring  that  he  was  not  Mr. 
Beecher's  ceunsel?  A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Cleveland,  you  was  appointed  one  of  the 
members  of  this  Committee  1  A.  I  was. 

Q.  You  was  a  personal  friend  of  Mr.  Beecher's  1  A.  Very 
great. 

Q.  Your  relatione  confidential?  A.  Very. 
Q.  But  he  had  not  taken  your  advice  or  talked  with  you 
with  reference  to  these  difiiculties  that  were  to  be  inves- 


tigated prior  to  your  appointment  ?  A.  I  am  sorry  to  say 
he  had  not. 

Q.  When  had  you  first  heard  of  the  difficulty  that  was 
involved  in  that  tavestigation— Mr.  Beecher's  relations 
with  Mrs.  Tilton  ?   A.  WUl  you  repeat  the  question.  Sir  1 

Q.  When  had  you  first  heard  of  the  diflaculties  that 
were  to  be  investigated  by  that  Committee— the  charges 
contained  ia  the  Bacon  letter,  or  the  matters  referred  to 
in  the  Bacon  letter  ?  A.  I  had  never  heard,  except  the 
common  report  of  an  impure  proposal  by  Mr.  Beecher, 
which  was  in  the  air. 

Q.  You  had  never  seen  the  Woodhull  &  Claflhi  publica- 
tion ?  A.  I  had ;  I  read  that. 

Q.  There  was  some  matter  of  that  kind  intimated  there, 
wasn't  there  ?   A.  I  read  that. 

Q.  Yes ;  and  had  you  prior  to  that  time  ever  had  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Beecher  upon  the  subject?  A.  About 
his  difference  with  Mr.  Beecher,  do  you  mean? 

Q.  About  Mr.  Beecher's  relations  with  his  wife?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  were  a  member  of  the  Examining  Committee  in 
1873,  were  you  not  ?   A.  I  was  not.  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  cease  to  be  a  member  of  the  Ex- 
amining Committee?  A.  I  have  not  ceased  to  be  yet.  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  become  one  ?  A.  1874,  January. 

THE  WEST  CHAEGES. 

Q.  In  1874 — you  recollect  the  West  charges'? 
A.  I  have  an  tadistinct  recollection  about  them. 

Q.  Haven't  you  a  very  distinct  recollection  about  themi 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  become  aware  of  them  at  the  time  or 
near  the  time  that  they  were  preferred  ?  A.  I  think  I 
did. 

Q.  And  how  did  you  learn  the  fact  ?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect; heard  them  talked  about  ia  the  

Q.  Church?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  among  the  Plymouth  people. 

Q.  Yes,  a  matter  very  generally  discussed  there,  or 
talked  about,  wasn't  it  ?  A.  I  don't  know  how  much. 

Q.  Haven't  you  so  stated?  A.  Possibly. 

Q.  Very  generally?    A.  Very  likely. 

Q.  And  you  knew,  tlierefore,  that  Mrs.  Brad- 
shaw's  name  was  connected  with  those  charges  as  a 
witness,  did  you  not  ?  A.  I  had  heard  that  her  name  was 
connected  with  the  charges. 

Q.  Yes  ;  as  a  witness  to  substantiate  one  of  the  specifi- 
cations ?  A.  I  knew  nothing  about  her  being  a  witness, 
that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Hadn't  you  heard  her  name  spoken  of  in  that  con- 
nection ?  A.  I  had  heard  her  name  spoken  of  In  connec- 
tion with  the  charges. 

Q.  How  in  connection  with  the  charges  1  A.  I  don't— 
name  appeared;  I  think,  m  the  charges. 

Q.  In  what  connection?  A.  I  don't  recollect  distinctly ; 
I  have  not  seen  them  for  a  long  time,  if  ever. 

Q.  Well,  wasn't  it  a  matter  of  general  talk  among  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  BENEY  M,  CEEVELAI^D. 


167 


members  of  that  cliurcli,  the  West  charges,  and  fteir  na- 
ture and  what  they  were  ?  A.  I  have  no  doubt  ol  it. 

Q.  And  do  you  think  that  there  were  any  persons  who 
were  regular  attendants  upon  that  church  that  did  not 
know  of  the  charges  1  A.  Oh,  I  have  no  thought  about  it. 

Mr.  Tracy— "We  submit  that  is  inadmissible.  I  object  to 
the  CLuestion. 

Judge  Neilson— He  says  he  does  not  know,  and  very 
natm-ally  he  might  not  know. 

Mr.  Morris— You  never  saw  the  charges  ?  A.  I  didn't 
say  that. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  1  A.  I  did  at  some  time. 
Q.  Well,  when  did  you  first  see  the  charges  ?  A.  I  don't 
recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  Before  the  appointment  of  this  Committee  ?  A.  I 
have  no  recollection  about  it. 

Q.  Can't  you  state  whether  it  was  before  or  after  the 
26th  of  June,  18741   A.  I  don't  

Q.  What  is  your  best  impression  upon  that  i  A.  I  have 
no  recollection  about  it. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  try  and  see  if  I  can  refresh  your  recol- 
lection a  little.  You  say  that  they  were  the  subject  of 
general  conversation  among  the  members  of  Plymouth 
Church  ?  Now,  can't  you  give  us  any  impression  as  to 
whether  that  was  before  the  26th  of  June,  1874,  or  not  1 
A.  My  present  impression  is  that  I  never  read  those 
charges  until  I  saw  them  incorporated  in  IVIr.  TUton's 
last  statement ;  that  is  my  present  recollection. 

Q.  Had  you,  before  you  were  appointed  on  that  Com- 
mittee, become  aware  that  Mrs.  Bradshaw's  name  was 
attached  to  these  charges  in  connection  with  this  speci" 
flcation  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Now,  if  it  please  your  Honor,  T  have 
allowed  this  without  objection  to  go  on  a  long  way. 
Mr.  Morris— I  thank  you  for  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  do  not  know  in  what  respect  this  is 
material,  or  what  Mr.  Cleveland's  knowledge  before  he 
went  on  this  Committee  has  to  do  with  it  at  all.  If  the 
gentleman  can  suggest  any  reason,  I  am  willing  to  be  in- 
structed.  How  does  it  bear  on  Mr.  Beecher  f 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  see.  The  only  idea  is  that  it 
might  be  preliminary  to  some  anestion  that  would  be 
proper.  Sometimes  you  inquire  as  to  the  knowledge  and 
information  of  the  witness,  with  a  view  to  something 
that  may  be  material,  that  you  intend  to  come  at 
by-and-by. 

Mr.  Shearman— WeU,  I  ask  respectfully  that  the  gen- 
tleman state  what  the  material  point  is  to  which  he  pro- 
poses to  come.  We  have  spent  some  twenty  minutes  on 
this,  and  I  cannot  see  the  materiality  of  it  yet. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  not  my  fault. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  did  not  object  to  it  in  the  first  place 
in  hopes  that  he  would  get  through  with  it,  and  save 
time ;  but  now  I  do  object  to  it  unless  some  statement  is 
to  be  made. 

Judge  Neilson— Counsel  cannot  always  state  an  cross- 


examination— cannot  always  very  well  state  what  he  e^ 
pects  to  arrive  at. 

Mr.  Shearman— If  I  could  imagine  any,  I  would  not  ob- 
ject. 

Mr.  Morris— I  am  not  responsible  for  the  gentleman's 

imagination,  or  want  of  it. 
Judge  Neilson— Proceed. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  I  ask  yon  if  this  that  I  am  about  to 
read  was  not  the  subject  of  general  talk  among  the  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  prior  to  the  26th  of  June,  1874 ! 
[Beading:] 

At  an  interview  with  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  in  Thompson's 
dining-rooms  in  Clinton-st.,  on  or  about  the  2d  of  August, 
1870,  Theodore  TUton  stated  that  he  had  discovered  that 
a  criminal  intimacy  existed  between  his  wife  and  Mr. 
Beecher.  Afterward,  in  November,  1872,  referring  to  the 
above  conversation,  Mr.  Tilton  said  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw 
that  he  retracted  none  of  the  accusations  which  he  had 
formerly  made  against  Mr.  Beecher. 

Witness— Mrs.  Andrew  Bradshaw. 

Q.  Now,  wasn't  that  the  subject  of  general  conveisation 
among  the  members  of  the  church  prior  to  the  26th  of 
June,  1874  ? 

Mr.  Tracy— I  object  to  that. 

JudgeNeilson— I  think  we  will  take  it  on  cross-exam- 
ination. 

Mr.  Tracy— I  did  not  hear  the  last  observation  of  your 
Honor. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  wlU  take  it ;  it  is  on  cross- 
examination. 

Mr.  Tracy— Supposing  it  is,  your  Honor.  This  is  an  at- 
tempt to  prove  the  fact  that  a  particular  charge  was  the 
subject  of  general  conversation  in  Plymouth  Church. 
Now,  is  that  legitimate  evidence  in  this  case  1  Is  it  a  fact 
that  is  proper  to  be  proved  in  that  way,  that  a  particular 
fact  was  the  subject  of  general  conversation  1 

Judge  Neilson— To  show  that  it  came  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  witness ;  that  is  the  vital  point. 

Mr.  Tracy— They  may  ask  him  when  it  first  came  to  his 
Imowledge,  if  that  is  material? 

Judge  Neilson— He  was  asking  it  a  moment  ago. 

Mr.  Tracy— That  is  not  the  question ;  they  ask  the 
witness  when  he  first  learned  of  it.  They  are  seeking  by 
this  question  to  prove  that  the  particular  fact  was  the 
subject  of  general  conversation  in  the  society.  Now,  I 
submit  that  that  is  not  competent  evidence.  It  is  not 
competent  to  prove  the  fact. 

Judge  Neilson— A  little  whUe  ago  the  counsel  did  ask 
him  when  it  first  came  to  his  knowledge ;  and  now  he 
asks  him,  I  suppose,  with  a  view  of  helping  him  to  that 
fact. 

:Mr.  Tracy— But  if  he  has  answered  the  question— the 
witness  has  answered  that. 

Judge  Neilson— He  don't  tell  us  when  it  first  came  to 
his  knowledge. 

Mr.  Morris— We  haven't  got  an  answer  to  that  yet.  I 
am  making  this  preparatory  to  repeating  that  question 
again. 


THE   TILION-BKECEEB  TBIAL. 


168 

Mr.  Tracy— TLien,  I  suppose,  your  Honor,  if  the  witness 
is  interrogated  as  to  the  general  conversations,  we  are 
permitted  to  know  what  the  general  conversations  were ! 

Mr.  Shearman— We  are  willing  to  take  this,  provided 
we  ara  permlttted  to  show  the  conversations  and  what 
was  said  about  Mr.  Tilton  in  Plymouth  Church. 

Judge  Neilson— It  would  not  open  the  door  to  that. 

Mr.  Morris  [to  the  Witness]— Tyhen,  Mr.  Cleveland, 
did  this  charge  that  I  have  read  first  come  to  your 
knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Tracy— That  I  don't  object  to. 

Judge  Neilson— Well. 

The  Witness— Probably  during  the  Summer. 

Q.  What  Summer  %  A.  1873,  if  that  was  the  year ;  I 
forget  about  it. 

Q.  Yes;  during  the  Summer  of  1873.  Well,  Mr.  Cleve- 
land, when  did  this  Committee  first  meet  %  A.  Had  an 
Informal  conference,  four  members  of  it,  on  Sunday,  the 
28th  of  June. 

Q.  And  where  was  that  informal  conference  held  1  A. 
At  Augustus  Storrs's,  in  Monroe-place. 

Q.  Was  the  Committee  then  organized  1  A.  It  was  not. 

Q.  Any  statements  made— any  testimony  taken  1  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  When  was  the  next  meeting  of  the  Committee  1  A. 
There  were  several  informal  meetings  during  that  week. 

Q.  That  is  not  my  question ;  when  was  the  next  meet- 
ing ?  A.  The  first  regular  formal  meeting  for  business 
was  on  the  10th  of  July. 

Q.  Was  that  my  question!  A.  You  asked  me  when  the 
Committee  next  met. 

Q.  You  say  there  was  a  meeting  on  the  28th— Sunday 
night,  the  28th ;  I  ask  you  when  the  next  meeting  was. 
I  did  not  ask  you  for  any  formal  or  informal  meeting. 
Now,  when  did  they  meet,  subsequent  to  that,  next  % 

Mr.  Shearman— Either  formal  or  informal. 

The  Witness— I  replied  that— well,  on  Monday  night. 

Mr.  Morris— On  Monday  night;  and  who  were  present 
on  Monday  night  1  A.  I  cannot  recollect.  Sir. 

Q.  As  near  as  you  can  recollect  ? 

Mr.  Tracy— I  object  to  that  question,  your  Honor.  I 
desire  to  raise  the  question  now  whether  we  are  to  have 
every  meeting  of  the  Investigating  Committee,  and  what 
transpired  on  the  meeting,  I  suppose,  the  fact  being  that 
the  proceedings  of  that  Committee  are  entirely  immaterial 
here  as  a  committee.  Anything  that  the  counsel  wants 
to  inquire  about  that  this  witness  did  as  a  com- 
mitteeman, he  is  at  liberty  to  inquire  about;  but  I  sub- 
mit that  it  is  not  worth  while  for  us  to  spend  the  time  of 
the  Court  in  investigating  the  Investigating  Committee, 
or  in  taking  evidence  as  to  the  number  of  their  meetings. 
I  have  not  the  slightest  objection,  make  none,  to  any  in- 
quiry as  to  what  this  witness  did  as  a  committeewian  at 
all.  In  that  I  concede  they  have  the  fullest  scope. 

Mr.  Beach— This  would  seem  to  be  withta  that  scope. 


Mr.  Morris— Who  was  present  at  that  meeting  on  Mon- 
day evening? 

Mr.  Tracy— At  the  time  when  the  Committee  met ;  or, 
who  were  present  at  each  of  these  meetings  %  That  is 
the  poiat  of  my  objection.  I  submit  that  if  he  was 
present,  you  may  show  anything  that  he  did  or  anything 
that  he  said  as  a  committeeman. 

Judge  Neilson— If  that  were  bo,  you  could  show  the 
time  when  and  who  also  were  present. 

Mr.  Tracy— I  don't  think  you  could.  All  I  care  about  it 
is  this,  to  know  whether  the  time  of  the  Court  is  to  be 
taken  to  go  through  with  each  meeting  of  the  Committee. 
I  suppose  the  rule  to  be  that  the  only  object  of  this  in- 
quiry is  to  show  the  bias  of  this  witness.  It  can  have  no 
other  legitimate  purpose  than  that;  and  if  that  is  the  ob- 
ject, they  can  inquire  as  to  what  this  witness  did  as  a 
committeeman,  or  anywhere  else,  in  any  capacity  that  he 
has  acted  affecting  this  case.  To  that  we  have  not  the 
slightest  objection  at  all. 

Judge  Neilson— That  may  be  the  object ;  I  cannot  tell. 

Mr,  Beach— I  submit  that  that  Committee  and  its  ac- 
tions has  altogether  a  broader  scope  than  the  counsel 
suggests  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Morris— It  has.  We  don't  narrow  it  down  to  any 
such  simple  compass  as  that.  I  am  glad  to  see  the  inter- 
est of  counsel  upon  the  other  side  as  to  the  time  of  the 
Court. 

Mr.  Tracy— No  interest  about  it. 

Mr.  Morris— As  to  the  time  of  the  Court,  whenever  we 
have  a  witness  we  wish  to  examine  ;  but  they  seem  to 
forget  it  when  it  is  their  own  case.  I  think  they  have 
taken  up  a  good  deal  more  time  than  we  have  with  mat- 
ters that  your  Honor  has  suggested  were  immaterial. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  only  suggest  that  the  Court  should 
limit  the  coimsel  in  the  line  of  hie  examination  ;  that 
is  all.  , 

Mr.  Morris— The  question  is  perfectly  proper  and  per- 
fectly legitimate. 
Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  witness  can  answer  when 

the  next  meeting  was  

Mr.  Morris— He  says  Monday  night. 
The  Witness— Monday  night. 

Mr.  Moi  ris— Now,  who  were  present  1  that  is  the  ques- 
tion. A.  AU  the  members  of  the  Committee,  I  think,  but 
Mr.  White  ;  that  is  my  recollection,  I  mean. 

Q.  Was  a  formal  organization  of  the  Committee  then 
effected  1   A.  On  Monday  or  Tuesday  evening,  I  think. 

Q.  On  that  night  I  am  speaking  about. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  answers. 

The  Witness— I  am  not  certain  whether  it  was  that 
night  or  the  next. 

Mr.  Morris— Either  that  or  the  next  night  ?  A,  Either 
that  or  the  next. 

Q.  Then  there  was  a  meeting  on  Tuesday  night  again^ 
at  which  there  was  a  formal  organization,  if  it  was  not 


TESTIMONY  OF 

effected  on  Monday !  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  there 
was. 

Q.  Very  -vrell.  You  say  the  formal  organization  was 
effected  Monday  night,  or  the  following  night;  that 
would  be  Tuesday,  wouldn't  it  ?  A.  If  it  was  not  on 
Monday  night,  it  was  on  Tuesday  night ;  I  forget  

Q.  Now,  were  any  other  persons  present  except  the 
gentlemen  that  you  have  named— members  of  the  Com- 
mittee ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Whol  A.  The  stenographer,  Mr.  Ellinwood. 

Q.  Who  else  1  any  one  else?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that 
any  one  else  was  present  that  evening. 

Q.  Any  of  the  counsel  there?  A.  My  recollection  is 
that  they  were  not  there. 

Q.  Well,  on  Tuesday  night,  who  were  present  1  A.  I  do 
not  recoUect  about  the  Tuesday  night  meeting. 

Q.  When  was  the  next  meeting  1  A.  I  do  not  recollect 
the  interviews  of  that  week. 

Q.  Can  you  state  when  the  next  meeting  of  the  Commit- 
tee was  I    A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  You  had  a  meeting  on  the  6th  of  July  t  A.  We  did 
not  have  a  business  meeting. 

Q.  Mr.  Cleveland,  didn't  the  Committee  meet  at  Mr. 
Ovington's  house  on  July  the  6th  ]  A.  Five  members  of 
the  Committee  met  there. 

Q.  That  was  a  Committee,  wasn't  it  1  A.  That  was  a 
Conmiittee— five. 

Q.  And  the  Committee  had  then  been  organized  ?  A. 
The  Committee  had  appointed  a  Chairman. 

Q.  Yes,  it  was  organized— the  Committee— a  regular 
Committee  1  A.  Organized. 

Q.  Very  well,  and  you  went  to  Ovington's  on  July  the 
6th?  A.  We  did. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  EUinwood,  the  stenographer,  there  1  A.  I 
think  he  was. 

Q.  Now,  who  were  the  five  persons  there— what  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  i  A.  All  but  Mr.  White,  I  think. 

Q.  AU  but  Mr.  White.  And  who  of  the  counsel  i  A. 
Gen.  Tracy  was  there. 

Q.  Yes ;  who  else  1  A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Mr.  HiU?  A.  I  do  not  recoUect  whether  te  was 
there. 

Q.  Mr.  Shearman?  A.  I  do  not  recoUect. 

Q.  WeU,  Mrs.  TUton  was  before  the  Committee  that 
night?  A.  Mrs.  TUton  was  before  the  Committee. 

Q.  Yes;  she  made  a  statement?  A.  She  did. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Ellinwood,  the  shorthand  reporter,  took  it 
down  ?  A.  I  think  so ;  I  have  forgot  about  it. 

Q.  And  the  Committee  met  there  for  the  purpose  of 
hearing  her  statement,  didn't  they?  A.  The  Committee 
went  there  to  meet  her. 

Q.  For  tiiat  express  purpose?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  now  do  you  state  again  that  the  first  formal 
meeting:  f'f  that  Committee  was  on  the  11th  of  July  ?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Yon  ftorrect  that ;  you  said  a  whUe  ago  that  it  was 


RY   M.    CLEVELAND.  169 

the  llth.  A.  I  beg  your  pardon;  I  said  it  was  on  the 
10th. 

Q.  The  10th ;  well,  do  you  now  say  that  the  first  formal 
meeting  of  that  Committee  was  on  the  10th  of  July?  A 
I  say  so  distinctly. 

Q.  You  do  ?  Well,  you  say  you  went  to  Ovington's— the 
Committee  did— for  the  purpose  of  taking  Mrs.  Tilton's 
statement?   A.  We  went  to  Mrs.  

Q.  The  Chairman  had  been  appointed;  the  stenographer 
was  there,  and  coimsel  were  there,  and  her  statement  was 
taken.   Well,  we  wiU  have  it  stand  at  that. 

Mr.  Shearman — Better  ask  the  question,  it  seems  to  me. 

Mr.  Morris— No,  I  wiU  let  it  stand  there.  July  6th— 
what  day  of  the  week  was  that  ?  A.  I  think  that  was  on 
Monday,  Sir. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  evening  did  the  Committee   A. 

I  can't  state  the  time. 

Q.  [Continuing]  Commence  taking  the  statement?  A. 
I  don't  recollect  the  precise  time. 

Mr.  Tracy— Whose  statement  are  you  referring  to  1 

THE  COMJVIITTEE  AND  MRS.  TILTON'S  STATE- 
MENT. 

Mr.  Morris— Mrs.  Tilton's.  [To  the  witness.] 
That  statement,  as  made  there  that  night,  has  never  been 
published,  has  it  ?  A.  It  has  not,  Sir,  by  itself. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  the  stenographer'  •minutes  of  it  ?  A. 
I  never  have. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  became  of  them  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Were  not  the  stenographers  directed  at  the  con- 
clusion of  your  investigation  to  deUver  up  their  notes  to 
the  Committee  ?  A.  I  presume  so,  Sir ;  I  do  not  recoUect 
about  that. 

Q.  And  what  has  the  Committee  done  with  them  ?  A. 
They  are  in  the  hands  of  the  Examining  Committee  of 
Plymouth  Church. 

Q.  All  the  statements  made  before  that  Committee  ?  A. 
I  cannot  swear  that  all  of  them  are ;  I  know  of  no  excep- 
tion, and  yet  I  don't  know  

Q.  Do  you  know  who  delivered  them  to  the  Examining 
Committee  ?   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Was  there  any  action  taken  by  your  Committee  upon 
that  subject— any  one  directed  to  do  that?  A.  My  im- 
pression is  they  were  deUvered  to  the  clerk  of  the  church 
to  be  handed  over  to  the  Examining  Committee. 

Q.  And  who  was  the  clerk  of  the  church  ?  A.  Tx^omas 
G.  Shearman. 

Q.  Well,  did  the  Committee  direct  him  to  hand  them 
over  to  the  Examining  Committee  ?  A.  The  Committee 
were  directed  by  their  appointment  to  make  its  returns 
to  the  Examining  Conmiittee. 

Q.  No,  no,  that  is  not  the  question.  A.  I  do  not  recol- 
lect that  they  did. 

Q.  Was  there  any  action  taken  by  the  Committee  upon 
that  subject  1   A.  I  do  not  recoUect  any. 

Q.  Why  do  you  say  that  yoiu*  Impression  is  that  Mr 


170 


IHE   TILTON-BEEGREE  IBIAL, 


Shiearman  was  directed  to  hand  tliem  over  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  church  ?  A.  I  did  not  say  that  Mr.  Shear- 
man was  directed ;  I  said  my  impression  was  they  were 
handed— given  to  Mr.  Shearman  to  he  delivered  to  the 
Examining  Committee. 

Q.  Given  to  him  hy  whom  1  A.  By  the  Committee. 

Q.  Well,  which  member  of  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  have 
no  recollection  ahout  that. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  upon  the  subject  at  all  1  A. 
The  notes  must  have  gone  from  the  stenographer. 

Q.  I  do  not  want  your  reasoning ;  hut  have  you  any  rec- 
ollection 1  A.  I  have  none. 

Q.  No  recollection  that  they  were  delivered  to  Mr. 
Shearman  at  all  ?  A.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  it. 

Q.  You  have  no  knowledge  of  it  1  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Have  you  no  recollection  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  No  recollection  ?  A.  None. 

Q.  And  no  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Tracy— Well,  that  is  four  times  he  has  said  that. 

Q.  Why  did  you  refer  to  him  then  as  the  person.  A. 
Because,  Sir,  by  virtue  of  the  condition  of  the  appointment 
of  the  Investigating  Committee,  it  was  to  make  its  ex- 
amination and  find  its  results,  and  report  to  the  Examin- 
ing Committee  of  Plymouth  Church.  Mr.  Shearman  was 
Clerk  of  the  church,  and  while  I  recollect  nothing  about 
it  

Q.  Was  he  Clerk  of  the  Examining  Committee  1 

Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  moment,  let  us  hear  him. 

The  Witness— He  was  Clerk  of  Plymouth  Church.  My 
impression  about  it  is,  and  that  is  sLmpIy  an  impression, 
that  that  matter  was  sent  to  the  Examining  Committee 
through  the  Clerk,  the  proper  oflicer  of  the  church. 

Q.  Is  there  a  Clerk  of  the  Examining  Committee  in- 
dependent of  the  Clerk  of  the  church  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Who  was  that  person— what  is  his  name  1  A.  I 
think  Mr.  Talmage  was  then  ;  I  forget. 

MR.  TILTON  BEFORE  THE  COMMITTEE. 

Q.  Well,  when  was  the  next  meeting  of  the 
Committee  after  the  6th  1  A.  10th  of  July. 

Q.  10  th  of  July ;  and  where  was  that  meeting  held  1 
A.  That  was  at  Augustus  Storrs's. 

Q.  And  who  were  present  there  1  A.  I  think  the  fuU 
Committee,  but  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  swear, 
at  any  meeting  for  30  days  or  60  days,  to  the  full  meet- 
ing of  the  Committee. 

Q.  Who  was  before  tne  Committee  that  night  i  A.  The- 
odore Tnton. 

Q.  What  time  did  he  get  to  the  Committee  1  A.  I 
should  say  at  9  o'clock  in  the  evening. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  remain  there  ?  A.  Well,  I  cannot 
pay  •  from  one  to  two  hours,  more  or  less. 

(4  id  you  receive  a  communication  while  he  was  be- 
1.     laq  Committee  from  any  person  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  From  whom  1   A.  Mrs.  Ovington. 

Q.  What  was  it  1   A.  I  cannot  state  the  details  of  it. 


Q.  A  note  1  A.  A  note  ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  that  note  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  You  don't  know  where  it  is  ?  A.  I  don't. 

Q.  Now,  give  us  the  purport  of  that  note  1 

Mr.  Shearman— We  object  to  that,  your  Honor,  ol 
course.  What  has  that  got  to  do  with  Mr.  Tilton  or  Mr. 
Beecher  1 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  see  what  it  has  to  do,  myself. 

Mr.  Morris— W-ell,  I  can  state  to  your  Honor  very  clearly 
and  plainly  what  it  has  to  do.  It  is  simply  in  the  direct 
line  of  proof  that  we  have  already  given  upon  that  sub- 
ject that  has  been  gone  into.  I  propose  to  connect  it 
with  the  fact  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  abandoning  her  home  the 
next  morning,  simultaneously  with  the  annoimcement  of 
this  Committee,  because  no  public  knowledge— there  was 
no  public  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  the  Committee 
prior  to  that.  I  propose  to  show  that  it  was  a  part  of  the 
conspiracy,  entered  into  deliberately,  as  we  will  show,  to 
get  Mrs.  Tilton  to  abandon  her  home,  and  get  possession 
of  her  before  the  Committee  was  announced,  and  this  is 
a  link  in  the  chain  of  that  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  trouble  is,  if  your  Honor  please,  that 
no  chain,  however  strong,  between  Mrs.  Ovington  and  Mr. 
Cleveland  is  a  part  of  any  such  link  that  affects  us. 

Mr.  Morris— We  will  see  about  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  is  my  proposition  to  have  it 
seen  now ;  now  is  the  time  to  see  it. 

Mr.  Morris—  Well;  I  think  it  is  quite  apparent. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  it  was  a  note  by  Mrs.  Ovington ; 
we  will  see  what  it  is  ;  see  what  the  note  is. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  what  was  the  purport  of  that  note  1 

Mr.  Evarts— We  object,  if  your  Honor  please,  to  this 
evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  except  to  the  admission  of  it. 

Mr.  Morris— What  was  the  purport  of  it  ?  A.  My  reool- 
lection— my  positive  recollection  about  that  note  is  that 
it  was  an  inquiry  if  Mr.  Tilton  was  before  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Q.  Precisely,  and  did  you  convey  information  to  her 
that  he  was  before  the  Committee  that  night  1  A.  I  did ; 
I  conveyed  some  information  ;  I  have  forgot  what  I  said 
to  her. 

Q.  Didn't  you  convey  to  her  the  information  that  Theo- 
dore Tilton  was  before  the  Committee  1  A.  I  think  I  did; 
yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  about  that!  A.  I  haven't, 
really,  if  that  is  the  question. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  the  question. 

The  Witness— If  that  was  her  question,  I  mean. 

Mr.  Morris— Wasn't  it  her  question  1  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that,  you  have  any  doubts  upon 
that  1  A.  No  doubts,  no  doubts :  it  is  not  of  any  conse- 
quence. 

Q.  Mr.  TUton  was  present  there  wlien  you  received  thli 


TESTIMONY  OF  BUT 

note,  and  when  you  sent  the  answer— lie  was  not  aware 
of  the  fact,  was  he  ?  A.  I  don't  know  about  that. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  about  it  1  A.  Well,  I  presume  he 
was  not. 

Q.  No— well,  that  was  on  the  night  of  the  10th  ?  A. 
That  was  the  night  of  the  10th ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  the  next  morntug  Mrs.  Tilton  left  her  home, 
didn't  she  1   A.  I  don't  know.  Sir. 

Q.  You  have  so  understood  it,  haven't  you  1  A.  I  have 
no  knowledge  on  that  point. 

Q.  You  have  so  understood  it,  haven't  you  1  A.  I  sup- 
pose she  did.  Sir. 

Q.  And  next  morning  appeared  the  letter  calling  upon 
the  Committee  to  act,  in  the  public  press,  didn't  it  ?  A. 
Saturday  morning,  the  Ilth. 

Q.  Yes,  Saturday  morning,  the  11th ;  and  that  was  the 
first  public  announcement  that  had  ever  been  made  of 
the  existence  of  that  Committee,  wasn't  iti  A.  That  was 
yes.  Sir, 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  will  allow  me  to  suggest  to 
my  learned  friend,  he  is  not  drawing  out  now  any  new 
matters  of  proof— I  mean  in  these  last  few  questions— but 
only  referring  to  things  that  are  in  proof ;  and  reasoning, 
as  it  were,  with  the  witness,  without  any  proper  applica- 
tion to  the  present  functions  of  getting  testimony  fi-om 
the  witness.  Well,  in  ordinary  cases,  it  is  not  of  any 
great  importance,  of  course;  but  this  gentleman  is  suffer- 
ing from  very  severe  pain ;  and  really  if  we  could  omit 
expostulating  or  arguing  ad  hominem  with  him  about 
facts  that  have  been  proved  from  other  sources— without 
inquiry  to  the  cause  of  the  plaintiff— it  is  desirable  it 
should  be  done. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  desirable,  certainly,  to  abbre- 
viate  

Mr.  Morris— I  do  not  propose  to  take  any  unnecessary 
time  with  this  witness  at  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  suppose  you  have  youi-  purposes. 

Mr.  Morris— We  have  been  willing  to  accommodate 
them  with  reference  to  the  examination,  went  to  the 
house,  and  had  several  sessions  for  that  pm^pose ;  but 
they  expressed  their  preference  to  have  the  witness  come 
Into  coui  t. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  suggest  that  the  time  should  be  devoted 
to  getting  facts  out  of  this  witness,  not  arguing  about 
what  other  people  have  proved. 

Judge  Neilson— The  date  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  leaving,  I 
think,  we  have  had  before. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  not,  Sir.  I  don't  think  we  had  any 
toaowledge  of  this  from  Mrs.  Ovington,  or  any  knowledge 
that  Saturday,  the  11th,  was  the  fli-st  public  annovmce- 
nient  of  this  Committee. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  yes,  we  have  aU  that. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  now,  Mr.  Evarts,  I  do  not  understand 
what  you  have  objected  to 

Judge  Neilson— The  suggestion  of  Mr.  Evarts  is  that 


\!BJ  M.    CLEVELAND.  171 

this  witness,  in  his  present  state  of  health,  would  natur- 
ally feel  disposed  to  be  relieved  as  soon  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Morris— Whenever  the  witness  indicates  that  he 
desu-es  to  leave,  why  we  can  adjom-n.  But  the  witness 
has  made  no  iudication  yet  at  all,  and  I  think  the  witness 
understands  his  condition  better  than  the  counsel  does. 
Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  intermediate  the  publication  of  the 
Bacon  letter  and  the  announcement  of  the  appointment 
of  the  Committee  on  the  11th  of  July,  there  had  been 
great  anxiety  expressed,  had  there  not,  publicly,  in  re- 
gard to  INIr.  Beecher's  silence  with  reference  to  the  Bacon 
letter  ?  A.  I  don't  know  about  that,  I  am  sure. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  it  was  the  subject  of  almost 
universal  comment  in  the  press  ? 

Mr,  Shearman— Well,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  submit 
what  has  this  got  to  do  with  this  issue  or  with  the  con- 
duct of  this  witness,  and  la  what  way  is  it  connected 
with  Mr.  Beecher  ?  What  has  it  got  to  do  with  the  case  ? 
I  object.  It  seems  to  me  that  all  those  questions  are 
aside  of  this  case. 

Judge  Neilson— The  counsel  inquires  for  the  general 
fact,  merely  the  general  fact. 

Mr.  Shearman — He  has  had  one  answer ;  why  is  he  not 
satisfied  with  that  1  But  even  that  one  answer,  I  don't 
see  what  it  has  to  do  with  the  case. 

Judge  Neilson— Go  on,  Mr.  Morris.  Let  us  see  what 
it  is. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  are  you  not  aware  of  the  fact  that 
that  was  the  subject  of  discussion  in  the  press  ?  A.  I  have 
no  doubt  the  Bacon  letter  was  one  of  general  interest. 

Q.  I  am  not  speaking  of  that,  but  ef  the  fact  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  silence  with  reference  to  it  ?  A,  I  don't  recol 
lect  anything  about  that,  specially. 

Q.  Haven't  you  stated  before  that  it  was  ?  A.  I  thinS 
quite  likely  that  it  was ;  I  have  no  knowledge  about  it. 

THE  ACTION  OF  THE  COMMITTEE. 
Q.  Was  IVIr.  Tilton  present   duiing  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Committee,  except  when  he  was  making  his 
statement,  or  being  examined  1  A.  He  was  not.  Sir. 
Q.  He  was  without  counsel  1   A.  What  do  you  say.  Sir  1 
Q.  Did  he  have  counsel  1  A.  He  did  not,  to  my  knowl- 
edge. 

Q.  And  he  was  not  present  at  any  of  the  meetings  ex- 
cept the  one  where  he  made  his  statement  i 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object.  That  question  has  been  asked 
and  disposed  of. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  Mr.  Tilton  was  the  person  who 
had  made  the  charges  against  Mr.  Beecher  1   A.  He  was. 

Q.  The  charges  that  you  were  investigating '?  A.  He 
was. 

Q.  Mr.  Hill  attended  the  sessions  of  the  Committee ! 
A.  He  did. 
Q.  And  Mr.  Tracy  1   A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  you  consult  INIr.  Tilton  in  regard  to  the  evidence 
that  should  be  produced  to  sustain  his  charges  !   A.  We 


172 


THE   TILTON-BEECHEE  TRIAL. 


summoued  every  witness  tliat  lie  named  to  us,  if  I  recol 
lect  right. 

Q.  Did  you  suramon  Mr.  Bowen  I  A.  We  did  not. 
Q.  He  was  named,  wasn't  lie  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that 
he  was. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  he  was  not  ?  A.  I  don't 
recollect  that  he  was. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  he  was  not  ?  A.  I  would 
not  swear  that  he  was  not. 

Q.  Did  you  summon  Mrs.  Moulton  ?   A.  We  did  not. 

Q.  Was  not  she  named  ?.   A.  She  was  not. 

Q.  You  are  positive  of  that,  are  you  ?  A.  I  will  swear 
to  that. 

Q.  Now,  whom  did  he  name,  if  you  are  so  positive  ?  A. 
He  named  Mrs.  Bradshaw ;  he  named  Mr.  Richards  ;  I 
do  not  recall— he  named  three  or  four  persons. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Bradshaw  examined  1   A.  She  was  not. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Richards  examined  1   A.  Mr.  Richards. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Richards  examined  ?  A.  Mr.  Richards. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Richards  examined  1  A.  She  was  not. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Richards  examined?  A.  He  was— ex- 
amined—he  came  hef  ore  

Q.  Haa  his  testimony  ever  been  pubUshed  A,  H© 
gave  no  testimony. 

Q.  Oh !  Did  he  decline  to  give  testimony 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  that  question 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  he  gave  no  testimony 

The  Witness— He  did  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— What  have  we  to  do  with  Mi*,  iiicliards  ? 
Mr.  Morris— But  you  said  a  moment  ago  tliat  Mr. 

Richards  was  examined?  A.  Well,  he  was  invited— I  did 

not  say  that  he  was  examined. 
Mr.  Shearman— Never  mind,  Mr.  Cleveland- 
Mr.  Morris— Why  was  not  he  examined  ? 
Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  objectionable,  because  it  asks 
for  a  reason.  We  simply  want  the  fact  that  whether  he 
was  or  was  not  examined. 

The  Witness— He  was  not. 

Mr.  Morris— Why  didn't  you,  as  a  member  of  that  Com- 
'  mittee,  examine  him  ? 
Mr.  Shearman— Well  I 

Mr.  Morris— Well!— it  is  well;  that  is  why  I  ask  it. 
Laughter.] 

Mr.  Shearman— The  Judge  has  just  ruled  out  that  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Morris— No,  he  has  not ;  that  question  has  not  been 
asked  before. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  imderstood  your  Honor  to  rule  it  out. 

Judge  Neilson— I  threw  out  the  suggestion  that  inqui- 
ries as  to  the  reason  why  the  thing  was  not  done  ought 
not  to  be  received. 

Mr.  Morris— But  1  change  my  question  and  make  it  per- 
sonal to  the  witness. 

Judge  Neilson— Well. 


Mr.  Morris— Why  didn't  you  examine  Mr.  Richards  ?  A, 
I  don't  know  why  I  didn't;  I  didn't. 
Q.  Didn't  you  thint  it  important  1 
Mr.  Beach— What  is  his  answer  ? 
Tiie  Witness— I  said  I  didn't. 

Mr.  Morris— He  says  he  doesn't  know  why  he  didn't. 
[To  the  Witness:]  Didn't  you  think  it  of  importance  that 
he  should  be  examined?  A.  I  don't  recollect  what  I 
thought  about  it. 

Q.  You  didn't  want  to  ascertain  what  he  Imew  about  it  I 
A.  I  

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  is  the  fact  that  Mr.  Richards 
was  not  examined  before  that  Committee  as  you  have 
stated  it  ?  A.  As  what.  Sir  ? 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  there  was  a  reason  why  he  was 
not  examined  by  that  Committee,  and  that  that  reasoi 
was  stated  by  him— a  reason  why  he  was  not  exam- 
ined by  the  Committee,  or  by  you  as  a  member  of  that 
Committee  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— This  is  just  the  point  that  we  had  up 
before,  your  Honor.  I  think,  for  my  part,  that  anybody 
who  listened  to  Mr.  Richards's  testimony  here  would 
need  no  reason  in  the  world  why  he  was  not  examined 
before  the  Committee.  He  was  not  examined  because  he 
had  nothing  to  say.  But,  still,  are  we  to  go  into  the  ques- 
tion of  how  elaborately  his  statement  or  his  reasons  were 
elicited  by  the  Committee  ?  He  came  in  here  and  said  that 
he  had  nothing  to  say,  and  proved  it ;  but  I  don't  suppose 
that  we  are  to  go  here  into  all  the  nonsense  that  took 
place  before  the  Committee  of  Investigation. 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  

Mr.  Beach— Different  minds  will  have  a  different  im- 
pression in  regard  to  what  Mr.  Richards  said,  its  sub- 
stance and  its  effect ;  and  when  this  counsel  undertakes 
to  sum  up  upcm  that  evidence  in  anticipation  of  the 
proper  time,  he  ought  to  be  answered  by  the  remark  that 
there  is  much  of  substance  and  interest  in  what  Mr.  Rich- 
ards said  ;  and  however  much  we  may  deplore  the  atti- 
tude into  which  Mr.  Richards  was  necessarily  forced, 
yet  it  will  be  found  on  rational  and  proper  consideration 
that  his  evidence  carries  a  world  of  meaning  upon  the 
main  issue  of  this  case,  and  the  gentleman  will  find  It  out 
before  the  case  is  closed. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  made  no  comment  further  than  to 
quote  from  what  Mr.  Richards  himself  said.  We  do  not 
question  that  Mr.  Richards  is  the  most  important  and 
valuable  witness  that  the  plaintiff  has  produced  

Mr.  Beach  [interrupting]— That  is  not  so.  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— But  he  said  himself  that  he  had  nothing 
to  say,  and  

Judge  Neilson— One  moment. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  was  only  objecting  

Judge  Neilson— One  moment,  gentlemen.  Now,  I  think, 
Mr.  Morris,  you  cannot  inquire  as  to  the  reasons,  except 
as  applicable  to  the  witness  personally.  That  you  may 
inquire. 


TJEJSUMOXT   OF  HEX 

Mr.  Morris— As  soon  as  Brother  Stiearman  is  tlirougli  T 
will  proceed 

Mr.  Beacli— He  li;is  taken  occasion,  wlieneTer  lie  could 
get  an  opporruuity  ro  speak,  to  sum  up  tliis  case  in  fr;ig- 
nients,  and  it  is  iiijout  time  tliere  was  an  end. 

ilr.  Evarts— Oi;  tlie  case  ? 

Mr.  Beacli— Yes— and  Mm,  too. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  I  sulDmit,  your  Honor,  we  liave  a 
rigkt  to  this  fact.  Mr.  Richards  was  summoned  before 
that  Committee  and  not  examined,  and  we  have  a  right 
to  know  why  he  was  not  examined. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  if  the  witness  was  connected  with 
that  reason— Tiis  reason. 

Mr,  Morris— Certainly.  He,  as  a  component  part  of  that 
Conmiittee,  participated  in  that  action,  and  acquiesced 
in  it. 

Judge  JTeilson- You  can  ask  whether,  speaking  for  him- 
self as  a  menaber  of  the  Committee,  he  can  tell  why  the 
examination  was  not  had. 

Ml'.  Morris— Can  you  state  why  ISIr.  Richards  was  not 
examined  by  that  Committee  ] 

Mr.  Shearman— Xo.  That  is  the  question  that  his  Honor 
has  ruled  out. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness]— Speaking  ft)r  your- 
self? 

Mr.  Morris-r-Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  why 
lie  was  not  before  that  Committee  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  the  question  that  has  just  been 
ruled  out.   I  submit. 

Judge  NeiLson  [to  the  witness]— The  question  is  put 
with  reference  to  your  own  personal  action  as  a  member 
of  the  Committee.  Now,  speaking  with  reference  to  your- 
self, answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Morris— And  his  knowledge. 

Mr.  Shearman — No,  no  ;  his  own  personal  reasons* 

Mr.  Morris— Haven't  I  a  right,  your  Honor,  to  hare  his 
knowledge  upon  that  subject  1  If  he  knows  personally 
and  individually  why  Mr.  Richards  was  not  examined, 
haven't  I  a  right  to  that  fact  1 

Judge  Neilson— Ask  him  that. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  the  essence  of  it.  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  what  I  ask.  [To  the  witness.]  Now, 
then,  don't  you  know  the  reason  why  Mr.  Richards  was 
not  examined  by  that  Committee  ! 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson  (to  the  witness]— And  did  yon  acquiesce 
in  that  reason,  acting  as  a  member  of  the  Committee  1 

Mr.  Shearman— Ah  I 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  Mr.  Cleveland. 

A.  My  recollection  of  that  is  that  Mr.  Richards  knew 
nothing  bearing  upon  that  case  upon  which  he  could  be 
examined  by  the  Committee. 

Q.  Did  not  Mr.  Richards  absolutely  decline  to  be  exam- 
ined ?  A.  Not  in  my  presence.  Sir. 

q.  He  did  not  1  A.  No,  Sir. 


RY   M.    CLEY ELAND,  173 

Q.  You  say  that  he  knew  nothing ;  did  he  state  that  to 
>"ou  %  A.  You  asked  my  personal  recollection  ? 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

The  AVitness— I  said  personally,  for  myself,  that  my 
recollection  of  that  matter  was  that  Mr.  Richards  had  no 
testimony  to  give  to  that  Committee  bearing  upon  that 
case. 

Mr,  Beach— How  did  you  learn  that  1  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect that  precisely,  except  

Q.  What  ?  A.  That  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  Well,  you  are  asked  how  you  learned  it. 

Mr.  Sheannan— Who  told  you  thati  A.  It  probably 
came  from  him. 

Mr.  Beach— Probably  1 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  that  is  an  answer. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  it  is  not  an  answer, 

Mr.  Shearman— The  question  is  how  he  learned  that 
Mr.  Richards  had  nothing  to  say. 

The  Witness— If  your  Honor  please,  I  cannot  recollect 
definitely  all  the  details  of  that  long  examination. 

Judge  NeHson— No,  of  course. 

The  Witness— I  cannot  undertake,  at  this  distance  from 
that  investigation,  to  state  the  reasons  for  the— in  regard 
to  the  examination  of  the  Committee. 

]yir.  Morris— We  are  not  talking  about  that.  "We  are 
simply  asking  about  one  particular  fact— namely,  how 
you  knew  Mr.  Richards  had  nothing  to  say  I  A.  I  have 
simply  this  recollection— that  Mr.  Richards  made  no 
statement  to  the  Committee,  because  he  had  none  to 
make. 

IMr.  Morris— How  did  you  learn  that  1 

The  Witness— I  don't  recollect  how  I  knew  it. 

Judge  Neilson— The  other  inquiry  is  how  yon  knew 

that  ?  State,  if  you  recollect  how  it  came  to  your  knowl* 

edge. 

The  Witness—  I  don't  recollect. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  an  answer. 

Mr.  Morris— Was  either  of  the  counsel  there  at  the  time 
that  Mr.  Richards  was  before  the  Committee  !  A.  I  have 
no  clear  recollection  about  that. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Mr.  Tracy  being  there  ?  A.  I  dont 
recoUect. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  his  having  an  interview  with  Mr. 
Richards  before  he  came  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  I 
don't  recollect  what  

Q.  Mr.  Cleveland,  were  you  at  the  White  Mountains  1 
A.  I  was. 

Q.  In  October  last  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  time  ?  A.  I  left  there  the  4th  day  of  Septem- 
ber. 

Q.  You  were  there  during  September  I  A.  No,  Sir ;  I 
was  there  a  week. 

Q.  Was  ]VIr.  Beecher  there  at  that  time  ?  A.  He  was. 

Q.  Did  you  go  from  there  to  Boston  t  A.  I  came  to 
Boston  on  my  way  home. 


174  THE  TILTON-JBE 

Q.  Was  there  a  reason  vrhy  you  took  that  homeward 
route  1  A.  There  was. 

Q.  You  went  there  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  ?  A.  I  went  there  to  see  Mr.  Eedpath. 

Q.  With  reference  to  what  1  A.  In  response  mainly  to 
a  telegram— two  or  three  telegrams,  from  him,  and  a 
joint  telegram  from  Gov.  Claflin  and  Mr.  Kennard  of 
Boston. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Beeeher  Imow  of  the  ohject  of  your  Visit  to 
Boston  ?  A.  He  knew  that  I  was  going  to  Boston. 

Q.  Did  he  know  the  object  of  your  going  there !  A. 
Not  

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  he  did  not  1  A.  He  did  not 
know  what  was  the  object— how  the  object  was  to  be  ac- 
complished. 

Q.  Did  he  know  the  object?  A.  I  insist,  your  Honor, 
upon  making  the  statements,  as  they  are  true. 

Q.  Did  or  did  not  Mr.  Beeeher  know  of  the  ob]eot  of 
your  vivsiting  Boston  t  A.  He  knew  that  I  was  to  go  to 
Boston  and  see  Mr.  Eedpath. 

Q.  That  does  not  answer  my  question  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Let  him  go  on  and  answer  further. 

Mr.  Morris— No.  It  is  a  simple  question;  did  Mr. 
Beeeher  know  (I  ask  for  your  knowledge  now)  the  object 
of  your  visit  to  Boston?  A.  He  knew  that  

Mr.  Beach— We  do  not  ask  what  the  object  was ;  we  ask 
you  if  he  knew  of  your  object. 

Mr.  Morris — Yes  or  no. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  submit  that  that  does  not  admit  of  an 
answer  yes  or  no.  I  suppose  the  difficulty  in  the  wit- 
ness's mind  is  that  Mr.  Beaoher  knew  a  part  of  the  object, 
but  did  not  know  all  of  it,  did  not  know  the  details.  Now 
the  witnesses  are  being  instructed  by  the  counsel  on  the 
other  side  that  they  must  answer  with  great  precision. 

Mr.  Morris— You  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Beeeher 
before  going  to  B.oston  1   A.  I  had,  Sir. 

Q.  About  the  purpose  of  your  going  to  Boston?  A.  Yes, 
Sii'. 

Q.  Now,  was  Mr.  Beeeher  aware  of  your  purpose  of  go- 
ing to  Boston  ?   A.  He  was. 

Mr.  Morris — There,  it  takes  a  good  while  to  get  at  a 
simple  answer.  [To  the  witness.]  Look  at  that  paper 
I  handing  paper  to  witness].   A.  I  see  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  such  a  telegram  being  sent  ?  A.  I 
do  not. 

Q.  Look  at  those  [handing  witness  other  papers]  and 
say  if  you  know  anything  about  them.  Do  you  know 
anything  about  this  one?   A.  I  cannot  translate  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  such  a  dispatch  being  received  at 
the  White  Mountains  ?  A.  I  recollect  there  was  a  dispatch 
received  at  the  White  Mountains  in  Latin— if  that  is 
Latin. 

[Mr.  Shearman  here  made  a  whispered  remark  to  Mr. 
Morris.J 

Mr.  Beach— What  was  that  remark  ? 
Mr.  Morris- He  aaks  if  they  are  originals. 


ECHEB  TRIAL. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris]— Prove  them  by  your  wit- 
ness. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  I  guess  they  are  the  originals. 
Mr.  Morris — Just  look  at  this,  Mr.  Cleveland,  and  SDute 
who  sent  this  telegram  % 
Mr.  Beach— State  whether  this  telegram  passed. 
The  Witness— I  cannot  state  that. 

Mr.  Morris— Can  you  state  whether  this  telegrain 
passed  between  the  parties  indicated— whether  Mr. 
Beocher  sent  such  a  telegram  ?   A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  This  one  you  say  you  know  about  ?  A.  I  do  not ;  I 
didn't  intend  to  say  so,  and  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  ?  A.  I  did  not ;  I  didn't  write  one  of 
them,  and  know  nothing  about  them. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  such  telegrams  were  sent  to 
Mr.  Redpath  by  Mr.  Beeeher  ? 

Mr.  Evarls— If  your  Honor  please,  this  is  not  a  proper 
mode  of  proving  communications ;  communications  are 
to  be  proved  by  the  originals. 

Judge  Neilson— If  they  can  be  found. 

Mr.  Evarbs— In  the  absence  of  the  origmals  they  can  be 
shown  by  copies.  These  are  not  this  witness's  telegrams ; 
they  are  not  to  him  or  by  him. 

Mr.  Morris— That  don't  prove  that  he  may  not  know  of 
the  fact  that  they  were  telegrams  from  Mr.  Beeeher. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  proves  that  he  is  not  to  speak  concern- 
ing those  telegrams  until  you  lay  the  basis  for  it  by  show- 
ing the  reason  for  not  producing  the  originals. 

Mr.  Morris— We  cannot  show  they  are  not  originals, 
because  they  are  not  in  our  possession. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  suppose  most  papers  produced  in  a 
case  are  not  in  the  possession  of  a  party.  Get  them  by 
subpenas,  the  way  we  get  our  telegrams. 

NEW  DOCUMENTARY  EVIDENCE. 

Mr.  Morris — Just  looli  at  tliat  again,  Mr. 
Cleveland,  and  state  whether  you  went  to  Boston  with 
any  document  in  your  possession  furnished  by  Mr. 
Beeeher— sent  by  Mr.  Beeeher  ?  A.  I  went  to  Boston  and 
stopped  at  Boston  at  Mr.  Beecher's  request. 

Q.  Did  you  go  with  documentary  power  to  act  con- 
clusively in  his  behalf,  or  f uUy  in  his  behalf  ?  A.  I  went 
with  his  instructions. 

Q.  No,  no.  Did  you  go,  in  the  language  of  this  docu- 
ment, with  full  documentary  power  to  act  conclusively  in 
his  behalf  1 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  not  a  proper  question  to  ask. 
If  they  ask  whether  he  went  with  documentary  power  to 
act,  I  don't  object;  but  if  he  asks  whether  he  went  with 
full  documentary  power,  I  object. 

Mr.  Morris  [to  the  witness]— I  ask  whether  you  did  not 
go,  in  the  language  of  this  telegram,  with  full  document- 
ary power  to  acti 

Judge  Neilson— Counsel  objects  that  this  is  inquiring 
into  the  content*  of  the  paper.  Suppose  you  limit  you» 
question. 


TES'LIMONY   OF  J 

Mr.  Morris— Have  you  got  the  power— have  you  got  the 
paper  1  A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Where  is  it  f   A.  I  don't  know  where  it  is. 

Q.  Can  you  produce  it  ?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  I  can 
or  not. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  I  don't  know ;  possibly. 

Mr.  Morris— Then  we  will  have  the  originals  produced. 
Now,  I  ask  you  if  you  did  go  

Mr.  Shearman— We  have  got  the  paper. 

[Mr.  Shearman  here  handed  a  paper  to  Mr.  Morris.] 

Mr.  Morris— Is  that  the  document  [handing  paper  to 
witness]  ?  A.  That  is  the  paper  I  took,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— We  offer  it  in  evidence^ 

Judge  Neilson— Whose  writing  is  it 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Beecher's. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  go  on. 

Mr.  Morris— [Reading:] 

Sept.  4, 1874. 

To  Whom  it  May  Concern :  I  have  requested  Mi'.  Henry 
M.  Cleveland  to  proceed  to  Boston  as  my  alternative  and 
representative.  I  hereby  authorize  him  to  hear  and  de- 
termine, in  my  behalf,  all  matters  whatsoever  in  relation 
to  the  scandals  which  have  arisen,  and  I  give  him  au- 
thority to  sign  my  name  to  any  arrangements  and  docu- 
ments which  may,  in  his  judgment,  be  needful,  and  I  will 
accept  his  agreements  as  if  made  by  myself. 

Henky  Ward  Beecher. 

[Paper  marked  Exhibit  122.] 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  what  scandal  was  re- 
ferred to  in  this  document  ?  A.  That  document  referred 
to  Mr.  Moulton's  connection  with  this  scandal. 

Q.  What  scandal  does  this  document  refer  to  %  A.  Gen- 
eral scandal. 

Q.  The  one  now  under  investigation  ?  A.  It  referred — 
the  paper  referred  to  

Q.  To  the  scandal  now  under  investigation  ?  A.  To  Mr. 
Moulton's  participation  in  the  scandal. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  it  referred  alone  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's connection  with  the  scandal  1  A.  I  mean  to  say  I 
don't  know  what  it  referred  to.  That  was  given  to  me 
by  Mr.  Beecher  as  a  ci'edential  that  the  Boston  parties 
who  had  anything  to  say  might  say  it  to  me. 

Q.  You  mean  to  say  that  you  don't  know  what  scandal 
this  referred  to  ?  A.  I  have  no  idea ;  I  didn't  write  it. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Cleveland,  have  you  any  idea  now  what 
scandal  this  referred  to?  A.  It  referred  to  telegraphic 
correspondence  with  Mr.  Eedpath. 

Q.  And  was  that  the  scandal  %  A.  All  I  know  of  -fliat 
"was  that  it  was  my  credential  to  Mr.  Redpath. 

Q.  Credential  to  whom  ?   A.  To  Mr.  Redpath. 

Q.  For  what  purpose?  A.  To  hear  anything  he  had 
to  say. 

Q.  You  were  sent  simply  to  listen— that  is  all,  is  it  ? 
that  is  the  way  you  understood  it  ?  A.  That  was  my  au- 
thority—to hear  Mr.  Redpath. 

Q.  To  hear  what  he  had  to  say  ?  A.  My  authority. 

Q.  Your  understanding  of  your  mission  to  Boston  was 
to  hear  what  Mr.  Redpath  had  to  say  ?    A.  I  mean  to  say 


iMES    h.    LITTLE.  175 

I  had  my  iastructions  from  Mr.  Beecher.  That  was  siro 
ply  my  authority — to  hear  what  was  to  be  said. 

Q.  To  be  said  about  what  ?  A.  Anything  that  Mr.  Red 
path  had  to  say. 

Q.  About  what?   A.  Anything. 

Q.  About  anything  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  not  sent  on  for  any  specific  purpose  t 
A.  I  was  requested  to  see  Mr.  Redpath. 

Q.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Tracy— He  is  telling,  I  submit. 

J udge  Neilson— Go  on,  Mr.  Cleveland. 

The  Witness — I  was  requested  to  stop  in  Boston,  in  re- 
sponse to  this  telegram  from  Gov.  Claflin  and  others, 
to  hear  what  Mr.  Redpath  had  to  say  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
growing  out  of  the  telegraphic  correspondence.  That 
letter  was  my  authority  to  hear  for  Mr.  Beecher.  My 
instructions  were  given  to  me  by  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  all  that  you  was  authorized  to  do,  to 
hear  what  Mr.  Redpath  had  to  say  ?  A.  The  letter  shows 
its  authority. 

[By  consent  of  counsel  this  witness  was  req'  ested  to 
stand  aside,  to  permit  the  examination  of  another 
witness.] 

EXAMINATION  OF    DR.    JAMES    L.  LITTLE. 

James  L.  Little,  a  witness  called  and  sworn 
on  behalf  of  the  defendant,  testihes  as  follows : 

Mr.  Hill— Where  do  you  reside?  A.  266  West  Forty- 
second-st..  New- York. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  there  ?  A.  Since  1862. 

Q.  Your  profession  ?   A.  Physician. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  its  practice! 
A.  Fourteen  years. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  reside  in  Brooklyn !   A.  I  did. 

Q.  During  what  period  ?   A.  Up  until  1872. 

Q.  Practicing  here  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  i>arties  to  this  suit,  Mr.  Tilton  and 
Mr.  Beecher?    A.  I  have  seen  them  frequently.  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  don't 
know,  Sir ;  for  many  years  I  was  not  personally  ac- 
quainted with  him. 

Q.  Were  you  a  member  of  Plymouth  Church  at  any 
time  ?   A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there  much  1  A.  Frequently. 

Q.  Knew  him  perfectly  well  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Dr.  Little,  did  you  see  the  Communist  pro- 
cession which  has  been  referred  to  dm'ing  the  progress  of 
this  trial  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  saw  IMr.  Tilton  in  it  or 
not  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Please  state  under  what  circumstances  you  sa-*^ 
him — who  was  he  with  ?  A.  He  was  in  a  carriage  witk  a 
woman,  who  was  pointed  out  to  me  at  that  time  as  Miss 
Claflin. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Woodhull  in  that  procession?  A. 


176 


TEE   TILTOJ^'BEF^CHEB  TRIAL. 


Til. ere  a  -woman  -walMng  in  front  of  the  carriage  that 
was  pointed  out  to  me  as  Mrs.  WoodhulL 

Q.  Immediately  In  front  of  the  carriage  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ; 
I  think  so. 

Q.  Where  was  the  procession  at  the  time  that  you  saw 
it?  A.  Passing  through  Thirty-fourth-st.,  near  Sixth- 
ave. 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you  this :  Did  the  whole  prooession  pass 
you?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  So  that  you  saw  all  of  it  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Hill— That  is  aU. 
Mr.  Morris— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  wait  a  moment.  "We  want  to  get  some 
facts. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  LITTLE. 

Mr.  Beacli— Was  this  a  covered  or  an  open  car- 
riage? A.  It  was  an  open  carriage. 

Q.  How  many  persons  were  in  it?  A.  I  don't  know 
whether  any  one  occupied  the  front  seat. 

Q.  How  many  persons  will  you  swear  yoasawiniti 
A.  I  only  remember  two  persons  in  the  carriage. 

Q.  A  gentleman  and  lady  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Sitting  on  the  hack  seat?  A.  Sitting  on  the  back 
seat ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  whereabouts  was  the  carriage  when  you  noticed 
those  two  persons  ?  A.  In  what  part  of  the  procession, 
do  you  mean? 

Q.  Whereabouts  in  the  street  1  A.  In  Thirty-fourth-st., 
near  Sixth-ave. 

Q.  In  Thirty-fourth-st.,  near  Sixth-ave.?  A.  Yes,  Sir; 
very  near  Dr.  Taylor's  Church. 

Q.  Which  way  was  it  passing?  A.  It  was  passing  to- 
ward Sixth-ave. 

Q.  And  which  way  were  you  going?  A.  I  was  standing 
on  the  sidewalk,  looking  at  the  procession. 

Q.  Which  way  did  you  go  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  ;  I 
thlok  I  went  directly  home  after  that. 

Q.  Which  way  was  that  ?  A.  Toward  Sixth-ave. 

Q.  Toward  Sixth-ave.?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  same  du-eotion  with  the  procession  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  accompany  it  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q,  On  the  sidewalk,  along  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  it  accompany  you  ?  A.  I  stood  on  the  sidewalk 
until  the  procession  passed. 

Q.  And  did  you  observe  the  head  of  the  procession  as  it 
came  to  you  ?  A.  I  saw  the  head  of  the  procession  ;  yes. 
Sir. 

Q.  Whereabouts  was  this  carriage  in  reference  to  the 
procession  itself  ?  A.  I  don't  remember,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  at  the  head  of  the  procession  ?  A.  I  don't 
know ;  I  think  not  at  the  head. 

Q.  Was  it  at  the  foot  of  the  procession  ?  A.  Not  at  the 
foot  of  the  procession  ;  it  was  near  the  head. 

Q.  It  was  near  the  head  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 


Q.  What  was  in  front  o  the  procession— what  was  the 
leadership  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  whether  it  was  a  band 
of  music  or  not. 

Q.  Are  you  quite  certain  that  there  were  not  two  ladies 
in  this  carriage  ?  A.  I  could  not  be  certain  there  was  not 
some  one  on  the  front  seat ;  I  am  not  certain  of  that. 

Q.  You  say  this  lady  you  do  remember  was  pointed  out 
to  you  as  Miss  Claflin  ?  A.  She  was  sitting  in  the  back 
seat  with  a  gentleman  whom  I  knew  to  be  Mr.  Tiiton. 

Q.  Yes,  I  understand  that.  If  there  had  been  a  lady  on 
the  front  seat,  would  you  not  also  have  inqLulred  who  she 
was  ?  Was  there  any  object  in  inquiring  for  this  particu- 
lar lady  on  the  back  seat  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  it  ?  A.  To  see  Miss  Claflin. 

Q.  You  inquired  whether  it  was  Miss  Claflin  ?  A.  She 
was  pointed  out  to  me  as  Miss  Claflin  by  a  gentleman 
who  was  standing  alongside  there. 

Q.  Who  was  he  ?  A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  at  the  time  1  A.  That  I  don't  re- 
member. I  met  several  gentlemen  at  the  time  I  was  in 
that  vicinity,  but  I  cannot  remember  who  it  was  who 
spoke  to  me  or  talked  to  me  at  that  time. 

Q.  And  you  say  you  saw  a  lady  in  front  of  the  carriage, 
on  foot?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  she  was  pointed  out  to  you  as  Mrs.  Woodhull  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then,  if  the  designations  were  properly  given  to 
you,  it  was  not  Mrs.  Woodhull  who  was  in  the  carriage  if 
any  other  lady  was  there  but  Miss  Claflin  1  A.  No.  Sir. 

Q.  Could  not  have  been  ?  A.  No,  Sir— if  the  gentleman 
who  pointed  out  to  me  these  ladies  gave  me  the  right 
names. 

Q.  Who  was  walking  with  Mrs.  Woodhxill  ?  A.  I  do  not 
remember.  There  might  be  some  gentleman  walking 
along  side  of  her,  but  I  don't  remember  about  that. 

Q.  Was  she  carrying  anything  ?  A.  She  was  carrying  a 
flag,  I  think. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  flag  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  a  red  flag. 
Q.  Was  there  any  symbol  upon  it— any  inscription?  A. 
That  I  don't  remember.  Sir. 
Q.  What  ?  A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  speak  to  Mr.  Tiiton  ?  A.  I  have  been 
introduced  to  him  several  times. 

Q.  You  have  been  Introduced  to  him  several  times! 
When  was  the  last  time  ?  A.  When  T  was  an  attendant 
upon  Mr.  Beecher's  church. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?   A.  That  was  before  1862. 

Q.  You  have  not  spoken  to  blm  since  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Can  you  give  any  description  of  his  apparel  upon 
this  occasion?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  identified  him  frcm  the  appearance  of  hla 
clothes  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  were  standing  still  while  the  procession  moved 
in  front  of  you  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  past  you  ?   A .  Yes, 


TJESTIJIONY   OF  EE, 

Q.  Was  tliere  any  otlier  carriage  in  the  procession  ?  A. 
I  do  not  remember,  Sir. 

Q.  you  don't  remember  any  other,  do  you?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  remember  but  one  carriage  ?  Do  you  know  Mr. 
Swinton— John  Swinton'J   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Yotmg  of  the  staff  of  The  Serald  ? 
A.  No.  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  DR.  JAMES 
L.  LITTLE. 

Mr.  Hill— Doctor,  you  did  not  Inow  these 
two  women  personally  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  did  you  remark  to  any  person,  in  the 
presence  of  Mr.  Tilton,  under  the  circumstances  that  you 
have  named  at  that  time  or  about  that  time  

Mr.  Beach— Objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  think  we  can  take  that,  Mr. 
Hill. 
Mr.  Hill— Well. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  Witness]— That  is  all.  [To  the  jury.] 
Gentlemen,  get  ready  to  retire.  The  jurors  will  please 
attend  to-morrow  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

The  Court  thereupon  adjourned  till  Friday  at  11  o'clock. 


SEVENTY-FIRST  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

A  DRAMATIC    SCENE  AT    THE   CLOSE  OF 
COURT. 

PEOTRACTED  CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  HENRY  M. 
CLEVELAND— HIS  MISSION  TO  BOSTON  AND  THE 
CONDITIONS  WHICH  MR.  BEECHER  IMPOSED— 
MR.  MOULTON  RECALLED  FOR  CROSS-EXAMINA- 
TION—THE FORMER  CASHIER  OF  WOODRUFF  & 
ROBINSON  CONTRADICTS  MR.  MOULTON'S  TESTI- 
MONY—THE WITNESSES  FACE  TO  FACE. 

Friday,  April  23.  1875. 
The  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Cleveland  was  con- 
cluded to-day.  All  the  circumstances  of  his  visit  to 
Boston  last  FaU  were  described.  Mr.  Cleveland 
said  that  he  went  to  Boston  at  Mr.  Beecher's  request, 
on  the  strength  of  a  telegram  from  Mr.  Redpath. 
The  object  of  the  visit  was  not  to  prevent  the  publi- 
cation of  Mr.  Moulton's  second  statement.  Mr. 
Beecher  told  him  to  go  to  Boston  and  hear  what  Mr. 
Redpath  had  to  say,  but  to  remember  that  he 
(Mr.  Beecher)  would  have  nothing  to  do 
with  any  condition  or  arrangement  affect- 
ing the  scandals  unless  Mr.  Tilton  and 
Mr.  Moulton  withdrew  all  their  charges  affecting  his 
moral  character.  The  paper  of  authorization  given 
him  by  Mr.  Beecher  was  merely  intended  to  attest 
^is  authority  if  it  were  doubted.   He  would  never 


\RY  M.    CLEVELAND,  177 

have  exercised  the  full  powers  given  him.   The  prin- 
cipal subject  of  the  cross-examination  was  the  action 
of    the    Investigating  Committee.     Mr.  Cleve- 
land   said  that    the    statement  in    the  Com- 
mittee's  report  that    Samuel    E.    Belcher  had 
testified  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  shown  him  the  "  True 
Story"  was  incorrect.    He  did  not  testify  that  its 
title  was  the  "True  Story."  When  the  cross-exam- 
ination was  finally  completed,  about  the  middle  of  the 
afternoon  session,  there  was  a  short  re-direct  ex- 
amination by  Mr.  Shearman.   This  was  followed  by 
a  "  re-cross,"  and  then  by  a  "  re-re-direct"  and  a 
"  re-re-cross,"  and  fijially  by  a  few  hap-hazard 
questions  put  by  several  of  the  counsel  on  both 
sides.   On  the  re-direct  examination  Mr.  Cleveland 
stated  that  he  had  been  sick  for  six  weeks,  that 
when  he  was  examined  at  his  house  he  was  unable 
to  sit  up  and  in  constant  pain,  and  that  his  physi- 
cians has  advised  him  that  he  was  not  physically 
able  to  attend  in  court.   His  nervous  system  was 
almost  broken  down.    The  witness  was  allowed  to 
explain  some  of  his  former  statements.   He  said  that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  at  first  suggested  the  names  of  Wm. 
M.  Evarts,  George  William  Curtis,  and  William 
Cullen  Bryant  as  a  committee  to  investigate  the 
charges  against  him  last  year,  and  that  Gen.  Tracy 
and  Mr.  Shearman  had  advised  him  that  a  commit- 
tee composed  of  those  gentlemen  would  not  have 
immunity  from  libel  suits,  and  that  the  only  safe 
way  would  be  to  select  a  committee  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Examining  Committee  of  Plymouth 
Church.   Mr.  Cleveland  said  he  had  entered  into  no 
design  with  anybody  to  cause  IVIrs.  Tilton  to  leave 
her  husband. 

There  was  a  pause  of  several  minutes  and  a  buzz 
of  expectation  among  the  audience.  Presently  Mr. 
FuUerton  came  in,  and  soon  afterward  Mr.  Moulton 
entered  the  court-room,  and  took  the  witness-chair. 
Instantly  all  the  sleepers  awoke,  the  jury  became 
attentive,  and  a  hush  fell  upon  the  audience.  Mr. 
Moulton  had  been  recalled  by  the  defense, 
and  some  startling  developments  were  looked  for. 

Mr.  Evarts's  first  question  revealed  the  object  for 
which  Mr.  Moulton  had  been  recalled.  He  was  to 
be  confronted  with  Mr.  Partridge,  the  former  cashier 
of  Messrs.  Woodruff  &  Robinson,  who  on  April 
21  testified  in  regard  to  the  memorandum  which 
accompanied  the  check  for  $7,000  which  Mr.  Tilton 
received  from  Mr.  Bowen.  Mr.  Evarts  at  that  time 
sought  to  prove  by  Mr.  Partridge  that  Mr, 
Moulton  had  told  him  that  Mr.  Tilton  had 
written    the    "Life    of     Victoria  Woodhull" 


178  THE    TIL  TON -BE 

with  the  design  of  placing  himself  at  the 
head  of  the  Spiritualists  of  this  country,  who  far 
outnumbered  the  Congregationalists.  This  was 
ruled  out  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  in  contra- 
diction of  anything  that  the  prosecution  had  brought 
forward.  Mr.  Evarts  was  immediately  checked 
in  his  examination  of  Mr.  Moulton,  by  an  ob- 
jection from  the  plaintiffs  counsel,  and  long  argu- 
ments followed  between  Mr.  Beach  and  himself. 
Mr.  Evarts  explained  that  he  was  now  seek- 
ing to  lay  the  foundation  for  collateral  impeachment, 
the  want  of  which  had  prevented  his  introducing  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Partridge  on  April  21.  He  was 
finally  permitted  to  proceed.  Mr.  Moulton  said  that 
he  did  not  remember  the  alleged  conversation  with 
Mr.  Partridge.  In  regard  to  his  telling  him  that  Mr. 
niton's  motive  in  writing  the  life  of  Mrs. 
WoodhuU  was  to  place  himself  at  the  head 
of  the  Spiritualists,  who  outnumbered  the  Con- 
gregationalists, he  knew  of  no  such  thing  and  said 
Qo  such  thing ;  but  he  had  an  indistinct  recollection 
that  he  had  said  that  he  had  understood  that  the 
Spiritualists  did  outnumber  the  Congregationalists. 
He  did  not  remember  conversing  with  Mr.  Partridge 
about  Mr.  Tilton's  "  Life  of  Victoria  Woodhull." 

As  soon  as  Mr.  Moulton  left  the  stand  Samuel 
Dwight  Partridge  was  called.  Mr.  Beach  again 
objected  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Partridge.  There 
was  another  passage  of  arms  between  himself  and 
Mr.  Evarts,  but  Judge  Neilson  allowed  a  question  to 
be  put  to  the  witness  corresponding  to  the  one  just 
asked  of  Mr.  Moulton.  Mr.  Partridge  then  swore 
that  Mr.  Moulton  had  told  him  in  substance,  soon 
after  the  publication  of  the  "Life"  of  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull,  that  the  author's  object  was  to  put 
himseK  at  the  head  of  the  Spiritualists,  &c. 
The  witness  was  cross-examined  at  considerable 
length  by  Mr.  Beach  in  regard  to  the  time  and  cir- 
cumstances of  the  alleged  interview  which  he  said 
took  place  at  Messrs.  Woodruff  &  Eobinson's  store. 


THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

The  Court  met  at  11  o'clock,  a.  m.,  pursuant 
to  adjournment. 
Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Shearman,  shall  we  proceed? 
Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  Sir. 

MR.  CLEVELAND'S  COMMISSION  TO  BOSTON. 

Henry  M.  Cleveland  recalled,  and  the  cross- 
examination  resumed. 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Cleveland,  1  just  hand  that  to  you 


'EC HER  TRIAL. 

again.  [Handing  witness  a  paper.]  Will  you  state  as 
near  as  you  can  when  you  gave  that  to  the  lawyers— the 
counsel  upon  the  other  side  1  A.  Within  a  week,  I  think. 

Q.  Where  was  it  that  you  gave  it  to  them  1  A.  In  my 
room. 

Q.  At  No.  114         A.  No.  114  Remsen-st. 

Q.  And  to  which  of  the  counsel  did  you  hand  iti  A. 
To  Mr.  Shearman. 

Mr.  Morris  [to  the  jury]— It  is  the  paper  that  was  in- 
troduced yesterday. 
Mr.  Beach— The  "  power"  from  Mr.  Beecher. 
Mr.  Morris— Can  you  tell  the  day  that  it  was?   A.  I 
don't  recollect  the  day. 

Q.  When  did  y*u  return  from  Connecticut  1  A.  On 
Thursday. 

Q,  Thursday  of         A.  Of  last  week. 

Q.  And  was  it  during  any  day  last  week  that  you  gave 
it  to  Mr.  Shearman  1  A.  Since  Thursday  of  last  week. 
Q.  Then  it  ^\^s  this  week  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect. 
Q.  Or  was  it  during  last  week  ?    A.  I  don't  recollect 
the  day  ;  it  was  since  Thursday  of  last  week. 
Q.  Who  spoke  about  it  first  ?  A.  I  did. 
Q.  What  did  you  say  to  Mr.  Shearman  about  itt  A.  I 
said  that  I  had  such  a  paper  in  my  possession. 
Q.  And  you  gave  it  to  him  ?  A.  I  did. 
Q.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  your  testimony  yester- 
day with  reference  to  this  paper : 

Q.  Have  you  got  the  *'  power  "—have  you  got  the  pa- 
per [referring  to  this  paper]  ?   A.  I  don't  know. 
Q.  Where  is  it  ?   A.  I  don't  know  where  it  is. 

Was  that  true  1   A.  That  was  true. 
Q.  You  did  not  know  where  it  was  ;  what  do  you  mean 
by  that  t  please  explain.    A.  I  meant  that  I  did  not 
know  now  where  it  was  when  I  testified  ;  I  gave  it  to 
Mr.  Shearman  a  week  ago. 

Q.  But  you  recollected  the  fact  that  you  had  given  it  to 
Mr.  Shearman  1   A.  1  did. 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  state  that  fact  1  A.  I  don't  know 
any  reason  why  I  did  not. 
Q.  How  ]  A.  I  don't  know  any  reason  why  I  did  not. 
Q.  And  you  supposed  when  you  said  you  didn't  know 
where  it  was,  that  Mr.  Shearman  had  it,  did  you  ?  A.  I 
didn't  know. 

Q.  You  had  given  it  to  him  a  few  days  ago  ?  A.  I  had. 

Q.  When  you  were  asked  the  question  where  the  paper 
was,  you  knew  the  object  of  the  question,  did  you  not  ? 
A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Didn't  you  understand  the  object,  that  I  desired  to 
ascertain  where  it  was  1  A.  I  didn't  know  what  subse- 
quent questions  were  coming. 

Q.  No,  but  the  questions  that  I  did  ask  you ;  T  asked 
you  where  the  paper  was,  and  you  said,  "  I  don't  know." 
[Reading] : 

Q.  Have  you  got  the  power— have  you  got  the  paper  t 
A.  I  don't  know. 
Q.  Wl)erei8it?    A.  T  don't  kuDW  'vli  • 


TFSTnrOXT  OF  BEX. 

Didnt  you  suppose  I  asked  rliat  question  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  "where  the  paper  -was  ? 

3Ir.  Shearman— I  suhmit,  yo"ur  Honor,  that  it  is  not  nec- 
essary to  go  into  all  this.  I  was  standing  up  at  the  very 
time  trying  to  interrupt  Judge  Morris  and  trying  to 
catch  his  attention,  -with  the  paper  in  my  hands.  The 
witness  did  not  know  -whether  I  had  got  the  paper  or  not. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  not  the  point.  Didn't  you  suppose 
by  that  question  that  I  "wanted  to  kno"w  -where  the  paper 
■was  to  ascertain  that  fact?  A,  I  will  ans"wer  that  in 
this  way,  that  I  gave  the  paper  to  Mr.  Shearman  after 
I  returned  from- — 

Q.  No,  no.  A.  I  supposed  that  "when  it  "was  proper  to 
inti-oduce  that  paper  it  "would  be  introduced;  that  -was 
t«y  supposition. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  reason  that  you  answered  that  you 
did  not  know  where  it  was  ?   A.  That  was  my  reason. 

Q.  Very  well,  we  will  let  that  pass.  Xow,  Mr.  Cleve- 
land, do  you  recollect  the  date  that  you  went  to  Boston 
from  the  White  Mountains  ?    A.  I  do. 

Q.  A\Tiat  day  w-as  it  ?   A.  Fourth  of  Xovemhe*. 

Mr.  Shearman — September,  you  mean. 

The  vritness — ^September,  Imean,  1874. 

Mr.  Morris— And  prior  to  that  the  Committee  had  made 
its  report,  had  they  not  ?   A.  It  had.  j 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  date  of  that  report  ?  A.  The  | 
28th  of  August,  I  think. 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton  had  made  his  fli'st  long  statement,  had 
he  not  1   A.  I  think  so ;  I  could  not  swear  to  that. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  it  had  been  published  before 
the  Committee  made  its  report  ?   A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  upon  that  question  ]   A.  I  don't 
recall  the  date  ;  I  haye  really  no  doubt. 

Q.  "^ell,  as  to  whether  you  saw  that  publication  before 
the  Committee  made  it^  report  ?  A.  I  unquestionably 
did. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  I  did.  I  don't  recollect  the  date  of  that 
pitbllcation.  I  think  it  was  before  the  Committee  re- 
ported. 

Q.  Before  going  to  Boston,  you  had  heard  that  a  second 
statement  from  Mr.  MoiQton  had  been  prepared,  or  was 
in  com-se  of  preparation,  had  you  not !  A.  I  had. 

Q.  And  that  had  been  a  matter  of  conference— convoi" 
eation  between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher  before  you  left  the 
T^Tiite  Mountains  1   A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  you  had  heard  something  of  the  contents  of  that 
report,  had  you  not— something  of  its  nature  and  char- 
acter ? 

Mr.  Shearman— The  report  1 

Ml-.  Morris— Of  the  statement  that  Mr.  Mo.^ton  had 
prepared— the  second  statement. 

The  Witness- 1  heard  that  it  was  to  be  ai;  assault  upon 
Mi\  Beecher. 

Q.  Y     hid  1".  rued  ganerally  its  purport.'   A.  I  knew 
notbiUiT  of  ir-  dL-tails. 
Q    }h,  no.  You  had  learned  that  Mr.  Moulton  purposed 


J/.    CLEYELAXD.  179 

"Tindieatlng  himself  in  that  report  against  the  charge  of 
blackmail,  ha-d  you  not  ?  A.'  I  had  heard  that  he  was 
going  to  make  another  long  statement. 

Q.  Did  you  not  understand  that  that  long  statement 
was  to  be  a  "rlndication  of  Mr.  Moulton,  and  especially  as 
against  the  charge  of  blackmail  ?  A.  I  suppose  that 
statement  would  cover  all  the  points  of  Mr.  Moulton's 
defense. 

Q.  Now,  you  stated  yesterday  that  you  went  to  Boston 
solely  "With  reference  to  Mr.  Moulton's  connection  "with 
this  matter. 

Mr.  Beach— Xot  solely,  he  didn't  say. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  -with  reference  to  Mr.  Moulton's  con- 
nection with  the  matter.  Now  was  that  the  statement 
that  he  had  prepared — was  that  the  purpose  1  A.  I  meant 
to  say— I  mean  to  say  that  as  I  understand  the  telegraphic 
correspondence  stated  to  me  by  :Mr.  Beecher,  that  Mr. 
Eedpath  desired  Mr.  Beecher  to  come  to  Boston  to  confer 
with  him  and  other  parties  in  regard  to  Mr.  Moulton's 
statement. 

:Mr.  Beach— Proposed  statement. 

Mr.  Mnrris— Proposed  statement. 

The  Witness — Proposed  statement. 

Q.  And  the  ultimate  object  had  in  "rlew  -was  to  prevent 
the  publloa*"ion  of  that  statement,  was  it  not  ?  A.  It  was 
not. 

Q.  Tour  visit  to  Boston,  do  you  mean  to  say,  had  no 
reference  to  making  an  arrangement  which  wo"uld  super- 
sede the  necessity  of  publishing  that  statement  1  A.  I 
mean  to  say  

Mr.  Beach— No  ;  make  him  ariswer. 

Mr.  Morris  Now,  answer  that  ciuestlon. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  question  cannot  be  answered  "by 
yes  or  no,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Mr,  Morris— Win  the  stenographer  read  the  question, 
please.  The  Tribime  stenographer  read  the  question  as 
foUows :  "  Your  visit  to  Boston,  do  yon  mean  to  say,  ha<l 
no  reference  to  making  an  arrangement  which  would 
supersede  the  necessity  of  publishing  that  statement  V 
A.  It  had  not. 

Q.  Then  your  "visit  to  Boston  was  not  for  the  purpose  of 
entering  into  any  arrangement  whatever,  or  any  under- 
standing, that  should  be  satisfying  to  Mr.  Moulton  and 
prevent  the  publication  of  that  statement ;  is  that  it  1  A. 
My  visit  to  Boston,  under  the  instructions  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
was  to  hear  for  him  no  proposition  or  explanations  upon 
that  whole  matter  of  all  these  scandals. 

Q.  No,  no  ;  that  ain't  it. 

The  Witness  f continuing] —Until  after  the  charges  of 
Francis  D.  Moulton  and  Theodore  Tllton  should  have 
been  wlthdraw-n,  retracted— absolutely  and  unqualifiedly. 

Q.  Now,  then,  will  you  answer  the  question  I  put  ?  The 
stenographer  will  read  it. 

:Mr.  SheaiTuan— It  is  answered. 

Mr.  Morris— No.  it  is  not ;  I  beg  your  pardon. 

The  Tribime  stenographer  read  the  question,  as  foUo-^s  r 


THE   TlLTOiW-BEmUEB  TEIAL, 


m 

"  Tlien  your  visit  to  Boston  was  not  for  the  purpose  of 
entering  into  any  arrangement  wliatever,  or  any  under- 
standing, tliat  should  be  satisfying  to  Mr.  Moulton  and 
prevent  the  puhlication  of  that  statement ;  is  that  it  1" 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  the  witness  has  given  the  entire 
aflBrmative  body  of  his  instructions,  covering  the  whole 
question.  He  went  there  under  instructions,  to  hear 
what  they  had  to  say,  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  any- 
thing they  had  to  say  except  on  condition  of  unqLualifled 
and  complete  withdrawal  of  every  charge. 

Mr.  Morris— I  have  not  asked  any  condition,  or  any- 
thing about  any  condition. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  yw.  did  not  want  the  condition ;  but 
you  asked  a  question,  and  this  is  the  answer. 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Cleveland,  I  will  ask  you  the  CLuestlon 
in  another  form,  to  the  same  point :  Do  you  mean  to  say 
that  in  your  visit  to  Boston  you  did  not  expect,  by  some 
understanding  and  arrangement,  to  be  able  to  prevent 
the  publication  of  that  statement  1  A.  I  did  not 
expect  to. 

Q.  Well,  pray  tell  ua  what  you  expected  to  do  when 
you  got  to  Boston  ?  A.  I  expected  to  find  out,  if  I  could, 
what  the  Boston  gentlemen  wanted,  as  a  matter  of 
courtesy  to  them,  partially. 

Q.  To  hear  what  they  had  to  say  simply ;  is  that  it  t 

The  witness  nodded  assent. 

Mr.  Morris— Do  you  mean  to  say  that  

Mr.  Beach— He  has  not  answered. 

Mr.  Morj'As- He  nodded  his  head,  I  understand.  [To 
the  witness.]  To  simply  hear  what  they  had  to  say ;  is 
that  it  ?  A.  Simply  to  hear  what  Mr.  Redpath  had  to 
say. 

Q.  And  nothins  else?  Well.  A.  What  anybody  had  to 
say. 

Mr.  Beach— Get  his  answer  on  record.  His  nodding 
don't  give  us  any  intimation. 

Mr.  Evarts- You  asked  him  what  he  expected ;  it  is 
answered. 

Mr.  Morris— Nothing  else  1  A.  To  hear  what  Mr.  Red- 
path  and  any  of  the  gentlemen  had  to  say. 
Q.  Is  that  all?   A.  That  is  all,  at  that  point, 
Q.  What  gentlemen  1 

Mr.  Beach— No,  no;  was  that  all  the  object  of  his 
mission  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  was  not  the  question,  Mr.  Beach. 
The  qut^stion  was,  "  What  did  you  expect?" 

Mr.  Morris— What  was  the  object  of  your  visit  to  Bos- 
ton? 

Mr.  Evarts— You  asked,  "What  did  you  expect?" 
The  Witness— I  did  not  expect  anything. 
Mr.  Beach— That  was  not  the  last  question. 
Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  will  hear  it. 

Mr.  Morris— Have  you  stated,  now,  the  whole  of  your 
object  in  visiting  Boston  ? 
Mr.  Shearman— That  has  not  been  asked. 
Mr,  Evarts— You  have  not  asked  that  before. 


Mr.  Morris— Well,  I  ask  it  now  ?  A.  M^y  object  in  going 
to  Boston  was  to  hear,  under  instructions  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
what  all  that  matter  meant,  of  telegraphing  him  to  come 
to  Boston ;  and  Mr.  Beecher  said  to  me :  "Go  that  way 
home  and  see  what  this  thing  means,  but  remember  this, 
that  I  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  any  condition  or  ar- 
rangement aflfecting  all  these  scandals,  except  upon  the 
condition  that  Mr.  Francis  D.  Moulton  and  Theodore  Til- 
ton  make  an  absolute  retraction  of  every  charge  affecting 
my  moral  character  that  they  have  made  against  me." 

Q.  And  from  whom  did  you  expect  to  leam,  when  you 
got  to  Boston,  the  facts  ?  A.  I  did  not  expect  to  learn 
that  from  anybody. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  expect  to  talk  with  there?  A.  I  ex- 
pected to  talk  with  Mr.  Redpath. 

Q.  And  did  you  expect  to  meet  Mr.  Tilton  there  I  A.  I 
did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  expect  to  meet  Mr.  Moulton  there?  A.  I 
did  not. 

Q.  And  how  long  had  you  been  at  the  White  Mountains  ? 
A.  About  a  week. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Redpath  there  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  knew  that  he  had  been  up  at  the  White  Mount- 
ains to  see  Mr.  Beecher,  didn't  you  ?  A.  I  may  have ;  I 
have  forgotten  it.  I  knew  he  was  there  after  I  was. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  I  knew  that  he  was  there  after  I  left  the 
White  Mountains.  I  don't  recollect  whether  he  was  there 
before. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  he  was  there  before  that  ?  A.  1 
don't  recollect ;  I  may  have  known  it. 

Q.  Well,  what  were  you  to  do  after  you  had  heard  what 
Mr.  Redpath  had  to  say  about  the  matter?  A.  That  de- 
pended upon  what  Mr.  Redpath  said. 

Q.  Well,  what  were  you  to  do  if,  in  your  judgment,  his 
statement  was  satisfactory  ?  I.  I  had  no  idea  that  hia 
statement  would  be  satisfactory. 

Q.  No,  no,  that  is  not  tbe  question:  what  were  you  to 
do  in  case  Mr.  Redpath's  statement  should  be  satisfac- 
tory? 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  a  preconceived  plan 
of  what  he  was  to  do  implies  instructions.  He  has  given 
his  whole  instructions,  and  speculative  inquiries  as  to 
what  the  witness  now  thinks  he  would  have  done,  if  this 
or  that  view  had  been  presented  by  Mr.  Redpath,  are  not 
admissible.  That  is  not  a  worthy  subject  of  inquiry,  as 
it  seems  to  me.  Of  course  anything  that  Mr.  Beecher 
told  this  gentleman,  or  any  implied  instructions— all  that, 
of  course,  is  right. 

Judge  Neilson— This  question  looks  to  an  implied  in- 
struction. 

Mr.  Evarts— Let  it  take  that  shape,  then. 


TJEJSTIMONJ   OF  HENBY  M.  CLEVELAND, 


181 


ME.  BEECHER'S  INSTRUCTIONS  TO  MR. 
CLEVELAND. 

Mr.  Morris — No ;  the  counsel  is  mistaken ; 
tlie  witness  lias  not  stated  all  of  tlie  instructions  that  Mr. 
Beeclier  gave  liim. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  don't  object  to  your  drawing  tliem 
out. 

Mr.  Morria— And  we  liave  tlie  written  evidence  liere  of 
tlie  fact  that  he  has  not  stated  all  the  instructions  that 
Mr.  Beecher  gave  him  before  ho  went  to  Boston. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  object  to  your  drawing  out  instruc- 
tions from  Mr.  Beecher  ru  any  form  that  you  please  ;  I 
believe  that  is  right.  You  may  get  others. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  I  ask  you  again,  Mr.  Cleveland,  what 
did  you  intend  to  do,  or  what  were  you  to  do  in  case  Mr. 
Redpath's  statements  should  be  satisfactory  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Tracy— To  that  we  object. 

Mr.  Evarts— "We  don't  know  what  "  satisfactory " 
means. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  he  may  answer. 

The  Witness— Will  you  repeat  the  question  1 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  last  question. 

A.  If  Mr.  Redpath's  statement  to  me  had  been  accom- 
panied with  an  authentic  withdrawal  from  Theodore  Til- 
ton  and  Francis  D.  Moulton  of  all  their  charges  against 
Mr,  Beecher,  I  should  have  then  taken  that  proposition 
to  Mr.  Beecher  for  his  own  settlement. 

Q.  And  then  you  expected  to  return  back  to  the  White 
Moimtatas  in  case  this  was  satisfactory,  and  report  to 
Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  I  had  no  expectation  of  returning,  for 
I  had  no  kind  of  idea  I  should  see  anything  or  learn  any- 
thing that  would  interest  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  understand  the  meaning  of  this  lan- 
guage 1   [Reading]  : 

I  hereby  authorize  him  [that  is  youj  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine  ta  my  behalf  all  matters  whatsoever  in  relation  to 
t3ie  scandal  which  have  arisen,  and  I  give  him  authority 
to  sign  my  name  to  any  arrangements  and  documents 
which  may,  in  his  judgment,  be  needful,  and  I  will  accept 
his  agreements  as  if  made  by  myself. 

Did  you  understand,  with  this  document  in  your  pos- 
session, that  after  you  had  heard  the  statement  of  Mr 
Redpath  you  were  to  return  and  report  to  Mr.  Beecher 
before  taking  action  1  A.  My  answer  to  that  is  that  no 
man  living,  probably,  but  Henry  Ward  Beecher  would 
ever  have  written  such  a  letter,  glviag  me  such  unlimited 
authority. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  no,  no. 

The  Witness  [Continuing]— And  that  I  never  should 
have  signed  a  paper  in  his  behalf, 
Mr.  Morris— One  moment— stop !   I  move  to  strike  that 

OUT. 

Ml'  Evarts— Hear  the  answer,  and  strike  out  what  Is 

Mr.  Morris— I  move  to  strike  out  all  that  he  said,  as  not 
«sponsive  in  any  sense. 


Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  the  ordinary  practice  to  hear 
the  answer,  and  then  determine  what  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  Beach— No ;  when  the  witness  undertakes  to  make 
an  irrelevant  statement,  and  has  gone  far  enough  to 
show  that  it  is  irrelevant,  it  is  proper  to  stop  the  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  many  sentences,  with  the  best  of  us, 
would  be  irrelevant,  if  they  were  stopped  in  the  middle  1 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  this  is  irrelevant,  stopped  in  any  part 
of  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  submit,  the  proper  practice,  when  a 
question  arises  of  striking  out  a  witness's  testimony,  is 
that  you  should  have  the  answer,  and  then  consider 
whether  it  should  be  stricken  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  that  is  evident.  Now,  the  question 
seems  to  be  whether  this  witness  would,  as  he  thinks  or 
remembers,  have  taken  the  responsibility  of  acting  as 
there  authorized,  or  whether,  upon  hearing  a  satisfactory 
statement,  he  would  have  preferred  to  return  and  sub- 
mit it. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  not  my  question,  if  your  Honor 
please,  precisely. 
Judge  Neilson— Go  on. 

Mr.  Morris— But  let  us  have  the  ruling  on  this  motion. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  this  is  stricken  out.  Repeat  the 
question,  Mr.  Stenographer. 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  last  question. 

The  Witness— I  should  have  done  so  

Q.  Then,  pray,  what  was  the  object  in  taking  this  docu- 
ment? A.  As  a  matter  of  authority  from  Mr.  Beecher  to 
hear  for  him  what  was  talked  about. 

Q.  But  this  is  authority  to  hear  and  determine  and  to 
sign  all  documents  and  to  biad  him  as  though  he  were 
present  personally  himself  ?  A.  It  is  an  authority  that  I 
never  should  have  exercised. 

Q.  You  understood  that  that  was  Mr.  Beecher's  pur- 
pose iu  giving  the  document,  didn't  you— that  you  should 
exercise  it  1 

The  Witness— If  your  Honor  please,  I  will  make  one 
word  of  explanation  which  will  save  my  good  friend. 
Judge  Morris— my  verbal  iastructions  on  the  morning  of 
September  4,  when  I  left  the  Twin  Mountain  House,  were 
given  to  me  immediately  after  breakfast ;  just  before  I 
stepped  into  the  carriage  to  go  to  the  depot,  Mr.  Beecher 
brought  a  paper  to  me  and  handed  it  to  me  and  said : 
"  If  anybody  doubts  that  you  can  hear  for  me  in  Boston, 
show  them  that  paper."  I  put  it  in  my  pocket,  and  did 
not  read  it  until  after  I  left  the  Twin  Mountain  House. 

Q.  Well,  you  say  you  did  not  expect  to  see  Mr.  TUton  in 
Boston,  and  you  didn't  expect  to  see  Mr.  Moulton?  A.  I 
say  that  I,  personally,  did  not  expect  to  see  Mr.  Moulton ; 
Mr.  Redpath  expected  that  I  might  see  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q,  Did  you  expect  that  IMr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton 
were  goiug  to  withdraw  the  charges  that  had  been  made  f 
A,  If  the  Court  will  allow  me  to  explain  that  point  

Q.  NO,  no ;  did  you  expect  that?   A.  I  did  not. 


182  lEE  TILTON-B 

Q.  No,  you  did  not;  you  hadn't  any  sucli  idea  what- 
ever? A.  No  such  idea  whatever. 

Q.  No,  and  if  you  had  no  such  idea  whatever,  and  if 
you  did  not  intend  to  act  upon  whatever  statement  was 
made,  hut  expected  to  report  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  if  you 
understood  that  he  would  not  do  anything  except  upon 

that  hasis— what  object         A.  I  went  to  Boston  because 

Mr.  

Q.  [Continuing]— Did  you  have  or  expect  to  attain  in 
reporting  back  to  Mr.  Beecher  without  action?  A.  I 
stopped  in  Boston  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  Or,  in  other  words,  what  was  the  purpose  of  your 
visit  there,  if  you  did  not  expect  that  the  charges  would 
be  withdrawn,  and  if  you  knew  that  nothing  would  be 
done,  or  could  be  done,  unless  they  were  withdrawn  1 
Now,  tell  us  what  object — what  was  the  purpose  of 
going  to  Boston  ?  A.  My  purpose  in  gomg  to  Boston  was 
to  see  Mr.  Eedpath,  and  hear  what  he  had  to  say  for  any 
of  the  parties  in  the  controversy. 

Mr.  Shearman — It  was  a  mere  matter  of  curiosity, 
then  1  A.  It  was  a  matter  of  courtesy  to  him  and  Gov. 
Claflin  and  other  gentlemen  in  Boston. 

Q.  In  response  to  telegrams?  A.  In  response  to  tele- 
grams—telegrams from  Gov.  Claflin  and  other  friends  in 
Boston. 

Mr.  Morris— And  do  these  telegrams  relate  to  Mr. 
Moulton's  statement?  A.  I  think  so  

Q.  Did  you  see  them  ?  A.  I  saw— Mr.  Beecher  stated  to 
me  at  the  time  the  substance  of  the  telegrams. 

[Here  a  conversation  took  piace  botween  counsel  in  re- 
gard to  the  telegrams.] 

Mr.  Beach— I  understood  you  to  say  there  was  no  ob- 
jection to  these  telegrams. 

Mr.  Evarts— No ;  I  say  I  have  no  doubt  they  may  be 
treated  as  if  they  were  original.  They  are  not  the  whole 
series. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  one  in  Latin  I  presume  is  very 
much  better  than  as  it  was  actually  received ;  it  had  to 
go  through  three  telegraph  offices.  I  believe  it  was  dog 
Latin  when  it  got  there. 

THE   CHAEGE   OF  BLACKIMAIL. 

Mr.  Morris  [to  the  witness] — What  were  you 
to  do,  if  anything,  with  reference  to  the  charge  that  had 
been  made  against  Mr.  Moulton  of  blackmail? 

Mr.  Shearman— I  didn't  catch  that  question. 

Mr.  Morris— I  asked  what,  if  anything,  was  he  to  do 
with  reference  to  the  charge  that  had  been  made  against 
Mr.  Moulton  of  blackmailing  ? 

The  Witness— I  had  nothing  specially  to  do  with  that. 

Q.  There  was  nothing  said  as  to  the  withdi'awing  of 
jnat  charge  1  A.  By  whom  ? 

-  Q.  By  Mr.  Beecher.   A.  I  don't  recollect  that  there  was. 
Q.  In  any  event  ?  A.  I  don't  

Q.  If  Mr.  Moulton  withdrew  his  charge,  wasn't  it  un- 


^jECRMB  IBIAL. 

derstood  that  that  charge  was  to  be  -»\^itbdrawn  agajjjat 
him  ?   A.  It  was  not. 
Q.  It  was  not?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  That  was  to  stand  ?  A.  There  was  no  understand- 
ing about  withdrawing  

Q.  Well,  you  say  it  was  not  to  be  withdrawn? 

Mr.  Shearman— No ;  he  said  there  was  no  understand- 
ing that  it  was  to  be  withdrawn. 

Mr.  Morris— Nothing  said  upon  that  subject  at  all? 

The  Witness— Nothing. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  Nothing  that  affected  that  questioa  spe- 
cially. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  upon  that  subject  at  all  befoi^ 
you  went  to  Boston  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— The  question  ought  to  point  out  what 
subject,  because  here  are  two  subjects. 

Mr.  Morris— The  blackmail. 

The  Witness— I  will  explain  that,  if  the  Court  please. 

Mr.  Morris — The  subject  of  blacinnail — ^no,  my  question 
is,  was  there  anything  said  upon  that  subject  before  you 
left  for  Boston  ?  A.  There  was. 

Q.  What  ?   A.  There  was. 

Q.  iso<v,  then,  I  ask  you  again,  wasn't  that  charge  of 
blackmail  to  be  withdrawn  in  case  you  should  find  the 
parties  i-eady  to  withdraw  the  charge. 

Mr.  .■^vaits- 1  submit,  if  yom*  Honor  please,  the  proper 
question  is  what  was  said,  or  else  it  must  be  made  appar- 
ent that  he  is  not  asking  for  what  was  said,  but  for  some 
other  understanding. 

Judge  Neilson— On  direct  examination,  that  is  clearly 
so,  but  

The  Witness— I  will  answer  the  question.  Judge,  if  you 
will  repeat  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Go  on ;  answer  the  question. 

The  Witness— Mr.  Beecher  said  to  me  that  

Mr.  Morris— No,  no  ;  I  didn't  ask  you  that. 

The  Witness — I  cannot  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Morris— T  am  asking  for  your  understanding.  I~as1c 
if  you  did  not  understand  that  you  were,  on  behalf  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  to  withdraw  that  charge  ?  A.  I  did  not  so  un- 
derstand it  at  all. 

Q.  You  did  not  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Not  under  any  circumstance*?  A.  Under  any  cir- 
cumstances. 

Q.  And  what  papers  did  you  understand  that  you  were 
to  sign  ?  A.  I  did  not  personally  understand  that  I  waa 
to  sign  any. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  intend  to  sign  any  X  A.  I  dit^  not 
intend  to  sign  any. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  says  this  paper  was  linnded  to  tini.  aa 
he  got  into  the  coach,  and  he  did  not  read  it  iniLM  tot 
off. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes :  hr  was  at  liberty  to  act  under  it  or 
not,  of  course,  as  to  signing  papers. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  had  his  verbal  instructions.  This  is  a 
a  letter  of  credence  which  he  did  not  read,  as  when  one 


TESIIMONY   OF  HFX. 

goes  on  a  commission  "wltli  sealed  orders,  not  to  lie  opened 
until  you  are  off  soundings. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  see  tlie  pertinency,  Sir,  of  that  ex- 
planation. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  Is  an  examination  that  overlooks 
TS-hat  has  been  already  testified  to. 
Mr.  Beach— No,  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  no.  Well,  When  you  got  in  Boston  you 
exhibited  this  document,  did  you  not,  as  showing  your 
full  authority  to  act  in  behalf  of  Mi'.  Beecher  1  A.  I  think 
quite  likely ;  I  do  not  recollect  that. 

Q.  Don't  recollect  of  showing  it  1  A.  I  may  have  shown 
it  to  IVIr.  Redpath  at  the  Revere  House ;  I  either  told  him 
that  I  had  it,  or  showed  it  to  him. 

Q.  Don't  3"0u  know  that  you  showed  it  to  him  ?  A.  I 
don't ;  he  knew  that  I  had  it,  either  by  my  statement,  or 
by  reading  it ;  I  cannot  tell  which. 

Q.  Well,  when  you  saw  Mr.  Redpath  did  you  say  to  Mm 
anything  about  your  written  authority  being  limited  by 
private  instructions  from  your  principals  t  A.  We  had  no 
^iiscussion  about  that. 

Q.  Did  you  communicate  that  fact  to  Mr.  Redpath,  that 
y  uL  had  not  the  authority,  or  did  not  intend  to  act  as  here 
Indicated  in  the  paper ;  but  that  your  authority  was  lim- 
ited by  private  instructions  ?   A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  not  1  A.  The  only  conversation  with  Mr.  Red- 
path  at  the  Revere  House  was  in  regard  to  my  meetmg 
Gen.  Butler  and  Mr.  Moulton  the  next  day.  He  at- 
tempted to  make  an  appointment,  and  

Q.  You  Avanted  to  meet  them  ]  A.  I  was  willing  to  meet 
them. 

Q.  You  went  there  for  that  purpose  ?  A.  I  went  there 
to  meet  them  or  anybody  else. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  either  of  them?   A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Why  not?  A.  Well,  I  understood  from  Mr.  Redpath 
that  they  ayouKI  not  see  me. 

Q.  Oh,  they  declined  to  meet  you?  A.  That  was  his  re- 
3vort  to  me. 

TELEGRAMS  IN  LATIN  AND  ENGLISH. 

Mr.  Morris  [reading :] 

Twin  Mountain  House,  Sept.  3. 
James  Redpath,  Globe  Offi.ce : 

Send  on  your  dispatch  in  Latin.   Operator  will  wait. 
Can  you  wait  till  my  reply  shall  come  ?  H.  w.  B. 

[Marked  Exhibit  123.] 

Now  the  Latin  one  I  will  give  to  Gen.  Pryor.  Gen. 
Pryor  will  be  so  kind  as  to  give  us  the  translation. 

Mr.  Pryor— If  youi"  Honor  please  

Mr.  E  varts— Read  it  in  Latin ;  perhaps  the  jury  under- 
stand Latin,  anyway. 

Mr.  Morris— Better  read  it  in  translation. 

Mr.  Evarts— His  Houor  doubtless  does.  If  there  is  any- 
one that  does  not  understand  he  can  raise  his  hand. 

Mr.  Pi-yor— I  am  willing  that  my  classical  friend,  Mr. 
£varts,  should  interpret  it;  I  will  accept  his  rendering. 


BY  JL    CLUYELAISD.  183 

Mr.  Evarts— No ;  you  may  give  the  direct  reading,  and 
I  will  cross-examine  you  upon  it.  [Laughter.] 
Mr.  Pryor  [reading]  : 

Boston,  1874. 
To  H.  W.  Beecher,  Twin  Mountain  House,  N.  R.  : 
Veni,  veni,  et  statim,  in  nomine  Patris. 
Licet  magnum  per iculum  averti. 

Silens  lahoravi  tres  annos  ut  obtineam  auctorifatem 
quam  teneo  diem  unum  solum.  Ne  me  frustres  tuo  dubv- 
tatione.    Veni.  .  J.  K. 

[Marked  Exhibit  124.] 

The  English  of  it,  I  believe,  we  are  agreed,  is  : 
Come,  come,  and  at  once  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  to 
the  end  that  a  great  peril  may  be  averted.  Silently  I 
have  labored  for  three  years  that  I  might  obtain  an  au- 
thority which  I  hold  for  one  day  only.  Do  not  frustrate 
me  by  your  doubts,  or  "  suspicions,"  perhaps. 

Signed,  J.  R. 

]Mr.  ByaTts—" Dubitatione,"  ityoxir  Honor  please,  means 
"dubitation"  naturally,  or  hesitation,  uncertainty,  or 
doubt. 

Mr.  Beach— Both  doubt  and  hesitation. 
Mr.  Evarts— Doubting  or  hesitation,  I  suppose.  We 
have  an  English  word  "  dubitation"  that  comes  pretty 
near  "  dubitatione." 
Mr.  Morris— [Reading] : 

Twin  Mountain  House,  Sept.  3. 
To  James  Redpath,  Globe  Office: 

Cleveland  will  come  with  full  documentary  power  to  act 
conclusively  in  my  behalf.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to 
leave  before  Monday,  if  at  all.  H.  w.  b. 

[Marked  Exhibit  125.] 

Twin  Mountain  House,  Sept.  3. 
To  jAikiES  Redpath,  Boston  : 

I  cannot  come.  Meet  Cleveland  on  Friday  at  Lowell. 
He  leaves  on  9:30  to-morrow.  n.  w.  b. 

[Marked  Exhibit  126.] 

Twin  Mountain  House,  Sept.  4. 
James  Redpath,  Tremont  House  : 

Cleveland  left  here  on  the  9:30  this  morning.   Wait  for 
him  at  Tremont,  but  send  a  messenger  to  Revere  House. 
[Marked  Exhibit  127.]  h.  w.  b. 

Twin  Mountain  House,  Sept.  4. 
To  James  Redpath,  Boston: 

Cleveland  left  Twin  Mountain  House  at  9:30  this  morn- 
ing, and  will  meet  you  at  Lowell  depot  at  6:20  this  (Fri- 
day) afternoon.   Is  that  plain?  h.  w.  b. 
[Marked  Exhibit  128.] 
Now  we  will  have  these  marked. 
Mr.  Beach— Well,  they  can  be  marked  hereafter. 
Mr.  Morris— You,  I  think,  said  yesterday,  Mr.  Cleve- 
land, that  you  saw  that  telegram  before  you  left  the 
Twin  Moxmtain  House  ?    A.   I  did  not  so  testify,  I 
think. 

Q.  I  so  understood  you. 
Mr.  Evarts— Which  is  that  ? 

The  Witness— I  did  not,  I  think— I  do  not— I  knew  of  cl-  -:- 
telegrams.   I  could  not  swear  that  I  read  one  of  them. 
Mr.  Beecher  told  me  about  them,  and  possibly  read  Tl;ei- 
to  me ;  I  do  not  recall  that. 
Mr.  Morris — And  when  did  he  read  the  telegrams  to  you 


184 


THE   TILION-BPJEOEJSE  TBIAL. 


or  give  you  the  substance  of  them  %  A.  If  you  will  allow 
me  to  explain  that  

Q.  How  long  before  you  left  the  Twin  Mountain  House  ? 
A.  A  word  of  explanation,  if  you  will  accept  it. 

Q.  No  ;  I  am  only  asMng  the  time  simply.  A.  I  re- 
turned from  Mount  "Washington  on  Thursday  evening ;  in 
the  evening  Mr.  Beecher  said  he  had  had  a  dispatch  from 
Mr.  Redpath  to  go  to  Boston.  I  said,  "  Are  you  going?' 
"  No,  of  course  not." 

Q.  Well,  now,  I  am  not  asking  for  that.  A.  I  thought 
you  asked  for  

Q.  Now,  I  am  asking  for  the  time  when  you  became 

aware  A.  In  the  evening  of  Thursday,  the  3d,  I 

think. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  leave  until  the  next  day  1  A.  I  left 
the  next  morning, 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  morning— 9:30,  as  stated  here  ? 
A.  I  could  no;  hav^.  told,  Sir ;  that  is  

Q.  Well,  9:oU,  it  says  here.  You  say  that  when  you 
asked  Mr.  Beecher  if  he  was  going,  that  he  answered 
"No,  of  course  not?"  A.  That  is  what  he  said. 

Q.  Was  peremptory  about  it  ?  A.  Peremptory. 

Q.  Well,  had  he  spoken  to  you  about  this  dispatch  in 
which  he  says  he  cannot  leave,  "  It  is  impossible  for  me 
to  leave  before  Monday,  if  at  all?"  A.  He  had  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  is  the  date  of  that? 

Mr.  Morris— Sept.  3. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Cleveland  ought  to  see  the  dispatch 
before  he  answers. 

The  Witness— I  could  not  tell  anything  about  that ;  I 
think  my  first— the  first  statement  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  me 
was  that  he  had  a  dispatch  from  Mr.  Redpath. 

Q.  That  was  Thursday,  the  3d,  wasn't  it  ?  I  could  not 
—I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  You  left  on  Friday  ?  A.  I  left  on  Friday. 

Q.  That  was  the  4th  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  see- 
ing a  dispatch  when  he  stated  to  me  that  he  had  had  one 
from  Mr.  Redpath. 

Q.  And  when  was  it  suggested  that  you  should  go  to 
Boston  1  A.  Friday  morning. 

Q.  How  long  before  you  left  1  A.  An  hour,  or  an  hour 
and  a  half. 

Q.  Were  you  intending  to  leave  the  Twin  Mountain 
House  on  Friday  when  you  went  there  Thursday  ?  A.  I 
was  intending  to  leave  on  Saturday  or  Monday. 

Q.  Oil  Saturday  or  Monday?  A.  Yes  ;  I  had  not  de- 
termijied  which. 

Q.  And  Avhat  induced  the  change  of  your  purpose  1  A. 
The  request  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  stop  in  Boston  and  see 
what  this  

Q,.  Well,  but  you  could  have  stopped  there  on  Monday 
or  Saturday  as  weU,  couldn't  you  ?  A.  I  hadn't  the  time, 
Sir ;  my  plan  was  to  

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Cleveland,  you  were  half  through  an 
answer ;  will  you  be  so  good  as  to  complete  it. 

Mr.  Morris— He  was  through  all  I  want  oi  It. 


Mr.  Evarts— I  know  that. 

Mr.  Morris— It  was  an  answer  to  my  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  there  is  no  right  to  stop  it. 

Mr.  Morris— I  say  there  is.  When  a  witness  has  an* 
swered  a  question,  and  then  is  going  on  to  state  some- 
thing else  beyond  that,  it  is  proper  for  counsel  to  stop 
him. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  ask  another  question,  and  it  stops  an 
answer,  and  then  the  witness  is  reported  as  making  half 
answers. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  must  be  allowed  to  answer, 
of  course. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  did  not  observe  your  Honor's  remark. 

Judge  Neilson— Of  course,  he  must  be  allowed;  and 
then  if  it  is  a  wrong  answer,  it  may  be  struck  out. 

Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  please,  I  do  not  assent  to 
that  rule  of  examination. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  we  don't  take  it  as  a  rule— it  is  a 
suggestion;  and  it  may  often  be  a  proper  suggestion  and 
the  proper  rule,  but  not  always,  of  course. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly.  But  I  submit  to  your  Honor 
that  it  is  the  province,  not  only  of  eounsel.  but  it  is  tho 
duty  of  the  Court,  when  a  witness  has  fully  answered  a 
question,  and  is  proceeding  to  state  immaterial  and  irrel- 
evant matter,  to  stop  him.  It  is  not  bound  to  be  received,^ 
to  be  put  before  the  jury  and  the  public  as  a  portion  of 
the  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Undoubtedly;  otherwise  the  examiner 
would  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  agree  to. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  what  you  are  disputing. 

Mr.  Evarts— No;  it  is  not.  But,  in  the  midst  of  an 
answer  the  witness  is  stopped  by  a  new  question ;  that  is 
what  I  complain  of. 

Mr.  Morris— I  stop  the  witness ;  and  whether  by  put- 
ring  another  question  or  by  an  objection  is  wholly  imma- 
terial ;  he  had  answered  the  question  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  Mr.  Morris  will  take  the  answer  of 
the  witness  as  long  as  it  seems  in  any  degree  to  be  re- 
sponsive. 

Mr.  Morris— Certainly. 

Judge  Neilson— And  Mi'.  Cleveland,  you  answer  the 
questions  as  directly  and  briefly  as  you  can.  Let  ub  see 
if  we  cannot  get  along  without  trouble. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  let  us  go  back  to  that ;  you  say  you 
changed  your  purpose  in  returning  home  at  the  request 
of  Mr.  Beecher  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  that  request  was  made  Friday  morning  1  A. 
Friday  morning. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  request  that  had  been  made  to 
you  1  A.  It  was. 

Q.  The  day  previous  or  the  night  previous,  any  sug- 
gestion upon  that  point  made  ?   A.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  Beach— Show  him  that  telegram.  Give  him  that 
telegram. 

Mr.  Morris  f Handing  paper  to  witnese.J— Look  at  that 


TJ^STIMOJSY  OF  REl 

and  see  if  that  refreshes  your  recollection.  A.  That  does 
not  refresh  my  recollection  at  all.  I  returned  to  the 
Twin-Mountain  House  in  the  evening  of  Tuesday  from 
the  White  Moimtains— from  Mount  Washington.  What 
Mr.  Beecher  had  determined  to  do  with  me  I  certainly 
did  not  Irnow. 

Q.  v^Tjd  Mr.  Beecher  had  not  said,  anything  to  you 
Tliursday  night  upon  the  subject  at  all  ?    A.  Oh,  he  had. 

Q.  No,  about  going  to  Boston,  I  mean  ?   A.  He  had. 

Q.  Oh,  lie  had  spoken  to  you  then  on  Thursday  night 
about  going  to  Boston?  A.  He  had  talked  about  the 
Boston  affair,  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  No,  no  ;  about  your  going  to  Boston  ?  A.  He  did  not 
request  me  on  Thursday  night  to  go  to  Boston. 

Q.  Had  that  entered  in  the  conversation,  as  to  whether 
you  should  go  to  Boston  or  not,  or  had  your  name  been 
connected— mentioned  in  that  connection,  as  goiug  to 
Boston  in  answer  to  these  telegrams  %  A.  The  statements 
on  Thursday  evening  to  me  by  Mr.  Beecher  were  as  to 
what  his  

Q.  No,  no. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  that  is  evidently  irresponsive.  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— No,  I  ask  you  if  on  Thursday  night  there 
was  anything  said  at  all  about  your  going  to  Boston  be- 
tween you  and  Mr.  Beecher  %  A.  There  might  have  been 
an  allusion  to  my  going  to  Boston. 

Q.  Do  you  still  say  that  it  was  first  suggested  to  you 
an  hour,  about,  before  you  left  on  Friday  morning  ?  A. 
I  still  say  that  the  specific  request  to  me  to  change  my 
day  of  leaving  and  stop  in  Boston  was  made  on  Friday 
moreing. 

Q.  And  before  Friday  morning  you  had  not  intended  to 
go  to  Boston  ?  A.  I  had  not  intended  to  go  to  Boston 
Friday ;  I  had  not  intended  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Were  you  not  aware  on  Friday  night  that  this  spe- 
cific telegram  was  sent— Thursday  night— [Keading.J  : 

Cleveland  will  come  with  full  documentary  power  to 
act  conclusively  in  my  behalf.  It  ii  impossible  for  me  to 
leave  before  Monday,  if  at  all. 

Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  had  no  knowledge  of  such 
a  dispatch  as  that  being  sent  on  Thursday  night  ?  A.  I 
do  not  recollect  anything  about  the  dispatch. 

Q.  This  letter  was  handed  to  you  where  1  A.  As  I  was 
getting  into  the  stage  to  go  to  the  cars. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  it  was  written  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

RUMORED  THREATS  BY  MR.  CLEVELAND 
DENIED. 

Q.  Mr.  Cleveland,  when  do  you  say  you 
severed  your  connection  with  The  Christian  Union  f 
A.  The  31st  of  December,  1873. 

Q.  And  what  business  did  you  enter  into  then  1  A.  I 
entered  Into  partnership  with  H.  C.  Hulbert  &  Co. 

Q.  What  is  tlieir  business!  A.  Paper  maaufacturers 
uid  Importe 


RY  M.   OLEVELA^D.  185 

Q.  Do  you  supply  material  for  the  house  of  J.  B.  Ford 
&  Co.  ?   A.  We  do  not. 

Q.  After  leaving  The  Christian  Union  did  you  solicit  a 
contract  with  Mr.  Ford,  or  with  his  house,  fop  the  supply 
of  paper  ?  A.  I  think  we  did. 

Q.  It  was  declined  on  the  ground  that  they  had  a  more 
favorable  contract?  A.  It  was  withdrawn.  Sir,  by  H.  C. 
Hulbert  &  Co. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  to  Mr.  J.  B.  Ford,  in  substance,  at 
that  time,  that  you  had  the  power  to  ruin  The  Christian 
Union  ?  A.  To  whom,  Sir! 

Q.  To  Mr.  Ford?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  about  that?  A.  lam. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  Mr.  Ford,  In  substance,  that  you 
knew  the  secret  of  Mr.  Beecher's  relations  with  Mrs.  TU- 
ton  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  that  you  would  divulge         A.  [Interrupting] 

I  did  not. 

Q.  The  secret !  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Nothing  upon  that— nothing  of  that  character  ?  A. 
Nothing  upon  which  that  could  grow. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  of  that  ?   A.  I  am. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  are  you  acquainted  with  Mr. 
Belcher  ?  A.  What  Mr.  Belcher  ? 

Q.  Samuel  ?  A.  I  am. 

THE  REPORT  OF  THE  INVESTIGATING  COM- 
MITTEE. 

Q.  The  report  of  the  Committee  that  you 
signed,  who  prepared  it  ?  A.  The  original  draft  was 
made  by  John  Winslow. 

Q.  And  then  discussed  by  the  Committee  ?  A.  It  was. 

Q.  The  whole  of  the  draft  made  by  him  was  gone  over 
carefully  ?  A.  It  was  gone  over  several  times. 

Q.  You  were  present  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  all  the  members  of  the  Committee  1  A.  Gen- 
erally. 

Q.  And  it  was  gone  over  several  times,  with  the  view 
of  having  it  accurate  and  correct  2  A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  was  it  read  ;  did  you  hear  it  read,  or  read  it, 
after  it  was  completed  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  often  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that 

Q.  More  than  once  ?  A.  I  don't  recoUect. 

Q.  You  understood  its  contents  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  fHanding  book  containing  report  of  the  Investigat- 
ing Committee]— Now,  for  the  purpose  of  refreshing 
yoxir  memory,  I  will  ask  you  to  read  that  paragraph  com- 
mencing with  "Mr.  Belcher." 

A.  [Reading]—"  Mr.  Belcher  testifies  that  he  met  '* 

Q.  Just  read  it  to  yourself,  for  the  purpose  of  refresh- 
ing your  memory  ?  A.  I  beg  your  pardon ;  I  thought 
you  meant  

Q.  Now  that  statement  is  true,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— What  is  it  ? 

The  Witness— There  is  one  phrase  in  that  statement 
that  is  not  true. 


i86  THB  TILTON-Bl 

Q.  One  phrase  tliat  is  not  true  !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  I  Reading;] 

Mr.  Belcher  testified  that  he  met  Mr.  Tilton  on  the 
ferry-hoat  about  two  weelrs  after  the  publication  of  the 
Woodhull  scandal,  and  they  talked  the  matter  over.  He 
says  that  Tilton  was  at  first  mysterious  and  non-commit- 
tal ;  but  on  their  way  home,  in  Brooklyn,  Mr.  Tilton  in- 
vited him  into  his  house,  where  the  "  True  Story  "  was 
exhibited  to  Mr.  Belcher. 

That,  you  say,  is  not  true  1 

Mr.  Evarts— He  does  not.  He  says  there  Is  one  pas- 
sage. 

The  Witness— It  is  not  true  that  Samuel  E.  Belcher  tes- 
tified before  the  Committee  that  the  title  of  Mr.  Tilton's 
paper  waa  the  "True  Story." 

Mr.  Beach— Or  that  what  he  read  to  him  was  the  "  True 
Story?"  A.  That  was  an  error  

Mr.  Morris— Or  that  what  he  read  to  Mr.  Belcher  was 
the  "  True  Story,"  did  he  testify  to  that  I  A.  That  is  an 
error  of  Mr.  Winsiow,  who  drew  up  the  report. 

Mr.  Morris— No,  no  ;  what  name  did  Mr.  Belcher  give 
to  this  paper  that  Mr.  Tilton  read  to  him?  A.  He  gave  it 
one  or  two  names. 

Q.  State  them.  A.  He  called  it  a  "  Paper"  or  "  State- 
ment," or  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  State  them  as  near  as  you  can.  A.  That  is  as  near 
as  I  recollect. 

Mr.  Beach  fto  Mr.  MorrisJ— Didhe  use  the  word  "Story  1" 
Mr.  Morris— Did  he  use  the  word  "  Story?"  A.  I  think 
not. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  he  did  not  use  the  word  "Story?" 
A.  I  will  swear  that  he  did  not  use  the  phrase  "  True 
Story  ?" 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  the  question. 

Mr.  Morris— Will  you  swear  that  he  did  not  use  the 
word  "  Story"  in  connection  with  that  paper?  A.  I  am 
hardly  willing  to  swear  that,  whether  he  called  it  a 
paper,  or  statement,  or  document,  or  whatever  

Q.  When  did  you  first  hear  that  it  was  an  error  in  the 
report?   A.  When  I  read  John  Wiuslow's  testimony. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  stenographer's  minutes  of 

the  testimony  that  was  taken  by  the  Committee   A. 

[Interrupting.]   I  have  »ot. 

Q.  To  verify  it  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  You  have  not?  A.  I  have  read  Mr.  Belcher's  testi- 
mony before  the  Committee. 

Q.  What  is  that  ?  A.  I  have  read  Mr.  Belcher's  testi- 
mony. 

Q.  What  from  ? 

Mr.  ohearman— Mr.  Cleveland  thought  you  meant  the 
whole 

Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  moment. 

Mr.  liarris— From  what  did  you  read  Mr.  Belcher's 
testimony  1  A.  I  read  Mr.  Belcher's  testimony  from  this 
book. 

Mr.  Beach— From  which  book  1 


i]ECRER  TBIAL. 

Mr.  Morris— From  which  book?  A.  From  this  state* 
ment. 

Mr.  Beach— In  this  book?  Let  him  point  it  out.  A.  I 
don't  understand  the  question. 

Mr.  Beach— You  said  that  you  had  read  My.  Belcher's 
testimony ;  what  did  you  read  it  from  ?  A.  Mr.  Belcher's 
testimony  before  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Morris— I  ask  you  this  question.  Let  me  call  it 
to  your  mind,  for  I  don't  want  to  confuse  you.  A. 
There  is  no  trouble  about  that.  Sir. 

Q.  You  said  that  you  were  first  aware  that  this  was  in- 
correct when  you  read  Mr.  Winslow's  testimony,  and 
then  you  were  asked  the  question  whether  you  had  read 
the  testimony  taken  before  the  Committee,  and  you  said 
that  you  had  read  Mr.  Belcher's  testimony ;  and  then  the 
question  was,  where  did  you  read  Mr.  Belcher's  testi- 
mony—from what  did  you  read  it  ?  A.  I  read  Mr.  Belch- 
er's testimony  from  this  book. 

Q.  Mr.  Beach— What  book  ?  A.  [to  Mr.  Morris]  The  re- 
port that  you  have  in  your  hand. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris]— Get  the  title  of  it. 

The  Witness— I  imderstand  that. 

Mr.  Morris— This  book.  Called  "  The  History  of  the  Great 
Scandal  ?"  A.  I  read  it  in  the  report  of  the  Committee. 
Q.  Was  it  in  this  book ! 

Mr.  Evarts— He  said  so.  He  said  the  book  that  you 
hold  in  your  hand. 

The  Witness— In  that  book  that  yon  have  in  yovn  hand. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris]— Let  him  show  where  he 
read  it. 

Mr.  Morris  [indicating  a  passage  in  the  book]— Is  that 
the  part  that  you  refer  to  ? 

Mr.  Beach— That  is,  you  read  it  from  the  report  of  the 
Committee;  is  that  your  answer?  A.  Yes;  and  I  have 
understood  

Q.  Not  what  you  understood.  You  read  it  from  the 
report  of  the  Committee,  and  not  from  Mr.  Belcher's  tes- 
timony ?  A.  I  read  it  from  the  report  of  the  Conamittee. 

Q.  Then  you  have  not  read  Mr.  Belcher's  testimony  I 
A.  I  have  not  read  Mr.  Belcher's  testimony. 

Mr.  Morris  [replying  to  a  remark  by  Mr.  Shearman]— 
This  is  not  Mr.  Belcher's  testimony;  this  is  the  report  of 
the  Committee. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  told  you  what  he  means.  He  says 
he  read  out  of  that  very  book  that  very  passage. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Mr.  Belcher's  testimony  is  I  A. 
I  do  not. 

Q.  You  have  made  no  effort  to  see  it  before  you  testified 
here  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  You  expected  to  be  a  witness  ?  A.  I  have  expected 
to  be  a  witness. 

Q.  For  some  time  past !  A.  For  some  time  back. 

Q.  And  you  don't  know  where  Mr.  Belcher's  testimony 
is,  except  that  you  have  an  impression  that  the  Exanmv 
ing  Committee  have  it  1  A.  I  suppose  it  Is  with  the  Ex- 
amining Committee. 


TIJSTmONY  OF   HE^'TIY   M.  (JLEVULAyi). 


187 


Mr.  Beach— I  aslied  you  yesterday,  Mr.  Shoarman,  if 
you  would  furulsli  us  tlie  report  of  the  evidence  by  the 
stenographer  who  attended  the  Examining  Committee. 

Mr.  Shearman— You  never  asked  that  hroad  question, 
Mr.  Beach. 

Mr.  Beach— What,  Sir? 

Mr.  Shearman— You  never  asked  me  that  broad  ques- 
tion. You  asked  me  about  a  particular  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Beach— No ;  I  asked  you  about  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  I  misunderstood  you. 

Mr.  Beach— You  misunderstood  me.  The  question  now 
is,  whether  you  will  furnish  it  to  us. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  question  is,  whether  I  will  get  it. 

Mr.  Beach— What,  Sir? 

Mr.  Shearman— The  question  is,  whether  I  will  get  it.  I 
don't  want  to  be  

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  we  of  course  understand  that  it  is  under 
your  control. 

Mr.  Shearman— No. 

:\!r.  Morris— Your  side  control  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— Not  I. 

['Ai:  Beach  here  consulted  with  Mr.  Tilton.J 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  somewhat  important,  gentlemen,  that 
we  should  understand  whether  you  will  fmTiish  us  with 
the  stenographer's  minutes  of  the  proceedings  before  the 
Examining  Committee,  or  whether  we  must  resort  to  pro- 
cess to  get  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  is  an  understanding — 

Mr.  Beach— I  suggested  it  yesterday. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  understood. 

Mr.  Morris— You  did  not  detect  this  error  in  the  fre- 
quent examinations  of  the  report  prior  to  its  being 
signed?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  no  other  member  of  the  Committee  did,  so  far 
as  you  know  ?  A.  So  far  as  T  know. 

Q.  Well,  you  state  now,  simplj^  upon  what  Mr.  Winslow 
eays,  that  this  is  not  correct,  do  you?  A.  Mr.  Winslow 
told  me  

Ml-.  Beach— Never  mind  what  lie  told  you. 

The  Witness— Thac  is  what  I  

Mr.  Morris — You  form  your  judgment  upon  what  he 
says?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  You  have  no  personal  knowledge  that  Mr.  Belcher, 
in  his  testimony  before  that  Committee,  did  not  use  tbat 
very  phrase,  have  you »  A.  I  won't  swear  to  that. 

Q.  No.  What  was  the  basis  of  this  report ;  what  facts 
were  considered  in  the  malnng  ur;  of  this  report ;  what 
statements  and  evidence ;  upcn  what  v.as  it  based?  A. 
Based  upon  evidence  taken  uy  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Morris,  will  you  ask  him  whether  the 
witnesses  were  sworn  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Were  the  witnesses  examined  before  the 
Committee  sworn?  A.  They  were  not. 

Q.  Just  look  at  that  letter  [indicating  in  the  bookj  and 
read  it  over,  and  tell  me  whether  that  was  given  before 
the  Committee,  in  evidence  ? 


The  Witness  [to  Judge  Neilson  |— If  your  Honor  please, 
I  desire  to  shrink  no  responsibility,  nor  to  withhold  aa&' 
knowledge  or  fact  that  I  have  bearing  upon  this  case 
from  my  first  acquaintance  with  it ;  but  I  submit  to  j'our 
Honor  that  it  will  be  utterly  impossible  for  me,  in  my 
state  of  health,  to  sit  here  and  analyze  that  report  and 
make  it  harmonize  with  evidence  or  with  anything  that 
relates  to  it.  It  will  be  an  utter  impossibility  in  my  state 
of  health,  and  I  appeal  to  your  Honor  that  I  may  be  pro- 
tected in  my  health. 

Judge  Neilson— If  yoiu'  health,  Mr.  Cleveland,  makes 
an  adjournment  desirable  to  you,  we  should  allow  your 
examination  to  stand  over  to  any  future  day. 

Mr.  Morris— We  can  suspend  it,  aad  they  can  go  on 
with  other  testimony.  We  have  not  any  objection  what- 
ever to  that ;  but  there  are  important  points  yet  to  be 
inquired  about. 

The  Witness — I  mean  that  it  would  be  utterly  impossi- 
ble for  me,  at  this  time,  so  far  removed  from  that  report, 
to  make  an  analyzation  of  it. 

Judge  Neilson— I  can  appreciate  that. 

The  Witness— It  is  utterly  impossible. 

Judge  Neilson— I  can  appreciate  that.  Sir. 

The  Witness— I  doubt  whether  your  Honor  can  recall 
many  of  the  several  events  of  this  very  trial  through 
which  you  are  going. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— I  am  going  to  ask  about  some  very  plain 
facts  

The  Witness  [continuing]— And  I  am  free  to  say  that  I 
cannot  do  it ;  I  must  be  protected. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  tliink  it  is  better  to  go  on  and  get 
tlu'ough.  This  is  a  very  plain,  candid  statement,  and  the 
learned  counsel  will  have  no  other  disposition  than  to 
(!'  ■(  ct  attention  to  the  parts  that  he  considers  important, 
and  as  each  question  arises  the  witness  must  meet  it  the 
best  way  he  can.  If  he  says  that  he  does  not  know  anj'- 
thing  about  it,  that  is  the  end  of  that  particular  question. 
Of  course,  everybody  understands  that  for  a  man  suffer- 
ing bodily  pain  to  be  on  the  witness-stand  is  a  yei-y  disa- 
gi-eeable  thing.  Even  to  sit  in  the  repose  of  the  bench  or 
of  the  jury-box  with  a  severe  pain  in  his  body  is  not 
pleasant. 

The  Witness— If  your  Honor  will  allow  me  to  add.  it  is 
important  to  me  to  be  free  from  this  excitement  by  to- 
night, if  possible,  for  my  attack  has  been  one  that  has 
affected  my  head.  I  have  had  one  suspension  of  my  vital 
powers,  and  I  must  ask  the  protection  of  the  Court. 

]VIr.  Morris— Protection  from  what  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  imderstood. 

Judge  Neilson— We  understand  it. 

The  Witness— That  is  not  offensive.  Sir;  I  mean  my 
health. 

Mr.  Morris— We  certainly  have  been  very  consid- 
erate  

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  he  means  the  consideration  of  the  Court. 


188 


THE   TILTON-BEECBER  TRIAL. 


Jadge  Neilson— He  desires  to  be  relieved  and  consid- 
ered as  far  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Morris— We  suggest,  then,  that  they  go  on  with 
some  other  branch  of  their  case. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  simply  desires  to  be  con- 
sidered as  far  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Morris— There  are  several  important  matters  that 
he  is  yet  to  be  examined  upon. 

Judge  Neilson— You  had  better  proceed  for  the  present, 
I  think. 

Mr.  Morris— Very  well,  Sir.  [To  the  witness.]  Now, 
look  at  that  and  see  if  it  refreshes  yoto-  memory  so  as  to 
enable  you  to  state  whether  that  was  given  in  evidence 
before  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  passage  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Is  that  about  Mr.  Belcher  ? 


THE  EVIDENCE  BEFORE  THE  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  Morris— No,  Sir,  it  is  a  letter— a  letter 
in  evidence.   It  is  one  of  your  Exhibits. 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  at  page  334. 

Judge  Neilson— Do  you  remember  whether  it  was  in 
evidence  or  not,  Mr.  Cleveland  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— Does  the  question  show  on  the  record  what 
It  is  that  he  is  asking  about. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  a  letter  from  Mrs.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  without  date. 

Mr.  Evarts— Isn't  it  an  Exhibit  1 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  an  Exhibit. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  does  the  record  show?  AU  I  want  is 
that  the  question  shaU  point  to  the  paper.  The  witness 
knows  what  it  is,  but  the  record  would  not  show. 

Mr.  Morris— D  44  is  the  Exhibit 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well,  D  44. 

Mr.  Morris— Now  do  you  recollect  that  that  letter  was 
contained  in  Mr.  Moulton's  first  long  statement,  and  that 
it  nowhere  else  appeared  1  A.  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  And  have  you  no  recollection  upon  that  point  at  all  % 
A.  No  recollection. 

Q.  Just  look  at  that  statement  commencing  with  the 
word  '*  we,"  and  read  two  or  three  lines,  and  see  if  that 
will  refresh  your  recollection  ? 

Judge  Neilson— State  the  page,  so  that  the  counsel  will 
know  where  to  find  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  misery  of  this  book,  your  Honor,  is 
that  it  has  got  no  paging. 

Judge  Neilson— Ah ! 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  the  trouble.  The  compiler 
ought  to  be  indicted,  convicted,  and  himg.  [Laughter.] 
It  is  a  letter  that  is  nf«t  in  evidence ;  it  is  some  paper  that 
is  not  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Morris— [Reading.  | : 

We  observe  that  Mr.  Moulton  parades  a  letter  purport- 
ing to  have  been  written  by  Mrs.  Tilton  to  him,  J.  J. 
Now,  are  you  not  enabled  to  say  now,  Mr.  Cleveland, 


that  that  quotation,  or  reference,  is  taken  from  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's letter,  and  that  that  was  marked  in  his  long  state- 
ment "  J.  J  ?"  A.  I  have  no  recollection  about  it. 

Q.  You  signed  the  report  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  the  evidence  fresh  in  your  mind  at  the  time  this 
report  was  made  up  ?   A.  Very  likely. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect,  Mr.  Cleveland,  of  hea  ring  or  read- 
ing a  letter  or  statement  written  by  Mrs.  Tilton  that  was 
shown  to  Dr.  Storrs,  commencing : 

In  July,  1870,  prompted  by  my  duty,  I  informed  my 
husband  that  H.  W.  B.,  my  friend  and  pastor,  had  solic- 
ited me  to  be  a  wife  to  him,  together  with  all  that  this 
implied. 

Do  you  have  a  recollection  of  such  a  letter  or  state- 
ment ?  A.  Some  recollection  about  it. 

Q.  Was  that  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect. Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— State  the  number  of  that  Exhibit. 
Mr.  Morris— Can't  you  state  ?   A.  I  cannot. 
Mr.  Shearman— What  is  that  ? 
Mr.  Morris— Exhibit  

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris  j— Never  mind.   Go  on. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  Exhibit  57— plaintiflTs  Exhibit  57. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  I  call  your  attention  to  another  one. 
Exhibit  15  

Mr.  Shearman— PlaiiitifiPs  exhibit  % 

Mr.  Morris— Plaintiff's  exhibit.  Just  look  at  that,  and 
tell  me  whether  that  letter  was  before  the  Committee  or 
not?  A.  I  don't  recoUect,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  after  quoting  from  the  letter  to  which  I  have 
called  your  attention,  the  statement  that  was  shown  to 
Dr.  Storrs,  is  not  this  quotation  intended  to  be  taken 
from  this  letter : 

We  find  her  subsequently  in  a  letter  asking  Mr.  Beech- 
er's  forgiveness  for  the  suffering  she  had  caused  him. 

A.  I  don't  recollect.  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  that  is  a  misquotation?  A.  I 
don't  know  about  it. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  it  uses  the  language  "  subse- 
quently" when  it  was  two  years  prior?  A.  I  don't  know 
anything  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  other  letter  before  the  Commit- 
tee from  which  such  a  quotation  could  have  been  made  % 
A.  I  don't  recollect  much  about  the  letters. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  don't  you  know  that  in  making 
up  this  report  the  Cominittee  quoted  from  certain  letters 
contained  in  Mr.  Moulton's  long  statement  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  that  untU  the  passages  are 
shown  to  him— the  two  papers.  The  witness  has  a  right 
to  see  the  two  documents— the  report  of  the  Committee 
and  the  statement  of  Mr.  Moulton— before  he  Is  asked  the 
question  as  to  the  contents  of  those  papers. 

Mr.  Morris— I  show  him  the  statement  of  Mr.  Moulton. 

Judge  Neilson— I  thmk  Mr.  Shearman's  suggestion  is 
correct. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  understand  that  the  report  itself  says 
that  it  quotes  from  Mr.  Moulton's  statement.  Why,  then, 


TESTIMONY  OF  HEN 

ebould  tliis  gentleman  he  trouMed  with  inciiiiries  of  Uiat 
Mnd,   The  point  seems  to  he  to  prove  

Mr.  Morris — Your  associate  suggested  it,  and  I  was 
going  to  comply  with  his  suggestion. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  I  say  the  report  itself  professes  to 
quote  from  IVIr.  Movdton's  statement,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— It  says  so  on  its  face. 

Mr.  Morris— It  does  not  refer  to  his  statement. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  beg  pardon. 

Mr.  Morris— It  professes  to  quote  from  Mr.  Moulton  in 
this  wise  

Mr.  Evarts— The  point  is,  that  if  the  report  says  so  this 
witness  should  he  relieved  from  the  trouble  of  being 
asked  whether  he  knows  that  it  does  or  not. 

Mr.  Morris— [Heading]: 

We  observe  that  Mr.  Moulton  parades  a  letter  purport- 
ing to  have  been  written  by  Mrs.  Tilton  to  him,  J.  J., 
—and  so  on,  and  then  giving  the  designation  of  the  let- 
ters ;  but  it  does  not  say  that  they  were  taken  from  his 
statement. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  mean,  by  "  parade,"  that  it  was  in 
the  statement. 
Mr.  Morris— What? 

Mr.  Evarts— What  is  meant  by  "  parade  "  is  that  it  was 
in  his  statement. 

Mr.  Morris— I  am  reading  now  from  the  report. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  say  

Mr.  Shearman— One  question  will  cover  that. 

Mr.  Morris— My  purpose  is  to  show  

Mr.  Beach— If  the  gentlemen  admit  that  these  quota- 
tions were  made  from  Mr.  Moulton's  first  long  state- 
ment  

Mr.  Shearman— We  do. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well.  I  don't  know  what  the  object  of 
that  Is.  ♦ 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  then,  I  don't  know  what  the  object  of 
the  interruption  is. 

Mr.  Shearman— Very  well.  It  is  admitted  that  from  the 
statement  published  by  Mr.  Moulton  on  August  21, 1874, 
there  are  two  letters  quoted—— 

Mr.  Morris— No,  there  are  four;  the  letter  marked 
"J.  J."  in  Mr.  Moulton's  statement,  the  letter  marked 
*'K.  K."iQ  his  statenient,  the  letter  marked  "  L.  L."  in 
his  statement,  and  the  letter  marked  "  H.  H."  in  his  state- 
ment. There  are  four. 

Mr.  Evarts— Extracts. 

Mr,  Morris— Yes ;  what  purport  to  be  extracts,  but  what 
axe  false  quotations,  as  we  claim. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  only  make  out  three. 

Mr.  Morris-There  are  four;  "J.  J.,'»  "K.  K./*  and  the 
others ;  you  will  find  them  on  these  pages. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  don't  believe  that  I  can  find  the  pages. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  take  my  book. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  will  look  at  it,  and  whatever  the  fact  is 
•we  will  admit,  instead  of  having  the  memory  of  the  wit- 
ness taxed  upon  it, 

Mr.  .ihcainvan— We  agree  that  there  are  four. 


'RY   M.    CLEVELAND.  18S 

Mr.  Morris— Now  it  is  agreed,  Mr.  Cleveland,  by  the 

counsel  wpon  the  other  side  

Ml".  Shearman— One  moment.   Of  course  it  is  under- 
stood that  by  making  this  admission  we  do  not  intend  to 
put  Mr.  Moulton's  statement  in  evidence. 
Mr.  Beach— No,  neither  the  statement  nor  the  repoi-t 
Mr.  Evarts— No,  neither  the  repcrt  nor  the  statement 

is  in  evidence  ;  and  this  is  rather  a  vague  

Judge  Neilson— Has  the  stenographer  got  your  admis- 
sion 1 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  NeUson— Has  he  got  your  admission  down  as 

you  want  it  ? 
Mr.  Beach- It  is  down,  Sir. 
Judge  Neilson— Go  on,  then. 

Mr.  Morris— Q.  Now,  Mr.  Cleveland,  it  is  admitted  by 
counsel,  and  the  fact  is,  that  ia  maktag  up  your  report 
you  quote,  or  purport  to  quote,  or  at  least  refer  to,  four 
letters  contained  in  Mr.  Moulton's  long  statement  ot 
Aug.  25. 
]\Ir.  Shearman— 2l8t. 
Mr.  Morris— 2l8t  1 
Mr.  Shearman— 21st. 

Mr.  Morria- 21st.  Now,  did  your  Committee  consider 
that  statement  of  Mr.  Moulton  in  making  up  their  re- 
port? 

Mr.  Beach— As  part  of  the  evidence  before  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Morris  [to  the  witness"!- As  part  of  the  evidence 
before  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  am  utterly  unable  to  recall 
any  of  the  detail  of  that  whole  matter. 

Q.  Perhaps  I  ought  to  call  your  attention  to  some  of  the 
testimony  here  to  refresh  your  recollection.  Do  you 
recollect  having  testified  upon  that  subject  at  your  house  t 
A.  I  

Q.  In  which  you  stated  distinctly  that  you  did  not  con- 
sider that  at  all. 
Mr.  Shearman— Wait  a  moment,  wait  a  moment. 
Mr.  Morris— I  will  turn  to  it  in  a  moment.  I  state  it 
correctly. 

Mr.  Shearman  [referring  to  Mr.  Cleveland's  testimony 
at  his  house.]— I  have  found  the  place;  but  It  does  not 
justify  your  question.   It  is  page  137. 
Mr.  Morris— 138  in  mine.    It  commences  on  137.  I 

read :  "  In  making  up"  

Mr.  Morris  [to  the  witness]— Did  you  not  give  the  evl' 

dence  that  I  now  read  at  youi-  house  

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  that  question  on  the  ground 
that  the  evidence  must  be  shown  to  the  witness. 

Mr.  Beach  fto  Mr.  MorrisJ— Wait  a  moment.  Putyoui: 
question  and  read  that. 

Mr.  Morris  [reading  from  Mr.  Cleveland's  former  testt 
monyj : 

Q.  In  making  up  the  report,  did  you  take  kito  consid 
eratiou  as  evidence  before  you  Mr.  Moulton's  long  state 
ment  as  published  by  TJie  Graphic  f  A.  In  mating  up  our 


190 


THU   TlLTOl^-BBEOHEB  TRIAL, 


report  we  took  into  consideration  all  the  evidence  that 
was  given  before  the  Committee. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  regard  that  as  before  the  Commit- 
tee 1  A.  We  did  not  take  any  statement  into  considera- 
tion that  was  not  made  to  the  Committee  in  evidence. 

Q.  That  answers  it.  You  did  not  regard  that  as  in  any 
wise  before  you  at  all.  It  was  not  delivered  to  the  Com- 
mittee. A.  I  can  only  reply  that  in  making  up  that  re- 
port we  based  it  upon  the  evidence  that  we  compiled 
during  that  investigation.  "We  took  no  statement,  in 
making  up  our  report,  that  was  not  put  in  evidence  be- 
fore the  Committee ;  and  that  not  being  laid  before  the 
Committee,  we  did  not  regard  it  as  evidence  before  us. 

Q.  Now,  dl^  you  so  testify  at  your  house  ?  A.  I  accept 
that,  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Q  And  do  you  say  now  that  you  did  not  regard  Mr. 
Moulton's  long  statement  as  in  anywise  before  the  Com- 
mittee? 

Mr.  Beach— Of  August  2l8t. 

Mr.  Morris— Of  August  21st?    A.  Not  as  evidence 
given  to  the  Committee. 
Mr.  Beach— That  answers  it. 

Q.  And  do  you  still  mean  to  say  that  in  making  up  your 
report  you  did  not  take  into  consideration  anything  ex- 
cept what  was  given  to  you  in  evidence  bef  rethe  Com- 
mittee? A.  I  mean  to  say  that  the  report  was  based 
upon  the  evidence  we  had  taken. 

Q.  Had  you  these  four  letters         A.  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  [Contimiing]  that  the  counsel  have  admitted  were 

not  before  you,  and  that  were  in  Mr.  Moulton's  state- 
ment ?  A.  I  don't  recr  liect. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  about  that  I  A.  None  what- 
ever. 

Q.  Mr.  Moiilton  appeared  before  your  Committee  on 
two  or  three  occasions?  A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  made  short  statements  ?  A.  Short  statements. 

Q.  I  read  from  your  report  for  the  purpose  of  refresh- 
ing your  memory : 

We  are  asked  by  Theodore  Tilton  and  his  coadjutor, 
Moulton,  to  believe  that  this  man,  with  his  long  and  use- 
ful life  and  high  character  to  sustain  him,  is  unworthy  of 
confidence,  regard,  and  respect. 

When  did  Mr.  Moulton  ask  you  to  believe  that  ?  A.  I 
can  ot  tell  you,  3ir. 

Q.  At  any  time,  when  he  was  before  the  Committee,  did 
he  use  any  language  that  would  authorize  such  a  state- 
me' t  by  the  Committee?  A.  I  cannot  recall  his  state- 
ments. 

Q.  Don't  you  know,  from  the  character  and  nature  of 
his  statements  before  the  Committee,  that  he  did  not  use 
any  language  that  would  justify  such  a  statement ! 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  that  is  a  general  statement  by 
way  of  characterizing  the  theory  of  the  person  making 
the  charge. 

Mr.  Morris — But  Mr.  Moulton  had  made  no  charge.  Mr. 
Moulton  had  not  been  examined  with  reference  to  the 
•charge  before  the  Committee.   It  was  not  he  i  liat  had 


made  any  charge,  and  his  testimony  was  not  before  the 
Committee,  which  is  shown  in  no  manner  or  form. 

Mr.  Evarts— What,  then,  is  the  relevancy  of  this  exam- 
ination ? 

Mr.  Morris— To  show  that  this  Committee  went  outside 
of  the  evidence  that  was  given  before  them,  to  make  an 
improper  use  of  a  part  of  a  document,  to  make  up  their 
one-sided  and  partisan  report.   That  is  the  object  of  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  the  object  of  this  inquiry. 

Mr.  Mori'is— It  Is,  so  far  as  the  witness  himself  is  con- 
cerned. 

Judge  Neilson— Proceed  and  interrogate  the  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  Mr.  Morris]— By  way  of  disparagement 
of  the  witness's  respectability,  do  you  mean?  I  don't  see 
any  connection  with  the  charge.  Most  all  of  the  testi- 
mony of  this  witness  has  proceeded  upon  the  theory  that 
he,  as  a  member  of  the  Committee,  did  an  Injudicious  and 
rash  thing. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  that  he  did  a  prejudiced  and  unauthor- 
ized thing,  and  made  a  false  charge  against  a  gentleman. 

Mr.  Evarts— Who  was  

Mr.  Beach — Who  was  what  ? 

Mr.  Evarts- Who  was  referred  to  in  the  report 

Mr.  Beach— Exactly. 

Mr.  Morris— And  whom  the  Committee  had  no  business 
to  refer  to. 

Ms.  Evarts— And  whom  the  Committee  had  no  business 
to  refer  to. 
Mr.  Morris— We  ag  .'ee  upon  that. 

Q.  Now,  you  were  aware  that  V  \  Moulton,  before  your 
report,  had  requested  the  privilege  of  going  before  your 
Committee,  were  you  not  i  A.  I  was  aware  that  he  had 
been  requested  to  come  before  the  Committee  and  lay  be- 
fore it  his  

Q.  That  don't  answer  my  question.  Were  you  not  aware 
that  Mr.  MO'  Iton  had  sent  a  commxmlcation  to  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee,  asking  the  privilege  of  coming  be- 
fore the  Committee  and  offering  to  submit  to  examina- 
tion ?  A.  I  am  not  aware  that  Mr.  Moulton  at  any  time 
offered  to  make  a  detailed  statement  to  the  • 'ommlttee. 

Mr.  Morris— That  don't  answer  my  question. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness]— Or  subn  it  to  an  exan> 
ination. 

Tlie  Witness— Or  submit  to  an  examination. 

Mi\  Morns— Were  you  never  informed  that  the  hair- 
man  of  the  Committee,  Mr.  Sage,  received  such  a  dis- 
patch from  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  am  aware  that  Mr.  Moul- 
ton was  Invited — 

Mr.  Beach— No. 

Mr.  Morris — No,  no. 

The  Witness— I  am  not  aware. 

Q.  Now,  after  Mr.  Moulton  in  his  short  statement  be- 
fore the  Committee  had  declined  to  present  documents 
and  letters,  and  make  a  detail  statement  there  before  you 
ma  le  your  report,  he  offered  to  (jome  before  the  Coniniit- 
tee  ji  ud  make  such  statement  and  submit  to  a  cross-exam- 


Ti:STJJiO^  Y  OF  IJEy 

iTinfion?  A.  My  recollectiou  of  that  is,  that  two  or  three 
di.ys  before  the  report  was  read  in  Plymouth  Church ,  Mr. 
Moulton's  partners  received  a  dispatch  from  him  saying 
that  he  wanted  to  go  before  the  Committee.  The  report 
htid  already  been  written  ready  for  delivery. 

Q.  Had  it  been  signed  ?   A.  It  had  been  signed. 

Q.  Well,  it  had  not  been  delivered  ?  A.  It  had  not  been 
^.  ead  to  the  church. 

Q.  And  had  not  passed  from  the  possession  of  the  Com- 
mittee ?  A.  It  had  been  concluded  by  the  Committee. 

Q.  Had  it  passed  from  the  possession  of  the  Committee  ? 
A,  It  did  not  pass  from  the  possession  of  the  Committee 
until  the  evening  of  the  28th  of  August,  or  the  afternoon 
of  the  28th. 

Q.  Had  it  at  that  time  passed  from  the  possession  of 
the  Committee— at  the  time  of  this  communication  ?  A.  I 
don't  recollect  when  it  went  into  the  hands  of  the  Exam- 
iuing  Committee. 

Q.  Was  not  this  communication  that  you  have  spoken  of 
before  the  28th  of  August  ?  A.  I  think  two  or  three  days 
before. 

Q.  You  were  in  church  w'-en  the  West  charges  were 
disposed  of,  were  yon  not  ?  A.  I  was  not.  I  beg  your 
pardon ;  will  you  repeat  yoi  •  question  ? 

Q.  Were  you  not  present  in  tJie  chuix*h  when  the  West 
charges  were  disposed  oil  A.  I  think  I  was,  when  they 
were  disposed  of — I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  The  night  that  Mr.  Tiltou  was  there  ?  A.  I  recollect, 
Sii':  that  I  was  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr,  Sage  was  there  that 
night,  or  not  t   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Or  Ml'.  Augustus  Stons  ?   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Or  Mr,  Horace     Claflin  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Or  any  member  of  the  Committee  except  yoBxself  1 
A.  I  have  no  knowledge. 

Q.  You  heard  the  report  read  there  that  night?  A. 
I  did. 

Q.  And  you  took  part  in  the  proceedings  t  A.  I  took  no 
prominent  part  in  the  proceedii'^s. 

Q.  But  ynu  participated  in  some  degree?  A.  I  was  at 
the- meeting. 

Q.  And  voted  ?   A.  I  voted, 

Q.  n  what?  A.  I  voted,  I  saiA. 

Q.  WeU,  now,  Mr,  Cleveland,  the  r-^port  that  was  made 
there  that  night  made  specific  reference  to  the  West 
charges,  and  the  fact  that  hey  had  been  served  upon 
Mr.  Tilton,  did  they  not  ?  A.  I  cannot  reca'l  to  you  the 
incidents  of  that  evening. 

Ay  INTERMEW  WITH  MR.  HILTON. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  having  an  interview 
with  Mr.  Tilton  at  The  Golden  Age  office  shortly  after  the 
publication  of  the  Bacon  letter  ?  A.  No,  Sir, 

Q.  In  which  you  tried  to  dissuade  him  from  replying  to 
Dr.  Bacon's  letter? 


RY   M.    CLEVELAND.  191 

ilr.  Shearman— How  could  that  be  after  the  Baccii 
letter  1 

3Ir.  Evarts— After  the  publication'. 

Mr.  Morris— I  mean  after  the  publication  of  the  Bacon 
letter,  and  before  the  ptiblication  of  Mr.  Tilton' s  letter  to 
Dr.  Bacon,  in  which  you  dissuaded  him  from  answering 
Dr.  Bacon,  and  induced  him  to  write  a  letter  to  the 
church;  and  that  you  would  see  that  the  matter  was 
there  investigated?  A.  You  have  got  two  interviews 
mixed.  Sir. 

Q,  I  will  ask  you  this  question,  then,  if  at  any  inter- 
view prior  to  his  publication  of  the  Bacon  letter,  and 
after  the  council,  you  did  not  say  to  Jim,  in  substance, 
that  he  ought  not  to  reply  to  Dr,  Bacon,  but  to  send  a 
letter  to  the  church  direct,  and  that  you  would  see  the 

charge         A.  Not  in  that  form;  I  said  to  Mr.  Tilton 

several  times  over  

Q.  No,  no;  in  substance?  A.  You  have  two  things 
mixed. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  I  will  try  and  get  them  straight. 

The  Witness— Very  well,  then  I  will  try  aad  answer 
youi'  question. 

Mr.  Morris— Did  you  say  to  Mr.  Tilton  that  his  better 
plan  was,  in  substance,  not  to  write  a  letter  to  Dr.  Bacon, 
but  to  write  a  letter  to  the  church?  A,  I  said  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton, in  my  store,  that  if  he  desired  to  join  issue  with  Mr. 
Beecher,  it  was  a  manly  way  for  him  to  prefer  his  charge 
against  him  direct,  and  not  go  around  through  Leonard 
Bacon,  of  New-Haven,  and  that  I  would  guarantee 
Plymouth  Chiu'ch  would  take  his  charges  and  investigate 
them.  ^ 

IVIR.  TILTON'S  LETTEii  TO  THE  CHURCH. 

Q.  WeU,  m.  Tilton  after  that  did  wiite  a 
letter  to  the  church,  iid  he  not  ?  A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Look  at  that  [handing  letter  to  witness].  A.  Not 
a^er  he  wrote  the  Bacon  letter. 

Q.  No,  this  is  before  the  Bacon  letter  I  am  talking 
about.  A.  He  wrote  three— one  to  the  pastor,  and  to  the 
assistant  pastor,  and  to  the  clerk  of  Plymouth  Church, 

Q.  i  3  that  the  letter  [handing  letter  to  witness]  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir,  that  is  the  l^'tter. 

J'^T.  M  jr^  's— It  is  May  4,  1874, 

Mr.  uearman— What  is  the  number  of  the  Exhibit  f 

Jlr.  Beach— It  is  in  the  case. 

Ui\  Morris— It  is  Exhibit  33. 

]\Ir  Shearman— No ;  that  is  the  "  Bacon  letter.' 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  contained  ia  the  "  J^acon  letter.** 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  the  letter  of  May  4, 1874,  contained  In 
the  "  Baeon  letter" — quoted  in  the  "iJacon  letter." 

M--.  Shearman— Exhibit  79  i?  the  c  ne  you  now  refer  to. 

t.It.  Morris  [to  the  witness]— Well,  do  you  know  what 
action  was  taken  with  reference  to  the  letter  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sii\ 

Q.  What  ?  A.  It  was  discussed  by  a  number  of  people 
Q.  What  action  was  taken  by  the  church  with  reference 


193  TEE  IILTO^-B 

to  tlie  letter  1  A.  No  action  was  taken  by  tlie  churcli,  if  I 
re<i^Uect  riglit. 

Q.  Well,  what  action  was  taken,  if  any,  by  tbe  Exam- 
iniBg  Committee?  A.  I  think  it  was  discussed  in- 
formally among  the  members  of  the  Examining  Com- 
mittee, and  replied  to  by  Mr.  Shearman. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  discussion?  A.  I  don't 
recollect,  Sir,  whether  I  was  or  not. 

Q.  You  were  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  letter  had  been 
sent?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Now,  didn't  you  promise  Mr.  Tilton  that  you  would 
see  that  action  was  taken  with  reference  to  it  1 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  the  question ;  it  is  assuming 
that  the  witness  said  something  about  taking  action  on 
such  a  letter.  What  the  witness  testified  to  was  that  he 
would  guarantee  action  would  be  taken  on  any  direct 
charge  made  by  Mr.  Tilton  against  Mr.  Beecher.  This 
was  no  such  letter ;  it  was  a  letter  asking  the  church  to 
make  charges  against  Mr.  Tilton;  and  Mr.  Tilton 
never  made  the  charges  of  Mr.  Cleveland.  He 
did  the  very  reverse  thing  of  what  Mr. 
Cleveland  proposed ;  and  now  a  question  is  asked  which 
implies  that  Mr.  Cleveland  did  not  carry  out  his  promise 
to  Mr.  Tilton,  and  Mr.  Tilton  did  nothing  of  the  kind 
which  Mr.  Cleveland  proposed  he  should. 

Judge  Neilson— I  see  what  your  view  is. 

Mr.  Morris— I  withdraw  the  question. 

J  .dge  Neilson— Mr.  Morris,  can  you  close  the  examina- 
tioBL  of  this  witness  before  the  adjouinmeut?  If  not,  we 
may  as  well  adjourn  now. 

Mr.  Morris— It  will  take  half  an  hour  longer. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness  J— Will  that  suit  you,  Mr. 
Cleveland  1 

The  Witness— Thank  you.  Judge. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
Tlie  Coiirt  met  at  2  o'clock,  pers  ant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Henry  M.  Cleveland,  was  recalled,  and  the  cross-ex- 
amination continued. 

THE  WEST  CHARGES. 
Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Cleveland,  you  have  stated 
that  you  became  acquainted  with  the  West  charges,  or 
they  were  brought  to  your  knowledge  in  the  Summer  or 
Fall  of  1873,  and  the  third  Bpeciflcation,  in  whi(;h  refer- 
ence is  made  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw.  Now  what  did  you  re- 
gard Mr.  West— what  offense  or  crime  did  you  repaid  Mr. 
West  as  charging  Mr.  Beecher  with,  in  the  use  of  this 
language,  that  he  had  discovered  a  criminal  intimacy  ex- 
isted between  his  wife  and  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  If  you  will 
allow  me  to  explain,  I  discovered  this  morning  that  I  said 
1873  in  my  testimony — that  that  was  the  year.  My  answer 
should  have  been  1874.  I  spoke  of  having  it  corrected, 
I  think,  to  some  of  the  gentlemen. 


EEC  HE  B  lELAL, 

Q.  Do  you  mean  by  that  that  the  charges  were  no* 
made  until  18741  A.  I  mean  that  I  had  no  knowledge- 
specific  knowledge— of  the  charges  until  1874. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  learn  of  them  in  1874,  and  how  % 
A.  I  read  them  in  Mr.  Tilton's  statement. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  that  is  the  first  knowledge 
that  you  had  of  themi  A.  Yes,  Sir,  in  detail. 

Q.  The  first  knowledge  that  you  had  of  the  character  of 
the  charges  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  in  detail. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  in  detail ;  is  that  the  first  you  knew 
of  the  character  of  the  charges— of  the  West  charges  ?  A. 
The  first  time  I  read  them  was  in  1874. 

Q.  That  is  not  the  question.  Is  that  the  first  knowl- 
edge that  you  had? 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Morris  means  your  general  knowl- 
edge. 

The  Witness— Oh,  I  had  a  general  knowledge  when  they 
were  preferred. 
Q.  When  they  were  preferred  1    A.  That  there  were 

charges. 

Q.  What  did  you  then  understand  th"  charges  to  be?  A. 
I  understood  they  were  charges  against  Mr.  Tilton  and 
Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  What  did  you  imderstand  to  be  the  character  of  the 
charges  against  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  had  no  general  knowl- 
edge—I  had  no  speciac  knowledge  of  the  charges.  I  had 
not  read  them  nor  seen  them. 

Q.  Did  you  not  understand  that  those  charges  were 
based  upon  the  fact  that  he  had  accused  Mr.  Beecher  of 
criminal  intimacy  with  his  wife  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  were  present  when  they  were  disposed  of?  A. 
Yes,  Sir,  I  was  present. 

Q.  And  heard  the  report  of  the  Committee  read  ?  A  I 
think  I  did ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  have  testified  that  the  charges  were  a  mat- 
ter of  general  conversation  among  the  members  of  Plym- 
outh Church?  A.  I  don't  know  how  general  the  con- 
versation was. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  subject. 

The  Witness— The  subject? 

Mr.  Morris— The  subject  of  the  charges  was  a  matter  of 
general  conversation  among  the  members  of  the  church. 
Now,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  in  the  discussions  and  con- 
versations that  were  had  with  reference  to  those,  you 
never  learned  the  nature  of  them?  A.  I  learned  the 
nature  of  them. 

Q.  Now,  what  did  you  learn  about  the  nature  of  the 
charges?  A.  That  they  were  charges  agaiust  Mr.  Bowen 
and  Mr.  Beecher— Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Tilton  for  slander- 
ing the  pastor  of  Plymouth  Church. 

Q.  Slandering  him  in  what  respect  ?  A.  I  cannot  recall 
even  now  the  text  of  those  charges. 

Q.  No,  no ;  I  am  not  asking  after  that.  What  did  you 
understand  the  slander  to  consist  of?  A.  Circulating 
scandalous  stories. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HEl 

Q.  What  scandalous  stories  ?  A.  It  is  difficult  for  me  to 
aay  "svliat. 

Q.  Relating  to  wliati  A.  Relating  to  Mr.  Beecher. 
Q.  Assailing  his  moral  character?  A.  His  moral  char- 
acter. 

Q.  In  what  respect  1  In  respect  to  his  improper  rela- 
tions with  women  ?  A  I  understood  it  so. 

Q.  Yes.  Sir.  And  in  respect  to  his  improper  relations 
with  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  don't  understand  that  so. 

Q.  You  did  not  in  these  general  conversations  and  dis- 
cussions among  the  members  of  Plymouth  Church  un- 
derstand that  his  moral  character  was  involved  in  that 
respect?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  had  any  discussions 
or  conversations ;  it  was  a  matter  I  paid  no  attention  to. 

Q.  You  say  it  was  a  matter  of  general  conversation 
and  tallr  among  the  members.  Now,  what  knowledge 
had  you  upon  that  subject?  A.  Simply  that  I  heard  it 
spoken  of  occasionally. 

Q.  And  you  were  very  intimate  with  Mr.  Beecher  at  that 
time  ?  A.  Oh,  I  was. 

Q.  And  took  great  interest  in  him  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  now  do  you  wish  the  jury  to  imderstand  you 
that  you  did  not  know,  or  had  not  been  informed,  or  did 
not  learn,  that  his  moral  character  was  questioned  in  re- 
spect to  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  don't  say  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  West  called  before  your  Committee  ?  A. 
What  Committee  ? 

Q.  Examining  Committee  ?  A.  I  don't  know,  Sir ;  I  was 
not  a  member  of  it. 

Q.  The  Investigating  Committee,  I  mean  ?  A.  He  was 
not. 

Q,  Can  you  give  the  reason  why  he  was  not  called  ?  A. 
I  suppose  we  did  not  think  best  to  call  him ;  I  have  no 
other  reason. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  reason  why  he  was  not  called  ?  A. 
That  is  the  only  reason  that  I  know. 

Q.  Was  that  a  matter  of  consideration  with  the  Com- 
mittee 1  A.  I  don't  think  it  was. 

Q.  You  aon't  think  his  name  was  mentioned  J  A.  I 
don't  recollect  of  its  being  mentioned. 

Q.  You  cannot  give  us  any  reason  why  you  did  not 
suggest  his  name  ?  A.  I  cannot,  except  

Q.  You  kaew  that  he  was  the  author  of  these  charges  1 
A.  I  knew  that  he  had  prefei'red  charges. 

Q.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  might  be  able  to  throw 
some  light  upon  the  subject  %  A.  It  did  not. 

Q.  Or  furnish  you  the  names  of  the  witnesses  by  whom 
he  expected  to  prove  his  charges  ?  A.  It  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  a  letter  that  Mr.  Tilton 
wrote  on  the  3d  of  August  declining  to  appear  further 
"before  the  Committee,  and  announcing  his  intentions  of 
bringing  an  action?  A.  I  think  I  do  recollect  the  letter. 

Q.  That  was  prior  to  your  visit  to  the  White  Mountains? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Some  time  before  that?  A.  It  was  before  that. 


nil  M.    CLEVELAND.  '  193 

ME.   SHEARMAJST'S    CARD    IN  THE  "INDE- 
PENDENT." 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  a  card  tliat  was  pub- 
lished in  The  Independent  in  the  Spring  or  early  Summer 
of  1874,  signed  by  Mr.  Shearman  1  A.  What  kind  of  a 
card  do  you  refer  to  1 

Q.  Any  card  ?  A.  I  recollect  an  article. 

Q.  Well,  call  it  an  article.  A.  Perfectly. 

Q.  That  was  after  the  appearance  of  some  of  the  Bacon 
articles?  A.  It  was. 

Q.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  that  card  ?  A.  I 
did. 

Q.  In  connection  with  Mr.  Beecher  ?   A.  I  did. 
Q.  In  its  preparation  ?  A.  Not  much  in  its  prepara- 
tion. 

Q.  Any  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  Not  any  in  its  preparation.  The  card  was 
written  by  Mr.  Shearman  ;  the  paper  was  written  by  Mr. 
Shearman. 

Q.  In  any  changes  or  alterations  did  you  consult  with 
Mr.  Beecher,  or  were  you  present  when  it  was  the  sub- 
ject of  conversation?  A.  I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr. 
Beecher  about  the  subject  of  that. 

Q.  And  did  not  you  and  Mr.  Beecher— or,  were  you  not 
present  when  Mr.  Beecher  made  some  suggestions  with 
reference  to  the  character  of  that  card  ?  A.  Mr.  Beecher 
made  some  suggestions  to  me  in  reference  to  the  character 
of  that  card. 

Q.  The  purpose  of  that  card  ?  A.  That  was  prepared 
by  Mr.  Sheai-man  upon  a  specific  agreement  made  be- 
tween Mr.  Tilton  and  myself,  that  all  he  desired  in  that 
matter  of  settlement  of  the  Bacon  letters  was  that  he 
should  be  vindicated  from  any  appearance  of  evasion  in 
regard  to  Ms  connection  with  Plymouth  Church. 

Q.  Was  that  the  object  of  the  card  ?   A.  That  was. 

Q.  WiU  you  look  at  that  and  say  whose  handwriting  it 
is?  [Handing  witness  a  paper.]  A.  It  looks  like  Mr. 
Beecher's. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  about  it  ?  A.  I  have  none, 
really. 

IMr.  Morris— We  offer  that. 

The  Witness— I  am  not  willing  to  swear  to  it,  but  it 
looks  like  Mr.  Beecher's. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  am  very  glad,  if  your  Honor  please, 
to  receive  this  paper ;  and  allow  me  to  remark  that  this 
is  the  paper  that  I  was  accused  a  little  while  ago  of  with- 
holding, and  have  never  been  relieved  of  that  charge 
down  to  this  moment. 

Mr.  Morris— I  don't  relieve  the  counsel  now  of  it,  inas- 
much as  he  was  not  charged  with  it,  and  never  has  been. 
I  said  I  gave  the  two  papers  to  him,  and  whether  he  had 
returned  them  or  not  I  was  not  aware,  but  that  I  was  at 
that  time  imable  to  find  them :  that  was  the  fact.  So 
that  I  don't  relieve  the  counsel  of  an  accusation  tliai 
never  was  made. 


194 


IBE   TILTON-BEEOEEB  TRIAL. 


[Reading  from  tlie  printed  copy  of  tlie  paper  last  sliown 
the  witness,  being  already  marked  "  105,  for  identifica- 
tion."] 

MR.  BEECHER'S  RECONCILIATION  WITH  MR. 
BOWEN. 

About  February,  1870,  at  a  long  interview 
at  Mr.  Freeland's  liouse,  for  ttie  purpose  of  having  a  full 
and  final  reconciliation  between  Bowen  and  Beecher,  Mr. 
Bowen  stated  his  grievances,  which  were  all  either  of  a 
business  nature  or  of  my  treatment  oi  Mm  personally  (as 
per  memorandum  in  his  writing). 

The  memorandum  referred  to  is  the  paper  that  has  been 
put  in  already  by  the  other  side,  and  so  that  it  may  be  un- 
derstood I  will  read  it  in  this  connection: 

BOWEN'S  TERMS. 

JPirs^— Report  and  publish  Sermons  and  Lecture-room 
Talks. 

Second— New  edition  Plymouth  Collection,  and  Free- 
land's  interest. 
T/iirf7— Explanations  to  church. 
Fourth— Write  me  a  letter. 

i^i/if/^— Retract  in  every  quarter  what  has  been  said  to 
my  injury. 

After  hours  of  conference  everything  was  adjusted. 
We  shook  hands.  We  pledged  each  other  to  work  hence- 
forth without  a  jar  or  break.  I  said  to  him :  "  Mr.  Bowen, 
if  you  hear  anything  of  me  not  in  accordance  with  this 
agreement  of  harmony,  do  not  let  it  rest.  Come  straight 
to  me  at  on.  e,  and  I  will  do  the  same  by  you."  He  agreed. 
In  the  lecture-room  I  stated  that  all  our  differences  were 
over,  and  that  we  were  friends  again.  This  public  recog- 
nition he  was  present  and  heard,  and  expressed  himself 
as  greatly  pleased  with.  It  was  after  aU  this  that  I  asked 
Mr.  Howard  to  help  me  carry  out  this  reconciliation,  and 
to  caU  on  Mr.  Bowen  and  to  remove  the  little  differences 
between  them. 

Mr.  Howard  called— expressed  his  gratification. 

Then  it  was  that  without  any  provocation  he  (Mr. 
Bowen)  told  Mr.  Howard  that  this  reconciliation  did  not 
include  one  matter  that  he  (Bowen)  "knew  about  Mr. 
Beecher  which  if  he  should  speak  it  would  drive  Mr. 
Beecher  out  of  Brooklyn."  Mr.  Howard  protested  with 
horror  against  such  a  statement,  saying :  "  Mr.  Bowen, 
this  is  terrible.  No  man  should  make  such  a  statement 
unless  he  has  the  most  absolute  evidence."  To  this  Mr. 
Bowen  replied  that  he  had  this  evidence,  and  said, 
pointedly,  that  he  (Howard)  might  go  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  that  Mr.  Beecher  ivould  never  give  his  consent  that  he 
(Bowen)  should  tell  Mr.  Howard  this  secret. 

Mr.  Bowen  at  no  time  had  ever  make  known  to  Mr.  B. 
what  this  secret  was,  and  the  hints  which  Mr.  Beecher 
had  had  of  it  led  him  to  think  that  it  was  another  matter, 
and  not  the  slander  which  he  now  finds  it  to  be. 

[Paper  marked  "  105— in  evidence."] 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  all. 

REDIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  CLEVE- 
LAND. 

Mr.  Sbearman— Mr.  Cleveland,  what  is  your 
state  of  health  1  A.  very  poor. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  so  ?  A.  I  have  been  con- 
fined to  my  house  six  weeks  next  Monday. 

Q.  AV^ere  you  advised  by  your  physician  as  to  whether  it 


was  safe  for  you  to  attend  in  this  court  or  uQt  ?  A.  I  was 
advised  not  to  attend. 

Q.  You  have  been  inquired  a  little  of  as  to  your  exam- 
ination ui  your  house ;  were  you  sitting  up  or  lying  down 
when  that  examination  was  taken  ?  A.  Lying  down. 

Q.  What  was  your  state  of  health  at  that  time  ?  A. 
Unable  to  sit  up. 

Q.  Were  you  in  pain  or  not  1  A.  Constant  pain. 

Q.  And  during  a  considerable  part  of  the  day  is  not  that 
pain  very  severe  ?  A.  Very  severe  from  7  or  8  o'clock  in 
the  morning  until  3  or  4  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  How  does  it  affect  your  head,  and  how  did  it  at  that 
time  ?  A.  It  has  almost  broken  my  nervous  organization ; 
my  head  has  refused  to  serve  me  a  good  deal  of  the  time 
for  the  last  three  or  four  weeks. 

Q,  In  that  period  you  fainted  once  at  least,  did  joxl 
not  ?  A.  I  had  a  paralysis  of  some  kind ;  I  don't  know 
what  it  was.  I  fell  upon  the  floor  when  I  was  alone.  , 

Q.  How  long  did  that  fainting  fit  last  ?   A.  I  cannot  telL 

Q.  How  long  did  you  understand  1  A.  Well,  I  thought 
about  two  or  three  minutes,  or  a  minute  or  two. 

Q.  How  long  did  the  effect  of  it  last  upon  you— the  pros- 
tration ?  A.  It  has  lasted  until  this  time,  I  thin!:. 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  you  went,  as  you  now  believe, 
to  see  a  publisher  with  a  copy  of  the  Tripartite  Covenant, 
if  I  understood  you  right,  in  May,  1873.  Did  Mr.  Baseher 
in  any  way  authorize  or  request  or  consent  to  the  publi- 
cation of  that  paper  ?  A.  He  did  not. 

Mr.  Beach— Wait,  wait. 

Mr.  Shearman— As  far  as  your  knowledge  is  concerned 
The  Witness— As  far  as  my  knowledge  is  concerned  he 

knew  nothing  whatever  about  it. 
Q.  Did  he  in  fact  make  any  effort  to  publish  it,  or  to 

prevent  its  publication— which  ?  A.  He  made  an  effort  to 

prevent  it. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  with  reference  to  these  West  charges  you 
have  said  that  you  heard  of  their  nature.  What  do  you 
mean  by  saying  that  you  heard  of  the  nature  of  the 
charges  in  1873  ?  How  much  did  you  hear  about  themi 
A.  Simply  that  Mr.  West  had  preferred  charges ;  that  is 
about  all ;  I  had  not  seen  them. 

Q.  You  were  not  a  member  of  the  Examining  Com- 
mittee at  tha:  time?  A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  You  now  are  a  member  ?  A.  I  am. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  is  the  custom  and  practical  rule 
of  the  Examining  Committee  with  regard  to  matters  of 
that  kind  when  laid  before  them,  as  to  whether  they 
allow  persons  outside  of  the  Committee  to  know  any- 
thing of  them,  or  not  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  What  is  that  custom  ?  A.  That  custom  is  not  to  dis- 
close them  even  to  members  of  the  church. 

Q.  You  were  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  churf-l-  <>n 
October  31,  3  873,  when  the  West  charges  were,  in  a 
sense,  finally  disiiosed  of,  were  you  not  1  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  remember  that  on  that  oooap 
sion  no  statement  wns  innfTc  iiy  rlie  Evamininsr  no-inni^" 


TESTIMOyT   OF  HEJSBY   M.  CLEVELAND. 


195 


ee,  or  by  any  otter  person,  of  tlie  nature  of  the  cliarges, 
on  tliat  evening  ?  A.  My  recollection  Is  tliat  tliere  was 
no  statement  made  in  regard  to  them. 

Q.  None  by  the  Committee  in  its  report  ?  A.  None  by 
the  Committee,  I  mean,  of  course. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  any  statement  was  made  by 
any  i)erson  except  by  Mr.  Tilton  himself,  tending  to  throw 
the  least  light  upon  the  nature  of  those  charges— the 
charges  against  IVIr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that 
there  was  any  other  statement  made  of  that  character. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  in  Mr.  Tilton's  speech  did  he  in  any  way 
undertake  to  describe,  so  far  as  you  remember,  what 
charges  had  been  made  against  him  by  Mr.  West  specifi- 
cally—bj-  Mr.  West?  A.  My  recollection  is  that  he  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  mention  Mr.  West's  name  in  all  his  speech, 
thai  you  remember  ?   A.  My  recollection  is,  he  did  not 

Q.  After  you  became  a  member  of  the  Examining  Com- 
mittee, were  the  records  of  the  Examining  Committee  for 
the  year  1873  ever  placed  in  your  hands  ?  A.  No,  Sir, 
Dot  to  my  knowldge. 

Q.  Were  the  minutes  of  any  meeting  in  which  Mr. 
West's  charges  were  considered  ever  read  in  your  hear- 
ing? A.  Never. 

Q.  You  never  were  the  clerk  of  that  Committee  ?  A.  I 
never  was. 

Q.  During  the  year  1874  Mr.  Talmadge  was  the  clerk, 
was  he  not  1  A.  He  was. 

Q.  And  it  was  his  duty  to  keep  the  records,  and  not 
yours?  A.  It  was  his  duty,  as  I  understood. 

Mr.  Beach— Who  is  clerk  now  % 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Halliday  is  now. 

Mr.  Evarts- Of  the  Examining  Committee. 

IMr.  Shearman— You  were  asked  some  questions  in  re- 
gard to  what  you  testified  to  ta  yonr  sick-room.  I  ask 
you  this  one  general  question,  whether  your  state  of 
health  was  such  that  you  felt  able  clearly  to  understand 
all  the  questions  that  were  put  to  you  at  that  time  ?  A. 
It  was  not. 

Q.  I  find  on  the  record  the  question  asked  you  by  Mr. 
Morris  in  reference  to  June  26,  1874: 

Q.  Had  you  seen  Mr.  Beecher  that  day?  A.  I  saw  him 
that  day. 

Q.  Before  you  went  to  his  house  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  him  on  the  cars?   A.  I  had  not. 

Now,  if  you  did  make  those  answers  as  reported,  have 
you  any  explanation  that  you  desire  to  make  of  them  ? 
A.  If  I  made  them  in  that  way,  it  was  an  error.  My 
statement  should  have  been,  and  is,  that  I  saw  Mr. 
Beecher  on  the  rear  end  of  a  car  coming  down  Beekman- 
8t.  about  4  o'clock  on  that  afternoon.  I  hapin  ned  to  be 
standing  in  my  front  door  of  the  store ;  he  came  by  and 
beckoned  to  me,  and  pointed  to  Brooklyn,  which  I  inter- 
preted as  an  invitation  to  come  over  and  sei'  liim ;  I  came 
over  at  5  o'clock. 

Q.  Then,  if  I  understand  you  correctly,  you  did  not 
niean  to  say  that  you  did  not  see  him  on  a  car  f  A.  I  did 


not  mean  to  say  that  I  did  not  see  him  with  my  eyes,  but 
that  I  had  not  met  him  to  have  conversation  with  himi,. 
to  have  a  verbal  invitation  to  go  to  his  house. 

Q.  Either  on  the  cars  or  anywhere  else  ?  A.  Anywhere 
else. 

Q.  You  have  mentioned  that  in  the  interview  between 
you  and  Mr.  Beecher,  after  5  o'clock  that  afternoon,  June 
26,  he  mentioned  the  names  of  seven  or  eight  gentlemen, 
a  part  of  whom  or  most  of  whom  were  afterward  placed,, 
in  fact,  upon  the  Investigating  Committee,  have  you  not! 
I  understand  so.  A,  I  have. 

Q.  And  that  in  the  evening,  after  9:30,  the  names  of 
the  same  gentlemen,  with  some  others,  were  mentioned 
to  Mr.  Beecher,  either  by  yourself  or  by  Mr.  Shearman. 
Now  can  you  explain  any  reason — well,  in  the  first  place, 
did  you  tell  Mr.  Shearman  or  Gen.  Tracy  anything  about 
the  names  which  Mr.  Beecher  had  suggested  1  A.  I  did 
not. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  explain  why  it  was  that  the  same 
names  which  Mr.  Beecher  mentioned  himself  were  sug- 
gested to  him  in  the  evening  without  the  knowledge  that 
he  had  mentioned  them  ?  A.  It  was  because  of  an  inter- 
view the  evening  before  between  Gen.  Tracy  and  your- 
self and  myself  in  regard  to  what  steps  would  likely  be 
taken  in  regard  to  the  publication  of  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Well,  we  have  no  right  to  ask  any  further  than  this. 
Were  these  same  names  mentioned  in  that  interview? 
A.  They  were. 

Q.  And  at  that  time  had  there  been  any  consultation 
with  Mr.  Beecher  about  the  Committee  ?  A.  None  what- 
ever. 

Q.  And  when  ]Mr.  Beecher  came  to  speak  of  members 
for  a  Committee,  the  same  names  among  others  occurred 
to  him,  did  they  not,  aa  suggested  by  you  before  ?  A. 
They  did. 

Q,  One  of  those  names— we  will  give  you  the  benefit  of 
the  exception  of  yourself— with  the  exception  of  yourself 
those  names  were  of  some  of  the  very  leading  and  most 
prominent  and  best  known  members  of  the  church  and 
congregation  ?  A.  With  that  exception,  names  that 
would  have  occurred  to  every  member  of  Plymouth 
Church,  I  suppose,  if  they  had  been  caUed  upon  to  sug- 
gest strong  names  for  an  investigation. 

Q.  Y^ou  have  been  asked  something  about  an  interview 
which  took  place  between  yourself,  Mr.  Beecher,  Gen. 
Tracy,  and  IVIr.  Shearman,  and  the  appointment  of  a 
Committee.  Can  you  recollect  whether  the  subject  of 
appointing  a  Committee  to  be  selected  from  outside  of 
the  church  was  brought  up  on  that  occasion  ?  A.  It  was. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  said  on  that  subject  ? 

IVIr.  Beach— That  is  t)bjected  ta 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  a  part  of  the  conversation  which 
they  have  drawn  out,  your  Honor. 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  think  it  is  material. 

Mr.  Beach — It  has  no  relation  whatever  to  the  part  ot 
the  conversation  that  we  introduced. 


196 


IHE   TILTON-BEECEEB  TBIAL. 


Mr.  Stiearraan— Tt  is  a  part  of  the  very  same  conversa- 
tion— tlie  very  same  consultation. 

Mr.  Beac]i— No  matter  if  it  is. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  an  independent  subject. 

Mr.  Sliearman— I  beg  your  Honor's  pardon,  but  they 
brought  in  the  question  of  who  were  suggested— what 
names  were  suggested  for  this  Committee. 

Mr.  Morris— On  the  26th  2 

Mr.  Shearman— On  the  26th;  and  that  is  what  I  am 
asMng  about— that  very  interview  between  Mr.  Beecher, 
Mr.  Cleveland,  Gen.  Tracy,  and  myself.  I  propose  to 
complete  that  conversation,  because  it  was  all  a  part  of 
one  conversation. 

Mr.  Beach— The  only  subject  to  which  he  directed  his 
attention  was  to  the  names— and  he  mentioned  what 
names — who  were  to  compose  the  Committee. 

Ml".  Evarts— Well,  that  .subject,  if  your  Honor  please, 
was  the  making  up  of  the  Committee.  That  was  the 
reason  it  was  introduced. 

Mr.  Beach — ^No,  it  was  for  the  names. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  bears  upon  that  proposition,  that  the 
making  up  of  the  Committee  was  such  as  should  enable 
my  learned  friends  to  urge  that  it  was  a  selected— what 
we  say  somewhat  disrespectfully  about  a  jury  or  a  com- 
mittee—a packed  Committee.  Now,  the  whole  of  that 
conversation,  out  of  which  they  are  seeking  to  extract 
materials  for  some  suggestion  of  that  kind,  of  greater  or 
less  force,  we  think  can  properly  be  brought  in,  and  as  a 
part  of  that  consultation  there  was  a  consideration 
of  the  very  important  question  whether  or  no 
a  Committee  might  not  properly  be  taken 
entirely  outside  of  the  church  and  congregation, 
of  men  promint;nt  in  the  community,  and  the  dis- 
position of  that  question  on  such  grounds  as  it  was  then 
disposed  of ;  and  it  won't  do  for  my  learned  friends  to 
say  that  when  the  whole  interview  relates  to  the  making 
up  of  a  Committee,  and  they  have  extracted  from  the 
conversation  such  parts  of  it  as  relate  to  the  actual 
making  up,  to  draw  their  conclusions  from,  and  make 
their  arguments  of ;  we  can't  show  the  consultation  out 
of  which  this  final  result  flowed,  and  which  included  this 
separate  and  important  view  of  the  subject. 

FORMATION  AND  MEETINGS  OF  THE  COM- 
MITTEE. 

Mr.  Beach— The  simple  point,  Sir,  to  which 
we  directed  the  witness's  attention  was  for  the  purpose 
of  proving  the  fact  that  Mr.  Beecher  suggested  the 
names,  all  or  some  of  them,  who  Tiltimately  composed 
this  Committee.  As  to  the  discussion  which  arose  upon 
that  suggestion,  or  as  to  the  considerations  which  were 
pressed  in  that  conversation  by  the  different  parties  to 
it,  we  made  no  inquiry  whatever.  It  was  upon  the  sim- 
ple question  which  I  have  stated  to  your  Honor ;  and 
that  was  not  connected  at  all  with  the  motives  or  the 
reasons  then  expressed  or  urged  by  the  several  parties 


for  the  selection  of  the  particular  names  who  afteiv 
ward  did  form  that  Committee.  Now,  we  have  be- 
fore, Sii-,  in  the  course  of  this  trial,  had 
occasion  to  discuss  the  rule,  settled  in  the  Court  of  Ap- 
peals, that  giving  a  part  of  a  conversation  does  not  neces- 
sarily lead  to  the  introduction  of  the  whole  of  that  con- 
versation by  the  other  side.  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss 
that  rule  any  further ;  and  I  submit  that  the  extent  to 
which  we  went  upon  that  single  point  does  not  enable 
them  to  introduce  all  the  discussions  and  reasons  and  ar- 
guments which  were  advanced  as  between  Mr.  Beecher 
and  his  friends  upon  the  subject  of  this  selection. 

Mr.  Shearman— Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  by  making 
an  offer,  I  think  I  can  remove  all  the  objections,  after 
making  a  slight  reference  to  the  evidence  given  on  the 
cross.  Juds'c  Lfbrris  iniiuires : 

Q.  I  ask  you  again  if  the  question  as  to  the  selection  of 
proper  persons  to  compose  the  Committee  was  one  of  j:he 
reasons  that  Mr.  Tracy's  and  Mx.  Shearman's  presence 
was  desired  at  Mr.  Beecher s  that  night?  A.  Mr. 
Beecher  gave  no  special  reasons  tor  their  being  there  that 
evening,  except  that  he  wanted  to  consult  some  of  his 
legal  friends. 

Q.  With  reference  to  what  1  A.  With  reference  to  this 
matter. 

Q.  What  matter?  A.  The  matter  of  investigation. 
Q.  What  matter— wasn't  it  mentioned  ? 
Mr.  Shearman— He  just  stated. 
The  Witness— The  investigation. 

Q.  Well,  what  about  that  did  he  want  to  discuss  ?  A.  It 
was  a  matter  that  I  did  not  ask  him  specially. 

Q.  Had  he  any  doubt  upon  any  questions  that  were 
suggested  ?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  he  had  or  not. 

Q.  Were  any  suggested?  A.  He  wanted  to  take  legal 
advice. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  he  is  further  asked  about  names; 
and  your  Honor  will  recollect  that  he  could  not  at  that 
moment  refresh  his  memory  as  to  all  the  names  that  were 
mentioned.  Now,  simply  what  Ipropose  to  offer  to  prove  is 
this,  that  Mr.  Beecher  invited  these  three  gentlemen 
around,  as  we  have  heard  the  whole  consultation,  and  that 
the  first  proposition  that  he  made  with  reference  to  the 
names  and  the  Committee  of  Investigation  was  this  :  he 
asked  these  three  gentlemen  whether  they  tho  ught  it  would 
be  a  proper  thing  for  him  to  invite  William  M.  Evarts, 
George  William  Curtis  and  William  CuUen  Bryant  to  sit 
as  a  committee  to  investigate  this  matter ;  and  that  was 
Mr.  Beecher's  proposition,  and  those  were  the  three 
names  that  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  were  trying  to  get 
out,  and  I  should  have  been  very  glad  to  have  helped  them 
get  out;  but  the  witness  could  not  then  recollect  it.  And  I" 
propose  fui'ther  to  show  that  the  reason  that  those  gentle- 
men were  not  selected  was  because  Mr.  Beecher  was 
advised  by  the  legal  gentlemen  whom  he  had  brought  in 
for  consultation  on  that  occasion  that  there  was  no  pro- 
tection to  such  a  committee  against  innumerable  libel 
suits,  and  that  the  only  legal  method  of  investigation  was 
by  tho  methods  of  his  own  elu;rch  under  the  auspices  of 
the  Examining  Committee,  the  communications  to  which 


TES'llMONY   OF  HENBT  M.  OLEVELANB. 


197 


T^ould  be  held  privileged  by  the  law.  Now,  that  is  my 
offer. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  Sir,  I  think  you  can  show  that. 
Don't  give  the  conversation  to  any  extent ;  give  simply 
that. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  then,  suppose  I  ask  just  that  ques- 
tion. [To  the  witness.]  I  ask  you,  then,  Mr.  Cleveland, 
to  save  time,  whether  Mr.  Beecher  did  or  did  not  at  that 
time  submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  gentlemen  thus 
called  in  the  names  of  William  M.  Evarts,  George  William 
Curtis,  and  William  CuUen  Bryant,  as  a  committee  to  in- 
vestigate this  matter  1  A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  was  he,  or  was  he  not,  advised  by  Mr.  Shear- 
man and  Mr.  Tracy  that  such  a  committee  could  not  be 
protected  against  libel  suits  in  the  course  of  such  an 
investigation;  and  that  he  must,  in  order  to  protect  the 
committee,  select  one  under  the  auspices  of  the  Examin- 
ing Committee  of  his  own  Church  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  one  moment.  Sir;  I  shall  object  to  any 
such  question  as  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— On  the  ground  that  it  is  leading  1 

Mr.  Beach— Why ;  yes.  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Oh,  of  course  we  concede  that;  but, 
then,  as  I  stated  the  offer  in  the  presence  of  the  witness, 
I  thought  it  would  save  time.  Then  I  withdraw  that 
question ;  and  I  ask  you  what  advice  did  Mr.  Beecher  re- 
ceive from  the  two  lawyers  who  were  then  present  ?  A. 
I  have  no  recollection  of  Gen.  Tracy's  advice  in  regard  to 
the  matter;  my  recollection  is  that  Mr.  Shearman  sug- 
gested that  the  Committee  had  better  be  formed  from 
Plymouth  Church  and  society;  the  reasons,  the  legal 
reasons,  I  suppose,  were  given ;  I  have  no  

J udge  Neilson— That  is  suflacient. 

Mr.  Shearman— One  question  it  is  proper  to  ask.  At 
that  time,  so  far  as  you  had  any  knowledge  or  informa- 
tion, and  for  a  long  time  afterward,  Mr.  Evarts  had  no 
relation  to  Mr.  Beecher  as  counsel  or  in  any  other  way  1 
A.  None  that  I  knew  of. 

Q.  It  is  conceded  that  Mr.  Evarts  had  none  until  some 
time  after  the  commencement  of  this  suit.  You  were 
asked  as  to  when  the  first  formal  meeting  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Investigation  took  place.  Have  you  any  ex- 
planation now  to  give  as  to  what  you  meant  by  a  formal 
meetrug,  and  why  you  said  that  you  thought  it  met  the 
first  time  formally  on  the  10th  July]  A.  Simply  this: 
that  there  was  a  conference  of  the  four  members  of  the 
Committee  on  Sunday  evening,  the  28th.  On  the  next 
evening  several  members  of  the  Committee— four  or  five, 
I  cannot  tell  which— met  and  appointed  a  chairman. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  distinction  between  the  meeting 
of  July  10  and  that  of  any  preceding  meeting  ?  A.  The 
meeting  of  July— until  the— Mr.  White  had  not  returned. 

Q.  Mr.  White  was  never  present  before  that  meeting, 
aeeordiag  to  your  recollection  1  A.  Mr.  White  was  not 
l'r(  sent  until  the  meeting  of  July  10,  the  evening  that 
Mr.  Tilton  came  before  the  Committee;  the  announce- 


ment of  the  Committee  had  n©t  heea  made ;  it  was— we 
were  advised  that  

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  weU,  I  object  to  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  that  is  not  necessary ;  but  had  any 
action  been  taken  by  the  Examining  Committee  of  the 
church  between  the  26th  of  June  and  the  10th  of  Julyf 
A.  None  

Q.  Between  the  26th  of  June  and  the  10th  of  July  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  was  that  action  taken?  A.  That  was  taken  on 
Tuesday  morning,  the  7th,  if  I  recoUect  right. 

Q.  Yes,  the  7th  of  July  1  A.  The  7th  of  July. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  time  at  which  the  Examining 
Committee  indorsed  the  appoinment  of  this  Investigating 
Committee?  A.  That  was  the  first  time  that  the  appoint- 
ment was  ratified  by  the  Examining  Committee. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  receive  any  advice,  as  a  member  of  the 
Committee,  concernrug  the  necessity  of  such  a  ratifica- 
tion by  the  Examining  Committee — any  legal  advice! 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  substance  of  that  advice  ?  A.  That 
the  Investigating  Committee  before  ratification  by  the 
Examining  Committee  would  be  liable  to  libel  suits  and 
obliged  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  statements  made,  if  any 
were  made,  refiectlng  upon  character, 

Q.  Yes,  Sir  ?  A.  And  after  the  ratification,  any  publica- 
tion that  the  Investigating  Committee  might  make  would 
be  privileged,  and  that  no  action  could  lie  against  the 
Committee. 

Q.  When  was  that  advice  given— about  what  time  ?  A. 
That  was  given  immediately  after  the  appointment  of  the 
Investigating  Committee. 

Mr.  Beach— And  before  the  6th. 

Mr.  Shearman— Do  you  know  whether  it  was  given  be- 
fore the  6th  or  not  1  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that. 

Q.  The  advice  thus  given  related  to  the  danger  of  publi- 
cation, not  to  the  danger  of  taking  testtuiony  ?  A.  I  said, 
I  think,  the  danger  of  publication  of  any  testimony  re- 
flecting upon  character  taken  by  the  Committee. 

Q.  You  were  not  advised  that  there  was  danger  in 
merely  taking  the  testimony  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  the  publica- 
tion of  testimony  taken  by  the  Committee  without  the 
ratification  of  the  Examining  Committee. 

Q.  And  was  there,  in  fact,  any  testimony  published  be- 
fore the  7th  of  July  ?   A.  Not  a  word. 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  why  Mr.  West  was  not  called 
before  that  Conmiittee.  Did  you  have  any  knowledge  or 
information  that  Mr.  West  was  in  possession  of  any  evi- 
dence whatever  against  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  No  knowledge 
whatever. 

Q.  Had  you  any  information  that  he  had  any  such  evi- 
dence ?  A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  West  ever  make  the  least  suggestion  of  the 
kind  ?   A.  Never. 

Q.  Were  not  all  Mr.  West's  charges  directed  against  Mr. 
Tilton  ? 


198  THE  TlLTON-BIi]K(mEB 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  that  will  be  foand  from  the  charges. 
Judge  Keilson— That  appears  from  the   paper  we 
liaye  on  file. 
The  Wicness— I  don't  recall  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  was  that  your  understanding?  A. 
I  don't  recall  about  that. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  any  charges  made  by  Mr.  West 
against  Mr.  Beecher  ?   A.  Never. 

Q.  ^Tiat  was  the  reason  in  your  mind  for  declining  to 
caU  Mr.  Moulton  again,  when  he  telegraphed  to  Mi-.  Sage, 
as  you  have  said,  on  the  28th  or  26tli  of  August,  1874, 
that  he  desired  to  come  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  Sim- 
ply that  we  had  exhausted  every  effort  to  get  detailed 
statements  and  documents  from  Mr.  Moulton,  and  had 
failed,  and  that  dispatch  came  after  the  labors  of  the 
Committee  were  closed  and  the  report  written  and 
signed. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  or  not  there  had  been  any 
request  made  in  church  meeting  the  previous  Friday 
evening  for  action  on  the  part-for  a  report  from  the  In- 
vestigatmg  Committee  ?  A.  There  was. 

Q.  And  was  the  time  fixed,  when  you  received  this  mes- 
sage from  Mr.  Moulton,  for  the  giving  of  the  report  of  the' 
Investigating  Committee  ?  A.  That  is  my  reeoUection. 

Q.  And  it  was  actually  deUvered  to  the  church  on  the 
28th-Friday  evening,  the  28th  ?   A.  It  was. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  did  you,  or,  to  your  knowledge  or  informa- 
tion, any  member  of  the  Committee,  have  any  expectation 
that  Mrs.  Tilton  would  leave  her  house  on  the  11th  o* 
July,  1874. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  objected  to.   Wait  one  moment ;  we 
object  to  it. 

Mr.  Shearman-WeU,  if  it  pleases  your  Honor,  we  were 
informed,  as  the  reason  for  bringing  in  the  correspond- 
ence between  Mrs.  Ovington  and  Mr.  Cleveland,  that, 
while  it  was  admitted  that  it  could  not  bear  upon  Mr. 
Beecher  in  the  most  remote  way,  it  was  part  of  the  chain 
of  evidence  which  was  to  prove  a  conspiracy  between  the 
Committee  and  Mrs.  Ovington  to  get  Mrs.  Tilton  away 
from  the  house. 

Mr.  Beach— By  no  means. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  there  was  no  pertinency  in  that 
evidence  whatever. 

:\Ir.  Beach- That  may  very  well  be ;  that  is  no  reason 
wny  you  should  invent  such  an  avowal  on  our  part. 
There  was  no  such  avowal. 

Ml.  Shearman— The  avowal  was  that  there  was  a  con- 
spiracy to  get  Mrs.  Tilton  away  from  her  house. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  yes;  but  not  on  the  part  of  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  the  correspondence  between  Mr. 
Cleveland  and  Mrs.  Ovington  was  offered  to  prove  that. 
Upon  whose  part  could  that  conspiracy  be  if  not  on  Mr. 
Cleveland's,  if  that  evijdence  was  to  be  in  any  way  mate- 
rial ?  Certainly  it  was  not  a  conspiracy  of  Mr.  Beecher's ; 


TRIAL. 

it  was  not  one  with  which  he  was  identified  iu  any  way 
Mr.  Beach— Are  you  arguing  the  case  i 
Mr.  Shearman— I  am  talking  on  the  evidence.  I  say 
there  is  not  the  first  particle  of  evidence  of  that  kind. 
There  is  no  evidence  except  counsel's  speeches  ;  I  have 
never  heard  even  a  speech  which  imputed  that  to  Mr. 
Beecher.  There  is  no  evidence,  but  this  correspondence 
between  Mr.  Cleveland  and  Mrs.  Ovington  is  put  as  evi- 
dence against  him.  If  it  was  not  evidence  against  Mr. 
Cleveland,  I  don't  know  who  it  was  evidence  agamst. 
Now,  I  propose  to  ask  Mr.  Cleveland  whether  he  had  any 
participation  in  it,  and  I  lay  the  foundation  for  that  by 
asking  whether  he  or  any  member  of  the  Committee  had 
any  expectation  that  Mrs.  Tilton  would  leave  the  house, 
and  I  expect  to  follow  that  up  by  asking  whether  they 
expected  anybody  would  ask  her  to  leave  the  house.  I 
cannot  see  any  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  it  is  obviouslj'  totally  immaterial. 
Conspiracy  on  the  part  of  this  Committee  to  entice  Mrs. 
Tilton  from  her  house !  Nobody  has  ever  heard  a  sugges- 
tion of  that,  until  the  counsel  has  made  it,  and  it  is  not 
worth  while  for  him  to  create  figments  of  that  character 
for  the  purpose  of  meeting  them  by  evidence.  The  gen- 
tleman says  there  is  no  evidence  charging  any  conspiracy 
against  anybody.  Very  well,  Sir ;  if  so,  then  it  is  not 
necessary  to  ask  this  question  in  regard  to  the  Committee, 
Certainly  there  is  none  imputing  any  such  consph^acy  to 
the  Committee,  and  nobody  upon  our  side  has  ever 
dreamed  of  any  such  imputation,  and  it  is  hardly  worth 
while  to  go  into  the  examination  of  an  issue  thus  raised 
by  the  counsel  which  is  not  presented  upon  our  side,  and 
totally  unimportant  upon  the  issues— any  issue  in  thia 
case.  We  object  to  it,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Will  the  gentleman  excuse  me  for  read- 
ing a  little  passage  from  what  Judge  Morris  said  yester- 
day in  offering  this  evidence  of  correspondence?  After 
our  objection,  and  after  your  Honor  had  said  that  you 
clid  not  see  yourself  what  it  had  to  do  with  Mr.  Tilton  or 
Mr.  Beecher,  Mr.  Morris  says : 

I  can  state  to  your  Honor  very  clearly  and  plainly 
what  it  has  to  do.  It  is  simply  in  the  direct  line  of  proof 
that  we  have  already  given  upon  that  subject  that  has 
been  gone  into.  I  propose  to  connect  it  with  the  fact  oi 
Mrs.  Tilton's  abandoning  her  home  the  next  morning, 
simultaneously  with  the  announcement  of  this  Commit- 
tee, because  no  public  knowledge— there  was  no  public 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  the  Committee  prior  to 
that.  I  propose  to  show  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  con- 
spiracy, entered  into  deliberately,  as  we  wUl  show,  to  get 
Mrs.  Tilton  to  abandon  her  home,  and  get  possession  of 
her  before  the  Committee  was  announced. 


Mr.  Morris— That  don't  impute  that  to  the  Committee. 
Mr.  Shearman— It  imputes  it  to  Mr.  Cleveland,  or  else 
what  is  the  pertiaency  of  that  information  ? 

Mr.  Morris— That  Mrs.  Ovington  sent  for  that  informa- 
tion, and  wanted  it  for  that  purpose  and  in  furtherance  of 
that,  and  Mr.  Cleveland  said  that  Mis.  Ovington  requested 


TESTIMONY   OF  Hm 

it,  and  tliat  tlir  t  was  a  link  in  the  conspiracy  to  entice 
Mrs.  Tilton  from  her  home. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  Mr.  Cleveland  when  you  had  that 
correspondence  with  Mrs.  Ovington,  did  you  know  that 
Mrs.  Tilton  was  to  leave  her  house,  or  might  do  so  the 
next  day  1  A.  Nothing  whatever.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well,  Sir ;  that  answers  it.  Any- 
thing more  Mr.  Shearman  1 

Mr.  Shearman— Did  you  have  any  design,  Sir,  or  enter 
into  any  design  with  any  one  else,  to  induce  Mrs.  Tilton  to 
leave  her  hushand  ?  A.  Never  with  a  human  being. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  is  that  aJl  with  this  witness  1 

Mr.  She armaB.— That  is  aU. 

EE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MORRIS. 
Q.  The  advice  that  you  have  spoken  of,  Mr. 

Cleveland,  about  publishiag  the  testimony,  had  no  refer- 
ence to  the  simple  announcement  of  the  fact  that  there 
was  a  Committee  in  existence,  did  it  1  You  received  no 
such  advice  as  that,  that  there  would  be  any  danger  in 
announcing  that  faet  1  A.  There  were  several  reasons 
why  the  Committee  was  not  announced. 

Q.  No ;  did  you  receive  any  advice  that  there  would  be 
any  danger  1 

Mr.  Shearman— Legal  advice? 

Mr.  MorrLs— Any  legal  advice  that  there  would  be  any 
danger  in  announcing  the  simple  fact  that  a  Committee 
had  been  appointed  l  A.  The  legal  advice  related  to  the 
piiblication. 

Q.  Yes— publication  of  the  evidence  1  A.  Of  the  tes- 
timony. 

Q.  But  not  in  regard  to  the  announcement  of  the  sim- 
ple fact  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  That  a  Committee  had  been  appointed— no  <  A. 
Nothing  to  do  with  that. 

Q.  You  and  Gen.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Shearman,  you  say, 
suggested  o3-  discussed  names  the  day  previous  ?  A.  I 
aid  several  names  came  up  in  the  interview  the  even- 
ing before— on  Thursday  evening. 

Q.  Where  was  that  interview  held  1  A.  That  was  at 
Mr.^hearman's  house. 

Q.  It  was  held  at  Mr.  Shearman's  house— these  same 
names  1  A.  Most  of  them. 

Q.'  Now,  when  you  were  examined  before,  were  you  not 
asked  specifically  to  give  in  detail  all  the  names  that  Mr. 
Beecher  suggested,  either  in  the  afternoon  or  in  the  even- 
ing, and  did  you  not  profess  to  give  all  the  nanies  that 
he  did  suggest  ?  A.  I  professed  to  give  all  the  names 
connected  with  Plymouth  Church  and  society. 

Q.  No,  aU  the  names  ;  weren't  you  asked  to  state  all  the 
names  that  he  suggested  without  reference  to  the  Church 
or  society  1  A.  My  answer  to  that  question  was  upon 
the  names  of  Plymouth  Church— in  Plymouth  Church 
and  society. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  put  in  the  question  and  answer,  that 
13  the  best  way— that  was  given  there. 


RY   M.    CLEVELAND.  199 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  have  you  until  a  moment  a^o,  ever 
mentioned  the  name  of  Mr.  Curtis  and  Mr.  William  CuUen 
Bryant  1   A.  Yes,  Sii-. 

Q.  In  your  testimony  1  A.  Not  in  my  testimony. 

Q.  No ;  now,  there  is  just  one  question— I  won't  pursue 
that  any  further,  Mr.  Cleveland.  Now,  Mr.  Shearman 
has  asked  you  about  being  examined  at  the  house ;  you 
say  that  you  were  examined  lying  down.  You  were  upon, 
a  lounge  in  full  dress,  weren't  you  ?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  you  were  able  to  go  about  the  house !  A.  I  was 
able  to  go  about  my  room.  Sir. 

Q.  And  is  your  condition  such  now  as  to  aflfect  your 
head?  A.  It  is. 

Q.  And  your  memory?   A.  Most  decidedly. 

Mr.  Morris— -Very  materially.   That  is  all. 

Judge  NeUson— That  is  all,  Mr.  Cleveland. 

Mr.  Shearman— No ;  just  one  question :  Can  you  give  a 
reason— since  you  have  been  asked  about  the  omission  to 
publish  the  appointment  of  this  Committee  before  the 
11th  of  July— will  you  state  what  were  the  reasons  in 
your  mind  for  not  publishing  it  before  that  time?  A. 
One  reason  was  that  IVIr.  A\Tiite  had  not  yet  returned  and 
accepted  his  appointment ;  another  reason  was  that  we 
desired  the  ratification  of  the  Investigating  Committee 
by  the  Examining  Committee. 

Q.  When  did  Mr.  White  return— when  did  he  attend  the 
Committee  %  A.  I  ihink  Mr.  Wliite's  flxst  meeting  was  on 
the  lOth  of  July. 

Q.  On  the  evening  of  that  day  1  A.  On  the  evening  of 
the  10th. 

Q.  Altogether  too  late  for  any  publication  in  the 
papers  of  the  lOth,  wasn't  it— after  the  publication,  even, 
of  the  afternoon  papers  1   A.  In  the  evening  of  the  lOth. 

IMr.  Beach— Did  he  return  on  the  10th  ]  A.  I  don't 
recollect  that,  Sir ;  his  first  meettug  with  the  Committee 
was  on  the  evening  of  the  lOth. 

Q.  Yes,  but  do  you  know  whether  he  had  accepted  the 
appointment  before  that  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  precisely 
when  he  accepted  the  appointment. 

Q.  What?  A.  That  recollection— he  appeared  in  the 
evening. 

Mr.  Beach— I  understand  Mr.  Morris  to  say  that  he 
stated,  before,  that  he  had  accepted  before  that  the 
appointment. 

The  Witness— I  do  not  recall. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  members  of  the  Committee  did 
not  make  any  formal  a/'ceptance— did  not  write  any 
acceptance  ?  A.  No,  Sii\ 

Q.  They  did  not  accept  otherwise  than  by  attending  the 
meeting]   A.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Beach— Didn't  tlieyby  announcing  their  wiUingnesa 
to  act  1   A.  No,  Sir  ;  not  to  my  knowledge- 

Q.  In  conversation— well,  you  don't  know,  then  I  A.  I 
know  that  there  was  no  communications  went  from  the 
Committee  to  the  church  or  to  the  pastor. 

Mr.  Morris— And  did  the  Committee  hold  these  various 


200  •  TEE  TILION-B 

meetings  and  take  testimony  before  tliey  liad  been  rati- 
fied by  the  Examining  Committee  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Tlien  they  had  been  ratified  by  the  Examining  Com- 
mittee %  A.  Tbey  bad  been  ratified  on  the  morning  of  tbe 
7tli,  and  began  to  take  testimony,  or  ratber  to  bold  regu- 
lar meetings,  on  tbe  lOtb. 

Mr.  Shearman— With  one  exception— they  took  testi- 
mony on  the  night  of  July  the  6th?  A.  They  heard  a 
statement  from  Mrs.  TUton.  We  did  not  consider  that  

JMk".  Shearman— That  is  all. 

FEANCIS  D.  MOULTON  AGAIN  ON  THE  STAND. 

Francis  D.  Moulton  was  then  recalled  and 
cross-examined  further. 

Mr.  Evarts— In  further  cross-examhiation,  Mr.  Moul- 
ton, I  call  your  attention  now  to  this  question:  You 
know  Mr.  Samuel  D  wight  Partridge  ?  A.  I  am  very  well 
acquainted  with  him.  Sir. 

Q.  For  the  period  of  time  since  you  have  been  in  the 
firm  yourself,  I  suppose?  A.  Since  1854,  Sir,  to  the 
present  time. 

Q.  Do  5^ou  remember  a  conversation  with  him,  freshly 
after  the  appearance  of  "  Tbe  Life  of  Victoria  Wood- 
hull"  by  Mr.  Tilton,  on  the  subject  of  the  writing  of  that 
"Life"  by  Mr.  Tilton,  or  the  reasons  of  it?  A.  I  do  not 
recollect  any  such  conversation.  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  to  Mr.  Partridge  that  Mr.  TUton's 
reasons  for  writing  that  "  Life,"  or  reason,  or  motive,  for 
writing  that  "  Life,"  was  to  put  htoaself  at  the  head  of  the 
Spiritualists  of  the  country,  or  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  there  were  more  Spiritualists  la  the  country  than 
there  were  Congregationalists,  or  anything  to  the  effect 
of  that  statement,  or  to  the  effect  of  any  part  of  that 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment.  We  object  to  that,  Sir ;  it 
is  entirely  Irrelevant. 
Mr.  Evarts— How  iri  olsvant  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  it  is  not  for  us  to  show  that  upon 
the  face  of  the  thing,  because  it  appears  to  be  entirely 
irrelevant.  It  is  for  you  to  show  how  it  is  relevant. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  do  not  mean  to  repeat  long  discussions 
on  that  subject. 

Judge  Neilson — No,  I  imderstand  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  relevancy  of  the  Victoria  Woodhull 
"  Life,"  and  the  writing  of  it,  we  called  to  your  Honor's 
attention,  more  or  less,  only  a  few  days  ago,  in  reading 
from  the  testimony.  It  is  a  part  of  their  affirmative 
proof  that  tbe  writing  of  that  "  Life  "  was  under  the 
motive— under  the  justification  by  Mr.  Beecher  as  a  part 
of  their  plan— Mr.  Moulton's,  Mr.  Beecher's  and  Mr.  TU- 
ton's  plan  of  humoring  this  woman  for  the  purpose  of 
producing  silence  in  reference  to  this  scandal.  Now,  I 
ask  this  witness  whether  he  has  not  stated  as  I  have 
asked  him,  and  the  only  groxmd  of  objection  to  Mr. 
Partridge's  examtuation  the  other  day,  which  was  then 
Buggftsted,  was  that  the  foundation  had  not  been  laid. 


F/HCHEE  TEIAL. 
LEGAL  DISCUSSION  BY  MR.  BEACH  AND  MR, 
EVARTS. 

Mr.  Beach — Oh,  the  gentleman  is  quite  mis- 
taken. Sir.  I  thiuk  I  satisfied  your  Honor  the  other  day 
that  theie  was  no  allegation  in  tbe  evidence,  or  upon  the 
record  anywhere,  that  Mr.  Moulton  was  concerned  at  aU 
with  the  preparation  of  the  "  Life  of  Mrs.  Woodhull,"  )sy 
Mr.  Tilton ;  and  that,  when  it  came  to  his  knowledge,  he 
strenuously  objected  to  it.  And  I  discussed,  the  other 
day,  the  theory  of  the  counsel,  which  was  that,  there  being 
a  cooperation  between  the  three— Mr.  Tilton,  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  Mr.  Moulton— that,  therefore,  they  could  give  the 
declarations  of  Mr.  Moulton  upon  that  subject.  Now,  it  is 
not  pretended  that  Mr.  Moulton,  iu  any  part  of  his 
evidence,  has  ever  said  that  Mr.  Tilton's  object 
or  purpose  in  writing  the  "Life  "of  Woodhull  had  any 
connection  whatever  with  the  arrangement  made  be- 
tween those  two  gentlemen  and  Mr.  Beecher  for  the  pur- 
pose of  suppressing  action  upon  the  part  of  that  lady.  I 
SHid  tc  your  Honor  the  other  day,  and  maintained  it  by 
reference  to  the  proof,  that  this  was  an  entirely  inde- 
pendent action  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton.  Now,  they 
ask.  Sir,  this  gentleman  whether  he  did  not  say  to  Mr, 
Partridge  what  the  motive  of  Mr.  TUton  was  ia  the  lan- 
guage put  in  the  question  presented  to  him,  getting  the 
declaration  of  Mr.  Moulton— an  entire  stranger  to  that 
proceeding,  so  far  as  any  cooperation  or  connection  with 
it  is  concerned,  or  approbation  of  it  is  concerned.  They 
attempt  to  get  before  this  jury,  by  a  question  of  this  char- 
acter, the  assertion  of  Mr.  Moulton  {if  he  ever  made  if) 
in  regard  to  the  motives  which  actuated  Mr.  TUton, 
which  would  be  contradictory  to  those  which  Mr.  Tilton 
assigns  upon  his  evidence.  Now,  Sir,  upon  what  prin- 
ciple can  the  declarations  of  Mr.  Moulton  be  received  to 
that  effect,  or  for  that  purpose  ?  It  does  not  go  to  Indi- 
cate the  state  of  feeling  of  friendliness  or  hostility  to- 
ward either  of  these  parties  upon  the  part  of  this  wit- 
ness. It  is  not  a  declaration  made  out  of  court  incon- 
sistent with  any  portion  of  his  testimony  given  in  court ; 
and  it  is  only  upon  those  two  prtuciples  and 
with  those  two  objects  that  declarations  out 
of  court  can  be  given,  so  far  as  this  question  is 
concerned.  And  I  submit  to  your  Honor  that  it  is  wholly 
Immaterial,  and  would  be  doing  injustice  to  the  plaintiff 
in  this  case,  to  permit  Mr.  Moulton,  If  he  made  any  such 
declarations  of  this  kind,  to  impute  motives  to  Mr.  TUton 
or  to  affect  the  interests  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  this  litiga- 
tion, however  friendly  Mr.  Moulton  may  be  supposed  to 
be  toward  the  interests  of  that  gentleman.  And  these 
were  the  reasons.  Sir,  which  iufluenced  your  Honor,  the 
other  day,  as  I  understand,  la  the  rejection  of  that  evi- 
dence, in  connection  with  the  proposition  that  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's  attention  had  not  been  drawn  to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— No  doubt,  I  offered  the  other  day  to  give 
this  evidence  without  having  laid  the  foundation  for  it. 


GENERAL  DISCUSSION. 


201 


In  the  nature  of  collatei'al  impeaclimpnt,  and  argued  tliat 
It  was  admissible  independently  ot  that  ground,  and  my 
learned  friend  argued  agamst  that,  and  used  arguments 
not  only  very  valuable  in  themselves,  but  which  proved 
sufficient  to  satisfy  your  Honor  that  I  was  wrong.  The 
only  point  ruled  by  your  Honor  was  in  this  statement : 
[Reading.] 

I  hare  already  intimated  that  it  is  very  clear  to  me  that 
the  examination  of  this  witness  must  be  confined  to  con- 
tradictions of  any  statements  which  it  appears  that  Mr. 
Moulton  made  when  imder  examination.  That  is  the 
extent  to  which  you  can  go  with  this  witness.  If  Mr. 
3toulton  has  stated  anything,  you  are  at  liberty  to  con- 
tradict it  by  this  witness. 

You  heard  the  offer.  Sir,  and  overruled  it,  and  overruled 
it  as  not  admissible  until  the  foundation  of  collateral  im- 
peachment was  laid.  I  am  now  seeking  to  lay  the  founda- 
tion of  collateral  impeachment.  Now,  this  must  be  exclu- 
ded, then,  upon  the  principles  that  belong  to  collateral  im- 
peachment, if  it  all.  Mr.  Moulton,  as  I  suppose,  so  iden- 
tified himself  with  Mr.  Tilton  from  the  proceedings,  be- 
ginning in  the  last  week  of  December,  until  the  com- 
mencement of  this  suit,  if  you  please,  in  such  a  way  as 
that  the  statements  of  either  of  them,  of  Moulton  as  well 
as  of  Tilton,  bearing  upon  any  of  the  proceedings  that 
brought  them  into  connection  and  association  with  Mr. 
Beecher,  accordtag  to  their  own  showing,  anything  of 
the  action,  of  the  writing,  of  the  influences,  of 
the  declared  and  imputed  justification  of  their 
conduct,  as  under  the  motives  of  interest  and 
concert  in  suppressing  this  scandal,  are  matters  of 
direct  evidence  on  their  part  on  the  issue  of  whether  Mr. 
Beecher  has  been  guilty  of  the  wrong  imputed  to  him— to 
wit,  by  the  evidence  against  him  of  that  wrong  of  implied 
confession,  in  the  action  and  in  the  council,  and  in  the 
motives  that  these  proceedings  had  been  instigated  and 
controlled  by.  Now,  my  learned  friends  seek  to  dissever 
the  writing  of  the  Woodhull  "  Life  "  from  the  process  of 
influence  upon  Mrs.  "Woodhull  in  respect  to  which  Mr, 
Moulton  is  responsible,  in  the  allegation  that  it  was 
counseled  by  Mr.  Beecher  and  in  his  interest, 
and  in  his  motive,  because  it  is  said  that 
he  has  disclosed  a  disapproval  of  the  judgment  and 
of  the  wisdom,  and  of  the  worth  or  value  of  this  particular 
act;  and  I  read  to  your  Honor  the  other  day  the  statement 
that  he  thought  it  was  a  mistake— told  Mr.  Beecher  so— 
hut  the  comment  I  think  was,  "  Well,  if  it  was  a  mis- 
take, we  must  make  the  best  of  it."  Now,  certainly  the 
fact  that  a  particular  step  in  a  concerted  movement  that 
is  to  be  charged  to  Mr.  Beecher's  responsibility  was  inju- 
dicious and  was  not  approved  by  INIr.  Moulton,  has  not 
any  bearing  upon  the  question  of  whether  the  act  was 
done  imder  the  motive  of  assisting  this  purpose  and  in- 
terest of  Mr.  Beecher,  which  is  the  only  material  con- 
sideration in  which  any  of  the  acts  are  brought  into  evi- 
dence here— don't  bear  upon  it  at  all.  That  it  was  a  mis- 
statement, a  mistake,  a  miscalculation,  don't  make  any 


difference  in  the  quality  of  the  evidence  as  bearing 
against  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr.  Tilton,  indeed,  gives  us  a  general 
confession,  I  think,  in  his  testimony,  that  everything  had 
gone  wrong;  he  had  acted  very  foolishly  in  the  matter; 
all  of  it  came  to  nothing.  That  don't  bear  upon  the 
question  of  whether  Mr.  Beecher  is  to  have  influences 
brought  to  his  prejudice  in  the  judgment  of  this  jury  of 
being  responsible  for  this  course  of  action.  Now,  here  is 
one  of  the  principal  things  aoue— the  -vsTiting  of  the 
"Life"  of  Woodhull  which  IMr.  Tilton  has  assigned  to 
this  motive,  and  to  this  alone :  [Reading.] 

When  I  wrote  that  biography,  I  believed  a  good  pro- 
tion  of  it ;  I  made  an  extravagant  statement  of  it,  with  a 
view  to  conduce  to  the  purpose. 

Q.  For  rhetorical  effect  ?   A.  No,  Sir ;  not  for  rhetoric. 

Q.  For  what?  A.  I  have  already  told  you  that  Mr 
Moulton,  Mr.  Beecher,  and  I  were  set  on  the  enterprise  of 
handling  and  controlling  that  woman ;  and  I  believed  to 
a  considerable  degree,  during  my  early  months  of  ac- 
quaintance with  her,  that  she  was  much  traduced. 

Mr.  Fullerton  says,  "  He  went  on  further,  and  said  that 
himself  and  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton  had  agreed 
upon  a  line  of  conduct  with  reference  to  this  woman"  

And  in  making  the  explanation  he  was  interrupted. 

Now,  Mr.  Moulton  has  not  said  that  this  was  not  one  of 
the  steps;  but  that  he  did  not  think  it  was  a  judicious 
step,  and  the  most  must  be  made  of  it,  as  it  had  been 
taken.  This  also  tends  to  contradict  the  idea  conveyed 
(of  regarding  it  as  an  unimportant  idea  as  bearing 
upon  any  issue  in  this  case),  as  creditable  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's  judgment  that  he  disapproved  of  the  writing  of  this 
"Life;"  because  we  have  him,  in  an  imputed  conversa- 
tion, concerning  which  I  asked  him,  saying  that  Mr.  Til- 
ton wrote  it  under  this  personal  idea,  and  he  cer- 
tainly expressed  no  disapproval  of  that  at  the  time. 

So  that,  if  your  Honor  please,  it  seems  to  me  perfectly 
clear  that  this  is  a  direct  contradiction  by  an  extra-judi- 
cial statement  which  we  propose  to  offer,  and  for  which 
we  arelaying  the  foundation— a  direct  contradiction  of  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Moulton,  in  regard  to  this  course  of  deal- 
ing with  the  Woodhulls,  in  which  this  writing  and  publish- 
ing of  "  The  Life  "  was  certainly  a  principal  act,  most  im- 
portant in  all  its  influences,  most  disastrous  and  most 
injurious  to  Mr.  Tilton,  as  it  seems  to  have  turned  out, 
and  made  here  a  sacrifice  on  his  part  to  the  end  of  the 
concealment  of  the  scandal  and  the  protection  of  his 
wife  and  of  Mr.  Beecher.  Now,  Mr.  Moulton  gives  us 
Mr.  Tilton's  motive  for  writing  that  "Life  "the  object 
of  personal  advantage  and  personal  ambition;  that  it 
would  put  him  at  the  head  of  the  Spiritualists,  who  were 
more  numerous  than  the  Congregationalists. 

Mr.  Beach— The  argument  of  the  counsel  discloses  the 
radical  mischief  of  this  proposition,  and  at  the  same  time 
acknowledges  the  principles  upon  which  the  objection  to 
its  admission  rests.  He  insists  upon  eonsidtring  Mr. 
Moulton,  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton  as  united  in  this 
particular  portion  of  the  effort  of  Mr.  Tilton  to  influence, 
conciliate,  and  control  Mrs.  WoodhulL  He  therefore,  Sir^ 


'202 


THJE    TILTON-BEEGHER  IBIAL, 


recognizes  the  truth  of  my  proposition,  that  the  declara- 
tions of  Mr.  Movilton  cannot  he  admissible,  either  as 
against  Mr.  Beecher  or  Mr.  Tilton,  until  this  league  not 
only  for  the  general  purpose  of  influencing  this  woman, 
but  of  influencing  her  by  this  particular  mode  or  step  in 
the  process— to  wit,  the  publication  of  her  "  Life"— shall 
have  been  est#iblished.  This  is  a  declaration  of  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  offered  in  regard  to  the  general  purpose  or  object  of 
this  undertaking  on  the  part  of  these  three  persons.  This 
declaration  is  not  offered  for  the  purpose  of  contra- 
dicting the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moulton,  to  the  fact 
that  there  was  such  a  design,  concurred  in  by  Mr. 
Beecher,  entered  upon  by  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr. 
Tilton.  I  beg  your  Honor  to  remark  that  fact. 
This  declaration  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  contradicting 
Mr.  Moulton  in  his  testimony  concerning  the  general 
combination  and  cooperation  between  these  three  per- 
sons in  relation  to  the  general  influence  which  should  be 
exerted  over  the  mind  and  the  action  of  Mrs.  Woodhull. 
Now,  Mr.  Tilton  commits  a  certain  act,  the  publication  of 
this  "  Life."  He  says  he. did  it  for  the  purpose  of  concil- 
iating this  lady.  Has  Mr.  Moulton  said  that,  Sir  1  Has 
Mr.  Moulton  or  Mr.  Tilton  asserted  that  that  act  was 
done  by  Mr.  Tilton  with  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
or  in  pursuance  of  any  arrangement  with  Mr.  Beecher— 
that  it  was  not  communicated  to  or  approved  of  by  him 
in  any  respect  ?  There  is  no  evidence  of  that  kind 
in  the  case,  may  it  please  your  Honor.  On 
the  contrary,  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moulton, 
who  is  sought  to  be  contradicted  by  imputing  to  him  a 
declaration  in  regard  to  the  motives  of  Mr.  Tilton— on 
the  contrary,  Mr.  Moulton's  evidence  was  that  he  knew 
nothing  about  it  until  Mr.  Tilton  told  him  it  was  done, 
and  that  then  he  disapproved  and  disapprobated  it ;  and 
in  that  situation  of  things,  Sir,  when,  with  reference  to 
this  particular  act,  neither  Mr.  Moulton  nor  Mr.  Beecher 
is  in  any  degree  involved  ;  when  it  was  not  a  concurrent 
act  as  between  these  three,  or  any  two  of  these  three  ; 
when  it  was  discountenanced  and  condemned  by  Mr. 
JVloulton,  they  propose  to  prove  his  declaration  in  reecard 
to  the  motives  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  doing  it,  for  the  purpose 
of  contradicting  him.  Wherein  does  it  contradict  him  1 
and  wherein  is  the  evidence  anything  else  but  the  giving 
of  the  declarations  of  Mr.  Moulton  in  regard  to  a  matter 
in  which  he  did  not  act  in  cooperation  with  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  in  his  absence,  for  the  purpose  of  concluding  or 
affecting  the  rights  of  Mr.  Tilton  1  Now,  Sir,  in  this  atti- 
tude this  question  must  be  viewed.  Either  your  Honor 
must  hold  that  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  are  identical 
in  the  transactions  resulting  in  the  publication  of  that 
"  Life,"  or  else  you  must  hold  that  these  declarations,  in 
some  degree,  go  to  designate  sentiments  and  feelings  of 
friendliness  or  hostility  of  Mr.  Moulton  to  one  party  or 
the  other.  It  is  not  contended,  Sir,  that  it  can  be  received 
in  the  last  point  of  view ;  and  it  is  only  upon  the  ground 
of  identity  and  cooperation  of  action  in  regard  to  that 


particular  act — in  other  words,  a  league  between  thesa 
parties  in  ri  lation  to  that  particular  act— that  this  evi 
dence  can  by  possibility  be  admitted.  I  have  shown  your 
Honor  before,  and  I  will  refer  again  to  that  testimony,  if 
necessary  to  show,  that  there  was"  no  such  relation,  no 
such  imity  of  action  or  pui-pose,  between  these  two  par 
ties  in  regard  to  that  act,  which  makes  the  declaration'^ 
of  the  one  admissible  as  against  the  other. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  I  will  take  the  answer. 

Mr.  Beach — Will  the  stenographer  read  the  question  ? 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  as  follows : 

Did  you  say  to  Mr.  Partridge  that  Mr.'  Tilton's  reasons 
for  writing  that  "  Life,"  or  reason  or  motive  for  writing 
that  "Life,"  was  to  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the  Spirit- 
ualists o*f  the  country,  or  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
there  were  more  Spiritualists  in  the  country  than  there 
were  Congregationalists,  or  anything  to  the  effect  of  that 
statement,  or  to  the  effect  of  any  part  of  that  statement  % 

A.  The  question.  Sir,  is  involved.  With  regard  to  the 
first  part  of  it,  I  answer  I  knew  no  such  thing,  and  said 
no  such  thing.  In  regard  to  that  part  of  it  which  ask? 
me  with  regard  to  whether  I  said  or  not  that  the  Spii-ft- 
ualists  outnumbered  the  Congregationalists,  I  have  an 
indistinct  recollection— sufficient,  however,  for  this  im- 
pression—that I  told  Mr.  Partridge  that  I  had  understood 
from  somebody,  I  don't  remember  whom,  that  the  Spirit- 
nalists  of  the  country  did  outnumber  the  Congrega- 
tionalists. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  were  you  talking  about  with  Mr. 
Partridge  when  you  told  him  this  last  ?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect, Sir,  the  specific  opening  of  the  conversation— the 
specific  opening  of  the  conversation  by  Mr.  Partridge. 

Q.  Or  by  yourself  ?  A.  Or  by  myself. 

Q.  Something  suggested  it,  didn't  it  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  I 
don't  know  whether— I  don't  know  what  did  suggest  it; 
I  suppose  something  did  suggest  it. 

Q.  It  was  not  an  independent  conversation,  beginning 
and  ending  with  that  remark  ?  A.  I  remember  nothing  fur- 
ther about  it,  Sir,  than  as  I  have  stated  with  regard  to  the 
Spiritualists  and  the  Congregationalists ;  Mr.  Partjidge 
and  myself  frequently  conversed  together  about  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  about  Mr.  Beecher,  and  about  Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Q.  Yes.  V/ell,  are  you  not  able  to  say,  then,  that  this 
remark,  of  which  you  have  a  sufficient  impression  to  be 
able  to  make  a  statement,  was  not  a  part  of  the  conversa- 
tion in  which  the  writing  of  "  The  Life  of  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  "  by  Tilton  was  spoken  of  between  Mr.  Partridge 
and  yourself  'I  A.  I  recollect.  Sir,  nothing  about  any  con- 
versation in  regard  to  the  "  Life"  of  Victoria  Woodhull 
by  Mr.  Tilton,  with  Mr.  Partridge. 

Q.  Have  you  no  impression  concerning  any  such  con- 
versation that  is  sufficient  for  you  to  make  a  statement 
upon  as  you  do  of  the  last  part  of  the  matter  ?  A.  I  have 
not,  Sir.  [A  pause.]  Mr.  Evarts,  I  will  swear  distinctly 
to  one  thing  in  connection  with  this  question— another 
thing,  rather— that  if  I  did  have  a  conversation  with  Mr. 
Partridge  with  reference  to  the  "Life  of  A'^ictori;.  AVn,„i 


TESTIMOXY  OF  SAMUEL   D.  FARTElDatJ. 


203 


hull,"  I  did  not  tell  him  in  that  connection  that  Mr. 
Tilton  told  me,  or  that  I  knew  from  Mr.  Tilton,  either  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  that  he  had  -^rritten  it  for  the  pur- 
pose of  placing  himself  at  the  head  of  the  Spiritualists  of 
the  country. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  

The  Witness— I  heg  pardon  

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  Tvhether  you  told  Mr.  Partridge 
that  Mr.  Tilton  told  you!  A.  "Well,  I  am  trying  to  make 
it  broad  enon  irl', 

Q.  I  asked  you  vrhether  you  told  Mr.  Partridge  that  Mr. 
Tilton's  motive,  or  ohject,  in  writing  that  life  was  to  put 
himself  at  the  head  of  the  Congregationalists?  A.  Very 
well,  Sir,  I  answered  that  question. 

Q.  Of  the  Spiritualists,  I  mean,  or  anything  to  that 
effect  ?  A.  I  answered  that  question  distinctly,  no. 

Q.  Whether  you  invented  the  reason,  or  it  came  from 
Mr.  Tilton,  has  nothing  to  do  with  my  question  ?  A.  Pre- 
cisely, Sir ;  I  understand  it  perfectly. 

Q.  I  want  to  knowwhetlier  you  told  Mr.  Partridge  that  ? 
A.  I  did  7iot  tell  Mr.  Partridge  that. 

Q.  Very  well.   That  is  all. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  conceded  that  we  are  not  to  pursue  our 
general  re-examination  of  Mr.  Moulton  now. 

Ml".  Evarts- Of  course,  I  only  introduce  this  single 
question  now. 

The  Witness— Is  that  all,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all,  Mr.  Moulton 

FURTHER  EXAMINATION   OF  SAMUEL  D. 
PARTRIDGE. 

Samuel  Dwight  Partridge  was  recalled  and 
further  examined. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  will  take  up  your  examination  now 
upon  a  certain  point  at  the  stage  at  which  it  was  arrested 
by  a  legal  ohjection  when  you  were  on  the  stand  before. 
I  called  your  attention  to  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Moul- 
ton on  the  subject  of  the  fact  of  the  publication  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  "  Life,"  by  Mr.  Moulton  (which  you  remem- 
bered), and  asked  you  if  Mr.  Moulton  said  anything  to 
you  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Tilton's  object  and  motive  in 
wilting  that  "  Life,"  and  you  answered  that  he  did ;  now 
I  ask  you  wh-ir  did  he  say  to  you  f 

Mr.  Beach— Thf>t  is  objected  to  upon  the  ground  that  the 
d-  Ian  '.It. 5  of  Mr.  Moulton  are  not  evidence  against  Mr. 
Tilton;  an^  upon  the  further  ground  that  the  declara- 
tions wc-c  as  to  a  collateral  matter,  and  they  are  there- 
fore (xoi  subject  to  a  (contradiction  ;  and  on  the  further 
gi'oun  i  til  at  there  is  nothing  in  those  declara- 
tions caiit?rl  for,  contradictory  of  the  evidence 
of  Mr  ^f.>^I lion  previously  given,  cxoept,  of  course,  his 
denial  of  having  made  the  declaratii  ns  Ana  your  Honor 
will  perceive  from  the  testimony  irawn  out  now  from 
Mr.  Moulton  on  the  stand  that  he  declares  that  no  such 
Tnotlves  were  ever  assigned  to  liim  by  :Mr.  Tilton,  and  it 
is  taking  his  declarations  as  against  Mr.  Tilton — declara- 


tions which  in  themselves  are  not  competent  as  agnliLst 
liim,  and  declaratif)ns  which,  I  submit  to  your  Honor,  are 
entireh"  upon  a  collateral  topic,  and  in  regard  te  which 
the  answer  of  the  witness  is  conclusive. 

Judge  Jfcilson— And  the  witness's  answer  would  merely 
show  ]Mr.  Moulton's  ovm  opinion,  whatever  it  was. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all.  Sir.  It  might  be  very  proper  to 
take  the  answer  of  Mr.  Moulton  to  the  question  whether 
or  not  he  made  these  declarations,  but  that  answer  is  con- 
clusive upon  the  counsel  upon  the  other  side,  being  to  a 
collateral  matter,  and  is  not  the  subject  of  contradiction. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  I  will  allow  the  counsel  to  put 
the  question  to  the  witness  in  tjje  very  terms  of  th.e 
statements  made  by  Mr.  Moulton,  not  in  the  general 
form. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  remember  that  Mr.  Moul- 
ton stated  that  he  had  no  conversatian  with  this  witness 
on  the  sul^ject  of  the  "  Life  of  Victoria  Woodhull." 

Mr.  Beach— No,  no. 

Judge  Neilson— You  put  a  speci-flc  question  to  Mr. 
Moulton  ;  now  frame  your  question  with,  regard  to  that 
same  matter  that  you  interrogated  Mr.  Moulton  about ; 
otherwise  the  answer  migM  be  as  to  some  independent 
matter  and  not  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  confined  it  already.  My  question 
is,  what  he  said  to  him  as  to  Mr.  Tilton's  motives  or  ob- 
jects in  writing  the  "  Life  of  Victoria  Woodhull." 

Judge  Neilson— You  must  coniine  that  to  the  very 
terms  of  the  question  that  you  put  to  Mr.  Moulton  just 
now . 

Mr.  Shearman— Have  the  question  read. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  remember  it  near  enough  for  all 
the  purposes  of  this  examination.  [To  the  witness.]  In 
that  conversation,  and  in  stating  to  you  the  motives  or 
objects  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  writing  tlie  "  Life  of  Victoria 
Woodhull,"  did  Mr.  Moulton  say  to  you  that  Mr.  Tilton's 
motive  or  object  was  to  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the 
Spiritualists  of  the  country,  and  tliat  tlie  Spiritualists 
were  more  numerous  than  the  Congregationalists,  or 
anything  to  that  effect,  or  to  tlie  effect  of  any  part  of 
that  statement  1  A.  Shall  I  say  yes  or  no  to  that,  or 
shall  I  state  what  he— what  it  was  ? 

Q.  Well,  you  should  state  what  he  said,  of  that  effect. 

Mr.  FuUerton— You  should  state  the  truth,  I  suppose. 

The  Witness— Mr.  Tilton  told  me  

Mr.  Beach— I  understood,  your  Honor,  that  the  ques- 
tion was  to  be  put  specifically  and  answered  specifically. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

j\Ir.  Evarts— It  is  to  that  effect,  or  to  the  effect  of  any 
part  of  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Very  well ;  you  must  not  allow  the  witness 
to  give  what  he  said.  The  question  is.  Did  he  say  that  t 
Yes  or  no. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  or  no,  I  should  say  to  that. 

The  Witneso— Well,  h<  said— he  didn't  use  precis-  Ir  tL^A 


204 


THE   TILTON-PEECHJER  TBIAL, 


phraseology  tliat  Mr.  Evarts  lias  used ;  lie  said  that,  sub- 
stantially. 

Mr.  Evarts  -Very  well.  Now,  what  did  he  say  A.  He 
said  that  Mr.  Tilton— 

Mr.  Beach—That  is  not  admissible. 

Mr.  Evarts— My  question  to  Mr.  Moulton  was  whether 
he  said  that,  or  anything  to  that  effect,  or  to  the  effect  of 
any  part  of  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— And  the  witness  says  he  did  say  that,  not  in 
the  precise  language,  but  that  substantially. 

Mr.  Evarts— Do  you  mean  the  whole— that  he  said  the 
whole  of  it  substantially  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well ;  I  am  satisfied. 

Mr.  Beach— You  ought  to  be. 

Judge  Neilson— That  covers  your  ground,  then? 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  if  the  answer  is  to  be  taken  in  that 
way,  it  is  but  justice  to  the  witness  to  read  it,  that  he  may 
see  that  it  is  correct. 

Judge  Neilson— Read  the  answer,  Mr.  Stenographer. 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  answer,  as  follows : 

"  Well  he  said  that— he  didn't  use  precisely  that  phrase- 
ology that  Mr.  Evarts  has  used— he  said  that,  substan- 
tiaUy." 

The  Witness— If  it  is  proper,  I  would  say  that  

Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  moment. 

Mr.  Evarts— Wait  a  moment,  Mr.  Partridge.  Now  I 
suppose  that  I  have  a  right,  and  that  it  is  the  fair  thing 
to  both  the  present  witness  and  the  preceding  witness, 
that  what  he  did  say  should  be  stated. 

Mr.  Beach— The  gentleman  has  no  right,  under  your 
Honor's  ruling,  to  call  out  that  conversation.  What  may 
be  fair  to  the  preceding  witness  we  will  undertake  to 
secure.  Very  likely  I  shall  call  out  that  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  have  the  answer,  Mr. 
Evarts. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  will  ask  this  question  :  What  did 
Mr.  Moulton  say  at  that  conversation? 
Mr.  Beach— I  object. 
Judge  Neilson— That  is  ruled  out. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  except. 

Q.  What  did  Mr.  Moulton  say  in  that  conversation  that 
was  substantially  to  the  effect  of  what  I  have  asked  you  1 

Mr.  Beach— That  I  object  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  understand  that. 

Mr.  Beach— I  understand  it  Is  a  repetition  of  your  other 
question. 

Judge  NeUson— I  think  he  has  answered  your  question 
that  you  put  to  Mr.  Moulton,  covering  the  same  ground 
precisely. 

Mr  £v*rti»— I  except  to  your  Honor's  ruling. 
Mr.  lloach  [to  defendant's  counselj— Give  mo  that 
ohfok— that  piece  ot  yellow  paper. 


CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  PARTRIDGE. 

Mr.  Beach— When  was  this  conversation,  Six  ? 
A.  It  was  very  soon  after  the  publication  of  the  book, 
pamphlet,or  whatever  you  call  it. 

Q.  Is  that  the  nearest  indication  of  the  time  that  you 
can  give  ?  A.  I  have  no  date— no  date  to  go  by. 

Q.  I  asked  you  if  that  was  the  nearest  indication  of  the 
time  that  you  can  give  ?  A.  I  don't  thiok  of  anything 
that  I  can  give  you  now. 

Q.  It  was  very  soon  after  the  publication  of  the  pam- 
phlet ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  very  soon. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  that  "  Life"  published  1  A.  Where 
did  I  see  it  ? 

Q.  Yes,  Sir ;  first.  A.  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  How  1  A.  I  don't  kuow  that  I  can  tell  you. 

Q.  In  what  form  did  you  see  it  first  ?  A.  I  should  think 
it  was  ia  a  pamphlet  form  that  I  saw  it. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  where  you  saw  that  ?  A.  I  can 
tell  you  where  I  think  I  saw  it. 

.Q  Sir?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you  so  as  to  swear  definitely. 

Q.  What  year  was  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Moulton  1 
A.  It  was  immediately  after  

Q.  I  don't  ask  you  that,  Sir.  Answer  my  question.  A. 
I  can  answer  it  

Q.  Answer  my  question.  Sir;  what  year  that  conversa- 
tion was  in,  naming  the  year?  A.  Well,  I  will  state, 
Sir  

Q.  No,  you  will  answer  my  question,  if  you  please.  A. 
I  must  answer  it  in  such  a  way  as  I  can  answer  it. 

Q.  If  you  can't  answer  it  in  that  way,  you  can  say  so. 
What  year,  Sir,  was  that  conversation  in,  stating  the 
year?  A.  I  believe  that  it  was  in  1872,  but  I  wish  to 
state  

Q.  No,  no;  wait  a  moment.  A.  Oh,  yes;  now  let  me 
state. 

Q.  Well,  if  you  ask  me         A.  Let  me  state  it. 

Q.  [Continuing.]  A  favor,  of  course,  I  will  grant  it.  A. 
I  don't  ask  for  any  favor. 

Q.  Then  stop.  Are  you  quite  certain  that  it  was  in  the 
year  1872?  A.  Well,  I  was  going  to  teU  you  what  made 
me  think  

Q.  No,  I  didn't  want  to  know  that.  A.  WeU. 

Q.  I  asked  you,  now,  if  you  was  quite  certain  that  It 
was  in  the  year  1872  that  this  conversation  occurred!  A. 
I  am  not  

Q.  Can't  you  state  whether  you  are  quite  certain  %  A. 
I  have  understood  

Q.  I  ask  you  to  stop.  A.  [Continuing.]  During  the 
progress  of  this  trial  

Q.  Won't  you  stop  when  I  ask  you  to  1  A.  Certainly. 

Q.  I  will  treat  you  with  entire  fairness.  Sir,  but  when  I 
request  you  to  cease,  you  will  be  good  enough  to  do  so.  I 
put  to  you  the  simple  question  whether  you  are  quite 
certain  that  the  conversation  yon  have  spoken  of  with 
Mr.  Moulton  was  in  the  year  1872 !  A.  If  that  wa»  tho 
year  that  that  was  published,  then  I  am  certain. 


Ti:STIMON¥  OF  SAM 

Mr.  Beach— I  object,  Sir,  to  tliat  c[uestion,  and  move  to 
strike  it  out. 

Mr.  Evarts — Why  should  it  be  struck  out  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Because  it  is  not  an  ansvrer;  it  is  the 
reasoning. 

Mr.  Evarts— Exactly;  but  It  is  the  reasoning  that  the 
■witness  gives  you  in  the  form  of  an  answer.  That  is  his 
opinion. 

Judge  Neilson— He  did  not  ask  him  why  he  thought,  it 
was  in  1872,  but  whether  he  is  certain  it  was  1872. 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  he  is  certain  or  he  is  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— Hasn't  he  said  that  he  was  not  certain  1 

Mr.  Beach— No,  he  has  not  said  so. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  t/wught  it  was  in  1872. 

Mr.  Beach— I  move  to  strike  that  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes.  [To  the  witness.]  I  think  you 
could  say  whether  you  are  certain  or  not,  Mr.  Partridge. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir  ;  but  I  have  no  date  to  go  by,  ex- 
cept what  I  read  in  the  progress  of  this  trial,  that  it 
was  

Mr.  Beach— Will  you  please  stop  a  moment  ? 

The  Witness  [continuing]— In  September,  1872. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  if  this  rambling  talk,  of  this  witness, 
is  all  taken  by  the  stenographer.  Sir,  I  must  move  to  strike 
it  out.  I  insist  that  it  shall  not  appear  on  the  record. 

JudgeNeilson— Everything  is  struck  out  subsequent  to 
the  question  you  put  him,  because  that  question  remains 
xmanswered.  Now  the  simple  question.  Mr.  Partridge, 
is  whether  you  are  certain  or  not  that  ttiis  was  in  1872  ? 

Mr.  Porter— We  except  to  your  Honor's  decision 
striking  it  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir.  [To  the  witness.  \  You  are 
either  certain  or  are  not  certain,  which  is  it  1  A.  Well,  I 
am  certain  that  it  was  made  after  the  publication  of  the 
book. 

Mr.  Beach— I  move  to  strike  out  that  answer,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  if  you  Honor  please— 

The  Witness— Since  the  publication  

Mr.  Beach— Stop  a  moment. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  must  pay  some  attention 
to  the  question,  and  the  witness  is  not  at  liberty  to  branch 
off  and  carry  the  examiner  with  him,  wheresoever  he 
will. 

Mr.  Evarts— No. 

Judge  Neilson— Now  he  is  certain  or  he  is  not  certain. 
It  is  a  very  simple  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  am  now  talking  about  striMng  out. 

Judge  Neilson— That  was  not  competent,  and  was  not 
caEed  for. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  no  obiectlon  to  following  the  inquiry, 
but  the  witness's  mode  of  answering  comes  to  this :  "  My 


U£L  D.   FAETEIUGF,  305 

knowledge  is  as  to  time  only  in  connecting  it  with  the 
recency  of  the  publication." 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  know,  Sir,  the  object  of  these  inter- 
ruptions upon  the  part  of  the  counsel.  I  insist  that  upon 
a  cross-examination  of  this  character,  in  answer  to  a 
question  of  this  kind,  plain  and  simple,  I  am  entitled  to 
a  categorical  answer. 

Judge  Neilson— Certainly  you  are, 

Mr.  Beach— And  that  the  reasoning  of  the  witness  can- 
not be  forced  upon  me. 

Mr.  Evarts— My  object— you  say  you  don't  understand 
it  ? 

jVIr.  Beach— N'o. 

:Mr.  Evarts— My  object  is  to  have  the  rights  of  evidence 
preserved  to  the  parties  and  to  the  witness.  I  was  speak- 
ing only  on  the  question  of  striking  out ;  I  do  not  object 
to  their  pursuing  it. 

Mr.  Beach— That  was  a  very  laudable  object,  but  I  didn't 
see  the  object  from  the  remarks,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— The  evidence  had  been  stricken  out  before. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  so  easy  and  simple  for  the  witness 
to  say  that  he  is  certain  or  that  he  is  not  certain,  that 
there  is  no  occasion  for  hesitation. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Mr.  Partridge,  we  wiU  get  that  stum- 
bling-block out  of  the  way,  and  let  it  go.  WTiere  was  it  I 
A.  In  the  oflBce  of  Woodruff  &  Robinson. 

Q.  What  season  of  the  year  was  it  ?  A.  I  should  say  it 
was  in  the  Fall. 

Q.  jyo  you  feel  quite  positive  about  iti  A.  I  feel 
pretty  sure. 

Q.  And  early  or  late  in  the  Fall  1  A.  I  should  think  it 
was  not  very  late  in  the  Fall. 

Q.  Some  time  in  the  course  of  the  Fall.  Was  any  one 
present  at  the  conversation  beside  you  and  ;Mr.  Moulton  f 
A.  I  don't  recollect  any  one  but  himself  and  myself. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  in  what  part  of  the  store  it  oo- 
curred  1  A.  I  presume  

Q.  Now,  I  don't  want  any  of  your  presumption.  A.  No, 
I  can't  say. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  in  what  part  of  the  store  t  A.  I 
don't  recollect  what  particular  part. 

Q.  Well,  are  you  enabled  to  recollect  in  what  portion 
of  the  day  it  was  1  A.  No,  Sir;  I  don't  recollect  what 
portion  of  the  day  it  was. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  any  of  the  other  partners 
or  attaches  of  that  establishment  were  there  ?  A.  I  don't 
recollect  that  they  were — any  one  but  he  and  I. 

Q.  Don't  recollect  whether  they  were  or  were  not! 
A.  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  that  you  was  engaged  in 
at  that  time!  A.  I  do  not;  only  listening  to  what  he 
said,  and  something  that  I  said  myself  ;  I  spoke  myself. 

Q.  I  will  get  at  that  by  and  by.  During  that  time  hare 


206 


THE   TimON-BEEOHEB  TBIAL. 


you  any  recollection  of  what  your  occupation  was  1  Is 
there  any  incident  connected  with  the  conversation  which 
refreshes  your  recollection  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  at  all  t  A.  I  don't  think  of  anything. 

Q.  What  was  your  ordinary  daily  duty  at  that  time  1  A. 
My  duty  was  receiving  and  paying  out  the  cash. 

Q.  And  making  entries  upon  the  hooks,  I  suppose  1  A. 
Making  entries  upon  the  books  and  making  checks. 

Q.  But  there  was  no  noticeable  variation  in  your  or- 
dinary employment  at  that  time,  I  suppose  ?  A.  Not  that 
I  recollect,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  you  ia  the  habit  daily  of  aeemg  Mr.  Moulton? 
A.  I  think  I  was.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  almost  daily  ?  A.  I  presume  so. 

Q.  He  was  an  active  member  of  the  firm,  an  active  par- 
ticipant in  the  business  of  the  lirm,  wasn't  he  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  what  portion  of  that  day  he  spent 
in  the  office  of  the  firm  1  A.  I  couldn't  teU  you. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  business  that  was  transacted 
upon  that  day  ?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you  ;  I  don't  recollect 
anything  done  between  him  and  me  that  day  except 
what  I  have  told  you. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  anything  done  that  day  except 
what  you  have  told  me,  as  to  the  declarations  of  Mr. 
Moulton?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you  anything. 

Q.  Well,  my  object  was  to  find  out,  Mr.  Partridge,  if  I 
could  fairly,  from  you  whether  there  was  any  incident  or 
circumstance  connected  with  this  conversation  as  aris- 
ing from  your  business  or  occupation,  which  impressed  it 
upon  your  mind  unusually  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  any- 
thing. Sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  received  by  you  and  transpired  as  an 
ordinary  conversation,  making  no  especial  impression 
upon  your  mind  1  A.  It  made  such  an  impression  that  I 
remembered  it. 

Q.  No,  no.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  now  

Mr.  Beach— Did  it  make  any  especial  impression  upon 
your  mind  I  A,  It  is  the  only  thing  that  I  remember. 

Mr.  Beach— I  must  insist,  your  Honor,  that  this  gentle- 
man shall  pay  some  little  attention  to  your  Honor's  in- 
struction in  answering  my  question. 

The  Witness— I  certainly  will. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  I  see  no  occasion  for 
my  learned  friend's  animadversion  upon  this  witness, 
either  in  expression  or  in  matter  ;  and  when  he  is  asked 
whether  it  made  any  especial  impression  upon  him,  he 
certainly  has  a  right  to  answer  what  degree  of  especial 
impression  it  made. 

Judge  Neilson— He  has,  when  he  is  asked.  Until  h'e  is 
asked  he  has  a  right  to  say  yes  or  no,  it  did  or  did  not 
make  any  especial  impression. 


Mr.  Evarts— Well,  if  your  Honor  please,  if  witnesses  are 
confined  to  saying  yes  or  no,  we  shall  have  a  very  strange 
production  of  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— I  hardly  think  it  would  be  strange  tf 
the  witness  is  directed  to  answer  

Mr.  Evarts— Yes  oi  n j  i 

Judge  Neilson  fcontinuingl— The  specific  question  put. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  the  question  is,  did  it  make  any 
especial  impression  upon  him  ? 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  easy  to  say  yes  or  no. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  would  depend  upon  how  the  fact  was. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  I  should  say  I  could  not  tell. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  would  depend  upon  how  the  faot  was. 
He  might  say  yes. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  ought,  on  examination,  to 
pay  attention  to  the  examining  counsel  without  turning 
to  the  right  or  left. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes ;  but  when  he  is  asked  whether  any- 
thing made  a  special  impression  upon  him,  he  has  a  right 
to  state  what  impression  it  made  upon  him,  and  other 
people  are  to  judge  whether  it  is  special. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  dissent  from  that.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Of  course;  the  witness  must  answer  the 
question. 

Mr,  Beach— I  cannot  conclude  this  examination,  Sir.  I 

am  perfectly  wilUng  to  stay  

Mr.  Evarts— Take  this  question  and  answer. 
Mr.  Beach— Oh,  no ;  I  guess  not. 
Mr.  Evarts— Surely. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  will  withdraw  the  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  is  no  necessity— this  single  question 
can  be  disposed  of. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  it  cannot,  when  I  withdraw  it. 

Judge  Neilson— You  are  willing  to  withdraw  it  to  have 
an  adjomnment  I 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  withdrawn  for  good. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Ilvarts— No  i  [Laughter.]  It  is  all  very  well,  but 
I  think  the  question  should  be  disposed  of. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  no.  Mr.  Evarts's  remarks  have  so  im- 
pressed me  that  I  must  make  one  or  two  preliminary 
questions  before  I  put  that. 

Mr.  Evarts  [smiling]— " Especially  impressed"  you  1 

Judge  Neilson— Get  ready  to  retire,  gentlemen.  Please 
attend  Monday  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

The  Court  tlien  adjourned  until  Monday  morning,  April 
26,  at  11  o'clock. 


TESTIMONY   OF  SA]\ 

SEVENIY-SECOND  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

FOUR  WITNESSES  IN  THE  CHAIE. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SAMUEL  DWIGHT  PARTRIDGE,  EDWARD 
J.  WRIGHT,  MRS.  ELIZABETH  LA  PIERRE  PALMER, 
AND  BENJAmN  F.  TRACY— THE  MEMORANDUM  AC- 
COMPANTTING  THE  CHECK  EOR  $7,000— MR.  TLL- 
TON'S  comments  soon  AFTER  THE  WOODHULL 
PUBLICATION— HIS  RELATIONS  TO  MRS.  WOODHULL 
AT  HER  OFFICE  AND  AT  HER  HOUSE— REMARKA- 
BLE TESTIMONY  OF  A  CLAIRVOYANT— MR.  TRACY'S 
EARLY  CONNECTION  WITH  THE  CASE. 

Monday,  April  26.  1875. 

The  cross-examinatiou  of  Samuel  Dwight  Partridge 
bj'Mr.  Beach  was  opened  with  questions  in  reference 
to  the  yellow  slip  of  paper  containing  the  words  : 
"Spoils  from  new  friends  for  the  enrichment  of  old," 
which  accompanied  the  Bo  wen  check  of  deposit  for 
$7,000  in  1872.  The  witness  described  the  drawer  in 
wMch  he  had  placed  the  check  and  the  slip  of  paper. 
He  said  he  did  not  recollect  whether  the  check  and 
the  slip  of  paper  had  come  fastened  together  or  not. 
After  the  paper  had  been  in  the  drawer  for  some 
time  he  took  it^  out,  folded  it,  and  put  it 
in  his  pocket-book,  without  tellrug  any 
memlier  of  the  firm  about  it.  An  amusing 
scene  occurred  when  Mr.  Beach  asked  the 
witness  to  take  out  his  pocket-book  and  replace  the 
paper  in  it  in  the  compartment  which  it  had  occupied 
after  being  taken  from  the  drawer.  Mr.  Partridge 
did  not  recollect  ever  telling  any  member  of  the  firm 
that  such  a  paper  had  accompanied  the  Bowen 
check  until  two  or  three  weeks  ago,  when  he  told 
Jtremiah  P.  Robinson  about  it.  He  had  shown  it  to 
his  wife  and  children,  and  one  or  two  other  persons, 
soon  after  the  publication  of  the  statements  in  rela- 
tion to  the  scandal  last  Summer. 

Mr.  Partridge  was  also  questioned  about  his  alleged 
conversation  with  IVIr.  Moulton.  When  he  first  took 
the  stand  in  the  morning,  he  said  he  desired  to  cor- 
rect the  statement  which  he  made  last  Friday  in 
regard  to  the  time  when  the  conversation  took 
place.  It  was  iu  1871  instead  of  1872.  He  had  had 
another  conversation  with  Mr.  Moulton  about  the 
scandal  about  two  years  before  he  left  the  firm 
of  Woodruif  &  Robinson,  which  was  on  Dec. 
31,  1874.  The  witness  could  not  swear  that 
Franklin  Woodruff  was  not  present  at  the 
conversation  in  1871,  but  that  was  the  only 
conversation  with  Mr.  Moulton  in  which  the  num- 
ber of  Spiritualists  had  been  mentioned.  On  the 
re-direct  examination  of  Mr.  Partridge  Mr.  Evarts 


UEL  D.   FARTEIBU^E.  207 

drew  from  binn  the  fact  that  he  had  been  etlucated 
for  the  law.  Soon  afterward  he  asked  the  witness  a 
question  to  which  the  latter  began  to  respond  in  his 
customary  wandering  manner. 

"Will  you  stop,  Sir!"  exclaimed  Mr.  Beach,  and 
then  added  ironically,  "you  know  vou  are  a  lawyer." 

"  I  ought  not  to  have  that  brought  up  against  me," 
replied  the  witness  smiling. 

During  the  course  of  his  cross-examination  Mr. 
Partridge  manifested  a  tendency  in  answering  ques- 
tions to  branch  out  into  collateral  matters,  and  Mr. 
Beach  more  than  once  asked  Judge  Neilson  to  in- 
struct the  witness  to  confine  his  answers  to  the  ques- 
tions. 

Edward  J.  Wright,  a  resident  of  Greenwich,  Conn., 
was  the  next  witness  for  the  defense.  Before  the 
examination  was  begun,  Mr.  Evarts  offered  in  evi- 
dence a  letter  from  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Davis,  dated 
at  the  office  of  The  Golden  Age,  Sept.  18,  1871.  In 
this  letter  Mr.  Tilton  asked  the  recipient  and  his 
wife  to  read  his  "  Life  of  Victoria  Woodhull,"  and 
to  give  him  their  impression  of  it.  He  said 
that  he  had  understated  rather  than  over- 
stated the  facts  iu  that  book.  Mr.  Wright 
testified  that  he  had  known  Theodore  Tilton  by  sight 
for  eight  years.  On  Nov.  4,  1872,  soon  after  the  pub- 
lication of  the  Woodhull  article,  which  he  had  read, 
he  took  a  train  from  Concord,  N.  H.,  for  New- York. 
Soon  after  leaving  Concord,  Mr.  Tilton  entered 
the  train  and  sat  down  near  him.  Another 
gentleman  came  in  and  sat  down  by  Mr.  Tilton's 
side.  This  gentleman  asked  Mr.  Tilton  about  the 
Woodhull  scandal.  The  latter  replied  that  he  had 
seen  it  in  an  Eastern  paper,  but  said  that  he  cared 
nothing  for  it  himself,  but  that  Mrs.  Tilton  was  in 
delicate  health  and  he  feared  for  its  effect  upon  her. 

Mr.  Beach,  in  cross-examining  this  witness,  said 
that  he  understood  the  conversation  in  the  cars  re- 
ferred to  was  iu  reference  to  a  speech  made  in  Bos- 
ton by  Mrs.  Woodhull  about  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs. 
Tilton.  The  witness  said  he  distinctly  recollected 
that  Woodhull  Cla flings  Weekly  was  mentioned  in 
that  conversation,  and  that  it  referred  to  the  Wood- 
hull  scandal.  During  the  cross-examination  of  Mr. 
Wright,  Mr.  Beach  consulted  with  Mr.  Tilton  two  or 
three  times.  The  latter  was  busily  writing  during  a 
large  part  of  the  day. 

There  was  a  murmur  of  curiosity  when  a  woman 
of  very  striking  appearance  was  conducted  to  the 
chair  as  the  next  witness  for  the  defense.  She 
was  of  middle  age,  and  was  apparently  weakened 
by  sickness.   Sho  was  examined  by  Mr.  Shearman. 


208 


TRE   TILTON-BEECHEE  IBIAL. 


She  gave  her  name  as  Elizabeth  La  Pierre 
Palmer.  She  had  pursued  the  profession  of  a 
landscape  artist  andhadresided  at  Montmorency,  S.C. 
At  present  she  was  staying  with  friends  in  this  city. 
She  had  been  married  twice.  She  was  divorced 
from  her  former  husband,  Herbert  Daniels,  in  1868. 
In  1874  she  was  married  to  her  present  husband, 
Frederick  Augustus  Palmer,  an  eclectic  physician 
of  Few-York.  She  had  formerly,  she  said, 
resided  in  New- York,  where  she  manufac- 
tured and  sold  ladies'  stocking-suspenders  of  her 
own  mvention.  She  occupied  a  pai't  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  office  in  the  Spring  of  1871.  She  there 
met  Mr.  Tilton  in  February,  1871.  She  had 
heard  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton  talk 
about  the  projected  publication  of  The  Golden 
Age.  The  substance  of  their  conversation  was 
that  Mr.  Tilton  was  to  start  The  Golden  Age,  and 
run  it  together  with  Woodhull  ^  Claflinh  Weekly 
in  connection  with  the  Spiritualism  movement.  It 
was  to  be  a  radical  paper,  taking  up  all  the  radical 
questions  of  the  day.  Mr.  Tilton  had  asked  the 
witness  to  be  an  agent  for  his  new  paper,  but  she 
had  refused.  She  saw  Mr.  Tilton  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's 
office  two  or  three  times  a  day,  during  part 
of  February  and  during  March  and  April,  1871. 
She  saw  Mr.  Tilton  go  to  lunch  with 
Mrs.  Woodhull  at  least  six  times.  Several  times  she 
heard  Mrs.  WoodbuU  say  to  him,  "Come,  Theodore, 
let  us  go  out  to  lunch."  They  called  each  other 
"Theodore"  and  "Vickey."  She  also  saw  Mr.  Tilton 
taken  into  the  back  parlor,  which  was  not 
thrown  open  to  ordinary  guests,  and  four 
times  she  saw  him  in  Mrs.  Woodhull's  bed- 
room, sitting  at  a  desk,  and  either  talking 
or  writing.  Mr.  Tilton  treated  Mrs.  Woodhull 
very  affectionately,  and  it  was  his  common  habit  to 
put  his  arm  around  her.  She  had  heard  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  talk  of  Mr.  Tilton's  becoming  the  head  of  the 
Spiritualists.  Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  portion 
of  Mrs.  Palmer's  testimony  was  in  reference  to  a 
conversation  which  she  had  heard  between  Mrs. 
Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton  about  the  scandal.  On 
that  occasion  Mr.  Tilton  had  told  Mrs.  Woodhull 
that  his  wife  was  as  pure  as  snow,  and  that  the  scan- 
dal was  not  true. 

The  cross-examination  of  Mrs.  Palmer  was  con- 
ducted by  Mr.  Beach,  who  was  somewhat  taken 
aback  when,  having  asked  a  question  relative  to  her 
husband's  business,  she  turned  to  Judge  Neilson  and 
appealed  to  the  Court,  saying  that  that  had 
no  relation  to  this  ease,  and  unless  the  Court 


compelled  her  she  would  refuse  to  answer.  "  That 
is  not  the  first  time  1  have  been  refused  by  a  lady," 
said  Mr.  Beach,  smiling.  She  was  obliged  to  go  on. 
The  cross-examination  developed  the  fact  that 
Mrs.  Palmer  was  a  medium,  and  had  as- 
sisted her  husband  as  a  clairvoyant  by  making 
examinations  of  patients.  The  skiUful  lawyer 
led  her  on  until  she  became  interested  in  telling 
about  her  powers,  and  the  counsel,  jurymen,  and 
audience  Usteuerl  with  lively  interest.  She  said  she 
could,  when  in  the  proper  condition,  to  a  great  ex- 
tent, read  the  secrets  of  others'  lives— the  acts  which 
they  had  done.  She  announced  her  belief 
that  around  every  human  soul  there  was 
a  band  of  guardian  spirits,  and  that  no 
evil  influences  can  reach  that  soul,  unless  God  opens 
the  cordon  of  guarding  spirits.  She  believed  that 
no  human  soul  was  responsible  for  its  acts,  except 
that  it  would  be  responsible  if  it  did  not  pray  for  the 
Divine  assistance  that  could  be  had  for  the  asking. 
Mr.  Beach  smiled  when  the  witness  announced  that 
she  saw  a  spirit  standing  near  him. 

"Is  it  a  good  or  a  bad  one,  for  I  should  like  to 
know  ?"  he  asked. 

She  replied  that  it  was  a  young  lady— his  daughter. 

"  Well,  I've  had  one  of  that  kind,"  replied  the 
lawyer,  his  face  reddening. 

Mrs.  Palmer  went  on  to  give  her  views  about  mar- 
riage and  divorce.  She  said  she  was  not  a  free  lover, 
but  believed  that  when  a  married  man  and  woman 
found  that  they  were  totally  incompatible,  and 
couldn't  possibly  live  happily  together, they  should  be 
divorced.  The  witness  proceeded  at  great  length 
to  explain  her  peculiar  ideas  of  Spiritualism 
and  religion,  and  talked  so  earnestly  that 
her  auditors  paid  close  attention.  She  in- 
sisted on  telling  what  she  knew  in  her  own  way,  and 
could  not  be  made  to  entangle  herself  in  contradic- 
tions. She  repeated  in  substantially  the  same 
language  what  she  had  before  said  about 
The  Golden  Age,  and  the  relations  of  Mr.  Til- 
ton and  Mrs.  WoodhuU.  She  admitted  that  Mr. 
Tilton's  familiarities  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  must  have 
been  seen  by  Col.  Blood  and  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews, 
since  they  were  neither  open  nor  concealed.  She 
said  she  believed  in  the  God  of  the  Christians  and  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,although  she  held  some  peculiar 
views  about  the  relation  of  the  latter  to  the  Father. 

Near  the  close  of  the  session,  Benjamin  F.  Tracy 
was  called  and  sworn  as  a  witness  for  the  defense. 
His  examination,  conducted  by  Mr.  Evarts,  had  pro- 
ceeded only  a  little  way,  when  the  Court  adjourned. 


lESimOXI   OF  SA2IUEL   D.  FABTEIDGE. 


209 


THE  PEOCEEDIXaS-YERBATBI. 


S.l^IUEL  D.  PARTEIDGE  EECALLED. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 

lournment. 

Samuel  D.  Partridge  was  recalled  and  Ids  cross-exam- 
ination resumed. 

3Ir.  Beacli— INIr.  Partridge,  on  your  examination  tlie 
other  day  you  spoke  of  a  clieck  -^liicli  "was  handed  to 
you  

The  Witness  [rising]— Will  you  excuse  me  1  I  wish  to 
correct  a  mistake  that  I  fell  into,  as  I  understand,  on 
Friday. 

A  Juror— A  little  louder. 

Judge  Xeilson— Sit  down,  Mr.  Partridge.  Make  your 
coiTection,  Sir. 

The  Witness— As  I  understand,  I  stated  that  I  belieyed 
that  it  was  in  1872  ;  I  should  have  said  1871.  I  don't 
know  how— I  must  have  misapprehended  the  question,  I 
think. 

A  Jm-or— We  can't  hear. 

Mr.  Beach— The  substance  is  :  "  As  I  understand,  I 
6tat€d  on  Friday  that  it  was  in  1872  ;  it  was  in  1871.  I 
must  have  misunderstood  the  CLuestion." 

The  Witness— The  publication  of  the  "biography  was  the 
matter,  I  think. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  publication  of  the  "Life  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull." 

THE  APPEAEAXCE  OF  THE  BOWEN  CHECK. 

^Ir. . Beach— Wlien  you  were  examined  before, 
Mr.  Partridge,  you  spoke  of  a  check  which  was  handed 
to  you  as  the  cashier  of  the  firm  of  Woodruff  &.  Robinson  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  amount  of  that  check?  A.  $7,000,  if 
I  recollect  right. 

Q.  Who  drew  it  1  A.  It  was  signed,  I  think,  by  H.  C. 
Bowen— Mr.  Bowen's  check,  I  think. 

Q.  You  knew  Mr.  Bowen,  didn't  you  ?  I  knew  him  by 
eight.  Sir;  I  hadn't  any  acquaintance  with  him. 

Q.  You  knew  him  very  well  by  reputation  ?  A.  Yes, 
Su\ 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  the  precise  form  of  the  signature  ? 
A.  I  do  not.  Sir. 

Q.  You  think  it  was  H.  C.  Bowen  1  A.  It  was  the  same 
check  that  was  handed  to  me  the  other  day,  and  credited 
to  Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  that.   A.  I  think  that  was  the  check. 

Q.  What?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  looked  particu- 
larly at  the  signature. 

Q.  Credited,  did  you  say,  to  :\Ir.  Henry  C.  Bowen  1  A. 
It  was  credited  to  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  You  said  to  Henry  C.  Bowen  a  moment  ago  1  A. 
WeU,  I  made  a  mistake. 

Q.  Made  a  mistake  1  And  it  was  payable  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
you  s:iy  1   A.  Thut  is  as  I  understand  it ;  yes,  Sir. 


Q.  Well,  are  you  quite  sure  of  that,  or  whether  it  was 
indorsed  over  to  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  Mr.  Tilton  was  an  in- 
dorser  on  it. 

Q.  Well,  was  he  the  first  indorser !  A,  I  would  not  be 
sure,  Sir. 

Q.  What  1  A.  I  won't  be  sure  how  that  was ;  I 
didn't  look  attentively  at  that  part  of  it  the  other  day.  It 
might  have  been  drawn  by  somebody  else  to  the  order  of 
Mr.  Bowen ;  I  could  not  say  certain ;  I  don't  remem- 
ber. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Partridge,  I  think  you  will  find  it,  per- 
haps, convenient  to  speak  a  little  louder  when  you  know 
that  the  jury  cannot  understand  you. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Do  you  recollect  how  the  check  was  in- 
dorsed? A.  I  recollect  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  an  indorser 
on  it,  and  Woodruff  &  Kobinson  were  indorsers  on  it ;  as 
to  any  other— there  may  have  been  one  other,  but  I  don't 
remember  who  it  was. 

Q.  Was  it  indorsed  by  Woodruff  &  Robinson  when  it 
was  presented  to  you?  A.  No,  not  when  it  was  presented 
to  me  ;  it  was  when  it  was  presented  to  me  the  other 
day. 

Q.  Xo,  no  ;  when  it  was  originally  handed  to  you,  was 
it  indorsed  by  Woodruff  &  Robinson  ?  A.  No,  I  think  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  that  indorsement  put  upon  the  check  ? 
A.  I  couldn't  tell  you  whether  I  did  or  not.  Sir  ;  it  is 
not  

Q.  Wait  a  moment,  Sir.  When  you  answer  my  question 
please  stop.  And  you  put  the  check,  I  understand,  in  the 
drawer  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  there  were  two  apartments  in  the  drawer  ?  A. 
There  were  more  apartments  than  two. 

Q.  WeU,  there  were  two  ?  A.  The  front  part  of  the 
drawer  was  divided  into  narrow  apartments,  and  the 
back  part  of  it  was  not  divided  ;  there  were  two  in  that 
sense. 

Q.  And  the  check,  I  understand,  you  put  in  the  front 
apartment  of  the  drawer?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


THE  SHAPE  IN  WHICH  THE  CHECK  AIST)  YEL- 
LOW PAPER  CA^IE. 

Q.  And  this  yellow  paper  you  put  In  the  back 
portion  of  the  drawer?  A.  In  the  back  portion;  that  is, 
according  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Were  the  two  papers,  the  yellow  paper  and  the  check, 
attached  together  in  any  form  when  you  received  them  ? 
A.  I  don't  recollect.  Sir,  whether  they  were  or  not. 

Q.  Don't  recollect  whether  they  were  or  not.  Well, 
can't  you  recollect.  Sir,  whether  they  came  to  you  an- 
nexed, and  that  you  tmdertook  to  separate  them  ?  A.  I 
do  not ;  I  know  that  they  came  to  me  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  That  ain't  the  question  I  put  to  you.  A.  And  by  the 
same  hand. 

Q.  Wait  one  moment.  Sir.  The  question  I  put  to  you  was 
whether  you  can  not  recollect  whether  or  not  these  pa* 


210  TaE  TILION-BE 

pers  came  to  you  annexed,  and  that  you  assumed  to  sep- 
arate them  ?  A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  If  a  check  with  a  memorandum  came  to  you  in  your 
business,  did  you  assume  the  authority  to  separate  them  ? 
A.  I  don't  remember  in  this  matter  whether— anything 
how  they  came,  relative  to  each  other,  except  that  they 
were  handed  to  me  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  You  are  not  now,  Sir,  answering  my  question,  and 
I  beg  you  to  confine  your  attention  to  the  question  I  put 
to  you.  I  ask  you  whether,  as  the  cashier  of  a  business 
firm,  when  a  check  came  into  your  hands  with  a  memo- 
randum attached  to  it,  you,  as  cashier,  would  assume, 
without  direction,  to  separate  them  and  put  them  apart  1 
A.  I  don't  recollect.  Sir,  that  any  such  occurrence  ever 
happened. 

Q.  Would  you  consider  it  in  the  line  of  your  duty  to  do 
that  ?  A.  I  should  consider— it  wouldn't  be  expected  if 
a  thing  came  attached  to  a  check  that  I  should  deposit 
that,  unless  it  was  a  part  of  the  check. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  the  Court]— I  don't  know,  Sir,  as  to  this 
witness,  whether  he  purposely  avoids  answering  my 
question,  and  answers  matters  which  are  not  pertinent 
or  responsive,  but  I  assume,  if  your  Honor  please,  that  I 
have  a  right  to  ask  instructions  from  your  Honor  to  him, 
that  he  should  answer  the  question  I  put  to  him. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Partridge,  the  duty  of  the  witness 
is  to  attend  to  the  very  question  put,  and  answer  it  as 
closely  and  directly  as  you  can. 

The  Witness— I  will  do  so,  your  Honor. 

Judge  Neilson— When  you  cannot  answer  it,  say  you 
cannot. 

Mr.  Beach— Please  attend,  then,  to  this  question. 
The  Witness— I  will.  Sir. 

Q.  When  you,  as  the  cashier  of  that  firm,  received  a 
check  with  a  memorandum  annexed  to  it,  would  you  con- 
ceive it  in  the  line  of  your  duty  to  separate  those  two 
papers  and  place  them  apart  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  isn't  it 
proper  for  me  to  say  that  I  have  no  recollection  that  any 
guch  occurrence  ever  happened,  and  how  can  I  tell  how  I 
should  act? 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  how  you  should  act  1  A.  If  no  such 
thing  ever  happened  

Q.  You  could  not  tell.  You  have  no  sense  of  business 
propriety  and  duty,  then  ?   A.  If  I  

Q.  I  am  asking  you,  Sir,  whether,  as  a  business  man, 
and  trusted  cashier  of  a  firm,  when  a  check  came  to  you 
with  a  memorandum  annexed  to  it,  from  a  partner  of  the 
firm,  you  would  consider  it  your  province  to  separate 
those  two  papers  and  put  them  apart  1  A.  Well,  I  don't 
know,  Sir. 

Q.  You  don't  know  whether  you  would  consider  it  your 
duty  or  not  ?   A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Did  you  do  that  on  this  occasion,  with  this  check 
and  memorandum  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  whether  they 
came  pinned  together — fastened  together,  or  not ;  I  don't 
remember. 


'FJJHER  TBIAL. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Partridge,  refreshing  your  recollection  by 
your  sense  of  duty  and  your  practice,  cannot  you  say 
whether  or  not  they  were  attached  when  they  came  to 
your  hands?  A.  I  cannot,  Sir ;  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  you  put  the  check  in  the  front  apartment 
of  the  drawer,  and  the  memorandum  in  the  back  part  of 
the  drawer?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  they  were  i^eparate  then. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  They  were  separate  then,  at  that  time. 

Q.  Well,  I  should  suppose  so,  Sir.  [Laughter.]  It  is  not 
necessary  that  you  should  swear  to  it.  How  long  did  the 
check  remain  where  you  placed  it  in  the  fore  part  of  the 
drawer?  A.  Well,  I  think  that  I  deposited  that  the  same 
day,  Sir. 

Q.  You  think  you  deposited  that  the  same  day  ?  A.  I 
think  I  did. 

Q.  Cannot  you  tell  by  reference  to  your  books?  A.  I 
can  be  i)retty  well  satisfied. 

Q.  From  an  examination  of  the  books?  A.  From  an 
examination  of  the  bank  book,  and  see  if  I  deposited  the 
$7,000  check  that  day.  It  is  not  likely  I  had  more  than 
one. 

Q.  Well,  is  there  any  memorandum  upon  your  books  by 
which  you  can  tell  upon  what  day  you  received  the 
check?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What?  A.  Icau. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  them  ?  A.  I  have ;  I  looked. 
Q.  What?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Can  you  tell,  then,  from  that  examination  of  the  en 
tries  upon  the  book  when  you  received  it  ?  A.  On  the  5th 
day  of  April,  if  I  recollect  right. 

Q.  On  the  5th  day  of  April  ?   A.  1872, 1  think. 

Q.  Do  the  books  so  declare  ?  A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  You  think  so.  A.  It  has  been  some  time  

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  whether  or  not  you  did 
deposit  it  on  the  day  you  received  it ;  have  you  now  any 
present  recollection  of  that  circumstance?  A.  Without 
reference  to  the  book  I  cannot  tell  you,  Sir. 

Q.  You  could  not  tell  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  YELLOW  PAPER. 
Q.  How  loug  did  this  piece  of  yellow  paper 

remain  in  the  back  apartment  of  the  drawer  before  3-ou 
took  it  and  put  it  in  your  pocketbook  ?  A.  It  is  impossi- 
ble for  me  to  say  exactly,,  but  I  should  think  not  a  great 
while. 

Q.  Well,  two  or  three  days  or  a  week.  How  long !  A. 
Well,  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  Sir  ?  A.  According  to— the  impression  that  I  ha^  e 
is  

Q.  Just  answer  my  question.  A.  I  will. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  is. 

Mr.  Beach — No,  he  is  not  answering. 

Mr.  Evarts— According  to  his  impression,  he  says. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes.  According  to  your  recollection  how^ 
many  days— what  length  of  time  did  this  paper  remain  in 
the  back  apartment  bctore  yon  took  it  out  and  itn(  it 


TESTmo:SY  OF  SAM 

In  your  pocketbooTi!  A.  I  shouW  tMnk  not  a  great 
TrMle ;  but  I  cannot  be  explicit  as  to  that. 

Q.  According  to  tlie  best  of  your  recollection  bo^  long  1 
A.  According  to  tlie  best  of  my  recollection  I  liad  tliat  in 
my  pocket,  I  should  think,  two  or  three  years. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  very  pertinent  to  something  I  may  ask 
you  by  and  by.   A.  Well,  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  my  question,  Sir  ?  A.  If  I  under- 
stand your  question,  you  wish  me  to  say  hoTV  many  days, 
or  precisely  ho?r  long  that  lay  in  the  back  part  of  the 
dra^ver  before  I  put  it  into  my  pocket  ? 

Q.  Yes.  Sir.  I  did  not  say  "  precisely,"  but  I  said  ac- 
cording to  the  best  of  your  recollection.  A.  "Well,  I  don't 
recollect. 

Q.  Xow,  you  seem  to  understand  the  question;  mil  you 
ans"^er  it  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  Tell  me,  according  to  the  best  of  your  impression. 
A.  The  best  of  my  recollection  is — the  best  of  my  impres- 
sion is  that  I  cannot  tell  exactly  what  time  it  was. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  to  tell  me  exactly.  A.  I  cannot  tell 
you;  I  hare  no  criterion  by  which  I  can  recollect. 

Q.  According  to  the  best  of  your  recoUection,  nid  it 
remain  in  the  back  drawer  a  week  before  you  took  It  out  ? 
A.  I  could  not  tell  you.  Sir. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  I  could  not  say  certainly ;  I  should  think 
it  did,  however. 

Q.  Well,  two  weeks  ?  A.  I  could  not  tell  you,  Sir,  how 
long ;  it  did  not  remain  a  great  while. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  said  you  should  think  longer  than  a 
-week «  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  «ith  regard  to  two  weeks?  A.  I  could  not  tell 
you.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  do  you  think  about  it  1  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  about  it. 

Q.  WeU,  you  think  it  remained  there  longer  than  a 
week;  how  much  longer  than  a  week,  should  you  think  ? 
A.  I  could  not  tell  you.  Sir. 

Q.  "V^Tiy,  if  you  think  it  remained  there  longer  than  a 
week,  you  must  have  some  impression  about  it  1  A.  The 
only  impression  that  I  have  about  it  is  that  it  did  not 
remain  there  a  great  while. 

Q.  Then  you  took  it  out,  folded  it  up,  and  put  it  in  your 
pocketbook?   A.  I  put  it  in  my  pocket ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  rememlier  how  many  times  you  folded  it  1 
A.  No,  Sir;  I  do  not;  I  don't  remember.  It  is  folded;  I 
don't  remember  anjT:hing  abnut  that  matter. 

Q.  What?  A.  It  is  folded  now;  it  was  folded  when  I 
put  it  into  my  pocketbook. 

Q.  Is  your  eyesight  good  enough  to  see  whether  the 
holes  of  the  check  and  the  paper  correspond,  placing 
those  pin  holes  together  ?   A.  I  can't  see  the  pin  holes. 

Q.  Can't  see  the  pin  holes  ?   A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  the  pocketbook  in  which  you  kept  it  ?  A. 
I  have  ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q,  Let  us  see  it! 


VEL  D.   PABTEIDGE.  211 

The  Witness  [Producing  his  pocketbook] — There,  if  I 
recollect  aright  it  was  kept  in  that  compartment. 

Q.  Now,  fold  it  up  as  you  kept  it  there  ;  doi't  tear  it. 

The  Witness— Will  you  have  the  kindness  to  fold  it;  I 
eannot  see. 

:Mr.  Beach— WeU,  I  have  put  it  in  the  folds  as  they  are. 
[Folding  paper  and  handing  it  to  witness,  who  tried  to 
put  it  in  the  pocketbook.]  WeU,  that  is  enough ;  you 
needn't  put  it  in.  Then  you  folded  it  twice  ?  A.  I  don't 
recollect. 

Q.  ^Tiat  ?  A.  I  don't  recoUect  anything  about  it ;  I 
don't  recoUect. 

Q.  WeU,  you  must  have  folded  it  three  times.  There  it 
is  ;  you  see  it,  don't  you  ?  A.  Folded  it  so  it  would  go  in 
there. 

Q.  WeU,  you  folded  it  three  times,  did  you  not  1  A.  Do- 

you  expect  I  recollect  fi'  m\  that  time  until  now  ho"W 
I  many  times  I  folded  that  piece  of  paper,  as  though  I  had 

I  nothing  else  to  think  of  ? 

i     Q.  WeU,  there  is  the  pocketbook,  there  is  the  paper.  Yon 
see  how  it  is  folded  to  go  in  there,  and  you  see  it  won't  go 
in  without  folding,  don't  you  ? 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  reasoning;  not  memory. 
Mr.  Beach — I  ask  bim  to  look  at  this  paper  and  teU  me 
how  many  times  he  folded  it  to  put  it  into  this  pocket- 
i  book. 

The  Witness — I  can't  teU  you  anything  about  it. 

Q.  No  ;  but  looking  at  the  paper  and  your  pocketbook, 
and  making  the  experiment,  you  can  tell  ?  A.  Well,  you 
can  tell  

Q.  Can  you  tell  ?  I  want  to  get  it  on  the  record.  A^ 
You  can  get  it  on  the  record  as  soon  as  you  please  ;  I  put 
it  mto  my  pocketbook. 

Q.  You  take  that  paper  with  your  pocketbook  and  teU 
me  how  many  times  you  folded  it  to  get  it  into  your 
pocketbook  ?  A.  WeU,  it  requires  the  folding  that  it  has 
now  to  get  in  there. 

Q.  That  is  three  foldings,  isn't  it  ?  A.  Well,  I  can't  see,. 
Sir. 

Q.  Look  at  it— yes,  you  can  see  that;  Iknowbettert 
A.  That  is  one  

Q.  That  is  one,  and  that  two,  and  that  three— that 
makes  three,  doesn't  it  ?  A.  WeU,  I  don't  see  three- unless 
you  cotmt  one,  two,  three. 

Q.  This  is  one,  ain't  it,  to  fold  it  this  way?  A.  Oh,  yes^ 
Sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  another,  and  that  is  another?  A.  That  Is 
another. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  carry  it  in  your  pocketbook? 
A.  WeU,  fi"om  the  time  I  put  it  into  it  imtU  the  other  day^ 
in  my  pocketbook. 

TO  WHOM  THE  YELLOW  PAPER  WAS  SHOWN. 

Q.   Did  you  have  it  out  at  any  time?  A.  I 

have. 


m  TEE  TILTON-Bl 

Q.  How  many  times?  A.  I  could  not  tell  you  how 
many  times. 

Q.  Wlien  did  you  first  have  it  out  ?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect of  ever  showing  that  

Q.  Wait  a  moment ;  when  did  you  first  have  it  out  ac- 
cording to  your  recollection  ?  A  can't  tell  you,  Sir,  only— 
I  can  tell  you  that  since  a  particular  time. 

Mr.  Evarts.  That  is,  taking  it  out,  showing  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  ask  him  ahout  showing  it  to  any- 
body. 

The  Witness— Oh  !  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  taking 
that  out  untU  I  took  it  out  to  show  it  to  somebody. 

Q,  Well,  when  did  you  first  take  it  out  to  show  to  some- 
body, then  1  A.  It  was  since — I  have  no  recollection  of 
ever  showing  that  to  any  one  imtil  since  these  state- 
ments. 

Q.  Since  what  statements  ?  A.  Well,  statements  that 

were  made  last  Summer,  I  think. 

Q.  That  is  the  first  time  that  you  took  it  out  I  A.  I 
have  no  recollection  of  taking  it  out  

Q.  To  whom  did  you  first  show  it?  A.  I  could  not  tell 
you  that. 

Q.  Who  is  the  first  person  that  you  recollect  that  you 
showed  it  to  ?  A.  I  should  think  that  the  first  persons  I 
showed  it  to  were  individuals  in  our  own  family. 

Q.  Well,  who  1  A.  In  our  own  family— in  my  own 
family. 

Q.  Well,  who?  Who]  A.  My  wife,  or  my  children,  or 
both,  perhaps,  at  the  same  time  ;  I  don't  know  

Q.  Well,  I  want  to  know  whom  you  recollect  first  to 
have  shown  it  to  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  who  I  did  first 
show  it  to. 

Q.  Well,  who  do  you  recollet  of  ever  showing  it  to  ?  A. 
I  recollect  of  showing  it  in  my  family ;  I  recollect  of  show- 
ing it  to  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Clark. 

Q.  Where  does  he  reside?  A.  He  resides  in  North- 
ampton. 

Q.  What  is  his  full  name  ?  A.  His  full  name  is— I  think 
It  is  Josiah,  Sir. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?  A.  That  was  last  Winter. 

Q.  Well,  who  else  do  you  remember  showing  it  to  f  A. 
I  remember  showing  it  to  Mr.  Albert  Woodruff. 

Q.  Albert  Woodruff?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Who  is  he  ?  A.  He  is  Mr.  Albert  Woodruff ;  he  was 
formerly  a  member  of  the  firm  of  A.  Woodruff  &  Robin- 
eon. 

Q.  Was  he  a  member  at  the  time  you  showed  the  paper 
to  him  ?   A.  No,  Sir  ;  he  was  not. 

Q.  Where  was  he  when  you  showed  it  to  hmil  A.  I 
was  at  his  house.  Sir. 

Q.  Where  ?  A.  In  State-st.,  Brooklyn.  . 

Q.  In  this  city  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  was  that  do  you  think  9  A.  I  should  think 
that  way  not  more  than  10  days  ago,  or  a  fortnight,  per- 
liaps ;  that  was  recently. 


EC  HER  TBLAL. 

THE  YELLOW  PAPER  KEPT  AS  A  CURIOSITY. 

Q.  Now,  in  the  month  of  April,  1872,  weie 
you  personally  acquainted  with  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  I  had 
seen  him  repeatedly;  I  never  had  any  acquaintance 
with  Mr.  Tilton ;  I  know  him  well  by  sight. 

Q.  Well,  at  that  time  did  you  know  anything  about  the 
diflBculties  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Bowen?  A.  I 
knew,  previous  to  this,  that  Mr.  Moulton,  and  I  think 
Mr.  Tilton  was  with  him,  came  to  me  one  day  

Q.  No,  no ;  I  am  m)t  asking  about  that.  A.  I  am  tell- 
ing all  I  know  about  it,  if  that  is  what  you  want. 

Q.  WeU,  I  don't  want  it  all ;  it  would  be  a  burden  to  me 
to  carry  it.  I  am  asking  you  if,  at  the  time  this  check 
was  handed  to  you,  you  were  acquainted  with  the  diffi- 
culties between  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton— Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Bowen,  I  mean  ?  A.  All  that  I  knew— that  I 
recollect  that  I  knew  at  the  time  that  I  received  this 
check,  was  that  I  had  been  informed  that  Mr.  Tilton,  on 
his  way  to  see  Mr.  Bowen,  had  some  paper  printed  in 
type ;  that  he  was  going  to  see  Mr.  Bowen  and  show  it  to 
him  and  tell  him  tha»l;  he  must  settle  with  him,  or  pay 
him  some  money  o?  something  or  other,  or  he  should 
publish  that ;  that  id  all  that  I  knew  about  it  up  to  that 
time. 

Q.  And  that  you  had  heard  from  other  parties  ?  A. 
That  I  had  heard  from  other  parties ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  took  out  this  yeUow  paper  and  put 
it  in  your  pocket-book,  had  you  heard  anything  more 
about  it  ?  A.  I  had  not  heard  anything  more. 

Q.  Hadn't  heard  anything  more  1  A.  That  is  all  that 
I  

Q.  Now,  when  did  you  first  communicate  to  any  person 
that  you  had  this  papei  f  A.  WeU,  I  told  you  I  did  not  re- 
member when  

Q.  What?  A.  Since— I  don't  think  I  ever  mentioned  it 
to  any  one  until  since  

Q.  Those  statements  last  Summer?  Yes,  Sir,  those 
statements ;  I  think  it  was,  as  I  mentioned,  since  those 
statements. 

Q.  Were  there  any  other  checks  in  that  drawer  at  the 
time  you  put  these  papers  in  it  ?  A.  I  presume  there 
were,  but  that  is  a  mere  matter  of  guessing ;  I  don't  re- 
member anything  about  it ;  there  generally  was  checks 
there. 

Q.  You  did  not  attach  those  papers  together  with  a 
pin  ?  A.  I  never  did— not  to  my  recollection ;  I  have  no 
recollection  of  ever  anything  about  pins  or  pinning  in 
connection  with  it. 

Q.  Have  you  no  idea  how  those  pin-holes  got  in  there  t 
A.  No ;  not  the  least  in  the  world,  Sir. 

Q.  Least  in  the  world  ?  A.  Don't  know  anything  about 
it ;  I  don't  recoUect  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Did  you  communicaie  to  any  momber  of  that  flim 
that  you  had  taken  this  paper  from  their  drawer  and  put 
it  in  your  pocket-book  1  A.  Not  at  that  time  that  I  know 
of ;  no,  I  never  did. 


TESTIMONY   OF  SAM 


UEL   D.  PAETRIDGIJ. 


213 


Q.  You  never  <iia  1   A.  I  presume  I  never  did. 

Q.  No ;  did  you  tliink  it  perfectly  proper  to  take  a  paper 
of  tliat  kind  and  appropriate  it  to  your  private  use  I  A. 
I  had  a  right,  Sir,  to  infer  that  that  paper  came  into  my 
possession  to  he  taken  care  of,  and  I  did  take  care  of  it. 

Q.  And  that  was         A.  In  my  custody  

Q.  And  that  vras  the  object  of  putting  it  in  your  pocket- 
hook  1  A.  My  object- — 

Q.  "Was  that  your  object  1  A.  T  have  no  recollection  

Q.  Was  that  your  object  1  A.  What  1 

Q.  You  say  that  you  presumed  when  this  paper  came 
into  your  possession  it  was  your  duty  to  take  care  of  it ! 
A.  I  did  not  say  so ;  I  said  that  I  had  a  right  to  infer. 

Q.  WeU,  you  had  a  right  to  infer ;  did  you  infer  that ! 
A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did ;  I  don't  recollect  that  I 
acted  at  all  from  that  motive;  I  recollect  only  one  thing 
that  induced  me  to  do  it. 

Q.  You  didn't  take  it,  then,  to  preserve  It  ?  A.  What  ? 

Q.  You  did  not  take  it  then  for  the  purpose  of  taking 
care  of  it,  or  preserving  it  ?  A.  I  do  not  think  I  had  that 
In  my  mind  at  all ;  it  was  a  sort  of  curiosity,  I  thought, 
connected  with  that  transaction ;  I  never  attached  much 
consequence  to  it  at  the  time,  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  You  did  not  attach  much  consequence  to  it  at  the 
time  1  A.  That  I  recollect ;  I  don't  recollect  that  I  looked 
at  it  in  any  other  light  than  as  a  sort  of  curiosity. 

Q.  Don't  recollect  that  you  looked  at  it  in  any  other 
light  than  as  a  sort  of  curiosity  1   A.  At  that  time. 

Q.  At  that  time  1  A.  At  that  time— and  there  was  only 
one  word  that  attracted  my  attention  then,  particularly. 

Q.  That   was  "spoils,"  I  suppose?     A.  That  was 

spoils." 

Q.  Yes,  Sir ;  that  is  an  attractive  word ;  "  spoils  from 
new  friends ;"  the  "  new  "  is  underscored,  you  perceive  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  to  whom  that  referred  1  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  "For  the  enrichment  old;"  the  "old"  is  xmder- 
scored  also.  A.  I  did  not  underscore  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  understand  what  that  referred  to  ?  A. 
Ifo,  Sir. 

Q.  You  were  curious  about  it  1  A.  I  was  curious  ;  all 
the  curiosity  I  had  was  with  the  "  spoils ;"  the  word 
"  spoils  "  seemed  to  refer  to  the  check. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  ever  take  any  means  to  satisfy  your 
curiosity  except  to  hold  on  to  the  paper  1  A.  No ;  I  did 
not  care  particularly  about  it. 

Q.  But  you  were  curious,  and  a  curious  person  does 
care  about  the  object  ?  A.  A  man  may  have  a  curiosity 
in  his  possession  and  not  exhibit  it  all  the  time — not 
every  day. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  ever  make  any  eflfort  to  satisfy  your 
curiosity?  A.  Not  the  least. 

Q.  And  you  never  addressed  any  person  connected  with 
the  establishment  of  Woodruff  &  Robinson  to  ascertain 
what  this  paper  meant  1   A.  I  told  one  of  the  firm  

<Q.  Did  you  ever  show  this  paper,  or  consult  either  of 


the  persons?   A.  t  have  no  recollection  of  ever  doing  it. 

Q.  No  recollection  that  you  ever  did! 

Mr.  Porter— The  jury  want  to  know  what  he  said  last. 

Mr.  Beach— He  said  he  never  did— never  consulted  any 
member  of  the  firm  about  it. 

The  Witness— That  I  recollect. 

Q.  So  far  as  you  know,  didn't  the  firm  know  that  that 
paper  existed  ?  A.  I  told  one  of  them  that  such  a  paper 
as  that  came  with  that  check. 

Q.  Who  was  that  ?  A.  Jeremiah  P.  Robinson ;  but  it 
was  at  a  very  comparatively  recent  date ;  not  at  that 
time. 

Q.  At  what  time  was  that  1  A.  Well,  I  should  think  It 
was  two  or  three  weeks  ago. 

Q.  About  two  or  three  weeks  ago— did  you  show  it  to 
him  then  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did,  Sir ;  I  think  I 
did  not. 

THE  CONVERSATION  ABOUT  TILTON  AND 
SPIRITUALISTS. 
Q.  Now,  on  Friday,  Sir,  when  the  Court  ad- 
journed, we  were  speaking  of  a  conversation  you  had 
with  Mr.  Moulton;  you  now  change  the  time  of  that 
conversation  from  1872  to  1871  ?  A.  In  the  Fall  of  1871; 
yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  conversed  with  any  one  upon  the  subject 
of  when  it  was  since  you  were  upon  the  stand,  Friday! 
A.  I  knew  

Q.  Have  you  conversed  with  any  one.  Sir,  in  regard  to 
the  time,  since  you  were  on  the  stand  last  Friday  ?  A.  I 
stated  at  our  table  

Q.  Have  you  conversed  with  any  one ;  wiU  you  answer 
me  ?  A.  Yes.  Sir,  I  have. 

Q.  Whom?  A.  With  my  family. 

Q.  With  anybody  else  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  have. 

Q.  Well,  try  and  recollect ;  I  guess  you  will  remember 
some  one  else.  A.  I  spoke  with  Dr.  Bacon  this  morning 
about  it. 

Q.  Dr.  Bacon?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Haven't  you  spoken  with  any  one  else  about  it!  A. 
I  don't— in  going  away— in  going  out  from  the  court  that 
day  I  passed  along  with  Mr.  Hill  

Q.  Ah!  A.  rContinuing]— and  something  was  said 
about  the  1872. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  But  it  was  in  connection  with  

Q.  Well,  you  have  answered  me ;  now  stop.  Now,  you 
have  been  in  consultation  with  Mr,  Hill  in  regard  to  your 
testimony  several  times,  haven't  you  ?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect that  I  have.  Sir. 

Q.  What,  Sir?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  have.  Sir. 

Q.  Before  you  were  first  up  upon  the  stand,  hadn't  you 
been  in  consultation  with  him  1  A,  I  don't  recollect  ol 
having  any  consultation  with  Mr.  Hill  but  once,  and  then 
not  at— I  don't  know  that  I  ever  saw  Mr.  Hill  until 
Friday  morning. 

Q.  Well,  which  of  the  counsel  consulted  with  you  in 


214  THE  TILTON-B 

regard  to  your  testimony  before  you  were  put  upon  the 
stand  ?  A.  I  talked  with  Mr.  Shearman. 

Q.  With  Mr.  Shearman  ?  A.  Mr,  Shearman  and— and 
with  Mr.  Shearman's  partner,  previous  to  talking  with 
Mr.  Shearman. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  we  have  got  that  conversation  now  located 
in  the  Fall  of  1871 ;  you  are  now  certain  of  the  time  ain't 
you?  A,  I  understand— I  have  understood  

Q.  No,  no ;  I  don't  want  that  ?  A.  Well,  I  am  satisfied 
in  my  own  mind  that  that  is  the  time ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Yes,  you  are  satisfied  in  your  own  mind,  so  that  you 
are  reasonably  certain  of  the  time  ?  A.  I  am  satisfied  in 
my  own  mind. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  more  than  one  conversation  with 
Mr.  Moulton  in  regard  to  the  Woodhull  publication,  or  in 
regard  to  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  of  its  ever 
occupying  any  attention  between  us,  except  on  that  time. 

Q.  On  that  one  occasion;  and  that  is  the  only  time  you 
conversed  upon  this  subject— this  general  subject— at  all 
with  him?  A.  What  general  subject  do  you  mean  ? 

Q.  The  general  subject  of  the  Woodhull  publication  and 
of  this  scandal  and  difficulty?  A.  Of  that  publication  I 
do  not  recollect  ever  having  any  conversation  with  him 
but  one. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  recollect  of  having  any  conversation 
with  him,  except  upon  that  occasion,  with  reference  to 
this  general  difficulty,  general  scandal,  and  if  so,  when 
and  where  was  it  ?  A.  Well,  now,  you  will  excuse  me  for 
asking  you  to  be  a  little  more  definite  than  that ;  I  can't 
precisely  understand  what  you  would  have  me  answer. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  cannot  hear  what  you  say. 

Mr.  Beach— He  wanted  me  to  excuse  him  for  asking  me 
to  be  more  precise;  he  could  not  understand.  [To  the 
witness.]  Well,  you  understand  the  general  nature  of 
this  difficulty  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  recollect  of  having  any  other  conversa- 
tion than  the  one  you  spoke  of  with  Mr.  Moulton,  either 
alone  or  in  presence  of  any  other  party,  when  the  ex- 
pression was  made  use  of  that  the  Spiritualists  were 
more  numerous  than  the  Congregationalists  of  the 
country  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Don't  recollect  but  this  one  occasion  1  A.  I  recall 
that  I  had  heard  that  expression  

Q.  No,  no.  A.  [Continuing. "I  A  short  time  before  that. 

Q.  Won't  you  stop  when  I  ask  you,  Sir.  Be  kind  enough. 
I  treat  you  courteously  and  I  hope  you  wUl  me.  A.  Ex- 
cuse me. 

Judge  Neilson— You  must  listen  to  the  question  and 
answer  the  auestion.  If  you  cannot  remember,  say  you 
don't  remember,  and  let  that  be  the  end  of  each  question. 

The  Witness— WeU,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  my  question  to  you,  Sir,  is  whether 
you  reccollect  of  any  conversation  besides  the  one  you 
have  mentioned,  with  Mr.  Moulton,  or  in  the  presence  of 
any  person,  between  you  and  Mr.  Moulton,  when  that 


iJhJCHEE  TRIAL. 

expression,  or  substantially  that  expression,  was  used,, 
that  the  Spiritualists  were  more  numerous  than  the  Con- 
gregationalists of  the  country  ?  A.  You  ask  me  if  I  un- 
derstand—if I  had  any  conversation,  or  heard  anything 
from  Mr.  Moulton  or  from  any  other  one  ? 

Q.  No,  no ;  from  Moulton.  A.  From  Moulton ;  that  is 
the  only  time  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  time  ?  Now,  will  you  swear  that 
Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff  was  not  present  at  the  conversa- 
tion to  which  you  allude  when  that  very  expression  was 
used?   A.  Franklin  Woodruff  told  me  a  

Q.  Wait  one  moment.  Will  you  swear  that  Franklin 
Woodruff  was  not  present  at  that  conversation  between 
you  and  Moulton  to  which  you  allude,  when  that  ex- 
pression, or  substantially  that         A.  I  don't  think  he 

was  

Q.  Hear  my  question?  A.  Well,  I  have  answered  it. 
Q.  You  say  you  don't  think  he  was  ?  A.  I  don't  think 
he  was. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  positively  that  he  was  not  ?  A.  I 
wiU  not  swear  positively ;  I  could  not  tell  you  what  Mr. 
Woodruff  has  told  me  in  regard  to  that  same  thing  as 
coming  from  Mr.  Tilton ;  he  used  the  same  expression 
exactly. 

Q.  Oh,  well,  now,  will  you  stop,  Sir?  A.  I  have 
stopped. 

Q.  What  is  your  object  in  forcing  declarations  of  that 
kind  upon  me?  A.  I  have  no  particular  object  in  forcing 
the  declaration  upon  you.  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  sworn  as  a  witness  before  i  A.  I 
have  not  for  a  great  many  years. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  sworn  as  a  witness  before  ?  A.  I 
have  been;  not  in  New- York,  however. 

Q.  Where  do  you  say  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Moul- 
ton was ;  what  part  of  the  store  1  A.  In  the  office. 

Q.  Now  relate  the  whole  of  that  conversation  ?  A.  I 
said  substantially  to  Mr.  Moulton  :  "I  think  Mr.  Tilton 
has  done  a  foolish  thing  in  writing  that  biography."  Mr. 
Movilton  said  :  "He  wrote  that  in  order  to  get  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Spiritualists."  I  said :  "  I  did  not  suppose 
they  were  sufficiently  numerous  to  make  it  an  object." 
He  said  :  "  There  are  more  Spiritualists  in  the  country 
than  there  are  Congregationalists." 

Q.  Well,  is  that  all  of  it  ?  A.  That  is  the  whole  conver- 
sation, so  far  as  I  recoUect. 

Q.  Now,  wasn't  it  Mr.  Woodruff  that  used  the  expres- 
sion that  Mr.  Tilton  wrote  that  biography  for  the  purpose 
of  taking  or  obtaining  the  leadership  of  the  Spiritualists  ? 
A.  No,  Sir  ;  Mr.  Woodruff— I  have  no— he  did  not  tell  me 
so  then ;  I  have  no  recollection  of  his  tellini:  mo  

Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  any  other  time,  Sir.  How 
long  was  that  conversation  ?  A.  How  long  ? 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  A.  Just  ae  long  as  I  have  been  speaking. 

Q.  Just  long  enough  to  utter  those  words  ?  A.  Not 
longer  than  that. 


TESTIMOlST  OF  SAM 

Q.  Not  longer  tlian  tliat— there  was  no  other  expression 
Tised  iu  tliat  conversation  t   A.  Not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  recollect  sufficiently  to  say  that  there 
^as  none  other  1  A.  None  other  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Is  your  recollection  sufficient  to  enable  you  to  say 
that  there  was  no  other  conversation  ?  A.  It  is  sufficient 
to  say  that  I  don't  recollect  any  more. 

Q.  You  don't  answer  my  question.  A.  I  do,  Sir,  to  the 
Taest  that  I  possibly  can  answer  it. 

Q.  Don't  you  recognize  the  difference  between  recol- 
lecting what  a  conversation  was  and  recollecting  that 
there  was  a  conversation,  as  a  sensible  man  ?  A.  I  was 
not  aware  that  you  had  made  that  distinction,  however. 

Q.  I  have  made  the  distinction,  Sir;  I  asked  you 
whether  your  recollection  was  sufficiently  accurate  in  re- 
gard to  that  conversation  to  enable  you  to  swear  that 
nothing  more  was  said  than  what  you  have  repeated  1 
A.  All  that  I  can  say  in  reply  to  that  is  that  I  don't  recol- 
lect anything  more. 

Q.  Well,  that  will  do,  Sir.  That  is  all.  And  you  have 
now  no  recollection  that  Mr.  Woodruff  participated  in 
that  conversation  1  A.  Not  in  that  conversation  ;  ]Mr. 
TVoodruff  told  me  

Q.  Wait  one  moment,  Sir,  wait  one  moment— and  upon 
that  subject,  or  upon  any  kindred  subject  connected  with 
this  litigation  and  scandal,  you  have  no  recollection  of 
Tiaving  conversed  with  Mr.  Moulton  at  any  other  time  ! 
A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  having  conversed  with 
Mr.  Moulton  on  the  subject  of  this  scandal,  except  on  one 
occ  i.-icn. 

Q.  This  one  occasion  ?  A.  No,  not  that  one  occasion  ; 
that  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  scandal. 

Q.  Well,  then,  you  had  another  conversation  with  Mr. 
Moulton  upon  another  occasion  1   A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?  A.  I  should  think  that  was  about 
two  years  before  I  left  the  office. 

Q.  WeU,  when  did  you  leave  the  office  1  A.  I  left  the 
office  the  31st  day  of  last  December. 

Q.  Well,  then,  that  was  in  1872?  A.  WeU,  I  should 
think  about  two  years  ;  I  could  not  give  you  the  particu- 
lar date. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  not  the  conversation  you  alluded  to, 
when  this  expression  of  about  the  Spiritualists  and  the 
Congregationalists  was  used!  A.  No,  Sir. 

A,  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  of  that  conversa- 
tion ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  conversation ! 

Mr.  Beach— Why,  the  one  in  evidence,  of  course ;  It  is 
the  only  one  I  have  been  inquiring  about.  When  did  you 
first  repeat  that  conversation  ?  A.  I  could  not  tell  you. 
Sir. 

Q.  When  do  you  first  recollect  of  repeating  it  1  A.  WeU, 
I  don't  recoUect  when  I  did  first  repeat  it. 

Q.  WeU,  you  must  recollect  the  time  when  you  first 
TecoUei't  it  ?   A.  I  have  repeated  it  a  great  many  times. 


^EL   D.   FAEI RDIGU.  215 

and  I  could  not  tell  you  when  I  repeated  it  first ;  I  liave 
repeated  it  several  times. 

Q.  The  first  that  you  recoUect,  I  ask  you  1  A.  WeU,  I 
could  not  tell  you. 

Q.  Why,  you  can  teU  me  the  first  that  you  recollect 
can't  youl  A.  I  cannot  at  this  moment  teU  you  any 
time,  except  when  I  repeated  it  to  cotinsel,  but  I  have  re- 
peated it  a  good  many  times  before  that. 

Q.  WeU,  I  want  to  know  as  near  as  you  can  tell,  when 
you  first  repeated  it?  A.  I  could  not  teU,  but  since— 
it  must  have  been  since  those  statements  last  Summer. 

Q.  Oh !  since  those  statements  last  Summer  ;  that  will 
do.  Sir ;  that  is  the  first  time  you  repeated  it  ?  A.  I  don't 
recollect  

Q.  To  whom  did  you  repeat  it  1  A.  I  could  not  teU 
you. 

Q.  Can  you  mention  some  one  person  ?  A.  I  could  not 
mention  any  now  that  I  

Q.  I  asked  you,  Sir,  to  name  to  me  one  person  to  whom 
you  repeated  this  conversation  ?  A.  Well,  I  think.  Sir, 
I  stated  it  to  that  same  gentleman  in  Northampton,  Mr. 
Clark,  and  t  think  one  other  gentleman  in  Northampton, 
Mr.  Hubbard,  and  I  

Q.  And  do  you  recoUect  any  others— recoUect  any  one 
in  this  vicinity  or  neighborhood  ?  A.  I  think  I  did  to 
Mr.  Albert  Woodruff. 

Q.  And  that  was  within  two  or  three  weeks  ?  A.  That 
was  within  a  short  time  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  no  doubt  about  that,  have  you— you 
have  no  doubt  about  having  repeated  it  to  Mr.  Albert 
Woodruff,  have  you?  A.  I  don't  think  that  I  need  doubt 

Q.  Well,  have  you  ?  I  don't  know  whether  you  need 
have  or  not— have  you  any  doubt  about  it  ?  A.  I  would 
not  say  certainly  whether  I  did  or  not ;  I  think  T  did. 

Q.  WeU,  name  some  one  in  this  vicinity  to  whom  yon 
are  certain  that  you  repeated  it  before  you  did  to  counsel 
upon  this  trial  ?  A.  I  repeated  it,  I  recoUect,  to  Col. 
Noyes,  in  Woodruff  &  Robinson's  office— Capt.  Noyes. 

Q.  Capt.  Noyes  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  A  single  question.  Sir,  is  aU  that  I  propose  to  ash 
you  further.  When  this  check  and  yeUow  memoranduir 
was  handed  to  you,  were  any  instructions  given  to  you 
by  the  person  who  gave  them  to  you  ?  A.  Not  on— I  can- 
not recollect  any  particular  language  used. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  instructions  in  regard  to  them 
given  to  you  by  any  person  connected  with  the  firm  ?  A. 
WeU,  it  is  not  proper  for  me  to  say  that  I  haven't  any 
doubt  but  what  I  was  told  to  credit  it  to  Mr.  TUton. 

Q.  No,  I  don't  ask  you  that ;  I  ask  whether  any  instruc- 
tions were  given  to  you  1  A.  Unless  some  such  instruc- 
tions as  that. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  any  instructions  given  to  you  ?  A. 
Not  positively. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  at  aU  any  instructions  given  to 
you  at  the  time  the  papers  were  handed  you  ?    A.  I 


316  lEE  TILTON-B 

covdd  not  say  tliat  I  can  recollect  anything  tliat  Mr. 
Woodruff  said  at  tlie  time. 
Mr.  Beach— Well,  that  will  cover  it,  I  think. 

BE-DIRECT    EXAMINATION    OF    MR.  PAR- 
TRIDGE. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  are  a  gentleman  of  liberal 
education  ?   A.  I  am  a  graduate. 
Q.  Of  Amherst?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Ajid  have  heen  educated  to  the  profession  of  the 
law  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  as  to  Mr.  Albert  Woodruff,  who  was  Ute  1  A. 
He  was  the  senior  partner  of  the  firm  of  A.  Woodruff  & 
Rohinson;  I  think  he  went  out  of  the  firm  not  far  from 
the  year  1856,  but  I  will  not  say  positively  when. 

Q.  He  was  an  older  member  of  the  firm  than  the  Messrs. 
Eobinson  who  still  remain  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  he  the  father  of  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff?  A.  No, 
Sir ;  he  is  a  distant  connection— a  cousin. 

Q.  You  have  said  that  you  thmk  Mr.  Franklin  Wood- 
ruff was  not  present  at  the  conversation  between  Mr. 
Moulton  and  yourself,  which  you  have  given  ?  A."  I  think 
he  was  not. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  an  occasion  in  which  you  had  a 
conversation  with  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff?  A.  Shortly 
before  I  had  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Moultoa,  Mr. 
Woodruff  told  me  

Mr.  Beach— Never  mind. 

The  Witness— He  told  me  

Mr.  Beach— Will  you  stop,  Sir !  You  know  you  are  a 
lawyer. 

The  Witness— I  ought  not  to  have  that  brought  up 
against  me.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Evarts— You  had  a  conversation.  Now,  in  that 
conversation  with  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff,  which  you 
now  recall,  was  the  subject  of  Mr.  Tilton  writing  this 
Life  or  the  subject  of  the  comparative  number  of  Spirit- 
ualists and  Congregationalists  in  the  country  spoken  of  ? 
A.  He  said  

Q.  No  matter  what  he  said.  Please  to  answer  yes  or 
no;  was  one  of  these  the  subject  of  conversation?  A. 
One  of  them  was. 

Q.  Which  was  that?  A.  The  comparative  number  of 
Spiritualists  and  Congregationalists. 

Q.  What  did  IVIr.  Woodruff  say  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Beach— I  desire  to  object. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  this  it  objected  to,  I  suppose  we  are  not 
entitled  to  show  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  was  partly  called  out  on  their  exam- 
ination. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir;  you  are  not  correct. 

Mr.  Evarta- 1  don't  know  that  they  have  proved  any 
part  of  that  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  they  have  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  witness  got  so  far  at  to  say  that  he 
told  him  something. 


IFAmEB  IRIAL. 

Mr.  Shearman— If  the  stenographer  will  read  the  exam- 
ination, your  Honor  will  find  that  Mr.  Partridge  gave  a 
part  of  that  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— If  he  did  so,  it  was  without  the  consent 
of  counsel,  who  persistently  objected. 

Mr.  Shearman— If  your  Honor  please,  it  was  just  the 
same  as  when  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  were  on  the 
stand;  they  made  certain  statements  to  which  Mr.  Evarts 
objected,  but  as  he  did  not  move  to  have  them  stricken 
from  the  record,  the  statements  were  held  to  be  evidence 
in  the  case. 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  see  any  necessity  for  explain- 
ing any  former  ruling,  but  it  is  clear  that  the  counsel  was 
very  persistent  in  trying  to  stop  this  witness. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  was  precisely  the  same  experience 
with  Mr.  Evarts,  when  examining  Mr.  Tilton ;  he  was  try- 
ing to  stop  him,  and  yet  certain  statements  were  made,, 
which  were  allowed  to  remain  because  there  was  no  mo- 
tion to  strike  them  out  at  the  time. 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  think  that  these  remarks  are 
called  for. 

Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  please,  it  is  an  entire  mis- 
statement, unconsciously  made,  I  have  no  doubt,  by  the 
counsel ;  but  it  is  a  misrepresentation. 

Judge  Neilson— The  observations  are  uncalled  for,  refer- 
ring to  any  former  ruling,  which  has  no  application  here. 
Mr.  Beach  was  unusually  eager  in  stopping  this  witness, 
who,  doubtless  without  any  intention,  was  continually 
wandering  from  the  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  would  not  Uke,  if  your  Honor  please,  by 
my  silence,  to  acquiesce  in  any  reflection  being  cast  upon 
the  witness. 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  not  reflecting  upon  him ;  and  I 
don't  know  that  any  comparison  has  been  made,  except 
that  made  by  Mr.  Shearman,  in  relation  to  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  some  comments  have  been  made  upon 
the  witness's  manner  of  testifying. 

Judge  Neilson— The  only  comment  that  I  made  was 
that  the  witness,  against  the  objection  of  counsel,  brought 
in  certain  statements  of  third  parties  which  cannot  go 
into  evidence ;  undoubtedly  this  was  not  intentional  on 
his  part. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  understand  from  your  Honor  that  these 
imperfect  remarks  are  not  in  evidence.  All  I  can  do  is  to 
offer  to  prove  by  the  witness  what  has  passed  between. 
Franklin  Woodruff  and  himself  on  this  subject. 

Judge  Neilson— And  that  I  rule  out. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  offer  It  as  bearing  hereafter  upon  any 
evidence  of  what  was  said  at  this  conversation.  And  we 
except. 

Mr.  Beach— At  the  conversation  of  which  you  have  just 
spoken  with  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff,  was  Mr.  Moultoi^ 
present  1  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  he  was. 


TIJSTIMONF  OF  ED 

A  NEW  LETTER  PUT  IN  EVIDENCE. 
At;  tliis  time  a  man  in  the  back  part  of  the 
oottrt  room  became  ill,  and  was  removed  t»y  tlie  officers 
In  a  fainting  condition.  This  caused  some  confusion,  and 
Judge  Neilson  asked  it  there  was  any  physician  present. 
A  physician  responded,  and  Judge  Neilson  requested  him 
to  step  out  in  the  corridor  and  see  what  was  the  matter 
with  the  man. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  I  now  offer  in  evi- 
dence a  letter  from  Mr.  Tilton. 

[The  letter  was  examined  by  Mr.  Beach  and  Mr.  Morris, 
and  handed  back  to  Mr.  Evarts,  who  read  itin  evidence, 
without  objection,  as  follows.] ; 

The  Golden  Age,  New-York,  Sept.  18, 1871. 

Mt  Dear  Mr.  Davis  :  I  want  you  and  your  wife  to  read 
carefully  my  narrative  of  the  life  and  spiritual  experi- 
ences of  Mrs.  WoodliuH,  and  then  to  give  me  your  exact 
Impression  of  the  tale.  Some  people  refuse  to  believe 
what  is  so  marvelous,  but  I  imderstated  rather  than  over- 
stated the  facts  which  were  originally  communicated  to 
me  by  my  authority.  Tell  Mrs.  Davis  to  write  more  for 
The  Golden  Age,  and  do  the  same  yourself. 

Fraternally  yours,  Theodore  Tilton. 

[Marked  "  Exhibit  D,  136."] 

TESTIMONY  OF  EDWAKB  J.  WRIGHT. 

Edward  J.  Wright  was  called  and  sworn  on 
behalf  of  the  defendant. 

Mr.  Shearman— Where  do  you  reside?  A.  In  Green- 
"Wich,  Conn. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  That  of  cashier  in  a 
mercantile  house  in  New- York. 

Q.  Of  what  firm  1  A.  A.  T.  Stewart  &  Co. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  so  engaged?  A.  Thirteen 
years. 

Q.  And  are  you  in  their  up-town  or  down-town  house  ! 
A.  On  the  corner  of  Broadway  and  Chambers-st.,  down- 
town—wholesale. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  by  sight  with  Mr.  Theodore  Til- 
ton ?  A.  I  am. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  so  known  him  1  A.  I  cannot 
say  positively,  but  I  should  say  upward  of  eight  years. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  period  of  the  publication  of 
what  is  commonly  called  the  Woodhull  scandal!  A. 
I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUeot  purchasing  a  copy  of  The  Woodhull 
<§  Claflin  Weekly  containing  that  scandal  I    A.  I  do. 

Q.  About  what  time  did  you  purchase  that  paper?  A. 
I  think  on  the  3d  of  November,  1872— within  a  day  or 
two  of  that  time ;  not  before. 

Q.  The  3d  of  November  was  on  Sunday.  A.  Then  it  was 
on  the  2d— on  Saturday. 

Q.  Well,  did  you,  early  In  November,  take  a  vacation 
and  travel  north !  A.  I  made  a  short  trip  ;  I  was  away 
from  business  two  days,  I  think. 

Q.  Which  days  were  those  ?  A.  On  the  4th  and  5th  of 
November — Monday  aoid  Tuesday. 


WARD  J.    WEIGHT.  217 

Q.  Did  you  carry  that  paper.  The  Woodhull  <6  Giaflin 
Weeldy,  with  you  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  On  what  day  did  you  start  to  return  to  New- York  t 
A.  On  Monday,  the  4th  of  November. 

Q.  1872?   A.  1872. 

Q.  Where  did  you  take  the  train,  and  what  train  ?  A 
At  Concord,  N.  H.,  returning  by  way  of  Worcester  and 
New-Haven. 

Q.  Now  did  you  see  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  enter  the 
train,  and,  if  so,  about  what  point  ?  I  saw  him  enter  the 
train ;  my  recollection  is  not  distinct  as  to  the  particular 
point,  but  somewhere  within  a  short  distance  of  Concord 
—before  reaching  Worcester— some  time  before. 

Q.  Is  it  your  recollection  that  it  was  before  reaching 
the  boundary  line  of  Massachusetts  1  A.  It  was  not  long 
after  we  started  from  Concord— within,  I  should  say.  an 
hour. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  observe  Mr.  Tilton  in  conversation 
with  any  person  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  said  to  IVIr.  Tilton  and  by 
him  on  the  subject  of  the  Woodhull  scandal  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  state  all  you  heard  on  that  subject  that 
passed  between  him  and  the  gentleman  with  whom  he 
talked?  A.  The  gentleman  with  whom  he  was  convers- 
ing entered  the  train  and  took  a  seat  with  Mr.  Tilton,  and 
asked  him  with  reference  to  the  publication ;  he  stated 
that  he  had  seen  it. 

Q.  How  did  the  gentleman  describe  the  publication  f 
A.  He  spoke  of  it  as  the  Woodhull  &  Claflin  publica- 
tion— the  Woodhull  scandal ;  the  exact  verbiage  I  cannot 
state;  he  then  said  that  he  had  seen  it  in  the  Eastern 
papers,  I  think  in  the  Boston  papers. 

Q.  That  is,  you  mean  Mr.  Tilton  so  stated?  A.  Mr.  TU- 
ton  so  stated ;  a  conversation  then  ensued  in  which  he 
was  asked  what  he  thought  of  it ;  or  I  think,  first,  what 
it  amounted  to ;  he  said  he  knew  about  it ;  and  when  a 
further  question  was  asked,  which  was  something  to  the 
intent  of  what  he  thought  of  it,  he  said  that  he  cared 
nothing  for  it  for  himself ;  that  Mrs.  Tilton  was  in  deli- 
cate health  and  of  a  nervous  temperament,  and  he  feared 
for  its  result  upon  her— for  its  effect  upon  her. 

Q.  Was  that  all  the  conversation  you  remember  ?  A. 
That  was  the  substance  of  it ;  I  don't  recollect  just  at  the 
moment  anything  more. 

CR0S8-EXAMINATI0N  OF  MR.  WRIGHT. 

Mr.  Beach— -When  did  you  leave  New- York 
on  that  trip  ?  A.  I  left  New-York  on  Saturday  evening, 
going  to  my  residence  in  Greenwich  on  Sunday  evening. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  2d  of  November  you  left  New- 
York  ?  A.  The  2d  of  November. 

Q.  You  left  your  residence  in  Greenwich  on  the  3d  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir ;  the  3d. 

Q.  And  went  to  what  place  t  A.  Concord,  N.  H. 

Q.  And  on  the  4th  you  returned  to  New-York  ?  A.  From 
Concord  to  Greenwich. 


218  IBE  TILTON-B 

Q.  That  was  on  Monday  the  4th  ?  A,  That  was  on  Mon- 
day the  4th. 

Q.  What  train  was  it— what  part  of  the  day  f  A.  It  was 
a  train  leaving  Concord  some  time  after  3  o'clock. 

Q.  Had  you  any  person  in  company  witli  you — any 
triend?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  seat  did  Mr.  Tilton  occupy,  wlien  he  entered 
the  train,  with  reference  to  you  1  A.  My  recollection  is 
that  lie  occupied  a  seat  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the  car, 
and  then  changed  to  the  left-hand  side ;  this  conversation 
occurred  sitting  at  the  left-hand  side  of  the  car. 

Q.  And  where  in  reference  to  youl  A.  I  was  sitting 
at  that  time,  I  think,  two  seats  in  front  of  him. 

Q.  Two  seats  in  front  of  him?  A.  Two  seats  in  front  of 
Mm ;  he  had  the  first  seat  in  front  of  him  turned,  and  I 
was  sitting  in  the  seat  in  front  of  that,  I  think. 

Q.  Will  you  describe,  as  near  as  you  can,  the  friend  who 
entered  and  took  a  seat  beside  him  1  A.  I  cannot  give  an 
accurate  description;  he  was  a  gentleman,  I  should  judge, 
something  about  40  years  of  age— from  35  to  42;  a 
gentlemanly  appearing  man,  and  a  man  of  medium 
Mght;  nothing  particular  that  struck  me  as  to  his 
person. 

Q.  Was  he  grey  at  all  1  A.  That  I  cannot  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  happen  to  recollect  whetber  he  wore  a  beard 
■on  any  part  of  his  face  ?  A.  Not  distinctly. 

Q.  And  you  didn't  happen  to  hear  his  name  mentioned  ? 
A.  No,  Sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  the  opening  of  the  conversation  be- 
tween the  two  1  A.  First  a  general  greeting ;  then  some 
remark  from  this  friend  of  Mr.  TUton  to  Mr.  Tilton,  he 
opening  the  subject. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  what  the  remark  was  ?  A.  I  cannot 
remember  distinctly  as  to  the  verbiage,  but  it  was  in  sub- 
stance whether  he  had  seen  this  publication. 

Q,  Was  that  as  near  as  you  can  get  to  the  language  of 
the  remark  ?  I  ask  you,  frankly  telling  you  my  purpose, 
that  I  undeistand  that  the  conversation  referred  to  a 
speech  which  was  made  by  Mrs.  WoodhuU  in  Boston  at 
that  time,  or  just  before  that  time,  attacking  Mrs.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Beecher ;  and  now  I  want  you,  as  you  are  a  gen- 
tleman of  intelligence  and  reliability —I  appeal  to  you  to 
be  as  accurate  as  you  can  possibly  be  in  the  recollection  of 
the  language  used.  I  think  that  there  is  evidently  a  mis- 
take. A.  There  was— as  I  understood  it,  it  was  dis- 
tinct  

Q.  Wait  one  moment,  until  you  have  the  point  of  the 
question  to  which  I  ask  your  attention.  I  want  you  now 
to  tell  me,  in  the  language,  as  near  as  you  can,  the  open- 
ing remark  of  either  Mr.  Tilton  or  his  friend,  referring  to 
the  publication  about  which  the  future  conversation  oc- 
curred. A,  I  can  only  give  my  impression  of  it— not  the 
wording  ;  it  was  asking  him  with  reference  to  that  partic- 
ular paper. 

Q.  So  you  understood  1  A.  So  I  imderstood. 


K  EC  HER  TBIAL. 

Q.  But  the  manner  in  which  reference  was  made  to  th< 
paper  you  e  lunot  now  state  1   A.  Not  the  wording. 

Q.  Can  you  be  sufficiently  accurate  to  remember,  Mr, 
Wright,  wliether  the  term  "  Woodhull  &  Claflin "  was 
used  1  A.  I  know  that  it  was. 

Q.  Was  it  "Woodhull  &  Claflin"  or  "Woodhulll"  A. 
That  paper  was  referred  to— the  WoodhuU  &,  Claflin 
paper ;  that  I  am  distinct  about. 

Q.  Well,  I  understand  that  your  recollection  isn't  suf- 
ficiently accurate  to  enable  you  to  give  the  language  of 
the  conversation?  A.  I  could,  some  of  the  language  of 
the  conversation— not  all. 

Q.  Well,  can  you  give  the  language  of  the  opening  re- 
mark ?  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  cannot  1  A.  Not 
more  than  that  it  was  asking  whether  he  had  seen  that 
paper. 

Q.  That  was  tbe  impression  you  derived  from  the  re- 
mark ;  but  you  are  not  able  to  give  the  terms  of  the  re- 
mark? A.  My  recollection  is  distinct  that  he  asked  him 
whether  he  had  seen  that  paper ;  yet  the  terms  I  cannot 
give ;  and  his  reply  was  tbat  lie  had  seen  it  in  the  Eastern 
papers— I  think  the  Boston. 

Mr.  Beach— Exactly,  exactly  I  The  Eastern  papers. 
That  is  all,  Mr.  Wright. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  WRIGHT. 

Mr.  Shearman— Had  you  ever  heard  of  any 
lecture,  Mr.  Wright,  on  the  subject  ?  A.  I  had  not. 

Q,  Was  anything  said  in  this  conversation  about  a  lec- 
ture? A.  There  was  not,  except  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  de- 
livered a  lecture  the  evening  previous,  or  rather  a  cam- 
paign speec^" ;  that  was  the  only  lecture. 

Q.  Nothing  about  any  lecture  or  speech  of  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull?  A.  No. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  any  memorandum  in  the  books 
of  A.  T.  Stewart  &  Co.  to  satisfy  yourself  of  th%  precise 
date  ?  A.  I  have,  and  I  have  also  other  circumstances 
connected  with  it  to  show  me  definitely  the  time. 

Q.  Have  yen  seen  an  entry  in  the  books  of  the  firm 
showing  when  you  were  absent?  A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Mr.  Beach.— That  is  not  necessary ;  there  is  no  question 
as  to  the  time. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  WRIGHT. 

Mr.  Beach— Do  you  recollect  the  conver- 
sation so  accurately  that  you  can  swear  that  the  word 
"speech"  was  not  used  in  it?  A.  Except  it  was  in  refer- 
ence to  a  speech  of  Mr.  Tilton's. 

Q.  I  ask  if  your  recollection  is  so  accurate  that  you 
can  swear  that  the  term  "speech"  was  not  used  in  that 
conversation  ?  A.  I  recollect  that  Mr.  Tilton  said  that 
he  spoke  the  evening  before. 

Q.  My  question  is,  whether  your  recollection  is  so  ac- 
curate that  you  will  swear  the  term  "speech"  was  not 
used  in  this  conversation.   A.  I  wUl  not. 


TESllMOXY   OF  MES.  ELIZA 

Q.  "Were  the  cars  in  morion  when  this  conversation  was 
progressing?  A.  It  was,  Sir. 

Q.  Any  one  sitting  with  you  ?   A.  Js'o,  Sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  engaged  in  reading  at  the  time  1  A.  I 
think  not. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  of  that  1   A.  I  am  not. 

Q.  How  long  were  these  pai-ties  conversing  behind  you  1 
A.  The  conversation  which  I  heard  lasted  ahout  fifteen  or 
twenty  minutes. 

Q.  Did  they  continue  the  conversation  not  in  your  hear- 
ing ?  A.  My  recollection  is  that  I  left  the  car  soon  ufter 
and  went  into  another  car. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  all  the  conversation  that  passed 
hetween  them  during  those  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  ?  A. 
T  can't  say  that  I  did. 

]yir.  Beach— That  is  aU,  Sir. 

INIr.  Shearman— Are  you  not  positive  that  if  this  word 
^'speech"  was  used  it  was  used  in  reference  to  jMr.  Tilton's 
speech  ?   A..  I  am  positive  with  reference  to  that. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  let  us  see  about  that !  Are  you  so  posi- 
tive in  your  recollection  that  you  will  swear  that  the 
word  speech,"  in  that  conversation  between  these  par- 
ties, was  not  used  in  any  other  connection  ?  A.  It  was 
not,  that  I  heard. 

%  Did  you  malie  a  memorandum  of  the  conversation  ? 
A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  It  was  in  1872,  over  two  years  ago  ?  A.  It  was  in 
1872,  Sir. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  first  communicate  that  conversa- 
tion to  any  one '?  A.  I  spoke  of  it  on  my  return  home, 
next  morning. 

Q.  To  whom?  A.  My  wife. 

Q.  To  whom  else  did  you  communicate  it  at  any  time  1 
A.  I  can't  recollect,  unless  within  a  recent  period— since 
the  commencement  of  this  suit. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  communicate  it  to  any  one  ?  A.  I 
communicated  it  to  JVIr.  H.  G.  Combs. 

Q.  Who  is  he  ?  A.  He  is  connected  with  the  same  place 
of  business. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  the  defendant's  counsel  became 
acquainted  with  your  information  on  this  subject  ?  A.  I 
do  not  know,  of  my  own  knowledge. 

%  You  suppose  it  was  through  that  communication  ! 
A.  I  presume  so. 

Q.  Where  does  ]Mr.  Combs  reside  1   A.  In  Brooklyn. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all.  Sir. 

TESTIMOXY    OP    ELIZABETH    LA  PIERRE 
PALMER. 

Elizabetli  La  Pierre  Palmer  was  then  called 
for  the  defense,  sworn,  and  examined. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mrs.  Palmer,  where  do  you  reside  ? 
A.  In  South  Carolina. 

Q.  What  is  your  post-office  in  South  Carolina?  A. 
Montmorency. 

Mr.  Evarta— A  little  louder. 


'>ETH  LA    PIERRE   PALMER.  219 

Mr.  Shearman— If  you  can.  Are  you  at  present  stop- 
ing  in  Xew-York  \   A.  I  am. 

Q.  With  whom  are  you  at  present  stopping"?  A.  Mrs. 
John  Keyser. 

Q.  The  wife  of  John  H.  Keyser.   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  Second-ave.  ?   A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Your  health  is  not  very  good.  I  suppose !  A.  No, 
Sir ;  I  am  not  guite  well. 

Q.  Still,  try  to  speak  louder.  Where  were  you  born  and 
brought  up?  A.  I  was  born  in  Ticonderoga,  on  Lake 
George.  I  was  brought  up  in  Elizabethtown,  in  this 
State. 

Q.  Elizabethtown,  Essex  County  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Did  you  afterward  remove  to  Massachusetts?   A.  I 
did. 

Q.  Where  did  voir  live  in  Massachusetts  ?  A.  I  lived  in 
Cambridge  a  part  of  the  time. 

Q.  About  how  long?  A.  I  was  in  Cambridge  nearly 
five  years. 

Q.  After  that  where  did  you  live  ?  A.  In  Boston. 
Q.  About  how  long  there?   A.  Three  or  four  years.  I 
think. 

Q.  Did  you  afterward  remove  to  this  State  1   A.  I  did. 

Q.  "^Tien  did  you  come  back  to  ^Tew-York  State  ?  A.  In 
the  Spring  of  1871. 

Q.  What  was  your  occupation  at  Cambridge.  Mrs. 
Palmer  ?  A.  I  was  studying  as  a  landscape  painter— an 
artist. 

Q.  A  landscape  artist  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  pursued  that  profession?  A.  I  have,  Sir. 
Q.  Did  you  afterward  enter  into  any  other  business  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  State  what  that  business  was,  and  what  led  you  to 
it'?  A.  I  invented  a  lady's  stocking  suspender,  and  went 
to  Waslungton  and  patented  it.  and  afterward  manufac- 
tured itr—afterward  manufactured  it  and  introduced  it 
all  through  the  country. 

Q.  What  is  your  husband's  name  ?  A.  Frederick  Augus- 
tus Palmer. 

Q.  Have  you  been  married  more  than  once  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir;  twice. 

Q.  Who  was  your  former  husband?  A.  Herbert  Daniels. 

Q.  How  is  it  that  you  have  been  married  again  ?  A.  I 
was  divorced  from  my  first  husband. 

Q.  Who  obtained  that  divorce?  A.  George  Hart  of 
this  city. 

Q.  I  mean  as  between  you  and  your  husband— did  you 
or  did  he  obtain  it  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  obtained  the  divorce?  A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q,.  And  when  did  you  marry  your  present  husband  ? 
A.  On  the  19th  day  of  March,  1874. 

Q.  WTien  did  you  marry  your  former  husband  ?  A.  On 
the  16th  day  of  March,  186S. 

Q.  You  were  married,  then,  about  six  years  I  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 


220  THE  TILION-BEECRER 

Q.  Now,  Mrs.  Palmer,  did  you  ever  form  the  acquaint- 
ance of  Mrs.  Victoria  C.  Woodhull  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  about  what  time  you  formed  her  ac- 
quaintance ?  A.  In  May  of  1870. 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  ?  A.  T  was  here  holding 
a  convention  in  connection  with  Mr.  Heywood  and  others. 

Q.  Mr.  E.  H.  Heywood  ?  A.  Yes,  Sii\ 

Q.  He  is  a  prominent  labor  reformer  of  Massachusetts  f 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  interested  in  the  Labor  Reform  move- 
ment? A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Go  on  and  state  what  occurred  ?  A.  I  was  on  the 
Executive  Oommittee  and  one  of  the  Vice-Presidents  of 
that  Association,  and  I  invited,  in  connection  with  others 
Mrs.  Woodhull  to  speak  at  that  convention. 

Q.  »id  she  come?  A.  She  did. 

Q.  Prom  that  time  forward  you  had  an  acquaintance 
with  her?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  State  whether  you  ever  occupied  any  portion  of  her 
oflace?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  did  that  begin  ?  A.  In  the  Spring  of  1871. 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  did  you  come  to  share  a 
portion  of  her  office  ?  A.  Mrs.  Woodhull  gave  me,  very 
kindly,  permission  to  take  my  business  of  my  stocking- 
suspender  into  her  office,  and  to  work  from  there. 

Q.  When  did  you  become,  if  ever,  acquainted  with  Mr. 
Theodore  Tilton  %  A.  In  the  Spring  of  1871. 

Q.  And  where  ?  A.  At  Mrs.  Woodhull's  office. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  fix  the  date  so  far  as  to  say  whether 
it  was  before  or  after  the  first  publication  of  The  Golden 
Age  that  you  became  acquainted  with  Mr.  Tilton  at  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  office  1  A.  It  was  before. 

Mr.  Shearman-  TH.-.t  it  is  agreed,  was  the  4th  of 
March,  1871.  [To  the  witness.]  About  how  long  before 
that  date  do  you  feel  at  all  positive  that  you  saw  Mr. 
Tilton  at  that  office?  A.  Either  the  last  of  January  or 
the  first  of  February. 

Q.  That  is,  you  mean  the  first  part  of  February  f  A, 
Yes,  Sir ;  the  first  part  of  the  month. 

Q.  Not  necessarily  the  first  day?  A.  Not  the  day,  Sir ; 
I  could  not  tell  anything  about  the  day. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  anything  of  the  circumstances 
Tmder  which  you  first  saw  Mr.  Tilton  there?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  State  what  they  were.  A.  Mrs.  Woodhull  told  me 

she  had  

Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  moment. 


TRIAL. 


THE 


*'THE    GOLDEN    AGE"  TO  SUPPORT 
SPIRITUALISTS. 

Mr.  Shearman— No ;  I  mean  the  circum- 
stances, so  far  as  when  Mr.  Tilton  was  present.  A.  I 
caUed— r  called  at  Mr.  Tilton's  office  with  Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Q.  And  did  he  call  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  office  ?  A.  Yes, 
Bir. 

Q.  What  happened  on  that  first  interview  at  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  office  !  A.  I  don't  remember. 


Q.  Did  you  hear  any  conversation  between  Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mrs.  Woodhull  concerning  the  projected  publication 
of  The  Golden  Age  ?   A.  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  discussion  about  its  prospectus  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  State  what  that  conversation  was  as  near  as  you 
remember,  giving  the  words  or  the  substance  of  the 
words  ?  I  cannot  give  the  words  at  all,  but  the  general 
form  

Q.  The  substance?     A.  The  general  conversation,  a 

number  of  times,  was  

Mr.  Beach— No,  no ;  not  a  number  of  times ;  that 
time. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well ! 
Mr.  Beach— Let  her  answer  yom.'  question. 
^Mr.  Shearman— I  want  the  conversation  about  the  pro- 
spectus or  the  plans  about  The  Golden  Age  ?  Was  there 
more  than  one  conversation  on  that  subject  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  distinguish  between  the  conversa- 
tions, or  not  ?  A.  I  don't  think  that  I  can,  definitely. 

Q.  Then  you  can  state  the  substance  of  those  conversa- 
tions ?  A.  The  substance  was  that  Mr.  Tilton  should 
start  this  paper,  and  if  possible  they  should  run  the  two 
papers  in  connection  with  the  Spiritual  movement. 

Q.  You  speak  now  of  The  Golden  Age  and  of  Woodhull 
&  OlaMn's  Weekly  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  about  what  kind  of  a  paper  TTie 
Golden  Age  was  to  be— I  mean  between  Mrs.  Woodhull 
and  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  said?  A.  It  was  to  be  a  radical  paper, 
taking  up  all  the  radical  questions  of  the  day. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Tilton  make  any  proposition  to  you  in  rela- 
tion to  T7ie  Golden  Age  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  that?  A.  He  wished  me  to  become  an 
agent  for  him. 
Q.  You  did  not,  however  ?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  did  not. 
Q.  Now,  how  frequently,  during  the  period  of  Febru- 
ary and  March,  1871,  did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  at  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  office  ?  A.  Almost  daily ;  sometimes  twice  a 
day— three  times. 

Q.  And  dming  what  period  did  the  frequency  of  Mr. 
Tilton's  visits  to  that  office  continue  1  A.  All  through  the 
month— the  latter  part  of  the  month  of  February,  and  of 
March,  and  of  April,  of  1871. 

Q.  During  the  Summer  of  1871  was  he  also  a  frequent 
visitor  at  the  office  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  your  ever  see  Mr.  TUton  take  lunch  at  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  office?    A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  that  frequently  t  A.  I  cannot  state  that 
it  was  frequently ;  but  I  saw  him  lunch  there  a  number 
of  times. 

Q.  How  many  times  do  you  feel  sure  that  you  saw  him 
take  lunch  there  ?  A.  I  would  not — I  could  not  swear  to 
having  seen  him  take  lunch  there  more  than  six  times ;  I 
don't  think. 


TJESTlMOyr  OF  MBS.    ELIZABETH   LA    PIEBBE  FALMBB. 


221 


Q.  But  can  vou  swear  to  liariiig  seen  Win  oftener  in  the 
oflSce.  and  at  alDout  the  period  of  luncli  time '?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  take  lunch,  ■witli  Mrs.  Woodiiull  on  those  oc- 
casions ?  A.  I  never  took  lunch  yrith  Mrs.  Woodhull  and 
Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  You  did  sometimes  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  when  Mr. 
Tilton  was  not  there  '?   A.  Several  times. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  conversation  between  Mr. 
Tilton  and  :Mrs.  T7oodliull  on  the  subject  of  going  out  to 
lunch?  A.  I  have  never  heard  any  conversation  between 
them,  but  I  have  heard  Mrs.  Woodhull  say,  "  Come,  Theo- 
dore, let  us  go  out  to  lunch." 

Q.  Have  you  heard  that  more  than  once  ?     A.  Yes,  Sir. 

FAMILIAEITIES  BETWEEX  ME.  TILTON  AND 
MES.  WOODHULL. 

Q.  Xow,  did  you  ever  see,  diu^ing  the  Spring 
and  Summer  of  1871,  Mr.  Tilton  at  the  house  of  Mrs. 
WoodhuU  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  often  do  you  suppose  you  saw  him  there  i  A. 
Almost  every  evening,  during  the  same  periods  that  I 
liave  spoken  of  seeing  him  at  the  office. 

Q.  "What  was  Mr.  Tilton's  habit  with  regard  to  th.e  room 
he  would  occupy  when  he  came  to  that  house?  A.  He 
usually  remained  a  few  moments  in  the  parlor— in  the 
front  parlor— and  afterward  retired  to  the  back  parlor 
with  :Mr5.  Woodhull,  and  perhaps  Miss  Claflin,  or  with 
Colonel  Blood,  or  sometimes  alone  with  her ;  or  up  stairs 
to  the  room  occupied  by  Mrs.  "Woodhull  and  Colonel 
Blood. 

Q.  In  this  back  parlor  of  which  you  speak,  were  the 
other  guests  seated,  or  was  it  kept  separate  from  the 
front  parlor?  A.  It  was  kept  separate  fi-om  the  front 
parlor,  as  a  general  thing ;  it  was  rarely  ever  tlirown 
open  to  general  or  casual  guests. 

Q.  And  where  did  the  general  guests  sit?  A.  In  the 
front  parlor. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Tilton  in  Mrs.  Woodhull's  bed- 
room ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  see  him  there !  A.  I  could  not 
swear  to  h.aving  seen  him  there  more  th.an  four  times. 

Q.  But  is  it  your  impression  that  you  saw  him  oftener— 
your  best  Impression  ?  A.  Not  that  I  saw  him  oftener ; 
but  that  I  knew  he  was  there. 

Mr.  Beach— Well !— but  it  was  no  matter.  That  must  be 
from  information,  I  suppose  1 

Mr.  Shearman— I  suppose  so ;  or  she  might  have  heard 
him  speak. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  I  don't  know.  I  will  get  at  it, 
though. 

Mr.  Shearman— You  say  you  knew  that  he  was  there  ; 
do  you  mean  that  you  knew  from  some  one  else's  mfor- 
mation,  or  from  hearing  Mm  speak— his  voice  t  A.  From 
some  one  else  saying  that  he  had  gone  there. 

Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment.  Don't  state  what  was 
said  to  yoTL  I  move  to  strike  tliat  out,  your  Honor. 


Judge  Xeilson— Yes.  that  last  c'ause. 

^Ii".  Shearman — I  want  to  ascertain  the  character  of  her 

information.   It  shows  that  the  other  matter  was  not  

'  !  To  wiriiess.]  Wnere  was  this  bedroom  of  Mrs.  WoodhuU 
—on  which  floor  ?  A.  Up  one  flight  from  the  parlor— tlie 
back  room. 

Q.  Up  one  flight  of  stairs  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  papers  or  writing  materials  kept  in  that  room ! 
A.  Yes,  Sir;  there  was  a  desk  there,  and  Colonel  Blood 
did  most  of  the  writing  there  in  that  room  in  the  evening. 

Q.  What  was  Mr.  Tilton  doing  on  tliose  occasions  when 
you  saw  him  there  ?  A.  He  was  sitting  at  tlie  desk,  either 
talking  or  writing. 

Q.  Did  you,  on  any  other  occasion,  see  Mr.  Tilton  on  his 
way  up  stairs  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  With,  whom  was  h.e  when  he  was  going  up  stairs  on 
those  occa.sions]   A.  With  Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Q.  About  what  time  of  day  was  it  ?   A.  In  the  evening. 

Q.  Late  in  the  evening  or  early?  A.  About  9  or  10 
o'clock. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  on  tliose  occasions  lo  wMoli 
yon  refer  ?  A.  I  was  about  leaving  the  house. 

Q.  Were  you  bidding  th.emgoodby?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  State  just  what  their  position  was.  What  position 
did  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton  occupy  on  those  occa- 
sions to  which,  you  refer  wlien  th.ey  were  going  up  stairs 
and  you  were  bidding  them  goodby  1  About  how  far  up 
the  stairs  were  they  ?  A.  Sometimes,  or  several  times,  I 
saw  them  just  starting  to  go  up,  and  other  times  I  have 
seen  them  at  the  head  of  the  stairs,  and  other  times  half 
wayupth.e  stairs;  it  was  not  always  when  I  was  going 
out :  sometimes  I  was  going  into  the  back  parlor,  back 
and  forth,  and  saw  them  go  up. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  whether  on  some  of  those  occa- 
sions you  bade  them  "  good  night"  as  they  were  going  up- 
stairs! A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  About  how  many  times  do  you  recollect  that?  A.  I 
don't  know  that  I  can  swear  to  bidding  them  "good 
nighit"  more  than  once  on  tlie  stairs. 

Q.  To  bidding  them  "  good  night"  more  tlian  oncet  A. 
Not  bidding  them  "  good  night." 

Mr.  Beach— Was  that  when  she  was  going  ont! 

The  Witness— "^Tien  I  was  going  out. 

Mr.  ^^hearman— But  how  many  times  can  you  swear  to 
seeing  theia  going  up  tlie  stairs,  or  starting  up  the  stairs, 
together  1  A.  Four  or  five  times. 

Q.  Besides  this  one !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  say  that  you  saw  Mr.  Tilton,  you  are  pretty 
positive,  four  times  in  Mrs.  Woodhull's  bedroom  up  st-airs; 
can  you  state  whetlier  on  any  one  of  those  occasions  Mrs. 
Woodhull  was  taking  Mr.  Tilton  around  on  a  tour  of  in- 
spection 1  A.  No,  Sir,  never. 

Q.  Tliat  is  to  say         A.  Not  in  my  presence. 

Q.  She  never  was  doing  it  when  you  saw  her !  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Was  he  standing  or  ieat^d!  A.  Seated. 


223  IHM  TILTON-B 

Q.  Every  time?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Every  time  of  the  four  times  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Ttien  are  you  able  to  be  positive  in  saying  that  he 
■was  not  engaged  in  looking  over  the  rooms  to  see  whether 
they  were  furnished  or  empty  1  A.  He  was  not,  at  the 
time  I  saw  him. 

Q.  What  was  Mr.  TOton's  manner  toward  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  ;  what  degree  of  familiarity  existed  between  them 
during  that  period  ?  A.  Their  manner  was  always  very 
affectionate  toward  each  other. 

Q.  How  did  they  address  each  other  1  A.  *'  "^cky  "  and 
"Theodore." 

Q.  State  what,  If  any,  familiarities  existed  between 
them  to  your  observation— familiarities  of  manner.  Did 
they  kiss  each  other?  A.  I  could  not  swear  to  seeing 
them  kiss  each  other  but  once ;  but  I  have  frequently 
seen  Mr.  Tilton  sittmg  with  his  arm  around  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull,  on  the  sofa.  It  was  the  common  habit  when  he  sat 
down  by  her  to  put  his  arm  around  her. 

Q.  When  they  were  standing,  did  you  ever  see  him  put 
his  arm  around  her  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  that  hat^pen  frequently  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  that  aiuount  to  a  habit  or  not  ?  A.  It  was  a 
habit. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  conversation  between  Mr. 
Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  on  the  subject  of  one  or  the 
other  of  them  becoming  the  head  of  the  Spiritualists  of 
the  United  States  ?  A.  That  was  frequently  the  talk 
between  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Theodore  Tilton  at  this  time 
that  I  have  spoken  of— their  first  acquaintance. 

Q.  Well,  which  of  them  was  it  that   A.  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull— that  was  the  conversation  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  at  the  time  that  I  called  at  his  office  with  her,  the 
first  time  that  I  saw  him. 

Q.  Well,  was  anything  ever  said  about  Mr.  Tilton 
becoming  the  head  or  leader  of  the  Spiritualists  ?  A.  By 
Mrs.  Woodhull— yes. 

Q.  To  him  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

MR.    TILTON    DENIES    MRS.  WOODHULL'S 
CHARGES. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  conversation  between 
Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton  on  the  subject  of  a  scandal 
about  Mr.  Beecher,  prior  to  the  publication  of  the  card  of 
May  22, 1871  ?  A.  I  don't  understand  your  question. 

Q.  You  remember  there  was  a  card  published  by  Mrs. 
Woodhull  on  the  22d  of  May,  1871  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  see  that  card  1  A.  Mrs.  Woodhull  read 
the  card  to  me  before  it  was  published. 

Q.  Before  it  was  published  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  recollect  whether  before  she  read  the 
card  to  you  in  that  way  there  was  any  conversation  be- 
tween Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  on  the  subject  of  the 
charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton?  A.  Yes, 
Sir,  once  in  the  back  office.  Mrs.  Woodhull  was  speaking 
of  this  charge  against  Dir.  Boeoiior  and  Mrs  Tilton,  and 


EEGHEU  TBIAL, 

Mr.  TUton  started  up,  his  face  flushed,  and  says :  "  Vicky, 
that  is  not  true.  My  wife  is  as  pure  as  snow,  and  no  such 
relation  ever  existed  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  my  wife 
It  is  false." 

Q.  Did  he  say  anythiug  about  never  having  told  her 
so  ?  A.  He  said,  "  I  have  never  told  you  so.  You  may 
have  iaf erred  it  from  what  I  have  said."  These— this 
may  not  be  the  exact  words  that  I  have  just  given  you, 
but  it  is  the  idea. 

Q.  The  substance  ?  A.  The  last  that  I  have  given  you 
is  the  idea;  the  first  part  of  it  were  the  exact  words. 

Q.  What  was  Mrs.  Woodhull's  reply  to  him  ?  A.  Mrs. 
Woodhull  stepped  up  to  him  and  laid  both  of  her  hands 
on  his  shoulders,  facing  him,  and  said,  "  Now,  Theodore, 
Theodore,  you  know  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  things  that 
a  man  and  woman  should  be  thrown  together  as  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  were  and  have  nothing  of  that 
kind  take  place  between  them ;"  and  he  soon  left  the 
room— the  office.  _ 

PROOFS   OF    THE    SCANDAL    SHOWN  THE 
WITNESS. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  an  occurrence  in  the 
early  part  of  1872,  a  considerable  time  prior  to  the  pub- 
lication of  what  is  known  as  the  "  Woodhull  Scandal," 
when  any  proofs  were  exhibited  to  you  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Who  was  present  on  the  occasion  ?  A.  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  and  Theodore  Tilton ;  there  might  have  somebody 
else  in  the  room,  but  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state  what  occurred  on  that  occasion, 
as  far  as  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton  were  concerned? 
A.  Mrs.  WoodhuU  and  Mr.  Tilton  came  in  hastily  to  the 
private  office,  where  I  was  engaged  on  my  stocldug-sus- 
penders.  and  Mrs.  WoodhuU  says,  "  I  have  something  to 
show  you,  Daniels,"  and  she  commenced  reading  what  I 
afterward  heard  called,  and  heard  at  the  time  called,  the 
Woodhull  Scandal ;  read  a  portion  of  it ;  Mr.  Tilton  only 
stopped  for  a  moment,  or  a  few  moments,  and  went  out 
immediately. 

Q.  Well,  about  what  time  in  the  year  was  this,  Mrs. 
Palmer?  A.  This  was  some  little  time  before  I  went  into 
my  house  in  Twenty-seventh-st.,  which  was  in  May;  it 
was  some  weeks  before  this— some  four  or  six  weeks 
before  this,  I  think. 

Q.  Some  four  or  six  weeks  before  the  1st  of  May !  A. 
Yes,  Sir;  in  1872. 

Q.  1872?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  after  Mr.  Tilton  went  out  did  Mrs.  Woodhail 
give  you  these  proofs  ?  A.  She  did. 

Q.  Did  you  read  them?   A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  did. 

Q.  What  were  the  contents  of  those  proofs,  the  sub- 
stance of  it?  A.  It  was  substantially  the  same  that  I 
saw  published  afterward  in  The  Weekly,  as  "  The  Great 
Woodhull  Scandal"— "Beecher-TUton  Scandal." 

Q.  You  said  you  had  heard  it  called  "The  Woodhull 
ficfindivl."  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  at  that  time  it  wafl 


TESTUlOyY   OF  MBS,   ELIZABETH   LA   PILEB£  PALMER, 


223 


called  '•The  WoodliuU  Scandal,"  or  "Tlie  Beecher  Scan- 
dal?" A.  It  was  called  ■■Tlie  WooiiiLull  Beeclier-Tliton 
Scandal,"  always. 

Q.  Yes.  Xow,  did  you  make  any  remark  on  ilie  snb- 
;c-ct  or  tliis  proposed  publication,  in  the  presence  of  Mr. 
Tilion  ?   A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Wtiat  did  you  say  \  A.  I  said,  ''Mrs.  "Woodhull,  if 
you  publisli  that  scandal  or  any  other  scandal  in  your 
paper  concerning — or  publish  anything  concerning,  the 
private  lives  of  any  persons  whatever— I  will  have  noth- 
ing more  to  do  with  you.  I  will  never  work  with  you 
again,  and  I  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  you  if  you 
meddle  with  tlie  private  lives  of  any  persons.  It  will  be 
your  death-blow  if  yorf  do  that  ;  it  will  be  your  death- 
blow, and  it  win  be  IMr.  Tilton's  death-blow,  if  you  do  it." 

Q.  What  did  Mrs.  Woodhull  say  ?  A.  1  don't  remember 
what  she  said. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  i  A.  I  don't  know  that  she 
made  any  reply;  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Didnt  Mr.  Tilton  say  anything  \  A.  No.  Sir.  Mr. 
Tllton  left  Immediately. 

Q.  But  he  heard  you  say  this  3    A.  He  must  hare 
heard ;  he  was  in  the  room. 
Q.  He  was  p]'esent  in  the  room,  at  least  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Did  you  e"er  hear  any  conversation  between  ilrs. 
Woodhull  anU  ^Ir.  Tilton  concerning  Mr.  Tilton's  biogra- 
phy of  :Slrs.  Woodhull ! 
Mr.  Evarts— Tliat  is  a  new  subject,  and  it  is  1  o'clock. 
The  Court  then  took  the  usual  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

THE  .^^TEliXOOX  .SES.SIOX. 
The  Conrt  met  at  2  p.  in.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
jomnment. 

Elizabeth  La  Pierre  Palmer  was  recalled  and  the  direct 
examinanon  resumed. 

Mr.  Shearman  — ZVlrs.  Palmer,  I  was  asking  you  before 
the  recess  as  to  any  interview  which  took  place  between 
Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  concerning  the  ''Life  of  Mrs. 
WoodhulL"  I  ask  you  now  whether  you  were  present  at 
diiiw  interview  between  them  on  that  subject  ?  A.  Not 
until  after  it  was  pubUshed. 

Q.  After  it  was  published,  I  mean.   A.  After  it  was 
published  ?  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Were  you  present  at  any  interview  when  anything 

A.  Yes, 


sending  out  the  book  ^ 


wtis  done  in  regard  to 
Sir. 

Q.  State  what  passed  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull  on  that  subject  ?  A.  Mr.  Tilton  looked  over  the 
list  of  names  where  the  "  Life  "  was  to  be  sent,  and  on 
one  occasion  he  brought  in  some  tracts  of  me  Golden 
Age.  or  tracts  that  belonged  to  him,  which  he  wished  sent 
to  pai  ticular  individuals  with  the  Life  "'—with  some  of 
the  books  of  the  "  Life  "—a  few  of  them.  He  seemed  to 
superintend  the  sendinc  away. 

M:-.  ■Beach— Never  mind,  inudan]  ! 

-  ,  ,  _x:iaT  i«not  quite  the  proper  shape  in 


which  to  put  it :  you  must  tell  what  acts  he  did,  Z^Irs. 
Palmer,  and  not  what  he  seemed  to  do :  any  acts  that 
he  did,  or  any  words  that  he  said,  or  the  substance  of  the 
words,  if  there  is  anything  further.  A.  I  think  I  have 
told  you  all  T  remember. 

Q.  Now,  madam,  do  you  recollect  the  Sunday  on  which 
the  famous  Commune  procession  took  place  *  A.  Yes. 
Sir. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  how  you  spent  that  day  yourself  1  A.  I 
spent  the  day  with  my  friends  in  Madison-ave.— the 
greater  part  of  the  day.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  after- 
noon I  went  in  to  Mrs.  WoodbulTs,  and  was  there  for 
a  while. 

Q.  Where  did  your  friends  live  ?  What  friends  were 
you  stopping  with  1  A.  William  B.  Hatch's,  No.  210 
Madison-ave. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there  ?  A.  I  was  there  about 
six  months. 

Q.  About  what  time  of  the  day  did  you  go  down  to  ^Mrs. 
WoodhuU's  I   A.  In  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Did  you  that  afternoon         Oh '.  one  moment.  Did 

you  yourself  take  any  part  in  the  Commune  procession? 
A.  No.  Sir. 

Q.  When  you  went  down  to  !ylrs.  Woodhull"5  was  3Irs. 
Woodhull  at  home  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  her  come  in  ?  A.  I  did 

Q.  State  under  what  circumstances  you  saw  her  come 
in.  and  who  was  with  her.  A.  I  was  standing  at  the  win- 
dow and  looking  out,  when  a  carriage  drove  up.  and  Mr. 
Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  31is5  Claflin  got  out  of  the 
carriage  and  came  into  the  room. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all,  :Mr.  Beach. 

CEO.^.S-EXAAIiyATIOX  OE  MES.  EAEMER. 

Mr.  Beacli— Madam,  Tvliat  year  was  it  yon 
stated  you  was  married  to  Mr.  Daniels.   A.  1S6S. 
Q.  1S6S  ?    A.  1S68. 
Q.  What?   A.  1S6S. 
Q.  1S68 !   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  the  marriage  take  place  !  A.  At  the  Eev. 
3Ir.  Sargent's,  on  Beacon  Hill. 

Q.  In  what  place,  madam?  A.  At  the  Pev.  ^Lr.  Sar 
gent's,  on  Beacon  Hill,  in  Boston. 

Q.  In  Boston.  I  beg  pardon.  I  am  not  familiar  with 
Boston.  And  where  did  you  then  reside  after  the  mar- 
riage i  A.  We  went  immediately  to  live  in  some  rooms 
which  my  husband  had  furnished  in  a  bank  which  he  was 
carrying  on. 

Q.  In  Boston,  I  suppose  !   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  there?  A.  Eemained 
there  about  six  months,  I  think,  in  that  building. 

Q.  I  don't  mean  that  particular  building,  but  in  the 
City  of  Boston  ?  A.  Eemained  there  until  the  Spring  of 
1871. 

Q.  Until  the  Sirring  of  ISTl  I   A.  Yes,  Six. 


224  THE  TILTON-B. 

Q.  And  where  then  did  you  remove  to  ?  A.  To  New- 
York. 

Q.  You  and  your  husband  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir.  No,  Sir,  I 
came  here  without  my  husband. 

Q.  You  came  without  your  husband.  What  time  in  the 
Spring  of  1871  ?  A.  I  came  here  in  the  last  week  of  Jan- 
nary  of  1871. 

Q.  The  last  week  of  January  of  1871 1  A.  I  don't  mean 
the  last  week ;  I  mean  the  week  after  the  holidays  of  Jan- 
uary. I  cam©  the  week  after  New- Year's. 

Q.  That  would  be  the  second  week  of  January?  A.  I 
don't  know  whether  the  second  week;  it  was  the  week 
after  New- Year's. 

Q.  Well,  where  did  you  take  up  your  residence  then  at 
that  time,  in  New-York?  A.  At  A.  S.  Hatch's,  in  49 
Park-ave. 

Q.  What  business  was  your  husband  engaged  in  in  Bos- 
ton when  you  left  In  January,  1871 1  A.  He  was  manu- 
facturing my  stocking-suspenders,  and  sending  them  on 
to  me  in  New- York  as  fast  as  I  ordered  them. 

Q.  And  he  continued  up  to  what  time?  A.  Up  to  1872, 
the  May  of  1872,  when  he  moved  here. 

Q.  When  what  ?  A.  When  he  moved  to  New-York. 

Q.  He  moved  to  New-York  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  the  Spring  of  1872  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  continued  to  reside  at  Park-ave.  ?  A.  I  was 
there  until  about  the  1st  of  May. 

Q.  Of  1872  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  no,  Sir  ;  of  1871. 

Q.  Of  1871  ?   A.  Of  1871. 

Q.  Where  then  did  you  go  ?  A.  Then  I  went  back  to 
Boston  and  stayed  during  the  month  of  May,  and  made 
preparations  to  go  West. 

Q.  You  returned  to  your  husband's  house  in  Boston  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  remained  there  about  how  long  ?  A.  During  the 
month  of  May,  and  perhaps  into  th-i  it  June ;  I 

couldn't  tell  exactly ;  it  was  in  the  month  of  June  that  I 
returned  here— the  early  part  of  June  that  I  returned 
here. 

Q.  June,  1871  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  returned  again  to  New-York  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  then  did  you  take  up  your  residence  ?  A.  I 
went  to  the  Cosmopolitan  Hotel. 

Q.  As  a  boarder?  A.  Yes,  Sir.  I  don't  know  as  a 
boarder ;  I  stopped  there. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  there  f  A.  I  was  thero 
perhaps  two  weeks,  or  three  weeks,  or  four  weeks ;  I 
cannot  teU  exactly,  I  got  a  severe  cold  and  went  back 
again  to  Boston,  and  stayed  a  few  weeks. 

Q.  When  did  you  return  again  to  New- York  ?  A.  I  re- 
turned in  about  two  or  three  weeks'  time. 

Q.  Some  time  in  July  following  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  in 
July ;  I  couldn't  tell  exactly ;  it  was  three  or  four  weeks. 

Q.  Where  then  did  you  take  up  your  residence  in  New- 
York?  A.  Then  I  went  to  Madison-ave.  with  my 
Mends. 


^ECEEE  IBIAL. 

Q.  The  same  name  that  you  have  mentioned?  A.  Yea 
Sir ;  a  brother  of  A.  S.  Hatch,  the  banker. 

Q.  And  how  long  did  you  remain  there?  A.  I  remained 
there  about  six  months. 

Q.  Well,  what  change  did  you  then  make  in  your  resi- 
dence? A.  Then  I  went  to  the  hotel,  the  Westmoreland 
Hotel,  and  was  there  perhaps  three  weeks— two  or  three 
weeks ;  and  from  there  I  took  a  house  in  Twenty-sev- 
enth-st. 

Q.  Any  one  with  you  at  the  Westmoreland  Hotel  ?  A. 
No,  Sir ;  I  was  alone. 

Q.  You  then  took  a  house  where  ?  A.  At  the  Westmor^ 
land  Hotel. 

Q.  From  there  you  say  you  took  a  house  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir, 
on  Twenty-seventh-st. 

Q.  Twenty-seventh-st.  ?  A.  Twenty-seventh-st.  of  this 
city. 

Q.  Of  New-York?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  For  how  long  did  you  lease  that  house  ?  A.  Two 
years. 

Q.  Did  you  occupy  it  for  that  time  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  yoirr  husband,  Mr.  Daniels,  with  you?  A.  He 
was  there  a  part  of  the  time. 

Q.  During  what  part  of  the  time  ?  A.  He  was  there 
during  the  year  of  1872  and  a  part  of  the  year  1873. 

Q.  During  the  whole  year  1872  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  during  what  part  of  the  year  1873  ?  A.  The 
early  part  of  the  year ;  I  couldn't  tell  just  the  month.  He 
was  coming  and  going  always ;  sometimes  he  would  be 
there  for  three  and  four  weeks  together;  and  then  he 
would  be  away  for  a  month,  or  a  week,  or  three  or  four 
days,  or  perhaps  six  weeks  at  a  time. 

Q.  Who  were  the  inmates  of  that  house  during  the  time 
you  occupied  it  ?  A.  My  inmates  were  varying,  changing ; 
I  let  part  of  my  rooms. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  let  them  ?  A.  I  let  the  first  floor— 
the  parlor  floor— to  a  doctor— Fred.  A.  Palmer,  my  present 
husband. 

Q.  Frederick  A.  who?  A.  Palmer. 

Q.  When  did  you  let  them  to  him  ?  A.  The  Ist  of  May, 
when  I  first  went  into  the  house. 

Q.  Did  he  remain  in  the  occupancy  of  them  during  the 
lease?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  during  the  entire  time. 

Q.  What  portion  of  the  house  did  you  occupy  1  A.  I 
occupied  the  second  floor. 

Q.  Did  you  let  any  other  part  of  the  house?  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  I  let  the  back  room  of  the  floor  that  I  was  on  most  of 
the  time,  and  the  upper  floor,  all  of  it,  with  the  exception 
of  a  small  room  for  my  servants. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  let  the  back  room  ?  A.  Up  stairs, 
on  the  floor  that  I  was  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  It  was  to  patients  of  my  husband. 

Q.  Dr.  Palmer?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
I     Q.  To  whom  did  you  rent  the  upper  floor  ?  A.  To  pa- 


TUSTIMONT   OF  MBS.  ELIZA 

tients  a  part  of  tlie  time,  and  an  artist  a  part  of  the  time. 

Q.  Wiiat  artist  ?  A.  George  Allen,  a  portrait  painter. 

Q.  Well,  then,  during  most  of  the  time  the  portion  of 
the  house  not  occupied  by  your  present  husband  and 
yourself  was  occupied  by  patients  under  his  treatment  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  school  of  practice  does  he  belong  to  1  A.  Mag- 
netic physician. 

Q.  A  magnetic  physician  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  will  you  give  us  some  general  idea  of  his  mode 
of  treatment] 

Mr.  Shearman— One  moment. 

]Mr.  Beach — Does  he  apply  electricity  1 

Mr.  Shearman— One  moment.  We  obiect  to  that,  if 
your  Honor  please.  We  do  not  see  that  this  is  in  any  way 
material,  what  the  mode  or  the  school  of  practice  was, 
homopathic,  allopathic,  electric,  Thompsonian,  or  mag- 
netic, or  what  it  was. 

Judffe  Nellson— I  suppose  the  counsel  only  asks  for  a 
general  view. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all,  Sir.   I  am  not  trying  to  learn 
the  secrets.  Sir.  [Laughter.] 
Judge  Neilson— No. 

The  Witness— If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me,  I  ought 
properly  to  have  said  that  his  practice  is  electric  rather 
than  magnetic. 

Q.  That  is,  he  adopts  the  best  part  of  all  schools  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  is  he  an  electrician?  A.  I  could  not  answer 
that  question. 

Q.  Well,  how  does  he  apply  magnetism? 

Mr.  Shearman— I  take  it  this  is  going  into  the  details ; 
it  will  open  an  endless  inquiry  as  to  the  different  schools. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh!  it  will  not  be  very  long.  Sir.  I  am 
cross-examining,  Sir,  and  inquiring  into  the  history  a 
little.  [To  the  witness.]  Will  you  answer  me,  madam, 
how  he  applies  his  magnetic  treatment  ?  A.  I  think  that 
I  shall  appeal  to  the  Court,  that  my  husband's  business 
as  a  physician  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  case  whatever, 
and  shall,  unless  the  Court  compels  me,  refuse  to  answer 
the  question. 

Q.  Well,  it  is  not  the  first  time  I  have  been  refused  by  a 
lady.  [Laughter.]  Did  you  participate  in  his  practice? 
A.  So,  Sir. 

Q.  Not  at  all  ?   A.  Not  to  participate  in  the  practice. 
Q.  How?   A.  Not  to  participate  in  the  treatment  of  his 
patients. 

Q.  Did  you  aid  him  in  the  practice  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

THE  WITNESS  A  CLAIRVOYANT. 

Q.  Well,  YOU  seemed  to  qualify  your  answer 
to  my  question.  Did  you  act  as  a  medium  in  the  dis- 
covery of  the  diseases  of  patients  ?  A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  You  are  a  spiritual  medium,  then— profess  to  be  ? 
A.  That  depends  entirely  upon  what  you  meiin  by  a  spir- 
itual medium. 


BETH  LA   FIEEBE  FALMEB.  235 

Q.  Well,  what  you  mean  ?  A.  I  am  not  called  upon  to 
describe  the  term. 

Q.  Oh,  yes,  you  certainly  are  called  upon.  I  call  upon 
you.  A.  I  am  not  very  good  at  description,  and  shall  not 
be  able  to  give  you  any  description. 

Q.  Madam,  I  differ  with  you  in  regard  to  your  capacity 
to  describe ;  I  thought  your  descriptive  faculty  was  very 
excellent.  A.  If  you  will  tell  me  what  you  mean  by  a 
spiritual  medium,  then  I  will  answer  your  question  to  the 
very  best  of  my  ability.   I  don't  understand  you. 

Q.  Don't  you  understand  what  the  term  means  in  com- 
mon phraseology  ?  A.  I  understand  a  good  many  mean- 
ings to  the  word  "  spiritual  mediimi." 

Q.  Well,  in  any  of  its  meanings  do  you  profess  to  be 
one?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  was  called  upon  in  that  capacity  to  aid 
your  husband  in  detecting  the  diseases  of  patients  that 
applied  to  him  ?  A.  I  was  called  upon  at  times  to  make 
clairvoyant  examinations  of  the  patients  of  my  husband. 

Q.  When  did  you  say  you  was  married  to  Dr.  Palmer  ? 
A.  On  the  19th  day  of  March  of  1874. 

Q.  That  was  just  before  the  termination  of  your  lease ! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  this  practice  of  aidins:  him  you  had  pursued  be- 
fore you  became  his  wife?  A.  Yes,  Sii';  not  of  aiding 
him,  but  of  examining  patients  clairvoyantly. 

Q.  That  was  done  for  compensation  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  stated  part  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
business?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Paid  by  the  job  ?  A.  I  was  paid  for  whatever  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  paid  for  the  particular  service  you  rendered  f 
A.  If  I  made  a  clairvoyant  examination  of  a  patient  I 
was  paid  so  much  for  that  examination ;  the  patient  un- 
derstood this  and  paid  me. 

Q.  Undoubtedly,  madam.  A.  Handed  the  pay  to  me,  not 
as  a  part  of  the  business,  but  as  a  clairvoyant. 

Q.  When  you  made  these  examinations  were  you  in 
what  is  termed  a  state  of  trance  ?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you, 
Sir. 

Q.  How  ?   A.  I  cannot  tell  you. 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  me  ?   A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  perfect  self-consciousness  at  the 
time  ?   A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Then  you  supposed  yourself  to  be  in  a  condition  of 
trance,  did  you  not?  A.  I  had  entire  confidence  in 
the  persons  who  told  me  that  I  was  in  a  trance. 

Q.  I  have  no  doubt  of  that,  madam  ?  A.  That  is  all  the 
knowledge  I  have  of  it. 

Q.  So  that  when  you  made  these  examinations  you  went 
into  a  state  of  per^)nal  unconsciousness  ?  A.  I  suppose 
so. 

Q.  Well,  you  know  you  was  not  conscious. of  your  con- 
dition and  the  revelations  you  made  at  the  time,  was  you  I 
A.  I  was  not  conscious  of  saying  anything  or  doing  any- 
thing. 


226  TRE  TILTON-B. 

Q.  Have  you  heard  tlie  term  "trance  medium"  used 
ever?   A.  Yes,  Sir,  a  great  many  times. 

Q.  Is  that  the  description  of  the  condition  or  faculty 
■which  you  possessed  ?  A.  I  don't  think  it  Is,  not  in  the 
common  acceptation  of  the  word. 

Q.  Well,  wherein  did  you  suppose  the  diflference  to  ex- 
ist, Mrs.  Palmer  1  A.  I  could  not  explain  the  difference, 
only  I  know  that  there  is  a  difference. 

Q.  And  yours  was  a  higher  state  or  spiritual  condition? 
A.  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  conceive  it  to  he  so  ?  I  don't  suppose 
you  could  tell.  A.  I  had  no  thought  on  the  subject  at  all 
until  you  have  asked  me  to  think  on  it. 

Q.  Well,  when  in  that  condition  you  could  detect  the 
condition  of  the  physical  system  of  a  patient  ?  A.  I  don't 
know.  Sir  ;  I  could  not. 

Q.  Well,  the  spirit,  the  force,  the  power  which  you 
supposed  operated  within  you,  enabled  you  to  commimi- 
cate  to  Dr.  Palmer,  or  whoever  else  was  treating  the 
patient,  the  condition  of  the  patient?  A.  I  was  told  when 
I  would  awaken  that  such  was  the  fact. 

Q.  Well,  you  had  no  douht  about  it ;  you  believed  in  the 
possession  of  that  spiritual  power  or  agency,  did  you 
not?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  believed  in  it;  but  belief  and  knowl- 
edge are  two  different  things. 

Q.  Certainly;  I  am  aware  of  that,  madam.  Did  you 
upon  other  occasions  act  as  a  medium  of  that  character, 
besides  for  your  present  husband,  Mr.  Palmer  ?  A.  Well, 
what  do  you  mean.  Sir  ?  I  will  answer  your  question  if  I 
can  understand  what  you  want. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  know,  madam,  is  whether  upon  other 
occasions  you  acted  as  a  medium— spiritual  medium  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir;  a  great  many  times. 

Q.  And  for  various  purposes  and  objects,  or  was  it  en- 
tirely confined  to  the  practice  of  medicine?  A.  It  was 
not  confined  to  the  practice  of  medicine. 

STRANGE  EEVELATIONS  ABOUT  A  CLAIR- 
VOYANT'S GIFTS. 

Q.  Did  you  suppose  this  spiritual  power  en- 
abled you  to  detect  other  secrets  or  invisible  conditions 
than  those  in  the  human  frame?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  even  when 
I  am  in  my  normal,  or  seem  to  be  in  my  normal  state- 
that  I  can  answer  to  as  having  knowledge  concerning.  It 
is  more  than  belief. 

Q.  That  is,  when  you  are  in  what  you  consider  a  per- 
fectly natural,  normal  condition,  you  can  see  secrets,  con- 
ditions, invisible  to  other  persons  who  have  not  the  par- 
ticular faculty  which  you  possess  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  when  I 
am  in  the  peculiar  spiritual  or  magnetic  state,  and  yet  I 
am  perfectly  imeonscious.  It  enables  me  to  read  the 
secrets  of  people  to  a  very  great  degree. 

Q  That  is,  you  can  read  the  Rocrets  of  their  minds,  or 
the  operations  of  their  minds  or  hearts  ?  A.  I  don't  think 
It  is  the  operation  of  their  mind,  but  I  am  enabled  to  see 
the  acts  of  people,  that  they  have  committed  during  their 


^JEdEEB  TBIAL. 

life,  because  they  are  all  photographed  upon  the  soul  of 
the  man  or  the  woman,  and  in  this  clairvoyant  state 
where  I  am  perfectly  conscious,  apparently,  I  am  enabled 
to  read  as  clearly  what  is  written  on  the  soul  of  a  man  or 
woman,  all  their  past  acts,  as  you  are  enabled  to  read  the 
page  of  a  written  book.  [Sensation.] 

Q.  Yes.  How  does  this  mysterious  power  supervene, 
Mrs.  Palmer?  How  do  you  feel  the  communication,  the 
approach  of  this  clairvoyant  condition  ?  A.  I  feel,  in  the 
first  place,  a  strange  sensation  in  my  eyes  and  head,  and 
my  vision  seems  to  be  turned  within,  so  to  speak,  and  I 
seem  to  see  not  with  my  eyes,  but  from  the  forehead 
rather  than  the  eyes.  I  don't  hardly  know  how  to 
answer  your  question.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  answer 
your  question. 

Q.  Oh,  I  have  no  doubt,  madam.  A.  But  T  don't  hardly 
know  what  you  want ;  I  don't  hardly  understand  your 
question. 

Q.  Well,  the  purpose  of  ray  question— it  was  perhaps 
obscurely  conveyed— was  to  learn  whether  this  clairvoy- 
ant «ondition  was  voluntarily,  or  whether  it  came  insen- 
sibly and  unconsciously  ?  A.  It  comes  without  any  voli- 
tion on  my  part ;  I  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it 
any  more  than  you  have.  I  have  no  power  to 
compel  it  to  come  to  me,  no  power  of  entering 
into  such  a  state.  When  this  power  comes 
to  me,  and  takes  possession  of  me,  or  overcomes 
me,  or  affects  me,  it  comes  without  any  consciousness  on 
my  part.  For  instance,  I  may  be  thrown  into  a  peculiar, 
half-conscious  state,  and  lose  the  consciousness  of  all 
persons  around  me,  and  yet  be  perfectly  conscious  of  that 
which  is  right  before  me,  as  you  are  now.  Perhaps  my 
hand  will  be  taken  and  affected,  therj  the  hand  and  the 
arm,  and  a  poem  written  through  my  hand,  or  some  re- 
markable revelation  of  prophecy,  or  something  of  that 
kind  written  through  my  hand ;  and  again  I  am  thi-own 
into  a  state  where  I  become  totally  unconscious— that  is, 
T  am  told  that  I  am — and  through  my  lips  are  pom*ed 
hymns,  and  revelations,  and  poems,  from  the  old  poets» 
and  men  and  women,  who  lived  long  ago,  giving  unmis- 
takable evidence  that  they  still  live,  that  they  are  not 
dead,  and  that  they  still  live,  giving  unmistakable  evi- 
dence of  their  presence ;  but  I  have  no  power  to  ask  them 
to  come  tome,  if  that  is  what  you  want  to  know. 

Q.  No.  A.  They  come  of  their  own  free  will,  whenever 
the  wiser  power  that  is  guiding  aU  that  is,  or  the  band 
that  surrounds  me  sees  fit  to  open  the  door,  because 
around  me,  and  around  you,  and  arouud  every  other 
human  being,  is  a  band  of  spirits  that  take  up  their  abode 
around  them  when  the  child  is  born,  and  that  band  pro- 
tect the  child,  or  the  man,  or  the  woman  wherever  they 
go,  and  no  other  spirit  has  any  power  or  any  right  to  ap- 
proach you,  or  to  approach  me,  or  to  approach  anybody 
else,  only  as  the  band  opens  and  allows  them  to  come  iu 
for  some  wise  purpose,  which  God  Himself  governs  aud 
controls  and  admits. 


TESTmoyY  OF  MBS.  ELIZA 

Q.  Well,  you  suppose  this  band  of  spirits  wliicli  sur- 
rounds every  human  soul  at  its  birth  into  the  world  is  a 
band  of  benignant  and  good  spirits,  don't  you  1  A.  Al- 
ways. 

Q.  Then  no  human  soul  can  be  assailed  with  improper 
influences  and  temptations  unless  God  opens  the  oircle  or 
spiritual  influence  for  the  evil  spirit  to  enter !  A.  Most 
certainly  not.  2^0  human  soul  is  ever  left  to  the  mercy 
of  a  good  spirit  or  a  bad  spirit.  God  Himself  controls 
every  human  soul,  man  or  woman,  and  not  only  permits 
all  of  their  acts,  but  impels  their  acts  for  a  Avise  pui^ose, 
which  will  he  seen  soon  or  late. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  the  human  soul  responsible  for  the 
ar  ts  on  earth  1   A.  Yes  and  no. 

Q.  Well,  we  have  had  that  answer  here  before.  [Laugh- 
ter.] It  has  bothered  us  very  gi-eatly.  A.  Well,  I  will 
answer  you  then  without  the  "yes  " — no,  Sir ;  no  human 
soul  is  responsible  for  its  acts,  because  no  human  soul  is 
responsible  for  its  birth  ;  no  human  soul  is  responsible  for 
any  act.  because  if  you  lift  your  hand  in  that  manner 
[illustrating],  you  don't  know  the  eflect  itis  going  to  have 
upon  disph;cing  the  air,  and  upon  every  other  human 
being  that  IIa  cs;  you  don't  know  the  efi'ect  of  any  single 
word  that  you  drop ;  you  don't  know  the  effect  of  any 
single  act  of  your  life,  what  it  is  going  to  be  upon  any 
other  human  soul,  and  therefore  you  are  not  responsible. 

Q.  You  don't  believe  in  free  agency,  then  ?  A.  Agency 
and  freedom  are  two  words  that  are  so  diameti-ically  op- 
posed to  each  other  that  I  cannot  understand  that  they 
belong  together  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  perhaps  it  is  covered  by  your  answer  that  you 
don't  believe  in  persymal  responsibility  for  htmian  ac- 
tion?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  do  not. 

Q.  That  is,  no  matter  what  a  person  may  do  on  this 

earth,  there  is  no  iusr  responsibility         A.  Yes,  Sir  ; 

there  is  a  just  responsibility  in  this  wise :  if  any  human 
soul  believes  in  God,  and  asks  to  be  protected  from  evil, 
or  rather  imdeveloped  spirits,  and  is  joined  unto  the 
Divine  Spirit  of  God,  or,  rather  as  our  Lord  and  Master 
said,  "  grafted  into  a  true  vine,  which  is  the  Son  of 
God,"  then  no  evil  can  approach  them.  If  any  human 
soul  will  ask  God  to  protect  them,  through  our  Lord  and 
Master  Jesus  Christ,  then  they  will  be  protected ;  and  in 
that  wise  they  are  responsible. 

Q.  But  you  say  i-hat  every  human  soul  at  Its  birth  is  at 
onc€  under  the  Influence  of  this  circling  band  of  spirits  ? 
A.  That  God  appoints  for  them  ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  that  those  influences  which  are  blessed  in  the 
first  instance  become  injurious  only  by  the  per:nission  of 
the  Lord?  A.  I  don't  think  they  ever  become  ujui-ious. 
because  when  anybody's  spiritual  vision  is  opened  so 
that  they  can  see,  they  will  see  that  all  evil  is  only  a 
manner  of  growth  that  the  Lord  permits  <  '.-ery  himian 
souT  to  go  inr  )  or  faeir  growth,  and  for  t^i  -ir  spiritual 
good,  soon  or  late. 

Q.  That  is,  if  a  man  acts  badly,  It  is  a  sort  or  Go.lly  dis- 


^ETH   LA    FIERBE   PAL:\1EB.  227 

cipline  to  make  him  better?  A.  Xo,  Sir;  I  don't  say 
that ;  that  is  your  words,  not  mine. 

Q.  Well,  I  oiily  supposed  that  to  be  the  result  of  youi 
principle.  A.  Xo,  Sir  ;  I  only  wish  to  say  that  God  sees 
the  end  of  every  human  being's  life,  andjust  exactly  as  a 
florist  gives  every  little  flower  just  exactly  what  it  needs 
for  its  growth,  and  its  best  growth,  so  God,  our  Heavenly 
Father,  gives  every  human  soul  just  exactly  the  disci- 
pline, and  the  life,  and  the  experience,  that  that  human 
soul  needs,  not  to  glorify  God,  but  to  develop  that  human 
soul  into  its  highest  and  best  and  noblest  possibilities. 

Q.  Well,  you  believe  in  fore-ordination  ?  A.  Xot  as  the 
Church  teaches  it ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  Xo,  I  don't  suppose  you  believe  in  it  as  the  Church, 
teaches  it.   A.  I  believe  in  reincarnation. 

Q.  Well,  I  imderstand  you  that  you  are  a  medium,  as 
you  believe,  through  whom  departed  spirits  communi- 
cate to  the  visible,  material  world?   A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  am. 

Q.  You  have  no  doubt  about  that  ?  A.  I  have  no  more 
doubt  about  it  than  I  have  that  God  Uves.  or  that  yoa 
are  questioning  me  now;  it  is  not  belief,  it  is  knowledge ; 
I  not  only  know  that  they  commrmicate  with  me,  but  I 
see  them  plainly;  I  have  even  seen  a  spirit  by  you  while 
you  are  talking  to  me ;  I  see  them  and  hear  them  at  times. 

Q.  Well,  is  that  one  of  the  good  or  bad  ones?  I  would 
like  to  know.  [Laughter.]  A.  I  cannot  tell  you ;  only  I 
should  think  it  was  a  daughter— a  young  lady. 

Q.  Well,  I  have  got  one  of  that  Idnd.  WeU,  madam, 
pass  from  that  subject.  A.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to 
linger  on  that  subject,  for  I  am  more  interested  in  that 
than  I  am  in  anything  else. 

Q.  Well,  I  have  no  doubt  of  it,  madam.  It  is  very  inter- 
esting listening  to  your  ideas.  It  relieves  us  fi-om  a  good 
deal  of  responsibility  here.  Wh.en  was  you  divorced  from 
Mr.  Daniels  1  A.  In  the  month  of  March. 

Q.  18741   A.  Yes  Sir. 

And  when  was  you  married  to  Dr.  Palmer  ?  A.  In  a 
few  days  afterward ;  no,  it  was  a  few  weeks  after. 

Q.  Oh,  it  is  unimportant.  A.  It  was  a  very  short  time, 
I  know. 

Have  you  any  sympathy  with  the  socialistic  doctrines 
of  the  times.  Mrs.  Palmer  ?  A.  Well,  if  you  wiU.  tell  me 
what  you  mean  by  that,  then  I  will  answer  your  ques- 
tion. 

Q.  Well,  I  judge  from  the  fact  of  your  obtaining  a 
divorce  and  being  married  to  your  present  husband,  that 
you  believe  in  the  propriety  and  sanctity  of  the  marriage 
relation  ?   A.  Most  certainly,  and  always  have  done  so. 

Q.  And  you  have  no  sort  of  sympathy  or  countenance 
for  what  is  called  the  free-love  doctrines?  A.  No,  Sir, 
and  never  had. 

Q.  That  is,  indiscrlmiaate  association  ?  A.  The  only- 
sympathy  that  I  ever  had  with  the  doctrine  of  free-love 
is  that  I  believe  that  men  and  women  should  lire  happily 
together  ;  that  is,  husbands  and  wives  should  do  aU  that 
lay  in  their  power  to  make  each  other  happy,  and  to  live 


TRE   TILTON-PWECHEB  TBIAL. 


happy  in  this  life,  and  after  both  have  tried  and  done 
their  best,  and  it  becomes  utterly  Impossible  in  the  na- 
ture of  things  for  them  to  live  together  happily,  then  I 
believe  in  their  separating  legally,  and,  if  they  choose, 
reunite  themselves  with  others,  if  they  find  any  one  else 
whom  they  love  well  enough  to  marry  in  legal  bonds. 

Q.  Yes;  you  believe  an  honest  and  a  serious  effort 
should  be  made  for  a  happy  association  ?  A.  I  most  cer- 
tainly do. 

Q.  And  if  that  cannot  be  accomplished,  if  there  is  in- 
vincible uncongeniality  between  the  husband  and  wife, 
why  then  you  believe  in  the  propriety  of  their  separa- 
tion? A.  I  most  certainly  do;  their  legal  separation; 
and  I  believe  in  no  other  relation,  save  the  relation  of 
husband  and  wife.  I  don't  believe  in  any  promiscuity 
either  in  marriage  or  out  of  marriage. 

Q.  Well,  take  our  own  State  iov  instance,  where  a  di- 
vorce is  only  allowed— that  is,  an  absolute  divorce— for 
adultery,  how  would  you  get  your  uncongenial  spirits 
apart  according  to  law  t  A.  Well,  I  don't  know  how  to 
answer  you,  because  I  don't  know  the  question  you  are 
asking  me.  You  are  supposing  a  question.  I  don't  want 
to  suppose  any  questions.  I  want  you  to  ask  me  plain 
English.  I  am  willing  to  answer  anything  ywu  will  ask 
me. 

Q.  Where  did  you  obtain  your  divorce?  A.  Here,  in 
this  State. 

Q.  On  the  ground  of  adultery  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Suppose  a  ease  of  uncongenial  association  of  hus- 
band and  wife,  where  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  live 
happily  together,  and  no  pretense  of  adultery  upon 
either  side,  have  you  any  theory  in  regard  to  them  what 
should  be  the  practice  of  the  two  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  have. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  it  ?  A.  My  belief  is  that  they  should 
go  straight  to  the  Legislature  and  have  an  act  passed  that 
shall  enable  men  and  women  to  separate  decently,  just  as 
they  come  together  decently,  without  compelling  either 
one  or  the  other  to  become  a  criminal  in  order  to  be  free. 

Q.  Well,  suppose  the  Legislature  would  not  grant  relief, 
what  would  you  do  then  ?  A.  I  would  get  up  a  petition 
that  would  go  from  Maine  to  Georgia,  and  get  every  un- 
happy man,  or  woman,  or  child  to  sign  It,  and  compel  the 
legislator— the  Legislature— legislators  to  pass  that  act, 
such  an  act. 

Q,  Well,  suppose,  after  all,  the  Legislature  would  not ; 
what  then  would  you  do  ?  A.  I  can't  suppose  an  impos- 
sibility.  [Laughter  and  applause.] 

Q,  But  you  would  get  rid  of  the  association  in  some 
way  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  if  there  was  no  way  to  get  away  from 
it  legally  and  rightfully,  I  would  stick  by  it  and  ask  God 
to  help  me  to  endure  it. 

THE    WITNESS'S    INTRODUCTION    TO  MR. 
TILTON. 

Q.  Well,  that  would  be  very  honorable.  I 

understand  you  to  say  that  you  became  acquainted  with 


Mr.  Tilton  about  the  last  of  January  or  first  of  February, 
1871  ?  I  can't  call  it  an  acquaintance ;  I  saw  him. 

Q,  You  saw  him  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  introduced  to  him  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  conversed  with  him?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  about  that  date  you  saw  and  conversed  with 
him,  both  at  The  Qolden  Age  oflBce  and  at  Mrs.  WoodhuU's 
oflace—business  offlce—in  New- York ?  A.  I  don't  know 
whether  it  was  The  Golden  Age  omce;  Mrs.  WoodhuU 
asked  me  to  go  with  her  to  call  vipon  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  It  is  not  proper  for  me  to  call  for  her  conversation ; 
but  I  only  want  to  know  the  point  or  place  where  you 
saw  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  I  don't  know  where  it  was ;  it  was 
said  to  be  

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  it  was  at  his  office  ?  A.  Mrs. 
WoodhuU  said  it  was ;  I  don't  know  anything  about  it ;  I 
wasn't  acquainted  with  the  city;  I  didn't  tnow  anything 
at  all  about  the  streets,  and  I  don't  know  where  the  otflce 
was,  and  could  not  tell  you  to  save  my  life. 

Q.  I  was  going  to  ask         A.  It  won't  do  any  good, 

though ;  I  don't  know  where  it  is. 

Q.  It  was  the  office  of  The  Golden  Age  /  A.  I  don't 
know.  Sir, 

Q.  As  you  understood?  A.  The  Golden  Age  wasn't 
started  then. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  at  his  office  ?  A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  It  was  said  to  be  his  office  ?  A.  Mrs.  WoodhuU 
said  it  was  his  office— or— I  don't  know  that  she  said  it 
was  his  office;  I  would  not  swear  to  that ;  she  asked  me 
to  go  with  her  to  see  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  You  have  sworn  to-day  on  the  direct  examination, 

and  you  have  now         A.  I  swore  that  I  went  with  Mrs. 

WoodhuU. 

Q.  To  his  office?  A.  I  supposed  it  was  his  office. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  told  it  was  his  office,  you  say,  by- 
Mrs.  WoodhuU?  A.  Well,  I  should  have  to  make  a  cor- 
rection there;  I  could  not  swear  that  she  said  it  was  his 
office ;  I  don't  know ;  my  impression  is  that  she  said  it 
was  his  office;  I  supposed  it  was  his  office ;  I  went  there 
with  her,  and  that  was  the  impression  on  my  mind  it  was 
his  office;  it  might  not  have  beeo  l»is  office ;  IcotQdnot 
tell  you. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  not,  by  tasking  your  recollection,  give 
me  some  idea  of  the  place  in  New-York  where  that  wast 
A.  Oh,  I  could  not  tell  you  to  save  my  Ufe ;  I  went  there 
once  after  that,  with  Mrs.  WoodhuU  and  Miss  Claflin. 

Q.  Can  you  not  teU  me  something  about  the  appear- 
ance of  the  place?  A.  I  recoUect  going  up  one  flight  of 
stairs;  they  were  rather  narrow  stairs;  and  I  recollect 
that  there  were  two  rooms.  I  don't  recoUect  anything 
about  the  office,  the  first  time  I  went  there ;  it  was  only 
my  second  visit  there. 

Q.  WeU,  it  was  the  same  place  you  recognized  1  A.  It 
was  the  same  place. 

Q.  That  wiU  do  just  as  weU,  then.  WeU,  can  you  give 
us  any  further  particulars  ?    It  was  up  a  narrow  flight  of 


TESTniOSY  OF   MRS.   ELIZABETH  LA   FIEBEE  PALMEE,  229 


stairs,  and  two  rooms  ?  A.  Tliere  was  one  room  tliat 
opened  out  of  tlie  ottier;  but  wtietlier  there  was  any 
entrance  from  tliat  oflSce  I  can't  tell.  It  seemed  to  be 
Moulton's  and  Tilton's  office  together ;  Mr.  Moulton  vras 
tliere  the  se  cond  time  that  I  went  there ;  and  I  went  there 
for  the  purpose  of  t»eing  introduced  to  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  And  how  long  was  the  second  time  after  the  first ! 
A.  Only  a  few  days. 

Q.  Then  it  was  in  January,  1871,  probably,  that  you 
met  Mr.  Moulton  there  1  A.  February;  I  think  it  was 
February. 

Q.  February,  that  you  met  Mr.  Moulton  there  ?  A.  It 
was ;  I  think  it  was  February. 

Q,  And  was  there  introduced  to  biin  ]  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  ByMr.  TiltonI  A.  Yes,  Sir;  went  there  to  be  in- 
troduced to  him. 

Q.  You  went  there  to  be  introduced  to  him  1  A.  Yes, 
Sii'. 

Q.  Wlio  did  you  go  with  ?  A.  Mrs.  Woodhull,  and  Mr. 
TllTon,  and  Miss  Claflin. 

Q.  You  went  with  3Ir.  Tilton,  INIrs.  Woodhull,  and  Miss 
Claflin  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  February,  1871?  A.  I  cannot  say  that  it  was 
February ;  it  might  have  been  March ;  but  I  think  it  was 
February ;  it  was  cold  weather. 

Q.  Well,  I  understood  you  to  say  it  was  a  few  days  aft«r 
the  flist  time  you  went  to  that  office  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  first  time  you  say  was  in  January  1  A.  Jan- 
uary or  February. 

Q.  1871  ]   A.  January  or  February,  1871. 

Q.  WeU,  I  understood  you  to  say  January,  and  to  have 
said  so  on  the  direct  examination,  and  also  on  the  cross. 
A.  I  think  if  you  will  look  carefully  that  I  said  January  or 
Febmary. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  last  of  January  or  the  first  part  of 
February. 

3Ir.  Evarts— The  last  part  of  January  or  the  first  part 
of  February. 

:Mr.  Beach— Yes ;  I  remember  that. 

The  Witness— Well,  this  that  I  have  just  been  speaking 
of  might  have  been  some  little  time  after ;  I  could  not  tell 
the  time ;  it  is  confused  in  my  mind ;  I  could  not  tell  the 
second  time  I  went  there  ;  it  might  have  been  weeks 
afterward. 

>Ir.  Beach— WeU,  Mrs.  Palmer,  I  never  hold  a  witness 
particularly  to  dates  or  times ;  where  did  you  first  get 
acquamted  with  Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  That  is  the  first  time  I 
ever  saw  him,  the  time  that  I  went  to  this  office,  or  said 
to  be  office,  with  Mrs.  WoodhuU;  that  is  the  first  time  I 
ever  saw  him  in  Xew-York. 

Q.  I  beg  your  pardon ;  I  was  inattentive  to  the  first 
part  of  your  answer ;  was  it  at  his  office  that  you  first 
bex;ame  acquainted  with  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  The  first  time  I 
saw  him  was  at  Boston,  at  a  lecture  where  Wendell  Phil- 
lips presided. 

Q.  The  point  is,  where  did  you  first  become  accLuainted 


with  him  1  A.  The  first  time  I  "became  a^jquainted  with 
him,  or  spoke  to  him,  was  in  this  office  when  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  went  with  me  to  see  him. 

Q.  So  I  understood;  and  how  soon  after  that  intervie-w 
at  the  office  where  you  found  Mr.  Tilton  did  you  see  him 
at  :virs.  Woodhull's  office  ?  A.  Oh,  I  think  the  next  day. 

Q.  Next  day;  and  from  that  time  constantly  on,  almost 
daily  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  got  to  be  pretty  well  acquainted  with 
him,  I  take  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not ;  Mr.  Tilton  rarely 
ever  had  anything  to  say  to  me — scarcely  noticed  that  I 
was  present,  apparently. 

Q.  WeU,  can  you  tell  whether  this  office  where  you  saw 
Mr.  Tilton  had  the  appearance  of  an  editorial  sanctumi 
A.  I  could  not  tell  you  anything  about  that,  save  that  I 
saw  a  table  there  with  some  papers  on  it,  and  a  desk  in 
an  inner  room  where  I  saw  Mr.  Moulton,  and  there  was  a 
little  marine  picture  hanging  on  the  wall— a  little— I 
should  think  it  was  a  water-color  picture,  a  little  sea 
view,  hanging  on  the  wall,  and  I  was  only  there  a  few 
moments  or  a  short  time ;  that  is  the  only  recollection  I 
have  of  it;  I  haven't  a  very  good  memory  for  those 
things;  I  am  very  absent-minded;  I  might  come  into  this 
room  and  sit  here  an  hour,  and  see  nothing  that  is  here 
scarcely— could  not  tell  you  anything  about  it,  unless 
something  fixed  it  on  my  mind— something  definite  fixed 
it  on  my  mind. 

Q.  That  is  when  you  are  in  one  of  your  mediumistio 
conditions  ?   A  No,  Sir,  it  is  my  constant  habit. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation,  on  this  occasion  when 
you  were  introduced  to  Mr.  Moulton,  with  Mr.  Moulton  1 
A.  No,  Sir  ;  Miss  Claflin  went  there  to  see  him  on  some 
law  business  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  

Mr.  Evarts— That  interview  is  not  one  that  we  have 
opened.  Sir,  and  it  is  not  one  that  they  have  a  right  to 
give. 

Mr.  Beach— I  haven't  gone  into  it.  I  will  ask  that, 
though,  if  your  Honor  permits  me— if  she  called  with 
iVIrs.  or  Miss  Claflin,  and  Miss  Claflin  wished  to  consult 
]Mr.  Moulton  on  some  law  business. 

Judge  Neilson— Well. 

The  Witness— Well,  you  would  have  to  let  me  teU  the 
whole  story  in  order  to  get  it. 

]SIr.  Beach— I  have  no  objection,  if  my  learned  friends 
do  not  object. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  business. 

Mr.  Beach— Yery  well,  you  can  tell  me  the  character  of 
that  law  business  if  you  please  ] 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  that  is  going  into  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I  want  to  know  what  the  law  bustuess  wa» 
about. 

Mr.  Evarts — Well,  that  is  going  into  it;  we  objects 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  won't  admit  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Consult  him  as  a  lawyer. 

The  Witness— Are  you  waiting  for  me  to  answer  f 


230  THE  TlLroy-B 

THE  FREEDOM  BETWEEN  THE  WOODHULLS 
AND  MR.  TILTON. 
Mr.  Beach— No,  madam,  it  is  my  own  dull- 
ness. How  early  after  your  acquaintance  witli  Mr.  Til- 
ton  and  intercourse  with  liim  at  Mrs.  Woodliull's,  did  he 
address  lier  as  "  Vick,"  or  "  Vicky,"  and  she  him  as 
"Theodore?"  A.  Within  a  week;  within  a  very  few 
days ;  I  don't  know  but  within  two  days  ;  within  a  week, 
certain. 

Q^Well,  I  am  trying  to  learn  from  you,  madam  1  A. 
Within  a  week,  certainly ;  it  was  immediate  ;  their  ac- 
quaintance ripened  very  rapidly. 

Q.  Ripened  rapidly  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  it  ripened  after  your  acquaintance  with  them  t 
A.  I  never  had  much  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Well,  what  acquaintance  you  did  have — ^you  had  an 
introduction  to  him,  and  I  understand  you  that  this  fa- 
miliarity ripened  after  your  acquaintance  with  Mrs. 
WoodhuU  and  Mr.  Tilton  hegan  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  was  ac- 
quainted with  Mrs.  Woodhull— well  acquainted— before 
that. 

Q.  And  you  observed  the  progress  of  its  A.  Yes, 

Sir. 

Q.  [ContinuingJ— culmination  and  growth,  and  I  uudcr- 
sta.nd  you  that  it  was  the  habit— it  became  in  a  very  short 
time  the  habit  of  these  two  persons  to  address  each  other 
in  the  way  you  have  spoken,  and  for  Mr.  Tilton  to  indulge 
in  these  familiarities  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  They  were  not  concealed  at  the  office,  were  they  1 
A.  The)  were  not  very  open. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  They  were  neither  concealed  nor  open  ; 
it  was  certainly  not  in  the  

Q.  Well,  you  had  not  become  very  intimately  ac- 
quainted, I  think  you  said,  with  Mr.  Tilton.  A.  You 
must  understand  

Q.  It  was  practiced  openly  before  you,  wasn't  it  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir  ;  I  was  attending  to  my  own  business  in  the  in- 
ner office,  and  was  frequently  there  when  no  one  else 
was  there. 

Q.  Certainly,  no  doubt  of  it,  and  you  seem  to  have 
been  attending  a  little  to  others.  Was  Col.  Blood  about 
the  office  ?   A,  Yes,  Sir,  almost  always. 

Q.  Almost  always  ;  well,  these  familiarities  must  have 
been  observed  by  him  then  ?   A.  Most  certainly. 

Q.  Certainly  they  were  ?  A.  Most  certainly. 

Q.  To  your  knowledge  practiced  in  his  presence  ?  A. 
Most  certainly. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir,  I  know  Mr.  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews. 

Q.  Was  he  very  considerably  about  the  office  ?  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  not  much. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  ever  observe  this  familiar  intimacy  of 
intercourse  to  appear  before  Mr.  Andrews  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Then  he  must  have  known  it  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Well,  you  knew  Mr.  Andrews  to  have  been  an  inmate 


KECEER  'IIUAL. 

of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  house'?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  part  of  the 
time. 

Q.  During  what  time?  A.  During  this  period  of  time 
that  I  have  spoken  of. 

Q.  Covering  the  intimacy  and  associ?  ton  between 
Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  ?   A.  No,  Sir  •  no,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  during  what  time,  then?  A.  Dmnng  the  early 
part  of  it. 

Q.  Well,  what  year— 1871  ?   A.  1871. 

Q.  And  from  the  commencement  of  your  intercourse  at 
Mrs.  Woodhull's  house,  Mr.  Andrews  was  there,  wasn't 
he?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  think  Mr.  Andrews  left  there  some 
little  time  before  they  left  the  house  in  Thirty-eighth-st. 

Q.  Before  what?  A.  I  think  that  Mr.  Andrews  left 
Mrs.  Woodhull's  some  little  time  before  the  intimacy 
ceased  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Q.  Well,  the  question  was  whether  Mr.  Andrews  was 
not  an  inmate  of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  house  in  the  early 
part  of  1871,  when  you  first  visited  there  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  say  that  he  left  his  residence  in  that 
house  during  that  year?   A.  I  think  that  he  did. 

Q.  During  1871?  A.  I  think  that  he  did. 

Q.  And  what  time  1  A.I  could  not  tell ;  I  don't  remem- 
ber. 

Q.  And  for  how  long  ?  A.  I  cannot  remember ;  he  left 
it  entirely. 

Q.  What?  A.  He  left  there  entirely ;  moved  away  from 
there. 

Q.  You  are  not  certain  that  he  left  before  the  early  part 
of  1872— January,  1872,  are  you?  A.  No,  Sir,  and  I  could 
not  swear  thitt  he  left  at  all;  it  is  only  my  impression. 

Q.  WeU,  these  visits  of  Mr.  Tilton  to  the  house  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull,  and  familiarities  there,  of  which  you  have 
spoken,  were  during  the  j'ear  1871  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  up  to  what  timj>  did  you  observe  them  ?  A. 
During  all  that  year,  I  think. 

Q.  During  all  the  year  1871  ?   A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Well,  wiL  you  please  reflect,  so  that  you  can  speak 
with  some  ceriainty  upon  that  subject?  A.  I  think  so— 
1872 ;  it  of  course  began  in  January— began  in  the  Winter ; 
I  think  that  it  continued  up  to  the  time  just  before  the 
Steinway  Hall  meeting;  I  know  that  it  did;  after  that  I 
don't  know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  After  that  you  don't  know  ?  A.  After  that  I  don't 
know  anythiug  about  it. 

Q.  And  the  Steinway  Hall  meeting  you  understand  to 
have  been  in  the  Fall  of  1871  ?  A.  Yes,  1871  or  '2 ;  I 
don't  know— I  don't  remember  when  the  Steinway  Hall 
meeting  was,  whether  '71  or  '72,  but  this  acquaintance 
continued  up  to  the  time  of  the  Steinway  Hall  meeting. 

Q.  Just  before  the  Steinway  Hall  meeting,  I  under- 
stood? A.  Yes,  Sir.  Well,  it  was  up  to  the  time  of  the 
Steinway  Hall  meeting,  not  before  it;  but  it  ended,  so  far 
as  I  knew  anything  about  it,  with  that  meeting. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Blood  in  what  you  called  the  bedroonc 


TESTIMONY   OF  MBS.  ELIZA 

of  Mrs.  Woodliull  when  you  saw  Mr.  Tilton  there  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Mrs.  Palmer,  you  say  you  were  present  at  a  conver- 
sation or  consultation  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull,  at  the  office  of  Mrs.  Woodhull,  concerning  the 
prospectus  of  The  Golden  Age?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Will  you  give  me  the  date  of  that  conference,  as  near 
as  you  can  1  A.  It  was,  I  think,  in  the  month  of  Febru- 
ary ;  I  know  that  it  was. 

Q.  The  month  of  February,  18  ?  A.  '71. 

Q.  '71  ?  A.  It  was  just  before  the  starting  of  the  paper. 

Q.  Well,  we  will  see  about  that.  Where  were  you  re- 
siding then?  A.  I  was  residing  at  my  friends' in  Park 
avenue— 49  Park-ave. ;  I  was  there  for  a  number  of 
^eeks ;  durins  all  that  period. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  office  was  the  conference  held  1 
A.  Sometimes  in  the  front  office  and  sometimes  in  the 
back  office ;  it  was  spoken  of  a  number  of  times. 

Q.  Mr.  Blood  present  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Participate  in  the  discussion?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  any  one  else  besides  you^rself  and  him,  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull  and  Miss  Ciaflin,  and  Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  I  did  not 
partake  in  the  conversation  at  aU. 

Q.  Vo,  I  don't  understand  that  you  did ;  you  were 
present  and  heard  it  ?  A.  I  cannot  teU  you  ;  there  was 
80  many  coming  and  going  in  the  office,  and  this  thing 
was  spoken  of  openly  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  and  Mr.  Blood. 

Q.  Madam,  you  are  not  answering  my  questions— un- 
consciously, probably.  I  want  you  to  speak  of  any  par- 
ticular occasion,  as  I  did  understand  you  to  on  the  direct 
examination,  when  there  was  a  conference  between  Mrs. 
Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton  concerning  the  prospectus  of 
The  Golden  Age.  A.  Well,  I  can  t«ll  you  only  one  definite 
time  ;  there  were  a  number  of  times,  but  I  can  only  tell 
you  one,  and  that  I  can't  give  you  the  language  of. 

Q.  Oh,  no.  A.  I  can  only  give  you  the  idea. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  the  one  at  which  you  say  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull,  and  Miss  Claflln,  Mr.  Blood,  and  yourself          A.  I 

don't  know  that  Miss  Ciaflin  was  present ;  I  would  not 
swear  that  Miss  Ciaflin  was  present ;  I  would  not 
swear  that  anybody  was  present  but  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull  at  the  one  which  I  have  in  my  mind  now,  which 
I  

Q.  But  you  said  Mr.  Blood  was  present  at  that  ?  A.  He 
was  present  at  a  uumb^ir  of  them— at  a  number  of  these 
conferences. 

Q.  Why  not  at  this  one  1  A.  This  is  the  only  one  that 
1  can  swear  to  anything  definite. 

Q.  Why  do  you  get  him  out  of  the  way  now  ?  A.  I  don't 
wish  to  get  him  out  of  the  way  at  all. 

Q.  Was  he  there  1  A.  He  was  not  there. 

Q.  Which  room  was  it  in  1  A.  In  the  back  room ;  I  have 
no  desire  to  get  rid  of  people  at  all,  in  any  of  these  con- 
ferences. 

Well,  you  say  there  were  a  number  of  these  con 


^ETH   LA    PIEBBE  FALMEB.  231 

versations  1   A.  Yes,  Sir ;  it  was  a  common  thing. 

Q.  At  which  Mr.  Blood  was  present  frequently  1  A 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  how  are  you  able  to  distinguish  this  one  from 
the  rest  so  as  to  say  Mr.  Blood  was  not  there  ?  A.  It  was 
probably  the  first  one ;  it  might  have  been  and  it  might 
not  have  been.  I  don't  know  how  I  am  able  to  do  it ;  I 
only  recollect  the  fact,  but  I  cannot  tell  how  I  do  it. 

Q.  What  1  A.  I  say  I  cannot  tell  you  how  I  do  i+ ;  I 
only  know  that  I  am  speaking  of  a  fact  without  telling 
you  how  I  do  it. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  say  now  that  you  have  a  present  recol- 
lection that  Mr.  Blood  was  not  present  at  the  conversa- 
tion to  which  you  now  allude  in  the  back  room?  A.  Yes, 
Sir,  for  there  were  a  number  at  which  he  was  not  pres- 
ent—not only  this  one,  but  there  were  a  number  at  which 
he  was  not  present ;  it  was  a  frequent  thing  for  

Q.  Well,  but  this  conversation  was  of  the  same  charac 
ter  and  to  the  same  effect  as  the  others,  you  say  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  but  this  one  happened  to  fix  itself  on  my  mind. 

Q.  And  some  of  them  were  in  the  back  room,  I  sup 
pose  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  presume  they  were ;  I  don't  re- 
member. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  what  circumstance  or  incident  there  is 
which  enables  you  to  say  that  at  this  particular  one  of 
which  you  speak  Mr.  Blood  was  not  present  t  A.  At  this 
particular  one  of  which  I  am  speaking  now— what  fixes 
it  in  my  own  mind— I  was  filling  an  order  for  stocking-sus- 
penders, and  was  putting  them  up  in  the  boxes  and  mark- 
ing them,  when  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton  came  into 
the  room. 

Q.  Now,  wait  one  moment.  Was  that  an  unusual  event 
for  you  to  do,  to  fill  an  order  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  that  does  not  seem  to  be  a  circumstance  which 
shoiUd  enable  you  to  remember  that  Mr.  Blood  was  not 
present  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  because  it  was  an  unusual  thing 
for  me  to  remain  and  continue  my  business  when  Mr. 
Tilton  came  into  the  office— into  the  back  office  ;  there 
was  always  a  sign  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  gave  me  if  she 
wished  to  be  alone— if  anyone  came  in  ;  and  I  was  in  the 
back  office,  and  anyone  came  in,  I  would  simply  give  her 
a  look  to  know,  and  bow  my  head  to  her,  or  some  sign 
I  would  give  her,  to  know  whether  she  wished  me  to 
leave  her  alone. 

Q.  That  happened  very  often,  I  suppose  ?  A.  Well,  that 
I  can't  say,  whether  it  was  often  or  not ;  it  is  too  long 
ago,  and  too  many  things  intervening  ;  I  can't  tell  you. 

Q.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  such  an  especial  circumstance 
as  should  enable  you  to  say  that  Mr.  Blood  was  not 
tliere  ?  A.  I  don't  know  tlie  question  that  you  are  asking 
me. 

Q.  I  say  that  it  dtu  s  not  seem  to  be  a  eircumstauce  of 
so  much  importance  as  to  enable  you,  by  it,  to  say  that 
Mr.  Blond  wnis  not  present  in  the  room  at  the  time  !  A. 
Well,  Mr.  Blood  wasn't  present. 


232  IBE  TILTON-B 

Q.  Well,  tliat  is  a  matter  of  simple  recollection  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  me  what  that  conversation  was  ? 
A.  The  conversation  was  concerning  

THE  TALK  ABOUT  MAKING  MR.  TILTON'S 
PAPER  RADICAL. 

Q.  No ;  I  want  to  know  the  conversation- 
how  it  happened  and  how  it  progressed  ?  A.  Well,  I  don't 
know  how  you  want  me  to  answer  you. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  give  me  the  language  used  by  the 
speakers  as  near  as  you  can.  A.  I  told  you  it  was  impos- 
sible ;  you  must  let  me  give  it  to  you  in  my  own  way,  or 
else  I  can't  tell  you  at  all. 

Q.  Most  certainly ;  hut  I  do  not  want  you  to  tell  me 
they  were  conversing  about  a  certain  thing ;  I  want  you 
to  tell  me  what  was  said,  as  near  as  you  can  ?  A.  If  you 
wUl  let  me  have  my  way,  I  will  try  to  give  it  to  you. 

Q.  Well,  I  have  always  found  that  I  had  to  let  a  lady 
have  her  way,  and  I  wUl  let  you.  A.  Thank  you.  I  was 
at  work  flUing  this  order  for  stocking  suspenders,  and 
Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  WoodhuU  came  into  the  room  and 
didn't  seem  to  pay  any  attention  to  me— my  being  there 
or  not  being  there ;  the  door  was  open;  they  seemed  to 
be  continuing  a  conversation  which  they  had  begun  

Q.  Well,  really,  madam,  won't  you  permit  me  to  insist 
that  you  should  not  tell  me  what  they  seemed  to  be  doing 
or  seemed  to  be  thinking ;  I  don't  know  but  you  are  mix- 
ing up  your  clairvoyant  memory  with  your  actual  per- 
sonal memory,  and  I  want  you  to  tell  me  as  near  as  you 
can.  I  do  not  ask  for  the  very  words,  but  the  substance, 
as  near  as  you  can  of  what  was  said?  A.  If  you  get  my 
clairvoyant  recollection  you  will  be  quite  as  apt  to  get 
the  correct  version  as  you  are  now. 

Q.  I  am  not  throwing  any  reflection  on  your  clairvoy- 
ant or  spiritual  powers,  madam ;  I  perceive  they  are 
very  great,  but  we  cannot  take  them  in  the  relations  in 
which  we  stand  to  each  other  now,  and  you  will  please 
give  me  your  recollection  as  a  witness  of  the  language 
that  was  used  by  the  parties  upon  that  occasion  ?  A.  I 
can  only  give  you  the  idea,  Sir ;  I  could  not  give  you  the 
language  to  save  my  life. 

Q.  Couldn't  you  give  the  substance  of  the  language— the 
substance  of  what  they  said  ?  A.  I  will  try ;  I  will  do 
the  best  I  can. 

Q.  Well  ?  A.  The  substance  of  the  language  was  that 
Mr.  Tilton  was  about  starting  a  paper,  and  that  when  he 
had  started  this  paper  he  should  use  this  paper  in  the  in- 
terest of  a  new  body,  which  should  take  in  or  embrace 
all  of  the  Spiritualists,  of  which  Mrs.  Woodhull  was  the 
head,  and  they  would  unite  the  two  papers  and  use  them 
both  to  express  the  radical  views  of  what  they  supposed 
to  be  the  greater  part  of  the  community  at  large ;  and  I 
don't  knew  whether  it  was  at  that  time  or  some  other 
time  they  spoke  of  

Q.  Well,  I  wantikto  tonflne  It  to  that  time;  let  ob  get  all 


EECEEB  TEIAL. 

of  that  time  ?  A.  Well,  at  that  time  I  have  given  you  all 
the  idea  and  substance  of  it^that  they  were  to  unite  the 
two  papers  and  to  use  them  as  the  organs  of  a  new  party, 
which  should  take  in  the  Spiritualists,  or  the  Spiritualists 
were  to  be  the  leaders  in  it;  there  was  no  hope  in  the  other 
parties  of  doing  anything. 

Q.  No  hope  for  the  country  ?  A.  I  don't  know  whether 
it  was  for  the  country,  or  for  the  leaders. 

Q.  Oh,  or  the  politicians  1  A.  The  politicians. 

Q.  Now,  wasn't  there  something  said  about  the  name 
of  the  party!  A.  No, Sir. 

Q.  Well,  they  were  to  found  a  new  party !  A.  No,  Sir ; 
nothing  said  about  the  party,  about  founding  a  party ,^ 
or  about  a  name  for  a  party. 

Q.  Well,  there  was  something  said  about  founding  a 
new  party?  A.  No,  Sir;  not  founding  a  new  party,  but 
that  this  should  be  the  organ  of  a  new  party— I  was  about 
to  tell  you  that  they  were  continuing  apparently  

Q.  I  don't  want  anything  about  that.  A.  I  am  talking 
about  this;  they  were  apparently  continuing  a  conversa- 
tion which  they  had  begun  in  the  front  office,  which  I  did 
not  hear. 

IVIr.  Beach— Well,  madam,  I  don't  want  your  judgment 
about  that. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  her  observation. 
Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir. 

The  Witness— I  am  not  endeavoring  to  cover  up  any- 
thing; I  want  to  give  you  the  exact  truth  as  I  know  how, 
and  as  far  as  I  know  it. 

Q.  Oh,  I  don't  doubt  you  are.  Can  you  give  me  any- 
thing which  was  said  which  led  you  to  the  conclusion 
that  they  were  continuing  a  conversation  commenced 
elsewhere  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  could  not ;  it  is  only  my  im- 
pression. 

Q.  Your  impression  ?  A.  Not  a  ^-lairvoyant  impression, 
either. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  they  indicate  in  some  form  the  party 
designation  that  was  to  be  assumed  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  There  was  to  be  a  party  formed?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  As  you  understood  ?  A.  I  had  understood  it  before ; 
it  had  been  talked  of  for  weeks. 

Q.  Wait  one  moment;  I  am  not  asking  you  for  any- 
thing that  had  been — I  am  asking  for  this ;  is  this  the  con- 
versation that  you  related  to  Mr.  Shearman  on  your 
direct  examination?  A.  I  don't  remember;  I  should 
have  to  know  what  my  direct  examination  was ;  there 
was  so  much  of  it  that  I  cannot  remember. 

Q.  There  was  not  so  much  of  it ;  he  called  your  atten- 
tion to  a  conversation  in  which  this  question  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  The  Oolden  Age  was  spoken  of.  A.  If  I  un- 
derstood Mr.  Shearman's  question,  it  wasn't  of  any  one 
particular  time ;  I  supposed  it  was  several  differtnt  times ; 
I  was  not  conscious  that  he  was  asking  me  for  amy  one 
particular  time. 

Q.  You  have  now  given  us  what  occurred  at  that  con- 
versation ;  do  you  recollect  anything  you  had  heard  from 


TESUMONY  OF  MRS.  ELIZA 

*l»ei«i  apon  the  subject  before  that  conversation?  A.  I 
don't  remember  whether  it  was  before  or  after  this  par- 
ticular time ;  1  cannot  tell. 

Q,  Do  you  recollect  anything  else  that  was  said,  either 
before  or  afterward,  upon  that  subjecj?  A.  You  have 
talked  so  long  that  I  have  forgotten  what  the  subject  was 
you  were  speaking  of. 

Q.  It  was  the  subject  of  the  establishment  of  The  Golden 
Age  and  the  formation  of  a  party  that  was  to  supplant  all 
th«  other  parties  of  the  countiy  ?  A.  It  was  hardly  the 
forming  of  a  new  party ;  it  was  really  taking  up  or  gath- 
ering up  all  the  best  elements  of  both  parties. 

Q.  A  consolidation  of  all  the  scattered  elements  of  par- 
ties. A.  Yes,  and  especially  of  the  Spiritualists. 

Q.  Under  the  lead  of  the  Spiritualists  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  With  Mrs.  Woodhull  as  the  leader?  A.  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  and  Mr.  Tllton  the  leaders. 

Q.  They  were  to  unite  as  leaders  ?  A.  Yes,  they  were 
to  be  united. 

Q.  And  they  were  to  combine  their  papers  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Were  they  to  amalgamate  them  ?  A.  I  think  not ;  I 
think  one  was  to  admire  the  other,  and  the  other  to 
admire  the  one. 

Q.  A  sort  of  mutual  admiration  society  ?  A.  I  think  so 
—they  were  mutually  to  sustain  each  other. 

Q.  How  long  had  The  Woodhull  <£  Claflin  Weekly  been 
established  then  ?  A.  I  don't  know  anything  about  that. 

Q.  Had  you  read  it  before?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  in  the  habit  of  reading  it  ? 
A.  I  had  not  been  in  the  habit  of  reading  it  very  much; 
it  was  not  a  habit. 

Q.  Only  an  occasional  inspection  of  it  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Mr.  TUton  wanted  you  to  become  an  agent  of  this 
new  enterprise?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  business  were  you  engaged  in  then?  A.  My 
Btocking-suspenders. 

Q.  You  declined  that  employment?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  did; 
I  had  enough  business  of  my  own  to  attend  to.  I  was  in 
need  of  an  agent  myself. 

Q.  Before  the  establishment  of  this  Golden  Age  I  under- 
stood you  that  there  was  some  conversation  about  the 
proof,  or  you  saw  the  proof  of  the  Woodhull  article  as  it 
waa  published  ?  A.  Before  the  establishment  of  The  Gol- 
den Age  f  No,  Sir. 

Q.  When  was  it  f  A.  It  was  before  the  publishment  of 
the  card;  not  a  proof  of  it  at  all ;  it  was  not  the  proof; 
Mjs.  Woodhull  read  to  me  the  card  which  appeared  in  The 
New-YorTc  World. 

Q.  That  was  the  May  card?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  May  of  what  year  was  it?  A.  May  of  1871,  I  suiv 
pose;  whenever  the  card  came  out;  I  cannot  tell  the 
year;  whenever  the  year  wa&— 1871,  without  any  doubt. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  she  showed  you  the 
proof  of  the  scandal !  A.  Yes,  Sir;  but  that  was  later. 

Q.  When  was  that  I  A.  That  was  about  two  months 


^ETH  LA   PIERRE  PALMER.  233 

before  I  went  into  my  house  in  Twenty-seventh-st.;  I 
went  in  there  on  the  let  of  May ;  no,  it  was  the  15th  of 
April;  I  didn't  go  into  my  hou^e  in  May;  I  went  in  on 
the  15th  of  April,  and  it  was  some  weeks  before  this  that 
Mrs.  Woodhull  not  only  showed  it  to  me,  but  I  saw  it  two 
or  three  different  times. 

Q.  The  proof  of  the  scandal  as  it  was  afterward  pub- 
lished ?  A.  It  might  not  be  exactly  as  it  was  published. 

Q.  But  the  substance  of  the  thing  ?  A.  The  substance 
of  the  Woodhull-Beecher-Tilton  scandal. 

Q.  You  mean  a  printed  ofllce  proof  ?  A.  I  mean  print- 
ing like  newspaper  proofs— like  a  newspaper  printed 
on  

Q.  That  must  have  been  when  ?  A.  It  was  in  1872. 

Q.  The  early  part  of  March,  1872  ?  A.  I  suppose  it  was 
about  two  months  before  I  went  to  my  house ;  I  think 
two  months,  or  perhaps  six  weeks. 

Q.  February  or  March,  1872  ?    A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  the  substance  of  the  article  which  afterward 
appeared  in  The  Woodhull  &  Claflin  Weekly  was  what  you 
read  in  these  proofs  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  They  were  shown  to  you  as  the  proof  from  the  Wood- 
hull  &  Claflin  office  ?  A.  I  don't  Imow  where  they  were 
from ;  she  didn't  tell  me  where  they  were  fi-om. 

Q.  Where  were  they  first  shown?  A.  The  first  I  ever 
saw  of  them  was  in  the  back  oflBce,  as  I  gave  it  this  morn- 
ing in  my  direct  examination. 

Q.  These  proofs  were  public  in  the  office  ?  A.  Not  at 
all;  they  were  kept  very  secret. 

Q.  Who  was  present  when  they  were  shown  to  you! 
A.  No  one  but  Mr.  Tilton  the  first  time  that  I  ever  saw 
them ;  they  were  never  shown  publicly— not  to  me. 

Q.  Mr.  Blood  is  a  habitue  of  this  office?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  see  them?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  he  did 
or  not ;  he  didn't  see  them  in  my  presence ;  not  at  that 
time;  he  did  afterward,  afttfr  they  moved  into  the 
Twenty-third-st.  house;  he  was  taken  sick,  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull  sent  for  me  to  come  over,  and  again  there  she 
showed  them  to  me. 

Q.  When  was  that?  A.  About  May  or  June,  after  I  had 
been  in  her  house  a  good  deal. 

Q.  May  or  June,  1872?   A.  Yes,  Sii*. 

Q.  That  is  not  the  one  shown  to  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  had 
seen  them  with  her  at  that  time— the  proof  of  the  Tit 
for  Tat"  article. 

Q.  Well,  didd't  Mr.  Andrews  also  see  them  at  that  timet 
A.  I  don't  know.  Sir. 

Q.  The  "Tit  for  Tat?"  I  don't  know  anything  about 
that. 

The  Witness— At  the  same  time  

Mr.  Evarts— At  the  same  time  she  was  shown  the  "  Tit 
for  Tat"  article. 
Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  inove  to  strike  that  out. 
Judge  Neilson  -Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  learn  who  was  the  author  of  that 
article  ?  A.  No.  Sir ;  I  never  asked. 


234 


THE  TILlON-BEECHELi  TBIAL 


Mr.  Evarts— Which  one  1 

Mr.  Beach— The  one  we  are  talking  of— the  Woodhull 
scandal  ? 

The  Witness— I  never  Imew  who  was  the  author  of  any 
oi  these  articles  that  were  written. 

THE   EXHIBITION   MADE   OF  THE  PEOOF- 
SHEETS. 

Q.  You  may  restate,  if  you  please,  the  scene 
which  you  observed  between  Mr.  Tilton— what  passed 
between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull.  What  did  you 
see  at  the  time  that  these  proofs  were  shown  to  you  In 
the  hack  room  ?  A.  The  first  time  I  saw  them  % 

Q.  During  the  interview  you  gave  to  Mr.  Shearman  ?  A. 
Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  came  in  from  the  back 
room  and  sat  down  on  the  sofa.  Mrs.  Woodhull  says  : 
"  Daniels"  

Q.  Said  what?  A.  She  called  me  Daniels,  instead  of 
giving  me  my  full  name :  "  Daniels,  there  is  something  I 
want  to  show  you."  I  can't  remember  if  I  made  any  re- 
ply. She  read  me  a  part  of  this  scandal.  I  turned  to  her 
and  said :  "  Mrs.  Woodhull,  if  you  publish  that  scandal, 
or  a  scandal  concerning  any  other  individual,  cr,  in  short, 
if  you  have  anything  to  do  with  the  private  lives  of  any 
individuals  whatever,  I  will  have  nothing  more  to  do 
with  you,  and  I  will  not  work  with  you  again.  You  have 
no  right  to  touch  the  private  life  of  any  one ;  you  are  at 
work  as  a  reformer,  and  not  to  go  into  the  private  lives  of 
anybody."  I  don't  know  that  any  reply  was  made  to  me. 

Q.  Was  that  the  whole  of  that  interview  ?  A.  No,  I 
think  not,  but  it  is  all  that  I  can  remember. 

Q.  It  is  the  same  one  that  you  gave  to  Mr.  Shearman  ? 
A.  Yes ;  and  now  I  do  not  pretend,  and  I  did  not  pretend 
then,  to  give  the  exact  language ;  there  might  be  a  prepo- 
sition, or  a  conjunction,  or  some  word  put  in,  or  left  out. 

Q.  But  you  have  given  on  this  cross-examination  all 
that  you  now  recall  %   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  I  thought  you  said  something  to  Mr.  Shearman  about 
an  allusion  to  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  A.  That  was  another  affair 
altogether. 

Q.  What  1   A.  That  was  another  affair  altogether. 

Q.  No,  it  was  in  this  conversation  ?  A.  I  think  you  will 
find,  if  you  look  back,  that  you  are  mistaken. 

Q.  Then  it  was  not  in  this  conversation  ?  A.  I  think 
not ;  it  should  not  have  been  if  it  was. 

Q.  I  think  you  put  it  in  this  conversation  ?  A.  It  should 
not  have  been  there. 

Q.  Where  ought  it  to  be  ?  A.  It  ought  to  have  been  an- 
other affair  and  another  time  ;  and  I  do  not  recall  any- 
thing but  the  circumstances  ;  I  do  not  know  how  it  came 
about.  Only  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  was  talking  very  eagerly 
to  some  one  who  came  into  the  office. 

Q.  There  were  no  proofs  present  then  1  A.  No,  Sir  ; 
nothing  to  do  with  proofs  at  this  time;  Mrs.  Woodhull 
was  speaking  of  the  scandal  that  had  been  bruited  about 
concerning  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher. 


Q.  And  Mr.  Tlltun  c»mt!  i  X.  fettr.  Tnton— I  don't 
know  whetlier  he  came  in,  or  wnether  He  was  there  ;  but 
Mr.  TUton's  race  flushed  clear  to  his  hair.,  and  he  says  i 
"  Vicky,  tha  t  is  not  true  ;  my  wife  is  as  pure  as  snow, 
and  no  such  relation  ever  existed  between  Mr.  Beecher 
and  my  wife." 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  give  that  in  the  other  interview 
on  your  direct  examination  ?  A.  Did  Mr.  Shearman  ud- 
derstand  me  in  that  way  1 

Mr.  Shearman — It  is  all  right ;  I  think  you  stated  it  ae, 
you  do  now. 

Mr.  Beach— Never  mind. 

The  Witness— If  I  said  so,  it  was  wrong. 

Q.  When  was  this  last  conversation  you  have  spoken 
of  ?  A.  It  was  long  before  these  proofs  were  ever  brought 
out ;  this  was  in  1871. 

Q.  How  long  before  %  A.  It  was  in  the  first  acquaintance 
of  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton ;  it  was  before  the  card 
came  out  at  all. 

Q.  Were  the  proofs  shown  after  the  card  appeared ! 
A.  The  proofs  did  not  come  out  until  1872,  and  the  card 
came  out  in  1871. 

Q.  And  this  conversation  you  now  speak  of  ?  A 

Was  before  the  card  came  out. 

Q.  It  must  have  been  in  January  or  February,  1873  ?  A. 
Or  March  or  April  or  May— I  cannot  tell ;  along  there 
somewhere ;  it  was  before  the  card  came  out. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  that  you  saw  the  proofs  there  be- 
fore you  went  into  your  house  ?  A.  I  think  two  months 
or  six  weeks ;  it  i)ossibly  might  have  been  only  a  month, 
but  it  was  probably  two  months. 

Q.  When  did  you  understand  this  scandal  was  pub- 
lished? A.  In  the  Fall  of  1872  ;  it  was  a  common  thing; 
it  was  known  by  a  great  many  before  it  was  published  at 
all ;  that  is,  it  was  circulated  privately. 

Mr.  Beach— I  move  to  strike  out  all  the  answer  from  the 
words,  "  It  was  a  common  thing." 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Q.  And  at  the  time  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  addressed  you 
in  this  way,  saying,  "  Daniels,  I  have  something  I  want 
to  show  you,"  or  to  that  effect,  Mr.  Tilton  was  the  only 
person  present  besides  yourself  1  A,  He  was ;  she  came 
in  and  shut  the  door. 

Q.  And  she  showed  you  the  proofs  ?  A.  No,  she  read 
it ;  she  showed  it  to  me  after  Mr.  Tilton  had  gone  out; 
she  put  it  in  my  hands  after  Mr.  Tilton  had  gone  out. 

Q.  And  nothing  was  said  except  what  you  said  to  her 
in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  publishing  the  private  Ufe 
of  individuals  'i  A.  Yes,  there  was  more  said. 

Q.  Nothing  that  you  recollect?  A.  Nothing  that  I 
recollect. 

Q.  And  when  she  said  that  she  had  something:  to  show 
you,  how  much  did  she  read  of  the  proof  !  A.  I  can't  teU 
you,  because  I  saw  it  three  or  four  different  times ;  I  read 
it  myself,  and  I  can't  tell  which  time  it  was  that  I  saw  the 
whole  of  it. 


TESTIMONI  OJS   MBS.  J^LIZA 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  of  how  much  slie  read  now  'I  A. 
I  think  she  read  the  whole  of  It. 

Q.  You  think  she  read  the  whole  of  it,  do  you  ]  A.  I 
think  she  read  the  whole  that  simply  concerued  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton. 

A.  The  whole  of  the  paper?  A.  Not  the  paper;  it  was 
6lips  or  proofs. 

Q.  So  far  as  it  related  to  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  1 
A.  I  think  so ;  still,  I  would  not  swear  she  read  the 
whole  of  it  then,  because  I  saw  it  several  times,  and  I 
«annot  swear  which  time  it  was  that  I  saw  the  whole 
of  it. 

Q.  Was  there  any  documents  incorporated  in  the  proof 
she  read?   A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  No  letter  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  there  was  no  letter ;  she 
brought  it  in  her  hand. 

Q.  Have  you  now  any  distinct  recollection  of  any  part 
she  read,  so  that  you  can  repeat  it,  or  the  substance  1  A. 
^o,  Sir ;  I  would  not  undertake  to  repeat  the  substance, 
because  it  was  absolutely  the  same  thing  as  published. 

Q.  "Wait  one  moment !  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you 
would  not  undertake  to  repeat  the  substance  of  it  now— 
any  part  of  it  ?  A.I  would  not,  for  although  I  have  read 
the  whole  of  it  afterward,  I  would  not  undertake  to  re- 
peat it  now. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris]— I  don't  think  I  want  to  ask 
any  more.   Is  there  anything  else  ? 
Mr.  Morris— No,  I  think  not. 
Mr.  Beach— That  is  all,  madam. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  MRS.  PALMER. 

Mr.  Shearman— Was  Mrs.  WoodlniU  what  is 
commonly  known  as  a  Spiritualist  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— This  lady  has  been  asked  a  good  deal 
about  her  own  belief  in  this  examination.  I  simply  pro- 
pose to  show  this  whole  circle  was  one. 

Judge  Neilson— That  was  under  the  license  of  cross-ex- 
amination. No. 

Q.  I  ask  whether  you  believe  in  the  God  of  the  Chris- 
tians ?  A.  Most  certainly  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  A.  Most 
certamly  I  do. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  all,  Mrs.  Palmer. 

RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MRS.  PALMER. 

Mr.  Beach— Do  you  believe  in  Christ  as  God  ? 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  believe  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  1  A. 
Most  certainly  I  do ;  T  believe  that  your  son  is  not  you, 
but  he  is  your  son ;  and  I  believe  that  the  Lord  and  Mas- 
ter Jesns  Christ  is  the  Only  Begotten  Son  of  the  Ever- 
Living  God. 

Q.  You  believe  in  the  Godhead  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  the  Trinity?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


LA   FIEBEE  PALMER.  235 

Q.  Why  not  believe  in  Christ's  divinity?  A.  I  do  be- 
lieve in  his  divinity,  most  certainly. 

Q.  If  you  believe  in  his  Godhead,  three  persons  joined 
in  one— the  Trinity— how  do  you  separate  the  identity  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son  ?  A.  Just  the  same  as  I  would 
separate  your  son  from  you ;  and  yet  you  belong  to  one 
family. 

Q.  Then  you  don't  believe  they  are  identical  ?  A.  I 
don't  beUeve  they  are  one  person  ;  I  believe  that  God  is 
Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  Mother,  and  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son.   They  are  one  family. 

Q.  You  believe  that  God  the  Father  is  the  parent  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  mother  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  Christ  is  the  Son  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  He  Is  the  God 
of  this  planet,  not  the  God  of  the  whole  imiverse  ;  but  I 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  literal  God  of  this  planet 
on  which  we  live. 

Q.  That  is.  His  sovereignty  is  confined  to  this  earth  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  He  is  the  literal  King  and  Lord,  the  Master 
and  Ruler  and  God  of  this  planet ;  He  created  it,  and 
rules  over  it  and  reigns  over  it. 

Q.  That  you  suppose  must  be  by  deputation  from  God 
the  Father  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  believe  this  if»  His  inheritance; 
I  believe  this  is  His  birthright. 

Q.  Whom  does  He  inherit  it  from  ?  A.  F^-om  His  Father, 
God  ;  not  by  deputation,  but  because  it  is  Hi«  inheritance, 
given  unto  Him  because  He  is  of  age. 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  suppose  that  the  Sou  ha«  the  same 
extent  of  sovereignty  and  power  as  the  Father  ?  A.  Most 
certainly  not ;  o«nly  on  this  planet ;  only  on  this  planet 
the  sovereignty  of  the  Son  is  superior  to  that  of  the 
Father. 

Q.  On  this  planet  His  sovereignty  Is  superior  to  that  ol 
the  Father?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  that  He  has  no  sovereign  power  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  this  earth.  A.  Yes,  I  believe  he  has. 

Q.  Sovereign  power?  A.  Yes,  sovereign  power;  but  not 
to  the  extent  that  the  ever-living  God  has. 

Q.  It  cannot  be  sovereign,  then  ?  A.  Yes  Sir. 

Q.  Sovereign,  and  yet  subject  to  God  the  Father  ?  A. 
Yes,  because  I  believe  there  are  a  great  many  planets, 
and  He  may  have  one,  or  two,  or  more  planets  besides  this 
one,  over  which  He  rules  also. 

Q.  I  don't  understand  you  to  believe,  then,  that  the  Son 
has  the  same  breadth  and  extent  of  sovereignty  as  the 
Father?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Only  over  those  particular  planets  which  He  has  in- 
herited from  the  Father,  which  are  subject  to  His  con- 
trol ?  A.  That  is  what  I  mean.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe  the  Scriptural  account  of  the 
birth  of  the  Savior  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How,  then,  do  you  make  the  Holy  Ghost  the 
mother  ?  A.  In  this  way :  I  don't  believe  that  God  ever 
abrogated  any  of  His  laws ;  and  I  believe  when  He  saw 
fit  to  send  Jesus  Christ,  His  only  begotten  Son  here  on 
this  planet,  in  the  form  of  man,  and  to  become  a  living 


286 


TEE   TILTON-BEECRER  TBIAL. 


man  of  God  in  one— I  believe  that  He  over  sliado wed 
Josepli,  tlie  fatlier,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  overshad- 
owed Mary,  the  mother,  and  that  Joseph  and  Mary  were 
both  thrown  into  a  deep,  death-trance,  where  neither  of 
them  was  conscious  of  their  acts  more  than  a  dead  body, 
and  thar  there  and  then,  in  a  perfectly  natural  manner, 
Jesus  Christ  was  begotten  of  Mary,  by  the  overshadow- 
ing of  these  two  spirits,  and  that  he  was  a  Divine,  holy 
child,  begotten  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Godhead. 

Q.  "Was  Mary  the  mother  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  most  certainly. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  that  will  do,  Mr.  Beach. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  I  guess  so,  your  Honor. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  all,  Mrs.  Palmer. 

[The  witness  retired  amidst  general  laughter.] 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEN.  B.  F.  TEACY. 

Benjamin  F.  Tracy  was  then  called  and 
sworn  for  the  defense. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  the 
Bar  of  this  State  ?  A.  I  was  admitted  in  this  State  in 
May,  1851. 

Q.  And  how  long  have  you  practiced  your  profession  in 
this  city?  A.  In  this  citj^  about  nine  years;  eight  years 
and  over. 

Q.  And  before  that,  in  New- York  City  at  all?  A.  In 
New- York  City  something  over  a  year. 

Q.  Prior  to  your  practicing  here  ?   A.  Prior  to  that. 

Q.  During  what  period  were  you  the  United  States  Dis- 
trict-Attorney of  this  District  ?  A.  From  October,  1866, 
I  think,  until  February,  1873. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  parties  of  this  suit  ?   A.  I  do. 

Q.  From  what  time  and  in  what  degree  have  you  had 
acQiuaintance  Avith  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  I  have  known  Mr. 
Tilton  by  reputation  for  many  years ;  I  knew  him  per- 
sonally first,  I  think,  when  he  was  editor  of  The  Union,  in 
1870;  since  that  time  I  have  known  him  slightly;  I 
ceased  to  know  him  much,  I  think,  after  he  ceased  to  be 
editor  of  The  Union,  until  after  the  publication  of  the 
Woodhull  scandal,  in  1872 ;  then  I  met  him  again. 

Q.  And  with  Mr.  Beecher,  from  what  time  and  in  what 
degree  have  you  had  an  acquaintance  ?  A.  I  have  at- 
tended Mr.  Beecher's  church  since  1867;  I  have  known 
Mr.  Beecher  slightly  from  some  time  in  1868  or  1869, 
until  after  the  publication  of  the  "Woodhull  scandal ;  since 
that  I  have  known  him  more  intimately  than  before. 

Q.  And  what  acquaintance,  and  through  what  period, 
have  you  had  with  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  was  introduced 
to  Mr.  Moulton  in,  I  should  say,  the  month  of  November, 
1872  ;  since  which  time  I  have  known  Mr.  Moulton  quite 
intimately. 

Q.  And  with  the  other  members  of  the  firm  of  Woodruft 
&  Robinson,  what  acquaintance  have  you  had,  and 
during  what  period?  A.  I  made  the  acquaintance  of 
Jeremiah  P.  Robinson  when  I  was  in  the  Legislature  in 
1862.  I  renewed  my  acquaintance  with  him  on  coming 
to  Brooklyn  in  1865    I  resided  in  Brooklyn  when  I 


came  to  practice  law  in  New  York,  and  I  have  known 
him  by  occasionally  meeting  him,  from  that  time  to  the 
present  time.  I  became  acquainted  with  Franklin 
Woodruff  in  the  Fall  of  1871.  I  should  think  it  was— I 
think  it  was  in  the  FaU  of  1871  that  I  knew  him  first,  and 
knew  him  very  well  from  the  year  1871 ;  from  that  time 
on  to  the  present  time  I  have  known  him  very  well. 

Q.  Was  this  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff 
a  business  acquaintance  or  a  personal  acquaintance  I 
A.  It  was  a  personal  acquaintance  in  the  beginning. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  in  the  month  of  November  or  December, 
1872,  did  you  come  into  any  association  or  conferences 
with  either  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff,  or  with  Mr.  Moulton, 
or  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  I  did  with  all  of  them. 

Q.  How  soon  after  the  publication  of  the  Woodhull 
scandal  did  the  fact  of  the  publication  come  to  your 
knowledge  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  if  that  was  published— if  the 
28tii  day  of  October  was  the  day  that  that  was  circulated, 
in  the  evening— that  paper— I  probably  learned  of  it  on 
the  29th  of  October ;  but  it  was  either  on  the  29th  or  the 
30th  of  October. 

Q.  Now,  when  first  did  you  have  any  conversation  with 
Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff,  or  Mr.  Moulton,  or  Mr.  Tilton,  on 
the  subject,  and  with  which  first?  A.  I  first  conversed 
with  Mr.  Woodruff  on  the  subject. 

Q.  And  how  did  that  arise  ?  A.  A  casual  conversation 
in  the  street,  when  the  subject  of  the  Woodhull  publica- 
tion was  alluded  to— I  cannot  say  definitely  how  soon 
after  the  publication,  but  it  was  some  days  after. 

Q,  And  you  met  in  the  street,  or  were  you  standing  in 
the  street  when  he  came  along  ?  A.  I  don't  remember 
definitely ;  it.  was  in  front  of  my  office  in  Montague-st. ; 
but  whether  I  was  coming  along  and  met  him,  or  I  was 
standing  there  and  he  came  along  and  met  me,  I  don't 
remember— I  don't  remember  that. 

Q.  Who  introduced  the  conversation  ?  A.  WeU,  as  a 
matter  of  memory,  I  cannot  say  positively.  My  impres- 
sion is  that  I  did. 

Q.  And  how  ?  A.  By  referring  to  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Moulton— that  I  hadn't  observed  any  denial  on  the  part 
of  Mr.  Moulton  of  the  Woodhull  scandal. 

Q.  Well,  what  passed  between  you  and  Mr.  Woodruff  at 
that  time  ?  A.  Well,  there  was  a  general  conversation  on 
that  subject,  and  

Q.  What  was  the  substance  of  it— not  in  detail  f 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  understand  that  this  conversation 
has  been  mentioned. 

The  Witness— That  conversation  has  not  been  alluded 
to. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  is  merely  introductory. 
Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment. 

Judge  Neilson— He  might  mention  the  subject  of  the 

conversation. 

The  Witness— It  was  the  subject  of  Mr.  Moulton's  rela- 

tion  to  that  scandal. 


te8timo:nt  of  be. 


IXJAMIX  B.  TEACY. 


237 


Mr.  Evarts— And  any  proper  or  probable  denial  of  it  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Beach— Wait! 

Tbe  Witness— Yes.   Well,  I  understand  it  is  objected  to. 
Mr.  Evarts  [to  Mr.  Beach]— Do  you  object  1 
Mr.  Beach— No.   Take  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  conversation  produced  no  ap- 
pointment, did  it  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  when  after  that   A.  Well,  it  was  consid- 
erable time  after  that.  I  can't  say  definitely.  Mr.  Wood- 
ruff came  to  me  one  day  and  asked  me  

Q.  At  your  office,  was  this?  A.  I  cannot  say  that 
either,  whether  it  was  at  my  office  or  in  the  street.  I 
know  he  asked  me  if  I  would  consent  to  be  consulted  

TEOUBLE   ABOUT   WHO   SHALL  CEOSS-EX- 
AMINE  MR.  TRACY. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Tilton]— Now,  you  see  he 
is  on  the  stand,  and  I  cannot  be  here  to-morrow.  [To  Mr. 
Evarts.  1   Can't  you  call  some  other  witness  ? 

I A  whispered  conference  here  took  place  between  the 
counsel.] 

Mr.  Beach— The  difficulty,  your  Honor,  that  I  have  sug- 
gested to  my  learned  friends  is  this,  and  it  has  just  this 
moment  occurred  to  me— I  am  obliged  to  be  at  court  over 
the  river,  in  New-York,  to-morrow,  and  must  be  absent 
from  this  trial.  Upon  the  contingency  of  Mr.  Tracy  be- 
coming a  witness,  his  cross-examination,  for  personal  rea- 
sons, had  been  assigned  to  me,  and  I  cannot  possibly  be 
here  in  the  morning  to  conduct  it,  and  I  suggested  to  my 
learned  friends  whether  they  could  not  supply  other  wit- 
nesses. If  it  was  ordinary  business.  Sir,  I  desire  to  state 
I  certainly  should  not  be  absent  from  this  trial. 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  no  doubt  your  learned  opponents 
wlQ  accommodate  you  if  they  can. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Keman  is  to  be  down  from  Utica  for 
the  purpose  of  argutag  a  motion  of  some  importance  with 
me,  and  he  has  telegraphed,  and  I  cannot  neglect  the 
arrangement. 

M».  Evarts  [after  conferring  with  ^Ir.  Shearman]— We 
cannot,  if  your  Honor  please,  arrange  otherwise  than  to 
go  on  with  Islx.  Tracy ;  but  we  shall  leave  it  quite  at  our 
friends'  disposal,  when  we  come  to  the  adjournment, 
whether  they  will  adjourn  until  Wednesday  morning. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  no,  Sir,  I  am  not  going  to  ask  another 
adjournment  over  the  day.  Some  other  gentleman  must 
take  the  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Evarts— "Very  well,  we  are  quite  willing  to  accom- 
modate in  any  way  we  can. 

Mr.  Beach — Well,  I  would  not  ask  an  adjournment. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  may  take  an  adjournment,  Sir.  We 
will  very  freely  adjourn.  It  does  not  make  any  difference 
to  us  ;  we  can  always  use  the  day.  At  any  rate,  we  will 
do  anything  that  we  can,  if  your  Honor  please  

Judge  Neilson— That  I  am  sure  of. 


Mr.  Evarts — Still,  we  cannot  very  well  arrange  to  call 
another  witness. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris] — I  cannot  see  an7  reason 
why  Mr.  Fullerton  should  not  take  the  cross-examina- 
tion, or  Mr.  Pryor.  [To  Mr.  Evarts.]  I  thinlc  we  had 
better  adjourn  now. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  want  to  relieve  you  

lyir.  Beach— May  I  ask  your  Honor  the  favor  that  we 
may  lose  these  ten  minutes  remaining  before  the  usual 
hour  of  adjournment,  and  adjourn  now,  so  that  Mr.  Ful- 
lerton, who  will  take  the  cross-examination  of  the  wit- 
ness, may  be  present  at  the  direct  examination. 

Judge  Neilson— That  seems  to  be  quite  reasonable. 

Mr.  Beach— Thank  you,  Sir. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  Tuesday  at  11  a.  m. 


SEVENTY-THIRD  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

AN  ADJOURNMENT  AFTER  A  SHORT  SESSION. 

EX-JUDGE  FULLERTON  UNWILLING  TO  CKOSS- 
EXAMINE  GEN.  TB AC Y— TESTIMONY  OF  J.  F.  ST. 
GEORGE  IN  REGARD  TO  MR.  TILTO^'S  PART  EN" 
THE  COMaiUNISTIC  PROCESSION. 

Tuesday,  April  27.  1875. 
Fifteen  minutes  after  the  usual  time  for  the  open- 
ing of  the  proceediags,  Messrs.  Fullerton  and  Morris, 
and  Evarts.  Hill,  Abbott,  and  Sheafinan  entered  the 
court-room  together.  Mr.  Erarts  addressed  the 
court,  saying  that  Mr.  Beach  was  detained  by  the 
argument  of  a  case  with  the  Hon.  Francis  Kernan  in 
another  court,  and  Mr.  Pryor,  who  had  been  asked 
xo  conduct  the  cross-examination  of  Gen.  Tracy  in 
place  of  Mr.  Beach,  was  kept  at  home  by  sickness. 
For  personal  reasons  Mr.  Fullerton  had  declined 
to  cross-examine  Gen.  Tracy.  jVlr.  Evarts  proposed 
that  the  examination  of  Mr.  Tracy  should  be  deferred 
until  April  28, when  Mr.  Beach  will  be  present.  Some 
of  the  witnesses  of  the  defense  could  not  be  present 
to-day  ;  they  had  only  one  ready  to  be  sworn,  and 
Mr.  Evarts  intimated  that  an  adjournment  of  the 
court  until  April  28  would  be  acceptable  to  the 
defense.  No  objection  was  made  by  the  plain- 
tifiPs  counsel.  3klr.  Morris  stated  that  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  trial  the  plaintifiPs  counsel  had  divided 
their  work,  assigning  a  certain  part  to  each  man.  To 
Mr.  Fullerton  had  been  assigned  the  duty  of  con- 
ducting the  greater  part  of  the  examination  of  wit- 
nesses. Early  m  the  trial  it  was  intimated  to  them 
that  Gen.  Tracy  might  become  a  witness.  Mr.  Ful- 
lerton immediately  said  that  he  could  not  cross- 
examine  him,  and  that  duty  was  then  assigned  to 
Mr.  Beach. 


288 


ThlE   TlLTON-BEFAmEB  TRIAL. 


The  adjournraent  was  graated  by  Judge  Neilson. 
The  proceedings  occupied  about  half  au  hour.  J. 
Fraucis  St.  George,  the  only  witness  examined,  was 
questioned  by  Mr.  Hill.  He  said  that  he  had  lived 
all  his  life  in  Brooklyn.  He  had  been  engaged  in 
journalism  for  15  or  17  years.  He  had  known  Mr. 
Tilton  by  sight  about  10  years,  and  was  a  compositor 
on  The  BrooMyn  Union  when  Mr.  Tilton  was  its  editor. 
In  December,  1871,  he  was  connected  with  The  New- 
Tork  Standard,  and  on  Dec.  17  was  detailed 
by  that  paper  to  report  the  Communistic 
procession.  He  saw  Mr.  Tilton  riding  in  the  proces- 
sion in  a  carriage  with  Mrs.  Woodlmll,  Miss  Claflin, 
and  Col.  Blood.  A  copy  of  The  Slandard  for  Dec.  18, 
1871,  containing  his  account  of  the  processiou,  was 
shown  to  the  witness  and  identified  by  him.  Mr. 
Hill  attempted  to  introduce  in  evidence  a  paragraph 
of  this  report,  but  it  was  ruled  out  by  Judge  Neilson. 
The  cross-examination  was  conducted  by  Mr.  Ful- 
lerton.   

THE   PKOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 


MR.  TRACY'S  EXAMINATION  DEFERRED. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  the  arrangements  of 
our  learned  adversaries  In  regard  to  the  continuance  of 
Mr.  Tracy's  examination,  in  view  of  his  cross-examina- 
tion, as  they  had  proposed  it  among  themselves,  will  not 
probably  admit  of  his  going  on  to-day.  Mr.  Pryor  is  de- 
tained by  sickness  of  himself  or  his  wife  from  coming 
out,  and  it  has  been  expected  that  he  might  take  Mr. 
Beach's  place.  Mr.  Kernan  is  in  town,  and  no  arrange- 
ment can  be  made  for  Mr.  Beach  to  be  present  to-day,  but 
he  can  be  here  to-morrow.  The  witnesses  that  we  might 
have  prepared,  or  hoped  to  prepare,  to  fill  the  place  to- 
day we  are  unable  to  bring  forward,  some  of  them  being 
out  of  town,  and  we  being  unable  to  make  arrangements 
for  their  examination,  having  waited  the  conclusion  of 
Mr.  Tracy's  examination,  which  we  supposed  would  take 
some  time.  We  can  occupy  a  little  of  the  time  with  a 
single  witness.  Mr.  Beach  stated  to  your  Honor  that  for 
pei'sonal  reasons  the  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Tracy  had 
been  committed  to  him ;  we  should  think,  for  oiu'  own 
part,  that  it  is  a  very  reasonable  view  of  the  matter,  and 
we  shall  await  Mr.  Beach's  return.  That  will  be,  how- 
ever, for  your  H(raor  to  determine. 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  we  will  take  whatever 
course  counsel  may  desire. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  proper,  If  your  Honor  please,  I  should 
3ta,te  that  from  the  very  comme.ucement  of  this  trial  we 


had  assigned  the  diflferent  branches  of  the  labor  to  differ- 
ent counsel.  While  Mr.  Fullerton  was  to  take  charge 
principally  of  the  examination  of  witnesses  and  their 
cross-examination,  at  a  very  early  stage  of  this  trial  it 
was  mtimated  that  a  contingency  might  arise  in  which 
Mr.  Trac3'  would  be  a  witness.  Mr.  Fullerton  at  once 
said  that  he  could  not  cross-examine  Mr.  Tracy,  aaid  it 
was  then  arranged  that  Mr.  Beach  should  cross-examine 
Mr,  Tracy,  and  that  has  been  the  arrangement  duriag 
the  entire  trial. 

Judge  Neilson— I  can  very  well  appreciate  that.  Pro- 
ceed, gentlemen. 

TESTIMONY  OF  J.  FRANCIS  ST.  GEORGE. 

J.  Francis  St.  George,  having  been  called  for 
the  defense  and  sworn,  was  examined  as  follows : 

Mr.  HiU— Where  do  you  reside  %   A.  Iii  Brooklyn. 

Q.  How  long  have* you  resided  in  Brooklyn?  A.  All 
my  life ;  for  the  last  32  years. 

Q.  What  is  your  employment  or  business  now  ?  A.  I 
am  a  journalist  by  profession. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  journalist?  A.  Well,  I— 

Q.  Or  connected  with  newspapers  1  A.  For  the  last  15 
or  17  years. 

Q.  Were  you  connected  with  any  newspaper  published 
in  the  City  of  New- York  in  December,  1871  ?  A.  I  was, 
Sir. 

Q.  If  so,  state  what  one?  A.  The  New-TorJc  Standard. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  ?  A.  WeU,  I  was  general  utility 
man  on  the  literary  staff  of  that  paper. 

Q.  Were  you  detailed,  or  did  you  in  point  ef  fact  make 
any  observations  of  the  Commime  procession?  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  I  was  detailed  by  the  managing  editor  to  write  up 
that  procession. 

Q.  Were  you  out  with  that  procession  most  of  the  day  i 
A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  And  saw  it  while  it  was  in  line  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  was 
present  at  its  formation,  and  I  remained  with  it  until  it 
was  dismissed. 

Q.  Please  give  the  line  of  the  procession.  A.  The  lino 
of  procession  was  formed  somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  Cooper  Institute  ;  it  then  marched  down  the  Bowery 
to  Great  Jones-st.,  up  Great  Jones-st.  to  Broadway,  down 
Broadway  to  Waverley-plaee,  or  up  Broadway  to  Wa- 
verley-place  ;  from  thence  into  Pifth-ave.,  up  Fifth-ave. 
to  the  ttrrning  point  at  Thirty-fourth-st.,  down  Thirty- 
fourth-st.  to  Sixth-ave.,  down  Sixth-ave.  to  Fourteenth- 
st.,  up  Fourteenth-st.  to  the  Lincoln  Monument,  where  it 
was  dispersed. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  did  you  immediately,  upon  making  your 
observations  of  that  procession,  prepare  an  article  for 
The  sifandniyit?  A.  I  made  my  notes  as  I  went  along. 

<l.  And  wrote  up  the  article  that  was  published  in  The 
Slandard  the  next  day  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 


Ti:ST12I0yY  OF  J.   FI^AyClS    ST.  GEOBGE, 


2S9 


Q.  The  report  of  tlie  procession  ?   A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  ^0"W,  Mr.  St.  George,  do  you  know  Tlieodore  Tilton  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  do, 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Mm  ?  A.  I  liave  known 
Mm,  I  guess,  for  10  years. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  associated  wlthMmln  any  journal- 
istic enterprise  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  was  employed  on  The 
Vnioti  at  tlie  time  tliat  lie  was  editor-in-cMef  of  it. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  so  employed  at  ttie  time  of  Ms 
connection  witli  it?  A.  During  the  time  of  Ms  editor- 
sMp,  I  guess. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  to  have  seen  Theodore  Tilton  in  the 
procession  that  day?   A.  I  do.  Sir,  distinctly. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  saw  him  riding  or 
wallring  ?  A.  My  recollection  is  that  when  I  saw  Mm  he 
was  riding. 

Q.  Where  was  that?  A.  That  was  on  Fifth-ave.,  be- 
tween Twentieth  and  Twenty-fourth-sts.;  I  made  a  par- 
ticular  ohservation  of  the  procession  as  it  entered  Fifth- 
ave.  and  as  it  gradually  got  up  to  the  tui-ning  point ;  I 
wished  to  notice  what  effect  the  procession  had  upon  the 
residents  of  that  street. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  who  was  with  Tilton  in  the  carriage?  A, 
Well,  I  recollect  Tennis  C.  Claflin  and  Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Q.  Was  any  one  else  with  him?  A.  There  was  Col. 
Blood,  I  was  told. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  the  Colonel  ?   A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  But  you  did  know  who  the  other  three  were  ?  A.  I 
did  know  them. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Col.  Eyan  ?  A.  I  did  know  Mm  t»y 
sight ;  I  was  not  intimate  with  him  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  the  procession  ?  A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  State  where  Col.  Ryan  was  when  you  saw  Tilton  in 
the  carriage  ?  A.  Col.  Eyan  occupied  the  fli  st  coach. 

Q.  Who  was  with  him?  A.  O'Donovan  Eossa  and  a 
Cuban  exile. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  St.  George,  state,  if  you  please,  if  you 
made  a  memorandum  of  these  two  facts  ?   A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  In  reference  to  Tilton  and  Miss  Claflin  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  being  in  one  carriage,  and  Col.  Ryan  and 
O'Donovan  Rossa  in  the  other  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  was  very 
particular  in  that ;  I  tried  to  make  it  as  accurate  as  I  pos- 
sibly could. 

Q.  And  stated  it  in  your  report  next  day  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Wait  a  moment. 

Mr.  Hill— Well,  if  you  do  n't  want  that  you  need  not 
liave  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  do  n't  want  you  to  teU  him  that  he 
stated  it  in  his  report  next  day. 

Mr.  Hill— Well,  that  is  all.  [To  the  witness.]  See  if  this 
is  the  file  of  The  Standard  that  contains  your  report  of 
the  procession.  [Handing  paper  to  witness.]  A.  Yes, 
Kr,  I  recognize  that  as  mine. 

Q.  And  that  paragraph  [pointing  to  a  paragraph]  refers 


to  the  matter  T  have  been  examining  you  about  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sii' ;  that  paragraph  headed  "  Incidents  alons:  the  line  of 
march." 
Mr.  Hill— That  is  all. 

CROSS-EXA^IES^ATIOX  OF  ^klE.    ST.  GEORGE. 
Mr.   Fullerton— Where    did  that  procession 

form?  A.  It  formed  somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of 
Cooper  Institute  ;  my  mind  is  not  clear  exactly. 

Q.  How  does  it  happen  that  your  mind  is  not  clear  as  to 
that  ?  A.  Well,  things— they  were  in  a  kind  of  a— every- 
tMng  was  in  a  tiu'moil  of  excitement  right  there. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  in  your  head  or  in  the  street  ?  A.  In 
the  street;  likely  to  confuse. 

Q.  How?  A.  It  was  in  such  a  condition  as  it  was  likely 
to  confuse  the  mind  of  almost  any  person. 

Q.  Well,  it  seems  as  if  it  did  confuse,  as  well  as  being 
iikely  to  do  it ;  is  that  so  ?  A.  No,  I  generally  have  a 
clear  head. 

Q.  Then  tell  us  out  of  that  clear  head  where  that  pro- 
cession formed?  A.  Well,  portions  of  it  formed  on 
Fourth-st.,  and  other  portions  on  TMrd-ave.,  in  the  vicin- 
ity of  Cooper  Institute.   I  didn't  take  my  notes. 

Q.  One  moment.  Tell  me  where  it  formed,  in  the  first 
place.   A.  Well,  I  cannot  exactly  tell,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  there  ?  A.  I  was  there  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  'S^Tiere?  A.  I  was  standing  in  front  of  Cooper  In- 
stitute. 

Q.  When  it  was  being  formed  ?  A.  When  the  various 
delegations  that  were  to  participate  in  the  parade 
marched  up.  I  didn't  see  its  formation  at  all  until  it  got 
into  Fifth-ave.;  there  is  where  I  made  my  point  of  obser- 
vation. 

Q.  You  didn't  see  it  form  ?  A.  I  did  not ;  no ;  the  dele- 
gations came  into  line  at  various  points,  I  think ;  I  am 
not  positive  of  that  though ;  I  did  not  see  it  form. 

Q.  Yon  did  not  see  it  form?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  not  having  seen  it  you  know  nothing  about  it, 
do  you  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  How?  A.  I  saw  the  various  delegations  march  up 
in  the  vicinity,  but  I  did  not  see  it  form. 

Q.  In  what  vicinity  ?  A.  In  the  vicimty  of  Cooper  In- 
stitute. 

Q.  And  how  early  did  you  go  over  to  Fifth-ave.  ?  A.  I 
took  the  head  of  the — I  followed  the  van  of  the  proces- 
sion, that  which,  as  I  understood,  was  to  be  the  van, 
that  was  the  Skidmore  Guards,  colored,  a  company  of 
militia  preceded  by  a  German  band. 

Q.  You  marched  with  it,  did  you  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  un- 
derstood that  was  to  take  the  hea-d  of  the  procession,  and 
I  followed  them. 

Q.  Did  you  get  into  the  line  of  march  I  A.  I  followed 
them  up  to — 

Q.  WeU,  one  moment !  I  know  you  followed  them  :  did 
you  get  into  the  line  of  march  with  them !  A.  Yes,  Sir ; 
no,  I  did  noi ;  I  formed  one  of  the  sidewalk  delegation. 


240  IME  TLLTOJS-B. 

Q.  You  walked  on  tlie  sidewalk  ?  A.  I  did ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Until  you  got  to  Pifth-ave.?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  what  did  you  do  \  A.  Well,  I  suppose  I  con- 
tinued with  them. 

Q.  Don't  say  you  suppose  unless  you  did  it.  A.  Well,  I 
did ;  I  continued  with  them  up  to  about  Fifteenth-st. 

Q.  From  Fourteenth-st.  ?  A.  From  Waverley -place. 

Q.  Up  to  Fifteenth-st.  ?  A.  Up  to  Fifteenth-st.  on  Fifth- 
ave. 

Q.  Did  you  go  upon  the  sidewalk  ?  A.  I  continued  on 
the  sidewalk  all  the  time. 

Q.  By  the  side  of  the  delegation  %  A.  I  remained  at  the 
head  of  the  procession  imtU.  we  got  above— 

Q.  One  moment !  Who  formed  the  head  of  the  proces- 
Bion  ?   A.  Those  colored  troops. 

Q.  The  colored  troops  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  stuck  to  them  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Up  as  far  as  Fifteenth-st.  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  what  did  you  do  ?  A.  Well,  I  thought  that  the 
procession— 

Q.  What  did  you  do,  not  what  you  thought.  A.  Well,  it 
was  taking  shape,  and  then  I  made  my  point  of  observa- 
tion to  note  the  incidents  and  scenes  along  the  line. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  made  your  obser^^ation  ? 
A.  I  started  fi*om  the  head  of  the  procession  and  went 
gradually  back,  worked  back,  and  took  a  memorandum 
of  the  various  participants. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  I  took  a  memorandum  of  the  various  sec- 
tions that  were  participating  in  the  parade  from  the  head 
of  the  procession  to  the  lower  part. 

Q.  To  the  foot?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  All  the  way  down?  A.  I  oscillated  back  and 
forth. 

Q.  How?   A.  I  oscillated  back  and  forth. 

Q.  Don't  oscillate  yet.  Did  you  go  to  the  foot  of  the 
procession  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  made  your  observations  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  took  your  minutes,  did  you,  as  you  went  down  1 
A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Theodore  Tilton  during  that  period  ? 
A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  The  first  time  you  walked  down  the  procession  ? 
A.  The  first  time;  yes,  Sir;  it  was  above  Fifteenth-st.  ; 
I  couldn't  say  at  what  point ;  somewhere  between  Twen- 
tieth, I  will  say,  and  Thirty-fourth-sts.,  where  I  made  my 
observation,  and  where  I  made  my  notes. 

Q.  Where  did  you  start  to  walk  down  the  procession  ? 
A.  Well,  I  started  somewhere  above  Fif tecnth-st. 

Q.  How  far  above  Fifteenth-st.?  A.  Well,  probably 
about  Twentieth-st. 

C).  Do  you  know  wlior^i  jon  started  from  ?   A.  I  do  not ; 


IhintiEH  TRIAL. 

Q.  Whe^e  were  you  when  you  got  to  the  tail  of  the 
procession  ?  A.  Well,  pretty  near  the  turning  point,  at 
Thirty-fourth-st. 

Q.  Walked  down  from  Twentieth-st.  and  got  to  Thirty- 
fourth-st.,  did  you  I  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How?  A.  I  walked  down,  and,  of  course,  walked  up 
as  I  stopped  to  inquire. 

Q.  One  moment ;  I  understood  you  to  say  that,  at  a 
certain  period,  you  started  from  the  head  of  the  pro- 
cession and  walked  to  the  tail  of  it  1  A.  I  did ;  yes,  Sir ; 
I  will  explain  how  I  did  it. 

Q.  And  you,  starting  from  Twentieth-st.,  got  to  the  tail 
of  it  at  Thirty-fourth-st.  by  walking  down  ?  A.  i  did, 
Sir ;  I  can  explain  how  I  did  it. 

Q.  Well,  I  think  it  would  be  interesting  to  know  ?  A. 
Well,  Sir,  there  was  an  Assistant  Marshal  at  the  head  of 
all  these  sections.  I  accosted  him,  asked  him  the  name — 

Q.  I  don't  want  you  to  tell  me  what  you  said?  A. 
While  I  was  making  my— interrogating  him  as  to  the 
number  of  men  under  his  charge,  I  walked  up  with  hlin, 
and  then  retraced  my  steps  back  again,  until  I  accosted 
some  one  else,  and  then  walked  up  again  and  down 
again,  and  finally  the  procession  reached  Thirty- fonrth  st. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  me  in  what  part  of  the  procession 
Theodore  Tilton  was  ?  A.  He  occupied  a  coach.  ^ 

Q.  What  part  of  the  procession?  A.  He  was  at  the  tail- 
end  of  the  procession. 

Q.  At  the  tail-end  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  where  did  you  first  see  him?  A.  Well,  between 
Twentieth-st.  and  Thirty-fourth-st.  I  don't  know  dis 
tinctly  where. 

A.  Your  language  was,  in  your  direct  examination,  Mr. 
St.  George,  "  My  recollection  is  that  I  saw  him  riding?" 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  that  as  far  as  you  can  go  ?  A.  He  was  an  occu- 
pant of  a  coach. 

Q.  Is  that  as  far  as  you  can  go  ?  A.  Between  Twentieth 
and  Thirty-fourth-sts. 

Q.  No,  I  am  not  talking  about  TwentietJi  st.  That  is  as 
far  as  you  can  go  in  stating  the  fact  that  he  was  in  a  car- 
riage—that your  recollection  is  that  he  was  in  a  carriage  ? 
A.  I  recollect  very  distinctly. 

Q.  Do  you  swear  positively  ?   A.  I  do.  Sir. 

Q.  Positively  that  he  was  in  a  carriage  ?   A.  I  do.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  was  in  the  carriage  with  him  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  recognized  Miss  Clafiin  and  Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Q.  They  were  both  in  with  him,  were  they?  A.  Yes 
and  I  was  told— 

Q.  No,  no  ;  you  were  told  ?  A.  There  was  no  other  oc- 
cupant. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  know  MisaOlaflin?   A.  I  did;  I 
knew  both  of  those  ladies 
Q.  And  Mrs.  Woodhull?   A.  Yes.  Sir. 


TESTTJIOXY   OF  J.   FI^ANCIS  ST.  GEOBGE. 


241 


o.  Anrt  tlipy  were  In  a  carriage  with  Theodore  Tiltoni  i 
A.  They  were ;  yes,  Sir. 

You  swear  to  that,  positiYely  1   A.  I  do,  Sir. 

Q.  And  who  else  was  in  the  carriage  1    A.  Col.  Blood, 
as  I  learned  upon  iu(iuiry ;  I  did  not  know  him,  though. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  since  1   A.  I  have  never,  Sir ;  I 
would  not  recognize  him. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  seen  the  man  before  that  day !    A.  I 
did  not,  Sir;  never. 

Q.  Where  was  It  that  you  saw  Gen.  Ryan  ?  A.  I  saw 
Gen.  Ryan,  and  took  particular  notice ;  he  occupied  the 
first  coach  at  the  tail-end  of  the  procession. 

Q.  The  first  coach  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  many  coaches  were  there  ?  A.  I  could  not  state 
that. 

Q.  Did  you  see  more  than  two  ?  A.  I  could  not  state 
that.  Sir ;  there  may  have  been  more ;  my  report  says 
there  were  more. 

Q.  No ;  if  you  please,  I  wish  you  to  leave  that  report 
out;  I  have  no  douht  it  is  a  very  interesting  article,  but 
we  don't  want  it  here  now.  Can  you  tell  me  whether 
There  were  more  than  two  coaches  1  A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  a  coach  ;  an  open  carriage  ? 
A.  An  open  barouche  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then,  these  people  were  riding  in  open  barouches, 
were  they  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  don't  remember  but  two  %   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  see  any  other  noted  individuals  in  that 
procession  that  day  ?  A.  I  saw  a  number  ;  yes.  Sir  ;  but 
I  do  not  remember  their  names. 

Q.  You  can't  call  their  names  now?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  saw 
8  number  prominontly  identified  with  the  labor  move- 
ment, the  International  movement. 

Q.  And  you  can't  state  whether  any  other  individuals 
were  riding  in  carriages  that  day  other  than  those  you 
iiitve  named  "?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  cannot ;  I  recognized  only  in 
the  first  carriage  Gen.  Ryan  and  O'Donovan  Rossa. 

Q.  They  were  in  the  first  carriage,  were  they  1  A.  They 
were  in  the  first  carriage  ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Tilton  was  in  the  second  on«  ?  A.  Tn  the 
second ;  I  would  not  say  the  second— I  would  not  say 
positively ;  he  was  in  another  coach  ;  I  w«uld  not  say  it 
was  the  second  one. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  more  than  once  on  that 
day  1  A.  I  did  ;  I  saw  him  again  on  Sixth-ave. 

Q.  What  part  of  Sixth-ave.  ?  A.  I  could  not  say  what 
pai't;  from  Foiu-teenth-st.  to  Thirty-fourth-st.;  I  could 
not  say  what  part. 

Q.  Well,  where  was  he  then  1  A.  He  was  an  occupant 
of  a  coach  then. 

Q.  In  a  coach !   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  "^Tio  were  with  him  then  ?  A.  The  same  ladies ;  the 
Hftme  occupantfl. 


Q.  Did  you  see  him  more  than  twice  ?  A.  I  did  not ; 
my  attention  was  drawn  from  them  to  other  portions  of 
the  procession. 

Q.  You  onlj- saw  him  twice,  then  ?  A.  Only  twice. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Gen.  Ryan  more  than  once  1  A.  I  did 
not. 

Q.  Only  once?  A.  Twice;  yes.  Sir;  I  saw  him  twice. 
Q.  Well,  did  you  see  him  again  when  you  saw  Mr.  Til- 
ton ]   A.  I  did ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  uid  were  the  same  i)ersons  in  the  carriage  with 
him?   A.  Yes, Sir. 

Q  Did  you  write  out  your  notes?  A.  Oh,  I  just  jotted 
down— 

Q.  Did  you  write  out  your  notes  1  A.  I  did  not  wi-ite 
out  my  notes  there ;  I  merely  jotted  down  a  little  memo- 
i-andum. 

Q.  Now,  l\Ir.  St.  George,  wont  you  answer  my  question 
and  then  stop  ?  A.  I  will. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  whether  you  wrote  them  out  there ; 
did  you  write  them  out  at  all  ?   A.  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Where?  A.  At  the  office  of  The  Standard. 

Q.  Any  one  assist  you?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  How  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  article  was  published  as  you  wrote  it  1  A.  It 
was. 

Q.  How  long  after  you  took  these  notes  before  you 
wrote  them  out  ?  A.  Well,  probably  two  hours  ;  two 
houi'S,  I  think. 

Q.  After  you  took  the  notes  ?  A.  After  I  took  the  notes. 

Q.  Have  you  got  the  original  notes  ?   A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  What  became  of  them  ?  A.  They  were  destroyed 
immediately  after  the  preparation  of  the  article. 

Q.  Did  you  destroy  them  1   A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  how  intimately  were  you  acquainted  with 
Theodore  Tilton?  A.  Well,  I  never  was  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  him ;  I  never  conversed  with  him  but  a  few 
times  in  my  life ;  I  don't  know  that  he  would  recognize 
me  at  all. 

Q.  Had  you  a  speaking  acquaintance  with  him  ?  A. 
None,  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  position  on  The  Union  when  he  was 
the  chief  editor  ?  A.  I  was  in  the  mechanical  department 
of  The  Union  at  that  time ;  I  fi'equently  wi-ot^  a  few  artl- 
ticles ;  sometimes  I  would  have  some  little  business. 

Q.  Tell  me  what  your  position  was  ?  A.  I  was  a  com- 
positor at  that  time. 

Q.  A  compositor?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  the  office?   A.  Yes,  Sir ;  and  a  writer  also. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  I  frequently  wrote  for  the  paper  at  that 
time. 

Q.  How  intimately  were  you  acquainted  with  Gen. 
Ryan?  A.  I  wa«?  not  intimately  acquainted  with  Mm; 
only  knew  him  by  sight. 


243 


TEE   TlLTON-BfJEfmEB  TRIAL. 


Q.  Had  you  a  speaking  acquaintance  with  Mm?  A. 
None,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  St,  George,  to  whom  did  you  communicate 
this  fact  ?   A.  Which  fact,  six  ? 

Q.  The  fact  that  you  have  testified  to  ?  A.  I  didn't 
communicate  to  any  one;  I  was  called  upon  in  relation  to 
the  matter  ;  I  was  subpenaed  ;  I  don't  know  how  the  in- 
formation was  obtained  that  I  wrote  that  article. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  I  don't  know  how  the  information  was 
obtained  that  I  wrote  that  article. 

Q.  When  were  you  subpenaed  1   A.  On  Saturday  last. 

Q.  You  didn't  communicate  it  to  any  one,  the  fact  that 
you—  A.  I  did  not,  Sir,  no ;  I  hadn't  the  remotest  idea  of 
ever  appearing  in  this  court-room. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  all. 

THE  STANDARD  ARTICLE  RULED  OUT. 

Mr.  Hill— I  offer  to  read  in  evidence  the  para- 
graph referring  to  this  matter  of  which  he  has  spoken— 
that  is,  in  regard  to  Gen.  Ryan  and  Mr.  Tilton— from  this 
article. 

Mr.  Morris— We  object  to  it. 

Mr.  Hill— A  memorandum  made  at  the  time  ?  It  is  an 
article  written  from  notes  made  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Morris— That  does  not  make  it  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  on  examination  has  a  right 
to  use  his  notes,  to  refer  to  them  to  refresh  his  recollec- 
tion, but  that  is  the  extent  of  it.  It  is  a  cardinal  rule  of 
evidence  tuat  no  witness  can  be  allowed  to  say  that  he 
heretofore  has  made  the  same  statement  that  he  makes 
now  by  way  of  corroborating  what  he  now  states.  If  the 
counsel  consent  you  can  read  it. 

Mr.  Hill  [After  submitting  the  article  to  Mr.  Fullerton.] 
—Does  your  Honor  rule  it  out  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  arrangement  of  our  testimony  does 
not  permit  us  now  to  offer  any  more,  unless  we  proceed 
with  the  examination  of  Mr.  Tracy. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes.  What  shaU  we  do  1  Shall  we  ad- 
journ. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  already  intimated  to  your  Honor 
that  I  think  the  other  side  are  desirous  of  that. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes.  Get  ready  to  retire,  gentlemen. 
Please  attend  to-morrow  morning  at  eleven  o'clock. 

The  Court  thereupon  adjourned  tiU  Wednesday  morning. 


SEVENTY-FOURTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

GEN.   TRACY'S  CONSULTATION    WITH  MR. 
TH^TON. 

TESTIMONY  OFONE  OF  MR.  BEECHER'S  COUNSEL— GEN. 

Tracy's  connection  with  the  case  in  1»  72— 
mrs.  e.  j.  ovington  recalled  by  the  prose- 
cution—communications between  mr.  cleve-^ 
land,  mrs.  tilton  and  herself  on  the  ea^en- 

ING  OP  MR.  TILTON'S  APPEARANCE  BEFORE  THE 
COMMITTEE. 

Wednesday,  April  28.  187^. 
The  direct  examination  of  Mr.  Tracy  was  continued 
by  Mr.  Evarts.  His  testimony  related  mainly  to  the 
consultation  held  on  Sunday  afternoon,  late  in  1872, 
at  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  between  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  himself.  He  had  been  asked  by  Mr. 
Woodruff  whether  he  would  consent  to  take  part  in 
a  consultation  in  relation  to  the  Woodhull  publica- 
tion. Mr.  Woodruff  thought  that  the  story  was  in- 
juring Mr.  Moulton  and  the  firm.  On  that  occasion 
Mr.  Moulton  at  first  showed  him  the  "  letter  of  apol- 
ogy" or  "contrition,"  which  he  said  was 
a  memorandum,  or  notes,  of  a  conversa- 
tion which  he  had  had  with  Mr.  Beecher. 
He  next  showed  him  Mrs.  Tilton's  retraction  and 
also  her  letter  explaining  her  retraction.  Mr.  I'racy 
repeated  what  he  had  then  said  in  regard  to  these 
documents.  Mr.  Moulton  had  said  that  Mr.  Tilton  had 
come  to  him  very  much  offended  because  Mr.  Beecher 
had  obtained  the  retraction  from  Mrs.  Tilton ;  that  he 
had  gone  and  procured  the  paper  from  Mr.  Beecher, 
but  that  the  statement  in  the  Woodhull  publica- 
tion that  he  had  done  so  by  threats  was  not  true.  Mr, 
Moulton  had  told  him  that  the  retraction  implied 
that  Mr.  Tilton  had  coerced  the  letter  of  confession 
from  his  wife,  and  that  was  what  had  given  great 
offense  to  Mr.  Tilton.  Mr.  Tracy  said  that  he  asked 
Mr.  Moulton  if  Mr.  Tilton  charged  Mr.  Beecher  witli 
adultery,  and  Mr.  Moulton  said  "no."  He  then 
asked  him  what  the  charge  was,  and  Mr.  Moulton 
replied  that  he  would  rather  that  Mr.  Tilton  should 
state  that  in  his  own  language.  Mr.  Moulton  then 
brought  Mr.  Tilton  into  the  room.  Mr.  Tilton  asked 
Gen.  Tracy  whether  the  etiquette  of  the  profession 
would  allow  him  to  become  Mr.  Beecher's  coimsel,  if 
a  legal  controversy  were  to  arise,  after  Mr.  Tilton  had 
stated  his  case  to  him.  Mr.  Tracy  replied  that» 
setting  aside  the  question  of  etiquette,  he  would 
not  feel  at  liberty  to  become  counsel  for  the^ 
other  side.  The  witness  then  went  on  to  describe 
how  Mr.  Tilton  had  read  to  him  from  a  manuscriptr 


TusrmojsY  of  bi 

supplementing  it  with  oral  explanations,  and  was 
about  to  tell  what  the  general  tenor  of  what  Mr. 
Tilton  had  read  and  said  was,  when  he  was  stopped 
by  an  objection  from  Mr.  Beach.  Mr.  Evarts 
attempted  to  show  that  what  Mr.  Tilton 
had  read  to  Mr.  Tracey  was  in  whole  or  in 
part  the  document  known  as  the  "True  Sto- 
ry." This  met  with  strenuous  opposition  from 
the  plaintiff's  counsel,  but  the  "True  Story"  was 
shown  to  the  witness,  who  was  allowed  to  use  it  in 
order  to  refresh  his  memory.  He  remembered 
that  the  documents  contained  in  the  "True  Story," 
and  some  of  its  statements  were  identical  with  those 
which  had  been  read,  or  made  to  him  by  Mr.  Tilton. 
He  was  unable  to  remember  the  language  which  Mr. 
Tilton  had  used.  During  this  conversation  Mr.  Til- 
ton told  Gen.  Tracy  that  Mrs.  Tilton  was  a  pure 
woman.  Mr.  Tilton  explained  why  he  could  not 
give  a  direct  denial  to  the  WoodhuU  publication. 
He  said  it  contained  various  statements  which  he 
could  not  deny.  Gen.  Tracy  advised  biTn  to  make  a 
denial  of  the  story  and  destroy  the  documents.  This 
Mr.  Tilton  refused  to  do. 

Gen.  Tracy  testified  that  he  told  Mr.  Moulton  that 
Mr.  Tilton  ought  to  go  to  Europe  for  three  or  four 
years  until  the  effects  of  his  relations  with  Mrs. 
Woodhull  wore  off  and  he  could  build  himself  up 
agaiu  here.  Mr.  Moulton  did  not  say  that  the 
essential  points  of  the  Woodhull  publication  were 
true.  Mr.  Tracy  denied  with  emphasis  that  he  had 
said  that  this  was  a  case  in  which  lying  would  be 
justifiable.  He  said  it  was  barely  possible  that  in 
the  excitement  of  the  discussion  he  had  said  in  sub- 
stance that  it'  the  Woodhull  publication  affected 
his  family  he  should  take  the  responsibility  of  a  lie 
in  denying  it.  He  said  he  was  confident  he  never 
spoke  of  Mr.  Moulton's  going  to  Euiope. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  session,  heated  debates 
arose  between  Mr.  Evarts  and  Mr.  Beach,  the  former 
attempting  to  introduce  the  testimony  of  the  witness 
in  reference  to  interviews  betvv^een  himself  and  Mr. 
Moulton,  and  the  plaintiff's  counsel  opposing  on  the 
ground  that  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  were  not 
legally  identified,  and  that  the  latter  could  not  be 
held  responsible  for  the  unauthorized  acts  and  state- 
ments of  the  former.  This  testimony  was  excluded. 
The  larger  part  of  Mr.  Tracy's  testimony  was  given 
spontaneously,  and  comparatively  few  questions 
were  asked.  His  manner  was  very  earnest,  and  his 
language  forcible. 

Immediately  after  recess  the  prosecution  recalled 
Mrs.  E.  J.  Ovington,  and  Mr.  Fullerton  questioned 


NJAMIN  B.    TEACl.  243 

her  in  reference  to  her  note  to  Mr.  Cleveland  on  the 
evening  of  July  10, 1874,  when  Mr.  Tilton  was  before 
the  Investigating  Committee,  and  Mr.  Cleveland's 
answer,  and  the  arrival  of  Mrs.  Tilton  at  her  house 
on  the  next  day.  Mrs.  Ovington  explained  that  she 
had  promised  Mrs.  Tilton  to  let  her  know  when  Mr. 
Tilton  went  before  the  Committee.  She  wished  to 
state  why  this  request  had  been  made,  but  was  not 
allowed  to  go  on.  The  notes  which  passed  between 
Mrs.  Ovington,  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  Mr.  Cleveland  on 
that  evening  were  then  introduced  in  evidence  by 
Mr.  Shearman. 

THE  PROCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. 

GEN.  B.  F.  TRACY  RECALLED. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Benjamin  F.  Tracy  was  recalled  and  his  direct  examina- 
tion resumed. 

Mr.  Evarts — Mr.  Tracy,  we  had  just  spoken  of  an  occa- 
sion on  which  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff,  after  his  casual 
conversation  with  you,  had  an  interview;  will  you  state 
now  when  that  occurred,  and  how  it  occurred,  as  you 
were  commencing  to  do.  I  see  the  answer  was  inter- 
rupted by  the  occurrence  of  the  adjournment  ?  A.  I  can- 
not state  the  time  when  it  occurred  with  any  precision ; 
it  was  some  time  after  my  first  talk  with  him  in  the 
street ;  he  came  and  asked  me  if  I  would  consent  to  he 
consulted  on  the  subject  of  the  Woodhull  publication ;  he 
said  that  many  people  thought  that  Mr.  Moulton  ought  to 
make  some  answer  to  that  publication  in  a  public  card, 
and  that  it  was  hm>ting  Moulton,  and,  he  thought,  hurt 
Ing  the  firm,  and  he  had  had  a  talk  with  Mr.  Moidton 
about  it,  and  had  suggusted  to  him  to  consult  me  on  the 
subject,  if  I  would  consent  to  be  consulted ;  I  told  him 
that  I  would  on  one  condition— or,  he  said  before  I  spoke 
that  he  wanted  it  understood  that  it  was  not  te 
be  a  professional  consultation,  but  a  friendly 
one;  that  there  was  to  be  no  compensation  for 
the  consultation,  but  the  facts  which  were  to  be  com- 
municated to  me  were  to  be  kept  by  me  with  the  same 
sacredness  as  if  the  consultation  was  a  professional  con- 
sultation, but  he  wanted  me  to  be  consulted,  if  I  would 
be,  as  a  friendly  act  to  the  parties.  I  said  I  would  do 
anything  I  could  to  aid  in  the  matter,  but  it  must  be  on 
one  condition  and  imderstanding— fully  understood,  that 
the  consultation  was  to  be  in  no  respect  hostile  to  Mr, 
Beecher.  Mr.  Woodruff  knew  my  position  and  feelings 
toward  Mr.  Beecher  in  this  matter,  and  he  said :  "  Cer- 
tainly not ;"  it  was  in  the  Interest  of  Mr.  Beecher  as  well 
as  of  Mr.  Moulton  that  the  consultation  was  desired ;  and 
I  said,  with  that  understanding,  I  would  be  of  any  serv- 
ice that  I  could  to  the  parties. 

Q.  Well,  was  that  all  that  occurred  between  you  at  that 


244 


TtlE   TILTON-BJEKCHJ^B  IBIAL. 


time  J  A.  Except  that  lie  said  lie  would  briug  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  around  and  introduce  him  to  me.  I  didnot  linowMr. 
Moulton  at  that  time;  had  never  seen  him,  to  my 
Imowledge. 

Q.  Was  there  at  that  interview  any  discussion  concern- 
ing the  substance  of  the  matter  of  the  WoodhuU  scandal, 
or  of  any  denials,  or  forms  of  denials  1  A.  Not  in  detail. 
I  think  that  Mr.  Woodrufi'  in  that  conversation  referred 
to  some  papers  that  were  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Moul- 
ton;  and  the  character  of  those  papers  may  have  been  re- 
ferred to  in  that  conversation,  but  if  so,  generally.  I 
think  I  learned  the  fact— possibly  heard  of  it  before  in  the 
streets  during  the  discussion  of  the  matter— that  there 
were  supposed  to  be  papers  in  Moulton's  possession, 
and  I  am  quite  confident  I  learned  that  fact  definitely 
from  Mr.  Woodruff  at  that  interview,  that  Moulton  had 
papers  which  it  would  be  necessary  for  me  to  see.  I  think 
it  was  in  that  connection  that  he  made  the  request  that 
whatever  was  communicated  to  me  should  be  kept  as 
sacredly  as  if  it  was  communicated  in  the  confidence  of  a 
professional  engagement. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  in  this  conversation  concerning 
any  line  or  mode  of  denial  ?  A.  Not  between  me  and 
Woodruft". 

Q.  [ContinuiQg.]  Or  of  the  difficulty  of  denial,  or  any- 
thing of  that  kind  %  A.  No,  I  think  not. 

THE    FIRST    MEETING    AT   GEN.  TEACY'S 
OFFICE. 

Q.  Now,  what  next  occurred  in  this  matter  ? 
A.  Very  soon  after  that,  it  may  have  been  the  next  morn 
Ing,  but  one  morning  very  soon  after  that  interview  be- 
tween myself  and  Mr.  Woodruff,  he  and  Mr.  Moulton  came 
into  my  office  about  9  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  he  in- 
troduced Mr.  Moulton  to  me. 

Q.  Before  that  time  he  was  not  personally  known  to 
you  ?  A.  No,  Sir- ;  that  was  the  first  I  had  ever  seen  Mr. 
Moulton  to  know  him ;  I  think  it  was  the  first  time  I  had 
ever  seen  him  at  all. 

Q.  This  was  at  your  office  1  A.  At  my  office  in  Mon- 
tague-st. 

Q.  What  was  the  interview  there  1  A.  The  subject  of 
the  introduction  was  referred  to— the  conversation  that  I 
had  had  with  Woodruff  was  referred  to,  and  he  came  to 
Introduce  Mr.  Moulton  to  me,  and  to  make  an  appoint- 
ment for  an  interview  between  Moulton  and  myself  in  re- 
gard to  the  subject  of  this  publication,  and  what  answer 
should  be  made  to  it. 

Q.  Was  the  publication  then  present  before  you  1  A.  It 
was  not. 

Q.  Were  there  any  papers  brought  by  Mr.  Moulton,  or 
otherwise  present,  connected  with  this  matter  1  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  further  substance,  if  any,  of  that 
conversation  1  A.  The  conversation  was  entii'ely  general, 
such  a  conversation  as  would  ordinaiily  occur  on  such  an 


occasion ;  it  was  the  introduction  of  Mr,  Moulton  to  me ; 
there  were  some  remarks  incident  to  such  an  introduce 
tion,  and  then  the  subject  of  the  conversation  was  alluded 

to,  and  the  fact  

Q.  The  subject  of  the  former  conversation?  A.  No,  the 
object  of  the  introduction  was  alluded  to.  and  the  fact 
that  they  wanted  to  make  an  appoiutment  with  me, 
where  the  papers  could  be  present  and  time  had  for  con- 
sultation and  consideration.  The  scandal  was  alluded  to 
in  a  general  way,  but  nothing  definitely  or  specific,  that 
I  remember. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  in  this  conversation  con- 
cerning any  proposed  line  or  mode  of  meeting  or  denying 

the          A.  Nothing  except   the  question  that  they 

wanted  to  submit  to  me  was  whether  it  was  wise  to 
deny— to  make  an  answer  to  the  publication  in  a  public 
card,  and  if  so,  the  form  of  that  public  card,  and  who 
should  join  in  it,  and  how  it  should  be  made. 

Q.  To  proceed  no  further  than  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  That  matter  being  reserved  for  the  interview.  Was 
there  anything  said  at  this  conversation  about  it  being 
necessary  that  the  papers  should  be  present  for  the  in- 
terview, and  where,  if  any,  was  the  interview  appointed 
to  take  place  \  A.  It  was ;  when  they  stated  the  object 
and  purpose  of  the  interview,  I  said :  "  Of  course,  I  can 
say  nothing  on  this  subject  until  I  see  the  papers,  Mr. 
Moulton,  which  I  understand  you  have  in  yom-  posses- 
sion." He  said  he  had  papers ;  perhaps  he  had  said  that 
he  had  papers  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  me  to  see, 
before  that,  but  I  certainly  said  in  that  interview  that  no 
opinion  could  be  expressed  one  way  or  the  other  con- 
cerning what  action  ought  to  be  taken,  without  an  ex- 
amination of  the  papers  which  he  had ;  and  I  understood 
at  the  time  that  he  had  a  statement  or  communication 
from  Ml".  Beecher  on  the  subject,  and  one  also  from  Mrs. 
Tiltou.  ^ 

THE  CONSULTATION  AT  MR.  MOULTON'S 
HOUSE. 

Q.  Was  an  appointment  made?  A.  An  ap- 
pointment was  made  for  the  next  Sunday  afternoon,  at 
Mr.  Moulton's  house. 

Q.  Did  you  attend  there  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Now,  before  going  to  that  meeting,  and,  of  course, 
therefore,  before  any  of  these  interviews  of  which  you 
have  already  spoken,  had  you  had  any  commmiicatiou 
with  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  subject  of  the  consultation  or  in- 
terviews to  which  you  were  invited?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  When  you  went  there,  therefore,  you  had  nothing  to 
say  with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  had  no  instructions  or  author- 
ity of  any  kind  from  him?   A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  that  interview,  which  has  been 
made  the  subject  of  evidence— I  wish  you  would  state 
how  the  matter  went  on  ;  what  hour  of  the  day  did  you 
go  there,  and  how  long  did  tluit  iiitri  \ icw  last  J  A.  1 
went  there  inmicdintely  after  my  Sunday  diamvi  :  I  can't 


TESTIMONY  OF  BE. 

«peak  definitely  as  to  the  time,  but  I  dine  Sunday  from 
one  to  half-past  one,  and  went  soon  after  that  to  Mr. 
Moulton's  house ;  I  am  confident  I  reached  Zyir.  Moulton's 
house  between  two  and  three  o'clocli:  that  day. 

Q.  And  how  long  were  you  there  before  leaving:  the 
house  1  A.  I  left  the  house  not  earlier  than  10  o'clock, 
and  perhaps  as  late  as  11  o'clock,  that  night. 

Q.  Now,  at  the  first  intercotirse  there  who  were  pres- 
ent ?  A.  When  I  went  into  the  house  I  found  :Mr.  Wood- 
rufi' there,  I  am  certain.  I  have  a  faint  impression  that 
Mr.  Tilton  was  there  also,  but  of  that  T  would  not  be  cer- 
tain. Mr.  Woodruff  and  :\Ir.  Moulton— :\Ir.  Moulton  and 
myself,  and  I  thiuk  3Ir.  Woodruff,  soon  after  repaired  to 
the  itudy  in  the  foui'th  story.  I  am  quite  confident  Mr. 
Woudruif  went  with  us,  nut  of  that  I  am  not  absolutely 
positive.   On  reaching  the  study  in  the  fourth  story  

Q.  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  go  with  you  ]  A.  Mr.  Tilton  did 
not  go  with  us  into  the  study,  if  he  was  in  the  house. 
After  reaching  the  study,  Mr.  Moulton  went,  I  think,  to  a 
tin  box  that  he  had,  and  took  from  it  some  papers.  The 
first  paper  that  he  showed  me  was  the  paper  then  Imown 
as  "The  Apology."  now  called  the  "Letter  of  Contri- 
tion," and  he  showed  it  to  me— gave  it  to  me  into  my 
hands.   I  looked  at  it,  and  began  to  read  it. 

Q.  Is  this  the  paper  ?  [Handing  witness  a  paper.]  A. 
That  is  the  paper. 

Q.  Just  give  us  the  number  of  the  exhibit,  Tracy,  if 
you  please.  A.  Exhibit  ZSTo.  2.  He  handed  me  the  paper, 
and  I  began  to  read  it.  The  first  thing  that  attracted  my 
attention  was  the  character  of  the  handwriting,  and  I 
said  to  him,  "  Mr.  Moulton,  is  this  Mr.  Beecher's  hand- 
writing?" He  said,  "Xo."  I  said,  "Whose  is  it?"  "It 
is  mme.'"  I  went  through  it  that  wav  [tarning  the  leaves 
q.uickly].  I  said,  "'  How  do  you  wi-ite  a  letter  to  your- 
self r'  And  at  the  time  I  went  through  it  that  way  [illus. 
tratingl,  I  said,  quick,  "It  is  not  signed."  He  said, 
"  Yes.  it  is."  And  just  at  that  instant  my  eye  caught  this 
indorsement  or  memorandum  at  the  foot  of  the  sheet,  not 
seeing  it  as  I  looked  at  them  first  in  that  way.   He  said. 

Yes,  it  is  signed  by  Mr.  Beecher  and  I  saw  the  form 
of  the  signature  of  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ?   A.  He  said  in  that  connection, 

It  is  a  memorandum,  or  notes  of  a  conversation  I  had 
with  Mr.  Beecher."  I  then  read  the  paper  over,  sen- 
tence by  sentence,  and  studied  it  for  some  few  minutes— 
I  don't  kno-w  how  long,  and  I  said,  "I  don't  see  that  this 
paper  prevents  a  denial  of  the  WoodhuU  publication. 
That  publication  charges  that  Mr.  Beecher  has  lived  a 
life  of  adultery  with  Mrs.  Tilton  for  years.  This  paper 
states,  I  see,  that  '  she  is  innocent,  sinned  against,  bear- 
ing the  transgressions  of  another.  Her  forgiveness  I 
have.'  "  I  said,  "  It  seems  to  me  that  that  language 
would  not  be  used  of  a  woman  with  whom  a  man  had 
lived  la  adultery  for  years."  Mr.  Moulton  said  nothmg. 
He  then  showed  me — the  next  paper  was  the  retraction 
"     Tilton.  , 


XJAm:S   F.    TBACY.  245 

Q.  Is  that  the  paper  1  [Handing  witness  a  paper.J  A. 
That  is  the  paper ;  Exhibit  No.  6. 

Q.  Xo.  5  ?  A.  It  is  5.  It  was  first  marked  6,  and  changed 
to  5. 

Q.  Well,  did  vou  read  that  \  A.  I  read  that. 
Q.  What  did  you  then  say  to  him  upon  reading  that  ? 
A.  I  don't  remember  whether  I  said  anything  to  him  on 
that  subject  before  he  showed  me  the  explanation  of 
lyirs.  Tilton.  He  showed  me  that  in  about  the  same 
connection. 

Q.  Xow,  about  this  paper,  did  you  make  any  comment 
about  what  the  offense  or  charge  in  that  paper  was  ?  A. 
I  did  immediately  on  reading  the  paper,  or  very  soon 
after — I  cannot  say  the  precise  order  in  which  T  made 

the  comment  

Q.  What  comment  did  you  make  ?  A.  I  made  it  some- 
time during  the  conversation— a  comment  

Q,  At  this  stage  what  were  you  lookini:  at,  when  you 
made  this  comment  ? 

Mr.  Beach— He  savs  he  does  not  remember  at  what 
stage  he  made  the  comment. 

Mr.  Evarts— Was  it  while  you  were  looking  at  this 
paper  1  A.  Yes,  it  was  while  I  was  looking  at  this  paper ; 
it  was  while  T  was  looking;  he  said  after  I  had  read  what 

is  the  postscript  to  this  retraction  

Q.  What  comment  did  you  make  ?  A.  I  said  during  the 
conversation,  or  about  that  time,  that  this  paper  would 
simply  seem  to  Imply  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  been  attempt- 
ing the  virtue  of  Mrs.  Tilton  without  success,  or  some 
general  remark  of  that  kind. 

Q.  What  did  :Mr.  Moulton  say,  if  anything,  about  that? 
A.  I  don't  remember  that  ^Ir.  Moulton  made  any  specific 
reply  to  my  remark  at  this  stage ;  my  recollection  of  Mr. 
Moulton's  position  at  this  stage  of  the  iaterview  was  that 
it  was  one  of  sUence,  showing  me  the  papers,  listening  to 
my  remarks  and  criticisms  upon  them  without  saying 
anythiag,  until  I  asked  him  a  cir.estion  further  on  in  the 
conversation. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  at  this  stage  of  the  conversation  ask 
him  concerning  the  history  and  origin  of  that  paper  ?  A. 
I  did. 

Q.  ^Miat  passed  between  you  on  that  subject  ?  A.  I 
asked  him  the  history  of  the  paper ;  he  said  generally 
that  after  Mr.  Tilton  had  accused  Aii>.  Beecher.  Mr. 
Beecher  went  to  3Ir.  Tilton's  house,  while  Mr.  Tilton  was 
absent,  and  obtained  this  paper  fi-om  :Mrs.  Tilton ;  and  that 
on  Mr.  TUton  going  home  and  learning  that  fact,  his  wife 
gave  him  an  explanation  of  this  paper,  which  he  also 
showed  me. 

Q.  Look  at  this  and  say  if  that  is  the  third  paper  that 
was  shown  you?   A.  Y'es,  Su-,  that  is  the  paper. 
:Mr.  Evarts— That  is  Exhibit  6. 
Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  Exhibit  6. 

Q.  Now,  Sir.  did  INIr.  ^foulron  say  to  you  anything  con- 
cerning this  retniouii  is  of  the  ^vife,  and  Mi\  Tilton's  in- 
tprvenri'->n  and  wliac  had  been  done  about  it?    A.  He 


246  THE  TILION-Bh 

did ;  lie  said  that  Mr.  Tilton  came  to  liim  the  next  day,  I 
think  he  said. 

Q.  After  this  ?  A.  After  this  retraction  was  obtained 
by  Mr.  Beecher,  very  much  offended  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  obtained  such  a  paper  from  his  wife  ;  Mr.  Moulton 
said  that  he  went  round  to  Eeecher's  and  obtained  the 
paper  from  Mr.  Beecher,  and  I  then  alluded  witli  him  to 
the  pistol  scene. 

THE  PISTOL   SCENE  DESCEIBED  TO  GEN. 
TRACY. 

Q.  As  mentioned  in  the  WoodhuU  publica- 
tion ?  A.  The  Woodhull  publication,  in  connection  with 
his  obtaining  from  Mr.  Beecher  this  retraction  ;  and  that 
is  the  first  that  I  remember  of  Mr.  Moulton  beginning  to 
talk  to  me  during  that  interview— when  I  asked  him 
about  the  pistol  scene  in  connection  with  this  paper  ;  he 
went  on  to  state  to  me  that  he  had— he  said  the  statement 
in  the  publication  that  he  obtained  this  by  a  threat  from 
Mr.  Beecher  was  false  ;  that  he  went  to  Mr.  Beecher  and 
asked  him  for  the  statement,  and  he  told  him  that  Mr. 
Tilton  was  very  much  offended  at  him  for  having  ob- 
tained this  paper,  and  he  told  him  he  thought  he  had  done 
a  very  unwise  and  very  wrong  thing  in  obtaining  such  a 
paper  from  Mrs.  Tilton  under  the  circumstances  ;  that  he 
asked  him  to  return  it ;  that  Mr.  Beecher  first  objected, 
saying  that  he  wanted  it  for  his  protection,  and  he  did 
not  see  why  he  should  surrender  it. 

Q.  Protection  imder  what  circtimstances  %  A.  In  case 
the  charge  should  be  repeated;  Mr.  Moulton  said  he 
told  him  that  if  he  would  give  it  to  him,  he  would 
keep  it  for  him,  and  he  would  keep  it  with  Mrs. 
Tilton's  letter  to  her  husband,  which  T  had  learned 
during  this  conversation  had  been  given  by  Mrs.  Tilton 
to  her  husband ;  that  he  would  keep  this  retraction  with 
that  letter. 

Q.  You  do  not  mean  this  letter?  A.  No.  I  mean 
another  letter. 

Q.  What  letter  ?  ,  A.  I  mean  the  letter  that  is  referred 
to  in  the  retraction  as  inculpating  him. 

Q.  The  letter  of  charge?  A.  The  letter  of  charge,  or 
whatever  it  was ;  I  don't  think  the  character  of  it  was 
then  mentioned. 

Q.  The  letter  to  which  the  retraction  referred?  A, 
Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— To  which  the  letter  of  retraction  referred? 
The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  refers  to  the  first  letter  of  apology,  doesn't  it  ? 
A.  A  letter  "  inculpating  my  friend," 

Mr.  Shearman— It  refers  to  the  letter  of  Mrs.  Tilton's, 
dated  Dec.  29. 

The  Witness— I  suppose  it  is  the  letter  that  now  turns 
out  to  be  the  29th,  although  the  date  of  the  letter  did  not 
appear  then,  because  it  was  Dot  present. 

Mr.  Evarts- Wei],  there  is  no  diflBculty  about  that. 

Q.  Well,  that  letter  he  would  keep,  which  


JEJrjRER  TRIAL. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  one  that  has  been  destroyed. 

Q.  Well,  that  he  would  keep  the  retraction,  with  the 
charge  to  which  it  referred  ?  A.  Yes ;  and  he  said  in  that 
connection,  in  saying  to  Mr.  Beecher,  "I  wiU  keep  it  as 
sacredly  as  I  do  the  other  paper— the  letter;"  he  said,  "  I 
put  my  hand  "—I  understood  him  to  say  (and  from  his 
gesture  I  got  the  impression  that  his  pistol  was  carried  in 
a  pocket  on  the  hip)— but  he  said  he  put  his  hand  on  his 
pistol  and  said  to  Mr.  Beecher,  "  I  will  protect  it  with  my 
life;"  and  he  said  that  was  the  only  connection  in  which 
he  referred  to  a  pistol  at  that  interview— he  made  no 
threat  to  Blr.  Beecher,  and  never  referred  to  his  pistol  ex- 
cept in  saying,  "  I  will  protect  the  paper,  if  you  give  it  to 
me,  with  my  life." 

Q.  Did  he  state  explicitly  that  he  did  not  threaten  either 
in  manner  or  in  words  ?  A.  He  did,  as  I  understood  him; 
and  he  said  that  he— I  asked  him  then— I  said  then,  "  The 
charge  in  the  Woodhull  publication  is  entirely  false  la 
this  respect  ? "  He  said  it  was  ;  no  threat  or  anything  of 
the  kind. 

PARTS   OF  MRS.  WOODHULL'S   STORY  DE- 
NIED. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  ask  Mm  where  the  letter 
of  charge,  or  accusation,  of  Mrs.  Tilton  was  ?  A.  I  think 
that  was  spoken  of,  and  he  said  it  had  been  returned  to 
Mr.  Tilton  and,  I  think,  h  added,  destroyed  ;  at  all 
events  he  told  me  that  it  was  not  present  there,  and  gave 
me  some  reason  for  its  not  being  present. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  with  him  the  question  that  had  been 
suggested  as  arising  between  him  and  Mr.  Beecher  as  to 
whether  Mr.  Beecher  had  done  wrong  in  getting  this 
retraction  ?  A.  There  was  a  reference  to  that ;  I  said  I 
didn't  see  why  he  should  charge  Mr.  Beecher,  or  that  Mr. 
Beecher  had  done  wrong  in  getting  the  retraction;  I 
could  not  see  that  a  man  would  not  be  justified  in  obtain- 
ing a  retraction  from  a  woman  who  had  given  a  letter 
which  had  become  the  subject  of  accusation  against  him ; 
and  then  he  called  my  attention  to  what  I  had  not  per- 
ceived in  the  reti^action;  he  said,  "The  retraction  ia 
something  more  than  a  mere  retraction ;  it  implies  that 
Mr.  TUtou  coerced  the  letter  from  his  wife,  and  that  was 
what  gave  great  offense  to  Mr.  Tilton." 

Q.  Were  any  other  papers  than  these  three  shown  to 
you  by  Mr.  Moulton  at  the  time?   A.  Not  at  this  time. 

Q.  Then  how  did  the  further  consideration  of  the  Wood- 
hull  scandal  come  up  ?  Was  the  paper  containing  that 
scandal  before  you  at  the  interview,  and  brought  out  ?  A. 
I  think  it  was— it  was ;  the  next  subject  that  I  remember 
as  having  been  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Moulton  and  myself  was 
that  part  of  the  publication  which  represents  that  he  and 
Mr.  Tilton  went  with  Mrs.  Wooilhull  into  the  presence  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  there  Mr.  Tilton  made  a  speech  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  urging  him  to  preside  at  the  Steinway  Hall 
meeting ;  I  asked  him  if  that  scene  occurred  as  stated  in 
the  Woodhull  publication,  and  he  said  it  did  not. 


TESTIMONY  OF  Bl 

Q.  Wliat  language  did  lie  use,  or  wliat  form  of  expres- 
sion, in  substance  1  A.  He  said  it  was  false. 

Q.  Was  tlie  part  of  tlie  paper  containing  tills  last  state- 
ment read  and  considered  between  you  when  you  were 
tbus  discussing  that  point  1  A.  That  I  cannot  say  pos- 
itively—of course  the  scandal  was  familiar  to  all  of  us  at 
that  time— the  publication- the  different  parts  of  it ;  it 
was  either  read,  or  else  I  remembered  it  so  distinctly  as 
to  be  able  to  aUude  to  it,  and  he  remembered  it  so  as  to 
answer ;  we  understood  each  other  on  that  subject ; 
whether  it  was  done  by  reading,  or  whether  it  was  done 
by  recalling  it  from  memory,  I  cannot  now  say. 

Q.  And  he  said  that  the  scandal  was  untrue  in  that  re- 
spect %  A.  In  that  respect,  he  said,  the  scandal  was  un- 
true, or  false— I  am  not  certain  which  word  he  used. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  suggestion  

SOME  LEADING  QUESTIONS  OBJECTED  TO. 

Mr.  Beach— It  seems  to  me,  your  Honor,  if 

the  counsel  will  permit  me,  that  this  mode  of  examina- 
tion is  somewhat  leading— pre<?ise  and  suggestive  ques- 
tions, made  by  the  examining  counsel  to  a  lawyer  upon 
the  stand,  instead  of  pursuing  the  ordinary  course  of  ask- 
ing him  to  state  the  conversation,  the  interview. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  very  well ;  If  we  ask  him  to  relate  all 
the  conversation  it  would  occupy  several  hours. 

Mr.  Beach— "Well,  he  will  relate  what  he  recalls  of  it,  I 
take  it. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  that  would  be  as  weU,  Mr. 
Evarts. 

Mr.  Evarts— "Well,  I,  of  course,  should  be  very  glad  to 
«ave  myself  the  trouble  of  asking. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes  ;  there  is  not  much  trouble  when  the 
questions  are  prepared  ! 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  the  witnessj— "Was  any  suggestion  or  in- 
quiry made  concerning  any  source  of  information  that 
the  "V\^oodhull8  had  ? 

Mr.  Beach— The  gentleman  does  not  seem  to  pursue 
youi'  Honor's  suggestion  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  exam- 
ination of  this  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  think  Ifliere  is  anything  improper 
in  my  question.  I  shall  endeavor  to  avoid  nnythiiig  that 
is  improper. 

Judge  NeiLson— The  learned  counsel  suggests  that  the 
more  correct  method  would  be  to  ask  Mr.  Tracy  to  state 
what  occurred  in  the  conversation ;  what  was  said— of 
course  reserving  your  right  to  interrogate  him  as  to 
specific  matters  afterward. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  I  have  no  doubt 
fhat  my  learned  friends  are  quite  right  in  thinking  that 
there  should  be  no  suggestions,  on  my  part,  of  the  an- 
swer ;  but  I  don't  think  it  is  contrary  to  the  usual  method, 
either  to  show  the  facts,  or  to  the  ordinary  proprieties, 
in  the  course  of  an  interview  which  embraces  various 
topics,  that  there  should  be  an  orderly  inquiry  concern 


\^JAMIN  F.    TBACT.  247 

ing  the  various  topics.  That  has  been  the  effort  on  my 
part,  and  that  alone. 

Judge  Neilson— No ;  it  is  proper  for  counsel  to  indicate 
to  the  witness  the  particular  branch  of  the  subject  which 
he  wishes  him  to  state  ;  otherwise  he  might  extend  it  too 
far. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  last  question  of  mine  is  of  that  nature. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor  has  repeatedly  indicated  in^the 
course  of  this  trial,  and  you  have  applied  the  rule  to  us, 
that  in  the  examination  of  a  witness  concerning  an  inter- 
view at  which  he  was  present,  aud  other  parties,  the 
proper  mode  of  examining,  after  drawing  attention  to  the 
preliminaries  of  the  interview,  would  be  to  ask  him  what 
transpired,  and  get  from  the  witness  in  advance  his 
spontaneous  recollection  of  the  interview,  so  that  we  may 
judge  somewhat  of  the  accuracy  of  his  memory  in  regard 
to  it,  and  then  if  anything  has  been  omitted,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  examintag  counsel,  to  put  to  him  speciflo 
questions  as  to  the  subject  which  had  been  discussed  at 
the  interview ;  and  I  submit  to  your  Honor  that  that 
course  is  eminently  proper  in  the  examination  of  the 
present  witness— one  of  the  active  and  leading  counsel 
upon  the  part  of  the  defense,  and  who  is  quite  compe- 
tent to  express  his  present  recollection  of  the  occurrences 
at  the  interview  which  he  has  related. 

Judge  Neilson— It  seems  to  me  that  is  the  proper 
course,  IMr.  Evarts. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  think  we  understand  one  another 
on  that  subject,  if  your  Honor  please.  It  is  very  easy  to 
talk  of  a  single  point  of  discussion  in  an  interview  relat- 
ing to  that  point ;  but  here  is  a  conference  that  extended 
through  several  hours,  in  regard  to  which  there  are  at 
different  times  different  persons  present,  and  in  respect 
to  which  the  production  of  the  conversation  as  it  actually 
occurred  is  the  object  on  both  sides ;  and  all  that  I  have 
a  desire  for  is  that  the  progress  of  the  narrative  shall  be 
in  its  actual  order,  not  subject  to  the  momentary  force  of 
recollection  of  a  prolonged  iuterview.  I  agi'ee  that  two 
men  might  have  a  talk  on  a  particular  subject,  and  there 
is  no  occasion  for  any  other  mode  of  distinguishing  or 
discriminating  than  would  arise  in  the  method  that  has 
been  suggested ;  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  observe  the  rule 
of  examination  which  youv  Honor  has  intimated,  and  as 
I  understand  it. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  undoubtedly  desirable,  if  your  Honor 
please— I  do  not  impute  anything  in  the  way  of  impro- 
priety in  the  object  of  my  learned  friend— but  it  is  un- 
doubtedly desirable  that  we  should  get  the  interview  as 
nearly  as  possible  in  the  order  that  it  occurred,  and  the 
question  is  whether  we  shall  be  more  likely  to  get  it  from 
the  present  unaided  recollection  of  the  witness,  or  by  a 
lead  on  the  part  of  the  counsel,  following  a  minutely 
prepared  statement,  in  support  of  any  theory  which  may 
have  been  advised  in  regard  to  this  conversation.  I  pre- 
fer to  take,  and  I  suppose  from  your  Honor's  observation 
that  you  think  that  is  the  proper  course — I  prefer  to  take 


248  THE  TILTON-B 

the  unaided,  the  imrefreslied  recollection  of  the  witness 
while  on  the  stand,  rather  than  the  suggestion  and 
leadership  of  the  counsel  examining. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  the  course  we  have  pursued 
hitherto,  and  I  see  nothing  to  prevent  its  being  pursued 
now. 

MR.  MOULTON  DENIES  BEING  MRS.  WOOD- 
HULL'S  INFORMANT. 
Mr.  Evarts — Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  will  you  answer 
the  question  %  A.  After  Mr.  Moulton  had  stated  to  me 
that  this  last  part— this  part  of  the  Woodhull  publication 
last  referred  to— was  true,  I  said :  "  Of  course,  then,  Mrs. 
Woodhull  never  got  any  information  from  you  of  this 
Mud."  He  said:  "Certainly  not;  I  never  informed  her 
a  word  of  anything  she  has  published  in  that  publica- 
tion." As  nearly  as  I  can  recall  the  conversation  in  the 
order  in  which  it  occurred  (but  that  I  hardly  attempt  to 
do — to  state  orderly  how  each  part  of  the  conversation 
succeeded  the  other),  but  as  near  as  I  can  recall,  the  next 
thing  that  occurred  was,  I  asked  Mr.  Moulton:  "Well, 
did  Mr.  Tilton  ever  give  Mrs.  Woodhull  this  informa- 
tion?" His  reply  was:  "I  don't  believe  he  ever 
did;  I  don't  believe  he  ever  said  a  word  to  her  on 
the  subject  of  Mr.  Beecher's  relations  with  his 
wife."  Then  I  asked  Mr.  Moulton:  "Well,  what 
does  Mr.  Tilton  charge  Mr.  Beecher  with?  Does 
he  now  charge  him  with  adultery  ?"  He  said,  "  No."  I 
said:  "What  is  the  charge?"  He  said:  "I  would 
rather  Mr.  Tilton  would  state  that  to  you  in  his  own  way, 
if  you  will  consent  to  hear  it."  And  he  asked  me  if  I 
had  any  objection  to  hearing  a  statement  from  Mr.  Til- 
ton. I  said  I  had  not,  if  Mr.  Tilton  felt  disposed  to  make 
it.  I  then  learned  for  the  first  time  Mr.  Tilton  was  to  be 
present  at  that  interview.  I  am  sure  he  said  to  me  either 
that  he  had  Mr.  Tilton  come  to  the  house,  or  that  he  had 
notified  him  to  come,  with  reference  to  this  interview. 

GEN.  TRACY  ON  PROFESSIONAL  ETIQUETTE. 
— And  lie  went  out  of  the  room,  was  gone  some 
few  minutes,  and  returned  with  Mr.  Tilton,  and  Mr.  Til- 
ton and  I  spoke,  and  then  I  think  Mr.  Tilton  proceeded 
with  the  conversation— took  up  the  conversation  from 
that  point,  and  said  something  about  my  having  been 
called  into  this  case  without  his  knowledge,  or  consent, 
or  approval.  He  said:  "Mr.  Tracy,  I  will 
ask "  —  or  he  said :  "  I  am  about  to  (I 
am  not  sure  which)  —  to  make  a  statement 
to  you  about  my  case  against  Mr.  Beecher; 
I  dont  know  what  the  etiquette  of  your  profession 
allows.  If  I  make  a  statement  of  my  case  against  Mr. 
Beecher  to  you,  and  Mr.  Beecher  and  myself  should 
afterward  come  into  collision,  would  the  etiquette  of 
your  profession  permit  you  to  be  coimsel  for  Mr. 
Beecher  1"  I  replied,  "Mr.  Tilton,  without  discussing 
what  the  etiquette  of  my  profession  would  or  would  not 


EECHEB  TBIAL. 

allow,  I  say  to  you  that  if  a  person  having  a  controversy 
with  another,  comes  to  me  and  makes  a  statement  of  his 
side  of  the  controversy,  and  the  parties  should  afterward 
come  into  collision  on  that  case,  I  should  not  feel  at 
liberty  to  become  counsel  for  the  other  party." 

MR.  TILTON  DISPLAYS  THE  "TRUE  STORY." 

— Thereupon,  Mr.  TUton  unfolded,  as  I  remem-^ 
ber,  the  covering  of  a  manuscript  which  he  brought  with 
him  into  the  room,  and  began  to  read  a  statement ;  the 
manuscript  was  in  loose  sheets,  detached,  and  was  much 
erased  and  underlined,  and  while  it  was  generally  writ- 
ten on  one  side  of  the  sheet,  parts  that  had  been  erased 
and  rewritten  were  in  some  instances,  as  I  remember,  as 
he  turned  them  over,  written  on  the  other  side  of  the 
sheet;  and  he  read  and  talked  about  his  relations  with 
Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen;  he  stopped  to  elaborate 
points  that  he  had  made  in  writing  and  to  make  explana- 
tions, and  he  talked  and  read ;  it  is  impossible  for  me  to 
discriminate  between  what  was  wi-itten  and  what  was 
conversation,  but  as  I  remember  the  story  I  have  a  recol- 
lection ;  the  general  tenor  of  it  was  in  eftect  what  

Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment.  Sir;  I  object  to  that 
statement. 

Judge  Neilson— They  want  the  langniage,  as  far  as  you 
remember  it,  Mr.  Tracy,  and,  so  far  as  you  do  not  remem- 
ber it,  the  substance. 

Mr.  Fullerton— He  is  going  on  to  say  what  was  in  the 
written  statement. 

Mr.  Evart.s— Yes ;  he  was. 

Mr.  Beach— He  was  going  on  to  say  worse  than  that. 
He  was  not  going  to  say  what  was  in  it,  but,  as  near  as 
he  could  remember,  it  was  like  something  else. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  the  witness,  as  he  now  remembers 
it,  will  state  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  will  ask  him  the  question,  so  that  you 
m&y  make  your  objection. 

Judge  Neilson— Counsel  understood  the  witness  to  be 
stating  generally  an  inference  which  does  not  depend  on 
his  own  knowledge. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  I  think  the  objection  was  a  proper  one. 
[To  the  witness.]  What  I  was  going  to  say  was  to  obviate 
their  objection.  Was  this  paper  or  collection  of  papers 
read  through,  or  apparently  read  through,  by  Mr.  Tilton  i 
A.  It  was. 

Q.  Can  you  repeat  that  paper  as  you  heard  it  read  1  A. 
Oh,  no.  Sir ;  the  reading  of  it  occupied,  and  the  talk  in 
connection  with  it  occupied,  a  considerable  time;  I  should 
say  a  long  time. 

Q.  Well,  about  how  long  ?  A.  Well,  I  should  say  not 
less  than  an  hour  in  continuous  reading ;  but  Mr.  Tilton's 
explanations  and  talk,  I  should  say,  something  like  an 
hour. 

Q.  You  have  examined  the  "  True  Story,"  that  has  been 
pro'luced  at  this  trial,  so  far  as  it  has  been  produced  in 


TESTIMONY  OF  BENJAMIN  F.  (TEACY. 


thxs  shape  in  which  it  has  been  produced,  Mr.  Tracy  1  A 
T  have. 

Q.  From  your  recollection  of  the  paper  as  read  to  you, 
and  your  knowledge  of  :;his  paper  so  far  as  it  is  in  evi 
deuce,  are  you  ahle  to  say  whether  the  paper  read  to  you 
on  that  night  was,  in  whole  or  In  part,  the  paper  that  is 
produced  here ;  or  whether  the  paper  produced  here,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  is  the  same  as  the  paper  that  was  read 
to  you? 

Mr.  Beach— Objected  to.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  he  can  answer  that. 

Mr.  Evarts — I  should  think  so:  we  have  had  it  sub- 
stantially from  the  other  witnesses  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Beach— Haven't  had  it  at  all  from  anybody  in  that 
way.  Isn't  it  for  him  to  relate  what  was  said,  what  was 
read  at  the  time  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Doubtless. 

Mr.  Evarts— Of  course,  if  he  can. 

Mr.  Beach — If  he  cannot  do  it,  that  is  a  misfortune ;  his 
recollection  is  at  fault.  Is  it  proper  to  prove  what  a 
party  read  or  said  by  a  comparison,  through  the  recollec- 
tion of  the  witness,  with  another  paper,  not  then  present 
— ^not  pretended  to  be  then  present— a  mere  copy  of  which 
has  been  here  produced  ■?  It  seeuis  to  me  that  cannot  be 
permitted.  Sir.  Again,  Mr.  Tracy  says  he  cannot  discrim- 
inate as  between  the  paper  that  was  read— that  is,  the 
utterances  of  Mr.  Tilton  giving  the  contents  of  the  paper 
—and  his  spontaneous  commentaries  or  remarks  upon  it 
as  he  went  along.  We  shall  get,  then,  not  all  that  he  said 
by  the  testimony  of  the  witness,  but  the  comparison  of  it 
with  what  is  caUed  the  "  True  Story,"  which  has  been  put 
in  evidence.  Now,  the  objection  to  this  is  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  witness,  in  relating  that  conversation,  to  give 
us  his  recollection  of  it  as  it  occurred,  and  he  cannot  give 
us  the  conversation  as  to  which  he  is  examined  by  say- 
ii  at  it  was,  in  substance,  like  a  publication  in  the 
newspapers  or  in  a  book,  or  any  other  document ;  that 
is  a  comparison  by  a  standard,  not  giving  the  recollection 
of  the  witness  as  to  the  actual  occurrences  at  the  inter- 
view. I  submit  that  this  mode  of  producing  what  was 
said  or  done,  or  read,  by  Mr.  Tilton  at  the  time  of  this 
conversation  is  inadmissible.  We  can  only  get  it  by  the 
recollection  from  the  witness  of  the  substance  of  what 
was  said,  according  to  his  present  recollection.  He  can 
proceed  and  give  the  substance.  I  don't  know  but  he 
might  be  permitted  to  take  this  "True  Story,"  which  is 
produced  in  evidence,  as  a  memorandum  for  the  purpose 
of  refreshing  his  recollection,  and  saying  that  this  and 
that  was  done ;  but  to  adopt  this  "True  Story"  in  evidence 
otherwise,  or  by  other  means,  which  is  a  mere  copy  of  the 
supposed  "  True  Story,"  as  a  standard  by  which  the  wit- 
ness Shan  say  what  Mr.  Tilton  spoke  on  that  occasion— in 
accordance  with  this  paper,  or  this  standard,  is  unprece- 
dented, I  submit,  if  your  Honor  pl^aBe. 


view  the  simple  idea  that  if  there  were  a  letter  or  paper 
the  witness  might  be  asked  whether  he  had  seen — whether 
that  letter  or  paper  had  been  shown  to  him. 
Mr.  Beach— Oh,  yes. 

Judge  Neilson— In  which  case,  of  course,  you  hand  the 
paper  to  the  witness.   But  this  is  more  comi>lex. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  assumed— if  your  Honor  Avill  allow  me  a 
moment— I  assumed  that  my  learned  f  riend  would  con- 
sider Mr.  Tracy's  knowledge  of  the  "True  Story"  as 
produced  in  evidence  as  sufficient,  without  producing  the 
exhibit  itself.  [Handing  witness  Tribune  copy  of  the 
"  True  Story."] 

Judge  Neilson— No  doubt.  But  the  jury  are  entitled  to 
the  recollection  of  this  witness  as  to  what  was  said  or 
what  passed. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  if  the  question  applies  to  that  it  does 
not  remedy  the  difficulty. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  know ;  the  objection  is  met. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  I  am  i>erfectly  willing  that  Mr.  Tracy 
should  refresh  his  recollection  by  looking  at  that  pre- 
tended "True  Story"— pretended  copy  of  the  "True 
Story."  But  then.  Sir,  when  he  looks  at  the  memoran- 
dum he  must  testify  from  his  recollection  as  to  what  was 
said  by  Mr.  Tilton  upon  that  question. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes.  thus  refreshed,  or  not  refreshed, 
so  that  you  get  his  recollection ;  that  is  the  point. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yom-  Honor  will  perceive  that  the  question 
which  I  fi-amed,  I  think  (or  intended  to,)  correctly,  was  a 
preliminary  question  asking  him  whether  he  was  able  to 
state,  which  of  course  he  will  answer  according  to  his 
recollection  whether  he  is.  If  he  is  not  able  to  state, 
then,  his  imperfect  recollection,  or  his  complete  recollec- 
tion, as  it  may  turn  out,  will  be  the  subject  of  a  further 
inquiry. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  you  recognize  this,  of  coui'se, 
that  they  have  a  right  to  exact  his  recollection  of  what 
was  said. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  I  agree  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson— Because,  as  to  all  witnesses,  it  is  de- 
sirable to  see  how  much  the  witness  does  recollect,  and 
how  much  he  does  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  take  it  we  all  know  that  if,  for  Instance, 
an  author  is  inquired  of  as  to  his  being  the  author  of  a 
composition  which  was  published  in  one  of  our  reviews 
or  newspapers,  you  cannot  expect  him  to  have  commit- 
ted to  memory  his  draft,  and  yet  It  Is  the  most  direct  and 
explicit  evidence  upon  looking  at  the  publication—"  That 
is  the  paper  that  I  wrote." 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  quite  a  different  thing  from  asking  a 
third  party  whether  that  was  the  paper  he  wrote,  ac- 
cording to  his  declaration,  if  made  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  the  third  party  has  heard  it  read 
from  the  draft. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  the  witness  has  the  benefit  of  see 


Judge  Neilson—WTien  I  tuade  lb©  mumation  T  had  inin^:  this  paper,  I  think  you  should  interrogate  him  as  to 


250 


THJ^   TlLTCm-BENfJHEB  TRIAL, 


Ms  recollection  of  what  was  said  and  read  there  on  that 
occasion. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  your  Honor  will  perceive  that  my 
question  is  really  (as  I  meant  it  to  be)  whether  he  can 
Btate.  Then  he  can  answer  yes  or  no. 

Mr.  Beach— Let  us  see  what  the  question  is  first. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Stenographer  will  you  read  the  ques- 
tion? 

The  Tribune  stenographer— No,  Sir;  the  gentleman 
^ho  just  left  the  court  took  my  notes  with  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  will  renew  the  inquiry.  [To  the  witness.  J 
You  have  before  you  Exhibit  No.  what?  A.  "D,  114." 

Q.  D,  114,  being  a  printed  production  of  the  "  True 
Story"  so  far  as  in  evidence.  Upon  looking  at  that,  are 
you  able  to  say  whether  the  statement,  as  read  to  you  by 
Mr.  Tilton  on  that  night,  is  this  statement  as  you  see  it 
there,  or  any  parts  of  that  that  you  recognize  as  being  in 
this  statement  as  i*ead  to  you  by  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  Parts  of 
it,  certainly  

Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment.  That  is  not  an  answer 
to  the  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— Are  you  able  to  state? 

Mr.  Beach— The  question  is  whether  you  are  able  to 
state  

Mr.  Evarts— Are  you  able  to  state  whether  that  is  the 
same  paper  or  parts  of  it  ?   A.  I  am. 

Q.  Or  whether  parts  of  it  are  ?  A.  I  am,  in  a  qualified 
sense,  able  to  answer  your  question  that  I  am. 

Q.  Well,  what  parts  of  this  paper  now  before  you  do 
you  remember  as  having  been  read  to  you  by  Mr.  Tilton  1 
A.  Well,  I  cannot  carry  in  my  mind  all  this  paper ;  I  have 
not  read  it  through ;  I  can  only  say,  from  general  recol- 
lection, that  T  remejoaber  some  documents  that  were  in  it 
being  embraced  in  this  paper  that  Mr.  Tilton  read,  and  I 
remember  some  themes  discussed ;  I  remember  generally 
the  drift  of  that  statement,  but  I  should  have  to  go  over 
this,  item  by  item,  before  I  could  answer  your  question 
accui-ately. 

Q.  Well,  as  to  the  commencement— have  you  any  recol- 
lection on  that  subject  ?  A.  My  recollection  is  that  the 
statement  that  he  read  to  me  that  day  began  substan- 
tially as  this  

Mr.  Beach— That  i  object  to. 

Judge  Neilsou— Oh,  tell  us  what  your  recollection  is, 
Mr.  Tracy.  A.  My  recollection  is  that  the  statement  that 
he  read  that  day  began  by  an  allusion  to  the  publication 
of  the  Woodhull  paper  during  his  absence  from  the  State. 

Q.  Yes?  A.  And  I  recollect  that  he  also  alluded  to 
the  fact  that  when  he  arrived  home,  his  first  impulse  was 
to  write  a  card  denying  it  or  denouncing  it  in  some  way ; 
I  do  not  remember  the  phraseology ;  I  remember  that 
Mrs.  Morse  was  introduced,  his  mother-in-law,  in  that 
statement;  I  remember  generally,  that  the  statement 
was  a  detailed  narrative. 

Mr.  Beach— Wait ;  I  object  to  that. 

The  Witness— Let  me  understand.  Is  It  desired  that  I 


should  go  over  this,  paragraph  by  paragraph,  to  see 
what  I  do  or  do  not  recollect  ? 

Judge  Noilson— No ;  it  is  desired  that  you  should  tell 
us  what  you  recollect  was  said  and  read  that  evening, 
refreshing  yom*  recollection,  if  need  be. 

Mr.  Evarts— So  far  as  you  can  with  the  aid  of  that, 
paper,  if  it  recalls  to  your  mind  and  memory  what  oc- 
curred that  evening. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  but  I  don't  want  the  witness  to  make 
that  paper  testify  instead  of  himself,  and  read  it  from 
that. 

Judge  Neilson— No;  you  want  his  recollection  of  what 
was  said  and  read. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  will  not  read  it  from  the  paper. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  know  whether  he  will  or  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  not  been  asked  to. 

The  Witness— Well,  of  course,  this  putting  this  paper  in 
my  hands  has  not  refreshed  my  memory,  for  I  nave  not 
read  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  are  to  look  at  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  Mr.  Tracy,  it  seems  to  me  it 
would  be  very  easy  for  you  to  state,  so  far  as  you  do  re- 
member, what  was  said  and  read  there  on  that  occasion, 
and  then  matters  omitted  will  be  called  to  your  attention 
afterwards. 

The  Witness— If  your  Honor  please,  it  is  utterly  im- 
nossible  for  me  to  repeat  that  paper  that  he  read  there; 
I  cannot  do  that— I  can  onlv  state  the  points  touched 
upon  by  that  paper,  audits  general  drift,  by  stating  the 
substance  of  it ;  that  is  all  I  can  do.  I  can  go  over  this 
paper,  passing  each  paragraph  in  review,  and  tell  you 
whether  I  recollect  that  that  was  aUudedsto,  or  was  not 
alluded  to. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  is  not  what  is  desired.  You 
should  give,  as  it  seems  to  me,  what  you  remember  was 
said,  either  by  conversation  or  reading,  as  far  as  you  do 
remember,  on  that  occasion,  and  then  further  if  the 
paper  need  be  used  

The  Witness— Does  your  Honor  mean  to  suggest  that  I 
can  repeat  the  language  of  the  paper  on  the  subjects  that 
the  paper  touched  on  f 

Judge  Neilson— Not  the  language  of  the  paper,  no, 
Sir ;  but  what  was  said  and  read  according  to  your  best 
memory,  same  as  you  would  treat  every  witness  when 
you  examine  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Mr.  Tracy,  pursue  that  method  now; 
what  do  you  remember  as  having  been  included  in  this 
statement  as  read  to  you  that  night  by  Mr.  Tilton  1  A. 
You  mean  the  subjects  included  in  it,  Mr.  Evarts  ? 

Q.  Yes,  the  subjects  1  A.  Well,  I  remember  that  his  re- 
lations with  Mr.  Bowen  were  treated  of  in  that  paper  ;  I 
remember  that  his  breach  with  Mr.  Bowen  was  set  out  in 
that  paper ;  I  remember  the  letter  of  the  26th  of  Decem- 
ber that  was  written  by  him  at,  as  stated,  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  Mr.  Bowen  to  Mr.  Beecher  was  in  that  paper ;  I 


TESllMONY   OF  BK 

remember  tliat  the  letter  of  Jan.  1,  written  by  Mr.  Tilton 
to  Mr.  Bowen,  was  in  that  letter  with  a  statement. 

Q.  Jan.  1, 1871  %  A.  1871,  with  a  statement  of  its  his- 
tory ;  I  remember  that  it  quoted  a  paper  

LAt  this  point,  Mr.  Evarts  being  engaged  in  consulta- 
tion, the  witness  ceased  speaking.] 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  you  can  complete  this. 

The  Witness— I  know  that  the  paper  contained  a  state- 
ment of  a  writing  from  Mrs.  Tilton  informing  her  hus- 
band, that  her  friend,  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  had  solicited 
her  to  be  a  wife  to  him  with  all  that  that  implied.  I  recol- 
lect the  statement  as  given  that  day  to  be  substantially 
the  statement  here. 

THE  OMISSIONS  IN  THE  PRESERVED  COPY  OF 
THE  "  TRUE  STORY." 

Q.  Now,  this  paper  here  does  not  purport  to 
be  a  full  reproduction  of  any  documents ;  there  is  a  gap 
in  it  as  we  all  know.  Do  you  remember  anything  that 
was  in  that  paper,  as  read  to  you,  that  is  not  in  this 
paper  here?  A.  I  think  I  do;  I  remember  that  that 
paper— in  that  paper  was  quoted  all  or  a  part  of  what  is 
known  as  "The  Apology"  or  "Letter  of  Contrition;"  I 
cannot  say  whether  it  was  all  or  a  part. 

Q.  That  is  this  Exhibit  No.  2?  A.  Exhibit  No.  2;  and 
I  know  that  Mr.  Tilton  either  read  or  spoke,  in  connection 
with  that  letter,  a  sentence  complimentary  to  his  wife 
for  having  resisted  the  amorous  pleas  of  her  pastor;  I 
remember  that  phrase. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  you  heard  the  documeut  read  %   A.  I  did. 

Q.  After  it  was  read,  please  state,  so  far  as  you  recall, 
what  then  occurred  in  the  way  of  conversation?  A.  I 
listened  to  the  reading  of  this  document,  and  when  it  was 
through  I  asked  Mr.  Tilton,  "  What  is  your  purpose,  Mr. 
Tilton,  in  drafting  such  a  document  as  that  ?"  He  said  he 
was  trying  to  see  whether  he  could  frame  a  successful 
answer  to  the  Woodhull  publication.  I  asked,  "With  a 
view  of  publishing  it  ?"  He  said  that  that  was  to  be  a 
matter  for  consideration ;  if  he  could  frame  an  answer 
satisfactory  to  himself,  he  proposed  then  to  submit  it  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  if  Beecher  should  bo  satisfied  with  it, 
then  to  publish  it.  "Well,"  I  said,  "do  you  think  Mr. 
Beecher  will  be  satisfied  with  such  a  publication  as  that?" 
He  said  he  didn't  know ;  that  was  the  question.  "Well," 
I  said,  "  I  don't  think  he  will."  He  said,  "He  will  have 
to  be  satisfied  with  what  is  the  truth. "  I  said,  "  Cer- 
tainly, feut  the  question  is  whethet.  that  is  the  truth ; 
your  wife  says  in  her  retraction  that  yoiu-  charge  against 
Mr.  Beecher  is  not  true." 


MR.  BEECHER  ACCUSED  OF  MEANNESS. 
—At  that  Mr.  Tilton  became  somewhat  ex- 
cited, and  spoke  vehemently  against  Mr.  Beecher  for 
having  obtained  that  paper  from  his  wife  under  the  cir- 
cumstances. He  said  that  it  was  a  very  mean  thing  for 
Mr.  Beecher  to  do ;  that  his  wife  was  sick  and  unable  to 


NJAMIM  F,    TRACY.  251 

resist  his  demands,  and  that  he  took  advantage  of  her 
weakened  condition  and  dictated  to  her  that  answer,  ana 
got  her  signature  to  it,  and  that  his  wife  had  taken  it 
l)ack,  and  Mr.  Beecher  had  admitted  that  the  charge 
which  he  then  made  against  Mr.  Beecher  was  true.  I 
asked,  "Where  has  Mr.  Beecher  admitted  that?" 
"Why,"  he  says,  "in  that  Letter  of  Apology— 
in  that  letter  or  paper."  I  said,  "Mr.  Tilton,  I 
don't  think  that  you  can  say  that  Mr.  Beecher 
has  made  any  such  admission  in  that  paper." 
I  then— I  think  I  then  took  up  that  paper  and  went  over 
it  again  ;  I  know  I  did  after  the  statement— after  Mr.  Til- 
ton had  made  his  statement.  Whether  I  did  it  immedi- 
ately on  his  finishing  it,  or  further  on  in  the  conversa- 
tion, I  cannot  remember  ;  but  I  went  over  that  "  Letter 
of  Apology  "  again  carefully,  and  I  said  to  Mr.  TUton  : 
"  The  language  of  this  letter  or  this  paper  is  so  general 
that  I  do  not  see  that  you  can  apply  it  to  anythiner  spe- 
cifically, and  your  wife  has  said  that  Mr.  Beecher  never 
made  any  improper  solicitations  to  her."  In  that  conver- 
sation, while  he  was  excited,  in  denouncing  Mr.  Beecher, 
he  said  Mr.  Beecher  was  an  adulterer  and  he  could  prove 
it ;  I  remember  that  phrase,  and  I  said  to  him,  "  With 
yom*  wife  ?"  and  he  replied,  "  No,  but  with  another 
woman,"  or  "  women  "— "  other  women" — I  am  not  cer- 
tain which  phrase  he  used.  We  continued  the  discussion 
of  that  proposed  answer  of  his  to  the  Woodhull  publica- 
tion. 

MR.  TILTON  DENIES  BEING    MRS.  WOOD- 
HULL'S  INFORMANT. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  I  will  ask  you  a  ques- 
tion here.  Previous  to  this  discussion  in  which  Mr.  Tilton 
made  this  statement  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  an  adulterer 
and  he  could  prove  it,  as  you  have  just  repeated  it,  had 
there  been  or  was  there  a  conversation  between  you  and 
him  as  to  what  the  charge  that  he  made  against  Mr 
Beecher  was  or  what  it  was  not  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Please  state  that?  A.  After  he  had  finished  the  read- 
ing of  this  paper.  I  said  to  him  in  substance— 1  don't  re- 
member the  phraseology — "  Your  statenieut,  Mr.  Tilton, 
settles  one  thing— that  you  did  not  charge  Mr.  Beecher 
with  adultery."  He  said,  "No,  my  wife  is  a  pui-e 
woman;"  I  remember  that  phrase  and  that  (sentence  oc- 
curring. 

Q.  In  that  connection,  or  in  this  interview,  was  any- 
thing said  between  you  and  him  as  to  whether  he  had 
conveyed  to  Mrs.  Woodhull  any  such  charge  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  was  that  ?  A.  I  asked  him  in  that  connection— 
somewhere  in  that  connection— whether  he  had  ever 
stated  to  Mrs.  Woodhull  what  she  said  he  stated  in  that— 
in  her  publication ;  he  said  he  never  had ;  he  never  had 
given  that  woman  one  word  of  that  information;  that 
in  that  respect  that  information  was  entirely  false,  or 
that  publication  was  entirely  false;  we  went  on  with  the 


252 


THE   TILTON-BEECHER  TIUAL. 


discussion  of  that  paper  as  a  proposed  answer  to  the 
WoodliuU  pulbli  cation,  and  the  discussion  was  a  very  long 
one  ;  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  repeat  or  narrate  all  that 
was  said  pro  and  con  on  that  matter ;  there  were  various 
views  of  it  suggested  which  I  recollect,  but  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  recall  in  the  order  in  which  they  occurred. 

Q.  Please  state  them  as  they  come  to  your  mind.  A.  I 
remember  of  saying  to  him— asking  him  at  one  point  of 
the  conversation,  "  Mr.  TUton,  tell  me  what  are  your 
present  feelings  toward  Mr.  Beecher,"  and  he  either  said 
"  They  are  kind  and  friendly"  or  "  They  are  not  unkind 
or  unfriendly ;"  I  can't  say  which  form  of  expression  he 
used ;  I  said,  "  What  is  your  motive  in  making  an  answer 
to  the  publication  %  Do  you  want  to  make  an  answer 
that  will  settle  it  and  bury  it,  or  do  you  want  to  make  an 
answer  that  will  continue  this  discussion?"  He  said  he 
wanted  to  bury  It  and  get  it  out  of  the  way ;  well,  I  asked 
him  if  he  thought  that  publication  would  do  It ;  well,  he— 
I  don't  recollect  that  he  was  clear  in  his  answer  in  that 
respect ;  he  said  he  thought  it  was  the  best  that  could  be 
done  under  the  circumstances  ;  I  said,  "  Why  not  deny 
this  publication,  Mr.  Tilton  1  You  say  that  you  never 
gave  this  woman  this  information;  you  say  that  you 
never  charged  Mr.  Beecher  with  adultery;  now,  why 
don't  you  deny  the  publication  simply,  and  say  that  it  is 
false;  content  yourself  with  a  simple  denial  instead 
of  such  a  statement  as  this?"  He  said— he 
gave  two  reasons  in  answer  to  that  Question; 
in  the  first  place,  he  said,  "That  is  precisely 
what  these  women  want  me  to  do,"  or  "  this-  woman 
wants  me  to  do.  If  I  come  out  and  deny  this  publica- 
tion, and  say  it  is  false,  that  accuses  them  of  having  pub- 
lished a  libel,  and  they  will  bring  an  action  in  the  courts, 
and  we  will  all  be  subpenaed,  and  we  shall  have  to  tell 
as  witnesses,  precisely  what  the  facts  are,  and  that  will 
bring  out  the  facts  just  as  I  propose  to  publish  them,  and 
I  may  just  as  well  publish  them  this  way  as  to  have  them 
brought  out  in  a  litigation."  I  attempted  to  ridicule  the 
idea  of  their  bringing  a  libel  suit  if  he  answered  that 
card  by  a  simple  denial,  and  said,  "  An  action  for  libel 
won't  lie ;  that  is  ridiculous  to  talk  about  an  action  of 
libel  in  connection  with  the  denial  of  this  publication." 
His  reply  was,  "  Well,  they  can  bring  it,  can't  they?"  I 
said,  "  Yes ;  they  could  bring  an  action,  of  course."  "  And 
they  could  subpena  the  witnesses?"  "Yes."  "Well," 
says  he,  "  they  don't  care  whether  they  succeed  or  not ;  it 
will  serve  as  a  pretext  to  get  the  facts  before  the  public, 
and  therefore  I  have  carefully  framed  an  answer— tried 
to — which  shall  not  be  liable  to  the  charge  of  libel, 
and  yet  which  shall  state  the  facts  as  they  are." 
Another  reason  he  assigned  was  that  he  thought  the 
charge  of  Mrs.  WoodhuU  was  too  circumstantial  and  par- 
ticular to  be  answered  by  a  general  denial.  He  said  that 
if  The  parties  implicated  in  it  simply  denied  it,  that  peo- 
ple would  not  believe  the  denial,  that  they  would  believe 
there  was  something  more  of  it,  and  they  had  got  to  have 


a  statement  of  what  the  truth  was,  and  when  they  saw 
what  the  truth  was  they  would  say, "  Well,  we  knew  there 
was  something  in  this,  and  now  we  know  what  it  is,"  and 
they  would  be  satisfied  with  it,  but  with  a  general  denial 
they  would  not  be  satisfied.  Those  were  the  two  reasons 
which  he  assigned  for  this  form  of  statement.  I  argued 
against  that,  and  argued  in  favor  of  a  denial.  He  said,  "  I 
cannot  deny"— he  assignedno  reason,  but  he  said,"I  cannot 
deny  that  truthfully ;  I  cannot  say  that  this  whole  WoodhuU 
publication  is  false— in  other  words— "  he  said,  "  I  can- 
not say  it  is  a  lie,"  and  he  there  brought  in  his  illustra- 
tion of  The  Police  Gazette.  He  said,  "  You  may  take  a 
Police  Oazette,  and  you  may  know  that  there  are  a 
hundred  lies  in  the  newspaper,  in  that  paper,  but  you 
cannot  say  that  that  whole  paper  is  a  lie;  because  it  may 
contain  a  hundred  truths.  Now,"  he  says,  "whUethis 
publication  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  is  generally  false,  there  are 
things  in  it  that  I  cannot  say  are  imtrue ;"  and  diiring 
the  course  of  the  conversation  he  went  on  to  specify,  and 
did  specify  some  things  that  he  said  he  could  not  say 
were  untrue,  and  therefore  he  could  not  publish  a  card 
truthfully  which  said  that  that  paper  was  a  lie  or  false. 
I  argued  against  that  as  well  as  I  could ;  I  said  to  him 
that,  "  Your  illustration  of  The  Police  Gazette,  Mr.  Tilton, 
Is  not  true,  it  seems  to  me.  This  publication  is  a  con- 
tinuous story,  and  it  hinges  upon  two  facts ;  first,  this 
statement  that  Mr.  Beecher  has  committed  adultery  with 
your  wife ;  and,  second,  that  you  gave  that  information 
to  Mrs.  Woodhull.  Now,  if  the  story  is  false  in  those  two 
particulars,  you  can  truthfully  deny  it  by  simply  saying 
it  is  false,  and  not  saying  that  you  say— tell  the  truth." 

WHAT  MR.  TILTON  COULD  NOT  DENY. 

Q.  Mr.   Tracy,   I  will  ask  you  a  question. 

You  spoke  of  his  stating  some  facts— of  his  referring  to 
some  items  in  this  paper  that  he  could  not  deny ;  can  you 
state  what  those  items  were  ?  A.  I  can  state  some  of 
them.  Sir.  He  says :  "  I  cannot  deny  that  Mr.  Beecher 
went  to  my  wife  and  obtained  this  retraction;  that  I  can- 
not deny.  I  cannot  deny  the  facts  of  my  own  knowledge 
what  she  says  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stanton  said  to  her." 

Q.  That  is  Mrs.  Woodhull  ?  A.  Mrs.  Woodhull  said  Mrs.. 
H.  B.  Stanton  said  to  her:  "  I  cannot  deny  of  my  own  knowl- 
edge what  she  says  Mrs.  Davis  said  to  her.  1  cannot  deny 
this  extract  of  a  letter  which  purports  to  be  from  Mrs. 
Davis  to  Mrs.  Woodhull,"  and  he  instanced  several  par- 
ticulars that  he  could  not  deny— more  than  I  am  able  to 
recall,  and  thus  fortified  his  argument  that  he  could  not 
say  that  that  publication  was  a  lie.  The  conrcrfiation, 
the  discussion,  went  on  until  supper  time,  and  we  went 
down  to  tea,  as  I  remember ;  and  after  tea  we  went  up 
and  renewed  It  again,  and  It  continued  on  from  then  until 
10  o'clock. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  anything  wff«*  saiij  upott 

the  


TUSTIMONF  OF  BIl 

Mr.  Beach— Has  tie  given  all  tliat  lie  recollects  now  of 
tMs  conversation  1 

Tlie  Witness— I  liave  not  given  all  I  recollect. 

Mr.  Beacli— I  think  we  had  better  get  it,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  propose  to,  but  not  at  this  mo- 
ment. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  understand  your  Honor  to  rule  that 
we  were  to  get  the  continuous  recollection  of  this  wit- 
ness as  to  that  interview. 

Judge  Neilson— Certainly. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  propose,  with  your  Honor's  permission, 
to  ask  the  witness  a  question  now  with  respect  to  the 
portion  of  the  interview  that  is  apparently  closed,  and  I 
do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary  to  wait  for  the  end  of  the 
other  portions  of  the  interview.  [To  the  witness.]  You 
have  said  that  there  were  some  other  facts,  or  parts  of 
Mrs.  Woodhvill's  articles  that  he  could  not  deny— some 
which  you  have  not  repeated  ? 

Mr.  Beach— And  which  he  could  not  recall. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  which  you  cannot  recall.  Now,  I  ask 
you,  do  you  remember  whether  in  this  connection  he 
Bpoke  about  presiding  at  the  Steinway  Hall  meeting  1  A. 
I  do ;  I  remember  he  said  that  he  could  not  deny  that  he 
had  presided  at  the  Steinway  Hall  meeting. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  his  spying  in  this  connection  any- 
thing about  a  denial  of  the  publication  of  the  Woodhull 
card  1  A.  In  The  ^Yorld—l  remember  that.  The  paper 
was  gone  over  quite  carefully,  what  he  could  and  what 
lie  could  not  deny. 

Q.  Now,  go  on  with  the  interview  farther,  so  far  as  you 
recollect  it.  A.  Toward  the  close  of  the  interview  or  dur- 
ing—I remember  another  point  now  that  occurred  during 
thifs  discussion.  I  discussed  with  Mr.  Tilton  the  proba- 
bility of  the  truth  of  his  wife's  statement  in  regard  to  the 
charge  of  improper  proposals.  I  remember  saying  to  Mr. 
Tilton  in  that  connection,  "  Mr.  Tilton,  I  can  understand 
how  you  may  believe  Mr.  Beecher  has  been  guiity  of  that 
oflfense,  and  I  can  understand  possibly  how  your  wife  may 
have  conceived  that  he  had  intended  to  make  to  her  an 
improper  suggestion ;  but  now,  isn't  it  more  probable 
that  this  statement  of  your  wife  that  Mr.  Beecher  made 
an  improper  proposal  to  her  is  the  result  of  a  misunder- 
standing on  her  part,  that  she  has  misconstrued  some  re- 
marks of  his  into  an  improper  suggestion,  or  that  she  has 
repeated  something  to  you  which  you  have  construed 
into  an  improper  suggestion  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  that  that  is  the  origin  of  this  whole  matter  1"  He 
thought  not.  He  thought  there  was  no  mistake  about  it. 
I  said,  **  Mr.  Tilton,  do  you  pretend  to  say  that  Mrs.  Til- 
ton, in  the  language  she  has  given  you,  quotes  precisely 
the  language  which  Mr.  Beecher  used  to  her  1"  He  said, 
"  Yes,  certainly."  I  said,  "  Do  you  say— do  you  say  that 
Mr.  Beecher  said  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  '  Mrs.  Tilton,  I  desire 
you  to  be  a  wife  to  me,  with  all  that  that  implies' — do  you 
say  that  Mr.  Beecher  used  the  last  phrase 
*  with  aU  that  that  implies,'  to  Mrs.— to  your  wife !"  He 


VJAMm   F.    TBAC7.  253 

said,  "I  won't  say  that  housed  those  precise  words  to  her, 
but  that  was  an  inference  from  the  suggestion  that  she 
was  to  be  a  wife  to  him."  "  Well,"  I  said,  "  if  that  part  of  it 
is  an  inference,  Mr.  Tilton,  why  may  not  all  of  it  be  by 
inference  from  what  he  said?"  I  pressed  upon  him  the 
suggestion  that  as  his  wife  had  denied  the  improper 
solicitation,  now  if  IVIr.  Beecher  denied  it,  and  he  made 
this  publication  that  he  thought— that  he  was  thinking  of 
making,  I  thought  the  public  would  be  likely  to  accept 
the  explanation  that  this  matter  arose  from  Mrs.  Tilton 
misunderstanding  what  Mr.  Beecher  had  said,  or  she 
having  repeated  some  remark  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  made 
to  her  to  her  husband,  who  had  misunderstood  it,  and 
that  that  was  the  origin  of  the  difficulty.  And  we  dis- 
cussed the  question  whether,  if  he  was  friendly  to  IVIr. 
Beecher,  or  not  unfriendly  to  him,  whether  it  would  not 
be  wise  to  consider  whether  that  was  not  the  truth, 
and  whether  the  public  would  not  be  more 
likely  to  accept  that  explanation  and  be  sat- 
isfied with  such  a  statement,  than  they 
would  with  a  statement  which,  in  my  judgment,  Mr. 
Beecher  mu?t  certainly  de-ay,  if  made,  and  which  his  wife 
had  already  denied.  That  phase  of  the  matter  was  dis- 
cussed, and  I  pressed  that  publication  strongly  upon  Mr. 
Tilton ,  and  at  great  leng-th  during  that  discussion.  I  pre- 
sented my  views  of  that  matter  to  him,  that  that  might 
be  a  satisfactory  explanation  and  one  which  the  public 
would  accept,  if  made  by  him ;  but  at  the  close  of  the 
conversation,  I  remember  that  Mr.  Moulton  asked  me 
what  I  would  propose  as  a  solution  of  the  matter,  and  I 
then  asked  them  again,  or  said  to  them,  "  That  depends 
upon  what  you  want  to  accomplish ;  if  you  want  to  bury 
this  scandal,  and  extinguish  it,  I  think  I  can  propose  a 
plan  that  will  accomplish  it."  They  asked  what  it  was ; 
and  I  stated  it.  _ 

MR.  TILTON  WANTS  THE  PAPERS  PRE- 
SERVED. 

— I  said,  "You  want  to  deny  that  publication, 

declare  it  to  be  a  lie,  and  destroy  the  documents  that  you 
have  here."  Mr.  Tilton  at  that  remark  of  mine,  turned 
and  said,  "  I  will  not  permit  the  destruction  of  the  docu- 
ments—of these  documents.  If  these  documents  were 
destroyed,  Mr.  Beecher  would  turn  on  me,  and  rend  me.'* 
I  said,  "  Mr.  Tilton,  I  can  conceive  no  possible  object  which 
Mr.  Beecher  could  have  to  revive  thi8Scandal,or  this  story. 
It  seems  to  me  that  every  consideration  must  lead  him 
to  wish  it  buried,  and  buried  out  of  sight,  and  if  it  is  once 
buried  I  can  imagine  nothing  that  would  induce  him  to 
revive  it,  for  the  purpose  of  spiting  you."  Well,  he  said, 
he  thought  he  would,  or  if  he  didn't,  members  of  Ply- 
mouth Church  would.  I  said,  "  What  have  members  of 
Plymouth  Cliui*ch  got  against  you  1  What  motive  can 
they  have  for  reviving  this  t "  He  said  that  the  members 
of  Plymouth  Church  felt  that  he  had  been  slandering  or 
injuring  Mr.  Beecher  ;   and  in  tJtiat  connection  he  stated 


254 


THE    TlLTOii-BEEGHEE  IBIAL. 


that  iu  1871,  I  think  it  was,  when  this  thing  was  dis- 
covered, he  had  spoken  harshly  of  Mr.  Beecher — that  he 
had  felt  harshly  toward  hira,  and  had  spoken  very 
harshly  against  him,  and  members  of  the  church  thought 
that  he  had  heen  slandering  Mr.  Beecher,  and  it  was  these 
documents— I  won't  say  that  he  said  that— he  said,  if 
these  documents  were  out  of  the  way  Mr.  Beecher  would 
not  restrain  the  members  of  Plymouth  Church  who 
wanted  to  attack  him.  That  led  me  to  make  this  further 
suggestion  to  Mr.  Tilton.  I  said,  "  To  meet  that,  Mr.  Til- 
ton,  how  would  it  do  if  you  and  Mr.  Beecher  and  your 
wife  can  agree  as  to  what  the  real  facts  are  in 
this  case  ;  how  will  it  do  for  you  and 
Mr.  Beecher  to  go  before  one  or  more  eminent 
citizens  of  Brooklyn,  who  are  strangers  to  this  contro- 
versy now,  and  in  whom  the  public  have  confidence,  and 
there  make  a  mutual  statement  of  what  the  real  truth  is 
in  this  matter,  and  out  of  which  all  this  story  has  sprung, 
and  then  destroy  the  documents.  I  said  that  course  will 
prevent  either  one  from  ever  going  back  upon  the  other, 
because  he  will  be  bound  by  the  statement  that  he  has 
made  to  this  person,  or  these  persons,  who  always  can 
state  what  the  fact  was,  and  Mr.  Beecher  cannot  go  back 
on  you  nor  you  on  Mr.  Beecher  ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
that  will  bury  this  whole  controversy,  if  you  want  to 
bury  it."  He  thought  not ;  he  differed  with  me  ;  and  the 
result  was  we  came  to  no  conclusion  that  night,  so  far  as 
the  publication  of  a  card  was  concerned,  or  so  far  as  an- 
swering this  "Woodhull  scandal  by  a  publication  to  be 
made  by  one  or  more  of  the  parties.  I  don't  know  when 
Mr.  Tilton  left  that  interview,  whether  he  left  it  before  I 
did  or  not.  I  know  I  stayed  late,  and  I  cannot  say  that 
Mr.  Tilton  was  there  when  I  left  or  not.  My  impression 
is  that  he  left  before  I  did.  I  know  there  was  a  conversa- 
tion between  Mr.  Moulton  and  myself  that  night— 
whether  it  occurred  in  Mr.  Tilton's  presence  or  not  I  can- 
not positively  say— on  the  subject  of  what  could  be  done 
for  Mr.  Tilton,  and  how  he  co«ld  be  restored  to  the  con- 
fidence of  the  people  again  and  put  upon  his  feet. 

A  TRIP  TO    EUROPE    ADVISED    FOR  MR. 
TILTON. 

Q.  Well,  wliat  was  said  between  you  and 
Mr.  Moulton  ou  that  subject?  A.  Mr.  Moulton  asked  me, 
in  substance,  what,  in  my  judgment,  could  be  done  for 
Mr.  Tilton,  if  this  matter  was  buried  in  this  way.  I  said 
that  I  thought  the  only  course  for  Mr.  Tilton 
was  to  go  to  Europe;  that,  in  my  judg- 
ment, his  connection  with  the  Woodhull  woman, 
the  writing  of  her  life,  and  then  the  publication 
of  this  scandal,  had  so  shaken  the  confidence  of  the  pub- 
lic in  Mr.  Tilton  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to 
rebuild  himself  here  ;  that  I  did  not  thiuk  that  any  prom- 
inent newspaper  could  take  him  on  the  editorial  staff ; 
but,  I  said,  he  is  a  ready  and  able  writer;  if  he  goes  to 
Europe  and  gets  out  of  this  locality  and  atmosphere,  the 


public  will  cease  to  associate  his  name  with  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  ;  he  can  become  a  correspondent  of  one  or  more 
newspapers,  and  he  can  write  letters  that  the  public  will 
read  and  discuss,  and  he  will  come  to  be  talked  about  as 
a  writer  upon  European  affairs,  and  after  three  or  fom" 
years'  absence  I  think  this  matter  wiUbe  so  far  forgotten 
that  Mr.  Tilton  can  come  home  and  take  a  position  upon 
the  editorial  staff  of  any  of  the  prominent  newspapers  of 
the  country.  In  my  judgment  that  is  the  way  that  Mr. 
Tilton  can  rebuild  himself  in  the  confidence  of  the  people, 
and  it  is  the  only  way. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Moulton  reply  in  any  way  to  that  ?  A.  I 
don't  remember  that  he  made  any  definite  reply  to  that. 

MRS.  MORSE  NAMED  AS  MRS.  WOODHULL'S 
INFORMANT. 

Q.   Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  in  this  interview  was 

any  suggestion  or  inquiry  made  as  to  the  sources  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  information,  affirmatively?  A.  There  was. 
I  asked  that  question.  When  Mr.  Tilton  said  he  had  not 
informed— given  Mrs.  Woodhull  any  of  this  information, 
I  said  to  him:  "  How  do  you  think  she  got  it  then  ?"  He 
then  referred  to  Mrs.  Morse  again,  and  said  that  he  sup- 
posed she  had  got  it  from  Mrs.  Morse,  his  mother-in-law, 
and  he  again  dwelt  upon  the  peculiarities  of  Mrs.  Morse, 
and  said  that  Mrs.  Morse  was  in  the  habit  of  repeating  to 
neighbors,  out  of  her  hatred  for  him,  Mr.  TUton,  in  sub- 
stance as  follows:  "Why!  don't  you  believe,"  or  "don't 
you  think,"  that  Theodore  charges  Elizabeth  with  hav- 
ing been  doing  this  or  that  with  Mr.  Beecher,  or  of  stat- 
ing this  thing  or  that  thing  ;  that  that  was  the  form  in 
which  Mrs.  Morse  had  propagated  these  stories,  by  ac- 
cusing Mr.  Tilton  of  having  charged  such  and  such 
things,  and  that  it  went  from  ear  to  ear  in  that  way,  and 
he  supposed  it  had  reached  Mrs.  WoodhuU,  and  that  she 
had  gathered  it  up  and  magntfled  it  into  the  present  pub- 
lication. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  as  to  Mrs.  Morse's  having  com 
municated  the  facts  of  the  intercourse  between  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  with  regard 
to  the  pistol  scene,  or  anything  of  that  kind?  A.  I  don't 
think  there  was. 

Q.  Now,  in  the  course  of  this  interview,  Mr.  Tracy, 
when  the  subject  of  the  publication  of  this  paper  that 
was  under  consideration  for  publication  was  up,  was  any- 
thing said  as  to  whether  Mr.  Beecher  could  stand  such  a 
paper  as  that  1  A.  I  have  already  alluded  to  that,  Mr. 
Evarts,  I  think.  I  stated  to  him  that  1  didn't  see  how 
Mr.  Beecher  could  stand  such  a  paper  as  that,  and  I  didn't 
believe  he  would ;  and  it  is  in  that  connection  that  Mr. 
Tilton  said  he  would  have  to  stand  what  was  true ;  and  I 
said:  "That  is  the  question,  Mr.  Tilton,  whether  ihis  is 
true ;  your  wife  has  denied  it ;  now,  if  Mr.  Beecher  denies 
it"  


TESTIMONY  OF  Bl 

THE  rOLICY  OF  SEPAEATE  DENIALS. 

Q.  Well,  if  you  have  already  stated  it  you 
need  not  repeat.  Now,  in  tlie  course  of  this  con- 
versation was  there  a  consideration  or  sugges- 
tion talked  of  between  you  and  Mr.  Tilton— be- 
tween you  and  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton— as  to  bow 
this  whole  scandal  of  Mrs.  Woodhull,  as  published  by 
her,  might  be  treated  by  separate  denials?  A.  There 
was. 

Q.  What  was  said  on  that  point  1  A.  In  discussing  how 
it  could  be  denied,  among  other  ways,  I  suggested  that 
each  party  might  deny  specifically  the  scandal  so  far  as 
it  implicated  them  in  it  or  referred  to  them ;  and  in  that 
connection  I  referred  to  the  fact  that  Henry  B.  had 
already  denied  the  scandal. 

Q.  In  some  publication?  A.  In  some  publication  as  I 
understood ;  and  I  said  that  had  done  great  good— her  de- 
nial had  done  great  good.  I  said  :  "  Now,  Mr.  Moulton 
says  that  that  statement,  so  far  as  it  refers  to  him  as  an 
actor  in  this  scandal,  is  untrue.  He  can  publish  a  card 
saying  in  substance  that  so  far  as  his  name  is  mentioned 
in  that  scandal  it  is  untrue.  Then  you  can  publish  a 
card  saying  that  so  far  as  that  scandal  refers  to  you  as 
an  actor,  you  can  brand  it  as  false.  If  you  do  that,  in  my 
judgment,  it  will  liUl  the  scandal." 

Q.  What  was  said  by  him,  if  anything,  in  that  connec- 
tion ?  A.  In  that  connection  in— no,  he  said  he  could 
not— he  would  not  deny  it  in  that  way ;  that  he  thought 
the  only  form  of  denial  which  could  be  made  would  be 
to  tell  the  true  story,  and  contradict  the  false  story  by 
simply  telling  the  true  one ;  that  he  would  not  brand 
that  story  as  a  lie,  for  the  reasons  which  I  had  recounted. 
In  that  connection  of  denial  I  remember  that  Mrs.  Davis 
was  aUuded  to— Mrs.  Paulina  Wright  Davis— and  in  that 
connection  Mr.  Tilton  either  read  to  me  the  letter  from 
Mrs.  Tilton,  or  the  statement  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  in  regard  to 
the  relations  of  Mrs.  Davis  to  her  family,  or  he  stated 
them,  I  cannot  say  which  ;  but  in  that  interview  I  re- 
ceived the  information  that  Mrs.  Davis  could  and  would 
deny  the  scandal— her  part  of  that  scandal,  and  that  her 
case  would  be  covered  also  by  these  specific  denials.  Mr. 
Tilton  said  that  the  scandal,  so  far  as  it  represented  Mrs. 
Paulina  Wright  Davis  as  an  intimate  friend  of  his  fam- 
ily, was  untrue,  and  he  gave  me  the  particulars  of  her 
acquaintance  with  the  family. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  at  that  interview  about  the  con 
tuiuance,  or  possession,  of  these  papers  in  existence 
being  a  danger  of  an  explosion  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  at 
that  interview— I  cannot  say  positively  whether  it  was  at 
that  interview  or  a  subsequent  interview  with  Mr.  Moul- 
ton, buv;  I  think  it  was  at  that  interview— I  think  I  said  it 
that  evening  to  Mr.  Moulton,  before  I  left. 

Q.  What  was  the  observation?  A.  In  regard  to  his 
keeping— being  the  custodian  of  these  papers  and  the  im- 
possibility of  permanently  extinguishing  this  scandal  so 


'JNJAMIN  F.    TEAGY.  255 

long  as  those  papers  were  kept  in  existence.  I  said  in 
my  judgment  it  would  be  utterly  impossible  to  keep  this 
scandal  from  the  public,  or  to  extingtdsh  it, 
so  long  as  these  documents  were  kept  in  ex- 
istence ;  that  it  was  impossible  for  these  parties 
to  maintain  an  armed  neutrality  toward  each  other.  I 
remember  using  that  expression ;  I  said  that  if  these 
documents  were  kept  in  existence  something  would  occur 
to  bring  about  a  collision,  and  I  said  to  Mr.  Moulton,  I 
don't  believe  you  can  remain  the  custodian  of  these  pa- 
pers without  its  involving  you ;  I  would  no  sooner  keep 
these  papers  in  my  house,"  I  said,  "than  I  would  keep 
a  powder  magazine  there I  remember  that  expression. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  I  caU  your  attention  to  a  statement 
which  the  witness,  Mr.  Woodruff,  has  made  concerning 
this  interview,  or  the  interview  this  evening,  that  you 
have  been  speaking  of ;  Mr.  Vv^oodrufl'  says  that  Mr.  Moul- 
ton immediately  proceeded  to  tell  Gen.  Tracy  all  about 
the  case. 

Mr.  Beach— What  page  do  you  refer  to,  Sir  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— 344.  And  then  being  asked  by  the  coimsel, 

What  did  he  tell  him ;  just  repeat  it  now  ?"  The  witness 
says:  "And  his  connection  with  the  case;  he  told  him 
[that  is,  Mr.  Moulton  told  Mr.  Tracy]  that  the  essential 
points  of  this  Woodhull  scandal  were  true?"  A.  Mr. 
Moulton  made  no  such  statement  to  me. 

Q.  Did  he  make  any  such  statement  in  substance  or  in 
effect  ?  A.  He  di-d  not. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that  the  essential  points  of  this  story, 
as  published  in  the  paper,  were  true  ?  A.  He  did  not.  He 
and  Mr.  TUton  both  told  me,  when  they  were  together, 
during  that  conversation  

Mi\  Beach— You  are  not  answering  the  question  now, 
Sir.   You  are  volunteering. 

The  Witness— I  think  not. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  think  you  are,  and  I  beg  you  not  to 
do  it.  ^ 

GEN.  TRACY'S  ALLEGED  REMAEK  ON  LYING. 

Mr.  Evarts— Was  any  general  statement 
made  by  Mr.  Tilton  or  Mr.  Moulton  on  that  subject  ?  You 
have  given  the  conversation  ?  A.  The  general  statement 
they  made  to  me  was  that  the  story  as  told  by  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  was  essentially  false. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Woodruff  subsequently  in  his  testimony 
says  that  he  objected  to  making  any  statement  in  a  pub- 
lic card  ;  that  he,  Mr.  Woodruff,  objected  to  Mr.  Moulton 
making  any,  and  in  objecting  said,  "  I  would  protest 
against ;  that  I  would  not,  as  he  was  a  partner  of  mine 
—that  I  would  not  allow  it ;  I  thought  it  would  be  very 
wrong  to  make  any  such  statement  of  a  story  that  he 
knew  was  true — deny  it  in  a  public  card."  And  then  this 
is  imputed  to  you  

Mr.  Beach— WTiere  is  that  paper  ! 

Mr.  Evarts— Page  345 ;  at  the  top  of  the  first  column. 
[Reading.]   "  Gen.  Tracy  replied  that  he  did  not  recom- 


356 


THE   TILTON- BEECH JSn  TRIAL. 


mend  lying,  but  lie  thought  in  some  cases— in  this  case 
particularly — that  a  man  would  he  justilied  in  denying 
that  story,"  He  gives  that  as  an  occurrence  at  this  inter- 
view of  which  you  speak.  Did  you  say  anything  of  that 
Mnd  %  A.  I  did  not.   Mr.  Woodruff  did  object  

Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment. 

The  Witness— What  is  the  remark  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  asked  you  to  wait  one  moment.  You  have 
answered  the  question. 

The  Witness— Ah ! 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  was  any  part  of  this  that  I  have  read 
to  you  as  coming  from  Mr.  Woodruff,  an  occui-rence  at 
that  interview  1   A.  It  was. 

Q.  What  did  he  say?  A.  Mr.  Woodruff  did  object  to 
their  denying  the  story  in  a  public  card. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  he  say  1  A.  He  (Mr.  Woodruff)  so  far 
as  I  remember  his  participation  in  the  conversation,  took 
Mr.  Tilton's  view  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Beach— That  I  object  to,  and  move  to  strike  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  did  he  say,  so  far  as  you  recall— the 
substance  of  it  ?  A.  Well,  he  said,  in  substance,  that  they 
could  not  deny  the  whole  of  that  story  ;  that,  part  of  the 
story  being  true,  it  would  not  be  the  right  thing  to  pub- 
lish a  card  saying  that  it  was  a  lie,  saying  that  it  was 
false  ;  and  he  did  obiect  to  their  publishing  a  card.  I 
remember  Mr.  Woodruff's  objection  to  their  publishing  a 
card. 

Q.  And  was  anything  then  said  as  to  Mr.  Moulton's  hav- 
ing verbally  denied  it  1  A.  There  was.  They  had  been 
denying  it  

Q.  What  was  that  %  A.  They  had  been  denying  it  be- 
fore that  interview,  and  were  to  continue  denying  it  pri- 
vately. The  only  question  discussed  there  was  whether 
it  should  be  denied  in  a  public  card,  and  if  so,  what  the 
form  of  that  card  should  be,  and  who  should  sign  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  now  1  o'clock. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 

MRS.    OYINGTON    RECALLED    FOR  CROSS- 
EXAMINATION. 

The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mrs.  Maria N.  Ovington  recalled,  and  cross-examination 
resumed. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mrs.  Ovington  has  been  recalled,  if 
your  Honor  please,  at  the  request  of  the  other  side,  for 
further  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mrs.  Ovington,  you  stated  when  you 
were  ui)on  the  stand  before,  I  think,  that  Mrs.  Tilton 
came  to  your  residence  on  the  morning  of  the  11th  of 
July,  1874  ]   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  that  she  rode  with  you  to  Coney  Island  on  the 
day  previous,  the  10th  of  July?   A.  She  did. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  afternoon  or  evening  of  July  10th 


did  you  leave  Mrs.  Tilton  1  A.  I  think  it  was  about  5 
o'clock ;  it  was  near  or  about  5  o'clock. 

O.  And  where  did  you  part  with  her?  A.  At  174 
Livingston  St. 

Q.  Her  residence  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  or  not  Mr.  Tilton  was  be- 
fore the  Committee  that  evening?  A.  He  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  the  Committee  met  that  evening  1 
A.  At  Mr.  Storrs's. 

Q.  Did  you  know,  when  Mrs.  Tilton  and  you  parted,  that 
Mv.  Tilton  was  to  be  before  the  Committee  that  evening? 
A.  I  did  not.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  it  at  any  time  during  the  course  of  the 
evening  of  the  10th?  A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  did  you  learn  it  ?  A.  There  were  one  or 
two  friends,  I  think,  in,  as  was  the  custom.  Mr.  Cleve- 
land called,  and  I  asked  him  if  Mr.  Tilton  was  to  be 
before  the  Committee — if  he  knew  when  he  was  to  be 
there;  he  said  he  believed  he  was  to  be  there  that  even- 
ing— he  thought  he  was. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  request  of  Mr.  Cleveland  at  that 
time?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  don't  think  that  I  did;  I  don't 
remember  that  I  did. 

Q.  Didn't  you  request  him  to  inform  you  of  the  fact  if 
Mr.  Tiltou  went  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  might  have 
done  so,  but  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Cleveland  inform  you  of  the  fact  that  even- 
ing?  A.  He  did,  at  my  request. 

Q.  At  your  request ;  well,  that  is  Wiiat  I  was  asking 
you— if  you  requested  him  ?  A.  Not  when  he  was  at  my 
house.   You  have  gone  ahead  a  little  fast. 

Q.  Did  you  request  him  to  communicate  with  you  dur- 
ing that  evening  in  case  Mv.  Tilton  went  before  the  Com- 
mittee ?  A.  I  don't  think  I  did;  I  afterward  wished  that 
I  had,  but  I  don't  think  tliat  I  did. 

Q.  I  think  you  don't  comprehend  the  full  pweep  of  the 
question,  Mrs.  Ovington.  Did  you  request  him  on  that 
evening  to  communicate  with  j^ou  in  case  Mr.  Tilton  did 
go  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  don't  think  I  did,  but  I 
think  I  can  explain  to  you  what  you  wish  to  know.  When 
Mr.  Cleveland  called,  I  asked  him  if  Mr.  Tilton  was  to  be 
before  the  Committee  that  evening— if  he  knew  whether 
he  was ;  I  think  he  said  he  thought  he  might  be,  but 
didn't  know ;  I  don't  remember  the  answer,  but  at  any 
rate  I  felt  an  anxiety  to  know,  and  wrote  Mr.  Cleveland 
a  note  asking  him  if  Mr.  Tilton  was  before  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Sheai-man— Wait  a  moment,  Mrs.  Ovington. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  was  embraced  in  my  question, 
whether  you  made  the  request  of  Mr.  Cleveland  1  A. 
I  thought  you  meant  whether  I  made  it  in  his  presence. 

Q.  No,  that  evening.  A.  I  wrote  a  request ;  I  did  not 
make  it— not  verbally ;  I  wrote  one. 

Q.  You  made  it  in  writing  ?  A.  I  wrote  one— yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  by  whom  did  you  send  that  note  !  A.  The  tele- 
graph messenger— District  Telegraph. 


TESTlMChM   OF  MBS,   MARIA   N.  OVINGTON. 


257 


Q.  What  time  in  the  evening  vas  ths,t  done  ?  A.  I 
couitl  not  say  exactly ;  between  8  and  9,  I  think ;  I  have 
the  record  at  home ;  I  can  show  it  to  you. 

Q.  How  soon  after  the  writing  and  sending  of  the  note 
did  you  receive  a  reply  from  Mr.  Cleveland?  A.  Imme- 
diately. 

Q.  And  what  information  did  he  give  you  1  A.  I  have 
the  note  if  you  wish  it. 
Q.  Please. 

The  Witness— Mr.  Shearman,  both  notes,  the  note  that 
I  wrote  him  and  the  one  he  replied;  I  brought  them  with 
me  when  I  came  on  the  stand  before ;  they  were  not 
called  for. 

Mr.  FuUerton— I  understood  they  were  not  in  existence 
at  that  time. 
The  Witness— I  didn't  say  so,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  no;  I  didn't  say  I  understood  so 
from  you ;  I  got  the  impression  somewhere. 
The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

[Mr.  Shearman  produces  the  letters  called  for  and  they 
were  examined  by  Mr.  FuUerton.] 

Mr.  FuUerton— Now,  after  you  received  a  reply  from 
Mr.  Cleveland,  did  you  communicate  with  Mrs.  Tilton  ? 
A.  I  did,  immediately. 

Q.  Sent  a  letter  to  her  ?  A.  I  did ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  did  you  send  iti  A.  By  the  telegraphic  mes- 
senger. 

Q.  And  what  time  in  the  evening  f  A.  I  could  not  say 
exactly ;  I  have  the  record,  but  directly  that  I  received 
the  reply  from  Mr.  Cleveland. 

Q.  And  it  was  the  next  morning  that  Mrs.  Tilton  came 
to  your         A.  The  following  morning ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  I  did  not  understand  what  time  you  sent  the  letter 
to  Mrs.  Tilton  that  night.  A.  As  soon  as  I  received  Mr. 
Cleveland's  reply. 

Q.  About  what  time  in  the  evening  was  it  ?  A.  I  can- 
not say;  I  think  about  9  o'clock;  I  should  judge  about 
that  time. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  time  you  sent  a  note  to  Mr. 
Cleveland  ?  A.  I  do  not  exactly ;  I  think  it  was  between 
8  and  9  o'clock,  and  the  reply  eame  immediately, 
and  I  then  sent  the  answer  to  Mrs.  Tilton.  I  don't  think 
it  was  much  after  9;  it  may  have  been  half-past  9 ; 
it  was  between  8  and  10  o'clock,  at  any  rate,  that 
these  notes  were  sent. 

Mr.  FuUerton- That  is  aU. 

Mr.  Shearman- Will  you  hand  me  those  notes,  if  you 
please  f 

Mr.  FvQlerton- Oh,  have  you  seen  that  note  that  you 
sent  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  since  that  night  1  A.  I  have  not ;  I 
regret  to  say  that  she  destroyed  it. 

Q.  Well,  what  request  did  you  make  of  Mrs.  Tilton  1  A. 
I  informed  her  what  I  had  written  Mr.  Cleveland. 

Q.  What  request  did  you  make,  if  anything?  A.  I  will 
give  it  to  you  as  well  as  I  can  remember  the  contents  of 
the  letter;  I  could  not  say  exactly  what  was  written, 


but  I  said  that  I  had  kept  my  promise  to  her  to  inform 
her,  if  I  knew  it,  when  her  husband  was  before  the  Com- 
mittee, that  I  had  written  Mr.  Cleveland  and  received  this 
note,  and  I  think  I  worded  it  exactly  as  Mr.  Cleveland 
had  written  me,  teUing  her  that  I  would  be  very  glad  to 
have  her  come  with  me  that  night  if  she  wished  to  do  so, 
and  she  wrote  me  a  note  in  reply. 

Q.  Never  mind  that.  A.  I  have  the  note  here  if  you 
wish  it. 

Q.  No.  A.  It  may  save  my  coming  again;  that  is  all. 
Q.  No,  you  won't  have  to  come  again. 

EEDIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  MES.  OYINGTON. 

Mr.  Shearman— Please  look  at  that  paper,  and 
say  if  that  is  the  note  which  you  wrote  to  Mr.  Cleveland  1 
[Handing  witness  a  paper.]  A.  T  beUeve  this  to  be  the 
note,  Sir. 

Q.  Look  at  this  paper  and  say  whether  this  is  the  an- 
swer which  you  received  from  Mr.  Cleveland  ?  [Handing 
witness  a  paper.]   A.  I  believe  that  to  be  the  answer. 

Q.  Look  at  this  and  see  if  this  is  the  envelope  in  which 
it  came  ?  [Handing  witness  an  envelope.]  A.  Yes,  Sir ; 
that  is  my  penciling  ia  the  corner. 

Q.  Look  at  this  paper  and  state  whether  that  is  the  an- 
swer which  you  received  from  Mrs.  Tilton  that  night  f 
[Handing  witness  a  paper.]   A.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Shearman— Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  we  offer  this 
note  to  Mr.  Cleveland  in  evidence.  [Reading.] 

Friday,  p.  m.,  July  10,  '74. 

Mr.  Cleveland. 

Dear  Sir  :  Is  Mr.  Tilton  with  the  Committee  this  p.  m., 
or  wiU  he  be  informed  of  anything  that  may  disturb  him  % 
Please  send  word  by  bearer,  as  I  hat^e  promised  in  that 
case  to  telegraph  Mrs.  TUton  to  come  and  remain  with 
me  to-night.  I  may  have  forgotten  to  mention  this  when 
speaking  to  you  this  p.  m.   Yours  sincerely, 

M.  N.  OVINGTON. 

No.  148  Hicks-st. 
[Marked  "Exhibit  D,  137." 

Mr.  Shearman— And  the  envelope  from  Mr.  Cleveland 
addressed,  "Mrs.  Ovington."  I  offer  that  [marked,  "  Ex- 
hibit D,  138."] 

Mr.  Shearman— I  now  offer  the  letter  from  Mr.  Cleve- 
land in  reply :  [Reading.] 

Dear  Madam  :  TUton  is  here,  but  I  guess  you  need  not 
send  for  Mrs.  T.  Yours  always,  c. 

[Marked  "  Exhibit  D,  139."] 

Mr.  Shearman— I  now  offer  the  reply  of  Mrs.  Ovington, 
the  contents  of  which  have  been  given  in  evidence. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Let  us  see  that ;  it  may  not  be  admissi- 
ble.  [Examining  the  letter.]  No  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— This  is  the  letter  from  Mrs.  TUton  to 
Mrs.  Ovington  :   [Reading.  | 

My  Beloved  :  Do  not  fear  for  me.  I  wiU  stay  to- 
night and  come  to  you  in  the  morning.  We  wUl  both 
trust  and  wait  on  the  Lord. 

Aff.,  Your  own,  sister,  Elizabeth. 

[Marked  "Exhibit  D,  140.") 


258  THE  TILTON-Bl 

Mr.  .Fullerton— If  I  Tinders tand  you  correctly,  Mrs.  | 
Ovington,  you  commutiicated  

Mr.  Shearman— One  moment,  Mr.  Fullerton.  Let  me 
ask  one  question.  [To  tlie  witness.]  Did  you  communi- 
cate or  sliow  this  note  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  to  your  husband 
that  evening  ?  A.  Immediately. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  don't  see  the  importance  of  it. 

EECROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MRS.  OVINGTON. 

Mr.  Fullerton — I  understood  you  to  say  that 
you  communicated  the  contents  of  the  note  of  Mr.  Cleve- 
land to  Mrs.  Tilton.  A.  I  think,  if  I  remember  correctly, 
that  I  put  the  note  before  me  and  wrote  from  that,  saying 
that  was  Mr.  Cleveland's  letter  to  me. 

Q.  Then  you  inserted  a  copy  of  it — a  literal  copy?  A.  I 
thfhk  so  ;  I  am  not  certain ;  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  communicate  any  other  information  to  her, 
excepting  that  fact  that  you  had  addressed  Mr.  Cleve- 
land and  received  that  reply?  A.  Nothing  else  that  I 
remember,  except  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  before  the  Commit- 
tee, and  invited  her,  if  she  wished  to  do  so,  to  come  to  me 
that  night. 

Q.  You  did  not  communicate  anything  to  her,  then,  to 
the  eflFect  that  something  would  take  place,  or  had  taken 
place,  before  the  Committee  that  would  disturb  Mr. 
Tilton  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  knew  nothing  about  it ;  I  did  not 
write  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Did  you  expect  her  the  followins  morning  after  re- 
ceiving that  note  ?  A.  I  did  not  expect  her.  When  she 
said  she  would  come  to  me  in  the  morning  I  thought  it 
was  merely  as  a  call  or  conversation,  but  as  I  said  to  you 
on  my  other  examination,  it  was  a  great  surprise  to  me 
that  she  came  to  our  house. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  not  expect  her,  then,  at  all  ?  A.  I 
thought  she  she  might  come  as  a  call. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  not  referring  to  whether  it  was  a  call  or 
Whether  it  was  a  permanent  stay  that  she  contemplated ; 
did  you  expect  her  the  next  momtag  ?  A.  I  did  not  ex- 
pect her  more  than  her  note  indicated,  that  she  would 
call  upon  me  in  the  morning. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  think  she  would  call,  as  the  note  indi- 
cated'? A.  I  thought  she  might.  She  was  ia  the  habit  of 
calling,  Mr.  Fullerton,  and  had  been  for  years,  upon  me. 

Mr.  Fullerton — WpII,  that  is  all,  unless  Mr.  Shearman 
wants  you.  ^ 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  MRS.  OVING- 
TON. 

Mr.  Shearman— At  what  hour  of  the  day  did 
you  expect  Mrs.  Tilton  would  call,  if  at  all,  the  next  day  ? 
A.  I  didn't  know ;  she  said  in  the  morning.  I  merely 
thought  she  was  coming  to  talk  over  her  private  matters^ 
with  me,  but  I  didn't  know  at  what  time.  I  know  noth- 
ing more  than  the  note  indicated. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  she  actually  come  t    A.  She  came 
before  breakfast. 


^tJOHBR  TIUAL. 

Q.  Had  you  any  expectation  that  she  would  come  at 
such  an  early  time  1  A.  None  in  the  least. 

Q.  Had  you  any  expectation  that  she  would  come  for 
any  other  purpose  than  her  usual  ordinary  call  ?  A.  I 
did  not,  unless  it  might  be  to  talk  over  her  matters. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  contents  of  some  letters  were  given 
in  evidence,  because  the  letters  were  not  then  to  be 
found— on  your  examination.  We  have  now  found  the 
letters,  and  we  propose  to  put  the  whole  letters  in  [hand- 
ing the  letters  to  Mr.  Fullerton]. 

Mr.  Morris-  Can't  we  agree  upon  the  time,  so  as  to 
close  this  point— as  to  the  time  when  Mrs.  Ovington  com- 
municated with  Mrs.  Tilton  1  According  to  the  telegraph 
message,  it  was  five  minutes  past  10. 

Mr.  Shearman— Certainly  ;  that  is  my  recollection  of  it. 
[To  the  witness.]  Mrs.  Ovington,  we  understand  that 
the  time  when  you  communicated  with  Cleve- 
land  

Mr.  Morris— With  Mrs.  Tilton— it  was  five  minutes  past 
10. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  wouldn't  want  to  be  so  exact,  but  is 
that  about  the  time  1 

The  Witness— I  can  make  it  correct  by  showing  the 
record,  but  I  think  you  have  that,  Mr.  Morris ;  I  think 
you  took  it. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  we  examined  it. 

The  Witness — I  think  you  took  the  record,  Mr.  Morris, 
from  the  District  Telegraph  oflBce.   You  have  it,  I  think. 

Mr.  Morris— No,  I  have  not  the  record. 

The  Witness— I  understood  you  had. 

Mr.  Morris— Only  the  memorandum. 

The  Witness— Mr.  Shearman,  do  you  wish  me  to  say 
why  I  wrote  this  note  to  Mr.  Cleveland  1  I  think,  per- 
haps, it  is  but  justice  to  myself  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  if  it  is  in  justice  to  yourself. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No. 

The  Witness— I  think,  if  you  will  allow  me,  Mr.  Fuller- 
ton,  it  will  explain  the  matter  a  little  more  clearly. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  understood  you  wrote  to  him  to  know 
whether  Mr.  Tilton  was  going  before  the  Committee. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  I  will  ask  that  question  in  justice 
to  .yourself.  State  with  what  motive  you  wrote  the  letter 
to  Mr.  Cleveland? 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  unimportant. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  take  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— Go  on.  A.  I  had  promised  Mrs.  Tilton 
that  if  I  knew  of  Mr.  Tilton's  being  before  the  Committee 
at  any  time  I  would  immediately  Inform  her  of  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  already  stated  and  on  the 
record. 

The  Witness— And  the  reason  that  she  wished  me  to 
inform  her,  she  feared  that  Mr.  Tilton  

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment.  That  is  not  Mrs.  Oving- 
ton's  motive ;  that  is  another  person's  motive. 


TESTIMONY  OF  MRS. 

Judge  Neilson— You  are  permitted  to  sta^^'^   ^- 

vie^rs,  Jlrs.  Ovington — your  own  motives. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Slie  lias  stated. 

Tlie  Wituese— Iknewtliat  Mrs.  Tilton  feared  Mr.  Til- 
ton  

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment. 

Mr.  Shearman — State  tlie  reason  in  your  own  language. 

Mr.  Morris— She  has  stated  it. 

Mr.  Shtarmau— If  there  was  anyfiu'ther  reason,  you  are 
an  iloerty  to  state  it. 

The  Witness— It  was  merely  according  to  my — 

3Ir.  FoUerton— It  has  already  heen  stated  that  she  had 
promised  to  inform  Mrs.  TUton,  and  that  proraise  she  ful- 
filled by  the  writing  of  this  note.  That  is  aU  very  plain 
and  all  very  proper. 

The  Witness— That  is  correct,  Sir. 

Mr.  FuUerton— There  is  no  reflection  upon  Mrs.  OTiuM- 
ton  at  all  in  that  respect. 

Judge  Neilson— Mrs.  Ovington  cannot  state  anything- 
that  Is  predicated  upon  the  supposed  condition  of  Mrs. 
Tiiton's  mind. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  we  agree  to  that.  She  might  state,  I 
suppose,  that  her  reason  for  doing  this  was  that  she  was 
to  commtmicate  to  her— that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  asted 
her  

Judge  Xeilson— I  ruled  that  the  lady  could  state  her 
motives  in  writing. 

Mr.  Evarts— She  had  promised  to  write. 

The  Witness— Shall  I  teU  you  why  I  had  promised  ? 
That  is  what  I  mean. 

Mr.  FuUerton— That  is  already  stated.  Vfiij,  Mrs. 
Ovuigton's  promise  was  because  Mrs.  Tilton  asked  her  to 
Nv^'ite  and  let  her  know. 

The  Witness— And  IMrs.  Tiiton's   reason  for  asking 
me  

Mr.  FuUerton— Mrs.  Tiiton's  reasons  are  not  to  be 
given. 

Judge  Xeilson— That  is  a  part  we  cannot  take,  JUrs. 
Ovington. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir  ;  I  didn't  understand  that. 
Judge  Neilson— I  think  Mrs.  Ovington  is  perfectly  clear 
in  this  matter. 

A  FIGHT  TO  EXCLUDE  MRS.  TILTON'S  NOTE 
TO  MRS.  OVINGTON. 
Mr.  Shearman— If  your  Honor  please,  we 
now  offer  the  note  in  evidence,  from  Mrs.  Tilton  to  Mrs. 
Ovington,  the  contents  of  which  were  stated  by  Mrs. 
OviQgton  on  her  previous  cross-examination,  as  nearly  as 
she  could  state  them,  and  with  very  remarkable  accu- 
racy, certainly,  being  from  memory,  and  we  now  offer 
the  original  note  itself  in  order  to  make  it  complete.  It 
was  brought,  out  by  our  learned  friends  on  tlir>  other  side. 
Mrs.  Ovington  did  not  tben  have  anv  opportunity  to  go 
«i)d  -and  tbf  paper 


^ABiA  y.  OYiyoToy.  259 

Judge  Neiison— It  was  brought  out  on  a  conversation 
with  Mr.  Tilton  ;  therefore  you  may  bring  it  in. 
I    Mr.  Fullerton— The  note  was  not  brought  out  in  the 
'  conversation  with  him. 

Judge  NeUson— The  contents. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mrs.  Ovington  stated  here  in  her  evi- 
dence what  she  said  to  Mr.  Tilton,  which  embraced  that 
note  as  she  then  remembered  it. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  question  is  whether  that 
don't  open  the  door  for  the  note  now. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  their  evidence.  Certainly  it 
would  not  open  the  door  to  admit  the  letter  itself,  be- 
cause Mr.  Tilton  replied  to  ^Irs.  Ovington  upon  the 
strength  of  Mrs.  Oviagton's  recollection  of  the  note  at 
the  time. 

Judge  Xeilson— Not  if  tJiey  opened  it— if  it  was  new 
ma  iter  by  them. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  matter  by  them,  Sir,  not  "by  us. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  point,  I  take  it,  is  this,  if  your  Honor 
please;  if  we  had  then  had  the  note  we  should  have 
offered  it  as  being  the  note  which  Mrs.  Ovington  commu- 
nicated to  Mr.  Tilton,  but  the  paper  not  being  at  hand,  or 
not  being  supposed  to  be  in  existence  for  the  moment, 
she  stated  that  she  gave  the  contents  of  the  letter.  Her 
principal  recollection  wasthatshe  gave  the  contents  of  the 
letter,  which  she  then  had,  and  then  the  letter  being  miss- 
ing, when  the  rules  of  proof  would  have  re- 
quii-ed  the  paper  to  be  produced  as  being 
the  best  evidence  of  its  contents,  she  swearing 
that  she  communicated  the  contents,  that  was  displaced 
and  we  had  to  take  in  lieu  of  it,  as  the  best  to  be  got,  the 
secondary  evidence  of  what  the  contents  were.  Now  the 
proof  puts  us— the  examination  puts  us  in  the  same  posi- 
tion, as  we  stibmit  to  your  Honor,  in  regard  to  this  paper, 
that  we  should  have  been  in  if  the  witness  at  the  time 
had  it  in  her  hand  and  said.  **  I  communicated  the  con- 
tents of  this  note,"  and  then  we  should  read  it. 

Judge  Neilson— The  contents  were  only  before  us,  or 
proper  to  be  brought  before  us,  because  this  witness 
stated  the  contents  in  her  conversation  -with  3Ir.  Tilton ; 
that  is  all. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  agree  ;  but  still  the  recollection  is 
"  I  stated  the  contents,"  and  now  we  are  put,  in  the  sec- 
ondary form,  to  her  remembrance  of  what  the  contents 
were. 

Mr.  Fullerton — She  gave  the  contents. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  know,  but  it  was  from  her  memory. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  not  material  what  the  contents 
were,  the  question  having  been  what  she  told  Mr.  TUton 
the  contents  were,  and  about  that  there  is  no  dispute. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  I  think  not ;  that  is,  that  is  my  pointy 
if  your  Honor  please,  and  I  wUl  be  very  brief  about  it.  I 
imderstand  the  state  of  the  thing  to  be  this :  that  the 
witness's  recollection  is  that  she  stated  to  Mr.  Tilton  the 
contents  of  the  note,  whatever  those  contents  were.  If 


260 


IKE   TILTON-BEBCEEB  TBIAL. 


the  note  had  been  here,  then  we  should  have  had  a  right 
to  read  the  note,  because  that  speaks  for  Its  contents,  and 
she  has  sworn  she  communicated  the  contents ;  hut  the 
note  not  being  here,  we  then  had  to  prove  what  she  had 
communicated  by  her  memory  of  the  contents,  instead 
of  the  vrritten  contents.   That  is  my  proposition. 

Judge  Neilson— Suppose,  Mr.  Evarts,  you  now  have  the 
letter  before  you,  and  you  find  in  it  some  matter  which 
Mrs.  Ovlngton  did  not  state  to  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  conver- 
sation with  him ;  it  clearly  ought  not  to  be  admitted. 

Mr.  Pullerton— That  is  just  the  reason  why  they  want 
to  prove  it.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  will  be  brought  out,  if  it  be  so,  but 
that  is  not  the  state  of  the  proofs  upon  which  I  am  pro- 
posing the  question  of  law  to  your  Honor.  The  state  of 
proofs  upon  which  I  propose  the  question  of  law  is  that 
this  lady  stated  the  contents  of  the  note.  That  would 
have  authorized  us  to  read  the  note  as  being  the  evidence 
of  its  contents. 

Judge  Neilson— So  far  she  had  stated  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  she  says  she  stated  the  contents. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  suppose  a  part  of  it  she  did  not 
state. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  the  way  the  imperfection  arises  is 
that,  not  having  the  note,  she  is  obliged  to  recur  to  mem- 
ory for  what  the  contents  were. 

Judge  Neilson— The  primary  duty  of  the  witness,  then, 
was  not  so  much  to  state  the  contents  of  the  note  as  to 
state  what  she  told  Mr.  Tilton  That  was  the  vital  thing, 
embracing  the  contents  of  the  note,  so  far  as  she  remem- 
bered it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Tilton's  reply  to  that  communicar 
tion  was  predicated  of  what  Mrs.  Ovington  stated  to 
him  in  regard  to  the  contents  of  the  note. 

Judge  Neilson— Perhaps,  if  the  note  itself  had  been  be- 
fore him,  his  conversation  might  have  been  different. 

Mr.  Fullerton — Mrs.  Ovington  undoubtedly  gave  the 
contents  of  that  note  as  she  recollected  it.  Now,  if  she 
omitted  to  state  anything,  then  Mr.  Tilton  is  not  to  be 
concluded  by  what  he  stated  to  Mrs.  Ovington. 

Judge  Neilson— In  that  case  he  had  not  the  opportu- 
nity to  reply. 

The  Witness— If  your  Honor  please,  I  stated  the  note  to 
Mr.  Tilton  at  the  time  of  receiving  it.  I  recalled  it  here 
some  months  afterward. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Undoubtedly. 

The  Witness— Perhaps  my  memory  was  better  then. 

Judge  Neilson  fto  the  witness]— You  were  examined 
with  reference  to  youi-  conversation  with  Mr.  Tilton. 
and  you  stated  truly,  according  to  your  best  recol- 
lection, all  that  you  told  Mr.  Tilton  1 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson — That  embraced  the  contents  of  the  let- 
te:-,  which,  according  to  your  memory,  you  had  com- 
nmnicated  to  him  ? 


The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  counsel]— Now  suppose  that 
Mrs.  Ovington  did  not  state  the  contents  of  the  letter,  as 
she  then  recollected. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  agree,  but  she  did  not  recollect 
it  in  full. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  we  don't  know,  but  you  certainly 
will  not  hold  Mr.  Tilton  responsible  for  the  contents  of  a 
letter  which  was  not  stated  to  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  let  me  call  at- 
tention to  a  ruling  in  this  case :  [Reading.] 

The  plaiutiff 's  witness  having  testified  that  he  told  Mr. 
Beeeher  the  substance  of  the  charges  he  intended  to  lay 
before  the  Commit-tee:  Held,  that  the  plaintiff  was  en- 
titled thereby  to  put  in  evidence  the  written  

Judge  Neilson—"  The  written  charges." 
Mr.  Evarts— "The  written  charges,"  wholly  on  the 
groimd  that  the  substance  had  been  communicated. 

THE  NOTE  EXCLUDED. 

Judge  Neilson— I  should  have  admitted  those 

charges,  independent  of  any  conversation  with  Mr. 
Beeeher,  just  as  I  admitted  the  church  record;  they  were 
a  part  of  the  record ;  they  were  entitled  to  come  in  any 
way,  as  a  part  of  the  proceedings  of  the  church.  I  think 
that  is  all  with  this  lady.  There  is  no  difference  or  diffi- 
culty about  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  if  your  Honor  please,  we  think,  with 
due  submission,  that  if  we  are  not  entitled  to  read  the 
letter,  we  are  entitled  to  take  the  witness's  memory  now, 
upon  being  refreshed  by  seeing  the  letter,  of  what  she 
told  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  no. 

Judge  Neilson— She  was  examined  fully  on  that  sub- 
ject. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  know,  but  she  had  no  opportimity  to  re- 
fresh herself. 

Judge  Neilson— The  note  itself  would  not  refresh  her. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  depends  upon  whether  her  sub 
stantive  evidence,  so  far  as  giving  the  contents  of  the 
note,  was  told  him. 

The  Witness— I  don't  think,  Mr.  Evarts,  I  can  give  it 
any  more  correctly  now  from  memory  than  I  did  when  I 
was  on  the  witness-stand  before. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  unfortunate  for  Mr.  Evarts. 

The  Witness— You  want  me  to  tell  the  truth,  don't  you, 
Mr.  Fullerton  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly. 

The  Witness— And  I  would  like  to  tell  the  whole  truth. 
Mr.  Fullerton— I  know  your  anxiety,  but  I  couldn't 
yield  to  it,  possibly. 
The  Witness— I  suppose  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  be  so  good  as  to  note  our 
exception  to  the  ruling  which  excludes  this  lelter. 


TESTULONY   OF  Bl 

GEN.  TRACY'S  TESTDIONY  COXTIXUED. 
Berg.  F.  Tracy  was  tlien  recalled,  and  Ms 

dii-ect  examination  restimed. 

Mr.  Erarts— Before  passing  to  otlier  interrie-ws,  I  will 
ast  you  one  or  two  questions.  During  tliis  intervie-w,  or 
after  tlie  same,  was  any  suggestion  made  as  to  wtiettier 
or  not  you  should  communicate  any  part  of  this  to  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  A.  Not  during  that  interview.  Some  days— a 
day  or  to,  or  more,  after  that,  I  had  a  conversation  with 
Moulton,  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  I  should  see 
Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  In  respect  to  your  having  had  this  interview  ]  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  did  you  see  JVIr.  Beecher,  and  repeat  to 
him  any  part  of  this  interview  ?  A.  I  saw  ]Mr.  Beecher 
and  repeated  to  him  some  part  of  the  interview. 

Q.  ^Tiat  did  you  say  to  him  1 

3Ir.  Beach— It  is  objected  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— Did  you  mention  the  fact  of  the  inter- 
view %   A.  I  did  mention  the  fact  of  the  interview. 

Q.  Well,  wait  a  moment.  Well,  that,  I  suppose,  is  not 
objected  to.  I  will  ask  this  question,  which  will  raise  the 
question :  Did  you  state  to  him  anything  concerning  the 
documents  that  had  been  shown  you,  or  the  charges  that 
were  made  and  that  were  disclaimed? 

Mr.  Beach— Objected  to.  I  do  not  perceive,  Su',  how 
any  statement  made  by  Mr.  Tracy  to  Mr.  Beecher,  in  the 
absence  of  Mr.  Tilton,  could  be  received  as  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  understood  it  was  at  Mr.  Moulton's  re- 
ciuest  that  he  came  there. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr,  Moulton  is  not  Mr.  Tilton. 

]\Ir.  Evarts— Substantially. 

Mr.  Beach— Substantially  1 

Mr.  Evarts — Yes,  substantially. 

Judge  Neilson— I  thinic  we  cannot  take  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor,  I  think,  has  had  occasion  to 
rule  that  when  a  request  is  made  by  one  paity  that  a 
f  fimmunication  should  be  made  to  another,  that  that  au- 
thorizes it. 

Judge  NeiLson— Yes,  request  by  the  party. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir,  by  the  party. 

Judge  Neilson — By  the  piirty;  this  was  a  request  by 
Mr.  3Ioulton. 

Mr.  Evarts — Xow,  the  sole  ground  upon  which  this  in- 
terview was  allowed  to  be  given  in  evidence  on  the  part 
of  our  learned  friends  was  that  Mr.  Tracy  stood  there  to 
represent  Mr.  Beecher,  and  so  authorized  to  be  given  in 
evidence,  as  if  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Beecher,  what  they 
gave  in  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  I  have  proved  by  this  gentleman  that 
he  had  no  previous  authority  from  Mr.  Beecher,  and  had 
made  no  communication  to  him  [Mr.  Beecher]  concerning 
any  proposed  interview.  Now,  after  that,  I  propose  to 
show  by  this  witness,  if  I  am  allowed  by  the  rules  of  evi- 
dence, so  to  disclose  what  he  did  say  at  the  r.-quest  of 


INJAMi:^  F.    TRACY.  261 

these  parties — I  say  Mr.  Moulton;  I  mean  Mr.  Moulton; 
it  is  from  his  mouth  it  came— to  Mr.  Beecher,  concerning 
what  had  taken  place  at  this  interview. 

Judge  Neilson— It  seems  to  be  a  subsequent  and  inde- 
pendent conversation. 

Mr.  Evarts — Your  Honor  will  remember  how  much 
there  was  of  subsequent  conversation  between  Mr. 
Beecher,  Mr.  Moulton  and  ]Mr.  Tilton,  which  was  stated  in 
the  line  of  evidence,  as  presupposing  that  all  that  had 
passed  between  Mr.  Tracy  and  these  gentlemen  was  at 
Mr.  Beecher's  charge.  There  was  no  ground  for  bringing 
in  anything  that  was  testified  to  with  regard  to  Mr.  Tracy 
except  that ijro  tonfo,^7'o  Jictc  wee,  he  was  Mr.  Beecher; 
and  now  when  I  show  exactly  what  the  connection  was — 
to  wit,  known  before  and  afterward,  by  express  request 
and  by  communication  from  them — the  extent  of  that 
communication,  I  submit,  is  proper  to  be  given. 

Judge  Neilson— If  the  communication  to  I*Ir.  Beecher 
was  by  Mr.  Triton's  request,  he  may  give  it. 

IVIr.  Evarts— Not  by  Moulton's? 

Judge  Neilson — No. 

Mr.  Evarts— Have  we  not  connected  Mr.  Moulton 
throughout  all  this  prosecution  with  Mr.  Tilton,  and  shall 
not  this  interview  be  permitted  to  be  shown  ? 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  have  to  exclude  this. 

Mr.  Evarts— Has  not  Mr.  Moulton  represented  the 
views  of  Mr.  Tilton  over  and  over  again  ?  Does  he  not 
stand  as  Mr.  Tilton,  pro  tanto,  in  all  the  interviews  be 
tween  him  and  Mr.  Beecher  ? 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  I  cannot  receive  it.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts — Will  your  Honor  be  good  enough  to  note 
our  exception  ?  I  want  to  state  the  details  of  my  uflfer. 
We  offer  to  prove  the  facts  communicated  by  Mr.  Tracy 
to  Mr.  Beecher— such  facts  as  were  commtmicated  by  Mr. 
Tracy  to  Mr.  Beecher  arising  at  this  interview. 

Judge  Neilson — Yes. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  up  to  the  time  of  your  first  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Woodruff,  which  preceded  any  more 
definite  interviews,  had  you  known  or  heard  anything 
concerning  the  Woodhull  scandal,  except  what  was  pub- 
li^lied  in  the  papers  or  in  the  street  ?  A.  I  had  not. 

SOME  COXTRADICTIOXS  OF  ME.  WOODRUFF. 

Q.  And  from  what  individual  had  you  heard 
anything  about  it  prior  to  this  interview  on  Sunday  night 
—that  is,  professing  any  knowledge  of  it  ?  A.  No  one 
except  the  brief  conversation  I  had  with  INIr.  Woodruff 
on  the  subject,  and  the  brief  conversation  I  had  with  him 
and  Mr.  Moulton  in  the  olfice,  on  the  morning. 

Q.  This  conversation  was  the  whole  source  ?  A.  It  was 
my  only  source  of  knowledge,  except  what  was  open  to 
papers. 

Q.  Do  you  remember,  concerning  this  narrative  or 
paper  read  to  you  by  ilr.  Tilton,  whether  or  not  it  con- 
tained the  final  letters,  dated  at  the  end  of  December, 
wliich  foim  a  purl  of  the  "  True  Story  "  as  given  in  evi- 


263  TRli  TrLTON-Bi 

ienceliere?  A.  I  do  not— if  you  mean,  t>y  the  final  let- 
ters, Mrs.  Tilton's  letter  and  Mr.  BeecliPT's  letter  of 
Dec.  29. 

Q.  I  describe  tliem  as  the  final  letters.  TLcy  are  these 
letters,  at  all  events,  dated  Dec.  29 1  A.  No,  Sir,  they 
were  not  present,  nor  referred. 

Q.  They  were  not  referred  to  or  read  ?  A.  No,  Sii-. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  rememher  whether  at  this  interview 
anything  was  said  on  the  suhject  of  lying,  or  as  to  what 
would  be  lying  1  A.  During  the  discussion  tliat  ensued 
between  myself  and  Mr.  Tilton  as  to  wliat  answer  lie 
could  make  to  this  publication— I  urging  him  to  content 
himself  with  a  simple  denial  of  it,  and  he  insisting  that 
he  could  no1>— the  question  did  arise,  and  was  discussed 
as  to  whether  a  simple  denial  of  the  scandal  would  be  a 
truthful  statement— I  arguing  that  it  would  imder  the 
circumstances,  and  giving  him  my  reasons— he  arguing 
that  it  would  not ;  and  then  the  question  of  what  would 
be  lying  and  what  would  not  be  lying  was  undoubtedly 
discussed. 

Q.  That  is,  whether  the  statement  or  denials  in  the 
form  that  you  proposed  would  or  would  not  be  the  entire 
truth?   A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— One  moment.  Sir.  I  object  to  that  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.Evarts--Why  { 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  simply  because  tnc  witness  iS  given 
his  statement,  and  you  reform  it  by  putting  it  in  n  other 
shape. 

Mr.  Evarts— No. 

Mr.  Beach  [hastily]— I  think  you  do;  I  am  entitled  to 
my  own  opinion  about  that; 

Mr.  Evarts — Certainly ;  and  am  I  not  enUtled  to  mine  % 
The  difi'erence  of  oi>inion  does  not  imply  that  I  am  right 
or  that  5'ou  are  wrong,  by  any  means. 

Mr.  Beach— It  does  not,  nor  the  reverse. 

Q.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  a  point  in  Mr.  AVood- 
ruff^s  testimony,  Mr.  Tracy,  at  page  345,  near  tlie  top.  He 
said  that  "Gen.  Tracj'  spoke  ;;nd  siiid:  'Cuu't  Moulton 
and  Tilton  go  to  Europe  for  one  or  two  years  V  and  he  re- 
plied, 'No,  that  could  not  be  done;  Mr.  Robinson,  the 
other  partner,  was  in  Europe,  and  it  Avould  be  impossi- 
ble.' "  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  did  you  say  anything  in  this  in- 
terview about  Mr.  Moulton  going  to  Europe  ?  A.  I  did 
not. 

O,.  "Was  the  subject  of  Mr.  Moulton  going  to  Europe 
spoken  of  in  any  way  by  you  1  A.  Not  that  I  remember ; 
I  am  confident  it  was  not. 

Q.  Was  anything  else  said  concerning  Mr.  Tilton's  go- 
ing to  Europe  than  what  you  have  stated?  A.  Nothing 
that  I  can  recollect ;  I  have  stated  the  substance,  I  think, 
of  what  was  said  In  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton  going  to  Eu- 
rope. 

Q.  I  ask  your  attention  now  to  a  point  in  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Moulton,  page  116 ;  he  says,  speaking  of  what  he 
Baid  to  Mr.  Beecher,  "  I  said  to  Mr.  Beecher  " 


^JiJCHEB  IRIAL. 

Mr.  Beach— What  page,  please? 

Mr.  Evarts— Page  116.  [Reading:]  "I  said  to  Mr. 
Beecher  [Mr.  Moulton  says]  I  told  Mv.  Tracy  the  truth 
of  the  matter ;  I  told  him  the  fact  of  the  case  as  it  was— 
that  you  had  been  guilty  of  sexual  intercourse  with  Mrs. 
Elizabetli  Tilton;  and  he  said,  in  the  presence  of  my 
partner,  if  that  was  true,  it  must  be  concealed  at  all 
hazards."  Was  there  any  such  conversation  at  this  inter- 
view between  Mr.  Moulton  and  yourself  1  A.  The  inter- 
view on  Sunday  ? 

Q.  Yes.   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  he  adds,  "  And  T  said  thct  Mr.  Tracy  said  that, 
although  he  did  not  recommend  lying;  this  was  one  of  the 
cases  in  which  lying  was  justifiable."  Did  that  form  a 
part  of  your  conversation  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  In  any  way  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  anything  of  that  kind  occur  between  you  and 
Mr.  Moulton  at  any  interview  ?  A.  About  lying  1 

Q.  About  the  sexual  intercourses,  or  lying  about  it  ?  A. 
Nothing  of  the  kind. 

Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment.  Mr.  Moulton  has  sworn 
to  nothing  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  not,  except  at  that  interview ;  that 
is  tmderstood,  imless  there  is  some  question  about  the 
difierence  of  day  or  date. 

Mr.  Beach— I  understand  this  was  the  interview  on 
Sunday,  November  10. 

Mr.  Evarts — I  understand  so. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  don't  understand  that  it  is  fixed. 

Mr.  Beaeh—Mr.  Tracy  has  just  said  it  was  on  Sunday. 
He  says  it  was  an  interview  at  which  Mr.  Woodruff  was 
present ;  he  identifies  the  interview. 

Mr.  Evarts — I  think  that  is  so  ;  it  does  not  appear  in 
any  other  interview. 

Q.  I  ask  your  attention  now  to  a  passage  in  Mr.  Tilton's 
testimony,  speaking  of  this  interview — this  Sunday  night 
interview.   Mr.  Tilton  says : 

A.  Mr.  Tracy  told  me         [That  is  at  the  bottom  of 

page  423J  

Mr.  Tracy  told  me  that  it  was  a  case  which  ought  to  be 
veiy  summarily  treated.  He  said  that  he  had  told  Mr. 
Woodruff,  and  had  told  Mr.  Moulton,  and  he  would  teU 
me,  that  while  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life  lying  Avas 
not  justifiable,  but  was  reprehensible,  yet  this  was  a  case 
in  which  the  truth  ought  to  be  denied,  and  that  lying  was 
right. 

Now,  did  you  say  anything  of  that  kind  ?  A.  Nothing, 
except  the  phrase,  "that  this  was  a  case  that  ought  to 
be  summarily  treated ;  "  the  rest  of  that— what  you  have 
read— never  occurred. 

Q.  Yes.  Was  there  anything  said  concerning  lying,  ex- 
cept in  the  form  that  you  have  given  it,  as  to  the  differ- 
ent statements  that  he  could  make  ?  A.  Nothing,  except 
the  form  in  which  I  have  given  it,  and  the  discussion 
which  grew  out  of  that.  There  was  a  discuesion, 
whether  the  form  in  which  I  asked  them  to  put  it,  and 
said  they  could  truthfully  put  it,  would  or  would  not  i  > 


TESTIMONY   OF  BENJAMIN  F.  TBACY. 


lyiner ;  and  in  that  d'iwussion  tbey  took  several  phrases 
and  various  forms  of  expression  ;  and  I  said  that  this 
story  was  essentially  false,  and  I  believed  that  they  co\ild 
truthfully  deny  it  without  being  compelled  to  state  the 
tacidents  connected  with  it  which  they  admitted  to  be 
true ;  and  that  if  they  omitted  these,  and  to  specify 
those,  would  not  be  lying.  It  is  barely  possible  that  in 
that  discussion,  which  at  some  times  became  warm,  I 
said,  in  characterizing  this  publication,  "  If  that  was  a 
lie,  if  the  publication  was  concerning  myself  or  my  fam- 
ily, it  was  a  lie  that  I  would  take  the  responsibility  of 
teUing  ;"  I  may  have  said  that. 

Q.  That  is,  iu  that  form  of  denial  ?  A.  In  the  form  of 
denial. 

Q.  You  proposed  that  you  would  take  the  responsi- 
bility ?  A.  Yes ;  I  should  take  the  responsibility,  if  it 
was  my  case,  of  making  that  form  of  denial  to  such  a 
publication ;  and  I  did  not  believe  that  a  person  could 
teU  what  was  essentially  false  about  another,  and  in 
order  to  compel  him  to  deny  it,  at  the  same  time  compel 
hkn  to  state  the  incidents  which  might  be  dragged  into 
that  statement  which  were  true. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  in  this  interview  say  this  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  or  anything  equivalent  to  it  in  substance  or 
effect : 

"  I  address  that  statement,  Mr.  Tilton,  particularly  to 
you,  as  I  have  done  to  them,  for  the  reason  that  if  the 
facts  in  this  case  are  ever  made  public,  if  the  story  is 
ever  confirmed,  it  will  not  only  ruin  Mr.  Beecher  and 
your  wife  "—of  course,  "not  only  ruin  Mr.  Beecher  and 
your  wife— of  com'se  it  will  ruin  them— but  it  will  also 
ruin  you,  because  the  world  will  never  forgive  you  for 
having  condoned  your  wife's  crime. " 

Now,  did  you  say,  at  this  interview,  anything  of  that 
kind?  A.  There  are  several  things  stated  in  that  ques- 
tion; I  undoubtedly  did  say  that  if  this  scandal  was  not 
extinguished,  and  if  it  was  published  ia  the  form  that  he 
proposed  to  publish  it  in,  it  would  ruin  him  and  his  vrife  and 
Mr.  Beecher;  I  undoubtedly  did  say  that;  Iremember  say- 
ing to  them,  in  one  phase  or  another  of  that  conversation, 
that  this  was  a  matter  to  be  met  and  dealt  with  promptly, 
and  not  to  be  smothered;  it  had  got  to  be  killed,  or  it 
would  kill  them. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  ta  that  connection,  or  in  any  part  of 
this  interview,  say  to  him  that  the  world  would  never 
forgive  Mr.  Tilton  for  having  condoned  his  wife's  crime  ? 
A.  No,  Sir;  no  such  thing  was  said  in  that  inter  view— 
the  subject  of  condoning  his  wife's  crime  was  a  matter  of 
conversation  

Mr.  Beach— You  are  not  asked  that,  Sir. 

The  Witness- The  subject  of  condoniug  was  not  

Mr.  Beach— You  are  not  asked,  Sir. 

Q.  Well  1  A.  fContinuing  :]  In  that  interriew  on  the 
subject  of  condoning  his  wife. 

Q.  Or  his  haviug  condoned  his  wife  1  A.  Or  his  having 
condoned  his  wife. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  stands,  then,  no  part  of  his  answer,  I 


suppose,  except  that  there  was  nothing  said  at  this  iater- 
view  ;  other  interviews  I  shall  take  by  themselves. 
Mr.  Beach— How  is  that  I 

Mr.  Evarts— Strike  out  "  the  subject  of  condoning  hie 
wife's  crime  was  a  matter  of  conversation  " 

Judge  Neilson— Strike  out  the  lavst  part. 

Mr.  Beach— We  will  let  it  stand  on  the  motion  to  strike 
out,  and  appear  as  it  ordinarily  does,  Sii*. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— I  mean  it  won't  be  erased  from  the 
minutes. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  not  erased  ;  they  will  add  the  mo- 
tion. 

Mr.  Evarts — It  will  appear  that  you  stopped  him  from 
going  on. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  want  it  to  appear  that  he  tried  to  go 
on. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  did  you  have  an  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Moulton  on  or  about  the  24th  of  June, 
1874?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  In  regard  to  this  matter,  or  application  to  you  in 
connection  with  it  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  what  was  that  ? 

MR.  MOULTON  AND  MR.  TILTON  DECLARED 
TO  BE  ONE. 

Mr,  Beacli— Li  regard  to  what? 

Mr.  Evarts— In  regard  to  this  matter,  and  any  applica- 
tion in  respect  of  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Have  we  given  any  evidence  of  that  inter* 
view  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  know  that  you  have. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  we  object  to  it,  then. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  have  given  evidence  in  regard  to  sub- 
sequent interviews,  and  this  

Mr.  Beach— Do  you  suppose  that  makes  this  admis- 
sible % 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes  ;  and  this  is  an  introduction  of  Mr. 
Moulton's  application  to  him  to  come  back  to  the  matter. 
He  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter  from  '72  untU 
1874. 

Judge  Neilson— With  whom  is  the  conversation  you  are 
suggesting  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— The  conversation  is  with  Mr.  Moulton— the 
same  as  the  other  conversation  was ;  it  introduced  Mr. 
Tracy  into  this  business ;  and  this  is  an  introduction  of 
him  into  the  business  on  the  same  footing  and  in  the 
same  way. 

Judge  NeUson— On  a  later  day? 

Mr.  Evarts— On  a  later  day. 

Judge  Neilson— Conversation  they  have  inquired  into  1 

Mr.  Evarts— They  have  inquired  into.  They  have  given 
evidence  concerning  interviews  subsequent  to  this  time. 

Mr.  Beach— We  have  not  inquired  into  this  interview  at 
all,  and  the  counsel  does  not  pretend  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  they  have  inquired,  if  you  please, 


264  THE  TILION-B. 

into  the  interview  of  drawing  Mr.  Tracy  into  this  otHer. 
Now,  is  it  to  be  proposed  here  as  a  rule  for  the  remaant 
of  this  trial  that  Mr.  Moulton  has  no  connection  with  Mr. 
Tilton  ?  It  has  not  heen  the  rule  up  to  this  time ;  hut 
from  the  last  week  in  December,  1870,  this  matter  has 
heen  intrusted  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Moulton  as  his  ally 
and  representative  and  agent;  and  the  trial  has  gone 
through  upon  that  proposition. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  not  thi'ough  yet. 

Mr.  Evarts— So  far— is  the  remnant  of  this  trial  to  be 
conducted  on  the  principle  that  Mr.  Moulton  did  not 
speak  for  that  side  of  this  business  ? 

AEGUMENT  OF  MR.  BEACH. 
Mr.  Beacli— This  is  but  a  repetition,  Sir,  of 
the  argument  and  the  effort  which  the  gentleman  made 
but  a  little  while  ago,  and  in  which  he  was  overruled  by 
your  Honor.  After  the  interview  of  Sunday,  Nov.  10, 
was  given  by  Mr.  Tracy,  the  couusel  undertook  to  prove, 
by  the  same  witness,  a  subsequent  interview  between 
him  and  Mr.  Moulton,  and  the  same  questions,  in  the 
same  emphatic  language  and  manner  as  now  addressed 
to  your  Honor,  as  to  whether  Mr.  Moulton  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  separate  existence  from  Mr.  Tilton  or  not  in 
this  trial,  was  put,  and  your  Honor  seemed  to  think  that 
there  was,  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of  this  trial,  a  slight 
distinction  between  these  persons.  Mr.  TUton,  as  I  ap- 
prehend, has  not  conferred  upon  Mr.  Moulton,  during 
any  of  the  progress  of  these  transactions,  any  authority 
to  represent  him  in.  any  conversation  or  in  any.dealing 
with  Mr.  Tracy.  The  first  connection  between  Mr, 
Tracy  and  Mr.  Moulton  was  with  reference  to  Mr. 
Moulton's  individual  and  personal  interests  in  this  mat- 
ter, under  the  stringent  advice  and  control  of  his  partner, 
Mr.  Woodruff.  Mr.  Tracy  became  connected  with  these 
interviews,  and  with  Mr.  Tracy,  through  the  eommunica- 
tion  to  Mr.  Beecher  by  Mr.  Moulton  of  what  transpired 
at  those  interviews,  and  through  a  subsequent  agency 
which  was  conferred  upon  Mr.  Tracy  by  Mr.  Beecher  to 
represent  him,  about  which  more  will  be  said  as  we  get 
along.  Now,  upon  what  principle  is  it.  Sir,  that  the 
coimsel  is  to  assume  that  Mr.  Tilton  is  to  be  concluded  by 
tlie  declarations  of  Mr.  Moulton  upon  this  subject,  or  by 
the  declarations  of  the  counsel  and  the  present  attorney 
of  this  defendant  made  to  Mr.  Moulton  1  There  is  no 
Identity  of  legal  right ;  there  is  no  identity  of  interest ; 
there  has  been  no  connection  nor  association  between 
the  two  parties  which  makes  Mr.  Tilton  responsible  for 
the  acts  and  the  declarations  of  Mr.  Moulton  in  his 
absence ;  and  I  submit,  your  Honor,  that  there  is  no  prin- 
ciple, nothing  in  the  evidence  upon  which  an  argument 
can  be  founded  to  justify  the  reception  of  the  declarar 
tions  of  Mr.  Moulton,  or  of  conversations  which  may 
have  occurred  between  him  and  any  other  party.  It  is 
enough  for  Mr.  Tilton,  Sir,  to  answer  for  himself,  for  his 
own  declarations,  and  that  he  will  do.    And  it  is  quite 


DECREE  TRIAL, 

enough  for  this  witness  to  reveal  the  communications 
which  have  passed  between  him  and  his  quondam  client, 
Mr.  Tilton,  witliout  traveling  into  conversations  at  which 
Mr.  Tilton  was  not  present,  and  where  he  could  not  speak 
and  answer  for  himself,  had  between  this  witness  and 
Mr.  Movilton.  It  is  quite  well  suggested,  Sir,  that  Mr. 
Moulton  no  more  (and  I  think  scarcely  so  much— cer- 
tainly not  so  much),  so  far  as  interest  was  concerned,  and 
as  devotion  and  zeal  on  the  part  of  the  agent  was  coii- 
cerned  in  these  transactions,  did  not  represent  Mr.  Tilton 
so  much,  by  far,  as  he  did  Mr.  Beecher.  He  has  been 
called,  Sir,  somewhat  sneeringly,  but  it  is  not  an  epithet 
which  he  need  disclaim,  "  The  Mutual  Friend"  of  these 
parties.  He  was  undoubtedly  the  mutual  friend,  but  not 
authorized  by  either  to  hear  declarations  or  to  make 
declarations  which  should  bind  either,  e«.cept  where  the 
direct  authority  has  been  traced  from  the  one  or  the  other 
to  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  will  read  one  part  of  my  learned  friend's 
observations  which  relate  to  the  question  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Beach— They  all  relate  to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is,  in  your  opinion. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  in  the  opinion  of  ordinarily  intelli- 
gent men. 

Mr.  Evarts— No  doubt,  but  I  am  speaking  for  myself. 
Mr.  Beach— But  you  are  so  far  above  us  that  we  cannot 
altogether  understand. 
Mr.  Evarts— Or  below,  if  you  please. 
Mr.  Beach— Oh,  no ! 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  get  on  the  right  plane,  and  go  on 
and  have  it  out. 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  Mr.  Fullerton]— You  ought  to  turn 
around  when  you  address  me. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  am  addressing  the  Court,  Sir. 


ARGUMENT  OF  MR.  EYARTS. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  if  yoiir  Honor  please,  tlic 
subject  matter  of  this  interview,  as  i  propose  to  give  it, 
is  connected  with  interviews  which  follow,  and  which 
have  been,  in  the  main,  subjects  of  evidence.  The  stage 
of  the  transaction  which  had  been  reached  at  the  date, 
concerning  which  I  am  now  pressing  inquiry,  was  the 
stage  after  the  publication  of  the  Bacon  letter,  and  when 
there  was  a  series  of  conferences  and  consultations, 
which  have  been  gone  into  by  the  plaintiff's  counsel  in 
their  evidence  between  Mr.  Moulton,  and  Mr.  Tilton,  and 
Mr.  Beecher,  or  between  Mr.  Moulton,  as  representtai? 
Mr.  Tilton,  and  Mr.  Beecher,  as  to  what  was  to  be  said 
or  could  be  said  or  done  in  regard  to  the  healing  of  the 
difficulty  of  what  is  known  as  the  Bacon  letter ;  and  Mr. 
Moulton  gives  evidence  of  this  kind. 

Mr.  Beach— Where  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— On  page  114.   The  witness  says : 
I  had  a  subsequent  conversation  with  Mr.  Beec"ter 
about  it — about  a  subject  which  is  uot  imporviiut  oxcept 
as  showing  the  date— probably  subsequent  to  tliu  5tlj  of 


TESTlMOyT   OF   BFXJAMiy   F.  Tj:ArY. 


265 


JulT  Suh-seciuent  v^e  ^vill  say  to  tlae  5tli  of  July  lie  had 
an  interview  TTith  Mr.  Beecher— and  I  told  him  that  I 
had  seen  Gen.  Ti-acy  concerning  a  reply  to  the  Bacon  let- 
ter, and  that  I  had  asked  Gen.  Tracy  if  he  had  submitted 
the  paper  to  him,  and  I  said  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  ^Nlr. 
Tracy's  reply  ^as  that  he  had  seen  a  paper  in  ^rhich  he 
thought  he  detected  my  handi^vork,  and  that  Gen.  Tracy 
had  said  to  me  that  the  ^ords,  "I  have  committed  no 
crime,"  really  said  nothing,  etc. 

Your  Honor  may  remember  there  ^as  considerable  tes- 
timony on  that  subject.  Noav,  this  interview  that  I  pro- 
pose to  sho"sv  betwe.:-u  Mr.  Moulton  and  ]Mr.  Tracy  as  oc-  | 
curring  in  the  end  of  June— after  the  24th  of  June— after 
the  situation  vras  produced,  Avas  a  part  of  the  consider- 
ation concerning  hoTv  the  Bacon  letter  Avas  to  be  dealt 
■with,  out  of  -vrhich  a  few  days  later  there  came  a  pro- 
posed cavd  called  the  Carpenter  card,  because  it  is  in  Mr. 
Frank  Carpenter's  handwriting,  a  fevr  days  after  this, 
which  formed  the  subject  of  this  conversation  to  which 
Mr.  Moulton  reff'rred  in  his  conversation  with 
Mr.  Beecher.  T^'ell,  now,  of  course  it  is  not  to  be  denied 
that  we  have  a  right  to  go  into  the  alleged  conversation 
between  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Moulton,  which  formed  the 
subject  of  commimication through  3Ir.  Beecher.  But  this 
inter-siew  that  I  now  speak  of  is  the  precedent  and  pre- 
liminary introduction  by  Mr.  Moulton  to  Mr.  Tracy's  at- 
tention of  this  Bacon  letter,  and  of  the  subject  of  answer- 
ing it,  or  dealing  with  it,  closing  vvlth  the  deferring  of  the 
matter  to  a  further  interview  until  more  reflection  had 
been  given  to  the  subject.  And  then  these  further  inter- 
views that  are  thus  prepared  for,  and  preceded  by,  the 
interview  that  I  seek  now  to  introduce  in  evidence,  have 
been  made  the  subject  of  evidence.  Xow,  I  submit  to 
your  Honor  that  Mr.  Moulton  does  stand  in  the  position 
confessedly  upon  the  evidence  of  representing  Mr. 
Tir.  on  in  the  conduct  or  consideration  of  this  matter, 
and  that  the  whole  series  of  his  interviews  with  Mr. 
Tracy,  or  any  other  person  that  finally  come  to 
an  interview  as  the  result  of  the  preceding 
conferences  and  the  then  present  conference,  which 
are  in  evidence,  and  in  regard  to  which  Mr.  Beecher  is  to 
be  affected  by  communications  made  to  him,  that  Mr. 
Tj  aey  is  permitted  to  present  his  view  of  the  facts  as  oc- 
cmTing  at  those  interviews;  that  you  cannot  dislocate 
and  cut  in  two  the  tenor  of  postponed  conferences 
which  all,  really,  are  one  conference,  and  the  result  of 
which  forms  the  sub]ect  of  the  testimony  which  has 
brought  Mr.  Beecher,  and  so  the  statements  of  Moulton 
concerning  Tracy's  action  into  the  case.  It  is  one  con- 
ference, so  to  speak,  beginning,  if  you  please,  on  the  25th 
July,  repeated  on  the  25th  of  June,  repeated  and  ending 
on  the  6th  or  7th  of  July,  and  then  produced  in  the  shape 
of  Carpenter's  card,  and  conferences  which  have  been 
introduced,  as  pertinent  and  substantial  affairs  in  the 
case.  Now,  this  is  the  interview  that  I  propose  to  show 
between  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tracy,  sought  by  Moulton, 
"Which  brings  Mr.  Tracy  back  into  this  case  ia  1874,  for 


this  interview  concerning  which  we  have  Mr.  Tracv's 
evidence,  was  in  the  very  end  of  1872,  and  there  was  no 
connection  at  any  time  intervening,  no  conferences  be- 
tween Mr.  Tracy  and  any  of  these  people. 
ZSTow,  Mr.  Moulton  brings  him  in  action,  and 
he  has  been  used  —  Mr.  Tracy's  presence  ha-s 
been  used  as  a  means  of  stating  conferences 
that  were  to  affect  Mr.  Beecher  without  any  evidence  that 
I  know  of  in  the  matter,  except  that  two  years  before 
something  had  been  said  about  it  which  was  charged  to 
Mr.  Beeeher's  account,  and  for  which  Mr.  Beecher  has 
been  made  responsible — ^it  has  been  applied  in  that  way. 
Xow,  that  is  my  proposition  that  in  the  end  of  June,  Mr. 
Moulton  resorts  to  Mr.  Tracy  for  judicious  counsel  in  the 
interests  of  the  parties  for  the  dealing  with  the  then  new^ 
stage  of  matters — to  wit:  the  publication  of  the  Bacon 
letter;  and  the  sequel  is  certain  results  arrived  at  which 
have  been  given  in  evidence  by  the  plaintiffs,  and  which 
we  shall  of  coiu\?e  be  at  liberty  to  follow  with  evidence 
on  those  points  as  well  as  on  this. 

AXSWEEIXG  AEGOIEXT  OF  MR.  BEACH. 
;Mr.  Beacli— The  counsel  is  diiven,  and  neces- 
sarily driven.  Sir,  by  his  own  reflections  upon  the  ques- 
tion in.  debate,  to  assume  false  premises  and  mistaken 
facts,  to  enable  him  to  reason  at  all  upon  the  question. 
He  assumes  that  this  interview  in  June,  which  he  now 
proposes  to  prove,  was  but  the  antecedent,  the  prelimi- 
nary part  of  a  continued  and  lengthened  discussion  upon 
the  same  subject  between  Mr.  Moulton  and  the  witness. 
Xow,  Sir,  upon  what  authority  does  he  do  that  ?  The 
interview  which  we  proved  was  subsequent  to  July  5, 
1874,  as  appears  from  the  book  and  the  page  referred  to 
by  the  counsel. 
Judge  Xeilson— That  is  the  interview  with  Mr.  Beechert 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir,  the  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher,  of 
July  5,  in  which  Mr.  Moulton  communicated  to  Mr. 
Beecher  a  conversation  he  had  had  with  Gen.  Tracy. 
There  was  nothing:  in  the  position  which  Gen.  Tracy 
occupied  at  that  time  in  connection  with  this  interview 
which  charged  Mr.  Beecher  with  any  responsi- 
bility for  his  declarations,  and  it  was  only  through 
the  circumstance  that  what  occuiTt-d  between 
Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Moulton  was  subsequently  commu- 
nicated to  Mr.  Beecher  and  approved  by  him. 
recognized  by  him.  that  it  became  at  all  material,  or  evi- 
dence at  all  in  the  case.  Xow,  in  that  relation,  Sir,  of 
that  interview  tliere  is  nothing  which  justifles  the  coun- 
sel in  saying  that  it  was  a  continuation  of  a  previous 
conversation  between  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Moulton ;  there 
is  nothing  which  authorizes  hun  to  say  that  the  rejection 
of  this  prior  interview  is  a  dislocation  of  the  intercourse 
between  these  two  parties  npon  a  given  subject.  They 
were  separate  and  independent  iaterviews,  but  whether 
or  not  they  relate  to  the  same  transaction,  discussed  the 
same  question,  viewed  the  same  policy  suggested  by 


266 


THE   TILTON-BEEGHEB  TRIAL, 


either  party  as  proper  to  be  adopted  with  reference 
to  th«i  Bacon  letter,  we  don't  know.  Counsel  only 
eays  it  was  the  preliminary  introduction  to 
that  discussion,  that  it  was  the  recall  of  Mr.  Tracy  to  his 
allegiance  to  this  transaction.  There  Is  nothing.  Sir,  to 
justify  that.  The  simple  proposition  before  your  Honor 
is  whether,  having  proven  a  conversation  occurring  be- 
tween Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Moulton  upon  the  strength  of 
its  communication  subsequently  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  rati- 
fication by  him,  or  some  action  on  his  part  in  regard  to 
it,  the  counsel  is  entitled  to  prove  another  conversation  be- 
tween Mr.  IMoulton  and  Mr.  Tracy  as  against  Mr,  Tilton.who 
so  far  as  it  appears,  never  heard  It,  to  whom  it  was  never 
communicated,  who  never  authorized  it.  But  it  is  sur- 
prisin  g,  your  Honor ,  that  such  a  proposition  sliould  be  made. 
Suppcse  it  were  upon  the  same  subject,  suppose  Mr. 
Tracy  was  the  autborized  representative  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
where  is  the  authority  from  Mr.  Tilton  conferred  upon 
Mr.  Tracy  or  upon  Mr.  Moulton  to  consult  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  an  answer  to  the  Bacon  letter  or  upon  any  other 
subj  ect  or  topic  connected  witli  tbe  Bacon  letter  %  And  by 
what  right  do  these  two  gentlemen,  disconnected  with 
Mr.  Tilton  in  interests,  attempt  by  their  consultations  or 
suggestions  or  declarations  to  conclude  the  legal  rights  of 
a  party  to  this  action.  But,  furthermore.  Sir,  my  friend 
still  insists  that  Mr.  Moulton  was  the  representative 
of  Mr.  Tilton.  Indeed,  Sir!  In  regard  to  the 
answer  to  this  Bacon  letter,  the  representative 
of  Mr.  Tilton  authorized  to  negotiate  and 
speak  for  Mr.  Tilton,  guiding  the  policy  of  Mr. 
Tilton  in  regard  to  the  proper  answer  honor  and  duty 
called  for  to  that  letter !  Why,  he  was  the  special  emis- 
sary and  agent  of  Mr.  Beecher,  working  in  the  interests 
of  Mr.  Beecher,  in  my  judgment  faithless  to  the  true  in- 
terests of  his  more  ancient  friend.  He  was  endeavoring 
to  suppress  tbe  answer  to  the  calumnies  and  reproaches, 
under  the  leading  of  Dr.  Bacon,  produced  as  against  Mrs. 
Tilton ;  and  he  it  was  who  says  that  he  would  rather  pay 
the  $5,000—1  think  the  evidence  justifies  me  in  saying 
that  he  offered  to  Theodore  Tilton  $5,000  if  he  would  not 
publish  the  contemplated  answer  to  the  letter.  Sir,  these 
two  gentlemen,  upon  that  question  and  in  regard  to 
the  policy  to  be  adopted  in  relation  to  the  charges 
made  by  Dr.  Bacon,  humiliating  and  disgraceful  and 
dfstructive  to  my  client  as  they  were,  these  gentlemen 
stood  in  direct  and  personal  opposition,  Mr.  Moulton  rep- 
resenting Mr.  Beecher  and  laboring  in  the  interests  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  Mr.  Tilton  representing  his  own  man- 
hood and  speaking  for  his  own  justification.  And  yet  the 
counsel  has  the  effrontery  in  an  argument  to  your  Honor 
to  maintain  that  Mr.  Moulton  is  the  representative  of 
Mr.  Tilton,  and  that  the  interests  of  Mr.  Tilton  before 
this  Court  and  jury  shall  be  concluded  by  what  he  may 
have  been  indiscreet  or  wise  enough  to  say,  I  care  not 
which.  I  insist  to  your  Honor  that  there  is  no  principle 
of  right,  there  is  nothing  in  this  evidence  showing  any 


such  association  with  or  authority  upon  the  part  of  Mr. 
Moulton  which  justifies  the  reception  of  these  declara- 
tions. 

THE  CONVERSATION  RULED  OUT. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  authority,  Sir,  to  which  T 
refer  is  Nesbitt  vs.  Stringer,  2  Duer,  26.  [Reading.] 

Where  defendant's  liability  is  sought  to  be  proved  by 
Inference  from  circumstances,  or  from  his  verbal  declara- 
tions or  admissions,  he  is  entitled  to  demand  that  all  the 
circumstances  and  particulars  of  conversations  relating 
to  the  subject-matter  shall  be  taken  into  consideration, 
even  though  some  of  the  conversations  took  place  upon 
different  days. 

My  learnedfriend  also  was  wrongin  his  estimate  of  the  ac- 
tual situation.  It  was  after  the  publication  of  the  Bacon 
letter  that  this  interview  to  which  I  call  attention  occurred 
in  reference  to  what  Mr.  Tilton  should  do  in  answer  to 
Dr.  Bacon's  contumelious  observations,  if  they  were  such, 
what  was  to  be  done  to  prevent  the  injury  to  Mr.  Tilton'a 
family  which  would  grow  out  of  a  meeting  of  the  Bacon 
letter,  in  its  imputations  against  Mr.  Beecher,  by  Mr. 
Beecher,  by  a  public  investigation.  That  is  the  situation. 

Judge  Neilson— The  conversation  with  the  witness  that 
you  propose  to  give  was  after  the  publication  of  Mr.  Til* 
ton's  Bacon  letter. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  NeUson— So  I  understood.  I  think  that 
strengthens  the  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  Beach— What  possible  analogy  any  legal  mind,  not 
to  say  any  human  mind,  can  see  between  this  authority 
and  this  question  

Judge  Neilson— That  is  a  good  authority,  properly 
applied,  Sir.  That  is  aU  the  trouble.  I  think  we  wUl  not 
receive  this,  Mr.  Evarts. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Sir,  it  was  applied  to  the  proposition 
that  in  the  course  of  a  relation  from  which  a  conclusion 
IS  drawn,  you  cannot  limit  a  party  to  the  right  to  give 
the  conversation  where  the  conclusion  is  drawn,  but  he 
may  prove  preceding  ones,  though  on  different  days. 

Judge  Neilson— Certainly. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  my  proposition— all  these  conver- 
sations as  they  occurred  between  the  parties  

Mr.  Beach— That  is  another  matter. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not.  Do  you  say  

Mr.  Beach— I  beg  yom-  pardon. 

Judge  Neilson— Regarding  this  as  an  independent  con- 
versation, not  opened  by  the  plaintiff,  I  think  we  cannot 
receive  this  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well.  Sir,  I  wiU  lay  a  foundation  for 
the  proof  and  your  Honor  will  dispose  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with  Mr.  Moultoji  on  or 
after  the  24th  of  Jime  of  last  year?  A.  On  the  evening 
of  the  24th  of  June,  if  that  is  the  date  on  which  the 
"  Bacon  letter  "  was  published  in  The  Golden  Age,  I  had 
an  interview  with  Mr.  Monlton. 

Q.  Where  was  that  i  A.  At  his  house. 


TESTIMONY  OF  BENJAMIN    F.  TLlAiJY. 


267 


Q.  How  did  that  interview  come  about?  A.  He  sent  for 
me  to  come  to  his  house. 

Q.  Did  you  go  by  Mr.  Beecher's  prociu'ement  in  any 
•way  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  you  uny  authority  from  him,  or  had  he  any 
Imowledge  of  your  going  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  what  matter  was  brought  to  your  atten- 
tion by  Mr.  Moulton  at  that  interview  1  A.  Mr.  Tilton's 
letter  to  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon. 

Q.  Hud  you  seen  it  before?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  Icnow  of  its  existence  or  publication  ?  A.  I 
did  not. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Moulton  state  to  you  what  the  objects  of 
this— what  his  object  in  having  this  interview  with  you 
•was? 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  it. 

Judge  Neilson— We  cannot  take  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  I  propose  to  show,  if  your  Honor 
please  (and  I  will  make  my  offer  brief),  that  Mr.  Moulton 
■desired  the  attention  of  Mr.  Tracy,  and  his  suggestions  as 
to  the  proper  treatment  of  this  publication  in  reference 
to  preventing  any  investigation  or  further  publicity  as 
proceeding  from  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  it,  of  course,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  I  understand.  Your  Honor  excludes 
that  evidence  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  we  except. 

Judge  Neilson— On  the  former  occasion,  when  the  con- 
v^ersation  with  Mr.  Tracy  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house  was  ad- 
mitted, the  occasion  -when  Mr.  "Woodruff  was  there,  it 
was  received,  rightfully  or  wrongfully,  in  view  of  the 
evidence  then  before  us,  showing  that  the  interview  was 
in  pursuance  of  some  arrangement  with  Mr.  Beecher;  and 
there  is  a  question  of  fact  to  be  passed  upon  finally  by  the 
jury.  This  occurs  loug  afterward,  and  is  utterly  discon- 
nected ;  it  is  even  after  the  publication  of  Mr.  Tilton's 
letter  to  Dr.  Bacon.  I  think  it  is  an  independent  con- 
versation and  cannot  be  received.  It  stands  precisely  as 
If  Mr.  Moulton  had  conversed  with  any  other  person  on 
the  subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— As  if  there  were  two  strangers  talking 
together. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  is  a  view,  perhaps,  however,  that 
your  Honor  should  take  into  your  survey,  and  that  is, 
that  evidence  has  been  given  of  subsequent,  following  in- 
terviews, in  which  it  has  been  claimed  on  the  other  side 
that  Mr.  Tracy  was  there  as  the  representative  of  Mr. 
Beecher. 

Mr.  Beach— Those  were  given  on  our  part  as  charging 
Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes ;  as  charging  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Beach— Quite  a  different  attitude,  and  different  

Mr.  Evarts— But  on  the  ground  that  Mr.  Tracy  was  in, 
by  Mr.  Beecher's  procurement ;  and  it  has  been  shown 


that  this  interview  that  I  have  brought  to  your  Honor's 
attention  was  not  by  Mr.  Beecher's  procurement,  nor 
upon  any  authority  from  him.  I  must  leave  it,  of  course, 
to  your  Honor's  ruling  and  my  exception. 

"SCARCELY  A  WORD  OF  TRUTH"  IN  GEN. 
TRACY'S  OPENING. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  after  this  interview,  did 
you  see  the  "  Bacon  letter  1 "  A.  After  that  evening  1 
Q.  Yes.  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  that  evening  at  this  interview  1  A. 
Well,  I  saw  it,  and  heard  it  read ;  I  did  not  read  it. 

Q.  You  knew  of  it,  then,  at  that  time  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  the  next  morning  you  read  it  yourself  in  the 
papers,  I  suppose  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  there  a  publication  that  appeared  in  any  of  the 
papers  of  this  city  as  of  an  interview  between  yourself 
and  a  journalist,  relating  to  that  "Bacon  letter?"  A. 
There  was. 

Q.  After  that  was  published,  did  you  have  an  interview 
with  Mr.  Tilton?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  soon  after  ?   A.  Next  day. 

Q.  That  would  be  26th  1  A.  The  27th  the  interview 
was. 

Q.  The  interview  was  on  the  27th.  What  passed  be- 
tween you  and  Mr.  Tilton  at  that  interview  ?  Did  you 
call  upon  him,  or  he  upon  you  ?  A.  He  called  upon  me  at 
my  office. 

Q.  What  was  said  at  that  interview  ?  A.  He  came  in 
and  

Mr.  Beach— Is  that  any  interview  we  have  given  in  e^vi- 

dence  ? 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  an  interview  with  the  plaintiff. 
Mr.  Beach— Sir  ? 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  an  interview  with  the  plaintiff. 

Mr.  Beach — Yes,  Sir ;  but  I  wanted  to  know  whether 
this  gentleman  goes  on  to  it  without  any  e"vidence  before 
in  regard  to  it. 

Judge  Neilson — It  is  referred  to  on  the  cross-examina- 
tion, I  think. 

Mr.  Beach— I  had  forgotten. 

The  Witness— I  do  not  think  it  is,  your  Honor. 

Judge  Neilson— They  ask  Mr.  Tilton  if  he  did  not  go  to 
Mr.  Tracy's  office. 

The  Witness— I  don't  think  it  is  referred  to  in  the  cross- 
examination. 

Judge  Neilson— I  may  be  mistaken. 

Mr.  Beach— Do  you  still  think  it  was.  Sir  ? 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  not  certain.  Sir,  but  I  am  inclined 
to  think  it  was. 

Mr.  Beach— It  would  make  it  still  worse  for  the  purpose 
of  contradiction. 

Judge  NeUson— I  may,  perhaps,  have  been  conlounding 
it  with  the  reference  made  in  the  opening. 

The  Witness— Possibly. 


268  TEE  T1LT(W-B 

Judge  Neilson— It  has  been  referred  to  somewliere. 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir ;  I  think  it  is  in  onr  minds  as  part 
of  the  record  heretofore. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— It  does  not  affect  the  question  of  the  admis- 
sibility of  the  evidence.  My  only  point  was  lo  know 
whether  it  had  been  referred  to  in  prior  evidence,  so  as 
properly  to  call  for  an  answer  from  anybody,  or  whether 
this  is  volunteered  testimony. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir.  I  think  it  is  a  new  occasion 
and  a  new  interview. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  aU  right. 

Judge  Neilson— Referred  to  in  the  opening,  I  think. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is,  the  opeiiiug  on  our  part. 
Judge  Nellsou— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  fortunately  that  opening  is  not  evi- 
dence. 
Mr.  Evarts— Why  not  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Why  not!  Because  tiiere  is  scarcely  a 
word  of  truth  in  it,  from  beginning  to  end. 

Judge  NeiLson— That  is  the  reason  they  are  going  to 
examine  the  witness  in  regard  to  it,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  does  not  exclude  evidence,  that  it  is 
not  true. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir,  it  does,  unless  it  is  sworn  to  and 
verified  by  some  other  mode  than  Mr.  Tracy's  simple 
utterance  as  counsel.  * 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  will  not  press  this  at  present,  Mr. 
Tracy ;  I  will  take  up  a  matter  that  I  can  dispose  of 
within  a  few  minutes,  and  about  which  there  is  no  doubt. 

MORE   BICKERING  OVER  THE  TESTIMONY. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  in  August,  1874,  an 
interview  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Moulton,  which  has 
been  made  the  subject  of  evidence,  in  regard  to  obtain- 
ing the  documents  from  him  for  Mr.  Beech er?  A.  That 
was  in  July,  Mr.  Evarts. 

Q.  July,  yes;  the  interview  was  in  July,  but  the 
answers  did  not  come,  I  think,  until  early  in  August.  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  how  that  arose? 
Mr.  Beach— Can  you  refer  to  where  that  is  mentioned! 
Mr.  Evarts  [to  the  witness]- What  occurred  between 
you  and  Mr.  Moulton  ? 
The  Witness— Mr.  Beach  is  looking  for  the  evidence. 
Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  moment,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— If  it  was  an  application  for  the  papers 
on  behalf  of  Mr.  Beecher,  of  course  you  can  show  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes;  Mr.  Moulton  gives  the  interview  be- 
tween Mr.  Tracy  and  himself,  and  I  will  examine  Mr. 
Tracy  as  to  that. 

Q.  Now,  how  did  that  arise,  and  what  occun-ed  ?  A.  I 
took  a  letter  from  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  That  is  the  letter  of  July  24,  is  it  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Which  is  in  evidence  1  A.  Which  is  in  evidence.  I 
am  not  certain  that  the  interview  occurred  on  the  day  of 


EC  HE  Li  LJILAL. 

the  date  of  that  letter  ;  it  either  occui-red  on  that  day  or 
a  day  or  two  afterward  ;  I  could  tell,  probably,  if  I  knew 
the  day  of  the  week  that  the  24th  was.  But  I  took  a  let- 
ter  

Mr.  Beach  [still  se.ii'chlng  the  record] — Wait  a  moment.- 
Mr.  Evarts— Do  you  find  it  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir  ;  I  find  it,  but  it  is  upon  cross-ex- 
amination. 
Mr.  Evarts— Well? 
Mr.  Beach— Well  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Necessarily  it  was  on  the  cross-ex- 
amination. It  was  in  reference  to  Mr.  Beecher's  seeking 
to  get  the  papers. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainl3%  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  it  is  perfectly  competent  to  sho'W 
that  Mr.  Tracy,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Beecher,  went  with  one 
of  those  letters  and  sought  to  get  the  papers. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  in  proof. 

Mr.  Evarts — But  Mr.  Moulton's  statement  of  any  con- 
versation or  transaction,  that  we  drew  out  on  cross-ex- 
amination, does  not  preclude  us  from  giving  what  occured 
by  another  witness.  It  is  not  collateral. 

Mr.  Beach— My  friend  will  modify  that  statement,  for 
it  certainly  does,  in  regard  to  some  matters.  The  q.ues- 
tion  is  whether  this  is  collateral,  or  material  to  the  issue. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  assume  that  it  is  not  collater  al. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  know  why  you  should  assume  that. 

Mr.'Evarts— How  is  it  collateral  ? 

Mr.  Beach— How  is  it  material,  as  between  Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Beecher,  that  Mr.  Beecher  applied  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton for  copies  of  letters,  and  that  he  declined  to  give  them, 
or  that  he  did  give  them  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— It  certainly  is  not  collateral  in  the  sense  of 
being  extraneous  to  the  subject  or  the  issue.  It  is  not  In 
the  nature  of  a  collateral  impeachment.  It  may  be  sub- 
ordinate ;  it  certainly  is  not  collateral. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  the  counsel  makes  a  distinction,  very 
refined  and  mystical,  as  between  collateral  and  subordi- 
nate. This  is  collateral.  Sir,  in  legal  phraseology,  be- 
cause it  does  not  bear  directly  upon  the  merits  of  the 
issue,  and  whatever  does  not  is  collateral  in  the  sense  of 
the  law. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  the  only  question  is  this,  whether,  in 
the  line  of  this  controversy,  their  giving  evidence  as  to 
Mr.  Beecher's  course  of  conduct  in  regard  to  suppressing 
or  shaping,  or  directing  investigations,  representations, 
explanations,  is  or  is  not  collateral.  It  is  not  collateraL 
It  is  bearing  upon  the  dii'ect  issue  of  the  adultery,  by 
showing,  in  the  nature  of  confession  or  conduct,  that 
which  implies  guilt.  Otherwise  we  have  no  space  in 
our  record  for  all  this  evidence  that  has  been  given, 
running  through  the  West  charges  and  a  variety  of  other 
matter.  That  is  what  I  mean  by  saying  that  it  is  not  col- 
lateral, although  it  may  be  subordinate,  and  may  be  un- 
important, or  important,  as  the  examtuation  may  show. 
Now,  this  was  one  of  the  things  done.  On  cross-examinar 


TFSTniOJI    OF  BESJAMIS  F.  TRACY. 


269 


tloiL  I  dreTT  from  Mr.  Moulton,  or  tliere  Tvas  dravm  from 
Mr.  M<--ultun,  a  certain  vie-^—  'orrect  in  pa^'t,  or  in  whole, 
If  jou  please— concerning  tliat-  mtervle^v  and  Ms 
dealing  witli  tMs  matter.  Now,  tliere  is  nothing  in  the  fact 
that  I  took  on  cross-examination  his  testimony  that  pre- 
vents me  from  proving  hy  another  -vvitness  vrho  knows 
•what  really  occurred,  what  did  occur,  and  (lualifying  or 
flatly  contradicting  his  view  of  the  matter.  It  is  not  as 
if  I  had  ashed  him  a  question  derogatory  to  his  character 
on  extraneous  matters.  There  I  tahe  the  answer  of 
course.  That  is  what  I  understand  to  he  the  legal  sense 
of  "collateral."  If  my  friend  insists  that  he  is  more  cor- 
rect in  regard  to  the  phrase  than  I  am,  we  won't  dispute 
at)out  it.  But  this  helongs  to  the  issue,  and  is  one  of  the 
elements  and  chains  of  evidence;  and  I  propose  to  show 
now  

[Mr.  Ahhott  here  made  a  suggestion  to  Mr.  Evarts.] 
Mr.  Evarts— If  it  came  in  any  shape  as  outside  of  the 
issue,  why,  it  would  he  a  question  of  hias,  and  the  con- 
duct of  a  witness  in  respect  to  bias  is  not  collateral  in  the 
sense  that  you  cannot  contradict  him.  Bias,  then,  he- 
comes  a  matter  to  he  proved— to  wit:  it  helongs  to  this 
issue ;  it  helongs  to  this  issue  as  hearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  or  no  he  has  espoused  one  side  or  the 
other,  and  has  acted  with  hostility  and  injustice  toward 
the  other  party ;  so  that  if,  in  that  sense,  it  is  collateral, 
why, bias  can  always  he  shown,  and  we  are  not  concluded 
hy  the  witness's  statement  concerning  his  hias. 

Mr.  Beach— Upon  the  question  of  hias  your  Honor  has 
ruled,  and  the  law  undoiihtedly  is,  that  in  an  attempt  to 
ehow  hostility  or  unfi-iendliness  of  feeling  on  the  part  of 
a  witness,  you  can  merely  ask  in  general  terms  with  re- 
gard to  its  existence  ;  you  cannot  go  into  the  details  of 
any  dilficulty  or  transaction  between  the  witness  and  the 
party  against  whom  he  appears,  for  the  purpose  of  draw- 
ing an  inference,  or  establishing  a  conclusion  of  enmity— 
so  that  it  is  not  necessary  in  that  view  to  consider  the 
question  presented  to  your  Honor,  because  this  was  an 
application  for  letters,  or  copies  of  letters,  to 
which  it  is  supposed  Mr.  Beecher  was  enti- 
tled from  Moulton  as  the  trustee  and  deposi- 
tory in  whose  hands  they  had  been  placed. 
It  is  out  that  Mr.  Moulton  refused  it.  It  is  proven  by  him, 
It  is  proven  by  the  correspondence  between  the  parties 
It  is  proven  by  them  orally  and  in  writing,  and  therefore, 
so  far  as  that  fact  indicates  any  unfriendliness  or  enmity, 
It  is  proven,  and  proven  so  far  as  it  can  be  properly 
proven  under  the  rule.  Xow,  how  does  the  conversation 
between  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tracy,  which  they  drew 
out  on  the  cross-examination,  how  does  that  become  ma- 
terial, in  any  sense,  to  this  issue  1  Mr.  Tracy,  represent- 
ing Mr.  Beecher.  applies  to  Mr.  Moulton  for  copies  of 
these  documents  Mr.  Moulton  makes  certain  declara- 
tions In  regard  to  the  propriety  of  delivering  them,  and 
W*  views  of  the  honorary  obligation  which  rests  upon 
hiu:.   "^T^    Tracy,  representing  Mr.  Beecher,  combats 


i"hese  ^-iews,  and  perhaps  makes  some  very  forcible  and 
striking  suggestions  to  Mr.  Moulton  in  regard  to  his 
duties — undoulitedly  forcible  and  striking,  as  that  gentle- 
man. Mr,  Tracy,  never  speaks  except  in  that  character 
and  to  that  effect.  But  what  has  Mr.  Tilton  to  do 
with  all  this,  Sir  ?  By  what  right  does  Mr.  Tracy,  repre- 
senting Mr.  Beecher,  by  explicit  authority,  seek  an  inter- 
view with  ^Ir.  Moulton,  and  make  declarations  and  make 
arguments  to  be  testified  to  by  him  npon  the  stand,  as 
against  Mr.  Tilton  1  And  by  what  process  does  the  gen- 
tleman make  these  interviews  and  these  declarations  by 
legal  strangers  to  us  evidence  as  against  ns  ?  Why.  Sir. 
there  is  a  continual  strife  before  your  Honor  to  make  the 
j  declarations  of  ilr.  Moulton  testimony  against  !Mr.  Til- 
ton. Not  only  that,  but,  by  putting  forward  Mr.  Moulton 
1  as  the  representative  of  Mr.  Tilton,  to  make  whatever 
Mr.  Tracy  chooses  to  say,  as  the  counsel  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
to  Mr.  Moulton  evidence  as  against  ilr.  Tilton  ;  and  to 
get,  through  Tracy  counsel  and  Tracy  witness,  an  argu- 
ment upon  this  witness-stand,  under  the  solemnity-  of  an 
oath,  from  this  counsel  and  witness.  Xow,  I  would  like 
to  know,  Sir,  how  that  is  to  be  accomplished,  and  how 
my  client,  entirely  innocent  of  all  these  transactions, 
not  present  at  the  interviews,  or  knowing  any- 
thing about  them,  or  giving  any  man  a 
credential  to  represent  him  at  them,  is  to  be 
injured  by  this  mode  oE  gettingup  arguments,  to  be  sworn 
to  upon  the  stand  by  a  counsel  in  the  case.  It  may  seem 
to  your  Honor  consistent  with  those  rules  of  justice  and 
of  evidence  which  guide  a  court  of  justice ;  but  it  seems 
to  me  that  it  is  an  evasion  of  every  principle  of  eqidty 
and  right,  and  is  an  effort  which  should  be  discoun- 
tenanced by  the  indignant  intelligence  of  the  Court. 

Judge  Jy'eilson- The  suggestion  sought  to  be  made,  per- 
haps, at  the  expense  of  Mr.  Beecher,  that  during  a  course 
of  time  and  for  whatever  reason  as  assigned  by  each 
party,  he  discouraged  investigation  or  sought  to  put  it 
by,  flows  on  down  to  the  time  when  the  Tilton-Bacon 
letter  was  published.  Then  a  committee  was  appointed,^ 
and  the  relations  of  the  parties  changed ;  and  then  Mr. 
Beecher  sought  to  reclaim  from  Mr.  Moulton  the  papers 
or  copies  of  them  for  use  before  the  Committee.  Most  of 
these  papers  were  papers  which  Mr.  Beecher  himself  had 
given  to  Mr.  Moulton,  and  he  vrrit^s  a  letter,  which  iBr 
perhaps,  in  evidence,  or  is  one  of  those  excluded  

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir,  it  is  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  in  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Tracy,  representing  Mr.  Beecher, 
very  properly  takes  the  letter  to  Mr.  Moulton,  and  I 
chink  he  is  qtiite  at  liberty  to  say  that,  at  the  reqneat  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  he  took  that  letter  to  Mr.  Moulton  

Mr.  Beach— Undoubtedly. 

Judge  Neilson  rcontlnnlng] — In  order  to  get  the  papers, 
and  that  he  got  them,  or  did  not  get  them— If  there  was  a 
refusal  to  state  the  fact,  but  not  to  give  the  conversatio-n 
or  arguments  that  occurred  between  them. 


370 


TEE   llLTOJS-BEEChlEB  lELAL. 


Mr.  Beach— That  is  all  I  object  to. 

Judge  Neilson— He  has  a  right  to  prove  the  fact  of  the 
delivery  of  the  letter,  and  the  success  or  failure  of  his 
mission. 

COUNSEL  HAVE  A  LAUGH  AT  THE  JURY'S 
EXPENSE. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  time  to  adjourn. 

Judge  Neilsou— No,  let  us  have  this  answer ;  let  us  get 
through  with  this  branch. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— I  will  interrogate  him,  If  you  are  fa- 
tigued. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  am  not  fatigued  in  the  least,  but  my 
learned  friend  [alluding  to  Mr.  Beach.] 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  I  am  willing  to  stay  here  all  night 
waiting  for  my  friend. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  jury  are  not  fascinated  with  either  of 
us,  and  they  don't  wish  to  have  any  more  of  us. 

Mr.  Beach— They  are  sick  enough  of  us,  no  doubt, 
[Laughter.) 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  you  may^  remem- 
ber that  at  this  interview  something  was  said 
of  a  letter  which  you  then  presently  wrote. 
Have  you  that  letter?  A.  I  have,  but  I  desire 
to  say,  Mr.  Evarts,  if  you  will  excuse  me,  that  if 
it  be  true  that  this  conversation  was  gone  into  on  our 
cross-examination  and  not  on  the  direct  examination,  I 
hope  that  that  question  will  not  be  put  to  me,  because  I 
purpose  to  confine  my  evidence  entirely  to  conversa- 
tions which  the  plaintiff  has  himself  introduced,  and 
where  he  has  introduced  my  name. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  you  agi-ee  with  the  ruling  which  T 
have  just  made— to  wit,  that  the  conversations  are  not  to 
be  given. 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  the  witness]— That  I  understand,  and 
have  always  understood.  But  this  is  simply  supplying 
the  deflniteness  of  proof  which,  in  the  absence  of  that 
letter,  was  not  existing. 

The  Witness— I  have  that  letter. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  will  leave  that. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness]— You  delivered  that  to 
Mr.  Moulton? 

The  Witness— I  offered  to  

Mr.  Evarts— No.  Mr.  Tracy  wrote  a  letter,  seeing  tliat 
Mr.  Beecher's  letter  required  originals.  Your  Honor  will 
remember  that  Mr.  Moulton  testified  that  seeing  that  Mr. 
Beecher's  letter  required  originals,  and  Mr.  Tracy  recog- 
nizing the  point  that  perhaps  Mr.  Moulton  might  not 
wish  to  part  with  the  originals  

Judge  Neilson— But  would  give  copies. 

Mr.  Evarts  [continuing]  then  undertook  to  write  a  re- 
quest or  intimation  to  Mr.  Moulton  that  copies  would  be 
equally  satisfactory. 

Judge  Neilson— I  will  take  the  fact  that  that  was  his 
request,  and  that  it  was  declined,  if  that  was  the  fact. 


Mr.  Beach— Oh,  copies  were  declined,  Sir,  as  well  as 
originals  ;  there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir;  he  declined  to  receive  my  letter, 
and  asked  me  to  take  back  Mr.  Beecher's. 

Judge  Neilson— You  didn't  get  the  copies  ? 

The  Witness— I  didn't  get  the  copies. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  the  stenographer]— Please  strike  that 
out. 

The  Witness— Strike  it  out. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  jury]— Crentlemen,  get  ready  to 
retire. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  11  a.  ra.  on  Thursday. 


SEVENIY-FIFTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

MR.   TRACY  CROSS-EXAMINED. 
closk  of  the  direct  examination  of  mr.  tracy 
—Statements  of  mr.  tilton  and  mr.  mottlton 
contradicted— hostilities  opened  by  mr. 
beach— an  aggressive  cross-examination. 

Thursday^  April  29,  1875, 
The  direct  examination  of  Mr.  Tracy  was  concluded 
to-day,  and  the  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Beach 
was  begun. 

Very  few  exceptions  have  recently  been  taken  by 
the  counsel  on  either  side  to  Judge  Neilson's  rulings, 
but  to-day  Mr.  Evarts  felt  constrained  to  depart 
fiom  this  custom.  He  had  offered  to  intro- 
duce new  evidence  in  the  shape  of  an  in- 
terview with  Mr.  Tracy  in  relation  to  the  scandal 
published  in  The  BrooMyn  Daily  Union  of  June  26, 
1874.  He  maintained  that  it  was  competent  evi- 
dence, having  been  the  public  expression  of  Mr. 
Tracy's  views  at  that  time.  It  was,  however,  ruled 
out  by  Judge  Neilson,  and  Mr.  Evarts  excepted  to. 
the  ruling.  The  direct  examination  of  Mr.  Tracy 
terminated  earlier  tban  was  anticipated.  The  main 
object  was  to  elicit  from  Mr.  Traoy  contradictions  of 
some  of  the  plaintiff's  witnesses.  Mr.  Evarts  held  iu 
his  hands  a  copy  of  tliepriuted  report  of  the  plain- 
tiff's case,  and  picked  out  passages  from  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  which  he  read  to 
the  witness,  asking  him  whether  they  were  true.  The 
passages  related  principally  to  what  Mr.  Tracy  w  as 
alleged  to  have  told  Mr.  Tilton  about  the  Investiga- 
ting Committee.  Mr.  Tracy  said  they  were  not 
true,  denying  absolutely  with  respect  to  some,  and 
qualifiedly  with  respect  to  others.  In  his  testimoii  v 
Mr.  Tilton  said  that  Mr.  Tracy  told  him,  before  Mrs. 
Tilton  had  gone  before  the  Investigating  Cojnm it- 
tee,  he  had  instructed  her  what  to  say.  and  how  to 
say  it — put  the  questions  to  her,  that  she  might 
make  no  blunders  in  ausAvering  them.    This  Mr 


T?:STIMOJ^Y   OF   BEyJAMl^s    F.  TEACY. 


271 


Iracy  deolai^l  he  had  never  said.  He  likewise  de- 
nied that  he  had  told  Mr.  Tilton  that  the  Committee 
would  not  inquire  closely  enough  to  get  at  the  truth. 
He  called  in  question  other  statements  that  had  been 
made  by  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr,  Moulton.  He  also  swore 
positively  that  Mr.  Woodrufi  did  not  tell  him  that 
Mr.  Tilton's  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  was  adultery 
with  his  wife. 

Mr.  Beach  began  his  cross-examination  of  Mr. 
Tracy  in  his  usual  vigorous  manner,  startling  every- 
body by  his  first  question,  which  was  in  substance 
this  :  Whether  the  vsdtness  had  suggested  questions 
to  Mr.  Porter  when  the  latter  was  cross-examining 
Mr.  Moulton.   Mr.  Tracy  did  not  remember  doing  so. 

"When  cross-examining  Mr.  Moulton  in  regard  to 
a  Htigation  of  Woodruff  &  Eobinson,  did  you  stand 
up  behind  IVIr.  Porter  and  make  suggestions  V  asked 
IVIr.  Beach. 

'  I  did  not !"  replied  the  witness,  with  great  em- 
phasis, half  rising  from  his  chair. 

Mr.  Tracy  had  acted  as  counsel  for  the  firm  of 
Woodruff  &  Robinson,  and  the  insinuations,  which 
the  question  might  have  been  thought  to  convey, 
that  he  had  made  improper  use  of  professional  se- 
crets, probably  lent  piquancy  to  his  reply. 

The  cross-examination,  after  opening  in  this  ag- 
gressive manner,  assumed  the  nature  of  a  legal  duel 
between  the  examiner  and  examined,  and  its  progress 
was  watched  ^ath  great  amusement  by  the  specta- 
tors. Several  times  Mr.  Tracy,  who  took  the  severe 
questioning  of  Mr.  Beach  in  great  good  nature, 
laughed  heartily  at  the  manner  in  which  he  was 
brought  to  task  by  Mr.  Beach  for  insisting  on  an- 
swering in  his  own  way. 

Considerable  surprise  was  manifested  by  the  audi- 
tors when  the  witness  was  asked  whether  he  was 
the  author  of  the  opening  speech  which  he  had 
made  for  the  defense.  His  face  flushed  as  he  replied 
that  to  a  large  extent  he  was.  Mr.  Beach  insisted 
on  having  a  more  explicit  answer.  Objection  was 
made  by  the  counsel  for  the  defense  to  these  ques- 
tions, but  Mr.  Beach  said  he  wished  to  show  in  what 
character  that  opening  speech,  "overcharged  with 
malignity,  and,"  as  he  thought,  "  vnth  untruth," 
had  been  made.  Judge  Neilson  permitted  the  ques- 
tion to  be  asked  again  by  Mr.  Beach,  and  Mr.  Tracy 
finally  replied  that  he  had  composed  most,  but  not 
all  of  it. 

Gen.  Butler's  relations  to  the  case  were  the  princi- 
pal subject  of  ia(Luiry  by  Mr.  Beach.  The  particulars 
of  the  consultation  between  Mr.  Tracy  and  Gen.  But- 
ler at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel  in  August,  1874,  were  ' 


all  gone  over.  Mr.  Beach  wished  to  ascertain  in 
what  manner  Mr.  Tracy  had  gone  into  that  consulta- 
tion. This  led  to  another  duel  of  words.  Mr.  Tracy 
finally  stated  that  he  had  gone  intending  to  do  a 
friendly  act,  to  prevent  the  publication  of  a  scandal 
the  eft'ect  of  which  would  be  to  breed  demoraliza- 
tion. He  denied  that  he  told  Gen.  Butler 
that  he  appeared  as  the  representative  of 
]Mr.  Beecher.  Questions  about  IVIr.  Tracy's 
visit  to  Boston  to  Gen.  Butler  last  Summer 
led  to  an  amusing  scene.  Mr.  Beach  was  endeav- 
oring to  find  out  whether  he  had  gone  wdth  or  with- 
out Mr.  Beecher's  consent.  The  witness  insisted  that 
he  could  not  answer  without  entering  into  an  ex- 
planation. 

"It's  a  mere  speculation,  Sir,"  he  said.  "Ah! 
speculation.  Sir !"  exclaimed  Mr.  Beach  in  an  inde- 
scribable manner  that  set  the  audience  into  a  muffled 
roar  of  laughter;  "isn't  it  a  conclusion  in  your 
mind  f  Mr.  Tracy  at  last  said  that  he  never  sup- 
posed he  went  against  Mr.  Beecher's  wishes. 
This  Mr.  Beach  declared  was  the  answer  wliich 
he  had  been  for  a  long  time  trying  to  get. 
The  witness  insisted  that  this  was  the  first  time  the 
form  of  the  question  had  admitted  of  that  answer. 
Mr.  Beach  then  called  for  the  reading  of  the  preced- 
ing questions  and  answers.  The  Tribune  stenog- 
rapher accordingly  read  them,  beginning  well  back, 
and  an  amused  expression  on  the  faces  of  both  Mr. 
Beach  and  Gen.  Tracy  gradually  deepened  into  a 
smile,  as  they  listened  appreciatively  to  their  words, 
which  had  been  very  earnest  when  struck  ofi^  at  a 
heat,  but  which  sounded  very  funny  when  read  by  a 
third  person. 

Once  ]Mr.  Tracy  had  answered,  "  I  don't  remember 
definitely." 

"Definitely,"  exclaimed  Mr.  Beach;  "what  are  you 
covering  up  under  the  word  definitely  ?" 

"  Nothing,"  replied  Mr.  Tracy,  with  a  laugh.  The 
interview  between  jMt.  Tracy  and  Gen.  Butler,  at 
the  former's  room,  immediately  after  the  Fifth  Ave- 
nue Hotel  consultation,  was  one  of  the  priucipal  top- 
ics. Mr.  Beach  wished  to  know  whether  either  Mr. 
Tracy  or  Gen.  Butler  was  preparing  a  statement  for 
Mr.  Beecher  on  that  occasion.  The  witness  wanted 
to  answer  in  his  own  way,  and  Mr.  Beach  insisted  on 
having  shorter  and  more  direct  replies. 

"  Can't  you  answer  ?"  asked  ;JIr.  Beach. 

"No,  but  I'll  tell  you  what  occurred,"  replied  I^Ir. 
Tracy. 

"No,  you  won't — I  beg  your  pardon,"  said  Mp'- 
Beach. 


272  TEE  TILION-B 

Mr.  Shearman  came  in  for  his  share  of  the 
"  scuffling,"  as  Mr.  Evarts  once  called  it.  Mr.  Beach 
had  said  that  an  answer  given  was  not  honest.  After- 
ward he  said  he  did  not  apply  the  remark  to  the  wit- 
ness. 

"  We  understand  Mr.  Beach's  remark  was  purely- 
Pickwickian,"  said  Mr.  Shearman. 

"  Well,  Sir,"  returned  Mr.  Beach  in  a  severe  tone, 
"  there  is  no  one  more  competent  or  apt  to  deal  in 
Pickwickian  sense  than  that  gentleman,"  indicating 
Mr.  Shearman. 

Mr.  Tracy  said  that  at  his  room  Gen.  Butler  had  be- 
gun to  dictate  a  statement  which  he  thought  Mr. 
Beecher  might  make,  but  he  did  not  finish  it. 
After  returning  to  Boston  he  sent  Mr.  Tracy  a  paper, 
which  the  latter  had  returned  within  two  months, 
without  payiDg  any  attention  to  it. 


THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 


GEN.  TRACY  NEVER  MR.  TILTON'S  COUNSEL. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Benjamin  P.  Tracy  waa  recalled  and  Ids  direct  exam- 
ination resumed. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Tracy,  have  you  ever  been  in  any  mat- 
ter or  in  any  form  an  attorney  or  counsel  or  legal  adviser 
of  Mr.  Tilton  ?   A.  Never. 

Q.  Wliat  employment  or  relation  of  advice  or  assistance 
had  you  in  respect  of  the  Church  Committee  or  its  inves- 
tigations? A.  I  was  requested  by  the  Church  Committee 
to  attend  their  meetings  and  aid  them  in  the  examination 
of  witnesses  thatmisjht  appear  before  them. 

Q.  Was  it  employment  for  compensationi  A.  No,  Sir, 
a  mere  friendly  act. 

HOW  GEN.  TRACY  BECAME  COUNSEL  FOR 
MR.  BEECHER. 
Q.  Now,  when  did  you  become  counsel  of 
Mr.  Beecher  in  this  matter  at  all,  and  how  1  A.  I  was 
asked  to  become  counsel  to  Mr.  Beecher  soon  after  the 
commencement  of  the  action — I  don't  know  how  soon — 
by  Mr.  Shearman.  I  did  not  determine  whether  I  would 
accept  the  retainer  of  Mr.  Beecher  until  sometime  in  Sep- 
tember, not  at  least  imtil  after  yourself  and  Judge  Porter 
liad  been  employed,  and  the  other  coimsel  had  been  de- 
termined on. 

Q.  And  then  the  qtuestion  of  your  acceptance  was  de- 
termined by  you  ?  A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  in  favor  of  acting  for  Mr.  Beecher,  with  yom'  as- 
sociate coimsel  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  anticipate  being  a  witness  in  this 
cause?  A.  Not  until  after  the  plaintiff  had  given  evi- 
dence of  interviews  between  myself  and  Mr.  Moulton 


FF.CREE  TEIAL, 

and  Mr.  Tilton,  in  which  it  was  alleged  that  T  represented 
Mr.  Beecher  in  those  interviews.  After  that  evidence 
had  been  given  I  considered  the  question  whether  It  was 
my  duty  or  not  to  be  a  witness. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  we  don't  want  that  statement,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  after  that  was  done,  was  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  you  should  be  a  witness  submitted  to  any 
consideration  or  opinion  ! 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  objected  to,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Why  is  that.  Sir? 

Judge  NeUson— I  think  he  may  take  the  naked  fact  that 
the  question  was  considered  by  him  and  his  associates— 
the  simple  naked  fact. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  it  was  submitted  to  fhe  judgment  of 
others  is  the  main  point.  How  is  that,  Mr.  Tracy  1  A.  It 
was  submitted  to  my  associates,  and  I  followed  their 
iudgment. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  I  move  to  strike  out  the  latter 
portion  of  that. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes;  "It  was  submitted  to  my  associ- 
ates." The  act  of  his  being  here  shows  that  he  followed 
their  judgment. 

Mr.  Evarts— Presumptively. 

The  Witness  \Sotto  voce}— Not  necessarily. 

THE  "UNION"  INTERVIEW  WITH  GEN. 
TRACY  RULED  OUT. 
Mr.  Evarts— Though  an  obstinate  man  might 
have  gone  against  it.  [To  the  witness.]  Mr.  Tracy, 
please  look  at  this  paper;  come  down  from  the  stand  a 
moment. 

[The  witness  examined  abound  volimie  of  The  Brooklyn 

Union  and  then  resumed  his  seat.  J 

Q.  Please  look  at  The  BrooJclyn  Daily  Union  of  the  issue 
of  Friday,  June  26, 1874,  and  say  if  this  is  the  publica- 
tion of  an  interview  with  you  to  which  you  have  referred 
in  your  testimony  ?  A.  It  is. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  oflfer,  if  your  Honor  please,  to  put  that  in- 
terview in  evidence,  not  of  com'se  as  evidence  that  any 
statements  are  representations  of  facts,  or  proof  of  facts, 
but  as  evidence,  and  of  some  importance,  I  think,  in  some 
subsequent  connections,  that  this  was  a  public  declara- 
tion of  Mr.  Tracy's  views  of  certain  facts  in  this  case, 
growing  out  of  interviews  between  himself  and  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  which  were  well  known  to 
them  as  his  public  declarations,  and  the  subsequent  rela- 
tions preserved  between  the  parties  after  that  publica- 
tion. 

Mr.  Beach— We  object  to  it.  Sir,  as  incompetent  and 
immaterial. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  mere  fact  that  the  publica- 
tion was  made  can  be  taken,  but  that  is  as  far  as  you 
can  go. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  in  evidence,  but  unless  the  nature 
of  the  publication — your  Honor  perceives,  as  my  learned 
fi-iends  do,  that  a  state  of  public  declaration  on  the  part 


TESTIMOyi    OF  ££yJAMiy   F.    IF  ACT. 


273 


of  Mr.  Tracy,  Imown  to  these  gentleraen  as  a  public 
declaration,  and  presumptively  Ms  views  and  Ms  opin- 
ions, and  tlien  a  continuance  of  relations  with  Mm  in  re- 
gard to  matters  that  may  he  brought  in  evidence  in  refer- 
ence to  interviews  concerning  which  they  have  given 
evidence,  may  be  an  important  element.  Their  conduct 
towards  Mm  after  that  publication  goes  to  sustain,  if  you 
please,  the  view  that  we  take  as  to  their  subsequent  rela- 
tions. Here  certainly  was  a  public  declaration,  I  say,  in 
general. 

Judge  Xeilson— I  don't  thini  we  can  receive  it,  Mr. 
Evarts. 

Mr.  Evarts— Tour  Honor  will  allow  us  to  have  it  marked 
for  identification  ? 
Judge  ZSr--^ilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  permit  us  to  except  to  its  exclusion. 
I  dare  say  it  is  sufBciently  described  to  be  identified.  It 
1=  a  subdivision  of  a  general  subject  headed  "  The  Scan- 
dal," and  the  subdivision  is  headed.  "  The  ifature  of  the 
Scandal  Expained." 

Judge  Neilson — What  paper  Is  it,  Sir  1 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  J7!e  JBroo/^-?vn  Union  o'  Fridav,  June 
26. 1374. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  stenographer  had  better  mark  it, 
hadn't  he  ? 

GEX.    TEACY'S     IXTEEVIETVS    WITH  ^lES. 
TILTOX. 

Mr.  Evarts— No ;  the  particular  copy  of  tlie 
paper  is  of  no  importance.  [To  the  witness.]  Gen.  Tracy, 
It  has  been  a  subject  of  evidence  as  to  your  interviews  or 
conversations  with  [Mrs.  Tilton  preceding  lier  examina- 
tion before  the  Committee ;  I  will  ask  your  attention  now 
t.:'  that  point  of  time,  and  ask  you  to  state  when  and  how 
you  first  came  into  any  conversation  or  meeting  with 
Mrs.  Tilton,  and  what  passed  between  you  and  her  prior 
to  her  delivering  her  statement  to  the  Committee,  on  the 
night,  I  tMnk,  of  the  6th  of  July  1 

Mr.  Beach— So  far  as  that  question  calls  for  what  passed 
between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  ^Ir.  Tracy  we  object  to  it,  as  im- 
material and  incompetent. 

Judge  Xeilson— It  will  answer  your  purpose  to  describe 
wbether  he  met  her,  and  how  long  they  conversed,  and 
wbo  was  present. 

Mr.  Evarts— "Well,  I  dare  say  we  can  get  along  without 
runmng  against  any  legal  prejudices  of  my  learned 
friends. 

Mr.  Beach— Prejudices ! 

Mr.  Evarts— VTell.  Mr.  Tracy  

The  Witness— Shall  I  bcg'n  at  the  tiu\e  If  r^i  met  Mrs. 
Tilton  1 

Q.  Ves.  .rust  give  the  'acts  concerning  your  meeting 
with  her  ;  and  then  I,  perhaps,  tvlU.  ask  some  questions 
that  -will  nor  be  objected  to.  A.  In  the  afternoon  of  July 
^late  iB  Uib  '.ftemoon— I  wr.s  at  Mr.  Beecher's..  and  I 
tbere  lf;arne/l  that  Mrs.  O^ngton  hyi  b-  en  --o  Mr.  Po^ch- 


'  er's  with  a  message  wmch  she  desii'ed  to  eommtmicate 
j  to  htm ;  I  learned  also  that  !Mr.  Beecher  preferred  nor  to 
1  have  a  commumcation  from  Mrs.  Ovington,  or  not  to  see 
'  her,  and  requested  me  to  go  around  and  see  rf  she  would 
I  deliver  whatever  commtmication  she  had  for  him  to  me. 
j  Mr.  Beach— This  is  trespassin  g.  Sir,  upon  the  rule,  I 
:  think. 

The  Witness— Then  I  will  begin  where  I  met  Mrs.  TH- 
.  ton,  if  you  prefer  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  tMs  is  substantially  in  evidence  be- 
I  fore,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Judge  ^feilson  [to  the  witness] — Then  you  went  to  Airs. 
Ovington' s  and  met  her ;  is  that  it?  A.  ZSTo,  I  went  to 
Mr.  Ovington's  and  introduced  my  sell  to  !Mrs.  Ovington, 
and  told  her  my  object  in  coming  there. 

Ml-.  Evarts— Had  you  any  acquaintance  with  her  be- 
fore 1  A.  I  never  had  seen  [Mrs.  Ovington- before  that, 
and  she  said  

Judge  Xeilson- Xo,  you  learned  that  Mrs.  Tilton  was 
there. 

The  Witness— I  learned  that  3Irs.  Tilton  was  not  there. 
Judge  Xeilson— But  would  be  ? 
i     The  Witness— Xo,  I  did  not  learn  that  at  that  time. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  cannot  anticipate,  if  your  Honor  please, 
exactly  how  it  came  about. 
Judge  ZseiLson— That  is  true. 

Mr.  Evarts — 3Ir.  Tracy,  understand  not  to  give  any 
conversation,  except  how  it  came  about  that  you  saw 
Mrs.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Beach— We  don't  want  the  substance  of  the  conver- 
sation in  the  shape  of  a  narrative. 

The  Witness— I  will  avoid  any  obiection,  I  think.  Mr. 
Beach,  As  the  result  of  my  interview  with  3Irs.  Oving- 
ton, she  went  to  Mr.  Beecher's ;  and  as  the  result  of  what 
passed  there,  she  stating  that  Mrs.  Tilton  would  be  at 
her  house,  she  thought ;  on  her  return,  I  went  to  see  if 
:Mrs.  TUton  desired  to  go  before  the  Committee. 
Q.  Went  to  [Mrs.  Ovington's !  A.  Went  to  3Irs.  Oving- 

i  ton's,  and.  on  reaching  there,  I  fotmd  that  Mrs.  TUton 
had  been  there  and  had  gone  away,  but  would  return 
with  her  stepfather,  Judge  Morse,  later  in  the  evening ; 
I  think  I  then  went  to  dine,  and,  after  dinner,  returned  to 

!  Mrs.  Ovington's,  and  either  Judge  Morse  and  [Mrs,  Tilton 
were  in  the  house  when  I  went,  or  followed  me  in  very 

i  soon  after,  and  I  was  there  introduced  to  Mrs.  Tilton  by 
her  stepfather,  Judge  Morse. 

Q,  Was  Judge  Morse  a  previotis  acquaintance  of  yours! 
A.  He  was ;  I  had  known  Judge  Morse  slightly  for  several 
years. 

Q.  And  Mrs.  Tilton— had  you  any  personal  acquaintance 
with  her  ?   A.  [None  whatever. 

Q.  Did  you  [know  her  by  sight!  A.  Well,  I  think  I 
should  have  recognized  Mrs.  Tilton  by  sight ;  I  remember 
having  seen  her  in  Plymouth  Church  once  or  twice,  but  I 
nove'^  hi  1  gpoken  with  her,  and  bad  no  QC'QuaiTitan'e 
-^tliheT 


274 


TH.E 


TlLTON-BREfmEB  TRIAL. 


Q.  Now,  before  she  left  Mrs.  Ovington's  to  j?o  before 
the  Committee,  did  you  have  any  conversation  with  her, 
and  it  so  where  and  of  what  length?  A,  She  did  not 
leave  Mrs.  Ovington's  to  go  before  the  Committee,  Mr. 
Evarts ;  the  Committee  came  to  her. 

Q.  Yes,  that  is  so.  A.  On  being  introduced  to  Mrs.  Til- 
ton,  the  object  of  her  visit  was  stated  generally  in  the 
presence  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Ovington,  Judge  Morse  and 
myself.  She  was  considering  whether  she  would  or 
would  not  

Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  moment.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  we  have  had. 

The  Witness— There  was  a  general  talk  on  the  subject. 
She  went  apart  and  had  a  private  consultation  with  her 
stepfather,  Judge  Morse,  and  returned  to  the  room  and 
said  

Mr.  Beach— It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  go  into  those 
details.  You  ain't  very  good  at  avoidance. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  don't  know ;  I  think  so.  [To  the 
witness.]  She  gave  you  an  answer  as  to  going  before  the 
Committee  ?  A.  She  did,  and  Judge  Morse  left  the  house. 
I  left  immediately  after  to  go  to  Mr.  Storrs's  and  notify 
the  Committee.  I  did  so,  and  they  came  aroimd  to  Mr. 
Ovington's  house,  where  Mrs.  Tilton  was. 

Q.  Now,  what  further  interview,  if  any,  did  you  have 
with  Mrs.  Tilton  before  she  commenced  her  statement 
before  the  Committee  1  A.  When  we  reached  Mr.  Oving- 
ton's, I  was  told  that  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Ovington 
were  in  the  dining-room  below,  and  I  went  down  there. 
Mrs.  Tilton  was  just  finishing  her  tea.  I  notified  her  that 
the  Committee  were  present,  and  she  immediately — we 
passed  up  to  the  parlor  floor,  she  and  Mrs.  Ovington  pro- 
ceeding up  stairs. 

Q.  To  the  story  above  ?  A.  To  the  story  above. 

Q.  Above  the  parlors?  A.  And  returned  in  a  few 
moments,  and  she  was  introduced  to  the  Committee — the 
different  members  of  the  Committee— and  proceeded  at 
once  with  the  statement. 

Q.  Now,  at  this  interview  between  yourself  and  her  in 
the  tea-room  was  anything  else  said  excepting  that  the 
Committee  were  ready  to  to  hear  her  statement  and  that 
she  was  ready  to  give  it  ?  A.  There  was  a  single  word 
said— a  single  sentence. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  shall  I  have  that,  Mr.  Beach? 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  not.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Did  it  relate  to  the  appointment  of  going 
before  the  Committee  ?   A.  It  did. 

Q.  Now,  were  you  present  during  the  examination  of 
Mrs.  Tilton  ?   A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  did  you  attend  to  and  hear  all  the  questions  and 
all  the  answers  ?  A.  I  did. 


GEN.  TRACY  AND  MR.  TILTON  TALK  ABOLT 
MRS.  TILTON'S  TESTIMONY. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  evidence  has  been  given  by  Mr. 
Tilton  concerning  an  interview  with  you  on  the  day  after, 
I  think,  this  examination  of  his  wife.  Did  you  have  such 
an  interview  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  did  that  come  about?  A.  By  an  appointment 
made  by  Mr.  Moulton,  for  me  to  meet  Mr.  Tilton  at  hia 
house  that  next  evening. 

Q.  And  you  did  so  ?   A.  I  did  so. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  what  passed  at  that  interview  between 
you  and  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  Well,  it  was  a  long  interview ;  a 
good  deal  was  said.  The  main  subiect  of  conversation 
was  the  appearance  of  his  wife  before  the  Committee— the 
difierent  members  of  the  Committee,  what  impression 
she  made  before  the  Committee,  the  details  of  which  con- 
versation I  cannot  repeat  in  the  language  m  which  it 
occurred  that  evening,  but  the  substance  of  which  and 
the  drift  of  which  I  know. 

Q.  WeU,  Sir,  what  was  that  ?  A.  Well,  Mr.  Tilton  asked 
me  about  his  wife's  being  before  the  Committee— asked 
me  how  she  came  to  go  before  the  Committee,  and  I  told 
him  the  facts  so  far  as  I  knew  them  ;  told  him  how  I  first 
met  his  wife,  how  she  determined  to  go  before  the  Com- 
mittee ;  that  I  went  for  the  Committee  and  they  came 
around  to  Mr.  Storrs's  house— or  Mr.  Ovington's  house, 
and  she  made  her  statement  before  the  Committee ;  I  told 
him  that  I  was  present  at  that  statement,  that  I  heard  all 
the  questions  that  were  put  to  her,  and  all  the  answers 
that  she  made  ;  I  stated  generally  the  drift  of  what  she 
said,  to  him,  and  her  bearing  before  the  Committee  and 
the  impression  that  she  made  upon  the  Committee,  so  far 
as  I  observed  it ;  he  inquired  particularly  about  that,  and 
what  feeling  her  statement  seemed  to  produce  on  the 
minds  of  the  Committee  toward  himself,  and  I  told  him 
that,  as  far  as  I  had  observed  it. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  tell  him  in  that  regard  ?  A.  I 
told  him  that  Mrs.  Tilton's  statement  was  very  kind  to 
ward  him ;  while  she  had  denied  positively  the  state- 
ment of  the  Woodhull  scandal  and  of  improper  relations 
with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  had  also  denied  positively  that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  ever  made  an  improper  proposal  to  her. 
yet  she  had  not  accused  Mr.  Tilton,  or  spoken  harshly  of 
him  at  all ;  on  the  contrary,  she  had  spoken  in  the  kind- 
est manner  of  him,  and  I  think  that  I  told  him  that  she 
expressed  in  some  manner  her— in  some  words,  I  have 
forgotten  what— her  affection  for  him,  and  that  she 
explained  her  motive  in  coming  before  the  Com- 
laittce,  that  after  the  publication— she  said 
after  the  i)ublication  of  the  "  Bacon  letter"  she  felt  it  to 
be  her  duty  to  seek  out  some  of  her  brethren  in  the 
church  and  to  make  a  communication  to  them  of  the  facts 
in  this  case,  and  I  repeated  to  him  what  she  said  about 
her  duty  to  deny  it,  to  herself— for  her  own  sake  and  for 
the  sake  of  her  children.   Then  he  asked  me  who  tha 


TESTLMOI^Y   OF  BE 

members  of  tlie  Committee  were,  and  I  told  him,  naming 
them  over,  andwe  discussed  the  various  characteristics  of 
each  member  of  the  Committee  and  how  they  felt  toward 
him  and  toward  Mr.  Beecher,  he  giving  me  what  infor- 
mation— or  his  views  of  each  member  of  the  Committee, 
and  I  giving  him  my  impressions ;  and  he  spoke  there  of 
whether  that  Committee  could  ever  be  induced  to  believe 
or  eay  they  believed  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  been  guilty  of 
wronging  htm  or  committing  an  offense  against  him.  He 
said  very  strongly  that  he  did  not  believe  they  would;  that 
they  were  determined  to  aoQLuit  Mr.  Beecher  of  all  wrong, 
and  they  never  would  say  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  com- 
mitted a  wrong  against  him ;  and  I  combated  that  view, 
because  I  told  him  that  I  was  satisfied  from  what  I  knew 
of  the  Committee,  and  what  I  had  seen  of  them,  that  the 
Committee  would  make  a  report  that  the  facts  presented 
before  them  justified;  if  those  facts  condemned  Mr. 
Beecher,  they  would  condemn;  if  they  acciuitted  him, 
they  would  acquit  him,  and  they  would  condemn  or 
acquit  just  to  the  degree  that  the  facts  would  warrant ; 
and  that  discussion  went  on  a  long  time,  until  late  in  the 
night ;  that  was  the  general  nature  and  drift  of  the  talk. 

Q.  When  you  were  speaking  to  Mr.  Tilton  concerning 
his  wife's  attitude  and  statements  as  toward  himself,  did 
you  say  anything  to  him  on  the  subject  of  her  continued 
pm'pose  or  wish  to  remain  with  him  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  htm  tu  that  regard  1  A.  I  said 
to  him  that  his  wife  expressed  a  desii-e  aud  a  determtua- 
tion  to  preserve  her  family,  and  to  continue  to  live  with 
her  husband  and  to  struggle  on  and  live  down  this  story. 

Mr.  Beach— When  was  that  1  On  the  7th  of  July  1  A. 
This  was  on  the  7th  of  July. 

CONTEADICTIOXS  OF  MR.  TILTOX. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  call  your  attention,  Mr.  Tracy, 
to  this  statement  of  Mr.  Tilton's— [Reading]  : 

Gea.  Tracy  told  me  that  I  need  have  no  anxiety  con- 
cerning the  formation  of  a  committee  ;  that  Mrs.  Triton 
had  gone  down  to  the  Committee  at  Mr.  Ovington's 
house  ;  that  previous  to  the  assembling  of  it,  he,  Gen. 
Tracy,  had  instructed  her  what  to  say  and  how  to  say  it 
—put  the  questions  to  her,  that  she  might  make  no  blun- 
ders in  answering  them  ;  that  when  she  came  before  the 
Committee,  she  astonished  and  surprised  all  of  them 
with  her  eloquent  allusions  to  her  pastor  and  to  her  hus- 
band. 

In  this  interview  was  anythtag  said  by  you  to  this 
effect,  in  whole  or  in  part,  that  you  had  uistructed  her 
what  to  say  and  how  to  say  it— lirut  questions  to  her  that 
she  might  make  no  blunders  tu  answertag  them  ?  A.  Xot 
a  word. 

Q.  In  youi-  intercourse,  at  any  time,  with  Mr.-.  Tilton, 
before  her  examtaation  was  completed,  had  you  m  any 
wiiy,  or  in  any  part,  prepared  her  for  the  questions  or  the 
answers  in  that  exammation  %  A.  No,  Sir  ;  not  unless 
the  remark  I  made  to  her  fli-st  should  be  dee j;r3d  a  prep- 
arati(m  ;  Twill  state  the  remark  X^x  I  did  make  to  her  if 
it  is  permissible. 


XJAmN  F.    TEAC7,  L?5 

Q.  Wen,  what  was  that ! 

]\Ii\  Beach— That  is  objected  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  we  have  a  right  to  give  that.  Sir  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  know  why  they  have  a  right.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarte— I  have  a  right  to  give  the  negation  by 
showing  what  was  said. 

Judge  NetLson— That  you  have  given. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  the  witness  says  not  unless  this 
single  remark  which  he  has  already  referred  to,  and 
which  he  was  not  allowed  to  give,  was  a  negation. 

Judge  NeUson— WeU,  that  rule  would  admit  any  con- 
versation that  might  be  suggested  in  the  absence  of  the 
party  in  interest. 

IVIr.  Evarts— Not  necessarily,  I  should  think,  if  your 
Honor  please;  it  would  admit  any  qualifying  statement 
in  the  denial  which  the  \vic,uess  makes;  that,  I  suppose, 
a  witness  is  always  entitled  to. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  and  I  think  you  could  ask  him 
now  whether  in  that  single  observation  any  direction 
was  given  in  respect  to  her  answers. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  will  ask  him  that.  [To  the  wit- 
ness.] In  that  single  observation  to  which  you  refer, 
was  there  any  direction  given  in  respect  to  her  answers? 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— It  seems  to  me,  Sir,  that  covers  the 
ground. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Sir,  that  is  sutiicient.   I  believe  it  is 
already  in  evidence  by  Mrs.  Ovington. 
Mr.  Beach— No  ;  you  are  mistaken. 

iVIr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  Mr.  Tilton  says  this  also, 
in  respect  to  this  same  interview  ;  he  says  that  you  said 
to  him : 

Now,  if  you  take  right  advantage  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  ap- 
pearance before  that  Committee,  and  of  the  tender  hearts 
of  those  gentlemen  toward  all  the  parties  in  the  case, 
particularly  toward  you,  now  is  an  opportunity  to  sup- 
press the  scandal  forever. 

Then  he  proceeds : 

It  is  a  woman's  right  (he  says)  to  deny  it ;  let  her  deny 
it ;  let  her  stand  on  the  denial.  Now,  cooperate  with  that 
denial,  and  it  can  be  made  a  success. 

Did  you  say  anything  of  that  kind  to  :Mr.  Tilton '?  A. 
No,  Sir,  except  that  I  said  that  she  had  denied  it,  and 
that  she  said  that  it  was  her  right  and  her  duty  to  deny 
that  statement. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy,  a  certain  passage  between  Mr.  Tilton  and 
yourself  before  the  Committee  in  regard  to  your  acting 
as  counsel  notwirhstanding  what  you  had  said  to  him, 
has  been  given  in  evidence,  and  in  that  statement  the 
statement  that  you  had  previously  notified  him ;  do  you 
remember  the  occurrence  before  the  Committee  in 
which          A.  T  do. 

Q.  Yes;  well  that  is— that  I  believe  is  sulBciently  in 
evidence — ^now,  Mr.  Tracy,  before  that  time  had  you  given 
notice  to  Mr.  Tilton,  and  when  and  how]  A.  I  had  given 
him  notice. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?   A.  Well,  it  was  between  the  10th. 


276 


THE   TILTON-BEEGEEB  TlilAL, 


and  tlie  ISth.  of  July ;  I  cannot  state  definitely,  as  I  was 
seeing  Mr.  Tilton  almost  daily  from  the  27th  of  June 
until  about  the  13th  of  July ;  sometimes  oftener  than 
once  a  day. 
Mr.  Beach— What  year  1 

The  Witness— '74 ;  and  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  state, 
therefore,  vrith  deflniteness  the  time ;  but  I  am  sure  it 
^as  after  I  had  heard  of  his  conversation  at  Ovington's 
on  the  9th  of  July ;  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  it  was  after 
I  had  heard  his  wife  had  left  him,  but  of  that  I  am  not 
certain. 

Mr.  Erarts— Where  did  it  occur,  the  interview  or  the 
conversation  ?  A.  I  think  it  occurred  at  the  club. 

Q.  The  Brooklyn  Club  1  A.  The  Brooklyn  Club— it  may 
Tiave  been  at  my  office ;  Mr.  Tilton  was  in  the  habit  of 
dropping  in  at  my  office  frequently ;  and  he  was  also  in 
the  habit  of  dropping  in  at  the  club  when  I  was  taking 
lunch  or  at  dinner;  and  I  met  him  in  the  street  often. 
We  had  casual  conversations ;  at  times  we  had  set  con- 
versations; audit  was  one  of  the  casual  conversations 
either  in  my  office  or  at  the  club  when  I  told  him  

Q.  Well,  what  passed  between  you— how  was  the  mat- 
ter introduced?  A.  Referring  to  the  conversation  in 
1872, 1  said  to  him :  "  Mr.  Tilton,  as  long  as  you  adhere 
to  the  case  that  you  then  stated  to  me,  I  shall  adhere  to 
the  promise  I  made  you ;  but  I  desiie  to  say  to  you  that 
when  you  change  your  case  against  Mr.  Beecher,  if  you 
ever  do,  and  state  a  different  case  from  what  you  stated 
to  me,  I  shall  not  regard  my  promise  then  made  to  you 
as  binding  upon  me." 

Q,  What  did  he  say  to  that  1  A.  He  said  that  he  could 
not  see  whether— how  that  would  release  me  from  my 
promise ;  that  I  had  made  my  promise  not  to  be  counsel 
for  Mr.  Beecher  in  case  he  and  Mr.  Beecher  came  into 
collision;  and  whether  he  stated  the  same  case  now 
against  Mr.  Beecher  that  he  stated  then  or  not,  he  did 
not  see  that  that  would  release  me.  I  told  him  I  thought 
I  did ;  that  that  was  a  matter  of  judgment,  whether  it 
did  or  not;  it  was  my  judgment  that  it  did,  and  that  I 
should  act  upon  it  in  that  contingency. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  in  regard  to  it !  A.  I  think  he 
did  not;  that  was  the  substance  of  the  interview. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  said  that  you  frequently  had  meet- 
ings, casual  or  otherwise,  with  Mr.  Tilton  during  this 

period.  What  wewe  your  relations,  friendly  or   A. 

Friendly. 

Q.  Were  these  interviews,  any  of  them,  sought  or  in- 
vited by  you  ?  A.  None  that  I  remember,  not  a  single 
one;  every  interview  I  ever  had  with  Mr.  Tilton,  so  far 
as  I  n*i, «'  remember,  was  either  sought  by  himself,  or  was 
the  result  olf  an  appointment  made  by  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  In  his  behalf?  A.  In  his  behalf,  or  in  behalf  of  

Q.  But  not  through  youl  A.  Not  through  me,  nor  at 
my  solicitation. 

Mr.  Beach — He  does  not  Include  in  that  the  casual  in- 


terviews of  which  he  has  spoken  of  at  the  club  or  other- 
wise. 

Mr.  Evarts — Well,  interviews  that  were  entirely  casual. 

The  Witness— Oh,  accidental  meetings  in  the  street 
could  be  said  to  be  sought  by  no  one,  but  when  Mr.  Til- 
ton sought  me  at  the  club,  when  I  was  lunching,  and  sat 
down  at  the  table  and  had  a  conversation  with  me,  I 
treat  that  as  an  interview  sought  by  him. 

Q.  You  didn't  seek  an  interview ;  you  didn't  commence 
or  seek  the  conversation  at  the  club  with  him,  finding 
him  there?  A.  No,  Sir;  and  the  club  is  not  the  place 
where  Mr.  Tilton  is  in  the  habit  of  resorting  except  to 
see  some  one ;  that  is,  I  never  saw  hun  there— I  think  I 
never  saw  Mr.  Tilton  at  the  club  except  when  he  had 
come  to  have  some  interview  with  me ;  I  don't  remem- 
ber that  I  ever  did. 

Q.  I  recur  now  to  the  interview,  Mr.  Tracy,  that  you,  I 
supposed,  completed— the  interview  of  the  /th.  Now, 
Mr.  Tilton  says  this,  as  coming  from  you : 

He  said,  (speaking  of  you  Mr.  Tilton  says).  He  said 
something  like  this:  "  There  are  a  niunber  of  gentlemen, 
and  they  can  summon  whom  they  choose.  They  can 
summon  Mr.  Beecher,  and  he  can  say  what  he  chooses, 
little  or  much ;  they  can  summon  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  she 
can  say  what  she  chooses,  little  or  much ;  they  can  sum- 
mon you,  and  you  can  say  what  you  choose,  little  or 
much ;  and  the  Committee  will  be  bound  to  make  their 
report,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  truth,  for  they  won't  in- 
quire enough  to  get  the  truth ;  they  will  be  bound  to 
make  their  report  on  the  basis  of  what  those  people 
choose  to  put  down  before  them,  and  what  you  wiU 
choose  to  put  down  before  them ;  only,"  he  said,  "  a 
proper,  gentlemanly,  and  respectful  report  would  be  to 
the  advantage  of  all  parties." 

Now,  Sir,  did  you  have  any  conversation  of  that  sub- 
stance, or  A.  No,  Sir ;  not  in  the  sense  that  it  is  there 

stated;  the  question  of  the  mode  in  which  the  Commit- 
tee would  get  witnesses  before  them  was  probably  dis- 
cussed, and  it  was  quite  likely  stated  that  they  had  no 
compulsory  

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  had  a  little  rather  that  this  gentle- 
man would  not  reason  on  the  subject ;  if  he  will,  give  us 
the  benefit  of  his  recollection. 

Mr.  Evarts— No  matter ;  just  give  us  what  you  remem- 
ber—what is  your  recollection  upon  the  subject.  A.  Well, 
I  recollect  that  the  Committee  and  its  mode  of  proceed- 
ing was  discussed  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  myself,  and  I 
recollect  the  question  of  the  power  of  the  Committee 
was  discussed  ;  I  do  not  remember  positively  whether  it 
was — whether  I  stated  there  that  they  had  not  the  power 
to  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses  or  not ;  if  thjt 
question  was  asked — I  don't  know  whether  it  was  or  not 
positively, 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  about  that?  A.  I  know  I  no v  r 
stated  what  he  says  there  about  the  Committee's  not  in- 
quiring after  the  truth,  or  not  wanting  the  truth;  I  don't 
recall  precisely  the  words  you  have  read;  that  I  kuow  I 
never  stated. 


TESLIMONY   OF  BEyJAJ^LIX  F.  mACY. 


377 


Q.  "  They  won't  inquire  enougli  to  get  the  truth."  A.  I 
never  said  that. 

Q.  Or  of  that  effect?  A.  I  never  said  that,' I  said  that 
the  Committee's  report  Tvould  undouhtediy  proceed  upon 
the  evidence  before  them  and  would  he  in  concurrence 
with  that  evidence  whatever  it  might  be ;  that  I  said. 

Q.  And  otherwise  than  that  you  didn't  make  the  state- 
ments?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Or  to  the  effect  here  given— now  Mr.  Tilton  further 
says  this  : 

Gen.  Tracy  then  asked  me  what  sort  of  a  report  would 
satisfy  me— what  Mnd  of  a  report  I  would  stand  by.  I 
told  him  I  would  stand  by  any  report  which  did  me  no  in- 
justice, and  which  reinstated  Elizabeth.  "  "Well,"  said 
he,  "  all  I  want  you  to  bear  in  mind  is  this:  you  may  make 
any  Idnd  of  report  you  choose  which  don't  charge  3Ir. 
Beecher  with  adultery,  or  with  any  such  crime  as  that  he 
cannot  maintain  his  pulpit.  Make  the  offense  anything 
you  choose,  and  I  will  procure  the  passage  of  the  report, 
only,"  said  he,  "  of  course  the  committee  could  not  bring 
in  a  report  that  he  was  guilty  of  adultery,  or  of  anything 
That  compromised  his  character  and  standing  as  a  clergy- 
man. Make  a  report  of  that  Irind  and  you  can  make  it 
ad  libitum,  according  to  yooir  own  wish  and  will." 

A.  There  was  nothing  said  at  that  interview  on  that 
night  on  the  subiect  of  my  getting  the  Committee  to  make 
a  report,  or  what  kind  of  a  report  the  Committee  would 
make  ;  whatever  there  is  of  that  conversation  did  not 
occur  on  that  night. 

Q.  At  this  interview,  then,  nothing  of  this  Mnd  oc- 
curred!  A.  No,  Sir. 

im.  TILTOX'S  PEOPOSED  STATEMENT  FOE 
THE  COMMITTEE. 

Q.  Now,  subsequently,  an  intei-view  has  been 
drawn  into  evidence  at  which  something  was  said  about 
a  report  and  a  report  or  draft  of  a  report  was  present;  do 
you  remember  such  an  occasion  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Yes,  when  was  that  1  A.  The  report  was  presented 
by  :Mr.  Tilton  on  the  morning  of  the  9th  of  July  ;  I  had 
seen  him  on  the  morning  of  the  8th,  after  the  interview 
in  the  evening,  I  think,  but  I  certainly  saw  blTn  on  the 
morniug  of  the  9th,  when  he  had  what  is  known  on  this 
trial  as  the  "  Long  Report,"  present 

Mr.  Evarts— What  id  the  number  of  that  exhibit,  Mr. 
Shearman  ? 

Mr,  Shearman—"  D,  45." 

Mr.  Evarts  [handing  paper  to  witness]- Just  look  at 
this  "  Exhibit  D,  45  "—look  at  that  paper,  Mr.  Tracy,  suf- 
ficiently to  ascertain  if  that  is  the  paper  that  was  made 
the  subject  of  conversation  on  that  night.  A.  I  did  not 
have  this  paper  in  my  hands  on  that  morning  ;  I  heard 
Mr.  Tilton  read  it,  and  have  heard  it  read  on  the  trial, 
and  have  read  some  part  of  it  myself.  He  read  a  paper 
that  morning  in  my  presence  which  was  to  the  tenor  and 
effect  of  this  paper,  but  I  cannot  identify  the  manuscript, 
nor  can  I  say  that— affirm  of  my  own  knowledge— that 
this  is  in  aU  respects  the  paper  that  he  read  there ;  I  have 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  it  is. 


Q.  Well,  he  did  read  through  a  paper  ?  A.  He  did  rea 
through  a  paper,  of  about  this  tenor  and  effect. 

Q.  And  it  was  considered  and  talked  about  between 
you?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And,  so  far  as  you  now  recall  that  paper  and  exam- 
ine this,  you  suppose  that  this  is  the  paper?  A.  I  sup- 
pose that  this  is  the  paper. 

Q.  Was  :Mr.  Moulton  present  at  this  conversation !  A, 
Mr.  Moulton  1  he  was  there. 

Q.  You  three  were  together  1  A.  We  were. 

Q.  Now,  wUl  you  state  that  conversation  and  how  this 
report  figured  in  it!  A.  If  I  saw  Mr.  Tilton  on  the  8th  of 
July,  then  I  learned  the  fact  of  his  ha^-ing  gone  home  on 
the  night  of  the  7th  from  him,  and  seeing  his  wife ;  if  I 
did  not  see  him  on  the  8th,  then  the  following  conversa- 
tion occurred  on  the  9th ;  I  am  not  absolutely  positive  of 
having  seen  him  on  the  8th  of  July,  but  I  think  I  did  on 
that  morning ;  I  think  I  saw  him  two  mornings  ki  suc- 
cession, but  of  that  I  would  not  be  positive,  but  at  one  or 
both  of  these  conversations  he  said  that  he  had  gone  home 
after  the  interview  of  July  the  7th,  had  seen  his  wife,  had 
called  her  up,  had  kissed  her,  and  said  to  her  that  he  had 
seen  Gen.  Tracy  and  had  learned  from  him  the  details  of 
her  statement  before  the  Committee ;  that  he  had  ex- 
pressed himself  reconciled  to  that  statement,  and  that 
the  next  morning  they  arose  and  talked  over  the  matter 
and  consulted  in  regard  to  a  report  which  should  be  made 
by  the  Committee  which  should  settle  this  matter  and 
end  this  scandal ;  he  said  his  wife  was  very  happy  over 
the  result;  he  said  that  he  and  his  wife  had  sat  down  and 
prepared  this  document,  as  one  with  which  she  would  be 
satisfied  and  he  would  be  satisfied ;  he  read  it  over  to  me— 
he  read  the  report  to  me,  and  after  listening  to  it,  I  said 
to  him,  "  "^Tiy  Mr.  Tilton  there  are  many  things  stated  in 
that  report  that  of  course  the  Committee  could  not, 
under  any  circumstances,  say,"  He  said  he  was  aware  of 
that;  that  he  had  only  prepared  it  as  a  suggestion  of 
what  cotild  be  done.  He  did  not  expect  the  Committee 
to  adopt  this  report  as  he  had  drawn  It  literally ;  he  had 
brought  it  down  for  suggestion  and  to  see  what  was 
thought  of  it.  I  said  to  him  that  it  was  a  step  in  the 
right  direction ;  that  I  discovered  by  it  that  he  and  Mr. 
Beecher  had  substantiallj'  agreed  on  the  offense  that  was 
alluded  to,  and  covered  by  the  "Apology,"  and  tliat  I 
considered  the  pivot  on  which  the  whole  case  turned ; 
that  if  they  agreed  on  that,  there  was  no  difficulty,  as  it 
seemed  to  me,  in  their  making  a  statement  which  -would 
authorize  the  Committee,  and  justify  the  Committee, 
in  stating  this  case  substantially  as  he  covered 
this  point  of  it  in  the  report;  and  he  asked  if  the 
Committee  would  make  that  report;  I  said,  "  Of  course 
they  won't  make  it,  unless  there  Is  evidence  given  before 
them  that  requires  them  to  make  it ;  the  Committee  are 
not  going  to  adopt  this  report  at  your  suggestion,  Mr. 
Tilton,  without  any  evidence  ;  but  the  parties  have  got  to 
come  before  the  Committee  and  state  facfes,  and  if,  in  the 


378  TEE  TILION-JRI 

statement  of  facts,  that  statement  warrants  a  report  of 
this  description,  I  have  no  doubt  that  they  will  make  it." 

Q.  Was  anj-thing  said  by  Mr.  Tllton  as  to  whether  he 
was  ready  or  mlling  to  give  the  facts,  according  to  that 
report?  A.  I  certainly  so  understood  Mr.  Tllton,  that 
that  was  the  agreement  between  himself  and  his  wife, 
which  they  had  arrived  at. 

Q.  Well,  was  that  all  that  was  said  about  this  report  ? 
A.  That  was  substantially  all  that  was  said  about  this 
report. 

Q.  Was  the  report  taken  away  by  him— that  is,  did  you 
take  it  away  1  A.  Well,  I  didn't  take  it ;  it  was  either 
kept  by  him  or  by  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  I  believe  you  have  said  it  was  never  in  your  hands  t 
^.  It  was  never  in  my  hands  before. 

Mr.  Shearman  [suiting  the  action  to  the  word]— I  will 
take  it  out  of  your  hands  now. 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton  has  stated  in  regard  to  this  interview 
this.  Mr.  Fullerton  says :  [Reading.] 

I  am  now  trying  to  prove  what  Mr.  Tllton  said  at  the 
time  of  the  actual  handing  of  that  paper  to  Mr.  Moulton. 

We  made  objection  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  present. 
Then  the  witness  says :  [Reading.] 

Mr.  Tracy  was  a  party  to  it  [that  is,  to  the  interview  J, 
and  he  said  he  represented  Mr.  Beecher. 

Did  anything  of  that  kind  occur  on  your  part  at  that 
intorvie w  ?  A.  I  never  said  T  represented  Mr.  Beecher, 
on  any  occasion,  at  any  time,  in  the  sense  of  being  a  sub- 
stitute for  him.  I  never  said  that,  or  claimed  to  repre- 
sent Mr.  Beecher  in  any  sense,  except  as  a  friend  whose 
Judgment  he  would  be  likely  to  rely  to  a  greater  or  a  less 
extent.  That  was  understood  by  Mr.  Moulton  always, 
and  by  Mr.  Tilton.   I  never  said  anything  else. 

Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment.  I  move  to  strike  that 
out,  Sir,  that  that  was  understood  by  Mr.  Moulton  and 
by  Mr.  Tilton. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  they  had  a  great  many  understand- 
ings. At  this  interview  did  you  say  that  you  represented 
Mr.  Beecher,  in  any  way  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  that  any 
such  thing  was  said  or  talked  of  at  that  interview. 

Q.  This  interview  had  been  sought  by  them,  as  you 
say  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  was  requested  to  come  around  that 
morning. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  has  made  this  ruling,  which 
seems  to  be  pretty  near,  if  not  entirely,  equivalent  to  this 
proposition.   [Reading  from  a  memorandum.] 

Mr.  Tilton  having  said,  in  answer  to  a  general  question 
on  direct  examination,  that  defendent  never  denied  the 
criminal  intercourse,  added:  "Whenever  he  spoke  of  it 
he  always  said  the  criminality  attached  to  him  alone." 
Held,  that  the  motion  to  strike  out  as  not  responsive,  as 
stating  genei-al  result  of  conversations,  instead  of  stating 
what  was  said,  and  when,  should  be  denied. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  did  say  what  was  said  in 
that  case. 

Mr.  Evarts— No;  he  stated  that  whenever  he  spoke  of 


'^J/jJfJEER  TRIAL. 

it,  he  always  said  so  and  so ;  that  is,  giving  the  result^ 
but  not  the  words  of  special  occurrence.    Now,  the  un- 
derstanding, whatever  it  was,  was  produced,  I  suppose, 
necessarily  by  the  conversations  on  the  subject. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  I  will  ask  Gen.  Tracy  this  question* 
then.  [To  the  witness.]  Mr.  Tracy,  in  reference  to  this 
subject  of  representing  Mr.  Beecher,  dui-ing  any  of  these 
interviews  that  you  have  spoken  of,  or  any  interviews 
with  either  of  these  gentlemen,  did  you  say  to  them  that 
you  represented  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  interview  1  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  made  to  you  any  claim  or  sug- 
gestion on  the  part  of  Mr.  Moulton  or  IVIr.  Tilton  that 
you  did  represent  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  Never. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you  whether  at  this  interview  when  the 
paper  was  before  you,  this  report,  this  was  said  by  Mr. 
Tilton,  according  to  your  recollection  of  anything  that 
occvirred? 

"  Well,"  said  he  [meaning  yourself],  "  all  I  want  you  to 
bear  in  mind  is  this :  you  may  make  any  kind  of  report 
you  choose  which  don't  charge  Mr.  Beecher  with  adul- 
tery, or  with  any  such  crime  as  that  he  cannot  maintain 
his  pulpit.  Make  the  oflfense  anything  you  choose,  and  I 
wiU  procure  the  passage  of  the  report.  Only,  of  course, 
the  Committee  could  not  bring  in  a  report  that  he  was 
guilty  of  adultery,  or  of  anything  that  compromised  his 
character  and  standing  as  a  clergyman.  Make  a  report 
of  that  kind,  and  you  can  make  it  ad  libitum,  according 
to  your  own  wish  and  will." 

A.  No,  Sir ;  there  was  something  said  in  that  conversa- 
tion that  the  statement  in  that  report,  the  statement  of 
what  the  apology  referred  to,  was  in  substantial  accord- 
ance with  what  Mr.  Beecher  said  it  referred  to,  and  it 
referred  to  a  matter  that  did  not  compromise  his  moral 
character;  and  I  did  say  in  that  conversation  that  I 
should  not,  so  far  as  I  was  concerned — I  should  not  stand 
at  all  on  a  phraseology  of  statement  or  report  that  did 
not  compromise  the  moral  character  of  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  now  to  a  point  in  Mr.  Moulton's 
testimony  applicable  to  this  same  interview.  He  gives, 
as  a  part  of  a  conversation  which  he  had  with  Mr. 
Beecher  at  some  part  of  this  interview,  this,  as  coming 
from  you,  or  occurring  on  your  part  at  that  interview : 

That  he  (Mr.  Tilt<m)  had  prepared  such  a  report  for 
the  Committee  to  make,  and  had  shown  it  to  Gen.  Tracy, 
and  Gen.  Tracy  had  said  to  him,  on  the  night  of  the  con- 
versation to  which  I  refer,  that  the  Committee  seemed 
now  to  be  of  opinion  that  there  was  an  oflfense,  and  that 
he  thought  it  would  not  be  hard  to  get  from  that  Com- 
mittee a  report,  unfavorable,  it  is  true,  to  Mr.  Beecher. 
on  the  ground  of  the  oflTense,  but  which  would  really 
settle  the  whole  business  and  save  all  the  parties  con- 
cerned from  dishonor  in  consequence  of  crim  >. 

Now,  did  you  say  anything  to  the  effect  of  this  lata 
clause?  A.  I  did  not.  There  was  a  conversation  which 
embraced  more  or  less  of  the  first  clause. 

Q.  Is  it  the  conversation  which  you  have  given  1  A. 
It  is. 


TESTIMOSY   OF  BJ^WJAMM  F.  TRACY. 


279 


Q.  Did  anything  occur  at  tliat  interview  that  is  covered 
\>j  this  recital,  other  than  as  you  have  stated  it  in  your 
testimony  %   A.  Not  as  I  understand  tliat  recital. 

ME.  BEECHER'S  PAYMENTS  OF  MONEY  DAM- 
AGING TO  MR.  MOULTON. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tracj,  an  interview  has  been  in- 
troduced in  evidence  in  which  something  was  said  be- 
tween you  fit  is  said  by  the  witnesses  or  the  witness] 
and  Mr.  Moulton  on  the  subject  of  money  having  ap- 
peared in  the  course  of  this  transaction ;  do  you  remem- 
ber such  an  interview  ]   A.  I  do. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?  A.  I  cannot  state  definitely,  but  it 
was  some  of  the  interviews  that  occurred  between  Mr. 
Moulton  and  myself  between,  I  think,  the  13th  and  the 
20th  of  July. 

Q.  Where  did  that  occur?  A.  I  should  say  that  it 
occurred  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house. 

Q.  And  who  were  present  1  A.  Mr.  Moulton  and  my- 
self. 

Q.  How  did  that  interview  come  about  ?  A.  We  were 
speaking,  as  I  recollect  it,  of  Mr.  Tilton's  contemplated 
statement  which  he  had  promised  to  make  before  the 
Committ(;e  on  the  20th  of  July,  I  think— given  notice 
that  he  should  make  a  statement,  and  in  the  course  of 
conversation  I  said  to  Mr.  Moulton,  "  I  don't  see,  if  Mr. 
Tilton  has  any  regard  for  your  interests,  how  he  can  press 
this  matter  to  such  an  extent  that  the  full  history  of  this 
transaction  will  have  to  be  stated,  for  if  it  is,  I  don't  see 
how  you  can  keep  from  coming  out  the  fact  that  money 
has  been  paid  by  Mr.  Beecher  in  this  matter."  That  is 
not  the  form  of  the  conversation;  excuse  me.  I  said,  "  I 
don't  see  how  this  can  go  on  so  that  a  full  history  of  the 
case  has  to  be  stated,  without  resulting  in  serious  injury 
to  you."  He  said,  "  How?   What  do  you  mean  ?"  I  said, 

I  mean  the  fact,  Mr.  Moulton,  that  money  has  been  paid 
by  Mr.  Beecher  in  this  matter."  Said  he,  "Mr.  Beecher 
had  no  business  to  tell  you  about  that  money ;  that  was  a 
matter  of  confidence  between  Mr,  Beeche»  and  myself. 
Mr.  Tilton  knows  nothing  of  that  money,  and  it  is  a  very 
mean  thing  in  Mr.  Beecher  to  have  told  you  of  it;"  and 
he  became  somewhat  excited  in  his  remarks,  and  I  felt 
constrained  to  say  to  him  that  I  did  not  get  my  informa- 
tion from  Mr.  Beecher  in  regard  to  that  money.  He  said, 
"If  you  didn't  get  it  from  him,  whom  did  you  get  it 
from?"  I  hesitated  to  answer.  He  pressed  me  very 
strongly  to  tell  him,  and  I  finally  said,  "  I  got  it  fi-om 
your  partner,  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Woodruff." 

Q.  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff?  A.  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff. 
He  was  the  first  man  who  informed  me  of  the  fact 
that  money  had  been  paid  for  Mr.  Tilton. 
He  then  made  some  severe  remarks  about  JVIi-.  Woodruff 
for  having  told  me,  and  said  again  that  that  was  a  matter 
of  strict  confidence  between  himself  and  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  that  he  had  denied  the  payment  of  that  money,  and 
that  Mr.  Beeeuer  must.  I  said  to  him,  "  It  ^viU  be  very 


easy  for  Mr.  Beecher  not  to  state  the  payment  of  that 
money,  Mr.  Moulton,  provided  he  is  not  required  to  give 
a  history  of  this  case :  but  if  Mr.  Beecher  is  compelled  to 
make  before  the  public  a  full  statement  of  this  case,  I 
don't  see  how  he  can  conceal  the  fact  that  money  has 
been  paid,  and  if  that  fact  transpires,  I  think  it  will  do 
you  great  injury."  That  is  the  substance  of  that  inter- 
view. 

A  Juror  [to  IMr.  Evarts]— What  was  the  date  of  that 
interview. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  was  somewhere  b  tween  the  20th  and 
the  30th  of  July,  of  last  year. 

The  Witness— I  think  it  was.  It  was  after  Mr.  Tilton 
has  given  notice  through  The  Argus  t-iat  he  should  make 
a  statement  before  the  Committee,  and  the  time  for  that 
statement,  I  think,  had  been  appointed  for  the  20th  of 
June,  and  I  think  it  was  intermediate  those  two  days 

Mr.  Beach— The  20th  of  July,  you  mean. 

The  Witness— July  ;  yes,  Sn-. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  said  July.  [To  the  witness.]  When  Mr. 
Moulton,  in  this  conversation,  said  to  you  that  Mr.  Tilton 
didn't  know  anything  about  the  payment  of  money,  did 
you  make  any  observation  to  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  said  to 
Mr.  Moulton  that  I  thought  that  was  ?j  matter  that  he  and 
I  had  not  better  discuss. 

Q.  WeU,  was  it  any  further  discussed  ?  A.  I  don't  think 
it  was. 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton  has  given  a  statement  of  this  kind,  as  a 
part  of  a  conversation  between  himself  and  Mr.  Beecher : 

I  told  Mr.  Beecher  that  Mr.  Tracy  wanted  me  to  com- 
municate the  fact  that  I  had  received  $5,000  from  Mr. 
Beecher,  to  Mr.  Tilton,  in  order  to  stop  him  from  the  pub- 
lication of  his  statement. 

Did  anything  of  that  kind  occur  ?  A.  I  did  not  say  to 
Mr.  Moulton  that  I  desii-ed  him  to  communicate  that  to 
Mr.  Tilton.   He  may  have  inferred  it  from  what  I  did  say. 

Q.  Well,  what  you  did  say  you  have  stated  ?  A.  I  have 
stated. 

Q.  You  did  not  say  anything  otherwise  on  that  point  ? 
A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Mr.  Moulton  says  [reading] : 

I  said,  when  Mr.  Tracy  wanted  me  to  tell  Mr.  TUton, 
that  that  would  be  a  serious  embarrassment  to  me  per- 
sonally, in  consequence  of  my  having  received  that 
money,  and  I  said  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  I  told  Mr.  Tracy 
that  I  was  perfectly  willing  to  be  guided  by  him  with 
sound  advice,  with  any  moral,  good  reason— with  any 
good  reason,  and  I  would  cooperate  with  him  to  induce 
Theodore  Tilton  not  to  publish  his  statement ;  but  I  would 
not,  on  any  such  ground  as  that,  undertake  to  stop  its 
publication.  Mr.  Tracy  told  me  that  would  cause  me 
trouble  if  it  was  published,  and  I  told  him  if  it  caused 
me  trouble  it  must  cause  me  trouble,  that  I  had  done  no 
wi'ong,  and  I  didn't  fear  any  trouble  that  would  come 
from  that. 

Did  tha^  occur  between  you  and  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  Not 
except  as  I  have  stated.  I  don't  think  it  occurred  as  he 
has  stated. 

Q,  Did  he  make  any  statement  to  you  that  if  the  com- 


280  TEE  TlLTON-h 

munication  caused  him  trouble  it  must  cause  liim  trouble '{ 
A.  I  don't  think  he  did,  though  he  may  have  said  that.  I 
told  him  that  it  would  cause  him  trouble ;  that  it  would 
be  a  serious  injury  to  him  to  have  that  tact  published ; 
and  he  may  have  said  if  it  does  transpire  and  injures  me, 
I  can  stand  it,  or  something  of  that  kind,  I  don't  remem- 
ber that ;  but  he  said  that  Mr.  Beecher  must  deny  it— 
that  he  should  denv  it,  and  Mr.  Beecher  must.  I  told 
him  that  1  didn't  think  Mr.  Beecher  would  deny  it  if 
forced  to  make  a  statement,  or  if  he  

Mr.  Beach— That  was  not  called  for.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  already  stated  it. 

Mr.  Beach — I  know  he  has  already  said  it,  and  therefore 
there  is  no  necessity  for  repeating  it  without  its  being 
called  for, 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  a  qualified  statement. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  part  of  the  argument. 

Mr.  Evarts— Was  anything  else  said  at  this  interview 
between  you  and  Mr.  Moulton  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton's 
being  informed  or  knowing  anything  of  this  matter  of  the 
money,  other  than  what  you  have  stated  ?  A.  I  think 
not.  I  think  he  simply  made  the  remark  that  Mr.  Tilton 
knew  nothing  of  where  that  money  came  from.  That  was 
his  phrase. 

Q.  WeU,  when  you  disposed  of  that  branch  of  the  mat- 
ter by  saying  you  thought  you  and  he  had  better  not 
discuss  that  matter  of  Mr.  Tilton's  knowledge,  in  what 
form,  so  far  as  youremember,  did  that  pass  between  you  ? 
A.  I  think  I  said  in  reply  to  that :  "  Mr.  Moulton,  whether 
Mr.  Tilton  knew  where  this  money  came  from  or  not,  is  a 
matter  that  you  and  I  probably  had  better  not  discuss  I" 
and  I  don't  think  he  made  any  reply  to  that. 

MR.  TILTON  APOLOGIZES  TO  GEN.  TRACY. 

Q.  Do  you  remember,  Mr.  Tracy,  after  the  pas- 
sage between  you  and  Mr.  Tilton  before  the  Committee 
(on  the  22d  of  July,  I  think,  it  is  said  to  have  been,  or 
about  that  time),  as  to  your  having  given  a  pledge— do  you 
remember  seeing  Mr.  TUton  again  that  day  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  How,  and  under  what  circumstances  1  I  saw  him  at 
Dieter's  saloon  that  day,  when  I  was  dining. 

Q.  There  with  your  family  ?  A.  There  with  my  daugh- 
ters. 

Q.  WeU,  did  he  then  have  anything  to  say  on  the  sub- 
ject of  that  occurrence?  A.  He  did.  He  came  into  the 
room  

Mr.  Beach— Is  that  a  conversation  which  has  been  given 
in  evidence  1 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  a  conversation  that  has  been  given 
in  evidence,  but  it  relates  to  this  conversation  ;  it  is  a 
sequel  to  this  conversation  that  has  been  given  in  evi- 
dence, that  occurred  before  the  Committee. 

The  Witness— It  was  perhaps  

Mr.  Beach— No,  it  is  not  the  sequel  of  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  will  see  that  it  is,  if  you  listen  to  it. 

The  Witness— It  was,  perhaps,  an  hour  after  the  scene 


iJFJOEEB  IRIAL. 

before  the  Committee,  or  possibly  more.  I  was  dining  in 
Dieter's  with  my  daughters,  and  he  came  in  and  passed. 
by  me  to  the  back  part  of  the  saloon ;  (I  was  in  the  front 
part),  and  as  he  passed  me  he  threw  his  arm  around  my 
neck  and  put  his  head  down  to  mine  and  said,  "  Mr, 
Tracy,  if  I  said  anything  this  afternoon  that  hurt  your 
feelings,  you  must  forgive  me," 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  a  wonder  t^  ere  was  not  a  kiss  on  that 
occasion.  [Laughter.] 

THE   INTERVIEW  AT  THE  FIFTH  AVENUE 
HOTEL. 

Mr.  Evarts — WeU,  you  can  cross-examine  on 
that.  LTo  the  witness.]  Mr.  Tracy,  there  was  an  inter- 
view between  yoiu^self  and  Mr.  Moulton  that  occurred  at 
the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel,  which  has  been  introduced  into 
the  evidence.  Now,  did  you  have  an  interview  with  M;-. 
Moulton  there,  and,  if  so,  when  was  iti  A.  I  went  with 
Mr.  Moulton  to  tho  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel  on  Sunday  even- 
ing—I  think  Aug.  9— where  I  had  an  interview  with  Gen. 
Butler. 

Q.  Well?  A.  And  a  very  small  portion  of  which  Mr^ 
Moulton  was  present  at.  He  was  not  present  at  the  in- 
terview. 

Q.  At  the  principal  interview  ?  A.  At  the  principal  in- 
terview between  myself  and  Gen.  Butler  he  was  not 
present. 

Q.  Well,  it  is  not  the  interview  with  Gen.  Butler  that  I 
have  to  do  with  now ;  that  has  not  been  made  a  subject 
of  evidence. 

Mr.  BCoich- 1  think  it  has. 

Mr.  Evarts— Except  as  to  results. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Moulton  was  present  at  a  very  consid- 
erable part  of  the  interview,  and  he  has  stated  a  portion 
of  it. 

Mr.  Evarts — Very  well ;  tl.c  matter  that  I  am  now  dealing 
with  is  this.  In  regard  to  anything  between  yourself  and 
Mr,  Moulton,  Mr,  Tracy— in  respect  of  any  advice  asked  by^ 
him  or  given  b^  you  in  respect  to  his  dealing  with  the 
scandal,  or  the  situation  as  it  then  stood,  do  youremem- 
ber any  conversation  with  him  in  regard  to  the  papers, 
or  what  should  be  done  with  them  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  we  had 
conversation  that  day  ;  I  had  been  at  Mr.  Moulton's  a 
good  deal  that  day— had  gone  to  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel 
with  him ;  and  his  relation  to  the  scandal  

Mr  Beach— Well,  what  is  it  1  Do  you  direct  attention 
to  the  conversation  at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— I  was  not  going  to  get  the  conversation. 
It  is  the  fact  that  there  had  been  a  conversation  between 
them.  [To  the  witness.!  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  was  there  a 
conversation  between  youreelf  and  Mr.  Moulton  in  regard 
to  what  disposition  or  use  should  be  made  by  him  in  re- 
spect of  any  of  these  papers  which  were  there  at  the 
time  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Do  you  refer  to  a  conversation  at  the  Flftfc 
Avenue  Hotel? 


TESTIMONY  OF  £E. 


lyjAMlJS  F.  TRACT. 


281 


Mr.  Evarts— At  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel. 

The  "Witness— I  cannot  say,  Mr.  Evarts,  whether  Mr. 
Moulton  was  present  and  participated,  in  any  conversa- 
tion at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel,  when  the  subject  of  his 
position  and  what  he  ought  to  do— or  what  he  should  do 
was  talked  about. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well. 

The  Witness— He  may  or  may  not  have  been  present  at 
some  part  of  such  an  interview. 

Q.  That  is  the  conversation  between  you  and  Gen.  But- 
ler 1  A.  Gen.  Butler. 

Q.  That  I  do  not  go  into.  Then  I  understand  your  last 
answer  to  be,  in  substance,  that  you  don't  remember  any 
conversation  between  yotirself  and  Mr.  Moulton  on  the 
subject  of  what  you  advised  him  to  do,  or  what  his  duty 
to  do  about  the  papers  was,  as  forming  a  part  of  that  in- 
terview at  the  hotel  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  do  not  understand  him  to  say  so,  Mr. 
Evarts. 

Mr.  Evarts — Then  we  will  have  the  answer  read. 

:Mr.  Beach— He  says  he  is  uncertain  whether  Mr.  Moul- 
ton was  present  when  the  subject  was  discussed  between 
him  and  Gen.  Butler. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  the  stenographer  will  read  the 
answer— I  think  the  answer  to  the  last  question. 

[The  Tribune  stenographer  here  read  the  answer.] 

Ml'.  Beach— Mr.  Moulton's  testimony  shows  that  he  was 
present  at  that  conversation,  and  he  has  given  a  part  of 
It. 

Mr.  Evarts — There  was  a  conversation,  no  doubt,  about 
that— the  question  is  

The  Witness— I  can  state  this,  that  Mr.  Moulton  went 
with  me  to  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hot«l,  went  into  Gen. 
Butler's  room  ;  the  subject  of  our  visit  was  introduced, 
when  I  remember  that  Gen.  Butler  requeslr^d  IVIi-. 
Moulton  to  retire  from  the  room.  Gen.  Butler  and  I 
had  an  interview ;  I  understood  

Mr.  Beach — Never  mind. 

Mr.  Evarts — Gen.  Butler  and  you  remained  ?  A. 
Yes ;  and  Mr.  Moulton  came  back  after  the  interview  was 
over,  and  Gen.  Butler  announced  to  him  the  result. 
Kow,  I  cannot  say  definitely,  precisely  what  was  talked 
about  while  Mr.  Moulton  was  present  and  what  was 
talked  about  when  he  was  absent ;  I  cannot  draw  the  line 
there  with  accuracy. 

Q.  You  did  have  a  conversation  on  your  way  up  ]  A. 
We  did. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  of  that  no  evidence  has  been  given, 
that  I  can  see,  on  the  other  side. 

Q.  Kow,  Gen.  Tracy,  you  have  been  counsel  tor  the  firm 
of  Woodruff  A:  Eobinson  ?  A.  I  have. 

Q.  During  the  last  how  many  years  t  A.  Well,  I  am 
^wt  tlielr  regular  counsel ;  I  have  been  employed  for  them 


I  on  two  occasions,  I  think ;  the  last  occasion  was  in  the 
Winter— the  Fall  of  1873  and  the  Winter  of  1874, 
Q.  Professionally— as  a  lawyer  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 

CEOSS-EXAMINATION  OF  GEN.  TRACY. 

Mr.  Beacli— During  tlie  time  Mr.  Porter  was 
cross-examining  Mr.  Moulton,  did  you  make  suggestions 
to  him  as  to  what  questions  to  put?  A.  I  cannot  say. 
Sir;  I  don't  remember  whether  I  did  or  not;  1  presume — 
possibly  I  did. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  of  standing  up  behind  Mr.  Porter 
and  making  suggestions  to  him  of  questions  ?  A.  I  do 
not  remember. 

Q.  Sir  1   A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  I  did  or  did  not. 

Q.  When  Mr.  Porter  was  cross-examining  Mr.  Moulton 
in  regard  to  the  litigation  had  with  the  Government, 
don't  you  remember  of  standing  up  behind  Mr.  Porter 
and  making  suggestions  to  himi   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Ehl   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  that  %   A.  No ;  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  you  did  not  %  A.  I  never  made  any 
suggestions  to  him  

Mr.  Beach — Wait  a  moment  1  wait  a  moment !  Well, 
can  you  now  remember  the  fact  whether  you  did  or  not, 
while  Mr.  Porter  was  conducting  the  cross-examination, 
make  suggestions  to  him  of  questions  to  be  put  1  A.  I 
cannot ;  I  do  not  know  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Q.  ^Tien  did  you  first  become  acquainted  with  this 
ease  on  trial  1  A.  You  mean  this  action  1 

Q.  This  case  on  tiial  ?  A.  I  cannot  state  definitely^ 
Sir;  but  

Q.  You  understand  my  question  1   A.  I  do. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  was  proceeding  to  answer. 

The  Witness— I  am  proceeding  to  answer  your  question. 

Mr.  Beach— T  don't  think  you  were. 

Mr.  Evarts — Yes,  he  was  proceeding  to  answer  the 
question. 

]Mr.  Beach — I  know  he  was  proceeding  to  answer  some- 
thing. 

The  Witness— It  was  after  the  retainer  of  Judge  Porter 
and  Mr.  Evarts. 

Q.  That  does  not  nelp  me  as  to  the  time  ?  A.  I  cannot 
tell  you  the  date,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  can  you  not  say  so  ?   A.  I  can  say  so. 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  the  date  1  A.  Not  the  precise  dat«  ; 
not  the  day  of  the  month. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  submit,  if  your  Honor  please,  the  witness 
has  a  right  to  answer  as  to  the  date.  He  has  been  asked 
the  date,  and  he  has  a  right  to  give  it  as  near  as  he  can. 

Mr.  Beach— There  is  no  objection  to  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Then  let  him  give  it. 

The  Witness— I  cannot  give  the  day  of  the  month  ;  I 
remember  the  occasion  ;  but  the  day  of  the  month  I  can- 
not give  you  ;  I  remember  it  was  after  

Q.  I  don't  ask  you  that  A.  Oh,  I  vmderstood  you  to. 


282 


THE   TILTON-BEFjOHER  TBIAL. 


Q.  Then  you  cannot  give  the  date  ? 
you  the  day  of  the  month. 

Q.  Can  you  give  me  the  month  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  mouth  was  it  %   A.  September. 

Q.  September  of  what  year  \  A.  Of  1874. 

Q.  When  was  the  suit  commenced  ]  A.  I  cannot  tell 
you  that. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  me  the  month  1  A.  I  think  it  was  in 
August. 

Q.  You  think  it  was  in  August  ?  Were  you  retained  be- 
fore the  answer  was  put  in  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  date  of  the  answer  ?  A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  Do  3^0 u  i-emember  what  mouth  that  was  in  1  A.  I  do 
not  now. 

Q.  "Who  first  applied  to  you  to  become  connected  with 
this  iietion  ?   A.  ]Mr.  Shearman,  I  think. 

Q.  When  was  that  application  made  ?  A.  Very  soon 
•after  the  suit  was  commenced. 

Q.  How  soon  should  you  thiuk  ?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you 
ideflnitely,  but  perhaps  a  week,  perhaps  a  week  after  the 
^action  was  commenced. 

Q.  Did  he  show  you  the  complaint  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  the  complaint?  A.  Well,  T 
cannot  say  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  I  have  ever  seen  it  in 
the  world;  I  perhaps  have,  but  I  do  not  now  recall  any 
instance  where  T  ever  road  the  complaint. 

Q.  Were  you  consulted  as  to  the  answer  ?  -  A.  I  think 
not. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  you  were  not?  A.  I  think  I 
will. 

Q.  WiU  you  %   A.  I  do. 

Q.  By  anybody]  A.  Ah!  I  did  not  say  that  no  one 
talked  with  me  about  the  answer,  or  what  answer  ""t^ould 
be  put  in ;  parties — outsiders  and  newspaper  men — may 
have  spoken  to  me  about  it ;  when  you  asked  me  if  I  was 
consulted  about  the  answer,  I  supposed  you  meant  con- 
sulted as  counsel. 

Q.  You  know  what  consultation  means.  Do  you  say 
that  you  were  not  consulted  by  any  one  as  to  the  form  of 
the  answer  ?   A.  I  do  not  think  I  was. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  you  were  not  1  A.  I  swear,  accord- 
ing to  my  best  recollection,  that  I  was  not ;  I  will  not 
^swea^  that  there  was  not  some  casual  conversation. 

Q.  I  talk  about  consultation,  not  about  casual  conver- 
sations ;  and  I  understand  you  to  swear  that  you  were 
not  consulted  in  regard  to  the  character  or  form  of  the 
answer  that  Mr.  Beecher  should  interpose  in  this  case  ? 
A.  I  undertook  to  see  Mr.  Beecher  

Q.  [Interrupting.]  Do  you  swear  that.  Sir?  A,  I  swear 
that  I  was  never  present  at  any  consultation  when  the 
subject  of  the  answer  that  should  be  interposed  to  this 
action  was  talked  of. 

Q.  That  is  not  a  direct  answer  to  my  question,  and  I 
want  one.  Will  you  swear  that  yow  never  were  consulted 
in  regard  to  the  character  or  the  form  of  the  answer  that 


I  cannot  give  [  Mr.  Beecher  should  interpose  in  this  case  1  A.  I  cannot 
give  you  any  different  answer  on  that,  except  to  say  that 
I  might  have  been  spoken  to  in  the  street,  or  casually 
meeting  Mr.  Shearman  when  the  subject  of  the  answer 
might  have  been  alluded  to,  and  if  I  had  it  would  have 
passed  my  recollection  and  I  not  recollect  it ;  I  remember 
no  such  occurrence. 
Q.  That  is  all  you  can  say  on  that  subject  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


MR.  TRACY'S  FIRST  CONSULTATION  WITH 
MR.  BEECHER. 

Q.  And  do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you 
never  saw  the  complaint  in  this  action  ?  A.  I  say  I  don't 
recollect  ever  having  seen  it ;  I  may  have  seen  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  a  consultation  with  Mr.  Beecher 
in  relation  to  this  action  %  A.  Yes,  with  reference  to  the 
trial— yes,  several  of  them. 

Q.  Y'es  ;  well,  I  will  ask  you  when  the  first  was  1  A. 
Well,  not  until  the  case  was  at  issue,  and  I  think  not  until 
it  was  expected  to  be  tried  in  the  coming  term  of  the 
court. 

Q.  Then  you  say  that  there  was  no  conversation  be- 
tween you  and  Mr.  Beecher  in  regard  to  the  su;>ject  of 
this  action  imtil  after  the  case  was  proposed  to  be  moved 
for  trial,  do  youl  A.  If  you  mean  by  the  subject  of  this 
action  that  Mr.  Beecher  and  I  never  talked  of  the  scandal, 
then  I  say  we  did;  but  if  you  mean  that  I  never  had  a 
consultation  with  Mr.  Beecher  in  reference  to  this  ac- 
tion—the trial  of  this  action— then  I  say  I  never  did  until 
after  the  cause  was  at  issue,  and  I  think  not  imtil  it  had 
been  noticed  for  trial. 

Q.  I  don't  limit  my  inquiry.  Sir,  to  the  technical  defini- 
tion of  a  consultation;  I  asked  you  if  you  talked  with 
Mr.  Beecher  about  this  action  before  the  time  you  men- 
tion when  the  case  was  expected  to  be  moved  for  trial? 
A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  ever  did. 

Q.  WeU,  do  vou  recollect  that  you  did  not  ?  A.  My 
general  recollection  is  that  I  did  not. 

Q.  Is  your  recollection  so  precise  and  definite  upon  that 
subject  that  you  will  swear  you  did  not  1  A,  Well,  if  you 
will  fix  the  date  when  the  cause  was  noticed  for  trial  I 
can  tell  you  better. 

Q.  I  am  adopting  a  refei'ence  which  you  yourself  made. 
You  can  fix  the  date  for  yourself.  A.  I  shall  have  to  ask 
Mr.  Shearman  to  fix  it  for  me. 

Q.  I  don't  care  who  you  ask.  A.  If  I  knew  when  the 
cause  was  first  noticed  I  could  tell  better. 

Mr.  Shearman— May  I  give  the  date? 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  no  objection. 

Mr.  Shearman  [examining  papers]— It  was  the  7th  of 
September. 

The  Witness— Then  I  am  certain  that  I  never  had  a  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Beecher  until  the  cause  was  noticed 
for  trial. 

Mr.  Morris— I  don't  think  that  date  is  correct;  thj  an- 
swer had  not  been  served  at  that  time. 


te8TIMo:ny  of  bu. 


'XJAMiy  E.  TllACl. 


2S3 


Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  it  was  the  7th  of  September ;  I 
^ess  I  am  right ;  the  answer  was  served  on  the  7th  of 
September,  and  a  notice  was  served  with  it. 

Mr.  Beach— You  are  aware  that  at  that  date  Mr.  Beecher 
wa«  out  of  town  1  A.  Yes,  I  knew  generally  the  fact  that 
he  was  out  of  town. 

Q.  Before  the  time  given  as  the  7th  of  September,  had 
you  talked  with  Mr.  Shearman  or  Mr.  Sterling,  his  part- 
ner, tn  regard  to  the  action?  A.  Oh,  I  probably  had.  The— 
7th— of— September  1  [Pausing.]  I  think  I  remember  call- 
ing at  Mr.  Shearman's  office  one  day  to  see  him  before  the 
answer  was  served  and  not  seeing  him,  and  talked  with 
Mr.  Sterling ;  but  I  think  I  learned  from  him  that  the 
answer  had  not  been  served  ;  that  is  the  only  interview 
that  I  remember  ever  to  have  had  with  either  Mr.  Shear- 
man or  Mr.  Sterling  previous  to  the  serving  of  the  answer. 

Q.  About  how  long  was  that  before  the  answer  was 
served  ?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you. 

Q.  As  near  as  you  can.  A.  Oh,  it  may  have  been  ten 
days ;  I  cannot  tell  you  more  definitely ;  my  impression 
is  that  it  was  after  an  answer  had  been  sent  down  from 
Mr.  Beecher  and  had  been  returned  for  another  verifica- 
tion ;  I  think  I  learned  that  fact  from  Mr.  Sterling,  that 
an  answer  had  been  received  from  Mr.  Beecher  and  haa 
been  returned  to  him,  as  the  verification  was  informal,  or 
something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Did  you  communicate  with  Mr.  Beecher  during  his 
absence  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  When,  iVIi\  Tracy,  did  you  first  have  a  conversation 
with  Mr.  Beecher  upon  the  subject  of  this  scandal  ?  A.  I 
should  say  it  was  within  a  week  after  the  Sunday  inter- 
view at  Mr.  Moulton's  house. 

Q.  That  Sunday  interview,  do  you  understand  it  to  be 
as  the  others  do,  on  the  10th  of  some  month.  What 
month  was  it,  Mr.  Morris  1 

Mr.  Morris — November. 

Q.  The  10th  of  November,  18721  A.  I  have  heard  no 
one  state  the  date  of  the  interview  before. 

Q.  I  have  heard  it  stated  ?  A.  I  don't  think  it  was 
stated  in  evidence. 

Q.  We'\  was  that  the  date  of  it  ?  A.  I  cannot  fix  the 
date  of  that  interview,  my  recollection  would  be  that  it 
was  later  than  the  10th  of  November,  and  earlier  than 
the  8th  of  December,  but  I  am  unable  fi-om  my  recol- 
lection to  fix  the  Sunday  on  which  the  interview  occured. 

Q.  I  am  certain  Mr.  Woodruff  spoke  of  it  as  having  oc- 
cured in  the  Autumn  of  1872  ?   A.  That  is  possible. 

Q.  Cannot  you  fix  any  nearer  date  than  those  you  have 
mentioned  1  A.  No,  Sir;  I  think  it  occurred— my  best 
recollection  is  that  it  occurred  either  on  the  17th  or  the 
24th  of  November,  or  the  1st  of  December. 


GEN.  TRACY'S  PLEDGE  TO  MR.  TILTON. 

Q.  Tlie  17th  or  24th  of  November,  or  the 
Ist  of  December ;  and  that  interview  at  Moulton's  study 


which  you  have  related  was  preceded  by  two  interviews, 
I  understand  you,  with  Mr.  Woodruff?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  fixst  interview  with  Mr.  Woodruff  was  at  your 
office  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  the  first- if  you  mean  by  that  the  first 
talk? 

Q.  I  mean  the  first  of  these  three  interviews  of  which 
you  have  spoken  ?  A.  Well,  strictly  speaking,  Mr.  Beach, 
I  saw  Mr.  Woodruff  three  times  before  the  interview  at 
Moulton's  house,  where  the  subject  of  the  scandal  was 
talked  about— where  the  scandal  was  talked  about  be- 
tween mysell:  and  Mr.  Woodruff. 

Q.  WeU,  where  did  they  happen  ?  A.  One  happened  in 
the  street,  and  the  others  

Q.  Which  was  that  ?  A.  The  first ;  the  other  two  I  think 
happened  at  my  office ;  one  was  the  interview  with  him 
and  Mr.  Moulton  when  Moulton  was  introduced  to  me. 

Q.  In  this  interview  at  Moulton's  study  I  understood, 
you  to  say  that  IMr.  Tilton  addressed  you  in  this  form  : 

"  Mr.  Tracy,  I  will  ask" — or  he  said :  "  I  am  about  to  (I 
am  not  sure  which)— to  make  a  statement  to  you  about 
my  case  against  Mr.  Beecher ;  I  don't  know  what  the 
etiquette  of  yoiu*  profession  allows.  If  I  make  a  state- 
ment of  my  case  against  Mr,  Beecher  to  you,  and  ^Ix. 
Beecher  and  myself  should  afterward  come  into  collision, 
would  the  etiquette  of  your  profession  permit  you  to  be 
counsel  for  for  Mr.  Beecher?"  I  replied,  "Mr.  Tilton. 
without  discussing  what  the  etiquette  of  my  profession 
would  or  would  not  allow,  I  say  to  you  that  if  a  person 
having  a  controversy  with  another,  comes  to  me  and 
makes  a  statement  of  his  side  of  the  controversy,  and  the 
parties  should  afterward  come  into  collision  on  that  case, 
I  should  not  feel  at  Uberty  to  become  counsel  for  the 
other  party." 

By  the  term,  "  if  the  parties  should  afterward  come 
into  collision,"  did  you  understand  Mr.  Tilton  to  refer, 
and  did  you  yourself  refer,  to  an  ordinary  litigation  of  an 
action  in  court,  or  a  collision  in  other  forms  ?  A.  I  don't 
remember  that  that  word  suggested  any  definite  shape  in 
my  mind  at  that  time. 

Q.  Will  you  answer  me.  Sir,  whether  you  understood 
that  pledge  which  you  then  made  to  refer  to  an  ordinary 
litigation  in  cotu-t,  or  to  a  collision  occurring  in  any  other 
form  ?  A.  Well,  I  can  only  judge  how  I  used  it  from  the 
language  then  use  J,  now ;  as  a  matter  of  memory  I  don't 
recollect, 

Q.  You  do  not  know  ?    A.  I  did  not  say  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Well,  I  understood  you  to  say  so.  If  you  know  you 
will  tell  us,  won't  you?   A.  I  say  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  WeU,  then  you  don't  know.  A.  That  is  a  matter  of 
reasoning. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  necessary  to  reason. 

]Mr.  Beach— Yes,  it  is  necessary  to  reason.  [To  the  wit- 
ness.] Do  you  recollect  what  the  statement  of  Mr.  Wood- 
ruff was  in  regard  to  what  your  pledge  upon  that  oc- 
casion amounted  to  ?  A.  I  have  a  general  recollection  of 
what  Mr.  Woodruff  said  about  it,  but  I  cannot  repeat  it. 

Q.  Well,  to  refresh  your  recollection,  I  will  direct  your 
attention  to  it  if  I  can  put  my  eye  on  it.     [Tariiiug  te 


284  THE  TIJjTON-B 

Mr.  Morris.]     Will  you  turn  my  attention  to  it,  Mr. 

Morris  ? 

[Mr.  Morris  looka  for  the  place,  assisted  toy  Mr.  Moul- 
ton.] 

Q.  This  is  the  conversation  which  Mr.  Woodruff  gives- 
speaking  of  Mr.  Tilton,  he  says  that  he  said  to  you : 

If  Mr.  Beecher  and  I  should  ever  get  into  law,  or  into 
court  in  regard  to  the  matter,  could  you,  or  would  you 
ever  be  counsel  on  his  side  t  And  Gen.  Tracy  said  no, 
that  he  could  not  and  should  not,  and  he  need  not  have 
any  fears  on  that  score. 

That  was  the  reason  of  my  asking  the  question,  Mr. 
Tracy— to  know  whether  you  understood  the  pledge 
which  you  then  gave  to  Mr.  Tilton  to  be  limited  in  its  ap- 
plication to  a  litigation  in  a  court  of  justice,  or  whether 
it  applied  to  any  collision  which  might  afterward  occur 
between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton  in  any  form  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subject  matter  of  this  scandal?  A.  Well, 
now,  what  question  do  you  ask  ? 

Q.  I  ask  you  now  how  you  understood  the  extent  of 
that  pledge  ?  A.  I  say,  as  a  matter  of  recollection,  I 
don't  know  that  I  stopped  to  consider  the  question,  or  to 
understand  to  what  extent  Mr.  Tilton  meant  to  have  my 
pledge  given  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  mean  your  pledge  to  apply  to  all  collisions, 
both  legal,  social  and  otherwise  ?  A.  I  should  say  I  did 
not  from  the  form  of  the  language  which  Mr.  Tilton 
used;  he  used  the  word  " collision;"  now  I  should  under- 
stand that  to  be  a  collision  in  a  court. 

Q.  As  you  now  suppose,  you  then  imderstood  it  to  ap- 
ply to  a  litigation  lq  court  ?  A.  I  did ;  I  now  suppose 
I  then  understood  it  so. 

Q.  I  understand,  Mr.  Tracy,  that  you  informed  Mr. 
Moulton  at  a  later  period  that  yo  u  should  consider  yourself 
absolved  from  the  obligation  of  that  promise,  if  he  changed 
the  nature  of  his  accusation  against  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I 
did. 

Q.  When  do  you  say  that  notice  was  first  given  1  A. 
It  was  somewhere  from  the  10th  to  the  13th  of  July,  I 
thmk. 

Q.  18741   A.  Yes,  Sir;  1874. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  first  suppose  that  Mr.  Tilton  had 
changed  the  character  of  his  charge  1  A.  I  cannot  say 
then  that  I  supposed  he  had  changed  it. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  charge,  as  you  understood  it  to  be 
made,  at  the  time  you  gave  this  pledge  to  Mr.  Tilton  1  A. 
That  Mr.  Beecher  had  made  improper  solicitations  to 
Mrs.  Tilton. 

Q.  Well  

The  Witness— Ah,  I  cannot  say  that.  Mr.  Beach,  ex- 
cuse me.  Repeat  your  question  again. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  what  was  the  nature  of  the  charge 
you  understood  Mr.  Tilton  to  make  against  Mr.  Beecher 
at  the  time  you  gave  him  this  pledge  ?  A.  Mr.  TUton  had 
not,  at  that  time,  made  his  statement  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  and,  therefore,  I  did  not  understand  from  him 


^ECRER  'lElAL. 

what  the  nature  of  the  charge  was  to  be ;  my  only  under- 
standing of  it  was  what  I  had  gathered  from  the  paper* 
that  I  had  seen. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  gather  from  Mr.  Tilton  the  na- 
ture of  that  charge  1  A.  That  day,  immediately  following 
the  promise. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  then  understand  it  to  be  1  A.  An 
improper  solicitation  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mrs. 
TUton. 

Q.  And  it  was  because,  as  you  supposed,  that  charge 
was  changed  into  a  specific  accusation  of  adultery,  that 
you  considered  yourself  at  liberty  to  act  for  Mr.  Beecher  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  understand,  Mr.  Tracy,  as  a  lawyer,  that 
any  litigation  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton  could 
grow  out  of  a  charge  of  improper  solicitation  made  by 
Mr.  Beecher  to  Mrs.  Tilton?  A.  I  did  not;  after  I  had 
heard  his  statement  the  idea  of  a  litigation  growing  out 
of  it  never  occurred  to  me  as  possible. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  gave  this  pledge,  you  had  heard 
from  these  parties,  I  suppose— Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr. 
Woodruff— what  the  charge  was  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  not  defin- 
itely—no, Sir. 

Q.  And  when  was  it  that  you  say  you  made  up 
your  mind  that  no  litigation  could  grow  out  of  it  ?  A.  On 
hearing  Mr.  Tilton's  statement  that  day. 

Q.  On  hearing  Mr.  Tilton's  statement  that  day.  Then 
you  gave  your  pledge  generally,  without  understanding 
what  the  nature  of  the  accusation  was?  A.  I  gave  my 
pledge  just  as  I  have  stated  it  to  you. 

Q.  Did  you  give  your  pledge  without  understanding 
the  nature  of  the  charge  which  was  made  against  Mr. 
Beecher  at  the  time  the  pledge  was  given  ?  A.  I  gave  my 
pledge  without  knowing  from  Mr.  TUton  definitely  what 
his  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  was  to  be. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy,  my  question  must  be  answered  in  its  full 
scope.  Did  you  give  your  pledge  which  you  have  stated, 
to  Mr.  Tilton,  without  knowing  or  understanding  what 
the  nature  of  the  accusation  was  he  made  against  Mr. 
Beecher  1  A.  I  knew  nothing  more  of  it  than  what  I  have 
stated  to  you. 

Q.  Wbat  did  you  kuow  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the 
accusation  at  the  time  you  gave  your  pledge  1  A.  I  knew 
that  the  WoodhrUl  publication  had  been  made,  whici> 
charged  adiUtery  ;  I  knew  

Q.  And  you  knew  it  was  denied,  did  you  not  1  A.  1 
knew  

Q.  You  knew  it  was  denied,  did  you  not!    A.  Yes,  tu 

one  sense. 

Q,  Then  that  passes  out.  Give  us  something  else.  A.^ 
I  am  telling  you  I  knew  that  the  Woodhull  publication  had 
been  made,  which  charged  adiUtery ;  I  knew  that  I  had 
seen  the  "  Apology  '*  of  Mr.  Beecher ;  I  knew  that  I  had 
seen  the  retraction  of  Mrs.  TUton,  and  I  knew  from  that 
what  it  referred  to,  as  far  as  that  discloses ;  I  had  seen 
the  explanation ;  I  had  asked  Mr.  Moulton  if  Mr.  Tilton 


TESTIMONY  OF  BI 

charged  Mr.  Beecher  with  adultery,  and  he  said  he 
did  not.  Beyond  that  I  did  not  know  what  the  nature  of 
Mr.  Tilton's  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  was  to  be,  at  the 
time  that  I  gave  the  promise. 

Q.  From  the  facts  which  were  before  your  mind  at  the 
time  the  pledge  was  given,  what  did  you  understand  to 
be  the  natiu'e  of  the  accusation  made  against  Mr.  Beech- 
er 2  A.  I  can't  say  that  I  had  any  definite  understanding 
of  what  the  accusation  was,  or  was  to  be. 

Q.  Well,  you  understand  that  it  was  not  adultery  ?  A. 
I  did ;  that  is,  I  imderstood  from  Moulton  that  THton  did 
not  charge  Mr.  Beecher  with  adultery. 

Q.  That  was  your  understanding  1   A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  acceptation  of  the  language  you  had  then  of 
nw  charge  ]   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  understand  it  was  a  charge  to  the  extent  of  im- 
proper solicitations  ?  A.  No,  I  can't  say  I  did  definitely 
iTiidf^^Tstand  that. 

Q.  WTay,  did  you  not  understand  that  there  was,  in 
these  papers  which  were  read  to  you,  a  statement  of  Mrs. 
Tilton  to  that  effect?  A.  I  understood  from  the  papers 
that  the  foi-m  of  implication  was  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  in 
some  way  attempted  the  virtue  of  Mrs.  Tilton. 

Q.  And  it  had  been  repulsed,  I  understood  you  to  say  ? 
A.  Well,  I  inferred  that  from  the  statement. 

Q.  You  stated  so  in  your  direct  examination. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  are  now  bringing  in  a  conversation 
that  occurred  after  the  pledge. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  I  beg  pardon ;  it  was  at  the  same  inter- 
view of  the  pledge ;  whether  it  immediately  preceded  or 
immediately  followed  it,  is  of  little  consequence. 

Judge  Neilson— Is  it  not  now  the  time  of  taking  a  re- 
cess? 

Mr.  Beach— Just  as  your  Honor  pleases. 
The  court  then  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 

iom-nment. 
Benjamin  F.  Tracy  was  recalled. 

GEN.    TRACY'S    IDEA    OF    THE  ORIGINAL 

CHARGE. 

Mr.  Beacli— Mr.  Tracy,  at  this  interview 
which  you  have  related  at  Mr.  Moulton's  study,  at  which 
Mr.  Moulton,  Tilton,  Woodruflf,  and  yourself  were  present, 
at  the  close  of  it  what  did  you  understand  to  be  the 
charge  made  by  Mr.  Tilton  against  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I 
understood  the  charge  to  be  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  made 
improper  solicitations  to  Mrs.  Tilton. 

Q.  Which  had  been  refused  or  repulsed  by  herl  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  distinctly  understood,  you  say,  up  to  that 
period,  that  the  accusation  was  not  that  of  adultery  1  A. 
I  imderstood  so. 

Q.  And  you  say  that  up  to  that  period  you  had  not  re- 


'XJAHIT^    F.    TEAOY.  385 

cclved  any  intimation  that  the  charge  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Tilton  was  adultery,  from  any  source?  A,  No,  Sir,  I  don't 
say  that. 

Q.  You  don't  say  that?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  then,  you  left  that  interview  with  the  under- 
standing that  the  charge  was  improper  solicitations,  and 
nothing  more ;  and,  understanding  that,  you  had  given  a 
pledge  that  you  would  not  appear  as  the  coimsel  for  Mr. 
Beecher  in  any  litigation  which  might  occur  between  him 
and  Mr.  Tilton  growing  out  of  the  charge  ?  A.  I  cannot 
s&y,  Mr.  Beach,  that  the  idea  of  litigation  occurred  to  me 
after  Mr.  Tilton's  statement ;  I  cannot  say,  therefore,  that 
I  left  the  interview  

Q.  Well,  we  have  got  that  settled;  you  told  all  about 
that;  I  don't  want  to  unsettle  what  we  have  got  estan- 
lished.  You  told  me  that  you  understood  at  the  time,  as 
you  suppose,  as  you  imderstood  now,  that  your  pledge 
referred  to  the  ordinary  litigation  in  court  ?  A.  That  is, 
when  I  made  it. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  made  at  that  interview ;  did  you  change 
your  mind  in  regard  to  the  extent  and  character  of  the 
pledge  during  the  interview  ?  A.  No,  but  I  chauged  my 
mind  as  to  the  result  that  might  flow  from  it. 

Q.  Well,  that  we  will  see  about.  Then,  we  start  with 
these  premises  that  you  understood  your  pledge  to  be 
that  m  case  of  any  litigation  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mr.  Tilton,  growing  out  of  the  subject  of  that  conversa- 
tion, that  you  could  not  appear  as  the  counsel  of  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  A.  I  so— I  assume  now  that  I  so  uadeT  stood  It 
at  the  time  when  I  gave  it. 

Q.  And  you  understood  at  the  close  of  that  conversa^ 
tion  that  the  only  charge  preferred  by  Mr.  Tilton  against 
Mr.  Beecher  was  improper  solicitations  to  his  wife  !  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  as  a  lawyer,  will  you  teli  me  how  you  under- 
stood that  any  litigation  could  grow  out  of  improper 
solicitations  from  a  third  party  to  a  woman  1  A.  I  did 
not;  when  Mr.  Tilton  stated  his  case  against  Mr.  Beecher, 
I  dispensed  at  once  with  the  idea  that  litigation  would 
grow  out  of  that  direct  charge,  as  possible ;  I,  of  course, 
did  not  know  but  that  it  might  grow  out  of  it  incidentally, 
but  when  I  had  heard  tha  i  statement  I  had  no  idea  that 
any — that  the  subject  of  that  charge  could  ever  be  a  matr 
ter  of  litigation  in  coui-t. 

MORE  ABOUT  GEN.  TRACY'S  PLEDGE.  ' 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  suggestions  of  that 
kind  at  the  interview  ?   A.  I  think  not.  Sir. 

Q.  Then  you  allowed  yom-  pledge  to  stand,  confined  to 
a  question  of  litigation,  when  you  knew  as  a  lawyer  that 
no  litigation  could  grow  out  of  the  charge  us  then  made  1 
A.  I  did  not  refer  to  my  pledge  after  I  gave  it. 

Q.  Well,  you  allowed  it  to  stand  ?  A.  I  allowed  it  to 
stand.  Mj'  pledge,  as  you  will  see,  Mr.  Beach,  is  a  stat^ 
ment  of  the  general  rule,  not  applicable  to  Mr.  TUton'a 
case,  specially,  but  applicable  to  all  oases.  I  stated  a 


286 


IHE    11 L 'ION-  imhUUI  L: //  TRIAL. 


general  rule  in  answer  to  the  question,  and  I  did  not  refer 
to  it  after  I  stated  it. 

Q.  "What,  you  merely  stated  that  as  a  general  rulel  A. 
Certainly. 

Q.  Did  not  state  it  as  applicable  to  that  particular  ease, 
then  ?  A.  Not  as  particularly  applicable  to  that  ease,  but 
as  a  general  rule  that  included  his  case. 

Q.  As  in  fact  applicable  to  that  case,  didn't  you  state 
it  1  A.  Applicable  to  it  in  the  sense  I  now  give,  as  in- 
cluded in  the  general  rule,  and  of  course  applicable  to  the 
case. 

Q.  You  stated  this  general  rule  as  applicable  to  the  par- 
ticular question  which  Mr.  Til  ton  addressed  to  you  %  A. 
Yes,  Sir  ;  as  including  it  and  covering  it. 

Q.  You  understood  it  to  apply  to  that  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  it  is  true,  Mr.  Tracy,  that  you  gave  that  pledge 
and  allowed  it  to  stand,  knowing  as  a  lawyer  that  it  was 
not  possible  for  any  litigation  in  court  to  grow  out  of  the 
charge  as  then  made  by  Mr.  Tilton,  didn't  you  1  A.  In 
the  sense  that  that  general  rule  is  a  pledge  I  stated,  and 
I  did  not  

Q.  I  did  not  ask  yon  anything  about  a  pledge.  A.  [Con- 
tinuing] Refer  to  it  afterward. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  that  is  not  the  question  T  put  to  you  at  all. 
Did  you  not  leave  that  interview  with  the  promise  which 
you  gave  to  Mr.  Tilton  standing,  Imowing  that  no  litiga- 
tion in  coui't  could  grow  out  of  the  charge  as  it  was  then 
made  against  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  did,  knowing  that  no 
litigation  could  grow  out  of  the  direct  charge  as  then 
made. 

Q.  Then  you  knew  that  the  pledge  or  promise  which 
you  gave  was  entirely  inapplicable  to  the  matter,  (li<l 
you  not  1  A.  Well,  I  knew  that  the  rule  that  I  stated 
would  never  be  called  upon— I  never  would  be  called 
upon  to  pass  upon  it  in  any  litigwtion  growing  out  of  that 
charge. 

Q.  Well,  then,  didn't  you  know,  Mr.  Tracy,  that  that 
promise  or  pledge,  whatever  you  call  it,  was  utterly  inef- 
ficient in  reference  to  the  charge  that  was  then  made  ?  A. 
I  supposed  it  to  be. 

Q.  And  then  you  went  on  and  received  the  commnnica- 
tion  in  that  conversation  ?  A.  I  heard  what  Mr.  TUton 
had  to  say. 

Q.  Received  all  the  communication  which  the  parties 
chose  to  make  to  you  ?   A.  Not  the  parties— Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Tilton.  A.  He  was  the  only  man  that  the 
conversation  was  with  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  No,  uo — not  the  only  man  that  the  conversation  was 
with?  A.  The  only  man  that  this  particular  part  of  the 
conversation  referred  to. 

Q.  Oh !  yes— that  the  promise  referred  to  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  suppose  that  Mr.  Tilton  seriously  requested 
or  required  from  you  a  promise?  A.  Well,  I  never 
stopped  to  consider  whether  he  did  it  seriously  or  not. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  suppose  now  ?  A.  What  1 


Q.  IK)  you  think  now  that  he  didi  A.  I  have  no  well* 
defined  opinion  on  that  subject. 

Q.  That  is,  that  when  he  came  in  and  required  you  to 
give  him  a  promise  that  in  case  of  any  collision  upon 
the  subjects  about  which  you  were  to  talk,  that  you  did 
not  understand  that  he  was  serious  1  A.  Oh  I  I  don't  say 
that  I  did  not  understand  that  he  was  serious. 

Q.  Well,  I  asked  you  if  you  did?  A.  I  did  not  stop  to 
consider  it,  whether  he  was  or  not.  He  made  the  proposi- 
tion, and  instantly  I  stated  the  rule  that  would  govern 
me  in  such  cases,  without  any  reflection  or  supposition 
as  to  whether  he  was  serious  or  not  serious.  I  do  not 
think  I  stopped  to  consider  it  at  all.  I  assumed  that  he 
was  serious,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word. 

Q.  Very  well;  if  you  had  made  that  answer  in  the  first 
place,  it  would  have  saved  some  time.  You  supposed 
that  Mr.  Tilton  relied  upon  that  assurance,  didn't  you  1 
A.  I  assumed  that  he  did. 

Q.  Then  you  came  from  that  interview  supposing  Mr. 
Tilton  serious  in  requiring  the  pledge,  and  suppostag 
that  he  relied  upon  it  in  the  course  of  the  interview, 
when  you  knew  that  that  pledge  was  entirely  inopera- 
tive to  the  subject  matter?  A.  Yes,  when  I  knew  that 
there  never  any  allegation  could  grow  out  of  the  charge 
as  he  then  put  it. 

Q.  And  you  never  until  in  July,  1874,  disabused  his 
mind  upon  tiiat  subject,  did  you?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  never 
spoke  with  him  on  the  subject  until  July,  1874,  after 
that. 

Q.  And  you  believing,  supposing  that  Mr.  Tilton  was 
all  this  time  resting  upon  the  promise  or  pledge  which 
you  had  given,  didn't  you?  A.  I  had  forgotten  the  fact 
of  the  promise,  Mr.  Beach. 

Q.  Oh!  you  had  forgotten  it?  A.  It  had  passed  out  of 
my  mind  entirely. 

Q.  Very  well.   A.  I  had  been  out  of  this  case  from  

Q.  Oh,  please  don't !  A.  Ah !  Until  it  was  called  to  my 
mind  on  the  7th  of  July,  I  think  it  was,  by  Mr.  Moulton; 
Mr.  Moulton  on  the  7th  day  of  July  referred  to  it. 

WHY    GEN.   TRACY    BECAME    A  WITNESS. 

Q.  Oh,  please!  please,  Sir!  You  say  tliat 
you  made  up  your  mind  to  become  a  witness  in  this  case 
when  Woodruff  and  Moulton  and  Tilton  were  examined 
in  regard  to  conversations  with  you  ?  A.  No,  that  is  not 
strictly  correct,  Mr.  Beach.   T  did  not  say  that. 

Q.  Well,  make  it  correct  then  ?  A.  I  say  the  subject  of 
my  becoming  a  Avitness  was  first  considered  by  me  after 
this  evidence  had  been  given  in  the  case,  and  that  matter 
was  referred  to  my  associates. 

Q.  Well,  I  didn't  ask  about  that.  Well,  when  you  did 
determine  to  become  a  witness,  you  determined  to  become 
so  for  the  purpose  of  contradicting  those  three  parties, 
did  you  not  ?   A.  I  determined  to  become  a  witness  


TESTIMONY  OF  Bj 

Q.  Just  answer  me  that  question  now,  Sir?  A.  Yes.  so 
far  as  a  true  statement  contradicts  their  statements. 

Q.  Yes,  so  far  as  your  testimony  would  contradict 
theirs  I  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  understanding  that  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  understand  that  in  your  testimony  you  have 
under  oath  put  yourself  in  contradiction  to  them  ?  A.  To 
a  large  extent  I  do,  Sir. 

Q.  To  a  large  extent;  yes,  Sir.  Have  you  ever  dis- 
solved your  connection  with  this  case  as  counsel  %  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Still  counsel  in  the  case?  A.  I  have  not  formally 
dissolved  my  connection. 

Q.  You  are  still  counsel  in  the  case,  ain't  you  ?  A.  I 
suppose  so ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  recentlj^  have  you  been  in  consultation  with 
yom- associates  upon  the  subject  of  the  trial?  A.  Well, 
in  some  degree  all  along,  and  yesterday,  say. 

Q.  Later  than  yesterday?  A.  Well,  I  dined  with  them, 
toolr  lunch  with  them  this  noon ;  I  don't  think  "W^e  had 
any  formal  consultation  about  it,  but  we  were  in  con- 
sultation yesterday  afternoon. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  mention  dining— do  you  consider 
that  as  coming  within  the  range  of  professional  consulta- 
tion? A.  That  depends  upon  what  goes  on  at  the  time  of 
lunching. 

Q.  Well,  I  suppose  something  must  have  gone  on,  then, 
at  the  time  of  lunching,  or  you  would  not  have  mentioned 
it  ?  A.  WeU,  I  suppose  the  fact  of  the  trial's  going  on 
was  talked  of  more  or  less,  or  alluded  to,  in  the  lunch  to- 
'day,  but  there  was  no  consultation,  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Any  allusion  made  to  your  testimony  ?  A.  If  there 
was,  it  was  of  the  most  incidental  character,  which  I  do 
not  recall ;  I  don't  recall  any  aUusion  to  it. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  there  was,  or  not, 
anything  like  the  ordinary  intercourse  of  coimsel  with 
reference  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  suit,  at  the  dinner 
to-day?  A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Very  well ;  then  we  will  pass  that.  A.  I  think  that 
most  of  the  time  was  taken  in  other  matters  to-day. 

wi.  Do  you  contemplate  withdrawing  from  this  case  ?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

GEN.  TRACY'S  OPENING  FOR  THE  DEFENSE. 

Q.  You  was  the  counsel  who  opened  the  de- 
fense to  the  jury  in  this  case,  were  you  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  you  the  author  of  that  opening?  A.  Well,  I 
think  so,  to  a  very  large  extent.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  you  the  author  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— I  submit  to  your  Honor  there  Is  no  license 
of  examination  

Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  answer  might  weU  be  ac- 
cepted. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  not,  your  Honor.  When  an  open- 
ing like  that  delivered  in  this  case,  overcharged  with 
malignity— and  I  say,  with  untruth  is  delivered  by  one 


ENJAMIN   F.    TEACF.  287 

j  who  afterward  places  himself  as  a  witness  on  the  stand, 
I  have  a  right  to  know  whether  ha  is  the  author  of  the 
calumnies. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  he  says  he  is  the  author. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir;  he  does  not. 

Judge  Neilson— Substantially  the  author. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  no  ;  that  is  just  what  I  am  going  to  get 
out,  if  I  am  permitted. 

The  Witness— If  you  want  to  know  whether  I  accept 
the  responsibility  of  eve^^ything  that  is  in  the  open- 
ing  

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir ;  I  don't  want  that.    I  will  hold 

you  to  the  responsibility   [Sensation.] 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Rogers ! 

Mr.  Beach  [continuing!  as  indorser.   Was  you  the 

author  of  that  opening  ?  A.  I  think  I  may  be  said  to  be. 
Sir,  of  the  opening  as  an  opening. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy,  you  know  what  my  question  is,  and 
what  it  means.  I  asked  you  if  you  was  the  author  of  that 
opening.  A.  No.  I  cannot  say  that  I  do  know  what  your 
(luestion  means,  in  that  sense. 

Q.  Did  you  compose  that  opening  i  A.  I  did  the  most 
of  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  all  of  it  ?   A.  No,  Sir ;  not  all  of  it. 
Judge  Neilson— But  he  delivered  it  all,  and  therefore 
made  it  his  own. 
Mr.  Beach— Well,  possibly. 

Judge  Neilson— Emerson  says,  you  know,  that  the  use 
of  borrowed  thoughts  is  approval,  when  they  become 
our  own.   It  became  his  by  the  act  of  delivery. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  if  it  is  Emerson,  I  will  give  up. 

Mr.  Fullerton — He  didn't  refer  to  a  witness  on  the 
stand. 

ADULTERY  NOT  MENTIONED  AS  THE  CHARGE 
BY  MR.  WOODRUFF. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Mr.  Tracy,  passing  that, 
did  you,  in  the  conversation  which  you  had  with  Mr. 
Woodruff  preceding  the  one  at  Mr.  Moulton's  study,  of 
which  you  have  spoken— did  you  discuss  with  him  any  of 
the  incidents  of  this  scandal,  as  it  is  called?  A.  Which 
interview  do  you  refer  to,  Mr.  Beach  ? 

Q.  Either  of  them.   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Which  one  was  it— the  one  immediately  preceding,  or 
second  removed?  A.  The  first  interview  certainly,  and 
I  think  it  was  some  matters  incidentally  referred  to  in  the 
second  interview, 

Q.  In  those  interviews— preceding  interviews — of  which 
I  speak,  did  Mr.  Woodruff  relate  to  you  the  circumstances 
of  the  confession  or  statement  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  her 
retraction  and  reassertion— those  preliminaries  ?  A.  No, 
Sir  ;  not  in  detail. 

Q.  WeU,  did  he  allude  to  them— state  them  ?  A.  I  have 
the  impression  that  at  the  second  interview  with  Mr* 

Woodruff  he  stated  to  me  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  

Q.  Oh,  I  don't  want  to  go  into  that.  A.  Ah  I 


THE   TILTON-BEEOHJEJB  TBIAL. 


Q.  I  only  want  to  know,  Sir,  if  tliose  things  were  stated 
by  him,  in  general  terms  ?  A.  I  have  an  impression  that 
he  referred  to  the  papers  which  Mr.  Moulton  had  in  his 
possession,  and  which  I  would  want  to  see. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  in  those  interviews  did  Mr.  Woodruff,  in 
suttstance,  teU  you  that  Mr.  TlLton  charged  Beecher  with 
adultery  with  his  (Tilton's)  wife  1  No,  Sir ;  he  did  not,  in 
those  words. 

Q.  I  said  in  substance,  Sir.  A.  I  cannot  say  that  he  did 
in  substance. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  he  did  not,  In  substance,  tell  you 
that  1   A.  I  think  I  wiU. 

Q.  Well,  make  up  your  mind  and  let  us  know  whether 
you  will  ?  A.  Well,  I  wUl  state  how  I  can  state  it,  and  the 
only  way  I  can  state  it ;  he  did  not  say  that  in  substance, 
in  my  judgment,  according  to  my  recollection ;  but  Mr. 
Woodruff,  by  his  gestures,  and  what  he  omitted  to  say  in 
answering  some  of  my  questions,  and  his  insinuations 
left  an  impression  upon  my  mind  that  he  believed  Mr. 
Beecher  had  been  guilty  of  something  that  was  very 
wrong  in  Mr.  Tilton's  family ;  what  it  was  he  did  not 
state,  and  he  did  not  leave  me  to  infer. 

Q.  Well,  this  is  all  impertinent  to  my  inquiry.  Still,  let 
it  stand.  Will  you  swear  positively  that  in  the  interviews 
of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  or  one  of  them,  Mr.  Wood- 
ruff did  not  in  terms  tell  you  that  Mr,  TUton's  charge 
against  Mr.  Beecher  was  adultery  with  his  (Tilton's)  wife  1 
A.  I  will. 

Q.  Positively  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  he  did  not  use  the  term  "  adultery  1"  A.  I  will. 

Q.  And  that  he  did  not  in  any  more  direct  form  than 
you  have  stated  convey  an  implication  of  that  charge  ? 
A.  Yes ;  I  have  intended  to  state,  and  think  I  have 
stated. 

Q.  No,  not  intended  :  I  don't  know  anything  about  your 
intentions.  A.  Well,  I  think  I  have  stated. 

Q.  "Very  well ;  now,  in  those  preceding  interviews  was 
anything  said  upon  the  subject  of  Mr.  Beecher  having 
paid  money  %   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Sure  of  that?  A.  I  am  very  sure  of  it. 

Q.  Swear  positively?   A.  Positively. 

Q.  That  is,  in  any  interview  with  Mr.  Woodruff  preced- 
ing the  one  of  which  you  have  spoken  at  Moulton's  study, 
no  communication  was  made  to  you  in  regard  to 
Beecher's  having  paid  or  advanced  money?  A.  I  know 
there  was  not. 

Q.  That  we  will  see  about  by  and  by.   A.  Well,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  didn't  he  tell  you  that  Beecher  had  given  to 
Moulton,  for  the  support,  or  the  benefit,  of  Mrs.  Tiltou 
and  Tilton's  famUy  $500  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  swear  positively  to  that  1  A.  I  do  most  em- 
phatically. 

Q.  Did  you  and  Woodruff  leave,  at  the  time  of  this  con 
versationat  Moulton's  study,  the  house  together?  A. 
Mr.  Woodruff  says  we  did,  and  I  am  imable  to  say  we  did 


not.  I  have  an  impression  that  we  did,  but  it  ia  not  a 
rec  llection. 

Q.  After  you  left  the  house  did  you  and  Mr.  Woodruff 
have  any  conversation  about  Beecher's  having  given  or 
advanced  money  ?  A.  No,  Sir.  After  we  left  the  house 
that  day  1 

Q.  Yes,  that  night.  A.  Not  on  that  night ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  not,  on  that  night,  refer  again  to  the  com- 
munication which  he  had  made  to  you  in  a  preceding  con- 
versation, and  dia  you  not  say  in  words  or  substance  that 
that  was  the  most  damaging  fact  as  against  Mr. 
Beecher  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  When  Mr.  Woodruff"  first  communicated  to  you,  in 
one  of  these  preceding  conversations,  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Beecher  had  given,  as  I  have  stated,  $500  to  Mr.  Moulton, 
didn't  Mr.  Woodruff  tell  you  that  he  thought  he  had  been 
indiscreet  in  making  that  communication  to  you,  that  iV 
was  conveyed  to  him  confidentially  by  '  Mr.  Moulton, 
and  pledged  you  not  to  say  anything  about  it?  A. 
Your  question  assumes  that  he  made  a  communication  to 
me  on  that  subject  in  one  of  those  preceding  conversa- 
tions. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  He  never  made  any  such  communication  to 
me  in  any  of  those  preceding  conversations. 

Q.  That  you  have  answered— now  answer  the  other  part 
of  it.  A.  When  he  told  me  about  the  money,  he  made  no 
promise  or  asked  no  promise  of  confidence,  and  did  not 
convey  any  injunction  of  secresy  about  it.  Sir ;  I  remem- 
ber very  well  the  interview  when  he  told  me  that. 

Q.  Well,  we  will  find  sc  mebody  else  that  remembers  it, 
too.  When  Mr.  Woodruff  first  spoke  to  you  about  con- 
sulting you  upon  this  subject,  did  he  not  ask,  and  did  yow 
not  give  him,  a  pledge  that  Whatever  was  communicated 
to  you  should  be  held  secret  as  between  counsel  and 
client  1  A.  He  did.  Sir,  in  substance  that— I  have  stated  ii. 

Q.  No;  you  haven't  stated  that.  A.  Yes;  I  stated  it  in 
my  direct  examination;  his  language  was,  Mr.  Beach, 
that  "  Whatever  is  communicated  to  you  I  want  you  to 
regard  as  having  been  communicated  professionally"— in 
substance  that  was  his  remark. 

THE   "TRUE   STORY"  AS  SHOWN  TO  GEN. 
TRACY. 

Q.  Well,  I  understand  you,  Mr.  Tracy,  that 
at  this  conversation  the  "True  Story,"  so  far  as  yoi- 
know  it,  as  given  in  evidence  in  whole  or  in  part— it  is 
your  understanding  that  that  "  True  Story"  was  read  to 
you  by  Mr.  TUton  ?  A.  Not  as  it  appears  and  is  intro- 
duced in  evidence,  Mr.  Beach ;  there  are  some  things  ii, 
l^his  *•  True  Story,"  as  published,  that  r  never  remember 
{o  have  heard  that  night;  and  on  reading  this  "True 
Story,"  as  published  here,  I  think  it  a  more  elaborate  anu 
complete  document  than  the  statement  or  writing  wliic!.' 
Mr.  Tilton  made  to  me  on  that  occasion ;  but  t  ie  gtsner*- 
drift  of  the  "  True  Story"  iB  the  bp  we  ne  <he  <ip«tt  of  r';o 
statement  which  he  m?"'' 


TESTIMONY   OF  BE 

Q.  Now,  specify,  Sir,  wliat  matters  in  the  "Sbory," 
as  it  appears  iu  evidence,  you  t7iink  were  omitted  in  the 
statement  made  to  you  toy  Mr.  Tilton  on  that  occasion? 
A.  1  cannot  recall  at  this  instant  hut  a  single  one  that  I 
can  say  positively  I  think  I  did  not  hear,  and  that  is  a 
statement  in  which  he  says  Mr.  Moulton  returned  and 
reported  to  him  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Beeclier,  and 
he  took  it  down  in  notes ;  I  never  heard  of  that,  I  am 
sure,  until  I  read  it  in  the  "  True  Story." 

Q.  Well,  with  that  variation,  I  understand  your  im- 
pression to  be  that  this  "True  Story"  was  the  paper 
which  Mr.  Tilton  unfolded  to  you  upon  this  occasion  1  A. 
No,  I  don't  say  that  is  the  paper. 

Q.  Well,  what  else,  Sir?  what  else  is  there  ?  A.  T  can- 
not say,  Mv.  iJeach,  that  there  is  any  suhject  treated  of 
In  the  "  True  Story"  that  was  not  alluded  to  in  th.at  con- 
versation that  evening ;  but  I  say  that  my  impression  is 
that  the  "  True  Story,"  as  now  produced,  is  a  more  elab- 
orate and  perfect  document  than  was  read  to  me  that 
night. 

Q.  Why  ?  You  mean  that  its  phraseology  is  changed  ? 
A.  Somewhat ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Somewhat;  but  the  subjects  upon  which  it  treated 
were  the  same  ?  A.  The  same,  as  I  remember. 

Q.  Now,  you  mentioned  in  your  testimony,  in  answer  to 
Mr.  Evarts,  that  you  know  that  that  paper— that  is,  the 
paper  that  Mr.  Tilton  read— contained  a  statement  of  a 
writing  from  Mrs.  Tilton,  informing  her  husband  that  her 
friend,  Henry  Ward  Beeeher,  had  solicited  her  to  b(,'  a 
wife  to  him,  with  all  that  that  implied.  [Reading.]  "  I 
recoUetit  the  statement,  as  given  that  day,  to  be  substan- 
tially the  statement  here  "  Was  that  the  Storrs  letter 

that  you  referred  to  ?  A.  I  don't  think  it  was  the  Storrs 
letter.  Sir ;  but  T  think  that  

Q.  Well,  what  was  it  ?  A.I  don't  know.  Sir,  what  it 
was. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  anything  fi  om  Mrs.  Tilton  in  this 
case  informing  her  luisband  that  Mr.  Beeeher  had  solic- 
ited her  to  be  a  wife  to  him,  with  all  that  that  implied— 
except  the  Storrs  statement  1  A.  That  is  the  only  paper 
1  have  seen. 

Q.  Well,  but  this— you  say:  "I  know  that  the  paper 
contained  a  statement  of  a  writing  from  Mrs.  Tilton." 
A.  I  know  it  said  it  did. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  it  say  about  a  writing  ?  A.  It  said, 
"  T  quote  "—in  substance,  it  says,  "  I  quote  from  Mra. 
Tilton's  handwriting  a  statement '  that  my  friend,  Henry 
Ward  Beeeher,  solicited  me  to  be  a  wife  to  him,  with  all 
that  that  implies '  "—that  is  the  substance  of  what  he 
purported  to  quote  from  his  wife  that  day. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  as  that  was,  substantially  you  say,  in  con- 
formity to  the  one  produced,  perhaps  you  can  give  me 
more  accurately  the  statement  by  referring  to  this,  if  you 
«an  get  your  eye  upon  it  1  A.  I  doubt  whether  I  can  ; 
but  still  I  will  see. 

Q.  Well,  we  will  tlnd  out  what  this  states,  at  any  rate  1 


'NJAMIM  F.    TRACF.  289 

[Paper  shown  to  witness.]  A.  I  have  my  eye  on  it,  Mr. 
Beach. 

Mr.  Beach  [loolring  at  the  paper  at  a  place  indicated 
by  the  witness]— Well,  it  don't  help  tt.  You  don't  think 
it  was  the  Storrs  paper  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  don't  think  it  was 
the  Storrs  paper ;  my  impression  is  this  interview  oc- 
curred before  the  Storrs  paper  was  written. 

Q.  Yes,  I  was  aware  of  that.  Do  you  recollect  the  tes- 
timony of  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  with  regard  to  the 
time  when  the  "  True  Statement "  was  prepared  ?  A. 
Generally  I  do. 

Q.  That  it  was  after  Christmas— the  last  part  of  Decem- 
ber ?   A.  Tiuifc  it  was  completed  then. 

Q.  Not  prepared  then  1  A.  No  ;  I  don't  recollect  that 
testimony,  Mr.  Beach. 

Q.  You  don't?  I  omitted  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Tracy, 
whether  in  this  interview  with  Mr.  Woodruff— either  of 
the  two  I  have  asked  your  attention  to  other  than  the 
one  after  Mr.  Moulton's  study — whether  you  said,  in  lan- 
guage or  substance,  to  Mr.  Woodruff,  that  if  the  thing 
(referiing  to  this  matter)  was  to  be  covered  up,  that  no 
more  money  must  pass  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Either  that  or  anything  in  snbstauoe  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

GEN.   TRACY    SEEKS    TO    SUPPRESS  THE 
SCANDAL. 

Q.  You  liave  spolven,  Mr.  Tracy,  of  an  inter- 
view at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel ;  at  that  interview,  was 
the  qu'^stion  considered  as  to  the  propriety  of  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's producing  the  papers  in  his  possession  before  the 
Committee?  A.  Between  myself  and  Gen.  Butler,  do  you 
mean  ? 

Q.  At  the  interview  at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel ;  you 
and  IMr.  Moulton  differ  as  to  whether  he  was  pres^ent,  and 
therefore  I  did  not  want  to  incumber  it.  A,  Yes,  Sir ;  I 
think  it  was— I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  in  relation  to  the  papers  which  had 
been  referred  to  by  Mr.  Tilton,  wasn't  it  1  A.  It  was  in 
relation  to  this  and  to  others ;  the  conversation  took  two 
forms,  Mr.  Beach,  as  I  remember. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  mean 
to  say  that. 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  positive  testimony?  A.  Yes,  Sir; 
that  two  different  ways  were  discussed,  two  different 
modes  of  proceeding  were  discussed  that  night,  or  sug- 
gested for  discussion  and  discussed  more  or  less,  and  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  more  than  two  were. 

Q.  Well,  was  the  subject  considered  in  the  two  aspects- 
first,  whether  all— I  do  not  mean  to  give  the  order  of  the 
discussion,  but  merely  to  separate  the  branches— first, 
that  whether  all  the  papers  in  his  possession  should  be 
produced ;  and  second,  whether  those  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Tilton  should  be  produced?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  the  discussion 
went  on  in  those  two  aspects,  I  am  sure. 

Q.  You  recollect  that  the  call  of  the  Committee  ui>on 
Mr.  Moulton  was  for  the  documents  referred  to  by  Mr 


290  IH}^  TILTON-B 

Til  ton,  do  you  not?   A.  I  tWnk  tliere  was  a  call — one  of 
tlie  calls  by  the  Committee,  that  that  construction  was 
placed  on  its  language ;  I  am  not  certain  whether  there 
was  any  broader  call  than  that  or  not. 
Q.  Well— [Reading.] 

We  earnestly  request  that  you  bring  all  letters  or  docu- 
ments in  your  possession  which  are  referred  to  by  Theo- 
dore TUton  in  his  statement  before  the  Committee. 

A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  think  that  was  one  form ;  I  have  an  im- 
pression that  was  written,  but  used  slightly  different 
language,  but  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  No,  Sir,  you  can  testify  about  it  as  a  matter  of  recol- 
lection ;  don't  give  us  the  impression.   A.  I  won't. 

Q.  Just  make  yourself  certain  upon  that  point ;  well, 
Sir,  at  that  interview  did  you  advise,  or  request,  that  the 
papers  should  be  produced?  A.  You  may  say  that  I  ad- 
vised or  requested  it ;  I  can  tell  what  I  said  

Q.  Well,  I  am  endeavoring  to  avoid  a  long  cross-exam- 
ination, if  I  can,  Sir,  and  to  get  at  some  leading,  promi" 
nent  facts;  I  have  no  objection  to  your  relieving  your- 
seK.  A.  I  don't  think  the  word  "  advised "  would  be 
strictly  applicable,  because  I  don't  think  Mr.  Moulton 
was  present ;  at  a  different  stage  of  that  interview  the 
word  "  advised"  might  be  appropriate. 

Q.  Very  well;  we  are  not  standing  upon  phrases, 
Sir.  A.  Well,  T  suggested  two  ways  that  I  thought  Mr. 
Moulton  could  honorably  pursue  under  the  ciicum- 
tances. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  care  to  go  into  that.  A.  And  in  no 
other  sense  did  I  advise  or  request,  I  think. 

Q.  Well,  I  want  to  know  whether  you  advised  or  re- 
quested Mr.  Moulton  not  to  present  the  papers  before  the 
Committee  ?  A.  I  do  not  think  that  I  put  my  suggestions 
either  in  the  form  of  advice  or  request.  I  thuik  my  sug- 
gestions were  in  the  form  of  a  statement  of  what  in 
my  judgment  Mr.  Moulton  ought  to  do  under  the  circum- 
stances. 

Q.  Well,  in  your  statement  of  what  Mr.  Moulton  ought 
to  do  under  the  circumstances,  did  you  state  that  it  was 
not  best  for  Mm  to  present  the  papers?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect that  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  say  you  did  not  ?  A.  Oh !  I  won't  swear 
that,  Sir;  all  my  remarks  might  not  have  taken  that 
form— I  can't  say ;  I  remember  the  general  fact. 

Q.  Yes,  yes ;  you  have  answered  my  question. 

The  Witness  [continuing]— That  was  stated  there,  and 
I  don't  recollect  any  other. 

Q.  Well,  you  went  over  to  this  interview,  you  say,  at 
the  request  of  Mr.  Moulton?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  For  what  purpose  did  you  go  ?  A.  To  see  Gen.  But- 
ler as  counsel. 

Q.  Well,  to  see  him  upon  what  subject?  A.  Upon  the 
subject  of  Mr.  Moulton's  action  In  relation  to  this 
scandal. 

Q.  That  is,  what  he  should  do  with  reference  to  the 


EECRJ^B  TRIAL. 

Examining  Committee?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  what  course  he 
should  pursue. 

Q.  Did  you  go  as  counsel  for  Mr.  Moulton  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  consider  yourself  in  that  interview  as  repre- 
senting Mr.  Moulton,  or  as  consulting  on  his  behalf  with 
his  counsel!  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  pray,  in  what  capacity  did  you  go  ?  A.  I  went, 
Sir,  as  one  who  had  been  invited  to  cooperate  with  Mr. 
Moulton  in  this  matter,  by  Mr.  Moulton  himself, 
as  a  friend  of  IMr.  Beecher— one  whom  he  said 
Mr.  Beecher,  he  thought,  would  accept,  whose  ad- 
vice he  thought  Mr.  Beecher  would  accept,  if  it  was  in 
concui-rence  with  his  own,  as  one  who  was  a  member  of 
the  society  of  Plymouth  Church,  and  was  taking  part  iu 
the  effort  to  prevent  an  open  scandal  by  the  publication 
of  these  charges. 

Q.  Went  as  a  general  philanthropist?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  you  went  out  of  universal  benevolence  ?  A> 
No,  Sir ;  I  went  as  a  citizen,  as  a  member  of  Plymouth 
Church,  as  a  friend  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  as  one  who  had 
an  interest  in  preventing  the  publication  of  a  scandal 
that  I  felt  would  breed  more  demoralization  than  any 
event  of  the  last  century. 

Q.  Well,  when  was  it  ?  A.  When  was  this  interview  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  August  9. 

Q.  What  year?  A.  1874. 

Q.  Had  you  talked  with  Mr.  Beecher  about  this  scanda! 
before  that  ?  .  A  I  had.  Sir. 

Q.  When  first?  A.  In  November  or  December,  1872. 

Q.  November  or  December,  1872 — how  often  between 
that  and  Aug!  9  ?  A.  I  talked  with  Mr.  Beecher  •once.  I 
remember,  in  November  or  December,  1872  ;  I  talked 
with  him  again  about  five  minutes  on  the  7th  of  January.. 
1873,  at  the  renting  of  the  pews  at  Plymouth  Chm^ch ; 
after  that  I  remember  no  conversation  with  Mr.  Beecher 
on  the  subject  of  this  scandal  until  after  the  publication 
of  the  "Bacon  letter." 

Q.  How  soon  after  that  ?  A.  On  Friday  night,  after  tha 
publication  of  the  Bacon  letter,  which  was  published,  I 
think,  Wednesday. 

Mr.  Shearman— Friday  was  June  26, 1874. 

The  Witness— June  26. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  from  June  26  to  July  9,  how  fre- 
quemt  were  your  interviews  with  Mr.  Beecher— August  9, 
I  mean?  A.  August  9.  Well,  they  were  frequent;  I  car' fc 
say  how  frequent;  sometimes  every  day;  sometiniis 
twice  a  week ;  sometimes  he  went  to  Peeksldll,  and  waa 
gone ;  but  when  he  was  in  the  city,  I  should  say  as  often 
as  two  or  three  times  a  week. 

Q.  Did  you  consult  and  advise  with  him  upon  the  sub- 
ject at  these  interviews  ?  A.  I  consulted  with  him. 

Q.  Didn't  you  advise  him?  A.  Yes;  to  a  greater  or 
less  extent,  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  you  considered  yourself  as  his  adviser,  didn't 
you  ?   A.  No,  Sir, 

Q.  What?   A.  Not  in  the  strict  sense  of  adviser. 


Ti:^TI2lOXY  OF  BEyJAJdiy  F.  IBACY. 


291 


Q.  oil :  T  am  not  talking  a'bout  "  strict  sense"  novr,  Sir. 
A.  Well,  I  considered  myself  a?  an  adviser,  as  a  friend 
■vrould  adNise  anotlier  in  difflcultr. 

Q.  Yes;  you  did  not  Irno^  that  Mr.  Eeecliev  considered 
you  as  a  prominent  and  reliable  attorney  and  counsel- 
did  not  suppose  that,  did  you  ?  A.  Xo,  Sir ;  not  in  that 
connection. 

Q.  Not  in  what  connection?  A.  In  the  connection  of 
my  relations  with  him. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  suppose  that  Mr.  Beecher  sought  or 
was  grateful  for  yom-  advice  because  of  your  profes- 
sion? A.  I  canuot  say  how  grateful  he  was.  or  how 
grateful  I  thought  him  to  he;  I  caunor  say.  either,  that 
he  sought  my  relation  because  of  my  professional  posi- 
tion. 

Q.  Did  you  suppose,  Sir,  that  he  was  consulting  with 
you  and  valued  your  ad^*ice  on  account  of  yoiir  profes- 
sional position  ?  A.  If  I  thought  an}-trhing  on  the  sub- 
ject, I  perhaps  assv^med  that  that  entered  into  his  calcu- 
lation or  his  motive  more  or  less. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  with  that  presumption,  and  having  had 
these  interviews  with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  having  given  him 
advice,  you  went  to  this  interview  at  the  Fifth  Avenue 
Hotel  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  there  state  to  ]vir.  Benjamin  F.  Butler— is 
that  his  name  1 

Mr,  Morris— Yes.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Beach  [continuing]— Mr.  Benjamin  F.  Butler— tliat 
you  represented  Mr.  Beecher?  A.  Not  in  that  language, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  *   A.  Not  in  those  words. 

Well,  in  substance  that  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  undoubtedly, 
quite  likely,  did  

Q.  Never  mind  what  you  undoubtedly  did ;  we  don't 
•want  any  further  reasoning.  Now,  did  you  not  upon  that 
occasion  represent  to  Mr.  Butler  that  you  appeared  as 
the  representative  and  counsel  of  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  do  so  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Moulton  %  A. 
No,  Sii\ 

Q.  Well,  after  that  interview  did  you  see  Mr.  Beecher  ? 
A..  Undoubtedly  I  did,  after  that  interview. 

Q.  I  don't  want  any  "  undoubtedly  ;"  I  want  your  rec- 
ollection, if  there  is  any.  A.  Oh,  I  did  ;  yes,  Sir  ;  yes,  I 
eaAv  him  after  that,  of  course. 

Q.  How  soon  after  that  did  you  see  him  I  A.  That  was 
the  9th. 

Q.  Yes  1   A.  I  can't  say. 

Q.  Well,  give  me  the  best  of  your  recollection  f  A.  I 
undoubtedly  saw  him  vrlthin  a  week  after  that.  Mrobu.>ly 
"'ithin  three  days  ;  it  would  depend  upon  whetLin-  he  was 
in  town  or  not ;  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Well,  was  the  subject  of  your  interview  ;tt  the  Fifth 
A.venue  Hotel  a  matter  of  conversation  betw>'  ju  you  and 
Mr.  Beecher  2  A.  I  don't  recoUect  positively  whether  it 
»was  or  not. 


Q.  W^ell,  isn't  it  possible  foi  you  to  refresh  your  recol- 
lection upon  that  subject  1  A.  No,  Sir;  I  remember  no 
conversation  between  myself  and  3Ir.  Beecher. 

Q.  WeU,  you  have  answered  my  question.  A.  Oh,  ex- 
cuse me,  Sir. 

Q.  I  don't  want  anything  further.  Is  that  the  only  con 
ference  you  had  with  Mr.  Butler  in  regard  to  this  scan- 
dal i   A.  No,  Sir. 


UEX.  TRACY  GOES  TO  BOSTON  TO  SEE  GEN. 
BUTLER. 

Q.  Where  else  have  you.  conferred  with  him 

except  at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel,  in  New-York?  A.  Onc< 
in  Boston. 

Q.  In  Boston!   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  was  that?   A.  About  the  first  of  July. 

Q.  1S74?    A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  on  the  29th  of  June  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  tlie 
date  definitely  :  it  is  about  the  first  of  July,  I  know. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  Boston  for  the  purpose  of  consulting 
with  him  ?   A.  I  went  to  Bostim  for  the  purpose  

Q.  Did  j'ou  go  there  for  that  piu'pose,  I  asked  you?  A. 
I  went  to  see  him. 

Q.  WTiat  ?    A.  I  went  to  see  him  on  this  subject. 

Q.  Yes  ;  you  went  to  see  nim  on  this  subject ;  how 
came  you  to  go  ?  A.  If  you  apply  any  technical  meaning 
to  the  word  consult,  I  did  not  go  to  consult. 

Q.  Oh,  no ;  to  confer.   A.  To  confer  with  him. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  go  ?  A.  Because  of  a  message 
which  I  understood  Mr.  Benjamin  F.  Butler  sent  to  Mr. 
Beecher  on  the  subject  of  this  scandal. 

Q.  Who  did  you  understand  it  from  ?   A.  :Mi-.  Beecher. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Beecher  request  you  to  go  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  No  suggestion  from  or  with  him  in  regard  to  your 
going?  A.  I  can  tell  you  what  occurred,  Mr.  Beach. 

Q.  "Well,  you  can  answer  my  question  ?  A.  No,  I  can- 
not, without  telling  you  what  occurred. 

Q.  You  cannot  say  whether  there  was  any  suggestion 
about  your  going  to  Boston  between  yourself  and  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  A.  There  was  a  suggestion  about  my  going  ; 
Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  Who  made  the  suggestion  ?   A.  I  did. 
Q.  Did  Mr.  Beecher  concur  in  it  1   A.  He  did  not. 
Q.  Did  he  object  to  your  going  ?   A.  He  did. 
Q.  You  went  contrary  to  his  wish  ?   A.  I  cannot  saj^ 
that. 

Q.  Went  contrary  to  his  objection,  didn'x  you?  A.  I 
cannot  say  that. 

Q.  Why,  yiiu  went,  didn't  you  ?    A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  he  oUiccted  to  yoiu'  going?  A.  He  did  when 
the  suggestion  was  made  first. 

Q.  Oh          A.  Now.  I  will  tell  you— I  will  state  th© 

fact?,  if  you  want  them. 

Q.  Oh.no;  wait  a  minute.  [Laughter.]' 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  ask  him. 


292 


THE   TILTON-BEECHEB  IBIAL. 


Q.  And  you  did  not  go  against  Mr.  Beeclier's  objection  1 
A.  Well,  I  can't  say  that,  either. 

Q.  Can't  you  say  whether  you  did  or  not  1   A.  No,  Sir, 

Q.  Well,  did  he  withdraw  the  objection  which  he  made  1 
A.  Well,  I  can't  say  that. 

Q.  Well,  then,  if  he  made  an  objection,  and  didn't  with- 
draw it.  you  must  have  gone  contrary  to  it.  A.  That 
don't  follow.  Sir. 

Q.  Doesn't  it  1  A.  No. 

Q.  Well,  had  you  any  knowledge  of  his  wish  upon  this 
subject  except  what  he  said  ?  A.  Well,  I  had  what  I  might 
liave  Inferred  was  some  knowledge  of  his  wish. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  did  you  go  to  Boston  to  confer  with 
Mr.  Butler  with  or  without  the  concurrence  of  Mr. 
Beecher?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you,  Sir. 

Q.  Can't  tell  me  %  A.  I  will  tell  you  the  facts,  and  all  I 
know  about  it,  and  then  you  can  judge  as  well  as  I. 

Q.  WeU,  you  cannot  judge,  you  say!  A.  No,  Sir;  I  can- 
not accurately  answer ;  I  

Q.  Can't  you  form  a  conclusion  upon  that  subject?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  What?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  can't  form  a  conclusion?  A.  I  cannot  form 
one  that  is  definite,  so  as  to  enable  me  to  say  whether  I 
did  or  did  not  go  with  Mr.  Beecher's  wish. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir;  you  have  no  understanding  upon  that  sub- 
ject 1  A.  No ;  I  don't  say  that ;  I  have  an  inference  on 
the  subject. 

Q.  What  is  it  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  I  have  an  inference  that, 
after  Mr.  Beecher  objected  to  my  going  at  night, 
lie  had  seen  Mr.  Shearman  in  the  morning  and 
withdrawn  his  objections,  and  Mr.  Shearman  came 
to  me  and  advised  me  to  go,  and  my  de- 
termination to  go  was  the  result  of  the  conversation 
between  Mr.  Shearman  and  myself,  and  from  the  fact 
of  Mr.  Shearman's  coming  to  me  and  consenting  after 
being  present  at  Mr.  Beecher's  objections,  I  inferred, 
without  asking  any  questions  about  it,  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  withdrawn  the  objections  that  he  made  the  night  be- 
fore, and  I  went  to  Boston. 

Q.  Well,  when  you  went,  you  supposed  you  were  going 
with  the  concurrence  of  Mr.  Beecher,  didn't  you  ?  A.  I 
didn't  suppose  I  was  going  

Q.  Now,  did  you  suppose  that  or  not  ?  A.  I  supposed 
he  had  withdrawn  his  objection- — 

Q.  Did  you  suppose  you  were  going  with  the  concur- 
rence of  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  did  not  know  whether  Mr. 
Beecher  knew  I  was  going. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  supposed  you  were  going  with  the 
concurrence  of  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  did  not  suppose  any- 
thing about  it. 

Q.  You  did  not?  A.  No. 

Q.  You  had  no  idea  about  it  ?   A.  Not  definitely ;  no. 
Q.  Oh  1  not  definitely.   I  asked  you  if  you  had  any  idea 
about  it.  [Laughter.] 
Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  please  be  quiet. 


A.  I  have  stated  to  you  all  I  know  about  it. 

Q,  Now,  wait,  Mr.  Tracy ;  I  am  not  asking  you  for  a 
definite  and  unqualified  fact ;  I  am  asking  you.  Sir,  as  a 
man  of  intelligence  and  sense,  whether,  when  you  went 
to  Boston,  you  supposed  you  were  going  with  the  con- 
currence of  Mr.  Beecher?  A.  I  supposed  

Q.  Now,  I  want  you  to  answer  that  question.  A.  Well, 
I  can't  answer  it,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Q.  You  can  tell  what  you  supposed.  A.  No,  I  can't 
say  that  I  supposed  that  Mr.  Beecher  knew  I  was  going 
when  I  started,  and  how  I  could  know  that  I  was  going 
with  his  concurrence  

Q.  You  understood  from  Mr.  Shearman  that  his  objec- 
tion to  your  going  had  been  withdrawn,  didn't  you  1  A. 
I  say  I  inferred  it. 

Q.  Well,  you  understood  it  1  A.  Not  from  Mr.  Shear- 
man ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  suppose  it?  A.  I  supposed  it;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  we  will  start  there.  You  supposed  his  objec- 
tion had  been  withdrawn  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  yet  you  had  no  supposition  when  you  went 
whether  you  were  going  with  the  concurrence  of  Mr, 
Beecher  or  not  ?  A.  Well,  it  is  a  mere  speculation ;  Mr. 
Beecher  

Q.  Ah,  a  speculation  1  Is  it  not  a  conclusion  of  your 
own  mind  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  have  no  conclusion  upon  the 
subject. 

Q.  T  am  asking  what  you  supposed  in  your  own  mind, 
when  Mr.  Beecher's  objection  was  withdi-awn  to  your  go- 
ing        A.  I  did  not  know  that  it  was  withdrawn. 

Q.  You  said  you  supposed  it  had  been  withdrawn.  A. 
I  said  I  inferred,  from  the  fact  of  Mr.  Shearman's  coming 
to  me,  that  he  would  not  have  come  without  Mr.  Beecher 
had  withdrawn  his  objection. 

Q.  When  you  inferred  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  withdrawn 
his  objection,  did  you  not  suppose  you  were  acting  in 
accordance  with  his  wish  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  sup 
posed  one  way  or  the  other  on  the  subject  at  that  time. 

Q.  Yes  A.  I  don't  think  that  I  speculated  on  the 

question. 

Q.  You  went  on  to  Boston  ?   A.  I  acted  on  the  

Q.  Wait  a  minute.  You  went  on  to  Boston  to  confer 
with  Mr.  Butler  upon  that  subject,  in  which  you  con- 
ceived Mr.  Beecher  to  be  deeply  interested,  without  hav- 
ing any  idea  in  your  own  mind  as  to  whether  you  were 
acting  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  Mr.  Beecher  or 
against  his  wishes.  Do  you  mean  to  swear  that?  A.  I 
mean  to  swear  that  I  went  to  Boston  on  the  responsibility 
of  Mr.  Shearman ;  and  beyond  that  I  did  not  inquire,  and 
did  not  consider  nor  speculate,  as  to  whether  I  was  going 
with  Mr.  Beecher's  knowledge  or  with  Mr.  Beecher's  con- 
currence. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy,  when  Mr.  Shearman  came  to  you  ana 
consulted  with  you,  and,  under  his  advice,  you  went  to 
Boston,  did  it  not  occur  to  you  whether  Mr.  Beecher's  ob- 
jection had  been  withdrawn  or  not  ?   A.  I  say  \t  did,  nnd 


TUSTmONF  OF  BE 

I  inferred  from  tlie  fact  of  Ws  coming  tliat  it  had  been 
-withdrawn. 

Q.  And  when  you  made  that  inference  that  that  objec- 
tion had  been  withdrawn,  you  mean  to  say,  do  you,  that 
the  idea  did  not  occur  to  you  whether  you  were  going  to 
Boston  in  accordance  with  or  against  his  wish  1  A.  Ah,  I 
don't  say  that,  Mr.  Beach. 

Q.  You  don't,  eh?  A.  I  never  supposed  I  was  going 
there  against  the  wish  of  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  Well,  I  have  been  asking  you  that  for  some  time  1  A. 
No,  Sir,  you  have  not.  I  beg  pardon.  That  is  exactly 
what  you  have  not  been  aslring. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  is  a  distinction  that  he  wanted  to 
make. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir;  no,  Sir :  it  is  not  a  distinction  that 
"he  wanted  to  make,  nor  is  it  a  distinction  that  my  ques- 
tion  admits. 

The  Witness— It  is  just  the  distinction  that  I  wanted  to 
make,  and  have  been  trying  to  make  all  the  time. 

Mr.  Beach— Wl  at  prevented  you  from  making  it  1 

The  Witness— Simply  because  of  the  form  of  the  ques- 
tion :  this  is  the  first  time  that  you  have  asked  the  ques- 
tion in  that  form. 

Mr.  Beach  fto  the  stenographer]  —  Please  give  me 
those  questions,  two  or  three  of  them,  and  let  us  see. 

Mr.  Shearman— How  far  back  do  you  want  him  to  go  1 

Mr.  Beach— Just  as  far  back  as  you  want  him  to  go. 

[The  Tribune  stenographer  read  several  of  the  pre- 
ceding questions  and  answers.] 

Mr,  Beach— That  will  do ;  I  guess  my  questions  do  not 
prevent  him  from  answering. 

The  Witness— That  is  the  first  time  that  I  understood 
your  question— that  I  understood  you  to  ask  me  if  I  went 
against  

.Mr.  Beach— Then  you  had  better  understand  the  ques- 
tions as  we  go  along. 

The  Witness— Well,  I  think  that  is  the  first  question, 
Mr.  Beach,  where  you  asked  me  that.  When  I  say  that  I 
wanted  to  make  that,  I  say  

Mr.  Beach— Wait,  wait. 

The  Witness— WeU,  if  you  won't  permit  me  to  ex- 
plain  

Mr.  Beach— You  saw  Mr.  Butler  in  Boston,  did  youl  A. 
Te.s  Sir. 

Q.  And  that,  you  say,  was  about  the  1st  of  July,  1874 1 
A.  I  think  it  was,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  the  Comraittee  then  been  formed— called  1  A. 
Substantially. 

Q.  The  Investigating  Committee  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  Investigating  Committee  had  then  been  named, 
hadn't  it  1  A.  I  am  not  certain  but  one  name  was  added 
after  I  went  to  Boston. 

Q.  Whose  name  was  that !  A.  I  should  say  it  was  Mr. 
White's,  but  I  am  not  certain  of  that. 

Q  DM[  you  tell  Mr.  Butler  anything  about  the  calling 
t:irt V  FnyfiHtigatlng  Committee  t  A.  I  did  not. 


SJAMm  F.    TEAOT.  293 

THE  INTERVIEW  WITH  GEN.  BUTLER. 

Q.  What  was  the  subject  of  your  conversa- 
tion with  Mr.  Butler  1  A.  It  was  about  the  message  he 
had  sent  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  his  knowledge  of  the 
scandal. 

Q.  Was  it  not  upon  the  subject  of  the  best  policy  to  be 
pursued  in  suppressing  the  scandal  1  A.  The  latter  part 
of  the  conversation  may  have  taken  some  turn  of  that 
description ;  I  don't  remember  about  that. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Butler  tell  you  that  he  knew  what  the  char- 
acter of  the  accusation  was  against  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I 
don't  remember  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Q.  You  don't  remember?  A.  I  don't  remember.  Sir, 
whether  Gen.  Butler  and  I  discussed  his  knowledge  ;  I 
don't  know  that  he  professed  to  have  any  special  knowl- 
edge about  the  case,  aside  from  what  was  gathered  in  the 
prints.  I  went  there  on  the  supposition  

Q.  Oh,  I  don't  want  your  suppositions.  A.  Exactly. 

Q.  Did  not  Mr.  Butler  in  that  interview  in  words  or  in 
substance  inform  you  that  he  understood  the  charge 
against  Mr.  Beecher  to  be  improper  connection  with  Mrs. 
Tilton  1  A.  He  may,  or  may  not. 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  me  now  whether  he  did  or  not  1  A. 
I  don't  remember  what  Gen,  Butler  said  he  understood 
the  charge  to  be,  and  I  don't  remember  that  he  made  any 
statement  of  what  he  understood  the  charge  to  be. 

Q.  It  is  enough  for  you  to  say  that  you  don't  remember. 
You  don't  remember,  you  say  1  A.  No,  I  don't  say  that  1 
—I  say  that  I  don't  remember  definitely^— 

Q.  Definitely  !  What  are  you  covering  up  under  the 
word  definitely  1  A.  Nothing. 

ANOTHER    CONSULTATION    WITH  GEN. 
BUTLER. 

Q.  Very  well  then  leave  it  out— you  don't 
remember.  WeU,  did  you  have  an  interview  with  Mi 
Butler  on  the  20th  of  July  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  was  that  1   A.  At  Mr,  Moulton's  house. 

Q.  How  came  that  interview  about  1  A.  I  think  Mi 
Moulton  sent  for  me. 

Q.  How  did  you  learn  that  Mr,  Butler  was  in  New- York 
or  Brooklyn?   A,  I  think  Mr.  Moulton  told  me. 

Q,  Was  that  the  first  you  knew  of  his  presence  in  New- 
York  on  that  occasion  ?  A.  July  20—1  think  I  knew  that 
he  was  to  come. 

Q.  For  the  purpose  of  that  interview  ?  A.  What  ? 

Q.  For  the  purpose  of  an  interview  t  A.  For  the  purpose 
—on  the  subject  of  this  scandal. 

Q.  Well,  for  an  interview  ?  A,  For  an  interview. 

Q.  With  you  ?   A.  No,  not  definitely  with  me. 

Q.  Not  with  you!  A.  Not  with  me,  aside  from  Mr. 
Moulton  and  the  

Q.  Not  with  you  1  A.  I  supposed  that  I  was  to  be  notl> 
fied  when  he  did  come. 


294  THE  TILTON-B 

Q.  And  you  siipposad  that  you  would  have  an  interview 
with  him  ?   A.  I  supposed  so. 

Q.  Didn't  you  telegraph  for  him  to  come  on  1  A.  I  did  on 
one  occasion. 

Q.  Was  not  that  the  occasion  ?   A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  When  was  it  ?  A.  I  think  my  telegram  to  Gen.  But- 
ler was  at  a  later  date. 

Q.  When  do  you  think  it  was  %  A.  I  think  it  was  later  ; 
I  have  got  it  here.  [Referring  to  the  telegram.J  Yes 
Sir ;  I  am  correct. 

Q.  Did  you  not  on  this  occasion,  July  20,  summon  him 
to  New- York  1  A.  I  think  not ;  I  don't  remember  that  I  did. 

Q.  Is  that  all  you  will  say  about  it  1  A.  That  is  all  I  will 
say  about  it ;  I  say  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  What  was  the  interview  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house 
about?  A.  It  was  about  Mr.  Tilton's  proposed  statement. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  understand,  then,  that  Mr.  Moulton 
was  endeavoring  to  suppress  the  statement,  to  prevent 
the  statement  being  made  1   A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  understood  that  Mr.  Moulton  was  laboring  for 
the  purpose  of  avoiding  any  publication  of  this  scandal 
at  that  time,  didn't  you  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  At  that  interview  of  July  20th  was  it  arranged  in 
substance  that  the  meeting  of  the  Committee  ;'or  that 
night  shoriild  be  postponed  in  some  form,  or  put  off?  A. 
Not  arranged.,  Mr.  Beach — that  does  not  express  it. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  suggested  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  the  meeting  which  was  called  for  July  20th,  of 
the  Committee,  should  be  put  oft,  to  give  Mr.  Moulton 
more  time  to  control  Mr.  Tilton  if  possible  ?  A.  To  give 
Mr.  Moulton  and  Gen.  Butler  more  time. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr,  Butler  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir  ; 
that  was  suggested. 

Q.  Was  not  that  understood  to  be  the  purpose  of  the 
thi-ee  parties  ?   A.  The  pm-pose  of  

Q.  At  that  meeting  was  not  that  understood  to  be  a 
purpose  to  be  accomi)lished  ?  A.  By  the  postponement 
of  the  meeting  of  the  Committee? 

Q.  Yes         A.  Yes  

Q.  Well,  was  not  the  suggestion  made  that  yovi  would 
not  be  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Committee  on  that 
evening,  and  that  if  you  were  not  present  tbe  meeting 
would  not  go  on  ?  Was  such  a  suggestion  made  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  was  not  that  the  understanding  A.  Yes, 

Sir,  I  think  that  part  of  it  was  an  understanding,  that  T 
should  not  be  present  

Q.  And  that  therefore  the  meeting  would  be  postponed 

and  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Butler  were  to          A.  Ah  I  that 

don't  express  it,  Mr.  Beach.  I  can  tell  you  what  occmred 
exactly.  I  think  I  can  

Q.  No,  I  don't  think  you  can  ?   A.  I  think  I  can. 

Q.  Do  you  pretend  to  give  exactly  what  occurred  at 
these  meetings?   A.  Not  at  all  these  meetings. 

Q.  Well,  at  any  of  them  ?  A.  I  think  I  can  tell  you  ex- 
actly what  occurred  on  this  occasion. 


Eb^CHER  TRIAL. 

Q.  Exactly  ?  A.  Well,  if  you  put  a  very  limited  mean 
ing  on  the  word  "  exact,"  perhaps  not;  but  I  can  give 
you  substantially  what  occurred  at  this  meeting,  and 
really  what  occurred. 

Q.  That  is  another  thing.  Because  I  want  to  know— if 
you  are  undertaking  to  give  the  precise  language  used  at 
these  meetings,  I  want  to  understand  it.  Are  you  pre- 
tending to  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  when  I  am  repeating  con- 
versations r  am  not,  as  a  rule,  professing  to  give  the  pre- 
cise words,  but  the  substance. 

Q.  I  supposed  not.  Was  it  not  arranged  and  under- 
stood between  Mr.  Butler  and  Mr.  Moulton  and  yourself, 
at  this  meeting  on  July  20,  that  you  should  not  be  present 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Investigating  Committee  called  for 
that  evening,  and  was  it  not  expected  that  in  conse- 
quence of  that  absence  of  yourself  that  meeting  would 
be  postponed,  and  no  proceedings  taken  on  the  evening 
of  July  20  ?  A.  I  cannot  answer  your  question  yes  or  no, 
Mr.  Beach. 

Q.  Weil.    A.  I  will  tell  you  what  occurred. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  get  it  by  somebody  else,  if  you  cannot 
answer  it.  Was  it  expected  that  Mr.  Tilton  would  make 
his  statement  to  the  Investigating  Committee  on  the 
evening  of  July  20  ?   A.  That  was  expected ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  appear  on  that  evening  at  the  Com- 
mittee? A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  the  meeting  was  held  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Tilton  made  his  statement  ?    A.  Yes,  SiT. 

Q.  That,  I  understand,  was  the  first  statement,  where 
he  refused  to  make  a  statement,  and  whore  he  did  not 
make  a  statement  ?  A.  Oh,  no ;  that  was  Ms  long  state- 
ment ;  that  was  the  sworn  statement. 

Q.  July  20  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  I  was  mistaken ;  I  thought  it  was  the  former 
one.  Now,  you  afterward  saw  Gen.  Butler,  you  say?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

A  STATEMENT  DICTATED  BY  GEN.  BUTLER. 
Q.  Where  was  that*^   A.  At  the  Fifth  Avenue 

Hotel. 

Q.  When  was  it  ?   A.  Aug.  9,  1874. 
Q.  That  is  the  interview  spoken  of  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Did  you  see  him  upon  any  other  occasion  ?   A.  Ye3, 
Sir. 

Q.  Where  was  that  ?  A.  I  saw  him  on  the  evening  of 
Aug.  10,  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  and  I  saw  him  next 
morning. 

Q.  Where  was  that,  next  morning  ?  A.  That  was  at  my 
room. 

Q.  Your  room— where  ?   A.  In  Montague-st. 

Q.  At  youi-  house— where  you  lived  ?  A.  I  was  board- 
ing at  the  time. 

Q.  In  your  room  at  your  boarding  place,  then  ?  A.  Yes 

Q.  Who  was  present  at  that  interview  1  A.  His  private 
secretary. 

Q.  Any  one  else  ?  A.  I  think  not,  Sir. 


TESIIMOXI   OF  Bl 

Q.  Are  ron  quite  certain  about  tliat  t   A.  I  am. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Beeclier  in  the  house  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  he  been  that  day*  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  never  -was  in 
the  house,  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Were  you  ajid  Mr.  Butler  then  preparing  a  card  to 
be  issued  or  spoken  by  Mr.  Beecher  1   A.  No,  Sir, 

Q.  Were  you  not  preparing  some  paper  for  Mr.  Beecher 
to  use  t  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  No  paper  for  Mr.  Beecher  to  use  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  preparing  any  paper?  A.  No,  Sir.  Twill 
state  what  occurred,  if  you  want  it. 

Q.  Well,  when  I  do,  I  will  tell  you.  Were  you  pre- 
paring any  statement?  A.  Well,  I  will  say,  Mr.  Beach, 
that  in  that  interview  

Q.  Just  answer  my  answer.  A.  I  say  that  we  were  not ; 
I  can  state  to  you  what  occurred,  precisely. 

Q.  Wait  a  moment.  You  seem  to  be  somewhat  disposed 
to  be  critical,  and  I  am  inclined  to  indulge  you.  A.  I  see 
you  are. 

Q.  You  say  we  were  not.  Was  either  you  or  Mr.  Butler 
preparing  a  statement  ?  A.  Mr.  Butler— General  Butler 
did  

Q.  Can't  you  answer  my  question?  A.  No;  I  will 
answer  it  by  stating  what  occurred. 

Q.  No,  you  won't.  I  beg  your  pardon.  Was  either  you 
or  Mr.  Butler  preparing  a  statement  on  that  occasion  ?  A. 
Mr.  Butler  dictated  to  his  stenographer,  or  started  to, 
and  did  to  some  extent,  and  quit  on  a  conversation  be- 
tween: himself  and  me;  we  had  a  conversation  

Q.  Now,  I  am  not  asking  for  the  details  of  that  inter 
"View.  I  ask  you  simply  the  question  whether  either  party 

dictated  a  statement,  or  prepared  a  statement   A. 

You  did  not  ask  me  whether  he  dictated. 

Q.  Well,  prepared  a  statement,  I  said.  You  have  forced 
npun  me  matter  which  occurred,  which  I  did  not  call  for. 
Now,  will  you  answer  my  question  whether  or  not  either 
you  or  Mr.  Butler  upn-^  that  occasiou  prepared  a  state- 
ment?   A.  I  say  vr-    '  '  -. 

Q.  Dill  you  prepare  ::irt  of  a  statement?  A.  :Mr'. 
Burler  dictated  

Q.  Did  either  of  your  prepare  any  part  of  a  statement  ? 
A.  Mr.  Butler  dictated  to  his  stenographer,  who  took 
down  in  shorthand  

Q.  Well,  Sir,  I  don't  want  it  to  be  supposed  that  I  ridl 
out  what  transpired  at  that  inte  rview,  so  as  to  mal:,:'  :t 
the  subject  of  evidence,  for  I  do  nor  care  to  have  it  in. 

Judge  Neilson— In  orh  :  wortls,  you  don't  ask  for  the 
ci'Uversation. 

Mr.  Beach— No.  Sir;  hut  this  gentleman  insists  upon 
stating  it. 

Mr.  Evarcs— He  asks  whether  either  of  the  parties  pre- 
pared a  statem-ut,  and  tlie  wl^n-'^s  answers  that  Gen. 
Butler  did  dictate  to  u  :-teuographer,  who  reported,  or 
wrote  in  shorthand,  sumethiug. 


'.XJAmS    F.    TRACY.  2^0 

Judge  Neilson — The  answer  may  be  well  enough,  if  it  is 
understood  that  it  is  not  bringing  in  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  not.  That  is  all.  He  is  asked  if 
he  prepared  a  statement,  and  he  says  that  Gen.  Butlei 
dictated  to  a  stenographer,  who  wrote  down  

Judge  Neilson— A  statement,  In  part. 

Mr.  Evarts — I  suppose  so.  I  don't  know  what  it  was,  1 
am  sure. 

Mr.  Beach— Was  the  statement  completed?   A.  No  Sir  ; 
you  mean  that  day? 
Judge  Neilson— At  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  was  going  to  add,  then  or  afterward  ?  A. 
Now,  I  can't  tell  you  that.   I  can  tell  you  what  occtu-red. 
Q.  No  you  won't. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  witness]— You  have  answered  the 
question. 

Mr.  Beach— Was  that  partial  statement,  partly  prepared 
aud  left  unfinished,  a  statement  designed  for  the  use  of 
3Ir.  Beecher?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  it  was  designed  for  my  use  so 
far  as  it  was  designed  at  all. 

Q.  For  your  use  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Beecher?  A.  In  one 
sense.   It  was  suggestions  to  me. 

Q.  Was  it  not  suggestions  in  regard  to  a  statement  con- 
templated to  be  made  or  submitted  to  Mr.  Beecher  1  A. 
It  was  a  statement  of  what  Gen.  Butler  thought  Mr, 
Beecher's  statement  should  be,  made  to  me. 

Q.  Very  well.  A.  That  is  what  it  was,  or  purported  to 
be,  and  he  started  to  make  it  and  then  stopped.  It  was 
giving  me  his  ideas  on  the  case. 

Q.  Did  he  take  that  off  with  him  !  A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  he  afterward  send  you  a  full  statement  pre- 
pared? A.  He  sent  me  afterward  a  package  which  I 
never  read  

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tracy  will  you  answer  my  question  1  A. 
Well,  T  cannot  tell  you  whether  it  was  completed  or  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— How  can  the  witness  tell  whether  it 
was  a  statement  when  he  does  not  know  that  it  was  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Cau't  he  say  so,  then? 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  this  is  the  fair  and  honest  way  of 
answering  it. 

^Iv.  Beach— Well,  I  don't  think  it  is  either  fair  or  honest. 
Mr.  Shearman— I  do. 

Mr.  Beach— Very  well.  If  you  want  to  get  into  a  con- 
troversy on  that  subject,  let  us  have  it  out. 

Mr.  Shearman— Very  weU,  let  us  have  it  out.  The  wit- 
ness is  asked  

Judge  Neilson  [rapping  on  his  desk |— That  will  do, 
■  gentlemen.  The  witness  says  that  Gen.  Butler  sent  him 
some  papers,  which  he  did  not  read. 

Mr.  Shearman— And  I  submit  to  your  Honor  that  that 
is  a  fair  and  honest  answer,  and  the  only  one  that  could 
be  fairly  and  honestly  made  to  the  question.  That  is  my 
proposition. 

Judge  Neilson— I  regard  it  as  an  answer.  There  is  no 
occasion  to  say  whether  it  is  honest  or  not.  The  witness 
needs  no  compliments. 


298 


THE   TILIOI^-BBFJJHER  TRIAL. 


Mr.  Shearman— Well,  the  counsel  upon  tlie  other  side 
V7as  attacking  the  witness,  when  he  said  that  it  was 
neither  fair  nor  honest. 

Judge  Neilson— That  was  improper. 

Mr.  Beach— It  was  not  improper,  Sir,  in  answer  to  the 
remark  of  the  counsel  upon  the  other  side. 

Judge  Neilson— If  it  was  not  applied  to  the  witness, 
very  well. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  we  are  to  understand  that  the 
gentleman's  remarks  are  made  entirely  in  a  Pickwickian 
sense. 

Judge  Neilson — Very  well. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  I  know  nobody  more  competent 
to  deal  in  Pickwickian  language  than  that  gentleman. 
[Laughter.] 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy,  did  you  afterward  receive  from  Gen.  But- 
ler a  paper  purporting  to  he  a  proposed  statement  for 
Mr.  Beecher?   A.  I  afterward  received  

Q.  Will  you  answer  my  question  ?  A.  I  cannot  tell  yon. 
Sir,  for  I  never  read  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  read  the  letter  accompanying  that 
paper  ?  A.  I  am  not  sure  that  any  letter  did  accompany 
it;  if  there  was  I  have  forgotten  it. 

Q.  You  have  forgotten  that  Mr.  Butler  wrote  you  a  let- 
ter accompanying  a  package  of  papers  he  sent  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Does  he  say  he  has  forgotten  ?  When  we 
"  forget"  a  thing  it  implies  we  once  knew  it.  He  says  he 
does  not  know  if  there  was  one. 

Judge  Neilson— There  is  something  in  that  distinction. 

Mr.  Evarts — He  says,  "  I  don't  know  there  was  such  a 
paper ;  if  there  was  I  have  forgotten  it." 

Mr.  Beach— What  is  my  question  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Whether  he  read  the  letter. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  not.  Let  the  stenographer  read  the 
question. 

[TTie  Tribune  stenographer  read  question  and  an- 
swer.] 

Mr.  Beach— You  have  forgotten  whether  or  not  he  sent 
you  a  letter?  A.  I  have  no  distinct  recollection;  since 
you  speak  of  it,  it  seems  to  me  I  did  see  a  letter  accom- 
panying the  package,  but  I  am  not  certain— or  that  came 
at  the  same  time  with  the  package. 

Q.  Did  not  that  letter  in  words  or  substance  state  to  you 
that  the  offense  of  Mr.  Beecher  was  adultery,  or  inter- 
cou»ee  with  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  that  the  paper  sent  was  the 
be^t  statement  he  could  make  under  the  circumstances  1 
A.  If  Gen.  Butler  wrote  me  a  letter  I  would  assume  that 
was  what  was  in  the  letter,  because  I  know  that  that  was 
Gen.  Butler's  view  of  the  case  at  the  tteae,  and  he  was 
trying  to  see  what  kind  of  a  statement  he  could  make,  on 
the  supposition  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  guilty. 

Q.  Exactly  1  Exactlj' !  That  was  the  basis  or  the  aspect 
of  the  case  represented  by  Mr.  Butler  in  your  conferences 
with  hlml  A.  Not  in  afl  the  conferences. 

Q.  In  the  conferences  in  Boston  and  the  conferences 
here  1  A.  About  the  conferences  in  Boston  I  don't  re- 


member wuat  Gen.  Butler's  impression  or  supposition 
was;  I  don't  know  that  he  stated  it;  I  know  distinctly 
that  iu  the  interview  at  Moulton's  house,  on  Aug.  10, 
Mr.  Butler  assumed  Mr.  Beecher's  guilt. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  vrith  the  package  of  papers  1  A.  I 
returned  it  to  Gen.  Butler,  without  even  keepiug  a  copy 
of  it. 

Q.  When  did  you  return  it?  A.  Well,  it  is  within,  I 
think,  two  months ;  it  was  buried  up  in  my  papers ;  I  got 
the  boy  overhauling  my  papers,  this  Winter,  and  had  a 
general  overhauling,  and  that  paper  turned  up;  I  had  not 
seen  it  before  since  the  time  I  got  it ;  I  directed  it  to  b& 
sent  back  to  Gen.  Butler,  and  I  suppose  it  was. 

Q.  When  you  and  Gen.  Butler  parted,  at  the  time 
of  the  interview  at  your  room,  did  you  not  part 
with  the  understanding  that  he  would  prepare  and  for- 
ward to  you  a  statement  ?  A.  Yes ;  he  said  it  would  con- 
tinue  

Q.  Wait ;  you  :i;ive  answered  my  quesdon.  I  did  not 
ask  that.  A.  You  say  a  statement.  I  don't  know  what 
you  call  a  statement ;  it  was  not  called  a  statement  by 
Gen.  Butler;  that  is  not  what  he  called  it,  nor  what  I 
called  it. 

Judge  Neilson — You  mean  a  written  view  about  it. 

Q.  Well,  if  it  was  not  a  statement,  what  was  it?  A. 
Well,  it  was  his  views  of  Mr.  Beecher's  case,  as  he  would 
present  them. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  not  in  a  form  to  be  presented  by  some- 
body else  beside  Mr.  Butler  \  A.  That  I  don't  know,  for 
I  never  read  it. 

Q.  Did  you  not  hear  the  dictation  %  A.  I  heard  what 
proceeded  in  the  dictation. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir ;  was  it  not  in  the  form  of  a  statement  1  A. 
I  think  it  began  in  the  form  of  a  statement — yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  when  he  left,  was  it  not  the  arrangement  be- 
tween him  and  you  that  he  should  continue,  or  finish 
what  he  had  begun  ?   A,  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Did  you  not  request  him  to  do  it?  A.  After  he 
offered  to.  . 

Q.  After  he  offered  to !  fLaughter.J  You  are  sure  that 
you  did  not  do  it  until  after  he  offered  1  A.  I  am  sure. 

Q.  But  you  did  request  him?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  after  h» 
offere;!. 

Q.  After  he  offered  to  do  it,  you  requeste  1  him ;  and  y'?t 
when  the  paper  came  on  here  you  did  not  deign  to  look 
atiti   A.  I  did  not,  for  it  was  too  ; 

Q.  When  did  it  come  1  A.  My  recollection  is  it  did 
not  arrive  until  after  Mr.  Beecher's  statement  was  pre- 
pared and  published ;  I  am  not,  however,  certain  of  that ; 
some  days  elapsed,  and  I  had  given  up  hearing  from  Gen. 
Butler  on  the  subject,  and  I  think,  if  I  remember  coiv 
rectly,  that  it  was  the  very  moruiug  that  Mr.  Beecher's 
statement  was  pub'ished  that  I  received  this  package 
from  Gen.  Butler,  but  of  that  I  am  n  >t  certain ;  I  Imowl 
did  not  read  it  at  the  time ;  I  know  that. 

Q.  Now,  was  it  not  understood  or  arranged,  or  dl» 


TESTIMONY   OF  BIB. 

oussed,  between  you  and  ]VIr.  Butler,  tliat  tliis  paper, 
wlucli  Butler  was  suggesting  or  preparing,  should  be  pre- 
sented and  read  by  Mr.  Beeeber  to  bis  ebureb,  and  tbat 
Mr.  Beecber  sbouldmakeno  statement  before  tbe  Investi- 
gating Committee  ?  A.  Mr.  Butler  made  a  suggestion  of 
how  be  would  treat  tbis  case. 

Q.  Ob  1  jyir.  Tracy,  please  answer  my  question  ?  A.  Ee- 
peat  it,  ISIr.  Beacb. 

Mr.  Beacb— Tbe  stenographer  will  please  read  it. 

Tbe  Tribune  stenographer  read  tbe  question  as  follows : 

"  Q.  Now,  was  it  not  understood  or  arranged  or  dis- 
cussed between  you  and  Mr.  Butler,  tbat  tbis  paper 
wMcb  Butler  was  suggesting  or  preparing  sbould  be 
presented  and  read  by  ]Vlr.  Beecber  to  bis  cbiu'cb,  and 
tbat  Mr.  Beecber  sbould  make  no  statement  before  tbe 
Investigating  Committee  V  A.  It  was  not  arranged  or 
underst('Od,  or  anything  of  the  kind;  that  was  Mr.  But- 
ler's suggestion. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  it  was  not  discussed  1  A.  It  was  men- 
tioned by  Gen.  Butler— yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  discussed?  A.  I  think  it  was  discussed,  in 
tbe  sense  that  he  made  tbe  proposition. 

Q.  Yes.  Well,  was  it  not  also,  in  connection  with  that 
suggestion,  understood  that  Mr.  Moulton  should  give  up 
to  Gen.  Butler  all  the  papers  which  he  had,  connected 
with  the  subject]   A.  It  was  not  imderstood. 

Q.  Was  it  not  arranged  tbat  be  should  do  it  1  A.  No, 
Sir ;  not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  it  was  not  arranged  tbat  be  should 
do  it  1  A.  In  what  contingency  ?  Let  me  understand  tbe 
question. 

Q.  In  what  contingency !  In  any  contingency— that  be 
sbould  give  up  the  papers  that  he  held  to  Gen.  Butler  ? 
A.  Gen.  Butler  said  in  tbe  conversation,  some  part  of 
It  

Q.  I  don't  want  that.  A.  I  cannot  speak  of  any  propo- 
sition Gen.  Butler  made  to  me,  that  was  an  arrange- 
ment or  imderstanding  or  an  agreement ;  I  cannot  say 
tbat. 

OFFER  TO  SHOW  THE  WITNESS'S  ANIMUS. 

Q.  Wlien  you  left  from  that  interview,  did 
you  not  understand  tbat  Mr.  Moulton  was  to  give  up  all 
tbe  papers  be  held  to  Mr.  Butler  i  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  can't 
say  tbat  I  imderstood  it. 

Q.  And  you  don't  know  tbat  Mr.  Moulton  sent  on  all 
tbe  papers  to  Mi\  Butler,  in  compliance  with  tbe  under- 
etanding  formed  at  that  interview  ?    i..  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  swear  to  tbat  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  imderstood 
Gen.  Butler  was  to  have  Mr.  Moulton  deliver  the  papers 
If  be  could,  or  be  made  a  suggestion  tbat  be  should  do  it. 

Q.  I  don't  want  to  go  into  details  on  tbe  subject  bo  as 
to  open  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  it  is  opened, 

Mr.  Beach— I  supposed  not ;  I  have  tried  to  keep  it  shut. 
Hr,  Evarts— You  have  not  succeeded. 


'^JAMIN   p.    TRACY,  297 

Mr.  Beacb— I  am  sorry;  but  if  you  bave  any  desire 
explore  it,  you  have  my  full  consent. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris]— What  is  tbis  letter  of  But- 
ler's? Is  this  of  any  importance?   [Looking  at  letter.] 

Mr.  Beach— Did  you  ever  see  tbis  letter,  Mr.  Tracy  f 
[Showing  letter  to  witness.] 

[Tbe  witness  looks  at  tbe  letter,  occupying  a  long  time- 
in  reading  it.] 

Mr.  Beacb— You  are  a  mighty  bad  reader. 

Tbe  Witness — I  am ;  I  bave  just  discovered  when  tliis^ 
was  written,  now;  I  can't  say  tbat  I  ever  saw  tbat  letter, 
IVIr.  Beach ;  I  see  when  it  was  writtem  and  tbe  occasion 
when  it  was  wi-itten. 

Q.  Was  it  not  wi-itten  in  your  presence !  A.  I  don't 
recollect  that  it  was.' 

Q.  Will  you  swear  it  was  not  ?  A.  No,  I  will  not  swear 
that  it  was  not ;  I  know  that  G^n.  Butler  

Mr.  Beach— Wait !  wait !  unless  you  want  to  go  into  an 
argument.  [Turning  to  Mr.  Morris.]  I  don't  see  the  im- 
portance of  this  letter,  or  tbe  pertinency  of  it  yet.  If 
anybody  else  does,  and  tells  me  what  it  is,  I  will  follow  it 
up  and  give  it  in  evidence.  [To  tbe  witness.]  Do  you 
recollect  tbe  conversation  you  bad  with  Mrs.  Moulton  on 
the  evening  of  Aug.  10,  being  Monday  evening !  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  That  was  tbe  evening  after  Mr.  Moulton  bad  made 
what  is  called  tbe  short  statement  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  place  of  tbe  long  one  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  is  that,  Mr.  Beach  ? 

Mr.  Beacb— Tbe  interview  with  Mrs.  Moulton  of  August 
tbe  lOtb. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  do  not  understand  tbat  an  interview 
between  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mrs.  Moulton  is  proper. 
Judge  Neilson— It  has  not  been  inquired  into,  has  it . 
Mr.  Evarts— No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  the  counsel  will  not  go  into  it. 
Mr.  Beacb— I  think  I  will,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton—That  does  not  follow,  if  your  Honor 
please. 

Judge  Neilson— It  would  follow,  unless  you  propose  to 
show  Mrs.  M'oulton  gave  the  witness  notice  of  something 
that  he  ought  to  know.  As  evidence  of  a  conversation  it- 
would  not  be  admissible. 

^Ir.  Fullerton— Why,  Sir,  the  dealing  of  tbis  witness 
with  any  person  connected  with  this  case  is  a  proper  sub- 
ject of  inquiry. 

Mr.  Evarts — I  don't  understand  bow  Mr.  Tracy  is  so 
identified  with  Mr.  Beecber  that  conversations  with  him. 
can  be  given.  We  could  not  get  Mr.  Moulton  into  tbat 
position. 

I     Mr.  Fullerton- We  do  not  propose  to  bold  Mr.  Beecber 
responsible  for  what  Mr.  Tracy  did  there.     It  is  Mr. 
Tracy  himself.   We  have  a  right  to  show  tbe  animus  of 
the  witness,  connected  with  what  he  did  and  said. 
I*Ir.  Evarts— Oh,  if  it  is  a  question  of  bias,  veiy  well. 


298  TEE  TILTON-B 

Mr.  Pullerton— Then  you  should  not  have  objected  until 
you  knew  what  it  was. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  we  have  a  right  to  ohject  untU  we  un- 
earth the  object. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  lay  on  the  top  of  the  earth,  to  be  seen 
with  half  an  eye. 

Judge  Neilson— I  confess  I  didn't  see  it  until  you  sug- 
gested it. 

Mr.  Fallerton— Then  I  am  glad  that  I  made  the  sugges- 
gestion,  your  Honor. 

Judge  Neilson — I  believe  it  is  time  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  wishes,  I  am  willing  to 
go  on. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  Friday  at  11  o'clock. 


SEVENTY-SIXTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

THE  DEFENSE  RESTS.  DECLINING  TO  CALL 

MRS.  TILTON. 
B.  F.  Tracy's  conversations  with  mrs.  moulton 

INQUIRED  INTO— ONE  OP  THEM  DECLARED  BY 
THE  WITNESS  TO  BE  CONFIDENTIAL— QUESTIONS 
AS  TO  THE  SUPPOSED  POSSIBILITY  OF  THE  DE- 
STRUCTION OF  THE  SCANDAL  DOCUMENTS— MR. 
TRACY  THE  LAST  WITNESS  FOR  THE  DEFENSE— 
plaintiff's  COUNSEL  OFFER  TO  ALLOW  MRS 
TILTON  TO  testify— MR.  EVARTS  DECLINES  THE 
PROPOSITION— OPENING  TESTIMONY  FOR  THE 
PLAINTIFF  IN  RKBUTTAL— CHARLES  C.  STANLEY, 
GEO.  W.  MADDOX,  AND  JOHN  SWINTON  TESTIFY 
ABOUT  MR.  TILTON'S  PLACE  IN  THE  ROSSEL  PRO- 
CESSION. 

Friday,  April  30,  1875. 

Mr.  Beach  resumed  the  cross-examination  of  Gen. 
Tracy.  His  first  question  was  whether  the  witness 
had  not  been  consulting  with  his  fellow-counsel 
about  his  testimony  just  before  taking  the  witness 
chair.  This  was  the  provocation  of  several  sharp 
replies  as  it  was  followed  up  by  similar  questions. 

One  01  the  most  important  portions  of  the  cross- 
examination  to-day  related  to  an  interview  be- 
tween Gen.  Tracy  and  Mrs.  Moulton  about  the  time 
when  Mr.  Moulton's  short  statement  to  the  Commit- 
tee was  substituted  for  his  long  one.  Mr.  Beach 
asked  if  the  witness  at  that  interview  had  said  to 
Mrs.  Moulton,  "  Emma,  you  are  a  brave  woman ; 
you  have  saved  the  old  man  to-day,"  and  if  he  had 
questioned  her  whether  she  wouldn't  destroy  the 
papers  if  Jeremiah  P.  Robinson  advised  it.  and  had 
said  to  her,  "If  Frank  ever  uses  that  statement  and 
the  letters,  you  will  be  ruined  socially,  financially, 
and  in  every  way."  Mr.  Tracy  replied  that  he  had 


WI^OHEB  TRIAL. 

had  a  conversation  with  Mrs.  Moulton  on  the  subjects 
referred  to  in  Mr.  Beach's  question,  but  that  in  sub- 
stance it  was  not  what  the  question  em- 
bodied. Before  replying  in  reference  to  this  con- 
versation Mr.  Tracy  objected  to  going  into  it,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  a  confidential  conversation  be- 
tween Mrs.  Moulton  and  himself.  Again,  on  his  re- 
direct examination,  Mr.  Tracy  said  that  he  hoped  he 
would  not  be  questioned  about  the  details  of  that 
conversation,  but  his  obiection  was  set  aside.  He 
testified  that  nothing  at  that  time  was  said  about 
the  destruction  of  the  papers,  either  then  or  at  a 
future  date.  Mr.  Tracy  denied  that  he  had  made 
other  statements  of  a  similar  character  in  a  previous 
conversation  with  Mrs.  Moulton  in  1874.  Mr.  Beach 
said  that  he  intended  to  recall  Mrs.  Moulton  and 
question  her  in  reference  to  these  conversations. 

Mr.  Moulton's  short  statement  was  read  by  Mr. 
Beach,  and  the  acts  of  the  Investigating  Committee 
were  once  more  inquired  into,  and  the  circumstances 
of  Mr.  Richards's  refusal  to  testify  before  the  Com- 
mittee were  touched  upon.  Mr.  Beach  asked  some 
very  searching  queijtions  about  the  relations  of  the 
witness  with  newspapers,  and  endeavored  to  find 
out  if  he  had  sought  to  influence  any  leading  news- 
papers in  favor  of  Mr.  Beecher  after  the  publication 
of  the  Bacon  letter.  Mr.  Tracy  said  he  had  not 
sought  to  influence  the  course  of  any  paper,  although 
he  had  talked  with  newspaper  men  about  the 
scandal. 

The  re-direct  examination  of  Mr.  Tracy  by  Mr. 
Evarts  was  short.  It  drew  out  the  fact  that  before 
Mr.  Tilton's  sworn  statement  was  made  public  Mr. 
Tracy  had  consulted  with  others  in  reference  to  pro- 
curing an  injunction  to  prevent  the  destruction 
of  the  papers.  There  was  genuine  surprise  exhibited 
among  the  spectators,  when,  having  asked  a  teyi 
more  questions  of  the  witness,  Mr.  Evarts  turned  to 
the  Court  and  said  in  a  low  voice,  "  We  rest."  Few 
had  expected  that  the  defense  would  finish  their 
case  this  week,  as  it  was  understood  that  there  were 
a  number  of  important  witnesses  yet  to  be  called  on 
that  side. 

THE    DEFENSE    DECLINE    TO   CALL  MRS. 
TILTON. 

Immediately  ttfter  the  closing  of  the  case  for  the 
defense  Mr.  Beach  arose,  and  after  remarking  that 
during  the  course  of  the  trial  many  references  had 
been  made  to  the  fact  that  there  were  legal  obsta- 
cles in  the  way  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  becoming  a  witness 
against  her  husband,  he  announced  that  the  proseoa- 


TESTIMONY   OF  BE 


SJAMLN  F.  TRACT. 


299 


tion  would  make  no  objection  whatever,  and  would 
waive  entirely  any  legal  objection,  which  they 
might  have  the  right  to  make,  to  Mrs.  Tilton's 
being  called  as  a  witness  by  the  defense.  Mr. 
Evarts  replied  that  the  question  whether 
Mrs.  Tilton  could  be  a  witness  in  this  case  had 
never  been  an  actual  question.  "  The  law,"  said  he, 
"  prohibits  it ;  the-  policy  of  the  law  prohibits  it ; 
the  general  sense  of  the  wisdom  of  that  law  pro- 
hibits it."  The  defense,  he  continued,  had  no  opin- 
ion and  no  view  that  their  case  needed  any  more 
testimony  than  they  had  produced.  All  questions 
about  their  duty  to  introduce  such  evidence  were 
hypothetical,  and  he  should  not  have  alluded  to 
them  in  the  least  but  for  the  proposition  of  the 
plaintilFs  counsel. 

Mr.  Beach  replied  that  he  thought  Mr.  Evarts  was 
mistaken  m  his  view  of  the  policy  of  the  law,  and 
the  question  whether  a  wife  should  be  allowed  to 
defend  herseK  when  placed  in  Mrs.  Tilton's  position. 

I  Mr.  Evarts  finally  said  that  he  did  not  regard  con- 
sent or  stipulation  between  the  parties  in  opposition 
to  a  law  which  excluded  a  witness  on  the  ground  of 
public  policy  as  making  hiin  or  her  competent. 
Judge  Neilson  remarked  that  the  offer  having  been 
made,  and  the  question  presented,  and  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  defense  thinking  it  their  duty  to  de- 
cline to  accept  the  suggestion,  he  felt  gratified  that 

,  the  lady  was  not  to  be  called.  The  vexed  question 
of  Mrs.  Tilton  s  becoming  a  witness,  which  has  led 
to  80  much  rumor  and  conjecture,  was  thus  finally 
settled. 

MR.  TILTON'S  PLACE  IN  THE  ROSSEL  PRO- 
CESSION. 

The  plaintiff's  counsel  began  their  evidence  in  re- 
buttal by  introducing  witnesses  to  prove  that  Mr. 
Tilton  did  not  ride  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss 
Claflin  in  the  Rossel  procession  in  December,  1871, 
and  that  Gen.  Ryan  had  been  mistaken  for  Mr.  Til- 
ton. The  first  witness  was  Charles  C.  Stanley,  a 
journeyman  carpenter  of  Brooklyn,  who  had  seen 
the  procession,  and  who  testified  that  he  had 
seen  Mr.  Tilton  walking  with  a  gentleman  during 
a  large  part  of  the  march  of  the  procession.  His  evi- 
dence was  followed  up  by  that  of  George  W.  Maddox, 
a  real  estate  broker  of  New- York,  who  had  been  in 
the  procession.  He  testified  that  he  had  seen  Mr. 
iTilton  walking  in  the  procession,  and  not  in  company 
with  any  lady.  On  his  cross-examination  by  Mr. 
Evarts,  this  witness  created  much  anmsement  by 
droll  replies. 


Mr.  Evarts  asked  him  if  he  had  ever  been  con- 
connected  with  a  newspaper  as  a  reporter.  "  Not  as 
a  reporter,"  replied  the  witness ;  "I  published  a 
paper  myself— got  out  three  whole  numbers."  A  roar 
of  laughter  succeeded  this  reply,  while  Judge  Neil- 
son  rapped  angrily  with  his  gavel,  and  the  officers 
looked  around  bewildered. 

"Into  whose  hands  did  the  paper  pass!"  asked 
Mr.  Evarts. 

"It  passed  into— defunct,"  was  the  dry  reply.  This 
produced  another  burst  of  merriment,  and  the  wit- 
ness covered  his  mouth  with  his  hand  and  laughed 
slyly  at  his  own  joke.  "  Then,"  said  Mr.  Evarts,  "  it 
passed  from  the  undertaker  into  the  hands  of  the 
undertaker."  The  name  of  the  short-lived  paper 
was  The  International. 

Mr.  Evarts  wanted  to  know  at  what  points  the 
witness  had  seen  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  Rossel  procession. 
"  It  would  be  quite  impossible,"  replied  the  witness, 
"for  me  to  designate  any  particular  point  where  I 
saw  him— that  is,"  he  added  by  a  pause,  "I 
think  I  can't  tell ;  but  peg  away,  perhaps  I  can.'- 
Mr.  John  Swinton  was  the  last  witness  called  for  the 
plaintiff.  He  testified  that  he  had  marched  arm  in 
arm  with  Mr.  Tilton  from  near  the  point  where  the 
Rossel  procession  was  formed  to  the  place  where  it 
disbanded,  and  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  not  walked  wyfch 
Mrs.  Woodhull  or  Miss  Claflin.  Mr.  Swinton  proved 
to  be  an  amusing  witness  when  cross-examined.  He 
had  stated  that  he  had  allowed  the  procession  to  get 
out  of  sight  and  had  attempted  to  head  it  off  by  cut- 
ting through  side  streets,  and  that  he  had  finally 
reached  it  near  the  middle  where  he  found  Mr.  Til- 
ton ;  from  that  point  he  added  that  he  could  see 
neither  end  of  it. 

"  Was  it  on  a  trot  ?"  asked  Mr.  Evarts.  "  Well,* 
replied  the  witness,  "  I'm  of  an  indolent  habit,  and 
perhaps  as  I  went  along  I  was  musing  on  the  in- 
finite." "  And  you  struck  the  infinite,"  quickly  re- 
turned Mr.  Evarts,  "  about  the  middle,  so  that  you 
could  see  neither  end  of  it." 

The  Court  adjourned  half  an  hour  before  the  usual 
time,  by  request  of  the  plaintiiFs  lawyers,  whose  wit- 
nesses were  not  all  at  hand.  On  Monday  they  will 
produce  other  testimony  in  regard  to  the  Rossel  pro- 
cession, and  will  also  introduce  testimony  con- 
cerning Mrs.  Woodhull's  relations  to  the  case. 


300  THE  TILIVN-I 

THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

GEN.  TRACY'S  CROSS-EXAMINATION  CON- 
TINUED. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
jOTUTiment. 

Judge  Neilson— We  will  proceed,  gentlemen. 

Benjamin  F.  Tracy  was  recalled,  and  his  cross-exam- 
ination resumed. 

Mr.  Beach— Have  you  been  consulting  with  Mr.  Evarts 
this  morning  in  regard  to  your  testimony?  A.  Mr. 
Evarts  

Q.  Have  you  been  consulting  with  him  in  regard  to 
your  testimony  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  that.  He  said  to  me 
that  he  should  probably  ask  me  a  question,  half  a  minute 
before  I  took  my  seat  here. 

Q.  A  half  a  minute?    A.  Yes ;  the  last  thing  he  did. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  in  consultation  with  him?  A. 
Long  enough  for  him  to  say  to  me,  "  I  shall  probably  ask 
you  "  

Q.  Wait  a  moment  I  A.  Excuse  me.  Long  enough  for 
him  to  pronounce  a  sentence  of  half  a  dozen  worde, 
probably. 

Q.  Is  that  all?  A.  That  is  all,  Sir,  on  the  subject. 

Q.  That  is  the  whole  length  of  the  conversation  yiJuhad 
with  him  ?  A.  That  is  the  whole  length  of  the  conversa- 
tion that  I  had,  with  Mr.  Evarts  this  morning,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  my  evidence.  I  talked  with  him  in  other  respects, 
on  another  subject  entirely. 

Q.  Not  on  the  subject  of  the  case  ?  A.  Not  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  case,  or  the  evidence  of  the  case. 

Q.  Or  on  any  matter  connected  with  the  case  ?  A.  A 
matter  connected  with  it,  in  regard  to  me  personally  ; 
yes.  Sir. 

A  CONFIDENTIAL  TALK  BETWEEN  GEN. 
TRACY  AND  MRS.  MOULTON. 

Q.  Yes,  I  was  calling  your  attention,  Sii', 
yesterday,  to  a  conversation  you  had  with  Mrs.  Moulton ; 
when  was  that,  with  reference  to  the  statement  which 
was  made  by  Mr.  Moulton  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  It 
was  the  statement — the  short  statement,  you  mean  ? 

Q.  It  was  on  that  night         A.  The  same  evening. 

Q.  At  the  time  of  that  interview  had  you  learned— did 
you  understand  that  that  short  statement  had  been  sub- 
stituted for  a  proposed  long  statement  ?  A,  I  did. 

Q.  And  that  Mrs.  Moulton  had  been  to  a  degree  instru- 
mental in  accomplishing  the  substitution  ?  A.  To  a  very 
large  degree,  I  understood. 

Q.  To  a  very  large  degree.  Is  that  the  short  statement 
to  which  you  refer,  Mr.  Tracy  [indicating  a  statement  in 
"  The  Great  Brooklyn  Romance  "]  ?  A.  [After  looking.] 
Glancing  at  it,  without  reading  it,  Mr.  Beach,  I  assume 
that  it  is. 

Q.  That  is  the  statement  in  this  book  which  purports  to 
ave  been  given  on  Aug.  10  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir,  Aug.  10. 


EEGREB  TBIAL. 
Q.  1874  ?   A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have,  upon  the  occasion  to  which  we  refer, 
this  conversation  with  Mrs.  Moulton  in  substance — 

The  Witness— Before  you  proceed  to  read,  Mr.  Beach, 
will  you  allow  me  to  say  

Mr.  Beach— Anything,  Sir. 

The  Witness— That  at  the  time  that  I  had  that  conver- 
sation I  regarded  it  as  confidential,  with  Mrs.  Moulton. 
I  assume,  by  your  going  into  it,  that  you  have  the  lady's 
consent  to  open  that  conversation  here. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  T  have  not  asked  her  consent.  I  do 
not  undei'Stand,  though,  that  she  makes  any  objection  to 
your  speaking  of  it. 

The  Witness— Very  well,  Sir ;  I  assume  that  the  lady 
consents. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  shall  assume,  if  your  Honor  please,  if 
this  conversation  is  drawn  out  in  part  by  the  platntiflf  * 
coimsel,  that,  so  far  as  any  question  of  confidence  goes, 
this  witness  is  relieved  in  regard  to  any  of  the  rest  of  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  do  not  know  what  all  this  solemn 
formality  means.  Sir.  I  have  never  understood  that 
there  was  any  confidential  intercom'se  between  Mr.  Tracy 
auu  Mrs.  Moulton. 

Mr.  Evarts— Verj^  well. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  very  sure  the  lady  does  not  consider 
it  so. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  enough.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— It  would  be  desirable  to  respect  the 
confidential  character  of  the  intercourse,  if  the  witness 
80  regards  it,  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  your  duty. 
That  is  all.  You  are  the  judge  about  that. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir.  [To  the  witness.]  Well,  you  don't 
put  the  idea  of  confidence  upon  the  relation  of  client  and 
counsel  ? 

The  Witness— Oh,  no,  Sir.  It  was  a  conversation  which 
I  held  with  a  lady,  in  her  own  house  ;  a  lady  who  T  sup- 
posed at  the  time  had  confidence  in  me,  and  then  re- 
garded me  as  her  friend.  It  was  a  conversation  when  she 
was  in  an  excited  state,  to  a  degree,  and  it  is  a  conversa- 
tion that  I  have  sacredly  respected  up  to  the  time  when 
you  broached  it  here,  ast  night,  never  having  communi- 
cated it  to  my  associates,  even. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes. 

JOKES  BETWEEN  THE  LAWYERS. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  only  point  is  tliis,  if  your 
Honor  please,  that  we  shall  claim  the  right  to  go  into  tlie  ^ 
whole  conversation,  so  far  as  it  is  pertinent  to  the  cause, 
and  important ;  and  it  cannot  be  imputed  to  Mr.  Tiaoy 
that  he  acts  with  impropriety,  under  that  rule  of  law 
which  requires  him  to  state  the  whole  conversation,  in 
order  to  make  it  an  exhibition  of  the  interview— states 
the  rest  of  it,  when  they  have  drawn  out  this  part  of  it. 
That  is  all  I  have  to  say  about  it. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  I  suppose.  Sir,  that  the  witness  upon 
the  stand,  as  a  coumsellor  of  this  Court,  and  the  gentle- 


TESIIMOSJ   OF  BEyjA^LIX  F.  TRACY. 


301 


man  "^lio  makes  fhis  minatory  address  to  us,  understand 
1  erfectly  well  that  wlien  I  call  out  a  conversation,  or  a 
part  of  a  conversation,  from  this  witness  on  tlie  stand,  it 
is  entirely  competent  for  tliem  to  ask  attention  to  ttie 
remainder  of  tlie  conversation  wLlcli  relates  to  tlie  sub- 
ject about  vrMcli  I  have  inquired,  and  I  do  not  see  any 
necessity  for  this  grand  formality. 

Judge  Xeilson— Mr.  Evarts's  suggestion  proceeds  upon 
Tlie  theory  that  if  you  call  out  a  part  of  The  conversation 
he  might  not  feel  at  liberty  to  respect  The  idea  ThaT  iT  was 
coufidenTial,  and  might  be  obliged  to  call  out  the  rest 
of  it. 

Mr.  Beach— This  idea  of  a  confidential  communication 
i6  entirely  a  figment  of  the  other  side.  There  is  no  confi- 
dence about  it.  It  was  an  ordinary  conversation  in  regard 
to  a  transaction,  then  occurring,  with  which  the  husband 
of  Mrs.  Moulton  was  then  connected. 

Judge  Neilson — ^You  have  a  right  to  examine  in  regard 
to  it.  of  course. 

.'■•rr.  Evarts— I  am  sorry  my  learned  friend  thinks  it 
necessary  to  apply  opprobrious  epithets. 

Mr.  Beach— How  opprobrious? 

Mr.  Evarts — To  me. 

Mr.  Beac^h— Certninly  not.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Or  to  my  statement? 

Mr.  Beach— CV'rtainly  not.  Sir  ;  certainly  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  supposed  that  what  T  said  was  sp^.d  in 
the  calmest  manner,  and  with  the  utmost  good  faith,  and 
■with  the  best  intentions  :  and  yet  my  learned  friend  has 
chosen  to  characterize  what  I  said  as  minatory. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  opprobrious. 

Mr.  Evarts— T  thinlv  it  is.  Whether  it  is  as  opprobrious 
as  some  epithets  might  be  

Mr.  Fullerton— Tt  is  a  Brooklyn  term.  Sir,  not  used  in 
the  ordinary  sense.  [Laughter,] 

Mr.  Evarts— He  says  it  is  not.  It  was  said  in  a  tone 
and  with  appar  nt  feeling,  as  if  my  remark  implied  some 
discredit.   I  had  no  such  intention. 

WHAT  WAS  XOT  SAID  13ETWEEX  GEN.  TRACY 
AXD  MES.  MOULTOX. 
Mr.  Beach— I  am  not  going  to  say  any  more. 
[Laua-hter.]  [To  the  witness.]  Did  you  have,  in  sub- 
stance, this  conversation  with  Jklrs.  Moulton  at  the  time 
referred  to : 

"  Emma,  you  are  a  brave  woman ;  you  have  saved  the 
old  man  to-day ;  I  have  just  come  from  him,  and  he  has 
sent  his  love  to  you,  and  says  he  relies  upon  you  to  save 
him  ;'•  Mrs.  Moulton  replying,  "I  don't  know  how  I  can 
save  him;"  and  you  replying  to  that,  "  I  will  tell  you. 
Burn  Frank's  long  statement,  and  bum  all  the  papers  he 
tas  on  the  subject ;"  to  which  Mrs.  Moulton  said,  "  I  thmk 
the  time  has  passed  for  the  destruction  of  papers;"  to 
"Which  Tou  said,  "  Won't  you  destroy  the  papers  if  Jere- 
miah Robinson  advises !"  and  Emma  said,  "  No,  I  won't 
do  that  on  any  one's  advice;"  to  which  you  said,  "WeU, 
if  Frank  ever  uses  that  statement  and  letters,  you  will  be 
mined,  socially,  flnancially,  and  in  every  way.** 


A.  You  ask  me  if  I  had  that  conversation,  in  subatance  \ 
Q.  Yes.   A.  I  had  a  conversation  with  her  on  the  sub- 
jects  

Q.  Answer  me  that.  A.  I  will  in  a  moment— on  the  sub- 
jects alluded  to  there. 

Q.  What  1  A.  I  had  a  conversation  with  her  

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  in  substance  like  thati 
A.  No,  Sir ;  not  in  substance  like  what  you  have  read  to 
j  me. 

j     Q.  Very  well.   It  is  easy  to  answer  that. 

I     Mr.  Evarts— He  was  going  to  state,  not  what  the  con- 

j  versation  was,  but  that  he  had  a  conversation  with  her 

i  on  the  subject. 

I 

I        ME.  MOULTOX'S  SHORT  STATEMEXT. 

I 

!     Mr.  Beacli— I  sliall  probably  ask  him  about 

that— I  will  now.  [To  the  witness.]  Did  you  have  a  con- 
versation referring  to,  or  based  upon,  the  circumstance 
that  Mr.  Moulton  had  substituted  the  short  statement  for 
the  long  statement  before  the  Committee  ?   A.  I  did. 

Mr.  Beach— I  propose  to  read  that  statement,  Sir,  as 
evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  in  evidence,  as  I  understand. 
The  Witness— Oh.  no. 

Mr.  Beach  [in  reply  to  a  suggestion  by  one  of  the 
fendant's  counsel]— No.  this  is  not  the  one  that  was  read 
to  Mr.  Beecher. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Shearman,  has  that  short  state- 
ment been  put  in  evidence  i 

Mr.  Shearman— No,  Sir.  There  are  so  many  long  state- 
ments, that  some  statements  are,  by  comparison,  short. 

Judge  Neilson— I  put  the  question  to  you  because  you 
seem  to  understand  this  better  than  anyone  else. 

Mr.  Beach  then  read  the  statement  as  follows : 

GE>-TLEirEy  OF  THE  Co>niiTTEE :  When  I  was  last  be- 
fore you  I  stated  that  I  would,  at  yom-  request,  produce 
such  documents  as  I  had,  and  make  such  statements  of 
facts  as  had  come  to  my  knowledge  on  the  subject  of 
your  inquiry.  I  fully  intended  so  to,  do,  and  have  pre- 
pared my  statement  of  facts  as  sustained  by  the  docu- 
ments, and  made  an  exhibit  of  all  the  papers  that  have 
come  in  any  way  into  my  possession,  bearing  on  the 
controversy  between  the  parties.  That  statement  must, 
of  course,  bear  with  more  or  less  force  upon  one  or  the 
other  of  them.  On  mature  reflection,  aided  by  the  advice 
of  my  most  valued  friends,  I  have  reconsiderea  that  de- 
termination, and  am  obliged  to  say  to  you  that  I  feel 
compelled  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  the  parties,  to  my  re- 
lation to  their  controversy,  and  to  myself,  neither  to 
make  the  statement  nor  produce  the  docrmients.  When 
I  first  became  a  party  to  the  unhappy  controversy  be- 
tween Beecher  and  Tiltoa,  I  had  no  personal  imowledge, 
nor  any  document  in  my  possession,  which  could  affect 
either.  Everything  That  I  know  of  fact,  or  have  received 
of  papers,  has  come  to  me  in  the  most  sacred  confidence, 
to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  compoeing  and  settling  aU. 
difficulties  between  them,  and  of  preventing,  so  far  as 
possible,  any  knowledge  of  their  private  affairs  being 
brought  to  the  public  notice.  For  this  ptirpose  all  their 
matters  have  been  intrusted  to  me  and  lor  none  ocher. 
If  I  should  now  use  them,  it  would  he  not  for  the  par. 


303 


THE    TlLlON-BhJECEEE  TRIAL. 


pose  of  peace  and  reconciliation,  but  to  voluntarily  take 
part  in  a  controversy  whicli  they  have  seen  tit  to 
renew  between  themselves. 

How  faithfully,  earnestly,  and  honestly  I  have  labored 
to  do  my  duty  to  the  parties  for  peace,  they  both  know. 
The  question  for  me  to  settle  for  myself,  and  no  other,  is 
now,  ought  I  to  do  anything  to  aid  either  party  in  a  re- 
newed controversy  by  use  of  that  which  I  received  and 
have  used  only  to  promote  harmony  ?  On  my  honor  and 
conscience  I  think  I  ought  not.  And  at  the  risk  of  what- 
ever of  misconstruction  and  vituperation  may  come  upon 
me,  I  must  adhere  to  the  dictates  of  my  own  judgment, 
and  preserve,  at  least,  my  own  self-respect. 

I  call  attention  again  to  the  fact  that  yours  is  a  mere 
voluntary  tri1)unal,  and  whatever  I  do  here  is  done  by  a 
volimtaryand  not  compelled  witness.  Whether  before 
any  tribunal  having  the  power  to  compel  the  production 
of  testimony  and  statement  of  fact  I  shall  ever  produce 
these  papers  or  give  any  of  these  confidential  statements, 
I  reserve  to  myself  to  judge  of  the  emergency,  which  I 
hope  may  never  come. 

Against  my  wish— as  I  never  have  been  in  sympathy 
with  a  renewal  of  this  conflict— a  part  of  these  documents 
have  been  given  to  the  public.  In  so  far  confidence  in 
regard  to  them  has  ceased.  It  is  but  just,  therefore,  and 
due  to  the  parties,  that  the  whole  of  those  documents, 
portions  of  which  only  have  been  given,  shall  be  put  into 
your  hands,  in  response  to  the  thrice-renewed  request  of 
the  Committee.  I  have,  therefore,  copies  of  them,  which 
I  produce  here  and  place  in  the  hands  of  the  Committee, 
with  the  hope  and  request  that  after  they  have  been  ex- 
amined by  them  they  may  be  retm-ned  to  me. 

If  any  controversy  shall  arise  as  to  the  authenticity  of 
the  copies  or  of  the  documents,  on  that  point  I  snail  hold 
myself  open  to  speak.  With  this  exception — except  in 
defense  of  my  own  honor  and  the  uprightness  of  my 
course  in  all  this  unfortunate  and  unhappy  bTisiness,  the 
purity  and  candor  of  which  I  appeal  to  the  consciences  of 
both  parties  to  sustain— I  do  not  propose,  and  hope  I  may 
never  be  called  upon  hereafter  to  speak,  either  as  to  the 
facts  or  to  nroduce  any  paper  that  I  have  received  from 
either  of  the  parties  involved  herein. 

Frank  Moulton. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy,  were  you  present  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Committee  upon  the  10th  of  August,  at  which  that  short 
statement  was  presented  by  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with  him  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  tliat  statement  before  he  went  before  the  Com- 
mittee 1  A.  You  mean  at  Mr.  Storrs's  house,  before  he 
went  before  the  Committee? 

Q.  Yes,  at  Mr.  Storrs's  house,  before  he  went  before  the 
Committee  %  A.  Yes,  Sir,  for  half  a  minute  or  so,  or 
something  like  that.  I  ju  ;!  spoke  to  him  on  the  subject 
of  his  statement  before  he  went  before  the  Committee. 

Q.  Did  he  not,  before  he  went  before  the  Committee, 
state  to  you  the  substance  of  the  statement  ?  A.  No ;  ex- 
cept by  referring  to  the  character  of  the  statement  in  a 
way  so  that  I  understood  it  was  not  to  be  th;'  long  state- 
ment which  he  had  proposed  to  submit,  but  a  substituted 
statement. 

Q.  Well,  a  substituted  statement  in  general  to  the  eflfect 
of  the  one  which  I  have  just  read  ?  A.  Well,  from  previous 
conversation  I  inferred  from  what  Jie  said  that  it  was  to 


be  of  the  character,  or  something  of  the  character,  of  that 
statement. 

Q.  Was  not  that  conversation  in  the  presence  of  Mr. 
Munson,  the  gentleman  who  sits  before  me  1  A.  It  was ; 
Mr.  Munson  was  present  at  that  meeting. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  was  not  Mr.  Mtmson  present  in  the  front 
parlor  of  Mr.  Storrs's  house  on  that  occasion,  at  a  con- 
versation between  you  and  Mr.  Moulton,  in  regard  to  this 
statement,  and  in  that  conversation  did  not  Mr.  Moulton, 
in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Munson,  communicate  to  you  the 
substance  of  the  statement  I  have  just  read  ?  A.  I  cannot 
remember  whether  Mr.  Munson  was  present  in  the  front 
parlor  or  not.  I  know  he  came  with  Mr.  Moulton  that 
day,  and  was  present  with  the  Committee ;  and  I  un- 
derstand that  Mr.  Moulton  did  communicate  to  me  in  sub- 
stance  

Q.  That  will  do.  A.  So  I  understood— that  the  short 
statement  was  to  be  substituted  for  his  contemplated 
statement,  in  substance  what  it  proved  to  be;  although  1 
never  had  seen  or  heard  read  that  statement  until  I  heard 
him  read  it  there. 

Q.  Did  you,  upon  the  occasion  of  that  interview,  ex- 
press your  approval  of  the  change  of  policy  adopted  by 
Mr.  Moulton  1  A.  I  have  no  doubt  I  did. 

Q.  Had  you  before  that  labored  to  produce  that  result;  I 
A.  Yes,  Sii' ;  in  a  sense  I  had. 

Q.  Did  you  have  another  conversation  with  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton prior  to  the  one  to  which  I  have  just  called  your  at- 
tention, in  the  Summer  of  1874,  and,  I  think,  after  the 
call  of  the  fnvestigating  Committee  ?  A.  Well,  without 
more  definite  specification,  I  cannot  say,  except  to  say 
that  I  had  several  conversations  with  Mrs.  Moulton  dur- 
ing the  Summer  of  1874. 

Q.  WeU,  it  was  after  the  Bacon  letter  %  A.  Oh,  yes  ;  I 
had  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  it  until  after  the  Bacon 
letter  in  1874. 

Q.  I  have  omitted  one  question  in  regard  to  this  other 
conversation,  which  was  on  a  separate  memorandum  and 
not  brought  to  my  attention.  Did  you,  in  the  interview 
with  Mrs.  Moulton,  of  which  I  have  inquired,  say  in  sub- 
stance to  Mrs.  Moulton,  "  Kick  Tilton  out  of  the  house, 
and  destroy  the  statements  and  letters.  If  you  do  not, 
they  will  destroy  you  and  your  family,  socially  and  pecu- 
niarily ?  "  A.  No,  Sir  ;  not  m  the  sense  that  that  is  put 
there ;  not  in  the  manner. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  not  say  that  in  substance  t  A.  No ;  not 
in  the  manner  that  question  

Q.  No  ;  I  am  not  asking  about  the  manner— did  you  say 
that  in  substance  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  not  in  substance  ;  I  can 
tell  you  why  I  did  not,  if  you  want  to  know.  The  ques- 
tion, as  you  put  it  there,  conveys  an  entirely  differou; 
meaning  from  our  talk — my  talk  at  Mr.  Moulton's. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Tracy,  I  did  not  refer  to  manner  or  asao- 
cialion  1   A.  No  ;  I  refer  to  suljject  matter. 

Q.  I  i-efer  to  the  substance  of  this  language.  A.  So  do  I. 

Q.  Very  well ;  I  understand  it.   Now,  Sir,  in  the  prior 


TJ'JS'IIMONY   OF  BE 

conversation  to  wliicli  I  liave  just  alluded,  did  you  in 
substance  say  to  Mrs.  Moulton,  "The  truth  nuist  not 
come  out  in  this  case ;  Mr.  Beeeher  must  not  go  down ; 
think  of  the  effect  upon  the  church,  and  its  demoralizing 
effect  upon  young  men!"  A.  No,  Sir;  I  never  had  any 
such  conversation  with  Mrs.  Moulton,  except  the  last 
phrase,  probably— the  subject  of  the  demoralizing  effect 
of  this  scandal  has  been  the  subject  of  conversation  be- 
tween Mrs.  Moulton  and  myself. 

ME.  RICHARDS' S  APPEARANCE  BEFORE  THE 
COMMITTEE. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Richards  when  he  was 
belore  the  Committee  1   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  him  at  the  place 
where  the  Committee  met,  before  he  presented  himself 
to  the  Committee]  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  any  questions  in  regard  to  what  he 
knew  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  his  sister  had  ever  con- 
fessed to  him  to  adultery  with  Mr.  Beeeher  1  A.  I  did ;  I 
did  in  substance,  I  think. 

Q.  In  substanbe  ?  A.  No,  I  did  not ;  that  is  not  the 
form  of  the  question. 

Q.  Well,  in  substance  that  \  A.  No ;  I  asked  him  if  his 
sister  had  ever  

Q.  One  m(<»iient.   A.  Excuse  me. 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  what  you  asked  him.  Did  you  not,  iu 
substance,  inquire  of  him  whether  his  sister,  Mrs.  Tilton, 
had  ever  admitted  to  him  adultery  with  IVIr.  Beeeher  ? 
A.  I  don't  think  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  not,  in  answer  to  your  question,  Mr.  Richards 
say  to  you  that  he  declined  to  answer  it,  or  in  substance 
that  1  A.  Mr.  Eich^ds  declined  to  answer  

Q.  Oh,  I  don't  ask  what  it  was— I  ask  you  If  he  did  not 
Bay  that,  in  substance  ?  A.  Well,  I  say  I  don't  remember 
putting  such  a  question  tu  Mr.  Richards. 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  remember  his  declining  to  answer  % 
A.  Oh,  yes,  Sir;  I  remember  his  declining  to  hold  any 
conversation  with  me,  or  commimicating  to  me  anything 
of  what  he  knew  in  regard  to  this  case. 

Q.  What  1  A.  I  know  that  Mr.  Richards  said  that  he 
would  commimicate  nothing  to  me  of  what  he  knew  or 
did  not  know  in  regard  to  that  matter ;  that  it  was  a  family 
matter,  into  which  he  had  refused  to  be  drawn,  and  would 
not  be  drawn. 

Q.  Well,  I  did  not  ask  you  about  that,  Sir  ;  my  question 
has  altogether  a  different  significance.  Did  you  not  in 
that  interview  put  a  question  to  Mr.  Richards  calling 
upon  him  to  state  whether  or  not  his  sister,  Mrs.  Tilton, 
had  confessed  or  admitted  to  him  (Mr  Richards)  or  to 
Mrs.  Richards,  his  wife,  the  fact  of  Illicit  connection,  or 
advdtery,  or  aejual  intercourse,  with  Mr.  Beeeher  1  A. 
No,  Sir— not  as  speciflcaUy  as  you  put  it,  nor  in  substance 


WJAMi:^   F.    TRACY.  303 
Q.  I  asked  you  whether  you,  in  substance,  put  a  uy  in- 
quiry of  that  character]   A.  I  answered  you,  not  in  sub- 
stance. 

Q.  Very  well.  Now,  did  not,  in  answer  to  such  an  in- 
quiry upon  your  part,  Mr.  Richards  decline  to  answer 
any  such  interrogatory]  A.  Mr.  Richards  declined  to 
answer  any  interrogatory,  and  gave  me  notice  that  he 
would  not  answer  any  interrogatory  concerning  his  family 
relations. 

Q.  Well,  we  have  got  that  before  ]  A.  Well. 
Q.  Now,  was  not  such  an  iaquiry,  in  substance,  put 
hiru,  and  did  not  Mr.  Richards  then  decline  to  answer  it ; 
and  did  you  not,  in  substance,  reply:  "That  won't  do; 
that  in  substance  affirms  the  truth  of  It  ] "  A.  No ;  I  can 
tell  you  what  did  transpire,  Mr.  Beach,  if  you  wist  to 
know  exactly. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  very  often  addressed  that  to  me,  and 
you  have  found  that  your  very  kind  offer  has  not  been 
accepted]  A.  I  know  it  has  not. 

Q.  And  it  won't  be  accepted  in  future,  so  you  can  keep 
it  back.  A.  You  frame  a  question  to  call  for  a  particular 
answer,  which  I  cannot  give. 

AN  INTERVIEW  BETWEEN  GEN.  TRACY  AND 
MISS  TURNER. 

Q.  Certainly  I  do;  the  substance  of  a  particu- 
lar answer  i  call  for.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with 
Bessie  Tiarner  before  she  went  before  the  Committee!  A. 
I  did. 

Q.  Where  was  it  ]  A.  At  Mrs.  Ovington's,  I  think. 
Q.  When  did  you  become  acquainted  with  Miss  Turner? 
A.  The  same  evening  she  went  before  the  Committee  ; 
never  saw  her  before. 

Q.  And  about  what  time  of  the  day  did  you  form  her 
acquaintance]    A.  WeU,  I  can't  teU  you  definitely;  it 
was  in  the  aftenioon,  some  time. 
Q.  Where  ]  A.  At  Mr.  Ovington's.  , 
Q.  And  did  you  have  a  conversation  with  her  that  after- 
noon upon  the  piazza  of  Mr.  Ovington's  house!    A.  I 
should  say  not.  Sir. 
Q.  Sir?  A.  I  shotQd  say  not. 

Q.  Did  you  have  one  with  her  in  the  back  parlor !  A. 
In  the  back  parlor— I  should  say  it  occurred  in  the  back 
parlor,  but  I  am  not  certain  about  that. 

Q.  You  are  right,  I  think  ?  A.  It  occurred  in  the  back 
parlor  somewhere. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  A.  B.  Martin!  A.  I  do  not  think  I 
do. 

Q.  Did  you  see  a  gentleman  of  that  name,  at  the  time 
of  your  conversation  with  Bessie  Turner,  sitting  upon  the 
piazza,  right  in  the  rear  of  the  back  parlor!  A.  No,  Sir,  I 
did  not. 

Q.  Didn't  you  see  him !  A.  No,  I  don't  know  that  I 
did;  I  don't  recoUect  any  such  thing. 
Q.  Well,  do  you  remember  of  seeing  a  gentleman  therOt 


804  THE  TILTON-BI 

Ml'.  Martin,  or  a  stranger  to  you,  at  the  time— on  tlie  occa- 
sion when  you  had  an  interTi»'W  with  Bessie  Turner  !  A. 
I  don't  remember  any  such  thing,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  that  interview?  A.  "Well,  I  have  no 
definite  recollection,  except  :hat  it  was  short. 

Q.  Did  you  not  have  an  interview  upon  that  occasion 
with  Bessie  Turner,  in  which  you  conversed  with  her  in 
regard  to  her  Imowledge  of  this  discussion,  of  over  an 
hour?   A.  I  should  say  not,  Sir,  over  an  hour. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  it  was  not?  A.  I  won't  swear 
definitely  as  to  the  time;  I  cannot  do  that. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  it  was  not  over  two  hours  1  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  You  will «  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  only  positive  oath  you  will  give  as 
to  the  length  of  the  interview  ?  A.  Well,  I  should  say, 
my  best  recollection  

Q.  No  ;  wait,  wait,  wait !  A.  Yes  ;  I  am  going  to  an- 
swer. Sir. 

Q.  No  ;  I  don't  think  you  were.  A.  Well,  I  thought  so. 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  positive  statement  you  will  make 
in  regard  to  the  length  of  the  interview  1  A.  Well,  I 
don't  know  what  you  call  a  positive  statement,  Mr. 
Beach. 

Q.  Well,  I  mean  a  statement,  sworn  to  positively,  un- 
der oath.  A.  I  can't  say ;  according  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection,  Sir  

Q.  I  don't  ask  you  that,  according  to  your  best  recol- 
lection.  A.  [Continuing.]  Tt  was  not  over  an  hour. 

Q.  Very  well ;  is  that  all  you  will  say  about  it  ?  A.  That 
is  as  positive  as  I  will  be ;  I  cannot  be  more  positive  than 
to  give  you  my  best  recollection. 

MR.    WOODRUFFS    INFORMATION  ABOUT 
THE  MONEY  TRANSACTIONS. 

Q.  Well,  that  answers  it,  Sir.  Yesterday  I 
omitted  to  ask  you  a  question  in  regard  to  Mr.  Woodruff 
and  the  subject  «£  your  having  conversed  with  him  in 
regard  to  money  for  Mr.  Tilton  or  his  family  furnished 
by  Mr.  Beecher— after  the  conversations  to  which  your 
attention  was  directed  yesterday,  did  you  not  have  an 
interview,  and  shortly  after  (last  Summer,  though,  I 
think  it  was)  an  interview  with  Mr.  Woodruff,  in  which 
he  leproached  you  for  having  revealed  to  Mr.  Moulton 
the  fact  that  he  (Mr.  Woodruff)  had  told  you  in  regard  to 
money  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  did. 

Q.  And  did  you  apologize  to  him  for  having  revealed 
it?  A.  In  a  sense  I  apologized, 

Q.  Well,  do  you  still  say  that  Mr.  Woodruff  did  not  give 
you  any  information  in  regard  to  money  furnished  by 
Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  No  ;  I  say  he  did. 

And  when  do  you  say  that  was  ?  A.  I  say  that  that 
was  from— not  less  than  three— in  my  judgment  from 
three  to  six  months  after  the  interview  at  Mr.  Moulton 's 
h()use  on  Sunday ;  I  remember  it  very  well. 

Q.  And  at  what  interview  was  it  that  you  commvini- 


lEGHEB  IRIAL. 

cated  to  Mr.  Moulton  the  fact  that  you  1  ad  obtained  this 
information  from  Mr.  Woodruff?  A.  I  toid  you  yesterday 
that  it  was  at  some  interview  that  I  had  with  Mr.  Moul- 
ton between  the  13th  and  20th  of  July,  1874, 1  think. 

THE  SUMMONING  OF  MR.  TILTON  BEFORE 
THE  COMMITTEE. 
Q.  Yes.  Were  you  present  when  Mr.  Tilton 
was  summoned  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  don't  remem- 
ber ;  if  you  will  call  my  attention  to  the  place  whore  it 
occurred  I  can  refresh  your  recollection— refresh  my 
recollection. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  in  the  street.  Sir— that  is  a  pretty  indcfl- . 
nite  place— as  near  as  I  can  get  it,  id  front  of  the  Acad- 
emy of  Music?  A.  Who  was  present  beside?   I  don't 
recollect. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  care  to  state  just  now.  A.  WeU,  I  don't 
recollect. 
Q.  How  %  A.  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  you  were  present  when  he 
was  summoned  before  the  Committee,  and  that  you  ad- 
vised him  not  to  go  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  don't. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  you  did  not  ?  A.  No,  I  will  not 
swear  to  that ;  I  don't  recollect  the  occurrence  at  all. 

GEN.  BUTLER'S  WRITTEN  OPINION. 

Q.  You  stated  yesterday,  Mr.  Tracy,  that  the 
document  of  which  you  spoke  as  having  been  dictated, 
or  prepared,  or  sent  forward  to  you  by  and  from  Mr. 
Butler  was  returned  to  him.  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  that  is,  I  state, 
as  I  stated  yesterday,  that  it  was  found  in— by  a  yoimg 
man  who  was  overhauling  my  papers  and  regulatiiig 
them  this  Winter,  and  I  directed  him  to  put  it  in  an  en- 
velope and  return  it  to  Gen.  Butler,  directed  to  Boston. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  put  in  ?  A.  I  don't 
know,  Sir ;  I  assumed  it  was,  and  I  have  never  inquired 
since. 

Q.  Have  you  received  two  letters  from  Mr.  Butler  re- 
questing the  return  of  that  document  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  Mr.  Butler  requested  the  return 
of  it. 

Q.  Well,  don't         A.  I  never  received  any  letters  that 

I  am  aware  of.  Sir,  requesting  *ts  return. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy,  you  have  been  very  active  in  this  matter 
in  all  the  departments  of  this  scandal,  on  behalf  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  have  you  not?  A.  WeU,  ihe  scandal  has  so  mauy 
departments  that  I  can  hardly  say  that. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  got  drawn  into  most  of  them,  have 
you  not  ?  A.  No,  I  have  not ;  some  of  them  I  have  never  • 
entered. 

Q.  What  one  did  you  keep  out  of  ?  A.  I  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  church  proceedings,  for  instance — one  depart- 
ment of  the  scandal,  I  suppose. 

Q.  WeU,  by  the  church  proceedings  you  don't  mean  the 
Investigation  Committee?  A.  No;  I  mean  the  West 
charges  and  the  Council. 


TLSTIMOXI   OF  BE 

PLAmiFFS   COUNSEL   REBUKED   BY  THE 
JUDGE. 

Mr.  Beacli — Xo,  no;  Mr.  Beeclier  took  charge 
of  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oil,  no ;  tliat  is  not  part  of  3Ir.  Tracy's  tes- 
timony, nor  of  any  inqniry  that  lias  iDeen  made. 

Mr.  Beacli — Xo ;  tliat  was  my  remark,  Sir,  founded  upon 
the  eridenee. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  should  get  into  a  great  debate 
wietiier  it  was  f oiinded  on  the  evidence,  or  tlie  result  of 
imagination. 

Mr.  Beaci— "We  proiiaWy  won't  get  into  the  debate  here. 
Mr.  Evarts — Xo  :  but  then  it  ought  not  to  be  begun. 
Mr.  Beach— It  is  not  begun. 
Mr.  Evarts— You  began  it,  I  thin"k:. 
Mr.  Beach— Xo,  I  don't  think  1  began  any  debate. 
Mr.  Evarts— You  made  a  statement,  as  you  say  now, 
based  upon  the  evidence  concerning  my  client. 
Mr.  Beach— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  a  matter  to  be  debated  to  the 
jury. 

Mr.  Beach — Certainly. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  say  it  cannot  be  continued,  and  I  say 
80,  too. 

Mr.  Beach— I  didn't  say  that  it  could  not  be  continued ; 
if  I  should  say  that  it  could  not  be  continued.  I  siould 
itate  an  untruth,  because  the  gentleman  does  con- 
tinue it. 

Judge  Xeilson— The  real  fact  is  that  the  observation 
ought  not  to  have  been  made. 

Mr.  Beaoh— Well,  I  don't  know,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Xor  should  it  be  continued.  It  T^ould 
have  been  better  not  to  have  made  it,  of  course. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  perhaps  it  would  have  been  better 
not  to  have  made  it,  because  it  has  brought  my  friend, 
Mr.  Evarts,  to  his  feet. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  you  from  yours. 

Mr.  Beacli— From  my  feet  ?   Oh,  no,  no !  it  will  be  a 
long  time  before  the  gentleman  shall  succeed,  Sir,  in 
throwing  me  from  my  feet ;  he  had  better  not  indidge  in 
any  triumphant  anticipations  until  the  time  arrives. 
Mr.  Evarts— Only  this  is  not  an  anticipation, 
Mr.  Beach— Speak  up  loud  so  that  I  can  hear  yotu 
Mr.  Shearman— It  is  a  matter  of  realization,  not  antici- 
pation, 80  far  as  this  question  is  concerned, 

GEN.  TRACY'S  ACTIVITY  IX  ME.  BEECHEE'S 

BEHALF. 

Mr.  Beacli  Tto  tlie  witness]— WeU,  wiU  yon 
answer  my  nue^rion  ? 

The  Witness— If  you  will  repeat  it ;  I  have  forgotten 
"What  it  was. 

Q.  Whether  you  have  been  an  active  and  ardent  friend 
of  Mr.  Beecher  during  the  progi-ess  of  this  scandal,  or 


:SJAMiy  F.    IF. ACT.  305 

the  agitation  of  this  scandal  ?  A.  During  some  portion 
of  it  I  have. 

Q.  From  what  period  I  A.  Well,  I  have  since  the  Bacon, 
letter,  more  active  than  before — much.. 

Q.  Well,  weren't  you  active  before  ?  A,  Xo ;  I  can 
hardly  say  I  was  active  before  that,  3Ir.  Beach  ;  I  was  a 

friend  of  3Ir.  Beecher's  

Q.  Did  you  make  any  statements  for  the  papers  before 
that  ?  A.  Before  the  Bacon  letter  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Xo.  I  think  not.  Sir  ;  I  don't  remember  any. 
I  am  confident  I  did  nor. 
Q.  Confident  you  did  not  ?   A.  I  think  not. 
Q.  Xor  wT."ite  any  statements  for  the  papers  ?   A.  Be- 
fore the  Bacon  letter  1 

Q.  Yes,  before  the  Bacon  letter  ]  A.  I  have  no  recol- 
lection ;  if  you  will  suggest  any  article,  Sir,  I  will  be  able 
to  answer  it  promptly,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  any 
article  or  proceeding  before  the  Bacon  letter;  I  should 
confess  myself  very  much  mistaken  if  there  is  any. 

Q.  Did  you  converse  much  on  the  subject  before  the 
Bacon  letter  ?  A.  Oh,  yes  ;  with,  certain  parties  I  did  a 
good  deal— that  is  in  the  period  of  December— Xovember 
and  December,  1S72  ;  after  December,  1872, 1  was  prac- 
tically out  of  the  scandal,  and  out  of  the  matter  until  the 
publication  of  the  Bacon  letter,  and  talked  but  very  little 
about  it ;  of  course  incidentally  as  people  talked,  and  the 
subject  came  up. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  at  any  time  before  the  Bacon  letter 
make  suggestions  to  leading  and  influential  ioumalists  in 
re^^ard  to  notices  of  the  scandal  ]  A.  I  recall  no  instance 
of  the  kind ;  I  suppose  you  mean  by  journals  some  promi- 
nent editor  or  some  prominent  writer  on  a  journal. 
Q.  Certainly.  A.  I  recollect  nothing  of  the  Mnd. 
Q.  Well,  is  your  recollection  so  accurate  that  you  are 
willing  to  say  that  you  did  not  1  A.  Oh,  no,  Sir ;  when 
you  broach  a  subject  that  happened  two  or  three  years 
ago,  and  it  is  sprung  upon  me  in  an  Instant,  I  would  not 
say  positively  whether  I  did  or  not,  without  reflection, 
on  the  instant ;  I  may  have  done  so  and  forgotten  it,  but 
I  have  no  recollection  of  it  now.  If  you  will  name  the 
person  or  occasion,  I  will  tell  you  very  quick  whether  I 
did  or  not. 

Q.  Well,  I  understood  from  your  evidence  that  since  the 
Bacon  letter  you  have  done  these  things  1  A.  I  have. 

Q.  AVritten  articles  for  the  journals  on  the  subject  ?  A. 
Xo,  not  written. 
Q.  Haven't  written  any  ?  A.  Xo. 

Q.  And  haven't  consulted  in  regard  to  the  form  of  any 
or  the  publication  of  any  ?  A.  Well,  that  would  be  too 

broad  

Q.  Xo,  it  ain't  too  broad.   A.  Yes. 

Q.  Xo.   A.  I  have  published  two  interviews  of  my  own. 
Q.  Xo,  I  don't  speak  of  inter\-iews.   A.  Well,  then,  you 
mean  

Q.  I  speak  of  other  articles  in  the  papera,  A.  You 
mean  editorials  I 


THE   llLTON-BEh](^HEE  lELAL, 


Q.  Articles  in  papers ;  I  don't  know  whether  they  are 
editorials,  or  communicated,  or  what  1  A.  Well,  I  will 
answer  and  see  if  I  can  cover  your  ground;  I  have 
never  

Q.  Never  mind  now ;  I  will  put  my  question,  and  I  will 
ask  you  to  answer  that ;  have  you  not,  since  the  Bacon 
letter,  written  and  published,  or  dictated  and  caused  to 
he  published,  articles  favorable  to  Mr.  Beecher  concern- 
mft-  this  scandal  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  think  not ;  I  recall  no 
instance  ot  the  kind ;  if  you  mean  by  articles  that  I  have 
talked  with  newspaper  reporters  

Q.  No,  I  don't  mean  that.  A.  Don't  mean  that  ? 

Q.  No,  Sir.  A.  Aside  from  that  I  have  no  recollection 
at  all. 

Q.  Have  you  assisted  in  the  composition  oi  any  article 
of  that  character  since  the  Bacon  letter  ?  A.  Since— 
the— Bacon— letter  ?  [Reflecting.]  I  don't  recall,  Sir  ;  I 
think  not;  I  speak  largely,  though,  from  my  recollection ; 
I  don't  think  I  have  written  myself,  or  dictated,  to  be 
published,  any  article,  as  an  article  for  a  newspaper,  on 
any  subject,  since  1871 ;  I  don't  believe  I  have,  on  any 
subject,  since  1871. 

Q.  And  you  have  not  consulted  or  advised  with  any 
editor  of  a  paper  in  this  vicinity  upon  an  article,  or  the 
subject  of  an  article,  in  regard  to  this  matter  ?  A.  Oh, 
well,  I  cannot  say  that ;  I  talked  with  men  on  the  press, 
and  they  have  talked  with  me,  and  we  have  talked  differ- 
rent  views  of  the  scandal,  and  this  view  and  that  view  

Q.  Well,  has  any  proposed  communication,  or  article, 
or  statement  been  brought  to  your  attention  in  regard 
to  which  you  have  given  advice  or  made  suggestions  ? 
A.  I  recollect  nothing  of  the  kind ;  you  mean  an  article 
presented  and  embodied  in  the  form  of  an  article— 

Q.  Oh,  I  don't  know  that  it  was  written  out  in  full.  A. 
Well,  your  question  is  so  indefinite  that  it  is  impossible 
for  me  to  answer  it,  Mr.  Beach. 

Q.  The  question  is  not  indefinite.  A.  I  have  talked 
with  a  great  many  people,  some  of  them  editors,  no 
doubt,  on  newspapers,  as  to  different  phases  of  this  scan- 
dal, and  they  have  undoubtedly  asked  my  views  on  dif- 
ferent phases  of  it,  and  different  features  of  it,  but  

Q.  Well,  since  the  Bacon  letter— perhaps  this  will  cover 
it,  Mr.  Tracy— since  the  Bacon  letter  you  have  been  an 
ardent  advocate  of  Mr.  Beecher  ?   A.  I  have.  Sir. 

Q.  I  don't  know  but  I  asked  the  question  yesterday,  but 
I  repeat  it  if  I  did— when  did  you  first  have  any  interview 
with  Mr.  Beecher  in  regard  to  this  scandal  ?  A.  As  I  said, 
my  recollection  of  it  is  that  it  was  within  a  week  after 
the  interview  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house. 

Q,  Which  interview— what  date  1  A.  Well,  I  cannot— it 
is  the  interview  on  Sunday. 

Q.  The  long  interview  ?  A.  The  long  interview  on  Sun- 
day ;  I  cannot  fix  the  date  of  it. 

Q,  Well,  it  was  about  November,  1872,  in  or  about)  A 
Yes,  November  or  December,  1872. 

Q.  And  did  you  tell  me  yesterday  how  frequent  your 


interviews  were  with  Mr.  Beecher  on  this  subject  aftei 
that?   A.  I  think  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Very  well,  I  had  that  impression  that  you  did.  I  am 
requested  to  ask  you.  Sir,  whether  you  have  not  solicited 
or  spoken  to  a  prominent  editor  of  a  leading  journal,  in 
this  city  or  New  York,  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  its 
friendly  notice  or  advocacy  of  Mr.  Beecher  in  relation  to 
this  scandal  1   A.  I  recall  no  such  thing,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  is  your  recollection  so  definite  that  you  would 
be  willing  to  swear  that  you  have  not  ?  A.  I  am  willing 
to  swear  that  I  never  had  an  interview  with  any  editor 
for  that  purpose. 

Q.  Oh,  well;  please  answer  my  question.   A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Very  well,  then,  say  so.  A.  If  you  will  repeat  it 
again  I  will  see  how  definitely  1  can  answer  it. 

Q.  Why,  I  asked  you  whether  your  recollection  was  so 
definite  upon  the  subject  that  you  would  swear  posi- 
tively that  you  had  not  made  such  an  application  to  a 
leading  editor  ?  A.  To  a  leading  editor— for  what  pur- 
pose? 

Q.  Why,  for  the  purpose  of  enlisting  it  in  favor  of  Mr. 
Beecher  in  relation  to  this  scandal  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  no.  Sir, 
I  think  not ;  I  have  had  conversations  with  editors  on 
the  subject  of  the  scandal. 

Q.  And  did  you  not.  Sir,  labor  to  induce,  or  attempt  to 
induce  one  or  more  of  the  editors  with  whom  you  con- 
versed to  write  favorably  or  publish  favorably  in  their 
papers  for  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  think  T  did  with 
one  editor  on  the  subject  of  the  course  of  his  paper  

Q.  Wait— yes.  A.  IcontinuingJ— But  I  did  not  try  to  in- 
fluence him. 

Q.  Who  was  it?   A.  Who  was  the  man? 

Q.  Yes.   A.  That  I  refer  to? 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.   A.  I  refer  to  John  Russell  Young. 

Q.  [Looking  at  a  newspaper.]  Did  Mr.  Moulton  at  any 
time,  accompanied  by  Mr.  Tilton,  other  than  on  occasions 
of  which  you  have  spoken,  come  to  you  and  in  an  inter- 
view which  followed  was  the  story  of  this  affair  told  to 
you,  and,  after  that  communication,  did  you  express 
views  to  Mr.  Moulton  as  to  what  he  ought  to  do,  to  which 
Mr.  TUton  objected,  and  in  which  Mr.  Movilton  finally  de- 
clined to  act  upon  your  judgment  ?  A.  Read  that  again, 
will  you,  Mr.  Beach? 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  rather  think  I  will  depute  somebody 
to  read  it.   I  don't  think  I  could  mj  self. 

[Question  read  by  The  Tribune  stenographer.] 

A.  No,  Sir ;  I  remember  no  interview  after  the  Sunday 
interview  where  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  came  to  me 
together  and  the  subject  of  this  story  was  gone  over. 

Q.  Well,  at  that  interview  did  you  express  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton what  you  thought  he  ought  to  do  1  A.  I  said  on  my 
direct  examination  Mr.  

Q.  Oh,  I  don't  care  what  you  said  on  your  direct  exam- 
ination. A.  Well,  I  said  either  at  the  close  of  that  inter- 
view—and I  think  it  was  at  that  interview— or  at  a  subso- 


TFSTl^rO^T  OF  BE. 


INJAMiy    F.  TliACY. 


307 


quent  interview  between  myself  and  Mr.  Moulton,  1 
did  

Q  Well,  did  Mr.  Tilton  object  to  wbat  you  suggested? 
A.  Mr.  TUton  objected  at  the  time  to  wliat  I  suggested— 
be  was  present  wben  I  suggested  about  tlie  destruction 
of  the  papers ;  tbat  be  objected  to. 

Q.  Well,  was  tbat  tbe  suggestion  wbicb  you  made  ?  A. 
That  is  one  of  the  suggestions  I  made  as  to  what  ought  to 
be  done ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  then  you  suggested  that  the  papers  ought  to 
be  destroyed]  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  Mr.  TUton  objected  to  that  ?  A.  Mr.  Tilton  ob- 
jected to  that. 

GEN.  TEACY  EXPLAINS  SOME  OF  HIS  WORDS. 

Q.  A  sing-le  other  question,  Sir.  You  stated 
upon  your  direct  examination,  as  I  can  repeat  it  in  sub- 
stance, that  you  said  at  one  of  those  interviews  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  that  the  publication  of  the  paper  which  he  read  to 
you  would  ruin  him  and  ruin  his  wife  and  ruin  ]VIr. 
Beecher— if  I  recollect  right  1  A.  I  made  some  remark  of 
that  substance ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  IVIr.  Tracy,  if  at  that  time  you  understood  the  charge 
against  Mr.  Beecher  to  be  impure  solicitations  addressed 
to  Mrs.  TUton,  which  had  been  virtuously  repelled  by  her, 
and  which  she  immediately  afterward  communicated  to 
her  husband,  how  did  you  suppose  that  the  disclosure  of 
that  circumstance  would  ruin  Mrs.  TUton  1  A.  I  sup- 
posed in  this  way,  and  in  this  mauner :  As  I  understood 
it,  ;Mrs.  TUton  had  made  an  accusation  against  Mr. 
Beecher  to  her  husband ;  that  after  that  she  had  retracted 
that  accusation  to  Mr.  Beecher ;  I  understood  from  the 
docimients  then  presented  to  me,  and  the  talk,  that  she 
had  renewed  the  accusation ;  I  always  assumed  that  if 
the  publication  was  made,  it  was  to  be  made  on  the  re- 
newed authority  of  Mrs.  TUton ;  I  supposed  that  woiUd 
bring  a  coUision  between  Mr.  Beecher  on  one  side,  sup- 
ported by  her  retraction  and  his  denial,  and  Mr.  TUton 
and  Mrs.  TUton  on  the  other,  supported  by  her  first  accu- 
sation, contradicted  by  her  retraction,  and  then  renewed; 
and  I  thought  that  such  a  scandal  published,  and  such  a 
conflict  inaugurated,  would  be  the  ruin  substantiaUy  of 
aU  of  these  parties. 

Q.  WeU,  you  understood  that  at  the  time  of  these  con- 
tradictory statements  made  by  Mrs.  Tilton  she  was  iU  1 
A.  I  did;  I wUl  not  say  about  the  letter;  I  don't  think  I 
got  the  exact  details  of  that. 

Q.  What  letter  do  you  speak  of  ?  A.  The  letter  that  is 
referred  to  in  the  retraction ;  I  am  not  sui-e  that  the  date 
or  the  time  or  the  occasion  of  the  giving  of  that  letter,  or 
the  detaUs  of  how  Mr.  Tilton  obtained  tbat  letter,  were 
slated;  I  don't  think  they  were  

Q.  WeUt  A.  IContinuing,]  But  I  understood  that  she 
was  Ul  when  ]VIr.  Beecher  got  the  retraction  from  her. 

Q.  And  you  understood  that  in  that  retraction  she  had 
expressed  the  fact  that  she  was  wearied  into  the  state- 


ment which  she  made  by  the  importunities  of  her  hus- 
band 1   A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  thought  that,  under  these  circumstancee,^ 
the  making  of  these  statements — contradictory  statements 
— woiUd  operate  as  her  ruin  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Y'ou  did  not  suppose  the  communication  

The  Witness  [uiteri-uptingj— Of  course  I  assumed  that 
she  wovUd  adhere  to  her  husband  in  the  renewed  charge. 

Q.  You  did  not  suppose  that  the  fact — the  mere  fact  of 
the  communication— the  mere  fact  of  the  solicitations  of 
Ml-.  Beecher,  repelled  by  Mrs.  TUton,  being  made  pubUe^ 
would  ruin  her,  did  you  ?   A.  No,  I  did  not. 

Q.  WeU,  Sir,  if  Mi-.  Beecher  was  innocent  of  that  accu- 
sation, did  you  suppose  the  making  of  it  pubUc  would 
ruin  him  1  A.  I  did.  Sir  ;  I  supposed  that  as  the  case 
then  stood  

Mr.  Beach  finterrupting]— WiU  you  simply  answer  my 
questions  ! 

The  Witness  [continuing]— And  as  it  was  presented  to 

me  

Q.  [Interrupting]— You  supposed  it  wooUd  ruin  him^ 
even  if  he  was  innocent  of  the  charge  ?  A.  Substan- 
tially ruin  him,  if  made  and  supported  by  the  wife,  and 
backed  by  the  papers  as  then  presented  to  me  ;  I  thought 
there  was  great  danger  of  its  ruining  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  Even  although  he  was  able  to  maintain  his  inno- 
cence 1  A.  Even  although  he  was  able  to  assert  his  in- 
nocence, and  even  although  he  might  in  fact  be  innocent. 

Q.  You  therefore  labored  for  the  suppression  of  the 
scandal  and  of  these  documents  ?  A.  I  did,  Sir ;  the 
word  "suppression"  does  not  exactly  express  it ;  I  la- 
bored for  their  extinguishment ;  I  labored  to  have  it 
killed  outright,  so  that  it  could  never  be  revived  again. 

Q.  And  did  those  labors  continue  after  the  Investigat- 
ing Committee  was  called  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  think  they  did^ 
in  a  sense. 

Q.  WeU,  did  they  in  fact  1  A.  Yes,  in  fact. 

Q.  Then,  after  the  Investigating  Committee  was  called^ 
and  after  Mr.  Beecher  had  determined  to  have  a  fuU  and 
radical  examination  of  this  matter,  you  labored  to  ex- 
tinguish it  ?   A.  I  labored  then  

Q.  Did  you  labor  then  to  extinguish  it  ?  A.  To  extin- 
guish it— to  kill  it— yes,  Sir ;  to  have  such  a  result  of  tha^ 
proceedings  as  woiUd  extinguish  the  scandal  for  aU 
times. 

Q.  And  the  papers  ?  A.  I  did  not  say  the  papers;  that 
is  an  addition. 

Q.  No,  it  is  not  an  addition ;  it  was  in  my  question.  A. 
Then  I  misunderstood  your  question. 

Q.  "Very  welL  Then  did  you  not,  after  the  Investi- 
gating Committee  was  caUed,  strive  to  have  the  papera 
destroyed  1   A.  No,  Sir,  I  think  not. 

Q.  Wbat  1   A.  I  think  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  to  that?   I  wiU. 

Q.  That  you  never  advised  the  destruction  of  the 
papers  1  A.  I  think  I  do  so  swear.  Sir ;  I  never  remem 


808  TIW  TILION-B 

her  it;  I  don't  recollect  that  T  did;  I  knoAv  that  I  did  not. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  positively  you  did  not  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Either  to  Mr.  Moulton  or  to  Mrs.  Moulton?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Or  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Butler  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Beach.  That  is  all. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  GEN.  TRACY. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Tracy,  at  this  stage  last 
spoken  of  did  your  efforts  to  extinguish  the  papers,  as 
separate  from  destroyin.g  the  papers,  what  had  occurred 
that  made  a  distinction  between  that  stage  and  that  time 
and  the  previous  time  when  you  had  desired  to  extinguish 
the  scandal  and  destroy  the  papers  ?  A.  The  scandal  had 
become  public ;  the  Bacon  letter  had  been  written,  and  a 
part  of  the  letters  quoted— the  public  documents  quoted; 
so  that  I  understood  perfectly  that  the  extinction  or  de- 
struction of  the  papers  then  would  add  fuel  to  the  flame ; 
and  there  was  no  object  in  extinguishing  the  papers  after 
part  of  them  had  been  published— made  public. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  Its  being  a  feeling  of  anxiety  or 
solicitude  on  your  part  lest  these  papers  should  be  de- 
stroyed 1  A.  I  do.  Sir,  very  well ;  and  the  subject  of  con 
versation  also. 

Q.  And  did  you  direct  efforts  to  find  out  whether  they 
were  still  in  existence?  A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  you  have  spoken  of  a  desire,  and  labors,  at 
an  earlier  period,  to  extinguish  the  scandal,  including 
then  the  extinguishing  of  the  papers.  In  what  stage,  and 
what  manner,  did  you  so  labor  t  A.  That  was  in  Novem- 
ber or  December,  1872.  What  manner?  I  do  not  know 
that  I  exactly  understand  your  question  as  to  the 
manner. 

Q.  In  what  manner  did  you  labor  to  extinguish  the  pa- 
pers and  the  scandal  ?  A .  In  the  manner  I  have  stated, 
by  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  As  you  have  given  it  I  A.  Which  I  have  given. 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  about  an  opinion  which  you 
formed  and  expressed  as  to  the  scandal  if  made  public, 
that  it  would  be  the  ruin  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Beecher.  Do  you  remember  the  precise  phrase, 
as  to  whether  you  said  it  would  be  the  ruin  of  these 
parties,  or  it  would  be  ruinous  to  these  parties  ?  A.  I 
don't  remember  whether  I  said  the  ruin,  or  ruinous,  or 
destructive;  I  used  some  phrase  which  conveyed  my 
meaning  that  it  would  be  exceedingly  injurious  and  dam- 
aging to  all  of  them. 

Q.  You  have  been  asked,  toward  the  close  of  the  cross- 
examinsition,  within  a  few  moments,  something  about  an 
occasion  of  Mr.  Moulton,  in  company  with  Mr.  Tilton, 
coming  to  you  and  telling  the  story  of  this  matter,  and 
Moulton  asking  your  advice,  and  you  giving  it,  and  Til- 
ton objecting,  and  Moulton  declining  to  follow  your 
advice.  When  was  that  occasion  ?  A.  All  of  that 
occruTed  at  the  interview  in  November,  1872,  or  Decem- 
ber, 1872 ;  except  as  I  stated  in  ray  direct  examination. 


rECHMB  TEIAL. 

possibly  the  latter  part  of  that  statement  occarrecl 
between  myself  and  Moulton  at  a  subsequent  period. 

Q.  That  is  as  to  his  determination  not  to  follow  your 
advice  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  not  to  follow  it. 

Q.  How  do  you  remember  that  occurring  between  you 
and  Mr.  Moulton  at  any  subsequent,  or  consequent,  in- 
terview? A.  My  general  recollection  is  that  Mr.  Moulton 
was  silent  on  that  subject  at  the  interview  in  November 
or  December,  1872 ;  that  afterward  I  talked  with  him, 
and  he  said  he  would  not  consent  to  the  destruction  of 
the  papers,  as  Mr.  Tilton  opposed  it ;  but  he  may  have  in- 
dicated that  there  in  that  Interview ;  I  am  not  certain 
about  that,  Sir. 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  about  some  meeting  with  Mr. 
Woodruff  after  you  had  spoken  to  Mr.  Moulton  about  his 
(Woodruff's)  informing  you  that  money  had  been  paid  in 
jhis  business  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  was  that  interview  with  Mr.  Woodruff?  A. 
Well,  it  was  a  few  days  after  my  interview  with  Mr. 
Moulton ;  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Woodruff  said  to  ^e,  had  at- 
tacked him  for  having  told  me  that ;  and  he  came  round 
and  asked  me  why  I  did  it. 

Q.  How  is  that?  A.  Mr.  Woodruff  told  me  that  Mr. 
Moulton  had  attacked  him  for  having  communicated  the 
fact  of  the  payment  of  the  money  to  him. 

Q.  What  passed  then  between  you  ?  A.  I  told  him  the 
circumstances ;  I  told  him  that  I  very  much  regretted 
the  seeming  necessity  which  compelled  it,  but  I  had 
deemed  it  my  duty  to  warn  Mr.  Moulton  of  how  I  thought 
the  disclosure  of  that  money  matter  would  injure  him ; 
and  that  he  thereupon  attacked  Mr.  Beecher  for  having 
told  me,  and  attacked  him  so  violently  that  I  felt  con- 
strained to  tell  Mr.  Moulton  the  truth  that  I  did  not  get 
my  information  from  Mr.  Beecher  about  that,  but  that  it 
was  from  Mr.  Woodruff;  that  I  regretted  it,  but  under 
the  cii'cumstances  I  thought  I  had  done  right  and  proper 
in  so  doing. 

Q.  Did  you  inform  him  as  to  whether  Mr.  Moulton  had 
pressed  you,  after  you  told  him  it  was  not  Mr.  Beecher, 
to  inform  him  who  it  was  ?  A.  Yes  ;  I  told  Mr.  Woodruff 
that  Mr.  Moulton  pressed  me  very  hard  before  I  con- 
sented to  tell  him. 

Q.  And  what  did  Mr.  Woodruff  say  after  you  told  hiin 
that?  A.  He  said  he  thought  I  ought  not  to  have  tol-i 
him ;  that  he  did  not  intend  I  should  comraimicate  the 
fact  to  Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  Did  he  express  any  opinion  that  you  ought  to  have 
left  him  under  the  impression  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  told 
you?  A.  No,  he  did  not  say  that;  he  said  he  thought  1 
ought  not  to  have  told  Mr.  Moulton  that  he  commuui- 
cated  the  fact  to  me. 


TESTIMONY   OF  Bh 

GEN.  TRACY  ADVISES  MES.  MOULTON  ABOUT 
MR.  TILTON. 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  in  regard  to  a  con- 
Tersation  with  Mrs.  Moulton,  after  the  Bacon  letter  and 
prior  to  a  principal  conversation  that  had  been  previ- 
ously made  the  subject  of  inquiry  from  you  and  of  an- 
swers, and  you  have  been  asked  respecting  that  earlier 
interview,  but  after  the  Bacon  letter,  whether  you  ad- 
vised Mrs.  Moulton  to  "  kick  Tilton  out  of  the  house,  and 
destroy  the  papers,  or  they  will  destroy  you  ?"  A.  I  did 
not  understand  the  question  so,  Mr.  Evarts  ;  I  under- 
stood that  it  related  to  an  interview  on  the  night  of  the 
10th  of  August.  [Addressing  Mr.  Beach.]  Am  I  mistaken 
about  that  % 

Mr.  Beach— No  ;  you  are  right. 

The  Witness— I  think  you  are  under  a  misapprehension, 
Mr.  Evarts. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  made  a  memorandum  of  this. 

The  Witness— I  think  it  is  a  misapprehension,  however, 
nevertheless. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  may  be  that  the  advice  as  to  MoMng 
Tilton  out  was  on  the  10th  of  August. 

Judge  Neilson— I  suggest  that  you  form  your  question 
with  regard  to  the  interview  referred  to,  the  date  not 
being  perhaps  material. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  but  the  date  was  not  given,  and  it 
was  earlier  than  the  10th  of  August,  as  I  understood  it. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state  whether  there  was  any  earlier 
Interview  with  Mrs.  Moulton— earlier  than  the  10th  of 
August,  and  after  the  Bacon  letter  t  A.  There  were  in- 
terviews with  Mrs.  Moulton. 

Q.  Several  that  you  have  mentioned?  A.  Several; 
there  is  none  which  so  impresses  itself  upon  my  memory 
that  I  have  stated  it  separately  from  all  others  except 
this  one  on  the  night  of  the  10th  of  August. 

Q.  Well,  at  those  previous  interviews  with  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton, had  anything  been  said  by  you  about  kicking  TUton 
out  of  the  house  1  A.  No  such  language  as  that,  Sir, 
or  the  substance ;  not  of  kicking— no.  Sir ;  Mrs.  Moulton 
expressed  her  opinion  to  me  

Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  moment. 

The  Witness  [Continuing]— And  perhaps  I  assented  to 
it  ;  T  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  what  in  that  nature,  or  on  that  sub- 
ject, was  said  at  any  such  Interview  1 

Mr.  Beach— That  we  object  to,  Sir. 

Judge  NeUson— I  think  you  must  take  it.  If  the  word 
kicking  "  was  not  used,  some  expression  akin  to  it  may 

have  been  used,  and  it  is  right  that  the  witness  should 

state  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Probably  the  word  "  kick  "  was  used  tu  a 
moral  sense.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Beach— My  objection  is  that  any  inquiries  which  I 
address  to  the  witness  on  that  subject  do  not  give  them 
the  right  o*  the  other  side  to  open  the  conversation. 


']\JAMli<   Jr.    TnACY.  S09 

That,  perhaps,  would  be  proper  if  we  put  Mrs.  Moulton 
on  the  stand  to  contradict  the  witness.  Non  constat,  we 
may  do  that ;  we  may  leave  it  as  the  witness  has  left  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Assuming  that  to  be  so,  you  put  to  the 
witness  clear-cut,  definite  questions,  embracing  certain 
Inquiries  as  to  expressions  which  he  said  he  did  not  use  ; 
it  is  possible  that  he  may  have  used  words  which  were  in 
sense  akin  to  those,  and  he  has  the  right  to  give  them. 

Mr.  Evarts— No  doubt  the  word  "  kick  "  was  used  in  a 
metaphorical  sense.  It  would  not  do  to  suggest  to  a  lady 
that  she  should  kick  a  gentleman  out. 

Mr.  Pryor— It  might,  where  some  one  else  was  to  do  the 
kicking. 

Mr.  Evarts— Did  you  ever  know  it  to  happen,  Mr. 
Pryor 1 

Judge  Neilson— All  your  kicking  has  been  intellectual. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  suppose,  of  course,  the  meaning  of  kick- 
ing out  of  the  house  was  a  metaphorical  expression.  [To 
the  witness.]  Well,  Mr.  Tracy,  I  understand  you  can 
answer. 

The  Witness— Repeat  your  question,  then,  Mr.  Evarts. 

Q.  What  was  said  by  you  of  any  such  connection  or  im- 
port, if  anything  1  A.  Well,  I  don't  recall  any  particular 
expression  which  would  be  "  kicking,"  or  the  import  of 
"  kicking I  only  know  that  Mrs.  Moulton  

Mr.  Beach— Oh !  well !  wait,  wait  1 

The  Witness— Ah  1 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  did  anything  occur  between  you  and 
Mrs.  Moulton  as  to  the  desirability  of  her  being  rid  of 
Mr.  Tilton  in  the  house  ?  A.  I  think  there  has  been  a 
conversation  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Beach— One  moment. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  has  been  a  conversation  n  s-ul> 

ject  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  object  to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  we  have  a  right  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  that  is  as  far  as  you  can  go. 

Mr.  Beach— I  put  the  question  to  the  witness  as  to 
whether  any  such  expression  as  that,  or  in  substance 
that,  was  used.  Now,  I  concede  that  the  witness,  upon 
the  examination  by  the  coimsel,  can  answer  the  question 
whether  any  phrase  or  remark  of  that  substance  or  char- 
acter was  used ;  but  to  give  the  language  that  was  em- 
l)loyed  in  that  conversation,  that  is,  to  give  the 
conversation  itself,  or  any  portion  of  it,  I 
submit  to  your  Honor,  is  not,  in  this  stage  of 
the  examination,  open.  It  may  be,  in  case  we 
shall  choose  to  put  Mrs.  Moulton  upon  Viiq 
stand  in  opposition  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Tracy;  and  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  utterly  useless  to  pursue  that  In- 
quiry and  get  a  conversation  as  between  Mrs.  Moiilvon 
and  this  gentle:nan  in  evidence  in  this  case,  when  Mrs. 
Moulton  may  not  be  produced  as  a  witness  to  that  trans- 
action. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  isn't  it  true,  if  my  leanu  1  •.  r  ds 
wiU  allow  me  to  ask,  that  it  is  settledas  a  viiV  ;  ;  i  \ :  :  ■  ?e 


310 


THE   TILTOF-BEECHEH  TRIAL. 


that  when  a  foujjdation  Is  laid  for  collatei  al  impeachment 
by  the  calling  of  another  witness,  that  in  advance  of  the 
determination  of  the  counsel  whether  that  witness  will 
l>e  called  or  not,  and  in  consequence  of  the  opening  of  the 
point,  the  witness,  prior  to  the  calling  of  any  contradic- 
tory witness,  is  not  only  in  his  own  right  at  liherty  to 
state  what  did  occur,  hut  it  is  the  right  of  the  party  to 
draw  from  him  what  did  occur.  That,  I  helieve,  is  a  mat- 
ter not  new  in  the  law  of  evidence,  and  I  sup- 
pose it  is  to  be  well  settled.  And  then,  if  after 
what  he  has  said  on  his  direct  and  what  he  has  said 
on  his  cross,  the  other  side  call  the  witness  to  contradict 
him;  then  it  is  just  to  the  witness  so  attacked.  And  if, 
after  hearing  both  sides— that  is,  the  direct  and  cross— 
the  party  conclude  not  to  call  the  contradicting  witness, 
why,  that  is  very  well.  I  believe  that  is  settled.  [To 
counsel.J  Is  not  that  so  ?  The  point  is,  the  reason  that 
you  are  required  to  ask  the  first  witness  about  the  matter 
is  that  he  shall  have  his  opportunity  to  state  what  the 
thing  is  concerning  which  you  propose  to  contradict. 

Judge  Neilson— I  recognize  that,  in  assuming  that  inter- 
view, the  witness  thinks  he  did  not  use  the  very  expres- 
sion put  to  him  by  the  counsel ;  yet  if  in  a  certain  sense, 
however  remote,  he  does  remember  to  have  used  some 
expression  which  would  amount  to  the  advice  to  get  rid 
of  Mr.  Tilton,  or  discourage  his  presence,  I  think  the  wit- 
ness is  competent  to  state  that. 

Ml'.  Evarts— Yes,  and  that  is  already  stated  just  now. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  asked  him  if  anything  had  been  said 
about  the  desirability  of  having  him  out  of  the  house. 

Judge  Neilson— Y^es,  it  seems  to  me  that  is  proper,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  I  will  ask  you  whether 
whatever  you  did  say  on  that  subject  was  said  by  you 
as  a  voluntary  remark,  or  in  answer— or  was  elicited  by 
what  Mrs.  Moulton  said  1 

Mv.  Beach— Well,  I  suppose  that  must  be.  Sir,  by  stating 
what  was  said,  if  we  are  to  go  into  it.  We  certainly  don't 
want  to  take  the  judgment  or  conclusion  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Sir,  merely  whether  it  was  voluntary 
or  not? 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  he  can  answer  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Tracy,  how  is  thati  A,  It  was  m  an- 
swer to  the  suggestion  and  statement  of  Mrs.  Moulton. 

Q.  Now,  as  I  understand,  at  this  interview— not  the 
10th  of  August  interview,  but  a  prior  one— yoii  were 
asked  whether  you  said  anything  about  "  destroying  the 
papers  or  they  will  destroy  you,"  meaning  the  Moultons, 
and  "  that  the  truth  must  not  come  out;  consider  the  in- 
fluence on  society ;  Mr.  Beecher  must  not  be  cut  down," 
or  something  of  that  kind  1   Wasn't  it  so,  Mr.  Beach  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Y'es. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well ;  now,  did  anything  of  that  kind 
arise  in  conversation  between  you  and  Mrs.  Moulton  at 
these  interviews,  separate  from  the  interview  of  the  10th 
of  A\i«ust  1   A.  No,  Sir. 


Q.  Now,  what  did  pass  between  you  and  Mrs.  Moulton 
at  any  of  these  prior  interviews  that  ">eYe  relation  to  this 
sul licet  about  the  injury  to  society  ana  to  Mr.  Eeecher,  or 
whatnot?  A.  I  say  nothing  that  I  remember  ;  I  recall 
nothing  ;  that  is,  at  the  prior  interviews,  prior  to  

Q.  Prior  interviews— at  the  prior  intervicAvs,  prior  to 
the  10th  of  August ;  that  is  the  whole  su)3ject  of  my  in- 
quiry. I  will  come  to  the  10th  cf  August  afterward.  A. 
If  I  correctly  understand  your  question,  I  mean  to  say 
that  I  do  not  remember  anything  passing  between  lue 
and  Mrs.  Moulton  in  regard  to  the  ruining  of  Mr.  Beecher 
or  the  ruining  

Q.  It  was  not  the  ruin  

Mr.  Shearman—'*  The  injury  to  society"  

The  Witness- Oh  !  "  the  injury  to  society." 

Mr.  Evarts— I  read  it  to  you :  "  The  truth  must  come 

out ;  consider  the  injury  to  society"         A.  Well,  now, 

there  was  nothing  said  between  Mrs.  Moulton  and  I 
about  the  truth  not  coming  out;  there  was  a  talk  between 
Mrs.  Moulton  and  I— more  than  one— as  to  the  effect  upon 
society  of  this  scandal,  after  the  Bacon  letter,  and  when 
the  scandal  was  going  on,  and  how  demoralizing  it  was,, 
and  what  great  injury  was  flowing  from  it.  There  was 
that  talk  once  or  twice,  perhaps  more,  between  Mrs. 
Moulton  and  I. 

Q.  Did  you  introduce  the  subject  or  dia  Mrs.  Moulton  ? 
A.  Oh,  well,  I  can't  hardly  say  ;  when  I  was  there  I  saw 
Mrs.  Moulton,  and  we  became  acquainted,  and  we  used 
to  be  conversing  together ;  I  cannot  undertake  to  say 
who  introduced  any  particular  subject  of  conversation. 

Q.  Was  there  any  dispute,  or  difference  of  opinion,  be- 
tween you  on  these  topics  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  Mrs.  Moulton 
and  I  always  agreed. 

AN  INJUNCTION  TO  PEEVENT  THE  DESTRUC- 
TION OF  THE  PAPERS. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  do  you  remember  a  period 

and  an  occasion  when  you  were  considering,  with  others 
with  whom  you  conferred,  as  to  getting  an  injunction  to 
prevent  the  destruction  of  these  papers  t  A.  I  do. 
Q.  When  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Beach— What  1  What?  What  is  this.  Sir? 

Mr.  Evarts— T  ask  him  if  he  remembers  an  occasion  in 
which  he  considered,  in  consultation  with  others,  as  to 
the  propriety  of  getting  an  injunction  to  prevent  the  de- 
struction  of  these  papers  % 

The  Witness— You  asked  me  when  it  was  f 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  thhak  it  was  after  Mrs.  Tilton's  swotb 
statement. 

Q.  Was  made  public  1  A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  or  not  it  had  any  concur- 
rence with  Mr.  Moulton's  return  from  the  East?  I  think 
it  has  been  in  evidence  that  he  went  to  the  East.  A.  Wcllf 
Sir,  I  cannot  remember  whether  it  was  his  return  or 
about  the  time  he  was  going.   It  was  on  or  about  lliiit 


TLSn^JOXY  OF  BE. 

time ;  it  was  alioiit  tlie  time  that  lie  refused,  or  followed 
his  refusal  to  deliver  the  papers  to  Mr.  Beecher,  or  copies 
of  ttem. 

THE  CONVEESATION  WITH  MRS.  MOULTOX 
ON  AUG.  10. 

Q.  jSTow,  you  liad  a  conversation  with  Mrs. 
Moulton  on  the  10th  of  August,  I  believe  1   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Concerning  which  you  have  been  inquired  of.  What 
occuiTcd  at  that  conversation  in  reference  to  the  subjeco^ 
which  had  been  brought  to  your  notice?  A.  Now,  jMi*. 
Evarts,  If  you  will  excuse  me,  I  desire  to  say  again  that  I 
don't  understand  that  the  other  side  have  caHed  for  the 
details  of  that  conversation,  or  any  part  of  it  has  been 
given.  I  regarded  it  as  confidential ;  it  was  a  talk  that  I 
had  with  the  lady  in  her  own  house.  If  that  conversation 
Is  to  come  out  I  prefer  to  leave  it  for  the  lady  to  bring 
out  before  saying  anythiug  on  the  subject.  If  that  will 
suit  you,  it  is  my  wish  that  it  should  take  that  course. 

Sir.  Evarts— Provided  an  objection  is  not  made  on  the 
other  side  as  to  the  order  of  i>roof. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  it  may  be  reserved  in  that 
form,  Sir,  on  the  suggestion  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Beach— We  make  no  objection  to  the  witness  stat- 
ing it  now.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  view  the  witness  now  has 
might  as  well  be  respected. 

Mr.  Beiich— I  have  no  objection  to  it.  Sir;  whatever 
course  they  choose.  I  will  acquiesce  in  ;  but  if  the  gentle- 
man's views  are  coiTcct,  Sir,  I  should  suppose  that  the 
examinatitm  should  proceed  now  m  regard  to  it. 

Judge  2seilson— If  Mr.  Beach  is  prepared  to  avow  his 
intention  to  call  Mrs.  Moulton  and  have  her  testify  as  ti) 
the  interview  between  them,  then  I  think  you  may  pro- 
<-eed  with  this  witness,  now. 

]Mr.  Beach— Certainly ;  we  intend  to.  Sir. 

Judge  Xeilson— Th(-n  I  think  we  will  proceed  now,  as 
we  have  the  witness  h-re.  That  absolves  the  witness 
from  the  sense  of  obligation. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir. 

The  Witness— I  would  prefer  otherwise. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  I  think  we  had  better  proceed, 
Su',  with  that  view  of  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— My  own  impression,  if  your  Honor  please, 
is  that  aside  from  the  question  of  a  witness's  respect  for 
^vhat  he  supposed  was  to  be  confidential  on  the  part  of 
this  lady,  it  would  be  the  regular  course— the  proper 
course  for  us  to  go  on.  The  difficulty  is  that  tae  lady  is 
not  represented  by  counsel.  She  is  not  a  party  to  this  lit- 
igation, and  her  husliandis  no  party  to  this  litigation,  he 
is  only  a  witness. 

Judge  Xeilson— Well,  the  suggestion  of  respectable 
v'ounsel  

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  I  understand  that.  Sir,  of  course. 
Judge  Nbi.;i*-wx  [continuing]  of  their  mtent  to  call 


XJAMiN   F.    TRACY.  311 

and  examine  her,  is  sufficient.  That  ought  to  relieve  a 
witness  from  any  sense  of  restraint,  I  think, 

Mr.  Evai'ts— Now,  I  wUl  contme  you  to  the  subject 
which  I  vinderstand  was  referred  to,  and  that  is,  about 
burning  the  papers  i  A.  There  was  no  talk  that  night 
about  burning  the  papers  then  or  at  any  future  time. 
There  was  talk  about  the  desirabUty  of  having  biu-ned 
the  papers  at  un  earlier  period. 

Mr,  Beach— Mr.  Evarts,  it  was  the  long  statement  I  in- 
(luired  about— burning  the  long  statement, 

Mr.  Evarts  [after  consulting  with  coimsel]— Well,  I  sup- 
posed it  was  the  papers.  Now,  there  was  a  conversation 
between  Mrs.  Moiilli  .md  yoiu'self  as  to  the  propriety 
or  the  desu-ability  of  the  papers  having  been  destroyed 
at  a  preceding  time  1  A.  There  was. 

Q.  Was  there  any  difference  of  opinion  between  you 
and  Mrs.  Moulton  about  that  1   A.  No. 

Q.  Now,  was  there  anything  said  about  destroying  or 
suppressing  the  long  statement  1  A.  Not  a  word ;  that  ia 
entirely  new ;  I  never  heard  of  that  until  to-day. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Tracy,  I  understand  you  to  have  said— and 
you  wUl  consider  it  a  question  if  you  have  not  said  so — 
that  at  this  interview  on  the  10th  of  August,  nothing  was 
said  about  the  destruction  of  the  papers  then  or  tafuturef 
A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Nothing  ?  A.  Nothing  at  all. 

THE  TALK  ABOUT  THE  SHORT  STATEMENT. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  been  asked  something 
about  this  short  paper— short  statement,  that  has  now 
been  read  by  the  learned  counsel.  What  occurred  be- 
tween you  and  Mr.  Moulton,  if  anything,  regarding  that 
statement?  A.  At  what  interview.  Mr.  Evarts,  do  you 
ask? 

Q.  At  any  interview  concerning  which  you  hare  been 
inquired  of  and  have  spoken,  in  the  cross?  A.  Well,  I 
think  the  only  interview  I  have  been  inquired  of,  or 
spoken  in  regard  to  that  paper,  as  a  paper,  after  its  ex- 
istence, was  the  interview  at  Mr.  Augnistus  Storrs's  house 
just  before  it  was  delivered. 
Mr.  Evarts  [To  Mr.  Beach]— That  is  it? 
Mr.  Beach— Yes  ;  his  answer  was  entii-ely  satisfactory 
in  regard  to  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  how  did  any  conversation  arise 
there  ?   A.  I  don't  think  I  can  add  anything  to  it. 

Q.  You  have  said  the  whole  ?  A.  I  think  I  have  said  the 
whole  ;  with  the  permission  of  counsel  I  will  say  that  Mr. 
Moulton  was  expected  before  the  Committee,  and  he  was 
expected  there  with  one  or  the  other  of  these  statements. 

Q.  That  is,  the  long  or  the  short  ?  A.  Or  the  short,  and 
I  didn't  know  positively  which  he  was  coming  with  until 
he  came.  When  he  came  I  went  out  into  the  front  parlor, 
and  saw  him,  and  he  announced  to  me  what  had  been  the 
conclusion  in  the  council  at  his  house  in  the  forenoon  of 
that  day,  what  the  result  was  about  what  sort  of  a  state- 
ment he  has  going  to  make. 


TEE   TILTON-BEEOHJEB  TBIAL. 


I 


813 

Q.  And  that  was  the  first  knowledge  you  had  of  what 
conclusion  he  came  to  ?  A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  you  were  gratified  at  it?  A.  I  was  gratified  at 
it;  highly  so. 

GEN.  TRACY'S  ADVICE  TO  ME.  EICHARDS. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  been  asked  about  some 
talk  you  had  with  Mr.  Richards;  will  you  please  state 
what  was  said  at  that  talk  ?  A  Mr.  Richards  had  been 
summoned  hefore  the  Committee,  and  I  went  to  the  Com- 
mittee rooms  and  foimd  him  in  the  front  parlor,  and  I 
supposed  it  was  my  duty  to  examine  him  before  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Q.  You  mean  openly  examine  him  1  A.  Openly  exam- 
ine him  before  the  Committee.  I  went  to  have  a  prelimi- 
nary conversation  with  him  preceding  this  examination, 
80  as  to  know  what  his  statement  was  to  be,  how  to 
frame  my  questions. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Beach  wishes  to  ask  a  question. 

Mr.  Beach— I  omitted  to  put  you  one  question  in  regard 
to  that  interview,  Mr.  Tracy.  I  now  give  it,  that  your 
attention  may  be  called  to  it.  Did  you,  at  that  interview 
With  Mr.  Richards,  when  you  applied  to  him  for  informa- 
tion as  to  what  his  knowledge  was,  or  statement  would 
he,  and  upon  his  answer  to  you  that  he  came  to  appear 
hefore  the  Committee,  and  not  to  make  a  statement  to 
you,  did  you  say  to  him  that  you  was  the  counsel  for  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  A.  No  ;  I  said  I  was  the  counsel  for  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Q.  No— Mr.  Beecher,  Is  the  question.  A.  No,  no. 
Mr.  Beach— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  will  you  be  good  as  to 
give  what  occurred  ?  A.  Mr.  Richards  cam  iiere,  and  I 
went  to  him,  as  I  say. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  ?  A.  I  did  not  knoT\  him.  I  said, 
**  Is  this  Mr.  Richards  %'*  He  said  it  was.  I  told  him  who 
I  was,  and  I  said,  "You  have  come  to  appear 
before  the  Committee  V*  He  said,  "  Yes,  I  have 
come and  I  said  to  him,  "  I  shall  conduct 
your  examination,"  or  something  to  that  effect, 
*'  and  I  would  like  to  know  what  you  have  to  state."  He 
says,  *'  I  am  to  state  nothing ;  I  have  come  before  the 
Committee,  but  T  shall  decline  to  answer  any  questions 
that  the  Committee  put  to  me."  "  Well,"  I  said,  d6  you 
mean  to  say,  Mr.  Richards,  that  you  are  going  to  give  the 
Committee  no  information  at  all  1 "  "I  do,"  he  says ;  "  I 
am  going  to  decline  to  answer  any  question  that  they  put 
to  me."  "  And  yet  you  mean  to  appear,"  I  said,  "  before 
them,  as  if  you  came  for  an  examination  1 "  "  Yes,"  says 
he,  "  they  summoned  me,  but  I  am  going  before  them ; 
and  when  they  ask  me  any  question  about  my  sister,  or 
anything  relating  to  my  family  affairs,  I  am  going  to  say 
to  them  that  I  decline  to  answer  the  question,  on  the 
ground  that  this  is  a  family  matter,  into  which  I  have  re- 
fused to  be  drawn  hitherto,  and  I  will  not  be  drawn  at  all, 
and  I  will  say  nothing  on  the  subject."  And  I  said,  "  Mr. 


Richards,  if  that  is  your  determination,  why  did  you, 
come  before  the  Committee?"  "Well,"  he  said,  "1 
came  because  they  summoned  me."  "  Well,"  I 
said,  "if  you  have  determined  not  to  give  them 
any  information  at  all,  it  seems  to  me  it  was  a 
useless  ceremony  for  you  to  come.  "  Well,"  he  says,  "  I 
supposed  I  ought  to  come,  but  I  shall  decline  to  answer 
any  questions."  "  Well,"  I  said,  "  Mr.  Richards,  you  will 
be  asked  whether  your  sister  has  made  any  confession  to- 
you,  by  the  Committee,  if  you  go  before  it ;  and  if  you  go. 
there  and  are  asked  that  question,  and  decline  to  answer 
it,  and  that  question  is  published,  and  with  your  declina- 
tion, it  will  place  youi-  sister  in  a  very  awkward  position. '♦^ 
And  I  said  to  him :  "  I  assume  you  do  not  wish  to  injme 
your  sister?"  He  said,  "No,  certainly  not;  I  do  not."' 
Well,  I  asked  him  if  the  consequences  of  such  action  ha4 
occurred  to  him.  He  said,  no,  it  had  not ;  it  had  not  oc- 
curred to  him ;  he  said  he  supposed  that  was  the  way  tO' 
do.  Well,  I  pointed  out  to  him  the  effect  upon  his  sister 
of  bis  going  before  thfe  Committee  and  having  such  ques- 
tions put  to  him,  and  saying,  "  I  decline  to  answer  that 
question."  After  talking  with  him  a  moment  he  realized 
the  position,  and  thanked  me  for  the  suggestion,  and  said 
he  would  not  go  before  the  Committee  and  submit  to  any 
examination ;  went  out  into  the  committee-room  where 
they  were  in  session,  and  said,  "Gentlemen,  you  havt 
summoned  me" — in  substance  I  am  repeating — "but  I 
have  come  to  say  to  you  that  I  will  not  appear  before  you 
to  submit  to  any  examination  whatever ;  I  will  not  be  ex- 
amined by  you." 
Q.  And  went  off  ?  A.  And  went  off. 

GEN.  TRACY'S  SUGGESTIONS  TO  HIS  ASSOCI- 
ATES. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy,  you  have  been  asked  about  an 
interview  with  Gen.  Butler,  had  at  your  lodgings ;  that 
was  the  11th,  wasn't  it  ?  A.  The  11th  of  July ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  11th  of  July  f  A.  Oh !  the  11th  of  August. 

Q.  The  11th  of  August,  so  I  supposed ;  after  the  Fifth 
Avenue  interview  of  the  10th  of  August  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  9th;  was  it  the  9th  1  A.  The  9th  of  August,  »t 
the  Fifth  Avenue. 

Q.  You  were  asked  something  about  Mr.  Beeoher's  be- 
ing in  the  house ;  was  Mr.  Beecher  in  any  way  a  party  to 
that  interview?  A.  Not  at  all.  Sir, 

Q.  Either  by  himself  or  by  you  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  that  is  calling.  Sir,  for  the  conelusicn 
of  the  witness.   I  don't  think  it  competent. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  you  did  not  represent  Mr.  Beeoher  in 
that  interview!  A.  No,  Sir;  I  did  not  represent  him  

Mr.  Beach— That  Is  a  question  of  argument,  resulting 
from  the  proven  facts  in  the  case,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  inferred  that  the  object  of  the  inquiry 
whether  Mr.  Beeoher  was  not  in  the  house  was  whether 
it  was  a  matter  of  his  participation.   [To  t  he  witness.] 


TESTIMONY   OF  BE. 

And  in  regard  to  the  visit  to  tlie  Flftli  Avenue  Hotel,  did 
Mr.  Beeclier  before  that  know  anything  of  it  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  of  any  latent  to  have  it  %  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy,  reference  has  heen  made  in  the  examiaa 
tion  to  the  f a<}t  of  yonr  having  heen  counsel  for  Messrs , 
Woodruff  &  Eohinson  while  Mi\  Moulton  was  a  memher 
of  that  firm,  ia  some  litigations  of  theirs.  You  were  such 
counsel?  A.  I  was  counsel  ia  one  litigation  for  them, 
and  in  the  Government  matter,  which  did  not  result  in  a 
litigation,  technically  speaking. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  you  were  their  lawyer  ?   A.  I  was. 

Q.  The  usual  professional  relations?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Of  client  and  counsel,  and  for  compensation  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir.   {Sotto  voce.}   Very  modest,  too. 

Q,  Now,  Sir,  you  were  asked  whether  you  made  any 
suggestions  to  the  then  cross-examining  counsel,  Mr. 
Porter,  when  Mr.  Moulton  was  on  the  stand,  concerning 
any  of  the  matters  in  which  you  were  counsel  for  them. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  no ! 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  no  1 

^ir.  Evarts— Yes,  he  was. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  no ! 

Mr.  Evarts— He  was,  about  this  specific  thing. 

Mr.  Beach — The  question  I  put  was  whether,  when  !Mr. 
Porter  was  examining  ia  regard  to  that  Government  dif- 
ficulty, he  ma4e  any  suggestion  to  Mr.  Porter,  and  he  said 
not  upon  that  subject. 

3Ir.  Evarts— Well,  I  understand  that  to  be  the  porat, 
when  Mr.  Porter  was  cross-examining'  Mr.  Moulton  con- 
cerning the  Government  matters  whether  Mr.  Tracy  did 
not  make  him  suggestions  at  that  point  of  the  examina- 
tion. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly  I  did  ask  him,  and  he  said  "  no." 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well ;  he  said  no.  [To  the  witness,  j 
Now,  Sir,  at  any  time  ia  the  conduct  of  this  case  have  you 
ever  made  any  suggestions  or  given  any  intimations  con- 
cerning any  examination  or  any  introduction  into  this 
cause  of  those  litigations  ?  A.  I  have  not,  Sir ;  on  the 
contrary,  I  have  protested  against  it. 

THE  DEFENSE  RESTS. 

Mr.  Beacli— Wait,  wait. 
Judge  NeUson— That  answers  it, 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  he  has  a  right  to  say  

Judge  Neilson— I  think  so. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  a  brother  lawyer  on  the  stand.  I 
•han't  object  to  it.  Sir— simply  the  denial  of  the  fact.  I 
don't  think  it  is  competent. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  aU  the  re-direct.  [To  Mr.  Beach.] 
Do  you  wish  to  cross-examine  1 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  rest,  if  your  Honor  please. 
Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  will  you  get  ready  to  retire! 


I^JAMIJS   F.    TRACY,  313 

PLAINTIFF'S  COUNSEL  CONSENT  THAT  MES. 
TLLTON  MAY  TESTIFY. 
Mr.  Beacli— Wait  one  moment,  if  your  Honor 
please.  If  your  Honor  please,  in  the  course  of  this  trial 
much  allusion  has  been  made  to  the  fact  that  Mrs.  TUton 
was  an  incompetent  witness  by  the  rules  of  evidence, 
and  was  excluded  from  taking  the  witness-stand  la  regard 
to  a  subject  matter  which  so  deeply  affected  her  position 
and  interest.  We  have  deemed  it  due.  Sir.  to  her,  to  our- 
selves, to  the  case  which  we  represent,  to  announce  to 
your  Honor  and  to  the  counsel  for  the  defense  that  we 
make  no  objection  whatever  to  ^Irs.  Tilt  on  being  pro- 
duced by  them  as  a  witness,  and  that  whatever  objec- 
tions we  might  legally  present  against  her  competency 
as  a  witness  we  waive  entirely,  and  shall  raise  no  question 
if  our  friends  upon  the  other  side  choose  to  produce  her. 
And  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  perhaps,  in  addition, 
that  Mrs.  Tilton  is  an  incompetent  witness  very  much  in 
the  same  sense  with  any  other  witness  who  is  disquali- 
fied, or  was  disqualified  before  our  recent  laws  upon  the 
subject,  by  interest  and  by  relationship,  and  that  it  is  an 
objection  which  may  be  waived  by  the  parties  to  the 
litigation.  Your  Honor  will  remember  the  phraseology 
of  the  statute  relating  to  the  competency  of  husband 
and  wife  as  witnesses  when  either  is  a  party,  and  de- 
claring that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  shall  be  com- 
petent or  eompellible  to  testify  ia  ce'rtain  cases  and  in 
regard  to  certain  transactions.  I  suppose,  Sir,  from  the 
language  of  the  statute,  and  from  the  known  practice 
under  the  common  law  declaring  the  disabilities  of  wit- 
nesses, that  it  is  a  matter  which  rests  entirely  in  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  parties  to  the  litigation,  except, 
possibly,  so  far  as  it  may  be  esteemed  the  policy 
of  the  law  to  exclude  the  revelation  of  confidential 
communications  ;  and  I  suppose,  and  I  understand  it  to 
be  so  intimated  by  the  decisions,  that  even  in  regard  to 
those  matters,  it  is  entirely  within  the  pleasure  of  the 
parties,  or  the  party,  the  husband  or  the  wife,  to  object, 
or  of  the  witness  himself  or  herself,  to  object  to  the  reve- 
lation of  even  those  matters  which  are  considered  as 
sacred  to  the  domestic  relation.  Ail  we  wish  to  say,  Sir, 
is  that  we  consent  upon  our  part  that  our  friends  upon 
the  other  side  can  use  Mrs.  Tilton  as  a  witness  in  this 
case  if  they  choose. 

THE  DEFENSE  DECLINE  TO  CALL  MRS.  TIL- 
TON. 

Mr.  Evarts — The  question  whether  Mrs.  TU- 
ton could  be  a  witness  in  this  case  has  never  been  an  ac- 
tual question.  The  law  prohibits  it ;  the  policy  of  the  law 
prohibits  it ;  the  general  sense  of  the  wisdom  of  that 
policy  prohibits  it.  There  was  a  period  during  the  prog- 
ress of  this  cause  when  the  Legislature  of  the  State  was 
understood  to  be  considering  whether  the  interests  of  so- 
ciety, under  the  provocation  of  the  importance  of  a  par- 
ticular case,  required  that  they  should  abrogate  the  rule 


314 


IHJ^   TILTON-BEECUMB  TBIAL. 


ot  law  and  abandon  the  policy  of  society,  and  open 
the  discords  of  husband  and  wife  swearing 
against  one  another  in  court ;  and  the  Legislature 
by  an  unanimous  judgment  (as  we  must  understand), 
and  the  concurrence  of  all  the  people  of  the  State,  said, 
our  law  wisely  and  firmly  determines  that  question. 
Now,  if  Mrs.  Tilton  at  any  time  could  legally  have  been 
proposed  and  admitted  as  a  witness,  there  would  then 
have  been  two  practical  questions  for  us,  as  counsel,  to 
determine— grave  and  important  questions,  which  have 
never  yet  arisen  for  our  determination,  because  the  law 
hafi  sealed  her  lips  in  any  litigation  in  which  her  husband 
is  a  party.  Those  two  grave  questions  would  have  been 
(first),  in  our  sole  relation  of  duty  to  our  client.  If  we 
thought  his  case,  as  we  had  presented  it,  had  any  such 
defect  in  volume  or  force  of  evidence  that  any  other  were 
needed,  then  it  would  have  been  our  duty  to  adduce  such 
evidence,  further,  as  the  law  opened  to  us.  We  have  now 
no  such  opinion,  and  no  such  view,  that  our  case  needs 
any  more  testimony  than  we  have  given.  If,  however, 
we  had  come,  ta  the  sole  relation  of  duty  to  our  client,  to 
dispose  of  that  practical  question,  and  the  wife  were  a 
witness  that  the  law  permitted  to  be  introduced,  then  we 
should  have  the  grave  duty  of  determining  whether  some 
injury,  even  some  weakness  that  we  felt  might  need  to  be 
supplied  in  our  client's  case,  should  properly  be  sup- 
plied by  this  grave  antagonism,  tearing  to  pieces  the 
last  shred  of  respectability  and  hope  in  the  future  for 
this  family.  Fortunately  we  have  not  been  brought  by 
any  doubt  or  hesitation  as  to  the  force  and  fullness  of  our 
defense,  into  that  grave  moral  question.  But  your  Honor 
sees  that  these  are  all  hypothetical  inquiries,  and  to 
which  I  should  not  have  alluded  tn  the  least,  but  for  the 
introduction  by  our  learned  friend  of  this  proposition. 

WHY  PLAINTIFF'S  COUNSEL  WITHDREW 
OBJECTION  TO  THE  TESTIMONY. 

Mr.  Beach— I  did  not  suppose,  Sir,  that  the 
suggestion  which  I  made  was  to  give  occasion  for  a  dis- 
cussion or  an  address  of  this  character.  I  do  not  propose 
to  follow  it.  Nor  is  it  necessary  for  me  to  present  the 
motives  which  iaduced  me  to  withdraw  any  possible  ob- 
jection which  we  might  have  to  the  competency  of  this 
lady  as  a  witness.  I  shall  not  pursue  the  question 
whether  the  necessities  of  the  defendant's  case 
would  properly  lead  them  to  the  consideration 
of  the  propriety  of  examining  this  lady; 
nor  shall  I  consider,  Sir,  the  other  question  whether  her 
presentation  as  a  witness  in  this  case  would  lead  to  an 
antagonism  productive  of  the  results  anticipated  by  the 
learned  counsel.  "Very  much  might  be  said  upon  that 
subject.  Sir,  as  to  how  much  of  the  garment  of  respecta- 
bility is  left  in  the  present  condition  and  attitude  of  this 
family,  and  as  to  the  responsibility,  rest  where  it  may,  for 
producing  these  sad  results.  Those  are  matters.  Sir, 
which  I  do  not  care  to  albule  to,  rlioucrn  T  might  possibly 


answer  with  some  force,  and  perhaps  emphasis,  tfte  sug- 
gestions of  the  learned  counsel.  I  may  say.  Sir,  that  in 
my  view  of  the  policy  of  the  law,  the  counsel  is  entirely 
mistaken  in  his  construction,  both  of  the  legal  intent  of 
our  legislation  and  of  the  public  sense  in  regard  to  the 
propriety  of  a  woman  being  permitted  to  defend  herself, 
if  she  can,  under  the  circumstances  in  which  Mrs.  Ulton 
is  placed.  Tn  a  former  discussion.  Sir,  we  alluded  some- 
what, and  somewhat  extensively,  to  the  policy  of  our  legis- 
lation upon  that  subject,  and  I  think  it  was  very  clearly 
demonstrated  to  your  Honor  that  by  the  policy  of  the 
law  it  is  now  possible  for  husband  and  wife  compulsorily 
to  be  placed,  as  witnesses  in  a  cause  in  a  court  of  justice, 
in  positive  and  direct  and  humiliating  antagonism  to 
each  other.  It  is  not  the  policy  of  the  law  of  our  State 
to  forbid  that  adverse  position.  But  I  do  not  propose, 
Sir,  to  discuss  it.  My  only  object  was  to  announce  to 
your  Honor,  and  to  give  to  our  learned  friends  the  ben- 
efit of  the  announcement,  that  if  they  chose  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  testimony  of  this  lady  in  this  case,  in  a 
legitimate  way,  our  objection  being  withdrawn,  and  to 
present  her  testimony  in  such  a  shape  and  before  such  a 
tribunal  that  it  could  be  examined  and  tested  by  the  ordi- 
nary rules  of  evidence,  and  not  by  indirection  before  an- 
other tribimal  and  in  another  shape,  they  were  at  perfect 
liberty  to  do  so. 

JUDGE  NEILSON  APPROVES  THE  COURSE 
OF  THE  DEFENSE. 

Mr.   Evarts— But  a  word,  if    your  Honor 

please.  I  presented  in  full,  as  your  Honor  will  remem- 
ber, my  view  of  the  law  and  the  policy  of  the  law  on  this 
question,  as  presented  by  the  situation  when  Mr.  TUton 
was  offered  as  a  witness,  and  I  do  not  propose  to  repeat 
that.  In  conclusion— conclusion  upon  my  part,  I  mean— 
I  only  need  to  say  that  we  do  not  regard  consent  or  stipa- 
lation  between  parties  to  the  violation  of  a  law  which 
excludes,  on  grounds  of  public  policy,  a  witness  as 
making  him  or  her  a  competent  witness. 

Judge  Neilson— The  question  here  would  be  very  differ- 
ent from  that  which  was  presented  when  the  competency 
o*"  the  plaintiff  was  under  consideration. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  understand. 

Jud^«"  Neilson— Because  we  have  here  a  statute  directed 
to  the  swlation  of  a  husband  or  a  wife,  a  party  to  the  ac- 
tion in  an  action  of  this  character.  I  have  only  to  shy, 
that  the  luestion  having  been  presented,  and  the  offer 
having  been  made,  and  the  learned  counsel  for  the  de- 
fense thinking  it  their  duty  to  decline  to  accept  the  sug- 
gestion, 1  confess  I  feel  gratified  that  the  lady  is  not  to 
be  called.  [To  the  jury.]  Gentlemen,  please  prepare  to 
retire. 

The  Court  here  took  the  usual  recess  until  2  o'clock. 


TESTIJdOyY  OF  CR. 

REBUTTIXG  TESTIMONY  FOR  THE  PLAINTIFF. 

After  recess,  at  2:10  o'clock,  the  taking  of 
tlie  rebutting  testimony  in  behaLf  of  tlie  jlaintiff  was  trc- 
gun.  Tlie  first  point  taken  up  was,  in  wliat  war  r*Ir. 
Tilton  took  part  in  tlie  procession  in  lionor  of  Eossel,  tlie 
Communist. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CHAELES  C.  ST  AXLE  Y. 

CTiarles  C.  Stanley  was  called  by  plaintiff 
and  sworn. 

Mr.  Morris— :yir.  Stanley,  vrliere  do  you  reside  ?  A.  Xo. 
77  Ralph-ave.,  Brooklyn. 

Q.  In  Brooklyn  ?   A.  Brooklyn  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  wliat  is  your  business '?  A.  I  am  a  journeyman 
pocket-book  maker. 

iLL\  Erarts— Mr.  Stanley,  won't  you  speak  a  linle 
louder,  so  tliat  tuese  gentlemen  (tlie  furthest  on  tlie  jmy) 
can  bear  you. 

Mr.  Morris— Are  you  acquainted  witli  :Mr.  Tilton,  tbe 
plaintiff  ]  A.  I  never  spoke  to  tlie  gentleman  ujitii  tliis 
morning. 

Q.  You  know  Mm  by  sigbt  ?   A.  Know  Mm  by  sigbt. 

Q.  In  December,  '71,  did  you  know  Gren.  Eyan  by  sight 
or  personally  ?  A.  I  am  not  positive  that  I  could  point 
the  gentleman  out. 

A  Juror— Speak  a  little  louder. 

Mr.  Morris— Did  you  then  know  Mr.  Tilton  by  sight  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  procession  called  the  Eossel 
procession,  on  the  17th  of  December— Sunday,  the  17th 
of  December,  1871 1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  procession  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  that  procession  form  1  A.  In  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  Cooper  Institute,  on  Third-ave. 

Q.  At  about  what  point  (iid  the  different  sections  of  the 
procession  come  together  and  the  procession  complete 
"was formed?  A.  The  procession  was  completed  at  the 
comer  of  Great  Jones-st.  and  the  Bowery;  the  different 
sections  joined  ra  the  procession,  passing  into  Great 
Jones-st. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  procession  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  At  what  point  did  you  first  see  Mm  1  A.  In  Great 
Jones-st.,  in  the  vicinity  of  Lafayette-place. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  point  that  you  designate  where  the 
procession  fcrmed  complete?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  the  procession  was  completed,  completely 
■formed ;  was  Mr.  Tilton  in  company  with  any  person  ?  A. 
Well,  he  was  walking  in  the  procession  with  one  of  the 
sub-divisions;  I  didn't  notice  particularly  whom  he 
■walked  -with ;  he  seemed  beside  a  gentleman  who  was 
«ome  inches  shorter  than  MmseLf. 

Q.  And  in  what,  about  what  part  of  the  procession  was 
he  walking?  A.  He  was  in  a  sub-division,  which  was  led 
S)y  some  ladiee,  in  company  -with  a  banner ;  Mr.  Tilton 


ELES   C.   STAXLI^Y.  315 

was  distantfrom  them  eight  or  ten  paces  in  the  rear,  some 
thii^t}-  or  forty  persons  intervening  between  them. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  those  ladies  were,  any  of  themi 
A.  Well,  they  were— my  attention  was  called  to  them, 
and  I  asked  who  they  were,  and  I  was  told  that  it  waa 
Mrs.  Woodhull  and  her  sister.  Miss  Claflin. 

Q.  And  was  either  of  them  carrying  a  banner  or  flag  ? 
A.  I  didn't  notice  that  they  carried  it ;  there  seemed  to 
be  a  man  between  them;  I  can't  say  who  carried  the 
banner;  there  was  a  banner  there  and  a  man  and  two 
women. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  that  gentleman  was  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  It  was  not  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  It  was  not  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  As  to  size,  was  it  a  tall  man  or  medium  size?  A. 
That  I  can't  say. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  as  to  that ;  did  you  accompany 
the  procession  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  From  there  during  the  rest — during  the  route  they 
took  ?  A.  Xot  tMough  the  entire  route. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  procession  at  any  other 
point  afterwardi  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  At  what  other  point  did  you  see  Mm  ?  A.  In  the 
vicinity  of  the  comer  of  Fourteenth-st.  and  University- 
place  ;  I  think  that  was  the  street ;  at  any  rate,  it  was  on. 
the  way  up,  in  the  vicinity  of  Fourteenth-st. 

Q.  And  at  any  other  point  ?  A.  On  the  return,  in  Four- 
teenth-st. before  the  breaMng  up. 

Q.  And  can  you  state  whether  he  and  the  gentleman 
who  was  with  Mm  maintained  their  relative  positions  in 
the  procession?  A.  Whenever  I  noticed  Mr.  Tilton— I 
didn't  go  there  especially  to  watch  him— he  maintained 
the  same  relative  position. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  continued  walking  in  com- 
pany with  the  same  person  ]    A.  That  I  can't  remember. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  did  he  say  just  now? 

Mr.  Morris— He  could  not  say  whether  he  continued 
walking  ta  company  -with  the  same  gentleman.  [To  the 
witness.]  Did  you  at  any  time  see  him  walking  in  com- 
pany with  any  lady?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  see  him  at  any  time  in  a  carriage  ?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  carriages  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Can  you  state  about  how  many  carriages  there  were 
in  the  procession,  according  to  your  recollection  ?  A. 
Well,  my  recollec^tion  is  very  poor ;  the  carriage — division 
of  carriages  formed  on  Houston-st.;  if  I  remember  cor- 
rectly there  were  four  or  five  ;  sometMng  like  that. 

Q.  And  what  part  of  th«  procession  did  they  occupy ! 
A.  That  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  In  front  or  in  the  rear  of  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  can't  say. 

Q.  Can't  say  as  to  that— how  near  were  you  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton at  any  time  ?  A.  Well,  within  15  feet. 

Q.  So  that  you  could  not  be  mistaken  as  to  the  person  ! 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  At  the  time  the  procession  broke  up  how  near  were 
you  to  Mr.  Tilton  ?   A.  WeU,  I  did  not  accompany  the 


816 


TRB   TILTON-BEEVHEB  lElAL. 


procession  as  far  as  the  statue,  se  that  I  do  not  remember 
ieeing  Mr.  Tilton  at  any  point  above  the  last  corner  open- 
ing on  the  square. 

Q.  And  that  was  how  near  where  it  finally  broke  up— 
the  place  where  it  ?  A.  Well,  I  cannot  say  the  dis- 
tance to  the  statue;  probably  200  feet. 

Q.  Did  the  proeession  go  above  that  point  in  its  march  t 
A.  Above— I  walked  with  the  procession  to  some  distance 
above  Fourteenth-st.,  crossed  over  and  met  it  on  its  re- 
turn on  Sixth-ave.,  about  Twenty-second-st. 

Mr.  Beach— You  did  not  accompany  it  up  to  its  highest 
point  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  did  not  hear  his  last  answer. 

Mr.  Beach— He  did  not  accompany  the  procession  up  to 
the  highest  point  of  its  route. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  all. 


CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  STANLEY. 
Mr.  Evarts— Were  you  one  of  the  procession  ? 

A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  you  any  interest  in  the  occasion  or  subject  that 
was  celebrated  there  by  them?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  drawn  there,  then,  by  any  interest  in 
the  procession  or  its  object  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  no  particular 
Interest. 

Q.  You  then  lived  in  Brooklyn  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  occasion  of  your  being  in  New-York 
that  day  ?  A.  Curiosity. 

Q,  Do  you  mean  about  this  procession  ?  A.  About  the 
procession. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  feel  that  interest  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  went  over  to  see  it  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  But  not  interest  enough  to  join  in  it  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Perhaps  you  didn't  sympathize  with  its  object ;  how 
was  that  1  A.  Not— in  the  general  object  of  the  celebra- 
tion, but  not  with  any  of  the  "  isms  "  represented  in  the 
procession. 

Q.  Exactly;  you  sympathized  with  the  general  objects, 
but  in  none  of  the  particular  doctrines  of  the  people  that 
were  celebrating  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  were  you  alone,  or  did  you  take  some  com- 
panions with  you  1  A.  I  was  alone. 

Q.  At  what  hour  did  you  get  in  sight  of  this  procession 
or  its  preliminary  organization  1  A.  I  can't  say  exactly  ; 
I  think  it  was  about  2  o'clock. 

Q.  What  hour  did  you  leave  Brooklyn  1  A.  Well,  after 
dinner. 

Q.  What  hour  was  that  ?  A.  That  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Well,  you  know  what  you         A.  We  sometimes— 

I  took  my  dinners  at  very  irregular  hours,  according  to 
my  disposition  about  going  out;  sometimes  at  1  o'olcck, 
sometimes  later. 

Q.  Yes,  but  not  earlier  ?  A.  Not  enrlier. 

Q.  And  did  you  go  straight  over,  with  no  other  object  ? 
A.  Ko  other  object. 


Q.  But  as  a  spectator— after  your  dinner?  A.  As  a 
spectator— curiosity. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  how  far  did  you  follow  the  procession, 
and  did  you  take  up  any  companions  to  talk  with  you  on 
the  way  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state  the  route  that  you  followed 
from  Cooper  Institute  ?  A.  I  did  not  start  with  the  head 
of  the  column  from  Cooper  Institute ;  I  joined  in  and 
passed  along  on  the  sidewalk  at  the  corner  of  Great 
Jones-st.  and  Bowery. 

Q.  Yes,  and  kept  up  with  the  head?  A.  No,  Sir;  I 
lingered  along;  there  was  some  halts;  I  kept  moving 
along,  and  took  general  observations. 

Q.  Well,  when  you  started  with  your  purpose  of  keep- 
ing abreast  of  the  prooftssion,  were  you  abreast  of  the  head 
of  it  ?  A.  I  saw  the  head  of  it  pass ;  I  saw  the  head  of  the 
procession  a  number  of  times. 

Q.  Well,  my  question  was  a  very  simple  one.  As  I 
understand,  you  undertook  to  follow  the  procession  a 
certain  way,  some  ways,  didn't  you— foUow  it  along  ?  A. 
I  had  no  fixed  resolution  to  follow  it. 

Q.  No,  I  didn't  say  that;  I  said  you  undertook— you 
started  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  started. 

Q.  Very  well,  now ;  when  you  so  started  did  you  start 
abreast  of  the  procession?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  did— well,  did  you  keep  abreast  of  the  procession 
for  any  length  of  time  ?  A.  Not  abreast  of  the  head  of  the 
procession  or  any  other  part— any  

Q.  Any  particular  part  ?  A.  Any  particular  part,  any 
length  of  time  that  I  could  specify. 

Q.  Very  well,  then,  the  procession  was  rather  getting 
ahead  of  you  aU  the  while,  was  it  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  at  what  point  did  you  cease  following  that  pro- 
cession        A.  I  know  that  I  passed  

Q.  [Continuing]  or  keeping  up  with  it  ?  A.  I  cannot 
recollect  at  what  point  I  stopped. 

Q.  On  what  avenue  ?  A.  Well,  I  don't  remember,  but  I 
think  it  was  University-place ;  I  don't  

Q.  Going  up,  then— it  was  going  up  further,  the  pro- 
cession was  ?  A.  Going  up,  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  stopped  there  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then,  as  I  understand  you,  whenever  that  procession 
crossed  Fourteenth-st.  for  the  first  time,  you  ceased  to 
pay  attention  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Beach— He  said  above  Fourteenth-st. 

The  Witness— That  is  the  last  street  that  I  remember 
crossmg. 

Q.  Its  crossing,  yes— or  your  crossing         A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  With  it— was  Fourteenth-st.?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  first  time  that  the  procession 
crossed  that  street  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  thereafter  you  paid  no  attention  to  it  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  further  ?  A.  I  must  have  walked  up  tLat 
street  some  distance,  because  on  the  retm-n  I  was  on  tlie. 


TESTIMONI   OF  CHARLES   C.  .STANLEY. 


317 


eomer  of  Twenty-second-st.  and  Sixth-ave,— about  the 
comer  of  Twenty-second-st.  and  Sixtli-ave. 

Q.  How  did  you  get  over  there  1  A.  Crossed  over. 

Q,  From  where?  A.  From  the  route — street,  that  the 
procession  was  moving  to  Sixth-ave. 

Q.  Yes;  you  think  you  crossed  from  University-place 
to  Sixth-ave.  t  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  in  what  street  did  you  cross  oTer— through  what 
street  1  A.  I  cannot  remember. 

Mr.  Beach— I  did  not  understand  him  to  say  that  he 
crossed  over  from  University-place. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  he  now  supposes. 

Mr.  Beach— No  ;  Twenty-second-st.  is  al>ove  University- 
place,  as  I  understand.  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  then,  it  would  be  Broadway,  then. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

The  Witness— I  remember  walking  up  Sixth-ave.  a  short 
distance  after  I  crossed  over. 

Q.  After  you  crossed  over  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  what  street  you  crossed  on,  then,  you  do  not  re- 
member ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  cross  through  Fourteenth-st.  1  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  did  you  cross  through  Fifteenth-st,  ?  A.  I 
could  not  be  positive. 

Q.  Well,  so  far  as  you  know.  Can  you  name  any  other 
street  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  cannot  name  any  other  street. 

Q.  Yes;  very  well         A.  Nor  can  I  designate  that 

street. 

Q.  What  did  you  cross  over  to  Sixth-ave.  for  1  A.  To 
see  the  procession,  and  the  parts  of  it,  on  its  return. 

Q.  On  its  return— see  whether  it  held  out  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  As  many  on  the  return  as  there  were  on  the  ad- 
vance ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  was  your  idea.  Now,  Sir,  you  have  stated  that 
you  saw  Mr.  Tilton  there  that  day  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And,  as  I  understood  you,  at  the  formation  of  the 
procession  t  A.  Well,  by  the  formation  I  don't  exactly 
understand  you ;  I  saw  him  in  the  procession  after  all  of 
the  sections  started  to  join  in  at  Great  Jones-st. ;  and  you 
may  say  I  saw  him  as  the  procession  was  forminjr. 

Q.  Yes ;  was  being— was  forming.  Well,  that  I  under- 
stood you.  Now,  how  near  the  head  of  the  procession  was 
Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  You  haven't  the  least  idea.  Well,  how  near  the  tail 
of  it  was  he  ?  A.  That  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  How  near  the  middle  was  hel  A.  I  can't  say. 

Q.  Now,  before  you  left  the  procession,  to  cross  over 
toward  Sixth-ave.,  how  far  had  the  procession— what  pro- 
portioTs  of  the  procession's  length  had  passed  you  1  A.  T 
don't  remember. 

Q.  Don't  know  whether  it  was  a  third,  or  a  quarter, 
or  .  No,  Sir  

Q.  Or  any  at  all         A.  No,  Sir;  it  was  not  a  very 

large  sectkai. 


Q.  You  were  pretty  near  the  headi  A.  That  I  cannot 
say— it  was  not  a  large  procession. 

Mr.  Beach— Not  a  large  procession. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  I  beg  pardon ;  well,  give  us,  if  you  can, 
any  notion  how  near  you  were  being  abreast  the  head  of 
the  procession  when  j»au  deserted  it  and  crossed  over  to 
Sixth-ave.  1  A.  Well,  I  cannot  remember  

Q.  Can't  give  us  any  idea?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  T  imderstand  you  that  you  saw  Mr.  Tilton 
afterward  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  After  the  formation  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  After  that  point — where  did  you  see  him  again  !  A. 
At  some  point  in  Fourteenth-st.,  after  turning  out  of 
Sixth-ave. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is,  as  the  procession  was  coming 
down  ?  A.  Coming  down ;  yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Coming  back— returning  upon  its  route; 
did  you  follow  the  procession  after  it  got  down  to  the 
Sixth-ave.  where  you  were — did  you  follow  it  then  to  the 
end  1  A.  As  near  as  the  crowd  would  permit. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  did  not  reach  the , statue,  which  was  the 
point  for  the  breaking  up ;  there  was  much  confusion  at 
the  close. 

Q.  But  you  followed  it  substantially  to  the  end  of  the 
route  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  in  so  following,  on  this  return  part  of  the 
route,  were  you  abreast  of  the  head  or  of  the  tail,  or  of  the 
middle  of  the  procession  ?  A.  I  met  the  head  and  loitered 
along. 

Q.  With  it  ?  A.  And  allowed  it  to  pass  me,  and  before 
we  had  reached  Union-square  I  suppose  I  was  near  the 
end  of  the  procession. 

Q.  Well,  this  procession  was  not  on  a  trot,  was  it  ?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  walking  down— you  walked  about  as 
fast  as  the  procession  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  you  started,  then,  abreast  of  the  head  from 
Sixth-ave.,  about  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  much  of  the  length  of  the  procession  had 
got  ahead  of  you  before  you  started  ?  A.  W^eU,  the  route 
of  the  procession  was  on  my  way  home,  and,  as  I  say,  it 
had  nearly  passed  me  when  I  arrived  at  Union-square. 

Q,  Yes  ;  on  the  Sixth-ave.  you  had  gone  so  much  slower 
than  that  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  it  had  passed  you.  Now,  Sir,  when  you  saw 
Mr.  TUton  the  second  time  in  the  procession,  what  was 
his  position  as  respects  the  head,  the  middle,  or  the  tail  f 
A.  The  same  as  when  I  saw  him  in  Great  Jones-st. 

Q.  WeU,  which  was  that  ?  A.  A  distance  of  some  30  or 
40  feet  intervening  between  him  and  this  banner  that 
was  carried  and  accompanied  by  two  women. 

Q.  WeU,  was  there  more  than  one  banner  ?  A.  There 
were  several  banners. 

Q.  Well,  which  banner  was  it  I  A.  The  one  acconi!> 
panied  by  two  ladies,  being  carried  by  a  man. 

Q.  Very  well,  and  who  was  in  the  rear— that  is,  after 


318 


TEE   TILION-BBEOHEB  TEIAL. 


tiiat  ?  A.  He  was  in  tlie  rear  of  that  particular  subdi- 
vision of  tlie  precession. 

Q.  Yes,  and  lie  formed  a  part  of  that  division?  A. 
Well,  lie  seemed  to :  he  was  walking  with  them. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  know  the  man  that  was  in  this  carriage 
with  the  two  women  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  you  knew  Gen.  Ryan  1  A.  No, 
Sir ;  he  was  pointed  out  to  me  on  th/ 1  day,  but  it  made 
no  impression, 

Q.  You  don't  know  his  appearance  by  sight?  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  not  before  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  where  you  saw  him?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  now,  these  women  that  were  in  this  carriage- 
were  there  also  women  in  other  carriages  ?  A.  I  took  no 
particular  notice  of  the  carriages  with  the  exception  of 
one  in  which  there  was  a  woman  holding  a  red  flag. 

Q.  Yes  ?  A.  That  is  aU  that  I  remember  of  that  part 
of  it. 

Q.  Was  she  alone  in  that  carriage?  A.  I  don't  remem- 
ber ;  I  think  not— likely  not. 

Q.  Who  was  with  her  ?  A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Who  was  she  ?  A.  That  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Did  you  inquire  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  one  of  the  passing 
crowd  said  that  she  was  a  late  arrival  from  Paris. 

[Laughter,  in  which  the  witness  loined.] 

Q.  Well,  did  you  laugh  as  much  then  as  you  do  now  ? 
A.  Sir? 

Q.  Did  you  laugh  then  as  much  as  you  do  now  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir;  T  was  amused. 

Q.  And  your  friend  also  ?  A.  I  was  with  no  friend. 

Q.  Well,  I  mean  the  gentleman  who  gave  you  this  in- 
formation ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  he  was  walking  along. 

Q,  He  didn't  laugh  1   A.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  Beach— He  ran  away. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Gen.  Hyan  was  not  in  that  carriage  ? 
A.  T  don't  remember,  Sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Til  ton  was  not?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  are  sure  of  that— now  this  carriage  which  you 
say  Miss  Claflin  was  in  ?  A.  I  didn't  say  that  Miss 
Claflin  was  in  that. 

Q.  Well,  some  one.  A.  Some  one  w^as  in  the  carriage. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  thought  he  said  so.  Didn't  you  in  the 
dii-ect?  Oh,  you  saw  somebody  that  was  pointed  out  to 
you  as  Miss  Claflin  ?  A.  Only  walking  in  the  procession. 

Q.  On  foot ;  yes,  Sir  ?  A.  On  foot. 

Q.  Now,  whereabouts  was  this  lady  that  was  pointed 
out  as  Miss  Claflin  to  you  in  the  procession  ?  A.  She  was 
accompanying  a  flag  and  banner  of  some  Mnd. 

Q.  And  who  carried  it  ?  A.  A  man. 

Q.  A  tall  man  ?  A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  WeU,  was  there  any  other  lady  that  accompanied 
It  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  she  also  described  to  you— named  to  you  ?  A. 
In  a  general  way  ;  I  asked  who  they  were ;  I  was  told  it 
yra&  Victoria  Woodhull  and  her  sister. 


Q.  And  her  sister— and  were  they  carrying  the  taasela  1 
A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Well,  see  if  you  cannot  bring  that  picture  back  now 
to  your  eye,  that  there  was  a  man  carrying  the  flag  and 
Mrs.  Woodhull  and  her  sister  with  the  tassels  in  their 
hands  ?  A.  I  don't  remember ;  it  might  have  been ;  I 
cannot  say. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  describe  that  man  in  any  way,  so  that 
we  can  get  at  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Can't  say  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Whether  he  was  tall,  whether  he  had  blue  eyes— can 
you?  A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Long  hair  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  can't  describe  him. 

Q.  Now,  duruig  the  whole  time  that  this  procession  was 
engaged  on  its  route— from  the  time  you  left  it  in  Univer- 
sity-place, or  the  extension  of  University-place,  imtU  you 
resumed  your  observation  of  it  in  the  Sixth-ave.— you 
don't  know  what  happened  to  it,  do  you?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  don't  know  whether  they  changed  hands,  got 
into  the  carriage  and  others  walked,  so  they  rode  and 
tied  as  they  went  on  about  those  banners  or  npt,  do  you  ? 
A.  I  don't  know  what  they  did  while  they  was  out  of  my 
sight. 

Q.  Now,  when  do  you  remember  flrst  seeing  Mr.  TUton 
in  connection  with  that  procession  ?  A.  In  Great  Jones-st. 

Q.  After  the  procession  was  formed  ?  A.  Just  as  it  had 
formed. 

Q.  Well,  after  it  was  proceeding  along  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  You  did  not  see  him  while  they  were  standing 
about  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Organizing  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  But  as  it  strimg  along,  when  he  was  in  it?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  The  first  time  you  saw  him  he  was  in  it  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Now,  how  many  ranks  were  there  between  Mr.  Tilton 
and  this  banner  that  some  one  was  carrying,  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflin  attending?  A.  From  six  to 
ten;  I  cannot  say  exactly ;  at  some  times  they  were  nearer, 
as  the  procession  became  crowded— perhaps  within  20 
feet,  and  then  again  perhaps  40  or  50  feet. 

Q.  But  with  the  same  number  of  ranks  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  many  people  walked  abreast  in  these  ranks  t 
A.  I  think  four— an  average  ot  four. 

Q.  You  think  Mr.  Tilton  was  in  sight  of  this  banner  ana 
its  standard-bearers^  A.  Yes;  I  should  think  so. 

Q.  When  did  you  flrst  think  of  being  a  witness  here? 
A.  Perhaps  three  weeks  since. 

Q.  What  directed  youi-  attention  to  it,  or  anybody's  at- 
tention to  you  ?  A.  Well,  the  fact  that  I  thought  there 
was  some  misstatement,  and  I  being  a  witness  of  it  

Q.  You  thought  that  this  statement  about  Mr.  Tilton 
was  wrong,  and  you  had  seen  something  that  would  con- 
tradict it,  and  you  made  it  known  ?  A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  all,  Sir. 


TJiSTlMONY  OF  GE0BGJ2    W.  MADDOX. 


319 


TESTIMONY  OF  GEORGE  W.  MADDOX. 

Mr.  Morris  then  called  Lewis  Payne,  but  Mr. 
Pearsall  spoke  to  him  as  Mr.  Payne  was  coming  forward, 
and  Mr.  Morris  called  Mr.  Maddox  in  place  of  the  other. 

George  W.  Maddox,  being  duly  sworn,  testified  as  fol- 
lows : 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Maddox,  where  do  you  reside  ?  A.  In 
New- York. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  TUton,  the  plaintiff,  hy 
sight,  or  personally  ?  A.  I  know  him  by  sight. 

Q.  And  did  you  know  him  in  December,  1871,  by  sight  ? 
A.  I  have  known  him  by  sight  from  six  to  ten  years. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  at  that 
time  ?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  procession  on  Sunday,  the  17th  of 
December,  1871,  that  has  been  spoken  of?  A.  The 
Kossel  procession  ? 

Q.  Yes,  the  Rossel  procession  1   A.  I  was  in  it. 

Q.  And  what  part  of  the  procession  were  you  in  1  A. 
My  recollection  is  that  I  was  near  the  head  of  the  line. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  in  that  procession  ?  A.  I  saw 
Mm  once  or  twice. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  procession  was  he  ?  A.  My  rec- 
ollection is  that  it  was  near  the  center  of  the  Une. 

Q.  And  at  what  points  of  the  route  did  you  see  him  1 
A.  I  cannot  now  designate  any  particular  point. 

Q.  Was  he  in  company  with  any  person  %  A.  He  was 
in  company  with  gentlemen. 

Q.  Did  you  know  either  of  those  he  was  marching 
with  1  A.  I  did  not  know  anybody  but  Mr.  Tilton  as  I 
noticed  then. 

Q.  And  at  the  different  points  at  which  you— you  can- 
not designate,  you  say,  the  points,  but  at  the  different 
points  at  which  you  did  see  him,  did  he  occupy  the  same 
relative  position  with  reference  to  the  procussioni  A. 
That  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Woodhull  in  that  procession  ?  A. 
A  great  many  times. 

Q.  And  Miss  Claflini  A.  Both  of  them. 

Q.  Now,  state  where  you  first  saw  them  in  the  proces- 
sion, with  reference  to  its  formation  1  A.  I  saw  them  at 
the  formation  of  the  line;  tudeed,  before  the  line  was 
formed. 

Q.  Before  the  line  was  formed.  Where  did  it  form  1  A. 
My  recollection  is  it  was  formed  on  Seventh-st. ;  at  all 
events,  the  section  to  which  I  belonged  was  formed  on 
that  street.  Sections  formed  in  different  parts  and 
places,  and  then  came  together  at  a  general  rendezvous. 

Q.  And  when  was  the  procession  completed— do  you 
recollect  1  A.  At  about  Cooper  Union,  or  the  square 
there. 

Q.  Now,  when  did  you  first  see  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss 
Claflin  1  You  say  you  saw  them  before  the  procession 
formed ;  whereabouts  ?  A.  In  different  parts  of  the  route 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end ;  I  have  stated  that  I  saw 
them  before  the  formation  and  afterward;  they  be- 


longed to  Section  12,  and  were  in  that  section ;  I  cannot 
now  designate  the  particular  part  of  the  line  that  that 
section  occupied. 

Q.  But  you  saw  them  at  various  points ;  now  what  part 
of  the  procession  did  they  occupy,  as  near  as  you  can 
state  1  A.  I  have  just  stated  that  my  recollection  is  that 
they  occupied  about  the  center  of  the  line. 

Q.  About  the  center  1  A.  About  the  center  of  the  line. 
I  may  be  mistaken  as  to  that,  for  I  took  no  note  of  any- 
thing particular. 

Q.  Did  either  of  them  carry  a  banner  or  flagi  A.  One 
did  certainly,  and  perhaps  both. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  whom  they  were  marching  with— 
any  gentleman  escort?  A.  When  they  came  on  to  the 
ground,  there  was  Col.  Blood  and  Mr.  West,  and  my 
recollection  is  that  there  were  others,  but  I  cannot  recall 
their  names. 

Q.  What  was  Mr.  West's  first  name?  A.  WUliam. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  is  now  %  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  And  when  you  saw  Mrs.  Woodhull  at  different  parts 
of  the  procession,  did  you  see  Col.  Blood  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  he  in  company  with  her  ?  A.  I  should  say  so, 
but  he  would  not  impress  me,  on  my  recollection,  as  the 
ladies  would,  because  it  was  a  sort  of  daring  adventure 
for  the  ladies  to  march  in  that  procession,  and  conse- 
quently it  impressed  itself  upon  my  attention. 

Q.  How  far  were  you  from  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss 
Claflla  ia  the  procession  ?  A.  Well,  perhaps,  100  feet ;  it 
might  have  been  200  ;  I  cannot  recollect  now  how  long 
the  line  was,  or  how  many  were  in  it. 

Q.  Where  you  behind  them  or  in  front  ?  A.  I  think  I 
was  in  front ;  yet  I  may  be  mistaken  as  to  that. 

Q.  Now,  where  did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  In  the  line 
of  march  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  And  that  you  have  asked  me  two  or  three 
times. 

Q.  I  mean  with  reference  to  the  ladies,  Mrs.  Woodhull 
and  Miss  Claflin— how  far  from  them  ?  A.  WeU,  not  near 
them ;  perhaps  it  might  have  been  as  far  as  across  this 
room  ;  it  might  have  been  twice  as  far ;  I  can  positively 
swear  that  they  were  not  together  when  I  saw  them. 

Q.  And  did  you  march  the  whole  entire  length  of  the 
procession?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Now,  at  any  time  during  the  march  of  that  proces- 
sion, did  you  see  Mi".  Tilton  m  company  either  with  Mrs. 
Woodhull  or  Miss  Clafiin  ?  A.  I  did  not  see  him  in  com- 
pany with  any  lady  whatever. 

Q.  Now,  state  the  route  that  that  procession  took 
from  Cooper  Institute.  A.  My  recollection  is  that  we 
started  from  Cooper  Institute,  marched  down  Fourth-st. 
to  Fifth-ave.  or  University-place,  thence  to  Fifth-ave., 
thence  up  Fifth-ave. ;  that  is  my  recollection ;  now,  I  do 
not  say  that  that  is  true. 

Q.  Give  us  the  best  of  your  recollection.  A.  We  marched 
up  as  far  as  Thirty-second-st.— up  to  Stewart's— what 
place  is  that? 


820  'CHE  TIL  TON -B. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  TMrty-f ourtli-st. 

The  Witness— Well,  Thirty-fourth-st.  and  returned;  but 
we  did  not  return  the  same  route,  so  we  must  have  gone, 
perhaps,  ap  Sixth-ave.,  and  we  were  disbanded  at  Fom^- 
teenth-st.  as  we  went  round  the  Lincoln  statue ;  and 
waved  the  flags,  and  then  were  disbanded. 

Q.  And  did  you  see  Miss  Claflin  and  Mrs.  Woodhuli  at 
the  time  the  procession  disbanded  at  that  point  t  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  I  did. 

Q.  Were  they  in  a  carriage  at  any  time  in  the  proces- 
sion when  you  observed  them  1  A.  I  should  say  no  if  you 
had  not  asked  the  question. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  no  recollection  of  seeing  them  in  a 
carriage  at  any  time  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of 
seeing  a  carriage  there,  or  them  in  a  carriage. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Gen.  Ryan  at  that  time?  A.  I  did  not, 
nor  never  knew  him. 

CEOSS-EXAMINATION   OF   MR.   GEORGE  W. 
MADDOX. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  is  your  employment  or 
profession  ?  A.  I  am  a  real  estate  broker. 

Q.  Where  do  you  carry  on  your  business  ?  A.  No.  29 
Broadway. 

Q.  Have  you  been  connected  with  the  press  heretofore 
at  all  ?  A.  Well,  in  scraps. 

Q.  As  a  reporter  ?  A.  Not  as  a  reporter. 

Q.  As  a  writer,  do  you  mean  I  A.  I  published  a  paper 
myself— got  out  three  whole  numbers.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  Three  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  paper  was  that  t  A.  TTie  International, 

Q.  When  was  that  ?  A.  Last  year— a  year  ago. 

Q.  It  has  passed  into  other  hands  now  1  A.  It  has  passed 
into— defunct.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Evarts— It  has  left  the  undertaker's  hands  and 
gone  into  the  hands  of  the  undertaker.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  Well,  you  say  you  are  acquainted  with  these  ladies- 
Mrs.  Woodhuli  and  Miss  Claflin  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  you  had  personal  acquaintance 
with  them?  A.  Personal  acquaintance  with  them. 

Q.  And  of  how  long  duration  1  A.  In  the  neighborhood 
of  six  years. 

Q.  Have  you  been  allied  at  any  time  with  the  political 
fortunes  of  Mrs.  Woodhuli  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presi- 
dency?  [Laughter.]  A.  Partially. 

Q.  Did  you  nominate  her  ?  A.  No,  I  did  not ;  I  was  the 
temporary  chairman  of  that  convention. 

Q.  That  did  nominate?  A.  That  did  nominate  her. 
I  Laughter.] 

Q.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Maddox,  you  were  a  member  of  this 
procession  ?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  sympathized  with  it  1  A.  Helped  to  get  it  up. 

Q.  Well,  as  you  helped  to  get  it  up,  perhaps  you  can  teU 
us  how  the  different  parts  of  it  were  got  up ;  for  instance, 
the  corps  or  division  in  which  Mrs.  Woodhuli  moved— 
where  was  that  formed?  A.  We  were  organized  in  sec- 


iJtJCHEE  TBIAL. 

tions;  the  Internationals  were  Sections  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  sa 
on;  I  belonged  to  Section  12. 

Q.  Of  the  Internationals  1  A.  Of  the  Internationals. 

Q.  What  other  component  parts  of  the  procession  were 
there  beside  the  Internationals?  A.  Probably  many; 
there  were  French  and  German  sympathizers  and  actual 
oooperators  and  workers,  of  whom  I  knew  but  little. 

Q.  But  you  knew  there  were  such  persons  ?   A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  there  were  12  International  divisions?  A.  I  do 
not  say  there  were  12  International  divisions  in  the  pro- 
cession. 

Q.  Ah !  A.  I  say  they  were  organized  in  that  way. 
Q.  In  the  city  ?  A.  In  the  city  and  in  the  country,  and 
everywhere. 

Q.  As  an  organization.  And  this  paper  of  yours  was 
the  organ  of  that  organization  ?  A.  It  was  the  organ  of 
myself. 

Q.  Ah !  as  the  head  of  the  organization  ?  A.  No,  Sir ; 
as  the  head  of  the  principles  put  forth  by  the  luternar 
tionals. 

Q.  I  mean  that.  A.  And  I  took  on  myself  the  respon- 
sibility ;  it  certainly  represented  myself,  if  it  did  not  rep- 
resent them. 

Q.  You  took  the  name  "  International "  in  reference  to 
this  organized  body  of  Internationals  ?  A.  Yes  ;  to  be 
sure. 

Q.  That  is  all  I  intended.  What  is  the  organ  of  that  or- 
ganization now,  since  your  paper  has  been  defunct  ?  A. 
It  has  no  particular  organ.  Indeed,  the  whole  organiza- 
tion, largely  in  this  country  and  in  Europe,  has  suspended 
for  the  time  being. 

Q.  Not  defunct  ?  A.  WeU,  not  as  bad  as  my  paper. 
[Laughter.! 

Q.  No  ?  A.  They  are  operating  partially  through  secret 
organizations  under  different  names. 

Q.  Now,  were  you  a  member  of  the  division  of  this  pro- 
cession where  Mrs.  Woodhuli  and  her  sister  were  ?  A. 
No;  I  was  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  the  section  in  which  these 
ladies  were  was  formed— where  it  started  from  ?  A.  Its 
incipient  formation  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  It  grew  out  of  Section  No.  9. 

Q.  But  I  am  not  connecting  it  with  the  divisions  of  the 
Internationals  at  all ;  I  mean  this  section  of  the  proces- 
sion, where  it  formed  itself— whereabouts  did  it  form 
itself— at  Cooper  Institute  or  somewhere  else  1  A.  I  do 
not  know. 

Q.  You  don't  know  ?  A.  The  Marshal  of  the  Day  would 
be  able  to  tell  you  quite  correctly. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  who  he  is  ?  A.  I  think  Theodore 
Banks. 

Mr.  Morris— He  will  be  here ;  he  is  subpenaed. 

Q.  Now,  were  you  in  the  division  of  this  procession 
where  Mr.  Tilton  was  ?  A.  No ;  my  recollection  is  that  lie 
was  not  in  Section  No.  9. 

Q.  You  were  in  No.  9  1   A.  Yes,  I  was  in  No.  9. 


TJiSTlMONY  OF  GE 

Q.  And  Mrs.  Woodlmll  was  not  in  No.  9 1  A.  No. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  same  division  in  which  Mrs. 
Woodhull  was '?   A.  Mr.  Tilton  1 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Well,  it  would  be  very  difficult  tor  me  to 
say,  for  I  do  not  know  how  large  the  divisions  were ; 
No.  9  had  in  the  neighhorhood  of  100  persons  ;  I  don't 
know  that  one  half  that  number  attended;  I  don't  know 
how  many  belonged  to  Section  12 ;  tliere  may  have  been 
100  there,  for  augM  I  know. 

Q.  What  number  was  Mr.  Tilton  in?  A.  I  don't 
know. 

Q.  That  you  do  not  know  1   A.  No,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Well,  it  is  natiu-al  you  should  not.  Now,  in  -what 
number  was  Mrs.  Woodhull?   A.  In  ber  own  part. 

Q.  What  part  was  that?   A.  No.  12. 

Q.  How  large  that  was  you  do  not  know?    A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Now,  you  say  you  saw  Mr.  Tilton  twice  %   A.  I  do. 

Q.  You  saw  Mr.  Tilton  twice  ?  A.  My  recollection  is 
that  I  saw  him  twice. 

Q.  You  recollect  that  you  saw  him  twice  1  A.  Perbaps 
I  saw  bim  more  times  tban  that. 

Q.  But  you  have  said  that  you  saw  him  twice.  Now, 
how  did  you  happen  to  see  bim  at  all  if  you  were  not  in 
the  same  division  %  A.  At  the  turning  of  the  street  and 
as  I  looked  around  to  see  what  was  coming  after  me  and 
to  look  at  the  flags,  and  he  would  be  a  prominent  figure 
because  be  would  be  taller  than  almost  anybody  else ;  and 
my  recollection  is,  moreover,  that  somebody  called  my 
attention  to  the  fact  that  Theodore  Tilton  was  marching 
in  the  procession,  and  I  was  surprised. 

Q.  You  were  ?   A.  But  I  am  very  glad. 

Q.  You  were  surprised  and  delighted  1   A.  Yes. 

Q.  Oh !  Well,  he  was  then  in  sight  if  you  turned 
aroimd  and  looked  back  ?  A.  I  presume  so. 

Q.  Was  he  between  you  and  the  Woodhull's  carriage,  or 
branch,  wherever  they  were  1  A.  No,  I  think  he  was  in 
the  rear  of  both. 

Q.  You  think  he  was  behind  them  1  A.  I  do. 

Q.  So  you  think  when  you  looked  back  you  saw  the 
Woodhulls  and  Mr.  Tilton  at  the  same  glance  %  A.  It 
would  be  naturally  so. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  once  you  saw  htm  la  that  way  by  looking 
back,  did  you  not  1  A.  I  suppose  so,  too. 

Q.  I  suppose  so  from  your  testimony.  A.  Yes,  I  should 
suppose  so. 

Q.  And  once  you  think  when  the  procession,  turning  on 
Itself,  brought  those  who  were  in  different  parts  of  it  in 
sight  of  one  another  1  A.  I  don't  know;  but  then  I  saw 
him  at  both  times,  and  more  times  than  twice  when  I 
turned  the  corners,  or  made  an  angle  in  the  procession; 
it  would  be  quite  Impossible  for  me  to  designate  the  par- 
ticular points  at  which  I  saw  him ;  I  can't  do  it. 

Q.  Well.  A.  That  is,  I  think  I  can't.  However,  peg 
%way ;  I  may  be  able  to  get  at  something.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Evarts— You  know  T  am  not  trying  to  prove  any- 


OBGE    W.   MADDOX.  331 

thing  by  you ;  I  am  only  trying  to  prove  that  there  was 
not  anything  to  prove  by  you.  It  is  not  my  business  to 
help  you  to  prove  anything. 

Mr.  Beach— He  is  trying  to  unprove  what  has  been 
proved. 

The  Witness— Oh,  is  that  it  1  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Evarts— Now  you  can  argue  your  cue.  Now,  can 
you  say  at  what  comer  It  was  that  you  saw  him,  or  at 
what  point  of  the  procession,  some  part  of  it  being  at  an 
angle  with  the  other  1  A.  No,  I  cannot. 

Q.  You  cannot  ?  Can  you  say  whether  he  was  always 
behind  you  in  the  procession?  A.  I  would  not  dare  to 
say  that  either.  I  am  not  sure  but  that  he  was  ahead  of 
me  when  we  were  discharged  or  broken  up,  and  I  am  not 
sure  that  I  even  saw  him  there. 

Q.  Can  you  say  whether  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss 
Claflin  were  always  behind  you  in  the  procession  ?  A. 
Yes ;  I  should  be  very  safe  to  swear  they  were  always 
behind  us;  yes,  I  think  I  would  be  very  safe  to  do  that. 

Q.  On  what  ground  would  you  be  safe?  A.  On  the 
ground  of  the  position  that  they  occupied ;  now,  I  am 
not  certain  but  they  were  ahead  of  Section  No.  9. 

Q.  Oh,  you  don't  know.  A.  I  am  not  sure  of  these 
things;  I  am  sure  of  certain  facts ;  but  I  cannot  outline 
them  particularly. 

Q.  I  understand.  You  don't  know,  then,  but  IVIr.  TU- 
ton,  and  Mrs.  Woodhull,  and  IVIiss  Claflin  in  this  proces- 
sion were  ahead  of  you  instead  of  behind  you?  A.  I  am 
sure  of  one  thing— if  they  were  ahead  of  me,  they  were 
not  together ;  if  they  were  behind  me,  both  at  the  same 
time,  they  were  not  together. 

Q.  Yes ;  that  you  are  sure  of  ?  A.  Yes ;  no  doubt  about 
that. 

Q.  You  mean  by  that,  that  you  are  sure  that  you  did 
not  see  them  together  ?  A.  I  am  sure  I  did  not  see  them 
together. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  anything  more  than  that  ?  A.  No ;  I 
don't  mean  anything  more  than  that. 

Q.  No ;  I  should  think  not.  Now,  did  this  procession 
go  from  Fitth-ave.  to  Sixth-ave.,  tlirough  Thirty-fourth- 
st.?   A.  Well,  that  I  can't  recollect. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  jowv  imyiression?  A.  My  impression  is 
that— and  it  is  made  up,  too,  from  the  naturalness  of  the 
story  

Q.  That  you  are  going  to  teU  ?  A.  That  I  am  going  to 
tell ;  that  we  went  up  Sixth-ave. 

Q.  Went  up  Sixth-ave.  instead  of  down  1  A.  Yes ;  and 
came  down  Fifth-ave. 

Q.  Instead  of  up  ?  A.  Now,  it  might  be  the  reverse ; 
and  I  am  not  certain  but  we  marched  up  Fifth-ave.  and 
down  Fifth-ave.;  I  can  swear  positively  that  we  did 
march.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  suppose  so.  I  guess  that  is  alL 
[Laugbter.1 


82^  THE  TILTON-B. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  SWINTON. 

John  Swinton  was  called  and  sworn  on  be- 
half of  the  plaintiff. 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Swinton,  where  do  you  reside  t  A.  In 
New-York. 

Q.  Connected  witli  the  press  ?  A.  Semi-detached, 
Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  t  A. 
Partially. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  him  in  December,  1871  ? 
A.  Slightly. 

Q.  And  were  you  acquainted  with  Mrs.  Woodhull— 
Victoria  C.  Woodhull— at  that  time  !  A.  I  had  seen  her. 

Q.  Knew  her  by  sight  1  A.  Knew  her  with  more  or 
less  definiteness  by  sight ;  I  had  seen  her  in  Broad-st. 
many  times  and  oft. 

Q.  And  Miss  Claflin  %  A.  I  had  seen  her  in  the  same 
place  and  under  the  same  circumstances. 

Q.  You  recollect  the  Bossel  procession  on  the  17th  of 
December,  1871?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  take  part  in  the  procession,  or  were  you  in 
the  procession?  A.  As  a  processionist. 

Q.  In  company  with  any  one  ?  A.  In  company  with 
some  one. 

Q.  Who  ?  A.  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton. 

Q.  And  did  you  march  in  company  with  him  in  the  pro- 
cession ?  A.  Arm  in  arm. 

Q.  Now,  at  what  point,  Mr.  Swinton,  did  you  and  Mr. 
Tilton  start  with  the  procession  ?  A.  Between  Eighth— 
between  Ninth  and  Fourteenth-sts.  and  Fifth-ave. 

Q.  Did  you  start  together  there  1  A.  He  was  in  the  pro- 
cession when  I  joined  it. 

Q.  You  joined  it  at  that  point?  A.  I  joined  it  at  a 
pomt  between  these  points. 

Q.  And  did  you  continue  with  htm  then  during  the  rest 
of  the  procession?  A.  The  entire  continuity  of  the  pro- 
cession. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  procession  approaching,  and  notice 
Mr.  Tilton  in  what  position  he  was  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Who  was  he  marching  with,  if  you  know  ?  A.  When 
I  saw  him  he  seemed  to  be  with— he  was  with  an  elderly- 
looMng  gentleman,  a  dignifled,  respectable,  over-age 
Citizen,  who  I  did  not  know;  I  think  I  was  introduced  to 
him  when  saluting  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Was  it  Mr.  Gregory  ?  A.  I  think  Mr.  Tilton  said, 
"Allow  me  to  introduce  you  to  one  of  the  pioneers  of 
Land  Reform." 

Q.  The  name  does  not  occur  to  you  ?  A.  I  have  thought 
since  it  was  Gregory  by  looking  over  a  sketch  of  the 
affair. 

Q.  Sketches  of  the  procession?  A.  Yes,  some  Inferential 
Idea  of  that  kind ;  I  hardly  can  trace  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Woodhull  in  the  procession  t  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  Miss  Claflin?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  didn't  see  either  of  them  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 


'ECHEB  TBIAL. 

Q.  Now,  from  between  Ninth  and  Fourteenth-sts,, 
when  you  joined  the  procession,  will  you  describe  the 
line  of  march  after  that  that  the  procession  took  ?  A. 
The  line  of  march  was  up  Fifth-ave.  to  Thirty-fourth-st., 
across  Thirty-fourth-st.  to  Broadway  and  Sixth-ave., 
down  Sixth-ave.  to  Fourteenth-st.,  and  across  there  to 
the  Lincoln  Monument;  there  the  disbanding  took  place 
by  a  salutation  of  the  figure  on  the  monument. 

Q.  Now,  was  Mr.  Tilton  marching  with  you  or  by  your 
side  during  the  whole  of  the  line  of  march  after  you 
joined  it?  A.  The  whole  line  of  march;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  UntU  the  disbandment  of  the  procession?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  And  walking  arm-in-arm  ?  A.  Arm-in-arm. 

Q.  You  say  you  didn't  see  Mrs.  Woodhull  or  Miss  Claflin 
at  any  time  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Tilton,  during  any  part  of  that  procession 
while  you  were  with  him,  march  in  company  with  either 
Mrs.  Woodhull  or  3Iiss  ClaflLn  ?  A.  Not  from  any  point 
between  what  might  be  called  the  point  of  departure 
and  the  point  of  termination  he  was  with  nobody,  and 
with  neither  of  these  ladies. 

Q.  When  the  procession  disbanded,  did  you  and  Mr. 
TUton  separate  ?  A.  I  went  with  him  to  the  comer  of 
Fourteenth-st.  and  Union-square,  and  there  parted  to  take 
the  Fourth-ave.  cars  to  my  house;  I  was  very  sick,  and  it 
cost  me  six  months'  sickness  and  $5,000  or  $10,000. 

Q.  At  the  point  where  you  separated  from  Mr.  Tilton 
that  day,  did  you  see  either  Mrs.  Woodhull  or  Miss 
Claflin  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  after  the  procession  disbanded  be- 
fore you  parted  with  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  should  say  five  or 
ten  minutes;  we  stopped  to  see  the  rather  imposing 
ceremony  at  the  conclusion — the  colored  regiment  pre- 
sented arms ;  and  we  were  detained,  perhaps,  five  or  ten 
minutes ;  I  think  Mr.  Tilton  said  that  he  was  hungry,  or 
I  said  that  I  was  hungry. 

Q.  How  long  did  that  line  of  procession  take?  A.  I 
think  it  was  over  an  hour  ;  I  should  imagine  so  from  the 
fact  it  was  nearly  dusk  when  I  got  home. 

CROSS-KXjyVIINATION  OF  JOHN  SWINTON. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  was  this  procession  in 
honor  of?  A.  It  was  in  honor  of  the  martyrdom  of 
Satory,  Bourgeoise,  Ferrier,  and  Rossel. 

Q.  Not  of  Rossel  alone  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  it  was  in  honor  of 
the  first  execution  under  the  military  tribunal. 

Q.  The  first  execution  of  the  Commime  ?  A.  The  first 
execution ;  there  had  been  murders  Innumerable,  but  no 
legal  execution  up  to  that  time. 

Q.  Of  the  Communists  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  of  the  Com- 
mimists. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  execution  of  the  so-called  Com- 
munists ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  was  your  joining  that  procession  at  the  point 
you  did  a  casual  thing  with  you,  or  did  you  start  with  the 


TESTIMONY  OF 

purpose  of  joining  it  1  A.  I  started  with  the  purpose  of 
martyrdom. 
Q.  Absolute  1  A.  Absolute. 

Q.  And  that  you  missed !  A.  Hardly  ;  I  have  been  in 
that  condition  ever  since.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  Yes— ready  to  start  again  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Any  moment?  A.  Any  moment. 

Q.  But  my  point,  Mr.  Swinton,  was  simply  this— whether 
you  joined  that  procession  at  the  point  you  did  at  the 
Fifth-ave.  from  a  casual  circumstance,  or  whether  you 
had  started  to  join  the  procession  and  reached  it  at  that 
point  by  accident  only  ?  A.  Shall  I  tell  you  how  I  came 
to  that  point  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  In  regard  to  the  sympathetic  emotions  that 
led  me  there,  thus  and  so— I  reached  the  Cooper  Institute 
about  one  o'clock ;  the  procession  was  to  start  at  that  time ; 
I  saw  the  colored  people,  and  I  saw  the  Germans  and 
Americans  and  others,  and  before  I  very  weU  knew, while 
looking  around  at  the  catafalque  and  various  adornments, 
etc., the  procession  started;  I,  somewhat  negligent,  slight- 
ly alarmed,  started  across  Eighth-st.  to  Broadway 
to  head  off  the  procession;  when  I  got  there  I 
found  that  I  had  not  headed  it  off,  and  that 
the  head  of  the  procession  had  crossed  Broadway. 
In  order  to  make  another  attempt  to  head  them  off  I 
started  up  Broadway  and  took  a  cross  street— I  am  not 
positive  as  to  the  street  at  which  I  crossed— and  I  did  not 
there,  either,  succeed  in  heading  them  off.  I  struck  what 
I  supposed  was  about  the  middle  of  the  procession,  from 
the  fact  that  I  saw  neither  its  head  nor  its  tail,  and  there 
I  saw  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Was  this  procession  on  a  trot,  that  it  got  ahead  of 
you  so  often  1  [Laughter.]  A.  Well,  I  am  of  an  indolent 
habit,  and  probably  was  musing  on  the  infinite  as  I  went 
there.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  And  you  struck  the  infinite  about  the  middle,  so  that 
you  could  see  neither  end  of  it  1  [Laughter.]  Well,  Mr. 
Swinton,  when  did  you  first  think  of  your  having  been  a 
companion  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  this  procession,  after  you 
parted  with  him  that  night  1  A.  I  habitually  thought  of 
it,  from  the  apprehension— the  alarm  that  I  suffered  on 
seeing  him  there. 

Q.  Alarm  for  his  martyrdom  as  weU  as  your  own !  A. 
Alarm  for  his  martyrdom ;  yes,  Sir.  I  had  not  known 
that  he  was  a  gentleman  who  had  any  sympathy  with  a 
thing  with  which  I  had  such  heartfelt  sympathy. 

Q.  You  say  you  had  it  continually  in  mind  %  A.  He  has 
not  occupied  the  entire  mind  that  I  claim  to  possess,  for 
the  whole  time  that  the  mind  has  been  in  existence,  but 
whenever  I  have  thought  of  it  at  all,  I  have  thought  of 
Tilton,  for  the  reason  mentioned.  It  was  a  very  impres- 
blve  incident,  my  seeing  a  man  there  whom  I  had  so  little 
expectation  of  seeing.  I  supposed  I  was  going  to  a  pro- 
cession that  Mr.  Tilton  would  not  appear  in,  because  I 
supposed  he  was  a  man  who  had  some  regard  to  his  own 
^tere6t!}> 


JOHN  SWINTON.  323 

Q.  You  don't  respect  such  people !  A.  Not  the  slight- 
est. I  have  an  inexpressible  contempt  for  them. 
[Laughter.] 

Q.  And  this  meeting  with  Mr.  Tilton  rescued  him  from 
that  1  A.  I  hope  so. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  aU.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Beqch— It  ifl  suggested,  your  Honor,  that  it  will  be 
convenient  for  some  of  the  gentlemen  who  are  connect-ed 
with  this  trial,  in  one  or  another  of  its  departments,  if  at 
this  point  we  could  take  our  usual  adjournment. 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen  of  the  jviry,  get  ready  to 
retire. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  11  a.  m,  Monday. 


SEVENTY-SEVENTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

REBUTTAL    TESTIMONY —MES.  TILTON 
WISHES   TO  BE  HEARD. 

THE  WIFE  OF  THE  PLAXTIFF  DESIRES  A  COMMUNI- 
CATION READ— JUDGE  NEILSON  TAKES  THE  MAT* 
TER  INTO  CONSIDERATION— STIR  CAUSED  BY  MRS. 
TILTON'S  ACnON— SE^T:N  WITNESSES  TESTIFY- 
ING CONCERNING  THE  ROSSEL  PROCESSION— AL- 
BERT B.  MARTIN  AND  FRANKLIN  WOODRUFF 
CALLED  TO  REBUT  A  PART  OF  MR.  TRACY'S  TES- 
TIMONY—MR. TRACY'S  IN^TERVIEW  WITB.  MISS 
TURNER— WHAT  HIS  KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  CHARGE 
AGAINST  MR.  BEECHER  WAS. 

Monday,  May  3,  1875. 

One  of  the  most  dramatic  scenes  of  the  trial,  and 
the  only  one  which  has  relieved  the  monotony  of  its 
lattor  days,  occurred  at  the  opening  of  to-day's 
session,  and  was  evidently  a  surprise  to  all  except 
one  or  two  of  Mr.  Beecher's  lawyers.  The  court  had 
no  sooner  been  organized  than  Mrs.  Tilton,  rising  like 
an  apparition  in  her  place,  and  facing  His  Honor 
cried  out  in  her  low  voice,  a  little  tremulous  from 
embarrassment — 

"  Judge  Neilson." 

The  Judge  heard  without  distinguishing  her,  and 
looked  around  as  if  to  discover  whence  the  call  had 
proceeded,  when  his  attention  was  called  to  Mrs. 
Tilton  by  Mr.  Tice,  a  spectator  who  sat  near,  and 
who  repeated  her  call,  at  the  same  time  pointing  to- 
ward her.  ;Mrs.  Tilton,  observing  that  she  had  the 
Judge's  attention,  again  spoke  up,  saying : 

"  Your  Honor,  I  have  a  communication  which  I 
hope  your  Honor  will  read  aloud." 

Judge  Neilson  asked  Mr.  Evarts  to  attend  to  the 
matter.  The  envelope  held  by  Mrs.  Tilton  was 
given  to  him,  and  he,  remarking  that  it  was  ad. 
dressed  to  the  Judge,  passed  it  to  Judge  Neilson, 
who,  after  reading  the  communication,  said : 


324 


TEE   TILTOJ^-BEECHER  TBIAL. 


"Mrs.  Tilton.  this  matter  will  be  considered 
deliberately." 

The  full  contents  of  tbe  communication  were  not 
made  public,  all  parties  to  tbe  suit  declining  to  give 
a  copy  for  publication.  Judge  Neilson  said  that  tbe 
matter  was  one  to  wMch  he  felt  he  ought  to  give  the 
utmost  deliberation.  Notwithstanding  the  request 
of  Mrs.  Tilton  that  it  be  read  aloud  he  felt  com- 
pelled, at  least  for  the  present,  to  consider 
it  as  a  confidential  communication,  and  even  should 
Mrs.  Tilton  consent  to  its  immediate  publication  by 
him  he  should  decline  to  give  a  copy  for  publication 
at  once.  He  said  the  matter  would  be  considered 
to-day,  and  possibly,  if  both  counsel  for  Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Beecher  consented  and  Mrs.  Tilton  insisted, 
it  might  be  made  public. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  TESTIMONY. 

The  testimony  produced  by  the  plaintiff  in  re- 
buttal, was  directed  in  the  main  toward  proving 
that  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  ride  in  the  Rossel  pro- 
cession in  1871  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  or  Miss  Claflin. 
Seven  witnesses  were  called  to  testify  on 
this  point,  and  were  examined  by  Mr. 
Morris  and  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Ev- 
arts.  Their  evidence  was  mainly  corroborative, 
and  went  to  show  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  walked  in  the 
procession  with  John  Swinton,  and  had  not  been  in 
the  company  of  any  lady.  The  first  of  these  wit- 
nesses was  Albert  Berghaus,  an  artist  attached  to 
Frank  Leslies  Illustrated  Newspaper.  A  copy  of  that 
paper,  containing  a  sketch  which  he  had  made  of 
the  procession  was  produced,  and  the  witness  pointed 
out  the  figures  intended  to  represent  Mrs.  Woodhull, 
Miss  Claflin  and  Col.  Blood.  Henry  O.  Fox,  a 
printer;  William  Force,  a  candy  manufacturer, 
Lawrence  S.  Kane,  a  newspaper  reporter  ;  Theodore 
H.  Banks,  the  marshal  of  the  procession ;  James  W. 
Stillman,  a  lawyer,  and  Henry  P.  McManus,  a 
printer,  gave  substantially  similar  accounts  of 
the  procession.  A  small  carved  head  of  Gen. 
Ryan,  representing  him  as  wearing  a  broad-brimmed 
military  hat  and  long  flowing  hair,  was  shown  to  all 
of  the  witnesses  who  professed  to  have  known  Gen. 
Ryan,  and  was  recognized  by  them  as  a  good  like- 
ness. The  similarity  to  the  outlines  of  the  face  and 
head  of  Mr.  Tilton  was  striking,  and  tended  to  con- 
firm the  theory  of  the  prosecution  that  Gen.  Ryan 
was  mistaken  in  the  procession  for  Mr.  Tilton.  Sev- 
eral of  the  witnesses  swore  that  Gen.  Ryan  rode  in 
a  carriage  with  one  or  more  ladies. 

Much  laughter  was  caused  by  a  remark  of  Mr. 


Force,  one  of  the  witnesses  who  saw  the  procession. 
He  had  said  that  two  of  his  friends  who  had  stood 
watching  the  procession  with  him  had  died  since 
that  time.  Judge  Neil  son  asked  if  they  had  died 
after  the  procession.  "  Yes,"  replied  the  witness  in 
the  most  matter-of-fact  manner,  **  after  that.  Sir. 
Oh,  it  could  not  have  been  before."  Several  more 
witnesses  were  called  by  the  defense  in  regard  to  this 
procession,  but  they  were  not  present  in  court. 

Albert  B.  Martin,  the  Superintendent  of  the  free 
reading-room  of  the  Church  of  the  Pilgrims,  was 
called  to  testify  in  reference  to  the  interview  at  Mrs, 
Ovington's  house  between  Gen.  Tracy  and  Bessie 
Turner  just  previous  to  her  appearance  before  the 
Investigating  Committee.  The  witness  said 
that  he  had  called  at  Mrs.  Ovington's  on  that 
day  to  see  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  had  found  Bessie  Turner 
and  Gen.  Tracy  talking  together  in  the  parlor.  Mrs. 
Tilton  and  himself  sat  for  two  or  three  hours  on 
the  back  piazza,  and  Gen.  Tracy  remained 
with  Miss  Turner  during  all  that  time.  The 
object  of  the  plaintiff's  lawyers  in  bringing 
this  witness  was  to  disprove  the  statements  of  both 
Bessie  Turner  and  Mr.  Tracy.  Miss  Turner  testified 
that  the  interview  lasted  only  ten  minutes,  while 
Mr.  Tracy  stated  that  it  was  about  an  hour  in 
length.  A  few  sharp  words  passed  between  Mr. 
Beach  and  Mr.  Shearman  during  the  examination  of 
this  witness.  One  asserted  that  the  other's  state- 
ments about  Gen.  Tracy's  testimony  were  incorrect. 

"Well,  Sir,"  said  Mr.  Beach,  **  I  have  some  mem- 
ory and  intelligence,  and  there  I  diff  er  somewhat 
from  the  gentleman." 

The  jurymen  appeared  to  take  a  deep  interest  in 
Mr.  Martin's  testimony,  and  one  of  them  asked  him 
a  question  in  reference  to  the  time  consumed  by  the 
interview. 

The  plaintift's  counsel  recalled  Franklin  Wood- 
ruff with  a  view  to  impeach  the  testimony  of  Gen= 
Tracy.  Mr.  Beach's  first  question  to  him  was  in 
reference  to  an  interview  with  Gen.  Tracy  in  1872. 
Mr.  Evarts  objected  to  the  question,  and 
long  arguments  between  the  senior  counsel 
on  both  sides  took  place.  Mr.  Beach  said  that 
his  object  was  to  prove  that  Mr.  Tracy  knew  that  the 
charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  was  adultery  long  be- 
fore 1874.  Judge  Neilson  finally  allowed  the  ques- 
tion to  be  asked.  The  witness  then  said  that 
in  1872  he  told  Mr.  Tracy  that  the  charge 
was  adultery.  He  called  Mr.  Tracy's  evidence  in 
question  in  several  other  particulars  relating 
to  the  interviews  between  them  in   1872.  Mr. 


TESTIMOXI   OF  AL 

Evarts  objected  to  nearly  every  question  put  to 
this  ^tness  on  the  ground  that  the  previous 
rulings  of  the  Court  wouir  not  allow  them. 
Judge  NeiLson  instructed  Mr.  Beach  to 
make  his  questions  the  same  in  substance 
as  those  vrhich  had  been  asked  of  ]Mr.  Tracy,  and  all 
new  matter  was  excluded.  The  Judge  wished  to 
have  the  examination  of  Mr.  Woodruff  finished  be- 
fore the  close  of  the  session,  but,  as  it  was  nearly  4 
o'clock,  the  counsel  for  the  defense  said  they  could 
not  finish  their  cross-examination  if  it  were  begun. 
The  Court  accordingly  adjourned. 


THE   PEOCEEDIXGS— W  .:!)ATTM. 

MES.   TILTOX  PEESEXTS  AX   OPEN  STATE- 
MENT TO  THE  JUDGE. 
The  comt  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

After  the  Clevis,  liad  called  tlie  jury,  Mrs.  Tilton  rose 
from  her  seat  and  said  : 

Mrs.  Tilton— I  liave  a  communication  wliich  I  liope  yom* 
Honor  will  read  aloud. 

The  communication,  'being  contained  in  an  unsealed 
envelope,  was  handed  to  Mr.  Evarts,  who  said :  "  It  is  ad- 
dressed to  yom-  Honor,"  and  it  was  then  handed  to  Judge 
Iseilson.  After  reading  it.  Judge  Neilson  said : 

Judge  Xeilson— This  matter  will  he  considered  delib- 
erately. Mr.  Morris  will  you  proceed  1 

Mr.  Morris— Albert  Berghaus. 

TESTBIONY  OF  ALBEET  BEEGHAUS. 

Albert  Berghaus  "was  called  and  sworn  on 
behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  and  testified  as  follows : 

Mr.  Morris— Where  do  you  reside.  Mr.  Berghaus  ? 
A.  In  Hohoken,  State  of  Jersey. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  1  A.  I  follow  the  profession 
of  what  is  commonly  called  artist. 

Q.  In  what  line— what  branch  ?  A.  I  am  engaged  in 
illustrating  newspapers. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  In  that  business  ? 
A.  Fov  nearly  20  years. 

Q.  In  1871  were  you  connected  with  Frank  Leslie's 
Illustrated  Xeusspaper  ?   A.  I  was,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  procession  the  19th  of  December— 
the  17th  of  December— 1871,  the  Rossel  or  Communist 
procession  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  was  it  that  you  first  saw  that  procession  ?  A. 
I  saw  iK)rtions  of  the  procession  for  the  time  of  an  hour's 
duration  before  it  started  as  such,  and  afterward,  after 
the  procession  formed,  after  they  were  in  rank  and  line,  I 
saw  them  pass  by  me. 

Mr.  Beach— Did  yoa  see  the  different  deputations 
^ther  i 


BERT  BER^EArS.  335 

Mr.  Morris— The  different  sections  of  it — delegations  t 
A.  I  did ;  I  saw  them  all  together. 

Q.  ^Tiere  was  that — what  point?  A.  From  a  point 
which  I  oecupied  in  Great  Jones-st. 

Q,  Did  you  make  a  sketch  of  the  procession  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  that  and  say  whether  that  is  the 
sketch  that  you  made  1  [handing  witness  a  copy  of  Frank 
Leslie's  Illustrated  Xeicspa2:!er.]  A.  This  is  a  picture 
which  represents  what  I  saw. 

Judge  Xeilson— Taken  from  your  drawing  1  A. 
Taken  from  my  sketches,  and  also  engraved  from  a 
drawing  which  I  executed  on  wood,  from  mv  own 
sketches. 

Q,  And  imder  your  supervision  1  A.  Under  my  super- 
vision. 

]Mr.  Morris— Will  you  state  who  that  is  carrying  the 
banner  there— that  lady  ?  A.  This  lady  is,  as  I  under- 
stand to  be,  Miss  Tennie  Claflin. 

Q.  And  who  is  that  intended  to  represent  ?  A.  Mrs. 
Victoria  Woodhull. 

Q.  And  that  gentleman  there,  between?  A.  Col. 
Blood,  as  I  ascertained  to  be. 

Q.  How  many  women  were  there— ladies— in  the  proces- 
sion there  ?  A.  To  judge  from  this  drawing,  which  I 
have  no  hesitancy  in  pronoimcing  pretty  nearly  correct, 
from  six  to  ten. 

Ml".  Evarts — From  six  to  ten  women  ? 

The  Witness— From  six  to  ten  women. 

Mi\  Morris— [To  3Ir.  Evarts.]  ■  Shall  the  jury  see  this  f 

Mr.  Evarts— If  it  is  put  in  evidence.  I  have  no  objec- 
tion to  their  seeing  it  as  a  matter  of  curiosity.  If  it  is  to 
be  offered  in  evidence,  of  course  the  jury  are  to  see  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Where  were  Woodhull  and  Claflin,  with 
reference  to  the  head  of  the  procession  ?  A.  The  two 
ladies  were  in  the  immediate  rear  of  a  colored  band  of 
soldiers. 

Mr.  Morris— And  what  was  their  position  with  ref- 
erence to  the  head  of  the  procession  ?  A.  The  band  of 

soldiers  1 

Mr.  Beach— Yes.  A.  At  the  head  altogether,  fol- 
lowing, if  I  am  not  mistaken,  two  or  tiu-ee  marshals. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is,  the  soldiers,  y*u  speak  of  ? 
A.  That  is  a  company  of  colored  soldiers. 

Q.  And  they  were  Immediately  in  the  rear  1  A.  In  the 
rear. 

Ml-.  Beach— Does  he  mean  the  colored  soldiers  were  in 
the  rear  I 

The  Witness— The  women  were  in  the  immediate  reai 
of  the  soldiers— following  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  Morris — All  the  women  1   A.  All  the  women. 

Q.  And  who  was  in  company,  if  any  person,  with  Miss 
Claflin  1  A.  A  gentleman  whom  I  ascertained  to  be,  at  a 
later  period,  Mr.  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews  and  Col.  Blood. 

Q.  And  who  were  immediately  behind  the  ladies! 
A.  Several  women  whose  names  I  don't  kno-w 


326  TEE  TILION-Bj 

Q..  But  behind  tlie  ladies ;  they  were  in  one  section  to- 
gether, were  they  not  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Who  were  immediately  behind  1  A.  A  crowd  of  about 
from  40  to  50  foreigners— apparently  foreigners— car- 
rying banners  of  different  denominations,  French,  Cuban, 
and,  I  believe,  Italian ;  and  I  am  quite  sure  that  there 
was  a  Swiss  flag  carried  by  one  of  them. 

Q.  This  sketch  is  intended.  Is  it  not,  to  represent  the 
main  feature  of  the  procession?  A.  That  represented  the 
center  of  attraction. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tilton,  did  you  see  him  in  the  section 
represented  in  this  drawing  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  This  drawing  does  not  represent  the  whole  line  of 
the  procession  1  A.  Only  a  portion  of  it. 

Q.  Only  a  section?  A.  A  section;  the  center  point,  as 
it  is  generally  called. 

Mr.  Beach— By  that  does  he  mean  the  center  of  the 
procession  1 

Mr.  Morris — Do  you  mean  the  center  of  the  procession, 
or  the  center  point  of  attraction  ?  A.  The  center  point  of 
attraction.  Generally  there  is  in  such  processions  one 
point  of  attraction. 

Q.  And  about  what  length  did  that  occupy— that  sec- 
tion, which  is  represented  1  A.  Which  is  represented 
here— about  a  block  and  a  half  of  our  streets. 

Q.  And  how  long  was  the  procession  altogether,  do  you 
think  ?  A.  I  should  judge  it  to  be  about  half  a  mUe. 

Q.  You  say  that  after  the  procession  was  formed,  and 
you  made  your  sketch,  the  whole  procession  passed  you  1 
A.  I  beg  your  pardon  1 

Q.  The  whole  procession,  after  it  was  formed,  passed 
you— you  saw  the  whole  procession  t  A.  It  passed  the 
position  which  I  occupied. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  Mr.  Tilton  at  all  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  then— did  you  at  that  time  t  A.  I  am  not 
positive. 

Q.  By  sight  ?  A.  I  am  not  positive ;  I  may  have  known 
him  from  pictures,  but  I  am  not  positive  whether  I  knew 
him  by  sight. 

Q.  But  you  since  have  become  acquainted  with  him  ? 
A.  Oh,  yes. 

Q.  And  was  he  in  the  vicinity  of  the  ladies  at  all  ?  A.  I 
believe  not.  • 

Q.  If  he  was  you  did  not  see  him  ?  A.  I  did  not  see 
him. 

Q.  At  all  events,  he  was  not  in  company  with  Mrs. 
Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflin  ?   A.  Positively  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Morris,  do  you  offer  it  in  evi- 
dence ? 

Mr.  Morris — Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  remember  that  we  offered 
in  evidence  the  written  description  of  the  locality  of 
rLiese  people,  and  it  was  disputed.  I  am  not  aware  that 
a  graphic  one  is  any  better. 


EFAJHER  TEIAL. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  more  graphic  ;  we  bring  the  proces- 
sion here — a  portion  of  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— At  any  rate  I  will  cross-examine  about  i\ 
before  it  is  offered—before  it  is  admissible. 

Mr.  Morris— WeU,  we  offer  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Are  you  through  ? 

Mr.  Morris— No. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  will  cross-examine  about  it. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION    OF    ALBERT  BEEG- 
HAUS. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Berghaus,  this  paper  is 
dated  January,  1872.  When  did  it  pass  through  the 
press?  when  was  that  picture  printed?  [Handing  the 
paper  to  witness.]  A.  This  picture  was  printed  the  week 
following  the  event. 

Q.  FoUowing  the  17th  day  of  December  %  A.  The  leth. 

Q.  The  16th? 

Mr.  Morris— The  17th. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  17th  1 

The  Witness— Was  it  the  17th  % 

Mr.  Evarts— So  we  say— we  two. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  week  was  the  17th  t  A.  On  a  Sunr 
day. 

Q.  Oh,  yes,  I  remember  now.  Now,  during  the  follow- 
ing week  that  picture  was  printed,  was  it?  A.  It  was 
drawn  and  engraved,  but  whether  it  was  published  in  that 
same  week  I  am  incapable  of  saying ;  or  whether  it  was 
published  the  week  after,  that  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Well,  besides  being  drawn  an^  engraved,  when  was 
it,  as  distinct  from  publishing?  A.  As  far  as  I  believe,  tt 
was  published  as  soon  as  the  facilities  of  the  establish^ 
ment  afforded,  after  the  event. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  interesting  information  to  me ;  I  dont 
know  anything  about  that.  Do  you  know  anything  aboat 
it  ?  A.  I  know  that  a  certain  time  is  required  before  a 
paper,  in  order  to  engrave— to  draw,  engrave,  and  set  the 
type— a  certain  time  is  required  for  the  issuing  of  a  num- 
ber of  these  papers. 

Q.  I  dare  say.  Now,  what  is  that  certain  time  ?  A 
That  certain  time  varies ;  it  may  require,  aecording  to 
circumstances,  so  many  days,  and  perhaps  less  or  more. 

Q.  WeU,  that  is  your  definition  of  "  a  certain  time  I" 
A.  There  is  certainly  a  certain  time  required. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  that  certain  time  that  is  required  1 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  an  imcertain  time. 

The  Witness— Mr.  Evarts,  that  is  not  within  my  ability 
to  tell  you  exactly. 

Q.  Very  well.  Then  by  "  a  certain  time"  you  mean  that 
some  time  must  necessarily  be  taken  in  the  preparation 
of  such  a  picture  as  that  for  the  paess  ?  That  is  about  it  1 
A.  Exactly,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  as  matter  of  fact,  do  you  know  anything  as  to 
how  long  it  was  before  that  picture  of  this  procession  was 


IBSllMONT  OF  Aa 

In  condition  to  be  put  on  tlie  printing  press  1  A.  I  could 
not  say,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  wliat  share  did  you  have  la  the  production  of 
that  picture  1  A.  I  made  sketches  on  paper  on  the  Sun_ 
day  on  which  the  procession  took  place ;  then  from  my 
own  sketches  I  made  a  drawing  on  wood. 

Q.  As  an  engraver,  yourself  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  as  what  is 
commonly  called  artist  on  wood— draughtsman  on  wood. 

Q.  Draughtsman  on  wood ;  for  the  use  of  the  engraver  1 
A.  For  the  use  of  the  engraver. 

Q.  And  from  that  the  engraver  made  the  engraving? 
A.  The  engraver  engraved  my  drawing. 

Q.  Did  your  drawing  as  you  thus  prepared  it  for  the 
engraver's  hurm— did  it  contaia  that  whole  procession, 
as  it  now  looks  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  compose  that  procession  1  A.  I  did 
not  compose  the  procession. 

Q.  Who  did  1  A.  That  I  don't  know. 

Q.  I  mean  this  picture.  A.  Ah !  This  pictui-e  I  com- 
posed on  Monday. 

Q.  You  composed  that  on  Monday.  Now,  when  you 
began  to  compose  that  on  Monday,  what  had  you  already 
In  the  shape  of  a  picture?   A.  Nothing,  save  my  sketches. 

Q.  What  were  they  1  A.  They  were  sketches  made  on 
paper. 

Q.  WeU,  I  know ;  but  what  were  they  sketches  of  %  A. 
Of  different  features  of  this  procession. 

Q.  Which  features  ?  A.  Those  features  that  I  have  rep- 
resented m  this  picture ;  such  as  the  band  of  soldiers  -a 
company  of  soldiers :  ladies,  women,  representatives  of 
different  nationalities;  a  band  of  drummers,  a  catafalque 
on  wheels  drawn  by  six  horses,  and  a  crowd  of  different 
people  following  that.  etc. 

Q.  How  many  pieces  of  paper  was  all  that  on  1  A.  I 
could  not  tell  you, 

Q.  About  how  many  1  A.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  I 
had  a  sketch-book— a  bound  sketch-book— with  me,  or  fly- 
ing leaves. 

Q.  Well,  how  many  pages  of  a  sketch-book  and  how 
many  flying  leaves— take  it  either  way— was  all  this  on  ? 
A.  I  could  not  tell  you. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  in  making  all  those  pictures 
that  you  had  in  your  possession  before  you  composed  this 
engraving  of  the  procession  1  A.  You  mean  those 
sketches! 

Q.  Yes ;  how  long  la  actually  makmg  those  pictures  f 
A.  I  believe  it  took  me  about  an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a 
half  to  collect  the  material  for  this  picture. 

Q.  You  mean  on  the  spot?  A.  On  the  spot. 

Q.  Now,  after  you  had  done  that,  on  the  spot,  how  long 
did  it  take  you  to  make  the  sketches  and  reduce  them  to 
the  shape  in  which  you  used  them  for  the  composition  of 
j  this  entire  picture  1 

Mr.  Beach— He  made  the  sketches,  I  understand,  on  the 
•pot! 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  certainly.    A.  If  I  understand  you 


BEET  BEBGEAUS.  327 

rightly,  Mr.  Evarts,  the  question  is,  how  long  it  took  me 
to  make  the  drawing  on  wood  ? 

Q.  No ;  my  question  is  this :  You  say  you  spent  an  hour 
and  a  half  on  the  spot  ?  A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Making  certain  sketches.  Now  how  long— how  much 
work  did  you  do  on  those  sketches  before  you  commenced 
the  actual  composition  of  this  entire  picture  t  A.  Noth- 
ing further  but  what  I  took  there  on  the  spot,  in  the 
street. 

Q.  Very  well.  Now,  where  did  you  stand  that  hour  and 
a  half!  A.  I  stood  in  different  positions,  in  different 

streets. 

Q.  Could  you  draw  while  you  were  moving  from  place 
to  place  ?  A.  Well,  these  sketches  were  made  when  I  was 
walking  from  one  street  to  another,  looking  at  the  differ- 
ent portions  of  the  intended  procession;  they  were  in 
Seventh  and  Eighth-sts.,  and,  rf  I  am  not  mistaken,  ui 
Fourth-st.  The  prinoinal  portions  of  what  I  sketched  I 
found  in  Seventh-st.,  in  front  of  the  Armory  of  the  La- 
fayette Guards. 

Q.  Now,  where  are  those  original  sketches  1  A.  I  have 
been  trying  to  And  them  but  have  not  been  successful. 

Q.  Well,  don't  you — did  you  preserve,  as  a  habit,  the 
sketches  ?  A.  That  would  accumulate  an  immense 
amount. 

Q.  So  you  cannot  give  us  your  original  drafts  !  I  could 
not. 

Q.  No  part  of  that  was  furnished  to  you  by  a  photo- 
graph ?  A.  Not  a  single  portion. 

Q.  How  much  was  there  of  detail  or  finish  in  your 
sketches— anything  but  mere  hints  for  you  when  you 
came  to  the  principal  work  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  but  mere  hints  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  positive 
drawings. 

Q.  WeU,  I  asked  you.  A.  (Continuing.)  So  as  to  enable 
me  to  be  correct  in  outline  and  even  in  color. 

Q.  Well,  how  much  of  detail  or  finish  was  there  on  these 
sketches  %  A.  Sufficient  for  me  to  produce  the  picture  as 
it  is  represented  here. 

Q.  Was  it  more  than  hints  to  you,  and  the  grouping  and 
arrangement  of  the  procession  made  by  yourself  after- 
ward when  you  composed  this  picture  ?  A.  It  was  what 
I  would  call  _pro  memoria  sketches. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  what  I  caU  hints.  A.  I  would  not  call 
it  a  hint. 

Q.  What  would  you  caU  it,  in  common  English  1  A.  I 
would  call  it  the  outline  of  a  future  drawing. 

Q.  To  fix  in  your  memory  to  have  you  compose  1  A.  It 
would  be  utterly  impossible  to  compose  a  picture  of  a 
procession  on  flying  leaves. 

Q.  I  should  think  so.  Now,  how  many  of  these  people 
did  you  know  personally  1  A.  Very  few. 

Q.  Did  you  know  any  of  this  group  of  ladies,  I  wUl  caU 
them  {showing  paper  to  witness],  and  gentlemen  thai 
accompany  them  t  A.  I  did. 


328  "LHE  T1LT()N-B 

Q.  Which  of  them  1  A.  I  did  know  the  lady  represent- 
ed there  as  carrying  the  flag. 

Q.  Yes  ?  A.  And  the  one  in  her  immediate  rear ;  I 
knew  them  then. 

Q  That  is  Miss  Claflin  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  ?  A.  Mrs. 
WoodhuU. 

Q.  Yes.  Well,  these  other  ladies         A.  I  did  not  know 

any  of  them. 

Q.  Well,  are  you  quite  sure  that  they  are  all  real  ladies 
that  you  saw  ?  A,  Real  ladies  ] 

Q.  Well,  I  mean  real  persons  1  A.  Oh,  certainly. 

Q.  Or  were  they  put  in  to  enliven  the  scene?  A.  No 
such  a  thing. 

Q.  No ;  is  the  exact  number  of  women  here  that  were 
in  that  procession?  A.  I  believe  that  at  the  time  the 
exact  number  was  sketched  by  me. 

Q.  And  put  iu  here  ?   A.  Put  in  here. 

Q.  And  you  are  quite  sure  that  there  were  no  women 
In  any  other  part  ?  A.  I  am  quite  sure  that  there  were 
no  women  in  any  other  part  of  the  procession  that  I  saw. 

Q.  Oh ;  now,  what  did  you  mean  by  this  picture  being 
composed  to  show  the  center  of  attraction?  A.  The  cen- 
ter of  attraction  for  myself  or  for  the  general  public— 
which  answer  would  you  prefer  ? 

Q.  Oh,  I  would  take  either.  What  do  you  mean  by  the 
center  of  attraction,  and  who  determines  that  ?  A.  Well, 
I  did ;  I  took  leave  to  determine  in  this  case  the  center  of 
attraction— the  mourning  car,  with  the  catafalque  on  the 
top  of  it,  and  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  that,  in 
front  and  behind,  which  I  have  tried  to  represent  there. 

Q.  Well,  now,  do  you  think  that  you  put  the  catafalque 
and  the  preceding  procession  and  the  immediately  fol- 
lowing so  as  to  present  the  line  as  you  saw  it  formed,  or 
did  you  group  it  as  you  thought  it  would  make  an  ef- 
fective and  attractive  picture  %  A.  I  represented  it  so  as 
it  represented  itself  to  me  when  passing  that  point  of 
view  which  I  occupied. 

Q.  Yes ;  but  you  went,  you  say,  to  various  points  of 
view  to  make  your  sketches  ?  A.  I  beg  your  pardon  ;  I 
told  you  I  had  collected  the  material  for  this  picture  be- 
fore the  procession  started,  and  then  I  took  a  position  in 
Great  Jones-st.  in  order  to  see  that  procession  for  the 
representation  of  which  I  had  collected  the  necessary 
material,  and  I  saw  it  pass  by,  and  I  was  eualtled  to  place 
every  sketchy  or  every  object  I  had  sketched,  in  its  proper 
position  according  to  the  way  it  passed  by. 

Q.  And  all  your  sketches  that  you  had  made  before- 
hand came  into  that  order  that  they  are  here?  A. 
Whether  they  were  all  in  or  not  I  could  not  tell  you. 

Q.  But  these  certainly  were?  A.  Those  featm*es  that 
you  see  represented  there  were  certainly  drawn  from  the 
sketches  I  made. 

Q.  Well,  in  regard  to  the  sketches  in  these  paj>ers,  are 
not  a  good  many  of  them  made  without  an  absolute  in- 
ipection  of  the  scene  1    A.  Yes,  Sir- 


EECEEE  TEIAL. 

Q.  And  sometimes  made  before  the  thing  takes  place  I 
A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  any  instance  of  that  kind  ?  A 
I  may  remember  if  I  search  in  my  memory. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir,  weU         A.  But  I  could  not  give  you  a 

positive  fact  now. 

Q.  But stiU such  a  thing  might  have  happened?  A. 
Perhaps  in  former  years,  at  the  time  when  illustrated 
newspapers  were  started,  and  not  a  sufficient  number  of 
artists  on  hand  to  furnish  the  necessary  material,  such  a 
thing  might  have  taken  place. 

Q.  Yes ;  now  did  you  write  the  letter-press  that  accouj. 
panics  this  picture  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  read  it  ?  A.  I  happened  to  read  it  ? 

Q.  You  did  happen  to  ?   A.  A  portion  of  it. 

Q.  I  observe  a  statement  here,  "In  the  mid.lle  <:f  the 
line  appeared  Theodore  Tilton  and  John  Swiuto  ii . ' '  No^f , 
this  picture  was  of  the  middle  of  the  line,  wasn't  it  ?  A. 
No,  Sir,  thn*^  would  not  be  the  middle  of  the  line  regard- 
ing the  extent  of  it;  this  procession  was  a  pretty  long 
one,  so  to  speak,  and  the  feature  represented  in  my  pic- 
ture was  the  head  of  the  procession. 

Q.  The  head  ?  A.  The  head ;  the  beginning  of  the  pro- 
cession. 

Q.  So  the  center  of  attraction  in  this  case  was  at  one 
end  ?  A.  The  center  of  attraction  was  nearer  the  com- 
mencement of  it. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  were  you  personally  acquainted  with  the 
gentleman  that  is  represented  there  ?  A.  Not  then. 

Q.  Not  then— well,  he  is  a  pretty  tall  man,  isn't  he  ?  A, 
A  pretty  tall  man. 

Q.  And  had  long  haii-,  flowing  locks '!  A.  Long  hair,  ap- 
parently. 

Q.  Flowing  locks  ?   A.  Could  not  say  that. 
Q.  And  a  broad-brimmed,  clei'ical  hat— like?   A.  Cler- 
ical ? 

Q.  Well,  that  is  what  I  call  them— clerical  ?  A.  Well, 
they  call  them  very  often  Communist  hats. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  care  about  the  name  of  it,  a  broad- 
brimmed,  round  top  hat  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  all  you  knew  of  that  man  at  the  time  ? 
A.  T  beg  your  pardon ;  he  also  wore  a  long  beard,  a 
brownish  beard,  flowing  beard,  as  I  well  recollect. 

Q.  Now,  who  is  this  gentleman  here,  with  the  specta-  . 
cles  on  1   A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  And  who  is  this  lady— has  she  got  a  baby  in  her 
arms  ?   A.  She  carries  a  baby  in  her  arms. 

Q.  Well,  who  is  the  baby?   A.  That  I  could  not  tell. 

Mr.  Beach— Did  you  ask  whose  it  was  ? 

Mr.  Evarts- No ;  I  ask  who  it  was.  [To  the  witness.] 
One  of  the  jtirors  asks  a  question— I  think  you  have  been 
asked  it— you  did  not  see  Mr.  Tilton  at  all,  you  have 
stated  t  A.  I  did  not, 

Q.  In  the  procession?  Now,  I  was  not  attending  tc 
your  answer  to  the  question  which  I  believe  was  n  skrd 


TE^T1210yY  OF  EESBY  OTIS  FOX. 


329 


Tou,  wliefber  you  at  tliat  time  knew  Mr.  Tllton  hy  sight  ? 
A.  I  am  not  positive. 

Q.  You  have  no  knorrledge  tliat  you  did  know  him  ? 
A.  I  could  not  say,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— Were  you  acquainted  witli  Gen.  Ryan 
at  that  time  1  A.  I  miaj  have  heen  so. 

Q.  Look  at  that  [showing  witness  a  small  plaster  cast 
of  the  head  of  Gen.  Ryan]  and  see  if  you  can  say  ?  A.  I 
recollect  having  made  a  drawing  of  a  face  like  that. 

TESTBIOXY  OF  HEXEY  OTIS  FOX. 

Heniy  Otis  Fox  was  then  called  on  behalf  of 
the  plaiatiff,  sworn,  and  examined  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Morris— "Where  do  you  reside?  A.  In  Brooklyn, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  business?  A.  I  am  a  printer. 
Q.  Connected  with  what  paper?    A.  Xew-Yorh  Inde- 
pendent. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  upon  that  paper  1  A.  I 
have  been  there  eight  years,  Sir. 

Q.  Are  you  acquaiated  with  Theodore  Tilton?  A.  I 
have  a  business  acquaintance  with  him  only.  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  ?  A.  I  have  known 
Mm  eight  years  in  that  capacity,  simply  a  business 
capacity. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Gen.  Ryan  ?   A.  I  did.  Sir,  by  

Q.  Sight?   A.  Sight. 

Q.  WUl  you  state  whether  that  is  a  representation  of 
him?  [Showing  witness  a  small  plaster  cast  of  Gen. 
Ryan.]  A.  I  should  say  that  was  a  good  representation 
of  Ges.  Ryan. 

Q.  How  tall  a  man  was  Gen.  Ryan  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  I 
covdd  ii')t  say  ;  perhaps— he  was  not  so  tall  a  gentleman 
as  Mr.  Tilton,  but  a  somewhat  tall  man  and  of  slight 
build. 

Q.  Did  you  see  this  procession  that  has  been  spoken  of 
on  the  17th  of  December  ?   A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  At  what  point  did  you  first  see  it?  A.  My  Impres- 
Pion  is  that  I  first  saw  that  procession  during  its  forma- 
tion near  Cooper  Institute ;  and  from  that  time  I  saw  it 
at  different  points,  and  perhaps  continuously  until  it 
broke  up  in  Union-square. 

Q.  You  saw  it  at  different  points,  you  say  1  A.  Yes  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  procession — did  you  see  the  whole  of 
the  procession  ?  A.I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  head  of  tbe  procession  when  it 
started?  A.  I  saw  the  whole  procession,  whatever  there 
was  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  the  colored  troops  ?   A.  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  And  by  whom  were  they  followed  immediately  in 
the  rear,  ladies  or  gentlemen  ?  A.  My  impression  is,  at 
this  time,  that  they  were  followed  by,  if  not  immediately 
quite  directly  followed  by,  a  lady  and  a  red  banner,  the 
banner  of  the  Commune,  I  presume  it  would  be  called. 

Q.  Did  you  ascertain  who  that  lady  was  ?  A.  I  did  not, 
Sir.    I  have  no  knowledge  who  she  was. 


Q.  Accompanied  by  any  gentleman  ?  A.  There  were 
gentlemen  in  and  ar>)unLl :  I  could  not  say,  perhaps,  that 
she  was  accompanied  by  them. 

Q.  How  near  to  her  were  the  other  ladies  who  were  in 
the  procession  ?  A.  Well,  my  remembrance  is  that  other 
ladies  whom  I  saw  in  the  procession  were  in  a  carriage  ; 
those  are  the  only  ones  I  remember  of  at  this  time,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Col.  Blood  at  that  time  ?  A.  I  did 
not.  Sir. 

Q.  Mrs.  WoodhuU?    A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q,  Did  you  at  any  part  of  that  procession  see  Mr.  Til* 
ton?   A.  I  did.  Sir,  several  times  duriug  that  procession. 

Q.  In  company  with  any  ladies?  A.  With  no  lady  at 
all,  Sir ;  accompanied  by  a  gentleman. 

Q.  ^Tiat?  A.  Accompanied  by  gentlemen,  at  all  times 
when  I  saw  him. 

Q.  Walking  arm  in  arm?  A.  Arm  in  arm,  Sir,  I  saw 
him. 

Q.  Xow,  can  you  state  the  difierent  points  of  the  pro- 
cession at  which  you  saw  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  I  should  not  be 
able  to  state  that,  Sir. 

Q.  Would  you  recognize  Mr.  Swinton— turn  roimd  and 
see  if  you  would?  A.  [After  looking  toward  Mr.  Swinton.] 
I  think  the  gentleman  with  the  gray  hair  is  the  gentle- 
man that  I  saw  by  the  side  of  Mr.  Tilton ;  that  is  the 
gentleman,  I  think,  I  saw. 

Q.  And  was  he  in  company  with  Mr.  Tilton  at  the 
difi"erent  points  that  you  saw  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  He  was, 
Sir ;  whenever  I  saw  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilr:)U  when  the  procession  broke 
up?  A.  I  saw  Mr.  Tilton  in  Union-square,  near  the 
Lincoln  Monument. 

Q.  Did  you  see  where  he  went  ?  A.  I  did  not  follow  him. 
Sir;  I  simply  saw  him  as  the  procession  came  there  and 
dispersed  ;  I  dispersed  with  the  spectators. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  Gen.  RyaJi  in  the  pro- 
ces.sion?  A.  T  saw  Gen.  Ryan  riding  in  a  carriage  in  the 
procession. 

Q.  Riding  in  a  carriage  ;  and  at  about  what  part  of 
the  procession  was  that  ?  A.  I  should  not  be  able  to  iden- 
tify it,  Sir;  perhaps  it  was  not  far  in  rear  of  the  body 
of  colored  troops  :  if  I  remember  it  correctly  the  colored 
troops  led  the  procession ;  I  may  be  mistaken,  however. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  was  with  him  in  the  carriage  f 
A.  I  do  not.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  he  accompanied  by  any  person?  A.  There 
were  persons  in  the  carriage  with  him. 

Q.  Male  or  female  ?  A.  I  think  there  were  two  ladies 
in  the  carriage  with  him. 

Q.  Did  3-0U  know  who  they  were  ?   A.  I  did  not.  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  at  any  time  in  a 
carriage  ?   A.  I  did  not,  Sii". 

Mr.  Morris— Either  before,  during,  or  after  the  proces- 
sion broke  up,  did  you  see  him  ?  A.  At  no  time  during 
the  day  did  I  see  ilr.  Tilton  in  a  carriage. 

Q.  And  when  you  did  see  him,  he  was  in  company  with 


330 


THE   TILTON-BFjECHEB  IBIAL. 


Mr.  Swinton,  you  say  1  A.  I  thint  that  is  tlie  gentleman 
there ;  I  am  not  able  at  this  

Q.  At  all  events,  some  gentleman  I  A.  Gentlemen  on 
each  side  of  him  there  were. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  alL 


CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  FOX. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Fox,  what  acquaintance 
had  you  with  Gen.  Eyan  1  A.  I  had  no  general  acquaint- 
ance with  him  at  all.  Sir. 

Q.  How,  and  to  what  extent,  had  you  been  in  the  habit 
of  seeing  Mmf  A.  I  have  seen  him  several  times  on  pub- 
lic occasions ;  he  had  been  pointed  out  to  me. 

Q.  Yes  ;  well,  was  he  a  gentleman  that  you  would  think 
of  comparing  iu  hight  with  Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  I  should  not 
in  hight,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  he  a  gentleman  that  you  would  think  of  compar- 
ing with  Mr.  Tilton  in  build  or  frame  ?  A.  I  think  that 
from  a  general  description  a  person  never  having  seen 
either  of  the  gentlemen  might  be  confused  as  to  identity, 
on  reading  a  description  of  them. 

Q.  Oh,  yes ;  you  think  a  man  that  never  had  seen  either 
of  them  could  not  tell  them  apart  1  A.  Well,  no.  Sir;  I 
didn't  say  that ;  not  at  all. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  the  question  is  of  a  man  that  had  seen 
either  or  both  of  them  and  knew  theirpersons— was  there 
any  danger  of  confusing  them !  A.  I  should  think  not, 
Sir. 

Q.  Was  not  Gen.  Ryan  a  very  dark-haired  man  t  A.  His 
hair  was  dark ;  he  was  a  dark-haired  man. 

Q.  Yes;  well,  quite  dark?  A.  Well  

Q.  Black  ?  A.  I  should  think  not  decidedly  black.  Sir. 

Q.  How  many  shades  this  side  of  black  ?  A.  Well,  Sir, 
I  could  not  enter  into  an  analysis  of  that  sort.  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  wasn't  it  as  dark  as  your  own  ?  A.  Perhaps  it 
was  as  dark  as  mine. 

Q.  Now,  did  he  wear  his  hair  flowing  1  A.  He  did,  Sir- 
wore  it  combed  behtad  his  ears,  and  it  was  in  general 
appearance  not  altogether  dissimilar  to  Mr.  Tllton's— 

Q.  Now,  don't  you  know  that  his  hair  was  very 
straight  and  stiff,  and  not  flowing  and  curly  ?  A.  I  don't 
know  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  your  view  on  that  subject  1  A.  Why, 
T  told  you. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  flowing  and  curling?  A.  It  was  not 
particularly  curly ;  it  was  long  hair— perhaps  you  might 
say  it  flowed— it  was  flowing. 

Q.  Well,  I  leave  that  for  you  to  say  whether  it  flowed  or 
not  ?  A.  Well,  that  would  depend  on  the  construction 
which  one  puts  on  the  term  flowing. 

Q.  Now,  if  you  know  that  a  man's  hair  is  merely  stiff 
and  straight,  it  would  not  flow  from  being  long  ?  A.  Well, 
I  don't  know.  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach- He  means  it  would  not  run ;  it  certainly 
oould  not  flow,  in  one  sense  of  the  word. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  how  was  Gen.  Ryan  in  respect  to 


a  beard  or  mustache  ?  A.  I  think  he  wore  no  beard  or 
mustache. 

Q.  Well,  are  you  quite  positive  about  that  ?  A.  I  feel 
quite  positive  of  it.  Sir  ;  he  might  have  had  a  slight  mus- 
tache ;  I  am  not  positive  ;  I  will  not  swear  to  that ;  he 
wore  no  other  beard. 

Q.  Than  a  mustache  ?  A.  Than  a  mustache,  but  I  will 
not  swear  that  he  wore  the  mustache  or  that  he  did  not 
wear  a  mustache. 

Q.  You  won't  swear  that  he  did  wear  a  mustache  ?  A. 
No,  Sir ;  not  at  that  time. 

Q.  Isn't  it  your  impression  that,  being  a  military  man, 
he  did  wear  at  least  a  mustache,  if  not  a  beard?  A.  My 
impression  is  that  he  had  no  beard  at  aU,  Sir. 

Q.  Not  even  a  mustache?    A.  Not  even  a  mustache. 

Q.  At  that  time— now  about  this  eflBgy— (showing  wit- 
ness the  plaster  cast] — do  you  know  where  that  came 
from  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  do  not ;  I  never  saw  it  until  the 
gentlemen  passed  it  up  to  me. 

Mr.  Morris— Do  you  want  to  show  it  to  the  jury  f 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  no ;  not  yet ;  not  yet. 

Q.  And,  of  course,  you  don't  know  when  it  was  made 
or  .  A.  I  know  nothing  of  it,  Sir,  at  aU. 

Q.  Now,  where  did  you  stand  when  you  saw  women  at 
this  procession  carrying  a  banner  ?  A.  WeU,  Sir,  that 
would  be  a  hard  question  to  answer,  because  I  stood  all 
over  the  lot,  so  to  speak ;  I  was  there  as  a  spectator,  and 
a  part  of  the  time  I  stood  on  the  sidewalk  and  a  part  of 
the  time  in  the  street;  I  was  there  to  see  the  procession, 
and  I  saw  it. 

Q.  Well,  I  mean  was  it  at  the  point  of  formation  ?  A.  I 
could  not  be  definite  in  that  respect.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  at  the  time  or  point  of  the 
formation  of  the  procession  ?  A.  A.  I  would  not  swear 
that  I  did  see  him  at  the  initial  point  of  that  proces- 
sion. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  ?  A.  My  best  recoUeo-  J 
tion  is  that  I  went  and  saw  the  formation  of  the  proces-  '| 
sion,  the  formation  of  the  body,  or  whatever  it  might  be 
t  rmed. 

Q.  The  line  1  A.  The  line  coming  together  ;  a  gradual  | 
formation  of  it  in  the  vicinity  of  Cooper  Institute  ;  I  will 
not  be  positive  as  to  where  I  stood,  or  exactly  where  fche  [i 
procession  itself  formed. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  then  see  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  saw  him  . 
about  there.  Sir. 

Q.  At  that  time  ?  A.  At  that  time,  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Swinton  in  his  company  ?  A.  I  will  not 
swear  at  that— at  the  time  I  speak  of,  Mr.  Swinton  was 
not  in  company  at  the  moment  I  speak  of— Mr.  Swinton 
at  the  formation— after  the  procession  was  formed  and 
under  way,  Mr.  Swinton  was  in  his  company. 

Q.  That  is  when  they  started  from  that  square?  A 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  you  are  sure  of  ?  A.  I  feel  very  positive  of  it, 
Sir, 


Ti:ST1210yi    OF  HESBI    OTIS  FOX. 


Q.  Well,  wai  I  vrvong  in  imderstandmg  you  to  say  that, 
at  all  the  times  you  saw  Mr.  Tilton,  Mr,  Swintou  was 
waiting  with  Mm?  A.  ZVIr.  Swinton— I  will  not  swear 
that  :Mr.  Svrinton  was  with  Mr.  Tilton  every  time. 

Q.  I  ask  you  the  particular  question  

Mr.  Beach— Well,  he  was  giving  an  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  have  I  not  understood  you  to  say 
that  at  all  times  that  you  saw  3Ir.  Tilton  in  that  proces- 
eion,  ilr.  Swinton  was  walking  with  him  i  A.  After  the 
procession  was  formed  and  ander  way  

Q.  At  all  times  that  you  saw  him  in  the  procession  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir  ;  Mr.  Swinton,  that  gentleman  

Q.  Was  with  him  ?   A.  I  think  so,  Sir. 

Q.  Yes;  that  you  have  already  answered,  as  I  under- 
stand you?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  procession  as  it 
drew  itself  into  line  and  went  off  from  that  spot  1  A.  I 
did,  Sir. 

Q.  Yes.  ^^Tow,  Sir,  at  what  other  point  did  you  stand 
and  observe  this  procession  while  it  was  on  the  march"? 
A..  Well,  Sir,  at  various  points. 

Q.  Well,  just  give  them  all.   A.  I  couldn't  do  it,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  give  me  two  of  them.  A.  I  don't  know  that  I 
ean  identify  a  single  point. 

Q.  Will  you  give  me  one — oh,  well,  not  even  one  ?  A. 
Wherever  the  procession— wherever  It  was,  whatever 
street  It  was  from  which  the  procession  turned  from 
nfth-ave.  across  into  Sixth-ave.— at  the  comer  where  it 
turned  into  Sixth-ave.— I  saw,  and  held  a  position  on  the 
curh-stone,  directly  by  the  sidewalk,  and  saw,  I  think, 
every  face  in  the  procession. 

Q.  Ye.  -  well ;  that  is  one  point  ?  A.  That  is  one  point, 
and  that  is  the  only  point  that  I  can  positively  identify. 

Q.  How  did  you  get  up  there  ?   A.  I  walked  up  there. 

Q.  Abreast  of  the  procession  1   A.  Abreast  of  it  ? 

Q.  Yea  ?  A.  Well,  I  walked  there  as  spectators  would 
naturally  walk. 

Q.  Well,  off  its  line  ?  A.  Seeing  the  procession  march- 
ing along. 

Q.  Eiact^y— you  followed  ?  A.  I  walked  on  the  curb- 
stone sometimes,  if  not  obstructed  by  the  crowd ;  at 
other  times  I  walked  in  the  street. 

Q.  Yes,  abreast  of  the  procession— took  its  route  and 
kept  it  in  view  ?   A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Very  well  ?  A.  Except  on  one  or  two  occasions,  I 
think,  I  crossed  corners  in  order  to  see  it  pass  by;  I  am 
not  sure. 

Q.  Head  it  off?  A.  Head  it  off,  Sir;  I  am  not  sure 
about  it ;  I  think  that  is  it. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  what  part  of  the  procession  as  you  thus 
followed  it  in  its  march,  were  you  abreast  of?  A.  Well, 
at  times  I  might  be  said  to  be  abreast  of  the  whole  of  it. 

Q.  Wsll,  you  might  and  might  not ;  I  mean  while  you 
vrere  marching  along— while  you  were  walking  along  ? 
A.  I  was  abreast  a*:  dLfterent  times;  abreast  of  the  -whole 
of  it 


Q.  Did  you  start  abreast  of  the  heaa  of  tti  A.  I  c-oui<i 
not  say  that  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  must  have  started  abreast  of  some  part  of 
it,  didn't  you?   A.  Well,  I  presume  so. 

Q.  Well,  can't  you  tell  us  at  all?  A.  I  cannot  ikentiiy 
the  particular  point,  and  the  number  of  files,  or  anything 
of  that  sort. 

Q.  Well,  I  haven't  asked  you  any  very  precise  guestion; 
I  have  asked  you  the  head,  and  now  I  will  ask  you  the 
tail— whether  you  were  abreast  of  the  tail  of  it  I  A,  I 
cannot  tell  you.  Sir,  whether  I  was  abreast  when  it 
started. 

Q.  When  you  began  your  concurrent  march  with  that 
procession,  were  you  abreast  of  its  head  or  its  tail  ?  A. 
Well,  my  impression  is.  Sir,  that  I  was  about  abreast  the 
colored  troops. 

Q.  Well,  where  were  they;  at  the  head  or  the  tail  ?  A. 
They  were  at  the  head  of  the  procession,  I  believe. 

Q.  Then,  you  think  you  were  ahead?  A.  I  think  so,  Six. 

Q.  Abreast  of  the  head— now,  did  you  keep  there  ?  A. 
No,  Sii-,  I  did  not. 

Q.  As  you  walked  along  with  it  i  A.  Xot  altogether,  no, 
Sir. 

Q.  Well,  did  they  get  ahead  of  you?  A.  Well,  yes,  Sir, 
they  did  get  ahead  of  me  simply  because  I  

Q.  Although  you  cut  across  once  or  twice  ?  A.  Simply 
because  I  chose;  I  wanted  to  see  the  procession  file  by 
me,  and  they  got  ahead  of  me,  I  think. 

Q.  And  then  you  caught  up  to  them?  A.  Y'es,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  in  what  part  of  the  procession,  as  respecta 
its  head  and  taJl,  did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  My  impres- 
sion is  that  Mr.  Tilton  perhaps  might  have  been  800  feet 
in  the  rear  of  the  lady  who  carried  the  red  flag. 

Q.  Might  have  been,  of  course  ?  A.  That  is  my  imnrea- 
sion  as  to  where  he  was. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  He  might  have  been ;  I  don't  swear  posi- 
tively to  any  particular  point,  understand  me,  Sir ;  I  am 
not  able  to  do  it  at  this  distance  of  time. 

Q.  Well,  I  suppose  not ;  I  am  sure  I  don't  want  yau  to 
do  it  if  you  cannot.  How  many  feet  was  he  ahead— you 
say  he  was  300  feet  behind  the  lady  with  the  banner — 
how  many  feet  was  he  ahead  of  the  extreme  rear  of  the 
procession?   A.  I  cannot  say.  Sir;  I  never  computed  it. 

Q.  How  many  other  ladies  did  you  see  in  the  proces- 
sion ?  A.  I  could  not  say ;  three  or  four,  or  perhaps  five 
ladies  who  took  part  in  the  procession. 

Q.  Besides  the  lady  who  carried  the  banner?  A.  1 
think  I  remember ;  I  would  swear  to  only  four,  and  per- 
haps not  more  than  three. 

Q.  Well,  you  saw  every  face  in  the  procession  ?  A.  I  did 
at  that  time,  certainly.  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  knew  the  women  from  the  men  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  many  women  were  there  ?  A.  I  am  not  able 
to  state. 

Q.  Three,  possibly  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  distinc{ly 
enough  to  say. 


332  TUB  TILTON-BE 

Q.  You  swear  to  three  1  A.  I  will  swear  that  there 
were  three  there ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  won't  swear  to  more  ?  A.  I  won't  swear  to 
more. 

Q.  How  many  of  those  three  did  you  know  ?  A.  I  didn't 
know  any  of  them. 

Q.  You  didn't  know  the  lady  with  the  banner,  then  ?  A, 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  inquire,  or  she  was  not  described 
to  you  at  the  time  ?  A.  I  did  inauire. 

Q.  Was  she  pointed  out  to  you,  or  was  she  described  to 
you  1  Do  you  say  that  you  knew  then  who  she  was  ?  A. 
Well,  I  was  told  that  that  was  Claflin. 

Q.  Now,  was  there  any  other  of  the  three  ladies  known 
to  you  or  made  known  to  you  by  being  pointed  out  ?  A.  I 
was  told  that  one  of  the  ladies  in  the  carriage  with  Gen. 
Ryan  was  Mistress  Woodhull. 

Q.  Now,  about  the  other  ladies.  A.  T  don't  know,  Sir  ; 
I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Then,  as  I  understand  it.  Miss  Claflin  carrying  the 
banner  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  another  lady  in  a  carriage 
with  Gen.  Ryan  are  the  only  ladies  that  you  saw  in  that 
procession  ?  A.  I  am  not  aWe  to  say  that  I  saw  Miss 
Claflin,  in  the  proper  essence  of  the  word,  of  my  personal 
knowledge. 

Q.  I  understand  that ;  but  the  lady  pointed  out  to  you  ? 
A.  I  saw  the  ladies  that  were  pointed  out  as  such. 

Q.  A  lady  pointed  out  as  Miss  Claflin  ?  a.  les. 

Q.  And  a  lady  pointed  out  as  Mrs.  Woodhull,  in  a  car- 
riage with  Mr.  Ryau,  and  another  lady  not  pointed  out  or 
not  known  to  you— those  are  the  only  ladies  that  you  can 
say  you  saw  1  A.  They  were  the  only  ladies  that  I  can 
say  I  saw  ;  I  don't  say  that  there  were  not  other  ladies 
there. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  lady  in  that  procession  carrying  a 
baby  1  A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Would  not  that  have  attracted  your  notice  ?  Don't 
you  think  it  would  have  attracted  your  notice  if  you  had 
seen  a  lady  carrying  a  baby  ?  A.  Very  possibly  it  might 
have  done  so  at  the  time ;  but  if  it  did  it  has  passed  from 
my  memory. 

Q.  Oh,  I  dare  say.  I  am  not  sure  there  was  any  one 
there  fshowing  witness  the  picture  in  Frank  Leslie's  Illus- 
trated Newspaper].  Now,  Sir,  do  you  think  there  was 
any  such  group  of  women  in  the  procession  as  that 
shown  in  that  picture?  A.  Well,  I  remember  nothing 
that  impressed  me  with  that  view  of  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  what  was  the  route  of  the  procession  ?  A.  I 
could  not  give  that ;  I  paid  no  attention  to  the  route. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Morris,  will  you  ask  this  gentleman 
whether  he  is  sure  of  seeing  Mr.  Swinton  with  Mr.  Tilton 
below  Eighth-st.  ?  Let  him  not  be  mistaken  In  regard  to 
that. 

Mr.  Morris— Can  you  say  positively  whether  you 
saw  Mr.  Swinton  in  company  with  Mr.  Tilton  below 


JECRFAi  TBJAL. 

Eighth-st.  I   A.  Below  Eighth-st.— I  would  not  like  ta 
swear  that  I  saw  him,  Sir. 
Mr.  Morris— That  is  all. 


TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  FORCE. 

William  Force  was  called  on  behalf  of  the 
plaintiff,  and  sworn. 

Mr.  Morris— Where  do  you  reside  ?  A.  In  Brooklyn. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  t  A.  Confectionery. 

Q.  Whereabouts  do  you  carry  on  that  business  ?  A.  fn 
New- York,  and  at  No.  292  Court-st.,  Brooklyn. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Theodore  Tilton  1  A.  I 
have  known  Theodore  Tilton  since  he  was  a  boy  ;  thai  is, 
not  intimately,  to  speak  to  him,  since  he  has  grown  to  be 
a  man,  but  when  he  was  a  boy. 

Q.  You  have  known  htm  by  sight  since  he  has  grown  to 
be  a  man  !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  have  been  in  the  habit  of  seeing  liim  fre- 
quently ?   A-  Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  procession  that  has  been  spoken  oJ 
here  on  the  17th  of  December,  1871 1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  tfn 
Sunday. 

Q.  At  what  point  did  you  first  see  it  1  A.  In  Great 
Jones-st. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  whole  procession!  A.  I  saw  the 
whole  procession  pass  through  Great  Jones-st. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  In  company  with  any  one  ?  A.  There  was  a  gentle- 
man walking  with  him. 

Q.  Would  you  recognize  that  gentleman  1  A.  Well,  it 
was  rather  a  cloudy  day,  and  the  gentleman  appeared  to 
me  to  have  a  cloak  on. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  ladies  in  the  procession  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  far  were  they  from  Mr.  Tilton  and  this  gentle- 
man that  you  saw  1  A.  As  far  as  from  here  to  Atlantic-st. 

Q.  Did  you  see  either  of  the  ladies  carrying  a  banner  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  CoL  Blood  at  that  time  1 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  with  Mr.  Andrews  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  how  many  ladies  there  were  in  the 
procession— have  you  any  idea?  A.  WeL,  there  ap- 
peared to  me  to  be— it  astonished  me  to  see  so  many ;  I 
saw  five  or  six  ladies  in  the  procession ;  it  was  the  first 
time  that  I  ever  saw  any  ladies  in  a  procession  of  the 
kind. 

Q.  Were  they  near  together  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  T1ilt»^n  fear  those  ladies  f  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  he  in  Arot  them  or  behind  them !  A.  Oh,  he 
was  away  behincu 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  procession  at  any  other  point  in  its 
route  1  A.  No,  Sir;  I  just  saw  them  go  through  Great 
Jones-st. 

Q.  Did  the  entire  procession,  pass  you  1   A.  The  whole 
procession  v/ent  through. 
Q.  Did  you  observe  the  colored  troops  f  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


TF.STIMOJSY  OF 

Q.  Kownearto  them  Trere  tlie  ladles?  A.  They  ap- 
peared to  me  to  be  just  t»eliind  them ;  I  thought  they  "were 
there ;  it  occurred  to  me  to  kind  of  protect  the  ladies,  or 
something  or  other ;  I  did  n't  laaow  hut  there  might  he  a 
row. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  hahy !  A.  I  saw  a  woman  with  a 
bahy  in  her  arms. 

CKOSS-EXAMIXATION  OF  MR.  FORCE. 
By  Mr.  Evarts — Wliere  do  you  reside  ?  A. 

No.  292  Couit-st. 
Q,  In  this  city  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  your  business  is?  A.  In  New- York  and  Brook- 
lyn—Eiddle  ct  Co.,  successors  to  R.  L.  &:  A.  Stuart. 

Q.  Yoa  have  shops  in  both  cities?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  this 
here  is  separate. 

Q.  Did  you  go  over  to  New-York  to  see  this  procession  ? 
A.  Piui>osL-ly. 

Q.  And  to  see  the  whole  of  it  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  you  any  special  interest  in  the  objects  or  en- 
thusiasm of  tliat  occasion?  A.  Well,  I  had;  because  I 
heard  that  they  had  killed  a  priest  in  the  Old  Country, 
and  I  wanted  to  see  the  parties  

Q.  To  see  what  kind  of  people  they  were  that  were  cel- 
ebrating the  occasion?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  that  is  what  I 
wanted  to  see.  I  felt  a  little  prejudice  against  them  at 
that  time ;  but  since  I  have  not. 

Q.  You  have  changed  your  views  ?  A.  I  have  changed. 

Q.  From  seeing  that  procession  ?  A.  Well,  from  what  I 
have  read. 

Q.  Not  from  the  impression  that  the  procession  made  on 
f  ou  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  take  up  your  point  of  observation  ? 
i.  In  Great  Jones-st. 

Q.  Were  you  there  before  the  procession  was  formed  ? 
k.  Yes,  Sir;  before  it  came  through. 

Q.  Did  you  stand  still  imtil  it  passed  by  you  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir.  There  were  two  gentlemen  with  me  and  we  stood 
still.  There  were  two  gentlemen  with  me  at  the  time, 
that  were  sick,  and  they  scolded  me  for  standing  there, 
and  I  told  them  it  would  be  all  right. 

Q.  Who  were  those  two  gentlemen  ?  A.  Mr.  Martin 
and  Mr.  McDermott ;  they  are  both  dead- 

Q.  Both  dead  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  b«th  dead. 

Q.  Did  you  regret  it  afterward  that  you  had  kept  them 
standing  there  ?   [Laughter.]   A.  It  was  not  the  

Mr.  Morris— One  moment. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  let  him  ask  it. 

The  Witness— It  was  not  the  cloudy  day  that  made 
them  sick  ;  they  were  sick  before  that  for  years. 

Q.  And  so  they  told  you  they  did  not  want  to  stand  ?  A. 
They  did  not  want  to  stand,  but  I  was  determined  to 
see  it. 

Q.  Yes  ;  and  they  both  died  ?   A.  Not  from  that. 
Judge  Neilson-^After  that  1 


WILLIAM  FOBCB.  333 

The  Witness— Yes;  after  that.  Sir.  Oh,  it  could  not 
have  been  before.  [Laughter.] 

Mr."  Evarts— Well,  Mr.  Force,  the  whole  procession  did 
pass  by  you  ?  A.  Yes,  the  whole  procession,  Mr.  Evarts,. 
passed  through  Great  Jones-st. 

Q.  And  after  it  got  by  you,  what  did  you  do  then?  A. 
I  walked  down  Broadway. 

Q.  You  left  and  went  about  your  business!  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Were  those  two  gentlemen  with  you  !  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I 
took  them  into  a  hotel  and  treated  them. 

Q.  Treated  them?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  because  they  were 
cold — they  were  very  «old. 

Q.  Had  that  anything  to  do  with  their  death,  do  you 
think  ?  [Laughter.]  A.  Oh,  not  at  all.  You  know,  we 
take  a  little  wine  once  in  a  while  when  we  go  out  to  sup- 
pers. 

Q.  Very  well.  So  that  was  your  sole  point  of  observa- 
tion?  A.  Y''es,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  as  Mr.  Tilton  passed  you,  along  through  Great 
Jones-st.,  was  he  alone  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Who  was  with  him  ?  A.  A  gentleman. 

Q.  Who  was  he  ?   A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Was  he  Mr.  Swinton— that  gray-haired  gentleman 
who  is  hiding  himself  over  there  ?  A.  [Looking  at  Mr. 
Swinton.]  Well,  if  he  was  dressed  as  he  was  dressed  at 
that  time,  probably  I  could  recognize  him. 

Q.  He  did  not  have  his  hat  off,  I  suppose  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ; 
he  did  not— the  gentleman  that  was  with  him.  I  can  teU 
a  man,  if  I  have  once  seen  him,  20  years  afterward.  I 
have  seen  you  (Mr.  Evarts)  thousands  and  thousands  of 
times. 

Q.  Well,  I  hope  you  will  be  able  to  recognize  me  20 
years  hence.  A.  I  will  recognise  you.  Sir ;  I  have  seen 
you  when  I  was  a  boy.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Beach— I  hope  you  will  see  him  a  thousand  years 
hence.  [Laughter.] 

The  Witness— I  hope  so. 

Q.  You  did  not  follow  the  procession  throughout  Its 
route  ?  A.  No ;  on  account  of  those  two  gentlemen  being 
sick. 

Q,  Now,  about  this  group  of  women;  were  all  the  women 
that  were  in  the  procession  at  the  same  point  in  the  pro- 
cession ?  A.  I  saw  a  number  of  women— ladies,  walking 
together  close  to  those,  Tennie  Claflin  and  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  

Q.  You  knew  them  by  sight,  did  you  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  by 
seeing  them  aroimd  town. 

Q.  And  the  other  ladies,  did  you  know  any  of  them  ? 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  aside  from  that  group,  did  you  see  any  ladies 
in  the  procession?  A.  I  saw  ladies  in  a  carriage. 

Q.  How  many?   A.  Well,  I  think  not  over  two. 

Q.  Was  anybody  •arriage  with  them?    A.  There 

was  a  gentleman. 

Q.  Did  you  know  either  of  those  ladies  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 


834 


TEE   IILTOJS-BBEOHBE  lElAL, 


Q.  Neither  of  them  was  Miss  Claflln?  A.  Oh,  no. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Morris  [calling  a  new  witness]— Mr.  Kane  1 
Mr.  Kane  [from  the  reporters'  table]— I  have  not  been 
Bubpenaed. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Kane  1  Is  that  your  name  * 
Mr.  Kane— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— WeU,  come  forward;  you  don't  need  to 
l»e  subpenaed ;  you  are  here.   [Laughter.  I 

TESTIMONY  OF  LAWRENCE  S.  KANE. 

Lawrence  S.  Kane,  called  on  behalf  of  tlie 
lAaintiff,  sworn,  and  examined  : 

Mr.  Morris— I  will  just  ask  a  question  or  two,  Mr. 
Kane ;  you  are  a  reporter  attached  to  the  press  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  procession  on  Sunday,  the  17th  of 
December,  1871 1  A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  At  what  point  did  you  see  it  1  A.  Well,  I  saw  it  all 
along,  I  believe ;  I  was  sent  by  The  Sun  to  report  it,  and 
my  recollection  is  that  I  followed  it  all  through ;  I  am 
not  sure,  though. 

Q.  You  were  there  in  the  capacity  of  a  reporter  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Miss  Claflin  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  at 
that  time,  by  sight  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  in  the  procession  1  A.  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  At  what  point  ?  A.  I  believe  they  were  right  after 
the  colored  troops,  the  Skidmore  Guards  Company. 

Q.  Was  either  of  them  carrying  a  banner  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  Miss  Claflin  was  carrying  a  banner. 

Q.  Was  there  any  gentleman  with  them?  A.  There 
were  one  or  two  gentlemen  with  them.  One  of  them  was 
pointed  out  to  me  as  Col.  Blood  (I  did  not  know  him),  and 
another  one  as  an  old  gentleman  that  swept  out  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  office.  [Laughter.]  I  don't  know  whether 
there  were  any  others  or  not. 

Q.  And  you  knew  Mr.  Tilton  at  the  time  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ; 
I  did  not. 

Q.  You  have  seen  him  since,  and  know  him  since  ?  A. 
I  have  seen  htm  since. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  the  procession  1  A.  I  did  not 
Bee  him. 

Q.  You  did  not  notice  him  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  might  have 
been  there. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Gen.  Byan  at  that  time  1 
A.  I  was  very  well  acquainted  with  him. 

Q.  [showing  witness  the  plaster  cast  of  Gen.  Eyan] 
Will  you  state  whether  that  is  a  fair  representation  of 
his  head  %  A.  It  looks  something  like  him. 

Q.  He  wore  his  hair  long  f  A.  He  wore  his  hair  long. 

Q.  And  behind  his  ears  1  A.  And  behind  his  ears. 

Q.  And  such  a  hat  as  is  there  represented  i  A.  Yes, 
6ir ;  the  brim  a  little  broader  than  that. 

Q.  Any  beard  ?  A.  He  had  no  beard. 

Q.  Any  mustache  1    A.  No  moustache ;  I  never  recol- 


lect him  weariag  any  mustache,  and  I  have  known  him  a 
long  time. 

Q.  How  taU  was  he  1  A.  He  was  about  5  feet  8  or  9  , 
I  don't  think  he  was  much  taller  than  that. 

Q.  How  tall,  with  reference  to  your  higho.  V.  He  was 
not  as  tall  as  me. 

Q.  You  think  he  was  not  as  tall  as  you  are  %  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  that  day  ?  A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  was  he  ?  A  He  was  in  a  carriage. 

Q.  Any  one  in  company  with  him  ?  A.  He  was  with 
O'Donovan  Eossa,  and,  I  believe,  a  Cuban,  whose  name  I 
did  not  know,  or  don't  recollect. 

Q.  And  did  you  see  how  many  ladles  were  there  in  the 
procession— do  you  recollect  ?  A.  Well,  there  were  quite 
a  number  of  them  walking  after  Tenuie  Claflin ;  I  think  I 
counted  them  and  gave  the  number  in  my  report;  I  do 
not  recollect  what  it  was,  but  I  think  it  was  23. 

Q.  Twenty-three  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  or  23  in  the  whole  pro- 
cession ;  I  am  not  sure  which ;  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  But  there  was  a  number,  at  all  events  ?  A.  There 
were  a  number. 

Q.  How  were  they  situated  with  reference  to  the  col- 
ored troops?  A.  They  were  right  behind  Tennle  Claflin; 
Mrs.  Woodhull  walked  right  after  Tennle  laflln. 

Q.  How  did  Miss  Claflin  walk  with  reference  to  the  col- 
ored troops?  A.  She  walked,  I  believe,  right  behind 
them ;  she  walked  in  front  as  a  kind  of  commander  of 
these  women. 

Q.  Was  she  carrying  a  banner?  A.  She  carried  a  red 
flag  with  a  red  border,  and  a  white  circle  in  the  middle, 
with  an  inscription  on  it— a  white  center. 

Q.  Did  you  follow  the  procession  during  its  entire 
route  ?  A.  1 1  el' eve  I  did. 

Q.  And  did  tliosy  ladles  maintain  that  relative  position 
during  the  entire  route  of  the  procession?  A.  So  far  as  I 
recollect,  they  did.  Sir. 

Q.  And  during  any  part  of  the  march  did  you  see  Mr. 
Tilton  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not ;  I  didn't  know  him ;  I  didn't 
take  notice  of  him ;  I  do  not  recollect  seeing  him  at  all. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  KANE. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  are  a  reporter,  now  coa- 
nected  with  the  press  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  have  been  in  attendance  on  the  trial  here  %  A. 
For  the  past  two  weeks,  Sir. 

Q.  You  noted  these  ladies,  and  there  were  23  of  them? 
A.  I  think  so ;  I  don't  recollect  the  exact  number. 

Q.  At  any  rate,  you  counted  them  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  and 
gave  the  number  m  my  report. 

Q.  And  it  was  a  considerable  number  i  A.  It  was  a  con* 
siderable  number. 

Q.  Did  either  of  them  have  a  baby  !  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  one  of 
them  carried  a  baby. 

Q.  One  of  them  had  a  baby  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  yon  see  any  ladies  or  females  in  any  other  pari 


TUSTIUOM'   OF   THEODORE   H.  BANKS. 


381 


of  tlie  procession  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  tMnk  there  were  some 
iB  a  carriage. 

Q.  How  many  1  A.  I  don't  recollect;  I  think  there 
■was— I  think  ttere  was  two  carriages  full  of  them. 

Q.  And  how  many  ladies  in  each  ?  A.  I  think  there 
were  four  in  each  ;  I  am  not  sure,  though. 

Q.  Four  ladies  in  each  t  A.  Perhaps  so  ;  I  don't  recol- 
lect. 

Q.  Did  you  know,  or  at  the  time  were  they  made  known 
to  you  in  any  way— those  ladies  in  the  carriage  ?  A.  I 
helieve  I  asked  who  they  were— yes.  Sir ;  but  I  don't 
think  I  foimd  out. 

Q.  They  were  not  known  to  you  ?  A.  They  were  not 
known  to  me. 

Q.  And  were  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflin  known  to 
you  by  sight  ?  A.  Yes ;  I  had  seen  them  before. 

Q.  Did  you  know  any  of  the  other  23  ladies  that  were 
in  the  principal  group  ?   A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Jfow,  you  say  you  saw  the  whole  procession,  as  I  un- 
derstand; did  you  stand  at  a  point  and  see  it  all  pass  by, 
or  did  you  go  after  it  ?  A.  Well,  I  believe  I  went  after  it 
the  most  of  the  way,  because  I  recollect  being  at  the  start 
and  at  the  finish;  I  think  I  went  around  all  the  way  with 
rt  ,  1  don't  recollect,  though ;  I  guess  

Q.  Now,  do  you  tliii.k  that  you  were  abreast  of  this 
group  of  ladies  all  the  wayl  A.  No,, Sir;  I  do  not. 

Q.  Were  you,  any  part  of  the  way,  abreast  of  them  1  A. 
I  think  so;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  How  much  of  the  way  1  A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  the  extent  of  your  personal  ac- 
(luaintance  with  Gen.  Eyan?  A.  Oh,  I  had  known  Gen. 
Eyan  for  a  long  time.  I  had  been  with  him— talked  with 
Mm,  and  had  conversations  with  him  in  regard  to  their 
Cuban  business,  and  he  was  also  associated  in  a  news- 
paper on  which  I  was  employed  part  of  the  time, 

Q.  What  paper  was  thati  A.  Our  Society,  a  fashionable 
paper  in  New-York. 

Q.  So  tiiat  you  knew  him  very  well !  A.  So  that  I  knew 
him  very  well. 

Q.  You  have  often  stood  up  together  in  talking,  haven't 
youl  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  was  as  tall  as  you,  or  not  i 
A.  He  was  not  as  tail  as  me. 

Q.  You  put  him  at  about  five  feet  eight?  A.  I  should 
judge  so. 

Q.  Now,  in  regawi  to  his  hair,  was  it  not  black !  A.  No, 
Sir.  it  was  not  black 

Q.  As  dark  as  yours  %  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  about  as  dark  as 
mine  ;  dark  brown. 

Q.  Was  it  of  a  curly  temper  or  tendency !  A.  Yes,  Sir, 
It  was  at  the  end  ;  and  he  wore  it  long. 

Q.  It  curled  1  A.  Well,  yes  ;  it  was  wavy. 

Q.  Wavy  1  Did  he  wear  it  down  his  shoulders  t  A.  No, 
not  quite  as  long  as  that.  He  wore  it  down  to  here  [lay- 
ing his  hand  on  hla  neck.] 


Q.  Well,  didn't  he  wear  a  military  hat !  A.  Yes,  Sir ; 
he  did. 

Q.  Abroad-brimmed  military  hat,  with  a  cord  and  tas- 
sel on  it  1    A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  some  gUding  about  it !  A.  1  don't  think  there 
was  any  gilding  about  it. 

Q.  Not  about  the  cord  and  tassel  t  A-  Not  about  the 
cord. 

Q.  Nothing  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  In  this  procession  he  was  with  O 'Donovan  Eossa 
and  some  other  gentleman  I  A.  Yes ;  1  think  a  Cuban 
gentleman ;  I  got  his  name,  I  believe,  at  the  time ;  he  waa 
sitting  on  the  rear  seat, 

Q.  That  is,  he  was  fronting  the  horses  ?  A.  Fronting 
the  horses. 

Q.  And  there  was  no  lady  in  the  carriage !  A.  No  lady 
in  the  carriage— no.  Sir,  not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Well,  if  you  had  seen  a  lady  riding  on  the  front  seat, 
and  three  gentlemen,  wouldn't  you  be  apt  to  recollect  it ! 
A.  Well,  I  don't  recollect  all  the  details  of  a  thing  that 
happened  so  long  ago. 

Q.  Well,  you  made  a  sort  of  record  of  it,  didn't  youl 
A.  Yes,  Sir,  but  I  have  not  seen  that  since— have  not 
looked  at  it. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  remember  whether  your  record  make* 
any  mention  of  Mr.  Tilton  being  in  the  procession!  A.  No, 
Sir,  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  You  have  not  examined  it  to  see  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  have 
not  examined. 

Q.  But  whatever  record  there  is  in  Tht  Sun  of  the  next 
day  is  yours  ?  A.  Is  mine.  Sir. 

TESTIMONY   OF    THEODOEE  H.  BA^TvS. 

Theodore  H.  Baiiks  was  called  on  behalf  of 
the  plaintiff,  and  being  duly  sworn,  testifle^i  : 

Mr.  Morris— Where  do  you  reside  1  A.  In  New-York, 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Theodore  Tilton  1  A.  Yea, 
Sir. 

Q.  And  were  you  acquainted  with  Gen.  Ryan  ?  A* 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  procession  which  marched  on 
the  17th  of  December,  1871 1   A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  very  well. 

Q.  You  were  marshal  of  that  procession,  I  believe ! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Banks,  will  you  state  where  that  proces* 
sion  formed,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  came  together— 
the  different  parts  of  it  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  as  near  as  I  can 
recollect.  The  right  of  the  procession  formed,  or  was  to 
form,  in  Eighth-st. ;  in  Seventh-st.  the  Cubans  were  to 
form  ;  in  Sixth-st.  there  were  some  trades-unions— I  think 
the  printers'  or  the  painters' ;  in  Fifth-st.  there  were 
some  other  organizations — I  think  they  were  the  Swiss ; 
in  Fourth-st.  were  the  Internationals,  the  catafalque,  and 
the  citizens ;  below  Fourth-st.  I  think  there  were 
some  other  organizations— I  don't  know  exactly. 
I  think  the  Bricklayers ;  in  Fifth-st.— I  mean  in  Third-st, 


536  THE  TILION-B 

and  in  Second-st.  there  was  some — I  don't  know  exactly 
wlio  was  there — I  cannot  remember  who  formed  there ; 
hut  the  right  of  the  procession  formed  in  Eighth-st.— the 
Skidmore  Guards  and  the  band  formed  in  Eighth-st.  and 
started  from  Eighth-st.  and  marched  down  the  Bowery 
to  Great  Jones-st.,  each  of  the  different  sections  falling 
in.  As  the  left  of  the  division  formed  on  each  street 
marched  down,  the  right  of  each  division  formed  on  the 
left  of  the  other,  and  so  on,  until  they  had  formed  a  con- 
tinuous line.  The  march  was  through  Great  Jones-st.  to 
Broadway,  up  Broadway  a  small  piece,  and  through  Wa- 
verley-place  to  Fif th-ave. ;  up  Fifth-ave.  to  Thirty-fourth; 
across  Thirty-fourth-st.  to  Sixth-ave. ;  down  Sixth-ave. 
to  Fourteenth-st. ;  along  Fourteenth-st.  to  the  Lincoln 
Monument ;  around  the  monument,  and  then  they  dis- 
persed. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  kn^w  Miss  Tennie  Claflin  at  that 
time  ?  A.  Yes.  Sir,  T  Avas  acquainted  with  her. 

Q.  And  Mrs.  Woo<lhull  ?   A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Were  they  in  the  procession  ?  A.  They  were  in  the 
procession. 

Q.  At  what  part  of  it?  A.  They  were  immediately 
after  the  band  and  the  Skidmore  Guards ;  they  were  both 
together ;  and  after  them  came  the  women ;  that  was  the 
place  allotted  to  them,  and  they  marched  there. 

Q.  About  how  many  women,  according  to  your  recol- 
lection, were  there  in  that  procession?  A.  Well,  march- 
ing, I  think  about  20  ;  as  near  as  I  can  recollect  there 
was  about  20  wt)men  marching. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Woodhull  or  Miss  ClafliB  carrying  a  ban- 
ner ?  A.  Miss  Claflin  carried  the  banner  most  of  the  way 
there ;  I  believe  it  was  carried  part  o£  the  time  hy  Miss 
MorriU. 

Q.  Were  they  accompanied  —  Miss  Claflin  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull — by  any  gentleman  %   A.  Oh,  several. 

Q.  Who  1  A.  Col.  Blood,  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews,  Mr. 
West,  and  several;  I  do  not  remember  exactly  who  were 
all  the  gentlemen  there. 

Q.  Did  they  maintain  that  position  in  the  procession 
during  its  entire  march  I   A.  All  the  way.  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  see,  or  was,  Mr.  Tilton  in  company 
with  them  during  any  part  of  the  march  ?  A.  Not  in  aaj 
part  of  the  march ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  And  were  they  in  a  carriage  during  any  portion  of 
it  1  A.  They  were  not ;  I  seen  the  ladies  before  the  pro- 
cession, and  Mr.  Tilton  was  not  with  them  then— before 
they  had  started,  because  I  had  allotted  them  a  place  

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  in  the— diiring  the  procession  1 
A.  I  seen  him  at  the  finish. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  gentleman  he  was  in  company 
with  1  A.  I  did  not  know  him  at  the  time  ;  Mr.  Swinton 
was  with  him,  but  I  was  not  acquainted  with  Mr.  Swinton 
until  afterward. 

Q.  But  it  was  Mr.  Swinton  who  was  with  him  f  A.  It 
was  Mr.  Swinton. 

Q.  And  you  were  paying  strict  attention  to  the  proces- 


rhKWBE  TBJAL, 

sion  during  its  entire  march  !  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  had  to  do  it 
to  see  that  there  were  no  breaks  in  the  line  ;  I  had  to  be 
continually  looking  round  to  see  that  there  were  no 
breaks  or  halts ;  and  at  every  corner  I  noticed  the  women 
marching,  because  it  was  a  novelty,  and  I  paid  particular 
attention— looking  after  them  and  others. 

Q.  How  many  carriages  were  there  in  the  procession, 
according  to  your  recollection  ?  A.  Well,  after  tbe  pro- 
cession had  marched  past,  the  marshals  and  the  band 
stood  at  the  Lincoln  Monument,  and  we  opened  out  and 
they  passed  through ;  I  do  not  think  there  were  more 
than  eight  or  ten  carriages. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Tilton  in  either  of  the  carriages  1  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  You  are  sure  of  that  1  A.  Sure  of  that. 

Q.  Was  Miss  Claflin  or  Mrs.  Woodhull  in  either  of  the 
carriages  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  none  of  them. 

Q.  During  no  part  of.  the  procession  ?  A.  At  no  part  of 
the  procession. 

Q.  You  say  you  knew  Gen.  Ryan  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir ;  well. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  the  procession  ?  A.  He  was  in 
Uie  carriage  with  O'Donovan  Rossa  and  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent of  the  Cuban  Junta,  and  some  other  Cuban. 

Q.  And  did  he  maintain  that  position  during  the  march 
of  the  procession  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  that  is  I  cannot  say 
that  he  did,  but  I  know  that  he  rode  past  the  marshals  at 
the  end  of  the  procession,  because  we  would  not  allow 
carriages ;  we  were  opposed  to  carriages  anyhow,  or 
horses,  but  they  came  there  and  rode  after  the  procession; 
we  would  not  allow  them  to  ride  in  the  procession,  and 
they  rode  after  it. 

Q,  Were  they  at  the  foot  of  the  procession  1  A.  At  the 
foot  of  the  procession. 

Q.  Now,  where  were  you  when  the  procession  was  dis- 
banded? A.  Standing  at  the  Lincoln  Monument;  the 
Skidmore  Guards  had  presented  arms  and  been  halted 
there,  and  the  ladies  halted— Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss 
Claflin  halted  there,  and  Col.  Blood,  and  I  guess  most  of 
them  that  marched  halted  there  with  the  ladies,  halted 
there  with  the  marslials,  and  at  iSie  halt  Mrs.  Woodhull 
and  Miss  Claflin  were  both  alongside  of  me  diu'ing  all  the 
time  that  the  procession  was  marching  through,  un- 
covered. 

Q.  And  the  procession  disbanded  as  they  passed 
through?  A.  Yes,  Sir?  as  they  passed  through,  or 
marched  past  ns. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  after  the  procession  disbanded  ? 
A.  After  the  procession  disbanded,  after  it  marched 
through,  there  was  a  tremendous  crowd  there  and  no 
police  protection— not  one  policeman  anywhere— we  had 
to  fight  our  own  way  through  the  multitude,  although  it 
was  peaceable,  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflin  and 
Col.  Blood  haLed  or  hired  a  carriage  there,  and  aft€r  they 
had  got  in  I  intended  to  go  away,  but  there  was  such  a 
crowd  calling  on  me  for  speeches,  together  with  consid- 
erable opposition  that  I  had  


TESTIMONY   OF  TEEOBOBE  E.  BANKS. 


337 


Mr.  Morris— Never  mind  tliat. 
Mr.  Beacli— Yes,  let  liini  state. 

The  Witness— I  liad  received  several  letters  threaten- 
ing me  vrith  almost  assassination,  so  I  was  very  glad  to 
accept  their  invitation  to  get  into  the  carriage,  and  I  got 
Into  the  carriage. 

Q.  You  got  into  the  carriage,  when  the  procession  dis- 
"banded,  with  Col.  Blood,  Miss  Claflin,  and  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull.  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  rode  away  with  them  %  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  rode  away. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  there  at  that  time  ?  A.  Wliile 
we  were  standing  he  was  pretty  well  towards  the  latter 
end  of  the  procession,  and  when  we  were  standing  there, 
perhaps  ten  minutes,  he  marched  past  without  either 
looking  at  the  ladies  or  at  the  Marshals,  or  at  any  one 
else,  and  went  away. 

Q.  In  company  with  this  same  gentleman!  A.  In 
company  with  this  same  gentleman  and  a  great  many 
other  citizens— American  citizens  I  take  them  to  have 
been. 

Q.  You  were  the  only  persons  in  the  carriage  1  A.  The 
only  ones  were  us  four. 

Q.  And  you  didn't  see  Mr.  Tilton  after  he  marched  past 
in  company  with  Mr.  Swinton  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  leave  the  carriage?  State  now 
where  you  went  with  Mr.  Blood  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  and 
Miss  Claflin?  A.  I  rode  from  the  Lincoln,  monument 
around  the  square,  took  off  my  sash  and  crape,  so  that  I 
would  not  be  recognized  as  an  officer,  and  rode  up  Fifth- 
ave.  as  far  as  Twentieth-st.,  and  there  got  out  of  the  car- 
riage and  came  back  to  disperse  the  crowd ;  and  they 
went  home— went  up  the  avenue. 

Q.  In  the  direction  of  .   A.  Up  the  avgnue. 

Q.  You  left  them  at  Twentieth-st.  ?  A.  I  left  them  at 
Twentieth-st. 

CEOSS-EXAMIXATIOX  OF  MR.  BANKS. 

^Ir.  Evarts— You  were  the  CMef  Marshal  of 
that  occasion  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  many  aids  or  under  marshals  had  you  ?  A.  I 
lielieve  there  were  eight  assistant  aids. 

Q.  Were  any  of  you  mounted  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  no  horses. 

Q.  Had  you  a  definite  place  in  the  procession  alter  it 
commenced  its  march  1   A.  Yes,  Sir ;  the  head  of  the  line. 

Q.  Did  you  remain  at  the  head  of  the  line  until  it 
reached  its  terminus  at  Lincoln  monument  ?  A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  look  forward  or  backward  most  of  the 
time  ?  A.  I  looked  forward  and  backward  both  ;  I  had  to 
do  so. 

Q.  You  mainly  looked  forward?  A.  Well,  perhaps  so— 
mainly,  yes. 

Q.  You  glanced  around  of  com-se?  A.  Hooked  around 
considerable,  and  walked  backwards  considerable,  and 
looked  backwards. 

Q.  Actually  tiirucd  and  walked  backwards  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 


Q.  A  good  way  ?  A.  Not  a  gree  t  way ;  enough  to  see 
that  the  line  was  straight. 

Q.  Well,  lust  a  few  steps,  I  suppose  ?  A.  A  few  steps. 

Q.  Y^ou  didn't  march  a  whole  block,  I  suppose  ?  A.  No, 
Sir,  not  generally. 

Q.  You  didn't  see  Mr.  Tilton  until  the  finish,  as  you  ex- 
press it  ?  A.  Not  until  the  finish. 

Q.  Then  you  didn't  see  IVIr.  Swinton  until  thefimshl 
A.  Not  until  the  finish. 

Q.  And  you  didn't  know  him  then  ?  A.  I  didn't  know 
him  then ;  I  have  seen  him  since. 

Q.  But  you  think,  from  having  recognized  him  since, 
that  he  was  the  gentleman  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  when  that  procession  was  forming,  before  the 
line  was  ready  to  proceed,  did  your  duties  engage  you  in 
attending  to  the  formation  of  the  different  divisions,  and 
the  arranging  them?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  from  Second-st.  to 
Eighth-st.   I  was— 

Q.  Well,  fi'om  what  date  or  what  point  of  time  and 
arrangement  did  you  assume  the  head  and  continue  at  it 
for  the  march— after  the  whole  procession  was  arranged  ? 
A.  After  it  was  all  arranged,  at  about  two  or  a  little 
after  I  assumed  the  head  of  the  march. 

Q.  Up  to  that  time  you  had  not  seen  either  Mr.  Tilton 
or  Mr.  Swinton  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  But  you  had  seen  these  ladies,  Mrs.  WoodhuU,  «fec.  f 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  was  this  banner  a  large  flag  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  a 
small  banner — a  flag,  not  a  banner,  a  simple  red  flag,  I 
should  suppose,  about  three  feet  by  about  six. 

Q.  That  is,  the  bunting  itself  ?  A.  The  flag  itself. 

Q.  And  how  was  the  flag  pole  in  length  and  bulk  and 
weight  ?  A.  Oh,  I  should  suppose  ahout  perhaps  seven 
or  eight  feet  long— a  small  pole. 

Q.  How  did  this  lady  support  this  flag  ?  A.  Well,  she 
carried  it  in  her  two  hands  in  that  shape  [illustrating.] 

Q.  Without  a  belt  or  socket?  A.  Just  like  a  man 
would.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  She  had  no  belt  or  socket  ?   A.  Not  any. 

Q.  Held  it  la  her  hands  ?  A.  Held  it  in  her  hands. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  the  day  was  windy  or 
not  ?  A.  No,  Srr ;  it  was  not  very  windy,  it  was  a  damp 
sort  of  a  day, 

Q.  Not  very  windy,  not  a  gale  ?  A.  Not  very  windy. 

Q.  Still  windy,  was  it  not  ?  A.  Not  very  windy. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  if  you  were  at  the  h.ead  of  this  process n 
with  those  colored  troops  and  a  band  of  music  between 
you  and  this  banner,  how  do  you  know  that  Miss  Tennie 
Claflin  carried  this  banner,  walking  the  whole  length  of 
that  procession  ?  A.  I  did  not  say  the  whole  length  ot 
that  procession;  I  said  I  believed  she  was  relieved. 
When  I  seen  her  she  was  carrying  the  flag. 

Q.  WTien  did  you  see  her!  A.  When  did  I  see  her? 

Q.  Yes  ?  A.  I  seen  her  at  the  finish,  and  I  seen  her  at 
different  streets  in  turning  when  I  looked  around  ;  I  can 
notex;..tly  say  when. 


338  TEE  TILTON-B 

Q.  And  at  all  these  times  this  lady  was  carrying  this 
flag  in  her  two  hands  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  why  did  you  say  that  she  was  relieved  at 
times  1  A.  Because  I  had  heard  say  so,  as  I  told  you  be- 
fore. 

Q.  Who  had  you  heard  say  sof  A.  I  don't  know;  I 
heard  say  that  some  parties  had  relieved  her;  I  don't 
remember  who  it  was,  but  I  heard  that  she  was  relieved. 

Q.  I  only  ask  you  who  you  heard  say  so  ?  A.  I  don't 
remember  who  it  was. 

Q.  When  did  you  hear  say  so  1  A.  Well,  it  was  after 
the  procession,  talking  about  the  party  and  one  thing 
and  another,  I  heard  that  some  other  parties  had— I 
don't  know  exactly. 

Q.  With  whom  were  you  talking?  A.  Well,  I  talked 
with  so  manj  people  that  it  is  pretty  hard  for  me  to 
remember  nofr, 

Q.  And  did  all  of  them  tell  you  she  was  relieved  1  A. 
No,  Sir :  not  all  of  them ;  I  could  not  have  heard  them  by 
this  time  if  they  had. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  how  near  the  finish  did  you  first  86e  Mr. 
Tilton?  A.  Well,  just  as  near  as  you  could  see  a  proces- 
sion approaching  and  see  a  tall  gentleman— I  could  not 
have  been  mistaken ;  he  marched  on  and  marched  past 
us. 

Q.  Well,  just  within  a  few  yards,  I  suppose  t  A.  Well, 
I  don't  know  exactly— say  50  feet ;  I  will  make  that  as 
an  estimate. 

Q.  So  the  last  50  feet  of  that  procession  was  the  only 
observation  that  you  made  of  Mr.  Tilton  during  the  pro- 
cession ?  A.  That  is  all.  Sir  ? 

Q.  Now,  did  you  notice  whether  this  entire  group  of 
women  came  out  at  the  end  of  the  procession  as  they 
had  gone  in,  or  had  some  of  them  fainted  by  the  way  ? 
A.  I  don't  know ;  I  cannot  say  but  some  of  them  may 
have  fainted ;  there  may  have  been  some  ladies  that  fell 
into  the  procession,  too,  for  all  I  know,  after  they  started. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  know  anything  about  it,  whether  they 
fell  out  or  whether  there  were  fewer  at  the  end  than  at 
the  beginning?  A.  I  don't  know;  I  know  the  procession 
was  twice  as  large  at  the  finish  as  at  the  start ;  the  peo- 
ple were  in  sympathy  with  us. 

Q.  So  that  if  you  had  kept  on  longer  there  never  would 
have  been  an  end  to  it  ?  [Laughter.]  A.  I  hope  so ;  I 
hope  there  never  would  have  been. 

Q.  Now,  about  the  carriages.  You  think  there  were 
eight  or  ten  carriages?   Q.  Yes,  Sir;  as  many  as  that. 

Q.  No  part  of  the  procession  was  assigned  for  car- 
riages? A.  They  were  allowed  to  follow  after  the  pro- 
cession; they  were  not  allowed  In  the  procession;  of 
course  we  had  no  command  of  the  street  after  the  pro- 
cession. 

Q.  So  there  were  no  carriages  in  the  procession  in  any 
other  sense  than  that  they  followed  after  the  procession  ? 
A.  That  is  all,  Sir;  they  were  not  In  the  procession 
properly— did  not  belong  to  it. 


WFJmEB  TRIAL. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  were  in  any  of  toe  other  caJN 
riages  besides  Gen.  Ryan?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  there  was  « 
Miss  Rose  McKinley,  and  another  lady  was  with  her ; 
they  rode  iu  a  carriage  together;  there  was  a  Miss 
Palmer,  connected  with  The  Star,  and  another  lady  con- 
nected with  The  Star ;  Miss  Palmer  had  a  flag  in  front, 
or  was  on  one  of  the  front  seats  of  the  carriage  and  caiv 
ried  a  flag ;  there  were  two  or  three  ladies  connected 
with  TJie  Stm — two,  I  am  sure— all  Internationals. 

Q.  Was  this  a  large  flag  or  was  it  a  little  hand  flag?  A. 
It  was  a  small  hand  flag  ;  there  were  50  of  them  gotten 
up  for  the  parade,  and  she  carried  one  of  these  little  red 
flags. 

Q.  Not  a  very  heavy  aflair  ?  A.  Not  very  heavy. 

Q.  Now  where  did  this  flag  that  Miss  Tennie  Claflin 
carried  all  the  way  come  from?  A.  It  belonged  to  the 
12th  section ;  that  was  the  section  that  she  belonged  to. 

Q.  One  of  the  banners  of  the  organization?  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  one  of  the  flags  of  the  organization. 

Q.  And  used  in  their  processions?  A.  Used  in  their 
processions. 

Q.  You  were  rescued,  as  I  understand,  from  the  crowd 
and  carried  off  in  a  carriage  ?  A.  I  don't  know  that  I 
was  rescued;  I  accepted  an  invitation  to  ride  in  a  car- 
riage ;  it  was  not  a  great  rescue. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  a  friendly  act  ?  A.  It  was— it  was  bet- 
ter than  making  a  speech. 

Q.  To  get  you  through  the  crowd  ?  A.  Tes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  when  you  had  got  fairly  through  the  crowd  you 
went  off  without  making  a  speech?  A.  After  I  got  fur- 
ther; I  rode  to  Twentieth-st.;  that  was  at  Fourteenth- 8t.» 
and  I  rode  to  Twentieth-st. 

Q.  Twentieth-st.  and  Fourth-ave.  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then  ?  A.  I  came  back  to  disperse 
the  people ;  in  case  people  might  say  there  was  any  dis- 
turbance, I  tried  to  have  none. 

Q.  Well,  there  was  no  trouble  ?  A.  There  was  nonej 
because  there  was  no  police  there.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  That  was  the  reason  ?  A.  That  is  t!he  reason,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 

REDIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  BANKS. 

Mr.  Morris— Will  you  state,  Mr.  Banlis,  about 
how  tall  a  man  Gen.  Ryan  was  ?  A.  Well,  I  should  take 
him  to  be  five  feet  11,  or  nearly  six  feet.  I  was  very  well 
acquainted  with  him,  and  had  been  in  his  company  sev- 
eral times.   He  was  at  least  five  feet  11. 

Q.  What  is  your  hight  ?  A.  Six  feet  one.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Did  you  see  him  standing  up  during  that 
procession  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  rode  in  a  carriage. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JAMES  W.  STILLMAIT. 
James  W.  Stillman,  called  on  behalf  of  tJie 
plaintiff,  sworn,  and  examined  as  follows  : 
Mr.  Morris— You  are  a  member  of  the  legal  profession  I 


TESTIMONY    OF  JAMES    W.  STlLLMAy. 


A.  I  am,  Sir,  my  oflSce  being  at  128  Broadway,  New-York 
City. 

Q.  How-long  have  you  been  practicing?  A.  I  was  ad- 
mitted to  tlie  bar  in  1867. 

Q.  Have  you  been  in  New-York  City  since  that  1  A.  I 
have  been  in  New- York  City  since  SeiDtember,  1872. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Theodore  Tilton — do  you 
know  liim  by  sight?  A.  I  am  personally  acquainted  with 
Mr.  Tilton,  and  have  been  so  for  five  or  six  years,  I  think. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Gen.  Eyan  ?  A.  I  was 
not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  this  procession  on  the  17th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1871  ?  A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  At  what  point  did  you  see  it,  Mr.  Stillman  ?  A.  On 
Fifth-ave.,  near  Twenty-ninth-st. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  whole  procession  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  It  passed  you?  A.  It  passed  me  as  I  was  standing 
on  the  sidewalk,  or  rather  on  the  stoop  of  a  house,  in 
Fifth-ave. 

Q.  Did  you  at  that  time  know  Miss  Claflin  and  Mrs. 
Woodhullby  sight?  A.  I  did,  and  was  personally  ac- 
quainted with  them. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  in  the  procession  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  procession  were  they?  A.  I 
cannot  recollect  the  precise  point  of  the  procession ;  but 
my  impression  is  that  it  was  near  the  head. 

Q.  Can  you  state  their  position  with  reference  to  the 
colored  troops  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  about  the  colored 
troops  at  all. 

Q.  Was  either  of  them  carrying  a  flag?  A.  Miss  Tennie 
C.  Claflin  was  carrying  a  banner,  I  believe. 

Q.  Was  any  one  in  company  with  her  and  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  ?  A.  Mr.  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews,  if  I  remember  cor- 
rectly, was  with  Miss  Claflin. 

Q.  Who  was  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  ?  A.  Col.  Blood ;  they 
were  walking  arm  in  arm. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  seeing 
Mr.  Tilton,  although  he  might  have  been  there;  I  might 
have  seen  him  ;  but  whether  I  did  not,  I  don't  recollect 
now. 

Q.  He  was  not  in  company  with  either  of  the  ladies  ? 
A.  He  was  not ;  that  I  am  quite  positive  of. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  at  any  other  point  of  the  proces- 
sion ?  A.  I  saw  them  at  that  point,  and  at  no  other ;  I 
simply  allowed  the  procession  to  pass  me,  and  did  not  fol- 
low or  see  it  afterward. 

Q.  At  Twenty-ninfch-st.,  do  you  sayl  A.  In  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Tweaty-ninth-st.;  it  may  have  been  Twenty- 
eighth  or  Twenty-seventh,  or  it  may  have  been  Thirtieth- 
3t.;  but  it  was  somewhere  in  that  neighborhood.  The 
procession  was  passing  up  Fifth-ave. 

Mr.  Beach— They  were  not  in  a  carriage,  I  take  it ! 

The  Witness— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— You  knew  Col.  Blood  at  that  timet  A. 
I  did. 


Q.  And  Mr.  Antlrews  ?   A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  You  saw  carriages  there  in  the  procession  1  A.  I 
don't  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  Or  at  the  end  of  it  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  about  the 
carriages  at  all. 

Q.  You  did  not  notice  them  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  all. 

CROSS-EXAMLNATION  OF  ME.  STILT.mN. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  do  you  fix  the  point  of 
your  observation  as  being  where  you  place  it  ?  A.  Be- 
cause I  recollect  that  that  was  the  point.   That  is  all. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  reside  in  that  neighborhood,  or  was  A 
only  accidental  your  being  there  ?  A.  At  that  time  I  was 
not  residing  in  the  City  of  New-York,  but  was  here  on  a 
visit,  and  was  walking  out  on  that  Simday  afternoon 
when  the  procession  caught  up  with  me  and  passed  me. 

Q.  You  stopped  and  let  it  go  by?  A.  Stopped  and  let  it 
go  by. 

Q.  Went  on  a  stoop  to  look  at  it  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  how  many  ladies  were  there  in  this  group 
of  which  Miss  Claflin  and  Mi-s.  Woodhull  formed  part  t 
A.  I  don't  recollect  seeing  any  other  ladies  than  3Trs. 
Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflia.  There  might  have  been  other 
ladies  there,  but  I  recollect  seeing  them  only. 

Q.  To  the  best  of  your  impression  were  there  any  other 
ladies  ia  their  immediate  group  ?  A.  I  have  no  impres- 
sion about  it  at  all.  Sir. 

Q.  In  regard  to  the  gentlemen,  you  were  acquainted 
with  Col.  Blood  and  Mr.  Andrews  ?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Personally,  or  only  by  sight  ?  A.  I  was  personally 
acquainted  with  them. 

Q.  Can  you  give  me  the  names  of  any  other  gentlemen 
who  were  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Miss  Claflin 
and  Mrs.  Woodhull  in  the  procession?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect the  other  gentlemen ;  I  don't  know  whether  I  was 
acquainted  with  any  other  gentlemen  there  or  not.  I  was 
acquainted  slightly  with  Mr.  Banks,  who  has  just  testi- 
fied, but  I  don't  recollect  what  part  of  the  procession  he 
was  in. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  there  was  a  band  of 
music  f  A.  My  impression  is  that  there  was  a  band. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  procession  ?  A.  I  think  it  was 
at  the  head,  or  near  the  head. 

Q.  Do  you  feel  sure  of  that  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Banks  there  ?  A.  I  have  just 
stated  my  impression  that  I  did  see  Mr.  Banks,  although' 
I  won't  be  positive. 

Q.  You  are  not  sure  of  that.  I  thought  you  said  you 
knew  him  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  did  know  him  slightly  at  that 
time. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  part  of  the  procession  he 
was  in  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 


340 


THE   TILTON-BEEGREU  TBIAL, 


MR.  BANKS  RECALLED. 

Theodore  H.  Banks  was  then  recalled,  and 
lurtiier  examined. 

]M»\  Morris  [Showing  witness  the  plftster  cast  of  the 
head  of  Gren.  Ryan.]— You  have  seen  this  head?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Is  it  a  fair  representation  of  Gen.  Ryan  ?  A.  A  very 
good  picture  of  him,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  he  wear  his  hair  long  and  flowing  in  that  way  ! 
A.  Yes,  1^;  a  good  deal  like  what  it  is  there. 

Q.  No  heard  ?  A.  No  beard. 

Q.  And  a  hroad-hrimmed  hat?  A.  A  broad-hrini<med 
hat,  perhaps  broader  than  that. 

CROSS-EXAJVIINATION  OF  MR.  BANKS. 

Mr.  Evarts— Do  you  know  where  fSiis  head 
oamefrom?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  do  not. 

Q.  I  mean  have  you  ever  seen  the  statuette  ?  A.  No, 
Sir ;  I  have  never  seen  it  l»efore. 

Q.  It  seems  to  be  taken  from  a  statuette ;  you  have 
never  seen  it  before  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  not  Gen.  Ryan  wear  a  military  hat  ?  A. 
Well,  I  think  he  wore  some  such  hat  as  that  there  ;  I  don't 
know  whether  it  ie  called  a  military  hat  or  not ;  I  am  not 
a  miitapy  man  myself;  I  think  it  was  all  black,  though; 
I  think  he  wore  a  large  black  cloak  thrown  over  his 
-Shoulders,  kind  of  dramatically. 

Q.  Yes,  a  dramatic  arrangement  of  his  cloak  and  a  mil- 
itauy  hat.  A.  I  think  a  hat  like  this. 

Q.  With  cord  and  tassel  ?  A.  With  a  cord  and  tassel. 

Mr.  Morris  (holding  up  Mr.  Tilton's  hat]— A  hat  similar 
to  this?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  a  hat  similar  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson— Gen.  Ryan  is  not  living,  Is  he  ?  A.  No 
Sir ;  he  was  murdered  in  Santiago  de  Cuba. 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  get  ready  to  retire. 

The  ©ourt  then  took  the  usual  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

TESTIMONY  OF  BENRY  P.  McMANUS. 
The  €ourt  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Henry  P.  McManus,  a  witness  called  and  sworn  on  be- 
ialf  of  the  plaintiff,  testified  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Morris— Where  do  you  reside  1  A.  In  the  Eastern 
District  of  Brooklyn. 

Q.  And  what  is  your  business  ?  A.  I  am  a  printer  by 
profession. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  ?  A.  I 
have  known  TUton  by  sight  for  a  period  of  at  least 
ten  years. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Gen.  Ryan  in  his  lifetime  ? 
A.  I  used  to  see  Gen.  Ryan  frequently  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Printing-House-square ;  I  recognized  him  as  a 
newspaperman;  I  knew  many  of  them;  an  experience 
of  pretty  near  twenty-five  years  in  that  vicinity,  I  knew 
most  of  the  men  connected  with  the  press. 


Q.  Did  you  see  the  prooesslon  on  the  17th  of  Deeember, 
1871  ?  A.  I  did,  Sir ;  I  took  part  in  it. 

Q.  Were  you  in  a  carriage  or  on  foot  I  A.  I  was  on  foot, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  procession!  A.  I  was,  I  should 
judge,  according  to  my  best  recollection,  about  the  center, 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  procession  ?  A.  I  did, 
Sir;  from  the  time  I  joined  tiie  procession  imtil  the  pro- 
cession was  dismissed. 

Q.  Where  did  you  join  it!  A.  I  joined  It  on  the  comer 
of  Fourteenth-st.  and  Fifth-ave.,  by  Delmonico's. 

Q.  How  near  to  him  did  you  march  1  A.  There  never 
was  dxiring  the  procession  an  interval  of  more  than  three 
paces. 

Q.  That  is  near  enough  ?  A.  I  think  at  any  time  by 
stepping  I  could  have  placed  my  hand  on  Mr.  Hilton's 
shoulder. 

Q.  That  is  near  enough ;  from  that  point  until  tbe  prb- 
cession  disbanded  you  marched  in  that  way  ?  A.  I  did, 
Sir. 

Q.  Who  was  iti  company  with  him !  A.  Mr.  John 
Swlnton. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Tilton  in  a  carriage  during  any  part  of  that 
time?  A.  No,  Sir;  he  walked  modestly  and  unassumingly 
along. 

Q.  Just  answer  the  question. 
Mr.  Beach— He  is  doing  well. 

The  Witness— Well,  I  am  teliing  the  truth,  any  way. 

Mr.  Beach— Tell  it  in  your  own  way. 

Mr.  Morris— Did  you  continue  in  the  procession  until  It 
disbanded  ?  A.  I  did,  Sir,  until  it  passed  around  the 
Lincoln  Statue  on  Union-square. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  ladies  in  the  procession  ?  A.  No, 
Sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  were  not  near  the  head  of  the  procession  ?  A. 
1  can't  tell  you,  really,  wfcat  position  I  was  in  in  the 
procession,  from  the  manner  in  which  I  joined  it,  but  / 
should  imagine  that  I  might  be  about  the  center,  from 
the  subsequent  reading  of  the  divi*jns,  etc. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Gen.  Ryan  that  da^y  in  the  procession ! 
A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  .did. 

Q.  Was  he  in  a  carriage  or  on  foot  ?  A.  He  was  in  a 
carnage. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  was  with  him  ?  A.  My  mind  i» 
rather  confused  as  to  who  was  with  him.  I  shall  believe 
—although  I  am  not  going  to  swear— but  I  ahall  believe 
to  the  day  I  die  that  there  were  two  latlies  in  the  carriage 
with  him. 

Q.  You  saw  some  ladies  there  in  a  carriage  1  A.  I  did, 
after  the  procession  broke  up. 
Mr.  Mowis— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  no.  When  was  It  you  saw  Bjeu  I  A- 
After  the  procession  broke  up. 


TBSIIMONT   OF  Ha 
CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  McMANlTS. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  MoManuB,  did  you  go  oyer 

to  Kev-York  for  the  purpose  of  joining  the  procession  ! 
A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  did,  indeed ;  I  synipatliized  witli  it. 

Q.  Yes,  tliat  might  be,  and  yet  you  might  not  intend  to 
join— t>ut  you  went  over  for  the  purpose  of  joining?  A. 
Tes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  happened  It  that  you  did  not  join  at  the  forma- 
tion of  the  procession  ?  A.  Well,  I  have  to  work  all  night 
on  a  morning  newspaper,  and  I  was  late  getting  up. 

You  did  not  get  there  as  Boon  as  you  m.-aut  to  ?  A. 
jr»,  Sir;  not  as  soon  as  I  wished  to. 

Q.  You  found  the  procession  iu  motion?  A.  It  was, 
Or. 

Q.  Now,  what  route  did  y«u  take  to  get  to  the  procea- 
■ion  so  as  to  join  it?  A.  WeM  I  took  the  Grand-st.  cars 
to  the  Bowery  and  alighted  there  and  walked  up  the 
Bowery  to  the  Cooper  Institute,  and  found  the  proces- 
ilon  had  moved. 

Q.  Was  it  all  out  of  sight  1   A.  Sir  1 

Q.  The  whole  of  it  out  of  sight  \   A.  Oh !  Yes,  Sir. 

Q,  There  was  not  a  sign  of  iti  A.  Not  at  that  time,  no; 
and  I  walked  up  Fourth-ave.  to  Thirteenrh-st. ,  through 
Broadway  to  Fourteenth-st.,  through  Fourteenth-st.  to 
Fifth-ave.,  where  I  ioiued  the  procession. 

Q.  Did  you  run  i  A.  Xo,  I  did  not  run  ;  well,  I  can't 
say  that  I  was  slow  in  walking ;  I  had  an  anxiety  to  join 
the  procession. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  not  run  fast  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  belong  to  any  one  of  the  organizations  or 
divisions  so  that  you  waited  for  that  to  come  on  and  unite 
yourself  with  it  ?   A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not  at  that  time. 

Q.  So  you  went  ia  as  soon  as  you  got  to  it,  you  think  ? 
A.  I  went.  Sir,  about  as  soon  as  I  saw  an  opening. 

Q.  Yes,  and  it  was  ia  this  division  ttiat  Mr.  Tilton  was 
fcal  A.  No,  Sir, 

Q.  Well,  what  division  was  it  that  you  went  in !  A.  It 
was  in  the  division  known  as  the  Typogi-aphical  Section 
Ko.  1." 

Q.  What  was  the  title  of  the  division  that  Mi\  Tilton 
wasiul  A.  Well,  T  should  think  from  the  congi-ess — or 
rather  the  manner  in  vdiich  the  section  was  formed— the 
division  was  formed,  that  it  was  among  the  citizens  gen- 
erally ;  there  appeared  to  be  no  regular  lormatlou. 

Among  the  unaflaiiated  portion  ?  A.  Well,  the  un- 
atfiiiated  would  not  have  been  there,  probably. 
<^  WeU,  you  were  ia  a  different  division  fi'om  him  ? 
i  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

<i.  Then  you  must  have  been  near  one  end  of  yovu' 
division  and  he  near  one  end  of  the  other  1  A.  Most  as- 
■nredly. 

I  <i.  Was  your  division  before  his  or  behind  it !  A.  Be- 
hind. 

Then  he  was  at  the  very  tail  of  his  division  ?  A.  He 
▼aa  on  the  left  of  the  division  in  which  he  walked;  I  was 


iV\i?J   P.    ^[cMA'sUS.  841 

on  the  right,  the  tirst  rank  of  the  division  in  -wMcli  I 

walked. 

Q.  And  he  io  the  last  rank  of  that  in  which  he  walked? 
A.  He  was,  Sir ;  yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Do  you  know  wh»  was  with  him  ?  A.  Mi".  TMton  walked 

on  the  left,  Mr.  Swinton  in  the  center,  and  a  young, 
delicate,  pale-looking  young  man  of  abeut  20  years  or  so ; 
my  impression  is  that  he  had  light  hair ;  I  looked  at  him, 
and  thought  it  was  a  pretty  rough  day  foe  him  to  b« 
tramping  around  through  the  mud. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  know  who  he  was  ?  A.  No ;  I  have  not 
the  slightest  idea. 

Whom  did  you  walk  with  ?  A.  I  walked  witb  some 
fi'ieuds  of  mine  in  the  Typographical  division. 

Q.  Well,  gentlemen  that  were  known  to  you?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Not  casual?  A.  Well,  I  can  recollect  one  at  least. 

Q.  WeB.,  that  is  not  material.  They  were  persons  that 
you  were  acquainted  with  1  A.  Persons  that  I  am 
accLuainted  with  in  my  business. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  the  route  of  the  processi©n  after  you 
joined  it?  A.  After  I  joined  the  precession  it  went  up 
Fifth-ave.  to  Tliirty-fourth-st.,  and  across  into  Sixth-ave., 
down  Sixth-ave.  through  Fouiteenth-st.  to  the  Lincoln 
Statue,  where  they  dismissed. 

Q.  Where  did  you  sec  Gen.  Ryan  after  the  procession 
broke  up  ?  A.  All  was  confusion  of  course,  after  the  pro- 
cession broke  up.  I  took  a  birdseye  view  around  to  see 
what  was  going  on,  and  I  saw  Gen.  Ryan  in  a  carriage — 
in  a  barouche. 

Q.  Oh,  well ;  but  you  did  not  see  him  in  the  procession 
at  all  ?   A.  No,  Sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  After  the  proc-ession  broke  up  did  you  see  what  be- 
came of  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  No,  Sir,  everybody  was  looking 
out  for  themselves.   It  was  sauve  qui  pent, 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  ladies  carrying  a  flag  either  in  a 
carriage  or  on  foot  \  A.  I  saw  a  lady  when  I  was  about 
half  way  in  the  block  between  Thirteenth  and  Four- 
teenth-sts.;  on  looking  around,  attracted  by  some  noise 
incideiit  to  the  occasion,  I  saw  a  lady  with  a  miniature 
red  flag,  waving  it  in  a  carriage. 

MR.  McMANUS  A  SELF-MADE  WIT.NESS. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  tliiiik  of  this  matter 
of  haviug  seen  Mr.  Tiit"ii  afrer  this  procession  was 
formed— how  was  it  brought  to  your  attention  ?  A.  WeU, 
through  the  falsehoods,  to  say  the  least,  sworn  t«  here 
by  people  connected  with  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Sujiposing  you  spoke  your  mind  fuUy  about  ciaem, 
what  would  you  caH  them?  A.  Well,  tf  you  want  to 
feaow,  I  can  accommodate  you. 

Q.  Well,  you  said  "  falsehoods,  to  say  the  least  of  it  ?" 
A.  WeU,  now,  Mr.  Evarts,  I  know  you  by  reputation  as  a 
great  lawyer,  and  I  am  afraid  to  get  into  your  clutches, 
you  know.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  I  can  assuieyou  I  am  as  harmless  as  a  dovet  A.  II 


842 


you  ask  what  I,  as  an  individual,  call  that  testimony,  I 
can  tell  you  very  quick  ;  I  call  it  rank  perjury. 

Q.  Well,  that  if  you  spoke  your  mind  freely  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir,  freely. 

Q.  But  to  speak  within  bounds,  "  falsehoods ;"  so  that 
you  are  veuy  positive  in  y  jut  view  not  only  of  your  own 
testimony  but  that  of  other  people  ?  A.  As  reginds  Mr.  Til- 
ton  and  Mr.  Swinton,  I  am  as  positive  as  that  I  have  got 
that  hand  m  my  body. 

Q.  Ajid  you  think  that  anybody  that  thought  he  saw 
Mr.  Tiiton,  or  said  he  saw  Mr.  Tllton  in  any  other  connec- 
tion, it  is  rank  perjury  1  A.  No,  Sir,  I  won't  say  that,  Sir; 
I  mean  to  say  that  when  I  saw  them  flaunting  and  flaring 
around  about  that  procession  

Q.  That  is  it  1   A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  will  say  so. 

Q.  But  a  moderate  erj'or  you  would  not  characterize  as 
such?  A.  Well,  I  don't  propose  to  put  myself  up  as  a 
critic  on  any  man's  opinion,  but  I  am  not  infallfcle. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you — you  answered,  I  suppose,  that  the 
first  time  that  you  had  your  attention  called  to  your 
memory  on  this  subject  was  when  you  saw  the  state- 
ments of  what  other  witnesses  had  said?  A.  Well,  I  will 
tell  you. 

Q.  And  then  it  occurred  to  you  that  you  had  had  some 
knowledge  or  observation  ?  A.  I  never  thought  to  have 
heai'd  anything  more  of  it ;  but  when  I  saw  in  the  news- 
paper these  statements  made  in  relation  to  Mr.  TUton,  I 
remarked  to  my  wife,  "  Tliis  is  a  lie  ;  I  know  it  to  be," 
and  says  I,  "  it  is  a  shame  to  prosecute  this  man  who  is 
fighting  wealth,  influence,  power  and  everything  else  ; 
and  they  bring  all  these  men  swearing  to  rank  perjury 
flbat  I  know."  And  she  said  she  thought  it  was  my  duty 
to  come  here  and  testify.  I  don't  want  the  notoriety  of 
a  witness  ;  it  is  not  pleasant— loss  of  time,  &c. 

Q.  That  was  the  flrst  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  was  the  flrst  that  you  thought  of  it  since  that 
day  I  suppose  1  A.  Well,  I  had  no  reason. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  I  had  no  reason  to. 

Q.  Well,  I  say  it  was  the  first  time  you  had  thought  of 
it !  A.  Yes,  Sir,  it  was. 

Q.  And  then  this  picture  of  yours   A.  What  pic- 
ture? 

Q.  Why,  of  seeing  Mr.  Tiiton,  and  being  near  him, 
came  back  to  your  mind?  A.  Why,  certainly  it 
did. 

Q.  You  took  no  memorandum  or  anything  of  that  kind  ? 
A.  Not  at  all ;  I  had  no  necessity. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 

After  the  witness  left  the  stand  he  waB  interrogated 
by  Mr.  Shearman  as  follows  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ?  A.  In  Brooklyn,  the  Eastern 
District. 

Q.  1  know,  but  what  portion?  A.  No.  64  South  Second 
— near  Second. 


THE   TlLlON-BhJEOHEB  TRIAL. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ALBERT  B.  MARTIN. 
Albert  B.  Martin,  a  witness  called  and  sworn 


for  the  plaintiff,  testified  as  follows : 

Mr.  Morris— Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  174  Livingston-st. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  I  have  been  Superinten- 
dent of  a  free  reading-room  and  evening  school  for  street 
boys. 

Q.  A  little  louder.  Under  the  superintendence  of  any 
church  ?  A.  Under  the  superintendency  of  Dr.  Storrs's 
church,  or  rather  conducted  by  the  Young  People's  Asso- 
ciation of  Dr.  Storrs's  church. 

Q.  Are  you  attached  to  any  church— member  of  any 
church?  A.  Methodist  Church,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  situated  ?  A.  Methodist  Church  in  Nostrand- 
ave.,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griflith. 

CONTRADICT!  )XS  OF  GEN.  TRACY  AND  ]\IISS 
TURNER. 

Q.  Mr.  Martin,  are  yon  acquainted  witb 
Bessie  Turner,  or  Elizabeth  A.  Turner  ?  A.  I  met  her, 
Sir,  twice. 

Q.  You  recollect  last  Summer  of  seeing  her  at  Mrs. 
Ovington's  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  D»  you  recollect  what  day  it  was  ?    A.  I  do  not.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  the  day  that  she  went  before  the  Investigat- 
ing Committee  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  was  it  that  you  saw  her  at 
Mrs.  Ovington's  ?  A.  I  should  think.  Sir,  about  half-past 
2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Did  you  go  there  at  that  time  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  was  she  there  when  you  went  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  who  else  did  you  see  there  f  A.  I  rang  the  bel. 
Sir,  and  was  ushered  by  the  servant— went  into  the  par- 
lor, and  found  that  she  was  in  the  back  paulor  with  Gen. 
Tracy. 

Q.  You  don't  know  how  long  Gen.  Tracy  had  been 
there  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  any  one  else  in  the  back  parlor  except  Miss  Tur- 
ner and  Gen.  Tracy  ?   A.  No.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  where  did  you  go  ?  A.  I  went  upstairs.  Sir, 
into  Mrs.  Tiiton— to  see  Mrs.  Tiiton. 

Q.  And  how  long  did  you  remain  upstairs  !  A.  Well,  T 
should  think.  Sir,  possibly  half  an  hour. 

Q.  And  then  where  did  you  go  ?  A.  Becaixse  of  tte 
heat.  Sir,  we  came  down  stairs  and  went  on  the  back 
piazza. 

Q.  Who  do  you  mean  by  "  we  ?  "  A.  Mrs.  Tiiton  and 
myself.  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  long  did  Mrs.  Tiiton  and  you  remain  on 
the  back  piazza  ?  A.  Well,  I  should  think,  Sir,  for  ;it 
least  two  hours  ;  during  all  the  afternoon,  I  should  think. 

Q.  And  during  that  time  where  was  Miss  Turner  and 
Gen.  Tracy  ?  A.  In  the  back  parlor,  Sir,  until  Gen. 
Tracy  went  away. 

Q.  And  what  time  did  he  go  away  !  A.  WeB,  I  should 


TEJSTIMONT   OF  ALBISBT  B.  MARTI.W. 


343 


thini,  Sir,  as  near  as  I  can  tell,  about  5  o'clock  in  the  af- 
ternoon. 

Q.  Then  be  was  in  tbe  back  parlor  witb  Miss  Turner 
from  balf-past  2,  wben  you  went  there,  until  about  5  ? 
A.  I  think  so,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  does  be  know  that ! 

Mr.  Morris— He  said  so.  [To  the  witness.]  "Well, 
when  you  went  on  the  back  piazza  with  Mrs.  Tilton  did 
you  bear  Gen.  Ti-acy  and  Miss  Turner  in  the  back  parlor  1 
A.  I  could  hear  them,  yes,  Sir  ;  but  could  not  distinguish 
the  conversation. 

Q.  Could  not  distinguish  what  they  said?  A.  Could 
hear  the  sound  and  the  laughing,  yes,  Sir;  that  is  all. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OBJECTED  TO. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  perhaps 
our  learned  friend  will  allow  us  to  inquire  in  what  point 
of  rebuttal  this  witness  is  called. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  in  reference  to  two  points ;  as  to  the 
duration  of  the  interview  that  she  had  with  Gen.  Tracy ; 
Gen.  Tracy  contradicts  her  upon  that,  and  we  propose  by 
this  witness  to  contradict  both  Gen.  Tracy  and  Miss  Tur- 
ner. Her  evidence  will  be  found  at  page  503,  commencing 
at  the  point  that  we  propose. 

Mr.  Beach— How  long  does  she  say  she  was  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Ten  minutes ;  not  to  exceed  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  only  asked  for  information. 

Mr.  Shearman— She  does  not  say  so  at  all. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  yes,  she  does  say  so. 

Mr  Evarts  [reading]—''  VTiien  did  you  talk  with  Mr. 
Tracy  ?"  Is  it  at  that  point  ? 

Mr.  Morris- Well,  I  will  read;  there  is  a  good  deal 
of  it. 

Judge  Neilson— What  page  do  you  read  from? 
Mr.  Morris— 503.  [Reading.] 

How  long  before  you  actually  went— [question  put 
by  Mr.  FuUerton]— How  long  before  you  actually  went 
before  the  Committee  did  you  know  that  you  were  going 
before  the  Committee  1  A.  About  ten  minutes. 

Q.  Not  longer  than  that  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  3^ou  not  talked  with  any  one  in  regard  to  your 
evidence  before  the  Committee  ?  A.  Not  until  these  ten 
minutes. 

Q.  With  whom  did  you  talk  then?  A.  With  Gen. 
Tracy.  *  *  * 

Q.  Now,  do  I  understand  you,  therefore,  that  from  the 
time  you  went  into  Mrs.  Ovington's  house  until  you  saw 
Gen.  Tracy  in  the  parlor,  just  before  you  went  before  the 
Committee,  the  object  of  your  visit  was  not  spoken  of  by 
any  one  ?  A.  Was  not  spoken  of  by  any  one,  as  I  remem- 
ber ;  no,  Sir.   *  *  * 

Q.  And  what  time  did  Mr.  Tracy  call  to  see  you  at  Mrs. 
Ovington's  t  A.  He  called,  perhaps,  between  7  and  8 
o'clock.  However,  it  was  about  ten  minutes  before  I 
;  went  before  the  Investigating  Committee,  and  when  I  left 
I  think  it  was  between  7  and  8. 

Judge  Neilson—WeU,  go  on  with  the  examination,  Mr. 
:  Morris. 

I    Mr.  Morris— Yes ;  I  thought  so. 


I  Mr.  Evarts— Then  the  cross-examiner  proceeds.  [Read- 
ing] : 

Q.  Understand  I  am  speaking  of  the  intervening  time  t 
A,  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  the  conversation  with  Gen. 
Tracy? 

Mr.  Morris— She  says  she  had  conversed. 
Mr.  Beach— She  says  that  Gen.  Tracy  called  on  her 
about  10  minutes  before  she  went  before  the  Committee. 
Mr.  Shearman — So  he  did. 

Mr.  Morris— And  she  did  not  see  him  before  that ;  she 
had  not  talked  with  any  one. 

Mr.  Shearman— Sne  was  not  asked  about  that. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  yes.  Sir ;  she  was  asked  about  that. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  go  on,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  how  is  it  legal  in  the  narture  of  rebut- 
tal 1  It  is  confined,  as  I  understand  the  present  proposi- 
tion, to  the  length  of  the  interview. 

Judge  Neilson— That  may  be  a  principal  ingredient;  I 
do  not  know. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Tracy's  evidence  settled  that ;  because 
he  says  he  was  there  about  an  hour  conversing  with 
Bessie  Turner  on  the  subject  of  this  case. 

;Mr.  Evarts— On  the  piazza  ? 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir,  in  the  back  parlor ;  there  is  no  mia- 
understanding  about  it. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  no,  this  point  is  very  clear. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  on  the  issue,  if  your  Honor  please. 
It  is  a  collateral  inquiry  of  a  witness  as  to  the  length  of 
an  interview. 

]\Ir.  Shearman— This  is  another  imputation  on  Miss 
Turner  which  is  entirely  tuifounded  upon  anything  in  the 
examination,  because  Gen.  Tracy  was  not  asked  one 
word  about  anything  which  he  said  at  that  conversation ; 
he  was  asked  nothing  except  whether  he  had  an  inter- 
view with  Bessie  Turner,  and  nothing  about  what 
occurred.  We  don't  know  but  what  he  was  talking 
about  groceries ;  there  is  nothing  to  show  it  at  all. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  an  entire  mistake.  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  refer 
me  to  any  passage  where  there  is  anything  said  about 
what  took  place  ? 

Mr.  Beach— If  you  will  give  me  the  evidence,  I  will 
look  it  over ;  I  have  a  general  recollection. 

Mr.  Shearman— Why  does  the  gentleman  say  it  is  an 
entire  mistake  until  he  looks  over  the  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Looks  over.  Sir!  Because  I  have  8om6 
memory  and  some  intelligence,  and  therein  I  differ  from 
the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Shearman— Look  at  It,  Sir,  and  you  will  find  that 
your  imputations  have  n't  a  word  of  foundation  for  them. 

Mr.  Beach— We  will  see. 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  Sir ;  you  will  see. 

Judge  Neilson- Well,  proceed  with  your  witness,  Mr 
MoiTis ;  see  what  it  amounts  to. 


844 


Ttlh:   TILTON-BERCEEB  TRIAL. 


Mr.  Shearman  -Miss  Tuiuer  was  asked  in  reference  to 
one  specific  interview  at  about  7  o'clock. 
Mr.  Morris— The  Judge  lias  directed  me  to  go  on. 
Mr.  Beach— [Readingl. 

Q.  Did  you  not  have  an  interview  upon  that  occasion 
"With  Bessie  Turner,  in  which  you  conversed  with  her  in 
regard  to  her  knowledge  of  this  discussion  of  over  an 
hour  ?   A.  I  should  say  not,  Sii-,  over  an  hour. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  

Judge  Neilson— That  is  not  the  place. 

Mr.  Beach— This  is  Mr.  Tracy's  evidence,  Sir.  Thcx'e  is 
the  evidence  of  the  gentleman's  intelligence  Ithrowirg 
down  the  paper  |. 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes.  "  In  which  you  conversed  with  her 
in  regard  to  her  knowledge"— of  what  1 

Mr.  Beach— Of  this  discussion  that  we  were  examining 
him  about. 

Mr.  Shearman— Ah !  "  this  discussion ;"  what  does  "  this 
discussion  "  mean  ? 

Mr.  Beach— [Laughing.]   Oh,  another  specimen,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  but  he  is  asked  simply  whether  he 
did  not  have  one  of  over  an  hour.  He  says  he  did  not 
have  one  of  over  an  hour.  He  is  never  asked  the  ques- 
tion positively,  so  as  to  give  him  the  chance  to  make  an 
answer  whether  he  had  an  interview  with  Miss  Turner 
on  this  subject ;  that  is  the  fact,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Beach— When  the  gentleman  attempts,  Sir,  to 
criticise  my  accuracy  in  regard  to  the  testimony  of  a 
witness  whom  I  examined,  I  advise  him  to  be  a  little 
more  careful  in  his  examination  before  he  does  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  will  show  the  gentleman  the  paper. 
Miss  Turner  testifies  to  a  conversation  of  ten  minutes ; 
Gen.  Tracy  does  not  testify  to  any  at  all,  but  he  is  asked 
the  question  whether  at  any  time  he  did  not  have  an  in- 
terview that  exceeded  an  hour,  and  he  says,  "  No,  none 
for  over  an  hour,  certainly,"  and  he  will  swear  that 
it  was  not  over  two  hours;  but  after  all, 
he  is  not  called  upon  to  say,  and  was 
not  given  the  opportunity  to  say,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
whether  he  ever  had  a  conversation  with  her  on  this  sub- 
ject at  all.  Mr.  Tracy  confined  himself  to  answering  pre- 
cisely the  questions  that  were  asked  of  him.  Miss 
Turner  answered  the  questions  that  were  asked  of  her. 
She  has  mentioned  an  interview— one  of  ten  minutes— 
between  7  and  8  o'clock,  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  the 
fact  that  she  might  have  had  another  interview  concern- 
ing which  she  was  not  inquired  of,  and  she  had  no  oppor- 
tunity to  say  whether  she  had  another  interview,  but  she 
said  she  only  talked  with  him  for  ten  minutes  on  this 
subject. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  let  us  see  one  minute. 
Mr.  Shearman— And  Mr.  Tracy  was  going  to  tell  more 
about  it,  and  he  ends  in  this  way.   (ReadiiigJ : 

"  I  cannot  be  more  positive  than  to  give  you  my  best 
recollection  "—and  he  was  going  to  say  something  fur- 
ther when  Mr.  Beach  interrupts  him  and  says,  "  That  an- 
swers It,  Sir." 


That  is  how  it  stands. 

Mr.  Beach — Miss  Turner  was  asked : 

Was  nothing  said  about  t;ie  object  of  your  visit  to 
New- York  or  Brooklyn  while  you  were  at  Mrs.  Oving- 
ton's  that  afternoon,  or  that  day  ?  A.  Not  until  I  saw 
Gen.  Tracy. 

Q.  And  what  time  did  Mr.  Tracy  call  to  see  you  at  Mr. 
Ovington's?  A.  He  called  perhaps  betwen  7  and  8 
o'clock ;  however,  it  was  about  ten  minutes  before  I  went 
before  the  Investigating  Committee,  and  when  I  left  I 
think  it  was  between  7  and  8. 

Now,  we  show  by  Mr.  Tracy,  Sir,  that  he  had  a  conver- 
sation of  about  an  hour— not  over  an  hour,  he  says— that; 
afternoon  at  Mrs.  Ovington's  upon  the  subject  of  this 
trial.  Now,  we  show  by  this  man  that  that  very  inter- 
view which  Miss  Bessie  Turner  makes  10  minutes  before 
she  went  before  the  Committee,  and  Mr.  Tracy  about  an 
hour,  was  over  two  hours  and  a  half. 

A  CONTRADICTION  OF  MISS  TURNER. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  Mr.  Martin,  you  say  that 

you  were  on  the  piazza  there  after  you  came  down  stairs 
about  two  hours  ?   A.  I  should  think  so,  Sir, 

Q.  Gen.  Tracy  and  Miss  Turner  were  in  conversation  la 
the  back  parlor  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  During  the  whole  of  that  time  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  could  you  hear  enough  to  say— to  designate  any 
subject  about  which  they  were  talking  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  after  Mr.  Trac.v  left,  at  5  o'clock,  where  did 
you  go  then  ?  A.  I  remained.  Sir,  at  Mrs.  Ovington's  for 
tea ;  I  remained  there  until  about  6  o'clock ;  we  then 
went  to  tea. 

Q.  Had  tea  about  6  o'clock  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  And  where  did  you  go  after  tea  1  A.  Immediately 
after  tea.  Sir,  I  took  Miss  Bessie  Turner  around  to 
Augustus  Storrs's  house  in  Monroe-place,  to  meet  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Q.  And  about  what  time  was  it  that  you  got  to  Mr. 
Storrs's  house  ?  A.  Well,  I  should  think,  Sir,  as  nearly  as 

1  can  remember,  about  7  o'clock  ;  possibly  a  little  after. 
Q.  Was  there  any  reason  for  your  taking  her  around  so 

early  ?  A.  I  can  only  give  you.  Sir,  the  reason  she  gave. 
Q.  Then  you  went  to  Mr.  Ovington's  at  about  half  past 

2  o'clock  ?    A.  I  should  think  so.  Sir,  as  nearly  as  I  

Q.  She  was  in  conversation  with  Gen.  Tracy,  and  yott 

took  her  around  to  Mr,  Storrs's  at  7  o'clock  J— about  7 
o'clock.  A.  I  should  think  so  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  she  remain  at  Mrs.  Ovington's  all  the 
while  1  A.  During  all  of  the  afternoon  ? 

Q.  Yes  !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  untU  you  took  her  to  the  Committee  f  A.  Until 
I  took  her  to  the  Committee,  and  I  left  her  there. 

Q.  Now,  after  Gen.  Tracy  left  was  there  any  conver- 
sation between  Miss  Turner  and  anyone  else  in  reference 
to  this  case— the  subject  of  her  testimony  1  A.  Before 
the  Committee  do  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— One  moment;  where  Is  that? 


TI::S11M0SI   OF  ALBERT  B.  MARTiy. 


845 


Tie  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Sliearinan— Wait  one  moment ;  we  object  to  tliat. 

Judge  Xeilson— The  mere  fac^  that  there  was  a  conyer- 
sation  may  he  given. 

Mr.  Evarts— Unless  it  is  in  rehuttal,  I  suppose  not. 

Mr.  ilorris— Yes,  that  is.  She  testified  that  she  did  not 
talk  with  any  one  on  that  subject;  that  it  was  not  men- 
tioned exeept  with  Gen.  Tracy  during  that  ten  minutes. 
That  is  her  testimony.  [To  the  witness.]  Now  wasn't 
that  the  principal  topic  of  conversation,  after  G-en.  Tracy 
left,  with  Miss  Turner  and  Mrs.  Ovington  ? 

Mr.  Shearman  [to  the  witness]— Will  you  be  kind 
enough  to  wait  before  you  answer. 

Judge  Xeilson— The  witness  is  not  interrogated  as  to 
what  was  said,  but  as  to  the  simple  fact. 

Mr.  Shearman— Xo,  your  Honor ;  but  he  was  asked 
whether  a  conversation  was  had  on  that  subject,  which 
answers  all  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  the  subject  of  a 
conversation  to  which  Miss  Turner's  attention  was  not 
especially  called. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  Miss  Turner  says  she  had  no  con- 
versation upon  that  s^ibject  except  about  ten  minutes  be- 
fore she  went  in. 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  but  if  her  attention  had  been 
called  to  a  particular  passage,  in  accordance  with  the  in- 
variable rules,  Miss  Turner  might  have  recollected  some 
particular  person  who  had  said  something  about  it.  Her 
attention  was  not  called  to  that,  and  it  shows  the  neces- 
sity of  enforcing  the  uniform  rule  of  cross-examination,  by 
which  the  witness  is  entitled  to  have  the  name  of  the  per- 
son. Here  is  a  person  living  in  Mr.  Tilton's  house,  who 
had  gone  there  to  obtain  information  from  time  to  time, 
and  who  went  every  day,  so  that  he  could  pick  up  infor- 
mation. Why  wasn't  his  name  mentioned  before,  so  that 
Miss  Turner  might  have  had  warning  that  a  certain  per- 
son  

Mr.  Morris— Why,  Miss  Turner  spoke  of  ]Mi'.  Martin,  on 
the  stand,  and  could  not  say  whether  she  went  around  to 
the  Committee  with  him  or  some  other  person. 

Mr.  Shearman— She  never  was  asked  whether  she  talked 
with  him.  We  object  to  the  question  on  the  ground  that 
no  foundation  has  been  laid. 

Judge  Neilson— The  inquiry  is  not  whether  she  talked 
with  Mr.  Martin ;  the  inquiry  is  whether  she  had  a  con- 
versation with  any  other  person  than  Gen.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  do  not  object  to  the  fact  that  she  had 
a  conversation;  I  object  to  the  subject  being  named  un- 
less the  person  with  whom  she  had  the  conversation  was 
named  to  Miss  Turner  on  the  stand ;  we  all  understand 
it  Is  perfectly  easy  to  forget  conversations  that  are  held 
with  many  persons,  unless  attention  is  called  to  the  par- 
ticular person. 

Judge  Neilson — If  this  witness  were  requested  to  give 
the  conversation,  your  objection  would  be  conclusive. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  am  objecting  to  the  introduction  of 


ai!\-thin,ii-  ubout  the  conversation  fui-ther  than  the  fact 
that  there  was  a  conversation. 

Judge  Xeilson— If  she  had  been  inquired  of  whether 
there  was  a  conversation  it  seems  competent. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  would  not  be  unless  the  person  with 
whom  she  had  had  that  conversation  was  mentioned. 

Mr.  Beach — It  might  have  been  the  whole  world.  She 
says  she  had  a  conversation  with  nobody  upon  that  sub- 
ject; that  covers  the  whole  of  it  We  can't  name  every 
person,  for  we  might  name  the  whole  city. 

Judge  XeiLson— Well,  that  covers  the  point. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  Mr.  Martin,  will  you  answer  the 
question.  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Y'our  Honor  will  note  our  exception  to 
the  question  as  allowed. 

Mr.  Morris — You  have  answered  the  question,  I  believe, 
that  she  did  converse  upon  that  subject  afix-r  Mr.  Tracy 
left  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  she  did. 

Q.  Now,  my  question  was  whether  that  did  not  form 
the  principal  topic  of  conversation  until  she  left  to  go 
before  the  Committee  ! 

Mr.  Shearman— We  object  to  that  question. 

Judge  Neilson — We  will  take  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— Note  our  exception. 

The  Witness— I  think  I  can  safely  say,  Sir,  that  there 
was  no  other  topic  discussed. 

Q.  Or  talked  about?  A.  Or  talked  about. 

Q.  During  that  afternoon?  A.  During  that  afternoon 
after  Mr.  Tracy  left  until  she  went  to  the  Committee. 


CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  A.  B.  MAETIN. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Martin,  Ilow  frequently 
did  you  visit  Mrs.  Ovington's  during  July  or  August, 
1874!  A.  Immediately  after  Mrs.  Tilton  left  her  home. 
Sir,  I  visited  her  once  or  twice  of  each  day. 

Q.  For  how  long  a  period  did  you  continue  that?  A.  Up 
until  the  tinie  that  IMrs.  Tilton  went  to  the  country,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  at  that  time,  Mr.  Martin  ?  A.  I 
lodged  sometimes  in  Fulton-st.,  in  the  Clinton  House; 
after  [Mrs.  Tilton's  house  broke  up,  Sir,  I  had  not  any 
home,  and  I  did  not  take  boarding  anywhere  for  that 
time ;  I  was  sometimes  at  Mr.  Tilton's  house. 

Q.  You  had  lodged  for  a  considerable  time  in  Mr.  Til- 
ton's house,  had  you  not?  A.  Not  for  a  considerable 
time.  Sir ;  after— two  weeks  aft«r  Mrs.  Tilton  went  away, 
I  went  away  from  the  house. 

Q.  Yes,  and  how  long  previous  to  that  had  you  lodged 
in  Mr.  Tilton's  house  1  A.  About  a  year.  Sir,  or  nearly  so. 

Q.  And  you  are  lodging  there  now,  are  you  not  f  A. 
Kegularly,  since  January,  Sir,  of  this  year. 

Q.  When  did  you  commimicate  this  circumstance  that 
you  have  testified  to  to  Mr.  TUton  first !  A  I  am  stire, 
Sii',  I  do  not  remember ;  I  have  been  very  careful  of  what 
I  said  to  Mr.  Tilton  in  reference  to  this  case,  but  I  shotild 
think,  Sir,  about  the  time  Bessie  Turner  made  this  stare* 


346 


TEE   TILION-BKEOREB  TBIAL. 


luent  on  the  stand ;  possibli^  before,  though  I  am  not  sure 
of  that. 

Q.  You  stayed  frequently  at  meals  at  Mrs.  Ovington's, 
didn't  you  ?  A.  Frequently  ;  I  think  I  have  been  there 
possibly  half  a  dozen  times  or  less. 

Q.  Didn't  you  stay  occasionally  all  night  1  A.  I  was 
there  two  nights,  Sir,  at  Mrs.  Tilton's  invitation. 

Q.  Did  you  not  on  several  occasions  stay  there  very 
late  at  night?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  don't  remember  anytime 
being  very  late,  except  the  night  in  -which  Mr,  Tilton's 
statement  was  published,  and  then  I  remained  there  to 
escort  Mrs.  Beecher  home. 

Q.  Well,  on  this  afternoon  when  you  sat  on  the  piazza, 
whereabouts  did  you  sit  t  A.  Well,  the  piazza  is  very 
small,  Sir ;  if  you  have  ever  been  on  it ;  there  is  a  swing 
there  and  a  large  chair ;  I  think  I  sat  in  that  chair  in 
about  the  same  position. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Tilton  sit  with  you  on  the  piazza  all  the 
time  1  A.  All  the  time,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  whereabouts  did  she  sit  ?  A.  She  sat  on  the 
chair  on  the  piazza,  near  by. 

Q.  And  which  end  of  the  piazza  did  you  sit,  supposing 
the  piazza  were  out  at  thai  window,  did  you  sit  at  that 

end  of  the  piazza  or  the  further  A.  The  door  going 

out  from  the  hall  is  here  [illustratingj,  the  piazza  running 
back  that  way,  and  I  sat  back ;  Mrs.  Tilton  sat  in  front  of 
me,  with  her  back  to  the  swing,  which  is  there  for  the 
children. 

Q.  Well,  when  you  first  came  in  you  saw  Gen.  Tracy  in 
the  room  ?  A.  When  I  first  came  in  I  went  into  the  par- 
lor, and  saw  Bessie  Turner,  whom  I  did  not  know  then. 

Q.  Then  you  went  up  stairs  to  see  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  A.  Mrs. 
Tilton  called  me  up  stairs,  because  the  parlor  was  occu- 
pied ;  I  presume  so  at  least. 

Q.  Yes.  Well  was  it  very  hot  up  in  the  room  then  ?  A. 
Very  warm,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  go  down  pretty  soon  ?  *  A.  I  should 
think  we  remained  there  about  a  half -hour,  Sir,  as  nearly 
as  I  can  remember. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  look  at  the  clock  when  you  went  into 
the  house,  or  at  your  watch  1  A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not  paj- 
any  f^special  attention  to  it ;  I  am  simply  giving  you  my 
best  recollection. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  cooler  on  the  piazza  when  you  went 
down  than  up  in  the  room  1  A.  Yes,  we  went  down  for 
that  purpose. 

Q  Well,  was  the  sun  shining?  A.  Not  on  the  piazza. 
Sir. 

Q.  Was  the  sun  shining  ?  was  it  a  bright  day  1  A.  Well, 
I  should  think  it  was  ;  I  don't  remember  of  it  being  a 
cloudy  or  stormy  day  ;  I  have  n't  any  recollection  about 
it,  only  that  it  was  not  a  stormy  day. 

Q.  It  was  not  stormy,  or  else  you  would  not  have  been 
upon  the  piazza  1  A.  Not  stormy ,"or  I  would  not  have 
gone  down  there  from  the  room. 


Q.  You  have  been  frequently  at  that  house  on  aftei> 
noons,  have  n't  you  ?  A.  I  think  I  have. 

Q.  Well,  don't  you  know  that  from  half-past  2  or  3 
o'clock  in  th*  afternoon  the  sun  is  blazing  on  taat  piazz  \, 
and  it  is  the  hottest  place  in  the  house  ?  A.  I  don't 
think  so.  Sir;  I  don't  know  

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  that  piazza  is  exposed  to  the 
sun  in  the  afternoon,  and  that  that  is  the  time  the  sun  is 
shining  on  it?  A.  I  think  I  know  it  is,  but  there  is  a 
protection  there  from  the  sun. 

Q.  What  is  the  answer  ?  A.  I  think  it  is,  but  tli>re  is  a 
protection  from  the  sun. 

Q.  What  is  the  protection  ?  A.  Well,  the  covering  of 
the  piazza. 

Q.  Just  the  covering  that  is  always  there— the  top  of 
the  piazza,  you  mean?  A.  The  toi)  of  the  piazza;  and 
there  is  some,  I  think,  from  the  building,  the  next  house ; 
I  think  the  next  house  is  a  protection. 

Q.  Is  that  house  a  protection  at  half-past  2  or  3 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon?  A.  Well,  I  should  think  it  was, 
Sir,  because  I  have  been  on  the  piazza,  I  should  think, 
from  10  o'clock  in  the  morning  until  evening,  and  we 
never  went  away  because  of  the  heat. 

Q.  Not  even  on  the  hottest  days  ?  A.  Well,  it  was  very 
hot  at  that  time.  Sir. 

Q.  Yes,  no  doubt  it  was ;  well,  do  you  remember  how 
hot  it  was  1  A.  Don't  remember  anything  about  it,  ex- 
cept  

Q.  Whether  it  was  a  peculiarly  hot  day?  A.  Well,  I 
don't  remember  that  it  was. 

Q.  Well,  don't  you  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  that 
piazza  is  especially  hot  about  3  o'clock,  and  that  it  is  only 
about  5  o'clock  that  that  piazza  is  cooler  than  other  parts 
of  the  house  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  that.  Sir. 

Q.  But  you  do  know  that  the  piazza  is  exposed  to  the 
sun ;  that  it  is  on  the  sunny  side  in  the  afternoon  ?  A. 
Well,  Sir,  I  have  told  you  that  the  house  next  door  ie  a 
protection  ;  that  is  the  only— — 

Q.  The  house  next  door?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  does  that  serve  as  a  protection  when  th«  sun. 
strikes  directly  square  on  the  piazza?  A.  It  is  a  three- 
story  brick  house,  and  running  back,  and  the  other  house 
does  not. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  the  sun  does  not  shine  on  the 
other  side— from  the  other  side  of  that  house?  A.  I  don't 
know  

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  the  sun  comes  square  in  that 
piazza;  that  that  piazza  faces  the  setting  sun;  can't  you 
recollect  that  ?  A.  I  have  told  you  that  I  remember  be- 
ing there  mornings  and  afternoons,  and  I  never  remem- 
ber a  time  when  I  had  to  go  away  from  the  piazza  be* 
cause  of  the  heat. 

Q.  You  have  sat  there  morning  and  afternoon  t  A.  I 
have  been  there  mornings  and  afternoons. 

Q.  How  did  you  come  to  go  there  so  much,  and  to  sit 
there  so  long  ?   A.  On  the  piazza,  Sir  ? 


TESLIMOyj    OF  FRA 

Q.  Yes  ;  liad  you  nuthing  else  to  do  ?  A.  Xo,  Sir ;  it  tliat 
is  satisfactory. 

Q.  Xotliing  tliLit  you  could  do,  satisfactory— vrell,  don't 
youkno-w?  A.  If  that  answer  is  satisfactory  to  you  I 
■wOl  leave  it. 

Q.  What  is  that  ?  A.  If  that  answer,  "  Xo,  Sir,"  is  satis- 
factory to  you  I  will  leare  it. 

Q.  ^Tiat  I  want  is  the  truth,  whether  it  is  satisfactory 
to  me  or  not ;  I  want  to  know  whether  you  had  any  occu- 
pation than  to  come  to  that  piazza  and  sit  ?  A.  If  you  are 
asking  about  occupation,  I  did  not  have  any  occupation 
during  that  day  ;  that  is,  the  greater  part  of  it  ;  and  out 
of  sympathy  for  3Irs.  Tilton,  and  at  her  invitation,  I  went 
every  morning. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  on  that  day  that  Miss  Turner  testified,  can 
you  recollect  what  day  of  the  month  it  was  \  A.  Xo,  Sir, 
I  don't. 

Q.  "VMiere  did  you  come  from  on  that  day  when  you 
went  around  to  that  houst;  ?  A.  From  my  room,  Sir,  in 
Court-st. 

Q.  Well,  how  are  you  able  to  fix  the  time  of  day  ?  A.  I 
can  only  fix  it,  Sir.  by  this— that  for  a  number  of  days, 
indeed,  I  may  say  weeks,  I  had  been  in  tlie  habit,  after 
lunch,  of  going  around  to  my  rooms  and  seeing  that  they 
were  open  and  properly  ventilated,  and  my  man  there, 
and  then,  after  reading  the  papers,  of  going  aroimd  to  see 
Mrs.  Xaton. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  only  mode  by  which  you  can  fix  the 
time  now  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  have  not— I  did  not  pay  any 
attention  to  the  time,  except  

Q.  Did  you  look  at  your  wr.tch  while  you  were  out  on 
the  piazza  ?   A.  Xo,  Sir  ;  I  don't  remember  that  I  did. 

Q.  Then  how  do  you  know  that  you  spent  two  hours 
there,  Sir  1  A.  I  know  that  I  was  there  all  the  afternoon,  i 
Sir  ;  more  than  two  hoiu's. 

Q.  AftCT  you  got  there  ?   A.  After  I  got  there. 

Q.  Did  you  look  at  your  watch  when  you  entered  the 
house?  A.  No,  Sir;  but  I  know  that  I  went  directly 
trom  my  rooms  to  the  house. 

Q.  Did  you  look  at  your  watch  while  you  were  in  the 
roomi  A.  No,  Su-;  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Fow  do  you  know,  then  ?  A.  Because  they  have  a 
clock  there;  I  may  have  looked  at  that;  I  do  not  re- 
member. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  whether  you  looked  at  the  clock 
or  not  ?  A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Then  how  do  you  recollect  what  time  of  day  it  was  1 
A.  "Well,  my  own  idea  of  time  is  the  only  thing  I  can  go 
by,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  are  you  able  to  do  it  without  a  watch  or  clock  ? 
A.  WeU,  I  am  able  to  judge  of  the  time  between  lunch 
time  and  tea  time. 

C.  What  time  did  you  have  tea,  Mr.  Martin  t  A.  Ire- 
member,  Sir,  that  Bessie  Turner  said  to  Mrs.  Oviugton 
that  Gipn.  Tracy's  desire  was  


SKLIX    WO  ODR  UFF.  347 

Q.  I  don't  care  about  that ;  I  waut  to  know  what  time. 
A.  Well,  we  had  tea  early  ;  I  think  about  6  o'clock. 

Q.  Well,  how  do  you  fix  the  time  that  Gen.  Tracy  left  ? 
A.  Well,  I  can  fix  the  time,  Sir,  from  Gen.  Tracy's  having 
gone  and  Bessie— Miss  Tomer  having  come  back— come 
out,  and  we  together  having  had  conversation  for  quite  a 
long  time,  maybe  more  than  one  hour  

Q.  Y'es,  there  was  quite  a  long  time  elapsed  after  Gen. 
Tracy  left  before  you  had  tea  ?  A.  XeU,  I  should  think 
about  an  hour. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  more  than  an  hour  just  now?  A. 
Well,  it  might  possibly  have  been  an  hour  or  less  

Q.  But  you  think  it  might  have  been  more  than  an 
hour  ?  A.  My  best  impression  is  it  was  about  an  hour, 
Sir. 

A  Juror  -Is  3Irs.  Oviagton's  house  on  the  west  side  of 
the  street  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  Sir,  Mrs.  Ovingron's  house  is  on 
the  west  side  of  Hicks-st.  [To  the  witness,  j  One  mo- 
ment; a  juror  asks  wliat  time  rou  had  your  lunch.  A. 
AYe  lunched.  Sir,  about  12  o'clock  always  at  Mr.  Tilton's. 

Q.  Did  you  have  your  lunch  there  \  A.  I  lunched  there 
that  same  day. 

FRANKLIX  WOODEUFF   EE  CALLED. 

Franklin  Woodruff  was  recalled  by  plaintiff. 

:Mr.  Beach -Mr.  Woodruff,  on  your  former  examina- 
tion you  testified  as  to  a  conversation  between  yourself, 
3Ir.  Moulton,  Mrs.  TUton  and  Tracy,  at  Mr.  Moulton'a 
study  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Previous  to  that  I  understand  that  you  had  an  inter- 
view or  two  with  Mr.  Tracy  alone  ?   A.  I  had;  one  alone. 

Q.  One  alone?   A.  One  with  3Ir.  Moulton. 

Q.  In  the  conversation— in  either  of  those  two  conver- 
sations before  the  maia  one  at  the  study,  did  you  give 
Mr.  Tracy  any  iuformation  iu  regard  to  the  charge  or  ac- 
cusation which  Ml'.  Tilton  made  agiiinst  Mr.  Beecher.  and 
if  so,  what  did  you  state  ? 

MP..  ^YOODE^FF"s  TESTIMOXY  OBJECTED  TO 

Mr.  Evarts— One  moment,  Mr.  Vroodniff.  On 
what  point  in  Mr.  Tracy's  evidence  is  this  offered  l 

]NIr.  Beach— Well,  I  cannot  refer  to  the  page.  I  ex- 
amined Mr.  Tracy  as  to  that. 

ivlr.  Morris— He  said  that  3Ir.  Woodruff'  did  not  inform 
him  that  the  charge  was  adultery. 

Mr.  Beach— He  did  not  ioiorm  him  of  the  money  he 
offered. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  the  $500  % 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  am  asking  him  to  look  for  the 
passage. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  Sir,  I  wUl  wait.  [Book  handed  to 
Mr.  Beach,  who  reads] : 

Well,  Mr.  Tracy,  passing  that,  did  you,  in  the  conver- 
sation which  you  had  with  Mr.  Woodruff'  preceding  the 
one  at  ^Nlr.  Moulton's  study,  of  which  you  have  spoken— 


348 


THE   TILTON-^BBECHEB  IBIAL, 


did  you  discuss  witli  him  any  wf  the  incidents  ot  this 
Bcandal,  as  it  is  called?  A.  Which  interview  do  you  refer 
to  Mr.  Beach  ? 
Q.  Either  of  them.  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Which  one  was  it— the  one  immediately  preceding, 
etc.  *  »  * 

Q.  In  those  interviews— preceding  interviews — of  which 
I  speak,  did  Mr.  Woodruff  relate  to  you  the  circumstances 
of  the  confession  or  statement  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  her  re- 
traction and  reassertion- those  preliminaries  1  A.  No, 
Sir ;  not  in  detail. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  allude  to  them— state  them?  A.  I  have 
the  impression  that  at  the  second  interview  with  Mr. 
Woodruff  he  stated  to  me  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  

Q.  Oh,  I  do  n't  want  to  go  into  that ;  I  only  want  to 
know,  Sir,  if  those  things  were  stated  hy  him,  in  general 
terms  ?  A.  I  have  an  impression  that  he  referred  to  the 
papers  which  Mr.  Moulton  had  in  his  possession,  and 
which  I  would  want  to  see. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  in  those  interviews  did  Mr.  Woodruff,  in  sub- 
stance, tell  you  that  Mr.  Tilton  charged  Beecher  with 
adultery  with  his  (Tilton's)  wife  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  did  not. 
In  those  words. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  Sir.   f  Reading. "j 

I  said  in  substance,  Sir.  A.  I  cannot  say  that  he  did 

in  substance. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  he  did  not,  in  substance,  tell  you 
that  ?  A.  I  think  I  will. 

Q.  Well,  make  up  your  mind,  and  let  us  know  whether 
you  will. 

Now,  the  next  answer  is—  [Reading.] 

A.  Well,  I  will  state  how  I  can  state  it,  and  the  only 
way  I  can  state  it ;  he  did  not  say  that  in  substance,  in 
my  judgment,  according  to  my  recollection ;  but  Mr. 
Woodruff,  by  his  gestures,  and  what  he  omitted  to  say  in 
answering  some  of  my  questions,  and  his  insinuations 
left  an  impression  upon  my  mind  that  he  believed  Mr. 
Beecher  had  been  guilty  of  something  that  was  very 
wrong  in  Mr.  Tilton's  family:  what  it  was  he  did  not 
state,  and  he  did  not  leave  me  to  infer. 

Q.  Then  he  is  asked,  "  Will  you  swear  positively  that  in 
the  interviews  of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  or  one  of 
them,  Mr.  Woodruff  did  not  in  terms  tell  you  that  Mr. 
Tilton's  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  was  adultery  with 
his  (Tilton's)  wife  ?  A.  I  will. 

Q.  Positively  1  A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  That  he  did  not  use  the  term  "  adultery  ?"  A.  I  will. 

Q.  And  that  he  did  not  in  any  more  direct  form  than 
you  have  stated  convey  an  implication  of  that  charge  ? 
A.  Yes;  I  have  intended  to  state,  and  think  I  have 
stated. 

Now,  these  are  the  two  interviews,  as  I  understand,  or 
one  or  the  other  of  two  interviews  that  preceded  the 
Sunday  interview  of  which  you  inquired,  Mr.  Beach. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— All  this  in  presence  of  Mr.  Tracy  preceded 
the  interview  at  which  Mr.  Moulton  waa  Introduced. 
The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

ARGUMENT  OF  MR.  EVARTS. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  your  Honor  will  perceive 
that  there  is  no  basis,  in  the  rules  of  evidence,  for  this 
inquiry.  If  an  inquiry  had  been  made,  what  Mr.  Tracy 
bad  said  to  the  witness,  to  wit,  Mr.  Woodruff,  and  Mr. 
Tracy  had  denied  it,  then,  to  prove  what  Mr.  Tracy  said, 


is  a  contradiction  of  Mr.  Tracy,  and  would  be  in  the  sense 
of  a  collateral  impeachment,  for  which  a  foundation  must 
be  laid  in  that  way.  But  here  is  an  interview  between 
Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Woodruff,  neither  of  them  parties  to 
the  suit,  and  Mr.  Woodruff's  statements  are  never  evidence 
in  that  sense  in  any  way.  Gen.  Tracy  is  asked  whether  Mr. 
Woodruff  told  him  so  and  so ;  and  Gen.  Tracy,  giving  the 
answer  that  he  has  given,  says,  "  He  did  not  tell  me  so ; 
he  threw  out  intimations,  insinuations,  or  observations, 
or  gestures,  leaving  a  certain  implication  in  my  mind." 
Now,  it  is  not  an  impeachment  of  Gen,  Tracy,  having 
made  extra-judicial  statements  himself,  inconsistent  with 
his  testimony  under  oath ;  that  is,  the  form  of  collateral 
impeachment  on  extra-judicial  statements.  Now,  the 
counsel  himself  calls  out  from  Mr.  Tracy  on  cross-exam- 
ination to  this  point  of  inquiry:  whether  Franklin  Woodruff 
did  not  tell  beforehand,  before  this  interview  of  Sunday, 
so  and  so,  in  order  that  that  may  have  some  bearing  on 
something  or  other.  What  passed  between  Mr.  Woodruff 
and  Mr.  Tracv  is  not  evidence  against  anybody,  at  any 
interview;  there  is  no  pretense  of  that.  That  does  not 
bind  Mr.  Beecher,  nor  does  it  bind  Mr.  Tilton.  Now,  hav- 
ing asked  that  question  of  Mr.  Tracy,  which  is  not  of 
extra-judicial'statements  of  Mr.  Tracy,  but  of  whether  he 
had  certain  information  before  he  went  into  an  inter- 
view, the  counsel  now  calls  this  witness  to  contradict 
Gen.  Tracy.  As  matter  of  evidence  in  chief  it  can- 
not be  introduced,  because  it  is  outside  of  rebuttal. 
All  the  interviews  between  this  gentleman  and  Mr.  Tracy 
were  brought  in  as  matter  of  direct  evidence  on  the  i»ai  t 
of  the  plaintiff,  and  if  they  omitted  to  prove  any  part  of 
the  conversation  at  that  time  that  they  had  any  right  to 
prove,  why  then  it  would  not  be  admissible  as  evidence 
in  chief,  for  it  is  not  in  rebuttal;  it  is  in  accumulation  if 
it  be  anything.  Then,  if  it  is  not  an  extra-judicial  state- 
ment of  Gen.  Tracy,  contrary  to  something  that  he  has 
given  on  the  stand,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  it  i* 
within  any  of  the  rules  of  impeachment. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor  may  perhaps— 

Mr.  Evarts— One  moment,  Mr.  Beach.  This  "is  con- 
fined to  what  witness  has  himself  said  or  done,  and 
does  not  allow  impeachment  by  proving  that  statement* 
have  been  made  in  his  presence  as  to  a  material  fact 
which  he  has  testified  he  had  no  knowledge  of."  |  Gan- 
dolfo  agt.  Appleton,  Court  of  Appeals,  40  N.  Y.,  p.  553.] 

Judge  Neilson— That  touches  this  point,  of  course,  as  I 
understand.  I  have  a  general  impression,  from  Mr. 
Tracy's  testimony,  that,  according  to  his  recollection,  it 
was  later  than  that  that  he  learned  the  character  of  this 
charge  as  put  in  the  strongest  terms ;  that  he  up  to  that 
time,  and  subsequently,  only  knew  it  in  its  subordinate 
form  and  character,  and  this  evidence  would  seem  to  be 
with  the  view  to  show  that  he  had  some  kind  of  notice  on 
that  subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  your  Honor,  the  point,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  was  not  that  nobody  ever  sa*d  anything  against 


TESTIMONY  OF  FB. 

Mr.  Beeclier,  but  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  charge  it  to  Gen. 
Tracy ;  lie  never  heard  from  Mr.  Tilton  any  charge  of  a 
larger  dimension.  Whether  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Franklin 
Woodruff,  or  anybody  else  in  Brooklyn  talked  around 
and  said  what  Mr.  Tilton  thought,  or  what  he  said,  or  in- 
sinuated, or  winked,  or  nodded— that  is  not  tiie  point ; 
but  this  authority  to  which  I  advert  seems  to  cover  this 
caeet 

ARGUMENT  OF  ME.  BEACH. 
Mr.  Beach— If  the  gentleman  will  have  the 

authority  in  Court  here,  that  will  show,  of  course,  very 
clear;  we  cannot  tell  from  marginal  notes.  But  your 
Honor  has  struck  the  point,  Sir,  of  what  is  material  in 
this  evidence.  I  suppose  it  will  be  pretty  clearly  remem- 
bered by  your  Honor,  that  Mr.  Tracy,  in  his  examination- 
in-chief,  substantially  declared  th»t  he  had  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  charge  of  adultery  being  made  on  behalf  of 
Mr.  Tnton  until  some  time  in  the  year  1874— in  July,  I 
think,  or  August,  of  1874— and  presented  that  as  an  ex- 
cuse for  his  changing  his  relations  and  forfeiting  his 
pledge  to  Mr.  Tilton.  Now,  we  propose  to  show, 
Sir,  that  in  the  interview  with  the  gentleman 
upon  the  stand,  subsequently  followed  by 
a  confidential  interview  between  the  same  gentleman 
and  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Tracy  was  then  at  an 
early  day  explicitly  Informed  of  the  charge  made  by  Mr* 
TUton  against  Mr.  Beecher,  and  that  after  that  his  nego- 
tiations, his  conferences,  his  advice,  and  his  cooperation 
were  given  to  and  united  with  the  exertions  of  Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Moulton  in  reference  to  the  subsequent  events  of 
this  scandal,  and  that  thus  knowing,  from  an  authentic 
source,  to  wit,  the  witness  upon  the  stan«d, 
from  a  source  which  afterward  received  the 
approbation  and  adoption  of  Mr.  Tilton,  to  whom  Mr. 
Tracy  made  his  pledge— that  after  receiving  this  informa- 
tion he  continued  his  relations  with  Mr.  Tilton  and  re- 
deemed the  pledge  for  a  long  period  of  time  which  he 
had  given  to  Mr.  Tilton  in  regard  to  his  relation  to  him. 
Now  I  cannot  go  through,  Sir,  the  details  of  all  this 
evidence,  to  show  your  Honor  the  position  which  Mr. 
Tracy  took  in  his  examination  in  regard  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  precise  charge  made  against  Mr.  Beecher.  We  pro- 
pose to  give  this,  with  other  evidence,  to  show  that  Mr. 
Ti-acy,  prior  to  the  Summer  of  1874,  at  which  he  locates 
his  discovery  which  released  him  from  his  professional 
obligations,  as  he  supposes,  well  knew  and  under- 
stood that  the  charge  of  Mr.  Tilton  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  when,  in  the  language  of  Beecher,  "you 
came  to  the  bottom  facts"  of  that  charge, 
when  it  was  not  attempted  to  be  concealed 
for  the  purposes  known  to  the  different  parties  interested 
in  it— that  Tracy  well  understood  what  was  the  extreme 
"Old  criminal  character  of  the  accusation ;  and  this,  Sir, 
as  one  of  the  circumstances  in  the  history  of  his  negotia- 
tions with  Tilton  and  his  friends,  we  propose  to  give,  in 


NKLIN    WOOBBUFF.  849 

contradiction  of  Mr.  Tracy,  to  show  that  at  the  time  of 
these  interviews  in  the  Fall  of  1872  he  well  understood 
what  was  the  nature  of  this  accusation ;  and  it  was  the 
same  then  as  it  was  in  the  Summer  of  1874,  and  as  it  is 
to-day.  We  have  certainly,  so  far  as  inquiry  of  Mr.  Tracy 
is  concerned— we  have  certainly  laid  the  foundation  for 
this  proof,  because  we  have  drawn  his  attention  spe- 
cifically to  the  conversation,  to  the  subject,  and  to  the 
language. 

THE  JUDGE  WILLING  TO  EECEIVE  THE  TES- 
TIMONY. 

Mr.  Evarts — Well,  if  your  Honor  please,  yon 

see  the  wlicle  situation  in  this  Fall  of  1872  was  that 
there  had  been  a  publication  in  a  New-York  paper  in  de- 
tail, professing  to  be  founded  upon  ^Ir.  Tilton's  evi- 
dence—information to  the  writer  of  that  article,  that  the 
charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  was  of  adultery  with  Mrs. 
Tilton,  and  that  the  whole  occasion  for  this  witness  be- 
ing brought  into  relation  ^viTll  Mr.  Tracy  was  from  the 
exigencies  arising  on  the  demands  of  the  friends  of  the 
firm  of  Woodruff  &  Robinson  that  that  gross  charge 
should  not  be  left  uncontradicted  in  so  far  as  it  rested 
upon  the  responsibility  of  Mr.  Moulton ;  and  these  pre- 
liminary conversations  with  Mr.  Tracy  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  Fi'anklin  Woodruff  were  to  see  whether  he  would 
come  into  consultation  for  friendly  advice  to  Moulton  and 
the  firm  in  respect  to  the  duty  of  Moulton  in  the  prem- 
ises, of  disclaiming  and  contradicting;  and  whatever 
passed  before  in  the  way  of  ^Ir.  Woodruff  or  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  or  anybody  else  saying  that  Mr.  Tilton  charged  Mr. 
Beecher  with  adultery,  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  Mr.  Tilton  did  charge.  That  is  the  ques- 
tion, and  this  solemn  interview  of  Sunday  night  brought 
the  thing  to  a  point,  that  he  did  not  charge  adiiltery,  and 
never  had.  And  then  Gen.  Tracy  is  put  to  the  mark: 
"  From  that  time  forward  did  Mr.  Tilton  ever  charge 
adultery  ?  No,  not  until  1874."  That  is  the  situation. 
Now,  how  is  that  line  of  Gen.  Tracy,  or  that  position, 
contradicted  by  showing  that  this  man,  having 
no  knowledge  of  his  own,  not  having  as  much 
knowledge  or  as  much  intercourse  with  the  party  from 
whom  the  information  is  alleged  to  have  come,  as  INIrs. 
Woodhull  had  had,  and  had  published  it— how  does  that 
bear  on  the  question  of  whether  Mr,  Tilton's  charge  as 
made  to  Gen.  Tracy  was  always  limited  to  the  less  of- 
fense, or  the  imputation,  qualified  and  contradicted,  too, 
at  that,  and  never  enlarged  itself  to  this  charge  until 
1874.  That  is  all  that  could  possibly  be  material. 

Judge  Neilson— If  I  receive  this  it  is  not  because  I  re- 
gard Mr.  Tracy  is  on  trial,  or  feel  any  present  interest  in 
any  such  question ;  but  it  comes  in  merely  as  notice 
through  this  witness  to  him.  I  think  sufficient  founda- 
tion has  been  laid  for  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  be  so  good  as  to  note  our 
exception. 


350  TtlE  TILTON-B 

Judge  Neil  son— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach — Mv.  "Woodruff,  "will  you  please  state  what 
passed  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Tracy ;  what  informa- 
tion you  gave  him  in  the  interview  to  which  I  have  asked 
your  attention,  with  reference  to  the  charge  made  by  Mr. 
Tilton  against  Mr.  Beecher.  [To  defendant's  counsel]— 
I  may  as  well  in  the  same  question  ask  with  reference— 
[to  the  witness]— and  a^so  in  reference  to  any  commimi- 
^ation  you  made  to  him  with  regard  to  money  for  Mrs. 
Tilton. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  first  question,  about  what  he  said  to 
liim,  must  be  limited  to  the  words  that  are  put  to  Mr. 
Tracy. 

]Mr.  Beach — Not  to  the  words,  to  the  substance. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  to  the  substance  of  the  words. 

The  Witness— I  went  to  Gen.  Tracy's  office  

Mr.  Evarts— The  question,  as  I  understand  your  Honor 
to  rule— we  submitted  to  it ;  it  is  no  doubt  a  proper  Tilling, 
as  well  as  the  ruling  that  governs  the  case— that  they 
are  putting  to  him :  "Did  you  say  to  Mr.  Tracy  at  that 
Interview  that  the  charge  was  adultery  1" 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  have  put  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Did  you  put  it  to  Mr.  Tracy  1 

Mr,  Beach— Do  you  wish  me  to  repeat  it,  Sir  ?  [To  the 
witness.]  Did  you  in  that  interview  say  to  Mr.  Ti'acy  in 
words  or  substance,  that  Mr.  Tilton's  charge  against  Mr. 
Beecher  was  of  adultery  with  his,  Tilton's,  wife,  and  if 
so,  give  the  words  as  near  as  you  can  recollect  them,  or 
the  substance  of  them? 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  no ;  answer  the  first  question. 

Mr.  Beach— You  will  answer  my  question  as  I  put  it, 
unless  it  is  ruled  out. 

Mr.  Evarts— Not  unless  the  Court  allows  it. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  certainly  not. 

Mr.  Evarts — That  has  been  negative!^;  we  were  not  al- 
lowed even  to  ask  the  witness  what  hi»*.aid. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  asking  whether  he  said  that  in  sub- 
stance, and  that  was  the  question  that  I  put  to  Gen, 
Tracy. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  he  can  answer  that.  A,  I  told 
him. 

Mr,  Evarts— No,  no ;  did  you  tell  him  that  % 
Mr,  Beach— Wait,  wait ;  do  n't  pay  much  attention  to 
that  gentleman  just  now, 

THE  FIGHT  TO  EXCLUDE  THE  TESTIMONY 
EEOPENED. 

Mr.  Evarts — Well,  I  must  have,  if  your  Honor 
please,  the  same  ruling  on  the  part  of  my  learned  friends 
that  we  have  been  so  submissive  to  making  heretofore, 
and  the  ruling  has  been  express  against  us  to  which  we 
have  conformed,  that  tlie  auestion  should  be :  "  Did  you 
tell  him  1" 

Judge  Neilson— Yes." 

Mr.  Evarts— The  same  question  that  was  asked  of  Mr. 

Triicy,  and  he  is  to  answer  yes  or  no. 


WEOHEB  TRIAL, 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

The  Witness— May  I  tell  who  I  had  the  evidence  from! 
Judge  Neilson— No. 
Mr.  Evarts— No. 

Mr.  Beach— Don't  say  anything  about  it.  Just  say  what 
you  said. 

Judge  Neilson— Cannot  you  put  the  question  in  the 
terms  that  it  was  put  to  Mr.  Tracy  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  did.  Sir,  "  Did  you  tell  him  that  it  was 
ad\iltery,  or  iu  substance  that,"  It  may  not  be  in  that 
precise  language.  Sir, 

Judge  Neilson— Say  yes  or  no,  Mr,  Woodruff. 

The  Witness— Do  you  want  to  know  if  I  had  that  from 
Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  no,  I  don't  ask  that. 

The  Witness— That  is  what  the  other  side  said. 

Q,  I  told  you  not  to  pay  much  attention  to  Mr.  Evarts, 
just  now.   [Laughter,  | 

Mr,  Evarts— He  can't  help  it  you  know. 

Mr.  Beach— I  know  we  can't  help  it.  It  is  the  seductive 
character  of  the  man  ;  but  I  want  you  to  try, 

.Judge  NeUson— Stenographer,  read  that  question, 
please. 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Did  you  in  that  interview  say  to  Mr.  Tracy,  in 
words  or  substance,  that  Mr.  Tilton's  charge  against  Mr. 
Beecher  was  of  adiiltery  with  his,  Tilton's,  wife,  and  if  so 
give  the  words  as  near  as  you  recollect  them,  or  the  sub- 
stance of  them." 

The  Witness— I  did  say  so  to  Gen.  Tracy  in  that  inter- 
view. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Gen.  Tracv  in  that  interview  that 
Mr,  Beecher  had  advanced  the  sum  of  $500  for  the  use 
of  Mr.  Tilton's  f amUy,  or  in  substance  that  1 

Mr,  Evarts— Don't  answer  that,  because  that  don't 
come  within  any  rule  excepting  of  e(mtradicting  G«n. 
Tracy  as  to  whether  Mr.  Woodruff  had  told  him  so  and  so 
That  don't  come  on  to  this  question  of  knowledge  of  the 
heinousness  of  the  charge. 

Judge  Neilson— No, 

Mr,  Evarts— That  ruling  that  I  have  called  your 
Honor's  attention  to  would  govern  this;  it  is  not  the 
extra-judicial  statement  of  Mr,  Tracy. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  it  is  not, 

YiV.  Beach— Well,  we  will  get  to  it, 

Mr,  Evarts— When  we  get  to  it  we  will  be  there. 

Mr,  Beach— We  are  getting  to  it, 

Mr.  Evarts— Then  take  your  stages  if  you  are  going  there. 
Mr,  Beach — Well,  we  must  take  stages  or  we  can't  get 
there. 

Mr,  Evarts— That  has  been  ruled ;  you  can't  put  any 
such  question. 
Mr.  Beach— I  think  we  will. 

Judge  Neilson— What  did  Mr.  Tracy  say  about  that 
$5001 


TESimoyj   OF  FRA 


:\KLF\  WOODBCFF. 


Mr.  Beacli— Mr.  Tracy  denied  it,  and  said  that  jMt. 
Woodruff  did  not  make  to  Mm  tbat  communication,  and 
«aid  that,  in  referring  to  tliat  communication,  lie  did  not 
say  to  "Woodruff  wlien  they  -went  from  the  meeting  on 
Simday  night  that  that  was  the  worst  feature  in  Beeeher's 
case. 

Mr.  Evarts— "Well,  but  you  are  not  asMng  him  ahout 
Sunday  evening. 

Mr.  Beach— But  you  won't  let  me ;  that  is  just  the 
trouble.  I  am  going  to  ask  him.  I  have  to  prove  in  the 
first  place  that  there  was  some  communication  about 
money  before  I  can  get  the  reflection  which  Mr.  Tracy 
made  upon  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  the  question  to  Gen.  Tracy  was  this— 
this  same  interview  as  I  understand  it ;  the  preliminary 
interview,  not  the  Simday  night  interview ;  it  was  one  of 
these  preliminary  interviews  before  Moulton  was  intro- 
duced to  Gen.  Tracy.  The  question  put  to  Gen.  Tracy 
was: 

Q.  Now,  didn't  he  tell  you  that  Beecher  had  given  Moul- 
ton, for  the  support  or  the  benefit  of  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Til- 
ton's  family,  $.500 1   A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  swear  positively  to  that  ?  A.  I  do,  most  em- 
phatically. 

Mr.  Beach— The  subiect  is  alluded  to  again. 

Mr.  Evarts— "Well,  I  understand  you  are  not  on  the 
Sunday  night  interview  1 

Mr.  Beach— That  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  suggestion 
that  I  make  to  you  that  the  subject  is  alluded  to  again. 

Mr.  Evarts — ^Well",  you  agree  that  it  is  not  the  Sunday 
night  interview  that  you  are  inquiring  about,  don't  you  I 

Mr.  Beach— I  most  certainly  do,  if  that  is  important  to 
be  known. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  it  is  very  important  to  me. 
Mr.  Beach— Well,  then,  I  grant  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  where  was  it  alluded  to  agam  ? 
Now,  the  question  is  this,  whether  he  can  ask  this  wit- 
ness, "Did  you  not  tell  Mr.  Tracy,  at  that  interview,  that 
Beecher  had  given  to  Moulton,  for  the  support  or  the 
benefit  of  Mi^s.  Tilton  and  Tilton's  family,  $500  ]"  Now, 
what  this  witness  said  to  Gen.  Tracy,  as  evidence  in  chief, 
is  of  no  importance. 

Judge  Neilson— No. 

Mr.  Evarts— "What  Gen.  Tracy  said  to  the  witness  in 
coEtradiction  of  anything  that  he  has  said— that  is,  what 
Gen.  Tracy  said  on  the  stand,  can  be  made  the  subject  of 
collateral  impeachment  by  producing  extra-judicial  state- 
ments of  Gen.  Tracy,  if  the  foundation  has  been  laid.  But 
this  is  not  any  extra-judicial  statement  of  Gen.  Tracy ; 
It  is  correcting  or  contradicting  Gen.  Tracy  as  to  a  state- 
ment supposed  to  have  been  made  by  this  witness  and 
denied  by  Gen.  Tracy,  of  this  fact  to  Gen.  Tracy.  Now, 
it  is  not  material,  it  is  not  in  issue  and  it  is  not  a  col- 
lateral impeachment.  Here  is  the  authority  in  court  now. 

Judge  Neilson— "What  statement  did  Gen.  Tracy  make  in 
respect  to  that  money,  :Mr.  Beach  ? 

Mr.  Beech— Mr.  Tracy  made  this  statement,  that  Mr. 


"V\'oodruff  made  to  him  no  commimication  of  that  kind 
about  $500,  and  denied  that  he— this  commimication  hav- 
ing been  made  a  day  or  two  preceding  the  Sunday— that 
when  he  and  Mr.  "Woodruff  left  the  place  of  the  interview 
that  Sunday  he  did  not  in  relation  to  that  thing  say  that 
that  was  the  worst  feature  of  Mr.  Beecher's  case.  Now 
Mr.  Tracy  comes  to  this  interview  on  Sunday  and  again.st 
the  testimony  of  Moulton  and  of  "^*oodrufi"  and  of  Tilton, 
swears  that  the  only  revelation  made  to  him  at  that  in- 
terview of  iniquity  upon  the  part  of  ]\Ir.  Beecher  was  im- 
proper solicitations.  In  the  face  of  the  direct  oath  of 
these  three  men,  he  denies  that  he  was  then  informed 
that  the  charge  was  sexual  intercourse  between  Beecher 
and  ^Irs.  Tilton.  Now,  as  a  circumstance  altogether  in- 
dependent of  the  question  of  contradiction,  we 
ofi'er  to  prove  that  at  the  preliminary  interview,  when  he 
was  solicited  to  this  main  and  most  important  consulta- 
tion, he  was  then  told  that  the  charge  was  adultery  ;  he 
was  then  told  of  circumstances  which  led  his  mind  to  the 
conclusion — of  acts  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher— which 
led  his  mind  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was  something 
more  serious  in  this  matter  than  he  testified 
as  to  what  occurred  on  Sunday  of  the  main  in- 
terview. Now,  Sir,  the  surroimdings  of  this  interview, 
the  intercourse  as  between  Mr.  Tracy  and  these  persons 
who  then  were  in  consultation  with  him,  are  all-important 
and  admissible  to  determine  the  question  of  veracity  as 
between  Tracy  on  the  one  hand  and  "^'oodruff  and  Moul- 
ton and  Tilton  on  the  other.  If  before  Mr.  Tracy  went  to 
that  interview— if  almost  on  the  way  to  that  interview, 
lie  was  told  by  one  of  the  parties  to  it  that  the  charge  of 
Tilton  was  adultery  as  against  Beecher,  is  it  not  a  cir- 
cumstance, Sir,  to  be  considered  by  the  jury  whether, 
when  they  get  together,  his  story  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
charge  made  by  Tilton  is  true  or  not  1 

Judge  Neilson— "Well,  with  that  view  I  allowed  him  to 
answer,  so  as  to  show,  whether  Gen.  Tracy  remembers  it 
or  not,  he  gave  him  notice  of  the  character  of  the 
char^. 

MR.  TRACY  INFORMED  OF  THE  MONEY 
CONTRIBUTIONS. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir,  and  can  "we  not  prove 
the  other  circumstance  that  he  gave  him  notice  that  this 
man,  Beecher,  without  any  obligation  or  debt  to  induce 
him  to  do  it,  was  making  contributions  of  $500  for  the 
purpose  of  supporting  Mrs.  Tilton  and  her  family  without 
the  knowledge  of  the  husband,  and  that  when  Tracy 
heard  that  he  pronoimcecl  it  as  the  most  damaging  cir- 
cumstance in  the  whole  history  of  the  transaction  ? 

Judge  Neilson— "Well,  now,  as  to  the  money.  First,  we 
have  that  proved  in  various  ways. 

Mr.  Beach— Not  in  regard  to  the  $500. 

Judge  Neilson— Not  the  $500— the  other  money. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  not  talking  about  the  other  money, 
Sir. 


THE  TILTON-BEEGEEU  TRIAL. 


Mr.  Evarts— It  is  a  part  of  It. 
Mr.  Beach— It  is  no  part  of  it. 
Mr.  Evarts— Why,  yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  Beach— You  can  say  it  is.  I  say  It  ain't.  It  is  a 
part  of  the  $2,000,  hut  not  of  the  $5,000. 

Judge  Neilson— We  have  a  large  amount  of  evidence  as 
to  money  advanced  by  Mr.  Beeoher,  some  of  which,  it  ai>- 
pearSf  went  to  the  benefit  of  Mrs.  Tilton  herself,  and  some 
of  it  went  to  other  uses,  including  Bessie  Turner's  school- 
ing, so  that  that  Is  very  clearly  before  us,  and  has  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  indorsement  by  Mr.  Beecher  himself. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes ;  but  there  is  nothing  before  us  to  show 
that  Mr.  Tracy  received  knowledge— had  knowledge  of 
the  contributions  of  money  at  the  time  of  the  interview 
on  Sunday,  Nov.  10. 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  see  how  it  is  material  that  he 
knew  it  or  did  not  know  it ;  and  the  other  branch  of  your 
inquiry  is  simply  calling  for  Mr.  Tracy's  opinion,  to  wit, 
that  it  was  the  worst  feature.  Well,  now,  we  do  not  want 
his  opinion— mere  opinion.  He  said  it  was  the  worst  fea- 
ture of  the  case.  Suppose  he  said  so. 

Mr.  Beach— He  said,  if  your  Honor  please,  that  all  he 
knew  or  suspected  then  was  improper  solicitations ;  that 
he  never  heard  of  anything  else.  That  is  what  he  says. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  we  have  taken  the  answer  on  the 
vital  point. 

Mr.  Beach— I  know  we  have  upon  that.  It  is  a  very 
vital  and  material  question,  too,  whether  a  stranger  to 
the  household  of  Mr.  Tilton  shall  make  these  contribu- 
tions of  $500,  and  when  they  are  communicated  to  his 
counsel,  Mr.  Tracy,  and  he  pronounces  it  as  the  most 
damaging  circumstance,  does  it  not  reflect.  Sir,  upon  the 
question  of  the  integrity  of  Tracy  when  he  swears  that  he 
had  no  suspicion  or  knowledge  of  any  other  charge  than 
improper  solicitations  ? 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  see  that  his  opiniou  about  its 
"being  an  unfavorable  circumstance,  or  not,  is  at  all  ma- 
terial—a mere  opinion. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  just  his  opinion,  Sir,  if  your  Honor 
please,  that  we  are  after;  it  is  the  very  thing  we  are  seek- 
ing for.  On  Nov.  10  what  was  the  opinion  of  Tracy  as  to 
the  guilt  of  Beecher,  and  as  to  the  charge  which  Tilton 
made  against  Beecher?  So  far  as  Mr.  I'racy  is  concerned, 
and  his  credibility  is  concerned  with  the  jviry,  that  is  the 
essential  and  main  inquiry. 

Judge  Neilson — You  may  ask  him  whether  or  not  he 
gave  notice  to  Mr.  Tracy— turn  to  your  question  to  him— 
of  the  advance  of  $500  by  Mr.  Beecher  for  the  benefit  of 
Mrs.  Tilton  or  family,  but  not  go  beyond  that,  not  take 
Tracy's  opinion  that  that  was  the  worst  feature  of  the 
case,  because  it  is  a  mere  opinion. 

Mr.  Beach  fto  the  witness]— WeU,  Sir,  did  you  give  that 
Information  to  him  »  A.  I  did. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  understood  to  be  in  those 
terms.  I  do  not  object  to  the  question  in  those  terms— 
that  is  to  say,  the  direct  question :     Did  you  tell  Mr. 


Tracy  on  that  occasion?"  [To  Mr.  Shearman.]  Where  1« 
this  evidence  ? 

Judge  Neilson— That  Mr.  Beecher  advanced  $500. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  Mr.  Beecher  had  given  to  Moulton* 
for  the  support  or  the  benefit  of  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mrg. 
Tilton's  family,  $500. 

Mr.  Beach— Or  substantially  that. 

The  Witness— I  told  him  that. 

Judge  Neilson— You  told  him  that  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  weU,  that  covers  that.  Now 
then,  this  remaining  question,  which  I  think  not  at  aU. 
material,  is  as  to  Mr.  Tracy's  opinion  saying  it  was  the 
worst  feature. 

MR.  TILTON'S  CHAEACTERIZATION  OF  HIS 
WIFE'S  OFFENSE. 
Mr.  Beacli — Very  weU,  Sir,  I  will  not  press 
it,  if  your  Honor  is  disinclined.  [To  the  witness]- In 
that  conversation  on  Simday,  did  Mr.  Tilton  say  to  Mr. 
Tracy  that  he  did  not  make  the  charge  of  adultery  against 
Mr.  Beecher  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  now,  this,  I  suppose,  is  some  question 
put  to  Mr.  Tracy. 

Judge  Neilson— The  learned  coimsel  puts  his  question 
from  general  recollection,  it  seems,  of  Mr.  Tracy's  evi- 
dence. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly  I  do.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  not  a  good  recollection.  Have 
you  got  the  question? 
Mr.  Evarts— No ;  I  have  not. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  I  suppose  we  all  remember  that  Mr. 
Tracy  testified  in  that  conversation  that  Tilton  expressly 
told  him  that  his  charge  was  not  adultery. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  where  do  you  get  a  right  to  put  a 
leading  question  to  your  witness  except  on  the  ground  of 
a  direct  contradiction  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  of  course. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  you  want  to  prove  what  was  said  in  thit 
interview,  then  we  wUl  see  whether  you  can  bring  it  in 
in  rebuttal— whether  you  have  not  exhausted  the  inter- 
view with  this  witness  on  your  direct  examination. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  when  I  offer  to  bring  it  in  as  afflrma^ 
tive  evidence  it  will  be  time  enough  to  reason  the  question 
then. 

Mr.  Evarts— Then  I  shall  reason  the  question. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  you  won't,  for  I  shan't  do  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well,  then,  you  are  out  of  the  way. 
Now  you  are  here  to  contradict. 

Judge  Neilson— Do  you  find  the  direct  question  that 
was  put  to  Mr.  Tracy  ? 

Mr.  Beach— No,  I  cannot  refer  to  the  direct  question. 
Here  we  have  got  a  version  of  this  interview  by  three 
witnesses,  and  Mr.  Tracy  comes  and  adds  to  it— makes 
additional  declaration.  Cannot  I  contradict  it  by  the 
same  witness  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— In  the  terms  of  his  statement,  yes. 


TTJSTimyY  OF  FF. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  not  bound  to  take  the  terms  ot  liis 
statement. 
Juds:e  Xeilson— In  siihsTanee. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  in  substance.  When  he  swears  to  an 
additional  fact  as  occurring  at  an  interview  in  which  we 
say  it  did  not  occur,  may  we  not  contradict  it  by  our  wit- 
ness? 

Mr.  Evarts — There  my  friend  is  rirrht  back  where  he 
said  he  would  never  be. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  I  ain't  right  back.  You  are  quite  mis- 
taken. You  won't  get  me  back. 

Judge  Xeilson— He  has  a  ri#it  to  contradict  the  wit- 
ness. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  a  right  to  rebut  provided  he  is 
within  the  rules  of  rebuttal,  but  he  said  he  would  never 
do  it. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  offer  it  as  contradicting  Mr.  Tracy  ? 
air.  Beach— We  offer  it  as  rebuttal  and  contradictory 
evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts — Very  well;  now  we  will  take  it  on  rebuttal. 
This  interview  was  given  in  evidence  by  the  plaintiff  as 
a  part  of  their  original  case  and  the  whole  of  it ;  and 
this  witness  was  examined  on  it  and  gave  his  evidence, 
and  we  have  contradicted  those  witnesses  as  to  that  in- 
terview. Now,  they  cannot  recall  those  witnesses  to  re- 
Instate  and  rebut  theii*  former  statements. 

Jud^e  Neilson— No ;  I  think  the  learaed  counsel  would 
not  do  itj  because  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  but  the  laws  of  evidence,  besides  that, 
would  not  permit  it  to  be  done— a  graver  reason  than  the 
general  waste  of  time. 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  not  so  sure. 

Mr.  Evarts— They. tell  their  story ;  they  are  obliged  to 
exhaust  their  story,  and  we  contradict  them.  Now,  when 
we  introduce  substantially  new  matter,  not  any  point  of 
the  interview  concerning  which  they  tell  their  story,  but 
new  facts  of  Mr.  Beecher  going  to  PeeksMll,  or  this,  that, 
or  the  other  thing,  then  rebuttal  comes  in. 

Judge  Neilson — Well,  that  I  understand  it  to  be. 

Mr.  Evarts— Not  at  all ;  it  is  the  same  conversation,  the 
eame  mterview,  and  they  have  given  their  story  about  it, 
and  there  was  talk  about  adultery,  and  this,  that,  and 
the  other.  Mr.  Tracy  has  come  forward  and  given  his 
story  as  to  what  occurred  there,  and  that  there  was  a 
disclaimer  of  adultery.  Now,  this  witness  was  examined 
before;  if  he  had  not  been  that  would  not  make  any  dif- 
ference, and  it  is  nothing  but  a  reinstatement  of  his  case. 

Judge  Neilson— No ;  he  is  only  called  to  speak  to  any 
new  matter  on  this  point  that  Mr.  Tracy  may  have  in- 
troduced. 

Ml-.  Beach— That  is  aU,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson — Frame  youi*  question  with  that  view. 
Mr.  Evarts— Let  us  see  if  he  was  not  asked  this  very 
question  before. 


iSKLlN    WOODEUFF..  353 

I     Judge  NeUson— If  he  was,  then  he  need  not  be  asked  it 
now. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  rule  is  thus  laid  down  in  Bex  vs.  Hil- 
ditch  et  al.    [English  Common  Law  Report*,  pace  ."7.".1 

Whatever  is  a  conffrmation  of  the  original  case  cannot 
be  given  as  evidence  in  reply;  and  the  only  evidence 
which  can  be  given  as  evidence  in  reply,  is  that  which 
goes  to  cut  down  the  case  on  the  part  of  the  defense, 
without  being  any  confirmation  of  the  case  on  the  part  of 
the  prosecution. 

Now,  iVIr.  Woodruff  is  asked,  as  a  part  of  their  direct 
case  before  that  goes  in  evidence  [consulting  with  Mr. 
Abbott] — well,  it  was  in  his  evidence  on  the  opening  case. 
Mr.  Beach— That  was  on  your  cross-examination. 
Mr.  Evarts  [reading]  : 

You  say  he  charged  Mr.  Beecher  with  being  an  aditl- 
terer  that  day  in  my  presence  1  A.  He  said  he  had  been 
gmilty  of  adultery. 

Q.  Didn't  I— [Gen.  Tracy  was  conducting  the  examira- 
tionj— "  Didn't  I  turr.  to  him  then  and  say,  'Do  you  moan 
with  your  wife  V  and  was  not  his  reply  to  me,  *  No,  Sir; 
with  another  woman  V  " 
The  answer  is : 

No,  Sir ;  I  don't  recollect  that  you  said  that. 
Q.  You  don't  remember  that  1   A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Do  you  remember  any  allusion  to  any  other  woman 
that  day  in  that  conversation  1   A.  I  don't  recollect  any 
allusion  to  any  woman,  only  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  been 
guilty  of  adultery,  he  didn't  say  with  whom. 

Now,  that  is  the  whole  point  of  the  inquiry  ?  Gen. 
Tracy  says  that  Mr.  Tilton  got  excited  and  said  that  'Mi: 
Beecher  had  been  guilty  of  adultery.  "  Then  I  asked 
him  :  '  Weil,  was  it  with  your  wife  V  '  No  ;  not  with  my 
wife,  but  with  another  woman.'  "  Well,  however  heinous 
that  may  be,  it  is  not  a  part  of  the  issue  here;  so  that  this 
whole  thing  has  been  gone  through,  this  witness  has  been 
examined  and  cross-examined,  and  now  we  have  given 
:Mr.  Tracy's  statement  concerning  it. 

:Mr.  Beach— If  the  gentleman  had  looked  a  little  further 
back  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Woodruff,  he  would  have 
found  that  in  his  direct  examination  he  swore  even  more 
than  the  counsel  has  read.  He  testified  that  Mr.  Moiilton, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  interview,  related  to  Mr. 

Tracy  the  circtmastances  

Mr.  Shearman— Not  in  the  presence  of  :Mr.  Tilton. 
Mr.  Beach— That  don't  make  any  odds,  whether  it  was 
in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Tilton  or  not,  Sir.   He  then  told 
Mr.  Tracy  that  Beecher  had  been  guilty  of  sexual  inter- 
course with  ]ilrs.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Woodruff  swore  to  it ;  we  asked  :Mi'. 
Tracy  about  it  and  contradicted  him ;  he  says  he  did  not. 

Mr.  Beach— I  know  that.  When  the  gentleman  will 
give  me  an  opportunity  to  drop  in  a  word  here  once  in 
a  while,  perhaps  we  will  find  where  I  stand,  at  any  rate 
what  my  point  is.  Now  I  admit,  Sir,  that  Mr.  3roulton 
and  Mr.  Woodruff,  upon  their  former  testimony,  related 
that  interview  with  Mr.  Tracy,  and  gave  their  version  of 
it — that  they  communicated  to  Mr.  Tracy  the  fact  of  sex- 
ual intercourse,  or  adultery,  or  what  not,  wJiatcver  you 
ma}-  call  it. 


354  TRE  IILTON-B 

Judge  Neilson— "VVTiich  you  do  not  propose  now  to  rebut. 

Ml-.  Beacli— NotMng  at  all,  Sir ;  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
Mr.  Tracy  comes  upon  the  stand  and  denies  that.  He 
says  no  such  communication  was  made  to  him ;  and  then 
he  goes  further  and  says  that 

On  the  contrary  from  thai,  Mr.  Tilton,  in  express 
tel-ms,  said  to  me  that  he  made  no  accusation  of  adultery 
against  Mr.  Beecher  with  his  wife;  that  his  wife  was  as 
white  as  snow. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  he  does. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  according  to  your  present  in- 
quiry. 

Mr.  Tracy— That  she  was  a  pure  woman. 

Mr.  Beach— Pure  as  snow. 

Mr.  Tracy— Snow  is  not  in  my  evidence. 

Mr.  Btach— So  much  the  better  for  the  snow.  [Laugh- 
ter.] That  is  pure  now,  at  least.  Now,  all  we  want  is  to 
contradict  the  declarations. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  now,  what  is  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  it  is  so  far  back  I  shall  have  to  repeat 
it,  I  guess.  [To  the  witness.]  In  that  interview  on  Sunday, 
which  has  been  spoken  of,  in  the  Autumn  of  1872,  did 
Mr.  Tilton,  in  words  or  substance,  say  to  Mr.  Tracy  in 
you.r  hearing  that  his  wife  had  not  been  guilty  of  adul- 
tery with  Mr.  Beecher  ;  that  she  was  a  pure  woman  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— No  ;  that  is  not  the  form  of  the  statement. 
The  question  was  put  to  Mr.  Tilton :  "  Do  you  mean  with 
your  wife  ?"  Mr.  Tracy's  statement  is,  that  in  excite- 
ment Mr.  Tilton  said  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  an  adulterer, 
or  something  of  that  kind.  After  he  had  got  through 
disclaiming  it  from  his  wife,  that  is,  after  he  had  given  a 
lesser  statement,  then  Mr.  Tracy  says  to  him  :  ''Do  you 
mean  with  your  wife  ?"  and  he  answers,  "  No ;  not  with 
my  wife ;  my  wife  is  as  pure  as— is  a  pure  woman. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  now,  that  is  a  point  about  which 
the  witness  did  not  speak  on  the  former  examination, 
and  about  which  he  can  speak  now. 

Mr.  Evarts— Then  let  it  be  limited  to  that  question : 
"  Did  he  say,"  &c. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  if  the  gentleman  will  be  good  enough 
to  frame  my  questions  for  me  I  will  be  very  much 
obliged ;  if  I  do  not  get  them  right  he  can  correct  me. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  as  much  labor  as  I  can  bear  to  keep 
you  from  asking  wrong  ones. 

Mr.  Beach— I  understood  you  to  make  a  suggestion  as 
to  the  form  of  my  question  ;  and  if  you  will  repeat  it  I 
■will  consider  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  repeat  that  you  must  frame  your  ques- 
tion as  the  law  requires. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  I  ask  him  whether,  in  words  or  sub- 
stance, upon  that  occasion  Mr.  Tilton  

Mr.  Evarts  [referring  to  the  record)— Ah,  this  is  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Tracy: 

Alter  he  had  flnished  the  reading  of  the  paper,  1  said 
to  him  in  substance  (I  don't  remember  the  phraseology)  : 
**  Y(r,:r  statement,  Mr.  Tilton,  settles  one  thing— that  you 


EEC  HE  B  TRIAL. 

did  not  charge  Mr.  Beecher  with  adultery."  He  said, 
"No,  my  wife  is  a  pure  woman."  I  remember  that  phras- 
and  that  sentence  occurring. 

Then  there  was  a  subsequent  outbreak,  where,  having 
passed  over  the  actual  circumstances  of  the  charge 
against  Mr.  Beecher  in  respect  of  his  wife,  he  got  intonn 
excitement  and  said  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  an  adulterer, 
anyhow.  Then  came  the  question : 

"  Do  you  mean  with  your  wife  1"   *'  No  " 

There  is  the  place.   [Indicating  to  Mr.  Beach.l 
Mr.  Beach— Is  that  on  the  direct  examination  ?  It  must 
be,  I  think. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  yes ;  it  is  part  of  his  narrative  of  the 
interview. 

Judge  Neilson— Suppose  3''outake  Mr.  Evarts's  book,  Mr. 
Beach  ;  that  will  be  the  best  way. 
Mr.  Beach— I  will  find  it  in  a  minute. 
Judge  Neilson— There  seems  to  be  ground  for  two  ques- 
tions, if  you  conSne  it  to  the  terms  of  the  question  to  Mr, 
Tracy. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  Sir,  Mr.  Tracy  says  he  does  not  re- 
member the  phraseologj-,  and  if  he  does  not,  I  cannot. 
Judge  Neilson — Still,  you  want  the  exact  substance. 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir ;  I  want  the  exact  substa  nee. 
Mr.  Evarts  [to  Mr.  Beach]— Don't  you  find  that  pas- 
sage 1 
Mr.  Beach— No. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  use  my  book.  Here  it  is.  [Indicating 
in  the  book.] 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  the  whole  of  it ;  there  is  more 
than  that. 
Mr.  Evarts— No,  that  is  subsequent. 
Mr.  Beach  [to  the  witness]— Well,  Sir,  did  this  occur 

  [To    the  Court]— Well,    I     cannot     ask  this 

question  without  committing  the  witness  to  a 
statement  which  has  been  denied.  This  was 
a  question  put  by  the  other  side,  and  they  say  :  "  After 
he  had  finished  the  reading  of  this  paper"— that  is,  what 
they  call  the  "  True  Statement."  Now,  our  witnesses 
have  denied  that  any  such  paper  was  read  upon  that  oc- 
casion, and  I  cannot  put  it  in  the  precise  language  of  this 
declaration. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  say,  "  After  any  reading  that  was 
had  on  that  occasion." 

Mr.  Beach— Sm-ely  I  can  put  it  at  any  time  during  that 
conversation. 
Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Beach— Very  well.  [To  the  witness.]  During  that 
conversation,  at  any  time,  did  this  occui-,  in  words  or 
substance :  Mr.  Tracy  saying  to  Mr.  Tilton,  "  Your  state- 
ment, Mr.  Tilton,  settles  one  thiiiLC,  that  you  did  not 
charge  Mr.  Beecher  with  adultery;"  and  Mr.  Tiltou  say- 
ing, "  No ;  my  wife  is  a  pure  woman  ?"  A.  I  do  not  think 
it  occurred. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  of  any  such  thibg  1  A.  No, 
Sir.    [A  pjiuse.] 


TESTTJdOXY  OF  FEAXKLI^  WOODErFF. 


355 


JOKES  BY  THE  JUDGE.  C .  lUXSEL,  AXD  JUEY, 
^klr.  Beach — I  cannot  put  my  eye  upon  tlie 
rest  of  it,  Sir. 

Judge  Xeilson— We  have  taken  so  mucli  evidence  tliat 
I  am  not  surprised  tliat  you  cannot  tind  it. 

3Ir.  Beacli— Yes,  Sir;  I  can  rememlter  it  better  tlian  I 
can  find  it. 

3Ir.  Evarts— Tlie  difficulty  is  to  remember  it  correctly. 
:Mr.  Beach— That  is  a  difficulty  that  has  not  yet  oc- 
cm-red,  Sir. 

The  Witness  [In  an  undertone,  to  the  Court]— Judge,  I 
hope  you  will  let  them  get  through  "with  me  to-daj'. 

Mr.  Beach— Did  anything  like  this,  in  language  or  sub- 
stance, occur  in  your  hearing :  3Ir.  Tilton  saying  that 
'Mi.  Beecher -was  an  adulterer,  and  he  could  prove  it; 
and  3Ir.  Tracy  asMng,  "With  your  Tvife  V  and  3[r.  Tilton 
replying,  "No,  but  Tvith  another  "^oman,"  or  "women," 
or  "other  women;".did  anything  like  that  occur  i  A. 
Nothing  that  I  recollect,  stated  as  that  is.  Some  part  of 
it  might  have  occurred. 

:Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  guess  that  covers  the  two  branches. 
[After  consulting  with  the  other  counsel.]  Oui-  recollec- 
tions differ.  Sir,  in  regard  to  the  fact  whether  or  not  Mr. 
Woodruff,  upon  his  former  evidence,  spoke  in  regard  to 
the  "  True  Story"— that  statement.  Jam  certain  that  he 
did. 

The  Witness— I  did. 

Mr.  Beach— Then  that  is  all  we  care  to  ask,  Mr.  Wood- 
ruff. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  spoke  about  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  will  cross-examine  in  the  morning. 

Judge  Nellson— Better  do  it  to-night ;  we  were  late  in 
coming  in  at  recess. 

Mr.  Shearman— If  your  Honor  will  give  us  about  an 
hour  and  a  half. 

Judge  [Jseilson- We  were  late  in  coming  in,  and  I  think 
it  will  save  time  to  finish  this  examination  to-night. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  jury  have  already  been  suggesting 
adjournment. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  a  question  for  the  jury ;  we  can  go  on. 

Judge  Neilson— The  jury  are  content.  They  are  pleas- 
ant lookmg  men. 

The  Foreman  of  the  Jury — The  jury  would  like  to  ad- 
journ astisual,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  jmy]— Ai-e  you  willing  to  remain, 
gentlemen  ? 

The  Foreman— We  are  willing  to  go.  [Laughter.] 
Judge  Xeilson- No  doubt.    We  are  all  willing  to  go. 
We  lost  some  time  at  the  intermission,  and  I  think  we 
had  better  close  the  examination  and  relieve  this  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  jury  say  that  they  did  not  lose  that 
time. 

Judge  Nellson— Oh.  tJiey  did  not  lose  any  time. 

Mr.  Evarts — We  expect  a  considerable  cross^xamina- 
tion.  If  it  were  a  question  of  ten  or  fifti-en  minutes,  we 
would  not  care. 


:Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  suggest  that  we  compromise  thiB 
matter  by  your  Honor  ordering  Mr.  Evarts  to  "  shut  up" 
for  half  an  hour,  the  time  that  he  kept  us  waiting  here. 
[Laughter.] 

Judge  Neilson— I  never  make  an  order  that  won't  be 
carried  out.  [Laughter.]  [To  the  witness.]  If  you  can- 
not come  in  the  murulng,  then  we  will  fix  another  time. 

The  Witness— Oh,  I  can  come. 

The  court  then  adjourned  until  Tuesday  at  11  o'clock. 


SEVENTY-EIGHTH  CAY'S  PROCEEDIXGS. 

MES.  TILTOX  DENIED  A  HEAEDs'G. 

.JUDGE  ^T:ILS0X'S  AXS^HR  to  MES.  TILTOX'S  AP- 
peal—the lan'ouage  of  hepv  ppvotest  and 
declapvatiox  of  lnrxocexce  —  the  judge 
poixts  out  the  differexce  between  ^ir. 
and  mrs.  tiltox  as  witxesses— further  re- 
buttal testi:\ioxt  for  the  plaixtiff— mr. 
woodruff's  cross-exa:^itnatiox  —  te  stimoxy 
of  mrs.  axxa  m.  :>nddlebrook,  .joseph  h. 

RICHARDS,  AND  JOHX'  BREMER. 

TUESDAT,  May  4,  1875. 
3Irs.  Tilton's  letter,  wliicli  she  desii'ed  Judge  Xeil- 
son  to  read  aloud  in  court  ou  Monday,  was  as  fol- 
lows : 

May  3,  1875. 
Judge  Xeilsox  :  I  ask  the  privilege  from  yon  for 
a  few  words  in  my  own  hehalf.  I  feel  very  deeply 
the  injustice  of  my  position  in  the  law  and  before  the 
court  now  sitting  ;  and  while  I  have  understood  and 
respected  from  the  beginning  2^Ir.  Evarts's  principle 
in  the  matter,  yet  since  your  last  session  I  have 
been  so  sensible  of  the  power  of  my  duemies,  that 
my  soul  cries  out  before  yon,  and  the  gentle- 
men of  the  jnry,  that  they  beware  how,  by  a  divided 
verdict,  they  consign  to  my  children  a  false  and, 
irrevocable  stain  upon  their  mother !  For  five 
years  past  I  have  been  the  victim  of  circum- 
stances, most  cruel  and  unfortunate ;  struggling 
from  time  to  time  only  for  a  place  to  live 
honorably  and  truthfully.  Eeleased for  some  months 
from  the  iviU  by  whose  power  unconsciously  I  crim- 
inated myself  again  and  again,  I  declare  solemnly 
before  you,  without  fear  of  man  and  by  faith  m  God, 
that  I  am  innocent  of  the  crimes  charged  against 
me.  I  would  like  to  tell  my  ivliole  sad  story  tridJi- 
fiijjy—to  acknowledge  the  frequent  falsehoods  wrung 
from  me  by  compulsion  —  though  at  the  same 
time  unwilling  to  reveal  the  secrets  of  my 
married  life,  which  only  the  vital  importance  of  my 
position  makes  necessary.  I  assume  the  entire  re- 
sponsibility of  this  request,  unknown  to  friend  or 
counsel  of  either  side,  and  await  youi-  Honor's  hon- 
orable decision.   With  great  respect, 

Elizabeth  R.  Tiltox. 


356 


TEB   T1L10N-BWF.CUMB  TBIAL, 


The  appended  reply  of  Judge  Neilson  sent  to  Mrs. 

Tiiton  was  written  by  the  clerk  of  the  court. : 

Chambers  of  the  City  Court  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  ? 

Brooklyn,  May  4, 1875.  5 

Mrs.  Tilton  :  I  am  directed  by  Chief -Justice  Neil- 
son  to  return  your  letter,  as  it  cannot  be  read  in 
€ourt.  Also  to  state  that  in  civil  cases  counsel  have 
the  right  to  refrain  from  calling  any  particular  wit- 
ness, however  competent,  and  that  neither  the  Court 
nor  the  client  can  interfere  with  tlie  exercise  of  that 
right. 

The  Judge  also  instructs  me  to  say  that  the  ques- 
tion whether  you  could  be  a  witness  stands  on  quite 
other  ground  from  that  considered  when  your  hus- 
band was  called  and  sworn.  He  was  a  competent 
witness  to  testify  in  his  own  behalf  against  a  third 
person,  defendant,  and  while  the  policy  of  the  law 
was  to  some  extent  involved,  there  was  no  express 
statute  in  the  way.  But  the  statute  of  May  10, 
1867,  expressly  declares  the  wife  to  be  incompetent 
as  a  witness  for  or  against  the  husband.  Yours 
respectfully, 

Geo.  W.  Knaebel,  Clerk  City  Court,  &c. 

Neither  the  counsel  for  the  defendant,  nor  the 
counsel  for  the  plaintitf  were  at  all  communicative 
on  the  subject  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  request  to  be  heard. 
Mr.  Beach  said  that  he  knew  nothing  about  it,  and 
had  not  seen  Judge  Neilson's  reply.  The  matter  was 
entirely  beyond  the  province  of  the  counsel  for  the 
plaintiff,  and  they  had  not  been  consulted  in  refer- 
ence to  it.  Mr.  Evarts  repeated  what  he  had  said  on 
Monday  to  the  effect  that  it  was  entirely  a  matter 
between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Judge  Neilson,  which  did 
not  call  for  any  action  or  opinion  on  the  part  of 
counsel. 

The  cross-examination  of  Franklin  Woodruff  by 
Mr-  Shearman  was  long  and  uninteresting.  Gen. 
Tracy  sat  near  Mr.  Shearman,  and  prompted  him 
frequently  while  he  was  questioning  the  witness. 
The  inquiries  were  directed  principally  to  the  inter- 
views which  had  taken  place  in  1872  between  the 
witness  and  Gen.  Tracy,  in  which  the  money  paid 
for  Bessie  Tunier's  schooling,  and  other  pecuniary 
transactions  connected  with  the  scandal  were 
spoken  of.  Little  that  was  new,  and  nothing  that 
the  audience  manifested  much  interest  in,  was  de- 
veloped. Even  the  jurymen  exhibited  unmistakable 
signs  of  weariness  as  the  dull  repetition  of  questions 
and  answers  dragged  slowly  on  through  most  of  the 
morning  session.  On  several  points  the  witness, 
with  a  cautious  manner,  and  in  a  qualifyiug  way, 
contradicted  the  evidence  produced  by  the  def  end- 
tints. 

On  the  re-direct  examination  of  Mr.  Woodruff  Mr. 
Beach  produced  the  Bowen  check  for  $7,000,  and 
the  yellow  sUp  of  paper  which  was  alleged  to  have 


accompanied  it.  The  witness  said  that  he  remem- 
bered the  check,  but  did  not  think  the  paper  ac- 
companied it. 

At  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  session  Mr.  Morris 
said  that  Dr.  Skiles  had  been  subpenaed  as  a  wit- 
ness, but  his  statement  had  been  heard  by  Mr. 
Evarts  and  himself  on  the  only  point  which  they 
wished  to  determine  by  him,  which  was  that  he  had 
made  his  last  professional  call  on  Mrs.  Tilton  on  Dec. 
30,  1870. 

Mrs.  Anna  M.  Middlebrook  of  Trumbull  County,, 
Conn.,  was  the  first  new  witness  called  for  the  plain- 
tiff. Her  examination  was  conducted  by  Mr.  Fuller- 
ton.  She  was  a  lady  of  middle  age,  very  intelligent 
in  appearance,  and  she  gave  her  testimony  in  a  clear 
strong  voice,  and  an  unembarrassed  manner.  The 
principal  points  of  her  evidence  were  in  reference  to 
a  conversation  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  house  in  1871,  iu 
which  Mrs.  Woodhull,  Mr.  Tilton,  Charles  Cowley, 
and  some  other  persons  had  taken  part,  and  in  refer- 
ence to  a  speech  of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  in  Boston  in 
1872.  The  witness  denied  that  in  the  couversatiou 
at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  the  subject  of  the  scandal  hud 
been  discussed,  as  Mr.  Cowley  had  asserted  in  bis 
evidence. 

There  was  a  stir  of  interest  in  the  court-room 
when  the  plaintili's  counsel  recalled  Joseph  H. 
Richards,  Mrs.  Tilton's  brother.  He  was  examined 
by  Mr.  Morris  about  his  appearance  before  the  In- 
vestigating Committee.  Mr.  Evarts  strenuously  ob- 
jected to  his  replying  to  the  questions  put,  on  the 
ground  that  no  foundation  had  been  laid  for  them. 
The  point  was  argued  at  length  by  Mr.  Evarts  aiul 
Mr.  Beach.  Finally  Judge  Neilson  put  an  end  to  tlic 
dispute  by  saying,  "Now,  Mr.  Richards,  you'll  be  so 
good  as  to  state  what  occurred." 

On  hearing  these  words  Mr.  Beach  shut  the  boo) 
from  which  he  had  been  reading,  and  triumphantly 
repeated  them  in  a  manner  that  caused  the  audience 
and  counsel  to  laugh.  Mr.  Richards's  account  of 
what  occurred  between  himself  and  Mr.  Tracy,  when 
he  went  before  the  Committee,  was  eagerly  listened 
to.  The  witness  said  that  he  told  Gen.  Tracy— who 
represented  himself  as  Mr.  Beecher's  counsel— that 
for  years  past  it  had  been  his  custom  to  say  nothin«? 
on  the  subject  of  the  scandal.  Gen.  Tracy  told  him 
that  that  was  what  he  must  say  to  the  Committee 
when  he  went  before  them,  and  that  was  what  he 
did  say. 

Mr.  Richards  was  asked  if  Bessie  Tui'ner  had  told 
him,  in  December,  1870— as  she  had  testified  that 
she  did— that  she  and  Mrs.  Tilton  had  suffered  ill- 


TESTIMONY  OF  FKA 

UBage  at  the  hands  oi  Mr.  Tilton.  The  witness  did 
not  remember  that  Miss  Turner  said  this,  and 
thought  that  he  could  not  have  forgotten  it  if  she 
had.  Mr.  Richards's  manner  on  the  stand  Avas  very 
<'alm,  but  his  face  was  somewhat  flushed,  and  he 
appeared  to  be  glad  when  he  was  finally  told  that 
he  could  step  down. 

John  Bremer,  a  Oerman,  and  keeper  of  a  United 
States  store  in  NeAv  York,  was  brought  for^^  ard  on 
behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  to  give  evidence  as  to  the  po- 
sition of  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  Rossel  proce^siion.  His 
stumbling  pronunciation  of  English,  and  the  general 
confusion  of  his  ideas  when  he  fell  into  Mr.  Evarts's 
hands  on  the  cross-examination,  caused  much  mer- 
riment among  the  spectators. 

Just  before  the  close  of  the  afternoon  session 
Stephen  Pearl  Andrews  was  called  and  sworn  for 
the  plamtiff.  He  was  examined  by  Mr.  Fullerton, 
and  gave  an  account  of  his  peculiar  career  as  an 
author,  a  philanthropist,  and  a  speculative  thinker. 
His  examination  concerning  the  scandal  itself  had 
not  been  reached  when  the  hour  for  adjournment  ar- 
rived. 

THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

FRANKLIN  WOODRUFFS  EXAMINATION  CON- 
TINUED. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
joiunment. 

Coimsel  for  botiii  plaintiff  and  defendant  were  some- 
wliat  late. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  Mr.  Fullerton]— "Was  It  the  ice.  or 
was  it  the  fog  ? 
Mr.  Fullerton  [smiling]— Neither,  Sir. 
Mr.  Beach— Shall  I  proceed,  your  Honor! 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

PranMin  Woodruff  was  then  recalled,  and  his  direct 
examination  continued. 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  to  state,  Sir,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  "Wood- 
ruff, that  at  10:35  this  morning  we  received  a  subpena 
from  the  other  side  to  produce  the  books  of  "Woodruff  & 
Ptolnnson  for  some  two  years,  1872  and  1873. 

Mr.  Tracy- 1871  and  1872. 

Mr.  Beach— 1871  and  1872.  It  was  while  he  was 
here,  -Sir,  in  attendance  in  court,  and  it  was  utterly  im- 
possible that  he  could  get  them  here  by  11  o'clock. 
He  will  procure  them,  I  suppose,  when  he  can  get  an 
opportunity.  [To  the  witness.]  Mr.  "Woodruff,  in  th<^ 
interview  to  which  your  attention  has  been  directed,  at 
Mr.  Moulton's  study,  at  the  time  Mr.  Tracy,  Moulton  and 
Tilton  were  present,  did  Mr.  Tilton  in  words  or  sub- 
stance—I  beg  pardon,  Sir;  I  am  i  speaking  of  the 
fichultz  interview.   At  the  interview  with  Mr.  Schultz, 


SKLfy    WOODRUFF.  857 

at  his  house,  where  the  starting  of  a  paper  was  spoken 
of,  did  Mr.  Tilton,  in  words  or  substance,  say  to  Mr. 
Schultz  that  he  could  not  accept  any  aid  for  Mr.  Beecher  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Beach,  have  you  got  that  open  before 
you? 

>Ir.  Beach— Yes ;  No.  VIII.,  page  344. 

Judge  Neilson — From  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Beach— Did  Mr,  Tilton,  in  words  or  substance,  say 
to  Mr.  Schultz  that  he  could  not  accept  any  aid  from  Mr. 
Beecher  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  starting  a 
paper,  or  did  he  put  it  in  the  form,  in  words  or  substance, 
that  he  could  not  put  himself  imder  any  obligations  to 
Mr.  Beecher  t 

Mr,  Evarts— One  moment,  Mr,  Woodruff.  Mr.  Beach, 
will  you  tell  me  what  column  it  is  on  ? 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  there.  Sir  [pointing  to  the  column] . 

Mr.  Evarts  [after  examining  the  testimony]— "Well,  I 
shall  not  oppose  that. 

Mr.  Beach— Answer,  please.  A.  He  put  it  in  tlie 
form  that  he  could  not  accept  aid  fi-om  Mr.  Beecher  tliat 
wovild  place  him  imder  obligations  to  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  That  was  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  starting 
a  paper?  A.  It  was. 

Q.  The  Golden  Afje,  T  believe  ?   A.  T7u'  Golden  Age. 

Q.  Mr.  Schultz  states,  I  believe,  that  you  came  to  that 
interview  in  company  of  Mr.  TUton,  and  that  you  did  not 
remain  over  ten,  twelve,  or  fifteen  minutes;  will  you 
please  state  I  A.  I  went  with  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Schultz'a 
house,  and  remained  there  from  half  an  hour  to  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour,  in  conversation  with  Mr.  Schultz  and 
Mr.  Tilton,  and  we  went  away  together  down  tow^n. 

Q.  Mr.  Schultz  is  mistaken,  then,  in  his  statement  that 
you  did  not  remain  over  10  or  1.5  minutes  ?  A.  I  think  he 
is  mistaken. 

Q.  You  were  there  present  during  the  whole  time  of  the 
conversation  ?   A.  The  whole  interview. 

Q.  Between  Tilton  and  Schultz  ?   A.  I  was. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy  states,  Sir,  that  in  tlie  conver-saLion  on  the 
Sunday  at  Moulton's  study,  as  to  which  both  you  and  he 
have  testified,  that  on  the  presentation  oi:  a  paper  which 
is  known  as  the  Letter  of  Apology  or  Letter  of  Contrition, 
Mr.  Tilton  said  in  connection  with  its  presentation,  "  It 
is  a  memoi-andum  or  notes  of  a  conversation  I  had  with 
Mr.  Beecher."  Was  any  such  expression,  in  form  or 
substance,  used  by  Mr.  Tilton  at  that  conversation  ?  A. 
Not  in  my  hearing. 

Q.  "Well,  you  was  there  during  the  whole  conversarion  1 
A.  I  was  there;  there  was  no  such  thing;  the  Letter  of 
Apologj^  was  treated  as  a  genuine  

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  well,  no  matter  how  it  was  treated; 
the  question  is,  what  was  said.  I  ask  that  that  be  struck 
out. 

The  "Witness— I  was  only  going  to  state  how  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  presented  it. 
Mr.  Evarts— No  matter. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  the  witness]— "What  was  it  you  saidt 


358  IILE  TILTON-Bl 

Mr.  Eyarts— No  I    At  least,  allow  me. 

Mr.  Beaoli— Of  course  you  liave  a  right  to  say  "  No."  I 
want  to  Imow  what  he  was  goin^  to  say. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  aslr  to  have  what  the  witness  just  stated, 
after  answering  the  question,  struclr  out. 

Mr.  Beach— He  only  got  so  far,  "  It  was  treated;"  that 
may  be  struck  out,  as  of  no  consequence. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  no  further  than  that.  Now,  if  any 
other  question  is  asked  him,  he  has  answered  that  ques- 
tion, that  nothing  of  that  kind  was  said  in  his  hearing. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  that  is  all  I  care  about;  that  is  all. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Shearman,  do  you  wish  to  cross- 
examine? 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  WOODRUFF. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  acquainted  with 
Gen.  Tracy  ?   A.  Five  or  six  years,  I  think. 

Q.  And  on  what  terms  of  acquaintance  have  you  been 
with  him  f  A.  Well,  I  have  known  him  and  seen  bim  quite 
often,  and  met  him  pretty  often  during  those  years. 

Q.  On  friendly  terms  ?  A.  Friendly  terms. 

Q.  Associated  together  in  politics  somewhat?  A.  Well, 
I  have  been  a  little  in  politics;  not  very  much. 

Q.  Any  other  association  with  Mr.  Tracy  ?  What  has 
been  the  nature  of  your  intercourse  with  Gen.  Tiacy 
during  that  period;  has  it  been  intimate,  or  to  what  ex- 
tent ?  A.  Not  very  intimate. 

Q.  You  say  you  saw  him  frequently ;  did  you  call  at  his 
office  often  ?  A.  I  have  been  to  his  oflSce  a  good  many 
times. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him  often  in  the  street?  A.  I  have 
met  him  a  good  many  times  in  the  street.  He  has  been 
counsel  for  me. 

Q.  Talked  with  him  often  ?  A.  Talked  with  him ;  I 
don't  know  what  you  mean  by  often. 

Q.  I  mean  literally,  often ;  have  you  often,  during  that 
five  or  six  years,  talked  with  him  socially,  felt  free  to 
speak  to  him  at  any  time  when  you  saw  him  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  and  in  the  course  of  our  acquaintance  I  have  very 
likely  spoken  with  him  once  a  day,  or  once  a  week,  and 
then  again  I  think  there  have  been  times  in  our  acquaint- 
ance when  I  have  not  seen  him  for  three  months. 

Q.  Up  to  what  time  did  that  relation  last  between  you 
and  Gen.  Tracy?  A.  I  don't  know  that  it  ever  ceased. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  frequently  during  the  Summer  of 
1874  on  the  street  or  at  his  office  1  A.  No,  not  very  fre- 
quently in  1874. 

Q.  About  how  often  did  you  see  him  ?  A.  I  don't  think 
I  saw  him  very  often ;  I  recollect  one  interview  I  had 
with  him. 

Q.  When  was  that?  A.  That  was  in  the  Summer  of 
1874,  July  or  August ;  I  went  to  see  him  at  his  house. 

Q.  You  talked  with  Mr.  Tracy  on  a  variety  Of  subjects, 
I  suppose  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  relations  were  not  merely  business  relations  f 
A.  No. 


'^1  ECU  EE  '/RIAL. 

Q.  He  was  not  the  regular  counsel  of  your  firm  1  A 
He  has  been  counsel  for  our  firm  some,  and  others  have 
been  counsel. 

Q.  He  was  counsel  for  your  firm  in  two  cases,  I  think 
you  mentioned,  or  some  one  mentioned?  A.  Two  or  three 
cases,  I  think ;  I  don't  know. 

Q,.  On  what  we  call  special  retainers  ?  He  was  retained 
for  those  special  cases  ?   A.  I  presume  that  is  so. 

Q.  During  all  this  period  your  relation  continued 
friendly,  so  far  as  you  know,  down  to  this  time  ?  A.  So 
far  as  I  know ;  on  my  part  they  have. 

MR.  WOODRUFF  TALKS  WITH  HIS  FRIENDS 
ABOUT  THE  CASE. 

Now,  Mr.  Woodruff,  will  you  be  kind  enough 
to  name  a  few  gentlemen  in  Brooklyn,  or  New- York, 
whom  you  consider  your  most  intimate  friends,  those 
to  whom  you  talk  most  freely,  outside  of  your  liim  1  A. 
Talk  most  freely  ? 

Q.  Yes,  those  with  whom  you  ar  inost  intimate,  out- 
side of  yoiu*  firm  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  what  is  the  importance,  Sir,  of  that 
inquiry  ? 

Judge  Neilaon— It  must  be  preliminary  to  something 
else. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  preliminary,  and  important. 

Judge  Neilson— We  will  take  the  answer. 

The  Witness— Well,  I  know  a  good  many. 

Q.  Will  you  name  four  or  five  1  A.  Yes,  Sir.  I  am 
pretty  intimate  with  Mr.  Nichols— George  L.  Nichols, 
and  Mr.  McClean. 

Q.  Which  McLean  ?  A.  Samuel  McLean. 

Q.  Any  others  1  A.  Well,  I  know  most  everybody 
around  here  on  the  Heights ;  I  don't  know  that  I  am 
especially  intimate^ — 

Q.  Those  that  yon  are  intimate  with,  i  ..  j.  e  ibat  you  are 
in  the  habit  of  talking  to  more  or  less  confidentially  1  A.. 
Very  lew  ;  I  very  seldom  talk  confidentially  witii  any- 
body. 

Q.  We  want  those  few;  those  are  the  very  ones  we 
want.  A.  I  don't  know  that  there  are  any. 

Q.  But  you  talked  to  Mr.  Nichols  sometimes  conflden- 
tially.   A.  I  have  about  some  things. 

Q.  Don't  you  talk  to  Mr.  Southwick  sometimes  oonfi- 
dentially  ?  A.  I  used  to ;  I  have  not  in  a  year  or  two. 

Q.  You  used  to  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  did  in  1872  and  1873,  did  you  not  ?  A.  About 
some  matters  I  did, 

Q.  And  in  1871  about  some  things  ?  A.  Very  likely  in 
1871. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  name  two  or  three  more  of  your 
fi'iends  who  stand  on  about  the  same  footing  with  Mr. 
Southwick,  Mr.  McLean,  and  Mr.  Nichols?  A.  Well,  I 
don't  know  that  I  can. 

Q.  Well,  Sir.  then  I  may  assume  that  those  are  your 
most  confidential  fiiends,  outside  of  your  firm,  may  I 


TIJSTIMONY   OF  FBANKLIN  WOOBEUFF. 


359 


not?  A.  I  don't  know  that  they  are  specially  my  confi- 
dential friends— they  are  friends  that  I  talk  with,  and 
there  are  others,  I  believe,  that  I  talked  with,  but  I  don't 
recollect  exactly. 

Q.  Those  are  all  that  yon  recall  1  A.  I  can't  give  you 
the  condition  of  my  social  relations  to  everybody. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  ever  talk  with  those  gentlemen,  Mr. 
Southwick,  Mr.  McLean,  and  Mr.  Nichols,  about  this 
scandal  ?  A.  I  have,  imquestionably. 

Q.  And  have  you  talked  with  them  about  some  matters 
that  were  not  made  matter  of  public  notoriety  at  the 
time?  A.  Well,  I  don't  know;  I  have  talked  with  them 
about  the  case. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  not  talked  with  them.  Sir,  or  some  of 
them,  about  things  which  you  knew  about  the  scandal, 
and  which  the  public  did  not  at  the  time  ?  A.  Very 
likely ;  I  may  have ;  I  could  not  swear  that  I  have  or 
have  not;  I  don't  know  how  much  the  public  knew. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  any  of  those  gentlemen  about 
coimsel  before  you  consulted  with  Gen.  Tracy  in  regard 
to  this  matter  1  A.  I  think  very  likely  T  may  have. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  which  of  these  gentlemen  ?  A.  I  think  I 
spoke  with  Mr.  McLean  once  about  counsel. 

Q.  Yes  ?  A.  I  think  I  spoke  with  Mr.  McLean,  and  said 
that  I  thought  that  

Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  moment. 

Mr.  Sheai-man— No  matter ;  that  was  before  you  con- 
Bulted  Gen.  Tracy,  I  understand. 
The  Witness— I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir ;  did  you  talk  to  any  of  these  gentlemen 
about  the  subject  of  your  consultation  afterward?  A.I 
don't  recollect;  I  may  have  done  so. 

Q.  Don't  you  think  you  did  ?  A.  Well,  I  would  not 
swear ;  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Isn't  it  your  best  recollection  that  you  did  talk  to 
one  of  them  or  more  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  that  I 
tolked  with  them  about  the  engagement  of  Mr.  Tracy,  or 
Of  what  occurred  between  Mr.  Tracy  and  me ;  I  may  have 
done  so,  but  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  Now,  down  to  this  day,  do  you  mean  to  say,  or  not, 
that  you  don't  recollect  talking  to  any  one  of  these  gen- 
tlemen about  what  occurred  between  you  and  Gen. 
Tracy  1  A.  Well,  I  have  within  the  last  year— you  say 
down  to  this  day— within  the  last  year  I  have. 

Q.  WeU,  Sir,  to  which  of  these  gentlemen  have  you 
talked  about  that  matter!  A.  I  think  likely  I  have  talked 
to  alL 

Q.  How  recently  have  you  talked  to  any  of  them  about 
It !  A.  Well,  I  think  within  two  or  three  days. 

Q.  To  which  of  them  have  you  talked  to  within  that 
•hort  period  1  A.  I  think  I  have  stated  in  the  presence  of 
Mr.  McLean  and  Mr.  Nichols,  both,  what  transpired— my 
relations  to  Gten.  Itacy,  and  how  I  came  to— 

Q.  I  only  want  to  know  generally  that  you  talked  with 
Mr.  MeLean  and  Mr.  NichoLi  on  that  subject ;  where  did 


you  hold  that  conversation  ?  A.  I  think  at  Mr.  McLean's 
house  the  other  night. 

Q.  Anybodj^  present  besides  Mr.  McLean  and  Mr. 
Nichols  %   A.  1  think  Mr.  Buckingham  was. 

Q.  In  the  year  1874,  Mr.  Woodiuff,  were  you  in  the 
habit  of  reading  The  Brooklyn  TInion  more  or  less  !  A. 
I  don't  think  I  read  The  TInion  much  in  1874 ;  I  think  I 
had  stopped  it. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  read  any  part  of  The 
Brooklyn  Union  of  June  26, 1874 1  A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  You  can't  identify  it  that  way,  i)erhap8l  A.  No,  Sir. 

GEN.  TRACY'S  INTERVIEW  IN  "  THE  UNION." 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  reading  an  interview 
reported  in  The  Brooklyn  Union  on  June  26, 1874,  be- 
tween a  reporter  and  Gen.  Tracy  ?  A.  No,  I  don't  ree^?l- 
lect. 

Q.  Have  you  not  made  the  subject  of  that  interview  a 
subject  of  conversation  between  some  of  your  friends  and 
yourself  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect ;  I  may  have  done  so. 

Q.  Did  you  never  hear  the  substance  of  that  interview 
as  reported  ?  A.  I  think  I  have  heard,  or  at  least  very 
likely  at  the  time  I  saw  some  interview  reported  of  a 
reporter  with  Gen.  Tracy  ;  I  may  have  seen  it  at  that 
time  and  I  may  have  talked  about  it ;  I  presume  I  did  ;  I 
do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Didn't  you  see  it  in  any  other  papers  1  A.  I  may 
have  done  so,  but  I  do  not  recollect.  [Union  of  June  26 
showu,  and  interview  pointed  out  to  witness,  j  I  think 
likely  I  have  seen  that  interview. 

Q.  And  at  about  the  time  it  appeared!  A.  I  have  no 
doubt  I  saw  it ;  yes,  Sir,  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Southwlolc 
concerning  that  reported  interview!  A.  I  don't  thuil:  I 
ever  did ;  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Mr. 
Nichols  upon  the  subject  of  that  interview  !  A.  I  don*t 
recollect  any. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  with  Buckingham  on  the  subject 
of  that  interview !  A.  Don't  think  I  ever  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Sam- 
uel McLean !  A.  Possibly  I  may  have. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  don't  you  know  that  you  did!  A.  No,  Sir ; 
I  would  not  swear  that ;  I  think  I  did ;  I  think  I  talked 
with  him  about  that ;  I  think  very  likely  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  was  that  about  the  time  it  was  published,  or 
later  !  A.  I  think  likely  about  the  time. 

Q.  About  the  time !  A.  If  I  had  any. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  did  Mr.  McLean  call  your  attention  to 
that  interview!  A.  I  don't  recollect;  He  may  hare  done 

80. 

Q.  Didn't  he  call  your  attention  to  Its  statements  here! 
A.  I  say  I  don't  recollect ;  he  may  have  done  so. 

Q.  Didn't  he  call  your  attention  to  this  statemcliit»  Sir, 
which  is  part  of  this  interview  ! 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  that  (Question,  fllsii 


THE   TILTON-BEEGHEB  TRIAL, 


Mr.  Shearman— WeU,  if  your  Honor  please,  this  is  my 
question  :  Didn't  Mr.  McLean  call  your  attention  to  this 
part  of  that  reported  interview  1  [Reading.] 

Reporter— Do  you  mean  to  say  that  Mr.  Tilton  never 
charged  Mr.  Beecher  with  criminality  with  Mrs.  Tilton  % 

Gen- Tracy— Most  certainly  I  do;  no  such  charge  was 
ever  made  or  believed  by  Mr.  Tilton.  The  publication  to 
which  I  refer  negatives  such  a  charge  in  the  most  con- 
clusive form ;  and  it  is  well  known  by  aU  who  know  any- 
thing of  the  facts  that  Mr.  Tilton  never  beUeved  it  and 
never  alleged  it. 

Reporter^If  there  is  no  criminality  alleged  or  pre- 
tended, what  then  is  the  charge  1 

Gen.  Tracy— Some  four  years  ago  Mr.  Tilton  claims  to 
have  received  information  which  led  him  to  charge  Mr. 
Beecher  with  having  made  a  dishonorable  suggestion  to 
his  wife;  this  is  the  extent  of  the  charge,  and  the  only 
charge  Mr.  Tilton  has  ever  made  against  Mr.  Beecher. 

Reporter  

Mr.  FuUerton— I  object  to  the  reading  of  that. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  have  read  sufficient ;  that 
inilicates  what  your  topic  is. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  have  only  one  short  paragraph— a 
little  more  to  read  to  make  sense  of  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  obiect  to  that  one  short  para- 
graph. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  want  to  bring  out  all  that  we  sup- 
pose Mr.  McLean  may  have  called  this  gentleman's  at- 
tention to 

Mr.  Fullerton— There  is  not  any  difficulty  in  ascertain- 
ing what  the  gentleman  wants :  he  need  not  announce 
that ;  that  is  very  evidopt.  But,  Sir,  I  say  that  he  has  no 
right  to  read  as  he  has  read  from  the  interview  between 
a  reporter  and  Mr.  Tracy,  for  the  purpose  of  laying  the 
foundation  for  a  question,  because  the  witness  has  al- 
ready answered  the  question  in  regard  to  it,  which  ought 
to  be  satisfactory. 
Judge  Neilson— He  does  not  remember  to  have- 
Mr.  Fullerton— He  thinks  he  did  call  his  attention  to  it ; 
he  thinks  his  attention  was  called  to  it. 

The  Witness— I  think  Ukely  he  did;  I  do  not  recollect, 
though  ;  I  think  Ukely  I  talked  with  him  about  it. 
Mr.  Evarts- What  is  the  objection  to  our  question  ? 
Judge  Neilson— Well,  it  is  reading  a  discussion  which 
perhaps  ought  not  to  be  read  to  the  jury  ;  that  is  the  idea. 
Mr.  Shearman,  put  the  remaining  paragraph  in  the  form 
of  a  question,  and  ask  him. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  what  he  was  doing. 
Judge  Neilson-No  ;  ask  him  more  expressly. 
Mr.  Beach— I  expressly  object  to  this  question,  upon 
the  ground  that  it  asserts  that  what  the  counsel  reads  is 
a  part  ot  au  int  erview  between  a  reporter  and  Mr.  Tracy. 
There  is  no  evidence  of  that.  Sir;  there  is  no  proof  of  it, 
and  it  is  surreptitiously  getting  before  the  jury  an  as- 
8crt(;d  declaration  of  Mr.  Tracy,  of  which  there  is  not 
the  slightest  proof  in  this  case. 

Judge  Neilson  The  point  itands  precisely  as  if  the 
ftr.nii- .  ;       I'sked  the  witness  whether  in  his  conversa- 


tion with  Mr.  McLean  certain  expressions  were  not  re- 
ferred to,  or  repeated,  or  made. 
Mr.  Beach— That  would  be  correct. 
Judge  Neilson— And  I  meant  to  suggest  to  Mr.  Shear* 
man  to  put  this  last  paragraph  that  he  refers  to  in.  tha 
form  of  a  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  is  not  my  learned  friend  wrong  in  say* 
ing  there  is  no  evidence  on  this  subject  ?  Mr.  Tracy  has 
testified  that  he  published  this  interview  in  this  paper, 
and  it  has  been  introduced  and  marked  for  identification 
—that  is,  by  its  date ;  it  was  not  necessary  to  mark  its 
volume ;  your  Honor  remembers  that.  And  we  offered  to 
read  it  in  evidence,  and  your  Honor  excluded  it.  But  the 
paper  is  identified. 

Mr.  Beach— Then,  Sir,  it  is  true— the  remark  I  made— 
that  there  is  not  a  particle  of  proof,  legitimate  proof,  of 

that  interview  or  that  

Judge  Neilson— It  had  been  excluded. 
Mr.  Beach  [continuing]— Or  of  what  Mr.  Shearman 
reads  being  any  part  of  the  interview. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  fact  of  the  interview  was  proved, 
and  Gen.  Tracy  proved  that  he  said  aU  that  he  is  reported 
here  to  have  said.  That  was  to  lay  the  basis  for  subse- 
quent action,  and  now  we  take  the  subsequent  action  by 
showing  that  the  witness's  attention  was  called  to  what 

Gen.  Tracy  

Mr.  Beach— Gen.  Tracy  proved  no  such  thing,  Sir,  that 
he  said  what  was  In  that  interview ;  and  it  is,  T  repeat. 
Sir,  a  sm-reptitious  attempt  to  get  before  the  jury  an 
alleged  declaration  that  Mr.  Tracy  made  to  a  reporter. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  can  a  public  attempt,  ia  the  face  of 
the  Court  and  the  jury,  be  called  a  surreptitious  onel 
Mr.  Beach — Well,  I  think  it  may  properly  and  justly. 
Judge  Neilson— Well,  this  is  very  clear  upon  principle, 
that  if  a  witness  testified  yesterday  to  a  certain  state  of 
facts,  you  cannot  in  any  form  show  that  the  month  before 
he  made  the  same  statement,  by  way  of  fortifying  what 
he  says  yesterday. 
Ml".  Shearman- As  a  general  rule  that  is  so. 
Judge  Neilson— As  a  general  rule;  and  if  that  is  the  ol> 
ject  of  this,  of  course  it  is  improper.  But  I  think  now 
you  may  put  that  remauiing  paragraph  in  the  form  of  a 
question,  and  see  whether  those  words,  or  the  substance 
of  those  words,  passed  between  this  witness  and  this 
gentleman  referred  to ;  and  then  you  have  it  all. 

Mr.  Shearman— Did  Mr.  McLean  at  that  interview  refer 
to  the  fact  that  a  question  was  reported  to  be  addressed 
to  Gen.  Tracy  in  this  language  by  the  reporter :  "  Do  you 
mean  to  say  that  this  is  all  the  f oimdation  there  is  for 
the  Tilton-Beecher  scandal  1"  and  that  Gen.  Tracy  was 
reported  to  have  answered,  "  That  is  all ;  it  has  not  even 
that  much  to  rest  on ;  it  is  well  known  to  members  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  church  and  others,  that  Mrs.  Tilton  has 
repeat<  dly  and  emphatically  denied  itl"  A.  No,  I  do  not 
recollect  that. 
Q.  Or  any  part  of  it,  Sir,  being  referred  to  f    A.  Not 


TESmiOXI   OF   FRAXKLjy  WOODFUFF. 


351 


fhat  VOX!  tare  read  there  3^. OAv;  I  ha.Te  no  doubt  that  I 
had  a  .ffeneral  tallr  about  that  interview  ;  verv  likely  we 
(lid  ;  hut  if  we  did,  I  have  forgotten  it. 

Q.  Well.  Sir.  when  was  this  ?   A.  I  do  not  know   | 

Mr.  Beach— He  says  he  has  forgotten  any  such  talk.  | 
The  witness  doe.s  not  say  he  had  a  talk. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  says  he  had  a  talk. 

Mr.  Beach— He  does  not  say  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  said  that  long  ago. 

Mr.  Beach— He  has  not  ever  said  it ;  he  said  it  was  quite 
likely  he  had  a  talk,  but  he  had  no  recollection  of  it- 
said  so  from  the  beginning.  | 

Mr.  Shearman— He  said  "it  was  quite  likely"  he  had; 
and  then  to  a  further  question  he  said  "  no  doubt  he  bad." 

The  Witness— I  said  I  presumed  I  had ;  I  have  no  doubt 
of  it ;  but  I  do  not  recollect  it  if  I  did. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  covers  that. 

The  Witness— I  have  talked  so  many  times  with  him 
and  others  that  I  do  not  know  ;  I  cannot  tlx  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— Did  n't  Mr.  McLean  at  that  interview 
say  to  you  in  substanc-e  or  effect  that  that  interview— that 
reported  interview — showed  what  Gen.  Tracy's  under- 
standing of  the  case  was?  A.  He  may  have  said  so ;  I  do 
not  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  since  with  any  of 
those  three  gentlemen  named,  !Mr.  Southwick,  Mr,  Mc^ 
Lean,  or  Mr.  Xichols,  on  that  same  subject — .•dnc-e  that 
time — any  more  recent  conversation  1  A.  I  had ;  I  think 
I  was  at  Mr.  McLean's  last  night. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him  on  that  subject  then  1  A.  I 
talked  with  him  last  night;  I  stated  to  him  just  what 
ti'an  spired  

Q,  No,  no  ;  did  you  talk  with  him  on  the  subject  of  this 
interview  last  night  ?  A.  Did  T  suggest  that  subject— I 
say  no. 

Q.  I  mean  this  reported  interview.  A.  If  you  want  to 
know  what  I  said  last  night  I  will  tell  you.  it  you  want 
me  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  don't ;  when  we  do,  we  will  ask 
you. 

The  Witness— Well,  I  am  glad  you  don't. 

Mr.  Beach— All  they  want  is  to  get  in  what  Jlr.  Tracy 
said,  or  what  they  assume  he  said. 

Mr.  Shearman- Did  you  ever  have  a  conversation  with 
Gen.  Tracy  on  the  subject  of  that  reported  interview  ? 
A.  I  don't  think  T  did  ;  I  have  no  recolK?otlon  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Gen.  Tracy  shortly  after  the  publica- 
tion of  that  interview  ?  A.  How  long  after  that  was  his 
statement  to  the  public  made  ?   Then  I  can  fix  it. 

Q.  Gen.  Tracy's  statement A.  Gen.  Traoy  made  a 
statement  that  was  published  in  the  papers  last  Summer. 

Mr.  Shearman — This  is  the  very  one. 

The  Witness— That  is  an  interview  by  a  report€r. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  the  one  that  is  commonly  called 
the  statement— June  26  ;  that  is  the  only  statement  Gen. 
Tracj  made.   Oh,  there  was  one  in  September. 


The  Witness— Well,  it  i5  one  of  the  statement.s  

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Tra<?y  is  prolific  in  statements. 
Mr.  Shearman— Well,  that  is  not  the  Summer;  that  is 
j  in  the  Autumn,  in  September. 

The  Witness— I  thought  it  was  in  August. 
Mr.  Shearman— No,  Sir  ;  in  September. 
The  Witness— Gen.  Tracy  made  a  statement  in  whichhe 

said  

Mr.  Bf  ach— No,  no  ;  wait. 

The  Witness- Well,  I  saw  Gen.  Ti-acy  right  after  he 

j  made  a  statement  to  the  public. 

I  Mr.  Shearman — Well,  did  you  not  see  Gen.  Traey  fi'e- 
quently  between  the  26th  of  June  and  the  time  when  he 
made  that  second  statement  t  A.  I  don't  think  I  gaw 
him  frequently. 

Q.  How  often  do  you  think  you  did  see  him?  A.  I 
haven't  any  recollection. 

Q.  You  saw  him  occasionally,  did  you  not?  A.  Yes,  I 
think  I  saw  him  occasionally. 

Q.  And  talked  with  him  i  A.  I  recollect  no  talk  but 
the  special  talk  that  I  had  at  his  house,  that  I  went  to  see 
him  about. 

ALLEGED  MISEEPRESEXTATIOX  IX  THE  PUB- 
LISHED LN^TERVIEW. 

Q.  Then  yon  did  have  conYer!=^^tion  with  Mm  ? 
A.  Why,  certainly  I  did;  I  met  him  at  Mr.  Moulton's, 
met  hira  in  the  street;  had  some  conversations  with  him. 

A.  Did  you  not  know  that  Gen.  Tra-cy  was  in  confer- 
ence with  Mr.  Moulton  on  this  subject— I  mean  the  sub 
ject  of  the  general  seandal — during  that  period  after 
June  26, 1874 1   A.  I  understood  he  was. 

Q.  You  saw  Gen.  Tracy  at  Mr.  Moulton's  several  times, 
did  you  not  1   A.  I  did. 

Q.  During  that  period?  A.  Yes,  or  some  time  during 
last  Summer — several — I  don't  know,  three  or  four — per- 
haps half  a  dozen. 

Q.  And  you  also  saw  him  in  the  street  sometimes,  did 
you  not?   A.  I  think  so  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever,  on  any  of  those  occasions  when  you 
me  t  G-^n.  Tracy  after  the  publication  of  this  reported  in- 
terview, call  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  had  stated 
Mr.  Tilton's  charge  to  ceneist  of  improper  advances  and 
nothing  more?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did, 

Q.  Did  you  ever  complain  to  Gen.  Traey,  down  to  the 
time  that  you  appeared  on  this  witness  stand,  that  lie 
had  misrepresented  the  facts  in  that  case  ?   A.  I  did. 
Q.  In  that  published  interview  ?  A.  I  did. 
Q.  You  did,  when  ?  A.  At  his  house. 
Q.  When  ?   A.  Last  Summer. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  with  regard  to  the  statement  as  in  this 
pubiished  interview  of  June  26  ?  A.  That  I  don't  know  ; 
in  regard  to  one  of  the  published  statements. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  the  one  published  in  September, 
wasntitf  A.  WeU,  it  may  have  been,  or  it  may  have 


362 


THE   TimON-BFjEGHEB  TBIAL. 


been  earlier ;  I  will  tell  you  just  what  I  complained  to 
Gen,  Tracy  about,  if  you  wiD  allow  me  to. 

Q.  Well,  state  exactly  what  you  did  oompiain  about.  A. 
Very  well;  I  saw  in  the  statement  of  Gen.  Tracy  to  the 
public  that  he  had  said  I  had  spoken  to  Mr.  Moulton 
about  a  money  transaction,  and  that  he  had  told  Mr. 
Moulton  who  had  told  him,  whereupon  Mr.  Moulton  fell 
to  damning  the  i>erson  that  told  him  about  that  money 
transaction;  I  supposed  that  Gen.  Tracy— I  supposed 
that  meant  me,  and  I  went  to  Gen.  Tracy's  house  and  I 
asked  Gen.  Tracy  if  that  meant  me,  and  he  said  it  did ;  I 
recalled  to  him  the  circumstances  tmder  which  I  told  him 
that  transaction  and  the  sacred  promise  he  made  me 
never  to  repeat  it,  and  that  I  thought  he  had  betrayed 
my  confidence  and  had  done  wrong  in  telling  that ;  Gen. 
Tracy  says,  "  What  money  transaction  did  you  tell  me 
about!"  I  told  him,  about  the  transaction  at  the  first  in- 
terview, when  I  engaged  him  to  act  as  counsel  for  Mr. 
Moulton ;  G^n.  Tracy  said,  "  That  was  not  the  money 
transaction  at  all ;  the  money  transaction  you  told  me 
about  was  the  $5,000  one— some  time  after;"  I  told  G^n. 
Ti'acy  that  that  could  not  be  so,  that  I  never  knew  who 
that  $5,000  came  from  ;  that  Mr.  Moulton  declined,  posi- 
tive declined,  always  to  tell  me,  and  that  I  never  knew 
whom  it  came  from  until  this  last  Summer,  when  the 
statements  were  nu  de,  and  T  told  him  that  

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Beach— "Walt,  wait ! 

The  Witness— And  I  told  him  that  f&e  money  transac- 
tion that  I  had  told  him  about  was  the  one  that  Mr.  Moul- 
t/3n  told  me  just  a  few  days  previous  to  my  engaging 
Mm  for  counsel,  and  when,  after  these  interviews,  Mr. 
Moulton  had  not  told  him  of  that  circumstance,  I  again 
cautioned  Gen.  Tracy  never  to  allude  to  it,  or  never  to 
speak  of  it,  and  he  promised  me  he  would  not.  Gen. 
Tracy  said  at  that  interview— he  admitted  that— he  said 
he  had  done  wrong ;  that  he  ought  not  to  have  told  Mr, 
Moulton  who  it  was,  and  was  sorry  he  had.  I  said 
further :  "  Gen.  Tracy,  I  imderstood  that  you  were  Mr. 
Moulton's  counsel ;  T  don't  see  how  you  are  on  this  otlier 
side."  (Jen.  Tracy  replied  that  they  had  not  taken  his 
advice,  and  he  had  not  consulted  with  them  for  two  years ; 
they  did  not  take  his  advice  two  years  ago.  That  is 
about--that  is  the  pui-port— that  is  the  substance  of  that 
Interview. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  did  you  make  that  visit  to  Gen.  Tracy  in 
consequence  of  any  published  statement;  or  did  you  not 
make  it  in  consequence  of  Mr.  Moulton  having  paid  you 
a  visit,  or  having  spoken  to  you  on  the  subject  and  com- 
plained of  yo«r  having  told  Gen.  Tracy?  A.  Will  you 
please  state  that  question  again? 

Mr.  FuUerton— He  can't. 

Mr.  Shearman— Did  not  this  interview  between  you  and 
Gen.  Tracy  arise  in  consequence  of  Mr.  Moulton  having 
personally  complained  to  you  of  your  telling  Gen.  Tracy 


about  that  money?  A.  WeU,  partly;  I  went  to  see 
Gen.  

Q.  Now,  did  it  not  arise  from  that  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Let  him  answer  the  question. 

The  Witness— There  were— I  went  to  see  Gen.  Tracy 
about  two  things ;  one  was  the  card  that  was  published 
by  some  George  Beecher,  reflecting  on  the  firm,  and 
about  the  money  transaction  in  which  he  had  told  Mr. 
Moulton,  or  I  supposed  he  had  told  Mr.  Moulton,  and  he 
admitted  he  had,  that  I  told  him. 

Q.  Did  not  Mr.  Moulton  complain  to  you  that  you  had 
told  Gen.  Tracy  himself  ?  A.  I  don't  think  he  did ;  I  have 
no  recollection  that  he  did. 

Q.  Never  spoke  to  you  on  that  subject — Mr.  Moulton 
never  spoke  to  you?  A.  What?  this  last  Summer?  I 
think  not. 

Q.  Never  at  any  time  during  last  Summer  1  A.  I  think 
not ;  he  may  have  done  so. 
Q.  Nor  during  the  Fall  ?   A.  I  think  not ;  I  think  I  may 

have  repeated  to— 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  swear  that  Mr.  Moulton  never  did 
make  any  complaint  to  you  about  your  having  told 
Gen.  Tracy  of  this  money  matter  ?  A.  T  don't  mean  to 
swear  that  he  did  not ;  I  don't  recollect  that  he  made  any 
complaint ;  T  have  very  likely  talked  to  Mr.  Moulton 
about  it,  and  explained  how  I  came  to  tell  Mr.  Tracy. 

Q.  You  talked  with  Mr.  Moulton ;  don't  you  recollect 
that  Mr.  Moulton  spoke  in  the  first  instance  to  you  ?  A. 
I  would  not  swear  that  he  did ;  no,  I  would  not. 

Q.  What  did  you  mean  by  saying  a  moment  or  two  ago 
that  you  were  led  to  go  to  Gen.  Tracy  partly  on  account 
of  what  Mr.  Moulton  had  said  to  you  about  it  ?  A  I  don't 
think  I  said  that;  I  don't  think  I  said  that. 

Q.  We  so  understood  you?  A.  Well,  I  did  not  mean  to 
say  so. 

Q.  You  said  partly  on  account  of  the  interview  and 

partly         A.  I  gave  the  two  reasons  that  T  went  to  see 

Gen.  Tracy  that  morning  about. 

Mr.  Beach — You  were  interrupted  in  your  answer,  and 
you  were  not  permitted  to  conclude  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  will  have  it  read,  f  To  the  Tribune 
stenographer.]  Can  you  go  back  to  that  answer  begia- 
ning  "  partly  ? " 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  as  follows : 

Q.  Did  not  this  interview  between  you  and  Gen.  Tracy 
arise  in  consequence  of  Mr.  Moulton  having  personally 
complained  to  you  of  your  telling  Gen.  Traoy  about  that 
money?    A.  Well,  partly  ;  I  went  to  see  Gen.  

Q.  Now,  did  it  not  arise  from  that  1 

Mr.  Beach— Let  him  answer  the  question. 

The  Witness— There  were— I  went  to  see  Gen.  Tracy 
about  two  things;  one  was  the  card  that  was  pub- 
lished by  some  George  Beecher,  reflecting  on  the  firm, 
and  about  the  money  transaction  in  which  he  had  told 
Mr.  Moulton,  or  I  supposed  he  had  told  Mr.  Moulton,  and 
he  admitted  he  had,  that  I  told  him. 

Mr.  Beach— You  have  got  far  enough— far  enough  to 
show  that  the  witness  wan  right,  and  the  counsel  wa» 
wrong. 


l£SJi:wyY   OF   FEAyRLlX  WOODRUFF. 


363 


rnE    $5,000    LOXG    A    m'STEEY    TO  ME. 
WOODRUFF. 

Mr.  Shearman— At  this  interview  with  G-en. 

Tracy,  did  70U  tell  him  that  you  did  Dot  know  where  that 
$5,000  came  from  ?  A.  I  did— well,  I  told  him  that  I  did 
not  know  at  the  time;  I  may  have  known  this  last  Sum- 
mer ;  at  the  time  of  tliat  interview  whether— at  tke  time 
the  money  was  put  to  the  credit  of  Mi.  Moulton  in  the 
firm-hooks  of  Woodruff  &  Eohinson  I  did  not  know  where 
it  came  from,  nor  I  didn't  know  for  a  long  time  after. 

Q.  And  you  so  told  Gen.  Tracy  1  A.  I  did,  last  Summer. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  tell  him  that  you  supposed  it  came 
from  Mr.  Bee  Cher  1  A.  Oh,  I  very  likely  said  I  inferred 
that  it  came  from  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  And  didn'E  you  tell  him  at  the  time  !  A.  At  what 
time? 

Q.  You  so  inferred  at  the  time  it  was  paid  in?  A.  Well, 
I  inferred  that  it  lid ;  hut  I  didn't  know  anything  that  it 
did. 

Q.  Didn't  you  tell  Gen.  Tracy  the  reasons  why  you  be- 
lieved that  it  came  from  Mr.  E.'echer?  A.  Not  that  I 
recollect  of. 

Q.  Didn't  you  tell  him  that  you  knew  I^rank  Moulton 
had  no  means  outside  of  the  firm;  and  that  when  he  de- 
posited so  large  an  amount  in  hills  you  thought  it  must 
come  from  Mr.  Beecher  ?   A.  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  Xothing  of  that  kind  I  A.  I  thiak  Mr.  Moulton  had 
some  means  outside  of  the  business. 

The  question  is  only  what  you  said  to  G^n.  Tracy? 
A.  Well,  I  don't  recollpot  saying  that  to  him.  and  I  think 
Mr.  Moulton  had  means  outside,  and  that  is  the  reason. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  move  to  strike  that  out,  your  Honor. 

Judge  NeUson— Ye5. 

Mr.  Shearman— Did  not  Mr.  Tracy,  ia  that  inter- 
view, tell  you  that  you  were  entirely  mistaken  as  to  the 
time  at  vrhich  you  told  him  about  this  money  ?  A.  He 
did;  he  told  me  that  I  was  thinking  about  the  $500 ; 
and  he  told  me  it  was  about  the  $5,000  that  I  told  him. 

Q.  And  he  insisted  at  that  time  that  it  wa-s  about  the 
$5,000!  A.  Why,  yes.  Sir;  he  insisted  that  I  was  mis- 
taken; and  I  said  I  knew  he  was— and  I  knew  so,  too. 

Q.  And  he  told  you  that  it  was  not  at  the  time  that  you 
ealled  on  hlna  first  to  speak  with  him  in  this  case  ?  A. 
Certainly  he  did. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  time  it  was  ?  A.  No ;  he  told 
me  that  it  was  about  the  $5,000;  that  was  in  May, '73, 
that  I  told  him. 

Q.  And  he  referred  to  that  time— he  knew  that  time  ? 
A.  That  is  the  money  transaction  that  he  said  I  told  him 
about. 

Q.  Did  not  Gen.  Tracy  say  to  you  at  that  interview,  in 
substance,  tnat  you  had  told  him  when  you  first  spoke 
about  that  money  matter  that  :Mr.  Beecher  had  been  to 
the  bank  and  drawn  the  money  that  very  day,  and  paid 
It  over  to  Mr.  Mon^^on  1   A.  I  don't  think  I  did 


Q.  No,  no  ;  didn't  Gen.  Tracy  tell  you  in  this  interview 
what  I  have  said  1  A.  That  I  said  so  ? 

Q.  What  is  that  ?   A.  I  don't  think  he  did. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  he 
did. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  Gen.  Tracy  told  you,  at  this 
interview,  that  you  had  mentioned  the  fact  of  the  money 
to  him — the  money  payment — on  the  very  day  that  it  oc- 
curred? A.  No,  I  don't ;  I  recollect  positively  that  Gen. 
Tracy  said  the  money  transaction  I  told  him  about  was 
the  $5,000  one ;  that  I  knew  nothing  about. 

Q.  Did  n't  he  tell  you  that  no  amoimt  of  money  waa 
specified  by  you,  and  that  he  did  not  know  whether  it 
was  $5,000  or  not,  and  only  recollected  about  the  time 
and  circumstances  1  A.  I  do  n't  think  he  did ;  he  told 
me  the  $5,000  transaction  was  mentioned. 

Q.  Did  not  Gen.  Tracy,  in  that  interview,  tell  you  that 
he  knew  it  was  the  time  of  the  $5,000 ;  did  n't  he  t<?ll 
you  that  he  knew  it  was  long  after  the  time  of  that  Sun- 
day interview  which  you  and  Mr.  Moulton,  and  Mr.  Til- 
ton,  and  Mr.  Tracy  had  ?  A.  Yes ;  he  said  it  was  long 
after;  he  said  it  was  the  $5,000  transaction. 

Q.  Did  n't  he  tell  you  that  he  knew  it  was  long  after 
that  time?  A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Because  that  very  night  on  which  you  told  him  be- 
fore he  went  to  sleep  he  went  to  a  friend  whom  he  named 
and  told  him  about  it?  A.  No,  he  didn't  say  anything 
about  sleeping. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  say  the  rest  of  that  ?  A.  No,  I  do  not 
recollect  that  he  did  ;  I  recollect  ht,  said  it  was  a  long 
time  after. 

Q.  Didn't  he  say  that  he  knew  it  was  a  lone  time  after- 
ward, because  on  the  very  day  on  which  you  told  him 
he  went  to  a  friend  and  told  him  about  it?  A.  I  don't 
recollect  about  the  friend  ;  he  said  it  was  a  long  time 
after. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  Gen.  Tracy  did  not  say  so?  A. 
I  won't— no.  Sir  ;  I  will  swear  that  I  do  not  recollect  that 
he  said  so. 

Q.  Didn't  he  name  Judge  Charles  L.  Benedict  as  that 
friend?  A.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Don't  recollect  the  mention  of  Judge  Benedict's 
name  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Not  in  that  wh  ile  conversation  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  Judge  Benedict's  name  was  not 
mentioned?  A.  I  will  swear  most  positively  that  I  do 
not  recollect  it. 

Q.  Will  you  look  over  that  reported  interview  as  pul> 
lished  June  26, 1874.  and  inform  us  whether  there  is  one 
word  on  that  subject  of  money  in  the  whole  of  that  re- 
ported interview  ?    [Showing  newspaper  to  witness.] 

The  Witness— Which  is  the  one  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  out  of  order,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman — Oh,  no,  Sir ;  this  is  for  the  purpose  of 
fixing  the  time. 

Mr.  Beach— Fixing  tlie  time  ! 


364 


IHE    TJLTON-BEEOHfJE  TEiAL. 


Mi'.Evarts — For  the  purpose  of  sliowing  tliat  this  is  not 
the  publication  from  which  he  drew  his  information. 

Mr.  Shearman— And  not  the  one  concerning  which  he 
complained  to  Gen.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  stated  in  substance  that  in  some 
published  statement  of  Gen.  Tracy's  he  saw  something 
about  money. 

The  Witness— What  do  you  want  me  to  look  at  t 

Mr.  Shearman — There  is  nothing  now ;  I  simply  want 
to  know  your  opinion  whether  there  is  a  word  about 
money  payments  in  that  interview  1  A,  No,  I  don't  think 
there  is. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  stated  that  he  saw  a  publication, 
coming  from  Mr.  Tracy,  in  which  mention  was  made  of 
the  money.  Thereupon  he  went  to  Mr.  Tracy  and  com- 
plained. Now,  this  publication  says  not  a  word  about 
money. 

The  Witness— No,  I  do  not  see  anything  there  about 
money. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  that  was  not  the  publication  con- 
cerning which  you  complained  to  Gen.  Tracy,  was  it  1  A, 
No,  I  don't  think  it  was. 

Q.  Then  you  have  no  recollection  of  ever  complaining 
to  Mr.  Tracy  of  untruthfulness  in  regard  to  his  statements 
in  that  reported  interview!  A.  No. 

Mr.  Fullerton— How  are  you  going  to  identify  that  re- 
ported interview  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— That  reported  interview  of  June  26, 
1874 ;  that  is  the  one. 

Mr.  Fullerton— By  the  date  1 

Mr..  Evarts— Well,  the  date  is  on  the  record. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No ;  you  tried  to  get  it  in,  and  did  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  got  in  the  date  of  the  paper  as  a  suffi- 
cient identification  of  it,  instead  of  having  the  book 
marked. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  GIFT  OF  $500  TO  MR.  TIL- 
TON'S  FAMILY. 

Mr.  Shearman  —  Well,  what  was  this 
amount,  Mr.  Woodruff,  concerning  which  you  say  you 
did  speak  to  Gen.  Tracy  1  A.  Well,  I  said  that  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  had  told  me  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  given  him  $500 ; 
I  do  not  remember  whether  it  was  given  all  at  one  time 
or  at  various  times  ;  I  know  that  Moulton  had  told  me 
that  Beecher  had  given  him  $500  to  help  Mr.  Tilton's 
family ;  I  told  Gen.  Tracy  that. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  you  told  him  it  was  paid 
in  one  sum  1  A.  No,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  did  tell  him  it  was  paid  in  one 
sum  ?  A.  I  think  I  told  him  in  just  that  way. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  have  you  never  said  since  that  time,  to 
any  other  person,  that  that  was  paid  in  one  sum,  and 
that  you  so  told  Gen.  Tracy  1 

Mr.  B«ach— That  question  is  too  general.  Walt  one 
moment 


Mr.  .Shearman— We  have  a  right  to  ask  it,  though  w© 
have  not  a  right  to  contradict  it. 

The  Witness— My  imderstanding  was  that  it  was  in  on© 
sum,  or  at  least  I  supposed  so. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  not  told  some  of  your  friends— some 
one  or  more  of  your  friends— that  you  told  Gen.  Tracy  it 
was  paid  in  one  sum  1  A.  I  don't  tMnk  I  have  in  thosa 
words ;  1  have  told  

Q.  State  what  you  have  told  on  that  point !  A.  I  have 
told  that  I  have  told  Gen.  Tracy  that  Mr,  Moulton  had 
told  me  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  given  him  (Moulton)  $500 
for  the  benefit  of  Tilton's  family. 

Q.  Who  did  you  tell  this  to  1  A.  Well,  I  think  I  have 
stated  it  three  or  four  times  since  Gen.  Tracy  denied  the 
other  day,  on  the  stand,  that  I  told  him  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Who  did  you  state  it  to  1  A.  Well,  I  think  I  have 
stated  it  to  Mr.  McLean,  to  Mr.  Nichols,  and,  I  don't 
know,  perhaps  two  or  three  others. 

THE  $500  TRANSACTION  DESCRIBED  TO  MR. 
SOUTHWICK. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  mention  the  fact  of  tiie 
payment  of  that  money,  $500,  to  any  one  else  besides 
Gen.  Tracy  1  A.  When,  at  that  time  t 

Q.  Oh,  well,  anywheie  along  about  that  time?  A. 
Well,  I  might  have  done  so ;  I  don't  know  whether  I  did 
or  not. 

Q.  Did  you  not  speak  to  Mr.  Southwick  about  the  pay- 
ment oi  that  money  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  not  the  $500  money;  T 
never  did ;  not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  him  about  the  payment  of  any 
money  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Which  money  was  that?  A.  It  was  the  $5,000 
money. 

Q.  When  did  you  speak  to  Mr.  Southwick  on  that  sub- 
ject? A.  Some  time  after— very  shortly  after  it  waa 
deposited  to  Moulton's  credit. 

Q.  Didn't  you  tell  him  about  it  the  very  day  it  waa 
deposited?  A.  No,  I  don't  think  it  was  the  very  day 
that  it  was  deposited ;  it  might  have  been,  but  I  don't 
think  it  was. 

Q,  Didn't  you  tell  him  the  evening  of  the  very  day  it 
was  deposited  ?  A.  I  cannot  swear  that  It  was  that  day 
or  not,  but  it  was  very  soon;  whether  it  was  that 
evening  or  the  next  evening  or  a  week  after  I  don't 
Icnow. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  yon  told  this  to  Mr.  South- 
wick? A.  I  think  I  was  at  hie  house. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  Mr.  Southwick  about  it?  A. 
Well,  I  told  him  that  Moulton  had  placed  to  his  credit 
there,  shortly  before,  $5,300,  and  that  I  had  seen  pay- 
ments thereafter  paid— charged  to  Moulton  as  paid  to 

T  T  " 

Q.  You  told  him  you  had  seen  payments  made  there- 
after? A.  I  think  I  did. 


TESTIMONY  OF  FB. 

Q.  Charged  to  "T.  T.I"  A.  I  think  I  did;  I  presume  I 
did ;  I  don't  know. 

Q,  Did  you  not  tell  him  that  Moiilton  had  deposited 
that  money  that  very  day,  and  that  lie  said  it  was  to  he 
drawn  out,  or  the  $5,000  was  to  be  drawn  out  for  Theo- 
dore Tilton !  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  never  told  him  that  in  that 
■way. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  to  that  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  swear  that  I 
never  told  him  that  in  that  way.   I  didn't. 

Didn't  you  tell  him  that,  or  anything  to  that  effect  ? 
A.  I  told  him  that  that  amount  of  money  was  placed  to 
Moulton's  credit  on  the  cash  hook,  and  I  thought  it  had 
come  from  :Mr,  Beecher ;  and  he  thought  his  uncle,  H.  B. 
Claflin,  might  have  paid  it, 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Mr.  Southwick  on  that  occasion  whether 
he  didn't  think  it  was  his  uncle  who  had  paid  it  ?  A.  Very 
likely  I  did ;  I  think  we  had  a  general  talk  about  it,  and 
he  said,  "  I  wouldn't  be  sm-prised;  it  would  be  just  like 
Uncle  Horace." 

Q.  Didu't  he  say — on  the  contrary,  didn't  he  laugh  at 
the  idea  of  Mr.  Claflin  paying  it,  and  say,  "  You  know 
that  Mr.  Claflin  would  not  pay  anytliuig  for  The  Golden 
Af^e,  and  he  would  not  pay  anything  for  that  ?"  A.  Xo  ; 
I  knew  he  wouldn't  pay  anything  for  The  Golden  Age. 

Q.  That  is  not  the  point.  Did  not  Mr.  Southwick  say 
that,  Mr.  Woodruff  \   A.  I  don't  think  he  did. 

Q.  Didn't  he  say  that  or  anything  of  that  kind— that  in 
substance  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  he  said  anything  of 
tlie  kind  in  substance. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  positively  that  he  did  not  1  A.  I  will 
swear  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  that  he 
did  not. 

Q,  That  is  as  positively  as  you  care  to  swear  ?  A,  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Do  I  understand,  then,  that  you  never  told  ilr. 
Tracy  of  the  $5,000  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  telling 
him  about  it. 

Q.  Nor  about  the  money  transaction  which  occurred  at 
the  time  the  $5,000  was  received  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollec- 
tion about  it, 

Q.  Yon  don't  recollect  mentioning  it— whether  you  men- 
tioned the  sum  or  not  I  You  don't  recollect  mentioning 
the  circumstance  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  telling 
Gen.  Tracy,  on  or  about  that  time,  anything  about  money 
matters  in  the  business. 

Q.  Did  you  communicate  to  Gen.  Tracy  at  any  time  the 
fact  of  any  moneys  being  paid  after  that  interview  on 
Sunday  in  the  Fall  of  1872 1  A.  After  when— after  the 
interview  of  1872  ? 

Q.  After  the  interview  in  the  Fall  of  1872.  to  which 
you  have  referred  already  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection 
that  I  did. 

You  knew  the  money  was  paid  at  the  time,  didn't 

you,  to  Moultoni   A.  I  knew       from  MouJton  

Q.  Well,  did  you  know  that  Moulton  was  receiving 
money,  or  were  you  informed  by  Moulton  that  he  was  re- 


XKLIN    WOODBUFF,  3^ 

oeiving  money !  A,  Well,  lie  told  me  two  or  three  time* 
that  he  had  received  money  to  pay  Bessie  Turner's  school- 
ing.  That  is  alL 

Q.  You  knew  about  Bessie^Tumer's  bills  then!  A.  I 
knew  that  Moulton  said  that  he  received  money  from  Mr, 
Beecher  to  pay  Bessie  Turner's  school  bills  ;  that  is  alL 

Q.  How  early  did  you  know  that  t  A.  What  1 

Q.  How  early  did  you  know  that ;  when  did  you  first 
learn  that?  A.  Well,  I  should  think  Moulton— I  think  it 
was  along  at  the  time  he  was  receiving  it — doing  it. 

Q.  "^lien  was  that,  what  year!  A.  I  don't  know  ;  1872 
or  1873. 1  guess,  or  1871  or  1872.  perhaps. 

Q.  Was  it  not  in  the  year  1871 1  A.  It  might  have  been  j 
I  don't  recollect  the  year. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  learn  about  Bessie  Turner  being 
sent  away  ?   A.  I  don't  know  when  I  first  learned  It 

Q.  Did  you  leam  it  about  the  time  the  first  paymenta 
were  made  ?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  they  were  the 
first,  or  where  they  were.  I  only  know  from  Moulton— 
what  Moulton  told  me  about  Bessie  Turner.  If  you  want 
to  know  it  I  will  tell  you. 

^^'HAT  THE  $500  WAS  FOR. 
Q.  Have  voii  stated  all  that  you  told  Geru 

Ti"acy  about  money,  at  the  time  of  the  interview  in  the 
Fall  of  1S72  ?   A.  Stated  what  ? 

Q.  Have  you  stated  all  that  you  told  Gen.  Tracy  about 
money  in  the  Fall  of  1872  ?   A.  No,  Sir,  I  have  not. 

Q.  At  that  Interview,  I  mean  that  particular  interview  ? 
A.  At  that  first  interview,  I  think  I  have— all  that  I  recol- 
lect. 

Q.  Yes,  at  the  first  interview  ;  now,  when  were  you  in- 
formed that  this  $500  was  paid  ?  A.  Well,  I  think  it  was 
a  few  days  before  I  engaged  Gen.  Tracy. 

Q.  At  what  time  were  you  then  informed  that  it  had 
been  paid  1  A.  I  was  not  informed  as  to  the  time. 

Q.  No  time  specified  1  A.  No  time  specified. 

Q.  Well,  were  you  informed  that  it  was  for  Mr.  Tilton's 
family  ?  A.  I  understood  from  Mr.  Moulton  that  it  was 
for  Mr.  Triton's  family. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  its  being  for  the  benefit 
also  of  Bessie  Turner  ?   A.  No. 

Q.  Not  in  whole  nor  in  part  ?   A.  No,  not  that. 

Q.  He  had  previously  mentioned  to  you  about  the  pay« 
ments  for  Bessie  Turner  1  A.  I  don't  know  whether  it 
was  previous  or  after ;  I  can  tell  you  all  I  know. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  on  that  point !  A.  I 
have  not  got  any  recollection  of  dates  in  regard  to  Bessie 
Turner.  I  have  in  my  mind  very  clearly  what  has  been 
said  to  me  about  Bessie  Turner,  and  I  can  tell  it  to  you 
in  a  very  few  words. 

Q.  No  ;  I  want  to  know  what  information  you  had 
when  you  were  informed  that  money  was  paid  for  Bessie 
Turner!   A.  I  cannot  tell  you. 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  whether  it  was  before  or  after  this 
interview!  A.  No. 


366  THE   TI  ETON- BE 

Q.  Nor  wlaether  it  was  before  or  after  Noveml>er  or  De- 
eember,  1872  ?  A.  I  am  under  the  impression  tliat  it  was 
before  ;  I  am  under  tbe  impression  tliat  Moulton  told  me 
at  two  or  three  different  times,  and  the  times  may  have 
been  a  year  apart,  or  it  may  have  been  over  a  year,  or 
longer. 

Q.  Then  didn't  you  know  that  more  money  had  been 
paid  than  $500  ?  A,  No,  T  did  not ;  Moulton  may  have 
said  to  me  before  that  he  had  money  for  Bessie  Turner's 
schooling,  or  something  like  that. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  that  this  $500  was  for  Bessie 
Turner's  schooling  t  A.  No  ;  for  the  benefit  of  Tilton's 
family. 

Q,.  Then  you  did  understand  that  more  money  had 
been  paid  than  this  $500?  A.  Certainly;  during  these 
two  or  three  years,  I  understood,  in  addition,  that  money 
was  paid  for  Bessie  Turner's  schooling. 

Q.  And  at  the  time  of  the  interview  you  understood 
that  ?  A.  I  would  not  swear  whether  it  was  before  or 
after. 

Q.  Will  you  say  whether  you  understood,  or  not,  that 
more  money  had  been  paid  than  $500  ?  A.  No,  I  won't. 
I  will  tell  you  just  what  I  know,  or  what  was  told  me ;  I 
have  told  it  to  you  and  I  will  tell  it  again  if  you  want  it. 

Q.  Did  you  know  or  not,  at  that  time;  that  is  the 
point  ?  A.  I  say  I  cannot  fix  the  date  of  Bessie  Turner's 
schooling. 

HOW  MUCH  MR.  WOODRUFF  INTENDED  TO 
TELL  GEN.  TRaCY. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Tracy  about  all  the  money 
of  which  you  knew  at  that  time?  A.  I  don't  know 
whether  I  did  or  not. 

Q.  Did  you  intend  to  tell  him  all  that  you  knew  ?  A. 
I  intended  to  tell  him  about  that  one  transaction— what 
Moulton  told  me. 

Q.  That  $500  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  that  is  what  I  intended  to 
tell  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  you  meant  to  tell  Gen.  Tracy 
all  about  the  money  transactions  or  not?  A.  I  know 
that  I  meant  to  tell  him  about  that,  and  I  don't  recollect 
whether  I  knew  about  any  other  time  or  not. 

Q.  I  ask  you  what  was  your  purpose.  Did  you  mean  to 
disclose  to  Gen.  Tracy  all  the  facts  ;ibout  the  money  mat- 
ters or  not  ?  A.  I  meant  to  disclose  to  him  about  that. 

Q.  And  not  about  the  rest  ?  A.  I  do  n't  know  as  there 
was  any  "rest"  whatever. 

Q.  Did  you  intend  to  disclose  all  you  knew,  or  only 
part?  A.  I  intended  to  disclose  just  what  I  did  disclose. 

Q.  Did  you  intend  to  disclose  all  that  you  knew,  or  did 
you  intend  to  conceal  a  part  ?  A.  I  did  not  intend  to  con- 
ceal; I  didn't  intend  to  toll  him  anything  but  the  truth, 
as  I  had  it  from  Moulton. 

Q.  Did  you  mean  to  tell  him  all  the  truth  about  the 
money  matters  ?   A.  So  far  as  I  went  I  did,  of  course. 

Q.  I  don't  care  how  far  you  went ;  I  want  to  know 


'ECHER  TBIAL. 

whether  you  intended  to  tell  him  all  the  truth  al  out  th* 
money  or  not  at  that  time  ?  A.  I  meant  to  tell  him  about 
the  case. 

Q.  Be  kind  enough  to  answer  my  question,  yes  or  no. 
Did  you  mean  to  tell  him  all  you  knew  of  the  money 
matters,  or  did  you  not  ?  A.  Well,  I  don't  recollect  that  I 
had  any  intention  about  it,  only  to  tell  bini  about  that 
one  money  transaction. 

Q.  Did  you  intend  to  tell  the  truth  to  Gen.  Tracy  about 
the  money  ?  A.  I  didn't  intend  to  tell  Mm  anything  else. 
[Laughter.] 

Q.  Did  you  intend  to  conceal  part  of  the  truth  about 
the  matter?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did.  I  don't 
recollect  what  my  intention  was. 

Q.  Then,  did  you  not  tell  him  all  that  you  knew  at  that 
time  about  it,  if  you  didn't  intend  to  conceal  anything! 
A.  I  may  have  told  him  all.  If  I  knew  about  the  money 
transaction  before  then  I  did  not  tell  him  all.  If  I  didn't 
know  about  that  then  I  think  I  did  tell  him  all. 

Q.  But  you  are  certain  that  you  did  not  tell  him  any* 
thing  about  the  Bessie  Turner  matter.  A.  I  am  very  cer- 
tain of  it. 

THE  CHECKS  FOR  BESSIE  TURNER'S  SCHOOL 
BILLS. 

Q.  Now,  were  you  in  the  habit  of  looking 

over  the  firm  checks  previous  to  that  time?    A.  How? 

Q.  When  they  were  returned  from  the  bank?  A.  No, 
Sir ;  not  very  often ;  sometimes  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  know  anything  about  those  checks  that  had 
been  paid  for  Bessie  Turner's  schooling?  A.  No— well, 
I  don't  know  but  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  don't  you  know  that  the  checks  that  were  paid 
for  Bessie  Turner's  school  bills  were  firm  checks  of 
Woodruff  &  Robinson?  A.  I  think  one  or  two  were. 

Q.  You  don't  know  of  any  that  were  not?  A.  No;  I 
don't  know  that  I  ever  saw  any  of  them. 

Q.  Did  Moulton  keep  any  private  bank  account  ?  A. 
Not  that  I  know  of ;  I  don't  think  he  did. 

Q.  Didn't  he  draw  checks  for  his  own  personal  affairs 
through  the  llrm  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  These  checks  are  in  evidence,  and  they  are  all  the 
firm  checks.  Did  you  not  know  anything  about  these 
checks  ?  A.  Well,  I  have  a  vague  impression  that  there 
were  checks  of  Woodruff  &  Robinson,  charged  to  Moulton, 
to  send  to  somebody  West,  That  is  my  impression. 

Q.  Did  Moulton  give  you  to  understand  that  he  had  re- 
ceived this  $500  shortly  before  you  saw  Gen.  Tracy.  A. 
Well,  I  think  it  was  shortly  before.  It  was  shortly  before 
that  he  told  me. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  that  that  money  was  received 
in  cheek  or  in  currency?  A.  Well,  I  am  under  the  im- 
pression that  I  understood  that  he  got  it  in  bills;  I  don'^ 
know. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  it  1  A.  I  think  he  said 
that  Mr.  Beecher  gave  liim  $500  in  bills ;  I  think  so. 


TESTIMONY   OF  FBANIZLIN  WOODRUFF. 
Q.  Did  70U  tell  Gen.  Tracy  that  1  A.  I  may  liave  done 


867 


Q.  You  don't  know  wlietiier  you  did  or  not?  A.  I 
would  not  swear  positively. 

Q.  That  is  youi-  best  recollection  i   A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  on  that  point  1  A.  On 
what  point  I 

Q.  Whether  you  told  Gen.  Tracy  that  that  money  was 
paid  in  bills  %  A.  My  best  impression  is  that  I  did  tell 
him  it  wa«  paid  in  bills  ;  I  presume  I  did. 

Q.  Didn't  you  tell  him  that  Mr.  Beecher  went  to  the 
bank  himself,  and  di-ew  it  out  and  gave  it  to  Mr.  Moni- 
tion 1  A.  I  don't  know  whether  I  told  him  that  or  not ;  I 
don't  think  I  did. 

Q,  You  don't  think  you  did  ?  A.  I  don't  think  I  did ;  I 
may  have  done  so. 

Q.  Did  you  know,  or  were  you  informed,  what  was 
uoQB  with  that  $500  ?  A.  iSTo,  I  did  n't  know  anything 
a-bout  it. 

Q.  Did  you  know  whether  it  was  deposited  with  your 
firm  or  not  1  A.  I  don't  know ;  I  don't  think  it  was ;  I 
don't  know,  though. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  says  he  does  not  know.  We  move 
to  strike  out  the  other  part  of  the  answer,  "  I  don't  think 
it  was." 

Judge  Neilson— Yes.   •*  I  don't  know  "  is  his  answer. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  ever  learn  of  any  check  of  $500  being 
paid  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  any. 

A  MORTGAGE  ON  MR.  TILTON'S  HOUSE. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect,  in  November,  1872,  col- 
lecting interest  on  a  certain  bond  and  mortgage  held  by 
you  on  Mr.  Tilton's  hoiise  ? 

Mr.  Fuller  ton— If  the  Court  please  

Mr.  Shearman— Oh,  this  is  to  identify  the  time  ;  to  fix 
the  date.   A.  Well,  I  think  I  collected  the  interest. 

Q.  Yes,  interest  on  the  bond  and  mortgage.  Now,  was 
not  that  shortly  before  you  saw  Gen.  Tracy  on  this  sub- 
ject? A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Was  it  not  the  8th  of  November,  1872 1  A.  That  I 
collected  the  interest  % 

Q.  Yes.  A.  It  might  have  been,  or  it  might  not  have 
been,  the  10th. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  the  interest  fall  due  the  first  of  May  and 
the  first  of  November  ?   A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  collect,  early  in  November,  1872,  the 
interest  due  on  that  bond  and  mortgage  ?   A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Can't  you  recollect  whether  or  not  it  was  on  the 
same  day  that  you  collected  that  interest  that  Moulton 
told  you  of  this  $5G0  from  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  No,  I  don't 
think  it  was. 

Q.  Was  it  not  just  about  that  time?  A.  I  don't  reool- 
iect  that  it  was  just  about  that  time.  No;  it  might  have 
been  about  that  time,  or  it  might  have  been  a  little  ear- 


lier. I  recollect  the  way  that  I  collected  the  interest— at 
least  I  think  I  recollect. 

Q.  Was  not  that  shortly  before  you  had  the  interview 
with  Gen.  Tracy,  that  you  collected  that  interest  1  A.  It 
might  have  been. 

Q.  What  is  your  recollection  about  it?  A.  WeU,  the 
two  things  have  no  connection  whatever,  and  I  don't 
know  as  I  have  any  recollection. 

Q.  Well,  you  appear  to  have  collected  that  interest  on 
the  8th  of  November,  by  the  accounts  of  your  firm  that 
are  in  evidence.  A.  Well  ? 

Q.  Now,  I  want  to  know  whether  that  date  was  not 
shortly  before  this  interview  ?  A.  I  don't  know  whether 
it  was  before  or  after. 

Mr.  I'ullerton- That  is  the  fourth  time  that  question 
has  been  put  and  answered. 
Judge  Neilson — It  Is  answered  now. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Jt  was  answered  before.  Sir. 
Q.  Can  you  recollect  whether  it  was  a  very  short  time 
before  you  had  this  interview  with  Gen.  Tracy  that 
Moulton  told  you  about  this  money  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  can- 
not. 

Mr.  Fullerton— T7iaf  has  been  asked  half  a  dozen  times, 
and  answered. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  want  to  get  these  dates  together. 

Mr.  FuUerton— WeU,  Sir,  I  think  the  subject  is  sitffl- 
ciently  confused  for  all  the  pm-poses  of  the  other  side ; 
it  is  time  that  this  should  stop. 

THE  ACCOUNTS  W^TH  WOODRUFF  &  ROBIN- 
INSOK 

Q.  I  will  call  your  attention  to  an  accounfc  of 

your  firm,  and  ask  you  if  you  can  explain  it.  Look  at 
that  account  [handing  book  to  witness],  and  tell  me 
whether,  on  the  8th  of  November,  1872,  Mr.  Tilton  is  not 
charged  by  your  firm  with  the  sum  of  $500  ? 

jVIr.  Beach— What  page  do  you  refer  to  i 

Ml'.  Shearman— Page  167.  A.  TUton— there  ts  no 
charge  here  to  Tilton. 

Q.  That  Mr.  Tilton's  account,  ts  not  Mr.  Tilton  debited 
on  the  8th  of  November,  1872,  with  $500  ?  A.  The  8tli 
of  November— where  is  the  debit  of  $500  ? 

Q.  There.    [Indicating  in  the  book.]   A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  look  at  the  credit  account  and  tell  me 
whether  he  is  charged  at  any  time  in  1872  with  a  sum  o£ 
$500  i  A.  I  don't  see  any. 

Q.  There  is  none  % 

Mr.  Beach— No ;  he  says  he  does  not  see  any, 
Q.  What  is  that?   [Indicating  an  item.]  A.  That  la 
1871.  I  don't  see  any  in  1872. 
Q.  Is  there  any  there  in  1872  ?   A.  No,  there  is  not. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Not  there. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  this  is  the  acooxmt  of  Theodor* 
Tilton  with  Woodruft'  &  Robinson,  put  in  evidence- 
marked  "  Exhibit  D,  109."  I  will  show  you  the  original 
if  you  care  for  it.   [To  the  witness.]   Have  you  any  ex;- 


868 


THE   TILTOj^-BEECHEB  TRIAL, 


planation  fco  offer  of  this  fact,  that  Mr,  Tilton  is  debited 
at  about  tlie  time  at  which  you  now  say  this  money  was 
received  for  his  benelit  from  Mr.  Beecher,  with  the  sum 
of  $500,  and  is  not  credited  with  any  euch  sum  re- 
ceived t 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  object  to  that. 

Q.  Have  you  any  explanation  to  offer!  A.  No ;  I  have 
not  any. 

Judge  Neileon— He  says  he  has  none. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  I  move  to  strike  that  out,  be- 
cause the  question  is  predicated  on  a  fact  not  in  the  case 
—as  something  not  in  the  case.  The  question  is  based 
upon  the  assertion,  or  the  idea,  that  that  money,  $500, 
was  received  about  that  time. 

Judge  Neilson— At  the  time  or  before  % 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes.  Well,  the  witness  does  not  pre- 
tend to  know  when  it  was  received. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  let  the  answer  stand. 

Mr.  Beach— On  that  Nov.  5  he  is  credited  by  a  balance 
of  interest  in  his  favor, 

Mr.  Shearman— $71. 

Mr.  Beach— $71.  He  had  a  balance  on  deposit  with  the 
Arm  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Sheannan— Yes.  [To  the  Witness.]  Look  at  this  ac- 
count, and  say  whether  at  any  time,  on  the  credit  side  of 
that  account  of  Mr.  Tilton,  the  sum  of  $500  is  put  to  his 
credit,  and,  if  so,  when  1  A.  In  1872? 

Q.  No ;  at  any  time. 

Mr.  Beach— In  1871. 

The  Witness— He  is  so  credited  Nov.  13,  1871 ;  there  is 
cash  at  one  time  in  1871,  $4,000  

Q.  Never  mind  that.  A.  [readingl  "  Nov.  13,  by  cash, 
$400." 

Q.  That  is  November  13, 1871,  is  it  not  1  A.  Yes  ;  then 
there  is  cash,  January,  1872,  $1,000  ;  April,  $7,000 ; 
May,  $100  

Q.  Well,  that  in  April  was  Bowen's  money,  was  it  not  1 
A.  I  don*t  know  ;  I  presume  it  was  ;  $7,000  and  odd. 

Q,  Well,  as  there  seems  to  be  some  question  as  to  how 
near  this  was  to  the  interview  with  Gen.  Tracy,  state 
now  what  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  time  when  that  inter- 
view with  Gen.  Tracy  about  this  money  matter  did  oc- 
ciir  %  A.  Well,  the  interview  occurred  with  Gen.  Tracy 
ghor  tly  after  the  WoodhuU  publication. 

Q.  That  publication  was  on  the  28th  of  October.  1872, 
was  it  not !  A.  Very  well,  I  think  it  was  very  shortly 
after  that.  Perhaps  it  might  have  been  a  week  or  ten 
days  ;  I  think  about  a  week  after. 

Q.  A.bout  a  week  afterward  %    A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Tilton  in  town  when  it  occurred  1  A.  When 
what  occurred! 

Q.  The  interview  with  Gen.  Tracy  about  the  money 
matter.  A.  I  don't  know  whether  he  was  or  not. 

Q.  Didn't  you  see  him  next  day !  A.  I  don't  think  I 
4id    No,  I  did  not  see  him. 

Q-  What  day  of  the  week  did  this  interview  occur !  A. 


No,  I  didn't  see  Mr.  Tilton,  T  am  very  positive,  fi-om  the 
time  of  my  first  interview  with  Mr.  Tracy  vmtU  he  came 
to  Moulton's  house  on  Sunday  night  when  we  v/ere  there. 

Q.  Was  not  that  the  next  Simday  night!  A.  Yes,  I 
think  it  was. 

Q.  Then  it  was  the  Simday  night  following  the  week 
in  which  you  had  this  interview  with  Gen.  Tracy!  A. 
Sunday  night  of  the  same  week. 

Q.  Not  the  same  week.  Simday  begins  the  week.  A 
The  following  week. 

Q-  Now,  don't  you  know  that  Tilton  was  not  at  homo 
until  the  5th  of  November,  1872 1  A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  don't  you  know  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  not  at 
home  until  the  5th  of  November,  1872!  A.  I  dont 
know. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  week  did  you  have  this  intervlev 
with  Gen.  Tracy,  when  you  spoke  about  the  money!  A. 
I  don't  know. 

Q.  Where  was  it !  A.  At  his  office  in  Montague-st. 

Q.  What  time  of  day!   A.  About  half -past  four  o'clock. 

Q.  Any  one  else  there !  A.  No,  Sir,  not  while  we  were 
having  the  interview.   It  was  started  between  he  and  I. 

Q.  The  clerks  were  in  the  outer  office,  I  suppose?  A- 
They  might  have  been. 

Q.  You  passed  through  persons  in  the  outer  office !  A. 
I  don't  know  whether  we  went  in  the  outer  office  or  in  the 
back  way. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  after  that  interview  that  the  other 
interview  between  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Tilton,  Gen.  Tracy^ 
and  yourself  occurred  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house  ?  A.  It  was 
on  Sunday  night,  either  the  first  or  second  Sunday  night 
thereafter,  I  don't  know  which. 

Q.  You  don't  know  whether  it  was  the  first  or  second ! 
I  think  you  stated  just  now  that  it  was,  as  you  thought,. 
Sunday  night  ?  A.  I  stated  I  thought  it  was. 

Q.  Was  it  the  very  next  morning  after  this  half-past- 
four-o'clock  interview  in  which  you  brought  in  Mr.  Moul- 
ton ?  A.  Certainly ;  I  went  to  Gen.  Tracy's  at  4:J10 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  and  I  stayed  there  until  after 
dark— over  an  hour— and  I  talked  with  him  about  tW* 
case,  and  stated  what  I  wanted ;  then  I  went  the  next; 
morning,  and  Mr.  Moulton  with  me — or  Mr.  Moulton  after- 
ward ;  I  went  ahead  of  Mr.  Moulton, 

Q.  You  went  ahead  of  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  there  before  Mr.  Moulton  camel 
A.  I  guess  I  was  there  five  or  ten  minutes ;  ten  minutes, 
perhaps. 

,  Q.  What  time  of  day  did  you  go  to  Gen,  Tracy's  office 
next  morning?  A.  A  little  after  8  o'clock,  I  think ;  per- 
haps It  may  have  been  half-past  8, 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  in  that  first  examination 
you  stated  the  fact  that  you  went  alone  to  Gen.  Tracy's 
office  ?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  I  did  or  not, 

Q,  Don't  you  remember  you  stated  you  took  Mr.  Moul- 
ton into  the  office  1  A.  Well,  I  recollect  I  introduced  Mr. 
Moulton, 


TESTIMONY  OF  FBANKLIN  WOODRUFF. 


360 


ISv.  Moms— What  page  do  you  refer  to  % 
Mr.  Beach— He  ain't  referring  to  any  page. 
Mr.  MoiTis— That  is  what  I  think. 

Mr.  Shearman— Page  344.  [To  the  witnegs.]  Did  yon 
not  in  your  direct  examination  for  the  plaintiff,  previous 
to  this  examination,  as  part  of  the  plaintiff's  opening 
case,  use  this  language  :  "  I  called  at  Mr.  Tracy's  office 
with  Mr.  Moulton ;  I  think  it  was  about  half  past  8 
o'clock  in  the  momiag  1"  A.  I  may  have  said  so. 

Q.  "  For  the  purpose  of  Mr.  Moultou  relating  to  Mr. 
Tracy  the  history  of  this  scandal  case."  Did  you  so  tes- 
tify I  A.  I  may  have  said  so. 

Q.  Why  do  you  say  now  that  you  called  10  minutes  in 
advance  1  A.  I  said  I  think  so. 

THE  INQTIIRY  DECLABED  UNPROFITABLE. 
Mr.  Fullerton— I  think  this  is  an  unprofitable 

Inquiry. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  don't  know  about  that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  don't  suppose  you  do.  That  is  your 
misfortune  aad  not  mine  ;  at  least  it  will  not  be  if  the 
Ciourt  rules  it  out. 

Judge  Neilson- 1  thiuk  the  counsel  is  nearly  through 
with  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  think  he  was  through  some  time  ago, 
but  he  did'nt  know  it.  How  far  will  your  Honor  permit 
them  to  go  into  the  examination  of  matters  to  which  the 
attention  of  the  witness  was  not  called  by  us  1  I  suppose 
they  have  a  right  to  cross-examine  only  in  regard  to  the 
matters  t»  which  we  directed  the  attention  of  the  wit- 
ness. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  the  general  rule. 
Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  general  rule,  and  it  is  the 
particular  rule,  unless  your  Honor  permits  them  to  de- 
part from  it.   If  this  whole  case  is  to  be  retried  in  this 
way  it  will  consume  a  grs^at  deal  of  time.   It  rests  en- 
tirely with  your  Honor.   I  don't  wish  to  circimiscribe 
the  otlier  side,  or  to  limit  them  in  their  inquiries  at  all,  if 
tliey  are  going  to  develop  any  facts  that  may  throw  light 
upon  this  case ;  but  to  spend  time  here  in  re-examining 
a  witness  hi  regard  to  a  matter  that  he  has  already  been 
examined  abour  on  his  cross-examination  when  called  by 
us,  would  seem  to  be  an  unnecessary  waste  of  time. 
'  Now,  our  inquiries  we  directed  to  a  very  few  topics,  and 
\  with  regard  to  theso  topics  they  have  a  right  to  cross- 
[  examine.   I  think  they  cannot  give,  tmless  your  Honor 
j  throws  open  the  door  for  an  examination  of  any  length, 
and  in  regard  to  any  subject  to  which  they  may  see 
fit  to  call  the  attention  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  my  learned  fiiend  is  rii^lit  in  his 
general  proposition,  but  I  don't  think  he  is  accurate  in 
his  memory  in  regard  to  the  previous  examination  of  this 
Witness.  All  that  was  said  about  these  previous  inter- 
t  views  on  the  first  examination  of  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff 
was  as  introduction  to  get  at  the  interview  at  the  house, 
and  they  did  not  go  into,  nor  did  we ;  we  didn't  thinlv  there 


was  any  right  on  their  part  to  give  an  interview  between 
Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff  and  GTen.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Beach— Do  you  mean  on  the  first  examination  f 

Mr.  Evarts— On  the  first  examination. 

Mr.  Beach— Undoubtedly  we  did  go  into  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Let  me  go  on,  and  you  wiU  find  that  I  am 
right.  But,  after  this,  then  the  question  was  to  get 
Mr.  Beecher  in  some  way  affected  by  what  occiu-red 
in  that  principal  Interview,  and  then  a  conversation  be- 
tween Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr,  Beecher  was  introduced  in 
which  Mr.  Moulton  said:  "This  consultation  we  are 
having  is  at  the  instance  of  so  and  so,  and  it 
may  be  necessary  to  tell  the  truth  about 
your  affairs  and  to  ask  you  about  them,"  and 
he  assented.  Now,  thereupon,  the  introduction 
of  what  occurred  between  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Tilton 
Gen.  Tracy,  and  Mr.  Woodruff  being  present  (I  don't 
know  that  he  took  much  part  in  it)  on  the  Sunday  night, 
was  introduced  upon  the  proposition  that  Mr.  Tracy  was 
there  to  represent  Mr.  Beecher,  and  thus  authorize  the 
conversation,  but  there  had  not  been  any  pretense  that 
there  had  been  any  such  authorisation  of  Gen.  Tracy  to 
represent  Mr.  Beecher  at  these  preliminary  talks  with 
him,  concerning  which  evidences  of  introductory  import 
was  given.  But  Mr.  Tracy  was  examined  and  cross-ex- 
amined as  to  these  preliminary  interviews,  aad  therefore 
tiiey  called  this  witness  with  the  view  of  contradicting 
Mr.  Tracy,  so  that  all  our  inquii'les  concerning  those  pre- 
liminary interviews,  as  we  understand  it,  are  introduced 
by  their  rebutting  evidenoe  of  this  witness  on  their 
right  to  contradict  Gen.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Beach— I  refer  you  to  page  344,  in  relation  to  your 
statement  that  this  first  interview  between  this  witness 
and  Gen.  Tracy  was  not  given  when  Mr.  Moulton  was 
there. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  was  stated  as  a  fact. 

Mr.  Beach— The  whole  relation  of  the  interview  wa« 
given  in  terms  by  Mr.  Woodruff  and  repeated ;  I  mean 
the  interview  between  Mr.  Moulton  and  yourself  and 
Mr.  Woodruff  at  your  office. 

Ml'.  Shearman— But  the  ten  minutes'  Interview  before 
Mr.  Moulton  came  was  never  brought  out  until  this  new 
examination. 

Mr.  Beach— And  that  is  brought  out  on  your  re-cross 
examination.  It  was  not  anything  we  examined  about. 
We  didn't  refer  to  that  interview. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  goes  to  this  interview. 

Mr.  Fullerton— They  called  it  out ;  we  did  not.  It  was 
a  man  of  straw,  set  up  by  Mr.  Shearman  to  fight,  and  it 
seems  the  man  of  straw  has  got  the  best  of  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— Do  you  refer  to  yourself  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  I  was  referring  to  another  matter. 
I  think  it  is  a  very  great  waste  of  time. 

Mr.  Skeai man— Make  these  bricks  ^Yithout  straw  if  you 
call. 

Mr.  Fullerton— You  have  got  neither  brick  nor  straw  as 


370  TRE  TILTON-B] 

the  result  of  your  examination,  because  I  take  it  makes 
no  difference  at  all  whether  Mr.  Moulton  went  in  the 
office  with  Mr.  Woodruff,  or  whether  he  succeeded  him 
hj  ten  minutes.  Now,  It  Is  an  inquiry  that  should  not  be 
permitted.  I  think,  technically  speaking,  the  witness  is 
right  in  saying  that  he  went  there  with  Mr.  Moulton,  or 
that  he  took  Mr.  Moulton  there,  if  Mr.  Moulton  went  in 
pursuance  of  an  arrangement  made  with  him,  although 
ten  minutes  intervened  between  their  respective  arrivals. 
H©  met  htm  there  by  appointment. 

Judge  Neilson— And  the  witness  introduced  him. 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  the  witness  introduced  him, 
yes,  Sii'.   That  is  all  there  was  of  the  interview. 

Judge  Neilson— Are  you  through,  Mr.  Shearman  t 

Mr.  Shearman— No,  Sir.  [To  the  witness.]  Did  you 
have  any  more  than  one  interview  with  Gen.  Tracy  in 
which  the  subject  of  this  scandal  was  in  any  way  dis- 
cussed, prior  to  the  time  when  Mr.  Moulton  came  into 
the  office  1  A.  I  think  likely  I  met  him  on  the  street,  and 
perhaps  casually  talked  with  him  al»out  it  a  little,  as  I 
had  with  others  I  had  met.  I  am  under  the  impression  I 
had. 

Q.  When  do  you  think  you  met  him  in  the  street  1  A.  I 
think  I  met  him  perhaps  a  day  or  two  after  this  thing- 
was  out. 

Q.  A  day  or  two  after  the  publication  1  A.  I  think  I 
may  have  met  him. 

Q.  In  this  interview  between  Mr.  Moulton  and  Gen. 
Tracy  nothing  was  said  about  the  money,  was  there  1  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  was  said  about  Bessie  Turner  1  A.  No,  Sir; 
you  mean  flhe  morning  interview  ? 

Q.  I  mean  the  morning  Interview  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q,  Was  anything  said  in  any  subsequent  interview  at 
which  you  were  present  between  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr. 
Tracy  about  money?   A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Nor  about  Bessie  Turner  ?  A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Did  you  on  your  reexamination  testify  in  this  man 
ner :  "  Mr.  Moulton  proceeded  to  tell  Mr.  Tracy  all  about 
the  case  ?"  A.  T  said  that  Mr.  Moulton  told  him. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  you  so  testified  or  not.  I 
will  show  you  the  passage  if  you  desire.  A.  I  think  I  may 
have  testified  so. 

Mr.  Beach— Then  follows  the  question :  "  What  did  he 
tell  him ;  just  repeat  it  now,"  and  he  goes  on  and  re- 
peats it. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  stows  he  didn't. 

Mr.  Beach— It  just  shows  what  he  did  tell  him. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Did  you  speak  to  Gen.  Tracy  about 
this  money  as  any  evidence  of  guilt  on  Mr.  Beecher's 
part? 

Mr,  Beach— That  is  objected  to. 

.Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  won't  take  that,  Mr.  Shear- 
man. 

Mr.  Shearman— You  say  you  knew  about  the  $5,000 
which  was  then  paid !  A.  I  say  I  knew  of  $5,300  that 


ECRBR  TBIAL. 

was  placed  to  P.  D.  Moulton's  credit  on  the  cash  book  of 
Woodruff  &  Robinson.  I  say  I  knew  it  from  the  fact  o* 
seeing  it  on  the  cash  book. 

Q.  And  you  remember  to  have  said  it  was  money  de 
rived  from  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  presumed  it  was,  j 

Mr.  Fullerton— Is  there  any  necessity  lor  going  otop 
that  ground  again  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  there  is. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  was  asking  the  Court. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  point  I  wish  to  get  at  is  that  you 
knew  of  three  classes  of  payments.  You  knew  of  the  pay-  i 
ment  on  account  of  Bessie  Turner ;  you  knew  of  the  pay- 
ment of  $500,  and  you  knew  of  the  payment  of  thle  , 
$5,000.    A.  I  knew  of  the  credit  to  F.  D.  Moulton 
$5,300. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  object  to  any  of  this  transaction  1  A. 
No,  Sii\  I 

Q.  Did  you  ever  complain  to  Mr.  Moulton  of  his  having  || 
made  use  of  tlv  firm  as  a  channel  for  such  payments? 
A.  Not  that  I  recollect  of. 

MR.  WOODRUFF  DENIES  A  CONVERSATION 
WITH  MR.  SOUTHWICK. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  an  interview  between 
yourself  and  John  C.  Southwick,  shortly  after  the  puDli- 
cation  of  the  so-called  Woodhull  scandal,  in  November, 
1872  ?  Do  you  recollect  an  intdtview  with  him  in  wliirtt 
there  was  a  conversation  between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher 
on  the  subject  of  the  scandal,  at  Mr.  Southwick's  house!  | 
A.  I  had  some  talk  with  Mr.  Southwick  about  the  scandal,  r 

Q.  I  simply  want  to  know  if  you  recollect  the  occasion. 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  on  that  occasion  saying  to  Mr 
Southwick,  "  Is  it  best  for  us  to  drive  Mr.  Beecher  out  of 
Brooklyn,  or  not  V* 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  object  to  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— Shall  I  give  the  whole  conversation  f  I 
think  the  objection  would  be  entirely  obviated  by  the 
waole  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  take  the  answer,  if  you 
[Mr.  Shearman]  will  be  content  with  the  answer. 

The  Witness— I  don't  recollect  saying  so. 

Q.  Nor  anything  of  that  sort  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  it, 

Q.  Will  you  swear  you  did  not  ?  A.  I  will  swear  I  dont 
recollect  I  did. 

Q.  But  not  anything  more  positive  than  that !  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  not  Mr.  Southwick,  In  answer  to  that,  say  to 
you  that  yon  bad  a  head  of  sufficient  level  to  drive  the 
salt  and  fish  business,  but  that  when  you  undertpok  to 
drive  Henry  Ward  Beecher  out  of  Brooklyn  he  thought 
you  had  taken  a  contrast  you  coiild  not  carry  through. 
A.  No,  I  don't  think  I  said  that. 

Judge  Neilson— The  question  is  whether  Mr.  Southwick 
said  it.  A.  No,  Sir. 


TUSTIMONF  OF  FRANKLIN  WOODRUFF. 


371 


Mr.  Shearman— Nor  anytliing  like  tliat  ?  A.  I  do 
n«t. 

Q.  Anytliing  in  substance  like  that  ?  A.  I  d©n't  recollect 
of  saying  anytliing  like  it. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  positively  you  didn't  say  it  1  A.  I 
swear  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  won't  interrupt  with  any  other  obiec- 
tion.  If  it  is  to  be  understood  they  are  to  retry  their 
case,  I  wni  submit  to  it. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  that  is  not  to  be  understood  at  all, 
and  the  rule  will  be  strictly  applied  hereafter.  In  this 
instance  we  drifted  into  this  long  minute  examination  be- 
fore you  called  attention  to  the  rule,  and  I  was  hoping  it 
would  be— 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  make  the  objection  now  before  we 
drift  entirely  out  to  sea  and  get  lost. 
Mr.  Shearman— If  yovir  Honor  pleas©— 
Mr.  Fullerton— No,  one  moment. 
Mr.  Sherman— Allow  me. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  you  will  allow  we,  please.  If  they 
want  to  introduce  Mr.  Southwick  to  contradict  the  wit- 
ness on  the  stand  in  regard  to  this  matter,  your  Honor 
will  perceive  it  is  a  little  out  of  the  proper  order  of  the 
case,  because  this  inquiry  now  ought  to  have  been  put 
when  the  witness  was  on  the  stand  before.  It  don't  make 
any  difference  whether  the  subject  was  referred  to  on  my 
former  examination,  or  whether  they  omitted  to  refer  to 
it ;  the  rule  is  precisely  the  same.  They  ought  now  to  be 
limited  in  their  inquiries  to  a  cross-examination  in  regard 
to  matters  to  which  we  directed  the  attention  of  the 
witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  agree  to. 

Judge  Neilson— We  have  not  applied  the  rule  in  this 
examination,  and  we  will  get  through  without  the  rule. 

Mr.  Evarts— Perhaps  counsel  wiU  differ  with  each  other. 
If  your  Honor  please,  and  the  Court  may  not  accord  with 
the  views  of  counsel,  and  we  wiU  assume  your  Honor  is 
right  in  this  view.  But  this  is  the  point  we  are  now  at. 
It  is  always  permissible  at  any  time  that  an  adverse 
witness,  that  is,  a  witness  of  an  adverse  party,  is  on  the 
stajid,  in  reference  to  any  testimony  that  he  has  given  to 
Indicate  his  bias  

Judge  Neilson— Therefore  I  allowed  the  last  answers  to 
etand. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  our  present  inquiry,  and  we  want 
to  pursue  it  a  little  further.  That  is  the  only  ground.  It 
does  not  follow  we  must  exhaust  our  testimony  as  to  bias 
on  the  original  examination,  because  it  may  no*  become 
at  all  important  until  after  the  rebutting  examination. 

Mr.  Shearman— Did  not  you  then  say  to  Mr.  Southwick, 
"I  will  show  you  a  letter  which,  if  published,  or  shown 
generally,  would  drive  him  out  of  Brooklyn  1" 

The  Witness— What  date  is  this ! 

Mr.  Shearman— About  the  time  of  the  Woodhull  pub- 
ication. 

The  Witne8»~I  don't  think  I  did :  I  never  had  any  suoh 


letter  in  my  possession.  I  could  not  show  him  any  such 
letter. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  you  did  not  say  so  ?  A.  I  don't 
think— no,  I  don't  recollect  saying  so.  I  may  have  said 
so  ;  that  I  had  seen  an  apology,  or  something  of  that  kind, 
that  was  very  damaging  to  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  And  "  which,  if  shown  generally,  would  drive  him 
out  of  Brooklyn  1"  A.  Very  possibly  I  may  have  said  so ; 
but  I  don't  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Southwick  then  ask  you  if  the  charge 
against  Mr.  Beecher  was  adultery,  and  did  n't  you  say 
no  ?  A.  No ;  I  don't  recollect  ever  anything  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  sort  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q,  Nothing  in  substance  to  that  effect  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  that  you  did  not  ?  A.  I  will  swear  to 
the  best  of  my  recollection  that  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Q.  That  is  as  positive  as  you  will  be  ?  A.  I  have  no  idea 
I  said  so. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  positively,  or  will  you  not,  that  you 
{  did  not  say  that  to  Mr.  Southwick  1    A.  I  will  swear  to 
the  best  of  my  recollection  I  never  said  any  such  thing, 
and  I  cannot  believe  I  did. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Soutlir  iek  in  that  conversation  ask  you  if 
you  believed  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  committed  adultery, 
and  didn't  you  answer  "  No  1 "  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  don't  think 
•  that  any  such  question  was  asked,  and  if  there  was,  I 
don't  believe  I  said  "  No." 

Q,  You  think  nothing  of  that  kind  occurred  ?  A.  I  don't 
recollect  that  anything  of  that  kind  occurred. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  nothing  of  that  kind  occurred?  A. 
I  am  sure  I  didn't  say  "  No  "  to  any  such  question  as  that. 

Q.  Did  nothing  of  this  kind  occur  at  any  conversation 
between  you  and  Mr.  Southwick  ?  A.  I  don't  think  there 
did  in  that  positive  form. 

Q.  In  that  positive  form.  But  did  it,  in  substance  1  A.. 
I  don't  think  anything  ever  occui'red  in  which  Mr.  South- 
wick asked  me  if  I  believed  Mr.  Beecher  guilty  of 
adultery,  and  I  said  "  No."  I  have  no  recollection  of  any- 
thing of  the  kind  ever  occurring. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  ask  you  if  you,  or  any  one  else,  charged 
him  with  adultery,  and  did  yon  say  "  No  ?"    A.  I  don't 
know  whether  he  asked  me,  or  not. 
I     Q.  And  you  don't  know  whether  you  answered  so  or 

not  i  A.  No,  I  don't  think  I  ever  answered  so. 
i     Q.  Did  you  never  to  Mr.  Southwick  charge  Mr.  Beecher 
i  with  adultery !  A.  I  never  charged  him  with  adultery. 
!     Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  Mr.  Southwick  that  Mr.  Beecher 
!  had  committed  adultery  with  Mrs.  Tiltoni    A.  No,  I 
I  don't  think  I  ever  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  Mr.  Southwick  that  Mr.  Tilton 
charged  adultery  1  A.  I  may  have  within  the  past  year. 

Q.  But  not  before  this  past  year  f  A.  I  don't  think  I 
ever  did  before. 


872  THE  TILTON-BJ 

MR.  SOUTHWICK  CENSURED  FOR  GIVING 
GEN.  TRACY  POINTS. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  talk  with  Mr.  South- 
wick  about  this  subject  of  the  scandal?   A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Didn't  you  begin  to  talk  witli  him  from  a  very  early 
day— from  1871  ?  A.  I  think  about  the  first  I  talked  was 
after  the  WoodhuU  scandal  was  published ;  I  think  along 
there. 

Q.  From  that  time  on,  haven't  you  talked  with  him 
frequently  f  A.  Oh,  I  talked  with  him  from  time  to  time ; 
yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Haven't  you  talked  about  what  the  charge  was 
against  Mr.  Beecher  with  Mr.  South  wick?  A.  I  don't 
think  I  have,  except  it  may  have  been  within  the  past 
year— after  it  came  out. 

Q.  I  don't  mean  the  past  year ;  I  don't  mean  since  Mr. 
Tilton  made  the  public  charge  of  adultery.  Before  that 
didn't  you  oftein  talk  with  him  4)n  the  subject  1  A.  I  have 
talked  with  him ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  not  since  you  were  on  the  stand  before 
complained  to  Mr.  Southwick  of  his  having  given  Mr. 
Tracy  points  in  this  case?  A.  I  did;  no,  I  don't  know 
about  points :  I  had  a  talk  with  Southwick  the  other  day. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  complain  of  his  conduct  in  telling 
Gen.  Tracy  anything  1  A.  I  complained  of  his— yes,  I 
did;  no,  I  complained  of  this:  he  swore  about  something 
that  I  had  told  him  in  confidence,  and  I  thought  it  was 
rather  stating  things  that  he  ought  not  to. 

Judge  Neilson— That  was  about  The  Golden  Age  f  A.  I 
think  so ;  no,  something  about  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  was  about  the  accusation  made  by 
Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment.  Let  him  tell  his  own  story. 

Judge  Neilson— What  was  it  about  ?  A.  Something 
about  the  accusation,  something  that  Mr.  Tilton  said.  I 
told  him  chat  I  thought  he  had  told  Gen.  Tracy,  for  I 
didn't  see  how  he  could  have  known  anything  about  it 
without. 

Q.  Haven't  you  told  that  to  other  persons  besides  Mr. 
Southwick  1   A.  Very  likely. 

Q.  Are  you  still  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Woodruff  & 
Kobinson  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  leave  the  firm  ?  A.  The  firm  dissolved 
on  the  1st  of  March ;  partially  on  the  1st  of  January,  and 
fully  on  the  1st  (rf  March. 

Q.  Was  not  the  dissolution  resolved  on  before  the  1st 
of  January,  Sir  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with  Mr.  Soutjiwick  a 
few  weeks  ago  at  your  office,  where  this  subject  of  the 
scandal  was  discussed  to  some  extent  ?  A.  Very  likely. 

Q.  Did  you  on  that  occasion  tell  Mr.  Southwick  that  he 
h'cul  known  all  about-  the  case  from  you  ?  A.  No,  Sli; ;  I 
don't  recollect  telling  liim  any  such  thing, 

(4.  Didn't  you  tell  him  anytMng  of  that  kind  in  sub- 
stance 1  A.  No,  Sir;  I  don't  think  he  had  ever  known 
about  this  case  from  me. 


UFAJaER  TRIAL. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  him  in  substance  that  you  had  told 
him  all  you  knew  about  the  case  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  joa  not  tell  him  that  you  had  told  him  all  that 
you  knew  about  the  case  in  confidence  1  A.  No ;  I  did  not 
tell  him  any  such  thing. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  tell  him  that  if  he  told  what  you  had 
told  him  you  would  never  have  any  more  confidence  in 
human  nature  ?  A.  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  sort  1  A.  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  assign  as  a  reason  for  it  that  you  had 
told  him  aU  that  you  knew  about  it,  and  expected  him  to 
keep  it  in  confidence  %  A.  No ;  I  told  him  that  he  oughi. 
not  to  tell  of  it,  matters  confidential ;  I  think  he  threat- 
ened to  tell  some  things  that  I  told  him  in  confidence,  and 
I  said  that  would  be  

Q.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  finish  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— No. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly,  you  will  finish  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  Sir,  you  may  finish  it. 

The  Witness— I  think  I  met  Southwick,  or  he  was  dowa 
at  our  office,  and  he  got  talking  about  this  thing,  and  I 
merely  cautioned  him  about  matters  that  I  had  talked 
with  him  in  confidence,  and  he  spoke  about  telling  some 
of  them.  I  told  him  those  I  had  given  him  in  confidence 
and  should  not  be  repeated  under  any  circumstances, 
something  of  that  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  is  that  all  with  this  witness  1 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  Mr.  Beachl— Do  you  wish  to  ask  him  f 

The  Witness— About  these  books  that  they  wanted— 
they  are  out  of  my  possession. 

Mr.  Evarts— Don't  talk  any  more,  Mr.  Witness. 

Judge  Neilson— He  is  speaking  to  me  about  the  books. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  I  beg  pardon,  I  apologize  to  Mr.  Wood- 
ruff; I  thought  he  was  proceeding. 

Mr.  Shearman— Are  they  herel 

Mr.  Beach— No. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Evarts,  why  do  we 
want  the  books?  We  have  the  accounts  here. 

Mr.  Beach— They  are  not  in  his  possession  or  under  his 
control. 

Judge  Neilson— Every  check  has  been  read. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  have  used  the  account  in  the  book;  that 
answers  our  purpose,  I  am  told. 
The  Witness— You  don't  want  the  books,  then  ? 

RE-DIRECT   EXAMINATION   OF    MR.  WOOD- 
RUFF. 

Mr.  Beacn— I  dou't  know  whether  that  chet^k, 
Sir,  for  $7,000,  of  Bowen's  has  ever  been  sliowii  ye  1 
[Handing  witness  check.]  Do  you  recollect  of  that  being 
deposited  with  your  firm?  A.  Well,  I  have  a  recollection 
tijal  it  was ;  it  must  have  been  deposited  there. 

Well,  there  is  the  indorsement  of  your  firm  upon  It, 


TESTIMOIiY  OF  FEA 

thflf;  slio-ws  It.   A.  Til  at  is  George  C.  Robinson's  haud- 
•writlng. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  yellow  paper?  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  ever  seeing  it  until  I  saw  it  here  the  other 
day. 

Mr.  Evarta— We  don't  hear,  Mr.  Beach. 
Mr.  Beach— He  has  no  recollection  of  ever  having  seen 
It  until  he  saw  it  here  the  other  day. 
Mr.  Evarts— The  yellow  paper  % 
The  Witness— The  yellow  paper. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  this  yellow  paper— it  Is  marked  as 
Exhibit  D,  134." 

Mr.  Shearman— What  was  said  about  the  check,  Mr, 
Beach?  We  could  not  hear. 

Mr.  Beach— He  says  simply  that  he  recollects  the  check 
and  the  indorsement  of  his  Arm  upon  it,  and  it  passed 
through  his  firm. 

Mr.  Evai'ts— It  is  not  his  own  indorsement. 

Mr.  Beach— Made  by  George  C.  Robinson.  [To  the  wit- 
ness.] Have  j  ou  any  recollection  of  passing  that  check 
to  Mr.  Partridge,  the  cashier  at  that  time  of  your  firm? 
A.  I  think  I  did  ;  I  won't  swear  positively,  but  I  think  I 
,ejivo  the  check  to  Mr.  Partridge. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  from  whom  you  received  the  check? 
A.  Well.  I  think  I  received  it  from  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Was  that  yellow  paper  in  connection  with  the  check 
handed  to  you  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  seeing 
that  paper  until  to-day. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  alL 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  Mr.  BeaohJ— Will  you  allow  me  to  exam- 
ine him  about  this  ? 
Mr.  Beach— Certainly. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  WOODRUFF. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Woodruff,  what 
recollection  have  you  in  regard  to  this  check  having  gone 
through  your  hands  [handing  check  to  witnessl  ?  A. 
Well,  I  say  I  think  it  came  to  me,  and  that  I  handed  it  in 
to  the  cashier.  I  think  Mr.  Tilton  gave  it  to  me ;  I  don't 
•wear  positively ;  I  think  that  was  so ;  that  is  all  I  know 
about  it. 

Q.  Well,  can  you  say  anything  more  than  that  you  im- 
agine that  it  must  have  been  so  ?  A.  I  say  I  think  it  must 
have  been  so ;  I  don't  imagine  it ;  I  say  I  think  it  is  so ; 
whether  it  was  or  was  not,  I  don't  know ;  I  think  it 
"Was  so. 

Q.  Now  do  you  remember  whether  these  two  papers 
eame  inside  of  an  envelope  together  ?  A.  No ;  I  don't  re- 
member that  at  all ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  these  two  papers  were 
pinned  together,  or  not  ?   A.  I  don't  recollect  anything  of 
I  the  kind ;  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  seeing  that  paper 
I  until  I  saw  it  here  the  other  day. 

■  Q.  That  I  understand  you  to  say.  Have  you  any  recol- 
lection as  to  whether  this  paper  came — these  two  papers 
j  eame  in  an  envelope,  or  not?   A,  No.  I  have  not. 


NKLIN   WOODED FF.  378 

Q.  Not  the  slightest A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  reading  the  check  at 
the  time  that  it  came  ?  A.  I  think  I  saw  the  check. 

Q.  And  that  is  all  you  can  say  about  it  ?  A.  Yes ;  it  was 
placed  to  Mr.  Tilton's  credit. 

Q.  Now,  you  say  that  Mr.  Tilton  handed  you  the  check  ! 
A.  1  have  that  impression  ;  I  could  not  swear  to  it  posi- 
tively, but  I  am  under  that  impression. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  know  where  you  were  when  he  haiidird 
you  the  check,  if  he  did  hand  it  to  you?  A.  Well,  I  don't 
know  whether  he  handed  it  to  me  at  Moulton's  liouse  or 
at  the  ofiiee. 

Q.  It  was  either  one  or  the  other  ?  A.  It  must  have 
been — I  think  so. 

Q.  Then  you  don't  recollect  probably  what  day  he 
handed  it  to  you  ?   A.  No,  I  do  not. 

Q.  And  the  amount  of  it  is,  that  you  don't  recollect 
anything  about  the  yellow  paper,  and  you  don't  recollect 
anything  about  the  check  except  that  you  think  you  saw 
it  as  it  passed  through  your  firm  for  deposit  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— You  stated,  Mr.  Woodrufi",  that  you  have  no 
recollection  of  having  seen  this  yellow  paper.  I  ask 
your  attention  to  the  terfns  of  the  writing  upon  it? 

Mr.  Evarts— The  what? 

Mr.  Beach— The  writing  upon  it,  and  ask  you  whether 
you  have  any  recollecticm  of  reading  any  such  sentiment 
or  writing  in  connection  with  any  check ;  "  Spoils  from 
new  friends  tor  the  enrichment  of  old?"  A.  I  haven't 
any  recollection  of  ever  seeing  it. 

Mr.  Davis  (a  juror)  here  spoke  to  Mr.  Beach  in  regard 
to  the  handwriting  on  the  yellow  paper. 

Mr.  Beach— This  is  Mr.  Tilton's  handwriting. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  Mr.  Tilton's  handwriting  ;  that  is  con- 
ceded. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all. 

The  Witness— Now,  yon  don't  want  me  to  bring  the 

books  i 
Mr.  Evarts— No. 

Judge  NeUson— Gentlemen,  get  ready  to  retire. 
The  Court  then  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

TESTIMONY  INTRODUCED  BY  PROXY. 

The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Judge  Neilson— Call  your  next  witness. 

Mr.  Morris— If  your  Honor  please,  Dr.  Skiles  has  been 
subpenaed  as  a  witness,  and  Mr.  Evarts  and  myself  have 
heard  his  statement,  and  we  have  agreed  upon  the  single 
point  to  which  we  desired  to  call  him,  and  that  is,  that  he 
made  his  last  professional  visit  ui)on  Mrs.  Tilton  on  the 
30th  of  December,  1870. 

Judge  Neilson— That  will  be  taken  down. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  will  be  put  in  the  record  with  the 
same  effect  as  if  Dr.  Skiles  had  sworn  to  it. 

Mr.  Beach— And  that  he  left  her  convalesoent  t 


874 


TUB   TlLTOiV-BEhJr'HhJR  TRLAlu 


^Iv.  Evarts— That  lie  made  a  professional  visit  on  Fri- 
day, the  30th,  and  that  that  was  his  last  visit. 
Mr.  Beach— We  don't  accept  that. 

Mr,  Morris— We  want  to  prove  that  fact  by  him,  that 
she  was  convalescent. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  she  did  get  well. 

Mr.  Beach— That  she  was  then  convalescent,  and  that 
she  needed  no  more  medical  treatment. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  agree  to  that ;  that  is  implied  by  the  fact 
that  he  made  no  other  visit. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is,  if  they  called  no  other  physi- 
cian. 

Mr.  Pullerton— The  gentleman  don't  mean  to  say  that 
she  got  well  because  the  doctor  did  not  call  on  her  any 
more.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Evarts— The  fact  is,  no  doubt,  as  my  friend  states, 
that  a  competent  physician  attending  on  a  patient  made 
a  professional  call  that  day,  and  that  was  his  last. 

Mr.  Beach— Dr.  Skiles  was  her  attendant  physician, 
and  that  day  was  the  last  call  he  made ;  he  then  consid- 
ered her  convalescent,  and  not  needing  medical  atten- 
tion. That  is  what  we  want. 

Judge  Neilson— If  that  is  the  ffiot,  then  that  is  taken 
down. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HANNAH  M.  MmDLEBROOK. 

Hannah  M.  Middlebrook,  a  witness  called 
and  sworn  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  testified  as  follows : 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mrs.  Middlebrook,  where  do  you  reside  ? 
A.  In  the  town  of  Trumbull,  State  of  Connecticut. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  there  1  A.  For  16  years. 

Q.  You  are  a  married  lady  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Your  husband  engaged  in  business  there  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Theodore  Tilton?  A.  I 
have  met  him — well,  a  few  times,  before  the  present. 

Q.  When  did  you  meet  him  the  first  time  ?  A.I  think 
the  first  time  I  met  him  in  the  oflSce  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  on 
Broad-st. 

Q.  When  was  that  1  A.  Well,  it  must  have  been  in  the 
year  1871, 1  think;  only  a  moment— a  few  moments— was 
introduced  to  him  there. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  the  season  of  the  year  ?  A.  I  think 
it  was  in  the  Summer  of  

Q.  Of  1871  ?  A.  res,  Sir. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  meet  him  after  that  1  A.  I  only 
met  him  once  more  in  the  office.  I  met  him  again  in  the 
Autumn  of  that  year,  in  Mrs.  Woodhull's  house. 

Q.  And  where  did  she  reside  then  ?  A.  At  I  think  it 
was  No.  15  East  Thirty-eiglith-st. 

Q.  Then  you  were  acquainted  also  with  Mrs.  Woodhull, 
I  take  it  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  make  her  acquaintance  I  A.  At 
a  convention  held— I  do  n't  recollect  whether  it  was 
Apollo  Hall  or  Steinway  Hall ;  I  thiak  it  was  Apollo 
HtOL 


Q.  What  was  the  character  of  the  convention !  A  It 

was  a  Woman's  Suffrage  CouA'^ention. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  the  Autumn  of  1871 ;  did  you 
visit  Mrs.  Woodhull's  house  in  that  Autumn  %  A.  Yea, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  visit  that  house  more  than  once  1  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Only  once?  A.  Only  once;  or  rather — excuse  me; 
I  was  there  more  than  once,  but  I  passed  but  one  evening 
there ;  T  called  there  two  or  three  times  on  matters  of 
business. 

Q.  And  at  what  time  in  the  day  did  you  caU  ?  A.  WelU 
I  called  once  in  the  morning ;  I  was  about  to  take  the 
train  to  my  home,  and  I  think  Mrs.  Woodhull  went  up 
with  me  to  Hartford,  where  she  was  going  to  lecture. 

Q.  These  were  calls  that  you  speak  of  %  A.  These  were 
mere  calls. 

Q.  And  you  went  there,  you  say,  upon  business  mat- 
ters ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  If  there  is  no  objection,  please  state  what  the  busi- 
ness matters  were.  A.  Well,  I  was  connected  with  the 
American  Association  of  Spiritualists,  one  of  the  Trustees 
and  oue  of  the  Executive  Board,  and  she  was  President 
of  the  Spiritualists'  Association;  then,  further,  I  was  a 
correspondent  sometimes  of  her  paper;  I  wrote  several 
articles  that  were  published  in  her  paper,  and  I  called  on 
those  matters. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  recollect  what  time  in  the  Autumn  of 
1871  it  was  that  you  called  at  her  house  ?  A.  Well,  if  you 
will  allow  me  to  refer  to  a  diary  I  can  tell  you  the  day. 

Q.  You  can  refresh  your  recollection  by  it  ?  A.  [Eefer- 
ring  to  diary.]  It  was  October  25, 1871,  as  I  then  noted 
down. 

That  is  an  entry  that  you  made  at  the  time  ?  A.  At  the 
time ;  yes,  Sli\ 

A  GATHERING  OF  SPIRITUALISTS  AT  MRS. 
WOODHULL'S. 

Q.  Mr.  Charles  Cowley,  who  has  been  intro- 
duced as  a  witness  in  this  case,  mentioned  the  fact  that 
he  met  you  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  in  the  Autunm  of  1871 ; 
do  you  recollect  him  ?  A.  Well,  I  recollect  being  intro- 
duced to  two  strange  gentlemen,  one  of  them  fi-oni 
Lowell.  I  should  not  have  remembered  the  name  but  as 
it  was  recalled  to  me. 

Q.  One  of  them  was  from  Lowell  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  re- 
member that. 

Q.  You  remember  it  now  that  it  is  reealled  t  A.  Well, 
I  would  not  have  remembered  the  name,  for  I  think  it 
was  very  indistinct  when  it  was  given  to  me,  and  I  did 
not  remember  it. 

Q.  That  was  the  only  occasion  in  which  you  met  a  gen- 
tleman from  Lowell!  A.  Yes,  Sir,  that  was  the  only 
evening  that  I  spent  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's. 

Q.  And  the  only  evening  that  you  spent  at  that  house  t 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 


TESTURMY  OF  EAl^NAH  M.  MIDDLEBllOOK. 


375 


Q.  Wlioin  el»e  did  yoxi  meet  there  that  evening,  if 
you  recellect,  Mrs.  Middlehrook  ?  A.  Well,  there 
■was  a  gentleuiHU  with  this  Mr.  Cowley,  this 
gentleman  from  Lowell,  whose  name  I  don't  re- 
member; I  met  Mr.  Tilton,  Mr.  George  Bacon  of 
Boston,  Mr.  A.  E.  Wheelock,  of  what  place  I  could  not 
Bay  now,  and  Mr.  Edward  Wheeler,  besides  Mi-s.  Wood- 
hull,  Miss  ClafliD,  and  CoL  Blood  and  Mr.  Andrews- 
Stephen  Pearl  Andrews. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  named  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Ah  !  I  beg  pardon.  Now,  Mrs.  Middlebrook,  I  want 
to  ask' you  this  question,  whether  duiingthat  interview, 
at  any  time,  the  so-called  Beecher  scandal  was  the  subject 
of  conversation  ?   A.  No,  Sir;  not  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Well,  how  positive  are  you  able  to  speak  upon  that 
suljject?  A.  Well,  I  know  that  no  convei'sation  could 
have  taken  place  that  evening  that  I  did  not  hear,  and  I 
am  positive  that  that  was  not  spoken  of  at  all  that  even- 
ing. _ 

iHE  WITNESS   COWLEY  CONTRADICTED. 

Q.  Mr.  Cowley,  in  Ms  testimony,  in  speaking 
of  the  subjects  which  were  there  discussed,  says  this : 
Mr.  Evarts— What  page  % 

Mr.  Fullerton— 267  of  Volume  7.  [Reading.]  "  One"— 
subject,  that  is  J—"  I  recall  is,  that  there  was  some  doubt 
whether  Mr.  Beecher  or  Mr.  Tilton  was  the  father  of  one 
of  the  children."  Was  there  anything  of  that  kind  dis- 
cussed or  mentioned  there  that  evening  1  A.  No,  Sir; 
there  was  not. 

Q.  Was  th€;re  anything  said  or  discussed  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  Mrs.  Tilton's  regxet  as  to  the  deception  which  she 
had  practiced  upon  her  husband,  or  that  she  had  written 
a  letter  stating  what  her  relations  with  Mr.  Beecher  had 
keen  %  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  am  positive  no  such  thing  occurred. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  page  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  same  page  r267),  a  little  more  than 
half  the  way  down,  on  the  extreme  right-hand  column. 
[To  the  ^vitness.]  Anything  to  the  eftect  that  Mr. 
Beecher  had  got  hold  of  that  letter,  and  that  a  friend  of 
Mr.  Tilton's  had  made  him  give  it  up— had  extorted  it  at 
the  point  of  a  pistol  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Anything  to  this  effect,  that  if  she,  Mrs.  Tilton,  had 
written  one  confession  she  cotdd  write  another  I  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Well,  I  understand  you,  Mrs.  Middlebrook,  tiiat  tJie 

subject  of  that  scandal  was  not  introduced  there  that 

evening  at  all.   A.  No,  Sir,  it  was  not. 
Q.  How  long  a  time  did  you  spend  there  that  evening  1 

A.  Well,  it  was  after  dark  when  I  arrived  there.  I  could 
I  not  say  just  the  hour  now  in  that  season  of  the  year  that 
j  it  was  dark ;  it  was  dark  when  I  left  Mrs.  Woodhull's 
I  office  ;  I  went  from  her  office  up  there,  and  I  reanaine* 

there  until  between  10  and  11 ;  I  think  it  must  have  been 
i  Pear  11.  j 

j 


Q.  And  where  did  you  spend  the  time !  A.  In  Mrs, 
Woodhull's  parlor. 

Q.  And  did  the  rest  of  the  company  spend  their  time 
there  also  ?  A.  Not  all  of  them.  I  think  Col.  Blood  went 
out  and  in  ;  I  think  Miss  Claflin  only  came  in  a  short  time 
at  the  early  part  of  the  evening,  and  then  excused  herself 
and  left ;  and,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  Mr.  Andrews,  I 
think,  went  out  and  in,  occasionally  leaving  for  a  short 
time,  and  coming  in  again. 

Q.  How  about  Mrs.  Woodhulll  A.  Mrs.  Woodhull— 
well,  she  might  have  passed  out  of  the  room  once  or 
twice,  but  she  was  there  most  of  the  evening. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  her  going  out  of  the  room  at  all! 
A.  I  don't  recollect  of  her  going  out  of  the  room  at  all. 

Q.  Now,  as  to  this  stranger  from  Lowell ;  did  he  go  out 
of  the  room,  or  did  he  remain  there  ?  A.  I  don't  think  he 
went  out  of  the  room ;  I  cannot  swear  positively,  but  I 
think  he  remained  there  the  whole  evening,  or  as  long— 
until  he  left. 

Q.  Which  parlor  were  they  in?  A.  It  was  one  long 
parlor. 

Q.  Extending         A.  Extending  from  the  front  back  to 

afcmall  room  that  adjoined  it.  We  were  in  the  long  par- 
lor. 

Q.  It  was  not  a  house,  then,  with  double  parlors,  but 
of  only  one  ?  A.  No,  as  I  recollect— I  don't  recollect  any 
folding  doors ;  if  there  were  folding  docjrs  tliey  were  wide 
open,  making  one  room.  I  don't  recollect  tha*  there  was 
any  folding  doors. 

MRS.  WOODHULL  PUBLICLY  DISCUSSES 
THE  SCANDAL  IN  BOSTON. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  being  present  in  Bos- 
ton when  Mrs.  Woodhull  addressed  an  audience  there  in 
the  Fall  of  1872  1  A.  Yes,  Su'. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  month  that  was  in  1  A.  It 
was  in  September,  the  11th ;  well,  the  Convention  was 
held  the  10th,  11th,  and  12th,  I  think,  of  September. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  character  of  the  Coaventi»n  1  A. 
It  was  the  annual  m;^eting  of  the  American  Association 
of  Spiritualists. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  the  scandal  was  the  sub- 
ject of  talk  there  1 

Mr.  Evaits— Well,  is  that  in  reference  to  any  of  our  te*- 
timony  1 

Ml'.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir ;  it  is. 

Mr.  Evarts— Whom  do  you  contradict! 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  don't  contradict  anybody  by  proving 
that,  but  I  will  lay  a  foimdation. 

The  Witness— Mrs.  Woodhull  spoke  of  the  Boandal  at 
that  time. 

Mr.  Evarts— Wait  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Wait  a  moment.   [To  the  Court.]  I  shall 

connect  it  properly,  Sii-. 

Judgie  Neilson— I  think  I  see  what  you  refer  to ;  wa« 
an  interview  on  the  cars. 


370 


THE   TILTON-BBEOHEE  lElAL. 


Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir ;  that  ia  it  exactly. 
Judge  Neilson— A  gentleman  saw  Mr.  Tilton,  and  had  a 
conversation. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir ;  I  want  to  show  that  the  scan- 
dal was  developed  publicly  prior  to  that  time. 

Judge  Neilson— And  tlie  inference  is  that  that  might 
have  been  the  subject  to  which  Mr.  Tilton  referred. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir.  fTo  the  witness.]  Now  you 
may  answer  the  question,  Mrs.  Middlehrook.  A.  Mrs. 
Woodhull  referred  to  the  subject  of  the  scandal. 

Q.  And  with  what  degree  of  particularity?  A.  Well, 
she  had  been  sorely  pressed  by  her  opptsers— those  that 
were  opposed  to  her  re-election— and  seemingly  quite  iu- 
dig-nant  she  rushed  upon  the  platform  and  spoke  of  a 
number  of  pei-sons  that  were  living  in  criminal  inter- 
course, and  among  others  she  spoke  of  Mr.  Beecher  and 
his  relations  with  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  with  the  women  of  his 
church. 

Q.  What  was  the  size  or  extent  of  the  au^ence  present 
at  that  time  !  A.  Well,  I  should  judge  they  might  have 
numbered  400  persons. 

Q.  And  in  the'  evening  or  in  the  day  time  ?  A.  I  think 
it  was  in  the  day  time ;  I  think  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  It  was  a  meeting  with  open  doors  ?   A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  The  public  attended  if  they  pleased  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  if  you  will  s^ate  tfi©  month.  Mrs.  Middlebrook  ? 
A.  September,  1872. 

Q.  How  long  did  it  precede  the  publication  of  the  scan- 
dal by  Mrs.  Woodhull  in  her  paper,  if  you  recoUect?  A. 
The  issue  of  her  paper,  I  think,  was  Nov.  2. 

Q.  That  corresponds  with  your  recollection,  does  it? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— You  may  cross-examine,  gentlemen. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION   OF  MRS.  MIDDLE- 
BROOK. 

Mr.  Evarts  —  Mrs.  Mid(fiebrook,  were  you 
at  this  meeting  at  which  this  public  speech  was  made  ? 
A.  In  Boston  ? 

Q.  Yes.   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  large  a  number  of  delegates  to  this  Convention 
were  present  1  A.  Well,  I  cannot  say  how  large  a  num- 
ber ;  I  should  judge,  however,  probably  75. 

Q.  Seventy-flve  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  object  of  the  Convention  1  A.  It  was  the  annual 
meeting  of  the  American  Association  of  Spiritualists. 

Q.  A  Spiritualist  Convention  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  was  this  topic  within  the  range  of  the  subjects 
for  which  that  Convention  was  held  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  this  was  an  episode,  wasn't  it  I  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  an  unexpected  one  t  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  quite  so. 

Q.  Rather  a  sudden  and  rash  accusing  I  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  so  regarded  t   A.  It  was  so  regarded. 

Q.  Was  it  ever  published,  that  you  know  ?  A.  Well,  I 
think  brief  notices  were  given  of  it  in  the  Spiritualist 


papers,  and  I  do  not  think  it  was  noticed  at  large  at  all 
in  the  secular  papers. 

Q.  Was  n't  it  passed  overt  A.  It  was. 

Q.  Entirely,  in  sectdar  papers!  A.  I  hare  a  refloUee- 
tion,  I  think,  of  one  or  two  of  the  Boston  payors  naming 
it,  and  only  naming  it. 

Q.  Won't  you  be  so  good  as  to  give  us  the  names  of 
those  papers  1  A.  I  don't  know  that  I  can ;  I  think  The 
Boston  Globe  mentioned  it,  but  I  am  not  certain  ;  I  don't 
know  that  I  can  naxie  the  papers. 

Q.  You  cannot  name  any  papers?  A.  I  don't  know  that 
I  can. 

Q.  And  you  have  not  any  serious  opinion,  have  you, 
i^Sbt  any  of  the  ordinary  public  papers  in  Boston  did 
mention  this  episode  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  don't  think  it  was 
mentioned,  excepting  brief  notices. 

Q.  Aren't  you  quite  sure  that  no  Boston  paper  men- 
tioned Mrs.  Tilton's  name  ?  A.  I  am  not  quite  sure  ;  no, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  is  youi-  best  impression?  A.  Well,  I  think,  as  I 
said,  that  there  was  only  one  or  two  papers  that  men- 
tioned the  affair  that  took  placo  in  the  Convention- 
nothing  more. 

Q.  And  the  names  were  not  given  ?  A.  I  don't  know, 
I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Now,  what  Spiritualist  papers  contained  an  account 
of  this  effusion?  A.  Well,  The  BeUgio-PhilosoplticalJonr- 
nal  named  it  particularly  ;  that  is  published  in  Chicago ; 
and  T  cannot  tell  whether  The  Banner  of  Light  mentionetl 
it  or  not.   It  reported  the  Convention. 

Q.  Are  they  understood  to  be  organs  of  that   A. 

They  are  ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  [Continmng]— of  that  opinion— Spiritualist ;  and  tho 
principal  organs  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  think  so. 

Q.  Where  is  The  Banner  of  Light  published?  A.  In 
Boston. 

Q.  And  how  soon  after  this  demonstration  before  the 
Convention  did  you  see  or  know  of  any  publication  in 
any  substantial  expression  of  what  occurred?  A.  WeU, 
publication? 

Q.  Yes,  how  soon  ?  A.  This  was  in  September,  the  11th 
I  think,  and  the  publication,  the  first  that  I  knew  of,  wa« 
the  issue  of  The  Woodhull  dk  Clafiin's  Weekly,  contain- 
ing the  published  account  of  the  scandal,  Nov.  2— dated 
Nov.  2. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  see  in  any  newspaper  before  that 
time  any  publication  of  this  Boston  afiair  ?  A.  I  think 
not,  excepting  as  I  have  mentioned.  The  Religio-Phil^y 
sophical  Journal  noticed  it. 

Q.  WeU,  that  is  what  I  want;  how  soon  had  you  seen  it 
in  The  Beligio-Philoso2)hical  Journal  ?  A.  WeU,  I  thick 
either  the  next  week  or  the  week  following ;  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Stm,  that  is  rather  a  matter  of  impression  thano 
definite  recollection  as  to  the  time !  A.  No,  that  ie  not  a 
matter  of  impression ;  I  recoUect  it  particularly  owing  to 
one  circumstance. 


TESTIMOJ^Y  OF  EAlSlS 

Q.  Well,  we  don't  care  wliat  the  circumstance  is  1  A. 
Very  well,  then. 

Q.  It  is  enough  if  it  impressed  itself  upon  you.  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Now,  about  this  acquaintance  of  yovirs  with  Mrs. 
Woodhull— when  did  it  begin  ?  A.  I  think  in  the  Spring 
of  1871 ;  I  am  not  quite  certain,  however. 

Q.  It  might  have  been  earlier  ?  A.  It  might  have  been 
the  year  preceding  ;  I  am  not  able  to  fix  the  date.  It  was 
at  a  Convention,  and  I  attended  a  Convention  in  New- 
York  both  of  those  years,  or  for  two  or  three  years,  and 
I  am  not  able  now—  I  find  by  referring  to  m.y  diary  that 
I  speak  of  a  Convention,  but  not  of  my  introduction  to 
her. 

Q.  Now,  for  aught  you  know,  then,  you  may  have  be- 
come acquainted  with  her  in  the  Spring  of  1870  1  A.  It 
is  possible  ;  I  don't  want  to  be  positive  about  it. 

Q.  Well,  at  any  rate,  did  you,  after  your  introduction 
to  her,  form  the  habit,  of  visiting  her  at  her  ofiice  ?  A.  I 
often  went  into  her  office  when  I  was  in  New- York.  I 
live  away. 

Q.  And  was  it  a  part  of  your  life  to  be  in  New-York  oc- 
casionally 1  A.  Occasionally,  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Through  the  year  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
.  Q.  As  might  happen  ;  and  when  here,  you  rather  made 
it  a  point,  I  take  it,  to  go  to  her  ofiice  1   A.  I  did  ;  yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  So  that  if  your  acquaintance  was  from  the  Spring  of 
1870,  that  habit  of  yours  of  visiting  her  ofiice  wont 
through  that  year  ?  A.  It  did,  if  I  was  acquainted  with 
her ;  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  And  you  searched  in  your  diary  in  vam,  I  under- 
stand you,  to  fix  the  question  whether  it  was  in  1870  or 
1871 1  A.  I  find  the  date  of  the  Convention  that  I  at- 
tended, but  not  thinking  of  it,  and  referring  to  other 
diaries,  I  could  not  say  now.  I  could  tell  by  referring  to 
other  diaries  at  home,  but  I  only  have  this  one. 

Q.  Perhaps  you  have,  then,  only  the  diary  of  1871 1  A. 
That  is  all  I  have  here. 

Q,  And  there  you  find  no  entry  of  the  date  of  your  in- 
troduction to  her?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Mr.  Tilton— you  met  him  first  in  the 
office  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  in  what  way  were  you  brought  into  mtroduc- 
tion  with  him,  or  did  you  know  hlTn  before  1  A.  No,  Sir ; 
I  did  not  know  him  before. 

Q-  Who  introduced  you  to  himl  A.  Mrs.  Woodhull,  I 
think. 

Q.  In  her  office  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  soon  was  that  after  you  first  made  the 
acquaintance  of  Mrs.  WoodhuU?  A.  I  could  not  teU  you. 

Q.  Well,  was  n't  it  within  a  few  weeks  1  A.  I  cannot 
tell  you,  Sir. 

Q.  It  might  have  been !  A.  It  might  have  been. 
Q.  So  far  as  you  have  any  knowledge  it  is  as  likely  to 
have  been  within  a  few  weeks  after  your  first  acqualxit- 


M.    MinVLEBBOOK,  377 

ance  with  Mrs.  WoodhuU  as  at  any  other  time  ?  A.  It  is 
possible. 

Q.  Now,  you  apparently  were  a  somewhat  active  or  in* 
terested  advocate  of  tliis  Spiritualist  movement  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  made  the  Clafiin  &  Woodhull  newspaper  to 
some  extent,  at  least,  the  organ  of  your  publication  1  A. 
Well,  I  published  very  little ;  I  wrote  a  few  letters  to  the 
paper. 

Q.  Well,  but  you  did  write  for  that  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  write  for  any  other  paper  ?    A..  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  to  the  same  extent  about  as  for  this  1  A.  About 
the  same  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  you  visited  Mrs.  Woodhull's  nousein  the  even- 
ing was  it  for  a  public  gathering  of  any  kind  1  A.  Well, 
it  was  a  mere  accident  that  took  me  there  ;  I  attended  a 
meeting  of  the  Executive  Board  of  the  Association  of 
which  I  was  a  member. 

Q.  Of  the  Spiritualists  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  at  the  office  of 
Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Q.  On  that  day  ?  A.  On  that  day,  toward  evening,  ex- 
pecting after  I  left  to  come  over  to  Brooklyn  and  meet  a 
sister  of  mine  at  the  house  of  our  friends.  It  was  dark, 
raining,  and  Mi's.  Woodhull  proposed  that  I  go  home  with 
her,  and  Col.  Blood  would  take  me  over  the  ferry  to  the 
house  that  I  was  expecting  to  go  to.  That  is  why  I  came 
to  be  at  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  house. 

Q.  That  is  to  say  that,  as  it  was  a  rainy  night,  instead 
of  going  over  early  in  the  evening  to  Brooklyn,  you  would 
go  over  late  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  not  at  all ;  I  was  alone,  with- 
out an  umbrella,  or  means  of  conveyance,  and  it  was 
raining ;  there  were  no  ears  or  omnibuses  runniag  from 
Mrs.  Woodli nil's  office,  and  she  was  going  to  ride  to  her 
house  in  a  carriage,  and  told  me  that  Col.  Blood— it  was 
already  dark,  it  would  be  no  worse  later— she  told  me 
that  Col.  Blood  should  be  my  company  to  Brooklyn. 

Q.  Well,  didn't  you  understand  that  there  was  to  he 
some  sort  of  a  gathering  there  that  night?  A.  I  didn't 
know  it  until  I  got  to  her  house. 

Q.  Until  you  got  there  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  when  you  got  there  did  you  find,  or  did  you 
find  while  you  were  there,  that  there  was  a  considerable 
colloction  of  people?  A.  I  think  when  I  arrived  there 
tlijit  Mr.  Wieelock,  Mr.  Bacon,  and  Mr.  WTieeler  were 
there,  and  Mr.  Tilton  was  there,  and  Mr.  Andrews,  and 
others,  and  I  foimd  immediately  that  I  could  not  take 
Col.  Blood  away  from  the  company ;  that  is  why  I  spent 
the  evening  there. 

Q.  Now,  were  there  other  ladies  there  ?  A.  Mrs.  Wood' 
hull  was  there,  and  Miss  Clafiin,  early  in  the  evening. 

Q.  Well,  of  course,  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss  Ciaflln  I  ad- 
sxune.   A.  Yes. 

Q.  Were  there  other  ladies  there  i  A.  I  don't  recollect 
any  other  ladies  there  at  all. 


378 


THE    TILTON-BKECIRBR   J  RIAL, 


THE  MEDIUMISTIO  SPEECH. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  remember  an  occurrence  of  a 
mediumieitio  or  spiritJialistio  speech  %  A.  Yes,  Six. 

Q.  Who  was  the  author  of  that!  A.  I  think  Mr. 
Wheeler— Edward  Wheeler. 

Q.  Mr.  Edward  Wheeler  !  A.  Yea,  Sir. 

Q.  And  do  you  remember  Mr.  Tilton's  reporting  it  f  A. 
I  don't  remember  his  reporting  it ;  no,  Sir. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  that  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  discussion  about  that  speech 
after  it  was  made,  in  which  Mr.  Cowley  took  part  t  A,  I 
don't  understand  you. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  discussion  arising  about  that 
spiritualistic  speech,  after  it  was  made,  in  which  Mr. 
Cowley  took  part  1  A.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  I  can  re- 
peat the  exact  conversation ;  I  remember  

Q.  Well,  do  you  remember  there  was  such  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  And  who  took  part  in  that  conversation*  A.  Well, 
the  company  generally,  I  think. 

Q.  Including  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  Mrs.  Woodhulll   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  perhaps  yourself  ?  A.  Yes ;  yes.  Sir ;  I  think  I 
joiued  in  the  conversation. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  a  conversation  arising  that  even- 
ing about  Lowell  operatives,  and  the  restriction  of  female 
freedom  that  had  been  imdertaken  1  A.  I  do  remember  a 
conversation  of  that  kind. 

Q.  You  think  that  occiu-red  9  A.  I  think  that  occurred 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  evening. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  any  doubt  about  it !   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  who  took  part  in  that?  A.  Well,  Mr.  Cowley 
and  Mrs.  Woodhull,  mostly.  I  think  I  made  a  few  remarks 
myself,  and  I  think  Mr.  Tilton  said  something  about  it. 

Q.  Now,  you  got  through  about  7  o'clock  or  so  1  A.  I 
cannot  tell  the  hour ;  it  was  after  dark. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  leave  ?  A.  I  left  between  10  and 
11 ;  I  think  near  11,  perhaps  15  minutes  before  11. 

Q.  Did  Col.  Blood  accompany  you  to  Brooklyn  ?  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  come  over  to  Brooklyn,  or  did  you   A. 

I  did ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Or  did  you  spend  the  night  in  New- York  ?  Now,  Mrs. 
Middlebrook,  what  led  you  to  think  that,  if  Mr.  Cowley 
and  Mr.  Tilton  had  conversation  there  about  Mrs.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Beecher,  that  you  would  have  known  of  it  ?  A. 
There  was  no  conversation  of  a  private  nature  that  took 
place  there  that  evening,  unless  it  was  as  a  person  might 
turn  to  another  and  make  a  comment  or  remark  or  some- 
thing, not  with  any  intention  of  making  it  private  ;  there 
was  nothing  more  than  that  that  passed  there  that  even- 
ing. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  every  subject  that  was 
telked  about  by  anybody  was  participated  in  by  every- 
))ody  there  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  generally. 


Q.  Well,  the  whole  matter  was  rot  in  the  shape  of  for- 
mal speeches  and  addressees  made  by  one  to  another,  was 
it  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  they  were  comments. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  everything  that  was  said  that 
evening  was  said  as  of  a  matter  to  be  participated  in  by 
everybody  1  A.  Unless  it  was,  as  I  say,  some  slight  re- 
mark that  might  have  been  made  oy  a  person  sitting  near 
another. 

Q.  Well,  but  you  were  there  some  three  or  four  hours  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  people  were  coming  and  going?  A.  No,  Sir; 
not  very  much. 

Q.  Well,  passing  in  and  out  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  not  there  some  coming  and  going  1  A.  I  don't 
think  that  we  were  interrupted  by  any  new-comers  t  hat 
evening. 

Q.  Now,  your  acquaintance,  as  I  understand,  continued 
with  Mrs.  Woodhull;  and  perhaps  does  nowl  A.  Yes 
Sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  at  her  house  several  times,  and  this 
same  house,  I  suppose  1  A.  I  was  there  twa  or  three 
times ;  I  cannot  say  just  how  many. 

Q.  All  of  them  after  this  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  do  not  kno-v? 
whether  they  were  all  after  or  before. 

Q.  When  was  your  last  communication  to  this  news- 
paper of  Miss  Claflin's  1  A.  Well,  I  think  it  must  be  two 
or  three  years  ago. 

Q.  Was  it  since  the  publication  of  the  Woodhull  scan- 
dal 1  A.  Yes,  I  think  it  has  been. 

Q.  Had  it  any  relation  to  that  subject  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Mrs.  Middlebrook,  have  your  opinions  on  Spiritual- 
ism carried  you  so  far  as  to  make  you  a  disbeliever  in  tlie 
Christian  faith,  entirely'  A.  Well,  Sir,  the  Christian 
faith  has  a  great  many  points ;  I  disbelieve  some  points 
of  the  Christian  faith,  and  some  points  I  believe  in. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  existence  of  Godi  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  And  in  a  system  of  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts  (in  an  undertone)— That  is  pretty  substan 
tial. 

Q.  What  was  the  subject  of  this  Spiritualistic  speech  at 
Mrs.  Woodhull's  1  A.  It  was  not  a  Spiritualistic  speech, 
Sir. 

Q.  Well,  describe  it.  I  understood  that  it  was  ;» 
mediumistic  effusion?  A.  It  was  simply  a  sort  of 
vituperative  speech  that  she  made. 

Q.  1  am  not  talking  of  Mrs.  Woodhull;  I  am  talking  of 
this  Mr.  Wheeler?  A.  Oh,  that  was  a  sort  of  an  im- 
provisation, in  the  form  of  poetry,  on  spiritual  matters- 
matters  connected  with  the  communication  betwceu  dis- 
embodied spirits  and  our  world. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  more  precisely  the  drift  of  it  f  A 
No,  Sir ;  I  cannot. 

Q.  Or  the  information  that  it  communicated  on  those 
subjects?   A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  cannot. 


TE8TIM01SY  OF  JOt'EFE  E.  RICHARDS. 


379 


EE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION    OF    MRS.  MID- 
DLEBROOK. 

Mr.  FuUertion— Do  you  recoUect  whether  Mr. 

Tilton  criticised  that  speech,  or  vrhatever  it  was— that 
production?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  remember  his  criticism. 

Q.  What  was  his  criticism?  A.  Well,  I  know  he  asked 
the  question  whether— why  it  was  that,  if  literary  per- 
sons came  back  here  and  communicated  with  the  inhab- 
itants of  this  earth— why  they  were  not  equal  to  their 
former  selves  in  their  utterances  1 

Q.  Yes ;  why  they  had  lost  their  education  I  [Laughter.] 
A,  Yes,  Sir. 

(A  pause.] 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  Mr.  FuUerton]— You  are  not  going  to 
leave  it  there  without  telling  us  why  ?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  FuUerton— Oh,  T  don't  suppose  they  can  get  it  all 
hack  again  from  the  other  world  by  anything  I  can  do. 

Mr.  Evarts— Ask  her  why. 

Mr.  FuUerton— I  wiU  ask  Mrs.  Palmer  that  when  you 
produce  her  again.  [Laughter.! 

%  You  have  been  asked  if  you  did  not  spend  some 
portion  of  your  time  in  New- York.  I  wiU  ask  you  in  con- 
nection with  what  object  you  have  spent  that  time  in 
New-York  I  A.  At  the  time  I  visited  Mrs.  WoodhuU's 
oflBce  I  was  passing  through  here  to  other  places,  in  the 
capacity  of  a  pubUc  speaker.  Within  the  last  two  years 
I  have  been  in  New-York  as  a  medical  student  in  the  New- 
York  Free  Medical  College  for  Women. 

Q.  And  in  connection  with  any  other  institution?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  connection  with  the  Strangers' 
Hospital  ?  A.  Well,  by  the  kindness  of  Mr.  John  H.  Key- 
»er  of  New-York  I  occupy  rooms  In  a  building  that  was 
formerly  known  as  the  Strangers'  Hospital. 

Q.  What  connection  has  Mr.  Keyser  with  it  ?  A.  He 
owns  the  building,  and  he  very  kindly  gave  me  the  rent  of 
rooms  in  it.   It  is  a  vacated  hospital. 

EE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  OF  MRS.  MIDDLE- 
BROOK. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  was  the  answer  to  Mr. 
Tilton' s  question  why  the  spirits  did  not  equal  their  for- 
mer efforts  when  in  the  flesh  ?  A.  WeU,  there  were  vari- 
ous answers,  I  think,  and  various  opinions  upon  the  sub- 
ject. Some  maintained,  I  think,  that  they  were  fuUy 
equal  to  the  past,  and  some  that  they  were  not. 

Q.  It  passed  off  in  a  doubt  as  to  the  fact  rather  than  by 
any  accounting  for  it?  A.  WeU,  I  thought  that  Mr. 
TUton  rather  doubted  the  fact. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Wondered  why  none  of  them  had  Im- 
proved by  absence  1  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Evarts— But  the  debate  did  not  end  in  the  giving 
of  any  reason  why  that  happened,  but  rather  in  a  doubt 
■whether  it  was  so  or  not?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Do  you  remember  who  the  Uterary  character  that 


this  Mr.  Wheeler  translated  was?  A.  No  Sir,  I  do  not ;  I 
don't  think  there  was  any  name  given. 

Q.  Was  there  any  trouble  in  Mr.  Wheeler's  literature— 
in  his  language  or  grammar,  that  raised  this  question  i 
A.  WeU,  as  far  as  my  opmion  is  concerned,  Sir,  I  thought 
it  was  a  poor  effort  and  was  not  equal  to  many  I  had 
heard ;  I  know  it  was  pronounced  by  some  to  be  a  mere 
jingle— I  think  Mr.  Tilton  so  pronounced  it. 

Q.  Which  did  you  think  in  fault— Mr.  Wheeler  or  the 
spirit!   [Laughter.]   A.  I  cannot  say,  Sir ;  I  do  not  know. 

JOSEPH  H.  RICHARDS  RECALLED. 

Joseph  H.  Richards  was  then  recalled  on  the 

part  of  the  plaintiff,  and  further  examined : 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Eichards,  you  recollect  going  before 
the  Investigating  Committee  last  Summer,  at  Dr.  Storrs's 
house  ?  A.  Not  at  Dr.  Storrs's. 

Q  I  mean  at  Augustus  Storrs's  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Gen.  Tracy  there?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Tracy  there  when  you  arrived,  or  did  he 
come  after  you?  A.  He  was  not  there  when  I  arrived. 
Sir. 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  any  of  the  members 
of  the  Committee  before  his  arrival  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Were  you  introduced  to  Mr.  Tracy  after  he  arrived  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  evening  was  that  ?  A.  I  should 
think  a  little  after  eight ;  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  And  what  occurred  after  you  were  introduced  to 
Mr.  Tracy  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— That  won't  do.  We  must  have  the  pre- 
cise questions  put  that  were  put  to  Mr.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  this  is  preliminary. 

Mr.  Beach— That  rule  cannot  be  applied,  Sir,  in  this  in 
stance,  because  when  Mr.  Tracy  denied  the  particular 
question,  or  answered  the  particular  question  which  was 
presented  to  liina,  he  then  went  on,  somewhat  against  my 
protest,  to  give  a  narrative  of  what  did  pass  between 
himself  and  Mr.  Eichards  

Mr.  Morris— And  detailed  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Beach-  And  detaUed  the  conversation ;  and  we 
must,  therefore,  I  suppose,  get  the  conversation  from  this 
witness. 

Mr.  Shearman — That  did  not  occur  on  cross-examina- 
tion, and  I  don't  see  that.it  occurs  anywhere. 

Mr.  Morris— I  had  it  here  a  minute  ago. 

Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  if  your  Honor  please,  this  is  not 
evidence  In  chief,  and  what  took  place  there  is  of  no  con- 
sequence. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  a  contradiction  of  Mr.  Tracy. 
Mr.  Evarts— A  contradiction  1 

Judge  Neilson— The  counsel's  view  seems  to  be  that  a 
detailed  conversation  can  be  corrected  if  any  specific 
question  could  have  been  ;  so  that  I  think  the  examina- 
tion ought  to  be  predicated  on  what  Mr.  Tracy  said. 


380       ^  THE  Tir/rON-R 

Mr.  Evarts— It  Is  merely  a  matter  of  impeachment  of 
Mr.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  isn't  that  important  1 

Judge  Neilson— The  question  is,  did  you  have  a  con- 
versation, «&c.   Go  on  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris— State  what  occurred  after  you  were  intro- 
duced to  Mr.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well  

Mr.  Morris  fto  the  witness]— As  between  you  and  Tracy. 
Mr.  Evarts— You  are  to  ask  further  what  Mr.  Tracy 
said  occurred. 

Judge  Neilson— No ;  this  question  is,  did  ycu  have  a 
conversation  with  Mr.  Tracy? 
The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— State  where  thar  was;  whether  in  the 
presence  of  the  Committee  or  not  ?  A.  I  was  seated  with 
the  Committee,  talking  with  them,  and  Mr.  Tracy  came 
in,  and  I  was  introduced  to  him  ;  he  then  beckoned  me  to 
come  into  the  front  parlor ;  T  went  with  him  into  the 
front  parlor,  and  he  made  some  remark  about  my  appear- 
ing before  the  Committee  ? 

Q.  Go  on  and  give  what  occurred  between  you  and  Mr. 
Tracy? 

A  CONTEST  TO  EXCLUDE  THE  TESTIMONY. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  just  what  we  object 
to. 

Mr.  Morris— But  I  understand  the  Court  permits  it. 

Judge  Neilson— No.  [To  Mr.  Morris.]  Can  you  turn. 
Judge,  to  Mr.  Tracy's  statement  on  this  subject  i 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir  ;  this  was  his  examination  [rerd- 
ing]: 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Richards  when  he  was  before  the 
Committee  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  him  at  the  place 
where  the  Committee  met,  before  he  presented  himself 
to  the  Committee  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  any  questions  in  regard  to  what  he 
knew  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  his  sister  had  ever  con- 
fessed to  him  to  adultery  with  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  did  ;  I 
did  in  substance,  I  think. 

Q.  In  substance  ?  A.  No,  I  did  not ;  that  is  not  the 
form  cf  t'  (•  ((uestion. 

Q.  \Ve3  i,  in  substance  that  1  A.  No  ;  I  asked  him  if  his 
tlster  had  ever  

Q.  One  moment.   A.  Excuse  me. 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  what  you  asked  him.  Did  you  not,  in 
substance,  inquire  of  him  whether  his  sister,  Mrs.  Tilton, 
had  ever  admitted  to  Mm  adultery  with  Mr.  Beecher  t  A. 
I  don't  think  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  not,  in  answer  to  your  question,  Mr.  Richards 
say  to  you  that  ho  declined  to  answer  it,  or  in  substance 
that?  A.  Mr.  Richards  declined  to  answer  

Q.  Oh,  I  don't  ask  what  It  was— I  ask  you  ff  he  did  not 
say  that,  in  substance  ?  A.  Well,  I  say  I  don't  remember 
putting  such  a  question  to  Mr.  Richards. 


U^riHER  TRIAL. 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  lemeinber  his  declining  to  answer! 
A.  Oh,  yt^s,  Sir;  I  remember  his  declining  to  hold  any 
conversation  witl  iiie,  or  communicating  to  me  anything 
of  what  he  knew  in  regard  to  this  cftse. 

Q.  Whati  A.  I  know  that  Mr.  Richards  said  that  he 
would  communicate  nothing  to  me  of  wlat  he  knew  or 
did  not  know  in  regard  to  t?iat  matter ;  t?iat  it  was  a  fam- 
ily matter,  into  which  he  had  refused  to  be  drawn,  and 
would  not  be  drawn. 

Q  Well,  I  did  not  ask  you  about  that.  Sir  ;  my  question 
has  altogether  a  different  significance.  Did  you  not  in 
that  interview  put  a  question  to  Mr.  Richards  calling 
upop.  him  to  state  whether  or  not  his  sister,  Mrs.  Tilton, 
had  confessed  or  admitted  to  him  (Mr.  Richards)  or  to 
Mrs.  Richards,  his  wife,  the  fact  of  illicit  connection,  or 
adultery,  or  sexual  intercourse,  with  Mr.  Beecher  1  A. 
No,  Sir— not  as  specifically  as  you  put  it,  nor  in  sub8tanc€f 
that. 

Q.  I  asked  you  whether  you,  in  substance,  put  any  in- 
quiry of  that  character?  A.I  answered  you,  not  in  sub- 
stance. 

Q.  Very  well.  Now,  did  not,,  In  answer  to  such  an  in- 
quiry upon  your  part,  Mr.  Richards  decline  to  answer 
any  such  interrogatory  ?  A.  Mr.  Richards  declined  to 
answer  any  interrogatory,  and  gave  me  notice  that  he 
would  not  answer  any  interrogatory  concerning  his  family 
relations. 

Q.  Well,  we  have  got  that  before  1  A.  Well. 

Q.  Now,  was  not  such  am  inquiry,  in  substance,  put 
him,  and  did  not  Mr.  Richards  then  decline  to  answer  it : 
and  did  you  not,  in  substance,  reply  :  "  That  won't  do  ; 
that  in  substance  affirms  the  truth  of  it  1"  A.  No  ;  I  can 
tell  you  what  did  transpire,  Mr.  Beach,  if  you  wish  to 
know  exactly. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  very  often  addressed  that  to  me. 
<&c. 

Now,  whether  Mr.  Tracy  mentioned  that  topic  again 
I  don't  recollect. 

Judge  Neilson— He  afterward  said  he  explained  to  Mr. 
Richards  why  it  would  be  safe  for  him  to  attend  before 
the  Committee  and  have  the  question  put  and  decline  to 
answer,  because  there  would  be  an  implication  against 
his  sister  by  his  declining.  I  think  the  counsel  might  in- 
terrogate him  on  each  feature  of  that  as  he  passes  over  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  as  evidence  in  chief, 
the  subject  is  not  admissible. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  of  course.  It  is  merely  to  explain 
or  contradict  Mr.  Tracy's  statement,  or  to  show  bias,  or 
whatever  it  may  be. 

Mr.  Evarts— Not  to  show  bias— to  contradict  him. 

Judge  Neiison— Well,  whatever  it  is.  T  dont  like  to  xum 
the  word  "  contvadiot "  myself  when  I  can  avoid  It. 

Mr.  Evixrts— Now,  f  he  general  rule  is  that  when  c;  purely 
collateral  topic  is  introduced,  and  the  first  witness,  with 
a  view  to  disparage  his  character,  <feo.,  Is  interrogated, 
the  interrogator  must  take  the  answer,  and  there  is  th* 


TESIULONY   OF  JO 

end  of  it.  If  lie  seeks  to  make  the  witness  disparage 
himself,  lie  must  take  tlie  answer  by  wtdcli  tlie  witness 
maintains  Ms  cliaracter. 

Mr.  Beach— If  you  will  permit  me  to  intorrupt  you,  Mr. 
Evarts,  it  turns  out,  Sir,  that  upon  the  redirect  examina- 
tion by  Ml'.  Tracy,  they  called  out  the  whole  of  this  in- 
terview with  Mr.  Kichards ;  and  it  therefore  gives  us  the 
right  to  give  the  conversation. 

Ml'.  Evarts— Well  

Mr.  Beaeh—We  asked  him  specific  questions ;  hut  they 
called  out  the  whole  interview. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  then,  when  you  come  to  a  form  of 
impeachment  of  this  somewhat  complex  character  (though 
very  familiar  and  easily  understood)  of  seeking  to  dis- 
credit a  witness  by  producing  from  other  witnesses  state- 
ments of  the  first,  made  out  of  court,  the  law  requires 
absolutely,  as  a  condition  of  that  method  of  discrediting, 
that  the  first  witness  should  have  had  his  attention 
called,  with  all  requisite  particularity,  to  the  very  topic 
and  to  what  was  said ;  and  it  is  the  first  witness's  extra- 
judicial statements  that  disparage  him.  Now,  this  wit- 
ness might  be  called,  if  you  please,  to  reproduce 
Mr.  Tracy's  extra-judicial  statements  concemiug  the 
subject-matter  about  which  he  has  made  a  judicial 
statement  here,  and  to  show  a  contradiction,  if  the  atten- 
tion of  Mr.  Tracy  had  been  properly  drawn  to  that  topic ; 
but  that  is  not  what  is  sought  here.  It  is  not  any  extra- 
judicial statement  of  Mr.  Tracy  that  is  invoked  in  this 
cai^e  to  contradict  his  Tt;stimony  under  oath.  It  is  a  con. 
tradiction  by  this  witness  of  a  series  of  facts  testified  to 
by  Mr.  Tracy,  which  series  of  facts  are  wholly  outside  of 
the  issue  of  this  cause,  and  are  entirely  collateral,  and 
contain  no  extra-judicial  statements  to  the  contrary  con- 
cerning the  topic  of  his  present  views.  Now,  they  say 
that  we  drew  it  out  on  a  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Beach— No  ;  uot  on  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Evarts— "^'ell.  on  a  redii'ect  examination,  after  your 
cross— on  a  redii-ect  examination  on  the  details  or  sub- 
stance concerning  which  you  had  made  special  inquiries ; 
and  you  say  that  that  gives  you  a  right  to  contradict  Mr. 
Tra-cy.  Why?  If  it  had  been  a  matter  that  was  within 
the  issue  here,  of  course  you  could  contradict  him  with- 
out any  leave  or  preparation;  but  ou  this  matter 
which  you  went  into,  and  which  is  collateral, 
and  which  contains  no  extra-judicial  statements  to 
be  corrected  or  contradicted  within  those  rules, 
yen  have  no  right,  by  auy  other  witness,  to  put  another 
view  on  tiiose  subjects  In  evidence.  We  had  no  right  to 
bring  in  this  matter  as  a  matter  of  substantive  evidence 
on  our  part  at  all,  and  when  we  brought  it  in  on  the  re- 
direct it  was  only  by  the  right  that  you  had  gi^  en  us  on 
yoiu-  cross-examination  to  have  the  matter  stated  as  it 
was,  and  you  made  no  objection,  I  think.  No  objection 
■was  made,  and  that  is  the  statement  that  must  stand 
until  the  end  of  this  cause  that  occurrence.  That  is  oui- 
view  i;f  the  situation  as  now  presented. 


EFR    B.   mCBABDS.  U81 

Mr.  Abbott  here  called  Mr.  Evaits's  attention  to  ai* 
authority. 
Mr.  Evarts— Lreading] : 

A  witness  cannot  be  cross-eiaioJied  to  a  distinct  col- 
lateral fact  for  the  purpose  of  afterward  impeaching 
him  by  contradicting  his  testimony  His  answer  to  such 
questions  are  conclusive  upon  the  party  cross-examining 
him. 

Mr.  Bea<!h— Well,  Sir,  that  is  a  very  valuable  contribu- 
tion to  the  law  of  this  case. 

Judge  Neilson--At  the  same  time  it  has  been  held  that 
a  statement  made  by  one  witness,  drawn  out  on  the 
direct  or  the  cross-examination,  may  be  contradictod  by 
another  witness,  whether  it  is  material  or  not.  I  think 
you  must  confine  this  within  that  rule.  Any  statement 
Mr.  Tracy  made  may  be  contradicted  by  this  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  agree,  if  your  Honor  uses  "  material  or 
not"  in  the  sense  of  imjportant  or  not;  but  not  if  you  di8» 
tiuguish  between  iiiaterkd  and  coUaieral. 

Mr.  Beach— They  call  out  upon  their  direct  examina- 
tion Mr.  Tracy's  version  of  this  inter\aew  with  Mr.  Eicli- 
ards.   We  propose  now  to  contradict  him. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  take  that  in  detaU. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor  certainly  does  not  want  us  to- 
take  a  quarter  of  a  page  of  this  book. 

Judge  Neilson— No ;  I  would  skip  some  of  it  if  I  were 
you.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Beach— Why,  when  Mr.  Tracy  attempts  to  give  a 
relation  of  the  interview  with  Mr.  Eichards,  may  not  we 
take  Mr.  Richards's  statement  of  that  interview  ? 

Judge  Neilsou— Yes ;  calling  bis  attention  to  it,  clause 
bv  clause,  and  asking  him  if  that  was  so. 

Mr.  Beach— I  beg  your  Honor "s  pardon  ;  it  not  neces- 
sary to  take  it  clause  by  clause.  It  is  .  \ '  1' ncc  which 
they  have  given,  which  we  have  not  introduced,  and 
which  nothing  that  we  did  authorized  them  to  introduce 
We,  in  the  first  place  asked  Mr.  Tracy  certain  specific 
questions  in  regard  to  declarations  made  by  him  to  Mr. 
Eichards  and  statements  made  by  Mr.  Eichards  to  him; 
and  thv';n  on  re-direct  examination  they  called  out  the 
whole  conversation,  not  confining  themselves  to  the 
subject  to  which  we  drew  the  attention  of  Mr. 
Tracy.  They  made  it  substantive  and  afiirmative 
evidence  upon  their  part ;  and,  no  matter  whether  we 
objected  to  it  or  not,  it  is  evidence  given  by  them,  re- 
ceived by  your  Honer,  evidence  in  the  case  ;  and  I  insist 
that  I  have  a  right  to  give  that  interview,  In  regard  to 
which  they  examined  Mr.  Tracy  on  their  behalf,  and  the 
whole  of  that  inter%'iew,  as  between  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr. 
Richards, 

Judge  Neilson— What  if  the  whole  interview  as  gives 
by  this  witness  should  cover  more  time  and  space  and  be 
more  comprehensive  than  the  interview  as  stated  by  Mr.. 
Richards  1 

Mr.  Beac^i  —Very  well.  Sir,  sapiK)se  it  does. 
Judge  Nei  Ison— Suppose  he  only  gave  i^art  of  the  inter- 
view I 


383  TEE  TILION-B 

Mr.  Beach— If  he  only  gave  part  of  it,  we  can  give  the 
"Whole  of  it,  Sir. 

Judge  Nellson— Provided  he  says  that  was  all. 

Mr,  Beach— Yes,  Sir,  if  he  does  say  it  was  all.  Now  it 
-would  be  a  most  astonishing  doctrine  that  they  could  ex- 
amine Mr,  Tracy  in  regard  to  declarations  between  him 
and  Mr.  Eichards,  and  we  could  not  call  Mr.  Richards,  the 
opposite  party. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  agree  to  that  

Mr.  Beach— If  the  gentleman  agrees  to  that  then  he 
tigrees  to  my  whole  proposition. 

Judge  Nellson— The  onl.^  question  is  about  the  form  of 
the  specific  interrogations. 

Mr.  Beach — Certainly  it  cannot  be  worth  while  to 
waste  time  in  specific  interrogatories,  when  a  mere  rela- 
tion of  the  conversation  by  Mr.  Eichards  would  cover 
the  whole  ground  and  would  not,  probably,  be  so  exten- 
sive as  the  relation  given  by  Mr.  Tracy ;  but  I  can  pursue 
the  other  course  if  your  Honor  thinlrs  I  ought. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  my  learned  friend  will  allow  me  to  put 
in  a  word  

Mr.  Beach— Certainly ;  I  will  allow  you  because  you 
have  a  right  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  often  allow  me  to  do  things  that  I 
liave  no  right  to. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  I  do. 

Mr.  Evarts— Because  you  cannot  help  it.   [Laughter,  j 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  I  could  help  it. 

Mr.  Evarts — I  mean  that  youi   courtesy  would  not 

allow  yon  to  help  it.  [Laughter.] 
Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  he  is  doing  what  is  not  right  now, 
Mr.  Evarts— There  seems  to  be  a  diflerence  between 

you,  gentlemen, 
Mr,  Beach— Oh,  I'll  stop  FuUerton,  [Laughter.] 
Mr,  Fullerton— Well,  J.  want  him  to  address  the  Court, 
Mr,  Evarts— We  could  not  have  shown  this  conversation 

with  Mr,  Eichards  

Mr.  Beach— You  could,  if  we  didn't  object. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  could  not,  and  didn't  try  to. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  yes  you  did. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  introduced  the  subject  by  way  of 
collateral  impeachment,  and  then  we  had  a  right  to  have 
what  was  said ;  and  all  they  have  a  right  to  do  is  to  bring 
in  a  contradiction  by  showing  extra  judicial  statements 
that  are  contrary  lo  what  Mr.  Tracy  said  here,  and  they 
must  be  confined  to  that.  A  narrative  of  facts  that 
occurred  is  collateral,  and  not  within  the  issne  between 
Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  in  this  case,  as  all  the  pro- 
ceedings of  that  Committee  were  wholly  collateral,  as 
your  Honor  knows,  and  pould  not,  in  body,  be 
brought  in  here  at  all,  nor  any  part  of 
them  per  se.  This  stands  in  that  position. 
They  have  chosen  to  introduce  a  collateral  subject  in  a 
detail  of  facts,  and  they  ranst  stand  upon  it ;  and  if  they 
propose  to  show  that,  within  the  rule  of  contradiction, 


WE  C  BEE  TBIAL. 

by  extra-judicial  statements  of  Mr.  Tracy,  and  they  have 
laid  the  foundation  here,  why,  that  is  going  beyond  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  the  simple  question  is  whether  he 
shall  interrogate  the  witness  speoiflcally  as  to  particular 
parts,  or  whether  the  witness  may  narrate. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  the  particular  parts  must  be  in- 
quired about. 

Judge  Neilson— What  Mr.  Tracy  said? 

Mr.  Beach— That  would  undoubtedly  be  so  if  they  had 
been  content  with  the  examination  which  we  made,  spe- 
cifically calUng  attention  to  particular  parts.  They  were 
not  content  with  that,  but,  upon  their  behalf  and  as  evi- 
dence in  chief  upon  their  part,  they  gave  the  whole  rela- 
tion by  Mr.  Tracy  of  that  interview.  The  question  by 
Mr.  Evarts  was :  "  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  will  you  be  so  good  as 
to  give  what  occurred?"  To  which  Mr.  Tracy  answered: 
"  Mr.  Richards  came  there,  and  I  went  to  him  as  I  say"— 
and  then  he  goes  on  and  relates  the  whole  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— You  may  put  the  same  question  to  the 
witness :  "  Now,  Mr.  Richards,  will  you  be  so  good  as  to 
give  what  occurred." 

Mr.  Beach  [triumphantly]— Now,  Mr,  Richards,  will 
you  be  so  good  as  to  state  what  occurred  ?  [Laughter,] 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  object  to,  and  ask  your  Honor  to 
note  our  exception. 

MR.   KICHARDS'S  CONTRADICTIONS  RE- 
CEIVED. 

Judge  Neilson — Yes.   Proceed,  Mr.  Ricliards. 

The  Witness— I  said  to  Mr.  Tracy  that  I  was  there  in 
response  to  the  notice  of  Mr.  Sage,  the  President  of  the 
Committee,  to  be  present,  and  that  I  needed  no  prepara- 
tion by  him  to  appear  before  the  Committee ;  he  said  he 
was  Mr.  Beecher's  counsel;  I  said  that  didn't  make  any 
difference  in  my  action  with  the  Committee;  he  then 
said  they  only  wished  to  ask  me  on*  question ;  I  said  the 
answering  of  that  question  depended  upon  what  the 
question  was ;  he  then  made  known  the  question,  as  has 
already  appeared, 

Q.  Repeat  it.  A,  He  asked  me  if  my  sister  had  ever 
made  confession  to  me  of  adultery  with  Mr,  Beecher.  I 
told  him  I  should  decline  to  answer  that  question.  Ho 
said  vay  declining  would  be  as  bad  for  my  sister  as  though 
I  had  admitted  it,  I  told  him  that  I  had  nothing  to  do 
with  inferences ;  that  I  must  state  the  facts;  that  I  Avoi^ld 
decline  to  answ<  r  the  question.  He  asked  me,  I  thinii,  if 
I— if  I  did  not  regard  my  sister's  reputation.  I  said  1  did, 
most  certainly,  and  I  was  there  after  consult- 
ing with  her  that  afternoon,  and  she  thonglit  it 
would  be  better  for  her  that  I  should  appear,  than  though 
I  declined  to  appear  before  the  Committee.  Ho  went  on 
further,  I  think,  into  detail  as  to  the  special  matters  that 
she  had  said,  and  I  further  declined  to  say  anything 
about  it.  I  then  said  to  him,  "  It  has  been  my  oourao  for 
years  past  to  decline  speaking  with  persons  on  this  sub* 
iect."  He  said,  "  That  is  what  you  must  say  to  the  Com 


TE81IM0NY   OF  JOSEFR   H.  BIGHARDS. 


383 


mlttee.  Go  before  the  CJotnmittee  and  say  that ;"  which 
I  did  I  might  add  further.  T  said  further  to  him  that  if  I 
oould  say  anything  concerning  my  knowledge  of  the 
family  I  would  do  so,  but  as  to  answering  that  question  I 
deoUned. 

Q.  Mr.  Richards,  are  you  q.Tiite  sure  that  in  that  conver- 
sation Mr.  Tracy  told  you  he  was  Mr.  Beecher's  lawyer  ! 
A-  No,  Sir ;  he  said  he  was  his  counsel ;  that  is  the  word 
he  made  use  of. 

Q.  Counsel  for  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Bessie  Turner  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  She  states  that  in  the  month  of  December,  1870, 1 
think  about  the  middle— the  14th— she  called  upon  you  at 
the  office  of  The  Evening  Post,  in  the  City  of  New-York, 
and  made  a  certain  communication  to  you  there  in  regard 
to  Mr.  Tilton's  abuse  of  his  wife  and  of  her.  Was  there 
any  

Mr.  Evarts- What  page  t 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  upon  a  blank  page  In  my  memory. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  cannot  find  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I  cannot  help  you.  [To  the  witness.]  Did 
she  call  upon  you  at  that  place  at  that  period,  or  any 
other  period,  and  make  any  communication  of  that  charac- 
ter? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  object  to,  if  your  Honor  please, 
mitil  we  find  the  passage  on  which  it  is  based. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  a  good  objection ;  but  I  will 
wait,  if  counsel  asks. 

Judge  Neilson— She  made  a  statement  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir ;  and  we  want  to  see  what  it  was. 

Mr.  Fullerton— You  will  find  it  in  the  proceedings  of 
March  19, 1875 ;  it  may  have  been  1874,  but  I  think  it 
was  1875. 

Mr,  Evarts— Cross-examination  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— You  will  find  it  in  both,  in  March,  1875 ; 
part  of  it  in  the  dii-ect,  and  part  of  it  in  the  cross. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  don't  find  It. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  don't  

Mr.  Beach— That  don't  prove  it  is  not  there. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  indirect  proof. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Counsel  will  recollect  she  said  on  the 
same  day  she  visited  Mr.  Richards  and  IMrs.  Bradshaw, 
and  that  she  made  this  revelation  to  these  various  people. 

The  Court— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  Mr.  Richards  took  her  out  of  the 
room  where  he  found  her,  and  took  her  up  stairs  to  a  pri- 
vate room  to  have  a  conversation. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  is  the  state  of  the  matter  upon  the 
judicial  question.  The  plaintiff,  by  his  counsel,  intro- 
duces into  a  cross-examination  inquiries  as  to  what  Miss 
Turner  had  said  to  various  people— Judge  Morse,  Mrs. 
Richards,  Miss  Oakley,  Mrs.  Bradshaw.  Now,  the  pas- 
sage which  I  have  under  my  eye  is  what  she  did  tell; 
"  I  think  I  told  the  Committee  that  Mr.  TUtou  told  me 
that  the  very  day  after  we— the  very  day  after  we  got 
IvRfci:  from  Marietta  *' 


"  Q.  From  Marietta  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

"  Q.  Very  well.  To  whom  you  tell  this  story  first 
on  the  14th  of  December,  of  the  persons  that  you  have 
named  ?  A.  Tell  which  story  1 

"  Q.  The  story  which  you  told  to  these  various  persons^ 
on  the  14th  of  December  1  A.  The  story  in  regard  to 
myself  1 

"  Q.  Yes !  A  Who  did  I  teU  first ! 

"  Q.  Which  of  them  did  you  tell  first  i  A.  I  think  I 
went  first  to  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  morning. 

"  Q.  And  who  next  did  you  tell  ?  A.  I  think  then  I 
went  over  to  the  office  of  The  Evening  Post,  where  Mr. 
Richards  was,  and  told  Mr.  Richards." 

That  is  the  passage  to  which  you  refer  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes  ;  that  is  part  of  itv 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  there  is  another  question. 

Mr.  Morris— Where  she  speaks  more  specifically  about 
it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes;  but  still  cross-examinatioiw 

"Mr.  Fullerton— You  went  to  Evening  Post  offloe, 
I  understand  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

"  Q.  To  see  Mr.  Richards?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

"  Q.  Do  you  refer  to  the  brother  of  Mrs.  TTlton !  A. 
The  brother  of  Mrs.  Tilton ;  yes,  Sir ;  that  is  the  only  Mr 
Richards  I  know. 

"  Q.  Mr.  Joseph  H.  Richards  1  A.  Mr.  Joseph  H.  Rich- 
ards ;  yes,  Sir, 

"Q.  And  you  told  him  this  story  there  at  The  Post 
office  I  A.  I  told  him  which  story ! 

"  Q.  The  story  which  you  did  teU  him.  A.  Well,  do 
you  mean  that  I  told  him  in  regard  to  myself  1 

"  Q.  Yes.  A.  And  Mr.  Tilton's  unkindness  to  Mrs,  Til- 
ton? 

"  Q.  Yes,  A.  I  did  not  tell  him  right  there  in  the  room ; 
he  took  me  up  stairs,  and  I  told  him  tbere. 
Q,  And  there  you  told  him  the  story  I  A.  It  was  in  the 

building,  though,  of  The  Evening  Post. 

Now,  that  is  the  only  matter,  and  the  whole  of  it,  for 
all  I  know.  And  now  they  call  Mr.  Richards  to  give  his 
narrative  of  what  she  told  him.  Well,  now,  what  she 
told  him  is  wholly  immaterial  to  the  issue  in  this  case.  It 
is  collateral  entirely,  and  they  draw  it  out  on  cross-ex- 
amination. The  point  they  made  in  regard  to  the  last 
matter  with  this  witness  was  that  it  was  our  direct. 
They  drew  it  out  on  cross-examination,  and  I  got  from 
her  whether  she  has  told  the  story,  not  differently  from 
what  she  told  it  there,  but  as  she  told  it  here.  That  is  the 
point. 

Judge  Neilson— Suppose  she  never  called  on  Mr.  Rich* 
ards  at  all  1 

Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  they  could  not  ask  her  even  about 
that, 

Mr,  Fullerton— Your  Honor  will  perceive  at  once  that 
they  attempted  to  impeach  Mr,  Tilton  by  showing  hia 
abuse  of  his  wife,  and  they  entered  into  particulars,  even 
to  the  words  which  he  used  and  the  occasion  when  they 
were  used.  They  went  further.  They  attemuted  to  show 
by  this  witness  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  entered  her  room  in 
the  night  season,  and  had  been  ifuilty  oi  outrageous  con- 
duct there ;  all  of  which  she  testified  to  on  the  stand.  It 
becomes  important  for  tis  to  show  whether  she  had  or 
had  not  ever  told  that  story  before  she  came  on  the 


884 


TEE   TILTON-BJUEOHEB  IBIAL. 


fitand.  She  says  elie  did  tell  it  to  Mr.  Richards,  to  Mrs. 
Bradshaw,  to  Miss  Oakley  and  others.  Is  it  not  compe- 
tent for  us  to  produce  those  witnesses  severally,  and 
show  she  never  told  them  such  a  story !  We  suppose  it 
is  a  recent  invention.  We  suppose  it  was  gotten  up  in 
that  two  hours  conversation  at  Mrs.  Ovington's  one 
afternoon,  and  we  propose  to  show  hy  these  witnesses, 
or  hy  some  of  them,  that  she  never  opened  her  lips  at 
any  time  or  place  and  told  that  story  which  she  related 
here.  It  does  relate  to  the  issue  in  this  case. 

Judge  Neilson— It  comes  very  close  home  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton,  of  course. 

Mr.  Beach— They  opened  this  subject.  The  counsel  is 
entirely  mistaken  in  assuming  that  it  was  called  out  on 
eross-examination. 

Judge  Neilson— You  find  it  there. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir.  The  question  put  by  Mr.  Porter 
was  thts : 

Q.  Did  vou  ever  tell  any  one  that  Mr.  TUton  had  at- 
tempted to  violate  youi  person  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q-  How!   A.  I  did;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  that  to  difierent  people  1  A.  I  told  it  to 
five  persons. 

And  when  we  come  to  the  cross-examination  we  get  out 
the  five  persons. 

Judge  Neilson— This  witness  being  one  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir.   I  think  that  settles  the  case. 

Judge  Neilson— In  one  aspect  of  the  case,  I  think  It 
does. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  law,  I  suppose,  is  very  clear.  Con- 
firmatory statements  that  the  witness  has  told  the  same 
story  out  of  court  are  not  admissible. 

Judge  Neilson— No. 

Mr.  Beach— They  are  sometimes,  not  as  a  general  pr<^- 
osition,  but  there  are  exceptions  to  that  rule. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  are  very  peculiar. 

Mr.  FuUerton— There  are  exceptions,  peculiar  a»  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  is  not  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Fullerton— We  didn't  say  it  was. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  we  undertook  to  give  confirmatory 
statements  out  of  court,  they  either  permitted  them  to 
be  made  or  they  didn't.  If  they  permitted  them  to  be 
luade,  they  have  no  objection.  li  tiiey  objected  to  them, 
the  law  would  exclude  them,  and  the  rule  of  law  that 
they  cannot  contradict  confirmatory  statements,  that  is 
tliat  they  cannot  contradict  the  fact  that  the  witness  told 
tne  same  story  out  of  couii;  that  she  told  in,  is  perfectly 
settled.  You  can  show  that  the  witness  told  a  diflferent 
story  out  of  court,  if  you  lay  the  proper  foimdation  for 
that.  But  as  the  party  calling  her  cannot  show  that  she 
told  the  same  story  out  of  court,  if  that  fact  gets  into 
the  evidence,  that  she  told  the  same  story  out  of  court, 
It  is  not  the  subject  of  contradiction. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  what  does  that  amount  to  1 

Judge  Neilson— This  is  a  matter  that  in  one  aspect  of 
the  case  reaches  Mr.  Tilton  quite  directly,  and  the  witness 


having  stated  certain  facts  in  her  view,  and  having  stated 
also  upon  the  direct  that  she  had  communicated  those 
facts  to  other  persons,  I  think  it  is  competent,  on  cross- 
examination,  to  interrogate  who  those  other  persons 
were,  and  then  prove  that  she  is  mistaken ;  that  she  did 
not  see  those  persons,  or  didn't  communicate  those  facta 
to  those  persons.  This  is  not  remote  and  collateral ;  it  is 
a  matter  that  comes  quite  close  home  to  the  plaintiff. 

Mr,  Beach— WeU,  Mr.  Richards,  wiU  you  be  kind 
enough  to  answer  the  question  1 

Mr.  Evarts— We  object  and  except. 

The  Witness— What  is  the  question  1 

Mr.  Evarts— We  object  to  the  introduction  of  the  testi- 
mony proposed,  and  to  this  particular  question. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes. 

The  Witness— What  is  the  question  f 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  know  that  I  can  repeat  it  precisely. 
[To  the  witness.]  The  question  is  whether,  in  the  month 
of  December,  1870,  Miss  Turner  called  upon  you,  at  an 
office  in  The  Evening  Post  Building,  and  made  any  com- 
munication to  you  in  regard  to  any  ill-treatment  of  any 
kind  received  by  her  from  Mr.  Tilton— of  any  ill-treat- 
ment of  your  sister  by  Mr.  Tilton ;  whether  she  made 
any  communication  to  you  upon  those  subjects !  A.  I 
have  no  recollection  of  seeing  her  at  any  time  in  such  a 
relation  as  that. 

Q.  In  December,  1870,  did  you  occupy  an  oflBce  or » 
seat  in  The  Evening  Post  Building  ?  A.  I  was  business 
manager  of  The  Evening  Post  at  that  time. 

Q.  Can  you  not  tell  whether  or  not  Miss  Bessie 
Turner  called  upon  you  at  The  Evening  Post  Building  1 
A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  that. 

Q.  No  recollection  at  all  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Of  her  calling  upon  you  at  any  time  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  her  making  to  you 
any  commrmicatiou  in  regard  to  any  violence  or  ill-treat- 
inent  of  any  character  offered  to  her  person  by  Mr.  Tii- 
ton  ?  A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  No  recollection  whatever  of  any  such  thing.  Well, 
is  not  your  memory  upon  that  8ub.lect  sufficiently 
tenacious  to  enable  you  to  speak  with  some  positiveness 
upon  the  subject  ?  A.  I  cannot  see  how  I  couW  possibly 
forget  it  to  the  day  of  my  death,  such  a  relation  as  that 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all. 

Judge  Neilson— Anything  more  from  this  witness,  gen- 
tlemen %  That  is  all,  Mi'.  Richards. 
Mr.  Morris — Ouv_  moment. 

Judge  Neilson— Anything  you  wish  1   Is  that  all  there 
is  of  Mr.  Richards  ? 
Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  Sir.  wc  have  nothing  to  ask  him 
Judge  Neilson— That  is  all,  Mr.  RicharJa. 
Mr.  Morris— John  Bremer  I 


TESmiONY   OF  , 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHX  BEEMEK.  j 
John  Bremer,  a  witness  called  on  behalf  of 

plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn,  testitied : 
Mr.  Morris— Q.  Where  do  3'ou  reside 't   A.  New-York. 
Q.  What  is  your  business  ^    A.  I  am  a  United  States 

storekeeper. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Theodore  Tilton  {  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  I  seen  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  by  sight  1  A.  I  knovr  him  by 
sight. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  by  sight  in  December,  1871 1  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  participate  in  the  procession  of  that  day! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  At  what  point  did  you  join  the  procession  1  A.  I 
joined  it  in  the  Bowery  and  Fifth-st.,  I  believe. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  procession  were  you  inl  A.  I  was 
about  in  the  center  of  the  procession. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Tilton  there?  A.  I  saw  bun  in 
Great  Jones-st. 

Q.  Was  he  in  the  procession  when  you  saw  him  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  company  with  any  one  1  A.  He  was  in  the  line. 

Q.  Marching  alongside  of  any  gentleman  ?  A.  Mar  jh- 
Ing  along,  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  persons  who  accompanied  him  1 
A.  No,  not  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  since  ?  A.  I  learned  since  ;  Mr.  Swin- 
ton;  I  saw  him  afterward,  and  I  think  he  was  the  man 
he  walked  with. 

Q.  You  saw  Mr.  Swinton  after  that  1   A.  Yes,  Sii*. 

Q.  A.nd  recognized  him  as  the  man  that  was  walking 
witli  Mr.  Tilton 't   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  how  near  were  you  to  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  pro- 
cession I  A.  I  think  I  was  about  three  or  four  lines  be- 
hind him. 

Q.  And  did  you  continue  to  mdrch  in  the  procession 
during  its  entire  line  of  march  t   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  Mr.  Tilton  continue  in  the  procession  also  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  he  at  any  time  in  a  carriage  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  he 
was  in  no  carriage  in  the  i»rocession. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  ladies  in  the  procession  ?  A.  Yes, 
8ir. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  procession  did  they  occupy  ?  A. 
They  were  right  behind  the  colored  troops— the  colored 
company. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  one  of  the  ladies  carrying  a  flag— a 
banner  t  A.  Well,  yes.  Sir,  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  carriages  in  the  procession  t  A. 
Yes,  Sir ;  they  were  not  in  the  procession,  they  were 
behind  the  procession. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  at  that  time  with  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  !  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  saw  her. 

Q.  And  Miss  Claflin,  her  sister  1   A.  Yes,  Six-. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  in  the  procession  f  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


JOHN   BLlJUlEll,  385 

I  Q.  And  did  you  see  them  when  the  procession  ^^  a8 
i  being  disbanded?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  them  ]  A.  I  saw  them  in  Four- 
teenth-st.,  at  the  Lincoln  Monument,  on  the  hands  of  Mr. 
Banks. 

Q.  The  Marshal?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  He  was  in  company  with  themt  A.  He  was  &  com- 
pany with  them. 
Q.  Did  you  see  Theodore  Tilton  there  1   A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Did  you  know  where  Theodore  Tilton  went  after  the 
procession  disbanded  1  A.  No.  Sir. 

Q.  You  didn't  see  him  after  that  1  A.  I  didn't  see  him 
afterward. 

Q.  Were  you  present  when  the  ladies  took  the  carriage  ? 
A.  No,  Sir. 
Mr.  Morris— That  is  aU,  I  think. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  BREMKR. 

'Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Bremer,  where  is  your  sta- 
tion as  tfnited  states  storekeeper  ?  A.  No.  278  South-st. 
Q.  Whose  store  ?  A.  Drigg's. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Mr.  Tilton  and  in  what 
way?  A.  I  know  Mr.  Tilton— I  saw  him  la  New-York,  in 
Tryon-row,  and  some  one  showed  him  to  me  and  I  saw 
him  afterward— Mr.  Tilton.  I  saw  him  in  New- York  in 
Tryon-row ;  somebody  showed  him  to  me,  about  eight 
years  ago. 
Q.  In  Tryon-row  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  mean  as  he  was  passing  along  the  sidewalk? 
A.  Y''es,  Sk',  and  I  remember  he  made  so  much  impression 
on  me  that  I  have  never  forgotten  him. 

Q.  Now,  when  was  that?  A.  That  was  about  eight 
years  ago. 

Q.  And  from  that  time  imtil  you  saw  him  in  this  pro- 
cession, had  you  ever  seen  lum?   A.  I  heard  his  name, 
but  I  didn't  see  him  very  often. 
Q.  Did  yon  see  him  at  all  ?   A.  When  ? 
Q.  Between  the  time  you  saw  him  in  Tr^^on-row  and 
the  time  you  saw  him  in  the  procession.  A.  Well,  I  saw 
him  pass  afterward  once  again. 
Q.  W^here  was  that?   A.  In  Nassau-st.,  I  believe. 
Q.  Well,  are  you  sure  of  that  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  WTien  was  that— how  many  years  ago  ?   A.  Oh ;  ? 
could  not  tell  that  exactly. 
Q.  Six  years  ?  A.  It  may  be. 

Q.  Well,  you  then  saw  he  was  the  same  person  you  ftafl 
seen  once  before  ?  A.  Sir  ! 

Q.  When  you  saw  him  in  Nassau-st.,  did  you  remember 
you  had  seen  him  before  ?  A.  Oh,  yes,  Sir ;  I  remembered 
I  saw  him  before. 

Q.  Now,  except  passing  him  in  the  street  on  these  two 
occasions,  yon  had  not  seen  him  ever,  had  you  t  A.  No, 
Sir,  I  didn't  see  him  anywhere  else. 

Q.  Now,  you  joined  the  procession  when  it  started, 
didn't  you?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


386  THE  1I1jTOs\-B 

Q.  And  went  all  tlirough  witli  it  I  A.  I  went  all  through 
witli  it ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  saw  Mr.  Tilton  when  the  procession 
started  1  A.  Not  exa<}tly  when  it  started ;  I  saw  him  in 
the  way.  A  friend  of  mine  was  walking  with  me,  and  he 
made  the  remark,  "  There  is  Mr.  Tilton,  too." 

Q.  What  did  you  say  ?   A.  I  didn't  say  anything. 

Q.  You  didn't  say,  "  Oh  I  I  know  that  ?"   A.  Sir? 

Q.  You  didn't  say.  *'  I  know  that  is  Mr.  Tilton,"  did 
you  ?  A.  I  didn't  say  it ;  no,  Sir. 

Q.  You  didn't  say,  "  A  man  that  sees  Mr.  Tilton  once 
never  forgets  him  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  didn't  think  it  was 
necessary. 

Q.  Now,  who  was  the  gentleman  that  you  were  walk- 
ing with  that  told  you  this  was  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  How  is 
that! 

Q.  Who  was  the  person  you  were  walking  with  in  the 
procession  that  told  you  it  was  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  John 
Brunner;  he  is  also  in  the  store. 

Q.  You  walked  with  him  all  through,  did  you  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  if  you  will  allow  me  to  make  a  remark  

Mr.  Evarts— No,  that  is  not  permixted, 

Mr.  FuUerton— We  wUl  let  you  make  it  by  and  by. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  it  is  important. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Well,  we  will  have  it  any  way;  we 
cannot  tell  if  it  is  important  until  we  get  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  you  would  not  allow  me  to  do.  [To 
the  witness.]  Now,  Mr.  Swinton,  you  said  something 
about  him  1  A.  Yes,  feir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Personally  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  him  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  To  talk  with  him  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  his  acquaintance  1  A.  I  made 
his  acquaintance  after  the  Tompkins-square  outrage  in 
New-York. 

Q.  That  was  after  this  procession  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Some  time  1  A.  Some  time  after,  on  the  13th  of 
January. 

Q.  Yes,  we  know  about  that.  Now,  when  did  you  first 
think  it  was  Mr.  Swinton  that  was  walking  with  Mr.  Til- 
ton in  the  procession  ?   A.  Sir  ? 

Q.  When  did  you  first  think  that  it  was  Mr.  Swinton 
that  was  walking  with  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  I  say  I  didn't 
know  it  was  Mr.  Swinton  at  that  time,  but  after  I  saw 
Mr.  Swinton  I  recollected— you  know  our  party  is  so 
small  that  we  recollect  our  friends. 

Mr,  Evarts— Well,  that  has  always  been  the  way  with 
me,  I  know,  but  I  didn't  know  how  you  were. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  have  any  party. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Swinton  and  Mr.  Tilton  were 
together  when  you  first  saw  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  procession  1 
X.  No,  Sir ;  I  saw  Mr.  Tilton  before  I  saw  Mr.  Swinton. 

^  Yes*  A.  Yes.  Sir. 


Q.  Well,  who  did  Mr.  Tilton  start  with  then!  A.  Mr. 
Tilton  was  hi  line  before  me ;  he  was  in  line  before  me. 

Q.  Yes ;  well,  who  was  walking  with  htm  when  yoa 
first  saw  him?  A.  I  don't  know  the  man. 

Q.  It  was  somebody  %  A.  Yes,  somebody. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  go  oft"  when  Mr.  Swinton  came  f  A.  Ho; 
I  believe  he  was  in  the  line  yet. 

Q.  StiU?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Well,  when  did  you  first  see  Mr.  Swinton  1  A.  I  saw 
!  him  in  the  road,  you  know,  after  the  procession  you  dont 
look  so  close;  I  believe  it  was  about  half  the  proces- 
sion when  I  saw  him— half  the  line  of  the  procession,  I 
mean. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  exactly  understand  it ;  you  mean  that 
the  procession  was  about  half  over  ?  A.  About  half— no  ; 
not  quite  half  over  ;  I  think  it  was  about  Fifteenth  or 
Sixteenth-st.,  I  recollect,  that  I  seen  him. 

Q.  Yes  ;  you  first  saw  Mr.  Swinton  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  then,  :,Ii-.  Swinton  joined  the  prooessioA  < 
A.  I  don't  know  about  his  joining  ;  I  only  saw  him  in  the 
procession. 

Q.  Yes ;  but  you  had  not  seen  him  before,  you  think  1 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q,  And  he  was  walking  arm  in  arm  with  Mr.  Tilton  t 
A.  He  was  walking  arm  in  arm  ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  how  near  were  you  to  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  was 
about  four  or  five  behind  him  in  the  Une. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  same  division  with  him?  A.  I  don't 
know  about  the  division;  I  only  was  there  with  my 
friend  as  citizens ;  we  did  not  belong  to  any  division. 

Q.  So  you  think  you  were  in  the  same  division,  and 
were  you  at  the  head  or  the  foot  of  a  division,  or  the 

middle,  or  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  was  on  the  left  side  of  the 

line. 

Q.  Yes ;  but  were  you  in  the  middle  of  a  division  I  A. 
In  the  middle— in  the  center  of  the  procession. 

Q.  Yes— center  of  the  procession  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  center  of  a  division,  too  ? 

Mr.  Beach— No  ;  he  does  not  say  that. 

The  Witness— No,  Sir,  on  the  left ;  I  was  outside  on  the 
left  in  the  line  ;  we  went  up  Filth-ave.,  and  I  was  ou  the 
left  hand  side  when  going  up. 

Q.  WeU,  I  understand.  A.  Yes;  well— 

Q.  And  the  person  who  walked  with  you  was  on  the 
right  hand  side  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  he  was  next  to  me. 

Q.  Yes,  ou  the  right  hand  side  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  But  the  question  is— you  were  in  the  center  of  the 
procession— now  they  were  there  in  divisiong.  were  they^ 
and  you  belonged  to  a  division  of  citizens  generally  ?  A, 
I  did  not ;  I  say  I  don't  know  what  division  I  do  beloaf 
to  ;  I  only  went  in  that  procession. 

Q.  Well,  what  I  want  to  get  at  is  whether  you  were 
near  the  head  or  the  tail  of  one  of  the  divisions!  A.  I 
do  n't  know  nothing  at  all  about  divisions ;  I  do  n't 
know  how   [Laughter.] 

Q.  WeU,  exactly ;  I  do  n't  know  that  you  do ;  you  can* 


TESTIMONY  OF  ISTEFfi 

not  tell  -whetlier  you  were  in  the  same  division  witli  Mr. 
TUton,  can  you?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  whether  you  were  near  the  head  of  another  di- 
vision ?  A.  Well,  I  was  not  marshal ;  I  did  n't  divide  it 
into  divisions,  so  I  do  n't  Imow  . 

Q.  Well,  exactly  ?   A.I  was  not  inquired  in  this  thing. 

Q.  And  you  don't  know  whether  Mr.  Tilton  was  near 
the  head  of  any  division?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nor  whether  you  two  were  in  the  same  division 
you  don't  know  %  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  don't  know  that. 

Q.  You  don't  know  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Verv  Well. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  all,  Mr.  Bremer. 

TESTIMONY  OF  STEPHEN  PEAEL  ANDREWS. 

Stephen  Pearl  Andrews  was  next  called  on 
behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  and  being  duly  sworn,  testified  as 
follows : 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Andrews,  where  do  you  reside  ? 
A.  In  the  City  of  New-York. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  the  City  of  New-York  1 
A.  With  the  exception  of  one  year  nearly  30  years. 

Q.  Nearly  30  years  ?  A.  Y^'es,  Sir. 

Q.  And,  before  you  had  your  residence  in  New- York, 
where  did  you  reside  ?  A.  I  resided  six  years  imme- 
diately before  in  Boston;  before  that,  four  years  in 
Texas ;  prior  to  that,  six  years  in  Louisiana,  and  prior  to 
that  in  Massachusetts  and  New-Hampshire. 

Q.  Since  your  residence  in  New-York  what  has  been 
your  occupation  1  A.  I  came  to  New-York  City  as  an 
educationist ;  I  was  engaged  in  the  business  of  introduc- 
ing phonography  and  phonographic  reporting ;  in  f oimd- 
Ing  this  profession  that  is  serving  you  now  as  it  is,  Sir. 

Q.  In  what  year  was  that,  Mr.  Andrews  %  A.  1859, 1 
think,  Sir. 

Q.  And  have  you  been  engaged  in  any  other  business 
besides  that  %  A.  Do  you  mean  through  the  whole  course 
of  my  life.  Sir,  or  through  

Q.  Since  in  New-York  ?  A.  Since  in  New-York— I  re- 
mained in  that  specific  business,  connected  with  report- 
ing and  with  phonetics  only  about  two  years,  two  or 
three  years  after  I  came  to  New-York. 

Q.  And  in  what  year  did  you  give  up  that  business  % 
A.  1852. 

Q,  You  said  '59  a  moment  ago.  You  meant  1849, 1 
suppose  %  A.  '49  I  meant ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  after  that  what  was  your  occupation,  Mr.  An- 
drews i  A.  My  occupation  from  that  time  on  has  been, 
almost  entirely,  new  and  somewhat  rare  scientific  and 
philosophical  investigations— some  efforts  toward  social 
reorganization— social  construction— as  a  reformer,  if 
you  choose. 

Q.  And  in  the  mean  time,  Sir,  have  you  given  your  at- 
tention to  authorship  1  A.  I  have  been  all  through  my 
tife  an  author  on  various  subjects. 

Q.  And  what  number  of  books  have  you  published  I 


"^JN   PEARL   ANDREWS.  387 

A.  Well,  Sii-,  I  have  been  almost  as  voluminous  an  author 

as  Mr.  Beecher.  Do  you  wish  some  specification  of  

Q.  If  you  please.  Sir  1  A.  My  first  publications,  when  I 
resided  in  Texas,  were  legal  translations  connected  with 
the  Spanish  language.  My  first  independent  work  was  a 
treatise  on  entails,  a  legal  treatise  on  entails  at  the  Civil 
Law  and  at  the  Common  Law.  Then,  when  my  connec- 
tion began  witli  reporting,  with  the  introduction  rather 
of  this  special  system,  which  is  called  "  Phonography," 
for  the  purpose  of  reporting,  I  published  an  entire  series 
of  works— six  or  eight  instruction  books  of  various 
characters  connected  with  that  enterprise.  I  then 
published  a  controversy  that  was  held  between 
myself,  Horace  Greeley,  and  Henry  James, 
on  Love,  Marriage  and  Divorce.  I  then  pub- 
lished a  treatise  on  individuality  and  the  sovereignty  of 
the  individual  as  social  solutions.  They  were  subse- 
quently republished  In  a  single  book  and  caUedthe 
"  Science  of  Society."  I  published,  wrote,  prepared,  and 
the  Appletons  published  two  works  on  French  instruc- 
tion, like  the  OUendorflf  system.  More  recently  I  have 
published  two  or  three  works  on  Universology,  which  is 
the  name  that  I  confer  upon  a  scientific  system  which  I 
have  been  engaged  in  elaborating,  one  entitled  the 
"  Primary  Synopsis  of  Universology,"  and  one  entitled 
"  The  Basic  Outline  of  Universology,"  which  is  a  book  as 
large  as  the  Bible— a  book  of  900  pages,  which  very  few 
people  read. 

Q.  What  have  you  recently  been  employed  at,  Mr. 
Andrews?  A.  I  am  entirely  employed  in  the  promulga- 
tion of  it  as  I  get  opportunity,  and  in  the  special  elabora- 
tion of  a  new  \miversal  language,  which  grows  by  logical 
sequence  out  of  the  science  of  universology. 

Q.  Had  you  any  connection  at  any  time  with  Mr.  Gerrit 
Smith  1  A.  I  had. 

Q.  What  %  A.  Variously,  at  different  times. 

Q.  I  wish  you  would  state  what  that  connection  was,  if 
you  please.  Sir.  A.  I  often  visited  him  at  his  residence, 
and  we  sympathized  very  much  with  each  other  in  the 
general  anti-Slavery  purposes  in  which  we  were  engaged; 
perhaps  the  most  markworthy  connection  that  I  had 
with  him  may  furnish  a  little  matter  of  untold  history  in 
connection  with  the  anti-Slavery  movement. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  is  n't  it  as  well,  if  your  Honor  please^ 
that  it  should  remain  untold. 

Judge  Neilson— He  dont  propose  to  give  it  now. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  thought  he  did. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No ;  he  merely  informs  you  that  it  has 
not  been  given  to  the  world  yet ;  of  course,  he  won't  give 
it  if  you  don't  want  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  no  objection  to  its  substance  ;  but 
I  think  the  elaboration  of  the  witness's  intellectual  char- 
acter has  been  sufficiently  made ;  it  is  only  in  that  light 
that  any  of  this  is  proper. 

Mr.  Fiillerton— I  propose  to  show  what  he  has  been 


IHE   TILTON-BEECNER  IBJAL. 


^8 

doing  in  this  world,  as  they  have  shown  what  their  wit- 
nesses have  heen  doing. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  as  to  a  mere  witness  it  is  not  admis- 
sible. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Oh,  yes ;  Mr.Beecher  was  a  mere  wit- 
ness on  the  stand. 
Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  no ! 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  yes  he  was ;  he  had  no  other  busi- 
ness there  but  being  a  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  see  the  admissibility  of  this  inquiry. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  insist  upon  the  question,  what  business 
<?onnection  he  had  with  Mr.  Oerrit  Smith? 

Judge  Neilson— Well ! 

The  Witness— I  was  commissioned  and  sent  down  by 
Mr.  Gerrit  Smith  to  the  State  of  Delaware  to  negotiate 
with  the  political  men  of  that  State  for  the  abolition  of 
Slavery  in  that  State  on  condition  of  the  purchase  of  the 
^  slaves  of  the  State.  There  were  but  2,000  slaves  in  that 
State  when  Mr.  Gorrit  Smith  conceived  the  design  of 
buying  out  the  State,  so  to  speak,  and  emancipating 
them.  I  commenced  operations— had  an  interview  with 
Senator  Clayton  and  a  few  other  leading  men,  when  I 
was  taken  with  a  disease,  brain  fever,  and  was  pros- 
trated for  many  months,  and  that  was  all  that  came  of 
the  enterprise. 

Q.  What  connection,  if  any,  did  you  have  with  Mr. 
I^ewis  Tappan,  Sir,  in  his  lifetime  1 

Mr.  Evarts  [deprecatingly]  —  Well,  if  your  Honor 
please  I 

Judge  Neilson— Oh,   yes,   certainly  —  be  brief,  Mr. 
Andrews. 
The  Witness— I  will  be  brief.  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— We  will  reach  the  recess  by  the  time  we 
get  through. 

The  Witness— I  initiated  a  movement  in  the  then 
Republic  of  Texas  for  the  abolition  of  Slavery.  It 
])roved  disastrous  in  the  mode  in  which  it  was 
attempted.  Another  mode  was  hit  upon,  and  I 
went  to  England  with  a  view  to  negotiate 
v/ith  the  British  Government  for  — or  with 
capitalists  by  the  aid  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment—for a  loan  to  pay  for  the  slaves  in  that  State— in 
that  Republic.  I  came  on  here,  and  Mr.  Lewis  Tappan 
was  so  much  interested  in  my  project  that  he  went  with 
me  to  England  and  by  his  aid  and  such  letters  as  I  had 
received  from  the  British  OhargS  in  Galveston,  I  was 
immediately  brought  into  consultation  with  Lord  Aber- 
deen and  the  other  members  of  the  British  Government 
of  that  day,  and  remained  there  some  five  months,  the 
whole  statement  of  which  would  be  another  chapter  in 
untold  history. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir ;  I  don't  propose  to  go  into  it.  I 
cannot  open  another  subject  and  complete  it,  your  Honor. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well. 

The  com-t  thereupon  adjourned  until  11  o'clock  Wednes- 
4inj  morning. 


SEVENIY-NINTH  DAPS  PROCEEDINGS. 

HENRY  C.  BOWEN  TESTIFIES  IN  REBUTTAL. 

STEPHEN  PEARL  ANDREWS,  MRS.  BRADSHAW,  AMI) 
JOHN  WOOD  AS  REBUTTAL  WITNESSES— INTER- 
EST AND  EXCITEMENT  CAUSED  BY  THE  AP- 
PEARANCE OF  MR.  BOWEN  AS  A  WITNESS— HIS 
MANNER  OF  GIVING  TESTIMONY— HIS  VERSION 
OF  THE  INTERVIEW  WITH  MR.  BEECHER  IN  MR. 
FREELAND'S  house— he  declares  THAT  MR, 
BEECHER  NEVER  SPOKE  TO  HIM  ABOUT  MR. 
TILTON'S  DISCHARGE  —  MR.  BOWEN'S  VIEWS 
CONCERNING   THE    TRIPARTITE  COVENANT. 

Wednesday,  May  5,  1875. 

After  the  opening  of  the  session  in  the  morning  the 
examination  of  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews  by  Mr.  Fuller- 
ton  was  continued.  This  was  confined  principally  to 
the  Woodhull  scandal,  and  to  Mr.  Tilton's  relations 
to  Mrs.  Woodhull.  To  show  the  character  of  Mrs, 
WoodhuU's  house,  the  witness— notwithstanding  the 
objection  of  Mr.  Evarts,  who  maintained  that  such 
evidence  was  not  admissible  in.  rebuttal  under 
the  circumstances  of  the  case — was  allowed  to  give 
a  long  list  of  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  visitors.  This  list  in- 
cluded the  names  of  many  persons,  men  and  women, 
well  known  in  professional  and  literary  circles. 
Some  amusement  was  created  by  Mr.  Andrews  in- 
cluding in  this  list  the  name  of  Mrs.  Lockwood,  a 
lawyer  of  Washington.  "A  lawyers  wife,  you 
mean,"  said  Judge  Neilson.  "No,  a  lawyer  herself," 
replied  the  witness.  "She'd  take  an  exception  to 
that  ruling,  your  Honor,"  remarked  Mr.  Fullerton. 

Mr.  Andrews  compared  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  house  to 
Mme.  Roland's  salon  during  the  first  French  Revc/- 
lution.  He  thought  Mrs.  Woodhull  was  as 
remarkable  a  woman  as  Mme.  Roland,  though  of 
a  different  type.  Mr.  Andrews  said  that 
he  had  composed  portions  of  the  Wood- 
hull  scandal  narrative  as  it  was  published  in 
Woodhull  Sj-  Claflin's  Weekly.  He  wrote  the  intro- 
ductory and  closing  parts,  but  not  the  recital.  So 
far  as  he  knew,  Mr.  Tilton  was  not  aware  that  such 
an  article  was  being  prepared.  The  witness  asserted 
that  the  scandal  was  communicated  to  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  by  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stanton. 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Andrews  was  added  to  that 
of  the  others  who  have  sworn  that  Mr.  Tilton,  in  the 
Rossel  procession,  was  not  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  and 
Miss  Claflin.  The  cross-examination  of  this  witness 
was  conducted  by  Mr.  Evarts,  who  drew  from  him  a 
statement  of  some  of  his  socialistic  theories. 

Mrs.  Martha  A.  Bradshaw  was  recalled  and  testi- 


TE811M0NI   OF  t^TEPL 

fied  that  Bessie  Turner  had  told  her  at  her  house 
that  Mr.  Tiltoii  had  charged  his  wife  with  adultery 
with  Mr.  Beeoher.  Miss  Turner's  testimonj^  had 
be^u  that  she  had  not  told  Mrs.  Bradshaw  that  fact. 
The  plaintifl's  counsel  stated  their  object  to  be  to 
call  in  question  Miss  Turnei^s  credibility. 

John  Wood,  the  printer  of  Woodhull  ^  Clafliii's 
Weekly,  was  also  called  for  the  plaintitf,  and  testified 
that  he  had  put  in  type  the  scandal  article  in  1872. 
To  the  best  of  his  knowledge  it  had  not  been  put  in 
type  before.  He  had  ceased  publishing  the  paper  in 
the  early  part  of  1872,  and  resumed  it  with  the 
scandal  number  in  November  of  that  year. 

Mr.  Bo  wen  was  called  about  the  middle  of 
the  afternoon  session.  Mr.  Fullertou  had  just 
dismissed  an  unimportant  witness,  and  turning 
quickly  around  toward  the  door  leading  to  Cham- 
bers, he  called  out  in  deliberate  tones,  and  in 
a  loud  voice,  "Henry  C.  Bowen!"  Mr.  Bo  wen,  who 
had  been  sitting  since  the  recess  on  the  rear  bench 
for  spectators,  near  the  door,  quietly  arose  and  came 
forward,  pushing  his  way  through  tlie  crowd. 

The  examination  of  Mr.  Bowen  was  conducted  by 
Mr.  Fullertou.  The  lawyer's  fii-st  questio  n  was  in  refer- 
ence to  the  interview  between  Mr.  Boweii  and  Mr. 
Beecher  at  Mr.  Freeland's  house  in  December,  1870. 
This  Mr.  Bowen  said  was  an  appointed  meeting,  and 
not  a  casual  one  as  Mr.  Beecher  had  stated.  The 
witness  took  a  note  to  Mr.  Beecher  from  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  asserted  that  he  knew  the  contents  of  the  note, 
although  Mr.  Beecher  had  said  that  Mr.  Bowen  was 
ignorant  of  the  contents. 

When  the  witness  was  asked  if  Mr.  Beecher  had 
advised  him  to  discharge  Mr.  Tilton  from  The  Inde- 
pendent, or  had  advised  him  about  Mr.  Tilton's  re- 
moval from  Th^  BrooJclyn  Union,  a  legal  contest  arose 
between  Mr.  Evarts,  assisted  by  some  of  Ids  fellow- 
counsel,  and  Messrs.  Beach  and  Fullerton.  The 
arguments  were  principally  in  regard  to  the  form  of 
the  question,  which  was  finally  settled  by 
Judge  Neilson,  and  Mr.  Bowen  replied  that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  said  nothing  whatever 
about  Mr.  Tilton's  discharge.  Mr.  Bowen  also  testi- 
fied that  at  the  interview  referred  to  he  had  given 
Mr.  Beecher  a  letter  which  the  latter  read.  Mr. 
Beecher  said  that  the  author  must  be  crazy.  This 
was  Mr.  lllton's  letter  demanding  that  Mr.  Beecher 
ebonld  leave  Brooklyn.  Mr.  Bowen  denied  that  Mr. 
Beecher  had  handed  him  the  letter  and  that  he  had 
read  it. 

The  Tripartite  Covenant  was  another  principal 
eabject  of  inqniry.  Mr.  Bowen  testified  that  that 


^;.V   FEARL   ANDREWS.  389 

covenant  had  no  connection  whatever  with  his  pay- 
ment of  $7,000  to  Mr.  Tilton ;  also,  that  there  was 
no  connection  between  the  covenant  and  the  arbitra- 
tion which  Jed  to  the  paymev  t  of  the  $7,000.  Noth- 
ing was  said  when  the  award  was  made  about  the 
difficulty  between  Mv  ^eer her  and  Mr.  Tilton.  Mr. 
Bowen  gave  a  brief  history  of  what  he  knew  about 
the  Tripartite  Agreement.  The  reason  that  he  at 
first  refused  to  sign  the  agreement  was  the  point  of 
a  question  which  led  to  another  battle  between  the 
lawyers,  in  which  Messrs.  Beach,  Tracy,  Fullerton, 
and  Porter  took  part,  rhis  exhausted  the  remainder 
of  the  session. 

THE  PROCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. 

STEPHEN  PEARL  ANDREWS'S  EXAMINATION. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pu-rsuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews  was  recalled  and  his  testi- 
mony on  direct  examination  resumed. 

The  Witness— Mr.  Fullerton,  if  you  will  excuse  me— 
your  Honor,  wiU  you  allow  me  to  make  a  correction  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Certainly. 

The  Witness— I  wish  to  add  to  the  list  of  hooks  which 
was  called  out  from  me  last  evening  (I  don't  know  that  it 
is  impovtant)  a  work  on  the  Chinese  language  which  I 
puhlished  some  years  ago,  in  which  I  attempted  to  do, 
and  perhaps  did,  for  the  Chinese  written  system  what 
ChampoUion  did  for  the  Egyptian  hieroiilyphlcs ;  it  was 
a  work  that  was  reviewed  in  Germany  and  has  been  used 
on  the  coast  of  China  tor  instruction  in  the  Chinese  lan- 
guage. 

Mr.  Fullerton— When  did  you  become  acquainted  with 
Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  ?  A.  When  Mr.  Tilton  was  about  13 
years  of  age. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  become  acquainted  with  Mr. 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  ?  A.  About  the  period  of  my  first 
arrival  in  New-York. 

Q.  In  1849,  was  it?  A.  I  should  think  so.  S'r;  mr 
recollection  is  not  very  distinct  about  the  

Mr.  Beach— A  little  louder,  Mr.  Andrews,  if  you  please  ; 
the  jury  don't  hear  you. 

THE  MEETING  OF    SOCIOLOGISTS  AT  MR. 
TILTON'S. 

Mr.  PuUerton—Do  you  recollect  spend- 
ing an  evening  at  Mr.  Tilton's  house  botue  years  ago 
when  there  was  a  little  gathering  of  peoples  tbeie—tlie 
same  visit  referred  to  in  the  testimony  :  do  jou  recollect 
it  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Referred  to  by  Miss  Augusta  Mooie,  1  think  1  A. 
Yes.  . 

Q.  What  was  the  topic  of  conversation  that  evening, 
Mr.  A  idrews  1    A.  It  was  discursive;  I  liav;  .: 


890 


TRE   TILTON-BKECREB  IBIAL. 


uislinct  recollection  of  tlie  particular  subjects  that  were 
talked  of  ;  probably  tbe  range  of  ideas  in  wbicli  I  am  in- 
terested. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir  ;  how  many  people  were  there  present  that 
evening;  do  you  recollect  ?  A.  When  I  read  the  state- 
ment of  Miss  Moore,  if  that  is  the  lady's  name,  I  took  it 
as  correct,  specifying  the  number  of  persons. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  a  lady  sitting  upon  the  sofa  by  the 
side  of  Mr.  Tilton  that  evening  ?  A.  I  have  a  recollec- 
tion, a  somewhat  vague  recollection  to  this  eflfect,  that 
some  conversation  which  was  held  between  my  wife  and 
Mr.  Tilton  was  travestied  in  the  testimony  of  that  lady. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  well  

Mr.  Fullerton— Was  youi-  wife  present  that  evening? 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  hardly  admissible  to  say  "  traves- 
tied," if  your  Honor  please.  If  the  witness  is  able  to 
state  what  occuiTed,  very  well ;  but  that  does  not  give 
him  the  license  to  say  that  the  former  witness  has  trav- 
estied the  statement. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  wife  was  present  that  evening  1 
A.  My  wife  was  present  that  evening  with  me. 
Mr.  Evarts— I  move  that  that  be  struck  out. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— What  occurred  that  evening  upon  the 
sofa  between  your  wife  and  Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  As  I  have 
observed,  my  recollection  is  indistinct  with  regard  to  it; 
my  wife  was  a  spiritual  medium ;  she  was  of  the  class  of 
persons  of  whom  you  have  had  specimens  here  as  wit- 
nesses—a person  who  acted,  as  we  say,  sometimes  from 
impression,  and  my  recollection  (somewhat  vague)  is  that 
she  left  her  seat  in  a  chair  and  sat  for  a  short  tmie  by  the 
side  of  Mr.  Tilton,  describing  to  him  her  perception  of  his 
character  by  this  interior  method. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  beyond  that  1  A.  Nothing  what- 
ever. 

Q.  Any  undue  familiarity?  A.  None. 

Q.  Was  it  all  under  your  observation  1  A.  All  under 
my  observation  and  the  observation  of  all  the  other  per- 
sons present,  among  whom  were  strangers. 

Q.  Anything  beyond  the  mere  illustration  of  what 
might  have  been  the  subject  of  conversation  I  A.  Noth- 
ing, I  should  say,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  Icnow,  or  do  you  know,  Deacon  Freeland  ? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  he,  was  present  that  even- 
mg  1   A.  I  think  he  was  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  a  son  of  his  ?  A.  A  son  of  his ;  yes,  Sir;  Mr.  Ed- 
ward B.  Freeland. 

Q.  Yes.  Do  you  know  whether  they  were  there  in 
youf  company  ?  A.  I  think  they  came  together  by  a  pre- 
arraugement ;  Mr.  Edward  B.  Freeland,  the  young  gen- 
tleman, was  residing  in  my  family. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  And  I  thmk  he  went  for  his  father,  and 
that  they  came  together ;  and  met  ua  at  Mr.  Tilton'g 
houee. 


Q.  You  may  state,  if  you  please,  how  Mr.  Freeland  was 
residing,  or  a  member  of  your  family.  A.  Mr.  Edward 
B.  Freeland? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  He  was  for  six  years  a  member  of  strv 
family,  and  one  of  my  principal  coadjutors  in  elaborating 
the  science  of  universology ;  he  was  prof  oundly  interested 
in  that  whole  branch  of  things. 

Q.  His  father  visited  you  often  ?  A.  Frequently. 

Q.  And  when  did  Mr.  Freeland  the  younger  cease  to 
be  a  member  of  your  family?  A.  I  don't  remember  the 
year— he  died,  this  young  gentleman;  Mr.  Beeoher  at- 
tended his  funeral  at  Mr.  Freeland's  house  on  the  Heights, 
and  I  was  present  at  the  funeral. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  year?  A.  I  should  think  it  "waa 
about  eight  years  ago. 

THE  WITNESS'S  ACQUAINTANCE  WITH  MRS. 
WOODHULL. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  Now,  if  you  please,  you  may 
state  whether  you  know  Victoria  Woodhull,  and  when 
you  first  became  acquainted  with  her.  A.  I  know  Victo- 
ria Woodhull ;  I  made  my  first  acquaintance  with  her,  I 
think,  in  the  Winter  of  1870. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  Winter  %  A.  I  should  think  in  the 
month  of  February. 

Q.  Of  1870?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  was  she  residing  then  ?  A.  She  was  residing 
at  the  Hoffman  House,  a  hotel  in  Broadway,  New-York. 

Q.  Where  did  she  remove  to  from  there,  if  you  recollect! 
A.  Whether  she  removed  directly  from  that  hotel  to  her 
subsequent  residence  in  Thirty-eighth-st.  or  not  I  do  not 
remember— don't  know. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  remember  when  she  became  a  resident 
of  Thirty-eighth-st.  ?   A.  I  do. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?  A.  I  should  think  in  the  early  Sum- 
mer of  1870. 

Q.  Yes.  Now,  Sir,  you  may  state  whether  you  became, 
and  if  so,  at  what  period,  an  inmate  of  her  family  t  A.  I 
was  an  inmate  of  her  house  at  two  different  periods ;  I 
went  into  it  with  her  at  the  opening  of  the  house. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  My  wife,  being  sick,  had  gone  on  a  voyage 
for  the  recovery  of  her  health,  and  I  went  and  remained 
at  Mrs.  Woodhull'e  during  that  period,  perhaps  three 
months. 

Q.  Commencing  and  ending  when  ?  A.  CommenchiK 
when  she  moved  into  the  house,  ending  perhaps  three 
months  after  that ;  my  wife  returning,  I  left  her  house ; 
at  the  period  of  my  wife's  death  I  resumed  my  residence 
in  her  house. 

Q.  When  was  that  1  A.  That  wa«  on  the  6th  of  May,. 
1871. 

Q.  Did  you  occupy  a  room  in  the  house,  or        A.  I 

did. 

Q.  Take  your  meals  there  %    A.  Both  in  part ;  I  occu- 
pied a  room,  and  in  part  took  my  meals  there  ? 
Q.  Who  composed  the  family  or  the  household  of  Mr* 


TF.ST1M0]^T  OF  STEPL 

Woodhull  during  those  periodB  1  A.  Tliere  was  Mrs.  Wood- 
bull  and  Miss  Tennie  Claflin. 

Q,  Her  sister  ?  A.  Her  sister,  the  father  and  mother. 

Q.  Of  whom?  A.  Of  those  ladies— and  Dr.  Woodhull, 
who  ha4  heen  a  previous  husband  of  Mrs.  Woodhull, 
and  who  was  at  this  time  an  imbecile,  myself  and  the 
eervants. 

Q.  You  omitted  CoL  Blood,  I  think?  A.  Col.  Blood— I 
intended  to  hare  mentioned  him. 

Q.  And  what  relation  did  he  bear  to  Mrs.  Woodhull? 
A  He  is  her  husband,  I  suppose  ;  he  passes  as  such. 


MES.  WOODHULL'S  VISITORS  NA^IED. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  Now,  Mr.  Andrews,  I  want  you  to 
state,  as  well  as  you  can  remember, who  were  in  the  habit 
of  visiting  that  house  ?  A.  This  question — ^may  I  make  an 
explanation  ?  I  am  under  subpena  here  from  both  par- 
ties, and  this  question  having  been  asked  me,  or  intima- 
tion of  it  from  both  sides.  I  expected  to  be  asked  the 
question,  and  I  took  the  liberty  to  make  a  list  to  refresh 
my  memory ;  if  I  might  consult  that  

Q.  You  are  at  liberty  to  consult  anything  which  will  re- 
fresh your  recollection. 

Mr.  Evarta — How  does  this,  if  your  Honor  please,  be- 
come material  in  rebuttal  ? 

Judge  Xeilson— The  general  fact,  perhaps,  may  be  well 
enough;  only  the  general  fact ;  a  long  enumeration  is  not 
called  for. 

Mr.  Evarts— In  rebuttal? 

Mr.  Fulletfton— Well,  the  general  fact  that  people  visited 
the  house  required  the  enumeration  of  the  names. 

Judge  Neilson— There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  evidence 
in  regard  to  the  house,  and  its  occupation,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  Fullerton — Xo,  Sir ;  but  reproach  has  been  cast  on 
It,  or,  at  least,  there  has  been  an  attempt  to  do  it  by  show- 
ing improper  familiarities  and  practices  there. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  does  not  license  this  generality 
of  evidence  in  rebuttal. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  think  it  does,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— As  I  understand  it,  no  evidence  has  been 
given  concerning  that  house  except  in  regard  to  Mr.  TJS- 
ton's  presence,  and  what  occurred  during  that  presence  m 
that  house. 

Judge  Xeilson— Yes,  well,  there  was  a  good  deal  of  that 
you  know. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  ihat  I  agree,  that  I  agree ;  and  on 

rebuttal  in  respect  to  occurrences  within  that  reach  

Judge  NeiLson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts  [continuing]- That  would  be  rebuttal,  on- 
less  some  special  objection  arose  that  it  was  not  rebuttal. 
But  this  is  not  rebuttal,  as  it  seems  to  me. 

Judge  Xeilson— Oh,  I  thmk  the  general  fact  though  as 
to  the  occupants  of  the  house  might  be  taken  in  a  general 
way ;  we  don't  want  a  long  enumeration  of  names. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  question  is,  who  -were  visitors  of  that 


FEABL   AXDREWS.  391 

'  house.   Well,  now,  there  is  no  limit  T  guess  as  to  time 

j  either ;  I  don't  know  how  that  was. 

j     Judge  Xeil son— While  he  was  there,  I  suppose. 

I     Mr.  Fullerton— I  wlQ  limit  it  t-o  the  time  while  Mrs. 

I  Woodhull  was  there. 

Ml-.  Evarts— Well,  so  there  Is  no  limit  to  the  time  then, 
except  during  her  occupancy  of  the  house. 

Judge  Xeilson— I  think  we  will  take  the  general  fact; 
make  it  as  brief  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  a  general  fact ;  he  asks  a  Hst  oi 
the  persons  who  visited  there. 
Judge  Jfeilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  cannot  be  disguised,  if  your  Honor 
please,  that  they  attempt  to  cast  reproa-ch  upon  the 
plaintiff  in  this  case,  and  some  of  his  witne-sses  because 
they  visited  the  house  of  Mrs.  Woodhull.  and  I  think  it  is 
eminently  proper  for  me  to  show  the  character  of  the 
house,  the  character  of  those  who  frequented  it,  and  the 
objects  they  had  in  view  in  eolng. 

Judge  2s  eUson — Oh,  I  think  it  could  hardly  be  disputed 
that  you  could  show  that  this  was  a  literary  place  where 
distinguished,  well-known  gentlemen  were  wont  to  con- 
gregate and  converse  on  literary  subjects. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly. 

Judge  Iseilson— Or  anything  else  giving  character  to 
the  house  in  a  general  way. 

Mr.  Evarts— But,  it  your  Honor  please,  they  first  intro- 
duced the  subject  of  Mrs.  WoodhiUl's  house  and  the 
plaintiff's  relations  to  her  ;  they  introduced  it  as  a  part 
of  their  casa  that  the  operations  in  which  Mrs.  Woodhull 
figures  in  reference  to  this  scandal  were  operations 
which  led  to  association,  or  which  followed  from  associa- 
tion between  Mr.  TUton  and  [Mr.  Moulton,  if  you  please, 
to  some  extent,  and  this  lady,  imder  certain  definite 
motives  which  were  described.  Xow,  we  have  limited 
oui'selves,  as  I  imderstand,  in  the  defendant's  evidence,  to 
showing  what  the  nature  of  Mi-.  Tilton's  relations  to  that 
house  and  its  inmates,  and  the  office  and  its  inmates,  "was, 
I  think,  entirely.  We  have  not  ujidertaken  to  show  that 
persons  of  an  improper  character  visited  there — ^not  atalL 
We  have  taken  such  persons  as  we  have  found  there  nee- 
essarily  whenever  any  evidenc-e  was  given. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  was  not  our  seeking;  for  Instann^ 
Mr,  Cowley. 

Judge  Xeilson— You  generally  proved  the  fact,  how- 
ever— for  example  of  visitors  there,  by  Mrs.  Moulton.  I 
think  we  can  take  the  general  fact.  Don't  give  us  a  lon^r 
history. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  still  that,  if  your  Honor  please,  "waa  ft 
part  of  theii-  direct  examinatlcm  of  Mrs.  Moulton* 
Judge  Neilson— Well  

Mr.  Evarts— We  don't  prove  it ;  they  proved  that  she 
had  made  three  or  four  visits  there.  AH  I  did  was  to 
attempt  to  ascertain  "with  particulMlty  when  they  were. 

Judge  Nellson— Yes,  61r. 


892 


TEE   T1L10N-BME(JEEE  TRIAL. 


Mr.  Evarts— Now,  it  is  certainly  a  matter  of  some  con- 
fictiuence  wlietlier  tlie  lines  of  rebuttal  are  to  be  drawn 
ojien  or  not ;  and  if  it  was  a  part  of  their  case  to  show  the 
particular  character  of  Mrs.  "Woodhull  and  of  her  house, 
why  then,?a8  it  was  a  part  of  their  case,  they  introduced 
the  house  and  the  lady  into  this  case,  and,  as  I  say.  we, 
in  return,  have  done  nothing  and  attempted  to  show 
nothing  concerning  other  visitors  of  the  house  than  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  he  only  by  reason  of  his  presence  there,  and 
In  respect  to  what  occurred  in  his  presence,  have  we 
attempted  to  affect  him  at  all ;  and  now  there  seems  to 
be  no  reason  why  the  general  character  of  the  visitors  of 
that  house  should  be  for  the  first  time  introduced  into 
this  cause. 

Mr.  PuUerton— It  is  true,  Sir,  that  we  introduced  

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  think  we  will  tate  evidence  of 

the  general  character,  but  I  think  the  witness  can  give 

you  a  very  brief  answer  to    this    question  without 

enumerating  their  names. 
Mr.  FuUerton— Well,  when  I  ask  him  who  visited  the 

house,  how  can  he  do  it  without  giving  the  names  ? 

Judge  Nellson  -Many  names,  I  say  

Mr.  FuUertnn— We  don't  care  about  many  names. 
Judge  Neilson— Go  on. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  note  our  exception,  on 
the  ground  of  its  not  being  in  rebuttal  and  not  evidence 
in  chief. 

Judge  Neilson— Go  on. 

The  Witness— William  Orton,  President  of  the  Western 
Union  Telegraph  Company;  Whit^law  Reid,  Editor  of 
The  Tribune  ;  A.  F.  Willmarth,  President  of  the  Home 
Fii-e  Insurance  Company;  ex-Collector  Smythe,  Gen. 
Hillyer,  Grant's  Chief  of  8taff;  Orville  Grant,  Gen. 
Grant's  father ;  Gen.  Dent,  Gen.  J.  H.  Hammond,  Chief 
of  Gen.  Sherman's  staff ;  Gen.  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  Gov. 
Hahn,  ex-Gov.  Campbell,  Judge  H.  C.  Dibble,  Senator 
Spencer,  Gov.  Ashley,  Gov.  Geo.  W.  Julian,  T.  J.  C.  Flint, 
President  of  the  Continental  Bank ;  T.  J.  Durant,  Vice- 
President  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad ;  Henry  Clews 
banker ;  Prank  Work,  Grcorge  B.  Grinnell,  Jesse  Whee- 
lock,  President  of  the  Stock  Board;  Albert  Brisbane, 
sociologist ;  Edward  M.  Davis,  brother-in-law  of  Lucretia 
Mott;  Josiah  Warren,  sociologist;  Josiah  Cummins, 
representative  of  the  Workingmen's  Association;  M. 
Drury,  representative  head  of  the  Internationals ;  Theo- 
dore Banks,  another  representative  of  the  labor  move- 
ment; Richard  H.  Trevolick,  also  of  the  labor  move- 
ment; O.  B.  Frothingham,  clergyman. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  that  will  do. 

The  Witness— I  have  a  shorter  list  of  ladies. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  omit  the  ladies,  Sir  ;  go 
on. 

Mr.  Beach— 1  inmk  we  ought  to  have  the  names  of  the 
ladies.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well,  the  ladies,  tlicn ;  let  Uf?  have 
them ;  it  won't  do  much  hai-m 


The  Witness— Mrs.  Hemy  B.  Stanton,  Mrs.  Paulina 
Wright  Davis,  Miss  Susan  B.  Anthony,  Mrs.  Isabella 
Beecher  Hooker,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Phelps,  Mrs.  Brisbane, 
Mrs.  Frances  Rose  McKinley,  Mrs.  Laura  Cuppy  Smitli, 
Mrs.  Theodora  F.  Spencer,  Mrs.  Lillie  Devereux  Blake, 
Mrs.  Middlebrook,  who  has  been  a  witness  here  ;  Mrs. 
Sarah  F.  Norton,  Mrs.  Palmer,  also  a  witness  here; 
Mrs.  Martha  C.  Wright,  sister  of  Lucretia  Mott,  Mrs. 
Matilda  Joslyn  Gage,  Mrs.  Bella  Lockwood,  a  lawyer  of 
Washington. 

Judge  Neilson— Wife  of  a  lawyer  1 

Mr.  Fullert«n— No,  Sir,  the  lawyer. 

The  Witness- The  lawyer  herself.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Oh ! 

Mr.  Fullerton— She  will  take  an  exception  to  that  ruling 
Sir. 

The  Witness— Mrs.  Griffith,  a  friend  of  Michael  Scanlon, 
attach6  of  The  Irish  World ;  Mrs.  Emily  Verdey  Battey, 
attach^  of  The  Sun,  reporter  of  Mr.  Beech er's  sermons; 
Mrs.  Eleanor  Kirk,  Mrs.  Ames,  Mrs.  "  Brick"  Pomeroy, 
Mrs.  Esther  B.  Andrews,  Mrs.  Barnard,  Washington  cor- 
respondent of  The  Herald  newspaper ;  that  completes  th« 
list  of  those  that  I  remember.  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Andrews,  you  may  state  what  was  the  oc- 
cupation, if  I  may  tei-m  it  such,  of  these  people  whUe 
there.  How  did  they  spend  their  tkne  1  A.  I  wUl  state, 
Sir,  that  for  many  years  past  my  own  residence,  wherever 
I  have  been,  has  been  a  kind  of  center  around  which  have 
gathered  the  radical,  advanced  minds  on  the  basis  of 
science  and  progressive  reform ;  and  that  going  to,  Mi's. 
WoodhuU's  to  reside,  I  transferred  to  her  house  that  por- 
tion of  my  influence  that  attracted  persons  to  me ;  and  I 
found  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  had  also  a  very  wide  acquaint- 
anceship with  leading  men  and  women,  and  great  power 
of  attracting  and  interesting;  that  our  combined  powers 
were  on  purpose  exerted  for  the  purpose  of  making  this 
household  a  center  of  agitation  in  behalf  of  radical  ref  onu 
In  various  directions.  Perhaps  the  household  resembled 
nothing  that  has  existed  in  this  country  so  much  as  it 
would  have  resembled  the  salon  of  Mme.  Roland  durini.- 
the  First  French  Revolution- a  rendezvous  for  men  ot 
genius,  and  women  of  genius,  and  the  men  interested  in 
radical  progress,  and  the  women  of  similar  interest. 

Q.  And  how  did  they  spend  their  time  while  in  the 
house  ?   A.  By  discussions,  and  socially. 

Judge  Neilson— No— discussions.   Go  on. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  by  discussions.  Now,  Mr.  An- 
drews, I  want  you  to  state  w^hether  Theodore  Tilton  was 
in  the  habit  of  visitmg  that  house  1  A.  For  a  period— a 
considerable  period— he  was. 

MR.  TILTON'S  INTRODUCTION  TO  MRS.  WOOD- 
TnJT.L. 

Q.  Do  you  know  wlieu  he  'became  acquainted 

wit  h  Mrs.  Woodhull  {    A.  I  do. 
Q.  Sttiic,  if  you  please?   A.  1  sometimes  wrote  al 


TJ^srmONY   OF  SLEFL 

ailic-le,  vi'casjiwnally,  lor  Th4t  Golden  Age,  uear  tlie  period 
OA  ita  uoumiencement,  and  called  in  tliere  ti-om  time  to 
time  to  see  Mr.  Tilton ;  Deing  liiere  on  one  oocasiou  Mi-s. 
Woodliull's  name  came  up  between  us,  and  lie  said  tbat 
be  iiad  been  Impressed  by  things  tliat  lie  liad  seen  of  lier's 
liiat  slie  must  be  an  extraordinary  woman. 

Ml'.  Evai-ts— Don't  give  tbe  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— Don't  give  tlie  conversation. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Don't  give  tbe  conversation.  Wben  be 
was  introduced,  if  lie  was  introduced,  by  you]  A.  I  pro- 
posed to  take  bim  down  to  Mrs.  Woodbull's. 

Mi\  Evarts— Well,  now,  now.  Tbis  is  a  mere  question 
of  fact. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Just  state  wben  it  was.  A,  It  was  in 
the  early  part— it  was  in  the  middle  of  tbe  early  part  of 
tbifl  same  month  of  May,  that  we  have  spoken  of.  What 
I  suppose  would  be  an  answer  to  tbe  question  asked  me 
is,  tbat  I  personally  introduced  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull. 

Q.  In  May,  1871,  you  tbink  it  was  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q,  Where  was  it  done  1  A.  At  tbe  oflaoe. 

Q.  luBroad-st?  A.  InBroad-st. 

Q.  What  number,  please  %  A.  It  was  then  44, 1  think. 

Q.  And  did  you  introduce  them,  as  if  strangers,  to- 
gether %  A.  Entirely  so ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  she  moved  her  office  from 
44  Broad-st.?  A.  It  is  my  impression  that  she  en- 
tered tbe  office  at  48  Broad-st.  when  she  resumed  the 
publication  of  lier  paper,  at  the  time  of  tlie  publication 
of  the  scandal  article. 

Q.  WeU,  I  will  come  to  that  part  of  the  examination 
again.  I  want  you  to  state  whether  you  observed  any 
undue  familiarities  at  the  bouse  in  Thlrty-eighth-st., 
ftfter  Mr.  Tilton  commenced  his  visits  there,  between 
himself  and  Mrs.  Woodhull,  or  any  other  person  there  ? 
A.  I  never  did ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  What  portion  of  your  time  did  you  spend  there,  Mr. 
Andrews  1  A.  Tbe  major  portion  of  my  time ;  I  did  my 
writing  at  the  house ;  I  was  there,  therefore,  every  even- 
ing and  morning ;  I  usually  went  down  to  the  pubUoa- 
tion  office  in  the  course  of  the  day  for  an  houi-  or  two. 

Q.  The  publication  office  of  what  paper  1  A.  Of  Mrs. 
Woodbull's  papei^Woodhull  &  Claflln. 

Q.  Were  you  in  tbe  habit  of  seeing  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs. 
Woodhull  together  at  the  office  1   A.  Often  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  character  of  their  intercourse  in 
your  presence  ?  A.  Altogether  that  of  tbe  lady  and  gen- 
tleman in  society.  Sir. 

Q.  How  was  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  habit  of  addressing  Mis. 
Woodhull  when  he  did  address  her  1  A.  As  "  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull,"  so  f  ai-  as  I  remember,  Sir. 

Q.  And  bow  did  she  address  him  1  A.  As  *'  Mr.  TUton;" 
and,  I  think,  sometimes  as  "Theodore." 

Q.  Now,  wben,  if  you  eau  state,  did  he  commence  bis 
visits  there,  and  how  long  did  tbey  continue?   A.  I  tbink 


EN  PJEABL   ANDBUWS,  893 

bis  regular  visits— bis  frecLuent— I  tbink  hie  visits  com- 
menced at  tbe  house,  if  that  is  what  you  inquire  of  

Q.  Yes.  A.  Not  very  long  after  tbe  publication  of  Mrs 
Woodbull's  card— in  The  World  was  it  ? 

Q.  Yes.   Tbat  was  in  May,  1872,  was  it  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  1871, 1  should  say  1   A.  1871. 

Q.  And  when  did  they  cease,  if  you  know  ]  A.  I  c^innot 
speak  with  such  certainty  with  regard  to  tbat,  because 
they  continued  until  after  I  left  Mrs.  Woodbull's  house. 

Q.  And  did  he  continue  to  visit  tbe  house  at't  rr  ymi  re- 
sumed your  residence  there  l  A.  It  was  only  after  I  had 
resumed  my  residence  there  tbat  bis  visits  began. 

IMPORTANT  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE 
WITNESS  WOODLEY. 

Q.  Now,  were  you  in  the  habit  of  writing  for 
Mrs.  Woodbull's  paper  ?   A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  write  frequently  for  it !  A.  I  wrote  fre- 
quently, extensively. 

Q.  Did  you  read  the  proofs  of  the  articles  that  you 
wrote  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  was  tbe  proof  generally  read  i  A.  Generally 
at  the  office. 

Q.  At  44  or  48  Broad-st.  1  A.  At  44. 

Q.  At  44  Broad-st.   Now,  Sir,  

Mr.  Evarts— How  is  this  material,  if  your  Honor, 
please  i  What  does  it  rebut— what  tbe  witness  did  about 
writing  for  this  paper  and  correcting  proof  sheets,  etc. 

Mr.  Beach— It  rebuts  Mr.  Woodley. 

Ml".  Fullerton— It  rebuts  youi-  principal  witness,  Mr. 
Woodley. 

Mr.  Evarts— In  what  respect  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— In  respect  of  his  etory  that  he  told. 

Mr,  Evarts— WeU,  I  don't  so  imderstand  it.  If  you 
point  to  any  part  of  the  evidence  

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Woodley  spoke  in  regard  to  reading  the 
proofs,  and  we  are  going  to  show  by  this  witness  that  it 
was  not  true. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  did  he  say  about  reading  proofs  1 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  veill  refer ;  I  oannot  repeat  all  1<he 
evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— He  spoke  of  having  printed  slips  there. 

Mr.  Evarts— Certainly,  if  you  talk  ab«ut  tbe  \emy  slips 
that  we  were  talking  al&out,  that  is  proper. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  am  coming  to  that. 

Jud^e  Neilson— That  would  imply  that  they  read  ttie 
proofs,  of  course,  or  else  the  slips  would  not  be  tbere. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  question  is  confined  to  this  witness's 
communications  to  this  paper,  and  his  habit  of  correcting 
the  proofs  there. 

jVIr.  Fullerton— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  that  would  not  be  evidence  m  chief. 
Judge  Neils«n— No,  we  cannot  tak«  the  general  rule  a« 
a  general  course  of  business. 

Ml'.  Evarts— If  this  gentleman  is  able  to  speak  as  an  in- 
mate or  emi)loye  of  the  office  of  Messrs.  Woodhull  «Sii  CJaflia 


m  THE  TILTON'BE 

about  their  business, why,  that  Is  one  thing.  Whenever  that 
is  offered,  then  I  shall  object  that  that  is  immaterial.  But 
he  does  not  put  himself  in  that  way,  nor  does  the  inquiry 
reach  that  point.  It  is  his  own  communications  to  this 
paper,  and  his  habit  of  correcting  the  proofs.  Now,  re- 
buttal, as  we  all  know,  is  a  limited  right,  and  it  must 
reach  something  that  is  made  the  matter  of  definite  proof 
in  the  defendant's  case,  when  the  plaintiff  takes  up  the 
rebuttal. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  there  wiU  b6  no  disagreement 
about  that.  You  must  get  yourself  pretty  close  to  what 
the  evidence  was. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  he  so  good  as  to  note  my 
objection  to  this  evidence  as  not  evidence  in  the  caixse, 
and  not  in  rebuttaL 

Judge  Neilson— WeU,  I  don't  propose  to  take  the  evi- 
dence at  large. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  our  exception. 

Mr.  Fullerton — And  I  don't  proi^ose  to  give  it  at  large. 

Judge  Neilson— WeU,  keep  within  the  line. 

Mr.  Fullerton—  My  last  question  was.  Sir,  when,  if  at 
all,  the  publication  of  The  Woodhull  <&  Claflin  Weekly 
was  suspended  'i   A.  That  was  in  the  Spring  of  1872. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  last  number  that  was  published 
in  that  Spring?   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  In  what  month  was  it  suspended,  if  you  recoUect  ? 
A.  I  don't  think  I  can  state  with  certainty.  I  was  not  as 
much  connected  with  the  paper  at  that  period  as  I  had 
been  during  1871. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  month  it  was  suspended  in  1 
A.  I  do  not  dlstiuctly. 

Q.  But  it  was  in  the  Spring  of  1872 1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I 
thiiik  so. 

Q.  And  when  was  the  publication  of  the  paper  again 
resiiiued  'i  A.  The  paper  that  contained  the  so-called 
scandal  article  was  the  first  issue  after. 

Q.  That  was  November  2,  1872?  A.  November  2, 
1872,  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  from  the  Spring  of  1872  to  November  2,  1872 
there  was  an  interregnum  was  there  in  the  publication  of 
the  paper?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

<J.  No  issue  of  the  paper  at  aU,  was  there?  A.  No 
issue  of  the  paper  at  aU. 

THE  WRITING  OF  THE  WOODHULL  SCANDAL. 
Q.  Now,  you  liave  spokem  of  the  scandal; 

you  refer  to  the  Beecher  scandal,  so-cailed— the  Beecher- 
Tiltou  scandal,  published  Nov.  2,  1872.  What  had  you, 
if  anything,  to  do  with  the  composition  of  that  article  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  how  is  that  material? 

The  Witness— Shall  I  answer  ? 

Judge  Neilson— The  leamed  counsel  asks  how  that  is 
material. 

Mr.  Evarts- Will  you  tell  us  how  that  is  material  in 

i-ebuttal? 

Mr.  Fiiliertou— W  ell,  Sir,  I  can  state,  if  counsel  wishes 


EGHEB  TBIAL. 

me  to  do  so,  I  shall  by  the  evidence  that  we  now  propose 
to  give,  contradict  distinctly  and  emphatically  the  testi- 
mony of  the  man  Woodley. 
Judge  Neilson— Well,  go  on. 

Mr.  Evarts— Ah !  Well,  that  you  have  a  right  to  do. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  reason  I  do  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  does  not  do  it  in  the  least. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  as  preliminary. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Woodley  has  never  said  that  this 
gentleman  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  article. 

Judge  Neilson— I  know  ;  but  as  preliminary,  if  he  pro- 
poses to  show  Ms  relation,  and,  in  consequence,  open  the 
door  to  show  his  knowledge  of  that  article  or  to  show 
that  he  wrote  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  would  it  prove  that  t 

Judge  Neilson— It  would  be  introductory  to  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Suppose  he  composed  it  two  days  before  its 
publication,  what  becomes  of  Mr.  Woodley's  testimony, 
your  Honor  ? 

Judge  Neilson— I  should  not  like  to  say.  [Laughter.") 
Go  on. 

Mr.  FuUerton— I  will  show  that  Woodley  had  no  con- 
nection with  that  oflSce  at  that  time,  never  saw  the  proof 
of  that  article,  and  testified  to  somethmg  that  he  knew 
nothing  about. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  don't  object  to,  of  course. 

Mr.  Beach— You  are  obiectiug  to  it  if  you  object  to  thii 
evidence. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  want  to  prove  that  he  wrote  the 
article,  and  when  he  wrote  it,  with  ret ei  enoe  to  its  publi- 
cation, and  with  reference  to  the  time  when  that 
miserable  man  said  he  saw  the  article  in  the  office  there, 
in  slips. 

Judge  NeUson—  Don't  speak  disrespectfully  of  an  ab- 
sent witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  well,  Sir,  that  is  respectful  to  oaU  » 
man  miserable.  [Laughter.] 

THE  SCANDAL  ARTICLE  WRITTEN  BY  MRS, 
WOODHULL  AND  MR.  ANDREWS. 

Judge  Neilson— G^o  on.  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  will  you  answer  the  question.  If 
you  please  ! 

The  Witness— Your  Honor,  I  don't  know  whether  wit- 
nesses have  some  rights  which  lawyers  are  bound  to 
respect. 

Judge  Neilson— Not  in  that  respect ;  you  are  bound  to 
answer. 

The  Witness— Rxcuse  me,  I  wish  to  inquire  whether  in 
stating  certain  acts  I  shall  be  permitted  to  state  the  mo- 
tives which  led  up  to  those  acts. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  probably  not. 

The  witness  [to  Mr.  FuUerton]— Shall  I  answer  the 
question  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— What  had  you  to  do,  if  anything,  with 


TBSTIMONY   OF  STEPL 

rie  composition  of  the  scandal  Tvliicli  you  liave  spoken 
of! 

Judge  Neilson— Tlie  scandal  article. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes.  A.  Tliat  article  was  written  and 
composed  onginally  by  Mrs.  "Woodliull,  as  I  supposed  ; 
Mrs.  Woodliull  was  tlie  author,  in  a  sense,  of  the  article ; 
I  was  myself,  in  a  sense,  the  author  of  the  article ;  hut  I 
wish  to  explain  what  sense  Mrs.  Woodhull  stood  related 
to  it,  anv  in  what  sense  I  stood  related  to  it. 

Judgt-  Neilson— The  question  really  is,  did  you  write 
•aie  article  or  contribute  to  it  in  any  way  1  A.  I  contrib- 
uted to  the  writing  of  the  article. 

Mr.  Fullerton— When  was  that.  Sir!  A.  It  was  within 
four  or  five  days  of  its  publication. 

Q.  Sometime,  then,  in  the  latter  part  of  October,  1872  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  positive  are  you  enable^!  to  speak  of  the  time 
that  elapsed  after  it  was  written  before  it  was  published  ^ 
A.  With  great  certainty  that  it  was  not  more  than  hve 
days— I  think  not  more  than  two  or  three ;  it  was  merely 
the  time  requisite  for  rushing  it  through  the  press. 

WHERE   AND  WHEN    THE    ARTICLE  WAS 
WRITTEN. 

Q.  Where  did  you  write  what  you  did  write 
of  that  aiticle  ]  A.  I  wrote  it  at  my  own  residence,  at 
that  time,  which  is  the  same  place  at  which  I  reside  now. 

Q.  Where  is  that,  Mr.  Andrews?  A.  No.  970  Sixth-ave. 

Q.  In  what  shape  did  the  material  for  the  article  come 
to  your  hands  \  A.  It  came  as  a  recital  in  manuscript. 
The  recital— the  entire  recital  contained  in  the  article  i-e- 
malned  as  it  came  to  me ;  the  introductory  part  and  the 
close,  the  literary  cast  and  the  philosophic  cast  of  the 
paper  shows  my  marks,  perhaps. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Andrews,  did  you  ever  see  any  part  of  that 
article  in  print  until  the  article  itself  was  printed  that 
you  prepared]  A.  Never. 

Q.  And  how  long  after  you  prepared  the  article,  or  it 
went  from  your  hands,  did  you  see  printed  slips  of  it,  if  at 
all  ?  A.  Within  the  term  that  I  have  specified. 

Q.  Did  you  read  the  p^oof  of  that  article  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  1  A.  At  my  own  rooms. 

Q.  Who  brought  you  the  printed  slips  ?  A.  It  is  barely 
possible  that  I  went  down  to  the  oflBce  to  read  the  proofs  ; 
I  don't  remember  distinctly  with  regard  to  it ;  the  manu- 
script—the original  manuscript— was  brought  to  me  by 
Mrs.  Woodhull  and  CoL  Blood. 

Q.  Atyour  resiience?  A.  At  my  residence. 

Q.  And  within  a  few  days  before  the  article  was  pub- 
lished! A.  Before  the  article  was  published ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  who  printed  the  article !  A.  It  was 
their  publishers,  Wood  and  sosaething ;  I  have  forgotten 
the  second  name — their  printers,  I  mean. 

Q.  Yes,  their  printers.  Up  to  that  time  ha  d  this  scan- 
dal been  spoken  of  publicly  before  you  prepared  this 
article !  A.  It  was  whispered  about,  Sir. 


EN  PEAEL   AXDEEWS,  395 

Q.  Had  you  heard  of  a  speech  made  by  Mrs.  Woodhull, 
in  Boston,  at  that  time!   A.  I  had;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  you  heard  it  spoken  of,  or  had  you  read  an 
account  of  it  in  some  newspaper  1  A.  I  do  not  rem  •iiii  >or 
how  it  came  to  me,  but  it  came  to  me  varloii^ly.  I  rliir.k. 

Q.  Had  you  any  interview  either  before  orimroedintely 
at  the  tune  of  writing  that  paper  witn  Theodore 
Tilton  in  regard  to  it !   A.  None. 

Q.  As  far  as  you  know,  was  he  Ignorant  or  the  fact  that 
you  prepared  the  article. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  object  to,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Judge  N  '1 -on— Well,  so  far  as  you  know,  was  he  aware 
that  the  article  was  in  preparation  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  I  will  adopt  that  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  no  subject  of  evidence  ever. 

Mr.  Fullerton — It  certainly  is  a  subject  of  evideuc-e. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  this  witness  knew  concerning  Mr. 
THton.  If  he  is  able  to  state  anything  that  he  does 
know  afl5rmatively — but  his  ignorance  concfrnlng  Mr. 
TUton  is  not  a  matter  of  evidence — to  state  that  Mr.  Til- 
ton  did  not  confer  with  him.  It  is  evidence  of  no  special 
import,  but  then  there  is  no  limit  to  asking  people. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  desire  to  cover  the  whole  ground  and 
close  up  every  avenue  of  suspicion  that  Theodore  Tilton 
had  any  knowledge  whatever  that  this  article  was  in 
process  of  preparation  by  the  witness  on  the  stand. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  admissible  on  direct  examina- 
tion. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  think  it  is,  in  view  of  the  testimony  of 
Woodley, 

Judge  Neilson— You  may  ask  him  whether,  according  to 
his  knowledge,  Mr.  Tilton  knew  anything  about  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton — Now,  Sir,  so  far  as  your  knowledge  is 
concerned,  did  Mr.  Tilton  know  an^-thing  about  the  prep- 
aration of  this  article  by  yourself  1  A.  Nothing  whatso- 
ever ;  I  think  it  was  an  entire  surprise  when  he  learned 
it  sin  CO  the  commencement  of  this  trial. 

Mr.  Evarts— One  moment.  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  well. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  .Andrews,  did  you  know  this  man 
Woodley  ?  A.  I  did. 

Where  did  you  become  acquainted  with  him,  or  first 
see  him  ?  A.  I  saw  him  simply  as  a  servant  at  the  house, 
and  at  the  publication  office. 

Q.  Now,  during  what  period  was  he  a  servant  at  the 
house  or  office  ?   A.  From  some  period  of  the  year  1871. 

Q.  When  did  he  cease  to  be  an  attach^  of  the  office  or 
house !  A.  That  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  WeU,  did  he  cease  to  be  an  attach^  at  either  or  both 
of  those  places !  A.  I  don't  know  with  regard  to  the  de- 
tail of  that,  Sir. 

Q.  Up  to  the  time  of  the  composition  of  that  article  or 
its  preparation,  had  you  seen  any  of  the  articles  referred 
to  in  it— any  of  the  papers  or  documents  1  A.  No,  Sir,  I 
had  not ;  I  had  known  with  regard  to  a  purpose  on  the 
part  of  ]Mrp.  Wnodhull  at  a"n  earlier  rJat€. 


THE   TILTON'BEECBEB  TRIAL, 


Tim  COWLEY  INTERVIEW  AT  MRS.  WOOD- 
HULL'S. 

Q.  Do  3^011  know  this  gentleman  called  Charles 
Cowley,  who  lias  been  a  witness  in  this  case?  A.  Mv. 
Cow^ley  called  on  me  at  the  time  he  gave  his  evidence 
here,  or  about  that  time,  and  I  then  remembered  having 
seen  him  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  house  one  evening. 

Q.  Were  you  present  during  his  visit  there— the  whole 
of  it  ?  A.  I  was  present  that  evening. 

Q.  Do  you  recolleot  that  Mrs.  Middlebrook  was  present? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question :  whether, 
during  the  conversation  that  evening,  this  scandal  was 
the  topic  of  discussion  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  remark  1  A.  No,  Sir,  not  within  my  hearing,  but  I 
am  not  at  all  certain  that  I  was  there  during  the  whole 
evening. 

Q.  Well,  while  you  were  there  ?  A.  While  I  was  there 
there  was  not  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Nothing  of  the  kind  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  of  Mr.  Cowley's  being  there  but 
once,  do  you  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  present  when  any  conversation  or  discus- 
sion was  had  with  reference  to  the  operatives  at  Lowell, 
that  evening  ?  A.  I  seem  to  have  a  vague  remembrance 
of  something  of  that  kind,  Sir,  but  it  is  not  clear. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Andrews,  I  will  recur  again  to  the  office 
of  Mrs.  Woodhull.  When,  with  reference  to  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Woodhull  scandal,  so  called,  was  the  office 
changed  from  44  to  48  Broad-st.  ?  A.  My  recollection  is 
that  it  was  when  the  publication  of  the  paper  was  re- 
sumed, and  at  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  scandal 
article. 

Q-  These  interviews  that  you  have  spoken  of  between 
yourself  and  different  persons  were  in  the  parlor  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull  in  Thirty-eighth><3t.,  were  they  not?  A.  Usually 
in  one  or  the  other  of  the  parlors. 

Q.  Did  you  become  familiar  with  the  furniture  in  those 
parlors  ?  A.  I  did ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  at  any  time  a  sofa  bedstead  in  either 
of  those  parlors  ?  A.  Never,  not  to  my  knowledge,  and  I 
believe  there  was  never. 

Q.  There  was  none  while  you  were  in  the  habit  of  vis- 
iting the  house  or  being  an  inmate  of  the  house,  was 
there  1  A.  I  should  say  not,  Sir. 

Q.  In  reference  to  Mr.  Tilton's  habit  while  at  that 
house,  do  you  know  whether  he  stayed  aU  night  at  any 
time  ?   A.  I  tliinV  he  did,  at  any  rate  on  one  occasion. 

Q  Do  you  recollect  of  more  than  one  occasion?  A. 
Not  with  any  distinctness ;  do.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  where  he  remained  that  night  when 
he  did  stay?  A.  I  do  not;  I  don't  know  how  he  was  ac- 
commodated. 

Q,  Do  you  recollect  the  occasion  when  he  did  stay 
there?  A.  I  think  it  was  on  the  occasion  of  his  prepara- 
tion of  the    Life  of  Victoria  Woodhull.'* 


Q.  Were  you  aware  of  the  fact  at  the  time  that  he  was 
prepanng  that  "  Life  ?"  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Ho  w  long  was  he  occupied  in  doing  it  ?  A.  T  shonlrl 
think  it  was  struck  off  at  a  white  heat  I  rJon't  know  that 
it  lasted  very  long;  T  don't  remember  distinctly. 

THE  FIRST  WHISPERINGS  OF  THE  SCANDAL. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  hear  of  this  scandal  ? 
A.  I  lirst  heard  of  it  from  Mrs.  Henry  B.  Stanton. 

Mr.  Ev arts— Well,  never  mind. 

The  Witness— Ah! 

Mr.  Fiillerton— When  did  you  first  hear— first  ?  A.  In 
the  beginning  of  the  month  of  May,  1871. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  you  first  heard  it  ?  A.  1q 
Mrs.  Woodhull's  parlor. 

Q.  From  whom  did  you  hear  that  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  object  to  all  that. 

•Judge  Neilson— I  don't  think  you  can  give  that, 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  important  when  Mr.  Andrews 
first  knew  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  important  to  know  when  Mrs. 
Woodhull  became  acquainted  with  it. 

Mr.  Evai  ts— This  don't  prove  that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  it  does ;  I  shall  prove  that  the  com- 
munication wa«  made  in  the  presence  of  the  witness  to 
Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Mr.  Evarts— A  communication  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  difficulty  is  that  that  don't  show  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  can't  show  two  things  at  a  time ;  I 
will  show  one. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  this  evidence  as  not  admissible 
in  the  cause,  and  not  evidence  in  rebuttal* 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  it  will  be  contended  on  tlie 
other  side  that  this  scandal  was  communicated  to  Mrs. 
Woodhull  by  Mr.  Tilton.  They  think  that  they  have  Lii-l 
the  foundation  for  such  a  charge  as  that,  and  it  certainly 
is  competent  for  us  to  meet  it  by  showing  how  Mi>. 
Woodhull  became  possessed  of  any  knowledge  upon  that 
subject,  and  from  whom  that  knowledge  was  derive 
and  to  show  that  it  was  in  point  of  time  anterior  to  the 
introduction  of  Mrs.  Woodhiill  to  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  this  witness  cannot  prove  that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— He  can  prove  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Beach— He  can  prove  just  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  cannot  prove  it. 

Mr.  Beach— He  can  prove  it;  he  can  prove  that  tb^ 
subject  was  mentioned  to  Mrs.  Woodhull  before  he  intro- 
duced Tilton  to  her. 

Mr.  Evarts— At  a  certain  date  he  can  prove  that  tht^ 
subject  was  mentioned  by  somebody  else;  that  dou  > 
prove  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  not  mentioned  it,  noi  does  it 
prove  that  that  wa-i  Mrs.  Woodhull's  first  -.n  wledge 
of  It. 

Mr.  FuUerton— I  believe  I  have  your  Ho  or»ii  p»rni»^ 
sion  to  go  on  with  the  proof. 


TESTIMONI   OF  STEFH 

Judge  Xeilsou— Yes,  keep  ^Yitllin  the  bounds. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  youi-  Honor  please,  ^e  object  to  this  evi- 
dence as  not  being  -within  the  cause,  and  not  evidence  in 
rebuttal.  Note  onr  exception.  Of  course  it  is  hearsay;  it 
is  mere  tali  between  Mrs.  Woodhull  

Judge  Keilson— The  objection  to  taking  the  conversa- 
tion or  declarations  of  third  persons  remains.  You  can- 
not give  her  conversation,  but  you  can  prove  the  fact  that 
at  a  certain  time  

Mr.  FuUerton— That  is  what  I  attempt  to  do. 

Judge  Neilson— Ascertain  whether  that  was  prior  to 
the  publication— that  at  a  certain  time  this  subject  was 
communicated,  if  you  can. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  the  difficulty,  if  your  Honor  please, 
is  that  the  whole  of  it  is  conversation.  It  does  not  cease 
to  be  conversation  from  your  giving  the  result  of  it. 

Mr.  FuUerton— That  is  the  way  we  prove  what  one  per 
son  said  to  another— by  the  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  the  way  you  prove  that  notice 
is  given  of  a  esrtain  thing. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  are,  of  course,  special  cases,  in 
which  the  fact  of  certain  knowledge  in  a  person  is  ma- 
terial ;  that  is  permitted  to  be  given ;  but  this  is  not 
that  case  at  all.  This  is  undertaking  to  prove  by  con- 
versation between  this  gentleman  and  Mrs.  Woodhull,  or 
between  persons  of  whom  they  constituted  two,  that  at 
a  certain  date  there  was  a  conversation  about  this  scandal 
at  Mi-8.  WoDdhull's  office.  Now,  it  is  admitted  that  that 
in  itself  Is  not  matter  of  evidence  at  any  stage  of  the 
c^se,  unless  Mr,  Tilton  or  Mr.  Beecher  were  connected 
with  it ;  that  is  plain.  Now,  how  does  it  become  evidence 
here— by  what  circumstance  ?  The  rules  are  stricter  now 
than  they  are  in  the  introduction  of  evidence  in  chief. 

Mr.  FuUerton— It  certainly  is  proper  for  us  to  show 
that  Mrs.  WoodhuU  had  knowledge  of  this  scandal  prior 
to  the  pubUcation  of  her  card  in  May,  1871.  It  is  proper 
for  us  to  show  when  and  by  whom  the  communication 
was  made. 

Judge  Neilson— If  she  weie  on  the  stand  yon  could  put 
her  the  question,  of  course ;  and  in  a  certain  limited  de- 
gree you  can  ask  this  witness. 

Mr.  FuUerton— And  it  is  certainly  extraordinary  that 
counsel  hold  that  that  is  no  evidence — that  that  was  the 
first  time  she  ever  heard  of  it.  If  counsel  alleges  that 
she  knew  it  before  I  will  admit  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Y'our  Honor  notes  our  objection  and  ex- 
ception. We  suppose  it  is  very  objectionable. 

Judge  Neilson— Of  coarse  you  think  it  is,  or  you.  would 
tot  make  the  objection  at  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  I  mean  that  the  natui  e  o1  it  is  inad- 
missible, and  that  it  is  especially   so  ui  regard  to  this  j 
Btage  of  the  case.    \  uudei  sraud  yuar  Honor  excludes  the 
conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— Yea. 

Btr.  FullertoD— I  sdoold  tiiink  it  was  audersiood  by  this 
'-uuH.  if  u  «v«r  will  bd. 


Eli   PEAllL  AJSBUBWS.  m 
Judge  Neilson— Go  on. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Will  you  be  kind  enough  tt  state 
whether  at  any  time,  and  if  so  by  whom,  the  facts  con 
nected  with  this  scandal  were  communicated  to  Mis, 
WoodhuU  1 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  that  question ;  it  is  wholly  ob- 
jectionable. 
Judge  Neilson— We  will  take  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  question  is  objectionaWe ;  it  assumea 
that  they  ever  were.  They  certainly  may  ask  the  ques- 
tion whether  this  scandal  was  brought  to  the  notice  of 
Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Judge  Neilson— Put  your  question  in  that  form. 

Ml'.  Evarts— To  ask  the  witness  whether  the  facts  of 
this  scandal— who  has  ever  found  out  what  tho  facts  of 
this  scandal  were  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Put  youi'  question  in  that  form. 

Mr.  FuUerton— If  your  Honor  rules  that  my  question  Is 
improper,  I  wiU  put  it  in  that  form. 

Judge  Neilson— There  is  a  shade  of  impropriety  in  it, 
undoubtedly.  Put  it  in  that  form  :  "  Was  the  subject  of 
this  scandal  article  ever  communicated  to  Mrs.  Woodhull 
in  your  presence  1" 

Mr.  FuUerton— That  question  you  may  answer  now. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  object  to,  and  except.  Your 
Honor  will  note  our  exception. 

The  Witness— It  was  communicated  to  her  by  Mrs. 
H.  B.  Stanton,  in  my  presence. 

Q.  Wheni  A.  I  should  think  the  3d  or  4th  of  May, 
1871. 

Q.  Where?   A.  In  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  parlor. 

Q.  Was  it  before  or  after  your  Introduction  of  Mrs» 
Woodhull  to  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  should  think  it  was  a  we«k 
or  10  days  prior  to  that. 

THE  EOSSEL  PROCESSION. 

Q.  Mr.  Andrews,  do  you  recollect  the  Com- 
mune procession  m  the  city  of  New-York  %  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  participate  in  it  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  At  what  time— when  did  you  leave  it?  A.  I  began 
with  it  and  ended  with  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Theodore  TUton  in  that  procession  ?  A. 
I  saw  him  as  the  procession  broke  up ;  Mrs.  WoodhuU 
directed  my  attention  to  him. 

Q.  Where  did  it  break  up  1  A.  At  Union-square,  near 
the  Lincoln  monument. 

Q.  Where  was  Mr.  TUton  when  your  attention  wa» 
caUedtohimI  A.  He  was  coming  through  the  opening 
made  by  the  black  guards,  from  the  rear  portion  ot  the 
procession. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  him  in  the  procession  be. ore  that  J  a. 
I  had  not  -I  hadn't  noticed  him. 

Q.  V/ith  whom  did  you  walk  in  the  procession,  If  you 
remember.  A.  I  walked  with  Mrs.  WooMJiuU,  Col.  Blood, 
and  an  old  gentleman  by  the  name  of  West.  I  think 
there  wei-e  four  abreast. 


898  THE  TUjION-B. 

Q.  And  where  did  Mrs.  Woodliull  join  ttie  procession  ? 
A.  At  tlie  commencement  of  it ;  at  the  formation  of  the 
particular  section  that  she  was  in,  wliich,  I  think,  took 
place  in  Fourth-st. 

Q.  Where  did  Mr.  Blood  join  it  I  A.  At  the  same  point. 

Q.  And  this  gentleman.  West,  of  whom  you  spealr, 
where  did  he  ioin  it  ?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  he  be2;an 
with  the  procession  ;  I  saw  him  in  the  course  of  the  pro- 
cession. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Miss  Claflin  in  that  procession  1  Yes,  Sir; 
she  was  in  front  of  us,  walking  alone  and  carrying  a  flag. 

Q.  'Nov/,  from  the  commemjement  to  the  end  of  that 
procession  were  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflin  out  of 
your  view!  A.  No,  Sir;  hardly  out  of  my  reach.  I  was 
<5lo8e  by  them. 

Q.  And  during  the  whole  course  of  that  procession  was 
Mr.  Til  ton  in  their  company?  A.  He  was  not. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  upon  that  subject  1  A.  Quite  so ; 
yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Diiring  the  whole  course  of  that  procession,  from  its 
commencement  to  its  end,  was  either  Mrs.  Woodhull  or 
Miss  Claflin  in  a  carriage  1  A.  Not  until  the  procession 
broke  up.  I  assisted  in  getting  them  into  a  carriage  at 
the  close  of  the  procession. 

Q.  And  who  got  into  the  carriage  with  them  ?  A.  Col. 
Blood  and  Theodore  Banks.  I  intended  to  get  into  the 
carriage  myself,  but  there  was  a  little  jostling  of  the 
crowd,  and  I  was  fearful  of  its  being  necessary  to  hurry, 
and  I  left  and  went  away. 

Q.  I  will  put  the  question  a  little  broader.  From  the 
commencement  of  that  procession,  when  you  entered  it 
with  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflin,  up  to  the  time  that 
It  broke  up,  when  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflin  got 
into  a  carriage,  were  either  of  those  ladies  in  a  carriage  ? 
A.  They  were  not. 

Q.  You  speak  of  your  positive  knowledge  on  that  sub- 
ject! A.  I  do.  Sir. 

Q.  From  the  commencement  to  the  end  of  that  pro- 
cession was  Theodore  Tilton  in  company  with  either  of 
those  ladies !  A.  He  was  not ;  no,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  at  the  Steinway  Hall  meeting  when  Mrs. 
Woodhull  delivered  Iter  lecture  !  A.  I  was. 

Q.  When  did  that  take  place !  A.  Was  it  the  17th  of 
October !  I  have  heard  the  date  mentioned  since  I  have 
been  here ;  I  don't  remember  otherwise. 

Q.  Is  your  recollection  In  harmony  with  the  date  as  it 
has  been  mentioned!   A.  It  is. 

Q.  The  20th  of  November,  1871,  I  believe  it  was.  Do 
you  know  where  Mrs.  Woodhull  went  immeoiately  after 
that  lecture  !  A.  I  think  she  left  the  very  next  morning 
ivr  a  lecturing  tour  in  the  West. 

Q.  How  long  was  she  absent  i  A.  My  recollection  is 
vague  w  i  tli  regard  to  that ;  I  should  think  some  weeks. 

Q.  l>u  you  recollect  whether  she  corresponded  with  her 
paper  after  that  ?  A.  I  don't  think  she  did,  Sir.  She  sel- 
dom did  when  away. 


ECHER  TEIAL. 

MR.  CLAFLIN'S  CALL  AT  MRS.  WOODHULUS. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  an  occasion  when  Mr.  Claflin  was  at 
Mi-8.  Woodhull's  1   A.  Which  Mr.  Claflin ! 

Q.  Horace  B.  Claflin,  I  think  the  name  is. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  is  that  material  % 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Claflin  has  given  evidence  on  that 
subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— On  cross-examination. 
Mr.  Fullerton— That  does  not  prevent  us  from  giving 
this  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  does.  It  is  not  rebuttal.  Whether  tK© 
interview  of  Mr.  Claflin  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  was  material 
evidence  in  the  case  is  not  a  question  that  has  ever  arisen. 
We  did  not  introduce  it  as  part  of  our  afiBrmative  evi- 
dence, you  know,  aud  on  cross-examination  you  get  in, 
under  a  variety  of  motives,  within  the  law,  a  good  many 
things ;  but  that  does  not  give  the  right  to  make  them 
matters  of  evidence  in  chief,  as  we  all  know.  Mr.  Claflin's 
visit  to  Mrs.  Woodhull's  olBce  was  made  the  subject  

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will  state,  if  you  will  allow  me,  what 
my  object  is,  and  if  your  Honor  does  not  approve  of  it 
the  matter  is  easUy  settled. 

Judge  N»)iison— Your  inquiry  is  to  an  interview  at 
the  oflfice  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes. 

Judge  Neilson— They  have  in  mind  an  interview  at  th(. 
house,  when  Mr.  Bo  wen  was  present. 

Mr.  Evarts— No ;  it  is  the  oflBce  they  are  speaking  of. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes ;  I  call  attention  to  the  interview  at 
the  oflSce. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  subject  is  introduced  to  Mr.  Clafliu 
simply  in  this  way  on  cross-examination : 

Q.  Do  you  know  Victoria  Woodhull!  A.  I  know  her  a 
little. 

Q.  How  little  or  how  much  1  A.  I  have  seen  her  en  two 
or  three  occasions;  she  has  called  at  my  oflice  once  or 
twice. 

Q.  Did  you  return  the  call !  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  did,  onoe  at 
her  otHce  in  Broad-st.,  soon  after  she  came. 

Q.  Was  it  soon  after  she  established  herself  in  Broad- 
st.  1  A.  Pretty  soon  alter  that,  I  know,  because  it  Wfis 
rather  a  novelty,  lady  banker.s. 

Then  the  object  is  asked,  and  he  goes  on  to  say :  "  She 
had  been  to  my  house,"  &c.  He  was  proceeding  to  state 
what  Mrs.  Claflin  said,  aud  he  wais  asked,  "You  were  not 
present  when  Mrs.  Claflin  said  this !"  and  he  answered, 

No,  Sir  ;"  so  he  was  not  allowed  to  state. 

Judge  Neilson— What  is  the  object  of  this,  Mr.  Fuller- 
ton;  what  is  the  purpose! 

Mr.  Evarts  [continuingj— Mr.  Claflin  says  further:  "I 
did  not  say  anything  else  there  except  about  subscribing 
for  the  paper."  Ho  is  asked,  "Did  you  pay  for  it«" 
and  

Judge  Neilson— Yes;  he  said  he  had  an  advertisemenk 
in  the  paper  and  discontinued  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  wjis  asked  whether  he  paid  lor  lUe 
paper,  and  he  said  he  did  not  know  whether  *be  -ver  at- u; 


lES112I0yj   OF  STEP  REX  FEAEL   AS  DREWS. 


399 


tlie  bill.  'So'w,  that  is  altogether  in  the  way  of  collateral  > 
inauiry,  and  has  nothing  to  do  -with  this  case.   They  mnst 
taie  Ms  answer,  and  they  cannot  contradict  it. 

Mj.  FuHerton— Well,  if  I  cannot,  it  Is  because  the  law 
won't  allow  it;  not  heeause  I  am  not  able  to  do  it, 

Mr.  Evarts— "Well,  I  say  the  law  won't  allow  it. 

ilr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  I  don't  regard  it  as  Terr  im- 
IKjitant,  and  I  won't  press  it ;  though  I  would  like  to  I 
show  that  the  iateiTiew  was  a  private  one.    [To  the  wit- 
ness.]  That  is  alL 

CFOSS-EXAilTNATION  OF  MR.  ANDREW?*. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Andrews,  how  are  yon  able 
TO  fix  the  3d  or  4th  of  May  in  your  mind  as  an  occasion 
on  which  you  heard  a  conrersation  between  Mrs.  H.  B. 
Stanton  ;and  Mrs.  Woodhull?  A.  I  do  not  fix  tlfe  date 
with  entire  certainty;  but  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stanton  was  

Q.  Don't  fiive  the  conversation.  A.  ^To,  Sir ;  Mrs.  EL  B. 
Stanton  was  waiting  in  the  city  to  be  present  at  the  May 
Conventions,  and  I  called  upon  her  and  took  her  to  Mrs. 
Woodhull't  house;  that  is  one  of  the  circumstances 
which  enables  me  to  fis  the  time ;  another  is,  that  I  re- 
member that  it  was  prior  to  the  death  of  my  wife,  which 
occurred  on  the  6th  of  May. 

Q.  Well,  that  would  account  for  its  being  prior;  but 
how  do  you  know  but  it  was  much  earlier  in  the  season  I 
A.  The  first  circumstanc-e  settles  that,  that  Mrs.  H.  B. 
Stanton  was  then  remaining  for  a  few  days,  or  for  the 
next  day,  perhaps,  to  be  present  at  a  convention  which 
occurs  at  the  1st  of  May  or  near  it, 

Q.  Yes.  Well,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  in  your  memory 
yon  connect  the  date  of  that  visit  with  the  date  of  this 
Convention?  A.  I  do;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  That  seems  to  be  the  point  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  JTow,  you  have  said  something  about  its  being  a 
week  or  ten  days  before  yon  introduced  Mr.  Tilt  on  to  :^Irs. 
Woodhull;  that  would  make  your  inti'oduction  about  tlie 
10th  or  13th  of  May  1   A.  Probably. 

Q.  T*  that  about  the  time  you  think  you  Introduced 
him  }   A.  It  is.  Sir. 

Ql.  Now,  what  circumstance  is  there  that  enables  you 
to  fix  the  date  of  this  introduction  of  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mi-s. 
WoodhTill  as  late  as  that  week  in  May  ?  A.  My  remem- 
brance is  that  I  was  at  the  time  residing  at  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull's  house,  and  that  I  only  went  there  on  the  6th  of 
May. 

Q.  But  this  introduction  of  Mr.  TUton  was  at  the  office  ? 
A  Yes,  Sir ;  but  I  say  that  I  have  in  my  memory  that  my 
introduction  of  Mr.  TUton  was  while  I  was— was  after  I 
was  already  residing  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  house. 

Q.  What  connection  is  there  between  the  two  facts  i  A. 
Simply  a  connection  in  my  memory  ;  I  remember  that  the 
lacts  were  so. 

Q.  Your  Luemory  connects  them,  not  the  facts,  in  any  : 
celaUon  of  their  o'P.'n  l  A.  >'o.  Sir  ;  not  otherwise  than  ! 
"ttiat  lUapp^  to  remembtr  tuat  that  was  the  fact.  i 


Q.  There  is  nut-hing  in  the  fact-?  that  assists  your  mem- 
ory ?   A.  Xot  particularly,  Sir. 

Q.  ZSTow.  who  was  present  when  you  introduced  Mr. 
Tilton  to  Mrs.  Woodhull  i  A.  The  usual  attaches  of  the 
office  were  probably  there,  but  I  have  no  remembrance  of 
other  persons  than  Mrs.  Woodhull,  Mr.  Tilton,  and  my- 
self. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  anything^ —  A.  iN^ot  distinctly. 

Q.  About  it.  And  did  you  then  leave  Mr.  Tilton  with 
Mrs.  Woodhull  ?  A.  Xo,  Sir ;  I  remained  until  he  left. 
The  interview  was  a  very  short  one.  It  did  not  seem  to 
make  any  very  special  impression  on  either  side. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  will  have  struck  out,  if  your 
Honor  please. 

Judge  2^eilson— Yes. 

Q.  2fow,  Mr.  Andrews,  yon  have  spoken  of  certain  pe- 
riods at  which  you  were  an  inmate  of  Mrs.  Woodhiill'3 
house ;  can  you  give  us,  with  definiteness,  those  pe- 
riods i   A.  The  first  period  was  in  the  Summer  of  1S70. 

Q.  Beginning  when  ?  A.  As  I  mentioned  in  the  di- 
rect, I  can  fix  the  beginning  of  that  residence  only  by  re- 
curring to  the  beginning  of  IMrs.  WoodliuU's  residenc-o  at 
the  house  :  I  do  not  remember  thf-  date. 

Q,  You  went  there  whea  she  began  I  A.  I  went  there 
when  she  began  at  that  place. 

Q.  Mrs.  Andrews  was  then  living  !  A.  She  was  then 
living. 

Q,  Were  your  whole  family  inmates  there  ?   A.  I  have 

no  family  remaining  with  me  except  1  have  none,  and 

had  none  then,  but  my  wife. 

Q.  I  mean  at  that  time.  '^Irs.  Andrews  was  living :  wex« 
you  and  she  inmates  of  that  house  ?  A.  When  she  re- 
turned from  the  country  she  came  to  me  there,  and  we 
remained,  she  and  I,  at  the  house  of  3Irs.  Woodhull  a 
week  or  ten  days,  and  then  removed  to  our  own  resi- 
dence, 

Q.  Your  own  house  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  so  remove  ?  A.  I  cannot  teH 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  know  how  long  yon  were  at  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  house  in  1870  i   A.  ZS'o,  I  do  not. 

]SIr.  Beach— He  said  about  three  months. 

The  Witness— About  three  months,  I  think. 

Mr.  Evarts— When  did  you  resnme  your  residence  at 
that  house  ?   A.  The  6th  of  May,  1871. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  continue?  A.  Until  the  6th  of 
January,  IS 72. 

Q.  WMle  yon  were  there  can  you  give  us  the  names  of 
the  servants  at  that  house?  A.  I  know  this  servant, 
Lucy,  the  colored  girl. 

Q.  Was  she  there  at  both  times  1  A.  No,  I  think  not;  I 
think  it  was  the  last  of  these  two  occasions, 

Q.  Are  you  siire  about  that  ?   A.  I  am  not. 

Q.  She  was  there  the  last,  you  are  snre !   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  During  the  whole  of  it?  A.  I  could  not  say  that; 
during  some  portion  of  the  Time. 

Q,  Have  you  any  idea  that  she  was  not  there  during  tin 


400  lin^  TILTON-B 

whole  ?  A.  Yes  ;  I  tliink  slie  left  belore  I  left  tlie  house. 

Q.  Before  you  did '{   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  loii;^-  before  1   A.  I  eannot  tell  you. 

Q.  That  is  one ;  now  the  other  ?  A.  This  man  whose 
name  has  been  given  as  Woodley— is  that  the  name  t 

Mr.  Morris — Woodley. 

The  Witness— Woodley ;  and  the  other  Grey;  I  met 
them  all  there  as  servants— knew  of  their  being  present, 
and  also  saw  the  two  men  often  at  the  office. 

Q.  Very  well.  Now,  through  what  periods  of  time  did 
yon  see  Woodley  and  Grey  as  being  at  the  house  occa- 
sionally or  permanently,  or  at  the  office  occasionally  or 
permanently  1  A.  During  the  period  of  my  second  resi- 
dence at  Mrs.  WoodhuU's ;  but  whether  covering— what 
part  of  that  residence,  I  do  not  think  I  could  fix. 

Q.  Didn't  that  cover  the  whole  ?  A.  With  regard  to 
Lucy,  I  think  not. 

Q.  Well,  I  have  got  through  with  Lucy  !  A.  Yes.  With 
regard  to  the  others  it  may  have  been  so,  or  it  may  not ; 
I  am  not  able  to  say. 

Q.  You  cannot  say  about  them  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  were  not  Grey  and  Woodley  servants  or 
attaches  at  the  office  during  the  Summer  of  1870  or  the 
Fall  of  1871?  A.  Certainly  during  the  Summei>— dming 
a  portion  of  the  Summer  of  that  year,  and  I  think  it 
likely  extending  into  the  Fall. 

Q.  During  the  preceding  year,  the  Fall  of  1870  and  the 
Winter  of  1870-71,  were  not  these  two  colored  men,  or 
one  of  them,  attaches  of  the  office,  as  you  understand  1 
A.  That  may  have  been  so,  but  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  whether  it  was  so  1  A.  No. 

MR.  ANDREWS'S  RELATION  TO  THE  WOOD- 
HULL  PAPER.  ' 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  had  you  any  proprietorship  in 
this  newspaper  f  A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  Nor  any  editorship  of  the  newspaper!  A.  A  partial 
editorship,  yes ;  at  times  I  was  almost  the  editor  in 
charge— for  short  periods. 

Q.  Will  you  give  us  the  times  that  you  were  almost  ed- 
itor in  charge  1  A.  I  eannot  say  that ;  they  were  mere 
casual  supplies  for  the  absence  of  the— of  other  parties. 

Q.  And  you  can  give  us  no  idea  at  all  ?  A.  Not  defi- 
nitely with  regard  to  the  periods. 

Q,  Nor  the  years  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  during  the  year  1871, 
»nd  perhaps  somewhat  during  the  year  1870. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  of  that— that  in  1871  you  were  almost 
the  editor  in  charge  1 

Mr.  Beach— Do  you  meaai  during  the  whole  year  f 

Mt.  Evarts— During  the  year. 

The  Witness— No ;  within  that  year,  for  short  periods. 

Q,  What  weeks  were  those  1  A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  being  almost  the  editor  in 
charge  1  A.  Well,  I  mean  that  I  performed  the  labor  that 
belongs  to  uu  editor;  ulihough  ioimaliy,  the  position 


EECllEB  TEIAL. 

was  not  yielded  to  me,  or  I  was  not  inaugurated  m  an/ 
formal  way  into  that  office. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  salary  or  compensation  ?  A.  I 
never  had  any. 

Q.  None  whatever?   A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  avowed  or  public  responsibility  of 
editorship  for  that  paper  ?  A.  I  wrote  a  great  many  ai'- 
ticles. 

Q.  Under  you  own  name  ?  A.  Over  my  own  name ;  aiid 
at  one  period,  think  during  the  Summer  of  1871, 1  had  a. 
department  assigned  to  me  in  that  paper  which  I  edited 
as  my  own. 

Q.  What  department  was  that?  A.  It  was  called  ike 
Bureau  of  the  Pantarchy— "  Pantarchy "  was  the  head 
line  of  my  department. 

Q.  The  Pantarchy?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  that  a  distinct  branch  of  the  paper,  separate 
from  any  interest  in  everyday  affairs  ?   A.  It  was,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  in  what  sense  or  connection  was  this  title  of 
"  Pantarchy"  adopted  for  a  oohimn  or  department  of 
that  newspaper  ?  A.  Pantarchy  is  a  name  which  I  havt' 
adopted  to  express  the  practical  purposes  of  my  reform- 
atory movements. 

Q.  That  is  enough.  I  imderstand  it  perfectly.  [Xaugh- 
ter.J  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Are  youi  reformatory  movement  and  "pentarohy" 
convertible  terms  ?  A.  On  the  practical  side  of  my  re- 
formatory movement— yes,  Sir. 

Q.  They  are  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

THE    MEDIUMISTIC    EXHIBITION    AT  ME. 
TILTON'S. 

Q.  We  understand  that.   Now,  Mr.  Andrewe» 

you  have  said  that  at  this  visit  at  which  you  and  yonr 
wife  were  present,  of  which  Miss  Moore  spoke,  there  was 
nothing  but  some  action  or  behavior  of  your  wife  in  tl)« 
capacity  of  spiritual  medium,  or  acting  from  impression, 
or  something  of  that  kind  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Of  course  I  don't  wish  to  misrepresent  you ;  I  call 
your  attention  to  it.  Did  you  mean  to  say  that  what  Bhe 
did  or  said  to  or  toward  Mrs.  TOton  was  in  a  mediumietie 
state  on  her  part !  A.  I  presume  it  to  have  been  so.  My 
recollection,  as  I  have  said,  is       very  distinct. 

Q.  And  the  nature  of  that  is,  that  though  the  observer 
saw  and  heard  what  she  said  and  did,  she  herself  was  not 
conscious.  Is  not  that  it  ?  A.  That  is  the  state  in  what 
is  called  complete  trance.  There  are,  then,  all  sorts  of 
approximations  to  that  state,  in  which  mediumistic  pt  r 
sons  live,  as  it  were,  in  a  double  world— a  dreamy  kind  of 
existence. 

Q.  A  sliding  scale,  then  !  A.  Exactly. 

Q.  Now,  what  stage  of  this  sliding  scale  was  your  wife 
in  at  the  time  of  this  affair  ?  [Laughter.J  A.  I  dou1 
know.  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  from  your  observniion  ?   A,  I  have  said  that 


TESTIMOSY  OF  STEPS 

my  recolleetirr..  is  very  indLstmct  in  reprard  to  tlie  scene  ' 
at 

Q.  Have  yon  any  i-PcoUeetion  at  all?   A.  I  liaTe,  Sir, 
the  recollection   j 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  nixed  rea soning,  between  nat- 
ural reason  and  the  mediumistic  state  ?  A,  I  have  not 
6ix)ken  of  any  mediumistic  -tare  on  my  part.  Sii-. 

Q.  No,  no ;  still  yon  ar-^  >o  mucli  with  Thes^-  pr-nple— 
ho-«-  is  that  now,  have  you  any  particular  rememhranee 
of  that  affair  1  A.  I  rememhsr,  as  I  stated,  my  vrife  leav- 
ing her  seat  in  another  part  of  the  :  oom,  and  going  and 
fieating  herself  by  the  side  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  a  manner 
which  I  recognized,  knowing  her  as  T  did.  as  somewhat  \ 
characteristic  of  her  partial  trance  states.  | 

Q.  Now,  what  stage  ?     That  is  what  T  want  to  get  at. 
A.  I  don't  know  that  I  have  any  gauge. 

Q.  Whether  she  passed,  the  Rubicon  between  th.-  nat- 
ural condition  and  an  entire  trance  state,  you  cannot  say  ? 
A.  I  should  think  not. 

Q.  You  think  not  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Wa-s  not  this  medlumistic  treatment  or  condition,  as 
«ihibited  toward.  Mr.  Tilton— didn't  itinyolve  this  manip- 
ulation of  his  face  au'l  head,  and  reference  to  this  spirit- 
ual insight  into  him  ?   A.  Not  to  riy  recollection. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  how  that  was  ?   A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  But  that  is  the  ordinary  form  ?   A.  It  might  happen, 
tout  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  what  was  said  >^y  your 
wife  to  Mr.  Tilton.  and  received  by  him,  was  what  ordi- 
nary people  consider  sensible  or  foolish  ?   A.  I  never  ] 
heard  anythin2r  that  to  me  was  not  sensible  through  that  j 
lady. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  mean  to  say  that  it  was  not  sensible. 
I  only  speak  of  the  estimate  of  ordinary  people,  who  are 
not  affected  with  Spii'itualistic  ideas.  A.  I  tMnkthat 
would  depend  upon  how  ordinary  they  are.  [Lausrhter.l 

Q.  Now,  you  have  spoken  of  Mi'S.  "VToodhull's  house  and 
the  company  assembled  there  as  coming  nearer  to  the 
celebrated  salon  of  Madame  Eoland  than  anything  of  our 
times,  haven't  you?   A.  I  did  make  that  comparison. 

Q.  That  is  your  view  ?   A,  Y'es,  Sir. 

Q.  Xow,  did  you  assimilate  Mrs.  Woodhull  to  Madam 
Roland  I  or  didn't  you  assig-n  the  different  parts  suffi- 
<:iently  to  determine  tliat  ?  A.  I  h;jd  not  that  particularly 
in  mind,  but  I  tliink  her  quite  as  distinguished  a  person- 
age— of  a  different  type. 

Q.  Yea  :  but  the  quesMon  is  more  whether  they  resem- 
bled one  another,  thiin  whe-ther  they  ave  etiually  distin 
guisbed.   A.  I  don't  know  th.at  I  had  that  ia  view. 

Mr.  Beach — Of  a  different  type;  you  saj- ! 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir,  of  a  different  type. 

-Ii-.  Evarts— But  an  equally  large  impression  ?  A.  Yes, 
Su. 

Q.  And  this  company  that  attended  There,  you  com- 
plied with  the  company  that  frequented  Madame  Ro- 
land's salon  1  A.  I  do. 


FEARL  AXBEEWS.  401 

Q.  Do  you  give  the  preference  to  this  company  over  th-^- 
company  at  Madame  Roland's?  Does  the  preference  ex- 
tend to  the  visitors?  A.  I  think  this  century  is  ia  ad- 
vance of  the  last. 

Q.  And  these  people  move  with  the  century  \  A.  I 
think  so. 

Q.  And  they  are  in  the  van,  are  they  !   A.  I  think  so. 

That  is  a  matter  of  judgment. 

TERMS   OF   FA^IILL\RITY  USED  BY  MR. 
TILTOX  AXD  MRS.  WOODHULL. 

Q.  Now,  Toii  have  said  sonietliiiig  about  Mrs. 
Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton's  manner  toward  each  other 
when  you  saw  them  together,  and  their  address.  Do  you 
think  you  never  heard  Mr.  Tilton  address  Mrs.  Woodhull 
as  ViL-toria  ?"  A.  I  don't  remember  having  heard  it. 
Very  many  people  did. 

Q.  How  can  you  account  for  it  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  ? 
A,  WeU,  I  should  say  that  his  manner  was  courtly  and 
reser^'ed,  in  the  presence  of  others,  and  I  don't  remember 
his  ever  falling  down  to  that  degree  of  familiarity. 

Q.  With  Mrs.  WoodhuU  1   A.  With  Mrs.  WoodhuH 

Q.  Was  his  manner  especially  cold  toward  her  1  A.  No. 
Sir;  it  was,  on  the  contrary,  very  friendly,  manifesting, 
I  should  say,  a  great  deal  of  interest ;  but  I  speak  of  any 
discoiu^tesy  

Q.  Oh,  not  discourtesy  ?  A.  Or  any  vulgar  familiarity, 
or  anything  

Q.  Yes,  I  was  only  asking— I  have  only  asked  

Mr.  Beach— Let  him  finish  Ms  answer. 

Q.  1  have  only  asked  you  about  his  calling  her  Victoria 

Mr.  Beach — Let  him  finish  his  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts — This  is  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Beacli— I  know  that,  but  that  does  not  afford  you 
an  opportunity  of  interrupting  the  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— Certainly  it  does,  when  he  is  answering 
beyond  the  question. 

Mr.  Beach- He  was  not  answering  beyond  the  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— Certainly  he  was. 

:Mr.  Beach— WeU,  a  reference  to  the  question  would 
show  that  he  was  not.  However,  the  gentleman  has  suc- 
ceeded in  stopping  the  mouth  of  the  witnessb  efore  he 
had  finished  his  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  could  not  have  done  it  without  the  aid  of 
tLe  law. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  know;  I  think  you  do  a  great  many 
things  without  the  aid  of  the  law,  and  in  defiance  of  it. 

Q.  Now,  you  say  a  great  many  persons  did  address  her 
in  that  salon  as  "  Vickey."  That  was  not  disrespectful^ 
was  it?   A.  It  was  not  so  regarded. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  It  was  not  so  regarded  by  those  who  used 
the  term,  no  doubt  I  liave  sometimes  felt  a  little  shocked 
at  the  familiarity  that  many  persons  took.  Sometimea 
she  was  even  called  "  Vic"  and  "Victoria"  and  "  Vickey," 
and  I  never  saw  her  when  that  familiarity— I  felt  a 
little  shocked  by  it  sometimes  myself.   I  did  not  peraeiv«5 


402  THE  TILTON-Bk 

that  character  in  Mr.  Tilton.   That  is  all  I  meant  to  say. 

Q.  '*  Vic "  you  considered  familiar  ?    A.  Rather  too 
much  80. 

Q.  Was  that  common  1  A.  Well,  it  was  too  common. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  that  Mr.  Tilton  refrained  from  that 
familiarity  that  others  used?  A.  That  is  my  remem- 
brance of  his  dejKjrtment. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  1  A.  I  am, 

MORE  ABOUT  THE  WRITING    OF  THE 
SCANDAL. 

Q.  So  impressed  on  your  mind.  Now,  Sir, 
during  the  Summer  of  1872,  and  between  the  Spring  and 
the  publication  of  what  is  called  the  scandal  number  of 
Mrs.  Woodhull's  paper,  was  there  any  such  paper  in 
existence,  or  on  foot  at  all,  or  was  it  all  gone,  this  Wood- 
hull  (&  Glaflin  paper  I  A.  It  was  a  complete  interruption 
of  the  publication  of  the  paper,  but  never  was  an  aban- 
donment of  the  intention  of  continued  publication. 

Q.  That  is,  no  public  announcement  of  its  termination  f 
A.  It  was  announced  simply  as  an  interruption— as  a 
postponement. 

Q.  Well,  this  scandal  number  was  the  beginning  of  its 
new  life  1  A.  That  is  my  recollection;  I  believe  so;  yes. 
Sir. 

Q.  Was  not  this  interval  occupied  in  preparing  for  a 
great  sensation  on  the  reopening  of  this  paper  ?  A.  Not 
to  my  knowledge,  nor  according  to  my  belief. 

Q.  You  don't  think  that  the  article  was  in  the  course  of 
consideration  and  preparation  by  its  authors  in  that 
period,  either  in  an  incomplete  or  in-^ —  A.  Do  you  wish 
me  

Mr.  Evarts— I  wish  your  knowledge. 
The  Witness— Well,  I  

Q.  You  don't  know  anything  about  It  1  A.  I  know  very 
little  about  that,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  are  you  quite  sure  that  you  never  saw  any 
Blips  of  the  subject  matter  of  this  scandal  article  as  dis- 
tinct from  its  complete  literary,  philosophical  comple- 
tion? A.  I  am  quite  sure  of  that.  Sir. 

Q.  You  never  saw  that?  A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  If  there  were  any  such,  you  didn't  see  themi  A.  I 
did  not. 

Q.  And  how  early  before  the  matter  was  brought  to 
your  attention — or,  lather,  the  material  was  brought  to 
your  hands  for  your  editorship— how  long  before  that 
material  was  brought  to  your  hands  had  you  heard  that 
anything  of  this  kind  was  brewing?  A.  Your  present 
question  refreshes  my  memory,  and  I  would  wish  to  cor- 
rect a  prior  statement.  I  did  hear  somewhat  earlier  with 
regard  to  the  purpose  of  such  a  publication.  I  was  con- 
sulted by  Mrs.  Woodhull ;  it  may  have  been  one  month 
or  two  months  earlier  than  the  publication  with  regard 
to  her  ethical  rights,  as  I  may  say,  in  the  matter. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  that  is  enough ;  I  don't  care  about  the  con- 
versation,  N(>  ,v,  you  say  that  this  introduction  of  the 


^UKOHEE  TRIAL. 

subject  of  her  ethical  rights  was  as  early  as  the  Spring  of 
1872  ?  A.  No,  it  was  not,  although  I  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve  

Q.  I  have  not  asked  you  your  reason.  You  are  certain 
it  was  not  t  A.  I  am  certain  it  was  not.  I  was  going  to 
add  something  I  thought  you  woiild  like  to  know. 

Mr.  Evarts— No ;  I  have  no  curiosity  except  what  the 
law  allows. 
The  Witness— That  is  right.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  how  early  are  you  able  to  say  that 
this  introduction  of  the  ethical  rights  question  did  not 
arise?  You  say  it  didn't  in  the  Spring?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Not  more  than  two  months  prior  to  the  publication. 

Q.  Not  more  than  two  months  prior  to  its  being  brought 
to  you?  A.  That  is  what  I  mean. 
Mr.  Beach— Its  publication,  he  says. 
Mr.  Evarts— No,  being  brought  to  him. 
Mr.  Evarts— Now,  how  early  in  October  do  you  think 
the  material  was  brought  to  you  for  your  finishing  handf 
A.  I  should  think  about  the  25th. 

Q.  And  it  was  published  on  the  28th  ?  A.  It  was  pub- 
lished on  the  28th. 

Q.  And  when  did  your  article  go  in  the  printer's 
hands?  A.  Immediately  as  it  was  prepared ;  I  think  part 
of  it  was  going  before  the  remaining  parts  wei-e  finished. 

Q.  Now,  upon  looking  at  this  article,  can  you  tell  us 
what  is  wholly  your  own  composition,  and  what  is  the 
composition  of  other  people  ?  A.  I  presume  I  could  by 
merely  looking  at  the  article ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Be  so  good  as  to  designate  upon  this  article  the  parts 
you  composed,  and  the  parts  that  were  the  composition 
of  others  than  yourself.   [Handing  paper  to  witness.] 

Mr.  Shearman— Be  kind  enough  to  mark  your  own  pas- 
sages ;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  have  two  kinds  of  crayons ;  mark  with 
the  one  which  is  your  own. 

The  Witness— Well,  Sir,  one  of  the  reds ;  I  have  put  a 
red  line  around  those  which  I  either  wrote  or  recast ;  the 
middle  portion,  which  is  not  so  encircled,  went  as  it  was 
brought  to  me,  with  the  exception  of  the  fact  that  I  may 
have  run  my  pen  through  a  single  line  to  correct  literary 
style,  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  And  the  parts  not  marked  in  red,  as  I  understand 
you,  are  substantially  as  the  material  came  to  your 
hands,  with  nothing  but  verbal  emendations,  possibly  ♦ 
A.  That  is  it.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  ask  that  this  may  be  marked  for  identifi- 
cation. I  offer  it  in  evidence  as  part  of  this  witness's  tes- 
timony. 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  it ;  you  cannot  bring  the  article 
in  by  any  means,  because  he  wrote  it. 
Judge  Neilson— It   is  m::rked   for  identification  at 

present. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  offer  it  in  evidence. 
Judge  Neilson— Let  the  offer  be  noted. 
Mr.  Evarts— As  part  of  this  w  itness's  cross-examlna 


TESTIMONY   OF  STEFl 

tlon  as  to  wliat  he  did  of  tliis,  and  what  the  others  did. 

Mr,  Beach— I  hope  your  Honor  will  consider  that  ques- 
tion. 

Judge  Neilson— Oh,  yes;  I  will  hear  you  hereafter, 
Mark  it  at  present  for  identification. 
[Paper  marked  "  For  identification,  Ex.  D,  141. "J 

MR.  TILTON'S  SYMPATHY  WITH  MRS.  WOOD- 
HULL'S  REFORMS. 

Q.  Mr.  Andrews,  where  was  your  lodging- 
room  while  you  were  an  tamate  of  this  house  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull  ?  A.  It  was  up  two  pairs  of  stairs— two  flights 
of  stairs,  front  room. 

Q.  What  we  call  the  third  1  A.  There  is  some  confusion 
here  with  regard  to  third  and  first. 

Q.  Two  flights  of  stairs  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  front  room  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  led  you  to  pass  up  and  down  the  stairways 
and  through  the  halls  up  to  that  story  ?   A.  Very  often. 

Q  Up  to  that  story  and  hack  ?  A.  Very  often ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  in  what  parts  of  that  house  have  you  seen 
Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  have  seen  him  in  the  parlors— front  and 
back  parlors,  and  in  Col.  Blood's  and  Mrs.  WoodhuU's 
room,  which  is  at  the  head  of  the  first  stairs. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  seen  him  on  that  floor  where 
Col.  Blood's  room,  as  last  mentioned,  is  spoken  of— Mrs. 
"WoodhuU's  room  ?  A.  Well,  with  some  frequency ; 
several  times  at  any  rate. 

Q.  Was  it  not  an  ordinary  thing  to  see  him  there  ?  A. 
I  should  think,  through  a  certain  period  of  time,  while  he 
was  engaged  in  writing  for  Mrs.  Woodhull  a  good  deal, 
that  he  was  several  times ,  perhaps  frequently,  in  that 
room. 

Q.  It  was  nothing  strange  for  you  to  see  him  there  ? 
A.  At  that  period  it  was  not ;  no,  Sir. 
Q.  At  that  period  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  when  was  that  period  ?  A.  The  center  of 
attraction,  to  quote  a  phrase  that  has  been  used  here, 
was  the  month  of  August ;  I  think  his  visits  were  more 
frequent  there,  and  his  labor  in  behalf  of  Mrs.  Woodhull 
and  her  ideas  was  concentrated  more  in  the  month  of 
August  than  in  any  other  month  of  that  season. 

Q.  That  was  1871  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  this  fervor  of  August  you  noticed  as  a  fact  f 
A.  T  did ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  much  was  he  there  during  the  month  that 
you  describe  as  August  %  A.  Well,  I  should  say  with  great 
frequency. 

Q.  Often  at  meals  ?  A.  No,  Sir;  very  rarely. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  see  him  there  at  breakfast  during 
that  month  of  August?  A.  I  think  I  never  saw  him  at 
breakfast  but  once— the  morning  after  the  occasion  which 
t  speak  of. 

Q.  Did  you  breakfast  usually         A.  With  the  family! 

Q.  With  the  family  ?  A.  I  did ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  not  remember  seeing  Mr.  Tilton  at 


EN  PEARL  AM)UEWS.  403 

breakfast  more  than  once  during  that  month  of  August  t 
A.  I  really  do  not  remember. 

Q.  StUl  it  may  have  been  ?  A.  It  may  possibly ;  well,  I 
think  I  should  have  remembered  it  if  it  was  true— if  It 
were  so. 

Q.  Why !  What  should  impress  you  about  that !  You 
noticed  he  was  there  very  much.  Why  should  you  notice 
his  being  there  at  breakfast  1  A.  Well,  it  was  rather  a 
rare  circumstance  for  parties  to  be  invited  to  the  meals 
in  that  house ;  the  house  was  more  like  a  club-house  for 
public  purposes,  as  it  were,  and  the  privacy  of  the  family 
was  very  seldom  invaded  by  visitors,  and  it  was  an  ex- 
ceptional thing  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  occasionally  invited. 

Q.  Well,  now,  during  the  whole  of  the  time  that  you 
were  aware  of  his  being  a  visitor  at  that  house,  how 
often  did  you  see  him  at  breakfast  there  1  A.  OnJy  once 
that  I  remember. 

Q.  Dming  the  whole  of  the  Summer  1  A.  At  breakfast 
only  once. 

Q.  Only  once.  How  many  times  at  dinner  ?  A.  I  should 
think  two  or  three  times. 

Q.  And  how  many  times  were  you  aware  of  his  passing 
the  night  there?  A.  Only  the  once  that  I  have  men- 
tioned. 

Q.  How  did  you  come  to  be  aware  of  that  ?  A.  From 
the  fact  that  I  was  there  in  his  company  untn  very  late 
at  night,  perhaps  2  or  3  o'clock,  and  that  I  found  him 
there  in  the  morning,  and  that  he  breakfasted  with  us, 
and  that  I  understood  he  had  remained  there  dtiring  the 
night. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  that  Mr.  Tilton,  in  the  fre- 
quency of  his  visits  and  the  attention  that  he  paid  to  IMrs. 
Woodhull,  was  enlisted  in  her  opinions  and  Interested  in 
her  ideas  ? 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  objected  to.  Sir— what  he  under- 
stood. 

Mri  Evarts— WeU,  on  the  cross-examination  I  think  it  ie 
admissible. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  that  is  not  admissible  on  cross-exami- 
nation. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  take  it.  It  tends  to 
show  the  relation,  whatever  it  was. 

Mr.  Beach— Is  that  to  be  shown,  if  your  Honor  please, 
by  the  mere  understanding  of  the  witness  and  not  by  the 
acts  and  declarations  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  on  the  cross-examination  of  the  wit- 
ness, and  is  admissible. 

Judge  Neilson— The  question  includes  observation  a 
well  as  understanding. 

Mr.  Evarts — It  is  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Beach— It  don't  make  any  difference.  If  you  will 
aUow  me  to  get  a  word  from  the  Court  instead  of  you, 
Mr.  Evarts,  I  wiU  be  obliged  to  you. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  mean  to  prevent  you. 

Mr.  Beach— I  never  knew  you  to.   I  submit  that  the 


404 


IHE   TILION-BEEOHEB  TEIAL. 


imdei standing  of.  tftis  witness  is  not  admissible  as  against 
Ml*.  Tiltoii. 

Judge  Neilson— That  wovild  be  so  as  to  any  witness. 
Tlie  only  idea  is  to  whether  this  word  "  understand- 
ing" don't  really  import  observation,  which  I  ^hink  is  a 
better  word. 

Mr.  Evarts— On  cross-examination  I  can  ask  all  sorts 
of  questions  as  to  the  interior  movements  of  his  mind 
and  show  him  up. 

Judge  Neilson— There  is  a  good  deal  of  license  allowed 
on  cross-examinatiou  

Mr.  Beach— There  is  no  objection  to  this  examiner 
showing  up  this  gentleman  to  the  extent  of  his  ability  ; 
and  the  more  he  tries  it  the  better  we  will  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  mean  any  particular  witness ;  I 
am  speaking  of  the  right  to  cross-examine  as  not  being 
limited  (as  is  well  understood)  to  evidence  in  chief  in  the 
case.. 

Mr.  Beach — He  did,  Sir,  mean  this  particular  witness 
when  he  said  he  wanted  to  flud  out,  or  show  up,  this 
witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  speaking  of  my  interior  move- 
ments. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  interior  movements  are  just  as  inuna- 
terial  and  incompetent  as  the  witness's  when  they  are  di- 
rected toward  our  case. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  did  not  bring  them  in. 

Mr.  Beach— You  are  trying  to  bring  them  in,  and  you 
4id  bring  them  in. 

Judge  Neilson— Almost  any  question  can  be  asked  on 
cross-examination. 

Mr.  Beach— I  submit  not,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Judge  Nei  -  jii— That  has  any  bearing  on  the  relation  of 
the  parties. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor  certainly  does  not  mean  to  an- 
nounce such  as  a  decision  of  the  law,  that  almost  any 
question  is  admissible  to  a  witness  on  cross-exammation  ? 

Judge  Neilson— That  has  any  relation. 

Mr.  Beach— That  has  any  relation.  I  submit,  Sir,  that 
you  cannot  ask  a  witness  upon  cross-examinati(m  as  to 
his  understanding  of  a  fact  relating  to  either  of  the  par- 
ties, for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  conclusion  of  facts 
attributable  to  either  of  the  parties.  You  may  ask  a 
witness  upon  cross-examination  'his  understanding  and 
1  eason  in  regard  to  his  own  action,  or  facts  relating  to 
his  own  conduct.  That  is  admissible.  But  you  cannot 
ask  him  his  understanding  of  the  purpose,  views,  or  sen- 
timents of  a  party  to  an  action  whose  conduct  and  views, 
position  and  condition  are  to  be  determined  by  words  or 
acts. 

Judge  Neilson— Therefore  the  word  "observation"  is 
better  than  the  word  "understanding,"  which  the  coun- 
sel put. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir ;  that  is  what  1  was  endeavoring 
to  satisfy  your  Honoi'  about. 


J udge  Neilson- 1  was  rr  commending  the  substitution 
of  that  word. 

Mr.  Beacti— Very  well.  Then  I  will  be  content. 

Mr.  Evarls  [to  the  witness]- Well,  please  answer  the 
question  with  that  modification— o&seriiai/o>t,  iuvstead  of 
understanding. 

The  Witness— My  observation  was  that  Mr.  Tilton  was 
a  great  deal  interested  in  the  ideas,  perhaps,  that  he 
heard  agitated  at  that  house,  but  always  with  a  vein  ot 
strong  dissent  on  his  part,  which  led  to  a  great  deal  of 
discussion. 

Q.  And  which  tended,  I  suppose,  to  bring  out  the  riglit 
of  the  matter  more  distinctly  ?  A.  Perhaps. 

Q.  Did  he  convince,  or  was  lie  convinced  1  A.  Perhaiw 
neither. 

MR.  ANDREWS'S  LABORS  FOR  SOCIAL  RE- 
FORM. 

Q.  Yom-  opinions  and  views,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  Mr.  Andrews,  accorded  with  Mrs.  Woodhull's— 
or  perhaps  I  should  say  hers  accorded  with  yours— on 
this  matter  of  social  reform?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  had  been  longer  an  advocate  of  these  opinions 
than  she,  had  you  not  ?  A.  Very  much. 

Q.  How  far  back  do  you  date  your  advocacy  of  them  t 
A.  My  first  published  statement  on  the  subject,  from 
which  these  ideas  have  been  mostly  disseminated,  was, 
perhaps,  I  think,  in  1851. 

Q.  Did  you  at  any  time  establish  a  hall  or  school  for 
public  discussion  of  these  social  doctrines?  A.  I  have 
been  doing  that  kind  of  thing,  off  and  on,  all  along,  Sir. 

Q.  All  along  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  in  the  City  of  New-York,  I  infer  1  A.  In  the 
City  of  Ne  w-York,  mainly. 

Q.  During  what  period  was  any  such  establishment 
maintained  ?  A.  There  has  hardly  been  any  period  at 
which  there  was  not  something  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Going  on  all  the  time  1   A,  All  these  years. 

Q.  All  the  time,  more  or  less  permanently,  I  suppose! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 


RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  A.NDREW8. 

Mr.  Beach — Wliat  social  views  do  you  refer 
to  when  you  say  they  were  in  conformity,  to  any  ext-ect; 
with  those  of  Mrs.  Woodh.ull  ?  A.  I  refer  to  the  whole 
statement,  which  has  been  made  by  myself  and  by  others, 
of  the  doctrine  which  we  call  the  "  Sovereignty  of  rho 
Individual,"  which  is  an  attempt  at  a  scientific  defluitioa 
of  the  legitimate  sovereignty  of  the  individual  in  society, 
and  of  the  sphere  of  the  community  as  such. 

Q.  Well,  how  far  do  those  views  relate  to  the  subject  of 
marriage  and  divorce  ?  A.  They  cover  that  whole  ground 
incidentally,  and  as  a  branch  of  the  larger  doctrine  of  tho 
sovereignty  of  the  individual. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  in  those  views  of  wliiob  .you  have  spoken 


TESTIMONY  OF  ISTEPHEN  PEARL  ANDBEWS. 


405 


to  Ml.  Evarts  do  you  include  any  idea  of  promiscuous  in- 
tercourse of  the  sexes  t  A.  Yes,  and  no ;  I  must  adopt 
that. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  I  want  to  know.  You  have  spoken  to  the 
counsel  of  those  views ;  I  want  to  know  what  they  are. 
What  is  the  view  to  which  you  referred  in  that  relation, 
with  reference  to  the  intercoiu'se  of  the  sexes?  A.  The 
view  is,  that  the  relation  of  the  sexes  is  a  department  of 
human  life  which  should  be  relegated  to  the  jmisdiction 
of  the  individuals  immediately  concerned.  If  they,  then, 
are  promiscuous  in  their  nature  and  character,  it  is  tor 
them  to  manifest  that.  If  they  are  Mormons,  or  if  they 
are  Shakers,  or  whatsoever  be  their  individual  con- 
science and  view  and  character,  that  will  manifest  itself 
under  this  doctrine. 

Q,  Well,  do  you  understand  by  the  doctrines  which  you 
maintain  that  the  law  should,  to  no  extent,  interfere 
with  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  or  parent  and 
child?  A.  That  is  our  view,  with  certain  minor  niodilica- 
tions. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  those  modifications  I  want  to  uet  'i!  A. 
Well,  Sir,  it  would  lead  us  into  a  very  broad  field  of 
definition. 

Q.  Make  it  as  brief  as  you  can ;  for  instance,  we  can  il- 
lustrate all  I  desire  to  know.  In  case  two  persons 
who  have  lived  in  the  marital  character  are  inclined  to 
separatibhj  what  is  your  view,  or  doctriu%  in  regard  to 
the  care  or  maintenance  of  the  children  of  the  inter- 
course?'  A.  The  doctrine  contemplates  -'hands  olf"  with 
regard  to  the  State— the  interference  of  the  State  in  the 
aftalrs  of  the  individual  in  so  far  as  their  aflfectional  rela- 
tions are  concerned.  The  economical  relations,  those  that 
relate  to  property,  care  of  children,  &c.,  are  perfectly 
legitimate  for  the  State. 

Q.  For  the  State  to  govern  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  your  doctrine,  therefore,  is  that  in  case  two 
persons  in  the  position  in  which  I  assumed,  the  xmion 
dissolved  by  voluntary  consent,  that  the  State,  by  law, 
should  regulate  the  terms  upon  which  that  separation 
should  be  allowed  with  reference  to  the  children,  or  the 
economical  relations  ?   A.  Or  the  inheritance  of  property. 

Q.  That  is,  that  people  who  have  been  married  should 
be  allowed  to  separate  at  theu*  will,  the  State  mjilciiig 
proper  regulations  in  regard  to  the  disposition  of  the 
property  and  the  children  ?  A.  That  Is  it. 

MRS.  WOODHULL'S  FIRST  ALLUSION  TO  THE 
SCANDAL. 

Q.  You  speak,  Sir,  of  Mrs.  WoodhuU  having 
consulted  you  some  two  months  before  the  publication 
of  this  article  in  regard  to  her  ethical  rights  connected 
with  this  publication.  That  was  at  the  first  suggestion, 
to  your  knowledge,  of  the  propriety  of  publishing  the 
•rtiole  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  it  was  not. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  iti  A.  Do  you  mean  to  ask  what 
"     Mir.  flrnt  surpestion  f 


Mr.  Beach— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  let  us  see. 

The  Witness— What  was  the  occasion  of  the  first  sug- 
gestion  ? 

Mr.  Beach  [To  the  witnessj— Mr.  Evarts  inquired  of 
you  as  to  a  consultation  of  Mrs.  WoodhuU  with  you, 
occurring  some  two  months  prior  to  the  publication  of 
this  article.  I  don't  care  for  a  detail  of  the  whole  con- 
versation, but  I  want  to  get  the  subject  matter  of  that 
consultation. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  only  got  it  in  respect  to  date. 

Mr.  Beach— You  got  it  in  respect  to  facts— in  respect  to 
the  conversation. 

Mr.  Evarts — I  don't  ask  the  conversation. 

Ml',  iieach— You  certainly  got  the  fact  that  he  was  con- 
sulted by  Mrs.  Woodhull  upou  the  subject  of  her  ethical 
rights  com^erning  the  publication,  or  connected  with  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  witness  stated  that. 

Mr.  Beach— You  took  it  as  part  of  the  answer,  and  it  Is 
in  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  was  in  answer  to  my  question  showing 
the  date  that  it  was  brought  to  his  mind. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  and  it  shows  something  more  than  the 
date. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  do  you  ask  him  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  my  business  now.  [To  the  witnessj 
I  want  to  know  what  ethical  rights  were  the  subject  of 
conversation  as  between  you  and  Mis.  Woodhull  on  that 
occasion. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  object  to  going  into  that  con- 
versation. 

Judge  Neilson  [To  the  witness.]    Did  it  relate  to  this 
article  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  it  did. 
Mr.  Evarts— There  I  left  it.  There  was  an  earlier  date 

at  which  the  matter  was  brought  to  his  notice. 

Mr.  Beach— And  there  was  the  subject  talked  of,  and 
where  the  gentleman  left  it,  I  took  it  ui). 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  of  course,  his  Honor  has  ruled  over 
aijd  over  again,  and  we  have  abided  by  it,  the  subject 
indicating  his  notice  and  attention,  being  brought  to  the 
subject,  but  it  does  not  authorize  the  conversation. 

Judge  Neilson— We  could  not  take  tlie  conversation,  of 
course. 

Mr.  Beach— I  want  to  know  what  ethical  rights  he  re- 
ferred to  in  his  answer  to  Mr.  Evarts. 
Judge  Neilson — I  think  he  may  answer  that. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  I  object  to. 

Judge  NeUson  [To  the  Witness]— What  ethical  rights 
did  you  refer  to  ? 

The  Witness— The  question  which  she  wished  my  advice 
upon  was  whether  she  had  a  right,  as  social  agitator,  to 
interfere  with  the  deportment  of  individuals,  or  whether 
she  should  confine  herself  entirely  to  the  disouasion  of 
principles. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all,  Sir. 


406 


THE   TILTON-BEEGHER  TBIAL. 


RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  ANDREWS. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Andrews,  when  yon  speak 
of  those  topics  as  in  the  opinions  that  you  embrace  and 
advocate  as  falling  within  Individual  sovereignty,  or 
being  relegated  to  the  region  of  individual  sovereignty, 
does  that  mean  in  your  mind  or  expression  anything 
more  than  the  Scriptural  statement  that  a  man  is  to  do 
what  is  right  in  his  own  eyes  1  A.  If  you  will  explain  the 
Scriptural  statement  to  me  I  can  answer  the  question. 

Q.  It  is  much  more  conunon  than  relegated  to  indi- 
vidual sovereignty,  and  I  didn't  ask  you  to  explain  that. 
A.  I  think  it  means  substantially  the  same  thing. 

Q.  A  man's  doing  what  is  right  in  his  own  eyes  I  A. 
Yes,  Sii-. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 

The  Witness— Allow  me  to  add  to  the  answer  that  what 
we  familiarly  caU  the  "  sovereignty  of  the  individual "  is 
In  the  larger  statement  of  limitation— the  scientific  limita- 
tion upon  that  freedom,  which  I  could  show  if  it  were 
required,  but  it  is  probably  beyond  your  question. 

Mr.  Beach— When  you  apply  this  Scriptural  phrase 
to  your  theories,  that  a  man  should  do  what  is  right  in 
his  own  eyes,  you  refer  to  the  aftectional  relations  of  the 
sexes  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  And  not  to  what  you  call  the  economical  relations  % 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  aU. 

Judge  Neilson— Get  ready  to  retire,  gentlemen.  Be- 
turn  at  2  o'clock. 
The  court  then  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

MRS.  BRADSHAW  RECALLED. 

After  recess  Mrs.  Martha  A.  Bradshaw  was 
recalled  by  plaintiff,  and  testified  as  foUows  : 
Mr.  Fullerton— Mrs.  Bradshaw  has  already  been  sworn. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Mrs.  Bradshaw,  are  you  acquainted 
with  Elizabeth  A.  Turner,  known  as  Bessie  Turner  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  first  become  acqiiainted  with 
her?  A.  Well,  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  seeing  her 
ever  since  she  was  with  Mrs.  Tilton. 

A  Juror— A  little  bit  louder. 

Mr.  Fullerton  [repeating]—"  1  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
seeing  her  since  she  lived  with  Mrs.  Tilton." 

Q.  Did  you  see  her  frequently  or  otherwise?  A.  Yes, 
Sir,  quite  frequently. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  having  seen  her  in  the  month  of 
December,  1870  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  her  in  that  month  ?  A.  I  saw  her 
at  Mr.  Tilton's  and  at  my  own  house. 

Q.  Where  did  you  first  see  her  during  that  month  ?  A. 
I  don't  recollect  that.  Sir. 

Q.  How,  Madame?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that.  Sir;  I 


have  the  record  of  two  visits  to  me  that  she  made  to  me* 
Q.  Do  you  mean  at  your  own  house  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  When  was  the  first  visit  that  yon  have  a  record  of 
that  she  made  at  your  own  house  ?  A.  On  the  9th  of  De- 
cember. 

Q.  9th  of  December  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  1870  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  send  for  her,  or  did  she  come  voluntarily  t 
A.  No,  Sir ;  she  came  voluntarily. 

Q.  Did  you  make  a  record  of  the  day  on  which  she 
visited  you  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  a  diary  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  habit  at  that  time  of  keeping  a 
diary  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  always  have. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  it  was  an  unusual  thing  for 
you  to  make  an  entry  in  your  diary  of  visits  of  other  per- 
sons to  you  at  your  house  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  it  was  very  com- 
mon. 

Q.  I  wish  to  ask  you  whether  at  that  visit  you  had  a 
conversation  with  Miss  Turner  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  she  did 
with  me. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  She  did  with  me,  rather. 

Q.  Yes ;  in  that  conversation  did  she  state  to  you  that 
Theodore  Tilton  had  charged  his  wife  with  the  oommia- 
sion  of  adultery  with  Henry  Ward  Beecher  f 

Mr.  Evarts— One  moment. 

The  Witness— [answering  the  question]— Yes,  Sir. 

Al^  EFFORT  TO  EXCLUDE  THE  TESTIMONT. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Just  wait  a  moment. 

Judge  NeUson— Was  there  any  statement  of  that  kind 
by  Miss  Tui  ner  ? 

Mr.  FuRerton— No,  Sir;  she  stated  that  she  did  not 
do  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  I  mean  in  reference  to  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Can  you  refer  us  to  the  page  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir  ;  on  page  510  you  wiU  find  It. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  of  the  pamphlet— have  you  got 
the  pamphlet  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes  ;  volume  TX. 

Mr.  Evarts-^Is  this  the  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir  After  Bessie  Turner  had 
sworn  to  the  charges  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  against 
his  wife  after  her  return  in  the  month  of  December,  1870, 
she  was  asked  whether  she  ever  communicated  to  any 
person  the  fact  that  such  a  charge  had  been  made ;  she 
says  that  she  communicated  the  fact  that  Mr.  Tilton  had 
ill-used  his  wife,  and  had  attempted  her  virtue,  but  denied 
that  she  ever  communicated  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw  or  any 
other  person  the  charge  of  adultery  that  Mr.  Tilton  made 
against  his  wife.  This  question  was  put  to  her  [reading] : 
"Now,  what"  

Mr.  Evarts— One  moment!  That  is  the  only  point  at 
present  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  only  point  at  present ;  that 
is  the  only  thing  Involved  in  my  question. 


TESTIMONY  OF  MBS.   MAETEA   A.   BRADS flAW. 


407 


Mr.  Evarts— The  case,  if  your  Honor  please,  does  not 
seem  to  arise  upon  this.  The  conversation  between  Miss 
Turner  and  this  lady,  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  is  of  course  evi- 
dence, of  itself  not  admissible,  not  bearing— not  of  the 
quality— hearsay  evidence,  whatever  passed  between 
them.  And  it  has  no  tendency  to  prove  the  fact  that  is 
stated  between  them,  if  any  such  fact  was  stated.  That 
we  will  start  with.  Now,  Miss  Turner  was  asked  this 
question— she  seems  to  have  fixed  a  visit  of  the  14th  of 
December,  the  only  date  I  see  here,  Mr.  FuUerton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir  ;  she  don't  positively  fix  it  on 
that  day. 

Mr,  Evarts— Well,  that  is  the  only  date  that  is  named. 
Where  is  this  first  question  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw  1  Your 
question  there  starts  oft,  "  Now,  what  did  you  tell  Mrs. 
Bradshaw,  if  anything,  as  to  the  charge  which  Mr.  Tilton 
had  made  against  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  1" 

IMr.  Shearman— Look  on  page  509. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  is  page  509  ;  what  part  of  it  1 

Mr.  Shearman— The  second  coliunn. 

Mr.  Evarts  [reading]— "Now,  Miss  Turner,  will  you  be 
kind  enough  to  tell  us  what  you  told  Mrs.  Bradshaw." 
That  is  the  second  column  of  the  509th  page. 

Mr.  Eullerton- Yes,  Sii'. 

Mr.  Evarts  Lreading]— "  A.  I  will  as  near  as  I  can  recol 

lect."  The  witness  says :  "  I  told  Mrs.         I  will  as 

near  as  I  can  recollect,  Sir ;  I  told  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  I 
think,  about  his  having  knocked  me  down  and  saying  that 
I  tripped  and  tell,  and  how  he  had  acted,  and  that  he  was 
yery  imkind  to  Mrs.  Tilton  ;  that  Mrs.  Tilton  was  crying 
all  the  time,  and  then  I  told  him  about  myself  "—it  should 
be  "  her,"  I  suppose.  "  That  is  as  near  as  I  can  recollect." 

Q.  Tell  us  what  you  told  her!  A.  I  told  her  that  he  had 
offered  to  ruin  me,  and  that  is  all  I  said  about  it,  as  I  re- 
member. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  her  the  details  then  1  A.  Qhl  no 
Sir.  ' 

Q.  Did  you  tell  any  one  of  these  persons,  on  the  14th  of 
December,  if  that  be  the  date,  the  details  of  what  oc- 
curred in  your  room  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  yourself  as 
you  have  related  it  here  substantiaUy »  A.  No,  Sir;  I 
fhlnk  not. 

Every  date  is  fixed  as  the  14th  of  December  conoeming 
which  Miss  Turner  was  inquired  about. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  the  only  date  claimed—"  Or 
prior  to  the  14th  of  December,  if  that  were  the  date,  had 
you  told  any  person  this  story  ?  A.  I  had  told  Mrs.  Put- 
nam at  Marietta."  Miss  Turner  starts  with  the  14th  of 
December,  as  being  the  date  concerning  which  she  was 
speaking  as  to  what  she  had  told  here,  and  as  far  as  I  can 
see,  the  only  date.  There  is  another  date  named,  but  left 
out.  Then  we  come  to  the  bottom  of  the  510th  page,  ap- 
parently renewing  this  inquiry.   [Readingj  : 

Q.  Now,  what  did  you  tell  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  if  any- 
*liing,  a«  to  the  charge  which  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  against 
Mrs.  TUcon  and  Mr.  Beecher  t  A.  I  never  said  a  word  to 


Mrs.  Bradshaw  or  a  living  soul  about  the  charge  Mr.  Til- 
ton had  made  as  to  Mr.  Beecher,  I  suppose. 

Q,  Waa  the  subject  alluded  to  in  your  conversation 
with  Mrs.  Bradshaw  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  never  said  a  word 
about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  confine  that  answer  now  to  the  14th  of  De- 
cember when  you  visited  her,  or  do  you  mean  to  be  un- 
derstood as  saying  that  you  never  at  any  time  told  Mrs. 
Bradshaw  anything  whatever  in  regard  to  the  charge 
which  Mr.  Tilton  brought  against  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  in  respect  to  criminality  1  A.  I  mean  to  say 
that  I  never  told  Mrs.  Bradshaw  or  anybody  else  about 
this  charge  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  about  Mrs.  Tilton's 
criminality  with  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  you  get  rid  of  the  14th. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Miss  Turner's  declaration  that  Mr. 
Tilton  had  charged  Mr.  Beecher  or  his  wife,  or  both, 
would  not  be  evidence  in  itself,  and  cannot  be  made  evi- 
dence (that  is  what  they  now  propose  to  show,  I  suppose, 
from  their  introduction  of  the  subject)  cannot  be  made 
evidence  by  reason  of  anything  that  has  passed  in  this 
examination  of  her.  When  a  witness  has  spoken  within 
the  merits  and  has  given  evidence  that  is  good  in  chief, 
then  extra-judicial,  or  outside  declarations  not  under 
oath  to  the  contrary,  if  there  is  a  proper  foundation  laid, 
may  be  brought  in.  But  when  the  crose-examination  in- 
troduces a  subject  that  is  not  evidence,  cannot  be  evi- 
dence per  se,  it  is  not  made  evidence  by  its  being 
introduced  by  cross-examination  so  far  as 
to  be  the  subject  of  contradiction.  You  take 
the  witness's  answer  concerning:  anything  by 
which  your  cross-examination  seeks  to  impeach 
them,  and  there  is  the  end  of  it.  If,  on  the  merits  of  the 
issue,  and  in  respect  to  evidence  that  is  itself  admissible, 
you  ask  the  witness  whether  she  has  not  made  contrary 
statements  out  of  court,  and  follow  the  requirements  of 
the  law,  then  you  contradict  on  the  issue ;  but  when, 
passing  from  the  issue,  you  strive  to  make  the  witness 
say  whether  or  not  she  has  not  said  so  and  so,  with  a 
view  of  affecting  her  credibility  or  otherwise,  you  take 
her  answer,  and  you  do  not  make  it  evidence  in  chief  for 
the  purpose  of  contradicting  her  by  any  such  transac- 
tion; that  is,  you  do  not  make  it  evidence  in  chief,  so  that 
you  have  a  right  to  show  statements  out  of  court  to  the 
contrary  of  her  testimony. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  certainly  became  important  upon  the 
examination  of  the  witness  Bessie  Turner,  to  ascertain 
what  she  said  to  these  four  different  persons  whom  she 
named,  and  with  whom  she  communicated,  as  she  sup- 
posed, on  the  14th  of  December,  although  she  does  not 
fix  that  date  with  any  degree  of  certainty  in  her  own 
mind.  Your  Honor  will  recollect  that  she  said  she 
started  out  on  the  morning  of  the  day— whatever  day  it 
was— for  the  purpose  of  conununicatiDg  with  these  four 
individuals,  and  did  communicate  with  them  all  on  that 
day,  with  reference  to  the  matter  then  in  hand.  She  was 
asked  particularly,  upon  the  direct,  whether  in  hep  com- 
munication ^th  Mr.  Beecher  she  stated  to  Mm  that 


408 


THE  TILTON-PEE(JfI 


Mr.  Tilton  had  made  t"he  open  clinTge  in  lier  presence 
against  his  wife  of  adultery  with  him  (Mr.  Beecher),  and 
she  said  that  she  did  not.  She  was  aslced,  then,  whether 
8he  commnnicat«d  that  fact  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw  and  to  the 
other  witnesses— they  were  all  named  in  the  question  ad- 
dressed to  the  witness  and  designed  to  call  out  that 
answer— and  she  denied  it ;  she  stated  that  she  never 
communicated  to  any  one  of  them  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Tilton  had  made  this  charge  against  his  wife.  Now,  it 
becomes  important  for  us  to  show  that  she  did  communi- 
cate that  fact— that  she  communicated  it  to  the  witness 
on  the  stand,  and,  by  inference,  if  she  told  the  same  story 
to  the  other  three  witnesses,  that  she  communicated  the 
same  fact  to  them,  Mr.  Beecher  being  among  the  number. 
Now,  your  Honor  will  perceive  that  this  bears  strongly 
upon  the  issue  in  this  case.  We  do  not  pretend  that  we 
prove  the  truth  of  what  Bessie  Turner  told  by  proving 
that  she  uttered  these  words;  but  we  do  prove  that 
Bessie  Turner  denied  the  truth  and  told  a  folsehood  when 
she  denied  having  made  these  statements  to  these  wit- 
nesses. It  is  for  the  purpose  of  impeaching  that  witness 
and  impairing  her  credibility ;  that  is  the  only  object  we 
have  in  view.  Now,  your  Honor  will  perceive  thnt  while 
she  does  not  limit  the  time  to  the  14th  of  November,  she 
stated  that  she  did  visit  these  people  all  on  the  same  day, 
and  went  on  and  nariated  what  she  told  them  severally, 
but  denied  in  each  instance  that  she  ever  communicated 
the  fact  that  the  charge  of  adultery  was  included  among 
the  charges  which  Mr.  Tilton  made  against  his  wife. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please  

Mr.  Beach— On  page  485  of  the  direct  examination, 
Sir,  this  occurs :  [Reading.] 

*•  Mr.  Porter— Had  you  before  that—"  I  will  precede 
that  by  a  question,  Sir. 

"  Q.  When  was  it  that  you  visited  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  De- 
cember 14,  1870. 

"Q.  Had  you  before  that  communicated  to  him  any- 
thing about  these  visits  to  your  room?        *  * 

"  Mr.  Porter— Had  you  before  that  communicated  to 
Mr.  Beecher  the  fact  of  Mr.  Tilton  visiting  your  bed— 
your  bed-room  ?  A.  Had  I  before  that  time  ? 

"Q.  Before  the  14th  of  December?  A.  No,  Sir;  that 
was  why  I  visited  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  14th  of  December. 

"  Q.  Did  you  on  that  occasion  communicate  to  him  any- 
thing about  the  charges  which  he  had  made  against  him  1 
A.  That  he  had  made  against  her,  you  mean  ? 

"  Q.  That  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  against  Mr.  Beecher 
and  his  wife?  A.  Did  I  communicate  that  to  Mr. 
Beecher  ? 

"  To  Mr.  Beecher?   A.  No,  Sir ;  not  to  any  one. 

"  Q.  Had  you,  prior  to  y  our  leaving  for  Marietta,  com- 
municated to  any  other  than  Mrs.  Tilton  the  charges 
which  Tilton  made  against  her  in  respect  to  Mr.  Beecher 
—to  Steubenville,  I  should  say  ?   A.  Before  going  ? 

"Q.  Had  you  ever  communicated  to  any  one  other  than 
Mrs.  Tilton  before  you  went  to  Steubenville  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

"  Q.  The  charges  which  had  been  made  by  Mrs.  TUton 
against  Mr.  Beecher,  and  I  corrected  Mr.  Porter,  and 
Ml'.  Porter  said :    *  Made  by  Mr.  Tilton  against  Mr. 


E  TBIAL. 

A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  never  comniunic ated  that  to  acy 


Beecher  V 
one." 

That  was  upon  their  direct  examination. 
Judge  Neilson— Then  upon  the  cross  they  call  attention 
to  it? 

Mr.  Beach— Then  upon  the  cross  we  caUed  attention  to 
Mrs.  Bradshaw;  she  denied  that,  and  we  propose  now  to 
contradict  her. 

Judge  Neilson— That  ought  to  be  admitted,  I  think. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  think  not,  if  your  Honor  please. 
You  cannot  bring  into  a  controversy  the  truth  or  false- 
hood of  every  statement  that  a  witness  has  made.  That 
is  not  the  law.  The  witness  has  testified  as  to  certain 
charges  having  been  made  by  Mr.  TUton,  in  her  presence, 
about  his  wife  committing  adultery  with  four  persons- 
something  of  that  kind.  Now,  they  do  not  lay  any 
foundation  for  saying  that  she  made  a  statement  to  some- 
body else  contradictory  to  that  statement.  All  they  seek  is 
to  find  out  from  her  whether  she  has  stated  anything  about 
it.  Now,  corroborative  evidence  of  what  she  had  stated 
would  not  have  been  admissible  on  our  part.  They  can- 
not ask  her  whether  she  has  made  corroborative  state- 
ments, and  then,  on  her  not  remembering  or  saying  that 
she  has  not,  prove  the  falsehood  or  error  in  her  memory 
or  her  statement  as  to  whether  she  had  or  had  not  made 
the  corroborative  statements.  There  is  not  the  least 
foundation  laid  in  any  inquiries  put  to  her  in  respect  of 
an  interview  with  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  to  show  that  she  had 
made  contradictory  statements  to  her.  If  they  had  de- 
sired to  bring  Mrs.  Bradshaw  to  show  that  she  had  made 
contradictory  statements  to  her'  present  statements 
mider  oath  on  the  merits,  they  should  have  asked  her: 
"  Did  you  not  say  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  on  the  14th,"  or,  if 
you  please,  the  9th,  "  so  and  so  ?" 

Mr.  Beach— You  are  assuming  a  proposition  that  we  do 
do  not  make.  We  propose  no  proof  of  that  kind. 
Ml'.  Evarts— I  know  you  don't. 

A  I»OUND  OF  ARGUMENT  TO  GET  A  GRAIN  OF 
TESTIMONY. 
Mr.  Beach — Veiy  well ;  why  are  you  arguing: 

on  it,  then  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Then  I  bring  it  right  back  to  whether  you 
are  contradicting  her  memory  as  to  whether  she  had 
made  corroborative  statements  outside  of  the  case.  Now, 
corroborative  statements  are  not  evidence ;  and  if  you 
ask  a  witness  whether  he  has  made  corroborative  state- 
ments, and  he  says  "  No,"  you  must  take  his  answer,  be- 
cause that  is  collateral ;  you  cannot  ti-y  the  cause  between 
the  witnesses 

Judge  Neilson— No — - 

Mr.  Evarts  (continuing)— Mrs.  Bradshaw  and  Bessie 
Turner,  as  to  which  is  mistaken  as  to  the  fact  of  the  cor- 
roborative statements  being  made  or  not  being  madt^. 
You  would  have  a  right  to  call  other  witnesses,  if  you 
had  them,  as  to  what  :\:rs.  Bradshaw  said,  and  if  yon 


TElS112l()yY  OF  MRS.   MAL'Ti/A   A.  BRADSrlAW. 


had  two  or  three  witnesses  present,  why  you  would  have 
a  conflict  of  trying  that  case. 

Judge  Neilson— But  you  interrogated  Bessie  Turner  on 
that  subject— opened  the  door. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  did  as  to  showing  whether  what  she 
then  told  Mr.  Beecher  was  the  first  statement  that  she 
made  concerning  it.   That  is  all. 

Judge  Neilson— She  proceeded  to  say  that  she  had  told 
no  one. 

Mr.  Evarts— Whether  she  told  Mr.  Beecher  before  was 
the  principal  point  of  inquiry,  so  far  as  INIr.  Beecher  was 
concerned.  Now,  whether  she  told  these  other  people 
was  immaterial  in  any  point. 

Judge  Neilson— I  helieve  we  wiU  take  the  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  be  so  good  as  to  note  our 
objection  and  exception. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Can  you  turn  to  the  question,  Mr.  Re- 
porter 1 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  as  follows : 
"  In  that  conversation  did  she  state  to  you  that  Theodore 
Tilton  had  charged  his  wife  with  the  commission  of  adul- 
tery with  Henry  Ward  Beecher  ? " 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir  ;  she  did. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Speak  a  little  louder  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  that  conversation  last,  Mrs.  Brad- 
shaw  ?   A.  At  least  two  hours. 

Q.  Now,  what  did  she  say  upon  that  subject  1 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  object  to, 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  have  sufiicient  conflict 
upon  that  one  point. 

IMr.  Beacb— Well,  Sir,  we  only  want  to  get  the  language 
Miss  Turner  used. 

Judge  Neilson— The  subject  is  embraced  in  the  question. 

Mr.  Beach— I  know  it  is.  Sir,  but  not  the  language  ;  we 
want  to  get  the  facts. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all  that  Miss  Turner's  attention 
was  called  to. 

Judge  NeUson— Yes;  I  think  that  is  as  far  as  you 
can  go. 

Mr.  FuUerton— WeD,  whether  she  told  that  story  

Mr.  Evarts— No— whether  she  told  about  the  charge 
having  been  made. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Stenographer,  can  you  refer  to  that 
last  question  and  answer  ? 

Mr.  Beach  [readingl— *'  Had  you,  prior  to  leaving  Mari- 
etta, communicated  to  any  other  person  but  Mrs.  Putnam 
the  charges  that  Mr.  Tilton  made  against  Mr,  Beecher?" 
She  says  she  did. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  now.  a  question  embodying  that 
substance  is  put,  and  Mrs.  Bradshaw  says  she  did;  and 
there  is  your  contradiction,  I  think. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly,  Sir ;  but  we  have  a  right  to  have 
the  language  which  constitutes  the  contradiction. 

Mr.  Evarts — This  is  not  a  new  question  in  this  case. 
Your  Honor  has  limited  them  over  and  over  again. 


Judge  Neilson — I  think  we  wou't  go  any  fmiuer  tlian 
this;  I  think  this  answer  covers  it. 

Mr.  FuUerton  [to  the  witness]- Did  you  make  any 
request  of  Bessie  Turner  diuing  that  conversation,  or 
after  she  communicated  this  fact  to  you? 

Mr.  Evarts — That  is  objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— It  may  be  introductory  to  something; 
we  may  as  well  take  it. 

The  Witness— I  told  her  not  to  repeat  the  charges. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No  ;  did  you  make  any  request  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  objected  to  ;  it  is  no  matter  what 
occurred  in  that  conversation,  as  I  view  it ;  and  your 
Honor  has  excluded  tne  conversation. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  we  have  n't  got  to  the  point  where 
the  objection  is  applicable,  as  yet. 

Judge  Neilson— This  is  a  mere  preliminary  question— 
"Did  you  make  any  request—"  to  be  answered  *'  Yes"  or 
"No." 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  make  any  request  to  her  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Now  you  need  not  answer  the  qtiestlon, 
although  I  put  it,  untU  we  determine  whether  it  is  proper 
or  not :  What  request  did  you  make  of  her  at  that  ime 
in  regard  to  repeating  it  1 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object. 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  recall  anything  in  Bessie 
Turner's  evidence  that  would  justify  that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yoiu:  Honor  will  perceive  that  there  is 
something  upon  the  subject  here. 

Judge  Neilson— Well. 

Mr.  Fullerton — fEeading] : 

When  you  told  Mrs.  Bradshaw.  did  she  say  anything, 
about  keeping  silent  in  regard  to  that  story,  to  you!  A. 
I  don't  remember  what  Mrs.  Bradshaw  said.  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  state  in  substance  anything  ? 

Then  the  witness  went  on  to  answer. 

Except— no ;  I  don't  think  she  said  anything ;  I  think 
that  every  one  I  told  it  to  remained  very  silent,  except 
Mr.  Richards,  axid  what  he  said  to  me  was,  "  Whom  God 
hath  joined  together  let  no  man  or  woman  put  asimder." 

Now,  I  want  to  contradict  her  in  that  respect ;  I  want 
to  show  that  Mrs.  Bradshaw  did  make  a  request  to  her, 
and  show  what  that  request  was. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  brings  us  right  to  the  proposal. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  have  gone  as  far  as  you  can 
go. 

Mr.  Beacb—It  brings  up  the  same  question  that  your 
Honor  has  decided.  In  admitting  the  other  portion  of 
what  we  have  proved. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  this  other  is  specific,  and  is  a  si)e- 
cific  contradiction  ;  I  don't  think  that  this  is. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir ;  but  we  want  the  si>ecific  contra- 
diction u.  on  that  pomt  also. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  should  have  asked  Miss  Turner. 

Mr.  Beach— We  did  a.sk  Miss  Tinner,  specifically, 
whether  Mrs.  Bradshaw  did  not  request  her  to  keep  si 


410 


TEE   T1L10:N'-BEEGHER  IBIAL. 


.ence  in  regard  to  this  matter.  Now,  Sir,  it  is  an  attack 
upon  tLie  credibility  and  tlie  memory  of  Miss  Turner. 

Judge  Neilson— I  understand  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  is  the  very  point ;  the  law  does 
not  allow  it  to  be  made,  except  within  the  issue. 

Mr.  Beach— It  does  not! 

Mr.  Evarts— We  wiU  be  trying  aU  sorts  of  questions 
with  all  the  witnesses  if,  on  collateral  inquiries,  you  are 
gomg  to  bring  in  testimony. 

Judge  Neilson— On  collateral  questions  the  answer  is  to 
be  taken;  and  that  stands,  of  course. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir  ;  but,  is  this  a  collateral  question  1 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  not  said  so  ;  if  I  thought  it  was 
I  would  have  excluded  the  last  question. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  suppose  so.  If  it  is  not  a  collateral 
question,  we  have  a  right  to  contradict  this  witness. 

Judge  Neilson— What  is  the  question  that  was  put  to 
Bessie  Turner  on  this  subject  1 

Mr.  FuUerton— [Reading] : 

When  you  told  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  did  she  say  anything 
about  keeping  silent  in  regard  to  this  story  to  you  1  A. 
I  do  not  remember  what  Mrs.  Bradshaw  said. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  is  a  mere  impression  of  the 
witness ;  it  would  not  amount  to  a  contradiction. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  yes,  Sir ;  if  the  witness  says  she  don't 
remember,  you  can  prove  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  goes  to  the  memory. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir ;  but  she  says,  in  addition  to  that, 
that  she  does  not  think  Mrs.  Bradshaw  said  anything. 

Mr.  Evarts — Then,  if  there  was  anything  special  that 
you  wanted  to  prove  that  she  said,  you  should  have  asked 
her,  "  Didn't  Mrs.  Bradshaw  say  so  and  so?" 

Mr.  Beach— We  have  read  it  three  times  to  the  counsel, 
and  if  he  cannot  apprehend  it  on  three  readings,  we  will 
make  no  further  effort  to  reach  his  imderstanding. 

Mr.  Evarts— All  that  you  read  is  this  [reading] : 
**  When  you  told  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  did  she  say  anything 
about  keeping  silent  in  regard  to  this  story  to  you  9" 

Mr.  Beach— Very  well. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  she  says :  "  I  do  not  remember  what 
Mrs.  Bradshaw  said  "—that  is  the  whole  answer  to  that 

question.     "  Q.  Did  you  state  in  substance  "  and 

then  they  leave  that  question  incomplete,  because  the 
witness  apparently  resumes  her  answer. 

Except— no;  I  don't  think  she  said  anything;  I 
don't  think  she  said  an>  thing. 

Now,  if  you  wanted  to  contradict  her  by  Mrs.  Brad- 
shaw, by  proving  that  Mrs.  Bradshaw  said  certain 
words— to  wit,  a  request— then  you  should  have  put  the 
question. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  didn't  we  put  it  to  her  when  we  asked 
if  Mrs.  Bradshaw  said  auji^hing  to  her  about  keeping 
silent  in  regard  to  this  f 

Mr.  Evarts— You  didn't  ask  her. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir:  "  anything." 

Judge  Neilson— The  suggestion  is  that  if  you  had  put  to 


Bessie  Turner  the  very  words  which  you  can,  perhaps, 
prove  by  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  that  would  have  helped  her 
recollection. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir ;  "  anything  respecting  her  keeptag 
silence" — "  that  draws  her  attention  to  the  specific  sub- 
ject"—" or  anything  in  substance"— that  we  can  show  in 
our  question.  We  put  now  the  question  to  Mrs.  Brad- 
shaw : 

"  In  that  conversation  did  you  say  anything  to  Miss 
-Turner  in  regard  to  keeping  silence  about  this  story  1" 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  put  the  question  in  another  form, 
Sir  [Beading] :  "  Did  you  not  tell  Mrs.  Bradshaw  that 
Theodore  Tilton  had  charged  his  wife  with  adultery; 
and  did  not  Mrs.  Bradshaw  then  say  to  you,  *  You  must 
not  teU  anybody  of  it'?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  don't  remember 
any  such  thing  about  it." 

Mr.  Evarts— Where  is  that. 

Mr.  FuUerton— That  is  on  page  512,  about  midway. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  is  what  we  were  on  before. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No ;  that  is  what  we  are  on  now. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  in  view  of  that  last  (that  is  a 
qualification  somewhat  of  the  position),  you  may  put  the 
question  in  the  terms  of  that  last  answer  that  you  have 
read  there. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  be  good  enough  to  note 
our  objection  and  exception. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton  [to  the  witness]— When  Miss  Turner  told 
you  that  Theodore  Tilton  had  charged  his  wife  with  adul- 
tery, did  you  say  to  her,  ia  substance,  "  You  must  not  tell 
anybody  of  it  ?"  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Your  answer  was,  "  Yes,  Sir  V  A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  aU,  madam. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  all,  Mxs.  Bradshaw. 

TESTmONY  OF  JOHN  WOOD. 

John  Wood  was  next  called  on  behalf  of 
plaintiff,  and,  being  duly  sworn,  testified  as  follows : 

Mr.  Fullerton— What  is  your  occupation?   A.  Printer. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  business  t 
A.  In  business  for  myself,  do  you  mean  t 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  A.  Since  August,  1872. 

Q.  And  before  that,  how  were  you  in  business?  A.  I 
had  charge  of  an  incorporation  for  about  four  years. 

Q.  Printmg?   A.  Prmtlng;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  what  was  the  character  of  your  business, 
printing  newspapers,  or  pamphlets,  or  books,  or  what! 
A.  All  kinds  of  printing— newspapers,  books,  and  job 
work. 

Q.  Everything?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Did  you  know  Victoria  Woodhull  ?   A.  I  did. 
Q.  And  when  did  you  become  acquainted  with  her  ?  A 
In  May,  1870. 

Q.  And  did  you  know  Col.  Blood,  her  husband?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 


TESTIMONY  O. 

Q.  Andwlien  did  you  become  acquainted  witli  Mm? 
A.  At  the  same  time. 

Q.  Aud  IMr.  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews,  do  you  Imow  him  % 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  form  an  acquaintance  with  that 
gentleman  1  A.  It  was  somewheres  In  1870 ;  in  the  Fall 
of  1870, 1  think. 

Q.  Now  state  whether  or  not  you  printed  the  news- 
paper called  The  Woodhull  <£  Olaflin's  Weekly  f  A.  Yes, 
Sir.  * 

Q.  When  did  you  commence  its  publication?  A.  I 
commenced  the  publication  with  the  third  number,  I 
think  in  May,  1870,  when  I  had  charge  of  that  corpora- 
tion known  as  the  Journeymen  Printer's  Cooperative 
Association. 

A.  And  how  long  did  you  continue  to  print  or  pubUsh 
that  paper  ?  A.  I  think  till  about  February,  1872. 

Q.  And  then  what  became  of  it  ?  A.  It  was  then  taken 
to  the  office  of  TTie  American  Spiritualist. 

Q.  And  how  long  was  it  published  there  f  A.  I  think  it 
was  discontinued. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  in  May  or  June 
of  1872 ;  I  am  not  positive  of  the  time. 

Q.  Now,  was  it  afterward  resumed,  and  if  ao,  when  1 
A.  In  November. 

Q.  Of  what  year  1  A.  1872. 

Q.  And  who  printed  it  in  November,  1872  ?  A.  I  set 

the  type  for  it. 
Q.  Where  ?  A.  At  my  office. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  printed  there  f  A.  The  type  was  set 
there,  only. 

Q.  And  taken  to  a  press  somewhere  elsel  A.  Press- 
room, and  printed. 

Q.  Now,  what  time  in  1872  was  the  type  set  1  A.  In 
the  last  week  of  October. 

Q.  How  are  you  enabled  to  state  that  it  was  the  last 
week  of  October.  A.  Because  that  is  the  first  time  that  I 
had  any  men  employed  in  my  place-only  our  two  selves 
previotis  to  that. 

Q.  Howl  A.  That  is  the  first  time  that  I  had  any  men 
employed;  our  two  selves  used  to  do  all  the  work  previ- 
ous to  that  last  week  in  October. 

Q.  You  did  your  own  work,  you  say  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Among  yourselves  f  A.  Yes,  Sir,  our  two  selves. 

Q.  Whom  do  you  mean  f  A.  My  partner  and  myself. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  first  week  that  you  employed  any 
journeymen  I   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  first  week  in  October.  1872 1  A.  Last  week. 

Q.  The  last  week  of  October,  I  should  say,  1872.  And 
you  are  enabled  to  state  positively,  axe  you,  that  that 
paper  was  set  up  in  type.  That  nimiber  of  Woodhull  & 
Claflin'8  Weekly  in  the  last  week  of  October,  1872  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  the  form  go  out  from  your  place  I  A.  On 
Saturday  evexilT^,  the  26tli  of  October. 


JOHN    WOOD.  411 

Q.  And  by  whom  was  it  taken  1  A.  Taken  away  by  the 
carman  from  the  press-room. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  after  that  1  A.  I  saw  the  copy  of  the 
paper  after  that. 

Q.  How  long  after  !  A.  On  Monday. 

Q.  And  did  it  contain  the  article  which  had  been  set  up 
in  your  place  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  any  part  of  that  article  been  set  up  before  that 
time,  to  your  knowledge?   A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  If  it  had  been,  you  had  no  connection  with  it!  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  As  a  whole  or  a  part  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  any  number  of  that  paper 

was  published  after  May,  1872  

Mr.  Beach— May  or  June. 

Mr.  Fullerton— May  or  June,  1872— up  to  the  first  week 
of  November,  1874 1  A.  I  don't  think  there  was  any ; 
the  number  that  I  done  was  numbered  after  the  one  that 
was  stopped  in  May  or  July,  1872. 

Mr.  Beach— Followed  regularly?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  followed 
in  regular  ord^. 

Mr.  Fullerton- It  was  the  next  succeeding  number  1  A. 
The  succeeding  number ;  yes.  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  all. 

CEOSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  WOOD. 

Mr.  Sliearman— I  understand  you  that  tMs 
article  when  set  up,  or  the  paper  when  set  up— the  type 
of  the  paper  

Mr.  Evarts— The  form. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  form  was  taken  away  Oct.  26, 
1872  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  About  what  time  in  the  day  was  it  taken  I  A.  It 
was  in  the  evening. 

Q.  When  was  it  set  up  ?  A.  It  was  set  up  during  that 
week,  from  Monday  to  Saturday  evening. 

Q.  State  whether  you  set  up  the  whole  of  that  paper  in 
one  day,  if  you  please  1  [Handing  witness  the  number  of 
Woodhull  <&  Olaflin's  Weekly.']  A.  No;  I  did  not  set  it 
up  only  during  the  week  fiom  Monday  to  Saturday. 

Q.  Did  you  begin  on  Monday  1  A.  Beginning  on  Mon- 
day, we  commenced,  and  set  all  except  this  large  type — 
this  large  speech.  That  was  set  up  about  two  months 
before. 

Q.  The  speech,  in  large  type  was  set  up  about  two 
months  before  %   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  your  office  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  with  a  view  for  a 
pamphlet. 

Q,  And  which  part  of  this  paper  did  you  set  up  last  1 
A.  I  set  up  the  Beecher  matter  last,  this  article. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is,  the  Beecher  article  1  A.  The 
Beecher  article. 

INIi-.  Shearman— Do  you  recollect  what  time  in  the 
day  you  set  that  up,  or  what  day  1  A.  I  think  we  got 
the  fli'st  copy  for  that  article  on  Tuesday. 


413 


IHE   TlLmN-BEECRER  TEIAL. 


Q.  That  would  be  Oct.  22  I  A.  About  that  date ;  yes. 
Sir. 

Q.  This  speech  that  you  set  up  two  months  before  was 
the  speech  delivered  in  Boston,  was  it  not,  by  Mrs. 
WoodhuU  !   A.  I  am  not  positive  about  it. 

Q.  Look  at  it?  [Handing  the  witness  the  paper.]  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  A  speech  delivered  before  the  Association  of  Spirit- 
ualists in  Boston  on  September  11, 1872  ?  A.  Yes,  Sii\ 
Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Wood,  I  see  that  this  number  of  this 
paper  is  Volume  5,  No.  7.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say 
that  the  next  preceding  number,  Volume  5,  being  No.  6, 
was  printed  in  May  or  June  of  that  year  ?  A.  May  or 
June ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  This  succeeded  in  number  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— How  do  you  know  that,  Mr.  Wood  ?— 
did  you  see  it  1  did  you  print  the  previous  number  1  A. 
No,  but  when  giving  instructions  to  make  up  that  paper 
they  gave  me  a  marked  paper,  the  previous  number,  with 
the  dates  changed  and  the  numbers  changed,  as  they  do 
every  week. 

Q.  You  did  not  print  any  of  the  WoodhuU  dk  Claflin 
TTeefcKes,  if  I  understand  you  correctly,  between  Febru- 
ary, 1872,  and  the  issue  of  this  number?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  were  the  periods  of  publication  of  this  paper, 
Mr.  Wood?  A.  Every  week;  weekly, 

Q.  Prior  to  what  time?  A.  It  was  published  weekly 
all  the  time,  from  the  time  that  T  done  it  in  May,  1871, 
until  February— May,  1870,  until  February,  1872. 

Q.  Well,  after  that  you  did  not  print  it  any  more  until 
this  number ;  now,  how  often  was  it  printed  after  this 
number  commenced  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  suspended  after 
that  number,  and  the  next  number  was  got  out  in  De- 
cember or  January. 

Q.  1873  ?   A.  1873. 

Q.  December,  : 872,  or  January,  1873  1  A.  Yes,  Sir; 
and  continued  wee.Xly  after  that. 

Q.  Have  you  conti  lued  to  print  it  since  ?  A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  have  printed  it  down  to  the  present  time  f  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  this  set  up  in  common  type,  or  was  it  stereo- 
typed? A.  It  was  set  up  in  common  type,  and  then 
stereotyped  afterward,  after  there  was  an  edition 
printed  from  the  type. 

Q.  Well,  this  particular  edition  ;  can  you  tell  the  edi- 
tion ?   A.  I  could  not  tell.  Sir. 

Q.  Is  there  any  dilference  in  the  type  !  A.  No,  Sir,  there 
Is  no  difference. 

Q.  Canyon  print  from  type  ttat  is  uaed  for  stereo- 
typing ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  alL 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  alL 


HEJsRY  C.  BOWEN  TESTIFIES  FOR  THE  PLAIN- 
TIFF. 

Mr.  Fullerton — Henry  C.  Bowen. 

Hem'3'  C.  Bowen,  sworn  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  testi- 
fied as  follows : 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Bowen,  I  believe  you  have  been  for 
many  years  a  resident  of  Brooklyn  ?  A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  many,  Su-?   A.  About  30. 

Q.  And  you  are  now  the  publisher  and  proprietor  of 
The  Inde^oendent,  I  believe  'I  A.  I  am.  • 

Q.  And  for  many  years  in  New- York  a  merchant  ?  A, 
Y'^es,  Sii". 

Q.  When  did  you  become  acquainted  with  Theodora 
Tilton  ?   A.  About  18  or  20  years  ago,  I  should  think. 

Q.  I  suppose  you  have  known  Mr.  Beecher  a  longer 
period  than  that,  have  you  not?  A.  About  28  or  30 
years.  .  _ 

THE  RESIGNATION  LETTER  DELIVERED  AT 
A  PREARRANGED  MEETING. 

Q.  1  want  to  call  your  attention,  Mr.  Boweiv 
to  the  month  of  December,  1870,  and  ask  you  if  you  recol- 
lect of  being  a  bearer  of  a  note  or  letter  from  Mr.  Tilt<:>a 
to  Mr.  Beecher  in  that  month  ?  A.  I  recollect  bearing 
such  a  letter. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  the  date  upon  which  you  bore  it  to 
Mr.  Beecher  and  delivered  it?  A.  I  think  it  was  on  Mou- 
day  following  Christmas  day. 

Q.  Chiistmas  was  on  Sunday  1  A.  On  Sunday,  and  it 
was  on  Monday. 

Q.  And  it  a-;  as  the  following  day  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  deliver  that  note  1  A.  At  the  house 
of  James  Freeland. 

Q.  And  praj^  who  was  Mr.  James  Freeland  ?  A.  A  resi- 
dent of  Brooklyn,  residing  in  Columbia-st. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Mr.  Beecher  there !  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  it  by  accident  that  you  met  Mm  there  ?  A.  By 
appointment. 

Q.  Appointment  made  with  whom!  A.  I  wrote  a 
note  to  Mr.  Freeland  asking  him  to  make  the  appointment. 

Q.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  Mr.  Beecher's  testi- 
mony upon  that  subject,  Mr.  Bowen.  He  states  that  yon 
called  in  at  Mr.  Beecher's  house  casually ;  that  he  did  not 
expect  you,  and  you  delivered  that  note  to  him ;  doe« 
that  coiTespond  with  your  recollection  ?   A.  It  does  not. 

Q.  With  what  degree  of  certainty  are  you  enabled  to 
say  that  you  did  deliver  that  note  at  Mrs.  Freeland's 
house,  and  in  pursuance  of  an  appointment  through  Mr. 
Freeland  ?  A.  I  am  positive  that  I  delivered  it  there. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  day,  or  evening,  did  you  de- 
liver it ?  A.  About  4  or  5  o'clock  in  the  afternoon ;  I  am 
not  sure  about  that. 

Q.  Was  the  note  sealed,  or  unsealed  t  A.  I  am  not  posi- 
tive in  i-egiird  to  that. 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher  also  states  that  you  informed  him  tlurt 
you  were  ignorant  of  the  contents  of  the  note. 


TESTlMOyY  OF  I 

>fR.  BOWEX'S  TESTBfONY  EECEIVED  AETEE 
STERN  OPPOSITION. 

Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  wait  a  moment. 

Mr.  Beacli— ^^Tiat  for  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Do  you  recollect  whetlier  tliat  was  so  or 
not  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Bo-vren,  if  a  witness  at  all,  is  a  -witness 
to  the  Interview.  It  is  not  a  question  of  contradiction  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  statements. 

Mr.  BeacTi— Yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  Evaits— ^Ir.  Beeclier  lias  'been  a  witness  on  one 
Bide;  anotlier  witness  conies  on  tlie  other  side.  It  is 
not  a  question  of  contradiction  of  Mr.  Beecher's  state- 
ments as  produced  on  tlie  dli-ect  examination— or  tlie 
cross-examination  of  ]Mr.  Beecher,  to  be  contradicted 
Mr.  Bowen. 

Mr.  Beach— We  offer  it  as  a  contradiction  of  Mr.  Beech- 
er's  statements  on  his  direct  examination. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  offer  to  prove  another  witness's  view 
of  an  occurrence.  Of  course  you  must  examine  him  in 
the  usual  way,  unless  you  point  me  to  some  inquiries  that 
you  put  to  Mr.  Beecher. 

Judge  Xeilson — Suppose  ymi  put  the  inquiiy ;  cannot 
70U  contradict  any  statement  that  a  witness  makes  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— You  cannot  in  that  form  ;  you  can  call  an- 
other witness  to  the  transaction.  A  witness  s  vears  that 
a  mast  is  so  many  feet  high ;  another  witness  can  swear 
that  it  is  so  many  feet  high. 

Judge  yeil-on— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  that  is  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Evarts — No,  the  emphasis  is  different.  If  a  "wit- 
ness speaks  to  a  conversation  of  a  third  person,  another 
witness  can  speak  to  that  conversation,  and  the  two  wit- 
nesses give  different  stoiies.  It  is  not  a  question  of  con- 
tradiction of  witnesses ;  it  is  the  contradiction  of  pro- 
ducing witnesses  that  give  different  views,  if  your  Honor 
please ;  hut  each  witness  must  he  examined  according  to 
the  rules  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Beach — I  most  heartily  coincide  in  that  conclusion, 
Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts — You  cannot  present  leading  questions  to  a 
witness  of  your  own.  In  order  to  prove  an  interview  you 
tnufit  prove  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Go  on,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Stenographer,  will  you  repeat  the 
Question  1 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Mr.  Beecher  also  states  that  you  informed  him  that 
you  were  ignorant  of  the  contents  of  the  note ;  do  you 
recollect  whether  that  was  so  or  not  ?" 

The  V\ltness— That  was  not  so. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  object  to,  if  your  Honor  please.  It 
is  a  ief-diug  quiisticn. 
Mi.'.  Btach— it  is  n;>L  a  leading  question. 


EXET    C.   BOWEN.  4ia 

Judge  Neilson— Oh,  I  think  the  question  is  rather  lead- 
ing—to be  avoided  hereafter. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  put  exactly  as  if  it  was  in  the  form  of 
a  contradiction,  to  which  Mr.  Beeeher's  attention  has 
been  called. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  just  the  form  that  we  propose  to 
put  it  in. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now  will  you  show  me  

Judge  Xeilson- We  will  let  that  stand,  as  merely  con- 
tradicting v,  hat  a  previous  witness  has  said,  which  it  la 
competent  to  do.  I  think  you  cannot  do  it  by  a  leading- 
interrogatory  ;  you  must  ask  the  general  question. 

Mr.  Beach— We  put  a  question  to  this  witness  stating- 
that  Mr.  Beecher,  a  witness  and  a  party,  made  a  c-ertain 
statement  in  regard  to  an  interview  with  this  witness  j 
and  we  ask  him  what  is  his  recollection  upon  that  subject. 
Now,  is  that  leading.  Sir!  I  submit  to  your  Honor,  nok 
It  is  a  perfectly  admissible  inquiry. 

Judge  Neilson— Wen,  it  wiU  stand  as  it  Is,  only  I  think 
that  the  better  way  is  to  examine  the  witness  in  the  ordi- 
nary form ;  if  it  amounts  to  correction  or  contra-diction,. 
well  and  good. 

Evarts— It  is  not  a  question  of  extra-judicial  stat^e- 
ments  of  Mr.  Beecher  that  are  now  being  called  for. 

Judge  Neilson — It  is  perfectly  competent  to  contradict 
any  statements  made  by  the  witness,  and  quite  early  in 
our  discussions  Mr.  Abbott  handed  up  a  case  to  Mr. 
Evarts,  which  was  read,  that  any  statement  made  by  a 
witness  could  be  contradicted  afterward. 

Mr.  Evarts— Anything  that  is  evidence  in  chief,  of 
course. 

Judge  Neilson— Whether  material  or  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  material  in  the  sense  of  giving  col- 
lateral evidence.  I  have  no  objection  to  this,  excepting^ 
that  the  inquiries  are  of  producing  an  independent  wit- 
ness to  speak  of  the  same  occurrence. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  he  must  be  examined  the  same  as  an. 
independent  witness,  according  to  the  rules  of  evidenc-e. 

Jadge  Neilson— I  think  so.  They  have  no  occasion  to 
lead  him.    Go  on,  Mr.  Fullerton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  supposed  the  rule  was,  Sir,  that  I  must 
repeat  the  language  of  the  witness  to  be  impeached  and 
ask  the  witness  upon  the  stand  whether  that  language 
was  used. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  you  may  be  allowed  to  do  so 
where  it  is  found  to  be  necessary. 

Mr.  Fullerton— In  this  case  I  will  put  the  question  in 
that  way. 

Judg?  Neilson — Well,  go  on. 

Mr.  Fullerton— In  that  conversation  did  Mr,  Beecher 
say  to  you  in  substance  that  it  was  his  judgment  that  a 
man  that  was  tainted  as  Mr.  Tilton  was  could  not  prop- 
erly be  retained  on  such  a  paper  without  doing  it  dam- 
age, refemug  to  The  Independent,  and  as  it  respected!^ 
Brooklyn  Vnion,  that  he  thought  Mr.  Tilton  an  impraoti' 


414  THE  TILTON'Bj 

©al  man,  that  he  -was  not  apt  to  agree  with  parties  or 
with  movements,  except  so  far  as  he  led  them,  and  that 
"  I  though  t  that  as  the  editor  of  the  Repuhlican  organ  in 
BrooM^Ti  he  would  be  found  to  be  a  man  that  would  get 
the  paper  into  trouble  ?" 

Mr.  Evarts— Don!t  answer,  Mr.  Bowen. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  should  first  examine  in  the 
usual  form,  and  if  you  don't  get  the  attention  of  the  wit- 
ness to  any  such  statement,  or  the  correction  of  any  such 
Statement,  then  you  may  put  the  simple  interrogatory. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  that  will  bring  a  stronger  ob- 
lection  than  this  one  has. 

Judge  Neilson— That  may  be. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Did  Mr.  Beecher,  In  that  Interview  on 
Monday,  following  Christmas  in  December,  1870,  advise 
you  against  the  retention  of  Mr.  Tilton  as  editor  of  The 
Independent  f 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  object  to,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Judge  NeUson— It  is  too  leading.  Did  he  give  you  any 
advice  upon  the  subject  of  retaining  Mr.  Tilton;  if  so, 
whati 

Mr.  Evarts— The  point,  If  your  Honor  please,  Is  this  : 
that  this  is  not  an  examination  of  the  witness,  except  in 
chief.  He  is  called  to  speak  to  an  interview  of  which 
one  party  to  it  has  given  a  view.  It  is  the 
ordinary  case  of  a  witness  on  one  side  speaking  to  an 
occurrence  ;  the  witness  caUed  on  the  other  side  to  speak 
to  the  same  occurrence  is  to  speak  to  it  as  an  indepen- 
dent witness,  and  under  the  same  rules  of  examination 
that  the  first  witness  was  examined.  The  fact  that  a  wit- 
ness has  first  been  called  on  one  side  to  speak  concerning 
an  occurrence,  does  not  alter  the  rules  of  examining 
another  witness  who  Is  called  by  the  opposite 
party  to  speak  concerning  the  same  occurrence, 
it  being  evidence  In  chief.  All  this  apparatus 
of  questions,  and  confinement  of  contradiction  to  ques- 
tions, is  based  upon  not  evidence  in  chief,  or  to  the 
merits,  but  collateral  impeachment  by  out  of  court  to  the 
contrary.  Now,  that  is  not  this  case.  There  was  an  in- 
terview between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen.  Mr. 
Beecher  has  given  his  view  of  it ;  Mr.  Bowen  is  called 
here  either  to  confirm  or  to  give  a  different  view.  What- 
ever it  may  be,  he,  in  the  hands  of  his  counsel,  is  a  pri- 
mary witness,  to  be  examined  according  to  the  rules  of 
evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well.  That  only  goes  to  the  form 
of  the  question  to  be  put.  It  being  conceded  that  it  was 
proper  to  call  the  witness  to  correct  or  contradict  the 
statements. 

Mr.  Beach— The  Idea,  if  your  Honor  please,  that  the 
contradiction  of  a  witness  is  confined  to  statements  which 
he  has  made  out  of  court,  repugnant  to  the  evidence  he 
gives  In  court,  and  to  which  his  attention  Is  primarily 
and  preliminarily  called,  is  a  somewhat  novel  one.  I 
suppose  we  can  contradict  a  witness  by  proving  that  a 
atatement  to  which  he  swears  is  inaccurate. 


EOHEB  TBIAL. 

Judge  Neilson— Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  Sir,  Mr.  Beecher  upon  the  staT)d 
swears  that,  upon  a  certain  occasion,  he  communicatod  a 
certain  thing  to  Mr.  Bowen,  the  witness  on  the  stand. 
We  can  contradict  that,  I  suppose,  Sir  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  1  By  proving  what  did  take  place. 
Mr.  Beach— By  proving.  Sir,  that  no  such  thing  took 
place. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  you  cannot. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  we  can  do  it,  and  will  do  It. 

J udge  Neilson— There  Is  no  trouble  about  it,  gentlemen. 
.Tc  have  gone  along  upon  the  theory  from  the  first,  and  it 
is  so  everywhere,  that  when  a  witness  on  one  side  makes 
certain  statements,  the  other  side  may  call  witnesses  to 
correct,  explain,  or  contradict.  The  only  question  is 
whether  they  shall  put  at  once  to  Mr.  Bowen,  leading 
questions. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  how  can  we  contradict  1— and  see 
what  a  dilemma  you  would  put  us  in. 

Judge  NeUson— Do  it  this  way :  Ask  Mr.  Bowen  whether 
anything  was  said  on  a  given  subject. 

Mr.  Beach— But  Mr.  Beecher  swears  to  a  specific  declara- 
tion. Suppose  we  don't  want  all  of  the  conversation  f 

Judge  Neilson— It  may  not  be  worth  taking  altogether, 

Mr.  Beach— Very  weU,  Sir,  that  is  what  we  suppose, 
but  your  Honor's  rule,  I  submit,  of  examination,  would 
force  upon  us  an  inquiry  in  regard  to  a  portion  of  the 
conversation  which  we  do  not  desire,  and  which  is  not 
necessary  for  the  contradiction  of  Mr.  Beecher.  Still,  I 
understand  from  my  colleague.  Sir,  that  we  are  quite 
wUling  to  take  that  course. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  are  at  liberty  to  interrogate 
him  whether  anything  was  said  upon  a  given  subject  or 
topic,  or  branch  of  a  subject. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Without  indicating  precisely  what  yofi 
want. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor,  we  all  take  too  narrow 
view  of  this  question,  and  I  will  state  my  reasons  fo. 
making  that  observation.  ItwUl  be  remembered  tha 
Mr.  Beecher  stated  here  in  court  that  the  cause  of  hli 
overwhelming  grief  on  the  Ist  of  January  following  the 
delivery  of  this  letter  was  in  consequence  of  s  -me  advice 
that  he  had  given  to  Mr.  Bowen  on  the  27th  of  the  De- 
cember previous  as  to  the  dismissal  of  Mr.  Tilton  from 
The  Independent. 

Judge  Neilson— T  understand  that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  we  propose  to  take  away  the 
foundation  of  that  grief,  to  show  that  it  was  caused  by 
another  reason,  and  not  by  the  one  stated  by  the  witness 
then  upon  the  stand. 

Judge  Neilson— You  can  do  that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  Important  for  us  to  show  that  no 
such  advice  was  given  at  that  time,  and  consequently  it 
could  not  be  the  cause  of  the  great  commotion. 


Th'STIMONY   OF  HBNBY   0.   BOW  EN. 


Judge  Neilson— You  can  do  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  can  show  it,  but  not  by  leading  quee- 
;ion8. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  have  tried  both  kinds  of  questions, 
Old  have  beer  met  with  the  same  kind  of  objection. 
Mr.  Evarts— Both  leading. 

3Ir.  Fullerton— Both  leading,  and  not  leading ;  I  al- 
tered them  to  pleaae  you  in  the  first  place,  and  then  to 
!)lea8e  the  Court. 

Judge  iSreilson— You  are  at  liberty  to  ask  whether  any- 
hing  was  said  on  a  given  subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— Then  what  was  said  ? 

Judge  Nellson— Yes,  go  on. 

Mr.  Fullerton— What  advice,  if  any,  did  Mr.  Henry 
Vard  Beecher  give  you  on  the  Monday  following  Christ- 
Qas,  December,  1870,  when  you  delivered  this  letter, 
nth  reference  to  the  discharge  of  Theodore  Tilton  from 
lis  position  on  The  Independent  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  object  to,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Of  course. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  assumes  he  crave  him  any  advice, 
iliis  witness  must  be  examined  as  all  other  witnesses  are 
xamined. 

Judge  Neilson— I  understood  that.  I  assented  to  your 
aggestion  on  that  point. 
Mj.  Evarts— Your  Honor  pointed  it  out. 
Judge  Neilson— It  is  rather  leading,  Mr.  Fullerton. 
Mr.  Evarts— They  are  to  ask,  was  anything  said  on 
jtiat  subject ;  then  what  was  said. 
Judge  Neilsoii— Y'es. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  asked  the  question,  what  was  said  on 
tiat  subject,  if  anything. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  was  not  your  question. 
IMr.  Fullerton— Yes  it  was.  Just  read  it  Mr.  Reporter, 
)r  the  Instruction  of  Mr.  Evarts.  I  remember  it. 
The  Tribvme  stenographer  read  the  question  as  follows : 
What  advice,  if  any,  did  Mr.  Heniy  Ward  Beecher  give  on 
le  Monday  following  Christmas,  December,  1870,  when 
ou  delivered  this  letter,  with  reference  to  the  discharge  of 
heodore  Tilton  from  his  position  on  The  Independent  f" 
Judge  Neilson— This  question  is  whether  he  gave  you 
Qy  ad%ice  on  that  subject. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  we  except  to. 
Judge  Neilson— Well. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  question  is  was  anything  said  on  a 
jrtain  subject,  without  characterizing  it  as  advice. 
Judge  Neilson— Well. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  if  he  says  nothing,  there  is  the  end ; 
he  says  something,  then  what  was  said  1 

0  ADYICE  BY  ME.  BEECHEK  THAT  TILTON 

1  BE  DISCHARGED. 

j  Mr.  Fiillerton— Will  you  answer,  Mr.  Bowen  ? 
The  Witness  (to  the  stenographer)- Read  the  ques- 
on. 


415 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  as  fol- 
lows : 

"What  advice,  if  anv.  did  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  give 
you  on  the  Monday  foil  owing  Christmas,  December,  1870, 
when  you  delivered  this  letter  with  reference  to  the 
discharge  of  Theodore  Tilton  from  his  position  on  The 
Independent  ?" 

The  Witness— Shall  I  answer  that,  your  Honor  1 

Judge  Neilson — The  objection  Is  to  the  word  "  advice.'* 
It  depends  somewhat  upon  the  opinion  and  construction 
of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  shall  I  omit  that' word,  thent 

Judge  Neilson— You  had  better. 

Mr.  Fullerton— What,  if  anything,  was  said  by  Mr. 

Beecher  in  that  conversation  with  reference  to  the  dis- 
charge of  Mr.  Tilton  from  his  position  at  that  time  on  Th€ 
Index)endent?   A.  Shall  I  answer  that! 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

The  Witness— None  whatever. 

Mr.  Fullerton— What,  if  anything,  was  said  upon  tke 
subject  of  his  retention  as  editor  of  The  Brooklyn  TTnton 
at  that  time !  A.  I  don't  recollect  that  anything  import- 
ant was  said  in  regard  to  his  remaining  on  The  Brooklyn 
Union.  It  might  have  been  alluded  to,  but  I  have  no  re- 
membrance of  anything  definite  stated  about  it. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  in  reference  to  his  fitness  for 
the  position  of  contributor  or  editor  of  either  one  of  those 
papers  ?  A.  Nothing  whatever,  according  to  my  recollec- 
tion. 

Q.  Did  you  state  to  Mr.  Beecher  upon  that  occasion  any 
reason  why  you  requested  the  interview  at  IVIr.  Freeland's 
house  ]  A.  That  it  might  be  private. 

Q.  Was  any  one  present  during  that  interview  i  A.  No 
one. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  this  general  question  now,  Mr. 
Bowen,  whether  anything  was  said  by  Mr.  Beecher  at 
that  interview  to  you  which  influenced  you  in  any  degree 
whatever  in  the  action  which  you  subsequently  took 
with  reference  to  Mr.  Tilton  1 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  object  to. 

Judge  Neilson— We  cannot  take  that. 

Mr.  Porter— They  are  asking  for  the  effect  upon  his 
action  of  words  not  stated. 

Mr.  Beach— Will  your  Honor  please  consider  a  moment 
whether  we  cannot  prove  that  Mr.  Beecher  said  or  did 
nothing  which  operated  to  produce  the  discharge  of  Mr, 
Tilton  from  his  business  association  with  Mr.  Bowen  1 

Judge  Neilson— You  can  prove  he  said  and  did  nothing 
calculated  to  lead  to  that  result,  but  going  beyond  that 
calls  in  the  operation  of  this  witness's  mind. 

Mr.  Beach— Very  well,  Sir.  Mr.  Beecher  has  over  and 
over  again,  with  repeated  emphasis,  said  that  he  was 
afflicted  and  sorrow-stricken  from  the  fact  that  he  had 
influenced  in  some  degree  Mr.  Bowen  to  discharge  TUton 
from  his  employment.  He  uses  that  expression,  Sir :  he 
himself  swears  that  he  exerted  that  influence 
upon  Bowen,  and  may  we  not  inquire    from  Mr. 


416 


THE   TILTOJ^-BDECEEB  TRIAL. 


Bowen,  the  party  who  was  influenced,  whether  Mr. 
Belcher  at  any  time  said  or  did  anything  which  influ- 
enced him  La  his  treatment  of  Mr  Tilton  or  in  his  dis- 
charge of  Tilton? 

Judge  Ncilson— If  it  was  calculated  to  influence  him, 
you  can  ask  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— That,  in  our  view,  is  perhaps  even  more 
objectionahle. 

Mr.  Beach— T  should  suppose  it  would  he. 

Judge  Neil  son— The  only  o^jjection  to  this  CLuestion  is 
that  it  calls  for  the  operation  of  this  witness's  mind. 

Mr.  Beach— Very  weU,  Sir.  Mr.  Beecher  has  testified 
in  regard  to  the  operation  upon  his  mind,  by  his  own  ac- 
tion. He  says  he  did  operate  upon  Mv.  Bowen,  and  did 
influence  Mr.  Bowen. 

Mr.  Evarts— Where  1 

Mr.  Beach— Over  and  over  again,  some  twenty  times  in 

the  course  of  his  testimony. 
Mr.  Evarts  [in  a  loud  voice]— Where  1 
Mr.  Beach  [excitedly]- Look  for  it  and  find  it« 
Mr.  Evarts— Ah!   [Laughter, J  That  is  not  the  way  to 

dispose  of  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  it  is  the  way  to  dispose  of  it.  I  am 
talking  to  the  intellect  and  the  recollection  of  this  Judge, 
who  knows  that  that  thing  was  said  over  and  over  again, 
and  if  your  Honor  is  willing  to  sit  here  I  am  willing  to 
look  up  the  evidence. 

Mr.  FuUerton- Your  Honor  will  recollect  the  letter  that 
he  said  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Bowen  the  next  day,  where  he 
spoke  of  the  influence. 

Mr.  Evarts— Let  us  see  that.  WeU,  we  have  produced 
evidence,  and  produced  it  in  a  proper  shape.  Now,  if 
you  want  to  show  whether  or  not  he  did  say  anything  to 
influence,  show  what  they  said. 

Mr.  Porter— And  let  the  jury  judge. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  jury  will  judge  whether  it  influenced 
him. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  Mr.  Beecher  judged  from  the  ef- 
fect  

Mr.  Evarts— He  had  a  right  to,  and  he  thought  it  did  in- 
fluence him. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  then  we  have  a  right  to  know  whether 
it  did  influence  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  diflference  does  it  make  whether  Mr. 
Beecher  was  mistaken  or  not  in  what  he  said  having  in- 
fluenced him? 

Mr.  Beach— It  makes  a  good  deal  of  diflPerence. 

Mr.  Evarts— Not  the  least. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  we  will  see  about  that  by  and  by. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Beecher  told  him  something,  and  he 
discharged  him  the  next  day, 

Mr.  Morris— He  says  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  told  him  something. 

Judge  Neilson— Of  course  you  are  at  liberty  to  examine 
ihis  witness  as  to  everything  that  took  place  between 


him  and  Mr.  Beecher,  for  the  purpose  of  con  action  of 

what  we  have  before  us. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  if  Mr.  Beeclier  testified  

Judge  Neilson— To  the  influencing.      That  was  \m 

opinion  or  impression ;  he  might  be  mistaken  in  that 
Mr.  Beach— That  was  a  fact.  He  testified  to  it  as  afa^^^t, 

Sir. 

Judge  NeUson— It  was  his  conclusion. 

Mr.  Beach— Most  certainly,  it  is  his  conclusion  fi-om  his 
own  actions,  but  he  presented  it  in  his  evidence  as  a  faci, 
which  he  gave  as  the  motive  for  certain  manifestaticEs 
on  his  part. 

Judg-e  Neilson— WeU,  you  can  inquire  as  to  the  fact. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  the  fact  is  the  influence.  Mr.  Beecher 
says  he  influenced  Mr.  Bowen. 

Mr.  Porter— Find  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Where  does  he  say  that. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  the  gentleman  probably  will  gain 
some  information  by  repeating  his  question.  I  referred 
him  to  the  evidence  when  he  asked  me  beZore,  and  I  re- 
peat the  reference. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  a  proper  reference. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir,  it  is  a  proper  reference. 

Mr.  Evarts— Look  at  the  letter ;  the  letter  speaks  for 
itself. 

Mr.  Beach— I  refer  you  to  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  look  at  the  letter. 

Mr.  Beach— If  you  want  it  get  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  want  to  be  told.  Sir,  over  and  over 
again  that  when  Mr.  Beecher  has  stated  what  he  said  fx; 
the  witness  to  influence  him,  and  confined  himself  to  that, 
they  can  ask  this  witness  whether  it  did  influence  him 
with  the  view  of  contradicting  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr,  Beach— You  have  not  been  told  that  once  yet. 

Mr.  Evarts— Heaven  only  knows  what  influenced  him. 
He  left  the  interview,  and  he  turned  Mr.  TUton  out  the 
next  day. 

Mr.  FuUerton— No,  he  did  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  soon  after. 

MR.   BOWEN  TELLS  HOW  HE  PRESENTED 
THE  SUMMONS  TO  MR.  BEECHER. 
Judge  Neilson — Leaving  out,  at  present,  the 

question  whether  it  influenced  Mr.  Bo^ven,  give  m  the 
facts— what  occurred  between  him  and  BTr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Now,  give  us  the  facts  that  ociurrw) 
between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher,  at  Mr.  Freeland's  hous* 
that  night. 

Judge  Neilson — Go  on,  Mr.  Bowen. 

The  Witness — Do  you  want  all  the  conversation  that 
was  had  t 

Q.  Yes  1 

Judge  Neilson — Yes  ;  go  on. 

A.  I  presented  the  letter  to  TIr.  Beecher  and  he  read  it 
and  put  it  into  his  pocket— be  had  his  overcoat  on. 
then  asked  him  \Th;<t  he  lind  to  say,  and  he  mode  a  replv 


TESTIMOM  OF 


ftomething like  tliis,  "  He  is  crazy,"  or  "  Itliinktlie  man  is 
crazy."  I  sat  a  few  momentdi,  and  lie  asked  me  if 
1  -svas  friendly  to  liim ;  I  said,  "  "We  liave  settled  our  diffl- 
eixlties,  Mr.  Beecher;  I  have  no  unfriendly  feeling  to- 
ward you."  He  said  lie  was  grlad  to  hear  that.  He  asked 
me  if  I— what  action  I  had  taken  in  regard  to  the  matter 
of  discharging  Mr.  Tilton  as  an  editor.  I  told  him  I  had. 
canceled  the  agreement — had  heretofore  done  it— that  it 
was  an  accomplished  fact.  He  wanted  to  know  if  I 
knew  anything  about  the  condition  of  his  family. 
I  told  him  I  did  not  — anything  special.  He 
said  he  could  enlighten  me  in  regard  to  some  facts  which 
he  thought  it  would  be  important  for  me  to  know. 
There  was  a  conversation  of  that  chai-acter  for  half  an 
hour,  I  shoixld  think,  amoiinting  to  about  that,  closing  by 
his  asking  me  to  call  at  his  house  the  next  morning  and 
have  a  conference  with  jVIts.  Beecher,  who  had  some  let- 
ters which  he  would  like  to  have  me  see.  That,  in  sub- 
stance, was  the  interview. 

Q.  If  I  understand  you  ooiTectly,  Mr.  Bowen,  he  did 
not  communicate  to  you  that  night  the  faets  which  he 
thought  you  might  want  to  know  or  which  might  interest 
you  ?  A.  He  did  not,  except  in  general,  he  alluded  

Q.  WeU,  in  the  terms  that  you  have  employed  in  an- 
swering the  question.  I  suppose  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Beecher  ask  you  if  you  knew  the  contents  of 
the  letter  which  you  then  delivered  i 

Mr.  Evarts— We  objei^t  to  that,  if  yonr  Honor  please. 
iThey  have  not  exhausted  this  witness's  statement  of  this 
'conversation  by  any  means, 

Mr.  Fullerton — Yes,  I  have. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  think  you  have.  Mr.  Btwen  says 
tliat  Mr.  Beecher  told  htm.inthe  course  of  a  conversation 
;hat  took  half  an  hour,  about  Mr.  Tilton's  family. 
Mr.  Fullerton— You  have  forgotten  that  "  period  of  si- 
ence"  after  he  read  that  letter  and  put  it  in  his  pocket. 
Mr.  Evarts— No,  I  have  not  forgotten- 
Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  wiil  you  be  kind  enough  to  state 
i-U  that  occurred  at  that  interview  on  the  29th  1  If  there 
«  anything  mor%  that  you  have  not  stated,  please  state 
t.  A.  He  said  that  he  had  received  lettere  fr<»m  Mrs. 
Hlton  from  Ohio  which  he  desired— which  comtainei  facts 
kUd  statemMits  which  he  desired  me  to  see,  and  that 
hey  wese  statements  of  a  damaging  character,  in  his 
udgment. 

Q.  My  (juestion  embraces  everything  that  wae  said 
hoi-e,  by  yourself  or  by  him  I   A.  That  is  the  substance, 

Q.  Do  you  recolleot  anything  else!  A.  I  don't  recolleet 
'.nything  else. 

Q.  Then  I  will  now  repeat  the  0[ueBti»n  I  put  when  the 
biection  was  made  :  Did  you  state  to  Mr.  Beecher  that 
light  whether  you  did  or  did  not  kaiow  the  contents  of 
he  note  you  delivered  ?   A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  youl   A.  He  did  not. 


TIES  BY    a   BOWEN.  All 

THE  LETTER  NOT  8H0A\TS^  TO  ME.  BOWEN 
BY  MR.  BEECHER. 
Q.  Did  J  OIL  know  the  contejits  of  the  ii»te? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  aay  to  Mr.  Beecuer  this.  <»,  in  substance, 
this  [referring  to  Mr.  Beecher's  testiaaony]  1 
Mr.  Evarts— Give  us  the  page. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  am  goiaig  to  read  from  mils  large  book. 
[To  the  witness.]  Did  you  say  this,  or,  in  substance,  thla 
—that  you  "  had  a  letter  for  him  from  Mr.  Tilton ;  that 
you  were  not  aware  of  its  contents,  but  as  you  were  going 
home  or  coming  this  way,  you  had  offered  to  laring  it  to 
him  for  Mr.  Tilton."   Is  that  so  %  A.  It  is  not. 

Q.  I  read  from  Mr.  Beecher's  e\ndence :  "  He  [that  ia 
jVIt.  BowenJ  said  he  did  not  know  exactly  what  was  in  it, 
and  with  that  I  handed  it  to  him  and  he  read  it."  Did 
Mr.  Beecher  hand  you  that  note,  and  did  you  read  it  1  A. 
He  did  not,  and  I  did  not  read  it,  there.  [Sensation.] 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher  also  states,  "  Mr.  Bowen  then  proceeded 
to  say  that  he  and  Mr.  Tilton  had  had  some  differences 
themselves.'*  Did  you  state  that  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Beecher  in  that  conversation  that 
you  had  dismissed  Mr.  TUton.  from  the  editorship  of  Tht 
Independentl 
Mr.  Evarts— Whereabouts  is  that ! 
Mr.  Fullerton— Following  right  on  there,  Mr.  Evarts. 
The  Witness— I  did. 

Q.  Or  did  you  say  that  you  had  canceled  your  agret 
ment  ?  A.  That  I  had  dismissed  him,  or  eanceled  the  en- 
gagement as  editor. 

BESSIE  TURNER'S  CHARGES  NOT  MENTIONED 
AT  THE  INTERVIEW. 
Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  that  night 
about  any  charges  of  Bessie  Turner  against  Mr.  Tilton ! 
A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it  whatever— of  the  name. 
Mr.  Evarts— Of  the  name,  did  you  sayl 
The  Witness— Of  the  name,  or  any  reference  to  the  In- 
dividuaL   I  did  not  know  the  person.   I  have  no  recol- 
lection in  regard  to  the  matter. 

Ml".  Fullerton— Did  he  narrate  to  you  that  night  any- 
thing that  Bessie  Turner  had  told  him  in  reference  to  any 
attempt  by  Mr.  Tilten  upon  her  virtue  1  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  it. 

Q.  Are  you  enabled  to  say  whether  he  did  or  did  not ! 
A.  I  am  not  able  t©  aoiswer  it  in  any  other  way  than  I 
have. 

Q.  BtAte  whether  you  received  a  letter  from  IMr.  Beecher 
after  that,  early  la  January,  1871 1  A.  I  believe  I  did. 
Q.  Have  you  the  letter  with  you  1  A.  I  think  I  have. 
Q.  Produce  it,  please.  [The  wltnese  produced  the  letter, 
whicL  w  .5  passed  aroimd  between  the  eounsel.] 

Mr.  Fullerton  [handing  the  letter  back  to  witness]— We 
have  that  already.  Mi-.  Bowen. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  letter  tunis  out  to  be  the  original 
letter  of  which  the  draft  is  already  In  evidence. 


418  TRB  TILTON-Bi 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— On  being  compared  tliat  is  found  to  be  so. 
Mr.  Morris— It  is  Exhibit  4:^. 

NO  CONNECTION  BETWEEN  THE  COVENANT 
AND  THE  AKBITEATION. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Do  you  recollect  what  has 
been  termed  here  the  "  Tripartite  Agreement  ?"  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  payment  of  the  $7,000  to  Mr. 
Tilton?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  The  result  of  the  arbitration  1  A.  I  do. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  state  whether  there  was  any  con- 
nection between  that  arbitration  and  the  payment  of  that 
money— I  mean  between  the  **  Tripartite  Agreement  " 
and  the  payment  of  that  money  ?"   A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  None  whatever  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  connection  between  the  "  Tripartite 
Agreement"  and  the  arbitration  which  led  to  the  pay- 
ment of  the  money  1  A.  None  whatever,  so  far  as  I 
know. 

Q.  Were  you  always  willing  to  arbitrate  with  Mr.  Til- 
ton  in  regard  to  that  matter!  A.  I  was;  and  gave  him 
notice  to  that  effect. 

Q.  And  willing  to  abide  by  the  result  1  A.  I  was.  Sir. 

Q.  Whatever  it  might  be  ?  A.  I  was,  Sir. 

Q.  What  connection  had  Mr.  Beecher  or  his  affairs  with 
the  arbitration,  if  any  1  A.  I  did  not  know  that  it  had 
any. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect,  Mr.  Bowen,  when  you  gave  Mr 
Tilton  the  check  for  that  money  ?  A.  I  can  tell  you.  Sir. 

Q.  Please  state.  It  was  paid  promptly  the  same  night, 
I  believe,  was  it  not!  A.  It  was;  I  gave  it  [referring  to 
a  memorandum]  on  the  evening  of  April  3, 1872,  and  the 
check  was  dated  the  next  morning. 

Q.  AprU  41   A.  April  4. 

THE  ARBITRATION. 

Q.  Where  did  the  arbitrators  sit  when  they 
determined  this  question!  A.  At  the  house  of  Mr. 
Houlton. 

Q.  In  this  city  1  A.  In  this  city. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  timet  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Were  you  preseat  during  the  whole  sitting  of  the 
arbitration  I  A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  remain  there  until  they  made  their  award  ! 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  broke  up !  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Now,  from  the  commencement  to  the  end  of  that 
arbitration  on  that  night,  was  there  anything  said  about 
Mr.  Beecher'8  affairs  m  connection  with  the  arbitration, 
and  if  so,  what  was  it !  A.  I  am  not  able  to  recollect 
that  there  was,  anything  more  than  perhaps  a  casual 
conversation.  Nothing  was  said  to  the  arbitrators,  ac- 
cording to  my  recollection.  Whether  there  was  any 
casual  conversation,  as  they  were  sitting  about,  before 
they  all  got  there,  I  don't  remember. 


l^EOfrUR  TRIAL. 

Q.  Well,  I  mean  after  you  got  there,  of  com-ge,  and  be- 
fore you  left,  you  heard  nothing  on  that  subject  that  ym 
remember  of !  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  have  no  recollection  of  any 
thiug. 

Q.  Was  there  any  written  submission  between  you  aad 
Mr.  Tilton  1   A.  None  whatever,  Sir. 
Q.  It  was  verbal!  A.  What! 

Q.  The  submission  of  your  affairs  with  Mr.  Tilton,  was 
that  verbal  or  was  it  written!  A.  No,  Sir ;  it  was  written. 

Q.  Have  you  the  written  submission!  A.  I  have; 
there  it  is  [handing  it  to  Mr.  FullertonJ. 

Q.  Is  that  signed  by  yourself  and  Mr.  TUton !  A.  It  ia. 

Mr.  Fullerton — I  offer  it  in  evidence. 

The  paper  was  marked  "  Exhibit  No.  22." 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  read  the  submission.  [Reading.] 

We  agree  to  submit  to  James  Freeland,  H.  B.  Claflia,.  i| 
and  Charles  Storrs,  the  question  as  to  the  amount  of 
money  due  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  from  The  Independent 
and  Brookh/n  JDailif  TJmon,  in  full,  for  all  claims  and  de- 
mands to  this  date,  and  to  abide  by  their  decision,  or  a  ; 
majority  of  them,  without  appeal.  ^' 

(Signed.)  Henry  C.  Bowen, 

Theodore  Tilton. 

BrooMtjn,  April  3, 1872."  . 

Q.  Now,  was  that  the  only  submission  to  those  arbitra-^ ' 
tors !  A.  The  only  one. 

Q.  I  mean  was  it  the  only  submission,  either  in  writing  ; 
or  verbally!  A.  The  only  one.  There  were  some  state- ' 
ments  made  in  regard  to  it  by  both  parties. 

Q.  Oh,  statements  of  facts  !  A.  Yes,  Sii-. 

Q.  But  did  those  statements  of  racts  refer  to  the  matr  | 
ters  mentioned  in  the  submission— to  those  connected 
with  The  Independent  and  TJie  Brooklyn  TInionI  A. 
Those  and  those  alone. 

Q.  Now,  the  award  was  made,  I  believe,  soon  after  tlie 
submission,  on  the  same  evening !  A.  The  same  evening. 

Q.  Were  you  present  when  it  was  annormoed !  A.  I  ^as. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  there  by  any  person,  Ihen,  | 
in  regard  to  Mr.  Beecher's  matters  connected  with  Mr.  ' 
Tilton  !  A.  No,  Sir ;  not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  then  about  burning  the 
papers  connected  with  Mr.  Beecher's  and  Mr.  Tilton*s  ,' 
matters  !  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  And  you  gave  the  check,  I  believe,  there  that  even- 
ing! A.  Tdid. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  hand  the  check!  A.  To  Mr.  Tilton, 

Q.  And  did  you  go  away  until  the  thing  was  at  an  end ! 
A.  I  did  not— first  taking  his  receipt. 

Q.  When  was  the  arrangement  made  for  an  arbitration 
first !  A.  Within  a  very  few  daye  before ;  I  am  not  eonfl- 
dent  in  regard  to  it. 

Q.  Who  suggested  the  arbitration  to  you!  A.  Who  first 
suggested  it ! 

Q.  Yes.  A.  The  papers  themselves  suggested  it,  and 
were  made  repeatedly  to  me  from  the  day  Mr.  Tilton  left 
town  to  the  day  it  was  decided. 

Q.  Who  first  made  the  suggestion  which  resulted  in  this 


OF  HENBY  G.  BOWEK. 


419 


arbitration  at  that  time  ?  A.  I  am  not  able  to  recollect 
positively. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  wbat  part  Mr.  Claflin  had  in  it  ?  A, 
I  think  he  spoke  to  me  about  it,  but  whether  he  origina- 
ted it  I  am  not  able  to  say. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  vrith  whom  you  went  away  that 
night  1  A.  T  think  with  Mr.  Storrs. 

Q.  One  of  the  arbitrators  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  where  did  you  go  with  him  1  A.  "We  went  in 
the  same  direction. 

Q.  He  lived  in  the  same  direction  you  did?  A.  Yes, 
Sir;  we  parted,  I  believe. 

Q.  Where  did  you  leave  the  other  arbitrators  when  you 
lefti  A.  I  am  not  certain  whether  they  went  out  at  the 
time;  I  don't  recollect.  We  left  together  pretty  nearly ; 
I  should  think  all  together. 

THE  TRIPARTITE  COVENANT. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Bowen,  in  regard  to  this 
"Tripartite  Agreement;"  do  you  recollect  when  it  was 
executed  1   A.  I  could  not  state  the  date  positively. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  year  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

S>.  18711   A.  Yes,  Sir,  1871. 

Mr.  Morris— 1872. 

The  Witness— Yes,  1872. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  want  you  to  give  us  the  history  of  that 
Tripartite  Agreement  ?  A.  I  know  but  very  little  of  its 
history,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton- Well,  it  won't  take  long  to  give  it,  then. 

Mrs.  Evarts— I  don't  know  about  that  Tripartite  Agree- 
ment. It  is  part  of  their  evidence ;  they  introduced  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes ;  but  you  have  given  some  aflfirmative 
evidence  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— In  the  original  matter,  whatever  this  gen- 
tleman saw  and  did  with  his  own  eyes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  what  I  asked  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  asked  him  for  a  history  of  the  Tripart- 
ite Agreement. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Within  his  personal  knowledge. 

Judge  Neilson— As  far  as  he  knows. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Bowen  won't  state  beyond  what  he 
knows. 

The  Witness— I  was  waited  upon  by  Mr.  Claflin,  I  be- 
Uevo,  with  the  document  as  it  was  originally  drawn,  and 
asked  to  read  it  and  sign  it.  Do  you  wish  me  to  go  on  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  go  on,  please. 

The  Witness— I  read  the  document,  and  told  him  I  could 
not  sign  it  as  it  was  originally  drawn.  He  urged  me  to 
do  so.  I  told  him  that  I  could  not,  and  would  not.  He 
asked  me  if  I  could  make  some  emendations  not  very 
material,  and  with  those  emendations  whether  I  would 
sign  n.  I  said  :  "  I  can  change  it  so  that  I  would  be  wiU- 
ing  to  sign  it  on  youi-  personal  request,"  and  he  urged  me 
to  make  them  there.  I  told  him  to  leave  it  with  me,  and 
I  would  see  him  again  the  next  day.  I  made  some  changes 
in  it,  and  told  him  I  would  assent  under  the  circum- 


stances, giving  my  reasons  why  I  would  sign  it,  and  I  did. 
so.   That  is  about  the  whole  of  it. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  Mr,  Claflin  in  regard  to  it  ! 

Mr.  Evarts — Objected  to.   That  is  inter  alias. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  part  of  the  history  which  he  started 
to  give. 

Mr.  Beach— What  he  said. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  he  said  to  Mr.  Claflin.   Mr.  Claflin 

was  not  Mr.  Beecher's  agent. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  what  he  said  accompanying  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Claflin  was  his  own  friend,  and  under- 
took to  do  his  side  of  this  business.  Mr.  Beecher  repre- 
sented his  own  side,  and  Mr.  Tilton  his,  and  now  what 
passed  between  Mr.  Claflin  and  him  cannot  be  given  in 
evidence,  except  as  they  acted. 

yir.  Beach— You  called  it  out,  an  interview  between  Mr. 
Claflin  and  Mr.  Bowen. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  did,  so  far  as  carrying  the  paper  and  leav- 
ing it  with  him,  and  getting  it  bacfc 

Mr.  Fullerton— What  he  said. 

Mr.  Beach- What  he  said. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor  will  bear  in  mind  I  am  only 
giving  in  evidence  an  event  that  was  described  by  Mr. 
Claflin,  who  was  a  witness  for  the  other  side.  He  stated 
he  went  for  Mr.  Bowen,  that  he  requested  him  to  sign 
the  paper  that  had  been  prepared,  and  was  going  to  give 
the  whole  of  the  conversation  between  himself  and  Mr. 
Bowen  on  that  subject,  and  the  reason  why  he  didn't  give 
more  than  he  did  of  that  conversation  was  because  of  the 
f  ailirre  of  memory.  We  propose  to  supply  that  hiatus  in 
the  history  of  the  case. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  can  do  that, 

Mr.  Evarts— The  question  is  as  to  the  reasons  he  gave 
for  signing  it. 

Judge  Neilson— The  conversation  with  Mr.  Claflin. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  due  to  the  witness  that  he  should 
state  here  what  he  said  then,  as  qualifying  the  act  which 
he  did. 

Judge  Neilson- Yes,  in  connection  with  the  act  ot 
refusing  to  sign  or  signing. 
Mr.  Evarts— He  did  sign  it,  and  that  concludes  him. 
Judge  NeUson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  everything  else  is  merged  between 
the  parties  by  that,  by  a  well-known  principle  of  law. 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  the  action  was  on  an  agreement,  that 
would  apply. 

Ml-.  Evarts— A  treaty  between  parties  that  is  contained 
in  a  bargain  contains  the  settlement. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  an  action  on  the  part  of  a  contract. 

Judge  Neilson— If  Mr.  Claflin  gave  part  of  it,  perhaps 
he  gave  all  of  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton — State  what  you  said  to  Mr.  Claflin  on 
that  occasion.  A.  I  told  him  that  I  could  not  sign  ^he- 
original. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  already  stated  that. 


420 


IHE   TlLTON-BREOHEIl  lEIAL. 


Mr,  FuUertoii— Is  tiat  the  objection  'i 

Mr.  Evai  tii— No. 

Mr.  FuUerton—Mention  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  we  had  better  give  the  gentleman 
the  night  to  loot,  that  up. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  that  would  be  too  liberal. 

Mr.  Porter— The  point  is,  there  is  no  such  evidence. 
The  point  is  for  them  to  find  it  if  there  is. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  appeal  to  the  recollection  of  his 
Honor. 

Judge  Neilson— I  remember  Mi-.  Claflin  stated  the  fact 
that  he  tooJi  the  paper  to  Mr.  Bowen,  and  at  Mr.  Bowen's 
request  he  left  it  with  him,  and  after  ward  chided  him  for 
not  signing  it. 

Mr.  rullerton— The  arbitrators  chided  him  for  not  sign- 
ing it. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  not  the  arbitrators;  the  witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton- For  not  getting  it  signed  on  the  spot. 

Mr.  Beach— The  distinguished  Samuel  WUkeson. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  he  suggested  the  opinion  that  the 
paper  would  never  be  got  back  again. 

Mr,  Evarts— That  was  at  another  time.  That  was  not 
in  Mr.  Bowen's  presence. 

Judge  Neilson— Certainly. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  when  the  parties  were  all  together. 
Mr.  TUton  was  present  when  he  said  that.  That  made  it 
good  evidence.  Now,  Mr.  Clafliu  has  been  permitted  to 
sa^  only  that  he  took  the  paper  to  Mr.  Bowen  and 
brought  it  back. 

Judge  Neilson— He  left  it  with  Mr.  Bowen,  and  Mr. 
Bowen  requested  him  to  leave  it  with  him  for  examina- 
tion, and  he  did  leave  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all.  If  we  had  introduced  Mr. 
Bowen's  conversation,  I  presume  an  objection  would 
have  been  made,  and  it  would  have  been  a  proper  objec- 
tion ;  his  convevsation  between  Mr.  Claflin  and  Mr.  Bowen 
didn't  aifeot  the  parties  to  this  suit,  either  of  them,  Mr. 
Beecher  or  Mr.  Tilttm.  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Claflin  were 
on  one  side  friends,  and  how  they  talked  together  could 
not  have  been  introduced,  and  cannot  be  by  them. 

Judge  Neilson— Undoubtedly ;  but  the  question  is 
whether  you  have  given  in  evidence  anything  on  that 
subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  we  ask  them  to  point  tJiat  out. 

Mr.  Prior— We  have  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Porter  has  it. 

Mr.  Porter  [readingl : 

Q.  You  took  the  paper  and  went  to  Mr.  Bowen's,  did 
you  ]  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  And  left  it  with  him  ?  A.  I  think  I  did. 
Q.  That  evening  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Left  the  paper  with  him  ?  A.  I  left  the  paper. 
Q.  For  his  consideration  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Go  on. 
Mr.  Porter— What  do  yon  refer  to  1 


Mr.  Fullerton— I  refer  to  this  :  It  is  as  fresh  in  my 
recollection  as  if  it  took  place  to-day,  that  Mr.  Bowen 
objected  to  signing  it.  I  don't  want  to  look  for  it.  The 
testimony  is  that  Mr.  Bowen  objected  to  signing  the 
agreement,  and  requested  that  it  should  be  left  with  him 
overnight,  and  that  upon  the  return  of  Mr.  Claflin  to  the 
party  whom  he  had  left  he  was  chided  for  not  bringing 
it  back  signef",,  aM  the  prophecy  was  indulged  in  that 
he  would  never  get  it  signed. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  has  that  to  do  with  it  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  has  this  to  do  with  it :  that  when  you 
proved  on  your  behalf  that  Mr.  Bowen  objected,  that  I 
have  a  right  to  know  in  what  language  he  clothed  that 
objection.  That  is  my  point.  I  am  only  following  up 
the  inquiry  of  the  other  side. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  took  place  in  Mr.  Tilton's  picsfuc: 
at  Mr.  Moulton's  house  was  the  subiect  of  evi- 
dence, whatever  it  was,  and  that  was  given 
in  evidence.  What  took  place  between  Mr.  Bowen 
and  Mr.  Claflin  at  Mr.  Bowen's  house  was  not  the  subject 
of  evidence,  except  so  far  as  Mr.  Clafliu  ^rought  it  to  be 
the  subject  of  evidence  by  what  he  stated  when  he  came 
back.  Now,  that  was  given  in  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Unless  you  inquired  into  the  CQnversa- 
tion  had  between  them  when  he  left  the  paper. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  did  not. 

Mr.  Porter— There  is  not  one  single  Inquiry  on  that 
subject,  and  the  simple  question  is  this :  Shall  they,  as  a 
part  of  their  rebutting  evidence,  be  permitted  to  prove, 
as  evidence  against  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  a  conversa- 
tion between  Mr,  Bowen  and  his  arbitrator,  as  to  which 
we  have  not  inquired  I  That  is  not  competent  evidence, 

Judge  Neilson— It  was  only  suggested  on  the  idea  that 
you  had  inquired. 

Mr.  Evarts— Ah  ! 

Judge  Neilson— Pass  to  some  other  topic,  Mr.  Fullerton, 
and  this  can  be  looked  up  between  now  and  the  morning-. 

Mr.  Morris — It  is  within  four  minutes  of  the  time  of  ad- 
joiu'ning,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  please,  I  find  on  looking  at 
page  649  

Mr.  Morris  [To  Mr.  Beach]— It  is  within  four  minutes  of 
the  time  of  adjoiu^ning. 

Judge  Neilson  [To  the  jurors]— Get  ready  to  retire, 
gentlemen.   Return  to-morrow  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

The  Court  here  adjourned  until  11  o'clock  Thursday 
morning. 


TESTIMONY   OF  HJtJNEI   G.  BOWEJ^. 


421 


EIGHTIETH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

HENRY  C.  BOWEN'S  TESTIMONY  CLOSED. 

BHOBT  QUESTIONING  BY  .MR.  FULIJIRTON  FOLLOWED 
BY  A  SEARCHING  CROSS-EXAMINATION  BY  MR. 
EVARTS— MR.  BO  WEN  CONTRADICTS  MR.  CLAFLIX 
CONCERNING  ARBITRATION  DETAILS— THE  TRI- 
PARTITE COVENANT  FURTHER  DISCUSSED — OTHER 
DENIALS  BY  MR.  BOWEN  OF  TESTIMONY  FOR  THi: 
DEFENSE— MINOR  EVIDENCE  BY  JOHN  N.  LONGHI. 

Thursday,  Ma^j  6,  1875. 

The  direct  examination  of  Mr.  Bowen  by  Mr.  Ful- 
lerton  was  short,  and  there  were  manifestations  of 
disappointment  from  the  spectators  when  about 
11:45  a.  m.  Mr.  Fullerton  said  *'  That's  all,"  and  sat 
down.  His  questions  to  the  witness  had  referred  in 
the  main  to  what  had  passed  between  Mr.  Bo  wen 
and  Mr.  Beecher  concerning  Mr.  Tilton,  about  the 
time  of  the  holidays  in  1870-71,  and  to  the  degree 
of  friendliness  which  the  witness  had  expressed  for 
Mr.  Beecher.  Mr.  Bowen  substantially  repeated 
what  he  had  said  on  Wednesday. 

Mr.  Evarts  began  the  cross-examination  of  jMr. 
Bowen  with  unusual  harshness  of  tone  and  manner. 
At  times  his  questions  were  delivered  in  terms  ap- 
parently of  reproach,  and  he  thi'ew  great  earnestness 
iato  his  voice,  and  pointed  his  finger  at  the  witness, 
who  seemed  stung  by  his  severe  method  of  examina- 
tion. Mr.  Evarts  went  exhaustively  into  the  liistory 
of  the  arbitration  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Bowen. 
During  his  cross-examination  the  witness  flatly 
contradicted  some  of  the  statements  of  the  defend- 
ant's witnesses  and  called  others  in  question.  He  de- 
nied that  he  had  ever  seen  the  Tripartite  Agreement, 
or  any  part  of  its  text,  before  the  settlement  by  the 
arbitration  of  his  difficulties  with  Mr.  Tilton.  He 
positively  denied  that  at  the  announcement  of  the 
award  ]Mr.  Claflin  had  said  that  *'  they  had  made  up 
their  minds  to  burn  all  the  papers  connected  with  the 
ficandal,  chat  IVlr.  Bowen  should  pay  $2,000  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  that  they  should  sign  the  Tripar- 
Ht©  Agreement."  Afterward  Mr.  Bowen  quaMed 
his  denial  by  saying  that  there  was  c%?n- 
versation  in  the  room  among  knots  of  persons  after 
the  award  was  made,  and  Mr.  (laflin  might  have  ut- 
tered the  words  referred  to,  but  not  in  his  hearing, 
or  as  addressed  to  the  arbitrators.  "  Well,  Sir,"  said 
Mr.  Evarts,  how  many  knots  could  yau  make  out 
of  fire  people?"  "Three  at  least,"  replied  the 
witness. 

Mr.  Bowen  also  called  in  qnostion  the  statements 
of  Charles  Storrs  and  Deacon  FreeiaiKl,  who  had  con- 


firmed in  general  terms  what  Mr.  Claflin  said.  Mr. 
Bowen  denied,  moreover,  that  he  had  asked  to  have 
the  "Woodstock  letter"  returned  to  him.  These 
denials  or  contradictions  of  the  statements  of  the 
defendant's  witnesses  caused  a  stir  of  interest  among 
the  spectators,  which  was  expressed  in  whispers  and 
nods,  and  more  than  once  Judge  Neilson  had 
to  rap  for  order.  The  witness  also,  in  a  qualified 
way,  denied  that  he  had  made  certain  statements  to 
Mr.  Eggleston.  He  frequently,  during  the  course 
of  his  cross-examination,  made  use  of  the  expres- 
si<ms,  "itmay  have  been  so,"  "I  don't  recollect," 
&c.  When  shown  the  yellow  slip  of  paper  which 
was  said  to  have  accompanied  his  check  for  $7,000 
he  said,  "I  should  say  I  never  saw  it  before." 

Mr.  Bowen  was  on  the  stand  during  nearly  the 
whole  of  the  day.  There  was  some  argument 
among  the  lawyers  about  the  admission  of  his  tes- 
timony on  certain  points,  but  much  less  than  might 
have  been  expected.  Both  side«  appeared  to  be 
careful  not  to  overstep  the  bounds  with  which  the 
law  hems  in  the  production  of  testimony  in  rebut- 
tal. Mr.  Bowen  did  not  reveal,  if  he  possessed,  the 
great  secrets  that  it  has  been  popularly  supposed 
that  he  knew  about  the  Brooklyn  scandal,  and  the 
general  elfect  produced  by  his  testimony  was  disap- 
pointment. 

John  N.  Longhi,  employed  at  Delmonico's  eatmg 
saloon  in  Broad-st.,  was  called  and  testified  for 
the  plaintiff.  He  stated  that  the  upper  room 
of  Delmonico's  establishment  in  Broad-st.,  in 
which  the  colored  witness  Woodley  said  that 
Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  lunched  to- 
gether, was  not  opened  until  June  27,  1874. 
Mr.  Evarts,  on  the  cross-examination  of  Mr. 
Longhi,  drew  out  the  fact  that  a  German  eating- 
saloon  on  an  upper  floor  closely  adjoins  Delmonico's 
establishment. 

THE  PEOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 


MR.  BOWEN'S  TESTIMONY  CONTINUED. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
ioumment. 

Mr.  Fullertou— Mr.  Bowen,  take  the  stand. 

Henry  C.  Bowen  recalled,  and  direct  examinayon  re- 
sumed. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Bowen,  retmniug  to  Det.iiiber  26, 
1870,  I  desire  to  ask  you  how  long  prior  to  the  meeting 
on  the  day  after  Chiistmas,  of  that  month,  had  it  been 
since  you  saw  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  I  saw  him  almost  every 
SiibbLith,  Sii'. 

Q.  Hud  yuu  auy  commimication  with  him  prior  to  that 


423  THE  TILION-B 

time— prior  to  tlie  Monday  after  Decemlber  26,  when  you 
delivered  that  letter  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Monday  was  the  26th. 

Mr.  Beach— The  Monday  after  Christmas. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  the  Monday  after  Christmas  that 
you  have  spoken  of— within  several  weeks  1  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  having  had  any. 

Q.  Had  Theodore  Tilton  and  his  affairs  heen  the  sub- 
ject of  conversation  or  correspondence  between  you  and 
Mr.  Beecher  prior  to  the  27th  of  December,  1870  ?  A.  It 
\iad  not. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  Mr.  Beecher  after  the  27th  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— The  26th  % 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  26th ;  yes.  Sir. 

The  Witness— New  Year's  Day. 

Q.  Where  did  you  then  see  him  %  A.  At  his  house. 

Q.  Was  that  anything  more  than  a  formal  call  on  New 
Year's!  A.  It  was  not. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  on  that  day  with  Mr. 
Beecher  in  reference  to  Mr.  Tilton  or  his  affairs— on  the 
1st  of  January,  1871?   A.  I  simply  said  to  him  

Q.  No;  did  you  have  any  conversation  with  htm ?  A.  I 
had  no  special  conversation,  except  the  ordinary  conver- 
sation which  would  naturally  occur  on  New  Year's. 

Q.  On  New  Year's  Day  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  the  affairs  of  Mr.  Tilton,  or  Mr.  Tilton  himself, 
the  subject  of  conversation  between  yourself  and  Mr. 
Beecher  after  the  26th  of  December,  at  the  time  of  the 
conversation  that  you  have  spoken  of,  and  the  delivery 
of  the  letter  ?  A.  I  said  to  him  New- Year's,  as  I  was 
about  leaving  him  

Q.  I  don't  ask  you  what  you  said  to  him,  but  whether 
Mr.  Tilton  or  his  affairs  were  the  subject  ef  conversation 
between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  No  farther  than  the 
simple  announcement  that  his  relation  with  the  papers 
was  severed. 

Q.  That  was  all?   A.  That  was  all ;  no  conversation. 

Q.  And  that  announcement  was  made  on  the  1st  of 
Jaiaiury  ?  A.  On  the  1st  of  January  I  made  the  announce- 
mtut  to  him. 

Q.  Wh;it  thnc  of  the  day  ?   A.  It  was  in  the  evening. 

Q.  Of  tho  1st  of  Januury  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  1871 ;  what  time  in  the  evening!  A.  I  should  think 
early  in  the  evening,  5  or  6  o'clock  perhaps ;  not  later 
than  6 ;  early  in  the  evening. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  that  you  announced  ft  to  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  A.  That  was  the  fiiet. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  announce  it  to  Mr.  Tilton?  A. 
On  Saturday  morning,  previous. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  31st  of  December,  was  it  not !  A. 
On  the  3l8t  of  December,  Saturday  morning. 

Q.  Sunday  being  the  Ist  of  January  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  visit  Mrs.  Beecher  after  this  interview  of 
the  26th  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Beecher!    A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  1   A.  The  following  morning. 


EFAJEEB  TBIAL, 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day?  A.  I  should  think  about  9 
o'cloek. 

Q.  And  you  had  an  interview  with  her  ?   A.  I  did. 
A.  Of  what  duration?   A.  I  should  think  about  half  an 
hour,  perhaps  less. 
Q.  Any  other  person  present?   A.  There  were  not. 
Q.  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  present?   A.  He  was  not. 

INCONSISTENCIES   IN  ME.  BEECHER'S  LET- 
TER TO   MR.  BOWEN. 

Q.  Yon  prodnced  a  letter  of  the  2d  of  Jan- 
uary, 1871,  ytTsterday,  v»i"itten  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  you, 
Mr.  Bowen;  did  you  reply  to  that  letter?   A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  expression,  or 
some  expressions  in  this  letter,  Mr.  Bowen.  It  com- 
mences :  "  My  Dear  Mr.  Bowen :  Since  I  saw  you  last 
Tuesday  I  have  reason  to  think,"  etc.,  etc.  Did  you  see 
Mr.  Beecher  on  the  Tuesday  preceding  the  wi-iting  of 
this  letter,  or  the  date  of  this  letter !  A.  I  have  no  recol- 
lection of  it ;  it  was  on  Monday. 

Mr.  Evarts— No  doubt  it  was  Monday.  There  was  a 
doubt  at  first,  you  remember,  Mr.  Fullerton,  whether  it 
Avas  the  27th  or  26th. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  read  still  f lu-ther,  Mr.  Bowen : 

Since  I  saw  you  last  Tucsda.y  I  have  reason  to  think 
that  the  only  cases  of  which  I  spoke  to  you  In  regard  to 
Mr.  Tilton  were  exaggerated  in  being  reported  tc  me, 
and  I  should  be  imwilling  to  have  anything  I  said, 
though  it  was  but  little,  weigh  on  your  mind  in  a  matter 
so  important  to  his  welfare. 

I  want  to  ask  you  what  Mr.  Beecher  said  to  you  that 
was  referred  to  in  this  paragraph,  if  anything  ?  A.  He 
said  very  little,  as  he  expresses  it  there,  except  what  I 
stated  yesterday.  He  called  my  attention  to  letter?" 
which  had  been  received  from  Mrs.  Tilton  at  the  West, 
and  desired  me  to  know  their  contents.  He  made  some 
remarks  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton,  that  there  were  stories 
about  him  which  I  ought  to  know ;  he  made  some  gen- 
eral remarks.   I  at  this  moment  do  not  recall  the  

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  stories  they  were !  A.  I  only 
know  in  general— stories  against  his  moral  character. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  the  particulars?  A.  Not  more 
definitely  than  that,  at  this  moment. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  now  stated  all  that  you  said  to  Mr. 
Beecher  in  that  conversation  that  you  can  recollect!  A. 
In  substance  ? 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  A.  Not  the  words,  perhaps ;  so  far  as  I 
recollect. 

Q.  Can't  you  state  with  any  particularity,  Mr.  Bowen, 
what  these  stoiies  were  that  Mr.  Beecher  alluded  to, 
where  they  originated,  from  whom  they  emanated ! 

Mr.  Evaits— Not  his  opinion ;  what  Mr.  Beecher  said. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  that  is  a  good  observation. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  Mi-.  Beecher  said  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Fulkrton- That  is  just  exactly  what  T  ask  for.  A. 
I  can  only  remember  that  he  said  that  there  were  storiea 
in  circulation  which  had  been  communicated  to  him  af- 


lESllMONT   OF  £ 

fee  ting  his  moral  character,  the  particulars  of  whicli  I 
flo  not  remember ;  they  were  new  to  me  at  the  time,  that 
is,  the  stories  which  he  mentioned. 

Q.  Did  he  at  the  time  speak  in  general  terms  of  the  ex- 
istence of  stories,  or  did  he  descend  to  particulars  t  A. 
He  did  to  some  particulars  ;  yes.  Sir. 

ME.  BOWEN'S  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  FBIEND- 
SHIP. 

Q.  But  you  cannot  recall  tliem  ?    A.  I  don't 

remember,  except  in  general  that  he  referred  to  several 
stories  whien  ne  had  heard,  which  were  similar  in  their 
character. 

Q.  I  read  tu  you  a  question  put  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  his 
his  answer. 

Now,  Sir,  did  anything  more  occur  at  Ifiat  interview 
that  you  can  rehearse  1  fTMs  was  the  interview  on  Mon- 
day.] A.  Nothing  except  that  Mr.  Bowen  grew  more  and 
■more  friendly,  and  in  view  of  this  attack,  or  rattier  this 
warning  to  send  me  out  of  town— I  was  not  ready  to  go 
then,  and  expressed  myself  so  to  him,  and  he  said  that  he 
would  stand  by  me  as  a  friend. 

Q.  Did  you  make  use  of  such  an  observation  as  that  or 
its  equivalent  ?  A.  He  asked  me  if  I  was  friendly  with 
Mm.  I  said  that  we  had  previously  settled  our  difficul- 
ties, and  that  I  had  no  unfriendly  feeling.  He  said  he 
was  glad  to  hear  that.  That  was  the  substance. 

Q.  Is  that  all  that  was  said  by  you  upon  the  subject — 
upon  ^hat  subject,  or  by  him  ?  A.  It  is. 

Q.  Did  you  make  use  of  the  term  that  you  would  stand 
by  him  as  a  fi-iend  1  A.  ©nly  as  I  answered  it  previously. 
He  asked  me  if  I  was  his  friend;  I  said  I  had  no  im- 
friendly  feelings  toward  him. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  in  the  eourse  of  that  conversation  grow 
more  and  more  friendly  to  him,  as  is  represented  in  this 
answer  1 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  we  should  take  the  facts. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  calling  for  an  opinion. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir  ;  that  is  calling  for  a  fact. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  calling  for  a  fact. 

Mr.  Evarts— Let  us  get  the  fact,  whatever  it  was.  It  is 
Mr.  Beecher's  opiuion.  Now,  whether  Mr.  Beecher  was 
right  or  not  in  the  ©pinion  that  he  fprmed  of  this  gentle- 
man's conduct,  it  would  be  a  matter  of  importance  to  us, 
which  is  to  be  arrived  at  by  showing  what  his  conduct 
was. 

Mr.  FuUerton— "We  ought  to  eiyoy  the  same  privilege 
that  Mr.  Beecher  did  when  he  was  upon  the  stand.  He 
said  that  Mr.  Beecher  grew  more  and  more  friendly ;  he 
spoke  in  general  terms ;  we  ought  to  employ  the  same 
language  in  putting  the  question  to  the  witness,  whether 
he  did  grow  more  and  more  friendly. 

Judge  Neilson— One  witness  might  understand  that  one 
way,  and  another  might  not  understand  it.  It  is  a  mere 
inference.   I  don't  think  I  would  pursue  it. 

Mr  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Beecher  em- 


^JNEY  a   BOWBK.  423 

ployed  that  language,  surely  we  ought  to  be  permitted  to 
negative  it,  if  the  witness  can  do  so. 
Judge  Neilson— If  it  is  important. 

Mr.  Beach— Why,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  cannot  con- 
ceive upon  what  principle  this  question  should  be  re- 
jected. Even  if  it  was  an  opinion  foimded  upon  the  de- 
meanor or  action  of  a  given  party,  it  is  admissible  to 
ni'ove  it.  Mr.  Beecher  swears  that  during  that  interview 
Mr.  Bowen  grew  more  and  more  friendly  to  him.  Well^ 
if  that  depended  upon  anything  that  was  said,  why,  we 
have  exhausted  that.  Sir.  If  it  was  an  opinion  derived 
by  Mr.  Beecher  from  the  manner,  the  action,  facial  ex- 
pressions of  the  witness,  his  appearance,  his  demeanor, 
why,  then,  it  was  a  proper  opinion,  a  proper  subject 
upon  which  he  might  express  an  opinion,  and  one  which 
can  be  rebutted  and  repelled  by  this  witness  if  it  is  un- 
true. It  is  a  matter,  in  that  aspect,  which  depends  upon 
the  indefinable  and  inexpressible  characteristics  and 
manifestations  of  the  human  countenance,  if  you  please, 
or  of  actions  which  cannot  be  described  in  terms.  For 
instance,  it  becomes  important  to  show  whether  a  man 
was  intoxicated  upon  a  certain  occasion.  The  Court  o$= 
Appeals  have  ruled  that  you  may  take  the 
opinion  of  a  witness  upon  that  subject,  that 
you  are  not  bound  to  confine  your  answer 
to  the  question  whether  you  saw  him  drink,  or 
whether  he  staggered,  or  whether  his  breath  smelt  of 
liquor ;  because  it  depends  upon  those  manifestations  of 
human  action  which  are  not  the  subject  of  precise  de 
seription.  Now,  I  repeat,  Sir,  that  so  far  as  the  conver- 
sation is  referred  to,  or  depended  upon  as  manifesting 
friendliness  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Bowen,  we  have  ex- 
hausted Mr.  Bowen's  recollection  upon  that  subject,  and 
that  answers  the  declaration  of  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  reply 
to  this  question,  that  Mr.  Bowen  promised  to  be  a  friend 
to  him  in  that  matter  which  was  then  under  considera- 
tion. Mr.  Beecher  further  says  that  in  that  interview, 
"  Mi\  Bowen  grew  more  and  more  friendly  to  me."  Now, 
so  far  as  it  depends  upon  any  of  these  manifestations, 
aside  from  declarations,  so  far  as  that  opinion  of  Mr. 
Beecher  depends  upon  them,  I  submit  to  you  Honor  it  is 
competent  for  Mr.  Bowen  to  answer  that  question. 

Judge  Neilson— The  trouble  all  the  time  being  that  it 
is  a  mere  matter  of  inference  or  opinion,  which  Mr. 
Beecher  might  understand  one  way  and  Mr.  Bowen 
another  way,  about  which  perhaps  no  two  persons  would 
agree.   It  is  a  casual  thing  of  no  real  value. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  think  otherwise,  your  Honor.  I 
think  it  is  of  some  consequence  in  view  of  the  testimony— 
the  other  general  testimony  of  iMr.  Beecher. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  one  of  those  peculiar  things  that 
might  mislead  the  jury;  they  might  adopt  the  opinion  of 
the  witness  who  was  least  correct  in  his  opinion. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  then  look  at  it  in  that  aspect  if 
you  please,  that  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Beecher  goes  to  this 
jury  that  Mr.  Bow«n  In  that  interview  grew  more  and 


424  TEE  nLTOJV-B 

more  friendly  to  Mm.  Tliey  brouglit  it  out,  Sir,  upon  the 
examination  of  Mr,  Beecher.  "We  say  it  ia  an  error,  it  is 
untrue  that  he  formed  a  misju.dgment ;  and  is  that  to  he 
permitted  to  go  to  the  jury  "without  contradiction  if  it  is 
■wrong? 

Judge  Neilson— If  you  had  objected  at  the  time  T  should 
have  struck  it  out,  for  it  called  for  a  mere  opinion. 

Mr.  Beach— I  suppose,  your  Honor,  that  under  the 
principle  which  was  expressed  in  the  case  in  the  Court  of 
Appeals,  to  which  I  have  directed  your  attention,  that  it 
could  not  be  struck  out  or  could  not  he  ruled  out  as  an 
improper  question;  therefore,  if  your  Honor  will  permit  me 
afi'ain  to  draw  your  mind  to  the  distinction  of  the  basis  up- 
on which  such  expressions  of  judgment  or  of  fact  might  be 
given,  that  so  far  as  it  depended  upon  avowals  of  friendli- 
ness upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Bowen,  we  have  exhausted 
that  subject.  But  the  gentlemen  may  say,  why,  friendli- 
ness may  be  expressed  in  other  forms  than  by  language  ; 
it  is  by  manner,  tokens,  that  it  is  sometimes  communi- 
cated from  friend  to  friend,  and  they  may  say  that  it  was 
upon  these  expressions,  indefinable,  il  you  please,  in 
their  character  and  nature,  upon  which  Mr.  Beecher  pred- 
icated the  judgment,  the  declaration,  that  Mr.  Bowen 
grew  more  and  more  friendly  to  him  during  the  conver- 
sation. 

Judge  Neilaon — This  would  be  more  deserving  of  your 
attention  if  it  were  the  only  way  of  getting  at  the  fact, 
but  it  is  net,  it  seems  to  me.  You  asked  him  the  bold 
question  whether  he  did  in  that  interview  grow  more  and 
more  Mendly,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Beeeher.  It  is  easy  to 
ask  the  witness  whether  anything  occui-red  in  the  con- 
versation, the  demeanor,  or  manner  which  indicated  

Mr.  Evarts— "We  don't  object  to  the  exhibition  of  the  fact. 

Judge  Neilsen— Yes— which  indicated  that  he  became 
more  friendly. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  I  then  propose  this  question  :  In 
this  interview  did  you  say  or  do  anything  indicating 
friendliness  toward  Mr.  Beecher  more  than  you  have  ex- 
pressed by  your  testimony  1 

Judge  Neilson— "WeU,  that  is  proper. 

Mr.  Beach— Very  well.  Sir.  [To  the  witness.]  f  lease 
answer  that  question. 

Judge  Neilson— How  do  you  answer,  Mr.  Bowen  1 

The  "Witness-r-Shall  I  answer  f 

Judge  Neiison— Yes. 

Tlae  Witness— I  made  the  call  with  fjpiendly  feelings ; 
those  feelings  existed  during  the  whole  interview,  and 
remained  when  I  left,  without  any  change. 

Mr.  FuUerton— The  question  is  whether  you  manifested 
those  feelings  ? 

The  "Witness— I  manifested  no  change,  that  I  am  aware 
of. 

Q.  Did  you  manifest  those  jfeelings  in  any  other  forms 
of  expression  than  you  have  given  us  hero  in  your  testi- 
mony 1   A.  Not  that  I  recollect 

Mr.  Fullorton— That  is  all,  Mr.  Evarts. 


hJPJ(]HEB  TRIAL. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  BOWEN. 

Mr.  Evarts— Please  to  give  us  Exhibit  No.  4. 

[Paper  produced  by  plainttflfs  counsel  and  given  to  Mr. 
Evarts,  who  handed  it  to  the  witness.] 

Mr.  Evarts- Mr.  Bowen,  please  look  at  that,  and  say  if 
that  is  the  letter  and  the  envelope  which  you  took  to  Mr. 
Beecher?  A.  I  cannot  swear  positively,  hut  I  believe 
it  is. 

Q.  Have  you  looked  at  the  envelope  ?  A.  I  have. 

Q.  Do  you  observe  It  bears  marks  of  having  been  closed 
and  opened  1  A.  1  do. 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  its  having  been  closed 
when  you  handed  it  to  Mr.  Beecher? 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  his  opinion. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  is  your  recollection »  A.  I  stated 
yesterday- 
Mr.  Evarts— No  matter  what  you  stated  yesterday. 

The  Witness  [continuingj  and  state  again  to-day  that 

I  have  no  recollection  whether  it  was  or  was  not. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  as  to  whether  Mr. 
Beecher  opened  it  by  breaking  the  envelope  or  not  1  A. 
I  have  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  observe  that  1  A.  I  have  no  recollec- 
tion of  observing  it 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  Mr.  Beecher  observing 
that  it  was  an  open  letter,  and  asking  you  if  you  knew 
what  was  in  it  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  his  asking 
me  any  such  question. 

Q.  Nor  of  his  observing  upon  its  being  an  open  letter  1 
A.  I  have  not. 

A  CONFERENCE  PREVIOUS  TO  THE  DELIV- 
ERY OF  MR.  TILTON'S  LETTER. 

Q.  How  long  had  that  letter  been  in  your 
possession  before  you  handed  it  to  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  I 
should  think  two  or  three  hours. 

Q.  Where  did  it  first  come  into  your  possession  1  A.  At 
my  house. 

Q.  Who  were  present?  A.  When  it  was  delivered  to 
me? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  am  not  sure  that  any  one  was  present 
beside  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Had  there  been  a  conference  or  appointment  at  your 
h«use  that  afternoon  ?  A.  That  morning, 

Q.  Well,  that  morning  had  there  been  1  A.  There  had, 

Q.  When  was  that  made,  and  how— that  appointment  i 
A.  That  appointment  was  made,  I  think,  on  the  previous 
Saturday  evening. 

Q.  Now,  how  ?  A.  I  think  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Johnson 
called  at  my  house  to  see  me,  and  I  was  engaged ;  could 
not  see  them,  and  suggested  if  they  desired  to  see  me, 
that  I  should  be  disengaged  on  Tuesday,  as  that  was  a 
holiday,  and  would  see  them  in  the  niormng. 

Q.  Did  you  uauic  an  hour?   A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Mr.  Beach— On  Tuesaay,  did  you  say?   A.  On  Monday, 

:.Ir.  EviD  tfc-  M(»n  ln3'— You  don't  recollect  whether  j'ou 


TESTIMONY  OF  HENBY   0.  BOWBN. 


rftmed  tlie  liour?  A.  I  said  I  sliould  be  at  liome  all  day ; 
T  do  not  recollect  tliat  I  named  the  lionr. 

Q.  Well,  you  do  remember  that  you  said  that  you  would 
be  at  home  all  day  there  ?  A-  I  stated  it  would  be  a  holi- 
day, and  I  would  be  at  leisure,  and  if  they  would  come,  I 
would  see  them  in  the  morning,  or  something  like  that. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  you  would  be  at  home  all  day  I  A. 
I  think  I  did. 

Q.  And  ready  to  see  them  whenever  they  came !  A.  I 
think  I  did ;  I  am  not  positive  about  that,  however. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  was  there  any  other  appointment  of  lioui" 
or  time  for  that  day,  except  that  you  Would  be  at  home 
all  day,  and  would  see  them  whenever  they  came  1  A-  I 
understood  from  them  that  they  would  come  in  tlie  morn- 
\VL^,  and  I  said  I  would  be  at  leisure  as  long  as  they 
wished  to  see  me. 

Q.  You  remember,  do  you,  that  they  said  they  would 
come  in  the  morning  ?  A.  I  do,  some  time  in  the  morning. 

Q.  You  remember  that  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  they  named  the  liour 
that  they  would  come?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  that  they  did  not  name  the  hour? 
A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  when  did  these  two  persons  come  to  your 
house  that  day— Monday  %  A.  Early  in  the  forenoon  ;  I 
do  not  remember  the  precise  hour. 

Q.  How  long  did  they  remain  there  1  Did  they  come 
early  in  the  forenoon,  before  11  o'clock?  A.  I  should 
think  it  was  before  11. 

Q.  It  may  have  been  after  11  f  A.  No,  Sir ;  it  was  be- 
fore 11, 1  am  quite  sure. 

Q.  Before  11,  according  to  your  memory— how  long 
did  they  remain  at  your  house  1  A.  I  should  think  two 
hours  or  more,  probably. 

Q.  And  the  topic  of  conversation  between  you  was 
wholly  that  for  which  the  appointment  was  made,  was 
it!  A.  Almost  entirely,  so  far  as  I  recollect. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  what  hour  did  those  gentlemen  leave  your 
house?  A.  Mr.  Johnson  left  earlier  than  Mr.  Tilton;  I 
think  about  12  o'clock;  he  said  he  had  an  engagement. 
Mr.  Tilton  left  soon  after;  I  cannot  state  the  precise 
time. 

Q.  A  few  moments  after  Mr.  Johnson  ?  A.  Well,  per- 
haps 15  minutes,  perhaps  half  an  hour;  I  do  not  remem- 
ber precisely. 

Q.  The  prolonged  interview  was  with  the  three  1  A. 
With  the  two. 

Q.  Yom3elf  was  one— well,  among  the  three  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

THE  APPOINTMENT  TO  MEET  MR.  BEECHER. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  did  you  write  to  Deacon  F^^ee- 
land  a  note  that  day  ?   A.  I  did. 
Q.  Have  you  any  copy  of  that  note  1   A.  I  have  not. 
Q.  Is  there  any  copy  in  existence  %   A.  Not  that  I  know 


Q.  Have  you  searched  to  rind  !  A.  I  have. 

Q.  Isn't  it  yom-  habit  to  preserve  2  A.  Not  an  In- 
formal note  written  with  a  pencil  as  I  wrote  that,  as  I  be- 
lieve, in  pencil. 

Q.  Then  your  opinion  is  that  you  did  not  preserve  it  t 
A.  That  is  my  opinion. 

Q.  That  3'ou  did  not  keep  a  copy  of  it  1   A.  It  is. 

Q.  Didn't  make  a  copy  of  it  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Or  keep  it — do  you  remember  at  what  hour  you  sent 
that  to  Doacon  Freeland  1  A.  It  was  immediately  after 
the  gentlemen  left ;  I  do  not  remember  the  precise  time. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  any  idea  what  hour  of  the  day  it 
was,  by  memorj^  that  j  ou  sent  that  to  Deacon  Freeland ! 
A.  It  was  between  12  and  2. 

Q.  Twelve  and  2  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  should  think. 

Q.  It  might  have  been  just  before  2  then  ?  A.  I  do 
not  remember ;  it  might  have  been,  but  I  do  not  re- 
member. 

Q.  Well,  your  memory,  then,  would  be  satisfied  if  it  waa 
just  before  2  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  an  answer  %  A.  Yerbal. 

Q.  And  at  what  hour  did  you  receive  that  answer  !  A. 
I  do  not  remember  at  the  time  ;  it  was  within  a  few  mo- 
ments after  the  messenger  returned. 

Q.  You  mean  the  messenger  brought  you  a  verbal  an- 
swer? A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  didn't  see  Deacon  Freeland?  A.  I  didn't  eoe 
him  at  all. 

Q.  Nor  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  Nor  Mr.  Beecher. 
Q.  Nor  anybody  but  your  messenger?    A.  Nor  aaay 
other  person  but  the  messenger. 
Q.  Who  was  your  messenger  ?  A.  My  son. 
Q.  What  is  his  name  ?  A.  John  Eliot  Bowen. 
Q.  Is  he  still  a  resident  here  ?   A.  He  is. 


THE  MEETING  AT  DEACON  FREELANiyS, 

Q.  Now,  how  soon  after  you  got  this  return 
message  did  you  go  to  see  Mr.  Beecher  %  A.  I  went  at 
the  time  I  named  in  the  note  ? 

Q.  WeU,  I  didn't  ask  you  that.  I  didn't  ask  you  the 
contents  of  your  note.  I  ask  to  have  that  stricken  out 
I  ask  you  at  what  hour  you  went,  by  your  memory  ?  A. 
I  am  not  able  to  state  positively ;  it  was  4  or  5  o'clock  in 
the  afternoon,  I  think. 

Q.  WeU,  are  you  quite  sure  about  that?  A.  I  think  it 
was  about  that  time. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  It  was  at  that  time,  or  early  in  the  even- 
ing ;  it  was  late  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  your  best  recollection  %  A.  That  is  my 
best  recollection. 

Q.  Four  or  five  o'clock  that  afternoon— now.  Sir,  did 
you  see  anybody  at  Deacon  Freeland's  house  except  Mr. 
Beecher?  A.  I  don't  recollect  whether  I  saw  any  one  ex- 
cept the  servant  who  opened  the  door ;  possibly  I  might 
have  seen  Mr.  Freeland,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 


420 


THE   TIL10^-Bh}E(JRER  TRIAL. 


Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  seeing  the  servant  tliat 
opened  the  door?  A.  I  have  none. 

Q.  None  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection,  any  further  than 
this,  that  I  was  admitted  to  the  house  by  some  one. 

Q.  That  is  all  you  know  on  thatsubjectl  A.  That  is  all 
I  know. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  remember  whether  your  interview 
with  Mr.  Beecher  was  by  gas-light  or  the  light  of  day  1 
A.  I  am  not  positive,  Mr.  Evarts,  in  regard  to  it. 

Q.  What  is  your  recollection  1  A.  I  have  no  recollec- 
tion. 

Q.  None,  What  room  in  Deacon  Freeland's  house  did 
you  occupy  1  A.  The  front  parlor,  nearest  the  street. 

Q.  Were  you  then  familiar  with  that  house  ?  A.  Toler- 
ably so ;  I  had  been  frequently  there. 

Q.  And  of  whom  did  that  family  consivst  at  that  time  1 
A.  Mr.  Freeland  and  his  wife  and  some  other  members— 
I  am  not  positive ;  I  think  his  daughter. 

Q.  Wasn't  there  a  considerable  family  ?  A.  How  many 
lived  at  the  time  in  the  house  I  am  not  sure ;  considera- 
ble family. 

Q.  Yes ;  well,  it  was  Christmas  Day— did  you  see  any- 
body about  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Was  anybody  sent  away  or  shut  out  from  the  room 
that  you  occupied  1  A.  The  folding  doors  were  closed, 
if  I  recollect  aright. 

Q.  Yes,  when  you  went  in?  A.  When  I  went  in. 

Q.  Well,  now,  was  any  one  sent  away  from  the  room  or 
any  one  excluded  that  offered  to  enter  dming  your  visit 
there  ?  A.  The  room  was  empty  when  I  went  there,  and 
there  was  no  one  came  into  the  room  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Or  offered  to  ?  A.  Or  offered  to. 

Q.  Offered  to  come  in.  Now,  how  long  did  you  stay 
there  t  A.  I  do  n't  recollect  precisely,  but  I  think  half 
an  hour ;  it  may  have  been  less  or  a  little  more. 

Q.  And  you  have  no  recollection  upon  leaving 
whether  the  gas  was  lit  or  not.  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Nor  whether  it  was  lit  in  the  street  1  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Nor  whether  it  was  lit  at  your  house  when  you  got 
home  1   A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  you  got  to  your  house  whom 
you  saw  there  awaiting  you  1  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anybody's  being  there  awaiting 
you  1  A.  I  have  no  recollection  now  of  any  one's  wait- 
ing for  me. 

Q.  No  gentleman  there?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of 
it. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  any  conversation  with 
a  gentleman  who  was  awaiting  you  as  to  what  had 
passed  between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher  ?   A.  T  have  not. 

Q.  Is  it  entirely  a  blank  in  your  mind?  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  it.  Sir,  to-day  and  now. 

Q.  And  no  impression  in  regard  to  it?  A.  No  impres- 
sion whatever.  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  seeing  a  gentleman  just  before 


you  left  your  house  to  go  and  see  Mr.  Beecher?  A.  I  do 
not,  Sir,  at  this  moment. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  a  conversation  with  any  gentle- 
man just  before  you  left  ysur  house  to  go  to  Mr.  Beecher 
on  this  subject  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  That  is  all  a  blank,  is  it  f  A.  I  have  no  recollection 
of  it.  Sir. 

Q.  No  impression!  A.  No  impression  whatever;  it 
might  have  been  so,  liut  I  do  not  recollect  it. 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you  if  you  remember  seeing  Mr.  Eggle- 
ston  1  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  [Continuing]— just  before  you  went,  and  awaiting 
you  on  your  return?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it ;  it 
might  have  been  so  ;  he  frequently  caUed  upon  me. 

Q.  Who  was  Mr.  Eggleston,  and  what  his  relation  to 
you  at  that  time  ?  A.  He  was  one  of  the  corps  of  editors 
of  The  Independent 

Q.  A  gentleman  who  has  been  on  the  stand  here,  I 
think  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Bowen,  when  you  received  that  letter  of 
the  2d  of  January  from  Mr.  Beecher,  did  you  read  it  1  A, 
I  did. 

Q.  And  have  preserved  it  ever  since  ?  A.  T  have. 

Q.  On  reading  that  letter,  did  it  strike  you  that  its  ref- 
erence to  your  interview  presented  a  different  view  of 
what  occurred  from  what  had  reaUy  occiirred  ?  A.  It 
did. 

Q.  In  what  respect  ?  A.  I  don't  know  what  the  partic- 
ulars were  ;  I  read  the  note,  and  interpreted  it  as  any 
one  would,  I  think. 

Q.  Yes,  perhaps  you  did  not  understand  my  question ; 
my  question  was  whether,  when  you  read  that  note,  on 
the  2d  day  of  January,  it  occurred  to  you  that  the  note 
presented  a  different  view  from  what  had  passed  be- 
tween you  and  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  26th,  from  what  had 
really  passed  ?   A.  I  did  not  have  such  an  

Q.  Impression  ?   A.  Impression— no.  Sir. 

Q.  You  considered  it  as  presenting  the  matter  as  you 
remembered  it  1  A.  I  do  not  remember  what  I  did  con- 
sider it  to  be ;  I  read  the  letter  and  laid  it  aside. 

Q.  It  did  not  surprise  you  in  respect  to  its  reference  to 
the  interviews  ?  A.  I  do  not  remember  what  my  impres- 
sions were.  ^ 

MR.  TILTON  TOLD  OF  HIS  EEMOVAL. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  did  you  convey  your  removal  of 
Mr.  Tilton  on  Saturday  to  him  in  writing  ?  A.  First  per- 
sonally, and  afterward  in  writing,  the  same  day. 

Q.  At  what  hour  did  you  inform  him  of  his  removal! 
A.  In  the  morning. 

Q.  What  hour  in  the  morning  ?  A.  I  think  in  the  fore- 
part of  the  day. 

Q.  Well,  first  thing  ?  About  10  o'clock— 10  o'clock ;  in 
that  neighborhood. 

Q.  Yes  :  about  the  first  thing  on  meeting  that  morning! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  what  language  did  you  convey  that  decision  of 


Ti:ST12T0yT  OF  HE^EY  C.  BOWEX. 


437 


yoiirs  to  him  ?  A.  I  do  not  remember  the  precise  lan- 
^aiage.  I  gave  him  to  understand  that  his  connection 
vith  the  papers  would  cease. 

Q.  Well,  you  told  Mm  ?  A.  I  told  him  so. 

Q.  Yes  ;  did  you  say  to  Mm  that  you  had  finally  con- 
tluded  to  terminate  Ms  connection  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Had  yeu  said  before  to  him  on  previous  days  that 
-week  that  you  intended  to  terminate  Ms  connection  ? 
A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  That  you  were  ThinMng  of  it  \  A.  At  the  interview 
at  my  house  I  gave  Mm  to  understand  that  that  was  my 
intention. 

Q,  To  terminate  entirely  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  This  connection  with  your  paper  ?  A.  That  was  my 
intention. 

Q.  Yes?  A.  Although  not  positively  decided,  I  was 
considering  seriously. 

Q.  "Well,  you  told  him  that '?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  parted  that  day,  so  far  as  that  suhiect  was 
e-oncerned.  with  that  announcement?   A.  On  Saturday  ? 

Q.  On  Monday.  A.  On  Saturday— on  Saturday  morn- 
ing, the  31st. 

Q.  Oh,  well,  I  am  talMng  about  Monday  at  your  house. 
A.  I  gave  him  to  understand  that  I  was  dissatisfied  with 
him,  and  that  the  engagement  would  prohahly  he  termi- 
nated ;  it  was  not  settled  positively. 

Q.  Yes,  exactly ;  you  announced  to  Mm,  then,  on  Mon- 
day that  you  were  not  satisfied,  and  should  probably  ter- 
minate all  relations  ?   A.  In  substance. 

Q.  In  substance  %   A.  In  substance. 

Q.  And  you  parted  without  any  qiialiflcation  of  that  f 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  ^S'ow,  between  that  time  and  your  annoimcement  to 
him  on  the  morning  of  the  Satiu'day  that  you  did  ter- 
minate your  relations,  did  any  qualification  of  that  pur- 
pose form  the  subject  of  an  interview  between  you  and 
him?  A.  Not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  have  interviews  with  him  that  week  ?  A.  I 
have  no  recollection  of  any  interview  In  regard  to  his 
leaving  the  paper ;  there  might  have  been,  but  I  have  no 
recollection  of  it. 

Q.  So  far,  then,  as  you  ujiderstand  the  matter,  your  an- 
nouncement on  Monday  of  your  dissatisfaction  and  prob- 
able removal  of  Mm  remained,  as  between  you  and  him, 
at  that  point  until  on  Saturday  you  announced  to  Mm 
that  you  had  removed  Mm  or  did  remove  him?  A.  Per- 
haps not  entirely  between  him  and  me  ;  but  I  had  not 
decided  to  remove  Mm  positively  until  Saturday, 
j  Q.  Well,  had  anything  passed  bet^"een  you  and  him  ? 
I       A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  anything. 

Q.  No  recollection  of  anytMng.   Now.  later  in  the  day 
on  Saturday — oh,  where  did  that  announcement  take 
place;  at  The  Independent  omce'i  A.  At  The  Union  omce. 
I         Q.  In  Brooklyn?   A.  In  Brooklyn. 

•  Q.  Was  it  uiinn  Ms  coming  to  the  office  ?  A.  Upon  my 
I      ^oing  to  the  oflice  he  was  there. 


Q.  He  was  there  first  1   A.  He  was  there  first. 
,  Q.  And  you  announced  it  ?   A.I  announced  it  to  him. 

Q.  Did  he  immediately  leave  the  office  on  Saturday 
morning  ?  A.  I  made  the  announcement  to  Mm,  and  left 
myself. 

Q.  Did  he  leave  the  office  1  A.  I  understood  that  he 
did  ;  I  did  not  see  Mm  leave. 

Q.  He  did  not  Ifiave  before  you !   A.  Not  before  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  there  again  ?  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  it. 

THE    FOE^^Ly;.    AXyOUXCE:MEXTS    OF  EE- 
MOVAL. 

'Q.  Now,  later  on  the  day  of  Saturday  you 
gave  him  some  wi-itten  annouiiceruent  ?  A.  I  sent  him  a 
formal  notice. 

Q.  Have  you  a  copy  of  that?  A.  I  have. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  original,  I  think,  has  been  applied 
for.  Yes,  it  is  admitted  to  be  lost.  [To  the  witness.] 
Have  you  that  copy  ?  A.  Here  the  two  notices,  or  copies 
of  the  two  notices,  which  are — one  is  from  The  Indepen- 
dent and  the  other  from  The  Daily  rnion. 

:Mr.  Evarts— I  propose  to  read  those.  [Ecadlng:] 

The  Lsdepexdent,  Publishee's  Office,  ? 
No.  3  Park-Place,  New-York,  Dec.  31, 1S70.  3 

Jfr.  Theodore  Tilto^— •S'zr  .•  This  is  to  give  you  writ- 
ten notice  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  a  recent 
contract  made  with  you  as  contributor  and  writer  for  The 
Independent,  that  your  services  as  said  writer  and  con- 
tributor will  cease  and  terminate  tMs  day  ;  and  that  no 
further  contributions  or  writings  will  be  received  or  pub- 
lished from  you  in  said  Independent. 

I  also  give  you  notice  that  I  am  ready  to  make  a  prompt 
settlement  with  you  of  all  claims  and  demands  you  have 
against  me,  growing  out  of  said  contract,  as  soon  as  the 
amount,  if  any,  is  fi:s;ed  and  awarded  by  arbitration,  as 
provided  in  said  contract. 

Please  name  at  your  earliest  convemence  the  time  and 
place  to  meet  and  select  the  names  of  said  arbitrators  and 
make  any  further  arrangements  necessary  and  proper  in 
the  premises.   Respectfully,  Hexbt  C.  Bowen. 

[Marked  ExMbit  D,  142.1 

Beooklt>'  Daily  Union.  \ 
Brooke Yx,  Dec.  31, 1S70.  3 

Ifr.  Theodore  Tiltox— 5ir .-  TMs  is  to  give  you  due 
notice,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  a  contract 
made  with  you  to  act  as  editor  of  The  Brooklyn  Daily 
rnion  from  the  1st  day  of  May  last,  that  your  services  as 
said  editor  will  cease  from  the  time  of  the  delivery  of 
this  written  note.  You  are  therefore  required  to  discon- 
tinue immedately  from  further  editorial  labor  and  ser- 
vice on  said  paper. 

I  give  you  further  notice  that  I  am  now  ready  to  make 
settlement  with  you  according  to  the  provisions  of  the ^. 
before-mentioned  contract,  and  that  if  you  have  any 
claims  or  demands  whatever  against  TTie  BrooMyn  Daily 
Vnioyi,  I  am  ready,  in  behalf  of  said  corporation,  to  meet 
them  promptly  as  soon  as  the  amoxmt,  if  any,  is  fljxed 
and  awarded  by  arbitration,  as  provided  in  said  con- 
tract. 

Please  name,  at  your  convenience,  the  time  and  place 
to  meer  and  select  the  names  of  the  said  arbitrators,  and 
make  any  further  arrangements  necessary  and  proper  in 
the  premises.  IIe^try  C.  Bowex. 

President  Brooklyn  Daily  rnion. 


1 


428 


TUB  TILTON-BEECHEB 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 


IBIAL. 


Q.  Tliat  was  a  corporation  1 
[Marked  Exhibit  D,  143. 1 

Q.  Did  you  receive  any  answer  from  Mr.  Tilton  to  either 
of  those  notes  ?  A.  I  believe  I  did,  but  I  am  not  positive. 
I  don't  recollect,  Mr.  Evarts,  about  that. 

Q.  You  do  not  find  such  a  paper  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  And  I  imagine  that  you  have  supplied  yourself,  toy 
search,  with  all  the  papers  that  you  supposed  would 
come  in  question  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  So  far  as  you  know,  then,  you  have  not  any  such  pa- 
per 1  A.  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  Of  receiving  it  ?  A.  Still  I  have  an  impression  that 
I  received  some  reply. 

Q.  In  writing  ?  A.  In  writing— I  think  I  did,  but  it  may 
not  be  so,  however. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  did  you  think  that  you  were  Indebted  to 
Mr.  TUton  upon  your  termination  of  that  contract,  for 
damages  

Mr.  Pullerton— One  moment. 

Mr.  Evarts— [ContLnuingJ— for  damages  for  breaking  it, 
according  to  its  terms. 

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment. 

Mr.  Beach— We  object  to  what  he  thought. 

Mr.  Evarts— His  attitude  on  that  subject.  Sir,  is,  I  sup- 
pose, part  of  the  transaction. 

Judge  NeUson— Yes,  his  attitude ;  but  this  question  is 
whether  he  thought  he  was  indebted. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes ;  whether  his  view  of  the  matter  was 
that  he  was  indebted  to  him  at  all. 

Mr.  Pullerton— He  certainly  thought  that  he  might  be 
Indebted,  because  he  courted  investigation  according  to 
the  provisions  of  the  contract,  and  expressed  his  wiUing- 
ness  to  pay  any  amount  that  might  toe  found  against 
him. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  any. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  if  any. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  want  to  know  whether,  in  his  view,  he 
•was  indebted  to  Mr.  Tilton  for  the  termination  of  those 
contracts. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  he  certainly  didn't  suppose  he  was 
Indebted,  xmless  Mr.  Tilton  made  some  demand,  and 
pursued  the  course  pointed  out  by  the  contract.  Now, 
certainly  they  cannot  give  what  Mr.  Bowen  thought  at 
that  time  as  to  the  particular  claim  that  might  be  made 
against  him  by  Mr.  Tilton. 

Judge  NeUson— I  cannot  see  that  It  is  material  what  he 
thought.  If  you  had  the  contract  before  you  you  could 
tell  perhaps  better  than  he  could. 

Mr.  Evarts— Ah !  my  telling  is  of  no  consequence. 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  see  that  what  he  thought  is 
material. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  question  is  this.  The  gentleman  did 
not  pay  anything  for  a  year  and  four  months,  though  he 
expressed  this  readiness  to  pay  

Judge  Neilson— But  he  was  not  willing  to  pay,  except 
as  something  might  be  found  due  and  fixed  by  arbi- 
tration. 


Mr.  Evarts— Of  course  all  the  materials  therein  would 
be  the  subject  of  consideration;  but  I  submit,  your 
Honor,  that  I  have  a  right  to  the  position  of  this  liti- 
gant or  adverse  party  to  the  claims— t«  know  whether  he 
admitted  a  claim. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  whether  he  aaanitted  a  claim ;  but 
I  cannot  receive  what  he  thought. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Mr.  Tilton  has  said  that  Mr.  Bowen 
had  no  defense. 
Mr.  Fullerton— That  was  Mr.  TUton's  view. 
Mr.  Evarts— I  know  it  was;  and  now  I  want  to  know 
Mr.  Bowen's  view. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  was  struck  out— what  Mi\  Tilton 
said  upon  that  subject. 

Judge  Neilson— I  won't  allow  you  to  prove  what  )ie 
thought. 

Mr.  Fullerton— This  delay  that  the  gentleman  speak* 
about  was  occasioned  by  the  fact  that  the  adverse  party 
to  Mr.  Bowen  did  not  pursue  his  remedy  in  the  way  pro- 
vided for  by  the  written  agreement.  Mr.  Bowen  ex- 
pressed his  willingness  to  pay  whenever  the  amount  was 
ascertained  in  that  particular  mode,  and  invited  the  ap- 
pointment of  arbitrators. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  will  argue  the  matter  whenever 
it  becomes  necessary  or  material.  I  am  now  seeking 
what  the  law  allows  in  the  shape  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  necessary  now,  so  far  as  I  have 
gone. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Bowen,  you  were  entirely  solvent  a  ad 
responsible  at  that  time,  and  have  so  continued  ever 
since  ?  A.  I  have  been  and  was. 

Q.  And  so  imderstood  to  be  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

NO  ADMISSION  OF  INDEBTEDNESS  TO  MR. 
TILTON  BY  MR.  BOAVEN. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  did  you  at  any  time  admit  that 
you  were  indebted  to  Mr.  Tilton  in  any  sum  of  mono'/ 
for  the  breach  of— for  the  termination  of  those  contracts  f 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— We  will  take  It. 

Mr.  Fullerton—"  At  any  time  admit  I " 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  we  will  take  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  seems  to  me,  your  Honor,  that  that  i» 
more  objectionable  than  the  other. 

Judge  NeUson— I  understand  him  to  mean,  admit  to 
Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  do  not  so  understand  it. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  that  is  implied. 

Mr.  Beach— Admit  to  anybody,  Sir,  anywhere ! 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  I  think  we  wUl  take  that,  even. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor  wiU  perceive  that  that  is 
giving  a  construction  to  language.  One  person  raigtt 
suppose  that  what  he  stated  was  an  admission,  and 
another  would  construe  it  differently.  Lawyers  some- 
times disagree  in  regard  to  the  import  of  language. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  sometimes,    f Laughter.J 


TEtSTlMOJ^Y  OF  HE2 

Mr.  Fullertoii— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— I  tliiuk  \^(t  will  take  tlie  ans"wer. 

Mr.  Beacli— We  except. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Mr.  Bowen  % 

The  Witness— Will  the  stenographer  plea«e  read  the 
question. 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  (luestion  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  Now,  Sir  ;  did  you  at  any  time  admit  that  you  were 
ndebted  to  Mr  Tilton  in  any  sum  of  money  for  the  breach 
of— for  the  termination  of  those  contracts  1"  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  on  that  subject. 

Q.  At  the  time  of  the  termination  of  those  contracts  did 
you  understand  that  you  had  a  justifying  cause  for  ter- 
minating them. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— We  cannot  take  that,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  r  Honor  will  be  so  good  as  to  note  our 
exception. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

ME.   BO  WEN'S   THOUGHTS   ON    THE  AEBI- 
TEATION. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  Sir,  wlien  first  did  you 
hear  of  a  proposal  to  have  the  arbitration  which  actually 
took  place  in  April, '72 1  A.  I  have  no  better  recollec 
tionthan  this,  that  it  was  within  a  few  days— perhaps 
two  weeks  from  the  time. 

Q.  And  from  whum  did  you  first  hear  if?  A.  I  am 
not  positive  in  regard  to  that.  1  had  freciuently  made 
proposals  myself  to  settle  in  that  waj',  according  to  agree- 
ment. 

Q.  To  whom  1  A.  To  different  parties. 

Q.  To  whom  ]  A.  To  Mr.  Storrs  and  to  Mr.  Claflin,  and 
to  other  friends  who  introduced  the  subject— to  anybody. 
I  said  I  was  ready  to  settle  at  any  time. 

Q.  At  any  time  1   A.  At  any  dme. 

Ci.  And  did  you  accompany  those  statements  with  the 
luriher  stat  meut  that  you  did  not  owe  him  anything? 

Mr.  Fullerton- That  is  objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— We  will  take  it. 

TUl'  Witness  [emphatically]— I  did  not. 

-J  V.  Kallerton— We  withdi-aw  the  objection,  Sir.  [Laugh- 
ter] 

Mr.  Beach~No,  we  don't. 

Q,.  In  any  form — you  settled  certain  admitted  debts  or 
obligations  promptly,  did  you  not,  after  the  teimination 
01  the  contracts!  A.  No,  Sir ;  there  were  

Q.  Didn't  you  pay  some  notes  1  A.  I  paid  some  obli- 
gations, but  there  were  certain— one  or  two  admitted  in 
na/  own  mind,  Bmall  amoimts,  but  I  wanted  the  whole 
tliLng  adjusted. 

Q.  I  am  only  asking  you  about  a  matter  of  fact.  You 
dWpay  promptly  some  obligations  that  were  not  Ib  dis- 
pute !  A.  Sofint  obligations,  I  did. 

'  K  Tmmeciiatel.y  after  iliis  termination !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


^liY  C.    BOWEN.  429 

Q.  What  was  the  amount  of  that  paj-ment,  and  when 
was  it  made  1  A.  The  amount  was  two  or  thiee  thousand 
dollars,  according  to  my  recollection,  perhaps  not  so 
much ;  but  it  was  settled  within  u  few  days. 

Q.  And  was  that  payment  of  all  that  was  in  dispute! 
A.  No,  Sir- ;  there  were  one  or  two  smaU  amounts  that  I 
felt,  myself,  ought  to  be  paid ;  for  instance,  the  week's 
salary  terminating  on  Satiu'day  night. 

Q.  Beyond  what  was  paid  in  this  two  or  three  thousand 
dollars  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  thought  he  ought  to  have  a  week's  salary  t 
A.  I  didn't  think  he  ought  to  have  it ;  I  thought  it  was  

Q.  But  you  thought  it  might  be  due  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor  will  understand  us  as  objecting 
to  what  he  says  as  to  his  thoughts. 

Q.  What  else  was  there  not  included  in  your  aotOAl 
payment  that  you  did  not  consider  m  dispute  ! 

Mr.  Beach— We  object. 

The  Witness— I  have  no  recoUectiom 

Mr.  Beacli— It  will  be  understood  that  we  stand  as  pwK 
testing  against  these  declarations  of  thoughts,  opiniona, 
and  considerations. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  is  the  transaction.  He  p  aid  all  that 
was  due,  except  

Judge  Neilson— He  does  not  object  to  the  fact. 

]VIi\  Beach  [to  Mr.  Evarxs]— You  could  not  have  under- 
stood what  I  said,  or  you  would  not  have  made  that  reply 
to  it. 

Mr.  Evarrp— With  whom  did  you  make  this  settlement, 
or  to  whom  personally  this  payment  that  you  did  make  ? 
A.  I  think  it  was  to  Mr.  Moulton,  or  to  some  messenger 
sent  by  him  to  me.     I  am  not  positively  sure  about  that, 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Moulton  bring  you  an  authority  from  Mr.. 
Tilton  1   A.  He  did  present  one. 

Q.  Did  he  leave  it  with  you  1   A.  think  not. 

Q.  Have  ycu  searched  for  it  1  A.  I  have  searched  for 
all  papers,  but  T  find  nothing  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Yovir  search  would  have  covered  it,  if  it  had  been 
in  existence  t  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  recollection  as  to  its  having  been  left 
or  not  1  A.  I  don't  think  there  ever  was  such  a  paper 
left  with  me. 

Q.  Now,  this  week's  salarj'  that  you  had  in  your  mind^ 
was  it  salary  as  editor,  or  salary,  under  the  new  con- 
tracts, as  contributor  1 

Mr.  Beach— He  was  editor  all  the  time. 

The  Witness— It  was  the  

Q.  Was  it  the  salary  under  the  previous  engagement!: 
A.  Under  the  last  engagement, 

Q.  And  not  under  the  new  contract!  A.  Under  the 
last  contract. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  tlie  contracts  by  their  terms  began  to 
draw  from  the  Ist  of  January  !  A.  From  their  date— or 
from  the  time  specified. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  know  they  were  made  on  the  27th,  but  I 
thought  they  began  on  the  tst  of  Jinnnxy.   [To  the  wifr 


430  THE   TILTON-BEEOREB  TBIAL. 

Have  you  got  tbose  contracts?  The  Witness— I 


ness.l 
have. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oil,  well,  then,  they  will  speak  for  them- 
selves.  We  will  look  at  them  if  you  please. 

The  witness  produced  the  contracts. 

Q.  In  whose  handwriting  is  this  Daily  Union  contract  1 
A.  I  can  tell,  Sir,  If  you  show  it  to  me,  perhaps. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  Mr.  Tilton's. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  Mr.  Tilton's  ;  there  is  no  doubt  about 
It.  The  other  one  does  not  seem  to  be  in  the  same  hand- 
writing. Is  this  other  one  in  your  handwriting  [handing 
paper  to  witness]  ?  A.  It  is  not  in  my  writing.  I  am  not 
able  to  

Q.  Well,  is  it  not  Mr.  Tilton's «  A,  It  is  not  Mr.  Tilton's. 
Probablj-  a  clerk's. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  were  these  contracts  before  the  arbitra- 
tion?  A.  They  were. 

Q.  These  papers  ?   Those  very  identical  papers. 

Q.  That  is  my  question,  these  very  papers  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  And  were  these  receipts  given  upon  them?  A.  They 
were  ;  at  that  time. 

Q.  At  that  time  1  A.  At  that  time,  together  with  an- 
other receipt,  which  is  here  [producing  it]. 

Q.  A  duplicate  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

[The  contracts  were  marked  exhibits  D,  144  and  145, 
and  the  receipt  exhibit  D,  146.] 

Mr.  Evarts— I  read  this  receipt.  [Reading.] 

Brooklyn,  April  3, 1872. 

Received  of  Henry  C.  Bowen,  publisher  and  proprie- 
tor of  The  Independent,  and  Henry  C.  Bowen,  President 
of  The  Brooklyn  Daily  Union,  $7,000,  in  full  of  claims, 
demands,  and  dues,  of  every  name  and  description, 
growing  out  of  contracts,  heretofore  existing,  and  now 
terminated,  with  The  Independent  and  with  The  Daily 
Union,  in  ftdl  of  claims  and  demands  against  said  Bowen 
individually,  and  also  of  claims  and  demands  against  the 
publisher  or  trustees  of  said  Daily  Union, 

This  was  given  you  at  the  time  of  the  payment  ?  A. 
On  the  evening  of  the  on  that  occasion. 

Judge  Neilson— When  you  gave  your  check  1  A.  At  the 
time  I  gave  the  check. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— Now,  you  say  you  cannot  tell  us  who 
:first  brought  to  your  attention  the  prospect,  or  the  pur- 
pose, of  an  immediate  arbitration  ?  A.  I  am  not  positive. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  what  is  your  best  impression?  A.  My  im- 
pression is  that  it  was  Mr.  Claflin  or  Mr.  Charles  Storrs  ; 
possibly  some  other  individual,  but  I  am  not  certain. 

THE   GOLDEN  AGE   AETICLE    SHOWN  MR. 
BOWEN. 

Q.  One  or  tlie  other.  Well,  Sir,  do  you  re- 
member whether  that  person,  whether  it  was  Mr.  Claflin 
or  Mr.  Storrs,  exhibited  to  you  a  galley-proof  of  a  pro- 
posed publication  in  The  Oolden  Age  ?  A,  At  that  time, 
or  about  that  time,  I  saw  it.  Whether  the  individual  who 
proposed  the  arbitration  presented  it  at  that  time,  I  am 
not  positive. 


Q.  How  did  it  come  to  your  observation— you  say  you 
saw  it?  A.  In  the  course  of  the  arrangement  for  the  ar- 
bitration that  was  shown  to  me. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  had  seen  it  before 
Mr.  Storrs  or  Mr.  Claflin  spoke  to  youl  A.  I  hacl 
never  seen  it  until  it  was  presented  to  me  at  that  time, 
during  the  progress  of  the  arrangement. 

Q.  In  connection  with  the  subject  of  the  arbitration  ? 
A .  In  connection  with  that. 

Q.  And  from  the  same  person  that  approached  you  on 
the  subject  of  that  immediate  arbitration  %  A.  I  am  not 
certain  who  presented  it. 

Q.  Well,  I  say,  you  are  not  certain  who,  but  this  galley- 
proof  business  was  brought  to  your  attention  by  the 
same  person  that  brought  to  your  attention  the  imme- 
diate prospect  or  purpose  of  an  arbitration  ?  A.  I  think 
so ;  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  And  at  the  same  time  ?  A.  I  am  not  positive,  Sir, 
but  it  was  at  the  same  time ;  about  the  same  time ;  it  was 
during  the  previous  two  or  three  weeks  to  the  arbitra- 
tion, according  to  my  recollection. 

THE  NAMING  OF  THE  ARBITRATORS. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Bowen,  when  did  the  naming  of 

the  arbitrators  first  arise  ?  A.  It  first  arose  when  I  gave 
Mr.  TUton  the  notice  to  quit,  and  that  I  was  ready  to 
settle. 

Q.  I  mean  this  very  arbitration  that  went  through— the 
naming  of  those  particular  men?  A.  I  don't  remember, 
Sir. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  ?  A.  I  don't  remember.  I  stated 
that  I  was  ready  to  leave  it  to  any  three  disinterested 
parties.  I  said  that  from  the  begiuning  down  to  the  day 
it  was  settled. 

Q.  I  don't  care  anything  about  begiuning,  but  you  told 
the  person  who  brought  the  matter  to  youi*  attention,  aa 
you  were  approaching  the  period  when  there  was  an 
actual  arbitration— you  told  that  person  that  you  were 
ready  to  arbitrate  ?  A.  Ready  to  arbitrate.  Always  had 
been. 

Q.  How  soon  after  did  the  question  come  up  as  to  who 
were  to  be  the  arbitrators  ?  A.  I  am  not  able  to  say  the 
date. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whom  you  named  ?  A.  I  have 
failed  entirely  to  remember  what  person  I  named,  utl 
think  it  was  Mr.  Clafln ;  I  am  not  positive ;  either  Mr. 
Claflin  or  Mr.  Storrs ;  one  of  those. 

(4.  Are  you  sure  it  was  not  Mr.  Freeland  ?  A.  I  would 
not  say  that  it  is  impossible.  I  was  willing  to  leave  it  to 
those  three  men. 

Q.  WeU,  you  named  some  person,  did  you  not  1  A.  I 
am  not  positive  that  I  did. 

Q.  You  don't  know  but  all  three  were  named  by  »o\uf 
body  else  ?  A.  They  were  all  acceptable  men  I  fUd  nof 
object  to  any  of  them. 


TjESTIMOXI 


Q.  Did  Tou  understand  wliom  ilr.  Tilton  named  ? 
■lid  not. 

Q.  And  did  you  understand,  if  lie  named  one  and  you 
one,  how  the  third  was  appointed  ?   A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  know  who  the  tliree  were  to  be  ? 
A.  I  don't  remember,  Sir ;  it  was  within  a  few  days  before 
it  was  adjusted. 

Q.  Was  it  not  the  very  day  of  the  arbitration  ?  A.  I 
think  not. 

Q.  But  you  are  not  positive  of  that  1  A.  I  am  not  posi- 
tive, but  I  think  not ;  I  think  it  was  two  or  three  days 
before. 

Q.  Xow,  Sir,  how  long  before  the  actual  arbitration 
(which  was  begun  and  ended,  I  undoi  staud,  in  one  eren- 
ing,)— how  long  before  that  eTenino;  did  you  see  the  text, 
or  proposed  text,  of  what  has  since  been  called  the  Tri- 
partite Agreement  %    A.  How  long  before  that  evening  1 

Q.  Yes.   A.  Xever, 

Q.  You  never  saw         A.  [InterruptiugJ  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  [Continuing]  The  proposed  Tripartite  Agreement  ? 
A.  No,  Su-. 

Q.  T\Tien  did  you  first  see  the  proposed  text  of  the 
proposed  Tripartite  Agreement?  A.  Afterwards— some 
days ;  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  You  never  saw  either  the  complete  text  or  the  pro- 
posed text*  A.  Nor  any  text,  nor  any  writing  on  the 
subject,  before  the  settlement. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  that  you  received  at  anytime 
about  that  period— that  there  was  delivered  to  you  what 
has  been  called  the  Woodstock  letter  i  A.  I  remember  it, 
Sh-. 


OF  BEI^BY 

A.  I 


C.   BOW  EX. 


431 


THE  WOODSTOCK  LETTER  EETTOXED. 

Q.  Wiien  did  you  receive  tlie  Woodstock  let- 
rer  from  Mr.  Tilton  \  A.  That  was  two  or  three  days 
after  the  settlement. 

Q.  Two  or  three  days  after  the  arbitration  ?  A.  Possibly 
Longer,  but  it  was  very  soon  after. 

Q.  Very  soon  after  you  received  the  acmal  letter  ?  A. 
Very  soon  alter  I  had  made  the  settlement  with  Jli-.  Tilton. 

Q.  Y^es.  How  old  a  letter  was  that  ?   A.  Some  years  old. 

Q.  Well  was  it  not        A.  If  you  wish  to  know,  Sii\  I  can 

ceU  you. 

Q.  Yes,  I  want  to  know,  of  course.  I  don't  care  any- 
:hing  about  the  letter ;  I  ouly  want  to  know  how  old  it 
^as.  A.  [Referring  to  a  paper]  It  is  dated  Woodstock, 
Tune  16, 1863. 

Very  well.  And  that  letter  was  returned  to  you. 
1.  That  letter  was  i\  turned  to  me. 

Q.  Immediately  after  this  settlement  I  A.  Immediately 
ifter  this  settlement. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  know  it  was  to  be  returned  to 
^oul  A.  I  think  not  before  its  delivery,  but  possibly  the 
same  day,  before— the  same  day,  during  the  day. 

Q.  When  had  you  first  asked  or  suggested  its  return  to 
rou !  A.  L^mphaticaUj  .J   I  never  asked  for  its  return. 


Q,  The  whole  matter,  then,  wa-s  a  voluntary  one  ?  A-  I 
am  not  certain  about  that ;  I  think  Mr.  Storrs  asked  flor 
it ;  he  told  me  so. 

Q.  Well,  we  won't  go  into  third  persons.  It  was  volun- 
tary so  far  as  you  were  concerned  1  A.  I  didn't  ask  for  it. 

Q.  Xor  expect  it?  A.  Nor  expect  it;  it  was  a  surprise 
to  me  when  I  received  it. 

Q.  Very  well;  now  can  you  say  who  first  brought  you 
the  Tripartite  Agreement  1   A.  I  think  Mr.  Claflin,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  upon  that  subject  I  A.  I  have 
not. 

MR.  BOWEX'S  SIGNING  OF  THE  COVEN A^TT. 

Q.  And  as  you  have  stated,  it  was  left  with 

you  ]   A.  It  was  left  with  me  over  night. 

Q.  And  was  not  immediately  signed.  Now,  how  long 
after  it  was  fli'st  left  with  you  did  you  finally  sign  the 
paper,  as  you  did  sign  it  ?  A.  It  was  left  with  me  in  my 
office  in  New-York,  and  sitmed  at  the  same  office,  I  think 
the  next  day,  during  the  day. 

Q.  That  is  your  signature  \  [Handing  the  paper  to  wit- 
ness]. A.  That  is  my  signattu^c. 

Q.  Is  there  any  mode  in  which  you  can  fix  the  day  on 
which  this  was  left  with  you,  and  so,  the  day  on  whioli 
you  signed  it  ?   A.  I  a:n  not  able  to  fix  the  date. 

Q.  Have  you  no  memorandum  or  record  of  it  ?  A.  None 
whatever. 

Q.  Were  the  other  signatures  on  it  when  you  signed  It  1 
A.  I  am  not  able  to  say  positively. 

Q.  What  is  your  impression  about  that !  A.  I  have 
failed  to  recollect.  I  could  not  say  that  there  were  none, 
and  yet  ir  is  possible. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  impression  as  to  whether  yon 
si.gned  it  first  or  afterward  ?  A.  I  have  no  impression. 

Q.  None  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  paper,  when  it  was  left  with  you,  was  com- 
plete, as  it  now  is  1  A.  I  am  not  able  to  say  that.  The 
paper  which  was  left  with  me  wa-s  changed— altered,  and 
after  it  was  changed  I  signed  it. 

Q.  Well,  was  more  than  one  paper  left  with  you  ?  A. 
The  paper  which  was  left  with  me  was  changed  by  my- 
self ;  that  part  of  it  which  referred  to  myself ;  whether  it 
was  taken  away— I  think  it  was,  and  brought  back  with 
those  alterations  made. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  paper  which  you  have 
now  spoken  of  as  having  been  left  with  you  and  signed 
by  you  the  next  was  taken  away  in  the  interval  ?  A.  I 
think  it  was,  to  make  the  change ;  I  declined  to  sign  it 
as  it  was  left  with  me. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  will  see  about  that.  [To  the 
witness.]  Is  that  the  paper  that  was  left  with  you  the 
first  day  [handing  a  paper  to  the  witness]  1  A.  Without 
reaiing  it  I  should  say  it  is  not,  because  the  frequent  in- 
terlineations which  I  made  are  not  here. 

Q.  That  paper  has  no  interlineations,  has  it?  A.  No, 
not  as  I  see. 


433  TRE  11LT0IJ-B2 

Q.  Is  that  the  paper  tliat  was  left  with  you,  as  you  have 
said,  one  day  and  signed  hy  you  the  next  f  A.  I  say  it  is 
not. 

Judge  Neilson— That  Is,  it  was  not  the  first  paper  that 
was  left  with  you  ?  A.  No.  Sir. 

Q.  It  is  not  the  paper  that  was  left  one  day  and  signed 
the  next  i  A.  No,  Six,  it  was  not. 

Mr,  Beach— He  does  not  say  the  paper  was  left  with 
him  one  day  and  signed  the  next. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  said  so. 

The  Witness— It  is  a  mistake  if  I  said  that, 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  mean  to  say  you  contradict  your- 
self. I  only  want  to  get  at  the  fact.  I  understood  you  to 
have  said  a  paper  was  left  one  day  and  signed  the  next. 

The  Witness— Not  the  same  paper  signed  the  next  day. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well;  we  wiU  get  at  it  as  it  is.  [To 
the  witness.]  This  is  not  the  paper  that  was  left  with 
you  the  day  before  you  signed  it  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— The  paper  he  sisnied  was  not  left  with  him 
the  day  before.  You  misstate  his  answer  in  your  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  misstate. 
Mr.  Beach— You  \ery  clearly  do. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— This  very  paper  that  you  signed  Is  not 
the  paper  that  was  left  with  you  the  day  before  i  A.  No, 
Sir  ;  it  was  not. 

Q.  Now,  before  that  had  any  paper  purporting  to  be  a 
Tripartite  Agreement  been  left  with  you  ?  A.  There  was 
a  paper  left  with  me  the  day  or  day  but  one  before  I 
signed  it. 

Q.  Very  wen.  And  only  one  such  paper  was  left  with 
you  before  the  day  you  signed  iti  A.I  th  ink  not. 

Q.  Very  well.  And  that  was  the  day  before  you  signed 
it!  A.  I  think  so,  but  possibly  two  days  might  have  in- 
tervened. 

Q.  Weil,  your  best  recollection?  A.  My  best  recollec- 
tion. 

Q.  So  that  there  was  but  one  paper  laid  before  you 
until  the  paper  came  that  you  actually  did  sigul  A. 
Only  one,  according  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  The  best  of  your  knowledge  is  that  there  was  an  in- 
tervivl  of  a  day  between  tlie  presentation  of  the  first 
paper-  and  the  signing  of  the  actual  paper  1  A.  There 
was  actually  one  day,  and  possibly  more. 

Q.  Possibly  more  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  who  brought  you  this  paper  the  day  that 
you  signed  it  ?  A.  Mr.  Claflin,  I  believe. 

Q.  And  he  had  brought  up  the  other  paper  the  day  be- 
fore 1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  if  it  was  the  day  before. 

Q.  Well,  that  day,  or  the  previous  day  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  One  of  the  two  daysl  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  that  there  was  more  than  one 
day  between?  A.  I  have  no  recoUeotion;  I  think  but 
one  day,  but  there  might  possibly  have  been  more. 

Q.  Now,  where  were  these  papers— the  two  papers  suc- 


'rECHEB  lELAL, 

oessively  brought  to  you— at  your  house,  or  at  your  office  t 
A.  At  my  ofice  in  New-York. 

Q.  At  The  Independent  oflBce  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  No.  3  Park- 
place. 

Q.  And  you  remember  that  distinctly?  A.  I  do,  dis- 
tinctly. 

Q.  And  that  it  was  Mr.  daffibi  ?  A.  I  do  remember  he 
brought  them. 

Q.  Both.  Now,  how  soon  did  you  know  that  after  you 
had  signed  this  paper  that  the  other  parties  had  signed 
it?  A.  I  am  not  able  to  state.  I  understood  that  all  had 
assented  to  it,  if  their  names  were  not  on  it. 

Q.  When  you  signed  ?   A.  When  I  signed. 

Q.  You  understood  aU  were  ready  to  sign  ?  A.  K  they 
were  not  on  already.  It  was  a  paper  which  had  been 
assented  to  by  all  parties. 

Q.  And  yoa  so  signed  it  yourself  ?  A.  I  so  signed  it 

Q.  And  when  you  first  knew  the  actual  signatures  had 
been  appended  ?  A.  I  am  not  able  to  say. 

Q.  You  are  not  able  to  state?  A.  But  very  soon. 

Q.  Did  you  retain  any  copy  of  it  ?  A.  I  did  not,  nor 
memorandum. 

Q.  And  have  no  memorandum  concerning  the  dates  or 
places  where  this  was  presented  ?  A.  I  have  no  memo- 
randum whatever  in  regard  to  the  paper,  or  to  Itie  occa- 
sion. 

Q.  None.  Now,  when  were  you  first  advised  that  there 
was  to  be  a  meeting  of  the  arbitrators  ?  A.  I  am  not  able 
to  state  ;  within  a  very  few  days  before  it  occurred ;  pos- 
sibly two  or  three. 

Q.  And  what  advice  did  you  receive— what  information, 
and  what  notice  ?  A.  It  was  a  verbal  notice. 

Q.  At  a  particular  hour  and  place  that  they  were  to 
meet?  A.  It  was  stated  to  me  that  the  arbitraton 
agi-eed  they  should  meet  at  Mr.  Moulton's  at  a  certain 
hour. 

Q.  When  ?  A.  On  a  certam  evening. 

Q,  When  would  they  meet  ?  A.  I  can  teU  by  ref  errinff 

to  

Q.  Was  it  the  evening  they  actually  did  meet  ?  A.  Ac- 
cording to  my  recollection. 

Q.  According  to  your  recollection  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  was  the  3d  of  April,  as  I  understand  it  ?  A.  It 
was  oTi  the  date  mentioned  in  the  paper  which  I  gave  you 
yesterday. 

Q.  April  3  ;  the  evening  of  April  3 1  A  The  evening  of 
AprU  3. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  receive  f*at  notice  earlier  than  that 
evening  ?   A.  I  am  ruot  able  to  state. 

Q.  You  cannot  say  about  that  ?  A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  From  whom  did  you  receive  the  notice  \  A.  I  am 
not  able  to  state. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q  Whatever  ?  I  think  it  was  fi'om  some  of  the  m'bi- 
trators— either  Mr.  Claflin  or  Mr.  Storrs. 


lESUMOyj   OF  H 

Q.  Yoa  have  no  recollection  of  it  f  A.  I  have  no  recol-  | 
lection  who  I  received  it  from. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  that  was  the  first  notice 
of  the  a<5tual  time  and  place  of  meeting  ?  A.  I  have 
Btated  I  have  no  recollection  on  that  subject,  and  I  say  it 
Again. 

Q,  So  far  as  your  memory  goes  ?    A.  It  may  be  so,  and 
it  may  not.  ^ 

THE  MEETING  OF  THE  ARBTTRATORS. 

Q.  When  you  got  there  whom  did  you  meet  ? 
A.  I  found  the  arbitrators  there  in  the  course  of  the  even- 
ing ;  I  don't  know  whether  they  were  there  when  I  got 
there  or  not— all  of  them. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  find  there  when  you  got  there  ?  A,  I 
don't  remember  which  one  was  the  first. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  that.  There  were  other  people. 
Whom  did  you  find  when  you  got  there  ?  A.  I  don't  re- 
member. 

Q.  Did  you  find  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  find  Mr.  Moulton  %  A.  I  don't  remember 
"Whether  he  was  in  the  room  when  I  got  there. 

Q.  Did  you  find  Mr.  Claflini   A.  I  don't  remember  that. 

Q,  Did  you  find  Mr.  Freeland '?  A.  I  have  stated  I 
don't  remember  ia  regard  to  any  one. 

Q.  Then,  for  aught  you  know,  when  yon  and  Mr.  Storrs 
went  there,  there  was  not  anv  one  there  ?  A,  For  aught 
I  know,  there  were  no  other  persons  there,  and  they 
might  liave  been  all  there. 

Q.  Exactly;  so  I  understood.  You  have  no  recollection 
about  it  ?   A.  I  have  no  distinct  recollection. 

Q.  Indistinct  recollection  1  A.  No  indistinct  recollec- 
tion. 

v^.  Xow,  what  horn-  did  you  go  there  ?  A.  In  the  even- 
ing; I  should  think  about  half -past  seven  or  eight  o'clock; 
I  am  not  positive. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  first  thing  that  occurred  after 
you  got  there  that  you  do  remember?  A.  Shook  hands 
all  round. 

Q.  You  remember  that  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  that  include  the  whole— Mr.  Tilton,  Mr. 
Moulton,  and  the  three  arbitrators  1  A.  Yes,  Sir;  aU 
round. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  the  next  thing  that  was  said— that 
was  done  1  A.  I  am  not  able  to  state  consecutively  the 
movements  of  the  evening. 

Q.  You  were  all  together  in  the  room  and  shook  hands 
all  roimd  ?  A.  We  came  together  ultimately  at  the  time. 

Q.  You  were  together  when  you  shook  hands  ?  A.  We 
were.  Sir,  of  course. 

[  Q.  It  was  not  any  chasm  you  shook  hands  across  1  A. 
!no,  Sir— bloody. 

Q.  Wh^!  room  vi.  tujii  a.  It  was  the  back  room,  or 
dining-iooui. 

Ci.  On  the  parlor  floor?   A.  On  the  parlor  floor. 

Q.  Nov  ,  v.-iien  you  were  there  all  together,  and  before 


ENEY  G.  BOW  EN.  433 

the  formal  commencement  of  the  arbitration  proceedings, 
what  was  said  and  done?  Can  you" repeat  it?  A.  I 
cannot. 

Q.  No  part  of  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  it  was  casual  remarks. 

Q.  Nothing  that  impressed  itself  on  your  mind?  A. 
Nothing  important ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  say  that  you  remember  aflSrmatively 
that  nothing  important,  as  you  call  it,  was  said?  A.  I 
have  no  recollection  of  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Ah !  Then  how  did  the  arbitration  court  organise 
and  commence  its  sittings  ?  A.  They  gathered  about  the 
table,  and  were  about  to  proceed,  when  I  interrupted 
them  by  saying:  "  Grentlemen,  what  are  we  to  submit?" 
And  they  said:  "The  matters  between  Mr.  Tilton  and 
yourself?"  I  said  that  I  should  decline  taking  one  step 
until  it  was  put  in  writing,  what  we  were  to  submit,  and 
suggested  that  one  of  the  arbitrators  draw  that  submis- 
sion, and,  finally,  I  think  Mr.  Moulton  took  his  pen  and 
said :  "  Gentlemen,  what  do  you  submit  ?"  And  at  our 
suggestion— whether  this  Is  the  first  one  or  the  second 
draft,  I  am  not  able  to  say— but,  in  a  few  moments,  we 
agreed  upon  that  document  which  is  presented,  without 
question  or  debate. 

Q.  That  is  in  Mr.  Moulton's  handwriting  ?  A.  In  Mr. 
Moulton's  handwriting,  yes,  Sir;  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  WeU,  then,  about  the  proceedings  before  the  arbi- 
trators; did  Mr.  Moulton  remain?  A.  I  am  not  able 
positively  to  state  whether  lie  was  present. 

Q.  What  is  your  impression?  A.  I  had  the  impression 
that  he  did,  but  I  am  not  positive ;  I  certainly  didn't  ob- 
ject to  it. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  that.  For  aught  you  know  :Mr. 
Tilton,  yourself,  and  the  three  arbitrators  may  have  been 
the  only  persons  present  ?  A.  For  aught  I  know,  and 
Mr.  Moulton. 

Q.  Mr.  Moulton  may  have  been  there  and  may  not  f 
A.  He  may  have  been  there. 

Q.  What  witnesses  were  introduced  ?  A.  None  what- 
ever. 

Q.  What  papers  were  introduced  ?  A.  The  documents 
which  I  presented  to  you. 

Q.  Tnat  is,  the  agreement  ?  A.  The  two  agi-eements. 

Q.  And  the  letter  of  determination  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  but  the  two  agreements  ?  A.  Nothing  but 
the  two  agreements. 

Q.  Who  commenced  then  giving  further  information  to 
the  arbitrators  ?   A.  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  he  said  ?  A,  I  do  not,  dis- 
tinctly. 

Q.  WeU  ?  A.  He  presented  his  case  briefly. 

Q.  ^\Tiat  did  he  say  ?  A.  I  am  not  able  to  remember, 
Sir,  what  he  said. 

Q.  Can  you  not  give  us  a  word  of  what  he  said  ?  A.  He 
said  that  the  object  of  the  interview  was  to  arrange  ami- 
cably the  matters  between  us  in  dispute,  and  that  he 
claimed  such  an  amount. 


434  TUB  TILTON-B. 

Q.  Wliat  amount  did  tie  name  ?  A.  I  do  not  think  lie 
named  tlie  amount ;  lie  claimed  about  the  amount  that 
was  awarded. 

Q.  Well  what  did  he  say  about  the  amount  he  claimed  ? 
A.  I  have  said  I  don't  recollect  what  he  claimed. 

Q.  You  began  to  say  "  he  claimed  V  A.  He  claimed 
about  that  amount— the  amount  that  was  awarded. 

Q.  You  said  he  claimed  about  something  1  A.  What 
is  it] 

Q.  You  said  he  claimed— 

Mr.  Beach— The  witness  savs  he  claimed  a  certain 
amount;  the  amount  he  don't  remember,  but  it  was 
about  the  amount  awarded. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  witness  is  in  my  hands. 

Mr.  Beach— He  is  in  my  hands  to  iaterrupt  you  to  speak 
to  the  suit. 

Mr.  Evarts— Not  exactly. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  he  is. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Bowen,  what  did  Mr.  Tilton  say  in 
respect  to  the  amount  he  claimed  ?  A.  I  have  told  you 
that  I  don't  recollect  exactly  the  phraseology ;  he  claimed 
about  that  amount,  according  to  my  recollection ;  and 
what  he  said  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  Mr.  Tilton  said  to  these  arbitra- 
tors, "  I  claim  aoout  $7,000  ?"  A.  In  substance  that  was 
what  he  said. 

Q.  Then  did  he  give  his  reasons  %   A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  were  the  reasons  he  gave  ?  A.  I  don't  remem- 
ber.  He  stated  the  case  briefly. 

Q.  The  case  !  I  want  to  know  what  he  said  ?  A.  I  am 
not  able  to  remember  the  language,  if  that  is  youi-  ques- 
tion. 

Q.  The  language,  or  the  substance  ?  A.  The  substance 
of  it  was  that  he  knew  the  contract  claimed  such  an 
amount,  and  he  so  stated  it. 

Q.  And  he  named  the  amount,  did  n't  he  1  A.  About 
the  amount.  He  said  he  claimed  about  so  much,  and 
specified  about  the  amount. 

Q.  About  $7,000  ?   A.  About  $7,000. 

Q.  Well,  now,  did  he  say  anything  else?  A.  I  am  not 
able  to  remember. 

Q.  Did  he  say  one  single  thing  on  the  subject  of  that 
arbitration,  or  the  dispute  between  you  and  him,  except 
that  he  claimed  about  $7,000  ?   A.  He  may  have  said  

Q.  Ah !  did  he  ?   Q.  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  Anything !   A.  Anything  Important,  certainly. 

Q.  And  you  don't  recollect  that  he  did  say  anything 
else,  do  you?  A.  At  this  moment  I  don't. 

Q.  Very  well.  This  is  the  moment  that  I  am  examining 
you.  Now,  Sir,  after  he  got  through  with  that  statement, 
what  did  you  say  ?  A.  I  said  to  the  arbitrators  that  in 
my  judgment  there  was  no  claim  on  The  Independent  or 
The  Brooklyn  Union— axiy  legal  claim  for  the  amount 
stated,  but  that  I  should  leave  the  whole  question  to  the 
arbitrators.  I  made  but  a  very  few  remarks. 


LECHER  IBIAL. 

Q.  Won't  you  give  us  those  few  remarks  %  A.  I  hav9< 
given  them  to  you,  in  substance. 

Q.  That  is  about  the  whole  ?   A.  About  the  whole. 

Q.  About  the  whole  jon  said  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  was  yom-  statement  to  them  that  yoiu 
didn't  [To  the  Tribune  stenographer]— Please  read  thft 
last  answer. 

Tl^e  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  answer  as  f  ollo^v8 : 

"  I  said  to  the  arbitrators  that,  in  my  judgment,  there 
was  no  claim  on  The  Independent  or  The  Brooklyn  Union 
—no  legal  claim  for  the  amount  stated ;  but  that  I  should 
leave  the  whole  question  to  the  arbitrators.  I  made  bnt 
a  very  few  remarks." 

By  Mr.  Evarts— Didn't  you  say  to  them  that  there  was- 
no  claim  for  any  amount  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  impression?  A.  I  might  have 
said  there  was  no  legal  claim. 

Q.  No  legal  claim  for  any  amount?  A.  I  might  have  so 
stated,  in  my  jud.i,,ment. 

Q.  I  don't  know  but  you  were  right.  And  then  ou 
those  statements  the  case  was  closed  ?  A.  The  case  Avas 
closed. 

Q.  That  included  evidence  and  argument— aU  ?  A.  Tiie 
whole. 

Q.  And  you  retired  then  ?   A.  No,  Sir,  not  immediately. 

Q.  When  ?  A.  After  the  award  was  made. 

Q.  I  don't  mean  from  the  room,  but  didn't  you  leave 
the  arbitrators  alone  ?  A.  We  did,  and  entered  the  adjoiu- 
ing  room. 

Q.  You  and  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton,  If  he  was  with 
you  %   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Retired  from  the  room  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  And  where  did  you  go  ?   A.  Into  the  front  parlor. 
Q.  Folding  doors  open  ?   A.  Shut. 

Q.  Shut  then,  or  had  they  been  always  shut  ?  A.  They 
had  been  shut. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  who  were  with  you  in  the  room  that  you 
went  into  1   A.  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Moulton?  A.  I  think  not;  T  think  he  went 
up  stairs,  if  he  M^ent  with  us.  He  might  have  been  witli 
us  a  part  of  the  time,  but  I  know  we  were  alone  some 
minutes.  ^ 

THE  ANNOUNCEMENT  OF  THE  AWARD. 

Q.  Now,  how  long  were  you  and  Mr.  Tilton 
together  before  the  arbitrators'  boaTd  was  ready  to  an- 
nounce their  decision  ?  A.  Half  an  hour  perhaps. 

Q.  Is  that  your  recollection  1  A.  According  to  ray 
recollection. 

Q.  It  was  as  long  as  that  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  about  an 
hour ;  it  might  be  a  little  less  time,  or  a  little  longer. 

Q.  WeU,  what  notice  did  you  have  to  appeal-  before 
them  and  receive  their  iudgnu  nt?  A.  The  folding  doors 
opened,  and  we  were  invited  to  come  back. 

Q.  Who  invited  you  ?   A.  I  don't  reuieuiber. 

Q.  Well,  you  went  back?   A.  We  weut  back. 


TESTIMOSI   OF  HEXEY   C.  BOWEX. 


43.5 


Q.  Was  Mr.  Moult  on  there  ?   A.  I  don't  remember. 
Q.  Or  did  lie  come  there  ?   A.  I  think  he  Tvas  present. 
Q.  You  den't  know  where  he  came  from?    A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  Well,  what  then  happened  ?  A.  We  heard  the 
award. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  said?  A.  I  don't  rememherwhat 
was  said;  the  award  was  eaid  to  be  so  much;  that  was 
their  conclusion;  I  don't  recollect  the  language— the 
phraseology;  it  was  not  put  in  writing. 

Q.  There  was  no  written  award  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Who  announced  what  the  award  was  1  A.  I  don't 
remember. 

Q.  Jfow,  you  cannot  give  us  the  words  in  which  the 
award  was  announced  ?   A.  I  cannot. 
Q.  At  all  1   A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  But  you  recollect  the  amount,  so  far  as  it  related  to 
the  money]   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

NO  STIPULATION    MADE  ABOUT  BUENIXG 
PAPEES. 

Q.  Let  me  see  if  I  cannot  refresh  your  recol- 
lection. 3tr.  Claflia  says  that  he  made  the  award— the 
announcement.   Mr.  Claflin  says  this  : 

I  said  that  we  had  made  up  our  minds  that  they  should 
tirst  burn  up  all  the  papers  connected  with  the  scandal, 
and  that  Mr.  Bowen  should  pay  Mr.  Tilton  $7,000,  and 
that  they  should  sign  the  CoTenant — the  "  Tripartite 
Affieement,"  as  we  called  it. 

Did  Mr.  Claflin  say  that  1   A  I  say  not,  most  positirely. 
Q.  Did  he  say  any  part  of  it  i   A.  No  part  of  it  "what- 
erer. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  it  is  an  entire  fabrication  ?  A.  No, 
Sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Well,  what  do  you  mean  ?  A.  I  mean  that  I  have 
no  recollection  of  any  such  statement  being  made. 

Q.  Ah !  that  is  what  you  mean  ?  A,  I  mean  that  no 
such  statement  was  made  to  me  1 

Q.  Do  you  mean,  anything  more  than  that  you  do  not 
recollect  of  any  such  statetaent  1  I  mean  that  it  would 
be  impossible  not  to  recollect  it  if  there  had  been. 

Q.  That  is  matter  of  judgment.  A.  Well,  that  is  my 
judgment,  then. 

Q.  It  is  yom- judgment  that  it  would  be  Impossible  for 
you  not  to  recollect  it  if  it  happened?  A.  I  say  that  no 
such  statement  was  made  to  me ;  I  say  that  aost  posi- 
tively. 

Q.  Then  it  is  made  out  of  whole  cloth  i 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  no  way  to  examine  a  witness. 

The  Witness— I  will  not  say  that. 

By  Mr.  Evarts — So  far  as  the  fa<3t  goes,  then,  your 
recollection  is  that  nothing  to  justify  that  statement  oc- 
3urred?  A.  I  am  not  the  judge,  Sir,  in  this  case.  I 
decline  

Q.  Your  recollection  ?  A.  No  sucli  statement  was  made 
to  me  ;  that  is  my  statement. 


Q.  And  nothing  of  that  kind  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection 
of  ever  heaiing  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Very  well.  Now,  have  you  a  recollection  that  nothing 
of  that  kind  was  said?  A.  I  have  a  recollection  that 
nothing  of  the  Mnd  was  said. 

Q.  Very  well.  Then,  so  far  as  you  know  and  recoUeot, 
nothing  occurred  out  of  which  that  statement  co;ild  be 
made  ?  A.  Nothing  whatever. 

Q.  Nothing  whatever  %  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  will  you  be  so  g-ood  as  to  state  to  us  what 
you  do  remember  Mr.  Claflin  said  1  A.  I  may  qualify  my 
last  statement  by  saying  that  there  was  conversation  ia. 
knots  about  the  room  after  the  award  was  made,  and  I 
have  thought  this  matter  over,  and  thought  perhap* 
there  might  have  been  a  remark,  "Now  you  must  be 
good  friends,"  &c.,  around  in  knots.  Whether  Mr.  Claflin 
made  that  statement  there  I  am  unable  to  say,  but  cer- 
tainly it  was  never  made  before  the  arbitrators  as  such, 
according  to  my  recollection.   It  is  entire  news  to  me. 

Q.  For  aught  you  know,  then,  it  might  have  been  said 
in  that  room,  while  you  were  altogether  ?  A.  It  might 
have  been  whispered  or  said  in  knots,  and  I  not  have 
heard  it,  but  not  addressed  to  the  ai^bitrators. 

Q.  But  the  whole  of  it  might  have  been  said  in  that 
room,  for  aught  you  know,  that  night  1  A.  That  night  it 
mi^ht  have  been. 

Q.  Now,  how;  many  knots  could  you  make  out  of  five 
people  ?  A.  Three,  at  least. 

Q.  Well,  what  was  the  first  knot!  A.  I  have  no  recol- 
lection. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  knots  ?  A.  I  have  told  you, 
Sir,  that  I  did  not  remember. 

Q.  A  knot }  A.  I  did  not  remember  anything  about  it. 
That  there  might  have  been,  I  said. 

Q.  There  might  have  been  knots.  Now,  do  you  remem 
her  any  knots,  as  you  call  it  ?  A.  I  remember  there  wore 
conversations— friendly  conversations  about  the  room. 

Q.  Was  it  not  a  conversation  between  the  whole  group  t 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Between  whom  was  it  ?  A.  I  don't  remember.  Sir. 
I  didn't  say  there  were  any  such  conversations. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  there  having  been  any  separation 
into  knots  1   A.  I  don't  remember,  Sir-. 

Q.  And  you  do  remember  tkat  at  one  time  they  were  in 
groups  %  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  said  I  did  not  remember ;  but 
there  might  have  been. 

Q.  Jut,  they  were  in  a  group.  I  don't  say  what  waa 
said  %   A.  They  were  all  present  that  evening. 

Q.  Now,  it  is  not  a  very  large  room,  is  it  1  A.  Pretty 
good  sized  room. 

Q.  How  big?  A.  Fifteen  feet  by  17  or  18, 1  should 
think. 

Q.  And  the  table  of  the  arbitrators'  board,  how  much 
room  did  that  take  up— was  that  a  dining  table  i  A.  Yes,. 
Sir. 

Q.  The  usual  dining  table  !   A.  Yes,  Sir. 


436 


THE   TlLlON-HtJECBEB  TBIAL. 


Mr.  Evarts— It  is  suggested,  if  your  Honor  please,  that 
we  have  reached  our  usual  hour  of  adjourning. 

Judge  NeUson— Get  ready  to  retire,  gentlemen.  Will 
the  jury  please  return  at  2  o'cloclr. 

Mr.  Mallison— [Clerk]— The  Court  will  now  take  a  re- 
cess until  2  o'clock. 

The  Court  then  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
Journiuent. 

Judge  Neflson— Mr.  Bowen,  will  you  take  the  stand, 

please  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment,  please  Mr.  Bowen,  with 
your  Honor's  permission.  I  want  to  ask,  with  the  con- 
sent of  my  learned  adversaries,  a  (luestion  of  Mr.  An- 

d}'ew8. 

Judge  Neilson— Stand  up  there,  Mr.  Andrews. 

Stephen  Pearl  Andrews  recalled. 

Mr.  Fullei  ton— What  Gen.  Hammond  was  it  whom  you 
mentioned  yesterday  as  being  present  at  Mrs.  Wood- 
h-all's  ?   A.  Gen.  Hammond  of  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Q.  Xot  Surgeon-General  Hammond  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  all. 

THE  COVENANT  NOT  MENTIONED  AT  THE 
ARBITRATION. 

Henry  C.  Bowen  was  then  recalled  and  his 
cross-examination  resumed. 

By  Mr,  Evarts— Page  674, 1  read— Mr.  Charles  Storrs. 
Mr.  Storrs  being  asked : 

After  they  came  in  what  was  done !  A  Mr.  Claflin 
made  known  to  them  the  award. 

Q.  State  what  was  said  ?  A.  He  stated  that  the  award 
was  that  the  three  parties,  Mr.  Bowen,  Mr.  Tiltoii,  and 
Mr.  Beecher,  were  to  sign  a  paper,  called  the  Tripartite 
Agreement,  and  that  all  the  papers  were  to  be  burned 
that  the  three  parties  had,  that  were  likely  to  make  any 
trouble  hereafter,  and  that  Mr.  Bowen  was  to  pay  Mr. 
Tilton  $7,000. 

Upon  having  your  attention  called  to  this  testimony  of 
Mr.  Storrs,  what  do  you  say,  Mr.  Bowen,  now,  in  regard 
to  the  award  %  A.  The  same  as  before.  Sir. 

Q.  Yes;  that  it  may  have  occurred  in  knots  about,  and 
not  as  an  annoimced  award  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  That  is  your  idea?  A.  That  is  my  Idea. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  your  attention  to  what  the  other 
arbitrator,  Mr.  Freeland,  says,  page  703,  at  the  foot  of 
the  first  colimm : 

Q.  Mr.  Claflin  announced  the  award!  A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  the  award  was  1  A.  Well,  in  sub- 
stance he  said,  first,  that  the  papers  were  all  to  be 
burned  relating  to  the  scandal. 

Q.  Well !  A.  The  next  was— let  me  see,  I  don't  exactly— 
that  was  the  first,  I  remember,  that  was  spoken  of. 
Then  the  award,  I  think,  came. 

Q.  Wli at  was  the  award]   A.  $7,000. 

Q.  Well,  what  next?  Was  there  anything  said  about 
signing  any  paper  1   A.  Yes,  Sir, 


Q.  What  was  said  about  signing  a  paper  1  A.  The 
Tripartite— that  hard  name  that  I  cannot  pronounce  very 
well. 

Q.  Very  weU ;  we  know  what  you  refer  to.  A.  That 
was  to  be  signed. 

Q.  By  whom?  A.  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  Mr.  Til- 
ton,  and  Mr.  Bowen,  I  think. 

Q.  Bowen?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Bowen,  upon  hearing  this  statement  of 
Mr.  Freeland's  are  you  stUl  of  the  same  opinion  ?  A.  I 
state  most  positively  that  nothing  of  the  kind  was  said 
in  my  hearing.  I  have  some  recollections,  since  I  left 
this  morning,  without  conference  with  any  one,  how- 
ever, in  regard  to  the  "Tripartite  Agreement,"  which  I 
should  like  to  state. 

Q.  Very  weU.  A.  When  Mr.  Claflin,  I  think  it  was, 
talked  to  me  about  signing  it,  I  made  this  reply  :  "  Wliy 
do  you  "  

Q.  Well,  don't  go  into  the  conversation  between  you 
and  Mr.  Claflin.  A.  You  asked  me,  I  believe,  what  oc- 
curred between  Mr.  Claflin  and  myself— what  was  said, 
did  you  not  ? 

Q.  No,  I  did  not?  A.  Excuse  me. 

Q.  That  we  excluded  when  the  other  side  attempted  it, 
and  that  they  excluded  when  Mr.  Claflin  was  on  the 
stand,  and  it  was  inquired  into.  Now,  Sir,  in  regard  to 
your  own  action,  if  you  wish  to  correct  a  date  or  any- 
thing of  that  kind  ?  A.  I  say  that  nothing  was  said  to 
me  in  regard  to  the  "  Tripartite  Agreement "  until  after 
the  settlement,  nothing  was  said  about  any  paper ;  no 
paper  was  shown  to  me. 

Judge  Neilson— Until  after  the  arbitration. 

The  Witness— Until  after  the  arbitration. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  you  said  this  morning. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir.  I  say  it  again. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  not  necessary ;  that  is  not  a  oorreotion. 
That,  if  your  Honor  please,  may  be  stricken  out. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  let  it  stand. 

CONTRADICTIONS  OF  MESSRS.  STORRS  AND 
CLAFLIN. 

Mr.  Evaiiis— Of  course  I  was  ready  that  the 

witness  should  make  any  correction  or  modification  of 
his  testimony.  Of  course  it  is  not  very  material.  Now, 
Sir,  see  if  this  statement  of  Mr.  Storrs's  on  another  point 
will  recall  to  your  mind  what  happened  there : 

Mr.  Bowen  said  he  wanted  what  is  termed  the  Wood- 
stock letter,  which,  I  think,  was  in  Jiine,  1863,  he 
wanted  that  returned  to  him,  and  the  arbitrators  assented 
to  that. 

A.  No  allusion  was  made  to  that,  whatever,  in  my 
presence. 

Q.  You  think  Mr.  Storrs  is  wholly  wrong  about  that  I 

A.  T  think  he  is. 
Q.  Now,  I  will  read  what  Mr.  Claflin  says : 
As  to  burning  the  pai^ers,  Mr.  Bowen  said  he  had  no 

papers,  but  he  would  like  the  return  of  the  Woodstock 

letter,  which  was  agreed  to. 


TMSTIMOJ^Y  OF  EE^BY  G.   BO  WEN. 


437 


A.  My  answer  is  the  same. 
Q.  Mr.  Freeland  says : 

I  remember  Woodstock  vas  mentioned  and  about  a 
letter,  and  I  tliink  that  Mr.  Bowen  wanted  to  have  that 
returned  to  him  and  not  burned. 

A.  I  neither  asked  for  it  nor  was  it  announced  that  it 
would  be  returned. 

Q.  But  you  got  it  soon  afterward  t  A.  I  got  it,  and  in 
tJie  way  I  stated  this  morning. 

Q.  Yes,  exactly.  A.  Mr.  Storrs  came  and  

SOME  THINGS  MR.  BOWEN  DOEfe  NOT  RE- 
MEMBER TELLING  DR.  EGGLESTON. 

Q.  WeU,  no  matter,  no  matter!  We  don't 
want  it  twice.  Now,  Mr.  Bowen,  whom  were  you  in  con- 
ference with  on  Saturday  night,  when  you  made  that  en- 
gagement a  reason  for  making  the  appointment  for  Mon- 
day with  Mr.  Johnson  and  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  I  think,  a<3- 
oording  to  my  recollection,  some  of  the  editors  of  The 
Independent  were  there. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  which  one^l  A.  I  think  Dr. 
Bpear,  Mr.  Gladden,  and  Dr.  Eggleeton ;  I  am  not  posi- 
tive, though. 

Q.  That  is  your  impression  ?  A.  Perhaps  one  or  two 
others ;  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  remember  Dr.  Eggleston  being  at  your 
house  at  all  on  the  26th  of  December  1  A.  Have  n't  I 
answered  that  question  once  1 

Q.  Now,  you  have  answered  as  to  his  being  there  just 
before  you  left  to  go  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  just  after  your 
return.  I  now  ask  you  if  you  remember  his  b&ing  at  your 
house  at  all  on  the  26th  I  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it ; 
he  may  have  been  there  ;  he  frequently  called,  but  I  have 
no  distinct  recollection. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  that  an  appointment  was  made 
on  Saturday  for  him  to  see  you  again  on  Monday?  A. 
Very  likely,  but  I  don't  remember  it ;  it  was  usual. 

Q.  Your  memory  is  an  entire  blank  upon  that  subject  ? 
A.  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  No  recollection  one  way  or  the  other  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  your  memory  in  general  good?   A.  I  thinl-  .>o,  Sir. 

Q.  So  when  you  don't  remember  a  thing  you  feel  some 
assurance  it  did  not  take  place  t  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  don't  say 
tbat. 

Q.  You  do  not?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  don't  go  so  far  as  that  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  you  whether  Mr.  Eggleston  did  not 
come  to  your  house  on  the  afternoon  of  Dec.  26,  by  ap- 
pointment, and  whether  he  did  not  find  Mr.  Tilton  and 
Mr.  Oliver  Johnson  Iftiere  ?  A.  I  think  I  have  answered 
that  question,  that  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  such. 

Q.  "Will  you  say  that  that  did  not  happen  1  A.  I  have 
not  said  so.   I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  You  have  not  said  so,  and  you  wiU  not  say  so  i  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  That  it  did  not  happen.  Do  you  remember  that  Mr. 


Eggleston  went  away  and  returned,  and  these  visitors  ol 
yours  had  then  gone  1  A.  I  have  stated  that  I  have  no 
recollection  of  Mr.  Eggleston  being  there  or  going  away. 

Q.  And  this  don't  refresh  you  at  all?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  Mr.  Eggleston  finding  you  put- 
ting on  your  boots  to  go  out         A.  The  same  answer. 

Q.  Just  hear  me  now.  And  that  you  said  to  him  then : 
"  If  TUton  is  as  bad  as  we  think  he  is,  he  talks  exceed- 
ingly wen  ?"  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it,  Sir. 

Q.  That  does  not  refresh  your  mind  at  aU  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  to  that  effect!  A.  No,  Sir;  I  have  no 
recollection. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  asking  Mr.  Eggleston  then,  that 
afternoon,  to  go  down  and  see  a  certain  lady  whom  you 
named,  and  to  report  to  you  the  result  1   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  May  that  have  happened !    A.  It  is  not  impossible. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  do  you  remember  at  that  interview,  or  on 
that  occasion,  that  you  said  to  Mr.  Eggleston  (tapping 
your  pocket,)  you  said  you  had  a  letter  from  Tilton  to 
Beecher  ?  A.  I  think  I  have  answered  that. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  that  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  that  did  not  happen  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  or  a  letter  for  Mr.  Beecher,  or  anything  that  is 
equivalent  to  that  ?   A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  No  recollection  whatever  1  Do  you  remember  chat 
Dr.  Eggleston  returned  that  evening  after  dark  with  a 
message  from  the  lady  to  whom  you  had  sent  him  ?  A.  I 
don't  recollect  it,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  about  it !  A.  Nothing  about  it  whatever. 

Q.  And  do  you  remember  saying  to  him  then,  or  that 
evening :  "  I  have  just  been  to  Mr.  Beecher's" — or  *  to  see 
Mr.  Beecher  ?*'  Do  you  remember  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  [ReadingJ : 

He  is  a  good  friend  of  mine  and  of  yours ;  he  is  de- 
lighted tliat  IMr.  Tilton  is  removed ;  he  says  he  is  the 
worst  man  in  the  world,  and  that  Mrs.  Tilton  is  a  saint, 
gomg  to  heaven  before  her  time. 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  anything  of  the  kind, 

Q.  Nothing  Uke  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  No  part  of  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir;  not  a  part  of  it. 

Q,  Do  you  say  that  it  did  not  happen  ?  A.  No,  Sii*. 

Q.  You  won't  say  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  there  was  a  great 
deal  said  on  the  subject  all  the  time,  and  I  do  n't  know 
whether  that  occurred  or  not. 

Q.  Yes;  at  that  time  t  A.  No,  Sir.  Well,  it  is  not  impos- 
sible ;  I  do  n't  recollect  it  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  then  say  to  him  that  Mi-.  Beecher  had  told 
you  horrible  things  about  Tilton  1  A.  The  same  answer ; 
I  don't  recollect  it. 

Q.  You  don't  recoUect  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  This  does  not  revive  any  faded  image  in  your  mem- 
ory ?  A.  No,  Sir;  my  impression  is  that  I  did  not.  but  I 
won't  say  that, 

Q.  Won't  say  1   A.  I  won't  say  positively,  no. 


438  THE  TILTON-Bl 

THE   CONVERSATION  WHEN  MR.  TILTON'S 
LETTER  WAS  DELIVERED. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Bowen,  won't  you  be  so  good  as 

to  tell  us  wliat  did  pass  between  you  and  Mr.  Beeoher  on 
tliatday?  Was  lie  at  Mr.  Freeland's  wlien  you  went 
there?  A.  I  believe  he  was;  I  am  not  positive,  but  I 
think  he  was  in  the  room. 

Q.  No  memory  about  that  ?  A.  Not  distinct  enough  to 
say  positively ;  I  think  he  was  in  the  room  when  I  got 
there,  but  he  may  have  come  in  a  moment  after. 

Q.  Just  as  likely  one  way  as  the  other,  I  suppose  1  A. 
1  think  not  as  likely  the  one  way  as  the  other ;  I  think  he 
was  there. 

Q.  What  was  the  answer  that  your  messenger  brought 
yovi  from  Mr.  Freeland?  A.  He  said,  "  Yes." 

Q.  Said  "  Yes  ?"  A.  I  simply  requested  him  to  make 
an  appointment  at  a  certain  hour,  and  let  me  know,  if  it 
could  not  be  filled,  to  the  contrary ;  and  be  read  the  note 
and  said  "Yes." 

Q.  And  that  is  the  message  your  messenger  brought 
back?  A.  Yes,  Sii-;  nothing  definite.  I  was  not  sure  of 
meeting  him ;  I  expected  to,  because  I  requested  him  to 
make  the  appointment  and  let  me  know  if  it  could  not 
be  made. 

Q.  Very  well.  A.  I  expected  to  hear  from  him  if  I  did 
not  go ;  but  not  hearing,  I  went. 
Q.  Then  "  Yes  "  was  the  only  appointment  you  had! 
Mr.  Beach— Well,  that  does  not  follow. 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  it  does. 
Mr.  Beach— No,  it  does  not. 
Mr.  Evarts— As  it  now  stands. 
Mr,  FuUerton— Oh,  no  ! 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  let  us  know  what  other  appointment 
you  had  beyond  the  word  "  Yes." 

Mr.  Beach— Why;  the  witness  has  said,  Sir,  that  he 
wrote  to  Mr.  Freeland  a  note  asking  him  if  he  could  have 
an  appointment,  or  a  meeting,  at  a  certain  hour,  and  the 
answer  was  "  Yes  and  the  whole  of  it  is  a  portion  of 
the  appointment,  the  note  as  well  as  the  reply. 

The  Witness— To  let  me  know  if  an  appointment  covQd 
not  be  made. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes.  Very  well. 

The  Witness— And  not  hearing  from  it,  I  took  It  that 
that  was  agreeable— that  hour. 

Q.  What  hour?  A.  The  hour  i>amed;  I  don't  recollect 
the  precise  hour ;  it  was  in  the  afternoon ;  I  have  stated 
all  I  knew  about  that. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  what  the  hour  was  ?  A.  I  have 
stated  all  I  knew  about  that. 

Q.  Well,  won't  you  give  us,  as  near  as  you  can,  what  yoii. 
said  about  the  hour  1  A.  I  said  it  was  in  the  afternoon  ; 
4  or  5  o'clock,  or  eariy  in  the  evening ;  it  might  have 
been  as  late  as  6,  but  I  think  not ;  I  think  it  was  4  or  5 
o'clock. 

Q.  But  I  am  not  talking  about  when  you  went ;  I  am 


IJ^CHER  TBIAL. 

talking  about  the  message  that  you  sent  to  Mr.  Freelaiidf 
A.  The  message  that  I  sent,  I  think,  said  4  or  5  o'clock, 
or  any  other  hour  that  might  suit  his  convenience—some- 
thing like  that. 

Q.  And  the  only  answer  you  got  to  that  was  "  Yes  V* 
A.  "Yes;"  or  he  would  attend  to  it,  or  something  like 
that. 

Q.  But  no  selection  or  naming  of  an  horn*?  A.  No,  Sir; 
I  selected  the  hour  myself. 

Q.  Well,  how  did  you  know  which  hour  to  go  ?  A.  I 
went  at  the  time  I  specified. 

Q.  You  say,  either  then  or  in  the  evening  1  A.  I  beg 
your  pardon;  I  named  the  hour;  and  I  think  it  was  4  or 
5  o'clock,  but  I  stated  in  my  note  that  any  other  hour 
would  suit  me — if  I  recollect. 

Q.  And  your  answer  was  to  make  an  arrangement— 
your  request  ?  A.  My  answer  was  to  make  an  arrange- 
ment at  the  time  specified. 

Q.  Your  request  was  to  make  an  arrangement ;  and 
you  got  an  answer,  "  Yes  ?"  A.  I  got  no  answer  to  the 
note. 

Q.  No ;  .  but  a  message  ?  A.  A  message  that  he  would 
attend  to  the  request  which  I  made ;  that  is  as  I  under- 
stood it. 

Q,  Yes,  but  it  was  the  word  "  yes,"  wasn't  it  ?  I  think 
you  said  "yes."  A.  "  Yes "  or  "  aU right,"  or  something. 

Q.  Or  that  he  would  attend  to  it?  A.  That  he  would 
see  to  it. 

Q.  Then  you  went  at  a  certain  hour  1  A.  I  went  at  a 
certain  hour. 

Q.  Now,  you  are  quite  sure  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  not 
sent  for  after  you  got  there  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  was  not 
sent  for ;  I  am  sure  of  that. 

Q.  And  you  are  not  certain  whether  you  waited  for 
him,  or  he  was  there  ?  A.  I  think  I  waited,  if  he  was  not 
there,  a  minute  or  two  minutes  ;  I  thiak  he  was  there. 
Sir. 

Q.  Well,  that  you  say.  A.  I  won't  be  positive. 

Q.  Now,  what  passed  between  you  ?  A.  I  shook  hands 
with  him  when  I  entered  the  room,  and  said  that  I  was 
the  bearer  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Tilton  to  him  ;  and  he  sat 
down,  and  read  the  letter,  and,  as  I  staxed  before,  put  it 
in  his  pocket,  and  made  no  reply  for  the  moment.  I 
asked  him  what  reply  he  had  to  make  to  the  letter ;  he 
stated,  with  a  moment's  hesitation,  "  The  man  is  crazy," 
or  "  I  think  he  is  crazy  ;"  something  like  that. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  pursue  the  subject  any  further  t  A. 
The  subject  was  talked  over. 

Q.  Did  ?/au  pursue  the  subject?  He  had  gi\ en  you  uu 
answer  that  the  mau  was  crazy  ;  now  did  you  say  any- 
thing more  about  it  ?  A.  I  asked  him  what  he  had  to  say, 
and  his  reply  at  first  was,  "Are  you  fiiendly  with  me, 
Mr.  Bowen?"  I  said,  "I  am;  we  have  settled  all  our 
diffi  rence;  I  oome  as  a  friend,  and  desire  a  friendly  in- 
terview ;  I  come  in  no  other  vray  than  as  a  friend.'* 


TESTULOKY   OF  1 

Q.  Well,  did  your  manner  indicate  your  sincerity  1  A. 
It  did,  most  assuredly  ;  I  intended  it  should. 

Q.  And  you  felt  it  sincerely  ?   A.  I  felt  it  sincerely. 

Q.  And  sliowed  it ;  did  you  show  it  sincerely  %  A.  I 
don't  tMnk  I  did ;  I  "was  courteous  and  polite,  but  not  

Q.  No,  but  on  tMs  matter  of  your  friendsMp :  did  you 
show  it  decidedly  tliat  you  were  Ms  friend  1  A.  I  am  not 
able  to  remember,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  you  meant  to  be  understood  that  you  were 
really  his  fi'iend  ?  A.  I  went  with  a  friendly  spirit. 

Q.  Yes,  and  so  told  him  ?  A.  And  so  told  him  ;  he 
asked  me  that  questio  n,  however ;  I  did  not  tell  him  that 
unasked. 

Q.  Well,  of  course.  Go  on,  now ;  how  did  you  get  on 
further  in  the  conversation  ?  A.  After  he  asked  me  that 
question,  and  I  answered  it,  he  said  he  was  happy  to 
hear  it ;  and  then  he  asked  me  if  I  knew  anything  in  re- 
gard to  the  troubles  in  Mr.  Tilton's  famUy. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  that?  A.  I  said  that  I  did  not 
specially;  I  knew  there  were  certain  troubles,  but  I  had 
heard  nothing  particularly;  I  had  heard  some  things 
about  him,  but  in  the  family  I  did  not  know  anything 
about  it. 

Q.  That  is,  about  Mr.  Tilton?  A.  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs. 
Tilton ;  I  had  not  heard  particularly ;  I  had  heaid  some 
things  that  day. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  only  asking  what  you  told  Mr.  Beecher— 
what  you  said  to  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  I  told  Mr.  Beecher 
that  I  knew  nothing  particularly ;  some  general  things  I 
did  know,  but  not  to  go  into  details ;  that  was  my  first 
reply,  not  desiring  to  

Q.  WeU,  no  matter  about  desires,  but  the  facts,  now.  as 
they  occuiTed.  Well,  how  did  you  get  on  after  that  ?  A. 
Mr.  Beecher  said  that  he  had  received  some  letters ;  he 
or  his  wife,  I  am  not  sure  which,  had  received  some  let- 
ters from  Mrs.  Tnton,  from  the  West,  which  he  desired 
very  much  to  have  me  see. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  say  to  that  f  A.  I  asked  him  then 
If  the  letters  were  present,  and  he  said,  "  No ;  I  would 
like  to  have  you  call  at  my  house  and  see  them."  And  he 
further  said  that  he  would  ask  me  that  evening,  but  he 
■was  to  have  company,  or  was  going  out,  or  some  engage- 
ment prevented,  either  himself  or  his  wife  ;  that  the  next 
morning  he  would  like  to  have  me  call  there. 

Q.  And  see  him  or  his  wife  ?  A.  Do  you  wish  what  I 
gaid  1 

Q.  No ;  I  a«k  you  whether  he  said  anything  about  your 
going  to  see  him  or  his  wife  I   A.  His  wife. 

Q.  His  wife  1   A.  His  wife,  not  him. 

Q.  Not  him,  the  next  morning  %   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  WTiat  did  you  say  to  that  1  A.  I  did  not  care  to  call 
there  myself ;  that  I  had  special  reasons  for  not  calling, 
which  perhaps  he  understood. 

Q.  You  meant  matters  between  yourself  and  Mrs. 
Beecher,  I  suppose  !  A.  I  did,  and  I  desired  not  to  call ; 
and  he  said,  "  I  will  make  that  all  right ;  I  wish  you  to 


ESRY   a   BOW  EX,  439 

come."  I  asked  him,  I  think,  if  he  was  to  be  present.  1 
think  he  said  he  had  an  engagement ;  was  to  go  out  of 
town,  or  vras  not  to  be  there,  but  that  it  would  all  be 
arranged.  I  then  hesitated  about  giving  him  a  reply,  but 
at  his  urgent  request  I  said  that  I  would  go  there,  and  I 
did  call  the  next  morning. 

Q.  Now,  what  else  occurred  after  you  made  that  ap- 
pointment; what  further  was  said  on  either  sidel  A. 
There  was  considerable  said  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton,  but 
in  a  general  way.  He  made  some  statements  which  I 
cannot  recall,  because  he  mentioned  facts  and  names 
which  I  knew  nothing  about.  It  was  all,  or  mostly  all, 
new  to  me.   Some  things  I  did  know  about. 

Q.  Well,  were  these  facts  and  these  names  connected 
with  ladies,  or  women  ?  A.  They  were. 

Q.  Entirely  ?   A.  Entirely. 

Q.  And  were  there  several  instances  mentioned  I 
There  were,  I  should  think,  two  or  three,  but  I  am  not 
positive  about  that ;  I  should  think  two  or  three. 

Q.  And  were  all  the  names  mentioned  strange  to  you? 
A.  I  knew  them  by  reputation— knew  the  parties  by 
name  and  reputation— standing, 

Q.  So  that  when  the  names  were  mentioned  they  con- 
veyed some  personality  to  your  mind  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  what  did  you  say  to  aU  that  I  A.  I  don't  re- 
member what  I  said,  particularly,  except  that  I  was 
aware  that  there  were  damaging  reports  in  regard  to  Mr. 
TUton. 

Q.  In  that  relation— in  that  connection  1  A,  I  don't  re- 
member. 

Q.  I  don't  mean  the  persons  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  But  of  that  nature  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  did  you  ioform  Mr.  Beecher  what  those 
were  that  you  knew  oil  A,  I  said  they  were  of  a  similar 
character. 

Q.  Did  you  enumerate  or  describe  them  at  aU  1  A.  Not 
particularly ;  no,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  but  so  that  ?  A.  Only  in  a  general  way. 

Q.  You  did  not  individualize  what  the  story  about  eacli 
of  the  x>ersons  was  ?  A.  I  named  some  things  that  I  had 
heard,  but  not  everything. 

Q.  Oh !  A.  (Continuing. )  That  I  knew ;  I  spoke  gen- 
eraUy. 

Q.  WeU,  did  you  say  anything  to  him  as  to  the  period 
or  recency  of  these  matters  coming  to  your  knowl6d^?e  I 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  TVTiat  did  you  say  about  that  1  A.  I  said  that  when 
I  severed  the  relations  of  Mr.  Tilton  with  The  Inde- 
pendent that  I  had  not  

Q.  As  editor,  you  mean  %  A.  As  editor  t 

Q.  Yes  1  A.  I  had  reasons  for  that  step,  and  additional 
reasons  that  would  induce  me,  in  my  judgment,  to  sever 
his  connection  entirely,  and  that  that  information  had 
come  to  me  since  the  relation  as  editor  had  been  severed. 

Q.  Yes,  and  that  you  were  surprised  to  hear  these 
things  %  A.  I  was  certainly  surprised. 


440 


1  a  E    IIL  rON-B  E  EC  HER  lELAL. 


Q.  Well,  you  said  so,  I  mean  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  it  was  news 
to  me. 

Q.  Yes,  it  was  news  to  you,  after  the  severance— these 
stories  to  his  prejudice  were  news  to  you  1  A.  Yes,  Sir » 
were  news. 

Q.  Had  sprung  up  only  since  the  editorial  connection 
was  severed  ?  A.  Was  severed;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  as  to  the  number  or  quantity, 
variety  of  these  imputations  that  had  come  to  your 
knowledge?  A.  I  don't  think  I  did ;  I  spoke  of  them  as 
a  whole;  said  that  I  had  heard  from  various  sources 
things  which  satisfied  me  that  it  was  my  duty  to  end  his 
relations  with  the  two  papers. 

Q.  Yes,  and  did  you  inform  Mr.  Beecher  that  you  had 
determined  so  to  do  ?   A.  I  did  not ;  I  simply  

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  him  in  that  regard  heyond  say- 
ing that  you  thought  it  was  your  duty  to  terminate  ?  A. 
Well,  that  was  all  I  stated ;  I  don't  

Q.  Well,  that  was  all.  I  only  want  what  you  told  to 
him.  Now,  when  you  told  him  that,  what  did  he  reply  ? 
A.  I  do  not  remember  any  reply  that  he  made  to  it. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  whether  his  reply  was  in  the 
way  of  approval  or  dissent  fi'om  that  determination  ?  A. 
I  don't  think  he  made  any  remark  when  I  told  him  what 
I  had  decided  to  do. 

Q.  Well,  previous  to  that,  previous  to  your  announce- 
ment of  what  you  ha^d  decided  to  do,  had  he  given  any 
expression  to  either  dissuasion  or  confirmation  of  your 
purpose  ?  A.  He  had  given  me  no  advice  in  regard  to  the 
matter  whatever. 

Q.  No  opinion  ?  A.  No  opinion,  for  I  told  him  that  I  had 
decided  to  do  it. 

Q.  Yes  ?  A.  That  I  had  done  the  first  thing  and  de- 
cided to  do  the  second. 

Q.  Yes,  and  you  had,  hadn't  you?  A.  What  do  you 
say? 

Q.  You  had  decided  ?  A.  I  had  decided,  but  I  had  not 
done  it. 

Q.  I  understand  that,  but  you  had  decided?  A,  I  had 
made  up  my  mind  to  do  it. 

Q.  Yes,  you  had  made  up  your  mind  to  do  it  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sii'. 

Q.  You  did  not  need  any  persuasion  from  him  ?  A.  Not 
a  bit. 

Q.  And  you  are  quite  sure  he  did  not  dissuade  you  1 
A.  I  do  not  think  he  made  any  remark  to  dissuade  me  or 
to  persuade  me. 

Q.  Well,  in  Mr.  Beecher's  production  of  the  items  or 
instances  in  the  same  direction,  of  imputation,  did  you 
understand  them  as  concurring  with  your  view,  or  as  to 
dissuade  you  from  it? 

Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment ;  that  is  objected  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  impression  did  what  Mr.  Beecher 
told  you.  in  instances  or  circumstances  that  he  brought 
intotlie  conversation,  make  upon  your  purpose  as  to  dis- 


missing Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  My  mind  was  made  up  without 
him,  and  it  did  not  change  it,  of  course. 

Q.  No,  did  not  change  it  of  course?  A.  What  he  said. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  after  you  had  announced  to  Mr.  Beecher 
that  you  had  made  up  your  mind  to  dismiss— terminate 
your  relations  with  Mr.  Tilton,  what  further  passed?  A. 
He  urged  me  to  come  to  his  house  the  next  morning,  and 
hear  the  contents  of  those  letters,  or  letter— letters  I 
think  he  said. 

Q.  Do  yon  mean  he  repeated  that  ?  A.  He  did ;  urged  it. 

Q.  Very  well,  and  was  that  all— you  parted  then!  A.  I 
think  that  was  all— in  substance  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  will  you  give  us  Exhibit  4^2  ? 

[Exhibit  41s  produced  by  plaintiflPs  counsel  and  handed 
to  Mr.  Evarts.] 

Mr.  Evarts— I  will  read  this  letter  of  January  2,  1871, 
which  I  wish  to  ask  you  some  questions  about:  L^^d- 
ing.] 

My  Dear  Mr.  Bowen  :  Since  I  saw  you  last  Tuesday 
I  have  reason  to  think  that  the  only  cases  of  which  I  spoke 
to  you  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton  were  exaggerated  in  being 
reported  to  me,  and  I  should  be  unwilling  to  have  any- 
thing I  said,  though  it  was  but  little,  weigh  on  your  mind 
in  a  matter  so  important  to  his  welfare.  I  am  informed 
by  one  on  whose  judgment  and  integrity  I  greatly  rely, 
and  who  has  the  means  of  forming  an  opinion  better 
than  any  of  us,  that  he  knows  the  whole  matter  about 
Mrs.  B.,  and  that  the  stories  are  not  true,  and  that  the 
same  is  the  case  with  other  stories.  I  do  not  wish  any 
reply  to  this.  I  thought  it  only  due  to  justice  that  I 
should  say  so  much. 

Q.  Now,  when  you  received  that  letter,  did  your  mind 
recur  to  what  he  had  told  you  1  A.  I  have  no  recollec- 
tion what  my  mind  was  when  I  received  it ;  of  course  I 
noticed  the  contents  of  the  letter. 

Q.  Noticed  the  contents.  Well,  do  you  remember 
whether,  at  the  time,  you  thought  this  note  did  accord 
with  what  you  remember  as  having  occurred  between 
you  and  Mr,  Beecher?  A.  I  do  not  remember.  Sir. 


MR.  BOWEN'S  CALL  ON  MRS.  BEECHER. 

Q.  Do  not  remember  that?  Now,  Mr.  Bowen, 
you  saw  Mrs.  Beecher  the  next  day  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  I  do  not  remember  whether  you  stated  how  long  a 
conference  you  had  wdth  her.  A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Well,  about  how  long?  A.  I  should  think  a  half  an 
hour. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  see  Mr.  Beecher?  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  seeing  him  whatever. 

Q.  And  had  no  subsequent  interview  with  Mr.  Beeoher 
that  week  you  have  stated  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  now,  on  New- Year's  day,  or  what  was  kept  as 
New-Year's  day,  the  succeeding  Monday,  you  made  an 
ordinary  friendly  call  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  your  visual  habit  to  do  so  at  Mr.  Beecher's  I 
A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  this  call  was  in  the  same  spirit  and  manner  a« 
ordinarily?   A.  As  usual. 


TEISTIMONI    OF  H 

Q.  As  usual  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Novs^,  you  think  you  said  sometMag  to  him,  I  be- 
.'ieve?  A.  I  did. 
Q.  At  that  time  %  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  what  was  it  I  A.  I  simply  announced  to  Mm 
that  the  previous  Saturday  (this  was  on  Monday)  I  had 
severed  the  relations  of  Mr.  Tilton  as  contributor  of  The 
Independent  and  as  editor  of  The  Union. 

Q.  That  simple—  ?  A.  Simple  announcement. 

Q.  Were  there  many  people  there  at  that  time  ?  A. 
None  that  heard  that. 

Q.  No,  I  am  not  speaking  of  a  public  announcement, 
but  do  you  know  whether  it  was  while  the  calls  were 
going  on  ?  A.  My  impression  is  it  was  during  the — ;  I 
know  it  was  during  the  hours  of  reception. 

Q.  But  whether  there  was  a  concourse  or  not  you  do 
nut—  ?  A.  There  were  other  parties  in  the  room. 

Q.  There  were — now  do  you  remember  whether  or  not, 
in  the  interview  of  the  26th  of  December,  Mr.  Beecher 
said  anything  to  you  in  regard  to  what  he  had  heard  or 
learned  that  month  of  December  in  respect  to  a  medi- 
tated separation  between  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Tilton ;  do  you  re- 
member whether  that  was  in  the  conversation  or  not  1 
A.  That  was  in  the  conversation  that  afternoon  or  the 
next  morning;  my  impression  is  that  it  was  the  next 
morning  with  Mrs.  Beecher. 

Q.  With  Mrs.  Beecher  1  A.  I  think  that  she  gave  that 

as  her  

Mr.  Beach— I  move  to  strike  that  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  of  course  propose  to  go  into  Mrs. 
Beecher's  conversation.  [To  the  witness.]  You  cannot 
say  then  1  A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Whether  it  occurred  that  afternoon  or  the  next 
morning  1  A.  Or  the  next  morning. 

Q.  But,  either  in  the  afternoon  or  in  the  morning,  there 
was  something  said?  A.  There  was  something  said. 

Q.  On  that  subject?  A.  On  that  subject. 

Q.  And  you  have  no  means  of  determining  in  your 
recollection  whether  or  no  it  was  afternoon  or  morning  1 
A.  I  have  none. 

Q.  As  likely  to  have  been  one  as  the  other  so  far  as  any 
memory  of  yours  ?  A.  I  have  no  memory  on  the  subject. 

Q.  No  memory  on  the  subject.  Do  you  remember.  Mr. 
Bowen,  at  what  time  the  sale  of  pews  that  year  took 
place  at  Plymouth  Church  ?  A.  My  impression  is  that  it 
—I  think  it  is  the  first  Tuesday  followiug  the  first  Mon- 
day. 

Q.  In  January  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  If  so,  it  would  have  been  the  next  day  after  you  

A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  After  your  New  Year's— what  you  call  your  New 
Year's  call  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  my  impression— I  don't  recol- 
lect in  regard  to  that  year. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Bowen,  you  were  among  the  first  planners 


'WRY   G.    BOWEN.  m  ' 

and  founders  of  Plymouth  Church,  were  you  not !    A.  I 
had  something  to  do  with  it ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  among  the  first  ?    A.  Among  the 
first 

Q.  Among  the  first  founders,  and  have  remained  con- 
nected with  that  church  ever  since  ?  A.  I  have. 
Q.  And  are  stUl  ?  A.  I  am  still. 

Q.  Mr.  Bowen,  please  look  at  these  two  letters  and  say 
if  they  are  letters  of  yours  to  Mr.  Beecher?  [Papers 
handed  to  witness.]   A.  They  are. 

Q.  And  have  you — we  requested  you,  I  think,  to  find 
the  originals  of  those  letters  of  February  6, 1870,  letters 
to  you— during  the  recess  you  were  asked.  A.  I  am  not 
certain  whether  I  have  those  letters,  the  originals  of 
those  ;  I  haven't  them  here. 

Q.  By  looking  at  them  do  you  remember— do  you  sup- 
I>ose  ?  A  I  may  have  both. 

Q.  Yes ;  you  may  have  both  J  A.  I  may  have  both. 

Q.  And  was  your  habit  to  keep  letters  1  A.  It  was  my 
habit. 

Q.  So  that  you  probably  have  them  ?   A.  I  thiuk  I 
have  them. 

Q.  But  they  are  not  among  the  papers  1  A.  They  are 
not  among  the  papers  1  have  here. 

Mr.  Evarts— These  two  that  you  identify  I  will  have 
marked  for  identification  only,  if  your  Honor  please. 

[Letters  marked  for  identification,  "  Ex.  D,  147,"  and 
"D,  148."] 

By  Mr.  Evarts— I  wish  you  would  look,  Mr.  Bowen,  if 
you  please,  for  the  orginals  of  these  two  letters  of  Mr. 
Beecher?  A.  You  wUl  have  to  give  me  these  to  take 
with  me,  Sir,  or  

Q.  Give  you  the  dates  !  A.  Give  me  the  dates  on  a 
piece  of  paper. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  will  give  you  a  memorandum  of  the 
dates. 

Mr.  Beach— You  can  use  these  in  the  mean  time,  if  you 
want. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all,  Mr.  Fullerton. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAJVIINATION  OF  MR.  BOWEN. 

By  Mr.  Fulleitoii— Mr.  Bowen,  look  at  those 
two  letters  and  say  whether  you  addressed  them  to  Mr. 
Tilton  about  the  time  of  their  very  dates.  A.  I  addressed 
them  to  him. 

Q.  And  about  the  time  of  their  respective  dates  ?  A. 
At  the  time. 

Mr  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir.   Just  mark  them  for  identifica- 
tion. 

[Letters  marked  for  identification,  "Exs.  125  and 
126."] 

Q.  Mr.  Bowen,  do  you  know  where  the  draft  of  the 
"Tripartite  Agreement"  now  is  which  you  refused  to 
sign  ?   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  What  became  of  it  ?  A.  I  don't  know,  Sir. 


442 


IME   TILTON-BEEOHEB  TEIAL, 


Q.  Do  you  recollect  wliat  you  did  with  it  1  A.  I  handed 
Jfc  to  the  party  who  brought  it  to  me. 

Q.  And  who  was  he  1  A.  Mr.  Claflin. 

Q.  Are  you  enabled  to  state  when  that  was,  Mr. 
Bowen  ?  A.  The  date  ? 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  A.  I  am  not. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  date  of  the  "  Tripartite 
Agreement,"  as  it  was  signed,  being  April  2,  1872  (it 
seems  to  be  before  the  arbitration),  and  ask  if  you  under- 
stand why  that  date  was  there.  A.  I  am  not  able  to  say 
why  the  date  was  there ;  I  didn't  notice  

Mr.  Beach— It  is  not  the  actual  date  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  not  at  all.  [To  the  witness.]  Don't 
you  recollect,  or  do  you  recollect,  that  the  paper  that  was 
first  presented  to  you  as  the  draft  of  the  "  Tripartite 
Agreement"  purported  to  have  been  drawn  up  several 
days  before  it  waa  presented  to  you,  and  had  a  date  ac- 
cordingly! A.  My  recollection  is  that  the  paper  did  not 
oome  to  me  until  after  the  money  was  paid,  and  I  am 
able  to  say  that  when  it  was  presented  to  me  I  made 
this  statement,  that  as  Mr.  Tilton  and  myself  

Mr.  Porter— Well,  wait ! 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  tbiuk  it  is  proper.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  it  is. 

The  Witness  [continuing]— That,  as  Mr.  Tilton  and  my- 
self had  settled  our  diflaoulties,  and  as  Mr.  Beecher  and 
myself  had  settled  them,  that  I  saw  no  reason  why  I 
should  sign  any  such  paper ;  I  made  that  remark  and 
remember  it  distinctly. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  but  you  don't  recollect  the  date 
of  the  instrument  that  was  first  presented  to  you  I  A.  No, 
Sir,  I  do  not,  nor  the  second. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  there  in  that  first  paper  then  pre- 
sented to  you  which  you  objected  to  1 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh  I  well,  that  I  object  to.  The  paper  is 
here.  It  is  objected  to. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  is  the  paper  here  % 

[Paper  produced  and  given  to  Mr.  Fullerton.] 

Mr.  Beach— That,  they  say,  was  the  one  that  was  pre- 
sented to  Mr.  TUton. 


WHAT  MK.  BOWEN  REFUSED  TO  SIGN. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Looli  at  this  paper,  wMch 
is  "  Exhibit  D,  113,"  and  say  whether  you  recognize  it  as 
the  first  paper  that  was  presented  to  you  as  the  "  Tripart- 
ite Agreement?"  A.  I  believe  this  to  be  the  first  paper. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  indicate  by  a  pencil 
mark  the  paragraph  which  you  refused  to  sign,  or  the 
paragraph  to  which  you  raised  an  objection.  Just  mark 
it  so  that  I  can  read  it,  Mr.  Bowen,  please  1  A.  [After 
marking  the  paper  presented.]  The  paragraph— the 
words  crossed  I  refused  to  sign. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  paragraph  is  it  f 

Mr.  Fullerton — It  is  contained  within  a  parenthesis. 

The  Witness— All  the  words  that  are  crossed  I  refused 
to  assent  to. 


Q.  Do  you  recollect,  Mr.  Bowen,  whether  you  crossed 
that  paragraph  out  at  the  time  it  was  presented  to  you  1 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Look,  please,  at  the  interlineation  in  lead  pencil,  and 
sav  whether  it  is  in  your  handwriting.  A.  It  is  in  my 
writing. 

Q.  Is  it  your  emendation  that  you  made  at  the  time  t 
A.  At  the  time— while  I  had  it. 

Q.  While  you  had  it  ?  A.  Yes ;  that  evening  or  the 
next  morning— before  I  delivered  it  back. 

Q.  And  does  the  emendation  in  lead  pencil  indicate  a 
paragraph  which  you  were  willing  to  sign  if  it  were  sub- 
stituted for  the  one  which  you  crossed  out  1  A.  It  does 
if  I  signed  any. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  propose  to  read  what  is  crossed  out 
and  what  is  substituted  in  its  place.  The  words  crossed 
out  are  as  follows  

Mr.  Evarts— You  had  better  read  the  context. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Then  you  cannot  discriminate  between 
the  context  and  the  erased  part. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will  read  what  is  erased  first,  and  then 
read  the  context.  The  words  stricken  out  are  as  f  oUows : 

I  declare  that  those  charges,  imputations,  and  innuen- 
does are  without  any  foundations  in  fact,  to  the  best  of 
my  knowledge  and  belief. 

What  is  substituted  in  place  of  this,  in  lead  pencil,  is  as 

follows : 

I  sincerely  regret  having  made  any  imputations, 
charges,  or  innuendoes  imfavorable  to  the  Christian  char- 
acter of  Mr.  B. 

[To  the  witness]— Now,  Mr.  Bowen,  you  may  state 
whether,  with  that  alteration  of  yom*s  

Mr.  Evarts— Why  not  prove  the  paper  actually  signed  % 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  it  is  easier  to  prove  it  this  way. 

Mr.  Evarts— Why  so  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  suppose  the  same  rule  applies  to  this 
that  applied  to  your  account.  You  had  a  right  to  show 
what  balances  were. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  paper,  as  amended,  speaks  for  itself. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir.  [To  the  witness.]  Look  at  the 
alteration  at  the  head  of  page  3  upon  this  paper,  and  say 
whether  you  intended  to  erase  the  word  "disavow?" 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  substitute  in  its  place  1  A.  "  With- 
draw." 

Q.  "  Withdraw  all?"  A.  "  Withdraw  all." 

Mr.  Beach— Stm  the  word  "  disavow"  is  retained  in  the 
paper  which  was  subsequently  executed. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  "  disavow  "  occurred  twice,  and 
instead  of  repeating  it,  the  word  "  withdraw  "  was  sub- 
stituted for  it  the  second  time. 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  original  read,  "And  I  expressly 
disavow  the  charges,  imputations,  and  innuendoes  im- 
puted as  h;iving  been  lunde  and  utt<>red  by  me,"  &c.  The 
word  "  disavow  "  is  erased— Mr.  Bowen  says  it  was  in 


TESJlMOyT   OF  HEXEY  C.  BOWEX. 


4AB 


tended  to  be— and  the  words  ••  ^vitlidraw  all"  substitute':! 
in  its  place. 

Q.  Look  at  the  original  drafr^  Mr.  Bowen,  and  state 
whether  you  struck  out  this.  After  the  words  "  I  know 
nothing,"  did  you  strike  out  the  words  "  derogatory  to 
Ms  reputation  as  a  clergyman  or  a  man?"   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  insert  in  their  place  anything  else  1  A.  I 
did. 

Q.  If  so,  what  ?  A.  Those  words  [indicating  in  the 
paper]. 

Q.- These  •words  [reading]  :  "  "^ich  should  prevent  me 
from  extending  to  him  my  most  cordial  friendship,  confi- 
dence, and  Christian  fellowship." 

Q.  At  the  time  of  the  arbitration  did  you  know  any- 
thing about  the  existence  of  what  has  been  known  as  the 
Apology— the  Letter  of  Apology  ?  A.  I  did  not,  that  I 
remember. 

Q,  Mr.  Bowen,  at  the  time  of  signing  the  "Tripartite 
Agreement,"  did  you  know  anything  about  that  I  A.  Xot 
that  I  recollect. 

Q.  At  that  time  did  you  know  of  the  existence  of  any 
of  these  other  letters,  namely,  the  letter  of  Feb.  5.  1872  I 
A.  What  about  ? 

Q.  'Well,  it  is  a  notorious  letter,  and  I  did  not  know  but 
what  you  were  abl'_'  to  identify  it. 

Mr.  Evartv— Mr.  Beecher'.s  letter? 

3Ir.  Beach  [to  the  witres-]— Those  letters  that  have  been 
in  evidence  in  the  course  of  this  trial. 

The  Witness— I  cannot  tell  you  un.til  you  show  me  the 
letter. 

Mr.  Erarts— Show  it  to  him. 


MR.  TILTOX'S  RE^IAEKS  TO  THE  AEBITEA- 
TORS. 

By  Mr.  Fiillerton — Whilst  they  are  looMng  up 
those  exhibits,  Mr.  Bowen,  I  will  ask  you  whether,  at  the 
time  of  the  arbitration,  :\Ir.  Tilton  did  not  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  arbitrators  to  Section  6  in  the  contract  be- 
tween yourself  and  Mr.  Tilton  relating  to  ITie  Indepen- 
dent, which  is  as  follows  : 

This  contract  may  be  terminated  by  either  party  at 
any  time  by  paying  to  the  other  partj-  the  sum  of  $2,500, 
or  by  the  death  of  either,  or  by  mutual  consent,  but  in  no 
other  way. 

Do  you  recollect  his  calling  the  attention  of  the  arbi- 
trators to  that  clause  ?  A.  I  think  he  did. 

Q.  Do  you  also  recollect  that  he  called  the  attention  of 
the  arbitrators  to  the  other  contract,  in  respect  to  The 
Daily  Union,  OT  TTie  Broo7:Iyn  Vnion,  and  to  Sections  3 
and  11.  which  I  will  read,  Section  3  being  as  follows  : 

The  party  of  the  first  part  (that  is  yourself)  shall  pay 
to  the  party  of  the  second  part  a  salary  as  follows  :  $100 
per  week  in  cash,  payable  weekly,  together  with  an 
additional  sum  eciual  to  ten  per  cent  of  th^'  ii^t  profits  of 
The  Brooklyn  Daily  TJnion  per  annum,  p:  bl  inrer- 
vals  of  not  more  than  one  year  or  ofteue; .  atth  dise.  - 
tion  of  the  party  of  the  second  part. 


Section  11.  This  agreement  may  at  any  time  be  an- 
nulled by  the  mutual  consent  of  the  parties,  or  bj 
either  of  them,  after  having  given  to  the  other,  in 
writing,  six  months  in  advance,  due  notice  of  a  desire 
and  intention  to  do  so  ;  and  may  be  terminated  imme- 
diately by  paying  $2,600  in  cash  to  the  pany  of  the  sec- 
ond part ;  and  the  party  oi  the  second  part  shall  have 
the  same  privilege  by  making  the  same  payment. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  his  calling  attention  to  that? 
I  think  he  did, 

Mr.  Evarta— I  understand  that  those  contracts  are  in 
eridence. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  yes,  they  are  in  evidence,  but  I 
wanted  to  know  if  the  attention  of  the  arbitrators  was 
called  to  these  several  provisions. 

Mr.  Beach— They  are  marked  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Fullerton— They  are  marked  in  evidence.  [To  the 
witness.]  Did  not  Mr.  Tilton  in  that  arbitration  base  his 
claim  for  damages  upon  the  respective  paragraphs  to 
which  I  have  now  called  your  attention  1  A.I  don't  re- 
member whether  he  did  entii'ely.  He  presented  all  the 
case,  from  his  standpoint,  briefly. 


MR.   BOWEN  IGXORAXT   OF  THE  SCAXDAL 
LETTERS. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  letter  of  Feb- 
ruary 7,  1871,  from  Mi\  Beecher  to  Mr.  Moulton,  and  ask 
whether  you  knew  of  its  existence,  either  at  the  time  of 
the  arbitration,  or  the  time  of  the  signing  of  the  "  Tripar- 
tite Agreement  ?"  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it,  .Sir, 
whatever. 

Q.  I  now  call  your  attention  to  the  letter  of  the  same 
date  to  Mrs.  Tilton  ;  did  you  know  of  that  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  know  anything  of  the  existence  of  the  letter 
commencing  "  The  blessing  of  God  rest  upon  you ; "  it 
has  no  date,  I  believe.   A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  letter  of  Feb.  5,  1S72, 
and  ask  you  the  same  question  with  regard  to  that,  com- 
mencing there  1  [Indicating.]  A.  [Looking  at  the  letter.] 
I  have  no  recollection  of  it  whatever. 

Mr.  Beach— Is  that  the  Morse  letter  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  that  is  the  one. 

Q.  Did  you  know  anything  at  that  time  of  the  charge 
which  Mrs.  Tilton  had  made  against  Mr.  Beecher  in 
writing  1 

Mr.  Evarts— "We  object  to  that,  if  your  Honor  please.  I 
have  no  objection  to  these  matters,  but  it  is  not  material 
or  proper  that  this  witness  should  be  asked  concerning 
his  knowledge  of  this  matter  in  suit  here. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  we  propose  to  prove  that  he  had  no 
knowledge. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  concerning  any  knowledge. 
Mr.  Beach— He  had  no  knowledge. 

Mr.  Fullerton — This  is  concerning  ?io  knowledge  that  I 
am  going  to  prove.  [Laughter.]  It  is  compLtent  Air  us 
to  prove  that  he  was  entirely  ignorant  of  the  existence  of 
this  correspondence  and  of  these  various  papers  whi.'^jj 


444 


THE   TlLTON-BEE(JflER  TRIAL, 


have  been  given  in  evidence  here,  at  the  time  of  the  sign- 
ing of  the  "  Tripartite  Agreement." 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  see  exactly  how  it  is  material, 
hut  I  should  not  care  anything  about  these  letters.  This 
is  not  a  controversy  between  Mr.  Bo  wen  and  Mr.Beeeher, 
as  to  whethei;  he  should  be  held  to  the  "  Tripartite 
Agreement." 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  can  show  the  fact  gener- 
ally. Have  you  more  paper  s  to  show  him  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  have  put  a  question  to  him  with  ref- 
erence to  papers  that  I  need  not  show  him,  because  they 
are  well  enough  designated  by  the  description  of  them. 

Judge  Neilson— Well. 

Iklr.  Fullerton— Did  you  know  anything  of  the  exist- 
ence of  any  charge  which  Mrs.  Tilton  had  made  against 
Mr.  Beecher  at  that  time  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  For  of  any  retraction  of  that  charge?    A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Nor  of  any  recantation  of  the  retraction  ?  A.  I  did 
not. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Bowen,  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you 
informed  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  Monday  following  Jan.  Ist 
that  yovi  had  then  discharged  Mr.  Tilton  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  was  that  %  A.  It  was  in  the 
evening ;  it  was  after  4  o'clock,  I  should  judge. 

Q.  Was  it  before  or  after  this  letter  was  written  to  you 
which  is  marked  Ex.  4^  ?  A.  It  was  after  that  letter  was 
received. 

Q.  You  had  received  that  letter  before  you  told  Mr. 
Beecher  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  received  it  in  the  morning,  and 
I  told  him  in  the  evening. 


ME.  BOWEN'S  ALLEGED  IMPUTATIONS  ON 
ME.  BEECHEE  EXCLUDED. 
By  Mr.  Beach— What  time,  with  reference  to 
the  receipt  of  the  letter,  were  the  relations  of  Mr.  Tilton 
•with  your  paper  sundered  entirely  1  A.  On  the  Satur- 
day. 

Q.  The  Saturday  before?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  the  last  day  of 
the  year. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  this  evidence  of  Mr. 
Beecher.  [Reading:] 

Q.  Well,  did  Mr.  Moulton  say  that  Mr.  Bowen  charged 
that  you  had  confessed  adultery  to  him  1  A.  I— he  did— 
yes,  he  said  so.  I  was  only  hesitating  as  to  whether  it 
was  in  that  interview  or  not.  He  said  so  at  some  one  of 
the  interviews,  and  about  that  time. 

Q.  At  about  this  time  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  WeU,  what  did  you  reply  to  that  ?  A.  I  think  I 
laughed.  I  denied  it.  When  I  confess  adultery  to  Mr. 
Bowen  I  am  sure  it  will  be  impressed  upon  my  mind. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  him  on  that  subject  whether  or  no 
Mr.  Bowen  had  ever  made  any  such  charge  or  imputation 
to  you  personally?  A.  I  said  to  him  that  from  the  origin 
of  the  difficulties  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  me, 
down  to  February,  or  January  and  February, 
1870,  and  again,  Dec.  26,  there  had  been  sev- 
eral adjudications,  arbitrations— that  is,  there 
had  been  many  conversacjons,  but  Mr.  Bowen  had  never 
had  any  dillicvaty  with  me  except  business  difficulties. 


and  that  he  never  under  any  circumstances  had  made  % 
statement  which  Implicated  my  moral  character. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  does  this  become  a  subject  of  re- 
direct examination? 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  to  contradict  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  it  is  not  re-direct.  It  is  not  relating 
to  anything  that  I  inquired  about. 

Mr.  Fullerton- It  is  a  question,  your  Honor,  that  we 
omitted  to  put  on  the  direct  examination  inadvertently. 

Judge  Neilson— Do  you  plead  inadvertence  ? 

Mr.  FuUerton— Yes,  Sir;  my  attention  was  called  to  i$ 
at  recess  by  Mr.  Beach  and  Judge  Morris. 

Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  now,  refer  us  to  the  passage. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  refer  to  it  in  this  large  book. 

Mr.  Evarts— Ten  us  the  day  on  which  the  testimonr 
was  given. 

Mr.  Fullerton— April  5, 1875. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  is  a  conversation,  given  on  our  part, 
by  Mr.  Beecher  as  to  what  passed  between  him  and  Mr. 
Moulton ;  they  having  given  on  Mr.  Moulton's  part  the 
conversation,  on  their  view  or  Mr.  Moulton's  view,  be- 
tween himself  and  Mr.  Beecher.  Now,  that  

Mr.  Fullerton— You  had  better  hear  my  question  flrst; 
I  was  waiting  for  you  to  look  up  the  place. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  beg  pardon. 

Mr.  Fullerton— My  question  has  not  been  put  yet,  your 
Honor.  I  was  waiting  for  my  learned  adversary  to  look 
up  the  paragraph.  The  question  which  I  wish  to  put  is 
this  I  to  the  witness] :  Did  you  at  any  time  state  to  Mr. 
Beech  r  a  >'  charges  which  implicated  his  moral  charac- 
ter ?  Now,  wait  until  the  objection  is  raised. 

Mr.  Evarts— Is  that  the  question? 

Mr.  FuUerton— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  all  that  has  been  given  in  evidence 
here  is  that,  they  proving  a  conversation  between  Mr 
Moulton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  Mr.  Beecher  speaks  of  thi^ ' 
conversation  in  contradiction,  we  may  suppose,  of  Mr 
Moulton. 

Judge  NeUson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Bowen  cannot  be  caUed  to  contradict 
Mr.  Beecher  in  that  statement,  because  the  only  state- 
ment that  Mr.  Beecher  made  was  concerning  what  passed 
between  him  and  Mr.  Moulton. 

Judge  Neilson- Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  a  mistake,  Sir.  Mr.  Beecher  went 
further.   I  don't  know  whether  it  has  been  read. 

Mr.  Beecher— Not  further  than  what  he  told  Mr.  Moul- 
ton. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Evarts— [Reading] : 

I  said  to  him  [that  is,  to  Mr.  Moulton]  that  from  the 
origin  of  the  difficulty  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  mc,  down 
to,  &c.,  *  *  *  there  had  b^n  several  adjudica- 
tions, arbitrations ;  that  is,  there  had  been  many  conver- 
sations ;  but  Mr.  Bowen  had  never  had  any  difficulty 
with  me  except  business  diffloultiea,  and  that  he  never 


TESTIMONF  OF  HENBY   C.   BOW  EN. 


443 


under  any  circumstaneee  had  made  a  statement  wMoli 
implicated  roy  moral  eliaracter. 

It  Is  all  given  as  part  of  the  conversation  with  Mr. 
Moulton. 

Mr.  Beach— We  do  not  so  understand  that  answer. 
Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Beecher  has  no  right  to  testify  in 
regard  to  what  passed  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mm. 
Judge  Neilson— No. 

Mr.  Fullerton— We  thint  the  qikestion  is  a  proper  one, 
your  Honor. 

Judge  Neilson— It  does  not  strilie  me  so.  I  don't  think 
It  is  a  proper  one.  It  is  really  immaterial  what  conversa- 
tion ever  passed  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  it  is  not  immaterial  what  charges 
he  broughtf  against  Mr.  Beecher. 

Judge  Xeilson— Why  not? 

Mr.  Evarts— In  this  case  it  is. 

Mr.  Fullerton— When  l^Ir.  Beecher  testifies  that  nothing 
has  been  said  by  Mr.  Bowen  imputing  immorality  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— He  testifies  that  he  told  Mr,  Moulton  so. 
That  is  all. 

Mr.  Fullerton — And  now  it  becomes  necessary  to  see 
whether  he  told  Mr.  Moulton  the  truth. 
Mr.  Evarts— Ah ! 

Judge  Neilson— We  won't  take  that ;  it  is  too  remote. 

THE  WOODSTOCK  LETTEE  RULED  OUT. 

Mr.  FullertoD — Let  me  liave  the  Woodstock 
letter,  please  i 

The  Witness— There  it  is  [producing  letter]. 

Q.  Is  this  the  letter  from  which  you  read  the  date  to 
the  counsel  on  the  other  side  ?  A.  It  is. 

Q.  Known  as  the  Woodstock  letter?  A.  It  is. 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  Mr.  Fullerton]— I  would  like  to  look  at 
the  letter. 

Mr,  Fullerton— I  have  not  read  it.   Now,  if  your  Honor 
please.  I  offer  this  letter  in  evidence. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  object  to  it,  if  your  Honor  please. 
Judge  Neilson— From  whom  to  whom  ? 
Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  from  Mr.  Bowen  to  Mr.  Tllton. 
Mr.  Porter— Wiitten  when? 
Mr.  Fullerton— Written  in  1863. 

Judge  Xeilson— Not  in  connection  with  the  employment 
or  dismissal  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir;  but  it  is  a  letter  to  which  at- 
tention was  called  by  thf  other  side. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  not  in  the  first  instance. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir,  in  the  first  instance.  You 
asked  Mr.  Bowen  to  refer  to  it  and  to  give  its  date,  and 
he  opened  the  letter  and  read  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  I  didn't.  I  a.sked  him  how  old  the 
Woodstock  letter  was,  and  he  said  he  could  not  tell  with- 
out reading  it.  The  Woodstock  letter  is  spoken  of  by 
the  arbitrators,  as  your  Honor  knows,  as  one  of  those 
papersthat  were  to  be  disposed  of;  that  is,  nothing  was 
said  about  biu-nlng  it.  but  it  was  to  be  retui-ued  to  him. 


Mr.  Bowen  differs  from  Mm,  and  does  not  recolleot  that, 
but  that  does  not  give  a  right  to  expose  the  letter. 

Mr.  Beach— It  was  spoken  of  much  earlier  than  that,  in 
the  letter  of  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Of  Jan.  1, 1871  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— The  lett-er  itself  has  not  been  brought  out 
in  evidence  on  our  part. 

Judge  NeHson— Is  it  connected  with  any  event  we  had 
before  us  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  has  been  spoken  of  as  a  letter  to  l>« 
given  up,  and  I  asked  him  how  old  the  letter  was, 
whether  it  was  t«n  years  old,  or  how  old  it  was,  and  he 
said  he  could  not  tell  without  reading  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Is  that  the  first  time  you  called  atten- 
tion to  the  letter  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir ;  that  is  the  first  time  I  caUed  at- 
tention to  it.  I  didn't  call  attention  to  it  then.  The 
witness  looked  at  it  for  the  purpose  of  refreshing  Mfl 
recollection. 

INIr.  Fullerton— It  is  an  exhibit,  and  is  dated  Jan.  1, 
1371,  and  contains  an  extract  from  the  Woodstock  letter, 
and  that  exhibit  is  appended  to,  and  became  a  part  of» 
the  "  Tripartite  Agreement." 

Judge  Neilson— There  was  a  section  taken  out  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— This  letter.  Sir,  was  shown  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moultlon  in  regard  -fc)  it  was  to 

this  effect,    [Reading]  : 

Q,  Did  you  state  to  Mr.  Beecher  what  Mr.  Tilton  pro- 
posed to  do  with  that  letter  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  him  on  that  subject  %  A,  I  told 
him  Mr.  Tilton  intended  to  publish  it. 

Q.  What  did  Mr.  Beecher  say?  A.  Mr.  Beecher  said 
that  the  statement  that  he  had  ever  confessed  to  Mr. 
Bowen  was  entirely  untrue ;  he  said  that  he  had  differ- 
ences with  Mr.  Bowen,  and  a  settlement  with  Mr.  Bowen^ 
and  that  Mr.  Bowen  had  never  raised  with  him,  at  any 
such  settlement,  any  question  of  adultery;  he  said  that 
he  presumed  that  he  knew  what  one  portion  of  the  letter 
referred  to,  etc. 

There  is  no  necessity  of  reading  it  further.  We  propose 
to  show  by  the  production  of  the  letter,  and  by  the  evi- 
dence of  Mr.  Bowen,  that  the  statements  of  Mr.  Beecher 
upon  that  subject  were  untrue— that  the  representations 
he  made  were  untrue ;  and  this  letter  having  been  re- 
ferred to  (the  Woodstock  letter)  in  this  letter  which  was 
submitted  to  Mr.  Beecher— Mr.  Beecher  having  made  re- 
marks concerning  it  (the  Woodstockletter)  audits  contents, 
why,  we  suppose,  Sir,  it  naturally  and  legally  draws  in  the 
instrument  itself  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  com- 
mentaries, the  manner  in  which  it  was  received,  made, 
and  indicated  by  Mr.  Beecher ;  that  this  pert  of  the  evi- 
dence and  conduct  of  Mr.  Beecher  cannot  be  properly 
understood  except  in  connection  with  the  original  pap«r 
instrument  to  which  these  declarations,  and  this  conver- 
sation, and  these  references  allude. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  letter  has  been  made  somewhat 


446 


IBM   TimON-BEECHEB  TBIAL, 


famous  in  the  public  consideration,  tliougli  it  never  haa 
been  given  to  the  public,  by  its  being  referred  to  in 
another  letter  that  has  been  made  public.  Now,  I  cannot 
understand,  really,  how  my  learned  friends  can  be 
serious  in  proposing  to  give  in  evidence  here 
a  letter  written  in  the  year  1863  by  Mr. 
Bowen  to  Mr,  Tilton.  Now,  no  matter  what 
Mr.  Beecher  has  said ;  he  is  not  affected  by  ever  having 
seen  this  letter  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Tilton.  It  is 
not  a  question— this  is  not  any  evidence  of  anything  that 
Mr.  Bowen  has  said  to  Mr.  Beecher,  or  that  has  come  to 
Mr.  Beecher's  knowledge,  at  least,  and  I  am  unable  to  see 
the  ground  upon  which  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  Bowen  to 
Mr.  Tilton,  in  1863,  can  be  given  in  evidence  on  this 
Issue,  a  matter  that  had  its  first  beginning  in  the  year 
1868. 

Mr.  Beach— Tt  don't  make  any  difference  as  to  the 
origin  or  antiquity  of  the  letter.  It  is  revived  at  the  time 
that  the  letter  of  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Bowen  was  shown  to 
Mr.  Beecher.   It  was  there  discussed. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Beecher  says  that  was  not  so. 

Mr.  Beach — He  says  it  was. 

Mr.  Evarte — He  says  it  was  not  shown  to  him  at  the 
time  it  was  written. 
Mr.  Beach  -  Not  at  the  time  it  was  written^ 
Mr.  Evarts— Not  at  the  time  of  the  "  Tripartite  Agree- 
ment." 

[Mr.  Porter  here  made  a  remark  to  Mr.  Beach  in  an 
undertone.! 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Porter]— I  don't  understand,  John. 
The  contents  of  the  letter  were  broiight  to  his  attention. 

Mr.  Porter— So  were  the  contents  of  the  Woodhull  scan- 
dal. Would  that  permit  them  to  introduce  that  as  evi- 
dence against  Mr.  Beecher  because  he  made  a  remark 
about  it  1 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  see  how  it  can  be  proper  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  think  we  are  helped  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  a  clause  of  the  letter  was  incorporated  in 
the  agreement,  or  annexed  to  the  agreement,  because 
that  was  the  act  of  the  parties  who  used  so  much  of  the 
letter  as  they  chose  to  use.  And  although  there  is  some 
ground  for  the  argument  that  Mr.  Beecher  made  it  the 
subject  of  conversation,  I  don't  think  it  is  sufficiently  be- 
fore us  to  admit  the  letter  in  evidence. 

Mr.  E\  arts— He  didn't  make  this  letter  the  subject  of 
conversation. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  suppose  this  letter  contains  a 
charge  of  the  very  fact  which  Mr.  Beecher  denies  was 
ever  made  against  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  have  nothing  to  do  with  charges  made 
by  other  people. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly.  But  at  the  time  of  this  con- 
versation spoken  of  by  Mr.  Moulton,  the  fact  of  the 
charge  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Bowen  against  him  of  adultery, 
and  of  impropriety,  was  one  presented  to  his  mind, 
and  he  says  that  Mr.  Bowen  never  made  any  such 


charge.  Contradicting  that  declaration,  they  proved  thai 
he  did. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  didn't  say  he  made  it  to  A,  B,  C,  and  D ; 
he  might  have  made  it  to  all  the  world.  ^ 

Judge  Neilson— If  it  has  any  bearing  on  the  

Mr.  Beach— We  will  prove  it  was  made  to  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  theni  The  question  we  are  talking 
about  is  whether  we  can  offer  in  evidence  this  letter  that 
Mr.  Bowen  wrote  to  Mr.  TQton  in  1863. 

Mr.  Beach— We  are  talking  of  a  broader  thing  thaa 
that. 

Judge  Neilson— The  learned  counsel  claims  that  it  Is  to 
be  received  because  of  what  Mr.  Beecher  stated  here  on 
the  subject.  I  think  it  is  too  remote  and  ought  not  to  be 
received. 

Mr.  Fullerton  [to  the  Witness]— That  is  all.  Sir. 

RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  BOWEN. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  omitted  to  aslc  Mr.  Bowen,  by 
inadvertence,  this  single  question.  [To  the  witness.] 
Mr.  Bowen,  did  you  ever  see  that  paper  before  ?  A.  I 
have  no  recollection  of  it.  Sir. 

Q.  If  you  had  seen  it  that  night  of  the  arbitration  you 
would  have  remembered  it,  would  you  not  ?  A-  I  should 
say  that  I  never  saw  it  before. 

Q.  You  did  n't  append  it  to  the  check  when  you  gave  it 
to  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  NAPOLEON  LONGHI 

Jolin  Napoleon  Longhi,  a  witness  called  on 
behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn,  testified : 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Where  do  you  reside  1  A.  The  resi- 
dence or  business  1 

Q.  First,  your  residence?  A.  Corner  of  Willoughby 
and  Yates-aves.,  Brooklvu. 

Q.  And  what  is  your  business  I  A.  Delmonico's  Hotel 
and  Restaurant. 

Q.  Where  1   A.  No.  22  Broad-st. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  employ  of  Delmonico ! 
A.  Forty  years  about. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  Mr.  Fullerton  | —Quite  near  the  end 
of  your  time. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  outlawed,  and  I  won't  pursue  it  any 
further.  [To  the  witness.]  Where  have  you  been  for  the 
last  few  years  1  A.  Nowhere. 

Q.  Where  1  A.  No.  22  Broad  for  the  last  ten  years ;  J 
was  30  years  in  the  old  house. 

Q.  When  did  Mr.  Delmonico  move  into  No.  22  Broad-st.  S 
A.  In  1865,  ten  years  ago. 

Q.  And  what  part  of  the  building  did  he  then  occupy! 
A.  The  basement,  as  a  kitchen  and  cellar,  and  the  bar 
and  lunch  room  on  the  first  floor.  It  is  about  three  feet 
from  the  grade  of  the  street,  inside  of  the  door. 

Q.  Did  it  run  through  to  New-st.1  A.  Yes,  Sir.  Th% 
room  is  25  by  140. 


TESTIMONY   OF  JOHN 

Q.  And  did  it  run  through  to  New-st.  from  Broad-st., 
from  1865  up  to  the  present  time  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Broad-st.  and  New-st.  run  parallel  to  each  other, 
don't  they  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  NewH9t.  toeing  in  the  rear,  further  west  %  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Now,  has  Delmonioo  got  an  eating-room  up  stairs, 
above  the  floor  which  you  speak  of  t  A.  Not  when  I  flLrst 
went  there. 

Q.  When  did  he  open  that  room  %  A.  Last  June— the 
27th  of  June,  1874. 

Q.  The  27th  of  June,  1874?  A.  Yea,  Sir. 

Q.  Before  that  who  had  possession  of  that  upper  floor  'i 
A.  A  floor  for  offices.  * 

Q.  For  offices  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  when  did  he  commence  altering  it  for  a  restau- 
rant 1   A.  The  1st  of  May,  1874. 

Q,  And  when  did  he  admit  guests  in  it  for  the  first 
time  1  A.  On  the  27th  of  June,  1874. 

Q.  And  before  that  time  he  did  not  occupy  it !  A.  No, 
Sir ;  there  was  nothing  up  stairs. 

Q.  Was  there  any  means  of  communicating  between 
the  lower  floor,  where  the  old  restaurant  was,  and  the 
upper  floor,  up  to  the  time  the  alteration  was  made  by 
Mr.  Delmonico  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  nothing  outside  in  Broad- 
st.,  and  in  New-st.  also. 

Q.  Was  there  any  eating  establishment  up  stairs  on  the 
second  floor  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  They  were  brokers'  offices  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Up  to  that  time  %  A.  Yes,  Sii\ 

Q.  And  nobody  lunched  there  unttL  after  the  27th  of 
June,  1874 1  A.  No,  Sir,  except  some  gentlemen  called 
for  anything ;  I  used  to  send  up  anything  they  wished, 
private. 

Q.  Private  offices  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  While  they  were  occupied  as  broker's  offices?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  where  were  you  situated  ?  A.  I  attended  

Q.  Were  you  on  the  first  fioor  or  second  floor  after  the 
second  floor  was  opened?  A.  I  had  charge  of  the  house ; 
I  was  down  stairs. 

Q.  Down  stairs  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  down  stairs,  flrst  floor.  I 
was  down  stairs  before  I  had  the  upper  part,  of  course. 

Q.  And  where  were  you  placed  after  the  upper  floor 
was  opened— upper  room  ?  A.  I  attended  to  all. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  all. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  LONGHI. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— How  many  steps  did  you  go 
ip  from  B.road-st.  to  get  into  your  saloon  as  it  was  in  the 
^ear  1871  ?  Three  steps  inside  of  the  door. 


NAPOLEON   LONGEl.  447 

Q.  Inside  of  the  door  ?  A.  The  weather-door,  some 
caU  it. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  remember  the  fact  that  annexed  to 
your  establishment  there  was  a  restaurant  where  you 
went  down  stairs  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  name  of  that  ?  A.  Charles  Shedler,  a 
German  house. 

Q.  That  was  a  restaurant  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  they  dined  and  lunched,  and  so  forth!  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  was  it  the  very  next  place  to  yours  ?  A.  Next 
door,  24. 

Q.  And  how  near  were  the  steps  down  to  that  to  the 
steps  up  into  yours  ?  A.  I  should  think  22  feet  about. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  Mr.  PuUerton.J— Can  you  call 
another  witness  to-night  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  could.  Sir,  but  I  hope  your  Honor 
won't  ask  me  to. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  jurors]— Please  attend  at  11 
o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  11  o'clock  on  Friday 
morning. 


EIGHTY-FIRST  DAY'S  PROCEEDmGS. 

THE  PROCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. 

AN    ADJOURNMENT    UNTIL  MONDAY. 

Fkiday,  May  7,  1875. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please  we  are  aware  on  both 
sides  that  Mr  Beach  and  Mr.  Shearman  are  compulsively 
and  inevitably  prevented  from  coming  to  Coiu't  to-day, 
and  I  am  advised  by  my  learned  friends  on  the  other  side 
that  we  are  getting  very  near,  probably,  the  close  of  the 
case,  and  that  it  may  be  terminated  probably,  substan- 
tially as  early,  even  if  we  should  take  this  interval  of  to- 
day, and  there  are  some  reasons  why  it  should  be  desired 
on  our  part,  if  you  have  no  objection. 

Judge  Neilson— Are  coimsel  engaged  ra  a  case  on  the 
other  side  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir,  and  absolutely ;  there  was  no 
avoiding  it  at  all. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  well  then  we  must  adjourn. 

The  Coui-t  then  adjourned  imtU  Monday  moi-niug,  May 
10,  at  11  o'clock. 


448  THE    TlLTiW-BEECREE  IBlAh, 

EIGHTY-SECOND  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


JEREMIAH  P. 


EOBINSON'S 
CLUDED. 


TESTIMONY  EX- 


MTJCH  OF  THE  DAY  SPENT  IN  ARGUMENTS  BE- 
TWEEN COUNSEL— JEREMIAH  P.  ROBINSON'S  TESTI- 
MONY ABOUT  MRS.  MOULTON'S  STATEMENTS  WITH 
REGARD  TO  HER  INTERVIEW  WITH  MR.  BEECHER 
EXCLUDED— MR.  BELL  TESTIFIES  CONCERNING  A 
CONVERSATION  WITH  MR.  BEECHER  IN  REGARD 
TO  MR.  TILTON'S  HOUSEHOLD— TESTIMONY  FROM 
MRS.  ROBERT  EDDY,  LEWIS  G.  JANES,  AND  OTHERS. 

Monday,  May  10,  1875. 

'J'lie  principal  incident  of  the  trial  to-day  was 
tlie  calling,  by  the  plaintifl',  of  Jeremiah  P.  Eobin- 
8on.  It  was  intended  to  show  that  Mrs.  Moulton 
had  told  him  the  incidents  of  her  alleged  interview 
with  Mr.  Beecher  on  June  2,  1873.  This  led  to 
the  anticipated  legal  battle.  Mr.  Fuller  ton,  who 
had  been  examining  the  witness  on  prelimi- 
nary points,  as  soon  as  Mr.  Evarts  made  an  ob- 
jection, said,  "  Well,  Sir,  one  of  my  associates  is 
ready  to  argue  it,"  and  sat  down.  Judge  Neilson 
said  that  he  was  ready  to  hear  the  arguments  of 
counsel  in  regard  to  the  admissibility  of  the  evi- 
dence. Mr.  Pryor  then  arose  and  began  his  ar- 
gument. He  stated  the  proposition  of  the  plain- 
tiff to  be  that  when  the  evidence  of  a  witness 
was  impugned  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  recent 
fabiical  ion,  brought  about  from  some  special  inter- 
est or  influence,  it  was  competent  to  prove  that  the 
witness  had  told  the  story  prior  to  the  date  of  the 
supposed  fabrication,  and  before  the  existence  of 
the  imputed  interest  or  influence.  He  claimed  that 
Gen.  Tracy  had  intimated  in  his  opening  address 
that  Mrs.  Moulton  had  been  influenced  in  her  state- 
ments by  her  husband,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher  in  his 
testimony  had  made  a  similar  intimation  about  Mrs. 
Moulton.  To  counteract  these  asserted  imputations 
against  Mrs.  Moulton,  the  plaintiff  wished  to  show 
that  the  lady  had  told  the  circumstances  of  her  al- 
leged interview  with  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mr.  Robinson 
about  the  time  when  the  interview  occurred. 

Mr.  Pryor  began  his  address  very  slowly,  but 
warming  with  his  subject  he  became  very  energetic 
in  manner.  He  spoke  in  the  main  in  a  high  key, 
occasionally  changing  to  a  heavy  bass  tone  with 
startling  abruptness.  He  was  apparently  very 
nervous,  and  picked  up  his  law-books,  opened  them 
over  his  arm,  and  read  his  authorities  so  rapidly 
that  the  stenographers  could  hardly  keep  up  with 


him.  His  gestures  were  very  forcible,  and  beseemed 
to  put  his  whole  strength  into  the  work.  Judge 
Neilson  listened  closely  to  this  argument,  and  the 
persons  in  the  audience  were  very  attentive,  and 
kept  their  eyes  fixed  upon  the  speaker.  Suddenly 
Mr.  Pryor  stopped  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence  which 
he  had  been  uttering  in  a  loud  voice,  pressed  hia 
hand  to  his  brow,  and  said  falteringly, 
"If  your  Honor  please,  I  have  an  attack 
of  vertigo."  The  windows  were  quickly  raised 
by  order  of  Judge  Neilson,  while  Mr.  Pryor  sank 
back  into  his  chair,  and  the  counsel  crowded  around 
him.  Rejecting  offers  of  assistance,  by  a  strong 
effort  Mr.  Pryor  again  rose  to  his  feet  and  attempted 
to  proceed  with  his  speech.  He  had  pronounced  only 
a  few  words  when  he  was  once  more  obliged  to  sit 
down.  When  he  once  more  arose  and  began  to 
speak.  Judge  Neilson  asked  him  to  continue 
his  argument  sitting,  but  Mr.  Pryor  refused 
to  do  so.  Judge  Neilson  also  offered  to  adjourn  the 
Court,  but  the  resolute  lawyer  declared  that  it  was 
not  worth  while,  and  went  on  speaking,  although 
his  hands  trembled  violently,  and  his  associates  en- 
deavored to  have  him  sit  down.  After  breaking 
down  three  times,  Mr.  Pryor  finally  said  that  it  was 
impossible  for  him  to  proceed,  and  left  the  Court- 
room accompanied  by  his  friends. 

Mr.  FuUerton  said  the  plaintiff's  counsel  were  sat- 
isfied to  let  the  argument  on  their  side  rest  where 
Mr.  Pryor  had  left  it.  Mr.  Evarts,  who  was  sup- 
plied with  numerous  authorities  by  Mr.  Abbott,  re- 
plied to  the  argument  of  Mr.  Pryor,  and  his 
answering  address,  which  began  before  recess, 
occupied  a  large  part  of  the  afternoon  ses- 
sion. Mr.  Evarts  maintained  that  there 
was  no  precedent  or  authority  in  this  State 
for  the  admission  of  the  testimony  which  the 
plaintiff'  wished  to  introduce.  Mr.  Fullerton  re- 
plied briefly  to  Mr.  Evarts.  Judge  Neilson  finally 
ruled  the  testimony  out,  saying  in  substance  that 
while  the  imputation  contained  in  Gen.  Tracy's  open- 
ing address  and  in  Mr.  Beecher's  testimony  might  be 
the  gTOund  of  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  ex- 
cluding the  evidence  offered,  yet  the  charge  in  the 
opening  if  unsupported  would  go  for  nothing,  and 
the  remark  of  the  defendant  was  a  mere  opinion  of 
no  weight,  and  ought  not  to  be  considered. 

The  plaintiff's  lawyers  called  Mrs.  Robert  Eddy 
of  Brooklyn,  who  testified  that  a  few  weeks  before 
July  1,  1873,  she  had  met  Mr.  Beecher  coming 
out  of  Mr.  Moulton's  house.  On  the  part  of  the 
plaintiff  it  was  offered  to  prove  that  Mrs.  Moulton 


TESTIMO^iY  OF  C 

had  told  Mrs.  Eddy  about  her  interview  with  Mr. 
Beecher,  bnt  this  evidence  was  excluded  also. 

Mrs.  Moulton  was  then  recalled  by  the  plaintiff. 
She  had  come  into  the  court-room  accompanied  by 
her  husband  and  jVIrs.  Eddy,  and  the  three  had  sat 
down  near  the  witness  chair.  The  ladies  remained 
only  long  enough  in  the  court-room  to  give  their 
testimony.  Mrs.  Moulton  testified  that  the  visit 
spoken  of  by  Mrs.  Eddy,  when  Mr.  Beecher  was 
met  on  the  steps  of  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  was  on 
June  2,  1873,  the  day  when  Mrs.  Moulton  had 
her  alleged  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr.  Beach 
explained  that  jMts.  Moulton  would  be  recalled  again 
to  give  evidenc-e  on  other  subjects. 

George  A.  Bell  was  recalled  by  the  plaintiff  imme- 
diately after  the  opening  of  the  morning  session.  He 
testified  that  in  December,  1870,  he  had  a  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Beecher  about  the  domestic  diffi- 
culty in  iVIr.  Tilton's  family.  :Mr.  Beecher  told  the 
witness  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  left  her  husband 
and  gone  to  Mrs.  Morse's,  that  her  husband's  con- 
duct had  been  cruel  and  licentious,  and  that 
he  (Mr.  Beecher)  had  been  called  upon  by  a  young 
girl  living  in  IVIr.  Tilton's  family,  who  had  told  him 
about  licentious  incidents  that  had  occurred  in  ^Mr. 
Tilton's  house.  Mr.  Bell  gave  the  details  of  the  in- 
terview at  cousiderable  length.  He  was  not  cross- 
examined. 

Lewie  G.  Janes,  the  Superintendent  of  the  Butler 
Health  Lift,  in  Xew-York  and  Brooklyn,  was  called 
for  the  plaintiff,  and  testified  that  he  had  seen  iSIr. 
Beecher  on  the  morning  of  June  2, 1873,  on  the  Mon- 
tague Terrace,  Brooklyn,  going  toward  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's house,  with  his  head  cast  down  dejectedly. 

Frederick  W.^VIitchell  of  Xorwalk,  Conn.,  formerly 
bookkeeper  of  Woodhull,  Claflin  &  Co.,  testified  for 
the  plaintiff.  He  stated  that  the  colored  man  Wood- 
ley  had  had  no  regular  employment  to  his  knowl- 
edge, and  was  a  man  of  little  education. 

Mary  Catharine  McDonald,  a  servant,  who  is  nov, 
in  Mr.  Tilton's  employment,  was  called  for  the  plain- 
tiff. She  testified  that  she  had  helped  Mrs.  Tilton  to 
get  ready  to  go  to  Monticello  about  four  years  ago. 
She  narrated  the  circumstances  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  de- 
parture, and  what  followed,  and  stated  that  Miss 
Bessie  Turner  left  Mr.  Tilton's  house  for  Keyport, 
N.  J.,  on  the  Monday  following  Mrs.  Tilton's  depar- 
ture for  Monticello. 


EOBGE  A.   BELL.  449 
THE   PROCEEDINaS— VERBATIM. 

GEORGE  A.  BELL  RECALLED. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
joiu-nment. 

Mr.  Morris— George  A.  Bell.  George  A.  Bell  recalled 
on  behalf  of  tlie  plaintiff. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Bell,  I  want  to  call  yom-  atten- 
tion to  a  proposed  Deacons'  meeting  of  Plymouth  duu-cli, 
about  the  time  of  tlie  West  cliarges.  Do  you  recol- 
lect of  a  proposed  meeting  of  the  Deacons  of  that  church 
about  that  time  I  A.  I  have  vo  remembrance  about  the 
West  charges  at  all,  Mr.  Fullerton. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  any  such  proposed  meeting, 
soon  after  the  Woodhull  scandal.   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  Mi\  Beecher  make  any  recLuest  of  you  soon 
after  that  scandal,  in  regard  to  a  proposed  Deacons'  meet- 
ing? 

Mi\  Shearman— Wait  a  moment.  If  your  Honor  please, 
we  object,  on  the  ground  that  this  has  been  gone  into  on 
the  direct  examination  of  Mr.  Bell,  on  the  plaintiff 's  open- 
ing case,  page  695.   It  has  been  fully  covered 

Mr.  FuHerton- 695  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— 695. 

Mr.  Fiillerton— Won't  you  read,  Mr.  Shearman. 
Mr.  Shearman— Shall  I  read  % 
Mr,  Fullerton— Yes. 

Mr.  Shearman— [Reading] :  "  Q.  Do  you  remember  being 
present  at  any  time  when  Mr.  Beecher  was  present,  when 
the  subject  of  the  scandal  was  up  for  discussion  1"  After 
one  or  two  other  questions  on  the  part  of  the  witness,  to 
get  an  explanation,  he  says,  "  Yes,  Sir." 

Mr.  FuUerton— What  column  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Second  column. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Eight  hand  side  1 

Mr.  Shearman— Eight  hand  side. 

"  Q.  Where  did  it  take  place  ?  A.  In  Mr.  Beecher's 
house. 

"Q.  Who  were  present?  A.  Mr.  Beecher  and  my- 
self.   ^    »    *  * 

"  Q.  What  occmTed  at  the  interview  between  yourself 
and  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  Mr.  Beecher  said  he  had  sent  for  me 
because  he  understood  that  there  was  to  be  a  meeting  of 
the  Deacons  m  regard  to  this  matter,"  &c. 

Then  the  conversation  is  stated  with  gr^at  detail. 

MR.  BEECHER  AND  MRS.  TILTON'S  DOMESTIC 
TROUBLES. 
Mr.  Fullerton— I  believe  that  is  so,  Air.  BeU, 

and  I  will  pass  to  another  topic.  Do  you  recollect  of  Mr, 
Beecher's  calling  upon  you  about  the  middle  of  Decem- 
ber, 1870,  with  reference  to  a  domestic  difficulty  in  the 
family  of  Mr.  Tilton  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recoUect  the  dat«1  A.  Not  excepting  as 
connected  with  the  documents  published  in  this  trial. 

Q.  But  in  connection  with  those  documents  you  do  rec- 
ollect the  date  {  A.  I  remember  that  


450 


THE   TILIOI^-BEECREB  TBIAL. 


Mr.  Shearman— Can  you  speak  a  little  louder?  Wait  a 
moim  nt,  Mr.  Bell.  [To  Mr.  FuUerton.]  Be  kind  enough 
to  repeat  the  question. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  call  his  attention  to  about  the  middle 
of  December,  1870,  an  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher,  in  re- 
spect of  the  domestic  difficulty  in  the  family  of  Mr.  Tilton. 

The  Witness— You  were  speaking  about  the  date,  I 
understand  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  merely  know  of  my  own  knowledge 
within  a  certain  number  of  years,  during  which  that  in- 
terview must  have  taken  place — ^that  is,  it  must  have 
taken  place  while  I  lived  ia  my  present  residence,  and  I 
moveci  into  that  residence  in  the  Spring  of  1869;  it 
mast  have  been  since  that  time ;  but  I  have  been  able  to 
fix  the  date,  of  course,  from  the  proceedings  in  this 
trial. 

Q.  And  having  so  fixed  it,  what  date  do  you  say  it 
was?  A.  About  the  middle  of  December. 
Q.  Of  what  year  %  A.  1870. 

Q.  Did  you  visit  the  house  of  Mr.  Tilton  or  Mrs.  Morse 
with  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  Mr.  Beecher  see  you  in  regard  to  it  ?  A. 
In  his  own  house. 

Q.  Under  what  ciixumstanoes  were  you  there?  A.  I 
went  there  by  his  request— to  call. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  you,  if  anything,  in  regard  to 
the  proposed  visit  to  Mrs.  Morse  ? 

Mr.  Beach— The  question  is  not  heard,  Mr.  Fullerton. 
The  jury  don't  hear  you. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— What  request  did  Mr.  Beecher  make 
of  you,  if  any,  touching  a  proposed  visit  of  Mrs.  Tilton  at 
her  mother's,  Mrs.  Morse's  ?  A.  He  requested  my  opinion 
about  certain  matters. 

Q.  What  request  did  he  make?  A.  Do  you  mean  au 
opinion  upon  what  point  ? 

Q.  No,  what  request  of  you  did  he  make  ?  A.  He  re- 
quested my  opinion. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  state  any  facts  upon  which  you  were  to 
base  your  opinion?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  advice  did  you  give  him  ?  A.  It  is  so  much 
pltmging  to  the  very  end  of  it  from  the  beginning  that  I 
can  scarcely  answer. 

Q.  Well,  commence  at  the  beginning ;  tell  us  what  he 
stated  to  you,  and  then  the  advice  you  gave  him  ?  A. 
He  stated  to  mc  that  he  had  been  sent  for  by  Mrs.  Tilton 
to  consult  in  regard  to  the  position  of  domestic  affairs  in 
her  own  household;  that  she  had  left  her  husband  and 
Wf.s  then  at  Mrs.  Morse's,  her  mother's  ;  that  she  was  in 
great  trouble  and  great  anxiety ;  that  the  conduct  of  her 
husband  had  been  in  a  great  many  ways  very  severe, 
very  cnel,  and  everything  but  what  a— I  was  going  to 
say,  a  decent  man's  conduct  ought  to  be  to  a  woman ;  he 
sta-^^d  that  Mr.  Tilton's  conduct  in  regard  to  other  mat- 
ters, in  regard  to  licentiousness,  was  very  low ;  he  stated 
t  hat  he  had  been  called  upon  by  a  young  girl— he  did  not 
mention  any  name — a  young  girl,  who  had  been  in  Mr. 


Tilton's  family ;  she  had  related  to  him  circumstances  oc- 
curring in  the  family,  in  the  household  of  Mr.  Tilton, 
which  were  exceedingly  licentious ;  he  stated— I  presume 
I  need  not  go  into  the  circumstances  of  that  statement ; 
I  have  sufliciently  indicated  what  it  was ;  he  stated  that 
at  last  Mrs.  Tilton  had  been  forced  to  fly  from  her  home? 
that  she  had  done  so,  and  had  gone  to  Mrs.  Morse's ;  that 
she  had  sent  then  for  him  to  advise  with 
him  as  to  what  course  she  should  pursue; 
that  he  had  consulted  Mrs.  Beeecher  on  the 
subject,  and  then  they  thought— both  thorght— that 
it  was  better  that  they  should  mention  the  fact  to  some 
member  of  the  church,  so  that  they  might  not  go  on  in 
the  matter  without  the  whole  church  beinsc  ignorant  of 
these  proceedings,  or  what  advice  they  might  give- 
might  tender  to  Mrs.  Tilton  ;  they  had  therefore  called 
for  me,  not  so  much  to  take  my  advice,  as  to  inform  me 
of  the  facts  that  were  occurring,  and  inform  me  of  what 
advice  they  proposed  to  adve,  if  any,  to  Mrs.  Tilton.  He 
asked  me  then— he  said  then  that  he  proposed  to  hand 
the  matter  over  to  Mrs.  Beecher ;  that  it  was  a  matter 
that  a  lady  could  manage  better  ttan  a  gentleman,  and 
Mrs.  Beecher  intended,  by  his  suggestion,  to  go  and  see 
Mrs.  Tilton  the  next  day.  The  question  was  particularly 
as  to  what  advice  Mrs.  Beecher  should  give  to  Mrs.  TU- 
ton.  I  don't  know  whether  from  Mrs.  Beecher  or 
from  him,  the  question  came  up  about  a  permanent 
separation,  but  from  one  or  the  other  that  suggestion 
was  made,  of  a  permanent  separation  between  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  TUton,  and  Mr.  Beecher  asked  me  what  I  thought  of 
that.  I  said  in  answer,  "  Of  course,  nothing  else  can  be 
possible ;  it  is  Impossible  for  Mrs.  Tilton  to  live  another 
day  with  Mr.  Tilton  on  such  facts  as  you  have  presented 
to  me."  Then  Mr.  Beecher  asked  me  if  I  thought  it  would 
be  well  to  can  in  any  of  the  ladies  of  the  church ;  I  am 
not  sure  whether  deaconesses  were  mentioned  then,  as  I 
am  not  quite  sure  that  we  had  them  at  that  time,  but  it  is 
clear  in  my  memory  that  he  did  ask  me  if  the  advice  of 
any  of  the  ladies  of  the  church  should  be  called  for,  or 
that  the  matter  should  be  handed  over  to  the  ladies  of  the 
church— any  of  the  ladies— to  manage.  I  said,  unques- 
tionably not;  it  was  a  matter  of  great  delicacy,  it  was  a 
matter  far  more  easUy  managed  by  a  few  than  by  many, 
and  it  would  be  exceedingly  harmful  to  bring  it  into  the 
church,  or  even  to  hand  it  over  to  any  ladies  unofficially, 
and  that  I  was  certain  that  the  best  management  of  the 
case  would  be  to  have  it  left  in  his  own  hands  and  thosfr 
of  Mrs.  Beecher.  It  was  then— I  think  that  was  about 
the  substance  of  that  interview.  I  had  another  interview 
the  following  day,  I  think. 

Q.  You  are  not  able  to  state  the  day  of  the  month  when 
this  took  place  ?  A.  WeU,  I  believe  I  would  have  been, 
Sir,  if  I  had  known  the  very  slightest  what  you  were 
going  to  examine  me  about,  but  I  came  on  this  stand  j 
without  the  slightest  consultation  with  any  of  the  law-  ' 
yers  on  your  side ;  I  have  a  note  at  home  I  think— not 


TESLIMOyj   OF  LEWIS   G.  JANES. 


m 


that  I  pressrved  papers,  uut  my  son  is  au  autograpli  col- 
lector, and  lie  seizes  all  autograplis  of  3Ir.  Beeetier  that  I 
have,  and  one,  a  note,  I  found  within  a  few  weelis  calling 
for  that  very  interview. 

Q.  You  can,  then,  give  us  the  exact  date,  can  you  not  1 
A.  No,  I  don't  think— I  cannot. 

Q.  I  interrupted  you  as  you  were  going  to  say  some- 
thing, Mr.  Bell.  A.  I  was  going  to  say  that  I  thought 
I>erhaps— but  I  thinlr  perhaps  I  had  better  not  say  the 
date,  because  I  cannot  remember  distinctly. 

Q.  Can  you  by  referring  to  the  note  in  question?  A.  I 
can.  Sir,  but  I  am  going  away  from  town  this  afternoon 
at  3  o'clock,  to  be  gone  until  next  Saturday. 

Q.  Is  there  any  way  you  could  send  the  note  to  us? 
A.  I  suppose  I  can  be  called  upon,  Judge,  for  the  note, 
and  there  would  be  nothing  improper  for  me  to  send  it  to 
you,  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  the  other  side  are  willing. 

Mr.  Shearman -Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— We  can  get  the  date  without  your  ap- 
pearmg. 

The  Witness— I  think  the  date  is  in  it,  but  I  won't  be 
quite  certain  ;  yes,  I  think  the  date  is  in  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  if  you  will  be  kind  enough  to 
send  it  to  us  it  will  be  returned  to  you. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  the  other  side  wiU  consent  that  it 
may  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the  date.  That  is 
aU. 

Mr.  Shearman— If  you  will  send  that,  Mi\  Bell,  that  is 
aU.  _ 

TESTmOinr  OF  LEWIS  G.  JA^^ES. 

Lewis  G.  Janes,  a  witness  called  and  sworn 

on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  testified  as  follows  : 
By  Mr.  Morris— ISIr,  Janes,  where  do  you  reside  ?  A. 

No.  440  Carlton-ave.,  Brooklyn. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  Brooklyn  ?  A.  Five 

years  last  January. 
Q.  And  what  is  your  business  1  A.  I  a:  i  manager  or 

superintendent  of  the  Butler  Health-Lift  in  New-York  and 

Brooklyn. 

Q.  Where  is  your  place  of  business  in  Brooklyn?  A- 
158  Remsen-st. 

Q.  And  where  in  New-York  1  A.  Park  Bank  building. 
No.  214  Broadway. 

Q..  Are  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Beecherl  A.  I  have 
known  Mr.  Beecher  by  sight  for  ten  years.  I  was  intro- 
duced to  him  in  the  Spring  of  1871. 

Q.  And  has  he  been  a  customer  of  yours  f  A.  He  has. 

Q.  At  what  time  1  A.  Fi-om  the  latter  part  of  March, 
1871,  during  the  three  months  followiag,  very  regularly, 
1  and  I  think  running  over,  irregularly,  a  little  beyond  that 
:  time ;  a  few  days  in  the  Fall. 

Q.  You  are  married?  A.  I  am. 

Q.  Fanulyl  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


Q.  Wken  is  the  anniversary  of  your  marriage — what  day 
of  the  year  1   A.  On  the  2d  day  of  June. 

Q.  When  was  you  married— what  year !  A.  The  2d  day 
of  June,  18691 

Q.  On  the  Ist  of  June,  1873,  did  you  have  a  place  of 
business  in  New- York?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  was  it  at  that  time !  A.  At  the  same  place 
where  it  is  at  present,  214  Broadway. 

Q.  Park  Bank?   A.  Park  Bank  building. 

iVIE.  BEECHER'S  ALIBI  DISPUTED. 
Q.  Do  you  recollect  from  about  the  31st  of 
May,  the  week  following,  of  having  a  patient  in  New- 
York,  that  called  you  over  early  in  the  moining?  A. 
From  the  29th  of  May  I  recollect  such  an  incident ;  yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  2d  of  June,  1873 1 
A.  I  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  And  where  did  you  see  him  1  A.  I  saw  him  first  as 
he  ^rae  about  stepping  upon  a  little  bridge  crosstiig  the 
roadway — carriage  roadway,  which  leads  down  to  Wall- 
Street  Ferry  at  Montague-terrace. 

Q.  From  which  direction  was  he  coming  ?  A.  From  tLe 
direction  of  Columbia  Heights. 

Q.  There  is  where  Mr.  Beecher  resides  ?  A.  I  under- 
stand so. 

Q.  No.  124  Columbia  Heights  1  The  residence  has  been 
given.  A.  I  don't  know  the  number. 

Q.  And  when  he  passed  the  bridge,  which  dii^ection  did 
he  take?  A.  He  took  the  direction  leading  toward  Kem- 
sen-st. 

Q.  Montague-terrace  1  A.  Yes,  Csir ;  crossing  Montague- 
terrace. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  tirrn  ia  Remsen-st.  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  ^\Tiich  way  did  he  tvirn  in  Remsen-st.  1  A.  He  turned 
toward  Court-at. 

Q.  And  that  is  toward  Mr.  Moulton's  house?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Toward  69  Kemsen-st. !  A.  49  Remaen-st. 

Q.  49  I  should  say.  Now,  about  what  hour  in  the 
morning  was  that  1  A.  As  accurately  as  I  can  fix  it,  it 
was  shortly  before  9  o'clock;  I  think  not  after  that. 

Q.  How  far  is  is  Mr.  Moulton's  residence  from  Montague- 
terrace,  where  you  saw  him  turn  ? 

Mr.  Beach — From  that  corner 

Mr.  Morris— From  that  comer  ? 

A.  I  am  unable  to  fix  it  accurately,  but  I  should  think  » 
few  houses— four  or  five  houses. 

Q.  In  that  block  ?  A.  Yes ;  it  is  in  that  first  block,  if 
I  recoUect  correctly. 

Q.  From  24  Columbia  Heights  to  Moulton's  residence, 
that  would  be  the  most  direct  route  to  go,  wouldn't  it? 
A.  I  should  judge  so. 

Q.  About  how  far  is  24  Columbia  Heights  from  Mr. 
Moulton's?  A.  I  very  seldom  pass  through  Columbia 
Heights,  and  I  am  unable  to  say.  Sir ;  I  should  clLink  it 


452  TELE  TILTON-B 

would  be  about  10  minutes'  walk,  if  you  want  a  guess- 
possibly  more. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  get  it  by  somebody  else. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes ;  I  will  get  that  by  some  person  wbo 
knows  better  than  you.  Now,  then,  state  wbat  circum- 
stance, if  any  tbere  was,  in  your  meeting  Mr.  Beecher 
that  morning,  that  impressed  it  upon  your  mind.  A.  In 
order  to  explain  that  I  shall  have  to  explain  my  state  of 
feeling. 

Q.  Well,  explain  that.  A.  [Continuing.]  When  I  start- 
ed out  of  the  house.  The  2d  of  June  is  a  very  pleasant 
anniversary  to  me.  My  intention  is  always,  if  possible, 
when  business  permits,  to  make  a  semi-holiday  of  it.  On 
that  occasion  I  was— felt  obliged  to  go  over  to  New-York 
at  an  earlier  hour  than  usual ;  I  usually  reached  my  New- 
York  rooms  in  the  vicinity  of  hall-past  10  ;  but  on  that 
morning— for  a  few  days  about  that  time,  I  was  obliged 
to  go  earlier,  and  I  left  the  house  with  the  intention  of 
returning,  if  possible,  earlier  than  usual,  and  making  a 
sort  of  holiday  of  it,  and  with  a  very— in  a  very  pleasant 
mood  of  mind.  On  seeiug  Mr.  Beecher,  I  recognized  him 
at  once,  and,  perhaps  egotistically,  thought  that  he  would 
recognize  me  when  we  met,  as  we  did  very  nearly.  But, 
as  I  came  nearer  to  him,  T  saw  his  countenance  indicated 
a  person  who  was  troubled. 

Mr.  Evarts- Well,  it  is  no  matter  about  the  indication 
of  his  countenance. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  some  matter  to  us. 

The  Witness— His  head  was  cast  down.  He  appeared 
to  be  in  trouble,  and  it  produced  a  change  of  my  state  of 
mind  that  fixed  itself  upon  my  memory,  and  upon  return- 
ing home  at  night  I  repeated  the  Incident  to  my  wife. 

Q.  And  how  near  were  you  to  Mr.  Beecher— how  near 
did  you  pass  by  him  1  A.  I  should  think  nearer,  or  as 
near,  as  I  am  to  him  now. 

Q.  He  did  not  recognize  you  ?  A.  He  did  not  appear  to 
recognize  me,  I  don't  think  from  his  appearance  he 
would  have  recognized  any  one. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  move  to  strike  out  that  last  chiwr 

Judge  Neilson— Yes  ;  that  last  clause. 

The  Witness— I  hope  Mr.  Evarts  will  accept  my  apol- 
ogy if  I  deviate  in  any  way  from  the  

Mr.  Evarts— Do  not  vary  from  the  coarse  of  the  exami- 
nation. I  do  not  know  that  you  owe  any  apology  to 
anybody. 

The  Witness— Entirely  unintentional,  if  I  made  any 
error. 

CEOSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  JANES. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Janes,  you  say  that  you  make  the 
2d  of  June,  or  have  a  disposition  on  that  day  at  least-  to 
make  the  2d  of  June  a  semi-holiday!  A.  Ihat  is  my 
feeling  and  intention  when  business  permits. 

Q.  WeU,  this  \Tas  in  1873  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  you  had  been  married  four  years  1  A.  '69  to 
"73  ;  yes,  Sir. 


U^JCHJbJR  IBIAL. 

Q.  Had  you  carried  out  that  purpose  on  your  prevlou* 
anniversaries  I  A.  Well,  to  a  certain  extent.  Sir. 

Q.  Not  succeeded  on  any  one  entirely!  A.  That  I 
would  have  to  recall  to  my  recollection  a  little ;  on  the 
one  following  

Q.  Oh  1  I  don't  care  for  the  details.  A.  I  think  I  had  . 
on  one,  at  least ;  I  can  tell  why  I  had  not  on  the  other 
two,  if  you  would  like  to  know.  Sir ;  would  you  like  to 
have  me  tell  you  why  

Q.  Oh  I  Not  thele^st;  I  haven't  the  least  cuiiosity; 
not  the  least.  Now,  Mr.  Janes,  you  think  Mr.  Beecher 
had  a  gloomy  look!  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  he  was  dressed!  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  that  is,  I  could  not,  of  course,  indicate  absolutely, 
but  I  recollect  the  general  impression  made  upon  me. 

Q.  Recollect  he  had  his  clothes  on  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  a  dark 
suit,  or  black  suit,  I  should  say,  without  overcoat. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  the  weather  was  warm 
or  not  %  A.  It  was. 

Q.  Was  it  quite  hot !  A.  Well,  my  recollection  is  that 
it  was  a  day  to  dispense  with  coats,  or  outside  coats  at  all 
events. 

Q.  The  2d  of  June !  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  But  you  have  no  more  distinct  recollection  about  it 
than  that  ?  A.  Well,  I  have  refreshed  my  recollection  by 
a  reference  to  the  tables. 

Q.  Yes ;  and  what  did  you  find  out !  A.  I  found  out 
that  it  was  from  80°  to  85°  along  through  the  day,  in 
that  vicinity— the  thermometer. 

Q.  Did  you  find  out  it  was  near  90°  about  8  o'clock  in 
the  morning !  A.  I  could  not  tell  you  absolute ;  I  think 
not,  though;  about  9  o'clock  in  the  morning  I  think  it 
was  

Q.  You  don't  remember  it  was  a  very  hot  day !  A.  I 
recollect  it  was  a  warm  day ;  yes,  that  is  my  impression ; 
it  was  a  warm  day ;  I  recollect  the  day  previous  to  it 
more  than  that  day,  for  I  was  out  of  doors  nearly  all  day. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  remember  whether  it  was  a  hot.  sim- 
shining  day  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  could  not  say  whether  it  was 
cloudy,  but  E  recollect  that  it  was  not  stormy ;  that  ia 
my  recollection,  not  stormy. 

Q.  Well,  then  the  obscuration  of  Mr.  Beecher's  face  prcv 
duced  more  of  a  chill  on  you  than  the  question  whether 
sxm  was  obscured  or  not  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  decidedly. 

Q.  Now,  what  sort  of  a  hat  did  Mr.  Beecher  have  on  t 
A.  My  recollection  is  simply  that  he  didn't  have  on  a  tall 
silk  hat ;  I  could  not  say  more  definitely  than  that. 

Q.  Now,  was  it  an  unusual  thing  for  you  to  see  Mr. 
Beecher !  A.  Bather  unusual,  yes,  Sir,  at  that  time. 

Q.  Quite  so,  wasn't  it  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  do  you  think  it  had  been  since  you  had 
seen  him «  A.  Well,  T  may  have  met  him  on  a  boat  or  

Q,  Yes,  T  am  not  asking  you  that ;  I  asked  how  long  since 
you  remember  to  have  seen  him ;  you  may  have  met  him 

anywhere         A.  I  do  not  remember ;  I  have  no  distinct  \ 

recollection  of  having  seen  hira  since  he  left  our  rooms ;  < 


TESllMONT   OF  LEWIS   G.  JANUS. 


45a 


I  thlni,  however,  that  I  attended  hie  church  once  diu-ing 
that  period,  but  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  Don't  even  remember  that!  A.  Not  absolut-elr;  I 
think— I  have  only  attended  there  three  or  four  times 
since  I  have  been  in  Brooklyn ;  I  vrould  not  be  likely  to 
remember  the  exact  dates. 

Q.  Well,  you  run  on  a  little,  but  that  is  not  important  if 
you  will  attend  to  my  questions  and  confine  your  an- 
swers to  them.  A.  I  wiU  endeavor  to  do  so,  Six. 

Q.  You  did  see  him  thela^t  time  that  he  left  your  place"? 
A.  No,  Sir,  I  didn't  say  that. 

Q.  Your  pre«enc«— when  was  itl  A.  The  last  time  that 
lie  left  my  presence  I  saw  him  certainly. 

Q.  Your  presence  i   A.  Yes,  Sir,  certainly. 

Q.  When  was  that  1  A.  That  I  cannot  state  now  defi- 
nitely. 

Q.  Wen,  what  can  yon  say  about  it?  A.  Well,  he— I 
think— I  am  not  certain— I  cannot  say  whether  I  saw  him 
—he  was  in  my  rooms,  I  think,  three  or  four  times,  possi- 
bly more ;  possibly  not  over  two  or  three,  in  the  Fall  of 
1871.  Whether  I  saw  him  there  I  do  not  recollect ;  but  I 
do  recoUect  distinctly  an  occasion  in  the  Spriug  of  1871 
which  I  think  was  toward  the  last  of  Ms  lifting. 

Q.  Very  well;  now,  for  two  years  you  had  n't  seen  him,  j 
then,  aocordiag  to  your  recollection  I    A.  I  think  I  had  I 
met  him  casually,  but  not  so  as  to  identify  the  occasion ; 
there  was  nothing  to  impress  it  on  my  memory. 

Q.  Well,  you  don't  know,  then,  that  you  ever  met  him, 
do  you  1  A.  I  could  not  swear  to  it  daring  that  period. 

Q.  Now,  was  your  usual  trip  to  the  city  over  the  WaU 
Street  Ferryl  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  was  an  everyday  matter  to  you?    A.  Not  an 
everyday  absolutely,  but  usual. 

Q.  Well,  usual— you  went  over  every  day,  didn't  youl 
A.  I  went  over  some  way  every  day  nearly. 

Q.  WeU,  that  was  your  habit.   A.  That  was  my  habit. 

Q.  Your  busiaess  was  to  go  every  day.   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  went  by  the   AYaU  Street  Ferry?  A. 
Usually. 

Q.  Now,  where  did  you  live  at  this  time '?  A.  I  lived  | 
Where  I  live  now  on  June  2, 1873. 

Q-  Well,  I  haven't  the  least  idea  where  you  live  now. 
A.  I  stated  on  my  direct  examination— No.  440  Carlton- 
ftve. 

Q.  Where  is  that  as  respexjts  this  ferry  i  A.  It  is,  I 
should  judge,  a  mile  and  a  half  from  the  ferry  or  more. 

Q.  You  go  through  a  great  many  streets  to  get  to  it? 
A.  Not  a  great  many. 

Q.  Well,  a  good  length  1  A.  A  good  length  of  streets- 
yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  where  did  you  come  into  Montague-st.  that 
momiagi  A.  That  I  am  unable  absolutely  to  say,  on  that 
day;  I  can  give  you  my  general  course,  and  occasionally 
!  I  deviate  from  it. 

Q.  Yea  1  WeU,  then,  I  don't  think  it  would  be  any  use 


to  rae  to  know;  that  is  the  only  day  I  want  to  know  about 
it  I   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q,.  And  you  don't  know  ?  A.  I  know  this— that  I  came 
into  it  on  that  morning  as  high  up  as  Clinton-st. 

Q.  Clinton!  A.  Yes,  Sir;  as  far  toward  Court  as  Clin- 
ton. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  go  along  the  platform  there  and  down 
the  steps,  or  did  you  go  down  under  the  bridge  ?  A.  I 
went  along  the  platform  and  down  the  steps. 

Q.  Is  that  your  usual  course  1  A.  That  is  a  very  fre- 
quent course  with  me ;  I  like  to  look  out  on  the  water  as 
I  go  by. 

Q.  Now,  which  way  do  you  usually  go '?  A.  I  think 
about  as  often  one  way  as  the  other,  as  near  as  I  can  

Q.  You  have  no  impression,  however,  about  that !  A. 
I  know  that  I  did  that  on  that  morning ;  yes,  Sir,  I  have 
very  decided  impression. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  looking  out  on  the  wat^r  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  see  ?  A.  I  saw  water. 

Q.  WeU,  you  have  a  distinct  recollection  that  you 
looked  out  on  the  water  that  morning,  and  saw  it !  A.  I 
perhaps  reason  to  that,  Mr.  Evarts. 

Mr.  Evarts— Ah !  ah ! 

The  Witness— To  be  strict  about  it. 

Q.  Only  reason  ?  A.  The  incident  that  struck  me  most 
I  have  mentioned ;  of  these  others  

Q.  Yes,  yes ;  where  was  Mr.  Beecher  when  you  first 
saw  him?  A.  He  was  very  near  the  bridge. 

Q,  What  street  was  he  in  ?  A.  I  think  it  is  caUed  Mon- 
tague-terrace along  there;  I  am  not— I  don't  know  that 
I  ever  looked  at  the  name,  but  I  think  all  that  space  aoros? 
there  is  called  Montague-terrace. 

Q.  Yes;  well,  it  is  a  prolongation  of  Columbia-st.,  oi 
Columbia  Iliiihts  i  A.  Pretty  nearly ;  I  think  there  is  a 
Utile  break. 

Q.  Yes,  Sir ;  a  Uttle  jog  there.  Now,  you  think  you 
were  in  that  part  of  it  ?   A.  Yes,  Sii\ 

Q.  On  which  side  of  the  street  was  ii  I  A.  7'oward  Co- 
lumbia- Hights;  it  was  on  the  side  of  the  bridge  toward 
Columbia  Hights,  just  about  stepping  on  the  bridge,  or 
very  nearly. 

Q.  The  bridge?  A.  There  is  a  smaU  foot-bridge  cross- 
ing over  the  passage-way. 

Q.  WeU,  what  is  this  bridge  ;  what  is  it  over  I  A.  It  is 
over  the  roadway  which  leads  down  to  the  ferry. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  You  wiU  reeoUect  there  is  an  arch  tlicre, 
and  steps  which  go  down  by  the  arch— baek  of  the  arch. 

Q.  WeU,  lie  was  on  that  bridge  1  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  he  was 
about  stepping  on  it. 

Q.  And  where  were  you  when  you  first  saw  him  f  A. 
WeU,  I  was  up— I  was  -walking  down  Montague-st.  in  that 
direction  on  to  the  ferries— toward  the  ferries. 

Q.  Then  he  turned  and  passed  you,  did  he,  and  you 
him !  A.  He  did  not  require  to  turn  very  much ;  we 


454  TRM  TILION-B 

Tvere  approacliing  very  nearly  at  right  angles  with  cacli 
other. 

Q.  Well,  exactly ;  did  you  come  together  at  right  angles? 
A.  Not  absolutely  together,  but  within  a  few  feet. 

Q.  Well,  how  did  he  pass  by— in  front  of  you,  or  you  in 
front  of  him  ?   A.  He  passed  by  in  front  of  me. 

Q.  Yes  ;  and  he  did  not  turn  round  and  look  at  you,  did 
he  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  that  disappointed  you  1   A.  Well,  possibly. 

Q.  It  was  not  like  meeting  a  man,  then,  face  to  face, 
and  his  not  recognizing  you,  but  he  was  going  at  right 
angles  to  your  course,  and  he  did  not  turn  *?  A.  Yes,  Sir; 
I  could  see  his  face  distinctly,  however. 

Q.  One  side  of  it,  I  should  judge  ?  A.  A  sort  of  semi- 
pro  file  view,  I  should  judge. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  LOOK  OF  TROUBLE. 

Q.  Yes,  a  semi-profile  view;  and  what  indi- 
cation of  trouble  did  you  see  in  that  semi-proflle  view 
which  you  had  of  him  ?  A.  Simply  that  the  face  was— 
his  eyes  were  cast  upon  the  ground,  toward  the  ground, 
and  the  expression  of  his  face  was  sober — sad. 

Q.  Sober  ?  A.  A  sort  of  corrugation  of  the  brows,  ami 
he  gave  me  the— perhaps  you  would  not  want  me  to  say 
that,  however — ^the  impression  that  he  gave  me. 

Q.  No,  not  a  semi-proflle  judgment  of  the  inside  of  a 
man,  you  know.  A.  I  don't  set  myself  up  as  a  judge. 
Sir,  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  at  any  rate,  however,  he  felt ;  he  did  not  make 
any  secret  of  it,  did  he  ?  A.  I  don't  believe  it  is  easy  for 
Mr.  Eeecher  to  make  a  secret  of  his  feelings. 

Q.  You  think  he  is  a  pretty  transparent  character  1 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  object  to  that,  3ir. 

The  Witness— I  am  not  a  judge,  as  I  said  before. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  ai«  not  a  judge  1 

The  Witness— But  I  have  seen  him  

Mr.  Beach — Wait  one  moment. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  are  not  a  judge,  you  say? 

Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  moment ;  what  is  the  question  f 

Mr.  Evarts— This  last  one  M^as  whether  he  was  a-judge ; 
he  said  he  was  not. 

Mr.  Beach— I  was  objecting  all  tlje  time. 

Mr.  Evarts-  -Now,  you  passed  along ;  and  how  long  be- 
fore you  cam.'  to  the  descent— to  the  steps  ?  A.  It  was 
not  very  long,  but  longer  than  I  would  generally  be  in 
coming  to  the  descent,  the  steps. 

Q.  Well,  how  long,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  were  youl  A.  T 
do  n't  think  over  three  minutes ;  possibly  not  as  long  as 
that. 

Q.  Three  minutes— well,  it  did  n't  take  you  that  time  to 
walk  the         A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  would  it  take  you  t©  walk  it  at  ordinary 
speed  ?  A.  I  do  n't  know I  suppose  a  minute,  possibly. 

Q.  Half  a  miuute,  would  n't  ill  A.  I  should  judge  it 
would  be  pretty  ciuick  in  half  a  minute,  but  it  is  a  mere 


l^h'.iUlER  nUAL. 

matter  of  judgment,  and  I  do  not  think  T  am  a  veiy  good 
judge  of  that. 

Q.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Beecher  passed  ahead  of  you ;  where 
did  his  course  take  him  i  A.  Toward  Rem  sen-st. 

Q.  Well,  but  how— as  I  understand  you  were  going 
along  Montague-st.,  weren't  youl   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  he  would  cross  over,  then,  and  on?  A.  He 
would  cross  the  path  which  I  was  taking;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Yes,  cross  the  path  ;  and  then  would  he  cross  over 
the  road  that  comes  down  to  the  ferry  ?  A.  He  would 
cross  over  that  way  the  road  which— he  did  cross  over 
the  bridge  before  I  reached  his  immediate  vicinity. 

Q.  Before  you  saw  him  ?  A.  Not  before  I  saw  him,  but 
before  I  reached  his  immediate  vicinity. 

Q.  WeU,  now,  I  don't  know  that  you  said  which  side  of 
Montague-st.  you  were  on  I  A.  Which  side  of  Montague- 
st  _i  was  on  the  left  hand  side  as  you  go  down  toward 
the  ferry. 

Q.  Going  down  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  steps  are  on  both  sides,  are  they  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Beecher  then  went  along— what  street 
would  it  be?  A.  I  think  it  is  called  Montague-terrace, 
along  there ;  that  is  my  impression. 

Q.  That  is,  he  would  go  along  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  As  far  as  he  passed  you?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  His  course  took  him  along  Montague-terrace,  did  it! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  which  side  was  that— nearest  the  water— he  waa 
on?  A.  Which  side  of  Montague-terrace? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Montague-terrace  passes  parallel  with  the 
water,  as  I  understand;  he  was  on  the  bridge ;  you  could 
hardly  tell  which  side  he  was  on ;  the  bridge  is  very 
narrow. 

Q.  And  you  never  saw,  after  he  got  on  Montague-ter- 
race, which  side  he  was,  did  you  1  A.  That  is,  after  he 
crossed  the  bridge. 

Q.  Well?  A.  Oh,  he  was  on  the  upper  side,  Sir,  toward 
Court-st. 

Q.  Toward  Court-st.  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  was  he  heading?  A.  He  was  heading 
toward  Eemsen-st. 

Q.  And  is  Remsen-st.  the  first  street  beyond  Montague ! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  The  terrace  runs  into  ?  A.  I  imderstand  that  to 

be  called  Montague-terrace  until  it  reaches  Remsen-st. ; 
I  may  be  incorrect  on  that,  but  that  is  my  understanding. 

Q.  It  ends  there,  don't  it— runs  up  against  a  building ! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  see  Mr.  Beecher  turn  into  Remsen-st.  f 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  <  d  you  stop  to  look  at  him  ?  A.  I  slacked  my 
pace,  and  may  have  stopped ;  I  had  curiosity  enough  to 
do  that. 

Q.  Yes,  and  you  cannot  say  whether  you  came  to  a 
dead  halt  ?  A.  Well,  not  absolutely  ;  no,  Sir  ;  I  may  havo 


lESlUWyJ  OF 

walked  very  slowly  ;  I  may  have  stopped  absolutely  for 
an  instant. 

Q.  And  tlien  you  turned  your  head,  I  suppose  ?  A.  If  I 
*aw  him  turn  the  comer  I  turned  my  head. 

Q.  Well,  but  you  turned  your  head  to  see  him  as  he 
went  along,  did  n't  you  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  my  head  or  my 
body. 

Q.  "Well,  threw  your  eyes  around  somehow  ]  A.  Yes, 
Sir,  certainly. 

Q.  And  then,  when  he  turned  into  Remsen-st.  you 
then  ?   A.  Passed  down  toward  the  steps. 

Q.  Paid  attention  to  your  own  course  entii*ely'?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Went  down  the  steps.  Now,  you  did  not  see  any  ex- 
pression of  his  face  except  at  the  moment  he  was  passing 
you,  did  you?  A.  I  noticed  only  the  general  inclination 
of  his  head  when  I  first  saw  him ;  as  T  came  near  him  I 
noticed  the  expression  of  his  face. 

Q.  Yes,  and  after  he  got  l\v  you,  why,  you  then  did  not 
see  any  expression  in  his  face  1  A.  No,  Sir.  not  when  his 
back  was  nuiied  toward  me. 

Q.  Xow.  you  say  tint  von  think  tbis  was  the  2d  day  of 
June.  1S73?  A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  connected  in  my  mind 
with  that  ovf.it,  s;)  tliar  vrli  -n  the  v.-^-collection  of  one 
arose,  the  i'eeolle-:tion  o:  the  other  arose  with  it. 

Q.  Yes.  wirJi  the  event  of  your  marriage  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  T^rell.  on  tii;ir  diy,  after  seeing  Mr.  Beecher,  you 
went  to  your  office  ]    A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  stay  there  ?  A.  I  stayed  there  for  some 
time ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Weil,  what  did  you  do  afterward  ?  A.  After  I  got 
throuirh  with  staying  there  I  went  home. 

Q.  Well,  what  time  did  you  go  home  ?  A.  My  recollec- 
tion is  that  it  was  later  than  I  anticipated  going  home  in 
the  morning ;  that  it  was  in  the  vicinity  of  5  o'clock  that 
I  left  my  room. 

Q.  About  your  usual  time  of  going  home,  wasn't  it.  A. 
No,  Sir;  I  usually  go  home  at  6. 

Q.  A  little  earlier  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  So  that  all  you  saved  of  that  holiday  was  from  5  to 
6  ?  A.  Not  much.  Sir,  that  day. 

Q.  "^Tiat?  A.  I  didn't  save  very  much  that  day;  I 
always  make  it  

Q.  That  was  all,  5  to  6  ?  A.  I  judge  that  to  be  about  all 
the  time. 

Q.  About  all  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  have  you  any  distinct  recollection  that  you 
saved  anything '?  A.  I  am  very  certain  that  I  did,  and  if 
you  would  want  to  know,  why  I  will  tell  you. 

Q.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say;  you  think  you  did  save  that 
fag  end  of  the  day  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  when  were  you  first  spoken  to  to  be  a  witness  ? 
A.  I  was  subpenaed  last  Saturday. 

Q.  Well,  how  did  that  come  about  ?  A.  Would  you  like 
to  have  me  tell  you  the  whole  story  ? 

Q.  Well,  if  it  is  a  very  long  one  I  would  not,  but  T  would 


EWIS    ('.   J  AXES.  455 

like  to  know  what  you  said  or  did  about  the  matter  to  bt. 
subpeuaed  here  2  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  don't  see  how  I  can  get 
rid  of  going  into  the  history  of  it  a  little  if  I  give  you  a 
correct  idea  truthfully. 

Q.  Well,  then.  I  will  di  pense  with  it,  because  I  see  that 
you  like  details;  I  don't. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  then,  you  should  not  manifest  so 
much  desire  for  them. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  I  haven't  much  desire  for  them.  |To 
the  witness.]  But  all  you  say  is  that  you  were  subpenaed 
last  Saturday  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  that  to  tell  how  you  came  to  be  subpenaed 
would  requii'e  a  long  history  ?  A.  Not  very  long,  Sir. 

Q.  Pretty  long?  A.  I  think  I  could  tell  it  in  ten 
minutes,  perhaps  less. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  well,  that  is  long.  [Laughter.]  Now, 
Sir,  how  do  you  know  at  what  time  you  started  from 
borne  that  morning,  or  did  you  start  from  home,  or  from 
yom'  office  ?   A.  I  started  from  home. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  at  home  to  begin  with,  I  suppose  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  But  when  you  started  to  go  across  the  ferry  were 
you  at  the  office,  or  at  your  house  ?  A.  My  office  iu 
Brooklyn,  do  you  mean? 

Q.  Yes,  Sir.  A.  That  is  what  I  am  unable  to  deter- 
mine absolutely,  that  particular  day:  in.-  iieJiit  was  to 
stop  at  my  Brooklyn  office  in  the  morning,  but  on  that 
particular  occasion  of  a  few  days  it  was  especially  neces- 
sai-y  for  me  to  reach  New-York  early,  and  I  think  some 
of  those  days  I  dispensed  with  stopping  in  Brooklyn  in 
the  morning,  and  whether  that  was  one  

Q.  Some  of  those  daysl  A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  am  unable  to 
say. 

Q.  How  many  days  do  you  include  in  that  period  of 
"some  of  those  days  ?"   A.  I  think  for  about  a  week. 

Q.  Antecedent  or  following  this  ?  A.  Commencing  on 
the  29th. 

Q.  And  extending  for  a  week?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Then  for  that  period,  from  the  29th  for  a  week 
onward,  there  was  something  exceptional  in  the  hours  of 
yoirr  movements,  was  there?   Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  that  exception  applied  as  much  to  the  other 
days  as  to  the  2d  of  June?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  tell  me,  therefore,  what  particular 
hour— whether  you  were  at  your  office  on  the  2d  of  June, 
in  Brooklyn,  or  not?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  have  investigated 
that  as  thoroughly  as  I  could,  and  I  am  unable  to  tell. 

Q.  Can't  find  out— did  you  have  some  business  there,  of 
some  assistants  there?  A.  I  had  assistants  there,  but 
the  2d  of  June  being  Monday  I  had  no  absolute  business 
there  ;  on  Saturdays  I  usually  had  a  little  business  there, 
but  on  that— for  that  period  I  am  unable  to  tell  any  of 
those  days  absolutely. 

Q.  So  that  in  your  movements  that  week,  to  tho!»« 
liour*,  there  was  no  diff^renrp  between  this  2:i  <»"  J.-v.\  ■ 


456 


TRE    TlLTON-BKEdUER  TRIAL. 


and  any  time  from  tlie  29th  of  BTay  for  a  week  1  A.  No 
difference  in  the  circumstances  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  No  as  to  honrs  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Moii-is—That  is  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— Wait  a  moment ;  Mr.  Hull,  the  juryman, 
asks  which  side  of  Moutague-st.  Kemsen-st.  is.  A.  Rem- 
sen-st.  is  on  the  left  hand  side  ©f  Montague  as  you  go 
down  toward  Wall  Street  Ferry,  at  the  left. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  on  the  west  side  isn't  iti  A. 
South,  I  should  think  more  properly. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  far  is  Remsen-st.,  the  juryman  asks, 
from  Montague  ?  A.  One  block. 

Q.  Well,  a  short  block,  or  a          A.  Not  a  very  long 

block. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  meeting  anybody  else  that  morn- 
ing! A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Either  In  Brooklyn  or  New- York  ?  A.  I  do  not  rec- 
ollect any  particular  person  I  met;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  No ;  no  doubt  you  did  see  somebody  in  the  street  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir ;  no  doubt  of  it. 

JEEEMIAH  P.  EOBIXSON  RECALLED. 

Jereii)ia:i  P.  Rol>mson  was  next  recalled  and 
tes -ilied  as  foiiowi^  : 

By  Mr.  Fuilei-ton— Mr.  Robinson,  you  know  Emma  C. 
Moulton,  the  wife  of  Francis  D.  Moulton,  do  you  not  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir,  when  I  see  her. 

Q.  How  1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  I3  she  related  to  you  in  any  way  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  what  way,  please  ?  A.  She  is  my  niece. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  her  in  the  month  of  Jime, 
1873,  and  early  in  that  month  1  A.  I  probably  saw  her 
that  mont^  ;  I  have  seen  her  almost  every  month  when  I 
have  been  at  home. 

MRS.  MOULTON  NARRATES  THE  JUNE  2  IN- 
TERVIEW. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  her  in  the 
month  of  June,  1873,  when  you  had  a  conversation  with 
her  in  regard  to  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  could  not  fix  the 
month  or  the  date ;  I  had  a  good  many  conversations 
with  her  in  regard  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Beach— A  little  louder. 

A.  I  had  a  good  many  conversations  at  different  times. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  occa- 
sion, if  you  remember  it,  when  she  related  to  you  any- 
thing that  occurred  between  herself  and  Mr.  Beeoher  in 
the  month  of  June,  1873. 

THE  NARRATION  OBJECTED  TO. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson— As  yet  it  goes  to  the  question  of  date 
gimply ;  perhaps  you  had  better  get  the  date. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  the  conversation  will  fix  the 
date,  if  we  are  permitted  to  give  that. 


Mr.  Evarts— But  the  conversation  cannot  be  given  in 

evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  the  question  is  whether  the  con- 
versation  

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir ;  that  is  the  question ;  we  think 
it  can. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  a  question  we  propose  to  discuss,  your 
Honor,  upon  authorit3%  if  it  arises. 

Mr.  Fullerton  —It  may  as  well  come  up  now  as  at  any 
time.  We  propose  to  show  that  Mrs.  Moulton,  in  the 
moi>th  of  June,  1873,  related  the  conversation  that  she 
had  with  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  2d  day  of  that  month,  as 
testified  to  by  herself  here  as  a  wi^aess,  and  that  evi- 
dence we  think  we  are  clearly  entitled  to,  Sir,  under  the 
law. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  I  wiU  hear  you,  gentlemen,  on 
that  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  do  not  understand  any  principle  of  law 
upon  which  the  conversation  is  to  be  given ;  we  make 
the  objection. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  one  of  my  associates  is  reaCy 
to  argue  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Counsel  can  proceed. 

Mr.  Evarts— Convei-sations  between  this  genfleman  and 
his  niece  do  not  aflfect  Mr.  Beecher  in  any  way,  that  I 
laiow  of. 

Mr.  Fullerton— They  certainly  do. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  see  how. 

Mr.  Fullerton- Well,  that  is  what  we  propose  to  show 
you. 

Judge  Neilson— Are  you  ready  to  be  heard! 
Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  understand  that  I  need  to  argue 
that  matter  at  present,  if  your  Honor  please.  Here  is  ft 

conversation  between  two  strangers  

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Wlaich  is  offered  to  be  given  in  evidence  to 
aftect  the  parties  to  this  suit. 

ARGUMENT  OF  MR.  PRYOR. 
Mr.  Pryor— If  your  Honor  please,  as  an  ab 
solute  and  universal  rule,  that  the  consistent  declara- 
tions of  a  witness  out  of  court  are  admissible  to  cor- 
roborate his  testimony  under  oath,  if  ;  proposition  which 
we  do  not  afBrm,  and  which  is  not  involved  in  the  offer 
of  evidence  we  make.  The  proposition  for  which  we 
contend,  and  by  virtue  of  which  we  maintain  the  admis- 
sibility of  the  evidence  offered,  is  precisely  and  critically 
this  :  that  when  the  testimony  of  a  witness  is  imput'ued 
by  the  imputation  that  it  is  a  recent  fabrication,  or  the 
product  of  some  special  interest  or  influence,  that  then  it 
is  competent  to  prove,  in  the  one  case,  that  the  witness 
told  the  story  prior  to  the  date  of  the  supposed  fabrica- 
tion, and  in  the  other  that  he  made  the  statement  before 
the  existence  of  the  imputed  interests  or  influence.  This, 
Sir,  is  our  proposition,  and  it  is  a  proposition  maintained 
by  abundant  authority,  maintained  by  the  teaching*  of 


TESTLVOyr   OF  JEREMIAH   P.  BOBINSON. 


457 


iQl  the  text-writers,  and.  \)y  tlie  uiiiiorm  language  of  the 
courts,  notably  ol  our  own  State.  Thus,  Sir,  "W.  D. 
Evans,  in  his  valuable  commentaries  upon  "  Pothier  on 
Obligations"— Evans,  one  of  the  clearest  and  most  philo- 
sophical writers  upon  the  law  of  evidence— employs  the 
following  language.  I  quote  from  page  289  of  the  edi- 
tion of  1806  : 

One  of  the  cases  which  are  mentioned  as  exceptions  to 
the  general  rule  for  the  exclusion  of  hearsay  evidence  is 
where  it  is  adduced  to  show  that  the  testimony  given  by 
a  witness  upon  the  trial  is  consistent  with  his  declara- 
tions on  former  occasions.  But  it  has  been  said  that  this 
is  not  evidence-in-chief,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  be 
so  in  reply.  According  to  the  principles  of  correct  reason- 
ing, the  propriety  of  the  evidence  in  this  case,  as  in  the 
otliers  already  referred  to,  must  de]>end  upon  the  nature 
of  the  object  it  is  intended  to  attain.  In  an  ordinary  case 
the  evidence  would  be  at  least  superfluous ;  for  the  as- 
sertions of  a  witness  are  to  be  regarded,  in  general,  as 
ti-ue,  imtil  there  is  some  particular  reason  for  impeach- 
ing them  as  false ;  which  reason  may  be  repelled 
by  circumstances  showing  that  the  motive  upon 
which  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  founded 
could  not  have  had  existence  at  the  time 
when  the  previous  relation  was  made,  and  which  there- 
fore repels  the  supposition  of  the  fact  related  being  after- 
thought fabrication.  The  suspicion  of  the  opposite  eon- 
duct  may  result  either  from  the  inherent  nature  and  ap- 
plication of  the  evidence  itself,  or  it  may  be  iudicated  by 
the  iuipur:;tions  actually  thrown  out  in  the  cross-exam- 
iuation,  or  otherwise,  by  the  opposite  party.  If  a  witness 
speaks  to  facts  negativing  the  existence  of  a  contract, 
and  Insinuations  are  thrown  out  that  he  has  a  near  con- 
nection with  the  party  on  whose  behalf  he  appears,  that 
a  change  of  market,  or  an  alteration  of  circumstances, 
has  excited  an  inducement  to  recede  from  a  deliberate 
engagement,  the  proof,  by  unsuspicious  testimony,  that 
a  similar  account  was  Mven  when  the  contract  had 
every  prospect  of  advantage,  removes  the  imputa- 
tions resulting  from  the  opposite  circum- 
Btance,  and  the  testimony  is  placed  upon 
the  same  level  which  It  would  have  had  If  the  motives 
for  receding  from  the  previous  intcation  had  never  ex- 
isted. Upon  accusations  of  rape,  where  the  having  f  aUed 
to  mention  the  circumstance  for  a  considerable  time,  is 
in  itself  a  reason  for  Imputing  fabrication,  unless  re- 
pelled, disclosure  of  the  fact  upon  the  first  apparent 
opportunity  after  its  commission,  and  the  apparent  state 
of  mind  of  tlj:-  r?rty  who  suffered  the  injury,  are  always 
regarded  as  admissible,  and  the  evidence  of  them  is  con- 
stantly admitted  without  objection. 

To  the  same  effect  Starkie,  in  his  work  upon  Evidence 
[marginal  page  253],  after  combating  the  general  propo- 
sition that  the  consistent  declarations  of  a  witness  out  of 
court  are  admissible  to  corro»oorate  his  testimony  imder 
oath, says : 

But,  although  such  evidence  be  not  generally  admissi- 
ble in  conflrmatlon  of  a  witness,  there  may  be  cases 
where,  under  special  clrcTimstances,  it  possibly  might  be 
adruieeible,  as,  for  instance,  in  contradiction  of  evidence 
tending  to  show  that  the  account  was  a  fabrication  of  a 
late  date,  and  where  it  becomes  material  to  show  that  the 
same  account  had  been  given  before  its  ultimate  effect 
and  op -ration,  arising  from  a  change  of  cii'cumstances, 
could  have  been  foreseen. 

And  Mr.  PhilUps,  in  his  work  on  Evidence,  says— but 


the  book  is  not  here ;  I  will  send  for  it,  and  meanwhile 
read  another  authority. 

Mr.  Powell,  in  his  treatise  upon  Evidence,  propounds 
the  rule  even  more  broadly  and  absolutely  [marginal 
paper  60]  : 

It  is  stated  that  although  hearsay  evidence  is  not  re» 
ceived  as  direct  evidence,  yet  it  may  be  admitt-ed  in  cor- 
roboration of  a  witness's  testimony  to  show  that  he 
aflSrmed  the  same  thing  before  on  other  occasions. 

Mr.  Phillips  states  the  proposition,  and  enunciates  the 
doctrine  for  which  we  contend  and  upon  which  we  stand, 
in  clear,  emphatic  and  conclusive  language ;  and  as  soon 
as  the  book  can  be  produced  I  will  read  his  language 
literally  to  your  Honor. 

Mr.  Greenleaf,  in  his  work  upon  Evidence  [Yol.  1.  p. 
586],  uses  this  language  : 

Where  evidence  of  contradictory  statements  by  a  wit- 
ness, or  of  particular  facts,  is  offered  by  way  of  impeach- 
ing his  veracity,  his  general  character  for  truth  being 
thus  in  some  sort  put  in  issue,  it  has  been  deemed  reason- 
able to  admit  general  evidence  that  he  is  a  man  of  strict 
integrity  and  scrupulous  regard  for  truth  ;  but  evidence 
that  he  has  on  other  occasions  made  statements  similar 
to  what  he  has  testified  in  the  case  is  not  admissible,  un- 
less where  a  design  to  misrepresent  is  charged  upon  the 
witness  in  conseauence  of  his  relation  to  the  party  or  to 
the  case,  in  which  case  it  seems  to  be  proper  to  show  that 
he  has  made  a  simUar  statement  before  the  relation  ex- 
isted. 

And,  in  the  very  latest  treatise  upon  the  law  of  evi- 
dence—the standard  and  infallible  authority  in  the  courts 
of  England— I  refer  to  "  Taylor  on  Evidence,"  we  find 
the  foUowtng  language  [VoL  2,  See.  1,330] : 

Where  evidence  of  contradictory  statements,  or  other 
Improper  conduct,  on  the  part  of  a  witness  has  been 
either  elicited  from  him  on  cross-examination  or  ob- 
tained from  other  witnesses,  with  the  view  of  impeach- 
ing his  veracity,  his  general  character  for  truth  being 
thus  put  in  issue  in  some  sort,  it  has  been  deemed  reason- 
able that  general  evidence  that  he  is  a  man  of  strict  in- 
tegrity and  scrupulous  regard  for  truth  should  be 
admitted ;  but  evidence  that  he  has  on  similar  occasions 
made  similar  statements  to  what  he  has  testified  to  in 
the  case  is  not  adanis^  Ible,  unless  the  party  be  charged 
with  a  design  to  misrepresent  in  consequence  of  his  rela- 
tion to  the  party  or  to  the  case,  in  which  case  it  maybe 
proper  to  show  that  he  has  made  sunuar  statements  be- 
fore the  relation  existed. 

Now,  Sir,  this  is  the  language  of  the  elementary  writers, 
but  the  language  of  the  courts  is  egtually  as  consistent 
and  conclusive.  In  The  People  agt.  Vane,  reported  in  12 
WendeUjthis  point  was  adjudicated,was  decided— namely, 
where  the  testimony  of  an  accomplice  had  been  im- 
peached by  the  suggestion  that  he  was  Inspired  by  a 
hope  of  pardon  and  immunity,  that  it  was  competent  to 
relieve  his  evidence  from  the  suspicion  by  pro viii!.'  eUat 
on  previous  occasions  antecedent  to  the  time  when 
this  inspiration  of  hope  operated  upon  him,  he  had  ma4e 
consistent  statements  out  of  court.  That,  Sir,  is  adjudi- 
cated, and  it  is  the  only  point  adjudicated  in  the  case  ot 
The  People  agt.  Vane,  the  opinion  of  the  Court  being  pro- 
pounded by  Chief  Justice  Savage,  with  the  concurrence 


458 


TUB    TILTON-BEEVREB  IBIAL. 


J>f  liis  learned  and  distinguislied  associates.  But  as  even. 
aiDle  judges  sometimes  are  not  content  to  stand  upon  tlie 
mere  point  adjudicated,  that  learned  jurist  proceeded 
to  travel  beyond  tlie  record  and  to  propound  ex- 
tra-judicial dicta  wliicli  subsequently  bave  fallen 
under  the  revision  and  correction  of  tbe  courts— to  wit, 
lie  enunciated  tbe  broad,  absolute  proposition  tbat 
wbenevortbe  credibility  of  a  witness  is  impeached,  either 
on  direct  or  on  cross-examination  or  otherwise,  that  then 
it  is  competent  to  maintain  his  credibility  by  proof  of  his 
consistent  declarations  out  of  court.  But  this  was  obiter— 
not  necessary  to  the  decision  of  the  case,  not  presented 
by  the  facts  upon  the  record,  not  involved  in  the  deter- 
mination of  the  point  presented.  These  dicta,  I  say, 
have  subsequently  fallen  under  the  criticism  and  con- 
demnation of  the  courts ;  but  mark,  j'our  Honor,  that  in 
the  very  cases  which  have  reviewed  and  revised  and  re- 
jected the  authority  of  these  dicta— hi  those  very  cases 
and  in  the  very  act  of  repudiating  and  exploding  those 
dicta,  these  subsequent  cases  recognize  and  reaffirm  and 
ratify  the  exception  and  the  qualification  and  the  doc- 
tmie  upon  which  we  stand.  Thus,  in  23  Wendell  we  find 
the  case  of  Robb  agt.  Haclvley,  quoted  at  page  50,  and 
yourFionor  must  indulge  me  if  I  read  somewhat  exten- 
sively from  the  opinion  here  propounded  by  one  of  the 
ablest  jurists  that  ever  adorned  the  bench  of  this  State— I 
mean  Mr,  Justice  Brouson : 

Yv'ucn  a  witness  is  contradicted  his  testimony  may,  of 
course,  be  verified  by  proving  the  same  facts  by  others. 
If  his  character  for  truth  is  attacked  it  may  be  supported 
by  proving  it  good ;  or  if  evidence  is  given  that  the  wit- 
ness has  made  declarations  out  of  coui-t  inconsistent  with 
Ills  testimony,  it  may  be  shown  that  those  declarations 
were  made  under  such  circumstances  as  not  to  detract 
from  his  credibility.  If  an  attempt  is  made  to  discredit 
the  witness  on  the  ground  that  his  testimony  is  given 
under  the  influence  of  some  motive  prompting  him  to 
make  a  false  or  colored  statement,  the  party  calling  him 
has  been  allowed  to  show  in  reply  that  the  witness  made 
similar  declarations  at  times  when  the  imputed  motive 
did  not  exist.  But  as  a  general  and  almost  universal 
rule,  evidence  of  what  the  witness  has  said  out  of  coui-t 
cannot  be  received  to  verify  his  testimony.  It  violates  a 
first  principle  in  the  law  of  evidence  to  allow  a  party 
(and  that  is  the  objection  raised  by  the  learned  gentleman 
on  the  other  side)  to  be  afl'ected,  either  in  his  person  or 
his  property,  by  the  declarations  of  a  witness  made  with- 
out oath.  Besides,  it  can  be  no  confirmation  of  what  the 
witness  has  said  or  not,  to  show  that  he  has  made  similar 
declarations  when  under  no  such  solemn  obligations  to 
speak  the  cruth.  It  is  no  answer  v./  say  that  such  evi- 
dence will  not  be  likely  to  gain  credit,  and,  consequently, 
will  do  no  harm.  Evidence  should  never  be  given  to  a 
ury  when  they  are  at  liberty  not  to  believe  it.  The  ref- 
eree was  probably  governed  by  the  language  of  the  late 
learned  Chief-Justice  in  The  People  agt.  Vane,  but  that 
case  does  not  necessarily  go  beyond  deciding  that  the 
testimony  of  such  an  accomplice  in  crime  may  be  cor- 
roborated by  showing  that  when  first  arrested  he  gave 
the  same  relation  of  the  facts  which  he  had  given  on  oatb 
upon  the  trial.  The  fact  that  the  accomplice  was  called 
as  a  witness  for  the  people  gave  rise  to  the 
?.]ofeToac«      that     he     was     criminating     the  de- 


fendant for  the  purpose  of  exempting 
himself  from  prosecution  for  the  larceny.  It  might  there- 
fore be  proper  to  show  that  he  gave  the  same  acco.unt  of 
the  matter  at  a  time  when  there  was  no  such  motive  for 
making  a  false  accusation.  If  when  first  arrested,  and 
when  he  had  no  expectation  of  personal  examination,  he 
had  frankly  disclosed  the  whole  matter,  that  might  tend 
to  confirm  his  subsequent  repetition  of  the  same  state- 
ment on  oath.  This  brings  the  case  within  the  acknowl- 
edged exception  to  the  general  rule,  that  the  testimony  of 
a  contradicted,  impeached  or  discredited  witness  cannot 
be  confirmed  by  proving  that  he  has  made  similar  declar- 
ations out  of  court. 

"  The  acknowledged  exception  to  the  general  rule,"  saya 
Mr.  Justice  Bronson.   The  head-note  to  the  case  is  this  : 

Proof  of  declarations  made  by  a  witness  out  of  court  in 
corroboration  of  the  testimony  given  by  him  on  the  trial 
of  the  case  is.  as  a  general  and  almost  universal  rule,  in- 
admissible. It  seems,  hotvever,  that  to  this  rule  there  are 
exceptions,  and  that,  under  special  cu'cumstances,  such 
proof  will  be  received.  As,  where  the  witness  is  charged 
with  giving  his  testimony  under  the  influence  of  some  mo- 
tive prompting  him  to  make  false  or  colored  statements, 
it  may  be  shown  that  he  made  similar  declarations  at  a 
time  when  the  imputed  motive  did  not  exist.  So,  in  con- 
tradiction of  evidence  tending  to  show  that  the  account 
of  the  transaction  given  by  the  witness  is  a  fabrication 
of  late  date,  it  may  be  shown  that  the  same  account  was 
given  by  him  before  its  ultimate  effect  and  operation, 
arising  from  a  change  of  circumstances,  could  have  been 
foreseen. 

If  your  Honor  please,  this  is  the  language  of  Mr. 
Phillips  (marginal  page  974) : 

In  one  point  of  view,  however,  a  former  statement  by 
the  witness  appears  to  be  admissible  information  of  his 
evidence,  and  that  is  where  the  counsel  on  the  other  side 
impute  a  design  to  misrepresent  from  some  motive  of  in- 
terest or  relationship.  In  that  case,  perhaps,  in  order  to 
repel  such  an  imputation,  it  might  be  proper  to  show  that 
the  witness  made  the  same  statement  at  a  time  when  the 
supposed  motive  did  not  exist,  or  when  motives  of  inter- 
est would  have  prompted  him  to  make  a  different  state- 
ment of  the  facts. 

And  in  the  case  of  Smith  agt.  Stickney,  reported  in  17 
Barbour,  page  189,  Mr.  Justice  Welles  delivering  the 
opinion  of  the  Court,  recapitulates  the  authorities  (or  at 
least  so  many  of  them  as  were  then  extant)  which  I  have 
adduced,  recognizes  and  reaffirms  them,  and  then  adds : 
"  We  can  perceive  nothing  in  the  present  case  to  bring  it 
within  the  exception  to  the  general  rule ;"  recognizing 
(jhe  exception  ratifying  the  principle,  reaffirming  the  doc- 
trine for  which  we  now  contend,  and  by  virtue  of  which 
we  maintain  the  admissibility  of  this  evidence. 

So  in  1  "Parker's  Criminal  Reports,"  page  147,  we 
find  in  the  case  of  "  The  People  agt.  Finnigan  "  this  lan- 
guage: 

"As  a  general  rule  (says  the  head-notes)  it  is  not  compe- 
tent, in  support  of  the  testimony  of  a  witness,  for  the 
party  calling  him  to  prove  that  he  has  made  declarations 
out  of  court  corresponding  with  his  testimony  in  court." 
And  the  court  says  :  "The  exceptions  to  the  rule,  as  now 
established  in  this  State  {as  now  established;  not 
*  seems nay,  it  is')— the  exceptions  to  the  rule  as 
now  established  in  this  State  are,  Avhcn  the  witness  is 
charged  with  giving  his  testimony  under  the  influence  of 


TmTlMOJ^Y  OF  JEREMIAH  P.  BOB  I  jY  SON. 


459 


some  motive  prorapting  him  to  make  a  false  or  colored 
statement,  it  may  be  shown  tliat  lie  made  similar  declara- 
tions at  a  time  when  the  imputed  motive  did  not  exist ; 
or  when  there  is  evidence  in  contradiction  tending  to 
show  that  the  account  of  the  transaction  given  by  the 
witness  is  a  fabrication  of  a  late  date  [it  is  said"!  it  may 
be  shown  that  the  same  account  was  given  by  him  before 
its  ultimate  eifect  or  operation,  arising  from  a  change  of 
circumstances,  could  have  been  perceived," 

Now,  Sir,  I  could  adduce  other  authorities,  both  from 
the  elementary  writers  and  from  the  reports,  but  it  were 
idle  to  detain  the  court  with  their  recital.  Suffice  it  to 
say,  that  the  concurrence  is  unanimous,  of  authors  aud 
of  judges,  in  support  of  the  doctrine  which  we  enunciate ; 
and  that  to  the  contrary  of  it,  not  a  solitary  dogma  is  to 
be  found  in  any  book  of  repute,  not  a  soll-^ry  dictum 
fi-om  any  court  of  respectability.  It  stands  as  little  criti- 
cised or  challenged  as  any  principle  in  the  law  of  evi- 
dence. It  is  imbedded  deep  and  unshaken  in  our  system 
of  jurisprudence.  It  is  one  of  the  lights,  fixed  and  un- 
stable, set  for  the  guidance  of  courts  in  the  investigation 
of  tiTith,  and— pardon  me,  your  Honor— rash  would  be  the 
hand  that  would  venture  to  extinguish  it. 

But  the  proposition  is  as  well  established  by  reason  as 
il  is  supported  by  authority.  Where  the  testimony  of  a 
witness  is  merely  contradicted  by  his  declarations ; 
where  on  one  side  is  mere  asseveration  and  on  the  other 
denial ;  where  affirmation  is  only  opposed  by  negation, 
there  is  only  a  competition  of  credibility,  and  it  would 
be  preposterous  to  receive  the  unsworn  declarations  of 
the  witness  in  confirmation  of  his  testimony  under  oath. 
But  where,  beyond  and  beside  this,  by  way  of  contradic- 
tion, an  alien  and  independent  fact  is  introduced  in  dis- 
credit of  the  testimony,  majiifestly  and  essentially,  the 
case  is  different,  for  then  the  testimony  of  the  witness  

MR.  PRYOR  INTERRUPTED  BY  AN  ATTACK 
OF  VER'riG^O. 

At  this  point  Mr.  Pryor  suddenly  broke  off, 
remarking  to  Judge  Neilson :  If  your  Honor  please,  I 
have  an  attack  of  vertigo. 

Judge  Neilson  directed  an  officer  to  raise  the  window, 
And,  addressiiig  Mi*.  Pryor,  said  :  You  can  suspend  your 
argument.  General. 

Mr.  Pryor— Yes,  Sir. 

In  a  few  minutes  Mr.  Pryor  resumed  as  follows  : 
If  your  Honor  please,  I  think  I  have  made  the  proposi- 
tion which  we  enunciated  intelligible  to  your  Honor,  and 
to  my  learned  adversaries,  and  I  do  not  now  feel  able  to 
state  the  argument  from  reason  in  support  of  that  propo- 
sition, because  I  feel  that  if  I  should  undertake  it,  it  is 
possible  that  I  should  miscarry  again.  I  assume  it,  how- 
ever, to  be  clear.  Then  the  question  arises— but  it  is  im- 
possible for  me  to  proceed ;  your  Honor  must  excuse  me. 

Mr.  Pryor  fin  reply  to  a  suggestion  that  the  court 
should  adjournl— It  is  not  worth  au  adjournment,  if  your 
Honor  please. 

Judge  Neilson— I  will  adiourn  cheerfully  if  it  is  desired. 


Mr.  Pryor— Oh,  no.  Sir ;  T  will  endeavor  to  proceed.  It 
appears,  your  Honor,  by  the  authorities  which  I  have 
produced,  and  by  the  train  of  argument  which  f  have 
been  unable  to  develop,  that  where  the  testimony  of  a 
witness  is  impugned  by  the  imputation  that  it  is  a  recent 
invention  

Judge  Neilson— Take  your  seat,  Mr.  Pryor.  I  can  hear 
you  converse,  if  it  will  be  easier  for  you. 

Mr.  Pryor— Oh,  never  mind,  Sir ;  I  can  go  on.  It  ap- 
pears, I  say,  that  where  the  testimony  of  a  witness  is 
impugned  by  the  imputation  that  it  is  a  recent  invention, 
or  a  fabrication  for  the  occasion,  or  the  product  of  some 
special  interest  or  iufluence,  that  then,  in  either  of  these 
contingencies,  it  is  competent  for  the  party  to  maintain 
the  credibility  of  his  witness  by  disproving  the  infirmi- 
tive  and  discrediting  fact  adduced  agamst  him.  This 
being,  I  say,  an  incontrovertible'  proposition  of  law,  the 
question  arises  whether  here  the  defendant  has  attacked 
the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Moulton,  by  evidence  or  allegation, 
of  such  inflrmitive  or  discrediting  fact ;  for  we  concede, 
may  it  please  your  Honor,  that  if  her  testimony  were 
barely  contradicted,  the  evidence  offered  would  not  be 
open  to  us.  Now,  Sir,  by  reference  to  the  address  of  the 
learned  counsel  who  opened  for  the  defense,  and  espe- 
cially by  reference  to  the  testimony  of  the  defendant 
himself,  it  will  be  found  that  ample  foundation  was  laid 
aud  ample  provocation  given  for  the  introduction  of  the 
testimony  we  offer.  Gen.  Tracy,  on  page  82  of  the 
pamphlet  edition  of  his  address,  uses  this  language: 

We  now,  gentlemen,  approach  one  of  the  most  delicate 
subjects  which  my  duty  calls  upon  me  to  discuss.  I  refer 
to  the  connection  of  Mrs.  Emma  Moulton  with  this  case. 
Apart  from  her  relations  to  this  matter,  I  shall  not  speak 
of  this  lady  otherwise  than  in  terms  of  respect.  I  feel 
most  deeply  her  extraordinary  position,  the  terrible 
emergency  which  she  had  to  meet,  and  the  overwhelming 
power  of  the  temptation  before  which  she  has  fallen. 
The  truth  of  this  case  makes  it  impossible  me  to  ab- 
stain from  speaking  with  apparent  severity  of  this  lady's 
testimony ;  but  I  do  so  with  sorrow  for  her,  reserving  all 
my  indignation  for  those  who  have  forced  her  upon  the 
witness  stand  to  confirm  the  accusations  which  they  have 
invented. 

Again,  on  page  83,  he  says : 

What  is  the  relation  of  Mrs.  Moulton  to  this  case  ?  This 
lady  is  the  wife  of  the  only  man  who  has  anything  to  lose 
by  a  verdict  for  the  defendant.  Animated  by  his  thirst 
for  revenge,  Francis  J).  Moulton  has  periled  all  on  the 
issue  of  this  suit.  The  plaintiff  himself  might  find  some 
persons  to  excuse  him,  on  the  supposition  of  an  insane 
jealousy,  but  no  such  excuse  can  be  made  for  his  friend. 
He  will  be  held  to  a  strict  and  stern  responsibility,  and 
the  plaintiff's  failui'e  in  this  suit,  as  every  man  can  see, 
involves  Mr.  Moulton  in  utter  and  hopeless  ruin.  Yet 
his  guilt  and  his  ruin  will  not  release  his  unhappy  wife 
from  her  allegiance  nor  make  him  any  the  less  the  father 
of  her  only  child.  What  a  terrible  alternative  for  her ! 
If  sLe  so  testifies  as  to  save  Mr.  Beech er,  she  necessarily 
ruins  her  own  husband,  destroys  her  home,  and  leaves 
her  only  child  to  a  blight. 


460 


7  H  E    lllA  ON-B  I]  EiUlKU    7  RIAL. 


And  so  on  through  columns  of  vehement  and  exag- 
gerated declaration. 

Now,  the  defendant  on  his  direct  examination  uses  this 
language  in  reply  to  a  question  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Mr.  Morris— What  page  1 

Mr.  Pryor— Page  885, 

"  Q.  Did  Mrs.  Moulton  ever  address  you  in  that  way  % 
A.  No,  Sir  ;  it  is  not  in  her  nature  to  say  anything  of  that 
kind,  and  she  never  did— [a  long  pausej— of  her  own 
accord." 

This  is  apropos  of  the  Interview  of  June  2.  Now,  then, 
further,  upon  his  cross-examination,  in  development  and 
amplification  and  explanation  of  the  ideas  here  asserted, 
if  not  expressed,  the  defendant  spoke  as  follows : 

**  Q.  In  the  course  of  the  examination  of  Mrs.  Moulton 
you  wei'e  asked  by  your  counsel  whether  she  said  a  cer- 
tain thing  to  you,  and  your  reply  was  in  part,  '  Not  of  her 
o\\  u  accord.'  A.  No,  Sir,  I  do  not ;  I  think,  Sir,  you  have 
made  a  mistake  in  your  designation  ;  you  say  in  the  ex- 
amination of  Mrs.  Moulton,  and  I  think  you  have  made 
an  error. 

Q.  Perhaps  I  have ;  in  the  examination  of  youi'self, 
then  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  were  asked  as  to  whether  Mrs.  Moulton  did  not 
say  a  certain  thing  to  you,  and  you  said,  in  substance, 
that  she  did  not,  or  she  '  never  did  of  her  own  accord 
do  you  recollect  the  circumstance  ?  A.  I  do,  Sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  mean  by  the  words  •  not  of  her  own 
accord  ?'  A.  Perhaps  I  meant  what  I  ought  not  to  have 
said  

Q.  Never  mind  that.  A.  [Continuing.)  But  this  is  what 
I  meant,  that  I  believed  that  Mrs.  Moulton  had  been 
made  to  make  that  statement  by  influence. 

Q.  Who  do  you  think  exerted  the  influence  upon  her  % 
A.  I  think  that  Mr.  Moulton  did. 

Q.  And  when  do  you  think  he  did  it  %  A.  Ah !  I  don't 
know  ;  after  wc  broke,  probably. 

Q.  In  the  Summer  of  1874  %   A.  Yes,  Sir." 

Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  here  is  the  positive  and  ex- 
plicit declaration  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  defend- 
ant. Here  is  the  positive  and  explicit  testimony  of  the 
defendant  himself  that  the  story  told  by  Mrs.  Moulton 
upon  the  witness-stand  was  not  the  effect  of  her  own 
mind  and  will,  but  was  an  utterance  wrung  from  her  by 
the  sovereign  and  remorseless  influence  of  her  husband. 
That  was  a  flction  fabricated  for  the  occasion ;  and  it  was 
a  tissue  of  falsehoods  conceived  and  delivered  to  meet 
the  exigencies  of  this  particular  litigation,  and  to  uphold 
her  husband  in  his  present  controversy  with  the  defend- 
ant. Now,  Sir,  to  rebut  this  fact,  and  to  repel  this  impu- 
tation, we  offer  to  prove— and  this  is  our  offer— that  im- 
mediately after  the  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  of 
her  own  volition,  and  without  the  privity  of 
her  husband,  and  before  any  contiovt  j  ,sy  be- 
tween her  husband  and  Mr.  Beecher  had  arisen, 
or  was  apprehended ;  nay,  when  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr. 
IMouiton  were  in  affectionate  confederacy  of  cooperation 
for  a  common  purpose,  namely,  to  suppress  this  scandal 
and  to  shield  the  defendant's  character— we  offer  to 
piove  that  at  that  time,  and  under  those  circumstances, 
Mr    "^nplton  told  the  story  precisely  as  she  told  it  under 


the  sanction  of  au  oath  and  in  the  presence  of  the  Court 
and  the  jury.  Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  if  this  evidence 

be  rejected,  then  is  presented  this         I  cannot  go  on. 

Judge  Neilson— Take  your  time. 

Mr.  Pry  or— I  have  done,  if  your  Honor  please.  It  is  Im- 
possible for  me  to  go  on. 

Mr.  PuUerton— We  are  content  to  leave  the  opening 
argument  as  it  is,  and  to  let  the  other  side  reply  to  it. 

Mr.  Beach— We  make  a  proposition,  and  we  have  heard ' 
nothing  of  the  objection  of  the  other  side. 

Mr.  EvartS'  chave  the  close. 

Judge  Neilson— If  counsel  argue  this  question  at  all. 
you  have  a  right  to  reply,  whether  he  takes  the  close  rr 
not. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  the  close. 

Judge  Neilson— You  may  have  the  close  at  the  end ; 
only,  it  is  possible,  if  you  make  an  argument  at  all,  it 
may  be  one  I  n  ay  want  help  about  in  order  to  see  the 
other  view. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  very  fair  we  should  learn  from  the 
other  side  What  their  views  are  before  the  argument 
closes. 

Judge  Neilson— Undoubtedly. 

AEGUMENT  OF  MR.  EVARTS, 
Mr.  Evarts — The  views  on  oiu*  side  remain  as 
simple  as  they  did  when  they  were  first  stated.  If  your 
Honor  please,  it  is  a  recognized  rule  of  evidence  that  no 
party  is  to  suffer  in  a  judicial  proceeding  by  the  pro- 
duction of  evidence  unless  under  the  sanction  of  an  oath. 
That  excludes  all  hearsay  evidence  in  all  its  forms.  Now, 
there  came  to  be  a  notion  in  England  and  in  our  own 
courts,  that  when  a  witness,  in  reply  to  statements  mad< 
in  court,  has  been  contradicted  by  evidence  of  contra 
dictory  statements  out  of  court,  that  then  there 
was  a  seeming  reason  m  allowing  confirmation 
of  the  statements  in  court  thus  weakened  by 
statements  to  the  contrary  out  of  court,  to 
be  confirmed  or  assisted  by  corroborative  ox 
adhering  statements  out  of  court,  and,  to  a  certain  ex 
tent,  in  England  and  in  this  country  that  rule  was  I'd 
lowed.  But  its  infirmity,  its  contradiction  of  the  first 
principles  of  the  administration  of  justice  and  the  law  of 
evidence,  was  soon  detected.  The  rule  was  rejected  and 
the  practice  exploded.  I  shall  call  your  Honor's  atten- 
tion to  the  cases  that  thus  dispose  of  the  matter.  It  is  a 
rule  which  can  have  no  foundation  in  reason,  unless  you 
abandon  the  rule  that  hearsay  evidence  shall  not  be 
heard  in  a  court  of  justice,  for  whenever  opposing  wit- 
nesses under  oath  resist  one  another,  you  are  then  to 
look  around  for  what  each  one  of  them  has  said  out  oi 
court  during  a  period  of  years  since  the  occasion  arose 
for  opinions  and  statements.  You  at  once  throw  down 
the  barrier  of  reduction,  and  our  court  has  animadverte<i 
with  severity  upon  the  proposition  that  has  now  been 
made  to  your  Honor.  Now,  after  the  reassertion  of  tln' 


TESTUWXI   OF  JER. 

clear  aaid  necessary  rule  of  evidence,  and  the  Tindication 
of  the  courts  of  .iustice  from  the  folly  of  having  a  rule 
ftgatast  hearsay,  and  then,  on  a  light  sugges- 
tion, introducing  the  essay,  there  are  found 
suggestions  that  there  may  he  exceptions. 
Where  will  my  learned  fnend  find  an  authority  in  this 
State  that  has  allowed  any  evidence  that  has  heen  at- 
tempted to  be  produced  under  such  circumstances  % 
Every  case  where  that  attempt  has  heen  made  under  the 
cover  of  this  special  reasoning  and  special  exception,  has 
been  rejected,  and  no  support  is  given,  no  inclination  of 
any  court  of  ours  to  sustain  anv  such  reduction  of  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  rule.  In  "  Greenleaf  onEvidence,"  it  seems 
there  is  alleged  to  be  certain  exceptions ;  but  if ,  as  I  say, 
they  had  relinquished  the  proposition  that  confirmatory 
extrarjudicial  statements  shall  be  received,  no  court  in 
the  State  has  admitted  any  such  tanovation  or  reduction 
of  the  rule  of  evidence.  But  what  is  the  proposition  1 
Why,  the  proposition  thus  introduced  by  the  words  "  it 
seems"  in  some  text-books,  and  in  some  cases,  is  that  a 
change  of  situation  may,  when  the  new  situation 
is  alleged  to  be  the  cause  of  the  inference,  or  of  the  in- 
ducement that  before  the  new  situation  intervened  there 
were  corroborative  statements.  Now,  what  fact  arises 
here  for  the  application  of  such  a  proposition  ?  This 
lady  was  examined  as  a  witness  in  regard  to  an  inter- 
view which  is  alleged  to  have  taken  place  between  her- 
self and  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  2d  of  June.  3Ir.  Beecher  is 
introduced  to  speak  to  that  same  alleged  interview,  and 
he  has  given  his  testimony  abrogating  the  day— abro- 
gating the  interview  as  an  interview,  and  giving  such 
testimony  as  is  pertinent  to  other  intervievrs  that  may 
touch  the  same  subject  matter.  No  witness  has  been  in- 
troduced to  prove  that  3Irs.  Moulton  has  made  contra- 
dictory statements  out  of  court.  That  situation  does  not 
arise.  That  is  not  suflacient.  But  that  situation  must  ex- 
ist before  you  can  look  around  for  the  further  aid  of  intro- 
ducing this  kind  of  evidence,  on  the  ground  that 
before  a  change  of  attitule  or  relation  which  is 
supposed  to  be  cause  of  the  bias  intervene,  the  person 
when  free  from  that  relation  spoke  out  of  court  other-svise. 
I  don't  believe  that  any  court  in  this  State  will  ever  sus- 
tain the  exception  to  that  extent.  There  is  no  case  sus- 
taining it,  and  there  is  no  disposition  to  sustain  it.  But 
Mrs.  Moulton  has  not  changed  her  relation.  She  has 
teen  the  wife  of  Mr.  Moulton  at  all  times  which  are  em- 
braced by  any  proposed  testimony  now  to  be  given.  The 
imputation  that  she  testifies  under  another's  will  than 
her  own  is  an  imputation  that  she  testifies  under  the  wiU 
and  purpose  of  her  husband,  and  he  was  her  husband 
during  the  whole  period  that  is  sought  to  be  brought  in 
review  of  her  extiu,-judicial  statements,  but  the  testi- 
mony, if  anything  that  comes  from  IVIr.  Beecher  is  relied 
upon,  must  be  limited  to  this  particular  inquiry :  "  Then 
did  she  say  anything*  of  this  kind  I "  TMs  is  the 
-^ueetioR  in    respect    to    which   his  answer  is  sup- 


M1AH   p.    EOBISSOX.  461 

posed  to  contain  an  imputation  that  a  will  other  than  hej 
own  has  affected  her  testimony. 

"Then  did  she  say  anything  of  this  kiud:  '  3Ir> 
Beecher,  I  am  very  sorry  for  you  in  this  great  trouble  ; 
there  is  only  one  way  out  for  you,  and  that  is  by  a  con- 
fession and  telling  the  truth ;  you  cannot  continue  in  this 
life  of  deception  and  hypocrisy ;  the  truth  will  come  out 
sooner  or  later.'  Did  Mrs.  Moulton  ever  address  you  in 
that  way?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  it  was  not  in  her  nature  to  say 
anything  of  that  kind,  and  she  never  did— [after  a  long 
pause]— of  her  own  accord." 

Now,  what  is  the  cause  of  imputation  1  Why,  the  im- 
putation, if  it  is  anything,  is  that  she  speaks  under  the 
iafluence  of  her  husband.  They  don't  show  any  state- 
ments of  her's  out  of  court  antecedent  to  the  existence  of 
that  relation.  They  don't  show  any  change  of  relation 
on  the  part  ot  this  witness  toward  the  alleged  bias,  to 
wit,  her  husband's  wiQ.  They  don't  show  any.  change 
of  relation  as  to  this  matter  at  all.  What  Moulton  has 
been  saying  and  doing,  what  Mrs.  Moulton  has  been  say- 
tag  and  doing,  is  just  as  much  a  question  of  the  influence 
of  the  husband  over  the  wife  at  one  part  of  their  common 
dealmgs  as  at  any  other.  You  introduce  no  change  of 
relation.  It  is  said  that  Moult-on  had  an  animosity  excited 
as  of  a  particular  date.  Well,  that  is  to  be  remarked  upon 
ia  its  proper  plaoe.  What  he  was  doing,  what  he  was 
really  doing  ia  the  way  of  statements  to  other  people,  or 
on  any  mind^  that  he  influences,  or  shaping  chiags  for  pur- 
poses then  at  that  time  in  view,  we  are  not  responsible 
for ;  we  have  not  f uiuished  him  with  any  certificate  of 
credit  or  freedom  from  the  imputation  during  this  iieilod 
—not  in  the  least.  We  are  finding  out  now,  by  the 
aid  of  a  cotirt  of  justice,  and  under  sworn  testi- 
mony, in  which  they  all  have  an  opportunity 
to  speak,  what  was  going  on  all  the  while. 
Now,  they  undertook  to  prove  what  was  going  on 
at  a  particular  time  by  the  statement  of  this  married 
woman  to  her  uncle  at  the  time.  What  change  of  atti- 
tude is  there  1  Why,  if  your  Honor  please,  just  look  at 
the  proposition.  Parties  go  on  in  matters  of  contract,  oi 
in  matters  of  conduct,  and  there  comes  a  litigation  and  the 
suit  is  brought.  Then  they  differ.  Then  they  oppose  one 
another,  and  they  oppose  one  another  in  testimony. 
And  now  it  is  suggested  that  it  is  competent  for  either  of 
them  to  eke  out  his  testimony  against  the  other  by  show- 
ing that  while  they  were  going  on  under  the  contract, 
and  without  quarrel,  or  in  the  conduct  that  becomes  the 
subject  of  controversy  without  quarrel,  they  took  the 
same  view  of  it,  and  expressed  themselves  to 
their  neighbors  in  the  same  manner  that  they 
have  testified  under  oath.  "^Tiere  are  you 
going  to  draw  the  line  t  Parties  oppose  one 
another  in  testimony  too  frequently  under  our  present 
system  of  evidence.  They,  it  is  said,  didn't  have  that 
opposition  of  view  until  they  came  into  court,  and  before 
they  came  into  court  there  is  a  situation  in  which  this 
hostility  does  not  exist,  and,  therefore,  this  is  a  changed 


463  TBJhJ  TlLTOy-BI 

relation  when  they  come  into  court,  and,  therefore,  what 
either  of  them  said  to  hia  friends  and  neighbors  out  of 
oom-t  before  they  got  into  the  attitude  of  hostility  is  evi- 
dence. Well,  now,  that  is  the  old  story  whether  you  can 
corroborate  testimony  in  court  by  concirrring  statements 
out  of  court.  It  never  was  pretended  that  you  could  do 
that  until  you  had  contradicted,  under  the  rules  of  evi- 
dence, the  statements  in  court,  not  by  statements  in  court 
of  other  witnesses,  but  by  statements  out  of  court  by  the 
testimony  of  the  witness  whose  testimony  you  impugn,  and 
then,  as  I  say,  there  came  up  an  idea  that  you  might 
bring  in  corroborative  statements  of  the  testimony  of  a 
witness  thus  attacked.  That  has  gone.  There  is  no  pre- 
tense that  that  is  the  law  of  this  State  or  of  England 
now.  Then,  as  I  say,  there  has  been  a  suggestion  that  if^ 
by  the  old  situation  of  contradiction  out  of  court,  proved 
against  the  witness  under  the  rules  of  evidence,  you 
could  add  an  element  of  an  imputation  of  an  influence 
that  had  supervened,  or  of  an  attitude  that  had  justified 
or  encouraged  the  present  statement,  then  the  witness 
thus  attacked  might  fall  back  in  a  limited  degree  upon 
the  old  protection  of  showing  statements  out  of  court 
before  the  alleged  change  of  attitude.  But  that  must  be 
a  change  not  in  disposition  of  the  witness,  not  a  situa- 
tion merely  ante  litem  motum.  That  has  never 
been  presented,  for  that  would  bring  you 
up  to  the  situation  that  all  the  parties  are  in  before  they 
disagree,  and  would  break  up  entirely  by  the  rule  of  evi- 
dence that  has  been  so  carefully  guarded  about  hearsay. 
Mrs.  Moulton  was  the  wife  of  Mr.  Moulton.  Moulton  was 
the  friend  of  Tilton.  Moulton  was  the  manager  of  this 
interest  and  attitude  of  Tilton  through  the  entire  period 
as  well  as  when  they  came  into  litigation,  and  there  is 
no  pretense  that  there  is  a  change  of  situation  except  a 
change  of  disposition,  if  you  please,  and  a '  change  of  dis- 
position is  not  permitted  to  be  the  basis  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  any  such  evidence. 

Now,  the  section  of  Taylor,  which  I  think  is  taken 
bodily  from  Greenleaf ,  is  this : 

Where  evidence  of  contradictory  statements,  or  of 
other  improper  conduct  on  the  part  of  a  witness,  has 
been  either  elicited  from  him  on  cross-examination,  or 
obtained  from  other  witnesses  with  a  view  of  impeach- 
ing his  veracity,  his  general  character  for  truth  being 
thus  in  some  sort  put  in  issue,  it  has  been  deemed  reason- 
able to  admit  general  evidence  that  he  Is  a  man  of  strict 
integrity  and  scrupulous  regard  for  truth.  But  evidence 
that  he  has  on  other  occasions  made  statements  similar 
to  what  he  has  testified  in  the  case  is  not  admissible  un- 
less he  could  be  charged  with  a  desire  to  misrepresent  in 
consequence  of  his  relation  to  the  party  or  to  tne  case, 
in  which  case  it  may  be  proper  to  show  that  he  has  made 
a>  similar  statement  before  that  relation  existed. 

Not  that  there  Is  a  disposition  now  which  has  enlisted  a 
witness  on  either  side  of  the  controversy,  and  that  for- 
merly he  had  not  that  disposition;  but  when  it  is  im- 
puted that  his  relation  to  the  party  or  to  the  case  in 
frbiob  it  may  be  proper  to  show  that  he  has  made  a  sim- 


WEEB  TBIAL. 

ilar  statement  before  that  statement  existed,  but  Mrs. 
Moulton's  relation  to  the  party  (Tilton)  and  to  the  case 
between  these  parties— to  wit,  her  relation  as  wife  of 
Moulton— remains  the  same  during  all  ths  stages  of  thia 
transaction.  That  is  all,  I  believe,  of  this  section  that 
applies  to  this  subject. 

Now,  in  the  case  of  King  agt.  Parker,  3d  of  Douglass, 
Buller,  Justice,  said :  "That  the  evidence  was  clearly 
inadmissible,  not  being  upon  oath;  and  that  whether 
Fo^lej  ejrpi*  c#5ed  himself  by  words  or  by  signs  and  ges- 
tures, mnde  no  difference.  As  to  the  other  groimd,  he 
said  that  the  information  of  Fowler  was  not  read  as  evi- 
dence for  the  defendant ;  but  if  it  had,  it  was  now  settled 
that  what  a  witness  said  not  upon  oath  would  not  be  ad- 
mitted to  confirm  what  he  said  upon  oath  ;  and  that  the 
case  of  Lutterell  agt.  Reynell,  and  the  passage  cited  fiom 
Hawkins,  were  not  now  law."  Now,  the  first  case  recog- 
nizing the  ensemble  is  the  case  of  The  People  agt.  Vane. 

Evidence  that  a  witness  has  upon  previous  occasions 
given  the  same  relation  of  facts  to  which  he  testifies 
when  examined  on  the  trial  of  a  case  is  admissible  where 
the  witness  is  impeached  either  by  adversary  testimony 
or  upon  cross-examination,  or  even  upon  direct  examina- 
tion, as  where  he  admits  that  he  was  an  accomplice  in 
the  crime  of  which  he  proves  another  to  have  been 
guilty. 

Well,  that  case  has  been  withdrawn    We  won't  com- 
ment upon  that. 
Mr.  Beach— Who  has  withdrawn  it  1 
Mr.  Evarts— The  Court. 
Mr.  Beach— Not  at  all, 

Mr.  Evarts— You  will  have  an  opportunity  to  reply  to 
me, 

Mr.  Beaoii— I  thought  you  said  it  was  imnecessary  to 
comment  upon  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Not  to  comment  upon  it  in  the  case,  be- 
cause it  has  been  withdrawn.  I  am  going  to  show  it  was 
withdrawn.  You  would  not  have  me  comment  on  a  case 
that  has  been  overruled. 

Mr.  Beach— -I  would.  I  suppose  showing  it  has  been 
withdrawn  is  a  comment  on  the  case. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  am  willing  to  submit  to  all  kinds  of  per 
sonal  criticism  that  you  desire  at  any  state  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  no  criticism. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  stated  the  case  had  been  withdrawn 
from  our  jurisprudence  by  subsequent  legislation. 

Mr.  Beach— And  there  was  no  use  saying  anything 
about  it. 

]\Ir.  Evarts— About  that  case,  but  it  may  be  of  use  to 
the  hardness  of  your  case  to  show  what  oases  with- 
draw it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— You  will  have  a  hard  case  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  is  nothing  in  that  case  that  goes  a« 
far  as  you  contend  for,  but  I  don't  propose  to  consider 
how  far  a  case  goes  that  has  been  overruled.  That  is  my 
proposition. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  has  not  been  overruled  ou  that  point 
That  is  our  proposition. 


TE^STIjW^^Y  of  JEBEMlAR   F,  ROBINSON. 


463 


Mr.  Evarts— It  will  be  quite  time  enougli  for  yon  to 
say  ti/vt  when  you  make  your  reply. 

Mr.  Fulierlon— I  will  say  it  over  again  then. 

Mr.  Evarts— RoT)b  agt.  Hackley,  in  the  23d  of  Wendell, 
Bronson,  J.,  gives  the  fol] owing  opinion : 

But,  as  a  general  and  almost  universal  rule,  evidence 
of  what  the  witness  has  said  out  of  court  cannot  he  re- 
eeived  to  fortify  his  testimony.  It  violates  a  tirst  prin- 
ciple in  the  law  of  evidence  to  allow  a  party  to  be  af- 
fected, either  in  his  person  or  in  his  property,  by  the 
declarations  of  a  witness  made  without  oath.  And,  bo- 
sides,  it  can  be  no  confirmation  of  wh-^t  the  witness 
has  said  on  oath  to  show  that  he  has  made  similar  dec- 
larations when  xmder  no  such  solemn  obligation  to  speak 
the  truth.  It  is  no  answer  to  say  that  such  evidence  will 
not  be  likely  to  gain  credit,  and  consequently  will  do  no 
harm.  Evidence  should  never  be  given  to  a  jury  which 
they  are  not  at  liberty  to  believe. 

The  referee  was  proiT.Juy  governed  in  receiving  the 
evidence  by  the  language  of  the  late  learned  Chief-Jus- 
tice in  The  People  agt.  Vane,  12th  Wendell,  78:  -But 
that  case  does  not  necessarily  go  beyond  deciding  that 
the  testimony  of  an  accomplice  in  court  may  be  corrob- 
orated by  showing  that  when  first  arrested  he  gave  the 
same  relation  of  facts  which  he  had  given  on  oath  upon 
the  trial." 

I  don't  think  any  one  would  pretend  that  that  is  the 
law  of  this  State  just  now.  That  is  the  extent  of  that 
case,  as  the  Coui't  decides.  [Reading  from  the  same  quo- 
tation.] 

The  fact  that  the  accomplice  was  called  as  a  witness 
for  the  people  gave  rise  to  the  inference  that  he  was 
criminating  the  defendant  for  the  purpose  of  exempting 
himself  from  prosecution  for  the  larceny.  It  might, 
therefore,  be  proper  to  show  that  he  had  given  the  same 
account  of  the  matter  at  a  time  xohen  there  ivas  no  such 
motive  for  making  a  false  accusation.  If  when  first  ar- 
rested, and  when  he  had  no  expectation  of  personal  ex- 
emption, he  had  frankly  disclosed  the  whole  matters,  that 
might  tend  to  confirm  bis  subsequent  repetition  of  the 
same  statement  under  oath.  This  brings  the  case  within 
an  acknowledged  exception  to  the  general  rule,  that  the 
testimony  of  a  contradicted,  impeached  or  discredited 
witness  can  be  confirmed  by  proving  that  he  made  similar 
declarations  out  of  court. 

It  is  suggested  that  our  usual  hour  for  adjourning  has 
arrived. 

Judge  Neilson— If  it  is  convenient  we  will  suspend  now. 
[To  the  jurorsl— Gentlemen,  return  at  2  o'clock.  The 
court  than  took  a  recess  ;mtil  2  o'clock. 

THE  AFTEENOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

Mr.  FuUerton— If  your  Honor  please,  Mr.  Bell  has  been 
kind  enough  to  inclose  me  the  note  spoken  of  in  his  testi- 
mony, and  it  is  dated  Dec.  15, 1870,  which  wiU  fix  the 
date  of  the  interview  between  himself,  of  course,  and 
Mr.  Beecher. 

Judge  Noilson— WeU,  have  that  taken  down. 

:Mr.  Shearman— Better  put  the  note  in  evidence. 

Mr.  FuUerton— It  is  suggested  that  I  put  the  note  in 
evideace  [reading] : 


My  Dear  Mr.  Bell  :   Will  you  gtop  in  at  1  ?A  (old  82), 
on  your  way  over  ?  Important.   Truly  youi-s.     h.  w.  b. 
December  15,  1870. 

MR.  EYARTS'S  ARGUMENT  CONTIXTTED. 
Mr.  Evarts— The  learned  Court,  Judge  Bronson,  pro- 
ceeds, after  considering  some  of  the  authorities  which 
have  been  referred  to  by  my  friend,  Gen.  Pryor : 

But  this  most  dangerous  doctrine  was  long  since  ex- 
ploded in  England,  although  the  case  in  which  it  was 
first  formally  overruled  has  been  but  recentlv  published. 
The  case  to  whi  h  I  allude  is  The  .King  agt.  Parker,  13 
Doug.,  242,  where  the  witness  was  an  accomplice  in  the 
robbery.  Buller,  J.,  said :  "  It  was  now  settled  that  what 
a  ^^itness  said  not  upon  oath,  would  not  be  admitted  to 
confirm  what  he  said  upon  oath,:  and  that  the  case  ol  , 
Lutterell  agt.  Eeynell,  and  the  passage  cited  from  Haw- 
Lins,  was  not  now  law;"  and  such  was  the  judgment  of 
the  whole  Court  of  K.  B.  upon  solemn  argTunent. 
Since  the  decision  in  The  King  agt.  Parker,  I  find  no  au- 
thority or  dictum  in  the  English  books  in  favor  of  receiv- 
ing this  kind  of  confirmatory  evidence,  except  under 
some  such  special  circumstances  as  have  already  been 
mentioned.  Mr.  t?tarkie  says  :  "  It  seems  the  better 
opinion  that  a  witness  cannot  confirm  by  proof  that  he 
has  given  the  same  account  before,  even  although  it  has 
been  proved  that  he  has  given  a  difierent  account,  in 
order  to  impeach  his  veracity  ;  for  his  mere  declaration 
of  the  fact  is  not  evidence." 

Then,  after  considering  further  the  English  cases— but 
there  is  no  tendency  in  this  case  to  reinstate  a  witness 
when  he  has  been  contradicted— Mr.  Phillips  is  quoted : 

It  may  be  observed,  upon  this  kind  of  evidence,  in 
general,  that  a  representation  without  oath  can  scarcely 
be  considered  as  any  confirmation  of  a  statement  upon 
oath.  It  is  the  oath  that  confirms,  and  the  bare  assertion 
that  requires  confirmation.  The  probability  is  that  in 
almost  every  case,  the  witness  who  swears  to  certain  facta 
at  the  trial  has  been  heard  to  relate  the  same  facts  before 
trial ;  and  it  is  not  so  much  in  support  of  his  character  that 
he  has  given  the  same  accoimt,  as  it  would  be  to  his  dis- 
credit that  he  should  ever  have  made  one  different.  The 
imputation  on  his  veracity  results  from  the  fact  of  hia 
having  contradicted  himself,  and  this  is  not  in  the  least 
controverted  or  explained  by  the  evidence  in  question. 
If  a  witness  has  made  a  statement  a  hundred  times  one 
way  and  a  hundred  times  in  another  way  directly  con- 
trary, the  only  inference  must  be  that  he  is  utterly  des- 
titute of  all  title  to  credit. 

Then  the  Judge  proceeds : 

Some  of  the  American  Courts  have  admitted  this  kind 
of  evidence.  A  collection  of  the  cases,  accompanied 
very  judicious  remarks,  will  be  found  in  the  learned 
notes  to  1  Phillips,  by  the  Messrs.  Cowen  &  Hill,  pp.  776-9. 
These  decisions  are  based  upon  English  authorities  which 
are  no  longer  respected  in  Westminster  Hall,  and  I  have 
failed  to  discover  in  them  anything  calculated  to  shake 
my  decided  conviction  chat  this  kind  of  confirmatory 
evidence  is  of  dangerous  tendency,  and  ougl.t  not  to  be 
received,  except  under  some  such  special  circumstances 
as  have  already  been  noticed.  We  have  not  in  this  State 
departed  from  that  ancient  and  safe  landmark  in  the 
law  of  evidence  which  requires  a  witness  in  all  cases  to 
speak  under  the  solemn  sanction  of  an  oath,  and  I  am  un- 
willing to  peril  the  lives,  the  fame,  or  the  property  of  in- 
dividuals by  adopting  the  contrary  doctiine. 


TRB   TlLTOl^- BEECH  BR  TBIAL. 


464 

In  24  Wendell  tlie  same  learned  Court,  by  Cowen,  J., 
Bays: 

Tlie  reception  of  Bartle's  ^atements  [that  is,  one  of 
the  -witnesses  in  the  case]  in  confirmation  of  his  testi- 
mony -was  erroneous.  We  have  recently,  in  Eobta  agt. 
HacMey,  50  et  seq.,  reconsidered  the  dictum  to  the  con- 
trary in  The  People  agt.  Vane,  12  Wendel)^  78,  and  agree 
that  consistent  statements  cannot  in  general  he  received 
in  reply  to  contradictions  of  a  witness ;  a  fortiori  are 
they  inadmissible  in  answer  to  direct  and  positive  con- 
tradiction by  other  witnesses. 

Now,  your  Honor  will  see  that  all  that  has  ever  been 
pretended  for  the  rule  was  that  when  a  witness  has  been 
impeached  or  contradicted  by  showing  statements  out  of 
court  contrary  to  what  he  has  said  in  court,  that  then 
there  was  a  notion  that  you  might  bring  him  np  by  show- 
ing that  he  told  the  same  story  out  of  court  that  he  told 
In.  But,  as  the  Court  say  in  24  Wendell,  the  doctrine  is 
discarded,  and  a  fortiori,  as  we  reject  all  hearsay  evi- 
dence in  support  of  one  witness  where  the  contradiction 
is  not  between  his  various  statements  of  the  same 
Btory,  but  a  contradiction  of  other  witnesses  who  tell 
the  opposite  story.  Your  Honor  sees  at  once  that 
this  is  the  most  pernicious  and  dangerous  form  of  hearsay 
evidence,  for  it  is  hearsay  evidence  that  is  created  by  the 
witness  in  advance  of  his  examination.  It  is  a  reproduc- 
tion by  hearsay  of  his  own  statement,  which  never  could 
be  testimony  per  se  if  he  were  not  a  witness,  and  yet 
they  are  brought  in  to  be  evidence  by  the  fact  that  he  be- 
eomes  a  witness,  and  thus  in  the  cause,  and  under  oath, 
corrobo'rates  himself  by  hearsay  evidence  that  he  himself 
had  created  before  he  came  on  the  stand.  Nothing  could 
l>e  more  dreadful  than  that.  Now,  where  will  you  find 
any  disposition  in  our  courts  to  recognize  what  is  called 
*'  special  circumstances  V 

In  Smith  agt.  Stickney,  17  Barbour,  where  Welles,  J., 
gives  the  opinion  of  the  General  Term  : 

The  action  was  brought  by  the  respondent  against 
the  appellant  to  recover  the  sum  of  $65  63  for  work  and 
labor  (for  building  some  Mud  of  a  dam).  The  defendant 
answered  the  complaint,  and  the  plaintiff  replied.  The 
action  was  referred  to  three  referees,  who  heard  the 
same,  and  made  a  report  that  there  was  due  from  the  de- 
fendant to  the  plaintifF  the  sum  of  $72  27.  From  that 
judgment  the  defendant  appealed. 

Now  comes  the  posture  of  the  witness : 

Upon  the  trial  before  the  referees,  the  plaintiff's  prin- 
cipal witness  to  prove  his  claim  was  his  brother,  John 
Smith.  It  appeared  by  his  evidence  that  the  plaintiff 
sawed  for  the  defendant.  In  the  saw-mill  of  the  latter, 
133,000  feet  of  lumber ;  that  the  witness  worked  with 
the  plaintiff  in  sawing  lumber  at  $18  per  month,  and  that 
he  had  no  interest  in  the  sawing,  but  that  the  sawing 
was  worth  50  cents  per  thousand.  Other  evidence  tended 
to  show  that  the  sawing  was  done  under  an  agreement  as 
to  the  price  at  three  shillings  six  pence  per  thousand. 
One  question  which  appears  to  have  been 
much  litigated  at  the  time  of  the  trial  was  whether  the 
eawlng  was  done  by  the  plaintiff  and  the  witness,  John 
Bmlth,  jointly  for  the  defendant,  with  a  view  of  enabling 
the  defendant  to  insist  that  the  action  in  the  name  of  tlie 
plaintiff  alone  was  misconceived,  and  that  John  Smith 


should  have  been  a  party  plaintiff.  The  witness  John 
Smith  was  inquired  of  whether  he  had  made  statements 
to  various  mdividuals  mentioned  to  the  effect  that  he  and 
the  plaintiff  had  taken  the  job  of  sawing  together  and 
had  performed  the  labor  jointly  imder  such  arrangement 
with  the  plaintiff ;  all  which  he  either  denied,  or  stated 
he  did  not  recollect  of  making  them. 

That  is  to  say,  he  was  asked  if  he  had  not  said  out  of 
court  that  this  was  a  joint  interest  of  himself  and  thl» 
brother,  whereas  he  testified  in  court  that  it  was  Ma 
brother's  interest,  and  he  was  a  mere  witness. 

This  was  upon  a  point  directly  in  issue,  and  upon 
Vbich  it  was  competent  to  contradict  the  witness.  The 
defendant  accordingly  called  a  number  of  the  individuals 
referred  to,  some  of  whom  materially  contradicted  the 
witness,  and  testified  that  he  had  made  statements  the 
import  of  which  was  that  the  sawing  in  question 
was  done  under  a  joint  undertaking  by  the  said  Jolm 
Smith  and  the  plaintiff.  With  a  view  of  restoring  the 
credit  of  the  witness,  which,  it  was  claimed,  was  thus  im- 
paired, the  plaintiff  offered  to  prove  that  he  had  pre- 
viously, when  not  imder  oath,  made  declarations  con- 
sistent with  his  testimony  on  the  trial  in  respect  to  the 
point  in  question.  This  was  objected  to  by  the  defend- 
ant's counsel,  and  the  objection  was  overruled  by  the  ref- 
erees, and  the  evidence  so  offered  was  received.  In  this 
we  think  the  referees  erred. 

Then  Greenleaf  is  quoted : 

So  much  of  the  rule  here  stated  as  allows  generaS 
evidence  of  good  character  for  tnitli  in  reply  to  evidence 
of  contradictory  statements  of  a  witness,  or  other  par- 
ticular facts,  offered  by  way  of  impeaching  his  veracity, 
has  not  been  followed  in  this  State.  But,  in  relation  to 
the  residue,  and  which  is  all  that  applies  to  the  question 
under  consideration,  it  may  be  regarded  as  the 
settled  law.  It  is  substantiaDy  laid  down  by  Mr. 
Starkie.  In  Eobb  agt.  Hackley  (23  WendeU,  50). 
Bronson,  J.,  says:  As  a  general  and  almost  universal 
rule,  evidence  of  what  the  witness  has  said  out  of  court 
cannot  be  received  to  fortify  his  evidence.  We  can  per- 
ceive nothing  in  the  present  case  to  briag  it  within  the 
exception  to  the  general  rule.  The  witness  has  sustained 
but  one  relation  to  the  party  or  to  the  cause ;  and  that 
relation  has  at  no  time  been  changed. 

That  is,  he  was  his  brother,  he  was  his  employ^,  and 
there  was  no  change  of  relation  to  furnish  the  basis  of  a 
change  to  be  a  credit^add  credit  from  outside  state- 
ments, because  they  had  arisen  antecedent  to  a  relation 
which  was  supposed  to  accoimt  for  the  untruthful  state- 
ment in  court.  The  case  of  The  People  agt.  Finnigan,  la 
which  the  dictum  is  supposed  to  be  quoted,  there 
the  evidence  was  excluded.  Perhaps  the  latest 
case  is  the  case  of  Butler  agt.  Truslow  (55  Bar- 
bour, page  293),  where,  under  somewhat  im- 
portant circumstances,  the  general  rule  is  adhered  to. 

Now,  your  Honor  will  see  that  all  that  is  pretended 
here  is  that  in  the  first  place  Mr.  Beecher,  as  a  witness, 
has  said,  when  contradicting  the  statement  of  the  wit- 
ness that  she  had  never  said  this  to  him,  adds  to  tb;it 
statement,  she  never  nad  said  it,  and  then  says— that 
never  of  her  own  acf-ord ;  but  she  did  not  say  it  to  him 
That  is  all  that  was  in  evidence— the  subject  of  eridenoe. 
Her  expression  was  an  expression  of  opinion,  Jind  goesi 


TEi^llMONl   OF  JEREMIAR  F.  EOBINSOK. 


4Go 


for  nothing,  and  it  certainly  makes  no  oiange  of  situa- 
tion. Now,  In  regard  to  Gen.  Tracy's  opening  in  tliis 
€»se,  why  Gen.  Tracy  does  not  make  any  change  in  the 
situation.  Mr.  Moulton  is  charged  in  the  opening  with 
having  been  a  party  to  certain  hostile  proceedings 
and  combinations  toward  Mr.  Beecher,  and  the  wife 
does  not  come  in  any  relation,  excepting  of  the  marilal 
relation,  which,  as  I  say,  covers  the  entire  features.  Now, 
if  your  Honor  please,  where  is  the  line  to  be  drawn? 
What  is  there  in  this  proposition  Out  an  attempt  to  over- 
throw the  rules  of  evidence  which  Judge  Bronson  and  the 
Supreme  Court  have  said  are  so  essential  to  the  security 
of  life  and  interest  and  property  ?  Why,  if  your  Honor 
please,  the  situation  is  that  it  is  alleged  that  the  litigants 
to  this  suit,  and  the  witnesses  that  go  with  them,  are  now 
In  a  purpose  of  recovering  in  this  action,  if  you  please,  to 
give  no  further  description  of  it,  and  that  before  they 
had  any  purpose  of  bringing  a  suit  they  made  state- 
ments in  confirmation  of  what  has  been  said. 
Well,  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  have  both  been  made 
Thp  subjects  of  testimony  on  our  part,  of  statements 
out  of  court  contrary  to  what  they  have  said  in  court  on 
this  subject.  Now,  is  it  to  be  pretended  to  your  Honor 
that  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  are  to  be  permitted  to 
bring  in  statements  that  they  had  made  at  any  time  dur- 
ing the  last  four  years  before  this  suit  was  commenced, 
corroborative  of  the  stories  that  they  tell  on  the  witness 
stand?  Well,  if  it  is  true  of  that  witness— of  either  of 
these  witnesses — ^then  it  is  true  of  witnesses  on  our  side, 
and  you  are  right  back  to  the  proposition  that  if  a  wit- 
ness's evidence  on  the  stand  is  countervailed  or  contra- 
dieted  by  other  witnesses  on  the  stand,  you  may  go  then 
into  a  controversy  or  confirmatory  aid  to  the  witness, 
from  the  fact  that  out  of  coiu-t  they  said  to  this  and  that 
man  what  agrees  with  what  they  say  in  court,  and  you 
are  riffht  back  then  to  the  old  proposition  that  has  long 
long  ago  been  disposed  of. 

ME.  FULLERTON  REPLIES  TO  MR.  EVARTS. 

Mr.  Fullerton — If  your  Honor  please,  the 
force  of  the  argument  submitted  by  my  learned  associate, 
has  neither  been  broken  nor  impaired  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree by  anything  that  has  fallen  from  the  counsel  upon 
the  other  side.  He  has  quoted  no  authority,  either  from 
a  report  or  from  a  text- writer,  which  countervails  in  the 
slightest  degree  the  doctrine  which  was  established 
by  the  argument  of  (Jen.  Pryor.  This  case 
has  been  presented  upon  the  part  of  the 
defendant  as  if  we  contended  that  the 
rule  was  that  where  a  witness  was  sought  to  be  im- 
peached by  proving,  first,  that  his  character  for  truth  and 
veracity  was  bad,  or  in  the  second  place,  by  proving  state- 
ments out  of  court  inconsistent  with  those  made  in  court, 
that  in  such  case  evidence  could  be  produced  upon  our 
behalf  to  show  that  statements  out  of  court  had  been 
made  by  the  witness  consistent  with  those  sworn  to  in 


court.  Now,  that  is  not  our  proposition  at  all.  I  con- 
cede, I  agree  with  the  counsel  upon  the  other  side  that 
the  rule  in  this  State  is,  that  you  cannot  show  in  court 
statements  of  a  witness  consistent  out  of  court— you  can- 
not show  in  court  statements  of  a  witness  which  are  con- 
sistent with  a  statement  made  out  of  court. 

Judge  Neilson— In  the  progress  of  the  case  I  had  occa- 
sion to  state  that  rule  at  least  once,  I  think. 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  your  Honor  will  recollect  that  we 
made  the  reply  that  that  was  the  general  rule,  but  that 
there  were  exceptions  to  it.  Now,  what  is  the  attitude  of 
Mrs.  Moulton  to  this  case  I  What  has  she  testified  to  that 
is  material  to  this  issue  which  it  becomes  necessary  for  us 
to  sustain  by  showing  that  she  told  a  similar  story  out  of 
court?  Attention  is  called  to  June  2, 1873.  She  alleges 
that  at  that  time  she  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Beecher, 
which  she  detaOed  upon  the  witness-stand— a  very  im- 
portant piece  of  evidence  in  this  controversy.  How  is  it  met 
upon  the  other  side  ?  It  is  met  first  by  what  they  call  a 
contradiction  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher.  He  says 
that  no  such  conversation  was  had ;  that  it  is  all  a  fiction ; 
an  invention  upon  the  part  of  this  witness,  and  he  adds 
further,  Sir,  that  that  story  was  told  by  Mrs.  Moulton 
under  the  influence  of  her  husband,  and  that  that  influ- 
ence was  brought  to  bear  upon  his  wife  after  the  relation 
of  fi-iendship,  which  had  so  long  existed  between  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  was  broken  up.  That,  your 
Honor  will  recollect,  was  late  in  the  Summer  of  1874. 
They  put  this  case,  therefore,  upon  the  ground  that  Mi-s. 
Moulton,  overshadowed  by  her  husband,  has  invented 
this  story  and  stated  it  here  to  the  detriment  of  the  de- 
f  enda^it  in  this  case,  wlien  there  is  no  truth  whatever  in  it. 
Now,  how  are  we  to  meet  the  proposition,  Sir,  that  that 
was  a  reoeiit  invention  on  the  part  of  this  witness  under 
the  influence  of  her  husband  ?  How  can  we  meet  it  so 
weU  as  to  show  that  in  1873,  in  the  month  of  June,  and 
on  the  same  day  when  the  occurrence  took  place  at  Mrs. 
"^toulton's  house,  that  she  told  that  story  to  third  parties 
as  she  has  told  it  here  ?  Does  it  not  completely  meet  the 
accusation  that  it  is  an  invention  of  a  recent  date  ?  Now, 
I  repeat.  Sir.  we  admit  that  if  they  had  impeached  Mrs. 
Moulton  by  producing  witnesses  to  swear  that  her  char- 
^acter  for  truth  and  veracity  was  not  good,  that  we  could 
not  give  any  such  evidence  as  we  now  propose.  I  admit 
that  if  they  ha^been  able  to  prove  that  Mrs.  Moulton 
had  said  out  of  court  what  was  entirely  inconsistent  with 
her  story  in  court,  that  we  could  not  have  given  this  evi- 
dence that  we  now  propose.  We  do  not  disagree  with  re- 
srard  to  the  general  rule,  but  we  do  disagree  with  regard 
to  the  exception  to  that  general  rule. 

Now,  what  is  the  exception  1  It  was  clearly  stated  by 
my  associate,  in  his  argument  in  presenting  this  case,  that 
where  it  is  imputed  to  a  witness  that  the  story  told  in 
court,  under  oath,  was  a  recent  invention,  and  had  ita 
origin  in  an  improper  influence  latelj^  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  witness,  that  there  you  may  overcome  that 


4G6 


IME   TILTON-BEPJCHER  IIUAL, 


operation  by  stiowing  tlie  same  story  to  liave  been  told 
at  a  prior  period  when  tlie  influence  did  not  exist,  or 
when  the  reasons  for  it  did  not  exist.  Now,  what  is  the 
law  of  this  State  upon  this  subject  ?  It  is  very  clear,  very 
well  defined,  and  not  easily  misunderstood. 

The  first  is  the  case  of  the  People  agt.  Vane,  and  your 
Honor  will  bear  with  me  while  I  read  somewhat  from 
these  authorities  to  show  exactly  what  questions  arose 
and  what  questions  were  decided  in  that.  Now,  in  the 
People  agt.  Vane  a  prisoner  was  put  upon  his  trial  for  a 
crime.  A  witness  by  the  name  of  Wapshot  was  intro- 
duced to  give  evidence  against  him,  and  in  order  to  im- 
peach that  evidence  they  suggested  that  he  gave  it  for 
the  purpose  of  producing  immunity  from  punishment ; 
that  he  acknowledged  his  complicity  with  the  ofiender 
on  trial,  and,  for  the  purpose  of  courting  favor  with  the 
people,  he  gave  evidence  tending  to  convict  the  prisoner, 
supposing  that  he  would  not  be  put  upon  trial  himself  for 
the  offense.  In  order  to  overcome  that,  the  District- 
Attorney  offered  to  prove,  and  did  prove,  under  permis- 
sion of  the  Court,  that  the  witness,  the  accomplice,  gave 
the  same  relation  at  the  time,  that  the  offense  was  com- 
mitted before  either  himself  or  the  party  on  trial  were 
put  in  jeopardy,  and  before  there  was  any  inducement  to 
tell  other  than  the  truth.  The  evidence  was  admitted. 
Now,  that  brought  that  case  within  the  exception  to  the 
general  rule.  Now,  what  does  the  Court  say  in  regard  to 
that  ? 

The  right  of  either  party  to  support  and  fortify  the 
testimony  of  his  witness  is  essential  to  the  preservation 
of  the  rights  of  individuals  as  well  as  the  public.  When 
a  witness  is  sworn  and  testifies,  his  testimony  prima 
facie  is  entitled  to  belief ;  if  his  character  is  attacked,  it 
may  be  supported ;  if  his  testimony  is  shown  by  other 
witnesses  to  be  false  or  doubtful,  other  witnesses  may  be 
Introduced  ustt  in  the  testimony  as  given.  If  a  wit- 
ness be  introduced  by  the  defendant  to  show  that  the 
plaintiiFs  witness  has  given  a  different  account  of  the 
transaction  about  which  he  has  been  testi- 
fying, another  witness  may  be  introduced 
to  show  that  the  first  witness  has  on  previous  occasions 
given  the  same  story  to  which  he  has  testified.  It  is  not 
proper  to  introduce  this  kind  of  testimony  in  the  first  in- 
stance. Should  a  party  offer  to  do  so,  it  would  show  that 
he  was  unworthy  of  belief.  It  is  received  only  in  reply 
and  in  answer  to  doubts,  attempted  to  be  raised  by  the 
other  party,  by  impeaching  the  witness  either  by  testi- 
mony or  by  cross-examination,  or  it  may  be  proper  when 
the  witness  stands  impeached  by  the  direct  testimony 
given  by  himself,  as  in  the  present  case.  The  witness 
shows  on  his  direct  examination  that  he  was  an  accom- 
plice ;  his  testimony  is  therefore  suspicious ;  it  comes 
from  a  tainted  source,  and  may  well  be  doubted.  In  such 
a  case  it  seems  to  me  the  principle  applies  that  a  witness 
who  is  impeached  may  be  supported. 

Now,  your  Honor  will  perceive  that  the  learned  Judge, 
in  deciding  that  question,  went  beyond  what  was  neces- 
sary to  accomplish  that  object,  because  he  decided  not 
only  that  a  witness  could  be  supported  and  sustained  in 
such  a  case,  but  that  he  could  be  supported  and  sustained 
where  his  character  was  impeached   for   truth  and 


veracity,  by  direct  evidence,  or  where  it  was  in- 
cidentally impeached,  by  showing  that  he  had 
told  different  stories  out  of  court.  He  did  not  administer 
the  exception  to  the  general  rule  as  we  contend  for  it, 
and  as  it  was  laid  down  in  subsequent  cases.  Now,  that 
case  is  nowhere  directly  overruled,  but  your  Honor  will 
perceive  that  the  decision  there  has  been  commented  upon 
in  several  other  cases.  It  came  under  review  in  the  case 
of  Robb  agt.  Hackley,  in  23  Wendell.  Now,  in  dealing 
with  the  case  of  12  Wendell,  The  People  agt.  Vane,  xlie 
learned  Judge  made  use  of  these  observations : 

The  referee  was  probably  governed  in  receiving  the  ev- 
idence by  the  language  of  the  late  Chief  Justice,  in  The 
People  agt.  Vane,  12  Wendell,  78  ;  but  that  case  does  not 
necessarily  go  beyond  deciding  that  the  testimony  of  an 
accomplice  in  crime  may  be  corroborated  by  showing  that 
when  first  arrested  he  gave  the  same  relation  of  the  facts 
which  he  had  given  on  oath  upon  the  trial. 
The  fact  that  the  accomplice  was  called  as 
a  witness  for  the  people  gave  rise  to  the  inference 
that  he  was  criminuting  the  defendant  for  the  pur- 
pose of  exempting  himself  from  prosecution  for  the  lar- 
ceny. It  might,  therefore,  be  proper  to  show  that  he  had 
given  the  same  account  of  the  matter  at  a  time  when 
there  was  no  such  motive  for  making  a  false  accusation. 
If,  when  first  arrested,  and  when  he  had  no  expectation  of 
personal  exemption,  he  had  frankly  disclosed  the  whole 
matter,  that  might  tend  to  confirm  his  subsequent  repre- 
sentation of  the  same  statement  on  oath.  This  brings 
the  case  within  the  acknowledged  exception  to  the  gen- 
eral rule,  that  the  testimony  of  a  contradicted,  impeached 
or  discredited  witness  cannot  be  confirmed  by  proving 
that  he  has  made  similar  declarations  out  of  court. 

Now,  Sir,  am  I  not  right  in  saying  that  the  case  in  The 
People  agt.  Vane  is  sustained  and  approved  by  this  case 
of  23  Wendell,  so  far  as  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  decision 
of  the  case  in  question,  or  which  came  up  for  review  ia 
that  case  ?  It  is  nowhere  reversed.  And  then  again  he 
says,  on  page  54 : 

Mr.  Evans,  in  his  valuable  notes  to  Pothier,  after 
speaking  of  the  admission  of  declarations  of  the  witness 
on  former  occasions  to  confirm  his  statements  in  court, 
says  in  ordinary  cases  the  evidence  would  be  at  least  su- 
perfluous, for  the  assertions  of  a  witness  are  to  be  re- 
garded in  general  as  true  until  there  is  some  particular 
reason  for  impeaching  them  as  false,  which 
reason  may  be  repelled  by  circumstances  show- 
ing that  the  motive  upon  which  it  is  supposed 
to  have  been  founded  co7ild  not  have  had 
existence  at  the  time  when  the  previous  relation  was  mad*, 
and  which  therefore  repelled  the  supposition  of  the  fact 
related  being  an  afterthought  or  fabrication.  He  adds, 
if  a  witness  speaks  to  facts  nega  iving  the  existence  of  a 
contract,  and  insinuations  are  thrown  out  that  he  has 
a  near  connection  with  the  party  oji  whose  behalf  he  ap- 
pears—that a  change  of  market,  or  any  other  alteration 
of  circumstances  has  excited  an  inducement  to  recede 
from  a  deliberate  engagement^the  proof  by  un- 
suspicious testimony  that  a  similar  account  was 
giyen  when  the  contract  alleged  had  evenj  prospect  of  ad- 
vantage, removes  the  imputatiou  resulting  from  the  op- 
posite circumstances,  and  the  testimony  is  placed  upon 
the  same  level  which  it  would  have  \vm\  if  the  motive  for 
receding  from  the  previous   iotention  had  never  had 

existence. 


TJESTIMONF  OF  JERJ3M1AE  P.  EOBINSON, 


467 


There  tlie  exception  to  tlie  general  rule  is  stated,  and 
tlie  case  in  -wMcli  evidence  such  as  we  propose  to  give 
now  was  considered  as  proper.  I  refer  your  Hono^ 
also  again  to  the  case  of  17  i^arhour,  where  the 
•opinion  is  delivered  by  Justice  Welles.  The  head-note 
is  this  : 

Where  the  witness  is  impeached  hy  proof  that  he  has 
made  statements  on  other  occasions  inconsistent  with  his 
testimony,  evidence  that  he  has  at  different  times  made 
statements  similar  to  what  he  has  testified  in  the  case, 
cannot  he  received  to  fortify  his  testimony. 

Now,  I  read  from  the  opinion  in  this  case,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  in  what  light  Judge  Welles  regarded  this 
decision  of  the  People  agt.  Yane,  and  the  case  of  Rohh 
agt.  Hackley,  to  which  I  last  referred.  The  learned 
Judge  says : 

The  witness  was  inquired  of  whether  he  had  made 
statements  to  various  individuals  mentioned,  to  the  effect 
that  he  and  the  plaintiff  had  taken  the  joh  of  sawing 
together,  and  had  perfonned  the  labor  jointly  in  such 
arrangement  with  the  plaintiff— all  which  he  either  de- 
nied or  stated  he  did  not  recollect  of  maMng  them.  This 
was  upon  a  point  directly  in  issue,  and  upon  which  it 
was  competent  to  contradict  the  witness.  The  defend- 
ant accordingly  called  a  number  of  the  individuals  re- 
ferred to,  some  of  whom  materially  contradicted  the  wit- 
ness, and  testified  that  he  had  made  statements  the  im- 
port of  which  was  that  the  sawing  in  question  was  done 
under  a  general  undertaking  by  the  said  John  Smith 
and  the  plaintiff.  With  a  view  of  restoring  the  credit  of 
the  witness  which  it  was  claimed  was  thus  impaired,  the 
plaintiff  offered  to  prove  that  he  had  previously,  when 
not  under  oath,  made  declarations  consistent  with  his 
testimony  on  the  trial  in  respect  to  the  point  in  question. 
This  was  objected  to  by  the  defendant's  counsel ;  and  the 
objection  was  overruled  by  the  Referee,  and  the  evidence 
80  offered  was  received. 

Now,  of  course,  that  was  error : 

In  this,  we  think,  the  Referee  has  erred.  Mr.  Green- 
leaf,  in  his  treatise  on  Evidence,  states  the  rule  as  fol- 
lows :  "Where  evidence  or  contradictory  statements  by  a 
witness,  or  of  other  particular  facts,  is  offered  by  way  of 
impeaching  his  veracity,  his  general  character  for  truth 
being  thus,  in  some  sort,  put  in  issue,  it  has  been  deemed 
reasonable  to  admit  evidence  that  he  is  a  man  of  strict 
integrity  and  scrupulous  regard  for  truth.  But,  evidence 
that  he  has,  on  other  occasions,  made  statements  similar 
to  what  he  has  testified  to  in  the  case,  is  not  admissible 
unless  where  a  design  to  misrepresent  is  charged  upon 
the  witness  in  consequence  of  his  relations  to  the  party 
or  to  the  cause,  in  which  case  it  seems  that  it  may  be 
proper  to  show  that  he  made  a  similar  statement  before 
the  relation  existed." 

There  the  learned  Judge  recognizes  this  exception  to 
the  general  rule. 

So  much  of  the  rule  here  stated  as  allows  general  evi- 
dence of  good  character  for  truth  in  reply  to  contradic- 
tory statements  of  the  witness,  or  other  particular  facts, 
by  way  of  impeaching  his  veracity,  has  not  been  followed 
in  this  State. 

Then  he  quotes  the  People  agt.  Hulse,  in  the  3d  Hill, 
and  other  anthorlties : 

But,  in  relation  to  the  residue,  and  which  has  all  that 
apphes  to  the  question  under  consideration,  I  believe  it 


may  be  regarded  as  the  settled  law.  It  is  substantially 
laid  down  by  Mr.  Starkie. 

Then  he  quotes  the  authorities  already  referred  to. 
[Reading 

In  Robb  agt.  Hackley,  23  Wendell,  50,  Bronson,  Justice, 
says  :  "  As  a  general,  and  almost  universal  rale,  evidence 
of  what  the  witness  has  said  out  of  court  cannot  be  re- 
ceived to  fortify  his  evidence.  We  can  perceive  nothing 
in  the  present  case  to  bring  it  within  the  exception  to  the 
general  rule.  The  witness  has  sustained  but  one  relation 
to  the  party  in  the  cause  ;  and  that  relation  has  at  no 
time  been  changed." 

Now,  I  ask  your  Honor,  whether  or  not  the  relation  of 
Mrs.  Moulton  to  this  question  and  to  the  parties  to  this 
case  has  not  been  changed  ?  Is  it  to-day  what  it  was  in 
June,  1873  ?  The  counsel  upon  the  other  side  does  not 
meet  the  case  by  saying  that  she  is  the  wife  of  her  hus- 
band now,  and  was  the  wife  of  her  husband  then,  and 
therefore  the  same  relation  exists.  We  do  not  use  the 
term  "relation"  in  such  a limitM  sense  as  that.  "Rela- 
tion" there  is  a  synonym  of  "  attitude."  What  is  the  atti- 
tude, or,  if  you  please,  the  relation  of  Mrs.  Moulton  now 
compared  with  what  it  was  then?  Then  her 
husband  was  the  best  friend  that  God  ever 
raised  up  for  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  he  re- 
peated it  over  and  over  again  in  his  correspondence. 
He  was  putting  forth  every  exertion,  spending  his  time 
and  his  money,  exerting  his  influence  to  conceal  and  pre- 
vent this  scandal,  and  to  keep  it  beneath  the  surface,  and 
his  wife  was  co-operatmg  with  him.  They  aU  were  of 
one  mind,  they  all  had  but  one  object  to  accomplish,  and 
their  united  efforts  were  directed  to  the  accomplishment 
of  that  object.  Well,  your  Honor  knows  perfectly  well 
what  occurred  in  1874.  Then  Mr.  Beecher  discovered 
that  for  the  purpose  of  saving  himself  he  must  sacrifice 
this  God-given  friend,  and  he  tm-ned  upon  him  and  tried 
to  slay  him.  Instead  of  an  attitude  of  close,  intimate 
friendship,  there  came  to  be  an  attitude  of  personal  hos- 
tility. Mr.  Beecher  at  that  time  was  induced  to  believe, 
with  the  aid  of  two  lawyers,  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  levied 
blackmail  upon  him,  and  he  was  denounced  from 
one  end  of  the  universe  almost  to  the  other,  as  a  black- 
mailer. Well,  as  a  matter  of  course,  Mrs.  Moulton  sym- 
pathized with  her  husband  and  stood  by  him ;  and  her 
feelings  toward  Mr.  Beecher  tmderwent  a  change ;  and 
her  attitude  to-day  when  she  comes  upon  the  stand  is  as 
different  from  what  it  was  in  1873,  as  night  is  from  dark- 
ness. I  need  not  pursue  that  subject  any  further.  They 
say  that  in  1874,  after  this  breach  between  Mr.  Beecher 
and  Mr.  Moulton  occurred,  after  they  assumed  attitudes 
of  hostility  and  were  making  statements  and  counter- 
statements,  that  then  this  story  was  concocted  by  Mr. 
Moulton  and  forced  upon  his  wife,  and  that  she  has  told 
it  here  imder  his  infiuence.  How  shall  we  meet  that,  I 
say,  except  by  showing  that  when  these  relations  were 
different— when  this  friendly  feeling  existed  be- 
tween   herscT    and    Mr.     Beecher    and  between 


IHE   TILTON-BEECEEB  TBIAL. 


her  huslband  and  Mr.  Beeclier,  wlien  slie  was 
exhorting  tliose  who  had  charge  of  this  thing  to  give 
Mr.  Beecher  another  chance  to  save  him  from  destruc- 
tion, that  then  she  whispered  into  the  ears  of  her  private 
confidential,  bosom  friends  and  relatives,  the  same  story 
that  she  has  told  upon  the  stand  here?  And  then  what 
becomes  of  this  invention  in  1874  ?  Your  Honor  will  see 
the  wisdom  and  the  propriety,  and  the  necessity  also,  of 
administering  the  rule  as  we  say  it  exists,  or  the  excep 
tion  to  the  rule  as  we  say  it  exists,  by  permit- 
ting us  to  show  In  this  case,  in  order  to  get  rid 
of  those  foul  imputations  upon  this  good  woman, 
that  that  story  was  no  production  of  1874 ;  it  did  not 
grow  out  of  hostile  relations ;  it  was  not  the  fruit  of  that 
enmity  which  grew  up  between  these  parties  then,  but  it 
had  its  origin  when  her  heart  beat  in  unison 
with  Mr.  Beecher's  and  with  her  husband's, 
when  she  was  cooperating  with  them  to  save 
Mr.  Beecher  from  this  great  overshadowing  dis- 
grace, that  then  she  told  it,  and  told  it  as  she  has 
told  It  here.  What  we  contend  for,  therefore, 
is  the  administration  of  the  exception  to  the 
general  rule,  that  where  they  impute  to 
witness  a  recent  design  to  mislead  and  to  tell  a  false- 
hood, the  result  of  a  recent  influence,  that  we  may  go 
back  of  this  evidence,  and  show  that  at  a  time  long 
prior,  when  no  reason  for  falsehood  existed,  the  same 
story  was  told  for  the  purpose  of  corroborating  the  wit- 
ness. Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  will  not  advert  to 
the  other  authorities  which  have  been  cited  by 
the  counsel  upon  the  other  side,  because 
throughout  the  whole  of  them  there  is  a  recog- 
mtion  of  the  general  rule  that  you  cannot 
sustain  a  witness  iu  court  by  proving  that  that  witness 
told  the  same  story  out  of  court,  and  at  the  same  time 
they  recognize  and  enforce  the  exception  to  that  rule  as 
it  has  Ireen  stated  and  urged  upon  the  consideration  of 
your  Honor. 

JUDGE    NEILSON    ACKNOWLEDGES  PER- 
PLEXITY. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Fnllerton,  we  all  agree, 
of  course,  about  the  general  rule,  that  there  is  no  doubt 
about  it  as  settled  with  us,  and  the  writers  and  the  de- 
cisions very  often  speak  of  the  exception  to  the  general 
rule  as  stated  by  yourself  and  also  by  Mr.  Evarts.  Now, 
of  course  this  evidence  oould  not  be  offered,  and  would 
not  be  proper  matter  to  be  presented  save  for  the  reflection, 
aspersion,  or  whatever  it  may  be  called,  made  upon  Mrs. 
Moulton  in  the  opening  and  in  that  part  of  Mr.  Beecher's 
evidence  to  which  reference  has  been  made.  The  right 
to  claim  an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  or  to  have  evi- 
dence received  on  the  ground  that  it  is  to  contradict  the 
witness,  springs  out  of  that,  first,  the  opening ;  second, 
the  defendant's  suggestion  or  statement  in  regard  to  it. 
Well,  it  being  conceded  there  is  an  exception  to  the  gen- 


eral rule,  of  course  there  is  great  force  in  what 
^as  been  said.  What  troubles  me  is  this :  Suppose  the 
evidence  is  received  before  the  jury;  it  is  in  a  sense 
evidence  in  the  cause,  and  yet  it  is  not  evidence  to  con- 
firm what  Mr.  Moulton  said ;  it  is  not  evidence  to  prove " 
any  fact  whatever,  but  it  is  evidence  simply  to  push  aside 
and  get  rid  of  this  imputation  against  her,  and  could  it 
be  placed  before  the  jury  safely  with  an  instruction  to 
that  effect  and  limited  in  its  mfluence  % 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  that  ctuestion  would  have 
been  very  properly  put  when  this  rule  first  had  its  ori- 
gin ;  it  could  have  been  determined  then.  But  the  rule 
has  been  established,  Sir,  without  reference  to  any  conse- 
quences that  might  flow  from  it,  as  a  just  and  a  proper 
rule  to  be  administered  in  a  court  of  law. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  what  would  be  the  eflect  of  the 
evidence  upon  the  mind  of  the  jury  1  Anj^thing  beyond 
getting  rid  of  this  imputation? 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  am  not  here.  Sir,  to  speculate  upon 
what  effect  legitimate  evidence  will  have  upon  the  mind 
of  the  jury. 

Mr.  Beach— We  disclaim  any  purpose  of  arguing  for  any 
other  effect  than  for  the  restoration  of  Mrs.  Moulton  to 
her  true  position  as  a  witness. 

Judge  NeUson— By  way  of  answering  what  you  call  an 
aspersion. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir;  we  don't  contend  that  these  out- 
side declarations  of  Mrs.  Moulton  would  have  any  legiti- 
mate effect  to  establish  the  truth  of  the  allegations  made 
in  her  principal  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  this  is  to  me  an 
entirely  novel  proposition,  that  without  any  impeach- 
ment of  a  witness  there  can  be  corroboration  of  a  witness 
offered,  and  there  is  not  a  dictum,  an  argument,  or  a  sug- 
gestion in  the  text-books,  or  in  the  authorities,  but  what 
rests  wholly  upon  the  question  whether,  when  the  true 
measure  of  a  witness's  testimony  has  been  struck  down 
by  direct  or  collateral  impeachment,  you  can  or  cannot 
reinstate  it  by  these  out-of-court,  confirmatory  state- 
ments of  the  witness.  There  never  was  a  proposition 
that  you  could  do  that  in  the  first  instance.  The  proposi- 
tion was  that  if  contradictory  statements  out  of 
court  ■  were  given  in  evidence,  then  concurring 
statements  out  of  court  might  reinstate. 
But  it  never  was  dreamed  of  that  when  a  witness  had 
not  been  subjected  to  that  form  of  reduction  or  impeach- 
ment, such  a  witness  could  be  corroborated. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Evarts,  I  cite  you  to  the  case  of  the  ac- 
complice. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  it  in  my  hand ;  I  will  read  it.  I  said 
I  would  not  read  it,  because  it  had  been  overruled,  as  it 
has  been.  Now  I  will  read  it  and  show  you  that  I  am 
right. 

Mr.  Beach— I  guess  not.  [Laughter.] 
Mr.  Evarts— The  Courts  say : 

"  When  a  witness  has  sworn  and  testifies,  his  testimony. 


TESTIMONY  OF  JEEEMIAR  F.  EOBINSOy. 


469 


prima  facie,  is  entitled  to  iDelief .  If  Ms  character  is  at- 
tacked it  may  t»e  supported.  If  Ws  testimony  is  sliown 
by  other  witnesses  to  be  false  or  doubtful,  otber  witnesses 
may  be  introduced  to  sustain  the  testimony  as  given.'* 
That  we  all  understand.  "  If  a  witness  be  introduced 
by  the  defendant  to  show  that  the  plaintiff's  witness  has 
given  a  different  account  of  the  transaction  about  which 
he  has  been  testifying,  another  witness  may  be  intro- 
duced to  show  that  the  first  witness  has  on  previous  oc- 
casions given  the  same  relation  to  which  he  has  testified. 
It  is  not  proper  to  introduce  this  Mnd  of  testimony  in  the 
first  instance." 

This  never  came  in  except  in  rehabilitation  of  a  witness 
by  concurrent  statements  out  of  court,  when  he  had 
been  struck  out  by  showing  counter  statements  out  of 
court,  and  this  case,  and  all  the  old  cases  that  permit  the 
rehabilitation,  permit  it  only  as  a  rehabilitation.  No 
court,  at  any  time  that  the  rule  prevailed  that  you  could 
give  concurrent  statements  out  of  court — no  court 
ever  dreamed  that  you  could  bring  it 
in  before  the  testimony  had  been  reduced  by  direct  or 
collateral  impeachment.  Now,  the  rule  here  laid  down  in 
the  12  of  "Wendell,  that  ia  that  case,  where  there  had 
been  a  reduction  by  counter  statements  out  of  court,  that 
would  be  rehabilitation— that  rule  is  exploded.  Now, 
there  is  not  a  word  here  about  exceptions  in  this  case, 
and  that  I  will  show  you. 

Judge  Neilson— "Well,  where  the  authorities  do  recog- 
nize an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  what  is  that  excep- 
tion' 

Mr.  Evarts— There  is  not  an  authority  in  this  State  that 
has  ever  admitted  any  evidence  under  that  exception, 
not  one. 

Judge  Neilson— What  is  the  exception  ?  Is  there  an  ex- 
ception ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Nobody  can  tell  what  it  is  ;  it  is  a  semble  ; 
It  is,  "  it  seems  there  is  an  exception  but  so  far  as  it  is 
stated  it  comes  to  this  (and  I  am  going  to  discuss  it) — 
80  far  as  it  is  stated  it  comes  to  this,  that  although  the 
naked  fact  of  counter  statements  being  proved,  or  direct 
Impeachment,  is  not  enough  to  introduce  the  rehabili- 
tating evidence,  yet  if,  in  addition  to  that,  there  is  also  a 
changed  relation,  my  learned  friend  says  that  relation 
is  not  used  in  an  explicit  or  restricted  sense.  It  is  used, 
not  as  to  a  change  of  disposition,  but  a  change  of  relation, 
to  wit,  that,  having  been  a  partner  at  one  time,  and  so 
interested  to  state  so  and  so,  the  party,  the  witness,  had 
told  the  same  story  before  he  was  a  party  and  had  no 
Buch  interest. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  will  the  counsel  permit  me  to  refer 
him  to  an  authority,  and  read  a  word  or  two  from  it.  In 
the  case.  Sir,  of  The  People  agt.  Pinnegan  [reading]  : 

"  It  is  said  the  exceptions  to  the  rule,  as  now  established 
in  this  State,  are  when  the  witness  is  charged  with  giving 
his  testimony  under  the  influence  of  some  motive 
prompting  him  to  make  a  false  or  colored  statement,  in 
which  case,  it  is  said,  it  may  be  shown  that  he  made  simi- 
lar declarations  at  a  time  when  the  imputed  motive 
did  not  exist.  And  where  there  is  evidence  in 
contradiction  tending  to  show  that  the  account  of  the 


transaction  given  by  the  witness  is  a  production  of  a  late 
date,  It  is  said  that  it  may  be  shown  that  the  same  ac- 
count was  given  by  him  before  its  ultimate  effect  and 
operation,  arising  from  a  change  of  circumstances,  could 
have  been  foreseen"— referring  to  the  case  of  Eobb  and 
Hackley,  in  the  23d  of  "Wendell.  "But  neither  of 
these  exceptions  are"  (it  should  be  "is,"  I  sup- 
pose) "applicable  to  the  case  under  consideration. 
The  evidence  in  this  case  was  received  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  answering  the  doubts  attempted  to  be  thrown, 
&c.,  by  the  cross-examination.  But  it  was  not  admissible 
for 'that  purpose ;  it  stood  upon  the  same  footing  as  if  it 
had  been  offered  to  support  the  witness  after  other  wit- 
nesses had  been  called  to  contradict  it.  "What  Terhune 
had  previously  said  was  mere  hearsay,  and  could  add 
nothing,"  &c. 

Mr.  Evarts— "Very  well.  The  nearest  my  learned  friend 
gets  to  an  argument  is— that  it  is  said  so  and  so.  But  the 
decision  is  against  it,  and  there  is  not  a  case  that  has  per- 
mitted the  introduction  of  rehabilitating  evidence  in  thia 
State  except  when  the  rule  was  understood  to  be  that 
after  contradiction  you  could  then,  pure  and  simple,  ia- 
troduce,  without  relation  or  special  circumstances,  con- 
firmatory evidence— not  a  case.  And  in  that  case  the 
Court  says,  "  Why,  you  have  nothing  but  the  naked  case 
of  introducing  evidence,  just  as  if  you  had  been  contra- 
tradicted."  Now,  let  us  come  to  this  question  of  imputa- 
tion. The  imputation  is  in  the  opening  of  counsel.  Very 
well,  there  has  been  drawn  out  on  one  particular  question 
a  statement  of  Mr.  Beecher  that  INIrs.  Moulton  did  not 
make  that  statement  to  him,  and  then  a  superfluous 
statement  that  she  never  made  it  unless,  as  he  then  says, 
she  was  under  influence  or  something  of  that  kind. 
Now,  how  does  that  come  to  be  a  ground  of  saying  that 
a  witness  is  to  be  supported  by  earlier  state- 
ments agreeing  with  what  she  said  on  the  stand? 
WTiat,  if  I  had  called  witness  after  witness, 
not  resting  upon  the  opening  of  counsel,  nor  upon  this 
reference  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  his  estimate  of  her  character, 
altogether  in  her  favor,  and  putting  what  he  re- 
garded as  the  same  upon  another— what  if,  instead  of 
that,  I  had  brought  witness  after  witness  to  prove  that 
this  lady  had  made  absolutely  contradictory  statements 
up  to  the  very  day  she  knew  her  husband  and  Mr. 
Beecher  had  quarreled,  as  they  say,  in  1874,  to  take  their 
view  of  it— supposing  I  called  witness  after  witness  to 
prove  tb  at  this  lady,  up  to  that  day,  had  said  that  Mi-. 
Beecher  never  had  such  a  conversation  with  her. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  would  not  open  the  door  to 
this  evidence. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  would  not.  And  is  not  that  more  of 
an  imputation,  and  under  oath  of  proving  that  she  said 
so  and  so,  of  proving  as  matter  of  fact  that  up  to  a  date 
she  had  one  view,  and  her  view  here  comes  after  that 
date— and  would  it  not  be  as  vital,  as  essential,  in  her  in- 
terest and  the  interest  of  the  cause  that  she  espoused,  to 
be  permitted  to  introduce  her  statements  out  of  court  to 
concur  with  her  statement  in  court,  and  beat  down  not 


470 


IRE   TILION-BEECHEB  TEIAL. 


mere  imputations,  but  sworn  testimony,  that 
she  had  a  different  opinion  and  expressed  it 
up  to  the  disposition  alleged  t  That  would  not  have  been 
admitted.  And  yet  my  learned  friends  think  that  the 
law,  in  its  care  that  testimony  shall  be  of  a  quality  to  be 
credited  and  have  its  true  weight  as  proving  the  thing 
spoken  about,  will  exclude  it  when  direct  proof  has  been 
introduced,  all  of  which  may  be  false,  that  the  lady  has 
spoken  a  contradictory  mind  up  to  the  date  of  the  sup- 
posed change  of  relation,  and  there  is  no  license  to  intro- 
duce one  particle  of  this  evidence.  And  yet  if,  in  a  wit- 
ness who  does  not  say  that  she  has  ever  testified  to  the 
contrary,  but  who  contradicts  her  and  says  also,  "  That 
statement  she  never  made  to  me ;  she  never  made  it  at 
all  unless  under  influence"— under  that,  which  is  mere 
rhetoric  and  not  testimony,  under  the  opening  of  counsel 
which  is  their  view  of  the  character  and  conduct  of  wit- 
nesses that  have  been  called,  and  are  to  be  called,  there 
is  gained  an  authority  to  introduce  hearsay  evidence, 
that  the  law  discards  even  when  the  contrary  evidence 
up  to  the  very  day  and  date  of  the  supposed  change  of 
feeling  and  opinion  makes  it  so  important  to  the 
witness  that  the  antecedent  concurrent  views 
should  be  expressed.  Now.  the  Court  goes  on  in  this  case  : 

It  is  not  proper  to  introduce  this  kind  of  testimony  in 
the  first  instance.  Should  a  party  offer  to  do  so,  it  would 
show  that  he  was  conscious  his  own  witness  required 
support,  and  without  it  was  unworthy  of  belief. 

Now,  this  is  the  law  ;  it  is  received  only  in  reply  and  in 
answer  to  doubts  attempted  to  be  raised  by  the  other 
party,  by  impeaching  the  witness,  either  by  testimony 
(that  is  direct  impeachment)  or  by  cross-examination 
(which  is  collateral),  or  it  may  be  proper  when  a  witness 
stands  unpeached  by  the  direct  testimony  given  by  him- 
self, as  in  the  present  case. 

Now,  they  go  on  and  say,  "  The  witness  says  on  his  di- 
rect examination  that  he  was  an  accomplice ;  his  testi- 
mony is  therefore  suspicious.  It  comes  from  a  tainted 
source,  and  may  well  be  doubted.  In  such  a  case  it 
seems  to  me  the  principle  applies  that  a  witness  who  is 
impeached  may  be  supported."  I  have  not  impeached. 
The  best  they  can  make  out  of  the  case  is  that  they  get 
an  analogy  between  a  man  that  by  his  position  of 
an  accomplice  is  quasi  impeached,  to  put  him  on 
the  same  footing  as  if  the  party  had  actually  impeached 
him.  Now,  is  there  anything  contradictory  to  my 
proposition  in  that  t  I  do  not  think  the  reasontag  is  very 
good  which  says  the  party  was  in  that  position,  but  it 
does  not  profess  to  get  the  whole  of  a  rule  of  law  upon 
Mm  except  by  puttiag  him  upon  the  analogy  that  he  is  in 
a  situation  in  which  a  witness  is  who  has  been  impeached. 

These  positions  are  believed  to  be  so  near  to  elementary 
principles  that  few  adjudications  are  to  be  found  to  sus- 
tain them. 

And  then  he  goes  on  and  cites  the  old  doctrines  of 
Hawkins  [Hawkins's  Treatise— Luttrell  agt.  Reynal]  on 
the  intended  proposition.  Hawkins  says  : 


What  a  witness  hath  been  heard  to  say  at  another  time 
may  be  given  iu  evidence  in  order  either  to  invalidate  or 
to  confirm  the  testimony  which  he  gives  in  court. 

That  is  exploded  in  England  we  say.  Now,  the  Court 
go  on  and  say : 

No  one  ever  pretended  that  his  declaration  not  under 
oath  was  equal  to  his  testimony  under  oath,  nor  is  it  in 
that  point  of  view  that  confirmatory  evidence  was  ever 
given.  The  question  is.  Will  the  fact  of  his  having  often 
related  the  same  story  which  he  has  now  sworn  to  tend 
to  rebut  the  prejudice  raised  against  him  by  his  having 
given  a  contrary  or  different  relation  1 

That  is  the  only  shape  that  in  any  of  our  law  books  the 
question  ever  has  been  presented.  There  never  has  been 
a  time,  in  Westminster  Hall  or  here,  that  you  introduced 
corroborative  evidence  of  a  witness  not  attacked  and  re- 
duced by  evidence  could  have  been  sustained.  Mr. 
Starkie  admits  there  may  be  cases  where  such  testimony 
may  be  proper,  as  where  it  rebutted  the 
idea  that  it  was  a  recent  fabrication,  and 
when  it  was  given  before  time  was  afforded  for  contriv- 
ance; that  is,  after  that  testimony  had  been  given.  "But 
I  apprehend  the  true  question  in  all  cases  is  whether  such 
confirmatory  evidence  can  tend  to  the  sustaining  and 
supporting  of  the  testimony  of  the  witness  who  has  been 
impeached.  If  it  can  have  that  tendency  it  is  testimony 
of  which  the  party  may  avaU.  himself.  How  much 
weight  it  is  entitled  to  is  for  the  considera 
tion  of  the  jury  under  the  advice  of  the  Court."  The  rule 
itself  was  established  long  before  the  trials  aUuded  to 
(i.  e.,  some  Irish  trials).  "It  was  recognized  by  Chief- 
Justice  Tighlman,  in  the  first  of  Sergeant  &  Kawle, 
who  says"— now,  these  were  the  bases  of  the  rule,  even 
when  it  was  liberal : 

It  was  recognized  by  Chief-Justice  Tilghman,  who 
said:  "When  the  credit  of  a  witness  is 
impeached  by  evidence  that  he  had  said 
something  at  another  time  inconsistent  with  what  he  has 
sworn,  this  may  be  rebutted  by  proof  of  other  declara- 
tions by  him  in  conformity  to  what  he  has  sworn,  be- 
cause both  being  under  oath,  one  is  as  good  as  the  other, 
and  the  jury  wiU  judge  of  his  credit  on  the  whole. 

The  same  rule  was  adopted,  and  was  recognized  by 
Washington,  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  who  says; 

Declarations  of  a  witness  cannot"  be  given  in  evidence, 
except  in  answer  to  other  declarations  of  the  witness  in- 
consistent with  what  he  had  before  sworn  to.  Now, 
surely"— so  the  Court  proceeds—"  the  only  reason  for 
giving  evidence  of  contradictory  declarations  of  a  wit- 
ness is  to  discredit  the  witness  and  impeach  his  credi- 
bility. When  evidence  has  been  given  to  pro- 
duce that  effect,  it  may  be  rebutted  by 
evidence  which  destroys  the  effect  of  such 
testimony.  And,  as  it  has  been  before  remarked,  it  can 
make  no  difference  in  principle  whether  the  impeach- 
ment arises  from  evidence  discrediting  the  witness,  or 
from  a  cross-examination  or  a  direct  examination,  if  the 
witness  stands"— (his  own  direct  examination  that  is,  of 
course)—"  like  a  man  who  swore  he  was  an  accomplice.* 

Has  Mrs.  Moulton  sworn  she  was  an  accomplice  f 


TESTIMONY   OF  J EE_ 

Mr.  Beach— No,  but  your  proposition  was  tliat  tMs  evi- 
dence  could  not  be  admitted  unless  there  was  an  attack 
from  affirmative  evidence  outside. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  did  say  so,  exactly,  and  I  haTe  proved  it 
by  every  word  that  I  have  read,  excepting  that  the 
learned  Court  tries  to  argue  that  an  accomplice  who  dis- 
credits himself  gets  within  the  analogy  of  having  been 
discredited  by  evidence.  If  Mrs.  Moulton  has  sworn  that 
she  is  an  accomplice— if  you  put  her  in  that  attitude — 
why,  then,  your  case  is  such  that  perhaps  you  may  be 
able  to  show  what  she  said  before  she  became  an  accom- 
plice, though  it  is  very  shardowy,  this  accomplice  view,  in 
any  case. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  proof  puts  her  in  that  position. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  does  not.  But  even  if  it  does— even  if  it 
does,  it  is  only  by  having  witnesses  prove  this,  that  and 
the  other  thing.  The  question  is,  whether  you  have  been 
directly  impeached,  either  by  the  principal  impeachment, 
or  by  collateral  impeachment,  or  by  this  guasi  or  imag- 
inary impeachment,  of  your  own  statement,  that  you  are 
an  accomplice— an  actual  accomplice  in  crime  as  you  say, 
but  of  course  the  jury  do  not  like  to  believe  you  if  they 
can  help  it.  That  has  been  always  the  rule.  Now,  when 
it  was  the  law  that  when  a  witness  had  been  so  reduced 
by  evidence,  you  could  rebut  by  concurrent  statements, 
such  evidence  was  admitted;  but  never,  even  in 
that  state  of  the  law,  except  in 
rebuttal  of  direct  evidence,  or  collateral 
evidence  of  impeachment ;  that  is,  contradictory  state- 
ments out  of  coTirt.  But  our  courts  have  exploded  that, 
and  since  they  exploded  that  general  rule  no  witness  has 
been  admitted  in  any  court  in  this  State  to  give  corrob- 
orative evidence  of  extra-judicial  statements  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  the  witness  has  sworn  in  Court.  Every 
case  that  has  been  attempted  to  be  made  an  exception, 
and  in  which  it  has  been  sought  to  be  Introduced,  this 
infraction  of  the  rule  of  evidence  has  failed.  All  that 
there  is— and  it  is  more  important  in  Finnegan's  case 
than  any  other— is  this :  "  It  is  said— it  is  said"  that  you 
may  rebut  impeaching  evidence  if  you  have  also 
the  fact  of  changed  relation;  but  if  you  have 
not  that  fact  of  changed  relation,  then  you  cannot  rebut. 
But  here  the  effort  is  ,not  to  rebut,  for  no  evidence  has 
been  offered,  none  pretended;  and  if  we  had  offered,  you 
could  not  introduce  this,  because  there  is  no  changed  re- 
lation. The  imputation  is  that  the  wife  falls  under  the 
husband's  power.  If  she  had  married  since  June,  1873, 
and  her  statements  now,  made  under  that  imi  utation  of 
marital  authority,  could  be  shown  to  be  corroborated  by 
statements  out  of  coxrrt,  and  we  had  impeached  her  by 
statements  out  of  court  to  the  contrary  of  what  she  now 
says,  they  might  have  brought  themselves  within  the 
ground  of  arguing  to  your  Honor  whether  the  law  of  this 
State  made  any  such  exception  aa  they  contend  for.  Now, 
If  your  Honor  please— 


mAH  P.   BOB  IN  SON.  471 

A  DOUBTFXJL  VICTORY  FOR  DEFENDAI^T'S 
COUNSEL. 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  quite  satisfied  about 
this.  In  the  first  place,  without  assimiing  to  deny  that 
there  may  be  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  of  evi- 
dence reaching  a  question  of  this  kind  (because  it  would 
be  remarkable  if  we  could  And  a  rule  without  an  excep- 
tion or  qualification),  the  real  basis  for  this  application 
is  found  iathe  opening  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  de- 
fendant, and  in  an  observation  made  by  the  defendant 
himself  in  giving  his  testimony— an  observation  suggest- 
ive and,  as  has  been  said,  rhetorical.  Now,  that  part 
of  the  openiQg  of  the  learned  counsel,  If  it  haa 
not  been  proved,  goes  for  nothing.  If  it  has  not  been 
proved  it  ought  not  to  have  been  made;  it  is  unsupported, 
and  therefore  might  as  well  not  exist  This  observation 
made  by  the  defendant,  after  having  answered  the  ques- 
tion put  to  him,  was  uncalled  for— his  mere  optoion.  It 
does  not  appear  to  have  any  basis  to  rest  upon,  and  does- 
not  indeed  seem  to  be  entitled  to  be  called  even  an  opin- 
ion. It  is  an  uncharitable  observation,  resting,  at  most, 
in  mere  conjecture  and  suspicion.  The  theory, 
the  suggestion  whether  it  is  in  the  evi- 
dence, or  whether  it  is  in  the  opening,  or  in  the 
argument,  or  anywhere  else— the  theory  that  a 
wife  who  comes  and  testifles  on  oath  before  the  court,^ 
and  who  is  ca'oss-examined  with  diligence  and  acuteness, 
is  overshadowed  by  her  husband  and  is  under  his  control 
and  influence,  is  a  demoralizing  theory  unworthy  of  a 
court  of  justice,  and  I  shall  instruct  the  jury  not  to  be 
carried  away  by  any  such  proposition.  Better  have  no 
husbands  if  women  cannot  come  into  court  withont 
being  perverted  in  their  moral  sense  and  led  to  fabricate 
and  invent  and  swear  to  things  which  did  not  occur.  I 
think  this  evidence  cannot  be  received. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor  will  permit  ujs  to  make  the 
offer  in  form. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— We  offer  to  prove  by  the  witness  upon  the 

stand  that  on  the  evening  

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  already  made. 

Mr.  Beach— Sir  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  already  made. 

Mr.  Beach— Then  I  will  re-make  it.  [To  the  Court.]  We 
offer  to  prove  by  this  witness  that  on  the  evening  of  the 
2d  of  June,  1873,  he  eaUed  at  the  house  and  saw  IVIrs. 
Moulton,  and  that  Mrs.  Moulton  then,  being  somewhat 
discomfited  and  agitated,  communicated  to  him  the 
facts  of  the  conversation  between  herself  and  Mr. 
Beecher  had  upon  that  day,  in  conformity  with  the  evi- 
dence which  she  has  given  in  court ;  and  we  except  if 
your  Honor  excludes  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  it  is  nUed  out. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  witness  has  already  stated  about  Ills 
not  being  able  to  identify  the  time. 


472  TEE  TILTON-BE 

Jvidge  Neilson— This  is  an  oflfer  of  proof  ? 

Mr.  Beacli— Yes,  and  if  this  witness  shall  not  identify 
it  we  offer  to  prove  the  same  facts  hy  the  testimony  of 
Mrs.  Eddy  

Mr.  Morris— Who  met  him  on  the  stoop  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  an  offer  of  proof  hy  the  wit- 
ness. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  when  the  gentleman  gets  up  to 
interfere  with  an  offer  of  evidence  that  I  make,  and 
makes  his  interruption  hy  way  of  comment  upon  the  wit- 
ness upon  the  stand,  and  suggests  that  the  witness  has 
already  testified,  I  make  that  additional  offer  to  meet 
that  suggestion,  and  I  will  maintain  the  offer  that  I 
make. 

Mr.  Evarts— With  regard  to  Mrs.  Eddy,  we  will  hear 
ahout  her  whenever  she  is  offered. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  you  have  heard  about  her  now. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  hut  not  in  the  sense  that  I  mean. 

Judge  Neilson— The  counsel  has  a  right  to  make  his 
offer. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  she  is  in  court,  and  if  you  want 
us  to  put  her  upon  the  stand  we  will  do  so. 

Judge  Neilson— Your  offer  stands  in  the  terms  in  which 
it  was  originally  made,  and  it  is  not  overruled  from  any 
question  about  the  date. 

Mr.  Morris— We  want  that  offer  made  of  Mrs.  Eddy's 
testimony. 

Mr.  Beach— I  make  the  same  offer  with  regard  to  Mrs. 
Eddy,  a  lady  who  is  in  attendance  in  court. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  say  anything  about  that. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  ask  you  to  say  anything  ahout  it,  nor 
care  whether  you  say  anything  or  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— When  the  witness  is  offered  we  will  have 
something  to  say. 

Mr.  Beach— I  offer  her  now. 

Mr.  Evarts— Ah!  When   she  is  called  we  will  see 
about  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Is  it  necessary  to  call  her  upon  the  stand, 
Sir,  in  order  to  make  an  offer  ? 

Judge  NeUson— I  think  it  is  a  matter  of  form.  I  don't 
know  why  the  counsel  should  be  compelled  to  call  her 
upon  the  stand. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  matter.  Sir,  is  in  the  confusion  be- 
tween what  is  this  evidence  that  is  excluded,  and  alleged 
statements  of  facts  that  may  be  good  evidence.  1  don't 
know  what  matter  of  fact  they  may  have  a  right  to 
prove.  I  say  that  they  cannot  prove  what  Mrs.  Moulton 
said  to  other  people  before  this  trial,  and  any  offer  to 
prove  that  is  covered  by  this,  no  doubt,  without  the  need 
of  bringing  in  any  witness's  name  

Mr.  Beach— Very  well. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  then  it  must  not  be  mixed  up  with  the 
proof  of  some  person  going  there  on  a  certain  day,  and  aU 
that  

Judge  Neilson— I  think  his  offer  might  be  taken  down 
in  the  terms  he  proposes.  I  don't  see  any  objection  to  it. 


EdRJEE  TRIAL. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MRS.  SAEAH  C.  EDDY. 
Mrs.  Sarali  C.  Eddy,  a  witness  called  on  be- 
half of  the  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn,  testified  as  fol- 
lows : 

By  Mr.  Fullert on— Where  do  you  reside,  Mrs.  Eddy  1 
A.  In  Brooklyn. 

Q.  What  street  and  nrmiber  ?  A.  124  Montague-st. 

Q.  Be  kind  enough  to  state  your  husband's  name  ?  A. 
Robert  Eddy. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  Brooklyn  ?  A.  I  have 
resided  in  Brooklyn  ten  years. 

Q.  Before  that  where  did  you  reside  ?  A.  In  New- 
York. 

Q.  With  your  father  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  who  is  your  father  ?  A.  Josiah  Sutherland. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Moulton  and  his 
family  1  A.  I  am. 

Q.  State  whether  you  have  been  in  the  habit  of  visiting 
IMrs.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  have,  frequently. 

Q.  When  did  your  intimacy  or  acquaintance  first  com- 
mence ?  A.  About  fifteen  years  ago. 

Q.  Before  or  after  your  marriage  ?  A.  Just  before  my 
marriage. 

Q.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  year  1873  ;  do 
you  recollect  visiting  Mrs.  Moulton  during  that  year  %  A, 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  did  she  reside  in  1873 1  A.  49  Remsen-st. 
Q.  Where  she  now  resides  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  ?  A.  I  have 
met  him. 

Q.  When  did  your  acquaintance  with  him  commence  ? 
A.  I  think  in  1871. 

Q.  State  whether  at  any  time  in  1873  you  met  him  at 
or  near  Mr.  Moulton's  house  in  Remsen-sti  A.  I  met 
him  just  at  or  on  the  steps  of  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  once, 
I  think,  in  the  morning  

Q.  Where  were  you  1  A.  I  was  just  going  into  the 
house. 

Q.  You  were  ascending  the  steps  as  he  was  descending ! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Beecher  at  that  time ! 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  he  saluted  you  1  A.  He  did 
not. 

Q.  Did  you  salute  him  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  What  was  his  appearance  when  you  met  him  on  that 
occasion,  Mrs.  Eddy  ?  A.  He  didn't  notice  me  ;  he  seemed 
absorbed. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  one  in  the  doorway  or  near  the  door 
of  Mr.  Moulton's  house  as  you  ascended  the  steps  when 
you  met  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  didn't  observe  any- 
body ;  Mrs.  Moulton  opened  the  door  for  me  ;  the  door 
was  shut,  and  she  must  have  seen  me  coming  up  the 
steps. 

Q,  Why  do  you  think  80  1  A.  Because  r  he  ciHiied  tho 
door  for  me- 


TESTUIOyY  OF  MF. 

Q.  WittLOut  TOOT  rin.ging  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Or  knoekiiig?   A.  I  didn't  knock. 
Q.  2v'orring  ?   A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  3Irs.  MoulTon  let  tou  in,  did  slie  ?   A.  Slie  did. 

Q.  What  "svas  Mrs.  Moulton's  condition  as  slie  ap- 
peared? A.  Slie  seemed  agitated. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  tliat.  We  liad  notMng  to  say 
about  tliat. 

Judge  Xeilson— I  tMnk  vre  -will  take  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  vrill  note  our  exception. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Wiat  was  Mrs.  Moulton's  condition  when  you 
entered  tlie  room  or  the  hall?  A.  She  was  agitated. 

Q.  State  if  yon  can— indicate  if  you  please  to  what  ex- 
tent—-whether  it  was  slight  or  considerable?  A.  She 
seemed  greatly  agitated. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  to  her  upon  th.e  subject  of  her 
then  agitation  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Erarts-I  object  to  any  couTersation  between  this 
lady  and  Mrs.  Moulton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  brings  us  now  right  to  the  point. 
I  propose  to  sh.ow  by  this  witness  that  Mrs.  Moulton 
then  and  there  told  her  wliat  had  just  taken  place  between 
Mr.  Beecher  and  herself,  in  which  she  related  substan- 
tially tlie  same  story  she  h.as  testified  to  here  as  a  witness. 

Judge  ]S'eilson— The  same  ruling,  and  of  course  you  will 
take  the  same  exception. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  except  to  your  Honor's  ruling. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— State  whether  you  were  in  the  habit 
of  going  into  the  country  during  the  Summer  months  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  into  the  coimtry  in  the  year  1873  in  th.e 
Summer  months  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  WTiere  did  you  spend  the  Summer  1  A.  In  Dutcliess 
County,  town  of  Stanford. 

Q.  What  season  of  the  year  did  y«u  go  ?  A.  The  tirst 
day  of  July,  I  think. 

Q.  Ho"vr  long  was  it  before  you  went  into  the  country 
in  the  Summer  of  1S73  that  you  visited  Mrs,  Moulton 
and  found  lier  in  this  state  of  agitation  as  you  liave 
described,  and  when  you  met  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  think 
shortly  before  I  went ;  I  cannot  state  the  time  positively. 

Q.  Weli,  you  think  it  was  shortly  before  you  went  into 
the  country  ?   A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Within  what  period  of  time  ?  A.  Within  a  few 
■weeks  :  I  cannot  state  po.-itively. 

Q.  One  of  the  jurors  asks  what  time  in  the  day  or 
morning  you  went  there  1  A.  I  can't  remember  ;  I  think 
It  was  in  the  morning,  but  I  don't  remenfber  what  time 
of  day. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  morning  do  you  mean  by  that 
term  ?  A.  Well,  I  should  think  early  morning— pretty 
early, 

Q.  Well,  about  what  time !  A.  ^^^^oot,  perhaps,  11  or 
12  c'clocb. 


5.   SAFAM   C.   FDJJY.  473 

CROSS-EXAMiyATIOX   OF  MES.  EDDY. 

By  ]yir.  Evarts— Wliat  does  tout  intimacy  or 
acquaintance  with  Mrs.  Moulton  or  Mr.  Moulton  date 
from  ?  A.  About  the  time  of  my  marriage. 

Q.  What  is  your  husband's  name  ?   A.  Eobert  Eddy. 

Q.  What  connection  or  relation  had  he,  or  h.as  he,  witli 
the  business  of  Woodruff  &  Eobinson  ?  A.  He  is  book- 
keeper in  their  establishment,  I  think. 

Q.  And  for  what  length,  of  time  has  he  been  ?  A,  I 
think  17  or  IS  years.   I  do  not  

Q.  He  was  so  when  you  were  married,  and  has  re- 
mained so?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  h.e  in  the  employment  of  the  new  firm !  A.  Yea, 
Sir. 

Q.  Jsow,  why  do  you  think  it  was  as  late  as  11  o'clock 
that  you  called  at  that  house  on  the  occasion  that  you 
have  spoken  oti  A.  I  usually  called  tliere  about  that 
time  in.  th.e  morning.  I  don't  frequently  get  out  before 
that  time  in  the  morning. 

Q.  ^'ot  before  11  ?   A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  How  far  is  your  house  from  theirs  ?  A.  Only  a  3h.ort 
distance. 

Q.  In  the  same  street  ?  A.  2s  o,  Sir.  I  live  on  Montague- 
st. 

Q.  Well,  the  same  block  ?  A.  Xo,  Sir,  about  two  blocks 
away,  I  should  think,  or  two  and  a  half. 

Q.  And  was  your  intimacy  such  that  you  were  iu  the 
habit  of  running  arotind  there — making  informal  calls  as 
ladies  intimate  do  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  on  this  occasion  that  you  called  you  have  no 
means  of  identifying  the  time  any  nearer  tlian  that  it  waa 
a  few  weeks  before  tlie  first  of  July  1  A.  2^o,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  :ylr.  wniis  E.  CaldweU?  A.  I  do,  Sir. 

Q.  He  is  a  friend  of  yours,  is  he  not  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  A  family  friend  2  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  about  his  going  to  Europe  that 
Summer,  and  when  that  occurred  ?  A.  I  remember — he 
frequently  goes  to  Europe  in  th.e  Summer  season  ;  I  don't 
remember  that  particular  Summer. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  about  that  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  don't  know  wh.ether  this  visit  you  made  waa 
before  or  after  lie  went  to  Europe  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Mrs.  Eddy,  do  you  remember  whetlier  at  the  time  of 
this  call  Mr.  Moulton  was  sick  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  don't  re- 
memt)er. 

Q.  Wbat  is  :s-our  recollection  on  that  subject?  A-  I 
think  he  was  not  sick  in  the  hou^e. 

Q.  Well,  was  he  sick?   A.  Tliat  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Have  you  no  association  of  his  sickness  with  thia 
call  of  yours?  A.  I  don't  recollect ;  I  think  I  asked  3Ir8. 
Moulton  whether  her  husband  was  sick  

Q.  No  matter  about  the  conversation;  it  is  onlyyoor 
own  memory  I  ask  you  about.   A.  I  don't  recollect,  Sit. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  as  to  whether,  at  oi 
about  this  time  of  your  call,  ^Ir.  Moulton  was  understood 
by  you  to  be  sick  ?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  about  it,  Sir 


474 


THE   TILTON- BEECH  EE  TRIAL. 


Q.  No  impression  on  that  subject?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  of  his  being  sick  at  all  that  Summer  ? 
A.  I  don't  remember  that  particular  Simimer,  Sir ;  he  has 
irequpntly  been  sick. 

Q.  But  you  have  no  association  of  this  call  of  yours 
with  his  sickness?  A.  No,  Sir. 

MRS.  EMMA  C.  MOULTON  RECALLED. 

Emma  C.  Moulton,  a  witness  on  behalf  of 
plaintiff,  was  then  recalled  and  further  examined : 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Mrs.  Moulton,  you  are  acquainted 
with  Mrs.  Eddy,  the  witness  who  last  testified?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  call  she  made  upon  you  in  1873, 
to  which  she  has  testified  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  On  what  day  was  that  call  made  with  reference  to 
the  conversation  which  you  had  with  Mr.  Beecher,  which 
you  have  testified  to,  and  which  was  supposed  to  be  on 
the2dof  Jime?  A.  On  Monday,  Sir. 

Q.  On  what  day  was  Mrs.  Eddy's  caU,  with  reference  to 
that  conversation?  A.  It  was  on  the  same  day. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Beecher  just  leaving  the  house  when  Mrs. 
Eddy  entered  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  think  he  had  just  left  the 
house. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  all  that  I  will  prove  by  Mrs. 
Moulton  now.  I  shall  have  to  recall  her  again  on  other 
topics. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Fullerton]— Well,  I  think  you 
should  [To  the  witness.  J  Wait  one  moment,  madam. 

[Mr.  Beach  and  Mr.  Fullerton  held  a  brief  whispered 
consultation.] 

Mr.  Beach— We  have  only  at  this  moment  recalled  Mrs. 
Moulton  for  the  purpose  of  closing  up  the  subject  which 
was  introduced  by  Mrs.  Eddy.  We  shall  be  under  the 
necessity  of  recalling  her  again  in  regard  to  some  points 
of  evidence  connected  with  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tracy. 

Judge  Neilson— You  can  do  so;  it  was  proper  to  call 
her  while  Mrs.  Eddy  was  here,  of  course. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  suppose  I  may  as  well  close  up  my  part 
of  this  business  now. 

Judge  Neilson— As  you  please.  Sir. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MRS.  MOULTON. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— Do  you  mean  to  say,  Mrs. 
Moulton,  that  Mrs.  Eddy  called  on  you  on  the  2d  day  of 
June  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  it  was  on  the  day  that  I  had  that 
conversation  with  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  stated  that  that  was  the  2d  of  June  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  recollect  that  day,  d^i  you  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  As  being  the  date  that  she  called  ?  A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  You  think  so?  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  I  rememi^br  distinctly 
her  calling  

Q.  You  remaraber  her  calling,  but  I  ask  you  if  you 
remember  her  calling  on  the  2d  of  June  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir; 
I  remember  her  calling  on  the  2d  of  June. 


Q.  What  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  do  you  recollect  it  was  the  2d  of  Junet 
A.  Because  it  was  on  the  2d  of  June  that  I  had  that  con 
versation  witk  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  only  way  you  recollect  Mrs.  Eddy's 
calling  as  being  the  2d  of  June?  A.  That  was  the  only 
conversation  that  I  had  with  him  where  he  talked  of  sui- 
cide, and  I  repeated  that  to  her— that  was  on  the  2d  of 
Jane. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  not  asked  about  your  conversation 
with  him.   T  ask  to  have  that  stricken  out. 
Judge  NeUson— Yes. 

Q.  The  only  association  that  you  have  of  Mrs.  Eddy's 
call  with  the  2d  of  June  is  its  being  the  time  that  you 
had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Beecher,  is  it  ?  A.  I  think 
that  is  the  only  way  that  I  can  fix  it ;  that  she  came  in  on 
that  day,  and  that  I  repeated  that  conversation — 

Q.  On  the  day  of  the  conversation?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  the  2d 
of  June. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  move  to  have  that  struck  out  about  re- 
peating the  conversation. 
Judge  NeUson— Yes. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  in  Mrs.  Eddy's  caU  that  has  relar 
tion  to  the  2d  day  of  June  ?  A.  Only  the  fact  that  I  re- 
peated the  conversation  to  her. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  was  not  a  call  before  she 
there.  I  ask  to  have  that  evidence  struck  out,  if  yo^ 
Honor  please. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Q.  Was  there  anythiaj?  in  Mrs.  Eddy's  call,  in  its 
pose,  that  had  to  do  with  the  2d  of  June  ?  A.  I  cai 
fixthecaUinany  other  way  than  in  relation  to  the 
versation  which  I  repeated  to  her. 

Q.  Then  it  is  only  in  regard  to  your  opinion  that  yc 
had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  2d  of  June,  \ 
that  you  think  she  called  on  the  2d  of  June,  is  it  ?  A.  i 
Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well.   [To  Judge  Neilson.]  AU  ref- 
erence to  the  conversation  I  ask  to  have  struck  out. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Mitchell— Frederick  Mitchell. 

TESTIMONY  OF  FREDERICK  W.  MITCHELL. 

Frederick  W.  Mitchell,  a  witness  called  on| 
behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn,  testified : 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Mitchell,  where  do  you  reside  li] 
A.  I  reside  in  Norwalk,  Conn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  do  business  ?  A.  I  have  at  present] 
no  occupation. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  in  1872  and  1873  ?  A. 
occupation  in  1873  was  speculator  in  the  house  of  W.  B.|l 
Farr  &  Co.,  in  No.  2  Exchange-court,  New- York. 

Q.  In  1871, what  was  your  business?  A.  From  the  1st 
of  February  to  the  1st  of  October  I  was  employed  bj 
Woodhull,  Clafiin  &  Co. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  1  A.  Bookkeeper. 


Ti:S11210yF  OF   FREDERICK    W.  MITCHELL. 


475 


Q.  ^at  offices  did  tliey  occupy  at  tliat  time  ?  A.  44 
Broad-st. 

Air.  Beacli  [to  tlie  witness]— You  seem  to  be  able- 
bodied,  Mr.  ilitctiell.   Please  speak  a  little  louder. 

By  ilr.  Fullerton — Hovr  long  did  tliey  occupy  tlie  offices 
at  44  Broad-st  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  exactly  tLovr 
long.  I  know  tliey  were  tliere  wlien  I  went  there,  and 
how  long  they  occupied  them  after  I  left  them  I  don't 
know;  I  am  unable  to  say. 

Q.  When  did  you  leave  them  '?  A.  The  1st  of  October, 
1871. 

Q.  Did  you  visit  them  after  they  removed  their  office 
from 44 Broad-st.  ?   A.  Iso,  Sir. 

Q.  You  left  their  employ  when  1  A.  The  Ist  of  October, 
1871. 

Q.  Did  you  know  a  colored  boy  in  their  employ  by  the 
name  of  Woodley !  A.  I  did. 

Q.  During  what  period  was  he  in  their  employ  ?  A.  I 
think  he  was  there  during  the  whole  time  I  was  there. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  ?  A.  Well,  he  didn't  appear  to  be 
in  anything,  hardly — that  is,  in  particular.  He  was 
sweeping  out  the  office  once  in  a  while,  and  would  take  a 
few  newspapers  out  and  sell  them,  for  something  to  eat, 
I  suppose.   He  was  very  poor. 

'^Ix.  Evarts— Well,  speculations  

By  3Ir.  Beach— Sell  them  on  his  own  account  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

-\Ir,  Fullerton— That  was  not  a  speculation.  [To  the 
witness.]  Do  you  know  whether  he  had  any  education  ? 
A.  I  don't  think  he  did,  because  he  could  scarcely  write 
his  name ;  I  know  that. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  could  read?  A.  I  don't 
remember. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  his  ever  making  selections  from  ex- 
changes to  be  printed  ?   A.  I  don't  think  he  ever  did. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  the  question  is  what  you  know. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  ever  see  him  do  anything  of 
that  kind  ?   A.  >'o.  Sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  position  with  reference  to  his  when 
he  was  in  the  office  and  attending  to  his  duties,  whatever 
they  were  ?  A.  WeU,  I  was  bookkeeper  behind  the  desk, 
and  he  was  around  in  different  parts  of  the  office. 

Q.  Anything  in  ftont  of  you  so  that  your  view  was  ob- 
structed? A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  stand  by  the  counter  with  you  and  make 
selections  from  newspapers  i  A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind  ?  A.  Nothing,  to  my  knowl- 
edge. 

Q.  What  had  he  to  do  with  the  exchanges,  so  far  as  you 
observed  t  A.  Nothing  more  than  to  go  to  the  Post-Offlce 
after  them  ;  that  is  all  I  ever  knew. 

Q.  What  would  he  do  when  he  got  them  '?  A.  Nothing 
"but  deliver  them  to  the  office. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  opening  them  \  A.  No,  Sir,  I 
never  did. 


Q.  Or  marking  any  particular  part-3  of  them  ?  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q,  Nothing  of  that  kind  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  he  do  anything  beyond  the  sweeping  out  of 
the  office,  and  running  to  the  Post-Office  hack  and  forth, 
that  you  knew  ?  A.  Well,  nothing  more  than  help  them 
up  in  Beekman-st.  once  in  awhile  putting  off  the  mail, 
but  not  regularly. 

Q.  What  hours  in  the  day  did  you  spend  in  the  office  as 
bookkeeper  ?  A.  Well,  I  was  there  ftom— I  usually  got 
to  the  office  about  20  minures  past  9.  and  left  about 
half-past  3. 

Q.  When  was  the  office  elosed  ?  A.  About  4  or  5  o'clock. 
T  left  before  the  office  closed. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  leave  ?   A.  I  left  at  haif  past  3. 

Q.  Was  the  office  closed  then?  A.  Not  generally;  no. 
Sir. 

Q.  How  many  rooms  were  there  in  that  suite  1  A. 
Well,  the  main  office  and  two  rear  rooms,  besides  thehalL 

Q.  Was  there  any  gas  in  the  rear  room  ?  A.  I  am  not 
able  to  say ;  I  don't  remember  whether  there  was  or  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Zldr.  Tilton  there  i  A.  I  did ;  yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  How  fteguently  have  you  seen  him  there?  A.  lam 
not  able  to  say  positively,  but  perhaps  two  or  three  times 
a  week  ;  maybe  more,  and  may  be  less;  I  didn't  take  par- 
ticular notice. 

Q.  A  great  many  other  people  visited  the  office,  I  sup- 
pose? A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Largely?  A.  WeU,  there  was  not  generally  more 
than  two  or  three  in  there  at  a  time. 

Q.  I  have  forgotten  when  your  duties  commenced  there 
as  bookkeeper?  A.  The  Isr  of  February,  1S71. 

CROSS-EXA:^IiyATIOX  OF  TEEDERICK  W. 
MITCHELL. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— Do  you  know  what  TVoodley 
did  there  in  IS 72  ?   A.  No,  Sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Not  at  all  \   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  proficiency  he  made  in  reading 
and  writing,  in  his  attention  to  school  here,  after  he  got 
North?  A.  No,  I  do  not;  I  have  not  seen  him  since  Oc- 
tober, 1871,  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  You  say  you  saw  Tilton  there  two  or  three  times  a 
week  when  you  were  there  ?  A.  About  that,  I  think.  I 
don't  know  whether  he  commenced  as  soon  as  I  was  first 
employed  hy  them  or  not ;  but  I  had  seen  him  there. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  that  he  didn't  commence 
as  soon  as  you?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  have  no  recoUection  either 
way,  vhether  he  did  or  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  Woodley  had  a  month  !  A.  He 
didn't  have  anything,  according  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Did  n't  it  go  through  the  bookkeeping  of  that  con- 
cern, what  he  had  i   A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  What  was  the  bookkeepiag  of  the  estabLUment  occu- 
pied about!  A.  Stocks,  &c. 


476 


THE   TlLTON-BEtlCHEB  TBIAL, 


Q.  The  brokers'  part  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  But  not  tlie  newspapers.  Did  you  have  anything  to 
do  with  the  newspapers  ?  A.  Once  in  a  while  I  would 
help  out  the  other  clerks  when  they  were  behind. 

Q.  But  your  business  of  bookkeeper  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  newspaper  establishment?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Not  at  all  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  which  office  was  your  desk  in  ?  A.  In  the  main 
office. 

Q.  The  outer  office  ?  A.  The  one  nearer  the  front. 
Q.  And  were  you  exclusively  occupied  in  that  office  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Didn't  go  into  the  other  offices  ?  A.  Oh,  no  ;  I 
was  n't  exclusively  occupied  in  that  office. 

Q.  What  had  you  to  do  with  the  other  oflices  ?  A.  Well, 
Col.  Blood's  desk  used  to  be  in  the  rear  office,  and  I  had 
occasion  to  go  see  him  at  very  short  intervals. 

Q.  On  the  stock  question  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  and  different 
things. 

Q.  I  mean  stocks  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Not  about  the  newspapers  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  had  no  share  in  editing  or  publishing  the  news- 
papers? A.  Nothing  whatever. 

Q.  No  responsibility  for  its  articles  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  say  you  think  about  half -past  three?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  That  was  the  end  of  your  obligation  to  be  there,  was 
it  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  not  there  later  ?  A.  Not  there  later, 
because  I  went  home  to  Connecticut  every  day. 

Q.  So  you  know  nothing  of  what  happened  later  than 
that  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  all. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MARY  CATHARINE  McDONALD. 

Mary  Catharine  McDonald,  a  witness  called 
on  behalf  of  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn,  testified : 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Catherine,  where  do  you  reside  now  ? 
A.  No.  174  Livingston-st.,  at  present. 

Q.  With  whom  do  you  reside  ?  A.  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  with  him  ?  A.  I  have 
always  made  it  my  home  for  a  great  many  years.  I  did'nt 
Stay  there  altogether— I  would  go  and  come  just  as  I 
pleased,  to  see  his  parents  and  back. 

Q.  And  during  what  period  of  time  have  you  been  tn 
the  habit  of  doing  that  ?  A.  During  the  last  five  or  six 
years,  ever  since  he  has  been  married.  Since  he  kept 
house  I  have  visited  him  occasionally,  and  have  been  for 
three  or  four  years  there  pretty  much  altogether.  When 
he  kept  house  I  used  to  visit  him  occasionally,  and  for 
the  last  two  or  three  or  tbrcc  or  four  years  I  was  there 
pretty  much  altogetier. 

Q.  Speak  a  little  louder,  Catharine,  please,  for  these 
gentlemen  all  wish  to  hoar  you,  and  the  jury.  For  the 
laat  three  or  four  y*»'8  you  wer^  there  pretty  much  alto- 


gether ?  A.  For  a  few  weeks  I  would  leave  to  go  down 
to  his  parents,  and  then  come  back  again. 

Q.  Where  did  his  parents  reside?  A.  Keyport,  New- 
Jersey. 

Q.  What  portion  of  the  time  did  you  spend  at  his 
parents'  in  New-Jersey  ?  A.  Generally  in  the  Summer. 

Q.  And  how  much  time  in  the  Summer  ?  A.  Five  or 
six  weeks,  or  sometimes  two  months. 

Q.  State  whether  you  were  in  the  habit  of  going  down 
there  every  SuEJiner.  A.  Nearly  every  Summer,  but  not 
quite  so  long  every  Summer. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  Mrs.  Tilton  went  to  Monti- 
ceUo  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  she  went  to  Monticello  ?  A. 
I  was  in  the  house. 

Q.  In  what  house  ?  A.  In  Mr.  Tilton's  house ;  I  helped 
her  to  get  ready  to  go— Mrs.  Tilton. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  season  of  the  year  it  was 
when  she  wen*  to  Monticello  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  in  the 
latter  part  of  July. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  year  ?  A.  I  don't  know  as  I  dc? 
exactly. 

Q.  See  if  you  can  remember  the  year  in  which  Mra^ 
Tilton  went  to  Monticello  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  about  thiee 
or  four  years  ago ;  I  do  n't  know  which.  I  think  it  will 
be  four  years  this  Summer— four  years,  I  think. 

Q.  Are  you  at  all  certain  as  to  the  year  in  which  she 
went  to  Monticello  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  Did  she  go  there  more  than  one  Summer  ?  A.  I. 
think  she  did  ;  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  You  think  she  went  to  Monticello  more  than  once  I 
A.  I  am  not  certain  she  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  letters  that  Mrs.  Tilton  wrote 
back  from  Monticello  ?  A.  I  saw  one  she  wrote  to  myself; 
I  don't  know  that  I  saw  any  others. 

Q.  Have  you  got  that  letter  ?  A.  I  have  not  got  it 
here. 

Q.  Have  you  got  it  in  your  possession  I  A.  I  think  1 
have  ;  I  am  not  sure,  though. 

Q.  Where  is  it  ?  A.  I  think  it  is  down  in  Keyport. 

Q.  Where  did  you  remain  after  Mrs.  Tilton  went  to 
Monticello  ?  A.  I  remained  in  the  house  in  Livingston- 
st.  for  thi-ee  or  four  days,  I  think ;  she  went  in  the  middle 
of  the  week,  I  think,  and  I  remained  over  Sunday. 

Q.  You  mean  she  went  to  MonticeUo  in  the  middle  of 
the  week?  A.  In  the  middle  of  the  week,  and  I  stayed  at 
No.  174  Livingston-st.  imtil  after  Sunday. 

Q.  You  mean  the  following  Sunday  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  where  did  you  go  after  the  following  Sunday! 
A.  I  think  on  Monday  I  went  down  to  Keyport. 

Q.  Where  ?  A.  To  Mr.  Tilton's  parents. 

Q.  And  how  long  did  you  remain  at  Keyport  that  timel 
A.  Four  or  five  weeks,  I  suppose ;  I  came  up  occasionally 
and  spent  a  day  and  went  back  again. 

Q.  Who  went  to  Keyport  with  you  on  that  occasion  i 
A.  I  don't  know  as  any  one  did  the  day  I  went.  Miss  Tur 


TESTIMONY   OF  MAEY   CATHARINE  McBONALB. 


477 


ner,  she  "was  to  go  on  Monday.  Slie  left  tlie  liouse  to  go, 
but  I  don't  think  slie  came  there  until  Tuesday.  She  -was 
to  go  -with  me,  but  slie  left  tlie  liouse  on  Monday  before  I 
did,  but  she  didn't  get  to  Keyport,  I  think,  untU  Tuesday. 

Q.  On  what  day  did  you  arrive  at  Keyport  ?  A.  Mon- 
day afternoon.  The  boat  goes  at  4  o'clock,  and  I  got 
there  about  6  o'clock. 

Q.  When  you  got  there  was  Bessie  Turner  there  ?  A. 
She  was  not,  I  don't  think ;  I  am  not  certain  about  that, 
but  I  don't  think  she  came  until  the  next  day. 

Q.  What  time  the  next  day  do  you  think  she  arrived 
there  9  A.  She  could  not  get  there  before  6  o'clock  in  the 
evening,  because  the  boat  didn't  go.  Now  and  then  an 
excursion  boat  went,  but  it  was  not  regular.  I  don't 
think  she  got  there  until  about  6  o'clock. 

Q.  Now,  I  want  you  to  state  when  you  left  on  that  day 
to  go  to  Keyport,  where  Mr.  Greeley  was,  if  you  know  ? 
A.  I  don't  know  where  he  was. 

Q.  Was  he  at  Mr.  Tilton's?  A.  He  was  not;  Mr.  Tilton, 
expected  him,  but  he  didn't  come. 

Q.  Now,  I  want  you  to  state  whether  you  designed  go- 
ing down  to  Keyport  earlier  than  you  did  go  at  that 
time  ?  A.  I  think  not ;  I  didn't  intend  to  go  before  Mon- 
day, but  on  Monday  Mr.  Tilton  fixed  a  table  for  Mr. 
Greeley  to  write  on  in  the  front  sitting-room  in  the 
second  story,  and  I  assisted  him  on  that  day  to  arrange 
that  table. 

Q.  Was  the  table  fixed  in  any  peculiar  way  1  A. 
Nothing,  only  the  table  that  was  already  there  was  not 
high  enough,  and  Mr.  Tilton  put  something  on  top  of  it 
to  make  it  higher  to  write  upon,  and  I  assisted  him  in 
that. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  get  through  with  arranging  that 
table  ?  A.  Perhaps  11  or  12  o'clock ;  I  could  not  be  cer- 
tain about  that. 

Q.  And  what  day  was  it  that  you  fixed  that  table? 
A.  I  don't  know  the  date.  It  w»s  on  Monday— the  Mon- 
day after  Mrs.  Tilton  went  away. 

Q.  And  was  it  the  day  on  which  you  left  to  go  to  Key- 
port  %  A.  That  very  same  day. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Elizabeth,  or  Bessie  Turner,  as 
we  call  her,  went  when  she  left  the  house?  A.  I  could 
not  say,  but  Mr.  Tilton  gave  her  money  

Mr.  Evarts— No  matter  about  that. 

The  Witness— To  pay  her  fare  down  to  Keyport,  and 
ghe  took  it  and  left  the  house.  I  don't  know  where  she 
went  to.  I  don't  think  she  went  to  Keyport  that  day. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  much  money  IVlr.  Tilton  gave  her  ? 
A.  I  could  not  say.  It  was  a  bill.  I  could  not  say 
whether  it  was  a  two  doUar  biU  or  a  five  dollar  biU ;  it 
was  either  one. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  did  Bessie  Turner  leave  that 
house!  A.  It  was  after  10  o'clock;  between  10  and  11 
o'clock,  I  think,  as  well  as  I  can  remember. 

Mr.  FuUerton— I  am  reminded  by  my  adversary  that  it 


is  after  the  time  for  adjourning,  begging  your  Honor's 
pardon  for  consuming  two  miautes  extra. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Jury]— Return  at  11  o'clock  to- 
morrow, gentlemen. 

The  Court  thereupon  adjourned  until  11  o'clock  on 
Tuesday. 

EIGHTY-THIRD  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

THE  PLAINTIFF  TESTIFIES   IN  EEBUTTAL. 

NUMEROUS  DENIALS  BY  MR.  TILTON  OF  STATEMENTS 
MADE  BY  THE  DEFENDANT'S  WITNESSES— WOOD- 
LEY,  THE  COLORED  WITNESS,  FREELY  CONTRA- 
DICTED—MR. TILTON  SAYS  THAT  HE  NEVER 
TALKED  WITH  MRS.  WOODHULL  ABOUT  PUBLISH- 
ING THE  SCANDAL  — HIS  DIFFERENCES  OF 
ASSERTION  WITH  MR.  TRACY— MTANY  OF  BESSIE 
turner's  CHARGES  DENIED  —  CONTRADICTIONS 
OF  TESTIMONY  GIVEN  BY  MR.  BEECHER— MR. 
TILTON  NOT  CROSS-EXAMINED— MINOR  TESTIMONY 
FROM  MARY  CATHARINE  m'DONALD. 

Tuesday,  May  11,  1875. 

The  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  to-day  surprised 
almost  every  one  in  the  court-room  by  suddenly  re- 
calling IVIr.  Tilton  to  tlie  witness  chair.  He  was 
called  by  Mr.  Morris,  who  turned  to  him,  after  the 
brief  examination  of  Miss  McDonald  was  finished, 
and  said  in  a  low  voice,  hardly  audible  beyond  the 
circle  of  the  counsel's  chairs,  "  Mr.  Tilton.  will  you 
take  the  stand?"  Mr.  Tilton  arose,  and, 
walking  forward,  sat  down  in  the  witness  chair  so 
quietly  that  many  in  the  audience  were  unaware 
that  the  plaintiff  himself  was  npon  the  stand. 

Mr.  Tilton  began  a  long  series  of  denials  by  de- 
clariug  that  he  had  not  visited  Mrs.  Woodhull  in 
Irving-place,  as  the  colored  witness  Woodley  had 
asserted.  Then  he  said  that  he  had  never  called 
Mrs.  Woodhull  "  Vickey"  in  his  life,  and  had  never 
spoken  to  her  or  Col.  Blood  about  publishing  the 
scandal.  He  contradicted  several  other  state- 
ments made  by  Woodley.  Mrs.  Palmer,  one  of 
the  defendant's  witnesses,  had  testified  that 
in  the  early  part  of  1872  Mrs.  Woodhull 
read  a  portion  of  the  proofs  of  the  scandal 
article  in  the  presence  of  herself  and  Mr.  Tilton. 
This  Mr.  Tilton  yesterday  denied,  saying  that  at  the 
date  assigned  by  Mrs.  Palmer  for  this  interview  he 
was  absent  in  the  North- West  lecturing.  Mr.  Tilton 
showed  where  he  was  in  1871  and  1872,  prior  to 
Nov.  5,  1872,  by  reading  a  long  list  of  places,  in 
various  parts  of  the  country,  where  he  had  lectured 
during  that  time.  He  denied  that  he  had  had  what 
is  known  as  the  "  True  Story  "  at  the  Sunday  even- 


478 


THE   TILTOI^-BEECHEB  TBIAL, 


ing  interview  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house, when  Mr.  Tracy, 
Mr.  Moulton,  and  himself  were  present.  That  docu- 
ment had  not  been  written  then.  He  also  contra- 
dicted Gen.  Tracy's  statement  that  at  that  interview 
Mr.  Tiltonhad  unfolded  the  covering  of  a  manuscript 
which  he  had  brought  with  him,  and  had  begun  to 
read  a  statement.  In  several  other  particulars  the 
witness  contradicted  the  testimony  of  Gen.  Tracy, 
as  weU  as  the  evidence  of  various  other  witnesses  for 
the  defendant. 

The  liveliest  interest  was  shown  by  the  audience 
in  the  plaintifiPs  statements  in  regard  to  the  scene  at 
his  house  when  Miss  Bessie  Turner  asserted  that 
she  had  been  knocked  down  by  Mr.  Tilton.  In  a 
very  decided  manner  the  witness  denied  that  any 
such  scene  had  ever  taken  place.  He  was  asked  if 
he  had  made  certain  statements  to  Bessie  Turner— 
among  others,  that  "  it  was  no  wonder  his  gray 
hairs  were  going  down  in  sorrow  to  the 
grave.''  "  Did  you  say  that  asked  Mr.  Morris. 
*'  No,  Sir,"  replied  Mr.  TiLton ;  and  then  added, 
without  smiling,  in  a  low  tone,  *'  I  had  no  gray  hairs 
at  that  time."  Mr.  Tilton  went  on  denying  state- 
ment after  statement  of  Miss  Turner  as  they  were 
read  to  him,  from  her  testimony,  by  Mr.  Morris. 
These  denials,  which  were  listened  to  in  perfect  si- 
lence by  the  audience,  were  made  without  hesitation 
as  rapidly  as  the  questions  were  put.  Mr.  Tilton 
stated  that  Bessie  Turner  was  absent  in  Keyport 
during  the  whole  time  of  Mr.  Greeley's  stay  at  his 
house  in  1869. 

Mr.  Tilton  denied  that  the  interview  had  taken 
place  which  was  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Beecher  as  occur- 
ring in  1871,  when  the  defendant  said  that  he  and 
Mrs.  Tilton  sat  on  Mr.  Tilton's  knees,  and  that  they 
all  kissed  one  another.  Mr.  Tilton  said,  however, 
that  he  remembered  a  scene  somewhat  similar  which 
had  occurred  about  10  years  ago,  and  which  had  ref- 
erence to  another  matter.  Mr.  Tilton  fur- 
ther denied  that  he  had  read  to  Mr. 
Beecher  from  a  slip  of  paper  a  statement  of  his  wife 
concernmg  improper  advances  made  to  her  by  Mr. 
Beecher.  He  said  that  he  had  read  a  very  different 
paper  to  Mr.  Beecher.  He  likewise  denied  that  any- 
thing had  been  said  at  the  time  of  the  arbitration, 
in  his  presence,  about  burning  the  papers.  Mr. 
Wilkeson  had  not  suggested  or  insisted  on  the  de- 
struction of  the  papers  to  him. 

When  Mr.  Morris  had  finished  his  examination  of 
Mr.  Tilton  he  turned  toward  Mr.  Evarts,  indicat- 
ing that  he  could  begin  the  cross-examination,  but 
Mr.  Evarts  shook  his  head,  saying :  "  I  have  nothing 


to  ask,"  and  the  plaiLtiff  stepped  do  wn  from  the 
witness  stand  and  resumed  his  seat  among  his 
counsel.  The  time  for  adjournment  had  nearly  ar- 
rived when  Mr.  Tilton's  examination  was  finished. 

Mary  Catharine  McDonald,  whose  examination 
was  begun  on  Monday,  was  the  first  witness  this 
morning.  Her  testimony  related  to  the  depar- 
ture of  Mrs.  Tilton  for  MonticeUo  in  1869,  and  the 
visit  of  Mr.  Greeley  to  Mr.  Tilton's  house  about  that 
time.  Among  other  things  she  testified  that  MisH 
Bessie  Turner  went  to  Keyport  before  the  arrival  oi: 
Mr.  Greeley,  and  did  not  return  for  four  or  five  weeks. 
Miss  McDonald's  testimony  was  introduced  to  con- 
tradict some  of  that  of  Miss  Turner.  She  was  cross- 
examined  by  Mr.  Shearman. 


THE  PEOCEEDINGS— VEKBATIM. 

MARY  CATHARINE  McDONALD  RECALLED. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Beacli— If  your  Honor  please,  Mr.  Fullerton  lias 
been  imexpectedly  detained  at  the  General  Term  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  in  New-York. 
Judge  Neilson— Will  you  take  some  other  witness  1 
Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  will  permit  one  of  us  to  take 
his  place  in  the  examination,  we  will  endeavor  to  pro- 
ceed, Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Oh,  yes.  Witness,  take  the  stand. 

Mary  Catharine  McDonald  was  then  recalled,  and  her 
direct  examination  resumed. 

By  Mr.  Morris— I  think  you  stated  yesterday,  Miss  Mc- 
Donald, that  you  thought  Bessie  Turner  went  to  Keyport 
on  Tuesday,  the  day  after  you  went  1  A.  That  is  my 
recollection  ;  I  thought  so  ;  I  know  she  did  not  go  with 
me  ;  I  didn't  see  her  in  the  boat. 

Mr.  Shearman— A  little  louder. 

Mr.  Morris— Speak  a  little  louder,  if  you  ^ease,  so  that 
the  jury  can  hear  you. 
Mr.  Beach— Repeat  the  answer. 

Mr.  Morris— She  says  she  thought  she  went  on  Tuesday, 
the  day  following.  And  she  left  Mr.  Tilton's,  if  I  imd«M?- 
stand  you  right,  about  10  o'clock  on  Monday  to  go,  before 
the  table  that  you  have  spoken  of  was  fixed  or  arranged 
for  Mr.  Greeley  1  A.  She  left  before  I  did,  some  time  be- 
fore 12— between  10  and  12  ;  she  was  not  later  than  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— Bepeat  it. 

Judge  Neilson— You  will  have  to  repeat  the  answer. 
Mr.  Morris— I  did  not  hear  it  myself. 
Mr.  Beach— You  must  speak  louder. 
Mr.  Morris— Will  the  stenographer  repeat  the  answer! 
The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  last  answer. 
Q,  How  long  did  you  remain  at  Keyport !  A.  Four  or 
five  weeks. 


TESTIMONY  OF  MABY   CATHATUyE  McDOXALB. 


479 


Q.  Did  Miss  Turner  remain  there  all  tlie  -while  that  you 
did  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  return  together  to  BrooMyn  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Who  returned  first  1  A.  She  did. 

Q.  How  long  before  you  returned  ?  A.  Ahout  a  ^veek 
or  so. 

Q.  And  you  was  there  about  four  weeks  ?  A.  Four  or 
five ;  I  guess  I  -was  five  weeks  or  perhaps  more.  I  come 
up  twice  in  the  mean  time  for  a  day. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Mrs.  Tilton  had  returned  from 
Monticello  when  Bessie  came  back  from  Brooklyn  ?  A.  I 
think  she  had. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Greeley  had  left  Mr.  Til- 
ton's  before  jVIrs.  Tilton  returned  or  not  ?  A.  I  couldn't 
say ;  I  don't  think  he  stayed  so  long  as  he  expected. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  on  any  other  occasion  Mr.  Greeley's 
staying  at  Mr.  Tilton's  ?  A.  Ko,  Sir. 


THE  FOLDING  DOOES  IN  ME.TILTOIS^S  HOUSE. 

Q.  Now,  Mrs.  McDonald,  you  know  the  fold- 
ing doors  that  have  been  spoken  of  between  the  two 
front  rooms  on  the  second  floor  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  were  those  doors  usually  left  ?  A.  Sometimes 
they  were  shut,  and  sometimes  they  were  open. 

Q.  How  were  they  fastened,  if  at  aU,  when  they  were 
shut  ]  A.  I  don't  think  they  fastened  tight  together. 

Q.  Did  not  fasten  tight  together ;  that  is,  you  mean 
they  didn't  shut  together  ?  A.  I  don't  think. 

Q.  Were  they  ever  locked  ?  A.  There  was  no  lock  to  it, 
at  least  I  never  saw  a  key  in  it. 

Q.  You  never  saw  it  locked  1  A.  Nor  the  place  for  a 
lock  to  come  out;  there  was  just  merely  a  bolt. 

Q.  And  do  you  know  Avhether  the  doors  shut  so  they 
could  be  locked  or  not  ?  A.  I  couldn't  say  that ;  I  never 
tried,  but  I  don't  think  they  could. 

Q.  And  you  never  saw  them  locked  ?  A.  I  never  saw 
them  locked ;  there  was  a  place  for  a  key,  but  there  was 
no  key  in  the  door. 

Q.  When  the  doors  were  pulled  together  was  there  a 
crack  or  an  opening  at  the  top,  the  doors  standing  apart  ? 
A.  On  one  side  there  was,  one  side  of  those  folding  doors, 
at  the  top. 

Q.  The  top  part  of  one  of  the  doors— they  didn't  come 
together  1  A.  Not  at  the  top. 

Q.  Are  those  doors  in  the  condition  now  with  reference 
to  their  shutting  that  way  that  they  were  then  ?  A.  I 
tMnk  80. 

Q.  In  the  same  condition  ?  A.  I  am  almost  sure  they 
«re,  exactly. 
Mr.  Morris— That  is  alL 

Mr.  Beach— Miss  McDonald,  ynil  you  speak  a  little 
londer  :n  answering  questions  f 
The  Witness— I  wlU  try. 


ceoss-exajmination  of  miss  Mcdonald. 

By  IVIr.  Slieamiaii — How  long  have  you  been  in 
any  part  of  the  Tilton  family,  jVIiss  McDonald  I  A.  I 
have  been  la  the  Tilton  family  for  over  25  years,  to  and 
fro  ;  I  didn't  remain  all  the  time. 

Q.  Over  25  years  since  you  went  to  themi  A.  I  always 
made  it  my  home,  for  that  length  of  time,  with  the  two 
families. 

Q.  With  whom  did  you  live  when  you  went  to  them,  25 
years  ago  1  A.  With  Mr.  Tilton's  parents. 

Q.  In  Keyport?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  they  were  not  in  Key- 
port  at  that  time ;  they  were  in  New-York  then. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  live  with  them  at  that  time  ?  A. 
One  year  before  they  moved  to  the  country ;  then  about 
—I  expect  it  was  10  or  12  years  after  that,  in  the  country. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  first  come  to  live  with  Mr.  Theo- 
dore TUton  ?  A.  I  uBen't  to  stay  all  the  time ;  I  used  to 
come  to  Brooklyn  when  I  felt  like  it,  and  go  back,  stay  a 
week  or  two  and  then  go  back  again. 

Q.  You  would  stay  a  week  or  two,  do  you  mean  with 
Mr.  Theodore  TUton  %   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  go  back— during  all  that  period,  of  ten  or  twelve, 
years  ?  A.  Well,  after  he  was  married,  before  he  went  ta 
housekeeping,  I  spent  some  time  at  IVIrs.  Morse's,  Mra. 
Richards  at  that  time ;  I  used  to  go  and  visit  him  therpi 
and  stay  a  while. 

Q.  After  he  was  married  you  used  to  go  visiting  to  Mrs. 
Richards,  now  Mrs.  Morse  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  on  his  account. 
I  used  to  go  there. 

Q.  Do  you  ncean  while  Mr.  Tilton  was  living  with  Mrs. 
Richards— Mr.  and  Mrs.  Tilton  were  living  with  Mrs. 
Richards  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  before  they  went  to  housekeeping. 

Q.  They  were  not  housekeeping  ?  A.  Not  at  first,  but  I 
mean  to  say  that  I  used  to  go  and  see  him  even  then ;  I 
didn't  stay  all  the  time  with  his  parents. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  with  Mr.  and  IMrs.  TUton  at 
those  times  when  they  lived  with  Mrs.  Richards?  A. 
About  six  weeks  the  first  time  I  went  there. 

Q.  About  six  weeks  the  first  time  after  they  had  been, 
married  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  long  the  second  time  you  went  there  1  A. 
I  couldn't  say. 

Q.  Well,  some  length  of  time?  A.  Perhaps  not  mora 
than  a  few  days  at  a  time. 

Q.  But  did  you  make  frequent  visits  of  this  kind,  so 
that  you  stayed  a  month  or  more  1  A.  Not  very;  no.  Sir, 
not  untU  after  they  went  to  housekeeping. 

Q.  Well,  after  they  went  to  housekeepiug,  when  did 
you  ^o  to  stay  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  TUton  1  A.  About 
three  or  four  years  ago. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Shearman,  will  you  be  kind  enough 
to  repeat  each  answer  1 

Mr.  Shearman— Speak  a  little  louder,  and  turn  toward 
the  jury.  If  you  would  speak  to  the  jury  it  would  be  the 
better  way ;  they  want  to  hear.  Now,  can  you  state 
about  how  long  it  was  after  they  went  to  housekeepmg 


480  THE  TILION-B. 

that  you  went  to  live  mtli  tliem  ?  A.  I  am  not  positive 
about  tlie  year ;  I  think  about  four  years. 

Q.  About  four  years  after  they  went  to  housekeeping  1 
A.  Housekeeping;  and  occasionally  I  visited  them  before 
that;  before  I  went  to  stay  altogether. 

Well,  don't  you  remember  that  they  went  to  house- 
keeping in  their  present  house  iu  October,  1866  ?  A.  I 
was  not  with  them  then. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  after  that  period  that  you  went  to 
live  with  them  ?  A.  I  was  there  the  time  Mrs.  Tilton 
went  to  Monticello. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  1869,  we  all  agree.  How  long  did 
you  stay  with  the  family  at  that  time  t  A.  Well,  after 
Mrs.  Tilton  went  away,  I  went  the  next  week  to  Keyport 
and  stayed  there  tmtil  she  came  back. 

Q.  Yes ;  but  how  long  had  you  been  there  before  Mrs. 
Tilton  went  to  Monticello  ?  A.  I  couldn't  say. 

Q.  Were  you  there  when  Ralph  was  born  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  That  was  in  June,  1869  ;  now,  were  you  there  any 
length  of  time  before  that  1  A.  Not  very  long,  except 
occasional  visits. 

Q.  Who  paid  your  wages  at  that  time  1  A.  Mrs.  Tilton 
sometimes,  and  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q,  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  did  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Theodore 
Tilton  pay  your  wages  for  any  length  of  time  about  that 
period,  or  more  than  one  month  1  A.  Not  very  long. 

Q.  Did  they  pay  you  for  more  than  one  month  ?  A.  Mrs. 
Tilton  did  not  but  Mr.  Tilton  did  ;  he  paid  me  some  after 
she  went  away  for  the  length  of  time  I  had  been  there, 
and  for  the  time  that  I  waited  for  her  return  he  paid  me 
when  I  was  not  there. 

Q.  Who  paid  your  wages  for  the  rest  of  the  time — the 
rest  of  the  year  1  A.  The  rest  of  what  year  ? 

Q.  This  year  that  Mrs.  Tilton  went  to  Monticello?  A. 
That  is  the  year  I  am  speaking  about. 

Q.  Yes.  Well,  I  say,  did  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  pay  you 
your  wages  for  all  of  that  year,  or  for  any'part  of  it?  A. 
He  paid  me  for  all  of  the  year,  I  think. 

Q.  All  of  the  year,  1869.  Well,  then  don't  you  think 
that  you  lived  in  the  house  all  of  the  year  1869  ?  A.  I 
did  not,  but  his  agreement  was  with  me  to  pay  me,  no 
matter  whether  I  was  there  or  not. 

Q.  Mr.  Tilton  paid  you  whether  you  were  there  or  not? 
A.  At  that  time,  because  I  waited  for  Mrs.  Tilton's  return, 
and  thought  I  would  remain  with  her  when  she  came 
back,  but  I  did  not,  so  he  paid  me  according  to  agreement, 
for  the  year  out. 

Q.  Then  you  came  back,  did  you,  from  Keyport  in  about 
five  weeks,  if  I  understand  you?  A.  I  tMnk  so,  near 
about  that  time. 

Q.  Yes.  I  am  not  particular  as  to  the  time,  but  after 
that  did  you  stay  in  the  family  the  rest  of  that  year  ?  A. 
I  did  not. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  with  the  family,  then  ?  A.  I 
don't  think  tliat  I  stayed  more  than  a  week  after  I 


ECHEB  TBIAL. 

came  up.  I  went  back  to  his  parents,  and  T  stayed  away 
for  some  time.  I  used  to  visit  Mrs.  Tilton  occasionally ; 
I  did  not  live  with  her  all  the  time  after  that  until  the 
year  she  went  to  Monticello— to  Schoharie,  and  I  r©. 
mained— I  kept  house  until  she  came  back,  and  have 
been  with  her  ever  since,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
days  now  and  then. 

Q.  Then  you  have  been  with  her  ever  since  the  year 
1869,  do  I  understand  ?  Have  you  been  with  Mrs.  Tilton 
ever  since  the  year  that  she  went  to  Monticello  ?  A.  I 
have  not ;  I  just  said  I  have  not. 

Q.  The  trouble  is  I  cannot  hear  half  of  what  you  say. 
I  may  seem  to  ask  things  over  when  I  did  not  hear  what 
you  said.  A.  I  try  to  make  you  hear,  but  I  can't  speak 
any  louder. 

Q.  I  am  sorry.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  just  how  long 
you  lived  in  the  family—the  house  of  Theodore  TUton. 
Now,  suppose  you  go  back  to  that  year  that  Mrs.  Tilton 
went  to  Monticello ;  and  you  were  there  when  Ralph  was 
born  ?  A.  I  was  there  when  Ralph  was  born. 

Q.  Had  you  been  there  long  before  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I 
had  not ;  if  I  recollect  right,  Mr.  Tilton  came  for  me  to 
be  in  the  house  at  that  time— down  to  his  parents'— and  I 
came  up,  and  he  wanted  me  there  to  take  the  children  to 
Coney  Island  so  they  would  not  disturb  Mrs.  Tilton  at 
that  time ;  and  so,  about  two  days  after  Frank  was  born 
I  went  to  Coney  Island. 

Q.  Well,  never  mind  that ;  all  I  want  is  the  time.  Then 
you  stayed  from  the  time  Ralph  was  bom  until  Mra. 
Tilton  went  to  Monticello  ?  A.  Until  she  went  to  Monti- 
cello— until  the  week  after ;  she  went  in  the  middle  of  the 
week. 

Q.  Never  mind.  Then  you  went  down  tn  the  following 
week  to  Monticello?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  returned  in  not  less  than  five  weeks?  A.  I 
don't  think,  except  for  a  day. 

Q.  Yes ;  except  for  a  day.  Then,  how  long  did  you  stay 
when  you  returned  with  them?  A.  After  Mrs.  Tilton 
came  back  ? 

Q.  Yes  ?  A.  I  don't  think  i  stayed  with  them  mon 
than  a  week;  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  Then  did  you  come  again  with  them  ?  A.  I  cam© 
again  and  again,  but  I  did  not  stay ;  it  was  no  more  than 
a  visit ;  sometimes  two  or  three  days,  and  sometimes—- 

Q.  You  have  visited  the  family  constantly,  have  you 
not,  since  that  time  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir? 

Q.  And  now  you  are  Uvrag  in  Mr.  Tilton's  family  t  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  how  long  have  you  been  living  there  now!  A* 
Well,  I  never  left  altogether  since  Mrs.  Tilton  went 
away ;  never  took  my  things  from  there ;  I  came  and 
went  when  I  pleased. 

Q.  When  Mrs.  Tilton  went  away  you  were  living  there, 
were  you  not?  A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  And  had  been  for  some  time.  How  long  then? 
Since  the  year  Mrs.  Tilton  went  to  Schoharie,  I  tliink. 


TESTIMONY  OF  2 

Q.  Since  tlie  year  slie  "went  to  Sclioliarie  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ; 
I  liave  never  entirely  left  tlie  family  since  tliat;  I  would 
leave  for  a  wliile  and  go  back  again. 

Q.  Miss  McDonald,  you  were  on  very  intimate  and  con- 
fidential terms,  were  you  not,  with  tlie  family?  A.  Oti, 
pretty  much  so. 

Q.  Mr.  Tilton  always  thought  a  great  deal  of  you, 
didn't  he  ?  A.  I  don't  know. 

Q,  Well  you  thought  a  great  deal  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  the 
children  1  A.  They  always  treated  me  well ;  that  is  all. 

Q.  And  you  went  all  over  the  house,  didn't  you?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  we  will  go  back  to  the  time  that  Mrs.  Tilton 
went  to  Monticello,  and  remember  that  time,  if  you 
please,  if  you  can,  when  they  went  to  live  in  this  house, 
174  Livingston-st.— that  was  October,  1C66  ?  A.  I  was 
not  in  Brooklyn  then. 

Q.  No  ;  you  were  in  Keyport  then.  Well,  did  you  come 
up  that  Fall  or  Winter,  do  you  think,  to  stay  any  time  1 
A.  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  come  the  next  year  ?  A.  No,  I  think  not ;  I 
think  I  had  been  away  from  the  Tilton  familj-  for  some 
time. 

Q.  Living  not  with  Mr.  Tilton  at  Keyport,  there;  were 
you  living  with  the  old  INIr.  Tilton  at  Keyport  ?  A.  I  was 
not,  when  they  were  at  Monticello— at  least  not  at  the 
time  he  went  to  housekeeping,  I  was  not. 

Q.  Well,  how  long  was  it  before  Mrs.  Tilton  went  to 
MonticeUo  that  you  began  to  live  agaiu  iu  the  Tilton  fam- 
ily—either for  a  long  or  a  short  time,  IMiss  McDonald- 
was  it  as  much  as  a  year '?  A.  I  am  not  certain  that  it 
was. 

Q.  Can't  you  recollect  anything  about  the  three  years 
before  iSlrs.  Tilton  went  to  Monticello,  as  to  whether  you 
lived  with  the  Tilton  family  or  not  ?  A.  I  don't  think  I 
did. 

Q.  Not  any  part  of  the  time  ?  A.  No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Q.  But  you  visited  there  constantly,  didn't  you  ?  A. 
Not  very  constantly  ia  that  year ;  occasionaUy. 

Q.  WeU,  how  often  1  A.  I  could  not  say  how  often. 

Q.  Now,  about  Miss  Turner's  visit  to  Keyport ;  you  say 
he  was  there,  or  rather  you  were  there  all  the  time  that 
6he  was  ?  A.  With  the  exception  of  two  days. 

Q.  With  the  exception  of  two  days ;  and  did  you  see 
everything  that  went  on  iu  the  house  where  she  was  ?  A. 
I  don't  know  as  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  where  were  you  during  that  time  t  were  you  ia 
the  same  room  generally  during  the  day  with  the  family, 
or  were  you  in  the  kitchen,  or  where  were  you  ?  A.  I  was 
always  treated  as  one  of  the  family  there,  and  did  not 
spend  much  of  my  time  in  the  kitchen. 

Q.  WeU.  that  is  what  I  thought ;  you  were  treated  as 
one  of  the  family?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  as  much  at  the  table  and  iu  the  room 
"vsith  air.  and  Mrs.  Tilton  as  Miss  Turner  was  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 


JEOBORE   TILTOIS.  481 

Q.  And  weren't  you  at  meals  with  Miss  Turner  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  say  that  you  saw  I^r.  Tilton,  or  rather  you  say 
that  3Ir.  Tilton  gave  Miss  Turner  money  to  go  down  to 
Keyport;  did  you  see  him  give  her  that  money  ?  A.  I 
saw  him  put  his  hand  iu  his  pocket  and  take  out  a  bill 
and  hand  it  to  her ;  I  could  not  say  what  kind  of  a  biU 
it  was. 

Q.  Yes ;  what  did  Mr.  Tilton  say  at  the  time  ?  A.  She 
asked  him— he  told  her  she  must  go  to  Keyport ;  he 
did  n't  want  her  in  the  house ;  Mr.  Greeley  was  coming 
there,  and  he  proposed  to  her  to  go  to  Keyport  to  his 
parents,  and  he  iastructed  her  to  be  useful  to  his  mother, 
and  she  told  him  if  he  wanted  her  to  go  to  Keyport  that 
he  would  have  to  give  her  money  to  pay  her  fare  there; 
she  did  n't  have  any. 

Q.  She  told  him  if  he  wanted  her  to  go  to  Keyport  he 
would  have  to  give  her  money  to  pay  her  fare— she  didn't 
have  any  ?  A.  And  then,  iu  the  passage  betweeen  the 
rooms,  in  the  haU  of  the  second  floor,  he  told  her— he' 
said,  "  Yes,  Bessie,  I  will  give  you  some  money,"  and  so 
he  gave  her  a  bUl ;  I  could  not— 

Q.  He  said,  "  Yes,  Bessie,  I  will  give  you  some  money," 
and  so  he  gave  her  a  bUl  ?  A.  Quite  near  the  room  door. 

Q.  Very  well,  where  were  these  folding  doors  that  you 
were  describing  ?  A.  In  the  second  story,  front  room— I 
expect  that  is  what  you  ask. 

Q.  Well,  there  are  two  front  rooms  there,  are  there  not  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  but  they  connect  by  folding  doors. 

Q.  They  connect  by  folding  doors,  and  there  is  a  front 
bedroom  there,  isn't  there — oneroom  was  used  at  that 
time  for  a  bedroom  ?  A.  One  was  a  bedroom,  and  tlie 
other  a  sitting-room— was  uaed  for  that. 

Q.  And  how  can  you  get  into  those  two  rooms — can  you 
get  from  the  other  part  of  the  house  into  each  room  ?  A- 
From  the  hall— you  can  get  from  the  hall  into  either 
room,  and  then  you  can  get  from  the  sitting-room  to  the 
bedroom  without  goiag  through  the  haU,  by  the  folding 
doors. 

Q.  You  are  not  obliged  to  go  through  either  room  ia 
order  to  get  to  the  other  room  ?  A.  No. 
Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Morris— Miss  McDonald,  just  one  question;  Mrs. 
Tilton  went  to  Monticello  when  Ealph  was  a  baby,  did 
she  not  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  old  was  Ralph  when  she  went?  A.  That  re* 
minds  me,  Mr.  Morris,  of  something  I  said  yesterday;  I 
said  it  was  four  years,  I  thought,  but  I  have  found  when 
I  went  home  that  Frank  is  over  five  years  old. 

Q.  Yes ;  and  it  was  when  he  was  an  infant  f  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  it  was  a  mistake  of  mine. 

ME.  TILTON  RECALLED. 
Mr.  Morris— That  is  all.   Mr.  Tilton,  you  take 

the  chair  now. 
Theodore  Tilton,  being  recalled,  testified  as  follows : 


489  THE  TILlON-1 

By  Mr.  Morris—Mr.  Tilton,  Mr.  Woocllej,  wlien  lie  was 
upon  the  stand,  testified  that  he  had  seen  you  on  different 
occasions  stopping  over  night  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  when 
she  lived  in  Irving-place ;  were  you  ever  there  when  she 
lived  at  Irving-place?  A.  I  never  was,  Sir ;  I  never  knew 
that  she  ever  lived  there  until  I  heard  that  fact  announced 
in  court  here. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  in  Mrs,  "Woodhull's  presence  

Mr.  Evarts— What  page  and  what  passage  do  you  refer 
to? 

Mr.  Morris— I  refer  to  Part  9,  page  600. 
Mr.  Evarts— Wait  until  I  find  it. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  Sir.  The  first  question  refers  to  testi- 
mony on  page  609  ;  the  question  I  ask  now,  Part  9,  page 
600.  Did  you  ever  say  to  Mrs.  Woodhjall,  in  Mr.  Wood- 
ley's  presence,  or  in  the  presence  of  any  person,  or  to  her 
when  no  parson  was  present,  anything  in  substance  to 
this  efi"ect :  "  Vicky,  you  publish  this  thing,"  referring  to 
to  the  scandal,  "  you  will  be  a  made  woman  ?"  A.  No, 
Sir,  I  never  did ;  I  never  called  her  "Vicky,"  and  I  never 
spoke  to  her  about  publishing  this  scandal. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  well,  Mr.  Tilton,  you  are  not  allowed 
to  go  beyond  answering  the  question. 

Ml".  Beach— That  is  very  proper,  Sir,  that  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  not. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  it  is. 

Mr.  Morris— I  should  have  asked  that  question,  Mr. 
Evarts ;  it  saved  me  the  trouble  of  asking  the  question 
by  his  answering. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  well,  of  course  your  Honor  under- 
stands that  we  are  entitled  to  have  an  answer  confined 
to  the  question. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Otherwise,  we  ar^  deprived  of  our  rights 
of  objecting  to  the  question. 

WHOLESALE  DENIALS  BY  THE  PLAD^TIFF. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Did  you  ever,  at  their  office 
in  Broad-st.,  or  at  any  other -place,  call  Mr.  Blood  aside 
and  have  an  interview  with  him  with  reference  to  the 
publication  of  that  scandal  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Wood- 
ley  or  any  other  person,  or  when  no  person  was  present  ? 
A.  No,  Sir ;  I  never  had  a  conversation  with  him  on  any 
such  subject. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Blood,  at  any  time,  with  reference  to  the 
publication  of  that  article,  ever  say  to  you  that  he  would 
have  nothing  to  do  with  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  had  ceased 
my  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Blood  many  months  previous 
to  the  publication  of  that  article. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  move  to  have  struck  out,  if  your 
Honor  please. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  strike  it  out,  and  ask  the  ques- 
tion, please. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  well,  I  hope  your  Honor  will  not  go 
through  that  form.  Sir. 
Mr.  Morris—I  will  ask  the  question. 


EECREB  TBIAL. 

Mr.  Evarts— Why,  if  your  Honor  please,  this  Is  ^ebu^  , 
ting  evidence.   Mr.  Tilton  has  been  examined  in  chief  as 
to  all  t^iese  facts  of  his  general  intercourse,  its  com- 
mencement, and  its  termination. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  but  as  to  specific  facts  they  have 
a  right  to  interrogate.  \ 

Mr.  Evarts— I  agree,  and  therefore  1  desire  that  his  an-' 
swer  shall  be  confined  to  those  specific  facts;  he  has 
already  told  us  when  his  relations  with  this  family  ceased. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Had  he  been  asked  as  to  Col.  Blood 
specifically  ? 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir ;  he  has  not  stated  anything  about 
his  acquaintance  with  Col.  Blood  ceasing. 

Judge  Neilson— However,  the  witness  understands  now 
that  he  is  to  answer  the  precise  question  put;  that  is 
what  the  cotmsel  desires. 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Tilton,  when  did  your  acquaintance 
with  Mr.  Blood  terminate  ?  A.  In  the  month  of  April, 
1872. 

Q.  And  after  that,  and  prior  to  the  publication  of  that 
article,  the  scandal,  had  you  any  conversation  with  Col. 
Blood  whatever  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  never  a  word, 

Q.  Were  you,  from  the  time  you  say  you  terminated 
your  ?cquaintance  with  him  in  April,  and  prior  to  the 
publication  of  that  article,  at  their  office  in  Broad-st.?  A. 
I  was  not,  Sir ;  I  never  was  in  the  office  out  of  which  that 
article  was  published. 

Q.  Or  at  their  house  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  them  at  any  place  ?  A.  I  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  either  of  them  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  present  when  any  proof-slips  of  that 
article  were  shown  ?  A.  I  was  not.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  proof -slips  of  that  article  ?  A. 
No,  Sir.  ^ 

ME.  TILTON'S  WHEREABOUTS  IN  1871-1872. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  TUton,  at  this  point,  will  you 

state  your  whereabouts  dui-ing  1871  and  1872,  prior  to 
the  2d,  or  the  5th  of  November,  1872?  A.  |  Referring  to 
a  paper.]  On  the  3d  of  October,  1871, 1  lectured  at  

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Tilton,  what  use  are  you  making  of 
this  memorandum  ? 

The  Witness— I  am  about  to  state,  Sir,  in  answer  to  Mr- 
Morris's  question,  the  list  of  the  places  at  which  I  made 
public  addresses  outside  of  New- York  City,  between  the 
time  of  the  publication  of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  card  of  May 
and  the  time  of  the  publication  of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  scan- 
dal of  November,  1872. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  have  made  this  memorandum  to  as- 
sist your  memory  ? 

Tho  Witness— Yes,  Sir ;  I  wiQ  say  that,  in  reference  to 
the  memorandum,  I  have  brought  with  me  all  the 
vouchers. 

Mr.  Morris— Never  mind  that. 

The  Witness— Oct.  3, 1871,  at  the  Cornell  University, 


li:SIIlLOyi    OF   IILEODOEE  IILTOS. 


483 


In  Ithaca,  >'eTr-Torl: ;  Oct.  26,  at  Bristol,  Conn.  ;  Oct.  31, 
at  West  Cliester,  Penn. ;  >ruT.  1,  "VTiltesbarre,  Penn.  ; 
yoT.  2,  Allento"?vn,  Penn.  ;  Xot.  7,  Fxedonia,  2sew-Yorli ; 
Not.  8,  Randolph,  Xevr-York  ;  ^Tot.  14,  Lancaster,  Penn.  ; 
^Tov.  15,  Tyrone.  Penn.  ;  >'ot.  16,  Locfe  Haven,  Penn.  ; 
XoT.  21,  Honesdale,  Penn.  ;  ^Tor.  29,  Webster,  Mass.  ; 
>r or.  30,  XorTvlcli,  Conn.  ;  Dec.  5,  Indiana,  Penn.  (that 
Indiana  is  a  little  town  caJIed  alter  the  State)  ;  Dec.  6, 
Washington,  Penn.  

:Mr.  Abbott— What  is  the  last  place  ?  What  is  that  ? 

The  Witness— It  is  a  little  town  in  Pennsvlvania  called 
Indiana. 

:-Ir.  Abbott— What  is  the  date  1 

The  Wimess— Dec.  5  ;  Dec.  7,  Pittsburgh,  Penn.;  Dec. 
26,  Kenneth-scinare,  Penn.;  Dec.  23,  Greencastle,  Penn.; 
Jan.  5,  1872,  Shippensburgh,  Penn,;  Jan.  8,  Oneida, 
Y.;  Jan.  9,  Taunton,  Mass.;  Jan.  10,  Leominster, 
Mass.;  Jan.  16,  Columbia,  Penn.;  Jan.  22,  iN'atIck,  Mass.  ; 
Jan.  23,  Marlboro,  Mass.;  Jan.  24,  Dover,  X.  H. ;  Jan.  30, 
Columbia,  Penn.— second  lecture  at  that  place  during 
that  same  season;  Feb.  1,  Lancaster,  Penn.;  Feb.  7, 
Kantakee,  ni.;  Feb.  9,  Blooniington,  Ind.;  Feb.  13,  Mon- 
mouth, HI.  These  engagements  were  made  by  :Mr.  Mum- 
ford  of  the  Literary  Bureau,  and  are  accompanied  with 
the  dates  ;  the  next  list  which  I  will  read  is  a  list  of  en- 
gagements made  by  Mr.  James  H.  Bliss  of  the  2!s'orth- 
Westem  Lyceum  Bureau,  and  he  has  furnished  me  the 
places,  but  not  the  dates.   The  places  are :  Madison,Wis.— 

Mr.  Evarts— What  period  is  this? 

The  Witness— They  lie  in  the  period  between  the  13th 
of  February  and  the  18th  of  March,  1872. 
Mr.  Evarts — Same  year  I 

The  Witness — Same  year;  the  places  are  these:  Madi- 
ton.  Wis. ;  Eochester,  Minn.— two  nights ;  Minneapolis, 
Minn.— two  nights;  when  I  say  "two  nights,"  I  mean 
two  lectures;  St.  Paul,  Minn.;  Sparta,  Wis.;  La  Crosse, 
Wis. ;  Watertown,  Wis. ;  Appleton,  Wis. ;  Xeenah,  Wis. ; 
Whitewater,  Wis. ;  MlLtou,  Wis. ;  Janesrille,  Wis. ;  Beloit, 
Wis. ;  Freeport,  ni. ;  Eochlord,  111, ;  Belvidere,  111. ;  Ea- 
ciae.  Wis.— three  successive  nights;  Piverside,  m.; 
Priaceton,  IlL ;  Menomonee,  Wis.— two  successive  nights 
—completes  Z^Ir.  Bliss's  list,  which  are  without  dates; 
then  Mr.  Mumf  ord's  list  lesumes  again :  3Iarch  IS,  1872, 
Chicago,  111.;  March  21,  Pittsburgh,  Penn.;  then  I  reach 
homo  March  24 ;  then  followed  a  few  days  ia  early  April 
devoted  to  arbiti  ation  with  Mr.  Bowen ;  then,  later  ia  the 
same  month,  I  went  to  Cincianati,  devoting  ten  days 
there  Xo  the  labors  of  the  Convention  which  nominated 
Mr.  Greeley ;  then  I  went  home  again,  into  the  campaign ; 
May  25,1872,  Potsdam,  X.  Y. ;  May  27,  Ogdensburg, 
X.  Y.  

Mr.  Morris— Just  right  there,  one  question.  Were  you 
there  at  one  time — was  that  the  period  at  which  you 
brought  your  relation  of  acquaiatance  with  :Mr.  Blood 
and  :Mrs.  Woodhull  to  a  close  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  on  the  25th 
of  April ;  May  25  at  Potsdam,  N.  Y. ;  May  -7  al  Ogdens- 


burg; then  occurred  an  interval  in  my  speaking,  in 
which  I  went  to  Baltimore  to  attend  the  Baltimore  Con- 
vention ;  then  a  visit  to  Mr.  Sumner  in  Washington  ;  then 
back  again  to  the  public  field,  as  follows  :  July  22,  1S72, 
Bangor,  Me. ;  July  23,  Augusta,  Me. ;  July  26,  Oldtown, 
Me.;  July  29,  Houlton,  Me.;  July  30,  Liacoln,  Me.; 
Aug.  1,  Dover,  Me. ;  Aug.  9,  Portland^  Me. ; 
Aug.  11,  Biddeford,  Me.;  Aug.  14,  Ellsworth, 
Me.;  Aug.  15,  Eockland,  Me.;  Aug.  16,  Camden,  Me.; 
Aug.  17,  Bath,  Me.;  Aug.  20,  Lewiston,  3Ie.;  Aug.  22, 
Bridgeton,  Me.;  Aug.  23,  Skowhegan,  ile.;  Aug.  27,  Ca- 
lais, Me.,  called  Calay"  by  some  people ;  Aug.  29,  East- 
port,  Me.;  Aug.  30,  Machias.  Me.;  Sept.  3,  Castine,  Me.; 
Sept,  4,  Winterport,  Me.;  Sept.  5,  Belfast,  Me.;  Sept.  7, 
Hampden,  Me.;  September,  between  the  7th  and  8th,  mid- 
night, at  Bangor,  Me.;  then  follows  the  Maine  election 
Sept,  10;  then  on  the  following  day,  Sept.  11,  Concord, 
X.  H.:  Sept.  13,  Orange,  J.;  Sept.  17,  Stamford,  Conn.; 
Sept.  20,  Paterson,  >r.  J.;  Sept.  21,  Philadelphia,  Peniu; 
Sept.  23,  Norwich,  Conn.;  Sept.  30,  Allentown,  Penn.; 
Oct.  2,  Harrisburg,  Penn.  Then  followed  a  list  of  ap- 
pointments every  night  in  Pennsylvania  up  to  the  Penn- 
sylvania election.  I  have  written  in  vain  to  get  those 
dates,  andhave  only  three— namely :  Oct.  2,  Harrisburg; 
Oct.  4,  Pittsburgh;  Oct.  7,  Jamestown,  Y.;  but  I  re- 
member speaking  every  night  during  that  campaign  up 
to  the  last  night  of  the  election.  Then  there  is  a  break  of 
two  or  three  

Mr.  Evarts— The  October  election,  you  mean  ?  A.  Yes 
Sir,  Oct.  8 ;  then  there  comes  a  break  of  a  day  or  two,  or 
a  few  appointments. 

Q.  2sever  mind  {  A.  Oct.  16,  Dover,  N.  H.;  Oct.  18, 
Lynn,  Mass.;  Oct.  25,  Willimantic,  Conn.;  Oct.  20,  here 
on  a  Saturday  evening,  in  Brooklyn,  at  home;  Oct.  28 
Keene,  X.  H.;  Oct.  29,  Claremont,  X.  H.;  Oct,  30,  Brad- 
ford, X.  H,;  Oct.  31,  Dartmouth  College,  and  also  at  Lel> 
anon  in  the  evening  of  the  same  day ;  2s"ov.  l,  Littleton ; 
Xov.  2,  Lancaster ;  ZSTov.  4,  Laconia ;  Xov.  5,  the  Presi- 
dential election,  which  brought  me  home.  This  list  is  not 
entirely  accurate ;  I  mean  to  say  by  that,  that  every  item 
in  it  is  accurate,  but  a  few  of  my  engagements  are  not  in- 
cluded here,  because  I  could  not  get  them  verified,  and 
have  included  in  this  list  oiily  such  names  and  places  as 
I  have  verifleation  of  here,  but  the  list  is  nearly  complete. 

By  Mr.  Beach— Well,  you  mention  July  24  or  26  as  the 
period  when  you  commenced  your  political  discussions ! 
A.  Xo,Sir;  I  commenced  my  political  discussions  before 
the  Baltimore  Convention;  I  commenced  

Q.  Well,  July  24  or  26  you  commenced  in  Maine,  is  it  \ 
A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  began  my  campaign  ia  Maine  immediately 
after  the  Baltimore  Convention  was  over,  July  22,  at 
Bangor. 

Q.  Well,  bet^-een  that  time  and  the  time  when  you 
spoke  here  in  Brooklyn,  how  often  was  you  here  or  at 
Xew-York'f  A.  Well,  Sir,  I  think  that  I  simply  cam© 
home  once  in  order  to  gee  2tlr3.  Tilion  to  go  back  with  me 


484 


THE   TILTON-BEEGEEE  TEIAL. 


during  tlie  remainder  of  tlie  campaign;  I  remember 
being  borne  a  day  or  two. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Can  you  state  about  when  that  was  1 
A.  I  baven't  made  any  inquiry,  Sir ;  I  tbink  probably  I 
could  by  

Q.  Well,  witb  tbat  exception,  you  were  absent  from 
home  contmually,  or  from  New- York?  A.  I  believe  so ; 
yes,  Sir;  I  can  speak  positively  only  as  to  that  which  I 
have  now  here ;  but  from  the  Fall  of  1871  to  the  Fall  of 
1872  I  spent  a  whole  year  of  continuous  public  speaking, 
the  most  laborious  year  of  my  whole  life,  and  that  was 
the  period  at  which  Mr.  Woodley  says  that  I  enjoyed  the 
honor  of  his  accLuaintance. 

Mr.  Evarts— No  matter  about  Mr.  Woodley. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  that  was  the  period  when  Woodley 
fixes  that  intercourse  at  the  ofBce. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  that  is  matter  of  argument. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir ;  Mr.  Woodley  says  that  I  was  at 
that  office  in  September. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  no  matter. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  not  a  matter  of  argument,  it  is  a  ques- 
tion of  fact ;  he  has  testified. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  given  us  the  fact,  and  that  is  the 
end  of  it. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Now,  Mr.  Tilton,  Mr.  Woodley  

Mr.  Evarts— Give  us  the  reference. 
Mr.  Morris— Part  9,  page  670. 

Mr.  Evarts— Give  us  the  page ;  they  are  all  continuous. 

Mr.  Morris— 607,  second  column,  right  hand  page.  Re- 
ferring to  this  interview  to  which  I  have  called  your  at- 
tion,  and  to  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Col.  Blood,  Mr.  Woodley 
was  asked  this  question :  [Reading] 

Q.  What  did  they  say  to  Col.  Blood  1  A.  They  told  him 
to  do  it  and  that  would  be  the  making  of  him.  She  says, 
"Beecher's  congregation  wiU  pay  you  $100,000"— 
Mrs.  Woodhull  said. 

Q.  For  what?  A.  For  publishing  it. 

Q.  For  publishing  it  1  A.  No,  not  for  publishing  it ;  but 
if  they  published  it  they  would  pay  $100,000  to  have  it 
taken  out,  or  anything.  She  said;  "  It  is  a  lich  congre- 
gation, and  they  wouldn't  have  that  come  out— no  how 
In  the  world." 

Q.  Now,  was  any  such  conversation  as  that  ever  had  in 
your  presence  1  A.  Not  a  word  of  it.  Sir,  nor  anything 
like  It. 

Q.  Was  the  sum  of  $100,000  or  any  other  sum  ever 
mentioned  in  connection  with  the  publication  of  that  ar- 
ticle by  you  to  Mrs.  Woodhull  or  Col.  Blood,  or  by  either 
of  them  to  you  or  to  any  other  person  in  your  presence  ? 
A.  No,  Sir,  not  at  all. 

CONTEADICTION  OF  THE  WITNESSES  GILES, 
GRAY,  AND  COOK. 

Q.  Mrs.  Lncy  Giles  testified,  same  part,  page 
618,  that  on  the  4th  of  July  you  stayed  all  night  at  Mrs. 
Woodhull's;  is  that  true?  A.  It  is  not  true,  Sir ;  I  stayed 
at  my  own  house. 

Q..  You  say  you  stayed  at  your  house— have  you  any 


distinct  recollection  upon  that  subject  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I 
was  asked  by  Mr.  

Q.  Can  you  name  any  circumstance  t  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  know  about  the  circumstance. 

The  Witness— I  remember  that  during  that  Summer  I 
had  two  or  three  days  of  illness,  which  resulted  in  my 
being  thrown  on  my  back,  and  the  day  on  which  I  was 
confined  to  my  room,  after  these  two  or  three  days  of 
partial  confinement  in  the  house,  is  identified  ta  my  mind 
by  beiag  the  day  on  which  the  daughter  of  Mrs.  Brad- 
shaw  was  married ;  that  was  July  6 ;  I  was  that  morning 
sick  abed  ia  my  house,  and  I  remember  that  I  had  been 
confined  to  the  house,  though  not  to  my  bed,  for  a  day  or 
more  previously ;  that  is  the  only  means  I  have  of  iden- 
tifying it.  Mr.  Evarts  asked  me  about  the  4th  of  JiHy ; 
I  could  not  remember  anything  about  it  as  connected 
with  the  4th  of  July,  and  my  only  recollection  now  is 
as  connected  with  that  wedding  day,  which  was  the  6th 
of  July  ia  the  morning;  then  I  was  at  home  sick  abed, 
and  had  been— I  had  been  home,  I  remember,  ill  the  pre- 
ceding day  

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  a  sofa  bed  iu  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  par- 
lor? A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  sleep  upon  one?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Sleep  upon  one  there  he  means. 

The  Witness— No,  Sir ;  that  is  what  I  understood. 

Mr.  Morris— At  Mrs.  Woodhull's  ?  A.  I  have  slept  on  a 
sofa  bed.  Sir,  in  my  own  house. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  but  not  there. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Not  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  house  ?  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  Mrs.  GUes  also  spoke  of  an  occasion  when  you  were 
at  Mrs.  Woodhull's,  she  states,  and  you  were  up  stairs  in 
Mrs.  Woodhull's  room,  and  she  waited  upon  you. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  page  ? 

By  Mr.  Morris— Took  champagne  and  chickens— page 
618— up  to  the  room  for  you.  Did  any  incident  of  that 
Mnd  ever  occur  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  never  saw  a  bottle  of 
champagne  in  that  house,  never  sipped  a  glass  of  it  there, 
never  ate  a  chicken  there,  or  anything  of  the  Mnd. 

Q.  I  was  about  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Tilton,  whether  you  and 
Mrs.  Woodhull  were  ever  served  with  any  refreshmenfs 
whatever  by  this  person,  or  any  other  person,  in  any 
room  up  stairs  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  in  any  other  room  in  her  house  ?  A.  No,  Sir.  I 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris]— Does  he  say  he  never  took 
refreshments  there  ?  j 

Mr.  Morris— That  he  never  was  served  with  refresh-' 
ments  by  this  person.  [To  the  witness.]  You  took  break- 
fast there  ?  A.  I  took  breakfast ;  never  in  any  other 
way  than  that;  I  don't  remember  the  woman ;  I  don't 
remember  ever  having  seen  her. 

Q.  Mr.  Gray  spoke  of  your  riding  out  with  her  in  a 
phaeton  with  a  white  horse ;  did  you  ever  ride  out  with 
her  in  a  phaeton  with  a  white  horse  ?   A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  know  of  her  having  a  white  horse  ?  A. 


TBSTmONT  OF  ISEODOBE  TILIOX, 


485 


Col.  Blood  told  me  ttiat  in  their  former  days  of  residence 
liere  ther  liad  a  phaeton  and  a  -svhite  horse,  hut  I  never 
sa^r  either  the  phaeton  or  the  horse. 

Q.  You  never  sa?r  it  and  never  rode  ^th  thenj  1  A.  ^s'o, 
Sir,  I  never  did. 

Q.  The  same  Tvitness,  in  speaMng  of  an  interview  that 
you  had  vrith  Mrs.  Woodhull  [page  615J  in  reference  to 
Mr.  Beecher  presiding  at  Steinway  Hall,  "Was  asked  this 
question  and  made  this  answer : 

Q.  VHio  had  better  1  A.  :Mr.  Beecher;  that  he,  3Ir. 
Beecher,  had  hetter  preside  at  that  meeting,  or  that  she 
■vrould— [this  is  the  language  that  she  is  said  to  have  used 
in  your  presence]— that  she  vrould  mate  it  hotter  on  earth 
for  him  than  hell  was  helow. 

Did  ever  any  such  conversation  as  that  take  place  he 
tween  you  and  her  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  ta  your  hearing  1   A.  So,  Sir. 

Q.  "Were  you  ever  in  the  office— in  the  hack  office— 
when  the  gas  was  lighted— in  Broad-st.?  A.  No,  Sir; 
nor  any  other  person;  for  there  is  no  gas  there. 

Q.  You  heard  Mr.  "Woodley  describe  an  incident  there 
of  seeing  figures  upon  the  glass  1  *  A.  Not  Woodley— 
Gray. 

Q.  Mr.  Gray  I  should  say  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Did  anything  of  that  kind  ever  occur  ?  A.  No,  Sir ; 
it  never  did. 

Q.  You  say  there  is  no  gas  in  that  room  1  A.  No,  Sir ; 
never. 

Q.  Mr.  Cook  testified  that  on  the  20th  of  November, 
1871,  you  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  went  to  Mr.  Moulton's 
together  ia  a  carriage.  Is  that  true  ?  A.  It  is  not,  Sir;  I 
did  not  see  Mrs.  Woodhull  on  that— at  that  interview 
at  aU. 

Mr.  Evarts— Whctt  page  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Part  8,  page  364.  [To  the  witness.]  He 
also  says  that  you  asked  him  to  join  The  Golden  Age.  Is 
that  true  1  A.  It  is  not,  Sir.  He  asked  me  to  take  him  on 
T7i€  Golden  Age,  and  I  declined  the  proffer. 

Q.  He  also  says  that  he  was  asked  in  your  presence  by 
Mrs.  Woodhull — I  am  not  certain  as  to  whether  he  said 
you  or  not,  but  that  he  was  asked  to  write  this  scandal, 
and  put  it  in  shape. 

Ltr.  Evarts— "^Tiat  page  do  you  now  refer  to? 

Mr.  Morris— Page  365.  There  is  considerable  on  that 
subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— ^'ell. 

Mr.  Morris- Did  you  ever  hear  Mrs.  Woodhull  ask  him 
or  suggest  to  him  the  writing  of  this  story  called  the 
scandal?  A.  I  never  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  ask  him  ?   A,  I  never  did. 

Q.  Or  intimate  or  suggest  that  he  should  do  it  ?  A.  I 
did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  such  an  intimation  or  suggestion 
from  any  one  made  to  him  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  the  subject  mentioned  in  his  pres- 
ence? A.  Never  once. 

Q.  Mrs.  Palmer  says  that  she  became  acquainted  with 


you  at  Mrs.  Woodhull's  office  before  TTie  Golden  Age  was 
established  ;  when  did  you  form  her  acquaintance  ?  A. 
Not  until  several  months  after  The  Golden  Age  was  estab- 
lished ;  three  months  at  least. 

]Mr.  Evarts— That  is,  acquaintance  with  [Mrs.  Palmer. 

The  Witness— With  Mrs.  TToodhull. 

Mr.  Morris— :Mrs.  Palmer  says  that  she  formed  her  ao 
quaratanc^  with  the  witness  prior  to  the  establishment  of 
The  Golden  Age. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  is  the  answer  that  he  formed  her  ac- 
quaintance three  months  after  the  establishment  of  Th* 
Golden  Age  ? 

The'Witness— The  Goldeyi  Age  txRd  been  running  about 
three  months.  It  was  in  its  third  month  before  I  became 
acquainted  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  at  all.  I  was  introduced 
to  her  by  ^Ir.  Andrews. 

COXTRADICTIOX  OF  MES.  PALMEE. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  the  point.    The  point 

is  when  you  became  acquainted  with  ^irs.  Palmer. 
The  Witness— No,  Sir  ;  I  do  not  understand  it  so. 
Mr.  Morris— Yes. 

The  Witness— I  never  became  acquainted  with  Mrs. 
Palmer. 

By  3Ir.  3Iorri5— Well,  state  when  vou  saw  her,  or  met 
her  ?  A.  I  have  some  recollection  of  seeing  her  in  :Mrs. 
Woodhull's  office  some  time  in  the  Summer  of  1871. 

Q.  That  was  after  The  Golden  Age  was  established  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir  ;  long  after— lonsc  after. 

Q.  It  was  after  that  before  you  formed  the  acquain- 
tance of  either  of  them  ?    A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  She  says  that  she  heard  a  conversation  with  you  at 
the  office  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  concerning  the  starting  of  the 
projected  paper,  The  Golden  Ag^e— heard  you  talking 
about  it  before  it  was  established.  Is  that  true  ?  A.  No, 
Sir.  That  is  impossible.  The  Golden  Age  had  been  es- 
tablished long  before  I  ever  saw  Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Q.  I  will  read  a  question  and  an  answer  or  two,  for  the 
purpose  of  asking  you  about  them.  I  read  from  the  testi- 
mony of  Mrs.  Palmer : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  an  occurrence  in  the  early  pert  of 
1872,  a  considerable  time  prior  to  the  publication  of  what 
is  known  as  the  "  Woodhull  Scandal,"  when  any  proofs 
were  exhibited  to  you?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Who  was  present  on  the  occasion  ?  A.  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  and  Theodore  Tilton  ;  there  might  have  been  some- 
body else  in  the  room,  but  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state  what  occurred  on  that  occasion, 
as  far  as  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton  were  concerned? 
A.  IMrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  TUton  came  in  hastily  to  the 
private  office  where  I  was  engaged  on  my  stocking-sus- 
penders, and  ]NIrs.  Woodhull  says,  "  I  have  something  to 
show  you,  Daniels,"  and  she  commenced  reading  what  I 
afterward  heard  called,  and  heard  at  the  time  called,  the 
Woodhull  Scandal ;  read  a  portion  of  it ;  Mr.  Tilton  only 
stopped  for  a  moment,  or  a  few  moments,  and  went  out 
immediately. 

Did  anything  of  that  kind  ever  occur  in  that  offic-e 
in  your  presence  ?   A.  No.  Sir, 


486 


TRE   TlLTON-PEEOflUlZ  TRIAL. 


Q.  In  the  Spring  of  1872,  or  at  any  otlier  time  ?  A.  No, 
Sir.  It  could  not  have  occurred  at  the  time  which  she 
assigns,  for  then  I  was  in  the  North-West. 

Mr.  Evarts— Excuse  me,  Mr.  Tilton  ;  I  ask  to  have  that 
struck  out,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Mr.  Morris— "Well,  I  will  ask  the  question. 

Q.  She  fixes  it  in  this  way  [reading] : 

Q.  Some  four  or  six  weeks  before  May  I  A.  Yes,  Sir,  in 
1872. 

Now,  where  were  you  at  that  time,  the  period  at  which 
she  fixes  it— the  period  at  which  she  says  the  conversa- 
tion took  place  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Four  to  six  weeks  before  May,  1872. 

The  Witness  [referring  to  a  memorandum] — May, 
April,  March— well,  Sir,  I  was  somewhere  between  the 
Ohio  River  and  the  Mississippi ;  here  is  the  list  to  speak 
for  Itself. 

Mr.  Morris— Very  weU. 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  witness]— I  thought  you  said  you  got 
home  on  the  24th  of  March?  A.  I  did.  Sir;  she  speaks  of 
six  weeks  previous  to  the  1st  of  May ;  corrects 
herself  and  says  six  weeks  previous  to  the  15th  of  April ; 
in  other  words,  six  weeks  previous  to  the  time  when  she 
went  into  her  house. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  am  only  asking  now  about  the  ques- 
tion I  have  asked. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  she  did  correct  herself ;  she  said  It 
was  the  15th  of  April,  or  about  that  time. 

Mr.  Evarts— Let  us  know  what  the  question  is;  refer  us 
to  the  passage. 

Mr.  Morris— I  read  this  from  my  scrap-book. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  have  got  the  first  place ;  now, 
where  is  the  other  ? 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  in  Mrs.  Palmer's  testimony ;  you  will 
find  it  

Mr.  Shearman— On  the  direct  or  on  the  cross-examina- 
tion? 

Mr.  Morris— I  read  from  the  direct  examination;  the 
question  I  read. 

Mr.  Beach— I  drew  her  attention  to  that  on  the  cross- 
examination. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  on  the  cross-examination  that  she  cor- 
rected the  date. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  let  us  find  the  passage. 

Mr.  Shearman — My  question  on  the  direct  was  this : 

Did  this  take  place  some  four  or  six  weeks  before  the 
1st  of  May  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  1872. 

Then  Mr  Beach  on  the  cross-examination  asked  : 

I  understood  you  to  say  that  she  showed  you  a  proof  of 
the  scandal  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  but  that  was  later. 

Q.  When  was  that  ?  A.  That  was  about  two  months 
before  I  went  into  my  house  in  Twenty-seventh-st.  I 
went  in  there  on  the  Ist  of  May.  No,  it  was  the  15th  of 
April ;  I  didn't  go  into  my  house  in  May  ;  I  went  in  on 
the  15th  of  Api'U,  and  it  was  some  weeks  before  this  that 
Mrs.  WoodhTill  not  only  showed  it  to  me,  but  I  saw  it  two 
or  three  different  times. 

Now,  that  is  the  question  of  when  Mrs.  Woodhull 


showed  it  to  her ;  she  is  not  speaking  of  the  time  when 
she  saw  it  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  TUton. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  yes,  she  is.  She  is  speaking  of  the  same 
time. 

Mr.  Shearman— She  speaks  of  its  being  shown,  but  not 
in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Tilton. 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— On  the  cross-examination  she  says  that 
Mrs.  Woodhull  showed  it  to  her  two  or  three  times.  In 
my  examination  I  only  asked  her  about  one  time,  when  it 
was  shown  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Beach— This  is  altogether  irregular,  your  Honor,  to 
argue  this  question.  I  first  asked  her  as  to  the  specific 
time  that  she  spoke  of  it  on  the  direct  examination,  and 
she  fixed  it  as  given  in  her  answer,  and  then  added 
that  it  was  shown  to  her  two  or  three  times. 

Mr.  Shearman — Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Beach— She  did,  and  your  reading  shows  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  read  the  whole  of  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I  certaiuly  did  ask  her,  and  your  reading  of 
it  shows  that  I  did.  But  it  is  not  a  matter  to  be  discussed 
here. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  a  matter  to  be  referred  to  in  the  evi- 
dence. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir,  it  is  not  a  matter  for  us  to  make 
counter  assertions  about,  in  regard  to  the  effect  of  the 
evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well.  I  agree. 

Mr.  Beach— Very  well,  if  you  agree,  let  us  drop  the  suh- 
ject. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  understood  you  to  say  so— to  make  an 
assertion  about  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I  did  not  say  so  until  after  Mr.  Shearman 
had  iaterjected  his  argument  upon  it. 

Judge  NeD-Son— Proceed,  Mr.  Morris. 

By  Mr.  Morris— You  say  that  at  the  time  she  fixes,  yon 
were  absent  from  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  that,  if  your  Honor  please.  We 
have  this  gentleman's  absences,  which  he  has  been 
allowed  to  fix,  and  he  has  fixed  them,  and  he  says  he  got 
home  on  the  24th  of  March.  Now,  whether  that  is  an 
alibi  that  excludes  his  having  been  at  Mrs.  WoodhuU's 
from  four  to  six  weeks  before  the  1st  of  May,  is  a  ques- 
tion that  can  be  discussed  on  these  facts.  It  does  not 
need  any  other  facts.  He  negatives  the  interview,  and 
he  has  given  the  facts  of  his  absences.  The  evidence  of 
Mrs.  Palmer  is  already  in  possession  of  the  Court,  and 
all  the  rest  is  matter  of  argument,  not  of  testimony. 

Mr.  Morris— WeU,  it  is  sufficiently  

Mr.  Beach— No,  wait  a  moment ;  the  question  is  proper. 

Judge  NeUson— You  are  entitled,  by  additional  ques- 
tions, to  get  any  further  light  you  can  get  on  that  sub. 
ject. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Now,  where  were  you  at  the  time  when 
Mrs.  Palmer  testifies  that  you  had  this  interview  tu  the 
office,  when  the  scandal  was  read?. 


TU81IM0NY   OF  Tf 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  object  to.  Prove  where  lie  was  at 
uny  date  that  you  please,  and  then  we  will  compare  his 
whereahouts,  as  he  testifies  to  it,  with  Mrs.  Palmer's  tes- 
timony ;  we  are  not  to  take  this  witness's  estimate  of 
Mrs.  Palmers's  testimony.  TJiere  is  her  testimony  on  the 
record. 

Judge  Neilson— Still  it  is  competent  for  any  witness  to 
state  that,  when  it  is  alleged  that  a  certain  thing  occurred 
in  his  presence,  he  was  elsewhere. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  have  not  objected  to.  That  he  has 
already  stated.  He  has  given  us  every  day  and  every 
date. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  as  the  witness  can  state  where  he 
was,  he  can  also  add  whether  or  not  he  was  at  a  certain 
place. 

Mr.  Morris— He  has  not  given  every  date  when  he  was 
absent,  Sir.  He  is  unable  to  give  every  date.  He  can  go 
beyond  the  dates  that  he  has  given.  He  recollects  his 
absence  from  the  city  on  occasions  the  dates  of  which  are 
not  given  in  the  list  of  appointments  that  he  has  read. 
Now,  it  is  competent  for  him  to  give  his  general  recollec- 
tion. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  object  to  your  proving  any  fact  as 
to  where  he  was,  in  addition  to  what  you  have  already 
proved. 

Judge  Neilson— Where  he  was  or  where  he  was  not. 
Mr.  Evarts— Exactly. 

Judge  Neilson— One  is  as  admissible  as  the  other, 

Mr.  Evarts— Exactly.  But  I  want  facts. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  give  you. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  want  him  to  testify  where  he  was 
•'when  Mrs.  Palmer  says  he  was  somewhere  else,"  when 
the  question  of  what  Mrs.  Palmer  really  does  say  is  a 
matter  of  estimate  or  argument.  Your  Honor  has  had 
your  attention  called  to  it,  as  the  jury  have.  She  says 
that  a  certain  occurrence  took  place  somewhere  from 
four  to  six  weeks  before  the  1st  of  May. 

Judge  Neilson— Before  the  15th  of  April. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  say  before  the  Ist  of  May. 

Judge  Neilson— She  corrected  that,  and  fixed  it  as  the 
time  when  she  moved  into  her  house. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  understand  that  she  did.  That  is 
a  matter  to  be  debated  hereafter.  But,  assuming  that 
she  did,  the  facts  that  this  witness  can  introduce  are 
where  he  was  at  any  dates,  not  where  he  was  during  an 
ambulatory  space  of  time,  as  mentioned  in  Mrs.  Palmer's 
testimony. 
Mr.  Morris — I  \vill  get  at  it. 

Judge  Neilson— I  tbink  the  witness  can  state  the  gen- 
eral fact,  where  he  was. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  can  state  any  fact  as  to  where  he  was 
at  any  time.   That  I  do  not  object  to. 

Mr.  Morris — That  is  what  I  am  asking. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  not  whether  he  was  here  at  the  time 
that  Mi-8.  Palmer  says  he  was.  That  is  not  the  proper 


'JEJOnOBJE   IILTOK,  487 

way  to  examine  a  witness.  You  will  compare  IVIrs.  Palm- 
er's testimony  with  his  when  you  have  got  them  both. 
Mr.  Morris— Well ! 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  the  witness  has  been  allowed  to  give 
with  entire  freedom,  and  with  such  information  as  he  has 
gathered,  his  whereabouts ;  I  never  have  objected  to  that. 
But  as  for  saying  that  he  was  here  or  there  when  Mrs. 
Palmer  says  that  he  was  somewhere  else,  that  is  to  be 
made  out  by  argument,  when  we  compare  where  he  was 
on  his  testimony  with  where  she  says  he  was. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think,  Mr.  Morris,  you  can  very  prop- 
erly ask  the  witness  whether  on  any  day  during  that 
space  of  time  before  the  Ist  of  May  or  before  the  15th  of 
April,  he  was  at  the  oflfice  and  saw  Mrs.  Palmer. 

Mr.  Morris— Well  

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  negatived  that  f  ac  t  entirely.  Now 
let  them  show  where  he  was  

Mr.  Beach— I  propose  this  question,  Sir- f  or  we  may  as 
well  end  this  debate  and  get  at  some  practical  result. 
[To  the  witness.]  Mrs.  Palmer  testifies  that  from  four  to 
six  weeks  prior  to  the  15th  of  April,  1872,  you  was  at  the 
ofllce  of  Mrs.  Woodhull,  and  the  scandal  was  then  exhib- 
ited or  produced ;  where  was  you  at  that  time  ?  A.  I 
was  

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  deny.  We  deny  that  she  says 
that. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  is  to  be  considered  hereafter. 

Mr.  Evarts— Undoubtedly ;  and  that  is  where  I  am 
trying  to  put  the  whole  matter— to  limit  the  witness  to 
the  facts  and  then  compare  his  view  of  the  facts  with 
Mrs.  Palmer's  view  of  the  facts  upon  the  evidence  of  each 
of  them. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  he  can  answer  this  question, 
]Mr.  Evarts. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  is  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Beach— You  have  been  talking  about  it ;  you  ought 
to  know  what  it  is. 

Judge  Neilson— The  stenographer  will  read  the  ques- 
tion. 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  last  question  as  fol- 
.  lows  : 

Mrs.  Palmer  testifies  that  from  foirr  to  six  weeks  prior 
to  the  15th  of  April,  1872,  you  was  at  the  oflace  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull,  and  the  scandal  was  then  exhibited  or  pro- 
duced ;  where  was  you  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Evarts — That  I  object  to,  as  the  question  assumes 
that  IVIrs.  Palmer  has  said  what  she  has  not. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  subject  to  the  question  or  doubt  on 
that  point.  [To  the  witness.l  You  can  answer  the  ques- 
tion.   A.  I  was  out  West,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  note  our  exception, 

Mrs.  Palmer  also  stated  that  after  the  procession  of  the 
17th  of  December,  1871,  broke,  you  rode  with  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  to  her  house,  and  got  out  of  the  carriage  and  went  in. 
Is  that  true  ?   A.  That  is  not  true. 

Q.  Were  you  in  a  carriage  dvu^ing  any  portion  of  that 
procession?  A.  No,  Sir. 


488  IHE  TILTON-Ba 

Q.  Did  you  go  after  the  procession  broke  up  -wltli  Mr. 
Swinton!  A.  I  went  a  short  distance  witli  Mr.  Swinton 
out  of  the  crowd,  and  parted  company  with  him,  I  think, 
on  the  corner  of  Broadway  and  Fourteenth-st. 

Q.  I  believe  you  have  already  stated  that  you  did  not 
see  them  in  the  procession  at  any  time  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Either  Mrs.  "Woodhull  or  Miss  Claflin  ?  A.  No,  Sir ; 
nor  was  I  aware  that  they  were  in  it  until  after  the  whole 
affair  was  over. 

Mr.  Evarts — That  is  in  the  original  examination. 

A  HINT  THAT  DR.  STOEES  WILL  BE  CALLED. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Tilton,  at  the  interview  at 
Mr.  Moulton's  study  on  Sunday  evening,  when  Mr.  Wood- 
rufif  and  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Moulton  and  yourself  were 
present,  in  the  early  part  of  November,  did  you  have 
what  has  been  called  the  "  True  Story  "  there  ?  A.  No, 
Sir  ;  the  "  True  Story  "  was  not  yet  written. 

Q.  Nor  any  part  of  it  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  no  part  of  it ;  nor 
had  the  idea  of  it  been  conceived. 

Q.  Will  you  state  about  when  that  was  written,  as  near 
as  you  can  recollect?  A.  It  was  written  about  the  mid- 
dle of  December,  roughly,  and  completed  from  that  time 
onward  toward  Christmas  Day. 

Q.  That  is,  you  commenced  about  the  middle  of  Decem- 
ber ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  just  about  the  middle  of  December  ; 
I  do  not  give  that  answer  trusting  to  my  memory,  but  I 
have  procured  the  dates. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Sir,  that  is  not  proper. 

Mr.  Beach— What  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  no  right  to  state  

Mr.  Beach— I  insist  that  he  has  a  right. 

Mr.  Evarts— Not  in  answer  to  this  question.  He  is 
asked  for  a  fact  and  he  has  no  right  to  give  the  sources  of 
his  information. 

Mr.  Morris  [to  the  witness]— Give  the  data. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness]— Go  on,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object. 

The  Witness— May  I  answer.  Sir  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

The  Witness— I  have  procured  the  dates  from  the  diary 
of  the  

Mr.  Evarts— 1  object  to  that,  his  procuring  dates. 
Judge  Neilson — From  a  diary. 

The  Witness— Mr.  Evarts  objects,  and  I  understand 
your  Honor  to  command  me  to  proceed. 
Judge  Neilson— Go  on. 
The  Witness— I  have  procured  

Mr.  Evarts— I  object.  The  witness  can  state  a  fact 
within  his  recollection,  but  he  is  not  allowed  to  state  his 
sources  of  information. 

Judge  Neilson— Oh,  yes,  he  can  state,  as  any  other  wit- 
ness could,  that  it  was  on  a  certain  day  when  a  certain 
event  occurred,  as  he  linds  in  the  diary. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  can,  in  answer  to  a  proper  question 
drawing  out  the  fact ;  but  the  witness,  in  answer  to  this 


EGHEB  IBJAL. 

question,  certainly  has  not  a  right  to  say  what  informa- 
tion he  has  picked  up  here  and  there. 

Judge  Neilson— There  is  a  good  deal  of  license  allowed 
in  regard  to  the  question  of  dates,  because  dates  are  the 
most  difficult  things  to  remember. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Sir,  but  we  are  entitled  to  the  rules 
of  evidence,  that  it  may  not  be  made  the  recollection  of 
somebody  else  other  than  the  witness  who  is  under 
oath. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness]— You  cannot  take  the 
information  from  anybody  else.  The  question  of  the 
counsel  is,  whether  you  have  verified  the  dates  by  refer- 
ence to  any  entries  of  your  own. 

Mr.  Evarts  -The  witness  is  called  upon  for  primary  evi- 
dence now.  He  gives  it.  It  is  for  me  to  reduce  it  by 
cross-examination  if  I  see  fit ;  but  it  is  not  for  the  wit-- 
ness  to  corroborate  his  testimony  by  stating  what  othei 
persons  say. 

Mr.  Beach— Nobody  has  asked  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Or  what  newspapers  he  has  looked  into. 

Mr.  Beach— Nobody  has  asked  any  such  thing. 

Judge  Neilson— He  might  look  at  a  diary  if  he  kept 
one,  precisely  as  he  might  look  at  a  memorandum  here 
if  he  had  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  he  kept  Ms  own  diary  then  he  would 
meet  me  if  I  undertook  to  reduce  his  testimony  on  cross- 
examination  ;  but  where  the  witness  speaks  of  a  fact, 
that  is  his  testimony,  and  when  I  undertake  to  reduce  it 
he  may  corroborate  it  by  reference  to  the  sources  of  his 
information,  but  not  before. 

Mr.  Morris— I  imderstand  your  Honor  to  say  that  tiie 
witness  may  answer  the  question. 

Judge  Neilson— There  is  no  substantial  importance,  I 
think,  in  the  question.  [To  the  witness.]  What  was  it 
you  say  you  referred  to  1 

The  Witness— I  referred  to  the  diary  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Storrs,  at  whose  

Judge  Neilson— That  won't  do. 

Mr.  Evarts— Why  not,  your  Honor  t 

Judge  Neilson— Because  it  is  the  diary  of  another 
party. 

Mr.  Beach— How  does  your  Honor  know  but  we  will 
produce  Dr.  Storrs  to  prove  that  the  diary  was  accurate? 

Judge  Neilson— Ah,  in  that  point  of  view  

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  will  be  time  enough  to  confirm  this  witr 
ness  by  Dr.  Storrs,  who  will  be  under  oath,  when  you 
bring  him  here. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  he  can  say  now,  in  anticipation 
of  that,  that  he  saw  or  did  not  see  Dr.  Storrs's  diary. 

Mr.  Evarts— Do  they  say  that  they  are  going  to  bring 
Dr.  Storrs  here  t  Do  they  say  that  they  are  going  to 
bring  Dr.  Storrs  and  his  diary  here  1  I  have  not  heard 
that  suggestion  from  anybody. 

Mr.  Beach— The  rule  settled  by  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
your  Honor,  is  that  a  witness,  with  reference  to  a  date  or 


TESTULOST  OF  2 

to  refresli  liis  recollection,  may  refer  to  a  memorandum 
made  by  any  person,  if  the  memorandum  itself  refreshes 
Ms  recollection. 
Judge  I?eilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— "Well,  I  would  like  to  see  a  case  that  said 
that. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  the  case  can  he  very  easily  pro- 
duced. 

Mr.  Erarts— Well,  I  confess  that  if  I  can  confirm  my 
testimony  hy  seeing  what  a  man  on  the  other  side  of  the 
water  made  a  memorandum  of,  why  it  is  news  to  me.  I 
hare  understood  that  the  strictest  regulation  in  intro- 
ducing a  memorandum  to  enable  a  witness  to  aid  his 
memory,  was  that  it  had  been  made  by  himself  and  made 
at  the  time. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  one  quality  of  it. 

Mr.  Evarts — When  he  has  made  the  memorandum  he 
can  then  recur  to  that  act  of  his  own;  that  is  within  his 
consciousness ;  that  refreshes  his  recollection ;  but  how 
under  heaven  a  note  of  Dr.  Storrs  in  his  diary  can 
refresh  another  man's  memory  I  cannot  understand. 

Judge  Neilson— Neither  do  I  see.   Go  on,  Mr.  Morris. 

The  Witness— May  it  please  your  Honor,  I  am  able  to 
swear  of  my  own  knowledge  that  that  could  not  have 
been  earlier  than  the  15th  of  December.  I  went  to  Dr. 
Storrs  to  see  how  much  later  it  might  have  been.  That  is 
all. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  that.  I  object  before  he  verifies 
it.  It  is  the  introduction  of  evidence  that  the  law  does 
not  allow.   He  says  that  he  has  not  

Judge  Neilson— We  take  his  recollection,  and  we  stop  at 
that  point. 

jVIr.  Evarts— Stop  at  that  point— what  he's  able  to  recol- 
lect. I  ask  your  Honor  to  strike  out  everything  else 
after  that. 

The  Witness— I  am  able  to  say  also  positively  that  the 
completed  "True  Story"  came  to  its  completion  on 
Christmas  Day. 

Judge  Neilson— Well. 

COOTEADICTIONS  OF  GEK  TEACY. 

Q.  Now,  at  that  interview,  after  stating  what 
you  had  said  upon  entering  the  room,  Mr.  Tracy  says  : 

Thereupon  Mr.  Tilton  unfolded,  as  I  remember,  the 
writing  of  a  manuscript  which  he  brought  with  him  into 
the  room,  and  began  to  read  a  statement.  The  manu- 
script was  in  loose  sheets,  detached  and  much  erased  and 
underlined. 

Did  anything  of  that  kind  occur  at  that  interview  ? 

The  Witness— May  I  see  that  page,  Mr.  Morris  ?  I  think 
you  have  read  it  incorrectly. 

Mr.  Morris— [Handing  the  testimony  to  the  witness.] 
It  has  been  scratched  out  so  much  with  ink  there  that  I 
cannot  understand  one  word  correctly.  It  is  at  the  top 
of  the  page. 

Tile  Witness— Shall  I  read  it  i 


'EODOEE   TILIO^.  489 

Mr.  Morris— Yes  ;  it  is  scratched  out  so  much  there  I 
cannot  see  the  words. 

The  Witness  [reading]-'*  Thereupon  Mr.  Tilton  un- 
folded, as  I  remember,  the  covering  of  a  manuscript 
which  he  brought  with  him  into  the  room,  aad  began  to 
read  his  statement." 

Q.  Did  anything  of  that  kind  occur  at  that  interview  ? 
A.  It  did  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  at  that  interview  the  Letter  of  Contri- 
tion, as  it  is  called,  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Moulton  as  a  mere 
memorandum  of  a  conversation  that  he  had  with  Mr, 
Beecher  % 

Mr.  Evarts — One  moment,  Mr.  Tilton.  [To  Mr.  Morris,  j 
I  would  like  to  have  you  follow  the  language  of  Llr. 
Tracy,  as  you  undertook  to  read  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  make  your  question  as  specific  an 
you  can,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris— I  think  that  is  specific. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Tilton  went  into  this  interview  fullj 
on  his  direct  examination. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  and  he  has  a  right  now  only  t« 
correct  certain  specific  statements. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  aU. 

Judge  Neilson— That,  I  suppose,  is  the  intent  of  the 
counsel. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  the  object  of  the  question. 

Judge  Neilson— Whose  examination  have  you  got  be- 
fore you,  Mr.  Morris  1 

Mr.  Morris— I  have  got  the  examination  of  Mr.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  think  you  will  find  it  in  Mr.  Tracy's 
examination. 

THE  VAST  VOLUME    OF  THE  TESTIMONY 
I^IAKES  CONFUSION. 

Mr.  Morris— Oh,  yes,  I  will  find  the  specific 
language,  and  ask  that  question,  and  recur  to  it  again. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Tracy  at  any  time  inform  you  or  notify  you 
that  he  could  or  would,  under  certain  contingencies,  be- 
come IVIr.  Beecher's  counsel,  or  feel  himself  at  liberty  to 
become  his  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— One  moment,  Mr.  Tilton.  Let  us  have 
Gen.  Tracy's  testimony. 

Q.  Did  IVIr.  Moulton,  in  your  presence,  use  this  lan- 
guage, or  its  equivalent  1 

The  Witness— Are  you  speaking  of  Mr.  Moulton  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Of  IVIr.  Moulton.  In  referring  to  the  Letter 
of  Contrition  he  says : 

It  is  a  memorandum  or  notes  of  a  conversation  I  had 
with  Mr.  Beecher. 

A.  No,  Sir ;  I  never  heard  the  word  "  memorandimi" 
applied  to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Wait  a  moment.  That  is  the  question  I  ob- 
jected to.  There  is  not  any  statement  that  that  was  in 
the  presence  of  Mr.  Tilton. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir,  there  is  ;  I  stated  it. 

Judge  Neilson— At  the  interview  at  Mr.  i\ron]ton's  house 


490 


IRE   ULTOJS-JBEECHUE  lElAL. 


Mr.  Morris— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  there  was  an  interview  between  Gen. 
Iracy  and  Mr.  Moulton  before  Mr.  Tilton  was  called  in. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes,  lie  came  in. 

Mr.  Morris— I  am  asking  Mm  if  anything  of  that  Mnd 
was  said  in  his  presence. 
Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Tracy  has  not  said  so. 
Mr,  Shearman— He  did  not  say  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Although  it  may  have  occurred  before 
he  came  in,  I  think  it  is  competent  for  him  to  say  whether 
he  heard  it  or  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— Gen.  Tracy  is  contradicted,  if  at  all.  That 
is  the  point  of  this  evidence.  Mr.  Tracy  has  said  that  be- 
fore Mr.  Tilton  came  in.  Mr.  Moulton  said  so  and  so. 

Judge  Neilson— If  he  said  it  before  Mr.  Tracy  came  in, 
that  is  the  end  of  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  clearly  eo. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  clearly  not  so. 

Mr.  Beach— Here  is  a  conversation  between  Mr.  Tracy 
and  Mr.  Moulton  as  to  the  time  this  paper  was  exhibited, 
whether  before  or  after  Mr.  Tilton  came  in.  Two  wit- 
nesses say  there  was  no  conversation  and  no  paper  ex- 
hi1)ited  prior  to  the  time  Mr.  Tilton  came  in.  INIr.  Tracy 
said  otherwise.  It  is  very  proper  for  us  to  show  that  no 
such  thing  as  Mr.  Tracy  swears  was  uttered.  But,  Sir, 
as  my  proposition  in  regard  to  the  decision  of  the  Court 
of  Appeals  upon  the  question  of  evidence  was  so  stren- 
uously contradicted  by  my  learned  filends  on  the  other 
side,  I  ask  permission  to  refer  to  the  cage  of  Marcly  agt. 
Shults,  29th  New- York,  page  351 : 

It  is  competent  to  read  an  entry  made  by  a  v^itness  of 
any  fact  material  to  the  issue,  if  made  at  or  near  the 
time  when  the  fact  occmTed,  and  he  can  swear  it  was 
made  correctly ;  and  he  may  say  the  entry  made  by  him- 
self, or  by  any  other  person,  was  a  copy  of  the  entry,  if 
on  reading  it  he  can  testify  that  he  then  recollects  that 
fact  to  which  the  entry  relates. 

I  am  happy  to  give  my  friend  some  instruction  as  to  the 
law. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  shaU  not  be  wiser  for  that  teaching. 
Mr.  Beach— I  don't  thiak  you  will. 
Judge  Neilson— You  seem  to  disagree  about  that. 
Mr.  Evarts— I  shaU  not  proceed  on  that  law.  Now,  this 
is  the  point  which  we  are  now  on.  Gen.  Tracy  says : 

He  (Moulton)  handed  me  the  paper.  I  began  to  read  it. 
The  first  thing  that  attracted  my  attention  was  the  char- 
acter of  the  handwriting,  and  I  said  to  htm,  "  Moulton, 
is  this  Mr.  Beecher's  handwriting?"  He  said,  "No."  I 
Baid,  "  Whose  is  it  ?"  "  It  is  mine."  I  went  through  it  in 
that  way,  turning  the  leaves  quickly.  I  said :  "  How  do 
you  write  a  letter  to  yourself  ?"  And  at  the  time  I  went 
through  it  tha«  way  (illustrating)  I  said  quick,  "  It  is  not 
signed."  He  said,  "  Yes  it  is  ;"  and  just  at  that  point  my 
eye  caui^ht  this  indorsement  or  memorandum  at  the  foot 
of  the  sheet,  not  seeing  ic  as  I  looked  at  them  first  in 
that  way.  He  said :  "  Yes,  it  is  signed  by  Mr.  Beecher," 
and  I  saw  the  form  of  the  signature  of  Mr.  Beecher. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  %  A.  He  said  in  that  connection,  "  it 
is  a  memorandum  or  notes  of  a  conversation  I  had  wlMi 
Mr.  Beecher."  I  then  read  the  paper  over,  sentence  by 


sentence,  and  studied  it  for  some  minutes.  I  don't  know 
how  long.  He  then  showed  me— the  next  paper  was  the 
retraction  of  Mrs.  Tilton, 

And  then  the  conversation  went  on  for  some  time,  and 
after  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  brought  ia. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Evarts,  may  I  say  that  both  Mr.  Moul- 
ton and  Mr.  Tracy  swore  Mr.  Tilton  came  in  before  the 
apology  or  memorandum  of  January  1  was  exhibited  to 
Mr.  Tracy  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— On  what  do  you  state  that  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  state  it  upon  the  evidence,  and  up  on  my 
clear  and  positive  recollection  of  it. 

Mr.  Evarts  [handing  a  book  to  vntnessl— Now,  will  yon 
look  at  that  and  see  what  Moulton  says  on  that  subject. 
The  point  would  not  make  any  difference- 
Mr.  Beach— How  do  you  know  that  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  looked  at  the  record,  and  am  ad- 
vised of  its  phraseology.  It  would  not  make  any  differ- 
ence on  this  point  of  contradicting  Mr.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Morris — Just  preceding  that,  he  says  :  "  I  have  a 
faint  impression  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  there  also,  but  of 
that  I  would  not  be  certain. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Well. 

Mr.  Beach— Whose  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  Mr.  Tracy,  just  preceding  this. 
Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Evarts  says  that  is  not  in  regard  to  thia 
interview. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  in  regard  to  the  interview. 

Mr.  Evarts— Not  in  regard  to  this  preliminary  interview 
before  Mr.  Tilton  came  in. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  in  regard  to  the  interview,  and  pre- 
ceding the  testimony  I  have  read  and  based  the  im- 
pression upon. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  faint  impression  that  he  was  in  the 
house. 

Mr.  Morris— No ;  "  I  have  a  faint  impression  that  Miv 
Tilton  was  there  also,  but  of  that  I  would  not  be  cer- 
tain." 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is,  in  the  house. 
Mr.  Morris— He  don't  say  so. 

Judge  NeUson — It  is  very  clear  to  me ;  vou  can  ask  the 
witness  whether  he  heard  a  certain  statement  made,  al- 
though the  witness  was  not  there  all  the  time.  It  would 
only  tend  to  show,  if  it  was  made  at  all,  that  it  was  made 
before  he  came  in. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  do  you  contradict  Gen.  Tracy,  who 
has  sworn  that  when  Mr.  Moulton  and  he  were  alone, 
Mr.  Moulton  said  so  and  so,  by  bringing  Mr.  Tilton  to 
swear  that  he  didn't  say  it  when  he,  Tilton,  was  there  i 

Mr.  Beach— He  would  not  do  it  if  he  was. 

Mr.  Morris— By  showing  some  one  elso  was  present  at 
the  time  that  Mr.  Tracy  and  this  man  of  whom  he  speak* 
when  he  swears  he  and  Moulton  were  alone. 

Mr.  Evarts— You  have  not  proved  that. 

Mr.  Beach— We  have  proved  it. 


TESTniOXI   OF   THEODORE  TILTOX. 


491 


Mr.  Erarts— Hov  1 

Mr.  Beacli— I  liave  told  you  Xv^o  or  tliree  times.  Look, 
and  you  will  find  it.  I  am  looking-.  If  I  can  find  tliat 
evidence  of  Mr.  Woodrufl'  

:Mr.  Morris— T  can  turn  to  it  in  a  moment. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Woodruff ! 

Mr.  Beacli— Yes,  and  Mr.  Moulton  too. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  all  tiiat  would  not  contradict  Gen. 
Tracy,  because  Gen.  Tracy  has  not  stated  anytMng  was 
said  wlien  Mr.  Tilton  was  tliere.  Your  point  is  to  contra- 
dict Gen.  Tracy. 

]\Ir.  Beach— TTe  conti-adict  Mm,  I  submit,  in  tMs  way  : 
Mr.  Tracy  swore  that  a  certain  conversation,  and  certain 
incidents  occurred  between  himself  and  Mr.  ZMoulton 
when  3Ir.  Tilton  wa5  not  present.  There  was  but  one 
conversation  of  that  kind.  It  was  at  a  known  place,  upon 
a  given  day,  and  we  proved  by  two  witnesses  that  upon 
that  occasion,  and  at  the  occurrence  of  that  conversation, 
Mr.  TiHon  was  present,  and  we  then  propose  to  prove  by 
Mm  that  no  such  thing  occurred  as  that  testified  to  by 
Mr.  Tracy.  Xow,  we  can  contradict  Mr.  Tracy  both  as  to 
the  persons  who  were  present  at  an  interview  and  as  to 
what  occurred  at  the  interview ;  and  when  we  show  the 
persons  present  at  that  interview  we  are  contTa<iicting 
liim  in  Ms  relation  of  what  transpired. 

:Mr.  Evarts— WeU,  we  will  take  one  thing  at  a  time. 
You  can  show  a  fact,  if  yon  please,  that  Mr.  Tilton  was 
present  from  the  first  moment  Mr.  Tracy  came  into  the 
room.  Very  welL  Undertake  to  show  that,  if  you  can. 
That  is  one  thing.  You  are  not  engaged  in  showing  that 
now.  You  are  engaged  in  contradicting  Gen.  Tracy  in 
the  statement  wMch  he  made,  wMch  is,  that  when  Moul- 
ton and  himself  were  alone  together,  ]Mr.  Tilton  was  not 
present — I  don't  know  whether  Mr.  Woodruff  was  there 
or  not  when  Mr.  Tilton  was  not  present— before  he  came 
into  the  interview,  Mr.  Moulton  said  a  certain  tMng  to 
him.  Xow,  I  cannot  make  it  plainer  than  the  mere  state- 
ment that  3Ir.  Tilton,  in  whose  presence  it  is  not  alleged 
to  have  been  said,  don't  contradict  Gen.  Tracy  when  he 
says  that  no  such  thing  was  said  in  his  presence. 

Judge  Ifeilson- It  may  not  amount  to  a  contradiction ; 
Etill  it  is  very  simple,  it  seems  to  me,  if  a  witness  states 
that  such  a  thing  was  or  was  not  said  in  Ms  presence. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  only  a  contradiction  that  is  open  to 
him.  Evidence  in  chief  is  not  open  at  all.  That  is  the 
reason  I  am  speaking  to  a  point. 

Judge  Neilson— The  simple  question  now  is,  whether 
another  witness  heard  that  conversation.  If  he  didn't 
hear  it,  it  is  the  fault  of  the  suggestion  that  it  occurred 
before  he  came  in.   That  is  a  question  for  the  jury. 

iNIr.  Evarts— Mr.  Moulton  has  said  tMs.  He  tells  Mr. 
Beecher  

Mr.  Beach — What  page  do  you  read  from  ] 

Mr.  Evarts— Page  116.  He  tells  Mr.  Beecher— I  suppose 
it  is  a  jiarrative : 

I  told  Gen.  Tracy  the  fact  in  the  case,  and  that  Theo- 


dore Tilton  had  denounced  me  for  so  doing,  and  had  said 
to  me  that  I  had  no  business  to  reveal  the  guilt  of  Eliza- 
beth to  Mr.  Tracy  without  his  consent,  and  that  I  had 
pacified  Mr.  Tilton  by  telling  him  that  I  had  considered 
it  my  duty  to  take  the  best  advice  I  could  on  the  subject, 
not  only  for  Mr.  Beecher's  sake— that  I  did  not  consult 
lilx.  Tracy  as  r^Ir.  Beecher's  friend  at  all,  particularly,  but 
as  the  friend  of  all  the  parties,  as  a  man  capable  of  advis- 
ing with  reference  to  that  wMch  had  better  be  done.  I  told 
him  that  after  a  while  Theodore  was  willing  to  see  Gen. 
Tracy,  and  that  he  went  up  stairs  and  did  see  Gen.  Tracy 
in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Woodruff  and  myself  ;  and  I  told 
him  that  the  first  question  that  3Ir.  Tilton— the. first  sen- 
tence that  Mr.  Tilton,  or  about  the  first  sentence  that  3Ir. 
Tilton  uttered  after  the  usual  salutations  between  gentle- 
men was,  "  3Ir.  Tracy,  I  do  not  understand  the  etiquette 
of  your  profession,"  etc. 

There  was  no  cross-examination  on  that  point. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  there  was ;  I  beg  pardon. 

Mr.  Evarts— Where ?  Mr.  Shearman  says  you  didn't 
cross-examine  him  on  it.  Still,  I  don't  see  any  impression 
made  on  my  proposition,  that  when  ;Mr.  Tracy  says, 
"When  Mr.  Moulton  and  I  were  alone  together,  Mr. 
Moulton  told  me  so  and  so,"  that  you  can  contradict  bi-m 
by  bringing  3Ir.  Tilton  in  to  swear  that  it  was  not  said  in 
Ms  presence.  That  is  the  difficulty.  That  confirms  Mm, 
so  far  as  the  negative  goes.  It  does  not  prove  it  was 
not  said  to  Mr.  3Ioulton ;  it  does  prove  it  was  not  said  to 
:Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Woodruff  testifies  

Mr.  Evarts— We  had  not  supposed  it  was  testimony  at 
all,  that  there  was  a  preliminary  conversation  between 
Mr.  Moulton  and  ZSIr.  Tracy,  and  that  when  the  question 
arose  as  to  this  fact,  or  about  Mr.  Tilton,  that  iMr. 
Moulton  said,  "  I  should  prefer  that  Mr.  Tilton  should 
state  it  himself." 

Judge  Xeilson— And  then  he  came  in. 

!Mr.  Evarts — And  then  he  came  in. 

3Ir.  Beach— On  the  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Woodruff 
by  Mr.  Tracy  tMs  evidence  was  given : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  that  I  went  to  3Ir.  Moulton's  study 
on  Sunday  afternoon,  where  I  was  shown  the  papers,  and 
you  were  present,  and  Mr.  Moulton  ?  A.  I  remember  we 
were  up  there. 

Q.  Alone  %  A.  For  a  very  short  time. 

Q.  Before  ZMr.  TUton  came  in  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Xow,  were  not  some  papers  shown  me  there,  and 
was  not  the  object  of  going  into  the  study  to  show  me 
some  of  these  papers  1  A.  ZSTo  ;  I  think  tMs  occulted  :  I 
think  Moulton  talked  with  you,  and  after  a  moment  went 
down  stairs  for  Mr.  Tilton,  and  he  came  up.  I  don't 
think  that  the  papers  were  shown  you  until  after  Tilton 
came  into  the  room  ;  that  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  that  what  was  called  the  Letter 
of  Apology  was  shown  me  on  my  first  going  into  the 
room  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  don't  think  that  was  shown  you 
until  after  ]Mr.  Tilton  came  up  ;  that  is  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  Mr.  Woodruff. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  just  as  good  coming  from  :Mr.  Wood- 
rixff  as  from  any  one  else. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  agree  Mr.  Woodruff  has  a  right  to 
make  Ms  statement  about  it.  How  does  that  make  it  a 
c  .ntradiction  of  Gen.  Tracy,  to  ask  him  whether  this  was 
said  in  :Mr.  TiLton's  presence,  when  Mr.  Tracy  has  said  it 
was  not  said  in  Ms  presence  ?  I  don't  object  to  your  prov- 
ing by  Mr.  Tilton,  or  any  competent  witness,  that  Mr. 


492 


THE    TILTON-BBECHER  TBIAL. 


Tilton  was  present  from  the  first  moment,  and  so  con- 
tradict Gen.  Tracy  on  a  fact.  That  is  what  I  am  talking 
about. 

Mr.  Morris— We  agree  this  was  not  said  in  Mr.  Tilton's 
presence.   It  was  not  said  in  any  one's  presence. 

Judge  Neilson— You  simply  wish  to  prove  it  was  not 
eaid  in  his  presence,  which  I  think  is  competent.  You 
may  do  that.  I  think. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  object  to,  as  not  heing  rebuttal  or 
contradiction. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes.  I  don't  express  an  opinion 
whether  Mr.  Tracy  is  right,  or  Mr.  Woodi-uff. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  I  understand  that ;  hut  our  objection 
to  the  question  is,  it  is  not  competent,  not  being  in 
rebuttal. 

Judge  Neilson— It  may  have  occurred  before  he  came  in. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  being  no  statement  by  Mr.  Tracy 
that  it  was  said  in  Mr.  Tilton's  presence. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  what  was  said  in  your  presence  ? 

By  Mr.  Morris — Now,  Mr.  Tilton,  did  Mr.  Moulton,  in 
your  presence,  at  that  interview,  say  (when  referring  to 
the  Letter  of  Contrition),  It  is  a  memorandum  of  notes 
of  a  conversation  I  had  with  Mr.  Beecher  " 

Mr.  Evarts—"  Or  notes." 

Mr.  Morris—"  Or  notes  of  a  conversation  I  had  with  Mr. 
Beecher  ?"  or  anything  equivalent  to  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir ; 
he  never  characterized  it  by  any  such  name,  or  gave  it 
any  such  designation. 

Q.  Last  Summer  did  Mr.  Tracy  say  to  you,  in  Dieter's 
saloon,  or  at  any  other  place,  or  notify  you  that  in  case 
you  made  a  charge  of  adultery  against  Mr.  Beecher  that 
he  would  feel  at  liberty  to  act  as  Mr.  Beecher's  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Wait  a  moment,  Mr.  Tilton.  [To  Mr.  Mor- 
ris.]  Won't  you  refer  to  the  passage  ? 

Mr.  Morris— I  asked  him  that  from  my  recollection. 
Mr.  Evarts.  It  is  the  one  notice  that  I  have  not  a  refer- 
ence of  to  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Beach— We  say,  "Here  or  at  any  other  place?" 
That  was  the  question. 

Mr.  Morris—"  Or  at  any  other  place 't"  That  was  the 
question. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  want  to  see  Ms  language. 
Mr.  Beach— You  must  look  it  up ;  we  are  not  bound  to 
look  it  up  for  you. 
Mr.  Evarts— I  ask  you  to  wait. 
Mr.  Beach— We  will  wait. 

Mr.  Morris— Your  Honor  will  recollect  the  language, 
certainly. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  his  Honor  recollects  Gen.  Tracy's  lan- 
guage, and  can  give  us  the  language,  1  wUl  take  it.  I 
want  the  language  before  a  man  is  contradicted. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  proper,  unaouDtedly,  to  get  the  ex- 
act statement. 

Mr.  Morris— I  Imve  given  it  exact,  as  far  as  its  effect  is 
concerned. 


Judge  Neilson  [to  the  jury]— Gentlemen,  get  ready  to 
retire ;  please  be  in  your  seats  at  2  o'clock. 
The  Court  here  took  a  recess  xmtil  2  o'clock. 

THE  AFTEEI^OON  SESSION. 

The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. Theodore  Tilton  was  recalled,  and  his  direct 
examination  resumed. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Mr.  TUton,  I  was  asking  you  before  the 
recess  a  question  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tracy's  notification  to 
you  of  his  intention,  or  feeling  himself  at  liberty  to  act 
for  Mr.  Beecher.  I  have  now  the  evidence  before  me  and 
will  read  it  and  call  your  attention  to  it.  In  speaking  of 
this  interview— a  question  by  Mr.  Evarts : 

Mr.  Evarts— Where  did  it  occur,  the  interview  or  the 
conversation  ?  A.  I  think  it  occirrred  at  the  Club. 

Q.  The  Brooklyn  Club  %  A.  The  Brooklyn  Clubi— it  may 
have  been  at  my  office ;  Mr.  Tilton  was  in  the  habit  of 
dropping  in  at  my  office  frequently  ;  and  he  was  also  in. 
the  habit  of  dropping  in  at  the  Club  when  I  was  taking 
lunch  or  dinner ;  and  I  met  him  in  the  street  often.  We 
had  casual  conversations.  ****** 

Q.  Well,  what  passed  between  you— how  was  the 
matter  introduced  %  A.  Referring  to  the  conversation  ra 
1872, 1  said  to  him  :  "  Mr.  Tilton,  as  long  as  you  adhere 
to  the  case  that  you  then  stated  to  me,  I  shall  adhere  to 
the  promise  I  made  you ;  but  I  desire  to  say  to  you  that 
when  you  change  your  case  against  Mr.  Beecher,  if  you 
ever  do,  and  state  a  different  case  from  what  you  stated 
to  me,  I  shall  not  regard  my  promise  then  made  to  you  as 
binding  upon  me." 

Did  any  conversation  of  that  kind  ever  occur  between 
you  and  Mr.  Tracy  prior  to  your  meeting  him  before  the 
Committee  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  Mr.  Tracy  never  gave  me  any 
such  notification. 

Q.  And  you  have  related  what  occurred  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  that  subject?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Either  at  the  Brooklyn  Club,  or  at  his  office,  or  any- 
where else,  prior  to  that  time  ?  A.  Never,  Sir ;  never 
anywhere. 

Q.  Mr.  Belcher  in  his  testimony  speaks  of  an  interview 
he  had  with  you  at  your  house,  when  he  walked  with  you 
from  the  ferry,  at  which  you  read  him  a  statement.  He 
says  it  was  not  the  "  True  Story"  that  you  read  to  him  at 
that  time.  State  what  it  was  that  you  read.  A.  I  read  to 
him,  Sir,  precisely  tiie  same  docimient  which  I  read  to 
Mr.  Harman  and  Mr.  Bell  and  Dr.  Storrs,  and  to  others. 
It  never  was  called  by  me  the  "  True  Story;"  other  peo- 
ple have  put  that  designation  upon  it.  It  is  the  same 
document. 

Q.  It  has  come  to  be  designated  in  that  way  ?  A.  It 
was  the  paper  known  in  this  trial  as  the  "  True  Story 
I  read  him  no  other  paper. 

Q.  A  portion  of  that  has  been  put  in  evidence  here  t 
A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  or  a  portion  of  an  imperfect  copy. 

Q.  And  you  read  from  no  other  paper  to  him  I  A. 
From  no  other  paper  to  him ;  yes,  Sii*. 

Q.  Now,  in  that  statement  was  there  an  extract  from 
the  statement  known  as  "  The  Storrs  Statement,"  in 


TESTIMONY  OF  TEEODOEE  TILTON. 


493 


wMch  it  was  stated— in  wMcli  Mrs.  Tilton  said  that  Mr. 
Beecher  liad  solicited  lier  to  become  a  wife  to  Mm,  witli 
all  that  that  term  implies  2  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  the  first  sen- 
tence of  that  statement  or  letter  by  Mrs.  Tilton,  ad- 
dressed to  Dr.  Storrs,  and  dated  Dec.  16, 1872— the  first 
sentence  of  that  document  was  incorporated  accurately 
in  the  narrative  known  as  the  "  True  Story." 

Q.  And  which  you  read  to  him  at  that  time  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Or  a  portion  of  it  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  read  that  porti^m  to  which  I  have  called 
your  attention  to  him  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  presume  I  did,  for 
I  read  him  the  narrative  called  the  "  True  Story." 

Q.  And  you  read  from  no  other  document  ?  A.  I  read 
from  no  other  document. 

CONVERSATIONS  WITH  MRS.  OVINGTON. 

Q.  On  that  occasion  I  read  you  a  brief  state- 
ment of  Mrs.  Ovington's,  and  will  ask  you  a  question  in 
regard  to  it.  It  is  No.  6,  page  131.  Speaking  of  an  inter- 
view that  you  had  with  her,  she  was  asked  this  question : 

State  what  was  said  upon  that  subject?  fit  is  not 
necessary  to  refer  to  what  precedes,  because  the  answer 
will  indicate  it.]  Oh!  When  he  spoke  of  the  fiction,  I 
think  it  was,  he  said :  "  Elizabeth  will  lie  for  me.  She 
would  tell  any  number  of  lies  to  clear  me.  She  loves 
me."  He  said,  "  Even  if  I  were  on  trial  for  the  Nathan 
mm^der,  and  she  had  seen  me  commit  the  act,  do  you 
think  that  she,  if  called  upon  to  testify— do  you  think  that 
she  would  tell  the  truth,  and  have  me  convicted?"  He 
said,  "  No,  she  would  not."  Said  he,  "  Would  you  ? " 

Q.  And  then  she  gives  her  reply.  I  will  divide  the  ques- 
tion. Will  you  explain  that  part,  whether  you  used  that 
language  to  Mrs.  Ovington— the  language  that  I  have 
read  in  that  interview  as  given  here,  and  in  the  sense  that 
is  used  here  ?  A.  The  language  that  you  just  read  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Well,  Sir,  I  should  not  know  how  to  answer 
that,  because  it  has  passed  from  my  recollection.  Now 
that  you  read  it,  it  does  not  come  up  to  my  mind  as  hav- 
ing passed  between  us.  I  should  not  like  to  say  that  it 
did  not. 

Q.  She  spoke  about  Mrs.  Tilton  having  let  out  the  only 
cool  rooms  that  you  had  in  the  house,  and  your  using 
some  expression  of  this  kind, "  Why  don't  Mr.  Beechertake 
care  of  her  ?"  or  "  Why  does  he  let  her  do  that  ?"  Will  you 
explain  that  statement  ?  A.  I  recollect  something  on  that 
subject.  The  circumstances  were  these:  I  was  sitting 
with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Ovington  on  their  back  piazza,  and  I 
chanced  to  make  a  remark  to  this  effect,  that  I  was  sorry 
that  the  piazza  on  my  house  was  in  the  front,  and  not  in 
the  rear ;  that  my  piazza  was  practically  of  no  advantage 
to  the  family,  because  in  order  to  sit  there  we  must  ex- 
pose ourselves  to  the  street,  whereas  in  Mrs.  Ovington's 
house  they  could  enjoy  the  comfort  of  their  piazza, 
and  still  maintain  their  family  seclusion.  Mrs. 
Ovington  made  some  remark,  however,  about 
my  house  being  very  cool  and  comfortable 
in  the  Summer,  in  consequence  of  Gallatm-place  opening 
perpendicularly  just  in  front  of  it.   I  then  made  a  remark 


that  that  was  true,  but  that  I  was  very  sorry  that  Mrs. 
Tilton  had  been  compelled  to  yield  up  the  pleasantest  and 
coolest  room  in  our  house,  which  was  the  second-story 
pair  of  front  rooms,  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Taylor,  who  were 
then  occupying  them ;  and  I  added,  perhaps  in  a  satirical 
vein,  "  This  is  one  of  the  consequences  of  the  scandal, 
and  ttoless  I  defend  myself  against  the  accusations 
brought  against  me,  I  presume  I  shall  go  to  complete 
ruin."  Some  such  conversation  passed  between  Mrs. 
Ovington  and  myself. 

MR.  TILTON'S  COUNTERPART-THEODORE  H. 
TILTON. 

Q.  Mr  Beecher  spoke  of  a  conversation  tiat 
he  had  had  with  Mr.  Moulton,  in  which  Mr.  Moulton 
related  an  interview  that  he  had  had  with  Mr.  Bowen  at 
his  house  in  Clinton-st.,  and  at  which  Mr.  Bowen  turned, 
he  said,  to  his  picture  hanging  on  the  waU,  and  said- 
made  a  remark :  "  How  can  I  ever  be  reconciled  to  that 
man?"  refen-ing  to  Mr.  Beecher's  portrait.  Was  Mr. 
Beecher's  portrait  ever  in  that  house  in  Clinton-st.— Mr. 
Moulton'shoase?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  How  %  A.  No,  Sir  ;  during  the  time  that  Mr.  Moul- 
ton resided  in  Clinton-st.  that  portrait  was  in  mj  house, 
and  it  did  not  pass  into  Mr.  Moulton's  possession  until 
months  afterward,  after  he  had  gone  to  reside  in  his  Eem- 
sen-st.  house. 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher  referred  in  his  testimony  to  his  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Bowen.  He  said  you  attempted,  as  he  was 
informed  by  Mr.  Bowen,  to  excuse  some  of  the  stories 
that  had  been  told  concerning  you,  by  stating  that  they 
referred  to  Theodore  H.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Evarts— Who  says  that  ?  Mr.  Beecher  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  didn't  give  his  initials. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Theodore  H.  Tilton.  Do  you  know,  or 
have  you  ever  seen  Theodore  H.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  have.  Sir. 

Q.  And  about  the  Spring  of  1871  did  you  hear  anything 
concerning  Theodore  H.  Tilton  ?  A.  Not  at  the  time  Mr. 
Beecher  mentions. 

Q.  No,  but  subsequent,  or  at  about  that  period  ?  A. 
Yes,  Mr.  Theodore  H.  Tilton  was  divorced  

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  what  have  we  to  do  with  this  1 

The  Witness  [continuing]  on  the  9th  of  June,  1871. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  don't  care  anything  about  it. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  we  do. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  don't  care  anything  about  Mr.  Theo- 
dore H.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  we  want  to  show  that  as  he  has  been 
referred  to  by  I\Ir.  Beecher,  and  as  he  said  Mr.  Bowen 
stated  that  Mr.  Tilton  attempted  to  excuse  some  of  these 
stories,  or  to  explain  them,  on  the  ground  that  they  re- 
lated to  Theodore  H.  Tilton,  the  argument  will  be,  and 
the  inference  intended  to  be  drawn  from  that,  that  that 
was  a  mere  pretext,  that  there  was  no  such  person  aa 
Theodore  H.  Tilton,  and  it  was  a  mere  subterfuge.  NoW: 


404 


TUB   TILTON-BEEGREB  IBIAL. 


we  "waut  to  sliow,  propose  to  sliow,  tliat  there  was  a  veri- 
table Theodore  H.  Tilton,  aiid  that  alboiit  that  time  he 
had  obtained  a  divorce  from  his  wife,  and  that  he  had 
become  somewhat  talked  about,  and  that  Mr.  Tilton's 
allusion  to  him  was  of  a  date  suhseguent  to  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  point  in  Mr,  Beeoher's  testimony  is 
this— it  was  what  was  said  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  himself,  not 
by  Mr.  Bowen— directly  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Beeoher, 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  Sir,  that  makes  it  still  stronger. 

Mr.  Evarts— [Reading]  : 

He  said  the  stories  of  his  gotag  with  this  woman  in 
Winsted  were  absolutely  false,  had  no  foundation 
in  fact,  and  he  could  not  understand  how  they  should 
have  started  except  that  there  was  another  Tilton  bear- 
ing the  same  initials  as  his,  who  was  a  dissolute  man  and 
an  intemperate  man,  and  had  been  about  the  country, 
and  that  this  story  was  probably  true  of  him,  and  had 
been  transferred  by  those  that  did  not  know  the  differ- 
ence of  personality  to  him. 

That  is  the  point  of  Mr.  Beeoher's  testimony. 
The  Witness— I  had  no  such  conversation  with  Mr. 
Bee  Cher. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  you  have  not  been  asked.  There 
is  time  enough — I  ask  to  have  that  struck  out ;  that  is  not 
a  question  that  has  been  asked. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Did  you  ever  speak  

Mr.  Evarts— I  ask  to  have  that  struck  out,  if  your 
Honor  please. 

Judge  NeUson— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— Ask  him  whether  he  ever  had  any  such 
<3onversation  with  Mr.  Beecher  as  Mr.  Evarts  has  just 
read. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Did  you  ever  have  any  such  conversa- 
tion with  Mr.  Beeoher  as  has  just  been  read  by  Mr. 
Evarts  from  Mr.  Beecher's  testimony  1  A.  I  did  not,  nor 
had  the  facts  on  which  such  a  conversation  could  have 
been  based  then  occurred. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  have  nothing  to  do  with.  You 
are  asked  whether  you  had  the  conversation  ;  that  is  all. 
I  move  that  the  rest  be  struck  out. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation 
with  Mr.  Beecher  in  reference  to  Theodore  H.  Tilton  ?  A.I 
don't  remember.  Sir,  that  Theodore  H.  Tilton's  name  ever 
occurred  in  any  conversation  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
myself. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  learn  the  facts  in  reference  to 
Theodore  H.  Tilton  1 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  object  to.  We  have  not  introduced 
any  facts  about  Theodore  H.  Tilton.  We  have  no  interest 
in  the  facts  relating  to  him.  The  whole  question  is 
whether  Mr.  Tilton  told  Mr.  Beecher  this.  Mr.  Tilton 
says  he  did  not. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  the  whole  question,  Sir ;  but  there 
are  several  branches  to  it,  and  several  modes  of  proof  by 
which  we  reach  the  fact  to  determine  the  question.  Mr. 
Beecher  says  that  in  a  certain  conversation  of  a  certain 
date  Mr.  Tilton  made  this  reference  to  his  namesake,  or 


near  namesake,  a  person  bearing  nearly  the  same  name, 
and  who  wns  obnoxious  to  public  reproach  and  rumor, 
and  refeijed  to  him  and  his  character  and 
reputation  as  the  probable  source  of  some  of 
the  imputations  upon  himself.  Now,  Mr.  Tilton  denies 
that,  and  in  confirmation  of  his  denial.  Sir,  there  being 
this  contradiction  between  Mr.  Beeoher  and  Mr.  Tilton, 
we  propose  to  show  that  at  the  period  at  which  Mr. 
Beecher  locates  this  reference  to  this  other  person,  Mr. 
Tilton  had  no  such  information  of  his  character,  and  that 
the  rumors  against  him  had  not  then  transpired.  That  id 
the  point  that  we  purpose  to  give  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  has  been  expressly  ruled  that  it 
cannot  be  done.  You  may  contradict  whether  he  said  so 
or  not.  You  cannot  give  in  confirmation  or  argument 
that  he  did  not  say  so  that  it  would  not  be  true.  There 
is  nothing  new  in  this  proposition ;  it  has  been  exploded 
over  and  ovCr  again. 

Mr.  BeaiC?!— I  would  like  to  see  where  the  explosion  oc- 
curred. 

Mr.  Evarts— Whether  a  man  says  so  or  not  is  the  ques- 
tion that  is  in  dispute,  and  he  cannot  prove  whether,  if  he 
said  so,  it  would  have  been  a  lie,  and  therefore  he  did  not 
say  it,  or  that  he  could  not  have  said  so  because  it  was 
not  true. 

Mr.  Beach— Can't  he  be  asked  whether  it  is  true  or  not? 
Mr.  Evarts— No,  he  cannot  be  asked  whether  it  is  true 
or  not. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  let  us  see  about  that. 

Mr.  Evarts- Then  we  could  bring  other  people  in  here 
to  prove  that  it  was  true,  and  we  should  try  this  name- 
sake of  his,  and  the  date  of  his  knowledge  of  it.  The 
point  is  that  the  contradiction  is  between  the  statements 
of  what  a  witness  said — as  to  what  a  witness  said,  and 
it  is  settled  that  you  cannot  prove  the  probability  or  Im- 
probability of  his  having  said  it  by  proving  one  way  that 
it  was  true,  or  the  other  way  that  it  was  untrue.  • 

Mr.  Beach— Now  I  deny.  Sir,  that  that  is  settled, 
p  Judge  Neilson— I  think  this  is  perfectly  clear.  If  one 
witness  states  that  another  made  a  certain  statement, 
that  other  witness  could  deny  that  he  made  the  state- 
ment and  could  add  the  fact  that  he  did  not  know  the 
party,  the  other  witness,  until  after  that  time. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Sir,  I  understand  exactly  not. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  I  don't  see  the  reason  of  the  deci- 
sions, if  that  is  so. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  reason  is  that  the  contradiction  is  as 
to  the  statements,  and  whether  it  was  true  or  not  when 
he  said  it  would  not  have  any  bearing  on  the  question. 
It  would  involve  you  into  an  inquiry  wholly  collateral, 
whether  it  was  true  or  not,  whereas  the  only  issue  i« 
whether  he  said  it  or  not. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  the  primary  issue. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  Is  not  an  argument  that  a  man  did  not 
say  a  thing  because  it  was  not  true.  There  are  »  ^eat 
I  many  men  tell  lies. 


tFjStimont  of  t 

Judge  Neilson— That  may  be.  I  don't  know.  [Laugh- 
ter.l 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  has  been  very  fortunate  in 
your  judicial  experience  if  you  have  not  noticed  that. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  the  proposition.  Sir,  which  we 
submit  to  prove,  that  it  was,  or  was  not,  true.  We  pur- 
pose to  show  a  circumstance,  a  fact,  connected  with  the 
transaction,  which  confirms  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Tilton  ; 
as  the  one  supposed  by  your  Honor  

Mr.  Morris— Supposing  he  was  in  Europe  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  suppose  that  circumstance,  as  sug- 
gested by  Judge  Morris. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  would  bear  on  the  question  of  whet  her 
he  made  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  this  bears  on  the  question  of  whether 
lie  made  the  conversation,  whether  he  had  ever  heard  of 
this  Theodore  H.  Tilton  at  that  time.  Suppose  we  should 
show  that  no  such  man  as  Theodore  H.  Tilton  ever  ex- 
isted, why,  to  be  sure,  the  gentleman  might  reason  that 
it  is  not  absolute  proof  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  invent 
that  story,  and  tell  it  to  Mr.  Beecher ;  but  we  are  not  to 
presume  falsehood  upon  the  part  of  either,  and,  if  any 
confirming  circumstance  can  be  shown  sustaining  the 
confirmation  of  either  of  these  parties,  Avhy  it  would  be 
a  most  extraordinary  rule,  Sir,  which  should  exclude 
that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  this  is  the  rule ;  I  will  ask  your 
Honor's  attention  to  it ;  and  it  would  involve  in  every 
case  a  trial  of  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  statement ;  and 
I  can  go  into  testimony  to  prove  that  Theodore  H.  Tilton 
before  this  time  had  come  to  this  opprobrious  imputation. 

jyir.  Beach— Undoubtedly  you  can. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  that  Mr.  Tilton  knew  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well ;  now  that  shows  that  it  is 
wliolly  collateral.   [Reading] : 

A  witness  having  testified  to  negotiations  for  ex- 
change of  horses,  another  witness  was  called  to  prove 
that  the  former  witness  had  previously  given  a  very  dif- 
ferent account  of  what  was  said  at  the  time  referred  to. 
The  former  witness  was  then  re  called  and  explained  that 
the  circumstances  testified  to  by  the  second  witness  were 
those  of  another  exchange,  a  difl'erent  occasion.  Held, 
that  it  was  not  competent  to  corroborate  him  by  proof 
that  the  other  exchange,  thus  referred  to,  actually  took 
place. 

You  cannot  prove  the  fact  that  is  the  basis  of  the 
Statement,  or  the  absence  of  the  fact  that  is  the  basis  of 
the  statement,  as  either  confirmipcj  or  discrediting  the 
probability  of  the  statement  liAVlrzs  ;5ven  made. 

Judge  Neilson— Is  that  a  Massachusetts  case  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  the  case  of  Edgerton  agt.  Wolf,  in  72 
Mass  ,  the  6th  of  Gray. 

Judge  Neilson— That  collateral  question  isn't  to  be  tried, 
Of  course. 

Mr.  Evarts— Then  no  evidence  can  be  given  concerning 
it.  There  is  not  any  law  that  one  side  can  give  evidence 
u  It  and  the  other  not.  Now,  of  course,  we  have  not 


'EODOEF    TILTON.  495 

shown  Mr.  Tilton's  statement  on  this  subject  with  any 
notion  that  there  was  any  truth  in  it ;  not  the  least.  It 
was  his  statement  concerning  a  matter  in  regard  to  which 
other  proof  has  been  given,  that  is,  this  Winsted  afi'air ; 
therefore,  the  truthfulness  of  his  statement  about  the 
Winsted  affair  is  not  a  matter  that  is  to  be  as- 
sumed at  all  In  our  giving  of  the  evidence,  but 
they  undertake  to  show  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  or 
could  not— did  not  or  could  not  have  said  that  Mr.  Theo- 
dore H.— if  that  is  his  name ;  Mr.  Beecher  does  not  seem 
to  have  named  him— that  Mr.  Theodore  H.  Tilton,  if  that 
were  his  name,  was  the  other  Dromio ;  if  he  said  tuat, 
why,  the  fact  that  there  was  not  any  such  man  would  not 
tend  to  ] :  ove  he  had  not  said  so ;  at  any  rate,'  that  is  the 
very  point.  You  cannot  go  into  the  trial  of  whether  or 
no  there  was  such  a  man  as  Theodore  H.  Tilton  or  not,  nor 
any  minor  fact  or  more  specific  detaU  in  the  career  of 
Theodore  H.  Tilton.  I  beUeve  there  is  no  authority  to 
the  contrary  of  this  proposition  to  be  found  anywhere. 

Beach— Your  Honor  will  permit  me  respectfully  to 
state  that  this  remark,  that  that  collateral  issue  could 
not  be  tried,  seems  to  me  inaccurate.  One  party  as'^erts 
that  at  an  interview  between  himself  and  the  opposite 
party,  a  certain  statement  was  made,  by  one  to  the  other. 
The  party  alleged  to  make  that  statement  denies  it,  and 
says  that  "  at  the  time  of  that  alleged  interview  I  was  in 
Europe."  Can't  we  prove  that  he  was  in  Europe  at  that 
time,  and  cannot  the  gentlemen  give  evidence  to  show 
that  he  was  here  at  that  time,  and  isn't  it  equally  a  col- 
lateral fact  with  the  one  involved  in  the  proposition  now 
submitted  to  your  Honor  '? 
Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  think  it  is. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  I  was  addressing  the  Court,  and  did 
not  either  solicit,  nor  do  I  value  the  opinion  of  the 
gentleman  upon  that  point.  The  question  is  from  Mr. 
Tilton,  whether  at  the  time  when  Mr.  Beecher  says  he 
made  the  allusion  about  the  other  Tilton— whether  Mr. 
Tilton  then  knew  of  any  of  the  rumors  or  circumstances 
afl'ecting  the  character  or  the  reputation  of  this  other  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  it  is  a  circumstance  to  go  rotMs  '.urv  upon  tLe 
question  of  credibility  as  between  these  two  witnesses. 
If  Mr.  Tilton  at  that  time  did  not  know  the  other  Mr. 
Tilton,  or,  if  he  did  know  him,  was  not  aware  that 
there  were  any  impeaching  circumstances  rela- 
tive to  his  character,  why  that  is  a  circumstance 
aflecting  the  probability  of  his  havmg  mn-le 
the  allusion  to  that  gentleman  which  is  alleged  to  i.  ive 
been  made  by  Mr.  Beecher.  Now,  that  does  not  prove, 
Sir,  the  truth  of  the  fact,  whether  or  not  these  public  al- 
lusions were  due  to  the  reputation  of  this  other  Mr.  Til- 
ton, and  that  is  what  this  Massachusetts  proposition  sus- 
tains, that  in  the  circumstances  now  presented  to  your 
Honor,  we  could  not  prove  the  truth  of  the  allegation  of 
Mr.  TiUon  that  these  rumors  originated  from  the  synony. 
mous  names  of  these  two  parties,  or  originated  from  the 
reputation  of  the  other  Mr.  Tilton.    Th:V  -.vuM  ^^rov 


496 


TEE  TILTON-BJEJECHEB  IBIAL. 


ing  the  truth  of  the  fact  which  was  alleged  in  the 
commuiiication.  That  we  do  not  undertake  to 
do,  but  the  question  is,  is  Mr.  Tilton  truthful  or  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  We  say  Mr.  Tilton  is  truthful,  because  at  that 
time  he  did  not  know  Mr.  Tilton ;  at  that  time  he  had  no 
intimation  of  the  character  of  Mr.  Tilton  ;  for  aught  he 
then  knew  this  other  Mr.  Tilton  may  have  been  irre- 
proachable in  reputation  and  in  position.  Well,  Sir,  it 
affects  only  the  probability  of  the  truth  of  his  statement, 
and,  I  repeat,  infringes  in  no  degree  upon  the  principles 
stated  in  the  Massachusetts  decision  cited.  Now,  Sir,  it 
would  be  very  stagular,  it  seems  to  me,  if  a  circumstance 
of  that  character  could  not  be  proved  ;  and  it  is  exempli- 
fied in  the  simple  illustration  wbich  I  presented  to 
your  Honor,  and  it  is  an  illustration  which 
has  occurred  again  and  again  in  this  case, 
and  in  various  other  cases  before  your  Honor.  Mr.  Tilton 
says :  "  This  conversation  did  not  occur  with  Mr.  Beecher, 
because  T  was  absent,"  if  you  please.  He  has  given  that 
testimony,  Sir,  upon  his  present  examination  iu  regard  to 
the  alleged  conversation  with  Palmer,  and  in  regard  to 
the  alleged  truth  of  the  conversation  related  by  Woodley; 
it  is  spriakled  all  through  this  case.  Mr.  Beecher  gave 
the  same  evidence  in  regard  to  an  alleged  conversation 
between  himself  and  somebody  else— Mrs.  Moulton,  that 
he  was  absent  at  Peekskill.  Why,  the  gentleman  says 
you  can  prove  that  fact.  He  has  brought  half  a  dozen 
witnesses  to  prove  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  not  said  that.  Good  gracious !  I 
have  never  said  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  good  gracious ;  the  gentleman  has 
not  said  those  very  words,  but  he  has  said  the  principle 
which  would  have  excluded  that  very  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— Nothing  like  it. 

Mr.  Beech— T  say  it  is  like  it,  Sir,  and  that  is  a  matter  of 
argument  between  counsel  and  myself.  And  why  isn't  it 
like  it.  Sir  ?  He  proves  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  at  Peekskill. 
I  prove  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  know  this  other  TUton  at 
that  time  when  Mr.  Beecher  says  Tilton  appropriated  to 
him  the  credit  of  these  rumors  against  himself. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  analogy  holds  that  far. 

Mr.  Beech— Well,  Sir,  then  if  it  holds,  we  certainly  must 
be  entitled,  upon  the  same  principle,  to  give  this  proof. 

Judge  Neilson— You  may  ask  him  that  question. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  if  we  ask  him  that  question 
"Whether  he  knew  Mr.  Tilton  at  that  time,  suppose  he  an- 
swers that  he  did  know  the  man. 

Judge  Neilson — Or  knew  of  any  reproach  against  him. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— I  think  I  can  obviate  this  by  a  question 
that  I  wUl  ask  him  now,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Evarts— When  a  witness  is  asked  whether  he  made 
a  statement  to  another  at  an  interview  located  in  place, 
and  defined  in  time,  proving  that  he  was  in  London,  is 
direct  proof  that  he  did  not  make  the  statement ;  it  is 
tiie  best  proof.    It  is  not  only  proof  that  nothing  of  the 


kind  was  said,  but  it  is  proof  that  nothing  was  said  ;  it  is 
not  only  proof  that  nothing  was  said,  but  that  no  inter- 
view took  place  ;  not  only  that  none  took  place,  but  that 
none  was  possible. 

Mr.  Morris— Would  not  that  raise  the  issue  

Mr.  Evarts— And  is  direct  evidence,  and  of  course  it  can 
be  coatradicted  by  proving  that  he  is  here,  because  it  is 
on  the  direct  point  of  whether  he  told  bim  so.  But  my 
friend  can  find  no  case  that  pretends  to  show  that  the 
question  of  whether  the  statement  alleged  to  have  been 
made,  would  have  been,  if  made,  untrue,  can  be  brought 
as  evidence  that  it  was  not  made— not  the  least. 

Mr.  Beach— Suppose  this  case,  Mr.  Evarts  

Mr.  Evarts— Nor  can  you,  on  the  other  side,  confirm  the 
probability  on  our  part  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  make  this 
statement  to  Mr.  Beecher  by  proving  that  there  was  a 
scapegrace  of  the  same  name  that  fathered  upon  him 
some  of  his  misdeeds.  You  cannot  go  into  that,  and  I 
certainly  do  not  need  to  argue  against  the  proof  of  an 
alibi  as  being  of  that  nature.  The  alibi  contradicts  tha 
interview,  in  which  interview  the  statement  is  said  to 
have  taken  place.  :row.  the  familiar  case  is  where  a 
statement  of  payment— a  man  who  had  made  a  statement 
of  payment — ^is  not  permitted  to  be  corroborated  by  show- 
ing that  he  had  the  means  of  payment. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  he  might  apply  his  means  to  other 
sources— uses. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  case  of  Collins  agt.  Stevenson,  in  74 
Massachusetts,  is  to  the  same  effect. 

The  testimony  that  certain  statements  were  made  to  a 
witness  cannot  be  contradicted  by  evidence  that  the 
statements  to  which  he  testified  were  not  true. 

Now,  this  is  an  argument  that  a  statement  was  not 
true,  would  not  have  been  true,  acd  that  he  did  not  know 
anything  about  the  facts  that  he  stated,  and  it  comes 
directly  within  the  rule. 

Judge  Neilson— We  could  not  take  testimony  that  it  is 
true  by  inquiring  whether  this  other  Mr.  Tilton  was  a 
man  of  good  or  bad  character,  or  anything  of  that  kindL 

Mr.  Evarts— Or  whether  Mr.  Tilton  knew  it. 

Judge  NeUson— Well,  that  is  the  point.  I  think  you 
may  interrogate  him,  whether  he  then  knew  what  thd 
character  and  reputation  of  this  other  Mr.  Tilton  waii 
that  IS  as  far  as  you  can  go. 

Mr.  Evarts— Does  your  Honor  admit  itt 

Judge  Neilson— That  far  ;  that  one  question, 

Mr.  Evarts— What  one  question  is  that  t 

By  Mr.  Morris— I  will  see  if  this  question  covers  It.  HOW 
are  you  enabled  to  state  that  you  did  not  state  to  Mr» 
Beecher  anything  in  regard  to  Theodore  H.  Tilton  at  the 
time  when  Mr.  Beecher  says  you  did. 

Judge  Neilson— No ;  that  is  too  much  in  the  way  of 
gument. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  it, 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  we  propose  this  question :  At  the 
time  of  which  Mr.  Beecher  speaks  of  an  aUusion  made  by 


TESIIMOyy   OF  THEODOFcE  TlLTOy. 


497 


you  to  a  Theodore  H.  Tilton,  or  any  ottier  person  bearing 
your  name,  -vrere  you  acquainted  ^th  tliat  person,  Mr. 
Tilton  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Tliat  I  object  to. 

Mr.  Beacli — Or  -were  you  acquainted  Tvith  his  char- 
acter ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  either  or  "both  1 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evaits— I  object  to  the  Tvhole  question,  or  either 
branch. 

Jndge  Neilson — I  thinli:  he  may  ansvrer  that ;  say  you 
■were  or  -^ere  not. 

The  Witness— I  simply  kne^r  that  there  was  ^-ir-h  a  per- 
son, and  never  heard  anything  against  his  character  until 
trvo  or  three  years  later. 

Judge  Xeilson— Very  vrell;  that  covers  it. 

The  Witness— Your  Honor,  I  don't  wish  to  sit  in  this 
chair  and  be  the  accuser  of  any  man,  and  all  I  brought 
vrith  me.  Sir,  was  simply  the  record  of  a  court. 

Judge  Xeilson— Xo ;  we  are  not  trying  that  other  man 
at  all. 

The  Witness— Xo,  Sir;  I  do  not  ^vLsh  even  to  accuse  him. 
Judge  Xeilson— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  does  not  go  into  the  evidence— this 
passage  ? 
Judge  Zseilson— Xo,  Sir. 

THE    RED    LOUXGE    IXTEEYIEW  DEXIED 
IX  TOTO. 

By  Mr.   Morris — Mr.    Tilton,   ]Miss  Turner 

&poke  of  an  interview  that  you  had  with  her,  an  alleged 
interview  up  stairs  in  your  bedroom,  a  long  interview  in 
which  you  referred  to  the  red  lounge  in  your  house. 

Mr.  Evarts— Will  you  give  us  the  page,  IMr.  Morris  3 

Mr.  Morris— Foui^  hundred  and  eighty;  hut  I  will  with- 
di'aw  the  question. 

Mr.  Beach — ^^"ell,  I  wan^  to  know — I  want  him  to  con- 
tradict her  on  those  intervie-^'s. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  then  I  will  turn  to  the  page,  page 
480— a  long  iutervie^,  as  she  relates  it.  I  will  not  read 
the  whole  interview. 

Mr.  Shearman— "ViTi at  page,  Mr.  Morris  t 

Mr.  Morris— Page  480,  part  9. 

By  Mr.  Beach— Well,  have  you  heard  her  account  of 
that  interview,  as  given  in  the  evidence  ? 

By  Mr.  Morris— A  long  interview  that  she  relates  up- 
stairs in  the  back  bedroom  1  A.  I  have  heard  it  and 
read  it,  hoth. 

Q.  Well,  did  any  such  interview  as  she  relates  on  that 
occasion  take  place  between  you  and  her  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— What  interview  is  this  % 

Mr.  FuUerton— There  was  only  one  interview  m  that 
bedroom. 

Mr.  Shearman— Is  that  the  interview  when  she  men- 
tioned Mrs.  Tilton  was  very  sick— is  that  the  one  i 


Mr.  3- orris — The  interview  in  which  she  spoke  of  the 
red  lounge. 

Mr.  Shearnian— That  is  on  page  478. 

Ey  Mr.  ^icuTis— And  also  the  interview  on  page  480 ;  I 
call  your  attention  to  both  interviews,  if  you  recollect 
the  inter vieAvs  as  she  related  them?   A.  I  have  a  

Mr.  Shearman— Wait  a  moment. 

Mr.  Beach— Eeally,  cormsel  don't  want  us  to  read  that, 
[to  defendant's  counsel]  do  you  1  We  tell  you  what  it  is, 
to  commence  with. 

Mr.  Eviirts— We  didn't  know  what  the  interview  was. 

Mr.  Morris— On  page  477  and  page  480. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  read  it,  read  it. 

The  Witness — I  know  the  inrerview,  Mr.  Morris,  very 
wt  ll,  which  you  refer  to. 

Mr.  Morris— Well.  I  can  read  sufficient  of  it  to  identify 
it  without  reading  the  whole  of  it ;  480  and  481  it  is. 
The  interview  was  after  she  stated  the  conversation  that 
you  had  had  with  your  wife  in  the  parlor,  in  which  she 
said  i,"ou  knocked  her  down;  that  subsequent  to  that  on 
that  day  you  called  her  up  stairs  into  the  bedroom  and 
then  related,  as  she  says,  to  her  the  

]^Ir.  Evarts— You  can  mark  it  and  show  it  to  the  wit- 
ness, and  just  mark  our  book. 

Mr.  Morris— We  dou't  want  to  put  the  whole  in  evi- 
dence. I  will  read  this  part  of  it.  Mr.  TiLton;  probably 
that  will  be  the  better  way.  The  question  was  asked  of 
Miss  Turner  what  took  place  then.  I  read  now  from 
page  477: 

He  then  changed  the  subject  entirely,  and  he  said— he 
said,  "  Oh  1"  he  was  sitting  down  in  the  chair,  and  he 
says :  "  Oh,  Bessie,  my  dear,  it  is  no  wonder  my  gray 
hairs  are  going  down  with  sorrow  to  the  gTave,"  and  took 
out  his  handkerchief  and  was  wiping  his  eyes ;  he  says, 
"  Xo,  my  dear,  you  are  mistaken  in  the  woman  you  place 
so  much  confidence  in;"  Mrs.  Tilton  then  got  up  off  the 
piano-stool,  and  said:  "  Wh.j  s  -iildn't  Bessie  place  con- 
fidence in  me  1  she  has  no  confidence  in  you ;  she  has  no 
protector  in  you ;  you  have  offered  to  rviin  her." 

Q.  Did  any  conversation  of  that  kind  occur  between 
you  and  Bessie  Turner  and  your  wLOe  when  she  was  pres- 
ent ?  A.  I  never  had  with  Bessie  Turner  any  conversa- 
tion, at  any  time  or  ta  any  place,  concerning  any  such 
subject  as  the  criminal  relations  of  ]Mr.  Beecher  and  I^irs. 
Tilton,  nor  any  subject  kindred  to  it ;  I  never  exchanged 
a  word  -with  her  on  any  topic  however  remotely  related 
to  that. 

Q.  Y'ou  recollect  of  her  coming  in  the  room  when  you 
and  Mrs.  Tilton — you  and  your  wife— were  having  a  con- 
versation upon  the  subject?   A.  I  do.  Sir. 

Q.  And  that  she  came  in  the  room  unobserved  by  you! 
A.  Yes,  Sir ;  her  presence  there  was  a  great  surprise  to 
me ;  as  soon  as  I  detected  her  there  I  ordered  her  out  of 
the  room. 

Q.  Yes,  and  after  you  observed  her  presence  in  the 
room,  no  conversation  whatever  upon  that  subject  oo- 
curred  between  you  and  her,  or  between  y^  r.  and  youi 
wife  ? 


m 


THE    TlLlON-PF.EahlER  TBIAL. 


Mr.  Evarts— Wait  a  moiuent,  Mr.  Tilton.   What  does  all 
this  relate  to— this  interview  1 
Mr.  Morris— The  same  interview. 

Mr.  Evarts— Why,  it  is  the  same  we  have  been  having, 
then  ? 

Mr.  Morris— No ;  he  had  an  interview  with  his  wife,  and 
he  has  testified  that  during  that  interview  Bessie  Turner 
came  in  the  room  unobserved  by  him,  and  when  he  saw 
her  he  ordered  her  out,  and  after  that— the  question  is 
whether  after— she  came  in  the  room  you  had  any  conver- 
sation with  your  wife  or  with  Bessie  Turner  upon  that 
subject  whatever. 

Mr,  Evarts— Well,  that  is  what  I  want  to  get  at. 

The  Witness— I  did  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— Bessie  Tui-ner  has  not  given  any  such  testi- 
monj^  about  being  ordered  out. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir  ;  about  being  ordered  out. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  another  interview  then ;  what 
page  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Morris— 477.  It  is  the  interview  that  I  have  read  a 
part  from.  It  is  in  the  other  interview,  I  think,  where 
she  says  he  ordered  her  out  of  the  room.  I  will  turn  to 
that.  It  is  not  in  that  interview  she  relates  that.  I  will 
find  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Find  it.  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— If  you  will  let  me  tate  it  a  moment,  I  will 
get  it.    [Taking  book.] 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  the  first  column  of  page  477, 1 
suppose. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes ;  that  is  the  interview.    [Reading :] 

lie  said:  "Leave  the  room."  Said  I:  "I  won't  leave 
the  room."  Said  he :  "Damn  you, leave  the  room."  Said 
I :  "I  will  not  leave  the  room,  and  I  will  stand  by  Mi's. 
TJlton  if  I  die  in  the  attempt." 

Q.  Did  anj'^thing  of  th at  kind  occur  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  then,  Mr.  Tiltou,  I  ask  you  the  question  again, 
whether  at  that  interview,  after  you  observed  Miss 
Tu.rner's  presence  in  the  room,  any  conversation  upon 
that  subject  was  had  at  that  time  ?  A.  Not  a  word,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  is  not  admissible,  if  your  Honor 
please  ;  if  he  is  contradicting  the  witness,  he  must  bring 
to  the  present  witness's  attentiim  the  statements  of  the 
other  witness  that  he  wishes  to  contradict. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  I  will  read  the  other  interview. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Morris,  they  are  marking  the  particu- 
lar points  that  you  call  attention  to,  and  I  think,  if  they 
require  it,  you  must  go  through  the  whole  of  these  and 
ask  whether  they  occurred. 

Mr.  Morris— Then  I  will  go  on  if  you  desire  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I fc  must  be  done;  if  it  is  in  that  interview 
that  he  referred  to  the  red  lounge,  and  charged  that  he 
had  seen  them  time  and  time  again. 

Mr.  Morris— [Reading]  : 

"  He  then  gave  me  a  terrible  blow  that  hurled  me"  

Mr.  Beach — You  don't  commence  at  the  commence- 
xnent 


Mr.  Morris— I  commence  where  I  left  off. 
Mr.  Beach— Well,  there  is  a  sentence  before  that,  if  you 
please. 

Mr.  Morris— [Reading]  :  "  I  won't  leave  the  room  " 

Mr.  Beach— No.  "  You  have  brought  that  girl  on  to 
use  against  me."  It  is  just  above  where  you  are. 
Mr.  Morris— I  see  it ;  I  have  got  it.  [Reading] : 
Q.  When  you  went  into  the  adjoining  room,  what  did 
you  do— you  went  into  the  back  parlor  from  the  dining- 
room  ?  A.  I  stood  at  the  folding  doors  ;  they  were  open 
on  a  crack  ;  and  I  saw  Mr.  Tilton  right  over  near  Mrs. 
Tilton,  with  his  fist  going  this  way. 

Is  that  true  ?   A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  cannot  say  as  to  where  she 
stood;  I  can  only  say  about  the  fists;  I  am  responsible 
not  for  where  she  was,  but  for  where  I  was. 
Q.  [Reading]  : 

Talking  very  angrily ;  and  when  I  heard  him  say,  "You 
have  brought  that  girl  on  to  use  against  me,  and,  damn 
it,  she  shall  leave  this  house"  

Did  you  say  anything  of  that  purport  ?  A.  Not  at  all, 
Sir. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  go  on  below  where  I  left  off  before. 
[Reading] : 

He  then  gave  me  a  terrible  blow  that  hurled  me  to 
the  opposite  side  of  the  room,  and  I  fell,  striking  my  head 
violently  against  the  door. 

Is  that  true  ?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  never  struck  her  in  my  life, 
and  never  showed  her  any— but  kindness. 

Q.  [Reading] : 

He  came  forward  perfectly  bland — you  would  think 
nothing  in  the  world  had  ever  happened— so  composed 
and  so  calm.  "  Why,"  he  says  ;"  "  why,  Bessie,  my  dear, 
you  tripped  and  fell,  didn't  you  ?  " 

Did  you  say  anything  of  that  Mnd  to  her?  A.  No, 
Sir ;  nothing  of  that  kind  occurred. 

Q.  [Reading]  : 

I  turned  around  to  him  ;  said  I,  "  Theodore  Tilton,  are 
you  a  fool,  or  do  you  take  me  for  one  ?" 

Did  she  make  any  reply  of  that  kind  to  you  ?  A.  No, 
Sii' ;  if  she  did  I  don't  remember  it. 

Q.  [Reading] : 

What  then  took  place  %  A.  What,  Six  i 

Q.  What  took  place  then  ?  A.  He  then  changed  the 
subject  entirely,  and  he  said— he  said,  "  Oh  !"— he  was 
sitting  down  in  the  chair,  and  he  says  :  "  Oh,  Bessie,  my 
dear,  it  is  no  wonder  my  gray  hairs  are  going  down  with 
sorrow  to  the  grave,"  and  took  out  his  handkerchief  and 
was  wiping  his  eyes. 

Anything  of  that  kind  occur  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  and  I 
had  no  gray  hairs  at  that  time.  [Laughter.] 

Q.  [Reading]  : 

He  says,  "  No,  my  dear,  you  are  mistaken  in  the  woman 
you  place  so  much  confidence  in."  Mrs.  Tilton  then  got 
up  off  the  piano-stool  and  said  :  "  Why  shouldn't  Bessie 
place  confidence  in  me  ?  She  has  no  confidence  in  you  ; 
she  has  no  protector  in  you.  You  have  offered  to  ruin 
her." 

Did  Mrs.  Tilton  say  anything  of  that  kind  1  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  To  3^ou  in  Miss  Turner's  presence  %  A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  [Reading]  : 


lESmrOXY   OF  IREOBORE  TlLTOy. 


499 


He  then  stood  up  and  straightened  himself  very 
Ptraight,  and  put  Ms  fingers  under  his  coat  this  way 
[illustrating] ;  said  he,  "  Bessie,  my  dear,  did  I  ever  at- 
tempt, in  any  ^vord,  shape  or  form  to  ruin  you,  or  take 
any  improper  liberties  with  you  ?  "  Said  I,  "  Yes,  you 
did." 

Did  anything  of  that  kind  occur  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  [Reading]  : 

You  remember  that  time  you  was  talking  about  afBn- 
ities  and  the  time  you  lifted  me  out  of  my  bed  and  car- 
ried me  into  your  bed  1 

Did  she  say  anything  of  that  kind  to  you  1  A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  [Reading]: 

"Oh,  my  dear,"  he  says,  "yoa  are  excited;  you  are 
laboring  under  a  false— mistake." 

Did  you  make  any  such  reply  to  her  as  that  ?  A.  No, 
Sir, 

Q.  [Reading]  : 

"  Xo,"  said  he,  sitting  down  in  the  chair— said  he,  "  the 
fact  is  this  :  Elizabeth  is  so  in  the  habit  of  having  men 
fondle  her  bosom?  and  her  legs,  that  she  judges  me  by 
herself." 

Did  you  say  anything  of  that  puri^ort  to  her  ?  A.  No, 
Sir. 

Q.  [Reading]  : 

He  then  got— he  then  turned  over  to  this  side  of  the 
room  and  said  he,  "  Do  you  see  that  red  lounge  1  Time 
and  time  again  have  T  seen  Elizabeth  and  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  having  sexual  intercourse  on  that  red  loimge  ; 
and  not  only  the  red  lounge,  but  he  spoke  of  the  chair. 

Did  you  say  anything  of  that  kind  to  her  1   A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  [Reading]: 

Mrs.  Tilton  looked  very  earnestly  at  him  and  said, 
Oh  I  Theodore,  Theodore  !  How  can  you  tell  that  child 

such  base  lies?" 
Did  anything  of  that  kind  take  place  1    A.  No,  Sir ;  no. 

Sii'. 

Q.  [Reading!  : 

He  then  asked  me  if  I  knew  what  sexual  intercoui-se 
meant,  and  if  Ixlid  not  he  would  tell  me. 

Did  you  say  anything  of  that  purport?  A.  She  nevf-r 
asked  me  such  a  question  in  her  life,  Sir,  and  I  never  had 
a  word  with  her  on  any  such  subject. 

ME.   TILTOX  DENIES   TELLING  BESSIE 

TLENER   OF   HIS  TROUBLES. 
Q.  Well,  that  substantially  covers  it;  noTv, 
she  says  that  after  that  you  called  her  into  the  back  bed- 
room, up-stairs,  and  repeated  this  conversation. 
Mr.  Evarts— Well,  let  us  have  the  passage. 
Zvlr.  Beech— Page  -478. 
Mr.  Morris— [Reading] : 

Then  he  came  to  me  and  said  he  wanted  to  see  me,  Mr. 
Tilton  did,  and  he  took  me  in  the  second  storvback  room, 
in  his  room,  and  related  this  storv  over  and  over  again 
about  the  lounge  and  the  chaii-,  and  added  that  not  only 
with  Mr.  Beecher  had  she  done  so,  but  mentioned  three 
gentlemen's  names  in  connection  with  Mr,  Beecher. 

Is  that  true  1   A.  It  is  not  true,  Sir. 

By  Mr,  Beach— Or  any  part  of  iti  A.  Not  any  syllable 


of  it,  Sir.  Those  three  gentlemen  are  v^ry  thoroughly 
respected  and  honored  friends  of  mine. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  did  you  ask  her  up  stairs,  and  repeat 
any  conversation  of  the  character  which  she  gave  ?  A. 
No,  Sir,  I  did  not  either  then  or  at  any  other  time,  at  that 
or  any  other  place;  I  never  had  such,  a  conversation  with 
her. 

By  ]^rI^,  Morris— In  this  connection,  Mr.  Tilton,  will  you 
just  describe  that  second  floor  of  your  house,  the  second 
story  ;  the  situation  of  the  rooms  ? 

Mr.  Beach — There  are  two  front  rooms. 

A  DESCEIPTIOX   OF   THE   TILTON  HOUSE. 

By  Mr.  Morris— The  two  front  rooms,  and 
how  they  were  connected  ?  A.  My  house  is  cottage  built, 
very  wide,  29  feet  wide,  which  is  much  wider  than  ordi- 
nary city  houses.  There  are  four  windows  on  the  front 
and  four  windows  in  the  rear.  The  front  of  the  house  is 
divided  into  two  rocms  separated  by  folding  doors,  two 
windows  to  a  room.  The  rear  of  the  house  is  divided 
into  two  rooms  separated  by  a  solid  wall  or  partition- 
very  simple  house. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  the  hall  9  A,  And  the  hall  be- 
tween them. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Between  what?  A,  Between  the 
front  rooms  and  the  back  rooms ;  on  the  one  side  of  the 
hall  is  a  bath-room,  and  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  hall, 
fronting  the  bath-room,  is  a  dark  closet — dark  room  ;  but 
the  main  divisions  of  the  second  story  of  the  house  are 
these  two  front  rooms  running  the  whole  front  of  the 
house,  and  the  two  rear  rooms  running  the  whole  rear  of 
the  house. 

Q.  And  the  hall  is  a  short  hall  between  those  two 
divisions  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  With  a  bath-room  on  one  side  and  a  dark  room  on 
the  other  side  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  a  stairway  going  to  the  third  story  on  one  side  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  the  stairway  coming  up  from  the  first  floor  on 
the  other  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  which  room  was  fitted  up  for  Mr.  Greeley  and 
did  he  occupy  when  he  was  there  ?  A.  Mr.  Greeley  occu- 
pied the  two  fi'ont  rooms ;  that  is  to  say,  the  whole  front 
of  the  house  on  the  second  story,  the  left  hand  room 
fronting  the  street  being  his  bedroom,  and  the  right  hand 
room  being  his  writing-room. 

Q.  And  which  room  did  you  occupy?  A.  I  occupied 
the  room  on  the  rear  of  the  house,  directly  opposite  Mr. 
Greeley's  room— directly  opposite  his  bedroom. 

Mr,  Fullerton— Sleeping-room?   A.  Sleeping-room. 

Mr.  Morris— On  the  left  hand  side  of  the  house  ?  A.  On 
the  right  hand  side  of  the  house  as  you  face  the  rear  of 
the  house. 

Mr.  Beach— Suppose  you  faced  the  front  of  it,  then  it 
is  on  the  left  hand  side  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir, 


500  THE  TILTON-B 

]M  r.  Beacli— The  same  description  as  you  gave  to  Mr. 
Greeley's  bedroom  %   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  was  Bessie  Turner's  room?  A.  Bessie 
Turner's  room  was  in  Keyport  at  that  time. 

Q.  Where  "was  the  room  she  occupied  at  the  time  she 
says  you  took  her  from  the  bed  1  A.  She  says  that  she 
occupied  the  next  sleeping  room  to  mine,  which  would 
have  corresponded  with  the  room  opposite  Mr.  Greeley's 
sitting-room ;  I  was  in  the  room  opposite  Mr.  Greeley's 
bedroom ;  she  says  that  she  occupied  the  room  opposite 
Mr.  Greeley's  sitting-room. 

Q.  That  is,  the  rear  room  on  the  right  hand  side  of  the 
house,  fronting  the  front?  A.  Fronting  the  front,  yes, 
Sir. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Now,  will  you  describe  the  folding-doors 
between  the  front  sitting-room  and  the  front  bedroom  ? 
A.  They  are  ordinary  doors,  Sir,  that  come  together— at 
least,  they  come  almost  together ;  there  is  a  bend  in  the 
floor  which  prevents  their  coming  together  at  the  top. 

Q.  The  doors,  when  they  are  pulled  together,  stand  a 
little  apart  at  the  top  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  my  house  is  a  very 
old  house. 

Q.  Any  key  to  the  folding-doors  ?  A.  There  never  has 
been  a  key  in  those  doors  since  I  occupied  the  house ;  they 
have  never  been  locked ;  you  can't  lock  them ;  I  don't 
know  but  perhaps  a  locksmith  might;  they  have  never 
been  locked. 

Q.  And  are  they  in  the  condition—  A.  I  have  been 
informed  by  members  of  my  family  that  there  has  never 
been  a  key  in  them. 

Q.  And  you  have  never  seen  one  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  nor  has 
my— 

Q.  And  you  say  they  don't  shut?  A.  No,  they  don't 
come  together, 

Q.  Are  they  m  the  condition  now— 

Mr.  Evarts— That  observation  about  members  of  his 
family  I  move  to  strike  out. 

.Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Oh,  certainly.  Are  they  in  the  samo 
condition  now,  or  about  the  condition  now,  that  they 
were  at  that  time  that  Mr.  Greeley  was  there,  in  refer- 
ence to  their  coming  together,  closing?  A.  Well,  Sir, 
I  did  not  make  any  accurate  observation  at 
that  time  ;  I  presume  they  are,  because 
the  liouse  is  a  very  old  one ;  it  has  never 
been  painted  since  1866,  and  I  have  made  obser- 
vation, since  Miss  Turner's  statement,  of 
the  lock.  The  same  coat  of  paint  is  on 
the  door  which  it  carried  when  I  purchased  the  house 
ten  ycTirs  ago,  and  the  little  bolt— I  don't  know  the  tech- 
nical for  that  part  of  the  lock— the  tongue  of  the 
lock,  is  it?  or  the  bolt,  which  is  in  the  margin  of  the  door, 
has  never  been  thrust  out  through  the  paint ;  it  has  never 
been  t;;^  T)(;d,  and  my  daughter  and  other  members  of  my 
family  say  ihat  it  has  never  been  

:rv.  r.;v;>,-ts— oil.  no. 


Mr.  Beach— Never  mind  that. 

The  Witness— I  know  that  in  the  night  repeatedly,  ia 
order  to  have  the  doors  closed,  I  have  taken  my  handker 
chief  and  wound  it  round  the  two  knobs ;  never  with 
the  

MISS    TURNER    ABSENT    DURING  MR. 

GREELEY'S  VI8IT. 
By  Mr.  Morris— Now,  you  say  that  Miss 
Turner  was  in  Keyport  at  that  time ;  how  do  you  know 
that  1  A.  WeU,  Sir,  I  know  by  consulting  the  family  let- 
ters, as  well  as  by  my  own  recollection ;  correspondence, 
I  mean,  which  passed  between  Mrs.  TUton  and  myself  at 
that  time. 

Q.  And  during  the  whole  of  Mr.  Greeley's  stay  at  your 
house  at  that  time  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Just  see  if  that  is  the  letter  which  you  wrote  to  your 
wife.  A.  Yes,  Sir,  this  is  a  letter  that  I  wrote  to  my  wife 
Aug.  2,  1869. 

Q.  And  is  that  the  day  that  Mr.  Greeley  left— I  mean 
Miss  Turner  and  Kate  McDonald,  or  the  day  that  either 
of  them  left  ?  A.  The  letter  speaks  for  itself.  Sir. 
Mr.  Beach— Well,  you  can  answer. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Just  say  whether  that  was  written  on 
the  day  of  their  departure  for  Keyport. 
The  Witness— Do  you  hand  me  the  letter  of  the  2d  ? 
Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  one. 
The  Witness— Yes,  Sir ;  shall  I  read  the  letter  % 
Mr.  Evarts— No ;  the  witness  is  allowed  to  look  at  this 
letter  

Mr.  Morris— Was  Mr.  Greeley  there  when  you  wrote 
that  letter— had  he  arrived  yet  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  Mr.  Greeley 
did  not  come  to  my  house  in  August,  1869,  until  after 
Miss  McDonald  and  Bessie  Turner  went  to  Keyport. 

Q.  They  were  both  gone  ?  A.  They  were  both  gone  be- 
fore Mr.  Greeley  came,  and  Miss  Turner  was  not  in  my 
house  in  '69  diuing  Mr.  Greeley's  visit,  and  the  circum- 
stance which  she  alleged  to  have  occurred  never  did  take 
place. 

Mr.  Beach— You  hold  in  your  hand  a  letter  written  by 
you  of  Aitg.  2. 
Mr.  Evarts— The  last  I  ask  to  have  struck  out. 
The  Witness— I  do,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Which  confirms- refreshes  your  recollec- 
tion ?  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  there  is  the  distinct  statement. 
Mr.  Beach— I  offer  the  letter  in  evidence. 
Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  its  being  offered  iu evidence. 
Mr.  Fullerton— You  can't  object  to  its  being  offered ; 
you  may  object  to  its  being  read. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  has  a  right  to  refer  to  the 
letter  to  refresh  his  recollection  ;  that  is  sufficient.  That 
answers  the  purpose  of  reading  the  letter. 
Mr.  Evarts— He  has  a  right  to  refer  to  it  to  refresh  Ms 
I  recollection. 

Mr.  Morris — Did  you  write  that  letter  to  your  wife  t 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 


TBSTUIO^  Y  OF  THEOBOBE  TILTOK. 


501 


Q.  What  is  the  date  of  it  ?  A.  August  5, 1869. 

Q.  Xow  state  wliat  clay  Miss  Turner  and  Miss  McDon- 
ald went  to  Keyport— wliat  day  of  tlie  week.  Will  you 
look  at  tlie  letters  for  the  purpose  of  refreshing  your  rec- 
ollection? A.  Give  me  the  other  one;  Miss  Katie  Mc- 
Donald and  Bessie  Turner  were  sent  hy  me  to  Keyport  on 
Monday,  August  2. 1869. 

Q.  Now  state  how  you  are  enabled  to  fix  those  dates  1 
A.  I  am  enabled  to  fix  the  date  in  this  way,  because  this 
letter,  dated  New- York,  August  the  2d,  18C9,  written  by 
me  in  Brooklyn  to  my  wife  in  Monticello,  says  :  "  Kate 
and  Bessie  go  to  Keyport  to-day.  I  have  charged  them  to 
send  my  father  to  join  Mr.  Greeley  and  myself."  The 
previous  part  of  the  letter  states  that  they  were— that 
Mr.  Greeley  was  to  come  that  evening.  I  am  further 
enabled  to  state  the  date  by  a  letter 
written  Aug.  5,  1869,  to  my  wife,  that 
being  Thursday  of  the  same  week  in  which  this 
statement  is  made.  "  On  Monday  I  sent  Kate  and  Bes- 
sie down  to  Keyport  to  stay.  On  Tuesday  morning  "— 
that  is,  the  next  day—"  in  response  to  my  earnest  re- 
quest. Grandpa  Tilton  "—that  is,  my  father—"  came  up, 
and,  after  dining  in  New-York,  went  fishing  at 
Gowanus.  Although  we  caught  no  fish,  we 
had  a  very  delightful  time,  and  it  reminded  me 
of  the  times  before  Ms  head  was  white. 
We  returned  from  our  excursion  in  time  for  a  late  tea, 
after  which  Mr.  Greeley  came  trundling  in.  I  was  very 
glad  my  father  had  such  an  opportunity  to  meet  him. 
Our  breakfast  next  morning  was  "—and  so  on. 

Q.  Now,  state  what  day  Mr.  Greeley  arrived  at  your 
house  1  A.  Mr.  Greeley  arrived  on  Tuesday  night  at  my 
house  ;  Bessie  Turner  and  Miss  McDonald  went  away  on 
Monday  morning  or  Monday  afternoon  ;  I  wish  to  state 
distinctly  that  Bessie  Turner  was  not  in  my  house  at  any 
time,  not  for  one  moment,  during  Mr.  Greeley's  visit  in 
1869. 

Q.  How  long  did  Mr.  Greeley  remain  there  on  that 
visit?  A.  Well,  Sir,  by  reading  these  daily  letters  care- 
fully I  can  answer  that  question;  but  I  am  imable  to  do 
so  unless— he  stayed  there  a  few  days,  coming  and  going. 
His  \\sit  was  interrupted  by  an  occasional  call  out  of 
town  to  make  a  speech  somewhere ;  and  during  the  time 
that  he  stayed  at  my  house  very  many  fi-iends  came ;  he 
received  many  guests. 

Q.  When  did  he  finally  leave  ?  Can  you  state  about 
-when?  A.  I  should  have  to  hunt  through  these  letters— 
I  should  think  that  

Q.  Did  he  leave  before  Bessie  Turner  returned  from 
Keyport?   A.  Yes,  Sir ;  three  weeks  before. 

Q.  Three  weeks  before  ?  A.  I  won't  make  that  state- 
ment positively ;  but  certainly  as  much  as  three  weeks. 

Q.  And  was  it  before  Mrs.  Tilton  had  returned  from  Mon- 
ticello that  she  came  ?  A.  Mrs.  Tilton  had  returned  from 
MonticeUo  and  been  more  than  a  week  at  home  before 
Bessie  returned  fi-om  Keyport.    I  think  Bessie  testified 


to  that  herself.    During  Bessie's  absenc3  at  Keyport  she 
never  came  back  to  Brooklyn.    Katie  McDonald,  who 
has  been  on  the  stand,  returned  to  Brooklyn  two  or  thre© 
times  to  look  after  the  house  in  the  interval. 
Q.  Now,  Mr.  Tilton,  I  will  ask  

The  Witness  [interrupting]- 1  desire — I  ought  to  say, 
perhaps,  that  I  should  not  be  so  positive  in  these  state- 
ments were  it  not  for  these  letters.  I  should  not  trust 
my  own  mere  recollection,  except  as  that  recollection  is 
refreshed  by  referring  to  these  daily  letters. 

Q.  Do  they  enable  you  to  speak  positively  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir ;  I  wrote  a  letter  every  day,  or  almost  every  day,  dur- 
ing Mrs.  Tilton's  absence  at  MonticeUo,  and  these  letters 
I  have  brought  into  court  if  they  are  desired  by  anybody 
[holding  up  the  package]. 

Q.  That  is  sufficiently  definite.  Now,  Miss  Turner  spoke 
of  a  couple  of  letters  which  she  wrote,  and  which  you 
have  seen  here  in  evidence  ;  she  says  that  you  dictated 
one  of  those  letters ;  is  that  true  ?  A.  It  is  not  true.  Sir  ; 
I  had  nothing  to  do  with  its  composition ;  I  knew  noth- 
ing about  the  writing  of  it  until  after  it  was  done  and 
handed  to  me  ;  I  did  not  suggest  it  in  any  way;  I  had 
nothing  more  to  do  with  it  than  any  stranger. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  letter  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Morris— The  short  letter. 

The  Witness— [In  reply  to  a  remark  by  Mr.  Evarts 
about  one  of  the  letters  already  produced.]  I  think,  Mr. 
Evarts,  you  have  only  part  of  that  letter.  It  is  qiiite  a 
long  one.  Here  are  the  other  sheets  of  it  [oflfering  ther.  ]. 

IMr.  Beach— When  they  ask  for  them,  you  can  give 
them. 

The  Witness— Very  well. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  would  like  to  have  them. 
Mr.  Morris— You  would  like  to  have  them  ? 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— Whatever  they  call  for,  let  us  know,  so 
that  

Mr.  Evarts— That  one  that  he  refers  to  to  refresh  his 
recollection. 

OLIVER  JOHNSON  CONTEADICTED. 
By  Mr.  Moms— I  call  your  attention  to  a 
statement  made  by  Oliver  Johnson  upon  the  stand,  that 
you  told  him  a  circumstance  on  one  occasion,  of  having 
been  in  bed  with  a  woman  and  remaining  virtuous.  Did 
you  ever  tell  Oliver  Johnson  anything  in  substance  to 
that  efi'eet  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  I  deny  the  bed  and  admit  the 
innocence. 

Q.  My  question  is,  did  you  ever  say  to  him  anything  of 
that  kind?  A.  Nothing  of  the  sort,  Sir;  I  don't  know 
what  Mr.  Johnson  alludes  to. 

ME.  BEECHER  SITS  ON  MR.  TILTON'S  KNTiE. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  an  Interview  at  your 
house  that  you  had  with  Mr.  Beecher— he  places  it  about 
May  20,  '71, 1  think— when  he  sat  upon  your  knee ;  was 


o02  THE  TILIOI^-Bi 

tl2?re  any  sucli  interview,  or  any  sucli  circumstance,  or 
did  anytliiug  of  tliat  kind  occur  at  that  time  or  at  tliat 
interview  ?  A.  T  heard  Mr.  Beecher  give  that  descrip- 
tion, and  the  interview,  though  not  correctly 
described,  rose  vividly  in  my  mind  as 
having  occurred  about  ten  years  ago.  I  re- 
member a  scene  of  that  sort,  except  the  kissing  all 
round— I  don't  remember  that  circumstance— but  about 
ten  years  ago  there  did  occur  a  little  incident  of  that  sort, 
growing  out  of  a  pleasant  little  discussion  that  we  had 
over  the  construction  of  a  sentence  in  a  little  book  that  I 
had  then  published  called  "  Golden  Haired  Gertrude.'* 

Q,  But,  did  any  incident  of  that  Mnd  occur  In  May, 
1871  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  nor  at  any  time  after  the  troubles 
came  upon  our  house. 

Q.  I  call  yaur  attention,  Mr.  Tilton,  to  this  statement  by 
Mr.  Beecher.  In  speaking  of  the  interview  of  Dec.  30,  he 
says: 

I  don't  reccMect  that  I  talked ;  but  he  drew  from  his 
pocket  a  strip  of  paper  about  that— [producing  a  paper 
about  live  inches  by  one  and  a  half]— like  that,  and  read 
to  me  what  purported  to  be  the  statement  of  his  wife  to 
him  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  solicited  her  to  become  his 
wife  to  all  the  intents  which  were  signified  by  that  term, 
or  substantially  that. 

Did  you  read  or  make  any  such  statement  as  that  to 
Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  read  quite  a  different  state- 
ment from  that. 

Q.  What  was  it? 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris]— That  you  have  got  on  the 
direct.  [To  the  Court.]  I  suppose.  Sir,  where  a  witness 
is  called,  as  Mr.  TUton  is  recalled  upon  this  occasion, 
your  Honor  has  intimated  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to 
prove  what  has  been  already  established  by  the  previous 
examination. 

Mr.  Evarts— Of  course ! 

NOTHING  SAID  AT  THE  AEBITRATION  ABOUT 
BUENING  PAPERS. 

By  Mr.  IVIorris— At  the  time  of  the  arbitra- 
tion did  you  hear  anythiug  said  by  either  of  the  arbitra- 
tors about  "  burning  the  papers       A.  I  did  not.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  by  either  of  them  to  your  knowl- 
edge %  A.  It  was  not,  Sir.  The  only  recollection  I  have 
of  such  a  phrase  was  in  a  letter  by  Mr.  Wilkeson,  asking 
for  the  burning  of  the  "  Letter  of  Contrition." 

Mr.  Evarts— That  last  we  move  to  strike  out.  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Was  anything  said  before  the  arbitra- 
tors in  your  presence  concerning  your  difficulties  with 
Mr.  Beecher,  or  concerning  this  scandal,  or  anything 
about  the  Letter  of  Contrition,  or  the  papers  connected 
with  it?  A.  I  do  not  recall  a  solitary  word  referring  to 
that  subject  however  remotely. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  before  the  arbitrators  in  your 


^JE(JEEE  TRIAL. 

hearing  except  with  reference  to  your  money  differences 
with  Mr.  Bowen  %  A.  Nothing  at  all. 

Q.  That  was  the  sole  subject  of  conversation  sc  tar  as 
you  understood  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  anything,  by  you  and  Mr.  Beecher,  submitted 
to  those  arbitrators  to  be  determined  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  not 
with  my  knowledge;  I  never  supposed  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  anything  to  do  with  the  arbitration. 

Q.  Was  anything  between  you  and  him— anythins' of 
whatever  nature  between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher— sub- 
mitted for  their  determination  ?  A.  Nothing  at  all.  Sir. 

Q.  Or  submitted  to  the  authorities  in  any  way  \  A.  No, 
Sir.  The  arbitration  was  confined  to  its  own  terms.  The 
arbitrators  were  to  arbitrate  between  Mr.  Boweu  and  me. 

Q.  According  to  the  submission  that  had  been  made  % 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  witness  has  stated  generally  what 
took  place  on  his  direct  interrogation. 

THE  DATING  OF  THE  COVENANi . 

By  IVIr.  Morris— The  *'  Tripartite  Agree- 
ment "  appears  to  be  dated  April  2,  and  the  arbitration 
was  on  the  3d  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  was  aU  gone  into  before. 

Mr.  Morris— By  Mr.  Tilton  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  the  whole  history  of  that. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  no.  The  question  is  as  to  the  date. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  was  gone  into. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  it  was  not  gone  into. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  the  whole  of  it. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Can  you  account  for  the  fact  that  the 
covenant  is  dated  April  2,  when  it  was  not  executed  untU 
after  the  arbitration  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— That,  you  know,  assumes  a  good  deal. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Well,  how  do  you  account  for  its  being 
dated  April  2? 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  dated  AprU  2.  The  history  of  the  ai- 
bitration  and  of  the  "  Tripartite  Agreement"  have  al 
ready  been  given  by  this  witness  as  well  as  by  others. 

Judge  Neilson— Except  on  the  point  of  date, 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  on  the  point  of  date. 

Mr.  Beach- No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  date  of  it  was  in  eyidenee. 

Judge  Neilson— The  mere  date  ;  but  the  relative  dates 
of  the  arbitration  and  the  covenant— I  don't  think  atten- 
tion was  called  to  that. 

Mr.  Beach— This  is  the  question  1*iat  we  propose  

Mr.  Evarts— How  is  it  competent  evidence  1 

Mr.  Beach— Please  hear  our  question,  and  then  make 
youi-  comments.  This  is  the  question  :  You  have  said 
that  the  "  Tripartite  Covenant"  was  not  executed  until 
after  the  arbitration  of  April  3  ;  how  do  you  account  for 
its  bearing  date  on  April  2  %  That  is  the  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  object  to.  I  don't,  care  whether 
he  can  account  foif  it  or  not, 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  ilo^ 


IM811M0NY   OF  THEODOBE  TILTON, 


SOB 


Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  not  a  proper  subject  of  evidence. 
Mr.  Beach— That  is  tlie  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  does  not  necessarily  require  a  very  great 
accounting,  that  a  paper  should  not  he  executed  until  the 
day  after  its  date.  You  would  not  expect  it  to  he  exe- 
cuted before  its  date.  But  the  Tvhole  matter,  so  far  as  It 
is  competent  evidence,  dealing  in  facts,  has  hecn  already 
produced.  Mr,  Wilkeson,  who  drevr  it,  has  told  you  how- 
he  drew  it,  and  when  he  drew  it,  and  the  date  was  a  part 
of  the  draft.  Then  the  history  of  it,  in  respect  of  the 
emendations,  the  reengrossing  of  it,  and  its  heiag  a  re- 
production of  the  original,  except  as  to  the  modifica- 
tions, is  all  in  evidence. 

Judge  Keilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  the  whole  matter  of  the  delay  to  sign 
ie  in  evidence  1 
Mr.  Beach— T^'e  admit  all  that,  Sir. 
Mr.  Evarts— i  hat  has  all  been  gone  into. 
Mr.  Beach— We  admit  all  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  to  ask  the  witness  how  he  accounts 
for  it  is  not  producing  evidence.  My  learned  friend  can 
account  for  it,  or  anybody  else  can.  The  facts  have  all 
been  given. 

Judge  Neilson — Well,  the  fact  of  the  date,  or  the  fact 
that  it  was  dated  back,  or  the  fact  that  the  draft  having 
been  dated,  the  document  remained  of  that  date,  no  one 
has  spoken  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  already  produced  in  evidence,  and 
now  the  witness  is  asked  to  argue. 

Judge  Neilson— That  may  be;  but  nobody  has  spoken 
as  to  that  circumstance,  of  its  being  dated  earlier  than  its 
execution. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  whole  thing  has  been  told  in  all  its 
facts,  and  now  the  witness  is  asked  to  reason  on  these 
facts. 

Judge  Neilson— He  should  not  reason. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  is  all  that  he  is  asked  to  do. 

Mr.  Beach— That  shows.  Sir,  the  unwarranted  assump- 
tion of  the  counsel.  How  does  he  know  that  all  has  been 
told  on  the  subject  1  How  does  he  know  but  this 
witness  can  swear  that  it  was  antedated  at  the  time  of 
the  execution  ?  I  do  not  know  what  he  will  swear  upon 
that  subject ;  nor  does  the  learned  counsel.  Now, 
if  he  shall  give  only  the  explanation  that 
the  date  of  the  executed  "  Tripartite  Covenant " 
followed  the  antedated  date  of  the  draft,  why  then  he 
gives  nothing  new ;  but  we  call  for  any  information  he 
may  have  upon  that  subject.  I  do  not  know  wli ether  my 
colleague  has  talked  with  him  or  not.  I  have  not.  I 
don't  know  whether  he  has  got  any  information  on  the 
subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  obiect  to.  The  whole  matter,  so  far 
as  evidence  is  concerned,  has  been  exhausted  by  this 
witness  in  his  narrative.  We  have,  then,  given  the  nar- 
ratives of  Mr.  Wilkeson  and  of  the  arbitrators  to 
Bome     extent,     and     Mr.     Bowen      has  been 


examined  on  their  part,  and  the  facts 
are  all  in.  Now,  il  this  is  intended  to 
introduce  any  new  facts  concerning  that  interview,  con- 
cermng  that  transaction,  why,  it  is  not  competent,  be- 
cause it  is  not  rebutting  ;  and  if  it  is  introducing  reason- 
ing it  is  not  competent,  because  reasoning  is  never  ad- 
missible. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  not  reaffirming  evidence.  Sir.  This  is 
the  first  suggestion  that  has  been  made  on  that  point,  or 
I  should  not  venture  to  speak  to  your  Honor  again.  It  is 
not  afiirmative  evidence,  or  what  should  have  been  given 
on  the  opentag.  They  proved  upon  their  defense  that 
the  "  Tripartite  Covenant"  was  united  with  the 
arbitration,  was  a  part  of  the  arbitration.  We 
denied  that  upon  our  cross-examination.  We 
now,  upon  our  reexamination,  propose  to  an- 
swer the  theory  which  they  presented  in  their 
affirmative  defense,  that  these  two  proceedings,  the  arbi- 
tration and  the  covenant,  were  united ;  and  to  do  that,  it 
turns  out  that  we  must  explain  the  fact  that  the  "  Tri- 
partite Covenant  "  bore  date  on  April  2,  whereas  we  say, 
and  have  said,  it  was  not  executed  until  April  4th  or  5th, 
if  you  please,  or  any  other  subsequent  date.  Now,  this  is 
a  part  of  the  explanatory  evidence  we  seek  to  give  la 
answer  to  the  affirmative  defense  which  they  have  pro- 
duced. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  this  witness  may  account,  if  he 
can,  in  respect  to  tiie  date ;  may  state  whether  it  was 
dated  back  or  executed  days  after  its  date.  I  see  no  ob- 
jection to  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  the  question,  if  your  Honor 
please,  that  as  matter  of  evidence  it  is  not  in  rebuttal,, 
and  as  matter  of  reasoning  it  is  not  admissible  at  all. 
Your  Honor  will  please  note  our  exception. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  in  answer  to  some  matter  you. 
have  proved. 

Mr.  Morris— Go  on  and  answer,  Mr.  Tilton. 

The  Witness— The  first  draft  of  the  Covenant  was  made 
by  Mr.  Wilkeson,  and  it  was  made  bearing  date  April  2» 
That  draft  was  torn  to  pieces  by  Mr.  Bowen  and  by  me, 
and  Mr.  Wilkeson  afterward  made  a  new  draft,  incor- 
porating into  it  ]Mr.  Bowen's  alterations  and  mine, 
and  when  the  new  draft  came  to  be  en- 
grossed in  the  form  in  which  it  now  appears, 
Mr.  Wilkeson  copied  accurately  what  he  saw  on  the 
papers,  the  original  date  included;  and  the  paper  as  thus 
copied  was  not  signed  by  the  three  parties— what  you 
technically  call  executed,  I  believe— for  several  days 
afterward— I  rather  think  a  week,  possibly,  or  ten  days. 

Judge  Neilson— But  it  was  executed  finally,  without  the 
date  being  changed. 

The  Witness— Executed  without  any  change  of  date. 

Mr.  Morris— You  speak  of  its  being  "  torn  to  pieces,** 
you  mean  by  the  alterations  that  you  made  I  A.  Figura- 
tively speaking.  Sir. 


504 


THE    TlLrON-BEECEEE  lElAL. 


MR,  WTLKESON'S  TESTIMONY  DISPUTED. 

Q.  1  call  yom^  attention  to  an  interview  to 
•wLicli  Mr.  Wilkeson  testified,  in  m vbicli  lie  spoke  of  your 
going  to  his  house  on  April  2,  and  in  an  angry  tone 
stating  that  Mr.  Beeoher  had  been  taken  care  of,  and  Mr. 
Bowen  had  been  taken  care  of,  but  that  your  money  had 
not  been  paid,  and  tlie  suit  would  haA^e  to  go  on  ? 

Mr,  Evarts— Won't  you  refer  us  to  the  page  1 

Mr.  Morris— This  is  the  testimony. 

It  was  11  o'clock  in  the  forenoon  of  April  3,  and  he 
came  into  my  office.  He  was  angry.  He  said:  "I  want  a 
copy  of  my  portion  of  the  'Tripartite  Agreement'.'  I 
am  not  going  to  sign  it.  It  has  got  to  be  altered  before  I 
sign  it."  I  asked  him  what  happened.  Well,  he  said, 
enough  had  happened  to  Induce  him  to  come  to  that 
determination,  that  he  should  not  execute  it.  I 
asked  him  what  happened  to  change  liis  pur- 
pose. He  said  Mr.  Bowen  had  been  well 
taken  care  of  by  Mr.  Claflin  in  this  affair,  and  that  Mr. 
Beecher  had  been  well  taken  care  of  by  me  in  this  affair, 
but  no  one  had  taken  care  of  him,  and  he  was  to  be  left 
out  in  the  cold  and  his  money  unpaid,  and  he  said,  "  I 
won't  sign  that  agreement."  He  said,  "  Let  me  have  my 
portion  of  it  to  alter."  I  took  the  agreement  out  of  my  sate 
and  I  made  a  copy  of  his  portion  of  it  and  handed  it  to 
him.  He  sat  down  at  a  table  in  my  room  and  com- 
menced to  scratch  it  and  alter  it.  I  remonstrated  with 
him  for  going  back  on  his  agreement.  I  said  he  ought 
not  to  change  the  arrangement  that  had  been  made ; 
that  he  ought  to  adhere  to  it  like  a  man.  He  said  that 
he  would  never  sign  that  agreement  nor  never  sign  any 
other  agreement  that  prohibited  him  from  pursuing 
Henry  Ward  Beecher ;  and  he  kept  at  his  work  of  scratch- 
ing and  erasing  the  manuscript  copy  that  I  gave  him  of 
his  share  of  the  *'  Tripui  tite  Agreement,"  but  without 
concluding  it,  he  grabbed  the  work  up  in  his  hand,  put  it 
in  his  pocket,  and  stalked  out  of  the  room  and  went 
away. 

Now,  did  any  interview  as  related  there  by  Mr.  Wilke- 
son  take  place  between  you  and  him  on  that  occasion  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Was  not  an  interview  of  this  kind  stated 
by  Mr.  Tilton— that  is,  an  interview  on  that  occasion? 
The  interview  on  this  day  was  gone  into  by  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  Mr.  Wilkeson  gives  a  narrative — 

Judge  Neilson— Anything  new  that  Mr.  Wilkeson  riitro- 
duced  may  be  contradicted, 

Mr.  Evarts— Any  specific  contradiction  of  anything 
new. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  that  they  can  introduce. 
Mr.  Evarts— Any  specific  contradiction  of  what  the 
witness  said. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  I  suppose  that  is  all  they  want. 

The  Witness— Well,  Sir,  it  would  be  difficult  for  me  to  

Mr.  Morris — I  had  better  ask  this  specific  question  

Mr.  FuUerton— Oh,  no.  Your  Honor  will  recollect  this 
interview  was  asked  by  the  other  side,  what  took  place 
with  Mr.  Tilton,  not  for  the  purpose  of  contradicting  him 
as  a  witness  alone,  but  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  certain 
facts  against  him  as  a  party  as  well  as  a  witness.  Now, 
we  are  not  obliged,  therefore,  in  reexamining  Mr.  Tilton, 
to  put  in  the  language  of  the  witness  who  gave  the  evi- 


dence, Mr.  WUkeson,  to  know  whether  it  is  true  or  false, 
to  know  whether  he  contradicts  it,  because  it  is  to  be  used 
for  other  pui-poses  than  that  of  contradiction.  He  is  a 
party  to  the  case. 

Judge  Neilson— My  view  is  this :  That  Mr.  Tilton,  hav- 
ing on  his  examination  stated  the  substance  of  this  tater- 
view,  as  he  then  remembered  it,  and  Mi.  Wilkeson  after- 
ward having  done  the  same  thing  according  to  his  mem- 
ory, the  appropriate  course  now  would  be  to  have  Mr. 
Tilton  correct  or  contradict  any  new  statement  whic 
Mr.  Wilkeson  brought  in. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  they  asked  Mr.  Tilton  when  he  was 
on  the  stand  upon  cross-examination  whether  souit 
things  were  not  done,  and  some  things  said,  at  the  inter- 
view between  himself  and  Mx.  Wilkeson,  and  he  answered 
as  the  fact  was,  either  yes  or  no.  Now,  your  Honor  will 
perceive,  therefore,  that  he  was  limited  in  his  answer  in 
that  way. 

Judge  Neilson — Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— He  was  not  at  liberty  to  tell  what  did 
take  place  ;  but  they  put  Mr.  Wilkeson  on  the  stand  and 
asked  him  to  narrate  what  took  place  on  that  occasion. 
Having  done  that,  and  Mr.  Tilton  being  a  party  as  well 
as  a  witness,  we  have  a  right  to  ask  him  what  took  place 
and  have  him  to  state  the  interview  at  length. 

Judge  Neilson— Although  it  repeats  parts  of  his  former 
examination. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  re-direct  is  the  place  to  bring  that  up. 
if  you  wish  to.  The  interview  forms  the  subject  of  testi- 
mony on  the  original  inquiry ;  that  is  plain  enough,  and 
to  say  whatever  you  wish  to  say  about  it. 

Judge  Neilson— We  are  here  now  to  correct  any  new 
matters,  so  I  think  you  will  have  to  interrogate  him  as  to 
any  specific  statement  Mr.  Wilkeson  made  changing  its 
character.  It  comes  to  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  comes  to  the  same  thing  so  far  as  the 
testimony  is  concerned,  but  it  does  not  come  to  the  same 
thing  as  far  as  the  consumption  of  time  is  involved. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  no ;  it  is  much  longer. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  are  getting  on  very  well. 
Mr.  Fullerton— I  am  taking  a  note  of  how  you  get 
along  now. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Tilton,  in  the  first 

place  

Mr.  Evarts— What  page  t 

]\Ir.  Morris— Page  302— whether  yon  were  at  Mr.  Wil- 
keson's  office  on  the  3d  of  April  1  A.  Mr.  Wilkeson  has 
changed,  as  you  remember,  the  date  of  his  letter,  wliich 
bore  date  April  2 ;  he  changed  the  date  to  April  3,  in  his 
testimony.  T  have  no  means  at  hand  of  sajdng  out  of  my  | 
mere  recollection  whether  I  was  there  April  3,  or  any 
other  specific  date.  My  recollection  is  not  of  the  dates,  i| 
but  what  took  place.  ' 


TJESimONT   OF  THEOVOBE  TILTOZ. 


505 


Q.  You  recollect  the  circiimstance  ?  A.  I  recollect  the 
circumstance  of  an  interview  with  Mr.  Wilkeson. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  you,  in  the  lirst  place,  whether  you 
were  anffryl  A.  Well,  I  don't  know;  I  think,  perhaps,  I 
was,  being  solicited  to  sign  the  first  draft  of  that  cove- 
nant. I  don't  recollect  heing  angry,  but  I  -vv  ould  not  like 
to  deny  it.  It  is  very  hard  to  he  angry  at  Sam  "Wilkeson, 
for  every  one  likes  Mm  so  welL  I  was  not  angry  with 
:  Mm. 

Q.  You  say: 

I  want  a  copy  of  my  portion  of  the  Tripartite  Agree- 
ment ;  I  am  not  going  to  sign  it ;  it  has  got  to  be  altered 
before  I  sign  it. 

That,  you  think,  is  correct  ?  A.  I  know  that,  in  sub- 
stance, is  correct. 

Q.  He  says  he  asked  you  what  happened,  and  you  re- 
plied : 

Well,  he  said  enough  had  happened  to  induce  him  to 
come  to  that  determination,  that  he  should  not  execiite 
It.  I  asked  him  what  had  happened  to  change  his  pur- 
pose. He  said  Mr.  Bowen  had  been  well  taken  care  of 
by  Mr.  Claflm  in  this  affair,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher  had 
j  been  well  taken  care  of  by  me  in  this  affair,  but  no  one 
had  taken  care  of  him,  and  he  was  to  be  left  out  in  the 
cold,  and  his  money  unpaid. 

Did  you  say  anything  in  substance  to  that  effect  ?  A 
No,  Sir ;  that  is  an  entirely  incorrect  statement ;  there 
had  been  no  difficulty  as  to  the  payment  of  money  ;  the 
money  had  been  paid  on  the  spot ;  I  made  no  complaint 
to  Mr.  Wilkeson. 

Q.  The  money  had  been  paid  prior  to  this  interview  at 
his  office  ?  A.  I  won't  be  positive  about  that,  because 
there  has  been  some  rearrangement  of  dates  by  this 
examination.  The  money  was  paid  on  the  night  of  the 
arbitration,  within  the  first  half  hoirr. 

Q.  There  was  no  difficulty  at  the  time  you  had  this  in- 
terview with  Mr.  Wilkeson  at  his  office  about  the  pay- 
ment of  the  money  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  there  was  no  question 
of  money. 

Q.  Nor  about  the  arbitration?  A.  Nothing  at  all. 

Q.  Or  about  the  proceedings  of  the  arbitration  ?  A. 
Not  in  the  slightest  degree.  The  complaint  I  made  to 
Mr.  Wilkeson  was  that  I  would  not  sign  the  paper 
when  

Mr.  Evarts — One  moment ;  the  question  was  whether 
you  said  that  to  Mr.  Wilkeson,  and  if  you  answered  that, 
I  suppose  that  is  the  end  of  it. 
The  Witness— I  wish  to  admit  part  and  deny  part. 
Judge  Neilson— That  you  have  a  right  to  do. 
Mr.  Evarts— That  he  has  a  right  to  do.   He  has  a  right 
to  say  he  said  so  much,  and  to  deny  he  said  so  much. 

The  Witness— I  told  Mr.  Wilkeson  very  distinctly  I 
.  would  not  sign  that  agreement,  but  I  did  not  tell  him 
j  that  it  was  because  of  trouble  concerning  the  money,  be- 
'  cause  there  had  not  been  trouble  about  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  ask  to  strike  out  the  latter  part  of  that 
answer  "  because  there  had  not  been  trouble  about  that." 


Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  hold  that.  It  goes  R»  the 
point. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  he  sars  he  did  n't  say  to  Mr.  Wilke- 
son is  good  evidence  ;  but  his  reasons  for  it,  because  it 
was  not  so,  is  not  good  evidence.  He  does  not  say  he 
said  to  Mr.  Wilkeson  this  reason.  The  witness,  besides 
saying  "  I  did  n't  say  so  to  Mr.  Wilkeson,"  says,  "for  it 
was  not  true." 

Judge  Neilson— If  there  was  no  trouble  about  the 
money ;  Mr.  Wilkeson  gave  him  to  understand  there  was 
trouble  about  the  money. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  ask  to  have  that  struck  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Let  it  stand. 

Mr.  Evarts— For  there  was  no  trouble  about  the  money. 

Judge  Neilson— I  learn  from  3Ir.  Wilkeson  there  was 
trouble  in  some  sense  about  the  money,  therefore  I  think 
it  is  proper  to  retain  the  statement,  so  as  to  show  there 
was  no  trouble  about  the  money. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  und^stands  you  have  limited 
this  witness  to  saying  whether  he  did  or  did  not  say  cer- 
tain things  to  IVIr.  Wilkeson. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  the  primary  object. 

Ml'.  Evarts— He  says  he  did  say  some  part  ot  it,  and  the 
other  part  he  did  not  say,  and  he  follows  the  last  state- 
ment by  saying,  "  For  there  was  no  trouble  about  the 
money  "—that  is,  his  money. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  argument  by  the  use  of  the  word 
"  for."  If  that  is  left  out,  we  have  the  simple,  naked 
fact. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  a  fact  which  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question. 

Judge  Neilson— We  will  let  it  stand. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  be  so  good  as  to  note  my 
exception. 

Judge  Neilson— Interrogate  him  specifically,  Mr. 
Morris. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  Sir.  TTo  the  witness.!  I  will  call 
your  attention  to  this  statement : 

Q.  Now,  did  anything  occur  at  that  time  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  with  reference  to 
this  "  Tripartite  Agreement  "—this  paper— anything 
further  that  you  now  recall  ?  A.  I  do  not  I'ecoiieet  that 
anything  did,  except  that  I  made  the  point  that  all  the 
papers  in  the  possession  of  either  Mr.  Moulton  or  Mr. 
Tilton  should  be  destroyed;  I  again  pressed  that  they 
should  be  destroyed. 

Did  you  have  any  interview  of  that  kind,  you  and  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mr.  Wilkeson,  when  he  insisted  on  the 
destruction  of  all  the  papers?  A.  No,  Sir;  the  only 
suggestion  Mr.  Wilkeson  ever  communicated  to  me  was 
by  letter. 

Mr.  Evarts — No  matter  about  any  new  evidence.  It  is 
only  whether  you  said  this. 

Judge  Neilson— Leave  out  aU  he  said  about  the  letter. 

Mr.  Morris— Did  Mr.  Wilkeson,  personally  to  you,  or  at 
any  time  in  your  presence,  make  any  such  request  or 
suggestion,  or  insist  that  the  papers  should  be  destroyed? 


506 


THE   TILIOI^-BEEOREB  TBIAL. 


A.  I  have  searclied  my  memory  ever  since  Mr.  Wilke- 
eon's  statement,  and  there  is  no  trace  In  it  of  any  such 
conversation,  nor  indeed  of  any  conversation  about  any 
euch  papers. 

Q.  Mr.  Wilkeson  speaks  of  an  interview  he  had  with 
you  at  the  Ebhitt  House,  Washington,  in  1864  or  1865  ; 
he  says : 

I  was  in  the  dining-room  of  the  Ehbitt  House,  and  he 
came  to  my  chair,  occupied  a  seat  next  to  my  own.  After 
dinner,  talked  with  me— after  his  own  dinner— talked 
with  me  while  I  was  eating  mine.  I  think  that  he  took 
out  of  his  pocket  and  gave  me  a  photograph  of  his  chil- 
dren, with  their  mother.  He  asked  me  if  I  knew  his  wife. 
I  told  him  I  had  never  seen  her.  He  told  me  that  I  would 
be  disappointed  in  her,  that  she  was  a  small  woman,  with- 
out presence,  without  port — ^not  a  woman  of  society,  not 
a  woman  of  culture. 

A.  I  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Wilkeson  in  the  Ebbitt 
House,  perhaps  in  that  year ;  and,  if  I  should  state  it  ex- 
actly as  it  occurred,  it  would  be  a  personal  injury  to  that 
gentleman.  I  wiU  state  it  if  asked  to  do  so ;  but  it  oc- 
curred after  dinner  

Judge  Neilson— The  question  is  whether  you  said  that 
about  your  wife. 

The  Witness— No,  Sir;  I  did  not. 

By  Mr.  Beach— Did  you  show  him  a  photograph  of 
your  wife?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  showed  him  a  photograph  of 
two  of  my  children,  one  of  whom  he  mistook  for  my 
wife,  and  he  made  it  the  opportunity  to  make  some  in- 
coherent  

Q.  Which  of  your  daughters  %  A.  It  was  my  daughter 
Florence,  and  Alice  and  he  apostrophised  the  card  of 
Florence,  supposing  it  to  be  a  card  of  my  wife,  over  a 
glass  of  wine. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  not  the  question. 

By  Mr.  Beach— Did  you  say  anything  such  as  he 
represents  to  you  in  regard  to  the  qualities  of  your  wife  ? 
A.  I  did  not,  nor  to  any  other  human  being. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  last  I  ask  to  have  struck  out. 

Judge  Neilson—"  I  did  not,"  is  the  answer. 

M**.  Morris— Now,  I  call  your  attention  to  this  para- 
graph, Mr.  Tilton.  He  is  asked  for  a  conversation  that 
he  had  with  you,  and  he  says : 

Oh,  no;  he  didn't  say  it  in  that  way.  He  said  to  us— 
his  words  precisely— he  said  that  there  was  not  a  particle 
of  truth  in  any  of  the  statements  that  had  been  made 
about  Mr.  Beecher's  adulterous  connection  with  his  wife 
—not  a  particle  of  truth  in  them ;  that  the  utmost  that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  done  was  to  address  improper  language 
to  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  that  for  that  an  ample  and  written 
apology  was  in  his  keeping.  Those  were  his  precise 
T^ords. 

Q.  Did  you  have  such  an  interview  as  that— Mr.  Wilke- 
son ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  Mr,  Wilkeson  and  I  had  no  conversa- 
tion on  the  question  of  the  criminality  of  these  two 
p^irties,  and  he  never  asked  me  a  question  whether  Mrs. 
Tilton  had  been  guilty  of  adultery  ;  there  have  not  been 
half  a  dozen  men  who  ever  asked  me  that  question. 


Mr.  Evarts — I  move  to  have  the  last  part  of  the  answ< 
struck  out.  It  is  only  what  Mr.  Wilkeson  said. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  ME.  TILTON 
WAIVED. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  nothing  to  ask. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Judge  Neilson]— Shall  we  put  anotli« 
witness  on  the  stand  now,  Sir  % 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  had  better,  to  identify  him 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  we  can  identify  him  by  announeingj 
is  Mr.  MovdtOTi,  but  he  is  not  here. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  jurors]— Gentlemen,  get  ready  t 
retire.  Please  attend  to-morrow  at  11  o'clock. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  Wednesday  at  11  o'cloci 


EIGHTY-FOURTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDIN 


CLOSE  OF  THE  REBUTTAL  TESTIMONY. 

MRS.  WOODHCTLL    SUMMONED  TO  PEODUCB  LE^ 

IN  HER  POSSESSION— SHE  DESIRES  INSTRUCTION! 
PROM  THE  COURT,  AND  MAKES  A  LITTLE  SPEECI 
IN  REGARD  TO  THE  LETTERS— COUNSEL  FOR  THl 
DEFENSE  DESIROUS  TO  QUESTION  MR.  TILTOI 
FROM  THESE  LETTERS— THEY  ARE  GIVEN  INK 
THEIR  HANDS— FRANCIS  D.  MOULTON  GIVEf 
BRIEF  REBUTTAL  EVIDENCE— BEGINNING  OF  THI 
SI]  R-REBWTTAL— JAMES  FREELAND  CONTRADICli 
MR.  BOWEN,  AND  MRS.  OVINGTON  DiCNIES  STATE 
MENTS  MADE  BY  MR.  MARTIN. 

Wednesday,  May  12,  1875. 

The  court  had  just  been  called  to  order  to-day,  anii 
the  plaintiff's  counsel  were  on  the  point  of  caU 
ing  Mr.  Moulton  to  the  witness  chair,  when  Mr 
Evarts  interrupted  them,  sayiug  that  he  was  expect- 
ing some  papers  in  regard  to  which  he  might  wish  te 
question  Mr.  Tilton,  and  that  he  preferred  not  to  have 
another  witness  put  upon  the  stand  until  they  came, 
About  25  minutes  before  12  o'clock,  Mr.  Sheannai 
entered  the  court-room  by  the  door  leading  from 
Chambers.  Closely  following  him  was  a  lady  who 
wasimmediatelyrecognizedby  many  asMrs.  Victoria 
C.  Woodhull. 

Mr.  Shearman  stated  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  possessed 
letters  which  she  declined  to  produce  without  re- 
ceiving instructions  from  the  Court.  Judge  Neilson 
declined  to  give  anj^  instructions,  and,  after  consid- 
erable discussion,  principally  between  Mr.  Fullerton 
and  Mr.  Evarts,  Mr.  Shearman  said :  "  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull,  we  call  upon  you  for  these  letters  of  Mr. 
Tilton."  Mrs.  Woodhull  arose  and  cainC| 
forward  quietly,    and    stood  in  the    midst  01 


MBS.    WOODRULL'S  LETTEBS  OBTAiyED. 


507 


le  group  of  laTTver's  cLairs.  ^Ir.  Evarts  and 
J.-.  Sheannaii  couTt-r-sed  with,  licr  in  low  tones  for 
;veral  minutes.  Mrs.  Woodhuirs  gestures  showed 
lat  she  was  speaMng  very  earnestly,  and  the  result 
f  the  conference  was  awaited  amid  dead  silence  in 
le  court-room.  The  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  ap- 
.gared  to  regard  these  proceedings  with  suspicion, 
'ad  Mr.  Fullerton  asked  Judge  Neilson  to  inform 
js.  Woodhull  that  she  was  not  called  upon  ^^J  the 
oiirt  to  produce  the  papers.  Presently  Mr.  Shear- 
lan  said  that  Ivlrs.  Woodhull  desired  to  say  some- 
liiig  to  the  Court. 

^kJrs.  Woodhull  then  turned,  and  bowing  to  Judge 
eilson,  she  spoke  in  a  low  voice,  saying  in  sub- 
-.ance  that  the  letters  which  she  held  were  entirely 
.-editable  both  to  herself  and  to  the  gentleman  who 
rote  them,  and  that  she  had  no  disposition  to  keep 
lem  from  any  court  of  justice.  During  her  impris- 
tunent  for  publishing  the  scandal,  she  said, 
er  office  had  been  ransacked  and  her  pri- 
ate  letters  taken  away.  In  her  opinion  some 
[  them  were  in  the  hands  both  of  the  counsel  for  the 
laintiff"  and  for  the  defendant.  With  this  esplana- 
ou  she  was  perfectly  willing  to  give  the  letters, 
iidge  NeiLson  bowed,  and  when  she  had  finished, 
dd,  "  Well  f 

;Mrs.  Woodhull  then  took  out  her  pocket-book, 
•cm  which  she  produced  several  letters,  which  she 
■iiided  to  ]\Ir.  Shearman.  ]^Ir.  Evarts  put  on 
is  spectacles,  and  taking  the  letters  from  his 
mior  coimsel,  carefully  inspected  them.  Then  t\iey 
ere  handed  all  around  among  counsel  for  both  sides, 
ft  er  a  short'  conference  with  his  colleagues  Mr.  Evarts 
lid  that  he  would  not  require  Mr.  Tilton  to  take 
le  stand  at  that  moment.  The  plaintiff's  counsel 
ejected  to  having  the  matter  deferred,  and  Judge 
eilson  finally  said  that  if  the  defendant's  counsel 
lereaf  ter  recalled  Mr.  TUton  they  must  have  Mrs. 
"oodhull  in  attendance.  J^Irs.  Woodhull  remained  in 
rort  only  a  few  minutes  after  delivering  the  letters. 
Francis  D.  Mouiton  was  the  last  important  wit- 
?ss,  as  he  was  the  first,  produced  for  the  plaintiff, 
e  sat  stroking  his  mustache  wMLe  Mr.  Morris 
okedup  the  matter  for  questions  from  a  scrap- 
>ok.  Mr.  Moulton's  first  answer  was  start- 
tigly  short  and  emphatic.  He  had  been 
^ked  if  he  had  used  certain  language 
scribed  to  him  by  Mr.  Beecher.  Taking  his  hand 
om  his  mustache,  Mr.  Mouiton  brought  it  down 
'licklyupon  his  knee  and  ejaculated  "No."  The 
^cisiveness  of  this  negation  drew  every  eye  upon 
le  witness.   Mr.  Morria  read  from  Mr.  Beecher's 


testimony  various  other  passages,  which  the 
witness  promptlj',  and  in  nearly  every  ca^a 
unqualifiedly,  contradicted  ta  the  same 
laconic  manner.  He  also  contradicted  some  of  the 
statements  of  Gen.  Tracy.  The  examination  of  Mr. 
Mouiton  wa5  brief,  and  jVIr.  Evarts,  who  had  held 
Mr.  Morris  very  closelj^  to  the  specific  matter  in  the 
testimony  of  the  defendant's  witnesses  which  it  was 
desired  to  contradict,  declined  to  cross-examine  him. 

THE  PLAi:XTIFF  RESTS    Am  THE  SUE-EE- 
BUTT  AL  BEGES'S. 

Only  two  witnesses,  besides  Mr.  Mouiton,  were 
called  by  the  plaintiff's  counsel  to-day  before 
they  rested  their  case.  John  N.  Longhi,  who  is  em- 
ployed at  Delmonico's  restaiu'ant  in  Broad-st., 
gave  some  minor  evidence  about  the  distance  be- 
tween the  entrances  to  Delmonico's  and  Schedler's 
restaurants  in  Broad-st.  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews  was 
the  second  witness.  In  connection  with  the  recalling 
of  Mr.  Andrews,  Mr.  Fullerton  introduced  a  piece  of 
new  evidence  in  the  shape  of  a  lease  of  two  offices  in 
the  building  at  Xo.  48  Broad-st.  to  James  H.  Blood, 
the  husband  of  Mrs.  Woodhull.  The  lease  was 
dated  May  23,  1872,  and  Mr.  Andrews  testified  that 
]Mr.  Blood  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  did  not  occupy  the 
premises  until  some  time  in  the  latter  part  of  May. 

;Mr.  Beach  announced  that  the  plaintiff  had  intend- 
ed to  recall  IVIrs.  Mouiton,  but  as  she  was  sick  she 
would  not  be  called.  He  had  been  assured  by  her 
that  she  would  deny,  if  summoned  to  the  stand,  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Beecher  that  she  had  said  to 
him,  "Mr.  Beecher,  I  don't  believe  the  stories 
they  are  telling  about  you;  I  believe  you  are 
a  good  man,"  or  anything  equi-^  alent  to  that.  ^^Ir. 
Beach  further  stated  that  the  counsel  for  the  de- 
fendant had  agreed  to  accept  his  assurance  of  what 
Mrs.  Mouiton  would  say,  and  were  willing  to  take  it 
as  if  a  denial  of  that  character  had  been  sworn  to  by 
]\Irs.  Mouiton. 

As  soon  as  Mr.  Beach  had  uttered  the  words  "  We 
rest,"  after  dismissing  ]Mr.  Andrews  from  the  stand, 
]Vlr.  Evarts  began  the  sur-rebuttal  by  recalling 
James  Fre eland.  ]Mi".  Freeland  denied  that  on  Dec. 
26,  1870,  ]SIr.  Bowen  and  ]Mr.  Beecher  had  had  an 
interview  at  his  house.  These  gentlemen,  he  said, 
had  been  at  his  house  together  in  January, 
1870,  but  not  at  any  other  time.  Mr.  free- 
land  said  that  Mr.  Bowen  must  have  been  mis- 
taken about  the  interview.  Mr.  Fullerton  moved  to 
strike  out  that  remark  of  the  witness. 

"  Oh,  it  was  only  a  charitable  remark."  said  Mr. 


508 


IHJ^   TILTON-BEECEEB  TEIAL. 


Shearman.  "  WeD.  ^^'r?  not  tlie  subject  of  chaxity," 
retorted  Mr.  Fuii<^rt^a« 

Mr.  Freeland  w*s  cross-examined  "by  Mr.  Fuller- 
ton,  and  prove*^.  to  be  somewhat  unmanageable.  Mr. 
Fullej'tqn  desired  him  to  give  more  specilic  answers. 
**  I  will  deal  with  you  kindly,"  said  Mr.  FuUerton. 
"  Yes,  j^es,"  replied  the  witness,  "I  know  bow  you 
are  going  to  deal  witb  me." 

Mrs.  E.  J.  Ovington  was  recalled  for  the  defendant 
to  rebut  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Martin  regarding  the 
intervie»v  at  her  house  between  Gen.  Tracy  and  Miss 
Bessie  Turner.  She  declared  that  at  2:30  p.  m.  on 
that  day,  when  Mr.  Martin  said  that  he  saw  Gen. 
Tracy  and  Miss  Turner  in  the  back  parlor,  Gen.  Tracy 
was  not  there  at  all,  and  Mr.  Martin  had  not  arrived. 
The  witness  said  in  a  decisive  tone,  as  the  statements 
of  Mr.  Martin  were  read  to  her  one  by  one,  "  It  is 
false."  Once  after  usingthat  expression  she  remarked 
to  Mr.  Fullerton,  who  sat  facing  her,  "  It  is  false,  Mr. 
Fullerton."  "  Well,"  replied  the  lawyer  sharply, 
"  repeat  it  again,  Mrs.  Ovington,  if  you  think  it 
becomes  a  lady.  Yon  need'nt  address  me  in  that 
manner." 

The  Eev.  Edward  Eggleston  was  recalled  for  the 
defense  just  at  the  close  of  the  afternoon  session, 
but  he  did  not  take  the  stand  before  the  court 
adjourned. 

THE  PKOCEEDINGS— VEEBATIM. 


MRS.  WOODHULL  APPEAES  WITH  SOME 
LETTEES. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. Shortly  after  the  opening  of  court,  Mr. 
Evarts  addressed  the  Judge  as  follows : 

If  your  Honor  please,  I  am  expecting  some  papers  in 
court  in  regard  to  which  I  may  have  to  ask  Mr.  Tilton  a 
question  or  two. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  you  may  do  so  when  they  arrive. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  would  prefer  not  to  have  another  wit- 
ness put  on  the  stand,  as  I  expect  to  bring  them  into 
court  in  a  moment. 

After  the  lapse  of  several  minutes,  Mrs.  Victoria  C. 
WoodhuU  appeared  in  court. 

Mr.  Shearman— If  yotir  Honor  please,  we  have  sub- 
penaed  Mrs.  Victoria  C.  Woodhull  to  produce  certain  let- 
ters for  the  purpose  of  cross-examination  of  the  plaintiff 
In  this  case.  Mrs.  WoodhuU  is  in  attendance,  but  declines 
to  produce  any  letters  without  boing  instructed  by  the 
Court  that  it  is  her  duty  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  the  Court  will  not  so  instruet  her, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  because  it  is  not  her  duty  to  pro- 
duce them. 


Judge  Neilson— No;  you  may  recall  Mr.  Tilton  after^ 
ward,  if  you  wish. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  understand,  if  your  Honor  please, 
that  it  is  the  right  of  the  party  under  the  process  of  svb- 
poena  duces  tecum  to  bring  letters  into  court,  and  that 
it  is  no  part  of  that  process  that  the  witness  having  pos- 
session of  the  letters  should  be  sworn  as  a  witness. 

Judge  Neilson— No  ;  you  can  have  the  letters  without ; 
but  yet  I  do  not  feel  like  giving  any  direction  to  her. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  that  the  right  of  the  party  is  that  a 
witness,  as  may  be  supposed  in  many  cases,  having  no 
other  interest  or  feeling  in  the  matter  except  that  it 
should  not  be  a  voluntary  production  of  the  papers, 
should  have  the  direction  of  the  Court  to  produce  them. 
Now,  our  subpena  is,  as  I  understand,  to  produce  certain 
letters.  Our  subpena— [to  Mr.  Shearman]— have  you  the 
subpena? 

Judge  Neilson— The  party  who  has  subpenaed  a  witness 
duces  tecunif  ought  to  get  the  papers  or  the  witness  bring 
them  into  court,  whether  the  witness  is  sworn  or  not. 
But,  under  all  the  circumstances,  I  do  not  feel  like  giv 
that  direction. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  don't  think  that  is  the  rule,  if  y oar 
Honor  please. 

Judge  Neilson— What  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  think  that  is  not  the  rule,  with  all  due 
respect. 

Judge  NeUson— A  rule  that  we  have  applied  ia  this 
court  very  frequently. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  I  have  never  seen  it  applied 
myself.  I  think  the  practice  generally  has  been,  and  so  ! 
far  as  my  experience  goes,  universally,  to  put  the  witness 
upon  the  stand  and  have  the  papers  producsd  under 
oath ;  and  I  think  that  is  the  only  way  that  your  Honor 
gets  the  power  to  compel  the  production  of  the  papers. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  is  not  compelled  to  pro- 
duce the  papers. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir ;  if  they  want  the  papers  they 
must  produce  the  witness  and  put  her  on  the  stand  and 
have  her  sworn,  and  have  them  produced  under  oath. 

Judge  NeUson— Well,  I  could  not  give  any  direction  to 
the  witness  about  it  at  present. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  we  understand  the  law,  if  your 
Honor  please,  to  be  as  your  Honor  has  stated  it,  th^it  it 
is  not  necessary  that  any  other  process  than  the  suhpcena 
duces  tecum  should  be  applied  for,  and  the  possession  of 
papers  does  not  make  a  person  a  witness  in  the  cause. 
Then  the  question  is  whether  the  subpena  is  a  proper  ex- 
ercise of  the  authority  of  the  Court— whether  it  is  a 
proper  exercise  of  the  process  of  the  Court;  that  is, 
whether  the  papers  sought  for  are  properly  papers 
which  can  come  in  evidence.  Now,  the  subpena  is. 
[Reading.] 

All  correspondence  between  Theodore  Tilton  and 
yourself,  all  books,  papers,  and  documents  in  any  way 
relating  to  any  matter  of  difference  between  the  said  TU- 
ton  and  the  said  Beecher. 


MBS.    WOODHUJjL'S  LETTERS  OBTAINED, 


50^ 


Judge  Neilson— Well,  tlie  subpena  compels  the  witness 
to  attend  and  bring  the  papers. 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  authority  which  the  Court  ex- 
ercises in  reference  to  the  subpena. 

Mr.  Fullerton — She  is  subpenaed  here  as  a  witness  

Judge  Neilson — Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Not  as  an  expressman  [reading]. 

We  command  you  that,  all  business  and  excuses  being 
laid  aside,  you  appear  and  attend  before  the  City  Court, 
&c.,  to  testify  and  give  evidence  in  a  certain  action  now 
pendiag  and  undetermined  in  the  said  Court  between 
the  parties. 

Naming  them. 

She  is  subpenaed  to  appear  as  a  witness,  and  as  a  wit- 
ness I  suppose  she  is  here. 

Judge  Neilson— I  cannot  give  any  direction  about  it, 
gentlemen. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  my  friend  is 
quite  right  in  saying  that  it  is  in  the  form  of  a  subpmna 
duces  tecum.  But  this  is  a  common  law  process  by  which 
the  papers  are  brought  into  court,  and  the  rule  is  famil- 
iar as  I  think— I  suppose  yom-  Honor  has  had  occasion 
often  to  practice  it,  as  from  your  intimation  it  would  ap- 
pear that  you  had.  Taylor  on  Evidence  says,  at  Section 
1,286 : 

And  here  it  Is  clear  that  if  the  witness  be  called  under 
a  subpcena  duces  tecum,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  produc- 
ing a  document,  which  either  req.mres  no  proof,  or  is  to 
he  identified  by  another  witness,  he  need  not  be  sworn, 
and  if  unsworn,  he  cannot  be  cross-examined.  So  if  the 
witness  be  sworn  under  a  mistake  

Though  that  is  not  important.  In  the  case  of  Perry 
agt.  Gibson,  1st  of  Adolphus  &  Ellis,  before  the  King's 
Bench,  [readiug]  : 

On  the  trial  of  this  case  before  Alderson,  Judge,  at  the  last 
Assizes  of  Cumberland,  a  person  was  called  upon  under  a 
subpcena  duces  tecum  to  produce  a  book  belonging  to  cer- 
tain trustees  appointed  under  an  act  of  Parliament,  which 
was  in  his  custody  as  their  clerk,  and  produced  the  book, 
but  plaintiffs  counsel,  by  whom  he  was  called,  having  no 
other  question  to  put  to  him,  being  prepared  with  other 
evidence  to  identify  the  book,  did  not  propose  to  have 
him  sworn.  Counsel  for  defendant  insisted  that  this 
should  be  done,  ra  order  that  they  might  have  an  oppor- 
tdnity  to  cross-t  xamine.  The  learned  Judge  refused  to 
have  the  party  sworn,  and  an  application  was  made  for  a 
new  trial  on  the  ground  of  this  being  error  in  law. 

Lord  Denman,  Chief  Justice,  says : 

It  is  best  not  to  disturb  the  question,  which  has  been 
fully  considered  and  decided. 

Bell,  Judge— I  am  of  the  same  opinion;  I  always 
thought  that  the  subpcenu  duces  tecum  had  two  distinct 
objects,  and  that  one  might  be  enforced  without  the 
other. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  if  the  witness  has  obeyed  the 
writ,  has  attended  in  court,  and  brought  the  papers,  that 
satisfies  the  writ.  I  am  quite  aware  that  the  witness 
need  not  be  examined,  and  that  it  does  not  imply  the 
right  to  cross-examine.  The  only  question  is  whether 
you  could  attach  the  witness  for  not  delivering  over  the 
papers  on  your  reguest,  she  being  here. 


Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor  will  perceive  that  there  is 
a  feature  m  this  case  entirely  different  from  those  which 
characterize  the  cases  to  which  reference  has  been  made. 
This  subpcena  duces  tecum  does  not  describe  any  particular 
paper,  so  as  to  enable  us  to  identify  it  by  that  descrip- 
tion when  it  is  produced.  There  is  an  omnibus  clause  in 
it,  to  produce  all  papers  of  a  certain  character,  without 
specifying  particularly  any,  and  hence  it  does  not  bring 
this  case  within  the  rule  as  laid  down  in  the  elementary 
books,  or  within  the  rule  as  administered  in  those  de- 
cisions, because  in  those  cases  a  particular  paper  was 
described  in  a  way  so  that  it  could  be  readily  identified 
when  it  was  produced.  But  I  do  not  think  any  one  ever 
heard  before,  that  a  witness  was  compelled  to  come  into 
court  under  a  subpena  of  this  character  requiring  them 
to  produce  all  correspondence  between  A  and  B,  and  to 
hand  them  over  at  the  will  of  the  partv  sending  the 
subpena. 

Judge  NeUson— You  have  no  interest  in  this,  Mr.  Ful- 
lerton ;  you  could  not  cross-examine  the  witness. 
Mr.  Fullerton— How,  Sir? 

Judge  Neilson— You  have  no  interest  in  this ;  you  could 
not  cross-examine  the  witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton — Unless  she  is  put  on  the  stand  I  could 
not,  certainly.  But  if  they  put  her  on  the  stand,  and  she 
produces  these  papers  and  swears  it  is  the  correspond- 
ence between  herself  and  the  plaintiff  in  this  case,  then, 
if  your  Honor  please,  I  will  have. 

Judge  Neilson— You  would  have  a  right  to  cross-exam- 
ine her  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— But  they  may  identify  the  papers  by 
another  witness. 

IVIr.  Fullerton— But  the  question  is,  whether  she  is  com- 
pelled to  come  here  and  hand  over  these  papsrs  under 
this  general  clause  of  the  subpcena  duces  tecum. 

]VIr.  Evarts— How  is  that  a  question  with  which  the 
plaintiff  has  anything  to  do  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  I  suppose  the  plaintiff  has  got 
something  to  do  with  almost  anything  that  takes  place 
during  this  trial ;  we  mean  to  have  a  hand  in,  at  all 
events,  on  all  proper  occasions. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  on  all  proper  questions. 

Mr.  Fullerton — Yes,  Sir ;  I  think  that  is  competent. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  the  process  of  the  court,  as  the  King's 
Bench  have  very  properly  pointed  out,  and  as  your 
Honor  is  familiar  with  the  practice  in  this  court,  as  well 
as  in  other  courts  in  the  State,  the  rule  is  that  the  process 
brings  papers  within  the  control  of  the  court.  The  wit- 
ness, under  this  process  of  the  court,  is  in  court  with  the 
papers  in  her  possession.  Now,  it  may  be  a  question  for 
a  witness  whether  he  or  she  has  reasons  for  not  wishing 
to  produce  letters  or  papers.  But  that  is  not  a  question 
for  the  opposite  parties,  not  in  the  least.  What  we  are 
now  discussing  Is  whether  under  this  subpena,  we  asking 
the  witness  for  these  letters  of  Mr.  TUton,  your  Honor 


510 


THE   TILTON-BEECHER  TEIAL. 


will  direct  them  to  be  produced.  If  she  receives  the  di- 
rection of  the  court  to  produce  letters,  if  that  is  the  right 
of  the  party  under  a  subpo&na  duces  tecum,  why  then  she 
Is  placed  in  the  position  of  oheying  the  law.  The  ques- 
tion of  swearing  or  not  swearing  has  nothing  to  do  with 
that  question— nothing  whatever. 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  feel  like  giving  any  direction 
at  this  stage  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Evarts— In  the  case  of  Somers  agt.  Moseley  [4  Tyr- 
whltt,  168]  it  is  said  [reading] ; 

There  must  have  existed  a  common  law  right  in  the 
Crown  for  the  purposes  of  justice  to  compel  hy  subpena 
the  attendance  of  every  person  cognizant  of  the  suhject 
matter  of  the  suit,  and  also  to  produce  any  document 
bearing  on  that  subject  matter  though  in  the  possession 
of  a  stranger  to  the  suit.  Such  a  stranger  is  only  called 
to  produce  a  paper  as  and  for  the  required  document, 
not  to  identify  it,  which  would  be  done  by  extrinsic  evi- 
dence. In  numberless  cases,  as  the  party  producing  a 
paper  is  wholly  ignorant  of  every  circumstance  of  the 
case,  it  ■  would  be  absurd  to  swear  him  as  a 
witness.  When  a  party  called  on  his  suhpcena  duces  tecum 
to  produce  the  document  required  disobeys  the  writ  by 
not  producing  it,  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  is  liable  to  at- 
tachment. Whether  he  could  be  retjuired  to  be  sworn, 
not  to  give  general  testimony  in  the  cause,  but  to  make 
true  answers  as  to  the  custody  of  the  document  only,  is 
another  question.  But  we  think  that  he  has  no  right  to 
require  the  party  who  calls  him  to  have  him  sworn  in 
that  way  which  would  make  him  a  witness  in  the  case 
for  all  purposes,  for  he  might  be  a  mere  stranger  to  the 
document,  througii  having  the  custody  of  it.  The  wit- 
ness, therefore,  in  this  case  was  properly  called  on  to 
produce  the  warrant,  and  that  production  was  properly 
enforced  without  swearing  him. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  warrant  described  in  the 
•writ,  in  the  subpena. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  not  a  question  of  that ;  it  is  not 
a  question  of  the  opposite  party ;  it  is  the  question  of  a 
witness  proposing  to  the  court  or  not  that  he  or  she  has  a 
right  to  be  sworn  Id  ner  own  interest— not  a  question  of 
the  parties.   I  suppose  no  witness  has  that  right. 

Judge  Neilson— No  witness  has  that  right. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  it  is  for  the  coiu?t,  therefore,  to  say 
whether  this  lady  shall  be  advised  that  the  letter  entitles 
us,  under  this  writ,  to  this  correspondence. 

Judge  Neilson — It  entitles  you  to  that  correspondence 
undoubtedly,  unless  there  is  some  special  personal  objec- 
tion, upon  her  part,  that  is  to  be  considered.  If  there  is, 
that  remains  to  be  tested  in  another  proceeding. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  understand  that  there  is  any  per- 
sonal objection  on  her  part,  except  that  it  should  not  be 
a  voluntary  production  of  the  letters. 

Judge  NeUson— There  is  nothing  to  be  made  by  calling 
the  witness  and  swearing  her,  because  there  could  be  no 
cross-examination,  except  

Mr.  Evarts — ^No,  Sir ;  there  is  no  question  of  swearing 
at  aU.   Mrs.  Woodhull  

Mr.  Shearman  [to  Mrs.  Woodhull]— I  call  for  those  let- 
ters of  Mx.  Tilton. 


[A  conversation  in  low  tones  here  took  place  between 
Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  Shearman  and  Mr.  Evarts.] 

Mr.  Fullei  ton— I  think  it  is  due  to  the  witness.  Sir,  and 
due  to  the  proper  administration  of  justice,  that  your 
Honor  should  inform  the  witness  that  she  is  not  called 
upon  by  the  Court  to  produce  those  papers. 

Judge  Neilson— She  has  heard  what  I  have  said;  I  have 
not  given  any  directions. 

Mr.  Fullerton— There  is  not  any  objection  to  Mrs. Wood- 
hull  going  upon  the  stand  at  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— She  has  been  advised  that  the  writ  entities 
us  to  the  production  of  the  papers. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Provided  she  sees  fit  to  give  them. 


MES.  WOODHULL  MAKES  A  SPEECH. 
Mr.  Evarts— All !  sees  fit.   The  witness  can 

say  something  to  your  Honor. 

Mr.  Shearman— She  desires  to  say  something  to  your 
Honor. 

Mrs.  Woodhull— Your  Honor,  I  have  a  very  few  unim- 
portant letters  in  my  possession,  and  I  feel  that  if  they 
bring  me  in  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings  an  explana- 
tion is  due.  They  are  letters  which  are  entirely  credita- 
ble to  myself  as  well  as  the  gentleman  that  wrote  them. 
I  have  no  disposition  to  keep  them  from  any  court  of 
justice.  But  perhaps  you  are  not  aware— I  cannot  say 
you  are  not  aware— perhaps  you  do  not  remember  that  I 
have  been  imprisoned  several  times  for  the  publication  of 
this  scandal.  During  that  time  my  office  was  ransacked, 
and  all  my  private  letters  and  papers  taken  away  from 
me.  Therefore  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  some  of  my 
private  letters  are  in  the  hands  of  the  defense,  as  well  as 
of  the  prosecution.  They  may  not  be ;  that  is  simply  my 
private  opinion  ;  and  the  very  few  unimportant  letters 
that  are  left  in  my  possession  of  course  can  result  in  no 
disadvantage  to  myself,  though,  of  course,  I  do  not  wish 
to  be  held  to  act  from  any  thought  of  that  nature.  I  an 
perfectly  willing  to  give  them  with  this  explanation. 

Judge  Neilson— Well. 

[Papers  produced  by  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  handed  to  Mr. 

Shearman.] 

MR.   TILTON'S    CEOSS-EXAMINATION  AGAIN 
DEFERRED. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  will  not  require  Mr.  Tilton 
to  take  the  stand  at  this  moment,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well.  Now,  Mr.  Morris,  proceed. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  think.  Sir,  under  the  present  circum- 
stances, that  if  they  pursue  the  cross-examination  of  Mr. 
Tilton  at  all  they  ought  to  do  it  now.  • 

Judge  Neili^o::  -Oh,  I  don't  think  that  is  materiaL 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well.  Sir,  it  may  be  very  material. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  not. 

Mr.  Morris— It  may  be,  to  ua. 

Mr.  Fullerton—They  have  got  possession  now  of  certain 
letters,  and  it  may  be  necessary  for  us  to  explain  those 


TESllMONY   OF  Ti 

letters  or  docmnents,  or  -wliatever  they  are.  We  are  in  a 
condition  now,  as  your  Honor  knows,  to  attempt,  at 
least,  to  do  so. 

Judge  Neilson— You  will  have  the  opportunity  of  ex- 
plaining or  disproving  them  if  the  matter  comes  up  at  all. 

Mr.  Beach — The  witness  is  now  in  court. 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  witness  who  produces  these  papers 
is  now  in  court.  If  they  examine  Mr.  Tiltou  in  regard  to 
these  letters  some  days  hence,  your  Honor  perceives  it 
takes  us  at  a  disadvantage.  We  do  not  know  where  this 
witness  will  he  at  that  time.  She  may  he  heyond  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  court. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  your  learned  opponent  ought  to 
tell  you  what  his  purpose  is. 

Mr.  Fullerton— What,  Sir  1 

Judge  Neilson— He  ought  to  tell  you  what  his  purpose 
is. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  I  know  what  hia  purpose  is. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  don't  know  ahout  that.  Let  us 
know  what  his  purpose  is.  We  have  not  seen  the  letters. 

Judge  NeUson— Well,  whatever  suggestion  I  could  make 
ahout  it  now  would  not  preclude  their  calling  Mr.  Tilton 
hereafter  if  they  should  see  lit  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  all  under  the  direction  and  control 
of  your  Honor  whether  they  shall  pursue  the  cross- 
examination  of  Mr.  Tilton  now  further,  or  whether  they 
shall  he  permitted  to  do  it  under  favor  hereafter ;  and 
the  administration  of  that  rule,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
would  he  such  as  would  subserve  the  ends  of  justice. 
Now,  if  your  Honor  perceives  that  we  may  he  taken 
hereafter  at  a  great  disadvantage  hj  the  postponement 
of  the  further  cross-examination  of  Mr.  TUton,  I  suppose 
your  Honor  would  so  order  and  direct  as  to  prevent  any 
such  thing  occm-ring. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  are  subject  to  your  Honor's  direction 
whenever  we  shall  make  an  application.  That  we  under- 
stand. 

.  Judge  Neilson— I  understood  that  you  were  going  to 
further  cross-examine  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Why  not  do  so  now  ? 

Iklr.  Beach— We  have  been  waiting  an  hour  for  that  pur- 
pose, under  the  declaration  of  the  counsel  that  they 
wished  to  put  Mr.  Tilton  on  the  stand  for  cross-examina- 
tion, and  were  waiting  for  those  letters ;  an  hour  has 
been  spent  waiting  for  them  to  proceed  with  their  cross- 
examination. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  does  not  make  any  difference. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir ;  that  is  a  circumstance  applying 
to  your  Honor's  discretion,  and  it  is  most  material. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  stated  to  your  Honor  that  we  will 
not  ask  them  to  put  Mr.  Tilton  on  the  stand  at  this  mo- 
ment. They  may  go  on  with  their  case.  But  now  they 
apply  to  your  Honor  to  preclude  us  from  making  the  ap- 
plication hereafter. 


HEODOBE   IILTOX.  511 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  signified  that  I  should  make  nc 
order  of  that  kind. 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor  might  direct  them  to  go  on 
now,  if  they  desig-n  to  cross-examine  Mr.  Tilton  further 
hereafter. 

Judge  Neilson— That,  still,  would  not  preclude  them 
hereafter.  If  they  desii-ed  to  cross-examine  him  I  would 
not  make  any  order  tiiat  would  preclude  them. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  it  is  within  your  Honor's  power  to 
do  so. 

Judge  Neilson— T  think  not. 

Mr.  Fullerton— We  have  waited  now  from  11  until  li 

o'clock  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  them  to  get  possession 
of  those  letters,  and  they  have  got  possession  of  those 
letters,  and  the  person  who  produced  the  letters  is  now 
in  court,  subject  to  your  Honor's  jurisdiction— present  to 
give  any  explanation,  if  any  be  needed,  of  those  letters, 
or  any  part  of  them.  Now,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  any 
hardship  to  require  the  other  side  to  go  on  at  this  time 
with  their  cross-examination. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Evarts,  will  you  agree  —  I  think 
it  is  reasonable  you  should  —  that  if  you  hereafter, 
after  to-day,  call  Mr.  Tilton  for  cross-examination,  as 
you  have  suggested  you  might,  you  will  also  have  this 
witness,  who  produces  these  papers,  then  in  attendance  ? 
I  think  you  ought  to  say  you  will. 

Mr.  Beach— Not  after  to-day,  Sir ;  after  now. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  when  you  recall  Mr.  Tilton  will 
you  agree  to  have  this  witness  in  attendance  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— This  lady  is  a  free  person,  if  your  Honoi 
please,  and,  I  have  no  doubt,  has  as  much  will  of  her 
own  as  most  people ;  at  any  rate,  any  lady,  or  witness, 
has  control  of  her  own  movements  when  she  is  not 
needed  in  court. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  it  would  compel  you  to  subpena 
her. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  would  be  only  the  suhpo&na  duces 
tecum. 

IVIr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  that  is  a  subpena  that  commands 
her  presence  as  well  as  that  of  the  papers.  She  is  here 
now  in  court,  in  obedience  to  that  subpena. 

Judge  Neilson— You  appreciate  my  suggestion,  I  sup- 
pose, Mr.  Evarts  1 

Mr.  Evarts— I  do,  Sir.  It  is  a  proper  suggestion;  and 
when  the  circumstances  under  which  we  ask  Mr.  Tilton 
to  be  recalled  for  cross-examination  are  before  the  Court, 
if  there  is  then  any  condition  of  impropriety  about  it  of 
course  your  Honor  will  so  order— that  is  to  say,  you  wiU 
dispose  of  the  question  whether  you  will  allow  us  to  re- 
call him.  or  not. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor  has  waited  for  them  to  pro- 
cure possession  of  these  papers,  and  have  indulged  them 
with  time  to  read  them.  They  have  read  them  ;  they  have 
perused  them  all. 


513 


THE   TILION-BEEGEEB  TBIAL. 


Mr.  Beach— Waited  under  their  announcement  that  they 
•wanted  to  cross-examine  Mr.  Tllton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— They  know  their  contents  ;  they  Icnow 
"What  use  they  want  to  put  them  to ;  they  know  what 
questions  they  can  frame  in  regard  to  them  ;  and  there- 
fore I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  impropriety  in  asking 
them  to  go  on  now. 

Judge  Neilson— This  is  understood  then,  that  if  your 
learned  opponent  declines  to  proceed  now  with  Mi*.  Til- 
ton,  and  desires  to  call  him  hereafter  for  cross-examina- 
tion, his  right  to  do  so  shall  he  conditioned  upon  his  hav- 
ing Mrs.  WoodhuU  in  attendance  at  that  time. 

Mr.  E\ arts —We  understand  that  it  will  he  iu  your 
Honor's  power  to  apply  that  condition. 

Judge  Neilson — I  make  that  announcement  now.  It 
would  be  a  very  unpleasant  thing  to  enforce  it,  perhaps, 
tmless  it  was  understood. 

Ilr.  Evarts  [continmngj— And  we  may  have  a  very  good 
reason  for  not  wishing  to  hreak  the  cross-examination  in 
two.  We  may  not  have  all  the  letters  that  we  desire  or 
expect. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  we  will  proceed  under  that  condi- 
tion—that if  they  call  Mr.  Tilton  hereafter  they  shall  have 
this  witness  in  attendance. 

Mr.  Faller ton— Well. 

JOHN  NAPOLEON  LONGHI  RECALLED. 

Jolin  Napoleon  Longhi,  a  witness  for  the 
plaintiff,  was  recalled  and  further  examined. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Since  you  were  on  the  stand  before 
have  you  measured  the  front  premises  occupied  by 
Shedler  in  Broad-st.,  New-York?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  distance  between  the  entrance  to  Shed- 
ler's  restaurant  and  the  entrance  to  Delmonico's  restau- 
rant %   A.  As  near  as  I  can  judge,  24  feet. 

Q.  And  between  the  entrance  to  Shedler's  restaurant 
and  Delmonico's  is  there  another  entrance  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  An  entrance  to  what  ?   A.  For  offices. 

Q.  In  what  building  ?   A.  In  Shedler's  building. 

Q.  What  is  the  width  of  that  entrance  I  A.  Eight  feet, 
about. 

Q.  Shedler's  restaurant  is  below  the  level  of  the  street  % 
A.  Yes,  Sir;  down  stairs. 

Q.  How  many  steps  down  ?  A.  I  should  ludge,  seven. 

Q.  And  between  that  entrance  and  the  entrance  to 
Delmonico's,  I  understand  you  to  say  that  there  is  a  third 
entrance  of  eight  feet  in  width,  which  leads  to  the  office 
above  Delmonico's  restaurant  %   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  all. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Shearman,  do  you  wish  to  ask  this 
witness  anything  1 
Mr.  Shearman — No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness].— That  is  all,  Sir.  [To 
plaintiflPs  counsel] .  Call  the  next  witness. 


FRANCIS  D.  MOULTON  KECALLED. 
Framak  D.  Moulton,  a  witness  on  behalf  of 
the  plaintiff,  was  recalled  and  fmther  examined  as  fol- 
lows: 

By  Mr.  Morris— In  your  iaterview  with  Mr.  Beecher  on 
the  30th  of  December,  1870,  in  reference  to  delivering  up 
the  retraction,  as  it  is  called,  did  you  use  this  language  or 
language  of  similar  import.  Mr.  Beecher  says,  speakintr 
of  that  interview : 

The  first  sentence,  I  think,  was  one  of  the  argumenta 
that  he  used  when  I  said  that  I  should  retain  that  for  sell- 
defense,  and  his  statement  was  that  I  should  take  a  gen- 
erous view,  and  act  so  as  should  be  for  the  interest  of  all 
parties  concerned. 

Did  you  use  any  such  language  as  that— that  he  should, 
take  a  generous  view?  A.  [Emphatically]  No. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  this  

Mr.  Evarts— WiU  you  refer  me  to  what  you  have  just 
asked  about,  Mr.  Morris  ? 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  near  the  top,  on  the  left  hand  side  of 
page  768,  Part  11.  [To  the  witness.]  Now,  I  call  your 
attention  to  this  language : 

Mr.  Evarts— What  page  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Page  770,  commencing  at  the  bottom  of 
the  second  left-hand  column.  [To  the  witness.]  This  is 
the  language : 

But  that  it  seemed  to  me  that  if  she  had  been  led  to 
transfer  her  affection  from  her  husband,  by  reason  of  my 
presence,  I  could  not  but  feel  that  I  was  blameworthy; 
that  she  was  a  woman  so  quiet  and  so  simple— her  exterior 
life  was  so  far  from  that,  that  I  had  never  suspected  it 

Did  Mr.  Beecher,  in  that  interview  

Mr.  Evarts— Wait  a  moment.   What  is  the  date  i 

Mr.  Morris— Jan.  1. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  witness  has  given  a  full  statement  of 
that,  as  your  Honor  knows,  and  Mr.  Beecher  has  given 
a  full  statement  of  that ;  and  it  does  not  seem  to  me  tliat 
the  inquiries  my  learned  friend  is  now  making  are  in  the 
nature  of  express  contradiction.  That  is,  there  is  no  defi- 
nite statement  of  the  language,  of  what  this  witness  is 
alleged  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  have  said  to  him,  which  tlio 
witness  now  is  called  upon  to  contradict  or  to  qualify. 

Judge  Neilson— His  right  is  limited  to  calling  the  atten- 
tion of  the  witness  to  any  new  expressions  used  by  the 
other  witness,  that  he  deny  or  explain  them  so  far  as 
he  can. 

Mr.  Morris— Certainly.  Suppose  Mr.  Moulton  on  hla 
cross-examination  should  relate  an  interview  as  having 
occurred  on  the  1st  of  January  that  occupied  a  minute, 
and  Mr.  Beecher  shoald  go  upon  the  stand  and  relate  an 
entirely  different  interview,  which  occupied  an  hour; 
would  we  have  no  right  to  examine  Mr.  Moulton  wltli 
reference  to  the  new  matter  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  never  denied  that ;  but  that  is  not 
this  case. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  this  case  precisely. 

Mr.  Evarts— There  was  an  interview  that  oooupiled 


rESTIMOyi   OF  FFiAXClS  D,  MOULTOy. 


518 


two  hoiu^s  or  more,  in  the  xievr  of  eacli  witness,  andeacti 
■\ritness  gave  liis  own  vie^  oi  it. 

Judcce  Xeilson— This  Tvitness  cannot  repeat  the  view  of 
it  that  he  gave  before.  All  he  can  do  is  to  speak  of 
specific  expressions  not  used  hy  him,  but  used  by  the 
other  witness.   T  tMnk  you  can  go  that  far. 

:ir.  3Iorris— That  is  as  far  as  I  propose  to  go. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  have  assented  to  as  the  correct 
rule  of  law  when  announced  by  your  Honor.  Th.e  CLues- 
tion  is,  of  its  application  to  the  case  as  it  arises.  Where 
do  you  begin,  Mr.  Morris  ? 

ivlr.  Morris— At  the  close  of  the  page.  [To  the  witness  :] 
The  question  is,  whether  in  that  interview  Mr.  Beecher 
used  that  language  1  A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Or  language  of  similar  import  ?  A.  He  did  not. 

3Ir.  Morris— I  read  from  the  same  column,  Mr.  Evarts, 
page  771.  [To  the  witness.  ]  Did  you  use  to  Mr.  Beecher 
this  language  [reading]  : 

Mr.  Moulton  said  to  me,  sitting  in  Ms  cliair,  [here  Mr. 

Beecher  put  his  leg  over  the  arm  of  the  chair,  in  illustra- 
tion,] with  an  intelligent  look,  "  Why,  there  Is  no  doubt 
about  that,  IMr.  Beecher.   Elizabeth  Tilton  loves  your 
lit  cle  finger  more  than  she  does  Mr.  Tilton's  whole  body." 
I\Ir.  Evarts— WTiat  part  of  the  column  is  that  1 
Mr.  Morris— About  two-thirds  of  the  way  down— the  in- 
side column.  [To  the  witness.]  Did  you  use  such  language 
as  that  to  Mr.  Beecher  on  that  occasion  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 
Q.  Or,  in  substance,  anything  of  that  Mnd  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

THE   WEITIXG   OF  THE   LETTER  OF  COX- 
TRITIOX. 

Q.  On  the  same  page,  at  tlie  bottom  of  the 
outside  column,  right  hand  page,  I  read  this  now.  I 
read  this  paragraph,  Mr.  Moulton,  from  Mr.  Beecher's 
testimony.  After  the  Letter  of  Contrition  was  read,  he 
says: 

He  (]Mr.  Moulton)  rose  up  from  the  table  and  gathered 
up  the  papers ;  they  were  on  separate  sheets,  and  a  sort 
of  afterthought  came  to  him,  and  he  said,  "  Sig-n  this ;" 
"  you  better  sign  this."  I  said,  "  No,  I  cannot  gign  a 
letter  that  I  have  not  written."  "  Well,  but,"  said  he, 
"  it  won't  have  the  influence  with  Mr.  TiLton  that  it  will 
if  it  has  your  name."  "  But,"  said  I,  "this  is  your  mem- 
orandum ;  you  take  that  and  talk  on  those  pomts  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  tell  him  what  you  have  heard  me  say,  and  he 
believes  you ;  you  are  his  friend."  "  Well,"  he  says,  "  it 
will  be  a  great  deal  better  if  you  just  put  your  name  to 
this  in  some  way,  to  let  him  see  that  it  is  authorized." 

Mr.  Evarts— One  moment,  Mr.  Moulton.  I  think,  if 
your  Honor  please,  that  was  all  gone  into  on  the  direct 
and  in  the  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Moulton.  Your 
Honor  will  remember  that  was  a  paxt  of  our  case  while 
he  was  under  examination ;  that  that  was  the  natirre  of 
this  paper,  and  there  does  not  seem  to  be  anything  new 
in  Mr.  Beecher's  statement  of  it  itseK.  It  was  not  the 
paper  that  he  wrote  or  that  he  signed  in  any  other  way 
thiiu  as  an  authentication,  that  it  might  be  useful  in  Mr. 
Moulton's  hands. 


]Mi\  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris]— Refer  back,  and  put  your 
Ciuestion. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  care  about  insisting  on  it,  but  I 
believe  that  is  the  truth  of  it. 

Mr.  Morris— No.  [To  the  Witness]— What  is  your  answer 
to  that  1  Did  any  such  conversation  as  that  take  place 
between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  after  you  had  written  the  Letter  of  Contridon, 
did  you  gather  up  the  letter  as  described  here  in  any 
manner  from  the  table  before  it  was  signed  by  I^Lr. 
Beecher  ?  A.  No.  Yes,  I  did,  so  that  he  might  read  them, 
but  not  as  he  describes  it— not  giving  the  meaning  that  he 
did  there. 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher  says  that  the  close  of  that  interview 
was  the  reading  of  the  letter ;  is  that  correct,  and,  if  so, 
by  whom  was  it  read  ?  A.  At  the  close  of  the  interview 
was  the  reading  of  the  letter  ] 

Q.  At  the  close  of  that  interview.  A.  The  letter  waa 
read.  Sir,  before  it  was  signed. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  this  langiiage  on  page  773,  a 
question  by  Mr.  Evarts : 

When  Mr.  Moulton  went  ofl— before  he  went  off  with 
this  memorandum  which  he  had  made— was  anything 
said  by  him  about  his  burning  or  returning  if?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  What  was  that  1  A.  He  said— treated  it  as  a  mere 
memorandum  to  be  read,  and  said  after  he  had  used  it  he 
would  either  return  it  to  me  or  bum  it. 

Did  anything  of  that  kind  occur  between  you  and  Mr. 
Beecher,  in  reference  to  that  letter?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  This  is  thelangun  I  could  not  turn  to  it  at  the 
moment.  I  will  read  t.  paragraph  in  Mr.  Beecher's  ex- 
amination. I  read  from  my  scrap-book.  It  is  under  the 
heading  of  "  The  Letter  of  Apology."  You  (Mr.  Evarts) 
will  flLnd  the  heading : 

I  was  walking  to  and  fro,  and  he  occasionally  would 
ask  me,  when  I  was  speaking  rapidly  and  with  some  em- 
phasis—he would  say :  "  Did  you  say  so  and  so  ] "  or  "  Did 
you  say  1 "  or  something  to  that  effect,  and  I  would  check 
myself  for  a  moment,  and  make  some  reply,  "  Yes,"  or 
substantially  that,  or  something  like  that,  and  then  I 
would  repeat— repeat  one  thought  and  another  thought, 
attempting  to  go  over  in  my  mind  somewhat  the  points 
in  the  conversation  that  had  immediately  preceded  this, 
and  which  occupied  my  feelings  toward  Mr.  TiLton  and 
his  family.  That  was  the  last  part  of  the  interview  be- 
fore the  reading  of  the  memorandum. 

Now,  did  you  stop  Mr.  Beecher  during  the  writing  of 
that  letter  and  ask  him  whether  you  had  taken  it  down 
correctly  or  not,  and  if  so,  state  what  was  said  upon 
that  point  during  the  composition— the  writing  of  the 
"  Letter  of  Conti-ition  ?"  A.  WeU,  Sir,  I  don't  remember 
having  stopped  !Mr.  Beecher  in  the  dictation  of  his  letter 
to  ask  him  whether  or  not  I  had  substantially  written 
what  he  had  said.  Th?  letter  was  a  dictation,  word  for 
word,  from  his  own  lips. 

Mr.  Evarts -That  last  part  I  ask  to  hare  str  uck  out,  it 
your  Honor  please. 


514 


THE   TILION-BBECEEB  TBIAL. 


Judge  Neilson — The  last  expression  is  struck  out,  as  be- 
ing part  of  fclie  original  evidence. 

Mr.  Morris— Tliis  lie  lias  testified,  to  already.  [To  tlie 
witness.]  The  latter  part  of  this  is  correct,  then— the  last 
part  of  the  interview— this  was  the  last  part  of  the  inter- 
view ;  that  is,  the  dictation  of  the  letter,  before  the  read- 
ing of  the  letter?  A.  The  letter  was  finished  before  it 
was  read,  certainly. 

Q.  And  then  immediately  read?  A.  It  was  immediately 
read. 

Q.  As  stated  by  Mr.  Beecher  here  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  well  to  caU  attention  to  the  fact 
that  this  is  certainly  an  error  of  the  stenographer.  It 
should  be  the  writing  of  the  memorandum,  instead  of 
the  reading  of  the  memorandum.  Stenographers  have 
almost  the  same  sign  for  "  read"  and  "write,"  and  they 
have  got  it  reading  the  memorandum  instead  of  writing  it. 

Mr.  Morris— What  authority  have  you  got  for  that  as- 
sertion ? 

Mr.  Shearman— The  context  shows. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  witness  says  he  never  read  it,  and  it 
was  never  read  to  him.  Mr.  Beecher  says  he  never  read 
it,  and  it  never  was  read  to  him. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  we  will  correct  that  hereafter. 

Mr.  Morris— Well,  the  witness  (Moulton)  says  that  is 
correct,  whether  it  is  an  error  of  the  stenographer  or  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  witness  has  said  it  was  read ;  that  we 
understand. 

THE  INTERVIEW  OF  FEB.  3,  1872,  DENIED. 

By  Mr.  Morris — Mr.  Beecher,  in  relating  an 
interview  he  had  with  you,  in  which  you  related  an  inter- 
view which  you  had  with  Mr.  Bowen,  says  that  you  told 
him  Mr.  Bowen  made  use  of  this  language  at  your  house 
in  Clinton-st.  You  said  to  Mr.  Beecher : 

"  It  is  not  for  me  to  tell  you  what  to  do,"  and  he  said 
he  looked  up  at  the  portrait  that  was  hanging  on  the 
wa,ll,  and  said  :  "  Why,  I  shall  never  be  reconciled  to  that 
man  ;  I  shall  never  be  able  to  be  reconciled  to  that  man 
again." 

Q.  Tlie  portrait  of  whom  ?  A,  My  portrait ;  the  Paige 
portrait. 

Did  you  ever  have  that  portrait  in  your  house  atEem- 

sen-st  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Wait  a  moment. 
The  Witness— I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  Evarts— This  is  a  question  of  fact ;  this  is  not  a 
question  of  contradiction  of  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr.  Beecher 
says  that  Mr.  Moulton  described  to  Mr.  Beecher  the  inter- 
view which  he  (Mr.  Moulton)  had  with  Mr.  Bowen.  That 
Is  what  I  understand  to  be  the  point  here.  Now,  the 
basis  of  the  contradiction  of  Mr.  Beecher  would  be 
whether  he  told  Mr.  Beecher  that ;  not  whether  he  had  a 
portrait. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  the  first  step— whether  he  said 
that  thing. 


Mr.  Evarts— If  they  wish  to  ask  that  question,  that  is  a 
question  they  may  ask,  no  doubt. 

Judge  Neilson— They  may  ask  that  question. 

Mr.  Beach— Why,  If  your  Honor  please,  this  very  ques- 
tion was  fully  discussed  yesterday.  Does  it  make  any 
difference  as  to  the  order  of  the  question  t 

Judge  Neilson— I  recommended  that  question. 

Mr.  Beach— If  vou  recommended  it,  very  well. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  for  me  to  suggest  that  they  should 
ask  that  question,  for  I  do  n't  know  whether  they  wish  or 
intend  to. 

Mr.  Morris  -Yes,  I  intend  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— All  I  say  is,  this  inquiry  is  not  of  that 
nature.  This  inquiry  

Mr.  Morris— There  is  no  use  arguing  it.  I  will  put  that 
question,  as  suggested  by  tlie  Court. 

Judge  Neilson— Put  it  as  you  wei'e  putting  it  w'len  you 
were  inierrupted. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Now,  did  you  use  that  language  to  Mj-, 
Beecher,  or  language  of  similar  import?  A.  You  meau 
the  language  with  reference  to  the  poiiraif? 

Q.  \' es,  that  language  I  read  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  Mr.  Beecher' -i  portmit— flie  one 
spoken  of — in  your  house  in  Clinton- st.  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  In  the  month  of  January,  1871,  did  you  use  i  r's 
language  to  Mr.  Beecher,  iu  an  intei  view  witli  iiiiu  1 

He  never  exactly  said  that ;  he  spoke  of  wliat  a  grand 
thing  it  would  be  if  Tilton  and  I  could  join  forces  on  The 
Christian  Union. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  page  is  that? 

Mr.  Morris— 788. 

The  Witness— No,  Sir,  I  never  said  that. 

Mr.  Morris— I  read  this  paragraph  purporting  to  be  an 
interview  had  between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher  on  tne  3d  of 
February,  1872. 

Mr.  Shearman— What  page? 

Mr  Morris— Page  833,  the  same  part  f  Reading | : 

Q.  Before  writing  this  letter  to  Mr.  Moulton  of  Feb.  5, 
1872,  a  long  letter,  had  anything  passed  between  you 
and  Mr.  Moulton  which  intluced  or  led  you  to  write  it  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  did  that  occur,  and  what  was  it?  A.  I  went 
on  a  Saturday  morning  over  to  the  office  to  see  Mr.  Moul- 
ton ;  it  had  been  a  troublous  time  from  week  to  week  ail 
along  there ;  things  were  breaking  out ;  I  went  to  see 
him  on  some  one  of  these  occasions.  I  sat  for  some 
length  of  time— some  little  time  before  he  came  iu,  a:ul 
when  he  came  in  he  did  not  see  me— on  purpose— aud 
went  about  his  business,  coutinuiug  for— kept  me  waiting 
for  a  considerable  length  of  time  and  then  gavemerathev 
a  cold  recognition ;  he  was  passing  out  and  I  got  up  and 
went  out  with  him — I  must  say  I  forced  myself  on 
him ;  he  was  VTjry  distant ;  he  seemed  more 
nearly  in  the  mood  of  anger  with  me  than  I  had  ever 
seen  him  before,  and  when  I  entered  into  some  conversa- 
tion with  him  he  was  very  abrupt,  and  even  more ;  I  be- 
gan to  make  some  explanation  to  him  of  Mr.  Til  ton's  (if 
mands  upon  me  that  I  should— that  I  was  not  fulfill 
the  understanding  and  the  intent  of  our  cordial  agi  tt  - 
mont,  and  that  my  friends  wer  e  also  doing  me  a  gre;it 
deal  of  daina.ue— Mr.  Tiltou's  representation  by— doi"  : 


lf.stimo:sy  of  fe. 

him  a  great  deal  mjudiciouslv,  too ;  Mr.  Moulton  replied 
with  a  tone  that  was  cutting  to  me— tlie  suljstance  of  it 
was  it  was  very  well  for  me,  that  I  had  all  that  I  wanted 
—wealth,  and  a  home,  and  a  chui'ch,  and  my  friends— it 
was  very  well  for  me  to  slight  or  pay  little  regard  to  Mr. 
Tilton'8  condition  and  feelings  ;  that  he  was  without  sup- 
port;  that  he  was  suffering  poverty;  that  he  was  heing 
mjured  hy  those  that  were  flattering  me,  and  he  boi-e 
down  with  some  severity  upon  me  iu  the  matter;  the 
conversation  was  peculiarly  ti-nng  to  me. 

Q.  Did  you,  on  the  Saturday  of  the  3d  of  February , 
1872,  have  any  such  conversation  as  that  with  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  on  that  day  have  any  conversation  with 
him  whatever  ?  A.  My  impression  is  that  I  had  not ;  that 
I  was  at  home  ill. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  at  your  oflice  in  New-York?  A.  I 
think  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  treat  him  with  any  harshness,  or  coldness, 
or  severity,  on  that  day?  A.  No,  Sir.  [To  Jitdge  Neil- 
son.]  I  would  like  to  say  to  your  Honor  that  I  am  per- 
fectly satisfied  that  I  never  had  any  such  interview;  I 
know  I  never  had  any  sucli  interview  as  Mr. 
Beecher  describes.  I  have  answered  that  my  impression 
is  I  was  at  home  ill  on  that  day;  is  it  proper  for  me  to  ex- 
press the  basis  of  that  impression  ? 

Judge  Neilson— No;  you  are  confined  simply  to  answer- 
ing in  regard  to  specific  statements  made  by  Mr.  Beecher 
to  which  youx  attention  is  called. 

The  Witness— I  consulted  my  pliysician  about  it ;  that 
is  all,  Sir,  and  I  wanted  to  know  whether  I  had  a  right 
to. 

By  Mr.  Morris— When  was  it  you  first  learned  iMr. 
Beecher  had  met  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  cars  and  had  a  conver- 
sation with  him  ?  A.  Through  a  letter  of  Feb.  5, 1872. 

Q.  Through  this  same  letter  ?  A.  You  have  not  referred 
to  the  letter  before. 

Mr.  Morris— The  letter  of  Feb.  5, 1  refer  red  to ;  and  that 
was  the  first  you  learned  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  this.  This  is  not  to  contradict 
anything. 

Judge  Neilson— Get  at  the  specific  sentences  you  want 
to  correct,  if  you  want  to  lay  the  fouudation. 

Mr.  Morris— I  will  state  the  reason  of  those  questions. 
I  am  calling  the  witness's  attention  to  the  news  part  of 
this  letter.  This  letter  conveyed  to  him  certain  n e ws,  cer- 
tain information;  and,  I  suppose,  it  is  proper  for  us  to 
show  that  the  first  information  that  he  had  of  this  matter 
■^as  derived  from  the  letter  itself,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  not  prior  to  that  communicated  this  fact  to  him. 

Judge  Neilson— Who  put  ia  that  letter  1 

Mr.  Morris— The  letter  was  put  in  by  us. 

Judge  Neilson— Well. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  important  if  it  was  a  part  of  the  chief 
exa>ni  nation. 

Judge  jS'eilson— I  think,  therefore,  any  inquiry  you  [Mr. 
MorrisJ  Imye  to  make  in  regard  to  the  letter  should  have 


NCIS  1).   MOULTOy.  515 

boon  made  then,  but  you  can  iread  anv  new  si  atemfut  he 
made  in  respect  to  it. 

Mr.  Morris — But  the  interview  has  be^^a  tes"fiedTob,y 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  a  cause  assigned  for  the  Avvitir  of  s 
letter  that  did  n't  exist  at  the  tiiue.  Tuat  niey  lj..A  e  sou  ,vn 
by  their  dejense  that  it  was  in  consequeiite  of  th's  Jn'er- 
view  that  he  had  had  with  Mr.  Moulton ,  on  t'je  S.in  .  v 
preceding,  that  inducedthe  wrii 'ng  of  th's  let,;-,.  .  Now, 
this  letter  conveyed  to  Mr.  Monltou  ceiia:a  ini'oi  am.  ion, 
certain  news,  which  I  submit  we  have  a  right  to  show- 
was  the  fi.rst  knowlf-dge  that  Mr.  Mouliun  h.id  with  refer- 
ence to  those  matters. 

Judge Neilsoa— If  Mr.  Beecher  a+t  ibuted lino^sle.'^ge  '0 
him  at  an  earlier  da;y,  of  course  you  can  coniradioc  hat. 
as  you  can  any  other  expression  he  used.  I  think  it  is 
economical  to  keep  very  close  to  the  exact  expression,  so 
that  there  will  be  nothing  to  complain  of. 


OTHER  COJsTKADICTIONS  OF  YR.  BEECH EK. 

Mr.  Moms— Yes ;  that  we  purpose  d.oin^-, 

[To  the  Witness.]  With  rfference  to  the  arbitrauon. 
Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Beecher  says  : 

Mr.  Moulton  talVed  with  me  about  whether  there  could 
not  be  an  arbitration  and  quiet  settlement  of  all  oar  ilini- 
cuities.  including  the  payment  of  the  debt  owed  by  Mr. 
Bowen  to  Mr.  Tilton,  and  the  burn  ing  oi'  all  difficulties 
finally  and  out  of  sight ;  and  wanted  to  know  if  it  won  id 
not  be  a  good  thing  to  ask  some  o''  my  intiuen?  al  j'lieuds 
in  the  church  to  act  in  the  ma'tev  as  a  consiiUing  com- 
mittee. 

Q.  Did  yoti  have,  with  reference  to  that,  any  such  inter- 
view as  that  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— What  page  ? 

Mr.  Evarts  [to  jNIt.  Morris]— What  page,  Judge? 

Mr.  Morris— Page  39.  [To  the  witness.!  Did  you  use 
that  language  or  any  language  of  similar  import? 

Mr.  Evarts— Which  column  ? 

:^'Ir.  Morris— Inside  column,  the  second  long  paragraph. 
The  Witness— Mr.  Evarts,  I  understand,  stoi>s  me  from 
an  s wering  for  the  present. 
Mr.  Evarts— Y'es;  I  want  to  get  the  part. 
Mr.  Beach— Go  on  and  answer. 
Mr.  Morris— Answer  the  question. 

The  Witness— I  didn't  ask  that  a  committee  of  his 
friends  be  appointed,  if  I  understand  the  last  p^rt  of  jowv 
question. 

Q.  Did  you  suggest  that  the  differences  andm  .tteti 
between  him  and  Mr.  Tilton  should  be  made  the  -ubjeet 
of  that  arbitration?  A.  No  ;  I  didn't  suggest  to  him  tb  it 
the  matters  be  made  the  subject  of  arbitration. 

Q.  Was  anything  upon  that  subject  said  between  you 
and  him  ?   A.  With  regard  to  arbitration  ? 

Mr.  Morris— No. 

Mr.  Beach— [To  ^Iv.  Morris] :  Bead  that  again. 
Mr.  Morris— I  will  read  it  again  : 

Mr.  Moulton  talked  with  me  about  whether  there  could 
not  be  an  arbitration  and  quiet  settlement  of  all  our 


516  .      TRE  TILTON-B 

dulivulves,  including  the  payment  of  tlie  debt  owed  by 
M- .  Boweu  to  Mr.  Tilton,  and  the  burying  of  all  diilicnl- 
ti-.^.f?  15  Daily  and  out  of  sight. 

A.  No,  Sir;  it  A\as  the  settU'iment  between  Mr.  Eowen 
and  Mr.  Eeecher  that  was  talked  about,  not  the  settle- 
nit  lit  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton. 

<^  At  the  interview  of  June  1 — Sunday  night,  Jane  1, 
187  3  

IMr.  Shearman— Be  kind  enough  to  give  the  page,  Mr. 
Mun-l.s. 

Mr.  MoiTTK  -800.  Was  it  agreed  betwc'eu  you  and  Mr. 
Ei'i  cher  that  Mr.  Kiusella  should  be  sent  for  to  see  Mr. 
Eeceher  in  the  moiniug  J  A.  On  what  day  was  that, 
Sir  1 

Q.  On  Suuday  night,  June  the  1st,  1873. 
Mr.  J'^varts  — Well,  thai  was  ^one  into. 
The  Wi.ijess— No. 

Mr.  IVJoiT  s— No,  Sir  ;  not  that  point. 
M'-.  Evarts— All  that  interview. 

Judge  Neilson--Eut  the  sending  for  Mr.  Kinsella  seems 
to  be  the  poiui.   Ts  that  stated  ? 
Toe  Witness— No. 

Mr.  Morj  is— No,  Sir.  "in  reference  to  the  interview  of 

M'iy  £1,  1'h';3,  Mr.  Beecher  says  

Mr.  Evarls— Name  the  page,  Judge. 
Mr.  Moriis  -8G6.    [Keadiug]  : 

I  don't  remember  the  consecutive  interview;  it  was  an 
interview  in  which  T did  pretty  much  all  the  talking,  and 
81  ent  my  time  iu  denouncing  Mr.  Tilton  a  cry  largely. 

At  that  iuierview  did  Mr.  Beecher  denounce  Mr.  Til- 
ton ?   A.  On  the  evening  of  May  31 1 

Q.  May  31,  1873?   A   No  Si;-;  no. 

Q.  When  Mr.  Beecher  went  to  your  house  on  the  30th 
of  December,  1870,  and  had  the  interview  with  Mr.  Til- 
ton there  tliat  has  been  tesi'fted  to,  did  Mr.  Beecher  re- 
quest you  to  be  present  at  that  interview  ?  A.  He  did 
not. 

Q.  I  will  read  this  card,  Mr.  Moulton,  with  a  view  of 
asking  you  a  question  about  it. 
Mr.  Shearman— What  cavdl 

Mr.  Morris— This  Tilion  card;  only  a  portion  of  it  is 
here.  You  understand  the  card.  jKeadingl: 

Heat  n  fiom  a  friend  that  ?rr.  B.,  in  his  statement  to 
you,  has  le  versed  this,  and  has  done  me  justice. 

The  card  w;  itten  by  Mr.  Beecher—tlie  proposed  e  vd,  to 
be  presented  to  the  Investigating  Committee  i>y  Mr. 
Tilton. 

Mr.  Evarts—Wait  a  moment.  It  is  about  that  curd  ? 

Mr.  Morris— That  card—the  card  written  by  Mr.  Beecher 
for  Mr.  Tilton— the  proposed  card  iox  Mr.  Tilton  to  make 
to  the  Investigating  Committee— a  brief  card. 

Mr.  Evarts— Where  is  it?  Judge,  haven't  you  got  the 
12th  Part. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  you  will  find  it  on  page  63. 
Mr.  Morris— I  hadn't  the  12th  Part  when  I  went  ove?- 
this.    [To  the  witne::'s.i   The  question  is,  wiieMer  you 


"^jEGHEB  lElAL. 

suggested  to  Mr.  Beecher  the  writing  of  that  card  ?  A.  I 
did  not. 

Q.  In  referring  to  an  interview  that  Mr.  Beecher  had 
with  you  in  January,  1871,  he  says  that  the  mortgage 
upon  Mr.  Tilton's  house  was  referred  to,  and  

Mr.  Morris  here  consulted  with  Mr.  Beach. 

]Mr.  Shearman- Page  107. 

Mr.  Morris— At  the  interview  held  at  your  study  in  the 

early  part  of  November,  1872? 
Mr.  Evarts— You  pass  over  that. 

GEN.  TRACY  CONTRADICTED. 

Mr.  IMoiTis— I  pass  over  tliat  point.  Mr. 
Tracy  says,  in  speaking  of  this  Letter  of  Contrition,  that 
you  said  : 

He  said  in  that  conversation,  **  It  is  a  memorandum,  or 
notes,  of  a  conversation  I  had  with  Mr.  Beecher." 

Did  you  say  that,  or  anji;hing  of  that  import,  to  Mr. 
Tracy  with  reference  to  that  letter  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Tracy  says  that  he  said,  in  referring  to  that 
letter,  tliat  "  this  paper  would  simply  seem  to  imply  that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  been  attempting  the  virtue  of  Mrs.  Til- 
ton without  success;"  did  Mr.  Tracy  make  use  of  any 
language  of  that  kind?  A.  No. 

Q.  To  you  or  in  your  presence?   A^  No. 

Q.  In  reference  to  that  letter  ?   A.  No. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy  uses  this  langii  ige  in  referring  to  what 
has  come  to  be  known  as  the  "■  True  Story :" 

I'hereupon  Mr.  Tilton  unfolded,  as  I  remember,  a  cov- 
ering of  a  manuscript  which  he  brought  with  him  into 
the  room,  and  began  to  read  a  statement. 

Now,  did  Mr.  Tilton  at  that  interview  read  the  "  True 
Story,"  or  any  part  of  it  ?   A.  No.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  there?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Avhether  it  had  been  written  at  that 
time  or  not  ?   A .  It  had  not  been  written. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  I  object  to. 

Judge  Neilson-  -That  is  not  material. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  wholly  immaterial  whether  it  was 
written  or  not,  if  it  was  uot  there. 

Mr.  JM orris— I  read  this  paragraph,  Mr.  Moulton,  and 
ask  your  attention  to  it,  in  reference  to  this  same  inter- 
view. Mr.  Tracy  says: 

I  discussed  with  Mr.  Tilton  the  probability  of  the  truth 
of  his  wife's  statement  in  regard  to  the  charge  of  im- 
proper proposals.  I  remember  saying  to  Mr.  Tilton  in 
that  conversij.tion :  "  Mr.  Tilton,  I  can  understand  how  you 
may  believe  Mr.  Beecher  has  been  guilty  of  that  offense, 
and  I  can  understand  possibly  how  your  wife  may  have 
conceived  that  he  had  intended  to  make  to  her  an  im- 
proper suggestion;  but  now  isn't  it  more  probable  that 
this  statement  of  your  wile,  that  Mr.  Beecher  made  an 
improper  proposal  to  her,  is  the  result  of  misunderstand- 
ing on  her  part?" 

Was  any  such  language  as  that  used  by  Mr.  Tracy  in 
that  interview?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  discussion  whatever  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  imjuoper  proposals  ?   A.  Not  a  word.  Sir. 


TESTIMONY  OF  FBAXCLS  J).  MOULTON. 


517 


<5.  Or  any  allusion  to  it?  A.  Nor  any  allusion  to  it,  ex- 
cept 80  far  as  tlie  letter  of  retraction  alluded  to  tlie  im- 
proper proposals,  Sir,  or  improper  advances. 

Q.  Mr.  Tracy  says  in  tliat  intervie-w  lie  made  tliis  propo- 
sition : 

I  said,  to  meet  that,  **  Mr.  Tilton,  liow  would  it  be  if 
you  and  Mr.  Beeclier  and  your  wife  can  agree  as  to  wliat 
tlie  real  facts  are  in  tliis  case— tiow  will  it  do  for  you  and 
Mr.  Beeclier  to  go  before  one  or  more  eminent  citizens  of 
BrooMyn  and  make  a  statement  of  tlie  facts  1" 

Was  any  sucli  proposition  as  tliat  made  by  Mr.  Tracy— 
any  sucli  proposition  or  suggestion  made  by  Mr.  Tracy 
during  any  part  of  that  interview  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Following  that  he  puts  this  language  in  the  mouth 
of  Mr.  Moulton: 

Mr.  Moulton  asked  me  in  substance  what,  in  my  judg- 
ment, could  be  done  for  Mr.  Tilton  if  this  matter  was 
buried  in  this  way.  I  said  I  thought  the  only  course  for 
Mr.  Tilton  was  to  go  to  Europe. 

Did  you  use  the  language  imputed  to  you  in  the  first 
part?  A.  "Won't  you  repeat  the  language  of  the  first 
part. 

Q.  "Mr.  Moulton  asked  me  in  substance  what,  in  my 
judgment,  could  be  done  for  Mr.  Tilton  if  this  matter  was 
buried  in  this  way  "—that  is,  by  making  a  statement  to 
some  eminent  citizens.  A.  What  in  my  judgment  could 
be  done  for  Mr.  Tilton  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  I  will  read  the  balance  of  this  paragraph,  commenc- 
ing where  I  left  off: 

Eminent  citizens  of  Brooklyn  who  are  strangers  to 
this  controversy  now,  and  in  whom  the  public  have  con- 
fidence, and  there  make  a  mutual  statement  of  what  the 
real  truth  is  in  this  matter,  out  of  which  all  this  story 
has  sprung,  and  then  destroy  the  documents.  T  said  that 
course  would  prevent  either  one  from  going  back  upon  the 
other,  because  he  will  be  boimd  by  the  statement  that  he 
has  made  to  this  person  or  these  persons,  who  always 
can  state  what  the  fact  was,  and  Mr.  Beecher  cannot  go 
back  on  you  nor  you  on  Mr.  Beecher. 

Now,  did  Mr.  Tracy  make  any  statement  of  that  kind, 
or  any  suggestion,  or  use  that  language,  or  any  language 
of  any  similar  import.  A.  There  was  no  proposition 
made  by  Mr.  Tracy  to  leave  it  to  one  person  or  to  any 
number  of  persons,  and  then  destroy  the  documents ; 
iiotliing  like  that,  Six-. 

Q.  Was  anything  said,  Mr.  Moulton,  about  burning  the 
papers  and  documents  at  the  time  of  the  arbitration  be- 
tween Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Bowen? 

]VIr.  Evarts— Wbat  is  the  CLuestion  ?  Excuse  me. 

Mr.  Beach— Was  anything  said  about  burning  the  docu- 
ments at  the  time  of  the  arbitration  ? 

Mr.  Morris— That  you  heard.  Did  you  hear  anything  ? 
A.  There  was  nothing  said,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  present  during  the  proceedings  before  the 
arbitration  1   A.  I  was  present  all  the  time.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  before  the  arbitration  any  matter  dis- 
cussed or  talked  about  other  than  the  money  claim  of  Mr. 
-Tilton  against  Mr.  Bowen  growing  out  of  the  contract  ? 


A.  Yes,  an  expression  of  a  desire  by  Mr.  Claflin  to  have 
Mr.  Bowen  sign  the  draft  of  the  Tripartite  Covenant, 
made  by  Sam  Wilkeson. 

Q.  To  whom  was  that  remarli  made  ?  A.  To  whom  was 
that  remark  made  ?  Made  by  Mj*.  Claflin  to  me. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  very  material,  but  it  is  not  a  con- 
tradiction. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes  it  is,  directly  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts — It  is  not  in  regard  to  any  statement. 

Mr.  Beach— Why  yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  Evarts— 1  his  witness  gave  his  account  of  what 
occurred  at  the  arbitration  ;  and  the  other  gentlemen 
have  given  their  account. 

Mr.  Beach— That  says  that  something  more  occm-red  in 
regard  to  the  "  Tripartite  Covenant." 

Judge  Neilson— To  that  extent  you  can  interrogate  him. 

Mr.  Beach— Very  well,  Sir  ;  what  reply  did  he  make  to 
it?  They  say  that  it  was  agreed  there  that  the  "Tri- 
partite Covenant"  

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  what  the  arbitrators  have  all 
stated. 

Mr.  Beach— The  arbitrators  did  not  all  state  that ;  but, 
nevertheless,  we  ask  this  question. 

Mr.  Morris— What  reply  did  you  make,  if  any?  A. 
What  reply  did  I  make  to  Mr.  Claflin  1  I  don't  remember 
the  reply  that  I  made ;  it  was  a  matter  entirely  within 
his  sphere— something  that  he  understood  himself. 

Mr.  Beach— But  what  was  it  Mr.  Claflin  said?  He  said 
it  to  you,  I  understand  ?  A.  He  said  it  to  me,  yes.  Sir ; 
he  said  he  didn't  care  what  there  was  in  Bowen's  soul, 
Bowen  must  sign  that  paper ;  that  is  what  he  said  to  me ;  I 
remember  that  distinctly ;  is  that  the  answer  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  was  that  at  the  time  of  the  arbitra- 
tion? 

The  Witness— No,  Sir  ;  not  at  the  time  of  the  arbitra- 
tion. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  you  were  asked  at  the  time  of  the 
arbitration. 

Mr.  Morris— I  was  asking  you  simply  at  the  time  of  the 
arbitration. 

Mr.  Beach— At  the  meeting  of  the  arbitrators. 
The  Witness— The  question  was  not  put  in  that  way, 
Mr.  Beach. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  this  is  all  to  be  struck  out. 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  strike  it  all  out.   Go  back  to  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  will  the  stenographer  read  the  ques- 
tion? 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  as  follows : 

Did  you  hear  before  the  arbitration  any  matter  dis- 
cussed or  Talked  about  other  than  the  money  claim  of  Mr 
Tilton  against  Mr.  Bowen,  growing  out  of  the  contract  ? 

Mr.  Beach— We  gave  a  different  construction  to  it. 

The  Witness— To  tne  word  "  before."  Then  we  are  both 
right. 

Mr.  Beach— Before  the  arbitration. 


518 


TEl^   TILTON-BH^ECREE  TEIAL. 


Mr.  Evarts— Then  that  wtL  stand. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir  ;  the  question  was  misunderstood. 
Before  the  arbitration,  Sir,  means  either  a  date  anterior 
to  that,  or  in  the  presence  of  the  arbitration  as  it  pro- 
ceeded. 

The  Witness— I  understood  it  as  a  date  anterior. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  that  stands.  Yoiu'  question  was  not 
limited  to  the  arbitration. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  it  will  not  have  to  stand,  as  both 
the  gentleman  and  myself  have  agreed  that  it  should  be 
struck  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  Mr.  Morris,  proceed.  Keep  your- 
self to  that  occasion— that  evening. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor  means  he  shall  proceed  at 
2  o'clock,  I  take  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  was  anything  said  before  the  arbitra- 
tors upon  any  subject  except  the  business  difficulties 
between  Mr.  TUton  and  Mr.  Bowen  1  A.  Not  a  word,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— The  jurors  will  get  ready  to  retire. 
Return  at  2  o'clock,  gentlemen. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 

THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  please,  when  Mrs.  Moulton 
was  upon  the  stand,  I  expressed  an  intention  of  recalling 
her  as  to  two  points,  the  conversation,  related  by  Mr. 
Beecher,  between  himself  and  her,  on  May  31, 1873,  and 
also  the  conversation  between  herself  and  Mr.  Tracy  as 
to  which  I  cross-examined  Mr.  Tracy.  I  have  deter- 
mined. Sir,  not  to  call  Mrs.  Moulton  with  reference  to  the 
last  topic,  as  I  suppose  that  evidence,  relating  to  a  col- 
lateral matter,  would  not  be  a  proper  subject  of  examina- 
tion ;  and,  in  regard  to  the  other  matter,  I  have  conversed 
with  her  personally  and  learned  from  her  that  she  would 
deny,  if  she  were  called,  upon  oath,  the  allegation  of  Mr. 
Beecher  in  relation  to  that  conversation,  that  she  said 
to  him  :  "  Mr.  Beecher,  I  don't  believe  the  stories  that 
they  are  telling  about  you ;  I  believe  that  you  are  a  good 
man."  If  Mrs.  Moulton  was  produced  upon  the  stand 
she  would  deny  the  utterance  of  that  language,  or  equiv- 
alent language,  and  I  have,  upon  my  responsibility,  as- 
sured my  learned  friends  upon  the  other  side  that  she 
would  so  testify.  She  is  ill  to-day,  Sir,  and  in  a  very  une- 
qual condition  to  appearing  on  the  witness-stand  and 
submitting  to  an  examination,  from  causes  I  have  ex- 
pressed to  my  learned  friends,  and  I  understand  that 
they,  relying  upon  that  assurance  of  mine,  are  quite 
willing  that  it  shall  be  taken  as  if  Mrs.  Moulton  had 
ewom  to  a  denial  of  that  character. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  understand  Mr.  Beach's  statement  as 
to  what  the  witness  if  called  would  say,  as  entitling  us 
to  accept  it  as  what  would  be  the  result  of  calling  her, 
and  we  are  willing  that  it  should  be  taken  in  the  ordi- 
nary form,  that  if  she  were  asked  that  question  whether 


she  said  that,  or  its  equivalent— that  single  passage  that 
has  been  read— she  would  deny  it  \mder  oath,  and  this 
statement  is  to  be  received  as  if  she  had  done  so ;  as  I 
should  have  no  occasion  to  cross-examine  her  any  more 
than  other  witnesses.  I  believe  the  lady  is  not  in  a  con- 
dition to  appear  in  Court. 

Francis  D.  Moulton's  reexamination  was  then  con- 
tinued. 

MR.  MOULTON'S  EXAMINATION  CONCLUDED. 

By  Mr.  Morris — ^Just  a  single  additional  CLues- 
tion,  Mr.  Moulton.  Mr.  Beecher  was  asked  in  reference 
to  the  payment  of  Bessie  Turner's  school  bills  

Mr.  Evarts— What  page  % 

Mr.  Morris— Part  11,  page  803.  [To  the  witness.  |  Mr. 
Beecljer  was  asked  this : 

Well,  about  when  was  that,  or  how,  m  reference  to  any 
bill  that  was  present  %  A.  My  impression  is  that  it  was 
some  time  in  the  Summer  of  1871.  I  will  not  be  at  aU 
certain  about  that.  I  could  refresh  my  memory,  proba- 
bly. He  said  to  me  one  day  that  he  was  paying  a  great  deal 
of  money  out  for  Mr.  Tilton,  and  that  here  was  a  bill  that 
he  thought  would  be  well  if  I  woidd  pay— he  thought  it 
would  be  a  great  help  to  Mr.  Tilton. 

And  at  another  place  that  is  fixed  at  some  time  in  May, 
I  think.  Now,  Mr.  Moulton,  did  you  say  that  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  in  reference  to  a  bill  of  Bessie  Turner's,  or  tbe 
equivalent  of  that  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  When  was  your  first  advance  of  money  to  Mr. 
Tilton  1    A.  In  July. 

Q.  Following  %  A.  July  following,  yes— July  following 
the  May  of  which  you  speak. 

Q*  1871?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  all. 

STEPHEN  PEARL  ANDREWS  RECALLED. 

Stephen  Pearl  Andrews,  a  witness  for  tlie 
plaintiff,  was  next  recalled  and  further  examined. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton — Mr.  Andrews,  do  you  know  James  H. 
Blood?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  handwriting  %  A.  I  do,  I  believe. 

Q.  You  have  seen  him  write  1  A.  I  have. 

Q.  Look  at  his  signature  attached  to  that  paper  fpaper 
handed  to  witness]  and  say  whether  it  is  in  his  proper 
hand.  A.  It  seems  to  be  so ;  I  also  know  this  witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton- 1  offer  this  paper  m  evidence. 

Paper  marked  "  Ex.  128." 

Mr.  Evarts— I  assented  to  this  being  proved,  if  your 
Honor  please,  without  calling  the  subscribing  witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton  [reading]— This  indenture,  made  the  23d 
day  of  May,  1872,  between  Thomas  Brydon  of  the  City  of 
Brooklyn,  County  of  Kings,  and  State  of  New- York,  party 
of  the  first  part,  and  James  H.  Blood  of  the  second  part, 
wituesseth  that  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  hath  let- 
ten,  and  by  these  presents  doth  grant,  devise,  and  to  farm 
let  unto  the  said  party  of  the  secdiid  part  all  that  certain 
two  offices  on  the  first  floor  of  the  building  known  as  No. 
48  Broad-st.,  in  the  City  of  New- York,  and  numbered  one 
and  two  in  said  building,  with  the  furnitm-e  and  fixtm-es^ 


TESTIMONY  OF  J 

now  in  said  offices,  with  the  appurtenances,  for  tlie  term 
of  one  year  from  tlie  first  day  of  May,  1872,  at  the  rent 
or  sum  of  $1,200,  to  be  paid  in  equal  monthly  advance 
payments. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  time  does  it  cover. 

Mr.  FuUerton— From  May  1, 1872,  to  May  1, 1873.  [To 
the  witness]  Now,  Mr.  James  H.  Blood,  whose  signature 
you  have  proven,  is  the  husband  of  Mrs.  Woodhull,  is  hel 
A.  So  reputed  to  be,  and  lives  with  her  as  such. 

Q.  Now,  then,  did  they  occupy  No.  4-8  Broad-st.  as  a 
broker'H  office  after  May,  1872 1  A.  I  should  think,  after 
the  latter  part  of  May.  My  impression  is  that  they  did 
not  move  in  at  the  Ist  of  May. 

Q.  From  the  latter  part  of  that  month  in  1872  they  oc- 
cupied that  office  i  A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  up  to  the  time  they  moved  into  the  office,  48 
Broad-st. ,  what  offices  did  they  occupy  ?  A.  No.  44  Broad- 
st. 

Mr.  Beach— What  is  the  date  of  that  lease  ? 
Mr.  Pullerton— May  23,  1872.    That  is  aU,  Mr.  An- 
drews. ^ 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  STEPHEN  PEAEL 
ANDREWS. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— This  lady  and  Mr.  Blood— 
Col.  Blood— conducted  the  same  business  at  44  Broad,  did 
tiiey  not,  before  this  ?  A.  Yes ;  with  the  exception  of  the 
fact  that  their  newspaper  publication  was  suspended 
during  that  Summer. 

Q.  Well,  I  mean  the  brokerage  business.  A.  Yes ;  the 
brokerage  business  was  the  same. 

Q.  Now,  up  to  what  date  did  they  remain  in  fact  at  No. 
44?  A.  That  I  am  unable  to  say  with  definiteness.  I  have 
only  my  impression  with  regard  to  that,  which  is  not 
very  distinct. 

Q.  What  is  your  impression  as  to  what  time  they  re- 
moved 1  A.  My  impression  is  that  they  did  not  move  at 
what  we  call  the  regular  moving  day,  at  the  1st  of  May, 
but  perhaps  one,  two,  or  three  weeks  later;  I  am  not 
certain. 

Q.  The  date  of  this  is  May  23.  A.  I  presume  then  that 
they  moved  immediately  after  the  date  of  that. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  your  own  as  to  the 
date  of  their  moving  into  48  %  A.  Not  distinctively  as  to 
the  date,  but  as  I  say  to  you. 

Q.  That,  as  far  as  you  recollect,  it  would  be  about  the 
latter  part  of  May  %   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

THE  SUR -REBUTTAL  BEGTO 

Mr.  Evarts— Tliat  is  all. 

Ml,  FuUerton— That  is  all,  Mr.  Andrews. 
;   Mr.  Beach— We  rest,  if  your  Honor  please. 
:   Mr.  Evarts— We  will  recall  Mr.  Freeland. 


AMES  FEEELANjy.  519 

DEACON  FREELAND  RECALLED. 

By  Mr.  *  Shearman— Mr.  Freeland,  you  are 
well  acquainted,  and  have  been  for  a  long  time,  with  Mr. 
Henry  C.  Bowen,  have  you  not  1  A.  I  have. 

Q.  Were  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen  at  your  house  on 
the  26th  day  of  December,  1870  %  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen  ever  in  your 
house  together  i  A.  They  were. 

Q.  Yes;  when  was  that?  A.  January— in  January,- 
1870. 

Q.  In  January,  1870 1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen  ever  at  your 
house  together  at  any  other  time  %  A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  what  is  the  proposed  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Bowen,  called  in  rebuttal,  has  tes- 
tified that  Ml'.  Beecher  and  himself  met  at  Mr.  Fi-eeland'e- 
house  on  the  26th  day  of  December,  1870,  by  appoint- 
ment through  a  note  sent  from  Mr.  Bowen  to  Mr.  Free- 
land,  requesting  such  an  appointment  to  be  made.  That 
was  m  conta  adiction  of  Mr.  Beecher's  statement  that  the 
interview  took  place  at  Mr.  Beecher's  house.  fTo  the 
witness.]  Now,  Mr.  Freeland,  did  you  receive  on  the 
26th  of  December,  1870,  any  note  from  Mr.  Bowen  re- 
questing you  to  make  an  appointment  with  Mr.  Beecher 
of  any  kind  %  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Bowen  at  your  house  at  all,  either  with  or 
without  Mr.  Beecher,  on  the  26th  of  December,  1870  I 
A.  I  think  not.  Sir  ;  no  remembrance  of  anything  of  the 
kind. 

Q.  Have  you  any  remembrance  of  Mr.  Beecher  being 
there  on  that  day  1  A.  No,  Sir  ;  Mr.  Bowen  must  have 
made  a  mistake,  and  referred  probably  to  the  first  meet- 
ing. 

Q.  Never  mind  that,  Mr.  Freeland  you  kept  that  day 
as  a  holiday,  I  suppose. 
Mr.  Beach— Have  that  stricken  out. 
Mr.  FuUerton— Yes,  Sir ;  I  move  to  strike  that  out. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman — Well,  it  was  only  a  charitable  remark. 
Ml-.  FuUerton— Well,  we  are  not  the  subjects  of  his> 
charity. 

Mr.  Shearman— You  may  be  before  you  get  through. 

Mr,  FuUerton— Well,  we  are  not  now. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— HMve  you  a  distinct  recollection  of 
this  meeting  of  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Beecher  at  your 
house  in  January,  1870 1   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  that  interview  last?  A.  Well,  from 
three  to  four  hours. 

Q.  And  what  time  of  the  day  w  .vs  it  held  t  A.  In  the 
evening. 

Q.  Well,  before  or  after  7  o'clock!  A.  After  7, 1  should 
think— 7  :30. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  understood.  Sir,  that  that  sort  of  in- 
quiry was  rejected  by  your  Honor  % 
By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Freeland,  you  recollect  the  occa- 
I  sion  on  which  the  arbitrators  met  at  Mr.  Mouiton's  house. 


520 


lEE   ULTON-BEFjCHEB  lElAL. 


yniirself,  Mi*.  Cleveland,  and  Mr.  Storrs,  do  you  not?  A. 

i^.  Ii^ow,  on  tliat  occasion  did  you  see,  or  "were  you 

informed  of  any  written  submission         [To  plaintiff's 

counsel.]  Will  you  please  give  me  that  paper— that  writ- 
ten submission?  [Paper  not  produced.]  Well,  I  will 
read  to  you  the  submission ;  I  haven't  the  original  here. 
A  paper  has  been  produced  in  evidence  in  the  following 
terms.   [Heading] : 

We  agree  to  submit  to  James  Freeiand,  H.  B.  Claflin, 
and  Charles  Storrs,  the  question  as  to  the  amount  of 
money  due  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  from  The  Independent 
and  Brooklyn  Daily  Union,  in  full  for  all  claims  and  de- 
mands to  this  date,  and  to  abide  by  their  decision,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  without  fail.        Henry  C.  Bo  wen, 

BrooMyn,  Ai>ril  3, 1872.  Titeodore  Tilton. 

Did  you  ever  see  that  paper  ?  A.  Who  is  that  signed 
by? 

Mr.  Shearman  [continuingj— On  the  day  or  evening  of 
the  arbitration  ?   A.  Who  is  that  signed  by  ? 

l-lw  Shearman— Henry  C.  Bowen  and  Theodore  Tilton. 
Would  you  like  to  look  at  the  paper  ?  A.  Yes,  I  would. 

Mr.  Shearman  [to  Mr.  Morris]— Have  you  sent  for  the 
paper  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  I  have. 

Mr.  Evarts — Mr.  Morris  will  have  it  here. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  we  will  suspend  this  examina- 
tion. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  want  to  show  the  witness  the  original 
paper. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  very  proper. 
Mr,  Evarts— That  is  all  that  we  wish  to  ask  the  wit- 
ness. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  you  want  to  ask  him  about  the 
paper. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  when  the  original  comes  in. 

CEOSS-EXAMINATION  OF  JAMES  FREELAIsTD. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— You  thinlt  tliat  Mr.  Bowen 
and  Mr.  Beecher  were  at  your  house  in  January?  A.  1 
don't  tniuk ;  I  knoAv. 

Q.  You  don't  think  you  know— that  is  what  I  think. 
A.  I  know ;  I  say  they  were. 

Q.  What  year  ?   A.  1870. 

Q.  What  time  in  January,  1870?  A.  Sometime  along 
in  the  middle,  I  should  think  ;  from  the  first  to  along  in 
the  middle. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Freeiand,  was  n't  it  in  January,  1871,  that 
they  were  there  ?  A.  I  think  not. 
Q.  What  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Sure— are  you  suie  of  it  ?  A.  Yes,  i>retty  sure,  quite 
sure. 

Q.  How  sure  are  you  ?  A.  I  swear  to  it. 

Q.  Well,  that  does  not  answer  the  question  exactlv. 
How  do  you  know  that  it  was  in  January,  1870,  that  they 
were  at  your  house  1  A.  Well,  now,  you  would  not  let 
me  explain  it  if  I  should  undertake  it— and  I  only  tell  you 


that  I  am  pretty  positive  of  the  filing — sure — you  would 
not  let  me  explain  it.  | 
Q.  Will  you  tell  me  how  you  know  it  was  in  January, 
1870,  thatthey  were  at  your  house?  A.  Our  prayer-meeting 
was  in  January,  the  latter  part  of  January.  Mr.  Beecher 
and  Mr.  Bowen  met  at  my  house  to  arrange  their  diflB- 
culties ;  the  prayer-meeting  was  on— I  don't  recollect 
exactly— something  the  latter  part  of  January.  Mr. 
Bowen  was  there  at  that  time,  and  Mr.  Beecher  made 
some  observations.  I  mark  it  from  that  fact— very  con- 
fident. 

Q.  Well,  did  they  have  but  one  prayer-meeting  that 
year  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  they  had,  I  think,  more  

Q.  How  often  ?  A.  That  month  particularly— that  week 
of  January. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  That  week  of  January ;  the  latter  part 
of  January. 

Q.  You  know  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  January  ?  A. 
I  know  it  was  in  January,  1870. 

Q.  One  moment,  Mr.  Freeiand  ?  A.  Well,  I  knew  you 
would  stop  me,  if  I  undertook  to  explain  it ;  I  knew  you 
would  stop  me. 

Q.  Well,  having  explained  it,  and  having  got  through 
with  that  explanation,  I  propose  to  put  you  another 
question  ?  A.  Mr.  Fullerton,  you  and  I  will  get  along 
pretty  well,  I  guess. 

Q.  Well,  if  you  won't  treat  a  serious  subject  with  un- 
becoming levity,  we  will  get  along  well  enough.  Did  you 
have  more  than  one  prayer-meeting  in  January,  ig70  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  ?  A.  We  have  one  a  week. 

Q.  One  a  week  ?  A.  Friday  evening  of  every  week  we 
have  a  prayer-meeting. 

Q.  Of  every  week  ?  A.  Yes ;  as  a  

Q.  Then  you  had  four  prayer-meetings  in  January, 
1870,  had  you  not?   A.  I  suppose  we  had. 

Q.  Well,  how  does  the  fact,  then,  that  you  had  prayer- 
moeting  the  last  week  in  Januaiy  enable  you  to  say  posi- 
tively that  they  met  at  your  house  the  last  week  in  Janu- 
ary ?  A.  I  took  a  good  deal  of  interest  in  this  matter, 
Mr.  Fullertou,  in  gettiug  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen  to- 
gethvir  at  my  house ;  and,  after  that  meeting,  they  sepa-' 
rated— seemed  to— with  the  best  of  feelings;  Mr. 
Beecher  

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  me  how  you  are  enabled  to  fix  it 
in  January,  1 870  ?  Is  there  any  fact  or  circumstance  ? 
A.  That  is  the  fact  and  the  circumstance  of  that  pi-ayer- 
meeting ;  I  went  to  it. 

Q.  Well,  there  was  a  prayer-meeting  the  first  week  in 
January,  1870,  or  was  there  not  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  Mr.  Fullerton,  hear  what  he  bas  to 
say  about  the  prayer-meeting. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  have  heard  what  he  had  to  say  about 
the  prayer-meeting. 

The  Witness— I  know  that  it  is  the  latter  part  of— the 
prayer-meeting— the  latter  part  of  January. 


TESTUWXY   OF  JAMES  FEEELAXD. 


521 


Q.  Well,  hoTv  are  you  enabled  to  fix  it  tlio  last  -<s^eek  in 
January  if  there  was  a  prayer-meeting  every  week  in 
-January  ?   A.  I  can  only  tell  you  I  did  fix  it  so. 

Q.  I  was  aware  of  that ;  but  I  wanted  to  know  why.  A. 
I  said  it  was  the  latter  part  of  January  the  prayer- 
meeting,  and  Mr.  Bowen  was  at  that  prayer-meeting ; 
and  that  is  the  first  prayer-meeting  he  had  been  to  in  a 
great  many — well,  a  long  time,  very  long  time ;  and  I 
dated  it  from  that  fact. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  of  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir ; 
I  did  not ;  my  memorandum  was  in  my  memory. 

Q.  Are  you  enabled  to  state  now  positively  that  Mr. 
Bowen  and  Mr.  Beecher  never  met  at  your  house  at  any 
other  time  than  in  January,  1870?  A.  I  think  they 
never  did.  Sir  ? 

Q.  My  question  was  whether  you  were  enabled  to  state 
positively  that  they  never  met  1  A.  Yes,  I  think  I  can 
state  positively. 

Q.  And  you  do  so  state  positively  %  A.  I  do  so  state 
positively. 

Q.  Yes.  Did  you  have  any  interview  with  Mr.  Bowen 
iu  December,  1070  1   A.  Xot  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Is  that  all  that  you  could  say  1  A.  I  don't  rem em- 
bei  of  having  any. 

Q.  That  you  don't  remember  1  A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Well,  is  that  as  far  as  you  can  go  1  A.  Well,  yes  ;  I 
think  that  is  as  far  as  I  can  go ;  I  don't  remember  of 
any. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  a  note  from  Mr.  Bowen  in  Decem- 
ber, 1870  %  A.  I  cannot  say  as  to  that ;  I  received  notes 
from  Mr.  Bowen,  but  never  upon  this  subject. 

Q.  Well,  I  didn't  ask  you  that.   A.  Well,  I  answered  it. 

Q.  Well,  you  need  not  to  answer,  Sir,  until  I  ask  it.  A. 
I  supposed  you  wanted  it. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Freeland         A.  I  take  it  all  back. 

Well,  you  had  better  keep  it  there— not  proffer  it 
again,  because  we  are  going  to  treat  this  subject  seri- 
ously. I  move  it  to  be  struck  out.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

By  Mr.  Fiillerton— Can  you  state  wh.ether  you  received 
a  note  from  3Ir.  Bowen  in  December,  1870 1  A.  I  don't 
know  whether  I  did  or  not,  Sir ;  I  did  not  on  that  busi- 
ness. 

Mr.  Pullerton— I  move  to  strike  that  out  again.  Sir  

Judge  Neilson— Strike  out  that  last^  clause. 
By  Mr.  Fullerton— You  have  no  recollection  then  % 
Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  it  seems  hardly  fair 
to  the  witness  to  strike  out  that  clause ;  because  it  looks 
as  if  he  were  admitting  in  some  sort  that  he  did  receive  a 
note  on  this  subject,  by  leaving  his  answer  in  that  naked 
form,  without  he  himself  saying,  "I  did  not;"  now  he 
says,  "  I  don't  know  whether  I  received  notes  from  Mr. 
Bowen  in  January ;  I  know  I  had  none  on  this  subject. 

Judge  Neilson— The  objection  is,  it  gives  the  contents 
3f  a  paper  without  an  incLuiry  as  to  the  contents. 


SHARP  PLAY  BET^YEEX  COUNSEL  AXD  WIT- 
NESS. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— You  know  tlie  sons  of  Mr. 
Bowen  ?  A.  Yes,  very  well. 

Q.  What  is  his  youngest  son's  name  ?  A.  I  do  n't 
know. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  son  James  1  A.  I  do  n't  know  that 
he  has  a  son  James  ;  I  do  n't  remember ;  I  do  n't  think 
he  has,  but  I  do  n't  know ;  I  can  explain  about  that  note 
if  you  will  allow  

Q.  Now,  if  you  please,  did  you  receive  a  note  from  Blr. 
Bowen  through  one  of  his  yormger  sons  in  December, 
1870  ?  A.  Can't  say  as  to  that ;  I  have  received  them. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  of  receiving  a  note  1  A. 
Well,  I  can  fix  it  

Q.  Now,  one  moment ;  you  have  no  recollection  of  re- 
ceiving a  note  from  one  of  his  younger  sons  in  December, 
1870, 1  understand  you  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  not  in  that  month 
particularly,  I  haven't. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  a  note  through  one  of  his  younger 
sons  at  any  other  time  than  December,  1870  ]  A.  Yea,  I 
have  in  some  other  months. 

Q.  "What  months  1   A.  I  can't  say,  Sir. 

Q.  No  recollection  as  to  any  month  ?  A.  No,  I  haven't ; 
it  was  on  the  subject  of  business ;  I  could  explain  it  to 
you  in  a  moment  if  you  would  let  me. 

Q.  Do  you  preserve  your  notes  that  you  receive  ?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  notes  now  m  existence  that  you  re- 
ceived from  Mr.  Bowen  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  receive  a  note  from  Mr.  Bowen  through 
the  hands  of  one  of  his  younger  sons  in  December,  1870. 
and  send  back  a  message  to  the  effect  to  this  effect : 
"Yes;  I  will  attend  to  it,"  or  something  of  that  kind! 
A.  In  December? 

Q.  Yes  ?  A.  I  can't  say. 

Q.  Why  can't  you  say ;  don't  you  remember  1  A.  In 
so  far  as  it  regards— as  I  said  to  you  I  have  received  busi- 
ness notes  

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Freeland,  please  answer  my  question?  A. 
I  will  do  the  best  I  can,  Mr.  Fullerton,  to  answer  your 
questions,  but  you  put  them  in  such  a  way  that  I  cannot 
answer  them  very  well.  [Laughter.]  If  you  will  let  me 
tell  the  truth  I  will  tell  it  straight  out  in  the  best  way 
possible. 

Q.  I  am  going  to  deal  with  great         A.  Oh !  I  knew 

you  are  going  to  deal  with  me ;  I  understand  that  per- 
fectly well. 

Q.  Your  answer  to  my  question,  Mr.  Freeland,  was,  "  I 
cannot  say."  Now,  the  other  question  which  you  have 
not  yet  answered  was  this :  "  Why  can't  you  say  ?" 
Have  you  no  memory  upon  the  subject.  You  can't  mis- 
understand that  question  ?  A.  No  memory  upon  the 
subject;  I  have  memory  of  receiving  notes,  but  not  in 
December,  from— so  far  as  regards  Mr.  Bowen  in  busi' 


523  IME  TILTON-Ba 

ness  notes,  I  liavc  received  no  business,  but  I  did  not  re- 
ceive any  note  

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Freeland,  if  you  please  

The  Witness— My  mouth  is  getting  a  little  dry ;  I  should 
like  a  little  water. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  shouldn't  wonder  if  it  was  worn 
out. 

The  Witness— Well,  I  should  think  yours  would  be. 

[Laughter.] 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Freeland,  I  will  put  the  question  and  re- 
peat your  answer,  and  see  if  I  can  get  an  answer  to  an- 
other question  ;  I  asked  you  whether  or  not  you  had  any 
recollection  of  having  received  a  note  from  Mr.  Bowen 
through  the  hands  of  one  of  his  younger  sons  in  Decem- 
ber, 1870,  and  that  you  sent  back  a  reply  in  substance 
like  this  :  "  Yes,  I  will  attend  to  it."  Your  answer  was  : 
"  I  have  no  recollection."  Now,  my  question  to  you  is 
this— your  answer  was  :  "  I  cannot  say  ;"  my  question  to 
you,  therefore,  is  this— Can't  you  say,  because  you  have 
no  recollection  upon  the  subject  1  A.  So  far  as  it  re- 
gards—let me  answer  now  in  my  own  way,  will  you  ? 
Will  you  let  me  answer  it  in  my  

Mr.  Fullerton— I  think,  your  Honor,  you  will  have  to 
take  this  witness  in  hand. 

Judge  NeUson— Go  on  and  answer  the  question  he  puts 
the  best  way  you  can. 

The  Witness— I  will. 

Judge  Neilson— And  only  that. 

The  Witness— Judge,  Mr.  Bowen  and  myself  had  busi- 
ness transactions ;  we  used  to  pass  notes  between  us,  and 
I  have  received  notes,  but  I  cannot  tell  what,  or  how,  at 
that  time. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor  understands  I  have  put  no 
question  that  leads  to  such  an  answer  as  that. 
Judge  Neilson— No,  of  course. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  Mr.  Freeland,  I  will  put  the  ques- 
tion to  you  again. 
The  Witness— Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  answer  to  a  question  whether  you  did  not  receive 
In  December,  1870,  a  note  through  the  hands  of  one  of 
Mi\  Bowen's  younger  sons  you  did  not  reply  in  substance  : 
"  Yes,  I  will  attend  to  it,"  your  answer  was :  "  I  can't 
say."  Now  my  question  to  you  is  very  distinct— whether 
you  are  unable  to  say  whether  that  was  so  or  not,  be- 
cause you  have  no  recollection  upon  the  subject  1  A.  I 
do  not  recollect  of  receiving  any  note  from  Mr.  Bowen  in 
December. 

Q.  Then  you  have  no  recollection  upon  the  subject, 
have  you  1  A.  Haven't  I  answered  it? 

Q.  Well,  is  that  so,  Mr.  Freeland  1  A.  I  said  I  had  no 
recollection  of  receiving  a  note  ia  December  from  Mr. 
Bowen. 

Q.  Now,  I  wi  11  put  the  question  to  you  again. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well  

Mr.  Fullerton-  Well,  what! 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  answered  that  question. 


EOEEB  IBIAL. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No;  he  has  not  answered,  but  he  li 
going  to  answer  before  I  get  through  with  him.  [To  the 
witness.]  I  am  asking  about  a  certain  note  received 
through  the  hands  of  one  of  Mr.  Bowen's  yoimger  feon8^ 
to  which  you  gave  a  certain  answer,  namely:  "Yes,  I 
win  attend  to  it,"  or  that  in  substance.  In  respect  tO' 
that  you  say:  "I  do  not  recollect,"  or  "I  can't  say."" 
Now,  are  you  unable  to  say  because  you  have  no  recol- 
lection of  any  such  circumstance  %  A.  Well,  now,  how  dO' 
you  want  I  should  answer  that  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Either  that  you  do  recollect  such  a< 
circumstance,  or  you  do  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  said  he  did  not. 

The  Witness— I  said  I  did  not ;  I  have  said  that  several 
times. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  said  it  three  times. 

Mr.  Fullerton— He  has  not  said  it,  Sir  ;  he  said  that  he- 
did  not  recollect  of  having  received  a  note.  The  question 
is  whether  he  has  any  recollection  upon  that  subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— Of  receiving  a  note  and  sending  an. 
answer  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  question ;  I  won't  char- 
acterize it.  [To  the  witness.!  Was  Mr.  Bowen  at  your 
house  in  December,  1870  1   A.  I  think  not.  Sir. 

Q.  You  say  you  think  not ;  can  you  say  positively  that 
he  was  not  %  A.  So  far  as  my  knowledge  extends  he  was 
not ;  I  aia't  in  the  house  all  the  time. 

Q.  Then  he  might  have  been  there  and  you  not  kno^ 
it  1  A.  He  might  have  been,  certainly. 

Q.  A  little  louder.  A.  He  might  have  been,  but  I  don't 
believe  he  was. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  move  to  strike  out  the  words  "  I  don't 
believe  he  was." 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir.  Will  the  audience  keep  quiet,^ 
please. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  when  the  inquiry  is  what  he  knows 
he  means  something  from  the  witness,  he  does  not  mean 
to  prove  the  fact  that  when  a  man  is  not  in  the  house  all 
the  while,  another  man  might  come  there  wittiout  his 
knowing  it.  We  are  not  to  impute  any  such  folly  to  the 
question.  The  question  is  intended  to  get  at  the  wit 
ness's  impression  that  Mr.  Bowen  may,  in  fact,  have  been 
at  that  house  and  he  not  have  known  it. 

Jud^e  Neilson— Please  to  obsei-ve,  Mr.  Evarts,  the  wit- 
ness answers  as  to  his  belief;  whereas,  he  has  not  been 
interrogated  as  to  his  belief. 

Mr.  Evarts— Very  well ;  then  I  eay  he  should  not  ask 
him  that  question,  because  you  do  not  want  to  ask  thli 
witness  the  question  whether  a  man  may  not  be  at  Ms 
house  when  he  is  absent,  and  he  not  know  it,  becausa  we 
all  know  that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  I  don't  think  Mr.  Freeland  

Mr.  Evarts— And  the  object  of  the  inquiry  is  to  produce 
an  impression  that  the  witness  thought  Mr.  Bowen  might 
have  been  there  ub  matter  of  fact— not  of  possibility,  but 


TES11M0N7   OF  JAMES  FEEELAlSl). 


623 


4)f  fact,  and  therefore  lie  answers,  "  He  might  have  been, 
as  matter  of  possibility,  but,  as  matter  of  fact,  I  have  no 
idea  he  was  there." 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Has  Mr.  Bowen  been  at  your  house 
since  January,  1870  ?  A.  Since  January  ?  he  may  have 
called  New  Year's  Day. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  recollect  whether  he  did  or  not  ?  A.  I 
do  not ;  I  make  calls  myself  and  am  not  at  home  ;  my 
.  wife  

Q.  Never  mind  that ;  has  he  called  on  occasions  other 
than  New  Year's  Day  since  January         A.  Not  

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Freeland,  won't  you  wait  until  the  question 
is  put  to  you  ?  Has  he  called  on  you  on  occasions  other 
than  New  Year's  Day  since  January,  1870 1  A.  I  don't 
remember  that  he  has,  Sir. 

Q.  "Well,  can  you  say  that  he  has  not  1  A.  Do  you  mean 
called  at  my  house  ? 

Q.  I  mean  so,  because  I  say  so  9  A.  I  think  he  has  not. 

Q.  Are  you  enabled  to  swear  positively  that  he  has  not 
called  at  your  house  since  January,  1870  ?  A.  How  can  I 
swear  positively  when  T  am  not  at  home  half  the  time ;  he 
j  may  have  called  a  dozen  times  when  I  was  not  at  home, 
but  I  have  never  heard  of  his  calling  at  my  house  from 
my  family  in  any  form  whatever. 

Q.  Now,  I  didn't  ask  you  that ;  I  will  put  the  question 
in  another  form. 

Mr.  Beach— Have  that  stricken  out. 

Judge  Neilson— That  last  clause  is  stricken  out. 

By  IMr.  Fullerton— Can  you  swear  positively  that  he  has 
not  called  on  you  since  January,  1870,  at  your  house 
'  when  you  were  at  home  ?  A.  Since  January? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief  he 
has  not. 

Q.  Now,  that  is  not  the  question  I  asked  you,  Mr.  Free- 
land;  Tasked  you  whether  you  could  swear  positively 
that  he  hadn't  called  at  your  house  since  January, 
;  1870,  when  you  were  at  home  ?   A.  I  think  not,  Sir. 

Q.  Can  you  swear  positively  that  he  has  not  so  called  ?  A. 
It  is  a  pretty  close  corner,  that  is,  Mr.  Fullerton ;  I  wish 
you  would  let  me  see  my  friend,  IMr.  Beach,  there  behind 
you. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  that  is  not  witty,  Mr.  Freeland. 
Now,  you  are  too  old  a  man  for  me  to  have  any  trouble 
with.  He  wants  to  see  Mr.  Beach  behind  me,  he  says, 
and  he  has  got  in  a  close  corner,  and  all  these  observa- 
tions, which  I  think  would  be  unbecoming  to  a  man  of 
much  younger  years.   I  want  an  answer  to  my  question. 

Mr.  Beach— I  dont  think  it  is  uHbecoming  to  want  to  see 
me.  [Laughter.] 

The  Witness— Thank  you,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  the  spirit  in  which  he  made  the 
,  observation  was  unbecoming. 

Judge  Neilson.— I  wish  the  audience  would  keep  quiet. 
Mr.  Freeland,  please  attend  to  the  question  he  puts,  and 
answer  it  the  best  you  can. 
Mr.  Shearman— Well,  if  your  Honor  please,  it  is  a  ques- 


tion which  needs  a  little  explanation  ;  it  is  very  rarely 
that  the  witness  understands  what  we  lawyers  mean  by 
answering  positively.  We  understand,  of  course,  but 
very  few  witnesses  do.  What  Mr.  Fullerton  means  is  that 
he  should  be  able  to  swear  from  absolute  knowledge. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  one  moment;  I  object  to  this  Sir; 
there  is  no  necessity  for  any  explanation ;  the  question  is 
not  objected  to,  Sir, 

Mr,  Shearman— I  am  perfectly  right  

Mr.  Fullerton  [interrupting]— The  question  is  not  ob- 
jected to.  Sir,  and  there  is  no  occasion  for  discussion. 

The  Witness— Now,  let  me  have  the  question ;  excuse 
me;  if  I  have  done  any  wrong  I  ask  your  pardon  most 
sincerely. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh !  well,  you  need  not  ask  my  pardon. 

The  Witness— I  do,  most  sincerely. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Very  well ;  now  we  will  commence 
anew.  Now,  Mr.  Reporter,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to 
read  that  question  ? 

The  Tribune  stenographer  [reading]  :  "  Can  you  swear 
positively  that  he  has  not  so  called  1" 

The  Witness— Well,  I  would  not  be  willing  to  swear 
positively. 

Q.  Very  well ;  that  is  a  very  fair  answer,  and  I  am  sat- 
isfied. Can't  you  say  whether  Mr.  Beecher  was  at  your 
house  in  December,  1870  ?  A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  How  1   A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Was  Mr,  Beecher  in  the  habit  of  frequently  calling 
at  your  house  at  that  time  ?  A.  He  calls  occasionally, 
not  very  frequently. 

Q,  Now,  I  spoke  of  that  time,  December,  1870,  was  he 
then  in  the  habit  of  calling  occasionally  %  A,  Yes,  he 
was  ;  I  don't  know  that  he  did  call  in  December  at  all ;  I 
don't  remember  that  he  did  ;  I  don't  think  he  did. 

Q.  Then  you  are  not  positive  that  he  did  not  call  in 
December,  1870,  when  you  were  home,  are  you?  A.  I 
am  not  positive. 

Q,  Do  you  recollect  of  sending  any  message  or  letter 
to  Mr.  Beecher  in  December,  1870  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  did 
not. 

Q.  Can  you  say  positively         A.  Yes,  Sir;  positively, 

I  can. 

Q.  Vfell,  you  hadn't  heard  my  whole  question.  Can 
you  say  positively  that  you  sent  no  message  or  letter  to 
Mr.  Beecher  in  December,  1870?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  think 
I  can  say  positively. 

Q.  How  are  you  enabled  to  say  positively  ?  A,  I  never 
wrote  to  Mr,  Beecher  a  note,  to  my  knowledge, 

Q.  Well,  now,  that  answers  only  half  of  the  question. 
My  question  was  whether  you  ever  wrote  to  him  or  sent 
a  message  to  him  in  that  month.  A.  1  don't  remember 
of  ever  doing  it. 

Q.  Well,  your  answer  was  you  could  say  positively 
that  you  did  noti  A.  I  mean  so  far  as  regards  the 
letter. 

Q.  Very  well ;  then,  so  far  as  sending  a  message,  you 


524  IRE  TILION-B 

cannot  say  positively  that  you  did  not  send  a  message  to 
him  in  Decembei',  1870, 1  understand  1   A.  No,  I  cannot 
Bay  positively,  tout  I  don't  thiuk  I  did. 
Mr.  Beacli — Strike  that  out. 

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment.    I  move  to  strike  that 
out,  Sir. 
Judge  Neilson — Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton—"  I  don't  think  I  did"  goes  by  the  board 
now.  Did  you  ever  send  a  message  to  Mr.  Beech er  ? 
A.  Oh,  yes  ;  I  have  sent  messages  to  him. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  ?   A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  often  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  But  you  have  sent  messages  to  him  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I 
have  sent  messages. 

Q.  You  cannot  recollect  the  dates  when  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  recollect  the  substance  of  the  mes- 
sage ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  5^ou  recollect  whether  you  sent  messages  to  him 
in  1870  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  might  have  done  so  and  not  reraember  it?  A. 
I  might  have  dune  so  and  not  remember  it. 

Q.  How?   A.  I  might,  yes. 

Q.  Did  you  send  messages  to  him  in  1871  ?  A.  T  don't 
remember. 

Q.  You  might  have  done  so  and  forgotten  it  1  A.  Yes, 
I  might  have  done  so. 
Q.  And  forgotteSL  It  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  saw  Mr.  Beecher  in 
December,  1870?  A.  I  don't  remember  it  now  dis- 
tinctly. 

Q.  You  may  have  done  so  and  forgotten  it  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  May  have  seen  him  a  good  many  times  in  that 
month  and  forgotten  it,  I  suppose  ?  A.  Very  likely. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  called  upon  him  in 
December,  1870  ?   A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  may  have  done  so  and  forgotten  iti  A.  Yes, 
might  have  forgotten  it. 

Q.  May  have  called  upon  him  a  number  of  times  in  that 
month,  and  forgotten  it?   A.  Very  likely. 

Q.  Have  no  recollection  upon  that  subject  ?  A.  None 
whatever. 

Q.  That  is  a  mere  blank  as  to  whether  you  did  call  or 
not  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

MR.  FREELAKD   DEMURS   TO  A  DELICATE 
QUESTION. 

Q.  Is  your  memory  pretty  good,  Mr.  Free- 
land?  A.  Some  things  it  is  very  good,  and  some  very 
bad. 

Q.  Pray  tell  me  what  is  your  age  ?  A.  Well,  that  is  a 
pretty  delicate  question. 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  mean  to  be  impertinent  at  all,  Mr. 
Freeland ;  it  is  a  question  that  is  legitimate  in  this  case. 
A.  You  don't  know  whether  I  tim  a  widower  or  not. 

Q.  No,  I  don't  know  whether  you  are  a  widower  or  not.  I 


JiJK(]HEE  TBIAL. 

I  hope  you  are  not.   I  only  want  to  know  your  age.  A, 

Seven  fcy-iiYe. 

Q.  Seventy-tive.  Your  recollection  is  not  as  good  a»  it 
was  once,  Mr.  Freeland?  A.  No,  "Sir,  it  is  not;  some- 
things it  is  as  good  as  it  ever  was  and  others  it  is  very 
poor, 

Q,  Well,  Sir,  that  is  my  infirmity  also. 
Mr.  Evai  ts— Mr.  Fullerton,  we  have  this  paper  here- 
now,   I  Eel'errhig  to  the  submission  to  arbitration.] 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  have  the  name  of  Mr.  Bowen's  sou 
now,  that  I  could  not  recall  a  moment  ago,  Mr.  Freeian.d. 
A.  I  suppose  you  mean  John. 
Q,  I  me. in  .Johai ;  yes.   A,  Yes. 
Q.  John  Eliot?   A,  Yes. 

Q,  And  now  I  want  to  ask  you  whether  such  a  note  was 
not  delivered  through  his  sou,  John  Eliot  Bowen?  A. 
What  note  do  you  speak  of? 

Q,  The  note  from  Mr.  Bowen  to  you,  in  December^ 
1870  ?   A.  Do  you  speak  of  -what  note  do  you  speak  oft" 
Q.  I  ask  whether  Mr,  Eowen  did  not  write  a  note  to  yott. 
and  send  it  by  the  hands  of  his  son,  John  Eliot,  in  De- 
cember, 1870  ? 
Mr.  Beach— To  which  he  replied. 
Tbe  Witness— To  which  I  replied? 
Mr.  Bead  -Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— To  wliich  you  repUed  "yes,"  or  "  I  will 
attend  to  it."  A.  I  don't  remember.  Sir. 
Q.  Don't  reraember  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  It  may  have  been  so,  I  srppose,  and  you  have  for- 
gotten it  ?  A,  No,  Sir;  I  should  not  have  fol^^'otte^l  it,  I 
don't  think,  upon  that  subject  that  I  have  reference  to. 
Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  subjects  ?  A.  Yes, 
Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  subjects;  I  asked  you  whether 
in  December,  1870,  Mr.  Bowen  did  not  send  a  note  to  you 
through  his  son  John  Eliot,  to  which,  you  made  a  reply> 
"  Yes,  I  will  attend  to  it  ? "  A.  I  don't  remember,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  it  may  have  happened  and  you  not  remember 
it?   A.  Yes. 
Mr,  Fullerton— That  is  aU. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  will  complete  our  direct  examlnatloa 
upon  the  other  branch— not  re-direct. 

Mr.  Sheamaan— Look  at  this  paper,  "  Exhibit  No.  122,* 
on  the  part  of  the  plaintilf,  and  say  whether  you  ever 
saw  that  paper  before  ?  A.I  never  did,  to  my  knowl- 
edge. 

Q.  And  did  any  person  at  any  time  on  the  3d  of  April, 
1872,  inform  you  of  the  contents  of  that  paper  or  of  any 
part  of  it  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all  upon  that  point.  Do  you 
want  to  examine  him  upon  that  point  ? 
Mr.  Fullerton— Is  that  all  you  want  to  examine  Mm  f 
Mr.  Shearman— All  on  that  point. 
Mr.  Evarts— You  wiU  remember  that  you  have  not 
croBB-examined  about  the  arbitration  at  all.  We  simply 
wanted  to  ask  this  on  the  direct,  and  give  an  opportu- 
I  tunity  for  you  to  cross-examine  on  that  point. 


lESllMONY   OF  JAMES  FBEELANB. 


525 


Mr.  Beach— Do  you  propose  to  examine  any  further  1 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  we  propose  a  re-direct  examination  on 
your  cross,  whenever  you  have  finished  your  cross. 

By  Mr.  FuUerton— Did  I  understand  you,  Mr.  Freeland, 
to  say  that  you  never  saw  this  paper,  "  Exhibit  122," 
before  to-day  ?  A.  Yes  ;  the  arbitration  ? 

Q.  The  submission.  Look  at  it  again,  so  that  you  will 
be  able  to  say  whatitis  (handmg witness  "  Exhibit  122.") 
A.  I  saw  no  such  paper  at  the  arbitration. 

Q.  WeU,  I  suppose  it  may  have  been  there  and  you  not 
see  it  1  A.  Very  possible  it  might,  but  I  did  n't  hear  any- 
thing of  it  or  know  anything  of  it. 

Q.  H^ell,  you  mean  to  say  that  you  don't  remember  of 
having  heard  anything  about  it,  don't  you  ?  A.  I  remem- 
ber—I never  saw  such  a  paper  there,  and  I  don't  remem- 
ber hearing  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Don't  remember  %   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  It  may  have  been  spr)ken  of  and  you  not  remember 
it,  I  suppose  %  A.  Very  possible. 

Q.  And  it  may  have  been  read  there  and  you  not  re- 
member it,  I  suppose  ?  A.  I  should  think  it  could  not 
have  been  read  there  without  my  rememberiDg  it. 

Q.  "Well,  is  it  not  possible  that  it  may  have  been  read 
there  an^  you  not  remember  it?  A.  I  should  hardly 
tlvink  it  was  possible. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Mr.  Bowen  being  there  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Don't  you  reeoUect  Mr.  Bowen  said  something  about 
having  it  understood  definitely  what  was  to  be  submitted 
to  the  arbitrators  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  He  may  have  said  so  and  you  not  remember  it  ?  A. 
Very  possible. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  his  saying  In  substance,  "  I 
won't  proceed  in  this  matter  any  further  until  we  know 
what  the  arbitrators  are  to  pass  upon  ?"  A.  No. 

Q.  He  may  have  said  that  ?  A.  I  really  don't  remem- 
ber what  Mr.  Bowen  or  Mr.  Tilton,  either  of  them,  said. 

Q.  Well,  then  he  may  have  said  that,  and  you  not  re- 
member it,  Mr.  Freeland  ?  A.  Very  possible. 

Q.  And  it  may  have  been  that  after  Mr.  Bowen  said  a 
thing  of  that  kind,  that  this  paper  was  drawn  and  you 
not  remember  it,  I  suppose  ?  A.  I  think  I  should  re- 
member it ;  if  it  was  drawn  there,  and  it  was  present,  I 
should  remember  that  fact,  I  think. 

Q.  How  A.  I  think  I  should  remember  that  fact  if  it 
was  drawn  there. 

Q.  But  it  may  have  been  drawn,  and  you  not  remember 
it,  I  suppose  ?  A.  "Well,  I  should  doubt  very  much. 

Q.  Were  not  there  some  papers  there  that  you  did  not 
have  in  your  hands  %  A.  I  think— I  saw  papers  on  the 
table  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  they  were?  A.  I  think  the 
"  Tripartite  Agreement "  was  there— I  saw  that  on  the 
table. 

Q.  Were  there  any  papers  that  you  did  not  know  the 
contents  of?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  suppose  there  was. 
Q.  How  1  A.  I  suppose  there  was. 


Q.  And  this .  may  have  been  one  of  them  ?  A.  Very 
possible. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  read  over  there  ?  A.  Yes,  there 
was  something  read ;  I  think  a  part  of  that  Tripartite 
Agreement ;  I  don't  think  it  was  all.. 

Q.  Anything  else  read?  A.  I  don't  remember  anything 
else. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  all. 

RE-DIEECT    EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  FREE- 
LAND. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Freeland,  can  you 

remember  for  what  purpose  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Beecher 
were  invited  by  you  to  meet  together  at  your  house  in 
January,  1870? 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  objected  to,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  date. 
The  counsel  on  the  other  side  went  into  his  reasons. 

Judge  NeOson— I  think  we  will  take  the  general  fact. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Why,  Sir,  for  what  purpose  he  invited 
them— the  purpose  of  his  own  mi  i\d  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  it  appears  that  he  did  send  an  in- 
vitation, as  he  remembers,  and  I  think  it  well  enough  to 
learn  what  it  was  about. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  that,  if  your  Honor  please,  was  a 
year  removed  from  the  meeting  that  we  have  talked 
about.  What  have  we  to  do  with  the  meeting  in  Janu- 
ary, 1870. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  take  the  general  sub- 
ject. 

Mr.  Shearman — That  is  the  very  point. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Won't  your  Honor  reflect  one  moment  ? 
January,  1870 ! 
Judge  Neilson— Yes,  your  meeting  was  December,  1870. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly. 
Judge  NeUson— Nearly  a  year. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly.  What  have  we  do  with  Jan- 
uary, 1870  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— The  effort  of  the  cross-examination  was  to- 
make  it  appear  that  this  gentleman  

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  know  that  that  was  the  effort ; 
but  I  think  we  will  take  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  not  rebutting  anything.  We  have 
not  alluded  to  January,  1870. 

Judge  Neilson — I  know,  but  it  seems  to  be  due  to  the 
witness.  It  cannot  do  you  any  harm. 

The  Witness— Thank  you,  Judge ;  I  want  to  explain. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  Shearman— Give  your  explanation. 

Judge  Neilson— We  don't  want  an  explanation  ;  we  - 
want  simply  what  was  the  subject  matter  of  that  inter- 
view in  January,  1870. 

The  Witness— What  the  object  was— at  my  house  i 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— It  is  upou  a  new  subject. 


526  TEE  TILTON-B 

Mr.  Morris— "We  shall  want  to  call  witnesses  upon  the 
subject. 
Judge  Neilson— No. 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  your  Honor  please,  if  it  is  of  no  con- 
sequence then  I  want  to  renew  my  objection.  If  they 
open  that  settlement  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr. 
Beecher  in  January,  1870,  it  is  open  for  all  purposes. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  it  won't  be  opened.  The  inter- 
view he  called  Mr.  Beecher  to  he  can  say  related  to  this 
subject  or  that.   That  is  all  there  will  be  about  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  can  settle  this  very  easily  if  our  learned 
friends  will  admit  that  the  interview  between  Mr, 
Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen,  in  which  their  difficulties  were 
settled,  took  place  in  January,  1870. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  imderstand  the  effort  of  the  cross-exam- 
ination was  to  endeavor  to  confoxmd  those  two  occur- 
rences. 

Judge  Neilson— That  was  the  fact,  I  suppose. 
Mr.  Morris— No,  we  cannot  admit  that,  because  it  is  not 
the  fact,  as  the  evidence  is  to  the  contrary. 
Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  understand  it  so. 
Mr.  Morris— Well,  it  is. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Moulton  has  given  evidence  and 
produced  exhibits  which  show  that  there  was  a  meeting 
between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen,  either  in  January 
or  February,  1870.  That  is  left  as  a  matter  of  doubt. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir ;  it  is  not  a  matter  of  doubt  at 
all. 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Beecher's  own  handwriting— a  docu- 
ment introduced  here  states  when  it  was,  and  it  was  in 
February- the  statement  of  Mr.  Beecher  himself. 

Judge  Neilson— If  we  have  got  the  paper  we  don't  want 
anything  more. 

Mr.  Shearman— There  is  simply  an  allusion  to  an  inter- 
view in  February,  1870.  Now,  I  want  to  show  that  that 
was  this  interview— the  only  one ;  it  was  a  meeting  in 
January,  1870;  that  it  was  on  the  same  subject  that  was 
there  referred  to. 

Judge  NeUson— Don't  Mr.  Beecher's  paper  show  what 
the  subject  of  the  interview  was  1 

Mr.  Morris— Certainly  it  does ;  he  fixes  the  date. 

Judge  Neilson— That's  all  we  want. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  subject  of  reconciliation. 

Judge  NeUson— Well,  that  is  all  he  could  say. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  don't  think  that  does  fix  the  date  as 
February,  although  it  refers  to  it  in  those  general  terms. 
We  want  to  show  the  fact,  if  the  other  side  don't  object 
to  a  leading  question. 

Mr.  Beach— We  certainly  object  to  a  leading  question. 
Tour  Honor,  in  our  rebutting  evidence,  has  held  us  with 
great  strictness  to  the  rule. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— Why  you  should  relax  it  now,  Sir,  for  the 
purpose  of  inquiring  into  an  interview  or  an  occasion  be- 
^tween  third  parties,  at  winch  Mr.  Tilton  was  not  pres- 


Ul^CEEB  IBIAL. 

ent,  a  year  from  the  period  to  which  we  dii-ected  our  at- 
tention, I  am  unable  to  perceive,  Sir,  and  I  don't  under- 
stand upon  what  principle  of  evidence  your  Honor  per- 
mits it. 

Judge  Neilson— You  have  a  better  argument  than  that, 
even. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  perhaps  I  am  not  through  yet,  Sir. 
Judge  Neilson— You  did  not  luquire  into  the  interview. 
Mr.  Fullerton— That  argument  is  before  your  Honor,  al- 
ready. 

Judge  Neilson— The  witness  referred  to  that  without 
inquiry,  and  as  Mr.  Beecher  has  referred  to  it  in  the  pa- 
per, I  think  it  is  to  be  left  where  it  is ;  go  on,  Mr.  Shear- 
man. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Do  you  remember  distinctly  the  in- 
terview already  spoken  of,  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr. 
Beecher.  at  your  house  in  January,  1870? 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  object  to  that,  Sir,  because  he  said 
upon  his  direct  examination  that  he  did  remember  it  dis- 
tinctly. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  ought  to  be  sufficient. 
Mr.  Fullerton— That  ought  to  be  sufficient. 
Mr.  Shearman— There  is  no  harm. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  the  o1)1ection  is  entered,  we  waive  the 
question— if  it  is  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  is  al- 
ready answered. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Do  you  recollect  any  incident  occur- 
ring at  a  prayer-meeting,  in  the  last  of  January,  1870, 
which  fixes  that  meeting  upon  your  memory  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  object  to  that,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— They  brought  out  on  cross-examination 
that  there  was  a  prayer-meeting,  and  that  that  helped 
him  to  remember  it.  Then  they  brought  out  that  there 
were  four  prayer-meetings  in  that  month,  and  they  asked 
the  question  why  he  was  enabled  to  identify  that  particu- 
lar prayer-meeting.  Now  I  propose  to  follow  that,  to 
show  which  of  the  prayer-meetings  it  was,  and  why  he 
identifies  it. 

Mr.  Beach— That  was  not  the  question  at  all.  Sir.  The 
question  was.  Sir,  in  answer  to  an  interrogatory  put  by 
us— the  question  presented  by  Mr.  Freeland  was  that  as 
there  was  a  prayer-meeting  on  the  last  week  of  January, 
1870,  therefore  he  remembered  that  this  conversation 
occurred  then,  and  he  was  asked— that  was  given  volun- 
tarily. Sir— and  therefore  he  was  asked  by  us  whether 
there  were  not  prayer-meetings  every  week  of  the  year, 
and  he  was  asked  how  he  could  distinguish,  and  he  said 
there  was  no  means  by  which  he  could  distinguish.  The 
question  was  put  again  and  again  to  him. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  I  have  a  right  now  to  show,  by 
the  suggestion,  that  he  has  some  means  by  which  he  can 
distinguish.  He  says  now  he  does  remember  an  inci- 
dent. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  he  does  not  say  that. 

The  Witness— I  do. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  does  say  that. 


TUSTJJWyY  OF 

Mr.  Beacli— That  was  wliat  we  were  olDieeting  to. 

Tlie  Witness— Tliat  is  wliat  I  want  to  get  out. 

Mr.  Fallerton— Itnow  you  want  to  ^et  it  out. 

Mr.  Siearman— We  have  a  rigM  to  that  on  tlie  re-direct. 
That  is  what  a  re-direct  is  for. 

Mr.  Beach— The  witness  did  not  wajitto  get  it  out  when 
we  were  examining  him. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  an  imputation  that  is  not  proper 
to  he  made  in  court.  If  he  was  not  able  then  to  recollect, 
he  is  now  able  to  recollect.  He  tried  hard  to  get  it  out 
then,  but  was  not  allowed  to  do  it. 

Mr.  B :  -  : That  is  a  mistake. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  think  not.  Now,  your  Honor, 
having  said  that  he  does  remember  an  incident  that  fixes 
his  memory  upon  that  meeting,  I  ask  what  was  that  in- 
cident. 

3Jr.  Beach— He  has  not  said  that,  because  there  was  an 
objection  made  to  the  question. 
Ml'.  Shearman— No,  Sir. 

Judge  NeDson— The  question  then  is,  "If  you  do  re- 
member an  incident,  what  was  it?" 

Mi\  Shearman— I  ask  the  question. 

The  Witnes.-'  -I  remember  that  prayer-meeting  particu- 
larly ;  Mr.  Bowen  was  there,  and  I  requested  some  num- 
ber of  gentlemen  to  shake  hands  with  him.  and  settle  the 
difficulties  that  had  been  exiotmg  between  Mm  and  Mr. 
Beecher. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well;  that  is  sutBcient. 

Mr.  Shearman— And  that  was  the  first  time  at  which 
you  had  ever  made  such  a  request,  was  it  not.  to  any  gen- 
tlemen? A.  It  was;  that  was  one  of  the  things  that 
marked  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  will  do. 

Mr.  Shearman  Had  you  taken  part  in  bringing  about 
that  interview  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen  at 
your  house  ? 

Mr.  Fallerton— One  moment.   That  has  been  proven. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  have  it  sufficiently. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  it  is  not  fixed  anymore  than  it  was 
fixed  before. 
Judge  Neilson— Now,  Mr.  Freeland,  that  is  all. 
[The  witness  here  started  to  leave  the  stand.  | 
Mr.  Beach— Wait  a  minute.   Don't  go.  [Laughter.] 
Mr.  Evarts— One  moment. 

The  Witness— I  want  to  explain  about  that  note. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Did  you  ever  take  part  in  bringing 
about  any  other  interview  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr. 
Bowen  than  this  one  in  January,  1870  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  I 
ended  on  that— labored  six  months. 

Q.  You  have  said  that  you  received  notes  sometimes 
from  Mr.  Bowen  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  are  you  sure  or  not  that  you  received  none 
from  him  on  this  business  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  objected  to. 
1     Judge  Neilson— We  can't  take  that. 


MAI^IA    X.    OViyGTOX.  527 

Mr.  Fallerton— He  has  testified  he  was  not  sure. 
Judge  Neilson— Anything  more  wanted  I 
Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 
[The  witness  then  left  the  stand.] 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mr.  Freeland— you  need  not  come  back. 
Who  are  the  persons  whom  you  requested  to  shake  hands 
with  Mr.  Bowen  1  A.  Well,  Mr.  Howard,  Mr.  Shea. man, 
and  others. 

Mr.  Beach— Who  ?  A.  Mr.  Shearman.   That  is  all  I  re- 
member now,  but  there  was  half  a  do/:en. 
By  Mr.  FuT'erton— Can't  remember  any  morel    A.  I 

don't  remember  any  more  now. 
Mr.  Shearman— Mrs.  Ovinyroa. 


MES.  OVIXGTOX  EECALLED. 

Mrs.  Mali  a  N.  OTiugton  was  thea  recalled  on 
behalf  of  defendant. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— IMi's.  Oviugton,  are  you  aciiuainted 
with  Mr.  Albert  B.  Martin  ]   A.  I  haA  e  been.  Sir. 

Q.  Toa  were  acquainted  with  him  in  the  Summer  of 
1874?   A.  I  was. 

Q.  He  visited  fi'equently  at  your  house  after  Mrs.  Tilton 
came,  did  he  not  ?  A.  Very  frequently. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  one  day  when  he  visited  your  house 
at  a  time  when  Miss  Turner  and  Gen.  Tracy  were  there  ? 
A.  Perfectly. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  what  day  that  was  ?  A.  The  28th  of 
July. 
Q.  18741   A.  1874. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  recollect,  Mrs.  Ovington,  at  what  time 
of  the  day  Miss  Turner  first  came  to  your  house  on  that 
day? 

]Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  objected  to.  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  if  your  Honor  pleases,  it  is  merely 
a  question  of  the  order  in  which  I  shall  show  the  impossi- 
bility of  Mr.  Martin's  statement. 

Judge  Neilson— You  should  not  comment  on  the  evi- 
dence. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  what  I  propose  to  show. 

Mr.  Fullerton-  -Mr.  Martin's  statement  was  m  answer 
to  your  evidence.  If  you  had  any  further  or  other  evi- 
dence upon  that  subject,  it  should  have  been  given  upon 
the  direct. 

:Mr.  Shearman— Oh  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  "Oh!"  is  not  an  argument. 
[Laughter.]  Your  Honor  will  perceive  that  they  went 
through  with  that  branch  of  the  case  then.  We  have 
produced  a  witness  in  reply  to  that  upon  that  subject. 

Judge  Neilson— Now,  anything  that  Mr.  Martin  said 
that  is  new  they  can  meet. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Undoubtedly,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Fullerton- They  cannot  go  at  the  subject  de  novo. 
Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all  that  we  are  doing,  your 
Honor. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  that  is  the  reason  I  am  objecting. 


528  THE  TILTON-B 

Mr.  Sliearman— The  question  is  upon  some  evidence 
given  by  Mr.  Martin  as  to  the  day  when  he  found  Miss 
Turner  there,  and  Gen.  Tracy. 

Judge  Neilson— Take  up  Mr.  Martin's  precise  state- 
ment, if  you  want  to  call  attention  to  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— They  proved  by  Miss  Turner  what  time 
she  went  there  and  what  time  she  left  there,  and  they 
proved  by  Mr.  Tracy  what  time  he  went  there  and  what 
time  he  left  there,  and  the  length  of  the  interview  with 
the  witness.  We  then,  to  meet  that,  produced  a  witness 
upon  our  behalf  to  prove  the  time.  Now,  does  not  that 
end  the  matter  so  far  as  the  time  is  concerned  ?  If  there 
Is  any  statement  made  by  our  witness  in  regard  to  the 
matter,  or  the  situation  of  the  house,  or  anything  of  that 
kmd,  they  may  meet  that— that  they  can  prove  by  this 
or  other  witnesses. 

Judge  Neilson— They  must  state  the  specific  statement 
that  they  wish  to  contradict. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Proceed,  Mr.  Shearman, 

ME.   MARTIN'S  TESTIMONY  DISPUTED. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mrs.  Ovington,  at  what 
time  in  the  day  did  Mr.  Moulton  come  to  your  house  on 
the  28th  of  July  «  A.  Shortly  after  5  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  day  did  Gen.  Tracy  come  to 
your  house  on  that  day  1  A.  At  5  or  about  5,  a  few  mo- 
ments before  Mr.  Martin  was  there. 

Q.  Mr.  Martin  testified  that  he  came  to  your  house 
about  half-past  2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  and  found 
Gen.  Tracy  and  Miss  Turner  seated  in  the  back  parlor; 
now  at  half-past  2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  where  was 
Miss  Turner  and  who  were  with  her  ?  A.  She  was  in  the 
back  parlor  playing  on  the  piano.  Mr.  Ovington,  Mrs. 
Tilton,  and  myself  were  there  listening  to  her.  Mr.  Mar- 
tin was  not  in  the  house,  neither  was  Gen.  Tracy. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  that 
time,  at  what  hour  Miss  Turner  arrived  at  your  house, 
and  what  she  did  after  that  during  the  afternoon? 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  objected  to.  That  is  all  gone 
through  with.  Your  Honor  will  recollect  Miss  Turner 
was  questioned  with  great  particularity  in  regard  to  that, 
and  we  have  proved  nothing  to  the  contrary. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  was  on  cross-examination  and  in  their 
rebuttal  that  they  proved  something  to  the  contrary. 

Mr.  FuUerton— In  the  re-direct.  Sir,  they  went  into  the 
subject. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  was  the  re-direct  of  Miss  Turner. 
Mr.  FuUerton— They  have  no  right  to  take  up  that  topic 
now. 

Judge  Neilson— They  have  only  a  right  to  take  it  up  to 
contradict  statements  made  by  the  witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir,  and  that  is  what  I  object  to. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  what  we  propose  to  do.  He 
Bays  he  met  Miss  Turner  at  half  past  2. 


EECEME  IBIAL, 

Judge  Neilson— Read  the  particular  clause  in  which 
Mr.  Martin  states  that  and  asks  her  about  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— At  what  time  did  Miss  Turner  come  to 
your  house  % 

Mr.  Fullerton— One  moment.  Does  your  Honor  permit 
that? 

Judge  Neilson— I  suggested  to  the  counsel  that  he  read, 
the  particular  clause  in  Mr.  Martin's  statement  upon  that 
subject,  or  any  other. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  have  read  the  particular  clause.  I 
want  to  show  how  this  lady  establishes  the  time. 

Mr.  Fullerton— We  have  not  heard  the  clause. 

Judge  Neilson— Read  the  clause  in  contradiction. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  have,  your  Honor. 

Judge  Neilson— Go  on  then. 

Mr.  Menus— We  don't  understand  the  clause. 

GETTING  TESTIMONY  UNDER  DIFFICULTIES^ 
Mr.  Shearman — I  read  the  clause  in  which 

Mr.  Martin  says  he  saw  Miss  Turner  at  Mrs.  Ovington's 

about  half-past  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.   That  Mrs. 

Ovington  contradicts.  Now,  this  is  a  question  of  memory 

as  to  time.  I  propose  to  show  how  Mrs.  Ovington  has  an 

accurate  memory  as  to  this  time. 
Judge  Neilson— That  is  not  necessary  now— the  lnde> 

pendent  fact. 

Mr.  Shearman- Well,  your  Honor,  there  are  two  "wit- 
nesses  

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  to  be  assumed,  unless  it  is  oontrar 
dieted  by  their  cross-examination. 

Judge  Neilson— What  else  did  Mr.  Martin  say  I 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mrs.  Ovington,  are  you  positive 
that  at  half-past  2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  Miss  Turner 
was  with  you  and  your  husband,  and  that  Gen.  Tracy 
and  Mr.  Martin  were  neither  of  them  there  1  A.  I  can 
swear  so  truthfully. 

Q.  Now,  at  what  time  did  Gen.  Tracy  leave  that  after- 
noon 1 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  gone  into,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Not  except  by  asking  Gen.  Tracy,  whO 
was  imable  to  state  the  time,  on  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Fullerton— No,  Sir,  the  question  has  all  been  ex- 
hausted. 

Judge  Neilson- One  moment.  Mr.  Shearman  you  mxuA 
confine  yourself  to  such  clauses  in  Mr.  Martin's  evideno* 
as  you  can  read  to  the  witness,  and  take  her  answers; 
otherwise  we  are  opening  the  subject  anew. 

Mr.  Shearman— Very  good.  Mr.  Martin  testifies  thai 
Gen.  Tracy  went  away,  as  near  as  he  eould  t«U,  about  ^ 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon;  is  that  true! 

Mr.  Morris—  One  moment. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  were  told  to  ask  that  question. 

Mr.  Morris— Exactly ;  and  that  evidence  of  Mr.  Martin 
was  in  strict  reply  to  their  evidence.  This  is  not  sui^ 
rebuttal.  Our  evidence  upon  that  point  was  In  reply  to 
the  evidence  that  they  had  offered;  that  is  alL  Now,  tf 


TESTIMONY  OF  MES. 


MABIA    N.  OYINGTON. 


529 


chey  can  contradict  that  by  this  "witness,  we  can  put 
another  witness  ob.  the  stand,  and  when  will  that  topic 
end— when  will  that  fact  be  ended  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Tracy  testified  exactly  when  he  went 
there,  and  when  he  went  away. 

3Ir.  Shearman— Gen.  Tracy  did  not  fix  the  time. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  he  did  fix  the  time. 

Judge  Neilson — I  think  you  can  correct  ]Mr.  Martin  upon 
any  specific  statement  he  has  made. 

The  Witness— If  your  Honor  remembers,  Mr.  Martin's 
name  was  not  mentioned  in  my  former  testimony. 

Judi,^e  Neilson— No. 

The  Y7itnes3— Had  it  been  I  would  have  told  you  then. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

.Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor,  Mr.  Tracy  was  called  as  to  the 
timtj  when  he  was  at  Mrs.  Oriugton's,  when  he  went 
there  and  when  he  left,  when  he  had  the  conversation 
with  Bessie  Turner  and  how  long  that  conversation  was. 
To  contradict  Mr.  Tracy  we  put  on  the  stand  Mr.  Martin. 
Now  }  ou  permit  them  to  contradict  :\ir.  Martin? 

Judge  NelLson — Yes. 

Mr.  Baaoh— And  then  you  will  permit  us,  I  suppose,  to 
give  fm-ther  evidence  to  sustain  Mr.  Martin,  and  when 
wiU  we  get  through  1 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  wiH  get  through  about  4 
o'clock  this  afternoon.  fLaughter.l 

Mr.  Bsach — I  don't  think  we  will.  Sir,  if  you  permit 
that  line  of  examination. 

Mr.  Shearman— Your  Honor,  would  we  have  been  al- 
lowed to  have  brought  500  witnesses  in  succession  to 
confirm  the  statement  of  Mr.  Tracy  as  to  the  hour  when 
he  went  there  % 

Judge  Neilson — I  think  you  can  contradict  any  state- 
ment that  Mr.  Martin  has  made,  and  you  will  proceed  to 
do  so.  Eead  the  clause. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Martin  says  Gen.  Tracy  went 
a\.  ay,  as  near  as  he  could  tell,  about  5  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon.  Now,  Mrs.  Ovington,  what  time  in  the  after- 
noon did  Gen.  Tracy  go  away  ? 

Judge  Neilson — No,  that  is  asking  an  independent  fact. 
Eead  the  statement  of  Mr.  Martin  and  ask  her  if  that  is 
so  or  not. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Martin  testifies  that  Gen.  Tracy 
went  away  about  5  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  Is  that 
true  %  A.  It  is  false. 

Q.  Mr.  Martin  testifles  that  Mrs.  Tilton  and  he  were  on 
the  back  piazza  of  yom-  house  for  at  least  two  hours  on 
that  afternoon.  Is  that  true  ?  A.  It  is  false— it  is,  Mr. 
Fullerton. 

Mr.  Fullerton— WeU,  repeat  it  again,  Mrs.  Ovington,  if 
you  think  it  becomes  a  lady  to  do  it.  You  need  not  ap- 
proach and  address  me  in  that  kind  of  style.  If  you  for- 
get you  are  a  lady,  others  may  forget  it  also. 

The  Witness- Excuse  me. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  will  excuse  you. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Martin  testifies  that  after  Gen. 


Tracy  left,  there  was  conversation  between  Miss  Turner 
and  some  other  persons  not  named  concerning  the  sub- 
ject of  her  testimony  before  the  Committee  ;  is  that  true  1 
A.  It  is  false. 

Q.  Mr.  Martin  testifies  that  the  subject  of  Miss  Turner's 
testimony  before  the  Committee  formed  the  principal 
topic  01  conversation,  after  Gen.  Tracy  left,  with  Miss 
Turner  and  IVIrs.  Ovington ;  is  that  true  1  A.  It  is  not 
true. 

Q.  Mr.  Martin  again  testifles  that  he  can  safely  say  that 
after  Gen.  Tracy  left  there  was  no  other  topic  discussed 
during  that  afternoon  or  talked  about ;  was  that 
true— no  other  topic  than  the  subject  of  Miss  Turner's 
testimony  before  the  Committee  discussed  or  talked 
about  %  A.  There  was  scarcely  any  conversation  of  any 
kind  ;  the  time  was  short,  only  at  the  tea-table. 

Q.  But  is  it  true  that  the  topic  of  her  testimony  before 
the  Committee  was  the  only  topic  of  conversation  or  dis- 
cussion during  that  afternoon  after  Gen.  Tracy  leftt 
A.  It  is  not  true.  There  was  no  discussion  of  any  kind ; 
very  little  said  on  any  subject  at  the  tea-table. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  on  the  subject  of  her  testimony 
before  the  Committee  after  Gen.  Tracy  left  ?  A.  Not  a 
word.  Directly  Gen.  Tracy  left  the  house  we  went  from 
the  tea-table,  and  she  went  to  the  Committee  directly 
after  tea.   There  was  no  opportunity  for  conversation. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all  irregular  and  inadmissible,  un- 
der your  Honor's  ruling. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  a  statement  of  fact. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  it  is  not  a  statement  of  fact. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Martin  is  asked  whether  he 
knew,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  your  piazza  was  specially 
hot  about  3  o'clock,  and  that  it  was  only  about  5  o'clock 
that  that  piazza  was  cooler  than  any  other  part  of  the 
house,  and  he  answers  that  he  does  not  remember.  I  ask 
you  what  is  the  fact  about  your  piazza  in  the  afternoon. 

Judge  Neilson— That  does  not  contradict  Mr.  Martin, 
and  we  cannot  take  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— Why  ? 

Judge  Neilson— This  witness  cannot  speak  of  that 
piazza,  its  condition  in  regard  to  heat,  which  no  witness 
has  testified  about  at  all.   It  opens  up  the  whole  snbject. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Martin  is  testifying.  He  was  the  first 
witness  that  said  anything  about  it ;  and,  if  I  remember 
right,  he  says  that  Mrs.  TUton  and  he  were  up  stairs. 

Judge  Neilson— And  he  went  down  stairs.  It  was  on 
Mr.  Shearman's  examination. 

Mr.  Evarts — Mr.  Martin's  examination  as  a  witness. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Shearman's  examination  of  Mr. 
Martin. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  have  a  right  to  cross-examine  the  wit- 
ness, to  contradict  him. 

Judge  Neilson— You  cannot  eontradict  a  man  if  tliat 
man  does  not  say  a  thing  is  so  or  not. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  does  say  that  he  and  Mrs.  Tilton  went 
down  stairs  because  the  piazza  was  cooler,  and  that  the 


530  THE  TimON-B 

sun  was  kept  from  coming  in  there  and  Tjroiling  tliem  by 
a  projecting  wall  tliat  protected,  wliicli  shaded  them. 
Now,  if  we  propose  to  contradict  him,  we  have  a  right  to 
do  so. 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  said,  over  and  over  again,  that 
what  he  said  you  can  contradict,  hut  not  an  independent 
fact. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— This  question  is  asked  Mr.  Martin, 
and  he  gives  this  answer : 

Q.  Well,  was  it  cooler  on  the  piazza  when  you  went 
down  than  up  in  the  room  ?  A.  Yes.  we  went  down  for 
that  purpose. 

Q.  Well,  was  the  sun  shining?  A.  Not  on  the 
piazza. 

And  he  gives  tliis  time  as  half-past  two  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon,  or  three. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  and  look  a  little  further  and  you 
will  find  a  specific  question  of  your  own  on  that  poiat. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  he  is  asked : 

Don't  you  know  that  from  2^2  or  3  o'clock  ia  the  after- 
noon that  the  sun  is  blazing  on  that  piazza,  and  It  is  the 
hottest  place  in  the  house  ?  A.  I  don't  think  so,  Sii- ;  I 
don't  know  

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  that  piazza  is  exposed  to  the 
sun  in  the  afternoon,  and  that  that  is  the  time  the  sun  is 
shining  on  it  ?  A.  I  think  I  know  it  is,  but  there  is  a  pro- 
tection there  from  the  sun. 

Then  he  goes  on  to  say  "  there  is  some  protection  from 
the  building,  the  next  house.  I  think  the  next  house  is 
a  protection."  Further  on  he  says:  "This  house  next 
door  is  a  thi-ee-story  brick  house,  and  running  back,  and 
the  other  house  does  not ;"  and  he  says  that  he  has  re- 
peatedly sat  on  the  piazza  from  10  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing until  the  evening,  and  he  never  went  away  because 
of  the  heat. 

Q.  Not  even  on  the  hottest  days  1  A.  Well,  it  is  very 
hot  at  that  time,  -ir. 

Mr.  Pullerton— All  that  is  collateral. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  comes  down  to  the  very  question 
whether  these  parties  came  down  at  three  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon  in  order  to  be  cool,  and  went  on  the  piazza. 
The  whole  question  turns  on  a  question  of  time.  The 
whole  contradiction  of  Gen.  Tracy  is  attempted  on  the 
time  he  went  down,  and  this  witness  testifies  that 
although  he  looked  at  no  clock,  and  had  no  other  idea  of 
the  time,  he  knows  he  went  on  the  piazza  at  three  o'clock 
because  he  went  down  there  to  get  cooler,  and  when 
aaked  whether  the  piazza  was  the  hottest  place  in  the 
house  he  said  no. 

Judge  Neilson— Ask  the  lady  that  question. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Is,  or  is  not,  that  piazza  the  hottest 
place  in  yoTir  house  between  the  hours  of  half-past  2 
and  4  o'clock  ia  the  afternoon  ?  A.  We  have  always  con- 
sidered it  so. 

Mr.  Beach— Wait  one  moment,  Madam.   We  object  to 
that  answer. 
Mr.  Evarts— Why  ? 
Mr.  Beach— We  move  to  strike  it  out. 


FjEGHEB  TBIAL. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  a  good  answer. 

Jadge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  let  it  stand.  Go  on, 
Mr.  Shearman. 

Q.  Does  the  next  house  on  either  side  of  you  project 
bej^ond  the  rear  of  your  piazza?  A.  Neither  of  them 
does.  A  frame  house  on  eacn  side  of  ours,  neither  one 
exteuding  beyond  ours. 

Q.  Is  your  piazza  exposed  to  the  sun  in  the  afternoon 
or  not  ?    A.  It  is. 

Q.  Is  it  not  directly  exposed  to  the  sun  ?  A.  It  is. 

By  Judge  Neilson— What  is  the  protection  there? 
There  is  some  protection  there,  is  there  not  ?  A.  There 
is  a  iirotection  until  an  hour  or  two  in  the  afternoon  by  a 
roof,  but  between  2  and  half  past  5, 1  think  it  is,  iii  Sum- 
mer, there  is  no  protection  whatever ;  the  sun  blazes 
there. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— You  mean  the  roof  of  your  piazza?  A. 
The  roof  of  our  own  piazza  is  a  narrow  old  roof ;  it  is  a 
narrow,  old-fashioned  piazza. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Have  you  recently  observed  during 
what  houi'  the  sun  does  strike  upon  the  whole  of  that 
piazza? 

Mr.  Fullerton— She  has  not  recently  observed  that 
piazza. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  sun  occupies  about  the  same  posi- 
tion  

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  the  way  I  studied  geography. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  sun  occupies  about  the  same  posi- 
tion on  the  14th  of  May  that  it  does  on  the  28th  of 
July. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  her  answer  is  sufflcient  on  that 

subject 

Q.  Have  you  recently  observed  during  what  hours  the 
sun  strikes  upon  the  whole  of  that  piazza  ?  A.  From  2 
uutU  half-past  5  o'clock,  I  think  it  is,  or  5 ;  in  the  Sum- 
mer it  lies  there  longer. 

Q.  Mr.  Martin  testifies,  being  asked  how  he  has  re- 
freshed his  recollection  as  to  the  time  of  being  in  a  room 
in  your  house,  and  he  says : 

Because  they  have  a  clock  there;  I  may  have  looked 
atthat;  I  do  not  remember. 

Judge  Neilson— Y'ou  need  not  ask  her  about  the  clock. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Martin  went  into  Mrs.  Tilton's 
room  ;  is  there  a  clock  in  Mrs.  Tilton's  room  1 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  immaterial. 

The  Witness— There  is. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Was  that  clock  running  in  the  Sum- 
mer of  1874  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  it  been  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  not  for  some  years. 

Judge  Neilson— Never  mind  about  the  clock.  Mr.  Mar- 
tin didn't  prove  anything  about  the  clock. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  attempted  to. 

Judge  Neilson— He  attempted  to  show  he  looked  at  It. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  he  did  n't  attempt  to  show  he  looked 
at  it. 


lES'lI.VOyY   OF  MES. 


MARIA  X.  oviyGToy. 


531 


By  Mr.  Shearman— ]\Ir.  Martin  being  asked  the  ciues- 
tion— 

There  was  quite  a  long  time  elapsed  alter  Gen.  Tracy 
left  before  you  had  tea  I   answers : 

WeU,  I  should  think  about  an  hour  ;  and  again,  I  think, 
my  best  impression  is  it  was  about  an  hour. 

How  long  was  it  after  Gen.  Tracy  left  before  you  and 
Mr.  Martin  had  tea  ?  A.  Gen.  Tracy  left  at  6  o'clock. 
We  went  to  tea  a  few  minutes  past  6.  I  think  the  tea 
bell  rang  when  Gen.  Tracy  was  in  the  house. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  some  testimony  that  Mr.  Til- 
ton  gave  yesterday  : 

I  was  sitting  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Ovington  on  their  back 
piazza,  and  I  chanced  to  make  a  remark  to  this  eflfect, 
that  I  was  sorry  that  the  piazza  on  my  house  was  in  the 
front,  and  not  in  the  rear ;  that  my  piazza  was  prac- 
tically of  no  advantage  to  the  family,  because,  in  order 
to  sit  there,  we  must  expose  ourselves  to  the  street; 
whereas,  in  Mrs.  Ovington's  house,  they  could  enjoy  the 
comfort  of  their  piazza,  and  still  maintain  their  family 
seclusion. 

And  he  fixes  this  conversation  as  of  the  9th  of  July, 
1874,  as  I  understand.  Do  you  agree  as  to  the  date,  the 
9th  of  July  ? 

Mr.  Beach— No,  I  understand  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then,  if  it  was  not  so,  it  was  improper 
evidence,  because  it  was  no  contradiction  of  the  testi- 
mony Mrs.  Ovington  gave.  Mrs.  Ovington  gave  an  ac- 
count of  a  conversation  that  took  place  on  the  9th  of 
July,  1874.  Mr.  Tilton's  attention  was  called  to  that,  and 
he  gave  his  evidence  by  way  of  contradiction,  giving  a  new 
conversation.  I  will  put  the  question  in  this  shape.  [To 
the  witness] .  You  remember  testifying,  Mrs.  Ovington,  to 
a  conversation  with  Mr.  Tilton,  in  which  he  said  to  you  : 
"Elizabeth  will  lie  for  me.  She  would  tell  any  number 
of  lies  to  clear  me  ;  she  loves  me."  You  remember  testi- 
fying that?  A.  I  do. 

Mr.  Morris— One  moment. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all,  to  call  her  attention  to  it. 
[To  the  witness.]  Mr.  Tracy  testifies  that  on  that 
occasion  the  following  took  place : 

I  was  sitting  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Ovington  on  their 
back  piazza,  and  I  chanced  to  make  a  remark  to  this 
effect,  that  I  was  sorry  that  the  piazza  on  my  house  was 
in  the  front,  and  not  in  the  rear ;  that  my  piazza  was 
practically  of  no  advantage  to  the  family,  because  in  or- 
der to  sit  there  we  must  expose  ourselves  to 
the  street,  whereas  in  JMrs.  Ovington's  house 
they  could  enjoy  the  comfort  of  their  piazza, 
and  still  maintain  their  family  seclusion.  Mrs. 
Ovington  made  some  remark,  however,  about 
my  house  being  very  cool  and  comfortable  in  the  Sum- 
mer, in  consequence  of  Gallatin-place  opening  perpen- 
dicularly just  in  front  of  it.  I  then  made  a  remark  that 
that  was  true,  but  that  I  was  very  sorry  that  Mrs.  Tilton 
had  been  compelled  to  yield  up  the  pleasantest  and  cool- 
est room  in  our  house,  which  was  the  second-story  pair 
of  front  rooms,  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Taylor,  who  were  then 
occupying  them;  and  I  added,  perhaps  in  a  satirical 
vein,  "This is  one  of  the  consequences  of  the  scandal, 
and  unless  I  defend  myself  against  the  accusations 


brought  against  me,  I  presume  I  shall  go  to  complete 
ruin." 

Did  any  part  of  that  conversation  take  i)lace  ;  and,  if 
so,  what  part  of  it  ? 

Judge  Neilsou — She  has  testified  to  part  of  it. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Can  there  be  anything  more  collateral 
than  that  ? 

Judge  Neilson— No, 

The  Witness— [to  Judge  Neils  on] —But,  Sir,  it  was  not 
in  the  same  connection  ;  and  that  was  not  so. 

Mr.  Fullerton  [to  the  witnessj— Let  Mr.  Shearman  argue 
the  case.  [To  Judge  Neilson.J  I  object  to  it  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  entirely  collateral. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  was  evidence  worth  putting  in  on  the 
other  side ;  I  suppose  anything  they  put  in  we  have  a 
right  to  rebut.  [To  the  witness.]  Did  Mr.  Tilton  use  any 
such  language  as  that  in  this  connection  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  he 
did  not ;  it  was  in  an  entirely  different  connection. 

Judge  NeUson— Let  it  stand. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  imderstood  your  Honor  to  rule  it  out. 
Judge  Neilson— Well,  we  will  let  it  stand. 
Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all,  Mrs.  Ovington. 


CROSS-EXAAIINATION  OF  MRS.  OVINGTON. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton — Was  the  scandal  the  sub- 
ject of  conversation  at  the  tea-table  that  night  1  A.  It 
was  not,  Mr.  Fullerton. 

Q.  Not  one  word  said  about  it  ?  A.  Nothing  concern- 
ing the  scandal.  The  mere  arrangement  of  Bessie  being 
sent  to  Mr.  Storrs's  that  evening  was  the  only  time  the 
subject  was  mentioned. 

Q.  Nothing  as  to  what  she  was  to  testify  to  ?  A.  Not 
one  word. 

Q.  Sure  of  it  ?  A.  Nothing  before  she  went ;  before  the 
Committee  met  no  word  was  said  on  that  subject; 
neither  did  JMrs.  Tilton  or  me  understand,  that  I  know. 

Q.  How  long  was  the  interview  between  Mr.  Tracy  and 
her?  A.  Less  than  an  hour;  lean  give  you  the  reasons 
why  I  know  it  was  so. 

Q.  How  much  less  than  an  hour  ?  A.  Perhaps  ten 
minutes  less. 

Q.  You  think,  then,  it  was  about  fifty  minutes  long,  as 
near  as  you  could  say  1  A.  Fifty  minutes ;  I  could  not 
say  to  two  or  three  or  four  minutes. 

Q.  As  near  as  you  recollect  ?  A.  I  should  say  it  was 
fifty  minutes. 

Q.  And  where  did  it  take  place?  A.  In  the  back  par- 
lor. The  conversation  took  place  in  the  back  parlor;  I 
introduced  Miss  Turner  to  Gen.  Tracy  in  the  front  parlor. 

Q.  What  took  place  in  the  back  parlor  1  A.  Miss  Turner 
was  speaking  to  Mr.  Tracy. 

Q.  It  was  in  the  back  parlor  1  A.  It  was  in  the  back 
parlor. 

Q.  What  time  did  it  commence  ?  A.  It  commenced  di- 
rectly after  I  introduced  Bessi  . 


533  IHE  TILTON-B 

Q.  What  time  did  it  commence  ?  A.  A  little  past  five 
o'clock ;  I  cannot  say  tlie  number  of  minutes. 

Q.  Wliat  time  did  Bessie  go  to  tlie  Committee?  A. 
About  seven  o'clock,  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Did  the  Committee  meet  as  early  as  that  ?  A.  I 
know  she  left  long  before  dark,  or  some  time  before 
dark  ;  it  was  daylight  when  she  left. 

Mr.  FuUerton— That  is  all. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness]— That  is  all.  [To  coun- 
sel.] That  is  the  case  on  both  sides,  gentlemen,  T  sup- 
pose. 

Mr.  Shearman— No ;  we  have  another  witness  to  answer 
some  questions  here. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  we  shall  have  sev- 
eral witnesses.  We  have  no  expectation  of  being  able  to 
finish  to-night.  We  have  several  witnesses,  but  they 
won't  be  long. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  can  finish  with  Mr.  Eggleston  in  a 
few  minutes. 

Mr.  FuUerton— They  say  they  can  finish  with  him; 
perhaps  I  cannot. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  you  cannot,  perhaps  we  had  better  ad- 
journ. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  jurors]— Gentlemen,  get  ready 
to  retire.  Be  in  your  seats  to-morrow  morning  at  11 
o'clock. 

The  court  then  adjourned  until  11  o'clock  on  Thursday 
morning. 

EIGHTY-FIFTH    DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

THE  TESTIMONY  ALL  IN. 

COUNSEL  FOR  THE  DEFENDANT  OBTAIN  AN  ADJOURN- 
MENT UNTIL  WEDNESDAY— THE  LAST  WITNESSES 
—BRIEF  TESTIMONY  FROM  HENRY  C.  BOAVEN,  THE 
REV.  EDWARD  EGGLESTON,  H.  B.  CLAFLIN, 
CHARLES  STORRS,  GEORGE  W.  UHLER,  JOHN  C. 
SOUTHWICK,  AND  OTHERS. 

Thursday,  IVIay  13,  1875. 
Although  the  end  of  the  trial  was  known  to  be 
very  near,  yet  there  was  considerable  surprise  to- 
day when  it  was  suddenly  anuounced,  about  five 
minutes  before  3  o'clock,  that  the  last  witness  had 
given  his  testimony,  and  the  case  on  both  sides  was 
ready  to  be  summed  up  and  given  to  the  jury. 
Judge  Neilson  exhibited  unmixed  satisfaction  when 
Mr.  Evarts  announced  that  he  rested  the  defendant's 
case,  rhe  counsel  on  both  sides  also  appeared  re- 
lieved, and  the  jurymen  looked  at  one  another  and 
smiled  as  if  well  pleased  that  their  long  con- 
finement was  so  nearly  over.  Mr.  Evarts  stated 
that  on  account  of  the  large  accumulation  of  evi- 
dence, and  because  their  side  would  have  to  begin 
the  Bmnming  up,  the  counsel  for  the  defendant  de- 


EBCREB  TEIAL. 

sire'l  a  short  interval  for  preparation.  Judge  Por- 
ter and  himself  were  to  divide  the  work  of  sum- 
ming up  the  defendant's  case,  and  they  would  like 
an  adjournment  until  next  Wednesday  morning. 

Mr.  Beach  stated  that  personally  he  should  prefer 
to  go  on  with  the  case  on  Monday,  but  although  it 
would  be  a  personal  sacrifice  to  him,  he  was  willing 
to  oblige  Judge  Porter  and  Mr.  Evarts  by  acceding 
to  tlie  request  for  an  adjournment.  Judge  Neilson 
accordingly  granted  Mr.  Evarts's  request,  and  the 
court  adjourned  until  Wednesday  morning  at  11 
o'clock. 

THE  CLOSING  TESTIMONY. 

The  first  witness  put  on  the  stand  by  the  defendant 
yesterday  was  Calvin  J.  Mills,  who  is  engaged  in 
an  editorial  capacity  on  The  New-Torh  Herald.  It 
was  sought  to  prove  by  him  that  the  Woodhull  scan- 
dal publication  had  been  circulated  in  printed  slips 
prior  to  its  appearance  in  Woodhull  <^  Claflin's  Weekly, 
After  a  good  deal  of  argument  by  the  counsel  on 
both  sides  the  testimony  of  this  witness  was  ruled 
out  by  Judge  Neilson,  and  Mr.  Evarts  withdrew  the 
question  which  had  already  been  put  to  him. 

Henry  C.  Bo  wen  was  recalled  by  the  defendant 
for  further  cross-examination.  His  appearance  cre- 
ated another  stir  in  the  audience.  He  came  forward 
with  a  quick,  nervous  step,  gave  his  testimony 
briefly,  and  after  bemp  about  five  minutes  on  the 
stand  stepped  down  again  and  disappeared  among 
the  spectators.  He  substantially  reiterated  his 
former  statements  concerning  the  time  of  the  alleged 
interview  at  Mr.  Freeland's  house,  and  about  the 
Woodstock  letter,  and  his  alleged  statements  to  JVIr. 
Eggleston. 

The  Rev.  Edward  Eggleston  immediately  followed 
Mr.  Bowen  in  the  witness  chair.  IVLr.  {Shearman 
asked  him  if  his  occupation  had  not  changed  since 
his  last  appearance  before  the  Court.  "  Well,  Sir," 
replied  Mr.  Eggleston,  "  when  I  was  here  before  I 
said  I  was  lecturer,  author,  and  clergyman ;  now  I 
am  principally  clergyman,  Sir.  The  lecturer  and 
author  have  been  rather  sunk  out  of  sight,  J  beUeve.'' 
Mr.  Eggleston's  examination  was  short.  He  repeated 
in  substance  the  statements  alleged  to  have  been 
made  to  him  by  Mr.  Bowen,  and  which  Mr.  Bowen 
had  denied. 

Horace  B.  Claflin  and  Charles  Storrs  were  succes- 
sively called  to  the  stand  by  the  defendant's  coun- 
sel. Both  of  them  declared  that  they  had  never  be- 
fore seen  the  document  asserted  to  1)0  the  submission 
to  arbitration  agreed  upon  between  Mr.  Bowen  and 


EDITOBIAL  COMM 

Mi.  Tilton,  and  written  by  Mr.  Moulton.  They  sub- 
stantially reasserted  the  points  of  tbeir  evidence 
which  had  been  called  in  question  by  Mr.  Bowen. 

George  W.  Uhler,  the  owner  of  the  house  in 
Clinton-st.  occupied  by  Mr.  Moulton  in  1871,  and 
Wallace  E.  Caldwell,  were  both  called  by  the  de- 
fendant to  contradict  the  statement  that  there  was 
r.o  portrait  of  Mr.  Beecher  in  Mr.  Moulton's  house  in 
Clinton-st.  Both  swore  that  they  had  seen  a  large 
portrait  of  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  parlor  of  that  house 
when  it  was  occupied  by  ]VIr.  Moulton. 

John  C.  Southwick  was  called  for  the  defendant 
to  contradict  some  of  the  statements  of  Mr.  Wood- 
ruff, but  much  cf  the  evidence  which  it  was  desired 
to  draw  from  him  was  ruled  out.  On  the  cross-ex- 
amination of  this  witness  Mr.  Beach  caused  much 
merriment  by  abruptly  asking  him  if  he  had  any 
bets  on  the  result  of  this  trial.  The  witness  admit- 
ted that  he  had  had  a  bet  of  $100  of  that  kind,  but 
had  withdrawn  it  in  anticipation  of  being  called  as 
a  witness.  Mr.  Southwick  was  the  last  witness  for 
the  defendant. 

The  plaintiffs  counsel  called  John  Eliot  Bowen,  a 
son  of  Henry  C.  Bowen,  who  swore  that  in  1870— he 
thought  it  was  in  December  of  that  year— he  had 
dehvered  a  note  from  his  father  to  Mr.  Freeland,  and 
received  the  reply,  "  I'll  attend  to  it,"  or  something 
equivalent  to  that. 

Marshall  J.  Morrell,  an  architect,  was  also  called 
for  the  plaintiff.  He  brought  with  him  a  drawing 
which  he  had  made  of  the  rear  of  ]\Ir.  Ovington's 
house,  and  the  situation  of  the  adjoining  buildings. 
His  testimony  was  intended  to  support  the  assertion 
of  ^Ir.  Martin  that  he  and  Mrs.  Tilton  had  sat  on 
the  back  piazza  of  Mr.  Ovington's  house  to  find  a 
cool  place  on  the  afternoon  when  Gen.  Tracy  and 
Miss  Bessie  Turner  had  their  interview  at  that  house. 


THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

THE    TRIBUIsT:'S    EDITORIAL  COmiENTS 
CRITICISED. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
iouinment. 

Judge  Neilson— Are  you  ready  to  proceed,  gentlemeu  • 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  your  Honor  please,  I  desire  to  call 
attention  to  a  brief  editorial  in  one  of  tlie  morning 
papers,  of  this  morning. 

Mr,  Beach— Name  the  paper. 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  New- York  Trtbune. 

Mr.  Beach— [>S'o^to  voce.']     The  official  paper  of  this 

COMTt. 


mTS   CEIUGISEB.  533 

Mr.  Fullerton— WeD,  it  is  an  editorial.  It  is  headed  as 
f oUows  : 

As  usual,  the  Beecher  trial  was  enlivened  yesterday  by 
some  choice  exhibitions  of  legal  blackguardism. 

And  then  goes  onto  quote  a  question  put  to  Mrs.  Oving- 
ton  while  on  the  stand,  and  her  answer  ;  also  an  observa- 
tion made  by  Mrs.  Ovington  to  me,  and  my  reply.  IVIrs. 
Ovington's  answer  to  the  question  was  as  follows  :  It 
is  false" — and  then  turning  to  me,  when  she  was  not 
under  examination  by  me,  and  in  an  excited  manner,  and 
with  a  good  deal  of  gesticulation-  

Mr.  Beach— And  emphasis. 

Mr.  Fullerton— And  emphasis,  said:  "It  is  false,  Mr. 
Fullerton,"  when  I  replied  : 

Well,  you  can  repeat  it  agaia,  Mrs.  Ovington,  if  you 
think  it  becomes  a  lady  to  do  it.  You  need  not  approach 
and  address  me  in  that  kind  of  style.  If  you  forget  you 
are  a  lady,  others  may  forget  it  also. 

Now,  the  writer  of  that  article  could  not  have  under- 
stood that  I  was  not  examining  Mrs.  Ovington  at  the 
time,  but  my  fi-iend  Islx.  Shearman  was,  and  that  she  had 
no  right  to  turn  and  address  me  by  name,  in  a  loud  tone, 
too,  and  in  such  an  emphatic  manner.  Why  she  did  it  I 
certainly  did  not  at  the  time  understand,  but  I  did  thiuk. 
although  she  was  a  lady,  that  it  was  such  a  piece  of  imper- 
tinence, not  to  say  antliing  harsher,  that  it  required  some 
observation  from  me  by  way  of  rebuke.  If  the  lady  had 
been  under  examination  by  me,  it,  of  course,  would  have 
been  a  very  different  matter,  but  she  was  not,  and  she 
had  no  occasion  and  no  right  to  address  me  in  a  public 
court-room  in  that  kind  of  way,  calling  me  by  name,  and 
repeating  the  answer  in  the  manner,  which  was  very  of- 
fensive, which  she  did. 

Judge  Neilson— I  appreciate  what  the  coimsel  says, 
and  regret  exceedingly  that  such  an  article  should  ap- 
pear in  that  paper.  I  remember  the  occasion  and  recol- 
lect it  as  counsel  now  states  it,  and  regret  that  Mrs. 
Ovington  should  at  the  moment  have  forgotten  herself  so 
far  as  to  make  the  remark  which  she  did,  especially  to 
coui-sel  who  was  not  then  examining  her  or  speaking  to 
her. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Mrs.  Ovington  undoubtedly  discovered 
her  mistake,  because  she  apologized  in  a  moment,  and  the 
apology  was  accepted  at  the  time. 

Judge  Neilson— The  error  of  the  article  goes  quite  back 
beyond  that.  The  reference  in  the  first  Une— will  you  be 
kind  enough  to  repeat  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  language  is  this, Sir: "As  usual"  

Judge  Neilson—"  As  usual." 

Mr.  Fullerton  [continuing]—"  The  Beecher  trial  was  en- 
livened yesterday  by  some  choice  exhibitions  of  legai 
blackguardism. " 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  now,  that  wiU  do.  I  consider  that 
the  offensive  part  of  the  article.  The  reference  to  Mrs. 
Ovington,  no  doubt,  proceeds  in  a  measure  from  misap- 
prehension—the supposition  perhaps  that  you  was  deal- 
ing with  the -^-itness.   But  the  expression  that  this  trial. 


534  THE  TILTON-B. 

on  the  occasion  yesterday,  or  any  other  day,  has  heen 
characterized  hy  "  the  usual,"  or  any  blackguardism,  is 
an  unpardonable  offense.  I,  in  one  way  and  another,  dm-- 
ing  my  experience  here  and  at  the  bar,  have  seen  very 
many  trials  hotly  contested,  civil  and  criminal,  and  I 
have  never  seen  a  case  where  counsel  have  treated  each 
other  and  treated  witnesses  with  more  courtesy  and 
cii'cumspection  than  in  this  case.  I  think  that  remark 
by  the  editor  of  that  paper  was  a  most  unpardonable 
offense,  and  calls  for  an  apology  from  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think,  if  your  Honor  please,  my  friend 
Mr.  Fullerton  will  not  disagree  in  what  I  shall  say  in  re- 
spect to  Mrs.  Ovington.  Altogether,  I  tbink,  too  much  of 
the  occurrence  was  made  of  the  matter  by  the  press,  of 
course.  V/e  agree  that  that  is  not  a  fair  representation 
of  it,  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  there  is  too  much  of 
an  inference  of  impropriety  on  the  part  of  IVIi'S.  Ovington, 
from  the  manner  in  which  my  friend  Mr.  Fullerton  took 
it  up.  Now,  we  cannot  reproduce  in  print  all  that  occm-s 
in  court.  Mr.  Shearman  was  standing  behind  Mr.  Fuller- 
ton,  as  usual,  in  his  position  and  our  position,  and  exam- 
ining Mrs.  Ovington.  Mr.  Fullerton,  as  was  his  right, 
was  watching  the  witness  closely  and  looking  in  her  face, 
as  preparing  for  a  cross-examination.  Mrs.  Ovington, 
observing  in  his  face  an  expression  which  she  regarded 
as  distrustful,  in  some  degree,  of  her  statement,  did,  with- 
out any  justification,  under  the  rules  of  giving  evidence, 
make  an  observation  to  him,  and  T  think  made  it 
very  good-naturedly,  as  far  as  I  recollect;  but  Mr. 
Fullerton  did  not  treat  it  in  that  sense  exactly,  but 
treated  it  as  an  impropriety,  and  spoke  as  he  is  reported 
to  have  spoken.  Then  Mrs.  Ovington  apologized;  Mr. 
Fullerton  then  accepted  her  apology ;  and  there  I  sup- 
pose the  thing  should  have  ended,  the  people  who  saw 
and  remember  the  whole,  including  the  jury,  and  your 
Honor,  and  the  rest  of  us,  understanding  the  matter 
much  more  distinctly  than  by  any  production  in  print  by 
mere  words  that  passed  either  one  way  or  the  other.  I 
am  sure  Mr.  Fullerton  cannot  think  that  Mrs.  Ovington 
intended  any  affront  to  him  in  what  she  said,  and  we 
must  admit  that  there  was  no  occasion  for  her  speaking 
again  in  repetition  of  her  answer  as  matter  of  evidence, 
but  she  was  drawn  into  it  by  Mr.  Fullerton's  position  and 
scrutiny  of  her  countenance,  and  the  expression  of  his, 
and  the  very  amicable  relations  that  hud  been  established 
between  Mrs.  Ovington  and  Mr.  Fullerton  on  the  previous 
examination  and  cross-examination. 

Judge  Neilson— That  act  on  Mrs.  Ovington's  part  was 
incidental,  and  perhaps  natural  to  a  person  not  much  ac- 
customed to  proceedings  in  court,  and  I  think  she  had 
been  treated  very  properly,  and  with  courtesy,  in  her 
previous  examination,  and  but  for  the  mention  of  the 
circumstance  in  the  press  I  think  it  would  have  passed 
off  satisfactorily  and  pleasantly.  I  do  not  think  even  at 
the  moment  that  Mr.  Fullerton  had  a  wish  to  censure 
Mrs.  OvingtoD. 


WOHER  TRIAL. 

A  CORRECTION  OF  THE  PRINTED  RECORD. 

Mr.  Evarts— K  your  Honor  please,  there  is  a 
matter  in  the  evidence  incidentally  brought  to  notice  by 
an  examination  of  Mr.  Moulton  as  to  a  particular  passage 
in  Mr.  Beecher's  testimony,  and  we  have  asked  the 
stenographer  to  make  the  proper  examination  to  see 
whether  the  clause  as  printed  was  correctly  printed  or 
not,  and  he  has  made  it. 
Judge  Neilson— As  to  the  word  "  reading  1" 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir,  as  to  the  word  "  reading."  It  is 
on  page  45  of  the  third  volume,  in  the  second  column, 
very  near  the  foot,  and  is  in  this  clause.  In  speaking  of 
Mr.  Moulton  he  says : 

He  would  say,  "  Did  you  say  "  so  and  so  ?  or  "  Do  you 
say  ? "  or  something  to  that  effect,  and  I  would  check  my- 
self for  a  moment  to  make  some  reply — "  Yes,"  or  "  Sub- 
stantially that,"  or  something  like  that,  and  then  would 
repeat— repeated  one  thought  and  another  thought,  at- 
tempting to  go  over  in  my  mind,  somewhat,  the  points  of 
the  conversation  that  had  immediately  preceded  this, 
and  which  concerned  my  feelings  toward  Mr.  Tilton  and 
his  family ;  that  was  the  last  part  of  the  interview  before 
the  making  [instead  of  reading]  of  the  memorandum. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Stenographer,  does  the  character 
used  for  the  word  "reading"  also  represent  the  word 
"  writing  ? " 

The  Stenographer— No,  Sir ;  it  does  not  look  a  bit  like  it. 

Judge  Neilson— What  % 

The  Stenographer— It  does  look  at  all  like  it. 

Judge  Neilson— They  are  totally  unlike  ? 

The  Stenographer— Yes,  Su\ 

Mr.  Morris— Then  it  turns  out  that  Mr.  Shearman's 
reasoning  was  not  correct. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  will  appeal  to  Mr.  Munson,  who  is 
quite  experienced,  as  to  whether  I  was  right,  if  you  insist 
upon  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Don't  be  all  talking  at  once. 
Mr.  Morris— Well,  I  have  a  right  to  talk,  because  I  had 
the  floor  first. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  was  trying  to  quiet  Mr.  Shearman. 
Mr.  Morris— You  have  got  a  hard  task. 
Mr.  Beach— No ;  not  very  hard. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well,  gentlemen;  I  am  satisfied. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  then,  your  Honor,  I  wish  to  make 
this  explanation.  Mr.  Munson  spoke  to  me  across  the 
table,  saying  that  since  the  time  when  I  practiced  pliono- 
graphy  (for  I  used  to  practice  it— when  Mr.  Tilton  did)  the 
system  had  changed— I  was  told  the  system  had  changed, 
that  (here  are  now  four  or  five  systems.  Mr.  Munson 
will  bear  me  out  that,  under  the  old  Pitman  system, 
"read"  and  "write"  were  written  very  much  alike- 
just  a  little  difference  in  the  turn  or  crook.  That  waa 
under  Pitman's  system. 

Mr.  Munson— That  was  very  early;  in  the  earlier  edi- 
tions it  was  so. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  outlawed. 

Mr.  Evarts— Wq  are  not  proceeding  under  that  now ; 


TESTIMONY  OF  OALVIN  J.  MILLS. 


535 


-we  have  asted  the  stenogTapher  to  get  his  own  notes  and 
give  us  tiie  correction. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes.   Have  we  any  more  witnesses  ? 

Horace  B.  Claflin  was  recalled  on  hehalf  of  the  defend- 
ant. 

Judge  Neiison— Good  Morning,  Mr.  Claflin. 
Mr.  Claflin— Good  morning,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  paper  is  not  in  court  upon  which 
we  proposed  to  examine  Mr.  Claflin;  Judge  Morris  has 
sent  for  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Can't  we  do  something  else  while  he  is 
gone? 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Claflin,  we  will  exchange  you  for 
another  witness. 

Judge  Neiison— Take  a  seat  below  for  a  moment,  Mr. 
Claflin. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN  J.  MILLS. 

Calvin  J.  Mills  was  called  and  swoin  on  be- 
half of  the  defendant. 

By  Mr.  Hill— Where  do  you  reside,  Mr.  Mills  1  A.  In 
Brooklyn. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  Brooklyn  ?  A.  I  have 
]'Ted  in  New- York  and  Brooklyn  about  17  years— occa- 
sionally I  lived  in  New- York,  and  sometimes  in  Brooklyn. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  both  of  the  parties  to  this 
action  ?  A.  I  am  not ;  I  am  acquainted  with  Mr.  Beecher, 
b Jt  not  with  Mr.  Tilton. 

Q.  What  is  your  present  Dusiness?  A.  An  editor,  Sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  the  business  of 
an  editor?  A.  I  commenced,  I  think,  the  year  after  the 
Mexican  war ;  which  I  think  was  1849,  Sir. 

Q.  And  have  been  engaged  in  the  business  ever  since? 
A.  Not  e\  er  since. 

Q.  Nearly  all  the  while  ?  A.  The  most  part  of  the  time. 
Sir. 

Q.  At  what  place?  A.  At  Buffalo  I  commenced;  I  have 
been  in  New-York  about  six  years  now- 

Q.  What  papers  have  you  been  engaged  upon  ?  A.  In 
Buffalo  010.  The  Buffalo  Cornier  Bind  TJic  Buffalo  Evening 
.'est. 

Q.  And  in  New-York?  A.  In  New-York  on  The  Siand- 
ird,  and  where  I  am  at  present— on  The  Herald. 

Q.  Were  you  so  engaged  in  New  York  in  1872,  any  part 
)f  the  year  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  all  the  year. 

Q.  On  what  papers  flrst?  A.  In  the  first  half  of  the 
year  on  The  Standard,  and  from  July  on  The  Bevald. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  at  any  time  during  the  year  1872— 
I  will  pass  that  question  at  present.   Did  j  ou,  duiing  the 
,  year  1872,  see  what  w  as  called  the  WoocUuiIl  scandal— 
;  the  publication  in  T/ie  Wood  hull  £  Claflin  Weekly  called 
i  the  Woodhull  scandal  ?  A.  I  did.  Sir. 
'     Q.  When  did  you  see  it,  Mr.  Mills?  I  saw  it  published 
to  the  Woodhull  paper  about  election  time,  1872 ;  I  think 
pv-rt  fh-.  1  st  of  November, 


Q.  Now,  Sir,  did  you  examine  the  article  at  that  time? 
A.  Yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Bead  it  through  ?  A.I  cannot  say  that  I  read  it 
through  certainly,  but  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Be  kind  enough  to  look  at  this  publication  and  see  if 
it  is  the  same  which  you  read— that  is,  the  subject  mat- 
ter? [Handing  witness  Woodhull  &  Claflin^ s  Weekly.'] 
A.  Yes,  Sir,  it  is. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Mills,  had  you  .at  any  time  prior  to  your 
reading  and  examination  of  this  publication  seen  the 
substance  of  it  in  type,  either  in  proof-slips  or  other  form, 
before  that  time? 

Mr.  Fnllerton— That  is  objected  to.   One  moment. 

Judge  Neiison— We  had  that  subject  up  a  month  ago, 
Mr.  Hjll. 

Mr.  Hill— I  know  it. 

]VIr.  Evarts— Biit  your  Honor  will  notice  that  other  evi- 
dence has  been  given  on  their  part. 

Judge  Neiison— Then  you  may  turn  to  the  specific 
statements  that  have  been  given  by  anybody,  which  you 
have  a  right  to  meet.  I  want  to  get  you  to  apply  the 
same  principle  that  you  insisted  upon  yesterday. 

Mr.  Evarts— Exactly ;  we  agree,  if  your  Honor  please, 
when  it  goes  to  the  contradiction  of  the  witness,  any 
statements,  but  this  is  our  point.  In  the  rebutting  evi- 
dence of  the  plaintiff  a  witness  was  produced  who  had 
the  conduct  of  the  press  or  publication  for  IVIrs.  Woodhull 
of  her  paper. 

Judge  Neiison— Mr.  Andrews  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Mitchell. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Andrews  was  introduced  and  spoke, 
but  Mr.  Mitchell,  if  that  was  his  name— the  prtuter. 
Mr.  Morris — Mr.  Wood. 

Mr.  Evarts — Mr.  Wood — and  showed  the  suspension  of 
that  paper  during  a  certain  period,  and  that  there  were 
no  proofs  of  the  actual  publication— that  is,  no  proofs  of 
this  in  print,  as  it  came  out  actually  in  that  paper— no 
preliminary  proofs  of  that  that  were  made  or  could  have 
been  made  at  that  press  or  in  that  publication  earlier 
than  a  ceT^ln  date. 

Ju<iSge  Neiison— Yes,  a  day  or  two  before  the  paper  was 
issued. 

:>Ir.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir ;  it  was  to  pieclude  the  idea  that 
our  witnesses  were  right  in  saying  that  they  had  seen 
slips.  Our  witnesses  had  said  that  they  had  seen  slips  in 
the  hands  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  in  the  presence  of  Mr. 
Tilton.  &c.  Now,  these  witnesses  were,  as  I  understand 
it,  before,  excluded  by  your  Honor — as  I  was  not  in  couix 
at  that  time— on  the  ground  of  its  being  a  collateral  in- 
quiry, and  that  we  wei  e  not  to  go  into  it.  My  own  view 
of  the  matter— to  present  upon  the  aspect  of  the  case  as 
it  then  stood — was  that  it  was  good  principal  evidence, 
and  it  was  so  presented  by  my  associates  to  your  Honor. 

Judge  Neiison— No.  It  was  excluded  becaose  the  at- 
tempt was  to  show  that  slips  had  passed  from  hand  to 


536 


THE   TILION'BEECBBE  TBIAL. 


3ian<3,  were  kno-wn,  were  the  same  seen  by  the  colored 
^witness. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Woodley. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Woodley,  at  the  office. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  JS  eilson— Whereas  it  did  not  appear  to  the  Court 
that  there  was  any  connection  hetween  any  slips  that  ex- 
isted and  the  papers  that  Woodley  had  ever  seen,  and 
that  Woodley  did  not  identify  the  slips  because  he  could 
not  read.  That  was  the  aspect  then. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  think,  if  your  Honor  please,  that 
^e  should  doubt  that  when  evidence  is  produced  here 
in  rebuttal  by  them  to  show  that  their  press  was  sus- 
pended, and  thus  furnislitng  evidence  that  there  were  no 
slips  flying  about  during  this  period,  but  that  it  would  be 
certainly  evidence  contravening  that  for  us  to  show  that 
this  gentleman  and  others  

Judge  Neilson— I  think  you  can  contradict  any  state- 
ment made  by  Mr.  Wood,  or  Mr.  Andrews,  if  you  will 
tm-n  to  the  precise  statement  and  call  the  witness's  atten- 
tion to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  our  proposition,  if  your  Honor 
please.  Our  proposition  is  this— that  they  have  proved 
not  statements  but  a  matter  of  fact,  that  there  was  no 
press  at  work  of  theirs  on  the  publication  or  any  issues, 
and  have  brought  that  evidence  as  V  Smg  material  or  im- 
portant only  in  the  aspect  of  discrediting  or  throwing 
doubt  or  contradiction  upon  the  statements  of  our  wit- 
nesses that  they  had  seen  in  the  form  of  printed  slips  the 
subject-matter  of  this  scandal.  Now,  they  having  intro- 
duced that  in  the  evidence,  we  propose  to  show  by  this 
gentleman,  connected  with  the  newspaper  press,  and  by 
several  other  witnesses  independent  of  him— independent 
of  the  circumstances  of  his  seeing  the  slips— that  slips  of 
this  Woodhull  scandal  were  in  circulation  during  the 
Summer  and  Fall  of  the  year  1872,  in  and 
through  the  newspaper  offices,  or  some  of  them,  which 
will  be  named,  of  the  City  of  New-York,  and  that  this 
gentleman  and  the  others  saw  them,  and  know  them, 
from  their  own  perusal,  to  have  been  of  that  character. 
Then,  of  com-se,  if  that  was  so  we  have  displaced  all  ar- 
gument that  Mr.  Woodley  or  others  that  saw  slips  were 
mistaken  in  their  statement  or  false  in  their  statement, 
because  of  the  evidence  that  the  specific  press  of  the 
Woodhull  publisher  was  still  during  that  period.  That  is 
the  object  of  our  present  evidence,  and  that  it  would  have 
that  effect  if  it  is  admitted,  and  that  it  would  have  that  ef- 
fect, as  counterpoising  and  countervailing  the  rebutting 
evidence  of  this  plaintiff,  cannot  be  doubted.  And  we 
are  not  within  the  rule  that  you  must  meet  rebutting  evi- 
dence by  the  contradiction  of  the  particular  witness  in 
the  fact  that  he  states.  If  you  inti'oduce  in  answer  to 
that  fact,  newly  introduced  in  that  rebuttal,  an  opposite 
fact  that  countervails  it,  not  in  the  truth  of  the  fact  intro 
ducod  into  the  rebuttal,  but  in  its  import  or  value,  as 
l>eariDg  upon  the  evidence  in  the  case,  it  is  strictly  vvithin 


the  line  as  it  seems  to  us,  of  sur-rebuttal.  That  is  our 
proposition. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  will  take  the  answer,  Bir ;  it 
is  a  very  remote  matter. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  your  Honor  will  please  consider  this 
question  before  youx^ule  in  favor  of  this  proposition. 
This  is  strictly.  Sir,  cumulative  evidence  to  that  which 
was  given  upon  the  defense.  They  presented  the  issue  in 
regard  to  the  circulation  of  these  slips  anterior  to  the 
publication  in  The  Woodhull  &  Olaflin  Weekly  of  Novem- 
ber, 1872.  They  gave  evidence  of  this  precise  character 
—identically  the  same.  Sir— that  slips  of  that  article  were 
circulated  and  were  seen  by  others  during  the  preceding 
months  to  its  publication.  We  then  content  ourselves 
with  the  production  of  evidence  upon  that  affirmative 
issue  presented  by  the  defense,  and  we  prove  by  Mr.  An- 
drews that  he  was  the  author  of  this  article,  and  did 
not  commence  its  preparation  until  a  few  days  before  its 
publication.  And  we  show,  in  addition,  that  betweea 
Spring  and  Fall  of  1872,  not  that  the  press  of  Woodhull 
&  Claflin  was  suspended,  but  that  the  publication  of  the 
paper  was  suspended.  And  now  they  propose,  Sir,  in 
sui'-rebuttal,  to  come  in  with  this  cumulative  evidence 
thus  opening  the  issue  to  which  we  gave  nothing  but 
answering  proof  upon  oui-  rebuttal.  Now,  if  your  Honor 
is  disposed  to  open  the  issues  m  this  case,  and  permit 
additional  evidence  to  be  given,  because  if  this  evidence 
is  received  we  must  have  an  opportunity  to  meet  it ;  it  is 
a  departvu-e  from  the  ordinary  rules  of  evidence.  It  is 
clearly  cumulative  evidence  upon  an  issue  which  they  jj 
presented,  upon  which  they  have  the  affirmative, 
and  worse  than  that,  it  is  of  the  same 
identical  character  which  they  gave  upon  the  opemng 
of  their  defense,  and  which  we  answered  in  our  reply. 
Now,  Sir,  there  is  no  dispute  of  this  proposition.  A  refer- 
ence to  the  minutes— the  record— will  show  that  this 
statement  is  strictly  accurate,  and  your  Honor  has,  here- 
tofore, with  a  good  deal  of  strictness,  in  our  replies  to  the 
evidence  upon  the  defense,  confined  us  to  the  rules  of  ex- 
amination, not  having  permitted  us  in  a  single  instance 
to  wander  beyond  the  strictness  of  those  rules  ;  and  I 
submit  to  your  Honor,  with  great  earnestness,  that  this 
will  be  the  first  departure  from  the  application  of  those 
rviles  which  your  Honor  has  made  since  the  affirmative 
cases  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  and  the  defendant  )ia  re 
been  produced.  Now,  your  Honor  has  made  the  remark  jjlj 
that  this  is  extremely  remote. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  what 
earthly  bearing  it  has  upon  this  case  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  submitted  to  your  Honor  heretofore, 
Sir,  that  it  has  no  bearing  upou  the  issue;  that  it  i^  e:^- 
tirely  collateral.  They  presented  that  issue  and  upon 
our  objection  yoiu-  Honor  received  that  evidence,  and 
after  we  have,  upon  each  side,  exhausted  our  evidenoej 


upon  that  issue  and  rested,  you  now  permit  thorn  to  come 
in,  if  you  admit  this  evidence,  with  additional  proof  in' 


TIJSllMONT   OF  HEN  BY  0,  BOWUK 


537 


support  of  their  opening  upon  the  defense,  and  upon  a 
question  that  has  but  tliis  very  distant  and  collateral  bear- 
ing upon  the  merits  of  the  issue.  I  submit  to  your  Honor 
that  it  would  be  an  irregularity  in  the  course  of  this 
trial  which  I  should  very  much  regret  to  have  estab- 
lished as  a  precedent  in  this  case,  because,  I  assure  your 
Honor,  that  it  is  opening  an  issue  which  will  necessarily 
lead  to  a  further  protracted  investigation,  and  we  must 
ask  your  Honor,  if  you  permit  this  departure  from  the 
rules  of  evidence,  to  give  us  an  opportunity  to  prepare 
to  meet  it.   It  tates  us  entirely  by  surprise,  Sir, 

Judge  Neilson — I  think  I  will  take  the  general  answer. 
Eepeat  this  question,  Mr.  Stenographer.  Can  you  find  it  ? 

The  Tribune  stenographer  [reading] :  "  Now,  Mr.  Mills, 
ihad  you  at  any  time  prior  to  your  reading  and  examina- 
tion of  this  pubUcation,  seen  the  substance  of  it  in  type, 
either  in  proof-slips  or  other  form,  before  that  time  ?" 

The  Witness— I  had. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  one  moment — the  substance  of  it, 
Sir? 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  let  him  say  yes  or  no. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  Sir,  that  is  not  in  contradiction  of 
anything  we  have  proven. 
Judge  Neilson— Well,  leave  out  the  word  "  substance." 
Mr.  Hill— Well,  leave  out  the  word  "  substance." 

LIMITATION  OF  THE  TESTIMONY. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  yes- 
terday when  I  was  examining  Mr.  Moulton,  and  when  I 
undertook  to  ask  questions  calling  for  a  contradiction  of 
facts,  general  facts,  they  objected,  and  your  Honor  com- 
pelled me,  in  every  instance,  to  read  the  precise  language 
and  confine  the  evidence  to  a  strict  denial  of  that.  Now, 
we  say  to  your  Honor  if  this  general  question  is  asked, 
it  opens  the  whole  door ;  we  have  witnesses,  and  we 
must  be  permitted  to  bring  lie  witnesses  here  and  tiy 
that  issue ;  and  your  Honor  cannot  tell,  nor  any  one  else, 
if  this  course  is  to  be  pursued  in  this  examination,  when 
the  examination  of  the  witness  will  end.  In  no 
single  instance  in  our  rebuttal  were  we  permitted  to 
ask  a  question  to  disprove  a  general  fact  in  the  case,  but 
In  every  instance  we  were  met  by  an  objection,  and  in 
every  instance  your  Honor  compelled  us  to  turn  to  the 
evidence  and  read  the  language  and  put  the  precise  ques- 
tion to  them.  Now,  we  submit  that  the  same  rule  should 
be  applied  to  them  that  was  applied  to  us.  If  not,  then 
^e  want  to  put  our  witnesses  upon  the  stand  again  and 
pursue  the  examination.  We  have  a  number  of  witnesses 
that  we  desire  to  call  If  this  is  done,  and  we  shall  ask  the 
court  to  give  us  the  opportunity.  We  can  exhaust  days 
upon  that  subject  if  there  is  

[Mr.  Evarts  here  rose  to  speak.] 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  have  enough  upon  this  sub- 
ject, and  I  wiU  let  the  witness  answer  this.  I  do  not  want 
any  more  argument  upon  the  subject ;  I  am  sorry  you  put 
the  qiieetion. 


Mr.  Evarts— I  do  not  propose  to  argue. 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  said  he  can  answer  yes  or  no, 
unless  you  withdraw  the  question. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  am  going  to  state  what  will  be  very 
agreeable  to  yom- Honor  if  I  have  an  opportunity ;  and 
that  is,  that  under  this  distinct  threat  of  prolonged  ex- 
amination that  will  be  given  to  the  subject,  I  withdraw 
the  question. 

Judge  Neilson— I  recognize  that  as  a  very  judicious  and 
fair  performance  of  professional  duty  on  the  part  of 
counsel. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  agree  to  that;  all  these  things  are  rela- 
tive, and  the  magnitude  of  a  question  is,  of  course,  some- 
times such  as  compels  counsel  to  insist  upon  it;  at  other 
times  it  does  not,  and  I  agree  they  would  have  a  right  to 
call  witnesses  on  tbe  other  side  of  this  question,  of  this 
distinct  question,  whether  there  were  slips  ;  and  I  con- 
cede that  the  interest  of  the  Republic  is  that  we  should 
come  to  an  end  of  this  case.  [Laughter.] 

Judge  Neilson— Yes  ;  that  is  all,  Mr.  Witness. 

ME.  BOWEN  RECALLED  FOR  CROSS-EXAMI- 
NATION. 

Mr.  Shearman — If  your  Honor  please,  we  de- 
sire to  recall  Mr.  Bowen  for  a  few  moments  for  further 
cross-examination.   [Mr.  Bowen  took  the  stand.] 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Bowen,  you  were  asked  on  your 
previous  cross-examination  whether  you  recollected  an 
interview  with  Dr.  Edward  Eggleston,  at  your  house  on 
the  afternoon  of  the  26th  of  Dec,  1870,  after  your  return, 
fi-om  Mr.  Beecher's ;  I  ask  you  now,  whether  you  still 
have  no  recollection  of  that  interview]  A.  I  have  no 
recollection ;  it  is  possible,  but  I  have  no  recollection 
of  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  in  such  an  interview,  on  that  occar 
sion,  saying  to  Dr.  Eggleston  that  Mr.  Beecber  had  told 
you  that  an  adopted  daughter  of  Mrs.  Tilton  had  told  Mr. 
Beecber  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  taken  her  out  of  her  bed  at 
night,  or  anything  to  that  effect  1  A.  I  have  no  recollec- 
tion of  it,  Sir  ;  none  whatever. 

Q.  Nor  anything  in  substance  like  it  1  A.  Nothing 
whatever, 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all, 

Mr,  Fullerton- Mr.  Bowen,  what  time  did  you  leave  the 

house  of  Mr,  

Mr,  Shearman— Oh,  Mr,  Fullerton  ;  one  other  matter. 
Mr,  Fullerton— Certainly, 

By  Mr,  Shearman — Do  you  recollect,  Mr.  Bowen,  after 
leaving  the  scene  of  the  arbitration  between  j'-ourself  and 
Mr.  Tilton,  on  April  3,  1872,  going  away  with  Mr.  Claflin 
and  Mr.  Storrs  ?  A.  I  recollect  going  with  Mr.  Storrs,  but 
not  with  Mr.  Claflin  ;  it  is  possible,  however,  he  might 
have  been  there,  or  near  there ;  we  all  went,  as  I  recol- 
lect, "about  the  same  time. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  saying  to  either  or  both  of  those 
gentlemen,  or  in  their  presence,  that  you  desired  to  have 


538 


THE   TILTON-BEEOEEB  IIUAL. 


the  Woodstock  letter  lelurned  to  you,  and  lioped  one  of 
tliem  would  attend  to  it  ?  A.  I  said  notliing  whatever  on 
the  subject,  according  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  Mr.  Claflin  replied  to  you 
that  that  was  "  a  matter  that  Mr.  Storrs  had  better  attend 
to?"  A.  I  recollect  nothing  on  the  subject;  I  am  posi- 
tive, if  you  wish  my  statement,  that  nothing  of  the  kind 
was  said. 

Judge  Neilson— I  so  understood  you  before,  Mr.  Bo  wen. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir ;  I  so  stated  before.  I  desire  to 
state  further,  if  I  did  not  at  that  time,  that  nothing  was 
said  for  two  days  (according  to  my  recollection)  after  the 
arbitration. 

Judge  Neilson— On  that  subject  f 

The  Witness— On  that  subject  of  the  Woodstock  letter, 
and  when  it  was  spoken  of  it  was  a  surprise  to  me. 

Mr.  Shearman— Wait  a  moment.  I  move  to  strike  that 
out,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  a  proper  explanation. 

Mr.  Beach— Let  them  strike  it  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  I  think  it  is  an  explanation.  Let 
It  stand. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  except ;  please  note  our  exception. 
[To  the  Witness.]  I  believe  you  have  said  that  Mr. 
Storrs  brought  you  the  letter— the  Woodstock  letter  ?  A. 
He  did. 

Q.  Did  he  say  to  you  at  that  time,  when  you  proposed 
to  keep  the  letter,  that  he  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  give  it 
to  you  to  keep  until  you  had  published  a  certain  article 
in  The  Independent  f 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  objected  to,  Sir,  as  being  totally  im- 
material and  incompetent  as  to  what  passed. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— And  that  he  had  made  that  promise 
to  Mr.  Tilton  1  A.  Nothing  whatever  of  the  kind. 

Mr,  Beach— Wait  one  moment;  I  object  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  am  not  going  to  fight  about  it ;  I  will 
withdraw  the  question  rather  than  take  any  time. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  strike  it  out ;  strike  it  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Do  you  wish  to  ask  Mr.  Bo  wen  anything  ? 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes,  Sir. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  BOWEN. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Mr.  Bowen,  what  time  did  you 
leave  Mr.  Freeland's  house  on  the  27th,  or  26th  of  Jan., 
1870,  after  this  interview  with.  Mr.  Beecher— 26th  of  De- 
cember ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  how  is  this  ir  aterial  to  our  present 
inquiry  ?  This  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  questions  that 
we  have  asked. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  yes ;  it  has  a  good  deal  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  have  recalled  Mr.  Bowen  in  cross-ex- 
amination before  we  put  Mr.  Eggleston  on  the  stand  to 
ask  him  certain  questions. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  Mr.  Fullerton  is  now  contiued  to 
the  subjects  indicated  by  you,  I  think. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  is  now  going  back  to  the  general  frame 


and  progress  of  the  interview  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mr.  Bowen. 

Mr.  Beach— Can  we  not  contradict  the  last  evidence  of 
Mr.  Freeland  ? 

Judge  NeUson— Any  witness  of  theirs  examined  since 
may  be  contradicted. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor  will  perceive  that  they 
asked  Mr.  Bowen  with  reference  to  an  interview  with  Dr. 
Eggleston  after  he  left  Mr.  Freeland's.   I  thiuk  it  is  com- 
petent for  us  to  know  what  time  of  night  he  left  there, 
bearing  upon  that  matter. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  if  it  was  12  o'clock  it  would  be  a 
circumstance,  unless  Mr.  Eggleston  keeps  good  hours. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  what  I  want  to  find  out.  Sir; 
what  hours  he  did  keep.  [To  the  witness.]  What  time 
did  you  leave  Mr.  Freeland's  that  night?  A.  What  night 
do  you  refer  to? 

Q.  On  the  26th  of  December,  1870,  after  your  interview 
with  Mr.  Beecher.  A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  precise  hour; 
but  it  was  before  evening. 

Q.  It  was  before  evening  1  A.  It  was  betore  6  o'clock. 

Q.  That  you  left  ?  A.  That  I  left  Mr.  Freeland's  house. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  arrive  at  the  house  ?  A.  I  should 
say,  perhaps  before  half-past  6  at  the  latest,  not  later 
than  half-past  6 . 

Q.  What  time  did  you  arrive  at  Mr.  Freeland's  house  ? 
A.  According  to  my  recollection  it  was  4  or  5  o'clock,  I 
am  not  certain  which,  and  the  interview  was  prolonged 
some  time,  perhaps  an  horn*,  perhaps  more,  possi'oly  a 
little  less. 

Q.  Now,  how  soon  after  the  signing  of  the  "  Tripartite 
Agreement  "  did  you  hear  of  the  Woodstock  letter  1  A. 
NotuntUtwo  days  after;  lean  give  the  particulars  If  I 
am  permitted  to  by  your  Honor. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  wish  you  would  give  the  particulars. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  object  to  that— what  were  the  particu 
lars.   The  inquiry  is  as  to  the  date. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes  ;  I  want  to  know  how  Mr.  Bowen 
recollects  that  it  was  two  days  after. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  necessary. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Oh,  yes  ;  it  is 

The  Witness— I  recollect  very  distinctly. 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  witness  has  a  right  to  fortify  him- 
self when  he  gives  a  date,  by  showing  some  competent 
circumstance  which  enables  him  to  give  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  is  just  what  we  have  discussed 
over  and  over  again,  that  a  witness  cannot  be  corrobo- 
rated except  when  their  testimony  is  reduced  through 
some  form  of  contradiction.  He  says  he  recollects  dis- 
tinctly that  it  was  two  days  afterwards.  We  have  not 
made  any  controversy  as  to  the  date  that  it  was  delivered 
to  him. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  am  asking  when  he  first  heard  of  the 
"Woodstock  letter. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  said  it  was  when  it  was  delivered  to 
him. 


TE81IM0N7   OF  EDWABD  EGGLESTim. 


539 


Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  I  ask  him  liow  lie  is  enabled  to  fix 
the  time  when  he  first  heard  of  the  Woodstock  letter. 

Mr.  Beach— Why,  Sir,  the  rule  of  rebuttal  evidence  does 
not  apply  to  this;  they  call  this  witness  for  additional  ex- 
amination, and  they  ask  him  in  regard  to  the  Woodstock 
letter  and  the  transaction  concerning  it,  and  we  cer- 
tainly have  a  right  to  di-aw  out  all  his  knowledge  on  that 
subject,  if  necessary,  in  answer  to  their  cross-examination ; 
I  repeat,  Sir,  that  the  rule  in  regard  to  rebuttins'  evidence 
does  not  apply. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  not  said  anything  about  that  rule, 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  have. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  said  

Mr.  Fullerton— The  gentleman  tries  to  get  the  advan- 
tage of  it  without  scying  anything  about  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  this  is  not  in  answer  to  anything  that 
we  show. 

Mr.  Beach — I  say  it  is  a  proposition  in  answer  to  what 
you  established ;  that  his  Honor  has  repeatedly  ruled  on 
this  question,  whereas  that  question  has  not  been  before 
him. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  was  not  that  question  of  rebuttal  I  was 
talking  of;  it  was  the  corroborating  of  witnesses.  We 
were  not  permitted  to  do  it  by  Mrs.  Ovington  yesterday, 
the  very  point  that  we  tried  to  get  in— why  she  knew 
this,  that,  and  the  other ;  it  was  not  allowed ;  It  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  matter  that  is  now  proposed  by  this  gen- 
tleman. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  have  the  answer  sufficiently 
from  this  witness. 
Mr.  Fullerton— How,  Sir  ? 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  have  the  answer  sufficiently 
from  this  witness. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  your  Honor  will  recollect  that  yes- 
terday, when  Deacon  Freeland  said  that  he  knew  a  cer- 
tain meeting  took  place  the  last  week  in  January  of  a 
certain  year,  that  he  was  permitted  to  say  why,  and  did 
so;  it  was  because  they  had  prayer-meeting  that  week; 
and  when  it  turned  out  that  they  prayed  four  times  in 
a  month  in  Plymouth  Church,  then  he  was  enabled  to 
go  further  and  state  why  he  knew  it  was  in  the  last  week 
of  January,  1869. 

Judge  Neilson— To  wit,  the  shaking  of  hands. 

Mr.  Fullerton— The  shaking  of  hands,  yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— WeU,  I  remember  that  now,  Sir;  take 
this  answer. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  was  on  their  cross-examination,  and 
then  on  the  re-direct. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir,  it  was  in  answer  to  Mr.  Shearman 
that  it  was  given. 

Mr.  Evarts— Tliat  is  what  I  say ;  on  the  re-direct. 

Mr.  Shearman— T  asked  the  same  question  on  the  re- 
direct which  they  had  asked  on  the  cross ;  that  is  why  I 
was  allowed  to  nsk  that.  Now,  if  we  had  asked  Mr. 
Bowen.  why  he  ipsmembered,  and  he  had  given  an  imper- 
fect answer,  they  would  have  the  right  to  ask  tbe  same  i 


question  again.  But  now  Mr.  Bowen  is  in  the  position 
with  them  which  Mrs.  Ovington  was  with  us,  and  w© 
were  not  allowed  to  ask  just  that  question. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  Mrs.  Ovington  was  allowed  to 
state,  the  witness  having  been  so  long  on  the  piazza  to 
get  out  of  the  heat,  that  it  was  a  hot  place,  and  the  hot- 
test place  in  the  house ;  I  think  we  wiU  take  this  answer. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  Mr.  Bowen,  how  are  you 
enabled  to  state  that  it  was  two  days  after  the  signing  of 
the  "  Tripartite  Agreement."  [To  Mr.  Shearman,  who 
was  beginning  to  speak.]  One  moment,  if  you  please, 
Mr.  Shearman  ;  I  wish  you  would  only  speak  when  we 
get  through,  or  when  I  get  through.  [To  the  witness.] 
How  are  you  enabled  to  state  that  it  was  two  days  after 
the  signing  of  the  "  Tripartite  Agreement "  when  you 
first  heard  of  the  Woodstock  letter?  A.  One  of  the 
arbitrators,  Mr.  Charles  Storrs,  came  into  my  office  and 
said,  "  I  have  some  news  for  you,  Mr.  Bowen,"  using  that 
expression.  I  said,  "  What  is  it?"  Paid  he,  "  It  is  in  re- 
gard to  the  Woodstock  letter."  "Well,"  said  I, 
"  what  have  you  to  say  about  the  Woodstock 
letter?"  "  I  am  going  to  get  it  and  return 
it  to  you."  "  Well,"  said  I,  "  I  should  Uke  to  have  it."  I 
am  not  positive,  on  a  moment's  reflection,  whether  he 
said  "  I  am  going  to  get  it"  or  "  I  have  got  it."  Wiieu  lie 
told  me  that,  he  did  not  hand  me  the  letter,  but,  after 
stating  that  fact,  he  either  produced  the  letter  at  that 
time— but  I  fail  to  recollect  that  point— or  he  went  out 
and  got  it ;  it  was  brought  to  me  or  delivered  to  me  at 
that  time,  or  very  near  that  time ;  when  he  brought  the 
letter  to  me  I  took  it  and  read  it  and  put  it  in  my  safe. 
The  next  day  or  day  following  Mr.  Storrs  came  to  me 
and  asked  me  for  that  letter. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  object  to  this. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Was  it  an  unconditional  delivery  of 
the  Woodstock  letter  to  you  ?  A.  An  unconditional  de- 
livery. 

Q.  And  you  took  possession  of  it  ?  A.  I  took  possession 
of  it  and  put  it  in  my  safe  and  locked  it  in  the  safe  ;  that 
was  the  first  I  heard  of  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Now,  I  shall  have  to  recall  you,  Mr. 
Bowen,  after  the  examination  of  Mr.  Eggleston,  and  if 
you  will  be  kind  enough  to  l  ematn  you  will  oblige  me. 

EDWARD  EGGLESTON  EECALLED. 

By  Mr.  Shearman — Dr.  Eggleston,  I  have  an 
impression  that  your  occupation  has  changed  since  you 
were  on  the  stand  before.  Will  you  state  how  you  are  now 
at  present  engaged  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  when  I  was  here  before 
I  said  I  was  lecturer,  author,  and  clergyman ;  now,  I  am 
principally  olergjrman.  Sir ;  the  lecturer  and  author  have 
rather  been  sunk  out  of  sight,  I  believe. 

Q.  Are  jow  pastor  of  any  church!  A.  I  am  pastor, 
Sir. 

Q.  Of  what  church  1 


540 


THE   TILTON-BFjECHEB  IBIAL. 


Mr.  Beacli— Well,  we  object  to  going  into  the  liistory  of 
this  gentleman ;  I  do  n't  know  what  it  is  in  reply  to. 

Judge  Neilson— Tlie  witness  has  not  had  time  to  write  a 
book  since  he  was  here.  [Laughter.] 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Of  what  church  are  you  pastor  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts- Then,  we  will  have  to  argue  it. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  I  rule  it  out  without  argument. 
He  is  pastor  of  some  church,  and  we  have  no  cvu*iosity 
what  it  is. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  have  a  right  to  show  what  the  witness's 
position  and  employment  Is. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  was  asked  when  he  was  here 
before. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  has  changed. 

Judge  Neilson — That  is  not  the  subject  of  criticism. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  agree  ;  but  it  would  not  take  three  min- 
utes to  find  out  what  church. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  no  argument  in  favor  of  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— \  our  Honor  rules  it  out,  and  we  except. 

Judge  Neilson — I  can't  see  that  it  is  material  now. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— In  December,  1870,  did  you  have 
any  business  relations  with  Mr.  Henry  C.  Bowen  ?  A,  I 
did,  Sir. 

Q.  What  were  they  % 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson— Oh !  we  will  take  that.  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— The  business  relations  of  this  gentleman 
with  Mr.  Bowen  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  by  way  of  bringing  him  in  con- 
tact with  him,  I  suppose. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— What  were  these  relations?  A.  I 
was  his  employ^ ;  I  was  employed  by  Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  %  A.  In  the  early  part  of  Decem- 
ber, Sir,  as  literary  editor  of  The  Independent,  and  the 
latter  part  of  December  I  was  superintending  editor. 

Q,  Did  Mr.  Bowen  make  an  appointment  with  you  for 
Monday,  December  26,  at  his  house  ? 

Mr.  FuUerton— Now,  that  is  a  leading  question. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  understand  I  am  obliged  to  ask  in 
this  form.  I  refer  to  a  question  and  answer  of  Mr. 
Bowen. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  answer  that. 

The  Witness— It  is  my  recollection  that  he  did,  Sir,  but 
I  am  not  positive  that  my  meeting  on  Monday  was  by 
appointment. 

MR.  BOWEN  CONTEADICTED. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  were  at 
Mr.  Bo  wen's  house  on  the  26th  of  December?  A.  I  was, 
Sir. 

Q.  How  often  were  you  there  I  A.  My  recollection  is 
that  I  was  there  twice. 
q.  On  that  day  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Vtwhat  time  first  did  you  see  Mr.  Bowen?  A.  I 
tiiiiie— I  irisl       correct  my  previous  answer,  Mr. 


Shearman— I  ought  to  say  I  was  there  three  times,  in- 
cluding once  that  I  found  Mr.  Bowen  engaged. 

Q.  Three  times,  including  once  that  you  found  Mr. 
Bowen  engaged  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  that  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  And  one  of  the  times  you  did  not  see  him  ;  what 
hour  did  you  first  see  Mr.  Bowen  on  the  26th  of  Decem- 
ber ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  I  could  not  fix  the  precise  hour ;  it 
was  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Bowen  then  putting  on  his  boots  to  go  out! 
A.  Yes,  Sir,  he  was  putting  on  his  boots  ;  my  recollec- 
tion is  that  it  was  to  go  out ;  I  remember  the  act ;  the 
picture  is  upon  my  mind. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Bowen  then  say  to  you,  "  If  Mr.  Tilton  is  ae 
bad  as  we  think  he  is,  he  talks  exceedingly  well  ?" 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  objected  to.  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— On  what  ground  ? 

Judge  Neilson— That  inquiry  was  put  to  Mr.  Bowen. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  it  is  entirely  collateral.  Suppose 
it  was ;  what  has  the  declaration  of  Mr.  Bowen  in  regard 
to  Mr.  Tilton  to  do  here  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Nothing,  except  as  connected  with  the 
proposed  visit,  if  it  was  so. 

Mr.  Beach — Well,  Sir,  there  is  no  connection  at  all  be- 
tween the  two.  Mr.  Bowen  may  have  expressed  favor- 
able or  unfavorable  opinions  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  are  they 
to  be  gotten  in  upon  this  idea  of  contradicting  htm. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— After  they  ask  him  whether  he  made  those 
declarations  and  he  says  he  did  not,  can  they  get  then)  in 
upon  the  idea  of  contradicting  him  upon  that  immaterial 
and  irrelevant  matter  1 

Judge  Neilson— The  only  materiality  in  connection  with 
this  question  is  the  time  when  Mr,  Bowen  went  to  Mr 
Freeland's  and  when  he  returned. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  this  declaration  has  nothing  to  do 
with  that. 

Judge  Neilson— I  cannot  take  the  declaration. 

Mr.  Shearman— Your  Honor  will  allow  me  a  moment; 
I  was  simply  reading  in  sentences  part  of  a  conversation; 
it  is  clearly  material. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  any  opinion  expressed  then  by 
Mr.  Bowen  cannot  be  received  even  if  this  witness  re- 
members it,  and  although  Mr.  Bowen  did  not  remember  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  it  is  a  part  of  a  conversation  tDat 
is  clearly  material.  The  whole  conversation  is  this :  Mr. 
Bowen  is  asked  whether  Mr.  Eggleston  found  him  putting 
on  his  boots  ;  whether  Mr.  Bowen  said,  "  If  Tilton  is  as 
bad  as  we  think  he  is,  he  talks  exceedingly  well ;"  whether 
he  then  asked  Mr.  Eggleston  to  go  down  and  see  a  certain 
lady,  whom  he  named,  and  whether  he  then  said  to  Mr. 
Eggleston,  tapping  his  pocket,  that  he  had  a  letter  from 
Tilton  to  Beecher. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  is  the  point  where  you  can 
take  up  the  examination. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Well,  Mr.  Eggleston,  did  Mr.  Bovren 
say  to  you  in  substance  that  he  had  a  letter  from  Tlltoii 


TIJSTIJTOJSY  OF  ED 

to  Beeelier,  tapping  his  pocket  at  tlie  time?  A.  To  the 
be/'t  of  my  recollection  he  did,  Sir ;  I  don't  recollect  that 
part  of  the  conversation  so  Tiyidly  as  the  other,  hut  I 
rememher— a  r;mark  something  liie  that  is  in  my 
memory. 

Q.  Well,  Sii-,  did  you  return  agatn  that  evening  to  jMr. 
Bowen's  house  1   A.  I  did,  Sir ;  that  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  About  what  time  was  that  ?  A.  I  don't  rememher. 
Sir,  at  what  time  I  came.  I  waited  for  Mr.  Bowen— I 
don't  know  whether  I  am  allowed  to  go  on — I  waited  for 
Mr.  Bowen  until,  I  think,  past  his  dinner  horn-,  6  o'clock, 
when  he  came  in — about  the  time  that  he  said. 

Q.  Was  it  after  dark  when  he  came  in?  A.  It  was  after 
dark.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Bowen  then  say  to  you,  "  I  have  just  been  to 
Beecher's ;  he  is  a  good  friend  of  mine  and  of  yours ;  he  is 
delighted  that  Tilton  is  removed ;  he  says  that  he  is  the 
worst  man  in  the  world,  and  that  Mrs.  Tilton  is  a  saint, 
going  to  heaven  before  her  time." 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  that  question. 

Judge  Neilson— We  wUl  take  that. 

A.  The  latter  part  of  that  I  remember  very  distinctly, 
that  he  said  precisely  those  words  ;  the  former  part  In 
substance;  whether  he  said  he  had  "been  to  Beecher's" 
or  "  to  see  Beecher,"  I  would  not  like  to  swear  positively. 
My  impression  is  that  it  is  as  you  have  stated,  but  I  would 
not  say  with  positiveness  that  he  said  he  had  been  "  to 
Beecher's." 

Q.  Which  is  the  latter  part,  that  you  say  is  accurate  ? 
A.  That  he  said  that  Mr.  Beecher  said  that  Mr.  TUton 
■was  the  "  worst  man  in  the  world ;"  that  is  my  recollec- 
tion ;  then,  I  remember  this  phrase :  **  And  that  Mrs.  Til- 
ton is  a  saint,  going  to  heaven  before  her  time;"  that  I 
remember  to  be  precisely  the  words ;  I  think  I  cannot  be 
mistaken  about  that. 

Q.  WTiat  is  your  recollection  as  to  the  phrase,  "  Mr. 
Beecher  is  a  good  friend  of  mine  and  of  yours  ?"  A.  I  am 
very  positive  in  reference  to  that. 

Q.  What  is  your  recollection  about  these  words :  "  He 
is  delighted  that  Tilton  is  removed  ?"  A.  He  said  that  in 
substance,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  Mr.  Bowen  at  the  same  time  say  to  you 
that  Mi.  Beecher  had  told  him  horrible  things  about  Til- 
ton? A.  Yes,  Sir ;  in  substance  that.  He  said— "things 
that  were  horrible  "  was  the  phrase,  or  something  lilce 
that. 

Q.  Did  he  at  the  same  interview  say  to  you  that  3rr. 
Beecher  had  told  him  that  an  adopted  daughter  of  Mrs. 
Tilton  had  told  Mrs.  Beecher  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  taken 
her  out  of  her  bed  at  night,  or  anything  to  that  effect? 
A.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  was  at  that  interview, 
standing  in  the  door,  and  in  that  connection,  that  he  said 
to  me  lust  about  what  you  have  read,  that  an  adopted 
daughter  of  Mrs.  Tilton  had  told  Mrs.  Beecher  (this  was 
given  to  me  as  something  tliat  Mr.  Beecher  had  just  told 


WARD   EGGLESTOy.  541 

him;  that  is  my  recollection)  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  takeik 
her  out  of  bed  at  night  and  carried  her  to  his  room. 
Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

CEOSS-EXAMINATION  OF  EDWAED  EGGLE- 
STON. 

By  ;Mr.  Fullei-ton— You  don't  recollect,  I  un- 
derstand you,  whether  Mr.  Bowen  said  he  had  been  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  or  that  he  had  been  to  see  IVIr.  Beecher  ?  A. 
My  inclination  is  to  

Q.  I  don't  ask  for  your  inclinations  ;  I  am  aware  of 

them.  A.  I  don't  want         By  inclination  I  mean  that 

my  impression  is  

Q.  I  want  your  memory.  We  don't  ^s  ant  your  impres- 
sions at  all. 

Judge  NeilsoD— He  asks  you  if  you  recollect  ?  A.  T 
don't  certainly  recollect  which  of  those  expressions  he 
used. 

Q.  Yery  well ;  that  is  an  answer  ;  when  did  you  cease 
to  be  employed  by  Mr.  Bowen  ?  A.  In  July,  1871,. 
about  the  middle  of  the  mouth. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  date  ?  A.  Not  the  precise  date; 
it  was  about  the  middle  of  July,  I  think  about  tlie  12th — 
no.  Sir,  a  little  later  than  the  12th  ;  I  cannot  say  just  the 
date,  but  I  remember  by  the  Orange  riot  that  it  was  later 
than  the  12th. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  first  communicate  that  you  heard 
or  had  such  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Bowen  ?  A.  I  am 
not  sure  ;  I  have  conversed  with  several  friends  about  it.- 

Q.  When  ?  A.  If  you  want  to  know  to  whom  connected 
with  this  trial,  I  can  tell  you. 

Q.  Yes— when  first  did  you  speak  of  it?  A.  I  spoke  of 
it  first,  as  I  remember,  to  any  one  at  all,  directly  or 
Indirectly,  connected  with  the  trial,  iucidente.lly  to  Mr.. 
Koss.  Raymond,  in  Tlie  Christian  TJnioa  office,  one  day. 

Q.  When?   A.  I  cannot  i,ave  the  date. 

Q.  About  what  time  ?  A.  I  should  say.  Sir,  before  the 
beginning  of  the  trial ;  I  cannot  speak  about  it  with  posi- 
tiveness, however ;  I  have  not  a  distiuct  memory  of  the 
date. 

Q.  It  was  after  it  was  supposed  that  Mr.  Bowen  would 
be  a  witness  in  this  case,  was  it  not  ?  A.  Not  after ;  I 
supposed  that  he  would  be  a  witness— I  think  not. 

Q.  I  did  n't  ask  you  what  you  supposed.  A.  Well,  Sir ; 
I  did  n't  know  anything  about  anybody  else's  supposi- 
tion. 

Q.  Hadn't  it  been  talked  of  in  your  presence  that  he 
would  be  a  probable  witness  ?  A.  I  don't  remember,  if  it 
was. 

Q.  Why  did  you  communicate  it  to  Mr.  Ross.  Raymond! 
A.  It  was  a  general  conversation  of  what  I  knew. 

Q.  Very  likely.  I  am  asking  you  now  why  you  com- 
mimicated  it  to  him  in  that  way !  A.  I  commimicated  it 
to  him  as  I  had  to  others,,  bec  ause  I  was  talking  about  the^ 
trial,  and  did  it  almost  without  motive,  perhaps. 


^42  TUB  TILTON-BI 

Q.  You  knew  that  lie  was  a  member  ot  Plymoutli 
rClitiroli  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  a  prominent  gentleman  in  that  clmxcli?  A. 
Yes,  Sir,  I  knew  lie  was  an  acti-ve  man  there. 

DR.  EGGLESTON'S  RELATIONS  TO  MR.  BOWEN. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  difficulty  witli  Mr. 
Bowen?  A.  No  personal  difficuliy  between  Mr.  Bowen 
and  me  in  the  world. 

Q.  Leave  out  the  word  "  personal,"  and  say  whether 
you  have  had  a  difficulty  with  him  ?  A.  I  think  it  would 
not  be  proper  for  me  to  say  that  I  have  had  a  difficulty 
with  him. 

Q.  Then,  of  course,  you  won't  say  it?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Wm  you  say  that  you  have  not  had  any  difficulty 
with  him  ?  A.  I  think  a  categorical  answer  woula  not 
describe  it  exactly ;  I  never  have  had  a  difficulty  with 
Mr.  Bowen  —yes,  I  think  I  can  say  that. 

Q.  No  misunderstanding  between  you?  A.  I  don't  re- 
member any  misunderstanding  in  the  sense  that  misun- 
derstanding is  used ;  we  have  had  differences  of  opinion. 

Q.  Did  those  differences  of  opinion  engender  anyiQ- 
feeling  1  A.  Between  Mr.  Bowen  and  myself  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  think  not,  Sir,  I  don't  know  that  they  did; 
I  would  not  say  that  they  did  not  engender  this  kind— a 
certain  kind  of  ill-feeling ;  it  did  not  amount  to  personal 
animosity,  it  was  not  hostility. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Bo  wen  make  any  demands  upon  you  which 
you  failed  to  comply  with  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  he  did  not. 

Q.  Your  connection  with  The  Independent  ceased,  you 
think,  about  the  12th  of  July  ?  A.  Some  time  about  the 
middle  of  July. 

Q.  1871  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  You  received  your  salary  up  to  that  time,  did  you  ? 
A.  I  received  my  salary  up  to  the  time  of  my  leaving. 

Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Bowen  complain  that  you  took  with  you 
some  of  the  results  of  your  literary  labor  which  belonged 
to  him,  when  you  left  %  A.  Mr.  Bowen  did  not.  One  of 
his  editors  

Q.  Mr.  Bowen  did  not  ?  A.  Mr.  Bowen  neither  directly 
jor  indirectly  did— that  I  understood  to  come  from  Mr. 
Bowen. 

Q.  Did  any  one  connected  with  Mr.  Bowen  make  that 
complaint  %  A  .  Mr.  Ward  called  on  me,  and  asked  me  to 
give  him  a  story  that  I  had  written. 

Q.  Did  you  give  it  to  him  ?  A.  I  did  not ;  I  didn't  admit 
his  right. 

Q.  Didn't  he  claim  it  on  behalf  of  The  Independent  ?  A. 
He  claimed  it ;  I  denied  his  claim. 

Q.  He  claimed  it  on  behalf  of  The  Independent  f  A.  He 
did. 

Q.  You  denied  his  claim  f  A.  I  denied  his  claim. 
Q.  What  were  the  terms  of  your  denial! 
Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  think  you  can  take  that. 
Mr.  Pullerton— Oh,  yes,  I  can.  A.  The  terms  of  my  de- 
LSiftl  were  that  I  had  permission  from  Mr.  Bowen  to  do 


"iJGEEB  TEIAL. 

outside  work,  and  that  this  work  did  not  belong  to  him. 
A  variety  of  considerations  were  taken  into  accoimt.  It 
was  an  ethical  point  that  I  submitted  to  several  gentle- 
men, and  they  

Q.  Never  mind  the  several  gentlemen.  Did  you  write 
the  story  during  your  employment  by  Mr.  Bowen  ?  A.  I 
wrote  a  great  many  stories  during  my  employment  by- 
Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  I  mean  this  particular  story.   A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  was  the  title  of  that  story?  A.  "  Priscilla." 

Q.  Was  it  not  written  for  The  Independent  ?  A.  It  was 
written  with  the  intention  of  publishing  it  in  The  inde^ 
pendent, 

Q.  Was  it  so  announced  ?  A.  It  was  announced  that  I 
would  print  a  story  in  The  Independent  during  the 
Summer. 

Q.  Of  your  own  composition  1  A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  one  of  a 
dozen— I  was  one  of  a  dozen  who  were  to  print  stories  in 
The  Independent  during  the  Summer. 

Q.  Had  you  written  the  story  before  the  announce- 
ment ?  A.  No,  Sii\ 

Q.  No  part  of  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  had  written  some  part  of  it  before  your  em* 
■ployment  cesL&Gd  on  The  Independent  ?  A.  Part  of  it  be- 
fore I  left  The  Independent. 

Q.  Didn't  you  write  it  whilst  you  were  in  Mr.  Bowen's 
employ?  A.  Part  of  it. 

Q,  You  say  he  gave  you  permission  to  do  outside  work! 
A.  That  was  the  understanding  when  I  went  on  the  paper, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  mean  to  publish  this  outside  work  that  you 
did,  in  The  Independent  1  A.  No,  Sir ;  the  outside  work 
was  published  elsewhere— a  great  deal  of  it. 

Q.  You  had  that  story  published  elsewhere,  did  yon 
not  ?  A.  I  did,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  was  it  published  1   Q.  In  ScHbner's  Monthly. 

Q.  You  received  a  comi)ensation  for  it  ?  A.  I  did.  Ex- 
cuse me;  I  ought  to  correct  an  answer  that  I  made* 
moment  ago.  One  of  the  terms  of  my  refusal  to  Prof. 
Ward  was  that  I  had  already  sold  the  story  to  Scribner's 
Monthly  before  he  came  and  asked  for  it,  supposing  that 
they  would  not  want  it  in  The  Independent. 

Q.  When  did  you  sell  it  to  Scribner's  ?  A.  Soon  after  I 
left  The  Independent. 

Q.  How  soon  ?  A.  Almost  immediately. 

Q.  Didn't  that  give  rise  to  ill-feeling  between  you  and 
Mr.  Bowen  ?  A.  I  did  not  know  that  it  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  not  claimed  that  that  story  was  the  property 
of  Mr.  Bowen  1  A.  I  had  no  message  from  Mr.  Bowen 
about  it.   I  never  knew  his  feeling  on  it. 

Q.  Was  is  not  communicated  to  you  by  this  gentleman  I 
A.  Not  as  from  Mr.  Bowen.  He  spoke  for  himself  as  hav- 
ing taken  my  place  in  charge  of  the  paper.  He  never 
mentioned  Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  Did  n't  you  design  to  publisb  that  story  in  Th«  ii** 
dependent  9  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


TESTIMONY  OF  EBWAED  BGGLESTON. 


513 


]  id  you  expect  compensation  for  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I 
expected  to  pulblisli  it  as  part  of  mj  salary.  I  expected 
to  leave  the  paper  tlae  latter  part  of  August ;  I  left  toe- 
fore  that  time,  and  did  not  publish  it  in  tlie  paper  con- 
sequently. 

Q.  [Handing  witness  a  letter.]  Is  that  letter  in  your 
liandT\-riting?  A.  That  appears  to  he  my  writing,  Sir  ;  I 
don't  remember  anything  about  the  letter. 

Ml'.  Fullerton— I  will  read  a  part  of  it,  because  I  want 
to  ast  you  a  question  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— Let  me  see  it,  please  1 

[Mr.  Evarts,  having  scanned  the  letter,  handed  it  back 
to  Mr.  Fullerton.  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— This  letter  is  addressed  to  Mr.  Bowen  by 
Mr.  Eggleston  [readiagl : 

July  3,  1871. 

I  am  glad  to  hear  that  you  had  so  pleasant  a  time  in 
Boston.  We  are  getting  along  pleasantly  as  ever.  I  spent 
most  of  my  time  during  the  past  week  in  writing  my 
Btory,  which  is  now  done  except  a  little  touching  up. 
I  shall  try  to  keep  it  imtil  the  last. 

Q.  Did  you  have  reference  in  this  letter  to  the  story 
which  you  have  spoken  of  in  your  evidence  1  A.  f  did, 
Sir. 

Q.  J^ow,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  look  at  The  Inde- 
2)endent  under  date  of  May  4, 1871,  and  say  whether  that 
article  there  [indicating]  refers  to  this  story  1  A.  [Look- 
ing at  the  paper.l  It  does.  Sir. 

Q.  [Reading] : 

May  4.— In  our  next  illustrated  number,  we  begin  the 
series  of  Summer  stories,  by  thirteen  first-rate  story 
writers,  upon  the  arrangement  of  which  we  have  spent 
not  a  little  pains  and  expense.  The  fli-st  story  will  be 
"  The  Mouse  and  the  Lion,"  by  the  Rev.  Edward  Everett 
Hale.  It  will  occupy  the  first  page,  and  will  be  illus- 
trated by  cuts  from  Tesigns  by  Felix  O.  C.  Darley,  and 
engraved  in  excellent  style  by  *  *  *  The  titl'^s  of  the 
other  stories,  so  far  as  we  have  them,  are  as  follows  : 
"The  Lady  of  Shalott,"  by  Elizabeth  Stuart  Phelps; 
"Only  a  Woman's  Hair,"  by  Chas.  F.  Briggs  ;  "  Katie's 
Wedding  Gown,"  by  Rose  Terry  ;  "  Finding  a  Soul,"  by 
Eev.  Geo.  Axf ord  ;  "  Le  Roi  S'Amuse,"  by  Harriet  Pres- 
cott  Spoflford,  and  "Ti.e  Vine-dresser  of  Vevay,"  by 
Edwaa'd  Eggleston.  The  following  writers,  contributing 
to  the  series,  have  not  yet  sent  in  their  stories,  &c. 

Q.  Who  was  the  author  of  that  article  1  A.  I  am  not 
sure,  Sir ;  I  suppose  likely  that  I  had  a  hand  in  it ;  such 
thtags  as  that  were  generally  gotten  ap  among  iis  in  the 
office ;  they  were  a  sort  of  advertising. 

Q.  You  were  superintending  editor  ?  A.  I  was  super- 
Intending  editor,  so  that  I  am  responsible  for  it  at  leasx. 

Q.  Now,  who  called  upon  you  with  reference  to  this 
story  I  A.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Ward,  Sir,  my  successor. 

Q.  What  connection  had  he  with  IVIr.  Bowen  or  The 
■IndejJendent?  A.  He  was  my  successor  as  superintend- 
ing editor. 

Q.  Did  he  not  demand  that  story  in  behalf  of  Mr. 
Bowen  1  A.  Oh,  he  asked  for  it,  Sir  ;  I  could  hardly  say 
he  demanded  it.  We  were  on  pleasant  personal  relations; 
lie  asked  for  it. 


Q.  Claiming  it  to  be  Mr.  Bowen's  property  ?  A.  He 
claimed  that  he  had  a  right  to  it. 

Q.  How?  A.  He  claimed  very  strongly  that  he  had  a 
right  to  it. 

Q.  That  he  had  or  Mr.  Bowen  had  i  A.  O  h,  the  paper, 
of  course— Mr.  Bowen. 

Q.  And  he  claimed  strongly  that  he  had  a  right  to  it  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  He  ui'ged  upon  you  strongly  that  you  had  written  it 
while  in  Mr.  Bowen's  employ,  aud  under  his  pay?  A 
Yes,  Sir  ;  that  most  of  the  work  on  it  was  done  while  I 
was  in  Mr.  Bowen's  employ. 

Q.  What  did  you  sell  that  story  for?  A.  I  sold  that 
story  for  $100. 

DR.  EGGLESTON'S  NEW  PASTORATE. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Eggleston,  I  think  we  shall  have 

to  ask  you  something  about  that  chureli.   A,  Well,  Sii'. 

Q.  What  church  are  you  pastor  of,  please  ?  A.  The 
Church  of  Christian  Endeavor. 

Q.  The  Chui'ch  of  the  Christian  Endeavor?  A.  The 
Church  of  Chi'istian  Endeavor,  Sir;  there  is  no  definite 
article  in  it. 

Q.  T^Tiere  is  that  church  situated  1  A.  At  the  corner  of 
Lee-ave.  and  Hooper-st.,  Brooklyn. 

Q.  What  denomination  does  it  represent  ?  A.  Tt  repre- 
sents no  denomination. 

Q.  It  is  on  its  own  hook?  A.  It  is  on  its  own  hook. 
[Laughter.] 

Q.  Is  that  the  church  you  have  always  belonged  to  ?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  other  denonunation  ?  A.  I  have  belonged  and 
do  belong  to  the  Methodist  denomination. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  pastor  of  a  Methodist  church  1  A.  Of 
several.  Sir. 

Q.  In  this  State  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Where?  A.  Miunesota. 

Q.  When  ?  A.  From  1857— well,  T  began  my  ministry 
in  Indiana  in  1856,  and  from  that  to  1866  I  was  pastor  of 
various  Methodist  churches,  chiefly  in  Minnesota. 

Q.  Yes ;  and  this  is  the  Church  of  Christian  Endeavor  i 
A.  Y^es. 

Q.  When  was  it  established?  A.  It  is  a  very  old 
chiu'ch,  Sir ;  I  don't  know  when— more  than  20  years 
ago— established  as  a  Dutch  Reformed  Church. 

Q.  And  when  did  it  undergo  a  change  of  heart?  A.  It 
underwent  a  change  two  years  ago,  when  it  became  a 
Congregational  Church,  and  it  again  underwent  a  change 
a  few  weeks  ago,  when  it  declared  itself  to  be  an  inde- 
pendent church. 

Q.  Is  it  likely  to  undergo  another?  A.  I  think  not. 
Sir,  while  I  remain. 

Q.  When  did  you  become  connected  with  it!  A,  I 
,  have  been  supplying— I  was  supplying  it  when  I  wa« 


544  TEJE  TILTON-B 

here  before,  and  I  liave  been,  since  about  the  1st  of  Feb- 
ruary, supplying  it  as  a  Congregational  cliurcb  tben. 
Mr.  FuUerton— Yes ;  I  believe  tbat  is  all. 

EE-DIRECT    EXAMINATION     OF    DR.  EG- 
GLESTON. 

By  Mr.  Shearman — ^Yon  received  no  special 
pay  from  Mr.  Bowen  for  tbis  particular  story  ?  A.  No, 
Sir  ;  I  would  like  

Q.  If  you  would  like  to  make  an  explanation,  you  may. 
A.  I  would  like  to  make  an  explanation  I  think;  I  not 
only  received  no  pay,  but  

Mr.  Fuller  ton — One  moment. 

The  Witness— You  have  asked  the  grounds  on  which 
Mr.  "Ward  insisted,  and  now  I  would  like  to  state  my 
grounds. 

JuAsTfi  Neilson— Anything  you  said  to  Mr.  Ward  you 
can  state. 

The  Witness— I  said  among  other  things  to  Mr.  Ward 
that  I  had  taken  no  vacation  at  all  in  The  Independent 
while  the  other  editors  had  had  vacation,  and  that  the 
little  time  that  I  spent  on  this  story  was  very  little  indeed 
for  me  to  take  in  lieu  of  a  vacation  ;  that  if  the  story  had 
been  asked  for  before  I  sold  it,  I  should  have  given  it  to 
them  in  token  of  good- will  on  leaving  the  paper  ;  but  as 
it  was  not  asked  for  until  after  I  had  sold  it,  I  declined  to 
give  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all.  Sir. 

HORACE  B.  CLAFLIN  RECALLED. 

Mr.  Shearman  called  Charles  Storrs,  but  be- 
fore the  witness  could  take  the  stand,  changed  his  mind 
and  called  H.  B.  Claflin,  who  was  thereupon  further  ex- 
amined as  follows : 

By  Mr.  Shearman— You  were  one  of  the  arbitrators  be- 
tween Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Tilton,  I  believe?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  You  were  present  at  the  arbitration  on  April  3, 
1872  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Look  at  this  paper,  the  written  submission,  "  Ex. 
122,"  and  state  whether  you  ever  saw  that  paper  before  i 
A.  [Inspecting  paper]  No,  I  never  saw  it. 

Q.  Look  carefully  over  it ;  look  at  the  signatures.  A. 
I  see  it ;  I  never  saw  it.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  this  paper  read  in  your  presence  or  hearing  ? 
A.  I  did  not  hear  it.  Sir  ;  I  have  no  recollection  about  it 
at  all. 

Q.  Were  yon  mformed  at  any  time  on  April  3,  1872,  of 
the  existence  of  such  a  paper  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  its  existence  before  the  trial  of 
this  cause  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  objected  to. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  don't  discover  any  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  object,  whether  you  discover  it  or 
not. 


W.CtiEU  TEIAL. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Bowen  gives  this  testimony.  [Read- 
ing:] 

Q.  Then  how  did  the  Aroitration  Court  organize  and 
commence  its  sittings  ?  A.  They  gathered  about  the 
table,  and  were  altout  to  proceed,  when  I  interrupted 
them  by  saying  :  "  Gentlemen,  what  are  we  to  submit 
And  tney  said  :  "  Tlie  matters  between  Mr,  Tilton  and 
yourself."  I  said  that  I  should  decline  taking  one  step 
until  it  was  put  in  writing  what  we  were  to  submit,  and 
suggested  that  one  of  the  arbitrators  di'aw  that  submis- 
sion, and  finally,  I  think  Mr.  Moulton  took  his  pen  and 
said  .  "  Gentlemen,  what  do  you  submit?" 

Did  any  part  of  that  take  place  in  your  sight  or  hearing  I 
A.  No,  Sir  ;  I  don't  remember  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Can  you  say  positively  whether  or  not  Mr.  Bowen 
said  that  he  would  decline  to  take  any  step  untU  it  was 
put  in  writing  what  they  were  to  submit  ?  A.  I— I  did 
not  hear  any  such  thing. 

Q.  You  are  positive  that  you  did  not  hear  it?  A.  I  am 
positive  that  I  did  not  hear  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Was  any  written  submission  of  any  kind  drawn  in 
your  presence  by  Mr.  Moulton,  or  Mr.  Bowen,  or  Mr. 
Tilton,  that  night  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  there  not  an  interval  during  which  the  ar- 
bitrators were  alone  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  after  leaving  that  arbitration,  with  whom 
did  you  go  away  ?  A.  I  think  we  all  went  away  together, 
Mr.  Freeland,  and  Mr.  Storrs,  and  Mr.  Bowen,  and  my- 
self. 

Q.  On  your  way  home  did  Mr.  Bowen  say  to  yon,  in 
substance,  or  say  to  any  one  in  j-our  hearing,  in  sub- 
stance or  in  effect,  that  you  must  get  the  Woodstock 
letter  ?  A.  Mr.  Bowen  addressed  some  of  us  in  that  way. 
I  don't  know  but  he  said  :  "  Gentlemen,  you  must  get 
it,"  without  referring  to  any  particular  one,  and  I  re- 
member I  referred  him  to  Mr.  Storrs,  saying  he  was  

Judge  Neilson — We  have  that. 

Mr.  Beach— This  is  but  a  repetition  of  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Shearman— No,  if  your  Honor  please,  this  ifl 
another  occasion.  Mr.  Claflin  related  that  originally  M 
happening  at  the  time  of  the  arbitration. 

Judge  Neilson— Certainly. 

Mr.  Shearman— But  this  is  subsequent  to  the  arbltrSf 
tion,  on  their  way  home.  Mr.  Bowen  has  been  specially 
interrogated  as  to  the  occurrence  of  that  event. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  read  Mr,  Bowen's  statement. 

Mr.  Shearman — The  stenographer  wUl  have  to  do  tllAt. 

Mr,  Evarts— That  happened  this  morning. 

Mr,  Shearman— I  am  going, 

Mr,  Beach— I  submit,  Sir,  that  they  cannot  recall  a  wit- 
ness after  they  have  rested,  and  we  have  rested  for  re-croaa- 
examination,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  contradiction, 
and  contradict  him.  They  must  take  his  answer  if  they 
recall  him. 

Mr,  Evarts— No. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes ;  otherwise  we  cannot  proceed  wttb 
any  chance  of  terminating  the  suit. 


TUSTIMONF  OF  CHARLES  SIOERS. 


545 


Mr.  Beacli— Yes,  Sir;  ttiis  trial  Tvill  proceed  indefinitely 
otherwise. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  objection  should  have  been  made  when 
we  asked  Mr.  Bowen  about  that. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  I  didn't  make  the  ohiection  then.  They 
must  take  his  answer.  I  didn't  know  that  they  were 
purposing  to  contradict  him.  I  didn't  know  hut  they 
were  calling  him  for  the  proof. 

Mr.  Erarts— We  called  him  to  contradict  him.  That 
was  plain. 

Mr.  Beach— It  was  not  plain  to  us,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  we  asked  those  questions. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly  you  did  ask. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  have  sufficient  on  that  suh- 
ject. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all  that  I  have  to  ask,  Mr. 
daflin.   I  understand  that  his  answer  is  taken. 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

IMr.  Beach— No,  Sir;  I  do  not  understand  that  the 
answer  has  been  taken  down 

Mr.  Evarts — No. 

Mr.  Beach— I  objected. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  stenographer  has  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  the  Court  says  that  it  was  improperly 
taken,  and  is  to  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  it  was  taken. 

Judge  Neilson— Is  there  any  objection? 

Mr.  Beach— I  objected  in  season.  If  the  stenographer 
has  taken  the  answer  it  is  taken  under  the  objection,  and 
is  to  be  stricken  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  I  suppose  it  is  stricken  out.  We 
have  enough  on  that  point. 

Mr.  Evarts— Will  the  stenographer  be  so  good  as  to  read 
the  question  ? 

Judge  Neilson— No,  it  may  not  be  down  at  all. 

The  Tribune  stenographer  read  the  question  and  an- 
swer as  follows : 

On  your  way  home,  did  Mr.  Bowen  say  to  you  in  sub- 
stance, or  say  to  any  one  in  your  hearing,  in  substance  or 
in  eifecl,that  you  must  get  the  Woodstock  letter  1  A.  Mr. 
Bowen  addressed  some  of  us  in  that  way ;  I  don't  know 
but  he  said:  " Gentlemen,  you  must  get  it,"  without  re. 
f erring  to  any  particular  one,  and  I  remember  I  referred 
him  to  Mr.  Storrs,  saying  he  was"  

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Claflin,  was  not  that  what  occurred  be- 
fore you  left!  A.  No,  Sir,  that  was  going  home,  after  we 
left  the  house— after  we  got  out  of  the  house. 

:Mr.  Evarts— No  objection  was  made  until  the  witness 
proceeded  so  far.  The  answer  was  taken  down  to  that 
point. 

Mr.  Beach— I  made  the  objection.  Mr.  Fullerton  was 
putting  me  a  question,  and  he  has  left  under  circum- 
stances which  compelled  bim  to  go  from  suffering ;  and 
as  soon  as  my  attention  was  drawn  to  the  answer  Mr. 
,  Claflin  was  giving  I  objected. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  object  to  Mb  moving  to  strike  it  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Of  course. 


Mr.  Evarts  -That  is  timely,  but  he  had  answered,  and 
I  suppose  it  must  be  moved  to  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Beach— The  answer  is  not  there ;  part  of  it  is  there, 
and  I  objected  during  the  giving  of  it  by  the  witness. 

Mr.  Evarts— No,  the  question  is  whether  it  must  be 
stricken  out.   I  suppose  it  is  perfectly  good  evidence. 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  said  what  I  chose  to  say  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  it  is  one  of  the  points  which  at 
some  phase  of  the  case  might  lead  to  iuterminable  con- 
tradiction and  re-contradiction,  and  it  is  a  point  where 
we  ought  io  stop,  and,  therefore,  the  answ^er  ought  to  be 
stricken  out. 

Mr.  Erarts— Your  Honor  will  be  so  good  as  to  note  m7 
exception. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all,  Mr.  Claflia. 
]Mr.  Beach— No  question. 

CHAELES   STORRS  RECALLED. 

Mr.  Shearmaii — Charles  Storrs. 

Charles  Storrs  was  then  recalled  on  behalf  of  defendant 
and  further  examined. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— You  were  also  present  at  the  arbi- 
tration of  AprU  3, 1872  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Will  you  examine  this  paper.  Exhibit  122,  being  the 
written  submission  of  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  TUton,  and 
state  whether  you  ever  saw  that  paper  before  [handing 
paper  to  witness]  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  informed  of  the  existence  or  the  con- 
tents of  that  paper  in  any  manner  before  this  trial  ?  A. 
No,  Sir. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  before  this  trial  informed  of  the  ex- 
istence or  contents  of  any  written  submission  whatever 
about  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Tilton  ? 

Mr.  Beach — I  object  to  that  question. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  covered,  by  the  last  question ;  I 
think  he  may  answer. 

Mr.  Beach— I  should  have  objected  t©  the  last  question 
If  I  had  not  been  occupied. 

The  Witness— No,  Sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Bowen  testifies  as  follows  with  regard  to  the 
arbiti-ation  of  April  3,  1872 : 

The  arbiti-ators  gathered  about  the  table,  and  were 
about  to  proceed  when  I  interrupted  them  by  saying, 
**  Gentlemen,  what  are  we  to  submit  And  they  said, 
"  The  matters  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  yourself."  I  said 
that  I  should  decline  taking  one  step  imtil  it  was  put  in 
writing,  what  we  were  to  submit,  and  suggested  that  one 
of  the  arbitrators  draw  that  submission,  and  finally,  I 
think  IVIr.  Moulton  took  his  pen  and  said,  "  Gentlemen, 
what  do  you  submit  ?" 

Did  anything  of  that  kind,  or  any  part  of  it,  take  place 
in  your  presence  or  hearing  ?   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  that  evening  leave  the  house  in  company 
with  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Claflin  1  A.  And  Mr.  Freeland. 

Q.  You  did?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


TtlE   TlLlOI^-BFjEGnEB  IBIAL. 


Q.  On  your  way  did  Mr.  Bowen  request  any  of  yon  gen- 
tlemen to  obtain  for  liim  the  Woodstock  letter  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Objected  to.  Your  Honor  has  already  ruled 
that  out. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  matter  of  form.   It  is  ruled  out. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  will  remember  that  Mr. 
Bowen,  against  oirr  objection,  was  allowed  to  t-estify 
about  the  Woodstock  letter  when  he  was  on  the  stand 
about  half  an  horn-  ago. 

Judge  Neilson— It  was  to  meet  what  had  been  proved 
by  you  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  examine  this  witness  to  meet  what  is 
proved. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  some  one  else  can  examine  some 
other  witness.  No,  I  think  we  will  stop  at  this  point.  It 
is  very  remote.  That  same  letter  was  ruled  out,  so  we 
do  n't  know  what  it  relates  to.  It  may  have  been  an  in- 
vitation to  dinner,  for  all  we  know. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— With  whom  did  you  go  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's  house  on  that  evening  ? 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— He  has  given  an  answer  on  that  sub- 
ject.  He  has  been  examined  on  that  a»ibjeot. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  Mr. 
Bowen's  evidence.  Mr.  Bowen— they  brought  in  on  his 
direct  evidence  this  matter  of  the  written  submission. 

Judge  Neilson — You  can  show  it  so  far  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  propose  to  meet  it  in  a  further  way, 
by  showing  that  the  three  arbitrators  were  absent  for 
about  half  an  hour 

Mr.  Beach— This  written  submission  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  companions  with  whom  Mr.  Bowen  went  to 
that  arbitration.   It  is  a  totally  immaterial  point. 

Mr.  Shearman— Our  purpose  is  to  show,  in  contradic- 
tion of  Mr.  Bowen,  that  not  only  that  didn't  take  place 
in  the  presence  of  the  arbitrators,  but  that  there  was  an 
Interval  in  which  Mr.  Bowen,  Mr.  Tilton,  and  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  were  together,  in  which,  if  it  ever  occurred,  it  took 
place. 

Jufljce  Neilson— You  may  show  that  they  were  to- 
gether. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Did  you  not  go  that  evening  to  Mr. 
Bowen's  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  find  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  there  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  Mr.  Bowen,  Mr.  Moulton,  and  Mr. 
Tilton  together  to  go  to  Mr.  Claflin's  ?  A.  I  did,  to  go  to 
Mr.  Claflins. 

Q.  You  went  to  Mr.  Claflin's  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  for  Mr.  Freeland  ?  A.  I  found  him  at 
Mr.  Claflin's. 

Mr.  Beach— We  had  aU  that  in  the  nrior  examination. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— How  long  were  you,  Mr.  Cliifliii, 
and  Mr.  Freeland,  away  from  Mr.  Moulton 's  house  after 
the  time  you  left  Mr.  Bowen,  Mr.  Moulton,  and  Mr.  Til- 
ton there!  A.  I  should  say  from  fifteen  to  thirty miJautes. 


Q.  You  took  the  Woodstock  letter  to  Mr.  Claflin's!  A. 

To  Mr.  Bowen. 
Q.  Delivered  it  to  Mr.  Bowen  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Q.  Did  Mr.  Bowen  express  any  surprise  on  hearing  It  f 
Mr.  Beach— That  is  objected  to. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Bowen  testified  on  his  direct  ex- 

anaination  

Mr.  Beach- No  he  didn't. 

Mr.  Shearman — He  said  it  was  a  surprise  to  him  when 
lie  received  it. 

Judgt  NeUson— I  think  we  will  leave  that  where  it  is. 
I  am  afraid  we  shall  have  to  admit  the  letter  by  and  by. 
if  we  deal  with  it  any  more. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  we  resisted  their 
calling  it  out.  Your  Honor  allowed  it,  and  now  we  pro- 
pose to  contradict  him. 

Judge  NeilsoH— Yes,  it  was  allowed,  because,  dming 
your  testimony,  that  evidence  was  referred  to,  and  evi- 
dence given  in  respect  to  it— if  Mr.  Bo^  en  demanded  it 
on  the  occasion  of  the  arbitration. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  am  not  now  complaining  of  its  having 
been  allowed. 

Judge  Neilson— It  was  allowed  simply  to  meet  that. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  am  not  now  complaining  that  it  was 
allowed,  but  it  was  against  our  resistance. 

Judge  Neilson— Whatever  they  have  ^ven  on  the  sub- 
ject was  to  meet  what  yon  put  in. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  they  have  brought  it  out  on  their 
part— direct  evidence  of  their  rebutting  witness,  Mr- 
Bowen— new  evidence  brought  into  the  case  in  rebuttaL 
If  it  has  anything  to  do  with  the  matter,  it  is  part  of  their 
rebutting  evidence  of  their  rebutting  witness. 

Judge  Neilson-  -Well,  it  came  up  in  this  way.  Before  the 
arbitrators,  the  materiality  of  it  was  flrst  put  by  you  in 
your  evidence  that  the  papers  were  spoken  of  to  be 
burned,  the  Woodstock  letter  excepted.  They  put  in  evi- 
dence by  Mr.  Bowen  his  views  to  meet  that,  and,  as  a 
part  of  that  comes  in  the  fact  that  although  it  was  not 
spoken  of  on  that  occasion  it  was  brought  in  afterward. 
That  is,  all  there  is  of  it.  It  was  simply  to  meet  your 
view  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  they  have  been  allowed,  against  our 
resistance,  to  give  specific  proof  of  the  accuracy  of  his 
memory  by  his  recital  of  what  took  place  between  Mr. 
Storrs  and  himself  when  Mr.  Storrs  brought  him  the 
letter— wholly  on  that  ground,  against  our  objection. 
The  general  rules  of  evidence  didn't  allow  it,  and  he  has 
thus  put  himself  on  this  fact  as  to  the  occurrence,  which 
is  the  basis  of  his  principal  evidence  on  this  point,  and 
now  we  prove,  or  offer  to  prove  by  this  witness,  that  no 
such  thing  occurred,  and,  if  your  Honor  excludes  it,  why, 
of  course,  we  have  no  mod©  

Judge  Neilson— Well,  we  have  the  case  standing  thns : 
You  put  in  evidence,  in  reference  to  this  letter,  wliat  yo«  ^ 
say  occurred  at  the  time  of  the  arbitration  in  connection 
with  the  suggestion  ot  burning  the  tther  p&  pers. 


TESTIMONY   OF  C 


'jnABLES  STOEBS. 


547 


Mr.  Evarts— And  I  don't  renew  that. 
Judge  Neilson— Tlieir  evidence  is  simply  to  meet  that ; 
tiiat  is  all. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Bowen  is  allowed,  against  our  objec- 
tion, to  give  as  proof,  to  confirm  his  principal  statement, 
Ms.  distinct  memory  of  what  took  place  between  Mr. 
Storrs  and  himself. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  basis  I  propose  to  strike  down  by  Mr. 
Storrs,  and  if  I  am  not  allowed  to  

Judge  Neilson— My  view  is  simply  this :  You  put  in 
evidence  what  you  chose  on  that  subject,  and  freely,  but 
confined  to  the  action  of  the  arbitration,  as  if  then  the 
Woodstock  letter  was  the  subject  of  discussion,  and  to 
meet  that  they  call  Mr.  Bowen,  which  they  had  a  right  to 
do,  and  proved  by  him,  according  to  his  recollection,  the 
Woodstock  letter  was  not  spoken  of  then,  but  was 
brought  to  him  afterward,  and  that  was  simply  to  meet 
what  you  put  in  evidence,  and  that  is  all  we  ought  to 
take. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  think  my  statement  is  correct.  Against 
my  objection  your  Honor  allowed  Mr.  Bowen  to  give  an 
interview  between  Mr.  Storrs  and  himself  as  confirma- 
tion of  his  memory. 

Judge  Neilson— There  are  two  ways  of  contradicting 
what  you  have  proved  to  have  occurred  before  the  arbi- 
trators. One  was  that  Mr.  Bowen  didn't  recollect  what 
you  proved  did  occur  in  the  presence  of  the  arbitrators 
about  this  letter,  and  the  other  way  was  that  that  was 
brought  to  him  afterward,  going  to  the  same  point. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  they  had  stopped  there,  as  I  tried  to 
hold  them,  this  evidence  would  not  have  been  produced ; 
but  against  my  objection  they  were  allowed  to  confirm 
Mj.  Bowen's  accuracy  by  his  adoption,  as  the  basis  of  his 
accuraey,  his  memoiy  of  an  interview  between  Mr.  Storrs 
and  himself. 

Judge  Neilson— To  wit,  that  what  did  not  occur  before 
the  arbitrators  he  thinks  did  occur  between  him  and  Mr. 
Storrs. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  we  ask  Mr.  Storrs  whether  on  that 
same  interview  it  did  occur. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  they  might  call  a  witness  to 
prove  he  was  present  at  Mr.  Bowen's  office,  and  heard 
oonversation  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Storrs,  and 
that  that  did  occur  as  ytated  by  Mr.  Bowen,  and  you 
might  call  another  witness  to  support  Mr.  Storrs,  and 
perhaps  by  to-morrow  afternoon  we  would  get  rid  of  the 
Woodstock  letter.  I  think  we  cannot  go  any  further 
with  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— WiU  your  Honor  be  so  good  as  to  note  my 
exception  ? 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Shcaimnn— We  offer  by  this  witness  speciificaHy  to 
contradict  the  very  conversation  which  iit.  Bowen 
related  this  morning. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  welL 


Mr.  Shearman— We  imderstand  that. 
Judge  Neilson— The  same  ruling. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  conversation  wliioli  Mr.  Bowen 
related  as  occm-ring  in  regard  to  the  Woodstock  letter. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Shearman— Your  Honor  rules  that  out  and  we 
except. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  CHARLES  STORRS. 

By  Mr.  Beach.— Do  you  assume  to  recollect 

all  the  details  of  the  proceedings  before  the  arbitrators  ? 
A.  No,  Sir,  I  cannot  perhaps  say  all. 

Q.  Do  you  assume  to  recollect  all  the  conversation  that 
occurred  before  the  arbitrators  1   A.  Not  alL 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  swear  positively  that,  in  the 
presence  of  the  arbitrators,  and  of  Mr.  Bowen  ard  Mr. 
Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Moulton  did  not  diaw  up 
that  paper  1  A.  I  think  he  could  not  without  my  know- 
ing it. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  answer  my  question.  Do  you  mean  to 
swear  positively,  upon  your  recollection,  that  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  arbitrators,  at  tJiC  time  of  the  arbitration, 
and  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Tilton,  Mr.  Moulton,  and  Mr. 
Bowen,  Mr.  Moulton  did  not  draw  up  that  paper,  and  it 
was  then  signed  by  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  If  It 
was,  it  was  unknown  to  me.  It  was  not  read  o*-  made 
known. 

Mr.  Beach— I  didn't  ask  anything  about  reading  or 
making  known.   I  move  to  have  that  sti'uck  out. 

Judge  Neilson  fto  the  witness]— He  simply  wants  to 
know  if  you  are  positive. 

Mr.  Beach— Is  tihat  struck  out  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

The  Witness— I  am  positive  it  covild  not  have  been. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  think  that  answers  my  question.  I 
wish  to  put  this  gentleman  on  his  responsibility  upon 
that  question,  and  I  repeat  my  question.  [To  the  wit- 
ness.] Do  you  swear  positively  that  in  the  presence  of 
the  arbitrators,  and  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  and 
Mr.  Bowen,  that  paper  was  not  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Moulton 
at  the  time  of  the  arbitration  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— I  object  to  the  renewal  of  the  question. 
I  would  not  object  if  the  gentleman  would  ask  him  if  he 
will  swear  it  was  not  done  in  the  sight  of  tlie  arbitrators  ; 
but  asking  him  to  swear  positively  that  it  was  not  done 
in  the  presence  of  the  arbitrators,  when  their  backs 
might  be  turned,  and  without  taking  any  notice  of  it,  is 
too  broad  a  question,  because  he  has  answered  once  it 
could  not  have  occurred. 

Judge  Neilson  fto  Mr.  Beach]— I  think  Mr.  Shenruian's 
criticism  on  your  question  is  very  reasonable.  You  ought 
to  incorporate  the  worcls  "  or  in  your  sight." 

Mr.  Beach— No,  I  \vill  not  incorporate  the  words  "  or  in 
your  sight."  My  point  is  to  prove  those  papers,  as  sworn 
to  by  Mr.  Bo^yen,  and  coiToborated  by  Mr.  IMoultjDU,  were 
drawn  up  m  the  presence  of  the  arbitrator^  and,  if  they 


548  TMI]  TILTON-B 

were  looking,  in  their  sight— tliey  may  have  Tbeen  inatten- 
tive—hut I  want  to  know  whether  this  witness  will  swear 
positively  the  thing  was  not  done  in  the  presenee  of  the 
arbitrators. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness]— Now,  answer,  Mr. 
Stores, 

The  Witness— I  have  no  knowledge. 

By  Mjh  Beach— Will  you  answer  my  question  % 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  witness] —Is  that  as  positive  as 
you  can  make  it  ? 

The  Witness— It  is,  unless  I  explain.  I  don't  think  it 
could  be  done  without  I  had  seen  it,  and  I  have  no 
knowledge  of  it  whatever. 

By  Mr.  Beach— Now,  Sir,  have  you  any  recollection  of 
any  paper  having  been  executed  at  that  time  by  Mr. 
Bowen  or  Mr.  Tilton  1 

Mr.  Evarts- Has  he  not  answered  the  question,  what- 
ever paper  he  does  refer  to  f 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  not  asking  him  about  that  paper— I 
am  not  asking  about  any  paper. 

Mr.  Evarts— He  has  been  told  to  answer  yes  or  no. 

By  Mr.  Beach— My  question  is,  whether  you  now  have 
any  recollection  of  any  paper  having  been  executed  on 
the  occasion  of  that  arbitration  by  either  Mr.  Bowen  or 
Mr.  Tilton  or  both  of  them?  A.  After  the  arbitration, 
Mr.  Beach  1 

Q.  What  ?  A.  After  the  award  had  been  made  % 

Q.  Not  before  the  award  1  A.  No,  Sir,  I  have  not. 

Q.  No  recollection  at  all  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  any  being  executed 
after  the  award  was  promulgated  1  A.  I  think  some 
writing  was  received. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  iti  A.  I  am  under  the  impression— 
but  I  would  not  want  to  swear  positively— I  am  under  the 
impression  that  there  was  some  paper  at  the  last  of  the 
arbitration,  but  I  would  not  want  to  swear  to  that  posi 
tively ;  I  am  under  the  impression  that  there  was  a  paper, 
but  whether  it  was  a  l  eceipt,  or  what,  I  cannot  state. 

Q.  Can  you  swear  positively  that  on  that  occasion  Mr. 
Bowen  did  not  insist  upon  having  a  writing?  A.  He  did 
not. 

Q.  You  swear  positively  to  that  ?  A.  T  do, 

Q.  And  he  could  not  have  Insisted  on  It  without  your 

hearing  it  ?   A.  He  could  not, 
Q.  And  you  swear  positively  he  didn't  say  to  Mr.  Tilton 

liiat  the  matters  must  be  submitted  in  writing?   A.  No, 

Sio-. 

Q.  That  it  could  not,  in  the  course  of  the  proliraiuarics, 
have  occurred  in  the  presence  of  the  arbitrators  ?  A.  I 
think  not. 

Q.  Do  you  8V/aar  positively  that  it  could  not?  A.  I 
swear  I  didn't  hoar  it. 

Q.  That  is  not  the  point;  it  is  very  likely  you  didn't 
bear  it.  I  want  ' know  if  you  will  swear  that  it  did  not 
occur?  A.  I  wculdnot  want  to  go  any  further,  because 
it  may  have  bee  ^  uaid. 


EECHEB  lEIAL, 

Q.  That  is  what  I  hare  been  asking  your  atteiition  to. 
That  is  what  you  mean  to  say— that  you  didn't  hear  it  I 
A.  That  I  didn't  hear  it. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  all,  Mr.  Storrs. 

Judge  NeUson— That  is  aU,  Mr.  Storrt. 

RE-DTRECT  EXAMINATION  OF  MH.  STORES. 

By  Mr.  Shearman — Coiild  anything  of  this 
kind,  such  as  this  written  paper,  and  the  request  by  Mr. 
Bowen  for  a  written  submission,  have  occurred  in  your 
presence  without  your  hearing  it  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Objected  to. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  I  will  take  that,  if  it  could  have 
occurred  in  his  presence. 

Mr.  Beach— Is  it  for  him  to  say,  as  a  matter  of  judg- 
ment, that  it  could  not  have  occurred  ?  Must  he  not  re- 
late the  condition  of  the  circumstances  and  surroundings 
and  let  us  judge  ? 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  he  can  answer  it. 

Mr.  Beach  [To  Mr.  Storrs.]— Come  back  to  the  stand, 
Sir. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— I  will  ask  you  whether  this  language 
could  have  been  used  by  him  in  your  presenee— whether 
he  could  have  said  in  your  presence  that  he  should  de 
cline  taking  one  step  until  it  was  put  in  writing  what 
they  were  to  submit,  and  could  have  suggested  that  one 
of  the  arbitrators  draw  that  submission  without  your 
hearing  it  ?  A.  I  think  he  could  not. 

Judge  Neilson— He  had  virtually  said  that  before.  It 
leaves  it  where  it  was. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Judge  Neilson]— You  seem  to  thiuk  I 
ought  not  to  ask  him  any  question. 

Judge  Neilson— We  are  drawing  so  close  to  the  end  of 
the  case  that  I  would  rather  encourage  you  than  pre- 
vent you. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  aU,  Mr.  Storrs. 

The  Witness  [to  Mr.  Beach  |— Are  you  through,  Sfr. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  George  W.  Uhler. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEORGE  W.  UHLER. 

George  W.  Uhler,  a  witness  called  on  behalf 
of  the  defendant,  being  duly  sworn,  tebtified : 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Where  do  you  reside?  A.  No.  3i 
Orinond-plac». 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  Brooklyn  ?  A.  Since 
1842. 

Q.  Are  you  the  owner  of  real  estate  in  Brooldyn  ?  A^  I 
am. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  owned  real  estate  in  BrooMyn  f 
Mv.  Fullerton— What  is  that  in  reply  to  ? 
Mr.  Shearman— Oil,  well,  well. 
Mr.  Beach— What  is  it? 

Mr.  FullertoB— His  ownership  of  real  ©state  doat 
qualify  him  to  talk  about  some  one  else's  real  estate. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  have  a  right  to  show  the  witness — - 


TESIIXOXI   OF  Gj 

5Zt.  ?Tiearman— I  mil  ^^aive  That. 

Jndge  yeilson — "^ell,  tliat  is  waived ;  go  on. 

Bt  3Ir.  Saeamian— In  tlie  years  1870  and  1871,  vrere 
jon  the  oTTaer  of  tbjo  Ilovlsh  in  wliioh  Mr.  ilotilton  lived 
in  Clinron-st.  ?  A.  I  -was. 

For  iLow  many  years  vas  Mr.  Moulton  vour  tenant  1 
A.  Three  or  f  onr. 

Q.  Did  you  fregnently  visit  tie  liou*e  during  that 
period  of  1370  and  1871— did  you  ever  visit  it  ?  A>  Tie 
first  part  of  1371,  before  that,  durlas  the  time  that  he 
HTed  there. 

Q,  Did  you,  hervreen  the  Ist  of  January  and  the  Ist  of 
May,  1871,  visit  the  house  ?   A.  IS 71  ? 
Q.  Yes,  Sir.   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  yoa.  go  into  the  parlor  of  Mr,  Moulton's  house  ? 
A.  T  did. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  picture  of  the  Eev.  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  hanging  in  the  parlor  of  Mr.  Moulton's  house  in 
Clinton-st.  at  tliat  time  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  picture  vras  it?  A.  Life  size,  hea-d 
and  shoulders,  dovm  to  the  bust, 

Q.  Hovr  often  have  you  seen  it  there  ?  Did  you  see  it 
during  that  period  1  A,  I  seen  it  previous  to  that.  I 
should  judge,  three  times  altogether, 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  hefore  the  Ist  of  January,  1371  ?  A. 
I  think  I  did. 

Q.  When  did  3Ir.  Moulton  leave  your  house  ?  A,  I 
Think  it  va^  the  1st  of  May,  1871 ;  I  cannot  tell  vrithout 
looking  at  the  lease :  I  think  I  have  that  time. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

ceoss-exa:mixatiox  of  me.  rULER. 

By  Mr.  Fnllerton— Was  there  more  than  one 
portrait  there  ■?   A.  Of  Mr.  Beecher  ? 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  there  vas  more  than  one  portrait  there  ; 
A.  I  cannot  say.  There  vras  only  one  of  Mr.  Beecher  that 
I  saw, 

Q.  Did  you  see  a  portrait  there  of  any  other  person,  or 
persons  ?  A.  I  may  have  seen  it, 

Q.  Why  &aji  you  not  reoolleot  that  as  well?  A.  Simply 
he«"ause  Mr.  Beeeiers  is  a  very  prominent  face,  and  as  I 
knew  it  very  weU  I  rememhered  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  a  portrait  there  of  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  can- 
not ^-ay. 

Q.  How     A.  I  eannot  say  ^  to  that. 

Q.  Where  did  this  portrait  of  Mr.  Beecher  hang?  A.  It 
tixmg  on  the  ea-st—hetweon  the  windows  at  the  east  end 
of  the  parlor,  or  on  the  south  side,  I  think;  I  won't  he 
certairi;  that  is,  on  the  wall  on  the  south  side— the  side 
toward  Schermerhom-st. 

Q.  And  you  swear  positively  it  was  a  portrait  of  >Ir, 
Beecher  i   A.  I  do. 

Q.  A  portrait  in  oil  ?   A.  I  cannot  say  as  to  that, 

Q.  It  was  not  a  portrait  of  Mr.  Tilton  ?  A.  I  didn'cknow 
Mr.  Tnton. 

That  is  the  reason  I  ask  you  the  question.    It  was 


^OBG£    W.    URL  EE.  549 

not  a  portrait  of  :Mr.  Tilton,  was  it?  A.  Sox  IMr,  Beecher's. 
The  one  that  I  seen, 

Q.  I  am  talking  about  the  portrait  you  saw.  A.  It  was 
Mr,  Beecher  I  seen. 

Q.  I  ask  you  whether  you  are  positive  the  portrait  yoTi 
saw  hanging  there  was  not  a  portrait  of  Mr.  Tilton  in- 
stead of  Mr.  Beecher?  A.  I  am, 

Q.  PositiTe  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Xo  doubt  in  your  mind  at  all  about  it,  is  there  ?  A. 
I  want  to  understand  the  ciuestion. 

Q,  I  ask  you  if  you  have  no  doubt  whatever  in  your 
j  mind  upx)n  that  subject,  as  to  whether  the  portrait  you 
did  see  was  a  portrait  of  Mr.  Beecher  or  of  Mr,  Tilton? 
A.  I  have  no  doubt  in  my  mind  but  that  it  was  Mr. 
Beecher. 

Q.  Yery  well.  And  when  do  you  say  you  saw  it  there  i 
A,  Well,  in  the  first  two  weeks  of  February.  1571. 1  had 

occasion  to  go  to  the  house— I  think  that  was  once  ; 
previous  to  that  I  seen  it. 

Q.  WeU.  how  long  previous  to  that  ?  A.  Oh.  well 
wiihin  two  or  three  years  that  he  lived  there. 

Q.  How  early  did  you  see  it  there  ?  A.  I  cnnndt  tell 
you, 

Q,  As  near  as  you  can  tell  ?   A,  Within  that  time. 
Q.  Did  you  see  it  there  in  1S70  ?   A,  In  that  year  I 
should  judge, 

Q,  What  time  do  you  think  in  that  year  you  saw  it  ! 
A.  I  cannot  tell 

Did  you  see  it  there  in  1569  ?  A.  I  cannot  tell:  I 
seen  it  several  times  within  the  time  he  lived  there.  He 
lived  there  in  1569. 

Q,  Do  y©u  think  you  saw  it  in  1565  :  A.  I  cannot  say, 
Sir. 

Q,  Was  }*Ir.  Moulton  there  in  1565  ?  A,  I  think  he  was. 
I  can  tell  by  looking  at  the  old  lease. 

Q.  Can  you  not  tell  now?  A.  I  know  he  lived  there 
three  or  four-  yen_rs. 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  which,  can  you  1  A,  Tell  which 
what  ? 

Q,  Whether  it  was  three  or  vour  years  ?  A,  Zs'ot  with- 
out looking  Lit  the  lease, 

Q.  Were  you  che  owner  oi  the  pr-mises  ?  A,  I  was,  an4 
am  now. 

Q.  How  ?   A.  I  was  then  and  am  now, 

Q.  Well,  what  is  thereto  fix  in  yo'ar  mind  when  you 
■  Jii-st  saw  the  portrait  there  ?  A,  Because  I  knew  the  face  j 
I  knew  ]Mr.  Beecher  by  sight  I  knew  his  portrait ;  I 
heard  him  preaeh. 

Q.  How  late  ean  you  say  you  saw  it  there?  A,  That 
would  be  the  last  time  in  the  first  part  of  February.  Mr. 
Moulton  was  sick. 

Q.  The  first  part  of  February  of  what  year  ?   A.  1571. 

Q,  :Mr.  Moulton  was  sick  at  the  time  ?  A.  He  was  siek 
in  bed, 

Q.  And  the  portrait  was  ia  the  parlor,  wa^s  it !  A.  It 
I  was  in  the  parlor. 


550 


IRE    limON-BF.ECHEB  lELAL. 


Q.  When  was  yoiir  attention  first  drawn  to  the  time 
■when  you  saw  the  portrait  there  in  the  house  ?  A.  I 
hardly  understand  you.   Do  you  mean  lately  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Well,  I  was  reading  Mr.  Moul  ton's  answers 
in  regard  

By  Mr.  Fullerton— A  little  louder,  please.  A.  I  was 
was  reading  the  paper  this  morning — his  answers  in  re- 
gard to  Mr.  Beecher's  portrait,  where  he  says  there  was 
none  in  the  house.  I  think— at  least,  I  so  understood  it  

Mr.  Fullerton— A  little  louder. 

The  Witness— My  attention  was  then  called  to  it. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  ?  A.  In  this  connection.  I  re- 
Biembered  seeing  his  portrait  there  previous,  though, 
while  this  trial  has  been  going  on. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  saw  Mr.  Moulton's  testi- 
mony? A.  Well,  Sir,  I  have  business  with  a  Mr.  James  in 
Montague-st.,  a  real  estate  man.  He  has  charge  of  some 
property  of  mine.  As  I  had  business,  why  I  thought  I 
would  go  in  and  ask  

Mr.  Evarts— A  little  louder. 

The  Witness— I  thought  I  would  go  in  and  ask  Mr. 
Tracy  whether  that  was  meant,  that  he  stated  there  was 
none  there,  as  I  recollected  having  seen  one. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  see  Mr.  Tracy  ?  A.  I  did,  for  informa- 
tion. 

Q.  Told  him  what  you  knew  %  A.  No,  I  went  to  ask 
him  if  that  was  meant. 

Mr.  Beacli— We  didn't  ask  about  that. 

The  Witness— I  am  telling  why  I  went  there. 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— Did  you  communicate  the  fact  to 
Mr.  Tracy  of  what  you  have  now  sworn  to?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  When?   A.  This  morning. 

Q.  At  his  office?  A.  At  his  office. 

Mr.  Fullerton— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Siiearman— That  is  all,  Mr.  Uhler. 

Jmdge  Neilson— That  is  all,  Sir.  [To  the  jurors.]  Get 
ready  to  retire,  gentlemen.  Please  return  at  2  o'clock. 

The  Court  then  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 


THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

After  a  delay  of  15  minutes  Mr.  Fullerton  said :  Shall 
we  proceed.  Sir  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Is  there  anything  more,  gentlemen  ! 

Mr.  Shearman— We  have,  your  Honor. 

Mr.  Evarts— [Who  had  been  talking  to  Mr.  Carpenter, 
foreman  of  the  jury.]  I  was  addressing  the  jury.  Sir. 
[Laughter.] 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  this  will  be  a  good  time  in  the 
case  to  rest,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Fullerton— There  is  no  rest  for  the  wicked,  and  they 
propose  to  go  on.  [Laugh tei-.] 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  I  will  take  a  portion  of  that  to 
myselt,  of  course. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Caldwell, 


TESTIMONY  OF  WALLACE  E.  CALDWELL. 

Wallace  E.  Caldwell,  a  witness  called  anci 
sworn  on  behalf  of  the  defendant,  testified  as  follows : 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  CaldweU,  where  do  you  reside? 
A.  In  Brooklyn. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  Brooklyn  f  A.  Most  of 
the  time,  for  25  years. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Francis  D.  Moulton ! 
A.  I  am,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  become  acquainted  with  him  ?  A.  I 
should  think  about  six  years  ago,  six  or  eight  years,  per- 
haps—partially. 

Q.  Did  you  visit  Mr.  Moulton's  house  in  the  early  part 
of  the  year  1871  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  at  what  time  did  you  visit  him  ?  A.  I  should 
think  it  was  about  the  month  of  February;  the  snow  was 
on  the  ground,  I  know. 

Q.  Where  was  he  then  Uving  ?  A.  Cltnton-st. 

Q.  Did  you  stay  some  little  time  in  his  house  ?  A.  1 
spent  about  15  hours  there,  with  about  two  hours  inter- 
mission—an hour  and  a  half  intermission. 

Q.  State  the  reason.  A.  Mr.  Moulton  was  sick  and  I 
was  watching  with  him  from  about  11  o'clock  in  the 
forenoon  until  2  o'clock  the  next  morning,  or  per- 
haps a  little  longer. 

Q.  Did  you  go  into  the  parlor  while  you  were  there  t 
A.  I  did,  when  I  first  went  in. 

Q,  Did  you  see  any  portrait  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  in 
the  parlor  ?   A.  I  did.  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  an  oil  painting  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Was  it  the  one  described  as  Paige's  portrait  of 
Beecher 1 

Mr.  Beach— Oh!  well,  what  does  he  know  about  that? 

By  Mr.  Shearman — Well,  no  matter.  That  was  hanging 
on  the  wall  when  you  went  there  ?  A.  Hanging  on  the 
wall,  I  believe,  right  opposite  the  door. 

Mr.  Fullerton- Nothing  at  all. 

The  Witness— Thank  you,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Your  Honor  will  excuse  a  little  delay. 

We  have  both  telegraphed  and  sent  a  messenger  for  the 
only  remaining  witness  that  we  have.  If  he  does  not 
come  in  a  few  minutes,  why,  we  will  give  him  up. 

Mr.  Fullerton— If  your  Honor  please,  Mr.  Shearman 
suggests  that  while  waitiug  for  their  witness  to  eome  in 
we  may  call  a  witness,  so  as  to  save  time,  and  I  will  do 
so, 

Mr.  Beach— With  the  understanding  that  they  have 
but  one  witness  more. 

Mr.  Fullerton— They  have  but  one  witness  to  call.  Mr. 
Bowen,  come  forward. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  ELIOT  BOWEN. 

John  Eliot  Bowen,  a  witness  called  and 
swoi'u  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  testified  as  foUows  : 

By  Mr.  Fullerton— You  are  the  son  of  Henry  C.  Bo  wen, 
I  believe  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 


TESllMONT   OF  MARSHALL  J.  MORRELL, 


551 


Q.  And  your  own  aame  is  Jolm  Eliot  Bowen  i  A.  Yes, 
gir. 

Q.  Do  you  reside  liome  witli  your  father  i  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  have  you  so  resided  for  a  number  of  years  pasti 
A.  Yes,  Sir;  always. 

Q.  What  is  your  present  occupation,  if  any,  Mr.  Bowen  ? 
A.  Studying. 

Q.  At  school  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  In  this  city  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  I  want  to  caU  your  attention  to  the  month  of  De- 
cember, 1870,  and  ask  you  whether  you  recollect  during 
that  month  of  delivering  a  letter  to  Mr.  Freeland  from 
your  father  ?  A.  I  recollect  delivering  a  letter,  but  I 
could  not  state  whether  it  was  that  month  or  not. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  upon  the  subject  ? 
A.  My  best  recollection  is  that  it  was  on  a  holiday,  from 
the  fact  that  my  father  called  me  to  deliver  this  note 
in  the  afternoon,  and  it  was  light  when  I  carried  it  there, 
and  he  never  was  home  from  business  before  dark  at  that 
time  of  year  except  on  holidays. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  deliver  the  note  1  A.  To  Mr.  Free- 
land,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Q.  State  to  whom  it  was  addressed  1  A.  To  Mr.  Free- 
land,  I  suppose.  I  could  not  swear  to  that. 

Q.  You  saw  the  address,  did  you  ?  Did  you  see  the  ad- 
dress of  the  letter  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I  probably  saw  it. 

Q.  But  have  no  recollection  1  A.  I  do  not  recollect ;  I 
could  not  swear. 

Q.  Now,  what  reply,  if  any— did  Mr.  Freeland  take  the 
note  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  he  read  it  in  your  presence  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  reply  did  he  send,  if  any,  to  your  father  ?  A. 
Something  like,  "  I  wiU  attend  to  it"  or  "  It  is  all  right," 
or  something  like  that — equivalent  to  that. 

Q.  And  did  you  give  the  message  to  your  father  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir,  I  returned  it  to  him. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  Mr.  Freeland  when  you  gave 
him  the  note  1  A.  I  believe  he  came  to  the  door  himself. 

Q.  At  his  own  dwelling  ?  A.  At  his  own  dwelling. 


CEOSS-EXAMINATION  OF  JOHN  ELIOT  BOWEN. 

By  Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Bowen,  if  lie  did  not 
come  to  the  door,  you  had  no  interview  with  him  ?  A. 
How  is  that.  Sir? 

Q.  If  Mr.  Freeland  did  not  come  to  the  door  you  had 
DO  interview  with  bim  ?  Did  you  go  into  the  house  ?  A. 
I  went  into  the  house,  right  inside  of  the  hall. 

Q.  The  door  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  if  Mr.  Freeland  did  not  open  the  door  for  you, 
did  you  see  him  personally  at  all  ?  A.  I  saw  him  per- 
sonally. 

Q.  Well,  did  he  open  the  door  for  you  1  A.  To  the  best 
of  my  recollection  he  did. 

Q  Have  you  any  recollection  of  seeing  him,  excepting 
that  he  opened  the  door  ?  A.  I  recollect  his,  as  I  think, 


opening  the  door  and  delivermg  a  message  to  me  to 
return. 

Q.  And  aU  at  one  time  ?  A.  What,  Sir  % 
Q.  All  at  the  moment  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  right  at  the  mo* 
ment. 

Q.  What  was  your  age  at  that  time,  in  1871 1 
About  13. 

Q.  1870, 1  mean  t  A.  1870  ;  I  was  not  quite  13  then. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MARSHALL  J.  MOEEELL. 
Marshall  J.  Morrell  was  called  and  sworn  on 

behalf  of  the  plaintifi,  and  testified  as  follows : 

By  Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Morrell,  where  do  you  reside  ?  A. 
In  Brooklyn. 
Q.  What  is  your  business  9  A.  Architect. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  business  i  A.  Four- 
teen years. 

Q,.  And  carried  on  business  in  Brooklyn  !    A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  Have  you  made  an  examination  of  the  rear  of 
premises  No.  148  Hicks-st.  1  A.  Yes,  Sir, 

Q.  Mr.  Ovington's  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  it  1   A.  This  morning. 

Q.  Did  you  prepare  this  diagram  ?  [Producing  diagra:  j.  | 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Does  this  correctly  represent  the  situauon  in  the 
rear  of  that  house?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  take  the  diagram,  and  I  will  asl:  you 
a  question.  [Handing  witne?s  the  diagram.]  State  how 
the  rear  of  the  houses  146,148,  and  150  are  situated— 
whether  they  run  back  the  same  distance.  A.  They  are 
not  quite  on  the  same  line ;  146  and  148  are  on  the  same 
line,  and  very  nearly  alike,  having  each  a  piazza  "uthe 
rear  and  a  small  room  finished  from  the  p'a .  a  ;  No.  150,. 
from  which  we  made  the  measurements,  has  no  piazza, 
except  an  inclosed  one,  as  it  is  called;  that  extends  a 
little  beyond— two  feet  beyond— No.  148,  and  four  feet  of 
the  piazza  cf  148  extends  beyond  that. 

Q.  Mr.  Ovington's  is  148.  between  the  two  that  you  are 
speaking  of  now  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  Mr.  Ovington's  is  148. 

Q.  Now,  on  which  side  is  the  house  that  you  are  now 
speaking  of,  150  ?   A.  On  the  south. 

Mr.  Beach— Which  way  does  the  piazza  front?  A. 
West ;  very  nearly  west. 

Mr.  Morris— What  is  the  point  of  compass  there? 
Which  way  does  the  house  front  ?  A.  Very  nearly  east. 

Q.  The  house  stands  nearly  east  and  west?  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Then  the  piazza  fronts  south  ? 

The  Witness— No,  Sir ;  the  piazza  fronts  west;  it  is  di- 
rectly on  the  rear. 

Mr.  Morris— Now,  did  you  observe  the  houses  adioining, 
150  and  146  ?  A.  Not  adioining  146;  but  adjoining  I'^O 
is  a  three-story  house,  having  an  extension  of  nine  feet, 
two  stories  high ;  the  whole  of  the  extension  and  one  foot 
of  the  main  building  extends  beyond  No.  150. 

Q.  You  did  not  observe  the  house  on  the  other  side,  ad- 


553  TEE  TILTON-B 

1omiTigl46?  A.  No,  Sir;  my  impression  is  that  it  does 
not  extend  beyond  146. 

Q.  You  are  mistaken;  it  extends  nearly  tlie  whole 
length;  that  is  immaterial;  that  Is  on  the  other  side. 
Now,  Mr.  Morrell,  wUl  you  state  how  that  piazza  of  148 
is  situated;  just  describe  the  piazza.  A.  The  floor  is 
about  four  feet  from  the  yard,  in  hight.  The  piazza  itself 
is  about  nine  feet  three  inches  from  floor  to  celling ;  it  is 
six  feet  in  depth  from  the  house  to  the  outside  of  the 
columns,  and  is  inclosed  on  all  sides  except  directly 
west. 

Q.  And  is  there  a  small  room  there,  in  the  rear  of  the 
house  1  A.  There  Is  a  room,  four  or  five  feet,  as  nearly 
as  I  could  judge,  on  the  north  side  of  it. 

Q.  Now,  is  there  any  arbor  over— extending  from  the 
piazza  1   A.  A  grape  arbor ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Just  describe  that  arbor  %  A.  The  perpendicular 
portion  of  it  is  12  feet  from  the  piazza — ^from  the  columns. 

Mr.  Beach— How  far,  Sir  % 

The  Witness— Twelve  feet ;  about  that.  Then,  probably 
at  a  hlght  of  ten  feetr— perpendicular  hight  of  ten  feet- 
rafters  are  extended  to  the  piazza  roof. 

Q.  That  along  the  whole  length  of  the  piazza  ?  A.  No, 
Sir ;  it  is  short  of  the  building  about  four  feet  at  each 
side. 

By  Mr.  Morris— And  any  grape  vines  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

By  Mr.  Beach— How  well  covered  is  the  arbor  1 

By  Mr.  Morris— How  large  are  the  vines  ?  A.  I  should 
say  they  were  old  vines,  15  or  20  years  old. 

By  Mr.  Beach— Covering  the  whole  arbor  s  A.  Well, 
they  are  trimmed  now;  one  of  the  vines  reaches  to  the 
j)iazza  roof ;  others  fall  short. 

By  Mr.  Morris— Now,  in  the  yard  adjoining  148 
and  150,  are  there  any  trees  ?  A.  ITiere  is  a  tree  in  the 
yard  of  150,  thirty-nine  feet  from  the  rear  of  150,  about 
thirty-four  feet  from  the  rear  of  the  piazza  of  148,  and 
six  feet  six  inches  from  the  line  between  148  and  150— a 
cherry  tree. 

Q.  How  large  a  tree  %  A.  The  average  of  the  trunk, 
about  four  or  five  feet  from  the  ground,  is  four  feet  six 
Inches  in  ojrcumference. 

By  Mr.  Beach— The  average  of  the  trunk  of  the  tree? 
-A.  Yes,  Sir. 

By  Mr.  Morris— And  as  to  its  hight,  about  how  high  ? 
Al.  About  35  feet,  I  should  judge,  judging  from  the  hight 
of  the  buildiugs  adjoining. 

Q.  A  cherry  tree  ?   A.   Cherry  tree ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  A  large  top  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  quite  spreading. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  that  is  on  the  south  %  A.  That  is  on 
the  south  of  No.  150— of  No.  148. 

Mr.  Morris— And  the  buildings  in  the  rear,  fronting  on 
Willow-st.,  how  are  they  located  %  A.  There  are  two 
three-story  and  attic  brick  buildings,  each  46  feet  and 
6  inches  from  the  dividing  line— the  line  dividing  the  lots 
•t  the  rear.  There  is  a  frame  house,  50  feet,  between 


RFCEEB  TBIAL. 

the  two,  and  more  nearly  opposite  No.  150,  that  is  lower, 
about  a  three-story  house. 

Q.  Is  that  tree  that  you  have  spoken  of  situated  so  as 
to  break  off  the  rays  of  the  sun  from  the  piazza  of  No. 
148  in  the  afternoon  ?•  A.  That  I  am  not  sure  of.  Sir. 

Q.  But  the  arbor  is  directly  over  1  A.  The  arbor  is 
directly  over  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Morris— That  is  all. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  OF  MR.  MORRELL. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— I  did  not  catch  your  name, 
Sir  ?  A.  Morrell. 

Q.  I  was  not  able  to  hear  what  your  business  was  ?  A. 
Architect. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  visited  the  rear  of  these  premises  be- 
fore, Mr.  Morrell  1   A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  did  you  visit  them?  A.  Be- 
tween 9^2  and  10^  this  morning. 

Q.  The  sun  was  on  the  front  of  the  house  then?  A. 
The  sun  was  on  the  front ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  yourself?  A.  Pacific-st.,  be- 
tween Third  and  Fourth-aves. 

Q.  Paciflc-st.  runs  diagonally  with  Hicks-st.  ?  A.  Yea, 
Sir. 

Q.  Then  you  are  not  able  to  judge  from  your  own  expe- 
rience the  way  the  sun  strikes  the  house  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  You  never  have  seen  this  house  ta  the  afternoon  ? 
A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Well,  Sir,  judging  from  the  position  of  the  house, 
from  the  aspect  of  the  sun  at  present,  is  it  not  the  fact 
that  the  sun  shines  about  this  hour  of  the  day,  dii'cctly 
upon  that  piazza  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  It  would  shine  full  and  square  upon  it,  wouldn't  it  I 
A.  With  no  obstruction  it  would;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  not  observe  that  behind  that  hoiuse, 
No.  148,  that  the  position  which  the  sun  would  take  uow 
is  such  as  to  cause  the  rays  of  the  sim  to  go  between  the 
two  houses  1  Did  you  notice  that  there  were  two  houses 
that  were  rather  high  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  two  houses  that  were  quite  low  between  them  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  your  judgment  that  in  the  position  which 
the  Sim  occupies  at  this  hour,  half-past  two,  that  the  rays 
of  the  Sim  would  go  directly  between  those  two  higii 
houses  and  over  the  low  ones  ?  A.  I  should  say  that  the 
sun  would  be  above  any  of  the  buildings  there. 

Q.  Well,  at  this  time  it  would  be  above  any  of  tJiem ; 
when  it  comes  to  a  lower  point,  are  not  those  houses  f»o 
situated  that  even  at  a  later  hour  than  this,  when  ihe 
sun  falls  below  the  level  of  those  high  buildings,  the 
rays  would  go  between  the  high  buildings  and  above  the 
low  ones  ?  A.  I  think  they  might,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  so  as  to  strike  the  piazza  1 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes,  so  as  to  strike  the  piazza. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  don't  understand  him  to  say  so. 


TESTUlOyY   OF  JO 

Mr.  Shearman— The  rays  of  the  sun,  if  tiey  came  be- 
tween tliose  two  Mgli  houses,  woxild  still  strike  the  piazza 
full,  would  they  not, Mr.  Morrelll  Do  you  recollect  the 
position  of  those  two  houses?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  because  the 
two  high  houses  are  in  the  rear  of  the  adjoining  houses. 

Q.  Yes,  and  the  low  houses  are  in  the  rear  of  No.  148  ? 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And,  therefors,  the  sun's  rays  coming  square  on  No. 
148  would  strike  the  piazza  at  the  time  when  the  rays  of 
the  sun  came  between  those  two  high  houses,  wouldn't 
they  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— That  would  depend  upon  the  position  of 
the  sim  and  the  angle  of  the  light. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Do  you  know  anything  as  to  the 
condition  of  this  grape  arbor,  or  rather  the  grapevine 
upon  it  ?  Did  you  have  any  means  of  judging  as  to 
whether  it  was  a  fruitful  one  or  a  barren  one  I  A.  Not 
any  at  all,  Sir. 

Mr.  Fuller  ton— Fruitful  of  leaves,  I  guess. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  that  he  does  not  know. 

iVIr.  Fullerton— Well,  then  you  had  better  leave  that  out. 
[Laughter.] 

By  Mr.  Shearman— There  is  no  building  projecting  on 
either  side  of  that  piazza,  il  I  understand  you  correctly, 
at  all,  so  as  to  project  beyond  the  piazza  ]  A.  No,  Sir, 
not  immediately  adjoining  it. 

Q.  Now,  is  there  any  building,  either  immediately  ad 
ioiuing,  or  near  adjoining,  which  could  possibly  intercept 
the  rays  of  the  sun  from  that  piazza,  I  mean  any  building 
on  the  same  side  of  Hicks-st. — is  there  any  building  which 
could  possibly  intercept  the  rays  of  the  sun  between  2 
and  5  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  ?    A.  I  should  say  not.  Sir. 

Q.  The  rear  of  this  building,  No.  148  Hicks-st.,  faces 
almost  directly  west  does  n't  it  1  A.  Yery  nearly  directly 
west. 

Q=  Faces  the  setting  suni   A.  Yes,  Sir. 
Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all.  Sir. 

JOHN  C.  SOUTHWICK  RECALLED. 

Jolm  C.  Southwick  was  then  recalled  and 
examined  as  follows : 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Southwick,  do  you  recollect  an 
interview  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff 
at  your  house,  in  which  he  said  to  you,  in  substance,  that 
Mr.  Moulton  had  placed  to  his  credit  in  his  firm  shortly 
before  $5,000  or  $5,3001    A..  I  do. 

Mr.  Beach— I  do  not  see  what  materiality  this  has.  Sir. 

3-Ir.  Shearman— This  first  question  is  simply  to  identify 
The  interview  with  the  one  mentioned  by  Mr.  Woodruff. 
That  is  all.  [To  the  witness.]  Did  Mr.  Woodruff'  in  that 
in  erview  tell  you  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  deposited  that 
mun'-y  that  very  day,  and  that  Mr.  Moulton  said  it  was 
to  be  drawn  out  for  Theodore  Tilton  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  he 
did. 

Mr.  Beach— I  wish  to  be  considered  as  objecting  to  tlii  , 
Sir  ;  it  is  on  a  collateral  subject  and  not  proper. 


UN   C.    SOU  TRW  ICR.  553 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Mr.  Woodruff  on  that  occasion  thali 
you  thought  your  uncle,  H.  B.  Glaflin,  might  pay  that 
money. 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson — Whether  he  did  or  not  1 

Mr.  Beach— rrell,  Sir,  it  is  totally  immaterial.  The 
question  is  whether  we  shall  take  this  contradiction  up- 
on collateral  points  when  it  is  objected  to. 

Mr.  Evarts — There  is  not  anything  new  in  the  situa- 
tion. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  if  there  is  not  anything  new  in  the 
situation  we  had  better  not  have  it  repeated. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  say  there  is  nothing  new  in  the  question 
of  law  raised  in  the  matter ;  it  has  been  frequently 
passed  upon. 

Mr.  Beach— I  know  it  has  been  frequently  passed  upon 
and  disposed  of  against  the  evidence. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Did  not  Mr.  Woodruff  on  that  occa- 
sion ask  you  whether  you  didn't  think  it  was  your  uncle, 
Mr.  Claflin,  who  had  paid  iti 

Mr.  Beach- 1  object  to  it.  Sir. 

The  Witness— Shall  I  answer  i 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Woodruff  has  been  inquired  of  in  a 
proper  way  to  lay  the  foundation  for  his  collateral  im- 
peachment by  calling  the  witness  to  whom  he  made  the 
statement ;  there  is  nothing  in  the  situation  

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  the  ground  of  objection,  Sir  ; 
the  objection  is  that  this  is  an  entirely  collateral  matter 
upon  which  Mr.  Woodruff  was  examined.  The  rule  has 
been  too  often  discussed  before  your  Honor  to  require  re- 
iteration now. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Woodruff  was  recalled  to  contradict 
Gen,  Tracy,  and  at  least  partly— wholly,  perhaps,  the  last 
time,  and  we  have  asked  him,  in  reduction  of  his  evi- 
dence, whether  he  did  not  say  so  and  so  out  of  court  to 
Mr.  Southwick.  He  says  he  did  not.  Now,  we  bring  Mr. 
Southwick  to  say  that  he  did. 

Mr.  Beach — ^TV^ell,  that  is  a  most  unmeaning  statement, 
Sir,  of  the  condition  of  this  objection  and  evidence  offered. 
We  called  Mr.  Woodruff  to  contradict  Mr.  Tracy  in  regard 
to  material  matters.  They  then  cross-examined  Mr. 
Woodi-uff  in  regard  to  those  supposed  declarations  made 
to  Mr.  Southwick  in  regard  to  collateral  matter,  and  now, 
I  object  that  they  are  concluded  by  the  answer  which  yu:. 
Woodruff  gave ;  that  these  declarations  in  regard  to  this 
$5,000,  or  where  it  came  from,  has  no  sort  of  reference  or 
materiality  to  the  issue. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  I  think  Mr.  Evarts  will  agree  with 
you  that  that  came  out  on  cross-examination ;  it  seems  to 
me  so. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  Mr.  Southwiek— I  will  take  your 
answer. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  you  won't. 
I     Judge  Neilson— No ;  we  won't  take  the  answer. 

INIr.  Shearman— I  beg  your  Honor's  pardon ;  I  thought 
1  y^-.u  said  the  question  was  lo  be  answered. 


554  THE  TILION-B. 

Judge  Neilson— No ;  when  you  come  to  sometlung  tliat 
ie  more  vital  we  will  proceed. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  take  it,  your  Honor,  that  this  suhiect 
■was  brought  out  in  connection  with  Mr.  Tracy's  evidence 
— Mr.  Tracy  having  testified  that  it  was  in  respect  to  this 
matter  relating  to  this  $5,000  ;  then  he  went  into  this 
question  which  was  cognate  to  that. 

Judge  Neilson— There  was  a  question  about  the  $5,000. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  the  whole  point ;  the  whole 
question  between  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Woodruff  was 
whether  the  conversation  related  to  $500  or  $5,000. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  the  point  of  our  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— Anything  that  will  illustrate  that  would 
be  proper. 

Mr.  Shearman— With  all  deference  we  thint  this  does 
Illustrate  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Ask  him  whether  anything  was  said 
about  the  $5,000. 

Mr.  Shearman— Exactly ;  but  he  asked  him  whether  the 
money  was  referred  to  and  spoken  of  as  money  that  came 
from  Mr.  Beecher,  and  at  the  same  time  that  we  claim  a 
conversation  was  had  with  Mr.  Tracy,  and  we  propose  to 
show  that  Mr.  Southwick  heard  this  statement  about  the 
$5,000  at  this  time,  and  to  show  that  Mr.  Woodruff  is 
unable  to  recollect  with  any  kind  of  accuracy,  without 
imputing  anything  further  to  him,  what  he  did  tell  Mr. 
Southwick  about  the  $5,000,  and  on  that  ground  we 
claim  that  he  is  mistaken  in  his  impression  as  to  what  he 
told  Gen  Tracy. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  there  are  two  separate  interviews. 

Mr.  Shearman— There  are  two  separate  interviews,  but 
they  are  at  the  same  time,  as  we  claim,  and  our  evidence 
is  that  they  were  the  same  day. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  Sir,  the  proposition  is  avowed  and 
discussed  that  they  put  this  question  to  Mr.  Woocli-uff  and 
proposed  this  contradiction  to  Mr.  Woodruff  upon  a  sep- 
arate and  distinct  matter  to  show  that  his  recollection 
was  faulty  in  that  transaction,  and  from  that  to  argue 
that  it  was  faulty  in  regard  to  the  transaction  that 
occurred  with  Mr.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  matter  that  I  say  

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  I  say  that  is  your  evidence. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir  ;  nothing  upon  the  subject,  for  noth- 
ing was  said  in  regard  to  the  $500  in  the  conversation 
with  Mr.  Southwick  ;  they  did  not  propose  that. 

Mr.  Shearman — The  gentleman  is  begging  the  question. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  begging  no  question  :  I  am  asserting 
a  fact.  They  propose  to  prove  a  faulty  recollection  in 
regard  to  one  circumstance  or  fact  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
peaching recollection  in  regard  to  another. 

Mr.  Shearman— Gen.  Tracy  is  asked  on  cross-examina- 
tion whether  he  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Woodruff 
about  the  sum  of  $500.  He  answers  no  ;  in  effect,  he  had 
a  conversation  only  at  the  time  the  $5,000  were  paid, 


ECHEB  TBIAL. 

and  on  the  very  same  day  that  money  was  paid.  Now^ 
we  ask  Mr.  Woodruff,  oh  Mr.  Woodruff  comes  on  to  con- 
tradict Mr.  Tracy  on  that  point,  and  he  says  he  did  not 
talk  with  him  about  the  1 5,000,  but  did  talk  with  him 
about  the  $500  ;  we  ask  Mr.  Woodruff  whether  he  did  not 
on  the  very  same  day  on  which  Gen.  Tracy  testifies  that 
he  had  this  conversation  with  him,  speak  to  Mr.  Southwick 
on  the  subject  of  the  $5,000,  and  then  we  question  Mr. 
Woodruff  as  to  his  recollection  of  that  conver- 
sation. It  differs  entirely  from  the  recollection 
of  the  witness  whom  we  now  put  upon  the  stand,  a^d 
having  given  Mr.  Woodruff  an  opportunity  to  set  that 
right,  we  claim  the  right  to  show  that  his  recollection  of 
what  happened  on  that  very  day  when  he  had  a  conver- 
sation with  Gen.  Tracy  is  entirely  inaccurate  and  as  con- 
firming Gen.  Tracy's  conversation  with  him  on  tho  very 
same  subject  concerning  which  Mr.  Southwick  talked. 
Now  isn't  that  legitimate?  The  subject  is  the  same,  the 
principal  party  to  the  conversation  is  the  same. 

Judge  Neilson— And  the  day  is  the  same. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  day  is  the  same ;  the  only  differ- 
ence is  that  one  is  Mr.  Southwick  and  the  other  is  Mr. 
Tracy. 

Mr.  Beach — I  don't  know.  Sir,  whether  the  last  word  is 
to  control  in  this  matter ;  I  am  objecting  to  evidence ;  we 
have  discussed  it;  I  have  presented  my  views  to  you;: 
the  gentleman  insists  upon  having  apparently  the  last  of 
the  argument.  Now,  I  can  only  repeat  Sir,  that  there 
are  two  distinct  conversations  relating  to  a  distinct  and 
different  subject,  and  the  proposition  is  to  prove  Sir. 
Woodruff's  faulty  recollection  in  regard  to  the  conversar 
tion  with  Mr.  Tracy,  by  proving,  if  you  please,  thrtt  it 
was  inaccurate,  or  that  he  talked  upon  the  same  subject 
with  Mr.  Sou  hwick,  and  without  offering  to  prove 
that  what  he  said  to  Mr.  Southwick  was  untrue. 
Mr.  Tracy  swears  that  he  had  no  conversation  upoo  a 
given  day  with  Mr.  Woodruff  in  regard  to  a  $500,  that  it 
related  to  the  $5,000.  Mr.  Woodruff  swears  that  upon 
that  day  he  did  communicate  to  Mr.  Tracy  informatioa 
regarding  $500,  and  that  it  did  not  relate  to  the  $5,000. 
Now,  they  propose  to  prove  by  Mr.  Southwick  that  upon 
that  same  day  Mr.  Woodruff  had  a  conversar^ 
tton  with  liim  in  regard  to  the  $5,000  and  what  he  said. 
And  they  propose  to  prove  that  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
ferring or  reasoning  from  it  that  because  Mr.  Woodi  ujflt 
spoke  of  a  $5,000  on  that  day  in  a  conversation  witn  Mr. 
Southwick,  that  therefore  he  must  have  spoken  of  it  in  a 
conversation  with  Mr.  Tracy ;  and  that  is  the  sort  of  ar- 
gument, if  your  Honor  please,  by  which  this  evidence 
upon  an  entirely  collateral  conversation  is  sought  to  be 
given. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  we  cannot  take  it,  Mr.  Shear- 
man ;  it  is  collateral  matter  ;  jind  if  there  were  a  contra^ 
diction,  it  is  upon  a  collateral  matter  which  is  of  no 
moment  to  u.«. 


THE  TESTIM 

Mr.  Sheamian— No  moment  except  to  the  auestion.  of 
the  

Mr.  Beach— Well,  now,  I  object  to  a  further  argvmient 
on  the  (luestlon. 

Ml-.  Shearman— Well,  when  the  Court  makes  a  further 
suggestion,  I  have  a  right  

Judge  Neilson— It  is  of  no  moment  that  Mr.  Tracy  and 
Mr.  Woodruff  had  not  agTeed  on  that  collateral  question. 
That  is  of  no  moment  at  all. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  we  except— 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  I  must  exclude  it— 

lyir.  Shearman— Your  Honor  wlU  he  so  good  as  to  note 
our  exception. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Southwick,  do  you  recollect  sm 
interview  with  Mr.  Woodi'uff  at  your  house  shortly  after 
the  publication  of  this  scandal,  and  on  the  subject  of  that 
scandal  ?  A.  Yes  ;  I  recollect  a  great  many  interviews. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Woodruff  testifies  to  an  interview  of  that 
kind;  I  want  to  identify  the  occasion  simply.  Do  you 
recollect  Mr.  Woodruff  at  such  an  interview  saying  to 
you :  "  Is  it  best  for  us  to  drive  Mr.  Beecher  out  of  Brook- 
lyn, or  not  1"  A.  I  do. 

Mr.  Beach- That  is  objected  to. 

Judge  jSTeilson— T  think  we  will  take  that. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— You  do  ?  A.  I  do  ;  yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  you,  in  answer  to  that,  say  to  him  in  sub  • 
stance,  that  he  had  "  a  head  of  sufficient  level  to  drive 
the  salt  and  fish  business  ;  but  that  when  he  undertook 
to  drive  Henry  Ward  Beecher  out  of  Brooklyn,  you 
thought  he  had  taken  a  contract  that  he  could  not  carry 
through  1" 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  this ;  it  is  not  important  to  take 

this  gentleman's  declarations  to  Mr.  Woodruff.     If  this 

evidence  is  admissible  at  all  it  is  admissible  only  for  taie 

purpose  of  showing  the  state  of  mind  and  the  feeling 

upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Woodruff  toward  Mr.  Beecher,  and 

not  the  state  of  mind  or  feeling  of  this  witness  as  toward 

Mr.  Beecher  or  Mr.  Woodi-uff.    The  declarations  of  this 

witness  to  Mi\  Woodruff  upon  that  occasion  are  entirely 

immaterial  and  inadmissible. 

Mr.  Shearman— This  is  part  of  the  conversation,  your 
Honor. 

Mr.  Beach— No  matter  if  it  is. 

Mr.  Shearman— And  consecutive  conversations  we  may 
gi^e. 

Judge  Neilson— An  independent  iuterview  would  of 
coui'se  be  inadmissible,  but  it  is  a  connected  conversa- 
tion; I  think  we  will  take  it. 

By  Mr.  Shearman— What  is  your  answer?  A.  I  did 
make,  in  substance,  that  remark  to  him. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor  will  note  me  as  excepting,  Sir, 
to  the  admission  of  this  evidence. 

Judge  Neilsou— Y^'es,  Sir. 

BylVIr.  Shearman— Did  Mr.  Woodruff  say  to  you,  "I 
w\ll  show  you  a  lett+^r  which,  if  published,  or  shown 


LYJ    CLOSED.  555 

generally,  would  diive  him  out  of  Brooklyn?"  A.  He 
did. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  ^Vlr.  Woodruff  if  the  charge  against  Mr. 
Beecher  was  adultery  ?   A.  I  did, 

Q.  What  answer  did  Mr.  Woodruff  make  %  A.  He  said 
that  it  was  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  aU,  Sir ;  I  won't.— [As  the  witness 
was  leaving  the  stand]— Have  you  made  any  bets  on  the 
result  of  this  case  %  A.  No,  Sir.  not  one  doUar ;  no.  Sir. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  wager  upon  the  result  of  this 
case?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  have  not  any. 

Q.  Have  you  had  ?  A.  I  have  had  at  the  first  of  it,  but 
I  have  not  now,  not  one  doUar. 

Q.  When  did  you  have  them  9  A.  I  had  about  two 
weeks— three  weeks  ago,  I  think. 

Q.  And  did  you  cancel  the  bets  for  tlie  purpose  of  being 
a  witness  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  did  for  that  very  reason. 

Mr.  Beach— You  can  leave.  Sir. 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir  ;  I  thought  I  would  be  asked  that 
question. 
Mr.  Beach— Thought  what. 

The  Witness— I  thought  I  would  be  asked  that  ques- 
tion ;  that  is  the  reason  I  canceled ;  it  was  only  a  small 
amoimt  any  way. 

THE  TESTIMONY  IN  THE  CASE  CLOSED. 

Mr.  Shearman — How  much  was  it  ? 

The  Witness— One  hundred  dollars. 

Judge  Neilson— We  wont  take  the  amount. 

The  Witness— I  like  to  back  up  my  opinion  any  how, 
even  if  it  is  wrong. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  rest.  In  regard,  if  your  Honor 
please  

Mr.  Beach— The  evidence,  then,  is  closed;  Iimderstand 

HOW  THE  SUMMING  TIP  IS  TO  BE  DONE. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes.  In  regard,  if  your  Honor 
please,  to  the  completion  of  the  cause,  so  far  as  the  labors 
of  counsel  before  the  jmy  are  concerned,  it  has  seemed  to 
us,  after  a  very  careful  consideration  of  the  matter,  very 
desirable,  in  consequence  of  the  long  period  of  our  en- 
gagement and  the  large  accumulation  of  matter, 
as  the  summing  up  is  to  first  f aU  on  our  side,  that  we 
should  have  a  little  interval,  which  we  desire  to  make  as 
brief  as  possible.  Of  course  we  feel  that  any  interval 
is  undesirable  in  many  aspects  of  the  case,  and  the 
shorter  it  is  the  better.  It  is  undesirable  of  course  that 
the  time  of  the  jury  should  be  exhausted  any  more  than 
is  absolutely  suitable  to  the  proper  administration  of 
justice  m  the  case,  and  it  is  very  undesirable  for  us 
counsel  that  we  should  be  delayed  our  dismissal  from 
the  case  any  longer  than  is  necessary.  It  is  very  desir- 
able that  your  Honor  should  be  at  liberty  to  attend  to 
your  usual  judicial  duties,  free  from  >^ngngement  in  this 


556  IRE  IILION-B 

case,  tlia,t  has  occupied  so  mucli  of  tlie  public  time. 
We  have  understood  from  our  learned  friends  that  their 
expectation  was  that  only  one  counsel  on  their  side 
■would  sum  up  ;  and  though  it  places  us  at  some  disad- 
vantage, perhaps,  in  the  length  of  our  arguments  that 
■we  are  not  advised,  by  hearing  one  on  their  side,  what 
the  real  grounds  insisted  upon,  upon  the  com- 
pletion of  the  proofs  are,  yet,  of  course,  it  is 
entirely  proper  that  that  arrangement  should  be  made. 
Judge  Porter  and  myself  have  advised  your  Honor  early 
in  the  case  that  we  should  desire  both  to  be  heard,  and 
the  purpose  we  have  is,  that  neither  should  repeat  what 
the  other  may  say,  and  that  we  should  not  together  take 
more  time  than  we  necessarily  or  properly  might 
take  alone.  It  is  our  expectation  that  both  of  us  together 
■will  not  occupy  more  than  the  usual  sittings  of  a  week. 
Four  days  we  should  hope  to  compress  wha*:  we  have  to 
say  in.  We  do  not  think  there  is  any  danger  of  our  run- 
ning over  five,  together.  I  have  been  obliged,  as  your 
Honor  knows,  to  attend  in  court  up  to  this  very 
moment,  and  have  had  no  opportanity  to  hold  confer- 
ences, or  to  make  arrangements  as  to  the  division  of  this 
matter  between  Judge  Porter  and  myself,  in  the  con- 
sideration of  the  evidence.  It  would  seem  very  conve- 
nient to  us,  and,  as  we  think,  very  suitable  to  the  conduct 
of  the  case,  and  not  likely  to  postpone  at  all  the  date 
of  the  final  conclusion  of  our  adjustment,  that  when  we 
adjourn  to-day  your  Honor  would  aUow  us  to  adjourn 
vmtil  Wednesday  morning.  I  have  spoken  to  my  learned 
friends,  and  they,  with  great  courtesy  and  kindness, 
though  they  feel  some  inconvenience  from  it,  no 
doubt,  are  disposed  to  agree  to  our  wishes 
in  that  regard.  I  am  quite  sm'e,  if  your  Honor  please, 
that  the  time  will  be  well  spent  in  reducing  to  order  and 
within  lesser  limits  what  we  may  have  occasion  to  say  to 
the  jury,  and  if  your  Honor  should  take  that  view  of  it 
we  should  hope  that  the  jury,  although  probably  not  very 
agreeable  to  them,  would  not  feel  that  it  was  unreasona- 
ble on  our  part. 

Mr.  Beach— I  should  greatly  prefer  personally,  Sir,  that 
the  argument  of  this  cause  should  proceed  at  the  usual 
day  of  adjournment  upon  Monday,  passing  over  to-mor- 
row, which  is  a  session  day  in  our  ordinary  practice. 
From  my  own  engagements  it  is  exceedingly  oppressive 
to  me  that  there  should  be  any  extension,  when 
we  may  hope  to  conclude  this  cause  and  be 
rid  of  it.  But  my  friend,  Mr.  Porter,  has  sent  a  request 
to  me,  and  it  is  fortified  by  the  application  of  my  friend, 
Mr.  Evarts,  and  although  there  is  some  personal  sacri- 
fice about  it,  and  some  inconvenience,  I  must,  of  course, 
very  cheerfolly  concur  in  their  desire.  I  could  not  rea- 
sonably refuse  without  being  somewhat  discourteous, 
and  I  would  rather  suffer  than  bear  that  character. 


'EC  HER  lELAL. 

JUDGE  NEILSON  SEEKS  AUTOGRAPHS. 

Judge  Neilson— The  arrangement  whicli  tlie 
counsel,  out  of  consideration  to  each  other,  agree  upon,  is 
of  course  acceptable  to  me;  indeed,  any  arrangement 
would  be  to  me,  and  I  have  no  doubt  wiU  be  agreeable  to 
the  jury.  With  reference  to  another  matter,  I  wish  to 
ask  the  several  counsel  in  the  case  if  they  ■will  see  me  in 
the  other  room  Taefore  they  leave.  The  reporters  and 
gentlemen  connected  with  the  press  who  have  not 
yet  given  us  their  signatures  in  this  book,  and  who  may 
be  present,  will  find  it  with  the  clerk,  and  it  -will  be  vei  y 
agreeable  to  us  if  they  would  take  the  trouble  to  see  it 
and  write  their  names  in  it.  Gentlemen,  we  then  sepa- 
rate imtU  Wednesday  morning  next,  at  11  o'clock.  Please 
to  make  that  as  agreeable  as  you  can  to  yourselves. 

The  Court  thereupon  adjourned  until  next  Wednesday 
morning  at  11  o'clock. 


EIGHTY-SIXTH    DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

JUDGE  PORTER  BEGINS  THE  SUMMING  UP. 

EMPHATIC  DENUNCIATIONS  OF  THEODORE  TILTOK- 
JUDGE  PORTER  CONDEMNS  IN  STRONG  LANGUAGE 
MR.  MOULTON  AND  OTHER  WITNESSES— THE 
LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  PLAINTIFF  AND  DE- 
FENDANT CONTRASTED— MR.  BEECHER'S  CAREER 
OUTLINED— LETTERS  BETWEEN  MR.  AND  MRS. 
TELTON  READ  TO  SHOW  THAT  ADULTERY  ON  HER 
PART  WAS  IMPOSSIBLE. 

Wednesday,  May  19,  1875. 

It  was  nearly  15  minutes  after  11  o'clock  when, 
after  Judge  Neilson  liad  requested  tlie  audience  to 
keep  perfectly  quiet  during  the  proceedings,  Judge 
Porter  slowly  arose  in  his  place  and,  addressing  the 
Court  and  jury,  began  his  argument. 

The  attention  of  the  audience  was  enchained  from 
the  beginning,  and  they  listened  in  perfect  silence. 
The  jurymen  showed  more  continuous  interest  than 
they  exhibited  while  the  testimony  was  being  taken, 
and  not  one  of  them  grew  inattentive  during  the 
whole  day. 

Judge  Porter,  after  contrasting  the  lives  and  char- 
acters of  the  plaintiff  and  defendant,  hastily  sketched 
the  more  salient  events  in  the  life  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  pronounced  Mr.  Tilton  to  be  an  adulterer  aud  a 
perjurer.  Describing  the  discussion  of  the  paternity 
of  the  boy  Ralph,  Mr.  Porter  exclaimed  with  electric 
force,  and  facing  Mr.  Tilton  :  "If  there  be  a  beast 
upen  earth  capable  of  holding  such  a  conversation 
over  his  own  boy,  witli  the  paramour  of  his  adulter- 
ous wife,  he  has  lived  too  long  upon  earth— it  is  time 
for  him  to  die.  What  are  such  men  for,  unless  they 
have  a  mission  in  hunting  down  clergymen,  crucify- 


ing  women,  and  committing  perjury  in  courts 
of  justice?"  The  denunciations  of  Mr.  Monlton 
and  several  other  persona  were  only  less  severe  than 
those  launched  against  Mr.  Tilton,  but  as  the  per- 
sons who  were  denounced  were  not  present,  the 
eflect  was  much  legs  marked. 

In  describing  the  circumstances  of  the  publication 
of  Mrs.  Tnton's  letters,  Judge  Porter  repeated  sup- 
posed expressions  used  in  selecting  the  letters  which 
were  to  be  published  in  a  way  which  stirred  up  a 
"breeze  of  merriment  in  the  audience. 

Judge  Porter  afterward  read  some  of  the  letters 
which  passed  between  ^li.  and  Mrs.  Tilton  previous 
to  1S70.  By  the  tone  of  these  h2  sought  to  prove 
that  it  was  impossible  that  there  should  have  been 
a-dultery  between  :Mrs.  Tilton  and  ilr.  Beecher  when 
ehe  mentioned  .Mr.  Beecher  so  frequenely  in  her 
letters  to  her  husband. 

After  reading  the  crpening  words  of  one  of  Mr. 
Tilton  s  letters,  whicn  begins,  "  My  dear  angel,  I 
dreamed  of  you  all  last  night," '  Judge  Porter  turned 
to  2klr.  Tilton  with  a  sarcastic  smite  and  exclaimed, 
"  Ah,  that  was  a  long  dream  1" 

The  chief  aim  of  Judge  Porter's  argamt«.t  yester- 
day was  to  prove,  from  the  character  both  of  ^Ir. 
Beecher  and  ]VIrs.  Tilton,  and  from  the  tone  and  na- 
ture of  ^Irs.  Tilton's  letters  to  her  husband,  thb. 
gre.i;t  improbability  that  any  adulterous  intercourse) 
had  t;\kon  place  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  ^h:. 
Beecher.  A  curious  feature  of  the  argument  was 
the  force  with  which  little  points  of  evidence,  mere 
momentary  ]3 ashes  of  light  cast  by  brief  and  almost 
unnoticed  expressions  of  the  witnesses,  were  brought 
to  bear  by  the  skillful  orator. 

Judge  Porter  was  interrupted  only  two  or  three 
times  during  the  day,  and  these  interruptions  came 
from  his  own  counsel. 

THE   PROCEEDINGS— YEEBATTM. 

THE  BECtTN'N'IXG  OF  THE  END. 
Jndgc  XeiLson— It  is  expected  that  the  audi- 
ence will  keep  perfectly  silent.  Any  interruption  seri- 
oasly  dijiturbs  tlie  speaker,  and  detracts  tlie  attention  of 
tlie  jury  fi-om hat  they  ouglit  to  hear.  It  is  especially 
desirable,  therefore,  that  we  should  have-jg^rfect  quiet. 

ME.  PORTER  BEGIN'S  THE  SOOnXG  UP. 
Mat  it  please  the  Court— Gentlemen  of 

THE  Jukt:  Each  of  you  is  one  hundred  and  thirty-lire 
days  older  this  morning  than  when  this  trial  commenced ; 
and  that  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  days  of  your 
life  has  been  taken  from  yom  btisiness,  from  your 


POETEB,  557 

families,  from  your  domestic  occupations,  in  the 
interest  of  an  adulterer  who  brings  this  suit  for  the 
'  purpose  of  establishing  by  your  verdict  that  he  slept 
for  four  years  with  an  adulteress.  You  have 
been  pressed  for  five  months  of  your  lives  into  the  service 
of  Theodore  Tilton,  in  the  forms  of  law,  and  in  obedience 
I  to  a  mandate  which  you  are  bound  to  obey,  in  the  dis- 
charge of  a  duty  from  which  you  cannot  shrink. 

There  has  been  much  plain-speaking,  gentlemen,  on  the 
part  of  the  prosecution  in  this  case.   Men  are  apt  to  be 
'  bold  of  speech  when  two  stalwart  cb amnions  like  Moul- 
j  ton  and  Tilton  make  a  joint  assault  upon  a  clergyman 
■  and  a  woman,  the  one  forbidden  by  Ms  profession  to  re- 
turn evil  for  evil ;  the  other  weak,  powerless,  held  as  in 
the  hollow  of  the  hand  by  a  man  [turning  toward  Mr. 
Tilton]  who  has  but  to  look  upon  her  to  subdue  her  to  his 
will.  My  client  has,  from  the  beginning  of  this  case, 
dealt  on  Scripture  principles  with  those  who  assailed 
him.  They  struck  him  upon  the  one  cheek,  and  he  turned 
the  other  also;  and  they  failed  not  to  strike  that,  too. 
The  wife  was  dutiful,  loyal,  carrying  loyalty  to  the  point 
1  of  personal  dishonor,  but  she  received  no  thanks  for  it 
I  and  she  stands  to-day  in  the  view  of  mankind,  the  subject 
'  of  scoffs,  of  calumny,  and  of  derision,  all  originating 
there.    [Poiuting  to  :Mr.  Tilton.]   Although  the  multitud- 
inous channels  through  which  it  has  passed  are  as  num- 
I  erons  as  the  presses  of  the  country,  they  have  been  re- 
I  duced  from  time  to  time  to  the  uses  of  this  ignoble 
i  prosecution.    There   is  one    thing,    gentlemen,  that 
1    think  we   all  saw    in  your  manner    and  bearing 
I  before   ^he    evidence   was    closed    on    the    part  of 
the    pros&cutlon.      It     seemed    to     us  —  you  can 
judge  wheihei  we  were  right— it  seemed  to  us  that  you 
were  impressed,  -upon  their  ovvn  showing,  with  the  air  of 
general  untruthfulness  that  pervaded  their  case,  with 
the  air  of  dramatic  and  artistic  skill  wi-^rh  which  it  had 
been  gotten  up  in  ihe  first  instance.   I  think,  if  the  cause 
had  stopped  then,  every  juror  in  this  bos  would  have 
said  that  he  felt  in  his  hettrt  that  the  action  was  one 
which  never  should  have  been  brought.   But  when  we 
come  to  view  the  case  in  the  light  of  the  whole  of  this 
evidence,  when  we  see  it  ilium ined  as  it  is  by  the  written 
as  well  as  the  oral  disclosures  of  these  parties ;  when  we 
have  their  acts  for  four  years,  their  declarations  for  four 
years— allin  direct  conflict  with  their  oaths— you  wiU.  be- 
pretty  apt  to  say  when  yuu  come  to  render  your  verdict 
that  this  case  stands  along  with  the  great  Tichborne 
case  in  England  as  one  of  the  two  leading  impostures  in 
the  jurisprudence  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

A  GLAXCE  AT   THE  GROUP  OF  ACCUSERS. 

The  plaintiff,  and  gentlemen,  and  those  who 
aided  him  in  setting  this  accusation  on  foot,  represent  a 
very  different  class  from  the  defendant,  and  the  phalanx 
I  of  friends  who  close  around  him  to  protect  him  from  thi 


558 


THE   TILION-BEEOREU  TBIAL. 


prosecution.  On  tlie  one  side  we  have  Tilton  and  Moul- 
ton,  Bowen  under  a  friendly  mask,  tlie  informer  Jayne, 
tlie  friendly  adviaer  of  Moul-^oii  at  tlie  Fifth.  Avenue 
Hotel ;  Woodhull  and  Claflin  and  Andrews,  the  apostles 
of  free  love  and  spiritualism ;  Gen.  Butler,  the  cliamher 
counsel  and  strategist  of  the  campaign,  Joe  Richards, 
stealing  up  softly  from  behind  to  strike  his  sister  in  the 
hack,  Kate  Carey,  vulgar  and  flaunting,  hut  a  fitting  asso- 
ciate in  this  motley  group.  These  are  the  parties  who 
appear  as  the  sponsors  of  this  accusation  against  a  man 
whose  name  is  a  tower  of  strength,  not  only  to  his  church, 
"but  to  the  city  which  boasts  him  as  its  noblest  citizen,  and 
to  the  republic  which  is  illumined  by  his  genius,  and  as- 
sociated with  his  fame.  Those  are  the  parties  who  ap- 
pear in  the  character  of  the  champions  of  domestic 
l)urity  and  of  elevated  Christian  morality.  Here  we 
Jiave,  you  will  observe,  gentlemen,  in  the  names  I  have 
mentioned,  grouped  together  in  conjunction,  the  original 
fabricators  of  the  accusation,  its  publishers,  its  authora^ 
its  advisers,  advocates  and  chief  witnesses.  And  these 
are  those  who  commend  the  accusation  to  the  confidence 
of  the  church  of  God,  of  tlie  country,  and  of  the  world. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  SUPPORTERS. 
Against  this  we  have  the  jury  of  the  vicin- 
age. Ah !  your  Honor,  it  was  one  of  the  proud  featui'es 
of  the  old  English  law  that  every  man  was  to  be  tried  by 
those  wlio  knew  him,  those  nearest  him,  those  who,  if  he 
was  a  rogue,  knew  that  h.e  was  a  rogue.  We  have,  in  fa- 
vor of  this  defendant,  tlie  unanimous  voices  of  the  jury 
of  the  vicinage,  tlie  unshaken  confidence  of  the  wife,  the 
children,  and  the  grandchildren  who  find  shelter  beneath 
liis  roof,  the  unbounded  confidence  of  the  3,000  worship- 
ers at  th.e  Plymouth  Church,  the  Claflins,  the  Sagos,  the 
Ovingtons,  the  merchant  princes  of  Brooklyn  and  New- 
York,  the  professional  men  of  your  city  and  of  ours,  the 
mechanics,  the  artisans,  the  laborers,  the  old  men,  the 
matrons— those  who  look  up  to  him  with  a:rateful  and 
reverent  love,  and  tlie  young  men,  and  the  maidens  whom 
lie  has  been  leading  upward  to  Heaven,  even  the  clus- 
tering around  of  the  young  children  who  love  Ms  name, 
and  will  live  to  bless  Ms  memory  when  you  and  I 
will  be  sleeping  beneath  the  sod— nay,  more,  the  great 
body  of  tbe  population  of  Brooklyn,  that  larger  jury  of 
the  vicinage,  men,  women,  and  cMldren,  who  honor  him, 
and  who  loathe  the  name  of  Theodore  Tilton  and  Frank 
Moulton,  his  treacherous  and  perjured  accusers.  We 
have  with  us  the  almost  unanimous  and  enthusiastic  sup- 
port of  his  professional  brethren,  not  in  his  own  denom- 
ination alone,  but  in  every  foim  and  of  every  faith.  We 
have  with  us  the  judgment  of  enliglitened  Christendom, 
anticipating  your  j  adgment  which  will  accord  with  it, 
and  we  do  not  believe,  where  we  have  the  truth  with  us, 
this  accusation  will  thrive  under  the  eye  of  man,  for  it 
cannot  triamph  under  the  eye  of  the  Great  Defender  of 
,tLe  innocent 


THE  TRUTH  EVER  TRIUMPHA?s"T. 

False  judgments  are  rarely  rendered  in  the 
tribunals  of  public  justice.  They  have  sometimes  oc- 
curred, but  rarely  with  an  upright  judge  on  the  bench 
and  honest  men  in  the  jury  box.  The  attempt  has  often 
been  made,  false  accusations  are  frequent  in  every  land, 
in  every  condition.  He,  who  said  thousands  of  years  ago 
on  the  top  of  Sinai,  "  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness 
againstthy  neighbor,"  knew  the  weakness  of  those  whom 
lie  addressed,  and  that  that  command  would  be  needfui 
to  the  latest  day  of  human  history.  Malice,  greed,  and 
vengeance  often  lead  to  attempts  to  strike  down  the  inno- 
cent. The  class  of  men  wbo  cherish  these  passions  have 
great  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  craft  and  lies.  But  tbeir  best 
laid  plans,  their  most  cunning  contrivances,  their  boldest 
perjury  come  to  naught  when  they  are  brought  to  the 
light  of  day,  and  subjected  to  the  scrutiny  of  an  impartial 
iury.  In  the  tribunals  of  justice  innocence  is  secure.  It 
is  the  ^hole  object  of  our  system  of  law  to  secure  it,  and 
our  system  of  juiisprudence  is  not  a  failure.  John 

Milton  was  right  when  he  told  us  two  centuries  ago  

**  Thougli  all  the  winds  of  doctrine  were  let  loose  upon, 
tlie  earth,  so  truth  be  in  the  field,  we  do  injuriously  to 
misdoubt  her  strengtli.  Let  her  and  falsehood  grapple. 
Whoever  knew  truth  put  to  the  worst  in  a  free  and  open 
encounter.  For  who  knows  not  truth  is  strongest  next  to 
the  Almighty.  She  needs  no  policies,  no  stratagems  to 
make  her  victorious.  Those  are  the  shifts  tbat  error 
uses  against  her  power.  Give  her  but  room,  and  do  not 
bind  her  when  sbe  sleeps."  Men  of  a  hollow  and  theatric 
nature  like  Theodore  Tilton,  men  of  plausible  and  un- 
scrupulous cunning  like  Moulton,  think  truth  is  a  thing 
to  insinuate,  that  all  its  need  is  an  ingenious  arrange- 
ment of  drapery,  and  the  support  of  competent  false  wit- 
nesses. They  think  with  Aaron  Burr,  "truth  is  that 
which  is  boldly  asserted  and  plausibly  maintained." 
They  ask  with  jesting  Pilate,  "  What  is  truth  ?"  Nowar 
days,  jesting  PUates  do  not  find  their  way  into  the  jury- 
boxes,  nor  upon  the  judgment  seat. 

THE    OBSTACLES    IN    THE  WAY   OF  THE 
ACCUSERS. 

When  these  men  come  into  a  court  of  justice 

to  prefer  their  infamous  accusation,  they  must  submit  to 
the  ordeal  whtioh  Justice  herself  has  ordained.  They 
come  here  in  substance  imputing  black  and  beastly  guilt 
to  an  aged  and  honored  clergyman  and  to  a  feeble  but  nu- 
stained  matron.  The  first  obstacle  they  encounter  in 
their  imdertaking  is  the  shield  which  the  law  lifts  before 
each  in  the  legal  presumption  that  both  are  innocent. 
That  shield  shelters  them  at  every  stage  of  the  case,  from 
the  hour  of  their  arraignment  down  to  the  rendition  of 
the  final  verdict.  The  lances  of  the  accusers  must  be 
driven  home  with  a  strength  sufficient  to  penetrate  that 
double  shield  before  there  can  be  a  verdict.  That  shield 


SUMMING    VP  BY  ME.  POBTEB. 


559 


is  tne  protection  wliioli  tlie  law  extends  to  eyeiy  womau, 
to  every  man;  it  is  yours  and  mine.  Tlie  second  6b- 
staole  tliese  accusers  encounter  is  the  defendant's  oath  of 
his  innocence  and  hers,  the  oath  of  an  honest  man,  the 
oath  of  one  who  never  was  forsworn,  an  oath  which  will 
be  accepted  hy  God  though  it  were  rejected  hy  mau.  Bear 
In  mind  that  that  oath  of  the  defendant  harmonizes  with 
the  presumption  which  the  law  raises  in  her  protection 
that  she  is  innocent,  in  his  defense  that  he  is  innocent ; 
that  it  is  absolutely  conclusive  in  his  favor  unless  it 
is  borne  down  by  impartial,  reliable,  and  trustworthy 
evidence,  so  overwhelming  in  its  strength  as  to  convict 
him  of  falsehood  and  of  perjury.  The  third  obstacle  they 
meet  presents  itself  in  the  unblemished  character  and  the 
unspotted  purity  of  the  life  of  the  lady  and  the  clergy- 
man up  to  the  very  day  when  they  are  charged  with  this 
joint  act  of  crime  and  infamy.  The  fourth  obstacle  they 
must  encounter  is  that  both  Tilton  and  Moulton,  for  four 
successive  years  after  their  pretended  knowledge  of  the 
crime,  in  private  and  in  public,  by  their  words  and  their 
acts,  orally  and  in  writing,  falsified  the  accusation  which 
they  now  ask  you  to  indorse.  They  meet  a  fifth  and  fatal 
obstacle  in  the  fact,  opposed  to  all  human  observation 
and  experience,  that  Tilton  cohabited,  slept,  with  the  al- 
leged adulteress  as  a  pure  and  unsullied  wife  for  years 
after  he  knew  that  she  had  polluted  his  marriage  bed ! 
You  feel  and  you  hnow  that  the  charge  is  false.  Nay, 
more,  that  he  and  Moulton  both  maintained,  through  all 
those  four  years,  relations  of  social  and  family  inter- 
course and  of  professed  friendship  and  good-will 
toward  the  alleged  adulterer,  a  fact  at  war 
with  the  truth  of  their  accusation,  and  utterly 
revolting  to  public  decency,  if,  as  they  now  pre- 
tend, they  were  accessories  to  dishonor  after  the  fact. 
They  met  a  sixth  obstacle  in  the  fact  that  they  both  admit 
that  they  are  now  here,  with  the  oath  upon  their  lips,  in 
a  mood  of  mind  which  they  admit  to  have  been  for  a  long 
period  that  of  bitter  and  malignant  hostility,  hostility  so 
malignant  that  each  of  them  frankly  avows  that  one  of 
them  meditated  shedding  blood,  and  we  have  proved  as 
to  the  other  that  he  declared  that  all  he  wanted  was  the 
countenance  of  the  man  whom  he  was  talking  with  to 
cut  down  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Are  these  the  fair, 
the  honest,  and  the  impartial  witnesses  on  whose 
testimony  you  are  going  to  become  the  pall-bearers  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  ?  They  encounter  a  seventh  obsta- 
cle in  the  fact  that  they  are  compelled  to  swear  that  in 
respect  to  the  very  transactions  as  to  which  they  now 
stand  as  witnesses  and  accusers  they  lied  for  years  ;  and 
this  they  must  do  in  order  to  induce  you  to  believe 
that  they  are  not  lying  now.  The  eighth 
i  obstacle  they  have  to  encounter  is,  that  on 
I  points  vital  to  their  credit  as  trustworthy  i 
witnesses  they  are  overborne  by  explicit  and  overwhelm-  | 
ing  contradictions,  proceeding  from  witnesses  of  the  j 
best  character,  some  of  them  ladies  of  known  purity  1 


and  elevation,  many  of  them  among  the  foremost  citi- 
zens of  Brooklyn  and  New-York,  and  all  entitled  to  a 
confidence  and  respect  which  neither  Tilton  nor  Moulton 
can  ever  command  after  the  revelations  they  have  in- 
vited during  the  present  trial.  A  ninth  obstacle  is  pre- 
sented in  the  inherent  improbability  of  the  truth  of  the 
accusation,  in  view  of  the  antecedents  and  the  surround- 
ings of  all  these  parties.  There  is  an  old  maxim  of  the 
law.  familiar  even  in  the  days  of  Rome  :  Witnesses  are 
to  be  weighed,  not  counted.  In  the  one  scale  you  have 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  his  life,  Elizabeth  Tilton  and 
her  life ;  in  the  other  yau  have  Theodore  Tilton  and  his 
life,  Frank  Moulton  and  his  life  ! 

HOW  WITNESSES  AEE  TO  BE  WEIGHED. 

I  lay  out  of  view  the  minor  accessories  with 
which  I  do  not  at  present  have  occasion  to  deal.  You  all 
recognize  this  as  a  wager  of  battle  joined  between  Theo- 
dore Tilton  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  because  Tilton 
is  to  fight  a  woman  as  well  as  a  clergyman,  he  calls  in 
Moulton  to  help  him.  Tilton  is  to  swear  down  Beec^her, 
and  Moulton  is  to  crush  her;  for  it  would  be  a  little  un- 
gracious in  Theodore  to  be  crushing  her,  when  he  swears 
that  she  is  such  a  white-soided  woman,  even  to  the  pres- 
ent hour.  He  leaves  that  for  "Frank!"  [Sensation.] 
Gentlemen,  what  is  the  import  of  that  wise  maxim  of  the 
law:  Witnesses  are  to  be  weighed,  not  counted? 
Simply  this  :  no  number  of  dishonest  men  can,  by  their 
joint  attestation,  make  the  truth  a  lie.  One  honest  man 
speaking  what  is  the  truth,  will  so  state  that  truth  that  a 
jui-y  shall  be  able  to  discern,  to  comprehend,  to  read,  the 
inner  man,  and  to  know  whether  that  which  he  utters  is 
the  truth  of  God  or  a  lie  of  the  Evil  One.  This  confidence 
which  rogues  have  in  the  power  of  lying  is  a  mistaken 
one.  We  are  accustomed  to  judge  the  truth  not  by  the 
number  of  those  who  speak  it,  but  by  the  probability  of 
the  thing  spoken.  You  look  at  your  own  observation. 
Y''ou  lay  side  by  side  with  your  observation  and  your  ex- 
perience, the  narration  which  is  to  l)e  put  to  the  test.  If 
It  accords  with  your  observation  and  experience,  witli 
the  ordinary  probabilities  of  human  aft'rtirs,  is  spoken 
with  apparent  candor,  is  spoken  without  motive  and  with- 
out malice,  is  attested  hy  the  oath  of  a  man  who  respf  cis 
the  Being  from  whom  the  oath  derives  its  solemn  it  y,  you 
accept  it  as  true.  Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  tlie  pro  lia- 
bilities of  this  matter  before  we  come  to  consider  tl?  • 
details.   Is  the  story  probable  1 

MR.  BEECHER'S  EARLY  STRUGGLES. 
Who  is  the  alleged  cnlprit  ?  A  man  tliiee 
score  years  of  age,  mature,  self -disciplined,  well  poised, 
i  not  merely  a  Christian,  but  a  veteran  Christian;  not 
I  merely  a  veteran  Christian,  but  a  veteran  mmister ;  a 
j  man  who  from  his  youth  up  has  dedicated  himself  to  the 
1  service  of  God  and  man.    Fortunate  in  his  antecedents. 


5«0 


THE   TILTON-BEECHEE  lEIAL. 


\n  the  teaching:  of  that  honored  father  whose  name  -will 
stand  np  in  luster  and  in  light  through  all  the  future 
generations  ;  still  more  fortunate  in  the  training  of  that 
heloved  hut  honored  mother  whose  short  hut  radiant  life 
left  a  stream  of  light  on  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  New- 
England  ;  a  woman  of  whom,  in  his  hetter  days,  Theo- 
dore Tilton  was  the  eulogist ;  a  woman  who,  if  ever  God 
sent  an  angel  of  mercy  on  earth,  was  sent  on  a  mission  of 
mercy  when  she  was  sent  to  that  rude  New-England 
home.  Are  these  they  who  teach  their  hoys  the  lessons 
of  lust  and  licentiousness  which,  after  a  time,  shaU 
mark  your  criminal  calendars  and  disgrace  the 
records  of  your  jurisprudence  ?  And  what  had 
heen  his  earlj-  trainiugt  You  twelve  embrace 
in  your  experience  a  large  variety  of  the  vicissitudes  of 
human  life,  but  I  undertake,  without  intimate  knowledge 
of  the  fact,  to  say  that  not  one  of  you  twelve  went 
through  the  same  stern,  rigid  schooling  of  humble  pov- 
erty and  honest  endeavor,  of  sterling  culture  of  aU.  the 
manly  and  Christian  virtues,  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
did  when  going  out  into  what  was  then  comparatively  a 
new  pioneer  region ;  he  labored  for  a  less  salary  than  a 
day  laborer  at  the  work  of  his  Master,  and  with  the  joy 
of  one  who  knew  that  He  was  a  Master  that,  iti  the  life 
beyond,  would  give  him  a  crown  of  stars  for  his  ever- 
lasting reward.  Do  you  believe  that  that  is  the  kind  of 
training  and  tuition,  that  that  is  the  kind  of  endeavor, 
that  leads  men  to  pollute  their  own  souls  with  the  ideas 
of  base  and  filthy  debauchery  %  Again,  it  is  hardly  proba- 
ble that  one  of  you  twelve  as  early  as  he,  turned  to  a 
face  of  love,  which  he  wished  to  make  the 
face  that  should  be  the  light  of  his  future 
home — the  noljle  matron  whom  you  have  seen 
and  admired  here  in  her  faithful  loyalty  and 
devotion  to  the  husband  whose  innocence  she  knows, 
then  a  bright,  beautiful  school-girl,  the  daughter  of  an 
honored  and  eminent  physician ;  the  center  of  a  noble 
social  circle,  a  woman  of  Christian  faith  and  loveliness,  a 
woman  of  Roman  firmness  even  f  l  om  her  girlhood ;  one 
who  possessed  those  intellectual  gifts  and  those  spiritual 
traits  which  won  the  love  of  the  foremost  man  of  the  age, 
and  have  held  it  from  that  hour  to  this.  He  and  she 
pledged  themselves  like  Jacob  and  Rachel.  For  seven 
yeaws  he  was  struggling  in  poverty  and  gaining  his  edu- 
cation, and  the  means  of  a  future  livelihood ;  and  this 
man,  then  in  the  heyday  of  youthful  blood,  then  with  a 
vigor  and  a  power  such  as  no  man  in  this  assembly— not 
even  my  splendid  friend  Beach— ever  had,  with  a  physi- 
cal strength  and  a  glowing,  earnest,  and  daring  nature— 
this  man  passed  through  that  ordeal,  and  did  not  yield. 
Then  he  was  an  honest  man;  <!^ew  he  was  a  pure  man. 
Going  from  log  cabin  to  log-cabin,  he  left  nowhere  the 
trail  of  the  seducer.  Going  from  one  to  another  humble 
school-house  to  teaoh  the  Word  'of  God  to 
those  who  had  no  stated  preacher,  he  left 
nowhere    tbose    who    bore    the    blush  of  ahame 


I  after  he  had  passed  from  among  them.  He  could 
wait.  He  did  wait,  until  he  had  the  meani? ;  on  the  first 
day  he  was  called  to  a  position  which  promised  Mm  a 
support,  when  he  took  to  his  single  uufumished,  rude 
room  the  wife  of  his  youth,  who  is  to-day  the  wife  of  his 
age.  Do  you  believe  that  the  man  who  was  faithful  to 
her  through  those  seven  years,  and  who  was  f tiithfui  to 
her  not  only  then,  but  down  to  the  year  1868,  on  the  10th 
of  November  in  that  year  called  a  woman  into  his  house, 
took  that  woman  to  Mrs.  Beecher's  bed,  and  left  it,  he  an 
adulterer,  and  the  woman  a  prostitute  ?  That  is  not  in 
accordance  with  om'  observations  of  human  experiencet 
of  human  affairs.   It  is  not  true  I 

If  you  look  again,  what  was  the  position  and  character 
of  the  man  in  the  meanwhile  %  Probably  there  is  not 
one  of  your  number  who  has  not  at  some  time  or  other 
seen  or  heard  of  that  little  volume  of  sermons,  the  first 
publication  that  ever  appeared  from  his  pen,  written  in 
early  life,  the  Lectures  to  Young  Men,"  which  I  un- 
dertake to-day  to  say,  from  a  fresh  reading  of  it,  sur- 
passes aU  that  he  has  written— nay,  more,  surpasses  any 
book  of  equal  magnitude  in  the  English  language  in  the 
purity  of  its  teachings,  the  elevation  of  its  conceptions, 
the  grandeur  of  its  execution.  He  was  then  engaged 
in  teaching  those  lessons  of  purity  and  chastity  to  young 
men  and  young  women  in  which  he  had  V^een  rooted 
and  groimded  in  his  father's  and  his  mother's  house. 
What  more  of  him  ?  Ordinarily,  if  young  men  pass 
the  Rubicon  of  manhood  and  preserve  their  characters 
unspotted  and  undefiled,  they  are  deemed  safe  for  the 
time  to  come.  This  man  did  more.  His  little  library 
grew  with  his  means ;  his  work  enlarged  as  his  power  en- 
larged ;  he  became  the  foremost  man  in  his  profession  in 
the  West,  and  then  came  to  your  beautiful  city  to  do  a 
work  such  as  no  ten  men  in  the  United  States  have  ever 
done  before.  A  life  so  crowded  with  work,  a  life  so  de- 
voted to  the  good  of  his  church,  of  his  coxmtrymen,  of 
mankind,  of  his  Master's  cause,  and  the  cause  of  the 
poor,  the  cause  of  an  oppressed  race— every  cause  wtich 
commends  itself  to  the  warm,  generous  heart— so  de- 
voted to  an  these  that  he  gave  to  them  the  hours  whioli 
you  and  I  give  to  recreation  and  to  rest ;  a  man  of  cease- 
less avocation,  not  on  the  Sabbath  day  alone,  not  in  the 
church  alone,  but  on  the  platform,  in  the  ecolesiastloal 
council,  in  the  editorial  rooms,  in  the  study  of  the  author, 
even,  when  occasion  came,  in  front  of  those  assemblages 
of  his  coimtrymen  who  came  to  hear  his  inspired  words, 
before  they  went,  taking  with  them  his  oldest  son,  to 
fight  the  battles  of  the  country.  Nay,  abroad,  standhig 
alone  in  the  midst  of  our  enemies,  where  no  other  Ameri- 
can could  stand,  and  changing  the  tide  of  public  opinion 
so  that  England,  which  was  all  against  us  when  he  went, 
became  divided,  and  the  laboring  men  of  England  wero 
our  allies  from  that  hour. 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MB.  FOETEB. 


561 


IMPROBABILITIES  IN  THE  CASE. 

TJds  man  who  don't  read  Ms  own  letters, 
who  don't  pay  liis  otth  bills,  who  don't  receive  Ms  own 
jialary,  who  gives  everything  to  the  charge  of  the  honored 
Rdfe,  who  is  equal  to  the  task ;  this  man  performing 
:abors,  not  like  a  modern  Hercules,  but  like  a  Christian 
nan,  labors  at  the  thought  of  which  most  men  would 
5tand  abashed ;  this  man  has  the  leistire,  and  the  oppor- 
Umity,  and  the  taste  to  devote  a  year  and  a  half  of  his 
ife  to  a  low  debauch  !  Why,  gentlemen,  even  Theodore 
niton  was  too  conspicuous  a  man  to  keep  his  amours 
5oncealed,  and  yet  they  would  have  you  believe  that  the 
Ibremostman  in  the  American  pulpit,  who  lived  in  the 
)laze  of  noonday,  who  was  known  by  every  man  and 
voman  in  Brooklyn,  k  nown  to  the  school  children,  known 
0  the  serving  girls,  known  to  each  poor  negro  that  pur- 
ued  his  calling  in  the  streets— that  a  man  like  this  could 

pursuing  a  secret  amour  m  open  day,  that  he  should 
le  debauched  and  live  a  year  and  a  half  in  debauchery 
nth  a  woman  who  worshiped  God  at  his  own  altar,  who 
jock  the  bread  of  the  covenant  from  his  own  hand, 
hat  such  an  intrigue  could  be  carried  on  through 
,  year  and  a  half,  and  no  eye  see  it,  and  no  ear  hear  it, 
;intO  the  last  woman  on  earth  to  tell  it  is  said  to  have 
jold  it,  and  the  last  man  on  earth  to  tell  it  is  said  to  have 
old  it,  and  that  woman  is  represented  to  have  told  it  to 
he  last  man  on  earth  she  would  ever  have  told  it  to ;  and 
jlenry  Ward  Beecher  to  have  told  it  to  the  very  man  on 
jarth  who,  of  all  others,  he  would  have  shrunk  from  tell- 
|ig  it  to !  rs  it  probable  ?  rational  ?  Do  you  believe  it  ? 
vhat  shall  be  required  to  commend  such  a  story  to  yoiu' 
ontidence,  against  a  man  of  hitherto  unspotted  life  and 
lorality,  of  hitherto  unblemished  name,  against  the  oath 
t:  a  man  who  never  was  forsworn,  against  the  presiunp- 
ou  of  innocence,  which  the  law  directs  as  a  defense 
Ecainst  accusation  I 

Now,  let  us  look  at  the  probabilities  with  reference  to 
le  wonian.  Whatever  else  in  this  case  may  be  doubtful, 
Qe  thiug  is  agreed  upon.   If  down  to  the  10th  day  of 

Ictober,  18G8,  there  was  one  woman  in  all  Brooklyn  who 
)uld  command  the  good  word,  the  earnest  commenda- 
jion,  the  warmest  love  of  all  her  sex,  and  all  oiu's,  her 
'fame  was  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  ;  a  woman  wedded  when 
le  was  20  years  old  to  a  man  whom  she  made  the  sub- 
ct  of  an  idolatry  that  was  almv,«.t  impious :  a  woman 
|ho,  having  many  severe  crosses  and  trials,  always  ac- 
ppted  them  as  the  just  penalty  of  her  own  weakness  and 
jflrmity,  and  never  cast  the  blame  upon  the  tiusband  to 
horn  she  was  yoked  by  a  yoke  so  hard  that  when  her 
id  did  not  follow  it  was  dragged,  even  if  she  was  stran- 
ed;  a  woman  so  faithliil  to  her  children,  so  faithful 
her  church,  so  faithful,  so  reverent,  so  trusting 
her    Father ;     a    woman    who    so    labored  to 
'ing  back  har  husband  to  the  faith  of  her  youth  and  of 
!r  womanhood;  a  womau  so  earnest  for  those  dear 
ildren  whom  she  attempted  to  brmg  up  i  a  the  way  in 


which  she  believed  the  Savior  would  have  led  them  if  he 
had  been  upon  earth— this  woman,  with  all  her  feeble- 
ness of  health,  and  the  letters  that  he  has  introduced 
show  that  it  ran  a  steady  thread  through  the  whole 
structure  of  her  life ;  but  a  woman,  as  he  would  have 
you  believe,  unfortunate  in  her  m9ther,  as  she  was  un- 
fortunate in  her  husband,  and  yet  whose  heart  was  so 
full  of  generous  and  noble  sympathy  and  affection  that 
when  she  could  hear  of  the  sick,  she  was  at  the  side  of 
the  sick  bed ;  when  she  could  hear  of  the  destitute,  she 
was  there  with  her  poor  loaf  to  divide  with  them ;  and 
when  she  could  not  find  in  private  families  the  means  to 
satisfy  her  craving  for  relieving  human  infirmity,  adding 
to  her  other  care  the  charge  of  that  Bethel  which  she  was 
continuing  during  the  very  period  that  Theodore  Tilton 
says  she  was  in  the  arms  of  a  paramour !  Do  you  believe 
it  ?  A  woman  so  pure  that  the  very  man  who.  to  strike 
Beecher,  would  send  the  lance  straight  through  her  heart, 
even  he  stands  before  you  with  the  oath  of  God  upon  his 
lips,  and  declares  her  to  be  the  whitest  so  alLe  has  ever 
known ;  a  woman  who,  he  tells  you,  had  no  lust ;  a 
woman  of  clear  intellect,  of  high  sense  of  duty,  faithful 
in  every  relation,  loyal  to  him,  loving  her  children  ;  and 
yet,  with.out  lust,  without  passion,  fresh  from  the  grave 
of  h.er  dead  boy,  walking  up  to  the  house  of  her  pastor, 
and  tendering  to  hipi  the  use  of  her  body  in  prostitu- 
tion !  Why.  the  very  fiends  would  laugh  to 
scorn  an  accusation  so  horrid  and  contemptible. 
And  yet,  gentlemen,  to  such  an  accusation  you  have  given 
five  months  of  the  very  best  of  your  lives,  you,  each  of 
you,  to  satisfy  the  malignant  hate  of  the  man  who,  sit- 
ting within  20  feet  of  his  wife,  dares  to  curse  her  life  and 
her  children's  lives.  And  then  again,  the  foolish  asser- 
tion that  this  woman,  who  had  no  lust  and  no  passion," 
that  this  woman  was  debauched,  upon  the  shallow  pre- 
tense addressed  to  her  by  the  same  man  who  had  pro- 
nounced the  curse  of  God  upon  the  adulterer,  in  her  hear- 
ing. Sabbath  after  Sabbath  and  year,  after  year,  the  as- 
sirrance  from  that  man  that  love  was  innocent,  and  that 
any  expression  of  the  love  was  just  as  harmless  as  a  kiss 
or  a  caress.  Gentlemen,  the  idea  that  a  woman  who 
could  write  such  letters  as  the  husband  has  put  in  evi- 
dence before  you  could  be  deceived  by  such  a  bald  and 
paltry  statement ! 

Oh,  but  the  infamy  all  lies  behind  this.  This  language 
which  he  and  Moulton  put  in  the  mouth  of  Mr.  Beecher 
as  the  means  of  seducing  his  wife— this  is  the  language 
which  he  used  in  the  bedchamber  of  Bessie  Turner  on 
the  night  when  he  put  his  hand  in  her  bosom  and  told 
her  that  these  things  were  done  in  the  highest  society, 
and  that  they  were  mere  expressions  of  love,  and  that 
any  form  of  expression  of  love  was  as  innocent  as  a  kiss 
or  a  caress.  Vou  see  the  mint  from  which  the  alleged 
confession  was  coined. 

Gentlemen,  there  is  another  feature  which  goes  to  the 
probability  of  the  narration,  and  to  the  degree  of  evl» 


562 


THE   TILTON-BEEOEEE   J  El  Ah. 


dence  you  will  re<iulre  to  override  your  understandings 
into  the  acceptance  of  wliat  both  your  Intelligence  and 
conscience  rejects.  Now,  suppose  that  hy  one  of  those 
sudden  transmutations,  of  which  we  have  no  example 
in  this  direction,  but  of  which  we  have  one 
in  the  other,  when  the  penitent  thief  on  the 
Cros3  was  changed  from  darkness  to  light,  but 
it  was  only  by  the  power  of  the  crucified  God  who 
suffered  at  his  side— suppose  that  this  monstrous  and 
incredible  thing  did  occur,  that  the  man  who  all  his  life 
had  been  teaching  the  precepts  of  his  Master,  making  bad 
men  good  and  good  men  better,  had  suddenly,  when  he  had 
turned  the  edge  of  three-score  years,  been  transformed 
from  a  Christian  minister  to  a  vulgar  libertine.  Suppose 
another  equally  extraordinary  coincidence ;  a  lady,  pure, 
benevolent,  generous,  beloved,  faithful  to  man,  faithful 
to  God,  had  suddenly  become  as  one  of  those  poor  crea- 
tures that  vralk  like  spii'its  of  darlrness  in  your  streets  by 
night,  to  enli'ap  the  unwary  into  houses  of  degradation 
and  shame ;  suppose  this  to  have  occurred.  They  were 
reasonable  beings,  were  they  not  1  They  were  intelli- 
gent people.  They  had  ordinary  understanding.  He 
knew  that  he  lived  in  the  blaze  of  the  noon-day 
sun ;  she  knew  it.  If  they  had  al^andoned 
themselves  to  a  life  of  a  year  and  a 
half  of  debauchery  and  shame  where  would  they  lay  the 
venue  of  crime  1  Where  did  they  lay  it,  according  to 
Theodore  Tilton  and  Frank  Moulton?  Where  did  they 
lay  it  according  to  the  complaint  which  lies  before  his 
Honor?  A  year  and  a  half  of  debauchery,  all  committed 
either  at  the  house  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  or  at  the 
house  of  Theodore  Tilton,  the  house  of  Mr.  Beecher 
never  deprived  for  a  year  and  a  half,  nor  for  a  year,  nor 
for  a  half  year,  of  the  light  which  then  and  now  brightens 
Ms  dwelling ;  a  house  frequented  by  his  sons  and  his 
daughters,  his  grandchildren,  his  friends,  his  brethren  of 
Plymouth  Church,  his  brethren  of  every  denomination, 
his  clerical  friends,  and  all.  But  I  reioice  at  it,  and 
il  my  noble  friend  on  the  other  side  had  experienced  the 
hospitality  which  I  have  since  this  case  commenced, 
if  he  had  been  in  that  household,  as  it  has  happened  to 
me  to  be,  and  seen  the  light  and  the  joy,  the  atmosphere 
of  purity  and  love  which  pervades  it,  if  he  could  see  every 
member  of  that  family  from  the  oldest  to  the  youngest  of 
those  grandchildren,  all  fused  together  in  one  spirit  of 
kindliness  and  love,  how  could  he  sum  up  this  case  ?  He 
cotild  not  do  it ;  he  could  not  do  it.  He  will  do  it  better 
without.  Why,  the  idea  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  if  he 
were  capable  of  having  a  mistress,  taking  that  mistress 
beneath  his  roof,  putting  that  mistress  where 
his  servants  and  his  grandchildren  might  see,  and 
bringing  her  within  the  door  which,  if  you  knock  at 
It  to-morrow,  will  be  opened  to  you  by  Mrs.  Beecher,  as  it 
was  opened  to  Mrs.  Tilton  by  her  the  only  time 
that  Mrs.  Tilton  ever  entered  that  house— why, 
gentlemen,   can   you  conceive    anything    more  ab- 


surd! Mark  you,  not  an  instance  of  sudden  yield- 
ing   to    passion,    but    they    state    that    by  his 
confession,  through  that  year  and  a  half,  from  August 
10, 186S,  to  the  Spring  of  1870,  in  his  and 'n  her  ho;;s, 
this  prostitution  was  being  perpetrated.   Two  houses, 
neither  of  which  know  privacy,  two  houses  where  no 
door  is  locked  except  upon  some  special  occasion,  two 
houses  where  every  servant  can  look  into  every  rooai, 
two  houses  where  every  child  has  free  access  from  garret-  i 
roof  to  the  ocllar-stone;  yet  the  monstrous  story  is  told 
by  Theodore  TUton  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  conle  ssed 
to  him  that  in  those  two  houses,  and  through  that  period, 
he  was  debauching  this  poor  sick  woman.   And  then  the 
still  more  monstrous  and  incredible  story,  which,  if  I  re- 
member right,  TUton  himself  had  not  the  eSErontery  to 
make,  which  was  left  for  Moulton  to  put  forth,  that  when  [ 
this  God-fearing  man  and  God-fearing  woman  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  was  better  to  stop,  that  they  had 
better  go  no  farther,  the  reverend  gentleman  takes  the 
flax  to  the  fire,  goes  down  to  her  bedside,  gets  her 
out  of  her  bed,  and  they   kneel  down  together,  and 
the  inference  would  be  that  their  arms  probably  would 
encircle  each  other  while  they  were  sending  up  theirji 
joint  prayer  to  the  God  Almighty  whom  both  worshiped, 
that  He  would  give  them  strength  not  to  get  nearei 
together  than  they  were  at  that  particular  time.  [Sensa 
tion.]  That  is  the  blasphemous  prayer  which  was  Im- 
puted by  Moulton  and  Tilton  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and 
this,  wliite-souled  saint.    If  their  story  is  ti-ue,  that  is 
true ;  if  their  story  is  true,  that  other  story  is  true ;  anu 
they,  knowing  that  she  was  an  adulteress  and  he  an 
adulterer,  sent  for  him  to  go  one  morning  to  their  house 
walked  up  into  a  private  chamber,  talked  over  the  questior 
together  as  to  when  it  was  that  he  did  him  the  honor  to  pol 
lute  his  marriage  bed,  asking  him  for  the  particular  dates 
telling  him  that  he  had  a  business  interest  in  It,  tha^ 
there  was  a  boy,  that  white-haired  Ralph,  who  ought  t( 
have  been  here,  that  you  might  have  seen  whether  Henri 
Ward  Beecher  or  Theodore  Tilton  was  his  father ;  .  holding 
an  inquest  over  that  living  body  to  determine  when  i 
was  that  this  act  of  sacrilege  was  committed  between  i 
clergyman  of  the  altar  and  one  of  his  parishioners,  an( 
in  the  house  of  one  who  claimed  to  be  his  nearest  fi'iend 
He  says,  "  Really,  Mr.  Tilton,  I  did  not  make  a  reoon 
of  these  trajusactions  ;  I  kept  no  minutes  of  it."  "  Weil, 
he  says,  "Elizabeth  says  that  the  first  time  was  on  th 
10th  of  October,  1868."   "  Well,"  he  says,  "  I  cannot  ta 
you  how  that  is,  because  I  did  not  make  an  entry  of  It  n 
the  time,  but  you  know  Elizabeth  is  a  woman  of  trutl 
and  if  she  says  so,  it  must  be  so."    And  so,  though  thi 
child  was  born  in  the  ninth  month  of  pregnancy,  eigi 
months  and  ten  days  after  that  7th  day  of  August,  Thei 
dore  Tdton  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  it  could  not  ha^ 
come  from  that,  and  that  the  child  is  legitimate.  WhJ 
gentlemen,  if  there  be   a   beast   on  earth  in  Uviu 
form  that  is  capable  of  holding  such  a  conversation  ovf 


SUM21ISG    UF  BY  ME.  PORTER. 


563 


his  own  boy,  wirli  the  paramour  ot  lii.s  acUilterous  wife, 
(iie  lias  lived  too  long  upon  tlie  earth  ;  it  is  time  for  liim 
|to  die  :  [Seasatlon.J  What  are  sach  men  for,  unless  they 
have  a  use  in  hunting  down  eler.ir.rmen  and  crucifying 
women,  and  committing  perjury  in  courts  of  lustice  ? 
This  is  the  story  that  is  commended  to  you. 

HOW  THE  LETTERS  WERE  SPREAD  BROAD- 
CAST. 

Xow,  gentlemen,  without  stopping  to  discuss 
these  probahilities  further,  I  wish,  in  order  to  enable  you 
to  lool£  at  this  as  it  should  be  looked  at,  to  call  to  mind  in 
the  first  place,  the  oath  of  this  man  as  to  the  condition  of 
his  home  prior  to  the  alleged  act  of  the  seducer.  I  wish 
then  to  compare  it  with  another  record,  more  reliable,  a 
record  made  by  his  wife's  hand  and  by  his  own,  in  the 
confidence  of  conjugal  afl"ection,  which  he  has  since  be- 
trayed to  the  pubiic  by  an  act  of  infamy  and  dishonor, 
but  which  is  properly  before  you,  and  which  now  rises 
against  him  to  condemn  his  false  swearing.  He  told  you, 
you  will  remember,  that  down  to  1868  his  home— I  do 
mot,  of  course,  use  his  language,  for  it  would  take  me  too 
long  to  go  through  with  it  in  detail,  but  you  rememher 
the  general  efltect  of  it— his  home  was  one  of  singular  and 
unalloyed  purity  and  domestic  peace;  his  wife  loving, 
loyal,  faithful,  devoted;  his  children  tender,  beauti- 
Ciful,  affectionate ;  their  relations  harmonious, 
loving,  mutually  devoted;  all  light  within 
fche  dwelling,  all  peace  there,  no  jar,  no  discord; 
«uch  a  home  as  even  you  and  I  feared  was  impossible, 
while  he  was  giving  the  narration  of  it.  We  had  read  of 
It  in  romance  and  in  poetry.  It  has  happened  to  me  to 
aave  a  bright  and  happy  home,  and  I  presume  has  hap- 
pened to  each  of  you ;  but  the  home  in  which  the  sun 
ilways  shines  and  no  cloud  appears,  the  home  in  which 
ill  is  light  and  no  darkness  ever  descends,  the  home  in 
which  all  is  music,  and  harmony  never  broken,  the  home 
rhat  we  look  for  only  in  that  purer  and  better  land  to 
which  Henry  Ward  Beecher  Avas  endeavoring  to  guide 
:his  man's  wife  and  children,  while  he  was  endeavoring  to 
stab  them  both  1  Now,  letusreferto  what  will  not  mislead, 
gentlemen  ;  to  these  letters  that  passed  between  them, 
ivritten  with  no  thought,  no  dream  on  her  part— at  all 
ivents,  that  what  she  wrote  in  the  confidence  of  conjugal 
iffection  was  to  be  published  on  the  house-tops,  and 
Photographed  in  T/i€  JN'eic-rorTb  GrapJiic,  and  thrown  to 
ihe  winds  by  Frank  Moulton,  and  exposed  in  all  its 
jiakedness  by  Theodore  Tilton  to  the  cold,  harsh  commen- 
taries of  the  world,  who  look  very  differently  upon  love 
etters  from  what  they  do  who  write  them.  You  remem- 
ber them,  and  I  think— with  all  my  respect  and  admira- 
aon  foi-  my  honored  friend  Judge  Morris— I  think  he  was 
jATong,  if  it  is  true  that  he  mtsled  Theodore  Tilton. 
'fivery  one  may  sometimes  be  wrong;  I  know 
L  am  too  often,  and  I  fear  he  was  then. 
When  Theodore  said  to  Monis,  "  I  have  broken  open  a 


closet  and  got  my  wife's  letters.  She  didn't  take  h-ern  oft"; 
I  have  got  aU  her  letters ;  it  wouldn't  do  to  publish  them, 
though ;  that  wo  aid  be  too  mean;  thej'  were  not  intended 
for  publication,  and  it  won't  do,"  Judge  Morris  says, 
"  Well,  now,  Theodore,  you  are  wrong.  Justice  should 
stand  though  the  woman  fall !  Down  with  it!  Up  with 
the  letters !  Give  them  to  the  pnhlic !"  "  WeU,  I  don't 
lUre  to  have  people  think  I  did  it."  "  Oh !  where  is  *  Gath !' 
Which  of  those  letters  is  the  best  to  have  published  i" 
Well,  I  don't  understand  from  the  narration  whether  it 
was  my  friend  Judge  Morris,  or  his  client,  sat  down  and 
marked  these  as  you  see  them,  with  red  marks.  "  There's 
a  good  one.  That  don't  read  well.  There,  that 
will  do;  put  tJiat  in.  Xo  ;  bf^tter  leave  out.  That 
one  won't  do  at  all.  Ah  1  the7'e  is  one  that  will  do ;  mark 
that.  TTiej^e  is  another  ;  that  will  do.  Well,  now  there  is 
part  of  a  sentence  that  would  do,  if  it  was  not  for  that 
confounded  other  part  of  the  sentence.  WeU,  strike  t?uU 
out."  That  is  struck  out.  "Now,  this  don't  read  quite 
right."  "Well,  just  fill  up  the  sentence;  make  it  read." 
And  so  these  garbled  letters,  made  to  serve  the  foul  and 
infamous  purpose,  culled  out  with  a  view  to  falsehood, 
were  sent  out  to  the  world ;  and  then,  not,  of  course. 
Theodore,  but  other  people  who  write  in  exactly 
his  style,  communicate  with  The  Springfield  Repub- 
lican, and  The  Chicago  Tribune,  and  TTie  Xeic-Tork 
Sun,  until  we  finally  find  that  instead  of  there 
being  onfe  Theodore  Tilton,  we  have  foi-ty  Theodore 
Tiltons,  and  all  writing  for  the  newspapers,  and  all 
writing  down  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 
Gentlemen,  those  are  the  stratagems  and  policies  which 
John  Milton  says  Truth  don't  need,  and  which  Error 
resorts  to. 

MRS.  TILTOX'S  LETTERS  AND  THEIR  LESSONS. 

But,  now,  let  us  take  these  letters,  even  as 
far  as  we  have  been  able  to  get  them.  My  friends  on  the 
other  side  were  right;  in  order  to  determine  the  truth  of 
this  accusation,  in  order  to  comprelic^nd  the  evidence  in 
its  true  bearings,  you  need  lo  go  back,  as  they  did  go 
back,  to  the  interior  of  that  home  as  it  existed  before  the 
alleged  seduction  and  debaucherj-;  and,  now,  let  us  see  it 
as  it  is  presented  in  these  letters.  I  shall  not  go  through 
them  at  all  at  length,  but  merely  call  your  attention  here 
and  there  to  a  passing  circumstance  which  they  develop, 
showing  who  were  the  inmates  of  the  house,  who  were 
the  intimates  of  Mr.  Tilion,  who  were  the 
intimates  of  his  wife,  what  were  the  relations  between 
them.  That  they  were  relations  of  cordial  love  I  have 
never  denied,  and  never  shall  deny.  It  is  one  of  the 
thmgs  whjch  seems  to  me  marvelous  in  the  sight  of  man, 
and  only  explainable  when  we  shall  be  able  to  look  at  it 
with  the  light  which  comes  fi'om  Omniscience.  I'hat 
woman,  loathing  this  man  as  she  does  to  this  hour,  loves 
him  as  I  have  never  seen  woman  love  man.  It  is  the 
strangest  anomaly  that  I  have  ever  witnessed  in  the 


564  THE  TILTON-BM 

wi!o;e  course  of  evoDts.  Tlie  most  idolati'ous,  aEd,  if  I 
miglit  so  use  the  term,  abject  love;  but  it  is  no  longer 
that  love  which  is  absolutely  blind.  Then  it  was  lo\  e 
idolatrous  and  blind,  but  now  it  is  love  idolatrous  but 
blasted.  She  can  see  it ;  she  knows  to  whom  she  pledged 
her  prostrate  and  abject  soul.  But  you  wiU  find  on  his 
part  all  through  this  wholly  theatrical,  extravagant, 
absurd  protestation  of  sentimental  love  that  exists  just 
as  much  this  moment  it.  ever  did  in  any  hour  of  his 
life— a  low  born  love;  the  love  of  being  loved; 
a  self-love  which  magnifies  not  only  myself,  but 
my  ox  and  my  ass,  and  my  manservant  and 
and  my  maidservant,  and  even  my  poor  little  wife ;  but 
not  to  such  an  extent  but  that  he  can  put  his  foot  on  her 
for  the  purpose  of  reeking  vengeance  on  an  enemy. 

I  would,  if  I  had  time,  gentlemen,  have  reduced  those 
letters  to  order  and  analyzed  tliem  :  but,  as  I  could  not  do 
so;  I  give  them  to  you  just  as  they  strike  my  eye.  Now, 
observe,  the  alleged  seduction  was  on  the  10th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1868,  Paul  having  died  six  weeks  before.  Now,  he 
puts  in  evidence  the  letters  running  through,  from  1867 
on,  stopping,  of  course,  then,  for  it  would  not  do  to  put  in 
any  more  letters  after  he  had  made  the  discovery.  Well, 
in  tliis  letter  of  Jan.  7, 1867,  she  writes  to  him,  address- 
ing him  as— 

My  Precious  Husbamd  :  I  find  our  language  very  poor 
in  superlatives  when  I  attempt  to  describe  my  soul's  love. 

Well,  passing  over  all  this,  which  seems  very  namby- 
pamby  to  me,  but  which  is  expressive  of  a  noble  woman's 
sincere  affection,  and  which  was  not  intended  to  pass 
under  your  criticism  or  mine,  she  goes  on  to  say: 

What  a  blessing  you  are  to  me  in  every  way !  Mrs. 
Belcher  made  a  long  call  on  me  to-day,  and  sent  much 
love  to  you.  Mattie  and  Katy  Bradshaw  also  called. 
Please  mention  Mr.  Ovington  in  some  of  yovu-  letters  ;  it 
would  so  gratify  him  that  you  remembered  him. 

I  call  your  attention  to  these  two  or  three  names,  gen- 
tlemeu.  One  of  the  side-lights  that  is  thrown  into  this 
ease  by  testimony  given  on  our  part  is  the  fact  that  this 
same  Mr.  Belcher,  then  the  intimate  friend  of  Mr.  Til- 
tou,  wbo  was  his  chosen  representative  in  the  church 
proceedings  at  Plymouth  Church,  and  with  whom  he  cor- 
responded—tliat  same  Mr.  Belcher  is  the  man  who  meets 
him  eye  to  eye  and  oath  to  oath,  and  convicts  him 
now  of  perjury ;  who  tells  you  that  that  alleged 
confession  of  his  wife,  which  he  says  imported  adultery 
—he  tells  you  that  he  showed  to  him  that  confession,  and 
that  the  charge  was  improper  solicitations,  a  request  to 
becorao  a  wife  with  all  that  that  implied,  and  no  more. 
There  was  the  paper;  that,  if  ever  any  paper  was  writ- 
ten containing  a  charge  of  adultery,  contained  it,  and 
Mr.  Belcher  swore  that  Theodore  Til  ton  with  his  own 
hand  showed  him  that  letter  then  written,  and  shown  on 
the  night  of  the  30th  of  December  to  Henry  Ward  ! 
Eccchcr,  and  that  letter  was  a  charge  not  of  aduUcry— 
II  '     'i;f(..<.sion,  but  an  aocxisatiou  of  improper  -iolicita- 


EGREB  TBIAL. 

MR.  TILTON'S  FRIENDS  DESERT  HIM. 

I  caU  your  attention,  gentlemen,  to  this  just 
at  this  juncture,  because,  as  we  travel  on,  you  will  find 
that  every  man  except  Frank  Moulton  that  ever  Tlieo- 
dore  Tilton  leaned  on  has  become  a  broken  reed.  Dr.  j 
Bacon  was  once  his  friend,  and  he  now  boasts  that  the  ! 
Doctor  regards  him  as  a  dog.  South  wick  was  once  his 
friend,  and  Southwiok  meets  him  eye  to  eye,  and  fixes  ! 
upon  him  bis  perjury.  Cleveland  was  once  his  friend  ![ 
and  benefactor,  and  Cleveland  meets  Mm  oath  to  oath, 
Jackson  S.  Schultz  was  once  bis  friend,  and,  if  Jackson  S. 
Schultz  has  sworn  to  the  truth,  then  Theodore  Tilton  has 
sworn  over  and  over  and  over  to  an  infamous  lie.  Wlien 
you  find  that  the  friends  of  Tilton,  the  jury  of 
vicinage,  parted  from  him;  when  you  find  that  Frank 
Moultou,  once  a  member  of  the  great  house  of  Woodruff 
&  Robinson,  a  man  undoxibtedly  of  great  business  ca- 
pacity, of  daring  energy  and  administrative  genius,  as 
Theodore  Tilton  says — when  you  find  him,  after  the  in- 
ception of  this,  dropping  out  tirst  of  the  principal  firm, 
second  of  the  secondary  firm,  and  finally  his  connecfciou 
prolonged  one  month  with  a  view  to  your  verdict,  and 
then  at  the  end  of  a  month  was  summarily  cut  off,  you 
can  judge  what  the  jury  of  Frank  Moulton's  vicinage 
think  of  him.  These  men  stand  alone.  One  after  another, 
on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left  hand,  they  have  fallen 
away. 

But  where  are  the  friends  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  | 
those  who  have  known  him  1  He  never  knew  until  this  I 
accusation  who  were  his  friends.  They  have  multiplied  | 
as  the  sands  upon  the  seashore.  Siu-rounded  once  by 
Plymouth  Church,  he  is  surrounded  now  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  all  creeds  and  all  churches  in  America,  and 
to  a  large  extent  in  other  lands.  He  who  had  no  friends 
before  except  those  who  were  among  his  religious  and 
personal  associates,  now  finds  friends  coming  from  every 
quarter,  which  shows  that  after  all  he  was  not  wrong  in 
that  Cleveland  letter  for  which  Theodore  Tilton  so  de- 
nounced him.  From  State  after  State,  day  after  day,  as 
the  mails  come  in,  we  have  exiuessious  of  gratulanon 
and  sympathy  from  all  quarters  of  the  country,  and  The- 
odore Tilton  and  Frank  Moulton  stand  ahme.  IkJloW 
the  magnanimity  of  gentlemen  of  the  press  ;  I  know  the 
fertility  of  the  pen  and  the  readiness  of  diction  which 
greet  us  every  day  as  we  look  at  the  newspapers.  Bui 
look  at  the  living  men  !  Look  at  tlie  classes  of  men, 
business  men,  bankers,  not  only  Christian  mm,  but  men 
who  recognize  no  God.  You  may  find  them  in  every  de- 
partment of  the  community.  Men  themselves  of  tolly, 
and  to  some  extent  licentious  lives— even  they  denounce 
the  mean,  false  accusation  against  Henry  Ward  Beeclxer. 

MR.  TILTON  COMPARED  TO  THE  DEITY. 
B  it,  to  go  on  witli  the  correspondence.  You 
vnll  o'  '^orvc  here  was  Mr.  Ovington,  as  one  of  those 


SUMMING    UF  1 

friends  of  that  date.  Now,  you  mark  this.  Tilton 
gives  us  a  graphic  account  of  the  interview  in  which  he 
showed  his  manhood  to  his  sick  wife,  hy  alleging  that 
none  of  his  children  except  Florence  were  legitimate, 
and  that  she  had  sexual  intercourse  with  four  men,  and 
one  of  the  four  was  Ovington.  Do  you  believe  that 
Edward  J.  Ovington  found  it  necessary  to  intrude  upon 
the  marital  rights  of  Theodore  Tilton,  with  a  woman  for 
a  wife  who  is  like  one  of  the  princesses  of  the  earth  ? 

We  have  a  letter  here  of  the  9th  of  January,  1867,  il- 
lustrating another  thing,  that  all  this  while,  while  this 
was  a  poor,  sick  woman,  and  married  to  a  hale,  stalwart, 
exacting  man,  ahout  January  6, 1867,  afee  writes  to  him 
this  [reading] : 

Ahout  this  time  every  year  my  vital  forces  grow  poor, 
and  thus  far  I  have  endured  felons  and  other  eruptions. 
I  havenow aninflamed  eyelid  andlooseness  of  the  howels. 
I  will  try  to  take  better  care  of  my  wretched  health,  be- 
cause the  best  man  in  the  world  loves  me. 

Why  was  this  letter  published?  Can  you  imagine  any- 
thing more  indecent,  more  mean,  more  contemptible 
than  to  publish  in  the  newspapers  of  all  this  land  a 
wife's  letter  in  which  she  complains  of  her  felons,  her 
eruptions,  her  inflamed  -^ye,  and  her  looseness  of  the 
bowels'?  But  yoa  see  there  it  is.  This  man's  greed  of 
admiration,  his  unbounded  and  stolid  egotism,  is  such 
that,  to  get  a  compliment,  he  would  publish  anything. 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  this  woman  is  said  to  have  used 
language  in  her  "Catharine  Gaxmt  Letter"  which  indi- 
<5ates  that  she  is  an  adulteress.  She  talked  about  her  sin. 
Wuy,  gentlemen,  when  you  come  to  read  this  letter  you 
know  just  what  her  sin  is.  Her  sin  was  that  she  was  not 
good  enough  for  Theodore.  He  would  come  home  with 
his  magnificent  Apollo  person,  his  grandeur  and  his 
beauty,  and  Bessie  would  comb  his  hair,  and  Mrs.  Tilton 
must  kneel  and  read  to  him,  and  the  rest  must 
gather  around  him,  and  the  oysters  must  be 
prepared  for  his  palate,  and  the  delicacies  for  his 
table,  and  because  the  poor  woman  sometimes  got  tired, 
she  was  so  remorseful ;  he  complained  of  her  as  sullen, 
not  content  with  her  lot ;  married  to  this  man  with  a 
crown,  and,  besides,  she  could  not  talk ;  she  was  only  so 
high.  Here  was  the  yoke ;  she  down  here  and  he  up 
there.  It  never  occurred  to  him  that  the  misfortune  was 
at  her  end  of  the  yoke  and  not  at  his.  Well,  she  re- 
proaches herself.  ''My  great  bugbear  and  nightmare  is 
that  I  will  hide  my  love  or  treat  you  ill  when  you  re- 
turn." 

In  The  next  letter  of  Feb.  13  she  says,  "  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Belcher  took  tea  with  me  last  evening."  If  he  had 
another  wife  I  should  fear  for  Belcher;  we  would  have 
another  similar  suit,  and  he  would  bring  the  same  sort  of 
proof  against  him  that  he  does  against  Mr.  Beecher  ;  for 
aU  through  this  letter  you  will  find  Belcher,  Belcher, 
Belcher,  and  Ovington,  Ovington,  Ovington.  Luckily 
Ovington  is  across  the  sea, and  by  the  time  Belcher's  turn 
comes,  even  if  he  has  a    new  wife,  he  will  need 


r  ME,   POBTEE.  565 

more  aid  than  the  oath  of  Frank  Moulton  to 
carry  a  crim.  con.  case  through  the  courts.  Now, 
here  is  this  woman  who  is  cherishing  a  sacred  love 
for  this  diabolical  seducer,  as  my  friend  called 
it  in  the  opening.  "I  shall  go  to-night  to  hear 
Mr.  Beecher  open  the  Fraternity  course."  Now,  here 
is  one  of  those  little  touches  of  a  woman.  You  will 
see  in  this  letter  that  there  is  no  doubt  of  what  she 
thought  about  Theodore  and  the  women,  but  then  she 
had  the  feeling  that  whatever  he  did  was  right.  Thia 
man  who  had  moods  of  genius,  and  also  the  privilege  of 
that  genius,  and  yet  we  find  this  little  woman  humbly, 
quietly  deprecating:  "Pray,  take  care  of  your  precious 
body."  Well,  he  did.  [Laughter.]  "  My  lips  hunger  to 
kiss  you."  "Sunday  Morning,  Jan.  28,  1868."  Now, 
here  is  a  letter  that  precisely  illustrates  the  relations  of 
these  two  people,  and  this  is  before  any  imputation  : 

My  beloved!  Don't  you  know  the  peculiar  phase  of 
Christ's  character  as  a  lover  is  so  precious  to  me  because 
of  my  consecration  and  devotion  to  you  J  1  learn  to  love 
you  from  my  love  to  Him ;  I  have  learned  to  love  Him 
from  loving  you.  I  couple  you  with  Him  [with  the 
Savior  of  mankiud],  nor  did  I  feel  one  whit  irreverent  as 
a  man  bowed  down  with  grief  for  my  sins. 

That,  perhaps,  referred  to  her  adultery  with  Ovington 
and  her  adultery  with  Dr.  Dunham.  [To  Mr.  Shearman.] 
Who  was  the  other.  Brother  Shearman  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— James  H.  Bates. 

Mr.  Porter— Those  were  her  sins,  and  this  man  is  so  like 
the  Savior  ol  mankind,  he  is  bowed  down  with  grief  for 
her  sill.  Well,  now,  gentlemen,  I  have  not  much  sym- 
pathy with  that  exaggerated  form  of  expression, 
but  then  we  know  that  there  are  a  great  many 
people  in  the  world  with  a  great  many  different  moods 
of  thought ;  but  the  crudest  and  vilest  use  vou  can  make 
of  the  very  weakness  you  apply  to  your  w  if  §  is  to  take 
that  weakness  as  evidence  of  guilt.  You  will  se«  every 
letter  of  hers  is  Tiltonian.  When  I  come  to  read  his  let- 
ters you  will  see  they  come  from  one  mind.  She  was  clay 
in  the  hands  of  the  potter,  and  he  molded  her  in  every 
shape  he  would. 

The  ("ourt  here  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

MRS.  TILTON'S  DEVOTION  TO  HEE  HUSBAND. 
After  recess  Mr.  Porter  resumed  as  follows : 
Allow  me,  gentlemen,  to  read  the  concluding  passage 
of  this  letter :  [Reading.]  "I  bless  you;  I  know  you; 
I  love  you."  Strong  language !  And  now  comes  the  ap- 
peal: (Beading.]  "God  sustain  us  and  help  us  both  to 
keep  our  vows."  Was  that  a  prayer  for  herself?  Y'ou 
know  what  was  in  her  heart;  it  was  the  tenderness  of  a 
woman's  love,  appealing  by  that  love  to  her  husband  to 
abandon  his  preferences  for  others,  and  cleave  only  to  her, 
who  loved  biTn  as  she  loved  the  Savior  at  whose  feet  she 
knelt  and  taught  her  children  to  kneel.  To  show  the 
peculiar  depth  of  this  woman's  nature,  and  the  fervor  of 
her  admiration  for  her    husband,  I  read   from  the 


566 


IRE   TILTON-BFjEGHEB  IBIAL. 


letter  of  Feb.  4,  1868,  a  single  passage :  [Kead- 
ing.]  "I  see  you  now  walking  in  the 
sunshine,  heartfull,  joyful,  praising  God.  You  did  not 
need  me  then.  But  I  followed  on  and  would  fain  catch 
the  hem  of  your  garment  as  you  pass  along ;"  and  the 
■woman  who  so  loved  him  is  the  woman  upon  whose  heart 
he  asks  you,  Mr.  Foreman,  to  set  your  heel ;  the  woman 
whom  he  asks  your  Honor  to  advise  this  jury  to  stone  as 
an  adulteress  ;  a  woman  who  knelt  to  him  as  she  knelt 
to  God,  and  who  loved  him  as  she  loved  her  Redeemer. 
[Reading.]  "  February  14, 1868  "—mark  we  have  come 
now  to  the  beginning  of  the  year  which  was  to  be  dark- 
ened, when  the  Summer  harvest  came,  by  the  sickle  of 
the  reaper  that  was  to  cut  down  little  Paul  as  ripe  for  the 
grave,  and  this  woman,  this  woman  standing  within 
eight  months  of  the  death  of  her  boy,  they  would  have  you 
believe  stood  also  within  nine  months  and  a  half  of  the 
grave  of  her  honor.  Let  us  see  what  manner 
of  woman  it  was  that  Henry  "Ward  Beecher,  with 
his  brilliant  gifts  and  commanding  qualities  and  popular 
name,  what  manner  of  woman  it  is  that  he  selects  out  of 
all  Brooklyn  for  the  purpose  of  making  her  the  miserable 
minion  of  his  lust.  Let  us  see  how  she  speaks  :  [Reading.] 
"  Blessings  on  you,  blessings  on  you,  beloved.  To  hear 
that  you  are  happy,  cheerful  and  loving  me  "—[turning 
to  Mr.  Tilton]  what  other  loves  was  it  that  she  was  depre- 
cating—" to  hear  your  assurances  that  you  are  cheerful, 
"happy,  and  now  loving  me,  poor  girl  that  I  am,  without 
the  attractions  which  win  ordinary  men,  without  the  in- 
tellectual gifts  which  I  worship  in  you,  without  those 
personal  attractions,  that  win  the  admiration  of  the 
young  and  the  licentious,  but  with  a  heart  that  is  rich  in 
love  for  you,  when  I  find  that  you  return  that  affection, 
and  love  even  me,"  she  says  touchingly,  "  it  is  even  more 
than  my  faith  could  hope.  I  wept  over  it,  I 
laughed  over  it,  I  prayed  over  it."  This  woman 
who  laughs  over  the  returning  love  of  her 
husband,  who  weeps  when  he  comes  to  her  arms,  and 
leaves  the  arms  which  she  deemed  more  attractive  to 
him,  and  who  prays  for  him,  goes  to  God  in  gratitude  and 
thanksgiving— this  is  the  woman  upon  whom  he  turns  and 
says,  "  Stone  her ;  she  is  an  adulteress !"  Here  we  have 
an  inside  view  of  that  household.  My  friend.  Judge  Mor- 
ris, in  opening  this  case  alluded  again  and  again  to  the 
extraordinary  freedom  of  intercourse  that  marked 
Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  his  visits,  their  occa- 
sional correspondence.  Certainly  no  one  doubts 
that  Mrs.  Mattie  Bradshaw,  whom  he  has  brought 
as  a  witness  before  you,  is  a  good  woman  and  a 
pure  woman,  a  religious  and  a  true  woman. 
Here  is  Mrs.  Tilton  writing  to  her  husband :  "  Mattie  has 
hungered  to  hear  from  you—"  I  shall  meet  her  name, 
and  call  your  attention  to  It  frequently  in  the  course  of 
this  correspondence.  Now,  how  base  a  thing  it  would  be 
to  inler  improper  relations  between  Theodore  Tilton  and 
her  because  there  were  these  kindly  interchanges  of 


friendship  and  regard,  which,  when  they  occur  be- 
tween Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  are  turned  into  evi- 
dences of  adultery.  "  I  thiak  she  feels  a  little  sore  that 
Mr.  Beecher  visits  here."  Here  is  a  woman,  proud  of 
Beecher's  visits,  telling  her  husband  of  them,  saying 
that  his  friend  Mrs.  Bradshaw  is  jealous  of  the  frequency 
of  those  visits  and  the  degree  of  his  attentions  to  her. 
Is  that  the  way  women  hide  from  their  husbands  the 
names  of  those  for  whom  they  lust  ?  Again,  we  come 
now,  gentlemen,  to  a  very  signifl.cant  letter— very,  not 
because  of  what  it  contains,  but  because  of  the  tiuiP 
when  it  was  written.  Little  did  this  man,  little  did  even 
my  friend  Judge  Morris  think  that,  when  they  were  pub- 
lishing these  letters  to  the  world,  there  was  an  imseen 
hand  which  guided  them  in  the  act  and  dictated  the  se- 
lection. 

Here  is  a  letter  written,  gentlemen,  on  the  26th  of  Jan- 
uaiy,  1869— right  out  of  the  hot-bed  of  adultery,  if  there 
ever  was  adultery  here,  right  in  the  season  when  those 
two  houses  \#ere  polluted  with  thesw  unholy  debauches- 
Theodore  Tiljon  at  the  West,  Mi-s.  Beecher,  it  is  true,  at 
homjB,  here  i&  the  language  of  the  adulteress  to  her  hus- 
banl.  Tell  me  if  within  all  your  observation  of  human 
affairs,  or  if,  according  to  aU  the  probabilities  by  which 
you  judge  of  human  conduct,  it  is  possible  that  this  letter 
is  written  by  an  adulteress.  "Thursday  Noon,  Jan- 
uary 26,  1869.  Dearly  Beloved:  It  is  with  de- 
light, and  for  refreshment  that  I  hasten  as 
opportunity  offers  to  sit  down  without  in- 
te.;ruption  to  write  and  think  of  you.  Oh,  my  o\sti 
dear  husband,  could  I  but  enjoy  your  comf  auiousliip 
now  a  little  while !  I  cannot  understand  — "  Now, 
here  is  that  same  feeling ;  I  read  it  to  you  in  a  preceding 
letter  before  anything  of  this  kind,  this  taking  blame  to 
herself,  because  he  is  not  contented  with  his  home.  "  I 
cannot  understand  why  the  demons  weariness,  fault- 
finding, ungenerous  selfishness,  and  many  hateful  Uttlo 
spirits  perpetually  hang  about  me  when  you  are  with  me 
to  modify  and  lessen  our  possible  enjoyment."  Gentle- 
men, do  n't  you  see  a  little  of  the  inside  of  that  home 
there?  And  who  is  to  blame?  Not  a  word  of 
reproach  to  him ;  not  one ;  she,  and  she  alone.  "  You 
are  bowed  with  grief  for  my  sins;  I  am  weary  when  I 
should  be  strong ;  I  am  fault-finding  when  I  should  adore 
you ;  I  am  ungenerous  while  you  are  magnanimous ;  I  am 
selfish,  you  are  unselfish."  Strangely  enough,  the  woman 
believed  it.  "  Besides,  my  sweet  "—here  is  a  touch  of 
nature  which  appeals  to  every  man  who  has  ever  been  a 
father—'*  my  sweet,  you  must  realize  the  little  unboin  is 
growing  finely."  Did  ever  an  adulteress  write  thus  to 
her  husband  of  an  unborn  bastard  1  Never,  never!  Did 
ever  a  woman  write  thus  to  her  husband,  in  the  confi- 
dence of  conjugal  love,  who  expected  such  a  letter  as 
that  to  be  published  in  the  newspapers  and  commented 
upon  through  the  land  as  evidence  of  a  bold,  Ucentioua, 
adulterous  woman?   "WiU  you  write  to  Mattie?"  It 


iSUMMISG    CF  BY  ME.  POETEB. 


illustrates  -what  all  ttiese  ladies  say  of  lier  ;  slie  vranted    gate  that  tiad  been  closed  upon  him  for  time  and.  for 


adl  lier  friends  to  love  him.  He  hated  to  hare  any  of  his 
friends  love  her.  "  Will  you  iviite  to  Mattie  ?  I  am 
Etarviag  for  a  letter.  None  since  Thursday.  *  *  *  Good 
hy  and  good  night.  Your  own  dear  wife,  who  is  fond 
and  proud  of  her  husband."  Why  the  Irish  hard  could 
find  no  such  expressions  of  conjugal  love  as  that  of  the 
young  matron  who  said  to  her  husband:  " Proud  of  you ; 
fond  of  you,  having  all  right  in  you,  quitting  all  else  for 
my  love  and  delight  in  you."  All  else  this  woman  did 
quit  at  the  altar,  and  gave  herself,  body  and  soul,  to  the 
man  who  would  now  trample  her  into  a  grave  of  dishonor. 

MB.  TILTOX'S  PUEPOSE  IN  PUBLISHEN^G  HIS 
OWX  LETTEES. 
Mr.  Tilton  favors  us  with  some  letters  of  his 
own.  I  never  have  been  precisely  able  to  compre- 
hend why  it  was  that  it  was  thmight  needful  to  publish 
Theodore  Tilton's  letters  to  his  wife.  It  is  true  they 
contain  sneers  at  Mr.  Beecher;  it  is  trae  they  contain  a- 
great  deal  of  seif -glorification ;  it  is  ti'ue  that,  in  a  literary- 
poiat  of  view,  they  are  well  written.  But  it  seems  to  me 
that  even  my  friend  Judge  Morris  would  not  tell  him 
that  it  was  necessary  to  publish  his  own  love  letters  to 
the  world.  I^e  man's  iniatuation  was  such  that  he  could 
not  keep  them  to  himself,  and  the  consequence  is  we 
have  them,  and  I  am  glad  of  it.  Xow,  take  his  letter  from 
Crawfordsville,  on  the  9th  of  February,  1868,  and  we  see 
something  of  what  this  man  is— we  see  the  sham — we  see 
(as  we  see  ia  this  adtiLtery)  no  acts— all  words,  words, 
word£.  Jingling  words,  I  admit;  lighted  with  the 
fire  of  genius,  at  times  briUiant,  sometimes  classical, 
sonietimes  extravagant,  always  interesting,  and  always 
delighting  his  ear  and  hers.  "  My  Dear  Angel:  I 
di-eamed  of  you  all  last  night."  That  was  a  long  dream. 
"  I  regard  my  last  evening  spent  with  you  at  home  as  the 
most  memorable  point  «f  my  whole  life."  That  is  a 
memorable  evening.  What  could  have  occtirred,  yoiu' 
Honor,  that  night— what  coidd  have  occurred,  Mi".  Fore- 
man? Tell  us.  Observe,  this  is  in  the  beginning  of  that 
year,  in  the  end  of  which,  according  to  his  accoimt,  his 
wife  turns  prostitute.  "  Ton  opened  for  me  that  night 
the  gate  of  heaven,  which  had  so  long  seemed  shut  V 
TVho  shut  that  gate  1  Who  opened  it  1  Why  was  it  shut  ? 
Whose  sin  was  it  that  weighed  so  heavily  that  that  gate 
was  swung  to  upon  its  Mnge  1  ^Vhat  was  the  sin  ?  Was 
It  the  five  points  of  Calvinism  that  troubled  him  %  Well, 
we  get  a  little  hint  down  below  [reading]  :  "  ^Tien  I 
am  doing  you  an  injury,  or  slight,  or  hardness, 
I  am  made  so  miserable  that  I  do  not  wish  to  live.  ^Tien 
I  am  making  you  happy  I  vralk  like  a  prince  newly  come 
mto  his  kingJom.  *  *  *  You  have  the  richest  of  aU 
human  hearts.  I  am  pledged  to  you  forever."  What 
happened  that  right]  What  pledges  were  given  that 
night  ?  ^Tiat  was  it  that  led  him  to  make  that  change 
tliat  ewrmg  open,  by  the  ministrations  of  this  angel,  the 


eternity  ?  "  My  vows  I  shall  keep  and  not  break."  What 
occasion  for  a  married  man,  eight  years  after  his  mar- 
liage,  to  be  having  a  night  consultation  with  Ms  wife, 
and  making  vows  which  he  promised  in  the  first  letter 
afterward  he  will  observe  and  not  break  1  We  have  a 
hint  in  the  next  letter,  Feb.  20,  of  a  similar  character.  I 
need  only  refer  to  the  form  of  his  signature :  "  Faithfullj 
yours,  Theodore.  P.  S.  That  word  'faithful'" 
[in  quotation  marksj  "means  a  great  deal." 
It  was  a  reassurance  to  his  wife  of  that  fidelity,  the 
breach  of  which  had  closed  upon  him  the  gate  of  heaven, 
and  her  forgiveness  had  reopened  that  gate,  and  his  new 
vows  had  been  given,  and  he  teUs  her  now  he  win  observe 
them,  and  he  who  was  faithless  before  will  be  faithftd  here- 
after. I  come  now  to  another  letter  which  he  furnishes 
of  Mrs.  Tilton's,  dated  the  3d  of  February,  1938.  There 
is  a  touching  passage  in  this  letter  which  I  wish  to  read 
to  you  as  illustrative  ol  her  adoration  of  the  man  and 
her  setf-depreciation  :  "  The  picture  of  your  dear  face 
most  constant  with  me  is  one  glowing  with  love,  but 
always  bearing  the  look  of  one  that  has  suffered.  Can  I 
who  am  the  cause  thereof  ever  again  be  indifferent  ?" 
Now,  here  is  a  woman  who  he  says  was  as  piu-e  as 
an  angel,  imtempted  then  by  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  or  by  any  human  being,  lo\-ing 
him  wi.th  a  loyalty  that  knew  no  bounds,  and  yet  we  find 
her  reproaching  herself  in  her  letter  to  him  with  those 
marks  of  suffering  which  he  bore  upon  his  face,  and 
which  made  him  seem  to  her  as  if  it  was  the  face  of  the 
Eedeemer.  "  I  have  been  thinking,  my  darling,  that  hav- 
ing, as  you  do,  your  immense  power  over  an  audience  to 
move  them  at  your  will,  that  same  power  you  have  with 
all  public  men  over  any  woman  whom  you  may  love 
a  natural  thing,  is  it  not,  xor  a  woman  to  feel?  "  To  love 
is  praiseworthy,  but  to  abuse  your  gift  of  in- 
fluence is  a  sin.  Therefore,  I  would  fain  help  re- 
store to  you  that  which  I  broke  down,  self-respect." 
His  infidelities  she  charges  herself  with  having  caused  by 
her  inability  to  make  his  home  sufficiently  attractive,  but 
she  says  to  him  :  "  Do  not  abuse  this  power  which  you, 
have  :  to  love  is  di-\-ine,  but  to  abuse  the  gift- to  abu>3 
the  gift,  is  sin."  "  Your  gift  of  influence  "-that  is  her 
language.  "  Your  manhood,  and  its  purity  and  dignity, 
if  you  feel  it,  is  stronger  than  love  itself.  I  know  this,, 
because  here  I  am  strung.  2s o  demonstrations  or  fascina- 
tions could  cause  me  to  yield  my  womanhood.  You  have- 
not  yet  replied  to  my  inquiry  whether  the  giving  you  my 
whole  heart  in  my  iett  i-i"s  offends  yuu."  Gentlemen,  is 
there  any  doubt  about  what  that  letter  means  ?  Is  it  not 
the  modest,  tender,  appealing  prayer  of  a  wife  to  her- 
husband  not  to  exercise  those  gifts  which  have  won  her 
love  in  winning  the  love  of  others,  and  carrying  that 
love  to  a  point  where  it  would  verge  on  sio.  t 
And  yet  the  dastard  to  a\  hom  that  letter  is  addressed 
pul->lished  it  in  a  fonn  garbled,  false,  and  forged,  in  wLiclt 


568 


THE  TILTON-BEJ^CHJEB  lElAL. 


she  is  represented  as  confessing  the  very  thing  she  im- 
imtes  to  him.  And  he  says,  by  way  of  apology  for  it : 
•*  Well,  since  I  commenced  this  suit  I  fvu-nished  a  true 
copy."  Furnished  it  to  what?  To  The  Graphic,  What 
copy  was  it  that  you  furnished  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States?  What  copy  was  it  that  you  sent  broadcast 
through  the  land  in  order  to  convict  Henry  Ward  Beeeher 
of  a  crime  of  which  he  was  innocent,  even  by  blasting 
your  own  wife  ?  Now,  gentlemen,  accidents  like  this  are 
too  frequent  in  this  case  to  be  without  a  meaning.  Let 
me  again  remind  you  of  the  saying  of  John  Milton,  "  Truth 
needs  no  policies,  no  stratagems,  to  make  her  victorious. 
Those  are  the  shifts  that  error  uses  against  her  power." 
Mr.  Beach— What  page  is  that  letter  ? 

THE  EVENING  OF  "  MUTUAL  CONFESSIONS." 
Mr.  Porter — 483.   Let  me  in  this  immediate 

connection  read— but  no,  I  must  not  leave  this.  There  is 
more  in  the  letter  when  it  comes  to  be  produced  here 
than  even  this : 

I  was  with  you  all  day  j^esterday,  Sunday.  What  holy 
associations  cluster  aronnd  that  day  in  our  experiences, 
the  morning  hours  suggesting  Mattie's  death !  and  who 
can  tell  what  that  hath  done  for  us?  And  now,  the 
evening,  memorable  forever  of  confessions,  with  repent- 
ings,  cleansings,  and  sacred  vows. 

You  remember,  gentlemen,  his  letter  that  I  read  a  short 
time  since ;  here  is  hers.  Long  before  the  alleged  defec- 
tion of  his  wife  to  Mr.  Beeeher  he  refers  to  the  "memor- 
able evening,"  and  she  to  the  "memorable  evening,"  an 
evening  indeed  "  of  confessions,  of  cleansings,  of  broken 
and  renewed  vows." 

Gentlemen,  who  confessed  on  that  memorable  evening? 
ISot  she.  Who  did  it  ?  Who  took  that  evening  for  cleans- 
ing and  renewing  broken  vows?  Do  yoti  doubt  that  it 
was  Theodore  Tilton?  Is  there  not  here  an  inside  light 
which  enables  you  to  see  beneath  that  roof  as  if  you  were 
looking  in  upon  it  at  that  hour  ?  How  does  this  har- 
monize with  that  false  coloring  he  gave,  when  he  came  to 
the  stand,  of  that  peaceful,  pure,  innocent,  harmonious 
liome  ?  My  friend  Mr.  Abbott  calls  my  attention  to  a 
letter  bearing  date  the  26th  of  January.  1868. 

Mr.  Shearman — That  is  the  very  evening  referred  to  in 
this  letter  of  Mrs.  TUton. 

Mr.  Porter— The  evening  referred  to  in  the  letter  of  Mrs. 
Tilton. 

Mr.  Beach— What  is  the  page  ? 

Mr.  Porter— 617.  Now,  here  is  what  the  husband  says : 
You  have  never  seemed  so  noble  to  me  as  during  last 
evening  and  this  day.  You  are  not  only  all  but  more 
than  all  that  any  man  can  need  or  ever  can  deseiwe. 
Life  never  seemed  to  me  more  full  of  objects  and  ends 
worth  living  for  than  since  our  recent  long  interview 
and  mutual  confessions. 

What  were  those  mutual  confessions  ?  Hers  ?— we  see 
it  running  through  all  these  letters— were  of  coldness,  of 
suUenness,  of  ill-temper,  of  weariness,  of  disquietude, 
'because  he  did  not  return  her  love  in  the  same  unlimited 


measure  in  which  she  tendered  it  to  him.  What  were  his 
confessions?— those  broken  vows  which  swung  to  the 
gates  of  heaven,  those  infidelities  to  her,  that  made  the 
future  seem  to  him  one  of  darkness  until  she,  like  an 
angel,  gave  it  the  new  form  of  a  future  of  perennial  light  ? 
He  says : 

I  am  by  nature  so  frank,  that  the  attempt  to  hide  my 
feelings,  to  cloak  my  shortcomings  and  deny  utterance  to 
my  inward  sorrows,  has  lately  almost  driven  me  to  des- 
pair. The  secret  of  my  long-continued  moodiness  has 
been  dissatisfaction,  not  with  you,  but  with  myself.  I 
was  once  well  enough  content  to  be  esteemed  at  some- 
thing better  than  my  merit,  but  of  late  all  such  estimat^^g 
of  me  have  been  horribly  repulsive  to  me.  They  have 
revealed  me  to  myself  in  the  character  of  a  hypocrite,  a 
deceiver,  a  whited  sepulcher  filled  with  dead  meji's 
bones.  Above  all  things,  it  has  been  dreadful  for  me  to 
hear  praises  of  myself  from  you  and  Florence.  I  could 
not  rest  under  the  idea  that  either  of  you  felt  that  my 
gloom  was  occasioned  by  anything  lacking  in  yourself, 
but  only  in  my  own  self. 

And  then  he  reassures  her  that  he  is  "  now  and  hence- 
forth and  forever"  hers.  "  Forever"  meant  until, 
through  her  body,  he  could  strike  at  the  heart  of  tha 
man  he  envied  and  hated. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  CHARGE. 

Again,  Jan.  28,  1867,  we  have  a  letter  from 
her.  This  is  a  year  before  the  alleged  criminality  began  r 

I  am  very  sorry  my  letters  are  lost;  they  contain  so 
much  that  stranger  eyes  should  not  see. 

There  is  the  shrinking  of  the  modest  woman  from  the 
publicity  which  he  gives  to  these  letters  the  moment  he 
can  break  into  her  closet  and  it  serves  his  ends.  Now,  as 
to  Mr.  Beeeher,  she  writes :  "  Mr.  B.  called  Sunday." 
The  time  will  come,  gentlemen— perhaps  I  should  not  say 
the  time,  but  the  revelation  will  come,  in  that  eternity 
which  we  are  all  to  face,  that  right  there  originated  this 
prosecution.  That  single  sentence  has  been  distorted, 
and,  in  the  language  of  Wilkeson,  has  grown,  grown, 
grown,  until  finally  it  culminated  in  the  present  accusa- 
tion by  which  he  seeks  to  hurry  his  wife  to  the  grave. 
And  that  shows  how  words,  harmless  words,  if  you  sow 
them,  may  bring  forth  very  harmful  fruit.  Tiiis  woman, 
innocently  enough,  writes  to  her  husband,  who  had 
charged  her  to  report  everything  that  passed 
whenever  Mr.  Beeeher  was  there— writes  to  him 
that  Mr.  Beeeher  in  going  out  of  the  house  said :  "  W)iat 
a  pretty  house  this  is  !  I  wish  I  lived  here."  Do  you  be- 
lieve, gentlemen,  that  Mr.  Beeeher  meant  adultery  by 
that  ?  The  thing  is  so  preposterous  that  no  one  would  for 
an  instant  entertain  it.  Whatever  other  letter  has  bi?'>n 
kept  back  from  the  public  this,  this  woidd  be  produced. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  come  to  another  letter  more  .slanmifi- 
cant  by  far  than  either  of  these  that  I  have  read,  when  I 
come  to  connect  it  with  another  which  follows  it.  I  want 
to  show  you  that  the  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton,  whom  he  alleges 
to  have  been  pure  and  unspotted  in  Feoruarf, 
1867,  was    the    same    pm-e    and    unspotted  Eliza- 


SUMJliya    UF  BY  MR.  FOE'lER. 


569 


betli  R.  Tilton  in  1869,  TrlierL  she  wrote  Tlie  coimter- 
part  to  tMs  letter,  and  after  the  alleged  adultery. 
>'ow,  you  observe  that  this  man  pretends  that  after  the 
alleged  confession  to  hlni  in  July,  1870,  he  nerer  at- 
tended ;Mr.  Beecher's  church;  he  broke  off  from  the  chui'ch 
at  that  time.  Well,  you  have  it  in  proof  fi-om  Mr.  Halli- 
day,  "vrho  had  been,  I  think,  nine  years  pastor  of  that 
church  (I  don't  remember  the  preeisL- timt"),  that  he  had 
never  seen  Theodore  Tilton  there.  You  have  It  in  proof 
by  himself  in  tvro  of  his  ovm  subseciuent  letters — in  one 
of  his  subsequent  communications  to  the  Committee 
that  he  discontinued  going  to  that  church  more  than  four 
years  before  1373.  You  have  here,  ho^vever,  a  touching 
appeal  by  his  vrife  : 

The  church  to-night  was  filled  \vith  medical  students, 
Mr.  B.  preaching  before  their  Christian  Union.  He  cer- 
tainly is  gi'eatly  aroused  this  Winter,  and  works  most 
earnestly.  Will  you  not,  on  your  retui-n,  throw  in  your 
inspiration,  and.ioinme  in  fulfilling  our  vows  as  mem- 
bers of  this  Christian  church  ?  Youi*  beauirCul  spirit 
would  help  many  there,  as  it  does  everj-where,  and  to  me 
thi-re  is  no  spot  so  sacred  in  all  this  earth  as  Plymouth 
Church. 

She  then  proceeds  to  say,  as  indeed  in  almost  every 
letter,  "  I  am  not  as  well  in  body,  though  I  do  feel  that  I 
have  gained  some  victories  over  my  temper."  It  was 
her  sullen  temper,  which  was  not  joyous  when  Theodore 
Tilton  came  home  cross  I  "I  have  striven  (she  says)  for 
Christ's  sake,  who  has  been  most  precious  to  me,  and  for 
yours,  to  array  myself  with  purity  of  thought  and  action, 
and  you  know  what  it  costs,"  &c.  Feb.  1,1868:  "Your 
closing  Unes  are,  'Have  I  not  a  great  heart,  when  all  its 
foimdations  are  stirred  V  Yes,  most  truly."  But,  gentle- 
men, do  you  think  either  of  you  would  ever  have  felt  less 
than  mean  if  you  had  found  that  in  some  old  letter  you 
had  written  to  your  wife,  "  Have  I  not  a  great  heart  when 
all  its  foundations  are  stirred  ?"  and  your  wife  had 
answered,  "You  have" — would  not  you  feel  very 
mean  to  hand  that  letter  over  to  a  printer 
for  publication  ?  Again  she  quotes  :  "  '  Elizabeth, 
thou  art  highly  favored,  chosen  among  women,'  are  words 
ever  sounding  in  my  ears."  The  mockery  1  The  same 
man  who  afterward  distinguishes  himself  in  the  saloon  of 
free  love,  adopting  that  most  eloquent  language  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  addressed  to  the  Elizabeth  of  Biblical  mem- 
ory, and  appropriating  it  to  himself  as  his  own  language 
to  her,  and  then  publishing  this  to  the  world  in  order  to 
show  how  weak  she  was,  and  how  great  he  was. 


MES.  TILTOX'S  DESCRIPTIOXS  OF  ^m.  BEECH- 
EE'S  CALLS. 
About  11  o'clock  Mr.  B.  caUed."  Theodore 
Tilton  says  he  never  had  a  suspicion  of  Beecher  down 
to  the  time  when  this  revelation  was  made  to  him  (jii  the 
3d  of  July,  1870.  Here  is  a  letter  which  he  produced, 
diired  Feb.  1, 1868,  written  to  him  by  his  wife,  la  which 
she  says;  I 


Xow,  bel  )ved,  let  not  even  the  shadow  of  a  shadow  fall 
on  your  dear  heart  because  of  this,  now.  hpnceforth.  ^^^ 
forever.  He  cannot  by  any  possibility  be  much  to  me 
since  I  have  known  you.  I  implore  you  to  believe  it.  aiid 
to  look  at  me  as  in  the  Day  of  Judgment,  when  it  shall 
be  revealed  to  you.  Do  not  think  it  audacious  in  me  to 
say  I  am  to  him  a  good  deal,  a  rest.  Can  you  understand 
it,  I  appear  even  cheerful  and  helpful  to  him  ? 

Xot,  of  coiu'se,  to  Theodore,  but  to  him.  Xow,  does  nor 
that  let  you  iuto  the  language  of  rebuke  to  her  after  tli-T  5 
letter  in  which  she  told  him  that  Mr.  Beecher  -  d, 
"  What  a  pretty  house  this  is  ;  I  wish  I  lived  here  T' 
Do  you  not  know  the  manner  of  talk  that  took  place  be- 
tween that  husband  and  that  wife  \  Does  not  this  indi- 
cate it  ?   Again  : 

After  seeing  the  children,  I  asked  him  if  he  would  go 
with  me  to  Mattie's  and  see  the  bust.  Without  any  hesi- 
tation he  said  he  would.  I  immediately  got  ready,  and  I 
tookmy  first  walk  to  the  Court-st.  cars  without  much 
diliiculty,  so  that  I  feel  free  again,  and  will  walk  out 
every  pleasant  day.  We  found  neither  Mattie  or  Mack  at 
home,  to  my  great  disappointment,  seeing  only  Laura 
Bradshaw  and  Gip,  and  your  dear  head,  darling,  which 
on  second  seeing  is  more  than  ever  to  me.  Mr.  B.  ex- 
pressed great  satisfaction  with  it,  feeling  that  it  was  far 
better  than  he  expected  to  find  it,  and  he  believed  aa 
correct  a  likeness  as  you  could  have.  He  is  very  de- 
sirous for  Mack  to  try  him.  Nothing  noteworthy  oc- 
curred, save  that  he  left  me  at  the  door  with  the  remark 
that  he  "  had  had  a  pleasant  morning."  You  once  rold 
me  that  you  did  not  believe  that  I  gave  you  a  correct 
account  of  his  visits,  and  you  always  felt  depress-^d 
much.  Sweet,  do  you  still  feel  this  \  I  strive  in  my  poor 
word-paintiQg  to  give  you  the  siyirit  and  impression 
which  I  give  him,  and  he  to  me.  It  would  be  my  supreme 
wish  and  delight  to  have  you  always  with  me.  This  trin- 
ity of  friendship  I  pray  for  always. 

Here,  gentlemen,  you  can  see  the  jealousy  of  a  man 
who  wanted  to  be  jealous,  who  wanted  an  excuse  for  in- 
fidelity, who  hated  another  and  who  would  have  given 
6oof  to  have  occasion  to  be  jealous,  who  wanted  to  labor 
with  his  wife  to  convince  her  that  he  was  jealous.  He 
had  his  pm>poses  then  ;  he  accomplished  them  afterward. 

You  have  been  told  about  gifts  by  Mr.  Beecher.  They 
were  paraded  by  my  friend  Judge  Morris  in  his 
opening,  as  they  had  previously  been  paraded  be- 
fore the  public.  2Srow,  you  see  cropping  out 
here,  just  how  those  gifts  came  to  be  made.  Here  is  a 
letter  dated  April  1,  1S68  : 

]SIr.  Beecher  gave  us  a  pleasant  episode  yesterday— a 
visit  of  more  than  an  hour.  He  said,  with  great  earnest- 
ness, you  never  could  know  the  gratification  your  letter 
appreciating  "  Norwood"  gave  him.  He  meaui  to  give 
you  the  American  edition  and  me  the  English,  or 
vice  versa,  so  that  we  might  have  one  each. 

Yet  these  two  poor  ••  Norwoods"  figure  as  the  gifts  of  a 
libertine  to  an  adulteress !  Again,  Jan.  22,1867;  now 
this,  observe,  is  one  of  the  letters  after,  according  to  his 
a-ccount,  she  has  turned  prostitute  : 

My  Dearly  Beloved  :  Your  Monday's  letter  from 
Clinton,  Ohio,  telling  me  of  your  convalescence  I  have 
just  received.    =^    *    »    *    Forgive  me  that  I  want  si? 
1  much  love— yet  my  soul  cries  "  Give,  give."    I  believ.  I 


670  THE  TILION-B 

am  big  enougli  to  supply  even  your  big  heart  witli  love 
If  vou  wUl  only  let  me. 

Is  that  tlie  letter  of  another  man's  mistress  to  her  own 
husband «   Again,  Feb.  20,  1868 : 

My  Beloved:  Will  you  talk  with  me  in  the  future 
about  all  that  interests  you  1  Let  us  be  more  frank  and 
free  to  each  other.  Good  night.  Good  angels  guard  your 
sleep. 

Feb.  26  :  "Mr.  Beecher  put  our  baby  to  sleei  '  I  am 

selecting  out  those  things  more  particularly  which  refer 
to  Mr.  Beecher,  because  I  want  you  to  see  just  what 
passed  between  them.  Theodore  Tilton  singled  out 
every  letter  in  that  daily  correspondence  for  years  in 
which  he  could  find  the  name  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  we 
find  that  she  not  only  communicates  to  him  every  visit 
that  Mr.  Beecher  made,  every  meeting  with  him,  every 
time  she  hears  him  make  a  speech,  but  she  goes  fm^ther, 
and  (by  his  express  injimctions,  as  these  letters  show)  in 
each  instance  repeats  and  reports  to  him  what  passed  be- 
tween her  and  Mr.  Beecher  at  these  interviews. 

Mr,  B.  put  our  baby  to  sleep,  laid  him  down,  and 
covered  him  up,  the  last  time  he  was  here ;  whenever  we 
could  not  quiet  him,  said  send  for  him  and  he  would 
come.  His  call  amused  the  children  very  much. 

This  frank,  hearty,  rollicking  manner  of  Mr.  Beecher. 
which  leads  Tilton  to  call  him  "  a  great  boy,"  and  this 
love  of  fun  which  abounds  in  the  man,  and  which  is  often 
f  otmd  in  men  of  genius,  this  is  turned  into  a  poisoned 
arrow  to  pierce  his  heart  and  the  heart  of  Mrs.  Tilton  1 
If  there  were  anything  wrong  in  that  would  she  have 
written  about  it  to  her  husband  %  Again,  here  is  a  letter 
of  Feb,  7, 1869,  and  this  is  the  one  to  which  I  call  your 
attention  specially,  Ln  connection  with  one  I  read  a  JTttle 
time  since.  I  want  you  to  watch  this  letter  and  see 
whether,  in  your  belief,  it  is  a  letter  written  by  an  adul- 
teress to  the  husband  whom  she  is  then  daily  dishon- 
oring: 

Sunday,  Feb.  7, 1869. 
My  Beloved  :  I  have  just  finished  reading  to  Emma 
Lowell's  "Extreme  Unction,"  and  the  chapter  in 
•*  Norwood"  of  Parson  Buell's  grief  on  the  death  of  his 
wife.  It  is  very  touching,  and  I  realized  for  a  moment 
what  that  agony  must  be— the  parting  at  the  river  be- 
tween a  husband  and  wife  who  have  truly  loved.  How 
inevitable  it  is  I  God  only  can  sustain  the  one  who  re- 
mains, while  He  enables  the  one  who  departed  to  say, 
"  I  shall  be  satisfied." 

Allow  me  to  say,  without  cant,  that  God  has  given  me 
a  blessing  to-day— He  has  enabled  me  to  do  something 
for  Him,  and  that  conscious  privilege  overflows  my  heart 
utterly.  At  home  He  helped  me  to  be  patient,  willing, 
yea  glad,  to  spend  myself  for  others  ;  and  in  the  Bethel— 
my  little,  little  room  was  crowded.  The  interest  in- 
creases in  my  class.  They  all  love  me,  I  feel  it — because 
I,  too,  love  every  one.  I  do  indeed  feel  grateful  for  the 
encouragement  they  give  me,  in  these  new  labors.  I  tell 
you  rather  more  at  le.ngth  than  usual  of  my  work  here, 
because  I  eari  e  tly  wish  your  sympathy,  and  to  feel  free 
to  talk  with  you  of  everything  in  which  I 'm  interested, 
as  in  "  auld  lang  syne."  However  imperfect  we  may  ap- 
pear to  each  other,  yet  the  dear  Lord  does  not  hesitate  to 
uee  us.  Now,  to-night,  I  give  myself  to  you— my  best,  my 


BEGHEB  TRIAL, 

worsf—"  just  as  I  am."  Take  me  once  again  into  your 
confidence  ;  bear  with  my  folUes  as  in  early  days.  I  con- 
secrate myself  to  you  so  long  as  I  shall  live,  before  God 
this  night,  as  a  fitting  close  of  this  Sabbath  day.  For- 
give all  my  infirmities,  and  help  me  to  overcome  to  final 
victory.  Wilt  thou  ?  So  will  I  you,  if  you  permit.  The 
freedom  with  which  you  write  of  Paul  gives  me  great 
pleasure.  Then  the  fountain  is  imsealed  and  we  flow  to- 
gether. 

P  A  letter  from  Danville.  Now,  observe,  this  is  the  7th  of 
February,  1869— right  out  of  the  hotbed  of  adultery. 

Mr.  Shearman — ^Judge  P«>rter,  Paul  was  the  dead  child. 

Mr.  Porter— Yes;  thit  Paul  was  the  child  that  had 
died.  Now,  for  the  letter  of  August  3, 1869,  Here  is  a 
letter,  gentlemen,  which  has  especial  import.  I  deny 
that  the  whole  history  of  the  himian  race  fm-nishes  an 
instance  of  an  adulterous  woman  writing  such  a  letter  to 
a  cuckold  husband.  Now  listen : 

My  IteAR  Husband:  My  heart  sorrows  to-night  for  my 
loss  in  the  death  of  Mrs.  EUiott,  Pity  dear  mother,  as 
one  after  one  of  her  friends  leave  her.  Minister  to  her  if 
you  can,  my  darling. 

Oh,  dear  Theodore,  may  I  not  persuade  you  to  love  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  Do  not  let  this  entreaty  estrange  us 
more,  for  my  pillow  oft  is  wet  with  tears  and  prayers 
that  we  may  come  into  sympathy  in  our  religious  natures. 
Do  have  patience  with  me,  for,  as  the  time  remains  to  us, 
I  feel  as  though  my  hetirt  would  break  if  I  did  not  speak 
to  you— not  that  I  am  right  in  any  sense,  and  you  are 
wrong;  God  forbid !  but  we  are  not  one  in  feeling,  and  it 
is  impossible  for  me  to  be  iudifl'erent,  especially  while 
God  blesses  me  with  dear  children. 

I  once  again  ask  forgiveness  if  I  have  offended  you  by 
showing  my  heart.   Our  dear  baby  grows  finely,  &c. 

Just  imagine  a  woman,  fresh  from  a  bed  of  debauchery 
and  of  lust,  writing  a  letter  to  her  husband,  a  husband 
who,  she  fears,  is  losing  the  foundations  of  his  faith,  and 
humbly,  modestly,  appealing  to  him,  imploring  him  to 
reconsider  his  course.  Was  there  ever  such  an  absurdity 
as  the  pretense  of  these  two  men,  that  those  letters  writ- 
ten by  Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  Frank  Moulton,  all  breath- 
ing the  spirit  of  the  Divine  Master,  were  written  between 
two  men  who  were  mutual  confidants  in  an  intrigue  with 
a  dishonored  woman  ?  It  is  not  true  ;  it  is  not  true.  The 
woman  who  wrote  that  letter  to  Theodore  Tilton  was  not 
an  adulteress.  She  was  one  who  loved  him  too  well  for  her 
own  good  ;  and  it  was  because  of  that  love  that,  at  the 
risk  of  Incurring  his  displeasure,  she  implored  him  to  ac- 
cept that  religion  which  was  her  consolation,  and  in  which 
she  wished  him  to  live  and  to  die. 

Again,  on  the  28th  of  February,  1869,  another  of  those 
letters  written  during  this  period  of  alleged  prostitution : 

Now,  my  sweet,  after  so  long  a  tale,  let  me  for  om' 
mutual  refreshment  turn  to  our  own  sweet  love.  I  liless 
God  that  it  abideth.  Among  the  terrible  changes  of 
many  hearts.  God  has  kept  us  steadfast,  with  a  growing 
love,  admiration  and  respect  for  each  other.  Oh,  let  ua 
praise  His  name  forever  !  All  the  differences,  misunder- 
standings we  have  had  are,  as  Whittier  says,  "  Like 
moimtain  ranges  overpast." 

If  God  be  for  us,  who  can  be  against  us  I 


SrjnflSG    UP  BY  MB.   FOB! EE. 


571 


■pireine  voiir  patience  vrhlle  I  spread  out  before  you 
tte  fruitage  of  your  iDeautiful  love. 

And  tlien  slie  proceeds  to  malie  a  series  of  extracts  of 
the  passages  in  Ms  letters,  from  time  to  time,  containing 
tlie  protestations  of  Ms  lore  and  tenderness  and  regard 
lor  her.   Is  tMs  the  language  of  an  adulteress  '? 

A  LETTER  ^ITH  AX  UXFOETUXATE  DATE. 

Again,  it  is  well  to  recur  to  a  still  earlier 
period  in  the  history  of  these  peoide.  AVe  have  a  letter 
here  of  the  25th  of  Decem'ber,  1?66.  Xo^,  ol^seive  if 
this  letter  had  heen  pulDlished  at  the  date  of  tlie  "  Cp.thr- 
rine  Gaunt  letter,"  Avhat  po^'er  it  would  give  to  their 
claim  that  she  was  confessing  adultery ;  and  yet  this, 
according  to  theii'  own  account,  ^as  tlie  year  before, 
when  there  is  no  question  of  her  ahsolr.te  puiity  and  in- 
nocence : 

My  beloved,  I  have  been  thiuMng  of  my  love  for  Mr. 

JB  considerably  of  late,  and  those  thoughts  you  shall 

have.  I  remember  Hannah  3Ioore  says  :  "  My  heart  in 
its  new  sympathy  for  one  abounds  toward  ail."  2so"w,  I 
think  I  have  Lived  a  richer,  happier  life  since  I  have 
known  him.  And  have  you  not  loved  me  more  ardently 
since  you  saw  another  high  nature  appreciated  me  ? 
Certain  it  is  that  I  never  in  all  my  life  had  such  rapture 
of  enthusiasm  in  my  love  for  you — sometMng  akin  to  the 
birth  of  another  babe  ;  anew  loimtain  was  opened,  en- 
ricMng  all — especially  toward  you,  the  one  being  supreme 
in  my  soul.  '"Hove  the;^  "with  the  breath,  smile,  tears, 
of  all  my  life  1 — and  if  God  chooae  I  shall  but  love  thee 
better  after  death." 

It  is  not  possible  for  any  htiman  creature  to  supersede 
you  in  my  heart.  Above  all  you  rise  grand,  highest,  best.  I 
praise  God  that  He  is  teaching  me  of  His  great  mercy  and 
love,  shown  by  his  gift  of  so  great  a  heart  as  your  own,  to 
be  mine.  For  many  years  I  did  not  realizt  the  blessing. 
THiat  remor-e  it  brings  to  me  I   Memories  bitter,  awful ! 

But  to  rL-turu  to  ^Fr.  B  .   He  has  been  the  guide  of  oui' 

youth,  and  until  the  tMee  last  dreadful  years,  when  our 
confidence  was  shaken  in  him,  we  trusted  Mm  as  no 
other  human  being. 

MRS.   TTLTOX'S  SIN. 
That  lifts  the  vail  that  Theodore  Tilton  did  not 

in  Ms  testimony.  TMee  years  prior  to  1866,  before  she 
had  come  to  be  at  all  Intimate  with  him,  Mr.  Beecher  was 
made,  in  the  estimate  of  that  woman,  by  Theodore  TUton. 
to  believe  that  he  was  a  man  unworthy  of  confidence  ; 
and  she  frankly  says  to  Mm  in  this  letter  that  for  those 
tMee  long  years  " our  confidence  in  him  was  shaken;" 
and  he  pretends  that  during  aU  this  period  there  was  a 
frank  and  mutual  friendsMp  between  them.  Gentlemen, 
Theodore  Tilton  was  then  his  secret  and  backbiting 
enemy,  and  that  was  when  they  were  serving  together  in 
The  Independent. 
Again,  here  is  a  letter  m  1 366  : 

God  is  with  us.  We  havu  had  great  experiences  this 
Winter.   He  will  help  us,  I  am  sure  ;  our  trust  is  in  mm. 

Let  us  pour  out  our  souls  in  prayer  that  we  may  never 
sin  as  before,  when  we  meet  again. 

Is  that  adultery  ?  Xo.  Self-deprecintion.  humiliation, 
filn.  confession— not  adultery  ;  but  the  moment  he  linds  it 


convemtnt  to  make  a  charge  against  Henry  W'l.rd 
Beecher,  the  simple  use  of  the  pMase  "  my  sm  "  is  con- 
verted into  evidence  of  a  vile  debauch,  and  by  the  man 
who  knows  that  such  a  construction  is  a  forgery  and  a 
lie. 

Again,  on  the  24th  of  February,  1868,  we  have  a  letter 
of  tMs  sort : 

Mt  D.iELixG  OF  DAELrs-GS :  *  *  *  I  thank  you  for  a 
look  into  your  beart;  for,  with  one  or  tv;o  excei-tions, 
you  have  not  showTi  it  to  me  since  you  went  away.  *  * 
It  is  t-oo  true  you  have  given  largely,  grandly,  and 
bountifully  of  your  best  love  to  friends,  aye,  even  to  yoiu' 

1  wife,  while  in  return  you  have  received  most  often  indif- 
ference, and  at  best  love  not  deserving  the  name,  in  com- 
parison with  thine  own.  *  *  *  Again,  in  one  of  yciu- 
letters  you  close  with  "faithfully  yours— tbat  word 
'faithful' means  a  great  deal."   Yes,  darling,  I  believe 

1  it,  trust  it,  and  give  you  the  same  surety  with  regard  to 
myself.  I  am  faithful  to  you.  have  been  always,  and 
sball  forever  be,  world  without  end.  Call  not  tMs  assur- 
ance impious.  There  are  some  things  we  know.  Blessed 
be  God.  I  sorrow  more  than  you  can  for  your  lost  friend- 
sMp — as  my  soul  stiug-s  with  remorse  that  I  was  the 
cause — and  yet,  for  all  this,  you  love  me. 

There  is  a  letter  with  "remorse,"  stinging  the  soul  of 
this  woman,  conscious  of  that  great  sin.  He  says  that 
did  not  mean  adultery ;  but  in  the  "  Catharine  Gaunt 
Letter"  sin— what  would  satisfy  him  but  the  beastly 
gathering  of  a  woman  and  a  clergyman  in  a  polluted  mar- 
riage bed ! 

Again,  we  have  Mr.  Tilton,  on  the  21st  of  August, 
1866,  giving  a  little  insight  into  himself. 

I  would  to  God  I  were  not  so  easily  overcome  by  my 
own  worldly-mindedness  as  to  be  brougM  so  quickly  and 
fatally  down  from  my  heavenly  moods  to  the  earth. 
But  tMs  belongs  to  the  infirmity  of  human  nature.  I 
bave  walked  like  a  king  ever  since  that  ovening.  *  *  * 
May  God  make  us  wise  [Solomon  asked  that],  rich 
[who  was  it  asked  that  ?],  and  pure. 

The  prayer  was  granted  as  to  the  wife.  I  appeal  to  Mrs. 
Woodhull  whether  it  vras  granted  as  to  the  husband. 

^YR.  Tn.TOX'S  "RAGGED  EDGE"  LETTER. 
Again,  December  6,  1866: 

My  Darling:  All  daylong  I  have  been  reading  Grif- 
fith Gaunt.  *  *  *  *  It  turn  on  jealousy.  I  am  not 
jealous,  nor  do  I  know  the  feeling. 

Of  course  he  is  not  jealous ;  he  never  had  a  vice  of  any 
Mnd,  in  the  world. 

I  thtak  any  man  is  a  fool  to  be  jealous.  If  he  is  jeal- 
ous tcitJiout  cause,  he  is  foolish;  if  with  cause,  more 
foolish. 

But  I  am  somewhat  disturbed,  and  have  been  for  a 
long  while  past,  at  the  dimmishing  faith  wMeh  I  enter- 
tain i  or  human  nature.  Human  characters  do  not  seem 
so  lovely  to  me  as  they  once  did.  [Xor  divine 
characters  either,  as  we  remember,  because  it 
was  about  that  time  that  he  proceeded  to 
dethrone  the  Eedeemer.J  During  my  ti'avels 
I  hare  had  profoimd  reflections  on  my  life.  I 
am  a  weak  man,  supposed  to  be  strong  ;  a  selfish  man. 
supposed  to  be  the  world's  lover  and  helper  ;  an  earthly- 
minded  man,  supposed  to  be  more  CMlstian  than  my 


572 


IRE   TILTON-BEECBEB  TEIAL. 


fellows.  I  canuot  endure  the  mockery.  *  *  *  i  feel 
myself  scarred,  shotted,  miserable,  and  unworthy.  *  *  * 
My  life  is  so  unprofitable  that  I  sometimes  dare  not  turn 
round  and  look  upon  it. 

What  language  has  Henry  Ward  Beecher  ever  used 
like  that  1  And  yet  they  say  Mr.  Beecher's  language 
oan  be  satisfied  with  naught  except  adultery. 

MR.  TILTON  EXPRESSES  JEALOUSY. 

Again,  on  the  27th  of  December,  1866, 
writmg  from  Dubuque,  Iowa.  Now,  observe,  he  has  no 
loibles ;  he  has  no  jealousy;  he  is  not  a  jealous  man  ; 
any  many  is  a  fool  to  be  jealous.  Somehow  his  wife  had 
an  idea  that  he  was  a  little  tending  in  that  direction,  be- 
cause she  had  occasion  to  explain  to  him  ;  but  neverthe- 
less he  was  not ;  that  was  a  mistake,  and  so  he  says : 

I  don't  expect,  however,  to  be  lonesome  much  longer ; 
for  I  am  to  meet  you  in  Chicago.  Now,  that  the  other 
man  has  gone  off  lecturing  (as  your  letter  mentions), 
you  can  afford  to  come  to  me.  You  ought  to  be 
enjoying  what  I  am  enjoying  on  this  magnificent  trip — 
for  instance,  this  afternoon— a  dinner  party.  Leave 
home,  children,  kith  and  kin,  and  cleave  unto 
him  to  whom  you  originally  promised  to  cleave.  You 
promised  the  other  man  to  cleave  to  me,  and  yet  you 
leave  me  all  alone,  and  cleave  to  him.  "  Oh,  fraUty  !  thy 
name  is  woman."  If  you  can  get  anybody  to  pour  tea 
for  you,  and  to  take  sauce  from  the  servants,  and  to  re- 
ceive pastoral  visits,  I  shall  expect  to  meet  you  under 
the  roof  of  Robert  Hatfield. 

Mr.  Beach— What  page  is  that  1 

INIr.  Porter— 49^.  Now,  gentlemen,  every  one  of  you 
know  fchat  he  had  not  the  slighest  idea  of  being  really 
jealous  of  Mr.  Beecher.  It  was  the  purest  affectation,  but 
it  was  quite  convenient  when  a  family  dialogue  came  up 
as  to  irregularities,  that  there  should  be  two  sides,  and 
something  to  talk  about  on  both  sides.  "  Do  you  remem- 
ber that  letter  in  which  you  told  me  that  Mr.  Beecher, 
when  he  went  out  of  the  house  said:  'What  a 
pretty  house  this  is,  I  wish  I  lived  here  ? ' 
When  the  other  man  married  us  you  promised  to  cleave 
to  me.  Why  don't  you  get  somebody  to  receive  pastoral 
visits,  and  leave  the  other  man  and  come  to  me  ?"  It 
was  not  the  spirit  of  a  man  honestly  jealous,  but  the 
spirit  of  a  man  who  wanted  to  make  his  wife  believe  he 
was  jealous,  and,  I  am  sorry  to  say  it,  he  was  the  man 
who  would  have  been  delighted  to  know  there  was  foun- 
dation for  it.  _ 

FIRST  TOUCHES   OF  MR.  TILTON'S  DEFEC- 
TIONS. 

Again,  on  the  12th  of  February,  1867,  a  year 
after,  he  says  : 

I  am  satisfied  that  whoso  makes  no  intimate  or  confi- 
dential friends,  both  among  men  and  among  women — 
friends  with  whom  he  girdles  himself  around  about  as 
with  a  halo— friends  who  are  props  to  keep  him  lifted  per- 
petually toward  his  highest  life— friends  whose  friend- 
ship is  a  kind  of  sacred  wedding  that  knows  no  sex— such 


a  man  neglects  one  of  the  greatest  opportunities  for  in 
tellectual,  moral,  and  spiritual  groM-th. 

Here  we  have  the  outcropping  which  afterward 
brought  so  bountiful  &  harvest  of  free  love  under  the 
active  cvdture  of  the  WoodhuU  &  Claflin  coterie. 

Again,  "  The  old  religious  teachings."  Mark  you,  thia 
is  seven  years  ago.  "  The  old  religious  teachings,  and 
orthodox  view,  the  dr^ad  of  punishment,  the  Atonement, 
have  less  and  less  power  over  my  mind.  Of  course  you 
wiU  mourn  over  this.  Bu^  T  must  be  an  honest  man.  I 
don't  believe  in  Orthodoxy,  and  therefore  I  will  not  pre 
tend  to  do  so." 

Again,  we  have  a  very  curious  revelation  in  itself  in 
this  passage  : 

And  this  fact  reveals  the  one  prolonged  mistake  of  my 
past  life— my  association  with  your  mother.  I  can  now 
plainly  see  what  I  mig-ht  have  been  if,  for  instance,  I 
could  have  livcvl  under  such  a  roof  as  sheltered 
me  in  Princeton,  instead  of  breathing,  during  all  these 
years,  the  atmosphere  of  Livingston-st.  If  my 
mother-in-law  had  been  such  a  woman  as  Mr?,  Lovejoy, 
and  the  influences  of  Brooklyn  had  been  like  the  influ- 
ences of  Princeton,  I  believe  that  I  might  have  grown  by 
this  time  as  unselfish  as  a  good  woman.  How  much  more 
I  would  then  have  been  to  yourself  and  the  children  I 
How  many  pangs  you  might  have  been  saved !  How 
many  unknown  ioys  you  might  have  experienced !  I  have 
not  been  a  wise  man  or  I  would  not  have  consented,, 
eleven  years  ago,  to  pitch  my  tent  in  a  bank  of  fog. 
Moreover,  let  us  beware  of  the  tragic  and  dreadful  mis- 
take of  teaching  to  our  children  that  when  they  shall  be 
maiTied,  their  first  and  chief  allegiance  wiU  still  be  to 
their  parents  as  heretofore,  and  that  only  a  secondary 
fealty  is  sufficient  between  husband  and  wife.  I  have 
never  seen  so  plainly  as  I  have  seen  this  Winter  what 
Livingston-st.  mildew  I  have  been  carrying  on  my  gar- 
ments for  eleven  years.  Six  months  ago  I  was  accustomed 
to  say  to  myself  in  my  secret  hours,  Theodore  Tilton 
it  is  time  for  you  to  die  ;  your  soul  grows  not  whiter  but 
darker  ;  die  soon  and  save  yourself  from  total  destruc- 
tion I  But  I  believe  that  if  I  shall  return  to  Brooklj^n  at 
all,  I  shall  return  a  different  man.  God  grant  it !  I  know 
that  I  have  tried  to  wash  myself  clean. 

And  don't  you  think  he  needed  it  ?  He  evidently  did. 
March  18,  1867 : 

During  all  the  Winter  I  was  as  one  clothed  in  king's 
apparel.  *  *  *  *  i  came  home  from  the  West  respect- 
ing myself  too  highly.  My  crown  then  was  suddenly 
taken  off  and  cast  to  the  earth. 

All  through  these  letters  you.  see  that  if  nobody  else 
except  that  poor  woman  worshiped  him,  he,  Theodore 
Tilton,  worshiped  Theodore  Tilton  from  morning 
till  night  and  from  midnight  till  morning ;  there 
was  nothing  else  to  occupy  his  mind.  Self-glorification ; 
self -adoration.  Now  a  prince,  now  a  king,  now  a  crown ; 
now  delighted  with  the  letter  in  which  his  wife  compares 
himself  to  the  Savior.  Now  delighted  with  the  letter  in 
which  his  wife  rebukes  Mm  for  want  of  allegiance  to  that 
Savior.   "  Oh !  the  time  of  those  things  past  J" 


smimyo  up  by  mr.  porter. 


573 


ME.  riLTON  GEATEFUL  FOE  ME.  BEECHEE'S 
VISITS. 

Now,  here  we  have  another  letter  of  his 
dated,  "  Eochester,  March  21,  1867,"  in  regard  to  wliieli 
I  wisli  to  note  one  or  two  things  : 

I  am,  in  this  midnight  hour,  In  the  same  hotel,  and  in 
the  same  room  wherein  you  and  I  were  quartered  eleven 
and  a  half  years  ago  on  our  wedding  tour »  *  *  *  Gray 
hairs  have  stolen  upon  us  since.   *   *  * 

Gray  hairs !  Bessie  Turner  said  he  talked  of  gray 
hairs  in  December,  1870,  and  he  came  hack  to  the  stand 
and  lifted  his  hand  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God  and 
Baid,  "  I  had  no  gray  hairs  then."  What  was  he  writing 
about  in  1867? 

Life  is  sober,  as  I  now  look  upon  it.  Death  is  near,  as  I 
now  think  of  it.  Heaven  is  sweet,  as  I  now  wait  for  it. 
*  *  *  I  have  less  faith  in  my  usual  integrity  now  than 
at  any  former  period  of  my  life. 

Well,  I  think  he  will  have  the  consolation,  at  the  close 
of  this  trial,  of  believing  that  the  universal  sentiment  of 
those  who  have  heard  it  is  in  accordance  with  that  ex- 
pressed by  himself  in  this  letter.  Why,  gentlemen,  do 
you  want  any  better  illustration  of  the  complete  hollo w- 
ness  of  this  accuser  than  those  very  letters  which  he  was 
weak  and  fortunate  enough  to  publish  to  the  world  ? 

Again.  Why,  you  marvel  at  the  sentimental  form  of 
the  letters  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  Now,  bear  in  mtad,  gentle- 
mf  n,  she  had  an  excuse :  this  man  required  it.  It  was  he 
that  dictated  how  her  letters  were  to  be  written.  Now, 
for  instance,  we  have  this  in  this  letter  written  on  the 
6th  of  February,  1867,  from  Michigan : 

Sometimes  we  allow  our  loves  simply  to  be  taken  for 
granted,  whereas  we  would  both  enjoy  each  other's  love 
the  more  by  coining  our  own  into  a  repeated  confession 
of  words.  "  Confession  is  good  for  the  soul,"  says  the  poet ; 
and  I  hereby  confess  that  I  love  you  as  fervently  as  any 
man  ever  loved  any  woman  on  the  earth,  or  perhaps  ia 
the  heavens. 

And,  gentlemen,  that  protestation  was  iust  as  true  as 
two-thirds  of  the  testimony  he  gave  you  from  that  stand ! 
Again,  February  21, 1867: 

I  inclose  to  you  Oliver's  letter,  received  this  morning. 
So  you  see  that  there  are  men,  as  well  as  women,  who 
love  your  husband. 

Does  not  that  let  in  the  light  a  little  to  the  dialogues 
that  had  occurred  between  this  twain  i 

I  am  sorry  to  hear  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  a  poor  house 
in  Brooklyn.  In  view  of  his  kind  attentions  to  you  this 
Winter,  all  my  old  love  for  him  has  revived  and  my  heart 
would  once  more  greet  him  as  of  old.  I  sometimes  quar- 
rel with  old  friends  on  the  surface,  but  never  at  the 
bottom. 

Wise  man  !  Woman  he  quarrels  with  at  the  bottom  ; 
clergymen  only  on  the  surface,  until  the  time  comes 
when  he  can  strike  through  the  woman. 


ME.  BOWEN  THE  HAELEQUIN  OF  THE  CASE. 

Again,  Jan.  13,  1865,  a  still  earlier  date  : 
I  am  glad  Mr.  Beecher  called  on  you.   I  will  write  to 

thank  him  for  it.   I  have  not  had  a  line  from  him,  but  I 

have  had  two  brief  notes  from  Mr.  Greeley. 

And  yet  those  calls  thus  social,  publicly  made  at  noon 
day,  reported  to  him,  and  the  conversations  re'ported, 
are  brought  forward  in  aid  of  this  vile  prosecution  as 
evidence  of  clandestine  visits  with  an  adulterous  pur- 
pose. 

Now,  on  the  25th  of  January,  1867,  we  have  a  letter 
from  her,  which  is  somewhat  marked : 

I  think  in  reference  to  Oliver's  opinions  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  as  his  remarks  were  made  to  Mr.  Bowen,  and 
they  are  embittered  toward  one  another,  that  what  Mr. 
B.  said  of  you  may  appear  very  different  through  the 
coloring  IMr.  Bowen  may  give  it. 

Is  it  not  odd  ?  Now,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  except  Frank 
Moulton  and  the  counsel,  of  course,  my  adversary,  Mr. 
Tilton  stands  pretty  much  alone.  But  there  is  one 
friend,  and  that  is  Bowen.  The  man  of  whom  he 
had  the  least  to  expect,  makes  his  appear- 
ance on  the  stand,  and,  yet,  it  happens 
unluckily  that  poor  Bowen  gets  more  kicks  than  compli- 
ments on  all  hands,  for  you  cannot  open  an  old  letter 
written  by  this  little  woman  to  her  husband  but  there  is 
a  fling  at  Bowen.  You  cannot  have  a  midnight  walk  be- 
tween Frank  Moulton  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher  but  even 
the  snow-storm  is  made  wickeder  with  the  exclamations 
that  "  Bowen  is  treacherous,"  "  he  is  a  traitor  to  yon,'* 
"  he  is  a  traitor  to  everybody  else."  We  have  Bowen  ap- 
pearing and  disappearing  and  reappearing;  sometimes 
the  author  and  sometimes  the  rejecter  of  all  these  scan- 
dals ;  sometimes  threatening  and  sometimes  forgiving, 
sometimes  commiming  and  sometimes  maligning. 

Wherever  we  have  him,  he  is  appearing  under  some 
doubtful  relation. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  a  secret  feeling,  like  Mr. 
Beecher  himself,  that,  perhaps,  Mr.  Tilton  is  more  ex- 
cusable than  we  supposed.  We  had  Bowen,  who  trained 
Joe  Richards  and  qualified  him  to  make  the  appearance 
he  did  on  that  stand;  that  Bowen,  who  traiued  Theodore 
Tilton ;  that  Bowen,  to  whom  he  attributes  the  origin  of 
all  these  calumnies  may  perhaps  have  exercised  over 
him  a  malign  influence.  At  any  rate  his  wife  here  seems 
to  think  that  even  at  as  early  a  day  as  1867,  Bowen,  who 
appears  to  be  a  very  worthy  and  respectable  man,  editor 
of  a  newspaper  sometimes  called  religious,  sometimes 
secular— how  it  happens  that  wherever  we  come  to  any- 
thing in  the  way  of  mischief,  anything  in  the  way  of  dis- 
turbing families,  and  disturbing  churches,  and 
disturbing  communities — how  is  it  that  they 
always  bring  in  the  name  of  Theodore  Tilton's 
friend,  Henry  C.  Bowen  ?  Of  course  I  assume  that  he  is 
innocent.  I  assume  he  is  not  at  aU  what  she  describes . 
him,  but  it  only  goes  to  show  you  what  is  the  disadvan-- 


574 


TRB   TILTON-BEEOHER  TBIAL, 


"tagc  of  liaving  a  Tbad  oliaiTicter,  and  it  enforces  wliat  I 
eay  when  I  claim  for  Mrs.  Tiieodore  Tilton  and  for  Henry 
AYard  Beecher  tiie  ibeneflt  of  a  good  cliaracter.  No  man 
maligned  tliem  until  the  work  was  begun,  Tilton  says  hy 
Bowen ;  Boweu  would  lead  us  to  infer  by  Tilton.  I  don't 
know  wliich. 

MRS.  TILTON  ON  MR.  BEECHER'S  FAULTS. 

Well,  she  goes  on  to  say: 
How  my  soul  yearns  over  yoa  two  dear  men. 
That  is,  Tilton  and  Beecher.   She  evidently  don't  sym- 
pathize with  Bowen. 

You,  my  beloved,  are  higher  up  than  he.  This  I  be- 
lieve. Will  you  not  join  me  in  prayer  that  God  will  Iceep 
hiia  as  He  is  keeping  us?  Oh,  let  us  pray  for  it!  You 
are  not  willing  to  leave  him  to  the  evil  influences  which 
surround  him.  He  is  in  a  delusion  in  regard  to  himself, 
and  pitifully  mistaken  in  his  opinion  of  you.  I  can 
never  rest  satisfied  until  you  both  see  eye  to  eye,  and 
lo\^e  one  another  as  you  once  did.  This  will  not  come  to 
pass  as  quickly  by  estrangement.  But  with  all  the 
earnestness  of  my  being  I  commit  you  both  to  God's  love. 
He  has  signally  blessed  you  both,  and  He  will  keep  His 
own  beloved.  "Why  I  was  so  mysteriously  brought  in  as 
actor  in  this  friendship  I  know  not ;  yet  no  experience 
of  all  my  life  has  made  my  soul  ache  so  verily  as  the  ap- 
parent lack  of  Christian  manliness  in  this  beloved  man. 

That  shows  you  that  this  was  a  woman  who  could  see 
faults  in  Henry  Ward  Beecher;  who  was  easily  per- 
suaded by  her  husband,  by  that  same  husband  at  whose 
instance,  though  through  the  hand  of  Carpenter,  she  was 
subsequently  made  to  write  that  letter  to  Mr.  Storrs,  de- 
claring that  there  had  been  a  conspiracy  in  December, 
1870,  at  the  time  of  the  Bowen  transaction  to  which  Mrs. 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  a  party.  "  Mattie  feels  as  I 
do  "  (thatis,  Mrs.  Bradshaw).  "I  saw  her  to-day.  She 
said  she  received  two  letters  from  you." 

Here  is  a  married  man  writing  two  letters  a  day  to  a 
married  woman,  and  his  wife  knowing  all  about  it.  She 
is  not  jealous.  Mr.  Beecher  has  written,  in  the  course  of 
his  life,  some  four  or  five  or  six  letters— I  don't  know  how 
many— to  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  on  most  of  the  occasions  at 
the  particular  instance  either  of  Tilton  himself,  or 
of  Frank  Moulton,  and  yet  it  is  taken  in 
his  case  as  evidence  of  adultery.  It  is  absurd  to  turn  the 
ordinary  courtesies  which  exist  between  respectable 
families,  and  which,  with  the  freedom  and  publicity, 
carry  with  them  the  evidence  upon  their  forefront  of  their 
innocence.  It  is  absurd  to  impute  to  letters  of  this  kind, 
or  familiarities  of  that  kind,  the  basis  of  most  unworthy 
purposes  and  motives.  We  have  from  her  in  this  letter  a 
further  statement,  which  shows  how  ready  she  was  to 
Wfime  herself : 

Hereafter,  I  guard  my  temper.  You  shall  have  a 
true,  pure  wife  by  and-by. 

I  am  ashamed  that  I  am  so  often  unattractive  to  the 
Great  Lover  of  my  soul. 

Now  comes  a  letter  written  on  the  13th  of  January, 
1870.    Now  observe.    That  was  the  beginning  of  the 


year  which  ended  in  the  midnight  interview  and  the  dis- 
missal of  Tilton  from  The  Independent.  [Reading.] 

Mt  Dear  Husband  :  You  once  said,  and  often  acted, 
that  I  was  always  craving  sentiment.  It  is  verily  true. 
I  am  what  I  am.  Therefore,  to  such  a  nature  as  mine 
Jesus  Christ,  as  He  discovers  himself  to  me,  is  unuttera- 
bly precious.  Let  my  tongue  cleave  to  my  mouth 
M  I  fail  to  bear  testimony  to  His  unchangeable 
love.  Your  letter  reached  me  yesterday.  How 
It  lightened  my  day  like  a  glory!  You  are 
well  beloved  by  one  human,  .md.,  therefore,  it  is  love 
struggling  and  unperfected.  I  do  not,  however,  comfort 
myself  in  my  humanity — rather,  whenever  I  am  vietoi- 
over  it.  Oh !  how  slow  is  the  warfare  i  *  *  *  *  To-day 
has  been  a  quiet  day.  Mr.  Beecher  called. 

Why  should  she  mention  that  if  she  was  a  paramour 
and  his  visits  were  clandestine  ?  Why  write  to  him  in  a 
remote  State  to  tell  him  the  fact  that  Mr.  Beecher  had 
called  that  day  1 

He  is  in  fine  spirits,  maldng  calls.  He  devotes  Wednes- 
days and  Thursdays  to  this  work,  "  till  further  notice  ;" 
has  three  hundred  to  make ;  made  twenty  to-day  ;  enjoys 
it  immensely.  He  called  on  the  Wheelo6ks  to-day,  and 
kissed  them  all  around — ^Lizzie  Wood  included. 

Is  that  the  kuid  of  letter  you  would  expect  a  woman  of 
this  kind  to  be  writing  to  her  husband,  and  needlessly 
introducing  the  name  of  her  paramour  ? 

MR.  TILTON'S  CHIEF  MISERY. 

But  on  Nov.  3,  1868,  comes  a  letter  that  I 
want  to  call  to  your  particular  attention.  This  is  one 
from  Mr.  Tilton.  It  is  written  at  his  oflace.  It  was  in  an- 
swer to  a  letter  that  she  had  left  there  that  morning. 
Now,  bear  in  mind  their  story  is  that  on  the  lOth  day  of 
October,  at  the  house  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  he  de- 
bauched Elizabeth  R.  Tilton ;  that  on  the  17th  of  October, 
between  his  Friday  night  prayer  meeting  and  his  Sunday 
morning  service,  he  again  debauched  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton, 
at  the  house  of  Theodore  Tilton.  Now,  we  have,  on  the 
3d  of  November,  within  a  fortnight  after,  this  letter, 
written  by  that  husband  to  that  wife,  and  showing  their 
then  relations  : 

Mt  Dear  :  Your  kind  and  loving  note  falls  so  pleas- 
antly on  my  spirits  

Mr.  Shearman  [interrupting]— This  was  written  in 
New-York  t 

Mr.  Porter— Written  at  his  office  in  New- York. 

 falls  so  pleasantly  on  my  spirits  that  I  would  im- 
mediately go  home  this  afternoon  were  it  not  that  I  have 
engaged  to  go  out  this  evening. 

There  is  so  much  sunshine  pouring  into  my  little  office 
at  this  moment  that  I  think  I  never  knew  a  brighter  day 
in  my  life ;  and  I  hope  that  some  of  the  light  and  warmth 
will  steal  into  and  remain  withui  my  cold  and  cruel 
heart. 

It  is  the  greatest  regi'ct  of  my  life  that  I  do  not  seem 
constituted  so  as  to  make  you  as  happy  as  you  deserve  to 
be ;  but  I  have  the  best  of  intentions— and  the  worst  of 
success. 

The  cause  of  so  much  of  my  trouble  at  home  is  my  gen- 
eral anxiety  about  everything. 


SUMMIXG    UF  BY  2£E.  POBTEB. 


575 


You  remember  that,  in  order  to  give  color  to  the  state-  j 
■ment  that  about  that  time  there  must  have  been  adultery, 
he  alluded  to  difficulties  that  occurred  at  his  ovm  home. 
Here  is  the  record  of  vrhat  they  vr ere.  Xot  vrhat  trans- 
pired between  the  vrrfe  and  '^Ix.  Beecher.  n-anspired 
between  Theodore  Tilton  and  those  vrith  whom  he  ousht 
not  to  have  had  communion  : 

It  is  the  greatest  regret  of  my  life  that  I  do  not  seem 
constituted  so  as  to  malie  you  as  happy  as  you  deserve  to 
be :  but  I  have  the  best  of  intentions— and  the  worst  of 
success. 

I  repeat  it,  because  I  wish  to  impress  it  upon  your 
memory : 

The  cause  of  so  much  of  my  trouble  at  home  is  my  gen- 
eral anxiety  a^i  out  everything.  Latterly  I  worry  more 
or  less  concerning  evtry  matter  which  I  touch.  I  have 
hardly  ten  minutes  a  day  of  uninterrupted  freedom  from 
■care.  This  may  seem  an  exaggerated  statement,  but  it  is 
the  painful  truth.  I  feel  as  if  I  were  growing  old  before 
my  time.  Lights  that  used  to  burn  within  me  have  been 
rpienchi-d.  Hopes  are  faded;  ambition  is  Mlled;  life 
seems  a  failiu^e.   *  *  ^  * 

Then,  too,  all  my  religious  doubts  and  difficulties  have 
been,  and  are,  and  I  fear  must  be,  shut  up  within  my- 
self, because  I  cannot  open  my  mouth  to  you  concerning 
them  without  giving  you  a  wound.  You  are  the  finest 
flbered  soul  that  ever  was  put  into  a  body ;  you  jar  at 
my  touch,  and  I  am  apt  to  touch  too  inidely. 

As  for  my  own  character,  I  saw,  at  the  time 
of  Paul's  death,  what  it  was  to  be  a  man,  and  how  far 
short  of  it  I  am  myself ;  and  I  have  ever  since  been  ut- 
terly overwhelmed  with  my  own  worthlessness,  selfish- 
ness, degradation,  and  wickedness.  At  some  time  I  ex- 
pect to  recover  from  this  slough  of  despond ;  but  not  now. 
I  must  remain  longer  in  suffering  before  I  can  emerge 
into  peace.  I  have  been  overthrown,  and,  before  I  rise,  I 
must  be  made  to  feeL  like  Antseus,  that  strength  comes 
from  touching  the  ground. 

But  the  chief  of  all  my  miseries  is  this— is  this—"  that 

I  impart  them  to  others.  Let  me  say,  with  the  utmost 
fervor  of  protestation,  that  neither  you.  nor  the  children, 
nor  the  house,  nor  the  servant,  nor  anything  that  is 
within  oiu'  gates— not  one  alone— nor  all  combined — no, 
none  of  these  persons  or  things,  has  the  slightest  origi- 
nating share  in  my  troubles." 

What  does  that  mean  ?  "SVhat  does  that  mean  ?  This  is 
not  a  theatric  declaration  for  a  newspaper,  It  is  an  hon- 
est confession  of  a  man  in  confidence  to  a  wife  who  has 
lust  left  at  his  office  a  sweet  remembrance  of  affection. 

Those  troubles  (such  a«  they  are)  are  of  my  own 
making. 

And  this  Is  the  man  who  swore  here  day  after  day  that 
they  were  troubles  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  making. 

Would  to  God  they  were  also  of  my  own  enduring  I 
But  they  have  to  be  inflicted  upon  others— upon  yourself 
and  the  children.  It  is  this  fact  that  doubles  my  af- 
fliction. 

I  como  now,  grntlomen,  to  a  lottor  of  

Mr.  Beach  [to  3Ir.  Port'T]— It  ii^  4  o'clock. 
Judge  NeiJson  rto  the  jurors]— Get  ready  to  retii'e,  gen- 
tlemen. Return  to-morro^T  at  11  o'clock. 
The  Court  tlien  adjourned  to  Thursday  morning  at 

II  O'clQC]?. 


EIGHTY-SEVENTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDIXGS. 


SECOXD  DAY  OF  THE  SUMMING. 

JUDGE  PORTER  COXTIXUES  HIS  DE^n:xCIATIOXS  OF 
THE  PLAINTIFF— HE  EXTOLS  MISS  TURXER'S 
CHARACTER  AXD  HER  TESTLMOXT- HER  STATE- 
MENTS AXD  THOSE  OF  MR.  TILTOX'S  WITNESSES 
CONTRASTED— THE  SCENES  BETWEEN  THE  PLAIN- 
TIFF AND  MISS  TUPuNER  GONE  OVER— FTRTHEE 
READING  OF  LETTERS  BETWEEN  MR.  AND  MRS. 
TILTON— HENRY  C.  BOWENS  EVIDENCE  TOUCHED 
UPON. 

Thursday,  May  20,  1875. 

Before  iDeginning  Ms  argument  Judge  Porter  ex- 
plained that  The  reason  that  his  words  were  some- 
times partially  inaudihle  was  on  account  of  a  former 
dittlcnlty  of  the  lungs,  from  which  he  had  not  en- 
tirely recovered,  and  lie  asked  reporters  to  remind 
him  whenever  he  dropped  his  voice  too  low.  He  at 
first  continued  the  line  of  argument  which  he  had 
pursued  on  Wednesday,  and  read  from  some  of  the 
letters  of  !Mr.  and  ]SIrs.  Tilton.  Among  these  was  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Tilton  to  his  wife  in  February,  1867,  in 
which  he  mentions  his  meditations  on  Christ  as  He 
would  be   in  the    character  of   a  married  man. 

Eeading  one  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  letters,  full  of  ex- 
pressions of  devotion  to  her  linsband,  the  orator 
eloq.nently  described— by  way  of  comment  upon  an 
expression  in  the  letter — the  charm  of  apparent 
youthfulness  which  the  mutual  love  of  husband  and 
vrife  casts  over  the  gray  hairs  and  vrriiiMes  which 
come  upon  them  in  age.  In  doing  this  lie  paid  a 
graceful  tribute  to  Judge  Xeilson. 

PEOMIXEXT    POINTS    IN    THE  AEGOIENT. 

Yesterday  Judge  Porter  opened  the  more  strictly 
argumentative  part  of  his  address  by  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  dates  on  which  the  complaint  particularly 
charges  that  adultery  was  committed— Oct.  10,  and 
Oct.  17,  1868.  These  dates,  he  asserted,  were  se- 
lected because  they  were  believed  to  be  safe  from 
proof  of  an  alibi  by  the  defendant.  "  I  can  imagine," 
he  exclaimed,  "the  searching  of  almanacs  by  Tilton 
and  Moulton.  when  the  days  were  fixed  upon." 

The  testimony  of  Miss  Bessie  Turner  formed  the 
prmcipal  subject  of  the  argument  yesterday.  With, 
great  power  the  orator  sketched  the  scenes  between 
^liss  Turner  and  ]^Ir.  Tilton  as  described  by  "NHsa 
Turner.  He  then  analyzed  her  evidence,  praising 
her  character  as  Innocent  and  devoted,  and  her 
statements  as  truthful  and  consistent.  The 
testimony      of     the     witnesses     who  contra- 


576  THE  TILTON-B 

dieted  her  was  rapidly  reviewed.  Mr.  Eichards 
was  denounced,  Mr.  Martin  was  sarcasti- 
cally called  "Tilton's  spy,"  and  Mr.  Tilton 
himself  was  declared  to  have  failed  to  give  more 
than  a  qualified  denial  of  the  very  point  in  Miss 
Turner's  evidence  which  it  was  most  vital  to  his 
case  to  contradict.  Judge  Porter  lauded  highly  the 
manner  in  which  Miss  Turner  had  borne  the  cross- 
examination  of  Mr.  Fullerton  and  Mr.  Beach, 
and  the  general  character  of  her  testi- 
mony. With  great  effect  the  orator  exclaimed, 
"  She  to-day  stands  proud  and  erect,  while  he," 
pointing  at  Mr.  Tilton  with  a  contemptuous 
look,  and  speaking  in  a  harsh  voice,  with  scornful 
emphasis,  "  slinks  from  the  gaze  of  manhood  and  of 
womanhood !"  J udge  Porter  made  a  powerful  appeal 
to  the  jury  at  this  point,  asking  the  jurymen  if  they 
"  beUeved  this  to  he  an  honest  man,"  and  turning 
toward  Mr.  Tilton  he  exclaimed,  with  fierce  inten- 
sity, "Hollow,  treacherous,  false,  cowardly,  base!" 

The  testimony  of  Henry  C.  Bo  wen  was  taken  up 
near  the  close  of  the  session,  and  Judge  Porter 
imitated  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Bowen  had  testi- 
fied, putting  his  own  interpretation  upon  Mr. 
Bowen's  expressions. 


THE  PROCEEDINGS-YERBATTM. 

MR.  POETER'S  SUMMING  UP  CONTINUED. 
The   Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to 
adjournment. 

Mr  Porter— If  the  jury  will  pardon  me  one  moment : 
T  have  been  treated  so  Mndly  through  the  trial  by  the 
gentlemen  of  the  press,  your  Honor,  that  I  feel  bound  to 
say  to  them  that  the  difficulty  which  they  have  in  hearing 
me  is  due  to  my  physical  condition.  Unfortunately,  be- 
fore the  commencement  of  the  trial,  I  was  attacked  with 
a  difficulty  of  the  lungs,  from  which  I  have  not  yet  fully 
recovered.  It  is  my  endeavor  to  be  audible,  and  if  any 
of  the  gentlemen  will  be  kind  enough  to  remind  me  when 
I  drop  my  voice  so  as  to  be  inaudible,  I  will  take  it  as  a 
favor  instead  of  a  criticism. 


A  GLANCE  AT  MR.  TILTOM  BETTER  DAYS. 

Gentlemen,  you  cannot  appreciate  the  feeling 
of  earnest  gratitude  that  a  lawyer  has  when  he  is  en- 
gaged in  a  cause  that  is  close  to  his  heart,  and  defending 
a  man  whom  he  believes  to  be  innocent,  to  see  through 
the  long,  tedious,  protracted  hours  and  days  of  this  dis- 
cussion, the  ktadness  with  which  you  listen,  and  the  at- 
tention you  give  even  to  words  as  feeble  as  mine.  I  need 
say  no  more.  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  making  profes- 
sions. I  have  only  to  say  I  thank  you  from  the  bottom  of 


^ECMUB  TBlAJj. 

my  heart,  and  shall  ask  of  you  the  continuance  of  the 
same  indulgence. 

In  reading  one  of  these  letters  yesterday  a  passage  es- 
caped me  for  which,  when  I  came  afterward  to  see  what 
I  had  omitted,  I  felt  rebuked,  and  you  will  pardon  me  for 
returning  to  that  letter  now.  It  is  that  of  Mrs  Tilton, 
written  on  the  8th  of  March,  1868,  and  which  seems  to 
me  to  let  in  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  antecedents  of  these 
parties,  and  upon  the  interior  of  that  household. 
"  Nm^sery."  Ah !  what  is  there  to  a  woman's  heart  that 
is  so  near  as  the  nursery,  in  which  she  exercises  her  min- 
istrations of  loVe  to  the  children  of  marriage,  and  not  <jf 
lust.  "  Nursery,  Sunday  Eve."  And  if  there  ever  be  a 
time  when  a  mother  speaks  from  her  inmost  heart,  it  is 
not  merely  from  such  a  place,  but  on  the  eve  of  that 
Sabbath  day  which  too  many  of  us  ignore,  but  which 
the  wives  and  the  children  whom  we  love  cherish  as  the 
hour  that  brings  them  nearest  to  God.  It  is  not  in  letters 
written  by  the  side  of  the  cradle  and  on  the 
evening  oi  the  Sabbath  day,  that  mothers  loyal  to  their 
husbands— and  especially  when  they  write  not  for  news- 
papers, but  write  to  those  whom  they  have  pledged  their 
unalterable  love  in  time  and  in  eternity— utter  false 
sentunents.  "  My  Beloved."  March  8, 1868,  six  months 
before  that  mother  was  to  bend  in  anguish  over  the  boy 
whom  Theodore  Tilton  even  in  his  grave  pronoimced  a 
bastard  ;  six  months  and  a  half  before  the  time  when 
this  Christian  and  true-hearted  woman  is  said  to  have 
sought  that  house  on  Columbia  Hights,  which  many  have 
sought  who  were  poor  and  in  distress  ;  which  many  have 
sought  who  were  seeking  their  way  to  their  Father's 
house ;  which  many  have  sought  on  errands  of  love  or 
appeals  of  charity— but  when  she  is  represented  to  have 
sought  it,  sought  it  for  the  pvirpose  of  oflfering  her  person 
to  the  vile  embraces  of  the  pastor  to  whose  teachings  she 
had  listened  on  the  very  day  when  this  letter  was  writ- 
ten. 

Mt  Beloved  :  All  alone,  save  Eliza  m  the  kitchen  and 
the  children  aU  asleep  about  me,  while  I  have  been  try- 
ing to  imagine  my  state  when  I  shall  again  live  with  you 
and  behold  your  precious  form.  This,  I  think,  I  have  de- 
cided—no more  chidings,  scoldings  I  An  inexpressible 
tenderness  has  grown  up  in  my  soul  toward  you.  I  never 
saw  my  path  as  clear  as  now— that  whatever  you  may 
do,  say,  or  be,  it  becometh  me  to  be  the  Christian  Tfife 
and  mother ! 

Do  you  believe  when  Theodore  Tilton  In  that  better 
day  which,  though  declining,  had  not  yet  gone  down  In 
darkness,  when  he  received  that  message  from  his  loving 
and  trusting  wife,  could  have  been  persuaded  that  the 
hour  should  ever  come  when  his  hatred  and  envy  toward 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  would  lead  him  to  send  forth  thii 
letter  to  the  world  to  encounter  the  scoffs  and  the  derision 
of  those  who  despise  sentimentalism  ?  And  is  there  any 
better  illustration  of  the  Judicious  blindness  with  which 
God  darkens  the  understanding  of  those  who  turn  from 
the  light  of  His  countenance  than  that  this  man,  in  hlf 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MB.  PORTER. 


577 


own  justification  and  defense,  under  the  advice  of  my 
friend  Morris,  should  publish  to  the  world  what  rises 
against  him  in  judgment  this  day. 

I  have  said,  gentlemen,  that  these  were  the  better  days 
of  Theodore  Tilton ;  for,  while  I  am  compelled  by  my 
sense  of  duty  to  truth,  to  Innocence,  to  my  client,  to 
speak  of  him  in  terms  other  than  I  would,  I  cannot  for- 
get that  the  man  who  is  the  occasion  of  the  investigation 
of  this  issue  to-day  is  one  upon  whom  Providence  smiled 
as  He  has  smiled  upon  few  in  this  assembly ;  a  man  who 
was  endowed  with  an  ardor  of  genius  which,  if  it  had 
been  regulated  by  honest,  religious  sentiment,  elevated 
morality,  loyalty  to  truth,  loyalty  to  the  domestic  rela- 
tion, and  loyalty  to  God,  would  have  put  him  among 
th men  in  the  fore-front  of  this  generation.  As  he  was 
in  other  days  we  have  all  admired,  all  loved,  all  hon- 
ored him ;  but,  gentlemen,  we  must  bear  in  mind 
that  we  live  in  a  universe  governed  by  law, 
and  carrying  with  it  the  penalties  of  transgression.  No 
fairer  spirit  shone  in  Heaven  than  the  angel  who  is 
named  to-day  as  the  instigator  of  every  crime  in  each  in- 
dictment that  you  try  when  you  send  criminals  to  the 
State  Prison.  And  we  see  in  his  case  what  we  see  in  all 
others,  save  that  of  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  and  Henry  "Ward 
Beecher,  the  gradations  by  which  men  of  purity  and  of 
genius  go  down,  down,  down,  until  they  reach  a  depth 
from  which  there  is  no  descent. 

THE  LETTER  TO  THE  "  ORTHODOX  WIFE." 

Let  me  stop  at  an  intermediate  process— for 
I  spoke  of  the  letter  written  to  him  in  1868  as  written  in 
his  decUning  days— let  me  stop  at  an  intermediate  stage, 
on  Valentine's  Day,  1867,  when  this  man  wrote  to  Ms 
wife— a  wife  who  loved  him  and  loved  her  Savior,  a  wife 
who  loved  him  and  loved  all  men,  a  wife  who  loved  him 
and  loved  those  innocent  children— in  a  strain  of  mockery 
that  we  could  readily  imagine  laughing  on  the  sneering 
lip  of  Voltaire : 

Feb.  14, 1867. 
My  Dear  Orthodox  Wife  :  I  have  been  speculating 
considerably  lately  on  the  character  and  career  of  Jesus, 
and  1  wonder  whether  you  will  be  shocked  when  I  men- 
tion Oiie  of  my  meditations.   It  is  this  :  How  would  He 

have  appeared  in  the  character  of  

He  don't  write  it  "  Theodore  Tilton     he  writes  It 
a  married  man?     Certainly  to  your  reverential  and 
I   adoring  view  of  Him  as  "God  manifested  in  the  flesh," 
I   there  ought  to  be  nothing  profane  in  the  supposition.  If 
I    He  consented  to  oe  bom  of  a  woman,  why  might  He  not 
j   have  consented  to  be  married  to  a  woman  ?  And,  If  He 
was  the  son  of  an  earthly  parent,  why  might  He  not  have 
been  the  Father  of  a  mortal  child  ]   He  loved  some  of  His 
disciples  better  than  others,  as,  for  instance,  John.  He 
undoubtedly  loved  some  few  women,   perhaps  pas- 
sionately. 

Mr.  Tilton— Eead  it  correctly,  Mr.  Porter. 
Mr.  Porter— Do  I  not  1 
Mr.  Tilton— No,  Sir. 
Mr.  Porter— How  is  it  f 


Mr.  TUton— You  omitted  "  devotedly.'* 

Mr.  Porter— I  beg  your  pardon.  [To  the  jnry.J  Mr. 
Tilton  properly  suggests  that  I  omitted  a  word  in  my 
haste,  of  course  not  designedly : 

He  undoubtedly  loved  some  few  women  devotedly, 
perhaps  passionately.  Now,  why  might  He  not  have 
loved  one,  chief  and  chosen  among  those  women,  on 
whom  He  might  have  poured  the  whole  fullness  of  His 
heart,  and  on  whose  finger  He  might  have  set  a  marriage 
ring,  making  her,  Indeed,  like  the  Church,  the  "  Bride  o: 
Christl"  I  confess  that  if  a  new  historic  investigation 
should  reveal  the  proof  that  Jesus  was  a  married  man, 
instead  of  an  unmated  lover  of  all  the  world,  I  would  see 
an  additional  glory  in  the  most  wonderful  of  all  historic 
characters. 

The  God  to  whom  you  and  I,  in  our  last  hours,  will  ad- 
dress our  last  prayer,  from  parched  lips,  and  when  the 
death  sweat  is  on  our  brow,  that  is  the  God  of  whom 
Tlieodore  Tilton,  to  the  wile  who  adores  Him,  uses  lan- 
guage like  this.   "  A  historic  God ! " 

Nor  do  I  know  of  any  evidence  to  show  that  He  wa« 
never  married. 

If  either  Mary  or  Martha,  or  any  other  saintly  woman, 
had  been  His  wife,  the  fact  would  probably  have  been 
mentioned,  and  yet  what  would  we  have  known  of  Hie 
friend  Peter's  wife  except  for  the  fact  that  her  mother 
was  oncesickof  a  fever  ?  Men's  wives  are  not  necessa- 
rily known  to  history. 

Let  me  tell  him,  his  will  be ;  and  he  has  created  the  ne- 
cessity. 

Of  course,  the  probability  is  that  Jesus  was  never  mar- 
ried ;  yet  this  is  by  no  means  a  certainty.  And  as  there 
remains  a  possibility  that  He  was,  it  is  a  pleasant  reflec- 
tion for  me  that,  while  He  was  living  in  Capernaum,  in 
the  house  of  Peter  (one  of  His  disciples),  He  might  there 
have  enjoyed,  also,  the  still  sweeter  companionship  of  a 
wile  of  his  own. 

If  he  did  does  he  believe  that  it  was  a  wife  who  would 
lie  for  Him.  who  would  be  the  witness  of  His  innocence  if 
He  had  committed  the  Nathan  murder,  as  he  told  Mrs.  Ov- 
Ington  this  woman  would?  I  know"— not  what  the  God 
who  fashioned  and  who  provided  htm  so  richly  with  physi- 
cal and  intellectual  gif  ts— aot  what  that  God  says,  for  that 
Is  of  no  account  to  him—"  I  know  that  even  Renan"— the 
infidel,  even  Penan,  that  authority  who  rises  above  the 
crown  of  the  Omniscient,  and  who  wrote  a  book  more 
worthy  to  be  cited  than  that  upon  which  he  laid  his  hand 
when  he  swore  that  he  would  not  make  a  false  accusation 
against  the  wife  of  his  bosom  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher  1 

I  know  that  even  Penan  says,  "  Jesus  never  married." 
Even  admitting  the  fact,  however,  this  does  not  deny  the 
propriety  of  His  marrying,  if  He  had  chosen  to  marry. 

But,  if  Jesus  had  taken  a  wile  and  lathered  a  family,  I 
believe  that  this  fact  would  have  so  completely  human- 
ized Him  in  the  eyes  of  all  the  world  that  He  never  would 
have  been  regarded  as  God,  or  the  only-begotten  Son  of 
God. 

And  that  accounts  for  it,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  why 
this  man,  who  talks  about  his  "  crown,"  and  his  "  laying 
off  the  crown,"  and  saying  to  Bowen,  "  God  save  the 
King,"  has  never  been  recognized  as  the  rival  of  your 
Savior  and  mine.  He  proceeds : 


578 


THE   TILTON-BEEOTTEIi  TRIAL. 


He  never  would  have  been  regai^ded  as  God,  or  the 
only-begotten  Son  of  God.  And  yet,  if,  as  the  son  of 
Mary,  He  had  become  the  husband  of  a  Galilean  girl,  and 
these  twain  had  dwelt  in  a  cottage  by  the  Lake  of  Genes- 
saret,  and  unto  them  had  been  born  children  like  those  of 
whom  He  said,  **  Suffer  them  to  come  unto  Me,"  let  me 
in(iuire  whether  or  not  you  would  love  the  character  of 
Jesus  any  less  than  you  love  it  now?  Answer.  Your 
heterodox  husband,  Theodore  Tilton. 

These  were  the  teachings  in  a  Christian  household,  to 
the  mother  of  the  children  of  whom  lie  told  Bessie  Tur- 
ner that  but  one  was  legitimate. 

MES.  TILTON  SORROWS  OYER  HER  SHORT- 
COMINGS. 

It  is  a  relief,  gentlemen,  to  pass  from  this 
to  one  of  those  utterances  of  true  and  simple-hearted  and 
Christian  love,  which,  however  Tiltonian  in  style,  come 
fresh  and  warm  from  a  pure  and  loving  heart.  On  the 
31st  of  the  same  month  she  writes  to  him  

Mt  Deak  Husband  ;  I  have  just  returned  from  Mat- 
tie's,  and  saw  your  bust,  loved  it,  could  not  bear  to  leave 
that  precious  head  behind  me.  Oh !  Theodore  darling,  I 
am  haunted  day  and  night  by  the  remorse  of  knowing 
that  because  of  my  harshness  and  indifference  to  you, 
you  were  driven  to  despair,  perhaps  sin.  And  these  last 
years  of  imhappiness  

Oh  !  that  happy  love  that  was  disturbed  in  the  Fall  of 
1838,  in  the  eloquent  language  of  my  splendid  friend  on 
the  other  side  [turning to  Mr,  BeachJ,  upon  the  entrance  of 
the  cool,  calculating,  diabolical  seducer !  Oh !  that  happy 
home  from  which,  in  January  of  that  same  year,  the  wife 
writes  to  him  to  take  upon  herself  the  blame  of  those 
long  years  of  unhappiness  ! 

I  sometimes  feel  it  to  be  the  unpardonable  sin.  God 
cannot  forgive  m^^.  But  if  you  only  may  be  restored  to 
your  former  loveliness- 
Husband  and  wife  you  know,  gentlemen,  never  grow  old 
to  each  other.  We  see  upon  one  whom  we  all  honor  and 
love  [turning  to  Judge  Neilson]  the  marks  of  maturing 
years  and  advancing  age.  I  have  not  the  pleasure  of 
knowing  the  lady  who  has  been  chosen  as  the  light  of  his 
dwelling,  but  I  know  that  she  does  not  see  him  as  I  see 
him;  she  sees  him  in  the  health  and  flush  of  young  man- 
hood, with  the  glory  of  youth  upon  him,  and  to  this  hour, 
to  this  hour  his  age  is  that  on  which  he  pressed  upon  her 
finger  the  marriage  ring ;  and  he,  whUe  he  may  be  look- 
ing upon  one  whom  time  has  touched  with  some  of  those 
changes  which  time  leaves  upon  the  faces  of  us  all— he 
sees  her  as  she  came  before  the  clergyman  who  solem- 
nized their  marriage  rites,  freah  and  beaming,  glowing 
witli  youth  and  bright  as  the  morning  star.  Here  we 
have  a  husband  and  wife  who  had  joined  hands  and 
hearts  when  both  were  but  20  years  old ;  when  both  were 
pure,  both  radiant  with  hope,  both  glowing  with  joy,  both 
adoring  that  Savior  whom  he  has  since  dethroned  so  far 
fts  it  is  in  the  power  of  one  of  the  poor  creatures  whom 
Ood  has  made.  And  she,  appealing  to  that  earlier  image. 


to  that  purer  man  which  she,  in  her  woman's  simplicity 

describes  as  "your  former  loveliness,"  says : 

*  Though  I,  by  my  indifference  and  coldness,  and  rebuk- 
ing of  your  sins,  have  brought  you  to  abandon  the  Savior 
whom  we  loved,  to  go  after  strange  gods  and  strange 
women,  yet  I  can  accept  that  destiny  even  without  the 
forgiveness  of  God,  if  it  will  only  restore  you,  my  be- 
loved husband,  the  husband  of  my  youth,  if  it  will  re- 
store you  to  your  former  loveliness,  and  reconcile  you 
to  that  Being  who  is  the  God  of  your  children  and 
mine,  and  to  whom  we  must  look  for  mercy,  for  forgive- 
ness, for  salvation. 

Then  again,  returning  to  that  spirit  at  which  the  world 
scoffs,  which  newspaper  men  deride,  but  which  our 
mothers,  our  sisters,  our  daughters,  our  wives  cherish, 
returning  to  that  spirit  which  is  willing  to  take  upon 
one's  self  the  blame  and  relieve  all  others,  to  bear  the 
burden  as  Christian  bore  it  until  he  laid  it  at  the  foot  of 
the  cross,  that  spirit  which  a  Christian  minister  has  been 
derided  and  scoffed  at  for  uttering  in  his  letters  to  men 
like  Tilton  and  Moulton,  she,  pure,  innocent,  unspotted, 
unstained,  compared  with  him,  white  as  wool,  she  says  : 

I  am  the  chief  of  sinners.  I  understand  nerfectly  now 
how  you  have  felt.  I  carry  in  my  soul  this  burden, 
black,  of  sin,  yet  appear  to  my  children  an"'  friends  calm 
and  happy.  "  Woe  unto  you,  whited  sei  ul3h  r,"  I  hear 
perpetually.  I  will  carry  these  agonies  gladly,  for  I 
know  a  life  of  happiness  waits. 

Whom?  Not  "  me,"  but  "  you."  She  had  faith  in  God 
that  Theodore  Tilton  could  be  redeemed  by  the  devotion 
of  a  pure  woman's  love,  by  the  appeal  she  could  make  to 
that  fountain  in  his  nature  which  she  recognized  as  hav- 
ing been  placed  there  by  the  ever  living  God,  and  which 
she  could  not  imagine  had  been  let  wholly  dry  up.  By 
oue  of  those  odd  coincidences  to  which  my  learned  friend, 
Mr.  Shearman,  calls  my  attention,  this  utterance  was 
one  of  conception.  Nine  months  afterward  came  the 
term  of  pregnancy,  and  a  chUd  was  born.  The  Savior, 
whom  he  dishonors  and  whom  we  reverence,  said  of  the 
tree,  "  By  its  fruits  ye  shall  know  it."  But  the  same 
Savior  elsewhere  says,  "  If  ye  sow  corn  it  shall  not  bear 
grapes."  This  is  the  sowing  of  that  woman's  heart  ou 
the  31st  of  January,  and  he  would  have  you  believe  that 
these  emotions,  so  pure,  so  loving,  and  so  loyal  to  him, 
so  loyal  to  Him  above,  were  followed  by  her  being  de- 
bauched before  the  year  rolle  1  by. 

"  If  the  past."  she  proceeded,  "  were  not  ever  present, 
I  believe  I  might  yet  bless  you.  You  are  the  only  human 
being  I  have  harmed.   Oh  1  wretched  womas  that  I  am!" 

*  *  *  "  Darling  the  appeal  is  ended,  like  a  psalm  of 

David,  with  some  adjuration,  and  now  the  sense  of  duty, 
which  in  her  heart  was  ever  present,  rises  to  admoni- 
tion "  "  Darling,  we  must  both  cultivate  our  self- 
respect  by  being  what  we  seem.  Then  will  be  fulfilled 
my  ideal  marriage  to  you,  and  you  only,  a  wife— but 
contact  of  the  body  with  no  other— while  then  a  pure 
friendship  with  many  may  be  ergoyed,  ennobling  us. 
Let  us  not  have  even  a  shadow  of  doubt  of  each  other. 
Though  all  the  world  are  weak,  yet  wiU  we  be  strong. 
God  accept  and  bless  us  both.   Now,  we  are  one. 

*  See  page  601.  "  Faithfully  yours." 


SUMMING   UP  1 

•  And  my  Mend  Mr.  Siearman,  wliose  vigilance  naugM 
escapes  tbat  tends  to  tlie  elucidation  of  trutli  in  tlie  case 
of  Ms  beloved  and  lionored  client,  calls  my  attention  to  the 
fact  thattMs  letter  was  written  five  days  after  tliat  night 
of  confession,  wMcli  lie  spoke  of  to  lier  as  so  memorable 
tliat  tlie  recollections  of  it  would  endure  tlirougli  eternity. 

Wl.  TILTON'S  ALIEN  LOVES. 

I  am  wearying  you,  gentlemen,  and  yet  I 
tnow  you  will  pardon  me  for  reading  one  single  letter  to 
you,  because  that  makes  you,  the  jury,  that  enables  you 
to  look  in  upon  the  imroofed  habitation  of  Theodore 
Tilton  in  the  beginning  of  the  period  which  is  before  you 
for  investigation.  He  writes  to  her  at  a  time  when,  as  he  now 
pretends,  she  was  the  prostitute  of  the  honored  pastor  of 
Plymouth  Church,  in  the  closmg  days  of  the  Summer  of 
1869,  one  year  after  the  death  of  that  Paul  whose  grave, 
according  to  him,  was  dedicated  to  clerical  lust  and 
debauchery.   He  says  to  her : 

From  my  early  years  I  have  loved  and  loved  you— you. 
But  all  the  past  experiences  of  my  heart's  affection  have 
been  as  nothing  compared  with  the  unusual  and  solemn 
sense  which  I  have  had  during  aR  the  hilarities  of  this 
"NTewport  week  that  the  only  human  being  who  touches  my 
highest  nature  is  yourself. 

What  were  those  other  womanly  affections  of  which  he 
speaks?  Hers  touches  his  highest,  theirs  his  lowest 
nature. 

This  being  the  case,  I  am  filled  with  distress  to  think 
that  I  must  keep  you  uninformed,  for  the  sake  of  your 
own  tranquillity,  of  many  of  my  thoughts  and  of  some  of 
my  conduct.  I  would  to  God  I  were  a  man  worthy  of 
your  goodness,  your  self-denial,  and  your  singleness  of 
heart.  Occasionally,  in  some  supreme  hour,  I  am  your 
fit  mate.  But  at  all  other  times  3'ou  are  high,  high  above 
me.  But  if  you  could  know  the  inward  reverence  

"True  iawardness"— where  did  she  learn  that  phrase  1 
My  friend  Judge  Fullerton  has  brought  in  "  Norwood" 
and  "  Hannah  More,"  and  I  know  not  what  beside,  in 
order  to  teach  you  what  that  woman  had  in  view  when 
she  talked  of  true  inwardness.  Why,  she  had  been  under 
the  teaching  of  a  man  who  left  upon  her  all  such  expres- 
sions rooted  so  that  they  could  not  but  spring  up  and 
bear  fruit,  and  when  he  used  it  in  a  high  and  noble  and 
general  sens©,  he  yet  imputes  her  adoption  of  the  phrase 
to  the  vile  purposes  of  her  inward  adultery. 

But  if  you  could  know  the  inward  reverence  which  I 
nave  borne  towards  you  for  many  days  past,  even  while 
appearing  to  be  absorbed  in  the  companionship  of  other 
ladies,  and  particularly  at  Newport,  I  am  sui-e  you  would 
almost  dread  to  be  loved— to  be  so  much  loved  by  any 
human  (and  therefore  infirm  and  wayward)  creature  like 
myself.  I  have  several  times  tried  to  keep  myself  from 
writing  you  any  such  letter  as  this,  because  it  is  unlike 
most  of  my  past  correspondence. 

His  letters  were  usually  not  letters  of  true  inwardness, 

but  of  sham  outwardness. 

It  is  my  request  that  no  other  eye  shall  ever  see  it  ex- 
cept your  own. 

And  that  letter  she  hoarded  among  her  secret  treasures 


F  ME.   FOETEB.  579 

with  her  woman's  love,  and  it  never  appeared  again  to  the 
light  of  day  until  the  search  was  made  for  "  gas,"  and,  by 
the  indiscretion  and  oversight  either  of  the  newspaper  man. 
or  my  friend  Mr.  Morris,  the  injunction  of  the  sacredness 
of  the  privacy  of  a  conjugal  confession  like  than  was 
overlooked,  and  it  was  sent  forth  to  the  world.  Eaves- 
droppers rarely  hear  good  of  themselves,  and  when  any 
man  is  so  mean  and  so  base  as  to  go  to  the  receptacle  in 
which  the  wife  and  the  mother  keep  the  letters  of  what 
she  flatters  herself  is  conjugal  love,  and  the  memorials  ot 
her  dead  children,  and  the  stray  locks  of  hair  that  she 
has  treasured  as  memories  of  love,  and  which  she  be- 
lieves are  to  be  reunited  to  the  bodies  of  the  little 
ones  as  a  part  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
in  the  day  of  the  great  judgment— when  these  holy 
sanctities  are  invaded  for  the  purposes  of  vanity  and 
egotism  and  hate,  God  would  indeed  be  asleep  if  he  did 
not  overrule  the  action  to  the  disgrace  and  dishonor  of 
the  man  who  was  capable  of  such  a  profanation. 

I  have  gone,  gentlemen,  through  the  wearisome  details 
of  what  has  been  to  you  and  to  me  a  most  painful  and  yet 
a  most  instructive  revelation  of  the  unmistakable  truth  of 
the  interior  of  that  household.  Tilton,  on  oath,  painted 
it  to  you  in  the  colors  of  the  prism,  of  the  rainbow,  of  the 
diamond,  with  its  thousand  flashing  lights,  as  reflected  in 
the  sunbeam.  You  have  seen  here  the  affected  jealousy, 
the  cold  exaction,  the  hard-hearted  imposition  upon  a 
feeble  and  unprotected  woman,  whose  mother  he  de- 
scribes as  a  maniac,  and  whom  God  had  deliverd  over  to 
his  mercy.  You  have  seen  the  secrets  of  that  household, 
the  wife  taking  to  herself  reproach  for  the  infidelities  of 
her  husband  who  neglected  her,  the  wife  who  felt  called 
by  her  sense  of  duty  at  last  to  say:  "I  feel  enlightened 
from  abo  vq.  3Iy  path  is  clear  as  the  sun.  It  is  my  duty 
to  save  you.  Be  what  you  will,  do  what  you  will,  say 
what  you  will,  my  duty  is  to  be  a  Christian  wife  and  a 
Christian  mother.  I  fear  my  indifference  to  that  lesson 
has  cost  me  my  hope  of  heaven,  but  my  fidelity  to  that 
duty  shall  I  hope  under  the  hand  of  God  be  the  means  of 
reclaiming  what  I  have  so  nearly  lost." 


THE  EVIDENCE  CONSIDEEED. 
I  tMnk  now,  gentlemen,  we  can  properly  ad- 
vance to  a  hasty  consideration  of  the  evidence  which  it 
will  fall  within  my  province  more  particularly  to  discuss, 
mth  the  view  of  relieving  my  able  and  eloquent  associate 
from  a  portion  at  least  of  the  labors  which  are  cast  upon 
him  as  the  senior  and  responsible  representative  of  the 
defendant. 

LNTGENUITY  IN  THE  SELECTION  OF  DATES. 

The  first  point  to  which  it  seems  to  me  essen- 
tial to  direct  youi-  attention  is  the  state  of  things  which 
existed  on  the  10th  and  17th  of  October,  1868.  Eight 
there  this  issue  hinges.  The  complaint  puts  forth  those 
two  as  the  only  known  and  ascertained  days  of  a  long- 


580 


TEM   TIimm-BEECEEB  TRIAL. 


continued  and  infamous  criminal  intercourse.  They  are 
days  well  selected  by  the  contrivers  of  this  accusation, 
and  the  forgers  and  fabricators  of  these  pretended  con- 
fessions. We  find  by  the  evidence  that  they  had  the 
means  of  knowing,  by  consulting  the  public  journals, 
that  on  the  night  of  the  9th  of  October  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  delivered  one  of  those  magnificent  addresses  at 
the  Academy  of  Music  which  have  associated  his  name 
with  the  first  orators  of  all  the  ages.  The  day  selected  is 
between  one  of  the  Friday  night  prayer-meetings,  the  lec- 
tures of  which  have  been  for  years  reported  by  The 
Christian  Union  or  in  The  Independent,  as  the  case  may 
be,  and  a  Sabbath  morning  service,  where  every  utter- 
ance of  his  is  caught  up  by  these  reporters,  who  are  the 
veins  and  arteries  of  intelligence  through  the  world,  and 
circulated  over  this  and  other  lands.  They  were  safe  in 
fixing  it  on  that  day,  unless  against  unusual  contingen- 
cies, for  it  was  scarcely  probable  that  if  on  Friday  night 
he  delivered  his  usual  Friday  evening  lecture  and  on 
Sunday  morning  he  oifieiated  in  the  presence  of  3,000 
people  at  Plymouth  Church,  he  could  prove  an  alibi.  The 
next  occasion  is  equally  well  chosen.  It  is  the  inter- 
vening day  between  the  next  Friday  evening  and  Sunday 
morning  service.  I  can  imagine  the  searching  of 
almanacs  by  Tilton  and  by  Moulton  when  the  days  were 
fixed  upon.  You  can  imagine  the  ransacking  of  news- 
paper flies  to  see  that  by  no  unlucky  chance  there  had 
been  an  exchange ;  but  it  being  ascertained  that  Mr. 
Beecher  was  there  on  Friday  night  and  there  on  Sunday 
morning,  it  was'  fair  to  assume  that  he  could  prove  no 
alibi  on  Saturday,  and  so  on  the  Saturday  following. 
The  theory  of  these  men  is  that  your  honored  townsman 
is  a  gray-haired  hypocrite,  who  has  stood  at  the  cofiins  of 
your  wives,  over  the  hearses  of  your  children  and  at  the 
heads  of  their  graves,  who  has  ioined  your  daughters  in 
wedlock,  who  has  preached  to  your  fellow-citizens — men 
and  women,  boys  and  maideas— who  has  baptized  your 
children  in  the  fear,  not  of  the  Supreme  God,  but  in  the 
fear  of  that  devil  whom  Theodore  Tilton  with  equal  j  us- 
tice  has  dethroned  as  he  has  dethroned  the  Redeemer. 
You  are  told  that  this  man  has  been  rotten  all  his  life ; 
that,  though  all  mankind  beside  were  deceived,  the  secret 
was  a  viper  that  found  a  nestling-place  in  two  hearts— in 
the  heart  of  Theodore  Tilton  and  the  heart  of  Henry  C. 
Bowen;  that  this  is  a  man  who  is  capable 
of  giving  the  blood  of  the  Savior  on  the 
Sabbath  day  to  the  lips  of  a  wife  and  matron  and  mother 
and  communicant  of  his  own  church,  and  of  prostituting 
her  within  the  week  ;  a  man,  of  whom  they  will  teU  you 
that  he  is  capable  of  committing  corrupt,  deliberate  per- 
jury ;  that  he  regards  neither  the  God  whom  he  serves, 
nor  his  fellow-men,  nor  his  own  conscience,  neither  the 
sanctions  of  religion,  of  public  law,  nor  of  private  mo- 
rality ;  that  he  is  ready  to  betray  the  honored  wife  of  his 
youth,  to  disgrace  their  children  and  their  grand- 
children, and  now,  in  the  decline  of  Ufe,  when  his  head 


is  blossoming  for  the  grave— and  already  you  see  the 
marks  of  that  sad  day,  which  will  be  a  dark  day  for 
Brooklyn,  when  Henry  Ward  Beecher  is  carried  to  the 
grave— that  this  man  is  a  perjured  villain.  WeU,  here  is 
a  temptation,  is  there  not?  He  is  told,  "on 
the  10th  day  of  October,  at  your  house,  one  of 
your  parishioners  sought  you,  and  yieldad  herself 
to  your  arms  in  the  embrace  of  base  debauchery ;  seven 
days  afterward  you  sought  her  house,  and  again,  as  you 
had  before  tendered  to  her  the  communion  of  the  Son  of 
God,  you  tendered  to  her  the  community  of  diabolical 
lust."  What  should  be  expected  of  such  a  man  1  If  he 
be  the  perjured  villain  that  he  is  described,  where  will  his 
alibi  be?  WiU  it  be  on  the  2d  of  June,  18731  No;  it 
wOl  be  ^7iere.  Seven  years  ago  this  crime  is  said  to  have 
been  committed.  TJiere  is  an  immimity  for  peijury. 
They  teU  you  that  these  men  of  Plymouth  Qhm'ch  (who 
are  not  here  because  these  walls  would  not  contain  them) 
—that  these  men  of  Plymouth  Church,  who  love  and 
honor  him,  are  capable  of  peijury  to  save  him.  How 
happens  it,  then,  that  of  the  three  thousand  none  volun- 
teers his  testimony  to  prove  that  on  that  day  he 
rode  with  Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  Coney  Island  to  bathe ; 
that  on  that  day  he  went  with  Henry  Ward  Beecher  on  a 
flshiQg  excursion  to  Sandy  Hook ;  that  on  that  day  he 
joined  him  after  breakfast,  and  walked  arm  in  arm  with 
him  from  picture  gallery  to  picture  gallery  in  the  City  of 
New-York,  according  to  his  well-known  habitude! 
Nothing  of  the  kind;  nothing  of  the  kind.  Yet  they 
tell  you  this  man  is  a  hypocrite  and  libertine— in  the 
language  of  Moulton,  "a  libertine  and  a  liar!"  Yet, 
there  is  not  one  word  from  him,  not  one  from  his  house- 
hold, not  one  from  his  church,  by  way  of  alibi  on  those 
days.  He  frankly  tells  you  on  the  stand,  **  I  know  of 
nothing  that  occurred  on  either  of  those  days  that  en- 
ables me  to  distinguish  them  from  any  other  Saturdays 
in  the  year." 

Gentlemen,  do  you  believe  that  a  man  goes,  at  the  age 
of  sixty,  for  the  first  time  in  his  life,  to  commit  an  act  oi 
debauchery ;  and  does  not  remember  the  day,  and  where 
he  was,  and  what  he  was  doing,  and  how  the  sun  of  that 
morning  rose  in  light,  but  went  down  upon  him  in  dark- 
ness for  time,  in  darkness  for  eternity  ?  In  order  to  enable 
Theodore  Tilton  to  walk  over  the  body  of  his  wife  ;  in 
order  to  reach  the  heart  of  his  enemy,  he  will  urge  you, 
through  his  coimsel,  to  believe  that  fifteen  witnesses  on 
this  stand  have  committed  peijury— for  if  either  of  the 
fifteen  have  sworn  the  truth,  Theodore  Tilton  is  a  man 
sworn  a  liar— and  yet  the  man  who  can  command  these 
witnesses,  fifteen  men,  many  of  them  those  whose  bare 
word  is  good  in  every  commercial  mart  on  the  globe ; 
fifteen  men,  many  of  whom  are  connected  with  the  inter- 
ests of  commerce,  of  literature,  of  finance,  in  the  capitals 
of  the  world ;  fifteen  men  who,  if  they  were  to  be 
stricken  down  in  one  day  in  your  midst,  would  clothe 
Brooklyn  in  mourning  ;  fifteen  men  who  stand  sustaining 


SU2f2riyG    UF  BY  ME.  FOETEB. 


581 


the  magniaeent fabric  of  your  commercial  preeminence 
among  tlie  cities  of  tlie  globe  ;— the  man  -who  can  com- 
mand such  friends,  such  witnesses,  calls  none  to  prove 
that  the  crime  charged  upon  him  on  these  days  could  not 
have  been  committed,  because  he  was  elsewhere. 

I  pass  from  those  two  days.  It  would  be  idle  for  me  to 
enlarge.  Is  there  one  man  on  that  jury  who  does  not  see 
and  feel  that  those  days  were  selected  by  the  conspirators 
because  of  the  probability  of  the  defendant  being  where 
he  could  have  had  two  such  interviews ;  or  one  upon  this 
jury  who  can  entertata  a  doubt  that  if  he  were  the  per- 
jm-ed  villain  he  is  described,  and  surrounded  by  hosts  of 
others  equally  ready  to  sell  their  souls  for  him,  there 
would  have  been  an  alibi  on  one  or  the  other  of  those 
days,  either  of  which  would  have  broken  the  back  of  this 
prosecution  ? 

[At  this  point  3Ix'.  Shearman  made  a  whispered  sugges- 
tion to  Mr.  Porter.]  Mr.  Porter  [resuming]— My  associ- 
ate makes  a  suggestion  which  is  valuable,  but  I  have  to 
look  to  your  time,  gentlemen,  and  mine. 

PPvAISE  OF  BESSIE  TUEXEE. 
I  come  now  to  a  witness  to  whose  testimony 
I  shall  have  occasion  to  recur  again  and  again  dui-ing  the 
analysis  of  this  evidence.  He  has  introduced  her.  Gen- 
tlemen, there  is  in  the  heart  of  Hemy  Ward  Beecher, 
there  is  ta  the  heart  of  William  A.  Beaoh,  there  is  in  the 
heart  of  each  of  you,  there  is  in  my  heart,  a  feeling  of 
tenderness  and  of  chivalry  toward  womanhood  which 
makes  it  painful  for  us  at  any  time,  without  evidence,  to 
cast  unmerited,  or  even  merited,  reproach  on  one  of  the 
sex  of  our  mother,  our  wife,  our  sister,  our  child.  I  feel  it 
now.  I  shall  feel  it  more  deeply  and  intensely  when 
I  shall  be  compelled,  in  the  discharge  of  my  professional 
duty,  to  speak  of  Mrs.  Moulton.  But  I  am  now  to  speak 
of  another.  There  was  a  day  in  the  life  of  Theodore  Til- 
ton  when  he  would  have  scorned  to  lay  his  hand  in  anger 
on  a  woman.  He  has  said  that  "  the  tongue  is  a  wild 
beast  which  no  man  can  tame,"  but  he  had  such  control 
over  that  wUd  beast  in  his  own  keeping  that  there  was  a 
time  when  he  would  have  hesitated  to  cast  unmerited  re- 
proach upon  any  woman,  even  his  wife.  But  that  day 
with  him  has  long  since  passed  onward,  with  the  years 
that  are  gone.  He  knew  perfectly  well  when  he  stood 
upon  this  stand  that  there  was  a  living  witness  whom  God 
had  preserved  and  whom  he  must  confront,  before  he  left 
this  Court  with  a  verdict  for  him  or  against  him; 
and  with  the  cunning,  and  the  subtlety,  and  the  malice  of 
a  fiend,  he  undertook,  as  a  volunteer,  to  prepare  the  way 
for  her  coming  before  you,  by  describing  her  in  a  sneering 
tone  and  with  affected  contempt,  as  "  a  child,"  a  "  ser- 
vant," and  "  a  waif."  It  turned  out  afterward  upon  the 
evidence  that  the  child  had  matm^ed  to  early  woman- 
hood, that  in  personal  attractions  she  was  far  the  supe- 
rior of  that  Elizabeth  Tiltun  of  whom  he  was  once  so 
proud,  and  that  inteileetuully  developed  as  she  was,  in 


her  education— which  was  obtained  merely  to  screen  his 
misconduct,  but  obtained  from  the  boiintiful  charity  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher.  and  through  the  appeal  made  to 
him  by  Frank  Moulton,  on  the  ground  that  Theodore  Til- 
ton  could  not  afford  it— it  turned  out  that  in  this  way,  she 
was  reared  in  a  seminary  of  learning,  and  had  opportu- 
nities to  develop  those  intellectual  parts  which  you 
have  seen  illustrated  before  you,  and  which  lift  her, 
waif  and  servant  as  he  calls  her,  high  above  him  intel- 
lectually and  moraUy.  My  friend  ^Mr.  Beach)  sneers,  but, 
gentlemen,  he  did  not  sneer  when  she  was  upon  the  stand. 
It  turns  out  that  that  waif  was  the  daughter  of  poor 
but  respectable  parents ;  that  she  was  subjected  to  early 
poverty,  and  was  the  object  of  womanly  charity;  that 
her  brightness  and  kindliness  and  amiability  won  the 
heart  of  every  woman  whom  she  approached ;  that  in 
due  time  she  came  in  contact  with  Mrs.  TUton;  that  ]Mra. 
Tilton's  heart  yearned  to  her  in  love  and  in  charity ;  that 
she  was  able  in  those  his  better  days  to  bring  even  Theo- 
dore Tilt  on  into  sympathy  with  her ;  that  she  was  reared 
in  the  household,  never  recei^ang  the  wages  of  a 
servant,  never  treated  as  a  servant;  sitting  on 
his  lap  with  his  own  daughter;  ministering  to 
him  in  sickness  and  in  health;  ministering  to 
his  feeble  wife;  assisting  her  in  the  cares  of  the 
household  with  which  she  was  overwhelmed,  and 
assisting  that  faithful  mother  in  the  rearing  of  those 
children  in  another  tutelage  than  Theodore  Tilton  would 
have  reared  them  in.  Faithful  in  all,  yet  proud,  am- 
bitious, seeing  around  her  the  evidence  of  struggle  and 
poverty,  seeking  her  own  way  in  the  world,  under  the 
patronage  of  her  mistress  going  to  a  china-merchant's 
shop,  going  to  a  dollar-store,  going  as  governess  to  the 
children  of  David  Dows ;  and  wherever  she  went  com- 
manding confidence,  respect,  and  affection.  And  this 
girl  came  to  be,  in  process  of  time,  returning,  as 
she  did,  from  time  to  time,  by  the  persuasions  of  that 
adopted  mother,  and  with  the  assent  of  this  man,  who,  in 
his  letters  to  her,  which  he  had  forgotten,  had  signed 
himself  her  father,  growing  in  that  household  to  the 
statm'e  of  womanhood,  developing  those  qualities  which 
are  attractive  alike  to  the  pure-minded  lover  and  the 
lustful  and  base  libertine,  was  made,  on  two  occasions, 
the  object  of  approaches,  easy  to  explain  fi-om  the  family 
relations  existing  between  them,  and  yet  of  so  doubtful 
a  character  as  to  pain  her  with  the  feeling  that  her 
adopted  father  was  so  ill-trained  in  modesty  and  pro- 
priety that  even  so  poor  a  girl  as  she  could  teach  him  that 
there  was  something  due  to  the  sex  to  which  his  wife  and 
daughter  belonged. 

THE  ADYA2s"CES  TO  BESSIE  TUENER. 

Two  incidents  of  this  kind  occurred.   I  must 

refer  to  one  of  them,  because  before  we  come  to  the  in- 
quiry as  to  the  subsequent  accusation  this  man  makes  we 
want  to  know  something  of  the  character  and  the  truth 


583 


THE   TlLTON-SEEaREB  TBIAL. 


or  rottenness  of  tlie  man  wlio  makes  it.  If  you  are  rear- 
ing a  building  you  want  your  corner-stone  to  be  fixed. 
If  your  verdict  In  this  case  is  against  tlie  defendant,  it 
must  rest  on  Theodore  Tilton  as  Its  chief  corner-stone. 
Is  tlie  stone  sound  or  rotten?  In  answer  to  my  inquiry 
as  to  the  incident,  she  gives  in  her  own  simple, 
iruthful  and  gxaphic  language  the  incidents  as 
they  occurred,  and  before  I  read  them  I  want  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  fact  to  which  she 
testified,  that  though  she  felt  that  she  was  the  subject 
of  approaches  which  were  indelicate,  she  had  at  that 
time  no  thought  that  it  was  aught  but  the  lasciviousness 
of  the  man,  not  reaching  to  lust  nor  meditating  her  de- 
struction. Neither  from  this  nor  from  the  other  incident 
could  she  be  made  to  believe  that  the  man  whom  she  had 
been  taught  by  Mrs.  Tilton  to  love  and  honor  was  capa- 
ble of  destroying  for  time  and  eternity  his  adopted  child, 
and  she  tells  you  she  never  believed  he  entertained  that 
thought  until  she  learned  it  at  Marietta ;  he  had  commu- 
nicated that  at  one  of  his  seasons  of  confession  to  his  own 
wife,  which  satisfied  her  that  what  she  regarded  as  mere 
indelicacy  had  behind  it  a  deliberate  purpose  to  blast  her 
young  life  and  her  young  soul  forever.  Now,  she  tells  you 
the  simple  facts,  and  I  allude  to  them  now,  not  for 
the  purpose  of  doing  him  an  injustice,  and 
notwithstanding  what  transpired  between  him  and  his 
wife  I  will  do  him  the  justice  to  say  that  in  my  belief  he 
did  not  dare  to  touch  the  honor  of  that  girl,  and  that  he 
was  there  only  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  with  her 
that  maudlin  greed  which  a  depraved  man  feels  when  he 
Is  separated  from  those  with  whom  he  can  freely  indulge 
his  lust.  And  yet  this  incident,  even  without  the  purpose 
of  debauching  her,  which  I  do  not  believe  he  entertained, 
even  without  that  purpose,  shows  such  a  selfishness,  such 
a  heartlessness  and  such  indelicacy,  so  depraved  an  in- 
difference to  the  corruption  he  might  have  wi'ought  in  a 
young  and  unprotected  girl  who  trusted  in  him,  that  it 
enables  you  to  read  the  heart  of  the  man  in  which  this 
foul  accusation  against  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  his 
wife  had  its  origin. 

I  had  gone  to  bed  in  tlie  second  story  bedroom,  front 
room,  off  of  the  sitting-room,  connected  by  folding  doors, 
and  I  had  not  been  in  bed  very  long  before  Mr.  Tilton 
came  in  and  said  he  had  come  to  kiss  me  good  night. 

And  the  father  would  have  stopped  there.  Tilton 
did  n't. 

He  stroked  my  forehead  and  my  hair,  and  said  what 
nice  soft  hair  I  had,  and  how  nice  and  soft  my  flesh  was— 
my  forehead;  and  then  he  put  his  hand— was  putting  his 
hand  in  my  neck,  and  I  took  his  hand  out ;  and  he  says, 
"  Why,  Bessie,  my  dear,  you  are  painfully  modest,"  he 
says,  "  Why,  those  caresses— those  are  all  right ;  people 
in  the  best  society  do  all  those  things,  and  it  is  perfectly 
proper.  Nobody  but  people  that  had  impure  minds 
think  of  such  things  as  that  as  not  being  right."  And  I 
said  I  could  not  help  what  they  did  in  the  best  class  of 
society ;  that  I  had  my  own  ideas  of  what  was  proper 
and  what  was  modest,  and  I  was  going  to  carry  them 


out;  if  I  didn't  think  it  was  proper  for  him  to  put  his 

hand  in  my  neck,  I  was  not  going  to  let  him  do  it. 

She  was  growing  to  womanhood.  She  felt  that  he  was 
still  treating  her  as  a  child.  Womanly  pride  revolted, 
not  unkindly,  not  angrily,  not  distrustful ;  but  in  the  as- 
sertion of  that  feminine  pride  which  grows  and  prospers 
imder  the  fostering  culture  of  women  such  as  Elizabeth 
R.  Tilton,  she  felt  it  was  exceeding  the  bounds  of  pro- 
priety. 

He  then  laid  down,  and  asked  me  if  I  did  not— if  I 
would  not  like  to  be  married.  Why,  I  asked  him,  what 
in  the  world  put  that  in  his  head  'i  Well,  he  said,  I  was 
a— an  affectionate  and  nice  gu'l,  and  ought  to  be  married ; 
I  ought  to  have  a  good  husband.  I  said  that  I  supposed 
when  the  time  came— the  right  man  came  along— perhaps 
I  would  get  married.  But  I  didu't  think  getting  married 
was  the  chief  end  and  aim  of  life.  It  didn't  trouble  me 
very  much,  and  that  if  I  was  married,  there  was  one 
thing  very  sure,  I  didn't  think  I  would  ever  have  a  literary 
man  for  a  husband ;  and  he  then  asked  me  if  I  didn't  think 
some  people  had  affinities  for  each  other ;  well,  I  asked 
him  what  he  meant  by  that— what  he  meant  by  "  affin- 
ities ;"  and  he  said  

Mark  you,  he  didn't  learn  this  lesson  from  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  ;  this  was  long  before  he  ever  saw  her.  The  disci- 
ple taught  the  lesson  before  he  learned  it  from  her. 

He  said  that  when  a  man  saw  a  woman  that  he  loved 
she  should  be  his  affinity  and  they  live  together  as  man 
and  wife,  and  that  was  what  was  meant  by  affinities  for 
each  other.  And  then  he  went  on  to  say  that  if  I  would 
allow  him  to  caress  and  love  me  as  he  wanted  to  do  that 
no  harm  should  come  to  me,  and  that  a  physical  ex- 
pression of  love  was  just  the  same  as  a  kiss  or  a  caress. 

This  is  the  language,  you  remember,  this  man  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Theodore  Tilton  in  the  interview  of  the 
30th  of  December,  as  having  been  used  by  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  to  debauch  Mrs.  Tilton.  Why?  Talk  of  such 
language  misleading  a  woman  of  the  years,  the  charac- 
ter, the  culture,  the  training,  and  the  principles  of  Eliza- 
beth R.  Tilton!  It  didn't  deceive  this  school-girl!  He 
tried  it  on  Bessie  Turner,  and  he  failed.  He  tried  it  on 
her  before  she  received  the  education  for  which  she  sui)- 
posed  she  was  indebted  to  him,  although  it  turned  out 
that  it  was  one  of  the  unknown  and  unacknowledged 
benefactions  so  many  of  which  proceeded  from  the  pastor 
of  Plymouth  Church. 

He  then  went  on,to  describe  again— to  tell  that  he  knew 
ministers  that  caressed  girls  and  married  women— it  was 
all  perfectly  right  and  proper  and  beautiful.  And  he 
then  told  me  that  I  was  a  very  strange  child.  He  says, 
"  Bessie,  you  have  some  very  singular  ideas." 

Gentlemen,  here  we  get  a  little  more  of  the  interior  of 
Theodore  Tilton's  house  when  his  wife  was  away.  Again  : 

Now,  on  another  occasion,  a  day  or  two  after  that,  did 
anything  occur  during  the  night  which  particularly  im- 
pressed you,  and,  if  so,  state  the  circumstances  in  regard 
to  it  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  it  was  in  the  Summer  of  1868. 

I  think  it  afterward  turned  out  to  be  1869. 

Mr.  Shearman— She  corrected  it  herself.  It  should  be 
1869. 


SrMJdlXG    UF  1 

3Ir.  Porter— Slie  made  the  correction  on  tier  return  to 
tlie  stand,  subsequently. 
Mr.  Beacli — Correction  of  -^liat! 
Mr.  Shearman— Of  the  dates. 
Mr.  Porter — Corrsction  of  "both  dates  [reading]  : 

Mr.  Greeley  -was  there— Mr.  Horace  Greeley— maTdng 
him  a  visit ;  he  vras  there  some  three  or  four  -^veeks,  I 
think ;  and  one  night  I  had  gone  to  bed,  and  ^as  awakened 
from  my  sleep  by  seeing  a  man  of  tall  figure  standing 
over  me  ;  I  jumped  and  said,  "  Who  is  there  V  And  ^Mr. 
Tilton  said,  "  Hush  :  it  is  only  :\Ir.  Tilton;"  and  then  I 
think  I  raised  myself  up,  and  I— it  seemed  as  if  I  -^as  in  a 
strange  place,  all  -whirled  around,  because  I  had  gone  to 
bed  in  the  second  story  back  room— bedroom— and  his 
room  ^vas  next  to  mine,  and  I  had  gone  to  bed  in  one  of 
the  rooms— in  my  room,  and  found  myself  in  his  room, 
and  I  says,  "  What  do  you— vrhat  did  you  bring  me  here 
for;  -what  are  you  doing!"  And  he  said  that  he  felt 
lonely,  and  he  -wanted  somebody  to  love  him  ;  and  I  said, 
"  You  vrould  not  have  done  this  if  Mrs.  Tilton  had  been 
home;  you  should  not  take  liberties  when  Mrs.  Tilton  is 
avray  that  you  vrould  not  take  vrhen  she  is  at  home,"  and 
I  then  got  up  and  left  the  bed,  and  -went  to  my  ovm  room 
and  locked  the  door. 

There  is  a  simple,  truthful,  childlike  narrative  of  an 
incident,  the  occurrence  of  -whicAi  no  man  -who  heard  her 
speak  has  from  that  moment  entertained  an  honest  doubt. 
True,  he  didn't  debauch  her ;  but  -was  that  a  decent  thing? 
Is  the  man  -who  is  capable  of  thus  betraying  the  confi- 
dence of  an  adopted  child  the  man  who  i5  to  be  believed 
■when  he  becomes  the  accuser  of  a  -wife  so  pure  that  he  is 
compelled  to  admit  her  purity  even  in  the  same  breath  In 
-which  he  charges  her  -with  foul  adultery  ?  Well,  gentle- 
men, there  are  two  very  significant  facts  in  this  connec- 
tion—facts of  deep,  of  -vital  significance.  After  that 
story,  once  again.  Theodore  Tilton  -wac  on  tliat  stand. 
He  felt  its  pressure  slaking,  sinking,  sinking  bi-ni 
hopelessly.  He  is  not  a  good  man;  he  is  a 
tad  man  and  a  bold  one.  He  brought  himself  to  the 
point  of  denying  the  last  incident,  but  he  had  not  such 
eonfidemce  that  there  was  no  God  above  and  no  hell 
below  that  lie  could  Isring  himself  to  deny  the  other. 
Conscience  makes  cowards  oi.  us  all,  Vital  as  It  was  to 
his  case  to  destroy  tbe  credibility  of  Bes>ie  Turner,  he 
gires  a  qualified  denial  as  to  the  last  of  these  occur- 
rences, and  the  rest  he  leares  undenied,  acknowledged, 
confessed.  He  may  bring  a  thousand  housekeepers 
whom  he  can  confuse  in  tfce  recollection  of 
dates ;  contradict  by  proxy  what  he  dares 
not  contradict  -with  his  own  oath.  Yon  may 
be  sure  that  when  a  fact  is  within  the  personal  knowl- 
edge of  Theodore  Tilton,  ana  that  fact  presses  like  a  spear 
iato  his  heart,  it  will  not  go  undenied  if  he  can  help  it. 
Again,  by  what  strange  accident  was  it  tha',  if  these  in- 
cidents never  occurred,  when  3Irs.  Tilton,  in  the  Fall  of 
1870,  to  recrmit  her  health  goes  to  her  old  friend,  Mrs. 
Putnami,  at  Marietta— Mrs.  Tilton,  to  whom  Bessie  had 
never  breathed  a  syllable  of  this  fact,  a  fact  which  she 
had  kept  not  tnly  froHi  her  but  fr«ia.  every  hi.  .lan 


?r  MR.   FOBTSR.  583 

being  do-wn  to  that  hour— Mrs.  Tilton  had  al- 
ready told  Mrs.  Putnam  of  these  incidents^ 
and  enabled  Mrs.  Putnam  to  question  Bessie  in  re- 
gard to  them  ?  How  happened  it  that  if  these 
were  lies,  Theodore  Tilton  had  told  them  to 
his  wife,  and  his  wife  to  Mrs.  Putnam,  and  it  was- 
through  that  -wife  and  that  friend  that  Bessie  Turner  first 
learned  that  when  he  entered  her  room  on  those  two  oc- 
casions it  was  -with  the  intention  of  lea-ring  her  deflow- 
ered and  debauched?  Again,  as  my  learned  associate 
suggests,  it  is  in  proof  that  Mr.  Tilton  -was  told  that  Bes- 
sie Turner  had  so  stated  the  fact  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  he 
never  denied  it.  Is  this  a  lie  or  the  truth  ?  If  it  is  the 
truth,  who  sinks— Theodore  Tilton,  or  hi^  pure  and  lov- 
ing and  loyal  wife  I 

!     Judge  ^Teilson  [to  Mr.  Porter]— Is  it  agreeable  to  su3- 

I  pend  the  argument  now  1 
Mr.  Porter— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Zs'eilson  [to  the  Jury] — Please  return  at  2  o'clock^ 
The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 

THE   AFTEEXOOX  SESSION. 
The  Coim  met  at  2  p.  m.,  piu^siianr  to  ad- 
joummenr. 

Judge  Xellson— Any  of  the  gentlemen  connected  -witiL 
the  press  who  have  not  yet  given  their  names  for  thls^ 
book  -will  find  it  at  the  Clerk's  desk  :  If  yon  -win  try  and. 
remember  it. 

THE  COXTEADICTIO^S  OF  BESSIE  TIHRXEE. 

^Ix.  Porter — If  it  please  tlie  Court :  TVTiile  my 
friend  is  marking  some  particular  passages  to  which.  T 
desired  to  refer,  gentlemen,  I  -will  allude  for  the  moment 
to  the  evidence  which  has  been  resorted  to  for  the  pur- 
pose of  shaking  your  confidence  in  the  testimony  of  Miss 
Turner.  Curiously  enough  Joe  Richards  reappears  in 
this  record,  the  same  man  who.  at  the  time  of  the 
proceeding  before  the  Church  Committee,  wanted 
to  put  the  sister,  who  came  from  the  same  womb^ 
in  a  false  attitude,  by  going  before  that  Com- 
mittee, and  pretending  that  from  solicitude 
for  her.  and  in  her  interest,  he  would  not  testify  to  the 
truth;  the  bastard,  reared  under  the  maUgn  influence  of 
Henry  C.  Bowen.  tutored  by  Theodore  Tilton,  his  brother- 
in-law,  capable  of  coming  to  this  stand  and  making  a  the- 
atrical exhibition  of  himself,  which  nobody  could  have 
devised  -without  the  aid  of  Theodore  Tilton's  acquaint- 
ance with  the  histrionics  of  all  shain :  this  man  is  repro- 
duced upon  the  -witness  stand,  and  instead  of  swearing  to 
those  confessions  which,  it  was  said,  he  had  -withheld  on 
the  occasion  when  he  came  here  first,  and  which  were 
heralded  in  the  newspapers  as  to  be  making  their  appear- 
ance in  the  course  of  the  rebuttal,  we  find  him  coming  tO' 
the  rescue  of  Theodore  in  his  warfare  -with  his  servant 
and  his  waif.  He  is  to  contradict  her ;  he  is  to  sho-w 
you  that    Bessie     Turner     should    be    tossed  ouJ 


584 


TEE  TILTON-BEEGHJEJB  TRIAL, 


of  the  Court-liouse  as  UDWorttiy  of  belief  "wlieii  she 
crosses  tlie  track  of.  Tlieodore  Tilton.  Well,  wliat  is  her 
story?  Why,  she  swore  that  she  went  to  see  him  at 
the  Evening  Post  building  on  the  14th  of  December,  and 
told  him  on  that  occasion  of  the  indignity  Theodore  Til- 
ton  had  offered  to  her,  told  him  when  there  was  a  fitting 
occasion,  told  him  when  Mrs.  Tilton  had  been  driven 
from  the  shelter  of  her  husband's  roof,  by  indignities  to 
which  even  she  could  not  submit.  And  what  is  his  story  ? 
Does  he  deny  that  she  told  him  what  she  said  ?  Not  a 
word  of  it.  But  he  says,  "  She  did  not  come  to 
the  Evening  Post  building  to  tell  me  of  it."  Well, 
now  that  proves,  not  that  Bessie  Turner  was  wrong, 
T)ut  it  proves  that  either  she  or  he  was  wrong, 
and  leaves  the  question  unsolved,  and  a  question 
wholly  immaterial,  because  it  is  not  of  the  slightest  ac- 
count whether  it  was  at  the  Evening  Post  building  that 
she  told  him  of  this,  or  whether  it  was  elsewhere.  But 
they,  "knowing  the  tenderness  of  this  man  who  complains 
when  he  comes  before  you  as  a  witness  upon  the  stand, 
that  his  tesTimony  if  he  only  swears  to  what  he  knows, 
won't  hurt  his  sister,  but  if  he  could  only  connect  it  with 
hearsay,  which  he  knows  is  not  evidence,  it  might— this 
man  now  says,  "  Well,  I  can't  deny  that  she  came  and 
told  what  she  said  she  told  me.  But,  gentlemen, 
please  be  tender-footed  in  the  questions  you  put.  If 
you  will  put  this  question,  whether  she  ever 
told  me  that  he  attempted  to  commit  vio- 
lence upon  her,  I  can  say  she  did  not,  either 
at  the  Evening  Post  building  or  anywhere  else."  And  ac- 
cordingly they  put  that  question,  and  he  goes  off  the 
stand  exultant,  for  he  has  been  able  to  give  that  sister  a 
stab  under  the  fifth  rib ;  he  has  been  able  to  gratify  his 
honored  friend,  Theodore  Tilton ;  he  can  commend  him- 
self to  the  regards  of  Henry  C.  Bowen,  and  there  is  no 
enemy  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  or  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton 
but  what  will  give  him  a  cordial  grasp  of  the  hand ;  for, 
though  he  did  not  know  much,  he  swore  to  the  best  of  the 
little  knowledge  he  had. 

And  you  have  one  other  who  is  brought  as  a  witness  in 
order  to  overturn  this  girl.  Who  is  that?  Why,  A.  B.— 
There  ought  to  be  a  C  there,  and  they  should  run  through 
the  alphabet  until  he  got  down  to — I  believe  there  is  no 
cipher  at  the  end  of  the  alphabet ;  there  ought  to  be,  for 
such  creatures  as  he  to  end  their  names  with — A.  B.  Mar- 
tin, Tilton's  spy.  Now  I  have  a  respect  for  Frank  Moul- 
ton,  Tilton's  minion,  but  none,  none  for  a  miserable  spy, 
sent  from  his  house  to  the  Ovington's  to  eavesdrop  and 
bring  him  report ;  sent  to  find  out  what  is  going  on;  sent 
to  talk  with  his  wife  and  report  to  him ;  ready 
whenever  the  occasion  calls,  to  do  his  little  all  in  the  ser- 
vice of  Theodore  Tilton,  in  his  fight  with  a  woman ; 
ready  to  meet  that  woman,  to  fawn  upon  her,  to  pretend 
to  be  her  friend ;  ready  when  the  time  comes,  if  it  be 
needful  in  order  to  raise  an  issue  with  Bessie  Turner  or 
with  Gen.  Tracy— ready,  if  need  be,  to  swear  walls  where 


carpenters  never  reared  them,  to  bring  into  protected 
shadow  a  piazza  which  was  in  the  blaze  of  a  torrid  Sum- 
mer sun ;  ready  to  do  anything  he  could  in  the  service  of 
a  man  to  serve  whom  is  too  degrading  foi 
endurance.  For  I  venture  the  prediction  that 
even  that  Frank  Moulton,  who  has  been  the 
instrument  of  his  devices,  his  stratagems,  his  fraud,  and 
his  conspiracy  against  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  will  in  due 
time,  as  he  deserves,  be  cursed  and  kicked  by  the  man 
who  dedicated  him  to  his  use.  [Sensation.]  But  tliis 
man  Martin  tenders  his  services  to  swear  down  Bessie 
Turner,  and  what  does  he  swear  ?  Simply  f  a.lse  swear- 
ing. He  swears  that  he  was  for  hours  eavesdropping  at 
a  window  where  Gen.  Tracy  and  Miss  Turner  are  repre- 
sented as  in  conversation,  and  broiling  in  the  sun,  with 
Mrs.  Ovington,  to  the  end  that  he  might  perform  the 
miserable  and  degrading  service  to  which  he  had  been 
assigned  by  Theodore  Tilton. 

Gentlemen,  we  have  one  more  witness,  and  that  is 
Theodore  Tilton  himself.  These  are  the  three.  Why, 
gentlemen,  Tilton  is  not  in  a  condition  to  undertake  the 
job ;  it  is  too  large  for  him ;  he  has  too  much  on  his  hands. 
Theodore  Tilton.  A.  B.  Martin,  and  Joe  Richards  setting 
themselves  up  to  overturn  that  Bessie  Turner  who  was  a 
match  for  the  most  brilliant  cross-examiner  in  America, 
who  put  William  Fullerton  at  bay  and  compelled  him  to 
call  upon  the  most  splendid  advocate  now  living  in  this 
or  in  any  land,  to  come  to  his  assistance  in  a  fight  with  a 
girl !  fSensation.]  The  girl  who  can  stand  fire  against 
William  Fullerton  and  William  A.  Beach  need  fear  noth- 
ing from  Joe  Richards,  even  with  Theodore  Tilton  as  hia 
right-hand  and  A.  B.  Martin  as  his  left-hand  supporter. 
Her  testimony  stands  admitted  by  himself;  her  testi- 
mony, as  she  gave  it,  commended  itself  to  your  con- 
sciences and  intelligence.  You  believed  it  then;  you 
believe  it  now.  It  is  in  harmony  with  the  letters  I  read 
to  you  yesterday  and  this  morning;  it  is  in  harmony  with 
all  the  revelations  we  have  of  the  interior  of  that  house- 
hold; it  is  in  harmony  with  what  you  know  of  the  char- 
acter of  Theodore  Tilton,  when  we  find  this  man,  at  the 
close  of  her  testimony,  makuig  one  last  attempt  to  injure 
that  girl  in  your  estimation  by  asking  her  whether  she 
had  not  been  refused  reinstatement  in  the  institution  in 
which  she  held  (woman  as  she  was)  a  professorship  of 
character  and  position  in  the  department  of  music; 
and  when  you  saw  them  elicit,  as  they  knew  they 
could,  the  reply  that,  although  the  President  of  that  in- 
stitution retained  undiminished  confidence  in  and  respect 
for  her,  yet  the  libels  published  by  this  man  had  made 
her  name  so  notorious  that  she  could  not  earn  bread  in 
an  honest  employment ;  when  you  have  that  commentaiT" 
upon  the  spirit  in  which  Theodore  Tilton  dealt  with  the 
adopted  daughter  who  was  loyal  to  the  wife  of  his 
bosom,  you  need  no  more,  no  more  to  determine  whether 
she  or  he  is  the  most  eu titled  to  your  credit  and  re« 
gard. 


SUMMING   UP  BY  ME.  FOBTJSB. 


585 


MES.  TILTON'S  EETURN  FROM  MARIETTA. 

Why,  gentlemen,  there  are  some  things  the 
mere  narration  of  which  carries  to  the  conscience  and 
understanding  absolute  conviction  of  their  verity.  There 
Is  no  girl  of  22,  there  is  no  woman  of  any  age— there  is 
no  man  of  22,  there  is  no  man  of  any  age— who  could 
invent,  if  they  were  false,  conversations  like  those  she 
has  detailed  to  you,  that  occurred  on  the  part  of  Theo- 
dore Tilton,  and  under  his  own  roof.  She  unconsciously 
presented  the  very  figure  of  the  man  who  testified  hefore 
yo^^  when  she  was  absent,  and  he  had  your  ear. 
You  could  see  reproduced  in  her  narration  the 
same  dramatic  attitudes,  the  same  stilted  display, 
the  same  lofty  and  magnanimous  sentences,  the 
sudden  changes,  from  lofty  dignity  to  gentle,  tender  con- 
sideration, which  were  exhibited  there.  Just  take  any 
one  of  those  relations.  I  would  like  that  interview,  be- 
ginning with  the  significant  intimation  at  his  own  table 
to  Mrs.  Tilton  and  the  daughter  who  loved  her,  that  a 
lunatic  asylum  shadowed  Itself  in  the  distance  before  her. 
These  people,  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Bessie  Turner,  had  come 
home  from  Marietta— Bessie  to  the  disgust  of  Tilton  and 
of  his  housekeeper,  Mrs.  Tilton  not  to  the  satisfaction  of 
either.  She  comes  to  her  own  house,  when  her  husband 
hoped  she  would  have  remained  longer  away,  and  when 
he  had  made  arrangements  that  suited  his  convenience, 
and  did  not  require  her  presence ;  but  he  meets  her  with 
a  carriage  and  takes  her  home.  At  breakfast  she  finds 
Miss  Susan  B.  Anthony  her  guest,  and  the  head  of  the 
table,  where  she  was  in  the  habit  of  sitting,  occupied  by 
Ellen  Dennis. 

Gentlemen,  some  of  you,  perhaps  all  of  you,  are  mar- 
ried men.  Would  n't  it  somewhat  excite  the  surprise  of 
your  wife,  if  on  her  return  to  your  house  from  a  journey 
for  the  recovery  of  her  health,  when  she  came  back,  to 
find  her  place  at  the  table  was  occupied  by  one  socially 
her  inferior— a  domestic  in  the  family  quietly  reproach- 
ing the  harmless  and  simple  attitude  of  the  misti-ess 
of  the  house  ?  Miss  Ellen  Dennis  is  in  the  place  of  Mrs. 
Tilton ;  Mr.  Tilton  is  there.  Here  is  that  woman  to 
whom  he  wrote  those  love  letters,  whom  he  called  "  my 
dear  angel,"  whom  he  expected  to  love  not  only  through 
time  but  through  the  eternities  ;  this  woman  whom  he 
so  idolized,  and  she  quietly  takes  her  place  by  the  side  of 
Bessie  Turner,  and  in  her  own  house  assumes  a  subor- 
dinate position  even  to  Miss  Susan  B.  Anthony.  That  is 
the  morning.  We  come  to  noon- to  the  dinner.  Miss 
Anthony  is  gone ;  Miss  Dennis  remains.  "  Mrs.  Tilton 
took  her  seat"— I  read  from  page  476  : 

Mrs.  Tilton  took  her  seat  at  the  table  beside  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  the  moment  she  sat  down  she  began  crying,  and  Mr. 
Tilton  was  very  polite,  saying,  "My  dear,  won't  you 
have  a  bit  of  this  or,  "  My  dear,  won't  you  have  a  bit 
of  thati"  and  she  was  crying  so  she  could  hardly  answer 
him ;  the  tears  were  ruuning  down  in  her  plate,  and  she 
excused  herself  and  got  up  from  the  table  and  went  into 


the  front  parlor,  and  sat  down  and  played  some  plaintive 
little  air  on  the  piano. 

Does  it  happen  to  any  of  you  to  remember  any  incident 
in  your  early  days  between  brother  and  sister,  or  hus- 
band and  wife,  or  even  father  and  child,  when  a  svidden 
estrangement  left  the  woman  to  the  resource  of  her  sex  1 
Ah !  those  tears  that  in  deep  emotion  womanhood  can- 
not restrain !  With  touching  appeal,  by  some  plaintive 
melody  associated  with  earlier  days  of  love,  she  thinks 
she  may  touch  the  heart  that  is  rising  against  her  in 
anger.  This  poor  woman  dried  the  tears,  could  not  re- 
strain them,  excused  herself  and  left,  and  she  remem- 
bered that  man  as  he  was  in  his  earlier  days,  and  she 
went  to  the  next  room  and  touched  the  keys  of  the  piano, 
and  thought  that  there  were  some  old  notes  in  those 
melodies  that  would  throb  even  in  his  cold  hea.rt.  Not 
so,  not  so. 

After  she  had  left  the  table,  Miss  Ellen  Dennis  looked 
at  Mr.  Tilton  and  said,  "  What  a  strange  woman  Eliza- 
beth is!  What  is  she  crying  about?  Anyone  that  has 
such  a  devoted  husband,  a  nice  home,  and  everything 
heart  could  wish  for— T  think  she  Is  a  very  singular 
woman."  Mr.  Tilton  never  made  her  an  answer,  but 
he  leaned  his  face  on  his  hand,  and  said  he,  "  Bessie,  my 
dear,  don't  you  think  Elizabeth  is  demented  1 " 

Demented !  demented  1  That  don't  mean  much  as  it  is 
uttered  here,  but  oh,  I  tell  you  that  when  a  cold  and  ex- 
acting husband  appeals  to  a  competent  witness  to  know 
whether  the  poor  and  helpless,  motherless,  friendless, 
defenseless  woman,  who  had  no  protector  in  him,  and 
none  elsewhere,  when  he  asks  a  question,  "  Don't  you 
think  Elizabeth  is  demented  ? "  it  means  something  ; 
and  that  girl  knew  what  it  meant,  and  knew  it  well.  He 
says : 

"  Don't  you  think  she  acts  like  a  crazy  woman  1  '* 
Said  I— I  looked  him  steaclily  in  the  eyes— said  T,  "  No,  I 
dont ;  but  T  wonder  that  you  have  n't  driven  her  in  the 
lunatic  asylum  years  ago  I  " 

And  when  we  come,  gentlemen,  as  we  shall  presently, 
to  the  time  when  he  makes  her  lie  for  him,  remember 
who  it  is  that  does  it.  It  is  the  man  who  told  one  that  he 
knew  would  tell  her  that  he  doubted  her  sanity ;  it  is  the 
man  who  told  one  who  he  knew  would  tell  her  that  a  paU 
hung  over  her,  more  terrible  than  death,  and  that  it  de- 
pended on  him  whether  that  pall  should  close  her  oflf 
from  the  light  of  day.  These  are  no  unmeaning  words. 
They  come  from  the  heart.  Ellen  Dennis  knew  right  well 
what  she  meant  when  she  said,  "  This  is  a  very  singular 
woman."  He  knew  right  well  what  he  meant  when  he 
said,  "  Bessie,  my  dear,  don't  you  think  Elizabeth  is  de- 
mented? Don't  you  think  she  acts  like  a  crazy  woman  ?" 
And  Bessie  knew  what  he  meant  when  she  made  that 
reply,  which  struck  right  at  the  heart  of  a  purpose  too 
plainly  revealed  at  one  stage  of  these  proceedings ;  and 
it  well  might  make  that  woman  shudder  and  fear  in  the 
presence  of  this  man.  And  now  let  us  go  on  with  what 
follows.  What  did  Mi-.  Tilton  do  then?  He  immediately 
rose.  Thus  Bessie's  answer  was  not  at  all  satisfactory. 


586 


THM   TILTON-BEEGREE  TRIAL. 


He  looked  very  white  and  very  angry,  rose  from  the 
table,  then  went  from  the  dining-room  into  the  hack  par- 
lor, and  from  there  into  the  front  parlor,  the  two  being 
connected  by  folding  doors,  and  he  tried  to  shut  the  fold- 
ing doors.  _ 

THE  STORMY  SCENE   IN  THE  PAELOR. 

What  for?  What  was  there  in  a  wife  in 
tears,  and  playing  a  plaintive  melody  upon  the  piano  in 
his  own  parlor,  which  required  those  doors  to  be  closed  1 

They  would  not  shut  tight ;  there  was  a  little  crack  in 
them.  He  seemed  to  be  working  with  the  key— he  was 
working  with  the  key;  and  he  then  went  in,  and  I  heard 
the  two  parlor  doors,  it  was  not  these  folding  doors,  shut 
and  lock.   Q.  The  other  doors  %  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  curtain  rises  upon  a  scene  one  of 
the  saddest,  one  of  the  most  meinorable,  that  has  ever 
been  exhibited  in  a  court  of  justice.  Let  us  look  at  that 
scene  as  there  described.  I  read  from  page  477 : 

I  stood  at  the  folding  doors ;  they  were  open  on  a 
crack,  and  I  saw  Mr.  Tilton  right  over  near  Mrs.  Tilton, 
with  his  flst  going  this  way  very  emphatically,  and  talk- 
ing very  angrily,  and  when  I  heard  him  say  that  "  You 
have  brought  that  girl  on  to  use  against  me,  and,  damn 
it,  she  shall  leave  this  house—" 

Bear  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that  that  is  the  girl  who  he 
says  was  sent  away,  lest  she  should  be  used  against  Henry 
WardBeecher;  it  was  his  tender  solicitude  for  the  pastor 
of  Plymouth  Church  that  induced  him  to  send  her  away 
to  the  West ;  she  had  casually  heard  the  story  of  the  se- 
duction by  the  reverend  debauchee,  and  on  his  account, 
not  at  all  on  Mr.  Tilton's,  she  had  been  sent  out  West,  a 
suitable  retraction  having  been  obtained  from  her 
through  the  intervention  of  Mrs.  TUton,  so  that 
there  was  no  longer  danger  to  him.  And  yet 
you  see  he  tells  his  wife,  "You  have 
brought  that  girl  on  to  use  against  me."  Why?  How? 
He  tells  you  it  is  all  a  lie  about  his  having  ever  oftered 
indignities  to  her.  How  was  she  to  be  used  against  him  ? 
When  Bessie  Turner  showed  him  by  her  answer  at  the 
dinner  table  that  she  would  not  be  used  by  him,  he  at 
once  made  up  his  miad  that  she  had  been  brought  to  be 
used  against  him,  and  she  was  to  be  held  responsible,  and 
Bessie  Tnrner  was  to  be  turned  away.  It  excited  tne 
girl. 

I  opened  the  door  and  entered  in.  Said  I  "  Theodore 
Tilton,  this  is  not  the  first  time  I  have  heard  you  swear- 
ing at  your  wife,  and  you  shall  not  damn  her  for  my 
sake." 

Gentlemen,  the  only  reproach  against  this  girl  is  that 
she  has  been  trained  in  the  purity  which  characterizes 
Elizabeth  R.  Tilton.  She  has  not  the  attractions  to  win 
Theodore  Tilton.  She  would  not  make  a  fit  subject  of  a 
Woodhull  biography.  She  has  lived  on  until  early 
womanhood,  and  yet  she  was  able  to  make  the  proud 
challenge  on  the  witness-stand,  when  she  was  asked 
whether  she  had  been  turned  away  from  some  place  for 
lying: 

Nobody  ever  charged  me  with  falsehood  but  Theodore 
TUton. 


They  have  had  the  opportunity  suice  of  making  search. 
David  Dows  has  been  here.  They  have  had  access  to  the 
proprietors  of  each  of  the  establishments  in  which  she 
attempted  to  earn  her  livelihood.  They  have  had  accesft^ 
to  Joe  Richards  even,  to  A.  B.  Martin ;  they  have  had 
access  to  the  spies ;  they  have  had  access  to  the  men  who- 
were  ready  to  yield  themselves  to  base  uses,  and  no  one 
human  being  dares  come  to  testify  against  that  girl,  to- 
one  word  impeaching  her  purity  of  character,  for  truth, 
or  her  integrity— not  one. 

Gentlemen,  it  may  seem  strange  to  you  that  the  girl 
whom  Theodore  Tilton  exalted  in  depriving  her  of  her 
position  at  the  Pennsylvania  institution  of  learning  be- 
cause he  had  rendered  her  infamous  before  judicial  in- 
vestigation—it may  seem  strange  to  him  that,  after  judi- 
cial investigation,  she  to-day  stands  proud  and  erect, 
while  he  slinks  from  the  gaze  of  manhood  and  of  woman* 
hood.  Let  us  go  on  with  this  dialogue.  "  He  said, '  leave 
the  room,'  Said  I, '  I  won't  leave  the  room.'"  That  is  a 
courage  that  don't  belong  to  girls,  pure  girls,  well-trained' 
girls,  unless  under  circumstances  that  touch  their  inmost 
womanhood.  This  girl,  if  she  had  been  alone  and 
acting  in  her  own  cause  would  have  shrunk  in  terror 
from  the  man.  But  she  stood  there  with  the 
courage  of  a  lioness  because,  feeble  as  she  was, 
she  was  defending  a  pure  and  abused  woman  from  a 
tyrannical  and  cowardly  husband.  That  lifted  her  heart 
and  strengthened  her  arm  and  nerved  her  with  courage. 
It  is  only  a  pure  woman  who  can  do  that.  You  remem- 
ber in  your  early  reading  the  old  story  of  Una,  with  her 
milk-white  lamb,  walking  from  land's  end  to  land's  end, 
fearless,  unguarded,  and  alone.  It  was  the  courage  of 
virgin  purity.  It  was  the  courage  of  a  pure  heart,  which 
is  not  cowed  by  brutal  cowardice.  In  the  cause  of  tliat 
adopted  mother,  whom  she  loved,  she  was  ready  to  con- 
fi-ont  this  man,  to  confront  him  fearlessly,  and  to  stand 
by  the  woman  whom  he  wronged. 

I  will  not  leave  the  room,  and  I  will  stand  by  Mrs.  Til- 
ton if  I  die  in  the  attempt.  He  then  gave  me  a  blow  that 
hurled  me  to  the  opposite  side  of  the  room,  and  I  fell, 
striking  my  head  violently  against  the  door.  He  came 
forward,  perfectly  bland,  you  would  think  nothing  in  tlie 
world  had  happened,  so  composed  and  so  calm,  '*  Why." 
says  he,  "why,  Bessie,  my  dear,  you  tripped  and  fell, 
didn't  you?"  I  turned  round  to  him  and  said,  "Theo- 
dore Tilton,  are  you  a  fool,  or  do  you  take  me  for  one  f 

Gentlemen,  was  that  invented?  Is  there  the  art  In 
woman  or  in  man  that  could  invent  that  story  ?  Doesn't 
it  bear  the  very  impress  of  truth  upon  its  front?  Isn't  it 
characteristic  of  the  man  ? 

Q,  What  took  place  then?  A.  He  then  changed  the 
subject  entirely.  He  said,  sitting  down  in  a  chair,  "  Oh,. 
Bessie,  my  dear,  it  is  no  wonder  my  gray  hairs  are  going 
down  in  sorrow  to  the  grave.*' 

You  remember  the  last  appeai'ance  he  made  upon  this, 
nnd  I  suspect  upon  any  stage.  He  told  you  Bessie  Turner 
lied,  for  he  had  no  gray  hairs  then,  and  yesterday  after- 
noon I  read  you  <»  letter  in  which  he  wrote  to  his  wifa 


SUMMING    UF  BT  MB.  POBTBB. 


m 


In  1867  about  ttose  gray  hairs  tliat  had  come  up  in  the 
eleven  and  a  half  years  of  their  married  life.  Gentle- 
men, he  don't  contradict  this  conversation.  He  has 
had  the  opportunity.  They  confined  the  in- 
quiry to  a  single  thing  said.  He  denies  that  sin- 
gle thing;  and  the  circumstance  upon  which  he 
rests  his  denial  is  the  fact  that  he  had  then  no  gray 
hairs.  True,  they  were  gray  in  1867 ;  but  they  had  re- 
tm-ned  to  their  natural  color  in  1870 ! 

He  says,  taking  out  his  handkerchief  and  wiping  his 
eyes,  "  No,  my  dear ;  you  are  mistaken  in  the  woman  that 
you  place  so  much  confidence  in."  Mrs.  Tilton  

Poor  creatiire !  don't  you  pity  her  as  you  see  her  there, 
sitting  at  that  piano-stool,  paralyzed,  no  longer  able  to 
touch  the  keys,  witnessing  this  scene  between  this  man 
and  that  girl,  and  then  hearing  this  mock  heroic  address  % 

Mrs.  Tilton  then  got  up  from  the  piano-stool  and  said, 
"  Why  should  not  Bessie  place  confidence  in  me  ?  She 
has  no  confidence  in  you.  She  has  no  protector  in  you. 
You  oftered  to  ruin  her." 

When  and  how  did  she  know  it ;  who  told  her  ?  Bessie 
Turner  did  not  tell  her.  She  told  Bessie  Turner.  How 
did  she  find  it  out  ?  She  looks  this  man  in  the  eye  and 
says,  "You  offered  to  ruin  her." 

He  then  stood  up,  straightened  himself  very  straight, 
and  put  his  fingers  under  his  coat  this  way ;  said  he, 
''Why,  my  dear,  did  I  ever  attempt  " 

Imagine  the  scene !  Just  that  mock  solemnity  with 
■which  he  stood  there  and  talked  alternately  to  Mr.  Evarts 
and  to  you— the  same  thing  which  he  practiced  on  that 
girl  he  practiced  on  you  twelve ;  and  he  thought  it  would 
succeed.  I  would  like  to  have  him  now  look  at  the 
twelve,  and  point  with  the  fijiger  on  which  of  the  twelve 
he  supposed  such  an  attempt  would  be  successful.  He 
thought  it  would  succeed  with  Becsie  Turner.  It  did  not 
even  with  her.  She  was  not  an  idiot. 

"  Bessl, ,  my  dear,  did  I  ever  attempt  in  any  word, 
shape  or  form  to  ruin  you,  or  to  take  any  improper  liber- 
ties with  you  ?"  Said  I,  "Yes,  you  did.  You  remember 
the  time  you  was  talking  about  affinities,  and  the  time 
you  lifted  me  out  of  my  bed  and  carried  me  into  yours  ?" 

Oh,  my  dear,  you  are  excited ;  you  are  laboring  uivler  a 
false — mistake."  "No,"  said  he,  sitting  down  in  the 
chair ;  said  he,  "  The  fact  is  this,  EUzabeth  is  so  in  the 
habit  of  having  men  fondle  her  bosoms  and  her  legs  that 
she  judges  me  by  herself."  He  then  got— turned  over  to 
the  side  of  the  room,  and  said,  "  Do  you  see  that  red 
lounge !  Time  and  time  again  have  I  seen  Elizabeth  and 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  having  sexual  intercourse  on  that 
red  lounge,"  and  not  only  the  red  loimge,  but 
he  spoke  of  the  chair.  Mrs.  Tilton  looked  very 
earnestly  at  him,  and  said,  "  On,  Theodore, 
Theodore,  how  can  you  tell  that  child  such  base  lies  1' 
He  then  asked  me  if  I  knew  what  sexual  intercourse  was 
—-what  sexual  Intercourse  meant ;  and  if  I  did  not  he 
would  tell  me.  The  last  words  he  said  were  that  "  red 
lounge  had  been  consecrated  to  their  sexual  intercourse." 

Now,  there  was  one  scene.  Is  that  truel  Is  that  in- 
vented !  Is  it  more  than  likely  that  the  scene  is  true  which 
he  dares  not  to  deny  1  Have  you  a  doubt  that  it  occurred  % 
Did  any  human  being  Invent  it  1  Docs  not  nature,  does 


not  truth,  speak  out  in  terms  no  juror  can  mistake  ?  Is  it 
for  such  a  man  that  you  are  called  upon  to  render  a  false 
verdict  against  an  innocent  minister  of  God  ]  Is  it  for 
such  a  man  that  you  are  to  lay  your  hand  upon  the 
throat  of  the  woman  he  has  betrayed  1  I  appeal  to  you, 
man  by  man,  as  honest  men,  answer  me  now,  as  you  will 
answer  on  one  day  when  from  the  answer  there  is  no 
escape— do  you  believe  this  to  be  an  honest  man  ?  Is  he 
the  man  on  whom  you  will  stake  your  reputation  among 
men— your  immortal  souls— hollow,  treacherous,  false, 
cowardly,  base  ?  I  am  not  talking  to  blocks  of  wood,  but 
to  mortal  men  with  immortal  souls  in  them.  I  demand 
your  verdict ! 

I  am  glad  to  learn  from  my  associate  (Mr.  Shearman) 
what  I  had  almost  overlooked,  that  even  Theodore  Tilton 
dared  not  to  pass  this  whoUy  uncontradicted ;  that  he 
had  such  a  sense  of  shame  that  there  was  at  least  a  quali- 
fied contradiction ;  that,  while  he  had  his  hand  in,  he 
tried  at  least  to  make  an  issue  on  which  he  could  stand 
before  you.  Gentlemen,  you  have  seen  the  man,  and  you 
have  seen  the  girl.  He  is  swearing  to  what  ?  If  I  read 
his  complaint,  it  is  for  money.  If  I  listen  to  his  counsel, 
it  is  for  revenge.  If  I  read  his  complaint,  he  is  endeavor- 
ing to  make,  by  his  oath  through  your  instrumentality, 
his  title  good  to  $100,000— more  money  than  he  and 
Moulton  and  Beecher,  by  putting  together  all  their 
joint  goods,  could  raise  on  the  earth.  If  he 
is  swearing  for  revenge,  Bessie  Turner  is  not. 
She  swears  neither  for  money  nor  for  ven- 
geance. She  swears  in  the  interest  of  truth  and  for 
the  protection  of  a  woman  whom  she  knows  to  be  inno- 
cent. WTiich  will  you  believe  ?  You  have  your  choice.  If 
there  be  one  man  among  your  number  who  on  such  an 
issue  would  sympathize  with  Theodore  Tilton  against  the 
girl  he  sought  and  failedto  betray,  his  vote  doesn't  belong 
to  us,  but  all  the  rest  do.  And  because  I  believe  he  can- 
not point  his  finger  to  such  a  man  on  that  jury,  I  know 
your  verdict  will  be  one  of  acquittal  before  you  leave  your 
seats.  Let  us  proceed  with  the  rest  of  that  interview  that 
day— a  memorable  day.  Mrs.  Tilton  has  taken  refuge  in 
that  room  where  the  bedside  was  worn  by  the  knees  of 
prayer,  a  room  too  familiar  with  sorrow  and  with  woe. 

Then  he  came  to  me  and  said  he  wanted  to  see  me, 
Mr.  Tilton  did,  and  he  took  me  in  the  second  story  back 
room,  and  related  this  story  over  and  over  again  about 
the  lounge  and  the  chair,  and  added  that  not  only  with 
Mr.  Beecher  had  she  done  so,  but  mentioned  three  gen- 
tlemen's names  in  connection  with  Mr.  Beecher.  *  *  * 
Mr.  Bates,  Dr.  Carroll  Dunham,  and  Mr.  Ovington. 
*  *  *  *  He  said  that  little  Paul  that  was  dead  was  Mr. 
Beecher's,  and  that  he  didn't  claim  any  of  his  children 
but  Florence,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher  preached  to  forty  or 
twenty  of  his  mistresses  every  Sabbath,  naming  two 
ladies  in  the  congregation. 

In  the  course  of  that  conversation,  passing  over  other 
matters,  he  said : 

That  his  mother  had  laid  her  hands  on  his  head  and 
blessed  him  when  he  had  told  his  mother  this,  and  she 


588 


THE    TILTO^-BEECHEB  TRIAL. 


had  said,  "Theodore,  what  a  magnanimous  man  you 
have  heen!" 

Don't  you  think  after  all  that  the  girl's  was  the  better 
commentary?  She  says  :  "  I  said  I  didn't  believe  there 
was  one  word  of  truth  in  it,  that  it  was  all  wicked  lies." 
I  think  the  girl's  discrediting  the  fact  showed  more  saga- 
city, though  less  kindliness,  than  the  mother's  benedic- 
tion upon  the  man  who  invented  these  fearful  and 
wicked  falsehoods. 

Had  you  ever  happened  to  hear  the  term  "  sexual  in- 
tercourse "  before  the  conversation  that  you  speak  of  in 
the  parlor  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  I  never  heard  it  before  in  my 
life. 

Of  course  not.  Your  daughter  of  that  age  has  never 
heard  it.  It  is  a  thing  that  is  to  be  found  only  in  the 
vocabulary  of  free-love  and  its  disciples.  At  the  saloon  of 
"  Madam  Roland  "  in  New- York  they  talk  to  you  of  sexual 
intercourse  and  sexual  relations.  Theodore  Tilton  will 
talk  to  you  of  sexual  intercourse  and  sexual  relations. 
Frank  Moulton  will  report  to  you  conversation  after  con- 
versation of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  running  through  four 
years,  in  which  a  man  who  never  uses  any  such  expres- 
sion among  decent  people  is  represented  as  constantly 
talking  to  him  about  his  sexual  relations  with  Elizabeth 
R.  Tilton. 

MES.  TILTON  DEIVEN  TO  HER  MOTHER'S 
HOUSE. 

Well,  gentlemen,  suppose  we  panse  here; 
what  do  you  think  of  the  corner-stone  on  which  your 
verdict  is  to  rest  ?  Who  is  to  be  believed— Tilton  or  the 
adopted  child  ?  Which  will  you  trust  1  If  you  have  no 
other  evidence,  and  are  left  even  in  doubt— doubt  is  ac- 
quittal. But  you  do  not  doubt.  No  man  who  heard  this 
evidence  doubts,  not  even  Theodore  Tilton.  If  there 
is  any  man  in  this  room  who  knows  how  false  a  verdict 
would  be  in  his  favor,  certainly  no  man  knows  it  better 
than  he.  But  is  Bessie  Turner  corroborated  or 
conflrmed  ?  Do  not  these  writings  confirm 
her?  Don't  the  admissions  of  Tilton  and 
of  Moulton,  oral  and  written,  by  word  and  by  act, 
through  four  years,  confirm  her?  Does  not  the  cor- 
respondence I  have  read  to  you,  showing  the  bestiality  of 
the  man,  confirm  her?  Does  not  the  oath  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  confirm  her  ?  Does  not  the  character  of  the  wife 
and  the  character  of  the  clergyman  confirm  her?  Do 
not  his  antecedents,  his  writings,  his  speech,  his  charac- 
ter as  developed  to  you  even  upon  this  witness-stand,  all 
condemn  him  and  confirm  her?  Gentlemen,  there  is 
much,  very  much  that  I  could  say  and  ought  to  say,  and 
am  reminded  by  my  associates  that  I  should,  but  there  are 
certain  things  we  know,  and  I  know  that  you  do 
believe  that  girl  and  do  not  believe  her  maligner.  There 
is,  however,  a  single  thing,  with  reference  to  which  I 
ask  you  to  indulge  me,  an  Interview  which  is  de- 
scribed on  page  479.  This  is  a  memorable  interview, 
memorable  for  him,  memorable  for  Mrs.  Tilton,  memora- 


ble for  Bessie  Turner.  Now,  acts  are  more  significant 
than  words.    What  v/as  the  result?  Mrs.  Tilton  had 
gone  up  to  her  own  room.  After  a  season  of  weeping 
and  of  prayer  she  had  gone  to  her  couch,  between  two  of  |j 
her  children,  when  at  last  Bessie  was  relieved  from  this 
painful  interview  in  which  a  young  unmarried  girl  was 
compelled  to  listen  to  an  explanation  of  what  sexual  inter-  . 
course  meant  in  a  private  colloquy  with  Theodore  Tilton.  | 
She  goes  to  Mrs.  Tilton's  room  and  tells  her  what  had  | 
transpired.  What  does  that  poor  broken-hearted  woman  \ 
do  2  She  rises  from  her  bed— but  no,  let  me  give  it  in  the  ; 

touching  language  of  the  girl :  i; 

if 

Mrs.  Tilton  never  said  a  word;  she  rose,  dressed  her-  \i 
self,  put  on  her  waterproof  cloak,  went  down 
the  basement  way  (it  was  then  one  o'clock),  and 
stole  very  softly  out  the  basement  way.  She  didn't  put 
on  her  shoes  until  she  got  down  to  the  basement.  I 
wanted  to  go  with  her  and  she  would  not  let  me.  She 
went  around  to  her  mother's. 

Q.  Did  you  put  on  your  shoes  ?  A.  No,  Sir  ;  she  would 
not  let  me  go  with  her  ;  I  wanted  to  go  with  her,  and  she  |k 
would  not  let  me.  I  locked  the  basement  door  after  her.  |i 
*  *  *  I  went  to  bed  with  the  children.  *  *  *  The 
next  morning  we  went  around  to  Mrs.  Morse's  ;  Car- 
roll, Alice  and  myself  went  around  to  Mrs.  Morse's. 

Gentlemen,  while  you  each,  in  your  house  that  night, 
that  Winter  night,  were  housed  under  your  own  roofs, 
which  sheltered  a  loving  and  a  chei-ished  family,  how 
little  either  of  you  thought  of  the  scene  that  was  going 
on  within  a  few  blocks  of  you,  and  under  the  roof  of  a  jj 
man  upon  whom  God  had  conferred  gifts  of  a  lofty  | 
genius,  and  upon  whom  his  fellow-men  had  heaped  praise 
and  honor  and  benefactions  ;  how  little  you  thought  that 
imder  such  a  roof  a  man  who  was  worshiped  as  this  man 
was    had  within  him  a  cold  and  flinty  heart,  that 
would  offer  such  mdignity  to  the  wife  who  worshiped 
him,  that  could  so  malign  her  under  the  only  roof  she 
could  call  her  own,  that  it  would  induce  even  such  a 
woman— sick,  feeble,  broken-hearted— to  steal  in  her  j 
stocking-feet  down  stairs  and  go  out  alone  in  the  Winter  f 
night  to  find  a  refuge  from  the  cruelties  of  her  "pro- 
tector" under  the  roof  of  the  mother  whom  he  has  pro- 
nounced a  murderess  in  purpose  and  a  maniac  in  intel- 
lect. These  are  scenes  which,  thank  God,  are  not  often 
repeated  in  civilized  society ;  but  the  marvel  is  that  the  | 
men  who  are  the  actors  in  them  dare  to  come  into  a  court  f 
of  justice  and  press  into  their  service  our  honored  and 
upright  magistrates,  and  the  jurors  whom  the  law  con- 
strains to  sit  in  judgment  even  upon  false  accusations. 

BESSIE    TURNER    INTERCEDES    FOR  MRS. 
TILTON. 

There  is  one  more  singular  incident  to  which  ; 
I  ask  your  attention.  Now,  you  remember  that  this  girl  I 
in  all  her  testimony  showed  that  she  cared  no  more  for  j 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  than  she  did  for  you  or  for  me,  no 
more  for  him  than  she  did  for  Theodore  Tilton.  Hers 
was  the  loyalty  of  the  child  to  the  mother.   It  was  the 


SUjniiyG    UP  BY  MP.  POBTEB. 


589 


loyalty  of  love  and  gratitude  to  Elizabetli  E.  Tilton.  Slie 
"would  not  turn  lier  hand  to  save  Henry  Ward  Beectier 
Irom  destruction.  She  ^ould  nor  tarn  her  hand  even  to 
destroy  Theodore  Tilton ;  lout  that  poor,  grateful  girl 
■would  go  to  the  stake,  would  encounter  penal- 
ties such  as  you  and  I  "vrould  shrink  from,  in  the 
spirit  of  a  lioness,  in  defense  of  the  woman 
whom  she  knows  to  l3e  innocent,  and  knows  to 
be  her  benefactress.  It  is  not  of  such  stuff  false  wit- 
nesses are  made.  Xow,  listen  to  another  part  of  her  nar- 
ration. Mrs.  Tilton  had  come  home  faint,  sick,  heart- 
broken, almost  hopeless.  While  she  went  to  her  usual 
refuge,  the  companionship  of  her  children,  and  the  en- 
treaties which  she  uttered  from  her  bended  knees  to  her 
Father  in  Heaven,  this  girl  goes  down  to  make  one  appeal 
in  her  behalf  to  the  man  whose  heart  she  thought  could 
be  touched. 

He  cam^ .  I  asked  him  if  I  could  see  him  a.  little  while. 
He  came  into  his  room  in  the  second  story  back  room,  in 
his  room,  and  I  shut  the  door,  and  told  him  that  Mrs.  Til- 
ton was  very  sick. 

You  remember  that  this  was  after  Mrs.  Tilton  had  been 
flroimd  to  her  mother,  had  been  speaking  of  her  condition 
and  of  her  hopelessness— nay,  not  her  hopelessness  but  her 
Aope— that  through  the  troubles  which  she  was  penetrat- 
ing then  she  was  to  be  restored  to  the  companionship  of 
this  little  Paul  whom  he  professed  to  love,  but  bastard- 
ized after  he  buried  him ! 

I  told  him  that  Mrs.  TUton  was  very  sick,  and  had  sent 
around  when  she  was  around  to  Mrs.  Morse's  that  she 
was  going  to  die,  and  that  her  mother  must  not  feel 
troubled  that  she  was  going  to  her  home ;  she  had  only 
one  home,  and  that  was  in  Heaven ;  she  would  see  her 
little  children,  Paul  and  Mattie,  and  that  her  mother 
muse  not  sorrow  for  her,  and  I  asked  him  please 
to  be  very  kind  to  her,  and  not  scold  her  any  more 
and  make  her  cry,  and  I  then  told  him  what 
the  doctor  in  Marietta  had  said,  that  these  swooning  at- 
tacks that  3Irs.  TUton  had  had  he  was  afraid— he  feared 
that  she  would  die  in  one  of  them,  and  he  didn't  think 
she  would  possibly  survive  her  confinement,  and  I  felt 
very  badly.  I  felt  as  if  Mrs.  Tilton  was  going  to  die,  and 
I  plead  with  him,  with  tears  in  my  eyes,  and  I  asked  him 
If  he  would  not  be  Mnd  to  her.  He  said  there  was  noth- 
ing the  matter  with  Elizabeth,  that  she  was  as  well  as 
ever  she  was,  and  that  the  way  she  was  weeping  was 
perfectly  natural  to  her.  I  said  1  didn't  think  it  was 
natural  for  people  to  cry  all  the  time  unless  they  had 
something  to  cry  about.  He  said  Elizabeth  was  as  well 
as  ever  she  was,  and  that  she  was  not  weeping  because 
she  felt  so  bad— becatise  of  her  bodily  health,  but  she  was 
weeping  for  her  sin  with  :Mr.  Beecher,  that  that  was 
what  made  her  cry. 

Q.  Did  you  mention  anything  m  that  conversation 
about  an  occurrence  connected  with  a  letter  of  his  while 
you  were  in  Marietta  ?   A.  A  letter. 

Q.  A  letter  that  she  received  from  Mr.  Tilton  %  A.  Yes, 
Sir,  I  took  one  letter  up.  *  *  *  I  told  him  that  I  had  taken 
a  letter  of  his  to  :  Irs.  TUton— up  to  Mrs.  TUton  in  Marietta, 
and  she  opened  the  letter  and  read  it— seemed  to  have 
read  it  through,  and  she  turned  perfectly  white  and  feU 
very  heavily  to  the  floor,  with  the  letter  grasped  in  her 
liand. 


Q.  Did  you  tell  him  what  followed  then  ?  A.  I  told  hira 
that  she  fell  to  the  floor  and  fainted,  and  I  went  and 
caUed  ]\Irs.  Putnam  and  she  came  up,  and  then  she  caUed 
Philip,  the  colored  man,  and  he  lifted  Mrs.  TUton  in  bed. 

Gentlemen,  I  don't  care  to  go  further  with  this  narra- 
tion. It  is  not  good  for  us.  There  are  certain  depths  of 
dishonor  and  degradation  the  very  contemplation  of 
which  sinks  and  demoralizes  us  aU.  The  furtlier  you  go 
in  the  investigation  of  this  man's  Ufe  the  slimier  the 
traU  that  you  recognize  with  every  footstep  of  your  ad- 
vance. I  leave  this  branch  of  the  case. 


BESSIE  TUENER'S  DISCLOSUEES. 

I  come  now,  in  the  order  of  important  events^ 
to  the  disclosures  made  by  Bessie  Turner  on  the  14th  of 
December,  or  thereabouts.  At  that  time  Mrs.  Tilton  had 
been  so  outraged  that  she  had  made  up  her  mind  she  would 
permanently  avail  herseK  of  the  shelter  of  her  mother's 
hotise,  and  yet  she  sought  to  take  counsel  of  her  friends, 
and  Bessie  Turner  and  her  mother  were  the  two 
friends  who  were  the  nearest  to  her  and  who 
knew  the  facts,  and  Bessie  Turner  conferred 
with  those  who  were  ignorant  of  the  interior  relations  of 
this  household,  and  we  have  seen  with  what  effect.  She 
went  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  an  exceUent  woman,  one  whom 
we  were  told  was  to  be  a  witness  to  prove  the  guUt  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  but  who  not  only  proved  that  there  was  no 
acknowledgment  of  guilt  by  him,  but  even  proved,  by 
the  letter  which  was  introduced  in  evidence,  that  Mrs. 
TUton  never— never  confessed  even  to  her,  her  most 
intimate  friend,  the  slightest  deviation  from  absolute 
loyalty  to  her  husband.  Mrs.  Bradshaw  differs  from  Miss 
Turner  in  her  recoUection  upon  a  single  point.  Bessie 
remembers  that  she  talked  with  her,  and  in  respect  to  the 
indignity  which  Mr.  TUton  had  offered  to  her,  but  does 
not  remember  that  she  remembered  the  brutal  charge 
Mr.  TUton  had  made  in  this  interview  against 
Mr.  Beecher.  Mrs.  Bradshaw's  recollection  is  that 
it  was  at  that  time  she  heard  it.  The 
question  is  utterly  unimportant  in  any  aspect  of  the  case. 
Which  of  them  is  right  is  immaterial.  Each  has  stated 
according  to  her  recoUection  the  f  aet  that  there  was  an 
interview.  The  fact  that  Bessie  Turner  went  there  for 
the  purpose  of  complaining  of  Theodore  TUton,  the  fact 
that  she  went  there  for  the  purpose  of  enlisting  Mrs. 
Bradshaw  on  the  side  of  Mrs.  TUton  in  justifying  her  ia 
separation  from  her  husband,  as  to  this  there  is  no 
shadow  of  doubt ;  but  the  diary  of  Mrs.  Bradshaw  con- 
firms Bessie's  narration.  Now,  Bessie  swears  also  that 
she  went  to  Mr.  Beecher.  To  him  she  told,  not  what  had 
been  said  about  her,  fior  of  course  maidenly  modesty  and 
reserve  would  have  deterred  her  from  that,  but  she 
pleaded  the  cause  of  Mrs.  TUton,  and  wanted  him  to 
come  and  advise  with  her.  More,  Mr.  Beecher  swears 
that  she  told  him  of  these  indecent  approaches 
which  had  baen    made    to    her   t>7   Theodore  Til- 


590 


THE  TILTON-BEEGHBB  TBIAL. 


tou.  Mr.  Beeclier  swears  tliat  he  communi- 
cated them  afterward  to  Mr.  Bowen.  Mr.  Bowen  began 
by  denying,  but  ends  by  admittmg  them  ;  and,  to  put 
the  matter  beyond  any  question,  Mr.  Tilton  calls  Mr. 
Bell  to  the  stand,  and  proves  by  him  a  most  important 
conversation,  which  places  it  beyond  all  doubt  that 
Bessie  Turner's  statement  is  true,  and  that  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Beeoher  is  also  true.  [To  J'udge  Neilson.] 
I  will  ask  my  friend  Mr.  Shearman  to  read  the  passage, 
if  the  Court  and  jury  will  allow  me. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Bell's  testimony  is  as  follows 
{reading]  : 

Mr.  Beecher  stated  to  me  that  he  had  been  sent 
for  by  Mrs.  Tilton  to  consult  in  regard  to 
the  position  of  domestic  affairs  in  her  own 
household ;  that  she  had  left  her  husband  and 
was  then  at  Mrs.  Morse's,  her  mother's  ;  that  she  was  in 
great  trouble  and  great  anxiety ;  that  the  conduct  of  her 
husband  had  been  in  a  great  many  ways  very  severe, 
very  cruel,  and  everything  but  what  a— I  was  going  to 
say,  a  decent  man's  conduct  ought  to  be  to  a  woman ;  he 
stated  that  Mr.  Tilton's  conduct  in  regard  to  other  mat- 
ters, in  regard  to  licentiousness,  was  very  low ;  he  stated 
that  he  had  been  called  upon  by  a  young  girl— he  did  not 
mention  any  name — a  yoimg  girl,  who  had  been  In  Mr. 
Tilton's  family ;  she  had  related  to  him  circumstances  oc- 
curring in  the  family,  in  the  household  of  Mr.  Tilton, 
which  were  exceedingly  licentious ;  he  stated— I  presume 
I  need  not  go  into  the  circumstances  of  that  statement ; 
I  have  suificiently  indicated  what  it  was ;  he  stated  that 
at  last  Mrs.  Tilton  had  been  forced  to  fly  from  her  home ; 
that  she  had  done  so,  and  had  gone  to  Mrs.  Morse's ;  that 
she  had  sent  then  for  him  to  advise  with  him  as  to 
what  course  she  should  pursue ;  that  he  had  consulted 
Mrs.  Beecher  on  the  subject,  and  then  they  thought— both 
thought— that  it  was  better  that  they  should  mention  the 
fact  to  some  member  of  the  church,  so  that  they  might 
not  go  on  in  the  matter  without  the  whole  church  being 
ignorant  of  these  proceedings,  or  what  advice  they  might 
give— might  tender  to  Mrs.  Tilton;  they  had  therefore 
called  for  me,  not  so  much  to  take  my  advice,  as  to  inform 
me  of  the  facts  that  were  occurring,  and  inform  me  of 
what  advice  they  proposed  to  give,  if  any,  to  Mrs.  Tilton. 
He  asked  me  then— he  said  then  that  he  proposed  to  hand 
the  matter  over  to  Mrs.  Beecher ;  that  it  was  a  matter 
that  a  lady  could  manage  better  than  a  gentleman,  and 
Mrs.  Beecher  intended,  by  his  suggestion,  to  go  and  see 
Mrs.  Tilton  the  ngxt  day.  The  question  was  particularly 
as  to  what  advice  Mrs.  Beecher  should  give  to  Mrs.  Til- 
ton. I  don't  know  whether  from  Mrs.  Beecher  or  from 
him,  the  question  came  up  about  a  permanent  separa- 
tion, but  from  one  or  the  other  that  suggestion  was  made, 
of  a  permanent  separation  between  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Tilton, 
and  Mr.  Beecher  asked  me  what  I  thought  of  that.  I  said 
in  answer,  '*  Of  course,  nothing  else  can  be  possible ;  it  is 
impossible  for  Mrs.  Tilton  to  live  another  day  with  Mr. 
Tilton  on  such  facts  as  you  have  presented  to  me."  Then 
Mr.  Beecher  asked  me  if  I  thought  it  would  be  weU  to  call 
In  any  of  the  ladies  of  the  church ;  I  am  not  sm-e  whether 
deaconesses  were  mentioned  then,  as  I  am  not  quite  sure 
that  we  had  them  at  that  time,  but  it  is  clear  in  my  mem- 
ory that  he  did  ask  me  if  the  advice  of  any  of  the  ladies 
of  the  church  should  be  called  for,  or  that  the  matter 
flhould  be  handed  over  to  the  ladies  of  the  church— any  of 
the  ladles— to  manage.  I  said,  unquestionably  not;  it 
was  a  matter  of  great  delicacy,  it  was  a  matter  far  more 


easily  managed  by  a  few  than  by  many,  and  it  would  be 
exceedingl  ,"  harmful  to  bring  it  into  the  church,  or  even 
to  hand  it  over  to  any  ladies  unofficially,  and  that  I  was 
certain  that  the  best  management  of  the  case  would 
be  to  have  it  left  in  his  own  hands  and  those  of  Mrs. 
Beecher. 

I  may  add  that  the  note  furnished  by  Mr.  Bell  showed 
this  interview  was  on  the  15th  of  September. 

Mr.  Beach— I  object  to  your  arguing  here. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  was  only  giving  the  date,  as  you 
brought  it  out. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Porter  can  state  It. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes. 

MR.  BOWEN'S  TESTIMONY. 

Mr.  Porter— We  eome  next,  gentlemen,  to 
the  testimony  of  Henry  C.  Bowen.  It  is  a  little  curious 
that  wherever  we  find  Bowen  appearing  in  this  case  he 
seems  to  give  to  it  a  fresh  and  peculiar  interest.  He  is 
the  next  actor  in  this  drama.  We  should  not  have  looked 
for  it.  What  has  he  to  do  with  the  matter  ?  He  has  no 
admission  to  the  interior  of  the  house  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  and  just  as  little  to  the  interior  of  the  house  of 
Theodore  Tilton,  and  yet  wherever  events  come  to 
thicken  Henry  C.  Bowen  is  there.  Of  his  testimony  I 
shall  speak  with  kindness  and  forbearance.  It  would  be 
inhuman  to  do  otherwise.  I  cannot  but  remember  the 
bullets  which  he  has  received  from  the  beginning  of  this 
trial  on  the  part  of  the  friend  to  whose  res- 
cue he  has  come  in  his  extreme  desperation. 
I  refer  for  a  moment  to  some  of  these  comments 
of  which  Mr.  Tilton,  after  a  manner  peculiar  to  himself, 
introduces  not  only  our  witnesses,  but  his  own,  to  the 
favor  or  the  censure  of  the  jury,  as  he  feels  disposed. 
This  is  the  Hemy  C.  Bowen  of  whom  Tilton  in  one  of  the 
exhibits  which  is  before  you  writes,  "  Bowen  lifted  his 
hammer  and  with  an  unjust  blow  smote  asunder  my  two 
contracts."  Again,  "  The  public  little  suspects  that  this 
act  of  his  turned  on  the  fear  to  meet  the  consequences  of 
horrible  charges  which  he  made  against  Henry  Ward 
Beecher.'*  In  the  course  of  one  of  these  exhibits  he 
speaks  of  Bowen's  assassinating  dagger  drawn  against 
Mr.  Beecher.  In  another  portion  of  the  same  exhibit  he 
says,  "  Bowen  charged  Beecher  with  the  most  hideous 
crime  known  to  human  nature."  Then  Tilton  assigns,  as 
the  reason  for  not  making  public  his  written  denial  of  the 
charge  of  adultery  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  his  wife : 
"  I  would  put  my  old  friend  Bowen  to  a  serious  risk  of 
being  smitten  dead  by  Beecher's  hands."  How  far  Bowen 
would  deserve  his  fate  I  cannot  say,  but  I  know  that  all 
Plymouth  Church  would  hound  him  as  a  rat.  In  his  let- 
ter of  Jan.  1, 1871,  he  arraigns  Bowen  as  a  slanderer 
and  a  libeler.  He  charges  him  with  duplicity  and  treacli- 
ery,  and  describes  Bowen's  face  in  the  last  interview  as 
livid  with  rage,  and  his  violent  words  as  still  ringing  in 
Tilton's  ears.  You  may  judge  of  the  estimation  in  which 
Tilton    and    his     counsel    held    their    case  when 


Sr2121iyG    VP  BY  21E.  FORTEB. 


591 


ther  fhoueM  its    necessities    demanded     ot     rliem  I 
that  they  should    put  Henry  C.  Bowen  on  the  wit- 
ness   stand  to     speak    for    them.     And    to  show 
what— wh  at  1  That  Beecher  didn't  slander  Theodore  Tilton 
to  Henry  C.  Bowen— that  Beecher  did  nothing  tending 
to  the  removal  of  TUton  from  his  connection  witli  The  In- 
dependent.   It  is  hut  just  to  Bowen  to  say  that  he  showed 
a  noble  zeal  to  swear  all  he  could  in  favor  of  the  party 
who  called  him.   That  it  was  not  from  love  of  Theodore 
Tilton  I  am  persuaded.   That  it  was  not  hatred  of  Hem-y 
Waixl  Beecher  we  all  knew,  for  he  worships  at  Plymouth 
Church.   It  must  have  been  from  the  pure  abstract  love 
of  truth.    [Laughter.]    Well,  what  is  tie  truth  as  he 
tells  it  I   His  memory  is  viciously  accurate  in  his  denials ; 
■but  it  is  singularly  lax  in  taking  them  back  on  cross- 
examination.    "  :Mr.  Beecher  never  advised  him  to  tiu-n 
Tilton  out  of  The   lyidej^eyident  ?     He  did  not.  Mr. 
Beecher  thought  he  did.     He  did  not.     Mr.  Beecher 
didn't  tell  you  anything  against  him?     Xo,  nothing. 
Oh,  he  did  talk   generally  against  him.      What  did 
he  say  about  him  ?     Well,  it   was  nothing  except 
some  lirrle  matter  of  fornication  and  adultery  ;  it  was 
nothing  seriotis.  What  was  it  he  told  you?   Eeally,  I 
don't  remember.   I  remember  generally ;  he  really  didn't 
think  T'lton  was  a  very  good  man,  but  he  knew  nothing 
particular  against  him,  or,  if  he  did,  he  didn't  tell  me,  or, 
if  he  did,  I  forget  what  it  was  he  told  me.  He  talked  with 
me  a  half  hour  or  three-<iuarters  of  an  hour,  but  what  he 
said  I  cannot  for  the  life  of  me  tell.   I  know  it  didn't  af- 
fect me.   I  knew  Tilton.   I  didn't  need  anr  information  [ 
from  Beecher.   I  had  made  up  my  mind  about  him.  Did 
you  tell  3Ir.  Beecher  so  ?  Well,  I  am  not  quite  sure  of 
that,    but     I    knew     myself.      Did     ]Mr.  Beecher 
knew?  Eeally,  I  don't  know.  Can't  you  think.  Mr.  Bowen, 
of  something  that  3Ir.  Beecher  told  you  ?   Well,  he  did 
■tell  me  that  there  were— there  were  reports  against 
Theodore  Tilton.   Oh,  well,  now,  but,  3Ir.  Bowen,  was 
that  all  1  That  was  aU.   Positively  ?   Certainly.    What : 
didn't  they  relate  to  women  ?   Oh,  yes.  of  course,  they 
related  to  ivomen.  Well,  what  women  ?"   Well  he  was  in 
the  same  place  as  Mr.  Beecher  was  when  they  were  try- 
ing to  ascertain  about  the  birth  of  that  child ;  he  had 
not  made   an   entry  of  the  transaction.  [Laughter.] 
"  Well,  but,     Mr.    Bowen,    you     know  something 
about  this,  don't    you?    Did   he    mention  names  1 
Oh,    he    mentioned    names,     but     the     names  I 
knew  nothing  about ;    I  didn't  know    the  people, 
didn't  care  for  them,   and  didn't  remember  them. 
Then  you  mean  to  swear  positively  that  Mr.  Beecher 
didn't  teU  you  that  Theodore  Tilton  was  guilty  of  foul 
licentious,  adulterous  practices  with  women  ?   Oh,  in  a 
general  way,  and  he  mentioned  names,  but  I  don't  know 
what  they  were.   There  was  one — I  think  there  was  one 
that  was  in  his  family."  Well,  you  see  that  we  were  in  a 
bad  way.  But  it  so  happens  that,  though  Bowen  was  so 
lorgetful  then,  he  was  nnt  so  forgetful  on  the  afternoon 


of  that  day  when  he  came  back  to  his  own  house  to  meet 
Dr.  Eggleston,  his  associate  on  his  newspaper,  whom  he 
had  left  in  that  house  and  told  that  he  had  just  come 
from  Mr.  Beecher's,  and  Mr.  Beecher  had  told  him  horri- 
ble stories  about  Theodore  Tilton's  debauchery  and  adul- 
tery, and  had  told  him  how  he  had  attempted 
the  ruin  of  an  adopted  daughter  imder  his 
own  roof,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher  would 
stand  his  friend ;  that  he  would  be  the  friend  of  The  In- 
dependent, and  was  reioiced  to  know  that  he  was  ready  to 
remove  Theodore  Tilton  from  The  Independent.  After  all, 
Theodore,  don't  you  think  that  Henry  C.  made  a  pretty 
poor  witness  ?  Did  he  better  their  case  ?  We  have  the 
proof,  clear,  conclusive,  cotemporaneous  with  the  fact, 
showing  that  Mr.  Beecher's  account  of  that  interview  is 
true.  Xot  showing  that  Woodrtiff  and  TUton  are  right  in 
showing  that  Bowen  is  treacherous,  but  showing  that  his 
memory  is  treacherous.  But  Bowen,  who  was  brought 
here  to  stab  Beecher,  carries  with  him  another  dirk  under 
his  belt,  and,  to  the  consternation  of  my  friends  on  the 
other  side,  thrusts  it  under  the  rib  of  the  man  who  called 
him.  He  reveals  the  fact  which  Theodore  Tilton  on  oath 
has  denied,  that  before  he  had  exerted  that  power  over 
his  wife  which  elicited  from  her  the  letter,  whatever 
it  was,  of  the  29th  of  December,  Henry  C.  Bowen,  his  em- 
ployer, had  said  to  him  on  that  secular  Christmas  after- 
noon, on  the  26th  of  December,  that  the  ax  was  stuspend- 
ed  over  his  head,  the  ax  which  was  to  fall  would  before 
the  year  should  end.  That  explains  to  you,  gentlemen, 
what  Theodore  Tilton  left  unexplained;  how  it  was  that 
when  he  went  home  that  Christmas  wck,  and  found  liis 
-wife  in  her  sad  condition,  weakened  by  hemorrhage,  worn 
out  in  spirit,  "b  'oken  in  heart,  and,  as  she  supposed,  draw- 
ing close  upon  the  grave  which  was  to  bring  her  poor  and 
broken  body  side  by  side  with  that  of  the  bastard  Paul. 
He  enters  that  room  and  proclaims,  "  I  am  a  ruined  man.** 
On  that  proclamation  Bessie  Ttu-ner,  who  felt  that 
his  ruin  was  the  ruin  of  the  household  to 
which  he  belonged,  and  of  her  own  benefactress, 
sank  upon  the  lounge,  helpless  and  powerless  ;  and  even 
that  old  nurse  felt  the  shock  so  deeply  that  she  could  not 
repeat  the  account  of  the  event  without  tremulous 
emotion,  which  you  noticed  on  the  witness  stand.  This 
man  comes  into  the  room,  at  one  end  of  which  lies  his 
weak,  sick,  suffering,  prostrated  wife,  not  to  sympathize 
with  her,  but—"  I,  I,  I,  who  took  off  my  crown  and  laid 
it  at  Bowen's  feet,  and  said,  'God  save  the 
King;'  I,  who  have  been  in  the  receipt  of  the 
baronial  income  of  $15,000  a  year ;  I.  who  occupy  the 
leading  position  at  the  head  of  the  leading  journal  of 
America;  I  am  ruined,  ruined,  ruined!"  And  what 
then?  Frank  Moultou  is  called  in  counsel;  and,  when 
Frank  gets  there,  papers  and  statements,  cards 
and  missiles,  newspapers  and  documents,  consulta- 
tions and  foolscap,  writing  materials,  and  all 
the  paraphernalia  which  has  been  so  connected  with  that 


593  ,    TEB  TILTON-B 

house  in  Rerasen-st,  as  also  witli  the  other  in  LiYins:ston- 
st. ;  all  these  result  in  a  consultation  with  Mrs.  Tilton 
at  which  Frank  is  present,  Theodore  is  present,  the 
nurse  is  shut  out,  Bessie  is  shut  out,  and  what 
transpires  in  that  room  you  have  no  means  of  arriv- 
ing at  except  from  

Mr.  Beach— It  is  4  o'clock,  Porter. 

Mr.  Porter— If  your  Honor  please,  my  friend  suggests 
it  is  4  o'clock,  and  as  I  have  to  refer,  I  will  stop  here. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well.  [To  the  Jury.]  Get  ready 
to  retire,  gentlemen.  Return  to-morrow  morning  at  11 
o'clock. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  Friday  at  11  o'clock, 

EIGHTY-EIGHTH   DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


JUDGE  PORTER'S  ARGUMENT  INTERRUPTED. 

THE '  ORATOR  OVERCOME  BY  THE  HEAT— AN  AD- 
JOURNMENT AFTER  THE  MORNING  SESSION  TAKEN 
UNTIL  MONDAY — MR.  BEACH  AND  JUDGE  NEIL- 
SON  DESIROUS  TO  LIMIT  THE  DURATION  OF  AR- 
GUMENT— JUDGE  PORTER  AIMS  TO  SHOW  POINTS 
OF  AGREEMENT  BETWEEN  MR.  BOWEN'S  AND  MR. 

beecher's  testimony — MRS.  tilton's  LETIERS 

OF  CONFESSION  AND  RETRACTION  EXPLAINED  AS 
VIEWED  BY  THE  DEFENDANT— LESS  FREQUENT 
DENUNCIATIONS  OF  THE  PLAINTIFF. 

Friday,  May  21,  1875. 

Judge  Porter's  argument  to-day  was  full  of 
repetitious,  and  consequently  was  rather  uninter- 
esting to  the  spectators,  although  the  jurymen  lis- 
tened to  it  very  attentively,  and  the  care  with  which 
the  points  stated  were  developed  was  calculated  to 
fix  them  firmly  in  their  minds.  Mr.  Bowen's  testi- 
mony was  first  taken  up  and  analyzed.  Judge 
Porter  insisted  that  on  the  main  point  of  his 
evidence  Mr.  Bowen  had  confirmed  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Beecher.  He  had  admitted  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  told  him  had  stories  ahout  Mr.  Tilton.  Judge 
Porter,  at  considerahle  length,  explained  the  trans- 
actions between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Messrs.  Bowen, 
Tilton,  and  Moulton  in  the  li  ght  in  which  they  were 
regarded  by  the  defendant's  counsel.  Mrs.  Tilton's 
letters  of  confession  and  retraction  were 
taken  up  and  commented  upon,  and  explained 
according  to  the  theory  of  the  defendant.  Refer- 
ring to  the  alleged  letter  of  confession,  which  had 
been  destroyed,  the  orator  exhibited  some  of  the 
cutting  sarcasm  for  which  his  argument  has  thus 
far  been  remarkable,  and  bitterly  denounced  the 
acts  of  the  plaintiff  and  his  friends. 

Judge  Porter  has  thus  far  covered  comparatively 


lECHEB  lELAL. 

few  points  of  the  evidence,  but  tliose  hr.vo  been 
dwelt  upon  at  much  length,  and  presented  in  a  great 
variety  of  forms. 

There  were  more  spectators  present  to-day  than 
on  the  day  before,  but  the  proceedings  were  dull  and 
monotonous,  both  on  account  of  the  heat  and  the 
failing  strength  of  Judge  Porter,  whose  voice 
was  considerably  weakened  by  his  previous  efforts. 
The  hot  sun  beat  down  upon  the  exposed  south 
si  Je  of  the  Court-house  so  fiercely  that  it  was  im- 
possible to  make  the  court-room  comfortable  even 
by  opening  wide  the  large  windows.  The  dense 
crowd  of  people  in  the  gallery,  and  near  the  doors 
obstructed  the  circulation  of  air.  There  were  many 
expressions  of  disappointment,  however,  when  at 
the  close  of  the  morning  session,  Mr.  Evarts,  upon 
whom  the  disagreeable  task  of  asking  for  an  ad- 
journment, at  the  instance  of  either  side,  is  usually 
imposed,  stated  that  Judge  Porter  felt  unable,  ou 
account  of  the  heat,  to  go  on  with  his  argument  in 
the  afternoon,  and  that  therefore  an  adjournment 
until  Monday  morning  would  be  desirable. 

Mr.  Beach  humorously  remarked  that  he  had 
resigned  himself  to  the  fatalities  of  this  case,  which 
continuallyprotracted  its  length,  and  he  consented 
to  the  adjournment,  but  wd.th  expressions  of  regret 
at  its  necessity.  He  stated  that  he  would  like  seme 
intimation  of  the  length  of  time  that  the  defenO.- 
ant's  counsel  proposed  to  consume  in  summing  up. 
For  himself  he  felt  very  sure  that  he  should  not 
occupy  more  than  a  couple  of  days,  and  he  thought 
some  reasonable  time  for  the  closing  arguments  on 
the  other  side  should  be  fixed.  It  was  in  the  power 
of  the  Court  to  restrict  the  time,  if  necessary. 

Mr.  Evarts  said  in  reply  that  he  thought  he  could 
fairly  promise  that  the  two  hours  lost  by  this  ad- 
journment would  not  defer  the  end  of  Judge  Portei-'s 
argument,  but  more  than  that  he  could  not  say.  Mr. 
Beach  insisted  on  knowing  more  definitely  how  long 
the  other  side  would  take  in  completing  their  sum- 
ming up.  Judge  Neilson  stated  that  he  had  under- 
stood that  Mr.  Evarts  would  speak  all  of  next  week, 
and  he  added,  smiling,  that  he  had  wxitteu  to  a  fj:iead 
in  the  country  who  was  anxious  to  hear  Mr.  Beach, 
that  he  need  not  come  until  week  after  next. 
Mr.  Evarts  stated  that  he  had  refused  to 
make  an  appointment  in  Washington  in  the  latter 
part  of  next  week  because  he  desired  to  listen  to  Mr. 
Beach's  argument.  As  Mr.  Beach  was  not  yet  satis- 
fied. Judge  Neilson  finally  said  that  he  would  answer 
for  the  defendant's  coimsel  that  they  would  close 
next  week,  "and  if  not,"  said  he  smiling,  "I  will 


SUMMlNa    VF  I 

m  ikc  them  work  on  Saturday."  "Aud  perliaps  on 
Sunday,"  added  Mr.  Evarts  laucliing. 

Tlie  court  then  adjourned  until  11  o'clock  on  Mon- 
day morning. 

THE   PROCEEDINGS— YEEBATTM. 

MR.  PORTER  RESUMES  HIS  ARGUMENT. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

ISlx.  Porter— May  it  please  your  Honor— Gentlemen  of 
tliejury:  If  you  will  pardon  me  I  will,  in  compliance 
with  tlie  suA'gestion  of  one  of  my  associatea,  call  your  at- 
tention briefly  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bowen,  in  order 
that  its  importance  may  not  be  magnified  unduly.  To  us 
his  testimony  is  not  injurious ;  to  the  other  side,  unless  I 
mistake  its  effects,  it  is  not  merely  injurious  hut  damn- 
ing—if believed,  a  qualification  which  I  ought  to  add  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Bowen ;  in  deference  to  the  opinions  of 
the  other  side. 

HOW  MR.  BOWEN  WAS  TO  BE  USED  BY  THE 
PLAINTIFF. 
Mr.  Beecher  had  testified  that  on  the  occasion 
of  the  interview  at  which  Bowen  presented  to  him  Theo- 
dore TiLton'8  demand  that  he  should  leave  Plymouth 
Church  and  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  conversation  occurred 
between  him  and  Mr.  Bowen,  in  which  Bowen  communi- 
cated to  hun  statements  fiagrantly  injurious  to  the  moral 
character  of  Tilton,  and  in  which  Mr.  Bowen  himself,  in 
the  full  conviction  at  the  time  of  the  truth  of  what  he 
uttered,  declared  that  Theodore  Tilton  was  an  immoral, 
a  tainted  man,  unfit  to  be  connected  with  the  charge  of  a 
great  religious  newspaper.  Mr.  Beecher  states  that  he 
communicated  to  him  information  which  he  had  recently 
receiv^edfrom  Mrs.  Tilton  ;  that  ho  also  communicated  to 
him  the  facts  which  he  had  learned  in  the  interview  that 
occurred  between  Miss  Turner  and  himself.  As  usual,  the 
first  device  of  the  rhetorician  is  to  get  a  false  issue. 
That  was  illustrated,  for  instance,  in  reference  to  the 
charge  made  by  Bessie  Turner  that  he  carried  her  from 
her  room  to  his  own,  on  a  particular  occasion,  in  respect 
to  which  she  complained  of  personal  indignity.  The  cun- 
ning rhetorician  knew  that  if  the  story  was  told  to  the 
world  as  the  girl  told  it,  it  might  carry  conviction,  but 
that  by  the  insertion  of  a  single  circumstance,  tending 
to  render  it  incredible,  or  at  least  improbable,  he  con- 
trived that  cunning  letter  in  which  she  is  made  to  say 
that  "the  story  that  Theodore  Tilton  carried  me  scream- 
ing from  my  bed-room  to  his  own  is  untrue."  With  the 
same  rhetorical  art  you  saw  that  at  the  close 
of  this  case,  when  he  felt  that  he  was  going 
doN\Ti,  down,  it  was  needful  for  him  to  come 
back  to  the  stand  and  swear  down  Bessie  Turner 
once  more,  and  instead  of  joining  issue  on  the  great  facts 
to  which  she  testified,  he  joined  issue  on  here  and  there  a 


MB.    FOETUE,  593 

solitar>-  expression — as,  for  instance,  the  allusion  she  im- 
putes to  him  about  those  gray  hairs,  and  he  thinks  that 
by  the  suggestion  of  a  circumstance  which  will  render 
the  thing  improbable  he  gets  over  the  effect  of  it,  and 
damns  the  witness.  "I  had  no  gray  hairs"— forgetting 
the  letter  that  he  had  written,  in  which,  three  years  be- 
fore, he  had  complained  that  he  had  gray  hairs. 

AgatD,  we  find,  running  through  the  whole  thread  of 
this  conspiracy,  the  same  devices,  in  the  cunning  papers 
which  were  prepared  from  time  to  time  by  him,  copied 
by  Moulton,  submitted  to  Mr.  Beecher,  in  order  to  induce 
him  to  give  countenance  to  their  statements,  overlook- 
ing these  petty  points  thrown  in,  to  which  importance 
might  be  given  afterward.  Now,  his  dealing  in  this  case 
with  Mr.  Beecher  and  his  testimony.  How  is  he  to  deal 
with  it  ?  "  Here  is  Bowen.  What  can  we  prove  by  him  1 
In  the  first  place,  he  is  Beecher's  enemy.  That  is  one 
good  point.  In  the  next  place,  it  can  do  him  no  good  in 
this  case  to  swear  against  me,  for  I  am  done.  I  am  no 
contributor  of  The  Independent,  and  whatever  his  feel- 
ing may  be  toward  me,  Bowen's  interest— that  which 
touches  the  tender  nerve  of  the  pocket — Bowen's 
interest  is  to  see  the  man  go  down  who  ediis 
The  Christian  Union.  What  can  we  safely  ask 
him?  Now,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  told 
this  story  about  Bessie  Turner,  but  there  is  one  thing 
which  Henry  C.  Bowen  will  never  do.  He  will  never 
swear  himself  into  a  scrape,  if  lie  knows  it.  I'll  prove  by 
him  that  Mr.  Beecher  did  not  advise  my  admissal  from 
The  Independent.  That  I'll  do."  "  Well,  but,"  says 
Brother  Morris,  "  Beecher  don't  swear  that  he  did."  "  No 
matter  for  that ;  it  is  a  good  enough  issue,  Sam,  for  the 
jury."  "  Well,  but  we've  got  to  meet  Beecher's  own  tes- 
timony. What  he  swears  to  is,  that  he  told  Henry  0. 
Bowen  that  you  were  an  immoral  man,  that  you  had 
offered  improper  overtures  to  your  adopted  daughter." 
"  Touch  that  lightly,"  and  they  did.  "  Mr.  Bowen, 
did  Mr.  Beecher  advise  you  to  dismiss 
Theodore  Tilton  from  The  Independent  and 
The  Brooklyn  TJnioyi  1 "  *•  Positively  no."  "  Did  Mr. 
Beecher  mention  the  name  of  Bessie  Turner  1  "  "  No."^ 
And  so  on  with  a  series  of  questions  which  might  be 
supposed  by  a  person  who  had  not  heard  Mr.  Beecher's 
testimony  to  be  aimed  at  something  that  had  preceded, 
but  every  question  tendering  a  false  issua  upon  the  facts, 
save  one,  and  that  is,  where  was  the  interview  ? 

MR.  BOWEN  PRESENTS  MR.  TILTON'S  LETTER. 

And  there  Bowen  was  material.  It  was  at 
Deacon  Freeland's  house.  Now,  gentlemen,  that  would  be 
all  very  well,  if,  after  a  direct  examination,  there  were  to 
be  no  cross-examination,  but  we  find  Mr.  Bowen  on  his 
cross-examination  compelled,  by  my  learned  associate, 
to  admit  that  Mr.  Beecher  did,  whether  the  interview  was 
at  the  one  place  or  the  other— Mr.  Beoolicr  did  tell  him 
of  matters  that  were  new  to  him,  in  respect  to  Theo- 


594 


THE   TlLTOl^-BEEOREB  TBIAL. 


dore  Tilton ;  that  Mr.  Beecher  did  arraign  Mm  for  private 
immorality  with  women ;  that  Mr.  Beecher  occupied  half 
an  hour  in  giving  details  which  had  now  escaped  his 
recollection,  and  in  regard  to  persons  whom,  as  he 
did  not  then  know,  he  did  not  now  remember. 
So  that  upon  the  only  point  upon  which  his  testimony 
was  material,  Henry  C.  Bo  wen,  instead  of  contradicting 
the  editor  of  The  Ohristian  Union,  confirms  him,  and 
that  confirmation  is  made  still  stronger  when  we  come 
to  the  report  he  made  that  night  on  his  return 
to  his  own  house,  to  his  associate  editor,  in 
which  he  recounted  the  transaction  to  Eggles- 
ton,  as  Mr.  Beecher,  five  years  afterward,  recounts  it  to 
you,  and  without  comparison  of  notes.  There  is,  how- 
ever, in.  this  connection,  a  matter  that  should  not  he 
ovei'looked.  Mr.  Bowen  undertakes  to  contradict  Mr. 
Beecher  as  to  the  locality  of  that  con  vers  ation.  It  is  ut- 
terly immaterial  for  every  purpose  in  this  cause,  except 
as  a  simple  means  of  ascertaining  the  truthfulness  of 
witnesses ;  and  it  strangely  happens  that  Mr.  Beecher 
stands  corroborated,  even  in  that  regard,  not  only  by 
the  affirmative  evidence,  but  by  the  circumstantial 
evidence,  which  to  an  intelligent  mind  is  more 
satisfactory  and  conclusive  even  than  affirmative  evi- 
dence. Where  was  that  interview  ?  Take  Tiiton.  What 
had  Bowen  promised  him?  He  would  take  that  note 
right  up  to  Mr.  Beecher's  and  present  it  immediately 
after  the  interview.  What  more  do  we  hna  ?  It  was  in 
the  afternoon  that  the  promise  was  made.  What  more  1 
It  was  in  the  afternoon  that  the  promise  was  fulfilled, 
even  Bowen  being  the  witness.  Why  not  go  to  Mr. 
Beecher's  1  Bowen  either  meant  to  be  true  to  Tilton,  or 
to  be  false  to  him.  In  either  case  his  road  lay  right 
straight  to  Columbia  Hights.  If  he  meant  to  betray  him, 
as  Frank  Moulton  told  him,  the  moment  that  he  stated 
that  he  had  seen  this  letter,  he  went  armed  with  that.  It 
was  to  secure  an  alliance  with  Beecher ;  and  no  grass 
grew  beneath  the  feet  of  Henry  C.  Bowen  on  that  winter 
day,  as  he  was  rushing  with  this  important  message  to 
cut  the  bond  of  friendship  between  Beecher  and  Tilton, 
and  to  form  that  bond  of  friendship  which 
was  to  be  so  valuable  between  Beecher  and  Bowen.  If 
his  purpose  was  hostile,  Henry  C.  Bowen  is  not  the  man 
who,  when  he  is  in  pursuit  of  an  enemy,  and  has  with 
him  a  weapon  of  death,  seeks  needless  witnesses.  He 
went  to  the  house  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  intending,  as 
Tilton  did,  to  stab  him  to  the  heart.  He  did  not  want 
Deacon  Freeland  by,  nor  any  of  his  household.  He  went 
to  deliver  a  simple  letter,  the  delivery  of  which  would,  if 
Beecher  was  a  guilty  man,  paralyze  him  upon  the  in- 
stant. If  Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  been  guilty  with 
Theodore  Tiltou's  wife,  as  he  would  have  you  believe, 
and  that  message  had  been  brought  to  him  by  the  hand 
of  Henry  C.  Bowen,  his  bitterest  enemy,  have  you  any 
doubt  what  would  have  been  the  eflfect  of  it  1  Bowenhad 
none.  Gentlemen,  when  Bowen  started  on  that  message 


he  did  not  know  what  the  truth  was.  Of  course 
he  did  not  supx)!)Si  adultery,  because  Tilton 
had  not  charged  that ;  but  he  charged  that 
gidlt  that  was  just  as  fatal  to  a  minister  of  the  Gospel ; 
he  charged  improper  and  dishonorable  proposals  by  a 
clergyman  to  a  communicant  in  his  own  church.  Bowen 
did  not  know  whether  it  was  true  or  false  when  he  went 
to  the  interview.  When  he  gets  there  he  hands  Mr. 
Beecher  the  letter  ;  Mr.  Beecher  opens  it,  reads  it,  aud 
thrusts  it  into  his  pocket.  Now  observe.  Bowen  had  no 
interest  in  the  matter.  How  did  it  concern  him  ?  Be 
has  delivered  the  letter  and  the  old  dominie  put  it  in  Lis 
pocket.  He  has  no  end  to  gain  ;  he  has  no  doubt  about 
dismissing  this  man ;  he  told  him  on  Monday  he  Wi.s 
going  to  dismiss  him  ;  he  doesn't  want  to  know  any  tiling 
more  of  mischief  against  Theodore  Tilton  ;  he  lias 
heard  enough  already,  and  knows  him  to 
be  a  scoundrel,  and  he  is  going  to  act  upon  ir. 
And  yet  Bowen  teUs  you  that  after  that  letter  was  put  iu 
Mr.  Beecher's  pocket,  he  says  to  Mr.  Beecher  :  "  Whttt 
about  that  letter  ? "  "  That  letter  ?  Why,  Tilton  is 
crazy."  That  settles  the  question  with  Bowen.  "  This  '..i 
one  of  Tilton-s  lies  ;  there  is  no  truth  in  it."  If  this  m;!ii 
were  guiltjs  such  a  message  as  that  would  startle  hi  in  a  od 
blast  his  very  eyeballs,  as  they  read  it ;  but  he  is  as  tool, 
as  calm,  as  indifferent  as  if  it  had  been  a  message  from  a 
maniac  in  a  mad-house  ;  and  the  only  commentary  he 
to  make  is,  "  Why,  the  man  iG  crazy."  Well-  why  didn'S 
Bowen  go  away  ?  His  errand  was  accomplished ;  he  car- 
ried the  letter,  he  delivered  it,  and  got  his  answer.  Way 
didn't  he  go?  He  forgets ;  his  memory  is  treacherous. 
Somehow  or  other  he  stays,  and  somehow  or  other, 
as  he  admits,  he  gets  to  talking  about  Theodore 
Tilton.  Somehow  or  other  he  does  tell  Mv. 
Beecher  that  since  he  dismissed  him  from  the 
editorship,  and  has  retained  him  only  as  contributcT", 
he  keeps  getting  from  all  quarters,  admonitions  agai^jst 
his  retaining  him  even  in  connection  with  The  Brooldija 
Union  and  the  correspondence  of  The  Independent.  Wudt 
then  ]  Now  he  has  certainly  got  through  with  his  erraur.. 
Why  doesn't  he  go  %  He  doesn't.  He  stays.  He  thinks  iJ< 
did  not  ask  any  questions,  but  he  does  remember  theie 
was  talk,  and  what  the  talk  was  he  doesn't  remember,  ex- 
cept that  the  talk  was  by  xMr.  Beecher  and  about  Theo- 
dore Tilton,  and  that  that  talk  related  to  Tilton'a  iui- 
moralities,  and  that  something  was  said  about  those  im- 
moralities in  connection  with  a  person  in  his  own 
house.  Now,  gentlemen,  you  have  the  accoimt  of  each. 
Which  is  most  probable,  Bowen's  version  of  it  or  the  ver* 
sion  of  Mr.  Beecher,  so  far  as  they  differ  ?  It  is  true  that 
Bowen  was  in  the  habit  of  having  frequent  meetings  with 
Deacon  Freeland  on  business ;  but  we  find,  when  we 
come  to  call  Deacon  Freeland  to  the  stand,  that  there 
never  was  but  one  meeting  between  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
and  Hem-y  C.  Bowen  at  his  house,  and  that  in  the  begiu* 
Ing  of  the  year  of  which  this  was  the  end.   Which  will 


SDMMIJ^G    UF  BT  ME.  POBTEB, 


595 


yo  i  T^elleve,  Bowen,  or  Beeclier  and  Freeland  ?  Am  I 
right  at)out  tlie  circumstance?  Frank  Moulton  made  a 
memorandum  that  afternoon  at  3:45  p.m.:  "T.  T.  com- 
mimicated  to  me  4116  fact  ttiat  lie  liad  just  sent  to  Henrr 
Ward  Beeclier,  by  Henry  C.  Bowen,  a  demand 
that  be  quit  the  City  of  Brooklyn."  Bowen 
is  mistaken  about  his  sending  his  son  at 
2  o'clock  to  make  an  appointment  that  afternoon  with 
Deacon  Freeland  for  a  meeting  with  Beecher.  At  15 
minutes  before  4  o'clock  Theodore  Tilton  got  to  Frank 
Moulton's,  and  Frank  Moulton  made  this  note,  feeling 
the  importance  of  the  occasion;  and  Bowen  himself 
admits  that  the  last  thing  done  at  that  interview  was  to 
deliver  this  very  note  to  him  for  transmission  to  Mr. 
Beecher.  Which  is  right  ?  Connect  this  with  the  subse- 
quent report  of  Eggleston,  and  you  will  see  that,  even 
if  Hen  ry  C.  Bowen  had  had  the  courage  to  make  an  issue 
with  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  it  would  have  been  an  issue 
which  would  have  cut  him  down,  but  he  dodged  it.  Not 
go  when  it  comes  to  the  others.  In  regard  to  Tilton,  there 
is  no  dodging  the  issue.  Tilton  had  sworn  before  you, 
again  and  again,  and  on  this  very  trial,  that  on 
the  26th  of  December,  1870,  he  sat  secure  in  his  own 
position,  connected  with  The  Independent  and  with 
The  Brooklyn  Union,  and  with  a  salary  of  $15,000  a 
year  ;  that  he  had  nothing  to  tempt  him  into  a  contro- 
vej  sy  with  Bowen,  nothing  to  tempt  him  into  a  warfare 
with  Mr.  Beecher,  nothing  to  tempt  him  to  get  up  an  ac- 
cusation which  would  enable  him  in  such  a  warfare  to 
bring  Beecher  over  to  his  side  and  to  use  him  as  against 
Bowen.  ^ 

THE   FATEFUL  ACT  OF   SENDING  THE 
LETTER. 

But  Henry  C.  Bowen  is  made,  in  the  hands 

of  Fiovidence,  the  unwilling  means  it  may  be,  but  still 
the  etiTCtual  means,  of  strildni>-  out  the  corner-stone  from 
Ijeueath  this  conspiracy.  And  you  are  enabled  to  see, 
first,  that  the  man  who  so  swore  is  a  perjured  liar ;  and, 
se:-cnd  (which  is  moie  important),  that  on  that  secular 
Christmas  Day  of  1870,  Theodore  Tilton  had  received 
right  in  the  forehead  a  blow  which  put  him  to  his  best 
eucleavors  to  save  not  only  his  fortune  but  his  reputation 
and  his  all.  He  had  been  warned  by  one  that  day  (who, 
if  w  e  can  trust  his  own  description,  was  "  as  cunnin;u%  as 
releatless,  as  remorseless  as  an  Indian")  that  he  was  to 
fall  as  he  did  before  the  year  went  out. 

Now.,  we  can  understand,  gentlemen,  why  it  was  that 
Frank  Moulton  and  Theodore  Tilton  were  as  close  to- 
gether as  two  interlocked  snakes  through  that  week. 
Now  we  can  understand  why  it  was  that  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  was  the  subject  of  these  unexpected  and  perhaps 
unwelcome  attentions  fi'om  Bowen  on  the  one  hand  and 
Mescis.  Tilton  and  Moulton  on  the  other.  An  event,  in 
which  he  had  no  concern,  had  made  him  a  person  of  great 
I  Itt  :-*:"wr>  in  the  estimation  of  both  these  parties. 


Bowen  says'  lie  went  to  Beecher,  and  he  admits  that  he 
told  Mr.  Beecher  he  was  his  friend.  Mr.  Beecher  be- 
lieved it,  as  he  believed  it  when  Frank  Moulton  told  him 
that  he  was  his  friend.  Now,  bear  in  mind,  gentlemen, 
that  this  was  a  warfare  in  which  Theodore  Tilton,  who 
shows  scruple  nowhere  else,  would  be  little 
likely  to  be  scrupulous.  He  was  not  scrupulous ; 
and  you  have  noticed  one  thing  in  the  reading  of 
this  correspondence,  as  well  as  in  the  side  revelations  of 
this  cause,  that  whenever  Theodore  Tilton  was  in 
trouble  there  was  a  little  woman  under  his  roof  who  was 
in  deeper  trouble.  Was  he  reproached  abroad  for  in- 
fidelity to  the  marriage  vow  %  He  came  home  sad  and 
sorrowful,  and  she  saw  in  his  face  the  visage  of  the 
Redeemer  bearing  the  burden  of  her  sins,  not  his.  Does 
Hem-y  C.  Bowen  turn  upon  him  and  say,  "  The  time  has 
come  when  you  must  fall,  but  for  this  week  the  ax 
shall  be  suspended  V  The  poor  little  woman  in  Liv- 
ingston-st.  is  the  one  who  is  held  responsible,  even 
for  tliat.  Is  there  a  controversy  between  him  and  Mrs. 
Beecher  at  an  earlier  period,  when  she  believes  him  to  be 
treacherous  to  her  husband,  as  treacherous  to  all  else, 
the  poor  little  woman  in  Livingston-st.  takes  the  blame, 
and  is  permitted  no  longer  to  enter  the  house  whose 
threshold  he  cannot  cross.  We  find,  too,  that  week,  that 
Moulton,  the  restless  intriguant,  the  born  diplomatist, 
who  believes  that  the  highest  diplomacy  is  the  highest 
culture  of  the  art  of  lying  and  deceit,  he  is  busy.  Plenty 
of  occupation  now.  And  these  men  gather  together  and 
form  a  plan  of  that  campaign,  which  is  to  result  either  in 
the  destruction  of  Henry  C.  Bowen  or  in  the  downfall  of 
Theodore  Tilton.  That  was  the  controversy  then.  As  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  he  was  regarded  merely  as  an  important 
neutral,  who  should  be  turned  into  an  armed  auxiliary, 
and  w^ho  would  be  the  auxiliarj^  of  the  one  if  he  was  not 
allied  with  the  other.  But  the  fight  was  betweeu  Tilton 
and  Bowen. 

Field  Marshal  Moulton  is  in  chfj^rge  of  the  campaign. 
"Theodore,  you  need  allies."  "What  ally?"  "You  sent 
a  note  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher ;  Henry  C.  Bowen  was 
cunning.  You  signed  it.  He  didn't.  Suppose  he  delivers 
his  note  and  makes  peace  with  the  man  to  whom  he  de- 
livers it,  and  leaves  you  to  prove  your  case.  What 
then  ?"  "  I  have  no  case.  If  Bowen  abandons  me  I  have 
given  to  Mr.  Beecher  the  power  to  ruin  me.  That 
peremptory  demand,  published  in  The  Brooklyn  Eaple 
or  read  at  a  Friday  night  lecture-room,  that  insolent  de- 
mand to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  would  blast  me  forever." 
"  Something  must  be  done,  Theodore ;  something  shall  be 
done."  "  Well,  what  can  it  be  ?  If  Bowen  fails  me,  if  he 
doesn't  furnish  the  proof  that  there  was  some  good 
cause  for  my  charges,  I  am  destroyed."  "Have 
you  no  charge  of  your  own,  Theodore."  [A 
pause.]  "There  was  an  old  letter  my  wife  wrote 
me  some  years  ago,  tellina:  me  that  one  night 
when  Mr.  Eeecherwas  at  my  house,  as  he  was  going  away 


596  THE  TILTON-Bl 

lie  said,  'What  a  pretty  house  this  is  1  I  ^slillived 
here.'  I  told  her  when  I  came  home  that  man  meant 
something  by  that.  She  denied  it.  But  I  have  never 
been  satisfied  about  it,  and  I  believe,  to  this  day,  that  he 
meant  an  improper  approach,  an  overture  to  her  of  inde- 
cent communion  with  him."  "  That  is  it.  Where  is  Eliza- 
beth?" "Sick."  "None  the  worse."  Now,  I  do nol; go 
into  details ;  I  don't  know  what  they  were ;  you  don't. 
But  we  both  know  results.  We  know  that  here  was  a 
necessity  of  silencing  Mr.  Beecher ;  here  was  a  necessity 
ascertained,  even  Tilton  admits,  the  next  day,  for  he  says 
then  Bowen  threatened  to  cashier  him.  There  was  a  ne- 
cessity that  something  should  be  done  that  should  turn 
Mr,  Beecher  against  Bowen,  something  that  should  bring 
Mr.  Beecher  to  the  right  hand  of  Tilton,  and  enable  him  to 
cooperate  with  Moulton  in  reinstating  Tilton  in  The  In- 
dependent, or  providing  for  him  otherwise.  What 
happened  ? 

Now,  I  do  not  want,  at  this  moment,  to  go  on  with  the 
testimony  in  this  immediate  connection.  I  would  rather 
call  your  attention  to  a  little  document  some  distance  re- 
moved from  this,  which  Theodore  Tilton  got  up  with  the 
aid  of  his  friend  Carpenter,  in  the  name  of  Elizabeth  R. 
Tilton,  and  in  her  handwriting,  on  the  16th  of  December, 
1872,  to  be  shown  to  the  Rev.  Doctor  Storrs 
with  a  view  to  the  action  of  a  Congregational  Council. 
Let  us  get  Tilton's  own  version  of  what  was  the  probable 
subject  of  these  interviews  that  week  at  Mrs.  Til- 
ton's  house.  The  document  begins  in  this 
wise,  or  rather  contains  this  sentence.  After  allusion 
to  the  alleged  communication  to  her  husband  of  the  fact 
in  July,  1870,  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  solicited  her  to  be  a 
wife  to  him,  together  with  all  that  this  implies,  comes 
this  striktag  fact— here  you  have  Theodore  Tilton's  ver- 
sion of  the  matter  six  montns  afterward ;  that,  you  ob- 
serve, is  in  December,  1870—"  My  husband  felt  impelled 
\)j  the  cii-cum stances  of  a  conspiracy  against  him,  in 
which  Mrs.  Beecher  had  taken  part,  to  have  an  interview 
with  Mr.  Beecher."  Ho  wis  this?  There  was  then  in 
this  last  week  of  1870,  between  Christmas  and  New- 
Year's  Day,  a  conspiracy  against  Theodore  Tilton  in 
which  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beecher  were  actors,  in  which  Mr. 
Tilton  was  to  be  a  sufferer.  What  was  that  conspiracy 
that  this  woman  was  made  to  believe  in,  and 
to  cei-tify  to?  Why,  it  was  to  have  him 
turned  out  of  The  Independent  and  The  Brooklyn  Union. 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beecher  had  been  the  advisers  of  Bowen. 
Bowen  himself  admits  that  he  was  referred  by  Mr. 
Beecher  to  his  wife,  and  that  he  saw  her,  and  there 
learned  the  contents  of  the  letters  written  by  Mrs.  Tilton 
to  Mrs.  Beecher,  or  Mr.  Beecher,  from  the  West.  That 
was  the  conspiracy.  Then  you  perceive  that  the  instru- 
mentality that  they  employed  was  the  threat  of  Bowen, 
the  advice  of  Mr.  Boecher,  the  information  from  Mrs. 
Beecher,  to  convince  this  little  woman  that  there  was  a 
purpose  on  the  part  of  Bowen  and  Beecher  and  Mrs. 


ECREB  TRIAL. 

Beecher  to  destroy  him  and  her,  and  that,  for  the  pur« 
pose  of  his  and  her  defense,  it  was  needful  to  have  some 
charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  which  should  paralyze  his 
arm  and  convert  him  from  an  enemy  into  a  friend.  And 
that  is  the  full,  the  clear,  the  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
letter  which  he  extorted  from  her  on  the  night  of  the 
29th  of  December,  and  which  was  made  t]:e  occasion 
of  the  interview  of  the  following  day.  Without  going 
further  into  detail,  gentlemen,  I  am  content  to  submit  to 
your  iudgment  whether  it  is  not  perfectly  apparent  that 
Theodore  Tilton,  on  the  Monday  of  that  week,  felt  that 
his  destruction  was  imminent,  that  it  was  to  come  at  the 
hands  of  Bowen,  that  Bowen  had  entrapped  him  into 
making  a  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher,  under  the  false 
promise  that  he  would  sustain  him  in  the  charge  and 
furnish  the  proof,  and  had  then  taken  that  charge  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  made  it  the  occasion  of  putting  him,  Tilton, 
in  the  power  of  Mr.  Beecher,  so  that  he  could  destroy 
him,  even  if  Bowen  did  not.  He  felt  that  that  letter 
written  to  Mr.  Beecher  was  a  letter  of  destruction  to 
him,  unless  he  had  some  means  of  reclaiming  it  from  Mr. 
Bowen's  hands  and  putting  Mr.  Beecher  himself  in  terror 
for  his  own  reputation.  Now,  let  us  look  at  the  acts  of 
the  parties.  If  Mr.  Beecher  were  guilty  when  he  received 
that  letter  of  the  26th,  you  know  what  he  would  have 
done.  He  might  not  have  left  Plymouth  Church ;  Le 
might  not  have  left  the  City  of  Brooklyn.  But,  if  he  did 
not,  the  first  thing  he  would  have  done  would  be  either  to 
write  or  appeal  orally  to  Theodore  Tilton. 

THE  WALK  TO  MR.  MOULTON'S. 
My  friend  Judge  Morris  says  that  Heniy 
Ward  Beecher  is  a  coward  when  he  is  in  the  wrong.  All 
men  are.  Why  was  this  man  calm,  fearless— fearless 
though  threatened  by  a  relentless  enemy ;  fearless  though 
the  message  was  borne  by  an  enemy  almost  equally  re- 
lentless? Why  was  he  fearless?  He  goes  on  with  his 
duties  of  the  week.  He  seeks  neither  Mr.  nor  Mrs.  Theo- 
dore Tilton.  The  Friday  night  comes,  and  he  meets  the 
congregation  that  as'sembled  there  to  join  him  in  wor- 
ship. Every  duty  of  the  week  is  discharged  as  usual. 
No,  not  discharged,  for  on  his  way  to  that  place  of  wor- 
ship, or  just  as  he  was  leaving  for  it— enter  Frank  Monl- 
ton !  He,  too,  had  found  his  way  to  Columbia  Higbts, 
and  for  the  first  time  in  his  life,  in  the  storm  of  that  Win- 
ter night,  Frank  Moulton  crosses  the  threshold  of  the 
pastor  of  Plymouth  Church  to  say  to  him:  "You 
cannot  go  to  your  accustomed  meeting;  you  must 
come  with  me,  for  Mr.  Tilton  desires  to  see  you." 
"What  is  it  about?"  "He  wiU  teU  you." 
They  walk  down  together,  and  then  occurs  that  dialogue.. 
"Bowen  is  a  very  treacherous  man,  very  treacherous  to 
you,  Mr.  Beecher,  very  treacherous  to  Theodore.  Bowen 
can  not  be  trusted."  "What  does  Theodore  want  of 
me?"  "He  will  tell  you  when  you  get  there."  "How 
it  snows  to-night."  "  Bowen  is  a  very  treacherous  man  " 


SUMMWG    UP  I 

"Cutting  wind  this,"  says  Mr.  Beeclier.  "Did  it  ever 
oeciir  to  you,  Mr.  Beeclier,  wliat  a  treaetierotis  man 
^Henry  C.  Bowen  is  1"  "  Almost  there.  It  snows  very 
hard  to-night."  "  Mr.  Beecher,  what  a  treacherous  man 
Henry  C.  Bowen  is."  Now,  gentlemen,  isn't  it  just  as 
^a]pable  as  if  it  had  been  put  in  that  hold  and  naked 
iorm  that  on  that  night  Frank  Moulton  took  Henry  Ward 
jBeecher  down  to  Theodore  Tilton,  and  carried  him  after- 
;ward  up  into  that  room  with  a  view,  not  to  Beeclier's  de- 
stmction,  hut  with  a-  view  to  the  destruction  of 
Henry  C.  Bowen,  or  to  the  reinstatement  of 
Theodore  Tilton  in  the  throne  from  which  he  was  to 
he  cast  down  ?  That  was  the  case.  You  do  not  expect  in 
midnight  arrangements  like  those  that  we  can  show  you 
just  what  were  the  particular  means  these  men  used, 
and  the  particular  purposes  they  had  in  view  in  this, 
that,  or  the  other  arrangement.  But  we  know  that  they 
made  all  work  together  like  the  machinery  of  a  watch  till 
it  should  produce  the  one  result,  and  they  brought  that 
machinery  to  hear  so  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  from  that 
time  for  the  next  three  years  was  as  completely  under 
their  control  as  the  hour  hand  of  the  watch  is  under  the 
coutrol  of  the  mauufactiu-er  who  put  together  the  ma- 
chinery that  made  it.  They  were  practicing  upon  a  true 
hut  simple-hearted  man.  They  were  practicing  upon  one 
accustomed  to  tonfide  in  his  fellow  men.  They  were 
practicing  upon  one  sensitive  to  every  thought  of  dishonor, 
one  full  of  generosity,  o*ie  who,  in  another  line  of  life, 
like  Mrs.  Tilton,  was  always  ready  to  take  reproach  upon 
himself,  always  ready  to  give  health,  and  strength,  and 
vigor,  and  hope,  and  prosperity  to  another. 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  hack  to  that  night  of  the  29th 
when  this  woman  is  made  to  give  a  letter  to  Theodore 
Tilton,  which  shall  enable  him  to  procure  an  interview 
-with  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Now,  the  fljst  thing  that  wHl 
-arrest  your  attention  is  this.  How  does  it  happen  that  a 
husband  who  has  been  dishonored,  finds  it  nece3sary  to 
resort  to  this  strategem  in  order  to  get  an  intervliew  with 
the  man  who  has  dishonored  him  1  Why  had  he  any- 
thing to  do  except  simply  to  write  to  Mr.  Beecher  if  Mr. 
Beecher  were  gviilty :  "Sir,  your  criminal  relation 
with  my  wife  has  come  to  my  knowledge.  Action 
must  be  taken,  and  at  once.  I  will  see 
you  here  at  8  o'clock  this  evening.  If  you  need  any 
asr.u-ance  of  youi-  personal  safety,  I  give  it  to  you  ;  but 
it  is  necessary  for  your  sake  and  for  mine  that  we  should 
have  a  few  words  together."  Would  not  that  have 
brought  him  1  Yes,  if  he  were  guilty,  but  not  if  he  were 
innocent.  Suppose  he  had  written,  "  Henry  C.  Bowen 
charges  you  with  preaching  to  forty  mistresses  in 
Plymouth  Church.  He  told  it  to  me  confidentially  fifteen 
years  ago,  and  has  repeated  it  a  hundi^ed  times  since,  in 
as  many  confidential  conversations.  He  told  me  so 
while  you  were  his  chief  editor  and  his  dependence.  He 
"Was  charging  you  with  adultery  when,  if  the 
rhargc    waa    believed,  it    destroyed  him    and  his 


Y  ME.   POETEE.  o'97 

paper.  He  charged  you  with  adultery  at  the  time  when 
you  were  a  favored  inmate  of  his  own  family.  He  charged 
you  with  adultery  when  you  pronounced  the  funeral 
sermon  over  the  remains  of  hii?  dead  wife.  He  pronounced 
you  an  adulterer  when  you  were  baptizing  child  after 
child  ia  the  name  of  the  Father  and  the  8on  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Come  and  see  me."  Do  you  think  Mr.  Beecher 
would  have  come  ?  There  was  but  one  person  on  earth 
who  could  write  that  which  would  bring  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  to  an  interview  with  the  man  who  had  sent 
him  that  daring  and  insolent  message  on  the  26th 
of  December,  calling  upon  him  to  quit  his  church, 
his  chosen  city,  and  his  country.  Who  was  that  1 
Ah !  that  poor  unfortunate  woman.  And  how 
easy  it  was  to  convince  her  that  there  had  been  a  con- 
spiracy. "Yesterday,  my  wife,  I  had  $15,000  a  year, 
which  was  sufficient  to  provide  for  us,  and  at  least  for  our 
legitimate  child ;  to-day  I  am  told  that  that  is  gone,  and 
whom  do  you  think  it  is  gone  through  1  Henry  Ward 
Beecher !  The  same  man  who  but  ten  days  ago,  with  the 
aid  of  his  wife,  advised  you  to  separate  from  me  and  re- 
main with  your  mother ;  that  is  the  man  who  has  now 
turned  upon  me;  that  is  the  man  who  has  deprived  me  of 
my  liveUhood  and  my  hopes.  I  fear  I  am  in  his 
power  unless  I  can  have  an  interview  with  him. 
Unless  I  can  have  an  inter%i.ew  with  him— zt-'i^A 
him,  all  is  gone.  How  shall  I  get  it  ?"  Why,  she 
knew  Mr.  Beecher  a  great  deal  better  than  he  did.  "  Just 
simply  send  word  to  him  that  you  want  to  see  him,  and 
he  will  come.  You  don't  need  any  letter  from  me." 
"  Oh,  no ;  but  I  must  have  something  to  threaten  him 
with."  "  No  threat  would  bring  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 
Just  send  word  you  want  to  see  him,  and  he  will  come." 
And  you  remember,  gentlemen,  that  it  turned  out  so. 
He  did  come.  Though  we  got  this  letter  for 
him,  and  supposed  that  this  man  would  not 
come  to  see  the  person  who  had  offered  him  that 
indignity,  Moulton,  who  had  it  in  his  pocket,  never 
had  occasion  to  use  it.  A  message  with  a  threat  that 
night  would  have  prevented  him  from  coming.  I  don't 
know  that  it  would  if  it  had  come  in  the  form  of  so  cruel 
a  threat  as  an  unjust  accusation  by  this  poor  woman. 
They  thought  they  needed  it.  It  is  so  certified  in  the 
paper  TUton  took  to  Dr.  Storrs,  in- the  handwriting  of  hia 
wife,  and  which  he  pretends  was  manipulated  by  Car- 
penter instead  of  himself.  Well,  they  got  it.  How  ? 
Bessie  Turner  teUs  you.  lilrs.  Mitchell,  the  nurse,  tells 
you.  They  tell  you  of  the  consultations  that  occurred  be- 
fore it  was  obtained;  they  tell  you  of  the  close-drawn 
curtains  around  that  bed ;  of  the  doctor's  precautions 
with  a  view  to  her  singular  weakness  and  debility ;  of 
the  nurse's  own  fears  on  the  29th  that  she  might  not  sur- 
vive even  until  the  following  day.  Moulton  is  there  ; 
Tilton  is  there  ;  the  nurse  is  turned  out ;  Moulton  goes 
away  so  that  he  shan't  be  a  witness  of  what  transpirea  ; 
Tilton  goes  in  and  the  letter  is  obtained,  and  a  consulta- 


598  TRE  T1JjT0N-Bj 

tion  occurs  the  next  morning  between  him  and  Moulton. 
At  night — night — night,  just  about  the  hour  when  the 
prayer-meeting  is  convened,  Moulton  goes  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  he  is  taken  down  for  the  purpose  ot  this  Interview. 
I  do  not  propose  to  deal  with  that  interview,  gentlemen. 
That  falls  within  the  province  of  my  learned  friend,  the 
senior  counsel. 

PRESUMPTION  IN  FAVOR  OF  INNOCENCE. 

But  I  do  propose  to  make  one  or  two  sug- 
gestions bearing  upon  another  point,  that  grows  out  of 
what  I  have  already  said.  Gentlemen,  if  there  were  a 
shadow  of  truth  in  this  story,  do  you  believe  that  Henry 
Ward  Beeeher,  when  he  was  consulted  as  to  a  separation 
between  Theodore  TUton  and  his  wife,  would  have  sent 
that  wife  to  his  wife  to  tell  her  story  1  Now,  that  is  a 
question  that  is  addressed  to  your  intelligence  and  sagac- 
ity. Is  it  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  course  of  hu- 
man affairs?  Are  you  ready  to  believe  it?  Innocent, 
nothing  more  natural.  Guilty,  it  is  utterly,  absolutely  in- 
credible. Another  question.  If  it  were  true,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  that  on  the  3d  of  July  Mrs.  Tilton  came  down 
from  the  country  as  a  volunteer  to  confess  to  an  unsus- 
pecting husband  that  she  had  been  guilty  of  adultery, 
and  with  her  pastor,  do  you  believe  that  Theodore 
Tilton  and  she  would  have  slept  together  that 
night,  the  next  night,  the  next  night,  the  next 
week,  the  next  month,  the  next  six  months,  the 
next  twelve  months,  the  next  four  years. 
Again;  if,  on  the  night  of  the  3d  of  July  she  had 
come  and  told  such  a  story  of  her  pastor,  do  you  believe, 
when  he  afterward  was  in  her  house  in  the  month  of 
August,  when  she  was  sick,  and  by  her  request  they  had 
a  private  interview  together  in  her  hed-chamher,  if  he  and 
she  were  guilty,  and  she  had  confessed  her  guilt  and  been 
his  accuser,  to  a  man  of  the  vindictive  malice,  of  the  ter- 
rible power  of  hate  of  Theodore  Tilton,  that  she  would 
not  have  given  him  one  solitary  word  of  warning  ?  Do 
you  believe  that  for  six  mouths  after  that  she  would  have 
permitted  her  husband  and  him  to  meet  in  the  streets  of 
the  City  of  New  York— nay,  at  his  own  house,  which  Mr. 
Beecher  might  at  any  moment  have  incautiously  entered, 
and  without  knowledge  that  this  man  held  in  his 
hand  the  power  of  life  and  death  over  him? 
One  more  question,  out  of  order  of  time, 
and  yet  within  the  range  of  topics!  If  it 
were  true  that  she  was  a  confessed  adulteress,  and  that  he 
would  live  with  her  for  four  years,  writing  and  receiving 
letters  like  those  which  have  been  read  in  your  hearing— 
if  this  were  true,  and  the  time  came  when  they  were 
finally  to  separate,  to  whom  would  you  look  for  the  sepa- 
ration ?  Would  you  expect  the  injured  husband  to  drive 
forth  the  wife,  or  would  you  expect  the  criminal  wife 
to  leave  the  innocent  husband  ?— leave  him,  not  to  join 
the  paramour ;  leave  him  to  live  alone  ;  leave  him  to 
depend  upon  the  charity  of  those  who  owe  her  nothing  ; 


ECHJEJE  TEIAL, 

leave  the  man  to  whom  she  should  look  for  support,  and 
trust  herself  to  strangers  ?  Here  it  is  toe  guilty  wife 
that  turns  her  back  upon  the  ionocent  husband  and  will 
not  return ;  the  guilty  that  won't  forgive  the  innocent ! 
Again;  there  is  another  of  these  questions  which 
arises  out  of  the  incidents  of  this  case,  and  has  a  pe- 
culiar significance.  We  have  all  known  something,  seen 
something,  heard  something,  and  read  something  of  the 
history  of  our  feUow-men  in  ancient  and  In  later  days. 
Where,  until  Theodore  Tilton  set  the  example,  is  the  ui- 
stance  to  De  found  in  the  whole  world's  history  of  a  hus- 
band who  had  forgiven  his  adulterous  wife,  who  had  had 
children  by  her,  who  professed  to  love  her,  taking  from 
her  a  certificate  in  writing  that  she  was  a  prostitute? 
Mark  you,  gentlemen,  this  man  never  did ;  but  he  swears 
that  he  did ;  and  it  is  because  I  wish  to  expose  the  false- 
hood of  his  oath  that  I  ask  you  the  question.  He  did 
take  from  her  a  false  certificate  not  reflecting  upon  her- 
self, but  accustag  another.  He  took  from  her  a  false  cer- 
tificate that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  made  to  lier  ind-cent 
proposals.  But  he  tells  you  that,  though  he  had  forgiven 
her,  thou.gh  he  had  pledged  himself  never  to  injure  the 
man  who  had  wronged  him,  though  the  world  did 
not  know  of  his  guilt  or  of  hers,  though  even 
the  adulterer  did  not  toow  of  his  exposure,  yet  he,  wiio 
needed  no  further  assurance  of  his  own  dishonor,  cnlled 
upon  his  wife  to  wilte  a  certificate  for  Frank  Moulton, 
that  she  had  been  prostituted  and  debauched !  It  is  ut- 
terly incredible.  The  man  has  done  mean  things,  and 
base  things,  but  that  was  so  mean  and  so  base  that  he 
would  have  revolted  from  the  attempt.  But  he  did  get  a 
certificate  of  another  kind— that  was  a  letter.  It  was  a 
letter  addressed  to  him  ;  it  was  a  letter,  not  of  confes- 
sion, but  of  accusation.  It  was  a  letter  accusing  Mr. 
Beecher  of  having  made  indecent  proposals  to  her.  Now, 
have  we  proof  of  that?  In  the  first  place,  gentlemen,  xre 
have  the  most  explicit  and  conclusive  evidence  of  it  in 
the  fact  that  that  document,  important  as  it  was, 
was  the  subject,  the  night  after  it  was  writ- 
ten, of  a  most  memorable  conversation  between 
Theodore  Tilton  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  of  which  both 
have  given  full  and  minute  description  at  different  times, 
on  different  occasions,  to  different  parties,  and  la  entire 
harmony— both  agreeing  that  that  document  was  nor  a 
confession  of  adultery,  both  agreeing  that  it  was  a  charge 
of  improper  solicitations.  Mr.  Beecher  gave  it  to  you  on 
this  stand,  in  all  minute  particulars.  Theodore  TUton,  in 
December,  1872,  according  to  his  own  confession,  and 
with  the  aid  of  his  own  notes  made  at  the  time,  and  the 
phonographic  notes  of  the  conversations  cotemporaneous 
with  it,  gave  a  written  statement,  which  was  not  con- 
firmed by  Mr.  Beecher,  was  not  accepted  by  Mr.  Beecher, 
which  when  read  to  Mi\  Beecher  aroused  his  indignation 
because  of  its  perpetuating  that  indecent  charge  of  inr 
decent  proposals. 
Now,  gentlemen,  the  same  man  who  then  wrote  a  state-^ 


nient  of  vrliat  was  in  the  paper  tLat  slie  j-igiied  on  tlie 
night  of  the  29th,  swears  now  that  that  statement  was  a  ' 
cciifession  of  adultery.   That  night,  he  said  in  that  state-  i 
ment— he  said  the  language  of  the  paper  was :  "  Mr.  j 
H.  W.  Beecher,  my  friend  and  pastor,  solicited  me  to  he  a  j 
■wile  to  him,  together  with  all  that  this  implies and  he  j 
says  that  statement,  when  made  to  him  on  the  night  of  j 
the  30th,  ]Mr.  Beecher  repelled  with  a  royal  negative,  j 
But,  gentlemen,  we  have  hetter  evidence  than  that  of 
what  was  in  that  paper.   Whatever  the  paper  was,  the 
original  was  in  Frank  Moulton's  pocket.   The  copy  was 
in  the  hands  of  Theodore  Tilton,  and  he  pretends  he 
destroyed  the  cop3'  that  night.  Ah,  but  lie  did  not  destroy 
the  inefiaceahle  memory  in  the  mind  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  of  the  contents  of  that  paper.   He  said,  "  Mr. 
Beecher,  if  you  distrust  it,  n.y  house  is  but  a  few  squares 
off;  go  down,  ask  Elizabeth,  and  she  will  confirm  it." 


MES.   TILTON'S  EETEACTIOX. 

He  went.  He  asked.  Slie  coufirmed  the  fact 
that  she  had  made  the  statement.  She  admitted  its 
falsity.  She  recognized  his  appeal  to  her,  and  recalled 
the  falsehood ;  she  traced  with  her  own  hand  in  writing 
the  revocation  of  what  she  had  written,  and  in  that  revo- 
cation, made  by  her,  the  ivrifer  of  the  paper,  made  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  the  person  charged  in  it,  she  recites  the  charge, 
and  recites  it  as  a  charge  of  improper  solicitation : 

Wearied  with  importunity,  and  weakened  by  sickness, 
I  gave  a  letter  inculpatins:  my  friend,  Hemy  Ward 
Beecher,  under  assurances  that  that  would  remove  all 
difficulties  between  me  and  my  husband. 

Pointing,  as  you  perceive,  gentlemen,  to  the  same  con- 
spiracy alluded  to  in  the  subsequent  letter  to  Storrs. 

That  letter  I  now  revoke.  I  was  persuaded  to  it,  almost 
forced,  when  I  was  in  a  weakened  state  of  mind.  I  re- 
gret it,  and  recall  all  its  statements.        E.  E.  Tilton. 

Then,  feeling  that  she  had  not  made  it  sufficiently,  and 
iiankly,  and  explicitly,  but  only  in  generalities  : 

I  desire  to  say  explicitly,  Mr.  Beecher  has  never  offered 
any  improper  solicitations,  but  has  alwa\-s  treated  me  in 
a  way  becoming  a  Christian  and  a  gentleman. 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  paper,  whatever  it  was,  was  con- 
fessedly in  existence  all  through  1871.  Whatever  it  was, 
it  was  confessedly  in  existence  duilng  a  large  part  of 
1872.  It  was  the  only  paper  on  the  face  of  the  earth  that 
charged  Henry  Ward  Beecher  with  adultery.  If  The 
charge  was  anywhere,  it  was  there.  There  was  the  man 
who  sought  to  fix  upon  him  adultery.  There  was  the  man 
who  was,  throagh  1871,  insinuating  to  his  coulideiitial 
friends,  and  to  those  whom  he  supposed  to  be  the  ene- 
mies of  Mr.  Beecher,  that  he  had  committed  adultery. 
Tliere  was  the  man  who  hirted  and  would  like  to  desti-oy 
him.  There  was  the  man  who  threatened  the  exposure 
of  the  "  Apology,"  who  threatened  him  with  the  exposure 
of  his  own  letter— not  to  his  face,  but  to  others. 
And  yet  to  no  man  on  the  face  of  the  earth  did  he  ever 
show  a  paper  signed  E.  R.  Tiiton,  charging  Henry  Ward 


I   Jii?.   FOEIEB.  599 

Beecher  with  adiutery.  liloulton,  \rho  has  not  hc-itated' 
to  say  that  he  would  take  Henry  Ward  Eeecher's  life,  if 
he  could  do  it  with  the  concurrenceEof  a  single  person — 
Mouiton,  who  has  sworn  in  the  spirit  of  a  fiend — Moulton 
does  not  pretend  that  he  ever  saw  in  any  paper,  any- 
where, a  statement  by  Elizabeth  E.  Tilton,  that  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  had  committed  adultery  with  her.  Tilton 
tells  you  that  that  paper  was  in  Moulton's  keeping.  If  it 
was  in  his  keeping,  do  you  believe  he  did  not  read  it  ]  Do 
you  Delieve  that  if  he  did  read  it,  he  forgot  it  ? 
The  paper,  he  says,  is  destroyed.  When  destroyed  t 
After  the  $7,000  was  obtained  from  Bowen— not- 
before.  Was  that  important  paper  destroyed  with- 
out even  keeping  a  copy  of  it  ?  And  if  a  copy  was 
ever  taken,  where  is  that  copy?  Even  Tilton  does  not 
undertake  to  swear  to  you  what  that  paper  contained, 
except  by  implication  and  characterization.  He  calls  it 
a  confession.  Moulton  calls  it  a  confession,  or  rather 
they  make  Islx.  Beecher  call  it  a  confession.  A  confession 
of  what  i  Where  is  the  paper  ?  Where  are  your  short- 
hand notes  of  iti  The  man  who,  when  3Ioulton  came  in 
fi'om  a  visit  to  Henr:\-  Ward  Beecher,  proceeds  at  once  to 
enter  the  conversation  in  shorthand  for  future  use — did 
that  man  neglect  to  take  a  copy  of  the  most  important 
paper  that  ever  was  written  in  connection  with  this  con- 
troversy] And  Frank  Moulton,  you  remember,  stated 
that  :Mr.  Beecher  was  fool  enough  to  think  after  the 
" Tripartite  Agreement"  and  the  contemplated  btuning 
of  the  papers,  that  that  "  Apology"  was  burned^ 
"I  was  no  such  fool."  he  says,  "as  to 
biu-n  that  paper.  If  I  btirned  it,  Beecher 
might  turn  upon  Tilton  and  rend  him." 
But  the  same  man,  who  was  not  such  a  I'ool  as  to  btu'n  the 
Apology,  tells  you  that  he  wa-  such  a  fool  as  to  burn  the- 
confession — the  confession  made  by  one  of  the  actors  in 
it.  Gentlemen,  there  never  was  such  a  confession — 
never.  That  paper  was  an  accusation.  It  was  for  a  pur- 
pose ;  it  was  thought  by  them  that  they  could  get  Mr. 
Beecher  to  an  interview  witliottt  the  use  of  that  paper. 
He  came  readily,  cheerfully.  He  met  Theodore  Tiiton.. 
Tilton  amazed  him  with  his  accusation.  He  denied  it^ 
Tilton  referred  him  to  the  wife.  He  went  down.  He- 
found  her  condition.  He  made  his  appeal  to  her.  She 
said,  "  I  accused  you.  The  accusation  is  false.  I  recaE 
it."  He  left  her.  The  next  day  he  was  told  that  the- 
woman  who  had  made  the  false  acctisation,  and  who  had 
retracted  it,  had  recanted  it,  and  that  was  his  condition, 
on  that  memorable  1st  of  January.  1S71.  Well,  on  thatr 
day— I  will  pass  over  aU  intermediate — on  that  day  what 
is  the  condition  ? 

THE  PEOCUEIXG  OF  THE  APOLOGY. 

Xot  stopping  to  refer  in  detail  to  the  conver- 
sations of  the  30th  or  of  the  31st,  we  come  at  once  to  the 
occasions  when  Moulton  tells  us  the  Apology  was  writ- 
ten ;  and  tinder  what  circttmstances  was  that  written  I  I 


600  THE  T1LT02^-B 

-will  only  allude  to  that  now  in  brief,  and  tor  the  purpose 
of  introduction  to  another  conversation.  Tilton  had  as- 
sured Beecher  in  that  interview  on  the  night  of  the  30th 
of  Decemher  that  Mrs.  Tilton's  affections  had  heen  alien- 
ated from  himself,-  and  had  heen  centered  in  him,  her 
pastor,  as  the  central  and  supreme  t)eing.  This  to 
JBeecher  was  a  great  surprise.  He  was  charged  with  hav- 
ing interfered  in  Tilton's  family  affairs,  and  advised  this 
very  wife,  whose  affections  were  so  alienated,  to  leave 
her  husl)and  forever.  That  was  true.  He  was 
told  that  he  and  his  wife  had  made  charges 
aerainst  the  moral  character  of  Mr.  Tilton  that  were 
hase  and  wanton  fabrications.  He  didn't  know 
but  that  was  true.  He  was  told  more.  "My  wife 
charges  you  with  soliciting  her  to  personal  dishonor." 
That  he  knew  was  true ;  but  then  came  the  challenge, 
and  then,  to  his  utter  astonishment,  came  the  conference 
of  the  30th.  On  the  Slst,  after  that  retraction  has  been 
obtained,  Moulton  comes  to  him  and  demands  that  the 
retraction  be  returned.  "  Why  should  I  return  it  ?"  "  It 
was  a  mean  thing."  "  Why  mean  to  vindicate  my  honor 
from  a  false  accusation."  That  paper  does  more.  That 
paper  intimates  that  Theodore  Tilton  coerced  his  wife 
into  making  an  accusation,  and  on  looking  at  the  paper  it 
turns  out  to  be  true.  She  then  stated  it.  "  Wearied 
with  importunity,"  and  almost  forced,  she  had  been  led 
to  makethe  retraction.  "  But  that  is  not  all,  Mr.  Beecher. 
What  good  does  that  do  1"  "  Why,  it,  at  least,  is  to  vin- 
dicate me  and  my  memory.  If  I  die,  from  the  assaults  that 
may  be  made  upon  it— due  to  myself  and  to  my  own 
honor— due  to  the  honor  of  my  family  that  it  should  be 
preserved."  "  But,  Mr.  Beecher,  of  what  value  is  that 
paper  to  you?  The  same  woman  can  renew  it  again  to- 
morrow. Besides,  you  don't  know  Theodore  Tilton.  He 
has  a  great  many  good  pointS;  and  a  great  many  weak 
ones ;  his  temper  is  ungovernable,  but  you  appeal  to  his 
magnanimity,  to  his  generosity  and  good  feeling, 
and  he  is  one  of  the  best  fellows  in  the  world. 
I  know  him  from  boyhood.  All  you  have  to  do  is  to  meet 
him  in  a  spirit  of  frankness,  and  do  what  he  wants,  and 
you  will  find  that  he  will  not  only  not  pursue  this  con- 
troversy with  you,  but  he  will  be  the  best  friend  you  have 
on  earth.  He  hates  Bowen,  but  he  really  loves  you. 
What  you  have  to  do  is  to  make  peace  in  this  matter." 

Next  day  he  comes  to  him,  and  that  is  the  occasion  of 
the  apology,  and  talks  the  matter  over.  There  are  only 
one  or  two  features  about  that  that  I  want  to  call  your 
attention  to  :  that  on  that  occasion  Moulton  devotes  him- 
self to  establish  to  the  satisfaction  of  Beecher,  first,  the 
entire  and  absolute  innocence  of  Theodore  Tilton. 
"Why,"  says  Moulton,  "you  know  how  treacherous 
Bowen  is.  These  stories  started  with  Bowen.  There  has 
been  something  to  confirm  Mm,  but  that  grows  out  of 
that  mad  woman,  Tilton's  mother-in-law.  Why,  Beecher, 
you  know  what  Mrs.  Morse  is.  There  is  where  this 
trouble  originated.   She,  no  doubt,  really  believes  Tilton 


WECEEB  TEIAL. 

to  be  one  of  the  worst  men  in  th 3  world.  If  you  were  to 
credit  her  stories,  you  would  believe  he  was  the  veriest 
adulterer  that  roamed  the  fi-ee  pastures  of  Brooklyn. 
But  there  is  nothing  in  it.  Then,  as  to  Bessie  Turner. 
Why,  Bessie  Turner  is  his  adopted  child.  Theodore  loves 
feer,  and  he  would  no  more  think  of  wronging  her  than 
you  would  of  wronging  your  daughter,  Harriet  Leo- 
ville.  As  to  Bessie,  undoubtedly  there  were 
those  little  fondling  carresses,  which  she  would 
never  have  thought  anything  more  of  than  any 
daughter,  any  school  girl,  except  for  Mrs.  Morse ; 
but  Mrs.  Morse  put  it  into  her  head  that  it  was  Tilton'a 
purpose  to  destroy  her,  body  and  soul.  There  is  nothing 
in  it."  "  Well,  but,  Moulton,  Mrs.  Tilton  herself  talks 
about  Theodore.  She  told  Mrs.  Beecher  so  and  so  ;  she 
told  me  so  and  so  about  him  and  his  irregularities." 
"  Why,"  says  Moulton,  "  there  is  nothing  in  that.  Don't 
you  know  women  like  Elizabeth  Tilton  ?  Have  you  not 
seen  enough  of  them  to  understand  them  ?  She  is  sick  ; 
she  is  fanciful ;  she  is  easily  influenced  by  her  mother  ; 
she  is  nervous  ;  she  is  half  the  time  in  the  family  way ; 
she  has  trouble  with  Theodore  ;  she  has  trouble  with  her 
own  childi-en,  and  the  whole  of  It  is  that  the  poor  woman 
doesn't  know  which  end  he  stands  on  half  the  time.  Why, 
her  mother  comes  and  makes  her  believe  anything. 
Then  Theodore  comes,  and  he  makes  her  believe  anything. 
The  woman  means  no  harm,  but  the  truth  about  it  is, 
Beecher,  she  is  perfectly  crazy  about  vou."  "Why, I 
never  saw  any  evidence  of  that."  "  Why,  Beecher,  she 
loves  your  little  finger  better  than  she  does  the  whole 
body  of  Theodore  Tilton.  And  you  see,  this  woman, 
whose  stories  about  Theodore  you  credit,  is  just  as  ready 
to  charge  you,  yourself,  with  an  act  of  personal  dishonor. 
You  go  to  her  and  she  retracts  that ;  then  Tilton  goes  to 
her,  and  she  retracts  the  recantation.  You  see  the  ground 
has  all  slipped  from  under  you."  "Well,"  says  Beecher, 
"  I  had  no  suspicion  of  this.  I  believed  what  I  heard,, 
and  repeated  it  to  Bowen.  I  tola  him  what  Mrs.  Tilton 
told  my  wife,  and  what  Bessie  Turner  told  me,  and  I 
told  him  this  man  was  so  tainted  he  really 
ought  not  to  be  connected  with  this  paper. 
Well,  you  see  just  where  it  is.  You  slandered  Theodore. 
You  have  done  him  a  great  wrong.  You  have  got  Mm 
turned  out  of  The  Independent.  Formal  notice  came  la«i 
night.  Here  is  a  man  who  was  in  the  receipt  of  $15,000 
a  year  from  those  two  papers,  and  he  is  tm-ned  out,  and 
by  your  slanders ;  when,  if  vou  had  iust  come  and 
asked  him,  he  would  have  explained  the  whole  thins,'  to 
you,  or  if  you  had  come  and  asked  me.  or  any  friend  of 
Theodore's  ;  and  then  you  turn  on  him,  and,  yielding 
credit  to  two  gossiping  women,  you  have  desti-oyed  Theo- 
dore ;  you  have  destroyed  his  reputation ;  you 
have  destroyed  Elizabeth ;  they  have  an  unhappy  home; 
you  have  been  the  means  of  breaking  them  up,  and  now 
what  you  have  got  to  do  is  to  join  hands  with  me,  and  in 
some  way  or  other  must  fully  reinstate  Mm."    Now,  it 


SrJJMIXa    UF  BY  ME.  POBTUE. 


001 


wr<5  in  just  that  condition  fhat  Mr.  r*  ^-elier  finds  liimself 
entering  on  tlie  year  1871.  Is  tMs  true  1  Now  as  to  that 
Bessie  Tiu-ner  matter  I  can  very  readily  understand ;  I 
don't  kuow  anything  ahout  the  girl;  the  story  was  prob- 
able enough,  but  very  likely  that  is  the  true  origin  of  it. 
it  may  very  well  be  that  Mrs.  Morse  turned  the  story  into 
the  girl  s  head,  that  she  means  mure  than  she  did.  "  Mrs. 
Tilton— in  view  of  her  charge  against  me,  it  is  perfectly 
evident  she  is  broken  down ;  she  is  crazy ;  Ifhere  is  some- 
thing wrong  about  it.  I  ought  to  have  been  on  my  guard 
about  it.  If  it  is  that  I  have  really  been  the  occasion  of 
breaking  up  his  family ;  if  I  have  slandered  Theodore 
Tilton,  who  was  for  so  many  years  my  friend ;  if  I  have 
brought  discord  into  the  house  of  one  of  my  own  congre- 
gation; if  I  have  permitted  this  poor,  broken-hearted 
woman  to  fasten  her  affections  upon  me  to  her  own  de- 
struction, and  the  destruction  of  her  household,  and  my 
own  peril,  what  have  I  to  do  by  way  of  reparation  V 

Now,  gentlemen,  these  are  things  not  to  be  talked 
about.  We  feel,  we  know  how  it  would  have 
affected  even  us,  and  we  are  hard  men 
of  the  world,  accustomed  to  battle  with  life,  to  look 
things  in  the  face,  not  treated  as  clergymen  are,  who  are 
flattered  by  women  and  praised  by  men ;  who  are  ad- 
mired and  loved ;  who  are  sm-rounded  by  friends,  and 
whose  enemies  are  kept  at  bay ;  who  are  unused  to  the 
warfare  of  life,  and  who,  when  trouble  comes,  are  so  per- 
fectly unprepared  for  it,  unless  it  be  that  order  of  war- 
fare for  which  they  are  better  prepared  than  we.  When 
these  things  happea,  what  should  we  expect  of  them  1 
Now,  let  such  a  complication  of  affairs  surround  a  man 
in  our  profession,  of  matiire  years,  accustomed  to  affairs, 
fearless,  self-reliant,  resolute,  ready  for  peace  but  equally 
ready  for  war,  calm,  self-possessed.  What  then?  Sup- 
pose any  such  attempt  were  made  upon  a  man  like  my 
friend,  Mr.  Beach,  you  could  see  that  eye 
of  his  flashing  with  the  fire  that  would  not 
be  content  until  it  was  seconded  with  a  blow. 
But  just  look  around  this  audience  and  say  whether  you 
cannot  see,  even  from  where  you  sit,  men  of  the  world- 
men  of  character  1  You  would  be  exceedingly  discon- 
certed. You  would  feel  that  this  was  a  serious  matter. 
T^Tiat  shaU  I  do  1  Whom  shaU  I  talk  with?  My  wife? 
What !  Talk  to  my  wife  about  being  charged  with  dis- 
honoring another  man  in  his  marital  relations  !  No,  no. 
My  friend  1  What  I  Call  upon  him.  teU  him  that  I  oc- 
cupy the  ignominious  position  of  being  accused  by  a  wo- 
man, and  a  respectable  woman  at  that !  It  is  very  easy, 
gentlemen,  for  us  to  see  now  what  we  would 
have  done.  It  is  not  quite  so  easy  to  know 
what  we  would  Have  done.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see, 
not  vmat  we  would  have  done,  but  what  any  other  man 
would  have  done.  There  are  twelve  of  you.  One  woidd 
go  one  way;  another,  another;  perhaps  no  two  alike 
even  among  you  twelve.  How  would  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  act  ?  Well,  if  we  had  in  oui-  midst  about  12,000 


Htnry  Ward  Beechers,  we  should  have  the  means  of  judg- 
hx^,  because  we  could  judge  by  the  way  one  acted  of  how 
the  others  would  ;  but  we  have  no  more  12,000  Henry 
Ward  Beechers  among  us  than  we  have  12,000  Theodore 
Tiltons  among  us.  [Laughter.]  They  are  men  greatly 
Tmlike,  as  opposite  as  the  poles,  but  they  are  men,  each  of 
them,  who  have  few  parallels,  and  you  cannot  say  with 
absolute  certainty  that  because  you  know  how 
Gen.  Tracy  would  do,  or  how  Mr.  Shearman  or  :\tr. 
Howard  would  do  in  such  circumstances,  you  are  not  sure 
that  Beecher  or  Tilton  would  have  acted  in  precisely  the 
same  way  with  either  of  those  gentlemen.  And  yet  it 
seems  that  there  is  some  sort  of  Procrustean  bed  which 
every  Beecher  must  be  made  to  fit,  and  Theodore  Tilton 
fixes  the  dimensions  of  the  bed.  Whatever  Theodore  Til- 
ton would  have  done  under  those  cii'cumstances,  unless 
Beecher  did  it,  Beecher  is  guilty.  Well,  gentlemen,  what 
did  he  do  ?  That  is  the  first  thing.  Did  he  write  any- 
thing ?  Yes,  he  wrote  something ;  not  much— not  much. 
All  that  he  wrote  that  day  was,  not  those  three  sheets- 
Frank  Mouiton  wrote  them.  The  only  lines  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  wrote,  so  far  as  we  know,  on  the  1st  of  January, 
1871,  are  these :  "  I  have  intrusted  this  to  Mouiton  in 
confidence.  H.  W.  Beecher."  That  is  the  record  of 
that  day.  Does  that  mean,  "  I,  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
debauched  Theodore  Tilton's  wife  ?"  It  don't  say  so,  does 
it  1  Now,  the  man  who  took  that  paper,  and  cherished 
it,  kept  it  in  his  tin  box,  secured  it  in  his  safe,  carried  it 
along  in  his  pocket,  showed  it  here,  there,  and  everywhere, 
had  it  photographed,  used  it  as  a  weapon,  used  it  for  the 
desti'uction  of  Tilton's  enemy — that  man  had  something 
much  better  than  those  two  lines.  If  Theodore  Tilton 
tells  the  truth,  all  he  had  to  do  was  to  feel  in  that  pocket 
and  take  out  a  paper  signed  by  one  of  the  most  respecta- 
ble women  in  Brooklyn :  "  Henry  Ward  Beecher  com- 
mitted adultery  with  me  on  the  10th  and  17th  of  October, 
1868,  and  was  in  adulterous  intercourse  with  me  from 
that  time  during  the  period  of  16  or  IS  months;"  and  yet 
they  would  have  you  believe  that,  having  evidence  like 
that,  they  needed  this,  and  having  no  evidence  but  this, 
they  burned  that ! 

*  A  CORRECTION  OF  THE  RECORD. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  about  1  o'clock,  and  1  want 
to  di'aw  attention  to  a  certain  matter.  If  your  Honor 
please,  in  the  report  of  the  argument  made  by  Mr.  Porter 
on  yesterday,  it  appears  in  his  commentaries  upon  the 
letter  of  the  31st  of  February  

Mr,  Porter— That  must  be  wrong. 

On  the  31st  of  January,  1868.  It  is  the  letter  which 
commences,  "  My  dear  husband,  I  have  just  returned 
fi'om  Mattie's  and  saw  your  bust,"  &c.  My  friend  Por- 
ter comments  upon  running  and  interrupted  Q.uotation3 


Se£  page  578. 


602  TRE  TILTON-B 

from  tliat  letter,  and  tMs  paragraph  appears  in  the  re- 
port of  The  Tribune  : 

And  she,  appealing  to  that  earlier  image,  to  that  purer 
man  which  she,  in  her  woman's  simplicity,  descrihes  as 
*'  yom'  former  loveliness,"  says  : 

"  Though  I,  by  my  indiflference  and  coldness,  and  re- 
buMng  of  your  sins,  have  brought  you  to  abandon  the 
Savior  whom  we  loved,  to  go  after  strange  gods  and 
strange  women,  yet  I  can  accept  that  destiny,  even  with- 
out the  fori,iveness  of  God,  if  it  will  only  restore  you,  my 
beloved  husband,  the  husband  of  my  youth,  if  it  will  re- 
store you  to  your  former  loveliness,  and  reconcile  you  to 
that  Being  who  is  the  God  of  your  children  and  mine, 
and  to  Whom  we  must  look  for  mercy,  for  forgiveness, 
for  salvation." 

That  appears  in  the  report,  Sir ;  and  I  think  is  properly 
by  the  publisher  put  in  the  report  as  a  quotation,  be- 
cause my  friend  thea  follows  in  apparent  quotation  with 
the  language :  "  Then  again,  returning  to  that  spirit  at 
which  the  world  scoffs,"  and  correctly  quotes  from  the 
letter.  It  was  an  inadvertence.  Sir,  into  which  my 
learned  friend  fell.  There  are  no  such  expressions  in  the 
letter  such  as  are  here  assumed  to  be  given ;  and  it  was 
imdoubtedly  intended,  on  the  part  of  my  learned  friend, 
as  a  paraphrase  of  the  sentiments  of  the  letter.  T  called 
the  attention  of  Mr.  Abbott  to  the  circumstance,  and  he 
very  kindly  referred  me  to  the  original  letter,  and  says 
that  the  passage  should  not  have  been  printed  as  a  quota- 
tion, that  it  is  a  mere  statement,  in  substance,  of  the 
spirit  of  the  passage,  derived  from  the  act  of  reading  por- 
tions of  the  letter  which  had  before  been  made  by  my 
friend ;  and  I  make  this  statement  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting such  misapprehension  in  regard  to  the  true  lan- 
guage of  the  letter. 

Mr.  Porter— I  am  obliged  to  my  friend  for  mentioning 
it,  for  my  eye  happened  to  fall  this  morning  upon  an 
entirely  different  passage  in  another  paper,  in  which  I 
found  that  I  was  made  to  impute  to  Mr.  Tilton  language 
which  I  was  using  myself ;  and  also,  on  another  occasion, 
where  language  which  was  really  used  by  the  writer  of 
the  letter  seemed  to  be  my  own.  But  every  one  under- 
stands how  utterly  impossible  it  is  for  the  reporters  to 
know  at  what  precise  point  the  speaker  stops  reading 
and  proceeds  to  talk.  I  think  the  jury  throughout  are 
able  to  distinguish ;  but  my  voice  being  in  a  condition  in 
which  it  is  even  difficult  for  them  to  hear,  they  cannot  be 
at  the  same  time  looking  up  to  see  when  I  am  reading 
and  when  I  stop  reading. 


AN  ADJOUENMENT  TO  MONDAY. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  asked  my  learned  friend 
and  associate,  Judge  Porter,  how  he  feels  in  regard  to 
strength.  The  sudden  heat,  as  your  Honor  will  feel,  and 
I  hope  permit  us  to  feel,  is  somewhat  debilitating,  and 
Mr.  Porter  does  not  feel  so  adequate  as  to  proceeding 
after  recess  as  to  make  him  wish  to  proceed,  unless  your 
Honor  m^ght  think  it  wholly  unreasonable  on  our  part  to 
adjourn,  it  being  the  last  day  of  the  session,  until  Mon- 


lEGREB  TRIAL. 

day.  How  inconvenient  that  will  be  to  any  one  else  T 
don't  know,  but  every  one  has  been  very  obliging  on  the 
part  of  the  opposing  parties,  and  your  Honor  has  always 
been,  and  the  jiu-j^  have  rJways  been,  and  we  must  sub- 
mit to  your  Honor  in  this  case.  The  heat  is  excessive, 
and  Judge  Porter  feels  that  he  should  like  the  recess,  ii 
your  Honor  will  give  it  for  those  two  hours. 

Mr.  Beach — If  your  Honor  please,  I  have  resigned  my- 
self to  the  fatalitiefe  of  this  case,  and  wherever  it  drifts  I 
have  to  go  with  it,  and  must  bear  all  the  pernicious  con- 
sequences of  its  tedious  prolongation.  I  know  how 
difficult  it  is  to  speak  consecutively  for  several  days,  and 
I  realize  the  fact  that  this  sudden  but  agreeable  change 
in  the  weather  has  made  it  still  more  oppressive  to  do  so, 
and  if  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Porter,  feels  the  slightest 
inconvenience  from  the  continuance  of  his  argument, 
although  I  deprecate  unnecessary  prolongation  of  this 
trial,  I  must  certainly  assent  to  every  desire  he  may  inti- 
mate in  that  direction. 

Judge  Neilson— Then,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  we  will 
adjourn  until  Monday  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

WHEN  THE  END  MAY  BE  EXPECTED. 
Mr.  Beacli— I  would  like,   if  your  Honor 

please,  if  it  would  be  convenient  to  my  learned  fi'iend, 
that  he  should  give  us  some  intimation  as  to  the  length 
of  time  he  will  occupy.  We  had  an  intimation  from  my 
friend,  Mr.  Evarts,  and  I  believe  it  was  submitted  to  your 
Honor,  that  they  would  probably  occupy  five  de  va  in  tiie 
summing  up  of  this  case.  I  do  not  mean  to  say.  Sir,  that 
your  Honor  ought  to  exercise  your  discretionary  power 
in  the  limit  of  this  debate ;  but  in  consequence  of  a  mis- 
understanding in  regard  to  your  Honor's  views,  whidi 
occurred  earlier  in  the  commencement  of  this  case,  tho 
arrangements  upon  our  side  were  so  made  that  the  dutj' 
of  submitting  the  case  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  has 
devolved  wholly  upon  me,  and  it  seems  to 
me,  therefore,  (as  I  certainly  shall  not  at- 
tempt to  discuss  this  case  to  the  extent  wbich 
both  my  learned  friends  will  occupy),  that  there 
ought  to  be  some  reasonable  limitation  to  the  extent  of 
this  discussion.  I  am  very  sure  that  I  shall  not  be 
obliged  to  trouble  your  Honor  more  than  a  couple  of 
days,  and  we  have  already  occupied  three  days— two 
days  and  a  half,  and  I  think  it  is  due  to  us  that  we  should 
have  some  intimation  as  to  the  close  of  this  discussion 
on  the  part  of  my  learned  friends.  I  certainly  feel  that 
it  is  a  very  imequal  discussion,  with  my  two  distin- 
guished friends  occupying  so  much  time,  with  their  gi-eat 
ability,  as  they  are  to  be  met  only  by  what  little  I  can 
say  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff". 

Mr.  Evarts — I  can  assui-e  my  learned  friend  that  we  do 
not  take  the  same  view  of  our  opponent  that  he  is  pleased 
to  express,  and  we  certainly  have  no  very  gi-eat  disposi- 
tion to  congratulate  ourselves  upon  our  ability  to  cope 
with  him.   I  tlunk,  so  far  as  the  question  now  ai'ises,  I 


SVJIMIXG   VP  1 

ean  faiiir  promise  that  tlie  t^o  iiours  tliat  are  nos^  given 
by  Torir  Honor,  and  -^vitli  the  concnrrence,  I  hope,  and 
the  inaulgr-Tiee  of  the  jury,  vrtll  not  procrastinate  the 
close  of  3Ir.  Porter's  argument  beyond  that  time,  that  no 
additional  lenrth  of  time  in  his  argument  vrtll  arise  from 
those  tvro  hours  being  omitted.  I  think  I  can  fairly 
promise  that.   Beyond  that  I  cannot  go. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  that  gives  us  no  idea  whatever  of  the 
length  of  time  which  my  friends  ask  for  the  discussion  of 
this  case.  Your  Honor  is  very  well  aware  that,  by  the 
rules  of  court  applied  to  ordinary  litigations  before  it. 
but  an  hour  or  two  hours  in  courts  in.  banqne  are  asked  or 
permitted  a  coujisel  for  the  discussion  of  the  most  im- 
portant cases.  I  have  not  supposed  your  Honor  would 
make  any  arbitrary  limitation  restraining  cotmsel  in 
debate  of  this  case,  but  it  has  reached  now  a  position 
where  it  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  have  some  rntimarion, 
liberal,  as  to  tbe  time  which  is  to  be  occupied  on  the  part 
01  the  defense. 

Judge  Xeilson— It  would  be  very  desirable  certainly, 
and  would  be,  perhaps,  convenient  to  you.  I  have  the 
impression— I  don't  know  where  I  got  it — that  Mr.  Evarts 
might  occupy  next  week,  and,  for  fear  that  I  may  have 
committed  a  mistake.  I  wrote  to  a  friend  in  the  country, 
who  was  very  anxious  to  hear  :Mr.  Beach,  and  stated  to 
him  that  ]NIr.  Beach's  time  to  begin  his  argument  would 
be  the  week  after  next. 

3Ir.  Evarts— I  will  add  to  that,  that  I  refused  to  make 
an  appointment  for  the  end  of  next  weelc,  because  it 
would  deprive  me  of  the  pleasure  of  hearing  Mr.  Beach's 
response.  I  have  reserved  next  week.  A  very  important 
engagement  was  offered  me  at  Washiugton,  which  would 
take  me  away  from  this  trial. 

3Ir.  Beach — My  friends  are  very  gracious  and  compli- 
mentary indeed,  but  I  don't  get  any  satisfaction  on  the 
main  point.  We  don't  even  get  the  assurance  from  my 
learned  fri?iids  that  they  will  close  in  the  coming  week, 
and  I  think  we  are  entitled  to  it. 

Judge  Xeilson— I  think  I  will  answer  for  them  that 
they  will  close  next  week.  I  think  I  will  see  that  it  is 
done  by  ^iaturday. 

Mr.  Evarts— Or  even  Sunday. 

Judge  Xeil-on  [^o  the  Jurors] — Well,  gentlemen,  we 
•  Trill  separate  now  until  ^londay  morning,  at  11  o'clock. 
The  coui-c  tiiei-L-upon  uu^oumed until  11  o'eiock Monday. 


r  JZ"i?.  POET  EE,  603 

EICxHTY-mTH    DAY'S  PROCEEDIXGS. 


JUDGE  POETEE'S  AEGUMEXT  XEAELT  COM- 
PLETED. 

JUDGE  PORTEE'S  OPrS'IOX  OF  MR.  MOULTOX'S  RELA- 
TIOXS  TO  THE  CASE— MR.  TIXTO><"  DECLARED  TO  BE 
THE  MASTER  AND  MR.  MOUETOX  THE  ^ILS'IOX— THE 
LETTER  OF  C0XTR1TI02^  ANALYZED— MODES  OF 
EXPRESSION  DECLARED  TO  BE  UXLEEE  THOSE 
OF  MR.  BEECHER— SEVERAL  FAMOUS  PHRASES 
ASCREBED  TO  MR.  TTLTOX'S  RHETORIC— IVLRS. 
MOULTON'S  TESTIMOXY  reviewed — SHE  IS  DE- 
CLARED TO  HAVE  SWORN  FALSELY  ON  ACCOUNT 
OF  HER  HUSBAXD— EVIDENCE  OF  OTHER  WIT- 
NESSES TOUCHED  UPON. 

MoN^DAY,  May  24,  1875. 

Judge  Porters  address  was  marked  l)y  the  same 
]  general  characteristics  as  on  the  preceding  days. 
He  was  forcilDle  and  denunciatory,  but  at  the  same 
time  argumentative,  and  on  no  occasion  has  he  suc- 
ceeded better  in  holding  the  interest  of  the  audience 
and  the  jurors.  He  is  seldom  interrupted  except  by 
occasional  suggestions  from  ]Mr.  Shearman.  Once 
to-day  Mr.  Shearman  caused  a  laugh  by  suddenly 
jumping  up,  wb en  Judge  Porter  was  in  the  middle 
of  a  sentence,  catching  the  orator  by  the  arm,  and 
whispering  in  his  ear.  Judge  Porter  had  slips  of  the 
printed  testimony  pasted  upon  sheets  of  paper,  from 
which  he  freciuently  read  extracts  in  the  •♦urse  of 
his  argument. 

The  current  of  invective  in  Judge  Porter's  speech 
was  partially  turned  from  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Moulton 
to-day.  In  analyzing  the  Letter  of  Contrition  the 
lawyer,  in  a  manner,  contrasted  the  two  men. 
"  Tilton,-'  he  said,  '"'is  a  man  of  real  ability.  Iris 
of  the  rhetorical  order,  it  is  true  ;  but  as  a  rhetori- 
cian and  a  writer  Theodore  Tilton  to-day  stands  one 
of  the  foremost  men  on  this  continent.  Frank 
Moulton"— with  a  contemptuous  manner  and  tone— 
"  he  struts  in  borrowed  plumage,  and  makes  the 
most  of  it."  ]Mr.  Tilton,  and  not  ]Mr.  Moulton,  was  de- 
clared to  have  been  the  master  from  the  beginning. 
An  elaborate  verbal  analysis  of  the  Letter  of  Contri- 
tion vras  entered  into  by  the  orator.  The  fact  that 
ill  the  sentence.  "  I  can  ask  nothing,"'  &c.,  there  is  a 
lilotted  "  t  "  at  the  end  of  the  word  "  can  "  did  not 
escape  the  lawyers  notice,  and  he  made  use  of  it  as 
an  argument  against  the  probability  of  ^Mr.  Beechers 
having  been  the  author  of  the  letter.  "I  can't  ask 
nothing"  was.  he  said,  an  expression  which  a  man 
trained  in  lett-ers  like  ^Ir.  Beecher  was  incapable  of 
making.    Tlie  argument  was  that  ^Ir.  Moulton  had 


604  TRE  TILTON-B 

written  tTie  words,  and  Mr.  Tilton  liad  run 
his  pen  tlirougli  tlie  superiiiioiis  "t."  In 
the  same  careful,  scrutinizing  way.  Judge 
Porter  went  tlirough  the  letter,  bsising  argu- 
ments on  the  most  unexpected  suggestions. 
The  expressions,  "  paroxysmal  kiss,"  "  nest-hiding," 
"  the  brink  of  a  moral  Niagara,"  etc.,  were  analyzed, 
and  declared  to  be  like  Mr.  Tilton's  mode  of  writing, 
and  not  like  Mr.  Eeecher's.  Mr.  Beecher  did  not  ex- 
press himself  in  that  way,  said  Judge  Porter.  His  sen- 
tences were  full  of  thought,  and  not  mere  sounding 
rhetorical  expressions.  There  was  much  fine  sarcasm 
in  the  manner  in  which  the  orator  described  the  at- 
tempts that,  he  said,  had  been  made  to  ascribe  the 
origin  of  the  phrase  " nest-hiding"  to  Mr.  Beecher. 

Speaking  of  Mr.  Beecher's  Life  of  Christ  and  of  Mr. 
FuUerton's  remark  about  the  possibility  of  Mr.  lil- 
ton's  writing  the  life  of  Judas  Iscariot  under  certain 
circumstances.  Judge  Porter  exclaimed,  "  We  might 
have  suggested  whether  if  Frank  Moulton  had  hap- 
pened to  be  one  of  the  Twelve,  Judas  Iscariot  would 
have  pocketed  those  30  pieces  of  silver.  He  spoke 
with  great  severity  of  the  alleged  pressure  brought 
to  bear  upon  Mrs.  Moulton  to  make  her  swear  falsely. 
Her  story  of  what  she  had  said  to  Mr.  Beecher 
in  the  way  of  censure  of  his  conduct,  and  advice 
as  to  what  he  should  do.  Judge  Porter  declared  to  be 
improbable,  and  inconsistent  with  her  character.  A 
stir  ran  through  the  audience  when  the  orator  with 
intense  earnestness  exclaimed,  "  That  story  would 
never  have  fallen  from  her  lips,  if  God  had  not 
visited  upon  her  the  calamity  of  binding  her— I  hope 
not  beyond  this  life— to  a  man  like  Frank  Moulton !" 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Ovington,  of  the 
colored  witness  Gray,  of  Jackson  S.  Schultz,  and 
others,  was  touched  upon.  Judge  Porter  commented 
in  severe  terms  on  Mr.  Moulton's  alleged  threat  to 
**  make  it  hotter  than  hell"  for  a  person  who  should 
testify  against  him,  ,iad  on  his  expression  about 
shooting  Mr.  Beecher.  Portions  of  the  report  of  the 
Investigating  Committee  were  gone  over  toward  the 
close  of  the  afternoon  session. 


THE   PROCEEDmGS— YERBATIM. 

MR  PORTER'S  ARGUMENT  CONTINUED. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to 
ad^iournment. 

Judge  Neilson— If  any  of  the  gentlemen  connected  with 
the  press  have  not  yet  signed  theu'  names  in  this  hook, 
they  will  find  it  with  the  Clerk.  There  are  only  80  names 
as  yet,  and  that  seems  to  be  only  a  part  of  the  number. 


WEOEEB  TRIAL. 

Is  the  editor  of  The  Toronto  Globe  here,  and  of  The  Bangor 
Commie?',  who  were  here  on  Saturday,  and  who  would  he 
in  again  t  I  would  be  happy  to  see  them  at  the  inter- 
mission. 

Mr.  Porter— Ip  it  please  tour  Honor— Gentlemen 
OF  the  Jury  :  I  can  give  you  at  least  the  assurance  that 
whatever  of  yom^  tmie  I  will  take  will  be  so  much  with- 
drawn from  that  which  would  otherwise  be  used  by  Mr. 
Evarts.  Our  arrangement  upon  that  point  is  definite, 
and  while  I  would  most  gladly  have  left  the  whole  of  the 
rest  of  the  argument  to  him,  he  feels  as  I  do,  that 
it  is  due  to  him,  in  view  of  the  extent  of  his 
labors  in  previous  stages  of  the  cause,  that  I  should 
so  far,  at  least  as  I  can  consistently  with  my 
own  waning  strength,  relieve  httn  in  turn  from  the 
heavier  burden  of  the  mere  details  of  the  argument.  He 
is  unavoidably  detained  to-day,  and  I  shall  therefore  he 
under  the  necessity  of  occupying  to-day  at  least,  but 
I  hope  that  he  will  be  able  to  take  my  place  in  the  morn- 
ing. 

PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  LETTER  OF  CON- 
TRITION. 

At  the  tune  of  the  adjournment  1  was  ad- 
verting to  the  paper  once  known  as  '*  The  Apology,"  re- 
cently as  the  "  Letter  of  Contrition,"  for  even  m  so  small 
a  matter  as  nomenclature  this  case  has  been  constantly 
growing.  It  is  a  very  curious  paper.  My  friend.  Judge 
Morris,  is  absent,  and  I  have  not,  therefore,  the  ori^nal, 
hut  if  the  jury  wUl  be  kind  enough  to  look  at  the  imper- 
fect and  reduced  photograph  it  will  serve  suflaciently  to  ex- 
plain what  I  desire  to  call  their  attention  to.  [Mr.  Torter 
here  handed  to  the  jury  TZie  G'mpMc  reproduction  of  the 
letter.]  You  will  be  struck  with  one  thing  in  particular 
in  connection  with  that  paper.  It  is  the 
first  instance,  probably,  in  all  your  observation  and 
experience  of  any  human  being  writing  a  letter  to  him- 
self. It  is  not  possible.  Moulton  says  it  happened.  I 
don't  know  but  it  did.  Another  extraordinary  feature 
about  this  letter,  that  the  man  who  writes  a  letter  to  him- 
self addresses  himself  as  "My  Dear  Friend  Moulton,"  a 
somewhat  exaggerated  form  of  expression,  it  would 
seem,  for  a  man  to  apply  to  himself,  and  arising  out  of  a 
friendship  then  of  48  hours'  dm^ation.  Another  noteworthy 
feature  in  the  paper,  and  that  is  that  it  purports  to  begin 
and  to  end  with  a  declaration  of  the  trust  which  this 
scoimdrel  betrayed.  *'  In  trust  with  F.  D.  Moulton."  "  I 
have  trusted  this  to  Moulton  In  confidence.'^ 
Another  noteworthy  feature  of  it  is  that  if  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  dictated  that  letter,  word  by  word,  from  Alpha 
to  Omega,  as  Moulton  deliberately  swears,  it  is  the  only 
paper  he  ever  dictatefl,  and  contains  the  only  sentences 
he  has  ever  uttered  since  he  came  to  man's  estate,  that 
were  not  even  common,  good,  grammatical  English. 
How  did  it  happen  that  this  man,  a  master  in  every  in- 
tellectual department,  an  orator  who,  if  he  were  in  a 


SUMMING    UP  I 

mad-liouse,  would  still  be  elociueut,  comes  the  moment 
he  ?ets  Into  the  presence  of  hi3  "  dear  friend  Frank 
Monlton,"  to  he  a  pnling  school  giii,  who  can't  write  his 
mother  tongue  ?  There  is  another  still  more  noteworthy 
feature  of  this  letter  in  connection  with  the  evidence  of 
Frank  Moulton,  and  that  is,  Henry  "Ward  Beecher  di- 
rected him  to  write  it,  and  dictated  every  word  of  it, 
heard  Moulton  read  every  word  of  it,  approved  every 
word  of  it,  read  it  through  himself,  and  then  when  Moulton 
asked  him  to  sign  it,  did  not  sign  it.  "Why  not  1  On  his 
explanation  it  is  perfectly  ohvious  why  he  should  not 
sign  the  paper.  On  Moulton's  how  is  it  comprehensible 
that  the  man  who  was  the  author  of  the  letter,  who  in- 
tended to  write  it,  who  dictated  it,  heard  it,  approved  it, 
refused  to  sign  it,  and  puts  in  the  corner,  for  no  purpose 
of  disguise,  for  it  is  his  own  handwriting — puts  a  certifi- 
cate at  the  end  of  that  paper,  "  I  have  trusted  this  to 
Moulton  in  confidence."  Why,  gentlemen,  every  one  of 
you  know  how  that  was  done.  Then  that  tea  hell  rang 
and  Frank  Moulton  gathered  together  his  sheets;  he 
eays,  "  You  had  better  sign  this."  "  "Why,  certainly  not ; 
it  is  not  my  letter."  "Oh,  well,  it  will  do  better  with 
Theodore.  Put  something;  just  state  that  you  trust  this 
to  me  in  confidence."  Anything  to  get  his  name  there. 
Moulton  saw  that  he  had  his  confidence  and  wanted  his 
name.  He  saw  that  he  trusted  him,  and  he  wanted  him 
to  certify  that  he  was  trustworthy.  He  knew  what  he 
had  written  there,  Beecher  did  not.  And  he  knew  what 
he  wanted  written  there,  and  Beecher  wrote  it.  The  one 
confiding  as  Othello,  the  other  treacherous  and  snakelike 
as  lago.   

AN  ESTIMATE  OF  MOULTON'S  ABILITIES. 

In  tliis  connection,  gentlemen,  permit  me — for 
I  cannot  dwell  on  these  topics,  and  this  more  particularly 
belongs  to  the  department  assigned  to  my  senior  associate 
—permit  me  in  this  connection  to  allude  to  another 
feature  in  this  case.  Frank  Moulton  is  a  sham  from  the 
beghining.  Theodore  TUton  has  given  him  the  reputa- 
tion of  being  a  literary  man.  He  has  given  himself  the 
reputation  of  beiag  a  man  of  large  and  boundless  wealth. 
He  has  acquired  the  cheap  reputation  of  generosity  by 
telling  people  what  he  would  do  in  the  way  of  munificent 
gifts  if  time  and  tide  permitted.  Tilton  is  a  man  of  real 
ability;  it  is  of  the  rhetorical  order,  it  is  true,  but  as  a 
rhetorician  and  a  writer  Theodore  Tilton  to-day  stands 
one  of  the  foremost  men  on  this  continent.  Frank 
Moulton~-he  struts  in  borrowed  plumage,  and  makes 
the  most  of  it.  In  the  course  of  this  verj-  con- 
tro^^ersy  he  acquired  a  reputation  very  unmerited,  and 
he  little  understood  when  G-en.  Tracy  and  I  were  ex- 
amining him  the  effect  of  the  answers  he  gave ;  and  the 
man  who  went  from  the  stand  advertised  as  the  cham- 
pion witness  of  America  had  no  thought  that  he  had  been 
scuttling  his  own  ship  through  the  14  days  he  was  upon 
»^ne  stand 


V  ME.   POETEE,  605 

MR.   MOULTON'S    LITERAEY  PRODUCTIONS 
THE  WORK  OF  OTHER  MINDS. 

On  the  simple  point  of  literary  ability,  will 
you  bear  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that  Frank  Moulton  con- 
fesses that  those  letters  which  he  wrote  to  IVIr.  Beecher, 
and  which  were  afterward  published  in  The  Graphic  ro- 
mance, and  ia  every  newspaper  in  the  la,nd,  and  which 
were  so  much  admired  as  specimens  of  sharp,  keen  liter- 
ary point  and  spirit,  were  copies  from  Theodore  Tilton'* 
drafts ;  that  when  they  were  not  copied  they  were  dic- 
tated to  him ;  and  when  there  was  real  dictation,  gentle- 
men, you  don't  find  this  kind  of  dramatical  blander  which 
appears  in  this  apology.  When  there  was  real  dic- 
tating he  wrote  English,  and  masterly  English,  for  it 
was  the  English  of  Theodore  Tilton.  To  those 
two  statements  which  were  put  forth  to  the 
world,  which  have  given  him,  I  might  say,  not  merely  an 
American  but  a  European  reputation  for  malignancy, 
for  bitterness,  for  adroitness,  but  also  for  a  high  order  of 
literarj"  ability,  he  is  compelled  to  confess  that  each  of 
them,  from  the  first  word  to  the  last,  came  from  the  pen 
of  a  celebrated  American  statesman,  and  that  they  were 
the  result  of  two  weeks'  labor  at  Narragansett  by  him- 
self, by  Benjamin  F.  Butler  and  their  associates.  "Why, 
the  very  letters  that  he  wrote  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
speaking  of  Theodore  Tilton  as  an  absent  man,  to  whom 
he  was  under  honorary  obligations,  which  would  not  per- 
mit him  to  return  to  Mr.  Beecher  his  own  property,  nor 
even  permit  him  to  look  at  it ;  one  of  those  letters  was 
written  by  Beniamtn  F.  Butler,  and  the  other  by  Theo- 
dore Tilton.  The  very  sentence  in  which  he  tells  him  on 
the  5th  of  August  that  he  will  see  Mr.  Tilton,  and  en- 
deavor to  procure  his  consent  that  he  (Beecher)  may  see 
his  own  documents,  then  in  the  hands  of  Frank  Moulton, 
was  penned  by  Theodore  Tilton. 

TILTON  THE   MASTER,   NOT  MOULTON. 

Moulton  has  attempted  to  convince  yon 
through  the  whole  of  his  testimony  that  he  was  the  mas- 
ter and  that  Tilton  was  the  minion.  Not  so,  not  so.  Til- 
ton was  master  from  the  beginning.  It  was  in  his  dia- 
l»olical  reign  that  all  these  crafty  devices  wrought 
out  with  the  skill  of  an  artisan  bred  at  Vulcan's  forge. 
It  was  he,  he  who  gave  direction  to  Frank,  and  Frank 
Moulton's  talk  about  his  grinding  Theodore  Tilton  to 
powder,  and  his  being  ready  to  smite  him  to  the  earth  if 
he  attempted  to  crucify  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  is  the  talk 
of  the  braggart,  and  the  pretender,  and  the  liar.  I  have 
said,  however,  that  there  were  other  circumstances  in 
this  case  to  which  I  ought  to  advert,  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  you  to  appreciate  this  apolo.gy.  Of  course,  it  is 
not  of  the  slightest  moment  to  the  issue  whether  or  na 
Mr.  Beecher  is  guilty  of  adultery  if  Frank  Motaton  be 
the  finest  scholar  in  the  land  or  an  ignoramus.  He  is 
neither.  It  is  significant,  however,  in  another  a8i)ect,  so 
that  you  may  read  and  understand  the  man. 


606  THE  TILTON-B. 

COUNTERFEIT  PHRASES  IMPUTED  TO  MR. 
BEECHER. 

Grreat  mischief  has  been  done  to  Mr.  Beecher 
everywliere  by  tlie  publication  of  letters  in  wMcli  lan- 
guage is  imputed  to  Mm  of  an  extravagant  and  sensa- 
tional character,  and  sucli  as  he  never  employs,  and 
everybody  was  at  once  prepared  to  say  tliat  inasmucb  as 
Mr.  Beecher  is  a  man  of  strong  and  vehement  expression, 
that  is  Beecher.  Gentlemen,  do  you  suppose  that  if  a 
scoxmdrel  wants  to  forge  your  name,  he  won't  malre  it  as 
much  like  your  genuiae  signature  as  he  can.  Do  you 
suppose  that  a  man  of  the  brain  and  the  craft  of  Theo- 
dore Tilton  when  he  was  undertaking  to  prepare 
a  way  for  destroying  his  enemy  would 
not  see  to  it  that  there  should  be  every 
work  of  likeness  at  least  that  he  could  devise. 
Now  observe.  The  declarations  that  are  attributed  to 
Mr.  Beecher  by  Tilton,  by  Moulton,  and,  I  am  sorry  to 
say,  by  Mrs.  Moulton,  all  bear  the  stamp  of  Theodore 
TUton's  mint.  You  remember  that  significant  word 
*'  paroxysmal,"  whicli  to  this  day  furnishes  occasion  for 
those  who  are  unfavorably  disposed  to  Mr.  Beecher  to 
Impute  to  him  a  base  and  an  infamous  crime ;  and  yet  it 
Is  a  part  of  our  public  history  that  that  "  paroxysmal 
kiss "  was  never  heard  of  from  the  lips  of  Mr.  Beecher 
save  by  two  men— Theodore  Tilton  and  Francis  D.  Moul- 
ton. In  the  first  place  the  expression  itself  is  absolute 
nousense,  and  one  of  which  Mr.  Beecher  is  utterly  inca- 
pable, but  it  is  none  the  less  Tiltonic ;  and  there  is  the 
difiference  between  the  man  of  brains  without  heart  and 
the  man  of  brains  with  heart.  When  Beecher  speaks,  he 
speaks  at  once  from  the  fire  above  and  the  heat  withni, 
and  everything  that  he  says  comes  leaping,  living,  burn- 
ing from  the  heart ;  but  the  sham  man,  who  thinks  all 
there  is  in  words  is  the  sound  of  words,  uses  these 
incongruous,  unfit  forms  of  expression,  and  gives  to  them 
the  ouire  signifleance  that  he  desires  them  to  take.  For 
instance,  on  that  night,  that  snowy  night,  Mr.  Beecher  is 
said  to  have  taken  occasion  to  deliver  himself  in  this 
-wise  to  a  man  who  until  that  day  had  never  crossed  his 
threshold  and  to  a  man  whose  threshold  he  had  crossed 
for  the  first  time  that  night,  not  in  answer  to  a  question, 
a  purely  voluntary  thing  on  his  part:  "I  stand  on  the 
brink  of  a  moral  Niagara."  Now,  that  is  Theodore  Til- 
ton ;  it  is  not  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Do  you  thrak  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  would  talk  about  a  moral  Niagara  any 
more  than  he  would  about  a  moral  haystack  or  a  moral 
swamp  1 1t  is  not  the  man.  With  him  words  have  meaning ; 
they  are  alive;  there  is  thought  la  them;  there  is 
significance  in  them  ;  there  is  coherence  in  them  ;  but 
with  Tilton  "  the  brink  of  a  moral  Niagara  "  brings  to- 
gether incongruous  ideas  which  to  him  have  a  rhetorical 
charm,  and  tuey  are  put  Into  the  lips  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  as  his  language,  instead  of  the  language  of  Theo- 
>dore  Tilton.   I  might  multiply  these  illustrations,  which 


IFJOHEB  TEIAL, 

are  to  be  found  running  through  the  testimony  of  Tiltoa 
himself,  and  Moulton,  and  of  Mrs.  Moulton,  imputing 
language  to  Mr.  Beecher  such  as  he  never  did  and  never 
was  capai»:e  of  using.  It  is  against  the  moral  const itn- 
tion  as  well  as  the  instinctive  good  taste  and  good  sense 
of  the  man.  Now,  that  "  paroxysmal  kiss "  was  a  lie, 
and  you  know  it  cost  Moulton  $5,000— just  that  single 
lie ;  and  yet  you  take  up  a  country  newspaper  that  hap- 
pens to  be  hostile  to  us  to-day  and  it  will  talk  to  yon 
about  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  "  paroxysmal  kiss,"  of  the 
woman  whom  he  attempted  to  ravish. 

THE    EXPRESSIONS    IN    THE  CONTRITION 
LETTER. 

Allow  me  now  for  one  moment  to  read  this 
paper,  and  see  whether  you  believe  that  a  man  like  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  deliberately  dictating  word  for  word, 
wrote  such  sentences  as  these :  "I  ask  through  you  Tlieo- 
dore  Tilton's  forgiveness,  and  I  humble  myself  before 
him  as  I  do  before  my  God."  "My  God,"  as  if  he  kept 
a  private  god  of  his  own,  and  set  Tilton  and  that  god 
side  by  side,  and  he  kneeling  alternately  before  the  one 
and  before  the  other.  Mr.  Beecher  uses  strong,  earnest 
blazing,  glowing  thoughts  and  words,  but  he  never  talk^ 
like  that.  Mr.  Beecher,  at  least,  would  have  known,  if 
he  had  been  capable  of  writing  such  a  sentence  as  that, 
he  would  have  known  better  than  to  end  it  with  a  comma, 
and  to  continue  it  in  these  words :  "  as  T  do  before  my 
God,  he  would  have  been  a  better  man  in  my  circum- 
stances than  I  have  been."  Which  ?  God  or  Tilton  ?  The 
immediate  antecedent  is  the  Divine  Being  Himself, 
There  is  an  absurdity  in  this  that  carries  in  itself  abso- 
lute conviction  that  this  is  the  work  either  of  a  bungler 
or  a  knave.  "  I  can  "— "  can't now,  do  you  believe, 
geatlemen,  that  Henry  Ward  Beeclier  ever  found  occa- 
sion to  say  "  I  can't  ask  nothing  ?"— that  is  the  way  it 
was  originally  written.  I  might  do  that,  for  I  am  care- 
less iu  my  forms  of  speech  ;  I  am  not  a  trained  rhetori- 
cian; but  Theodore  Tilton  can't  do  it,  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  can't  do  it,  Judge  Neilson  can't  do  it,  my  friend 
Mr.  Beach  can't  do  it ;  it  ig  a  form  of  expression  that  can- 
not pass  his  lips.  Why,  just  as  impossible  as  for  a  vet- 
eran to  run  away  before  the  battle.  Men  who  are  trained 
understand  what  they  are  trained  to.  They  maintain  their 
position.  Men  who  are  trained  in  letters  understand  the 
use  of  language.  "  I  can't  ask  nothing  except—"  Now, 
that  "t"  is  blotted  out.  Do  you  think  Frank  Moulton, 
who  made  the  mistake,  discovered  it?  Not  a  bit. 
I  will  tell  you  whose  hand  it  was  that  ran  the 
pen  through  that  "t"— I  don't  need  to.  "I  can't 
ask  nothing  except  that  he  will  remember  all 
the  other  hearts  that  would  ache—"  Now,  you 
can  see  that  if  Henry  Ward  Beecher  began  such  a  sen- 
tence it  would  have  an  end  somewhere ;  it  would  not  be 
cat  right  off  in  that  way,  chopped  off  like  half  of  a  child, 
leaving  the  other  half  to  represent  the  whole  body  of  ^. 


SUJUIING    UP  BY  MR.  PORTER. 


607 


That  is  not  tlie  vray.  You  liave  seeu  tliis  man ;  you  kno^v 
him ;  you  have  listened  to  him  eight  or  ten  days ;  you 
have  lived  mth  him;  you  know  his  way  of  talking.  "  '  I 
will  not  plead ' — that  wont  do  !  That  wont  do  !  He  must 
have  said  something  more  than  that— what  was  it  ?"  "  I 
really  don't  rememher,  Tilran."  There  is  the  thing  itself  ; 
[handing  the  letter  to  the  jury],  and  when  Tilton  came 
to  read  that :  "  That  wont  do !"  Oh !  "  '  For  myself '  "— 
"'I  will  not  plead  for  myself'— that  is  it."  So,  that  is 
written.  Well,  of  course,  Frank  was  there ;  the  pen  and 
ink  there.  They  would  have  you  suppobo  that  there  was 
no  pen  and  iuk  anywhere  except  at  Henry  Ward 
Beecher's,  and  that  that  could  never  have  heen  written 
unless  it  was  written  there  I  It  is  enough  for  my  pur- 
pose that  even  there  he  had  to  correct  it.  If  he  did  it  on 
the  spot,  it  shows  the  work  of  a  hungler,  it  shows  that  he 
did  not  write  from  the  dictation  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 
Agatu,  "I  even  wish  that  I  were  dead."  "Even"— that 
presupposes  something.  What  does  that  "even*  refer 
to?  Any  intelligent  scholar  will  say  to  you  that 
the  man  who  wrote  that  did  not  understand 
language;  or  else,  that  there  is  an  omitted 
?e-ntence ;  there  was  something  that  preceded  it. 
"  I  even  wish  I  were  dead.  But  others  must  live  and  suf- 
fer. I  will  die  before  any  one  hut  myself  shall  he  incul- 
pated." And  yet  hoth  these  men  swear  that  this  was  an 
admission  of  adultery;  that  Frank  Moult  on  took  it  as 
such ;  that  Theodore  Tilton  understood  it  as 
such,  and  that  a  man  who  intended  to  admit 
that  he  had  committed  adultery  does  it  ta  this  way— 
"I  will  die  before  anybody  but  myself  shaU  be  incul- 
pated." It  is  unilateral  adultery.  Tilton  don't  do  things 
on  the  Divine  principle;  he  rejects  that  as  obsolete. 
When  He  created  human  beings,  even  the  inferior  ani- 
mals, "  male  and  female  created  He  them."  But  here  is  a 
case  of  male  adultery.  What  a  foolish  thing  it  was  to 
create  Eve  at  all,  wasn't  it  ?  Adam  could  have  been  the 
progenitor  of  all  the  posterity  that  has  sprung  from  both, 
according  to  the  theory  of  Tilton.  You  perceive,  gentle- 
men, that  the  verv  language  which  is  here  employed  ut- 
terly excludes  the  idea  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was 
confessing  adultery,  even  if  this  had  been  his  writing 
instead  of  the  writing  of  Frank  Moulton.  "All  my 
thoughts  are  running  toward  my  friends,  toward 
the  poor  child  lying  there  and  praying  with  her 
folded  hands."  Now,  observe  whom  this  is  to.  Frank 
Moulton  represents  this  as  being  in  a  letter  to  him  who 
had  declared  that  night  that  he  was  a  heathen,  that  he 
cared  for  none  of  these  things.  He  represents  Mr. 
Beecher  as  saying  to  him,  "All  my  thoughts  are  running 
toward  that  poor  child  lyiug  there,  praying  with  her 
folded  hands."  1  have  n't  a  doubt  that  Mr.  Beecher  did, 
in  the  earnestness  of  his  solilocLuy  and  his  self-reproaches, 
speak  of  her.  But  you  see  that  this  man  has  merely 
caught  detached  expressions.  He  had  be^^n  an  adrairer 
of  Theodore  Tilton,  had  been  worsniping  him  aU  his  'Jfe, 


from  the  time  they  were  at  school  together,  and  "  folded 
hands"  seems  to  him  to  be  eloiuent,  and  "  lying  there" 
was  elo(iuent,  and  "  sinned  against"  was  eloquent;  and 
all  these  phrases  seemed  to  him  to  be  iust  the  thing  that 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  should  write,  and  that  other  men 
should  give  him  credit  for.  "  She  is  guUt- 
less"— an  adultery  in  which  the  adulteress  is 
guiltless !  Sinned  agam^t,  bearing  the  transgression 
of  another.  Her  forgiveness  I  have.  I  humbly  pray  to 
God  that  He  may  put  into  the  heart  of  her  husband  to 
forgive  me."  Gentlemen,  you  can  look  at  that  [handing 
it  to  juryj.  And  then  I  will  ask  you  if  in  the  mind  of  one 
man  on  that  jury  there  remains  a  doubt  that  that  "  it" 
was  put  In  afterward  at  the  instance  of  Theodore  Tilton, 
who  saw  that  it  was  necessary  to  make  sense.  Look  at 
the  ink.  Look  at  the  hole  in  which  it  is  crowded.  "  I 
humbly  pray  to  God  that  He  may  put  it  into  the  heart  of 
her  husband  to  forgive  me,"  and  then  follows,  "  I  have 
trusted  this  to  Moulton,  in  confidence.  H.  W.  Beecher" 
— reading  it  continuously — ^it  keeps  right  along.  He  signs 
it.  Of  course  you  will  see  the  manner  in  which  the  signa- 
ture is  attached  to  the  bottom. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  perhaps  detained  you  too  long  on 
this  subject  (although  that  is  a  question  which  will  >;e 
discussed  by  Mr.  Evarts).  It  seemed  to  me  so  palpably 
absui-d  to  suppose  that  the  man  who  swore  that  that  pa- 
per was  dictated  word  for  word  by  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
and  that  he  read  it,  and  that  he  afterward  signed  it,  could 
be  believed !  The  paper  itself,  supposing  him  to  have 
been  capable  of  writing  it,  does  not  convict  him  of  adul- 
tery; it  is  inconsistent  with  adultery.  But  I  use  it  for 
another  purpose.  The  man  who  swears  that  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  wrot€  it  lies.  He  is  an  untrustworthy 
witness ;  he  is  not  to  be  believed  ;  he  is  not  to  be  believed 
when  he  swears  to  that ;  he  is  not  to  be  believed  when  he 
swears  to  any  fact  in  regard  to  which  his  oath  is  opposed 
to  the  oath  of  an  honest  man, 

"XEST-HIDIXG"  DEFrNT:D. 

As  illustrative  of  the  same  kind  of  trickery, 
gentlemen,  which  runs  through  the  whole  of  this  case, 
and  which  has  led  really  to  a  great  deal  of  public  misap- 
prehension, let  me  refer  for  a  moment  to  the  letter  of  May 
3,  1871,  page  84.  Now,  please  to  remember  the  cii-cum- 
stances  under  which  ]\Irs.  Tilton  writes  this  letter,  or 
note,  to  Mr.  Beecher.  He  was  her  pastor.  She  knew  that 
she  had  made  a  false  accusation  against  him  ;  she  knew 
that,  although  she  had  retracted  it,  yet  she  had  be€n  in- 
duced in  another  form  to  repeat  the  a<?cusation.  She 
honored  him ;  she  felt  self -convicted  for  the  wrong ;  she 
felt,  as  was  true,  that  it  was  not  in  his  heart  to  reproach 
her;  that  he  appreciated  the  circumstances  imder  which 
it  happened ;  and  she  -writes  to  him,  as  her  pastor,  he  not 
being  willing  to  see  her,  and  she  having  no  opportunity 
to  talk  with  him  personally,  this  little  note  : 

Mr.  Beechek:  My  future,  either  for  life  or  death. 


608 


THE   TILIO^-BBECHEB  lEIAL, 


would  be  happier,  could  I  but  feel  that  you  forgave  wliile 
you  forget  me.  In  all  the  sad  complications  of  the  past 
years  my  endeavor  was  to  entirely  keep  from  you  all  suf- 
fering;  to  hear  myself  alone,  leaving  you  forever  igno- 
rant of  it.  My  weapons  were  love,  a  larger  untiring  gen- 
erosity, and  nest-hiding  ! 

What  is  the  occasion  of  that  letter  ?  Is  it  a  letter  of 
assignation,  as  this  man  would  have  you  believe  ?  Is  it  a 
letter  of  an  adulteress  to  an  adulterer,  exulting  over  past 
lascixdousness?  No;  it  is  the  letter  of  an  humble,  a 
broken,  a  contrite  woman,  to  the  man  whom  she  has 
wronged.  She  perfectly  understood  that  he  knew  how  it 
was  that  she  had  come  to  commit  the  wrong ;  that  there 
had  been  those  household  troubles  of  hers,  and  that  in  the 
course  of  those  troubles  she  had  become  so  entangled  and 
embroiled  as  to  be  brought  into  the  situation  in  which 
her  husband  was  able  to  bring  her  to  make  that  false 
accusation.  And  she,  touched  by  the  feeling  that  Mr, 
Beecher  did  not  recognize  her,  did  not  seek  her  out  in 
the  congregation,  and  that  he  had  the  feeUng  while  he 
said  no  word  of  unkindness— that  he  had  the  feeling 
that  he  could  not  have  more  to  do  with  Elizabeth  Tilton, 
says,  "  Oh,  may  I  have  the  assurance  that  while  you  for- 
get me  you  also  forgive  me  ?"  Now,  you  will  remember, 
as  a  part  of  the  literary  history  of  this  case,  that  it  was 
stated,  and  improved  upon  with  great  adroitness  by  Ben- 
jamin F.  Butler,  that  keen  and  sharp-sighted  lawyer,  and 
that  effect  was  given  to  this  in  this  way,  "  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  through  their  long 
course  of  adulterous  intercourse,  had  been  in 
the  habit  of  defining  it  by  the  use  of  the  term 
'nest-hiding,'  and  she  casually  inti^oduced  into  this 
letter  that  expression  familiar  to  them,  but  unfamiliar  ,to 
the  public."  Of  course  I  am  not  using  the  exact  lan- 
guage, but  the  idea.  You  had  occasion  to  testify  when 
you  were  sworn  as  jurors  that  you  had  read  these  publi- 
cations which  had  appeared  from  time  to  time.  Now, 
don't  you  see  there  the  art  of  Theodore  Tilton  and  the 
execution  of  Prank  Moulton  ?  Never  since  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  was  born,  so  far  as  his  recognized  and  recorded 
utterances  go,  has  he  used  that  word  "nest-hiding"— 
never— except  as  he  used  it  on  this  trial,  and  in  repudi- 
ating the  imputation  that  was  cast  upon  her. 
If  the  truth  were  that  that  was  a  phrase  that  they  had 
been  in  the  habit  of  using,  it  was  all  important  to  prove 
it.  If  that  was  a  phrase  that  was  familiar  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
he  has  been  writing  books,  and  books,  and  books,  through 
25  or  30  years,  and  they  have  aU  been  searched  and  ex- 
amined, and  "  nest-hiding"  cannot  be  found  there.  But 
my  ingenious  and  adroit  friend.  Judge  Fullerton,  goes 
through  "Norwood,"  and  he  finds  a  reference  there  by 
Mr.  Beecher  to  a  robin  and  its  nest,  and  he  says,  "  Un- 
questionably, they  got  the  term  '  nest-hiding'— she  got 
the  term  '  nest-hiding'  from  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  'Nor- 
wood.' "  WeU,  oddly  enough,  if  you  will  look  at  any  con- 
cordance of  Shakespeare,  you  will  find  Shakespeare  in 
more  than  half  a  dozen  of  his  plays  makes  the  same  ref- 


erence, though  in  other  connections,  which  is  to  be  foun'l 
in  "Norwood."  And,  without  being  myself  a  literary 
man,  I  think  that  I  can  say  with  entire  confidence  that 
you  could  scarcely  look  through  the  works  even  of  a  stem 
philosopher  like  Lord  Bacon  without  finding  similar  illus- 
trations ;  for  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  greac  men,  of  men 
of  genius,  is  that  they  see  and  use  for  the  purpose  of  illus- 
tration all  those  analogies  presented  in  natural  objects, 
or  in  the  ordinary  course  of  affairs,  and  vivify  them  into 
life,  and  make  them  weapons  of  power.  Shakespeare 
would  be  immortal  if  it  were  for  nothing  else  than  the. t 
the  very  growing  of  a  blade  of  grass  carries  to  him  a  sig- 
nificance which  enables  him  to  give  a  point  to  it  in  a 
play  which  will  endure  through  all  generations.  You 
cannot  go  next  Sunday  morning  to  hear  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  preach  without  coming  away  with  some  recol- 
lection of  a  phrase  cut  from  nature,  vivid  as  Shakespeare 
himself,  vivid  as  old  Homer— those  things  which  impress 
men  of  warm  imaginations,  high  genius,  and  keen  obser- 
vation. It  is  an  utter  absurdity  to  suppose 
that  that  casual  use  of  a  phrase  In  which 
the  word  "  nest "  occurs  is  to  give  a 
significance  to  a  compound  word  where  the  sense  is  per- 
fectly obvious.  Now,  what  did  she  mean  by  "nest- 
hiding?"  They  say  "  adultery."  Now,  I  will  read  it,  and 
when  my  learned  friend  [Mr.  Beach]  comes  to  comment 
upon  that  letter  I  want  him  to  summon  all  the  resources 
of  his  ingenuity,  and  exercise  all  his  commanding  power 
of  analysis  and  illustration,  and  make  you  understand,  if 
he  can,  how  "nest-hiding"  there  means  "adultery." 
Now,  if  it  means  that,  the  substitution  of  the  word  will 
make  good  sense.  Now,  let  me  read  the  letter  over  once 
more,  as  it  is  short : 

Me.  Beecher  :  My  future,  either  for  life  or  death, 
would  be  happier  could  I  but  feel  that  jou  forgave  while 
you  forget  me.  In  all  tlie  dad  complications  of  the  past 
years  my  endeavor  was  entirely  to  keep  from  you  aL 
suffering,  to  bear  myself  alone,  leaving  you  forevei 
ignorant  of  it.  My  weapons  were  love,  a  large,  untiring 
generosity,  and  " 

adultery  !  Is  that  the  tone  of  that  letter  ?  Do  the  parts 
harmonize  if  you  substitute  the  word  "  adultery"  for  the 
word  "  nest-hiding."  It  was  a  dishonest  device  of  Theo- 
dore Tilton  to  convert  the  language  of  purity  into  the 
language  of  confession  of  guilt. 


ANOTHER  "ASSIGNATION"  LETTER. 
Now,  let  me  turn  to  another  of  these  letters. 
Much  injury  has  been  done  to  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  estima- 
tion of  those  who  were  not  willing  to  wait  to  hear  his  de- 
fense, by  the  publication  of  this  letter  of  the  20th  of 
January,  1872.  My  eloquent  friend  Judge  Morris,  in  the 
course  of  his  opening,  alluded  *^^o  that  letter  as  being 
strikingly  significant,  and  as  showing  that,  even  after  all 
these  developments,  there  was  in  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
that  adulterous  spirit  which  led  him  to  press  this  woman 
to  further  assignations.   He  did  not  state  it  in  terms,  but 


SU^ITdlNG    UF  BY  JIB.  PORTER. 


cm 


h.is  arsninent  meant  that,  or  ic  meant  nothing.  You  will 
reiiii'inber  3Ir.  E  echer's  stateiuv^nt  of  this  letter,  a  letter 
which  he  -^vas  induced  to  "^rite  by  the  request  of  Frank 
?IO"Jton  and  at  the  instance  of  Theodore  Tiltonfor  the 
puri>ose  of  making  Elizabeth  more  cheerful,  and  inciting 
her  to  do  more  for  the  purpose  of  making  Mr.  Tilton's 
hume  ene  such  as  should  encourage  Mm  in  Ms  "work  and 
iiterarj-  pui'suits.  "January  20th,  _  1872  "—remem- 
ber tMs  ^-as  a  letter  not  intended  for  pu"!> 
iication ;  it  "was  a  private  commimication  by  the  pastor 
to  the  penitent ;  it  was  the  commtmication  of  a  man  who, 
Avhlle  he  wi-ote  it,  knew  that  the  greatest  wrong  he  ever 
fcTifFered  trom  this  woman  was  a  wong  that  came  from 
her  troubles,  but  one  who  forgave  her,  and  loved  her, 
and  pitied  he:— whose  writing  at  the  instance  of  her  own 
husband  and  by  the  persuasion  of  Frank  Moulton,  of  this 
note,  is  now  sent  out  to  the  world  as  a  clandestine  and 
adulterous  correspondence. 

"Xow,  may  the  God  of  peace  that  brought  again  from  the 
dead  our  Lord  Jesus  CMist,  that  great  Shepherd  of  the 
sheep,  tMough  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant, 
make  you  perfect  in  every  good  work  to  do  His  will, 
working  ia  you  that  wMch  is  well  and  pleasing  in  His 
sight  through  Jesus  CMist."   This  is  my  prayer  day  and 
night.   This  world  ceases  to  hold  me  as  It  did.   I  live  in 
the  thought  and  the  hope  of  the  coming  immortality,  and 
I  seem  to  myself  most  of  the  time  to  be  standing  on  the 
I  edge  of  the  other  life,  wondering  whether  I  may  not,  at 
j  uny  hour,  hear  the  call  to  "  Corue  up  hither." 
i      I  slnll  be  in  New-Haven  next  week,  to  begin  my  course 
I  of  lectitres  to  the  theological  classes  on  preaching. 
I      My  wife  takes  boat  for  Havana  and  Florida  on  Thurs- 
)  day.   I  called  on  Wednesday,  but  you  were  out.   I  hope 
I  you  are  growing  stronger  and  happier.   May  the  dear 
[  Lord  and  Savior  abide  with  you.   Very  truly  yours. 

!  Now,  that  letter,  written  in  the  spirit  of  the  purest 
j  Christian  love  and  Mndness,  containing  no  single  word  of 
reproach  to  the  lady  from  whom  he  had  stiffered  so  fear- 
ful a  wrong;  that  letter  is  now  distorted  into  a  letter 
between  an  adtilterer  and  an  a  Julteress  for  the  purpose 
of  making  an  assignation  for  the  next  week.  Gentle- 
men, there  is  one  very  simple  answer  to  that.  It  was 
not  written  to  say,  "  Come,  for  I  shall  be  at  home  this 
week;  my  wife  is  going  on  Thursday."  That  was  not 
it.  It  was  not,  "  Come  when  my  wife  goes,  for  I  shaU  be 
at  home  tMs  week  and  gone  next  week."  The  letter  is 
written  on  Saturday,  and  the  next  week  was  the  week, 
not  when  he  was  to  be  at  Ms  house  vacated  by  his  ^-ife; 
the  next  week  was  to  be  the  week  when  he  was  to  be 
gone  aU  the  week  and  Ms  wife  part  of  it.  And  yet  this 
is  called  a  letter  of  assignation :  There  is  sometMng  so 
cruel  in  this  endeavor,  by  contrivance,  to  prejudice  the 
commmiity  against  aniimocentman !  They  knew  of  course; 
j  they  understood  it ;  but  it  is  so  grouped,  in  their  presen- 
;  tation  of  the  case,  with  circumstance  and  suspicion,  as  to 
lead  you  to  believe  that  this  innocent  act  of  a  CMistian 
clergyman  to  a  parisMoner,  at  her  own  instance,  was 
reaUy  an  attempt  on  Ms  part,  even  imder  all  that  had 
passed,  to  make  with  her  an  assignation  of  infamy  at  Ms 


own  house.  Well  nu',v,  men  who  are  capable  of  using  for 
such  a  purpose  such  a  letter,  are  men  whose  oaths  you 
cr.nnot  trust,  vrhen  they,  uishonest,  accuse  an  innocent 
woman  and  an  honest  man.  You  remember,  gentlemen, 
the  publication  of  a  letter  that  I  .'ead  to  you  the  other 
day,  in  a  forged  and  fabricated  form,  where  the  very  im- 
putation she  makes  upon  him,  of  infidelity  to  her,  is  con- 
verted by  forgery  into  an  admission  of  her  guilt  and  a 
declaration  of  her  infamy. 

THE  THBEATEXEP  CAED. 
My  friend  Abbott  lias  jiist  called  inv  atten- 
tion to  another  fact  which  is  ecLually  characteristic  of  the 
action  of  Tilton  and  Z^Ioulton.  We  have  here  a  card  pre- 
pared by  Mr.  Tiltun  for  publication,  intended  for  iTie 
Brooklyn  Eagle — or  rather  intended  for  blackmail  pur- 
poses, but  ptu'porting  to  be  intended  for  The  Brooklyn 
Eagle.  TMs  is  the  card  wMch  they  threatened  to  publish 
after  Mr.  Wilkeson  had  published  the  "  Tripartite  Agree- 
ment." Now,  if  any  man  on  earth  knew  the  terms  of  that 
"Apology,"  Theodore  Tilton  did,  didn't  he?  Yet  here  he 
appends  tMs  paper  as  the  statement  of  Mr.  Beecher.  He 
purports  to  give  a  copy  of  the  Apology,  mutilated,  of 
course,  for  notMng  passes  tMough  Tilton's  hands  withotit 
more  or  less  mutilation ;  but  the  point  to  wMch  I  wish 
to  call  your  attention  is  there.  [Showing  the  paper  to  the 
jury.J  The  paper  is  signed  "  H.  W.  Beecher." 
He  has  represented  Mr.  Beecher  as  signing 
the  letter;  and  the  memorandum,  "  I  have  trusted  this  to 
Moulton  in  confidence,"  is  put  helow  the  signature  instead 
of  above  it.  Look  at  it.  I  presume  that  the  jury  can  all 
see  it.  There  [indicating]  is  the  memorandum  at  the  top, 
and  then  the  signature,  "  H.  W.  Beecher."  Now,  in  order 
to  get  at  the  look  of  a  veritable  letter  from  Mr.  Beecher 
he  puts  the  "  H.  W.  Beecher"  there  [indicating] ;  he  leaves 
tMs  memorandum  below  the  name,  after  the  name  instead 
of  before  it.  Of  course  he  suppresses  the  fact  that  this 
paper  is  in  Frank  Moulton's  handwriting;  and  of  course 
he  does  not  disclose  the  fact,  wMch  was  admitted,  how- 
ever, to  Gen.  Tracy,  and  proved  also  by  Mr.  Beecher,  that 
that  paper  was  merely  Frank  Moulton's  minutes  of  the 
conversation. 

THE  ORIGINAL  FORM  OF  THE  CONTRITION 
LETTER. 

I  omitted,  when  speaking  of  the  "  Apology," 

to  call  your  attention  to  one  other  feature  wMch  is  per- 
haps worthy  of  notice.  When,  before,  in  all  your  obser- 
vation, did  you  ever  see  a  man  writing  a  letter  to  another 
person,  and  adding  a  certificate  at  the  bottom,  "  I  have 
intrusted  this  "  to  that?  person.  One  of  you  has  occasion  to 
write  a  letter  to  Austin  Abbott.  You  write  it.  If  it  is 
confidential,  you  say,  "  confidential"  at  the  top,  or  at  the 
bottom,  and  that  is  all.  But  would  not  Mr.  Abbott  or  any 
one  else  be  very  much  sui-prised  at  receiving  a  letter,  un- 
signed, with  a  certificate  at  the  bottom,  "  I  have  in- 


610 


TEE  TILTON-BEEGEEE  TRIAL. 


trusted  this  to  Abbott  in  conflaence  "—a  letter  to  Min- 
selE  ?  Now,  I  know,  gentlemen,  that  others  entertain  a 
different  opinion,  but  for  myself,  my  belief  is  that  every 
word  above  "  I  ask,"  in  that  paper,  was  put  there 
after  Moulton  came  away.  I  do  not  believe 
that  it  was  a  letter  at  all,  when  he  wrote  it.  I  don't  be- 
lieve he  wrote  those  words  in  Mr.  Beecher's  library. 
Still,  it  is  possible  that  he  did.  But  when  you  come  to 
look  at  the  scrawling  manner  in  which  this  is  written,  it 
is  very  easy  to  see  that,  beginning  to  write  it  in  this  way 
as  a  memorandum,  he  afterward  thought  it  was  better 
to  give  it  the  form  of  a  letter.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher  never 
saw  that  paper  fi-om  that  time,  and  certainly  did  not  see 
its  contents  at  that  time. 

SEASONS  FOR  DISBELIEVING  MR.  TELTON. 
It  is  desirable  that  you  should  keep  constantly 
in  view  that  this  suit  is  not  by  Frank  Moulton.  It  is  not 
by  Mrs.  Moulton.  It  Is  a  suit  brought  by  Theodore  Tilton, 
who  alleges  that  he  has  been  wronged.  Of  course,  I  shall 
have  occasion  to  speak  of  the  testimony  of  the  two  wit- 
nesses on  whom  he  relies,  but  if  I  can  satisfy  your  con- 
sciences and  your  judgment  that  Theodore  Tilton,  who 
makes  the  accusation,  is  a  liar,  that  he  does  not  believe 
and  never  did  believe  his  own  accusation,  that  whatever 
other  people  may  think,  he  knows  it  to  be  false,  and 
that  he  has  attempted  to  palm  that  falsehood 
on  you  by  his  own  deliberate  and  corrupt 
perjury,  then  you  will  not  stop  to  inquire 
whether  these  other  people  tell  the  truth.  It  is  utterly 
unimportant  by  what  cunning  device  he  has  succeeded 
in  creating  the  honest  impression,  or  in  procuring  the 
dishonest  statement,  which  may  seem  to  be  corrobora- 
tion of  his  own.  This  issue  is  between  Theodore  Tilton 
and  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  I  propose  to  hold  him  to 
it ;  and,  when  you  are  satisfied  that  his  accusation  is 
false,  it  will  not  take  you  long  to  dispose  of  the  testimony 
to  which  he  resorts  by  way  of  corrobatiom  Now,  on 
that  point  we  have  two  very  opposite  views  of  Mr.  Til- 
ton. My  friend  Beach,  in  the  course  of  one  of  the  inter- 
locutory discussions  of  this  case,  tells  us  that  Theodore 
Tilton  stands  a  prominent  and  an  eminent  leader  of  the 
Christianity  of  the  age.  Well,  you  know  something  of 
him  now— more  than  you  did  when  my  friend  made 
that  address  to  you,  and  I  ask  you  where  is  it  that  he  is 
leading  the  Christianity  of  the  age  %  It  is  to  the  saloon 
of  "  Madame  Roland"  in  New- York ;  it  is  to  the  foot  of 
that  ladder  described  in  the  Woodhull  biography,  extend- 
ing from  her  to  heaven,  on  which  the  angels  of  free  love 
were  ascending  or  descending,  as  the  case  may  be.  It  is 
such  "  leaders  of  Christianity"  that  demand  of  you  a  ver- 
dict that  shall  strike  down  the  veteran  whose  hairs  have 
whitened  in  the  service  of  his  Master  I  My  friend  Judge 
FuUerton  also  takes  occasion,  in  glorifying  the  "  Wood- 
hull  Biography,"  to  describe  Theodore  Tilton,  who  wan 
the  champion,  who  was  so  devoted  to  the  intoicsts  of 


Henry  Ward  Beecher,  the  alleged  paramour  of  his  own 
wife,  as  to  hasten  to  encounter  Victoria  Woodhull, 
"a  lioness  in  the  way,"  as  my  friend  called  ]:o';; 
who    was    80    generous  and  magnanimous    to  his 
enemy  as  to  devote  himself  to  the  task  of  "  extracting  tiie 
teeth  of  this  dangerous  animal,  and  to  substitute  tlie 
kindly  purr  for  the  wicked  and  threatening  growl."  You 
recognize  the  language  of  my  learned  friend,  which  I 
have  given  to  you  as  used  by  himself.  And  my  friend  in 
commendation  of  that  holy  zeal  Theodore  Tilton  had  to 
save  the  pastor  of  Plymouth  Church,  says,  "  I  suppose 
that  if  to  accomplish  that  object,  Mr.  Tilton  had  been 
called  upon  to  write  a  glowing  eulogy  upon  .Tuda^ 
Iscariot,  he  would  have  done  it,  and  it  would  have  re- 
ceived the  defendant's  blessing."  Whether  Judge  Fuller- 
ton  was  right  or  not,  as  to  Mr.  Beecher,  you  may  judge 
from  the  fact  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  then 
engaged  in    writing    the  life  on  earth  of  the  Re- 
deemer   whom  Theodore  Tilton  disowns,  and  whom 
Judas    Iscariot    betrayed.  Doubtless,  if  Tilton  had 
undertaken    the    work    suggested    by  his  counsel, 
Judas  would  have  been   made  to    shine  with  all 
the  luster  which,  in  that  other  biography,  was  made  to 
encircle  the  brows  of  Victoria  Woodhull.  Certainly  he 
was  well  fitted  for  the  work  that  his  counsel  proposed 
for  him  ;  the  man  who  volunteered  on  that  witness-stanrA 
to  describe  Frank  Moulton,  the  "  mutual  friend,"  as  (I 
use  his  language)  "  the  successor  of  Sir  Philip  Sidney  in 
all  that  is  noble,  manly,  and  magnificent  in  friendship." 
In  language  equally  glowing  he  could  have  described  the 
traduced  Apostle  as  the  mutual  friend  of  an  earlier  day. 
But  in  view— I  use  his  language  again— in  view  of  "  the 
genius  for  administration  and  great  courage  of  thought 
and  action,"  which  he  swears  are  the  characteristics  of 
Moulton,  he  might  perhaps  have  suggested  to  him, 
whether,  if  Frank   Moulton    had    happened  to  bo 
one   of    the    Twelve,    Judas    Iscariot  would  ev^er 
have     pocketed     those     30     pieces     of  silver. 
I    tell    you,    gentlemen,  when    men    talk  about 
being  biographers  of  Judas  Iscariot,  it  shows  the  estima- 
tion in  which  the  coimsel  holds  his  client.    He  could  not 
suppress  his  own  conviction  of  the  character  of  that 
client.    I  have  used,  and  shall  use,  strong  language,  in 
this  case.  It  is  not  my  practice.  In  the  ordinary  course 
of  our  profession  the  cases  are  very  rare  in  which  we  are 
justified,  still  more  rare  in  which  we  are  compelled  by  a 
stern  sense  of  duty,  to  speak  of  dishonest  mesi  as  they 
deserve.  But  tjiis  is  no  case  for  compromise.  If  Theo- 
dore Tilfcon's  accusation  is  false,  if  he  has  suborned  his 
wife  to  make  a  false  accusation,  even  without  oath,  if  he 
has  made  use  of  a  villain  in  Frank  Moulton  for  the  pur- 
pose of  doing  the  common  work  of  both  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  a  pure  and  a  good  and  an  honest  man,  we 
cannot  speak  of  them  except  as  they  deserve ;  and  whUe 
I    know    that    much  that  I  have  said  and  more 
that  I  shall  say  will  give  pain  to  my  client,  who  enter- 


SDMMMG    UF  B 

tains  more  charitable  Tie^^rs  of  all  tliese  parties  than  I  do, 
I  cannot  but  believe  that  you  in  your  hearts  feel  that  it 
is  essential  to  the  protection  of  innocence  hereafter 
against  kindred  conspiracies  that  scoundrels  like  these, 
when  they  endeavor  to  force  honest  men  into  their  ser- 
vice, shall  be  met  in  a  spirit  worthy  of  the  occasion,  and 
that  there  shall  be  an  admonition  to  men  hereafter  who 
engage  in  enterprises  like  this  ;  that  it  is  i.ox  in  a  court  of 
justice  that  swindling,  coiispiracy,  aud  perjury  are  to  be 
countenanced.  Now,  If  you  wanted  a  simple  test,  in  any 
ordinary  case,  of  the  questioti  whether  a  witness  was 
to  be  believed,  would  not  the  first  inquiry  that 
would  occur  to  your  mind  be,  is  he  impartial?  is 
he  disposed  to  tell  the  truth  1  Is  he  unbiased  %  Tilton 
tells  you  that  for  four  years  he  was  a  Uar. 
Moulton  tells  you  that  he  was  a  liar  for  four  years.  But 
they  say  they  are  teDing  the  truth  now ;  and  because  you 
believe  that  they  then  lied,  he  insists  that  you  shall  be- 
lieve tliat  they  now  tell  the  truth.  Well,  if  it  were  a 
mere  question  of  the  value  of  a  rail-fence ;  if  it  were  a 
question  merely  of  a  right  of  way,  you  might  be  disposed 
to  accept  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  even  under  such 
circumstances ;  but  when  they  ask  you,  on  testimony 
like  theirs,  to  take  their  avowal  that  they  are 
liars  and  the  truth  is  not  in  them,  and  then  ask 
you  to  strike  down  an  honored  fellow-citizen,  wnose  life 
has  been  in  the  full  blaze  and  splendor  of  noonday,  and 
BO  far  without  spot  or  blemish,  then  I  ask  you,  then,  are 
you  going  to  say  that  you  will  admit  the  oaths  of  these 
two  liars  as  agamst  the  oath  of  an  honest  man.  But 
there  is  more  than  this.  They  say  they  lied  then  because 
they  had  a  motive  to  lie ;  but  they  teU  the  truth  now  be- 
cause they  have  no  longer  a  motive  to  lie.  What  motive 
th&ii  to  lie?  Moulton  says  he  lied  from  consideration  and 
tenderness  for  Henry  Ward  Beech  er.  Til  ton  says 
he  lied  from  tenderness  and  delicacy  to  his  wife. 
Well,  motives  may  not  be  striking  and  obvious,  and  still 
they  may  exist.  The  friendship  and  devotion  of  Francis 
D.  Moulton  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  you  remember,  grew  I 
out  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  debauched  the  wife 
of  his  most  intimate  friend.  And  the  tendeniess  and  del- 
icacy of  Theodore  Tilton  toward  this  woman  was  the  ten- 
derness and  delicacy  of  a  man  who  wrote  to  her  years 
ago  about  the  Eedeemer  whom  she  loved,  in  the  terms 
that  I  have  read  to  you  here ;  it  was  the  tenderness  and 
delicacy  of  a  man  who  coidd  say,  in  the  presence  of  a 
young  girl,  that  he  was  the  father  of  but  one  legitimate 
child ;  a  man  who  could  bastardize  his  own  dead  boy  to 
gratify  his  malignity,  his  cupidity,  or  his  revenge !  But 
we  liave  something  more.  We  have  from  both  these  men 
admissions  of  a  degree  of  present  malice  which  would 
indiice  you  to  reject  their  oaths  under  any  conceivable 
circumstances  imless  you  believe  they  falsely  accused 
ihtmselves 


Y  ME.    POETEE.  611 

AUSTIX  ABBOTT'S   SEEYICES  PRAISED. 

Often,  gentlemen,  the  great  work  the  results 
of  which  are  recognized  by  all  men  are  credited  mainlj' 
to  those  who  are  the  least  deserving,  and  my  friend  Ab- 
bott win  pardon  me  for  saying  at  this  moment  that  rf 
your  verdict  shall  vindicate  Henry  Ward  Beecher  from 
this  foul  charge,  not  even  my  friend  Shearman,  with  all 
his  devotion  and  ability ;  not  even  Gen.  Tracy,  with  a 
chivalric  fidelity  that  lias  ennobled  him  in  the  estimation 
of  his  brethren  here  and  everywhere,  and  has  made  us 
love  and  honor  him;  not  even  the  splendid  abUity  of  my 
senior  associate  who  is  to  follow  me,  will  have  contrib- 
uted as  much  to  that  result  as  one  [turning  to  Mr.  Ab- 
bott] whose  voice  you  have  scarcely  heard  from  the  com- 
mencement of  this  trial,  I  desire  to  avail  myself,  as  I  am 
compelled  to  do.  and  as  Gen.  Tracy  was  from  time  to 
tune,  of  his  researches  and  his  groupings  of  this  evidence, 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  to  your  minds  facts  which 
should  be  controlling  and  vital  in  the  discussion  of  this 
case.  Now,  let  us  take  some  of  these  declarations  which 
characterize  these  two  men. 

MRS.    MOITLTON'S    DEXLWCIATION  OF  MR. 
TILTON. 

There  is  one,  which  may  be  among  those 
handed  me  by  my  friend,  but  which  I  noted  myself,  and 
will  first  refer  to,  one  which  struck  me  because  of  its 
source,  Mrs.  Moulton,  in  her  testimony,  lets  drop  two 
very  significant  facts,  and  certainly  she  was  no  friendly 
witness  to  us,  Mrs.  Moulton  says  she  told  Mr,  Beecher 
in  July,  1874,  speaking  of  Theodore  Tilton,  "  I  thought  he 
was  treacherous ;  I  told  htm  that  I  thought  Mr.  Tilton 
was  filled  with  revenge  and  anger  against  him,"  At  page 
734  she  admits  that  she  told  Tilton  to  his  face  that  he 
was  a  villain,  and  would  betray  her  husband  as  he  had 
Mr,  Beecher.  Gentlemen,  when,  even  from  the  roof  be- 
neath which  this  whole  accusation  had  its  origin, 
the  roof  of  Francis  D.  Moulton,  you  get  such 
declarations  cropprug  out,  what  do  you  think 
of  these  men  ?  Was  that  woman  deceived  1  She  is  now 
here  swearing  In  the  interest  of  the  villain  and  the  traitor 
whom  she  is  compelled  to  admit  she  then  denounced. 
Let  us  take  the  declaration,  for  instance,  of  Mr.  Tilton 
which  is  proved  by  Mr,  Storrs  in  July,  1874,  at  Mr, 
Os'ington's  house,  after  his  wife  had  left  him,  IVIr.  Storrs 
says  "the  conversation  on  that  point  was  that  his 
wife  had  left  him,  and  he  said  that  he  had  not 
said  anything  about  it,  but  he  thought  he  must 
now  smash  Elizabeth  and  Mr.  Beecher,"  These 
women-smashers  come  into  court  and  ask  twelve  men 
to  help  them  to  smash  the  woman ! 

MR,  TILTON'S  EKMITY  FOE  MR.  BEECHER. 

Take  the  occasion  of  the  interview  with  Mr. 
Wilkeson,  and  we  find  what  his  trouble  was.  Not  thai 
Mr,  Beecher  had  committed  adultc-ry.   He  said  that  Mi. 


612 


IRE   TILTON-BEECHEB  TRIAL. 


Beecher  had  not  come  to  Ms  lielir— this  was  in  1872— and 
that  he  was  a  man  of  such  power  that  he  could  with  his 
little  finger  have  lifted  him  up  out  of  his  trouble,  but  that 
he  had  lain  on  the  sidewalk  in  Brooklyn,  crushed  and 
ruined  by  Bowen's  treatment  of  him,  and  in  consequence 
of  it  wrote  the  memorandum  and  those  two  papers— there 
was  his  trouble,  and  the  injury  done  to  his  reputation ; 
that  Mr.  Beecher,  who  with  his  little  finger  had  the  power 
to  lift  him  up  and  reinstate  him,  had  passed  him  by 
indifferent  and  had  not  helped  him,  but  had  left 
him  lying  there.  Moving  across  the  room  back  and 
forth  in  great  excitement,  he  said  he  would  pursue  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  to  the  grave.  That  he  may  do,  but  can  he 
call  upon  you  to  help  him  hound  Mr.  Beecher  into  the 
grave?  Is  this  the  kind  of  a  plaintiff  who  presents  his 
case  before  this  eminent  jurist  and  before  you.  claiming 
that  he  is  entitled  to  occupy  half  a  year  of  your  time  in 
order  that  he  may  be  reinstated  in  respect  to  the  pecu- 
niary losses  he  sustaiued  by  making  use  of  the  reputation 
of  his  wife,  the  legitimacy  of  his  children,  and  the  char- 
acter of  a  Christian  clergyman  as  the  means  of  rein- 
statement 1 

Again,  in  speaking  in  reference  to  a  clause  in  the 
**  Tripartite  Agreement,"  the  precise  words  he  uses  in  a 
portion  of  that  interview  were :  "  I  wiU  never  sign  any 
agreement  which  wiU  prohibit  me  from  pursuing  Mr. 
Beecher— from  pursuing  Henry  Ward  Beecher."  He 
need  not  have  been  scrupulous  about  it.  He  may  sign 
forty  agreements  ;  he  was  always  signing  agreements 
and  always  breaking  them,  but  he  seems  on  this  occasion 
to  have  been  punctilious,  and  for  once  he  was  unwilling 
to  sign  an  agreement,  although,  as  matter  of  course,  no 
matter  what  form  it  assumed,  it  would  have  been  broken 
lust  as  readily  as  it  was.  His  business  and  his  life  have 
been  in  undoing  what  he  did,  in  violating  his  pledges  of 
honor,  in  breaking  all  obligations,  in  promoting  his  own 
Interest  at  the  expense  of  aU  mankind,  and  his  vanity 
and  lust  at  the  expense  of  aU  women. 

Now,  take  the  testimony  of  Jackson  S.  Schultz.  Ob- 
serve, I  have  given  you.  so  far,  the  testimony  of  Mrs. 
Moulton.  If  you  believe  her  description  of  Theodore 
Tilton,  what  is  his  character,  what  is  his  oath  worth  1 
I  have  given  you  the  testimony  of  Samuel  Wilkeson.  If 
you  believe  that,  what  18  his  complaint — what  is  his  oath 
worth?  Now,  we  have  the  testimony  of  Jackson  S. 
Schultz : 

I  asked  him  distinctly  about  whether  he  charged  any 
criminal  relations  with  his  wife.  He  told  me  then — he 
spoke  of  the  Plymouth  crew,  and  said  that  he  would  blow 
the  roof  off  that  concern.  Q.  Did  Tilton  say  to  you  in  that 
conversation,  in  substance,  that  he  could  and  would 
blow  the  roof  off  unless  they  came  to  his  tenus  and 
settled  with  him  on  his  terms?  A.  Well,  I  don't  say 
those  exact  words,  but  the  substance.  He  said  that  In 
substance. 

And  this  man  has  the  impudence  to  complain  when  he 
is  chiiiged  with  being  a  blackmailer.   What  has  he  been 


doing  but  blackmailing  for  years,  living  on  blackmail,  in- 
dulging his  own  lust  on  blackmail,  taking  blackmail  in 
the  form  of  benefactions,  taking  it  in  any  form  in  which 
it  could  be  got,  ready  to  take  it  as  a  mendicant,  ready  to 
take  it  as  a  beggar,  ready  to  take  it  by  contrivance  and 
fraud,  and  give  it  that  character  of  spoliation  well 
described  by  him  when  he  tacked  on  Bowen's  check  the 
memorandum:  "  Spoils  from  new  friends  for  the  enrich- 
ment of  old."  And,  bitterly  as  he  hated  this  reverend 
defendant,  bitterly  as  he  hated  that  Plymouth  crew,  de- 
tei-mined  as  he  was  to  blow  off  the  roof  from  Plymouth 
Church,  it  was  only  conditioned  unless  they  came  to  Jis 
terms  and  settled  with  him  on  his  terms,  and  this  is  the 
man  that  tells  you  that  he  didn't  want  money,  and  tnat 
when  Fr  .uk  Moulton  took  $5,000  and  put  it  aside  in 
portions  of  $1,000,  $500,  and  $300  ;  when  Frank  gave 
him  that  money  he  always  closed  his  eyes,  threw  his  face 
upward  and  put  it  in  that  pocket,  and  don't  know  whore 
that  money  came  from.  There  need  be  no  record  of  that 
transaction.  I  don't  wonder  that  Gen.  Tracy  said  on  one 
occasion,  when  Franklin  Woodruff  talked  with  him 
about  this  matter :  "We  Won't  discuss  the  question  aa 
to  whether  Theodore  Tilton  knew  where  that  money 
came  from."  It  don't  need  much  discussion.  Why,  one 
of  the  leading  merchants  of  this  continent,  a  man  of  as 
clear  integrity  as  any  man  who  ever  sat  even  upon  the 
bench,  swore  Theodore  Tilton  told  him  that  he  woul  I 
blow  the  roof  from  Plymouth  Church  imless  Plymouth 
Church  came  to  his  terms,  and  on  those  terms  appeased 
his  wrath.  I  think  Mr.  Beecher  was  right  when  he  toLI 
Mr.  Redpath,  and  he  is  not*  a  man  that  speaks  against 
any  one :  "  Mr.  Redpath,  Theodore  Tilton's  griefs  are 
those  which  money  will  assuage."  It  was  when  money 
no  longer  assuaged  his  griefs  that  other  means  must  be 
resorted  to,  and  they  were. 

MRS.  BEECHER'S  DISTRUST  OF  MR.  TJLTO^S'. 

Now,  take  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Ovingtou. 
No  one  can  doubt  Mr.  Ovington,  though  he  is  not,  Uke 
Prank  Moulton,  an  oUy  witness ;  he  is  a  bimgling  wit- 
ness, easily  confused,  and  they  saw  it  and  took  advantage 
of  it  and  confused  him;  but  he  is  a  clear-headed,  intelli- 
gent, honest  man.  While  you  admire  the  adroitness  by 
which  an  honest  man  can  be  got  into  confusion,  you  at 
the  same  time  felt  while  he  was  testifying  that  you 
would  rather  have  the  moral  character  of  the  witness 
than  even  the  adroitness  which  was  able  to  confound  huu 
and  confuse  him.  I  have  more  respect  for  Edward 
Ovington  than  I  had  even  for  the  gentleman  who  was 
examining  him,  and  he  was  well  worthy  of  respect 
He  is  relating  the  conversation  of  Mr.  Tiltou 
when  he  foUows  Mrs.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Ovington's.  He 
said :  "  Mr.  Beecher  never  loved  any  other  woman  as  he 
loves  Elizabeth ;  Mrs.  Beecher  ho  never  loved."  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  geutlemen,  that  that  noble  woman  had 
much  to  do  with  this  calaiulcy.     xi.U  hkU-  iustiucts  cirly 


SUMMI^'G    UP  £ 

tangiit  ner  that  this  man  was  untrustworthy,  and,  as  he 
has  told  you,  for  years  and  years  he  never  crossed  that 
+lu-e3h  -»ld,  and  he  could  have  told  you  why.  Theodore 
Tilton  would  never  have  made,  I  believe,  those  charges 
against  IVIr.  Beecher,  except  tov  his  hatred  of  Mrs. 
Beecher ;  it  was  the  original  moving  cause,  and  it  was 
the  same  kind  of  hatred  that  the  snake  that  is  trodden 
on  has  for  the  man  that  treads  it  down.  He  saw  that 
she  read  him  and  distrusted  him,  and  despised  him,  and 
he  hated  her  and  all  her  belongings  from  that  time  on. 
But,  now,  his  pretext  is  that  Mrs.  Beecher  he  had  never 
loved,  Mrs.  Beecher  made  his  home  a  hell.  Ah  I  it  is 
a  hell  to  which  he  would  very  much  lilie  to 
obtain  access.  It  is  a  hell  which  would  be  much 
more  agreeable  for  him  to  enjoy  than  the  Heaven  in  Liv- 
ingston-st.  Of  coui'se  I  do  not  allude  to  the  particular  in- 
mates of  the  house,  but  a  home  of  purity  and  harmony 
and  love  is  a  home  that  any  of  us  might  worship,  and  no 
man  more  than  Theodore  Tilton ;  but  the  day  has  passed 
for  him  on  earth  to  hope  for  any  such  result,  for  there  is 
not  a  woman  on  earth  who  reads  the  story  of  this  trial 
that  would  trust  herself  beneath  the  same  roof  with  him 
ii  he  had  over  her  the  power  of  a  master  or  a  husband. 
"Why don't  he  come  forward  and  help  her?  He  is  a 
coward  and  a  poltroon.  I  would  not  treat  a  ^i^TSia^Jk  so 
"Who  would  give  me  all  a  woman  can  give.  Why  does  he 
let  her  let  the  only  cool  rooms  in  the  house  to  boarders  i'* 

:me.  tilton  thinks  me.  beecher  should 
support  mrs.  tilton. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  thought,  and  I  did,  at 
an  early  stage  of  this  trial,  that  we  had  got  Theodore 
Tilton  to  the  lowest  depth  of  degradation,  but  we  had 
not.  Here  he  brings  it.  Now,  observe  his  tenderness 
and  consideration  to  his  wife  EUzabeth.  She  has  taken 
refuge  in  the  house  of  her  friend,  Mrs.  Ovington,  who  has 
told  her  that  she  is  welcome  as  an  inmate  of  that  house, 
she  and  her  children,  as  long  as  they  livC;  and  he  goes 
there  to  drive  her  away.  He  makes  this  declaration, 
my  friend  Shearman  tells  me,  before  she  was  there, 
so  that  he  had  not  the  excuse  that  he  did  it 
in  anger,  and  it  was  in  consequence  of  this 
declaration,  and  it  subsequently  coming  to  her  ears,  that 
she  did  leave  on  the  11th,  but  for  my  purpose  the  illustra- 
tion is  the  same.  I  say  you  have  a  man  professing  to  be 
tender  and  delicate  to  his  wife,  who  has  made  up  his 
mind  to  injure  her  with  his  old  friend  Ovington,  and  with 
Mrs.  Ovington,  by  going  in  her  absence  and  Ijdng  about 
her.  Not  saying  it  is  tnie,  and  in  terms,  that  she  had 
been  guilty  of  adultery,  but  saying  that  Mr.  Beecher  loved 
■^'^r  as  he  had  never  loved  his  own  wife.  Then,  following 
it  up  wilh  the  contemptible  suggestion  that  Mr.  Beecher 
ought  to  pay  the  expenses  of  his  and  her  establishment, 
and  contribute  enough  for  her  to  live  on  without  letting 
lier  rooms  to  boarders.  Any  husband  and  a  father  going 
to  i  neighbor,  and  in  the  presence  of  another  husband  and 


r  ME.   POETEB.  613 

another  father,  and  in  the  presence  of  an  honored  matron, 
saying  that  his  wife  prostituted  herself,  that  Mr.  Beoeher 
has  prostituted  her,  and  that  he  wants  money.  Why,  is 
there  a  depth  to  which  humanity  can  descend  that  is 
baser  than  this  1  This  is  sworn  to  by  Mr.  Ovington.  This 
is  sworn  to  by  IVIrs.  Ovington.  Theodore  Tilton  has  been 
recalled  to  the  stand,  and  dared  not  deny  it.  That  is  one 
01  the  admitted  facts  in  this  case. 

Again,  Mrs.  Ovington  says  :  "  He  said  Mr.  Beecher  is  a 
coward.  After  Elizabeth  had  given  all  that  a  woman  can 
give,  or  the  best — I  don't  remember  the  exact  expression — 
how  did  he  treat  her  ?  He  should  have  come  forward 
Uke  a  man  and  helped  her,  but  he  allowed  her  to  rent  the 
only  two  cool  rooms  in  the  house  to  boarders.  I  would 
never  have  treated  a  lady  in  like  manner  that  had  served 
me  as  Elizabeth  has  Beecher,  or  has  given  herself  to 
Beecher." 

Now,  take  his  declaration  in  the  presence  of  Gray.  You 
bear  in  mind  now  that  I  have  confronted  him  with  wit- 
ness after  witness,  merchants,  men  of  position  and  char- 
acter. We  have  confronted  him  with  Mr.  Ovington  and 
his  wife.  I  now  confront  him  with  Gray,  spoken  of  on 
the  other  side  as  a  negro,  and  subject  to  that  imputation, 
but  I  don't  think  there  is  one  man  of  your  number  but 
would  rather  sleep  under  the  same  roof  with  that  boy 
Gray  than  with  Theodore  Tilton.  I  don't  believe  there  is 
a  man  of  your  number  who  would  not  sooner  trust  his 
word,  his  honor,  or  his  oath. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  recollect  of  hearing  any  conversation 
between  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Mr.  Tilton  in  respect  to  Mr. 
Beecher's  name  long  before  the  occurrence  of  that 
speech  \  A.  I  heard  them  talking  about  his  presiding  at 
the  Steinway  HaU  lecture. 

Q.  W6ll,  Sir  1  A.  I  don't  know  what  they  said,  but  they 
were  always  talking  about  him,  and  I  heard  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  say- 
Mr.  Beach— One  moment. 

The  Witness— That  he  had  better  preside  at  that  meeting. 

Q.  Who  had  better  I  A.  Mr.  Beecher  ;  that  he,  :Mr. 
Beecher,  had  better  preside  at  that  meeting,  or  that  she 
would  make  it  hotter  on  eartli  for  him  tStan  hell  was 
below. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Tilton  make  any  reply  to  that  1  A.  He  said, 
*'  he  has  got  to  preside  ;  he  will  do  it,  and  I  shall  go  ever 
to  Brooklyn  to  see  about  it." 

Q.  You  are  now  giving  Mr.  Tilton's  language  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir;  as  he  went  out  of  the  door  his  arm  was  half  round 
her  waist. 


OTHERS  OF  MR.   TILTON'S  THREATS. 

You  may  take  Theodore  Tilton  among  Chris- 
tian and  decent  people,  and  you  iind  his  malice  ventiag 
itself  there.  Take  him  with  respectable  ladies,  and  he 
will  pour  it  upon  them.  You  go  even  to  those  resorts  in 
which  he  found  greater  pleasure,  and  even  there  you  find 
the  language  the  same.  Wherever  he  went  he  carried 
with  him  the  hatred  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  of 
Plymouth  Church.  Wherever  he  went  he  carried  the 
same  spirit  and  menace  in  respect  to  his  own  wife  ;  the 
same  spirit  of  cupidity,  of  malice  and  revenge. 


614 


TEE  TILTON-BMECBER  TRIAL. 


Again,  in  conversation  with  Mrs.  Ovington,  after  the 
publication  of  the  Bacon  letter,  Mr.  Tilton  says  it  was 
now  his  time  for  action,  and  he  proposed  to  light  it  out 
from  that  moment ;  various  expressions  of  that  kind. 
Figures  of  battle-axes  and  swords,  and  he  would  not 
sheathe  his  sword  until  Mi'.  Beecher  went  down.  He 
may  throw  away  that  sheath ;  he  will  never  have  use 
tor  it.  In  another  conversation  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Oving- 
ton he  says  : 

I  shall  be  the  Samson  which  will  destroy  the  temple. 
I  w*l  pull  down  the  pillars  of  the  temi)le,  and  althovigh 
Mr.  Beecher  and  my  family  are  crushed,  he  shall  be 
crushed  with  me. 

Again,  in  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Ovington  • 

When  he  greeted  us  on  the  piazza  he  spoke  of  Mrs.  Til- 
ton,  and  said:  "Lib  is  a  trump,  isn't  she?  I  hear  she 
spoke  well  before  the  Committee— that  she  made  a  favor- 
able impression ;  but  it  is  fiction,  all  fiction.  I,  too,  could 
come  before  the  Committee  and  weave  fiction."  When  he 
spoke  of  the  fiction,  I  think  it  was,  he  said :  "  Elizabeth 
will  lie  for  me.  She  would  tell  any  number  of  lies  to 
clear  me.  She  loves  me.  Even  if  I  were  on  trial  for  the 
Nathan  murder,  and  she  had  seen  me  commit  the  act,  do 
you  think  that  she,  if  called  upon  to  testify,  do  you  think 
tLatshe  would  tell  the  truth  and  have  me  convicted? 
No,  she  would  not."  Said  he,  "Would  you?"  Said  I, 
"  I  can  hardly  imagine  such  a  case ;  but,  Mr.  Tilton,  they 
are  not  parallel  cases.  If  my  husband  was  guilty  of  the 
murder,  and  an  innocent  man  was  on  trial  for  his  life,  and 
about  to  be  convicted,  and  I  were  caUed  upon  to  testify, 
I  believe  that  I  should  have  to  tell  the  truth,  even  though 
it  convicted  my  husband,  rather  than  that  the  innocent 
should  sufter." 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  that?  A.  Said  he,  "No  you 
wouldn't— no  you  wouldn't." 

Q.  Mrs.  Ovington,  what  else  did  he  say  on  any  topic  ? 
A.  He  said,  "  Mrs.  Tilton  has  only  done  the  duty  of  a  wife 
in  coming  forward  and  lying  for  me.  If  I  committed  the 
Nathan  mui-der,"  etc. 

You  observe  this  man  thinks  that  one  of  the  uses  of  a 
woman  is  to  lie  for  her  husband,  with  or  without  oath. 
That  is  a  part  of  the  teaching  of  that  school  of  which 
Theodore  Tilton  claims  to  be  the  head.  I  hope  he  has  not 
made  Mrs.  Moulton  a  disciple  ip  that  school. 


ME.    MOULTON'S    THREATS    AGAINST  MR. 
BEECHER, 

Now,  tlie  testimony  of  Moulton,  "Beecher  is 

a  liar  and  a  libertine."  This  is  the  spirit  in  which  this 
man  comes  to  this  Court  to  swear  away  the  reputation  of 
a  pure  womjm  and  an  upright  man.  There  is  his  photo- 
graph, made  by  himself  and  for  you.  The  man  who  uses 
such  foul,  base  language,  and  yet  pretends  that  all  this 
while  he  was  the  friend  of  the  man  in  respect  to  whom  he 
used  it — can  you  trust  him?  He  tells  you  that  Mr. 
Beecher  trusted  him,  and  he  broke  faith.  He  tells  you 
that  whoever  trusted  him  he  brolc^,  faith  with.  He  ad- 
mits he  broke  faith  with  Theodore  Tilton.  With  whom 
has  he  kept  faith?  And  it  is  this  man  who  don't  trust 
himself,  whom  his  wife  don't  trust,  whom  even  Tilton 


don't  trust— is  h«  to  command  your  trust  and  confidence, 
and  upon  an  issue  like  this  ? 

Now,  Mr.  Storrs  says  (we  have  his  testimony)  that  Mr, 
Moulton  said  to  him,  speaking  of  Mr.  Beecher :  •*  Beecher 
is  a  sneak  and  a  liar,  and  if  he  said  so,  damn  him,  I  would 
shoot  him— I  would  shoot  him."  The  man  who  said  that 
was  the  same  man  who  went  out  on  the  1st  of  January, 
1871,  to  make  two  calls,  one  on  a  woman  and  the  other 
on  a  clergyman,  and  carried  a  pistol  for  his  protection, 
I  am  wrong  as  to  the  date.  It  was  the  day  before— Sat- 
urday. A  man  who  is  such  a  coward  that  he  needs  a 
pistol  in  his  pocket  to  walk  down  to  the  house  of  Theo- 
dore Tilton  in  order  to  get  from  his  wife  a  letter  that 
would  enable  him  to  call  upon  Mr.  Beecher ;  such  a 
coward  that  when  he  goes  to  Mr.  Beecher  he  wants  to 
impress  him  with  a  sense  of  peril  by  showing  him  he  has 
a  pistol,  although  there  was  no  occasion  to  use  it,  that  is 
not  the  kind  of  man  that  had  better  talk  much  about 
whom  he  is  going  to  shoot  down.  But,  there  is  this  that 
does  appear,  that  Frank  Moulton,  if  he  told  the  truth,  had 
in  his  heart  this  purpose— for  this  was  after  the  breach 
—had  in  his  heart  at  that  time  the  spirit  which  would 
have  been  miu-derous,  but  that  his  neck  did  n't  like  the 
noose.  The  man  who  is  only  restrained  from  murder  by 
fear  of  the  gallows  is  not  a  man  to  be  trusted  by  twelve 
sworn  jurors.  Observe,  I  don't  believe  that  it  was  any 
more  than  idle  bravado,  but  the  man  who  talks  about 
assassination  is  a  man  of  a  low  order  of  moral  instinct. 
Let  no  man,  let  no  woman,  let  no  child  trust  him.  Above 
all,  do  n't  trust  his  oath  ;  above  all,  do  n't  trust  his  oath 
against  his  enemy.  Again,  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Storrs  : 

Mr.  Moulton  bade  me  the  compliments  of  the  day,  and 
explained  why  he  sent  for  me,  and  laughed,  and  said  he 
didn't  know  as  I  would  come  to  see  a  blackmailer,  and 
went  up  stairs.  Said  he  wanted  me  to  tell  my  brother 
that  he  must  not  sign  the  Plymouth  Church  Committee's 
report.  He  said  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  confessed  his  adul- 
teries to  htm. 

An  honest  man  would  have  stopped  there,  wouldn't  he  ? 
He  knew  himself ;  he  knew  he  was  not  an  honest  man, 
and  therefore  he  adds,  "And  I  can  prove  it."  Mrs. 
Moulton  had  been  brought  to  the  point. 

Judge  NeUson  [to  Mr.  Porter]- Mr.  Porter,  oan  ycu 
suspend  your  argument  now  ? 

Mr.  Porter— Certainly ;  can  I  close  this  sentence  ? 

He  said  he  was  going  to  drive  Mr.  Beecher  out  of  Ply- 
mouth Church,  and  out  of  Brooklyn. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Jury.]— Gentlemen,  get  ready  ta 
retire.  Please  return  at  2  o'clock. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 

THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

In  another  of  these  interviews  Mr.  Moulton  imc#n- 
sciously  daguerreotypes  himse]f  in  the  language  w  bicb 
he  applied  to  an  honored  and  venerated  clergyman,  ia 


SUMMING   UP  BY  MB.  FOBTEIL 


615 


describing  him,  to  a  mem'':er  of  his  o^pm  church — and  vrho 
loved  him  as  a  brother— as  "  a  liar  and  a  sneak." 

"  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother,  that  thy  days  may 
he  long  in  the  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee," 
the  only  commandment  -which  the  Red:  mer  said 
■was  CO'  1  with  a  promise.  The  spirit  of  reverence  for 
age— it  extends  not  merely  to  the  parental  relation,  hut  to 
every  other  relation,  and  a  man  like  Theodore  Tilton  or 
Francis  ^Nloulton,  in  speaking  of  one  who  is  honored,  not 
ovlW  at  home,  but  abroad,  whom  all  the  world  reverence, 
undertakes  to  talk  of  Tiim  as  he  would  of  a  street  black- 
guard—"a  liar  and  a  sneak."  And  I  am  glad  to  inter- 
mingle these  men,  gentlemen,  and  their  utterances,  that 
you  will  see  that  you  might  transfuse  the  blood  of  Moul- 
ton  into  Tilton,  and  it  would  hardly  disturb  a  throb  of  a 
rulse.  You  might  change  the  current  which  throbs  m 
Tilton's  heart  and  put  it  into  the  bosom  of  Moulton,  and 
it  would  find  as  black  a  resting-place  in  his  heart  as  it 
has  when  it  finds  its  home  in  his  own.  There  are  things 
which  little,  base,  contemptible  men  think  deceive  man- 
kind. If  Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  fallen ;  if  it  were  true 
that  that  great  man  had  disgraced  his  lineage 
r.nd  his  posterity ;  if  it  were  true  that  a  man  so  proudly 
gifted  of  God,  and  so  much  honored  of  men,  had  under  a 
temporary  influence,  yielded  and  fallen,  acknowledged, 
known  of  all  men,  there  would  be  just  two  classes,  men 
of  the  baser  sort  who  would  rejoice,  and  to  your  heart, 
and  to  his,  aye,  and  to  the  heart  of  each  of  these  his 
counsel,  would  have  come  a  feeling  of  sadness  that  they 
could  scarcely  overcome ;  but  the  Moultons  and  the  Til- 
tons  on  a  false  accusation  rejoice,  when  they  can  find 
some  one  whose  confidence  tlisy  can  shape  in  the  man 
who  is  performing  the  holy  ofBces'  for  three  hundred, 
six  hundred,  nine  hundred,  twelve  hundred  families  of 
Brooklyn.  These  men  think  that  a  lie  well  stuck  to  is 
as  good  as  the  truth;  that  if  they  can  double  the  lie  or 
treble  the  lie  and  bring  people  to  attest  what  is  false,  it 
is  CO  impose  upon  the  jury.  You  look  at  them  as  they 
come  one  by  one  ;  you  meet  them  eye  to  eye,  and  you 
form  your  own  judgment  of  the  character  of  the  men,  be- 
fore, upon  their  testimony,  you  condemn  the  chara<3ter 
of  others. 

MES.  MOULTOX'S  ADYICE  TO  ME.  BEECHER 
TO  CONFESS  TO  HIS  CHURCH. 

EYen  when  a  woman,  a  mother,  a  wife,  who 
has  just  turned  the  border  of  young  womanhood,  tells 
you  that  she,  a  lady  reared  in  a  house  of  gentle  blr  - 1, 
taught  to  revere  God,  to  love  virtue— when  she  tells  you 
that  she,  girl  as  she  was  comparatively,  calmly  looked  an 
old,  gray-headed  man  in  the  face  and  said  to  him :  "  Sir, 
"^ou  have  lived  four  years  "—and  this  in  her  own  house, 
unvier  her  own  roof,  to  an  American  gentleman,  aside 
from  his  being  a  clergyman—"  Sir,  you  have  added  to 
your  original  crime  four  years  of  lies  and  ;  :  jury.  How 
have  you  the  impudenje  to  expect  me  to  coi-ie  to 


I  Plymouth  Cuurcu  and  commune  with  yci  ?  I  can  hear 
you  preach:  commune  wich  you?  you,  an  adulterer — 
you,  a  criminal;  commune  with  you,  a  liar  and  a 
perjurer !  I  can't  do  it.  But  I  wiD.  tell  you  what  to  do, 
though  I  wont :  go  down  to  Plymouth  Church,  stand  there 
and  say,  '  I  eome  polluted,  covered  all  over  with  lep- 
rosy; I  come  with  the  dishonor  of  myself  and  my  family, 
to  make  proof  of  it  to  you;  I  am  a  liar  and  a  perjurer  ;' 
Emma  Moultun  said  to  me  this  afternoon,  '  Sir,  you  are  a 
beast,  with  whom  I  can't  commune ;'  she  told  me  in  her 
own  house  that  if  I  would  only  come  here  and  say  to  you 
women,  men,  children,  that  the  pastor  of  Plymouth 
Church  is  an  adulterer,  though  she  can't  forgive  me,  Ply- 
mouth Church  will."  And  Frank  Moulton,  on  that  memo- 
rable 1st  of  June,  1872,  pretending  now  that  he  knew 
this  man  was  a  hypocrite,  a  seducer,  a  har,  and  a  Uber- 
tine,  ^v^ote  to  him :  "Go  to  your  own  church  and  tell 
the  whole  truth,  and  all  Plymouth  Church,  and  aU 
mankind  will  stand  by  you ;  you  can  stand  before  the 
world."  Now,  gentlemen,  these  ear-marks  are  ear-marks 
of  probability  that  you  cannot  reject.  If  I  were  to  come 
before  you,  and  lifting  my  right  hand  in  the  presence  of 
the  living  God,  were  to  swear  that  since  I  left  this  court- 
room my  filend  Beach  and  I  had  gone  into  a  household 
in  this  city  of  Brooklyn,  and  that  there  by  common  con- 
sent between  him  and  me,  your  girls  who  rose  this  morn- 
ing in  honor  had  fallen,  ruined,  you  would  say,  "  Either 
Porter  is  infamous  or  he  is  a  liar."  You  would  not  be- 
lieve it ;  you  would  know  that  it  was  a  lie;  even  although 
I  involved  myself  in  the  accusation  you  would  know  that 
it  was  false.  Xow,  when  a  lady,  an  American,  of  edu- 
cation, of  culture,  of  character ;  a  lady  who  would 
scorn  to  be  rude  even  to  a  stranger  that  was 
within  her  gates ;  when  she  is  made  by  her  husband  to 
1  tell  you  the  story  that  she  looked  on  this  gray-haired  man 
and  talked  with  him  of  adultery,  as  if  it  was  her  daily 
pastime ;  told  him  of  perjui-y,  a  man  who  had  never 
taken  an  oath  in  a  court  of  justice  ia  his  life ;  talked  witlL 
him  of  living  on  lies  and  perjury;  when  she  was  brought 
;  here  in  order  to  prove  that  he  had  never  lied  about  this 
i  matter,  and  had  been  confessing  all  the  while  his  guilt — 
'  gentlemen,  you  don't  need  to  know  more  about  her  than 
i  she  tells  you.  You  feel  as  I  feel  that  that  story  would 
;  never  have  fallen  from  her  lips  if  God  has  not  visited, 
upon  her  the  calamity  of  binding  her  here— I  hope  not 
beyond  this  life— to  a  man  like  Frank  Moulton. 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  this  is  a  mere  episode,  my  allu- 
sion to  her,  and  is  out  of  its  order ;  but  I  call  your  atten- 
tion to  it  in  order  to  show  how  it  is  that  men  who  medi- 
\  tate  murder,  men  who  speculate  on  the  ctuestion  whether 
I  they  can  safely  take  human  life  because  they  hate  an 
I  enemy,  men  who  talk  about  their  wives  lying  for  them, 
j  men  who  talk  about  sexual  intercourse,  right  in  the 
j  heart  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  in  one  of  those  princely 
I  mansions  where  you  would  expect  culture,  refinement^ 
1  religion,  and  decency.   When  you  get  into  such  houscs^,. 


THE   TILTON-BEEGEEE  TRIAL, 


-and  find  siieli  teacliings  and  siicli  urterances  as  these, 
you  can  understand  how  it  is  that  woman  in  her  weak- 
ness can  hend  where  man  in  his  strength  cannot  stand. 
Let  us  see  what  thesf!  men  were  in  the  hahit  of  talking-. 
Teke  this  man,  Moulton,  who  wants  you  twelve  to  be- 
lieve his  oath,  who  has  the  etfrontery  to  look  you  in  the 
eye,  and  say  :  "  I  ask  you  to  believe  me,  because  I  have 
sworn  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God."  Why,  here  is 
his  language  to  Herman  O.  Armour,  at  page  148  of  the 
third  volume.  This  is  the  man  who  appeals  to  the 
courts,  to  the  administration  of  justice.  You  will  see 
liow  he  talks  to  witnesses ;  you  can  imagine  how  he 
would  talk  tojurorsil  he  had  your  ears.  Here  is  a  gen- 
tleman who  Is  stating  a  fact  within  his  own  knowledge. 
Trank  Moulton  endeavors  to  iatimidate  him  from  enter- 
iQg  a  coxirt  of  justice  to  swear  to  the  truth,  because  it 
is  convenient  for  Moulton  to  swear  to  a  lie  : 

He  said  he  would  make  it  hotter  than  hell  for  me  or 
anybody  that  testified  against  him. 

Hotter  than  hell !  Are  the  relative  degrees  of  heat  the 
subject  of  discussion  in  that  household  in  Remsen-st.  1 
Is  there  a  household  inhabited  by  a  respectable  family 
where  the  women  talk  of  sexual  intercourse  with  clergy- 
men, where  the  charge  of  perjury  is  made  by  the  lips  of 
womanhood,  where  the  men  talk  of  making  it  hotter 
than  hell  for  any  man  who  fulfills  his  duty  and  observes 
his  oath  ?  Are  you  to  expect  from  such  q^uarters  honest, 
fair,  unbiased  evidence?  To  return  once  more  to  Mr. 
Moulton,  to  show  that  he  is  no  unworthy  consort  and 
minion  of  Theodore  Tilton.  He  said  he  was 
going  to  drive  Mr.  Beecher  out  of  Plymouth 
Church,  and  out  of  Brooklyn.  Who  is  this  man 
who  undertakes  to  say  who  shall  live  ia  Brooklyn  ?  Is  it 
by  his  mercy  that  you  hold  your  place  here  ?  Is  there  a 
man  who  has  risen  to  that  power  and  position  in  Brook- 
lyn that  because  he  happens  to  be  an  employ6  of  Theo- 
dore Tilton,  and  can  always  command  the  benefit  of  his 
-unscrupulous  craft,  that  then  he  can  order  men,  not  merely 
out  of  Plymouth  Church,  but  out  of  Brooklyn  %  But  we 
know  where  he  learned  the  lesson,  because  you  heard  this 
man  volunteering  to  say,  as  he  sat  upon  that  stand,  in 
answer  to  no  question,  at  least  so  far  as  the  concluding 
clause  of  it  was  concerned — you  heard  him  say,  "  I  threat- 
ened to  drive  Henry  Ward  Beecher  out  of  Brooklyn,  and 
I  will."  Did  it  occur-  to  him  that  it  needed  each  one  of 
those  twelve  to  help  him  to  do  that?  He  thought 
that  with  the  assistance  of  one  of  the  ablest  advocates 
this  country  has  ever  produced,  that  with  the  aid  of 
Frank  Moulton  as  a  witness,  and  of  Emma  Moulton  as  a 
witness,  it  depended  on  his  mercy  who  should  be  driven 
from  Brooklyn.  He  forgot  that  it  needed  more  than  a 
"  Tripartite  Covenant "  for  that,  and  that  that  covenant 
could  not  be  executed  until  each  of  you  twelve  was  man- 
sworn  before  God.  That  is  what  was  needful,  and  no 
man  should  be  worthy  of  belief  who,  on  the  witness 
«tand,  undertakes  as  a  volunteer  to  defy  the  altar  of  jus- 


tice itself,  to  defy  the  ever  li\'ing  God  in  whose  name  lie 
is  giving  evidence,  by  saying,  "  I  wiU  drive  him  from 
Brooklyn."  Here  is  one  of  those  passages  which  Ulus- 
t^^ates  the  spirit  that  was  constantly  breakmg  out  from 
Theodore  Tilton  without  regard  to  the  sanctities  of 
this  tribunal,  even  when  he  sat  upon  the  witness 
stand.  "  Mr.  Tilton  stated  that  Mr.  Beecher  "—this  is  m 
the  testimony  of  Charles  Storrs— "  Mr.  Tilton  stated  that 
Mr.  Beecher  said  he  humbled  himself  before  him  as  he 
did  before  his  God,  and  says  he,  '  And  he  shall.'  Mr. 
Moulton  returned  and  said  to  him,  *  What  have  you  been 
saying  here?'  •  Oh,'  said  TUton,  '  not  much  of  anything, 
but  I  said  that  Mr.  Beecher  said  that  he  humbled  him- 
self before  me  as  he  did  before  God,  and  I  say  he  shall.' " 

MR.  WOODRUFFS  TESTIMONY. 

Nay,  more,  gentlemen ;  to  show  you  how  an 
evil  man  corrupts  other  men.  Take  Franklin  Woodruff, 
a  man  who  wUl  have  occasion  to  mourn  as  long  as  he 
lives  the  fatal  mistake  he  has  made  in  allying  his  for- 
tunes on  this  trial  with  this  conspiracy ;  a  man  meaning 
well,  hurried  along,  carried  by  Tilton's  craft  and  force  of 
will  and  the  plausibility  and  cunning  of  Moulton,  until 
[turning  to  Mr.  Abbott]— let  me  find  Mr.  Woodruff— not 
an  original  party  to  the  conspiracy,  with  no  animosit.v 
toward  Mr.  Beecher,  but  poisoned,  imconscious  of  the 
work  that  virus  was  making  witliin  him : 

Did  Mr.  Woodruff  say  to  you,  "  I  will  show  you  a 
letter  which,  if  published  or  shown  generally,  would 
drive  him  out  of  Brooklyn  1"  A.  He  did. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Mr.  Woodruff,  at  such  an  mterview, 
saying  to  you,  "  Is  it  best  for  us  to  drive  Mr.  Beecher 
out  of  Brooklyn  or  not  1" 

Even  Franklin  Woodruff  is  made  so  far  to  forget  the 
decencies  of  respectability  that  he  puts  it  as  a  cool  ques- 
tion to  one  of  the  clearest  headed  and  ablest  of  that 
splendid  band  of  New-York  merchants  who  have  given 
us  so  much  of  our  prosperity,  and  to  whom  we  are  to 
look  in  the  f -ature  for  so  much  of  the  growing  strength, 
and  glory  of  the  country,  to  a  man  of  unimpeached 
honor,  of  clear  intelligence,  a  friend  of  BenryWard 
Beecher,  and  true  and  noble  in.  every  relation  of  life, 
inheriting  a  princely  fortune,  and  earning  one, 
showing  by  his  generosity,  Ms  manhood,  hia 
fidelity  in  all  relations,  that  he  is  tnls^ 
worthy  and  can  be  trusted  in  all  conceivable  cir- 
cums.ctuces- Franklin  Woodruff  is  brought  lo  say  to 
such  a  man,  "  Is  it  best  or  not  for  us  to  drive  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  out  of  Brooklyn?"  Has  it  ever  occarred 
to  you,  gentlemen,  during  the  progress  of  the  trial,  that 
you  were  here  by  the  permission  of  this  man  ?  I  see  among 
your  number  gray-haired  and  honored  citizens;  I  see 
men  of  strength  and  character;  I  know  by  reputation 
those  whom  I  do  not  know  otherwise;  I  know  the 
strength  of  the  men  before  whom  I  stand,  and  yet  I  ask 
you  is  there  one  of  you  who  can  rally  aroimd  him  such  a 
phalanx  of  friends  as  are  always  ready  to  come  to  tke 


SUMMING   UP  I 

ret-'-ue  oi:  Henry  Ward  Beecher  fi-oni  a  false  accusation  1 
Is  it  not  fortunate,  gentlemen,  that  instead  of  striking 
at  Inm,  lie  did  not  strUre  at  me,  or  at  you  1  Tiie  very 
egotism  of  the  man  betrayed  turn.  He  struck 
at  one  who,  if  he  would  not  defend  himself,  would  be  de- 
fended by  others  because  they  knew  him,  and  they  loved 
him ;  but  it  is  a  dangerous  lesson  to  teach  to  the  criminal 
classes,  no  matter  how  high  or  low,  that  by  any  conspir- 
acy, for  the  purposes  of  defamation  and  accusation,  any 
man  can  be  struck  down  as  guilty  when  he  is  innocent. 
And  yet  this  same  man,  FrankUn  Woodruff,  would  have 
you  believe,  against  the  oath  of  Benjamin  F.  Tracy,  that 
he  understood  the  charge  to  be  adultery,  at  as  early  a 
period  as  when  he  had  the  interview  with  Tracy,  with 
-Moulton,  and  with  Tilton  ;  he,  even  as  late  as  this,  and 
ia  the  same  conversation  in  which  he  showed  his  malig- 
nant animosity  and  his  piu-pose  and  will  to  drive  3Ir. 
Beecher  from  Brooklyn,  told  South  wick,  in  answer  to  the 
direot  question,  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  charged  with 
adultery.  Do  you  believe  John  C.  Southwick,  or  do  you 
believe  Francis  B.  Moultou  I 

MOEE  ABOUT  MR.  TILTOX'S  A^sTMUS. 

Gentlemeii,  I  have  been  alluding  to  tlie  ani- 
mus of  Mr.  Moulton.  But  Moulton  is  not  the  plaintiff. 
I  come  back  to  Theodore  Tilton,  the  hinge  of  this  con- 
spiracy. Now,  in  regard  to  him  there  is  no  concealment, 
no  disguise.  I  have  made  many  notes  which  I  have 
been  compelled  to  discard,  Srst,  because  when  I  came  to 
look  at  them  they  were  too  cold  to  express  the  strength 
of  my  own  con\-ictious,  and,  second,  because  if  I  were  to 
go  over  those  notes  I  should  protract  my  argument  until 
yoiir  patience  would  be  wearied,  and  my  strength  would 
be  exhausted.  But  occasionally  there  is  a  passage  with 
which  I  must  trouble  you.  Here  are  some  extracts  in 
regard  to  Theodore  Tilton  that  enable  you  to  see  the 
character  of  the  man.  He  is  talking  about  Sir.  Beecher. 
I  vv^n  bring  some  of  these  things  together,  for  though  he 
intended  merely  to  give  you  his  idea  of  Mr.  Beecher,  he 
was  involimtariiy  giving  you  the  means  of  judging  of 
Theodore  Tilton.  "I  always  regarded  him  as  big  boy" 
—that  is,  speaking  of  his  earlier  recollections—"  I  was 
very  little  more  than  a  boy  myself."  Then  came  the  very 
natural  question  by  my  friend  Mr.  Evarts.  "  He  had  the 
free,  frank,  ingenuous  spirit  of  a  boyi"  There  Tilton 
saw  his  opportunity.    "  No." 

Q.  What,  not  frank,  not  ingenuous  ?   A.  No. 

Q.  You  don't  mean  that  he  was  a  disingenuous  man  ? 
A.  With  a  craftiness  

Q.  And  you  meant  to  describe  a  crafty  man  by  repre- 
aeniing  him  as  a  big  boy  1 

Theodore  didn't  quite  like  the  look  of  the  quesiion  in 

that  form.     He  thought  a  moment  and  brazened  it 

thiough.   '■  Yes,"  says  he,  "  the  craftiest  people  I  have 

ever  known  have  been  boys,  newsboys  for  instance." 

Now  he  meant  you  to  understand  ihat  Le  thought,  and 

at  that  time  Henry  Ward  Eoeclier  was,  a  crafty,  design- 


r   MB.   POBTEB.  617 

ing,  dishonest  man.  And  almost  in  the  nest  sentence  h3 
came  back  to  it :  "Iloved  him  next  to  my  own  iather  ;" 
and  within  two  or  three  pages,  "  In  those  early  years  ilr. 
Beecher  was  my  man  of  all  men."  Now,  this  lie  that  was 
thrown  by  way  of  parenthesis  mto  his  testimony  was  be- 
cause he  saw  an  opportunity  to  make  a  hit  at  Mr.  Evarts. 
There  was  the  cross-examining  counsel,  and  he  put  a 
quafel-ion,  and  ii  gave  him  an  opportunity  to  give  a  thrust 
at  Mr.  Beecher,  and  he  thrust  it  in.  But  it  was  a  lie.  He 
afterward  in  effect  admitted  that  it  was  a  lie.  lu 
was  merely  to  serve  the  purpose  of  gaining 
an  apparent  advantage  over  the  counsel  who 
was  examining  him,  and  there  was  no  stage  of  his 
examination  at  which  he  was  not  quite  ready,  whenever 
the  opportunity  occurred,  to  thrust  a  dagger  into  Mr. 
Beecher  under  the  cover  of  a  question  put  by  his  counseL 
We  have  another  little  touch  which  is  illustrative  of  the 
character  of  the  man,  in  the  account  he  gives  of  the 
church  missionary  discussion  in  Plymouth  Church  in. 
1859.  He  would  have  you  understand  that  he  had  ob- 
tained a  gfcat  victory  at  that  early  age  over  the  leading 
orator  in  America.  He  suppresses  the  little  circumstance 
that  the  church  went  with  Mr.  Beecher  unanimously. 
But  the  newspapers  went  with  him— and  the  newspapers 
that  went  with  him  wer»  the  newspapers  in  which  he 
wrote.  But  Mr.  Evarts  asked  him,  "  On  the  whole,  Mr. 
Tilton,  you  felt  that  at  any  rate  intellectually  you  had  the 
advantage  in  the  discussion  1  He  folds  his  arms :  If  I 
should  say  I  overmatched  him  in  that  struggle  it  would 
be  immodest ;  if  I  should  say  I  had  not  I  should  he."  That 
is  a  veijr  serious  dilemma  for  Theodore,  who  never  liea 
and  never  boasts. 

In  the  "  True  Story  "  there  is  a  little  clause  which  has 
some  signiticance.  By  the  way,  there  is  a  great  trouble 
about  this  man's  nomenclature.  The  "  True  Story,"  he 
says,  was  a  lie,  and  he  don't  really  understand  how  it 
got  that  name,  forgetting  the  fact  that  he  himself  at  an 
earlier  period  of  the  examination  had  called  it  the 
"  Trae  Story."  But  that  was  before  Redpath's  notes  of  it 
were  resurrected ;  that  was  when  he  supposed  it  had  gone 
to  the  ashes  and  could  never  be  reproduced.  But  when 
the  '*  True  Story  "  reappeared  it  was  not  a  "  True  Story" 
at  all.  It  is  a  horse  of  an  entirely  different  color.  WeU, 
in  that  he  says  : 

During  the  Summer  and  FaU  of  the  year  1870  I  spoke 
of  the  case  to  a  few  friends,  exhibiting  more  an^er  than 
charity  toward  Mr.  Beecher,  though  to  Mr.  Bowen,  whose 
two  papers  T  was  then  editing,  I  was  silent,  unwilling  to 
add  any  fuel  to  his  tudignation  against  the  man  whom  he 
seemed  preparing  to  destroy. 

What !  you  call  to  the  stand  a  man  whom  you  swear  to 
have  been  a  conspirator  against  ]VIr.  Beecher  years  and 
years  ago,  and  in  whose  presence  you  chose  to  be  silent 
lest  it  should  add  fuel  to  his  flame  and  should  burn  and 
destroy  Henry  Ward  Beecher  ?   Again  : 

There  came  from  WasLiugton  a  story,  traceable  I 


618  TUE  IILTON-B. 

fenow  not  to  ^hom,  tiiat  Mr.  Beoclier  preaclrod  every 
Sunda  v  to  a  dozen  of  Ms  mistreeses. 

Well,  now,  I  can  tell  Tiieo  lore  wliere  that  came  fmm, 
and  I  can  tell  him  on  the  authority  of  Frank  Moulton, 
for  Frank  swore  that  before  the  breach  of  1870  Theodore 
Tilton  personally  cold  him  that  story  that  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  preached  to  a  dozen  of  his  mistresses  in  Ply- 
moutl^  ©hurch.  I  asked  Mr.  MouJton  whether  he  believed 
it.  That  was  a  question  he  was  not  quite  prepared  to 
answer.  He  took  time  for  deliberation  "—Curia  vult  ad- 
visa  "—I  came  to  the  conclusion  on  the  whole  I  did  not; 
I  could  not."  Well,  that  shows,  you  perceive,  two  things  : 
First,  it  shows  that  this  man,  pretending  to  be  a  friend 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  pretending  to  be  covering  him, 
and  shielding  him  from  the  calumnies  of  Mr.  Bowen,  was 
himself,  to  his  most  intimate  friend,  asserting  a  lie  so 
absurd  and  palpable  that  Mr.  Moulton  himself  is  com- 
pelled to  admit  that  he  believed  that  Theodore  Tilton 
lied.  And  the  judgment  which  he  formed  of  him  then,  I 
think  you  will  form  of  him  now. 

Again,  if  he  had  made  the  proposed  resignation— that 
is,  on  the  31st  of  May,  1873— Moulton  swears  Tilton  said 
he  would  shoot  him  on  the  street.  Tilton  swears  that  he 
so  told  Moulton.   Mr.  Evarts  asks  Mr.  Tilton : 

Q.  Did  you  mean  what  you  said?  A.  I  did. 
Q.  If  Mr,  Beecher  had  signed  that  paper,  would  you 
have  shot  him  on  the  spot  ?  A.  I  presume  I  would. 

Now,  bear  in  mind  the  occasion  of  that  resignation  was 
this,  that  Theodore  Tilton  threatened  to  publish  a  card 
which  was  shown  to  Mr.  Beecher,  containing  what  pur- 
ported to  be  an  extract  from  this  "  apology ;"  that  he 
purposed  in  that  way  to  destroy  his  reputation  as  a  man 
fit  to  be  in  the  pulpit,  and  Mr.  Beecher  under  those  cir- 
cumstances said,  "  If  that  card  is  published,  Frank  Moul- 
ton, there  is  my  answer  to  it— I  resign  the  pastorate  of 
Plymouth  Church.  I  have  sought  as  long  as  I  could  to 
avoid  this  issue  ;  I  have  adopted,  acquiesced  in,  all  your 
plans  and  devices.  They  all  come  to  naught.  This  war 
has  got  to  be  fought  through.  I  know  what  the 
effect  will  be  on  Plymouth  Church ;  there  will 
be  three  parties  there— the  wedges  which  will 
be  driven  in  will  split  that  fabric  asunder  ;  the  church 
will  be  destroyed  with  me.  It  shall  not  be  destroyed  ;  I 
resign  my  pastorate  of  Plymouth  Church  and  then  I  fight 
alone.  You  know  how  I  have  loved  that  church.  You 
know  what  I  have  done  to  avoid  that  issue.  You  know 
that  it  was  not  a  pleasant  thing  to  go  home  to  my  wife 
and  tell  her  that  I  was  charged  with  adultery,  or  that  I 
was  charged  with  improper  overtures  to  a  matron.  You 
]cr  w  it  w.is  not  a  pleasant  thing  to  me  to  go  to  my 
friends  in  Plymouth  Church  and  say  to  them:  *I  am 
charged,  falsely  indeed,  but  by  a  respectable  woman  of 
ray  congregation,  witb  an  act  of  infamj--  and  dishonor,' 
;  nd  while  I  have  acted  upon  yom*  counsels  and  those  of 
your  wife  for  the  purpose  of  averting  such  an  issue,  I  see 
that  therr,    no  irust  to  be  uut  in  Theodore  TUton.   I  will 


"ilECHER  TEIAL. 

I  save  my  church.  1  will  stand  alone  and  I  will  fight  alone' 
This  very  man,  who  was  threatening  to  publish  a  card  m 
order  to  blast  the  character  of  Mr.  TJeecher,  says  :  "  If  he 
publishes  that  resigaation,  I  will  assasstuate  him,"  anct 
he  has  the  impudence  to  stand  in  the  presence  of  the- 
Chief  Justice  of  this  tribunal,  with  his  lips  fresh  from 
the  Book  of  God,  in  the  presence  of  twelve  honest  and 
swom jurors,  and  say  that  "if  Henry  Ward  Beecher  Lad 
signed  a  paper  which  it  was  his  perfect 
right  to  do.  I  would  have  assassinated  him."  Is 
it  on  the  oath  of  an  assassin  that  you  woiJil 
destroy  this  man's  character?  And  is  he  who 
swears  that  nothing  saved  him  from  executing 
his  threat  except  the  fact  that  Mr.  Beecher  did  not  publish 
the  resignation— is  he  at  liberty  to  say,  "  Am  I  any  the 
less  an  assassin  because  I  am  not  ia  fact,  though  I  was 
in  intent  1  " 

Nay,  more ;  go  back  to  an  earlier  period,  on  the  after- 
noon of  the  26th  of  December,  1870,  after  the  pretended 
pledge  he  had  given  to  his  wife  never  to  iajme  Mr. 
Beecher,  while,  as  he  pretends,  he  was  still  prcsperous, 
stin  in  a  leading  position  in  connection  with  two  of  the 
prominent  papers  of  the  country,  in  the  receipt  q1 
$15,000  a  year,  and,  as  he  pretends,  without  the  sUghest 
reason  to  suppose  that  he  was  to  be  removed  fi-om 
that  position ;  he  writes  to  gratify  a  man  whom  he  had 
denounced  before  as  a  treacherous  conspirator,  he  writes 
at  the  request  of  that  enemy  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  a 
letter  calling  upon  him  "  for  reasons  which  you  axphc- 
itly  understand  to  quit  the  ministry  of  Plymouth  Church 
and  to  leave  the  City  of  Brooklyn."  "  Mr.  Tilton,  wliai 
did  you  mean  ?"  His  answer  is,  "  I  meant  to  stab  huu  to 
the  heart."  Of  course  there  he  did  not  mean  literal  as- 
sassination. But  there  was  a  fiendish  malice 
which,  without  further  provocation  upon 
the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher,  with  nothiiq: 
to  excuse  it,  led  him,  as  -le  hinipeh 
avows  to  entertain  the  fiendish  malice  which  should 
lead  him,  for  the  gratification  of  Hemy  C.  Boweu,  to 
strike  a  death-blow  to  one  of  the  foremost  men  of  the  age, 
I  give  him  the  benefit  of  another  statement — it  is  con- 
tradicted and  it  is  false,  but  he  is  not  at  liberty  to  allege 
it.  In  his  account  of  the  interview  of  the  night  of  tLe 
30th  of  December,  1870,  he  says  he  used  to  Mr.  Beeolier 
this  language :  "  I  have  hitherto  spared  your  life  when  I 
had  the  power  to  destroy  it.  I  spare  it  now  for  Eliza- 
beth's sake."  It  is  false,  but  it  is  Tilton.  He  said  noth- 
ing of  that  kind  to  Mr.  Beecher,  but  it  comes  out  of  his 
heart  now,  and  it  was  in  his  heart  then.  He  meditated 
a  murder  when  ho  swears  that  that  idea  was  in  his  mind. 
It  is  not  enough  for  him  to  glorify  himself  on  his  mag- 
nauimiiy  to  get  rid  of  the  cfTcct  of  tlie  fact  that  he  delib- 
erately meditated  the  murder  of  an  unarmed  clergyiuan. 
Avithout  evea  having  made  an  accusation. 


SUMMING    UP  BY  ME.  PORTEB. 


619 


THE  LETTER  TO  THE  FRIEm)  IN  THE  WEST. 

If  }-o;i  want  to  see  what  a  perfect  &ham  the 
man  is  you  need  only  look  ab  Ills  letter  to  tliat  man  of 
straw,  "  The  Complaining  Friend,"  wMcliwas  not  "written 
for  publication,  but  which  has  been  unearthed  in  the 
progress  of  this  investigation. 

:>Iv.  Shearman— The  "  Friend  at  the  West." 

Mr.  Porter— The  "  Friend  at  the  West."  There  he  talks 
in  his  usual  self-glorifying  and  swaggering  strain— 

If  you  think  I  do  not  bum  to  defend  my  wife  and  little 
ones,  you  know  not  the  fiery  spirit  that  is  wi  thin  me. 

He  expresses  his  profound  aclmiration  of  his  own  mag- 
nanimity in  keeping  hig  wife's  innocence  of  adultery,  for 
tiiat  is  all  there  was  of  it,  secret  in  Ms  own  breast,  lest  his 
uery  spirit  should  shoot  forth  in  his  own  language,  "lite 
a  thimderbolt,  through  other  hearts."  This  magnanimous 
man  would  "vindicate  his  wife's  innocence,  but  he  was 
afi-aid  if  he  did  it  would  wound  the  feelings  of  Mrs. 
JBeecher,  and  of  his  friend  Henry  C.  Bowen.  That  miser- 
able false  pretense  is  deliberately  penned  by  him  and  laid 
*way  in  Frank  Moulton's  tin  box,  to  be  produced  here- 
after as  evidence  of  Theodore  Tilton's  magna"aimous  na- 
ture. It  proves  more,  and  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer 
%o  that  letter  presently. 

Among  the  multitude  of  these  things  that  I  have  noted 
from  time  to  time  duriug  the  progress  of  the  trial  there  is 
one  that  I  will  detain  you  "with  just  for  a  moment,  be- 
"sause  it  is  so  illustrative  of  Moulton's  opinion  of  him. 
That  he  thought  that  TUfron  was  slippery  and  unreliable, 
Is  apparent  from  an  innocent  statement  of  his  which  wUl 
be  found  in  exhibit  81,  I  think:  "  I  want  to  have  Tilton 
in  writing  on  this  subject ;  I  want  him  to  commit  himself 
to  somebody."  Why,  did  Frank  Moulton  know  him  so 
well  he  could  not  trust  him '?  Xobody  could  trust  him. 
Moulton  did  not.  And  the  difficulty  was  that  nobody 
could  trust  him  any  better  when  he  was  in  "writing  than 
when  lie  was  not.  He  signed  the  "  Tripartite  Agreement " 
and  tore  it.  He  gave  a  pledge  to  his  "wife  and  broke  it. 
He  gave  pledge  after  pledge  to  Mr.  Beecher  and  broke 
them  all.  He  was  principally  engaged  in  making  and 
breaking  coveiaants  and  continued  it  through  the  whole 
period  «f  the  four  years.  But,  gentlemen,  I  have  got  to 
pass  over  that.  I  must  call  yo"LU-  attention  a  little  more 
particularly  to  that  letter  of  the  "  Friend  in  the  West." 
It  is  at  page  157.  I  attach  very  little  importance  to  any 
of  Theodore  TUton's  writings  intended  for  dress  parade- 
those  that  were  to  be  put  in  the  newspapers.  He  says  he 
lied  in  them  all,  and  I  have  no  doubt  he  did.  But  I 
as:aeh— and  have  a  right  to  do  it— the  greatest 
importance  to  those  writings  which  were  not  made  for  the 
public,  hut  were  laid  away  as  records  of  the  truth  in  his 
own  vault,  and  which  he  refused  to  produce,  and  of 
which  he  refused  the  benefit  either  to  ins  wife  or  his  friend. 
Hei-e  is  a  letter  bearing  date  the  31st  of  Deeember,  1872, 
beginning  of  com^se,  as  usual,  with  a  sham—"  My  dear 
friend:  I  owe  you  a  long  letter."    [Turning  to  Mr.  Til- 


ton.]  "  Who  was  it  ?"  "  (:!oiild  not  remember."  "  vra^  it 
anybody  1"  "Could  not  remember."  To  Frank  Moulton 
— "  Who  was  this  complaining  friend  ?"  "I  don't  remem- 
ber." Well,  whoever  he  was,  he  had  a  name,  had  n't  he  ? 
What  occasion  was  there  in  a  paper  that  he  was  not  to 
give  to  the  public  at  all  in  concealing  the  name  ?  It  was 
a  sham.  It  was  a  thing  used  like  these  papers  that  were 
got  from  time  to  time,  under  one  pretense  and  another, 
from  jVIt.  Beecher  to  be  used  in  the  future  for  the 
purposes  of  the  conspiracy — vengeance  and  black- 
mail. But  the  man— the  man  is  so  addicted 
to  lying  and  deception  that  he .  lies  even 
when  he  is  alone,  in  his  own  private  diam^,  in  his  own 
books  and  papers.  "  I  am  unwell,  and  am  a  prisoner  ia 
the  house"— that  is  on  the  31st  day  of  December,  1872. 
And  you  know  that  happened  to  be  a  very  active  day 
with  him.  For  a  man  who  was  a  prisoner  and  in  bed  at 
his  house,  he  was  very  husy  about  the  streets  of  Brook- 
lyn on  that  day. 

I  am  unwell,  and  a  prisoner  in  the  house,  leaning  back 
in  leather-cushioned  idleness,  and  "writing  on  my  chair- 
board  before  the  fire.  Perhaps  you  wonder  that  I 
have  a  fire,  or  anything  but  a  hearthstone  broken 
and  crumbled,  since  the  world  has  been  told  that  my 
household  is  ia  ruins.  And  yet  it  is  more  like  your  last 
letter— brimful  of  love  and  wit  and  sparkling  like  a 
fountain  in  mid"winter. 

He  was  writing  this  for  posterity.  The  letter  "  Brim 
full  of  "Wit,"  who  -wrote  it '?  The  fi'iend  at  the  West,  whose 
name  he  has  forgotten. 

Nevertheless,  you  are  right.  I  am  in  troublo,  and  I 
hardly  see  a  path  out  of  it.  It  is  just  two  years  ago  to- 
day—this very  day,  the  last  of  the  year— that  Bowen 
lifted  his  hammer,  and  with  an  unjust  blow  smote 
asunder  my  two  contracts,  one  "with  The  Indejiendent, 
and  the  other  with  The  Brooklyn  Union.  The  public  little 
suspects  that  this  act  of  his  turned  on  his  fear  to  meet 
the  consequences  of  horrible  charges  which  he  had  made 
against  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  I  have  kept  quiet  on  the 
subject  for  two  years  through  an  unwillingness  to  harm 
others  even  for  the  sake  of  righting  myself  before  the 
public.  But  having  trusted  to  time  for  my  vindication,  I 
find  that  time  has  only  thickened  my  difficulties,  untU. 
these  now  buffet  me  like  a  storm. 

You  know  that  Bowen  long  ago  paid  to  me  the  asses- 
sed pecuniary  damages  which  grew  out  of  his  breaking 
of  the  contracts,  and  gave  me  a  written  vindication  of 
my  course,  and  something  like  an  apology  for  his.  Thia 
statement,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  is  final. 

But  Bowen's  assassinating  dagger  drawn  against 
Beecher  has  proved  as  unable  as  Macbeth's,  "  to  trammel 
up  the  consequence." 

I  see  the  letter  is  too  long  to  read ;  and  I  "wiU  only  ad- 
vert to  some  of  its  topics.  In  that  letter,  not  "written  as 
a  lie  for  the  public,  but  as  a  written  confession  in  the 
secret  archives  of  Moulton  and  Tilton,  he  denounces 
Bowen  and  Woodhull  as  the  traducers  of  Beecher  and 
the  successive  authors  of  the  horrible  charges  against 
him.  It  is  there  that  he  declares,  as  if  he 
were  the  first  discoverer  of  the  fact,  that  the 
tongue  is  a  wild  beast  which  no  man  can  tame. 


QUO  THE  TlLTOy-B 

He  cienounces  tbe  Woodliull  lett-ir — I  use  Ms  lan- 
jtrua^*— as  an  "  unholy  Ibusiuess,"  deuies  tliat  he  "  had 
a  conspirator's  hand,"  and  says,  "  I  am  as  innocent  of  it 
as  of  the  Nathan  murder."  He  says,  "  It  is  hinted  that 
the  libelous  article  was  actually  written  hy  me ;"  and  then 
pleads  an  aillbi  on  the  day  of  the  publication,  and  adds  : 
"  I  did  not  know  of  its  existence  till  a  week  after  it  had 
convulsed  all  my  city  and  family."  But  he  is  not  quite 
content  to  leave  his  defense  on  an  alibi.  He  remembered, 
perhaps,  that  on  the  4th  of  November,  1872,  on  leaving 
Concord,  N.  H.,  and  in  the  presen'ce  of  Edward  J.  Wright, 
he  stated  that  he  had  seen  the  Woodhidl  &  Claflin 
publication,  and  feared  for  its  effect  on  his  wife's 
health.  He  remembered,  too,  when  he  wrote  this 
letter  on  the  31st  of  December,  1872,  that  not  only 
did  Mrs.  Woodhull  quote  him  and  Moulton  as 
among  her  informavits,  but  that  he  himself  had  repeat- 
edly urged  her  to  publish  the  scandal  that  Summer 
and  Fall.  It  did  not  then  occur  to  him  that  he  might 
get  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews  to  come  to  his  relief  by 
swearing  he  put  some  finishing  touches  on  it  after  he 
went  to  New-Hampshire.  So,  quoting  this  alibi,  he  pro- 
ceeds in  his  letter  to  essay  to  pitch  the  story 
of  the  Pantarch  overboard  by  saying  that 
"  in  the  Spring  of  1871  Mrs.  "Woodhull  poured 
into  his  ears"— I  use  the  lau,:2,uage  of  the  letter— 
"  almost  the  same  identical  tale  which  she  printed  a  few 
weeks  ago."  That  is  just  what  oui'  witnesses  say,  that 
she  "  poured  it  into  Tilton's  ears"  and  theirs.  Tilton 
says  in  this  letter,  "  I  was  toiling  like  Hercules  to  keep 
the  scandal  from  the  public."  Well,  gentlemen,  has  not 
the  evidence  shown  where  it  was  that  Hercules  Tilton 
toiled  ?  It  was  in  that  salon  of  "  Madame  Eoland,"  and 
in  her  bed-chamber  where  Lizzie  Giles  admii-ed  the  pro- 
portion of  the  youthful  Hercules  in  stockings,  and  put 
his  shoes  fiom  off  his  feet  because  the  weather  was  warm. 
That  is  all.  Like  Hercules,  he  accomplished  the  task  he 
undertook  to  do.  In  due  time  the  Woodhull  scandal  ap- 
peared, as  he  iaitended  it  should.  It  appeared,  too,  very 
properly,  on  the  day  when  Tilton  could  prove  an  alibi  in 
Concord,  in  the  capital  ot  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union, 
vv  itliin  12  hours  by  rail,  and  within  10  minutes  by  tele- 
graph of  the  City  of  New- York,  a  city  of  newspapers,  a 
city  of  telegraph-poles;  and  Theodore  Tilton  would  have 
you  believe  that  after  that  Woodhull  scandal  was  pub- 
lished, and  was  telegraphed  all  over  this  country  and 
iibhorred,  Theodore  Tilton,  the  subject  of  the  scandal, 
remained  in  professed  ignorance  of  it  for  an  entire  week. 
Do  you  believe  it  ?  When  Mrs.  Woodhull  libeled  his  wife, 
the  agreeable  remedy  Tilton  found  was  to  make  love  to 
Mrs.  Woodhull.  [Laughter.]  But  the  course  of  true  love 
never  does  run  smooth. 

THE  "TRUF-  STORY." 
Tliis   woman,  so  innocent,  so  pure — white 
angel  of  light— while  she  was  pouring  into  his  ears  these 


DEGREE  TBIAR 

beastly  accusations  against  his  wife,  suddenly  becomes 
an  angel  of  darkness  when  she  proposes  to  deal  in  like 
manner  with  other  men's  wives  with  whom  Theodore  had 
peculiar  relations.  When  the  "Tit  for  Tat"  article  is 
threatened,  Theodore  turns  in  disgust  from  the  white 
angel  of  light,  and  he  would  have  you  believe  that  he 
nevermore  even  entered  her  presence.  He  proceeds  to 
say  in  this  letter : 

Nor  was  it  till  after  I  had  known  her  for  a  niMnber  ot 
months,  and  when  I  discovei-ed  her  purpose  to  libel  a 
dozen  representative  women  of  the  suffrage  move- 
ment, that  I  suddenly  opened  my  eyes  to  her  real  ten- 
dencies to  mischief,  and  then  it  was  that  I  indignantly- 
repudiated  her  acquaintance,  and  have  never  seen  her 
since. 

Charges  against  his  own  wife  brought  him  to  Vickey's 
saloon,'  and  in  his  stocking  feet;  but  charges  against  hia 
other  female  frii^nds  wounded  his  delicacy,  and  he  left 
her  with  burning  indignation  and  went  to  Concord,  N. 
H.,  and  then,  to  his  utter  consternation,  she  publishes, 
not  the  "  Tit  for  Tat"  article,  which  he  did  not  want  her 
to  publish,  but  the  libel  upon  his  own  wife,  which  he  did. 
The  same  identical  tale,  to  use  his  own  language, 
which  she  had  poured  into  his  ears  that 
Spring,  and  which  he  had  been  toiling 
like  Hercules  to  prevent.  Now,  what  was  this 
unhappy  man  to  do  1  He  had  been  carefully  considering 
this  question  from  the  5th  of  November,  when  he  came 
back  from  Concord,  to  the  Slst  of  December,  the  date  of 
this  letter.  He  was  in  a  very  delicate  condition.  Mrs. 
Woodhull  was  a  lady.  Of  course  he  could  not  contradict 
a  lady,  and  especially  a  lady  who,  in  the  libel  on  his  wife, 
cited  him  as  authority  for  the  accusation.  That  might 
endanger  himself.  That  might  endanger  the  other  female 
friends  who  might  be  hurt  if  the  "  Tit  for  Tat  "  article 
should  be  published.  He  was  at  his  wits'  end,  and  he 
proceeds  in  this  letter  to  explain  the  extreme  delicacy  'jf 
his  position.  His  wife  innocent.  Mrs.  Woodhull  a  libeler. 
Four  tendencies  to  mischief  that  had  led  him  scornfully 
to  repudiate  her,  but  could  not  contradict  her.  "  What 
to  do  in  this  emergency  (which  is  not  clearing,  but  cloud- 
ing itself  daily)  I  have  not  yet  decided.  What  I  co^dd  do 
would  be  to  take  from  my  writing-desk  and  pub- 
lish to-morrow  morning  the  prepared  narrative  auct 
vindication,  which,  with  facts  and  documents,  my  legal 
advisers  pronounce  complete."  That  is  what  he  could  do, 
Why  didn't  he  1  That  was  the  "  True  Story."  But  what 
had  this  man  to  do,  then,  with  counselors  and  advisers  f 
He  had  one  attorney,  Moulton.  [Laughter.]  But  Moul- 
ton had  got  his  money.  Who  was  the  other  i  He  was  on 
that  stand,  and  dared  not  say  that  Mr.  Tracy  was  the 
other.  Benjamin  F.  Tracy  never  touched  your  palm  as  a 
client.  He  has  sworn  it,  and  he  dare  not  deny  it,  and 
must  not  assert  it  now.  No,  if  he  had  counsel,  gentlemen, 
it  was  the  counsel  who  thought  it  well  to  publish  his 
wife's  letters,  but  I  don't  believe  that  at  that  stage  of  the 
case  even  Judge  Morris  was  brought  into  the  case. 


SUMMING    UF  BY  MB.  FOBTEB, 


621 


The  counsel  and  advisers  I  have  no  doubt  -^ere  Francis 
D.  Moulton,  and  the  man  wlio  -vsT.-ites  statements  for  him. 
I  do  not  ^ow  at  wliat  stage  of  tlie  matter  it  was  tliat 
Butler  came  in.  Dq-wti  to  this  period  I  don't  find  any 
counsel,  any  attorney,  and  adviser,  except  Francis  D. 
Moulron,  as  hefrween  him  and  Theodore  Tilton.  This  he 
says  would  explain  and  clarify  everything.  That  is  the 
"True  Story,"  undouhtedly.  "Both  great  and  small,  in- 
cluding the  Woodhull  episode,  but  which  is  a 
minor  part  of  the  whole  case,  but  if  I  publish  it" — 
now,  observe.  There  is  something  which  prevents 
him  from  publishing  it.  If  he  publishes  it,  it  will  vindi- 
cate the  honor  of  his  wife.  If  he  publishes  it,  it  will 
brand  an  atrocious  and  a  foul  conspiracy.  If  he  pub- 
lishes it,  it  will  vindicate  those  children  whom  the  fiery 
spirit  within  bim  was  burning  to  defend.  If  he  pub- 
lishes it,  it  wiU  vindicate  the  pastor  of  Plymouth  Church. 
But  there  is  something  which  prevents.  What  is  it  ?  "If 
I  publish  it  I  must  not  only  violate  a  kind  of  honor- 
able obligation  to  be  silent  which  I  had  volun- 
tarily imposed  upon  myself,  but  I  must  put 
my  old  friend  Bowen  to  a  great  risk  of  being 
smitten  dead  by  Beechei's  hand.''  Theodore  Tilton's 
wife  is  innocent,  and  his  children  are  legitimate.  But 
he  permits  her  piu'ity  to  be  questioned,  and  their  legiti- 
macy to  be  questioned,  because  of  his  tenderness  to 
Henry  G.  Bowen  ;  and  he  says,  "  If  the  world  knew  the 
ti'uth,"  not  that  it  would  blast  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  but 
that  it  would  enable  Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  blast  Henry 
C.  Bowen.  Here  we  have  it.  His  wife,  pure,  loyal,  un- 
stained with  dishonor.  Her  vindication  prepared  com- 
plete within  three  feet  of  the  chair  where  he  was  writ- 
ing; the  charge  false,  needing  nothing  but  simple 
denial;  he  has  made  the  denial;  the  truth 
is  that  she  is  innocent ;  it  is  true  of  Mrs.  WoodhuU  that 
he  has  used  her  and  needs  her  no  more ;  he  has  no  other 
wife  to  libel  and  destroy,  but  there  are  the  two  difficul- 
ties :  one  is  that  he  has  a  private  compact  which  he  has 
made  with  himself— observe,  not  with  his  wife,  but  with 
himself —that  though  his  wife  was  publiclv  aocnsed  on 
his  authority  by  name,  he  would  leave  her  undefended 
before  the  public,  but  he  would  put  her  vindication 
in  his  writing-desk.  And  why?  Not  because  he  loved 
her  less,  but  because  he  loved  Henry  C.  Bowen  more. 
If  the  truth  were  known,  it  would  acquit  Mr.  Beecher  as 
-weUashis  wife.  Ah!  there  was  the  rub.  Well,  why 
should  it  not  1  Why,  he  teUs  us.  If  the  truth  was  known 
it  would  kill  my  old  friend  Bowen.  It  would  expose 
him  to  be  smitten  dead  by  Beecher's  hand. 
Plymouth  Church  would  hound  him  as  a  rat. 
So  we  have  in  Tilton's  own  hand,  over  his 
own  signature,  a  deliberate  statement,  which  he 
admits  in  the  postscript  he  had  read  to  his  wife,  pro- 
nouncing the  charge  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  of  adultery  be- 
tween Mr.  Beecher  and  his  wife  a  UbeJ  and  a  lie  :  declar- 
ing that  he  had  prepared  and  deposited  in  his  own  writ- 


ing-desk his  own  vindication  of  her  purity  and  her  honor; 
that  his  only  reasons  for  not  publishing  were,  first,  that 
he  would  rather  not  on  his  own  account,  and,  second, 
that  if  the  truth  were  known,  and  Mr.  Beecher  exon- 
erated, it  "Would  enable  him  to  ruin  Bowen. 

THE  "  SHOET  REPOET." 

GrentlemeD,  I  pass  now  to  another  of  these 
recorded  declarations  of  TlLton.  I  refer  now  to  the  short 
report,  which  appears  at  page  131  of  the  first  volume  of 
the  evidence.  After  Mr.  Beecher's  return  from  Peekskill 
on  the  13th  of  July,  1874,  after  Tilton's  Impudent  mes- 
sage by  Redpath  sent  on  Sunday,  the  12th  of  July,  that 
the  charge  against  ^Nlr.  Beecher  was  to  be  changed  to  one 
of  adultery,  a  charge  which  Eedpath  swears  he  did  not 
believe  when  Theodore  Tilton  made  it,  nor  at 
any  time  since;  after  this,  as  Moulton  and 
Tilton  both  admit,  this  pretended  cuckold  comes 
into  court  flourishing  a  pare  of  antlers  that  don't  belong 
to  him,  and  asking  you  to  tip  them  with  gold— this  cuck- 
old sends  by  the  hand  of  Moulton  to  Henrv  Ward  Beecher 
a  short  report,  such  as  he  wants  the  Committee  of  Ply- 
mouth Church  to  sign.  This  report,  unlike  the  long  re- 
port, has  been  introduced  in  evidence  by  him,  and  to  you, 
written  by  him  as  a  declaration  of  the  truth,  written  by 
him  shortly  before  the  13th  of  July,  I  think  on  the  8th  or 
9th  of  July,  and  submitted  by  him  to  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  on  the  Tuesday  following  that  Stmday,  and 
which,  for  the  first  time  he  sent  the  message,  that  charge 
which  had  hitherto  been  one  of  improper  solicitations, 
was  now  to  be  changed  to  one  of  adultery  : 

"  The  Committee  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  offense 
and  apology  by  Mr.  Beecher  alluded  to  in  Mr.  Tilton's 
letter  to  Dr.  Bacon  respectfully  report:  That  after  exam- 
ination they  find  that  an  oflense  "— and  what  else  ?— "  of 
a  grave  character  was  committed  by  jMr.  Beecher  against 
Mr.  and  3Irs.  Theodore  Tilton,  for  which  he  mad^a  suita- 
ble apology  to  both  parties,  receiving  in  return  their  for- 
giveness and  good  will.  The  Committee  further  report 
that  this  seems  to  them  a  most  eminently  Christian  way 
for  the  settlement  of  difficulties,  and  reflects  honor  on 
Blithe  parties  concerned." 

There  is  the  recorded  judgment  of  Theodore  Tilton  a^s 
made  upon  the  13th  of  July,  1874,  and  which  he  asks  you 
now  to  falsify.  Observe,  gentlemen,  if  you  please,  that 
there  is  no  imputation  in  this  report  of  adultery.  On  the 
contrary,  the  unnamed  offense  is  stated  to  be  one  against 
Mrs.  Tilton.  Tilton  certifies  that  the  offense  was  one  for 
which  an  apology  was  suitable  reparation.  He  certifies 
that  it  was  an  offense  against  Mrs.  Tilton  which 
oaUed  for  an  apology  to  her.  What!  A  para- 
mour apologizing  to  a  mistress  for  eighteen  months 
of  adulterous  intercourse  la  mutual  prostitution !  But, 
more,  the  cuckold  husband  and  debauched  wife  unite  In 
accepting  the  apology,  and  the  betrayed  and  dishonored 
husband  certifies  his  good  wiU  to  the  clerical  debauchee, 
and  in  his  own  handwriting,  Theodore  Tilton,  knowing 
then  every  fact  which  he  knows  now,  asks  a  committee 


THJb]   TILTON-BEECHJEE  TRIAL. 


622 

•f  the  leading  citizens  of  Brooklyn  to  certify  tliat  sucli  a 
foul  and  infamous  transaction  reflected  honor  on  all  the 
parties  concerned.  These  are  the  ideas  of  truth  and 
honor  entertained  by  Theodore  TUton  and  Francis  D. 
Moulton.  On  the  Sabbath  before  Tilton  had  sent  his 
threat  to  Eedpath  to  change  the  charge  to  adultery, 
Moulton  had  sent  his  own  false  and  treacherous  message 
that  Tilton  was  enraged  with  him  because  he  loved 
Beecher  as  much  or  more  than  he  loved  Tilton,  and  that 
he,  the  mutual  friend,  stood  ready  with  Ms  well 
ground  battle-ax  to  smite  either  to  the  earth 
that  should  attempt  to  crucify  the  other. 
This  is  the  precious  document  of  which  Theodore  Til- 
ton was  the  writer,  and  Francis  D.  Moulton  the  bearer  to 
the  interview  between  Beecher  and  Moulton  on  Thursday 
the  14th  of  July,  after  Mr.  Beecher's  return  from  Peeks- 
Mil.  Now,  observe  gentlemen,  I  have  no  idea  that  Theo- 
dore Tilton  or  Frank  Moulton  for  one  moment  contem- 
plated the  final  adoption  of  any  such  report.  They  had 
another  object.  But  it  does  not  lie  in  the  mouth  of  either 
of  them  to  say,  "  We  forged  a  lie  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
frauding and  misleading  Mr.  Beecher."  They  were 
both  treacherous.  They  intended  to  deceive  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  to  entrap  him,  in  the  statement 
he  was  about  to  make  to  the  Church  Commit- 
tee, into  the  use  of  language  corresponding 
to  that  in  this  report— that  is,  that  he  had, 
it  is  true,  committed  an  offense  without  defining  it. 
They  expected  that  they  would  entrap  him  into  the  use 
of  language  in  that  statement  which  they  could  con- 
strue into  an  admission  of  an  undefined  offense,  and  then 
turn  and  rend  him,  as  turn  and  rend  him  they  could, 
because  if  they  could  get  him  to  admit  an  offense,  and 
leave  it  to  them  to  define  it,  they  could  define  it  to  be 
adultery,  and  bring  Mrs.  Moulton  to  the  stand  to  aid 
them  in  so  defining  it.  Moulton,  with  his  usual  plausi- 
bility, succeeded  in  deceiving  Beecher.  Mr.  Beecher 
was  glad  to  accept  the  assurances  of  Moulton  and  of 
Tilton  as  sincere.  Moulton  testifies  as  follows,  at  page 
130,  Volume  I. : 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Tilton  present  a  proposed  report  for  the 
Committee  to  make  1  A.  Yes,  Sir.  Mr.  Tilton  did,  and  I 
submitted  it  on  the  first  interview  of  the  week  of  the  12th 
to  Mr.  Beecher. 

That  was  the  week  commencing  on  Sunday;  the  date 
of  the  first  interview  was  elsewhere  fixed ;  it  was  on  the 
Tuesday  following. 

I  told  htm  I  thought  I  could  Induce,  or  I  would  try  and 
induce  Theodore  to  withhold  the  statement  he  was  pre- 
paring from  the  Committee. 

Q.  And  you  showed  him  then,  as  I  understand  you,  Mr. 
Tilton's  proposed  report  for  the  Committee  to  make  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir,  I  submitted  to  him  a  paper  which  Mr.  Tilton 
had  prepared,  and  had  expressed  his  willingness  to  abide 
by  it  before  the  Committee. 

Now,  Tilton  admits  that  he  wrote  this  and  the  proposed 
long  report,  and  sent  them  both  by  Moulton  to  Beecher, 
« use  his  own  language,  said  that  "  I  would  be  satis- 


fled  with  either."  Mr.  Beecher,  with  his  usual  confiding 
frankness,  and  relying  on  Moulton's  good  faith  and  Til- 
ton's  pledge,  resolved  that  he  would  make  a  statement  to 
the  Committee  which  should  take  the  whole  blame  on 
himself ;  make  a  clean  breast  of  it  so  far  as  he  was  con- 
cerned, and  exonerate  Tilton  from  all  censure.  He  stated 
that  purpose  to  Redpath  on  the  14th,  and  carried  it  out 
on  the  15th  by  that  eloquent  statement  submitted  to  the 
Committee  (which  appears  on  page  892,  in  the  second 
volume  of  evidence)  in  reply  to  the  request  of  the  Com- 
mittee for  a  statement  of  his  relations  with  Mrs.  Tilton. 
That  statement  he  read  to  Moulton.  That  statement 
he  presented  to  the  Committee.  It  dealt  gener- 
ously and  magnanimously  with  Tilton.  But,  as 
usual,  Tilton  proved  false  and  renewed  his 
threat  of  the  12th,  which  he  followed  on  the  20th,  to 
change  his  accusation  to  one  of  adultery.  Mr.  Beecher 
had  redeemed  his  promise  to  Moulton  and  to  Redpath  to 
exonerate  Tilton ;  but  they  were  foiled  m  their  purpose 
to  obtain  from  him  an  admission  before  the  Committee  of 
an  imdefined  offense  which  they  might  afterward,  in  the 
light  of  the  Bacon  letter,  construe  into  a  confession  of 
adultery.  True,  he  admitted  his  offense,  but  he  specifi- 
cally defined  what  it  was.  That  was  not  what  they  had 
coimted  on.  But  Tilton  forgot,  when  he  was  writing  this 
report,  that  he  was  making  a  report  against  himself 
admitting  the  falsehood  of  his  meditated  charge  of 
adultery. 

THE  "LONG REPORT"  FOR  THE  COMMITTEE. 

Now,  let  us  look  for  a  few  moments  at  the 
long  report,  which  went  at  the  same  time.  That  is  the 
one  which  Tilton  says  he  and  his  wife  had  both  agreed 
on ;  that  he  dictated  it,  and  she  wrote  it  off.  It  was 
thought  that  would  certainly  bring  Mr.  Beecher.  In  that 
report  Mr.  Tilton  admits  the  falsehood  of  his  accusation. 
With  the  shortsightedness  and  shallowness  which  so 
often  betrays  men  who  plume  themselves  on  their  cunning, 
he  supposed  that,  inasmuch  as  he  was  writing  a  report 
for  other  people  to  sign,  it  had  no  operation  until  they 
did  sign  it.  He  did  not  know  that  in  judgment  of  law,  as 
well  as  of  any  man  of  ordinary  intelligence,  what  a  man 
writes  for  another  to  sign  is  evidence  against  himself  of 
the  truth  of  what  he  has  recorded.  His  coimsel  vmder- 
stood  it  better  than  he  did,  and  when  they  came  to  see 
this  long  report,  although  they  had  it  marked  for  iden- 
tification, we  could  not  get  them  to  introduce  it  in  evi- 
dence, and  we  were  compelled  afterward  to  introduce  it 
in  evidence  ourselves.  They  saw  the  effect  of  it.  That  re- 
port contains  many  matters  of  significance,  and  I  really 
think,  gentlemen,  that  I  shall  not  be  asking  too  much  of 
you  to  allow  me  to  read  it,  for  it  is  not  long.  Here  is  the 
verdict  rendered  by  Theodore  Tilton  before  ha  called  you 
to  the  box.  False,  I  admit ;  for  in  the  sense  in  which  lie 
uses  the  term  "  f  ffense,"  meaning  by  it  improper  solicitar 
tions,  it  is  not  true  that  any  such  oftense  was  comTi'iftod 


SUMMING    UP  BY  ME.  FOETEB. 


633 


-It  Is  not  true  -tliat  any  sucli  solicitations  were  ever 
made  by  Henry  Ward  Beeelier  ;  but  tbis  report  sbows 
tbat  tbat  was  wbat  Tilton  bad  charged  bim  with,  and 
that  that  was  the  offense,  and  the  only  offense,  that  Til- 
t^n  bad  imputed  to  him. 

The  undersigned,  constituting  the  Committee  of 
Plymouth  Church,  to  whom  were  referred  certain  recent 
publications  of  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon  and  Mr.  Theodore  Til- 
ton,  hereby  present  their  unanimous  report. 

Allow  me  to  say,  gentlemen,  in  passing,  that  the  paper 
which  has  been  called  the  "  Letter  of  Apology"  or  the 
"  Letter  of  Contrition"  is  embodied  in  the  Bacon  letter ; 
not  of  coiu-se  honestly ;  of  course  it  is  garbled ;  every- 
thing that  comes  from  Tilton  in  the  whole  conrse  of  this 
matter  bears  that  mark ;  but  there  is  what  purports  to 
be  the  apology  signed  by  Mr.  Beecher,  leaving  out  what 
Tilton  thought  did  not  help  his  purpose,  but  putting  in 
all  that  could  by  possibility  damage  Mr.  Beecher.  I  caU 
your  attention  to  that  in  this  view.  They  say  that 
apology  means  adultery.  That  apology  was  before  this 
Committee.  Now,  we  will  see  whether  Theodore  Tilton 
thought  that  apology  meant  adultery. 

The  Committee  sought  and  obtained  a  pergonal  inter- 
view with  each  of  the  three  following-named  persons, 
to  wit :  Mr.  Tilton,  Mrs.  Tilton  and  the  pastor,  all  of 
whom  responded  to  the  searching  ciuestions  of  the  Com- 
mittee with  freedom  and  candor.  Documents,  letters 
and  papers  pertaining  to  the  case  were  carefully  consid- 
ered. A  multiplicity  of  details,  needing  to  be  duly 
weighed,  occasioned  a  somewhat  protracted  investiga- 
tion. The  Committee  hope  that  the  apparent  tardiness 
of  their  report  will  be  compensated  to  the  parties  by  rec- 
tifying an  erroneous  public  sentiment  under  which  they 
have  all  suffered  misrepresentation.  Theodore  Tilton, 
EUzaueth  E.  Tilton  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

I.  The  Cumriiittee's  first  interview  was  with  Mrs. 
Elizabeth  R.  Tilton,  whose  testimony  was  given  with  a 
modesty  and  touching  sincerity  that  deeply  moved  those 

'  who  listened  to  it.  Her  straightforward  narrative  was 
an  unconscious  vindication  of  her  innocence  and  purity 
of  character,  and  confirmed  by  evidences  in  the  docu- 
ments. She  repelled  with  warm  feeling  the  idea  that  her 
husband  was  the  author  of  calunnnious  statements  against 
her,  or  had  ever  treated  her  with  other  than  chivalrous 
consideration  and  protection.  She  paid  a  high  tribute  to 
his  character,  and  also  to  the  fortitude  with  which  he  had 
borne  prolonged  injustice. 

I  should  have  felt  that  perhaps  it  was  in  bad  taste  for 
Theodore  to  write  for  somebody  else  to  sign  a  glorifica- 
tion of  himself,  but  perhaps  he  was  right,  for,  after  all,  I 
believe  that  Gen.  Butler,  over  the  signature  of  Francis  D. 
Moulton,  took  occasion  to  certify  in  respect  to  himself 
what  reaUy  was  a  very  welcome  assurance  to  the  public, 
that  he  had  been  all  through  this  matter  a  peacemaker 
and  desirous  to  hush  up  the  scandal,  and  accordingly  pre- 

[  pared  these  two  published  statements  which  appear  in 

*  the  name  ofrFrancis  D.  Moulton. 

II.  The  committee  further  find  that  Mr.  Tilton,  in  his 
relations  with  the  pastor,  had  a  just  cause  of  offense,  and 

1  liad  received  a  voluntary  apology.  Mr.  Tilton  declined 
i  to  characterize  the  offense  for  the  following  reasons  : 
j  First,  because  the  necessary  evidence  which  should  ac- 


company any  statement  would  include  the  names  ol 
persons  who  had  happily  escaped  thus  far  the  tongue  of 
pubJic  gossip. 
Who  were  they  1 

Next,  that  the  apology  was  designed  to  cover  a  com- 
plicated transaction,  its  details  difficnlt  of  exact  or  just 
statements  ;  and  last,  that  no  possible  good  could  arise 
from  satisfying  the  public  curiosity  cox  this  point.  IVIr. 
Tilton,  after  concluding  his  testimony,  respectfully  called 
the  attention  of  the  Committee  to  the  fact  that  the  Clerk 
of  the  Church  had  spoken  calumniously  of  Mr.  Tilton 
during  the  late  Council,  and  had  since  nnqualifiedly  con- 
tradicted and  retracted  his  statements  as  untrue  and  im- 
just,  and  he  (Mr.  T.)  requested  the  Committee  to  ratify 
and  confirm  thac  apology,  making  honorable  record  of 
the  same  in  their  report,  which  is  hereby  cheerfully  done. 

That  was  my  Brother  Shearman.  The  offense  that  he 
committed  was  that  he  really  believed  that  this  man  was 
insane.  I  do  not ;  and  he  does  not  now.  The  retraction, 
however,  is  before  you,  and  its  terms  are  very  different 
from  what  this  paper  would  indicate.  He  disclaimed 
having  used  the  language  that  was  imputed  to  him,  and 
Avas  wilting  for  the  sake  of  peace  to  make  a  concession 
to  a  degree  that  I  thini  has  strained  his  conscience  ever 
since. 

III.  The  Committee  further  find  that  the  Rev.  Henry 
Ward  Beecher's  evidence  corroborated  the  statements  of 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Tilton.  He  also  said  the  church  action  of 
which  Mr.  Tilton  had  complained,  had  not  been  inspired 
by  the  pastor,  but  had  been  taken  independently  by  the 
church  ;  that  the  public  impression  that  Mr.  Tilton  had 
been  in  the  habit  of  speaking  against  him  was  unjust  to 
Mr.  T.,  and  was  owing  mainly  to  the  unwelcome  intro- 
diuitionkito  the  church  of  charges  against  Mr.  T.,  by  a 
mere  hanriful  of  persons,  who,  in  so  doing,  had  received 
no  coimtenance  from  the  gi'eat  mass  of  the  congregation, 
or  from  the  pastor.  He  said  that  the  apology  had  been 
invested  by  the  public  press  with  an  undue  mystery  ; 
that,  after  having  been  led  by  his  own  precipitancy  and 
folly  into  wrong,  he  saw  no  singularity  of  behavior  in  a 
Christian  man  (particularly  a  clergyman)  acknowledging 
his  offense.  He  had  always  preached  this  doctrine  to 
others,  and  would  not  shrink  firom  applying  it  to  him- 
self. 

You  will  bear  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that  before  this  pa- 
per was  proposed  by  him,  Mrs.  Tntonhad  already  testified 
before  the  Committee  to  her  innocence  and  Mr.  Beecher's, 
and  that  testimony  was  to  be  confirmed  and  corroborated 
by  the  evidence  of  Theodore  Tilton  and  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  and  the  Committee  were  so  to  certify. 

The  Committee,  after  hearing  the  three  witnesses 
already  referred  to,  felt  unanimously  that  any  regrets 
previously  entertained  concerning  the  publication  of  :Mr. 
Tilton's  letter  to  Dr.  Bacon  should  give  way  to  grateful 
acknowledgments  of  the  providential  opportunity  which 
this  publication  has  imexpectedly  afforded,  to  draw  forth 
tie  testimony  which  the  Committee  have  thus  reported 
in  brief,  but  in  sufficient  fullness,  as  they  believe,  to  ex- 
plain and  put  at  rest  forever  a  vexatious  scandal.  The 
Committee  are  likewise  of  opinion,  based  on  the  tes- 
timony submitted'  to  them,  that  no  unprejudiced  court  of 
inguiry  could  have  reviewed  this  case,  as  thus  presented 
in  person  by  its  principal  figures,  without  being  strikingly 
impressed  with  the  moral  integrity  and  elevation  of  char- 
acter of  the  parties;  and  accordingly  the  Committee 


IMM   TILTON-BEECREE  TBIAL. 


cannot  forliear  to  state  tliat  the  Reverend  Henry  Ward 
Beeclier,  Mr.  Tlieodore  Tilton,  and  Mrs.  Tilton  (and  ki  an 
especial  man»er  tlie  latter),  must  and  should  receive  the 
increased  symj)athy  and  respect  of  Plj^mouth  Church 
and  congregation. 

THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  "  LONG  EEPOET." 

Here  we  have,  gentlemen,  the  written  faM- 
fication  by  Theodore  Tilton,  put  forth  by  him  on  the  14th 
of  JultTj  three  days  after  his  wife  had  left  his  xoat  forever, 
two  days  after  he  sent  his  threatening  message  by  Red- 
path  •f  an  accusation  of  adultery,  which  six  days  after- 
ward he  renewed  before  the  Comnuttee.  Now,  this  paper, 
written  by  him  the  preceding  week  and  submitted  to 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  on  the  14th  of  July,  brands  Theo- 
dore Tiiton  as  a  double-tongued  liar.  Observe,  he  spe- 
cifically refers  in  this  paper  to  his  letter  to  Dr.  Bacon,  in 
which  he  had  published  the  so-called  apology.  If  that 
apology  ever  meant  adultery  it  meant  adultery  then. 
Yet  he -certifies  here  that  it  did  not  mean  adultery.  He 
says  "the  apology  was  designed  to  cover  a 
complicated  transaction,  its  details  difficult  of 
exact  or  just  statement."  Was  the  adultery  of 
his  wife  with  Mr.  Beecher  a  complicated  transaction  ?  If 
that  was  the  offense  and  it  had  been  coniessed  by  Mr. 
Beecher  what  need  of  detail?  If  he  had  debauched  Til- 
ton's  wife,  why  was  it  unjust  for  Tilton  to  state  it  ?  If 
the  "  apology"  meant  adultery,  what  does  Tilton  mean 
by  certifying  that  Mr.  Beecher  has  suffered  misrepre- 
sentation ?  H-e  had.  But  the  misrepresentation  was  in 
imputing  to  him  improper  proposals  to  Tilton's 
wife.  What  does  Tilton  mean  by  certifying  to  the 
modesty  and  touching  sincerity  of  ]VIrs-  Tilton, 
and  to  her  unsullied  innocence  and  purity  ? 
Tflton  had  already  given  public  notice  in  the  newspapers 
that  within  ten  days  he  should  put  before  the  Committee 
Ms  sworn  statement.  In  thi^  report  he  makes  the  Com- 
mittee certify  that  he,  Tilton,  had  been  examined  before 
them  and  had  responded  to  the  searching  questions  of  the 
court  with  freedom  and  candor.  Did  he  mean  then  to 
make  that  sworn  statement  a  lie  ?  Which  is  false,  the 
written  statement  of  the  14th,  that  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  are  innocent,  or  the  written  statement  of  the  20th, 
that  they  were  shameless,  exposed,  and  confessed  aclul- 
terers  % 

The  hour  of  4  o'clock  having  arrived,  the  Court  ad- 
journed until  11  a.  m.  Tuesday. 


NINETIETH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

JUDGE  POETER'S  ADDRESS  UNEXPECTEDLY 
PROLONGED. 

A  LARGE  AUDIENCE  EXPECTANT  OF  JUDGE  PORTER'8 
PERORATION  AND  MR.  EVARTS'S  OPENING— JUDGE 
porter's  INCREASED  EARNESTNESS  IN  ARGU- 
MENT—HE DESIRES  AN  EXTENSION  OF  THE 
COURT  SESSION  TO  FINISH  HIS  SPEECH— AN  AD- 
JOURNMENT HAD  AT  THE  REQUEST  OF  A  JUROR 
WHO  WAS  UNWELL— rJUDGE  PORTER  FURTHER 
REVIEWS  MR.  MOULTON'S  CHARACTER  AND  HIS 
CONNECTION  WITH  THE  CASE— GEN.  BUTLER'S 
INTERPOSITION  COMMENTED  UPON  —  *IE  AL- 
LEGED LETTER  OF  RESIGNATION  ANALYZED. 

Tuesday,  May  25,  1875. 

Judge  Porter  opened  to-day  with,  a  contmna- 
tion  of  tSie  analysis  of  the  report  for  the  Plymouth 
Committee,  prepared  by  Mr.  Tilton,  and  sub- 
mitted to  Mr.  Beecher.  TMs  be  declared  tc 
be  a  written  reaantation  by  JNir.  Tilton  of  the  charge 
of  adultery.  Mr.  Moulton  came  in  once  more  for 
a  share  of  denunciation.  Judge  Porter  reviewed  his 
character  and  his  history  briefly,  and  ref  eared  to  the 
termination  of  his  connection  with  the  house  of 
Woodruff  &  Robinson,  intimatisig  that  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's  friends  had  ceased  to  trust  him.  Some  very  cut- 
ting remarks  were  made  about  Gen.  Butler's  relations 
to  the  case.  Tbe  orator  declared  that  Gen.  Butler, 
not  having  been  accepted  as  counsel  for  Mr.  Beecher, 
bad  become  the  adviser  of  Mr.  Moulton,  and  had 
been  the  real  author  of  the  papers  put  forth  in  the 
name  of  Mr.  Moulton  with  the  intention  of  striking 
down  Mr.  Beecher.  Judge  Porter  exclaimed,  with  ill 
the  force  of  gesture  and  passionate  utterance  that  he 
possesses,  "  And  when  that  blow  fell,  though  no  an- 
swer came,  another  paper  appeared  over  the  name  of 
Francis  D.  Moulton,  who  took  the  credit  and  the 
honor  of  it,  but  devised  by  that  dexterous  and  keen 
intellect  which  was  equal  to  all  the  vicissitudes  of 
the  war,  and  which  never  failed,  whether  in  the  ad- 
vocacy of  a  good  or  a  bad  cause,  until  now." 

The  letter  of  resignation  was  reviewed  to-day 
very  much  in  the  way  in  which  the  letter  of  con- 
trition had  been  gone  over  on  Monday.  This,  the 
orator  said  ironically,  was  another  specimen  of  Mr. 
Moulton's  literary  ability.  The  sentence,  "I  ten- 
der herewith  my  resignation  of  Plymouth 
Church"  was  ridiculed.  "A  past»r  of  a  church," 
exclaimed  the  lawyer,  "who  did  not  know 
enough  to  write  English  for  even  four  lines!" 
The  charge  of  blackmail  formed  the  main  topic  of 


SUMMING    UP  1 

llie  latter  portion  of  Judge  Porter's  address.  He  de- 
clared that  Jyir.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  were  both 
blackmailers,  and  that  the  charge  had  never  been 
abandoned  by  the  defendant's  counsel.  The  black- 
mailers, he  said,  had  shifted  their  object.  At  first 
Mr.  Tilton's  desire  was  to  be  reinstated  in  his  posi- 
tion on  The  Independent.  The  alleged  improbability 
and  inconsistency  of  any  other  explanation  of  the 
conduct  of  Messrs.  Tilton  and  Moulton  than  that 
they  were  levying  blackmail,  formed  the  general 
thread  of  the  argument  on  this  subject. 


THE  PEOCEEDINGS— YERBATTM. 

MR.  PORTER'S  ARGUMENT  CONTINUED. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 

A)urnraent. 

Mr.  Porter— If  it  please  tour  Hokoe— Ge>'tlemen 
OF  THE  Jury  :  It  gives  me  more  gratMcation  even  than 
(t  can  you,  to  know  tliat  at  some  period  in  the  day,  at 
least,  my  learned  friend  is  to  follow  me ;  but  it  has  heen 
deemed  advlsal3le  that  I  should  ptu?sue,  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent, a  branch  of  the  case  to  which  I  have  given  more 
particular  attention  than  he  has,  for  at  least  a  portion  of 
the  time. 

MR.  TH^TON'S  RECANTATION. 
You  will  remember  that  when  we  adjourned 
last  evening  we  were  considering  the  effect  of  that  report 
drawn  l>y  Theodore  Tilton  in  the  week  commencing  on 
the  5th  of  July,  1874,  and  submitted  by  his  direction  and 
authority  to  Hemy  "Ward  Beeeher,  with  the  pledge  that 
that  report  was  one  upon  which  they  could  agree  in  their 
testimony  before  the  Committee,  and  in  the  findings  to  be 
rendered  by  that  Committee.  You  probably  retain  freshly 
ki  recollection  the  terms  of  that  report  upon  which  I  was 
proceeding  to  comment,  and  I  resume  at  the  point  at 
which  I  left  the  analysis.  Why  is  it  that  in  that  report, 
recorded  by  the  hand  of  the  man  who  claimed  that 
he  was  the  victim  of  a  libertine,  and  speaking 
of  the  paper  which  has  been  put  forth  here  as  a  confes- 
sion of  adultery,  Theodore  Tilton  certifies  that  that 
"Apology  "had  been  invested  by  the  public  press  with 
an  undue  mystery  ?  What  mystery  is  there  in  adultery  1 
The  public  press  that  had  invested  it  with  that  mystery 
was  the  press  that  was  as  much  set  in  motion  by  Theo- 
dore Tilton  as  if  he  had  stood  under  the  beck  and  man- 
date of  Victoria  C.  WoodhuU,  and  himself  had  set  up  the 
type  on  which  appeared  the  charge  of  adultery  against 
his  ^ife  and  Henry  Ward  Beeeher.  If  Mi\  Beeeher  was 
an  adulterer,  why  does  Tilton  certifj'  in  this  paper  that 
his  own  testimony  before  the  Committee,  and  the  concur- 
ring testimony  of  his  wife  and  Mr.  Beeeher,  as  well  as 
the  documents,  letters,  and  papers  pertaining  to  the  case, 
have  put  at  rest  forever  a  vexatious  scandal  ?  You  will 


?r  MR.   PORIEE,  635 

[  recognize,  gentlemen,  my  purposed  repetition  of  the 
points  which  T  was  considering  yesterday,  with  a  view 
that  you  may  now  retain  the  connection  as  I  proceed  to 
comment  further  upon  the  report ;  and  once  more,  to 
borrow  what  I  have  already  said  to  you,  above  all,  if  lie 
believed,  as  he  now  pretends  and  swears,  that  Mr. 
Beeeher  had  debauched  his  wife— tkat  Mrs.  Tilton 
had  polluted  their  marriage  bed— how  could  he  ask  a 
committee  of  Christian  men,  as  he  does  in  this  paper,  to 
certify  to  the  moral  integrity  and  elevation  of  character 
of  the  adulteress  and  her  paramour  ? 

This,  gentlemen,  is  the  written  recantation  by  Theo- 
dore Tilton,  in  his  own  hand,  on  the  14th  of  JulV;  1874, 
of  the  accusation  of  adultery  which  he  made  to  Redpath 
on  Sunday,  the  12th  of  July.  Mrs.  Tilton  is  not  the  only 
member  of  that  household  who  has  had  occasion  to  re- 
tract false  charges ;  and  when  he  rebuked  his  wife  for 
retractiag  a  charge  that  was  false,  may  I  not  ask  you  to 
rebuke  him  for  retracting  a  charge  which  was  equally 
false,  and  then  having  the  effrontery  to  come  into  a  court 
of  justice  and  renew  it.  He  cannot  plead  that  the  recan- 
tation was  a  lie.  He  is  the  plaintiff  in  this  suit. 
He  cannot  ask  you  to  declare  the  accusation  to  be  true 
which  10  months  ago,  in  writing,  he  confessed  to  be  a 
lie.  No  man  can  ask  a  jury  to  sustain  a  charge  the  falsity 
of  which  is  shown  by  his  own  voluntary,  deliberate, 
written  confession.  I  have  said  that  he  could  not  plead 
that  this  recantation  was  a  lie  designed  to  protect  his 
wife,  for  although  it  vras  written  before  she  left  him,  he 
sent  it  by  the  hand  of  Frank  Moulton  to  Henry  Ward 
Beeeher  three  days  after  she  had  renounced  his  protec- 
tion and  bid  him  goodby  forever.  When  this  paper  was 
sent  to  Mr.  Beeeher  by  the  hand  of  his  minion,  Mrs.  Til- 
ton was  living  under  the  shelter  of  the  roof  of  the  friend 
of  her  early  days,  Mrs.  Edward  J.  Ovingtou.  He  had 
followed  her  there.  He  had  there  made  his  base 
and  infamous  charge  to  those  beneath  whose  roof  she 
had  f ovmd  a  new  home.  He  cannot  plead  that  he  falsi- 
fied his  accusation  from  tenderness  to  Mr.  Beeeher.  He 
swears  before  you  that  from  the  26th  of  December,  1870, 
he  cherished  in  his  heart  that  feeling  that  made  him  even 
then  intend  to  smite  Henry  Ward  Beeeher  to  the  heart. 
No;  the  accusation  of  Sunday  was  false.  On  Tuesday  he 
retracted  it.  He  knew  it  to  be  false.  He  confessed  the 
falsehood,  and  by  that  confession  he  is  bound.  Nay, 
more,  gentlemen,  by  that  confession  you  are  bound. 

MRS.  MORSE  DESCRIBED. 
In  passing  from  this  branch  of  the  case,  per- 
mit me  to  allude,  for  a  moment,  to  a  lady  whose  name 
has  been  malignantly  traduced,  in,  your  hearing,  in  writ- 
ing and  on  oath ;  but  I  think  no  man  will  hold  her  in 
lower  estimation  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  man  who 
traduced  and  vilified  her  is  also  the  traducer  of  the  wife 
of  his  bosom  and  of  her  honored  pastor.  Tilton  had  the 
same  opportunity  ia  respect  to  the  mother  of  his  wife 


628  77/ A  TILTON-Bj 

which  he  has  used  so  unscrupulously  In  his  evidence  to 
blac  ken  her,  on  oath  and  in  writing,  for  the  purpose  of  at- 
taching taint,  dishonor,  and  infamy  to  the  name  of 
a  woman  who  had  no  protector,  and  was  therefore 
the  lawful  prey  of  the  chivalrous  leader  of  free  love. 
That  Mrs.  Morse  has  led  an  unhappy  life,  that  she  was 
cursed  hy  the  alliance  of  her  only,  her  beloved  and  her 
idolized  daughter,  with  one  who  had  no  more  sympathy 
with  her  than  he  had  with  the  swine  upon  the  sides  of 
the  mountains,  that  the  domestic  difficulties  in  that 
household  shattered  her  health  and  even  affected  her  un- 
derstanding, that  they  have  thrown  her  into  a  nervous 
condition  alternately  of  credulity  and  unbelief,  which 
have  led  her  to  say  things  which  have  been  injurious 
to  others  no  less  than  to  herself,  and  to  her 
own  child,  is  all  due  to  Theodore  Tilton,  the 
man  who  had  the  effrontery  to  say  in  the 
"  True  Story  "  that  a  woman  whom  he  admitted  to  be 
one  of  the  purest  in  heart,  one  of  the  most  fascinating  in 
manners  and  address,  and  one  of  the  most  brilliant  intel- 
lectual women  whom  he  had  ever  met,  was  at  heart  a 
murderess.  It  was  a  calumny  as  vile  as  any  of  those 
which  have  ever  been  coined  by  the  man  ;  and  you  who 
know  something  of  Brooklyn,  something  of  the  ladies  of 
Brooklyn,  something  of  the  estimation  in  which  charac- 
ter is  held  here,  will  not  be  surprised  when  I  say  what  is 
known  to  you,  but  is  not  known  to  the  public, 
that  the  woman  whom  he  defames,  commands 
in  this  community  a  degree  of  respect,  even  in  her  mis- 
fortimes,  which  Theodore  Tilton  will  never  command 
from  this  hour,  either  in  this  city  or  any  city  or  refuge  on 
earth.  In  one  of  those  letters  written  by  her  in  the  ex- 
cited, nervous  condition,  to  which  she  was  driven  by  his 
dastardly  charges  against  her  daughter,  which  she 
accepted  from  him  without  inquiry,  and  which  she  felt 
carried  with  them  the  dishonor  of  her  own  house,  no 
less  than  the  infamy  of  the  man  who  claims  to  have 
been  himself  a  participant  in  the  offense— she  does  write 
in  one  of  these  letters  to  Mr.  Beecher,  which  was  sub- 
mitted to  him  and  his  friend  Frank  Moulton  in  consulta- 
tion, by  Mr.  Beecher,  for  an  appropriate  answer,  and 
the  answer  to  which  was  given  by  him  in  the  terms  they 
prescribed— in  that  letter  she  says,  speaking  of  Tilton,  ad- 
mitting aU  he  says  to  be  the  invention  of  his  half  drunken 
brain,  still  the  effect  upon  her  is  the  same  ;  he  is  doing 
all  he  can  to  kill  her  by  slow  torture.  And  yet  these 
eager  fishermen,  whose  nets  were  ready  for  whatever 
could  be  found  floating  in  the  water,  catch  at  this,  pre- 
serve this  letter,  which  has  been  submitted  to  them  in 
order  to  enable  them  to  judge  best  what  was  to  do  with 
this  nervous  and  excited  woman— this  letter  is  preserved 
as  one  of  the  muniments  of  title  to  the  $100,000  which 
Theodore  Tilton  claims  to-day  in  a  court  held  by  the 
Chief-Justice,  and  in  a  court  in  which  you  sit  as  jurors. 
If  there  can  be  anything  more  dastardly  than  to  deal 
•with  a  woman,  a  mother,  alone,  unprotected,  feeble  in 


'i^EiJHER  TRIAL. 

health,  driven  almost  to  madness  by  her  love  ti 
her  daughter  and  the  cruelties  of  her  hus- 
band—if anything  more  dastardly  can  be 
conceived  than  the  calm  and  cool  preservation 
for  the  day  when  money  can  be  made  out  of  it, 
of  such  a  letter,  and  its  introduction  on  the  stand  even 
by  the  man  who,  in  his  malignity  to  Mrs.  Morse,  was  oa^ 
pable  of  swearing  she  was  a  murderous  maniac,  you 
may  conceive  of  it ;  I  cannot.  It  is  in  keeping  with  the 
character  of  the  man,  who  'n  another  of  his  moods,  and 
in  speaking  of  that  imholy,  wicked  libel,  penned  by  tke 
hand  of  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews,  but  conceived  m  tlw 
brain  of  Theodore  Tilton,  and  melted  through  the  sieve 
of  the  Woodhull :  "  When  I  was  doing  my  best  to  sup- 
press one  earthquake,  that  is,  Bowen's  slanders  against 
Mr.  Beecher,  Mrs.  Woodhull  suddenly  stood  before  hie, 
portentous  with  another."  This  suppresser  of  earth- 
quakes asked,  "What  was  I  to  do?  I  resolved  at  ail 
hazards  to  keep  back  the  new  avalanche  until  I  could 
securely  tie  up  the  original  storm."  This  sup- 
presser of  earthquakes  and  of  avalanches,  titis 
tyer  up  of  original  storms,  was  holding  back 
avalanches,  suppressing  earthquakes,  and  tying 
up  storms,  all  of  his  own  creation ;  toiling  like  Hercules  to 
suppress  a  slander,  and  aU  he  had  to  do  was  to  keep 
closed  those  Apollo-like  lips,  which  his  wife,  Elizabeth 
Tilton,  even  to  this  day  worships.  But  the  tongue  is  "  a 
wild  beast  which  no  man  can  tame,"  and  the  first  use  he 
made  of  those  lips  was  to  send  out  that  wild  beast  to  rend 
where  it  would,  to  destroy  everywhere.  Gentlemen,  it  is 
against  such  men  as  Theodore  Tilton  that  the  world  has  a 
right  to  Claim  the  interposition  cf  courts  of  justice.  If 
the  spirit  which  he  has  exhibited  in  this  case  be  permit- 
ted to  run  rampant,  men,  like  wolves,  will  devour  each 
other.  With  all  the  extraordinary  power  of  condensation 
which  characterizes  my  friend  Mr.  Shearman,  the  dire<^t 
contradictions  to  this  oath,  each  contradiction  em- 
braced within  the  measure  of  two  lines,  covers 
all  those  sheets  fholding  up  to  the  jury  several 
sheets  of  legal  cap.]  I  shall  not  touch  them ;  and  in  them 
is  not  included  one  word  of  the  contraaictions  by  his  own 
writings;  not  one  word  of  the  contradictions  by  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  and  Benjamin  F.  Tracy.  They  are  the  con- 
tradictions on  vital  and  material  points  of  the  foremost 
men  in  Brooklyn  and  New-York,  of  women  of  undoubted 
purity  and  reputation.  They  stand,  each  and  every 
of  the  thirty-five,  front  to  front  and  oath  to  oath,  looking 
Theodore  Tilton  in  the  eye,  and  appealing  to  that  God 
whom  they  respect,  but  whom  he  doesn't  respect,  for  the 
truth  of  their  denials  to  the  falsehood  of  his  utterances 
upon  the  stand. 

MR.  MOULTON'S  ATTITUDE  TO  THE  CASE. 

:     Gentlemen,  I  have  incidentally  alluded,  in 
passing  (although  as  yet  I  have  failed  to  give  much  iit- 
I  tcntion  to  him),  to  Mr.  Francis  D.  Moulton.    I  am  deeply 


sr^imya  vf  by  jif.  fobiee. 


627 


impressed  vrlth  ttie  feeling  that  I  do  injustice  to  you  and 
to  the  cause  in  giving  him  more  than  a  passing  notice. 
The  issue  here  joined  is  benveen  Theodore  Tilton  and  the 
man  he  accuses.  If  Tilton  is  a  false  accuser,  you  need  go 
no  further  in  this  case.  If  he  is  untrustrworthv  and  rot- 
ten, heart,  brain,  bone,  and  marro"^,  no  ^messes  whom 
he  can  call  -will  reinstate  him  in  the  judgment  of  an  hon- 
est man.  And  vet,  because  I  regai-d  Francis  D.  Moulton 
as  a  dangerous  man,  as  the  tvpe  of  a  class  of  dangerous 
men,  I  feel  that  I  should  be  wanting  in  the  discharge  of 
my  professional  duty  if  I  did  not,  at  least  briefly  and  cur- 

-  Illy,  call  your  attention  to  some  of  the  more  marked 
:  -  rures  of  his  evidence,  in  order  to  enable  you  to  apply 

your  more  unbiased  judgment,  your  cooler  understand- 
iug,  to  these  facts,  and  determine  whether,  even  if  Fran- 
cis D.  Moulton  were  the  plaintiff  instead  of  the  witness, 
he  stands  any  better  in  your  judgment  than  the  man  he 
served. 

In  the  first  place,  I  recall  your  attention  to  tlie  fact 
that  two  years  ago  tMs  man  occupied  a  very  different  po- 
sition in  this  community  from  the  position  which  he  oc- 
cupies to-day,  even  before  your  judgment  is  pronounced. 
Two  years  ago  he  was  a  leading  member  in  one  of  the 
first  commercial  houses  in  this  beautiful  and  prosperous 
city.  Two  years  ago  lie  was  at  the  head  of  a  family  hon- 
ored by  its  alliances ;  high  in  social  position ;  worthy  of 
confidence,  respect,  and  regard.  To-day  Francis  D. 
Moulton,  through  some  cause  which  he  faUs  to  explain, 
stands  alone.  That  areat  house  has  met  with  the  disas- 
ter which  was  threatened  to  Plymouth  Church ;  its  roof 
is  gone.  And  although  there  is  another  roof  which  still 

-  :.ields  a  firm  of  the  name,  Francis  D.  Moulton  doesn't  find 
sLelter  under  it,  and  the  men  who  have  passed  judgment 
upon  him,  and  have  executed  that  judgment,  are  the 
men  who  know  him  better  than  you  or  than  I  do.  Cer- 
tainly he  has  not  left  that  firm  for  lack  of  administra- 
tive genius  and  ahiUty.  if  Theodore  Tilton  is  to 
"  e  believed.    He  has  not  left  that  firm  for  lack  of  kindly 

-ling  on  <he  part  of  those  who  are  members  of  it,  to 

-  Lue  of  whom  he  was  allied  by  blood  and  to  aU  by  in- 
verest ;  for  he  has  been  able  to  summon  them  as  wit- 

-ses  in  his  behalf  even  now ;  for  as  Francis  D.  Moulton 
'.vith  no  man  without  keeping  him  in  his  power,  it 
would  Lave  been  strange  if  the  man  who  betrayed  the 
trust  even  of  a  confiding  clergyman  retained  no  power 
^  over  those  who  are  allied  with  hi-m  m  interest.  Why 
is  change  ?  Professions  sometimes  mean  much  ;  acts 
r  an  more     How  does  Francis  D.  Moulton  stand  to-day 
your  jucgment,  in  the  judgment  of  his  own  partners, 
*he  judgment  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  in  the  judgment 
the    millions    of     men    who    read    from  day 
:     day  the  records  of    this    trial?     It  is  not  for 
^e    to    pronounce;    it    is  for  you.    Eight   at  the 
chveshold     of     -chls     argument,    in    that  branch 
of  it  which  I  devote  to  him,  I  confront  him  with  his  own 
Mf:-.lN  -r-.  ^hdt  m.-rr<iTdble  Isi  of  J'jjie.  written  beneath 


his  own  roof,  to  be  read  by  Henry  'Ward  Beeoher  and  to 
be  produced  on  this  triaL  Who  is  this  man  ?  Is  he  one 
who  believes  that  the  minister  of  Gk>d  commends  him- 
self to  his  parishioners  by  breach  of  trust  and  foul  adul- 
tery ?  Is  h.e  a  man  who  beUeves  that  hypocrisy  at  the 
altar  will  commend  a  gray-haired  man  to  the  confi- 
dence of  the  men,  the  women,  and  children  to  whom 
he  speaks  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  whom  he  con- 
signs to  the  baptismal  font,  whom  he  hands  over 
at  the  altar,  man  to  woman  and  woman  to  man, 
whom  he  commits  to  the  grave — does  he  believe  that  i 
Did  he  on  that  first  day  of  June  believe  that  of  all  the 
eminent  men  in  Christendom,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  stood 
infamously  pre-eminent  as  a  man  who  preached  from  Sab- 
bath to  Sabbath  to  40  of  his  own  mistresses,  as  a  man  who 
had  grown  from  youth  to  age,  growing  rotten  day  by  day, 
as  a  man  who  had  been  steeped  in  hypocrisy  from  the 
beginning,  to  whom  no  ties  or  obUgatlons  were  sacred, 
who  could  go  from  the  communion  table  to  the  adulterous 
bed,  and  administer  the  rites  appropriate  to  each,  to  the. 
same  woman,  who  trusted  him  and  who  loved  him.  He 
swears  to  you  now  that  he  knew  on  the  day  when  he 
penned  this  letter,  and  knowing  that,  he  says  to 
him  in  writing,  produced  before  you,  the  same 
handwriting  with  the  "Apology,"  but  dictated  by 
another  man — "You  can  stand  it  if  tlie  whole  case 
were  published  to-morrow."  Gentlemen,  this  man  spoke 
the  truth,  but  if  he  did,  what  he  uttered  on  this  witness 
stand  was  a  fabrication  and  a  He.  "  You  know  that  I 
love  yoiL"  Frank  says  he  is  a  heathen.  There  was  one 
who  was  not  a  heathen,  who  was  addressed  by  one  who 
spake  as  never  man  spake,  "  Simon  Peter,  lovest  thou 
me  V  '•  Lord  thou  knowest  that  I  love  Thee."  Can  you 
conceive  an  antagonism  stronger,  more  terrible  than  the 
spirit  in  which  Simon  Peter,  the  true  and  faithful  apos- 
tle, who  once  faltered  from  fear,  but  never  from 
failure  of  love,  and  the  same  utterance  when  it 
came  from  the  calm,  cold  blooded,  treacherous  man 
who  was  capable  of  going  to  the  house  of  a  woman  to  get 
a  letter,  and  to  a  clergyman  to  get  the  fruits  of  the  letter 
with  a  pistol  in  his  pocket,  both  unarmed.  May  God 
bless  you."  And  in  what  form  was  the  blessing  of  God  to 
come  ?  We  have  it  here ;  it  was  when  the  same  hand  that 
penned  that  letter  was  laid  upon  that  book  in  attestation 
of  the  truth  of  the  charge  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was 
an  adulterer,  and  that  he  knew  it  on  the  day  when  he 
said,  "You,  the  trust-betraying,  hypocritical  adulterer— 
you  c-an  stand  it  though  you  come  before  the  whole  world 
and  say,  '  I  come  from  a  debauch  with  one  of  my  com- 
municants;'" the  same  hand  that  wrote  these  words 
"  You  know  that  Hove  you;"  the  same  hand  that  was 
lifted  in  the  solemnity  of  a  mockery  to  God,  May  God 
bless  you,  the  hypocrite  and  adulterer  I " 


THE   TILTON-BEECEEE  TEIAL. 


GEN.  BUTLER'S  PART  IN  THE  PLAY. 
I  am  taxmg  your  patience  too  long.  I  pass 
over  mucli  whicli  I  intended  to  say.  The  bare  skeleton 
of  wliat  I  liad  proposed,  if  filled  out,  would  weary  you 
and  me  and  all.  But  liere  and  there  permit  me  to  touch 
a  single  point  which  I  think  is  worthy  of  your  attention. 
J  have  alluded  to  one  eminent  for  his  services  in  the  field, 
for  his  skill  as  a  diplomatist,  for  his  power  as  a  politician, 
and  for  many  qualities  that  command  admiration,  and 
some  perhaps  even,  with  near  friends,  that  make  a  man 
aflfectionately  beloved.  And  yet,  by  one  of  those  singular 
fatalities  which  attend  men  of  genius,  it  rarely  happens 
that  a  conspicuous  case  is  presented  which  involves  a 
great  man  and  which  is  likely  to  move  communities,  that 
the  name  of  Benjamin  F.  Butler  does  not  appear  in  it ; 
and  although  this  may  be  an  exception,  there  seems  to 
be  an  unfortunate  peculiarity,  which  in  the  past  has, 
through  no  fault  of  his  own,  made  him  the  de- 
fender of  those  who  did  not  command 
the  confldenee  and  respect  of  their  fellow-citizens. 
Frank  Moulton  was  early  brought  into  relations  with  this 
distinguished  man.  Through  difiiculties  between  his  own 
firm  and  the  Government,  as  the  evidence  shows,  that 
firm  was  involved  in  the  defense  of  suits,  the  prosecutor 
in  which— or,  if  not  the  prosecutor,  the  relator— was  a 
name  somewhat  memorable,  that  of  the  informer  Jayne  ; 
and  Benjamin  F.  Butler  was  his  counsel.  His  Honor, 
and  I  am  inclined  to  think  very  properly,  in  reviewing 
it,  although  I  thought  otherwise  at  the  time,  excluded 
the  evidence  which  would  have  enabled  you  to  under- 
stand more  about  that  case  than  you  now  do.  But  two 
or  three  things  cropped  out  In  Moulton's  cross-examina- 
tion which  it  is  useful  to  remember.  Vital  interests  were 
at  stake.  He  was  prosecuted  by  one  of  a  class  who  are 
known  to  be  merciless.  The  informer  was  represented 
by  counsel  who  never  spared,  even  in  warfare— who  was 
not  likely  to  spare  in  peace.  Oddly  enough,  it  happened 
that  the  relation  of  these  parties  was  changed,  and  the 
hostility  which  was  indicated  by  that  litigation  resulted 
in  a  lasting  friendship  between  the  informer  and  the 
counsel  of  the  informer  and  Francis  D.  Moulton.  I  do 
not  know  how  this  happened;  I  only  Ivnow  that  the 
friendship  was  so  devoted  that  the  time  came 
when  Moulton  was  in  trouble,  and  this  friend,  without 
fee  or  reward,  and  after  consultation  with  Moulton,  ten- 
dered his  services— to  Moulton  ?  No ;  to  Moulton's  enemy 
and  victim.  The  friend  of  Mr.  Moulton  was  recommended 
to  Mr.  Beecher  as  his  counsel,  and  with  the  assurance 
that  he  could  carry  him  through  without  regard  to  the 
facts.  Mr.  Beecher  did  not  know  Butler,  and  was  labor- 
ing under  the  false  impression  that  though  Butler  was  a 
man  of  great  ability  he  was  not  the  counsel  whom  the 
pastor  of  Plymouth  Church  should  select  to  represent 
him.  At  any  rate  he  failed  to  make  that  selection.  But 
there  were  three  other  men,  each  of  whom,  whatever 
Prank  Moulton  and  Theodore  Tilton  thought,  he  loved 


and  honored— my  friend  Hill,  the  brother  of  one 
whom  I  was  long  associated  in  life  in  another  city,  a 
the  very  name  wakes  up  in  me,  as  it  does  in  the  heart 
my  friend  Mr.  Beach,  remembrances  of  honor, 
ration  and  love— Gen.  Tracy  whom  they  struggl 
in  vain  to  separate  from  Mr.  Beecher  by  threat,  by 
stratagem,  by  fraud  and  by  peijury— Thomas  6.  Shear- 
man, who,  from  the  hour  he  came  into  this  case,  has 
held  them  all  at  bay.  'Hiese  were  the  men  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  was  disposed  to  trusty  and  to  throw  himself, 
when  the  time  came,  upon  the  protection  of  the  beaeb, 
and  upon  the  vindication  of  a  jury.  But  Gen.  Butler,  not 
being  accepted  as  the  counsel  of  Mr.  Beecher,  becomes, 
on  the  same  liberal  terms  and  without  fee  or  reward,  the 
adviser  of  Francis  D.  Moulton.  We  have  conclave  after 
conclave,  not  only  by  day  but  by  night,  at  the  Fifth 
Avenue  Hotel,  at  that  house  in  Remsen-st.  where  this 
false  accusation  had  its  origin,  and  the  end  is  that  Fran- 
cis D.  Moulton,  in  due  time,  appears  as  the  author  of  one 
of  the  most  adroit  and  able  papers  which  had  ever  been 
published  in  this  country,  which  was  intended  to  Ml 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  at  a  single  blow.  And  when  that 
blow  fell,  though  no  answer  came,  another  paper  appeals 
over  the  name  of  Francis  D.  Moulton,  who  took  the 
credit  and  the  honor  of  it,  but  revised  by  that  dexteroia 
and  keen  intellect  which  was  equal  to  all  the  vicissitudes 
of  the  war,  and  which  never  failed,  whether  in  the  advo- 
cacy of  a  good  or  of  a  bad  cause,  until  now,  and  now  it 
has  failed,  and  through  you.  Then  came  that  vindica 
tion,  full  of  hate  and  malignity,  full  of  cunningly  de^ 
vised  falsehood,  for  which  Gen.  Butler  is  not  to  be 
responsible,  for  vioulton  furnished  the  materials, 
which  has  left  a  record  producing  an  impression  upon 
the  country  that  nothing  but  your  vindication  can 
wholly  efface. 


I 


MR.  MOULTON'S  CONNECTION  WITH  WOOD-i 
RUFF  &  ROBINSON.  I 
I  must  hurry  on.  Gentlemen,  it  was  said  of 
the  great  naturalist,  Agassiz,  that  if  you  would  give  him 
a  single  bone  of  any  animal  of  which  the  race  was  ante- 
diluvian and  extinct,  by  applying  to  it  the  powers  wMcli 
God  has  given  to  man  and  which  science  has  developed, 
from  that  single  bone  he  could  reconstruct  the  cutire 
animal.  In  men  of  the  Moulton  type  there  are  so  many 
bones  that  I  cannot  take  time  to  deal  with  each,  but  I 
wUI  take  a  single  bone  here  and  there  to  enable  you  to 
see  whether  you  can  reconstruct  the  animal  of  which 
that  is  a  vital  part.  This  man  is  either  a  true  man  or  a 
liar.  Which  t  Take  a  single  illustration,  which  occurs  to 
me  at  the  moment  without  referring  to  my  notes 
On  the  brief  cross-examination  which  I  was  permitted  to 
make  of  him,  and  which  I  was  compelled  to  abandon  on 
account  of  .the  then  condition  of  my  health,  I  took  occasion 
to  ask  him  how  long  he  had  been  a  member  of  the  Ann  oi 
Woodruff  &  Robinson,  and  whether  that  was  a  permanent 


SUM3IING   UP  BY  MB.  PORTER. 


connection.  The  question  ^as  asked  at  random,  for  in- 
formation upon  a  fact  as  to  which  I  waa  myself  ipiorant. 
With  some  hesitation  he  acknowledged  that  he  was  no 
longer  a  member  of  the  original  firm  in  all  its  branches  of 
ousiness,    but    there     had   been    a  subdivision  of 
the    business,    and    he    was    now,   and  had  been 
from    the    Ist    of     January,    a    member    of  the 
mercantile    department    of     that    business,  which 
was   subordio»te,   as  distinguished  from  the  other, 
which  was  connected  with  the  great  commercial  pros- 
perity of  your  city.  I  asked  him  whether  that  was  a  per- 
manent connection.   It  was — a  connection  of  indefinite 
duaation.  "  Is  no  time  fixed  for  its  dissolution  ?"  "None." 
Now  that  was  a  matter  of  comparatively  minor  impor- 
tance ;  but  this  man  thought  it  important  to  conceal 
from  you  the  fact  that  even  his  own  partners  had  laid 
their  hands  upon  him.   He  deliberately  swore  (and  the 
examination  was  midway  in  January)  that  on  the  1st 
of  January  there  had  been  a  separation  of  the  two 
branches    of    the    business,    and    that    from  that 
time    he    had    been  'a    member  of    the    firm  of 
I  "Woodruff  &  Robinson,  in  a  continuing  partnership  of  in- 
definite duration,  and  there  it  stopped.     That  was  true 
or  false,  and  whether  true  or  false  he  knew.     It  so  hap- 
pened that  when  Jeremiah  P.  Robinson  was  brought  by 
them  to  the  stand  it  occurred  to  that  clear-headed  and 
far-sighted  lawyer,  who  seems  by  intuition  to  know  even 
;  the  truths  which  are  unrevealed,  to  ask  Mr.  Robinson 
the  iiuestiou  when  Fi'ancis  D.  Moulton  ceased  to  be 
d  member  of  that  fii-m.    This    witness,    you  wiU 
remember,  is  the  uncle  of  Mrs.    Moulton ;  this  is 
the  old  partner  of  Franklin  Woodi'ulf;  this  is  the  man 
who  comes  to  swear  to  all  his  conscience  wiU  per- 
mit, in  aid  of  this  controversy— which  involves  the 
honor  and  the  reputation  of  Ms  nephew,  the  husband  of 
his  niece.  But  he  is  an  honest  man.   "  Our  partnership 
ceased  on  the  1st  of  January,  in  pursuance  of  an  agree- 
ment made  something  like  a  year  ago."  The  time  has 
significance,  gentlemen.    If  you  remember,  that  was 
about  the  time  when  the  last  of  the  blackmailing  at- 
tempts were  being  made.    It  ceased  then;  to  take 
effect   at   a   future    day.    The    day   came,   and  at 
the  instance  of   Moulton,  the   day   was  postponed. 
Finally    came    the     1st     of     January,    and  with 
that     Jeremiah    P.    Robinson     and     his  partner 
would  no  longer  consent  to  be  linked  with  this  man  in 
their  general  business,  but,  at  his  solicitation  (and  you 
have  no  doubt  it  was  in  view  of  this  trial,  which  it  was 
then  thought  would  be  concluded  within  a  month),  there 
was  an  extension  of  the  time  of  the  final  dissolution  in 
respect  even  to  the  mercantile  branch  of  the  house  until 
the  let  of  February,  and  Jeremiah  P.  Robinson  swears 
that  they  had  entered  on  the  1st  of  January  into  a  formal 
agreement  that  from  and  after  the  1st  of  February  that 
partnership,  in  aU.  its  branches,  should  be  forever  at  an 
end.  Which  of  these  two  men  lies  ?  No  man  who  knows 


them  both  will  doubt  that  it  is  Francis  D. 
There  is  one  bone  of  the  animal. 


629 

Moulton 


HOW  iVIR.  TILTON  BEOUOBT  MR.  BOWEN  TO 
TEEMS. 

Theodore  Tilton  and  Francis  D.  Moul- 
ton have  in  almost  every  conceivable  fown  taken 
the  opportunity  of  their  testtoiony  on  this 
stand  to  convey  to  you  the  impression  that 
the  claim  of  tihe  $7,000  against  Bowen  was  one 
which  Bowen  never  denied.  Why  %  Because  they  knew 
that  right  behind  the  admission  of  his  denial  lay  the  clew 
to  the  original  conspiracy  and  the  design  of  blackmail. 
What !  Henry  C.  Bowen,  who  lives  in  a  palace,  who  is 
not  the  editor,  but  the  owner  of  one  of  the  great  religious 
papers  of  the  country,  a  man  of  affluent  fortune,  whose 
good  name  will  not  permit  him  to  refuse  the  payment  at 
an  honest  debt,  summarily  turning  a  man  out  of  his  em- 
ployment and  then  defying  the  contract  to  which  he  had 
alfixed  his  signature,  and  which  was  in  the  hands  of  his 
adversary— Henry  C.  Bowen,  waiting  for  a  pros- 
ecution and  resisting  that  prosecution  and  hold- 
ing off  year  after  year,  refusing  to  pay  the 
claim !  It  needs  explanation ;  it  finds  it. 
When  the  time  c:>raes  that  The  Golden  Age  can  no  longer 
float  without  $7,000  to  float  it,  then  comes  that  black- 
mail card,  purporting  to  contain  a  charge  against  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  which  would  involve  him  in  dishonorable 
propositions  to  one  of  his  own  communicants.  Theodore 
Tilton  makes  his  way  down  Broadway,  and  by  a  provi- 
dence not  of  God,  but  of  one  of  those  spirits  who  are 
above  God,  by  a  happy  conception,  thinks  he  will  go  up 
stairs  and  see  his  old  friend,  Sam  Wilkeson,  and  by  the 
merest  accident,  when  he  got  there,  he  drew  out  of  his 
pocket  a  well-worn  galley-slip  containing  a  libelous  letter 
from  Theodore  Tilton  to  Henry  C.  Bowen,  which  must 
ruin  one,  and  might  ruin  both,  and  said,  "  This  man  owes 
me  $7,000,  and  won't  pay  it.  Justice  must  prevail 
though  the  heavens  f  aU !  I  am  sorry  to  say,  Sam,  I  have 
got  to  publish  that  paper."  He  knew  W^ilkeson  as 
weU  as  I  do— better  than  you  do;  and  let  me  say 
to  you,  gentlemen,  that  among  all  the  charac- 
ters who  have  appeared  in  this  drama  there 
is  none  more  worthy  of  note  and  re- 
membrance than  Samuel  Wilkeson,  one  of  the  most 
brilliant  and  extraordinary  men  whom  it  has  ever  hap- 
pened to  be  my  fortune  to  meet,  and  the  more  bi-illiant 
and  the  more  extraordinary,  because  the  warmth  of  his 
heart  is  equal  to  the  clearness  of  his  intellect ;  a  man  who 
never  was  capable  of  a  meanness,  whose  whole  soul  is 
intoned  with  honor  and  chivalry,  who  naturally  abhors 
and  despises  men  like  Tilton,  who  naturally  clmgs  to  and 
honors  men,  in  the  variouf*  walks  of  life,  who  command 
the  respect  and  the  admiration  of  their  countrymen— men 
like  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  men  like  William  M.  Evarts, 
men  like  the  honored  Chief-Justice  of  this  tribunal.  My 


TRIE   TILTON-BEEOHEB  TRIAL. 


old  classmate  and  Judge  FuUerton's  old  classmate  in  col- 
lege, Samuel  Wilkeson,  looking  at  Theodore  TUton  and 
reading  him  through  as  thoroughly  as  if  he  had  created 
him,  says :  "  Theodore,  it  is  not  possible  you  are  going  to 
publish  a  paper  like  that."  "Justice  I  justice  I  Henry  C. 
Bowen  won't  pay  me  the  $7,000  that  he  owes  me.  He 
has  no  defense.  I  have  sued  him  ;  hut  I  have  no  confi- 
dence in  the  courts  of  law.  That  letter  will  bring  him." 
Well,  though  it  might  not  bring  Bowen,  he  knew  per- 
fectly well  that  it  would  bring  Sam  Wil- 
keson, before  whom  at  once  rose  a  vision 
of  those  ideas  that  would  arise  in  the 
mind  of  an  honest  man  and  an  earnest  friend.  "  What ! 
are  the  tidings  to  go  to  the  honored  wife  of  the  pastor  of 
Plymouth  Church  that  her  husband  has  been  guilty  of 
adultery,  and  that  he  ravished  Miss  Proctor,  or  some- 
body else,  so  many  years  ago  1  Is  the  word  to  go  off  on 
the  wings  of  the  lightning  and  through  Chrastendom  that 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  has,  for  the  period  of  10  or  15  years, 
been  devoting  himself  to  open  libertinism,  and  that  tha* 
Plymouth  Church  which  has  been  thought  among  men  to 
be  worthy  at  least  of  some  regard  is  merely  an  assigna- 
tion house  of  debauchery  1  Theodore,  Theodore,  you  are 
wrong.  If  Bowen  owes  you  that  money,  he  must  pay  it. 
Leave  this  matter  in  my  hands.  I  will  see  the  friends  of 
Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Beecher,  and  will  bring  that  to  a  sud- 
den terBiination.  If  he  owes  you  that,  it  is  yours  and  he 
must  pay  it." 

He  makes  his  way  across  the  river  to  that  clear-headed 
old  merchant,  Mr.  Claflin ;  he  goes  to  that  strong-headed, 
bright-brained  man,  Mr.  Sage;  he  passes  over  to  Mr. 
Cleveland,  and  to  Mr.  Storrs ;  to  the  men  who,  he  knows, 
would  give,  give,  give  of  their  substance  to  the  extent  of 
half  their  fortunes  to  save  the  man  whom  they  honor, 
trust,  and  love.  What  was  the  result  1  Theodora  says  : 
"Why,  Sam,  I  don't  know  what  providence  it  was  that 
brought  me  here,  and  brought  this  paper  her©.  You  take 
it.  Do  with  it  what  you  wUl."  Wilkeson  did ;  and 
within  the  compass  of  a  single  week  there  was  an 
arbitration,  at  which  the  friends  of  Mr.  Bowen  and 
the  friends  of  Mr.  Beecher  were  together,  at  which 
all  defense  was  waived,  at  which  a  tripartite  agreement 
was  signed,  which  would  have  bound  any  one  but  a  bar- 
barian. All  three  signed  it ;  but  two  of  the  three  have 
forgotten— Bowen,  honestly,  but  simply  from  the  infirm- 
ity of  a  treacherous  memory ;  Tilton,  honestly,  but  simply 
because  there  is  nO  money  to  be  gained  now  by  admitting 
it.  Of  course,  they  have  forgotten  it !  And  yet  they 
signed  it,  and  Theodore  Tilton  went  away  carrying  with 
htm  the  $7,000  that  oould  be  got  by  no  other  process  ; 
and,  in  his  exultation,  in  handing  it  over  to  Franklin 
Woodruff,  who  he  knew  would  communicate  it  to  Francis 
D.  Moulton,  he  enters  upon  the  back  of  that 
paper,  in  his  own  acknowledged  handwriting, 
"Spoils  from  new  frieuds  for  the  benefit 
of  old."  They  call  Frank  Woodruff  to  the  stand  to  prove 


that  he  has  forgotten  it,  and  don't  know  what  that  meant 
Theodore  comes  to  the  stand ;  they  don't  ask  him  if  he 
has  forgotten  it.  Moulton  comes  to  the  stand ;  they  don't 
ask  him  if  he  has  forgotten  it.  Does  any  man  doubt,  in 
view  of  the  revelations  of  this  trial,  that  that  $7,000  was 
money  which  never  could  have  been  recovered  if  Bowen 
had  proved  the  facts  which  have  been  proved  on  this 
trial  1  If  Theodore  Tilton,  professing  to  be  engaged  la  the 
enterprise  of  conducting  a  religious  paper,  was  at  that 
time  unworthy  of  the  employment,  unfit  for  the  vocation, 
bringing  disgrace  upon  his  employer  and  upon  the  very 
journals  with  which  he  was  connected,  it  was  a  breach  of 
the  implied  warranty  in  law  that  every  man  makes 
when  he  undertakes,  for  a  salary,  to  perform  a  service* 
the  warrantg^  that  he  is  fit  for  the  service.  I  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  Moulton,  as  well  as  Tilton,  on 
the  direct  examination,  took  great  pains  to  show  that 
there  was  no  defense.  TUton  professed  even  to  have  for- 
gotten that  he  brought  the  suit.  My  friend,  Mr. 
Abbott  (who  is  a  sort  of  bank  upon  whom 
any  lawyer  may  ever  draw),  hands  me  a 
citation  from  the  evidence  (Vol.  2,  page  673): 
I  told  him  that  Mr.  Bowen  said  that  he  never  had  re- 
ceived any  such  letter  as  that  Jan.  1, 1871,  and  that  he 
had  not  said  the  things  that  were  stated  in  that  letter,, 
and  that  Mr.  Bowen  said  he  felt  he  did  not  owe  him  any- 
thing, and  his  lawyer  had  told  him  he  didn't  owe  him. 
anything. 

He  didn't ;  but  he  paid  him  $7,000,  and  Theodore  Tiltoil 
gave  Ms  judgment,  when  he  recorded,  in  that  paper  that 
he  thought  would  never  see  the  light,  that  that  $7,00^ 
was  spoils  obtained  from  the  new  friends  of  Plymouth 
Chui-ch,  by  the  aid  of  Theodore  TUton,  for  Frank  D. 
Moulton,  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  old  friends,  Moulton 
and  Tilton,  who  had  played  ball  at  school  together. 

WHY  BESSIE  TUENER    WAS    SENT  WEST. 

Again,  another  bone  of  the  animal.  It  was 
important  for  them,  if  they  could,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
charge  of  blackmail,  to  make  this  jury  believe  that  Bessie 
Turner  was  sent  away  out  of  pure  benevolence  on  the 
part  of  Tilton  and  Moulton  to  save  Henry  Ward  Beecher; 
and  Moulton  in  his  testimony  teUs  us  that  Tilton  thought 
Bessie  Turner  was  a  dangerous  character  to  have  about. 
"  I  told  Beecher  that  Mr.  T.  could  not  afford  to  pay  her 
expenses ;"  and  he  got  Mr.  Beecher,  on  that  pretense,  to 
pay  them.  Mr.  Beecher  was  in  no  danger  from  Bessie 
Turner.  You  have  seen  her  on  the  stand.  Do  you  be- 
lieve that  Bessie  Turner  was  the  girl  to  prove  disloyal  to 
that  mother  whom  she  so  idolatrously  loved,  that  she 
would  go  and  circulate  the  slanders  of  Theodore  Tilton, 
which  she  had  denounced  even  to  his  face  as  infamous 
fabrications  and  wicked  lies?  No;  but  Theodore 
Tilton  remembered  the  scene  in  her  bedchamber;  j 
Theodore  Tilton  remembered  the  occasion  when  she,  in 
the  sound  sleep  of  young  girthood,  was  carried  before  she 
had  awakened  from  her  bed  to  his,  and  though  no  harm 


■was  done  bevond  that,  lie  knew  that  was  not  a  good  thing 
to  put  in  the  biography  of  Theodore  Tilton  when  it  should 
hereafter  come  to  he  puhLUhed  among  men.  And  the 
mean  contrivance  of  these  two  men  first  to  get  from  her, 
through  Mrs.  Tilton,  whom  she  loved,  a  seeming  retrac- 
tion of  the  charge  against  Theodore  Tilton,  and  then  to 
represent  that  she  was  sent  away  to  conceal  the  adultery 
of  Mrs.  l^lton  with  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 


THE  "  CLAXDESTIXE"'  COERESPOXDENCE. 

Again,  this  man  Moulton  produces  before 
you  certain  letters,  which  he  calls  "  clandestine  letters," 
from  :Mrs.  Tilton  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  to  those 
letters  he,  like  his  friend  Butler,  seeks  to  give  a  lascivious 
and  base  interpretation.  Xow,  gentlemen,  there  is  a 
little  fact  which  you  will  remember— first,  that  Frank  D. 
Moulton  came  into  possession  of  the  "  clandestine"  let- 
ters, which  had  arrived  during  his  absence  in  Florida,  by 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  delivering  them  to  him.  What  sort 
of  clandestinity  is  that  in  which  the  adulterer  deUvers  to 
the  next  friend  of  the  husband  of  his  paramour  the  letters 
which  are  to  be  the  witness  of  the  adultery  ?  That  is 
s'gniflcant  enough,  and  characterizes  the  baseness  of 
these  men.  But  there  is  more.  One  of  these  letters  was 
in  its  envelope  when  it  was  offered  on  the  witness-stand. 
The  envelope— the  letter  was  marked,  the  letter  was  read 
in  evidence,  when  my  friend  Mr.  Evarts  fljsed  that  eye 
which  sees  clearer  than  that  of  most  of  us  upon  the  point 
significantly  appearing  on  that  envelope— that  it  was  ad- 
dressed to  Mrs.  Tilton,  care  of  Theodore  Tilton, 
174  Livingston-st.,  Brooklyn,  and  sent  by  maU. 
Axe  clandestine  letters  sent  by  an  adulterer  to  an  adul- 
teress to  the  care  of  the  husband,  and  to  his  own  dwell- 
ing, and  through  the  public  mail  1  And  yet  those  men 
were  capable  of  attempting  to  mislead  you  into  the  belief 
that  these  letters  were  clandestine,  and  as  soon  as  31r. 
Evarts  had  fixed  his  eye  on  that  point,  my  friend  Judge 
Fullerton,  quicker  than  Lightning,  said:  "This  letter 
doesn't  belong  In  that  envelope ;  we  will  produce  the 
envelope  that  belongs  to  this  after  dinner."  We  called 
for  the  envelopes.  The  envelopes  never  came — ^never 
came  :  are  not  here  now,  and  you  know  why.  Adulterers 
don't  correspond  with  adulteresses  through  the  public 
mail,  and  address  their  letters  to  the  care  of  the  husband 
of  the  woman  they  attempt  to  dishonor. 
o  ^ 

BEECHER'S  LETTER  OF  RESIGXATIOX. 
Allow  me  to  allude  for  a  moment,  because  I 
forgot  it  yesterday  or  on  Friday  in  touching  on  this  point, 
to  that  Letter  of  Resignation,  which  is  a  specimen  of 
Frank  Moulton's  literary  ability.  He  represents  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  a  master  of  the  English  language, 
writing  a  letter  filled  with  bad  spelling  and  bad  punctua- 
tion, addres&^  to  his  church,  and  vs^hich  he  knew  the 
next  mominf  would  be  in  every  newspaper  that  was  in 


r  PORIEB.  631 

telegraphic  communication  on  this  continent,  and  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  according  to  Frank  Moulton,  writes  :  "  I 
resign  Plymouth  Church."  A  pastor  of  a  church  who 
didn't  know  enough  to  write  correct  English  even  for 
four  lines.  Of  course  you  know  that  there  is  not  a  clergy- 
man on  this  continent  but  would  say  unhesitatingly  that 
was  not  his.  "I  tender  herewith  my  resignation  of  Ply- 
mouth Church."  Well,  that  is  very  much  like  standing 
on  the  brink  of  a  moral  Niagara,"  or  accomplishing  a 
rape  through  a  paroxysmal  Iriss.  [Laughter.] 

I  tender  herewith  my  resignation  of  Plymouth  Church. 
I  have  stood  among  you  in  sorrow  for  two  years  in  order 
to  save  from  shame  a  certain  household,  but  since  a  re- 
cent publication  makes  this  no  longer  possible,  I  now 
resign  my  ministry  and  retire  to  private  life. 

That  was  the  manner  in  which  he  proposed  to  strip  for 
this  fight.  Let  Plymouth  Church  be  saved,  then  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  is  ready  to  meet  his  enemy ;  then  even 
the  hounded  stag  is  ready  to  turn  at  bay  and  bury  his 
antlers  in  the  bowels  of  the  men  who  pursued  him.  But, 
you  see  here  how  this  whole  case  is  made  up  of  a  fabric 
of  lies,  interwoven  with  each  other  by  ingenious  artists, 
but  it  has  been  so  appointed  in  the  Providence  of  God 
that  aU  the  devices  have  failed,  and  none  more  signally 
than  when,  as  ia  this  case,  they  weave  the  devices,  and 
then  seek  to  transfer  the  parentage  of  them  to  another, 
because  at  the  time  he  breaks  loose  from  them  all,  he 
denounces  and  rebukes  them  and  says,  "  My  friend  Moul- 
I  ton,  all  these  devices  have  failed.  Let  us  meet  the  truth 
manfully."  He  still  trusted  Moulton.  Oh,  how  feeble 
was  the  reed  on  which  he  leaned. 

Ism,   MOULTOX    MAKES    A    SLIP    OF  THE 
TOXGUE. 

Again,  I  only  allude  to  tills  as  one  of  those 
little  things  with  which  the  whole  testimony  of  Moulton 
bristles.  Moulton  professes  to  have  been  a  gentlemau  of 
manners,  culture,  of  education,  and  even  of  some  liter- 
ary reputation,  a  hospitable  host,  a  man  of  the  world,  a 
member  of  a  large  commercial  house,  and  yet  this  man 
gravely  tells  you  that  on  the  night  of  the  SOth  of  Decem- 
ber, the  first  time  ever  he  or  Beecher  crossed  each  other's 
thresholds,  he  and  Beecher  had  a  confidential  conver- 
sation about  Mr.  Beecher's  sexual  intercourse 
with  the  wife  of  Moulton's  friend.  Again 
on  the  31st;  again  on  the  Ist  of  January; 
again  (to  the  2d  of  January,  when  Mr.  Beecher 
was  receiving  a  multitude  of  Xew  Year's  calls,  again  on 
the  3d  of  January,  on  the  7th  ;  and  so  running  on  day 
after  day,  week  after  week,  month  after  month,  year 
after  year,  to  1874.  and  all  this  time,  in  all  their  conver- 
sations, a  clergyman  apparently  clean,  not  presump- 
tively dirty,  of  good  manners,  of  good  culture,  himself 
the  son  of  a  clerg^Tnan,  the  husband  of  a  respectable 
woman,  a  father  and  a  grandfather,  walks  down  from  Ma 
house  on  Columbia  Heights  to  174  Livingston-st.,  and 
the  man  who  started  a  gentleman  arrlYes  a  brute,  and 


633 


THE   TILTON-BEECEEB  TBIAL. 


immediately  begins  talking  to  Frant  Moulton  about  his 
sexual  intercourse  -with  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  by  one  of  those 
odd  fatalities  by  which  Providence  enables  honest  men 
to  distinguish  between  the  falsehoods  and  the  truths 
uttered  by  rogues,  almost  in  every  instance  in  his  first 
report  of  the  conversation,  he  represents  Mr. 
Beecher  as  saying,  "  My  intercourse  with  Mrs. 
Tilton— my  sexual  intercourse  with  Mrs.  Tilton." 
Now,  you  will  bear  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that  dm^ing  all 
this  period  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton  were  writing 
to  each  other,  at  least  Mr.  Beecher  supposed  Moulton  was 
writing  to  him,  when  he  was  merely  copying  the  letters 
Theodore  Tilton  wrote  through  Moulton;  but  they  had 
not  the  effrontery  even  in  one  of  those  letters  to  utter 
one  word  of  the  crime  of  adultery,  of  sexual  intercourse, 
and  why  1  These  were  confidential  notes,  to  be  seen,  as 
Mr.  Beecher  had  a  right  to  suppose,  by  nobody  but  the 
man  to  whom  they  were  sent ;  yet  in  all  of  them  there  is 
the  language  of  the  poor,  humble,  but  faithful.  Christian 
clergyman,  and  he  is  writing  to  Frank  Moulton  in  the 
language  of  a  gentleman  and  a  clergyman,  but  the  mo- 
ment he  goes  down  to  his  house  he  begins  to  talk  to  him 
in  language  such  as  is  never  heard  under  a  respectable 
roof  even  if  there  are  no  ladies  tnere,  and  why?  If  on 
that  night  Henry  Ward  Beecher  bad  confessed  adultery, 
do  you  think  he  wouldn't  suppose  that  Frank  Moulton 
would  believe  it  without  his  repeating  it  again,  and 
again,  and  again,  every  time  he  went  beneath  that  roof? 
Why,  that  is  like  Moulton's  account  of  the  conversation 
with  him  on  the  subject  of  Bo  wen.  "Beecher,  it 
is  a  bitter  night ;  don't  you  think  Bowen  is  a  very  treach- 
erous man  ?"  When  he  goes  down  to  Mrs.  Tilton's  he 
says :  **  It  is  cold  to-night.  Is  not  Bowen  very  treacher- 
ous?" Just  the  same  thing  about  sexual  intercourse. 
Why,  gentlemen,  would  two  libertines  talk  together  in 
that  way  %  And  yet  this  is  the  story,  garnished  by  the 
art  of  Tilton,  the  treachery  of  Moulton,  and  the  skill  of 
Butler,  until  at  one  period  half  mankind  believed  that 
these  lies  had  some  truth  beneath  them.  It  shows  that 
though  there  is  a  great  power  in  falsehood,  there  is  a 
mightier  power  in  truth ;  it  rises  above  it.  "  Let  Truth 
and  Falsehood  grapple.  Whoever  knew  Truth  to  come  to 
the  worst  in  a  fair  and  open  encounter,"  to  quote  once 
more  the  language  of  John  Milton. 

MRS.  MOULTON'S  INTIMACY  WITH  MR. 
BEECHER. 

Again,  I  must  overleap  these  barriers,  and 
confine  myself  to  only  a  few  presenting  themselves  here. 
Here  is  one  upon  which  my  eye  rests,  to  which  I  attach  a 
word  as  a  note,  that  you  will  pardon  me  for  calling  your 
attention  to.  This  man,  Francis  D.  Moulton,  who  pro- 
fesses to  have  believed  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  an 
adulterer,  a  hypocrite,  a  debauchee,  a  liar  and  a  libertine, 
this  man  he  takes  into  his  own  house  as  a  bosom  compan- 
ion; he  tells,  to  his  own  wife  the  story  of  Beeoher'a  in- 


famy; he  tells  her  that  he  thinks  it  will  promote  he 
social  position  if  she  can  only  be  hail  fe 
low  well  met  with  a  clerical  debauchee.  H 
has  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  portrait  tak^n  from  the  wa' 
of  the  pretended  cuckold  and  carried  down  to  Clinton-st 
and  hung  in  the  parlor  of  a  virtuous  woman,  in  the  sigh 
of  his  only  boy,  to  be  seen  there  by  Theodore  Tilton,  who 
looks  at  the  man  who  dishonored  him  every  time  he  en- 
ters the  room.  Nay,  more ;  he  commits  this  man  to  the 
charge  of  his  wife  when  he  must  leave.  He  gives  the 
adulterer  access  to  her  bedchamber.  He  permits  tbe 
adulterer  to  kiss  her  lips  every  time  he  opens  their  dooi, 
and  in  his  presence.  She  forgot  it.  She  remembered  the 
one  kiss  which  she  could  give  with  a  stab,  being  on  the 
last  occasion  that  she  ever  looked  upon  the 
face  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  until  she  looked 
upon  it  here,  but  the  rest  she  forgot.  Mr. 
Beecher  swears  to  you  that  whenever  he  entered 
that  house  he  saluted  her,  and  she  him,  with  a  kiss,  and 
in  the  presence  of  her  husband.  She  is  recalled  to  the 
stand,  or,  if  not  formally  recalled,  they  tell  us  what  they 
propose  to  prove  by  her,  and  we  admit  it,  but  there  is  no 
denial  of  that.  Francis  D.  Moulton  is  recalled  to  the 
stand,  and  although  Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  sworn 
that  as  often  as  he  had  visited  her,  whencTer  he  crossed 
that  threshold  Mrs.  Moulton  saluted  him  with  a  kiss  in 
the  presence  of  her  husband.  Francis  D.  Moulton  does 
not  and  dare  not  deny  it.  Of  course  not. 
A  father  dare  not  deny  what  his  own  ma- 
ture boy  .would  know  to  be  perjury  before 
God.  Theodore  Tilton,  who  was  there  at  many  and  many 
meetings,  and  could  have  denied  it  if  it  were  false,  dare 
not  deny  that  the  wife  of  Frank  Moulton  saluted  the 
adulterer  of  Plymouth  Church  with  a  kiss  in  the  presence 
of  her  husband  and  without  rebuke.  Put  these  things 
together  ;  what  do  they  show  as  to  the  man— I  am  not 
speaking  as  to  the  lady  now— what  do  they  show  as  no 
the  man,  as  to  the  truth  that  lies  behind  and  beneath  all 
of  these  developments  ? 

THE  CHANGING  OF  THE  CHARGE. 
I  must  hurry  on.  Let  me  caU  your  atten- 
tion, before  I  proceed  to  the  particular  question  of  black- 
mail, to  a  little  thing  illustrative  of  the  treachery  of 
Moulton.  Of  course  that  he  doesn't  deny.  Although  Til- 
ton suppressed  it  In  his  garbled  and  false  co^y  of  the 
"  Apology,"  yet  when  it  came  before  the  world  they 
could  not  expunge  the  fact  that  it  began  with  a  declarar 
tion  of  trust  and  ended  with  a  declaration  of  trust, 
although  the  trust  was  broken  and  betrayed.  But,  let  us 
look  a  little  at  Frank  Moulton  (and  I  do  not  pro- 
pose to  take  him  in  order  now,  but  lust  casually,  aa 
things  occur  to  us)— just  take  one  single  interview. 
It  is  a  memorable  one.  It  is  on  the  12th  of  July  last 
It  is  Sunday.  Bedpath  Is  there.  He  is  going  up  on  other 
business  to  Mr.  Beecher.  He  receives  certatQ  meMftge*. 


SrMJJ[iyG    UP    BY  MB.  PORTER, 


Now,  gentlemen,  if  it  were  true  that  for  tliree,  nay  for 
fooi-  years  prior  to  tliat  Sabbath  day  every  time  that  lie 
went  to  the  house  of  Frant  Moulton  he  talked  to  him 
about  his  sexual  intercourse  with  Elizabeth  E.  Tilton, 
and  when  he  did  not  find  Mr.  Moulton  at  home  told  Mrs. 
Moulton  about  his  sexual  intercour.se  or  his  crime  with 
Elizabeth  E.  Tilrou,  and,  not  satisfied  with  that,  thanked 
Franli  Moulton  for  telling  Woodrufi:';  thanked  Frank  Moul- 
ton for  telling  Robinson ;  thanked  Mrs.  Tilton  for  telling 
another  Eobinson  about  his  sexual  intercourse,  and  he 
said  he  was  glad  of  it,  because  it  enabled  him  to  talk 
with  them  easily  and  pleasantly.  L^aughter.]  If  it  were 
true  that  all  through  this  period  these  foul  epithets  were 
thick  in  the  air  of  Moulton's  parlor,  were  snuffed  by  his 
wife,  were  inhaled  by  his  boy,  were  overheard  by  his 
servant;  if  that  was  the  atmosphere  of  that  house, 
if  they  aU  knew  it ;  if,  besides  that,  they  had  ]Mr. 
Beecher's  written  confession  that  he  had  com- 
mitted adultery  in  Frank  Moulton's  safe,  iMr. 
Beecher's  letter  repenting  of  his  sin  in  Frank  Moul- 
ton's tin  box,  Theodore  Tilton  within  telegraphic 
call  to  come  and  say  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  been 
an  adulterer  for  forty  years,  what  need  was  there  on 
that  Sabbath  day  to  send  up  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  a 
special  message  to  say  to  him  that  the  charge  was  to  be 
changed  ?  "  Redpath,  tell  him  from  me  that  I  am  going 
to  ciiars-e  him  with  adultery."  "Jfo,  no,"  says  Moulton, 
**  don't  tell  him  that.  Tell  him  that  yesterday  Theodore 
Tilton  was  so  angry  with  me  because  T  love  him  that  he 
was  ready  to  smite  me,  and  tell  him  that  I  stand  be- 
tween them,  and  that  if  either  of  them,  Beecher  or 
Tilton,  shall  dare  to  attempt  to  smite  the  other,  I 
will  crucify  him."  That  is  the  story  this 
man  would  have  you  believe  came  from  him,  with 
a  knowledge  at  the  time  that  he  had  only  to  ring  the  bell 
and  call  in  the  wife  and  ask  her,  "  How  many  times  has 
He^iiy  Ward  Beecher  confessed  to  you  that  he  was  an 
adulterer  ?"  who  had  only  to  unlock  his  safe  and  take  out 
the  "  Apology,"  which  he  calls  a  confession  of  adultery ; 
who  had  only  to  go  to  Theodore  Tilton  and  call  on  him  to 
unearth  that  paper,  a  copy  of  which  he  showed  on  that 
30th  of  December  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  which  he 
says  is  destroyed,  but  which  he  showed  to  Mr.  Belcher 
nine  months  after  its  destruction,  and  said  the  original 
was  then  in  the  hands  of  Frank  Moulton;  thjit  paper 
which,  if  produced,  would  blast  and  brand  this  prosecu. 
tlon— that  paper  which,  according  to  his  own  version  of 
it  in  the  "  True  Story,"  was  a  charge  merely  of  improper 
solicitations  and  not  adultery,  and  which,  being  lost, 
they  can  now  represent  as  a  confession  of  adultery  m 
order  to  smash  the  woman  and  crucify  the  man. 

Well,  now,  on  this  Sunday,  which  was  a  busy  one,  Gen. 
Tracy  was  called.  There  was  consultation.  Ben.iamin 
F.  Butler  was  in  consultation.  There  was  a  war  of 
•trategy.  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  altogether  in  his  own 
liands.  They  told  him:  "Don't  trust  Shearman:  we 


can't  have  anything  to  do  with  him.  Don't  trust  Tracy. 
Coiumimicate  with  him  thi-ough  us,  and  authorize  us  to 
tell  him  yo^x  are  guUty.  Authorize  him  to  make  admis- 
sions for  you,  but  do  n't  talk  wath  him.  If  you  talk,  the 
public  will  know.  The  true  policy  is  silence.  Let  me, 
Frank  Moulton,  manage  it  all."  But  that  Sunday  there 
had  been  a  conversation  with  Gen.  Tracy,  in  which  he 
says  :  "  Moulton,  there  is  a  difficulty  about  this  matter. 
Frank,  if  you  are  going  to  change  this  charge  and 
make  it  one  of  adultery,  adultery  is  crime.  Beecher 
has  got  to  defend  that  charge.  He  has  got  to 
state  the  truth.  If  it  was  not  adultery,  there  is  of  coiuse 
no  harm  in  money  having  passed,  but  if  it  is  adultery  the 
world  will  want  to  know  why  it  was  that  you  got  $5,000 
from  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  applied  it  to  the  use  of 
Theodore  Tilton."  The  indignation  of  Moidton!  "Did 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  tell  you  that  ]  I  will  grind  him  to 
powder.  I  will  deny  that.  He  had  no  business  to  tell 
you  that."  "  It  was  not  ho  that  told  me."  "  Who  did  tell 
you?"  "I  don't  like  to  say."  "You  must  tell  me  who 
told  you  that ;  I  insist  upon  knowing."  After  some  hesi- 
tation Gen.  Tracy  thought  that,  perhaps,  he  ought  to, 
because  otherwise  Moulton  would  be  under  a  false  con- 
clusion. "  Well,  it  was  Frank  Woodruff,  and  he  -told  me 
the  day  you  got  the  money.  He  told  me  that  you  had  re- 
ceived $5,000 ;  that  you  had  not  taken  it  in  a  check ;  that 
Beecher  had  to  go  the  bank  and  draw  it  in  bills,  and  that 
you  received  the  money."  "  He  had  no  business  to  tell 
you  that.  Now,  let  me  say  to  you,  Beecher 
must  not  state  that.  He  must  deny  it.  I 
shall  deny  it."  H— m,  h— m,  is  that  all  f 
Why,  no ;  he  goes  to  Frank  Woodruff,  and  arraigns  hiTn 
for  telling  Gen.  Tracy  about  the  money.  He  says : 
"  Frank,  it  was  not  the  $5,000  I  told  him  about ;  it  was 
the  $500  that  you.  gave  on  one  occasion  for  the  sup- 
port of  Tilton's  family."  "  Why,  that  is  n't  in  the  ac- 
count." "WeU,  it  was  that  $500 ;  I  didn't  tell  him  about 
the  $5,000;  Tracy  is  mistaken."  And  so  we  have 
cropping  out  the  fact,  which  Mr.  Beecher  himself  had. 
forgotten,  that  at  an  early  day  there  was  a  $500  transac- 
tion irrespective  of  either  of  these  that  have  been  dis- 
closed to  you,  imder  which  certain  scratchings  and  in- 
definite memorandums  are  found  in  Frank  Moulton's 
books.  There  was  another  transaction  of  the  same 
kind.  But,  you  see,  there  was  trouble.  Frank 
Moulton  was  ready  on  Saturday  to  come  out 
and  accuse  Mr.  Beecher  of  adulter^*,  but  on 
Sunday  he  thought  better  of  it.  Things  must  be  manipu- 
lated and  arranged  first.  Tilton  says :  "  Redpath,  tell 
Beecher  that  I  am  going  to  change  the  charge  to 
adultery."  "ifo,  no;  you  are  not;  I  stand  between  you 
and  Henry  Ward  Beecher,"  and  then  Eedpath  says  after 
that  interview  they  went  off  together  to  another  room  to 
prepare  Frank  Moulton's  first  statement.  Now,  observe, 
that  is  as  early  q.%  the  12th  of  July.  That  first  statement 
prepared  by  him  and  Tilton,  he  showed  it  to  Traoy.  It 


I 


634  TRE  riLTON-Bh 

cliarged  adultery.  That  statement  was  so  modified  (and 
afterward  at  a  mucli  later  period  presented)  as  to  liold 
back  the  charge  of  adultery,  because  what  they  wanted 
was  to  get  Mr.  Beecher  on  record  first  before  he  got  the 
documents,  and  then  come  upon  him  with  these  papers 
which  they  thought  he  had  in  great  part  forgotten,  and 
then  they  would  be  able  to  give  a  coloring  to  them  all,  which 
they  could  supplement  with  their  own  oral  statements 
and  condemn  him  hopelessly ;  but  it  was  still  the  part  of 
Moultonto  play  the  mutual  friend.  "Tilton  is  angry 
with  me  because  I  tell  him  that  I  love  Beecher  at  least 
as  well,  if  not  better,  than  him."  Now,  even  that  big 
boy  almost  opened  his  eyes  when  Redpath  brought  him 
that  message.  Redpath  says  he  told  him,  "  Beecher,  The- 
odore Tilton  is  a  scoundrel ;  he  is  rotten."  "But,  Red- 
path"— and  he  says  Beecher  put  the  question  to  him  in- 
terrogatively—" Redpath,  Frank  Moulton  is  friendly  to 
me  really,  is  he  not  V  "  Undoubtedly,"  says  Redpath. 
Was  there  ever  a  case  in  which  there  was  cooler  blood 
and  more  slimy  treachery  than  that  of  Frank  Moulton  ? 
Yv^hy,  he  and  Theodore  Tilton  were  engaged  in  making 
out  this  very  charge  of  adultery,  in  sending  this  word  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  in  order  to  have  him  puf  in  a  state- 
ment which  would  be  open  to  their  conjoined  assault  and 
enable  them  to  crush  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  about  1  o'clock,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  jurorsj— Please  return  at  2 
o'clock,  gentlemen. 

The  Court  then  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

THE  AFTEKNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment- 
Mr.  Porter— Gentlemen,  there  is  a  single  point  in  the 
mrvltitude  of  those  which  I  had  noted  in  connection  with 
the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moulton  to  which  I  wish  to  call 
your  special  attention,  relying  in  the  main  upon  your 
memory  of  his  general  testimony,  unaided  by  any  sugges- 
tion from  me.  I  allude  to  it  because  it  is  one  of  those 
little  significant  ear-marks  of  falsehood  or  of  truth,  as 
the  case  may  be,  which  enable  you  to  judge  of  a  great 
many  other  matters  in  regard  to  which  the  proof  may 
be  indistinct  and  obscure.  You  remember  that  I 
alluded  this  morning  to  the  extraordinary  fact  that 
an  American  gentleman  and  merchant,  a  man  of 
social  position  and  literary  pretensions,  who,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  theory,  knowingly,  deliber- 
ately, designedly  delivered  over  to  the  companionship 
of  his  wife  an  infamous,  hypocritical  debauchee  ;  that  he 
should  have  hung  in  his  own  parlor  a  portrait  which  did 
not  belong  to  him,  and  that  portrait  the  counterfeit  sim- 
ilitude of  such  a  debauchee.  I  say  it  to  the  credit  of 
the  manhood  that  is  within  him,  that  he  himself  saw 
even,  in  the  evidence,  and  without  the  aid  of  the  sugges- 
tion of  adverse  counsel,  that  it  was  a  feature  of  the  case 
which  called  for  explanation,  and  when  Frank  Moulton 


JKfJEEK  TRIAL. 

wants  an  explanation,  it  is  always  forthcoming,  if  he  can 
give  it,  and  if  all  other  explanation  fails  it  will  be  found 
in  a  ready  forged  lie.  And  he  t«lls  us,  in  order  to  explain 
the  fact  that  he  had  the  picture  of  an  adulterer  hanging 
in  his  parlor,  for  every  guest  to  look  upon,  as 
an  ornament  of  the  drawing-room  at  which  a  virtuous 
woman  presided  over  the  hospitalities  of  his  house,  that 
though  it  was  there,  it  was  oidy  for  a  little  while  ;  that  it 
was  only  after  the  adulterer  repented  ;  that  it  was  not  in 
1871 ;  that  it  was  only  after  he  and  his  wife  had  become 
accustomed  to  the  idea  of  the  companionship  of  a  liber= 
tine  ;  and  he  deliberately  swore  before  high  Heaven  that 
that  portrait  never  hung  in  his  house  until  his  removal  to 
Remsen-st.  in  May,  1872.  It  is  said  that  liars  should  have 
more  than  the  faculty  of  invention  ;  they  should  have 
good  memories.  He  had  forgotten  that  in  his  presence 
Theodore  Tilton,  for  another  purpose— May,  1871,  I 
should  have  said— Theodore  TUton  had,  for  another  pur- 
pose, already  sworn,  in  the  bitterness  of  his  animosity  to 
Mrs.  Morse,  that  that  portrait  was  taken  from  his  house 
in  the  Fall  of  1870,  to  the  house  of  Frank  Moulton, 
for  the  purpose  of  preserving  it  from  the  threatened 
violence  of  this  crazed  woman,  a  s  he  i)leased  to  call  her. 
He  swore  to  that,  believing  that  it  had  not  been  contra- 
dicted by  Tilton,  for  that  seems  to  have  escaped  his  at- 
tention,  and  he  swore  undoubtedly  in  the  belief  that  ui  a 
matter  of  such  minor  importance  there  would  be  no  wit- 
ness to  contradict  him ;  and  yet  this  falsehood,  uttered 
by  him  at  the  close  of  the  trial,  on  his  return  to  the  wit- 
ness-stand for  the  purpose  of  contradicting  one  of  oar 
witnesses— this  falsehood  was  nailed  to  the  counter 
two  witnesses,  both  speaking,  from  absolute  knowled 
and  both  fixing  the  fact  that  that  portrait  hung  in  hi 
parlor  in  Clinton-st.,  in  the  Winter  before  his  removal  to 
Remsen-st.  One  was  the  owner  of  the  house  of  which  he 
was  a  tenant,  who  saw  it  when  he  went  there  to  collect 
his  rent;  and  the  other  was  the  usher  of  Plymouth 
Church,  that  church  which  he  hates,  and  which  he  would 
imroof  if  it  lay  in  his  feeble  power;  but  he  then, 
as  the  friend  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  sat  through  long 
hours  by  day  and  by  night,  watching  over  the  sick-bed  of 
Francis  D.  JMoulton,  while  he  lay  hovering  between  life 
and  death.  The  falsehood  itself  is  comparatively  unim- 
portant, but  oh,  what  a  revelation  it  is  of  the 
character  of  the  nest  in  which  such  vipers  are 
bred  I  Foolish,  little  serviceable  in  the  cause,  invented 
by  a  cunning  and  plausible  man  as  the  circumstances 
that  would  give  to  the  truth  the  false  complexion  of  a  lie. 

ME.  MOULTON  TURNS  UPON  MR.  BEECHER. 

Gentlemen,  I  shall  deal  no  more  itli  this 
man,  except  in  another  relation.  I  had  prepared  notes 
for  the  purpose  of  analyzing  his  evidence ;  but  it  runs 
through  days  and  days,  and  it  would  be,  perhaps,  to  you 
a  most  weary  recapitulation.  You  remember  its  geiicral 
effect;  but  my  observation  of  jurors  has  been  that  they 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MR.  POBTEB. 


635 


form  their  Judgments  of  a  man  ratlier  iDy  tlie  apparent 
sincerity  of  Ms  utterance  and  the  probable  credibility  of 
Ms  narration  tlian  by  tbis  minute  analysis,  wMcb  taxes 
80  wearily  the  time  of  a  court  and  tbe  patience  of  a  jm'y. 
But  I  must  advert  to  one  aspect  of  tbe  case  in  connection 
vritli  Mm  before  I  close  my  argument.  What  is  the  pre- 
text of  this  man  as  an  apology  for  his  betrayal  of  trust, 
Ms  falsehood  to  honor  ?  On  the  13th  of  August  he  said 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  in  a  public  statement,  alluded  to 
the  fact  that  he  had  received  for  Theodore  Tilton  money 
exacted  l)y  him  in  the  interest  of  Tilton,  and  for  the  pur- 
poses of  blackmail.  Gentlemen,  it  is  as  false  as  any  utter- 
ance that  ever  fell  from  those  smooth  and  oily  lips.  If  you 
will  remember  the  first  day  of  his  examination,  you  will 
recall  the  fact,  which  was  still  further  pressed  upon  him 
dm-ing  my  absence  in  the  continuance  of  that  cross- 
examination  by  my  friend.  Gen.  Tracy,  that  even  by  Ms 
own  concessions  he  had  betrayed  that  trust,  in  the  inter- 
val between  the  13th  of  July  and  the  4th  of  August, 
deliberately,  without  motive,  without  provocation.  On 
the  24th  of  July,  Gen.  Tracy,  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
called  upon  Mm  with  a  written  note,  in  Mnd  and  cour- 
teous terms,  from  Mr.  Beecher,  saying  that  the  Church 
Committee  were  waiting  for  his  statement,  and  asMng 
the  privilege  of  looMng  at  the  documents  wMch  had 
been  left  in  Ms  hands  for  the  purpose  of  keeping 
them  safe  IE  an  occasion  should  arise  for  their  use. 
When  Gen.  Tracy  came  to  present  that  demand  he  re- 
fused to  receive  it.  Why  ?  When  Gen.  Tracy  pressed  the 
demand  and  insisted  upon  Ms  reading  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Beocher,  he  said  :  "  I  haven't  time  to  answer  it."  When 
the  demand  was  still  further  pressed  by  Gen.  Tracy,  who 
read  tMs  man  through  and  through,  he  says :  "  I  cannot 
furnish  to  Mr.  Beecher  these  papers;  they  must  be 
secure."  "  Do  you  mean  to  say.  Sir,  that  you  suppose 
that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  I  are  not  safe  custodians 
of  these  papers  1"  "  No,  but  I  am  going  to  Narragansett, 
and  besides,  Gen.  Tracy,  it  is  not  honorable  on  my  part, 
to  Theodore  Tilton,  to  let  Mr.  Beecher  see  those  papers." 
"Why not?"  "They  are  origmal  papers."  "Why,  Mr. 
Moulton,  they  are  origmal  papers  of  which  the  copies  are 
ciiculating  all  through  the  continent  They  are  original 
papers  of  which  Theodore  Tilton  has  published  the  copies, 
so  that  they  have  run  from  State  to  State  through  the 
Union.  What  Mr.  Beecher  wants  is  to  verify  the  copies 
by  the  inspection  of  the  originals.  He  don't  know  what 
he  has  written ;  he  has  left  them  in  your  hands  In  trust ; 
he  asks  to  look  at  them."  "I  don't  think  it 
would  be  honorable  to  Theodore  Tilton  to  let 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  see  what  I  have  never  let 
.Theodore  Tilton  see."  "What!  You  didn't  publish 
'them?"  "No."  "Who  did?"  "Theodore  Tilton." 
"  Where  did  he  get  his  copies  ?"  I  don't 
know."  "  Did  he  get  them  from  you  ?"  "  No."  "  Who 
else  has  had  the  papers  ?"  "  I  don't  know  how  he  got 
them.    I  sternly  refused  to  let  him  make  a  copy  of  a 


single  paper,  and  honor  calls  upon  me  to  refuse  it  equally 
sternly  to  3Ir.  Beechei'."  "  Why,  the  originals  wUl  be 
safe  if  you  will  let  me  take  copies."  "  I  don't  know." 
"  Why,  there  is  your  own  clerk  ;  let  him  make  copies,  so 
that  Mr.  Beecher  may  see  the  whole  of  the  papers  of 
wMch  you  published  what  purport  to  be  extracts."  "  Gen. 
Tracy,  I  am  going  to  Narragansett.  I  haven't  time." 
The  General,  lawyer-like,  sits  down  and  writes 
a  note,  asking  il  he  will  allow  Mr.  Beecher  to  have  copies 
made  at  his  expense,  and  by  Tilton's  clerk,  to  the  end  that 
he  may  be  enabled  to  speak  of  these  papers,  of  wMch 
garbled  extracts  had  been  given  to  the  public  by  Tilton, 
but  of  wMch  Mr.  Beecher  wished  to  give  the  whole.  "  I 
haven't  time.  I  am  going  to  Narragansett."  Now,  if 
Moulton  could  not  trust  his  own  clerk  to  make  copies  of 
papers  that  he  had  in  his  tin  box  and  Ms  safe,  there  was, 
perhaps,  reason  for  the  refusal.  What  was  there  in  those 
papers  that  needed  the  shelter  of  darkness  instead  of 
the  blaze  of  light?  Gentlemen,  the  man  who 
wasjustonhis  way  to  the  cars  for  Narragansett  had  ia 
his  pocket,  the  pocket  which  contains  a  pistol  when  he 
goes  to  a  woman  for  a  letter,  to  a  clergyman  for  a  paper 
—he  had  in  his  pocket  those  papers,  to  exhibit  them  to 
BenjamiQ  P.  Butler— who  was  no  "  Mutual  Friend,"  to 
whomBeecher  had  never  authorized  him  to  show  them— to 
be  woven  by  Gen.  Butler  into  spider's  web  wMch  should 
entrap  the  fly  of  Plymouth  Church.  This  man  whose 
honor  would  not  permit  Mm  to  give  to  Mr,  Beecher  copies 
of  his  own  papers,  wMch  had  already  been  published 
by  Theodore  Tilton,  had  them  here  [placing  Ms  hand  on 
the  breast  pocket],  to  deliver  them  to  a  man  who,  what- 
ever may  be  his  claims  upon  public  consideration  and 
regard,  had  no  claims  upon  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  except 
those  of  rejected  addresses  and  unrequited  love ;  and  he 
says  to  Gen.  Tracy,  "  I  won't  read  your  letter,  and  I  ask 
you  to  take  back  the  letter  to  Mr.  Beecher,"  and  he  pro- 
ceeded on  his  way.  This  man,  then  professing  such  friend- 
sMp  for  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  who  had  never  wronged 
Mm,  goes  to  Narragansett,  hatches  Ms  plot,  perfects  Ma 
libel,  goes  home  with  his  statement,  arrives  here  on  the 
mormng  of  the  4th  of  August,  finds  another  letter  from 
Mr.  Beecher,  dated  on  the  28th,  asking  him  if  he  won't 
give  to  Mm  the  letters  he  held  ia  trust  for  Mm, 
at  least  to  give  them  to  the  Committee,  and 
writes  to  him— no,  not  writes  to  him,  but  copies 
what    Benjamin   F.    Butler  had  written    for  Mm: 


ME.  MOULTON  EEFUSES  MR.  BEECHER  AC- 
CESS TO  THE  PAPERS. 
Observe,  the  voice  was  tlie  voice  of  Jacob, 
but  the  hand  was  the  hand  of  Esau.  The  man  who  pur- 
ports to  write  the  letter  is  Francis  D.  Moulton— the  man 
who  dictated  it  was  the  Esau  of  Massachusetts. 

No.  49  Remsen-st.,  Aug.  4, 1874. 
Mr  Dear  Mr.  Beecher:  Ireceived  your  note  of  July 
1  24,  informing  me  that  you  are  making  a  statement  and 


THE   T1LT01^-BEE(JREE  TBIAL. 


636 

need  the  letters  and  papers  in  my  hands,  a  id  asking  me 
to  send  them  to  you  for  the  purpose  of  having  extracts 
or  copies  made  from  them,  as  the  case  may  be,  that  you 
may  use  them  in  your  controversy  with  Mr.  Tilton. 

I  should  he  very  glad  to  do  anything  that  I  may  do, 
consistent  with  my  sense  of  what  Is  due  to  justice  and 
right,  to  aid  you ;  tout  if  you  will  reflect  that  I  hold  all  the 
important  papers  intrusted  to  me  at  the  desire  and  re- 
quest and  in  the  confidence  of  both  parties  to  this  un- 
happy affair,  you  will  see  that  I  cannot  in  honor  give 
them,  or  any  of  them,  to  either  party  to  aid  him  as 
against  the  other. 

Gentlemen,  suppose,  in  an  undue  confidence  in  me,  you 
should  appoint  me  your  executor  or  trustee  to  loolr  after 
the  interests  of  your  daughter  and  your  son ;  and  there 
coming  up  afterward  a  difference  between  that  daughter 
and  that  son,  when  one  of  them  comes  to  me  to  demand 
access  to  the  papers  in  which  their  father's  will  had 
given  to  r^ie  the  instructions  which,  should  be  my  law,  I 
should  coolly  turn  upon  them  and  say,  "  I  am  nothing 
but  a  trustee ;  you  cannot  see  yoirr  father's  will ;  it  would 
be  a  breach  of  honor  on  my  part.  I  hold  these  papers 
In  trust  for  the  man  whose  bones  are  moldering  in  the 
ground,  and  not  tor  the  benefit  of  the  living  beneficiaries 
created  in  the  trust."  You  come  to  me ;  two  of  you  have 
entered  ihto  a  contract ;  leave  with  me  that  contract  in 
trust ;  you  afterward  come  to  me  as  the  depositary  of 
that  contract  and  say,  *'  I  want  to  see  this  paper  of  which 
I  kept  no  copy  and  which  I  left  with  you  in  trust."  I  say, 
"  I  hold  it  in  trust  for  both  parties,  and  yon  cannot  see 
it  imless  your  adversary  shall  consent  that  you  may  see 
it."  "Why,  my  adversary  has  already  seen  it,  and  has 
put  a  copy  of  that  contract  in  the  hands  of  a  lawyer  who 
is  to-day  prosecuting  me  for  its  enforcement ;  and  it  is  a 
false  aad  a  forged  copy  of  the  contract,  and  I  want  to 
look  at  the  origmal."  "  I  have  taken  advice  of  Benjamru 
P.  Butler  of  Massachusetts,  and,  according  to  his  ideas  of 
honor,  you  have  no  business  to  ask  me  to  see  the  copy.  I 
don't  know  how  the  other  side  obtained  their  copy;  I  am 
a  man  of  honor." 

"  I  have  not  given,"  he  proceeds,  "  or  shown  to  Mr. 
Tilton  any  documents  or  papers  relating  to  your  affairs 
since  the  renewal  of  your  controversy,  which  had  been 
once  adiusted." 

He  had  not  ?  But  if  he  had  not  given  them  to  him, 
some  ministering  angel  who  wrote  a  legible  hand  had. 
Who  carried  the  key  of  that  tin  box  ?  How  did  Theodore 
Tilton  get  those  copies  1  What  was  this  sense  of  honor 
that  would  permit  one  man  to  have  what  he  pleased  of 
them,  and  which  would  refuse  it  to  the  other  ? 

I  need  not  tell  you  how  deeply  I  regret  your  position 
as  foes  each  to  the  other  after  my  long  and  as  you,  I  have 
no  doubt,  fully  believe  honest  and  faithful  effort  to  have 
you  otherwise. 

Oh,  how  that  impressed  Gen.  Butler !  The  honor,  the 
fidelity  of  this  mutual  friend !  And  he  gives  utterance 
to  it  in  those  eloquent  and  breathing  words  of  his,  that 
bum  as  they  breathe. 


I  will  sacredly  hold  all  the  papers  and  information  1 
have  until  both  parties— (Avhich  being  interpreted  means 
until  Theodore  Tilton)— shall  request  me  to  make  them 
public,  or  to  deliver  tiem  into  the  hands  of  either  or 
both,  or  to  lay  them  before  the  Committee,  or  I  am  com- 
pelled in  a  court  of  justice  to  produce  them  

No  blackmail,  gentlemen  ;  of  course  he  did  n't  contem- 
plate a  suit  at  that  time  against  the  man  at  whose  feet  he 
was  fawning,  whom  he  was  fiattering  to  his  face,  from 
whom  he  was  taking,  day  after  day,  certificates  that  he 
could  use  thereafter  against  him  to  show  that  he  was  a 
God-sent  messenger  of  love. 
 to  produce  them,  if  I  can  be  so  compelled. 

"  My  regret  "—I  wonder  whether  that  means  Moiiiton's 
regret  or  Butler's  regret— Butler,  the  discarded  lawyer, 
or  Moulton,  the  mutual  friend ! 

My  regret  that  I  am  compelled  to  this  course  is  softened 
by  my  belief  that  you  will  not  be  substantially  injured  by 
it  in  this  regard,  for  all  the  facts  are,  of  course,  knowu  to 
you,  and  I  am  bound  to  believe  and  assume  that  in  tli6 
statement  you  are  preparing  you  will  only  set  forth  the 
exact  facts ;  and  if  so,  the  documents,  when  produced, 
will  only  confirm,  and  cannot  contradict,  what  you  may 
state,  so  that  you  will  suffer  no  loss. 

When  I  examined  Mr.  Moulton  about  the  entries  of  the 
blackmail  in  his  books,  he  said,  "I  ought  to  have  the 
privilege  of  looking  at  my  books,"  and  I  gave  him  till  fae 
next  day.  If  I  had  consulted  Benjamin  F.  Butler— if  Mr.  i 
Beecher  had  accepted  his  services,  and  he  had  sat  by  my 
side,  he  would  have  said,  "  Tell  him,  '  Mr.  Moulton,  you 
are  at  no  disadvantage  without  your  books.  I  regret  very 
much  that  jow  cannot  use  them,  but  my  regret  is  soft- 
ened by  the  fact  that  if  you  state  truly  what  is  there  re- 
corded, it  won't  hurt  you,  but  if,  which  I  cannot  believe, 
you  lie,  it  is  very  proper  that  the  books  should  be  left  be- 
hind in  order  to  convict  you  of  the  lie.' "  That  was  the 
method  of  reasoning  adopted  by  the  mutual  friend  and 
the  rejected  counsel,  as  commending  itself  to  the  sense  of 
honor  of  conscientious  men.  even  at  the  very  time  they 
were  contemplating  bringing  this  proceeding  into  a  coint 
of  justice. 

If,  on  the  contrary— which  I  cannot  presume— you  de- 
sire the  possession  of  the  documents  in  order  that  you 
may  prove  your  statement  in  a  manner  not  to  be  contra 
vened  by  the  facts  set  forth  in  them  to  the  disadvantage 
of  Mr.  Tilton,  I  should  be  then  aiding  you  in  doing  tliat 
which  I  cannot  believe  the  strictest  and  firmest  liieud- 
ship  for  you  calls  upon  me  to  do.  With  grateful  recollec- 
tions of  your  kind  confidence  and  trust  in  me,  T  aw 
very  truly,  yours,  F.  D.  MoULTON. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  ANSWER  TO  THE  REFUSAL 
Down  to  that  moment  Henry  Ward  Beeclie 
trusted  him  as  I  trust  your  Honor,  as  I  trust  each  of  yo' 
twelve  whom  I  have  known  over  five  months,  and  in  eacl 
of  whom  I  recognize  that  integrity  of  person  which  cor 
viiH  CM  me  that  you  are  upright  and  honest  men.  Bu 
when  that  letter  came,  this  man  whom  Judge  Morris  call 
a  coward,  this  mnii  who  had  been  threatened  witli 
charge  that  should  destroy  him,  this  man  no  longer  a 


SUMMING    VP  BY  MB.  POBmB. 


637 


peals  to  Mm  for  sympatliy  or  regard,  but  in  tones  of  earn- 
est manliness  he  replies,  and  I  may  be  permitted  to  read 
you  Ms  reply. 

F.  D.  MouLTON,  esq.Sir :  Your  letter  bearing  date 
Auffust  4, 1874,  is  tMs  moment  received.  Allow  me  to 
express  my  regret  and  astonishment  that  you  refuse  me 
permission  even  to  see  certain  letters  and  papers  ia  your 
possession,  relating  to  the  charges  made  against  me  by 
Theodore  Tilton,  and  at  the  reasons  given  for  the  refasal. 

On  your  solemn  and  repeated  assurances  of  personal 
friendship,  and  in  the  unquestioning  confidence  with 
wiiich  you  inspired  me  of  your  honor  and  fidelity,  I  placed 
rji  your  hands  for  safe-keeping  various  letters  addressed 
to  me  from  my  brother,  my  sister,  and  various  other 
pai'ties ;  also  memoranda  of  affairs  not  immediately  con- 
nected with  Mr.  Tilton's  affairs.  I  also  from  time  to 
time  addiessed  you  confidential  notes  relating  to  my  own 
self,  as  one  friend  would  write  to  another.  These  papers 
were  never  placed  in  your  hands  to  be  held  for  two  par- 
ties ;  they  were  to  be  held  for  me.  I  did  not  wish  to  sub- 
ject them  to  risk  of  loss  or  scattering,  from  my  careless 
habits  in  the  manner  of  preserving  documents.  They 
were  to  be  held  for  me.  In  so  far  as  these  papers  were 
concerned,  you  were  only  a  friendly  trustee  holding 
papers  subject  to  my  wishes. 

And  as  my  friend  Mr.  Abbott  suggests  he  don't  go  to 
Narragansett  to  take  counsel  of  Benjamia  F.  Butler,  but 
the  moment  he  receives  tlie  letter  wMch  shows  to  him 
that  he  is  in  the  coils  of  a  serpent  he  answers  it  upon  the 
instant ;  he  preserved  no  copy ;  we  were  compelled,  from 
them,  under  the  exaction  of  a  subpena  and  the  power 
of  an  oath,  to  compel  the  production  of  tMs  letter  in  or- 
der to  ascertain  even  what  Mr.  Beecher  had  written. 
And  they  could  not  refuse  it,  for  they  had  admitted  its 
receipt.  Do  you  suppose  that  Hem*y  Ward  Beecher  then 
thought  that  instead  of  answermg  his  trusted  friend, 
Francis  D.  Moulton,  he  was  writing  to  the  man  who  had 
already  recorded  his  name  in  history,  that  he  was 
writing  to  one  of  the  ablest  publicists  of  the  age, 
that  he  was  engaged  in  correspondence  with  a  man 
whenever  spared  an  enemy,  however  faithfully  he  may 
liave  served  a  friend ;  that  he  was  engaged  in  a  contro- 
versy with  Gen.  Benjamin  F.  Butler  of  Massachusetts, 
who  stood  behind  this  nlan  and  dictated  what  he  had 
written.  But  how  does  he  deal  with  It  ?  Is  he  a  guilty 
adulterer,  stricken  down  by  the  charge  ?  Frank  Moulton, 
who  tells  you  that  he  had  over  him  the  power  of  life  and 
death ;  Frank  Moulton,  whose  wife  could  consign  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  to  infamy ;  Frank  Moulton,  backed  by 
Theodore  Tilton,  who  hated  him  as  he  hated  his  God ; 
Frank  Moulton,  who  loved  nothing  that  belonged  to  him, 
who  hated  even  the  very  wife  of  his  bosom, 
who  hated,  even  the  very  boy  whom  he  had 
once  for  false  pretenses  professed  to  serve- 
but  I  cannot  talk  with  patience  of  such  things.  Do  you 
believe  that  he  was  a  guUty  man ;  that  the  moment  he 
found  that  this  man  was  false  indignantly  took  his 
stand  :  "  Sir^  I  trusted  you  as  a  friend.  I  recognize  you 
now  as  an  enemy.  I  placed  a  confidence  in  you  which 
you  did  not  deserve.   I  look  upon  you  now  as  you  are. 


I  state  my  rights  ;  I  appeal  to  any  sense  of  honor  that 
may  remain  witMn  you.  I  know  my  appeal  will  be  in 
vain,  but  it  shall  be  made,  made  fearlessly." 

Was  that  the  language  of  innocence'  or  of  guilt  ?  If  it 
were  true  that  he  was  an  adulterer  ;  if  it  were  true  that 
tMs  very  man  was  at  that  moment  the  custodian  of  a 
paper  in  which  Mr.  Beecher  acknowledged  adultery  ;  if 
it  were  true  that  again  and  again,  through  those  long 
months  and  years,  he  had  occupied  himself 
under  Frank  Moulton's  roof  in  declaring  that  he  had  sex- 
ual intercourse  with  Elizabeth  Tilton,  if  he  knew  that 
Mrs.  Moulton,  a  respectable  communicant  in  his  own 
church,  had  heard  his  confession,  would  that  have  been 
the  tone  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  answer  %  Butler  was 
not  there.  He  had  been  left  either  at  Narragansett  or 
New- York.  Here  was  a  letter  that  needed  an  answer.  It 
needed  an  answer,  too,  that  could  be  used  afterward  in  a 
court  of  justice.  Frank  Moulton  was  not  the  man  capa- 
ble of  writing  it.  Theodore  Tilton  is  sent  for,  and  he  is  at 
hand. 

MR.  MOULTON'S  ANSWER  TO  MR.  BEECHER. 

Through  the  long  watches  of  the  night  of  the 

the  4th  of  August  these  men  concocted  the  answer 
which  they  thought  afterward  might  impose  on  a  Court 
and  a  jury,  and  here  it  is.  The  hand  is  the  hand  of  Tilton, 
but  the  voice  is  the  voice  of  Moulton.  I  read  to  you  only 
a  part  of  Mr.  Beecher's  letter ;  with  a  view  of  saving  your 
time  I  will  read  to  you  only  a  part  of  Theodore  Tilton's 
reply : 

You  are  incorrect  in  saying  that  Mr.  Tilton  has  had 
access  to  my  "  depository  of  materials ;"  on  the  contrary, 
I  have  refused  Mr,  Tilton  such  access.  During  the  prep- 
aration of  his  sworn  statement  he  came  to  me  and  said 
Ms  case  would  be  incomplete  unless  I  permitted  him  the 
use  of  all  the  documents,  but  I  refused ;  and  aU  he  could 
rely  upon  were  such  notes  as  he  had  made  from  time  to 
time  from  writings  of  yom-s  which  you  had  written  to  me 
to  be  read  to  Mm,  and  passages  of  wMch  he  caught  from 
my  lips  in  shorthand. 

You  may  remember  that  among  the  questions  I  put  to 
him  when  he  was  upon  the  stand,  was  whether  he  had 
read  those  to  him,  and  whether  Theodore  Tilton  had 
taken  notes  in  shorthand,  and  he  swore  he  had  not.  He 
has  an  excuse  for  tMs ;  it  was  Tilton  that  wrote  this,  not 
he ;  Tilton  confessed  what  Moulton  denied. 

Mr.  Tilton  has  seen  oMy  a  part  of  the  papers  in  my 
possession,  and  would  be  more  surprised  to  learn  the 
entire  facts  of  the  case  than  you  can  possibly  be. 

And  the  man  who  wrote  that  sentence  is  Theodore  Til- 
ton. I  won't  dwell  on  it  any  longer, 

THE  CHARGE  OF  BLACKMAIL  REAVOWED. 

Grentlemen,  these  were  two  blackmailers.  I 
have  noticed  with  what  formality  it  has  been  annoimced 
that  the  charge  of  blackmail  has  been  in  this  case  with- 
drawn, that  Mr.  Beecher  disavowed  it.  Why,  gentlemen, 
no  man  who  understood  the  facts  of  this  case  has  ever 


TEE   TILTOJS-BEEOHER  lElAL. 


doubted  that  this  was  a  case  of  blackmail.  Men  hesi- 
tated to  say  it,  as  we  always  shrink  from  severe  accusa- 
tions of  that  kind  until  the  proof  is  too  clear  to  resist  the 
light.  When  my  friend  William  O.  Bartlett  of  jTew-York, 
one  of  the  clearest  and  ablest  men  at  the  New-York  bar, 
whose  reputation  as  a  lawyer  is  less  than  it  would  be 
except  for  his  reputation  as  a  literary  man,  which  rises 
even  above  it— when  this  case  was  stated  to 
him  he  at  once  pronounced  it  a  case  of  black- 
mail. And  he  was  right.  I  regret  that  his  other  engage- 
ments have  prevented  me  from  having  the  benefit  of  his 
services,  as  well  as  those  of  my  valued  and  honored  asso- 
ciates of  this  case,  because  he  would  speak  with  a  direct- 
ness and  power  in  characterizing  it  that  I  cannot  com- 
mand. But  can  you  doubt  that  it  was  blackmail,  and 
trom  the  beginning?  Not  from  the  beginning  as 
against  Mr.  Beeoher— in  the  beginning,  Bowen ;  in  its 
prosecution,  Beecher;  in  the  end,  Plymouth  Church  and 
the  friends  of  Mr.  Beecher.  As  long  as  the  money  came 
the  charge  was  held  back.  When  the  money  failed  then 
came  the  charge.  But  do  you  believe  that  the  gun  is  not 
loaded  before  it  is  fired  ?  Do  you  believe  that  the  cart- 
ridge and  the  ball  find  their  way  into  the 
weapon  before  it  is  discharged  by  accident? 
These  were  men  who  meant  business  from  the  beginning. 
It  is  entirely  true  that  their  purposes  shifted  as  their  de- 
vices shifted,  from  time  to  time,  according  to  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  occasion,  but  all  through  ran  the  dark  thread 
of  conspiracy,  which  you  can  trace  back  from  this  very 
hour  to  the  hour  when,  on  the  secular  Christmas  of  1870, 
Theodore  Tilton  stood  before  Henry  C.  Bowen,  arraigned 
for  immorality,  and  threatened  with  discharge.  Men  are 
often  misled  by  the  ambiguity  of  terms.  What  is  black- 
mail? In  a  strict  and  technical  sense  this  is  not  a  case  of 
blackmail.  Fortunately,  such  cancerous  conspiracies  as 
this  have  been  so  rare  that  our  language  does  not 
furnish  terms  to  characterize  with  definite  precision  the 
peculiar  infamy  of  the  actors  or  the  vile  instrumentali- 
ties they  employ.  It  is  only  by  proximate  terms  that 
such  men  and  such  means  can  be  portrayed.  The  word 
blackmail  in  its  primary  sense  imports  contributions 
made  by  honest  m^nto  the  confederates  of  rogues,  to 
avoid  threatened  pUlage  and  depredation.  In  another 
sense  it  imports  the  extortion  of  money  whether  from 
the  guilty  or  the  innocent,  by  threats  of  injurious  accusa- 
tion. Webster  defines  the  term  thus : 

1.  A  certain  rate  of  money,  coin,  cattle,  or  other 
thing  anciently  paid  in  the  North  of  England  and  South 
of  Scotland  to  certain  men,  who  were  allied  to  robbers, 
to  be  by  them  protected  from  pillage.  2.  Extortion  of 
money  from  a  person  by  threats  of  accusation  or  ex- 
posure, or  of  opposition,  in  the  public  prints. 

THE  EEASONS  FOR  CHARGING  BLACKMAIL. 

Technically,  the  moneys  obtained  by  Moul- 
ton  from  Mr.  Beecher  do  not  fall  within  either  definition. 
They  were  frankly  and  freely  given,  and  not  to  an 


avowed  confederate,  but  to  a  professed  mutual  frien 
They  were  obtained  not  by  open  menace,  but  by  the 
cunning  and  treachery  of  a  smooth-tongued  confidence 
man.  Mr.  Beecher  was  made  to  believe  a  lie.  Moulton 
persuaded  him  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  made  him  the  object 
of  an  undue  and  idolatrous  passion ;  that  Tilton  really 
believed  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  estranged  her  love  ;  that 
the  stories  Mr.  Beecher  had  repeated  to  Bowen  were  the 
imfounded  calumnies  of  gossiping  and  half-crazed 
women,  and  that  he  had  been  by  these  means  and  by  his 
too  ready  credulity,  the  instrument  of  stripping  Tilton  of 
$15,000  a  year  and  destroviug  the  peace  of  his  family  ani 
blasting  his  personal  reputation  and  his  prospects  of  edi- 
toi'ial  success  in  after  life.  If  he  was  made  to  believo 
these  things,  had  he  done  no  wrong  ?  Was  there  nothing 
of  which  he  ought  to  repent  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  have  slan- 
dered a  man  who  he  is  assured  is  innocent  ?  Is  it  nothing  to 
have  alienated  the  affections  of  a  true-hearted  and  loving 
wife  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  have  bias  tell  the  prospects  of  father 
and  mother  and  children,  and  brought  the  one  to  shame 
and  dishonor  and  the  other  to  poverty  and  destitution  i 
You  know  that  he  had  done  neither  of  these  things,  but 
he  was  made  to  believe  that  he  had  done  them  all.  It  is 
only  this  investigation  that  has  unearthed  these  facta 
which  will  blast  the  memory  of  Theodore  Tilton  now  and 
in  all  future  time. 

Mr.  Beecher  was  made  by  that  plausible  Frank 
Moulton,  who  deceived  even  you  oy  his  plausi- 
bility, through  many  days  of  his  examination, 
who  deceives  every  man  that  comes  in  contact 
with  him  until  he  has  the  means  of  see- 
ing what  lies  beneath  that  smooth  and  glossy  surface- 
Mr.  Beecher  was  deceived  by  him  into  the  belief 
that  he  had  been  guilty  of  these  great  wrongs.  And 
they  took  great  care  that  he  should  not  be  undeceived. 
They  said  to  him :  "  Slander  of  a  clergyman  is  like  slan- 
der of  a  woman.  A  clergyman  who  is  not  above  suspicioti 
is  lost ;  the  woman  who  is  not  above  suspicion  has  gone 
already  to  the  grave.  It  is  due  to  yourself,  it  is  due  to 
Elizabeth,  that  no  human  being  silall  know  these  matt  r- 
except  us.  She  charges  you  with  this."  Oh,  you  can 
see  how  cue  oily  tongue  of  Moulton  moved— 
'  she  charges  you  with  this,  Mr.  Beecher;  she  charges 
you  with  it ;  she  loves  you  in  her  heart— in  her  heart. 
You  think  not.  I  know  it ;  I  know  it.  She  loves  your 
little  finger  more  than  she  loves  the  body  of  Theodore 
Tilton.  Don't  go  near  her.  It  will  only  kindle  the  flame 
to  a  brighter  heat.  Don't  talk  to  others.  If  you  trust 
your  dearest  friend,  you  involuntarily  trust  his  wife,  who 
trusts  her  friend,  who  trusts  her  neighbor,  and  all  trust 
the  community.  Don't  you  go  with  that  story  to  Benja- 
mia  F.  Tracy.  Tracy  will  know  it,  and  so  will  Tracy's 
wife.  Don't  you  go  with  it  to  John  L.  HilL 
If  John  L.  Hill  knows  it,  he  la  faithful 
to  you,  but  Plymouth  Church  will  knovs^  it. 
Ti-ust  this  whole  matter  to  me,  Mr.  Beecher.   I  beli  ' 


I 


SUJJJUyG    VF  1 

you  to  be  innocent,  but  you  Lave  clone  Theodore  Tilton 
great  wrong.  Trust  it  to  me.  I  know  the  man.  He  lias 
infirmities;  lie  is  jealous  ;  when  he  is  aroused  his  pas- 
sions are  unsoyernable ;  but  leaye  it  to  me,  and  I  will 
control  them.  If  all  else  fails,  I  will  grind  him  to  pow- 
der. But  what  you  have  to  do  is  to  deal  wirh  him  in  his 
own  spirit.  He  is  a  magnanimous  man ;  he  is  a  generous 
man  ;  take  the  whole  blame  on  yourself,  and  he  will  'for- 
gixe  you,  and  be  a  warmer  friend  than  ever  he  was  be- 
fore." Under  just  such  influences  as  these  Islx.  Beecher 
was  led  first  to  feel  the  deepest  anguish  and  remorse  at 
the  ^^ong  of  which  lie  hajd  been  the  unconscious  instru- 
ment, and  then  to  express,  in  the  warm  and  hurning  lan- 
guage of  a  large  and  generous  heart,  the  regret  he  felt 
at  the  wrong,  even  to  Theodore  Tilton. 

But,  to  proceed.  Moulton  held  Beecher  in  this 
position,  and  lie  knew  it.  The  inciuiry  is,  how  he 
used  his  power  oyer  him  and  how  he  intended  to 
use  It,  Isow,  if  we  regard  the  term  blackmail  in 
its  moral  sense,  there  is  no  room  for  dispute  that 
Francis  D.  Moulton  was  a  blackmailer.  If  he  lielieved 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  be  an  adulterer,  as  he  now  falsely 
pretends  he  did,  all  men  will  agree  that  he  was  a  black- 
mailer. What !  Adultery,  and  money  paid  for  it,  and  no 
blackmail !  He  admits  that  he  told  Beecher  of  Theodore 
Tilton's  threats.  Is  the  extortion  of  money-  hy  threats  not 
blackmail?  He  admits  that  he  obtained  the  money;  he 
admits  that  he  gave  it  to  Mr.  Tilton  ;  he  admits  that  he 
concealed  the  fact  that  he  received  it ;  he  refused  to 
take  the  $5,000  in  the  form  of  a  check  to  his  order,  be- 
cause that  would  expose  his  agency  in  the  transaction. 
He  exacted  it  in  bills,  and  concealed,  even  on  the  books 
of  his  firm,  as  he  himself  admits,  the  fact  that  the  money 
came  from  Mr.  Beecher.  He  broke  into  a 
violent  rage  when  Gen.  Tracy  incautiously  al- 
luded to  his  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  Tilton 
had  received  the  money.  He  denounced  Mr.  Beecher 
for  disclosing  it  to  Mr.  Tracy,  on  the  false  assumption 
that  Mr.  Beecher  was  Gen.  Tracy's  informant.  When  he 
found  that  his  partner  Franklin  Woodruff  was  the  man 
who  had  disclosed  it,  he  denounced  Woodruff  to  his  face 
for  betraying  him  to  Tracy.  Mr.  W^oodruff  afterward 
came  to  Gen.  Tracy  to  reproach  him  for  telling  Moulton 
of  this  harmless  and  innocent  fact.  Why  all  this  wasted 
rage  if  there  was  no  blackmail  1  He  went  further; 
indeed  you  yourselves  saw  Francis  D.  Moulton, 
in  your  presence,  in  communication  with  the 
then  examining  counsel  when  he  questioned  Gen.  Tracy  as 
to  this  interview  with  Woodruff,  and  as  to  what  he  called 
Gen.  Tracy's  apology  for  betraying  the  secret  of  black- 
mail. If  Moulton  was  not  conscious  that  he  had  obtained 
this  money  from  Mr.  Beecher  by  treacherous  cunning 
and  contrivance,  why  did  he  object  to  receiving  it  in  the 
form  of  a  check  to  his  own  order  ?  Why,  after  the  Inves- 
tigating Committee  was  called,  did  he  warn  Mr.  Beecher, 
through  Gen.  Tracy,  that  if  he  ever  »  aid  anything  aboixt  1 


that  85,000,  h-^  should  deny  that  he  ever  received  iti 
Why  did  he  tell  G^n.  Tracy,  on  learning  that  he 
knew  it,  that  Mr  Beecher  must  deny  it, 
and  that  he  himself  should  deny  it  1 
Why,  after  he  found  that  G«n.  Tracy  would  not  advise 
Mr.  Beecher  either  to  deny  or  to  suppress  the  fact  in  his 
statement,  and  after  he  found  that  Franklin  Woodruff 
had  disclosed  the  fact  imprudently  to  Gen.  Tracy,  did  he 
attempt  to  soften  3Ir.  Beecher's  statement  of  the  fact  ? 
What  did  he  do?  All  the  appeals  of  Gen.  Tracy  to  his 
manhood  and  his  honor  to  suppress  the  infamous  state- 
ment whicb  had  been  prepared  at  Narragansett  fail ;  but 
in  view  of  the  fact  of  blackmail,  he  came  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  after  all  it  was  better  to  suppress  that  state- 
ment which  had  been  the  labor  of  two  weeks'  parturition, 
and  to  publish  a  short  statement  which  Mr.  Beecher 
should  think  under  all  the  circumstances  was  satisfac- 
tory, that  Mr.  Beecher  had  committed  an  of- 
fense, but  it  had  received  a  suitable  apology ; 
that  the  offense  was  not  of  such  a  character  as  to  involve 
his  honor  or  his  purity  as  a  man,  and  that  the  church 
should  dismiss  the  inouiry.  But,  mark  you,  the  man  who 
put  in  that  statement  to  mislead  and  entrap  Mr.  Beecher 
had  in  his  pocket  the  other  statement,  prepared  \ffr  him- 
self and  by  Gen.  Butler,  charging  Mr.  Beecber  with  adul- 
tery, and  containing  the  documents  to  whicb  lie  had 
refused  ]Mr.  Beecher  access !  Again,  when  he  finally  pub- 
lishes his  own  statement,  be  pretends  in  it  that  he  has 
made  no  change  in  it,  even  to  the  extent  of  a  single  word, 
since  it  was  originally  written,  before  he  introduced  the 
other  statement ;  but  you  can  judge  of  the  probability  of 
the  pretense  from  tbe  fact  tbat  in  its  published  form 
there  was  a  reluctant  and  enforced  admission  of  the  pay- 
ment of  the  money,  with  a  lame  and  impotent  attempt  to 
explain  it  as  a  little  private  roguery  of  his  own— for  the 
benefit  of  Tilton,  it  is  true,  but  without  a  thought 
on  the  part  of  Tilton  that  the  money  came  from  Beecher. 
And  yet,  that  Theodore  Tilton— who  never  suspected 
that  the  money  came  from  Mr.  Beecher— finds  his  way, 
on  the  next  Lord's  Day,  just  before  the  services  of 
Plymouth  Church,  to  the  comer  of  Columbia  Higbts, 
near  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Beecher,  puts  his  arm  within 
Mr.  Beecher's,  and  proceeds  to  say  to  him,  how  he, 
Theodore,  loves  him;  and  within  a  few  weeks  after,  even 
by  his  own  concession,  he  has  laid  on  the  stand  of 
Plymouth  platform,  where  Mr.  Beecher  is  to  meet  it  at 
tbe  opening  of  the  service,  the  message,  "  Grace, 
mercy,  and  peace.  T.  T."  But,  of  course,  he  didn't 
know  where  this  $5,000  came  from ;  and  it  was 
a  mere  speculation  of  Frank  Moulton  to  re- 
imburse himself  for  his  benefactions  to  Tilton, 
and  he  and  Beecher  had  agreed  that  Tilton  never 
should  know  anything  about  it.  Doubtless 
Tilton  thought  that  this  $5,000  in  greenbacks  coming 
down  upon  a  parched  and  thirsty  land,  came  down  from 
Heaven,  that  it  was  brought  down  upon  that  ladder  de- 


640 


THE    TlLTOJ^-BEh'^lHER  TRIAL. 


icribed  in  his  Biograpliy  of  Mrs.  Woodliull,  by  one  of  the 
descending  angels  of  free  love,  and  who  very  naturally 
had  committed  the  precioizs  charge  to  the  hands  of  Frank 
Moulton  as  messenger.  Or  perhaps  he  thought  it  a  gift 
brought  hy  the  hand  of  that  child  mentioned  in  the  Wood- 
liull Biography,  of  whom  Theodore  Tilton,  over  his  own 
signature,  certiflea  that  the  Avoman  in  the  free  love  man- 
sion had  raised  a  child  from  the  dead ;  though  he  did  not 
believe  that  Lazarus  was  raised  by  the  Redeemer  of  man- 
kind! Wherever  the  $5,000  came  from,  Theodore  would 
not  give  a  note  for  a  dollar  of  the  amount.  He  could  not 
trust  even  the  chivalrous  Moulton  with  his  note  for  the 
first  thousand  dollars  of  the  money ;  he  sends  back  Moul- 
ton's  check  scornfully,  with  the  message,  "  I  cannot  bor- 
row what  I  cannot  repay." 

Moulton,  deferring  to  the  sensibilities  of  his  friend, 
sends  him  back  the  check,  and  the  man  who  refuses  to 
give  a  note  for  the  money  pockets  the  check,  and  appro- 
priates it  to  his  private  use.  Of  course  Tilton  did  not 
know  wnere  the  money  came  from.  It  would  not  have 
been  respectable  to  know.  Certainly  not,  if  he  believed 
it  to  be  bed-money  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  his  own 
wife ;  and  even  then  he  contemplated,  I  have  no  doubt, 
in  his  own  heart,  the  future  charge  of  adultery  which 
has  culminated  in  this  prosecution.  It  would  have  been 
still  less  respectable  if  he  knew  it  had  been  obtained  by 
cunning  and  treacherous  contrivance  Irom  an  in- 
nocent, warm-hearted,  and  generous  man,  who  be- 
lieved that  he  was  repairing  a  wrong  lie  had  imcon- 
sciously  committed  in  the  wreck  and  desolation  of  a 
family  bound  to  him  by  ties  so  sacred  as  the  connection 
with  his  own  cherished  church.  If  Moulton  and  TUton 
did  not  regard  this  money  as  blackmail,  why  did  they 
both  cower  and  shrink  in  dismay  when  the  fact  came  to 
be  known  that  they  received  ib  ?  If  it  was  not  blackmail, 
why  were  no  entries  made  by  either  of  them  of  the 
sources  from  which  it  was  received  %  If  it  was  not  black- 
mail, why  do  they  retain'  the  money  to  this  very  hour  ? 
Theodore  Tilton  and  Frank  Moulton  can  find  the  means 
to  carry  on  this  expensive  and  burdensome  prosecution, 
but  never  to  this  hour  has  it  occurred  to  either  of  them 
that  they  should  return  the  money  which  was  obtained 
by  false  pretenses  and  fraud. 

On  the  2d  of  Mny,  '74,  Tilton  had  the  eflfrontery  to 
write  a  letter  to  Mr.  Beecher  from  The  Golden  Age  oflBLce, 
which  I  will  ask  your  permission  to  read.  You  see  there 
are  always  two  Tiltons.  The  one  chivalrous  and  mag- 
nanimous, who  scorns  all  that  is  mean,  who  stands  in  the 
presence  of  this  age  and  of  all  the  future  generations  of 
history  and  of  the  world  here  and  of  the  world  above, 
expecting  all  men  and  all  beings  to  unite  in  admiring 
him.  The  other  Tilton  is  the  man  who  receives  $5,000, 
puts  it  in  his  pocket,  and  does  not  know  where  it  comes 
from.  The  other  Tilton  is  the  man  who  when  Bessie 
Ttimer  has  the  boldness  to  rebuke  his  insolence  to  his 


poor  wife  dashes  her  against  the  wall,  and  then  turns  and 
says,  *'  Bessie,  my  dear,  did  you  slip  and  hm-t  yourself  I" 
[Laughter.l 

Now,  here  we  have  the  other  Tilton,  and  I  want  to  pre- 
face it  with  a  single  remark.  That  accoxmt  which  Frank 
Moulton  produced,  and  over  which  he  was  so  triumphant 
on  the  stand,  and  which  was  commented  on  in  the  news- 
papers as  so  triumphantly  vindicating  him  against  the 
charge  of  blackmail,  shows  that  on  the  day  of  the  date  of 
this  letter  from  Theodore  Tilton  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
Theodore  Tilton  drew  $250  of  that  $5,000;  but  it  un- 
luckily happened  that  it  was  the  last  draft  but  one  made 
upon  the  dying  ftuid.  It  happened  to  be  at  the  very 
time  when  he  was  engaged  in  his  attempt  to  get 
up  this  new  journal  in  New- York,  of  which  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  was  to  be  the  editor,  of  which 
Frank  Carpenter  was  to  be  the  manager,  of  which  IMoul- 
ton  was  to  be  the  business  man,  and  of  which  Theodore 
Tilton  was  to  be  the  correspondent  at  a  salary  of  $10,000 
a  year,  until  he  could  take  the  chief  editorship.  That 
was  it.  It  was  the  time  when  Claflin,  and  Southwick,  and 
Cleveland,  and  Sage,  and  the  other  friends  of  Beecher 
were  called  upon  to  unite  in  this  grand,  new  enterprise, 
which  was  to  give  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  a  higher  repu- 
tation in  the  world  at  large  even  than  all  the  services 
which  he  had  rendered  in  obedience  to  his  Master's  com- 
mand. But  he  must  keep  his  record  all  right;  and  we 
find  produced  this  letter  written.  Observe,  he  is  ready 
to  receive  money  from  Jackson  S.  Schultz;  he 
is  ready  to  receive  it  from  Southwick ;  he  is  ready  to  re- 
ceive it  from  Claflin,  and  wanting  to  receive  it  from  Cleve- 
land ;  wanting  Plymouth  Church  to  pay  it,  saying  that 
imless  Plymouth  Church  comes  to  his  terms  he  will  blow 
off  its  roof.  But  this  honorable  man,  who  has  an  alterna- 
tive behind,  to  wit,  an  action  against  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  for  crim  con.  with  his  wife,  writes  to  him  this 
letter,  which  can  be  kept  in  readiness,  and  which  was 
read  by  my  rhetorical  friend.  Judge  Fullerton,  in  such  a 
manner  as  almost  to  di'aw  tears  from  the  eyes  of  every  man 
who  heard  it.  "  The  Golden  Age.  May  2, 1874.  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  "—men  of  true  dignity,  you  know,  reject 
titles.  True,  the  world  would  have  said  "  the  Reverend 
Henry  Ward  Beecher ;  "  but  that  would  be  a  concession 
which  the  blackmailer  could  not  brook. 

Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

Sir  :  I  have  just  this  morning  learned  to  my  sur- 
prise and  sorrow  that  F.  B.  Carpenter,  whose  good-wiU 
toward  both  you  and  me  is  unquestionable,  has  con- 
sulted you  concerning  the  use  of  your  money,  influence 
and  good  offices  for  the  enlargement  of  the  capital  of 
The  Golden  Age.  Mr.  Carpenter  mentions  to  me  also  your 
saying  to  him  that  under  certain  conditions,  involving 
certain  disavowals  by  me— referring,  of  course,  to  the 
Woodhull  matter,  for  he  must  disavow  Free  Love  and  all 
that  kind  of  thing— involving  certain  disavowals,  a 
sum  of  money  would  or  could  be  raised  to  send  me,  with 
my  family  to  Europe  for  a  terra  of  years. 

Now,  mark  you,  not  only  had  no  such  proposition  been 


SUjlMiyG    CP  J 

made  by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Beeclier,  but  aU  Frank  Car- 
penter liad  attempted  to  that  end  had  utterly  failed. 
Theodore  Tilton  himself  had  l.een  arraigned  at  the  Union 
Club  by  men  of  character,  who  had  been  his  former 
friends^  as  a  blackmailer,  and  the  question  was  submitted 
to  arbitration  as  to  whether  he  was  or  not.  Of  course  it 
is  time  for  him  to  put  matters  right. 

Of  course  you  need  no  assurance  that  such  an  applica- 
tion or  suggestion  Is  wholly  unauthorized  by  me,  and  is 
inexpressibly  repugnant  to  my  feelings.  The  occasion 
j  compels  me  to  state  explicitly  that,  so  long  as  life  and 
j  self-respect  continue  to  exist  together  in  my  breas*:,  I 
shall  be  debarred  from  receiving,  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, any  pecuniary  or  other  favor  at  your  hands. 

Oh,  at  your  hands  !    It  must  come  through  Claflin,  it 
must  come  through  South  wick,  it  must  come  through 
I    Schultz  or  Cleveland,  some  of  these  other  gentlemen. 
"  I  cannot  receive  money  from  Henry  Ward  Beecher ; 
r.ot  I." 

The  reason  for  this  feeling,  on  my  part,  you  know  so 
well  that  I  spare  you  the  statement  of  it. 

If  it  had  been  Moufton,  he  would  have  said,  "  Why, 
Beecher,  you  know  it  is  because  you  and  Theodore 
Tilton's  wife  had  sexual  intercourse  together.  Beecher, 
do  you  remember  you  told  me  on  Monday,  and  you  told 
me  on  Tuesflay,  and  you  told  me  on  Wednesday ;  you  told 
me  in  January  and  in  July ;  you  told  me  every  month  of 
the  year  for  four  years ;  every  time  you  came  down,  fear- 
ing I  had  forgotten  it— you  told  me  you  had  sexual  inter- 
course with  Elizabeth  E.  Tilton."  Tilton  is  more  deli- 
cate ;  he  believed  in  generosity.  I  need  not  state  what 
is  the  reason  why  I  cannot  receive  money  from  you,  and 
you  must  send  it  through  Claflin  or  Southwick,  and  it  has 
got  to  be  done  soon,  too,  for  the  fund  is  nearly  out." 
'  This  is  May  2,  1874;  and  the  next  month  comes  the 
Bacon  letter. 

,  PROMISES  JVIADE  IN  THE  PLAimFFS  OPEN- 
ING NOT  FULFILLED. 

My  friend  Shearman  calls  my  attention,  as 
illustrative  of  the  point  I  am  on,  to  page  677,  second 
volume.  This  is  the  testimony  of  Charles  Storrs  : 

I  asked  Mr.  Tilton— says  I,  "What  is  the  matter  with 
C  aflin  r'  Says  he,  "  ^Tiy  ?"  Says  I,  "  He  didn't  seem  favor- 
ably disposed  to  the  project,  and  rather  talked  against  it 
than  for  it."  Mr.  Tilton  says,  "  Claflin  had  better  look 
out ;  perhaps  something  can  be  said  about  him." 

Well,  when  Theodore  Tilton  comes  to  say  it,  he  had 
better  find  other  witnesses  than  Frank  Moulton  and  his 
wife  to  carry  through  the  charge ;  and,  let  me  tell  htm, 
after  the  developments  of  this  trial,  even  though  his 
friend  Butler  should  tender  his  services  to  his  friend 
Claflin  as  his  adviser,  he  will  have  a  decided  preference 
lor  Benjamin  F.  Tracy  and  William  M.  Evarts.  The 
Bcheming  and  shallow  brain  of  this  man  advised 
what  doubtless  seemed  to  him  and  Moulton  a 
cunning  expedient  in  writing  this  letter  to  Mr.  Beecher. 
It  would  serve  to  repudiate  the  ac-t  of  his  agent,  Carpeu- 


Y  Mli.   FOETEE.  641 

ter,  if  his  negotiations  fail.  It  would  iiuicken  Mr.  Beeeher 
to  aid  these  negotiations  by  inducing  his  friends  to  ac- 
cede, unconditionally,  to  Mr.  Carpenter's  demands,  and 
to  enable  Tilton,  if  they  faUed,  to  put  himself  uiion  the 
lofty  ground  that  he  never  could  accept  an:\'thing  at  the 
hands  of  Heni-y  Ward  Beecher.  Tbe  eflLTontery  of  the 
blackmailer,  gentlemen,  is  curiously  illustrated  by  the 
fact,  admitted  03-  Moulton  in  his  cross-examination,  and 
without  appreciating  its  damning  effect  upon  him- 
self, that  on  this  same  2d  of  May  the  draft  was 
made  upon  that  very  fund  to  which  I  have  already  re- 
ferred, and  which  was  succeeded  by  a  draft  exhaust- 
ing the  fund.  And,  in  regard  to  Mr.  Carpenter,  gentle- 
men, I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the 
opening  of  this  case,  my  friend  Judge  Morris  distinctly 
announced  to  you  that  he  should  prove  by  Frank  Car- 
penter that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  confessed  to  him  his 
adultery  with  Elizabeth  E.  Tilton.  The  platatiflfe  closed 
tlitir  evidence,  but  the  busy  agent  of  Tilton  was  not 
called.  We  closed  ours,  and  they  went  through  their 
evidence,  still  Carpenter  was  not  called.  Moulton  came 
back;  Tilton  came  back;  Stephen  Pearl  Andi-ews  was 
brought;  everybody  was  brought  that  could  be  reached. 
You  saw  Frank  Carpenter  in  court  hovering  on  the  con- 
flues  of  the  ground.  This  man,  the  only  impartial  man 
who  ever  pretended  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  made 
such  a  confession  dare  not  appear.  Why  not  1  If  this  is 
not  a  manufactured  case,  how  does  it  hap- 
pen that  the  only  disinterested  witness  by 
whom  the  assertion  was  to  be  proved  is 
not  willing  to  confront  a  jury  with  his  oath  %  And  the 
same  counsel  indicated  to  you  in  his  opening  that  al- 
though :Mrs.  Bradshaw  might  not  be  able  to  prove  the 
confession  of  Hemy  Ward  Beecher,  she  would  at  least 
prove  the  confession  of  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton.  Of  course 
it  would  have  been  illegal,  but,  strangely  enough,  in  the 
com-se  of  their  evidence  they  called  her  to  the  stand  and 
introduced  in  evidence  a  letter  written  by  her  to  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  in  which  she  says,  with  all  the  woman's 
fervor  of  her  soul : 

I  do  n't  believe  the  infamous  charges  of  Theodore  Til- 
ton against  you,  and  Elizabeth,  his  wife,  has  never  con- 
fessed to  me  that  you  offered  her  an  indignity. 

Moulton  don't  fail;  Tilton  don't  fail;  Mrs.  Moulton  is 
here.  How  does  it  happen  that  the  witnesses  whom  the 
public  were  led  to  expect  are  not  here  ?  If  it  were  true, 
if  a  respectable  and  leading  artist  in  the  City  of  Brooklyn 
had  from  Henry  Ward  Beecher  such  a  confession,  do  you 
suppose  he  would  not  have  been  on  that  stand, 
the  man  who  was  willing  to  run  as  an  er- 
rand boy  in  behalf  of  Theodore  Tilton ;  and  to 
circulate  calumnies  against  Mr.  Beecher  in  the 
clubs,  who  has  been  even  here,— why  is  he  not  there  ? 
The  accusation  is  false.  He  did  not  swear  to  it,  because 
it  was  not  true,  not,  however,  because  the  other  side  did 
not  mean  to  prove  by  him  that  it  was  true.  Again, 


642 


THE   TILTON-BEEGREB  TBIAL. 


I  st.buiit  tliat  the  blackmail  purpose  of 
these  proceedings  is  still  further  illustrated 
by  the  fact  that  appears  in  Moulton's  testimony  at  page 
256  of  the  first  volume,  that  on  the  26th  of  tJi®  same 
month  of  May,  and  just  before  the  appearance  of  the 
Bacon  letter,  Moulton  and  Tilton  put  their  names  on  the 
back  of  the  last  draft  for  the  balance  of  Beecher's  $5,000, 
and  the  further  fact  that  on  that  date  Tilton's  account 
with  the  firm  of  Woodruff  &  Robinson  was  largely  over- 
drawn. ^ 

THE  ATTEMPT  TO  BLACKMAIL  PERSISTENT. 

Have  you  ever  doubted  where  that  Bacon  let- 
ter was  written  1  Now,  here,  too,  we  have  an  illustra- 
tion of  Moulton.  Here  Is  the  fact  that  The  Golden  Ape 
was  then  practically  bankrupt ;  that  it  was  on  the  eve  of 
being  turned  over  to  Clark  aa  a  sinking  concern ;  that 
Tilton  was  then  concocting  the  Bacon  letter;  that  Moul- 
ton, as  usual,  was  professing  to  oppose,  but  he  and  Tilton 
were  engaged  in  concocting,  in  the  hope  of  still  bringing 
the  friends  of  Beecher  to  contribute  further  sums  to  them 
under  the  name  of  charity.  Moulton  did  not  even  then 
abandon  the  purpose  in  which  for  the  time  he  seemed  to 
be  baffled.  Even  after  the  publication  of  the  Bacon  let- 
ter, with  his  usual  smooth  and  oily  duplicity, 
he  pretended  to  Mr.  Beecher  to  have  been 
opposed  to  its  publication,  and  he  had  the  cool  effrontery 
and  indiscretion  to  tell  Mr.  Beecher  that  he,  Frank  Moul- 
ton, had  offered  $5,000  in  gold  to  Theodore  Tilton  to  sup- 
press the  publication  of  that  letter.  Do  you  believe  he 
ever  intended  to  pay  $5,000  in  gold  to  Theodore  Tilton 
for  the  purpose  of  serving  Henry  Ward  Beecher  ?  Is  that 
the  man  t  This  is  the  same  man  who  obtained  the  whole 
heart  of  Mr.  Beecher  by  saying  to  him  on  one  occasion  : 
"  Why,  rather  than  have  a  suit  about  this  matter  of 
Bowen's,  which  might  by  possibility  bring  in  your  scan- 
dal, I  told  Tilton  I  would  pay  him  $7,000  out  of  my  own 
pocket,"  and  here  he  again  tells  him:  " I  offered  Theo- 
dore Tilton  $5,000  in  gold  not  to  publish 
this  Bacon  letter,  this  libel  upon  you."  Did 
he  think  him  a  blackmailer  1  Is  it  to  any  but 
blackmailers  that  such  oflfers  are  made  1  Of  course  he 
made  no  such  oflPer,  and  you  understand  why  the  sugges- 
tion was  made  to  Mr.  Beecher.  The  difference  was  in  the 
price.  It  was  an  intimation  to  3Ir.  Beecher  that  some 
other  friend  had  better  offer  him  $10,000,  and  the  letter 
would  then  be  suppressed.  My  friend  Shearman  calls 
my  attention  to  a  fact,  which  escaped  my  memory,  that 
he  followed  it  up  immediately  by  telling  Mr.  Beecher : 
*♦  Why,  you  had  better  give  him  your  whole  fortune  than 
have  such  a  slander  as  this  published." 

No  blackmailer!  Theodore  didn't  know  this;  he 
didn't  hear  it,  and  if  the  occasion  came  he  would  be 
ready  to  write  to  Mx*.  Beecher  a  letter  saying,  "  I  have 
learned  with  great  regret  and  sorrow  that  my  friend 
Moulton  has  coolly  proposed,  in  my  interest,  to  ask  you 


to  turn  over  to  me  your  whole  fortune.  I  wish  you 
distinctly  understand  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  no  authority 
for  any  such  proposition  from  me."  The  same  game.  It 
is  the  "  panel"  game  which  runs  throug;h  this  case.  I 
borrow  the  expression  from  my  friend  Mr.  Evarts,  as  ap- 
plied to  an  earlier  stage  of  this  matter,  of  which  I  shall 
not  speak,  because  I  want  you  to  hear  him.  Wby 
should  Frank  Moulton  pay  down  $5,000  in  gold 
from  his  own  funds  to  save  a  clerical  de- 
bauchee from  the  charge  of  playing  the  libertine  witli 
Theodore  Tilton's  wife  ?  It  was  a  bid  for  blackmail.  It 
was  cunningly  concocted  under  the  guise  of  the  mutual 
friend,  who  would  sacrifice  all  he  had  for  the  benign  pur- 
pose of  reconciling  an  adulterer  with  the  husband  of  bis 
paramour,  and  that  husband  his  closest  and  most  inti- 
mate friend.  If  Moulton  was  capable  of  an  act  of  such 
black  and  contemptible  infamy,  then  I  submit  to  you 
whether  his  fitting  home  is  not  in  the  lowest  haunts  of 
vice,  and  whether  he  should  not  recede  from  view,  and 
from  your  honored  Chief-Justice,  with  a  brand  upon  his 
forehead  which  hereafter  will  protect  honest  men  and 
honest  women  from  contact  with  one  so  vile  and  dastardly. 
Do  you  doubt  that  the  purpose  of  this  man  was  blackmail 
from  the  beginning?  Whoever  else  might  doubt,  Tilton 
perfectly  knew.  On  his  dismissal  from  The  Independent 
he  had  no  claim  against  Bowen  which  he  could  enforce  if 
the  actual  facts  were  known,  as  they  were  then  known  to 
him,  and  as  they  are  now  known  to  you.  iEven  Moultou 
acknowledged  the  fact  to  Beecher,  that  Bowen  charged 
Tilton  with  personal  immoralities,  which  would  bar  him 
from  a  recovery  under  the  contracts. 

Both  Tilton  and  Moulton  deny  the  truth  of  these  accu- 
sations, but  in  the  light  of  the  evidence  given  on  tliia 
trial  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  those  charges,  no 
doubt  that  Bowen,  in  fact,  had  a  perfect  defense.  Neither 
Moulton  nor  Tilton  dared  to  press  the  matter  to  an  issue 
in  the  courts  of  law  imtil  they  could  secure  alliance  with 
Mr.  Beecher's  friends,  which  would  enable  tham  to  bring 
to  bear  a  pressure  which  would  make  a  resort  to  arbitrs*- 
tlbn  safe,  the  thing  which  Mr.  Bowen  had  proposed  from 
the  beginning.  The  first  thing  to  be  done  was  to  convince 
Mr.  Beecher  that  Bowen  was  his  persistant  slanderer,  and 
his  bitter  and  malignant  enemy.  In  this  they  succeeded, 
but  it  took  time.  But  when  this  was  thoroughly 
■accomplished,  when  Moulton  had  been  enabled, 
by  the  aid  of  Beecher,  to  give  the  lie  to  his  calumnies 
against  the  defendant,  and  to  shake  in  the  teeth  of 
Bowen,  as  he  says  he  did,  the  statement  m  his  o\ni 
handwriting  of  every  isv'^ue  which  he  ever  had  with 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  Moulton  still  objected  to  arbitrate, 
objected  even  to  bringing  suit  at  that  stage  of  the  mat- 
ter, on  the  ground  that  Bowen  ought  to  reinstate  Tilton 
in  The  Independent.  That  was  the  original  aim,  as  I 
have  stated.  But  the  scenes  shifted,  their  objeetB 
changed,  and  their  devices  changed  with  the  purpoaea 
they  were  intended  to  subserve,  and  the  error  or  the 


SU31MMG    UF  BY  ME.  FOBTEB. 


643 


brood  throTigliout  the  conspiracy  is  in  assuming  that 
men  who  c  uspire  in  the  beginning  never  change  the 
purposes,  the  objects,  and  the  modes  to  gain  the 
ultimate  end.  Frank  Moulton  and  Theodore  Tilton 
fvould  to-daj  be  very  far  Irom  the  enemies  or  ac- 
cusers of  Mr.  Beecher  M  fortune  had  favored  them  both, 
if  Moulton  had  grown  rich  as  fast  as  he  wanted  to,  and 
if  Tilton  had  been  permitted  to  enjoy  an  income  of 
$15,000  to  $20,000  a  year;  but  there  are  men  who  live 
not  for  others,  as  Henry  Ward  Beecher  does,  but  for 
themselves.  They  had  their  common  purposes  to  gain. 
Both  of  thefli  were  mean  shams,  who  wanted  to  be 
thought  real  men.  Moulton,  who  wanted  the  reputation 
of  wealth  and  literary  ability;  Tilton,  who  wanted  the 
reputation  of  being  the  most  magnanimous  man  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  and  the  most  indifferent  to  money,  but 
with  his  pockets  full.  Mr.  Beecher  said,  as  you  will  re- 
member, "  Why  not  arbitrate  ?  If. you  don't  arbitrate, 
why  not  sue?"  Moulton  knew  what  Beecher  did  not 
know,  and  that  is,  that  Bo  wen  had  a  perfect  defense; 
but  to  Beecher  he  pretended  the  time  had  not  yet  oome. 
("To  the  jurors] :  May  I  go  on  a  little  while  longer  % 

Judge  Neilson— One  of  the  jurymen  has  been  complain- 
ing.  I  will  hear  you  in  the  morning. 

fTo  Mr.  Jeflteys,  one  of  the  jurors]— Do  you  wish  to  ad- 
journ 1 

Mr.  Jeffreys— I  would  rather  adjourn. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  we  wUl  adjourn.  Return  to-mor- 
row morning  at  11  o'clock. 

The  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  Wednesday  at 
11  o'clock.   

I     NINETY-FIRST  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

j     JUDGE  PORTER'S  SUMMING  UP  FINISHED. 
A  juror's  sickness  delays  the  beginning  of 

MR.  EVARTS'S  ADDRESS— THE  COURT  ADJOURNED 
WITHOUT  AN  AFTERNOON  SESSION— THE  CHARGES 
OF  BLACKMAIL  CONSIDERED  BY  JUDGE  PORTER 
—IMPROBABILITY  OF  MRS.  MOULTON'S  TESTI- 
MONY CONCERNING  A  CONFESSION  BY  MR. 
BEECHER  ASSERTED— WELL-KNOWN  PHRASES 
ASCRIBED  TO  MR.  TILTON  INSTEAD  OF  MR. 
BEECHER — CHARACTER  OF  THE  VERDICT  EX- 
PECTED   BY  TELE  DEFENSE. 

Wednesday,  May  26,  1875. 
The  crowded  assembly  of  persons  who  had  again 
come  together  expecting  to  hear  Judge  Por- 
ter close  and  Mr.  Evarts  begin  his  argu- 
ment for  Mr.  Beecher,  was  kept  impa- 
tiently waiting  for  20  minutes  yesterday  after  the 
regular  hour  for  opening  arrived.  Mr.  Evarts  first, 
and  afterward  Mr.  Beach  and  Judge  Porter,  went 
around  to  th©  left  of  the  j  my  box  and  talked  with 


one  of  the  jurors,  Mr.  Jefeeys,  who  was  suffering 
from  some  disorder  of  the  stomach,  which,  it  will  be 
remembered,  at  an  earlier  period  in  the  trial  caused 
him  a  lit  of  sickness.  The  other  jurors  watched  these 
proceedings  with  anxious  faces.  Judge  Neilson  was 
also  consulted,  and  the  words  '*  Another  adjourn- 
ment" began  to  be  whispered  about  the  room,  while 
many  faces  wore  looks  of  disappointment. 
It  finally  came  to  be  understood  that 
Mr.  Jefireys  really  felt  unable  to  sit  in  the 
jury-bos,  but  that  he  had  consented  to  remain  until 
recess  in  order  to  give  Judge  Porter  an  opportunity 
to  complete  his  argument. 

When  the  hour  for  recess  arrived,  Judge  Porter's 
address  having  been  completed,  i\Ir.  Carpenter,  the 
foreman  of  the  jury,  addressing  Judge  Neilson,  said 
that  Mr.  Jefireys  felt  unable  to  remain  in  the  jury- 
box  during  the  afternoon.  Judge  Neilson  asked  the 
sick  juror  if  an  adjournment  until  to-morrow  would 
answer  his  purpose,  and  ho  replied  that  it  would.  The 
court  was  then  adjourned. 

Judge  Porter  began  the  closing  portion  of  his  argu- 
ment by  a  further  consideration  of  the  charge  of 
blackmail.  Mrs.  Moulton's  evidence  about  her 
alleged  conversation  with  Mr.  Beecher  was  also  a 
principal  topic  for  review.  This  evidence,  the  orator 
asserted,  was  improbable.  The  phrase  "  a  section 
of  the  day  of  judgment,"  which  IVIrs.  Moulton  tes- 
tified that  Mr.  Beecher  used  to  describe  her  in  her 
relations  to  him,  was  referred  to  with  keen  sarcasm 
by  Judge  Porter.  "I  am  afraid,"  he  said,  smiling, 
and  glancing  toward  Mr.  Tilton,  "  that  the 
author  of  that  phrase  was  the  author 
of  '  paroxysmal  kiss,'  and  '  standing  on  the 
brink  of  a  moral  Niagara.'  "  Mrs.  Moulton's  testi- 
mony on  this  point  was  reviewed,  and  analyzed, 
sentence  by  sentence.  The  tendency  of  witnesses  to 
make  honest  mistakes,  and  to  be  deceived  when  they 
think  they  are  sure  of  what  they  assert,  was  dwelt 
upon  at  some  length,  and  considerations  to  be  taken 
into  account  in  weighing  the  testimony  of  ^Irs. 
Moulton  were  pointed  out.  When  a  few  minutes  be- 
fore 1  o'clock  Judge  Porter  in  a  low,  earnest  voice 
said,  *•  Gentlemen  I  must  close,"  there  was 
a  stir  in  the  audience  followed  by  dead  silence. 
The  orator  then  began  the  closing  words 
of  his  address.  He  summed  up,  in  brief, 
much  of  his  preceding  argument.  "Moulton,"  he 
said,  "  the  main  prop  of  this  prosecution,  stands  be- 
fore you  confi-onting  oath  to  oath  men  like  Claflin, 
Storrs,  Freeland,  his  own  partner,"  &c.  "  In  regard 
to  Theodore  Tilton,"  he  added,  "  he  has  the  misfor- 


644 


THE   TILIOI^-BEECHER  IRIAL. 


tune  not  only  to  have  opposed  his  oath  to  that  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  but  on  vital  and  material 
points,  about  which  there  can  be  no  mistake,  ne 
stands  contradicted  by  34  witnesses  who  have  no 
interest  in  this  case  except  the  interest  which  be- 
longs to  us  all." 

The  orator  praised  Gen.  Tracy,  thanked  Judge 
Neilson  for  his  kindness,  and  acknowledged  the  just- 
ness of  his  rulings,  and  declared  his  own  reluctance 
to  part  with  the  case.  Finally,  addressing  the  jury, 
he  spoke  of  their  verdict.  "  The  verdict,"  he  ex- 
claimed, "is  to  be  one  which  will  gladden  many,  many 
hearts,  a  verdict  which  will  illuminate  Brooklyn 
Hights,  a  verdict  which  will  send  an  electric  thrill  of 
joy  through  Christendom." 


THE  PEOCEEDINGS-VERBATTM. 

'  ME.  POSTER  CLOSES  HIS  ARGUMENT. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Porter— If  it  please  tour  Honor— Gentlemen 
OP  THE  Jury  :  I  am  grateful  to  you  all,  l)ut  especially  to 
that  member  of  your  body  who  lias  kindly  consented  to 
sit  until  recess  to  enable  me  to  close  my  argument^  al- 
tliougli  perhaps  It  may  he  at  the  peril  of  his  own  health. 

THE   DEVELOPMENT  OF   THE  BLACKMAIL 
PLOT. 

As  I  have  said,  the  first  object  of  Moulton 
and  Tilton  was  to  reinstate  the  latter  in  Tlie  InclejJendent. 
That  f aUed.  The  Golden  Age  was  started.  By  their  adroit 
contrivances  and  appeals  to  the  generosity  of  the  friends 
of  Mr.  Beecher,  they  were  led  to  contribute  $6,000  of  the 
$12,000  which  was  to  be  the  capital  of  the  concern. 
Messrs.  Schultz,  Southwlck,  and  others,  set  that  enter- 
prise on  foot.  Mr.  Tilton,  after  his  connection  with  the 
Woodhulls,  scuttled  the  ship  which  had  been  favorably 
launched.  The  debts  of  the  concern  came  to  be  large  ;  its 
receipts  were  small.  There  was  nothing  before  it, 
nothing  before  him,  but  disaster  and  bankruptcy.  Tilton 
had  sunk  so  hopelessly  by  his  intermediate  alliance  with 
spiritualism  and  free  love  that  it  endangered  even  that 
portion  of  the  fortunes  of  Moulton  and  Woodruff  which 
they  had  embarked  in  the  sinking  craft.  Of  course  they 
cared  for  no  one  but  themselves,  but  caring  for  themselves 
they  were  from  the  necessity  of  their  position  compelled 
to  protect  all  the  subscribers  who  stood  in  a  correspond- 
ing relation.  To  the  end  that  they  might  be  relieved  from 
half  their  subscriptions,  money  must  be  had,  and  money 
was  obtained.  The  idea  of  reinstatement  in  The  Inde- 
pendent had  been  abandoned,  and  now  the  time  had  come 
to  strike.  Bowen  must  be  reached.  He  was  not  a  man 
of  a  conciliatory  temper,  and  more  especially  when  ix 


came  to  paying  money  that  he  did  not  owe.  Other  in- 
fluences must  be  brought  to  bear.  These  printed  slips  ap- 
pear, containing  the  letter  of  the  1st  of  January  from 
Theodore  Tilton  to  Henry  C.  Bowen,  which  if  published 
to  the  world  would  leave  upon  him  the  impress  of  a  foul 
and  deliberate  libelor.  But  it  was  needful  that  a  pres- 
sure should  be  brought  to  bear  upon  Mr.  Bowen 
beyond  that,  because  the  mere  name  of  libeler 
was  not  enough  to  draw  money  from  his  purse 
when  its  strings  were  tight  drawn.  It  needed 
the  pressure  of  the  men  of  strength  in  Brook- 
lyn. It  needed  the  pressure  of  men  like  Storrs,  men  like 
Claflin,  men  like  Cleveland,  men  like  Sage.  And  how 
was  that  pressure  to  be  brought  to  bear  1  Ah !  from  the 
beginning  that  had  all  been  provided  for ;  for  the  same 
letter  which  would  blast  Bowen  as  a  libeler  would  also 
bring  under  a  cloud  of  suspicion  the  honored  name  of 
the  pastor  of  Plymouth  'Church.  Then  he  finds  his  way 
to  Wilkeson.  Meantime  these  slips,  printed  apparently 
for  publication,  were  not  published;  carried  about; 
shown  in  privacy  from  man  to  man ;  well  worn,  even 
when  presented  to  Wilkeson.  The  type  were  distributed. 
They  were  slips  for  blackmail,  and  so  intended  from  the 
beginning.  And  that  pistol  did  not  miss  fire— it  brought 
the  money ;  it  brought  not  merely  the  money,  but,  in  the 
language  of  Theodore  Tilton,  it  brought  the 
"  spoils."  Meantime  $2,000  had  been  got  from 
Mr.  Beecher,  under  the  pretense  of  Tilton's  inability 
to  pay  the  expenses  of  Bessie  Turner.  Five  hundred  dol- 
lars in  bills,  as  Woodruff  discloses,  had  been  obtained  for 
the  purpose  of  contributing  to  the  expenses  of  Theodore 
Tilton's  family.  Five  thousand  dollars  had  been  obtained 
from  Henry  Ward  Beecher  by  trick,  by  contrivance,  by  ap- 
peals to  his  generosity  and  his  sense  of  having  wronged 
this  family.  Five  thousand  dollars  was  obtained,  and  in 
bills,  by  putting  a  paper  roof  over  the  house  in  which 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  his  wife,  his  children,  and  his 
grandchildren  had  their  home.  Then  come  the  demands 
on  Mr.  Beecher's  friends  for  more ;  then  comes  the  re- 
monstrance that  this  is  blackmail;  then  comes  the  sug- 
gestion of  Frank  Moulton  to  Mr.  Beecher,  "  I  offered  him 
$5,000  in  gold,  and  it  was  not  enough ;"  then  came  the 
suggestion  to  which  I  referred  yesterday,  "  Your  whole 
fortune  had  better  be  sacrificed  than  have  the  Bacon  let- 
ter appear." 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  shall  say  nothing  more  on  blackmail, 
except  to  recaU  in  this  connection  a  circumstance  to 
which  I  before  directed  your  attention,  that  even  after 
that,  Theodore  Tilton,  denying  the  charge  that  he  was  a 
blackmailer,  said  to  Jackson  S.  Schultz,  "  I  will  blow  the 
roof  from  Plymouth  Chuich,  unless  Plymouth  Church 
comes  to  my  terms."  Plymouth  Chiu"cb  didn'r,  and  its 
roof  still  stands.  Then  came,  even  after  the  Bacon  letter, 
for  that  too  was  a  blackmail  letter,  although  the  type 
were  not  distributed ;  it  was  a  letter  so  shaped  as  to  be 
consistent  with  innocence  or  guilt  on  the  part  of  Mr» 


SUMMING    UP  BY  ME.  PORTER. 


645 


Beecher,  to  admit  of  either  construction,  and  tlie  faTora- 
ble  construction  was  for  sale. 

THE  CAEPENTER  CARD. 
After  tliat  letter,  when  Tilton  and  Monlton 
•were  concocting  tliis  suit,  wlien  t2iey  were  conferring 
with  Mrs.  Moulton  about  testifying  in  this  suit,  tte  Car- 
penter card  is  prepared.  It  was  pressed  upon  Mr. 
Beeclier  again  and  again.  Gentlemen,  this  paper  has 
fatal  force  when  you  come  to  consider  the  surroundings 
which  point  to  the  motives  of  those  who  originated  it. 
Remember  the  situation.  The  "  Tripartite  Agreement" 
has  been  published;  the  "Bacon  Letter"  has  been  pub- 
lished; the  "Bacon  Letter"  embodies  a  gar- 
bled copy  of  the  "Apology;"  it  is  before  the  world ;  it 
means  adultery,  or  it  doesn't  mean  adidtery ;  and  the 
question  is  to  be  determined  which  it  means.  Upon  the 
instant  when  that  letter  appeared,  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
challenged  the  issue,  called  for  an  iUTestigation.  Moul- 
ton remonstrated  against  his  call  for  a  Committee,  be- 
cause it  was  a  breach  of  faith.  What,  a  breach  of 
faith  1  Yes,  for  Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  pledged  him- 
self to  the  policy  of  silence.  You  see  there  where  the 
policy  of  silence  originated.  That  pledge  was  exacted 
by  Tilton  and  Moulton  for  their  own  purposes,  and  the 
moment  that  Mr.  Beecher  came  out  and  demanded  an  in- 
vestigation he  was  charged  with  breach  of  faith  and 
honor.  And  yet  these  men  who  thus  construe  pledges 
were  the  very  men  who  had  concocted  that  "  Bacon 
Letter."  Was  that  in  accordance  with  the  policy  of 
silence  ?  Who  had  published  the  "  Apology,"  the  first 
words  of  which  were,  "  In  trust  with  Francis 
D.  Moulton,"  and  which  was  published  without 
the  consent  of  the  ceshd  qui  trust  f  It  was  a 
policy  of  silence  to  be  observed  by  Beecher 
and  TO  be  trampled  by  them.  He  said  the  time  had  come 
when  there  must  be  investigation  ;  yet  still  deceived  in 
Moulton,  believing  that  it  was  Tilton  who  had  overruled 
liim,  that  Moulton  could  not  control  him,  he  proceeds  to 
call  his  Investigating  Committee.  Now  comes  the  next 
device.  Moulton  swears  that  he  and  Theodore  Tilton 
held  a  conference  together ;  that  in  pui-suance  of  that 
conference  he,  in  Tilton's  presence,  dictated— of  course 
you  know  what  that  means;  it  means  that  Theodore 
Tilton  dictated— to  Frank  Moulton  this  card.  Observe, 
gentlemen,  Henry  Ward  JBeecher  was  guilty  or  inno- 
cent. Whether  guilty  or  innocent  he  knew  it. 
They  tender  to  him  this  card;  he  refuses 
to  sign  it.  They  tender  it  to  Gen. 
Tracy;  he  advises  him  to  refuse  to  sign  it.  It  is 
again  and  again  presented  to  them  and  urged  by  Moulton. 
Mr.  Beecher  answered :  "I  can't  sign  it."  "But  Tilton 
has  pledged  himself  that  if  you  either  sign  that  card  or 
read  it  at  Plymouth  Chui'ch,  so  that  it  may  end  this  in- 
vestigation, it  shall  end  this  whole  matter  forever."  "  I 
cannot  trust  Theodore  Tilton."   "  Oli!  but  yovL  can  trust 


me.  If  Theodore  Tilton  doesn't  keep  faith  with  you  I  will 
griud  him  to  powder ;  I  wUl  stand  by  you  from  that  time 
forever.  I  will  bum  that  '  Apology,'  and  every 
paper  I  hold  to  which  Tilton  could  resort 
for  the  purpose  of  impeaching  your  honor." 
What  was  it  they  asked  him  to  sign?  This 
paper  dictated  at  Delmonico's  saloon  in  New- York,  at  a 
conference  between  these  two  blackmailers,  dictated  in 
the  presence  of  that  Frank  Carpenter  who  was  to  have 
been  brought  forward  to  prove  confessions,  that  Frank 
Carpenter  of  whom  Judge  Morris  said,  in  his  opening 
speech,  at  page  55  of  the  first  volume : 

But,  gentlemen,  we  do  not  rest  our  case  upon  the  testi- 
mony furnished  by  Mr.  Beecher  himself  alone.  We  go 
further  than  that ;  we  will  put  upon  the  stand  Mr.  Car- 
penter, whose  veracity,  I  apprehend,  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned in  this  court,  and  to  him,  we  may  say,  Mr.  Beecher 
made  his  confession.  But,  gentlemen,  we  shall  not  stop 
there. 

And  he  proceeds  to  state  what  else  they  will  prove  : 
that  Frank  Carpenter  was  the  amanuensis  of  Theodore 
Tilton  and  Francis  D.  Moulton  at  that  conference  at  Del- 
monico's ;  and  this  is  the  card  which  they  had  cooked  up 
for  the  purpose  of  entrapping  Mr.  Beecher  once  more  into 
the  admission  of  an  undefined  offense,  so  that  they  might 
afterwards  come  in  and  define  it  for  him  as  adultery.  If 
Beecher  was  guilty ;  if  he  had  lived  a  year  and  a  half  in 
adultery  with  one  of  his  own  communicants ;  if  he  had 
polluted  his  own  house  and  hers  with  debauchery ;  if  he 
had  confessed  it  to  Theodore  Tilton  face  to  face ; 
if  he  had  confessed  it  to  Frank  Moulton  month 
after  month  and  year  after  year  ;  if  he  had  confessed  it 
to  IMrs.  Moulton  again  and  again ;  if  INIrs.  Tilton  had 
charged  it  upon  him  and  confessed  that  he  and  she  had 
been  guilty,  and  had  made  that  confession  in  writing ;  if 
he  had  authorized  Frank  Moulton  to  communicate  the 
fact  that  he  was  an  adulterer  to  two  respectable  members 
of  his  own  firm  ;  if,  more  than  that,  he  had  authorized 
him,  in  a  conference,  to  communicate  that  fact  to  Ben- 
jamin F.  Tracy  and  to  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  or  to  Samuel 
D.  Morris  ;  if  everybody  knew  it ;  nay,  more,  if  he  had 
acknowledged  and  ratended  to  acknowledge  it  in  that 
"  Apology,"  when  he  sees  Frank  Moulton  ready  to  come 
out  on  his  side,  to  bring  his  wife  to  his  rescue  and  turn 
these  papers  to  ashes,  why  is  it  that  he  refuses  to  sign 
this  simple  card  1  Let  me  read  it  to  you.  He  was  merely 
to  stand  up  in  his  own  lecture-room  and  utter  these 
words : 

This  church  and  community  are  unquestionably  and 
justly  interested  through  the  recent  publication  by  Theo- 
dore Tilton  in  answer  to  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon  of  New-Ha- 
ven. It  is  true  that  I  have  committed  an  offense  against 
Theodore  Tilton,  and  giving  to  that  ofiense  the  force  of 
his  construction,  I  make  an  apology  and  reparation,  such 
as  both  he  and  I  declared  full  and  necessary.  I  am  con- 
vinced that  Mr.  Tilton  has  been  goaded  to  his  defense  by 
misrepresentations  or  misunderstandings  of  my  position 
toward  him.  I  shall  never  be  a  party  to  the  reopening  of 
this  question,  which  has  been  honorably  settled  as  be- 


646 


^RE   TLLTO^-BEEOEEB  TRIAL. 


tween  Theodore  Tilton  and  myself.  I  have  committed  no 
crime,  and  if-  this  Society  believes  that  it  is  due  to  it  that 
I  should  reopen  this  already  too  painful  subject,  or  re- 
sign, I  will  resign.  I  know,  as  God  gives  me  power  to 
judge  of  myself,  that  I  am  better  fitted  to-day  through 
trials  and  chastening  to  do  good  than  I  have  ever  been. 

The  utterance  of  these  simple  words,  dictated  by  Theo- 
dore, and  by  which  Franli  Moulton  had  pledged  himself 
to  abide,  would  have  ended  this  investigation  and  would 
have  prevented  this  action,  as  Mr.  Beecher  then  believed, 
for  he  still  trusted  and  believed  in  the  treacherous  Moul- 
ton. But  he  had  lost  faith,  not  in  him,  but  in  Theodore 
Tilton,  and  he  meant  to  meet  this  Issue.  There  were 
three  who  knew  he  was  innocent— Elizabeth  R.  Tilton, 
who  might  or  might  not  be  made  to  be  one  of  his  ac- 
cusers ;  himself,  and  that  God  whom  he  served  ;  and  his 
faith  in  truth,  in  innocence,  and  in  right  led  this  coward, 
as  my  friend  Judge  Morris  calls  him,  to  stand  firm  and 
erect  and  say,  "  Never  I  never !  that  card  is  a  falsehood. 
It  is  entirely  true  that  I  committed  an  offense  against 
Theodore  Tilton,  an  offense  against  him  in  slandering 
Mm,  in  making  against  him  false  charges  which  I  believed 
to  be  true  and  repeated  to  his  employer.  It  is  true  that  I 
was  the  unconscious  means  of  alienating  the  affection  of 
his  wife.  But  this  implies  more,  and  read  in  the  light  of 
the  Bacon  Letter,  while  it  of  course  exonerates  me  from 
the  charge  of  adultery  made  by  the  Woodhulls,  it  will 
lead  ail  mankind  to  believe  that  I  did  make  improper 
proposals  to  that  woman.  I  never  did,  and  I  will  not  say 
It."  Is  that  the  language  of  guilt  or  of  innocence  ? 


MRS.  MOULTON'S  POSITION. 
Gentlemen,  in  speaking  of  the  testimony  of 
Mrs.  Moulton  I  should  be  wanting  in  the  noblest  elements 
of  manhood  if  I  failed  to  make  every  allowance,  con- 
sistent with  the  innocence  of  my  client,  which  the  in- 
stincts of  gentlemanly  feeling  or  the  broadest  Christian 
charity  can  suggest.  This  is  her  due  in  right  of  her 
womanhood,  even  though  her  oath  were  a  poisoned  dag- 
ger—poisoned, not  by  her,  not  by  her,  but  by  her  hus- 
band, to  drive  home  to  the  heart  of  the  pastor  from 
whom  she  has  often  received  the  bread  and  the  wine 
which  typify  the  body  and  the  blood  of  the  Savior, 
through  whose  forgiving  love  you  and  I,  unworthy  as  we 
may  be,  still  hope  for  final  salvation.  This  is  her  due, 
even  if  she  really  believed  that  the  unreturned  kiss 
which  she  says  she  gave  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  in  the 
privacy  of  a  lady's  chamber,  and  in  the  absence  of  her 
husband,  was  given  to  a  confessed  adulterer,  to  a 
perjured  hypocrite,  with  whom  her  conscience  would  not 
permit  her  to  commune,  and  who  frankly  avowed  his 
purpose  in  her  presence  that  day  or  the  next  to  commit 
self  murder,  a  crime  so  odious  to  God  that  it  was  made 
the  punishment  of  the  betrayer  of  the  Redeemer ;  a 
crime  so  odious  to  men  that  it  was  punished  by  the 
Common  Law  of  England  by  burial  of  the  culprit  at  the 
cross-roads  beneath  the  horses'  hoofs,  and  with  a  stake 


driven  through  his  body.   Hers  is  the  testimony  of 
woman  against  a  woman,  one  whom  she  admits  she  nev 
loved,  one  whom  her  husband  hated,  as  he  admits  o 
oath,  at  least  from  the  time  of  his  return  from  Florid" 
in  the  Spring  of  1871.  Hers  is  the  testimony  of  a  woma 
against  a  clergyman  to  whom  she  continued  to  profess  t' 
warmest  frienship,  even  after,  as  she  admits,  it  had  be 
arranged  between  her  and  her  husband,  and  without  t' 
knowledge  of  Mr.  Beecher,  in  July,  1874,  that  her  tes 
mony  was  not  to  be  given  before  the  Church  Committ' 
but  to  be  kept  in  reserve  for  a  contemplated  suit  at  la 
then  meditated  by  her  husband  and  Theodore  Tilt 
against  a  man  they  were  still  endeavoring  to  deceive  a 
ensnare.  I  shall  exercise  toward  her  the  forbearan 
due  to  her  sex,  a  forbearance  which  she  has  not  exercis 
to  one  whom  she  received  under  her  own  roof  as 
honored  guest,  and  to  whom  she  accorded  f  a-^^rs  whl 
virtuous  women  never  accord  to  known  and  confess 
adulterers.  It  has  been  su2:gested  by  the  enemies  of  m 
client  that  I  have  dealt  discourteously  with  the  perjure 
blackmailers  who  sought  to  destroy  him.   I  appeal 
your  consciences  and  the  conviction  of  your  understan 
ings  based  upon  the  evidence.   If  Mr.  Beecher  be  a  p- 
jured  adulterer,  as  they  would  have  you  believe,  and 
perhaps  they  themselves  believe,  I  fully  justify  the  bitt 
denunciations  you  have  already  heard  from  my  frien 
Judge  Morris,  and  those  more  polished  but  more  dead" 
which  you  have  already  heard  and  will  hear  hereaft 
from  my  eloquent  friend,  the  senior  counsel  for  the  pr 
ecution.   If  he  is  innocent  these  men  are  false  accuse" 
If  this  is  a  case  of  conspiracy  and  perjury  it  would 
monstrous  that  a  sworn  advocate  of  the  New-York  B 
should  hesitate  in  a  tribunal  of  justice,  and  in  defense" 
a  non-combatant,  to  denounce  guilt  and  to  protect  inn 
cence.  But  you  will  bear  in  mind  that  nothing  I  ha 
uttered  in  your  presence  even  approaches  in  severity  a 
bitterness  the  language  which  this  cultivated  lady  swea 
she  uttered  beneath  her  own  roof,  to  her  own  guest, 
her  reverend  and  gray-haired  pastor!    Listen  while 
read,  and  tell  me  whether  in  your  own  minds  you  do  u 
know  that  she  is  mistaken  as  to  the  conversation  she  r 
ports;  whether  you  don't  know  that  it  is  impossible  that 
lady  30  years  of  age,  and  bred  in  good  society,  coul 
stand  in  the  presence  of  a  gentleman  whose  hairs  we 
gray,  who  already  began  to  tremble  and  sway  fi'om  th 
influence  of  age ;  above  all,  whether  she  could  thus  talk 
to  such  a  man  when  she  believed  he  stood  within  twelve 
hours  of  the  judgment  seat;  when  she  believed  he  was 
capable  of  self-murder  ;  when  she  believed  he  was  equal 
to  perjury,  to  baseness,  to  breach  of  trust,  to  all  that  was 
foul  and  false  and  dishonorabie. 

MRS.  MOULTON'S  TESTIMONY  ANALYZED. 

Let  me  read  her  account  of  what  transpired 
in  that  interview  and  see  whether  it  is  language  such  as 
you  would  expect  your  daughter,  your  wife,  your  sistor. 


SUMMiyG-    rP  BY  ME.  FUEIEE. 


647 


or  any  respectable  woman  -wlioni  you  knoTr,  tu  address  to 
ter  own  truest,  and  tliat  guest  on  tlie  edge  of  deatli  : 

I  stood  "beliind  "him  and  put  my  liand  on  Ms  slioulder. 
and  I  said,  "  [Mr.  Beeclier,  if  you  will  only  go  down  to 
the  churcli,  Frank  will  go  wltti  you  ;  he  will  stand  hy  you 
through  everything :  it  does  not  matter  what  comes  to  you 
he  wiU  always  he  your  friend,  and,  no  matter  what  comes, 
I  will  always  he  your  friend  if  you  will  only  go  down  to  the 
chm'ch  and  confess,  hecause  that  is  the  only  way  out  for 
you  ;  I  am  convinced  of  that ;  you  can  never  cover  such 
a  crime  as  this  and  continue  in  the  pulpit,  except  through 
a  confession  on  your  own  part ;  you  have  heen  guilty  of 
crime  and  you  must  take  the  responsibility  upon  your- 
self,  and  suffer  the  penalty."  And  hie  said :  Well,  I 
never  gather  much  comfort  from  you  ;  you  are  always  to 
me  like  a  section  of  the  day  of  judgment." 

I  am  afraid  the  author  of  that  phrase  was  the  author 
of  the  "  paroxysmal  kiss"  and  the  author  of  "  standing  on 
the  brink  of  amoral  is"iagara."  Henry  Ward  Beecheris 
not  the  man  who  believes  in  splitting  the  Day  of  Judg- 
ment into  sections.  [Laughter.]  That  is  one  of  the 
ideas  of  free  love. 

And  I  said,  "  Well,  I  feel  great  sympathy  for  you,  but  I 
don't  see  how  you  can  continue  in  this  sort  of  life  :  living 
u  lie ;"— [mark  you,  that  is  to  dissuade  him  from  eom- 
mining  suicide]—"  going  into  your  pulpit  and  preaching 
Sunday  after  Sunday."  I  said,  "I  have  never  heard  you 
preach,  since  I  knew  the  truth,  that  I  haven't  felt  that  I 
was  standtug  by  an  open  grave ;  I  cannot  express  to  you 
the  an.guish  and  the  sorrow  that  it  has  caused  me  to 
know  what  I  have  of  your  life.  I  believed  in  you  since  I 
was  a  giri— believed  you  were  the  only  good  man  on 
earth." 

What,  not  Frank !  Not  Theodore  1  IsTo  good  man  but 
Jlr.  Beecher  ?  "  ifow.  It  lias  destroyed  my  faith  in  hu- 
man nature  "—an  interesting  psychological  fact;  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  she  might  have  selected  some  other  au- 
ditor for  it  than  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  *'  I  don't  believe 
anybody,"  and  yet  she  asks  you  to  believe  in 
her.  "  I  don't  go  to  church ;  all  my  inter- 
est in  the  Church  and  in  you  is  gone." 
This  was  the  lady  vho  told  him  how  deep  a  sympathy 
she  felt  for  him  a  short  time  ago,  while  she  was  convinc- 
ing him  thnt  he  had  lived  too  long,  and  that  it  was 
time  for  him  to  die.  "  And  1  am  sure  I  cannot  respeet 
you  unless  you  manifest  to  me  that  you  are  sincerely  re- 
pentant by  going  down  to  the  church  and  confessing 
your  crime.  It  is  very  hard  for  ait,  Tilton  to  be  abused  by 
your  friends,  and  to  be  charged  with  treating  his  family 
ill— his  unMnduess  to  his  -^vife.  while  he  feels  that 
you  are  principally  the  cause  of  all  his  trouble.  It  is 
very  hard  for  him ;  it  is  very  hard  for  all  concerned  If 
you  are  only  a  mind  to  take  this  case  -into  your  own 
hands,  you  can  settle  it  by  confession.  Your  people  will 
stand  by  you ;  they  believe  In  you ;  they  wiU  forgive  this 
one  crime  that  you  say  "—and  by  the  way,  we  have  a  re- 
porter here,  a  reporter,  and  a  reporter  to  whom !  To 
Senry  Ward  Beecher,  And  of  whati   Why  of  what 


'  H-niy  Ward  Beecher  had  said  to  her.  and  whleii  pre- 
j  sumptively  he  had  forgotten,  and  she  therefore  had  to 
I  repeat  for  him. 

They  will  forgive  this  one  crime  that  you  say  you  have 
committed,  and  which  you  have— which  you  say  you  have 
— sincerely  repented  of,  and  you  believe  you  have  been 
forgiven,  and  you  feel  that  you  are  better  able  now,  than 
ever  before,  to  do  great  good  in.  the  world,  if  you  can  only 
be  allowed  to  go  on  to  the  end  of  your  life  without  all  the 
;  particulars  of  this  case  being  made  known;  that  is  all 
j  that  you  ask:  and  if  the  facts  are  to  come  out,  you  want 
I  to  go  out  of  life  :  that  you  cannot  live;  that  you  cannot 
1  endure  it  any  longer;  physically  and  mentally  you  are 
j  worn  out,  and  it  is  only  with  the  greatest  care  that  you 
I  have  been  able  to  preach  Sunday  after  Sunday, 
j     And  that  is  the  report  a  lady  gives  of  a  conversation 
I  which  occurred,  according  to  her  account  of  it,  IS  months, 
\  two  years,  I  know  not  how  long  ago,  and  of  which  she 
I  took  no  memorandum,  and  which  she  in  this  wise  repeats 
and  commends  to  you  for  belief.    I  grant  that  she  may 
believe  it ;  the  question  is  whether  you  may  not  believe 
that  she  is  mistaken.    Don't  y  u  really  think  that  she 
makes  about  as  poor  a  fist  as  a  reporter  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  as  h.er  husband  does  %  We  have  seen  what  sort 
of  a  reporter  he  is  in  the  "  Apology,"  and  in  the  resigna- 
tion. You  see  what  sort  of  a  reporter  she  is  in  this  por- 
tion of  her  examination.  Again : 

He  said  he  had  n't  any  fear  of  death  ;  he  rather  longed 
for  it  as  a  release  from  all  trouble  and  all  the  anxietv  and 
all  the  anguish  of  mind  and  remorse  that  he  had 
suffered  and  was  suffering  daily;  expressed  to  me  Ms 
great  gratitude  for  my  sympathy, 

A  sTTnpathy  wMch  has  been  illustrated  by  the  passage 
I  have  read  to-day,  wMch  was  illustrated  by  the  passage 
I  read  to  you  yesterday,  in  wMch  she  says  to  this  reverend 
man  : 

You  have  lived  four  years  an  adulterer,  a  liar,  and  a 
perjurer. 

I  do  not  use  her  language,  but  you  will  remember  the 
general  tenor  of  the  expressions. 

:Mr.  Shearman— Do  you  want  the  passage!  [Handing 
book  to  Mr.  Porter.] 

^Ir.  Porter — My  friend  calls  my  attention  to  the  precise 
language   [reading]  : 

Xow,  you  haA-e  seen,  Mr.  Beecher.  how  much  better  it 
would  have  been  if  you  had  taken  my  advice  in  the  be- 
ginning, and  made  the  confession  to  your  church,  and 
then  you  would  have  only  the  oilguial  sin  to  answer  for, 
and  now  you  have  four  years  of  lying  and  perjury  to 
answer  for.   He  said,  "  I  will  never  confess  it." 

And  she  says  he  had  been  doing  nothing  else  but  confess- 
in  g  it  for  four  years,  A  lady  to  whom  I  stand  ra  a  very  near 
relation  called  my  attention  to  a  passage  wMch  she 
casually  opened  in  Shakespeare  last  mght,  in  '*  Love's 
Labor  Lost."  I  promised  to  use  it  tMs  morning,  n»t 
because  I  think  it  appropriate  to  Mrs.  Moulton,  fori  have 
charity  for  her,  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  you  how 
the  great  master  of  huaian  nature  looked  upon  a  thing  of 
tMs  kind  even  when  there  was  falsehood,  and  intended 
falsehood,  where  the  wife  swore  for  the  husband : 


IBE   TILTON-BFjEGHEB  TBIAL 


648 

•*  It  is  religion  to  toe  thus  foresworn, 
For  charity  itself  fulfills  the  law  : 
And  who  can  sever  love  and  charity  ?" 
Oh !  I  wish  Theodore  Tilton  had  the  excuse  to  offer  for 
his  falsehoods  here  that  they  were  falsehoods  due  not  to 
cupidity,  not  to  revenge,  hut  to  love,  faithful,  honest, 
loyal,  conjugal  love.  I  wish  Moulton  could  say  that 
he  could  set  up  that  shield  between  him  and  condemna- 
tion, that  he  swore  to  destroy  H  'ury  Ward  Beecher  not 
from  malice  and  hatred,  and  batiied  cupidity,  but  from 
honest  and  loyal  love. 

THE  CHARITABLE  VIEW  OF  MRS.  MOUL- 
TON'S  TESTIMONY. 
But,  gentlemen,  in  regard  to  Mrs.  Moulton, 
I  feel  very  differently.  It  is  a  subject  on  which  I  have 
reflected  somewhat,  and  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to 
what  I  believe  to  be  true  and  just  on  CLuestions  like  this. 
There  is  a  thread  of  truth  through  the  whole  of  her  nar- 
ration. There  were  conversations  between  her  and  Mr. 
Beecher.  The  virus  of  those  conversations  consists  in 
transposing  them  from  one  period  to  another,  in  intro- 
ducmg  into  one  conversation  what  belonged  to  another, 
in  the  substitution  for  harmless  and  innocent  words,  of 
"words  like  "  crime,"  like  "  guilt."  This,  you  will  remem- 
Tber,  is  on  her  part  a  mere  QL^estion  of  memory. 
"We  have  a  maxim  in  the  law  that  one  eye 
-witness  is  better  than  a  dozen  ear  witnesses,  but  even  eye 
witnesses  differ  in  the  narration  of  what  they  have  seen. 
No  one  sees  all  exactly  as  another  sees  it.  No  one  re- 
members it  even  though  he  saw  it,  and  accurately.  The 
most  expert  artist  cannot  paint  the  face  of  his  nearest 
friend  from  unaided  memory.  No  two  persons  will  give 
the  same  account  of  an  accident  of  which  both  were  wit- 
nesses. No  two  who  happen  to  have  been  spectators  will 
^oncui-  in  their  account  of  a  street  fight.  No  two  com- 
manders ever  agreed  to  the  same  description  of  a  battle 
in  which  both  were  engaged.  It  has  been  said  that  if  a 
Mind  man  were  to  ask  a  day  laborer  to  describe  a  scene  > 
be  would  get  a  very  different  description  from  what  a 
poet  or  an  artist  would  have  given  him  of  the  same  scene. 
The  one  observes  what  does  not  arrest  the  attention  or 
impress  the  imagination  of  the  other.  A  fortiori  do  these 
discrepancies  occur  in  the  description  of  scenes  in  the 
past  recalled  by  fading  memory.  How  the  dis- 
crepancies widen  in  the  memory  of  words 
after  the  lapse  of  years !  How  widely 
would  two  men  differ  who  should  attempt,  unaided  by 
notes,  to  relate  the  language  of  a  witness  heard  by  both 
within  ten  days  on  the  present  trial !  How  would  the 
bias  of  each  for  or  against  the  witness,  or  the  party  for 
whom  he  was  called,  give  unconsciously  a  coloring  to  hiis 
memory  of  the  language !  Few  men  can  report  a  con- 
versation, even  of  an  hour,  accurately  in  the  language  of 
the  parties,  even  the  very  day  after  it  occurs.  How  dif- 
ferent vv^ould  be  the  words  ol  the  naiTiitive  from  those 
actually  used !  how  impossible  to  give  the  exact  order  of 


the  conversation  !  But  this  difficulty  is  immeasurably  In- 
creased when  the  conversation  is  one  which  occurred  a 
year,  or  two  or  three  years  ago.  When  it  is  one  of  many 
conversations  with  different  parties  relating  to  the  same 
subject,  how  difficult  to  discriminate  between  the  words 
spoken  by  one  and  those  spoken  by  another  I  How  muoli 
is  this  difficulty  increased  when  the  narrator  at 
the  time  had  no  thought  of  ever  being  called 
upon  to  repeat  the  language!  How  difficult  for 
an  unbiased  witness  to  reproduce  the  language  after  the 
lapse  of  years !  How  much  more  difficult  when  the  nar- 
ration is  by  one  who  has  been  since  brought  into  rela- 
tions of  hostility,  and  when  the  memory  is  prompted  and 
wai-ped  by  those  who  are  present  at  the  time  and  inter- 
ested to  color  or  pervert  the  import  of  one  conversation! 
How  easy  it  is  to  mislead  a  fading  memory,  by  applying  to 
one  charge  words  used  in  reference  to  another !  How  easy 
to  mislead  by  connecting  the  words  of  one  conversation 
with  antecedent  or  subsequent  utterances !  How  danger- 
ous to  rely  on  the  memory  of  a  few  words  in  an  hour's 
conversation  dissevered  fi-om  the  context,  which  would 
have  explained  them ;  all  the  rest  having  faded  from 
recollection !  We  all  know  how  much  depends  on  accu- 
rate observation  at  the  time,  how  much  upon  the  inter- 
mediate events  which  have  occupied  the  memory  with 
matters  of  immediate  and  personal  concern.  How  difll- 
cult  it  is  to  discriminate  between  impressions  derived 
from  one  party  and  those  derived  from  another !  How 
easily  do  our  own  memories  deceive  us  as  to  remote  trans- 
actions !  How  uniformly  do  we  find,  if  we  refer  to  notes 
made  at  the  time,  that  we  have  been  misled  as  to  import- 
ant circumstances  we  have  ourselves  detailed !  There  is  no 
faculty  of  the  mind  so  imperfect,  so  liable  to  honest 
error  ;  there  is  none  so  easily  affected  by  kindly  feeling 
and  friendly  bias.  Weak  and  fallible  at  the  best,  memory 
is  easily  warped  by  family  feeling,  by  interest,  or  by 
prejudice.  We  know  how  easily  the  memory  of  honest 
men  oftentimes  misleads  them  into  exaggeration.  We  see 
how  often,  by  habitual  narration,  good  and  worthy  men 
come  to  believe  stories  originally  invented  in  pastime, 
and  come  to  believe  themselves  even  the  heroes  of  inci- 
dents which  were  related  to  them  of  others,  in  the  days 
of  early  boyhood,  by  the  fireside.  How  often  are  we  mis- 
led into  statiDg  as  facts  what  by  reasoning  we  are  led  to 
believe,  mistaking  conviction  for  memory  !  How  often 
do  we  find  that  witnesses  perfectly  honest  testify  to 
what  proves  to  be  untrue,  from  a  failure  to  dis^iminate 
between  knowledge  and  belief,  between  memory  and  con- 
viction !  All  men  are  led  by  the  daily  experience  of  life 
to  admit  the  infirmity  of  their  memories,  and  yet  in  every 
specific  instance  the  man  who  makes  the  admission  relies 
upon  his  memory  with  the  same  absolute  certainty  as  if 
it  had  never  deceived  him ! 

The  best  human  memory  rests  on  shifting  sands,  and 
all  our  observation  teaches  us  that  in  nothing  is  it  mora 
likely  to  deceive  than  in  the  reproduction  of  conversa- 


SVMMISG    T'F  BY   MR.  POllTEB. 


649 


tlons  after  an  interval  of  a  rear  and  after  a  change  of  re- 
lations. For  instance,  suppose  tliat  Mr.  Beectier  liad 
accepted  the  proposition  of  Francis  D.  Monlton  to  read 
that  card  at  Plymouth  Church,  and  they  had  hurned  ail 
these  papers,  it  would  not  have  ended  this  scandal. 
Tilton  would  still  have  been  behind;  Frank  INIoulton 
would  still  have  been  the  witness ;  and  the  same  men 
who  have  published  to  the  world  that  they  held  Henry 
Ward  Beecher's  written  confession  of  adultery  would 
then  have  sworn,  the  originals  being  destroyed,  that  the 
I  word  "adultery"  appeai'ed  in  the  apology;  that  the 
word  '•crime  "  appeared  in  such  a  letter ;  that  the  words 
"sexual  intercourse  "  appeared  in  another. 

I  mention  this  to  illustrate  how  dangerous  it  is  to  rely 
upon  the  mere  unaided  memory  even  of  a  lady  who 
I  means  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
'  the  truth,  where  the  fate  of  a  human  being  in  the  estima- 
tion of  his  countrymen,  in  the  estimation  of  Christendom, 
for  all  time,  depends  on  the  shading  of  a  word.  Suppose 
Mrs.  Moulton  has,  to  the  best  of  her  ability,  given  you 
i  what  occurred  between  her  and  Heniy  Ward  Beeeher, 
I  her  mistake,  honest  mistake,  destroys  an  innocent  man, 
and  enables  a  scoundrel  to  crush  him.   If  I  were  driven 
to  such  a  question  (and  I  am  not),  and  if  we  were  to  look 
to  the  antecedents  of  Elizabeth  R.  TiltoD,  as  she  is  de- 
scribed by  the  ladies  who  have  been  before  you,  by 
women  of  the  rare  accomplishments  and  intelligence 
of  Mrs.  OvingtoU;  Mrs.  Putnam,  Miss  Oakley,  Miss  Moore, 
and  a  series  of  others  whom  I  have  named— nay,  looking 
at  her  as  she  is  described  by  her  own  husband,  looking  at 
them  as  you  see  them  in  the  correspondence  which  was 
published  so  shamelessly  to  the  world,  is  there  aught  in 
the  antecedents  of  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  that  would  lead 
you  to  think  that  she  ^ould  be  more  likely,  after  she  had 
turned  the  middle  age  of  life,  to  become  suddenly  an 
adulteress,  than  there  is  in  the  antecedents  of  Mrs.  Emma 
P.  ]Moulton  to  lead  you  to  suppose  that  in  a  controversy 
between  her  husbaiid  and  his  enemy,  which  she  thought 
involved  the  ruin  of  the  husband  unless  it  destroyed  that 
enemy,  she  should  strain  a  point  in  a  narration  for  the 
piu-pose  of  saving  that  husband,  the  f^th^r  of  her  child, 
the  fortime  of  both,  their  future  prospects,  theii-  personal 
honor?  There  are  several  noteworthy  features  in  her 
testimony    One  is  the  fact  that,  according  to  her  own 
account,  she  was  the  zealous  friend  and  partisan  of  the  de- 
fendant, to  whom  she  now  imputes  adultery,  until  Simaay, 
July,  13, 1S74,  the  day  after  Tilton  and  Moulton  sent 
their  contradictory  messages  by  Redpath  to  IVIr.  Beecher. 
I  Another  is  the  fact  that  on  or  before  that  day  she  was  in 
consultation  wK.h  Judse  Morris  and  Gen.  Butler,  and 
I  that  on  that  day,  just  one  month  before  Mr.  Beecher 
j  made  the  statement  of  which  Moulton  complains,  it  was 
I  arranered  in  her  own  house  between  her  and  her  husband 
I  that  she  should  not  appear  before  the  Church  Committee, 
j  but  that  a  suit  for  crim.  con.  shoiild  be  brought  by  Tilton 
'  against  l\Ir.  Beecher,  and  in  that  suit  she  should  swear  to 


his  confessions  to  her,  m  order  to  convict  him  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  of  adultery.  You  will  remember  that  Moulton's 
first  and  only  statement  to  the  Church  Committee  was 
made  on  the  evening  of  the  13th  of  July,  1874,  and  that 
that  statement  did  not  charge  adultery. 

He  comes  from  the  house  where  he  and  she  and  their 
counsel  had  arranged  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  to 
be  prosecuted  for  crim.  con.,  and  goes  before  the  Com- 
mittee to  make  a  statement,  in  which  he  does  not  charge 
adultery  !  That  statement  was  concocted  at  Moulton's 
house  that  day.  IMrs.  Moulton  lets  us  into  an  inside  view 
of  the  consultation  between  the  confederates  who  have 
,  put  a  five  months'  mortgage  on  the  lives  of  all  of  you 
twelve  jurors.  Messrs.  Butler  and  Morris  were,  of 
course,  mere  legal  advisers  ;  Tilton  and  Moulton  were 
the  responsible  confederates.  For  the  purpose  of  en- 
trapping Mr.  Beecher  they  concluded  to  keep  back  Moul- 
ton's accusation  of  adultery,  to  make  a  short  statement 
alleging  only  an  indefinite  offense,  to  draw  out  from  Mr. 
Beecher  an  admission  of  an  undefined  offense,  and  then 
in  Moulton's  answer  to  define  it  as  adultery,  and  fo"'- 
low  it  up  with  a  suit  for  crim.  con.,  l^Irs. 
Moulton  being  fully  advised  of  their  pur- 
pose and  pledging  herself  to  become  their  witness. 
Here  is  her  account  of  it,  given  on  the  examination  of 
her  fi-iend  and  daily  guest,  Judge  Fullerton,  at  pages  752 
and  753  of  the  evidence.  In  the  course  of  that  exam- 
ination a  phrase  is  elicited  so  characteristic  that  I  cannot 
pass  it  by.  It  speaks  character.  It  explains  the  fact, 
which  you  probably  have  observed,  that,  although  all 
men,  in  the  chivalry  of  manhood,  are  disposed  to  believe 
Mrs.  Moulton  if  they  could,  no  woman  seems  to  believe 
her.  Women  know  women  better  than  we  do.  But  this 
scoflfing  sneer  of  the  hostess  to  her  guests—"  Give  the  old 
man  another  chance  "—is  that  the  language  of  delicate 
sensibility,  uttered  by  a  lady,  and  of  an  old  and  honored 
clergyman  % 

THE  CONSPIRACY  TO  BEING  A  CEBI.  CON. 
SUIT. 

There  are  other  scenes  which  I  must  pass 
over,  because  I  must  finish  soon.  We  see,  at  least,  by  her 
testimony  that  the  conftpiracy  to  bring  this  suit  had  beer 
perfected  on  the  13th  of  July,  a  month  before  IVIr.  Beech- 
er's statement.  On  her  direct  examination  by  Mr.  Til 
ton's  counsel,  she  confesses  that  on  that  day  she  told  Mr. 
Beecher  that  if  Tilton  failed  before  the  Committee  *  he 
would  take  his  case  into  the  court.  Again,  on  her  cross- 
examination,  she  confesses  that  she  said  to  Mr.  Beecher 
on  the  13th  of  July,  1874,  "  H  Mr.  Tilton  fails  in  this,  he 
is  going  to  take  his  case  into  the  court :"  and  that  Mr. 
Beecher  replied,  "  He  has  no  case  to  take  into  court." 
Again,  at  page  744,  she  confesses,  in  her  examination  in 
relation  to  the  conspiracy  to  prosecute  Mr.  Beecher,  a 
fact  which  shows  that  it  had  its  origin  even  at  an  earlier 
period,  and  that  she  was  personally  informed  of  it  by 


650  TEE  TILIOJ^-B. 

Tilton  about  tbe  time  of  tlie  Bacon  letter,  wMch  was  pub- 
lislied  on  the  21st  ol  Jnne,  1874.    rEeadingl : 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  any  iaformnlLon  as  to  Low  long  Idc- 
fore  this  you  had  heard  fvom  Mr.  Tilton  that  he  was  goiag 
to  have  a  suit  at  law  with  Mr.  Beeoher  ?  A.  It  was  not 
very  long  before. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  six  weeks  before  ?  A.  I  think  the  first 
that  I  heard  was  about  the  time  of  the  Bacon  Lettei'. 

So  that  we  have  the  fact  fixed  by  her  evidence  that  gas 
early  as  June  these  two  slippery  rogues  had  concocted 
their  scheme  for  the  present  prosecution;  and  while 
Moulton  was  urging  Mr.  Beeoher  to  sign  the  Carpenter 
card  admitting  an  indefinite  oflense,  and  pledging  him- 
self to  burn  the  documents  which  he  and  Tilton,  in 
black  and  infamous  confederacy,  had  already  published 
broadcast  through  the  land— at  this  very  time  they 
meditated  this  very  action,  and  had  conferred  together 
as  to  the  witnesses  by  whom  they  might  maintain  the 
claim,  if  they  failed  in  their  purposes  of  blackmail  in  the 
mean  time.  My  friend  calls  my  attention  to  the  fact 
that  at  a  later  period  in  her  evidence  Mrs.  Moulton  testi- 
fies explicitly  to  something  more— that  Moulton  is  the 
man  who,  she  thinks,  also  asked  her  to  do  it— "he  said 
that  with  my  knowledge  of  the  case  and  of  the  facts  from 
Mr.  Beecher  himself,  I  should  have  to  go  before  the 
court,  of  course,  and  would  be  called  as  a  witness."  And 
this  man,  Moulton,  then  and  long  afterward,  was  writing 
those  slimy  professions  of  friendship  to  Mr.  Beecher 
which  have  been  introduced  in  connection  with  the  re- 
plies of  Mr.  Beecher  to  show  how  he  was  deceived, 
and  was  expressing  such  fervent  gratitude  to 
the  man  who  all  the  time  was  betraying  him! 
I  must,  however,  be  permitted  to  say,  gentlemen, 
though  my  opinion  may  or  may  not  be  in  harmony  with 
that  of  my  honored  senior  associate,  and  though  it  may 
iar  on  the  sensibility  of  my  client,  who  believes  Mrs. 
Moulton  to  be  mere  clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter  and 
innocent  of  intentional  wrong,  though  that  is  his  view,  I 
cannot  injustice  to  my  owu  conviction  admit  that  a  wit- 
ness who  has  sworn  to  what  I  firmly  believe  to  be  un- 
true is  to  be  wholly  relieved  from  censure,  even  though 
her  memory  was  so  warped  by  the  force  of  conjugal  love 
and  the  dominion  of  an  ascendant  husband  as  to  bring 
her  even  to  believe  it  to  be  true.  For  her,  however,  I 
have  no  word  of  reproach.  Hers  was  a  case  of  divided 
allegiance.  Her  fortunes  and  those  of  her  only  son  were 
interlocked  with  those  of  the  man  who  was  capable  of 
sending  her  agaiu  and  again  to  the  mansion-  of  free  love. 
Yes,  again  and  again,  Tilton  and  Moulton  sent  this  re- 
spected and  cultivated  lady,  sometimes  with  her 
husband's  mother,  sometimes  with  her  own  son,  to  bring 
the  apostle  of  free  love  to  the  consultations  of  these  mid- 
night conspirators.  The  messenger  who  did  not  revolt 
from  an  errand  like  this  you  will  form  your  own  judg- 
ment of,  which  should  be  both  charitable  and  just.  It  is 
a  strikingly  significant  fact,  however,  that  though  she 
remembers  three  or  four  occasions  on  which  she  visited 


I  the  WoodiUiU  mansion,  ouee  with  Theodore  Ti;ton,  on«,D 
with  JTrank  Monlton's  motLu.!-.  once  with  her  own  buy, 
she  cannot  remem'oer  whether  tlie  three  hours' ^ide 
back  and  forth  was  in  either  instance  by  nix'it 
or  by  day,  nor  whether  she  did  or  did  cot, 
after  either  of  those  long  rides,  take  the  apostJe 
of  free  love  home  at  the  close  of  those  memorable  con- 
ferences to  which  she  herself  was  not  even  admitted  as  a 
party.  Again,  it  is  worthy  of  special  observation  iu 
weighing  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Moulton  that  she  frauk'y 
confesses  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  her  original  inroi-iii- 
ant  in  respect  to  his  relations  with  Mrs.  Tilton,  whate\  ti 
they  were:  that  it  was  from  the  false  and  treachery  is 
Moulton  that  she  received  her  first  information,  and  tbat 
the  only  conversation  she  had  with  Mr.  Beecher  rested 
upon  the  assumption  that  her  husband  had  stated 
the  facts  truthfully,  though  she  did  not  tell  Mr. 
Beecher  how  her  husband  had  stated  thein. 
She  represented  him  as  admitting  what  they,  i a  Jus 
absence,  had  stated  to  her,  and  this  without  iuToi  mi  pg 
him.  of  the  specific  and  caliunnious  information  they  had 
comnumicated  to  her.  It  is  barely  possible  that  slie  was 
inuocently  misled  by  them  into  the  belief  that  Mx. 
Beecher  had  been  gnllty  of  adultery.  I  can  hardly 
believe  it ;  but,  if  you  can,  she  is  entitled  to  tbe  beDofit 
of  every  possible  doubt.  One  thing  is,  however,  certain, 
whether  her  testimony  be  the  invention  of  MoulCon, 
whether  it  be  the  result  of  fading,  slippery,  and  trained 
memory,  whether  it  be  the  result  of  honest  miscoacep- 
tiou,  or  wJiatever  it  may  be,  it  is  met  fairly  and  squarely 
by  the  oath  of  a  man  who  is  prepared  to  stand  by  it,  not; 
only  now  but  at  the  judgment  seat. 


MRS.   MOULTON  DECEIVED  BY  BEE  HUS- 
BAND. 

AQolher  significant  fact  is  that  in  her  coQVcr- 
sation  with  Ml.  Beecher  she  never,  except  on  the  oc<^a- 
sion  to  which  I  have  already  adveiTed,  personally  im- 
puted to  him  the  infamous  crime  of  adultery,  and  that 
when  she  did  so  it  is  inserted  in  a  report  of  things  said 
to  have  been  told  to  her  either  by  others  or  by  him  on 
some  former  occasion,  and  the  former  occasion  upon 
cross-examination  disappears.  Let  me  agaia  remind  you 
that  her  statement  is  the  information  received,  not  from 
Beecher,  but  from  others.   Her  language,  at  page  73!),  is : 

He  had  been  walking  up  and  down  the  floor  and  seemed 
very  much  excited,  and  after  a  few  moments'  convtrsa- 
tion  he  took  my  hand  and  asked  me  if  I  knew  any^ii  'ifi^ 
of  this  sorrow  of  his  life.  Q.  Of  this  sorrow  ot  his  life? 
A.  Yes,  Sir.  Q.  Well,  what  did  you  reply?  A.  I  said  T 
did.  Q.  What  then  did  he  say?  A.  lie  said,  "Then  B'rauk 
has  told  you  the  facts,  has  he,  in  the  case  ?"  I  said.  "He 
has."  Q.  And  then  you  parted?  A.  I  don't  remember  of 
anything  more. 

"  Frank  has  told  you  the  facts!"  He  trusted  Bank  as 
a  man  of  truth,  and  so  did  she.  Frank  lied  to  her  as  he 
had  lied  to  Mr.  Beecher. 


SUM21iyG    UP  B 

Passing  over  mucli  ot  wliat  I  intended  to  say  li'om  time 
to  time,  I  cannot  pass  over  it  all.  I  desire  to  advert  for  a 
moment  to  tiiat  portion  of  lier  testimony  in  ^yliicli,  on 
her  cross-examination,  slie  interweaves  a  new  version  of 
what  occurred  on  tliat  memorable  2d  of  Jime,  and  in 
doing  so  interweaves  the  thread  of  ahsolute  suicide ; 

Q.  What  did  he  say  at  tlds  stage  of  the  matter  ?  A.  He 
-  Vfi  had  ai^'.de  np  his  mind, if  Tilton  published  his 
Letter  of  Apology,  to  take  his  life ;  that  he  had  a  powder 
<  .:  library  table  which  he  should  take,  and  that  he 
Avor.Ul  pass  quietly  away  without  a  struggle. 

Gentlemen,  if  this  story  was  true,  why  have  you  beeu 
for  nearly  half  a  year  prisoners  of  the  law?  What  was 
there  to  prevent  Mr.  Beecher  from  committing  suicide  ? 
If  he  had  meditated  death  and  had  provided  the  means, 
and  those  means  painless,  why  is  not  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
dead?  "^Tiy  Is  rhat  powder  still  o:a  his  library  table, 
ready  for  the  use  of  his  children  and  his  granachiTdren  % 
The  occa^vlon  for  taking  it  was  the  threateued  publica- 
tion of  the  Tei  f  er  of  "  apology."  The  letter  of  "  apology  " 
was  published.  Tlie  same  woman  who  had  sworn  but  a 
few  pages  before  that  in  rue  whole  conversation  there 
■was  not  even  an  aiUtsion  to  the  letter  of  "apology" 
seems  to  have  overlooked  the  fact;  tlie  letter  of 
"apology'*  was  published;  the  powder  remains  un- 
takcn;  that  sperifie.  the  price  of  which  will  be  almost 
beyond  measure,  a  powder  whicli  should  produce  pain- 
less and  instant  death,  still  lies  there  waiting  for  either 
of  us  to  go  and  procure  it.  And  yet  this  talk  of  suicide 
has  rung  through  the  land,  stcd  it  never  seems  to  have 
oceUi  Ved  to  anvbodythat  while  Mr.  Beecher  has  gone 
through  darker  days  than  those  he  still  lives,  a  strong, 
healthy,  fearless,  ""iviug  man  ! 

T  have  said  enough,  It  seems  to  me,  to  be  able 
to  safely  leave  the  issue  for  yoa  to  deterroine 
wLeilier  .the  testimony  of  Francis  D.  Moultcn's  wife, 
as  Tou  have  heard  it,  and  as  you  shall  weigh  it, 
should,  in  your  judgment,  outweigh  the  benign  presump- 
tions of  the  law  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  oafh  of  inno- 
cence. Gentlemen,  I  must  close,  and  to  do  so  I  must 
discard  the  notes  fiom  which  I  intended  to  speak,  for  the 
time  is  already  at  hand,  ar-d  I  feel  that  T  have  fc  espassed 
too  severely  apou  the  condition  of  health  of  one  of  your 
numlicr.  There  is  so  much  that  I  have  left  unsaid  that 
I  ought  to  say  it  now.  I  had  intended  and  hoped  that  I 
should  ha  V  e  been  able  to  present  to  you  the  contradictions 
of  I'ranois  T).  Moult  on.  I  have  not  the  time  even  to  go 
through  the  names.  If  Moultonis  aahonest  man,  he  is  the 
most  unfo;  tunate  of  his  cla^s.  If  he  has  on  this  trial  been 
weighed  in  the  balarcos  against  his  fellow-citizens,  whom 
j  j-ou  know  and  respect,  T  must  believe  that  in  your 
I  judgmeut,  as  in  mine,  he  has  been  found  wanting.  Moul- 
■  ton,  the  main  prop  of  this  prosecution,  stands  before  you 
coofrottting  oath  to  oath  men  like  Cleveland  and  Storrs, 
<!  1  reeland,  and  his  own  partner,  Bobinson;  Samuel  D. 
iVirfrnlge,  his  booVlieeper;  H.  O.  Armour,  the  landlord 


Y  MB.   FORTE R.  651 

of  the  very  house  in  which  he  lives— these  and  others— 
17,  I  think,  in  all— all  supposed  to  be  honest 
men,  all  false  if  Moulton  is  True,  but,  it 
they  are  true,  Moulton  is  false.  In  regard  to 
Theodore  Tilton,  I  need  only  say  that  he  has  the 
misfortune  not  merely  to  oppose  his  oath  to  that  of 
Henry  Wai'd  Beecher,  but  on  vital  and  material  points, 
on  which  there  can  be  no  mistake,  he  scands  contradicted 
by  34  witnesses,  witnesses  who  have  no  interest  in  this 
case  except  the  intei'est  which  belongs  to  us  all,  such  men 
as  Jackson  S.  Schultz,  John  C.  Southwick,  Charles  Storrs, 
James  Freeland,  Be  v.  John  A.  Gay,  Edward  J.  Ovington, 
Mrs.  Ovington,  Miss  Putnam,  Samuel  E.  Belcher,  St. 
Clair  McKelway,  Oliver  Johnson,  Charles  Cow- 
ley, Sam.  Wilkeson,  and  the  others  to  whom 
I  have  referred,  without  even  enumerating  them, 
for  it  would  take  too  much  of  youi-  time. 
T  need  go  no  fuither.  To  walk  over  and  reach.  Mr. 
Beecher's  body  these  men  must  be  walked  over.  Theo- 
dore Tilton  cannot  strike  him  until  he  bas  struck  through 
all  these  warm  hearts.  Theodore  Tilton  is  the  plaintiff- 
false,  treacherous,  perjured. 

WOEDS  IN  YINDICATIOX  OF  GEN.  TEACY. 

I  must  "be  pardoned  before  I  close  for  say- 
ing a  word,  and  only  a  word,  in  regard  to  myh.onored 
friend,  Benjamin  F.  Tracy.  Kjiowing  him  well  by  repu- 
tation befoie  my  connection  with  this  trial,  I  knew  little 
of  t'ue  sterrng  worrh  and  strength  of  him  and  his  charac- 
ter. All  know  his  intellectual  capacity,  but  this  has 
been  one  of  those  occasions  on  which  a  man  is  brought 
to  the  test;  it  does  not  often  happen  to  us  to  become  our- 
selves the  subiect  of  vile  and  virulent  assault.  When 
fiaud  and  pevjury,  in  order  to  promote  their 
owTi  plans,  seek  to  bring  into  their  toils  an 
honorable  man  for  the  sole  purpose  of  depriving  their 
victim  of  his  friends,  they  wiU  ordinarily  succeed.  In 
this  case  they  have  failed,  but  they  have  failed  not 
because  their  device  was  not  plausible,  but  because  we 
would  not  permit  it  to  succeed.  Knowing  that  Benjamin 
F.  Tracy  was  an  impoi-tant  witness  in  this  case— he  de- 
termined in  no  case  to  become  a  witness,  because  Mr. 
Beecher  and  my  learned  associates  thought  we  needed 
his  assistance  before  you,  and  we  commanded  it.  The 
question  which  has  been  suggested  ui  regard  to  the  fraud 
attempted  to  be  practiced  upon  him  by  Tilton  and  Moulton 
had  been  disposed  of,  not  by  his  judgment,  but  by  ours. 
We  may  have  been  wrong.  Right  or  wrong  it  was  our 
judgment  and  not  his  that  controlled.  I  think  he  acted 
justly  and  honorably.  I  would  like  to  review  the  evi- 
dence upon  this  point,  but  have  not  time.  It  is  sufficient 
for  me  to  say  we  held  that  it  was  not  only  his  right  bafc 
duty  to  accept  a  retainer  as  one  of  the  defenders  of  Mr. 
Beecher.  Afterward,  when,  to  Ms  surprise  and  to  ours, 
these  men  undertook  to  swear  Benjamin  F.  Tracy  into 
the  attorney  of  Mr.  Beecher  for  the  purpose  of  making 


652  TEE  TILTON-B 

admissions  for  Lim,  and  then  to  represent  liiui  as  ad- 
mitting tlie  guilt  of  tlie  client  with  whom 
he  had  never  even  conversed,  then  we  felt 
that  the  time  had  come  when  another  question  arose. 
Then  Gen.  Tracy  very  properly  said :  "  I  am  met  in 
court  hy  three  witnesses,  and  they  say  there  is  the 
fourth,  who  propose  to  swear  that  they  told  me  what 
they  never  did,  and  that  I  admitted  that  Henry  "Ward 
Beecher  was  guilty.  I  must  withdraw  from  this  case,  and 
he  a  witness."  Gen.  Tracy,  you  are  not  called  upon  to 
be  a  witness  in  this  case.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  place  a 
man  in  the  position  of  standing  up  to  confront  three  men 
who  have  him  alone  in  a  private  room;  can  put  into  his 
tnouth  what  words  they  will ;  can  swear  him  down ;  have 
friends  around  them  to  confirm  them;  have  no 
scruples— no  man  should  he  called  up  to  tate 
such  a  position  as  that.  In  justice  to  him- 
self, or  in  justice  to  another,  he  that  as  it  may, 
he  says :  "  I  must  he  a  witness  if  that 
charge  is  persisted  in.  Be  the  consequences  what  they 
may,  as  I  know  them  to  he  false,  I  must  speak,"  and  he 
did.  The  question,  however,  whether  he  should  finally 
he  a  witness  was  postponed  until  the  other  was  decided, 
and  if  there  was  an  error  on  that  subject  it  is  the  error  of 
William  M.  Evarts  and  of  each  of  my  honored  associates ; 
it  is  an  error  for  which  I  and  tlxey  take  the  sole  respcmsi- 
hility.  It  was  committed  1?o  our  judgment,  and  if  my 
friend  really  believes  that  our  experience  at  the  bar,  our 
notions  of  professional  and  personal  honor,  have  been 
prostituted  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  for  our  client  the 
benefit  of  a  witness  who  was  not  called  upon  to  testify, 
let  him  believe  it.  He  don't,  and  he  never  will.  He  was 
placed  in  a  different  position.  In  that  position  he  stood 
like  a  man.  When  my  friend  Beach  challenged  him  to  be 
a  witness  at  the  time  he  was  making  his  opening,  he  set- 
tled the  question  that  we  must  call  him,  and  we  did. 

A  TEIBUTE  TO  JUDGE  NEILSON. 
Well,  gentlemen,  I  can  say  no  more ;  and  yet 
I  am  reluctant  to  part  with  this  case ;  I  am  reluctant  to 
part  with  it,  for  there  are,  and  there  always  will  be,  to 
all  of  us,  pleasant  memories  connected  with  it.  Painful, 
some;  pleasant,  many.  It  has  happened  to  each  one  of 
us,  by  one  of  those  accidents  which  occasionally  throw 
men  together,  to  meet  as  strangers,  and  I  trust  to  part  as 
life-long  friends.  You  are  here  in  the  discharge  of  an  un- 
gracious but  a  most  responsible  duty;  and  it  has  been 
discharged  with  a  fidelity  which  has  arrested  the  public 
attention,  and  should  command  the  public  respect.  It 
certainly  commands  owe  appreciation,  our  earnest  grati- 
tude. I  think  I  can  say  it  for  aU,  on  both  sides  of  this 
case,  counsel  and  parties,  and  all  indeed  who 
have  been  the  witnesses  of  your  fidelity,  your 
patience,  your  kindness.  I  know  not,  your  Honor,  what 
to  say  in  acknowledgment  of  that  kindness  with  which 
"We  have  all  been  treated  by  you.   Ordinarily  it  would  be 


'ECRMB  TRIAL, 

nftrely  the  expression  of  that  sincere  feeling  of  gratitude 
which  is  naturally  inspired  by  long-continued  kindness 
and  consideration ;  but,  as  it  happened  at  the  earlier 
stages  of  this  case,  that  oftentimes  in  the  view  of  his 
Honor  decisions  were  made  from  which  we  felt  that  we 
suffered  Injustice,  I  desire  now  to  say,  at  the  close,  that  I 
feel  that  he  ludged  wisely  and  well ;  and  that  on  a  great 
issue  like  this  it  was  equally  due  to  the  plaintiff  and  to 
the  defendant,  to  all  the  public  interests  involved, 
that  the  broad  door  should  be  opened  for  tlie 
admission  of  any  evidence  in  respect  to  the 
admissibility  of  which  there  was  even  a  doubt. 
His  Honor  felt,  and  showed  that  he  felt,  that  it  was  due 
to  justice  that  everything  that  could  be  submitted  to  you 
that  would  aid  you  in  your  deliberations  should  be  before 
you,  and,  feeling  thus,  it  is  matter  of  sincere  gratifica- 
tion to  me  that  I  have  the  opportunity  now,  that  all  may 
share  with  me  the  same  feeling  of  expressing  our  sense 
of  respect  for  the  eminent  abUity,  the  impartiality,  the 
known  integrity,  the  purity  of  character  of  that  eminent 
Judge— most  worthy,  if  not  quite,  of  the  honored  position 
among  jurists  of  that  gTeat  and  eminent  kinsman  of  his 
who  now  sleeps  by  the  waters  of  Otsego  Lake— a 
name  which  will  be  honored  through  all  time;  and 
yet  I  am  not  sure  that  the  name  of  the  jurist  who 
presides  on  this  memorable  trial  will  not  endnrf^ 
quite  as  long,  for  it  is  his  misfortune,  and  yours,  that 
through  circumstances  which  you  could  not  have  foreseen 
his  name  and  yours  are  to  go  down  to  posterity  together, 
alwa,ys  associated  with  a  trial  which  shall  be  memorable 
through  all  future  time,  and  which  is  to  determine  the 
question  whether  innocence  can  find  a  shield  in  a  com  t 
and  a  jury  against  all  the  devices  of  perjured  and  banded 
guilt.  It  has  been  said,  gentlemen,  that  there  was  fear 
that  there  might  be  in  this  jury  a  disagreement.  It  is 
said  by  those  who  have  not  heard  the  evidence,  and  ao 
not  know  the  truth.  I  think  I  have  lived  long  enoucrh 
with  each  of  you  to  know  that  there  Is  not  one  man  on 
that  jury  who  won't  do  what  he  knows  and  feels  to  be 
right.  Not  one  man  on  that  jury  who  is  capable 
of  giving  a  verdict  such  as  was  demanded  by  my  friend, 
Judge  Morris,  and  Avhich  he  properly  characterized  as  a 
malediction.  A  verdict  which  should  condemn  this  luiui, 
and  at  the  instance  of  these  men,  would  indeed  be  a  mal- 
ediction. But  this  will  be  a  benediction.  If  tliSre  be  one 
man  who,  in  the  spirit  of  the  old  Roman  centurion,  was 
capable  of  thrusting  his  spear  into  the  side  of  one  -who 
was  innocent  and  likely  to  perish,  I  Imow  that,  though 
I  may  not  be  able  to  say  Amen,  though  good 
men  everywhere  may  shrink  from  it  as  a  great 
wrong,  even  in  respect  to  such  a  man  there  will  be 
one  at  least  who,  in  humble  emuhitiou  of  the  Redeemer 
whom  he  serves,  will  be  able,  even  in  that  hour 
of  agony,  to  lift  his  hands  in  prayer  and  say,  "  Father, 
forgive  him,  for  ho  knows  not  what  he  does."  But  no 
such  verdict  is  to  come  from  this  jury.   The  verdict  is  to 


be  one,  as  1  flriiily  believe,  Trliicli  will  2:ladden  nicuy, 
many  hearts;  a  verdict  wldch  ^s•ill  illuminate  Brook] jti 
Bights ;  a  verdict  -n-hich  will  send  an  electric  thriU  of  joy 
thi-ough  Christendom.  [Applause.] 

A  JUEOR  SICK. 

Mr.  Beach  [to  one  of  the  jurors]— Well,  Sir, 
•what  is  yom-  condition  I 

The  Foreman — We  would  to  adjourn.  The  Judge 
is  going  to  adjourn  the  Court. 

Mr.  Beach— Until  when  ? 

The  Foreman— I  do  n't  know  until  when.  We  would 
like  to  adjourn  the  Court,  as  Mr.  Jeffreys  is  not  able  to 
continue  here  this  afternoon. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  counsel]— You  hear  the  suggestion  of 
the  foreman,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Porter— We  did  not  hear  it. 

The  Foreman— The  juior,  Mr.  Jeffreys,  is  not  ahle  to  he 
in  session  here  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Porter— Under  those  circumstances,  we  submit, 
your  Honor,  it  would  he  proper  to  adjourn  until  to- 
morrow. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  Mr.  Jeffii-eysj— Mr.  Jeffreys,  do  you 
think  to-morrow  will  answer  your  purpose? 
Mr.  Jeffreys— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  we  adjourn  now  until  to- 
morrow morning  at  11  o'clock. 

The  Court  thereupon  adjourned  until  Thursday  morning 
at  11. 


NINETY-SECOND  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

ARGUMENT  OF  MR.  EYARTS  BEGUN. 

MANNER  AND  DELIYEEY  OF  MR.  EVARTS— HIS  WORDS 
TO-DAY  MAINLY  GENERAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY 
— THE  LEGAL  NATURE  OF  THE  CASE  AND  THE 
EVIDENCE  EEQU^RED  EXPLAINED— ANALYSIS  OF 
TESTIMONY  BEGUN— EVIDENCE  OF  MR.  BRASHER 
AND  OF  JOSEPH  RICHARDS  TAKEN  UP— MR.  TIL- 
TON'S  CONDUCT  STIGMATIZED. 

Thursday,  May  27,  1875. 
Tlie  long-delayed  argument  of  tlie  senior  counsel 
for  Mr.  Beecher,  William  M.  Evarts,  was  begun  to- 
day. Mr.  Evarts  rose  to  begin  his  argument  at  almost 
precisely  11  o'clock.  His  first  words  were  clearly 
audible  in  every  part  of  the  court-room,  and  the 
noisy  conversation  in  the  audience  was  instantly 
hushed,  and  every  one  bent  forward  to  look  at  the 
orator.  The  orator's  voice  during  most  of  the  time 
was  pitched  in  a  clear,  ringing  tenor,  only  occa- 
sionally dropping  into  a  deep  bass.  Mr.  Evarts 
speaks  very  deliberately,  -^ith.  quiet  but  telling  ges- 
tures and  inclinations  of  the  head.  His  slender  figure 
bearh  some  resemblance  to  full-length  portraits  of 


r  :dR.    ETAET^^.  653 

Henry  Clay.  His  face  is  thin  and  pale  and  his  fea- 
tures clear  cut  and  classic.  His  bright  blue-gray 
eyes  twinkle  with  merriment  when  he  is  telling  a 
humorous  story,  but  look  hard  and  earnest  when  he 
is  in  the  midst  of  a  serious  argument.  The  orator's 
address  was  sprinkled  with  witty  sayings,  and  he 
frequently  illustrated  his  arguments  by  anecdotes, 
which  set  the  audience  laughing  and  gave  the 
court  officers  trouble  to  maintain  quiet.  Some- 
times Mr.  Evarts  laughed  with  the  audience.  Once 
when  an  unusually  humorous  story  had  excited  a 
noisy  outbreak  of  merriment,  Judge  Neilson  caused 
everybody  to  smile,  by  rapping  with  his  gavel  and 
saj'ing  very  gravely,  "  We  must  have  silence.  I 
have  my  eje  on  several  very  respectable  people  who 
are  not  conducting  themselves  properly.  We  must 
have  silence." 

The  sentences  of  Mr.  Evarts  to-day  were  rounded 
out  with  rhetorical  precision  and  polish,  and  he 
made  frequent  classical  and  historical  references 
and  quotations.  The  larger  portion  of  his  ad- 
dress to-day  was  of  a  general  and  introductory 
character.  He  referred  to  the  main  features  of 
the  case,  the  nature  of  the  offense  charged, 
the  effect  of  the  scandal  on  public  morals  and 
belief,  and  the  character  of  the  accusers  and  the 
accused.  He  pictured  seduction  and  adultery  in  the 
blackest  colors,  and  dwelt  upon  the  heinousness  of 
the  offense  with  which  Mr.  Beecher  was  charged,  in- 
sisting that  by  law  and  justice  it  should  be  proved 
with  the  utmost  clearness  in  order  to  be  established. 
Mr.  Tilton's  conduct  in  continuing  to  live  vrith  his 
wife  for  several  years  after  the  time  of  the  alleged 
adultery  was  strongly  condemned.  The  nature  and 
history  of  the  legal  process  for  criminal  conversa- 
tion were  explained  at  length,  and  the  kind  of  proof 
required  to  establish  it  was  explained.  The  differ- 
ence between  the  basis  of  this  action  in  England  and 
in  the  United  States  was  also  set  forth. 

Finally  near  the  close  of  the  afternoon  session  Mr. 
Evarts  began  to  take  up  the  testimony  of  some  of 
the  witnesses  in  detail.  The  evidence  of  Mr. 
Brasher,  one  of  the  plaintiff's  witnesses,  who 
swore  that  he  had  seen  Mr.  Beecher  on  Mr. 
Tilton's  steps  at  an  early  hour  in  the  forenoon, 
was  first  subjected  to  analysis.  The  idea  that 
because  Mr.  Beecher  was  seen  standinsr 
at  ]\Ir.  Tilton's  door  at  8  o'clock  a.  m.,  waiting  for 
the  door  to  be  opened,  there  was  presumptive  proof 
of  adultery,  was  ridiculed  with  a  great  deal  of 
humor.  The  evidence  of  ISIr.  Richards,  the  brother 
of  ^Irs.  Tiltou,  that  he  had  seen  Mr.  Beecher  and 


654 


THE   TlLTON-BEKdHEB  TEIAL. 


Mrs.  Tilton  in  Mr.  Tilton's  parlor,  sitting  close 
together,  and  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  started 
confusedly  away  from  Mr.  Beecher  when  her  brother 
entered  the  room,  was  also  considered.  Mr.  Evarts 
pointed  out  the  alleged  inconsistency  between  Mr. 
Richards's  cordial  greeting  to  Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mrs.  Tilton,  with  the  idea  that  what  he  had 
seen  had  led  him  to  suspect  his  sister  of  adultery. 

In  another  part  of  the  address  Mr.  Richards  was 
made  the  subject  of  a  cuttingly  sarcastic  reference. 
Speaking  of  Mr.  Shearman's  relations  to  the  case, 
the  orator  exclaimed :  "  He  is  one  who  sticketh 
closer  than  a  brother— if  we  can  measure  the 
closeness  with  which  a  brother  sticks  by 
Joseph  Richards's  adherence  to  his  sister?' 

Mr.  Tilton  did  not  escape  without  some  severe  cuts. 
The  orator  declared  that  the  self-worship  of  the 
plaintiff  had  been  the  source  of  all  his  woes.  "  I  did 
not,"  he  said,  "by  cross-examination  seek  to  disturb 
one  word  of  his  own  narrative,  which  fills  two 
columns  of  the  newspapers;  for  I  knew  that 
the  devil  of  lies  had  played  the  same  trick 
with  him  that  he  always  plays  with 
all  his  devotees."  The  orator  declared  that  he  could 
find  no  epithet  to  describe  Mr.  Tilton's  conduct  even 
among  Brooklyn  epithets,  and  then  he  said,  with  a 
smile,  that  it  might  be  suggested  that  "  the  best  test 
of  our  bridge  when  it  is  finished  is  to  send  a  pre- 
liminary train  over  it  loaded  with  Brooklyn  epithets. 
If  it  can  stand  that  it  can  stand  anjrthing." 


THE   PROCEEDINGS— YERBATTM. 

MR.  EVARTS  OPENS  HIS  ARGUMENT. 
The   Court   met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to 
adjournment. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  very  desirable  that  we  should  have 
perfect  quiet,  not  only  to  the  end  tbat  we  may  hear  the 
speaker,  but  that  the  jury  may.  Will  coimsel  proceed  1 

Mr.  Evarts  then  began  Ms  argument  in  behalf  of  Mr. 
Beecher.  _ 

RESPONSIBILITIES    OF  AN  ADVOCATE. 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  and  Gentle- 
men OF  THE  Jukt:  Whatever  diversities  may  present 
themselves  in  the  trial  of  a  cause,  as  its  texture  and  its 
colors  are  woven  to  the  completion  of  the  picture,  the  so- 
licitudes of  the  advocate  know  no  ebb,  and  they  come  to 
tlie  flood  when  he  is  to  present  the  last  plea  for  the  de- 
fendant, and  is  to  surrender  his  representative  capacity. 
These  solicitudes  are  not  personal.  No  considerations  of 
vanity  or  fame  have  anything  to  do  with  his  anxieties. 
All  exhibitory  or  ostentatious  speech  has  always  been 
foreign  to  forensic  art.  We  deal  with  realities.    We  have 


to  do  with  living  men  and  women,  and  with  real,  per- 
sonal deeds.  It  is  tliis  that  disquiets  the  advocate 
when  he  comes  to  feel  that  the  representation  is  to  cease, 
and  all  his  faults  and  his  failures  are  tq  come  as  penalties 
upon  the  chent,  and  he  no  longer  can  sffend  to  interpose 
any  shield  against  his  own  influences.  It  was  this  that 
made  Cicero  say— Cicero,  easily  at  the  head  of  aU  ancient, 
and  easily  transcending  all  modern,  reputations  in  our 
profession— Cicero,  after  he  had  gained  the  credit  of 
being  the  greatest  lawyer  among  orators  and  the  greatest 
orator  among  lawyers— Cicero,  who  had  built  up  that 
credit  which  is  now  represented  by  his  works  on  the 
shelves  of  every  scholar,  though  he  be  not  a  lawyer,  of 
every  lawyer,  though  he  be  not  a  scholar— that  led  him 
to  say,  when  he  could  not  but  confess  good  grounds  for 
oontidence  in  himself :  "  I,  notwithstanding  all  this,  de- 
clare, so  may  the  gods  be  merciful  to  me,  that  I  never 
think  of  the  time  when  I  shall  have  to  rise  and  speak  in 
defense  of  a  cheut  that  1  am  not  only  distm-bed  in 
mind,  but  tremble  in  every  limb  of  my  body." 
Ah  !  then  it  is  that  th*i  fate  of  the  client,  as  afltected  by 
the  faults,  the  defects,  the  omissions  of  the  advocate,  rest 
indeed  upon  the  mind  of  the  latter.  Certainly,  gentle- 
men, there  is  everything  in  this  cause,  as  through  the 
long  period  of  the  trial  it  has  been  dr  awn  out  before  you, 
that  should  make  every  one  feel,  not  in  this  personal 
sense,  but  in  this  solicitude  for  the  client,  what  he  would 
desire,  and  what  he  misses  in  himself.  One  would  wish 
some  of  those  fabulous  powers  by  which  poetic  inven- 
tion has  sought  to  eke  out  the  infirmities  (>f 
our  feeble  nature.  One  would  wish  for  a 
hundred  eyes,  to  pry  into  every  fold  and 
crevice  of  this  testimony,  and  draw  forth  aptly  and  in 
season  every  fact,  when  it  was  needed,  and  as  it  would 
be  effectual.  He  would  wish  for  a  hundred  hands,  that 
now  he  could  hold  up  the  whole  mass  of  it  for  its  collec- 
tive power  upon  your  minds;  and  then  that  hemiglt 
divide,  distribute,  (ftscriminate  it,  so  that  at  some  tiuger's 
end  there  should  always  be  each  topic,  each  passage,  that 
could  shed  light  or  carry  conviction.  He  would  wish 
more  than  these  aids  of  instruments,  that  perceptive 
force  which  could  discern  the  merit  and  the 
efficacy  of  the  vastly  diffused  elements  of  the 
proof,  and  by  unerring  magnetism  draw  forth 
from  ah,  missing  no  single  needle  from  any 
haystack  with  which  the  field  of  the  trial  is  strewn,  when 
it  was  needed  to  scratch  the  face  of  any  ugly  falsehood  or 
prick  the  pompous  bubble  of  hypocrisy.  He  would  -wish 
that  he  had  that  power  of  reason  that  could  crush  the 
obdurate  mass  of  evidence,  separate  the  ore,  and  then,  by 
an  intellectual  alchemy,  purge  it  of  all  the  dross,  and  lose 
not  one  pennyweight  of  the  pure  gold  of  truth,  but  seize 
that,  and  that  alone,  as  sterhng  coin  for  your  chculation. 
And  most  of  aU.  would  he  wish  that  moral  power  of  dis- 
lUiatlon  that  could  deal  with  the  juices  of  this  long  fer- 
mentation, strip  them  of  all  discordant  elements,  r^eot 


SUMM1^G    UP  BY  ME.  EVABT8. 


655 


all  poisonous  oils,  all  corrosive  acids,  all  heavy  heat  of 
passion  and  of  prejudice,  and  present  to  you  the  i)Uie, 
invigorating  wiiie  of  honest  sympathy  for  human  nature, 
of  honeBt  warfnth  for  human  justice.  And  then  he  would 
wish  for  that  greatest  gift,  eloquence— eloquence  which, 
overleaping  even  the  short  circuit  between  the  voice  and 
ear,  speaks  out  from  heart  to  heart  as  face  answereth  to 
face,  and,  what  a  great  thinker  among  mankind,  Lord 
Bacon,  has  said  is  more  than  eloquence,  discretion  of 
speech,  that  no  excitements,  no  perversions,  no  enlist- 
ments,no  animosities  should  carry  him  beyond  the  duty  to 
his  client,  to  justice,  to  truth,  to  his  opponents,  and  to  you. 

THE  DISTUEBING  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CASE. 

If  in  a  private  cause,  however  momentous 
the  interests,  these  seniiments  and  feelings  may  justly 
agitate  the  mind  of  the  advocate,  how  much  more  op- 
pressive are  they  when  the  matter  in  hand  has  to  do 
with  great  public  taterests  and  strong  popular  passions, 
when  the  client  has  become  involved  in  all  the  eddies 
and  currents  of  controversy  between  men's  opinions, 
prejudices,  feelings,  and  in  all  the  forms  that  make  up 
the  connections  and  the  sympathies  of  society  and  of  life. 
Why,  it  has  been  true  in  this  case  from  the  time  that  the 
scandal  first  burst  upon  public  attention— it  has  been 
true  ia  this  case  that  so  far  fiom  the  individual  case 
upon  its  real  facts,  so  far  as  the  individual  accused  on 
his  real  character,  so  far  from  the  connected  culprit,  the 
lady,  being  judged  of  by  that  measm*e  that  we  wish 
to  meet,  that  we  may  be  so  judged  ourselves,  they 
have  been  made  the  personalities  and  the  names  upon 
which  all  sorts  of  public  controversy,  of  public  con- 
tumely, of  public  discords,  have  turned.  Questions 
of  taste,  of  social  ethics,  of  manners,  of  morals,  of 
religious  forms  and  of  religious  faith,  as  afltecting 
communities,  cities,  forms  of  communion,  particu- 
lar churches,  particular  oircles  of  society,  aU  have 
been  tossed  about  in  endless  controversy,  in  which  these 
parties  and  the  actual  facts  of  their  case  have  really 
formed  but  little  part.  Everybody  has  been  trying  every- 
body. Europe  has  been  trying  America.  New- York  has 
been  trying  Brooklyn.  The  other  cities  and  the  rest  of 
the  country  have  been  trying  Brooklyn  and  New-York, 
coupling  them  like  Herculaneum  and  Pompeii  and 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  AU  the  scoffers  and  the  infi- 
dels have  been  trying  aU  the  Christians.  The  ancient 
<Jhui'ch,  mother  of  aU  dissenting  denominations— the 
Romish  Church— has  been  trying  Protestantism. 
The  church  of  dignity,  and  coming  nearest  to  an  estab- 
lishmeat  among  Protestant  chm-ches,  has  been  trying  aU 
the  forms  of  dissenters  that  have  not  a  ritual.  And  then 
the  Presbyterians,  they  have  been  trying  aU  the  moi-e 
modem  forms  of  dissenting  sects ;  and  then  the  Metho- 
dists and  the  Baptists,  each  in  turn,  have  been  trying  the 
Congregationalists:  and  then,  at  last,  the  Cor  gregation- 
aUit^  liavt'  been  trying  Plymouth  Church.  Ll^aughter.l 


Well,  we  have  n't  auy  chance  to  be  heard  in  this  stoim. 
If  they  had  formulas  and  propositions  that,  on  the  part 
of  Europe,  were  to  condcrun  our  vulgar,  uncivilized  in- 
stitutions and  society ;  and  then  if  these  different  cities 
were  to  try  it  on  the  question  of  whether  it  happened  in 
Brooklyn,  and  if  it  did,  why  that  was  enough; 
and  then  in  the  churches— if  men  of  abso- 
lute and  fixed  traditional  faith  said,  "Well,  the 
moment  people  undertook  to  be  independent 
and  care  more  for  practical  moraUty,  and  practical 
charity,  than  for  orthodoxy  of  doctrine,  and  vain  himian 
aspiration,  this  is  the  end  of  it  aU ;"  if  these  were  to  be 
the  methods  of  accusation,  or  imputation,  of  discussion 
and  of  conclusion,  why,  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  TUton,  and 
the  actual  form  and  pressure  of  the  charge,  are  all  envel- 
oped in  the  dust  of  these  whiiiwtnds,  and  those  forces 
determine  the  conclusions  of  men,  and  not  the  actual 
weight  and  character  of  any  particular  conduct  or  evi- 
dence. Then,  too,  when  you  came  to  consider  the  de- 
fendant as  placed  in  the  common  attitude  of  the  civil 
justice  of  the  country,  at  once  there  was  an  immense  ex- 
pansion of  the  pubUc  expectation  as  to  what  could  be 
done,  or  should  be  done  by  such  a  man ;  how  he  could 
not  safely  rest  upon  the  proposition  that  guilt  must  be 
proved,  and  he  against  whom  it  was  not  proved  was 
discharged  acquit  and  innocent,  from  human  justice; 
the  proposition  was  taken  that  unless  he  made  aflirma- 
tively  his  innocence  as  clear  as  it  would  appear,  if  he 
were  innocent,  at  the  judgment  day,  the  trial  had  failed 
of  his  purgation,  and  had  left  people  a  right  to  doubt 
about  him. 

Ah !  if  your  Honor  please,  to  make  these  exactions  of 
inquisition,  as  if  it  were  the  last  judgment,  and  to  fur- 
nish us  with  none  of  the  compeUing  processes,  and  none 
of  the  penetrating  omniscience,  and  none  of  the  all- 
loving  charity  which  belongs  to  God,  is  indeed  a  burden 
that  cannot  be  borne.  All  Umitations  of  authority  in  regard 
to  witnesses ;  aU  rules  of  law  regulating  testimony ;  of 
power  to  twist  the  consciences  of  the  wicked  tUl  they 
spoke  the  truth ;  to  inform  the  intelligence  of  the  honest 
so  that  they  should  speak  the  truth  with  appropriateness, 
and  with  vigor,  and  with  power ;  all  these  limitations  of 
human  institutions,  limitations  upon  men,  were  aU  dis- 
carded in  these  irresponsible  discussions,  and  these  rash 
exactions  and  conclusions  which  the  public  and  their 
organs  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to  exercise. 

THE  ARGUMENT  OF  NATUEAL  PEOPENSITY 
MET. 

Now,  take  the  point  where  the  scandal,  as  a 

scandal,  as  a  matter  of  imputation,  as  a  matter  of  curious 
ins:pection,  as  a  matter  of  wise  deUberation,  as  a  matter  of 
unimpassioned  but  yet  one-sided  conclusion,  and  see  how, 
by  a  reference  to  some  of  the  general  and  yet  weU-recog- 
nized  points  of  this  controversy,  our  loving  cUent,  Mr. 
Beecher,  has  been  exposed  to  judgments  that  have 


656 


TEE   TILTON-BMEGHER  TIUAL. 


nothing  to  do  with  him  or  the  facts  of  the  case.  Well, 
when  a  scandal  is  promulgated,  then  at  once  there  is  a 
vast  class  of  the  community  that  give  it  a  ready  and  a 
free  accei:)tance.  Et  otiosa  credit  Neapolis,  et  omne 
vieinum  oppidum.  The  idle  p'-ofligates  of  New- York  be- 
lieved it,  and  of  all  this  neighboring  town.  And  so,  in 
every  quarter  where  the  wicked  classes  make  their 
meetings,  and  hold  their  gossips  with  a  sneer  and  a  smile, 
the  scandal  was  accepted.  Why,  that  a  man  should  err 
with  a  woman,  that  the  wealmess  of  the  flesh  should 
yield  to  a  temptation  of  the  flesh,  these  classes  said  they 
had  known  always  and  everywhere,  and  they  were  glad 
that  their  doctrines  and  opinions  were  being  accepted 
among  the  more  serious  classes.  Others  put  it  upon 
what  they  understood  to  be  robustness  of  Mr.  Beecher's 
frame.  Well,  now,  that  is  a  ground  to  put  it  upon  that  is 
very  difficult  to  deal  with ;  for  we  cannot  deny  that  he  is 
a  man,  ars  he  presents,  himself  before  you,  as  you  have 
studied  his  face  and  seen  his  figure.  And 
yet  over  and  over  again  you  have  seen 
what  professed  to  be  rational  examinations  of 
this  inquiry  that  are  really  made  to  depend,  when  put  to 
the  true  analysis  of  what  the  argument  means,  on  this 
question  of  physical  strength  and  temperament.  Why, 
to  be  sure,  that  overthrows  human  virtue,  human 
civilization,  education,  religion,  morality,  faith  in  men 
and  love  for  men,  faith  in  God  and  love  to  God;  it  over- 
throws them  all.  Why  not  ?  Man  is  an  animal.  Man  is 
an  animal ;  and,  when  you  come  to  deal  with  the  ques- 
tions of  natural  propensities,  you  must  treat  him  as  an 
animal.  In  other  words,  gentlemen,  this  scandalous  and 
wicked,  and  when  stated,  ridiculous  and  monstrous 
proposition  is  made,  that  against  an  accusation 
of  incontinence  there  is  no  defense  in  our 
state  of  society  except  the  proof  of  impotency. 
How  horrible !  How  wicked !  And  when  pressed  home 
to  such  careless  disputants,  how  shocking  to  their  own 
sense  of  the  growth  of  society,  of  the  beauty,  the  purity, 
the  dignity  of  human  natm*el  "Thou  hast  made  man  a 
little  lower  than  the  angels,"  is  the  doctrine  of  Christian- 
ity and  of  religion.  "Thou  hast  made  man  undistin- 
guishable  from  the  brutes,"  is  the  proposition  of  these 
profligate  accusers  and  condemners,  not  of  a  pa,rticular 
man,  not  of  a  particular  woman,  but  of  all  the  preten- 
sions to  virtue  and  all  that  makes  us  pride  ourselves  upon 
liviDg  at  an  age  which  has  inherited  the  great  civiliza- 
tions of  all  time,  that  has  received  the  great  gift  of  an 
Incarnate  God  and  the  permanent  possession  of  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  Gospel. 


THE  MOST  PARTISAN   DEFENDER  OF  MR. 
BEECHER. 

Well,  tten,  all  sorts  of  volunteer  disputants 
appear,  attacking  and  defending  ;  and  for  the  defenses 
or  excuses,  if  not  for  the  attacks,  all  over  the  country, 
there  was  a  sort  of  responsibility  carelessly  thrown  upon 


the  case  and  the  person  of  Mr.  Beecher.  The  most  ex- 
travagant of  the  apologies  for  Mr.  Beecher's  conduct  was 
in  a  very  well  considered  and  very  well  expressed  letter 
published  in  one  of  the  Western  papers,  said  to  have  been 
from  a  lady,  and  doubtless  it  was  so.  Without  inquiring 
particularly,  or  even  caring  to  inquire,  whether  there 
was  any  truth  in  the  charge,  this  apologist  seemed  to 
think  that  for  a  man  wno  had  done  so  much  good,  and  who 
was  still  doing  so  much  good,  and  was  capable  of  doing 
more  good  than  all  the  other  preachers  in  the  country,  aa 
she  expressed  it,  that  a  little  aberration  of  this  kind,  in 
the  nature  of  a  solace  and  a  support  for  the 
immense  drain  on  his  moral  nature — it  was 
not  to  be  considered  improbable,  and  in- 
stead of  being  excused  should  be  justified. 
Well,  now,  I  have  never  heard  anything  quite  as  strong 
in  the  way  of  partisanship  as  that,  except  in  a  cmious 
anecdote  of  English  political  history.  John  Wilkes— Jack 
Wilkes,  as  you  have  all  heard  of  him— the  great  liberty 
agitator  of  the  time  of  George  HI.,  with  his  great  wit, 
his  great  audacity,  gave  much  trouble  to  the  court  and 
the  ministry,  and  gained  equal  favor  with  the  radicals 
and  the  opponents  of  the  ministry.  He  was  a  man  of 
profligate  life,  and,  unluckily,  he  was  a  man  of  a  very 
ugly  countenance,  and,  among  other  things,  of  a  very  un- 
disputable  obliquity  of  vision.  Well,  parties  ran 
high ;  all  were  for  him  or  against  him ; 
and  all  imputations  upon  his  conduct,  his  patriotism,  his 
morality,  jr  what  not,  were  met  by  his  friends  boldly  and 
confidently,  and  two  ladies  in  high  life,  one  of  the  Court, 
party  and  one  of  the  Liberty  party,  after  discussing  witM 
the  heat  and  candor  which  belong  to  women's  love  of 
justice  the  respective  merits  and  demerits  of  Wilkes,  and 
when  the  champion  of  Wilkes  had  pressed  her  adversary 
to  the  wall  on  every  question  of  politics,  of  taste,  of 
morals,  of  patriotism,  and  of  public  danger,  the  oppo- 
nent of  Wilkes  turns  upon  her  and  says :  "  Well,  you 
must  admit  that  he  squints."  [Laughter.]  "  Yes,"  says 
the  disputant,  "but  no  more  than  a  man  should." 
[Laughter.  1 

Now,  all  these  foUies  and  frivolities  through  several 
years  of  twilight,  of  darkness,  of  suspicions,  and  ot 
doubts,  have  been  clustered  around  this  controversy,  and 
it  was  only  when  we  came  into  your  presence,  and  with 
the  authority  of  the  law,  and  with  your  candor  and  atten- 
tion and  patience  and  sense  of  duty,  that  we  ever  began 
to  get  at  what  this  real  matter  was,  and  to  judge  of  its 
probability  or  its  improbability,  its  proof  or  its  ref  utar 
tion,  according  to  live  persons  with  real  characters,  and  a 
crime  defined  and  measured,  that  we  ever  had  any  real 
dealing  with  it,  in  any  sense  that  a  rational  man  could 
consider  dealing  with  it.  But  then  see  how  men  have 
reasoned  about  the  conduct  of  this  defendant  while  this 
imputation  in  the  civil  courts  was  pending.  How 
many  men  have  been  shocked  that  Mr.  Beecher 
should  continue    to     preach      and     worship  God 


iSUMmSG    UP  BY  MR.  EVARTS. 


657 


wlien  Mr.  Tilton  had  called  Mm  an  adul- 
terer, -when  Mr.  Moultou  liad  spoken  of  liim 
as  a  peijurer.  Tliej'  actually  undertook  to  shorten 
the  divine  commission  under  which  he  acted,  Tvhlch 
was  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  they 
adding  "iintU  men  shall  revile  you  and  persecute 
you  and  evil  entreat  you."  Is  that  found  in  the 
apostolic  commission'?  Is  that  the  character  of  even 
an  humble  clergyman  like  honest  Mr,  Gay  from  Indiana, 
who,  rather  than  sit  ciuiet  under  the  lewd  teachings  of 
this  moral  lecturer  ftuming  to  Mr.  Tilton],  resisted  him 
to  his  face,  and  has  fulfilled  his  duty  at  $400  a  year  as  an 
humble  preacher  ever  since,  losing  his  salary  of  $1,600 
because  he  believed  in  the  religion  that  he  professed,  and 
in  the  duty  of  men  of  his  profession,  at  least,  to  meet  and 
grapple  with  spiiitual  wickedness  in  high  places. 
And  then  others  say,  "  WTiat  a  shocking  thing  it  is  that 
Mrs.  Beecher  should  attend  this  scandalous  trial,  where 
she  will  be  exposed  to  hearing  so  much  evil  said  of  one 
whom  she  loves,  even  though  he  does  not  deserve  her 
love  1"'  And  actually  so  vulgar  and  vile  are  Pharisaical 
judgments  that  they  undertake  to  shorten  the  marriage 
vows  as  well  as  the  apostolic  commission,  and  when  a 
woman  had  sworn  at  the  altar  to  "love,  cherish,  honor, 
and  obey,  through  sickness  and  through  health,  for  better, 
for  worse,  for  richer,  for  poorer,  tin  death  doth  us  part," 
these  people  said  an  alternative  limitation  was  inter- 
posed— "  or  process  shall  be  served  upon  you  to  come 
into  the  City  Court  of  Brooklyn.'- 

Now,  I  believe  that  all  these  follies  and  scurrilities  have 
whollv  faded  out  of  the  public  mind,  of  the  public  criti- 
cism,  of  the  public  conscience,  if  conscience  had  anything 
to  do  with  them.  I  believe  that  when  this  great  preacher 
comes  to  give  his  account  at  the  last  judgment  of  the 
many  talents  that  have  been  confided  to  him,  the  hard 
Judge  named  in  the  parable  will  find  no  fault  in  him— that 
he  did  not  biuy  his  talents  in  a  naplrin,  even  during  the 
six  months  of  the  Beecher  trial.  I  know  that  the  young 
hearts  and  consciences,  and  old,  obdurate  sinful  natures 
that  in  those  six  months  liave  been  searched  for  and 
found,  give  more  joy  in  heaven  than  over  all  these  good 
men  that  criticise,  who  have  needed  never  to  experience 
repentance. 

THE    CO]SmiTTEE'S    VINDICATION  OF  MR. 
BEECHEE. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  first  important  period  of 
publicity  grew  out  of  the  publication  that  was  made  by 
the  Woodhull  threat  and  the  Woodhull  newspaper.  But, 
as  by  a  law  of  nature  tolerably  true  even  in  morals,  if  we 
know  enough  to  watch  and  wait— as  by  a  law  of  nature 
the  flood  never  can  rise  higher  than  the  fountain— that 
scandal  did  not  very  much  disturb  the  judgments  or  the 
opinions  of  what  constitute  society,  what  constitute  the 
manly  and  the  womanly  character  of  our  communities. 
And  the  next  promulgation  that  gave  rise  to  anything 


like  a  popular  or  a  considerable  acceptance  of  responsi- 
bilitj"  in  its  som-ce  was  the  promulgation  in  the  form  of  the 
Bacon  Letter,  as  it  is  called,  made  by  Mr.  Tilton  himself. 
From  that  time  to  this,  there  being  a  responsible  accuser, 
in  indefinite  form  to  be  sure,  hut  yet  in  a  manner  that 
would  justify  one  standing  in  so  responsible  a  position  a& 
Mr.  Beecher  to  desire  and  require  investigation  and  as- 
certainment, led  promptly  to  an  immediate  inquiry.  In 
the  only  manner  which  an  honest  submission  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  religious  faith  and  of  maintenance  of  the  sol- 
emn tie  of  church  connections  made  possible.  It  was 
that  an  accusation  connecting  the  pastor  of  the  church 
with  one  of  his  members  in  improper  relations 
shordd  be  examined  by  intelligent,  well-balanced 
minas,  strong,  definite,  honest  character,  and 
well-accredited  and  indisputable  public  faith. 
And  a  Committee  was  appointed,  having,  I  will  venture 
to  say,  In  your  judgment,  in  all  men's  judgment,  as  much 
of  those  valuable  traits  of  mind,  character,  and  of  public 
repute  as  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  and  the  City  of  New- 
York  could  fui-nish.  An  inquiry  was  held,  and  those  who 
knew  most  of  the  matter  were  examined  and  cross-ex- 
amined, and  their  respective  stories  were  compared, 
weighed,  and  a  result  arrived  at.  IVIr.  TUton  maintained 
his  accusation  without  stint  In  respect  to  his  own  impu- 
tation, had  it  explored,  had  it  reduced  or  conformed  by 
his  own  cross-examination.  Mrs.  Tilton,  obeying  a  duty, 
accommodated,  as  well  as  truth  would  permit, 
to  the  divided  sentiments  and  the  divided  obli- 
gations of  a  wife  and  a  woman,  owing  duties 
to  herself,  her  children,  and  to  others  that  had 
to  do  with  matters  concerning  which  she  was 
to  speak,  her  children,  her  pastor,  gave  an  account  ex- 
onerating absolutely  Mr.  Beecher  from  aU  share  in 
improper  sexual  relations  of  any  degree,  vindicating 
herself,  saving  the  fame  of  her  children,  and  of  her  hus- 
band even,  against  this  reproach,  and  at  the  same  time 
declining  or  avoiding,  passing  over,  omitting  any  hostile 
exposures  of  her  husband's  conduct,  or  any  hostile 
exposm-es  of  his  arts  and  schemes  and  plans  in  the 
matter  of  this  accusation.  Mr.  Beecher  was  examined 
and  cross-examined,  and  all  these  papers  have  been  be-^ 
fore  the  community,  before  the  counsel  for  this  plaintiff, 
before  the  court,  so  far  as  their  applicability  under  the 
rules  of  evidence  made  them  important ;  and  the  unani- 
mous judgment  of  these-six  men  after  this  examination  was 
a  disposition  of  the  matter  that  should  have  satisfied  aU 
honest  imputations,  all  candid,  all  sincere  doubts.  But 
before  that  was  ended  the  suit,  discussed  and  prear- 
ranged really  hefore  it  began,  was  set  at  work,  and  from 
that  time  onward  we  might  have  expected  that  the 
public  judgment  and  the  public  appeal  to  the  forms  of 
judicial  investigation  and  its  guarantees  of  completeness 
and  accuracy  should  have  been  submitted  to.  Instead  of 
that  the  plaintifl:  published  a  great  argument,  thrown 
out  without  an  adversary,  and  his  defender  anf^'**  *^ 


658 


TRB   TILTON'BEEGHER  TBIAL, 


champion  two  others — all  aimed  at  the  wide  public,  full 
oi  threatenings  and  slaughter,  full  of  argument  hoped  to 
be  considered  unanswerable,  because  there  was  no  issue, 
and  no  tribunal  before  which  they  could  be  answered— 
these  brave  opponents  of  a  world  in  arms,  like  Wouter 
Van  Twiller's  ordnance  in  his  old  Dutch  fort,  frowning 
defiance  on  an  absent  foe. 

THE  COUNSEL  IN  THE  CASE. 
Now,  gentlemen,  at  last  we  come  to  a  direct 
submission  of  the  cause  to  the  ordinary  tribunals  of  jus- 
tice. The  plaintiff  selects  his  form  of  action,  makes  his 
choice  as  to  the  court  where  he  will  bring  it,  provides  him- 
self with  counsel ;  and  then  the  defendant  is  thus  authori- 
tatively brought  under  the  protection,  as  it  has  been 
throughout,  to  him,  of  judicial  methods,  judicial  impar- 
tiality, and  all  the  guarantees  that  our  institutions  fur- 
nish for  the  accused  in  a  form  of  responsibility,  have 
been  made  the  limit  and  the  scene  of  the  controversy  that 
both  these  parties  now  must  submit  to  the  result  of.  No 
doubt  the  plaintiff  enjoys  a  very  considerable  advantage 
in  the  preliminary  arrangement  for  the  maintenance 
of  a  legal  contestation  upon  his'  part,  and 
no  doubt  this  plaintiff  has  shown  great  wisdom  and  has 
enjoyed  great  good  fortune  in  the  professional  aid  that  he 
has  called  around  him.  An  experienced,  indefatigable, 
able,  and  intrepid  attorney  and  managing  counsel,  Mr. 
Morris,  familiar  with  all  the  surroundings  of  this  judicial 
scene ;  an  accomplished  and  eloquent  advocate  whom  we 
are  glad  to  welcome  to  his  share  of  honor  and  of  fortune 
In  the  competitions  of  our  bar— I  mean  Gen.  Pryor ;  and 
then  these  eminent  lawyers  who  lead  for  him,  Mr.  Beach 
and  Mr.  Fullerton,  easily  at  the  head  of  the  criminal 
practice  of  the  State,  foremost  in  all  the  employ- 
ments and  honors  of  the  profession,  accus- 
tomed to  act  together,  lacking  no  resource  of 
vigorous  and  bold,  open  attack,  no  resort  to  the  lawful 
strategies  of  arrangement  and  surprise,  lacking  nothing 
that  can  make  "  the  vigor  and  success  of  the  war  come 
up  to  the  sounding  phrase  of  the  manifesto,"  if  it  be  pos- 
sible. Mr.  Beecher,  taking  his  choice  as  it  was  left  to 
him  from  what  was  not  secured  to  his  opponent,  was 
obliged  to  content  himself  with  the  faithful,  the  earnest, 
the  loving  espousal  of  his  cause  coming  from  our  brother 
Shearman,  a  friend  who  sticketh  closer  than  a  brother,  if 
we  can  measure  the  closeness  with  which  brothers  stick 
by  Joseph  Eichards's  adherence  to  his  sister  [laughter] ; 
your  foremost  perhaps,  certainly  one  of  the  foremost, 
lawyers  of  Brooklyn,  Gen.  Tracy,  known  in  public  office, 
in  private  life,  in  political  and  in  social  relations,  and,  in 
professional  conduct,  experience,  and  repute,  quite  the 
peer  of  any  lawyer  in  Brooklyn— and  the  lawyers  in 
Brooklyn  are  the  peers  of  lawyers  anywhere ;  and  my 
learned  brother  Porter  and  myself,  coming  with  the  dis- 
favor that  belongs  to  foreigners,  crossing  the  Behring's 
there  w  <*.tiiat  separate  these  two  continents  [laughter]. 


but  sharing  that  misfortune  with  oiir  learned  orothera 
Beach  and  Fullerton. 

THE  TWO  SAMSONS  OF  THE  CASE. 

And  here  we  are  now  as  we  have  been  for  five 
months.  We  began  when  the  weather  was  as  cold  and 
snowy  as  in  the  stormy  night  which  introduces  the  friend- 
ship of  Moulton  and  Beecher  [laughter!,  and  this  trial 
has  lasted  until  the  sweltering  heats  almost  come  up  to 
those  of  that  June  morning  when  Mrs.  Moulton  smothered 
the  defendant's  grief  and  despair  in  an  afghan.  [Renewed 
laughter.]  Samson  Afghanistes,  after  that  incident,  Mr. 
Beecher  must  be  known  as,  to  distinguish  him  from  Sam- 
son Agonistes  the  plaintiff  [laughter  j,  who  aftez'  lay  in 
his  locks  in  the  lap  of  the  Deldah  Woodhull,  and  ha  v  iug 
his  eyes  put  out  by  the  indignant  frown  of  his  coaiUry- 
men  and  his  countrywomen,  found  there  was  no  roie  Cor 
him  but  that  of  the  blind  Samson  that  should  poll  do^va 
the  temple  of  his  household,  the  temple  of  his  society,  the 
temple  of  his  religion,  upon  his  head,  and  those  of  his 
wife  and  children. 

THE  ACCUSED. 

Now,  who  are  the  accused?  The  defendant, 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  the  partner  of  his  guilt,  it  bo 
be  guilty,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton,  For  there  is  this, 
unluckily  for  Mr.  Tilton,  about  the  crime  of  adulteiy, 
that  it  takes  two  to  commit  it.  As  the  lady  said  in  tlie 
ban-room,  when  the  light  French  phrases  that  please  the 
ear  of  society  not  over-virtuous,  yet  that  frowns  at  prayer- 
meetings  and  considers  them  dangerous— as  the  lady  said 
to  the  beau  who  had  learned  more  phi-ases  than  facts  about 
human  life,  and  who  asked  her  what  was  meant  by 
faux  pm,  a  false  step.  She  said  she  didn't  know  exactly, 
but  was  quite  sure  it  was  not  a  pas  seul,  a  step  that  couid 
be  taken  alone.  [Laughter.]  Now,  that  is  the  misfortiine 
of  Tilton.  There  was  nothing  else  Mr.  Beecher 
could  be  accused  of  very  well,  and  some  womnu 
must  be  found  to  be  made  the  partner  in 
the  guilt,  in  the  accusation,  in  the  blasting 
prosecution,  in  the  infamy,  in  the  wretchedness,  of  his 
prosecution ;  and  if  it  was  a  matter  of  Indifference  wiiai 
woman  was  to  be  taken,  why  should  not  a  man  always  give 
his  own  wife  the  preference?  [Laughter.]  True,  there  wrie 
these  drawbacks  about  his  wife :  he  knew  her,  and  she 
knew  him.  He  knew  that  she  was  pure  as  gold,  that  she 
was  as  chaste  as  snow,  that  she  was  as  pious  as  a  saint, 
as  loving  to  her  husband  as  if  she  worshiped  the  ground 
on  which  he  trod,  even  when  that  ground  was  the  tiituy 
mii-e  in  which  she  was  fain  to  eat  of  the  husks  on  wbicli 
the  swine  did  feed.  He  knew  that  she  adored  her  cUi^- 
dren;  that  she  loved  every  friend  of  his,  because  he  or 
she  was  his  friend ;  that  she  loved  all  who  needed  aid  and 
charity,  and  sympathy,  and  were  poor,  and  came  from 
the  highways  and  the  hedges,  because  they  were  hnmna 
and  she  was  Christian.   All  tliat  he  knew.   He  knovcs  It 


.  summij^g  up  J 

cnw;  he  lias  swoin  it  liere— that  she  was,  has 
been,  and  is  as  lovely  a  woman  as  human  nature  and 
Divine  grace  can  produce,  and  shall  he  hereafter  before 
<he  throne  ot  God  forever  and  forever.  That  he  knew ; 
tb at  he  s  wore.  But  he  had  also  sworn  that  he  would 
St;  jl^e  Mr.  Beecher  to  the  heart,  for  interfering  with  his 
business  interests,  and  taking  part  in  his  domestic  dis- 
cords when  brought  to  his  notice — ^that  he  would  pursue 
ijim  to  the  grave ;  and  there  was  no  means  but  this ;  and 
I  suppose  he  found  his  justification  in  poor  Hamlet's  bit- 
ter speech  to  poor  Ophelia : 

^nd  if  thou  marry  I  will  give  thee  this  plague  for  thy 
dowry :  be  thou  as  chaste  as  ice,  as  pure  as  snow,  thou 
Shalt  not  escape  calumny. 

But  Hamlet  did  not  outrage  human  nature  by  saying 
that  she  should  not  escape  malicious  calumny  from  her 
own  husband  th&t  knew  her  goodness.  Now,  Mr.  Beecher, 
St L ipping  ofi' all  impertinent  traits  for  this  inquiry,  ob- 
serving those  proprieties  which  decline  unnecessarily  to 
offer  estimates,  however  just,  of  great  abilities,  great 
moral  qualities,  great  conduct,  great  hfe,  great  fame— let 
us  look  at  him,  as  the  other  inculpated  party,  as  he  stood 
before  the  accusation,  as  his  character,  his  conduct,  his 
repute,  were  known  by  his  neighbors,  his  fellow-citizens, 
the  men,  the  women,  the  children  of  Brooklyn. 

THE  REAL  OBJECT  OF  THE  TILTON  ATTACK. 
In  tl3e  first  place,  gentlemen,  I  shall  receive 

your  universal  and  ready  accord  to  the  proposition  that 
Mr.  Beecher  in  this  community  stood  as  a  city  set  on  a 
hill  t:  at  cannot  be  hid,  and  for  25  years  had  not  removed 
the  bounds  of  his  habitation,  and  had  no  opportunity  of 
false  and  sndden  imposition  upon  strange  communities 
who  took  rumor  or  public  report  only  for  their  estimates 
of  him.  Whatever  he  was  to  the  Christian  world,  what- 
ever he  was  to  Europe  and  the  United  States,  whatever 
be  was  to  the  Christian  faith,  whatever  he  was  to  the 
moral  schemes  of  our  European  and  American  society, 
whatever  he  was  to  social  and  political  interests,  all 
know  and  all  understood  that  he  was  to  the  people  of 
Brooklyn,. a  man  about  whom  they  had  as  many,  as  good, 
as  sure,  as  prolonged  tests  of  what  he  was  as  it  is  possi- 
ble in  human  affairs,  unless  one  has  the  penetration  of 
the  Divine  inspection.  All  these  tests  Mr.  Beecher  had 
been  exposed  to  for  the  long  period  of  his  residence 
here.  Ah,  gentlemen,  you  will  find  as  we  go  on  in  this 
cause,  and  as  you  take  it  up  upon  its  facts  and  compare 
it  with  known  principles  of  human  nature  and  human 
conduct,  you  will  find  at  every  stage  of  this  business  that 
the  attack  is  not  personal  but  against  our  society,  against 
onr  civility,  against  our  morality,  against  our  religion. 
The  attack  is  not  that  there  are  wolves  in  sheep's  cloth- 
ing; that  vicious  men  dissemble,  and  that  they  hide 
themselves  under  the  cloak  of  sanctity  to  prowl  on  the 
^ociety  that  they  thus  impose  upon  ;  that  is  not  the 
"""""  '■  "'n:  that  is  not  the  issue  that  the  Pantarch  and 


F  MIL    EVAEIS.  659 

the  priestess  and  the  prophet  of  the  new  faith  maiie.  It 
is  that  the  favored,  approved,  tried,  best  results  of  this 
social  scheme  of  ours,  which  includes  marriage,  and  of 
this  religious  faith  of  ours  which  adopts  Christianity,  is 
false  to  the  core ;  that  the  saintly  man  and  the  apostolic 
woman  are  delivered  over  to  the  lower  indulgences ; 
and  that  that  being  proved,  the  scheme  itself  is 
discredited  and  ready  to  be  dissolved.  It  is  that  the  good 
women,  who  remain  good  afterwards,  are  good  while 
they  are  committing  these  faults ;  that  the  men  that  have 
every  flower  and  fruit  of  Christian  love  and  Christian 
duty  and  Christian  faith,  that  are  only  greatest  in  our 
society  because  they  are  its  faithful,  denying,  unflinch- 
ing servants  of  it  in  all  things,  that  they  are  wicked  (if 
this  be  wicked),  and  that  the  only  escape  from  that  con- 
clusion is  that  the  institutions  of  marriage  and  religion 
as  now  constituted  are  themselves  the  responsible, 
guilty  causes  of  these  alleged  criminalities. 
But,  if  Mr.  Beecher  was  thus  universally  and  absolutely 
knowii  in  these  his  relations  to  your  community,  he  was 
also  known  in  his  person  as  a  familiar  and  recognized 
object  of  common  knowledge— more  I  will  not  say,  than 
any  man  in  this  city ;  but  more  than  any  man  almost,  by 
possibility,  in  any  community  comes  to  be,  among  those 
who  surround  him.  Mr.  Beecher  never  could  take  a 
secret  walk,  or  a  secret  drive,  or  go  in  privacy  to  any 
photographic  saloon  or  picture  gallery,  to  any  place  of 
assemblage,  in  any  thoroughfare,  where,  whether  he 
knew  anybody  or  not,  there  were  not  eyes  enough 
to  see  or  ears  enough  to  hear  whatever  he  or 
she  could  notice  in  his  demeanor  or  his  speech. 
Now,  it  is  of  this  man  that  this  culpability  with  this 
woman,  such  as  I  have  described  here,  is  alleged  to  occur 
here  in  the  very  scene  of  their  residence,  and  of  this  pub- 
lic observation  to  which  I  have  called  your  attention.  I 
shall  hereafter  compare  the  circumstances,  the  duration 
of  the  siege  to  this  fortress  and  of  its  possession,  to  say 
whether  that  comports  any  i-iore  with  these  circum- 
stances and  situation  of  these  parties  than  the  wicked 
character  of  the  criminality  does  with  their  moral  and 
religious  repute  and  conduct. 

THE  CHARGE  ANALYZED. 
Now,  who  are  the  pursuers  ?  These  are  the 
hunted  parties.  Who  are  the  pursuers  ?  Mr.  TUton,  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mrs.  Moulton.  The  law  gives  the  action 
only  to  the  husband,  and  Mi*.  Tilton  is  the  plaintiff ;  but 
the  combination,  the  consultation,  the  plot,  the  scheme, 
the  purpose,  is  but  a  final  stage  of  what  has  been  the 
common  ground  of  action  of  Moulton  and  Tilton  through 
the  years  of  this  transaction  ;  and  Mrs.  Moulton,  in  some 
sort  cognizant  of  the  operations  as  they  were  going  on, 
comes  flu  ally  to  choose  the  party,  whether  she  shall  be 
counted  with  the  pursued,  or  shall  take  her  stand  with 
the  pursuers,  and  she  chooses  the  latter.  A 
great     thing,     a     thing     that     no     man  can 


660  THE  TILTON-Bi 

look  at  'Without  pity,  ttat  no  man  can  estimate 
■without  charity  ;  that  no  man  can  find  it  m  his  heart  to 
carry  to  the  account  of  personal  fault  or  even  weakness 
more  than  is  necessary  when  the  common  law  and  the 
common  experience  of  society  has  carried  the  blame  to 
the  husband,  and  union  with  the  husband,  as  covering 
misfortune  and  the  responsibility  of  the  action.  A  mis- 
fortune, a  fate,  which  injunction  of  the  Christian  religion 
attempted  to  secure  women  from  when  they  were  in- 
structed not  to  be  yoked  with  unbelievers.  "For what 
part  hath  he  that  believeth  with  him  that  hath  no  be- 
lief." But  their  sides  are  drawn ;  there  the  issue  is  made ; 
and  now  we  are  brought  to  consider  what  is  the  form  and 
dimension  of  the  guilt  imputed.  It  is  seduction,  the 
seduction  of  a  married  woman  during  the  stage  of  life 
when  she  gives  children  to  her  husband.  Is  there  any 
greater  crime  than  that  ?  Leave  out  the  circumstance, 
if  you  please,  of  the  relation  of  the  clergyman 
to  his  communicants;  leave  out  the  difference  of  age; 
leave  out  all  the  circumstances  that  gire  heinousncss  to 
the  crime  from  the  paramour's  relation  to  his  own  family 
and  his  own  wife,  and  take  it  as  the  act  of  loose  calcu- 
lators upon  the  virtue  of  women,  and  put  it  even  against 
such  a  man  as  the  crime  that  he  has  committed,  is  there  a 
greater  crime?  Is  there  a  crime  that  is  visited  with 
greater  severity  in  the  judgments  of  all  moral,  of  all 
thoughtful,  of  all  kind  men,  whether  they  make  preten- 
sions to  piety  or  religion  or  not.  Ah !  gentlemen,  this  is 
the  first  clear  discrimination  that  you  are  to  make  be- 
tween taking  a  general  imputation  of  sexual  indulgence 
on  sexual  temptation  which  has  thiis  or  that  degree  of 
heinousness  under  its  circxunstances,  and  receive  this  or 
that  degree  of  condemnation  according  to  the 
parity  and  the  clearsightedness  of  the  critics.  But 
this,  the  seduction  of  a  virtuous,  wise,  discreet,  child- 
bearing  mother  in  a  happy  and  virtuous  so- 
ciety, is  a  crime  that  at  least  needs  to 
be  proved  before  people  will  admit  that  it  is  probable. 
Ah !  if  3'our  Honor  please,  dolus  latet  in  generdlibus,  it  is 
when  you  have  the  abstract  reasoning  about  imaginary, 
undefined,  unmeasured  crime  that  you  can  judge  at  ran- 
dom whether  a  man  would  c-ommit  it  or  not.  But  that  is 
not  what  you  are  to  do.  You  are  to  judge  of  this  ciume, 
and  are  to  solve  in  vour  minds  when  you  come  to  test  the 
proofs,  its  compatibility  with  any  pretenses  of  character, 
of  generosity,  of  charity,  of  pity,  of  love  in  the  breast 
that  can  compass  the  ruin  of  womankind. 

REASONS  FOR  MAKING  THE  CHARGE. 
Now,  the  plaintiff  leaves  no  obscmlty  here ; 
he  has  made  his  charge.  I  will  show  you  his  reasons  for 
making  it  as  he  did.  He  thought  he  could  commend  it  to 
probability  by  the  shape  in  which  he  worded  it,  for 
words  are  to  him  everything.  He  has  what  is  called  an 
exchequer  of  words ;  he  banks  upon  it,  and  never  re- 
deems any  of  them,  and  his  stock  as  a  banker  is  inex- 


EbJCHER    TRIAL.  . 

haustible.  Or,  to  take  another  phrase  from  the  same 
great  master  of  language  and  of  human  nature,  he  is  al- 
ways able  to  deliver  a  fine  volley  of  words  ;  but  they  are 
words,  and  I  don't  know,  according  to  the  proverb,  how 
many  words  it  takes  to  fill  a  bushel  basket.  "Words 
which,  if  he  can  make  them  dovetail  together  in  sen- 
tences and  syntax,  and  hover  long  enough  for  him  to 
close  his  lips  and  leave  the  stand,  he  thinks 
will  carry  conviction ;  but  when  I  come  to  take 
up  the  narrative  of  his  accusation,  if  I  don't  show 
you  that  it  never  came  out  of  woman's  mouth  to  him, 
nor  out  of  man's  mouth  to  Mr.  Beecher,  T  will  lose  the 
case.  I  didn't,  by  a  cross-examination,  seek  to  distmrb 
one  word  of  his  own  narrative,  which  fills  two  columns 
of  a  newspa^ter.  I  knew  when  I  heard  it  all  that  the 
devil  of  lies  had  played  the  same  trick  vith  him  that  he 
always  plays  with  his  devotees.  Their  falsehoods  bring 
them  into  the  accusation  of  the  Divine  intelligence,  and 
the  means  it  by  its  mercy  has  provided  for  the  moral 
government  of  the  world,  and  then  deliver  over  the  vic- 
tim of  the  great  temptation,  and  the  author  of  that 
temptation,  for  the  punishment  which  Divine  justice  pro- 
vides for  such  cases.  Well,  then,  not  only  is  this  a 
seduction,  but  it  is  a  seduction  of  many  years  meditation, 
prosecution,  defeat,  and  final  triumph  over  a  reluctant, 
weeping,  unsympathizing,  unresponding  partner  of 
guilt.  Well,  is  that  a  probable  occupation  of  the  time 
and  mind  and  thoughts  of  the  busiest  man  in  Brooklyn : 
the  man  whose  energies  are  ever  taxed  in  the  open  day 
and  before  the  eyes  of  all  men  to  the  uttei*most,  so  that  the 
wonder  is  how  one  short  life  and  one  single  energy  can 
pour  out  these  fountains  of  spiritual  life  and  gladness 
that  adorn  this  city  with  their  freshness  and  flow  over 
the  whole  land.  What  becomes  of  all  the  maxims  of  hu- 
man nature  by  which  we  credit  evil  by  occupying  witli 
good  1  What  becomes  of  Dr.  Watts's  familiar  proposition 
that  "  Satan  finds  some  mischief  still  for  idle  hands  to 
do  ?  "  What  becomes  of  the  universal  experience  of 
society  that  these  offenses  which  do  come  and  must  come, 
however  great  the  woe  denounced  upon  him  by  whom 
they  come,  that  these  offenses  are  bred  out  of  idle- 
ness and  luxury  and  opportunity,  and  allure  men. 
Here  again  you  have  a  feature  of  the  accusation  that  fliea 
right  in  the  face  of  all  the  propositions  by  which  the  id'e 
and  dissolute  are  always  classed  together,  by  which  the 
parent  saves  his  son  and  protects  his  daughter  by  keeping 
them  out  of  the  company  of  the  idle,  lest  they,  too,  may 
become  dissolute.  Why,  if  your  Honor  please,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  the  intellectual  traits  that  have  framed 
this  charge  are  as  contemptible  as  the  m<fral,  odious 
traits  that  have  prompted  it.  Well,  seduction,  in  its  du- 
ration of  four  years,  at  last  produces  adultery,  and  that 
continues  for  16  months.  Well,  how  great  a  crime  that 
is!  Within  the  16  months  a  child  is  born.  The 
maternal  instinct  of  grvef  at  the  death  <>f 
the    infant,    and    the    maternal    instinct    of  joy 


SUMMING    UP    BY  MR.  EVARTS. 


661 


at  a  man-child  begotten  clui-ing  the  period  of 
adultcvy,  begin  and  end  tliis  domestic  transaction.  Aud 
wliat  greater  criminality  is  there  that  can  he  framed  for 
those,  even  if  the  odious  features  of  premeditated  and 
prolonged  seduction  were  excluded  ;  even  if  you  found 
the  parties  involved  by  sudden  temptation  and  by  mu- 
tual attraction,  and  by  overpowering  propensities  of  evil ; 
it  is  wicked,  wicked  as  it  can  be,  wicked  in  heart,  wicked 
in  soul,  wicked  in  hate  to  God,  to  society,  to  human  na- 
ture, wicked  in  everything ;  and  that  trait— that  makes 
out  the  first  substantive  and  principal  crime.  But  all 
along  there  attend  heavy  shadows,  deep  stains  of  guilt, 
that  give  even  new  horror  to  this  terrible  accusation, 
even  if  kept  within  the  sexual  limits  of  fault.  Im- 
piety on  both  sides,  blasphemy,  sacrilege,  false 
witness,  perjury— the  whole  decalogue  is  rent 
asunder  by  a  woman  that  is  most  lovely  and 
most  pure  throughout  it  all ;  and  the  man  who  is  through 
it  all  is  now  the  greatest  preacher  of  the  Gospel  of  Love, 
the  greatest  defender  of  the  foundations  of  society,  the 
greatest  cheerer  and  con  firmer  of  the  charities  and  beau- 
ties of  the  family  relation,  the  readiest  advocate  of  every- 
thing that  is  good,  that  is  pure  and  of  good  report ;  a  man 
that,  when  you  ransack  his  life  by  a  cross-examination 
that  entitled  them  to  prove  against  him  corruptions  of 
any  kind  from  Indianapolis  down,  goes  from  the  stand 
unquestioned  by  audacious  cross-examiners  that  did  n't 
hesitate  to  ask  old  Oliver  Johnson  whether  he  did  n't 
pick  out  a  strumpet  in  Canal-st.  and  take  her  to  a  bawdy- 
house  in  Mercer-st.  Now,  you  begin  to  see  how,  when  a 
man  begins  by  self-worship,  as  Tilton  did— and  which  I 
shall  show  you  is  the  soiu'ce  of  all  his  woes— when  he 
finds  no  greater  than  himself,  nothing  that  he  can  bow  to 
with  reverence  and  devotion— when  he  finds  that,  he 
comes  to  the  conclusion,  almost  necessarily,  and  it 
overmasters  his  conduct  and  his  speech  that  he  can  im- 
pose his  law  of  human  action,  his  law  of  human  responsi- 
bility, his  law  of  human  duty,  his  tests  of 
Intellectual  fitness  upon  the  rest  of  the  world. 
And  he  then  illustrates  that  short  and  pithy  characteriza- 
tion of  the  quality  of  folly  and  of  its  extreme  duration : 
"  The  fool  saith  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God."  There  is 
no  moral  government  in  this  world  that  looks  out  for 
men.  There  is  nothing  that  keeps  society  together  but 
constables  and  jails  and  handcuffs.  There  is  nothing 
that  keeps  virtue  in  women  except  imprisonment  in 
harems,  and  eunuchs  for  the  matron's  care  and  duennas 
for  the  maiden's.  This  is  the  government  of  th«  world 
that  the  doctrines  and  the  propositions  of  this  man's  case 
must  reduce  you  to,  or  else  you  must  find  ttiat  while  faith 
m  human  natui-e,  and  while  humble  dependence  upon 
l>ivine  protection  remain,  as  they  now  are,  the  basis  and 
the  glory  of  our  refined,  free,  yet  virtuous  and  strict  soci- 
etj— so  long  as  that  relation  of  man  to  man,  and  man  to 
God,  continues,  the  featiu-es  of  this  case,  moral,  intellec- 
tual, aud,  as  I  shall  show  you  hereafter,  even  cii-eumstan- 


tial,  charge  an  impossible  crime  against  impossible  com* 
^liission. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

THE    CHARGE    INCREDIBLE    UNDER  THE 
CffiCUMSTANCES. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  increaibility  of  so  flagrant  and  heinous 
an  imputation  upon  two  excellent  people,  as  I  am  justi- 
fied in  pronouncing  both  tJiese  parties,  irrespective  of 
the  imputation  under  consideration,  was  sought  to  be 
parried  by  this  plaintiff,  by  certain  qualifying  elements 
in  their  crime  which  approved  the  act  to  the  consciences 
of  each.  Well,  there  is  another  blow,  not  at  these  indi- 
viduals but  at  the  schemes  of  morality,  of  religion,  of  the 
theory  of  conscience  and  of  duty.  Make  it  out  once  that 
good  people  can  commit  crimes  and  be  good  in  doing  it, 
and  in  their  consciences  approving  it,  and  in  the 
retrospect  seeing  no  fault'  in  it,  and  you  have 
proved  the  first  darling  proposition  of  the  wicked,  that 
the  distinction  between  evil  and  good  is  mere  matter  of 
pretension  and  authority.  Ah !  gentlemen,  that  is  the 
final  stage  of  dissolute  immorality  ta  a  man,  in  a  city, 
in  a  community.  When  you  have  reached  that  stage  you 
have  exposed  yourself  to  that  final  woe  denounced  in  the 
Scripture,  "Woe  to  him  that  calls  evil  good,  and  good 
evil."  Why  woe  to  him?  Why,  he  insults  the  very 
majesty  of  heaven,  he  strikes  at  the  very  authority  of  the 
moral  governor  of  the  world.  Good  men  may  do  wicked 
things ;  bad  men  may  do  good  things ;  but  woe  to  him 
that  dra  t\^s  out  of  those  instances  and  experiences  of 
human  nature  the  final  insult  to  the  Deity,  that  there  is 
no  distraction  between  good  and  evil.  How  can  you 
renovate  society  that  adopts  that  proposition  ?  How  can 
you  redeem  an  individual  soul  that  accepts  that  proposi- 
tion? Now,  they  say  that  this  lady  never  did  anything 
wrong  that  she  thought  wrong  at  the  time ;  never  did 
anything— Elizabeth  never  did— that  her  conscience  did 
not  approve.  She  was  always  pure-minded;  she  hadn't  a 
carnal  incltaation  in  her  frame;  she  didn't  think  she 
had  violated  her  marriage  vows,  and  never  discovered 
that  she  had  committed  an  injury  to  her  husband  until 
she  read  a  novel,  in  which  there  was  no  violation  of 
marriage  vows,  and  no  adultery,  and  no  carnal  siu  of  any 
kiad,  but  an  undij^e  entanglement  of  the  affections  for  a 
priest,  and  an  interference  with  the  supreme  devotion  to 
her  husband  in  the  management  of  the  wife  aud  the 
household.  Now,  that  is  her  notion  of  guilt,  laid  down 
for  her  by  her  husband ;  her  character  now, 
after  the  act,  as  well  as  dm-ing  the  act,  and 
before  the  act ;  and  she  is  a  woman  of  strong 
mtellect,  an  admirable,  aud  a  truthful  critic,  accustomed 
to  the  best  intellectual  society ;  not  frivolous  and  weak, 
not  valuing  men  for  their  earthly  distinctions,  but  for 
their  high  moral  and  intellectual  characters ;  condescend- 


662 


lEE   TILTON-BF.ECEEE  TIUAL. 


ingfcotliose  of  low  estate;  saving  woruen  at  tlie  'betliel 
by  the  hundred  from  debaucliery  and  vice;  bringing 
ber  sheaves  full  of  them  to  the  Judgment  Seat,  that  she 
has  saved.  Her  husband  did  her  the  honor  to  thini:  that 
she  was  still  engaged  in  that  Chiistian  service  at  the 
moment  he  was  giving  his  evidence.  And  then  Mr. 
Beecher,  he  felt  that  if  he  had  fallen— if  he  had  fallen  at 
all,  as  Mr.  Moulton  puts  in  a  single  passage  I  shall  call 
your  attention  to  critically— he  thanked  God,  at  least, 
that  he  had  not  sinned  through  lust;  it  was  nothing  but 
love— beiiutiful,  chaste,  elevating,  purifying,  solacing 
love ;  and  if  there  had  been  any  sexual  intercourse  be- 
tween them,  it  was  merely  circumstantial,  as  it  were— a 
mere  emphasized  touch  of  the  hand  and  kiss  of  the  lips- 
making  their  benevolence  and  good  still  more  penetrat- 
ing to  the  soul,  more  gratefid  to  God.  And  then  it  was 
such  a  solace  and  a  food  to  his  mind,  as  Mr.  Tilton 
reports  it,  and  such  a  strength  to  him  In  his  labors 
for  the  conversion  of  sinners!  Well,  he  was  an  intel- 
lectual man.  Tilton  had  at  one  time  thought  he  was 
a  man  of  gi-eat  intellect,  greater  even  than  his  own,  but 
he  had  outlived  that  ;  but  still  his  strength  was  in  his 
great  moral  qualities.  There  he  was  unsurpassed  and 
unsurpassable ;  there  was  his  hold  upon  his  worship- 
ers ;  that  is  what  led  them  from  the  true  admiration  of 
the  greater  intellect  of  Mr.  Tilton.  These  great  and 
warm  sympathies  with  mankind,  this  magnanimity,  this 
generosity,  this  boyish  candor,  and  warmth  and  reck- 
lessness, this  was  what  made  Mr.  Beecher  greater  than 
Greeley,  and  Sumner,  and  Tilton.  Well,  now  you  see 
you  add  one  thing  more  to  make  this  adultery  that  was 
without  lust  on  either  side,  and  that  was  this  union  be- 
tween a  saintly  woman  and  an  apostolic  man,  without 
the  least  earthy  sentiment,  which  has  sometimes  been 
supposed  to  infect  marriage  a  little.  All  you  needed 
was  to  give  the  sanction  of  religion  and  prayer  to  it, 
make  it,  so  to  speak,  a  sacramental  adultery,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  God  and  the  holy  angels,  introduced  by  prayer 
and  terminated  hy  prayer. 

Ah  1  gentlemen,  look  at  the  folly  of  the  weaving  of  this 
brain,  that  could  expect  his  charge  of  adultery  to  be  be- 
lieved, expect  his  charge  of  adultery  to  cease  to  be  in- 
credible, only  by  the  adultery  being  made  immaculate, 
cease  to  be  a  violation  of  conscience  only  by  its  being  a 
glorious  exhibition  of  the  power  of  himian  love  ;  and  I 
shall  show  you  hereafter  that  they  onl;^  could  make  the 
connection  and  intercourse  possible  by  beiQg  allowed  to 
dispense  vsdth  all  proof  that  it  ever  occmixjd,  or  legally 
demonstrable  by  throwing  down  all  the  rules  of  evi- 
dence that  deny  hospitality  to  charges  of  this  nature, 
that  come  from  the  breath  of  the  nostrils  of  men,  of  wit- 
nesses. Adultery,  gentlemen,  is  a  thing  that  touches  the 
institution  of  marriage,  and  no  consenting  testimony  of 
confessions  ever  can  break  the  bond.  Chil- 
dren, and  children's  children  are  interested,  that 
their     fortunes      and     their     lutuie     shall  not 


be  contaminated  and  despoiled  by  the  vice  in  respect  of 
truthfulness  of  any  of  their  ancestors.  Thexe  must  be  a 
proof  as  against  them,  binding  on  them,  by  people  who 
saw  the  conduct,  the  action,  the  communion,  the  oppor- 
tunity, the  security,  the  subsequent  evidence  of  the  oc- 
currence; and  then  a  court,  and  then  a  jury  find  that  a 
fact  has  occurred  to  which  the  law  imputes  the  conse- 
quences of  the  dissolution  of  the  marriage  bond;  and 
though  it  sheds  a  tear  over  the  innocent  that  are  to  suffer, 
it  is  a  part  of  that  moral  government  of  the  world  in- 
tended to  scoure  obedience,  to  compel  regard  for  chil- 
dren, for  those  we  love,  the  law  that  if  the  father  eats 
sour  grapes  the  children's  teeth  shall  be  set  on  edge. 
And  didn't  this  woman  know  that?  and  didn't  this 
preacher  know  that  ?  Now,  what  is  an  occurrence  that 
is  against  all  human  experience,  and  all  natural  laws, 
whether  physical,  or  mental,  or  moral?  Why,  it  is 
a  miracle;  that  is  what  it  is.  That  -is  the  defi- 
nition of  a  miracle.  So  this  is  a  miraculous  adultery,  the 
like  of  which  is  described  in  none  of  the  histories,  or  the 
symptoms  of  it  given  in  any  of  the  philosophies.  Nobody 
can  guard  against  this  kind  of  adultery  coming  into  their 
families,  because  it  comes  with  the  purest  and  best,  who 
remaia  pure  and  best  all  the  while  it  is  happening  and 
after  it  is  over.  Well,  miracles  need  a  good  deal  of  testi- 
mony. That  is  agreed,  I  think,  from  the  beginning.  Some 
writers  thought  that  no  amount  of  testimony  could  prove 
a  miracle,  because  it  accorded  with  human  experience 
that  man  would  lie,  and  did  not  accord  with  hmuan  ex- 
perience that  miracles  would  happen.  Still  that  is  dan- 
gerous gTound.  All  agree  though,  that  for  belief  in  a 
jniracle,  you  must  have  good  testimony,  enough  of  it, 
from  pure  lips,  honest  hearts,  intelligent  observation  ; 
and  when  men  have  laid  down  their  lives  on  that  testi- 
mony, been  torn  by  wild  beasts,  been  roasted  at  the  fires 
of  martyrdom,  pierced  with  arrows,  slain  in  defense  of 
their  testimony  and  the  truth,  it  is  a  miracle  that 
men  should  go  through  the  act,  unless  they 
testified  to  truth,  and  we  believe  their  evidence. 
Now,  ridentum  discere  verum  quid  vetat.  We  may  some- 
times illustrate  truth  with  amusement.  Not  very  long 
ago  Punch  had  a  very  pleasant  colloquy  and  cartoon, 
showing  a  conversation  between  a  ritualistic  curate  of  the 
English  Church  and  a  Sunday-school  boy,  on  the  subiect 
of  miracles.  "  My  boy,"  says  the  clergyman,  "  what  is  a 
miracle  ? "  and  the  boy  answered  correctly,  the  first 
time,  that  he  didn't  know.  "  Well,  my  lad,  if  you  should 
wake  up  in  the  middle  of  the  night  and  see  the  sun 
shining,  what  should  you  say  that  was  1 "  Says  the  boy, 
"I  should  say  it  was  the  moon."  fLaughter.]  "Well, 
but  supposing  a  man  should  teU  you  that  it  was 
the  sun,  whit  should  you  say  then? "  Says  the 
boy,  "I  should  say  he  lied."  fLaughter.]  Well,  with 
dig-nity  and  emotion  the  curate  proceeds  :  "  Suppose  I, 
that  never  tell  a  lie,  should  say  to  you  that  it  was  the 
sun,  what  should  you  say  then!"  "  I  should  say  that 


SUJijnXG    UP  1 

yon  were  clrunk."  [Laughter.J  Weli,  no^v,  that  sliows 
hou-  hard  it  is  to  prove  a  miracle. 

Well,  noTV,  liere  we  hare  a  ijlaziiag  sun  of  adulteiy  in 
the  serene  religious  liglit  of  the  most  saintly  characters, 
testifledto  by  witnesses ;  and  if  you  were  asked,  under 
these  moral  conditions  of  mii-acles,  what  criticism  would 
be  made  upon  the  statement  that  this  blazing  sun  of 
adultery  was  flaming  out  of  the  very  her  vens  of  religious 
purity,  what  would  you  say  \  Why,  you  would  say  that  it 
was  the  moon  [laughter] ;  that  nothing  inconsistent  with 
chastity  and  piuitv-  could  display  itself  out  of  those 
heavens.  Ah  I  but  if  Mr.  Tilton  comes  along  and  says  : 
"  But  if  I,  Sir  Marmaduke  [laughter],  the  husband  of  this 
pious  wife,  the  friend  of  this  apostolic  clergy- 
man—if I  say  to  you  that  it  is  the  blaz- 
ing sun  of  adultery,  what  would  you  say 
then  ?"  I  think  you  would  say  that  he  lied.  And  if  Mr. 
Moulton,  Sir-  Philip  Sidney  [laughter],  that  never  told  a 
lie  [laughter],  he  should  say:  "Eut  if  I,  on  the  honor  of 
Sir  Philip  Sidney  [laughter]  and  my  own  combined— J 
say  it  is  a  blazing  sun  of  adultery" — you  would  say 
that  he  was  di^unlt.  But  Punches  catechism  has  given 
out,  and  we  hare  another  witness,  "  I,  the  wife  of  Sir 
Philip  Sidney,  I,  the  communicant  of  Heury  Ward  Beech- 
er,  the  sisterly  friend  of  INIrs.  Tilton,  I  say  that 'it  is  the 
blazing  sim  of  adultery  out  of  these  pure  heavens." 
What  would  you  say  to  that  ?  Well,  politeness,  even  in  a 
boy,  would  make  him  hesitate,  but  I  think  he  would 
have  to  say  (for  he  would  not  give  in  to  the  miraclr^)— he 
would  say,  "  Well,  madam,  T  think  yon  must  have  been 
sunstruck  and  don't  know  the  moon  from  the  sun." 
[Laughter.]  Now,  gentlemen,  there  is  no  greater  contrari- 
ety Lu  the  propositions  of  the  natural  miracle  and 
the  sense  •  of  the  boy  thus  illustrated  by  a  humorous 
Btory,  than  the  contrariety  between  the  firmament  of  the 
moral  authority  of  this  world  fixed  by  the  same  Divlue 
hand  that  set  the  courses  of  the  stars  and  divided  the  day 
and  the  night  between  the  sun  and  the  moon,  discrimi- 
nated by  as  firm  lines  as  this  natural  arrangement  of  the 
skies— j^st  as  impossible  of  derangement,  just  as  much  a 
final  and  fatal  disorder  as  this  transposition  of  the  sun 
and  the  moon  in  their  natural  reigns,  as  fixed  by  the  Au- 
thor of  this  material  frame  on  which  we  live.  Nay  more. 
He  who  made  these  moral  divisions  meant  that  they 
should  be  more  permanent  than  the  physical  frame,  for 
He  said:  "The  lieavens  and  the  earth  shaU pass  away, 
but  not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  my  law  shaH  fail."  Now,  that 
is  a  respectable  authority,  and  the  date  of  the  continu- 
ance of  that  law,  and  of  responsibility  under  it,  is  so 
remote  that  it  is  not  worth  our  while  to  run  our  heads 
against  it. 

ILLOGICAL  PROPOSITIONS  IVLiDE  BY  THE 
PLAIXTIFF. 
Now,  gentlemen,  whenever  you  establish  the 
pioposition  that  these  breaches  ot  external  morality 


I  EVARTS.  663 

that  threaten  the  very  fabric  of  society,  the  central 
point,  the  purity  of  the  family,  can  occur  without  pre- 
liminary moral  degradation  and  preparation — without 
being  accompanied  by  an  inflammation  of  the  low  desires 
and  the  tr^iumph  of  the  flesh  over  the  spirit— can  be 
luacticed  with  the  maintenance  of  all  the  active 
benevolences  and  th.  exhibition  of  all  the  beautifid 
virtues  of  life,  you  have  struck  a  blow  not  at  IMr. 
Beecher,  not  at  Mrs.  TiLton,  but  at  your  own 
wives  and  j  our  own  daughters.  Why  do  you 
rear  them  in  the  distinction  between  the  wise  and 
the  foolish  vii'gins,  if  the  wise  virgins,  with  their  lamps 
trimmed  and  burning,  are  to  be  left  in  the  outer  dark- 
ness, and  the  wedding  feast  closed  against  them?  Why 
do  you  look  at  the  growing  beauty  of  the  face  and  form, 
and  feel  safe?  Because  you  observe  and  trust  an  equal 
flowering  of  the  immortal  spirit,  and  find  that  her 
mother's  virtue  shows  itself  in  every  disposition  of  the 
beautiful  maiden;  that  she  loves  charity,  seeks  the 
lowly,  teaches  the  ignorant,  saves  the  abandoned,  loves 
her  father,  loves  her  mother,  loves  her  brothers,  loves  her 
sisters,  has  her  hands  full  through  days  of  constant  and 
painful  labors  appropriate  to  her  sex  and  condition, 
sleeps  at  night  upon  a  pillow  prepared  by  praj'er,  and 
watched  over  by  Him  to  whom  the  prayer  was  addressed. 
■^Tiat  are  all  these  things  to  you  if  it  is  demon- 
strated by  the  verdict  in  this  trial  that  there  is 
no  connection  between  the  moral  nature  and  the  lewd, 
wicked,  low,  base  prostitutions  of  the  body  ?  And  what 
do  you  think  of  your  wives  if,  as  you  have  watched  them 
through  15  years  of  marriage  and  of  duty,  and  found 
them  to  be  (as  you  knew  they  were  when  you  clasped 
hands  with  them  at  the  altar)  pure,  noble,  intelligent, 
discreet,  wise  virgins  as  you  espoused  them,  and  have 
found  that  they  loved  their  husbands  to  idolatry,  loved 
their  children  with  a  devotion  for  which  there  is  no  e^>i- 
thet  and  no  comparison  ?  Who  ever  heard  an  illustration 
of  a  mother's  love  ?  Nobody  can  give  an  equivalent  for 
that.  How  often  have  other  forms  of  haman  affection 
been  dignified  by  comparing  them  in  power  and  intensity 
to  a  mother's  love  I  But  you  find  nothing  to  compare  a 
mother's  love  to ;  it  is  a  prepossession  that  fills  the  heart, 
satisfies  the  mind,  shows  to  the  widest  experience  that 
there  is  nothing  can  be  placed  above  it  to  illustrate  it. 

If  with  all  this,  and  with  your  daily  observation  of  the 
course  of  life,  the  coming  in  and  the  going  out  of  a 
woman,  the  correspondence  day  by  day  during  your 
absences,  you  find  out,  some  4th  of  July  morning,  that  a 
coui'se  of  temptation,  of  solicitation,  of  coarse  and  vulgar 
contact  with  the  body,  has  prepared  the  way  to  a  final 
adultery  that  has  continued  for  sixteen  months,  would 
you  not  lose  your  faith  in  religion,  your  faith  in  women, 
your  faith  in  society,  your  faith  in  human  nature  ?  Why, 
all  the  while  it  may  be  going  on  in  all  our  families,  and 
nobody  knows  anything  about  it.  TNTiat,  shall  we  then 
discard  aU  this,  shall  we  believe  that  these  sins  come 


664  IHJ^  TILTON-B 

only  by  power  against  wliicli  no  morality  can  guard,  tliat 
there  is  no  necessary  connection  between  character  and 
conduct ;  tliat  these  sins  do  not  come  from  within,  but 
that  with  all  this  purity  they  may  arise.  Character  and 
fate,  the  opinion  of  society  all  crush  you  and  yom-  family. 
What  will  you  believe?  These  idle  and  frivolous  sugge.s- 
tions  made  by  the  oaths  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  of  Mr.  Moulion, 
or  will  you  look  to  higher  authority  1  Now,  there  was 
once  a  great  authority  in  this  world  whose  brief  sojourn 
In  the  flesh  changed  the  nature  of  the  world  and  laid  the 
foundations  of  that  religion  which  we  all  profess,  and  has 
redeemed  man  as  an  iudividual,  raising  him  to  glory  ever 
since,  and  has  redeemed  society  from  the  vicious  influ- 
ences with  which  heathenism  corrupted  it,  and  raised  it 
to  its  present  elevation.  It  was  said  Him  that  he  need- 
ed not,  as  we  all  need,  as  you  need— that  He  needed  not 
that  man  should  testify  of  man,  for  He  Icnew  what 
was  in  man.  Now,  what  does  he  say  on  this  subject  1 
For  fi'om  within,  out  of  the  heart  of  man  proceed  evil 
thoughts,  adulteries,  fornications,  mm-ders,  thefts,  cov- 
etousness,  wickedness,  deceit,  lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye, 
blasphemy,  pride,  foolishness ;  all  these  come  from 
within  and  defile  a  man."  And  that  is  the  basis  on  which 
you  rest  the  Christian  education  which  is  to  preserve  the 
chastity  of  your  beautiful  daughter  against  all  allure- 
ments and  temptations,  and  you  watch  to  see  whether  in 
her  conduct  you  find  any  beginning  of  uncertain  steps 
outside  the  way  in  which  she  should  go,  and  if  you  do 
not,  but  find  that  all  her  steps  are  firm  in  the  paths  of 
the  Gospel,  you  have  no  fears.  Now,  it  did  not  use  to  be 
80  with  women  or  with  men.  Are  we  to  dis- 
card this  life-giving,  purifying,  elevating  sentiment 
on  which  our  society  has  rested  so  \7ell 
and  so  long,  which  is  to  be  extended  by  the  benevolent 
labors  of  our  missionaries  and  the  generous  contributions 
of  all  Christians  of  all  creeds,  for  the  help  of  a  sinking 
world  ?  Are  we  to  abandon  these  and  go  back  to  the  old 
system  of  physical  security  %  I  should  think  not.  I 
would  like  to  see  the  men  that  would  look  their  wives  and 
daughters  in  the  face  and  tell  them  that  they  must  go 
back  to  the  duennas  for  the  maidens  and  to  the  harem 
for  the  married  women.  And,  as  we  are  not  princes,  and 
have  no  system  in  our  equal  society  by  which  the 
fair  and  the  beautiful  are  crowded  into  the  possession  of 
the  princes  and  nobles  of  the  world,  whenever  we  under- 
take to  lose  our  faith  in  religion  and  virtue,  in  the  equality 
and  purity  of  women,  we  shall  have  to  adopt  some  of 
those  associated  forms  of  protection  by  which  combined 
efforts  may  furnish  adequate  security.  We  shall  have  to 
have  a  Wife  Deposit  Company,  where  we  can  leave  our 
wives  during  the  day,  and  we  shall  have  to  have 
some  patent  contrivance  of  paramour-proof  alarms 
by  which  we  can  be  called  to  the  rescue  when  the 
insidious  imdermining  of  this  external  virtue  (for 
there  is  nothing  left  in  the  world  but  external  virtue) 
begins. 


EECREB  TEIAL, 

LEGAI.  ASPECTS  OF  THE  SUIT. 
Now,  gentlemen,  this  being  the  character  of 
the  crime,  and  this  being  the  disposition,  conduct  in 
general  and  repute  of  the  accused  parties,  let  us  see  what 
the  law  requires  to  meet  its  exactions  in  reference  to  such 
a  suit  as  this.  And  first,  what  is  the  nature  of  the  suit  i 
It  is  what  is  dalled,  for  shortness,  a  crim.  con.  action,  by 
which  an  injured  husband  is  allowed  to  seek  a  verdict  of 
the  jury,  and  as  a  consequent  upon  it,  pecimiary  damages 
for  the  invasion  of  his  family,  the  sacrifice  of  the  purity 
of  his  wife,  and  the  destruction  of  the  happiness  of  his 
household.  The  action  is  an  anomaly  offensive  to  our 
civilization,  and  grew  up  only  under  a  peculiar  condition 
of  the  English  law  in  respect  to  divorce.  Adhering  to  the 
strictness  of  the  Romish  Church,  which  made  marriage  a 
sacrament,  and  allowed  it  never  to  be  terminated  except 
by  the  highest  religious  dispensation,  the  English  Church, 
the  English  nation  maintained  the  indissolubility  of  the 
marriage  relation  for  any  cause  but  adultery,  the  highest 
power  in  the  country  being  the  judge  of  that ;  in  other 
words,  an  act  of  Parliament  being  necessary  for  the 
dissolution,  as  the  flat  of  the  Pope  had  been  while 
he  remained  the  spiritual  head  of  all  Europe.  Now,  Par- 
liament would  grant  this  dissolution  only  for  adultery, 
and  it  would  require  the  proof  of  that  adultery,  not  to  be 
made  in  afiidavits  and  depositions,  confessions  and  con- 
currence of  wish  and  agreement,  and  failing  to  have  it 
wrought  but  by  public  trial  through  the  authentic  and 
trustworthy  mode  of  determining  questions  of  fact  by  the 
verdict  of  a  jury  in  a  hostile,  not  collusive,  suit,  and  in 
which  the  husband  should  have  the  means  of  drawing  nn 
adverse  party,  the  paramour,  into  the  contestation,  and 
then  the  rules  of  law,  if  your  Honor  please,  in  maintenance 
of  this  great  policy  of  society  that  there  should  be  an 
open  proof  in  fact,  and  by  confessions  of  the  act  upon 
which  the  marriage  tie  could  be  dissolved  and  the  family 
dispersed  maintained  the  proposition  that  confessions 
alone  were  not  adequate  for  the  maintenance  of  the  issue, 
that  the  validity,  that  the  security,  that  the  purity  of  the 
marriage  relation,  and  its  maintenance  m  good  credit, 
as  an  example  to  the  rest,  should  not  permit  of  mj 
destruction  of  it  except  by  proof  of  the  fact. 
Now,  the  nature  of  the  act  being  secret,  and  the  more 
elevated  and  civilized  the  society  the  more  secret,  proof 
of  the  actual,  final  guilty  contact,  as  of  the  body  of  the 
crime,  was  not  required,  but  proof  of  the  body  of  the 
crime  was  required,  proof  of  conduct,  proof  of  disposi- 
tion, proof  of  adulterous  purposes,  proof  of  entangled 
affections  of  sexual  purpose,  proof  of  open  or  discovered 
behavior  of  some  kind  that  showed  the  surrender  of  lust- 
ful desire  and  the  prosecution  of  the  purpose  of  its  indul- 
gence, proof  of  the  opportunity,  by  companionship, 
drawing  them  away  from  virtuous  and  honest  haunts 
and  scenes  into  relations  which  themselves  carried  im- 
putation of  unlawful  purpose,  and  of  such  length  as  gave 
opportunity,  and  under   such   circumstances  of  suih 


pos'.'d  security  aa  rendered  it  jiiatly  a  conclu- 
sion that  the  adulterous  purposes  that  had  been 
manifested  by  previous  external  conduct  and  the 
-withdrawal  from  paths  of  innocent  and  open 
companionship  into  this  or  that  situation  foreign 
to  the  natural  and  moral  relations— foUo-sving  that,  I  say, 
opportunity  of  personal  contact,  "vrith  secuiitj,  or  opinion 
of  security,  Avere  adeouate  substitutes,  or  adequate 
methods  of  proof  of  the  body  of  the  crime.  It  is  a  mia- 
tate  to  say  that  the  body  of  the  crime  is  not  reciuired  to 
be  proved,  in  the  same  sense  that  the  body  of  the  crime 
is  rei-iuired  to  be  proved  in  all  matters  of  judicial  con- 
demnation. The  distinction  is  that  from  the  peculiar 
nature  of  the  gaiilty  act,  the  facts  and  circumstances  of 
external  proof  shall  be  of  that  consistency  and  force  and 
undoubtful  conclusion  as  cany  the  secret  act  as  the  con- 
sequence of  vrhat  has  been  openly  seen  and  proved. 
>'ow,  these  are  the  reciuirements  of  oru'  lav,-.  These  facts 
thus  proved,  accompanying  or  supporting  confessions — 
that  is,  confessions  of  the  party  implicated  iu 
the  suit  (for  confessions  of  one  party  do 
not  affect  or  conclude  in  the  least  another)  may 
make  out  an  adequate  ground  for  a  verdict,  provided  it 
is  made  manifest  to  the  concurrent  judgment  of  all  the 
Jm^ymen  that  the  things  proved  are  not  reasonably  com- 
patible with  any  other  conclusion  than  that  of  guilt  So- 
ciety, law,  abhors  this  conclusion,  and  refi-ains  from  it 
except  when,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  and  in  the 
varying  minds  of  twelve  independent,  honest  men  no 
other  result  c^n  be  reached. 

More  than  in  any  other  case  the  law  fears  here  to 
strike  iu  the  dark.  It  has  made  one  great  concession, 
that  the  mere  act  need  not  be  proved,  if  you  prove  the 
approaches  to  the  act  by  ocular  witnesses.  Beyond  that 
concession  it  will  not  go  ;  more  than  in  all  other  issues  of 
fact,  it  is  striking  the  absent  and  the  Innocent ;  it  is 
injuriag  society  by  aspersing  and  discom-aging  the  insti- 
tution of  marriage;  it  is  imsettling  the  faith  oi  man  in 
woman,  and  of  woman  in  man ;  of  x^arents  in  children, 
and  of  children  iu  parents ;  and  the  law  will  not  strike 
the  blow  In  the  dark.  More  than  in  any 
otlier  case  is  the  feeling  of  our  humane  law 
predominant;  that  it  is  better  that  ten  cases 
of  guilt  should  pass  unpunished  than  that  one  of  inno- 
cence should  be  condemned.  In  other  cases  the  convic- 
tion of  the  innocent  touches  mainly  him  or  her,  but  in 
this  case  it  strikes  the  absent,  and  the  infants,  and 
wounds  society  in  its  tenderest  point.  Now,  in  this  coun- 
try this  action  has  never  had  any  respectability  about  it. 
"Wjhy  1  Because  the  basis  that  made  it  respectable  in  En- 
gland was  wanting :  that  is,  in  England  it  was  a  neees- 
Bary  step  in  the  vindication  of  the  husband's  right  to 
have  a  divorce  from  the  guilty  wife,  and  the  method  of 
their  law  had  provided  this  means  of  an  open  and  an  ad- 
verse trial ;  but  in  our  country,  in  our  State,  divorce  has 
always  been  obtainr^ble,  not    on    any  lighter  cause 


r  ME.   EYARTS.  665 

than  adultery,  but  upon  an  issue  framed  in  an 
equity  court,  in  which  the  husband  and  the 
wife  themselves  were  parties,  and  the  trial  was  between 
them,  the  man  and  the  woman,  and  no  crim.  con.  was 
necessary.  And  honest  men  never  had  a  desire  to  pro- 
mulgate their  shame,  their  wives'  shame,  their  children's 
blight.  It  was  only  in  the  lower  orders  of  society,  where 
there  was  always  a  suspicion  of  speculation  and  money- 
seeking,  that  this  action  found  any  hold  in  this  American 
society.  And  it  has  attracted  the  notice  of  political, 
moral,  and  religious  thinkers  in  England  why  it  was  that 
these  were  felt  to  be  most  discreditable  actions,  no  matter 
what  their  result  or  their  justification  in  fact,  and  were 
wholly  discarded  in  America,  and  they  found  out 
the  reason,  and  they  now  have  opened  their  courts  of 
probate  and  divorce,  equivalent  to  our  equity  juris- 
diction, to  try  the  direct  issue  between  husband  and  wife 
for  a  divorce.  And  what  have  they  done  \  They  have 
said  to  these  parties,  '•  If  you  don't  want  a  divorce  you 
can't  have  any  action  for  erim.  con.;  that  is  abolished. 
If  you  do  want  a  divorce  you  may  also  pursue  the  guilty 
paramour  by  joining  him  in  the  suit,  and  if  you  establish 
your  right  to  a  divorce  you  may  have,  as  a  consequence, 
a  just  judgment  against  him  in  the  way  of  punitive  dam- 
ages, but  the  money  shall  be  secured  to  the  wife  so  long 
as  she  remains  penitent  and  chaste."  Xow,  that,  that  is 
the  treatment  of  the  question  that  belongs  ^ro  an  intelli- 
gent moral  commimity ;  and  I  look,  as  a  consequence  of 
this  suit,  so  rare  in  our  experience,  to  see  our  Legislature 
purify  otu'  law  and  oirr  courts  in  the  same  way.  Xow, 
look  you;  a  husband,  although  he  has  a  guilty 
wife,  cannot  get  a  divorce  from  her  either  in 
England  or  here,  if  he  is  also  a  gtulty  husband,  and  he 
cannot  pursue  the  paramour  in  England  for  debauching 
his  wife  unless  he  can  get  a  divorce  from  the  wife  ;  and 
therefore  a  guilty  husband  does  not  find  any  encourage- 
ment for  complaining  that  h.is  wife  has  done  an  injury  to 
him.  Again,  the  law  of  divorce  has  always  been  pure. 
It  has  said,  and  insisted  upon  it,  "  we  will  allow  no  specu- 
lation on  this  subject  at  all,  not  an  instant  of  it.  If  yon 
become  possessed  of  knowledge  of  your  wife's  guilt,  then 
show  your  respect  for  the  purity  of  marriage,  show  your 
respect  for  yourself  and  your  owm  virtue,  show  your 
vindication  of  the  institution  of  marriage  by  resorting 
openly  to  the  law  for  relief;  but  if,  irom  pity,  or  from 
love,  or  from  lust,  you  keep  possession  of  the  wife, 
one  kiss  after  your  knowledge  closes  your  com- 
plaint. Condonation,  by  which  a  husband  advised 
of  the  injury  to  his  marriage-bed  continues  to  cohabit 
with  his  wife,  ends  that  business,  and,  it  is  supjjosedj 
keeps  that  secret."  So  you  see,  gentlemen,  that  there  was 
not  much  basis  for  an  action  of  divorce  on  the  part  of 
this  plaintiff  against  Mrs.  Tilton  on  any  view  of  the  facts 
of  her  conduct.  He  heard,  it  is  said,  a  very  long  and  mi- 
nute narrative,  turned  over  in  the  bed  and  kissed  his 
wife  ;  she  became  pregnant,  and  he  lived  with  her  four 


666 


TEE   TILTON-BEBCBEB  TEJAL. 


years.  Now,  gentlemen,  nobody  ever  Tbrouslit  a  narra- 
tive of  that  kind  into  a  court  of  justice  since  the  world 
began  until  now,  never— I  mean  among  civilized,  refined, 
and  cultivated  people. 

A  LAUGH  AT  "  BROOKLYN  EPITHETS." 

Something  has  been  said  about  the  epithets 
that  liave  been  applied  to  the  parties  and  tbeir  coadju- 
tors in  this  prosecution.  Well,  now,  epithets  spring  from  a 
generalization  of  facts,  and  never  can  be  made  until  there 
has  been  a  somewhat  frequent  or  repetitious  occurrence 
of  the  facts,  in  order  to  get  a  generalization  out  of  them. 
There  is  not  any  epithet  for  this  conduct  whatever,  for 
there  has  never  been  any  other  instance  of  it,  never,  never. 
If  you  look  in  your  grammars  you  will  see  that  is  so.  But 
aside  from  that,  gentlemen,  I  should  not  think  of  bring- 
ing epithets  to  Brooklyn  from  New- York,  for  a  good  deal 
of  trouble,  I  think,  has  come  from  these  extravagant 
epithets  that  the  Brooldyn  people  use.  fLaughter.] 
They  are  very  strong,  and  I  think  really  that  the  best 
test  for  the  public  spfetytnat  can  be  applied  to  our 
bridge  between  the  two  cities,  whenever  it  is  completed, 
will  be  to  send  over  a  preliminary  train  loaded  ith 
Brooklyn  epithets.  [Laughter.]  If  the  bridge  can  stand 
that  it  will  bear  any  burden.  But  seriously,  conduct 
like  that  of  this  plaintiff  upon  his  own  showing  (and  no 
man  can  complain  of  being  judged  out  of  his  own  mouth) 
Is  not  in  need  of  any  characterization.  As  Junius  said 
once,  with  the  pith  that  characterized  him,  such  a  char- 
acter as  this  plaintiflfs  can  escape  censure  only  when  it 
escapes  observation.  Now,  it  may  not  be  pleasant ;  men 
do  not  like— always  like— to  lie  in  the  bed  that  they  have 
made  for  themselves,  and  they  sometimes,  most  unsea- 
sonably and  at  great  inconvenience  to  others, 
try  to  find  a  softer  bed.  [Laughter.]  But 
alas!  in  the  search  that  this  plaintiff  may 
make  to  get  out  of  this  uneasy  bed  in  which  he  lies,  he 
has  not  the  sympathizing  follower  with  a  pillow  be- 
hind him  that  he  had  on  those  other  occasions.  fEe- 
newed  laughter.]  Now,  gentlemen,  if  there  had  been  no 
question  in  this  case  affecting  a  great  character,  in  which 
there  was  enlisted  the  interest  of  every  honest  man  and 
woman  in  Brooklyn,  in  the  United  States,  in  Christendom 
— I  mean  Mr.  Beeoher— if  the  fact  of  his  purity  had  not 
been  the  fundamental  fact  in  this  case,  but  the  question 
had  been,  as  it  might  have  been,  between  Mr.  Tilton  and 
one  of  his  neighbors  of  an  equal  importance  in  society, 
between  neighboring  farmers,  or  merchants,  or  lawyers, 
however  reputable  and  however  dear  to  them  their 
credit  was,  if  a  plaintiff,  against  such  a  defendant, 
had  brought  a  suit  of  this  kind,  the  jury 
would  not  have  sat  five  months,  one  month, 
one  week,  one  day,  upon  his  case.  They  would  have 
said :  "  Well,  if  you  could  be  so  cool  and  quiet,  so  gener- 
ous and  forgiving,  so  amicable  in  intercourse  with  the 
adulterer,  and  receive  so  many  aids  and  favors  from  him. 


and  above  all  if  you  could  live  with  your  wife  four  years, 
we  do  not  see  any  good  reason  why  we  should  trouble 
ourselves  much  about  your  misfortunes  ;  you  have  been 
tolerably  patient  under  them,  and  we  guess  in  the  long 
run  it  will  be  as  well  for  you  and  Elizabeth  and  the  chil- 
dren that  you  should  go  on  as  you  have  begun,.tothe  end." 
The  plaintiff  would  be  laughed  out  of  court,  and  he 
would  not  have  had  as  uncomfortable  a  record  for  the 
public  in  that  short  disposition  of  the  case  as  the  five 
months'  protraction  of  your  patience  and  of  your  in- 
dulgence has  made  for  him  here.  Now,  our  learned 
friends  understood  this  perfectly,  and  the  odiousness  of 
tacking  a  money  verdict  on  to  this  action  of  this  husband 
against  this  defendant,  in  respect  to  this  distirrbance  of 
his  peace,  if  it  were  all  believed,  was  so  apparent  that 
they  early  disdained  that.  Some  more  noble  passion  than 
the  accusation  of  gain  after  this  long  patience  was  nec- 
essary, and  my  learned  friends  have  found  it  in  that 
very  mild  and  creditable  Christian  virtue,  revenge.  Thi?  is 
their  language— not  for  money,  but  revenge.  Well,  I 
never  knew  a  jury  that  would  like  to  be  made  an  instru- 
ment of  revenge.  If  they  were  to  heal  an  honest  man's 
injury,  they  would  do  it ;  but  to  help  him  to  a  revengeful 
assault  upon  another  is  not  creditable.  We  pardon  even 
the  savageness  of  an  enemy  that,  under  provocation, 
takes  vengeance  in  his^  own  hands ;  but  we  do  not  pardon 
much  men  who  lend  themselves  as  instruments  to  the 
vengeance  of  iniured parties— not  much.  If  a  man  shoots 
an  enemy  for  a  great  injury,  sometimes  he  escapes  con- 
demnation when  strictness  of  law  would  take  his  life; 
but  I  think  that  if  he  hires  another  man  to  murder  his  en- 
emy, the  hired  assassin  is  not  considered  an  institution 
of  society  whose  neck  is  to  be  saved  from  the  gallows. 
So  here,  if  vengeance,  if  injury,  if  destruction  is  the 
whole  motive  and  purpose  of  this  suit,  you  wiU  not  lend 
yourselves  to  it.  And  you  will  understand  that  this  is  an 
issue  in  which  the  question  is  whether  Mr.  Beecher,  who 
stood  for  this  whole  country  in  the  hight  and  extremity 
of  our  perils  and  disasters  against  all  England,  and  stood 
alone,  and  faced  the  frowns  and  jeers  and  "  cat-calls" 
and  "  chaff"  of  great  crowds  of  English  gentlemen  of 
the  better  classes,  and  faced  them  down  in  the 
name  of  the  United  States,  who  stood  alone  ta  En- 
gland, and  aroused,  encouraged,  developed,  and 
amassed  a  power  in  our  favor  that  no  single  mind 
or  voice  ever  did  since  the  world  began— whether 
he  is  of  that  base,  low,  coarse,  lewd  fiber  of  soul 
and  groBsness  of  body  that  wiU  enable  this  aristocracy  of 
England  to  return  the  triumph  we  have  had  to  submit  t» 
by  saying,  "  You  sent  us  the  noblest,  strongest,  most  cour- 
ageous, most  adequate  man,  and  subdued  us,  but  you 
have  discovered  that  his  courage  was  not  of  the  soul  of 
purity  fi-om  love,  from  faith,  from  duty,  but  the  mere  ef- 
frontery of  a  voluptuary  and  an  adulterer."  Whether 
you  are  to  say  by  your  verdict  this  man,  that,  ever  since 
this    trial     lias     been     progressing,    has     aat  Ii» 


tSUMMISG    CF  BY  M£.  EYAETS, 


667 


your  presence,  tliat  every  stranger,  liumijle  or 
faiiiOLis,  tliat  lias  visited  the  coui-t-room  during 
tlie  trial  lias  desired  Ms  acquaintance,  tlie  grasp  of  liis 
Land,  tlie  recognition  of  liis  autograpli,  tlie  knowledge  of 
Ids  person  as  a  man,  tliat  not  only  they  hut  you  and  all 
men  should  exclude  from  all  companionship — or,  I  re- 
peat, hovrever  lightly,  hoTrever  carelessly,  hovrerer 
grossly  people  may  talk  ahout  different  forms  of  inconti- 
nence and  irregularity,  nobody  can  qualify,  nohody  can 
tolerate  a  premeditated  and  persistent  seduction  of  a 
married  vroman,  and  a  continuous  defilement  of  the 
niaiTiage  hed.  Ah!  gentlemen,  Tve  must  look  this  crime 
jn  its  face.  Why,  there  is  not  a  sailor  in  Wapping,  vrtth  a 
BtTumpet  on  either  knee,  badgered  and  beaten  in  the  de- 
baiiches  of  long  voyages  and  frequent  ports,  but  that  if  a 
comrade  should  venture  to  suggest  to  him  that  he  had 
seduced  the  daughter  of  an  old  shipmate,  or  the  vrif  e  of  a 
yoimg  comrade,  he  vrould  bury  his  sheath-knife  In  the 
heart  of  his  accuser.  There  has  never  been  a  coarse  and 
vulgar  debauchee,  voluptuary,  that  would  flaunt  his 
wealth  and  Ms  vices  in  the  face  of  our  citizens 
here  or  in  New-York,  and  ride  the  four-in- 
hand  of  his  new  riches  packed  with  courtesans,  the  fact 
that  one  of  his  boon  companions  should  accuse  him  of 
seducing  the  companion  of  his  daughter,  the  wife  of  Ms 
friend  who  had  been  trusted  to  his  care,  but  that  would 
send.a  bullet  through  the  heart  of  his  accuser.  No,  there 
are  no  coarse  and  vulgar  voluptuaries,  however  lightly 
they  may  deal  with  incontinence,  and  however  much 
they  feel  at  liberty  to  poach  on  the  manors  that  are 
not  confided  to  their  care,  that  either  in  practice 
or  in  accusation  will  tolerate  any  such  charge 
as  this  that  you  are  asked  to  bind  by  your  verdict  against 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  your  verdict  for  six  cents  finds  it  as 
mucb  as  if  it  was  for  $100,000.  This  is  not  a  case  in 
which,  as  in  some  of  these  libel  suits,  they  don't  want  to 
hold  that  an  editor  has  kept  within  the  bounds  of  polite- 
ness, and  they  don't  want  to  show  that  the  plantiffs 
character  was  worth  nothing.  No,  no ;  the  issue  is  a 
vital  one ;  your  verdict  is  for  the  plaintiff  or  for  the  de- 
fendant. It  passes  upon  this  issue.  There  is  not  any 
other  crime  with  which  he  is  charged.  There  are  no 
qualifying  circumstances  about  it.  If  he  is  not  guilty  of 
all  that  I  bave  described  to  you,  he  is  not  guilty  of  any- 
ttmg.  That  is  the  plaintiff's  own  figuring  of  the  dimen- 
sions, the  Incidents,  the  traits  ox  the  crime. 


THE  CIRCUMSTAOTIAL  EVIDENCE. 

We  may  consider  onrselves  prepared  now  to 
look  at  the  question  of  cifcumstantial  evidence,  which 
may  be  very  briefly  disposed  of.  Now.  what  is  ctrcum- 
etantial  evidence  1  It  is  the  evidence  of  direct  witnesses 
to  certain  facts,  which  are  thus  directly  proved,  and  from 
which,  as  definitely  and  accurately  ascertained,  you  in- 
fer, within  ■(■'.ii-'Tonr*'  principles  of  reasoning,  and  by  the 


]  rest  of  common  sense,  that  what  is  alleged  as  the  neces- 
sary conclusion  from  them  is  such  necessary  conclusion. 
I  refer,  if  your  Honor  please,  to  an  authority  in  oui'  Court 
of  Appeals :  the  case  of  the  People  agt.  Bennett  (N.  Y.  R., 
vol.  49,  p.  144.)  The  principles  of  circumstantial  evi- 
dence— 

In  detei-mintng  a  question  of  fact  from  circumstantial 

evidence,  there  are  two  general  rules  to  be  observed : 
(1.)  The  hypothesis  of  delinquency  or  guilt  should  flow 
naturally  from  the  facts  proved,  and  be  consistent  with 
them  ail.  (2.)  The  evidence  must  be  such  as  to  exclude 
to  a  moral  certainty  every  hypothesis  but  that  of  his 
guilt  of  the  offense  imputed  to  Mm  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
the  facts  proved  must  aU  be  consistent  with,  and  point  to 
his  guilt  not  oMy,  but  they  must  be  inconsistent  with  his 
innocence. 

Accordingly,  in  reference  to  a  case  of  tMs  kind,  where, 
under  circumstances  of  lewd  intercourse,  parties  at  a  tav- 
ern, much  more  at  a  brothel,  are  found  to  have  been  shut 
up  in  the  same  room,  locked  or  otherwise  secured ;  and 
the  preliminaries  have  been  shown  of  engaged  affections, 
of  lewd  desires,  of  adulterous  purpose ;  why,  there  is  cir- 
ctmistantial  evidence  wMch  justifies  a  conclusion  that  in 
this  security,  and  these  circumstances  of  seclusion,  the 
act  of  adultery  may  have  occurred,  must  have  occurred. 
All  these  things  are  to  be  guarded.  The  cases  are  very 
careful  about  even  such  circumstances.  But  all  agree, 
as  indeed  common  sense  agrees,  that  when  there  is  no 
circumstantial  evidence  by  extraneous  witnesses,  of  ear 
or  eye,  of  such  relations,  either  tending  to  or  presuming 
the  act  which  makes  the  guilt,  or  afterwards  wMch  con- 
firms the  character  of  the  supposed  act  by  subsequent 
lewdness  and  attempts  to  commit  the  act — where  no  evi- 
dence of  that  kind  is  present,  that  is  the  end  of  oiroum- 
stantial  evidence. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  plaintiff  has  not  failed  to  present 
proofs  that  should  carry  some  conclusion  of  guilt  from 
any  delicacy,  or  from  any  want  of  research.  He  didnt 
hesitate  to  put  the  power  of  the  law  upon  Joseph 
Eichards  to  make  him  come  here  and  regret  that  he  could 
not  give  you  any  valuable  information.  He  did  not  hesi- 
tate, in  Ms  searcMng,  when  he  brought  from  the  wards 
of  a  pauper  hospital  a  lying,  drunken  woman 
to  say  that  she  heard  [Mr.  Beecher  say  to 
Elizabeth  Tilton :  "  How  do  you  feel  1"  and  she  replied: 
"Dear  father,"  or  "father,  dear,  so,  so."  [Laughter.] 
Well,  I  don't  know— I  should  think  "  so,  so/'  at  best,  was 
an  indifferent  sort  of  feeling  as  compatible  with  a  variety 
of  tMngs  besides  adultery.  They  dont  reject  trivial  tes- 
timony, because  they  brought  Brasher  to  testify  that,  as 
he  was  going  fisMng  along  one  of  the  public  streets,  be- 
tween 7  and  8  o'clock  in  the  morning,  when  the  sun  was 
sinning  bright,  he  saw— would  you  believe  it  ?— in  open 
day,  as  the  approximate  act  of  adultery,  Mr.  Beecher 
standing  on  the  doorsteps,  having  pulled  the  beU,  and 
waiting  for  someb  ody  to  come  to  Mm.  [Laughter.] 

Judge  Nollson— We  must  have  hotter  order.    I  hAve 


THE   TILTON-BEEGREB  TlilAL. 


668 

Beveral  very  respectable  people  here  wlio  are  not  con- 
ducting themselves  properly.  We  must  have  silence. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  this  matter  of  Brasher— who  was  a 
well-known  gentleman,  whose  whole  demeanor  on  the 
stand  before  you  is  a  very  good  illustration  of  the  perse- 
verance, intrepidity,  and  indefatigableness  of  our  friend 
Judge  Morris  m  searching  for  evidence.  Now,  Mr. 
Brasher  was  a  man  who  was  well  known  to  be  very  fond 
of  fishing,  and  so  fond  of  fishing  that  when  the  tide 
served,  no  matter  what  hour  of  the  night  it  was,  he  was 
very  likely  to  go  a-flshing,  and  so  he  sometimes  went  at 
2  o'clock  in  the  morning,  3  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing, 4  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Now,  there 
goes  around  a  story  in  Brooklyn  that  Mr. 
Brasher  saw  Mr.  Beecher,  either  in  coming  out 
of  or  going  in  at  Mrs.  Tilton's  house,  when  he  was  going 
fishing.  "Well  now,  there  is  something— Beecher  going 
there  at  2  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Coming  away  at  2 
o'clock  in  the  morning— still  more  extraordinary.  Either 
way  about  the  same  thing.  Brasher  is  summoned  as  a 
witness  here,  with  an  immense  flourish.  He  didn't  know 
what  he  was  to  prove ;  he  never  saw  what  he  had  to  do 
with  It ;  but  he  had  seen  Mr.  Beecher  at  that  doorstep 
when  he  was  going  fishing,  but  the  difficulty  is,  if  the  tide 
served,  he  went  fishing  at  all  hours.  He  would 
just  as  lieve  go  fishing  at  8  o'clock  as  at  2,  I 
think  he  would  rather,  and  the  only  morn- 
ing on  which  he  had  seen  INIr.  Beecher  in 
any  vicinity  to  this  door  step  was  the  morning  when  the 
tide  served  at  8  o'clock,  and  not  at  2  o'clock,  when  he  was 
going  fishing.  Now,  you,  of  course,  saw  the  predicament 
of  our  learned  friend,  if  I  may  call  him  so,  when  this 
cap  sheaf  of  circumstantial  evidence,  approximate  act  of 
unseasonable  hour,  of  midnight  prowling,  scaling  the 
walls  that  inclosed  this  beauty,  and  Brasher  saying  that 
at  8  o'clock  he  saw  him  standing  there,  that  he  remained 
there  still  while  Brasher  passed  by,  and  showed  con- 
clusively he  was  not  coming  away,  and  was  waiting  for 
the  bell  to  be  answered.  Well,  if  he  had  been  coming 
away  it  would  not  have  been  miioh;  and  what 
is  more,  there  was  not  any  evidence  that 
Mrs.  Tilton  was  In  the  house,  or  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  not 
in  the  house,  or  what  Mr.  Beecher  went  for,  or  anything 
else.  Xbe  ti*ouble  was  that  the  tide  didn't  serve  for  their 
evidence  that  day,  and  if  the  tide  had  served,  why  then 
he  time  of  Mr.  Beecher»s  going  and  the  tide  for+=  he  fish 
ing  would  not  have  occurred,  and  time  and  tide  wait  for 
no  man. 

JOSEPH  RICHAEDS'S  TESTIMOIST. 

Now,  the  value  of  Mr.  Ricliards's  evidence— is  it 
anything  ?  and  of  all  circumstantial  evidence  when  pro- 
duced by  a  witness,  to  produce  upon  you  the  impression 
that  would  have  been  pi-oduced  if  you  had  seen  the  thing 
he  speaks  of.  Now,  there  are  two  ways  to  find  out  what 
impression  that  would  have  upon  yoix.   One  is  the  state- 


ment of  what  the  thing  was  that  he  saw,  and,  second,  the 
impression  that  is  made  upon  him  when  he  saw  it,  and  as 
he  saw  it.  Well,  he  makes  the  most  unlucky  prelude,  for 
the  great  circumstantial  evidence  on  which  this 
case,  so  far  as  proof  of  the  act  is  to 
turn,  is  that  he  begins  by  apologizing  to  the 
court,  and  the  jury  as  part  of  the  court,  before  he  would 
tell  what  he  saw,  that  he  regrets  to  say  that  unless  he  is 
sufi"ered  first  to  tell  what  he  heard  from  other  people 
about  other  matters,  what  he  saw  will  prove  to  be  of  no 
consequence.  Well,  that  is  a  very  strange  thing.  I  never 
heard  of  any  witness—  Witnesses  ought  to  come  free 
from  bias.  WTiat  under  heaven  have  they  to  do  with 
what  the  impression  of  their  testim  ony  W8s  cr  srcnidb 
They  are  called  to  state  what  they  did  see.  The  law  don  { 
allow  anybody  to  state  what  they  heard,  and  the 
poor  man  says,  "  Well,  now,  I  am  here,  and  I  sup- 
pose, therefore,  I  am  here  for  something,  and 
really  I  shall  make  a  fool  of  myself  for  coming  here  to 
say  nothrag  unless  I  am  allowed  to  state  the  circum- 
stances that  made  me  think  there  might  be  something  in 
it."  Well,  we  will  dispense  with  that.  Now,  that  is  the 
first  test,  out  of  his  own  mouth,  of  what  impression  and 
weight  and  power  there  was  as  evidence  in  what  he  saw, 
and  that  is  that  there  was  not  any.  I  don't  tliink  you 
need  trouble  yourselves  much  about  what  he  saw,  when 
he  tells  you  there  is  nothing  in  it  to  begin  with.  Well, 
then,  he  goes  on  and  tells  it,  and  I  don't  know  exactly 
the  phrase,  but  he  saw  Mr.  Beecher  as  he  suddenly  opened 
the  parlor  door,  where  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  were 
conversing,  Richards  knowing  nothing  of  it,  except, 
perhaps,  he  had  been  told  they  were  down 
there — he  saw  his  sister  withdrawing  from  what  I  think 
is  called  proximity  to  Mr.  Beecher— moving  away  fi'om 
him,  and  that  she  colored  a  little.  Well,  I  don't  thhik 
that  that  comes  up  to  the  rule,  that  it  must  be  an  act 
that  not  only  points  to  adulterous  connection,  but  is  in- 
consistent with  anything  else.  It  does  not  strike  me  so. 
How  did  it  strike  Richards  %  He  went  in  and  kissed  his 
sister,  and  saluted  her,  and  shookhands  with  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  talked  with  him,  then  went  off  about  his  business  I 

Now,  in  either  way  that  it  was  evidence  of  an  adultery 
that  had  taken  place,  or  of  an  adultery  that  was  going  on 
toward  its  consummation  then  and  there,  you  will  very 
easily  see  that,  whatever  had  happened  or  did  happen, 
it  didn't  make  much  of  an  impression  on  Richards,  for 
he  shook  hands  with  the  man  and  saluted  his  sister,  and 
then  went  about  his  business,  and  shut  the  door  oi"  left  it 
open— I  don't  know  that  he  says  which  he  did— and  never 
thought  it  worth  while  to  mention  the  circumstance  to 
his  sister,  his  only  sister,  he  her  only  brother,  and  their 
mother  a  widow. 

Well,  gentlemen,  as  I  said  about  the  otfonse,  there  is  no 
generalization  of  such  conduct  of  Richards  as  enables  ine 
to  apply  an  adjective  to  it.  It  never  happened  before. 
I  don't  think  that,  after  his  example,  it  will  ever  happen 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MR.  EVABTS. 


669 


again.  I  read  from  the  case  of  Freeman  agt.  Freeman,  in 
tlie  31st  of  Wisconsin,  page  246,  -svliere  the  rules  of  all 
these  matters  of  circumstantial  evidence  are  laid  down. 
Speaking  of  circumstantial  evidence,  the  Court  says 

All  the  circumstances  are  fairly  and  fully  explained 
and  shown  to  have  heen  incident  to  some  other  object  or 
design,  and  not  to  have  been  brought  about  for  the  pm'- 
pose  or  with  a  view  of  perpetrating  the  offense  with 
which  the  plaintiff  is  charged  [which  was  adultery]. 
And  in  this  connection  the  Court  cannot  forbear  to  re- 
mark that  the  character  of  a  minister  of  the 
Gospel  whose  reputation  in  all  respects,  ex- 
cept so  fai"  as  it  may  have  become  involved 
by  the  unfortunate  matter  in  controversy,  appears  to  be 
fair,  goes  a  great  way  to  explaiu  the  facts,  if  indeed  any 
explanation  of  them  can  be  thought  to  be  necessary. 
Nor  can  the  Court  refrain  from  the  observation  that  the 
good  character  which  the  plaiatiff  appears  generally  to 
have  borne,  both  before  and  since  the  time  the  offense 
is  alleged  to  have  been  committed,  is  a  most  significant 
circumstance  in  her  favor.  If  found  guilty,  the  Court 
would  be  required  to  beUeve  that  from  a  life  of  purity 
and  fidelity  she  turned  suddeoily  to  one  of  depravity  and 
vice,  and  then  as  suddenly  agaiu  returned  to  her  former 
'virtuous  ways.  Such  a  circumstance  is  highly  improba- 
ble, and  seldom  or  never  occiu'S.  There  is  not  a  scintilla 
of  proof  of  prior  misconduct  or  conjugal  infidelity, 
and  her  subsequent  behavior  appears  to  have  been  inno- 
cent and  not  the  subject  of  the  slightest  suspicion.  It 
was  suggested  by  Lord  Stowell,  in  Williams  agt.  Wil- 
liams, as  possibly  "  a  less  laudable  motive"  for  instituting 
the  proceeding  that  it  might  have  been  for  the  purpose  of 
"  trying  the  experiment  of  how  little  proof  will  be  accepted 
as  sufficient "  to  sustain  the  charge  of  adultery.  A  similar 
remark  might,  and  with  greater  propriety  perhaps,  be 
ventured  here,  that  the  bringing  forward  of  this  charge, 
more  than  seven  years  after  the  occurrence  is  alleged  to 
have  taken  place,  and  during  all  which  time  the  husband 
seems  to  have  had  no  thought  of  the  infidelity  of  the 
wife,  is  to  try  the  experiment  of  how  little  proof  win  be 
accepted  as  sufficient  to  raise  a  suspicion  of  her  infi- 
delity. 

I  have  trespassed  already  upon  your  Honor's  indul- 
gence. 

J  ud£,e  Neilson— Gentlemen,  get  ready  to  retire.  Be  in 
your  seats  to-raorrow  at  11  o'clock. 
The  coui't  then  adjourned  until  11  o'clock  on  Friday. 


NINETY-THIRD  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


SECOND  DAY  OF  MR.  EVARTS'S  SUMMING  UP. 

THE  ORATOR  EVEN  MORE  EARNEST  THAN  ON  THE 
PRECEDING  DAY— CASES  OF  THE  PLAINTIFF 
AND  DEFENTDANT  CONTRASTED  —  SUGGESTIONS 
CONCERNING  TESTIMONY  FOR  THE  GUIDANCE 
OF  THE  JURY— A  PART  OP  MR.  TILTON'S  EVI- 
DENCE REVIEWED— HIS  POSITION  BY  HIS  AS- 
SERTION THAT  HE  WAS  THE  HUSBAND  OF  AN 
ADULTERESS  DEFINED— MR.  MARTIN'S  EVIDENCE 
TOUCHED  UPON. 

Friday,  May  28,  1875. 
The  argument  of  William  M.  Evarts  in  defense  of 
Henry  Ward  Beechsr  brought  together,  to-day, 
the  largest  audience  that  has  crowded  the  hmits  of 
the  Brooklyn  City  Court  room  at  any  time  since  the 
great  trial  began. 

One  of  the  most  telling  portions  of  the  speech  of 
Mr.  Evarts  yesterday  was  partly  addressed  to  Mr. 
Tilton.  He  had  been  explaining  the  contumely 
which  has  always  attached  to  the  husband  of  an 
adulteress,  as  illustrated  by  the  meaning  of 
the  English  words  which  describe  such  a 
man,  and  the  severity  of  the  Roman  law 
affecting  such  persons.  The  argument  of  the 
orator  was  that  there  was  a  moral  improbability  of 
the  highest  sort  that  Theodore  Tilton  had  suffered 
this  disgrace  in  his  family.  Turning  toward  Mr. 
Tilton,  he  said,  slowly,  and  almost  in  tones  of  re- 
buke, while  the  audience  listened  in  dead  silence, 
and  Mr.  Tilton's  face  flushed  very  red,  "  How  do  you 
dare  to  say  as  you  do  say,  and  I  think  truthfully— I 
certainly  hope  truthfully  for  your  character- 
that  until  July  you  had  no  doubt,  no  fear, 
or  thought,  or  suspicion,  in  regard  to  the  intercourse 
of  Mr.  Beecher  with  your  family— how  can  you  say 
that  and  not  feel  that  you  have  forced  yourself  into 
the  dilemma  of  choosing  whether  you  take  the  con- 
tumely of  the  English  opprobrium,  or  the  dark  stain 
of  the  Roman  condemnation." 

Much  of  Mr.  Evarts's  address  to-day  might  be 
called  didactic  in  character.  He  seemed  to  be  seek- 
ing to  lead  the  minds  of  the  jurymen  into  legal 
methods  of  thinking  and  reasoning.  The  objects  and 
nature  of  evidence  were  explained,  and  the  orator 
appeared  to  take  great  pains  to  point  out  the  grounds 
of  belief  in,  and  the  proper  tests  of  the  truth  of,  tes- 
timony. After  stating  these  general  propositions  in 
the  clearest  language,  he  took  examples  from  the 

,  evidence  in  this  case,  and  deduced  conclusions  by  the 

I  appK  ation  of  the  principles  laid  down. 


m 


THE   TlLTOI^-BEEaRER  TRIAL, 


The  evidence  of  Mr.  Judson,  of  A.  B.  Martin,  some 
of  that  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  of  other  -vi  itnesses,  was 
subjected  to  this  process.  "The  juxtaposition  of 
things  said  in  private,  and  demonstrations  made  in 
public,"  was  made  to  play  a  part  in  showing  what 
the  orator  conceived  to  be  the  character  of  the 
plaintiff. 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Martin,  who  said  ia  evidence 
that  when  Gen.  Tracy  had  his  interview  with  Miss 
Bessie  Turner,  at  Mrs.  Ovington's  house,  he  (the 
witness)  and  Mrs.  Tilton  sat  on  the  back  piazza  to 
escape  the  heat,  and  who  declared  that  a  projecting 
brick  wall  protectod  that  piazza  from  the  sun's 
rays,  was  subjected  to  ^  keen  analysis.  Finally,  the 
orator  explained,  amid  a  burst  of  laughter  in  which 
auditors,  counsel,  and  jurymen  joined,  "  Now,  some- 
times men  run  their  heads  against  a  brick  wall,  but 
the  trouble  with  Mr.  Martin  was  that  he  dashed  out 
his  brains  for  want  of  a  brick  wall,"  and  then  he 
added,  with  the  utmost  drollery  of  tone  and  manner, 
"  A.— B.— Martin  :  ar-broiled— Martin." 

The  orator  also  considered  the  testimony  of  Mary 
Catharine  McDonald,  and  the  general  character  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  evidence.  The  nature  of  the  rebuttal 
evidence,  and  the  theories  of  the  plaintiff's  and  the 
defendant's  respective  cases,  were  likewise  reviewed. 


THE  PEOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

ME.  EVAETS  EESUMES  HIS  AEGUMENT. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to 
adjomnment. 

Judge  Neilaon— Yesterday  morning  I  requested  the 
audience  to  keep  silence,  to  the  end  that  we  might  have 
perfect  quiet ;  some  persons  will  remember  with  what 
success.  Now,  I  repeat  that  request.  Of  course,  we  have 
twice  as  many  people  here  as  we  should  have— very  likely 
a  great  many  more  than  we  shall  have  when  we  meet 
again.  Will  counsel  proceed  1 

THE  HOUE  OF  ME.  BEECHEE'S  CALLS  ON 
MRS.  TILTON. 
Mr.  Evarts— May  it  please  your  Honor  and 
Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  :  I  was  asking  your  attention 
to  wliat  the  law  requires  as  an  entirely  indispensable 
element  ot  producing  that  legal  certainty  without  which 
no  judgment  is  allowed  to  be  pronounced  by  the  verdict 
of  a  jury,  on  questions  of  this  criminality  and  of  these 
large  relations  to  the  interests  of  society  and  extensive 
influence  upon  the  happiness  of  others  ;  and  I  had  asked 
your  assent  to  the  proposition  that  this  case  was  utterly 
bare  of  all  those  facts  of  conduct,  as  seen  and  observed, 
which  lead  to  the  conviction  that  there  had  grown  up 


in  tbe  liearts  and  affections  and  passions  of  these  people, 
those  vicious  pm-poses  which  lead  to   wicked  acta 
none  of  that  evidence  which  shows  the  external  eircum 
stances  of  misconduct  or  deviation  from  proprieties 
none  even  of  that  addiction  to  one  another's  private 
society,  which  is  marked  as  having  some  secret  an"" 
some  wicked  purpose  ;  and  there  are  none  of  the  occasio^ 
proved  in  any  sense  in  which  such  a  purpose  may  hav 
been  indulged  or  gratified,  or  from  which  any  conclusio" 
to  that  effect  can  be  drawn.  Now,  I  have  to  conside 
some  general  relations  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilto~ 
which  are  in  undisputed  proof,  which  form  quite  as  muc 
a  part  of  the  case  of  the  plaintiff,  and  of  our  theory  of  t' 
association  between  them,  its  motives,  its  character,  i 
traits,  its  action,  as  they  possibly  can  do,  in  regard  to  th 
plaintiff's  view.  This  was  a  habit  of  such  social  intimac 
as  belongs  to  a  relation  of  a  clergyman  and  a  parishione 
though  a  married  woman,  provided  there  are  the  e 
temal  indications  which  lead  to  that  intimacy,  and  p~ 
vided  you  find  in  the  character  of  the  parties,  in  the 
moral  and  intellectual  nature,  as  separated  from  the  su' 
ject  in  dispute,  the  attractions  on  the  one  side  and  th 
other,  that  at  once  account  for  and  justify  such  degTee  o 
Intimacy.  Now,  I  caU  your  attention,  in  the  first  plac- 
on  this  general  question  of  the  amount  and  form  and  fr 
quency  of  association,  to  the  fact  that  it  procee" 
almost  entirely  from  the  defendant's  own  testimon 
The  number  of  visits  dinging  the  many  years  of  confess' 
intimacy  and  constant  regard,  is  represented  as  conii 
perhaps  to  once  in  from  three  to  six  weeks ;  every  one 
those  visits  In  the  ordinary  horn's  of  day,  day  in  the  sen 
of  forenoon,  for  us  who  dine  as  we  usually  do,  at  6  o'clo 
every  one  of  them.  There  is  not  a  witness,  a  servant, 
inmate  of  the  family,  Mr.  Tilton  himself,  there  is  not  o 
witness  who  pretends  that  there  was  a  visit  in  the  eve 
ing,  in  the  sense  of  a  private  call ;  some  social  enterta' 
ments,  some  invitations,  some  set  occasions,  amountin 
I  think,  to  nothing  very  definite,  and  certainly  very  fe 
in  number,  that  were  fixed  for  an  evening,*of  course, 
Mr.  Beecher  was  present,  showed  his  presence  in  t' 
evening ;  but  then  it  was  in  a  crowd,  it  was  in  a  compa" 
it  was  in  the  parlors. 

Now,  in  regard  to  any  visits  of  Mrs.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Beec' 
er's  house,  there  is  no  evidence  at  all  that  any  suo 
instance  occurred.   Mr.  Beecher  says,  whether  or  no  M 
Tilton  was  at  the  house  on  the  10th  oC  October,  he  doesn 
know ;  and  my  learned  friend  doesn't  askhim  whether 
saw  her.   She  might  have  been  at  his  house  without 
seeing  her.  They  don't  press  any  further  in  any  of  tho 
inquiries.  We  show  by  him  that  he  has  no  recollectio 
of  seeing  her  there,  or  of  any  occurrence  of  any  kind  whio 
should  note  in  his  memory,  or  produce  to  yom*  knowled 
any  such  fact ;  a  fact  that  would  have  been  whoUy  im" 
portant  in  itseK,  except  as  giving  external  evidence  th 
would  support  the  possibility  of  guilty  conduct,  if  pro 
other  and  additional  were  given;  for  to  say  that  the  vi 


S  mi  MING   UF  I 

of  a  married  ladj  of  tile  paristi,  in  the  daytime,  at  the 
house  of  her  clergyman,  is  a  suspicious  act,  "svould  shock 
not  only  the  sense  of  decency,  hut  the  sense  of  fairness, 
and  intellectually  the  common  sense  of  every  man. 

Now,  what  beyond  these  visits,  that  ran  through  these 
years,  occurring,  as  Mr.  Bcecher  states  them— and  he  is 
the  only  witness  to  them,  and  if  he  spoke  falsely  he  could 
be  contradicted  by  servants— if  the  view  that  he  se«ks  to 
present  to  you,  that  he  only  strolled  around  there  in  the 
forenoons  as  a  part  of  the  sola^ie  and  the  recreation  of  a 
walk,  and  spent  there  say  up  to  half  an  hour  or  so,  from 
five  minutes  up  to  half  an  hour,  in  a  call  of  regard,  of 
affection,  of  intimacy,  if  that  could  be  contradicted,  it 
would  be.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  this  plaintiff  and 
Ms  household,  consisting  of  five  servants,  five  children, 
and  grown  inmates,  besides  himself  and  his  wife,  is  so 
unwatched,  unremembered,  unprotected  in  the  observa- 
tion of  all  who  saw  as  that,  if  this  general  proposition  of 
Mr.  Beecher  that  his  visits  in  point  of  time,  in  point  of 
direction,  in  point  of  circumstance,  were  altogether  and 
wholly  of  the  character  that  I  have  thus  given  to  them— 
you  are  not  to  suppose  that  this  plaintiff  is  not  able  to  con- 
tradict. Whether  he  is  able  to  contradict  or  not,  absence 
of  contradiction  does  not  effect  the  purpose  and  result  of 
contradiction.  What  is  uncontradicted,  whether  it  be 
because  it  is  absolutely  uncontradictable  or  because  mis- 
fortune has  prevented  its  contradiction,  is,  in  a  court  of 
justice,  the  whole  proof  proved  on  the  point. 

ME.   BEE  CHER'S    GIFTS   TO    MRS.  TILTON. 

Now,  beyond  this,  wiiat  are  tlie  seductive 
arts,  and  what  the  corruptiug  influences  that  this  visitor 
used  ?  Why,  there  seems  to  have  been  what  in  the  end 
came  to  a  some ^y hat  bulky  collection  of  octavos,  from 
the  Bampton  Leccures  on  the  Divinity  of  Chi'ist  to  the 
religious  novel  of  which  Mr.  Beecher  was  the  author. 
Well,  when  octavos  are  presented,  and  when  the  title- 
page  contains  the  inscription  of  che  giver,  even  if  the 
nature  of  the  gift  is  of  the  suspicious  character  of  the 
Bampton  Lectures  on  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  still 
the  element  of  secrecy,  of  amulet,  of  love- 
charm,  seems  to  be  wanting  oa  account  of 
the  bulk  and  the  publicity  of  the  transaction. 
Then  there  were  some  flowers — flowers'sent  to  the  cham- 
ber of  a  woman  in  confinement,  flowers  sent  to  the  parlor 
of  a  lady  li^-ing  la  her  own  house,  flowers  the  sight  of 
which  gladdened  the  eyes  of  everybody  within  the  house, 
and  whose  periume  betrayed  their  presence  to  every 
comer.  Now,  when  a  man  has  a  garden  and  a  farm,  and 
when,  as  :nIi-.  Beecher  says,  he  was  in  the  habit  of  strew- 
ing thts^  flowers  thick  through  the  pathways  of  his 
parishioners,  in  theu'  domestic  life,  I  do  not  think  that 
you  will  find  much  evidence  of  corrupt,  adulterous  pur- 
pose in  the  mere  fact  that  these  flowers,  once,  twice,  three 
times  perhaps,  made  the  subject  of  evidence,  and  ta  the 
chaste  and  beautiful  and  open  form  in  which  the  testi- 


r  MB.   EYAETS.  671 

mony  has  disclosed  them,  will  affect  y»ur  minds  with 
circimistantial  evidence  tending,  as  the  law  books  say,  to 
adultery,  and  incompatible  with  anytiiing  else. 

THE  FIRST  OUTCROPPINGS    OF  "MALICE 
AND  ENYY." 
Now,  gentlemen,  I  caU  your  attention  to  the 

aflBrmative  proof  of  the  absolute  want  of  fact  ia  this  m- 
tercourse,  on  which  to  raise  suspicions  and  interests 
from  what  is  an  afarmative  fact,  that  there  were  constant 
observers,  that  there  were  watchful  obseirvers,  that  there 
were  jealous  observers,  that  there  were  hostile  and  malig- 
nant observers,  that  watched  these  persons— the  wife  and 
the  clergyman— during  these  years.  You  will  remember 
a  little  item  of  proof  in  which  Mr.  Judson  gave  evidence, 
that  at  a  lunch  at  Delmonico's  Mr.  Tnton  introduced  sub- 
jects of  gossip  or  suspicion  about  this,  that,  and  the  other 
person;  for  the  general  subject  and  the  general  iudul- 
gence  of  words  and  speech  on  such  subjects  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  foreign  to  Mr.  Tilton's  disposi- 
tion; and  Mr.  Judson  says  to  him:  "Well,  there  is 
one  thing  certain,  at  least,  that  Mr.  Beecher  has  not 
been  involved  or  suspected  of  any  irregularities  towards 
women;"  and  Mr.  TUton  says :  "I  have  lost  my  faith  ia 
man."  Well,  that  is  a  pleasant  form  of  meeting  an  im- 
putation upon  a  friend— this  was  in  1865— a  pastor,  a 
visitor  at  his  family,  a  man  that  for  years  he  had  been 
telling  that  a  little  woman  at  his  house  loved  him  dear- 
ly ;  and  Mr.  Judson  pressing  it  again,  Mr.  Tilton  still  re- 
plies :  "  I  have  lost  my  faith  In  man,"  and  for  a  third 
time  this  solemn,  hypocritical  "  I  dare  not  made  to  wait 
upon  I  would,"  is  repeated  by  this  stalwart  man.  Well, 
Mr.  Judson,  an  intimate  friend  of  Mr.  Tilton,  also  a 
friend,  or  accLuaintance  at  least,  of  :Mr.  Beecher,  and  a 
believer  in  him— he  doesn't  like  these  cowardly  threats  of 
malice  and  envy,  and  instead  of  allowing  the  subject  to 
breed  the  mischief  it  was  intended  to  breed,  he  brings 
it  to  the  light  at  once,  and  has  it  smothered  forever. 
A  very  wise  man  has  said :  "  Suspicions  that  the  mind  of 
itseK  gathers  are  but  buzzes,  but  suspicions  that  are  arti- 
ficially nouiished  and  put  into  men's  heads  by  the  tales 
and  whisperings  of  others  have  stiugs."  Now,  my  plain- 
tiff here— your  plaintiff— our  plaintiff— has  read  Lord 
Bacon,  and  he  knew  that  these  suspicions  that  tale- 
bearers carry  with  their  whisperings  have  stings.  He  had 
read  the  Pi-overbs,  too  (in  his  youth),  and  he  knew— and 
he  lived  up  to  it—"  Where  there  is  no  wood  the  fire  goeth 
out ;  and  where  there  is  no  tale-bearer  there  is  an  end  of 
strife."  And  he  took  care  that  these  fires  should 
not  lack  fuel,  and  these  strifes  should  never 
miss  a  tale-bearer.  But  Mr.  Judson  goes  at  once 
CO  Mr.  Beecher— goes  to  Mr.  Beecher  and  tells 
htm  whar  Tilton  has  said,  and  Mr.  Beecher  seeks 
Mr.  Tilton  and  calls  him  to  an  account,  and  Mr.  Tilton 
denies  it,  abhors  it,  and  does  two  things— one  to  Mr, 
Beecher— he  writes  him  a  letter  that  has  been  read  to 


THE   TILTON-BEECHER  TRIAL. 


672 

you,  and  one  to  Judson ;  flndimg  him  again,  lie  says,  "  I 
thought  you  were  my  friend;"  "lam  your  Mend,  hut  I 
am  also  a  friend  of  Mr.  Beecher."  Well>  Tilton  repeats, 
"  I  thought  you  were  my  friend."  What  was  there  in  the 
knowledge  of  Judson  that  entitled  this  tale-hearer  and 
strife-maker  to  think  that  Judson,  toecause  he  favored 
him  with  his  acquaintance,  and,  if  you  please,  with  his 
good  feeling,  would  become  a  willing  participant  in  what 
in  every  right  thinking  mind,  in  every  honest  heart,  is 
condemned  as  the  vilest  and  basest  employment 
to  which  any  man,  any  one,  man  or  woman,  can 
stoop?  When  the  assassin  faces  his  enemy  or 
at  least  runs  the  risk  of  the  resistance  of  weapon  by 
weapon  and  force  by  force,  or  braves  discovery  and  the 
opportunities  of  proof,  and,  so,  exposure  to  punishment. 
It  still  is  the  basest  form  of  enmity  that  is  known— I 
mean  of  that  deadly  enmity  that  seeks  destruction  of  the 
life.  But  that  assassination  by  the  slow  poison  of 
calumny,  secretly  infused  into  every  vein  of  the  society 
In  which  the  calumniated  character  moves  and  is  known, 
that  is  a  baser  and  a  viler  form  of  assassination.  It  has 
every  degree  of  cowardice,  every  amount  of  malice,  every 
wickedness  of  purpose,  and  every  mischief  of  result. 
Great  characters,  known  characters,  strong  characters 
can  resist  it,  but  it  is  for  us,  gentlemen  of  the  jxuy,  for 
you  and  for  me,  to  protect  men  in  the  common  level 
of  life,  like  ourselves,  from  such  calumuiation. 
A  wave  that  would  be  dashed  to  pieces  oii  the  quarter  of 
a  man-of-war  may  swamp  her  coek-boat  and  destroy  the 
lives  that  are  in  it.  All  the  pelting  with  which  Mr. 
Beecher  has  been  followed  through  years  and  years  has 
produced  no  effect  upon  him.  But  calumny,  calumny, 
gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  takes  its  effect  on  those  against 
whom  it  is  aimed  just  in  proportion  as  their  general  char- 
acter and  life  are  hid  from  observation  and  untested  by 
great  opportunities  or  trial.  Now,  gentlemen,  we  might 
as  well  start  here  with  understanding  the  character,  not 
of  Theodore  Tilton— he  has  not  introduced  a  new  charac- 
ter into  human  affairs— men  of  these  evil  dispositions, 
men  of  this  wicked  conduct,  have  lived  long  before  him. 
This  union  of  open  and  outward  display,  this  pre- 
tension, this  self-satisfaction  that  Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Moulton  exhibit  themselves  before  you  as  clad 
in — are  the  very  traits  that  are  associated  in  all  conspira- 
cies. Why,  the  companions,  the  instruments,  the  agents 
of  Catiline  were  of  the  same  kind.  They  were  long  ago 
described— these  men,  Tilton  and  Moulton— by  a  great 
advocate  much  better  than  I  could  describe  them,  al- 
though what  he  said  was  said  2,000  years  ago,  and  of 
others.  Si  pueH,  tarn  lepidi  ac  delicati,  non  solum 
amare  et  amari,  neque  eantare  et  saltare,  sed 
etiam  sicas  vibrare,  et  ^  sparqere  venena  di- 
dicerunt:  these  youths,  so  jaunty  and  so  slick,  not 
only  practiced  the  ar,\«i  of  freely  loving  and  freely 
being  loved,  nor  the  grac»  s  of  nn  airy  rhetoric  and  a  bold 
gesticulation,  but  also  h.  ve  tliey  learned  to  ply  the 


dagger  of  the  assassin  and  scatter  tihe  poisons  of  calum- 
niators. 

It  is  very  well  to  think  with  complacency,  as  Mr.  Til- 
ton obviously  does,  of  the  showy,  the  briUiant,  the  ac- 
complished, the  gratifying  traits  that  make  the  showy 
external  of  base  motives,  base  conduct,  and  wicked  pur- 
poses, but  he  has  not  the  credit  of  being  the  model  and 
the  type.  Such  men  have  lived  always,  and  always  will 
live  ;  and  they  have  been  understood  always,  and  always 
will  be  imderstood.  Far  be  it  fiom  me  to  disturb  his  com-  j 
placency ;  if  it  were  ever  valuable  to  him  it  is  more  valu- 
able now  than  ever.  Horne  Tooke  said  that  he  didn't  sea 
why  a  man  should  not  thank  God  for  his  self-conceit  aa 
well  as  any  of  the  other  good  gifts  of  Providence,  and  it 
certainly  does  carry  a  man  through  the  world 
with  a  pretty  high  head,  and  with  considera- 
ble enjoyment  which  is  lost  by  the  modest 
and  pure.  Now  what  passions  of  our  kind  are 
there  that  we  can  trace  motives  to,  for 
I  may  as  well  apply  the  criticism  at  this  earliest  instance 
of  malignancy  and  hypocrisy  as  at  any  other.  You  don't 
need  to  eat  a  whole  loaf  of  bread  to  know  that  it  is  sour. 
A  wise  man  eschews  further  experience  of  that  batch. 
But  some  people  will  keep  on  eating  and  eating,  thinking 
that  the  sourness  has  not  struck  in  [Laughter] ;  that  it 
has  not,  at  least,  reached  the  bottom  crust,  and  that  you 
may  get  a  little  healthful  nourishment,  and  you  had  bet- 
ter not  discard  the  bread  until  you  have  had  a  full  trial 
of  it.  Well,  if  you  take  a  loaf  of  sour  bread  in  yoiu* 
stomach,  you  will  be  apt  to  find  out  enough  about  that 
iudigestible  fabric  not  to  try  another.  Now,  envy,  as  we 
call  it,  m  its  true  sense  as  it  is  used  by  the  great  classic 
dramatists,  and  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  either  in  the  Old 
or  the  New  Testament,  is  the  counter  passion  to  love 
and  charity  in  the  sense  of  the  embrace  in 
brotherhood  of  all  mankind.  "Envy  frets  itself 
because  of  the  prosperity  of  others  and  pines  at  their  s  j- 
periority."  It  finds  its  complacency,  it  finds  its  occupa- 
tions, it  finds  its  goading  impulses  in  the  destruction  of 
that  prosperity  and  the  abasement  of  that  superiority. 
Emulation,  which  is  the  noble  competition  and  the  great 
and  beneficent  Influence  that  great  characters  have  on 
those  who  are  their  cotemporaries  or  who  follow  them, 
is  turned  into  the  wicked  passion  of  envy.  And,  as  t)ie 
very  essence  of  love  is  that  its  delight  is  in  the  happiness 
of  others  for  the  other's  sake,  as  when  you  come  to  the 
sexual  relations  the  love  of  marriage  Is  distinguished 
from  meretricious  love  by  that  distinction,  that  the  love 
is  of  the  person  loved,  and  beautified,  and  glorified  in 
your  affections,  and  in  meretricious  connections  it 
is  the  gratification  of  selfish  appetite,  regardless 
of  whatever  degree  of  misery  and  ruin  Is  in- 
flicted upon  the  object  of  tlie  meretricious  love. 
So  envy,  the  hatred  of  men,  is  the  great  wicked  master 
passion,  as  love  is  the  great,  noble,  sacred  passion  of  our 
i  nature,  beginning  wheu  the  iufaut  wilh  a  smile  reoog- 


SUMMUG    UF  BY  MR.  EVAETS. 


673 


nizes  its  mother,  gro"^iTig  till  the  youth  takes  the  hride 
br  the  hand  to  the  altar,  ending  for  this  life  only  ^hen 
the  -vtlfe  is  laid  in  the  grave,  and  through  all,  expanded, 
purified,  intensified,  elevated,  until,  at  last,  it  is  lost  in 
the  universality  of  the  sea  of  love,  not  because  it  is  any 
less  intense,  not  that  it  has  lost  its  luster,  hut  simply  he- 
cause  it  has  faded,  as  the  stars  fade  in  the  morning  in  the 
full  blazonry  of  the  sun's  illumination.  No^,  Tvhere  does 
f-nvy  or  malice  tend,  and  do  its  ravages  cease  -with  its 
single  first  ob.iect,  or  does  it  grow  like  other  passions 
upon  what  it  feeds  on  ?  Does  it  extend  through 
the  whole  frame  of  the  moral,  the  intellectual,  the  in- 
dustrious working  of  the  man.  Why,  if  your  eye  be 
single  with  this  true  passion  of  love  and  duty,  your 
whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light.  But  if  your  eye  be 
evil,  your  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  darkness ;  and  how 
great  is  that  darkness!  The  ancients  have  a  stem 
maxim  marking  the  absoluteness  of  the  dominion  of  this 
evil  passion  in  few  words,  but  which  leaves  nothing  else 
to  be  said  about  it — "  Invidia  festos  dies  non  egit."  Envy, 
malice,  keeps  no  holiday.  And  Theodore  Tilton  spent 
Christmas  in  forging  a  weapon  that  he  says  he  meant  to 
strike  Mr.  Beecher  to  the  heart  with,  and  New 
Years  in  preparing  what  he  himself  calls  in  his 
writing,  "a  New  Year's  present  to  Mr.  Bowen." 
Well,  talk  of  confessions,  talk  of  indications 
of  character,  of  purpose,  of  nature ;  it  is  a 
by-word,  "Actions  display  the  man"  Treatment  of 
himself,  by  himself,  in  his  o"wn  description  of  himself, 
leaves  nothing  to  be  said  of  him  by  others.  You  don't 
need  to  search  the  heart  of  a  man  who  boasts  of  his 
malignity,  and  takes  credit  from  its  horrors.  Nor  do  you 
need  to  measure  the  conduct  of  such  men  with  such 
cha^racters,  and  think  how  far  they  will  go  and  where  they 
will  stop,  and  that  this,  or  that,  is  too  much.  No  wise 
man  thinks  any  more  of  this  credulity,  this  incaution 
toward  such  characters,  the  heart  of  whom  is  under- 
stood, than  he  does  of  measuring  the  depth  to  which  a 
vulture  wHl  dip  its  beak  in  the  heart  blood  of  its  prey,  or 
how  manifold  or  how  merciless  shall  be  the  coil  and  the 
crush  of  the  serpent  when  it  entwines  its  victim.  Let 
men  who  wish  to  run  these  experiments  with  reptile 
characters  in  animal  nature  try  them. 

ME.  TILTON  ACKNOWLEDGES  ME.  BEECHEE'S 
BENEFITS. 

Let  men  who  wish  to,  run  these  risks  with 
the  wickedness  of  the  heart,  when  that  is  confessed.  I 
read  to  you  the  list  of  evil  that  comes  out  of  an  evU 
heart  as  given  by  one  who  knew  what  was  iu  man.  Now, 
having  cautioned  Judson  never  to  assume  to  be  his  Mend 
further,  and  never  to  speak  to  him  again,  he  wrote  Mr. 
Beecher  this  letter  : 

Midnight. 

Brook:lt>",  Nov.  30, 1865. 
Set.  Henry  Ward  Beecher— O^i/ Dear  jPrie>?c?  .•  Return- 
ing home  late  to-night  I  cannot  go  to  bed  without  writing 


you  a  letter.  Twice  I  have  been  forced  to  appear  as  your 
antagonist  before  the  public,  the  occasions  five  years 
apart.  After  the  first  I  am  sure  our  friendship,  instead 
of  being  maimed,  was  strengthened.  After  this  last,  if  I 
may  guess  youi-  heart  by  knowing  mine,  I  am  sure  the 
old  love  waxes  instead  of  wanes. 

That  was  when  the  ciuarrel  about  the  peaceful  tendenr 
cies  of  Mr.  Beecher  was  fresh,  and  when  for  some  charity 
that  had  been  extended  to  the  fallen  foes  among  our 
countrymen  by  Mr.  Beecher,  he  was  condemned  with  an 
exhaustive  vituperation  scarcely  equaled  bythe  secular 
press. 

Two  or  three  days  ago,  I  know  not  how  impelled,  I  took 
out  of  its  hiding-place  your  sweet  and  precious  letter 
written  to  me  from  England,  containing  an  affectionate 
message  which  you  wished  should  live  and  testify  after 
your  death.  To-night  I  have  been  thinking  that  in  case  I 
should  die  first,  which  is  equally  probable,  I  ought  to 
leave  in  your  hand  my  last  will  and  testament  of  recip- 
rocated love.  My  friend,  from  my  boyhood  up  you  have 
been  to  me  what  no  other  man  has  been,  what  no  other 
man  can  be.  While  I  was  a  student,  the  influence  of  your 
mind  on  mine  was  greater  than  all  books  and  all  teach- 
ers. The  intimacy  with  which  you  honored  me  for  twelve 
years  has  been,  next  to  my  wife  and  family,  the  chief 
affection  of  my  life.  By  you  I  was  baptized ;  by  you  mar- 
ried; you  are  my  minister,  teacher,  father,  brother, 
friend,  companion.  The  debt  I  owe  you  I  can  never  pay. 
My  religious  life,  my  intellectual  development,  my  open 
door  of  opportunity  for  labor,  my  public  reputation— aU 
these,  my  dear  friend,  I  owe' in  so  great  a  degree  to  your 
own  kindness  that  my  gratitude  cannot  be  written  in 
words,  but  must  be  expressed  only  in  love. 

Then,  what  hours  we  have  had  together  !  "\Miat  arm- 
in-arm  wanderings  about  the  streets :  "VMiat  hunts  for 
pictures  and  books !  What  mutual  revelations  and  com- 
munin£:s!  What  tnterminglings  of  mirth,  of  tears,  of 
prayers ! 

The  more  I  think  back  upon  this  friendship,  the  more 
am  I  convinced  that  not  your  public  position,  not  your 
fame,  not  your  genius,  but  just  your  affection  has  been 
the  secret  of  the  bond  between  u.\.  For,  whether  you  had 
been  high  or  low,  great  or  common,  I  believe  that  my 
heart,  knowing  its  mate,  would  have  loved  you  exactly 
the  same.  Now,  therefore,  I  want  to  say  that  if,  either 
long  ago  or  lately,  any  word  of  mine,  whether  spoken  or 
printed,  whether  public  or  private,  has  given  you  pain,  I 
beg  you  to  blot  it  from  your  memory,  and  to  write  your 
forgiveness  in  its  place.  Moreover,  if  I  should  die.  leav- 
ing you  aliA-e,  I  ask  you  to  love  my  chUdren  for  their 
father's  sake,  who  has  taught  them  to  reverence  you 
and  to  regard  you  as  the  man  of  men. 

One  thing  more;  my  religious  experiences  have  never 
been  more  refreshing  than  during  the  last  year.  Never 
before  have  I  had  such  fair  and  winning  thoughts  of  the 
other  life.  With  these  thoughts  you  stand  connected  in  a 
strange  and  beautiful  way.  I  believe  human  friendship 
outlasts  human  life.  Our  friendship  is  yet  of  the  earth, 
earthy ;  but  it  shall  one  day  stand  uplifted  above  mor- 
tality, safe,  without  scar  or  flaw,  without  a  breath  to 
blot,  or  a  suspicion  to  endanger  it. 

Meanwhile,  O,  my  friend,  may  our  Father  in  heaven 
bless  you  on  the  earth,  guide  you,  strengthen  you,  illu- 
mine you,  and  at  last  crown  you  with  the  everlasting 
crown.  And,  now,  good  night ;  and  sweet  be  your  di'eams 
of  your  unworthy  but  eternal  friend, 

Theodore  Tilton. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  understand  what  words  are  wortli. 


674  THE  TlLTOJS'Bl 

written  or  spoken,  from  this  man.  Wlien,  three  days  be- 
fore, liis  slanderous  tongue  has  spoken  mischief,  and  a 
common  acquaintance  of  Mr.  Beecher,  the  recipient  of 
nis  leasings,  asked  this,  at  least,  about  Mr.  Beecher— 
*'  that  there  never  have  heen  any  suggestions  against  his 
morality  in  respect  of  women,"  and  Theodore  Tilton, 
with  the  thrlce-acted  pomp  of  duty  to  friendship,  and 
fielity  to  truth,  which  forbade  to  ask  what  was  untrue, 
and  did  not  permit  him  to  tell  what  was  true,  said,  "  I 
have  lost  my  faith  in  man,"  and  when  asked  what  point 
there  was  in  that  in  regard  to  Mr.  Beecher—"  I  have  lost 
faith  in  man,"  and  a  third  time  pressed,  "I  have 
lost  my  faith  in  man,"  and  then,  at  midnight,  in 
order  that  it  might  be  preserved  after  he  is  dead,  if 
he  should  die  suddenly,  or  take  poison  —  what 
poison  would  operate  %  —  preserves  this  record. 
Are  such  characters  new  ?  They  are  not  common.  We 
should  have  got  out  of  this  world  into  another  if  the 
staple  of  our  society  was  made  up  of  such  characters. 
No ;  "  a  serpent  heart  hid  in  a  flowery  face  "  is  a  charac- 
ter as  old  at  least  as  Shakespeare,  and  thus  preserved  by 
Mm.  Now,  gentlemen,  there  is  nothing  in  all  this  unless 
it  seems  to  you  to  rest,  as  it  does  to  me,  on  a  correct,  in- 
telligent, candid,  and  not  uncharitable  estimate  of  this 
plaintiffs  character  as  disclosed  by  his  own  evidence. 
Such  I  believe  it  to  be ;  such  the  juxtaposition  that  we 
are  able  to  make  of  things  said  in  private  and  demon- 
strations made  in  public,  shows  you  the  character. 
It  shows  you  its  discords;  it  shows  you  its 
main  current  of  purpose  and  of  blood;  it  is  the 
character.  And  it  shows  you  more.  It  shows  you  that, 
when  you  are  dealing  with  a  disputed  question  of  a  par- 
ticular line  of  conduct  or  incident  or  relation,  between 
two  men,  if  you  can  only  get  hold  of  enough  of  their  re- 
spective characters  you  can  tell  whether  one  or  the  other 
construction  of  the  controversy  is  to  determine,  comports 
with  the  character  aa  disclosed,  outside  of  the  particular 
controversy,  of  one  or  the  other.  Truth  comports  with, 
agrees  with,  every  fact— physical,  moral,  and  spiritual— 
in  the  world.  Error  may  couf  use ;  error  may  distort ; 
but  be  sure  there  is  no  one  truth  that  is  not  compatible 
with  every  other  truth  in  the  material  creation  or  the 
moral  relations.  Sometimes,  by  fortunately  or  skillfully 
acquiring  facts  enough  to  see  whether  the  particular 
fact  wiU  comport  with  them,  the  cross-examiner  is  en- 
abled to  baffle  the  false  purpose  of  a  witness.  Why 
what  is  cross-examination,  in  its  subtle,  penetrating 
power  %  Some  think  it  is  to  exhibit  the  infirmity  of  mem- 
ory, and  the  inexactness  of  expression  by  words,  and 
that  a  great  feat  is  accomplished  when,  by  asldng  a  wit- 
ness to  tell  a  long  conversation  over  two  or  three  times, 
the  witty  and  profound  cross-examiner  has  demonstrated 
that  the  thing  cannot  be  done.  Well,  everybody  of  any 
common  sense  knew  it  before.  How  often  did  the  coun- 
sel exhibit  to  you  their  inability— and  I  do  n't  refer  now 
to  my  learned  opponents  any  more  than  to  omselves. 


EORER  TEIAL. 

the  counsel  before  you— exhibit  their  inability  to  repeat, 
after  a  ten  minutes'  interruption  by  a  legal  discussion, 
the  very  question  that  had  been  asked  before  the  discus- 
sion began  and  was  allowed  to  be  repeated,  and  before 
your  eyes,  and  without  the  least  shame  or  aunor- 
ance,  we  asked  that  the  stenographer  might 
read  the  question  because  we  could  not  repeat 
it.  Now,  with  such  a  confession  of  this  common  trait 
between  witty  and  profound  cross-examiners  and  com- 
monplace unstrained  memories,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  a 
very  great  triumph  of  cross-examination  to  exhibit  this 
incapacity.  Indeed,  if  the  rote  was  followed  completely 
in  the  second  relation,  it  would  show  that  it  was  known 
by  heart— had  been  committed  to  memory.  But  when 
cross-examination,  ignorant  at  the  start  or  imperfectly 
instructed,  undertakes  to  demonstrate  the  improbability, 
the  falsehood,  of  an  immediate  statement  by  showing  its 
incompatibility  with  facts  that  shall  be  arrayed  around 
it,  and  how  it  will  not  comport  with  them,  then  it  is  that 
the  cross-examiner  follows  this  great  rule  and  principle 
of  truth,  that  truth,  if  truth,  will  match  all  round,  with 
material  facts,  with  moral  qualities ;  but  if  it  be  false  it 
won't ;  and  if  that  triumph  in  the  cause  of  justice,  in  the 
service  of  truth,  follows  the  employment  of  the  trained 
arc  of  the  lawyer,  it  is  a  great  and  beneficent  result ;  but 
if  confusion  of  error,  contumely  on  the  weakness  of 
memory,  laughter  at  the  indrfferent  mental  qualities  of 
this  or  that  witness,  is  the  only  result  of  cross-examina- 
tion, it  may  answer  an  immediate  purpose,  but  it  doe.a 
not  serve  justice  or.  promote  truth. 

MR.  TILTON'S  GRAY  HAIRS. 
Now,  I  will  give  you  two  amusing  incidents 
of  how  truth  will  comport  with  all  truth,  however  remote 
it  may  seem.  It  was  amusing  enough  when  it  happened, 
and  my  learned  friend  Judge  Porter  has  called  it  to  your 
attention.  When  Mr.  Tilton  wished  to  convict  Bessie 
Turner  of  a  lie  with  a  circumstance,  he  gave  you  as  a 
reason  that  her  story  was  false,  and  his  was  true,  about 
his  speech  in  regard  to  his  gray  hairs  going  in  sorrow  to 
the  grave,  that  he  had  not  any  gray  hairs  at  that  time. 
Well,  that  shows  that  he  put  the  question  of  whether  Bes- 
sie or  he  told  a  lie  on  that  fact.  That  was  the  test ;  and 
he  thought  he  knew  about  the  gray  haii-s  in  his  head,  or 
at  any  rate,  if  he  didn't  nobody  else  did ;  but  Bessie  had 
combed  his  head ;  Bessie  had  told  you  how  frequently  she 
had  combed  his  head,  and  I  find  that  people  who  don't  grow 
the  gray  hairs  are  quite  as  likely  to  see  them  as  those  who 
do.  [Laughter.]  But  he  had  forgotten— and,  indeed,  he  does 
not  believe  in  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures— he 
had  forgotten  that  it  is  written,  "Thou  canst  not  make 
one  hair  white  or  black ; "  even  under  oath  you  cannot 
do  that.  [Laughter.]  Ah !  but  he  had  forgotten  more 
than  that ;  he  had  forgotten  that  even  the  hairs  of  the 
most  worthless  head  are  all  numbered.  When  the  truth 
comes  to  light  in  his  own  letter,  written  three  years  bo- 


ISUMMI^'G    UP  1 

fore,  when  he  told  his  wife,  "  Gray  hairs  since  our  mar- 
riage have  stolen  upon  us,"  he  shows  you  what  there  is 
in  my  suggestion  that  truth  matches  all  the  truth  in  the 
world,  and  that  a  lie  does  not.  Bessie's  statement 
matched  all  round,  and  his  broke  at  the  first  attempted 
connection, 

JOKES  AT  A.  B.  MAETIN'S  EXPENSE. 
Well,  we  had  anotlier  witness,  a  Mr.  Martin, 
and  he  thought,  inexperienced  in  the  practice  of  truth 
or  in.  the  arts  of  falsehood,  that  if  he  told  a  story  in 
words,  and  there  was  not  anybody  to  contradict  him,  or 
at  any  rate,  if  it  was  only  words  against  words,  that  he 
could  do  some  damage  to  Mrs.  Tilton  by  his  testimony, 
gained  in  friendly  intercourse  with  her ;  an-d  so  he  told 
you  that  he  and  she  being  too  warm  in  the  room  up 
stairs,  went  down,  about  half  past  2  in  the  afternoon,  to 
sit  on  the  piazza  to  get  cool.  Well,  now,  there  is  a  mat- 
ter that  does  not  seem  to  have  much  to  do  with  the 
solar  system  per  se,  by  itself ;  but  you  have  got  to  match 
all  around,  and  truth  does  it  without  an  effort, 
and  falsehood  never;  and  so  he  was  shown 
that  the  sun  blazed  there  in  that  July  af- 
ternoon, with  the  thermometer  among  the 
nineties,  and  yet  they  had  gone  there  and  sat  because  it 
was  a  cool  place  !  Well,  that  looks  a  little  as  if  he  had 
run  against  the  solar  system,  don't  it  ?  [Laughter.] 
But  what  is  that  to  an  ingenious  mind  like  Martin's  ? 
[Laughter.]  Genius  shows  itself  when  most  hard 
pressed,  and  its  extempore  efforts  are  sometimes  its 
greatest ;  so  he  said,  putting  down  this  captious  notion 
of  sunshine,  "  Why,  there  was  a  brick  wall  on  the  side  of 
the  piazza  of  the  neighboring  house  that  extended  out  its 
deep  embrasure  and  kept  us  from  the  sun."  It  looked  a 
little,  then,  as  it  the  solar  system  was  not,  after  all,  to 
triumph ;  but  we  brought  an  occupant  of  the  house  and 
they  sent  a  surveyor,  and  there  was  no  brick  wall  there. 
Now,  sometimes  men  run  their  heads  against  a  brick 
waU  [laughter] ;  but  the  trouble  with  this  Mr. 
Martin  was,  that  he  dashed  his  brains  out 
for  want  of  a  brick  wall.  [Laughter.]  A.  B. 
Martin :  a  broiled  Martin.  [Renewed  laughter.] 
Well,  when  he  comes  on  the  stand  again  he  will  study  the 
solar  system,  and  also  brick  masonry.  [Laughter.] 

SIGNIFICANCE  OF  MR.  TILTON'S  EARLY-EX- 
PRESSED SUSPICIONS. 
Now,  as  we  go  on  we  shall  find  many  illus- 
trations of  this  antagonism  which  corrects  falsehood ; 
and  it  proves  something  more,  and  we  might  as  well 
•tart  here  with  understanding  that.  This  is  not  the  first 
cause  that  has  ever  been  tried ;  these  are  not  the  first 
witnesses  that  have  testified  and  been  tested.  It  is  not 
the  first  time  that  the  learned  Judge  and  my  experienced 
opponents,  or  even  ourselves,  have  had  to  observe  and 
lament  the  diflBculties  and  the  weakness  of  testimony. 


F  ME.   EYABTS.  675 

and  lawyers  have  hardened  their  experience  into  a  maxim 
which  the  law  foUows,  and  instructs  juries  to  foUow,  and 
which  the  conscience  and  the  common  sense  of  jurors 
impels  them,  compels  them,  to  follow.  It  is,  in  the 
brevity  of  the  law  maxim  in  Latin,  falsus  in 
uno,  falsus  in  omnihxts ;  satisfy  yourselves  that 
a  man  is  false  in  one  thing,  and  you  must 
judge  him  false  in  others.  When  a  man  tells 
you  with  his  own  mouth  that  be  has  lied  through  a  series 
of  statements  imder  a  motive,  and  then  that  in  another 
series  of  statements,  under  another  motive,  he  does  not 
lie,  you  have,  in  your  common  sense,  one  question  for 
him :  "  How  shall  we  trust  a  lying  tongue  to  teU  us  when 
it  lies  V  Now,  would  not  that  be  nice,  to  have  a  man 
come  and  say,  "  I  lied  then,  and  then,  and  then,  under  a 
motive ;  I  now  come  here  and  teU  the  truth."  "  WeU, 
have  you  any  motive  here  ?"  "  Oh  1  yes ;  I  mean  to  strike 
Beecher  to  the  heart;  I  mean  to  drive  him  out  of  Plym- 
outh Church ;  I ,  mean  to  pursue  him  to  the  grave." 
Well,  that  is  enough— a  motive.  Now,  would  not  you  feel 
like  Sensible  men  if  you  should  base  a  verdict  upon  that 
testimony ;  allowing  such  a  man  to  pick  and  choose  for 
you  the  things  that  are  true,  and  taking  them  on  his  say- 
ing so  ?  There  is  an  end  of  that ;  and,  unluckily,  Moulton 
and  Tilton  are  on  the  same  platform,  for  that  matter. 
Moulton  has  given  you  the  series  of  his  falsehoods,  and 
he  now  gives  you  the  series  of  his  statements,  and  you 
have  got  to  let  his  tongue  choose;  his  motives  you  have 
in  his  statement  that  he  would  have  the  life  of  Beecher, 
that  he  would  destroy  him,  and  all  the  viUifying  epithets 
that  one  man  can  bestow  upon  another  have  been  used 
by  him  on  the  stand  and  under  oath.  If  your  Honor 
please,  in  this  cause  we  do  not  need  to  trust  to  the  maxim 
so  firmly  established,  so  wisely  considered,  carrying 
such  conviction,  both  to  the  legal  and  the  common  under- 
standing, as  ''falsusin  uno,falstisin  omnibus."  The  record 
in  this  case  in  its  whole  web  of  hypocrisy,  of  false  state- 
ment, of  prevarication,  on  their  own  showing  requires 
us  only  to  take  this,  the  converse  of  the  proposition, 
"falsus  in  omnibus,  falsus  in  uno."  You  have  one  ques- 
tion to  determine,  whether  the  truth  is  spoken  about  it, 
and  they  have  shown  themselves  false  in  eveiything  :  ia 
character,  in  conduct,  in  concealments,  in  prevarications, 
in  spoken  falsehoods,  in  written  falsehoods.  Ah !  gentle- 
men, it  is  a  terrible  thing  to  have  the  length  of  a  trial, 
and  the  methods  of  the  law  unfold  a  tissue  and  a  web  of 
false  character,  the  woof  and  warp  of  which  are  aU  false. 
And  then  you  are  asked  to  believe  that  in  that  texture, 
in  that  tapestry,  there  is  at  least  one  thread  of  truth. 
They  say  to  us,  "  Falsus  in  omnibus,  vertcs  in  uno ; "  false 
in  aU  else  ;  true  at  least  in  one  thing ;  for  it  is  not  in 
human  nature  not  at  some  time  to  speak  the  truth,  and 
this  is  the  occasion.  [Laughter.]  But  I  said  to  you  that 
the  affirmative  force  of  the  negative  proof  is  itself  im- 
mense, when  you  are  satisfied  of  the  opportunities  ;  and 
I  digressed  to  exhibit  to  you  the   aiMtude,  as  early 


676 


TEE   TILTON-BEEGHEU  TRIAL. 


as  1865,  of  Mr.  Tilton  as  a  watclier  in  Ms  own 
household,  and  a  watcher  of  his  wife. 
Let  me  show  you  a  little  of  his  condition  of  mind  ahout 
Mr.  Beecher  as  a  visitor  and  an  inmate  of  his  household 
— as  an  inmate  of  his  house,  and  a  friend  of  his  wife — from 
another  statement  of  his  in  writing :  "  Ahout  ten  or 
eleven  years  ago,"  and  this  was  written  in  1872,  or  there- 
abouts :  it  carries  it  hack  to  1862 : 

Ahout  ten  or  eleven  years  ago  Henry  C.  Bowen,  for 
whom  I  was  then  worMng  as  a  subordinate  in  The  Inde- 
pendent office,  told  me  one  evening,  while  crossing  Fulton 
Ferry,  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  guilty  of  adultery, 
a  practice  begun  in  Indianapolis  and  continued  in  Brook- 
lyn." 

That  was  in  1862.  It  had  had  some  years  run  at  that 
time. 

Between  the  years  1860  and  1870  Mr.  Bowen  repeated 
the  accusation  not  less  than  a  hundred  times— [so  it  had 
not  slipped  his  mind]— frequently  exhibiting  the  deep 
sense  of  a  personal  injury,  and  sometimes  saying  that  if 
he  was  so  minded  he  could  drive  Mr.  Beecher  from  Plym- 
outh pulpit. 

Now,  either  Mr.  Tilton  believed  Mr.  Bowen  or  he  didn't, 
or  else  Mr.  Bowen  never  said  so,  and  I  am  sure  I  don't 
know  how  we  are  to  find  out  that  latter.  Mr.  Tilton  has 
said  so  here.  He  said  so  on  the  stand  in  some  degree.  Mr. 
Bowen,  their  witness,  was  not  asked  by  them  the  ques- 
tion, to  purge  himself  of  this  imputed  conversation 
and  conduct.  But,  in  respect  of  Mr.  Tilton,  we  may 
fairly  assume  that,  as  against  him,  we  may  suppose  that 
he  had  heard  these  stories,  for  he  has  said  so.  Now, 
either  he  believed  them  or  he  didn't.  If  he  did  believe 
them,  you  see  that  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  were 
under  a  pretty  sharp  observation,  don't  you  ?  A  hus- 
band, a  rival,  a  man  who  hated  Beecher,  and  who  either 
loved  or  didn't  love  his  wife ;  and  he,  why  he  would 
watch.  If  he  loved  her  he  would  watch ;  if  he  didn't 
love  her  he  would  watch.  And  he  comes  here  and  tells 
you  that  up  to  July,  the  day  when  his  wife  made 
some  sort  of  a  communication  to  him,  which 
we  shall  examine  on  its  own  merits  hereafter 
so  far  as  it  is  the  subject  of  evidence— until 
that  time  he  made  her  an  idol  in  his  head.  If 
there  was  nothing  wrong  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  his 
wife,  if  there  was  anything  wrong  in  his  visits  and  his 
rides — and  we  have  shown  you  that  in  1870,  in  the  Win- 
ter, when  Mr.  Beecher  had  driven  Mrs.  Tilton  out  once 
behind  a  pair  of  horses  and  a  buggy  in  the  Park,  and  had 
been  thanked  by  Mrs.  Morse,  and  encouraged  by  the 
great  good  it  had  done  Elizabeth,  and  by  the  invitation 
of  iJIrs.  Morse  he  went  there  a  week  afterward  to  give 
her  another  ride  behind  the  same  spanking  team,  that 
he  found  Mr.  Tilton  there,  and  the  invitation  was  given, 
of  course,  as  it  would  have  been  whether  he  was  there  or 
not,  and  Mrs.  Tilton  having  some  reason  that  disinclined 
her  to  go,  he  urged  her  to  go.  So  you  have  the  miscon- 
duct evidence,  that  after  that  time,  which  was  two  years 
after  the  adultery,  or  tne  second  year  after  the  adultery 


began,  while  it  was  going  on,  before  it  was  discontinued, 
he  had  not  observed  anything,  or,  if  he  had, 
his  conduct  was  not  candid  and  open^ 
was  iti  He  won't  take  that  alternative. 
It  contradicts  his  oath  that  he  had  no  suspicion  or  idea. 
Now,  you  will  see,  then,  that  the  material  circumstances 
of  this  alleged  seduction  and  alleged  adultery  are 
just  as  inconsistent  with  all  the  external  circumstances 
of  life  in  which  these  parties  were  placed,  ai)d  the 
observation  to  which  they  were  exposed,  as  the  moral 
incompatibility  of  wicked  conduct  with  religious  char- 
acter and  pure  morality  is  impossible. 

Now,  how  can  you  get  over  that  1  Why,  if  your  Honor 
please,  it  is  one  of  the  singular,  perhaps  unfortunate, 
traits  in  the  iaanners  and  morals  and  everyday  reason- 
ing of  the  English  people  and  ourselves,  that  we  have 
not  a  single  word  to  describe  the  husband  of  an  un- 
faithful wife  that  is  not  inspired  with  tne  bitterest  con- 
tempt and  contumely  for  the  husband.  There  are  two 
words— and  that  it  may  not  be  supposed  that  my  memory 
fails  me  in  the  exactness  of  the  definition,  I  will  read 
them  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury.  Now,  as  a  plain 
matter-of-fact  definition  of  the  word  "  cuckold,"  this  is 
accurate  :  "  The  husband  of  an  adulteress  ;  "  and  then 
the  adjective  "  cuckoldly,'  "  having  the  qualities  of  a 
cuckold,  mean,  sneaking ; "  and  then  we  have  an 
ancient  word,  not  much  in  use,  as  indeed  the 
word  "  cuckold "  is  not  in  use,  because  the 
occasion  for  dt  does  not  occur  in  our  society. 
Wittol  describes  a  cuckold  as  "a  man  who  knows  his 
wife's  infidelity  and  submits  to  it— a  tame  cuckold."  Now, 
that  shows  either  a  coarse  or  barbarous  feeling,  which 
may,  perhaps,  account  for  it.  I  don't  sympathize ;  I  have 
no  desire  to  sympathize  in  any  such  contumely,  but  it 
shows  the  strong  sense  of  our  people,  whether  it  has 
grown  up  here  or  at  the  birth  of  English  manliness  before 
our  removal  thence  from  England,  and  you  will  find  in 
every  language,  the  German,  the  Italian,  the  French, 
having  the  same  civilization  and  the  same  Christian  re- 
ligion, the  same  contumelious  aspersions  of  the  husbands 
Now,  what  does  that  mean  ?  Why,  it  means  that  the  vic- 
tims of  such  injuries  are  simple,  silly,  blind,  indifferent,, 
carried  away  by  affection  to  an  absurd 
obfuscation  of  their  observation,  and  that  when 
the  evil  finally  happens,  as  it  must  in  its  approaches 
have  been  noticeable,  and  if  noticed,  or  unnoticed,  mak- 
ing no  impression— either  way  the  character  is  contempt] 
ble;  and  to  call  a  man  a  cuckold  (which  is  simply  the 
husband  of  an  adulteress),  carries  contvimely  and  asper- 
sion. Well,  there  is  not  any  other  name  in  the  language 
for  him ;  there  is  no  other  word  that  expresses  that  con- 
dition of  the  relation  of  a  husband  to  a  violated  marriage 
except  that  word.  Now,  the  Roman  law,  if  your  Honor 
please,  was  not  so  indulgent  as  merely  to  visit  with  con- 
tumely the  husbands  of  violated  marriages.  Tliey  had 
a  law  in  Rome— for  the  Romans  were  a  virtu  ouis  i>eople. 


STJMMIKG    UP  BY  ME.  EVABTS. 


the  chastity  of  the  Roman  matrons  and  of  the  Roman 
maids  was  equal  to  that  of  any  nation,  and  the  grandeur 
and  power  of  that  society,  even  without  a  pure  religion, 
shows  how  much  can  he  built  if  the  comer-stone  of  the 
family  is  maintainedhy  sentiments  of  honor  andreverence. 
The  lenones,  or  pimps,  or  panderers,  or  procua'ers,  werf 
watched  and  punished  ;  and  the  crime  ^f  lenocinium  was 
visited  with  heavy  punishments.  That  parents  should 
prostitute  tla»?ir  daughters,  or  owners  tbcir  female  slaves, 
or  hushands  their  wives,  was  treated  as  nn  evil  that  must 
be  watched  and  punished ;  and  the  Lex  Jidia  Be  Adul- 
teriis  provided  that  any  husband  who  kept  or  took  back  a 
■wife  caught  in  adultery  should  be  classed  as  a  lenoeinant 
or  panderer,  and  punished  as  such.  It  was  a  condition 
of  the  family  that  was  pessimi  exempli  of  most  dangei'ous 
influence  upon  society.  If  the  Roman  malronage  was 
still  to  include  in  their  pure  roll  of  honor  prostituted 
wives,  wives  that  violated  the  marriage  vow,  where  was 
the  honor  of  the  matronage  ?  If  young  waves  entering 
into  matronage  were  to  see  that  the  power  of  public 
opinion,  and  the  virtue  of  that  noble  state,  was  not  dis- 
fignred  by  the  presence  of  waives  still  cherished  by  hus- 
bands with  knowledge  of  their  infidelity,  however  cred- 
itable it  might  be  to  the  extraordinary  charity  and  affec- 
tion of  the  particular  hiisband,  it  was  subversive  of  the 
institution,  and  should  not  be  allowed. 

Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
I  have  not  the  least  idea  that  Mr.  Tilton  is  exposed,  on 
any  facts  in  his  own  family,  to  the  least  imputa4ion  of 
either  this  contimielious  opprobrium  of  the  English 
phrases  or  this  darker  condemnation  of  the  Roman  law. 
I  wish  to  save  him  from  both— from  either— and  I  think  I 
shall  succeed ;  but  he  stood  on  a  very  perUoas  edge,  and 
he  has  got  as  far  down  the  precipice  as  he  could  get  of  his 
owTi  movements.  And  I  present,  as  an  utter  improbability 
(not  going  quite  as  deep  into  the  foundations  of  morals 
and  character  as  those  I  have  suggested  about  a  pure 
wife  and  a  noble  woman),  but,  I  put  it  to  you,  that 
it  is  a  moral  improbability  of  the  highest  grade  that 
Theodore  TUt^n  has  suffered  this  disgrace  in  his 
family.  He  is  a  man  of  large  intelligence;  he  is  a 
man  of  active  doubts  and  fears  and  suspicions.  He  is 
a  man  not  inexperienced  iu  the  wicked  ways  of  the 
world.  He  has  had,  year  after  year,  an  inculcation  into 
his  mind  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  a  dangerous  visitor  in  the 
families  of  the  pure-minded  women  of  Brooklyn ;  and  he 
has  encouraged,  has  observed,  has  been  pleased  with  the 
visits  of  Mr.  Beecher.  He  has  seen  his  wife  by  night  and 
by  day ;  he  has  seen  her  in  the  privacy  which  the  law 
says  that  even  the  great  interests  of  Justice  never  should 
invade ;  he  has  seen  Into  her  soul ;  he  looked  into  her 
eyes  with  love  or  hate,  with  suspicion  or  fear,  during 
these  many  years  of  the  seduction  and  adultery.  He  has 
watched  Mr.  Beecher  in  his  comings  in  and  his  gomgs 
out ;  he  has  talked  in  restaurants  about  his  want  of  faith 
tn  Mr.  Beecher,  and  has  set  other  people  to  watch- 


ing, and  thinking,  and  s^iripecting ;  and,  now, 
in  two  households,  such  as  Mr.  Beecher's  and  Mr.  Til- 
ton's— in  two  houses,  such  as  theirs,  in  the  relations  pos- 
sibly more  public  than  when  covered  by  those  roofs, 
there  has  not  come  one  fact  in  evidence  against  them  ; 
and  there  didn't  enter  one  doubt,  one  fault,  one  fear  into 
Theodore  Tilton's  mind  or  heart.  Well,  I  don't  think  you 
will  be  able  to  find  any  evidence  of  it.  If  nobody  else 
could  not,  he  could  not,  I  don't  think  you  will.  Why, 
gentlemen,  consider  what  it  is  to  have  had  such  vigilant, 
vindictive,  persevering,  intrepid,  audacious,  and 
trained  hounds  after  a  man ;  and  then  to  see 
the  petty,  trivial,  contemptible,  external  evidence 
produced  as  circumstantial,  or  as  proof  of  the  facts  ! 
Why,  gentlemen,  we  all  understand  the  difference  be- 
tw^een  suspicions,  or  aspersions,  or  evidence,  not  coming 
against  a  man  because  suspicion  has  not  once  been 
opened,  but  it  was  opened  in  Mr.  Tilton's  mind,  and  kept 
alive  by  Mr.  Bowen  through  ten  years.  He  watched  and 
watched,  and  saw  that  IVIr.  Beecher  was  pure,  and  he 
knew  his  wife  was.  That  is  the  result.  Now,  gentlemen, 
if,  in  your  grain  trade  a  broker  came  to  you  and  gave 
you  a  handful  from  a  cargo  of  wheat,  and  you  see  it  full 
of  weevil  and  of  rust,  and  he  asks  vou  to  buy  it,  you  say  : 
"  You  expect  me  to  buy  a  cargo  of  wheat  of  which  that 
is  a  sample  1  Why,  a  man  wouldn't  take  it  as  a  gift. 
What  is  the  price?"  "  Full  market  price."  "  Well,  you 
must  take  me  for  a  fool."  "  But,"  the  broker  says,  "  per- 
haps you  had  better  wait  and  let  me  tell  you.  That  is  all 
the  weevil  and  the  rust  there  is  tn  the  whole  cargo.  Buy 
it  at  any  price."  Now,  that  is  what  has 
happened  here.  He  brought  you  the  samples, 
and  it  is  the  sample  that  is  scraped  fi'om 
the  whole  life  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Had  not  Tilton 
written  of  violence  enough,  of  vehemence  enough,  of  par- 
ticulars enough,  identified  in  that  New-Year's  gift  he  pre- 
pared for  Mr.  Bowen,  in  which  he  described  the  de- 
baucheries and  wicked  adulteries  and  rapes  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher.  Why  didn't  they  prove  something  ?  Why 
didn't  they  show  any  proximate  traits  of  conduct 
or  character  leading  to  doubt  or  suspicion  ?  But,  I  don't 
put  it  upon  that ;  I  put  it  upon  the  question,  Why  do  you 
dare  to  say,  as  you  do  say,  and  I  think  truthfully— I  cer- 
tainly hope  truthfully  for  your  character— that  trntil 
July  you  had  not  a  doubt,  or  a  fear,  or  a  fault,  or  a  sus- 
picion, in  regard  to  the  intercourse  of  Mr.  Beecher  with 
your  family— how  can  you  say  that  and  not  feel  that  you 
have  forced  yourself  into  the  dilemma  of  choosing 
whether  you  take  the  contumely  of  the  English  oppro- 
brium or  the  dark  stain  of  the  Roman  condemnation  I 

If  your  Honor  please,  I  think  we  had  better  adjourn 
now. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  audience]— Gentlemen,  keep  your 
seats  imtil  the  jui-y  retire.  [To  the  jurors.]  Return  at  2 
o'clock,  gentlemen. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m.. 


678  THM   TIL  TON -HI 

KATY  MCDONALD'S  TESTBIONY. 

The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to 
a<^ourimient. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  we  are  not  left,  gentlemen,  on  tMs 
question  of  external  facts  and  direct  testimony,  to  mere 
conclusions  from  its  absence  and  tlie  absence  of  wit- 
nesses. A  witness  was  finally  brougtit,  no  doubt  a  most 
estimable  person,  of  intelligence  and  of  truthfulness— 
whetlier  any  mistakes  intervened  in  lier  testimony  or  not 
it  is  quite  uuimportant  eitlier  to  tlie  cause  or  to  tliia  just 
expression  of  confidence  in  lier  for  me  to  inquire— and 
that  was  the  old  family  half  servant,  half  friend,  Katy 
McDonald,  who  had  gone  in  and  out  with  that  family  from 
1855,  onwards,  from  the  marriage  to  the  end,  and 
now,  at  present,  occupied,  I  take  it,  in  some  way,  in  con- 
nection with  Mrs.  Tilton's  household,  a  servant  or  friend, 
coming  to  them  from  her  relations  to  his  father's  family, 
devoted  to  him,  descending  to  him,  devoted  to  the 
children  as  his  children,  no  doubt  recognizing  and  feeling 
the  beauty  of  the  wife's  character,  and  having  the 
natural  sentiments  of  an  honest  hearc,  exerted  in  her 
favor;  but  still  she  belongs  to  the  father's  side  of  the 
house,  and  in  the  break  of  the  family,  and  in  the  crim 
inations  and  recriminations  that  proceed  between  them, 
and  in  the  outgoing  of  her  sympathies,  and  in  the 
adhesion  of  her  fidelity,  she  stands  now  with 
the  father  and  his  childien,  as  in  his  care; 
and  she,  called  for  a  purpose  of  no  great 
importance,  showing  that  their  vigilance  omits  nothing. 
Is  wholly  silent  on  the  question  of  whether  there  occurred 
anything  from  the  time  of  the  marriage  in  1855  to  the 
broken  household  in  1874,  that  could  indicate  either  evil 
desires,  loose  conduct,  erring  purpose  on  the  part  of  the 
wife,  or  impropriety  of  visit,  in  time,  in  length,  in  respect 
to  occasions,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher,  within  that 
house— not  a  word.  You  find,  then,  in  the  absence  of  all 
the  other  servants— for  we  have  called  none  of  them ; 
none  of  them  have  adhered  to  us;  none  of  them  are 
within  our  control,  and  yet  there  were  servants  running 
through  that  famfly,  five  at  a  time,  during  all  these 
years,  their  whereabouts,  their  accessibility  not 
brought  into  doubt,  and  not  one  of  them  is  brought. 
Finally,  the  intelligent,  experitenced,  sober,  sedate  obser- 
vation and  judgment  of  this  excellent  woman,  Katy  Mc- 
Donald, is  brought  before  you,  and  the  reason  that  nothing 
is  said  is  that  nothing  existed  in  fact  and  in  truth  to  be 
eaid.  Now,  you  must  deal  with  this  matter  as  between 
man  and  man,  and  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of  hu- 
man nature.  You  are  men  with  the  qualities  of  intelli- 
gence, the  sentiments  of  heart  and  the  experience  of  life 
that  belong  to  men,  and  you  are  to  judge  of  a  man  and  a 
woman,  and  to  judge  of  families,  and  to  judge  of  actual, 
practical,  daily  life,  in  the  face  and  eyes,  and 
on  the  level  of  the  society  of  Brooklyn.  You  are, 
to  judge  of  witnesses  and  of  the  absence  of  witnesses; 


I  E  CHUB  TEIAL. 

you  are  to  judge  of  the  frivolity  of  testimony  as  it  is  pro- 
duced, and  the  absence  of  any  more  weighty  testituony 
which  could  be  produced,  should  be  produced,  always 
will  be  produced  il  there  is  any  fact  at  the  bottom  to  war- 
rant it  and  give  it  growth.  These  men  (Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mr.  Tilton),this  woman  (Mrs.TLlton),aretobejudgedof  as 
men  and  a  woman-  of  our  day,  of  our  society,  of  our  daily 
life,  so  far  as  all  external  relations  go.  They  are  to  be 
judged  fairly;  they  are  to  be  judged  justly.  When  iudi- 
vidual  differences,  from  the  common  traits  of  life, 
whether  iu  tatellect,  in  character,  in  ideas,  ia  habits  of 
thought,  or  habits  of  expression,  come  to  be  scrutinized 
and  weighed,  each  man,  each  woman  is  entitled 
to  be  considered  fairly,  accordiug  to  the  tex- 
ture and  the  qualities  of  their  own  nature, 
so  far  as  they  are  developed  on  the  testimony,  although 
it  differs  from  i/oiir  nature,  or  yom'  nature,  or  my  nature. 
That  is  fairness;  but  at  the  bottom  we  must  judge  them 
as  men  and  women.  If  they  are  angels,  we  have  no  mode 
of  judging  about  their  conduct.  If  Mrs.  Tilton  is  all 
spirit  and  no  body,  and  Mr.  TUton  is  all  body  and  no 
spirit,  we  haven't  any  mode  of  judgiag  of  such  abnormal 
characters.  We  assume  that  intelligence,  education, 
experience  on  the  part  of  Mr.  TUton,  expose  him  to  our 
judgment  as  of  a  man  thus  having  his  faculties,  large  by 
nature,  sharpened  by  education,  hardened  by  experience 
with  the  world ;  and  it  is— and  I  put  it  ia  the  utmost 
good  faith  to  you,  as  I  Lave  all  my  illustra- 
tion and  my  argument  on  the  question  of  the 
probabilities  of  his  having  been  a  deceived  husband— 
I  put  it  to  you  that  it  is  one  of  the  greatest  improbabili 
ties  iu  respect  to  his  iutellect,  in  respect  to  his  character, 
in  respect  to  his  experience,  in  respect  to  his  life,  that  it 
is  possible  to  impute  to  another.  I  could  almost  as  soon 
expect  to  convince  myself  that  he  is  not  six  feet  high, 
that  he  has  not  a  beautiful  rhetoric  and  accomplished 
taste,  and  educated  faculty  of  rhetoric  and  of  speech,  as 
to  convince  myself  that  with  this  power  of  intellect,  and 
with  the  traits  of  heart  that  this  evidence  displays,  and 
with  the  sharpening  of  all  the  observations  and  elements 
of  judgment  that  treat  of  this  domestic  calamity  of  an 
invaded  household,  that  he  should  have  been  its  victim. 
There  is  no  satire  and  no  sarcasm  about  it. 

WHAT  WAS  NOT  DONE  WITH  ME.  BEECHER. 

My  point  is  that  there  has  never  been  a  rea- 
son for  his  suspicion,  that  there  has  never  been  a  fault  on 
the  part  of  the  wife,  that  he  is  not  the  husband  of  an 
adulteress.  Now,  gentlemen,  laying  out  of  view,  then,  the 
trivial  and  feeble  and  worthless  evidence  that  bears  upon 
the  question  of  the  guUt  or  the  innocence  of  two  excel- 
lent people,  what  is  there  in  the  ordinary  experience  of 
mankind  on  these  questions,  or  on  the  maxims  of  saiety 
and  security  that  the  law  and  common  justice  have  pro- 
vided for  such  controversies— what  is  there  left  to  inquire 
about  I   I  think,  as  I  hav«  said,  that  but  for  the  great 


SCjUIISG    UF  I 

ultimate  fact  of  tlie  ciuestion  of  the  vindication  of  Mr. 
Beeclier  against  tliis  impeaeiunent,  there  would  Toe  no 
furttier  ino[uiry.  I  tMnk  the  intelligence  and  the  ex- 
perience of  every  jiu^yman  vrere  appalled  at  the 
poverty  of  a  judicial  examination,  vsrhen  the 
plaintiff  rested,  that  had  simply  reproduced  the 
pamphlets  of  last  Summer,  and  the  words  that  flowed 
from  their  mouth  ;  hut  yet  you  were  kept  in  expectation 
that  Mr.  Beecher,  wholmew  all,  and  wholmew,  if  he  came 
upon  the  stand,  even  if  he  did  not  fear  God,  might  fear 
man  and  his  punishment?,  said  he  never  would  come 
upon  the  stand ;  three  oaths  of  witnesses  were  too  many 
to  he  breasted  by  a  man  that  was  to  tell  a  lie.  They  were 
altogether  too  many  ;  but  they  were  not  too  many  to  be 
breasted  by  a  man  who  knew  the  truth  and  was  going  to 
tell  it.  If  you  watch  the  tortuous  courses  of  the  evidences 
drawn  hither  and  thither,  of  Mrs.  Moulton  and  of  Mr. 
Tilton,  you  will  find  that  there  has  been  a  very  great  in- 
genuity exercised  to  avoid  misstatements  that  carried 
imputations  of  consciousness  of  falsehood,  when  any  such 
statement  ran  against  two  witnesses  that  could  speak 
and  contradict  the  same  thing  ;  for  the  law 
of  peijury,  which  refuses  that  a  conviction  should  take 
place  for  false  oath,  by  the  oath  of  one  witness  speaking 
the  contrary  under  oath,  allows  the  judgment  to  come  if 
there  be  two  witnesses,  and  the  jury  believe  the  two 
against  the  one.  And  so,  day  after  day,  this  unhappy 
human  nature  of  ours  showed  its  CLualities  so  discredita- 
bly to  it,  in  the  bravado,  and  defiance  of  Mr.  Beecher  to 
come  upon  the  stand  ;  and  then,  when  he  came  upon  the 
stand,  I  will  agree  that  most  of  that  sentiment  slunk 
away,  and,  without  waiting  for  his  testimony,  knew  that 
he  would  speak  the  truth,  and  that  the  truth  was  inno- 
cence. But  you  heard  him  testify,  you  heard  him  cross- 
examined,  and  had  heard  also  the  immense  ex- 
pectations of  what  cross-examination  was  to  do. 
Well,  it  was  as  able,  it  was  as  discreet,  it  was  as 
vigorous,  it  was  as  skillful,  it  was  as  intrepid,  it  was  as 
comprehensive,  it  was  as  penetrating,  it  was  as  severe, 
as  it  is  in  the  nature  of  cross-examination,  by  any  forensic 
powers  that  our  community  furnishes.  And  then  they 
said,  "  Oh,  wait  for  the  rebuttal ;"  these  men  have  kept 
back  the  damning  facts,  in  order  that  Beecher  might 
have  put  himself  in  their  power,  giving  his  oaths  and  his 
denials.  Well,  he  had;  he  had  put  himself  in 
their  power  if  there  were  any  truth  or  facts  or 
witnesses  to  speak  against  him.  That  was  right. 
Nobody  appeared  against  him.  Mr.  Bell  and  Mr.  Bowen 
gave  testimony  which,  ia  its  volume,  and  in  its  applica- 
tion, was  as  valuable  to  thls  defendant's  case  as  any  wit- 
ness that  was  produced  on  our  side,  as  I  shall  show  you. 

THE   ROSSEL  PROCESSION. 
And  leaYing  the-ni  out,  why  a  string  of  peo- 
ple about  the  relative  po^itiona  of  Mr.  Tilton,  Mrs.  Wood- 
ball  aud  her  sister  in  the  ConmiTme  procession,  filled  out 


r  ME.   EVABTS,  679 

the  body  of  the  rebuttal.  Well,  It  never  was  a  matter  oi 
any  consequence  what  relative  positions  these  people 
held  among  themselves  ia  that  procession.  Honest  wit- 
nesses, certaioly  witnesses  with  whom  we  had  nothiug  to 
do,  were  clear  of  the  opiuion,  are  clear  of  the  opinion, 
wrote  the  next  day  ia  the  newspaper  statements  of  it, 
published  to  all  the  world,  of  the  relation  of  these  pio- 
cessionists  on  that  rrarch.  Others  come  and  give  you  a 
tangled  maze,  reduced,  finally,  on  the  part  of  the  great 
political  leader  who  nominated  Mrs.  Woodhull  for  the 
Presidency,  to  the  final  conclusion  that  all  he  could  say  in 
respect  of  the  march,  or  its  order,  was  that  the 
procession  marched.  [Laughter.]  The  Chief-Marshal 
said  that  he  saw  them  both,  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull, 
and  her  sister,  Miss  Claflin,  not  connected  in  the  way  that 
our  witnesses  said,  but  so  that  when  as  he  marched  at 
the  head  of  the  procession  and  turned  around,  he  can 
take  in  all  their  persons  at  a  glance  of  his  eye ;  and  Mr. 
Tilton  and  Mr.— the  Pant  arch— Andrews,  he  swore 
that  they  were  not  in  sight  of  one  another.  Now,  do  you 
believe  that  the  Chief-Marshal,  by  turning  around  could 
see  them  in  the  same  glance  of  his  eye,  and  in  the  same 
division  of  the  procession,  as  he  said — for  he  was  not  on 
horseback,  he  was  not  mounted,  h^  could  not  see  any 
further  than  anybody  else— and  that  Mr.  Tilton  and  :Mr. 
Andrews,  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  did  not  know  where  each 
were  in  that  procession  1  Well,  I  don't  know  that 
the  Chief-Marshal  was  right.  I  have  no  doubt 
he  was  enMrely  honest.  It  is  difQcult  to  say  who  is  right 
about  all  that.  But  the  only  merit  of  this  controversy 
about  the  relative  and  accurate  positions  and  relations, 
is  on  a  question  of  veracity,  or  on  a  question  of  exposure 
to  contradiction  and  contrariety  withoiit  there  being  any 
want  of  veracity  on  either  side.  The  great  point  on 
which  that  evidence  was  introduced  by  us  was  to  show 
that  Mr.  Tilton  and  these  ladies  in  that  communion  or  as- 
sociation, that  had  been  introduced  iato  the  case  by  Mr. 
Tnton's  evidence— the  plaintiff's  evidence,  not  person- 
ally, perhaps,  but  the  evidence  on  his  side— carried  it  so 
far  that  they  sympathized  in  public  principles,  and  in- 
cluded in  that  sympathy  the  procession  in  honor  of  the 
Commune,  which  had  the  history  that  it  had ;  and  in- 
cluded in  its  history  the  murder  of  the  Chief-Jus- 
tice of  France  and  the  Archbishop  of  Paris.  It  is  seldom, 
if  your  Honor  please,  that  our  profession  has,  ia  the  ex- 
periences and  exposures  of  life,  so  noble  a  sacrifice  as 
was  there  made  by  the  Chief-Justice  of  France.  Held, 
like  the  great  head  of  the  clergy,  the  Archbishop  of  Paris, 
among  the  hostage  of  this  mob;  they,  the  mob, 
the  Commune,  desired  the  Chief-Justice  to  be  a 
bearer  to  the  Government  at  Versailles  of  their  desire  for 
some  terms  of  capitulation  and  surrender,  on  his  pledge 
that  he  would  return  if  terms  satisfactory  to  them  were 
not  accorded  to  them.  He  said,  "  No,  I  cannot  go  on  that 
errand.  The  Government  of  Versailles  will  never  recog- 
nize any  obligation  to  a  mob  like  you.   They  will  never 


680  THE  TILTON-B. 

allow  me  xo  retui'n ;  it  cannot  be  that  tliey  will  allow 
me  to  return.  No  power  of  my  will,  no  adliesion 
to  my  promise,  no  protestation  can  ever  save  me  and 
the  cause  of  truth  and  faith  among  men,  from  the 
condemnation  that  I  have  violated  my  pledge  and  my 
honor.  I  cannot  go  hecause  I  cannot  return."  And  he 
submitted  to  the  slaughter,  and  showed  what  a  lawyer 
can  do  at  the  post  of  honor,  and  duty,  and  in  mainte- 
nance of  his  own  honor,  and,  more  important  still,  of  faith 
inhuman  nature  that  there  are  men  that  can  keep  a 
promise.  The  clergy,  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles 
down,  have  had  the  crowns  of  martyrdom  widely  dis- 
tributed among  them  ;  and  In  modern  times  it  has  been 
the  singular  honor,  when  martyrdoms,  when  cruelties, 
when  the  fierce  hatreds  against  religion  and  morality 
have  been  subdued  by  the  prevalence  of  re- 
ligion and  mercy— it  has  been  the  singular 
honor  of  the  Catholic  Archbishops  of  Paris 
to  furnish  within  our  time  two  martyrs  to  their  religion. 
I  am  as  much  a  Protestant  by  birth,  by  education,  by 
conviction,  as  anybody,  but  I  would  like  to  see  the  rivalry 
between  the  old  Church  and  all  the  branches  of  the  new, 
and  then  among  all  the  branches  of  the  new  an  emula- 
tion of  Christian  faith,  duty,  courage,  hope,  and  labor. 
That  is  my  view  of  the  advantages  of  the  emulation 
among  good  men. 

Well,  this  procession  was  in  honor  of  the  Commune, 
that  had  made  these  sacrifices  of  the  noble  men  of 
France.  I  am  not  to  dispute  the  freedom  of  conscience, 
the  freedom  of  thought,  the  independence  of  action,  that 
belong  to  men  having  the  courage  of  their  opinions  and 
manifesting  them.  I  question  nobody's  motives  in  the 
procession,  provided  only  they  accept  the  facts,  and  have 
the  courage  to  stand  by  them. 

MR.  TILTON'S  POLICY  OF  SILENCE. 
Now,  gentlemen,  this  cause  must  be  .ex- 
plored, in  what  constitutes  the  great  volume  of  the  evi- 
dence, almost  entirely,  as  it  seems  to  me,  within  the 
sphere  of  moral  evidence.  No  doubt,  some  tests  are 
necessary,  on  legal  principles,  as  to  the  degree  of  credi- 
bility of  the  witnesses,  as  compared  with  one  another ; 
or,  on  particular  points  of  evidence,  where  they  may  dif- 
fer. And,  gentlemen,  I  shall  assume  for  the  witnesses 
upon  our  side  no  different  measure  of  moral  or  legal  test 
for  your  belief  in  them  than  I  accord  to  the  witnesses  of 
the  other  side.  Errors  of  memory  are  as  likely  to 
happen  to  witnesses  on  one  side  of  a  cause  as  to 
witnesses  on  another  side  of  the  cause.  Errors 
of  memory  are  likely  to  happen  even  among 
intelligent  witnesses  and  conscientious  witnesses. 
Nor,  shall  I  presume  that,  because  Mr.  Tilton  is  plaintiff 
and  maintains  his  theory,  that  his  evidence  is  to  be 
probed,  or  trusted,  or  in  advance  accepted,  less  favor- 
ably than  Mr.  Beecher's.  I  propose  to  test  him  and  Mr. 
Moulton,  and  Mrs.  Moulton,  by  the  same  rules  of  candor, 


^KCHEE  TRIAL. 

of  justice,  of  good  sense,  as  I  ask  to  have  applied  to  any 
of  the  witnesses  on  our  side.  But,  that  includes  the 
question  of  character,  not  as  involved  in  the  controversy, 
for  that  would  decide  the  controversy  in  advance,  but  as 
exhibited  by  life,  and  conduct,  and  maintained  in  repute, 
as  shown  by  them  in  motive,  in  candor,  in  intelligence,  in 
accuracy,  in  good  faith,  on  the  stand  during  the  trial. 
And,  then,  I  propose  that  each,  witnesses  for  us  and  wit- 
nesses against  us,  should  be  compared  in  your  judg- 
ments, for  the  diminution,  or  the  confirmation  of  your 
confidence  in  them,  to  the  contradicting  or  the  support- 
ing of  the  evidence,  of  testimony,  given  by  witnesses  in 
support  of  either  one  or  the  other  in  this  controversy. 

The  theory  of  the  plaintiff  is  this,  that  up  to  the  break- 
ing out  of  this  matter  of  difference  between  him  and  Mr. 
Beecher,  or  up  to  a  date  of  some  six  months  preceding, 
his  wife  and  he  held  such  relations  to  each  other  and  to 
their  children  and  to  the  family  as  were  properly  de- 
scribed as  an  ideally  happy  home.  But  r  won't  hold  to 
epithets— that,  up  to  that  time,  the  sentiments,  the  feel- 
ings, the  conduct  of  each  as  known  to  each,  their  feelings 
toward  each  other  as  expressed,  their  daily  life  as  seen  to 
the  most  inmost  inspection,  was  such  as  belongs 
to  a  family  in  accord,  of  elevated  character  and  conduct 
and  of  happy  sentiments  toward  each  other ;  that  the 
only  intrusion,  the  only  rupture,  the  only  discord, 
tbe  only  dissonance,  came  from  the  seducer  and  through 
his  debauchery ;  that  under  (to  be  sure,  they  must  admit) 
circumstances  of  grave  import  in  the  affairs  of  Mr.  Tilton, 
unconnected  with  this  distiirbauce  of  domestic  happi- 
ness—I mean,  the  disasters  which  he  came  to,  as  between 
him  and  his  employer  and  in  regard  to  his  employments, 
his  prospects,  his  livelihood,  his  fortunes,  and  his  good 
repute— in  connection,  I  say,  with  these  disasters  and 
this  situation  which  had  no  relation  to  the  intervention 
of  Mr.  Beecher— in  connection  with  them,  it  became  suit- 
able in  protection  of  the  good  name  of  his  wife,  and  the 
fair  fame  of  his  children,  that  he  should  come  into  rela- 
tions with  Mr.  Beecher  to  guard  against  the 
casualty  of  a  controversy  between  Mr.  Beecher 
and  Mr.  Bowen,  insensibly  and  thoughtlessly 
drawing  into  it  this  aspersion  and  this  disgrace  to  his 
family ;  that  thereupon  all  the  purposes  of  all  the  inter- 
views was  to  secure  that  result  of  secrecy.  To  be  sure 
he  had  no  idea  that  Mr.  Beecher  would  on  his  own 
account  desire  to  explode  and  expose  the  matter.  He 
was  quite  sure  that  his  wife  was  nervous  and  sensitive  as 
to  any  exposure  coming  from  her ;  and  in  respect  to  him- 
self, why  he  would  have  "lost  confidence  in  human 
nature"  If  he  didn't  suppose  he  would  want  to  keep  it 
secret.  So  you  have  then  thereafter,  when  the  secret  ia 
known  to  these  persons  on  their  own  theory,  the  most 
ponderous  system  of  machinery  to  keep  the  secret,  the 
most  extensive  and  elaborate  reduction  of  it  to  writing, 
apology,  and  defense,  accusation,  argument,  reasoning, 
all  put  into  the  permanent  form  of  writing,  and  then  a 


SUMMISG    VP  B 

judicious,  to  1)6  sure,  and  circumspect  communication  by 
3Ir.  Tilton  to  a  hamlf  ul  of  friends,  or  tliose  wlio  lie  tliouglit 
ouglit  td  know  about  it.  in  order  to  secure  tiie  secret ; 
tliat  tlien  tliere  came  to  be  a  necessity  of  suppressing  or 
humoring  to  the  result  ot  prevention  any  hostile  pro- 
mulgation of  this  secret  on  the  part  of  certain  interests 
vrliieh  would  lead,  for  the  public  good,  to  its  promulgation 
—I  mean,  the  publication  in  the  interest  of  the  opposite 
opinions  of  sooiety  and  religion  of  this  exposure  of  the 
conduct  of  good,  excellent  people,  and  that  then  there 
came  to  be  a  prolonged,  a  manifold,  diversiiied,  intricate 
series  of  confidences,  efforts,  plots,  falsehoods,  to  keep 
the  secret  that  had  thu5  been  communicated  and  had 
run  down  the  streets  like  water;  that,  in  that,  there  came 
to  be  the  necessity  of  a  compulsory  association  by- 
Mr.  Tilton,  and  by  Mr.  Moulton,  as  his  coadjutor, 
andTby  Mrs.  Moulton  as  the  wife  with  persons  whose  as- 
sociation, as  it  runs  through  this  CYidence,  as  produced 
by  the  plaintiff,  is  denoimced  by  him  and  his  witnesses  as 
discreditable  in  a  very  high  degree ;  that  that  policy,  ju- 
dicious, deliberate,  circumspect  as  it  was,  failed,  and 
there  came  to  be  an  outburst  of  the  WoodhuU  and  Claflin 
promulgation  in  the  end  of  1872 ;  that,  then,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  have  new  devices  and  conferences  to  put  the  se- 
cret back  again  where  it  was  before  the  enginery  for  its 
suppression,  ending  in  the  result  of  its  explosion,  was 
first  constructed ;  that  this  suppression  was  approached, 
success  was  again  frustrated,  and,  finally,  duty  com- 
pelled Mr.  Tilton  to  reverse  the  policy  of  saving  his  wife 
and  childi-en  and  commencing  their  destruction;  that 
all  the  while  Mr.  Beecher,  as  he  run  along  as  a  party  to 
these  confidences,  these  conferences,  and  these  plans, 
was  leading  a  life  and  exhibiting  liues  of  action  and  con- 
duct which  were  iu  the  nature  of  eii'cumstances,  or  argu- 
mentative confession;  that  in  regard  to  the  collateral  or 
interior  arrangements  which  sprung  out  of  suspicious 
accusations,  examinations  on  the  West  charges,  or  on  the 
inquiries  concerning  Mr.  Tilton's  continued  membership 
of  the  Religious  Society  of  Plymouth  Church  and  its 
responsibility  for  him,  and  during  the  council  called  by 
the  neighboring  and  sister  churches  from  the  general  de- 
nomination; and  then  m  the  intolerable  wit  of 
I>r.  Bacon,  which  galled  Mr.  TUton,  came  the  final 
and  definite  promulgation  of  the  scandal 
in  the  Bacon  letter,  followed  then  by  the 
formal,  sworn  accusation  of  Mr.  Tilton,  by  the  evidence 
contradicting,  refuting,  suppressing  it,  and  relieving  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  then  by  the  bold,  irresponsible,  unmeasured 
accusation  of  the  public  press  after  the  trial  was  over  by 
the  long,  elaborate  papers  of  Mr.  Moulton  and  of  Mr. 
Tilton. 


r  MR.   UVABTS.  681 

ME.  BEECHER  LIKEIS'ED  TO  ST.  PAUL  AND 
THE  YIPER. 
Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  their  tlieory.  They 
thought  that  the  boldness,  the  heinousness,  the  elabor- 
ateness, the  circumstantiality  of  the  charge,  including 
picked  items  of  evidence,  selected  pieces  of  Mr.  Beecher's 
handwriting,  reenforced  by  a  foul  accusation  that  had 
nothing  to  do  ^vith  the  relations  of  Mr.  Beecher  with  :Mr5. 
Tilton  (except  in  the  way  of  blackening  his  character 
and  preparing  public  belief  to  believe  him  a 
scoimdrel  and  a  debauchee)  I,  mean  the  the  Proctor  impu- 
tation, was  thi'own  into  the  elaborate  demmciations  of 
Mr.  Moulton  under  the  council  of  a  wise  adviser,  as  he 
was  regarded,  and  with  the  purpose  to  stiike  to  death  in 
the  public  judg-ment,  forestalled,  excluded,  derided,  the 
question  of  resistance,  of  inq.uiry,  and  of  truth.  Out  of 
all  this  heat  there  came  a  viper,  as  when  that  reptile 
fastened  upon  the  hand  of  St.  Paul,  but  the  apostle  shook 
it  into  the  flames,  and  the  barbarians  looked  to  see  that 
he  should  have  swoolen  with  the  poison  or  fallen  down 
suddenly,  for  they  thought  that  he  was  a  murderer  that 
vengeance  had  pursued  in  the  form  of  a  viper.  But  when 
they  had  waited  a  long  time,  and  the  Apostle 
showed  no  change,  they  changed  their  mind  and 
in  the  same  rudeness  of  superstition  they  said,  "  He 
is  a  God."  The  viper  did  as  little  execution  upon 
the  physical  life  of  the  Apostle  and  came  to  as  speedy  a 
death  himself  as  the  malignity  of  this  poisoning  of  the 
life  blood  of  character  has  accomplished  upon  Mr, 
Beecher.  It  was  a  terrible  trial,  a  terrible  ordeal.  No 
man  would  wish  to  be  exposed  to  it.  But,  nevertheless, 
when  the  best  test  came,  better  than  the  oath  and  the 
judgment  of  jurymen,  however  conscientious  and  how- 
ever intelligent,  under  the  limits  of  testimony,  which 
after  all  is  but  ragged  and  piecemeal  compared  with  the 
knowledge  of  a  man's  life  by  men  who  have  known  birn 
always,  when  the  Christian  men  and  women  that  kne^ 
Mr.  Beecher  for  twenty-five  years  see  him  in  their  houses, 
and  in  his  and  their  church,  and  see  him  in  the  world  in 
all  his  labors  and  in  all  his  conduct,  when  they  witiout 
dissent  confirmed  his  virtue,and  their  virtue  guite  asmuch, 
by  their  judgment,  they  had  shown  the  difference  between 
Christian  men  and  women  and  barbarians.  For  they  did 
not  wait  to  see  whether  he  would  have  swollen  under 
this  poison,  or  whether  he  would  fall  down  suddenly,  for 
they  knew  he  was  not  a  murderer,  and  they  did  not  fear 
the  viper  or  his  poison. 

THE  THEORY  OF  THE  DEFENSE. 
Now,  gentlemen,  the  general  theory  of  the 
defendant's  case  is  this.:  that  the  relations  of  Mr. 
Beecher  and  ]Mrs.  Tilton  were,  in  the  judgment,  feeling, 
and  apprehension  of  both  of  them,  as  Mr.  Beecher  un- 
derstood while  those  relations  were  growing  up  and  going 
on,  entirely  moral,  faithful,  ti'ue,  wholly  above  suspicion 
on  the  part  of  others,  as  they  were  whoUy  free  from  su»* 


683 


TEE   TILION-BBBCHEB  TEIAL, 


picion  tliat  tliere  could  be  misconstruction  on  their 
own  part.  Both  these  people  recognized  the  duty 
not  to  be  led  willingly  into  temptation, 
both  recognized  the  external  duty  of  avoiding  the  appear 
ance  of  evil,  and  neither  of  them  imagined  that  in  either 
carelessness  or  attraction  there  was  anything  that  was 
not  as  open  as  the  day,  and  that  was  not  as  clear  in  the 
inspiring  motives,  and  in  the  actual  sentiments  developed 
in  that  intimacy,  as  the  best  and  severest  judgment  could 
require ;  then,  that  by  what  was  a  revelation  to  Mr. 
Beech er,  the  desertion  by  the  wife  in  the  month  of  Decem- 
ber of  her  husband's  house  and  his  protection,  and  an  ap- 
peal to  the  judgment  of  the  pastor  and  so,  gladly,  of  his 
wife,  on  his  suggestion,  and  then  of  the  church,  if  that 
should  be  thought  advisable  (in  respect  to  which  Deacon 
Bell  was  consulted),  there  came  to  be  a  very  dis- 
tinct and  very  lamentable  occasion  to  discover  the 
household  not  to  have  been  happy,  and  growing 
faults,  and  growing  discords,  and  growing  opprobiums, 
and  growing  dangers,  such  as  to  require  a  definite  course 
of  action  to  dissolve  that  family  for  temporary  and  re- 
stricted opportunities  of  safety  to  the  wife,  and  of  hope 
for  correction,  remonstrance  to  the  husband ;  that  that 
matter  came  to  an  end,  so  far  as  Mr.  Beecher  was  con- 
cerned—so far  as  it  was  an  element  of  duty  or  of  con- 
sultation with  him,  or  on  his  part ;  that  then  tl^re  came 
to  be  a  new  and  equally  sudden,  and  equally  unexpected, 
and  equally  intelligible  assault  upon  him  in 
the  name  of  Theodore  Tilton,  brought  to  him 
by  Mr.  Bowen  on  the  26th  of  December,  in  which,  with 
all  the  pride  of  an  emperor,  Mr.  Tilton  required  Mr. 
Beecher  to  quit  further  obedience  to  the  duty  of  preach- 
ing and  to  leave  Brooklyn.  That  came  to  an  end  so  far 
as  Mr.  Beecher,  or  so  far  as  disturbing  him,  was  con- 
cerned, in  about  five  minutes  after  it  was  communicated. 
That  was  the  end  of  that,  and  he  neither  inquired  nor 
cared  what  wild  inflammation  of  enmity  or  of  suspicion 
had  started  this  arrogance  or  this  malice  of  Mr.  Tilton. 
The  testimony  leaves  all  this  undisputed,  that  he  did  not 
move  a  hair's-breadth  or  seek  for  any  interview  with 
anybody,  and  when  my  friend  Mr.  Fullerton,  thinking 
he  was  going  to  put  a  poser  to  him,  said,  "  Then  you 
settled  down  on  your  indignation,  did  you,  all  that 
■week  V  Mr.  Beecher  answered,  "  No ;  I  settled  down  on 
my  work ;"  and  that  is  exactly  what  he  did,  and  that  he 
has  done  always  at  every  stage  of  this  matter. 
There  has  not  been  an  interruption,  whether  with  alarm 
mainly  for  others— mainly  for  Tilton  and  his  family,  or 
disturbance  or  appreciation  of  the  turmoils  and  bewilder- 
ments that  would  grow  out  of  irresponsible  and  unregu- 
lated meddling  by  people  in  other  folks'  affairs— none  of 
these  have  interrupted  a  sermon,  a  prayer-meeting,  a  pas- 
toral duty,  a  public  service,  or  a  night's  rest.  That  then 
in  the  same  week  of  the  26th  or  30th  of  December,  Mr. 
Tilton  opened  to  him  grounds  of  complaint  which  he  had 
against  him,  which  were  serious  and  which  excited  seri- 


ous commiseration  for  the  disasters  that  had  fallen  upon 
the  family,  the  prospects,  the  fortunes,  and  the  livelihood 
of  these  persons,  for  whom  everything  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end  shows  that  Mr.  Beecher  felt  a  great 
regard,  and,  although  he  might  not  approve  Mr. 
Tilton,  a  great  responsibility  and  anxiety  for  his 
restoration;  that  thereupon  Mr.  Tilton's  character 
and  life,  as  Mr.  Beecher  had  rashly  misconstrued  it  on  in- 
sufiicient  evidence,  was  restored  by  the  asseverations 
and  the  intimate  knowledge  of  Mr.  Moulton  concerning 
it,  and  any  part  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  taken  in  either  in- 
creasing, or  confirming,  or  assuring  Mr.  Bowen's  resent- 
ment, condemnation,  and  dismissal  of  Mr.  Tilton,  became 
the  occasion  of  self-reproach  to  Mr.  Beecher.  But  more 
than  all,  that  Mr.  TUton  complained  then,  that  there  had 
been  bred  in  the  affections  of  his  wife  a  strong  attach- 
ment and  a  conflicting  feeling  as  between  Mr.  Beecher 
and  her  husband,  that  had  qualified,  had  reduced,  had 
disparaged  the  absolute  devotion  and  the  unquestioning 
submission  that  had  formed  the  whole  fabric  of  their 
marriage  before ;  and  then  that  this  lady  had,  either  loj 
some  confusion  of  mind,  or  by  some  unhappy  subordi- 
nation to  a  wicked  purpose,  to  make  peace  with, 
her  husband,  been  led  into  making  an  extraordinary 
accusation  of  himself.  I  do  not  take  up  the  details  of  in- 
terviews or  of  statements  until  I  come  to  them  directly 
upon  the  testimony ;  but  we  shall  see  that  imder  the  im- 
pulses (which  were  pressed  upon  him  and  developed  and 
executed  by  these  parties)  of  commiseration  toward  the 
family  suffering  these  unhappy  disasters,  and  of  self-re- 
proach for  any  share,  either  in  these  external  matteaJ 
or,  more  seriously,  in  the  unconscious  and  careless  aA 
thoughtless  progress  of  a  woman's  attraction  beyond  tW^ 
duty  of  undivided  submission  to  the  husband  and  special 
devotion  to  him,  Mr.  Beecher  was  led  to  concur  in  tlie 
great  duty,  as  well  as  the  unmixed  interest,  that  there 
should  be  a  reparation  for  the  broken  fortunes  of  tills 
family  as  far  as  justice  and  truth,  kindly  and  liberally 
measured  by  affection  on  his  part,  should  carry  him ;  and 
above  all,  there  should  be  an  exclusion  from  the 
public  eye  of  these  unhappy  dissensions  in  the 
family  and  of  any  connection  of  himself, 
however  innocent,  as  their  cause  ;  that  thereafter,  what 
was  called  a  policy  of  sUence,"  which  he  supposed  was 
an  honest,  an  open,  an  upright  purpose  in  good  faith  to 
secure  the  protection  of  this  family,  as  it  was  pressed 
upon  him  by  Mr.  Tilton  as  the  sole  object  of  his  resort  to 
him,  and  by  Mr.  Moulton,  as  Mr.  Tilton's  agent  and  friend, 
as  the  fl.rst  duty,  the  indispensable  duty  to  precede,  or 
make  possible,  the  restoration  of  the  external  fortunes 
of  Mr.  Tilton ;  that  under  that  everything  that  was  done, 
everything  that  was  said,  everything  that  failed  to  be 
done,  everything  that  failed  to  be  said  on  his  part,  was 
subordinate  to,  was  in  good  faith  conformed  to,  was  a 
necessary  and  faithful  maintenance  of  his  duty  as  pledged, 
and  as  supported  by  every  moral  and  religlpus  consid 


SUMMING  UP  b: 

eration.  *  Then  tliat  all  tlie  eflForts  in  regard  to  the 
improvement  of  tlie  affairs  of  Mr.  Tilton,  to 
the  establishment  of  a  paper  for  him,  and  in 
regard  to  pecuniary  assistance,  were  all  faithful,  honest, 
and  just  efforts,  liberal  if  you  please,  growing  out  of  an 
exaggerated  sense  of  duty  and  responsibility  on  Mr. 
Beecher's  part,  but  still,  in  accord  with  his  whole  natui-e 
in  aU  that  he  has  ever  done,  all  his  life— that  aU  these  ef- 
forts, which  have  been  turned  into  arguments  and  evi- 
dence of  consciousness  of  guUt,  to  be  suppressed  or 
bought  out  of  from  this  husband  and  his  friend,  by  a 
party  involved  in  guUt,  were  all  of  this  elevated,  straight- 
forward, plainly  intelligible  character  and  motive ;  that 
aU  anxieties,  that  aU  efforts,  in  any  form,  were  simply  to 
matataiu  imbroken,  against  strangely  inexplicable  and 
adverse  influences,  as  we  now  look  at  them— to  maintain 
unbroken  this  good  faith  and  this  promise  and  prospect 
of  restored  domestic  confidence  and  improved  bustuess 
relations  for  this  family. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  range  of  this  evidence  opened 
itself  imder  the  plaintiff's  introduction  and  presentation 
of  his  case.  This  fact  of  adultery,  which  usually  is  open 
to  proofs  of  the  nature  that  I  have  proposed  to  you,  and 
which,  when  it  could  with  such  confirmatory  confessions 
as,  under  a  just  scrutiay,  may  be  accepted  and  trusted, 
could  take  but  a  very  short  time,  was  made,  under  their 
lead,  to  consume  many  weeks,  to  involve  an  examination 
of  Mr.  Tilton  himself,  that  covered,  I  believe,  in  the  direct 
form,  over  eight  days,  and  of  course  involved  a  consider- 
able consumption  of  time  in  cross-examination ;  that  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  Moulton  covered  many  days,  and  on  the 
part  of  other  witnesses  took  a  considerable  time,  and  in- 
volved an  examination  ot  all  these  liues  of  conduct,  and 
all  of  them  exposed  to  you,  and  presented  under  the  oath 
of  the  plaintiff,  and  of  his  supporting  witnesses  in 
maintenance  of  his  theory  of  the  case.  Our  duty 
involved  us  in  the  necessity— for  we  could  not  stand 
upon  porats  of  law,  or  appeals  to  the  arrest  of  irrelevant 
inquiries  which  went  beyond  any  of  the  actual  and  sub- 
stantial evidence  that  could  support  any  verdict,  what- 
ever your  conclusions  might  be  upon  them,  without  being 
exposed  to  the  imputation  of  excluding  Mr.  Tilton's  evi- 
dence, or  of  excluding  some  inquiry  that  might  suppress 
the  truth,  our  duty  involved  us  in  the  necessity  of  meet- 
ing the  plaintifi's  evidence  by  that  which  we  have  pre- 
sented to  you.  We  never,  gentlemen,  have  given  any  evi- 
dence in  this  case  by  itself  for  the  purpose,  of  itself,  and 
by  itself,  of  aspersing,  depreciating,  or  injuring  Mr.  Til- 
ton, outside  of  the  relations  to  the  proofs  of  the  accusa- 
tion here.  Nor  have  we  given  one  word  of  testimony 
with  the  purpose  of  affecting  what  is  called  the  question 
of  the  damages  that  should  be  recoverable  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  by  showing,  as  is  permitted  by  the  law,  and  as, 
in  many  cases,  may  be  proper  when  there  is  a  contest  in- 
f^olrmg  money  sought  on  one  side,  and  money  sought  to 
be  saved  on  the  other— we  never  have  given  one  word  of 


Y   ME.   EYABTS,  683 

testimony  with  any  such  purpose  as  that.  AU  our  evidence 
has  been  to  meet  the  false  views  of  the  condition  of  that 
family  in  respect  of  peace  and  happiness.;  the  false  state- 
ment that  any  disturbance  of  that  peace  or  happiness 
came  from  the  intrusion  of  Mr.  Beecher,  or  any  other 
seducer ;  the  false  view  that  the  complaints  against  Mr. 
Beecher  grew  out  of  that  interference  ;  the  false  preten- 
sion that  Mr.  Tilton  owed  his  disasters,  in  respect  of  Mr. 
Bowen  and  employments,  to  any  malignant  influence  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  instead  of  to  his  own  damaged  reputation 
and  his  own  misconduct ;  and  such  necessary  disclosures 
bearing  on  that  question  as  grew  out  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  re- 
sistance to  fm-ther  reproaches,  and  further  disgraces,  and 
fm-ther  oppressions  from  the  misconduct  of  her  husband. 
That  the  pretenses  of  Mr.  Tilton  that  there  was  no  selfish 
or  sordid  motive  and  object  in  the  impressions,  and  the 
false  impressions,  which  he  desired  to  produce  upon  Mr. 
Beecher's  mind,  in  order  to  secure  his  aid,  his  commisera- 
tion, his  good  disposition  ioward  him,  that  those  pre- 
tenses, I  say,  of  the  want  of  a  sordid  interest  upon  Mr. 
TUton's  part,  had  no  foundation  ;  and,  as  we  go  into  the 
details  (it  is  not  worth  while  now  to  anticipate  them — it 
would  be  a  useless  consumption  of  time)  of  the  motive 
and  the  character,  as  pretended  on  the  part  of  this  plain- 
tiff, of  his  associations  and  his  efforts  with  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull,  whatever  they  may  have  been  we  shall  find  that  the 
pretense  that  they  were  excited,  were  measured, 
were  directed  by  any  interests  or  any  rela- 
tions of  Mr.  Beecher's,  is  equally  false  ;  that  those  rela- 
tions, whether  they  were  suitable  or  unsuitable ;  wheth&r 
the  lady  is  of  a  character,  and  her  house 
of  a  repute  that  made  the  visits  of  Mr.  TUton,  of  Mr. 
Moulton,  and  of  Mrs.  Moulton  suitable  or  not,  did  not 
grow  out  of,  and  were  not  measured  and  numbered  by, 
any  interest  or  any  feelings  or  wishes  of  Mr.  Beecher  ; 
that  in  regard  to  the  measures  and  efforts  by  which 
money  came  into  Mr.  Tilton's  pocket,  all  the  pretenses 
thaf  those  measures  and  movements  were  but  for  the  just 
collection  of  a  conceded  debt,  so  far  as  Bowen  was  con- 
cerned, were  untrue ;  and  that,  in  respect  to  the  contri- 
butions to  Miss  Bessie  Turner's  support  at  her  boarding- 
school  in  Ohio,  the  pretense  they  were  in  Mr.  Beecher's 
interest  for  the  suppression  of  a  scandal  against 
him,  were  equally  false;  that  there  was  in  her 
removal  the  object  of  the  protection  of  Mr. 
Tilton's  reputation,  against  her  knowledge  and 
her  probable  evidence,  if  occasion  should  arise,  and  that 
Mr.  Beecher's  relations  to  the  matter  began  and  ended 
with  the  idea  suggested  to  him  that  Mr.  TUton's  means 
did  not  permit  him  to  bear  the  expense  of  this  measure 
to  which  he  resorted ;  that,  when  there  came  to  be  either 
an  actual  resort  to  pecuniary  contributions,  to  make  up  a 
fund  to  carry  along  the  enterprise  that  had  been  founded, 
by  the  friends  of  Mr.  TUton  and  Mr.  Moulton,  without  any 
contribution  by  Mr.  Beecher— I  mean  The  Golden  Age— 
and  when  it  came  to  the  point  where  it  was  represented 


684  THE  TILTON-B] 

by  Mr.  Moulton  that  without  a  considerable  sum  of 
money,  some  thousands  of  dollars  at  least,  the  enter- 
prise must  come  to  an  end,  hut  if  tided  over 
this  period,  it  might  hope  for  an  established 
prosperity,  and  when  a  generous  friend  of 
Mr.  Tilton  had  heen  ready  to  furnish  the  means,  and  had 
impressed  Mr.  MoultOn  with  her  munificence,  but  when 
that  high  sense  of  honor  and  delicacy  which  character- 
izes Mr.  TUton  made  it  unsuitable  that  he  shoiUd  accept 
such  friendship,  that  then  Mr.  Beech er,  under  these 
motives,  and  only  these  motives,  of  endeavoring, 
of  professing,  of  desiring,  to  do  all  that  reas- 
onably, or  unreasonably,  could  be  asked  from 
generosity  and  friendship,  gave  the  contribution  that 
has  been  put  in  evidence  before  you.  Now,  in  running 
out  those  lines  in  counter-movement  to  their  production 
of  those  lines  of  evidence,  there  has  come  necessarily 
into  display  a  large  area  of  Mr.  Tilton's  conduct,  concern- 
ing which  he  originally  gave  his  views  as  true,  concerning 
whichwe  endeavored  by  cross-examination  to  getatleasta 
reasonable  statement  of  what  the  truth  really  was,  but 
concerning  which  it  became  our  duty,  by  evidence  expos- 
ing his  conduct,  of  certainly  a  not  very  agreeable  charac- 
ter with  certain  unnamed  ladies,  and  the  real  length  and 
breadth  of  his  admiration  of  the  character  and  the  prin- 
ciples of  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  her  new  dispensation,  to 
traverse  and  collect  from  the  retdon  which  we  traversed 
a  combination,  a  variety,  a  weight,  a  power  of  damna- 
tory evidence  which  has,  in  your  judgment,  not  with  any 
complacency  to  my  client,  or  my  client's  counsel,  put 
this  matter  upon  the  footing  of  truth. 

THE  LETTEES  IN  THE  CASE. 
Now,  gentlemen,  in  regard  to  the  antecedent 
period,  before  we  come  to  the  first  movements  of  actual 
opening  important  relations  to  this  controversy,  I  mean 
the  month  of  December,  1870.  Now  perhaps  all  that  I 
need  to  add  here  to  what  I  have  already  laid  dowrf  as  the 
length  and  breadth  and  utmost  scope  and  impression  of 
the  evidence  of  such  relations  as '  existed  between  Mrs. 
Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher— I  need,  I  say,  perhaps  only 
to  add  to  that  that  no  love-letters  of  any 
Mnd  have  been  offered  or  pretended  to  exist 
between  these  parties,  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  dur- 
ing the  whole  period  of  their  acquaintance  down  to  this 
very  month  of  December,  1870.  Not  one  letter.  All 
the  letters  of  an  inculpatory  character  that  have  been 
produced  in  this  case,  of  written  communications  be- 
tween the  paramour  and  the  wife,  have  been  letters  writ- 
ten by  Mr.  Beecher  after  the  accusation,  and  the  whole 
apparatus  and  machinery  of  the  December  and  January 
and  February  interviews  had  been  through  with,  or  while 
they  were  going  on,  openly  left  by  the  wife,  as  she  left 
everything  when  she  left  the  house,  exposed,  and  her 
taking  with  her,  as  her  husband  said,  nothing  but  his 
i)  ..  love  and  good  will,  which  she  still  had.  And,  in  respect 


ECMEB  TEIAL. 

to  the  letters  to  Mr.  Beecher  from  Mrs.  TUtoi^  they  were 
all  after  the  explosion,  all  during  the  periods  of  arrange- 
ment, or  after  the  period  of  reconciliation,  and  all,  so  far 
as  my  memory  goes,  made  as  deposits  in  the  hands  of  Mr, 
Moulton.  Well,  now,  that  is  a  very  odd  state  of  things. 
They  were  letters  begun  after  the  situation  has  been 
made  public  to  the  husbau-d  and  his  friends,  and  we 
actually  have  had,  I  thinli:,  not  much  on  this  trial, 
Still,  I  cannot  say  what  my  learned  friend 
may  think  his  duty  and  the  truth  of  the  case  may  call 
upon  him  to  say  in  his  behalf  when  he  follows  me ;  but  I 
think  not  much  on  this  trial,  but  in  some  publications 
that  are  part  of  the  public  history  of  the  case,  some  of 
these  letters  have  been  made  the  occasion  of  the  basest 
and  vulgarest  interpretation,  such  as  I  am  sui'e  Mr.  Til- 
ton in  his  senses  could  never  have  imputed  to  his  wife, 
for  he  has  said  to  you  that  there  was  nothing 
lewd  could  possibly  find  a  lurking  place  in 
the  heart  or  the  life  of  Elizabeth  Tilton. 
And  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher  these  subsecLuent  letters 
have  been  made  the  imputation  against  him  of  gross  and 
coarse  vulgar  equivoques  that  were  introduced  to  the 
notice  of  an  exasperated  husband,  and  of  a  largely  ex- 
peiienc(}d  friend,  in  matters  of  common  life  (Mr.  Moul- 
ton), and  first  have  their  appearauee  in  the  life  or  tbe 
writings  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  in  these  subsequent 
letters.  Well,  gentlemen,  this  proves,  as  all  such  efforts 
do  prove  when  tested,  evidence  in  favor  of  these  par- 
ties. Rightly  explored,  sensibly  and  naturally  read, 
there  is  nothing  in  them  but  the  most  elevated  ex- 
pression of  feeling  and  purity.  But  if  there  is  in 
these  letters  these  coarse,  loose,  lewd  exhala- 
tions from  the  heart  of  Elizabeth  Tilton,  what  be- 
comes of  the  theory;  the  comprehensive,  and,  aa 
I  believe,  the  honest  testimony  that  Mr.  Tilton  has  born^ 
to  the  absolute  purity  of  her  thoughts  as  well  as  of  her 
heart— what  becomes  of  the  generous,  simple,  complete, 
all-comprehensive  confirmation  of  this  purity  of  mind 
and  of  heart  which  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  their  witness,  Ms 
given,  in  a  phrase  of  singular  power,  when,  in 
addition  to  her  delicacy,  her  morality,  her  piety, 
her  devoted  love  to  her  husband  and  her 
children  which  this  lady  said  remained  unbroken  down 
to  the  time  she  spoke  of,  1872,  she  added  that  she  was 
the  cleanest  minded  woman  that  she  ever  knew.  And, 
how  of  Mrs.  Ovington's  estimate  of  this  friend  and 
sister,  of  whose  purity,  whose  piety,  whose  words 
of  love  and  affection  and  duty  to  her  neigh- 
bors and  her  household  Mrs.  Ovington  had 
so  rich  an  experience  in  her  watchings 
and  ministrations,  her  visits  in  the  sickness  in  her  fam- 
ily, whether  of  herself  or  her  husband— she,  Mrs.  Oving- 
ton, as  honest,  as  open,  as  clear-minded  a  woman  as 
ever  lived;  but  Mrs.  Ovington  has  no  idea  that  Elizabeth 
Tilton  is  not  in  all  these  regards  up  to  all  the  imagina- 
tions of  men  or  poets,  of  the  dignity  and  elevation  of  her 


SUMMUG    UF  BY  MB.  JEVARTS, 


685 


sex.  Ah,  TTliat  a  terrible  imputation  upon  the  plaintiff,  it 
he  no^  presents,  or  if,  under  tiis  instructions  and  inspira- 
tion, tlie  learned  counsel,  taMng  these  instructions  and 
inspii^ations  from  lum,  imputes  ohscerdty,  vulgarity,  as 
the  hidden  meaning  of  the  ianocent  expressions  of  these 
letters,  which,  as  I  say,  show  themselves  as  envoys  into 
the  exasperated  camp  of  the  hushand,  and  in  her 
answer  as  delivered  to  the  keeping  of  the  mutual  friend. 

OTHEE  GENERAL  TRAITS  OF  THE  PLAIN- 
TIFFS E^TOEXCE. 
Now,  gentlemen,  there  is  anotlier  general 
proposition  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  attention,  and 
which  the  experience  of  judges  and  of  lawyers,  and,  I 
thini:,  the  experience  of  common  life,  will  show  you  car- 
ries great  significance.  There  is  not  any  evidence  that  is 
brought  into  this  case  after  I  have  left  the  area  of  what 
may  be  called  circumstantial  evidence  but  which  comes 
to  nothing;  there  is  not  any  evidence  that  comes  into 
this  case  that  does  not  have  its  origin,  not  while  either 
seduction  or  adultery  is  going  on,  but  long  after  both  had 
come  to  an  end,  and  long  after  both,  if  they  ever  existed, 
had  been  discovered.  There  is  not  a  word,  an  act,  a 
movement,  a  construction  upon  :\Ir.  Beecher's  conduct 
that  does  not  have  its  origin  subsequent  to  the 
29th  day  of  December,  1870,  having  the 
first  pretense  of  any  such  evidence  originate  on  the  80th 
day  of  December,  and  not  one  word  of  evidence  pro- 
duced out  of  the  mouths  of  the  witnesses,  repeating  what 
they  say,  came  from  his,  that  didn't  have  its  birth 
after  and  upon  the  volimtary,  the  earnest,  the  exacting 
re^tiirement  that  Zvlr.  Beecher  should  be  careful  not, 
by  any  heats  of  controversy  with  other  people,  to  impair 
the  security  of  the  honor  of  Mr.  Tilton's  family.  Con- 
fessedly every  word  that  is  produced  here  as  coming 
from  Mr.  Beecher's  mouth  has  come  after  and 
tmder  the  benevolent  purpose  of  suppressing 
the  approach  of  suspicion,  or  of  combination,  of 
a  breath  against  the  fame  of  his  wife  and  his  children. 
Nor,  in  respect  of  :Mr.  Moulton,  except  as  brought  into 
being  as  between  one  who  confides  and  one  in  whoit  he 
confides,  upon  their  own  showing,  nothing  ever  passed 
from  Mi\  Beecher  to  either  of  them  under  that  confidence 
that  betrays  guilt  or  consciousness  of  guilt ;  *nt  much 
did  pass  that  proceeded  warm  from  his  heart,  in  sympa- 
thy for  the  condition,  ia  love  for  the  afflicted  parties,  and 
in  effort  to  relieve  and  restore ;  and  aU  that  comes 
to  be  the  subject  of  evidence  before  you  out 
of  the  mouths  of  men  who  avow  that  the 
utterances  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  the  freedom  of  confidence 
and  of  confidants  grew  out  of  the  demand,  the  entreaty 
of  :Mr.  Tiltonthat  his  wife,  who  was  the  subject— no  mat- 
ter what  the  subject  was,  for  that  we  are  not  now  dis- 
cussing—should be  protected,  and  of  ZMr.  Moulton,  that 
they  were  bound  by  their  efforts  to  repair  the  mischief 
that  had  overtaken  with  such  rapid  and  complete  disas- 


ter the  external  circumstances  of  Mr.  Tilton.  Xow.  I  deal 
with  their  own  showing,  and  that  introduction  don't  at- 
tract confidence. 

Another  most  extraordinary  and  universal  trait  of  this 
evidence  is  that  it  all  comes,  every  bit  of  it,  out  of  the 
Moulton  mansion,  and  none  out  from  the  house  of  Mr. 
Beecher  or  the  house  of  Mr.  Tilton— none,  I  mean,  of  any 
extent  or  measiu-e,  and  the  only  exceptions  are  of  the  in- 
terviews at  Mr.  Tilton's  house  which  grew  out  of  ar- 
rangements made  through  Moulton.  2fow,  there  in  the 
Moulton  house  is  the  hotbed  in  which  this  testimony  has 
been  raised.  You  loo]£  for  facts ;  you  look  for 
conduct  to  arise  in  the  domestic  establish- 
ments ot  the  two  parties  to  criminality  of  this 
kind,  and  dm'ing  the  time  that  the  alleged 
familiarity  and  the  guilty  comiection  subsisted;  but,  as 
I  have  shown  you,  there  is  not  a  particle  of  proof  that 
does  not  have  its  birth  after  it  was  all  over,  does  not 
spring  out  of  confidence  in  the  interests  of  the  family 
that  was  iiyured,  and  of  cooperation  in  the  friendship 
that  was  proffered  by  Moulton  for  the  restoration  of  the 
broken  fortune,  and  none  of  it  that  does  not  come  out  of 
the  Moulton  household  in  the  person  of  its  head,  and  of 
its  familiar  guest,  who  there  had  his  lodging,  not  often 
perhaps,  but  his  meals  certainly,  or,  as  Mrs.  Morse  saya 
in  one  of  her  letters,  in  Elizabeth's  broken  circumstances 
he  could  not  find  at  home  food  sufficient  for  the  nourish- 
ment of  his  brain. 

AN  ADJOURNMENT  TO  TUESDAY. 

Judcre  Neil  son — Gentlemen  of  the  jiu-y,  yon 
will  remember  the  other  day  sometliinsr  w;t>  said  about 
om-  working  on  Satuixlay  unless  the  counsel  closed  their 
argument  to-night.  Since  then  we  have  lost  part  of  a 
day.  Now,  it  lies  with  you  to  say  whether  it  will  suit 
yotir  views  to  attend  to-morrow. 

The  Foreman— May  it  please  your  Honor,  I  would  say 
that  the  jury  are  unanimous  in  objecting  to  holding  court 
to-morrow.  One  of  our  number  is  in  feeble  health,  and 
others  have  very  important  business  of  their  own  that 
they  wish  to  attend  to. 

Mr.  Beach  [exhibiting  a  package  of  papers]— If  your 
Honor  please,  that  package  o±  papers  has  been  sent  in  by 
the  officer  in  attendance,  who  says  they  were  handed  to 
him  by  a  little  boy,  and  they  seem  to  be  addressed  to  the 
jurors  individually.  They  are  a  sort  of  elephant  on  my 
hands.  Sir ;  I  don't  know  what  to  do  with  them. 

Judge  Neilson— [  think  you  had  better  keep  them. 

Mr.  Beach— Xo,  Sir;  I  cannot  keep  them.  I  don't  know 
what  papers  they  are,  but  I  think  it  would  be  at  least 
judicious  that  your  Honor  should  open  one  of  the  papers 
to  see  what  it  is,  and  from  whom  such  messages  to  the 
jury  come. 

The  Foreman— May  it  please  your  Honor,  we  would 
like  to  know  about  Monday,  whether  it  is  a  legal  holi- 
day ? 


686 


TaE   TILTON-BJEFJCHJ^B  TRIAL. 


Judge  Neilson— We  are  not  at  liberty  to  sit  on  Monday. 
The  statute  provides  tliat  the  day  shall  he  set  apart  from 
business,  and  we  who  administer  the  law  are  bound  to 
see  that  it  is  not  broken  after  it  Is  made  for  us  ;  and, 
therefore,  when  we  adjourn  we  will  adjourn  until  next 
Tuesday  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor  will  permit  me  to  pass  those 
papers  to  you  % 

Judge  Neilson— I  will  look  at  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  Honor  must  exercise  your  discretion 
and  indulge  your  curiosity,  as  far  as  you  please. 

Judge  Neilson— I  will  take  the  liberty  of  opening  the 
one  that  is  addressed  to  the  foreman,  as  I  have  the  pleas- 
ure of  knowing  him.  [After  opening  one  of  the  papers.] 
It  is  an  illustrated  paper,  Sir  ;  quite  harmless. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  what.  Sir  ? 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  an  illustrated  paper;  yet,  I  will 
instruct  the  Clerk  to  keep  the  papers  until  the  jury  have 
performed  their  duties ;  and  then,  perhaps  .  [Laugh- 
ter.] [To  the  jury.J  We  now  adjourn  until  Tuesday 
morning,  at  11  o'clock,  gentlemen ;  and  I  hope  to  see 
you  here  in  good  health. 

Mr.  Beach  [To  the  jury]— I  am  sorry  to  have  deprived 
you  of  fun. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  Tuesday  morning  at 
11  o'clock. 

NINETY-FOURTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


ARGUMENT  OF  ME    EVARTS  RESUMED. 

DIFFERENCES  BETWEEN  MR.  AND  MRS.  TIL- 
TON  IN  1870  CONSIDERED— CONDITION  OP 
MR.  TILTON'S  financial  AFFAIRS  EXPLORED— 
RELATIONS  OF  MR.  BOWEN  AND  MR.  TELTON 
GONE  OVER— HOW  MR.  BEECHER'S  TESTIMONY 
WAS  AFFECTED  BY  THAT  OF  MR.  BOWEN— WHO 
DESTROYED  MRS.  TILTON'S  FAMOUS  LETTER. 

Tuesday,  June  1,  1875. 

Tlie  argument  of  Mr.  Evarts  in  summing  up  for 
Mr.  Beec]ier  was  continued  to-day. 

Tlie  first  part  of  tlie  argument,  which  was  devoted 
to  the  alleged  separation  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and 
her  husband  in  December,  1870,  was  very  long  and 
elaborate.  Asserted  contradictions  between  Mr. 
Tilton's  testimony  in  regard  to  a  conspiracy  to  sepa- 
rate liimself  and  his  "v\dfe,  and  the  statements  on 
that  matter  in  the  "True  Story,"  were 
pointed  out.  The  testimony  of  Mr.  Tilton, 
Mr.  Bell,  Mr.  Bowen,  and  others  was  made 
to  bear  upon  this  topic,  and  the  subject 
was  developed  by  the  orator  with  great  care.  The 
condition  of  Mr.  Tilton's  finances  at  the  time  of  his 
discharge  from  The  Independent  was  exhaustively 
considered.  Mr.  Evarts  asserted  that  Mr.  Tilton 


had  endeavored  to  pretend  in  court  that  he  was  a 
man  of  property  and  of  assured  income,  and  that  the 
pretension  was  false. 

The  "Winsted  affair"  was  explained,  and  Mr. 
Evarts  pointed  out  the  object  which  he  had  had  in 
view  in  putting  certain  questions  to  the  plaintiff, 
and  the  alleged  inconsistencies  and  contradictions 
in  his  testimony.  Points  in  the  evidence  seemingly 
far  removed  fnom  one  another  were  connected  by 
the  chain  of  reasoning  pursued  in  develop- 
ing the  argument.  The  interview  between 
Mr.  Bowen  and  IVIr.  Beecher  was  taken  up. 
Mr.  Evarts  declared  that  Mr.  Bowen  had  acted  with 
Mr.  Tilton  because  he  desired  to  put  Mr.  Beecher  out 
of  the  rival  paper  to  The  Independent.  The  prepara- 
tion of  the  letter  which  Mr.  Bowen  carried  from  Mr. 
Tilton  to  JMr.  Beecher  was  amusingf^  described.  The 
alleged  corroboration  of  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Beecher  by  that  of  Mi.  Bowen,  which  has  been  so 
often  referred  to  by  the  defendant's  counsel,  was 
dwelt  upon  with  great  force. 

The  alleged  letter  of  confession  got  by  Tilton  from 
his  wife,  and  afterward  destroyed,  was  the  subject 
of  some  of  the  keenest  argument  of  yesterday's  ad- 
dress*. The  orator  declared  that  it  had  been 
destroyed  because  it  would  not  help  the  plaintiff's 
side,  which  lost  nothing  by  the  destruction  of  the 
paper.  "  What  would  you  give,"  said  Mr.  Evarts, 
addressing  the  jurymen,  "  to  see  that  paper  ?"  Then 
he  continued,  answering  his  own  questions,  which 
were  delivered  in  a  high  key  and  rapidly,  with  great 
deliberation,  and  in  a  low,  almost  guttural,  tone  of 
voice  : 

"  It  is  destroyed. 

"  Who  destroyed  it  ?  Theodore  Tilton. 
"  Who  gave  it  to  him  to  destroy  ?  Francis  D.  Moul- 
ton." 

*THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

MR.  EyARTS  RESUMES  HIS  ARGUMENT. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

The  Clerk  (Mr.  Mallison)— The  jurors  can  obtain  their 
money  for  services  in  the  month  of  May  by  calling  at  the 
Treasurer's  office  any  time  that  suits  their  convenience. 

WAS  MRS.   TILTON'S  RESORT  TO  HER 
MOTHER'S  HOUSE  A  DESERTION  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Before  couiing  to  the  first  move- 
ments in  the  opening  drama  of  this  false  accusation,  I 
had  endeavored  to  lay  before  you  the  situation  of  the 
parties  as  disclosed  in  their  character,  in  their  conduct. 


SUMMIJ^G    UF  BT  i:VABTS. 


C87 


and  upon  the  eridence,  as  preparing  you  and  yoftir  judg- 
ment for  a  just  estimate  of  tliese  movements  as  they 
«liall  come  to  he  portrayed  before  you ;  and  I  do  not 
iuow  that  I  have  omitted  any  incident  or  trait  of  partic- 
iular  import  in  regard  to  the  relations  of  Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mrs.  Tilton,  and  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Beecher  and  Mr. 
Beecher— for  with  Moulton  there  were  no  relations  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher,  or  on  his  part  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
antecedent  to  these  first  movements,  except  this 
single  item  and  element  of  proof  which  was  adduced 
upon  the  cross-examination  of  the  witness  Bowen. 
It  appears  hy  his  testimony,  and  undisputed,  that  as  an 
incident  or  attendant  of  the  actual  interviews  and  inter- 
course which  make  the  first  approaches  to  this  drama— I 
mean  the  interviews  and  intercourse  in  the  middle  of 
December  which  arose  upon  the  wife's  movement  of 
flight  from  her  husband's  cruelty,  disgraces,  and  oppres- 
sions—it was  drawn  out  that  Mr.  Beecher  referred  Mr. 
Bowen  to  Mrs.  Seecher,  and  to  certain  letters  of  Mrs. 
Tiiton  that  were  in  her  custody.  Now,  I  do  not  antici- 
pate at  all  the  scene  or  the  transaction  of  this  attempted 
separation  of  Mrs.  Tilton  from  her  husband,  but  I  call 
your  attention  to  the  significance  of  this  merely  inci- 
dental statement,  that  Mr.  Beecher  referred  Mr.  Bowen 
to  his,  Mr.  Beecher's  wife,  as  either  the  correspondent  of 
Mrs.  Tilton  regarding  these  troubles,  or  the  depositary  of 
his  letters  received  from  Mrs.  Tilton.  There  has  been  an 
a-spect  attempted  to  be  insinuated  into  this  cause  that 
the  antecedent  relations  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr. 
Beecher  were  of  a  nature,  consciously,  on  his  part,  to 
preclude  or  discourage  any  intelligence  of  his  wife  on 
the  subject ;  and  yet  here  you  find  when  Mr.  Beecher 
was  cross-examined,  whether  there  were  any  letters  re- 
ceived by  him  from  Mrs.  Tilton  during  the  period  antece- 
dent to  December,  1870,  he  answered  that  there  were 
letters  that  had  been  searched  for  and  found,  and  were  in 
the  possession  of  his  wife,  or  of  his  counsel— found  in 
the  possession  of  his  wife,  and  perhaps  now  in  the  posses- 
sion of  his  counsel.  Well,  my  learned  friends  had  access, 
"by  the  methods  of  the  law,  to  those  letters.  They  had  a 
fund  and  a  field  for  exploration  there  which  was  worth 
their  while.  If  this  husband  had  imparted  to  them  any 
facts,  or  any  sound  opinion  of  the  guilt  of  his  wife  ;  but 
they  drew  out  no  such  letters ;  they  sought 
for  no  such  letters,  in  any  sense  that  would  bind 
them  to  their  production,  and  they  did  not  produce  them. 
But  it  was  reserved  for  Mr.  Bowen,  their  witness,  to  let 
you  further  into  the  cotemporary  fact  at  the  time  of 
these  occurrences,  that  Mr.  Beecher,  in  the  end  of  Decem- 
her,  referred  Mr.  Bowen  to  his  wife  for  her  intelligence 
and  her  views  of  the  situatkm  as  between  Mrs.  Tilton 
and  her  husband,  Mr.  Tilton,  and  stated  to  him  that  she 
had  letters  received  from  Mrs.  Tilton  during  the  ante- 
cedent absence  of  Mrs,  Tilton  at  Marietta.  So  you  have, 
gentlemen,  when  you  com«to  the  beginning  of  this  move- 
ment between  the  parties,  no  reason  to  think,  no  reason 


to  fear,  no  reason  to  suspect,  that  tiere  had  been  any 
consoiciisness,  any  concealment,  any  maneuvering,  any 
change  of  the  ordinary  rule  of  that  household,  that  aU 
the  correspondence  of  Mr.  Beecier  passed  first  through 
his  wife's  hands. 

Now,  gentlemen,  there  are  two  important  matters  of 
dealing,  matters  of  situation,  and  of  feeling  growing  out 
of  the  dealing  and  situation,  which  precede  the  time  when 
the  accusation  is  first  made,  and  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Til- 
ton first  meet  at  its  making  and  at  his  response  to  the 
charge.  That  occurred  on  the  30th  of  December,  as  we 
all  remember.  But  there  are  two  matters  of  fact,  import- 
ant in  their  bearing,  that  form  a  large  part  ot  the  con- 
scious knowledge  of  both  parties  at  that  meeting,  which 
are  presented  in  directly  opposite  views  by  the  theory  of 
the  plaintiff  and  by  the  theory  of  the  defendant,  and  tn 
regard  to  which  I  challenge  any  answer  from  the  learned 
and  skillful  advocate  who  is  to  follow  me,  to  the  proposi- 
tions that  I  shall  make.  It  is,  that  in  regard  to  both  these 
preliminary  inquiries,  the  theory  of  the  plaintiff,  import- 
ant, necessary  to  sustain  the  subsequent  proposition  to 
this  theory,  is  not  only  utterly  refuted  by  the  evidence, 
but  consciously  false  in  his  own  knowledge,  and 
the  first  of  the  series  of  impositions  upon  your 
intelligence  and  your  consciousness  that  he  ex- 
pected to  practice  through  the  forms  of  law  and 
evidence.  These  two  matters  that  I  refer  to  are  the 
actual  character  and  position  of  the  first  promulgation, 
not  publicly,  but  outside  of  the  walls  of  Mr.  Tilton's 
household,  of  there  being  domestic  discord,  and  an  occa- 
sion to  appeal  for  assistance  ;  I  mean  the  situation  which 
is  rightly  described  as  the  flight  of  the  wife  from  the 
home  of  the  husband,  and  an  attempt  to  receive  aid  and 
advice  and  protection  from  the  cruel  circumstances  in 
which  she  was  placed.  The  second  is  as  to  the  real  situa^ 
tion  of  Mr,  Tilton's  personal,  pecuniary,  business  for- 
tunes, as  they  stood  at  and  before  the  30th  of  December. 
In  regard  to  the  first  proposition,  about  the  wife,  Mr. 
Morris  in  his  opening  lays  down  this  as  the  rule  and 
view  that  they  propose.  Referring  to  the  letter  of  Jan. 
1,  1871,  which  they  regard  as  in  the  nature  of  a  letter  of 
contrition,  betraying  guilt,  Mr.  Morris  lays  down  to  you 
and  the  court  these  views  : 

I  presume  that  my  learned  friend  upon  the  other  side 
will  have  some  explanation— at  least,  I  hope  so— but  I 
have  never  been  able  yet  to  discover  one.  But  at  the 
time  that  this  letter  was  written  Mr.  Tilton's  family  had 
not  been  broken  up  ;  he  was  living  with  his  family,  and 
although  his  contract  with  Mr.  Bowen  was  ended,  and 
his  loss  of  the  position  of  editor  had  taken  place,  it  was 
entirely  without  the  influence  of  the  defendant,  and 
therefore  furnished  no  cause  and  no  reason  for  this  great 
grief  which  was  manifested.  *  *  *  It  is  claimed,  and 
has  been  claimed,  that  the  feeling  that  produced  that 
letter  [that  is,  Moulton's  memorandum  of  gi'ief  on 
Beecher's  part]  was  brought  about  by  the  advice  which 
Mr.  Beecher  had  given  Mrs.  Tilton  to  separate  from  her 
husband.  The  point  that  I  wish  to  call  your  attention 
to  in  this  connection  is  this  :  that  the  advice,  if  e  ver 


688 


THE   TILTON-BFjEGHBE  TRIAL. 


given  at  all,  was  not  until  after  tlie  27tli  of  January, 
1871,  as  the  documentary  evidence  that  we  shall  intro- 
duce before  you  will  conclusively  establish.  Especially, 
you  have  the  strange  anomaly  of  the  defendant's  mourn- 
ing over  wrongs  not  yet  committed,  if  they  were  wrongs ; 
over  acts  not  yet  done. 

And  so  Mr.  Tilton,  on  his  direct  examination,  denies 
that  there  was  anything  in  the  way  of  separation,  and  of 
serious  incompatibility  of  temper  or  of  views  of  their  do- 
mestic relations. 

Mr.  Tilton,  from  the  time  you  were  married  until 
your  wife  left  you,  as  you  have  stated,  about  the  8th  of 
July,  1874,  was  there  any  separation  of  home  or  resi- 
dence between  you  other  than  such  as  happened  by  jour- 
neys or  engagements  that  took  jflbu  apart?  A.  No,  Sir. 
Perhaps  I  should  qLualify  that  answer  by  saying  that  m 
the  early  part  of  December,  1870,  Mrs.  Tilton  went  two 
or  three  days  to  her  mother's  house,  at  her  mother's  re- 
quest, and  came  back  again.  *  *  *  It  has  since  been 
called  a  separation.  I  did  not  regard  it  so  at  the  time. 
I  wish  to  be  entirely  accurate  in  my  answer. 

Q.  It  was  a  separation  in  the  sense  of  her  being  away 
from  the  house,  and  at  her  mother's,  a  certain  period  of 
time  %  A.  Two  or  three  days,  1  think. 

Now,  not  only  in  these  two  direct  forms  of  the  coun- 
sel's proposition,  and  of  the  plaintiff's  own  testimony, 
but  all  through,  as  an  incidental  light  or  an  incidental 
observation  was  cast  upon  this  preliminary  situation,  it 
was  wholly  to  the  point  and  effect  that  that  amounted  to 
nothing,  th^t  there  was  no  reality  in  it,  and  that  the  pre- 
tense on  the  part  of  the  defendant  that  there  had  been  a 
serious,  although  perfectly  justifiable— an  important, 
though  wholly  suitable— intervention  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Beecher  and  his  wife  in  the  affairs  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  TU- 
ton  as  between  themselves— I  say  the  proposition  on  our 
part  that  there  had  been,  was  treated  as  an  afterthought 
and  a  subterfuge.  In  the  light  of  the  evidence,  gentle- 
men, what  becomes  of  this  view  of  the  plaintiff ;  and  as 
it  was  a  matter  within  his  own  conscious  knoss^ledge,  as 
it  had  produced  its  rankling  effect  within  his  own  breast, 
and  had  been  an  urgent  motive  with  him  in  his  conduct 
during  this  unhappy  period  of  the  end  of  the  year  1870 
and  the  beginning  of  the  year  1871,  what  becomes  of 
your  faith,  if  the  very  foundations  of  the  cause  are  thus 
laid  in  falsehood,  and  in  conscious  falsehood  ? 

THE  BEECHERS  ADVISE  SEPARATION. 

Now,  the  evidence  is  very  plain  on  Mr. 
Beecher's  part,  and  he  is  uncontradicted,  and  he  is  sup- 
ported by  Bessie  Turner,  and  finally  in  the  most  remark- 
able way  by  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  BeU,  their  witnesses. 
It  appears  that  there  came  upon  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  be- 
ginning or  the  middle  of  the  month  of  December,  1870, 
as  a  thunderbolt  out  of  a  clear  sky,  intimation  of  a  terri- 
ble condition  of  injury,  of  contumely  towards  the  wife, 
and  of  profligacy  an  1  cruelty  on  the  part  of  the  husband. 
Is  there  any  doubt  about  it  ?  Of  the  principal  fact,  and 
of  the  strange  incident  within  the  household  that  led  to 
it,  you  can  have  no  doubt.    Of  the  principal  fact  that 


Mrs.  TUton  deserted  her  husband's  house,  resorted  to  the 
protection  of  a  mother  little  in  a  condition  to  afford  pro- 
tection either  of  support  or  of  guidance  to  thi?  un- 
happy woman,  and  that  immediately  thereupon 
the  resort  of  Mrs.  Morse,  the  mother,  by  and 
with  the  concurrence,  if  not  the  prompting,  of  Mrs.  Til- 
ton, was  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  the  girl  Bessie  Turner  was 
the  messenger  by  which  the  knowledge  was  conveyed, 
and  the  invitation  as  well,  to  the  meeting  of  the  unhappy 
wife  and  her  mother  ;  that  thereupon  Mr.  Beecher  went 
to  Mrs.  Morse's,  and  after  a  brief  interview,  which  filled 
his  heart  with  anguish,  he  referred  them  to  his  wife  as 
the  better  person  for  advice  to  a  wife  and  a  mother,  in 
regard  to  so  unhappy  and  so  sudden  a  revelation ;  and 
then  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Beecher  went  together ;  and 
then  interviews  pasf=ed,  the  greater  part  of  them  in  pri- 
vate with  Mrs.  Beecher,  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Tilton  or  of 
Mrs.  Morse ;  and  then  deliberation  into  which  Mr.  Bell, 
the  deacon  of  the  church,  was  called;  and  then  a 
final  conclusion,  which,  by  a  happy  circumstance, 
came  to  be  preservea,  so  far  as  Mr.  Beecher's 
final  concurrence  or  share  of  it  was  concerned,  in  the 
shape  of  a  slip,  which  he  handed  his  wife,  as  you  remem- 
ber, because  he  was  engaged  with  company,  and  could 
not  accompany  her  or  talk  with  her.  Now,  Mr.  Bowen, 
coming  as  a  witness  for  quite  other  purposes,  in  the  inter- 
est of  this  plaintiff,  and  talking  in  the  main  upon  quite 
other  matters,  of  importance,  as  we  think,  in  support  of 
our  views  of  this  case,  shed  a  flood  of  light  upon  this  busi- 
ness. As  a  part  of  the  conversation  on  the  26th  of  De- 
cember, after  Bowen  has  opened  to  Mr.  Beecher  the  bud- 
get of  scandals,  and  reproaches,  and  complaints  against 
Mr.  Tilton  which  were  crowded  into  his  magazine,  and 
which  he  had  already  considered  and  decided  upon 
as  involving  the  necessity  of  an  absolute  rup- 
ture between  him  and  Tilton,  Mr.  Beecher  introduces 
the  corroboration  of  certain  imputations  he  had  heard, 
asking  Mr.  Bowen  if  he  had  heard  of  any  difficulties,  or 
of  the  situation  of  difficulty  in  Mr.  Tilton's  family,  to 
which  Mr.  Bowen  answered  that  he  had  not.  And  then 
there  is  disclosed  to  Mr.  Bowen  what  was  Immediately 
recent  in  occurrence  and  in  memory  with  Mr.  Beecher, 
this  whole  transaction  of  the  flight  of  the  wife  from  her 
husband,  an  appetil  to  him  and  Mrs.  Beecher.  an  exam- 
ination of  the  case,  the  result  of  their  views,  and  the  ref  - 
erence to  Mrs.  Beecher  as  the  person  having  most  knowl- 
edge and  having  had  the  largest  participation  in  the  matr 
ter— and  she  had  had.  You  will  remember  in  the  evi- 
dence how  there  was  a  long  interview  betweeen  Mrs. 
Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  at  the  house  of  Mrs.  Morse  at 
which  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  present ;  and  the  views  and 
opinions  of  this  clear-sighted  and  watchful  woman,  Mrs. 
Beecher,  were  there  formed ;  and  when  Mr.  Bowen  went 
to  her,  no  doubt,  they  were  expressed  to  him.  Mr. 
Bowen  had  a  reluctance  to  visit  Mrs.  Beecher, 
for    he    seems,    in     common     with     Mr.  TUton, 


SU:\IMIXG    UP  BY  ME.  EVARTS. 


689 


to  be  one  of  tlie  men  tliat  3Irs.  B^eclier 
had  seen  tlirougli  and  discountenanced  as  visitors 
at  lier  lionse  for  many  years;  and  Mr.  Bcwen  did  i:  c 
look  Tvitli  any  great  complacency  on  tlie  interview  wltli 
Mrs.  Beeclier,  "svlio  liad  seen  tlirongli  Mm,  and  made  Mm 
understand  that  she  saw  through  Mm.  But  Mr.  Beecher 
said,  "  No  hostilities,  no  unpleasantness  or  fear  of  it,  need 
prevent  you.  Mrs.  Beecher  wUl  receive  you;  I  wHl 
Bpeak  to  her  on  the  subject."  And  Mr.  Bowen  goes  and 
talks  it  all  over ;  and  whether  he  sees  the  letters  or  not 
that  had  been  received  and  were  in  the  custody  of  Mrs. 
Beecher  at  that  time,  I  don't  know ;  but  he  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  do  so;  there  wasnothing  secret  about  it.  And  then 
Mr.  Beecher  resorted  to  Mr.  BeU,  a  deacon  of  the  church, 
a  man  of  intelligence  and  of  integrity,  a  man  to  be  re- 
sorted to  by  the  pastor,  or  by  any  parishioner,  in  case  of 
difficulties  of  tMs  kind  arising  that  gave  a  right  to  resort 
to  the  advice  and  the  guidance  of  the  fellowsMp  of  the 
church.  He  s  you  that  Mr.  Beecher  then  laid  before 
him  this  whole  situation  and  took  his  advice.  We  had 
endeavored  to  prove  it  by  Mr.  Beecher.  We  desired  to 
prove  it.  We  thought  we  had  a  right  to  prove  it.  But, 
the  rules  of  evidence  as  administered  by  the  learned  Court 
under  that  division  which  permits  proof  to  one  side  in 
aid  of  their  views  and  excludes  it  fi'om  the  other  be- 
cause it  is  ta  their  favor,  a  rule  of  law  well  founded, 
of  necessary  and  of  valuable  application,  excluded 
it  on  our  part.  And  when  we  tried  to  prove  it  by  Mr. 
BeU  when  he  was  first  on  the  stand  the  same  just  appli- 
cation of  the  same  just  rule  of  evidence  as  it  was  con- 
strued to  be  applicable  fey  the  learned  Court  excluded 
that  testimony  on  our  part.  And,  flu  ally,  they  recalled 
Mr.  Bell,  and  having  found  that  they  had  no  right  to 
examine  him  as  to  one  point  that  apparently  they  had 
called  him  to,  they  did  go  into  a  complete  proof,  on  their 
examination,  whioh  we  did  not  object  to,  of  tMs  entire 
evidence  that  they  had  twice  excluded  from  us,  in  our 
earnest  efforts  to  prove  it.  Now,  that  advice,  that  evi- 
dence is  plain : 

He  stated  to  me— that  is,  Mr.  Beecher  stated  to  Mr. 
BeU— that  he  had  been  sent  for  by  Mrs.  Tilton  to  consult 
in  regard  to  the- position  of  domestic  afl'airs  in  her  own 
household  ;  that  she  had  left  her  husband  and  was  then 
at  ]Mrs.  Morse's,  her  mother's  ;  that  she  was  in  ^eat 
trouble  and  great  anxiety ;  that  the  conduct  of  her  hus- 
band had  been  in  a  great  many  ways  very  severe,  very 
cruel,  and  everything  but  what  (I  was  going  to  say)  a 
decent  man's  conduct  ought  to  be  to  a  woman.  He  stated 
that  Mr.  Tilton's  conduct  in  regard  to  other  matters,  in 
regard  to  licentiousness,  was  very  low.  He  stated  that 
he  had  been  called  upon  by  a  young  girl— he  did  not 
mention  any  name— a  young  girl  who  had  been  in  Mr. 
Tilton's  family— and  she  had  related  to  him  circumstances 
occurring  ta  the  family,  in  the  household,  by 
Mr.  Tilton,  wMch  were  exceedingly  licentious.  He 
•tated— I  presume  I  need  not  go  into  the  circimistances 
of  the  statement;  I  have  sufficiently  indicated  what  it 
was.  He  stated  that,  at  last,  Mrs.  TUton  had  been  forced 
to  fly  from  her  home ;  that  she  had  done  so,  and  had  gone 
to  Mrs.  Morse's ;  that  she  had  sent,  then,  for  Mm,  to  ad- 


vise with  Mm  as  to  what  course  she  should  pursuf^ ;  that 
he  had  consulted  Mr>.  Beecher  on  the  subject,  and  that 
■"bey  thought— both  thought  that  it  was  better  that  they 
should  mention  the  fact  to  some  member  of  the  church, 
so  that  they  might  not  go  on  in  the  matter  without 
the  whole  church  [with  the  whole  church,  it 
should  be]  being  ignorant  of  this  proceeding,  or 
what  advice  they  might  give,  might  tender  to  Mrs.  Tilton. 
They  had,  therefore,  called  for  me,  not  so  much  to  take 
my  advice  as  to  inform  me  of  the  facts  that  were  occur- 
ring, and  inform  me  of  what  advio^  they  pronosed  to 
give,  if  any,  to  Mrs.  Tilton.  He  asked  me  then — or  said 
then,  that  he  proposed  to  hand  the  matter  over  to  ISIrs. 
Beecher,  that  it  was  a  matter  that  a  lady  could  manage 
better  than  a  gentleman,  and  Mrs.  Beecher  rutended  by  his 
suggestion  to  go  and  see  Mrs.  TUton  the  next  day.  The 
question  wae  particularly  as  to  what  advice  Mrs. 
Beecher  should  give  to  Mrs.  TUton ;  I  don't  know  whether 
from  Mrs.  Beecher  or  from  him,  the  question  came  up 
about  a  permanent  separation— that  is,  Mr.  BeU  says, 
"  I  don't  know  whether  it  was  from  Mrs.  Beecher  or  from 
Mr.  Beecher,"  that  the  question  came  up  and  was 
presented  to  Mr.  BeU,  but  from  one  or  the 
other  that  suggestion  was  made,  of  a  permanent 
separation  between  Mr.  and  Mrs.  TUton.  "  And  Mr. 
Beecher  asked  me  what  I  thought  of  that.  I  said,  in  an- 
swer, *  Of  course  nothing  elee  can  be  possible;  it  is  im- 
possible for  Mrs.  Tilton  to  Uve  another  day  with  Mr. 
Tilton  on  such  facts  as  you  have  presented  to  me.'  Then 
Mr.  Beecher  asked  me  if  I  thought  it  would  be  weU  to 
caU  ui  any  of  the  ladies  of  the  church.  I  said,  tmques- 
tionably  not;  it  was  a  matter  of  great  delicacy ;  it  was  a 
matter  far  more  easily  managed  by  a  few  than  by  many, 
and  it  would  be  exceedingly  harmful  to  bring  it  into  the 
church,  or  even  to  hand  it  over  to  any  ladies  tmefficiaUy, 
and  that  it  was  certaia  that  the  best  management  of  the 
case  would  be  to  have  it  left  in  his  own  hands  and  those 
of  Mrs.  Beecher." 

Now.  gentlemen,  you  have  In  the  touching  narrative  of 
Bessie  Turner  as  to  the  midnight  flight  from  the  house^ 
when  tMs  wife  goes  down  in  her  stocking  feet  to  the  door, 
puts  on  her  shoes  there,  and  at  1  o'clock  at  night  seeks 
protection  agauist  her  husband's  treatment,  and  of  her 
prudence  and  consideration  that  she  rejected  Bessie 
Turner's  wish  to  go  herself  with  her.  and  required 
her  to  return  and  retire  into  her  bed  with  the 
chUdren,  and  look  after  them  tMough  that  night, 
and  then  Bessie's  foUowing  the  next  morning  and 
taking  the  children  with  her,  and  then  this  interview 
and  then  tMs  consultation,  you  have  a  direct, 
and  plenary,  and  indisputable  proof  that  the  defendant's 
proposition  of  the  first  movement  of  eomplaint  being  of 
the  wife  against  the  husband,  and  of  that  gravity  that 
it  disclosed  Ms  profligacy  and  Ms  cruelty,  and  that  It 
meditated  protection  permanently,  or  at  least  until  sep- 
aration, tried,  should  have  put  the  wife  in  her  true  posi- 
tion before  the  pubUc  and  the  chiu'ch,  and  put  the  hus- 
band under  the  corrective,  it  might  be  hoped,  influence 
of  a  declared  exposure  of  the  wickedness  of  his  house- 
hold—you pan  have  no  doubt  of  that.  What  was  Mr. 
Beecher's  written  memorandum  handed  to  Ms  wife  ae 
the  final  result  of  Ms  reflection  after  Ms  conference  witi 
Mr.  Beacher ! 


690 


TEE   TILION-BEECEER  TRIAL. 


I  incline  to  think  that  your  view  is  right,  and  that  a 
separation  and  a  settlement  of  support  will  be  wisest,  and 
that  in  his  present  desperate  state  her  presence  near 
him  is  far  more  likely  to  produce  hatred  than  her  ab- 
sence. 

HOW  MR.  TILTON  TOOK  THE  ADVICE  OF 
SEPARATION. 

Now,  did  this  impress  itself  upon  Mr.  Tilton 

as  a  grave  interference  in  his  affairs  ?  Did  he  acquiesce 
in  it  or  did  he  resent  it  ?  Did  it  rankle  in  his  heart  1  Did 
he  lay  it  up  as  a  blow  at  the  integrity  of  his  household 
and  the  respectability  of  the  name  and  fame  of  his  family 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beecher  that  was  to  be  re- 
sented and  punished  ?  Ah,  it  is  said  that  we  use  grave 
words  of  imputation  when  we  charge  conspiracy  to  de- 
fame Mr.  Beecher,  as  if  that  were  a  word  pregnant  with 
terrible  meaning.  And  it  is  not  a  trivial  term.  Novir,  let 
me  show  you  how  Mr.  Tilton  viewed  this  interference  in 
his  family  in  December  upon  this  appeal  of  his 
wife  as  included  in  a  letter  that  he  brought  in  the  hand- 
writing and  with  the  signature  of  his  wife  to  Dr.  Storrs  in 
December,  1872.  It  is  a  letter  that  will  come  into  view 
in  reference  to  the  llret  sentence  of  it,  as  it  has  been  made 
the  subject  of  frequent  remark  in  respect  to  that  part  of 
It.  But  the  sentence  immediately  following  shows 
whether  or  no  this  separation  was  a  phantom,  a  figment, 
an  afterthought,  a  subterfuge,  a  casual  occurrence  with- 
out significance,  for  he  makes  his  wife  say  in  this  letter 
to  Mr.  Storrs— no  more  her  truth  or  her  feeling,  or  her 
opinion  than  the  first  sentence— but  he  makes  his  wife 
say,  after  saying : 

In  July,  1870,  prompted  by  my  duty,  I  informed  my 
husband  that  H.  W.  Beecher,  my  friend  and  pastor,  had 
solicited  me  to  be  a  wife  to  him,  together  with  all  that 
this  implied.  Six  months  afterward  my  husband  felt 
Impelled  by  the  circumstances  of  a  conspiracy  against 
him  in  which  Mrs.  Beecher  had  taken  part,  to  have  an 
Interview  with  Mr.  Beecher. 

Now,  gentlemen,  there  you  have  in  writing,  in  form, 
tliat  the  impellrng  motive  of  the  interview  of  December 
with  Mr.  Beecher  was  the  conspiracy  in  which  Mrs. 
Beecher  had  taken  part  against  him  and  his  famiJy,  for  I 
discard  all  notion  that  it  is  anything  but  new  evidence 
how  Mrs.  Tilton  is  made  by  this  husband  to  expresses 
sentiments  at  his  pleasure.  Did  Mrs.  Tilton  think  it  was 
a  conspiracy  on  the  part  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beecher  against 
the  peace  of  the  Tilton  family  when  she  had  left  her 
Tiouse  and  resorted  to  her  mother  for  protection,  and 
sent  for  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beeoher  for  their  advice  and 
aid?  Did  she  think  it  a  conspiracy  of  theirs 
in  which  she,  Mrs.  Triton,  was  the  first 
mover,  the  first  source  and  origin  of 
any  impression  or  any  knowledge  that  there  was  any 
situation  that  needed  to  be  taken  up  and  disposed  of  ? 
No,  I  ha  re  read  you  at  once  Mr.  Tilton's  firm  written 
statement  that  the  interview  he  held  with  Mr.  Beecher 
on  the  30th  of  December  was  impelled  by  the  circum- 


stances of  a  conspiracy  against  him  In  which  Mrs. 
Beecher  had  taken  part ;  and  then  in  the  letter  that  this 
same  husband,  Mr.  Tilton,  gives  to  Mr.  Moulton  in  his 
wife's  handwriting,  and  under  his  wife's  signature,  m 
which  she  is  made  to  approve  and  applaud  h.er  husband's 
conduct,  she  says : 

You  have  risked  so  mucli  as  he  has  sacrificed  for 
others  ever  since  the  conspiracy  began  against  him  two 
years  ago. 

And  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  **  True  Story"  says  : 
Mrs.  Morse  once  went  to  a  lawyer  in  Brooklyn  and, 
with  a  plausible  air,  consulted  him  about  a  divorce  be- 
tween my  wife  and  me.  It  is  sufiicient  to  say  in  refer- 
ence to  my  case  with  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Beecher,  and  to 
the  case  of  each  against  the  other,  that  she  (Mrs.  Morse) 
made  a  careful  and  malicious  use  of  tlie  few  facts  in  her 
possession  and  of  the  many  fancies  whicli  these  engen- 
dered in  her  diseased  and  unhappy  mind.  Mrs.  Morse,  in 
plotting  her  insane  mischief,  chose  a  confederate  for  a 
brief  time  in  Mrs.  H.  W.  Beecher,  another  lady  of  ab- 
normal type,  whose  peculiarities  having  less  aggravation, 
are  also  less  pardonable  than  Mrs.  Morse's.  For  11  years 
Mrs.  Beeoher  and  I  have  not  been  on  speaking  terms,  nor 
have  I  ever  had  so  relentless  an  enemy. 

Well,  she  was  a  truthful  one  anyhow.  She  never  re- 
ceived any  confidences  from  him.  She  never  valued 
anything  that  would  come  from  his  mouth,  and  she  never 
was  deceived  by  any  discrepancy  between  his  face  and 
heart.  Mr.  Storrs  giving  the  narrative,  and  an  important 
narrative,  and  Mr.  Storrs  was  Mr.  Tilton's  best  friend, 
next  best  friend  to  Moulton— no,  standing  in  equal  rank 
with  Moulton— the  man  he  would  have  gone  to  as  his 
agent  and  his  confidant,  and  the  manager  of  his  affairs 
with  Bowen  and  of  his  interviews  with  Beecher,  on  his 
own  statement,  if  he  had  only  happened  to  meet  him  in- 
stead of  Moulton.  Now,  I  am  afraid  to  trust  even  that 
hypothetical  view  of  Mr.  Tilton.  But  if  it  were  so,  how 
unfortunate  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  find  in  the  confidence 
of  a  friend  the  intelligence  and  also  the  integ- 
rity aiid  practical  good  sense  of  Mr.  Charles  Storrs. 
But  Mr.  Storrs  says  on  that  "  He  rose  and  said  he  wanted 
me  to  go  right  pound  to  Frank  Moulton's  with  him." 
Now,  this  was  the  2d  day  of  January— the  2d  day  of 
January,  1871— right  after  all  these  interviews  that  I  am 
coming  to : 

Q.  Did  you  go  ?   A.  I  did. 

Q.  Witli  bimi   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  on  yotir  way  there  ? 
A.  We  did. 

Q.  What  was  it  1  A.  I  asked  him  what  the  trouble  was. 
Well,  he  said  that  Mr.  Beecher,  Mrs.  Beecher,  and  Mrs. 
Morse  had  been  talking  against  him  to  Mr.  Bowen  and 
influencing  him  against  him,  and  he  also  said  that  they 
had  influenced  his  wife  against  him. 

Now  that  was  the  friend  of  whom  in  this  very  inter- 
view he  says  that  "  it  was  mere  chance  whether  I  had  not 
taken  Mm  instead  of  Mr.  Moulton.  And  he  said, '  I  want 
you  to  go  right  round  and  see  Mr.  Moulton.'"  They 
started,  and  they  did  see  him  ;  and  Mr.  Stoi  rs  tells  you 
a  good  many  other  things  that  occurred  that  daj  that  ex- 


SUMMING    UF  BY  ME.  EVABIiS. 


691 


plode  the  -whole  fabric  of  the  false  charge  against  Mr. 
3eecher,  as  you  -will  see  when  I  come  to  direct  your  at- 
tention to  it— explode  it  then  and  there  on  that  second 
day  of  January,  while  it  was  all  fresh ;  put  it  on  the  foot- 
ing that  we  say  it  stands  upon  both  in  respect  of  fact  and 
in  respect  even  of  this  false  charge  or  erroneous  charge 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton.  I  am  now  dealing  with  the 
plenary  proof  that  this  discord  in  the  family,  that  this 
flight  of  the  wife,  that  this  appeal  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
that  this  interventien  of  advice  and  consultation 
and  of  responsibility  was  the  moving  cause 
of  the  hatred,  of  the  approach,  the  interview,  the  charge 
that  he  made  against  Mr.  Beecher.  I  have  it  under  his 
own  words,  for  you  do  not  doubt  that  these  letters  that 
he  brought  to  Dr.  Storrs  and  that  he  handed  to  Mr. 
Moulton  from  his  wife  were  his  letters,  approved  by  him, 
if  not,  as  I  thinlr  very  plainly,  written  by  him  ;  and  as  #3 
this  statement  of  Mr.  Storrs,  I  do  not  need  to  say  any- 
thing more  on  the  subject,  except  to  say  that  when  Mr. 
Tilton  is  recalled  to  the  stand  on  rebuttal  this  entirely 
new  matter  that  we  had  introduced  from  Mr.  Storrs  of 
this  pregnant  consequence  that  I  have  read  to  you  is  not 
contradicted  by  Mr.  Tilton  at  all.  "Was  it  not  important  1 
Does  not  our  view  exclude  his  view  1  Does  not  our  view 
falsify  his  view  ?  Does  not  our  view  convict  him  of  will- 
ful, purposed  contrivance  of  evidence  against  the  trutli 
to  beguile  your  judgment  and  mislead  your  verdict  % 

THE  STOEIES  THAT  MR.  BO  WEN  KNiJw  TO 
MR.  TILTON'S  DISCREDIT. 
Now,  iminediately  on  his  wife's  return,  or 
very  soon,  there  occurs  the  misfortune  of  lier  miscarriage 
and  serious  illness.  That  began  on  the  24th  of  December, 
and  the  next  movement  originated  also  in  the  troubles  of 
Mr.  Tilton,  wholly  in  the  troubles  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and 
wholly  in  troubles  with  which  Mr.  Beecher  had  nothing 
whatever  to  do  until  they  were  forced  upon  Mr.  Beecher's 
attention  by  what  was  considered  undoubtedly  a  very 
bold  and  very  wise  act  by  BIr.  Tilton.  On  Saturday  pre- 
viously, on  the  24th  of  that  month,  Mr.  Tilton  having 
been  deposed  from  his  place  as  editor  of  The  Independent, 
and  having  received,  in  lieu  of  that  eminent  and  perma- 
nent position,  contracts  of  employment,  con- 
tracts which  gave  Mr.  Bowen  complete  com- 
mand over  the  durability  and  circumstances  of 
terminating  the  relation  instanter,  that  being 
the  situation  just  established  and  ostensibly  and  pre- 
sumably to  be  secure  for  some  two  or  live  years,— two 
years  in  the  case  of  one  paper,  and  five  years  in  the  other, 
]^lr.  Oliver  Johnson,  then  a  companion  in  employment  on 
The  Independent,  intimates  to  Mr.  Tilton  that  Mr.  Bowen 
had  neard  stories,  and  was  considering  them,  prejudicial 
to  his  character,  and  he  had  better  see  Bowen.  Mr. 
Bowen  didn't  want  to  see  him ;  Mr.  Bowen  had  not  asked 
an  interview  with  Mr.  Tilton;  Mr.  Bowen  had  not  ad- 
vised Mr.  Johnson  that  he  wanted  to  see  Mr.  Tilton, 


but  Mr.  Bowen  had  talked  with  his  managing  editor, 
Mr.  Johnson,  on  the  subject  of  these  impu- 
tations upon  the  character  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  the  neces- 
sity of  terminating  Ms  relations  with  The  Indexiendent, 
and  Mr.  Johnson,  not  in  betrayal  of  confldence,  but  as  a 
friend  of  Mr.  Tilton,  as  he  was,  brought  it  to  the  notice  of 
Mr.  Tilton  and  advised  hun  to  see  INIr.  Bowen  and  force 
some  open  consideration  between  them  of  these  causes  of 
complaint.  The  result  of  that  is  that  when  an  attempt 
had  been  made  at  an  interview  earlier,  Christmas ,  as  a 
day  of  leisure,  was  assigned  for  an  interview,  and  Mr. 
Tilton  attended  at  Mr.  Bowen's  house  with  Mr.  Oliver 
Johnson,  and  then  Bowen  informed  Mr.  Tilton  of  the 
stories  against  his  character  which  had  come 
to  his  knowledge.  Briefly  it  is  thus,  and 
indisputably  thus,  whether  in  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Bowen,  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Oliver  Johnson,  or  in  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Tilton  himself,  that  IVIr.  Bowen  had  had 
no  suspicions,  had  received  no  intimation,  had  heard  no 
rumor's  prejudicial  to  IVIr.  Tilton  prior  to  the  time  he  had 
dissolved  the  connection  as  editor.  And  when  that  was 
announced  in  public,  when  it  was  seen  that  this  great 
throne,  that  this  lofty  crown,  that  this  powerful  scepter, 
were  no  longer  in  the  hands  of  this  king,  but  that  they 
had  aU  been  resigned,  and  another  king  that 
had  new  views,  at  any  rate  not  the  per- 
sonal interest  in  the  question  that  Mr.  Tilton 
would  have  had  was  announced,  then  the  stories  came  to 
Mr.  Bowen.  What  are  his  figures  1  They  came  in  clouds, 
they  came  in  an  avalanche ;  they  came  from  ne*r  by  and 
from  afar  off— the  story  from  the  ante-room  of  The  Union 
office,  the  story  from  Winsted,  and  the  story  from  the 
North-West ;  the  story  of  an  intrigue  with  a  woman  in 
fashionable  llf e— everything,  as  Mr.  Tilton  admits  (it  is 
all  admitted),  came  to  his  knowledge  in  the  sense  of  im- 
putation or  information.  Well,  now,  I  am  not  talking  of 
the  truthfulness  of  these  imputations ;  I  have  never 
gone  into  them  any  further  than  was  necessary 
to  show  the  situation  to  be  such  as  it 
was  pretended  on  Mr.  Tilton's  part  it  was  not,  but  what 
manifestly  it  was,  that  there  had  come  to  be  such  a 
knowledge  on  Mr.  Bowen's  part  of  misconduct  on  the 
part  of  Tilton,  and  such  a  basis  of  fact,  such  a  definite- 
ness  of  name,  and  place,  and  circumstance,  as  made  it, 
at  least,  the  subject  of  inquiry,  and  responsible  inquiry, 
and  of  necessary  action  on  Mr.  Bowen's  part.  That  being 
so,  this  movement  became  an  important  element  in  this 
false  accusation,  and  in  all  the  surroundings  of  gloom,  of 
malignant  calvmmy,  that  have  attended  Mr.  Tilton'a 
course  toward  Mr.  Beecher  through  years. 

MR.  TILTON'S  FINANCIAL  POSITION  IN  1872. 

I  have  shown  you  the  interference  in  his 
family  that  he  stigmatizes  as  a  conspiracy,  as  proceeding 
from  relentless  foes,  as  being  such  as  to  compel  him  to 
come  into  such  a  controversy  as  he  did  come  into  witb 


693  THE  TILTOJS'B 

Mr.  Beeclier.  Kow,  liere  there  are,  in  regard  to  this  mat- 
ter, two  propositions  on  the  part  of  this  plaintiff  which  lie 
deems  it  important  that  you  should  accept  as  proved,  and 
which  you  should  stand  upon  as  the  foundation  stones  for 
your  footing  when  you  come  to  consider  the  interview  of 
the  30th  of  December.  He  says  that  at  the  time  of  that 
interview,  first,  he  was  in  no  disaster,  and  secondly,  that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  had  nothing  to  do  with  it;  that  the  pre- 
tense on  Mr.  Beeoher'spart  of  his  having  rashly,  inconsid- 
erately, uncharitably,  tat  en  for  granted  that  the  imputa- 
tions against  Mr.  Tilton  were  well  founded,  and  joined,  and 
aided  in,  and  supported,  Mr.  Bowen's  ill-construction  of 
his  conduct,  and  the  severe  decisive  action  in  striking,  at 
a  blow,  character,  property,  livelihood,  family,  every- 
thing, so  that  at  the  end  of  the  week,  when  this  inter- 
view was  held,  the  30th  of  December,  there  was  no  more 
deplorable  condition  of  what  had  been  a  proud,  a 
haughty,  a  self-confident,  a  high-headed  attitude,  de- 
meanor, walk,  and  conversation  in  this  community,  so 
that  he  was  "lying  stripped  and  bleeding  on  the  aide- 
walk,"  to  use  his  own  phi-ase  to  Sam  Wilke- 
son,  a  pitiable  object,  and  needing  aid  from 
anybody  that  professed  friendship— all  this  in 
their  case,  in  their  evidence  as  produced 
by  this  plaintiff  himself,  and  by  the  wit- 
ness, Moulton,  by  whom  thay  have  attempted 
to  support  the  plaintiff's  evidence  before  you,  all 
this  notion  has  no  foundation.  ■  He  was  a  man  of  com- 
fortal)l6  and  assured  property  ;  nay,  up  to  the  30th  of 
December  he  was  in  possession  of  contracts  which  gave 
him  a  securer  and  a  better  position  than  that  of  editor, 
which  gave  him  $15,000  a  year,  as  he  has  attempted  to 
impose  upcu  your  anclorstanrling— not  very  successfully 
on  his  own  testimony  to  bo  sure,  and  we  shattered  to 
atoms  the  whole  fabric  of  that  view  by  the  testimony  on 
our  part— that  it  was  not  until  late  on  the  night  of  the 
31st,  when  the  chimes  of  St.  Ann's  were  ringing  out  the 
olu  year  and  ringing  in  the  new  year,  that  the  first  notion 
came  to  him  that  any  moth  had  corrupted  the  garment  of 
his  pride.  It  is  of  the  gravest  importance  to  this  plain- 
tiff that  he  should  strike  out  this  state  of  facts  as  within 
the  consciousness  of  himself  and  Mr.  Beecher,  and  as  a 
matter  of  substance  and  of  fact,  at  the  time  of  the 
decisive  ^interview  of  December  30,  1870.  "Well,  what 
are  we  to  say  on  this  subject  now  1  How  do  the  proofs 
stand  now  ?  Why,  gentlemen,  I  shall  not  weary  you  nor 
myself  by  long  obsei-vation  upon  the  general  mass 
of  this  evidence  on  that  point,  for  it  is  all  one  way. 
Now,  gentlemen,  I  asked  Mr.  Tilton  if,  after  the  inter- 
view with  Bowen  on  the  27tli  day  of  December,  he  didn't 
go  to  his  house,  exhibit  great  distress,  and  say  he  was 
ruined,  and  then,  by  conduct  pursued  there,  indicate  the 
extremity  of  his  disaster  and  the  extremity  of  his  resort 
for  means  to  fight  off  the  further  completion,  the  hopeless 
consummation  of  it.  No.  As  usual,  he  wants  to  have  a 
circumstance  to  fortify  his  statement,  and  he  says,  "  I 


iJKCHEB  TRIAL. 

was  not  ruined  ;"  and  through  a  long  direct  examination 
they  made  it  appear  that  he  was  worth  some  $30,000  or 
$35,000,  all  made  up  in  this  way.  SpeaMng  of  the  begin- 
ning of  1871,  he  says : 

I  owned  a  house,  in  which  I  lived.  No.  174  Livingston- 
st.,  which,  with  its  library,  furniture,  and  pictures,  I 
suppose  was  valued  at  about  $25,000.  I  owned  a  piece  oi 
property  in  Llewellyn  Park,  New-Jersey,  valued  at  about 
$10,000.  I  owned  a  share  of  The  New- York  Tribune, 
valued,  I  think,  at  that  time,  at  a  little  more  than 
$10,000.  I  owned  a  small  farm  out  West,  in  Iowa,  val- 
ued at  about  $1,500.  I  owned  a  piece  of  land,  a  little 
fragment  of  it,  near  Prospect  Park,'  In  this  city,  valued 
at  about  $1,000. 

Then  he  gives  his  mortgages,  and  then  the  fact  that  The 
Tribune  stock  had  been  assigned  to  his  father.  But 
counting  all  that  up,  it  comes  to  this  in  the  end,  that  he 
had  a  house  and  furniture,  whatever  it  might  be  worth, 
which  brought  him  no  income ;  that  he  had  about  $4,000 
on  deposit  with  the  firm  of  Woodruff  &  Robinson,  which 
was  drawing,  I  suppose,  four  or  five  per  cent  interest, 
whatever  rate  they  made  up  the  account  at ;  tliat  he  had 
a  fragment  of  land  near  Prospect  Park,  which  produced 
—assessments  [laughter ;]  a  farm  in  Iowa  which  had  the 
usual  crop  of  wild  land  taxes,  and  the  Llewellyn  Park 
property,  which  ended  in  having  been  got  for  advertising 
and  having  been  turned  over  to  his  particular  friend 
Franklin  Woodruff  as  an  additional  security  for  the 
mortgage  of  $7,500  upon  his  house.  Now,  there  is  an- 
other friend  that  sticketh  closer— to  his  property— than  a 
brother.  [Laughter.]  I  never  saw  such  a  set  of  friends 
as  the  man  has  about  him!  Help  him!  help  him  I 
Why,  all  his  property  comes  to  nothing.  It  amounts  to 
nothing.  That  is  no  imputation  upon  Mr.  Tilton,  no 
reproach.  The  reproach  is  in  the  false  and  shallow  at- 
tempt to  impose  upon  your  understanding  that  he  waa 
a  man  of  income  and  property;  and  the  attempt  ends, 
as  I  say,  in  this  Llewellyn  Park  property,  salable 
never,  sold  never,  coining  to  be  needed,  in  the  generous 
estimate  of  one  of  his  best  friends,  as  a  further  support 
to  a  lien  of  $7,500  on  his  Livingston-st.  house.  Any  in- 
come 1  Oh  !  no,  no  income  from  anything.  The  Tribune 
Stock  belonged  to  his  father,  and  it  so  remained.  No  in- 
come from  anything.  And  I  proved  to  you,  out  of  his 
own  mouth,  I  think,  that  from  that  Ist  of  January,  1871, 
down  to  ti^e  time  that  he  stood  before  you,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  what  he  mip:ht  have  picked  up  in  one  of  his 
broken  and  discredited  lecture  tours  that  ho  took  in 
1872-3,  didn't  he?  [addressing  Mr.  Tracy.] 

Mr.  Tracy-1871-2. 

Mr.  Evarts— Only  in  1871-2  ? 

Mr.  Tracy— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  he  made  some  money  then  in  1871-2 
but  none  in  1872-3,  and  I  proved  by  him  that  all  the 
money  that  he  had  had  and  that  he  had  spent  was  the 
$4,000  that  was  in  the  hands  of  Woodi'uff  &  Robinson  to 
start  with,  the  $7,000  that  he  had  got  out  of  Bowen  io 


SUMm^^G    UF  BY  ME.  EVABTS. 


693 


the  manner  that  rou  no"w  pretty  well  understand  and 
will  still  better  understand  after  I  have  remarked  upon 
It,  the  money  to  help  Bessie  Turner's  schooling,  paid  by 
Mr.  Beeoher,  and  the  $5,000  that  Mr.  Beecher  also  had 
contributed  to  The  Golden  Age  in  its  necessity  ;  excepting 
that  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  FranMin  Woodruff,  Mr.  J.  P.  Rob- 
inson, Mr.  Mason,  and  Mr.  Southwick  had  made  up  a 
contribution,  to  the  same  object  to  which  Mr.  Beecher 
gave  $5,000  in  its  necessity,  of  $12,000,  one-half  of 
which  was  consumed,  and  the  other  half  returned  to  those 
munificent  donors  out  of  the  money  that  he  got  from 
Bowen. 

Gentlemen,  how  do  we  stand  now  upon  the  question 
whether  in  the  middle  of  the  week  of  December  that 
closed  that  year  Mr.  Tilton  had  come  to  an  absolute  pros- 
tration of  his  affairs,  and  was  convulsively  scrambling 
out  of  the  flood  tliat  was  overwhelming  him,  and  seizing 
upon  any  straw,  even  upon  a  woman's  hand,  careless 
whether  he  drowned  her  with  himself,  provided  he  saw 
the  last  chance  of  her  feeble  aid  saving  him— what  shall 
we  say  about  that  1  He  carries  it,  as  I  say,  with  a  high 
head  through  his  direct  examination.   "Nothing  !  Why, 
we  had  just  made  the  bargains  ;  there  was  not  any 
trouble  ;  we  had  talked,  to  be  sure,  and  he  had  said, 
when  I  had  thrown  out  an  intimation  that  he  had  better 
run  after  Mr.  Beecher  and  let  me  go— I '  sent  him  on  that 
scent,  and  we  had    combined    in    a  great  move, 
that    Bowen  said    would    be    successful,  -^o  drive 
Beecher    from    further    editing    the     rival  news- 
paper.   The     Christian     Union,     and     that  would 
take  effect  in  12  hours,  and  that  he  and  I— Bowen  and  I— 
should  be  masters  of  the  situation,  clear  of  a  rival  and 
clear  of  a  hated  enemy,  an  enemy,  if  an  enemy,  because 
we  had  injured  him,  an  enemy  hated,  if  hated  (and  I  do 
not  doubt  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  hated  by  these  men), 
because  Mr.  Beecher  knew  that  they  had  injured  him." 
Now,  to  be  sure,  when  on  the  cross-examination — or,  in- 
deed, on  the  direct,  but  more  fully  on  the  cross— it  was 
made  to  appear  that,  the  vigor  and  success  of  that  war 
against  Mr.  Beecher  that  was  commenced  on  Christmas 
did  not  come  up  to  the  sounding  phrase  of  the  manifesto, 
and  aU  that  had  come  of  it,  although  what  had  occurred 
had  not  been  displayed  to  you  as  it  now  is,  for  Tllton 
could  not  speak  of  it,  and  Bowen  was  not  called— 
what    had    occurred    between    Mr.    Beecher  and 
Bowen— when  it  was  proved  that  on  the  next  day 
after  Bowen  carried  this  missive  that  was  to  hurl 
Mr.  Beecher  fiom  hLs  pulpit  and  from  his  editorial  chair, 
and  to  drive  him  from  Brooklyn,  when  it  was  given  in 
evidence  that  allthathappenedbetweenthejointactorsin 
that  brave  act  was  that  thenexttime  they  met,  which  was 
the  next  day,  Mr.  Bowen,  with  a  countenance  livid  with 
rage,  and  with  greater  excitement  than  Mr.  Tilton  sup- 
posed it  possible  for  him  or  any  man,  perhaps,  to  ex- 
hibit, shook  his  fist  in  Mr.  TUton's  face  and  said  to  htm  : 
If  you  ever  mention  that  I  was  an  ally,  that  I  was  a 


conspirator,  that  I  ever  knew  or  heard  of  that  letter  that 
you  wrote  and  I  carried  to  Beecher,  I  will  cashier  you ; 
I  wiU  drive  you  out  of  the  ofQce  ;  I  will  call  a  policeman 
and  turn  you  into  the  street. 

When  that  was  proved  it  was  pretty  evident  that  Mr. 
Tilton  did  not  stand  on  velvet  with  Mr.  Bowen  on  the 
27th  day  of  December,  and  that  is  the  last  time  they  ever 
met,  as  I  understand  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Tilton. 

Now,  don't  you  think,  on  his  own  showing,  when  he 
went  home  on  that  Tuesday,  that  he  did  feel  that  he  was 
ruined  ?  Bowen  and  Johnson  had  told  him  that  he  waf 
going  to  be  turned  out  unless  he  arrested  the  hand.  A 
contrivance,  exhausting  malice  and  reaching  all  prospect 
of  ever  being  supported  by  proof,  and  carrying  any  prac- 
tical results,  had  been  the  only  scheme  that  he  could 
suggest  for  his  temporary  salvation.  That  petard  had 
been  fired  by  this  engineer,  and  who  was  hoisted  by  it, 
Beecher  or  he,  Bowen's  interview  with  him, 
as  testified  to  by  himself,  shows  you.  Now, 
don't  you  think  that  he  knew  that  he  was 
ruined?  I  am  bringing  to  you  the  evidence 
hereafter,  but,  on  his  own  showing,  you  know  that  he  was 
ruined.  You  know  that  he  knew  he  was  ruined,  and  you 
know  that  he  swore  that  he  was  not  ruined,  but  was  in 
the  proud  possession  of  this  long  assured  career  with 
Mr.  Bowen  on  The  Indepeyident  and  The  Broohlyn  Union, 
and  the  $15,000  a  year.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  am  not  deal- 
ing with  this  witness  and  this  plaintiff  on  captious  criti- 
cisms, of  which  best  remembered  words  or  conversations, 
or  obscure  and  incidental  facts  are  the  basis.  I  am  deal- 
ing with  him  upon  the  very  basis  of  his  cause,  upon  the 
very  basis  of  our  defense,  and  I  show  you  at  every  step 
in  it,  that  he  invents,  contrives  shallow  and  foolish  pre 
tenses  that,  looked  at  by  themselves,  won't  stand  the 
penetration  and  the  discomfiture  of  a  truthful  interpre- 
tation of  his  own  testimony. 


ME.  BEECHER'S  SUSCEPTIBLE  POINT. 

But,  when  you  remember  the  evidence  of 
that  excellent,  candid,  simple,  straightforward  woman, 
Mrs.  Mitchell,  the  nui-se,  and  when  she  tells  you  what 
went  on  in  that  household  during  the  three  days  after 
his  accomplished  ruin,  after  he  had  brought  it  into  the 
family,  up  to  the  time  when  he  had  prevailed  upon  that 
sick,  that  feeble,  that  hysterical  woman,  standing,  upon 
the  evidence,  between  a  swoon  and  a  gasp,  you  don't 
doubt  that  he  was  ruined,  and  he  knew  he  was  ruined, 
and  that  his  resort  to  Bowen's  hatred  of  Beecher  instead 
of  saving  him  had  hopelessly  plunged  him  deeper,  and 
that  now  he  must  contrive  some  approach,  some  operation 
upon  Henry  Ward  Beecher  that  should  not  attempt  to 
intimidate  him,  that  should  not  attempt  to  antagonize 
him,  that  should  not  attempt  to  affront  him,  but  shoTild 
come  aroimd  that  great,  generous,  magnanimous  heart 
of  his,  which  Mr.  TUton  has  testified  made  his  (pointing 
to  Mr.  Beecher)  greatness,  and  distipsrnished  him  froiT» 


694 


THM   TILTON-BEECEEB  TRIAL. 


all  other  men.  He  had  told  you  that  the  way  to  get  the 
aid,  the  sjonpathy,  everything  in  respect  of  sentiment 
and  effort  that  one  man  could  do  for  another  out  of  Mr. 
Beecher  was  to  make  him  think  that  he  had  done  you  a 
wrong,  however  slight,  and  that  it  was  in  that  way  that 
men  did  impose  upon  him,  and  that  if  they  knew  Mm  as 
weU  as  Mr  Tilton  knew  him  they  would  impose  upon  him 
a  great  deal  more— all  that  I  have  laid  out  in  these  gen- 
eralities of  testimony  which  so  try  the  patience— not  of 
you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  for  you  understood  them— 
hut  of  the  all-wise  critics  of  the  press  that  wondered 
when  I  was  going  to  prove  Mr.  Beecher  innocent,  and  let 
alone  those  generalities  of  proof. 

It  is  a  generality  of  proof  for  Mr.  Tilton  to  disclose  to 
you  that  the  way  to  get  hold  of  Mr.  Beecher  is  through 
his  heart;  that  the  way  to  get  hold  of  his  heart  is  through 
an  impression  of  an  injury  has  been  done  to  him  ;  that 
men  who  understand  that  practice  it  upon  him,  and 
if  they  knew  as  much  about  it  as  he,  Tilton,  does,  they 
would  practice  it  a  good  deal  more.  Now,  that  is  a  gen- 
erality that  covers  the  whole  malicious  scheme  to  work 
out  of  the  tenderness  of  heart  and  the  tenderness  of  con- 
science of  Henry  "Ward  Beecher  that  moral  evidence,  as 
they  call  it,  that  he  must  have  done  something  very 
wrong  because  a  man  of  the  world,  a  gambler,  a  profli- 
gate, a  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  or  Sir  Marmaduke  would 
not  ruffle  a  feather  unless  it  was  three  years'  seduction 
and  two  years'  adultery.  Ah,  gentlemen,  a  sad  thing  it  is 
for  us,  in  this  civilization  of  ours,  if  you  are  to  argue  the 
magnitude  of  an  unknown  offense  by  the  reach  of  gener- 
ous, of  solicitous  chagrin,  regret,  remorse,  compunction 
that  wUl  flow  out  even  of  the  wounding  of  the  feelings, 
much  more  of  a  serious  Interference  with  the  domestic 
condition  and  with  the  external  prosperity  of  one  of  a 
family  standing  in  the  relations  of  friendship.  I  do  not 
know  how  to  express  my  scorn  of  this  reduction  of  human 
nature  to  coarse  and  vulgar  standards  by  which  the 
lowest  and  the  coarsest  are  to  impose  their  nature  upon 
all  the  grades  of  character,  of  conduct,  which  we  are 
striving,  by  education,  by  religion,  by  all  the  humanities, 
to  raise  higher  and  higher  toward  heaven.  Our 
system  is— and  how  wonderfully  successful  it  has 
"been— to  raise  a  mortal  to  the  skies ;  theirs 
to  drag  an  angel  down,  and  it  is  under  those 
two  oppos¥ig  forces  and  estimates  of  human 
character,  human  conduct,  and  human  destiny,  that  the 
division  takes  place  to-day  before  you.  Cowper,  who 
besides  being  the  most  instructive  and  religious  moral 
poet  of  our  language,  and  the  sweetest  composer  of  de- 
votional hymns  familiar  to  us  all,  has  the  credit  of  hav- 
ing written  the  wittiest,  the  most  laughter-moving  verses 
of  our  tongue  also ;  but,  besides  John  Gilpin,  he  also 
had  a  touch  of  humor  in  some  other  matters,  and  having 
occasion  to  exhibit  the  pranks  that  the  parishioners  prac- 
ticed upon  a  tithe-collecting  clergyman  in  England,  he 
concludes  the  coarse  jokes  of  the  farmers  and  the  miser- 


able sufferings  of  the  clergyman  in  this  pithy 
ment: 

"  Oh,  why  were  farmers  made  so  coarse, 

Or  parsons  made  so  fine ; 
A  kick  that  would  not  hurt  a  horse 
May  kill  a  sound  divine." 
Now,  gentlemen,  when  they  talk  of  agitation  of  mind 
and  feeling  and  compunction  they  are  dragging  you  down 
from  an  elevated,  purifled,  Christianized  frame  and  fabric 
of  character  and  mind  and  heart  to  compare  him  with  the 
groveling  and  coarse  sentiments  and  feelings  of  men 
without  character,  without  conduct,  without  aspiration, 
and  without  hope  in  the  world,  and  they  who  are  without 
hope  in  the  world  are  without  God  in  the  world. 


SOME  INSTANCES  OF  BAD  MEMORY. 

Now,  Mrs.  Mitchell  says  that  Mr.  Tilton  wa& 
back  and  forth  with  Mr.  Moulton  with  his  papers,  with  hi& 
interviews  with  his  wlEe  in  the  sick  chamber— for  the  wife 
could  nit  leave  it— against  her  remonstrances,  against 
her  fears,  against  really  her  duty,  but  what  could  she  do 
against  the  husband  and  the  husband's  friend  1  and  that 
the  result  of  all  that  was,  as  you  know,  the  procurement 
of  a  certain  paper  on  the  29th,  which  is  Thursday,  which 
was  used  on  the  30th,  which  is  Friday,  and  Bessie  Turnpr 
tells  you  the  same  thing,  and  the  distress  was  so  great 
that  Bessie  Turner,  seeing  it,  sank  down,  as  it  were,  and 
swooned  in  that  sick  room  at  these  terrible  demonstra- 
tions of  Mr.  Tilton's  lamentiags,  and  bewailed  the  woe  of 
that  family  thus  openly  declared,  and  Mr.  Tilton  tells 
you  himself  that  he  told  his  wife  of  his  troubles, 
whatever  they  were,  and  he  told  her  on  the 
30th,  before  the  30th,  before  the  29th,  when  he 
got  this  accusatory  note  from  her  (its  contents,  its 
character  I  shall  make  so  plain  to  you  that  you  won't 
really  feel  you  have  lost  anything  by  its  willful  destruc- 
tion), that  he  got  from  her  that  note  of  the  29th  as  the 
means  of  an  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher,  or  to  be  used  in 
an  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher  which  did  take  place  on 
the  30th,  because  she  was  distressed  in  mind— at  what  ^ 
That  these  troubles  with  Mr.  Bowen,  and  an  enhance- 
ment or  exaggeration  of  them  between  Mr.  Bowen  and 
Mr.  Beecher,  would  bring  into  display  or  action  this  con- 
nected trouble  in  her  house,  whatever  it  was— you  hare 
his  own  telling  of  it;  I  am.  only  telling  what  his  confes- 
sion on  his  part  is— that  his  troubles,  and  the  dangers, 
and  the  difficulties,  and  the  fears  and  anxieties  that  sur- 
rounded them  were  the  topic  of  conversation  between 
himself  and  his  wife,  as  indeed  Mrs.  Mitchell  has  plainly 
told  you;  and  what  does  Frank  Moulton  tell  you  about 
it?  He  thinks  he  was  there  once.  Not  more  than  once, 
I  think. 

Mr.  Shearman— Twice. 

Mr.  Evarts- And  ho  don't  know  whether  the  woman 
was  sick;  he  could  not  remember;  it  made  no  impression 
on  him ;  she  might  have  been  sick,  and,  very  likely,  wa» 


SUMMmG    UP  I 

rivjlr.  Well,  now,  gentlemen,  what  do  you  tliink  of  a 
man's  memory  that  could  go  into  that  sick  chamher,  and 
see  that  woman  lying  on  her  hed,  and  all  this  turmoil 
(for  the  nurse  says  he  was  in  the  chamber  over  and  over 
again)— all  this  turmoil  going  on,  conferring  with  Mr. 
Tilton  in  his  own  house  and  elsewhere,  cooperating, 
suggesting,  requiring,  demanding,  the  agency  of  the  wife 
to  be  invoked,  and  tell  you  coolly  that  a  note  that 
he  had  from  her  desiring  the  retm'n  of  this  important 
paper  he  cannot  remember;  thinks  she  must  have 
given  it  to  him,  but,  whether  "she  did  or  not,  he 
don't  know ;  and  he  don't  know  whether  she  w^as  sick 
or  not.  Well,  gentlemen,  there  is  nothing  like  command 
of  your  faculties ;  that  is  a  great  merit  in  a  man ;  and  as 
memory  is  one  of  the  faculties,  I  suppose  it  is  a  good 
thing  to  have  command  of  your  memory.  Memory,  Mr. 
Moulton  and  such  witnesses  think,  is  a  very  good  servant, 
but  a  very  bad  master.  You  may  remember  the  delicious 
wit  of  one  of  the  conversations  in  Sheridan's  "  School  for 
Scandal,"  where  that  bright  coterie  of  men  and  women 
that  never  overvalued  their  neighbors  were  commenting 
upon  Miss  Yermihon's  beauty,  and  Mrs.  Candor  says : 
"She  has  a  very  fresh  complexion."  "Yes,"  says  ia(??/ 
Teazle,  "  when  it  is  freshly  put  on."  "  Well,  but  then  it 
must  be  natural,"  says  Mrs.  Candor,  "  for  I  have  seen  it 
come  and  go."  "Yes,"  says  Lady  Teazle,  "  come  at  night 
and  go  in  the  morning."  "And,  what  is  more,"  says  Sir 
Benjamin,  "  her  maid  can  fetch  and  carry  it."  Well,  now, 
gentlemen,  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses  was  very  fresh 
when  it  was  freshly  put  on,  and  you  could  see  it  come 
and  go.  Three  hundred  and  five  things  we  wanted  to 
know  that  Mr.  Moulton  did  not  recollect :  and  I  don't 
think  it  would  be  too  much  to  say  that  you  could  some- 
times almost  see  Mr.  Tilton  fetch  and  carry  their  mem- 
ories. Ah!  gentlemen,  you  have  been  but  dull  witnesses 
of  these  witnesses  if  you  need  anybody  to  e55)lain  to 
you  the  character  and  the  system  of  their  testimony.  Not 
remember  that  the  woman  was  sick ;  not  feiitember 
whether  he  got  that  note  from  her  hands ;  nflt  re- 
member that  he  was  there  once;  not  remcaaber 
whether  she  was  in  bed,  or  not ;  whether  she  wroti^  it  in 
bed,  nor  any  of  these  little  items  of  proof!  They  didn't 
know  that  we  had  an  honest,  an  intelligent,  and  a  candid 
witness  who  told  what  she  knew  and  what  she  remem- 
bered, audit  fitted  with  every  proof  in  this  case;  whereas 
their  testimony  is  at  variance  in  all  these  shadowings  that 
they  attempted  to  detract  from  the  scenes  and  the  occur- 
rences of  that  week ;  at  variance  with  the  whole  moral 
force,  with  the  whole  necessary  aspect  of  this  situation. 

Suffice  it,  then,  gentlemen,  to  say  that  on  this  testimony 
you  know  and  feel  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  ruined,  and  he  knew 
it ;  that  he  so  acted,  and  that  all  his  movements  with  his 
wife,  and  toward  Mr.  Beecher,  were  governed  by  that 
knowledge,  and  were  contrived  in  order  to  repair  the  ruin 
or  build  anew  the  structure  after  it  were  hopelessly 
irrepaxable. 


F  MB,   EVARTS,  695 

Now,  there  is  one  thing  that  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moul- 
ton agree  about— that  during  all  this  preliminary  period 
the  only  thiag  in  the  way  of  accusation,  ia  the  way  of 
imputation,  in  the  way  of  detraction,  in  the  way  of 
calumny— the  only  thing  that  they  pretend  is  that  Mr. 
Tilton  had  given  birth  to  the  charge  of  improper  solicita- 
tions. So  it  was,  so  it  continued  up  to  the  interview  of 
the  30th  of  December.  So  it  was  after  that  interview, 
so  far  as  any  demonstration,  any  statement  to  outside 
people  was  concerned,  up  to  July,  1874,  when  it  was  de- 
termined to  change  it  into  a  charge  of  adultery.  But 
—I  do  not  insist  now  upon  a  course  of  reasoning  ap- 
plicable to  this  particular  proposition  that  I  have  just 
stated— but  during  this  period,  up  to  the  interview,  no- 
body pretends  that  anything  was  said  or  sug- 
gested except  a  charge  of  improper  solicitations. 
Well,  now  Mr.  Bowen  comes  ta,  a  witness  called  by  them- 
selves, and  says  they  called  him  for  the  purpose  of  show 
ing  that  Mr.  Beecher  didn't  take  part  in  the  movements, 
conclusions,  decisions  and  actions  on  his  part  in  regard  to 
Mr.  Tilton's  relations  to  The  Independent ;  I  will  leave 
that  for  the  moment.  I  take  him  now  on  his  statement 
that  he  told  Mr.  Tilton  on  the  26th  of  December,  in  that 
Christmas  interview  that  preceded  his  carrying  the  note 
to  Mr.  Beecher  for  him,  and  in  Mr.  Tilton's  name,  that  he 
should  sever  his  entire  connection  with  The  Independent, 
and  with  the  other  newspaper,  and  he  gives  as  a  reason 
why  Mr.  Beecher  didn't  influence  him  toward  that  de- 
cision, that  he  had  completely  decided  before  he  saw  Mr. 
Beecher.  Well,  if  you  take  the  story  for  its  own  working  one 
way,  you  must  let  it  work  the  other  also.  You  hdf ve  proved 
by  your  own  witnesses,  and  not  left  it  for  me  to  argue, 
from  Mr.  Tilton's  own  statement,  though  that  would  have 
been  enough,  what  occurred  between  him  and  Mr.  Bowen 
on  the  27th— you  have  proved  by  your  own  witness  that 
on  the  26th  of  December  you  knew  you  were  ruined  ;  that 
the  ax  was  to  faU ;  and  when  your  last  despaii'ing  effort 
to  change  the  attack  upon  Mr.  Beecher  and  save  yourself 
had  f  aUed,  as  you  knew  it  had  when  Mr.  Bowen  shook  his 
fist  in  your  face  on  the  27th,  you  knew  the  ax  had  fallen 
—absolutely  fallen. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

THE  WmSTED  SCANDAL. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  adjoum-^ 
ment. 

Mr.  Evarts— Another  element  important  to  be  brought 
into  view  as  bearing  upon  the  conscious  knowledge  and 
feeling  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  of  Mr.  Tilton  when  they  first 
come  into  one  another's  presence  on  the  30th,  grows  out 
of  the  real  gravity,  weight,  and  substance  of  these  impu- 
tations against  Mr.  Tilton's  morality,  which  had  come  to 
Mr.  Bo  wen's  knowledge,  and  were  made  the  occasion  of 
his  deliberation,  decision,  and  its  announcement  to  Mr. 
Tilton.  Now,  that  these  topics  and  incidents  included 
the  Winsted  affair,  and  the  dealing  with  a  womaa  in  the 


696 


THE   TILTON-BEEGHEB  TEIAL, 


oflSces  of  The  Independent  or  The  Brooklyn 
Union,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  upon  Mr.  Til- 
ton's  own  testimony.  His  mode  of  disposkig 
of  fhem  you  have  heard.  He  has  no  difficulty  in  brush- 
ing away,  while  it  merely  depends  upon  the  turn  of 
phrases,  either  these  or  any  other  facts ;  but  the  difficulty 
is  that  when  the  facts  return,  they  return  not  only  with 
the  force  of  proving  themselves,  but  of  discrediting  him. 
If  he  had  admitted  the  truth,  then  the  character  of  the 
facts  would  have  been  all  that  was  to  be  gathered  of  im- 
port from  their  evidence ;  but  if  he  denies  them,  if  he 
misrepresents  them,  and  they  are  facts  within  hie  own 
knowledge,  then  when  our  duty  brings  back  in  a  shape 
not  to  be  contradicted,  not  capable  of  being  disparaged, 
these  ugly  facts  that  he  had  swept  away  by  the  breath 
of  his  mouth,  then  the  facts  come  back,  proving  him  to 
have  been  false,  deliberately,  consciously  false.  And 
how  many  times  have  these  blows  to  be  given— not  to  the 
fabric  of  the  testimony,  but  to  the  character— the  in- 
grained character  of  the  witness,  and  the  plaintiff— before 
they  tell  to  its  destruction  1  Why,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
if  witnesses  are  to  be  believed  in  their  own  case,  under 
the  operation  of  the  bitterest  and  most  hateful  passions, 
by  their  confession,  that  ever  actuated  men,  they  must 
at  least  carry  a  clear  tablet  for  their  testimony,  and  not 
liave  it  disfigured  by  obliterations  and  double  texts. 

Now,  this  matter  about  the  charges  brought  to  Bowen's 
notice,  to  the  prejudice  of  Tilton,  were.regarded  bv  TUton 
and  his  counsel  as  important,  if  true,  and  grave,  on  their 
bearing  upon  what  becfame  a  principal  question  with 
them,  and  has  been  made  a  principal  question  with  them, 
and  which  I  shall  consider  on  its  own  merits,  and  that  is, 
as  bearing  on  the  question  of  whether  Mr.  Bow  en  owed 
Mr.  Tilton  any  money  for  suddenly  abrogating  the  con- 
tracts and  dismissiag  him.  The  contracts  provided  that 
at  his  will  he  might  dismiss  him  without  cause,  but  then 
upon  a  penalty  of  paying  six  months'  salary,  or  compen- 
sation, which  amounted  in  the  aggregate  for  the  two 
papers  to  $7,000.  Very  weU.  But  if  his  character  was 
unworthy,  his  conduct  unsuitable  to  the  position  of  an 
editor  of  a  religious  print,  if  his  personal  credit 
and  conduct  were  such  as  to  justify,  nay,  to  demand 
dismissal,  why  then  Bowen  was  discharged  by  law,  in 
conscience,  from  any  responsibility  whatever  for  the  sud- 
den and  summary  termination  of  the  relation.  And  that 
was  the  situation.  Bowen  understood  it  so.  Bowen 
never  departed  from  that  position  until,  under  certain  in- 
fluences which  attended  the  final  arbitration  and  the 
"Tripartite  Agreement,"  he  surrendered  that  position 
and  closed  at  once  the  pecuniary  and  the  other  controver- 
sies in  which  he  had  become  involved.  "Well,  we  have, 
then,  as  a  sample  of  these  stories,  thus  to  be  tested 
whether  there  w»a8  solidity  in  them,  this  Winsted  affair, 
which  I  shall  spend  but  a  very  few  moments  upon.  But 
in  it  you  have  not  only  evidence  of  the  gravity  of  the  im- 
putations, but  you  have  evidence  of  the  lightness  with 


which  Mr,  Tilton'8  oath   deals  with  such  questloni 

It  was  charged  that,  m  public  rumor,  publio 
fame,  at  Winsted,  Mr.  Tilton's  conduct  with  a 
lady  there  on  the  occasion  of  his  delivering  hia 
lecture,  had  been  unseemly,  immoral,  and  profligate. 
Very  well.  Now,  he  does  not  prove  that  it  was  ;  that  I 
will  agree  ;  but  the  rumor  was  of  that  kind.  Mr.  Tilton 
knew  everything  that  had  occurred.  What  did  he  do 
about  it  t  Nothing  in  it ;  a  mere  child— a  sick  child  at 
that— put  upon  him  by  his  wife  because  she  could  not  go, 
and  this  girl  would  like  to  go,  and  that  it  was  a  shameful, 
scurrilous  calumny  against  him  and  against  her,  and  had 
no  real  foundation.  Well,  it  occurred  toward  the  end,  I 
think,  of  December,  1869,  and  it  had  been  sharp  enough 
in  its  impression  to  occasion  the  writing  of  a  letter  of  in- 
quiry to  him  while  it  was  fresh,  and  he  had  written  an 
answer,  and  that  answer  we  have,  and  that  answer 
was  written,  I  think,  on  the  9th  or  10th,  or 
8th,  of  January,  1870.  There  had  been  a  casual 
misdating  of  it,  you  will  remember—"  1869," 
by  that  common  error  by  which,  at  the  first  of 
January  of  a  new  year,  we  are  very  apt  to  put  the  date  of 
the  olf  year.  Well,  that  helped  him  a  little  while.  He 
said  that  in  1870  this  Winsted  affair,  the  knowledge  of 
which  had  been  thus  brought  to  IVIr.  Bowen's  attention, 
was  an  old  affair  ;  it  had  happened  years  before  ;  there 
was  nothing  in  it ;  a  little  school  girl,  young.  Well,  when 
I  got  hold  of  this  letter,  that  "  1869."  you  know,  helped 
him  a  little.  If  this  was  written  January,  1869,  then  It 
would  have  been  December,  1868,  that  it  happened ;  but 
I  probed  the  matter  and  got  from  him,  finally,  by  refer- 
ence to  the  memoranda  of  engagements,  I  having  the 
means  always  of  holding  him  to  the  truth,  that  that  letter 
of  his  was  written  on  the  8th  of  January,  1870,  and  with- 
in two  or  three  weeks  after  the  transaction  occurred; 
and  in  that  letter  he  represents  this  little  bit  of  a  girl  as 
shockingly  disproportionate  in  size  to  the  magnitude  of 
this  scandal,  and  that  if  there  had  been  anything 
observed.  It  must  have  been  an  intrusion ;  disgrace- 
ful to  anybody  that  was  witness  to  any  such  fact 
Well,  if  Mr.  Tilton  had  told  the  story  as  it  was,  or  reason- 
ably so,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  our  gomg 
into  it  as  a  matter  of  fact.  Its  only  importance  to  us  was 
as  an  element,  substantial  in  its  character,  in  Mr.  Bow- 
en's judgment,  and  his  action,  and  as  showing  that  Bowen 
had  solid  grounds  for  his  opinions,  and,  in  his  opinion  at 
least,  for  the  course  he  took  with  Mr.  Tilton,  and  If  so, 
that  he  did  not  owe  him  the  $7,000,  and  that  as  to  Its 
being  an  honest  debt,  payable,  demandable  on  its  own 
merits,  and  finally  collected  on  its  own  merits,  that  there 
was  nothing  in  thatldea,  that  it  was  got  by  that  outside 
pressure  which  may  not  be  blackmail,  but  which  is  utterly 
disreputable,  utterly  contemptible,  and  which  the 
judgment  of  this  community,  in  Its  length  and  its  breadth 
— I  mean  not  merely  of  these  great  cities  but  of  this  whole 
great  country  of  ours— pronounces  at  onoe  as  the  vilest 


STTMMIJSG   UP  1 

mode  of  extorting  money,  from  the  fears  of  reputable 
people  against  public  defamation,  and  the  less  there  is  of 
fact  and  truth  in  the  supposed  charges,  the  more  sensi- 
tive is  the  unsullied  repute  against  this  public  detraction. 
And  it  was  not  desirable  that  IMr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton 
should  have  it  proved  against  them  that  they  extracted 
and  coerced  the  psfrment  of  money  from  Bowen  under 
the  threat,  "unless  you  pay  I  publish  these  scandals," 
and  therefore  they  desired  to  make  it  appear  that  BoTven 
had  no  defense,  and  kneV  he  had  no  defense,  and  had 
always  admitted  he  had  no  defense.  Well,  they  made 
very  little  progress  in  that,  for  Tiltou  and  :Moulton  both 
stated  to  you  thatBowen  said  he  didn't  owe  anything. 
Now,  we  are  obliged  to  go  into  this  matter  of  the  Win- 
fited  affair,  disagreeable  to  all,  and  how  does  it  turn  out  ? 
Why,  that  this  lady  was  of  the  age  of  some  17  or  18. 
Mr.  Tracy— Twenty-two. 

Mr.  Evarts — Twenty-two  years,  weighed  150  pounds  or 
80,  people  took  her  for  27  or  28,  twice  as  large  as  Mrs.  Til- 
ton,  it  was  stated;  and  so  the  idea  of  the  little  sick  school- 
girl that  could  not  support  the  scandal,  and  that  it  must 
break  down  therefore  of  its  own  weight,  wholly  disap- 
pears. Well,  now,  gentlemen,  did  n't  he  know  about 
that  ?  And  yet  the  letter  he  wrote  to  Hastings,  and  the 
story  he  told,  was  a  very  different  matter  from  this  ;  and 
then  the  disclosure  of  the  innocent— if  they  be  Innocent- 
relations  that  he  held  to  this  young  woman  in  the  pri- 
vacy of  the  room  is  such  as  may  make  no  impression  on 
your  mind,  perhaps,  of  impropriety  ;  and  the  shameless- 
ness  with  which  he  disclosed  it,  and  takes  virtue  to  him- 
self for  his  want  of  sensitiveness  on  its  impro- 
priety, may  make  no  impression  upon  you ;  but 
I  think  this  plaintiff  and  this  cause  would  give 
all  the  evidence  tfeat  they  have  given  before  you 
In  five  months,  if  they  could  show  a  joui-ney  between 
Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  up  to  Winsted,  and  the  oc- 
cupation of  one  room,  reading  Milton,  and  lying  on  the 
flame  bed,  in  half  undress,  and  so  repeatedly  seen  and 
disclosed  and  exposed  by  witnesses,  that  no  man  can 
question  either  the  intelligence,  the  integrity,  or  the  oan- 
dor  of.  They  are  no  parties  to  this  litigation.  They  are 
eensible,  respectable  business  men  of  Winsted,  and  you 
do  not  sympathize  with  cross-examinations  that  bring 
■out  no  disreputable  facts,  but  are  disreputable  questions 
when  there  is  no  fact  to  justify  them.  You  would  not 
like  it  if  you  went  to  Winsted  or  to  Boston,  to  have  in- 
quiries of  injurious  imputation  that  jurymen  expect  to 
harbor  on  the  idea  that  there  had  been  something  of  that 
Wnd,  or  counsel  would  not  ask  the  question. 
No ;  jurymen  do  not  sympathize  with  that  mode  of  dis- 
paraging witnesses,  that  puts  the  depreciation  in  the 
question  and  misses  it  in  the  answer.  Now,  there  is  noth- 
ing in  it,  perhaps,  and  I  have  not  the  least  desire,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  to  carry  any  imputation  of  a  serious 
character  in  regard  to  this  young  person,  but  I  do  put  it 
to  you  that  tlie  circumstances  iustified  the  rumor,  justl- 


Y  ME.   EYARTS.  697 

fled  the  discredit  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  that  his  oaths  on  the 
subject  show  him  to  be  unworthy  of  credit  in  any  matter 
that  he  chooses  to  put  his  own  interpretation  and  his  own 
evidence  upon. 

THE  WRITING  AND  PRESENTATION  OF  THE 
RESIGNATION  LETTER. 
Now  we  come  to  the  Bowen  and  Beecher  in- 
terview, so  far  as  I  have  not  already  disposed  of  it,  in  its 
relevancy  and  application  to  the  principal  issue  here, 
and  which  I  now  ask  some  little  attention  to.  Mr. 
Beecher  is  the  sole  witness  to  that  interview,  up  to  the 
point  of  the  introduction  of  the  rebuttal  evidence  of  the 
plaintiff,  which  brings  Mr.  Bowen  on  the  stand.  Now, 
see  the  attitude  in  which  Mr.  Tilton  places  himself  in  re- 
gard to  that  missive,  and  see  the  judgment  that  he  ex- 
poses himself  to,  when  the  only  conclusion  in  regard  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  to  affect  him,  is  not  the  sending  or  the 
forging  of  the  weapon,  but  the  manner  in  which  he 
receives  it.  Tilton  tells  you  that  when  ^ir.  Bowen  was 
running  on  with  this  tirade  against  hun,  somehow  or 
other  it  became  appropriate  for  himself  to  introduce  an 
insinuation  or  an  accusation  against  Mr.  Beecher  in  re- 
spect to  his  own,  Mr.  Tilton's,  family,  and  that  that  accu- 
sation was  not  in  the  least  discreditable  to  his  wife,  or 
his  children's  fame,  but  an  accusation  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  to  wit :  that  IVIr.  Beecher  had  made  improper 
advances  or  improper  proposals  to  his  (Mr.  Tilton's)  wife; 
that  thereupon  Mr.  Bowen,  either  then  giving,  or  before 
that  having  given  the  catalogue  of  Mr.  Beecher's  profli- 
gacy, from  Indianapolis  down,  the  terror  and  the  danger 
that  he  was  to  all  the  people  of  Brooklyn,  Mr.  Tilton's 
quite  moderate  suggestion  that  he  had  been  guilty  of 
these  improper  advances,  immediately  eclipsed,  in 
Bowen's  mind,  all  this  horrible  scheme  and  system  of 
profligacy  that  he  had  been  enlarging  upon;  Bowen 
thought,  no  doubt,  to  himself :  "  Now,  here  is  something 
that  looks  as  if  there  was  something  to  it.  I  have  been 
dealing  in  this  cloudy  calumny  and  nobody  has  heeded 
what  I  said ;  but  really,  now,  this  young  man— he  has 
got  something  that  is  not  too  incredible,  and  that  as  he 
gives  his  own  wife  as  the  obiect,  to  be  sure,  saving  her 
innocence,  his  credit,  and  the  fame  of  his  children— really 
now  there  is  something.  It  is  your  duty,  Mr.  Tilton,  to 
arrest  this  long  career  of  profligacy,  to  stem  this  tide  of 
adultery,  to  restrict  this  wide-spreading  seduction.  You 
have  got  a  fact.  Use  it."  *'  WeU,  but  Mr.  Bowen,  you 
have  been  talking  about  facts  that  were  a  thousand  times 
as  great  as  this  little  fact  of  mine.  Why  don't  you  use 
some  of  your  facts  ?"  "  Oh,  a  sense  of  honor  restrains  me. 
Mr.  Beecher  and  I  have  oome  to  a  settlement,  and  all 
things  are  ended  between  us."  Why  hadn't  he  thought 
of  that  sense  of  honor  before  he  told  Mr.  Tilton  of  those 
infamous  aspersions  of  Mr.  Beecher  ?  I  think  his  sense 
of  honor  comes  and  goes,  and  you  can  see  people  fetch 
and  carry  it.  But  anyhow,  he  did,  and  that  was  enougU 


698  THE  TILTON'BI 

for  Tilton,  beoanse  TUton  saw  the  point  of  lionor  at  once. 
At  once  Bowen  recoiled.  "  I  -will  not  ask  you  to  be 
guilty  of  a  breach  of  honor ;  far  be  it  from  me."  "  How 
shall  we  arrange  it  then  ? "  "Why,  you  open  the  mat- 
ter by  this  insinuation  about  your  wife,  and  that  will 
open  the  question  of  Beecher's  moral  character  in  gen- 
eral, and  then  I  shall  be  relieved  upon  the  point 
of  honor,  and  I  will  back  you  up."  Well, 
now,  was  there  ever  a  more  fitly  adjusted  con- 
trivance between  two  "men  of  honor"  to  maintain 
their  honor?  and  yet,  when  they  tell  you  their  own 
story  of  it,  they  wonder  that  people  d^n't  think  it  as  hon- 
orable as  it  seemed  to  them.  [Laughter.]  "  Now,"  says 
Bowen,  "you  write  a  letter,  an  open  letter,  and  I  will 
carry  it;"  and,  as  Tilton  says,  it  was  their  joint  act— 
their  joint  act.  Said  I  to  Mr.  Tilton,  ""^Tiat  was  your 
object?  What  did  you  expect  to  accomplish?"  "I  ex- 
pected," said  he—"  My  object  was,  to  strike  him  to  the 
heart!  I  expected  to  accomplish  his  expulsion  from  his 
church  and  from  Brooklyn  within  twelve  hours."  Bowen 
said,  "  He  can't  stay  twelve  hours  under  that  letter. 
Put  in,"  says  Bowen,  "  nothing  definite ;  but  put  in,  '  for 
reasons  explicitly  known  to  him ;' "  and  they  altered  the 
draft  and  put  that  in— an  appeal  to  Mr.  Beecher's  con- 
sciousness, hoping  that  when  he  saw  "  Theodore  Tilton  " 
signed  to  that,  he  would  pack  up  his  trunk  and  go.  Well, 
we  are  coming  nearer  to  the  proceedings  of  the 
Ku-Klux  than  we  ever  expected  to  be  in  these  civilized 
communities.  "  Put  in,"  says  Bowen,  "  *  leave  your  pul- 
pit, quit  the  editing  of  The  Ghristian  Vnion.' "  "  Well, 
no,"  says  Tilton,  "  we  have  got  enough  in."  Now,  Bowen 
did  not  think  there  was  enough  in,  provided  Beecher  was 
not  driven  out  of  the  rival  newspaper  ;  but  still,  I  sup- 
pose he  concluded  that  if  he  left  Plymouth  Church,  and 
left  Brooklyn,  probably  he  would  not  continue  to  edit 
The  Christian  Union.  Now,  now,  the  missive  is  forged  ; 
now  the  messenger  is  charged ;  and  now  Bowen,  if  he  has 
not  got  Beecher,  has  got  Tilton— got  him,  got  him—hody 
and  soul.  He  has  got,  under  his  signature,  a  bold,  de- 
fiant, blackmail  letter  against  Mr.  Beecher;  and,  although 
the  space  between  Bowen's  house  and  Beecher's  house  is 
not  very  long,  yet  there  was  time  eno^^gh  to  lead  Bowen 
to  reflect  that  perhaps  it  would  be  as  well  to  seal  up  that 
letter  and  not  carry  it  open ;  and  he  did  so.  We  got  that 
much  of  truth,  at  least,  out  of  Bowen's  lips  and  from 
his  tongue,  the  moisture  that  closed  that  letter. 
That  is  plain;  there  is  no  denying  that.  Well,  Bowen 
goes  there  and  hands  it  to  Beecher.  Beecher  opened  it, 
and  read  it,  and  he  did  not  fall  down  dead,  but,  on  his 
own  view  of  it,  tunied  to  Bowen  and  said,  "  Why,  this  is 
sheer  insanity;  the  man  is  crazy."  That  was  enough 
for  Bowen.  He  knew  that  that  appeal,  "  for  reasons  ex- 
plicitly known  to  yourself,"  did  not  carry  any  conscious- 
ness to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  that  what  Tilton  had  told  him 
had  disappeared  like  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision ;  and 
then  he  felt,  "  I  had  Tilton  before ;  now,  I  have  got  him 


ECHEU  TEIAL. 

with  the  evidence  that  his  charge  is  false  ;  for  I  have  de- 
livered it  to  the  man  against  whom  it  came  as  suddenly  as 
the  stroke  of  the  lightning  ;  I  know  he  was  unprepared,- 
I  know  now  that  this  was  an  arrogant,  a  grave,  a  delibe- 
rate challenge  to  him,  which,  if  the  reasons  '  explicitly 
known  to  himself  that  were  suggested  by  TUton  to  me 
had  existed,  would  have  immediately  brought  some  con- 
fusion to  the  face,  some  tremor  to  the  lips,  some  per- 
plexity to  the  understanding."  And  is  it  not  so  ?  If  you, 
or  you,  Sir,  knew  that  you  had  beSn  living  in  adultery  for 
sixteen  months  with  Theodore  Tilton's  wife,,  and  some- 
body suddenly  brought  you  a  letter  written  and  signed 
by  the  husband,  appealing  to  your  consciousness  of  some 
relation  to  him  that  should  suggest  and  justify 
that  demand,  don't  you  think  that  it  would  make 
some  impression  on  you  ?  All  the  evidence  shows, 
and  it  is  a  part  of  the  plaintifTs  case,  that  no  intimation, 
whatever,  proceeding  from  Mrs.  Tilton,  or  proceeding 
from  Mr  Tilton,  had  ever  brought  to  Mr.  Beecher's 
knowledge  the  fact  that  this  terrible  guilt,  prolonged, 
persistent,  inexplicable,  had  become  known  to  the  in- 
jured husband ;  and  Bowen  who  had  been  only  that  very 
day  unrolling  to  Tilton  the  enormity  of  Beecher's  profli- 
gacy and  the  Christian  duty  of  arresting  it,  and  had 
siezed  upon  Tilton's  suggestion  that  he  at  least  had  an  ef- 
fort to  be  profligate  to  charge  against  Beecher— seized  it 
and  carried  it  there,  looked  at  Mr.  Beecher  as  he 
r?ad  the  letter,  heard  his  answer,  and  at  once 
concluded:  "Whatever  Mrs.  Tilton  may  have 
said  to  Mr.  Tilton,  whatever  jealousy  may  have  in- 
vented, or  hatred  magnified  in  Tilton's  breast,  there  is 
nothing  in  Beecher's  consciousness  that  makes  the  color 
come  or  go  in  his  open  countenance,  that  is  coursed  as 
Immediately  by  every  teU-tale  flow  of  blood  as  a  young 
maiden's  in  the  flush  of  health.  Ah  !  Mr.  Bowen  has  not 
lived  in  vain.  He  knows  something  about  false  charges ; 
he  has  seen  the  ways  of  this  wicked  world ;  and  he  saw 
that  instead  of  that  charge  relieving  him  of  the  rivalry 
of  The  Christian  Union  or  crushing  the  antagonism  of 
Beecher  to  him  or  to  Tilton,  all  that  had  happened  was 
that  Beecher  was  in  possession  of  this  conclusive  proof  ol 
Mr.  Tilton's  enmity  and  malignity.  Ah  1  Bowen  must 
have  rubbed  the  hands  of  his  imderstanding  and  chuckled 
over  his  forethought  in  having  closed  that  letter  ;  for  if 
it  had  remained  unclosed,  Mr.  Beecher  would  have  had 
the  same  evidence  against  him,  Bowen,  that  he  had 
against  Tilton.  Now,  Bowen  says  that  Mr.  Beecher 
treated  it,  so  far  as  any  spont£tneous  expression  of 
his,  Beecher's,  own  went,  even  more  contemptuously 
than  by  this  statement  which  he  made  that  the  man  was 
crazy.  Bowen  says  that  he  put  it  Into  his  pocket,  and  did 
not  show  anything  at  all,  and  that  Bowen  then  said  to 
him,  "Well,  what  do  you.  say  about  that  letter?"  and 
then  Mr.  Beecher  said,  "  Why,  this  is  sheer  Insanity ;  the 
man  is  crazy."  I  think  Mr.  Bowen  does  his  sagacity  an 
injustice.  I  think  the  same  wit  that  closed  the  letter 


iSUMm:sG  Tjp  1 

•wirti  his  moutli  would  not  open  it  also  vrttli  Ms  moutli,  or 
EhoTT  any  int-erest  In  it,  or  tliat  lie  Tvas  a  messenger  tliat 
■?ras  expected  to  bring  an  answer  ;  and  I  ttiink  Mr. 
Beeclier's  statement,  therefore,  is  more  conformable  to 
tlie  probabilities  and  to  tbe  cbaracter  of  Bowen. 

Now,  gentlemen,  tbese  little  differences  in  tlie  memory 
of  witnesses  come  to  notbing.  Tbe  real  question  was, 
when  you  bad  beard  from  Mr.  Beecber  tbat  narrative, 
"wbeu  Mr.  Bowen  comes,  brougbt  in  bere  to  speak  to  tbe 
same  interview — tbe  real  guestion  was,  and  you  watcbed 
for  it,  and  we  on  our  side  watcbed  for  it— wbetber  be 
sbould  put  a  different  complexion  upon  tbe  transaction, 
wbetber  be  would  sbow  confusion  on  Mr.  Beecber's  part, 
tremor,  solicitude,  anxiety,  entreaty ;  and  be  did  not.  He 
said  Mr.  Beecber  treated  it  witb  contempt,  sbowed  no 
solicimde.  Bowen  does  not  remember  tbat  be  said 
to  Mr.  Beecber  wben  Mr.  Beecber  said  tbis 
spontaneously,  "Ob,  I  don't  know  anytbing  about 
tbe  letter;  I  only  brougbt  it  bere,"  Ab!  but  gen- 
tlemen tbat  was  tbe  very  attitude  be  bad  pre- 
pared for  bimself  by  closing  tbe  letter,  tbat  very  atti- 
tude, to  be  able  to  say,  I  dou't  know  auytbiug  about  tbe 
letter.  Tbat  Is  all  be  bad  done  it  for;  and  rely  upon  it, 
be  preserved  tbat  advantage  after  be  bad  seen  tbe  way 
tbe  lion  received  tbe  insult  of  a  less  noltle  animal.  You 
may  rely  upon  it  tbat  Bowen,  wbo  meant  to  keep  out  of 
tbe  reacb  of  tbe  lion's  paw,  and  not  to  bave  bis  precious 
bead  crusbed  i>etween  tbe  lion's  jaws,  didn't  tbink  it 
woitb  bis  wbile  to  thrust  it  in  wben  be  saw  tbat  be  bad 
kept  it  out,  and  tbat  tbe  lion  was  by  no  means  tame.  Ab ! 
Mr.  Bowen!  IMr.  Bo^.  ea  1  Men  must  be  judged  by  their 
character;  and  whatever  uncertainties  there  may 
be  about  yours,  they  do  not  touch  your  calcu- 
lations about  your  safety  and  advantage,  that  you  dis- 
played hereby  youi-  caution  in  not  carrying  an  open  let- 
ter. Then  Mr.  Beecber,  according  to  Bowen,  as  would  be 
yery natural— Bowen  does  not  say  be  told  him  he  knew 
what  was  in  tbe  letter,  or  had  any  suspicion  of  it,  or 
was  any  party  to  it,  but  he  thought  he  bad  to  move  Mr. 
Beecberto  talk  about  that  letter.  TVeU,  be  admits  that 
Mr.  Beecber  said  to  bim  on  tbat  motion  of  bis  the  same 
thing  that  Mr.  Beecber  testifies  tbat  be  said  spon- 
taneously ;  tbat  they  agree  about.  But  then  Mr.  Beecber 
said,  according  to  Bowen  (and  here  there  does  not  seem 
to  be  any  very  particular  difference)— Mr.  Beecber  said, 
"Well,  Sir,  do  you  come  bere  as  a  friend,  or 
how  do  you  come?"  Did  that  look  as  if  Mr. 
Beecber  cared  how  he  camel  But  he  wanted 
to  know  how  he  came.  "Oh!"  says  Bowen, 
"  as  a  friend ;  oh,  as  a  friend  by  all  means !"  jLaugbter.] 
Now,  if  Mr.  Beecber  could  have  heard  the  conversation 
between  Triton  and  Bowen  about  an  hour  before,  that 
took  place  in  Bowen's  parlor,  what  would  he  have 
thought  of  Bowen  ?  You  have  heard  them  both.  Well, 
the  trouble  about  this  conference  at  whicli  only  two  are 
present,  and  both  of  the  same  way  of  thinking,  is,  that 


Y  MB.   EYABTS,  699 

when  youbaTe  too  many  of  them,  and  you  are  the  con- 
stant party,  with  changing  partners,  and  you  profess  to 
be  of  the  same  way  of  thinking  all  tbe  wbile  witb  each 
partner  that  you  are  with,  wben  you  get  them 
together,  that  is  tha  trouble,  ah,  that  is  the 
nitro-glycerine  tbat  blows  up  tbe  whole  concenio 
Innocent,  harmless  acids  and  alkalies,  oils  and  powders, 
if  you  will  only  keep  them  apart ;  but  if  you  get  them 
together  they  do  play  tbe  mischief  witb  the  best  laid 
foundations  and  tbe  most  honorable  characters.  [Laugh- 
ter.] Only  tbi*k  of  it.  Bowen,  that  with  TUton  an  hour 
before  bad  been  so  sensitive  to  his  own,  Bowen's  lionor, 
tbat  be  could  not  suggest  anything,  move  anything,  to- 
wards arraigning  Mr.  Beecber,  but  said  that  Tilton  might 
and  he  would  back  him  up,  and  they  together  would 
drive  Beecber  out  in  twelve  hours  ;  he  beards  tbe  lion  in 
bis  den  and  the  Hon  says  to  him,  "  Sir,  how  do  you  come 
herel  Do  you  come  as  my  friend?"  "Ob,  oertainly, 
certainly;"  and  wbile  he  was  not  willing  to  admit,  as 
Mr.  Beecber  bad  stated,  that  he  grew  more  and 
more  friendly  all  through  the  interview,  yet  he 
admits  tbat  it  began  friendly,  ended  friendly, 
continued  friendly,  and  the  only  reason  it  didn't  grow 
was  that  it  was  without  variation  pr  shadow  of  turning. 

Well,  what  a  pity  it  is,  at  several  times  during  the  long, 
tortuous  course  of  these  slimy  calumnies,  these  con- 
temptible hatreds,  that  you  could  not  have  got  three  or 
four  of  these  people  together,  and  bad  them  put  their  in- 
terviews together.  Tbat  that  is  the  miscalculation 
about  the  resom^ces  of  the  Divine  provision  for  the  ad- 
ministi-ation  of  justice  among  men,  forming  a  part  of  the 
moral  government  of  the  world.  These  two  conspirators, 
Moulton  and  Tilton,  Bowen  and  Tilton.  wben  they  are 
together,  think  that  no  eye  overlooks  their 
machinations  and  no  ear  ov^rheai's  their  plot- 
tings  ;  as  if  human  justice  and  the  moral 
government  of  the  world  had  no  other  power  oi 
overseeing  and  of  overhearing  than  tbat  the  particular 
privacy  in  which  tbey  are  dealing.  Sliallow,  ignorant, 
foolish  calculations  thus  rebuked  by  the  great  prophet 
and  poet  of  the  Hebrews,  "Ye  fools,  when  will  ye  be 
wise  ?  He  tbat  planted  tbe  ear,  shall  he  not  hear  1  He 
that  formed  the  eye,  shall  not  be  see  ?"  Here,  in  this 
little  juxtaposition  of  these  two  interviews — within  an 
hour  of  each  other— between  Tilton  and  Bowen,  and 
Bowen  and  Beecber,  the  resources,  easy  resources  of  that 
iustice  which  is  but  a  part  of  the  moral  government  of 
the  world,  shows  you  that  men  can  be  overheard,  and 
their  privacy  can  be  penetrated  by  the  sight,  when  they 
tbiok  that  they  are  alone. 

CONSEQUEJs^CES  OF  THE  EESIGNATION 
LETTER. 

Now,  if  nothing  had  happened  to  Beecher 
from  the  transaction  of  the  26th  of  December,  a  good 
deal  had  happened  to  Bowen  and  a  good  deal  to  Tilton. 


700  THE  TILTON-BJ 

Bo  wen  saw  tlie  necessity  of  Ms  rapid  retreat  from  his 
eompanionsMp  with  Tilton,  and  lie  left  no  doubt  in 
Tilcon's  mind  of  wliat  tlie  result  of  tlie  interview  between 
Bowen  and  Beecher  was,  nor  of  wbat  Ms,  Tilton's,  fate  at 
Bowen's  hands  was  to  be.  We  liave  a  very  grapliic  de- 
scription of  it  by  Mr.  Tilton,  and  Mr.  Bowen  was  not 
called  upon  to  contradict  it  by  our  learned  friends.  Now, 
tlie  staple  of  tbe  further  conversation  between  Bowen 
and  Beecher  was  this.  Bowen  was  slow  to  remember  it, 
but  it  all  came.  There  is  not  a  word  wanting  in  his 
cross-examination  and  direct  examination  together 
to  corroborate  and  sustain  every  word  of  Mr. 
Beeoher's  testimony  in  regard  to  that  interview; 
and  I  call  upon  you  to  notice  it,  not  merely  because  it 
gives  an  absolute  confirmation  of  the  spirit  and  charac- 
ter of  the  interview,  bat  because  it  corroborates  the 
strength  and  acoui-acy  of  Mr.  Beecher's  memory.  Mr. 
Beecher  has  displayed  to  you  the  conversation  about  Mr. 
Tilton's  profligacy,  or  the  rumors  of  it,  as  they  had  come 
to  Bowen,  that  he  had  heard  nothing  of  them— Bowen 
hadn't— until  after  he  had  deposed  Tilton  from  the  editor- 
ship of  The  Independent ;  that  then  they  came  in,  came 
like  an  avalanche,  came  from  here  and  there,  from  the 
West  and  from  the  North,  and  that  they  were  horrible  ; 
and  then  that  he,  Mr.  Beecher,  said,  "  Well,  I  have  heard 
about  Mr.  Tilton  myself,"  and  witMn  a  very  short 
time,  Bowen  says  that  Beecher  asked  him  if  he 
knew  anything  about  any  troubles  in  Mr.  Tilton's  family. 
"  No,"  says  Bowen,  "  no  ;  I  have  heard  nothing  of  any 
consequence  about  any  troubles  in  his  family."  Well,  I 
am  sure  I  don't  know  that  he  had.  I  have  nothing  but 
Mr.  Tilton's  word  for  it  that  he  told  him  anything 
against  Mr.  Beecher  in  their  conversation.  Mr.  Bowen, 
on  a  further  direct  examination  by  his  own  side  of  the 
case,  the  side  that  called  him,  is  made  to  answer  that  at 
the  time  of  the  signing  of  the  "  Tripartite  Agreement  " 
he  had  never  heard  of  any  imputations  against  Mr. 
Beecher  in  respect  to  Mr.  Tilton's  family.  That  is  in 
1872.  He  says  that  he  never  had  heard  that  Mr.  Tilton 
had  made  any  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher.  They  had  an 
object  in  asking  him  that  question,  and  he  favored  that 
object  by  Ms  answer ;  but  the  difSculty  is  that  when  you 
get  an  answer  into  a  case  you  cannot  get  it  out,  and  it  is 
competent  for  both  sides  to  comment  upon  it. 
Now,  then,  Mr.  Beecher  proceeded  to  tell  him  about  the 
flight  of  Mrs.  Tilton  from  her  husband's  roof ;  the  resort 
to  her  mother,  Mrs.  Morse  ;  their  joint  resort  to  him  and 
Mtb.  Beecher,  and  the  advice  and  the  grounds  of  the 
application,  and  of  the  flight  of  the  wife,  the  Bessie  Tur- 
ner matter,  other  intrigues  with  ladies  of  more  distinc- 
tion and  credit,  and  Mr  Beecher  concurred  in  the  opiaion 
of  Mr.  Bowen  that  it  would  not  do  to  have  Mr.  Tilton 
at  all  connected  with  The  Independent.  Now,  the  point 
about  Mr.  Bowen  is  that  he  had  already  made  up  Ms 
mind  the  day  before,  and  so  all  these  statements  of  Mr. 
Beecher,   which  he  admits  were  made  to  him,  cou- 


EGREB  TRIAL. 

curred  in  that  view,  tended  to  that  result,  really 

produced  no  impression  upon  him,  because  Ms  mind, 
self -poised,  had  already  determined  it.  But  he  agreed  on  a 
question  I  put  him  that  there  was  nothing  in  what  Mr. 
Beecher  said  that  tended  to  unsettle  his  decision,  and  he 
had  said,  too,  that  although  he  had  substantially  made 
up  Ms  mind,  and  had  substantially  informed  Mr.  Tilton 
on  the  26th  of  December  that  he  was  going  to  discharge 
him,  yet  he  had  not  absolutely.  And  then,  in  the  next 
column  he  said  that  he  had,  absolutely,  and  so  you  have 
those  insensible  vibrations  of  a  great  mind  between  abso- 
lute and  semi-absolute  determination.  Why,  the  touch  of  a 
chOd  will  rock  a  great  bowlder  that  is  poised  in  that  way, 
and  I  should  think  that  what  Mr.  Beecher  said  might 
tend  to  the  absolute,  and  dispose  of  the  semi-absolute 
determination.  Well,  gentlemen,  you  all  understand  that 
interview.  It  was  of  the  kind  that  Br.  Beecher  states, 
and  Mr.  Bowen  absolutely  confirms  it.  We  have  got 
into  a  curious  question  of  where  the  conversa- 
tion took  place,  and  which  is  right  about  that, 
an  unimportant  consideration,  as  there  is  an  entire 
agreement  that  the  nature  of  the  interview  was  that  Mr. 
Beecher  did  not  care  that  [snapping  his  fingers]  for  the 
missive,  and  showed  it.  Mr.  Bowen  cared  everytmng 
for  having  it  appear  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
missive,  and  Mr.  Bowen  was  fi'iendly,  and  friendly,  and 
friendly,  and  glad  to  find  that  if  he  had  not  succeeded  in 
triumphing  over  Mr.  Beecher,  he  had  at  least  success- 
fully concealed  from  him  the  deadly  enmity  and  hatred 
that  he  felt  for  him,  and  he  came  back  rubbing  his  hands 
again,  figiuatively,  to  Mr.  Eggleston,  who  was  waiting 
for  him,  and  said,  "  Mr.  Beecher  is  delighted  that  Mr. 
Tilton  is  discharged  " — is,  in  the  present  tense.  "  And  he 
is  your  friend,  and  my  friend,  and  he  has  told  me 
stories  about  Tilton horrible  stories,"  Eggleston 
says — "  and  our  compact,  and  our  amity  is  complete." 

Well,  gentlemen,  I  don't  know  whether  Tilton  haa 
misrepresented  Bowen  in  that  previous  interview 
between  himself  and  Mr.  Bowen,  or  not,  and  I  don't 
know  that  we  ever  shall  know,  for  by  the 
very  terms  of  the  proposition  it  is  oMy  the  statements  of 
the  two  about  each  other  that  we  shall  ever  get  at.  Mr. 
Tilton's  statement  of  the  interview  stands  as  the  truth  in 
this  cause.  It  is  uncontradicted  and  f urmshes.  so  far  as 
that  enters  into  the  estimate  of  the  feelings  and  relations 
of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  and  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr. 
Bowen,  and  Mr.  Beecber,  the  evidence  on  the  subject— 
I  mean  of  these  calumnies  agamst  Mr.  Beecher,  the 
animosity  of  Mr.  Bowen,  and  the  subjugation  by  the 
strong  mind  of  Bowen  of  the  weaker  character,  Tilton,  to 
his,  Bowen's,  objects.  Mr.  Bowen  contradicts  distinctly 
Mr.  Tilton  on  the  question  of  Ms  discharge  as  then  de- 
termined upon,  and  then  communicated,  and  he  con- 
tradicts Mm  further  by  saying  to  you  that  on  the  morn- 
ing of  Saturday  of  that  week,  h«  informed  Mm  of  Ua 
then  present  absolute  and  actual  discharge. 


SUJd[MJyG    VP  BY  MB.  BVARTS. 
DEDUCTIONS  FEOM  THE  XATUEAL  BEXT  OF 
HUMAN  ACTION. 


701 


Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  occasion  to  ask 
yom-  attention  to  tlie  vast  value  of  these  two  facts  that 
we  hare  fought  against — ^the  evidence  of  the  plaintiff 
out  of  his  ovm  mouth,  out  of  other  .witnesses,  so  far  as 
they  could  show  collateral  support  to  it — we  have  fought 
against  these  two  propositions  of  there  being  this  action 
of  the  wife  contemplating  separation,  resort  to  the  pas- 
tor, tMs  dealing  by  the  pastor  with  it,  openly,  clearly, 
decisively,  and  this  second  point  or  the  dealing  between 
3Ir.  Beecher  and  3Ir.  Bowen  whereby  Mr.  Beecher  es- 
poused the  view  which  Mr.  Bowen  communicated  about 
Tilton's  character,  and  the  necessary  action  of  3Ir.  Bowe.n 
in  regard  to  it,  corroborated,  assisted,  confirmed,  secured, 
and  aided  by  his  disclosui-es  of  this  conjugal  discord  and 
of  this  personal  profligacy  with  Bessie  Turner  and 
with  others.  Gentlemen,  you  are  full  grown,  men. 
Some  people  seem  to  thinlr  that  if  they  have  come  into  a 
jury-box  they  are  to  lose  all  their  common  sense,  all  the 
elasticity  of  their  understanding,  all  their  personal 
knowledge  and  views  of  human  nature  and  of  human 
conduct,  and  take  up  a  dry  and  formal  following  of 
testimony  as  it  may  be  long  drawn  out  before  them. 
"Why,  gentlemen,  you  are  here  because  you  are  practical 
men,  because  you  know  something  of  our  common  na- 
ture, because  you  come  from  the  bosom  of  the  very 
society  in  which  these  parties  moved,  and  in.  which  their 
action  is  taken,  and  by  which  it  is  to  be  judged.  All 
the  number  of  witnesses  that  would  prove  to  you  that 
the  moon  was  made  of  green  cheese  would  not  justify 
you  in  bringing  in  a  verdict  that  it  was  made  of  green 
cheese,  not  in  the  least.  It  would  justify  you  in  bring- 
ing in  a  verdict  that  the  witnesses  were  made  of  green 
cheese.  [Laughter.]  Now,  I  ask  you  this — do  you  believe 
that  there  could  be  a  relation  of  paramour  and  mistress 
between  a  man  eminent  in  society  and  a  woman  the  wife 
of  a  man  prominent  in  society,  and  moving  in  the  circles 
of  social  Intercourse,  of  religious  association,  of  public 
notice,  that  belonged  to  these  people  and  these  their  re- 
spective families— do  you  believe  that  that  relation  be- 
tween paramour  and  mistress  could  have  continued  for 
eighteen  months,  and  then,  by  chance— much  more  if  by 
confession  or  communication  from  the  wife — come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  husband  and  then,  everything  being 
lovely  and  quiet  between  them,  so  that  there  was  no  out- 
break there — do  you  think  the  wife  and  the  mistress 
would  have  left  the  paramour  six  months  unadvised  that 
somebody  else  knew  of  it,  that  that  somebody  else  was 
the  husband,  and  that  husband  the  hat«r  on  independent 
grounds  of  the  paramour  ?  Do  you  think  so  ?  Did  you 
ever  hear  anything  like  that,  that  would  lead  a  woman 
that  had  had  that  degree  of  affection  and  submission  to  a 
man,  that  she  would  not  -warm  him  against  the 
oinguarded  course  of  his  life  toward  this  familv.  that 


would  expose  him  to  the  observation,  to  the  condemna' 
tion,  to  the  r^entment  of  the  husband?  That  would bs 
a  new  chapter  in  human  character,  and  I  think  if  it  could 
be  understood  as  a  natural  and  probable  sequel  of  these 
illicir  relations,  and  of  their  discovery,  that  it  might  t^?nd 
to  discourage  the  ventures  that  men  make  ia  that  direc- 
tion. No,  gentlemen,  common  sense  discards  that.  Well, 
if  a  wife,  conscious  of  this  final,  deepest  guilt  of  a  woman 
as  toward  her  husband— conscious  of  the  long  course  of 
seduction  concealed  from  him,  and  of  the  long  pollution 
of  the  marriage  bed  and  cont;imination  of  the  offspring 
by  a  stain,  had  confessed  and  found  a  forgiving  husband 
ready  to  conceal,  un-viQing  to  resent  against  the  injurer— 
do  you  think  that  that  wife,  with  that  knowledge  of  her 
own  conduct  and  of  her  husband's  privity  to  it, 
will  be  the  first  to  pick  a  quarrel,  and  desert 
the  shelter  of  that  roof?  What  roof  could  be  so 
hospitable  to  her  guilt  as  that  ?  What  shelter  against 
discovery,  against  publicity, against  ruin  so  safe  as  that? 
"\\liat  could  break  the  tacit  or  the  actual  compact  of  im- 
munity, of  secrecy,  of  restored  and  continued  love  on  the 
part  of  the  husband  to  the  fallen  and  penitent  wife  so 
necessarily,  so  absolutely,  as  the  wife's  desertion  of  the 
home  and  accusation  of  the  husband  of  profligacy  ?  Well, 
gentlemen,  if  you  can  imagine  that  a  wife  so  situated,  so 
sensitive,  so  morbid  on  the  question  of  secrecy,  could 
rush  out  of  that  house,  and  accuse  her  '  usband  when  he 
knew  of  her  profligacy,  you  must  have  some  strange  views 
of  human  nature,  and  if  we  cannot  try  these  people  a,a 
htmian  beings  we  cannot  try  them  at  all.  But,  do  you 
think  she  wo  aid  go  to  the  paramour  and  the  pastor,  and 
if  she  did,  do  you  think  he  would  turn  over  to  his  wife,  and 
his  wife  f7i  is  woman  [turning  to  Mrs.  Beecher],  this  matron 
who  makes  the  name  of  matron  all  the  more  noble  that 
she  is  conspicuotis  in  its  roU  of  honor,  this  woman  that 
saw  enough  into  the  eyes  of  Theodore  TUton  eleven  years 
before  to  banish  him  from  her  house,  and  enough  into 
the  eyes  of  Henry  C.  Bowen  to  keep  him  from  crossing 
her  threshold?  Do  you  think  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
would  turn  over  his  mistress  to  his  wife  for  her  to  exam- 
ine, with  all  the  power  that  a  woman  knows  to  apply  to  a 
false  woman?  Now,  you  may  think  that  is  natural,  and 
you  may  think  it  is  safe,  and  you  may  think  that  out  of 
these  two  women  being  shut  up,  Mrs.  Beecher  and  Mrs. 
Tilton,  there  came  nothing  but  advice  to  quit  the  husband, 
brave  him.  to  sustain  her  purity.  You  may  think  so.  I 
would  not  like  to  have  any  client  of  mine  convicted  of  any . 
Clime  like  this,  but  I  assure  you,  gentlemen,  if  he  has  to 
be  convicted  I  would  like  to  have  him  convicted  on  evi- 
dence like  this,  for  the  evir.. -  j-e  answers  the  conviction 
and  convicts  the  tribunal  that  condemns. 

Look,  now,  at  the  enormous  value  of  the  dealing  whioli 
Mr.  Beecher  exhibited  to  the  Bowen  missile,  proceeding 
from  the  bow  and  the  skillful  archery  of  Mr.  TUton- 
Take  Bowen's  statement ;  was  there  ever  greater  uncon- 
cern, was  there  ever  greater  indifference,  ever  stronger. 


THE   TILTON-BEECHER  TRIAL. 


1 


703 

more  definite  braving  of  it  than  Mr.  Beechor's  treatment 
of  tlie  missive  and  his  treatment  of  the  man  ?  Was  there 
any  yielding  ?  Was  there  any  entreaty  of  Mr.  Bowen  1 
No.  All  Mr.  Beecher  wanted  to  know  was,  "Whether 
you  came  here,  Mr.  Bowon,  coupled  with,  conscious  of,  in 
complicity  with  this  insane,  mad  contumely  of  Mr. 
Tilton?"  If  Mr.  Bowen  had  said,  '*  I  did ;  I  suggested  it, 
I  urged  it,  T  a.m  going  to  hack  it  up,"  then  Mr.  Beecher 
would  have  facea  them  both,  and  he  has  faced  them  both 
ever  since.  But  neither  Bowen  nor  Tilton  has  faced  him. 
I  can  imagine  no  possible  construction  of  human  conduct 
that  would  treat  this  charge,  this  demand,  under  Mr. 
Tilton's  own  signature,  as  Mr.  Beecher  treated  it,  if  there 
had  been  the  least  consciousness  of  those  guilty  relations. 
What  did  he  do  ?  He  talked  with  Mr.  BoAven  as  long  as  Mr. 
Bowen  chose  to  talk,  and  then  Mr.  Bowen  went  about 
his  business,  and  Mr,  Beecher  never  troubled  himself  in 
the  least,  never  sought  Mr.  Tilton,  never  sent  a  friend  to 
Bee  him,  never  thought  of  the  subject  further,  and  waited 
what  anybody  would  have  to  say  or  to  do  about  it.  Well, 
gentlemen,  we  might,  I  think,  consider  all  attempts  to 
convict  Mr.  Beecher  of  this  crime,  u.pon  moral  evidence, 
as  substantially  ended  by  these  two  penetrating  thrusts 
into  his  very  soul  that  this  evidence  has  given  to  him, 
and  you  read  on  its  unruffled  mirror  the  placidity  of  in- 
nocence which  forbids  you  to  imagine  guilt. 

Are  you  to  take  an  alternative  proposition,  that  he  is 
an  old  offender,  fall  of  wickedness  ?  Well,  there  you  run 
against  a  thousand  improbabilities,  not  to  say  impossi- 
bilities. You  run  against  what,  even  in  the  case  of  a  sin- 
gle instance  of  guilt,  is  really  a  moral  Impossibility, 
Is  there  nothing,  then,  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Great  Mas- 
ter that  when  you  are  judging  of  moral  character  you 
are  to  judge  by  the  conduct  of  the  life  %  Is  there  nothing 
in  the  proposition  that  men  do  not  gather  grapes  of 
thorns,  and  hgs  of  thistles  ?  Do  you  plant  thistles  to 
raise  figs,  and  thorns  to  expect  a  vintage  from  ? 
What  greater  vintage  of  Christian  beneficence 
and  activity  has  ever  been  poured  out 
iuto  the  wiue-vats  of  a  nation  than  the  life 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  has  furnished  %  And,  yet,  all 
these  grapes  have  been  gathered  from  this  tliorn  tree, 
and  are  gathered  still.  If,  under  this  fig  tree,  men  could 
not  repose,  what  beneficent  shelter  Uas  ever  been  reared 
In  the  human  character  and  human  conduct  for  the  con- 
fidence and  the  safety  of  one's  feUow  men  ?  And,  yet, 
*\is  is  but  a  prickly  thistle  bush  that  everybody  that 
ever  approached  must  have  been  wounded  by,  and  yet 
nobody  has  found  it  out.  This  long  course  of  wickedness 
has  run  in  a  parallel  stream  through  this  life,  and  divided 
it  between  its  muddy  waters  and  its  crystal  flow,  so  that 
those  who  stood  on  either  bank  proclaimed  it 
vile  or  healthful  as  they  happened  to  be  on 
one  bank  or  the  other.  Why,  gentlemen,  il 
you  will  not  take  philosophy,  and  the  great  teachings 
of  the  Scriptures,  on  these  subjects,  lot  as  understand,  as 


we  all  do,  the  generosity  of  character,  openness  of  nature, 
warmth  of  heart,  universal  sympathy  by  which  every 
child  is  his  friend,  every  woman  reveres  him,  every  man 
confides  in  him,  as  inconsistent  with  the  course  of  profli- 
gacy that  hardens  the  heart.  Who  knew  better  than 
Bums,  the  poet — an  authority  on  misfortune — as  a  mania 
respect  of  his  morality,  who  set  aside  all  former  teach- 
ings and  says  to  the  3^outh  whom  he  would  guide  througli 
Ufe  : 

A  sacred,  pure  and  well-placed  love, 

Luxuriantly  indulge  it ; 
But  ever  scorn  the  illicit  role, 

Tho'  naething  should  divulge  it. 

I  waive  the  quantum  of  the  sia, 

The  hazard  of  concealing ; 
But,  oh,  it  hardens  a'  within, 

And  petrifles  the  feeling. 

And  yet  a  warm  and  generous  fountain  of  beneficent 
acts  and  sympathetic  nature,  as  Mr.  Tilton  describes  it, 
that  was  open  to  the  imposition  and  accessible  to  the 
appeals  of  friendship's  impositions,  of  ill  design,  and  ac- 
cessible to  the  appeals  of  friendship,  remains  the  uncon- 
taminated  and  the  unhardened  nature  of  this  defendant. 
So  now,  so  always  in  your  opinion,  in  the  opinion  of 
everybody  that  ever  knew  him  or  saw  him,  and  ail  these 
monstrous  absurdities  that  defy  the  faith  in  man  and 
the  faith  in  God  that  holds  the  world  together,  you  are 
to  establish  in  order  to  save  the  credit  of  the  oaths  of  a 
few  Avitucsses. 

THE  DESTRUCTION  OF   MRS.  TILTON'S 
WRITTEN  ACCUSATION. 

I  come  now,  gentlemen,  to  the  first  meeting 
of  the  injured  husband  and  the  adulterer  after  the  alleged 
discovery  of  the  guilt.  Six  months  after  it  is  said  a« 
commimication  of  some  kind  prejudicial  to  Mr.  Beecher's 
relation  to  Mrs.  Tilton  and  to  the  honor  of  his  intercourse 
with  Mr.  Tilton's  family,  these  two  men  are  brought  to- 
gether, and  I  think,  gentlemen,  that  you  will  in  advance 
agree  with  me  that  this  interview  carries  more  import- 
ance in  its  real  occurrences,  if  you  can  get  at  them,  than 
any  other  interviews.  If  there  was  any  accusation 
made  at  all,  it  was  made  then,  and  what  was 
made  then  was  the  accusation  that  existed,  either  in 
imagtuation  or  had  been  produced  by  iuA-ention,  or  had 
any  basis  of  mistake  or  any  solid  support  in  truth. 
Whichever  your  theory  may  be  on  which  you  finally  rest, 
whatever  the  accusation  was,  or  was  to  be,  as  an  honest 
accusation  it  was  then  and  there  made,  WhateA^er  of 
confessions,  whatever  of  concession,  whatever  of  acqui- 
escence on  the  part  of  the  accused  ever  took  place,  took 
place  then  and  there,  and  there  was  the  period,  then  and 
there  was  the  situation,  then  and  there  the  aspects  of 
the  matter  all  around,  that,  if  you  can  get  at  the  truth, 
Avill  be  worth  more  to  you  than  anj^  long-drawn  party- 
colored  piece-meal  aspects,  and  intercourse  of  the  years 
afterward,   Noav,  about  that  I  don't  think  there  will  be 


SU212LIJG    UP  B 

any  dispute.  What  liad  Mr.  Tiltcm  done  on  liis  o^n 
Blio-^ving  in  respect  to  tliat  proposed  interview  before  it 
occurred?  He  liad  got  from  Ms  wife,  as  lie  says,  and  as 
apparently  is  true,  a  paper  written  in  lier  own  hand,  of 
some  character  and  purport— that  is  admitted.  He  had 
got  it  by  efforts  in  that  sick  room,  persisted  in  day  after 
day,  against  the  remonstrances  of  the  nurse, 
and  that  paper  he  obtained  on  the  29th, 
on  Thursday,  and  kept  it  unshown,  he  says,  to  anybody 
till  the  night  of  the  30th.  Now,  what  would  you  give  to 
have  that  pap.-r?  It  has  been  destroyed.  Who  destroyed 
it  ?  Theodore  TiLton.  Who  gave  it  to  Mm  to  destroy  1 
Fi-ancis  D.  Moulton.  When  ?  They  both  swear,  not  giv- 
ing day  and  month  and  year,  but  with  relation  to  another 
event,  "Immediately  after  the  '  Tripartite  Agreement.' 
What  justification  was  there  for  Francis  D.  Moulton  "im- 
mediately after  the  '  Tripartite  Agreement ' "  to  give 
to  Theodore  TUton  that  paper  to  destroy  ?  Ah !  gen- 
tlemen, they  all  swear,  all  these  people,  that  there 
"was  not  any  agreement,  nor  any  connection,  nor  any 
Idea  ia  reference  to  the  destruction  of  the  papers  with 
the  "  Tripartite  Agreement,"  or  the  arbitration.  All  our 
"Witnesses  swear  the  other  way ;  Claflin,  Freeland,  Storrs, 
and  Wilkeson  all  swear  that  there  was  an  agi-eement  that 
all  the  papers  should  be  destroyed.  Now,  I  have  got  the 
oath  of  Mr.  Moulton  and  the  oath  of  :Mr.  Tilton,  that  im- 
mediately after  that  Mr.  Moulton  handed  to  3Ir.  THton 
the  papers-  to  be  destroyed,  and  I  have  got  the  oath  i 
of  Mr.  Moidton  that  he  told  Mr.  Beecher  that  he 
■would  keep  that  paper  tied  to  the  other,  and  that  they 
never  should  be  separated,  and  should  be  kept  together 
for  his  protection.  Ah !  gentlemen,  you  have  a  self-con- 
lessed,  absolute  treachery,  and  absolute  convigtion  of 
their  own  falsehood ;  you  have  got  them  both.  Their 
conduct  shows  in  their  ready  seizure  of  an  opportunity 
given  by  that  compact,  to  destroy  all,  to  hurry  to  destruc- 
tion  this  one,  and  then  in  order  to  explaia  their 
possession  of  all  the  others  to  use  against  Mr. 
Beecher  when  he  wanted  this  one  for  himself 
of  all  others  in  the  world,  they  say  there  was  not  any- 
thing said  about  destruction  of  papers,  and  there  was  no 
right  to  destroy  any  papers.  Where  is  your  promise  that 
the  two  papers  should  be  kept  together  ?  Ah !  gentle- 
men, what  did  Moulton  teU  Charles  Ston-s  about  this 
uniLateral  (to  borrow  a  phrase  of  my  learned  friend  and 
brother  Porter),  this  imilateral  destruction,  and  tMs 
unilateral  saving  of  impers  \  Charles  Storrs  was  asked 
what  :Mr.  Moulton  said  about  bui-mng  the  papers,  and  he 
says  that  Sam  Wilkeson  had  seen  him,  or  written  Mm 
that  he  wanted  Mm  to  be  sure  to  burn  Mr,  Beecher's 
"apology,"  and  aJl  the  papers,  and  Mr.  Moulton 
says:  "Of  course  I  burned  all  the  papers," 
and  laughed,  and  he  says,  "  Mr.  Beecher  thinks  I  have," 
and  then  he  says:  "If  Sam  Wilkeson  thinks  i  have 
burned  all  the  papers  he  is  mistaken.  What  would  Theo- 
dore do  with  his  trouble  1 "   And  when  Mr.  MoiUtou  is  re-» 


F  ME.   EYAETS.  703 

called  he  don't  deny  a  word  of  that.  Now,  don't  yon 
believe  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  arrangement  that  peacj 
was  concluded  all  around,  and  that  all  the  papers  were 
to  be  destroyed ;  and  don't  you  believe  that  this  man 
hastened  to  destroy  the  paper  that  we  want,  and  that 
we  miss?  If  truth  would  be  on  their  side 
from  it,  so  much  the  better  for  them,  so  much  the  less 
reason  for  their  destroying  it.  So  you  needn't  worry 
yourselves  that  they  have  lost  anything  by  its  being 
put  out  of  existence.  Ah  !  how  they  jumped  at  the  idea 
that,  now,  tMs  pledge  of  Mr.  Moultou  would  justify  the 
desta-uction  of  all  the  papers,  and  that  the  treacherous 
wickedness  of  Mr.  Moulton.  self-confessed  in  act,  that 
he  did  destroy  one.  separated  it  from  the  rest,  and  his 
production  here  of  the  rest,  that  he  did  save  the  rest, 
and  then  his  sneering  remark  to  Mr.  Storrs  : 

"  Oh !  I  have  bumed  all  the  papers,  of  course,'"  and  he 
laughed,  and  then  he  says,  "  Mr.  Beecher  thinks  I  have  ;'' 
and  then  he  says,  "  If  Sam  Wilkeson  thinks  I  have 
bui-ned  all  the  papers,  he  is  mistaken.  "^ATiat  wouLl  Theo- 
dore do  with  his  trouble  ?" 

"  T^Tiat  of  the  trouble  that  he  was  using  heretofore  and 
means  to  use  hereafter  ?  Xow,  Theodore  and  I  have  only 
bm-ned  that  one  paper." 

The  Court  here  adjourned  imtil  to  Wednesday  at  11 
o'clock. 


NINETY-FIFTH    DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

ME.  EVAETS  FUETHEE  ANALYZES  Ey^)E^XE 

THE  FAMOUS  INTERVIEW  AT  ME.  MOULTO^''S  HOUSE 
BETWF-EX  MR.  BEECHER  AND  MR.  TILTON 
THOROUGHLY  CONSIDERED— ALLEGED  IXCOXSIST- 
EXCIES  AND  IMPROBABILITIES  IN  THE  PLAIN- 
TIFF'S state:*ient  dwelt  upon  with  emphasis 

—HOW  MRS.  TILTON'S  ASSERTED  CONFESSION  IS 
LOOKED  UPON  BY  THE  DEFENSE— HER  CHARAC- 
TER DECLARED  TO  BE  IRRECONCILABLE  WITH 
THE  SUPPOSITION  OF  GUILT— EVIDENCE  FROM 
MR.  BEECHER  AND  MR.  TILTON  COMPARED— A 
DAY  OF  FREQUENT  WITTY  AND  STIRRING  PAS- 
SAGES. 

Wednesday,  June  2,  1875. 

William  M.  Evarts  continued  Ms  ara-umeut  for  Mr. 
Beecher  to-day  in  tlie  Brookl3-n  City  Court  room. 
He  considered  the  first  interview  between  Mr. 
Beecher  and  ]Mr.  Tilton  after  the  alleged  discovery 
of  adultery,  the  destroyed  letter  of  Mrs.  Tilton  to 
her  husband,  Mr.  Tilton's  account  of  his  wife's  oral 
confession  to  him,  and  other  portions  of  Mr.  Tilton's 
evidence,  and  Mr.  Beecher's  statements  concerning 
the  interview  between  himself  and  the  plaintiflt 
in  Mr.  Moiilton's  house  in  December,  1870. 

Mr.  Evarts  argued  at  considerable  length  to-day 
upon  the  inconsistency  which,  he  asserted,  exists 


704  THE  TILTON-BM 

between  tbe  plaintiff's  statements  and  theories  and 
the  acknowledged  principles  and  motives  which 
govern  human  actions.  Whenever  his  argument  was 
thus  based  on  asserted  characteristics  of  human 
nature  he  infused  a  lire  into  his  words  that  fully 
aroused  the  attention  of  the  auditors,  while  witty 
passages  abounded  to  make  them  laugh.  The  first 
subject  taken  up  by  the  orator  was  the  first  interview 
between  Mr  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  after  the  alleged 
discovery  of  adultery  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr. 
Beecher.  Considerations  that  had  governed  Mr. 
Tilton,  in  what  the  lawyer  asserted  to  be  the  fabri- 
cation of  his  story,  were  pointed  out.  Mr.  Moulton's 
account  of  his  walk  with  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mr.  Tilton's 
house,  on  the  occasion  of  the  interview  under  con- 
sideration, was  analyzed.  "  Out  of  the  fullness  of 
the  heart,"  exclaimed  the  orator,  "the  mouth 
speaketh,  even  when  the  heart  is  small  and  the 
mouth  large,  as  in  Moulton's  case." 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  portion  of  the  ad- 
dress to-day  was  that  in  reference  to  Mr.  Tilton's 
account  of  the  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher  and  of 
the  alleged  oral  confession  of  Mrs.  Tilton  to  her  hus- 
band. The  orator  asserted  that  it  was  improbable, 
and  not  according  to  common  sense,  that  Mr.  Tilton 
should  have  talked  in  the  manner  in  which  he  said 
he  did  to  Mr.  Beecher,  supposing  the  latter  to  have 
been  the  paramour  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  "Look,"  he 
said,  referring  to  Mr.  Tilton's  statement  of  the  be- 
ginning of  the  interview,  "  at  the  cool  way  in  which 
this  rhetorician  opens  the  deepest  passions  and  re- 
sentments of  the  human  heart." 

The  analysis  of  the  alleged  oral  confession  of  Mrs. 
Tilton  to  her  husband  was  made  with  such  sarcastic 
and  witty  keenness  as  to  excite  continual  bursts  of 
laughter  from  the  counsel  and  audience.  The  jury- 
men also  smiled  appreciatively,  Mr.  Beecher  laughed, 
and  even  Mr.  Tilton  once  or  twice  joined  in  the  mer- 
riment. One  of  the  humorous  comments  on  the 
alleged  words  used  by  Mrs.  Tilton,  which  attracted 
much  attention,  was  in  reference  to  the  statement 
that  she  had  told  her  husband  the  dates 
and  places  of  the  commission  of  the  asserted 
acts  of  adultery.  The  last  act  had  occurred 
at  her  own  residence.  "  She  is  talking,"  said  the 
orator  with  a  smile,  "  to  her  husband,  and  for  fear 
there  should  be  doubt,  as  they  had  removed  from 
time  to  time  from  one  house  to  another,  she  adds, 
*  At  her  own  residence,  174  Livingston-st.' "  This 
particularity,  in  some  of  the  asserted  statements  of 
iMrs.  Tilton,  served  as  the  basis  of  an  argument 
against  the  probability  of  the  whole  story,  because  * 


ECRER  TRIAL. 

Mrs.  Tilton  was  represented  to  have  declared  that 
acts  of  adultery  had  occurred  at  other  places  which 
she  appeared  not  to  have  disclosed. 

The  persuasions  which  were  alleged  to  have  been 
used  by  Mr,  Beecher  in  overcoming  the  virtuous 
scruples  of  Mrs.  Tilton  afforded  another  subject  for 
the  wit  and  argumentative  skill  of  the  advocate, 
"Ah,"  said  he,  "he  must  have  preached  with  a 
power  to  conscience  and  intelligence  that  he  has  not 
exhibited  in  public  if  he  could  reduce  a  woman's 
nature  to  scruples,  and  then  pufl'  them  away  with  a 
breath." 

Mr.  Evarts  insisted  on  the  inconsistency  between 
Mrs.  Tilton's  pure-mindedness,  which  even  her  hus- 
band lauded,  and  the  supposition  of  her  guilt ;  and 
he  pointed  out  instance  after  instance  of  alleged  im- 
probability and  want  of  harmony  in  regard  to  cir- 
ciunstances,  times,  and  chains  of  reasoning  in  the 
statements  of  Mr.  Tilton.  Finally  he  took  up  Mr. 
Beecher's  account  of  the  interview  at  Mr.  Moulton's 
house,  to  which  the  cited  evidence  of  Mr.  Tilton  re- 
ferred. The  two  accounts  were  laid  together, 
and  compared,  and  their  contradictions 
were  clearly  brought  out.  Mr.  Beecher  stated 
that  Mr.  Tilton  said  to  him  that 
the  writing  of  the  letter  demanding  that  he  (Air. 
Beecher)  should  leave  Brookljoi,  was  a  grand  thing 
to  do,  but  it  would  have  been  grander  not  to  have 
done  it.  "  Now,"  exclaimed  the  orator,  with  biting 
sarcasm,  that  caused  the  plaintiff"  to  color  to  the 
roots  of  his  hair,  while  the  audience  laughed, 
"  What  a  happy  condition  a  man  is  in  when  what- 
ever he  does  ia- grand,  and  if  he  hadn't  done  it,  it 
would  have  been  grander !" 


THE  PKOCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. 

THE   INTERVIEW  OP  DECEMBER  30. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.  pursuant  to  ad- 

iournment. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  may  perhaps  conslfler  for  a  few  mo- 
ments in  advance  what  would  be  tlie  probable  attitude, 
wliat  the  tone,  what  the  temper,  what  the  method  of  ac- 
cusation, and  what  the  reception  of  the  accusation  that 
would,  on  the  known  proof  of  human  character  and  hu- 
man conduct,  mark  the  first  interview  between  the  accus- 
ing husband  and  the  guilty  adulterer.  Nay,  more,  if  the 
accusation  were  to  proceed  upon  the  information  con- 
veyed to  the  unsuspecting  husband  by  the  corrupted  or 
uncoiTupted  wife— I  mean  the  adulteress— you  would 
like  to  see  what,  upon  these  same  recognized  principles 
of  human  character  and  human  conduct,  would  be  the 


SUMMING   UF  I 

tennfi,tlie  attendant  circumstances,  tlie  emotions  with 
TV^Mcli  this  dreadful  fact  was  first  disclosed  toy  the  offend- 
ing wife  to  the  unsuspecting  hustoand. 

ME.  TILTON'S  STORY  OF  THE  INTERYIEW 
INCONSISTENT  WITH  HUMAN  NATURE. 

Is  adultery  in  a  reputable  family,  in  a  respect- 
able connection  of  society,  and  witli  a  woman  of  even 
tlie  ordinary  traits  of  purity,  of  iutelllgence,  of  piety, 
and  of  domestic  afi'ections,  a  commonplace  occurrence  ? 
Is  it  to  be  treated  lilie  a  cut  of  the  finger  or  a  bruised 
brow  ?  Is  tliere  anytliiug  that  more  upturns  the  deep- 
est feelings  of  the  husband  and  of  the  wife,  when, 
brought  by  the  urgency  of  conscience,  guilt  is  disclosed, 
pardon  is  beerged,  and  either  the  wife  is  slain  by  her  hus- 
band or  is  pardoned  by  his  superhuman  charity  % 
What  tears,  what  sobs,  what  solemn  silence,  what  deep 
contrition,  what  conflicting,  convulsive  emotions,  fill  the 
husband's  heart  and  show  themselves  in  conflicting  ex- 
hibition of  his  pm-pose,  and  finally  of  his  conclusion !  And 
then,  when  the  inj  ared  husband  meets  his  friend,  the  cor- 
rupter of  his  wof  ^,  the  destroyer  of  his  own  honor,  the 
defiler  of  his  marriage  bed,  and  the  shame  and  disgrace 
of  his  children,  and  his  children's  children ;  when  a  hus- 
band thus  outraged,  of  whom  it  is  said  by  a  wise  man, 
that  I  have  had  frequent  occasion  to  refer  to,  not  much 
in  repute  doubtless  with  the  new  dispensations,  that  get 
direct  revelations  from  heaven  through  mediumistic  fits 
—Solomon  says  that  "jealousy  is  the  rage  of  a  man;" 
and  when  two  such  parties  come  together,  you  may 
imagine  that  if  there  be  at  the  bottom  either  information 
on  the  part  of  the  accuser,  mistaken  if  you  please,  cer- 
tainly if  weU-f  ounded  and  conscious  guUt  on  the  part  of 
the  accused,  that  you  will  have  a  scene  that  cannot  be 
handled  by  any  mere  conception  and  preparation  before- 
hand. Nature  will,  icill  show  itself  in  such  an  interview, 
if  the  great  and  central  fact  exists,  either  as  a  truth,  or 
as  a  conviction  on  one  side,  that  of  the  accuser. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  I  shall  satisfy  you  upon  a  mere 
reading  of  this  plaintiff's  story  of  that  interview,  rightly 
interpreted,  by  that  knowledge  of  human  affau-s  which 
you  possess  and  that  Imowledge  of  his  character  and  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  which  you  have  gained  in  this  trial,  that 
that  narrative,  upon  its  own  reading,  is  a  self-exposed 
and  self-convicted  invention,  framed  by  that  degree  of 
cunning  that  beheves  in  words,  their  instrumentality, 
their  rhetorical  connection.  This  plaintiff  understood 
that  the  wife's  confessions,  if  there  ever  had  been  any, 
could  not  be  made  the  subiect  of  evidence  against  Mr. 
Beecher.  Om-  law  convicts  parties  on  their  own  confes- 
sions, not  on  the  confessions  of  others.  This  idle  word 
about  Elizabeth's  confession,  or  Mrs.  Tilton's  confession, 
that  has  been  dragged  in  by  Moulton  and  Tilton  as  often 
as  might  be  during  their  protracted  evidence,  is  a  solecism 
In  terms.  It  was  an  accusation  of  another,  never  a  con- 
fession of  her  o-vvQ.  I  will  show  you — what  was  supposed 


F  MB.   EVABTS.  T05 

to  be  cunning  on  the  part  of  this  inventor  of  this  story,, 
to  cover  his  disgrace  in  bringing  to  light  the  shame  of 
his  wife  that  he  had  once  pardoned,  to  make  it  probable 
and  possible  that  such  a  woman  could  be 
in  such  a  gmlt— that  he  has  covered  it  witli 
inconsistencies  with  human  nature  that  make 
the  whole  story  incredible  and  self-contradictory. 
He  knew  that  the  confessions,  I  say,  of  a  wile  could  not 
be  given  in  evidence ;  he  knew,  too,  that  confidential  in- 
tercourse between  the  husband  and  the  wile  (although 
the  law  of  evidence  were  so  much  relaxed,  as  it  was  held 
by  the  Court,  as  to  permit  the  husband  to  testify  against 
the  wife,  or  against  the  defendant,  in  the  wife's  cause) — 
that  the  law  did  not  permit  his  statement  of  anything 
that  passed  between  him  and  his  wife.  He  knew  that 
the  only  mode  iu  which  he  could  bring  to  your  notice,  as 
having  occurred  between  himself  and  his  jvlfe,  what  it 
suited  his  purposes  to  propose  to  you  as  having  occurred, 
was  by  weaving  it  into  a  recital  or  narrative  that 
he  should  repeat  to  Mr.  Beecher ;  and  then  he  thought : 
"  Now  I  have  an  opportunity  to  weave  the  web 
of  my  metaphysical  argument,  that  a  woman  that 
was  good  and  pious,  and  that  loved  me,  and  that  still 
loves  me,  could  be  led  into  what  all  the  world  considers 
as  betrayal  of  the  husband,  prostitution  of  herself,  de- 
sertion of  a  mother's  duty  to  childi-en,  an  abandonment 
of  everything  that  makes  up  good  character  and  conduct 
and  pure  fame,  and  yet  remain  unsullied  in  her  conscience 
and  untouched  in  her  purity.  So,  too,  I  can  weave  into  it 
an  explanation  of  how  a  good  man  and  a  great  man  can 
find  in  conscience,  and  in  religion,  and  in  duty,  a  provoc- 
ative and  a  support  to  a  course  of  conduct  that,  in  the 
general  judgment  of  mankind,  would  be,  must  be  con- 
sidered as  base,  as  vile,  as  injurious  to  all  the  interests  of 
society,  as  fatal  to  the  fame  of  everybody  and  everything 
that  the  good  and  great  man  valued,  as  it  is  possible  to 
portray  even  in  the  imagination  of  a  poet,  in  the  conduct 
of  a  wicked  man.  I  thus,"  he  said,  "by  the  enchantment 
of  my  words  and  the  prettiness  of  my  sentiment  will  gild 
this  awful  guilt  with  what  will  make  it  credible,  or  else  it 
never  can  be  believed."  And  there  he  is,  the  victim  of 
his  own  shallow  philosophy. 

PURPOSE  OF  THE  INTERVIEW. 
You  will  observe,  gentlemen,  that  as  we  have 
led  you  up  to  this  interview  we  have  shown  you  the  occa- 
sion of  Mr.  Tilton's  resentments  against  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Beecher's  interference  with  his  domestic  peace  and  credit. 
We  have  shown  you  his  deep  ground  of  resentment 
against  Mr.  Bo  wen,  and  his  deep  sense  of  the  foUy  of  his 
attack  upon  Mr.  Beecher,  and  of  the  ruin  that  had  come 
from  it,  in  destroying  the  only  counterbalancing  influence 
against  Bowen's  absolute  condemnation  that  the  wit  of 
man  coidd  suggest :  the  support— the  recurrence  to  the 
support  of  Mr.  Beecher.  Now,  we  will  show  you  by  the 
traits  of  this  matter  of  the  30th  of  December,  in  all  its 


THE   TILTON-BEECEEB  TBIAL. 


1 


706 

stages,  tliat  the  great  effort  was  to  find  some  means  hy 
whicli  tlie  audacious  attack  of  tlie  26tli  upon  Mr.  Beecli- 
■er,  and  its  absolute  recoil,  could  be  displaced 
Irom  Ms  mind  and  put  out  ot  the  way. 
Why,  gentlemen,  you  would  suppose  that  the  iirst  feeling 
of  Mr.  Tilton,  if  he  had  suffered  this  injury,  and  Mr. 
Beecher  was  guilty,  no  matter  whether  his  purpose  was 
to  ruin  Mr.  Beecher  or  whether  his  purpose  was  to  coerce 
Mr.  Beecher  into  cooperation  for  his— Mr.  Tilton's— resti- 
tution, that  he  would  follow  up  that  attack,  whose  sup- 
port had  not  yet  been  disclosed,  except  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  Mr.  Beecher,  if  the  cause  existed— by  the  open,  by 
the  vehement,  by  the  damnatoiy  accusation,  and  give 
.  the  adulterer  the  choice,  to  take  his  ruin  or  become  his 
servant;  and  so  any  man  would  have  dealt  with  any  man 
if  there  had  been  any  fact  upon  which  to  rest. 
On  the  ,  contrary,  on  the  showing  and  ad- 
mission of  Tilton  and  Moulton,  and  more, 
upon  the  absolute  and  necessary  conclusion  from 
the  facts  that  they  state,  the  whole  object  of  this  inter- 
view was  to  undo  the  mischief  that  had  been  done,  not  ^ 
Beecher  but  to  Tilton,  by  the  attack— joint  attack  of 
Bowen  and  Tilton  in  the  missive  of  the  26th.  Before  I 
am  through  with  the  close  examination  of  this  day's  pro- 
ceedings, the  30th  of  December,  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
point  out  to  you,  step  by  step,  how  wholly  consistent 
with  this  proposition  of  mine  is  everything  that  occurred, 
how  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  theory  and  with  the 
charge,  and  with  there  being  any  truth  in  the  charge,  as 
now  proposed,  of  adultery,  is  everything  that  came  out  of 
the  mouth  of  Mr.  Moulton,  out  of  the  mouth  of  Mr.  Tilton, 
out  of  the  mouth  of  Mr.  Beecher  upon  that  day. 

ME.  MOULTON'S  SUMMONS  TO  MR.  BEECHER. 
I  take  up  now  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Moulton 

as  it  attaches  itself  to  th3  preliminary  walk  from  Mr. 
Beecher's  house  to  Mr.  Moulton's,  where  Mr.  Beecher 
was  to  expect  to  meet  Mr,  Tilton.  He  says  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  in  the  house  of  the  latter : 

"  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  is  at  my  house  and  wishes  to  see 
you." 

The  answer  of  Mr.  Beecher  is  perfectly  natural  and  un- 
concerned : 

"This  is  Friday  night ;  this  is  prayer-meeting  night ;  I 
cannot  go  to  see  him." 

"Well,"  I  said,  "he  wants  to  see  you  with  regard  to 
your  relations  with  his  family  and  with  regard  to  the  let- 
ter that  he  has  sent  to  you  through  Mi-.  Bowen." 

Well,  Mr.  Beecher  knew  perfectly  well  that  his  rela- 
tions to  Mr.  Tilton's  family,  in  those  terrible  scenes  in 
which  he  had  been  engaged  by  Mrs.  Tilton's  appeal,  a 
fortnight  before,  and  in  the  deliberations  and  in  the  ad- 
vice, and  in  the  fact  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  gone  back  and 
doubtless  had  conveyed  to  hes  husband  everything  that 
had  occurred  on  Mrs.  TUton's  part,  and  on  his,  and  that 
In  this  patched-up  amity  between  them  they  were  per- 
haps, neither  of  them,  certainly  not  Mr.  Tilton,  dis- 


posed to  look  withec[uanimity  and  patience  upon  this  inte^ 
ventionof  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beecher  in  their  domestic  affairs- 
he  knew  perfectly  well  that  there  was  a  just  right  of  Mr. 
Tilton  to  desire  to  speak  to  him  concerning  those  aflairs. 
He  knew,  also,  that  Mr.  TUton  ha'd  sent  him  that  letter  on 
the  26th,  and  he  knew  that  Tilton,  if  there  was  any  rea- 
son for  sending  that  letter,  which  had  not  shown  itself, 
certainly,  in  any  consciousness  as  betrayed  by  riv.Beecher, 
might  very  well  want  to  eay  something  about  that ;  in 
other  words,  Mr.  Beecher  saw  and  knew  that  on  these 
two  points  of  his  and  his  wife's  intervention  in 
the  domestic  affairs  upon  the  invitation  of  Mrs. 
Tilton  and  Mrs.  Tilton's  mother,  of  this  moody, 
passionate,  willful,  'capricious  man,  ]VIi\  Tilton, 
and  the  strange  attack  followed  by  the  strange 
(in  connection  with  that  attack),  interview  with  Mr. 
Bowen  and  the  ruin  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  his  relation  to  his 
employer,  his  employment,  and  his  livelihood,  which  Mr. 
Bowen  had  announced  to  him  (Mr.  Beecher)— he  knew 
that  the  situation  in  which  Mr.  Tilton  and  his  family 
found  themselves  was  grave,  was  serious,  was  calamitous. 
And  when  Mr.  Moulton  said  to  him,  ".These  are  the  two 
topics  on  which  Mr.  Tilton  wishes  to  see  you,"  Mr. 
Beecher,  with  that  sensitiveness  of  sympathy  and  that 
profuseness  of  magnanimity,  saw  at  once  that  it  was  his 
duty  promptly  to  accede  to  this  not  unreasonable  ap- 
pointment. New,  look  at  it,  "  He  wants  to  see  you"— 
these  are  the  first  words  of  JMr.  Moulton—"  in  regard  to 
your  relations  with  his  family,  and  with  regard  to  the 
letter  that  he  has  sent  to  you  through  Mr.  Bowen."  Now, 
leaving  out  all  irrelevant  matter,  you  wUl  see  how  Moul- 
ton was  in  the  common  purpose  of  inflaming  Mr.  Beecher 
against  Mr.  Bowen,  and  attracting  him  to  friendship  for 
Mr.  Tilton. 

And  we  walked  along  together  and  I  told  him  what  Mr, 
Bowen  had  said  to  Mr.  Tilton  concerning  his  (Beecher's) 
adultery.  I  told  him  that  Mr.  Bowen  had  charged  him 
with  adulteries,  in  the  presence  of  Mi".  Tilton  and  Oliver 
Johnson. 

Now,  did  that  look  like  an  honest  interview  between  an 
accusing  husband  and  a  guilty  paramour  concerning  Mrs. 
Tilton's  guilt  and  concerning  Mr.  Beecher's  injury  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  as  a  proper  introduction  to  the  sentimenta, 
the  purposes  in  that  interview  that  must  have  influenced 
Mr.  Tilton,  unless  he  was  either  more  or  less  than  mau  ! 
Oh,  no,  this  confidential  friend  wanted  to  propitiate  the 
mind  of  Mr.  Beecher  in  advance  to  the  friendship  that 
Mr.  Tilton  needed  from  him,  by  showing  him  how  wicked 
Mr.  Bowen  had  been,  and  how  that  letter  of  the  26t'i, 
which  Mr.  Moulton  had  told  him  was  the  rea» 
son  of  the  interview,  had  proceeded  from  Bowen's  wicked, 
unrestrained  imputation  against  him— Mr.  Beecher— an<" 
that  what  that  letter  meant  "  for  reasons  best  known  to 
yourself  "—oh  I  "well  known  to  yourself"  meant  the 
consciousness  of  the  adulteries  that  Mr.  Bowen  had 
treasured  up  and  had  infused  into  Mr.  Tilton,  animating 
his  zeal  for  public  morality  and  his  duty  for  purity  in  the 


HonselioMs  of  Brooklrn.  Mr.  Moultou  weighs  liis 
Tvords  and.  chooses  his  topics  for  the  object.  Xow,  Mi-. 
Beecher  said  that  was  singular  ;  when  Bowen  brought  to 
him  that  letter  he  pledged  his  friendship  to  him.  Well, 
what  that  waS)  you  have  seen.  Bowen  said  he 
came  as  a  friend  and  continued  a  friend.  He  did  not 
inform  him  that  he  had  told  Tilton  any  such  thing. 
No,  he  had  stuck  the  letter  together  so  that  Mr.  Beecher 
should  not  even  know  that  he  knew  what  was  in  that, 

and  he  told  him  furthermore  now,  look  at  how  these 

traits  show  there  was  no  firuilt  in  Mr.  Beecher's  mind, 
no  accountability,  no  fear  of  his  resentments  on  any  other 
grounds  than  these :  "  And  he  told  bim  furthermore  that 
lie  had  sympathized  with  Mr.  Bowen  in  the  stories  told 
him  against  TUton ;  that  Mr.  Boweu  told  him  some 
stories  against  3Ir.  Tilton  and  that  he  had  sympathized 
with  them."  Xow,  those  are  the  topics,  those  are  the  in- 
terests in  Mr.  Moulton's  mind,  those  are  the  thoughts  in 
Mr.  Beecher's  mind— "Tilton  finds  that  Bowen  has  been 
using  that  Interview  with  me  contrary  to  what  was  the 
declared  purpose  and  confederation  between  Bowen  and 
Tilton,  and  I  find— I,  Beecher,  find,  from  this  gentleman's 
statement,  that  Bowen's  adiUteries— that  Boweu's  slan- 
ders, for  which  I  hare  the  utmost  contempt,  as  I  have 
trampled  them  imder  my  feet  for  years— that  those  hare 
been  inspired  into  this  yoimg  man's  miad  and  he.  In  his 
extremity,  has  been  made  the  tool  of  Bowen,  and  Bowen 
sent  that  blow  and  the  recoil  has  killed  Tilcon." 

Xow,  that  is  the  way  they  came  together.  Out  of  the 
fullness  of  the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh,  even  when  the 
heart  is  smaU.  and  the  mouth  is  large,  as  iu  Moulton's 
case.  [Laughter.]  Now,  tliat  is  all  on  the  topics  that 
^ere  to  be  the  subject  of  consideration.  There  was 
something  said  about  the  weather,  and  an  avowal  by  3Ir. 
Moulton  that  he  was  not  a  Christian,  which  was  uncalled 
for  imder  the  circumstances.  He  was  not  pushed  into  it 
as  St.  Peter  was  when  he  stood  before  the  fire  and  warmed 
Ms  hands.  It  was  a  voluntary  avowal,  ta  a  Christian 
city,  that  he  was  not  a  Christian  and  was  a  heathen.  But 
thinking  that  that  alone  would  not  recommend  him  to  a 
Christian  minister,  he  said  :  "  Now,  as  the  best  pledge  of 
any  friendship  I  can  frame  and  propose  to  you,  I  will 
show  you  how  a  heathen  can  serve  you."  And  whatever 
else  may  be  said,  and  proved,  and  charged  about  Moulton's 
inconsistencies  and  his  treachery,  he  has  never  been  un- 
faithful to  that  pledge  ;  lie  has  shown  you  how  a  heathen 
can  serve  a  Christian  minister.  But  we  know  that,  fi-om 
the  time  of  the  Apostles,  when  they  shot  and  burned 
them  over  the  fire,  and  imprisoned  them  in  dimgeons, 
and  Tortured  them  in  boUing  lead— we  know  how  the 
heathen  liked  to  serve  Christian  ministers,  and  Moulton 
told  this  man  that  he  would  show  him  how  he  would 
serve  7m».  [Laughter.]  And  perhaps  Mr.  Beecher  has 
found  out.  You  have,  at  any  rate. 


3Y  ME.   ETAETS.  707 
ME.    BEECHER  FISSl  AXXIOUS  TO  KXOW 
WHAT  BOWEN  HAD  SAID. 

Now  we  get  to  the  liouse,  and  tlie  husband 

is  before  the  seducer  and  the  paramour.  Now  we  have 
a  narrative  uninterrupted  that  fills  about  three  columns, 
I  should  think,  of  a  newspaper,  and  it  is  a  full  rationale 
of  this  case  as  propounded  by  Mr.  Tilton,  intended  to  in- 
troduce what  he  proposes  to  your  common  sense  as  an 
actual  interview  between  himself  and  his  wife,  and  an 
actual  interview  between  himself  and  the  paramour. 
And  you  will  see  whether  you  think  that  it  will  stand  the 
test  of  common  sense  and  of  common  decency  in  respect 
to  either.  But  you  will  see  now  how  he  betrays  himself. 
What  he  wanted,  what  was  uppermost,  what  was  the  ob- 
ject, was  to  get  out  of  the  terror  and  the  destruction  of 
^Ix.  Beecher's  resentment  against  him  for  that  letter. 
And  so,  forgetting  all  Ms  own  wrongs,  forgetting  the  tor- 
tures and  disgraces,  and  pity  for  Ms  wife,  and  pity  for 
Ms  children,  and  all  the  flood  of  passions,  good  and  bad, 
that  overflow  and  boll  over  in  a  man  the  first 
time  he  meets  the  adulterer  that  has  ruined 
everything  that  is  dear  to  Mm,  he  begi* 
by  going  at  what  Moulton  had  gone  at — this 
letter,  and  Bowen's  accusations  of  Mr.  Beecher. 
Now,  he  says,  to  begin  with,  and  to  be  carried  along,  I 
suppose,  with  Ms  narrative,  "  I  cannot  undertake  to  re- 
peat accurately,  that  is  to  say,  I  wiU  not  attempt  to  give 
the  words,  except  at  certain  points,  because  what  was 
said  was  mostly  said  by  me,  and  I  have  no  special  gift 
at  recalling  words."  Then  he  goes  on  and  gives  you,  I 
say,  a  narrative,  three  columns  of  a  newspaper.  *'  I  can 
better  call  what  he  said  than  what  I  said."  Well,  I 
should  think  so,  because  he  says  INIr.  Beecher  did  not 
say  anything.  No  doubt,  you  can  better  remember  what 
a  man  said  when  he  said  nothing  than  what  another  man 
said  wben  he  talked  half  an  hour.  "I  began 
in  tMs  way— I  am  entirely  accurate  as  to  the 
first  words  spoken,  and  they  were  these."  Now 
we  have  a  start-off.  between  an  infuriated  husband 
and  a  guilty  paramour,  each  knowing  the  tinith  about 
the  other.  "I  said:  'I  presume,  Sir,  that  jiou  received 
from  me  a  few  days  ago,  through  Mr.  Bc^en,  a  letter 
demanding  your  retii'ement  from  your  pulxjit,  and  from 
the  City  of  Brooklyn?'  He  said:  *Idid.'  I  then  said  to 
Mm,  '  I  have  called  you  here  to-nigM  in  order  to  say  to 
you  that  you  may  consider  that  letter  unwritten,  unsent, 
blotted  out,  no  longer  in  existence.'"  And  on  Mi*.  Til- 
ton's  cross-examination  I  draw  from  him  that  that  was 
the  absolute  purpose,  the  perfect  desire  to  get  it  possible 
as  between  him  and  Mr.  Beecher  in  regard  to  Mr. 
Beecher's  feelings  toward  Mm,  as  if  that  wicked 
and  impudent  letter  had  never  been  written, 
j  Beecher's  friendliness  to  him  was  what  he 
j  was  aiming  at,  and  did  aim  at  all  tMough 
1  that  week,  and  on  his  own  showing  what  a  strange 


708 


THE   TILTON-HEECEMJE  TEIAL. 


position,  if  lie  liad  the  least  idea  of  these  relations 
between  Mr.  Beecher  and  liis  wife  that  he  now  parades. 
His  position  would  he  this :  "  I  wanted  to  he  sure  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  feelings  toward  me.  I  tnew  he  loved  my  wife, 
hut  I  did  n't  know  how  he  felt  toward  me."  [Laughter.] 
And  he  meant  to  find  out.  "  *  I  thank  you,'  he  said.  I  re- 
plied :  '  Your  thanks  should  not  go  to  me,  hut  to  Eliza- 
heth.  It  is  in  her  behalf  that  I  hold  this  interview,  and 
whatever  I  shall  say  here,  or  in  consequence  of  this 
meeting,  is,  not  for  your  sake,  nor  for  my  sake,  but  for 
her  sake.'  I  then  asked  him  whether  Mr.  Moulton  had 
shown  to  him  a  statement  which  Elizabeth  had  written. 
*  *  *  He  said  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  shown  him  no 
statement.  I  then  said,  *  Do  you  not,  then,  understand  the 
object  of  this  interview  ?' "  Well,  he  ought  to  by  this  time, 
because  Mr.  Tilton  had  told  him.  " '  I  have  called  you 
here  to-night  in  order  to  say  to  you  that  I  want  that  let- 
ter I  sent  to  you  blotted  out.'  *  I  do,'  said  he,  in  general 
terms."  Those  were  the  general  terms  that  Moulton  had 
expressed  to  him— it  was  about  his  relations  to  his  fam- 
ily, and  about  that  letter.  '  I  then  replied,  '  you  should 
understand  it  more  specifically.'  "  Now,  look  at  the  cool 
way  in  which  this  rhetorician  opens  the  deepest  passions 
and  resentments  of  human  nature.  "  You  should  under- 
stand it  more  specifically.  I  will  read  to  you  a  statement 
whi«h  Elizabeth  has  made.  Mr.  Moulton  has  the  original ; 
I  have  a  copy;  I  will  read  to  you  the  copy." 

Now,  Mr.  Beecher  knew  that  he  was  an  adulterer  if 
there  had  been  any  adultery,  and  that  Mrs.  Tilton  was  the 
partoer  in  his  guilt,  and  that  she  had  made  a  statement ; 
and  that  this  letter  and  the  troubles  in  his  family  that 
]VIr.  Moulton  had  spoken  of  as  calling  for  this  interview 
with  Mr.  Tilton,  were  of  that  gi-ave  matter;  didn't  he? 
Didn't  he  know  it  then,  if  there  was  anything?  You 
must  judge.  I  tell  you  he  did.  If  there  was  any  fact,  he 
knew  it.  If  there  had  been  a  disclosure,  he  knew  it.  If 
Mrs.  Tilton  had  accused  him,  he  knew  it.  If  Mr.  Tilton 
had  a  charge  of  those  facts,  he  knew  it;  and  he 
knew  if  he  had  any  charge,  if  those  facts  were 
true,  it  was  of  these  facts»  Now,  see  how  the 
man  meets  it.  He  said,  cool  as  a  cucumber 
about  this  statement,  while  Mr.  Tilton  "  was  searching 
for  the  copy  which  I  had  made  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  paper,  he 
said  to  me :  '  Before  reading  that,  Theodore,  I  wish  you 
would  tell  me  what  Bo  wen  has  been  saying  against  me.' " 
Well,  now,  between  this  lion  of  a  husband  and  this  con- 
sciously guilty  man,  could  there  be  anything  more  infi- 
nitely ludicrous  than  this  ?  "  You  ought  to  hear  Eliza- 
beth's statement ;  I  will  search  for  that ;"  and  there  was 
some  delay.  Mr.  Beecher  says  :  "  Well,  Theodore,  before 
you  read  that  I  wish  you  would  tell  me  what  Bowen  has 
been  saying  against  me."  WeU,  how  did  the  husband 
meet  it  ?  How  did  he  meet  it  ?  Why,  he  says  :  "  I  re- 
plied to  him  that  I  had  not  summoned  him  to  the  inter- 
view for  the  purpose  of  discussing  with  him  Mr. 
Bo  wen's    affaire,    but   that    he    should  go  to  Mr. 


Bowen  himself.  Nevertheless,  as  he  asked  me  tli© 
question,  I  would  say  that  Mr.  Bowen  in  a& 
interview  with  me  on  the  preceding  day,  had  made  a 
statement  that^"  now,  we  have  got  it  as  in  quotation 
marks— that— see,  Tilton  wanted  to  get  in  as  early  as 
possible  what  Bowen  had  had  to  do  with  that  letter,  that 
it  was  Bowen's  calumnies,  if  they  were  calumnies,  that 
were  at  the  bottom  of  it— "you  have  been  guilty  of 
adulteries  with  numerous  members  of  your  congregation 
ever  since  your  Indianapolis  pastorate,  all  down  through 
these  twenty-five  years ;  that  you  are  not  a  safe  man  to 
dwell  in  a  Christian  community ;  that  he  knows  numer- 
ous cases  where  you  have  shipwrecked  the  happiness  of 
Christian  homes ;  that  he  has  determined  you  shall  no 
longer  edit  The  Christian  Union."  You  see  Bowen,  with 
his  zeal  for  morality  and  religion,  and  exposing 
the  turpitude  of  this  Christian  man  that  was  thus 
ravaging  the  sheepfolds  of  Brooklyii,  and  had  been  for 
25  years,  to  Bowen's  knowledge!  WeU,  didn't  that 
rather  make  him  an  accessory  before  the  fact  to  the  ruin 
of  aU  these  Brooklyn  people  ?  Mr.  Bowen,  even,  with 
that  Christian  indignation,  had  brought  it  to  the  point 
that  it  was  determined  "  you  shall  no  longer  edit  The 
Christian  Union."  That  is  the  first  thing;  "that  you 
shaU  no  longer  speak  m  Plymouth  Church ;  and  he  says 
distinctly"—  Now,  you  have  the  moral  sentiments 
from  Bowen ;  he  don't  mean  to  be  mistaken—"  that  you 
are  a  wolf  in  the  fold,  and  that  you  should  be  extirpated." 
Well,  now,  he  is  very  bold  about  Bowen's  feelings  toward 
Beecher.  He  didn't  wish  to  ameliorate  Beecher's  feel- 
ings toward  Bowen  ;  that  is  plain.  He  didn't  take  the 
means  of  finding  out  or  securing  friendliness 
on  Beecher's  part  to  Bowen.  Oh,  no.  Trath» 
truth,  governs  this  part  of  the  conference. 
"  Mr.  Beecher  said  "—and  whenever  Mr.  Beecher  says 
anything,  you  will  see  that  it  is  perfectly  natural  for  an 
honest  man  that  knew  what  his  own  character  and  con- 
duct was,  and  cared  not  for  the  malign er—"  Mr. 
Beecher  said  it  was  a  matter  of  amazement  to  him  that 
Mr.  Bowen  should  have  so  spoken  ;  'for'  said  he, '  when 
Mr.  Bowen  delivered  to  me  youi-  letter  demanding  my 
retirement  from  the  pulpit,  he  appeared  to  be  friendly, 
and  he  oftered  me  his  friendly  services  in  the  matter.'  " 
AVell,  if  Tilton  had  had  any  doubt  about  the  trick  that 
Bowen  had  played  him  at  that  interview,  he  now  had  his 
mind  disabused  of  that  doubt. 

I  then  said  to  him  that  I  had  joined  with  Mr.  Bowen  at 
the  beginning  of  the  week  in  making  that  demand  upon 
him  to  retire  ;  that  I  had  written  that  letter  at  Mr.  Bow- 
en's suggestion ;  that  Mr.  Bowen  had  requested  that  such 
a  letter  should  be  written,  and  had  said  that  the  reason 
why  he  could  not  write  it  himself  was  that  in  the  preceed- 
ing  February— that  is  February,  1870— he,  Bowen,  had 
had  a  reconciliation  with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  that  Mr. 
Beecher  had  begged  his  pardon,  and  had  bent  himself  on 
the  floor  and  wept,  and  Mr.  Bowen  had  freely  gi-anted 
him  forgiveness  for  the  crimes  he  had  committed. 

Good  heavens  1   How  came  Mr.  Bowen  to  be  gifted 


SUMMING    UP  BI  MR.  EYAEIS, 


709 


■witli  the  power  of  atosolution  for  sin  i  AU  these  adul- 
teries wliich  Mr.  Beecher  had  been  committing  for  25 
years,  ravaging  the  flocks,  and  was  still  perpetrating,  all 
forgiven  1 

That  he,  Bowen,  had  freely  granted  him  forgiveness  for 
the  crimes  he  had  committed,  and  Mr.  Bowen  said,  in 
view  of  having  granted  that  forgiveness,  he  could  not 
Initiate  proceedings  against  Mi".  Beecher,  hut  if  I  would 
initiate  them  hy  sending  such  a  challenge,  he  (Bowen) 
would  sustain  that  demand,  and  in  the  interest  of  moral- 
ity and  religion  expel  Mr.  Beecher  from  his  pulpit  and 
from  the  city.  That  he  furthermore  had  said  that  he, 
Bowen,  had  it  in  his  power  at  any  time  to  drive  Beecher 
out  of  Brooklyn  within  twelve  hours. 

Well,  Mr.  Beecher  didn't  trouble  himselC  at  all  about 
the  substance  of  these  accusations.  His  reply  now,  as 
before,  was  of  amazement  that  a  man  could  talk  in  that 
fashion. 

Mr.  Beecher  again  spoke  of  his  astonishment  that  Mr. 
Bowen  should  have  said  such  things  to  him— or  to  me 
[Mr.  Tilton  corrects  himself]— on  Monday,  and  then  have 
expressed  himself  in  a  friendly  way,  as  Mr.  Beecher  de- 
scribed it,  on  the  occasion  of  delivering  the  letter. 

Well,  these  twenty-five  years  of  adulteries,  drowned 
out  by  the  pardon  of  Bowen,  then  passed  very  much  out 
of  consideration  and  don't  seem  to  have  troubled  any- 
body's mind  since.  It  has  been  printed  in  the  papers  in 
the  form  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Tilton  to  Bowen.  You  don't 
And  anything  printed  from  Bowen— there  is  nothing  from 
Bowen  that  does  not  come  through  Tilton.  People  have 
read  it  and  yet  the  wolf  goes  on,  not  in  sheep's  clothing 
any  more,  of  course,  because  the  sheep's  clothing  has 
been  stripped  off,  but  he  goes  on,  not  only  with  absolu- 
tion for  the  past,  from  Bowen.  but  indulgence  for  the 
future  from  the  same  great  ecclesiastical  authority. 
[Laughter.]  ^ 

THE  TALK  ABOUT  THE  ALLEGED  CONFES- 
SION. 

How,  after  tliis  cool,  quiet  introduction  which 
Mr.  Tilton  flattered  himself  was  so  artful  for  the  purpose 
which  he  had,  of  throwing  on  Bowen  all  that  letter,  and 
inflaming  Beecher  against  Bowen  and  drawing  him  to- 
wards himself,  he  then  goes  on  and  gives  the  reason  he 
liad  come  to  this  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher.  Now, 
mark  how  he  confirms  otir  statement  and  belies  his  own, 
as  to  what  passed  between  him  and  his  wife  during  this 
week. 

I  then  told  Mr.  Beecher  that  after  I  had  had  this  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Bowen  I  had  narrated  the  substance  of  it 
to  my  wife ;  that  my  wife  was  ill,  and  that  this  intelli- 
gence filled  her  with  profound  distress ;  and  that  she  had 
instantly  said  to  me  that  it  was  a  violation  of  my  pledge 
and  promise  to  her,  made  in  the  preceding  Summer,  that 
I  would  never  do  the  Kev.  Hemy  Ward  Beecher  any 
harm,  or  ever  assist  in  any  exposure  of  his  secret  to  the 
public. 

Well,  I  think  Mr.  Tilton's  conduct  was  rather  open  to 
that  criticism  of  his  wife,  if  he  had  pledged  himself 
that  he  would  n't  do  any  harm  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 


He  had  told  you  that  his  animatiag  motive  when  he 
wrote  that  letter  to  Mr.  Beecher  was  to  strike  him  co  the 
heart,  and  to  drive  him  out  of  Brooklyn  in  twelve  hours, 
and  he  thought  he  would  do  it  by  that  letter ;  so  it  looks 
a  little  as  if  he  had  violated  a  pledge,  if  he  had  made 
one.  So  there  is  nothing  that  these  people  do  at  any 
step  that  they  do  not  have  to  avow  is  infamous  in  motive 
and  in  its  violation  of  every  pledge. 

She  said  to  me :  "If  Mr.  Bowen  makes  a  war  upoi 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  if  you"  

Now,  Bowen  had  not  shown  any  disposition  to  makft 
war  upon  Mr.  Beecher  except  so  far  as  Tilton  would  carry 
it  on  

 "  and  if  you  join  in  it,  and  if  Mr.  Beecher  retires  from 

his  pulpit,  as  he  must  imder  such  an  attack"--that  is  the 
poor  wife's  notion,  if  under  that  attack  of  Bowen  of  these 
adulteries  of  25  years  he  retires,  as  he  must—"  every- 
body wOl,  sooner  or  later,  know  the  reason  why,  and 
that,"  said  she  to  me,  "will  be  to  my  shame,  and  to  the 
children's  shame,  and  I  cannot  endure  it." 

Well,  now,  how  do  you  suppose  that  topic,  thus  brought 
up  suddenly,  with  all  its  horrid  meaning  to  a  guilty  soul, 
was  received  by  Mr.  Beecher,  and  how  was  it  treated  by 
Tilton?  I  am  taking  Mr.  Tilton's  story;  he  cannot  com- 
plain of  that.  When  he  had  said  this,  made  this  incidental 
reference,  "  Mr.  Beecher  then  asked  me  what  I  meant 
by  speaking  in  that  way  of  Elizabeth  and  her  shame.'* 
"  Why,  what  is  all  this ?  Your  wifel  vour  children?  I 
understand  thus  far :  you  have  been  talking  about  that 
letter  and  about  Bowen' s  '  adulteries ;'  you  told  me  that 
you  were  fumbling  for  a  statement  that  you  were  going 
to  read  to  me,  but  now  you  have  said  something  about 
Elizabeth  and  *  her  shame ;'  now  that,  that  that,  is  some- 
thing that  I  would  like  to  hear  about.  What  is  that  ?" 

"  He  asked  me,"  says  Mr.  Tilton,  "  what  I  meant  by 
speaking  in  that  way  of  Elizabeth  and  her  shame;  sol 
then  read  to  him  a  copy  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  confession,  a 
copy  which  I  had  made  in  the  early  part  of  the  evening; 
the  original  of  which  was  in  Mr.  Moulton's  possession." 

Well,  I  objected  and  asked  for  the  paper.  He  said  the 
paper  was  destroyed.  "When  was  it  destroyed?"  "It 
was  destroyed  by  Mrs.  Tilton's  own  hand."  "The  copy 
you  took,  T  mean?"  "The  copy  was  destroyed  that 
evening,  during  the  interview;  the  original  was  de- 
stroyed two  years  later  by  Mrs.  Tilton,  in  my  presence." 
"Is  that  the  one  that  Mr.  Moulton  speaks  of  in  his  testi- 
mony as  having  been  destroyed?"  "Yes,  Sir."  Then 
Mr.  Fullerton  asks,  "  Destroyed  immediately  after  the 
'Tripartite  Agreement'  was  signed?"  Mr.  Fullerton 
knew  when  it  was  destroyed.  "Yes,  Sir;  after  the 
'Tripartite  Agreement'  was  signed,  at  Mr.  Moulton's 
house,"  that  paper  was  destroyed.  Well,  he  read  the 
paper,  whatever  it  was.   He  says : 

After  I  read  to  him,  then  he  lifted  his  hand  as  if  he 
were  about  to  speak,  and  I  said,  "  No,  Sir ;  hear  me 
through,  and  speak  then." 


710  IHE  TlLTON'BEhUniEB 

A  DESPERATE  MOVE  OF  MR.  TILTOK'S. 

And  then,  gentlemen,  we  had  a  most  extra- 
ordinary occurrence  liere  right  imder  the  eye  of  the 
Court,  and  in  the  face  of  the  jury.  I  objected,  under  a 
well  settled  rule  of  evidence,  as  I  supposed,  to  allowing 
parties  that  had  destroyed  this  vital  paper,  willfully, 
to  undertake  to  give  evidence  of  its  contents;  and  the 
law  does  not  allow  that.  The  law  understands  that  a 
paper  must  speak  for  Itself,  and  provides  that  people 
shall  not  he  allowed  to  destroy  it  and  substitute  their 
memory  or  their  invention.  My  learned  friends  with 
great  ability,  which,  indeed,  characterizes  all  their  foren- 
sic interlocutory  arguments— Mr.  Fullerton  and  Mr. 
Beach  both— argued  that  that  rule  could  not  apply,  because 
the  paper  was  destroyed  with  Mr.  Beecher's  concmrence, 
that  night,  with  his  concurrence,  before  his  face,  by  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  the  original  afterward,  with  his  concurrence. 
"Well,  that  had  not  been  proved.  I  said,  "  It  will  be  time 
enough  to  put  upon  that  ground,  to  eet  a  right  to  give 
parole  evidence  of  that  paper,  when  you  have 
proved  Mr.  Beecher's  conciuTence,"  but  they 
argued  and  argued  that  it  was  not  fraudulent, 
and  that  the  proof  was  admissible,  although  the  destruc- 
tion was  piirposed ;  for  their  argument  was  that  it  was 
done  as  a  deliberate  act  and  upon  the  concurrent  pui'- 
pose  of  ]VIr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  then,  that  night,  and 
some  concurrence  of  Mr.  Beecher  afterward,  two  years 
afterward,  though  that,  of  course,  they  had  not  then  given 
any  proof  of.  I  brought  the  authorities  and  read  them, 
that  even  a  destruction  that  was  not  fraudulent,  if  It  was 
purposed,  would  not  permit  the  introduction  of  secondary 
evidence  by  the  person  who  purposely  destroyed  the 
paper,  because  the  interests  of  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice could  not  be  exposed  to  the  question  whether  it  was 
fraudulent  or  not ;  but  that  it  was  only  when  accident  or 
mistake  had  caused  the  destruction  of  a  paper,  that  parole 
evidence  or  secondary  evidence  of  its  contents  could  be 
given;  and  would  you  belies' e  it,  when  that  discussion 
was  over  and  this  paper  had  not  been  permitted  to  be  de' 
tailed  by  his  tongue,  and  he  had  heard  this  argument  of 
his  counsel  that  it  had  been  purposely  destroyed  with  Mr. 
Beecher's  concurrence,  and  therefore  the  testi- 
mony ought  to  be  allowed,  and  that  the  books 
did  not  allow  that  distinction,  but  allowed 
the  distlbction  of  the  accidental  destrtiction— would  you 
believe  it  the  next  moment  that  he  opened  his  mouth  on 
the  witness-stand,  after  this  discussion,  he  threw  his 
counsel  bodily  overboard  before  your  eyes,  crushed  their 
argument  that  the  destruction  was  puiposed  and  with 
Mr.  Beecher  8  concurrence,  and  said  that  in  the  heat  of 
his  presentation  of  this  case  to  Mr.  Beecher  he  had  in- 
advertently picked  this  paper  to  pieces,  and  found  he 
had  destroyad  this  copy  of  the  confession! 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  was  done  before  your  eyes,  un- 
der the  ready  wit  and  the  short  reckoning  of  Mr.  Tilton, 
that  if  he  did  put  his  counsel  to  the  open  shame  of  argu- 


TBIAL. 

mg,  upon  his  previous  instructions,  that  the  paper  had 
been  destroyed  purposely  and  with  Mr.  Beecher's  con- 
currence, he  at  least  would  help  his  cause,  as  he  thought,, 
and  invent  an  inadvertent,  mistaken,  unintentional  de- 
struction. Well,  it  did  not  answer  the  purpose.  It  didn't 
remove  my  objection,  because  the  original  had  been  de- 
stroyed ;  and  it  did  not  satisf^^  the  ground  of  his  Honor's 
exclusion,  which  was  on  another  point.  So  much  for 
that  wriggling  of  a  witness  and  a  party  out  of  one  scrape 
into  another. 


HOW  THE  ALLEGED  CONFESSION  WAS  MADE. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  this  plaintiff's 
(the  husband  of  an  adulteress)  narrative  to  the  para- 
mour of  his  wife  of  the  wife's  statement  to  him.  Mrs. 
Tilton's  confessions  are  not  permitted  to  be  given  in 
evidence  and  have  not  been  given  in  evidence  in  this 
cause  from  anybody,  Mr.  Tilton  was  not  allowed  to  give 
them  because  it  would  be  infidelity  to  confidential  com- 
munications from  a  wife.  Nobody  else  has  given  them ; 
nobody  else  could  be  allowed  to  give  them;  and 
yet  you  have  a  long  narrative  that,  at  first  view, 
looks  as  if  it  was  a  statement  by  a  witness  of  what  she 
confessed ;  but  you  will  see  at  once  the  difference,  when 
it  is,  only  what  he  told  Mr.  Beecher,  di&  what  she  had  con- 
fessed, that  has  been  permitted  to  be  given  in  evidence, 
not  tending  to  prove  that  it  was  true,  not  permitted  to  have 
that  influ.euce  on  your  minds,  because  it  would  be  equally 
a  part  of  his  statement  to  the  paramour,  whether  it  were 
true  or  not,  wouldn't  it  ?  It  would  be  an  enginery  to 
probe  the  paramour's  conscience,  and  to  alarm  him  into 
an  admission,  whether  it  was  true  or  not.  If  a  husband, 
suspecting  a  paramour,  seizes  him  unawares,  and  invents 
a  confession  of  his  wife  and  puts  it  to  the  paramour  to  see 
how  the  paramour  will  deal  with  it,  why,  he  uses  a 
weapon  the  effect  of  which  on  the  paramour  will 
be  the  same  whether  his  wife  has  confessed 
or  not,  if  the  paramour  knows  it  is  true. 
Many  a  case  of  that  kind  is  found  in  the  books.  The 
force  of  all  this  permitted  testimony  of  what  passed  be- 
tween Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton  is  to  bind  Mr.  Beecher 
by  what  he  does ;  not  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  state- 
ments that  are  made  to  him  \)j  Mr.  Tilton.  And  you  will 
see  at  once  the  difference.  I  could  cross-examine  IVIr. 
Tilton  as  to  whether  or  no  he  told  Mr.  Beecher  aU  this^ 
rigmarole,  if  I  had  thought  it  worth  my  wiiile,  but  I  could 
not  cross-examine  him  as  to  what  passed  between  him 
and  his  wife.  I  could  not  explore  the  secrets  of  that  in- 
terview and  draw  out  from  his  unwilling  mouth,  per- 
haps, against  his  will,  the  truth  of  what  passed  between 
himself  and  his  wife ;  because  he  had  not  been  allowed  to 
swear  what  passed  between  himself  and  his  wife,  and 
I  could  not  occupy  a  field  by  cross-examination 
that  had  not  been  opened.  The  same  objection  to  making 
a  husband,  or  allowmg  a  husband,  to  reveal  confidential 
passages  between  himself  and  his  wife,  would  have  ©x- 


SCMMISG    UF  BT  Jd£.  ETAETS. 


711 


eluded  mj"  cross-examination  as  to  the  actual  occurrence 
betrween  tliem,  just  as  mucli  as  it  excluded  Ms  direct  tes- 
tlmonr.  Therefore,  vou  Tvill  see  that  this  matter  of 
■u-hatever  passed  on  that  July  toetween  Mr.  Tilton  and  his 
-wife  remains  Tvholly  unexplored;  no  afarmative  direct 
evidence  has  been  permitted  to  he  given  of  it ;  my  side  of 
this  ease  has  heen  excluded  from  prohing,  from  testing, 
from  convicting  of  falsehood  and  of  folly,  the  story  of 
any  such  interview.  But  as  a  part  of  this  intervleTv  he- 
tween  the  husband  and  the  paramour,  this  becomes  a 
subject  to  be  commented  upon,  and  it  is  invaluable.  This 
is  the  husband's  reproduction  of  what  he  alleges 
Avas  an  interview  between  his  guilty  wife  and 
^mself  on  the  occasion  of  his  becoming  first 
informed  of  the  guUt  of  the  wife,  and  when  he  had  had 
no  suspicion  up  to  the  moment  of  the  interview.  Xow, 
you  would  suppose  that  a  woman  that  had  made  up  her 
mind  to  tell  her  husband  of  such  a  course  of  life  as  this 
woman  is  said  to  have  admitted  to  her  htisband  wotild 
have  had  some  emotion  ;  there  would  have  been  a  sob  or 
a  tear ;  there  would  have  been  a  justification,  a  depreca- 
tion, a  subjection  to  his  mercy  on  the  part  of  the  wife  ru 
lier  own  behalf.  Can  you  figure  to  yourself,  in  our  circle 
of  society  and  on  the  level  of  these  people,  saying  nothing 
of  the  particular  delicate  traits  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  her  severe 
notions  about  the  least  approach  of  unchastity, 
her  severe  condemnation  of  all  iromorality  in 
others,  her  hatred,  her  abhorrence  of  any 
approach  or  exhibition  of  the  faUen  condition  of 
woman,  her  sister,  which  excited  such  feelingin  her  that, 
while  all  other  people  were  patient  and  courteous  and 
embraced  with  Msses,  Mrs.  Woodhull  in  her  presence,  as 
Mr.  Tilton  tells  you  himself,  whenever  his  wife  and  Mrs. 
WoodhuU  were  iii  the  same  room  their  eyes  flashed  lire  at 
one  another— do  you  suppose  such  a  woman,  that  had 
dragged  her  body  through  the  prostitution  of  sixteen 
months,  and  through  the  longer  indignities  of  the  coarse 
approaches  of  three  years  "before— to  be  sure  one  incredi- 
bility shuts  out  another ;  the  whole  thilig  is  so  iucredible 
that  you  cannot  reason  upon  its  ever  having  occurred, 
but  his  theory  is  that  it  had  occurred— do  you  suppose  a 
woman  whose  eyes  flashed  fire  whenever  they  lit  upon 
Mrs.  Woodhull's  face,  could  have,  under  the  power  of 
conscience,  made  a  long  confession  of  her  guilt,  of  the 
facts  if  it  was  innocent  adultery,  of  the  disreputable 
facts  that,  unexplained,  looked  a  little  against 
a  woman  certainly  Llaughter],  and  had  the  nar- 
rative begin  and  go  on  as  this  one  doesi 
Ah!  gentlemen,  a  witness  that  is  not  to  be  con- 
tradicted, when  he  tells  this  narrative  can  make  it 
match,  perhaps,  in  loords,  but  the  folly  of  expecting  to 
have  it  match  human  nature,  in  the  judgment  of  men,  in 
ihe  judgment  of  women,  in  the  judgment  of  a  jury,  is  ut- 
terly incalculable  and  preposterous  !  The  idea  entering 
Into  the  shallowest  pate,  unless  it  was  a  shallow  pate  in- 
flated by  self-conceit,  that  he  could  make  an  interview 


between  husband  and  wife,  that  the  very  stones  of  the 
street  would  cry  out  against  as  a  libel  on  auman  nature, 
a  libel  upon  a  woman  that  could  say  it,  and  a  libel  upon 
a  man  that  could  hear  it !  Xow,  see  how  the  wife  begins. 
Mr.  Tilton  says : 

"  I  told  ^Ix.  Beecher  that  in  the  early  part  of  July  pre 
vlotis  to  that  interview  [that  is,  July  previous  to  this 
December],  Mrs.  Tilton  had  come  home  uneirpectedly 
from  the  country  and  had  said  to  me  that  the  object  of 
her  return  was  to  communicate  to  me  a  secret  that  had 
been  long  resting  upon  her  mind  like  a  burden"— these 
are  her  words,  figurative,  you  see,  rhetorical — "  which 
she  wished  to  throw  off' — cool,  quiet — "that  she  had 
on  several  previous  occasions  come  almost  to  the  point 
of  making  such  a  statement  to  me" — statement ;  no 
confession,  no  notion  that  she  was  going  to  make  a  con- 
fession, but  a  statement—"  and  once  in  particular  while 
on  a  sick-bed,  but  that  she  had  never  until  then,  having- 
been  restored  to  health" — well,  she  had  been  in  health, 
before,  and  the  time  she  most  thought  of  it  was  when 
she  was  sick—"  she  had  never  until  then,  having  been 
restored  to  health,  been  brought  quite  to  the  point  of 
courage— the  disclosure." 

Now,  was  there  ever  a  cooler  adulteress  lying  by  the 
side  of  a  husband  ra  a  marriage  bed,  and  iatroducing  the 
shameful  narratiTe  that  bums  into  the  soul  of  a  woman, 
and  she  a  woman  whose  eyes  flashed  fire  at  the  presence 
of  impurity  1  Ah  1  Mr.  Tilton,  you  can  invent  speeches 
for  Tiltons  ;  you  cannot  invent  them  for  women  ! 

"  That  before  she  would  announce  to  me  what  the  secret 
was"— vousee  it  was  not  anything  of  hers,  nor  that  he 
suspected  that  she  had  anything  to  do  with  it—"  she  ex- 
acted from  me  a  pledge  that  I  would  do  no  harm  to  the 
person  concerning  whom  the  secret  was  to  be  told." 

A  unilateral  secret,  obviously,  for  it  only  related  to  one- 
person;  no  connection  with  this  living  soul  and  body  that 
lay  by  his  side,  and  was  talktag  to  him. 

"  And,  furthermore,  that  I  would  not  commnnicaTe  to 
that  person  that  she  had  made  such  a  revelation  to  me  "' — 
no  confession — "because,  as  she  said,  she  wished  to  in- 
foi-m  him  of  that  revelation  herself." 

Ah !  gentlemen,  not  much  notion  of  confession  to  :Mr^ 
Tilton;  the  word  didn't  occur ;  not  much  notion  of  con- 
sciousness of  guilt  on  her  part,  the  sin  of  unchastity  and^ 
pollution  of  body,  and  you  remember  her  letters  that  my 
learned  brother  exposed  to  you  with  siaeh  effective  dem- 
onstration as  the  anatomist  exhibits  over  the  torn  frame, 
of  a  subject.   And  Tilton  was  as  cool  as  she. 

"  I  had  given  to  her  this  pledge,"  and  that  you  might- 
not  doubt  how  sacred  it  was,  and  solemn :— "  my  word  of 
honor  that  I  would  neither  disclose  her  secret  "—that  is, 
the  secret  she  was  going  to  tell—"  whatever  it  might  be,, 
nor  would  I  injure  the  person  concerning  whom  it  was  to, 
be  told." 

So  they  keep  it  up,  and  you  see,  gentlemen,  now  we- 
don't  need  to  talk  about  these  things,  the  impossibility  of  ^ 
such  a  beginning,  not  in  respect  to  the  memory  of  words, . 
but  in  the  very  imperishable  principles  of  human  nature- 
and  human  character,  puts  to  flight  aU  solicitude  about- 
believing  anything  that  comes  after ;  and  when  you  have 
a  living  witness  and  a  credible  man,  ^Fr.  Beecher,  who. 


713 


THE   T1L10:N-BEECHEE  IBIAL. 


tells  yon  that  all  this  folly  never  was  produced  in  Ms 
liearing,  and  gives  you  a  perfectly  rational  explanation 
of  wliat  was  said  to  Mm  as  coming  from  tlie  wife,  wMch 
Is  perfectly  consistent  with  this  telling  of  the  story  about 
a  third  person  that  didn't  involve  the  wife's  character  or 
her  conduct,  to  wit,  a  withdi'awal  of  her  affections,  and, 
if  you  please,  the  further  statement  of  rejected  addresses 
—when  you  have  a  living  witness  that  tes- 
tifies along  the  live  current  of  human  nature 
and  human  conduct,  you  then  can  understand  how 
this  witness  has  fixed  the  real  traits  of  any  communica- 
tion or  statement  as  not  being  a  confession  on  the  part  of 
the  wife,  hut  an  accusation  of  another,  of  being  some- 
tMng  to  be  told  injurious  to  another,  and  not  to  excite 
animosity  on  the  husband's  part  against  that  other,  nor 
even  to  be  made  the  subject  of  communication  to  him, 
"because  the  lady  wished  to  be  the  medium  of  communi- 
cation to  Mm  herself.  Well,  now,  we  have  got  some  third 
person,  about  whom  something  is  to  be  told  wMch  has 
not  started  a  tear  or  a  sob  on  the  part  of  the  wife ;  nor 
has  it  agitated  a  suspicion  or  a  doubt  on  the  part  of  the 
liusband.  And  then  she  goes  on  just  as  coolly;  and  now 
listen  • 

That  she  then  said  to  me  that  it  was  a  secret  between 
-herself  and  the  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

Well,  she  put  in  his  full  title,  so  that  there  might  be  no 
mistake  of  the  person ;  and,  then,  to  guard  against  fur- 
ther misconstruction,  she  adds,  "  her  pastor."  Well,  gen- 
tlemen, Mr.  and  Mrs.  Tilton  knew  Mr.  Beecher,  and  they 
knew  he  was  the  pastor  of  Plymouth  Church;  and  when 
an  agomzed  wife,  under  the  power  of  conscience,  is  going 
to  tell  of  her  seduction,  of  her  prostitution,  she  would  tell 
of  it,  wouldn't  she  ?  She  would  humble  herself  in  the 
pillows  of  the  bed  and,  with  sobs  and  tears  and  dishev- 
eled hair,  tell  the  sad  story  of  her  shame.  She  would  not 
put  in  "  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  my  pastor,"  as  the 
first  thing  she  said  on  the  subject.  Now,  see  how  she  re- 
calls to  Mm ;  just  see  how  she  talked  to  Mm  there  that 
night:  "That,  as  I  was  well  aware,"  that  is,  that  she 
said  to  him— he  don't  say  he  was  aware,  but  she  said, 
"Now,  as  you  are  well  aware,"  my  husband,  "there  had 
been  during  a  long  comse  of  years  a  friendsMp  between 
herself  and  her  pastor."  She  wishes  to  recall  to  his  mind 
the  general  traits  and  features  of  this  business  and  rela- 
tion, so  that  it  won't  seem  improbable  to  him  that  she  has 
committed  adultery  with  a  man  in  the  moon. 

"TMs  friendsMp,  contrary  to  my  expectation,  had 
been,"  she  says— well,  that  was  fair  to  tM'ow  that  in— 
"  had  been  in  later  years  more  than  friendship.  It  had 
been  love ;  that  it  had  been  more  than  love." 

See  how  the  climax  rises  with  the  rhetoric  that  belon.jrs 
to  the  passion  of  the  heart. 

"  That  it  had  been  sexual  intimacy ;  that  this  sexual  in- 
timacy had  begun  shortly  after  the  death  of  her  son 
Paul"— well,  that  is  a  queer  way  of  speaking  of  little  Paul 
to  the  father—"  her  son  Paul ;  that  she  had  been  in  a  ten- 
der frame  of  mind  coEsequent  upon  that  bereavement." 


Now,  you  know,  having  got  at  the  fact  of  the  adultery, 
it  is  to  be  made  reasonable  by  connecting  it,  naturally, 
with  sentiments,  and  feelings,  and  a  situation  of  the 
woman's  mind  that  tends  to  adultery,  of  course.  You 
must  have  the  proximate  situation  to  make  the  adultery 
natural ;  and  anybody  can  see  that  a  mother,  having  lost 
a  child,  turns  her  attention  to  adultery,  of  course.  Of 
course,  we  all  understand  that.  That  toeing  granted,  it 
is  in  vain  to  reason  against  the  rest.  However,  she  does 
a  little  more. 

That  she  had  received  much  consolation  during  that 
shadow  on  our  house  from  her  pastor ;  that  she  had  made 
a  visit  to  Ms  house  while  she  was  still  suffering  from  that 
sorrow  

All  in  the  name  of  the  dead  Paul  that  tMs  adultery  is 
justified,  and  there,  on  the  10th  of  October— you  see  we 
have  the  date;  the  date  is  important;  we  must  get  it 
somewhere ;  the  law  requires  some  particular  time  and 
place,  and  now  we  have  got  it.  Only  tMnk  of  it,  of  a 
woman  under  the  influence  of  conscience,  and  stirred  by 
the  deepest  passions  of  Jier  sex,  or  of  our  nature,  having 
the  precision  of  mind  equal  to  that  of  my  learned  brother 
Morris  in  drawing  this  declaration  of  stating  ^he  time  and 
place  at  Mr.  Beecher's  house  on  the  10th  day  of  October, 
1868.  Now,  it  could  not  have  been  for  the  pm-pose  of 
having  a  suit  brought,  because  she  had  exacted  a  pledge, 
and  he  had  given  it  on  his  honor,  that  he  would  not  do  or 
say  anytMng  about  the  matter  she  was  going  to  teU  Mm. 

Still  sufiering  from  that  sorrow,  and  that  there,  on  the 
10th  of  October,  1868,  she  had  surrendered  her  body  to 
him  in  sexual  embrace  ;  that  she  had  repeated  such  an 
act  on  the  following  Saturday  evening  at  her  own  resi- 
dence. 

A  queer  way  of  talking  to  her  husband,  and  for  fear 
there  should  be  doubt,  as  they  had  moved  from  time  to 
time  from  one  house  to  another,  she  adds,  "  her  own 
residence,  174  Livingston-st.; "  fLaughterJ  "  that  she 
had  consequent  upon  those  two  occasions  "—look  at  the 
rationale  of  it ;  "  consequent  upon  those  two  occasions." 
Not  subsequent.  Oh,  no !  There  is  a  logic  of  conneo- 
tion.  WeU,  as  we  have  a  very  good  maxim  that  it  is  oMy 
the  first  step  that  costs,  I  think  the  two  steps  did  Justify 
the  reasoning  that  the  rest  followed, 

Consequent  upon  those  two  occasions,  repeated  such 
acts  at  various  times,  at  his  residence  and  at  hers,  and  at 
other  places.  ^ 

A  FEAR  OF  ALIBIS. 
She  does  not  seem  to  have  disclosed  the  other 

places.  What  would  her  friends  have  given  for  the  other 
places  %  Ah  !  gentlemen,  these  other  places  I  There  were 
other  places,  mind  you,  or  this  was  a  He,  and  the  same 
woman  that  told  with  such  precision  that  it  was  at  her 
residence,  174  Livingston-st.,  would  have  at  least  given 
a  clew  that  could  have  been  followed  out  to  find  the  other 
places.  They  could  have  proved  them  if  they  had 
proof,  but  they  had  not  any  other  proof  of  these 
places,  Mr.  Beecher's  house,  or  hers,  any  more  on  this 


SUMMING    VF  BY  MR.  EYAETS. 


713 


trial  than  they  had  of  the  other  places  ;  and,  if  they  had 
not  any  proof  of  the  other  places,  Mr.  Tilton  thought,  on 
the  whole,  that  there  might  be  more  danger  of  alibis  if 
he  had  given  equal  precision  to  the  other  dates  and  the 
other  places  that  the  woman  mentioned— that  he  said  she 
mentioned.  "  Such  act  of  sexual  intercourse  repeated." 
Repeated  such  acts.  Now,  she  didn't  wish  to  be  mis- 
understood. Repeated  such  acts,  she  said  ;  so  she  re- 
peated such  acts  of  sexual  intercourse,  continuing  from 
the  Fall  of  1868  to  the  Spring  of  1870. 

"That  in  July,  1870,  she  had  made"— now,  this  is  not  a 
part  of  her  narrative,  but  it  comes  in  here— "that  in  July, 
1870,  she  made  a  confession  to  me  in  detail  of  those 
acts  ;  that  she  had  given  to  me  also,  during  that  recital, 
many  of  the  reasonings  by  her  pastor  communicated  to 
her  to  change  what  were  her  original  scruples  against 
such  a  sexual  intimacy." 

THE  AEGOIEXTS    BEFORE    WHICH  IT  IS 
ALLEGED   MES.   TILTON  FELL. 

Only  tMnk  of  it.  A  woman  35  years  old  that 
Tiad  had  six  children,  one  of  them  lately  dead,  that  speaks 
of  a  woman's  feeling  about  chastity,  a  wife's  feeling  about 
chastity,  a  mother's  feeling  about  chastity,  and  the  pollu- 
tion of  the  marriage  bed  in  her  own  house,  which  the 
French  law  in  terms  says  justifies  the  husband  in  slaying 
Tier  on  the  spot— and  they  are  not  supposed  to  be  a  sensi- 
tive people  on  these  matters— this  woman  speaks  of  that 
as  her  original  scr«.ples  against  sexual  intercourse.  Good 
heavens  !  We  shall  have  to  ask  the  maidens  when  they 
stand  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  whether  they  have  any 
scruples  about  sexual  intimacy  with  other  men  than 
their  husbands,  and  our  wives— we  want  to  know 
how  they  feel  on  this  delicate  question  of  casuistry, 
this  domestic  question,  about  which  opinions  differ,  that 
has  so  much  to  be  said  on  one  side  and  the  other  for  it, 
to  know  what  their  scruples  were.  Ah,  these  insidious 
Christian  instructions  of  Mr.  Beecher  that  removed,  her 
scruples  about  prostitution  and  adultery  and  bastardy  in 
her  family.  Ah,  he  must  have  preached  with  a  power  to 
conscience  and  intelligence  that  he  has  not  exhibited  of 
Jate  if  he  could  reduce  this  natiu-e  of  woman  to  scruples, 
and  then  puff  them  away  with  the  breath  of  his  mouth. 
Now,  I  thought  that  it  was  a  little  steep,  to  use  a  slang 
expression,  when  she  said  that  she  told  him  that  her 
pastor,  for  reasons,  had  induced  her  to  change  her  orig- 
tual  scruples.  I  brokte  in  there— I  could  not  stand  it : 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Tilton,  do  I  understand  that  this  is 
what  you  said  to  Mr.  Beecher  1 

I  began  to  see  that  I  had  got  him  in  a  grasp  that  he 
never  could  escape  from,  but  that  I  must  hold  him  by  a 
new  twist  of  the  cord  that  he  needn't  jump  from  it.  He 
answered :  "Precisely,  Sir."  Well,  pretty  good  for  a  sin- 
gle word.  Well,  now,  he  goes  on  and  gives  the  reasons, 
and  yon  see  they  carry  conviction  to  every  pure-minded 
woman: 

**  That  she  had  in  the  early  stages  of  their  friendship"— 


now,  the  woman  was  not  unwarned—"  been  greatly  dis- 
tressed at  rumors  concerning  INIr.  Beecher's  moral  integ- 
rity." 

Well,  now,  every  rumor  has  been  traced  to  Mr.  Tilton 
thus  far.  Mr,  Tilton  repeats  to  Mr.  Bowen ;  Mr.  TUton 
writes  to  Mr.  Bowen  what  he  says  Mr.  Bowen  said  to 
him,  but  Mr.  Bowen  has  never  come  out  and  said  he  said 
it,  but  you  will  see  how  the  dreadful  alternative  that  I 
put  to  this  man  of  knowledge  about  Mr.  Beecher,  If  there 
was  any  truth  of  any  kind,  comes  out  of  his  own  fig- 
ment, to  be  sure,  but  of  his  own  necessity  to  make,  by  a 
figment,  a  storv  that  he  thinks  credible." 

"  That  she  had  in  the  early  stages  of  their  friendship"— 
Mr.  Beecher's  and  her  own — "  been  greatly  distressed  at 
rumors  concerning  ]Mr.  Beecher's  moral  integrity." 

Why  should  she  have  been  distressed  about  a  matter 
that,  as  it  turned  out,  was  only  a  scruple  of  an  over- 
scrupulous woman,  and  that  when  the  vile  pollution  had 
been  perpetrated  and  continued  had  not  touched  her  yet, 
and  for  a  year  afterward,  with  the  notion  that  she  had 
violated  her  marriage  vows.  Ah,  this  is  too  extraordi- 
nary. "  She  was  distressed  at  rumors  concerning  Mr. 
Beecher's  moral  integrity ;  that  she  wished  to  show  to  liim" 
—now  comes  the  justification— comes  this  shrewd,  as  this 
party  thinks  it,  invention  of  his  to  make  you  swallow  this 
adultery  as  not  involving  any  want  of  innocence  on  the 
part  of  his  wife.  How  noble  her  motives  now,  having 
heard  and  been  distressed  by  rumors  of  Mr.  Beecher's 
immoralities  with  women ! 

She  wished  to  show  to  him  that  there  was  a  woman 
who  was  superior  to  the  silly  flatteries  with  which  many 
ladies  in  his  congregation  had  courted  his  society. 

His  society !  What  does  society  mean  in  that  connec- 
tion, of  his  known  immoralities  and  the  silly  women — 
the  rumors  of  his  immoralities  and  the  silly  women  that 
had  courted  his  society  1 

"That  she  wished  to  demonstrate  the  honor  and  the 
dignity  of  her  sex;  that  she  had  done  so  in  her  own 
thought,  until  finally  she  had  been  persuaded  by  him, 
that  as  their  love  was  proper  and  not  wrong" — well, 
that  seemed  to  be  taken  for  granted,  that  the  love  of  a 
married  man  with  a  married  woman,  the  wife  of  another 
man,  that  that  was  all  right,  and,  "therefore  it  followed 
that  any  expression  of  that  love,  whether  by  the  shake 
of  the  hand,  or  the  kiss  of  the  lips,  or  even  bodily  inter- 
coui'se,  since  it  all  was  the  expression  of  that  which  in 
itself  was  not  wrong,  therefore  that  bodily  intercourse 
was  not  wrong." 

Well,  now,  that  involved  sentence  of  metaphysical 
reasoning  is  almost  as  long  and  faulty  as  some  that  the 
newspapers  impute  to  me  in  my  argument.  How  natural 
for  a  woman  lying  in  bed  by  her  husband,  and  talking 
about  her  own  adultery  to  a  man  who  had  never  heard  of 
it  before.  How  interesting  it  must  have  been  that,  if  he 
had  got  to  accept  the  fact,  at  least  his  reason  was  not 
going  to  be  imposed  upon  if  he  should  understand  how 
it  happened. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 


714 


IHB   TILTON-BEECUEE  TRIAL, 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 

{ourmnent. 

Mr.  Evarts— She  proceeded  with  her  exegesis  of  this 
adultery  after  saying  that  step  by  step,  a  shake  of  the 
hand,  a  kiss  of  the  lips,  or  bodily  intercourse,  since  it  was 
the  expression  of  that  which  in  itself  was  not  wrong, 
therefore  that  bodily  intercourse  was  not  wrong. 

That  she  had  said  to  me  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  professed 
to  her  a  greater  love  than  he  had  ever  shown  to  any 
woman  in  his  life ;  that  she  and  I  both  knew  that  for 
years  his  home  had  not  been  a  happy  one ;  that  his  wife 
had  not  been  a  satisfactory  wife  to  him ;  that  she  wished 
—that  he  wished— [that  is  a  correction ;  she  "  does  not 
belong  there.]— that  he  wished  to  find  in  her  (Elizabeth) 
the  consolation,  the  help  to  his  mind,  atid  the  solace  of 
life  which  had  been  denied  to  him  by  the  unfortunate 
marriage  at  home. 

Well,  what  becomes  of  the  25  years  of  adultery  and 
debauchery  that  had  run  on,  from  Indianapolis  down  ? 
On  this  story,  this  was  the  first  real  resort  to  happiness 
in  marriage  which  Mr.  Beecher  had  felt  at  liberty  to  as- 
sume. Late  in  life,  at  the  age  of  56,  after  he  had  had 
nine  children,  and  while  he  had  some  six  or  eight  grand- 
children, and  had  fair  daughters-in-law  about  him,  and  a 
wife  that  he  had  been  faithful  to  from  the  time  they  were 
both  17  years  of  age,  he  thought  that  his  duty  required 
him  now  to  find  consolation,  reward  for  a  virtuous  life, 
help  to  his  mind— for  his  mind  and  his  soul  were  devoted 
to  the  service  of  God,  and  anything  that  could  amplify 
the  great  powers  for  truth  and  Christianity  that  he  was 
endowed  with  was  of  course  a  duty— and  the  solace  of 
life  which  had  been  denied  to  him  by  the  imf ortunate 
marriage  at  home,  a  marriage  now,  at  this  date,  of  a  con- 
tinuance, I  suppose,  of  some  30  years. 

Mr.  Porter— Thirty-five. 

Mr.  Evarts— Thirty-five  years.  Well,  what  a  revela- 
tion it  was  to  him  ;  what  a  revelation  to  Mr.  Beecher,  at 
the  age  of  56,  that  this  improsperous,  unfrmtful  mar- 
riage Of  his  had  been  a  penance  and  a  drain  upon  his 
powers,  and  that  now  his  duty  required  him  to  find  that 
support  for  his  future  labors  that  should  continue  his 
beneficence  in  this  world !  Now,  we  have  the  narrative 
of  the  wife  continued  : 

That  he  had  made  these  arguments  to  her  during  the 
early  years  of  their  friendship. 

Now,  the  early  years  of  their  friendship  carried  them 
back  to  1863  and  1864,  and  1865.  He  began  at  the  be- 
ginning. But  these  convincing  arguments,  (that  when 
stie  had  really  relished  their  true  moral  force  and  re- 
ligious beauty,  carried  away  all  scruples— and  I  shall 
read  to  you  from  this  same  husband,  plaintiff,  witness's 
mouth— in  the  retrospect  seemed  to  her  to  make  it  all  for 
the  glory  of  God)  she  had  not  taken  without  inspection 
and  without  resistance. 

That  he  had  made  these  arguments  to  her  during  the 
early  years  of  their  friendship,  and  she  had  steadfastly 
resisted ;  that  he  had  many  times  fondled  her  to  the  de- 


gree that  it  required  on  her  part  almost  bodily  resistance 
to  be  rid  of  him. 

Now,  here  was  a  woman  that  did  not  believe  in  these 
arguments,  at  this  time,  of  the  early  years.  She  had 
steadfastly  resisted.  Her  mind  had  not  been  over- 
powered, nor  her  conscience  corrupted,  nor  her  Instincts 
of  chastity  deadened ;  but  yet  through  this  period  he  had 
fondled  her,  and  pressed  his  coarse,  polluted  touch  to  the 
point  that  it  required  almost  violence  to  resist.  Now, 
this  is  the  narrative,  this  is  the  course ;  and  this  was  as 
coolly  delivered  by  this  chaste  woman,  and  as  coolly  re- 
ceived by  this  husband,  as  if  the  narrative  had  been 
about  a  persistent  search  for  any  of  the  trinkets  or  gew- 
gaws of  dress,  through  the  shops  of  the  city.  Now, 
gentlemen,  what  sort  of  a  figure,  in  any  rank 
of  life,  would  a  woman  make  in  setting 
up  her  chastity  as  having  been  overpowered 
byviolence  in  the  final  consummation  of  ruin  by  force, 
that  began  by  telling  the  Court  and  jury  that  she, 
through  a  series  of  years,  had  been  fondled  so  that  it  re- 
quired bodily  resistance  to  preserve  her  virtue  %  I  do  not 
think  that  we  lawyers,  or  you  jurymen,  or  the  Judge  or 
bench,  would  listen  long  to  a  story  of  violent  consum- 
mation against  chastity,  thac  had  been  preceded  by  years 
of  violent  fondling;  and  yet  this  rhetorician  thinks  that 
he  has  put  a  white  robe  of  chastity  over  his  wife  by  put- 
ting such  a  narrative  into  her  mouth,  that  he  has  covered 
Mr.  Beecher  with  the  double  guilt  of  paramour  and  mis- 
tress, and  made  his  wife  a  saint. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  plaintiff  was  a  little  unlucky  in 
his  assortment  of  the  two  occasions  on  which  this  pros- 
titution of  his  wife  occurred,  on  the  theory  of  absence  of 
desire,  and  absence  of  consent,  and  absence  of  coopera- 
tion, or  enjoyment  in  the  guilt,  in  putting  the  first  sur- 
render, not  at  her  own  house,  but  at  Mr.  Beecher's.  How 
did  the  woman  get  there  1  Was  she  carried  in  her  sleep 
from  174  Livingston-st.  to  124  Columbia  HightsI 
She  was  not  in  the  habit  of  going  there.  There  is  not 
any  evidence  that  she  was  there  on  the  10th.  There  was 
no  reason  for  her  going ;  and  yet  this  sDly  reasoner,  her 
husband,  has  made  an  un  consenting,  reluctant,  submis- 
sive prostitution,  attended  by  the  wife's  resort  to  the  un- 
accustomed place  of  meeting.  You  can  judge  as  well  as 
I  whether  that  comports  very  weU  with  the  theory  upon 
which  this  prostitution  of  the  wife  is  presented.  But 
that  theory  is  the  only  theor;^,  that  statement  if 
the  only  form  and  manner  and  circumstance  of 
this  adultery  that  is  pretended  by  the  plaintiff. 
And  now. 

"  That  after  her  final  surrender  during  the  period  of 
her  sorrow,"— now  this  is  all  over  again  ;  this  is  what  she 
told  her  husband—"  during  the  period  of  her  sorrow,  in 
October,  1868,  he  had  then  many  times  solicited  her, 
when  she  had  refused ;  that  the  occasions  of  her  yielding 
her  body  to  him  had  not  been  numerous,  but  that  hli 
solicitations  had  been  frequent  and  urgent,  and  some- 
times almost  violent.'* 


suMJiiya  UP  B 

And  so  -^e  have  tills  rene-vred  condition  of  a  Avoman 
▼ho  Aras  pure  of  heart,  "utterlv  free  from  anr  lo^  or  de- 
grading impulses,  and  tliat  put  lier  fault.  If  at  all,  upon 
being  oTerpo-srered  by  piety  and  duty  to  the  Church  and 
to  God.  telling  you  this  continued  story,  after  the  first 
sacrifice,  that  thi  s  resistance  of  her  instincrs,  resistance 
of  her  conscience,  resistance  of  her  woman's  nature,  con- 
tinued, and  was  constantly  overcome,  or  nearly  over- 
come, but  sometimes  triumphed  ;  and  aU  this  goes  on, 
and  not  a  suggestion  or  a  complaint  of  any  kind,  of  any 
degree,  Well,  there  vraa  time  for  meditation,  wasn't 
there  \  She  was  shut  up  in  her  own  house 
with  these  lovely  children  of  hers,  and  watching  over 
them  and  their  unfolding  beauty  and  purity. 
She  was  taking  care  of  these  redeemed  women  of  the 
Bethel,  and  saw  the  misery  and  wretchedness  that  this 
debauchery  had  wrought  in  their  hearts,  their  f  amlLies, 
their  souls ;  and  that  religion,  the  Christian  religion,  was 
the  only  redeeming  influence,  and  that  it  was  adequate; 
and  yet,  without  having  any  of  the  evil  impulses 
of  the  heart,  or  any  of  the  carnal  urgency  of  the 
flesh,  she  carried  on  this  concurrent  stream  of  pros- 
titution of  her  body  to  a  hypocritical  religious  teacher  I 
This  is  the  way  Mr.  Tilton  makes  adultery  easy ;  this  is 
the  shape  in  which  he  makes  it  pure;  this  is  the  verbal 
protection  against  the  sin  and  stain  and  ruin  of  those  acts 
which  strike  at  the  very  heart  of  the  female  character. 

HOW  IT  IS  ALLE&ED  MES.  TILTOX  AWOKE 
TO  HEE  Siy. 
Now,  wliere  did  her  conscience  wake  np  ? 

It  never  waked,  up  on  the  subject  of  adultery,  not  cer- 
tainly for  a  year  afterward,  as  I  shall  show  you : 

That  she  made  this  confession  to  me  j  and  that  is  the 
first  time  that  the  word  occiu's]  because  the  sense  of  de- 
ceitfulness  in  her  mind  was  a  pain  to  her  conscience. 

Well,  she  had  a  conscience,  a  seusitive  conscience.  She 
saw  that  somehow  or  other  the  thing  must  be  wrong. 
She  knew  the  seventh  commandment,  which  forbade 
adultery.  She  knew  the  tenth  commandment,  which  for- 
bade a  man  to  covet  another  man's  wife  ;  and  that  would 
&eem  to  be  plain,  but  that  didn't  touch  her  ;  no,  no, 
nothing  in  that;  but  there  was  a  sort  of  concealment 
about  this  that  patae-d  her  conscience. 

That  she  had  gone  away  from  heme  in  the  Spring  [she 
repeated  all  this  to  her  husband]  parting  from  me  under 
a  cloud,  as  I  knew. 

That  she  said.  He  -wanted  all  Idiese  things  to  be  in  evi- 
dence ;  there  was  no  way  of  getting  them  in  evidenc-e — 
his  own  views  of  how  he  would  like  to  have  this  thing 
displayed  before  the  public,  "  and  that  I  had.  written  to 
her  "—now  listen  to  this ;  she  tells  her  husband  all  these 
things,  that  he  knew— 

And  that  I  had  written  to  her  in  her  absence  a  letter, 
Baying  that  unless  she  told  me  the  truth,  that  if  she  ever 
lied  to  me  as  she  had  done  in  reference  to  a  few  minor 
matters,  that  I  never  again  could  hold  her  tu  any  respect. 


r  ME.  BY  ARTS.  715 

I  Well,  now,  what  an  extraordinary  thing.  After  the 
j  day  and  the  night  that  the  woman  was  talking  to  htm  he 
1  had  never  had  the  least  suspicion  of  anything  wrong 
about  it— nothing;  yet  she  was  moved  in  conscience  by  a 
feeling  that  there  was  a  little  duplicity,  a  little  double- 
dealing  ia  having  two  bed-fellows  at  the  same  time;  tliat 
to  a  mind  sensitive  to  truth  and  openness,  produced  a 
sense  of  uneasiness ;  and  besides  he  says  : 

"  That  I  had  written  to  her  in  her  absence  a  letter, 
sayiag  that  unless  she  told  me  the  truth,  that  if  she  ever 
lied  to  me"— this  is  his  own  language,  in  his  own  letter, 
to  his  own  wife,  if  there  is  any  word  of  truth  in  this, 
that  she  repeats  to  him— "If  she  ever  lied  to  me  as  she 
had  done  in  reference  to  a  few  minor  matters,  that  I 
never  could  hold  her  in  any  respect." 

Ah,  gentlemen,  what  was  that  letter  ]  What  is  this 
mode  of  an  ideal  happiness  undisturbed  up  to  July,  when 
this  statement  was  made  between  this  man  and  his  wife, 
in  which  he  had  wiltten  her  a  letter  that  if  she  lied  to 
him  as  she  had  in  a  few  minor  matters,  he  would  not  hold 
her  in  respect?  He  thinks  it  a  shame  that  the  obligation 
of  forensic  duty  should  regnire  us  to  point  out  false- 
hoods, and  describe  them  as  falsehoods,  but  he  thinks  it 
consistent  with  an  ideally  happy  home  that  a  husband 
should  write  to  a  wife:  "  If  you  ever  lie  to  me  as  you 
have  done,  I  won't  hold  you  in  respect."  Ah, 
gentlemen,  long  stories  require  considerable  power 
of  reasoning  as  well  as  memory  when  they 
are  all  falsehoods,  and  every  now  and  then 
there  i>eeps  out  a  self-conviction  of  the  utter  incongruity 
with  the  whole  fabric  of  his  case,  of  his  own  little  touches 
of  nature  and  woman's  nature,  as  he  thinks  it,  that  he 
throws  in.  Xow,  what  an  admirable  character  for  a  novel 
this  would  make.  How  all  the  good  people  of  Europe 
and  America,  how  all  Christendom  (to  use  the  plaintiff's 
favorite  phrase)  would  admire  the  penetration  that  had 
seen  further  into  human  nattire  than  the  in^iration 
which  had  made  the  Savior  say,  "  All  these  evil  things 
come  out  of  the  heart;"  that  had  spoken  with  greater 
authority  in  regard  to  sin  than  the  great  autlior  of  tho 
rules  of  human  conduct  proclaimedfromMt.  Sinai;  who  had 
heedlessly,  rashly,  foolishly  undertaken  to  say,  "Thou 
Shalt  not  commit  adultery,"  when  he  had  made  it  evident 
that  piety  and  duty  left  the  he-art  and  soul  imsullied  un- 
der the  pollution  of  the  body.  But  still  lying;  that,  that 
was  wrong.  That  letter  had  rankled  in  her  thought  and 
heart.  But  for  that  letter  this  poor  woman  never  -would 
have  awakened  this  side  of  the  judgment  seat  to  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  sin  of  adult-cry. 

That  had  rankled  in  her  thought  that  she  felt  that  she 
never  could  look  me  honestly  in  the  face  again  until  ah© 
had  made  a  full  and  free  confession  ;  that  she  had  come 
down  from  the  country  on  purpose  to  make  it. 

And  now  I  suppose  there  is  a  little  break,  and  the  wife 
stops  here,  though  this  witness  don't  make  any  break, 
and  he  goes  on,  then,  to  describe  to  Mr.  Beecher  : 

And  that  she  had  made  with  great  modesty  and  dell- 
caoy  and  womanly  feeling,  without  giving  evidence  that 


716 


TEE  TILION-BB hJCHEB  TRIAL. 


tlie  great  fact  wWch  slie  confessed  was  wrons,  but  tliat 
tlie  "wrong  whicli  she  wisTied  to  tlirow  from  tier  mind  was 
mainly  the  necessary  deceit  with  whicli  she  had  hitherto 
concealed  it  from  her  husband. 

Now,  the  hustoand  says,  referring  to  his  statement  to 
Mr.  Beecher : 

It  was  a  long  story.  I  told  it  from  a  little  memoran- 
dum which  I  had  made  of  dates  and  matters,  extracts 
from  letters— a  little  memorandum  made  on  the  hack  of 
the  white  envelope  unaddressed  in  which  Mrs.  Tiltun's 
statement  that  evening  had  been  lodged ;  I  had  made 
the  memorandum  of  dates  and  of  letters. 

Well,  he  don't  seem  to  have  referred  to  any  dates  or 
letters,  and  he  had  made  that  memorandum,  not  with 
any  letters  or  facts  or  records  before  him,  but  in  the  few 
minutes  that  elapsed  after  Mr.  Moulton  left  the  house  to 
go  for  Mr.  Beecher  until  he  got  back.  In  other  words  he 
was  going  to  deliver  an  address,  an  address  to  Mr.  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  and  he  reduced  to  the  form  of  notes  the 
heads  and  points  of  his  argument.  Well,  Mr.  Moulton, 
the  sexton,  was  sent  to  bring  in  his  audience.  What  a 
silly  story !  Now,  look  at  it— this  narrative  of  sixteen 
months  adultery,  of  three  years  seduction,  of  all  this 
fondling  and  resistance  and  final  prostitution.  "  She  had 
stated  with  great  modesty  and  delicacy  and  womanly 
feeling."  Well,  there  was  no  emotion  about  it ;  that  is 
plain.  She  had  played  this  difficult  fantasia  with  all  the 
skill  of  a  practiced  musician.  She  had  told  this  narrative 
with  all  the  delicacy  of  touch  and  sentiment  that  be- 
longed to  a  novelist  speaking  of  a  third  person,  and  you 
are  to  take  that  as  a  real  narrative  of  a  real  occurrence, 
between  a  real  wife  and  a  real  husband. 

MES.  TILTON'S  ALLEGED  INTEECESSXON  FOE 
ME.  BEECHEE. 

Now  he  goes  on  and  fills  the  space  between 
July  and  December  with  her  absences  fi'om  town,  her 
dsit  out  West  at  Marietta  ;  that  she  had  returned  from 
the  West  a  few  weeks  previous  to  this  interview,  I  think, 
about  the  1st  of  December ;  that  shortly  after  her  return, 
or  almost  the  first  conspicuous  incident  that  happened  to 
her  husband  since  her  return,  was  the  interview  "  which 
I  had  had  with  Mr.  Bowen  on  the  26th  of  December, 
which  had  resulted  In  my  demand  upon  Mr.  Beecher  that 
he  should  retire  from  his  pulpit."  Now,  you  see  the 
Bowen  matter  comes  in.  But  for  Bowen,  but 
for  the  destruction  of  his  pecuniary  inter- 
ests, this  narrative,  this  pretension,  this  use  of 
a  domestic  occurrence  of  some  kind  between 
husband  and  wife  toward  Mr.  Beecher  would  never  have 
"been  resorted  to.  Six  months  pass  by.  The  wife  never 
Intimated  to  Mr.  Beecher,  although  at  her  request  he 
called  and  visited  her  in  her  illness  in  August  after,  and 
prayed  with  her ;  she  had  not  mentioned  to  Mr.  Beecher 
that  she  had  told  her  husband  anything.  Mr.  Tilton  had 
not  sought  Mr.  Beecher,  or  made  any  complaint  against 


Mr.  Beecher,  and  here  he  draws  In  affirmatively  and 
voluntarily  the  trouble  with  Bowen  as  the  cause,  the 
occasion,  the  opportunity,  the  reason  of  this  matter  ever 
having  been  brought  to  Mr.  Beecher's  notice.  Well,  you 
can  understand  how,  after  his  sending  this  notice  to  Mr. 
Beecher  and  finding  the  destruction  of  his  relations  with 
Mr.  Bowen,  it  did  come  to  be  brought  in,  and  that  is  a 
part  of  our  case.  Now  he  accounts  for  it  as  arising  out 
of  that  fact. 

"  I  told  him  that  I  had  informed  Mrs.  Tilton  of  what  I 
had  done  with  Mr.  Bowen,  and  that  she  received  the  in- 
telligence with  an  expression  of  heartbreak  and  grief. 
I  told  him  that  in  regard  to  the  statement  which  she  ha ' 
written"— he  didn't  call  it  a  "  confession"  which  she  had 
written— a  statement  that  she  had  written ;  it  was  the 
one  that  he  read ;  and  yet  they  find  it  convenient  in  giv- 
ing their  evidence  always  to  call  it  a  '*  confession  "  of 
hers— we  shall  show  you— you  don't  doubt  what  it  was. 
It  was  an  accusation— this  paper.  I  don't  mean  that  she 
had  even  told  her  husband,  but  this  paper  was  an  accu- 
sation against  Mr.  Beecher—"  that  in  regard  to  the  state- 
ment which  she  had  written,  that  it  had  come  about  in 
this  way.  She  had  asked  me,  as  soon  as  I  had  informed 
her  of  the  letter  that  I  had  written  through  Mr.  Bowen ; 
she  had  asked  me  immediately  to  send  for  Mr.  Beecher- 
and  to  hold  an  interview  with  him  in  her  sick  chamber 
that  she  might  hear  me  say  to  him  that  the  letter  shoul 
be  withdrawn— that  is  the  Bowen  letter— that  she  migh 
hear  with  her  own  ears,  immediately,  and  before  h 
should  have  any  time  to  be  troubled  about  it." 

What  an  extraordinary  proposition  of  a  woman  caught 
in  adultery — desiring  her  husband  to  send  for  the  para- 
mour, and  tell  him,  in  her  presence,  that  that  letter  must 
not  worry  him ;  and  to  do  it  quick,  so  that  the  para- 
mour need  not  be  troubled  about  it !  Well,  that  did  not 
strike  Tilton  as  at  all  unsuitable,  in  itself,  so  far  as  the 
object  and  subject  went,  for  that  was  the  object  of  his 
interview— his  interview  with  Beecher. 

"That  though  I  had  joined  with  Mr.  Bowen  in  demand- 
ing Mr.  Beecher's  retirement  from  the  pulpit,  for  my 
wife's  sake  and  for  the  word  of  honor  which  I  had  pledged 
to  her  to  do  Mr.  Beecher  no  harm,  that  I  should  send  for 
him,  and  that  she  should  hear  me,  immediately  and  with- 
out delay,  take  back  that  letter  and  assure  Mr.  Beecher 
that  I  would  not  unite  with  Mr.  Bowen  in  making  any 
assault  upon  him  or  in  demanding  him  to  quit  the  pulpit 
orthecHy.  I  told  Mr.  Beecher  furthermore  that  I  had 
refused  to  acquiesce  in  Mrs.  Tilton's  request  that 
such  a  personal  interview  should  be  held  between 
him  and  me  in  my  wife's  sick  chamber ; 
I  told  him  she  had  insisted  four  or  five  times  on  this  very 
thing,  that  Mr.  Beecher  should  be  saved  from  beiug  wor- 
ried about  this  letter  that  had  been  delivered  to  him,  un- 
til finally  she  begged  me  to  be  the  bearer  of  a  letter  to 
him  ;  that  I  had  then  declined  that;  that  finally  she  asked 
me  if  I  could  not  devise  some  method  which  would  not  be 
humiliating  to  my  pride  to  have  an  interview  with  him— a 
friendly  interview— as  friendly  as  possible"  (he  corrects 
himself),  "  and,  after  thinking  the  matter  over,  that  Thad 
said  to  her  that  if  she  would  agree  I  would  request  Mr. 
Moulton  to  bring  about  such  an  interview  between  Mr. 
Beecher  and  myself.  She  said  she  was  only  too 
happy  to  hear  me  say  so,  and  she  wrote  a  state- 
ment, to  which  I  have  referred,  to  be  the  basis  of  an  iu- 


SU2lMI2iG   UP  j 

terriew  berween  Mr.  Beeclier  and  myself,  whicli  Mr. 
Motaton  should,  bring  about,  and  sbe  wrote  it  on  tlie  29th. 
of  December. 

Mr.  Evarts  intervenes  again: 

Q.  Is  tbis  wbat  you  told  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
ToTvard  the  close  of  the  story  I  again  reminded  him  of 
the  object  for  "svhieh  I  had  sent  for  him,  -which  object  was 
that  tliough  I  had  communicated  to  him  through  Bowen 
a  demand  for  his  retirement  from  The  pulpit,  yet  that  at 
my  wife's  earnest  entreaty  I  revoked  that  demand,  and 
for  my  wife's  sake,  and  not  his  or  my  own,  I  pledged  to 
him  my  word  that  I  would  not  assist  Mr.  Bowen  in  the 
hostility  which  he  had  meditated  against  Mr.  Beecher. 

Z'^Ir.  Beecher  did  not  ask  for  his  friendship,  for  his  co- 
operation, for  his  espousal  of  his  cause  against  Bowen. 
Mr.  Beecher  had  not  shown  auy  fear  of  Bowen  or  the 
need  of  any  fortification  or  protection  against  Mr.  Bowen; 
and  this  husband,  after  introducing  the  narrative  that 
his  object  was  to  get  rid  of  any  injuiious  feeling  that  3Ir. 
Beecher  might  have  by  reason  of  his  having  sent  that 
challenge  of  the  26th.  closed  it  by  volunteering  to  say, 

Xow  the  object  of  all  this,  3Ir.  Beecher,  is  to  have  you 
imderstand  that,  though  I  did  send  that  challeng3  which 
I  now  have  revoked,  I  am  not  going  to  cooi)erate  with 
Mr.  Bowen  in  iny  of  his  movements  ag:.:nit 
you,"  "  and  I  pledged  to  him  my  word,  without  his  asking 
it,  That  I  would  not  assist  Mr.  Bowen  in  the  hostility 
which  he  had  meditated  against  Mr.  Beecher."  Now, 
gentlemen,  that  about  ends  the  narrative.  This  you  so- 
berly are  asked  to  believe  as  a  just  statement  of  a  com- 
munication between  husband  and  wife,  and  of  a  commu- 
nication between  the  husband  and  the  paramom'.  I  will 
ventuie  to  say  that  whether  you  regard  that  portion  of  it 
which  undertakes  to  produce  a  woman's  treatment  to 
her  husband,  or  a  husband's  treatinout  to  the  paramour; 
whether  you  undertake  to  weigh  and  estimate  the  man- 
ner in  which  a  good  woman  is  led  away,  or  the  length 
and  breadth,  the  weight  and  value  of  the  argument  by 
which  a  woman's  virtue  is  overcome  by  the  tongue  of 
man,  it  is  the  veriest  trash  that  was  ever  written  or 
printed.  There  is  not  a  novelist  that  would  not  be  ridi- 
culed from  Dan  to  Beersheba,  if,  wicked  in  purpose  and 
willful  in  malice  against  the  good  principles  and  conduct 
of  society,  he  had  used  his  art  to  make  adidtery  easy  and 
palatable  and  pious.  Why,  gentlemen,  the 'merest  trifle 
of  the  yellow-covered  literatm-e  of  Paris  or  Xew-York 
that  is  made  for  the  coarse  appetites  and  for  the  coarse 
mtelligence  and  for  the  vile  morality  of  the  e^-il  classes 
has  not  anything  as  bad  and  vulgar  and  pointless  as  all 
this  trash.  And  what  is  the  reason  of  this  invention  ? 
It  is  because  on  the  conduct  of  the  people,  their  char- 
acters, on  the  wife's  intellectual  and  moral  character,  as 
still  sworn  to  (it  is  impossible  to  be  believed  unless  it  is 
immaculate),  because  under  all  the  conditions  of  external 
observation  to  which  they  have  been  subjected  there 
could  be  no  reliance  upon  the  contact  of  the  body  ever 
having  taken  place,  except  by  this  fictitious  presentation 

f    it,  to  carry  a  sort  of   notion    with    you  that 


ME.  JEVAETS.  717 

there    has    been     some     proof    of    it    as  com- 
ing   from     somebody    who    saw    and    knew  it. 
Why,  gentlemen,  what  sort  of  adultery  is  that  which  is 
no  contact  of  the  body  and  no  pollution  of  the  soul  i  CaE 
it  unilateral  adultery !  Why  is  it  adultery  1   It  is  whoUy 
transcendental.   It  begins  nowhere,  ends  nowhere,  rests 
upon  no  basis.   But  "  transcendental"  is  a  long  word, 
I  and  those  who  use  it  most  cannot  give  any  very  precise 
j  definition  of  it.   Twenty-five  years  ago  it  came  into  great 
I  vogue  under  the  lead  of  a  gi-eat  thinker  now  famous,  Mr. 
{  Emerson,  and  got  into  the  language  of  youug  women  and 
of  3'oung  students,  and  the  clergj-meu  talked  about  it, 
but  still  the  cLuestion  was  what  "  transcendental"  meant. 
Well,  on  one  of  the  Mississippi  Paver  steamboats,  wlien  a 
parcel  of  eminent  divines  were  retm-ning  from  a  general 
couveution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  they  were  in  a 
high  discussion  about  orthodoxy,  and  the  old  faith  and 
transcendentalism,  and  a  lajmian  who  enjoyed  their  con- 
versation, one  of  the  lay  delegates  returning  with  them, 
still  felt  a  little  puzzled  about  what  "  transcendental" 
and  "  transcendentalism"  meant.  So  he  ventured  to  ask 
the  di\dne  in  whom  he  had  the  greatest  confidence—"  I 
hear  you  use  this  word    transcendental"  and  "  trau.,- 
cenJentalism."   Now,  what  does  it  mean?   "Well,"  says 
j  the  doctor  of  divinity,  '•'  that  is  a  question  that  is  more 
I  easily  asked  than  answered."   But  they  were  passing  by 
j  a  bliiff  on  the  river.  Says  he,  "  Do  you  sje  that  bluff  here 
I  on  tlie  river  r'   "Yes."   "Do  you  see  how  pierced  it  is 
j  with  sw;'Jl..w"s  holes  V   "  Yes,  I  see  that."  "  Well,  now," 
I  says  he,  "  you  take  away  all  that  bluff  and  leave  nothing 
but  swallow's  holes,  and  thai;  is  transcendentalism." 

MR.  TILTOX'S  APOLOGY  FOR  HIS  WIFE. 

Now,  you  understand  what  adulteiy  is.  Take 
away  pollution  of  the  soul,  prostitation  of  intellect,  de- 
filement of  body,  and  that  is  transcendental  adultery. 
[Laughter.]  Nothing  but  the  swallow's  holes  left; 
j  nothing  of  the  earth,  earthy  ;  all  transcendental.  Now, 
j  gentlemen,  let  us  see  what  invention  is  used  here.  After 
I  the  cross-examination,  on  the  redirect,  my  learned 
friends  thought  it  would  be  woith  while  for  Mr. 
Tilton  to  explain  a  little  what  he  means  by  this  notion 
that  his  wife  was  so  pure,  and  never  violated  her  mar- 
riage vows,  and  all  that  that  he  had  been  swearing  to, 
and  they  asked  him  if  he  couldn't  give  us  a  little  informa- 
tion, the  same  as  this  layman  wanted  of  the  doctor  of 
divinity  about  transcendentalism.  It  was  a  pretty  long 
question  by  Mr.  Fullerton,  and  Mr.  Tilton's  first  answer 
is,  "  Well,  Sir,  that  is  a  sad  CLuestion."  "  Well  1"  says 
his  examiner,  and  Mr.  Tilton  proceeds  : 

I  can  answer  only  for  I'-y  o^vn  judgments  of  her  be- 
havior, not  for  other  people's  opinions.  You  must  re- 
member. Sir,  that  I  knew  Elizabeth  when  I  was  ten  years 
old ;  that  I  became  her  confessed  lover  at  sixteen ;  that  I 
was  married  to  her  at  twenty;  and  that,  for  fifteen  years 
of  her  married  life,  I  held  her  in  my  reverence  perhaps 


713 


IHE   TILTON-BEEGEEB  TBIAL. 


almost  to  tlie  point  of  maMng  her  an  idol  of  my  worship. 

The  idols  are  spoken  of,  you  know,  in  the  Scriptures  as 
lying  gods,  and  he  has  written  to  her  a  letter  telling  her 
that  if  she  continued  to  lie  he  should  not  ideally  worship 
her.  He  proceeds : 

And  when  she  came  to  her  df>wnfall,  it  was  the  neces- 
sity of  my  own  heart — - 

That  was  not  Elizabeth's  narrative,  then,  that  she  had 
told  him,  how  she  had  preserved  her  purity  and  merely 
lost  her  matronage  ' 

It  was  the  necessity  of  my  own  heart — I  must  find 
some  excuse  for  her ;  other  people  might  blame,  hut  I 
must  pardon  her.  I  found  that  excuse  in  the  fact  that 
she  had  been  wrapped  up  in  her  religious  teacher  and 
guide ;  she  had  surrendered  her  convictions  to  him ;  she 
followed  his  beck  and  lead  trustingly ;  she  would  go  after 
him  like  one  blinded. 

That  is  the  reason,  I  suppose,  she  went  up  to  Ms  house. 

"  I  think  she  sinned  her  sin  as  one  in  a  trance." 

So  my  idea  that  she  had  been  carried  from  Livingston- 
8t.  to  Columbia  Hights  in  her  sleep  was  not  so  much  out 
of  the  way,  after  all.  Her  husband  thought  she  had  done 
it  an  in  a  trance : 

I  don't  think  she  was  a  free  agent.  I  think  she  would 
have  done  his  bidding  if,  like  the  heathen  priest  in  the 
Hindoo-land,  he  had  bade  her  fling  her  child  into  the 
Ganges  or  cast  herself  under  the  Juggernaut.  That  was 
my  eacuse  for  Elizabeth. 

Good  Heavens !  We  had  supposed  that  this  was  Eliza- 
beth's narrative  that  she  had  detailed  to  you,  and  that 
you  had  repeated  to  Mr.  Beecher.  Now,  gentlemen,  that 
shows  you  where  all  this  talk  came  from.  Then,  after 
some  discussion  between  us,  the  matter  comes  back  in 
this  way : 

Well,  go  on  and  answer  the  question,  Mr.  Tilton.  In 
what  way  did  she  maintain  her  innocence  in  the  presence 
of  her  mother  ? 

By  way  of  showing  her  guUt  they  introduce  evidence 
of  her  innocence. 

She  always  used  to  say.  Sir,  that  she  was  not  to  be 
judged,  either  by  her  mother  or  by  me,  b  ut  by  God.  She 
believed  God  would  judge  her  tenderly.  She  said  she 
loved  God,  and  she  didn't  believe  that  God  would  have 
permitted  her  to  enter  into  those  relations  if  they  had 
been  sinful. 

So  you  gee  the  last  consummation  of  impiety  comiag 
from  Mr.  Tilton's  lips— for  we  don't  know  that  it  ever 
came  from  anybody  else's— is  that  God  was  responsible 
for  this  I 

She  didn't  believe  God  would  have  permitted  her  to 
enter  into  those  relations  if  they  had  been  sinful. 

She  thought  that  God  was  mistaken  in  propounding  the 
Seventh  Commandment  from  Mount  Slnai. 

And  she  said  particularly  that  neither  her  mother  nor 
I  had  made  it  the  business  of  our  lives  to  understand 
what  was  right  and  wrong  as  Mr.  Beecher  did ;  that  Mr. 
Beecher  was  a  clergyman ;  that  he  was  a  great  and  holy 
man;  that  he  had  repeatedly  assured  her  that  their 
relationship  was  not  sinful,  and  she  didn't  see 
how  it  could  \)e  sinful ;  that  he  had  told  her 
that  love  justified  all  things ;  that  love  had  various 
expressions  ;  that  one  expression  was  the  shake  of  the 


hand,  another  expression  was  the  kiss  of   the  Ilpi, 

another  expression  was  sexual  intercourse,  and  it  made 
very  little  difference  what  the  expression  was.  If  that 
love  Was  right,  the  love  itself  made  rightful  or  Justi- 
fied by  the  various  expressions  of  it,  and  that 
she  believed  before  God  that  her  love  for  Mr.  Beecher 
was  right,  and  his  love  for  her  was  right,  and  therefore 
she  didn't  see  how  any  of  the  various  expressions  of  it 
could  be  sinful.  She  said  she  rested  on  Mr.  Beecher's 
authority  for  that,  that  he  had  told  her  so  over  and  over 
again. 

Well,  well,  gentlemen,  that  is  Mr.  Tilton's  mode  of  over- 
throwing the  Decalogue  and  defending  adultery.  It  is  as 
old  as  any  of  the  falsehoods  of  the  devU ;  it  is  as  shallow 
and  contemptible  as  any  of  the  silly  eflCorts  of  a  country 
clown  to  overcome  the  instinctive  virtue  of  an  honest 
milkmaid ;  and  the  milkmaids  have  slapped  the  clowns' 
faces  ever  since  the  world  began,  when  they  have  ap- 
proached them  with  any  such  folly  as  that.  But  it 
is  for  the  conspicuous  clergyman,  that  deals  not 
in  abstractions,  not  in  dogmas,  but  in  practical  faith,  by 
works  of  morality,  of  charity,  of  duty,  of  the  elevation 
and  beautificatlon  of  life,  it  is  for  him  to  have  uttered  all 
this  driveling  and  contemptible  nonsense  in  the  ear  of  a 
woman  who,  besides  the  instincts  of  chastity  as  great  as 
any  woman  ever  had,  her  husband  says,  had  been  edu- 
cated into  the  very  saintliness  of  heart,  and  accompanied 
it  with  practical  charity  for  the  erring  and  the  fallen— a 
woman  that  had  an  intellect  that  made  her 
the  companion  of  all  the  literary  and  moral  studies  and 
pursuits  and  speculations  of  her  husband,  and  who  had 
the  companionship  of  all  the  eminent  men  that  mad©  up 
the  circle  of  his  friendships— it  is  for  him  to  utter  this  and 
for  her  to  yield,  and  without  a  consciousness  of  sin  or 
violation  of  conscience,  to  what  the  milkmaid  throws  in 
the  face  of  the  booby  that  talks  to  her ! 

Now,  gentlemen,  when  the  necessary  case  of  this 
plaintiff  requires  that  he  should  propitiate  your  under- 
standings and  obtain  your  verdict  to  a  particular  fact 
that  has  no  external  proof  whatever,  and  that  you  know 
violates  »U  that  the  intellect,  the  morality,  the 
instincts  of  all  our  elevated.  Christianized,  as 
well  as  natural  characters  demand  in  con- 
duct, to  ask  you  to  accept  his  story  is  to  ask 
you  to  make»yourselves  accomplices  of  this  frivolity,  and 
to  be  as  great  boobies  as  he  displays  himself  in  your 
presence.  Why,  gentleman,  from  Indianapolis  down  Mr. 
Beecher  has  been  a  preacher  of  active  and  actual  benefi- 
cence ;  has  been  a  oondemner  of  all  the  wicked  passions, 
all  the  sensual  indulgences,  of  aU  the  coarse  and 
vulgar  sins.  My  learned  brother,  Morris,  who 
does  not  lack  a  flow  of  Invective  and  con- 
tumely, when  his  cause  required  it,  could  not 
make  out  a  suflScient  volume  of  imputation  and  of  con- 
demnation without  quoting  against  this  defendant  a  long 
and  eloquent,  vehement,  living  invective  against  the  sin 
of  incontinency  that  he  had  delivered  years  ago  to  young 
men,  and  that  has  done  more  to  save  young  me'  through- 


SUMMI^'G    UP  BY  ME.  EYAETS. 


719 


out  fhis  country  than  any  utterances  of  any  other  mouth 
In  it.  Ah !  gentlemen,  my  learned  friends  can  gain  noth- 
ing from  us  hy  the  scoiu-ging  that  they  will  administer  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  if  they  will  only  prove  him  guilty.  If  they 
ask  us  to  go  one  mile  with  them  in  their  invective  against 
him,  proved  guilty,  we  will  go  with  them  twain.  If  they 
ask  us  to  strip  him  of  the  cloak  of  his  hypocrisy,  we  will 
tear  the  coat  and  every  fragment  of  his  clothing  from  him. 
If  they  ask  us,  and  they  prove  him  guilty,  that  he  should 
be  smitten  on  one  cheek,  we  will  turn  the  other  to  them, 
^  and  deliver  up  his  whole  hody  to  be  beaten  with  many 
stripes.  But  we  do  require  that,  driven  from  external 
evidence,  and  groping  in  the  region  of  moral  evidence, 
they  will  at  least  show  us  that  moral  evidence  that  car- 
ries down  into  this  severity  of  punishment  so  great  and 
noble  a  character  as,  but  for  this  imputation,  and  until  it 
is  proved,  this  defendant  has  shown  to  all  the  world. 

MR.  BEECHER'S   VERSION   OF  THE  INTER- 
VIEW. 

Now,  gentlemen,  before  I  proceed  further  it 
is  but  lair  that  I  should  lay  before  you  Mr.  Beecher's  ac- 
count of  this  interview,  and  you  will  see  whether  any 
violence  is  done  in  that  to  the  great  lines  of  human  char- 
acter, or  the  particular  lineaments  in  the  character  of 
these  individuals  that  is  demanded  by  the  plaintiff's 
story.  I  pass  over  everything  except  the  interview 
itself.  When  Mr.  Moulton  had  brought  Mr.  Beecher  to 
Ms,  Mr.  Moulton's,  house.  Mr.  Moulton  said : 

"  Mr.  Tilton  is  in  the  room  above  the  parlor,  fi-ont  room, 
waiting  for  you."  I  said  to  him— wishing  a  witness,  be- 
lieving that  we  were  going  to  have  a  bursiness  discussion— 
I  said  to  him,  "  I  would  rather  you  would  go  up  with  me, 
Mr.  Moulton."  He  said,  "You  had  better  see  Mr.  Tilton 
alone." 

Now,  Mr.  Moulton,  on  his  rebuttal,  I  beUeve,  says  that 
that  was  not  said;  but  these  incidental  differences  of 
statement  come  to  nothing.  We  go  for  the  substance  of 
things. 

He  (Mr.  Tilton)  pointed  to  a  chair  and  asked  me  to  sit 
down,  which  I  did,  near  the  door.  He  drew  out  from  his 
pocket  a  Uttle  paper,  very  "mch  that  shape  [producing  a 
piece  of  paper  about  ^  inches  by  three),  just  about 
that  size,  a  little  '...'-.ciwer,  and,  on  sitting  down,  said: 
"1  have  rc'  or  "I  have  summoned  you,"  I 

think  he  h^i'X,  to  this  interview  on  matters  of 
importance.  I  suppose  that  you  received  from  me, 
by  Mr.  Bowen,  a  letter  demanding  your  resignation  and 
departure  from  Brooklyn."  "  Yes,"  I  told  him  "  I  bad 
received  it." 

So  they  agree  that  that  was  the  topic.  Mr.  Beecher 
proceeds : 

He  said,  "  I  wish  now  to  recall  that  letter,  and  I  wish 
you  to  consider  it  as  not  written.  It  was  a  grand  thing 
to  write  that  letter  ;  it  would  have  been  a  grander  if  I 
had  not." 

Now,  what  a  happy  condition  a  man  is  in  when  what- 
ever he  does  is  grand,  and  if  he  had  n't  done  it  it  would 
have  been  grander.    [Laughter.]   I  have  never  known 


such  elevation  in  this  life  before.  Whatever  you  do 
sure  to  be  grand,  but  if  you  had  n't  done  it  it  would  have 
been  grander !  [Laughter.] 

Judge  Neilson— OflScer,  will  you  step  down  and  pay 
that  musician  to  go  away.  [Referring  to  an  organ- 
grinder  outside  whose  work  was  disturlDing  the  proceed- 
ings.] 

Mr.  Evarts— Perhaps  if  your  Honor  were  to  invite  him 
iato  the  court-room  it  might  amuse  him  as  much  as  he 
amuses  us.   [Laughter."]   Well,  Mr.  Beecher  says  : 

He  then  began  to  aUude  to  Mr.  Bowen,  the  bearer  of 
that  letter,  and  to  Mr.  Bowen's  treatment  of  him,  not 
going  into  it  in  any  considerable  detail,  but  characterizing 
it  as  very  base  and  very  treacherous.  He  then  charged 
me  with  having  an  understianding  with  Mr.  Bowen  in 
these  matters,  and  furthering  them — I  am  not  using  his 
language,  but  only  the  substance  of  the  things  urged 
upon  me  by  him— that  I  had  accepted  injurious  stories  of 
him,  and  that  I  had  reported  them  again,  that  I  had  ad- 
vised against  him,  and  much  more  to  that  purport,  which 
I  cannot  recall  in  detail.  I  think  at  this  point  I 
was  disposed  to  make  some  explanation,  when 
he  warned  me  to  be  silent,  and  I  was  silent, 
and  then  he  proceeded  to  say  that  I  had  not 
only  injured  him  in  his  business  relations 
and  in  his  reputation  and  prospects,  but  that  I  had  also 
insinuated  myself  into  his  family,  and  under  a  cover  of 
friendship  I  had  wrought  him  a  worse  mischief  there.  He 
said  that  I  had  in  a  sense  superseded  him,  had  taken  his 
place,  so  that  in  matters  of  religious  doctrine,  and  in 
matters  of  the  bringing  up  his  childi'en,  and  of  the 
household,  his  wife  looked  to  me  rather  than 
to  him ;  that  I  had  caused  her  to  transfer  her 
affections  from  him  to  me  in  an  inordinate  measm-e ;  that 
in  consequence  of  the  conditions  which  had  sprung  up  by 
reason  of  my  conduct,  his  family  had  well  nigh  been  de- 
stroyed ;  that  I  had  suffered  my  wife  and  his  mother-in- 
law  to  conspire  for  the  separation  of  the  family ;  — 

And  I  have  shown  you,  gentlemen,  Mr.  Tilton's  charge 
that  that  was  a  conspiracy  of  INIrs.  Beecher  and  IMra. 
Morse  

—that  I  had  corrupted  Elizabeth,  teaching  her  to  lie,  to 
deceive  him,  and  hide  under  fair  appearances  her  friend- 
ship to  me ;  that  he  had  married  her  one  of  the  simplest 
and  purest  women  he  ever  knew,  and  that  under  my  in 
fluence  she  had  become  deceitful  and  untrustworthy. 
He  said  that  I,  that  had  tied  the  knot  in  the  sanctuary 
of  God,  by  which  they  were  to  be  boimd 
together  in  an  inseparable  love,  had  also  reached  out  my 
hand  to  untie  that  knot,  and  to  loose  them  one  from  the 
other.  He  then  went  on  to  say  that  not  only  had  I  done 
this,  but  that  I  had  made  overtures  to  her  of  an  improper 
character ;  and  again  I  expressed  some  surprise,  probably 
by  my  attitude— I  don't  recollect  that  I  talked— but  he 
drew  from  his  pocket  a  strip  of  paper  about  like  that, 
[describing  it]  and  read  to  me  what  purported  to  be 
the  statement  of  his  wife  to  him  that  Mr.  Beecher  had 
solicited  her  to  become  his  wife,  to  all  the  intents  and 
purposes  which  were  signified  by  that  term,  or  sub- 
stantially that.  He  said  the  statement  which  he  had 
just  read— very  recently ;  she  had  done  it  the  day  be- 
fore, on  the  29th,  after  the  Bowen  trouble  needed 
some  assistance  and  aid ;  "  that  he  had  for  shame  and 
for  pride's  sake  burned  up  the  original,  and  that  now  he 
would  tear  up  the  only  copy  that  there  was  in  existence, 
that  til  ere  should  never  be  a  line  or  lettw  against  tha 


720 


TEE   llLTO^-BEECREli  TRIAL. 


reputation  of  Ws  wife;  and  with  tliat  lie  took 
tlie  fragments  in  liis  hand  and  stepi»ed 
to  the  side  of  the  room  and  threw  them  down.  "  And 
now,"  said  he,  turning  toward  me,  "  I  wish  you  to  verify 
these  charges  by  going  down  and  seeing  Elizabeth  your- 
self; she  is  waiting  for  you  at  my  house."  I  said— that 
last  blow  staggered  me " — reading  something  in 
Ms  wife's  name—"  I  said  to  him :  '  Mr.  Til- 
ton,  this  is  a  dream.  She  never  could  have 
made  in  writing  a  statement  so  untrue.' "  Said  he, 
"  It  is  but  a  few  blocks  off ;  go  down  to  her  yourself."  I 
turned  and  went  out  of  the  door,  and  walked  down  stairs, 
meeting  Mr.  Moulton  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs.  He  said 
to  me— without  a  word  from  Mr.  Beecher— "  he  took  his 
hat  and  overcoat  "—at  any  rate,  he  went  out. 

Q.  Did  you  in  any  manner  invite  Mr,  Moulton  to  go 
with  you  to  Mrs.  Tilton's?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  didn't  want 
him. 

Q.  Did  you  in  any  manner  inform  him  before  he  asked 
you  whether  you  were  going  to  Mrs.  Tilton's,  that  you 
were  going  there  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Now,  he  attended  you  to  the  door,  did  lie  %  A.  He 
did,  and  he  went  in. 

WHO  SUGGESTED  MR.  BEECHER'S  MIDNIGHT 
VISIT  TO  MRS.  TILTON. 

Now,  gentlemen,  before  I  go  to  the  inter- 
view with  Mrs.  Tilton  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Tilton,  I  want 
to  bring  your  attention  to  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton's  testi- 
mony that  has  to  do  with  this  last  matter,  so  that  his  own 
story  may  be  told.  Now,  after  Mr.  Tilton's  statement  of 
what  he  said  to  Mr.  Beecher,  Mr.  Tilton  says  : 

At  the  close  of  the  narrative  Mr.  Beecher  sat  in  his 
chair,  and  I  thought  he  was  about  to  speak.  I  waited  a 
moment.  His  face  and  his  head  and  his  neck  were  blood- 
red,  and  I  feared  for  the  moment  that  there  would  be 
some  accident  to  him.  He  burst  out  with  these  words  : 
"  Theodore,  I  am  in  a  dream  ;  this  is  Dante's  Inferno." 

And  that  is  the  way  Mr.  Tilton  tries  to  cover  up  with  a 
classical  reference  what  was  his  real  statement — "  This 
is  an  a  dieam."  Ah,  Mr.  Tilton  told  Mr.  Moulton  that 
night,  when  Mr.  Moulton  came  back  from  accompanying 
Mr.  Beecher  down  to  Mrs.  Tilton's,  that  what  Mr. 
Beecher  did  say  was,  "  Theodore,  this  is  all  a  dream."  It 
was  not  anything  about  Dante's  "  Inferno"  then.  But  Mr. 
Tilton  told  another  man,  only  three  days  afterward,  what 
it  was  Mr.  Beecher  said  when  he  had  got  through  with 
his,  Tilton's,  narrative  to  him,  and  mark  how  it  concurs. 
He  gave  on  the  2d  day  of  January,  to  his  friend  Storrs, 
a  narrative  of  how  the  matter  went  on  between 
him  and  Mr.  Beecher.  He  told  him  how 
he  had  sent  for  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mi-.  Moul- 
ton's  house,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher  came  there, 
and  when  he  came  there  he  made  this  charge  against 
him  of  improper  propositions  to  his  wife,  and  he  said 
Mr.  Beecher  seemed  to  be  astonished,  and  said  that  could 
not  be  so,  and  Mr.  Tilton  made  a  motion  as  though  he 
was  taking  something  out  of  his  pocket,  and  said— that 
le,  he  made  it  when  he  was  talking  with  Mr.  Storrs,  suit- 
ing the  gesture  to  the  word— 

I  took  out  a  piece  of  paper  ;  I  forget  whether  he  said 
«e  read  it  or  gave  it  to  Mr.  Beecher  to  read,  and  he  said 


Mr.  Beecher  seemed  surprised  and  said  that  could  not  be 
so  ;  said  Elizabeth  could  not  have  said  so  because  it  was 
not  true. 

Two  days  after,  having  said  that  night  that  all  that  Mr. 
Beecher  said  was,  "  This  is  alia  dream,"  he  told  his  friend 
Storrs  exactly  what  Mr.  Beecher  had  said,  and  then  he 
goes  on  to  teU  Mr.  Storrs  what  Tilton  had  said  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  that  he  had  said  that  Elizabeth  could  not  have 
said  so,  because  it  was  not  true,  and  then 
Mr.  Tilton  says  to  Mr.  Storrs  that  he  said 
to  Mr.  Beeclier— "  "Well,  if  you  don't  believe  it,  go  and  ♦ 
ask  Elizabeth ;"  and  he  said  that  Mr.  Beecher  did  go  and 
see  his  wife,  and  got  from  her  a  retraction  that  there 
never  had  been  any  improper  proposals,  "  and  when  I 
found  it  out  I  was  very  angry,  and  told  Mr.  Moulton,  and 
he  was  very  angry." 

Well,  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  was  angry  tliat  he  had 
got  into  the  same  position  with  Mr.  Beecher  by  the  result 
of  that  night's  accusation,  and  Mr.  Beecher  facing  it, 
that  he  had  got  into  on  the  preceding  Monday,  the  26th,. 
in  respect  to  his  missive  sent  through  Mr.  Bowen.  Ah  ! 
gentlemen,  when  you  undertake  to  assassinate  a  man 
in  a  dark  alley,  and  the  man  is  unwounded,  and  all  that 
has  happened  is  that  there  is  evidence  of  that  attempt  to 
assassinate  him,  you  have  not  gained  much  by  that 
movement ;  and  when  this  second  weapon  of  assassination, 
sharpened  on  the  29th,  had  been  used  to  pierce  Mr. 
Beecher's  breast  on  the  night  of  the  30th,  and  all  that  he 
had  said  was,  "  Theodore,  this  is  all  a  dream ; 
Elizabeth  cannot  have  said  so,  because  it  is  not 
true;"  and  this  man,  thinking  that  he  could  hold 
his  wife's  heartstrings  at  least  for  a  single  night,  says  to 
him,  "  If  you  doubt  it,  go  and  ask  her ;  "  and  he  goes  and 
asks  her,  and  brings  back  the  evidence  that  the  husband 
has  forged,  through  the  unwilling  hand  of  the  wife,  a 
false  accusation  that  has  been  withdrawn,  he  don't  feel, 
when  he  finds  it  out,  that  he  has  made  any  more  by  that 
second  attempt  at  assassination  than  he  had  by  the  first. 
Now,  gentlemen,  we  may  as  well  fix  this.  He  told  Mr. 
Belcher  in  1872  that  he  had  had  an  interview  with  Mr. 
Beecher  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  and  that  at  that  inter- 
view he  charged  Mr.  Beecher  with  the  act,  and  read  him 
this  letter.  Mr.  Tilton's  letter-that  is,  the  letter  of  im- 
proper solicitations. 

I  then  asked  him  how  Mr.  Beecher  acted  on  that  occa- 
sion. He  said  he  was  astonished  and  confounded,  and 
said  that  it  was  false,  and  that  the  woman  must  be  crazy. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  I  have,  under  the  hand  of  this 
plaintiff  himself,  a  narrative.  Under  Mr.  Tilton's  own 
hand,  in  the  "  True  Story,"  he  says : 

As  a  further  statement,  still  more  unwillingly  opened, 
yet  necessary  to  an  explanation  of  the  subsequent  com- 
plication of  circumstances,  I  must  aay  that  in  the  Sum- 
mer of  1871,  a  few  months  after  T  had  undertaken,  in 
addition  to  editing  The  Independevt,  to  edit  also  The 
Brooklyn  Union,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton,  my  wife,  made 
to  me  a  communication  concerning  Mr.  Beecher— 
not  a  confession ;  exactly  what  I  hare  shoAvn  yon  oti 


SUMMIXG    UP  BY  MB.  £YABTS. 


721 


of  iis  own  lips  was  the  trutli.  that  she  had  made  him  a 
statement,  in  his  judgment  and  in  hers,  as  she  told  the 
story  to  him  that  night,  only  a  third  person— 
a  communication  concerning  Mr.  Beecher.  "which  (to 
use  her  ovra  words,  lest  I  wrong  him  hr  using  mine)  she 
afterward  noted  down  in  a  memorandum,  as  follows  : 
"  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  my  fr.eud  and  pastor,  so- 
licited me  to  he  a  wife  to  him,  together  with  all  that  this 
Implies."  I  horrow  the  above  facts  from  my  wife's  hand- 
writing, and  forbid  myself  from  pausing  at  this  point 
either  to  blacken  it  with  an  epithet,  or  to  lighten  it  with 
an  explanation, 

Now,  that  was  read  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  on  Friday  eve- 
ning, as  :Mrs.  Tilton's  statement : 

December  30.— I  went  to  3Ir.  Moulton's  house.  Mr. 
Moulton  went  after  Mr.  Beecher  and  brought  him.  This 
was  early  m  the  evening,  Mr.  Beecher  leaving  his  prayer 
meeting,  usual  on  that  evening,  to  go  without  his  leader- 
ship. My  interview  was  with  Mr.  Beecher  alone.  I  read  to 
him  my  wif e  s  letter,  and  said  to  him  what  I  shall 
not  here  repeat.  He  sat  like  a  starae  under  my  brief  re- 
marks— three  columns  of  a  newspaper  we  have  here, 
and  Mr.  Beecher's  narrative  comprises  It  within, 
within  one  column — my  brief  remarks,  and  at  the  close 
he  bowed  to  me  and  said,  "this  is  aU  a  di-eam."  He  af- 
fected to  disbelieve  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  written  the  let- 
ter, and  denied  everything  with  a  royal  negative.  I  then 
said,  "It  is  but  a  few  squares  to  my  house;  go  and  ask 
Mrs.  TUton  for  yourself  whether  or  not  she  wrote  the  let- 
ter." He  went  and  rettirned  in  half  an  hour.  I  did  not 
see  him. 

Is  ow,  he  read  this  note  to  Mr.  Belcher : 

Mr.  Tilton  came  too,  and  read  me  what  purported  to  be 
a  note  from  hii*  wife,  a  letter  from  his  wife  to  him,  in 
which  he  stat-ed  Mr.  Beecher  had  made  a  proposition  to 
her,  during  Mr.  Tilton's  absence,  to  become  a  wife  to  him, 
and  aU  thai  that  implied ;  and  I  said  to  Mr.  Tilton  when 
he  read  that  paper,  "  Is  that  paper  in  Mrs.  Tilton's  hand- 
writing?" and  he  said,  "  Xo,  it  is  a  '^opy."  I  asked  where 
the  original  was,  and  he  said  that  Frank  Moulton  had  it. 

Xow,  I  want  to  read  you,  under  the  light  of  those 
actual  statements  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  witnesses,  when  the 
thing  was  fresh  in  his  mind,  and  under  his  former  state- 
ment, under  what  he  characterized  as  a  story  that  should 
put  the  thing  right,  what  he  now  says  when  he  wishes 
to  put  a  somewhat  different  view  of  the  visits  of  Mr. 
Beecher  to  Mrs.  Tilton ;  he  says  after  his  saying  "  this  is 
all  a  dream  " — after  Mr.  Beecher  saying  that,  that  he 
(Tilton)  said  to  him  : 

You  are  free  to  retire.  He  rose  and  walked  towards 
the  door,  a<  if  he  were  going  out,  without  saying  a  word. 
Then  he  suddenly  tumed.  and,  looking  me  in  the  face,  he 
said,  "  May  I  go  once  again,  and  for  the  last  time,  to  see 
Elizabeth?"  I  instantly  ansAvered  "'So.''  and  then 
"  Yes." 

And  then  he  says  he  can  tell  why  he  did  that,  and  ho  is 
allowed  to.  Then  he  goes  on  to  state  what  he  farther 
said,  and  does  not  give  his  reasons  : 

But  in  going  to  see  Elizabeth,  see  to  it.  .Sir.  that  you 
do  not  chide  her  for  the  confession  that  she  has  rcrade. 
She  is  at  home  sick,  broken-hearted.  I  charge  you  that 
you  visit  upon  her  no  reproach  for  confessing  to  her  hus- 
band ;  or,  if  you  >mite  her  with  a  word,  I  will  smite  you 
in  a  tenfold  degrf  e.    T  have  hitherto  spared  your  life 


when  I  had  power  to  de.stroy  it.  I  spare  it  now  for  Eliza- 
beth's sake  ;  but  if  ynu  reproach  her  I  will  smite  your 
name  before  all  the  world. 

Xow,  on  the  cross-examination  I  got  out  of  him  a  very' 
clear  concurrence  with  Mr.  Beecher  and  with  his  own 
record  in  the  "  True  Story,"  and  with  his  own  present 
fresh  recollection,  as  he  gave  it  to  Mr.  Storrs  two  days 
afterward.   I  said  to  him  : 

Now,  Mr.  Tilton.  do  you  remember  Mr.  Beecher  express- 
ing a  duubt.  or  iuii.uciiiUi  a  doubt,  as  to  whether  3Irs. 
Tilton  liiul  AvriTti/u  ;aiy  such  paper?  A.  Xo,  Sir;  he 
nev.--r  inrimatt''!  ntiy  -nch  thing. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  of  that  ?  A.  Xo,  Sir ;  I  am  quite 
certain. 

Q.  N'ow,  don't  you  remember  that  on  an  expression  of 
doubt  or  surprise  concemins:  Mrs.  Tilton  having  written 
any  such  pap'"^r  as  that— and  I  stopped — you  bad  no  orig- 
inal before  you  ?   A.  Xo,  Sir. 

He  had  not  anything  in  her  handwriting  that  he  could 
show  Mr.  Beecher  that  she  had  written :  he  didn't  mean 
to  have,  as  I  will  show  you  when  I  comment  upon  the 
planned  arrangement.   I  then  said  to  him ; 

Now,  don't  you  reni'^'mber  that  on  an  expression  of 
doubt  or  smi)rise  concernius-  Mrs.  Tilton's  havingwritten 
any  snch  paper  as  that,  you  then  said  to  him,  '•  It  is  but 
a  few  squares  to  my  hous"  :  go  an  l  ask  Mrs.  Tilton  for 
yourself  whether  or  not  she  wrote  that  letter."  and  his 
answer  is  :  "  Ah,  but  that  was  my  suggestion,  and  not  his." 

Gentlemen,  there  is  some  virtue  in  cross-examinatioiu 

In  answer  to  an  expression  that  yuu  describe  as  sur- 
prise, did  you  say,  •■  It  is  but  a  few  squares  to  my  house  ; 
go  and  ask  Mrs.  Tilton  for  yourself  whether  or  not  she 
wrove  that  letter  ]"  A.  Well.  I  may,  perhaps,  have  used 
some  such  expression  as  that ;  I  don't  remember,  but  it 
was  not  in  reference  to  any  doubt. 

Q.  Well, no  matter,  you  used  the  expression?  A.  But 
only  as  to  surprise. 

Q.  Xow,  thereupon,  did  he  indicate  a  purpose  of  going  t 

Did  anything  happen  that  made  him  thmk  he  was  go- 
ing 1  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  that  suggestion  to  him. 

Q.  Xow,  thereupon  did  he  indicate  a  purpose  of  going  f 
A.  He  went  staggering  down  stairs. 

Q.  Did  he  indicate  to  you  a  purpose  of  going  to  your 
house  1  A.  Xo,  Sir  ;  he  did  n't  say  anything  on  the  sub- 
ject that  I  remember  now. 

Q.  Didn't  you  know  that  he  was  going  to  your  house 
then  ?  A.  I  presumed  he  would  go  ;  I  don't  remember 
that  he  said  he  was  going. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  he  didn't  indicate  to  you,  so  that  you 
understood  him,  that  he  was  going  then  and  there  to  your 
house  ?  and  finally  the  answer  is.  He  and  Moulton  went 
out  together,  and  I  understood  they  ^vem  to  my  house, 
and  afterwards  I  learned  that  they  did  go. 

It  is  after  4  o'clock,  if  your  Honor  please. 

Judce  Xeilson— Get  readv  to  retire,  gentlemen.  Please- 
return  to-morrow  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

The  Court  thereupon  adjourned  until  Thursday  at  11 
o'clock. 


723  THE  TILTON-B. 

NINETY-SIXTH    DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

MR.  EVARTS  ON  MRS.  TILTON'S  LETTER  OF 
RETRACTION. 

THE  INTERVIEW  AT  MR.  MOULTON'S  HOUSE  FURTHER 
LOOKED  INTO— MRS.  TILTON'S  LETTER  OF  RE- 
TRACTION AND  THE  LETTER  EXPLAINING  IT  EX- 
AMINED—MR. MOULTON'S  GETTING  POSSESSION 
OF  THE  RETRACTION  REVIEWED — OPPOSING  TES- 
TIMONY COLLATED. 

Thursday,  June  3.  1875. 

The  continuation  of  the  argument  of  Mr.  Evarts 
for  the  defendant  in  the  Tilton-Beecher  trial  to- 
day covered,  among  its  principal  topics,  the  nature 
of  the  accusation  against  Mr.  Beecher  made  by  Mr. 
Tilton  in  the  interview  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  Mrs. 
Tilton's  letter  of  retraction,  and  her  subsequent  let- 
ter explaining  the  letter  of  retraction,  and  the  in- 
terview between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton 
when  the  latter  obtained  possession  of  the  letter 
of  retraction.  The  orator  resumed  the  discussion 
of  the  interview  of  Dec.  30,  1870,  between  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton.  The  character  of  the  slip 
ofpaper  which  Mr.  Tilton  had  read  to  Mr.  Beecher 
was  a  principal  subject  of  inquiry.  The  testimony 
of  the  plaintiff  and  the  defendant  on  this  point  was 
collated  and  carefully  analyzed  in  connection.  The 
same  process  was  pursued  with  other  contradictory 
or  varying  evidence. 

Mrs.  Tilton's  letter  of  retraction,  and  the  circum- 
si  anccs  under  which  it  was  written,  were  dwelt 
upon  at  considerable  length.  This,  together  with 
Mrs.  Tilton's  letter  explaining  the  letter  of  retrac- 
tion, formed  the  main  topic  of  the  day's  argument. 
In  treating  these  letters  the  orator  exhibited  an 
analytic  power  and  keenness  that  attracted  admir- 
ing comments  from  the  auditors.  Without  excite- 
ment, or  unusual  force  of  voice'  or  gesture,  he  held 
his  hearers  in  a  sfcate  of  the  most  careful  attention, 
by  the  mere  intellectual  strength  and  brilliancy  of 
his  address. 

A  portion  of  the  argument  was  devoted  to  an  ex- 
planation of  cei*tain  rules  and  presuiriptions  of  the 
English  and  American  law  concerning  the  relation 
of  husband  and  wife,  and  the  influence  of  the  for- 
mer over  the  latter.  Several  authorities  were  cited 
on  this  subject,  and  the  rule  of  law  which  prevents  a 
wife  from  testifying  against  her  husband  or  for  her 
husband  ai:;;iin3t  others  was  enlarged  upon. 

The  letter  of  Mrs.  Tilton  explaining  her  letter  of 
retraction  was  fully  elucidated  according  to  the 
heory  of  the  defendant's  case.   It  was  a  letter  of 


]EGREB  TBIAL, 

explanation,  Mr.  Evarts  asserted,  and  not  one  of  ac- 
cusation against  Mr.  Beecher.  It  had  been  procured, 
like  the  first  letter  of  accusation  against  Mr.  Beecher, 
by  coercion.  The  object  of  bringing  about  the  in- 
terview between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  was 
defeated  by  the  terms  of  the  retraction,  and  to  re- 
trieve this  misstep  Mr.  TUton  got  the  letter  explain- 
ing the  retraction. 

Mr.  Evarts  frequently  makes  use  of  very  apt  com- 
parisons to  illustrate  his  argument..  These  he  devel- 
ops very  f  uUy,  and  they  usually  are  much  appre- 
ciated by  the  audience.  By  one  of  these  argu- 
ments from  comparison,  he  produced  an  interest 
that  came  near  culminating  in  an  outburst  of  ap- 
plause, which  was  only  suppressed  by  the  warning 
sound  of  the  court  officers'  staifs.  He  supposed 
the  case  of  a  murderer,  who,  to  conceal  his 
crime,  should  procure  the  fatal  bullet,  melt 
it  up,  and  then  accuse  another  and  appear  as  wit- 
ness against  him.  The  suspicious  anxiety  to  get  rid 
of  the  tell-tale  bullet  would  lead  to  the  murderer's 
condemnation.  "Where  is  the  bullet would  be 
the  demand  of  the  court  and  the  jury.  A  mold 
would  show  that  the  bullet  fitted  the  pistol  of  the 
witness,  and  not  that  of  the  accused.  So  the  de- 
stroyed **  confession"  would  convict  Messrs.  Tilton 
and  Moulton  of  the  crime  of  moral  assassination. 
"  We  bring  you  the  mold  of  it,"  exclaimed  the  ora- 
tor, "  in  the  retraction  which  was  twined  around  it." 

The  inter\T.ew  of  Dec.  31  between  Mr.  Moulton 
and  Mr.  Beecher  was  made  another  subject  of  con- 
sideration by  the  orator.  The  accounts  of  thisjn- 
terview  as  given  oy  both  of  the  participants  in  it 
were  read  in  connection,  and,  on  the  basis  of  proba- 
bility and  consistency,  their  respective  claims  to  b©- 
lief  were  reviewed. 

THE   PEOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

MR.  EVARTS  RESUMES  HIS  ARGTOENT. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad^ 

journment. 
Mr.  Evarts  came  in  about  11:15. 
Mr.  Evarts— Have  the  jury  been  called,  your  Honor. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr,  Evarts— I  liave  to  apologize  for  the  detention  of  ths 
ferry-boat  in  the  stream,  which  kept  us  unexpectedly. 

THE  CONTENTS  OF  MRS.  TILTON'S  WRITTEN 
ACCUSATION. 
As  you  have  no  doubt,  jgentlemen,  upon  the 
absolute  certainty,  and  the  volumiuous  concurrence  of 
the  evidence,  what  the  slip  of  u-aper  mat  was  ia  the 


SVMMIXG    UP  BY  ME.  EYARTS. 


723 


possession,  of  Mr.  Tilton  tliat  niglit,  and  from  wMch  lie 
read  to  Mr.  Beeclier,  was,  I  Ilo^Y  wisli  to  ask  youi-  atten- 
tion to  its  cliaracter,  as  comporting  witli  the  Laterview  in 
tlie  version  tliat  Mr.  Tilton  lias  given  of  it,  or  in  tlie  ver- 
sion tliat  Mr.  Beeclier  lias  given  of  it.  Mr.  Beeclier  lias 
told  you  wliat  it  contained;  lie  heard  it  read.  Mr.  Tiltou 
and  Mr.  3Ioulton,  on  being  recalled,  have  not  either  of 
them  given  you  a  different  statement  of  what  it  con- 
tained. Mr.  Tilton  is  asked  the  negative,  *'  Was  it  so  ?" 
aud  he  says,  "Xo,  guite  a  different  statement;"  but  what 
the  different  statement  was  he  did  not  tell  you ;  and  Mr. 
Moulton  had  had  the  copy— that  is,  the  original,  for  it 
was  only  the  copy  that  Mr.  Tilton  had— had  had  the 
original  in  his  possession  from  the  30th  day  of  December, 
1870,  to  immediately  after  the  "  Tripartite  Agreement," 
in  April,  1872,  and  he  had  opporrimities  enough, 
and  firmness  of  memory  enough,  to  reproduce  that 
little  slip  of  paper,  in  its  contents,  after  that  long 
period  of  meditation  and  examination  of  it.  He  could 
tell  you  word  for  word  the  speech  that  Mr.  Tilton  made 
when  he  introduced  Victoria  Woodhull  to  the  good 
graces  of  a  Xew- York  audience, .  although  he  had  never 
looked  at  any  report  of  it  since.  He  could  do  that.  Xow, 
it  was  vastly  important  for  this  prosecution  to  show  this 
paper  to  have  been  something  different  from  what  Mr. 
Beecher's  memory  gave  it,  from  what  the  "  True  Story  " 
ga^  e  it,  fi-om  what  Mi-.  Tilton's  statement  to  Mi-.  Charles 
Storrs,  two  days  afterwards,  gave  it,  from  what  he  gave 
it  in  subseciuent  interviews  in  1872,  to  Mr.  Southwick,  to 
Mr.  Schultz,  to  Mr.  Harman,  aijd  Mi'.  McKelway.  Why 
didn't  they  do  iti  Did  any  scruples  of  accommodation, 
or  invention  of  evidence,  restrain  them  ?  It  is  vital  to 
their  case.  Without  a  contradiction  of  this  paper  and 
its  contents,  without  a  substitution,  in  your  acceptance, 
and  in  the  truth,  upon  accredited  evidence,  that  it  was 
something  else,  their  case  is  gone.  Ah,  gentlemen,  if 
they  had  sworn  to  a  different  reading  of  that  paper,  it 
would  have  been  willful,  deliberate,  and  conscious  state- 
ment, and  there  was  too  much  of  written  and  recorded 
evidence,  as  well  as  of  the  oaths  of  numerous  witnesses, 
to  repel  the  substitution ;  and  the  Hps  of  these  men  have 
not  been  opened  and  never  will  be  opened,  to  substitute 
new  reading  for  that  paper. 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  being  the  character  of  the  wife's 
accusation,  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  proposed  to  her  to  be  a 
wife  to  him  with  all  tliat  that  implies,  you  will  see  how 
utterly  it  is  at  variance  with  the  long  narrative  of  seduc- 
tion, of  adultery,  of  prostitution,  and  of  justification  of 
prostitution,  that  he  has  deliverec)  in.  your  hear- 
ing. Where  would  yon  put  it,  a  wife's  confir-mation, 
that  Mr.  Beecher's  attention  even  may  be  drawn  ? 
Would  you  put  it  as  a  climax  after  that  long  narrative, 
that  In  addition  to  all  this,  all  this  seduction,  aU  this 
adultery,  "  Mr.  Beecher  has  proposed  to  me  to  be  every- 
thing to  him  that  a  wife  is;"  indecent  propositions  as  a 
climax  to  the  history  of  16  months'  adultery.  Now,  where 


did  thLs  slip  of  paper  come  in  ?  IMi-.  Tilton,  in  his  direct 
examination,  would  start  off,  as  it  were,  in  that  part  of 
his  interview  that  took  up  his  grievance  after  he  had  got 
through  v\i.th  the  conciliation  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  with 
the  vituperation  of  Mt.  Bowen,  as  if  this  slip  might  have 
been— and  you  would  perhaps  naturally  iaf  er  that  it  waa 
—the  mode  in  which  he  introduced  his  narrative  of  hla 
wife's  affairs.  But  on  the  cross-examination  I  called  his 
attention  to  this  question  of  stage  and  relation  to  the 
narrative.   I  ask  him  : 

Had  you  this  memorandum  before  you,  made  as  you 
have  now  stated,  when  you  went  on  with  this  discourse 
with  him  that  you  have  given  1  A.  I  cannot  say  it  was  a 
discourse. 

Q.  Well,  address?  A.  No,  Sir;  it  was  not  an  address; 
it  was  a  statement. 

Q.  Well,  a  statement  to  him  1  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  It  was  interrupted  by  him,  was  it  1  A.  I  remember 
his  making  a  little  attempt  to  interrupt  at  one  time, 
and  I  told  him  to  hear  me  to  the  end ;  there  was  prac- 
tically no  interruption  on  his  part. 

Q.  What  form  of  demonstration  did  you  recognize  as  an 
attempt  to  interrupt  you  \  A.  I  thought  he  was  going  to 
speak. 

Q.  He  made  a  motion  as  if  he  was  going  to  sneak?  A. 
I  don't  distinctly  remember  it. 

Q.  Something  you  treated  as  a  purpose  of  speaking  I 
A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  At  what  stage  of  your  statement  was  that  purpose 
interrupted ;  do  you  remember  ?  A.I  think  it  was  at  the 
conclusion  of  my  reading  Mrs.  Tilton's  confession. 

Q.  This  little  paper  which  you  had— you  call  it  a  confes- 
sion?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  It  was  this  little  paper  which  you  had  on  that  table  f 
A.  Yes,  Sii' ;  that  is  my  present  recollection. 

Q.  Did  you  read  that  at  the  outset  of  your  statement  to 
him  ?  A.  I  read  that ;  it  was  not  the  first  of  the  iuter- 
view ;  the  first  part  of  the  interview,  as  I  remember,  was 
my  reference  to  his  having  received  a  letter. 

Q.  Oh,  well,  I  agree ;  but  after  you  got  through  that, 
after  you  had  got  upon  the  matter  of  his  relations  witli 
your  wife,  was  the  reading  of  that  paper  the  fljst  thing 
that  was  done  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  whether  that  was 
at  the  very  beginning,  or  whether  it  was  somewhere  in 
its  proper  place  in  the  narrative ;  that  I  do  not  recall  at 
the  present  moment.  ***** 

Q.  Then  how  did  you  arrest  that  purpose?  A.  I  said, 
"  Hear  me  to  the  end,"  *         *         *  *  * 

Q.  Now,  do  you  remember  Mr.  Beecher  expressing  a 
doubt,  or  intimating  a  doubt,  as  to  whether  Mrs,  Tilton 
had  written  any  such  paper  i 

And  then  we  go  on  with  what  I  repeated  to  you  yester- 
day, and  he  admits  that  it  was  a  surprise,  and  that  there- 
upon, on  that  intimation  of  surprise  at  the  paper,  he  said 
to  him : 

It  is  but  a  few  squares  to  my  house.  Go  and  aslcMrs. 
Tnton  yourself  whether  or  no  she  wrote  that  letter. 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  shows  you  that  on  his  own  repro- 
duction of  this  interview  he  brought  this  paper  in  as  the 
climax  and  clincher,  the  hight,  the  front  of  his  charges,  led 
up  to  by  what  had  gone  before,  and  this  the  damning 
proof,  as  well  as  imputation,  upon  which  he  expected  to 
touch  the  conscience  and  humiliate  the  pride,  by  this  ex- 
posure of  the  imlawful  purposes  of  Mr.  Beecher.  Now, 


724 


THE   TlLTON-BEKiUIEB  TRIAL. 


■wliac  sort  or  a  climax  was  that  for  liis  narrative  ?  But 
eee  how  excellently  it  fits  into  Mr.  Beecher's  narrative 
of  how  the  charge,  and  course  of  relations  with  his  fam- 
ily, was  presented  hy  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Beecher,  upon 
that.  I  won't  repeat  the  whole  interview,  hut  only  its 
heads,  after  he  came  upon  the  snhjects  of  hi?  family : 

It  was  ahout  the  Bowen  matters ;  advisino;  against 
htm  ;  saying  that  I  had  not  only  injured  him  in  his  busi- 
ness, in  his  reputation  and  prospects,  hut  had  insinuated 
myself  into  his  family,  superseded  him,  taken  his  place  ; 
in  matters  of  religious  doctrine,  bringing  up  the  chil- 
di-en,  the  household,  his  wife  looked  to  me  rather  than 
to  him  ;  caused  her  to  transfer  her  affections  in  an  inor- 
dinate measure  ;  that  in  consequence  of  the  differences 
which  had  sprung  up  by  reason  of  my  conduct,  his  fam- 
ily had  been  well-mgh  destroyed  ;  I  had  suffered  my  wife 
and  his  mother-in-law  to  conspire  for  the  separation  of 
the  family  ;  that  I  had  corrupted  Elizabeth,  teaching  her 
to  lie,  to  deceive  ;  and  he  went  on  to  say  that  not  only 
had  I  done  this,  but  that  I  had  made  overtures  to  her  of 
an  improper  character  ;  and  again  I  expressed  some  sur- 
prise [exactly  what  Tilton  says]  ;  he  drew  the  paper  and 
read  it,  and  then  it  was,  turning  to  me,  he  said,  "  I  wish 
you  to  verify  these  charges  by  going  down  and  seeing 
Elizabeth  yourself ;  she  is  waiting  for  you  at  my  house." 

Was  there  ever  a  more  conclusive  test  of  what  the 
course,  what  the  measure,  what  the  length,  the  breadth, 
the  severity,  of  the  imputations  against  Mr.  Beecher 
were,  when  you  have  permanently,  wholly  unequivocal, 
and  wholly  indisputable  evidence  of  what  the  written 
climax  was.  Proof  can  go  no  further.  This  fiction  that  I 
have  read  to  you,  so  contemptible  and  frivolous  in  itself, 
is  utterly  knocked  in  the  head  by  this  firm  feature  of  the 
evidence  that  is  produced  before  you,  and  is  shown  to 
have  been  the  climax  which  arrested  Mr.  Beecher's  atten- 
tion, which  struck  him  with  surprise  ;  for  all  the  rhetori- 
cal and  inflated  propositions  which,  on  Mr.  Beecher's 
statement,  Mr.  Tilton  had  given  him,  of  interference  with 
his  family  and  conspiracy  of  his  wife  and  Mrs.  Morse, 
and  all  those  things,  produced  no  serious  impression  upon 
him  then.  He  considered  them  the  exaggerations,  per- 
haps the  honest  imputations,  of  a  man  placed  in  a  most 
distressing  position  by  his  own  conduct  toward 
his  family ;  but  they  agree  that  the  moment  this 
lady's  name  was  brought  in  as  the  sponsor  for 
an  imputation,  Mr.  Beecher,  whose  respect,  whose  re- 
gard, whose  affection  toward  this  lady  had  been  the 
growth  of  many  years'  knowledge  of  her  and  association 
with  her,  at  once  produced  the  impression  on  him,  **  Why, 
this  indeed  is,  as  it  were,  a  thunderbolt  from  a  clear  sky; 
this,  this  is  son»ething  that  a  man  well  may  wonder  at,  if 
such  an  imputation  as  that  is  made."  Well,  now,  take 
the  confessed  answer  to  that :  "  Elizabeth  cannot  have 
said  that,  because  it  is  not  true,"  and  the  recognition  of 
the  justice  of  that  impression  on  Mr.  Beecher's  part,  by 
the  husband's  concession  :  "  Go  and  ask  her ;  she  will 
tell  you."  No,  gentlemen,  there  is  no  escaping,  from  your 
unfailing  confidence  in  the  character  of  this  paper,  that 
ifi  displayed  in  every  form  of  evidence,  with  no  contra- 


diction, no  substitution,  with  a  destruction  of  it  by  the 
parties  that  never  could  have  faced  it  in  Court  one  mo- 
ment, and  kept  their  footing  before  this  jury. 


MR.  BEECHER  INVITED  TO  GO  AND  SEE 
MRS.  TILTON. 
Now,  gentlemen,  before  I  advert  any  more 
fully  to  the  magnitude  of  this  evidence  in  regard  to  this 
paper  and  its  final  blow  to  the  pretensions  of  an  accusa- 
tion of  immorality  beyond  that,  I  will  go  with  you  to 
the  interview  that,  on  the  suggestion  and  invitation  of 
Mr.  Tilton,  took  place  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  his  wife. 
Whatever  criticism  there  may  be  as  to  there  being  any 
diversity  of  form  and  circumstance  and  words  in 
which  this  interview  was  brought  about,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  interview  between  the  husband  and  the 
paramour,  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  in- 
terview between  the  adulteress  and  the  paramour,  or 
between  the  honest  wife  and  the  falsely  accused,  upright 
clergyman  did  take  place  that  night,  and  did  take  place 
between  them  alone,  and  did  take  place  upon  the 
suggestion  or  acquiescence  of  the  husband,  and  when 
he  remained  absent  from  his  house— his  own  house. 
Now,  there  is  a  fact  upon  which  you  can  repose,  and 
whatever  are  the  just  inferences  from  that  fact  you  will 
draw,  and  you  will  not  be  distmbed  m  yom-  logic  and 
your  reason  and  yom*  responsible  deductions  by  any 
flimsy  or  frivolous  feelings  or  views  about  these  particular 
people.  You  will  judge  of  this  fixed  fact  and  all  that  led  t<y- 
it,  and  what  occurred  diiring  it,  and  what  came  after  it, 
according  to  your  knowledge  of  human  character,  of 
human  feelings,  of  human  conduct  imder  these  grave  and 
pressing  circumstances  of  external  relations.  Think  of 
it ;  think  of  it  on  Tilton's  theory— think  of  it  on  the  view 
that  your  verdict  is  expected  to  sustain,  that  this  man, 
Mr.  Beecher,  had,  through  years  of  seduction  and  im- 
pure solicitation  and  fondling,  finally  triumphed  over 
the  bodily  chastity  of  this  woman,  and  defiled  and 
polluted  the  bed  of  this  plaintiff,  the  husband, 
for  sixteen  months,  and  that  the  woman  lay  almost  at 
the  point  of  doom,  sick,  sorrowing  in  her  bed,  and  tbe 
husband  invites  the  paramour  to  visit  her  in  her  cham- 
ber alone.  It  was  as  few  steps  for  him  to  accomi)any  Mr. 
Beecher  as  it  was  for  Mr.  Beecher  to  go.  He  had  seen 
some  unseemliness  in  bringing  about  an  interview  be- 
tween Mr.  Beecher  and  his  wife,  this  wife  and  himself, 
Mr.  TUton,  where  there  was  to  be  only  the  kindly  pur- 
poses of  saving  Mr.  Beecher  from  being  worried  about 
the  Tilton-Bowen  letter  that  had  been  sent  him.  And 
now  he  opens  his  wife's  chamber  to  the  visit  of  the  de- 
clared, convicted  adulterer;  for,  if  there  had  been  a 
charge,  if  there  had  been  truth  in  the  chaBge,  if  there  bad  i 
been  an  idea  or  notion  on  Tilton's  part  that  there  was 
truth  in  the  charge,  he  knew  the  length  and 
b:eadth,  and  he  either  doubted  it  himself  as  a 
dream,    or    he    believed    it    as  one  of    the  most 


SUMMMG   UP  1 

torrid  realities  that  ever  confronts  mortal  man  in  Ms  ex- 
perience of  life ;  and  lie  says :  "  Go  down  and  see  Eliza- 
betli."  Now,  we  wont  say  whether  "  She  is  expecting 
you  at  the  house"  be  or  be  not  a  part  of  that  final  ar- 
rangement in  its  expressions.  That  depends,  perhaps, 
wholly  on  Mr.  Beecher's  statement  of  it,  that  lii'st,  that 
simple  clause.  Take  it  on  any  view,  and  you  have  an 
invitation  to  a  paramour  from  a  husband  that  is  wholly 
inconsistent  with  human  character,  would  have  been  as 
intolerable  to  the  paramour  as  it  should  have  been  to  the 
husband.  How  would  the  guilty  man  have  acted  under 
that  imputation,  and  confronted  with  the  confession  of 
flbe  wife  1  Would  he  have  desired  to  meet  the  woman 
under  those  circumstances,  and  to  furnish  the  final 
proof  against  himself  by  the  result  of  that  inter- 
view, if  he  had  known  that  he  was  guilty, 
and  known  that  the  wife  was  guily,  and  kno^\^l  that  the 
husband  knew  they  both  were  guilty  %  So  that,  on  that 
mere  fact  in  dispute,  you  see  that  it  is  capable  of  concilia- 
tion with  the  preceding  character  of  the  interview,  only 
by  assuming  the  character  that  Mr.  Beecher  gives  to  the 
interview,  and  discarding  that  that  Mr.  TUton  now  gives 
to  the  interview.  Only  by  making  it— only  by  its  being 
compatible  with  the  view  of  the  interview  that  Tilton 
gave  on  the  second  day  after  to  Mr.  Charles  Storrs— only 
as  compatible  with  the  statement  of  the  interview  as 
given  in  the  "  True  Story,"  only  with  the  interview  as 
stated  to  Belcher,  and  Southwick,  and  Schultz,  and  Har- 
man,  and  McKelway;  only  with  Tilton's  version  as 
stereotyped  and  preserved  in  manifold  impressions,  and 
as  now  given  in  your  hearing— with  only  the  credit  and 
guarnnty  that  belongs  to  his  spoken  words,  "when  he  has 
determined  out  of  the  rankling  ii-ritation  of  his  \'anity 
that  Dr.  Bacon's  witty  references  to  Shakespeare  had  ex- 
cited him  to  carry  out  what  had  been  a  baffled  purpose 
for  years,  baflled  by  truth,  a  purpose  to  strike  ]Mr. 
Beecher  to  the  heart,  and  a  final,  deliberate  weighing  of 
these  two  altematives  of  whether  he  would  submit  to  the 
wounded  vanity  that  Dr.  Bacon's  goads  made  wince,  or 
"Whether  he  would  pull  down  the  temple  of  his  house- 
hold on  the  heads  of  his  wife  and  his  children. 
What  abnormal,  what  monstrous  character  and  nature  is 
this  that  considers  himself  driven  into  a  terrible  balanc- 
ing of  alternatives  whether  he  shall  bear  the  jests  of  Dr. 
Bacon  in  his  own  character  and  sensibilities,  or  whether, 
as  he  expressed  it,  he  shall  smash  Elizabeth  and  ruin  the 
fame  of  his  children  !  I  have  never  heard  of  any  moral 
construction  in  any  history  that  was  written  to  be  be- 
lieved, I  have  never  heard  of  any  narrative  of  real  life  or 
any  philosophy  of  human  character  that  pretended  to 
present  a  sane  mind  treating  these  two  alternatives  of 
personal  irritation  and  of  final  destruction  of  the  happi- 
ness of  those  dear  to  a  man  as  making  a  measuring  cast 
of  duty,  as  to  which  com-se  he  should  pm'sue. 


F»  MR,  EYABTS.  735 
THE  PEOCUREMEIST  OF  THE  RETEACTION. 
Well,  now,  gentlemen,  when  IMr.  Beeclier 
goes  to  the  foot  of  the  stairs,  Mr.  Moulton  is  there.  Hd 
knows  nothing  of  what  has  occui-red  up-stairs ;  that  is, 
by  ha"nng  been  present,  or  by  haviog  had  it  reported  to 
him,  and  whatever  consciousness  of  knowledge  he  then 
exhibits  of  the  couise  of  that  evening  as  proposed  and 
planned,  he  had  got  beforehand  in  laying  out  the  scheme, 
and  got  from  Mr.  Tilton,  And  he  says  to  Mr.  Beecher,  )■ 
"Ai'e  you  going  down  to  Mrs.  Tilton's  ?"  before  Mr. 
Beecher  opens  his  mouth.  How  did  that  get  into  Mr- 
Moulton's  head  I  And  then,  more  extraordinary  still, 
when  Ml".  Beecher  answered  that  he  was,  Mr.  Moulton 
said,  "I  will  go  with  you."  Well,  Mr.  Beecher 
wasn't  a  stranger  in  Brooklyn.  He  knew  the 
way  to.  Mr.  Tilton's  house,  and  he  was 
not  afraid  to  walk  the  streets  of  Brooklyn  at  9  o'clock  ar 
night,  or  half-past  9,  in  this  most  reputable  and  orderly 
portion  of  it— on  the  BrooMyn  Hights.  And  how  do  you 
account  tor  it  that  Moulton  wanted  to  accompany 
Beecher  ?  Now,  lot  me  agree  that  Mr.  Beecher  is  sup- 
posed, or  represented,  by  Mr.  Moulton  to  have  said  that 
something  may  have  passed  which  let  him  know  that 
Mr.  Beecher  was  going  to  Mrs.  Tilton's.  what  reason  was 
there  for  Mr.  Moulton's  going  ?  I  will  show  you  the  plan 
of  that  night  after  I  get  through  with  it ;  but  bear  that 
in  mind.  They  go ;  and  when  they  reach  the  door,  and 
the  fact  is  kno"wn  that  Mr.  Beecher  has  got  there,  and 
gone  in,  and  gone  directly,  and  has  had  no  opportunity 
to  speak  with,  consult  with,  meditate  "with,  anybody 
else,  Mr.  Moulton  has  discharged  his  prearranged  part  of 
that  concerted  trepanning  of  Mr.  Beecher ;  and  he  only 
asks  of  him  that  when  he  returns  he  "will  stop  at  his 
house,  and  Mr.  Beecher  acquiesces  in  the  sug- 
gestion ;  and  Moulton  knew  he  had  the  word 
of  an  honest  man,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher 
would  do  so,  and  he  went  there.  Mr.  Beecher  has  the 
door  opened  for  him  by  the  housekeeper,  not  the  servant 
or  maid  that  attends  the  door,  but  this  housekeeper,  this 
JVIiss  Dennis  that  had  taken  the  head  of  the  table  and  put 
Mrs.  Tilton  at  the  side  when  she  and  Bessie  Turner  had 
returned  from  Marietta,  and,  "without  inquiry,  Mr. 
Beecher  is  told  that  Mrs.  Tilton  is  upstairs  in  her  room 
and  Mr.  Beecher  will  find  her  there,  and  he  goes  up  and 
knocks  at  the  door.  The  nurse,  the  monthlv  nurse,  IMrs. 
Mitchell,  opens  it  from  within,  and  she  knows  nothing, 
and  is  no  party  to.  any  preconcert,  but  she  knew  Mr. 
Beecher  very  weU,  and  she  knew  that  a  woman,  a  mem- 
ber of  Mr.  Beecher's  chm-ch,  sick  and  sorrowing  in  the 
domestic  troubles  that  had  been  urged  upon  her  in  refer- 
ence to  Mr.  Tilton's  difficulties  with  Bowen,  and  his  live- 
lihood, was  to  receive  a  visit  from  her  pastor,  Mr* 
Beecher,  and  she  needed  no  explanation  concerning  the 
visit  of  a  clergyman  to  so  sick  a  woman  as  Mrs.  Tilton 
was,  in  her  esteem,  and  if  it  occui-red  at  the  hour  of  9  or 
half  past  9  in  the  evening  it  was  a  conclusive  evldencew 


726 


THE   TILTON-^EECHER  TRIAL. 


Instinctively  presenting  itself  to  lier  mind,  that  tlie  clergy- 
man liad  been  sent  for  from  arecognition  of  the  precarious 
condition  of  the  patient,  and  she  left  the  room  as  every 
nurse  would  leave  the  room,  as  every  member  even  of  a 
family  would  leave  the  room  when  the  clergyman  ap- 
proaches the  sicfe  bed  of  a  parishioner  and  communicant. 
Nor  had  she  any  fear  that  the  mind  of  the  patient  would 
be  ruflfled  or  disturbed,  or  the  duties  of  protection  of 
health  that  were  confided  to  hei?,  the  nurse,  should  inter- 
fere with  this  visit  of  the  clergyman  to  the  bedside. 
She  was  a  religious  woman  herself,  though  not  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  congregation,  and  she  knew  that  the  peace  that 
comes  from  the  Gospel  of  Christ  at  the  hands  of  a  pastor 
does  not  endanger  the  nervous  system,  or  expose  to  ex- 
citement, a  sick  woman.  And  so,  during  that  interview, 
lasting  as  it  may  have  done  half  an  hom-  or  an  hour,  no 
matter  what,  or  no  matter  how  trustworthy  the  meas- 
ures of  time  that  witnesses  give  about  matters  that  they 
do  not  attend  to,  in  that  regard  she  had  no  uneasiness, 
and  she  was  justified  by  the  result,  for,  when  hear- 
ing the  door  close  after  Mr.  Beecher  as  he  left 
the  house,  she  returned  to  her  patient's  bedside, 
she*  found  her  entirely  tranquil  and  at  ease. 
Nothing  had  occurred,  gentlemen,  in  that  interview  with 
Mr.  Beecher,  to  disturb  the  conscience  or  harass  the  feel- 
ings of  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  the  nurse  tells  you  that  she  went 
to  sleep,  and  then  the  nurse  retired,  at  her  accustomed 
place  by  her  side,  and  went  to  sleep  herself.  Ah,  what 
volumes  this  testimony,  acceptable  to  our  own  apprecia- 
tions of  what  the  interview  would  be  if  it  were  comport- 
ing with  the  character  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  of  Mrs.  Tilton, 
and  if  it  comports  with  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Beecher  as  to 
what  did  actually  occur.  We  all  accept  the  evidence  of 
the  nurse  as  necessarily  true,  as  naturally  true,  at  least, 
and  it  speaks  volumes  as  to  what  the  interview  was,  and 
whether  its  results  were  to  quiet  the  uneasy  feelings  of  a 
woman  that  had  yielded  imder  the  goading  pressure  of  a 
husband  to  mend  his  matters  with  the  world,  to  put  even 
into  the  form  of  a  written  paper  a  charge  untrue  against 
a  man  whom  she  had  respected  and  revered,  and  how 
under  some  sort  of  reparation,  at  least  some  sort  of  purg- 
ing of  herself  from  wicked  purpose  in  what  had  been 
done,  some  sort  of  restoration  in  the  good  opinion  of  this 
good  man,  had  come  from  that  interview ;  her  mind  was 
at  ease ;  she  had  repaired  her  wrong ;  she  had  redressed 
an  evil  communication  that  was  false,  and  well  might  she 
sleep  by  the  side  of  her  nurse,  in  that  peace  of  conscience 
that  had  been  administered  to  her,  and  that  her  substan- 
tially truthful  nature  had  yielded  to. 

Now,  there  is  but  one  witness  to  that  interview— Mr. 
Beecher— and  you  must  determine  whether  it  is  true,  and 
it  is  true  as  coming  from  a  man  of  tntelligence  and  of 
truthfulness  so  far  as  all  the  rest  of  his  character  is  con- 
cerned, and  which  if  not  true  is  deliberate  and  willful  in- 
vention and  perjury.  You  must  judge,  for  it  does  not 
need  to  rest  upon  his  evidence,  whether  it  is  not  sus- 


tained by  the  true  interpretation  of  all  that  passed  bef 
and  all  that  followed  afterward.  But  this  is  the  sta 
ment.  He  found  her  lying  on  a  bed  dressed  in  pure  white 

Mrs.  Tilton  was  dressed  in  pure  white,  and  her  face 
white  as  the  bed,  lying  a  little  above  a  level,  reclining  o 
pillows,  her  hands  palm  to  palm  on  her  breast  in  a  ve~ 
natural  way.  I  drew  a  chair ;  I  sat  dowu  in  it. 

Q.  Did  she  accost  you  in  any  way  before  she  spot 
A.  Not  at  all ;  her  eyes  were  closed. 

Now,  Mr.  Beecher's  memory  was  better  than  Mr.  Mo" 
ton's.  He  knew  this  lady  was  sick,  and  he  recognized  it 
and  he  has  produced  a  picture  to  you  which,  besides  its 
extreme  pathos  and  pathetic  conformity  to  truth,  shows 
you  that  this  visit  of  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  unprepared 
for.  The  drapery  of  the  couch  and  the  drapery  of  the 
sick  woman  were  all  arranged  in  the  purity  of  snow,  at 
that  late  hour  of  the  day,  as  in  a  woman  of  true  feeling 
would  be  expected  upon  the  intrusion  even  of  a  clergy- 
man: 

She  was  as  one  dead,  and  yet  she  was  living.  I  sat 
down  by  her  side,  and  said  to  her,  "  Elizabeth,  I  have 
just  seen  your  husband,  and  had  a  long  interview  with 
him.  He  has  been  making  many  statements  to  me  and 
charges,  and  he  has  sent  me  to  you  in  respect 
to  some  of  them  that  you  should  verify  them." 
I  then  said,  "  He  has  charged  me  with  alienating  your  af- 
fections from  him.  He  has  charged  me  that  I  have  cor- 
rupted your  simplicity  and  your  ti-uthfulness.  He  has 
also  charged  me  with  attempting  improprieties.  *  *  * 

Are  these  things  so,  Elizabeth  %  "  She  there  was  the 

faintest  quiver,  and  tears  trickled  down  hei;  cheek,  but  no 
answer.  I  said  to  her,  "  He  says  that  you  have  charged 
me,  Elizabeth,  with  making  improper  advances.  Have 
you  stated  all  these  things,  and  made  the  charges?  "  And 
she  opened  her  eyes  and  said :  "  My  friend,  I  could  not 
help  it."  "Couldn't  help  it,  Elizabeth!  Why  could  n't 
you  help  it  ?  You  know  that  these  things  are  not  true." 
"  Oh,  Mr.  Beecher,"  said  she,  "  I  was  wearied  out ;  I  have 
been  wearied  with  his  importunities.  He  made  me  think 
that  if  I  would  confess  love  to  you  it  would  help  him  to 
confess  to  me  his  alien  affections."  "  But,"  I  said  to  her 
"Elizabeth,  this  is  a  charge  of  attempting  improper  things. 
You  know  that  it  is  not  true."  "  Yes,  it  is  not  true,"  she 
says,  "but  what  can  I  do?"  "Do!  you  can  take  it 
back  again."  She  hesitated,  and  I  did  not 
understand  her  hesitation ;  and  he  proceeds :  "  Why 
can  you  not  take  it  back?  It  is  not  true.** 
She  said  something  about  she  would  be  willing  to  do  it,  if 
it  could  be  done  without  injury  to  her  husband,  which  I 
did  not  at  all  understand.  "  But,"  said  I,  "  you  ought  to 
give  me  a  written  retraction  of  that  charge."  She  said 
she  was  willing  to  do  anything  if  I  would  not  use  it 
against  her  husband.  I  said,  "  Give  me  paper."  8he 
pointed  to  the  secretary  in  the  other  room,  which  stood 
between  the  windows.  I  went  there;  I  knew  it,  and  took 
fi'om  the  secretary  some  note  paper,  pen  and  ink.  I 
brought  them  to  the  bedside.  She  raised  herself  up  a 
little  and  wrote  the  first  part  of  the  retraction.  She 
signed  it. 

I  will  read  you,  gentlemen,  what  she  wrote : 

December  30, 1870.  . 

W,earied  with  importunity  and  weakened  by  sickness, 
I  gave  a  letter  inculpating  my  friend  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  imder  assurances  that  that  Avould  remove  all 
difficulties  between  me  and  my  husband.  That  letter  I 
now  revoke.  I  was  persuaded  to  it,  almost  forced,  when 


SUJIjIUG  UF  by  jIE.  etarts. 


727 


I  Tvas  in  a  Tveakened  state  of  mind.  I  regret  It  and  recall 
Its  statements.  £■  e.  t. 

Then  \re  asked  Mr.  Beeclier : 

Q.  During  tlie  -vrrlting,  Mr.  Beeclier,  did  you  in  any 
manner  dictate  or  suggest  any  of  the  language  used  ? 
A.  Xo.  Sir ;  I  suggested  that  she  ought— in  the  heginning 
I  suggested  that  she  ought  to  mate  a  recall  of  those 
charges  that  should  cover  them.  *  *  *  *  She  read  it 
over  to  herself.  She  looked  it  over  and  then  held  out  her 
pen  for  some  more  ink,  ^v-hich  I  had  in  my  hand,  and 
added  this : 

"I  desire  to  say  explicitly,  >[r.  Beecher  has  never 
offered  any  improper  solicitations,  hut  has  always  treated 
me  in  a  manner  becoming  a  Cliristian  and  a  gentleman. 

"  Elizabeth  E.  Tilto>-." 

Q.  Did  you  during  this  conversation,  Mr.  Beecher,  say 
anythmg  to  Mrs.  TiLton  as  to  the  form  and  manner  in 
which  injury  might  come  to  you  from  ihis  charge  ?  A. 
I  did. 

Q.  TThat-^as  that?  A.  "When  she  spoke  as  ohjectlng 
that  it  would  make  dtflSculty  "between  her  and  her  hus- 
band, I  said  to  her  that  there  should  he  no  difficulty  of 
that  kind,  so  far  as  I  was  concerned,  and  I  desired  this  in 
no  sense  as  an  offensive  thing;  but  that  some  rumor  of 
this  matter  might  come  to  mis  chief  imakers,  it  might  get 
into  the  church,  there  might  in  the  future  be  a  call  npon 
me,  and  that  I  wished  something  in  my  possession  that 
in  any  such  exigency  as  that  would  be  a  defense — in  sub- 
stance that,  *  *  *  *  I  said  to  her  that  it  was  not  an 
Injury  to  me  that  she  had  done,  alone ;  that  no  woman 
could  make  such  a  statement  without  injuring  herself, 
and  that  it  would  be  an  injury  both  to  herself  and  to  her 
children  shoxild  it  be  brought  out  and  believed.  *  *  *  * 
There  was  some  little  conversation  fm-ther— I  spoke 
some — I  am  afraid  with  severity,  sometimes ;  and  in  the 
converse  preceding,  and  when  I  went  away.  I  felt  very 
Borrowful ;  I  was  sorrv  that  I  had  said  so,  and  I  said  so 
to  her  that  I  hoped  my  visit  would  be  for  peace,  and  that 
it  would  not  be  the  means  of  throwing  her  back  in  her 
aickness,  and  some  other  kind  expressions. 

THE  EETEACTIOX. 
Now,  gentlemen,  jon  liave  an  immediate 
"^mtten  paper  coming  from  the  wife  spontaneously  on 
her  part,  or,  if  you  believe  that  Mr.  Beecher  aided  or  as- 
sisted in  any  degree  in  the  form  and  manner  of  the  state- 
ment, coming  from  his  recent  knowledge  of  the  nature 
and  form  and  degree  of  the  charge,  and  yon  have  here, 
immediately,  a  note  that  shows  conclusively  to  the  com- 
monest understandrag  that  the  charge  was  of  improper 
Bolicltations.  Why,  good  heavens!  gentlemen,  IE  the 
charge  had  been  the  prostitution  of  her  body  anci  adul- 
tery, why  -would  Mr.  Beecher  or  this  woman  have  had 
this  idea  in  their  heads  that  the  gravamen  injurious  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  as  involving  immorality  of  purpose,  ec[ual, 
so  far  as  intent  goes,  and  desire,  to  the  consummation  of 
the  wickedness,  if  it  had  not  been  the  charge  that  over 
her  name  had  been  ma<le  at  that  interview.  We  do  not 
need  to  wander  far  nor  compai'e  texts.  Against  the  par- 
ties that  destroyed  the  paper,  there  could  be  no  evidence 
except  its  magical  restoration  from  the  flames,  that  could 
refute  and  confront  their  present  pretension  that  it  was 
anytliing  else  than  a  chaige  of  improper  solicitations,  so 


absolutely,  so  immediately,  .no  clearly,  as  this  eorrectiou 
and  reiTaction  of  the  charge ;  and  when  she  found  that 
the  generality  of  the  first  part  that  she  had  written  did 
not  describe  the  letter  so,  but  that  the  letter  itself  would 
need  to  be  read  with  the  first  part,  she  ttien  saw  the 
deficiency,  and  added  the  final  words.  That  she  had  not 
said  affirmatively  before ;  she  had  withdrawn  the  letter 
but  only  that,  and  you  would  need  the  letter  to  kno"W 
what  she  had  withdrawn,  as  it  then  stood,  and  so,  for 
she  never  wanted  that  letter  that  she  had  written  to  see 
the  light,  she  makes  the  paper  complete,  adding : 

I  desire  to  sav  explicitly  :Mr.  Beecher  has  never  offered 
any  improper  solicitLitions,  but  has  always  treated  me  in 
a  maimer  becoming  a  Christian  and  a  gentleman. 

Now,  that  paper  I  have  read  to  yon  was  put  in  evidence 
by  this  plaintiff,  and  being  in  evidence,  his  wife's  state- 
ment brought  by  him,  it  reads,  according  to  its  natural 
import,  against  him  by  all  the  laws  of  evidence  ;  but  it 
was  competent  for  him  to  falsify  the  statement  of  fact 
concerning  himself  that  is  included  in  this  wife's  letter 
that  he  produces  in  evidence,  to  wit,  "  Wearied  with  im- 
portunities I  gave  a  letter  inculpating  my  friend  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  under  assnrances  that  that  would  remove 
all  difaculties  between  me  and  my  husband ;  I  was  per- 
suaded to  it,  almost  forced,"  and  he  has  not  contradicted 
one  word  of  these  imputations  against  Mm  as  to  the 
means  and  tbe  method  by  which  the  first  letter  was  ob- 
tained. What  do  you  think  of  that,  gentlemen  1  It  is  not 
the  fault  of  counsel,  that  we  all  know.  He  guides  himself, 
and  he  does  not  always  know  what  it  is  important  to 
deny  and  what  to  confess.  It  stands,  then,  upon  their 
own*  evidence  as  an  extorted  accusation  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  retracted  on  the  first  remonstrance,  retracted 
without  coercive  measures,  retracted  peacefully  and  with 
ease  to  conscience. 


THE  LA^  OX  A  WIPE'S  COXFESSIOXS. 
Xow,  gentlemen,  let  ns  see  Trhat  conrts  tMnk 
of  women  and  their  confessions  (if  you  please  to  call  this 
so,  but  it  was  an  accusation  of  a  third  person,  Mr. 
Beecher,  not  a  confession)  that  are  extorted.  I  read 
from  the  case  of  Derby  agt,  Derby  in  21  Xew-Jersey 
Equity,  36  : 

Where  from  the  facts  in  the  case  it  was  evident  that 
the  defendant,  the  wife,  was  not  a  resolute,  strong- 
minded  woman,  but  of  a  yielding,  unresisting  nature, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  plaintiff,  the  husband, 
was  a  man  of  decided  will,  strong,  resolute  and  violent, 
who  knew  the  value  of  energy  and  violent  attitude  in 
overruling  more  timid  minds,  and  where  the  wife  was 
summoned  into  his,  the  husband's,  room  to  execute  a 
paper  which  contained  a  confession  of  her  adultery,  and 
which  was  in  his  handwriting,  and  she  was  urged  by  him 
to  sign  it,  in  a  room  locked  up  with  him  alone,  Tield  that 
such  a  written  confession,  although  formally  sworn  to 
before  an  authorized  officer,  should  ftare  no  iceigTit  as 
evidence  of  adultery. 

Judge  iJseilson— Mr.  Evarts,  that  was  an  action  for 
divorce,  I  believe,  was  it  not  ? 


728 


THE   TlLTO^s^-BEECRER  TBIAL. 


Mr.  Evarts— An  action  for  divorce.  Cliancellor  Zabris- 
kie,  one  of  tlie  most  eminent  Chancellors  of  New-Jersey, 
speaks  of  this  paper  that  I  referred  to,  and  I  read  from 
Ms  opinion  in  the  case  : 

It  is  the  written  confession  of  the  defendant  herself, 
and  not  only  signed  by  her  hut  sworn  to  before  a  Master 
of  this  Court.  It  was  written  and  i-ead  to  her  by  her  hus- 
band and  again  read  by  the  Master  before  she  signed  it, 
and  he  testifies  that  he  cautioned  her  against  signing  or 
swearing  to  it  if  the  contents  were  not  true.  This  con- 
fession does  not  admit  her  guilt,  but  it  admits  that  she 
met  Palmer  on  the  Dean  Richmond  by  appointment ;  that 
Palmer  took  a  stateroom  in  the  name  of  Mr.  Derby  [that 
Is  the  husband],  and  that  they  both  occupied  it  during 
the  night. 

That  is,  it  does  not  say  that  she  committed  adultery,  but 
it  says  that  she  went  by  appointment  with  a  paramour 
on  a  North  Eiver  boat,  and  that  the  paramour  took  a 
state-room  in  her  bnsband's  name  and  that  both  occupied 
It  all  night. 

And  these  facts  are  sufQoient  to  sustain  the  charge  of 
adultery,  and  while  it  is  possible  that  a  man  and  a  woman 
of  their  ages  ■  might  occupy  the  same  room  for  anight 
■without  guilt,  yet  the  presumption  is  strong  against  them, 
and  in  this  Court  it  would,  unless  clearly  explained,  be 
always  sufficient  to  sustain  the  adultery.  These  facts,  if 
the  confession  is  believed  to  have  been  fairly  obtained 
and  xmderstandingiy  made,  are  sufficient  to  support  it, 
so  that  this  Court  may  found  its  judgment  upon  it. 

These  are  the  facts  of  assignation,  false  pretenses  of  her 
husband,  &c.  The  Court  then  has  to  take  up  the  question 
of  the  language  of  the  confession,  and  says  : 

The  language  of  the  confession,  althoughit  does  not  say, 
*'I  coniiiiitted  adultery,"  says,  "I  did  so  and  so,"  and  it  was 
read  to  her  and  explained  to  her  before  the  Master,  and 
she  signed  it  and  swore  to  it. 

Chancellor  Zabriskie  seems  to  understand  something  of 
the  terrible  subjugation  of  a  married  woman's  will,  for 

he  says  : 

Married  women,  we  know,  constantly  sign  deeds 
against  their  judgment  and  wishes,  only  to  gratify  the 
requisitions  of  their  husbands,  and  to  avoid  the  discom- 
fort and  annoyance  which  a  refusal  would  cause,  and  sol- 
emnly acknowledge  before  an  officer,  on  a  private  ex- 
amination, that  it  is  done  of  their  own  free  will.  The 
step  taken  by  Mrs.  Derby  was  only  one  degree  beyond 
this,  and  that  consisted  in  this,  that  she  did  not  only  part 
with  pi'operty,  but  acknowledged  facts  which  might  dis- 
grace and  rain  her  for  life.  But  if  she  did  it  under  the 
assurances  that  the  facts  admitted  did  not  compromise 
her  she  might  have  done  so  ;  yet  it  is  an  acknowledg- 
ment that  few  women  in  their  senses  would  have  made 
if  not  true,  and  in  order  to  believe  it  in  her  case,  it  is 
necessary  to  be  first  convinced  that  she  was,  hij  the  differ- 
ences in  I  heir  nature,  or  by  circumstances,  under  the  con- 
trol of  her  husband.  From  the  facts  in  the  case,  the  con- 
clusion is  unavoidable  that  she  was  not  a  resolute, 
strong-minded  woman,  but  of  a  yielding,  imresisting  na- 
ture. She  never  else  could  have  borne  the  treatment  to 
which  for  years  she  had  been  subjected  by  her  husband. 
On  the  other  linnd,  Derby  appears  to  be  a  man  of  decided 
Will,  strong,  resolute,  and  violent,  and  knows  the  value 
of  energy  and  violent  attitude  in  overruling  more  timid 
/minds. 


That  confession  did  not  conyict  the  wife  nor  procure  a 
release  for  the  husband  from  the  bonds  of  matrimony. 

In  the  case  of  Curtis  agt.  Curtis,  in  2  Swaby  &,  Tristram, 
the  wife 

Made  repeated  confessions  under  no  other  coercion 
^han  the  fear  that  her  husband,  who  was  ansc-ttled  in 
Tnind,  would  get  insane  if  she  refused.  Held  an  abundant 
explanation,  and  divorce  granted  in  favor  of  the  wife. 

Which  would  have  been  precluded  if  there  had  been 
any  faith  put  in  confessions  thus  gained  from  her.  Ah, 
gentlemen,  this  institution  of  marriage,  framed  in  our 
nature,  built  up  in  oiu-  civilization,  studied,  contem- 
plated, understood  by  the  jurisprudence  of  ages,  is  a  solid 
and  real  institution,  and  for  its  great  benefits,  and  as  a 
necessary  part  of  life,  it  carries  not  only  the  fact  of  the 
wife's  subordination  to  the  husband,  but  of  the  merciful 
intrepretation  of  that  subordination  which  sensible,  la- 
structed  men  ever  accord  in  practical  life,  and  which  the 
judges  pronounced  from  the  bench,  and  the  juries  con- 
firm by  verdicts.  Now,  gentlemen,  you  may  think  that 
in  our  advanced  civilization,  when  so  much  of  independ- 
ence is  assumed  for  women,  and  so  entire  equality  is  ac- 
corded to  them  in  feeling  and  sentiment  by  their  hus- 
bands and  by  the  world,  that  the  old  rale 
of  the  common  law  interpreting  this  institution  of  mar- 
riage, by  which  a  wife  never  was  held  responsible  to  the 
law,  or  subject  to  punishment,  for  any  crime  committed 
by  her  in  the  presence  and  under  the  influence  of  her 
husband,  was  one  of  those  traits  of  human  nature  belong- 
ing to  ruder  ages  and  to  past  times ;  but,  gentlemen,  in 
our  own  Court  of  Appeals  and  in  the  highest  tribunals  of 
England,  within  the  last  few  years,  there  is  an  explicit 
recognition  of  these  principles.  Let  me  read  you  a  case. 
"  Michael  Tarpley"— this  was  as  late  as  1871,  was  it  not, 
Mr.  Abbott? 

Mr.  Abbott— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— In  London,  Michael  Tarpley,  giving  thd 
name  of  Terrill,  applied  to  a  jeweler,  representing  that  Jia 
wished  to  make  a  gift  to  his  wife,  and  induced  the  jeweler 
to  send  by  a  clerk  a  quantity  of  diamond  ornaments  to 
a  house  in  a  highly  respectable  neighborhood  in  London, 
which  he  (Tarpley)  had  rented  shortly  before  the  transac- 
tion, and  immediately  after  the  transaction  vacated. 
The  house  door  was  opened  to  the  shopman  by  Michael 
Tarpley,  and  he  excused  to  the  shopman  the  absence  of 
the  servant,  who,  it  appears,  had  been  sent  on  an  errand 
to  a  fictitious  person  by  Michael  Tarpley's  wife,  Martha. 
When  the  wares  had  been  displayed  to  Michael  Tarpley  and 
his  wife,  Michael  sent  hig  wife  from  the  room,  ostensibly  to 
call  her  sister,  who,  however,  if  there  really  were  such 
a  person,  seems  not  to  have  been  in  the  house.  The  wife 
left  the  room,  but  presently  returned,  saying  her  sister 
would  come,  and  then  stepping  quickly  behind  the  shop- 
man (that  is,  the  wife),  she  placed  a  handkerchief  sat- 
urated with  something  over  his  mouth,  Michael  Tarpley 
seizing  him  by  the  throat,  and  the  woman,  for  an  instant 


SUMMING   UF  BY  ME.  EYAETS. 


729 


ihaken  off,  again  applying  the  liandkercliief  to  Ms  face. 
The  shopman,  after  an  interval  of  unconsciousness,  dis- 
covered Mmself  bound  wltli  straps.  IVIiciiael  Terrlll 
tlien  stood  over  liim,  tlireatened  liim,  and  blindfolded 
his  eyes.  The  shopman  then  heard.  Michael 
say,  "  Quiclr,  Lucy,  bring  my  hat,"  and  heard 
him  leave  the  room,  &c.  Michael  escaped  arrest. 
The  woman  -was  arrested  and  tried  for  that  robbery,  and 
she  "was  acquitted  by  the  judgment  of  the  English  law 
because  what  she  had.  done  she  had  done  in  the  presence 
and  presumedly  under  the  power  of  her  husband;  and, 
although  they  had  disputatious  afterward  in  the  House 
of  Lords  as  to  whether  that  presumption  should  have 
that  degree  of  force  or  there  should  be  some  additional 
evidence  beyond  presence,  of  power  exercised  at  the 
moment,  yet  that  stands  as  the  most  recent  iucLuiry  into 
the  English  law  on  this  subject,  and  the  Parliament  of 
England,  with  that  example  before  it,  and  the  subject 
called  to  its  attention,  has  not  altered  the  law,  but  has 
refused  to  do  so. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  understand  how  it  is  that  this  law 
of  ours,  which  is  not  a  tyrant,  which  Is  not  merciless, 
which  does  not  delight  in  destruction,  but  protects  inno- 
cence, how  this  law  of  ours  appreciates  the  situation  of  a 
woman  toward  her  husband.  Ah,  gentlemen,  and  you 
now  see  the  wisdom  of  our  law  in  not  permitting  even 
this  gTcat  interest  of  justice  to  interfere  with  the  institu- 
tion of  marriage  by  allowing  wives  to  testify  for  their 
husbands  against  others,  because  the  principles  of  human 
nature  do  not  permit  the  interests  of  others  to  be  exposed 
to  the  power  of  the  husband  in  procuruig  a  wife's  oath. 
And  they  do  not  allow  her  to  testify  against  her  husband, 
because  the  law  that  makes  marriage  what  it  is,  and  re- 
fuses release  from  it  except  upon  groimds  incompatible 
with  its  endurance  and  its  usefulness  as  an  institution, 
does  not  subject  wives  to  be  overpowered,  and  their 
fidelity  to  truth  brought  into  that  terrible  choice  between 
fidelity  to  an  oath  and  fidelity  to  a  husband  ;  between 
swearing— not  with  their  lives  in  their  h?nds,  because 
death  is  nothing  compared  with  the  torments  and  oppres- 
sions which  through  the  following  life  will  crush  and  de 
grade  the  spirit  and  make  wretched  the  life  of  a  woman 
that  has  chosen  in  that  sad  alternative  to  swear  to  the 
truth  against  her  husband;  the  law  does  not  give 
her  a  divorce  from  that  misery.;  the  law  leaves 
her  to  lie  in  his  bosom,  to  sit  at  his 
table,  to  watch  him  in  sickness,  to  adheTfe 
to  him  by  necessity,  and  it  does  not  tear  asun- 
der human  natm-e  by  divided  allegiance  to  two  great  in- 
stitutions which  society  rests  upon,  and  both  of  which  it 
must  sustain  ,  and  it  solves  the  question  by  determining 
that  neither  shall  the  interests  of  third  persons  be  af- 
fected by  the  concurring  oath  of  the  wife  with  the  hus- 
band, nor  the  wife's  life  and  the  institution  of  marriage 
be  disconcerted  and  broken  by  a  choice  between  divided 
allegiance.  Society  chooses  for  her  and  says,  "  You  are 


the  wife,  and  public  justice  shall  not  place  you  on  th« 
witness-stand." 

Xow,  if  your  Honor  please,  to  see  what  our  own  courts 
say  on  this  great  question  of  husband  and  wife,  I  read 
now  from  the  case  of  Cassin  agt.  Delaney,  in  the  1st  of 
Daly's  Common  Pleas  Reports,  page  225.  I  necessarily 
revert  to  this  report  to  show  the  facts  [reading]  : 

The  proof,  on  the  trial  before  the  referee,  showed  that 
the  plaintiff  was  first  arrested  on  tne  20th  of  November, 
at  the  instance  of  the  defendant,  Lawrence  Delaney  ; 
that  he  was  imprisoned  for  that  night,  and  in  the  mom- 
iug,  on  being  brought  befoi-e  the  Police  Justice,  was 
discharged,  i)eeause  it  appeared  tliat  the  money  which  it 
was  alle.a-ed  the  plaintiff'  had  embezzled  did  not  belong 
to  the  defendant  Lawence,  but  was  the  property  of 
his  wife.  He  therefore  went  for  her,  and  she  came  before 
rlie  Justice  and  made  her  complaint  for  the  embezzle- 
ment. The  plaintiff  being  still  in  the  court-room,  was 
iDformed  by  the  Justice  that  he  could  not  depart  until  he 
gave  bail  for  his  appearance  on  the  charge. 

That  is  to  say,  the  husband  of  a  wife  having  made  a 
complaint  criminally  of  embezzlement  of  property,  it 
turned  out  that  is  was  his  wife's  property  and  not  his, 
and  she  was  sent  for,  therefore,  by  her  oath  to  make  that 
supporting  contribution  to  the  efficacy  of  the  criminal 
charge.  The  charge  turned  out  unfounded;  at  any  rate, 
it  was  dismissed,  and  the  party  there  accused  brought 
his  action  for  malicious  prosecution  and  false  imprison- 
ment against  husband  and  wife ;  and  in  the  Coiyi;  of  Ap- 
peals, in  the  38th  of  New-York  Reports,  page  179,  the 
question  was  considered  [reading] : 

Where  a  prosecution  is  maliciously  instituted  by  a 
husband  and  wife,  the  latter  acting  in  the  presence  and 
by  the  direction  of  the  husband,  is  she  personally  liable 
for  damages  in  such  action  ■?  *  *  *  The  authorities  are 
clear  that  when  a  tort  or  a  felony  of  any  inferior  degree 
is  committed  by  the  wife  in  the  presence  and  by  the 
direction  of  her  husband,  she  is  not  personally  liable.  To 
exempt  her  from  liability  both  of  those  concurrent  cir- 
cumstances must  exist,  to  wit,  the  presence  and  the  com- 
mand of  the  husband.  An  offense  by  his  dii-ection,  but 
not  in  his  presence,  does  not  exempt  her  from  liability ; 
nor  does  his  presence,  if  unaccompanied  by  his  direction. 
His  presence  furnishes  evidence  and  affords  a  presump- 
tion of  his  direction  ;  but  it  is  not  conclusive,  and  the 
truth  may  be  established  by  competent  evidence. 

And  it  appeared  on  the  proofs  that  the  referee  ex- 
cluded certain  evidence,  and  a  new  trial  should  be 
ordered  because  he  excluded  evidence.  But  the  prin- 
ciples are  laid  down,  so  that  there  is  nothing  adequate, 
nothing  that  has  been  superceded  by  the  growing  civili- 
zation of  our  times.  Indeed,  although  there  may  have 
been  some  hazardous  (I  think  dangerous)  innovation  upon 
the  defenses  of  marriage,  yet  our  law  in  its  justice  nas 
never  varied  in  its  toleration  of  this  subjection  of  the 
wife  to  the  husband,  even  to  this  apparent  peril  to  the 
enforcement  of  criminal  justice. 

ilR.  BEECHER'S  RETUEN  HO]ME. 
Now,  Mr.  Beeclier  goes  back,  goes  into  Mr. 
Moulton's  house,  sees  Mr.  Moulton,  and  does  not  see  Mr. 


730  TEE  TILTON-B 

Tilton,  and  does  not  say  anything  to  Mr.  Moulton  ex- 
cept that  lie  lias  been  there,  and  in  a  moment  says  he 
will  go  home.  Well,  would  you  helieve  It  ?  Mr.  Moulton 
says  he  wiH  go  home  with  him.  Well,  Mr.  Beecher  knew 
the  way  home.  Mr.  Beecher  didn't  ask  Mr.  Moulton  to 
go  home  with  him.  How  happened  it  that  Mr.  Moulton 
went  home  with  him?  He  wasn't  any  friend  of  Mr. 
Beecher's,  he  had  not  any  relations  with  him.  His  ser- 
vices that  night  were  on  the  retainer  of  Mr.  Tilton  as  co- 
operating with  him  in  some  common  purpose  that  they 
had ;  and  why  should  not  Mr.  Beecher  go  home  to  his 
house  alone  ?  It  was  then  about  10  o'clock,  apparently. 
So  far  as  any  evidence  goes  that  was  about  the 
hour.  But  Mr.  Moulton  says,  "  I  will  go 
home  with  you;"  and  so  he  saw  him  home, 
and  saw  that  he  didn't  resort  to  anybody 
else,  that  he  didn't  have  the  benefit  of  any  other  than 
**  heathen  "  friendship,  that  that  night  at  least  should 
be  got  through  with  the  impression  upon  Mr.  Beecher's 
sensibility,  and  a  presentation  to  his  reflections  of  these 
grave,  these  wonderful  facts  that  came  upon  the  heart 
and  the  mind  of  tbis  sympathetic,  this  simple-minded, 
this  guileless  man,  indeed  with  astonishment  and  dis- 
may, for  he  was  a  man  that  looked  at  the  heart,  and 
looked  at  the  character,  and  looked  at 
the  nature  of  things  between  this  husband  and 
this  wi|e  that  could  have  been  going  on,  and  on, 
and  on,  till  this  reduction  of  the  wife's  truthfulness  and 
this  subjugation  to  the  husband's  wicked  will  had  come 
to  that  pass  that  she  could  make  a  false  charge  to  help 
his  circumstances,  and  to  make  peace  between  her  and 
him,  and  delude  herself  with  the  foolish  notion  that  that 
benefit  could  be  accomplished  and  no  harm  ensue  to 
others. 

Now,  gentlemen,  a  flood  of  light  is  let  in  upon  the 
actual  relations  of  this  husband  and  wife,  of  the  absolute 
and  abject  submissiveness  of  that  wife  in  the  sense  of  re- 
ligion, in  the  sense  of  fidelity  to  the  husband,  in  the  sense 
of  duty,  in  the  love  of  her  husband,  in  the  faith  and  hope 
that  some  time  and  somehow,  if  she  would  cling  to  him 
and  obey  him,  and  honor  him  and  serve  him,  till  death 
them  should  part,  there  might  be  a  hope  at  last  that  she 
had  redeemed  the  soul  she  so  much  loved,  and  should  see 
the  fruits  of  her  suflferiug  and  her  abjeccness  in  the  salva- 
tion for  the  long,  immortal  life  that  should  rejoice  her 
for  ever  and  ever,  for  she  was  a  woman  of  an  absolute 
piety.  She  believed  in  the  realities  of  religion.  It  was  a 
distress  to  her  soul  that  her  Savior  should  be  put  to  an 
open  shame  before  her  eyes  by  the  crucifixion  and  scorn 
that  her  husband  had  written  her  years  before.  She  did 
believe  in  the  divine  nature  of  the  Savior,  and  in  the 
solemn— menace,  shall  I  call  it  ?— in  the  solemn  effort, 
finally,  for  salvation  of  all,  of  the  solemn  statement: 
"  He  that  doth  not  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I 
not  confess  before  my  Father  in  Heaven,"  and  a  woman 
that  carried  through  years  of  (Christian  duty  and  of 


WCEEE  TBIAL. 

Christian  submission  to  a  man,  these  realities  of  faith,, 
showed  what  they  would  bring  her  to  do,  even  if  she 
should  forget  almost  her  own  duties  to  herself,  to  her 
sex,  to  her  human  nature,  to  truth.  I  say  the  incidents 
and  correspondence  of  those  solemn  interviews  between 
her  husband  and  herself  in  January  and  February,  ISGC^ 
showed  you  how  this  woman  would  assume  upon  her  inno- 
cent soul  almost  the  unutterable  sin,  almost  the  unutter- 
able shame,  if  so  be  that  in  her  confessions  of  sentimental 
weakness,  of  emotion,  she  might  be  in  some  degree  able 
to  smooth  the  path  of  her  husband  in  recovery  from 
wickedness  to  virtue ;  and  how  the  greatness  of  her  soul^ 
how  the  beauty  of  her  piety  and  the  manifestions  of  her 
wifely  love  did  for  the  time  being  triumph  over  the  coarse 
nature,  turn  back  the  vulgar  appetites,  and  ennoble  the 
broken,  ruined  frame  of  a  once  Christian  character. 
Ah !  gentlemen,  those  letters  read  to  you  by  my  learned 
associate  show  you  what  a  wife  that  loves  her  husband, 
and  believes  in  the  solemnities  of  religion,  and  thinks 
that  the  sufferings  of  this  life  are  but  for  a  season,  com- 
pared with  that  eternal  weight  of  glory  that  attends 
salvation— what  she  can  do  to  save  her  husband. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  are  prepared  to  understand,  for 
the  future,  other  questions  than  the  immediate  one  as  to 
the  power  of  husbands  over  wives,  and  without  much  ne- 
cessity of  recurring  to  this  general  subject,  which  I  have 
thus  fortified  by  the  solemn  conclusions  and  the  deliber- 
ate judgments  of  the  jurisprudence  that  has  grown  up 
through  ages,  and  which  forms  the  basis  of  our  adminis- 
tration of  justice.  Mr.  Tilton  saw  Mr.  Moulton  imme- 
diately after  Mr.  Moulton's  return  to  his  (Moulton's) 
house.  He  had  no  conversation  with  him  before  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  he  left  the  house  ;  and  Ue  says,  in  answer 
to  a  question : 

"  Mr.  Tilton  told  me  that  after  he  had  spoken  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  Mr.  Beecher  said :  *  This  is  all  a  dream,  Theo- 
dore,'something  like  that.'  I  thea  asked  him, 'do  you  say 
that  that  is  all  the  answer  that  Mr.  Beecher  made  ?'  and 
he  said  that  that  was  the  answer  that  Mr.  Beecher  made. 
'  I  remember  that.  Sir ;  that  is  all  I  remember.' " 


MRS.  TILTON'S  RECANTATION. 
Now,  to  go  on  with  tliat  niglit — that  solemn 
night— Mr.  Tilton  goes  home.  He  says,  either  in  the  let- 
ter which  he  procured  from  his  wife  or  in  his  own  ex- 
plicit testimony,  that  he  found  her  in  distress,  and  car 
ries  through  his  evidence  this  view  of  the  later  occur- 
rences of  that  evening.  That  returning  to  his  home  with- 
out any  inquiry  on  his  part,  and  without  any  solicitude 
or  interest,  his  wife  puts  in  his  possession  before  retiring 
for  the  night  a  statement,  called  here  a  recantation  of  the 
retraction,  but  its  real  nature  I  shall  expose  to  you,  and 
that  that  was  the  course  of  things. 

December  30, 1870— midnight. 
My  Dbar  Husband  :  I  desire  to  leave  with  you  before 
going  to  sleep  a  statement  that  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beechei 
called  upon  me  this  evening,  asked  me  11  I  would  defend 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MB.  EVABTS, 


731 


Mm  against  an  accusation  in  a  council  of  ministers,  and 
I  replied  solemnly  that  I  would  in  case  the  accuser  -was 
any  other  person  than  my  hushand.  He  (H.  W.  B.)  dic- 
tated a  letter,  which  I  copied  as  my  own,  to  be  used  by 
him  as  against  any  other  accuser  except  my  husband. 
This  letter  was  designed  to  vindicate  IVIr.  Beecher  against 
all  other  persons  save  only  yourself.  I  was  ready  to  give 
him  this  letter,  because  he  said,  with  pam,  that  my  letter 
in  your  hands  addressed  to  htm,  dated  December  29, 
had  struck  him  dead,  and  ended  his  usefulness.  You  and 
I  both  are  pledged  to  do  our  best  to  avoid  publicity.  God 
grant  a  speedy  end  to  all  further  anxieties.  Affection- 
ately, Elizabeth. 

Now,  he  is  giving  a  statement  of  his,  but  I  can  read 
that  just  as  well  after  I  read  to  you  Mrs.  Mitchell's.  She 
tells  you  the  story  of  his  approach  to  that  sick  chamber, 
and  that  sick  woman.  He  says,  in  this  story  of  his,  im- 
mediately following  his  statement  that  he  had  sent  Mr. 
Beecher  down  : 

Shortly  after  he  left  I  left ;  on  reaching  home  I  found 
that  Mrs.  Tilton,  who  was  then  seriously  iU  and  in  bed, 
was  agitated  and  distressed. 

And  then  he  gives  the  narrative  of  what  passed,  and 
how  she  voluntarily  resumed  her  pen  and  ink,  and  wrote 
the  following  statement.  Resumed  her  pen  and  ink;  she 
had  her  pen  and  ink  to  write  the  Beecher  retraction. 
No  doubt  about  that,  and  she  resumed  her  pen  and  ink  to 
write  this  recantation. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 


THE  GETTING  OF  THE  EECANTATION. 
The  Comt  met  at  2  p.  in.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  we  have  a  witness  to  whose  credit 
no  observations  of  mine  need  to  add  anything.  The 
simple,  honest  character  of  this  experienced  woman, 
Mrs.  Mitchell,  attracts  attention  to  what  she  says.  She  is 
uncontradicted  by  any  testimony,  and  all  these  external 
facts  observed  by  her,  and  rehearsed  by  her,  must  carry 
their  impression  with  us.  Imaginations  about  evidence 
are  not  to  be  indrdged  in.  I  have  not  asked  you  to  detract 
one  jot  or  tittle  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moulton,  or 
of  Mr.  Tilton,  except  upon  the  groimds  that  I  have  given 
you,  out  of  their  own  mouths,  and  in  the  conmct  that  is 
raised  between  them  and  mdependent,  disinterested, 
competent  witnesses,  who,  whenever  there  comes  a 
point  of  importance,  that  their  testimony  is  to  be  com- 
pared with  Mr.  Moulton's  or  Mr.  Tilton's,  contradict 
them,  as  a  matter  of  course.  On  the  return  of  Mr.  Tilton, 
he  has  said  he  found  his  wife  agitated,  and  has  carried 
the  whole  impression  that  she  put  volimtarily  in  his  hands, 
as  a  reparation  of  some  wrong  she  had  done,  what  is 
called  the  recantation  of  the  retraction,  and  which  I  have 
read  to  you.  The  nurse  says : 

Q.  Did  you  know  of  his  return,  and  how  first  did  you 
know  of  it  1  A.  The  first  I  knew  of  it,  I  was  awakened  in 
my  sleep, 

Q.  Where  were  you  sleeping  I  A.  With  Mrs.  Tilton. 


Q.  Before  you  went  to  sleep  had  Mrs.  Tilton  gone  to 
sleep,  or  not  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  What  excited  your  attention,  or  awakened  you  ?  A. 
A  whispering  or  buzzing  sound.  Mr.  Tilton  was  talking 
to  his  wife ;  I  could  not  tell  how ;  he  was  down  by  the 
side  of  the  bed,  talking  and  whispering  very  earnestly ; 
and  it  awakened  me,  and  I  said  to  Mr.  Tilton  :  "  Mr.  TU- 
ton,  this  will  never  do ;  Mrs.  Tilton  must  not  be  disturbed 
so."   She  seemed  to  be  very  much  agitated. 

Then  she  cautions  Mrs.  TUton  against  the  danger  of  her 
taking  cold,  and  the  result  is  that,  upon  the  suggestion 
either  of  Mrs.  Tilton  or  Mr.  Tilton,  the  nurse  left  the  side 
of  Mrs.  Tilton,  Mr.  Tilton  withdrawing  from  the  room  to 
enable  her  to  put  on  her  wrapper,  and  went  and  sat  down 
in  his  study,  and  while  she  was  there  she  heard,  duriug  a 
period  which  she  describes  as  may  be  an  hour,  the  angry 
tones  of  the  husband,  and  the  entreaties  of  the  wife,  and 
the  walking  to  and  fro,  and  then  he  comes  iato  the  study 
and  takes  pen  and  ink,  and  goes  into  his  wife's  room,  and 
comes  out  agaia  soon  after,  and  the  nurse  goes  back  to 
her  patient,  and  she  finds  her  in  great  agitation. 

Q.  In  what  condition  did  you  find  Mrs.  Tilton  when 
you  returned?  A.  She  appeared  and  seemed  as  though 
she  had  been  weeping ;  she  appeared  to  be  very  much 
agitated,  and  T  stroked  her  head,  and  tried  to  pacify  her, 
and  I  tried  to  calm  her. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  thus  treat  her  1  A.  For  nearly  an 
hour,  as  near  as  I  cau  remember. 

•  Q.  Was  her  condition  such  as  required  this  treatment  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir  ;  she  was  very  nervous. 
Q.  Did  she  then  go  to  sleep  %  A.  She  did,  after  a  time. 

And  the  nurse  took  her  place  by  her  side,  and  also 
sought  repose.  Now,  gentlemen,  you  see  how  completely 
false  is  Mr.  Tilton's  presentation  of  this  occurrence,  not 
in  any  misrecollection  of  words  or  misyecital  of  conver- 
sation, but  in  the  whole  moral,  natural  featm-es  of  the 
transaction  his  object  is  to  thi'ow  upon  the  interview  be- 
tween his  wife  and  Mr.  Beecher  the  credit  of  agitation,  of 
coercion,  of  falsification  in  the  letter  then  written,  and  to 
throw  upon  what  occurred  between  his  wife  and  himself, 
on  his  return,  the  traits  of  spontaneous  statement  of 
what  she  had  been  brought  to  do  by  the  overwhelming 
infiuence  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  for  a  special  purpose,  and 
her  desire  before  she  went  to  sleep — meant  to  carry  mean- 
ing, before  she  could  sleep,  before  her  conscience  could 
be  quieted,  before  she  could  venture  to  seek  protection 
in  her  sleep,  from  Divine  guardianship,  she  wished 
to  put  in  his  hands  the  truthful  restatement  of 
the  matter.  Well,  gentlemen,  these  attend- 
ant circumstances  that  give  force  and  character 
to  the  act  itself,  we  none  of  us  underestimate. 
We  want  to  know  what  the  truth  Is  on  that  subject.  I 
have  given  you  the  truth  from  Mrs.  Mitchell  as  to  the 
calm  composure  in  which  she  found  Mrs.  Tilton  when 
she  returned  to  her  chamber  after  Mr.  Beecher  had  left 
it ;  that  there  was  no  nervous  agitation,  no  need  of  the 
soothing  of  the  nerves  then ;  and  now  I  have  shown  you 
that  so  far  from  IVIrs.  Tilton's  having  the  spontaneous 
movement  to  make  any  new  statement,  give  any  new 


733 


TEE   T1L10:N-BFjECHER  IBIAL. 


letter,  redress  any  injury,  correct  any  falsehood,  she  was 
calmly  sleeping,  with  a  quiet  conscience,  and  her  nurse 
beside  her  also  asleep,  with  no  solicitudes  for  her  condi- 
tion, in  the  peaceful  frame  of  mind  in  which  she  found 
her  after  Mr.  Beeoher  was  there.  Then  we  have  there 
the  first  blow  to  your  belief  in  the  character,  in  the  spon- 
taneity, in  the  freedom  from  the  husband's  coercion  oE 
this  third  paper,  from  the  wife,  obtained— the  second 
that  night,  the  third  in  the  series.  If  you  believe  the 
nurse  you  believe  that  Mr.  Tilton,  anxious  to  learn  what 
had  been  the  result  of  the  interview  that  he  had  invited 
between  his  wife  and  Mr.  Beecher,  and  from  which  he 
expected  an  adherence  to  the  terms  of  the  im- 
putation of  improper  advances,  wakens  her  and 
learns  that  she  has  retracted  it,  and  that  she 
has  put  the  giving  of  it  on  the  groiinds,  the  truth  of  which 
was  so  weU  known  to  him,  that  she  had  been  wearied  by 
importunity,  and  weakened  by  sickness,  and  yielded  to 
persuasion,  almost  to  force.  And  then,  alas  I  he  found, 
much  to  his  consternation,  no  doubt,  that  he  was  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  position  in  regard  to  Mr.  Beecher,  from 
this  new  movement  toward  him,  in  his  wife's  name,  that 
he  had  been  placed  the  preceding  Christmas  Day  in,  by 
undertaking  to  carry  upon  Boweu's  responsibility  the 
missive,  which  Bowen  had  seen  had  no  power  against 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  had  merely  placed  him  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  fact  that  he,  Tilton,  had  desired  to  strike  a 
blow— the  malice  without  the  power.  But  here  was  a 
more  terrible  situation  for  Mr.  Tilton  than  that.  The  in- 
fluence upon  the  sympathies,  the  heart,  the  compunction 
of  Mr.  Beecher,  which  he  had  sought  to  produce,  and 
which  should  have  that  degree,  too,  of  personal  alarm  in 
Mr.  Beecher's  mind,  not  from  the  truth  of  the  charge,  but 
from  the  fact  of  the  charge  being  made  to  proceed  from 
an  honest  woman,  and  therefore  to  be  explained  only  by 
such  degradation  of  mental  condition,  such  abase- 
ment of  moral  control,  as  made  the  fact  itself,  ac- 
tually occurring  in  Mr.  Tilton's  mind,  of  being  brought 
to  making  false  charge  at  once  the  evidence  of  the  actual 
ruin  that  ^^ad  been  wrought  in  that  famUy,  and  so  of 
deep  reproach,  that  a  jealous  man  out  of  the  sympathy, 
and  the  intimacy  that  had  grown  up  under  his  own 
eyes  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  the  clergyman,  and  under 
the  unfortunate  break  in  his  family  by  his  own  (Mr. 
Tilton's)  misconduct,  and  the  desertion  of  the  wife,  and 
the  resort  for  advice,  and  the  drawing  into  that  terrible 
domestic  disorder  of  the  active  interference  of  Mr. 
Beecher  and  his  wife,  brought  about  a  condition  of 
things  that  made  the  falsehood  of  the  charge  no  protec- 
tion to  Mr.  Beecher's  compunctions  on  the  ruin  and 
evil  that  had  been  brought  into  that  family  that 
made  falsity  of  charge  possible  to  a  good  woman. 
Now,  Mr.  Tilton  found  that  all  this  arrangement  to  affect 
Mr.  Beecher,  lost  the  support  that  he  had  invited  and 
jCOimted  upon  from  the  interview  with  the  wife.  The  in- 
Iterview  with  the  wife  had  placed  in  Mr.  Beecher's  hands 


her  own  statement  of  the  falsity  of  the  imputation  of 
improper  advances,  and  of  the  motives  and  influences 
that  had  attended  its  framing  and  its  presentation,  and, 
alas,  that  simple  and  necessary  treatment  of  the  subject 
by  the  retraction,  although  not  designed  in  the  wife's 
wUl,  nor  needed  or  wished  for  on  Mr.  Beecher's  part,  to 
prove  a  weapon  against  Mr.  Tilton,  or  to  be  used  against 
him,  nevertheless  was  now  a  wife's  confession  indeed,  of 
wrong  on  her  part,  of  the  false  charge  drawn  out  of  her 
by  her  husband's  malice  to  Beecher,  or  the  sordidness  of 
his  needs  in  respect  to  his  business  affairs,  that  made  him 
clutch  at  even  an  unlawful  weapon  to  save  himself  from 
ruin. 

Now,  gentlemen,  do  you  believe  that  story  that  the 
nurse  tells,  or  don't  you  %  There  has  been  no  contradic- 
tion of  Mrs.  Mitchell  by  either  Mr.  Moulton  or  Mr.  TUton, 
in  any^ respect,  on  their  return  to  the  stand— not  in  any 
respect.  We  have  not  been  told  that  he  did  not  find  his 
wife  asleep  ;  we  have  not  been  told  anything  to  the  con- 
trary o±  Mrs.  Mitchell's  statements,  except  that  in  the 
preceding  week  he  did  not  say  he  was  a  ruined  man ;  so 
they  have  not  left  Mrs.  Mitchell  out  of  their  minds ;  they 
had  conned  her  testimony,  and  culled  one  point  that  they 
could  contradict  her,  and  that  was  in  his  direct  examina- 
tion, was  it  I  to  Mr.  Abbottl,  or  did  he  repeat  it 
in  his  rebuttal  %  And  that  was  quite  unnec- 
essary to  be  brought  into  his  rebuttal, 
because  he  had  said  he  had  not  said 
he  was  a  ruined  man,  in  his  direct ;  but  he  could  have 
said  that  his  wife  was  not  asleep  when  he  got  home;  he 
could  have  said  that  this  private  interview  with  her  did 
not  occur,  and  that  the  nurse  was  not  waiting  out  iiy^e 
study,  and  that  he  did  Bot  go  in  there  and  get  pen,  ink, 
and  paper,  arid  take  them  into  the  wife's  room,  after^ 
angry  tones  on  his  part,  and  entreaty  on  hers;  and  w« 
have  heard  not  a  word  on  that  subject  fi'om  this  witnesal 
this  plaintiff'.  We  must  therefore  accept  it  as  absolutifl 
truth.  Therefore  you  see  how  this  letter  of  midnight  ofl 
the  30th  was  got  by  direct,  proved  coercion  of  her  huS'i 
band's  power  over  a  sick,  a  nervous,  an  afflicted  womanj 
abject  in  spirit,  and  in  the  extremity  of  disaster 
and  fear  for  the  livelihood  of  herself  and  hda 
children.  Now,  in  a  letter  that  Mr.  TLLtolil 
carried    to    Dr.    Storrs,    written    for  the  purposes 

Late  the  same  evening  Mr.  B.  came  to  me  [that  is  MrJ 
Beecher]  (lying  very  sick  at  the  time)  and  filling  me  witlq 
distress,  saying  I  had  ruined  him,  and  wanting  to  kno^ 
if  I  meant  to  appear  against  him.  This  I  certainly  didi 
not  mean  to  do,  and  the  thought  was  agonizing  to  me.  fl 
then  signed  a  paper  which  he  wrote,  to  clear  him  in  case  I 
of  a  trial.  In  this  instance,  as  in  most  others,  when  ab^l 
Borbed  by  one  great  interest  or  feeling,  the  harmony  ofl 
my  mind  is  entirely  disturbed,  and  I  found  on  reflection! 
that  this  paper  was  so  drawn  as  to  place  me  most  un-| 
justly  against  my  husband  and  on  the  side  of  Mr.J 
Beeoher.  So  In  order  to  repair  so  cruel  a  blow  to  iliyil 
long-suffering  husband,  I  wrote  an  explanation  of  the^ 
first  paper  and  my  signature. 


SDMMMG    UF  1 

THE  EECANTATION  NOTHING  MOEE  THAN 
AN  EXPLANATION. 
Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
readiBg  to  you  letters  that  Mr.  Tilton  gets  from  Ms  wife, 
and  carries  for  Ms  purposes  to  other  people  as  being  liis 
acts,  and  but  the  tunes  that  he  plays  upon  the  nature  and 
compliance  of  his  wife.  I  take  it,  then,  that  you  under- 
stand fully  the  occurrences  of  that  night,  and  I  have  only 
to  ask  you  to  carry  back  from  the  proof,  from  the  exact 
character  of  coercion  under  which  the  last  letter,  of  mid- 
night of  the  30th,  was  extorted  from  Mrs.  Tilton,  to  the 
period  on  the  28th  and  29th  in  which  Moulton  and  Tilton 
were  storming  in  her  sick  chamber,  arguing,  represent- 
rilg,  influencing,  coercing  that  woman,  under  which  they 
obtained  the  first  paper  of  charge  to  be  used  to  get  an  in- 
terriew  with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  as  the  basis 
of  the  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher  to 
show  him  that  the  wife  had  this  responsibility. 
You  will  observe,  too,  that  when  you  have  a  course  of 
action,  and  its  result  proved,  on  the  30th,  between  this 
husband  and  the  wife,  and  you  have  a  similar  situation, 
a  similar  effort,  a  similar  presence,  a  similar  persistency 
and  Importunity  carried  through  three  times,  you  know 
that  the  same  coercion,  producing  the  same  results,  was 
applied  to  get  the  charge  of  the  29th  that  was  to  eet  the 
explanation  of  the  retraction  of  the  charge  on  the  30th. 
You  see  then  that  when  Mr.  Beecher  in  astonishment, 
asks  this  woman  as  she  lay  there,  "  How  could  you  do 
this  not  because  it  would  injure  me,  Mr.  Beecher,  not 
for  this  or  that  reason,  but  on  the  simple  and  direct  ap- 
peal twice  or  thrice  repeated— how  could  you  do  this, 
Elizabeth,  when  it  was  not  true  ?  "  That  was  the  awful 
state  of  things  in  I\Ir.  Beecher's  mind,  of  the  moral  ruin, 
or  of  the  mental  weakness  that  had  made  a  woman  that 
he  respected,  and  admired,  and  loved— ia  the  sense  that 
he  has  described  to  you,  and  which  he  does  not  seek  to 
disparage  or  conceal— how  she  could  have  done  it  when 
it  was  not  true ;  and  then  she  teUs  him,  not  that 
she  thought  it  was  true,  not  that  there  had  been  anything 
between  them  that  could  be  of  equivocal  import,  and 
that  she  believed  was  true  for  the  moment — nothing  of 
the  kind;  but  "How  could  I  help  it?  The  importunity, 
weariness,  sickness,  disaster,  and  my  relations  to  the 
husband  "—which  she  did  not  need  to  repeat  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  because  he  had  been  letiato  a  ItlU  knowledge  of 
them  during  her  resoit  to  him  and  his  wife  in  the  preced- 
ing weeks  of  the  same  month — "  and  the  assurance  that 
this  temporary  contrivance  for  immediate  use  would  put 
an  end  to  all  trouble  between  me  and  my  husband ;  that 
was  the  reason— not  to  hurt  you  but  to  aid  him,  and  me,  as 
Ms  subject  and  submissive  wife."  Now,  gentlemen,  you 
will  see  that  as  Mr.  Tilton  makes  his  wife  say— and  say,  I 
have  no  doubt,  truly— in  this  letter  to  Dr.  Storrs,  when 
her  attention  is  drawn  to  one  point  she  is  absorbed  in  it, 
and  thinks  of  nothing  else.  "  "When,"  she  says,  "  my  hus- 
band importuned  me  for  something  to  be  used  use- 


r  MF,    EYAETS.  733 

fully  for  him,  I  gave  It,  and  not  to  injure 
you.  Now,  you  say  it  wUl  injure  you,  why,  I 
take  it  back.  The  truth  is  there  is  nothing  in  it, 
as  you  know,  and  I  put  the  matter  as  it  should  be." 
Alas !  if  it  could  have  been  so,  and  only  so,  but  when  Mr. 
Tilton  returns,  he  says,  "Why,  that  is  all  very  well,  if 
you  please,  but  there  is  more  than  that  in  what  you  have 
said.  You  have  disclosed  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  I  have  got 
from  you  by  force,  by  persuasion,  and  by  fraud,  a  false 
charge  against  him,  and  that  puts  in  his  hands  a  true 
charge  against  me."  "  Well,  that  is  not  my  desire  or  my 
purpose,  and  so  I  give  you  an  explanation,  not  a  retrac- 
tion of  what  I  have  given  Mr.  Beecher,  not  a  falstflcation, 
but  an  explanation  of  it,  that  I  only  mean  it  as  an  extinc- 
tion of  my  charge  that  I  gave  you  against  him,  and  not 
as  a  source  and  origin  of  any  charge  against  you.  It  is  to 
protect  him  against  you ;  this  is  to  cover  Mr.  Beecher 
against  this  poisoned  arrow  of  falsehood  that  I  gave  to 
you,  by  giving  him  the  shield  of  truth  against  all  the 
world  ;  but  I  did  not  mean  that  it  should  be  a  weapon 
against  you,  nor  to  be  used  against  you."  Well,  there 
wasn't  any  danger  of  its  beins:  used  against  Mr.  Tilton  by 
Mr.  Beecher,  if  you  can  believe  Mr.  Tilton  that  the  last 
thing  that  he  desired  was  to  have  this  controversy  be 
tween  Mr.  Beecher  and  himself ,  concerning  anything  that 
touched  his  wife's  character  or  honor.  Now,  the  expla- 
nation, you  will  observe,  does  not  deny  the  statement  in 
the  retraction.  It  only  says : 

I  wish  to  give  a  statement  that  Mr.  Beecher  called 
upon  me,  and  asked  me  if  I  would  defend  him  against 
any  accusation  in  a  council  of  ministers,  and  I  replied 
solemnly  that  I  woiild,  in  case  the  accuser  was  any  other 
person  than  my  nusband.  Mr.  Beecher  dictated  a  letter, 
which  I  copied  as  my  own,  to  be  used  by  him  as  against 
my  husband.  This  letter  was  designed  to  vindicate  Mr. 
Beecher  against  all  other  persons,  save  only  yourself. 

Now,  ii  does  not  say  that  she  had  given  him  a  false 
vindication,  a  false  defense,  only  that  if  there  came  to  be 
an  issue  between  Mr.  TUton  as  accuser- her  husband  as 
accuser— she  did  not  intend  in  advance  to  espouse  hos- 
tility to  her  husband,  to  disarm,  disable  him  in  advance  : 
in  other  words,  she  did  not  intend  to  take  the  attitude 
of  a  wife  betraying,  reTiling,  disgracing  her  husband. 
Well,  we^  all  know  hov^  foreign  to  any  traits  of  this 
woman's  character,  putting  herself  in  willfiil  opposition 
to  the  interests  or  feelings  of  her  husband  was.  Now, 
we  have  very  clear  evidence  that  it  was  this  second  ele- 
ment of  the  retraction,  of  antagonism  to  him,  that 
created  Mr.  TUton's  hostility.  I  read  now  from  his  state- 
ment to  Mr.  Beecher : 

After  speaking  of  his  resentment  against  Mr. 
Belcher  for  getting  this  paper  did  he  state  any  reason 
why  that  was  so  ?  A.  That  it  made  him  appear,  made 
the  husband  appear  as  in  antagonism  with  his  wife,  and 
made  Mr.  Tilton  appear  as  though  he  had  been  making  a 
false  charge. 

And  Mr.  Moulton  gave  the  same  reason  to  Mr.  Tracy 
when  Mr.  Traoy  and  Mr.  Moulton  were  talking  together 


734  THE  TILTON-B 

in  Novemlber  or  December,  1872,  and  Mr.  Tracy  could  not 
Bee  wliy  a  man  should  not  be  allo-vved  to  set  a  retraction 
from  a  false  cbarge.   Mr.  Moulton  pointed  out  to  him ; 

Tlie  retraction  is  sometMng  more  than  a  mere  retrac- 
tion. It  implies  that  Mr.  Tilton  coerced  the  letter  from 
his  wife,  and  that  was  what  gave  great  ofltense  to  Mr. 
Tilton. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  read  to  you  the  language  of 
that  slip  of  paper  as  produced  by  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  nar- 
rative that  he  gives,  as  repeated  by  himself  two  days 
after  it  was  first  read  to  Mr.  Beecher  when  Mr.  TUton 
told  Charles  Storrs  what  it  was ,  and  I  have  corroborated 
and  re-enforced  that  view  by  every  form  and  degree  of 
supporting  evidence  from  numerous  witnesses  that  the 
requirements  of  full  satisfaction  in  your  minds  could  de- 
mand. We  are  right  always  in  ujiderstanding  that  it  is 
what  is  proved  that  is  to  carry  down  the  presiuned  inno- 
cence of  a  defendant ;  and  I  ask  you  now  whether  that 
being  so,  that  the  charge  then  was  of  improper  advances 
and  nothing  else,  untrue  as  that  was,  you  don't  at  once 
see  that  aU  possibility  of  the  interview  having  carried  an 
imputation  of  actual  guilt  of  this  immense  area  and 
heinousness  that  is  charged,  and  which  is  the  measure,  if 
there  be  any  measure  at  all— wholly  incompatible  with  it  1 
Now,  gentlemen,  if  that  is  not  the  true  view ;  if  this  re- 
traction, written  by  the  woman  who  made  the  charge, 
doesn't  prove  it ;  if  this  solemn,  formal  statement,  called 
the  '*  True  Story,"  in  which  the  words  are  given,  and 
which  he  says  he  copies  as  his  wife's  statement,  and 
neither  adds  to,  nor  takes  from,  by  any  conmient  of  his 
own— if  that  is  not  the  charge,  and  the  whole  charge, 
why  don't  you  prove  something  else  1  Why  don't  you 
show  it  ?  Why  did  you  destroy  the  paper  as  soon  as  you 
had  a  chance  1 

SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  DESTRUCTION  OF 
THE  ACCUSATION. 
Now,  gentlemen,  the  responsibility  of  this 
suppression  of  truth,  if  the  truth  be  not  fuUy  disclosed, 
this  destruction  of  evidence,  is  perfectly  well  under- 
stood. Here  is  the  paper  which,  if  preserved,  would 
maintain  its  identity,  and  for  that  point,  at  least,  in  the 
interview  would  be  before  your  eyes  and  mine  exactly 
as  it  was  then,  and  there  were  two  copies  of  it.  One  Til- 
ton destroj'-ed,  and  the  other,  after  having  been  kept  and 
studied,  promised  to  be  tied  faithfully  to  the  retraction, 
and  never  parted  with  without  Mi\  Beecher's  consent, 
was  destroyed.  Well,  now,  will  they  say,  "  Why,  the  re- 
traction was  the  paper  that  you  were  interested  in  hav- 
ing preserved  ? "  Indeed  1  That  is  so,  is  it  t  The  re- 
traction and  the  Charge  measure  each  other,  and  both  to- 
gether didn't  admit  of  difference  of  construc- 
tion or  argument,  of  invention,  of  falsehood, 
of  treachei'ous  memory  and  misrepresentation. 
Ah!  gentlemen,  we^  understand  in  courts  of  justice  the 
epoliatiou  of  evidence;  we  understand  the  destruction, 
the  concealment  of  decisive  and  important  instruments 


ECEEB  TEIAL. 

of  conviction.  We  have  frequent  occasions  to  apply  this 
in  regard  to  crimes,  of  violence  committed  by  weapons. 
We  want  the  weapons,  and  if  there  is  a  pistol  and  a 
bullet,  a  pistol  foimd  in  the  accused's  hands,  and  a  bullet 
foimd  in  the  victim's  heart,  we  want  to  see  the  two 
things,  and,  whether  they  fit  or  not,  before  we  wUl  charge 
the  accused  with  having  sent  that  bullet  to  the  death  of 
the  victim  from  his  pistol.  Now,  suppose  three  men 
leave  common  haunts  of  dissipation  or  of  gambling, 
friends,  if  you  please,  of  the  friendship  that  be- 
longs to  such  companions  at  least,  companions 
in  immorality,  companions  in  revelries,  com- 
panions in  the  knowledge  of  each  other's 
guilt,  and  they  leave  their  common  haunt,  go  an^l 
by  a  quarrel  one  of  them  is  slain  by  a  pistol  shot,  and  the 
question  is  which  of  those  companions,  if  either,  dealt 
the  blow.  And  fleeing,  as  they  well  may,  one  returns  by 
crafty  provision  to  give  succor  to  the  wounded  man, 
takes  the  role  of  proclaiming  the  murder,  and  the  pre- 
caution of  extracting  the  bullet  and  keeping  it.  And 
now,  when  the  fleeing  companion,  under  the  attraction 
of  pursuit  and  suspicious  from  his  fleeing,  is  put  upon 
trial,  and  the  witness  comes  and  swears  that  +;he  deadly 
assault  came  from  the  accused,  and  not  from  himself, 
and  that  he  extracted  the  bullet,  and  it  was  too 
large  for  his  pistol,  and  fitted  the  pistol  of 
the  accused,  then  will  the  accused's  defenders 
ask,  "  Where  is  the  bullet  ?  It  was  last  in  your  hands. 
Where  is  the  bullet  ?"  "  Oh  !  but  I  measured  the  bullet, 
and  tried  the  bullet.  It  ^vould  not  go  into  my  pistol ;  you 
see  it  could  not  have  come  out  of  it ;  but  it  would  go  into 
his,  and  just  fitted  it."  *'  Yes,  but  where  is  the  bullet  1" 
"  Ah  1"  says  he,  "  I  kept  it ;  I  kept  it,  and  after  a 
whUe,  being  satisfied,  and  having  kept  the  measurement 
and  tried  it,  I  melted  it  up."  "  You  melted  it  up  1" 
And  then  the  Judge  says  to  the  prosecution,  "  Where  is 
the  bullet  ?"  and  the  jury  say,  "  Where  is  the  bullet  V* 
"  Oh  I  I  melted  it  up.  I  have  several  witnesses  that  will 
prove  the  dimensions  of  it ;"  and  the  answer  is,  "  You 
cannot  use  your  mouth  for  a  bullet-mold  to 
take  away  the  life  of  the  accused.  Who  killed 
the  man— that  we  don't  know;  but  that  bullet 
would  have  told,  and  that  bullet  was  in  your  possession 
and  was  destroyed  by  you."  And  then  another  witness 
says  after  he  has  left  the  stand :  "  We  made  a  plaster 
mold  of  that  bullet  while  it  was  in  this  man's  possession, 
and  if  the  bullet  has  been  melted  up  the  mold  is  here,  and 
now  we  will  see  which  of  the  pistols  the  buUet  matches 
and  which  of  the  doubtful  authors  of  the  crime  that  bul- 
let is  now  to  slay."  And  then  this  mold,  proved  and 
proved  over  and  over  again  as  being  the  measure  of  the 
bullet,  is  made  to  reproduce  it  in  its  leaden  form,  cast  in 
the  mold,  and  it  fits  the  pistol  of  the  witness  and  saves 
the  life  of  the  accused. 

Ah,  gentlemen,  you  want  the  missile  of  tbnt  night. 
You  have  had  the  solemn  pledjre  of  Moulton  that  it  never 


SUJi:\UXG    UP  B 

should  T)e  destroyed  Triile  anything  else  remained 
to  be  tlie  method,  the  occasion,  the  instrument 
of  doubt,  or  imputation,  or  of  fear,  and  it  has  been  de- 
stroyed, and  until  that  missUe  is  proved  to  have  been  of 
the  nu rare,  of  the  form,  of  the  effect,  that  is  to  convict, 
or  aid  in  convicting  Mr.  Beecher— until  that  is  produced 
you  refuse  to  the  spoliators  of  eividence  the  ability  to 
make  their  mouths  reproduce  it.  But  ^vhen,  besides, 
bring  you  the  very  mold  that  was  taken  of  it  on  the  very 
night  that  it  vras  used,  in  the  retraction  which  was 
framed  arotmd  it,  and  when  we  produce  the  measure  and 
the  impression  of  the  bullet,  of  the  missile  as  given  by 
the  witness  now  seeking  to  slay,  two  days  afterwards, 
to  his  bosom  friend  Storrs,  and  when  we  read  it  under 
his  own  hand  in  the  narrative  of  the  story  that  he  framed, 
and  bind  it  and  clamp  it  and  cUnch  it  by  the  testimony 
of  five  witnesses  to  whom  the  same  dimensions  have 
been  given,  and  no  witness  has  pretended  that  any  other 
dimensions  have  ever  been  given  for  it,  and  at  this  trial 
no  other  dimensions  have  been  given  for  it,  y  a  have  not 
any  doubt  any  more  than  in  the  case  of  open  violence 
that  I  proposed  to  you  that  the  witness  should  change 
places  with  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  and  receive  the 
punishment  that  belongs  to  the  crime,  the  crime  now  of 
moral  assassination  as  meditated  and  attempted.  Ire- 
pose  with  entire  confidence  upon  the  proposition  that  I 
laid  down  to  you  in  advance  of  my  examination 
of  the  occurrences  of  the  30th  of  December, 
that  if  a  charge  of  this  gaiilt  was  not  made  then, 
and  a  confession  of  this  guilt  was  not  made  then,  never 
was  the  charge  made,  and  never  the  confession  made. 
There  is  no  dispute  that -there  was  no  confession  on  Mr. 
Beecher's  part.  There  is  no  dispute  of  what  his  conduct 
was ;  that  he  denied  it,  that  he  pronounced  it  wholly  un- 
true and  impossible  of  having  jn'oceeded  out  of  the  mouth 
of  Elizabeth  Tilton  ;  that  he  faced  the  alleged  authority, 
procm-edthe  retraction,  went  about  hi?  own  business, 
and,  though  attended  ly  ^loulton  tu  his  house  that  night, 
had  no  occasion  to  depart  from  the  position  which  he 
had  forced — a  concession  from  them— and  which  they  re- 
peated over  and  over  again  afterward  in  their  dealings 
with  others:  that  the  cLarse,  whatever  it  was,  was  no 
longer  insisted  ur^on  by  Mrs.  Tilton.  and  the  test  that  Mr. 
Tilton  had  proposed  to  him,  of  reference  to  her,  had 
failed.  Now,  they  asked  Mr.  3Ioulton— "  Let  me  ask  you 
was  anything  said  as  to  the  substance  "—this  is  as  be- 
tween Moulton  and  Beecher  when  Moulton  was  attend- 
ing him  to  Beecher's  own  house. 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you,  was  anything  said  as  to  the  sub- 
stance of  the  interview  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr. 
Tilton,  when  you  were  not  present  ]  That  is,  the  inti_-r- 
view  that  he  was  talking  of.  A.  Why,  he  told  me  that 
Tilton  had  told  him  of  the  confession  of  his  wife  to  him. 

Q.  Repeat  what  he  said.  A.  Mr.  Beecher  told  me 
that  Tilton  had  told  him  that  Elizabeth  had  con- 
fessed, and  had  read  to  him  what  either  was  a  confession 
or  a  copy  of  a  confession  by  Elizabeth,  of  sexual  inter- 


I  MB.   JEVABTS.  735 

course  between  them,  and  he  told  me  that  Theodore  had 
told  him  of  the  reasons  for  sending  to  him  the  letter 
through  3Ir.  Bowen. 

Well,  now,  Mr.  Moulton  had  that  very  letter,  that  had 
been  read  by  a  copy  that  night  to  Mr.  Beecher,  in  his  own 
pocket  at  that  moment.  And,  see  how  he  puts  it ;  he 
don't  put  it  upon  any  notion  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  re- 
peated the  language  of  the  letter.  He  makes  him  call  it, 
as  they  call  it  always  themselves  after  the  organization 
of  the  plan  to  prosecute  Mr.  Beecher,  a  "  confession." 
But  that  is  his  account  of  the  matter,  and  that  is  the  only 
account  of  it.  If  there  had  been  any  truth  in  it,  he  could 
have  been  asked  to  give  you  the  words  of  that  letter,  be- 
cause he  had  the  original  at  the  very  moment  that  he 
says  this  conversation  was  had,  and  why  didn't  they  ask 
him  that  1 

Q.  What  conversation  did  you  have,  if  any,  on  the  way 
to  his  house  ?  A.  Well,  it  was  nothing  but  a  repetition  of 
the  other  conversation  about  Bowen,  and  he  asked  me  to 
be  friendly  to  him.   I  said  I  would  be. 

Q.  Repeat  as  near  as  you  can.  A.  He  said  he  wanted 
me  to  be  a  friend  to  him  la  this  terrible  business. 

Q.  And  did  you  part  with  him  at  his  own  house  i  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

So  that  is  the  end  of  that  interview. 

Xow,  gentlemen,  when  this  paper  was  sought  to  be 
proved  on  their  side,  T  objected,  on  the  ground  that  having 
destroyed  a  paper,  they  had  no  right  themselves  to 
manufacture  it  over  again.  The  learned  Judge  did  not 
sustain  that  proposition,  or  did  not  rule  upon  it,  but 
rejected  it,  from  Mr.  Tilton's  mouth,  as  a  confidential 
communication  from  the  wife  to  the  husband. 

Judge  Xeilson— I  think  I  put  it  on  both  grounds. 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  I  didn't  understand  that  your  Honor  . 
necessarily  passed  upon  the  other  ground.  We  gave, 
then,  the  contents  of  the  paper,  and  that  gave  them  the 
right  to  give  the  contents  ;  and  the  disposition  of  the 
confidential  communication  between  the  husband  and 
wife  did  not  apply  to  a  letter  put  in  Moulton's  hands  and 
kept  in  his  hands  nearly  two  years.  No  ;  not  a  bit  of  it. 
The  reason  they  did  not  give  it  was  that  they  must  give 
it  as  Mr.  Beecher  gave  it,  as  the  "  True  Story"  gave  it,  as 
the  statements  to  Charles  Storrg,  to  Belcher,  to  Schultz, 
to  Southwick,  to  Harman,  and  to  McKelway  gave  it,  or 
face  the  charge  of  peijury  on  the  central  fact,  proved  on 
them  by  their  handwriting  and  by  a  cloud  of  witnesses. 
It  was  not  so  much  conscience  that  made  cowards  of 
them  about  this  missive — this  missile — as  the  fear  of 
men's  jud.gments  ;  and  as  I  have  indicated  to  you,  you 
A.-ill  find  a  tortuous  path  followed  by  either  of  these  wit- 
nesses to  avoid,  on  a  material  fact,  an  issue  with  two  up- 
right witnesses  agaiusfthem. 

THE  I>TERVrEW  OF  DEC.  31. 
Now,  gentlemen,  the  next  interview  in  the 
history  of  this  case  (and  we  are  getting  rapidly  thi-ough 
all  that  seems  to  me  very  important  in  it)  is  that  on  the 


736 


THE   TILTON-BEECREE  TEIAL. 


3l8t  of  December,  whicli  occurred  between  Mr.  Moulton 
and  Mr.  Beecher  at  the  house  of  the  latter.  One  element 
of  confusion,  of  misrepresentation,  as  to  the  situation  of 
Mr.  Tilton  and  his  affairs  as  presented  hy  himself,  to  wit, 
his  secure  possession  of  fortune,  of  employment,  and  of 
livelihood  up  to  and  until  after  that  interinew  of  the  31st 
of  December,  as  described  upon  the  evidence  of  their  own 
witnesses,  Mr.  Bowen,  who  tells  you  that  at  10  o'clock  of 
that  morning  of  Saturday  he  had  presently  terminated  all 
relations  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  his  employ- 
ments, and  that  that  ended  Mr.  Tilton's  pres- 
encd  at  the  office  of  either  of  those  papers. 
He  has  tola  you  that  on  the  26th  he  told  him  that 
would  be  the  result,  and  that  he  had  made  up  his  mind, 
so  that  what  Mr.  Beecher  said  could  not  have  had  any 
influence  in  settling  what  had  already  been  determined. 
The  fact,  then,  is  that  that  is  out  of  the  way.  Now,  the 
object  of  the  interview  of  the  Slst  of  December  was  to 
retrieve  the  false  step  that  had  been  taken  in  the  false 
use  of  the  wife's  pliant  disposition,  and  its  discovery, 
and  the  confusion  of  face  into  which  Mr.  Tilton  was 
thrown  by  it.  The  interview  of  the  30th,  as  is  abundant- 
ly proved  by  their  own  evidence,  was  to  get  the  sympa- 
thy, cooperation,  commiseration,  the  compunc- 
tion of  Mr.  Beecher  ;  but  alas !  the  final  test 
had  ended,  not  in  any  efl:acing  of  the  impres- 
sion of  the  injury  and  ruin  to  that  family  that 
had  fallen  upon  it,  but  in  the  withdrawal  of  the  wife's 
support  to  the  false  charge  ;  but  yet,  yet,  with  no  assur- 
ance that  the  same  waxen  nature  could  not  at  any  time 
be  molded,  under  the  same  cruel  pressure,  to  renew  the 
charge.  Nevertheless  it  was  of  grave  importance  to  Mr. 
.  Tilton,  and  was  so  appreciated  by  the  crafty  and  shrewd 
agent,  attendant,  that  he  had  secured  to  hunt  Mr.  Beecher 
in  couple  with  him,  that  this  false  step  should  be  re- 
trieved, if  possible ;  and  so  Mr.  Moulton  goes  to  Mr. 
Beecher's  house  to  get  back  that  retraction.  He  went 
there  for  nothing  else.  He  wei^  there,  and  he 
succeeded  in  getting  it  back— not  back  as  sur- 
rendered, and  given  up,  and  going  into  the 
custody  or  the  control  of  either  Mr.  or  Mrs.  Til- 
ton, but  as  deposited  for  safe-keeping  in  Moulton's  hands, 
and  with  the  common  guarantee,  to  Mr.  Tilton,  5  hat 
Mr.  Beecher  should  not  use  it  against  him— that  Mr. 
Beecher  should  not  use  against  Mr.  Tilton  the  retraction, 
and  that  Mr.  Tilton  should  not  use  the  charge  against 
Mr.  Beecher— without  both  being  coupled  and  controlled 
by-an  impartial  and  friendly  production,  by  an  insepara- 
ble union  of  the  two.  And  how  was  Mr.  Beecher  to  be 
influenced  to  that  1  Why,  it  was  necessarily  by  impress- 
ing upon  him  that  this  proceeding,  while  it  was  reasona- 
ble and  justifiable  as  a  protection  to  himself,  was  not 
suitable,  was  not  in  accordance  with  a  just  and  charita- 
ble and  merciful  dealing  with  this  family,  in  whose  misery 
he  felt  some  complicity,  and  for  whom  he  felt  unmeasured 
sympathy,  and  ftiat  it  did  not  conduce  to  the  reparation 


of  the  domestic  peace  of  that  family  that  Mr.  Beechei 
should  possess  and  control  evidence  of  the  husband's 
authority  over  the  wife,  exerted  to  obtain  a  false  charge, 
which  the  wife  had  confessed  to  be  false.  WeU,  there  is 
a  great  deal  in  that ;  any  one  can  see  that.  Then  came 
Mr.  Beecher's  plea :  "  "Well,  but  supposing  hereafter— 
not  Mr.  Tilton— for  he  disclaims  all  desire  to  make 
trouble ;  he  had  a  whole  long  interview  with  me  to  find 
out  how  I  felt  toward  him,  and  how  he  could  be  sure  that 
nothing  would  be  brought  into  discussion  that  would  in- 
jure him,  his  feelings,  or  his  wife's— but  supposing  in  the 
future  other  occasions  and  exigencies  arise,  and  other 
malicious  or  honest  purposes  shall  seize  hold  of  the  fact 
that  this  woman  has  held  up  my  relations  to  her  as  the 
subject  of  complaint  and  aspersion,  what  shall  I  do  for 
my  family  ?"  Nay,  he  might  have  had,  and  doubtless  did 
have,  in  mind  what  I  have  no  doubt  was  in  the 
mind  of  Mr.  Moulton  and  of  Mr.  Tilton  also— if  this  sick 
woman  should  die  and  should  leave  a  written  charge 
without  a  written  refutation,  what  would  then  happen  i 
Her  life  certainly  was  precarious,  and,  as  Mr.  Beecher 
has  testified,  she  struck  him  almost  as  dead,  as  not  des- 
tined long  to  live.  Then  it  is  that  Moulton,,  pressing  these 
considerations  and  these  alone,  that  Mr.  Beecher  must 
not  think  of  himself,  that  he  must  think  of  the  restora- 
tion of  this  family,  that  he  must  think  of  their  misfor- 
tune, their  calamity,  and  that  all  he  can  properly  desire 
or  ever  require  is  that  this  paper  should  be  safely  pre- 
served so  that  if  the  current  circumstances  ever  should 
bring,  from  malign  or  casual  influences,  the  publication 
or  the  circulation  or  the  insinuation,  of  any  such  sug- 
gestion, of  his  relation  to  this  family,  this  direct  and  com- 
plete refutation  and  retraction  of  it  may  be  at  hand  in 
safe  hands  and  ready  for  production  when  and  as  it  sliaU 
be  required. 

Accordingly,  you  wiU  find  in  Mr.  Moulton's  narrative 
of  this  that  the  whole  object  of  this  interview  was  to  re- 
trieve that  false  step ;  just  as  the  object  of  the  interview 
of  the  30th  was  to  get  out  of  the  false  position  he  had  got 
mto  by  his  acticn  witb  Bowen  against  Mr.  Beecher  on 
the  26th.  Now,  Mr.  Moulton  says :  "  Do  you  remember 
that  I  asked  you  last  night  if  anybody  had  seen  the  letter 
that  Mr.  Tilton  sent  to  you  through  Mr.  Bowen,  and  your 
answer  was,  'Jfobodysave  myself  had  seen  It?'  He  re- 
membered that."  You  see,  gentlemen,  none  of  these 
people  could  come  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  week  without  be- 
ginning the  matter  about  the  Bowen  letter,  about  its 
suppression,  and  now  we  have  a  direct  (though 
from  a  collateral  point  of  view)  confirmation 
of  the  great  point  being  to  get  rid  of  the  eft'ect 
of  that  Bowen  letter,  and  restore  the  sympathy 
and  regard  of  Mr.  Beecher,  if  possible.  And  therefore 
Moulton  wanted  to  know  whether  anybody  else  had  ever 
seen  that  letter,  or  knew  anything  about  it,  and  he  was 
reassiured  by  Mr.  Beecher's  telling  htm.  He  had  not  re- 
membered this,  you  know,  when  he  was  giving  the  ao- 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MB.  EYART8, 


737 


connt  of  the  SOtli.  Mr.  Moiilton  said :  "  Do  you  remember 
that  I  asked  you  last  night  if  anybody  had  seen  the  letter 
that  Mr.  Tilton  sent  to  you  through  Mr.  Bowen,  and  your 
answer  was  that  *  Nobody  save  myself  had  seen  it.'  He 
remembered  that.  I  said,  *  Mr.  Beecher,  I  want  to  read 
you  a  letter  from  Elizabeth  Tilton  asking  for  the  return 
of  the  paper  which  I  have,  and  the  paper  which  she  gave 
you  last  night  at  your  dictation.  I  will  read  also  to  you 
another  letter  in  which  IVIrs.  Tilton  has  in- 
formed   her    husband  '*      Well,    he    read  the 

letter  of  explanation  of  the  retraction  which  I 
have  just  read  to  you.  Now,  what  reply  did  Mr.  Beecher 
make  to  that  %  For  that  was  Mr.  Beecher's  first  notion 
that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  done  anything  in  the  way  of  expla- 
nation, or  contradiction  of,  or  subtraction,  or  detraction 
from,  the  force  of  her  letter  which  she  had  given  Mm. 
"  He  said  he  was  surprised."  Well,  I  should  think  he 
would  be.  Moulton  says,  "  I  said  to  him,  *  Mr.  Beecher, 
I  think  you  have  been  guilty  of  a  great  meanness  in 
getting  the  permission  of  a  husband  to  visit  his  house, 
and  then  going  there  to  his  wife  and  procuring  from  her 
what  you  know  to  be  a  lie.'  "  Well,  on  the  cross-exami- 
nation he  says  it  was  "  in  procuring  from  her  what  I  am 
Justified  in  calling  a  lie,"  doesn't  he  %  [addressing  Mr. 
Abbott.] 

Mr.  Abbott—"  What  I  must  term  a  lie." 

Mr.  Evarts— *'  What  I  must  term  a  lie."  Well,  we  get 
rid,  then,  of  the  appeal  to  Mr.  Beecher's  consciousness. 

I  said  to  him,  That  won't  save  you.  I  said,  I  didn't 
see  this  morning  much  of  the  guidance  of  God  in  what 
you  did. 

Well,  I  have  never  been  able  to  understand  what  this 
"guidance  of  God  "  referred  to,  for  it  is  introduced  here 
out  of  the  whole  cloth,  and  there  had  been  no  interview 
between  Beecher  and  Moulton,  and  none  between 
Beecher  and  Tilton,  so  that  it  must  be  Mr.  Moulton's  re- 
flections in  the  morning  as  to  the  guidance  of  God  in 
Mr.  Beecher's  conduct;  it  was  not  a  phrase  of  Mr. 
Beecher's. 

But  perhaps  it  will  all  turn  out  for  the  best  (that  is,  your 
having  got  this  retraction),  for  I  hold  the  confession  of 
Elizabeth  Tilton,  and  if  you  will  return  that  retraction  to 
me  I  will  burn  both  in  your  presence,  or  I  will  preserve 
both;  and  he  said  to  me,  "  In  ease  of  my  death  this  would 
be  the  only  defense  that  my  family  would  have  against 
Buch  a  charge,"  and  I  said  to  him,  "  Mr.  Beecher,  I  don't 
think  that  now  you  ought  to  take  merely  selfish  counsel 
of  yourself ;  the  truth  is  the  truth;  you  have  got  to  abide 
by  that.  Where  is  the  retraction?"  I  said  to  him, '-I 
want  it."  He  went  to  the  closet  and  brought  it  and 
handed  it  to  me.  I  told  him  I  would  protect  the  confes- 
sion—I would  not  give  that  up  to  Tilton,  and  I  would 
protect  this  paper  that  he  gave  me  with  my  life ;  and 
sitting  there.  Sir,  I  felt  my  pistol,  and  I  said,  "  to  this 
extent,  with  my  life." 

The  pistol  was  brought  for  emphasis.  Well,  now,  this 
man  that  had  told  you  this  was  shameless  enough  to  tell 
you  that  he  gave  the  confession  to  Mr.  Tilton,  and  that 
Mr.  Tilton  gave  it  to  his  wife,  aad  his  wife.  In  his 


presence,  destroyed  it ;  and  yet  this  whole  interview  was 
on  the  proposition  that  charge  and  retraction 
are  to  be  kept  together;  and  then,  before  this  infamy 
of  the  destruction  of  the  paper  was  brought  to  their 
notice  in  the  way  of  argument,  meeting  a  present  and 
lesser  necessity,  to  wit,  to  show  that  there  was  not  any 
blackmail  in  the  $7,000  operation,  they  ignored  utterly 
and  protested  that  there  was  not  any  agreement  or  in- 
struction or  license  whatever  to  destroy  any  paper  grow- 
ing out  of  that.  ^ 

MR.  MOULTON  GRIEVED  AT  MR.  BEECHER'S 
■  WICKEDNESS. 
Ah,  gentlemen,  you  wish  more  and  more  that 

you  had  that  paper,  or  at  least  the  production  of  it,  if 
you  need  it  more  than  you  have  got  it  from  those  that 
could  give  its  contents.  Well,  then,  he  goes  on  to  say, 
according  to  this  witness,  about  what  his  defense  would 
be  if  Theodore  should  make  a  charge  ;  tha^-  he  should 
deny  it,  of  course ;  and  then,  with  that  abandonment  of 
secm'ing  him  in  his  denials  which  seems  to  characterize 
this  gentleman,  according  to  this  man's  stories,  he  said  : 

But  I  will  throw  myself  on  your  friendship  and  what  I 
believe  to  be  your  desire  to  save  me. 

And  so,  at  an  interview  that  had  not  anything  to  do 
with  confession,  that  had  no  object  on  Mr.  Moulton's  part 
to  get  a  confession,  no  possible  motive  on  Mr.  Beecher's 
part  to  give  a  confession ;  and  when  they  passed  through 
the  ordeal  of  the  night  before  on  the  testimony  of  every- 
body, with  an  absolute  denial  of  there  being  a  word  of 
truth  in  the  charges,  and  had  in  his  hand  besides  the 
woman's  statement  that  there  was  not  a  word  of  truth  in 
the  charge,  if  you  believe  Mr.  Moulton  as  making  out 
words  for  Mr.  Beecher,  he  voluntarily  says  : 

And  he  told  me— he  said  to  me,  in  addition— he  con- 
sidered his  sexual  intercourse  with  Mrs.  Tilton  was  the 
natural  expression  of  his  love  for  her,  are  the  words  he 
used.  He  said  he  felt  justified  in  his  own  accoimt  of  the 
love  he  held  for  her,  and  which  he  knew  she  held  for  him, 
and  said  at  the  close  of  the  conversation :  "  My  life  is 
ended.  When  to  me  there  should  now  come  honor  and 
rest,  I  find  myself  on  the  brink  of  a  moral  Niagara,  with 
no  power  to  save  myself,  and  I  call  upon  you  to  save  me." 

Now,  here  is  the  point  where  he  said  that  his  inter- 
course with  Mrs.  Tilton  was  a  natural  expression  of  his 
love,  and  then  corrected  himself  and  put  the  word 
"sexual"  in,  and  he  did  it  several  times:  and 
when  his  attention  was  called,  in  a  cross-exam- 
ination, to  how  it  happened  that  whenever  he 
undertook  to  tell  the  story  about  Mr.  Beecher 
speaking  of  his  expressions  of  love  he  said  "  expressions'* 
first,  and  then  Interpolated  "  sexual ;"  he  said  it  was  a 
mere  slip  of  the  tongue.  WeU,  well,  gentlemen,  it  won't 
do  to  break  down  character  and  destroy  life  and  hap- 
pmess  of  many  families  on  the  question  of  whether  there 
is  not  a  slip  of  the  tongue  in  the  witness.  Hja 
tongue  slipped—"  dropped  a  word,"  he  said.  It 
is  exactly  the    word    that    makes    the  differenoe. 


788 


THE  TILION-BIJEGHUB  TRIAL. 


But  that  is,  after  all,  very  unimportant  when 
the  absolute  ahsurdity  of  the  whole  proposition  of  the 
originating,  spontaneous,  unextraeted  confession  of  Mr. 
Beecher  to  Mr.  Monlton  that  night,  when  Mr.  Moulton 
was  there  to  get  back  a  retraction,  and  which  Mr.  Beecher 
said  he  wanted  for  his  protection.  But  it  is  of  a  piece 
with  several  other  items  of  testimony  that  we  shall  find, 
as  we  go  on,  in  this  statement. 

Now,  there  was  a  very  cui'ious  other  passage  of  this 
very  interview  on  a  cross-examination  about  this  mattei', 
which  I  have  never  been  able  to  read  without  amuse- 
ment. Now,  the  cross-examining  counsel  asked  him  what 
lie  said : 

"  I  am  giving  his  language  as  nearly  as  I  recollect  it, 
Bir :  That  that  paper  would  be  the  only  defense  of  his 
family  in  case  he  was  attacked."  Now,  let  us  hear  what 
Mr.  Moulton  says  :  "  And  I  said  to  him,  *  Mr.  Beecher,  I 
don't  see  how  you  have  erred  as  you  have ;  I  don't  iinder- 
standit;  you  have  had  criminal  connection  with  Mrs. 
Tllton,  and  you  go  down  and  you  get  this  paper ;  I  don't 
see  how  you  could  have  performed  two  such  acts.'" 

Only  think  of  it.  Two  such  acts !  Mr.  Moulton,  the 
moralist,  talking  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  piercing  his  con- 
science with  the  accumulated  horrors  of  two  such  acts- 
one  of  seduction  of  three  years,  and  adultery  of  sixteen 
months,  and  the  other  going  to  see  Mrs.  Tilton,  on  the 
invitation  of  her  husband,  and  telling  her  that  the  charge 
she  had  made  was  untrue,  and  taking  from  her  a  state- 
ment that  it  was  not  true.  Those  are  the  two  such  acts 
that  puzzled  the  mind  of  Mr.  Moulton,  how  a  man  could 
have  such  an  accumulation  of  guilt.  Either  one  alone 
would  not  have  amounted  to  much;  but  two 
such  acts  was  too  much  for  Mr.  Moulton.  [Laughter.] 
He  was  in  the  position  of  Lord  Dundreary,  that  no  fellow 
can  understand.   [Laughter.]   But  that  is  not  all : 

Tilton's  disposition  last  night  when  I  went  home,or  when 
I  saw  him  after  going  home,  was  peaceful.  He  said  that 
no  matter  what  might  come  to  himself  he  would  protect 
his  wife  and  family,  intended  to  do  that,  and  Mr.  Beecher 
then  said  to  me  with  great  sorrow,  weeping,  that  he  had 
lOved  Elizabeth  Tilton  very  much,  and  through  hia  love 
for  her,  if  he  had  fallen  at  all,  he  had  fallen. 

:Mr.  Beecher  was  in  doubt,  you  know ;  Mr.  Beecher  was 
lU  doubt  whether  he  had  had  those  three  years  of  seduc- 
tion, and  these  16  months  of  adultery. 

Now.  if  1  have  fallen  at  all— if  I  have  got  into  that 
^ilt  at  all  

Now,  see  how  good  his  reasoning  is.  He  had  fallen 
through  love;  "that  the  expression" — now,  we  have 
got  the  same  stuiubling  which  is  called  dropping  a  word— 

*  that  the  expression,  the  sexual  expression  of  that  love 
was  just  as  natm-al,  in  his  opinion,  he  had  thought  so,"  is 
the  language  that  he  used  to  her,  "  that  if  he  had  fallen 
at  all,  he  had  fallen  in  that  way,  through  love  and  not 
through  lust,  or  words  to  that  effect."  Well,  gentlemen, 
truth  shows  itself  agamst  the  most  malignant  eiforts 
to  suppress  it.  "  The  expression  "— "  sexual  expression"— 

*  II  Me  had  fallen  "-  "  if  he  had  faUen  at  all  "—twice  over 


— "  he  had  fallen  "— "  if  he  had  gone  into  adultery  it  had 
been  thi-ough  love  and  not  through  lust."  That  is  a 
proposition  that  proves  itself.  Now,  see  how  it  comports 
with  the  truth.  Mr.  Beecher  tells  you  in  his  testimony, 
tells  you  in  his  statement  read  to  you,  as  made  to  the 
church,  as  the  statement  prepared  to  stand  the  ex- 
amination of  the  Judgment  Day^  how  he  had  been 
drawn  into  admiration,  affection,  intimacy  with 
this  lady  of  the  nature  that  he  describes,  and 
how  he,  heedless  of  the  impressions  upon  her  nature,  and 
her  sympathy,  and  her  affections,  was  blind  and  deaf  to 
any  suspicion  that  there  was  to  come  out  of  this  with- 
drawal of  affection  from  the  husband,  or  confusion  of  her 
duties  to  him  and  her  children,  and  the  discord  and  in- 
iury  and  calamity  to  the  family  was  now  displayed 
before  him  as  the  evil  that  had  happened  from 
some  cause,  and  Mr.  Tilton  had  accused  him 
the  night  before,  the  30th,  as  having  been  the 
cause  of  this  subtraction  of  the  wife's  affection  and  this 
attraction  to  himself  of  the  woman's  worship.  Now,  Mr. 
Beecher,  if  he  talks,  talks  on  that,  and,  oh!  it  was  a  sur- 
prise to  him,  and  he^takes  woe  to  himself  for  his  blind- 
ness, and  yet  cannot  understand  how  it  should  be  that 
all  this  should  arise  without  his  present,  concurrent  con- 
sciousness and  observation— talks  to  this  man,  Moulton 
on  the  very  topic  that  Mr.  Moulton  is  pressing  upon  him. 

You  are  introducing  new  mischief  between  this  wife 
and  husband  by  holding  on  to  this  accusation  of  the  hus- 
band by  the  wife  of  having  forced  a  false  charge  out  of 
her  against  you.  That  is  not  the  way.  You  must  not  " 
consult  for  your  own  safety  and  your  own  selfish  inter- 
ests and  protection.  You  must  restore  this  family, 

And.flnally  yielding  to  that,he  surrenders  the  paper,  and 
then  he  says,  speaking  of  what  he  was  conscious  of,  and 
what  he  felt  compunction  for  on  this  sudden  revelation 

of  the  mischief  that  had  come— he  says,  "  Well,"  this 

is  the  nature  of  the  observation,  if  anything  to  support  it 
ever  arose,  and  I  think  even  false  witnesses  like  to  have 
some  shelter  of  conscience. 

Well,  if  Ijhave,  m  my  mtimacy  and  my  blindness  and 
my  enjoyment  of  the  society  and  of  the  traits  of  purity 
and  piety  of  this  woman,  drawn  her  aftections,  warped 
them  toward  me,  centered  them  too  much  in  me,  and  pro- 
duced this  estrangement,  thank  God  my  visits,  my  inti- 
macy, my  sympathy,  and  my  fall  into  the  iL^sehief  of  in- 
jury to  her— if  it  be  true,  as  you  now  charge,  that  this  ca- 
lamity is  ascribable  to  me — I  have  fallen  into  it  only  in 
the  intercourse  of  chastity  and  affection,  and  not  with 
any  purposes  or  desires  of  lust. 

Thus  explained,  comporting  with  all  the  truth,  you  can 
understand  why  Mr.  Beecher  might  reason  in  that  way ; 
but  if  you  put  it  ui>on  the  fact  of  a  sexual,  abominable, 
and  gross  immorality,  and  adultery,  what  can  explaui 
this  idea,  twice  repeated,  that  if  he  had  fallen  at  all,  he 
had  fallen  through  love  and  not  through  lusti  Now, 
Mrs.  Tilton  had  not  denied  her  undue  affection, 
nor  had  there  ever  been  displaced  from  the  ground  of  Mr. 
Tilton's  complaint,  urged  I  think  in  no  very  measured  or 


SUMMiya   UP  BI  ME.  JEVAETS. 


739 


honest  terms  on  his  part,  but  for  a  purpose,  as  I  shall 
show  you  hereafter,  against  Mr.  Beeeher,  that  he  had 
been  actually  and  practically  the  means  of  breaking  up 
■what  should  be  the  relations  between  husband  and  wife, 
the  entire  unity  of  feeling  and  of  regard. 

Ifow,  Mr.  Beeeher  gives  an  account  of  this  interview, 
and  you  will  judge,  first,  of  the  respective  credit  of  the 
two  witnesses,  and  secondly,  that  whether  this  view 
does  not  comporc  with  the  probabilities,  nay,  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  occurrence,  and  refute  the  opposite  view  given 
by  3Ir.  Moulton: 

After  he  came  in  he  made  some  introductory  remarks, 
which  I  now  cannot  give,  but  he  drew  a  letter  from  out 
of  his  pocket  from  Theodore  Tilton,  purporting  to  be,  in 
which  Mr.  Tiltou  stated  that  after  going  home  last  night 
he  found  that  I  had  taken  advantage  of  my  interview  to 
procure  from  his  wife  a  retraction  of  the  charges  that 
had  been  made  against  me.  That  was  the  substance  of 
it.  There  was  some  little  more  which  I  do  not  remem- 
ber. He  then  proceeded  to  say  in  substance 
that  he  presumed  that  that  was  so.  I  said  it  certainly — 
that  I  had.  He  said  that  he  thought  I  had  acted  a  very 
indiscreet  part— a  dishonorable  one ;  that  I  had  no  right 
to  take  advantage  of  such  a  situation,  and  to  obtain  such 
a  retraction  ;  and  I  claimed  the  right  of  self-defense.  He 
then  said  that  such  a  course  was  indiscreet  and  inexpedi- 
ent on  my  part,  no  matter  what  my  reasons  were ;  that 
it  tended  to  increase  the  difficulty  between  Mr.  Tilton 
and  his  wife  and  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  me,  and 
that  instead  of  leading  to  peace  and  quiet,  it  tended  ex- 
actly the  other  way,  and  I  ought  to  give  up  her  retrac- 
tion. I  argued  with  him  on  that  matter,  and  for  some 
little  time  there  was  an.  interchange  backward  and  for- 
ward of  thought.  He  then  drew  fi-om  his  pocket  a  letter 
pmporting  to  be  from  Mrs.  Tilton. 

"5\Tiich  was  read : 

Saturday  Morning. 

Mt  Dear  Frienb  Fra>'k  :  I  want  you  to  do  me  the 
greatest  possible  favor.  My  letter  which  you  have,  and 
the  one  I  gave  :Mr.  Beeeher  at  his  dictation  last  evening, 
ought  both  to  be  destroyed.  Please  bring  both  tome 
and  I  will  burn  them.  Show  this  note  to  Theodore  and 
Mr.  Beeeher.   They  will  see  the  propriety  of  this  request. 

Youi's  truly,  E.  B.  Tilton. 

Q.  "vMiat  succeeded  1  A.  Well,  I  was  perplexed  a  little 
at  the  existence  of  that  letter,  for  Mr.  Tilton  had  told 
me  that  the  letter  was  destroyed— [Mr.  Tilton,  you  re- 
member, told  him  on  the  30th  that  he  tore  up  the  only 
copy,  and  that  the  original  was  destroyed]— and  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mrs.  Tilton's  note,  implied  the  existence  of 
that  letter  containing  charges. 

Q.  The  accusation  1  A.  The  accusation. 

Q.  Yes.  A.  However,  that  was  a  mere  transient 
i;hought  in  my  mind,  and  then,  the  end  of  the  conversa- 
tion being  what  would  tend  to  peace  and  reconciliation. 

Q.  Go  on  with  the  conversation,  please  1  A.  There  was 
considerable  said  ;  I  said  to  Mr.  Moulton  that  my  objec- 
tion to  giving  up  that  retraction  was  that  I  should  be 
left  open,  without  defense,  if  I  were  in  any  way  brought 
to  account  on  such  a  charge  as  that.  He  said  in  substance 
that  he  would  stand  between  me  and  any  such  renewal  of 
the  accusation,  that  he  would  defend  the  documents, that 
he  would  bum  them  both  in  my  presence,  if  I  wished  

Q.  If  you  wished  i  A.  If  I  wished,  or  he  would  keep 
them. 

That  is  the  substance  of  the  matter.  There  is  nothing 


more  except  the  great  distinctness  with  which  it  was  de- 
termined that  the  two  papers  were  to  be  kept  insepar- 
able, as  indeed  Mr.  Moulton  plainly  stated  in  his  cross- 
examination. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  by  you  at  the  interview  on  the 
31st  about  :Mr.  Tilton  having  invited  you  on  the  30th  to  go 
down  and  see  his  wife '?  A.  Mr.  Moulton  introduced  it 
that  Mr.  Tilton  had  sent  him  down  to  see  his  wife  ;  there 
was  no  difference  of  opinion  about  it ;  if  there  is  any  it  is 
of  later  origin. 

Then  he  stated  how  ]SIr.  Moulton  urged  the  idea  that  it 
was  not  gentlemanly  in  him  to  keep  a  paper,  and 

I  should  give  it  up,  and  that  would  tend  to  peace.  He 
thought,  he  said,  it  would  be  a  work  of  conciliation,  and 
that  it  would  tend  very  strongly  to  it.  He  represented 
that  Mr.  Tilton  was  under  the  impression  that  I  was  an 
active  enemy,  and  that  any  coui-se  on  my  part  that  was  a 
c  jurse  of  self-defense,  aggressively  in  any  way,  was  hold- 
ing a  defense  of  myself  in  such  a  way  as  would  be  a  rod 
over  him— would  strengthen  that  impression,  and  that 
every  conciliation  that  I  could  make  would  weaken  that 
impression,  and  help  him  (Mo  alt  on)  to  hold  Tilton  to 
kindly  thought  and  feeling  about  me. 

He  contradicts  entirely  the  idea  that  anything  was  said 
that  night  about  his  having  procured  a  lie  or  anything 
that  Mr.  Moulton  was  justified  m  calling  a  lie.  Now, 
when  they  returned  to  the  stand  Isli.  Moulton  didn't  con- 
tradict any  of  these  parts  that  I  have  read  to  you.  You 
see  what  stands  as  an  enormous  anomaly,  if  this 
great  central  fact  of  tD,1ury  to  Mr.  Tilton  by 
Mr.  Beeeher,  and  of  power  of  Mr.  Til- 
ton over  :Mr.  Beeeher  from  that  fact— if  that  had 
been  in  the  consciousness  of  Mr.  Beeeher  or  ]Mr.  -Tilton,  or 
the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Tilton,  the  least  idea  that  there 
was  any  substantive  fact,  you  see  the  enormous  anomaly 
of  all  the  operations  of  that  week  to  secure  friendly  feel- 
ings on  iNIr.  Beecher's  part  toward  Mr.  Tilton.  And  here 
we  have  a  repetition  of  it.  Mr.  Tilton  thought  he  was  an 
active  enemy,  and  wanted  to  be  sure  that 
he  (3Ir.  Beeeher)  would  not  injure  him.  He 
needed  friendship.  He  was  in  a  calamity, 
and  getting  these  new  facts  of  his  (Tilton's)  treachery, 
and  of  his  abuse  of  his  wife's  compliance  to  make  a  false 
charge,  and  the  evidence  of  all  that  into  his  (Mr.  Beech- 
er's) hands  against  him,  made  him  think  still  more  that 
he  must  have  some  secm-ity  that  Mr.  Beeeher  did  not  in- 
tend to  pursue  him  (Tilton)  as  an  active  enemy.  Xow, 
did  you  ever  hear  of  such  an  absurdity  as  that  I  And, 
yet,  it  runs  all  thi'ough,  and  when  we  come 
to  the  1st  of  January  you  wiR  find  it  impregnates  that 
interview  fi-om  end  to  end,  and  when  you  come  to  later 
matters,  which  I  shall  run  through  rapii^f,  you  will  see 
that  the  whole  purpose  is  to  keep  kindness  in  Mr.  Beech- 
er's heart  and  fidelity  in  3Ir.  Beecher's  feel- 
ings, so  as  that  ]Mr.  Beeeher  needn't  injure, 
persecute,  destroy  Sir.  Tilton.  Now,  in  respect  to  any 
casual  impression  or  notion  that  any  of  these,  as  I  regard 
them,  frivolous  and  self-convicted  falsehoods  in  INIr. 
Moulton's  statement,  stand  as  it  they  were  his  evidence, 


740 


TRB   TlLTOl^-BEECHBR  TEIAL. 


to  be  credited  as  his  evidence,  and  without 
contradicting  I  have  only  to  suggest  to  you 
that  throughout,  with  solemnity,  with  distinct- 
ness, with  completeness,  Mr.  Beecher  has 
denounced  them  aU  as  false,  so  far  as  having  occurred, 
and  you  must  judge,  at  your  charitable  judgments, 
whether  they  are  not  false  in  the  consciousness  and  pur- 
pose of  the  witness  that  speaks  against  him. 
The  Court  here  adjourned  until  Friday  at  11  o'clock. 


NINETY-SEVENTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

CONTimiED  SUMMING  UP  FOR  THE  DE- 
FENSE. 

ANALYSIS  OF  LETTERS  RELIED  UPON  BY  THK 
PLAINTIFF  —  EXPRESSIONS  IN  THE  CATHERINE 
GAUNT  LETTER  AND  OTHER  COMMUNICATIONS 
EXPLAINED— TESTIMONY  FROM  MR.  MOULTON, 
MR.  WILKESON,  AND  OTHERS  TAKEN  UP— MR. 
TILTON'S  STATEMENTS  AS  TO  PHOTOGRAPHS  OF 
HIS  WIFE  AND  DAUGHTER  REVIEWED  —  UN- 
SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT  OF  JUDGE  NEILSON  TO 
HAVE  A  SATURDAY  SESSION— MR.  BEACH  DE- 
SIRES TO  HAVE  THE  SUMMING  UP  FOR  THE  DE- 
FENSE LIMITED. 

Friday.  June  4.  1875. 
To-day  was  the  sixth  day  of  the  argument  of 
William  M.  Evarts  m  summing  up  for  Mr.  Beecher. 
At  the  etid  of  the  afternoon  session  Judge  Neil- 
son  told  the  jurors  that  he  shojild  have  to  appeal  to 
them  to  consent  to  the  court's  sitting  on  Satur- 
day, because  there  was  such  a  large  amount  of  other 
business  waiting  to  be  disposed  of  by  him  that  it  was 
imperatively  necessary  to  hasten  the  completion  of 
this  trial.  Mr.  Evarts  objected  to  a  Saturday  ses- 
sion on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  a  hardship  for 
him  to  continue  speaking  another  day  af  fcer  talking 
continuously  the  previous  four  days.  Mr.  Beach  sus- 
tained Mr.  Evarts  in  his  request  that  there  should  be 
no  Saturday  session,  and  Judge  Neilson  consented  to 
adjourn  until  Monday  morning  as  usual.  Mr.  Beach 
then  insisted  upon  knowing  definitely  when  the  sum- 
ming-up for  the  defendant  would  close,  and  appealed 
to  the  Court  to  fix  some  limit  to  it.  Judge  Neilson 
referred  him  to  Mr.  Evarts,  who  said 
that  he  had  no  thought  of  speaking  longej 
than  next  Tuesday  night,  and  he  was 
strongly  desirous  of  closing  before  recess  on  that 
day.  Mr.  Beach  said  that  his  argument  would  be 
comparatively  brief,  and  he  privately  stated  that  he 
had  no  idea  of  exceeding  three  days.  The  defend- 
ant's counsel  have  already  taken  11  days  for  their 
siunming  up,  and  if  Mr.  Evarts  closes  when  he  says 


he  will  the  whole  time  consumed  by  them  will  havo^ 
been  13  days.  Mr.  Evarts  says  that  he  has  now  cov- 
ered the  main  points  of  his  argument,  and  what  he 
will  have  to  say  hereafter  will  be  of  somewhat  minor 
importance,  although  necessary  to  the  full  treat- 
ment of  his  client's  case. 

The  argument  to-day  was  confined  principally 
to  some  of  the  famous  letters  in  the  case.  Among^ 
these  were  the  "Catherine  Gaunt  Letter,"  the 
"Nest-Hiding  Letter,"  and  some  others.  The  al- 
leged equivocal  expressions  in  these  letters,  some  of 
which  were  analyzed  by  Judge  Porter  in 
his  address,  were  explained  by  Mr.  Evarts 
with  great  care,  and  with  a  clearness  of 
argument  that  excited  the  admiration  of  many 
in  the  audience.  Some  of  Mr.  Moulton's  testimony 
was  considered,  as  well  as  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Wilkeson,  and  other  evidence  that  had  been  brought 
forward  on  both  sides.  Several  of  the  minor  inter- 
views between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Messrs.  Tilton  and 
iMoulton  came  under  consideration,  and  the  relations 
of  Messrs.  Bo  wen  and  Tilton  were  subjected  to  a 
further  analysis  m  new  relations. 

Almost  the  only  peculiarly  striking  passage  in 
the  address  was  in  reference  to  Mr.  Tilton's 
contradiction  of  some  of  Mr.  Wilkeson's  evidence 
about  the  interview  between  the  two  in  Washing- 
ton. Mr.  Wilkeson  said  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  shown 
him  a  photograph  of  his  wife.  This  Mr.  Tilton  de- 
nied, saying  that  he  had  shown  photographs  of  his 
daughters,  Florence  and  Alice,  and  that  Mr.  Wilke- 
son, supposing  Florence  to  be  Mrs.  Tilton,  apostro- 
phized her  picture  over  a  glass  of  wine. 
"And,  "  snid  Mr.  Evarts,  humorously,  after  read- 
ing this  portion  of  the  plaintiff's  testimony,  "Florence 
was  a  little  girl  6  years  old.  I  think  it  would  take 
more  than  one  glass  of  wine,  gentlemen,  to  confuse 
as  clear  a  head  as  Samuel  Wilkeson's  into  the  notion 
that  a  girl  6  years  old  was  the  wife  of  this  Apollo." 
As  he  said  this  the  orator  half  turned  toward  Mr. 
Tilton  with  an  ironical  smile,  while  a  burst  of 
laughter  from  the  audience  appeared  to  deepen  the 
color  in  the  flushed  face  of  the  plaintiff. 


THE   PKOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

THE   CATHERINE   GAUNT  LETTER. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  need  now  to  consider  a  lew  matters 
touctiing  the  relations  of  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher, 
brought  out,  no  doubt,  in  the  letters  I  shall  ask  your  -eA' 


SUMMING    UF  B 

tention  to  at  a  later  period  than  the  dates  that  I  am  now 
•discussing,  bait  coming  as  tliey  do  in  the  earlier  pari  of 
the  year  1871  they  throw  a  reflex  and  confirmatory  light 
upon  the  real  nature  of  the  Indiscretions,  the  mlsfor- 
times,  the  errors  of  whatever  degree  they  may  have  been, 
that  attended  the  intimacy  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mrs.  Tilton.  You  will  remember  that  we  put  in  evidence 
a  letter  which  had  been  published  by  her  husband  in  the 
newspapers,  bearing  date  on  the  29th  of  June  in  the  year 
1871,  and  written  to  him  by  her  during  a  temporary  ab- 
sence from  the  city,  at  a  place  of  Summer  resort.  It 
has  become  famous  as  the  Catherine  Gaunt 
letter,  and  was  before  the  Committee  of 
the  Church  in  their  investigations,  and  has 
been  much  in  the  public  mind,  and  much  doubtless  in  yours 
since  this  trial  began.  It  has  but  one  meaning,  and  it 
is  an  absolute  refutation  of  all  pretenses  of  carnal  inter- 
course, or  bodily  Impurity  of  any  kind  on  the  part  of  this 
woman.  Not  only  does  the  letter  itself,  but  the  whole 
story,  and  plot  and  morale  of  the  work  of  fiction  which 
it  inti-oduces  to  notice,  and  on  which  it  builds  certain 
conclusions  in  the  mind  of  this  woman,  is,  and  is  known 
to  every  one  to  be,  an  exposition  of  how  there  may  come 
to  be  unsuitable  disturbances  of  domestic  peace,  unsuit- 
able exaggerations  of  grounds  of  religious  discord  be- 
tween husband  and  wife,  by  the  entirely  innocent,  the 
entirely  pure  and  religious  relation  between  a  clergyman 
and  a  penitent,  or  a  devotee.  This  letter  reads  as  follows  : 

Ju>'E  29,  1871. 
Mt  Dear  Theodore  :  To-day,  through  the  ministry  of 
Catherine  Gaimt,  a  character  of  fiction,  my  eyes  have 
been  opened,  for  the  first  time  in  my  experience,  so  that 
I  see  clearly  my  sin'.  It  was  when  I  knew  that  I  was 
loved,  to  siiffer  it  to  grow  to  a  passion.  A  virtuous 
woman  should  check  instantly  an  absorbing  love.  "But  it 
appeared  to  me  in  such  false  light.  That  the  love  I  felt 
and  received  could  harm  no  one,  not  even  you,  I  have 
believed  imfalteringly  until  4  o'clock  this  afternoon, 
when  the  heavenly  vision  dawned  upon  me.  I  see  now, 
as  never  before,  the  wrong  I  have  done  you,  and  hasten 
immediately  to  ask  your  pardon,  with  a  penitence  so  sin- 
eere  that  henceforth  (if  reason  remains)  you  may  trust 
me  implicitly.  Oh !  my  dear  Theo.,  though  your  opinions 
are  not  restful  or  congenial  to  my  soul,  yet  my  own  in- 
tegrity and  purity  are  a  sacred  and  holy  thing  to  me. 
Bless  God,  with  me,  for  Catherine  Gaunt,  and  for  all  the 
sure  leadings  of  an  all-wise  and  loviug  Providence.  Yes ; 
now  I  feel  quite  prepared  to  renew  my  marriage  vow 
with  you,  to  keep  it  as  the  Savior  requireth,  who  looteth 
at  the  eye  and  the  heart.  Never  before  could  I  say  this. 
I  know  not  that  you  are  yet  able,  or  ever  will  be,  to  say 
this  to  7)ie.  Still,  with  what  profound  thankfulness  that 
I  am  corns  to  this  sm-e  foundation,  and  that  my  feet  are 
planted  on  the  rock  of  this  great  truth  you  cannot  at  all 
realize. 

When  you  yearn  toward  me  with  any  true  feeling,  be 
assured  of  the  tried,  purified,  and  restored  love  of 

Elizabeth. 

"Written  from  Schoharie. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  see  exactly  how  Mr.  TUton.  in  the 
jonfnsed  relations  of  the  affections  and  the  appetites 
that  he  himself  had  displayed  in  his  connection  with  the 


r  MR.   EYARTS.  741 

loose  theories  and  the  careless  speculations  that  he  had 
allowed  to  intrude  themselves  even  into  the  columns 
of  a  professedly  religious  and  Christian  newspaper.  The 
Independent ;  how  the  wife,  having  before  her,  and  al- 
ways insisting  upon  in  the  strongest  manner,  that  the 
preservation  of  the  purity  of  the  marriage  relation  on 
the  part  of  the  husband  and  of  the  wife,  was  at  the  very 
bottom  of  the  dignity,  the  morality  of  the  nature  and 
character  of  Christian  men  and  women  ;  and  how,  urging 
her  husband  in  1868  to  beware  of  these  moral  con- 
fusions and  these  bodily  contaminations,  and  pointing 
out  to  him  in  a  letter,  the  burniag  force  of  which  he  could 
not  bear  to  publish  till  he  had  mutilated  it  and  pre- 
sented it  as  a  confession,  or  a  hint  of  her  impurity,  in- 
stead of  an  expostulation  with  him  for  his  willful  grati- 
fication of  his  desires  ;  how  in  that  state  of  things  Mr. 
Tilton  finds  it  easy  to  say  she  did  not  for  a  year  afterward, 
after  she  had  made  the  communication  to  him  in  July, 
1870,  understand  or  feel  that  she  had  violated  her  mar- 
riage vow  to  him,  that  on  her  part  there  had  been  any 
injury  to  the  marriage  relation  or  any  just  cause  of  com- 
plaint by  him ;  that  whatever  she  had  stated  to  him 
concerning  this  entanglement  or  subtraction  of  affec- 
tion rested  there  and  only  there,  and  he  knew  it  and  she 
knew  it,  and  she  had  used  this  form  of  seK-reproaoh  and 
self-abasement  in  the  degree  of  having  allowed  af- 
fections to  disturb  the  unity  of  subordination  to  him 
in  all  affairs  as  a  means  of  renewing  upon 
Mm  the  impressions  that  had  been  so  pow- 
erfully produced  by  the  solemn  interview  of 
the  26th  of  Januaiy,  1868,  and  had  then  worn  away. 
And  it  was  only  when  she  read  Catherine  Gaunt,  that 
novel  to  'vhich  her  husband  had  referred,  in  her  letters  to 
him,  during  the  earlier  periods,  in  1867  or  1868,  that  she 
perceived  that  under  the  powerful  exposition  of  this 
writer  of  fiction  a  relation  between  a  clergyman  and  a 
married  woman,  that  had  no  pretense  of  impurity  in  it, 
had  yet  come  to  be  a  ground  of  discord  in  the  family,  of 
controversy  in  the  divided  allegiance  of  the  wife  to  the 
church,  in  which  her  husband  did  not  believe,  and  of  an 
estrangement,  and  of  the  consequences  of  driving  the 
husband  into  actual  adultery,  of  which  he  late  repented, 
and  for  which  he  was  pardoned  by  the  wife.  Now,  you 
see  how  this  work  of  fiction  played  into  the  inmost  heart 
of  this  woman,  Mrs.  Tilton,  on  both  of  these  points,  that 
purity,  unity,  absolute  subjection  to  the  husband,  must 
discard  even  the  attraction  of  the  affections,  through  the 
infiuence  of  a  pious  clergyman ;  and  then  she  saw,  as  un- 
der the  burning  light  of  the  sim,  how  it  could  be  carried 
into  the  sad  impressions  upon  the  husband  and  his  con- 
duct, of  plunging  him  in  actual  guilt ;  and  then  was  re- 
produced before  her  all  that  situation  whereby,  by 
her  own  abasement,  her  own  self-reproach,  her  own  tak- 
ing on  herself  of  sin,  in  not  being  so  acceptable  to  him 
and  so  compliant  to  him  as  to  satisfy,  and  attract, 
and  absorb    all    the    passions    and    attra^-tions  of 


742 


TEE    TlLTON-BmWRER  TRIAL. 


the  sex  for  him— she  really  made  herself  think 
that  she  was  responsible  for  the  overflow- 
ing  appetites  and  indulgences  of  this  hushand. 
And  then  she  saw  how  this  woman,  Catherine  Gannt,  had 
under  this  exposition  of  the  powerful  writer,  furnished  a 
lesson  to  her  that,  for  a  wife,  the  first  tendency  to  allow 
an  image,  even,  to  intervene  in  competition  with  the  hus- 
band's portrait  engraved  upon  her  heart  is  an  error;  and 
that  out  of  that  grow,  without  bodily  impurity  and  with- 
out any  sin  in  the  sense  of  the  loss  of  chastity  on  one 
side,  or  proposition  of  dishonor  on  the  other,  mischiefs 
that  cannot  be  measured  and  the  results  of  which  may 
be  deplorable. 


CATHERINE  GAUNT'S  FAULT. 
The  first  two  sentences  of  this  book  of  Mr. 
Reade's,  "  Griffith  Gaunt,"  show  you  at  once  what  the 
nature  of  this  lesson  taught  by  this  fiction  was.  The 
husband  says  to  the  wife  at  a  certain  stage  of  passion, 
excited  against  the  intimacy  betv/een  the  priest  and  the 
wife— the  husband  says:  "  Then,  I  say,  once  for  all,  that 
priest  shall  never  darken  my  doors  again ;"  and  the  wife 
replies :  "  Then,  I  say,  they  are  my  doors,  and  not  yours ; 
and  that  holy  man  shall  brightenthem  whenever  he  will." 
And  there  you  have  the  declaration  of  the  resistance,  of 
the  controversy  that  may  spring  up  in  an  entirely  pure 
and  pious  woman's  mind,  when  the  circumstances  bring 
her  into  that  form  of  contrariety  with  her  husband. 
Catherine  Peyton,  become  Catherine  Gaunt,  was  a 
Catholic,  and  her  husband  was  a  member  of  the  Es- 
tablished Church  of  England.  She  was  pious  and  devoted, 
an  earnest  and  honest  believer  in  the  Christian  faith, 
a  worker  in  all  the  good  ways  of  the  Church,  a  sup- 
porter of  all  its  great  teachings,  and  a  lover  of  all  its  great 
helps  to  the  conscience  and  the  soul.  The  husband,  well- 
meaning  enough,  and  moral,  if  you  please,  but  careless  and 
indifferent  to  religion,  having  no  sympathy,  not  with  the 
Catholic  opinions  but  no  sympathy  with  the  piety  and 
the  orthodoxy  of  the  wife,  and  the  confessor,  the  Father 
Confessor  in  whose  company,  and  in  whose  purposes,  and 
in  whose  faithful  labors,  the  wife  sympathized ;  whose 
intellect  she  admired,  whose  rapt  devotion  she  wor- 
shiped, and  whose  purity  and  power  as  a  servant  of 
God  she  sat  above  the  husband  and  his  indifference  and 
his  coarse  conduct ;  came  into  such  relations  of  mutual 
regard,  mutual  esteem,  mutual  appreciation,  that  this 
husband  was  led  into  controversy,  and,  being  like  a  great 
ma«iy  people,  that,  If  they  are  not  good  Christians  are 
yet  good  Protestants,  or  good  Catholics,  or  good  Episco- 
palians, or  good  Methodists,  or  good  Congregationalists, 
as  the  case  may  be,  into  the  antagonism  between  the 
churches  and  the  faiths,  and  having  his  feelings  in- 
flamed (not,  to  be  sure,  by  the  studied  art  of  an  Tago,  not 
by  the  close  attendance  of  some  modern  English  Sir 
Philip  Sydney,  but  under  the  impulses,  natural  to  the 
heart  of  man  m  seeing  the  greater  Inrtiellect,  and  the 


greater  piety,  and  the  greater  aspirations,  and  the 
greater  labors,  filling  the  wife's  imagination  and  sub- 
tracting her  by  degrees  from  the  earthly  and  vul- 
gar sympathies  that  belong  to  every-day  life- 
gets  finally  into  that  heat  of  jealous  passion 
which  swears  that  the  priest  shall  never 
darken  the  doors  again  ;  and  she,  replying,  not  very  po- 
litely, that  the  property  was  hers,  and  the  holy  man 
should  brighten  the  doors  as  often  as  he  chose,  began  the 
covirse  of  discord  and  separation  and  destruction,  which 
finally  ended  in  the  profligacy  of  the  husband,  in  the  ex 
posure  of  the  actual  pmlty  and  fidelity  of  the  wife,  and 
in  the  restoration  of  the  husband  to  her  -aftections,  him- 
self redeemed  from  the  stains  of  sin.  And  yet,  with  a 
literary  appreciation  of  that  novel,  and  of  all  the  senti- 
ments at  the  bottom  of  it.  Mr.  Tilton  has  not  hesitated  to 
make  this  a  ground  of  imputing  carnal  pollution  in  the 
place  of  what  he  knew  was  nothing  but  some  withdrawal 
of  affection  from  him  and  some  submission  and  devotion 
of  it  in  the  relations  of  the  clergyman  and  the  communi- 
cant, of  the  same  general  nature  as  that  between  Cat' 
erine  Gaunt  and  the  piiest.  Now,  this  is  where  Fath 
Francis  comes  in.  Father  Francis  had  been  the  first  co" 
fessor,  or  spiritual  director,  of  this  pious  lady,  and  he  wa 
a  man  apparently  of  that  large  practical  knowledge  of 
human  nature  which,  though  it  did  not  interfere  with  his 
piety  and  his  devotion  to  his  church,  and  his  duty  as  a 
priest  to  penitents  and  communicants,  yet  understood 
better  the  line  of  division  so  as  to  avoid  the  possibility  of 
any  confusion  between  the  duties  of  the  wife  to  a  hus_ 
band— any  sentiment,  I  mean— and  those  to  the  priest. 
And  when  Father  Leonard,  the  man  of  genius,  and  of  fire* 
and  of  rapt  devotion,  with  whom  this  disturbance  of  the 
wifely  relations  to  the  husband  had  grown  up,  had  with- 
drawn, and  Father  Francis  had  returned,  he  thus  talks 
with  the  woman  : 

"  Mj'  daughter,"  said  Father  Francis,  "  and  you,  who 
are  her  husband,  and  my  friend,  I  am  here  to  do  justice 
between  you  both,  with  God's  help,  and  to  show  you 
both  your  faults.  Catherine  Gaunt,  you  began  the  mis- 
chief by  encouraging  another  man  to  interfere  between 
you  and  your  husband  in  things  secular."  "  But,  Father, 
he  was  my  director,  my  priest."  "  My  daughter,  do  you 
believe,  with  the  Protestants,  that  marriage  is  a  mere 
civil  contract,  or  do  you  hold  with  us  that  it  is  one  of  the 
holy  sacraments  1"  "  Can  you  ask  me  ?"  murmured  Kate, 
reproachfully.  "  Well,  then,"  continued  Father  Francis, 
"  well,  then,  those  whom  God  and  the  whole  Church  have 
in  holy  sacrament  united,  what  right  hath  a  single  priest 
to  disunite  in  heart,  and  make  the  wife  false  in  any  part 
whatever  of  that  most  holy  vow  ?  I  hear,  and  not  from 
you,  that  Leonard  did  set  you  against  your  husband's 
friends,  withdrew  you  from  society,  and  sent  him  abroad 
alone ;  in  one  word,  he  robbed  yom'  husband  of  his  com- 
panion and  his  friend.  The  sin  was  Leonard's,  but  th© 
fault  was  yours." 


SUMMING    UP  B 

WHAT  ME.  Tn.TON  OMITTED  FROM  THE 
PUBLISHED  LETTER. 
You  see,  now,  as  lu  a  mirror,  the  heart  of  tMs 
woman,  the  life  of  this  woman,  and  you  see  this  plain- 
tiffs knowledge  of  tliat  heart  and  of  that  life ;  and  you 
see,  now,  how,  under  this  letter,  she  can  say,  "  I  see,  now, 
how  there  must  "be  no  toleration  nor  hospitality  to  pos- 
sible affections  that  may  interfere  with  the  whole  moral, 
the  whole  spiritual,  the  whole  practical  adhesion  of  the 
wife  to  the  husband  in  all  things,  small  and  great,  taking 
her  fate  with  him,  using  her  ministry  with  him,  submit- 
ting even  to  a  vicarious  sacrifice  of  her  own  life,  so  that 
she  may  keep  those  vows  that  attend  the  union  and  are 
to  preserve  the  unity  of  their  souls."  And  thus  she  says  : 

"Now,  althougn  your  opinions  are  not  restful  or  conge- 
nial to  my  soul"— that  is,  his  religious  opinions,  his 
social  opinions,  his  notions  about  family,  and  about 
faith—"  yet  my  own  integrity  and  purity  are  a  sacred  and 
holy  thing  to  me.  I  now  feel  quite  prepared  to  renew  my 
marriage  vow  with  you— I  have  always  kept  it  in  the  other 
sense— and  to  keep  it  as  the  Savior  requireth  who  looketh 
at  the  eye  and  the  heart.  I  know  not  that  you  are  yet 
able,  or  ever  will  be,  to  say  this  to  me." 

And  this  is  the  part  of  the  letter  that  Mr.  Tilton  omitted 
when  he  published  it,  and  put  in  no  asterisks  to  show 
that  there  was  a  gap  made : 

Still,  with  what  profound  thankfulness  that  I  am  come 
to  this  assured  foundation,  and  that  my  feet  are  planted 
on  the  rook  of  this  great  truth,  you  cannot  at  all  realize. 

Down  to  this  word  "  realize  "  all  was  left  out  of  the 
letter  as  Mr.  Tilton  published  it.  Now,  what  do  you 
gather  from  the  mutilation  of  a  wife's  letters  ?  It  was  bad 
enough,  base  enough  to  publish  them,  and  that  this  plain- 
tiff has  found  out,  in  the  estimates  of  his  fellow  men  and 
the  women  of  his  country,  long  before  this.  But  it  was 
a  baseness  to  put  a  misconstruction  upon  a  wife's  letters 
"by  this  mutilation,  and  to  murder  her  fame  by  falsifying 
her  communications  to  himself.  But  this  is  not  the  first 
or  the  only  instance  of  that  nature.  The  inferences  are 
terrible,  they  are  inevitable,  they  are  conclusive. 

THE   BEARING  OF  THE  LETTER  ON  THE 
CASE. 

And  now,  another  letter  introduced  by  the 
plaintiff,  following  this  one  by  only  five  or  six  days'  in- 
terval, written  from  the  same  place,  and  being,  no  doubt, 
the  first  communication  after  this  Catherine  Gaunt  Let- 
ter. [Reading.] 

Mt  Deak  Theodoke  :  I  had  expected  you  all  day  yes- 
terday and  to-day.  But  now  your  letter  was  put  into  my 
hand  instead.  I  feel  the  bitterest  disappointment.  But 
we  are  both  in  God's  hands,  and  I  now  hear  Him  say,  by 
my  heart's  intense  yearnings,  "  Eeturn  to  the  love  of 
your  youth."  Oh  !  my  dear  husband,  may  you  not  need 
the  further  discipline  of  being  misled  by  a  good  woman, 
as  I  have  been  by  a  good  man.  I  rejoice  in  your  happy 
lace  and  peaceful  mind,  though  I  am  not  in  any  wise  the 
cause.  It  will  be  God's  gift  alone  if  ever  your  face  Ulu- 
mLnes,  or  heart  throbs,  with  thoughts  of  me.  "  As  for 


Y  MB.   EVABTS.  743 

me,  I  will  wait  on  the  Lord."  I  tliank  you  for  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  last  vear. 

Turning,  now,  to  the  conclusions  produced  in  her  mind 
and  expressed  in  the  Catherine  Gaunt  letter  : 

You  have  been  my  deliverer.  Destroy  my  letters,  nor 
show  them  to  our  mutual  friends.  The  fear  of  this  would 
prevent  me  writing  my  inmost  self. 

So  that  Moulton  had  come  to  be  the  mutual  friend  of 
Elizabeth  and  Theodore,  as  well  as  of  Theodore  and  Mr. 
Beecher  !  Now,  gentlemen,  it  is  undoubtedly  very  hard 
that  Mr.  Beecher  should  be  judged  at  all,  either  by  the 
Catherine  Gaunt  letter,  or  by  this  letter,  which  were  let- 
ters in  which  he  had  no  act,  iu  which  he  was  not  passive 
as  the  recipient,  of  which  he  had  no  knowledge,  and 
which  simply  constituted  a  portion  of  the  manner  in 
which  this  husband  and  this  wife  deal  with  their  own 
relations,  and  with  the  best  manner  of  pleasing  one 
another  by  their  forms  and  manners  of  stating  them.  I 
have  shown  you  enough  of  the  plasticity  of  this  woman's 
heart  under  the  touch  of  this  man's  dominion.  I  have 
shown  you  enough  of  the  strangeness  of  its  own  opera- 
tions when  caught  in  currents  of  impression  and  of  ac- 
tion unsuitable  to  the  quiet,  devotional  spirit,  disturbing 
to  the  practical  charitable  labors  of  a  pious  woman,  in 
the  ordinary  conditions  of  life,  and  with  a  measure  of 
intelligence  no  doubt  considerable,  and  of  education,  no 
doubt  adequate,  and  of  practical  knowledge  which  be- 
longs to  qmet  and  pious  families  in  Broo  klyn,  not  so  ex- 
tensive as  that  that  is  gained  in  other  and  larger  expe- 
riences of  the  world.  I  say  it  is  hard  that  this  kind  of 
evidence  should  be  brought  to  bear  upon  Mr.  Beecher. 
The  first  letter  we  Introduced  no  doubt  for  its  exhibition, 
but  we  do  not  thereby  indorse  it  as  being  a  correct  ex- 
pression, or  a  sincere  feeling  even,  or  a  just  and  honest 
view  of  what  on  intimate  inspection  would  be  shown  to 
be  the  relations  of  the  husband  and  the  wife.  Enough 
for  us— that  letter  purges  at  once  all  possible  suggestion 
of  there  having  been  any  improper  relations  between  Islx. 
Beecher  and  the  wife  beyond  this  confusion  of  affections, 
and  this  division  and  disturbance  of  alleficiance.  Now,  1 
drew  from  Mr.  Tilton,  on  the  cross-examination,  that 
when  he  was  using  this  letter,  when  he  was  publishing  it, 
he  knew  perfectly  well  that  there  was  no  adultery  on  the 
part  of  the  wife  Catherine  m  "  Griffith  Gaunt ;"  he  knew 
there  was  an  abundance  on  the  part  of  Griffith,  the  hus- 
band. And  yet  he  published  that  letter,  mutilated  it, 
falsified  it,  and  produced  an  impression  throughout  this 
land  in  the  newspapers  that  that  was  a  confession  of 
adultery,  and  that  it  was  only  from  the  morality  of  this 
writer  of  fiction  that  his  wife  had  found  out  that  adul- 
tery was  an  impurity  and  an  impropriety.  It  is  a  good 
thing  to  have  a  husband,  especially  to  have  him  repre- 
sent you  to  the  rest  of  the  world  ;  and  that  is  the  way 
this  husband  has  represented  his  wife  throughout  this 
land,  with  the  perfect  consciousness  that  he  had  muti- 
lated her  letter,  and  that  he  had  deceived  the  unreading 


744 


Ta£j   TILION-BBEOHUB  TBIAL, 


puljlic  into  an  Impression  that  Catherine  Gaunt  liad 
opened  to  lier  tlie  sin  of  camal  pollution,  wliicli  liad  not 
seemed  to  her  to  be  a  sin  before. 

Now,  let  us  see  how  any  of  these  other  letters  of  the 
■wife  naturally  and  honestly  carry  any  impression  against 
her  in  respect  of  the  relations  between  herself  and  Mr. 
Beecher.  These  are  the  letters  that  passed  on  her  part 
from  the  8th  of  March,  1871,  the  second  on  the  2l8t  of 
April,  and  the  thu-d  on  the  3d  of  May  of  that  year.  Dur- 
ing this  period  of  the  effort  and  the  success  at  restored 
relations  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mrs. 
Tilton,  so  far  as  the  husband's  wishes  were  concerned, 
and  so  far  as  it  was  possible  that  there  should  be  any  re- 
newal going  beyond,  as  it  was  not,  going  beyond  sym- 
pathy, regard,  and  pity  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
something  in  the  nature  of  compunction,  regret,  and  suf- 
fering on  the  part  of  the  woman.  The  reason  these  let- 
ters—for they  were  brought  to  Moulton— the  reason  these 
letters  have  been  used,  either  by  this  husband  or  by  his 
faithful  friend,  Mr.  Moulton,  or  any  advisers  of  theirs, 
has  been  in  the  hope  of  inspiring  some  vile  and  filthy  sus- 
picion of  equivoque,  or  a  double  meaning.  I  have  de- 
nounced that  once  in  the  course  of  the  observations  I 
have  had  the  honor  to  submit  to  you,  and  I  don't  think 
that  any  renewal  of  that  construction  will 
be  presented  to  you  here,  if  indeed  during 
this  trial  there  has  been  no  disposition  to  take  that  view. 
Now,  the  letter  of  the  8th  of  March  is  just  a  month  after 
the  three  letters  of  the  7th  of  February  which  passed 
between  these  three  parties  in  the  nature  of  a  written 
restoration,  and  which  will  be  brought  to  your  attention, 
however,  very  briefly,  as  they  are  sufficiently  in  your 
minds.  Waiting  a  month,  the  wife  writes  to  Mr.  Beecher : 
My  Dear  Fkiend  :  Does  your  heart  bound  towards  all 
as  it  used  ? 

That  seems  to  be  a  quotation  made  in  previous  letters 
from  Hannah  More,  and  nobody  ever  suspected  Hannah 
More  of  pruriency. 

So  does  mine.  I  am  myself  again  [underscored.]  I 
did  not  dare  to  tell  you  until  I  was  sure.  But  the  bird 
has  sung  ia  my  heart  these  four  weeks,  and  he  has 
covenanted  with  me  never  again  to  leave.  "Spring" 
fwith  quotations]  "has  come."  Because  I  thought  it 
would  gladden  you  to  know  this  and  not  to  trouble  or 
embarrass  you  ia  any  way,  I  now  write.  Of  course  I 
should  like  to  share  with  you  my  joy,  but  can  wait  for 
the  Beyond  j_with  a  capital  B]  the  future  life.  When 
dear  Frank  says  I  may  once  again  go  to  old  Plymouth  I 
vnU  thank  the  dear  father. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  nothing  to  explain  about  that 
letter.  It  needs  no  explanation.  There  was  no  conscious- 
ness of  any  need  of  concealment  on  Mr.  Beecher's  part, 
for  he  brought  it  to  Mr.  Moulton  and  the  husband  saw  it. 
There  never  was  any  idea  that  there  was  any  wrong  in  it 
till  somebody's  foul  imagination  seized  upon  it,  and,  by 
imputing  filthy  doubles  entendres  read  it  before  the  land 
envenomed— envenomed  by  those  juices  that  were  bred 
In  the  head  of  the  toads  that  gave  it  this  meaning  which 


never  came  out  of  the  pure  heart  of  this  woman.  I  think 
you  need  have  nothing  more  about  that.  Obviously 
plain.  This  woman  was  suffering— why  shouldn't  she 
suffer  under  the  discordant  parts  she  had  played  in  the 
written  accusation,  the  retraction,  the  explanation,  the 
efforts  to  undo  the  mischief  in  the  production  of  which 
bhe  had  so  large  a  share  1  And,  when  these  letters  of  the 
7th  of  February  came  to  her  and  they  showed  her  hus- 
band's disposition  and  Mr.  Beecher's  disposition  toward 
her,  and  Mr.  Beecher's  disposition  of  friendliness, 
and  wish  for  the  welfare  of  her  husband, 
she  meditated  upon  them  during  the  month, 
and  she  watched  and  perceived  and  received  evidence  on 
her  husband's  part,  in  his  demeanor,  of  how  much  there 
was  really  of  restoration  of  the  broken  peace  of  the 
family,  and  at  last,  at  last,  when  Mr.  Tilton  had  weaned 
a  little  from  his  trouble  by  the  hopeful  dream  of  llie 
Golden  Age,  then  just  established,  and  looking  out  for 
prosperity  and  strength,  she  found  his  face  brighten,  his 
troubles  lighten,  his  domestic  attitudes  less  cruel,  less 
moody,  less  vengeful  in  regard  to  and  in  condemnation 
or  accusation  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  everything  was  re- 
stored on  the  surface,  and  everything  would  have 
remained  restored  and  undisturbed  in  the  future  if  the 
external  prosperity  of  Mr.  Tilton,  If  his  restoration 
toward  good  opinion  and  good  work  and  good  position 
and  good  income  and  respectable  relations  to  society  had 
been  built  up  as  was  the  effort,  and  the  wish,  and  the 
prayer  of  Mr.  Beecher ;  and  if  that  hopeful  scheme 
founded  upon  a  change  of  morals,  of  conduct,  of  senti- 
ment, and  of  action  in  Mr.  TUton  had  gone  on  in  its 
legitimate  and  expected  strength  and  amplitude  and  not 
been  overthrown  by  the  foolish  wickedness  or  the 
wicked  folly  of  his  relations  to  the  doctrines  and  hia 
admiration  of  the  character,  and  his  implication  of  him-  ^ 
self  before  the  coxmtry  in  sympathy  with  Victoria  Wood-  ^ 
hull,  her  life,  her  character,  her  teachings.  Well,  now,  on 
the  21st  of  AprU  another  letter  is  written,  and  it  sheda 
great  light  upon  the  situation  then. 

MRS.  TILTOIf  WANTS  THE  LETTERS  DE- 
STROYED. 

Everything  was  over  then ;  the  errors  and 
faults,  the  misunderstandings  on  all  sides  had  been  ex- 
plained, understood;  they  were  all  measurable;  they 
were  all  pardonable ;  they  had  all  been  made  the  subject 
of  consideration,  of  explanation  and  of  pardon,  wherever 
the  faults  were.  And  this  poor  lady,  assuming  that  open- 
ness and  straightforwardness  was  the  real  character,  the 
real  aiid  honest  traits  of  this  conciliation,  writes  thlc 
simple  note  to  Mr.  Beecher  : 

Friday,  April  21,  1872. 

Mk.  Bebchbr  :  As  Mr.  Moulton  has  returned  [that  is 
from  his  visit  South]  will  you  use  your  influence  to  have 
the  papers  in  his  possession  destroyed.  My  heart  bleeds 
night  and  day  at  the  injustice  of  their  exlatenoe. 

Those  papers  were,  as  she  apprehended,  her  acensatioB 


Sn^IMl.NG    UF  BY  ME 

ot  improper  advances,  her  retraction  (that  liad  also 

made  an  accusation  against  her  husband  of  forcing  her  to 
a  false  charge),  and  her  explanation  of  this  retraction 
"Which,  of  course,  when  read  one  after  the  other,  pre- 
sented a  pitiable  record  to  have  come  from  one  mind  or 
one  hand,  and  they  were  craftily  put  by  Mr.  Tilton  as 
coming  presumably  from  the  mind  and  the  hand  of  his 
wife,  for  they  had  her  signatures,  and  their  test  was 
traced  by  her  pen.   And  she  says  : 


BYABTS. 


745 


Jvow  that  Mr.  Moulton  is  baclr,  let  me  ask  you  to  use 
your  influence  to  have  the  papers  in  his  possession  de- 
stro^  ed.  My  heart  bleeds  m.s-ht  and  day  at  the  injustice 
of  their  existence. 

And  this  was  handed  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mr.  Moulton 
and  came  to  Mr.  Tilton's  knowledge,  and  if  the  piteous 
pleading  of  this  woman  to  her  husband,  and  her  hus- 
TDand's  friends  in  this,  her  language  could  not  produce 
tbe  response  of  destroying  the  papers  which  seemed  to 
her  in  their  continued  existence  so  great  an  injustice, 
and  for  which  her  heart,  bled  night  and  day,  what  selfish 
argument  of  IMr.  Beecher  could  have  availed  %  He  made 
none.  He  feared  nothing.  His  solicitude  was  always  for 
the  pain  and  suffering  of  others.  But  why  was  not  this 
wish  of  the  wife  attended  to  %  Why,  on  this  21st  day  of 
April,  when  that  prayer  came  to  the  husband  and  the 
husband's  friend  that,  now  that  peace  had  been  made, 
that  explanations  had  been  given,  that  her  retraction 
had  withdrawn  the  charge,  and  her  explanation  had 
withdrawn  the  evil  and  injury  towards  her  husband  that 
-was  em])©died  in  the  retraction ;  when  they  were  in 
peace,  and  when  Mr.  Beecher  was  restored  to  intimacy 
with  the  family,  so  far  as  he  regarded  it  suitable,  by  the 
express  action  of  the  husband,  why  should  n't  they  be 
destroyed?  Who  had  purposes  against  their  destruc- 
tion ?  Who  had  hopes  and  plans  and  schemes  of  further 
insidious,  secret  use  of  them  ? 

DEDUCTIONS  FEOM   "THE  POLICY  OF  SI- 
LENCE." 

Under  what  is  called  the  policy  of  silence— 
and,  like  so  many  other  things  in  this  cause,  tui'ns  out  to 
he  unilateral  silence— silence  on  one  side—"  Don't  speak 
except  through  us  ;  we  are  going  to  be  silent  under  mo- 
tives of  the  strongest  guarantee  for  our  silence.  All  we 
want  is  some  security  that  you,  Mr.  Beecher,  won't  tell 
of  these  things,  of  this  disorder,  of  this  disaster,  this  dis- 
grace in  Mr.  Tilton's  family."  Did  they  think  that  Mr. 
Beecher  was  in  danger  of  telling  of  it  if  it  was  adultery— 
if  it  was  to  destroy  his  life,  wreck  his  home,  break  up  his 
hold  upon  this  city,  this  country,  this  world  %  No !  "  We 
want  you  to  keep  silent,  now,  about  this  matter,  this 
charge  that  has  been  made  against  you,  that  has  been 
retracted,  and  accompanied  in  the  retraction  with  a 
charge  that  it  was  false  on  the  part  of  the  husband  and 
procured  by  force,  this  evidence  that  I  have  tried  for  my 
purpose  to  entrap  you  into  a  notion  that  my  wife  believes  I  Porter  has  shown  you  how  utterly  monstrous  and  how 


that  you  have  been  impure  In  your  purposes  and  your 
proposals  to  her,  which  she  has  rejected.  We  don't  want 
anybody  to  know  of  the  existence  of  that  turpitude  and 
that  disgrace."  It  was  the  same  feeling  that  led  Mr. 
Moulton  to  be  so  solicitous  on  the  Slst  of  December  to 
know  whether  Mr.  Beecher  had  shown  anybody 
Mr.  Tilton's  letter  of  the  26th  of  December, 
and  in  regard  to  which  IVIr.  Beecher's  answer  that  no- 
body but  him,  Moulton,  had  seen  it,  relieved  any  fear 
that  3Ir.  Tilton  was  to  be  cudgeled  with  public  oppro- 
brium and  public  denunciation  for  such  a  bold  and  brag- 
gart letter  as  that.  So  here  unilateral  silence  is  imposed 
upon  Mr.  Beecher,  for  Mr.  Tilton  does  not  hesitate  to  tell 
you  that  all  through  those  months  he  told  whom  he 
pleased,  and  just  as  much  as  he  pleased,  of  his  version, 
and  accompanied  it  with  just  as  much  of  the  garbled  ex- 
hibition, and,  of  course,  the  partial  inspection,  of  those 
to  whom  he  showed  this,  or  with  speck  or  scrap  of 
writing,  separated  from  the  rest.  There  is  but  one  other 
letter : 

Bkookltx,  May  3, 1871. 
Mr.  Beecher  :  My  future,  either  for  life  or  death,would 
be  happier  could  I  but  feel  that  you  forgave  while  yoa 
forget  me. 

Well,  now,  that  is  a  very  extraordinary  letter  for  a 
woman  that  had  been  ruined  by  confidence  in  a  man 
towards  whom  confidence  was  almost  an  absolute  duty, 
that  had  been  involved  in  the  final  sacrifice  of  personal 
purity,  for  which  she  had,  I  will  not  say  a  morbid  rever- 
ence— for  no  worship  of  chastity  by  a  woman  can  ever  be 
„ deemed  morbid;  it  is  the  very  health  of  her  as  a  woman 
—but  that  was  as  exacting  as  imiversal,  as  clear-sighted 
as  ever  was  proposed  by  priest  or  poet  as  the  rule  and  the 
guide  and  the  safeguard  of  woman's  life— it  certainly 
is  very  extraordinary  that  she,  with  those  relations, 
should  write  to  IMr.  Beecher: 

My  future  either  for  life  or  death  would  be  happier 
could  I  but  feel  that  you  forgave  while  you  forget  me.  In 

all  the  sad  complications  of  the  past  year  

Oh !  how  sad  they  must  have  been  between  her  and  her 
husband  when  such  a  wreck  came  at  the  close  of  it,  as 
this  submission  to  his  will  in  falsehood  and  in  calumny ! 

In  aU  the  sad  complications  of  the  past  year  my  en- 
deavor was  to  entirely  keep  from  you  all  suffering ;  to 
bear  myself  alone,  leaving  you  forever  ignorant  of  it. 
My  weapons  were  love,  a  large  untiring  generosity,  and 
nest  hiding!  [Underscored  and  with  an  a»Jmu"ation 
mark.  J  That  I  failed  utterly  we  both  know.  But  now  I 
ask  forgiveness. 

THE  TERM  "NEST-HIDING"  INTERPRETED. 

Now,  this  letter  handed  to  Moulton  has  been 
made  the  subject  of  publication  and  of  comment  in 
"  statements"  not  within  the  limits  of  this  ti'ial,  and  the 
world  must  consult  them  if  it  wishes  to  know  how  vile  an 
imputation,  from  some  man's  mind  and  heart,  has  been 
put  upon  that  word  "nest-hiding."    My  learned  brother 


746 


THE   TlLTOJ^-BEhJCHEB  TBlAIu 


shallow  and  frivoloiis  this  interpretation  is,  giving  an  ui 
decent  meaning  to  the  word  "nest-hiding,"  to  wit:  the 
meaning,  as  hy  a  slang  term,  of  the  adulterous  enjoy- 
ments that  had  passed  between  paramour  and  mistress. 
Now,  separated  from  the  paramour,  with  all  connections 
of  any  kind  terminated,  with  these  impure  connections, 
if  they  ever  existed,  confessedly  terminated  more  than  a 
year  bef  ore.she  writes  to  him  that,  dtiring  the  time  and  pe- 
riod of  the  present  troubles,  "  my  weapons  have  been  love,  a 
lari^e,  untiring  generosity,  and  "—adulterous  enjoyments ! 
Pray,  with  whom  a  mode  of  solace  so  delightful  t 
Well,  gentlemen,  husbands  and  husbands'  friends  and 
husbands'  advisers  are  hard  pressed  when  they  jump  into 
such  another  bramble-bush  as  this  is.  When  the  bramble- 
bush  of  the  fii'st  accusation  has  scratched  out  both  their 
eyes,  is  this  to  scratch  them  in  again  1  They  certainly 
are  "  wondrous  wise"  in  the  attempt.  Ah,  gentlemen, 
what  is  the  "  nest-hiding"  that  has  been  the  solace  and 
the  weapon  against  the  wickedness  of  others  and  the  pains 
of  the  doubts  and  suspicions  and  accusations  that  have 
been  circulated  1  You  have  all  heard  of  the  embodied 
scorn  with  which  men  have,  in  a  proverb,  denounced  the 
"  evil  bird  that  fouls  his  own  nest,"  and  you  have  all 
heard  of  that  symbol  of  devotion  and  self-sacriflce,  the 
wounded  mother  bird,  which,  while  her  life  is  ebbing, 
hides  from  the  pui'suing  fowler  the  young  in  her  nest  by 
smothering  the  groans  of  a  dying  bird  lest  they  should  be- 
tray the  nest ;  and  that  is  the  weapon  by  which  a  pious 
woman  and  a  loving  mother  seeks  to  protect  her  young, 
even  the  nest  that  the  evil  bird  has  sought  to  foul  I  So 
much  for  the  letters ! 

• 

MR.  BEECHER'S  REMORSE. 

We  now  come  to  tlie  interview  on  the  day 
after  that,  which  I  exposed  by,  I  thinlf,  a  just  criticism 
to  your  attention  yesterday,  I  mean  the  interview  of  Sun- 
day the  first  day  of  Januarj^  at  Mr.  Beecher's  house,  be- 
tween Mr.  Moulton  and  himself.  Now,  gentlemen,  what 
was  the  purpose,  what  the  tone,  what  the  temper  of  that 
interview?  Mr.  Moulton  seems  to  have  stuck  pretty 
close  to  Mr.  Beecher  from  the  time  that  he  commenced 
operations  on  the  30th.  He  followed  him  all  that  night 
around  the  streets  and  did  not  let  him  get  out  of  his 
sight ;  he  followed  him  up  on  Saturday,  certainly  with  an 
interview  that  was  not  sought  by  Mr.  Beecher,  that  was 
wholly  unexpected,  and  that  had  a  very  definite  object, 
to  reprieve  certain  errors  and  impose  upon  the  feelings  of 
Mr.  Beecher  and  induce  him  not  to  do  anything  that 
should  make  Mr.  Tilton  think  that  he,  Beecher,  had  an 
ill  disposition  toward  him  ;  and  then  he  comes  to  another 
interview  that  occupies  all  Sunday  afternoon.  Mr. 
Beecher,  it  is  said,  at  the  close  of  that  interview,  on 
Saturday,  had  suggested  that  Mr.  Moulton  should  let  him 
know  whether  this  notion  of  his,  that  giving  up  the  re- 
traction to  tbe  custody  of  Mr.  Moulton  would  tend  to 


harmony  and  peace,  was  correct,  and  whether  It  wa« 
likely  to  be  nroductive  of  those  results. 

Now,  Mr.  Moulton  comes  to  Mr.  Beecher's  in  the  after* 
noon  of  Sunday,  and  I  will  read  you  from  Moulton's  testi- 
mony what  plainly  was  the  whole  object  of  that  inter- 
view : 

"  How  did  it  happen  that  you  went  there  1"  He  says  it 
was  by  his  invitation ;  and  then  he  began :  "  I  told  Mr. 
Beecher  that  I  had  taken  the  retraction  to  Mr.  Tilton,  and 
that  I  had  told  Mr.  TUton  that  it  would  have  been  very 
foolish  for  him  to  have  carried  his  threat  of  the  morning 
into  execution.  I  told  him  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  pleased 
with  my  haviug  procured  the  retraction ;  and  I  told  Mr. 
Beecher  that  Mr.  Tilton  seemed  to  me  to  be — I  told  him 
that  I  thought  that  I  told  him  that  Tilton 
told  me— [that  is  the  only  way  the  law  allowed 
him  to  give  it,  to  tell  it]— that  he  had  made  up  his  mind 
that,  no  matter  what  came  to  himself,  he  would  under- 
take to  protect  the  reputation  of  his  wife  at  all  hazards. 
Then  Mr.  Beecher  said  to  me  that  he  was  in  misery  on 
account  of  the  crime  that  he  had  committed  against 
Theodore  Tilton,  and  his  wife  and  family ;  he  said  that  he 
would  be  willing  to  make  any  reparation  that  was  within 
his  power;  he  said  that  Mr.  Tilton,  he  thought,  would 
have  been  a  better  man  under  the  circumstances  in  which 
he  had  been  placed  than  he  had  been;  that  he  felt  that 
he  had  done  a  great  wrong."  ■ 

Now,  see  Mr.  Beecher's  reasoning : 

He  felt  he  had  done  a  great  wrong,  because  he  w 
Theodore  Tilton' s  friend,  he  was  his  wife's  friend  and  p 
tor,  and  he  wept  bitterly. 

Now,  look  at  it.  They  never  can  tell  a  story  about  t 
emotions  and  an  elevated  mind  or  a  purified  heart — ^the. 
never  can  tell  a  story  about  a  crime  or  an  iniquity,  with- 
out missing  the  whole  point  of  its  guilt  or  its  wickedness. 
Oh,  no,  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  troubled  art  his  having, 
wliile  a  clergyman,  a  man  prof  essing  faith  in  God  and  love 
to  man,  and  ministering  at  the  altar  of  religion,  himself  the 
husband  of  his  own  wife  and  the  father  and  grandfather 
of  his  own  family— there  was  not  a  notion  in  his  mind 
that  committing  adultery  with  the  wife  of  another  per- 
son had  in  it;  any  touch  of  sin,  for  which  a  man  should 
feel  remorse  and  acknowledge  misery ;  but  he  felt  this 
miseiy  for  the  wrong  he  had  done  "  because  he  was 
Theodore's  friend  and  pastor,  and  his  wife's  friend  and 
pastor,  and  he  wept  bitterly  1"  Now,  see  how  that  fits 
entirely  the  area  and  character  and  nature  of  the  offense 
for  which  Mr,  Beecher  then,  and  ever  since,  and  now— so 
far  as  the  situation  be  truthfully  supposed,  under  the 
evidence,  to  exist  as  it  existed  in  his  mind  under  the 
representations  of  others  at  that  period— has  felt,  feels, 
and  will  always  feel  that,  if  indeed  he,  the  friend  of  Mr. 
Tilton,  the  pastor  of  Mr  Tilton  and  his  family  (whether 
Mr.  Tilton  was  a  faithful  and  devout  worshiper  or  not  at 
his  church),  and  the  friend  and  the  pastor  of  Mrs.  Tilton, 
had  heedlessly  and  blindly  allowed  an  intimacy 
that  began  and  proceeded  on  the  footing  of 
pastor  and  parishioner  to  come  to  a  point  where  it  led  to 
the  wrong  that  is  portrayed  in  this  "  GritHth  Gaunt "  so 
pointedly  by  Father  Francis  in  commenting  upon  the 


SU]\1MI^'G    UP  BY  ME.  EYARTS. 


747 


conduct  of  Father  Leonard  and  tlie  wife,  Catlierine 
Gaunt,  tliat  if  tbis  were  so  he  was  indeed  greatly  to 
blame.  You  see  it  here,  just  as  before  in  the  interriew  of 
Saturday  night,  when  :Mr.  Beecher  says,  "  If  I  have  fallen 
at  all,  if  I  have  fallen  into  this  mischievous  situation  at 
all,  if  it  is  true  what  he  told  me  about  the  wife's  aftec- 
tions,  thank  God  I  have  not  fallen  except  by  errors  of  a 
course  of  respectful  attention  and  affection,  and  not 
under  any  pursuit  of  carnal  sin  or  under  the  impulse  of 
any  carnal  passion."  But,  now,  we  have  it  on  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's  own  showing  that  the  whole  point,  the  whole 
weight,  the  whole  fact  of  error  and  proportionate  suffer- 
ing on  Mr.  Beecher's  part  is,  not  that  he  has  committed  a 
mortal  sin  that  is  a  mortal  sin  in  everybody,  but  that  he 
has,  through  his  pastorate  and  imder  the  guise  and  cov- 
ering of  his  friendship,  created  an  intimacy  that  has  pro- 
duced this  mischief. 

Well,  Mr.  Moulton  sees  the  working  of  the  heart  of  this 
large-hearted  man ;  he  sees  how  Mr.  Beecher  feels  for 
this  suffering  and  this  wrong,  and  how  he  puts  reproaches 
on  himself  that  he  has  had  this  unconscious  and  yet,  as 
he  now  sees  and  feels,  not  innocent  share  in  it ;  and  what 
does  he  say  then  ?  Why,  he  says  : 

Mr.  Beecher,  why  don't  you  say  that  to  Mr.  Tilton  ? 
Why  don't  you  express  to  hmi  the  grief  you  feel  and  the 
contiition  for  it  ?  You  can  do  nothing,  more  than  that ; 
and  I  think  I  know  Theodore  Tilton  well  enough  to  know 
that  he  would  be  satisfied  with  that,  for  T  know  he  loves 
liis  wife  ;  and  Mr.  Beecher  told  me  to  take  pen  and  paper 
and  to  write  at  his  dictation. 

And  then  he  wrote,  Moulton  says,  this  letter.  Now, 
what  was  this  threat  that  Mr.  Moulton  told  Mr.  Beecher 
that  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  and  that  he,  Moulton,  had  told 
him,  Tilton,  that  he  was  wise  in  not  carrying  out  %  When 
Mr.  Tilton  had  discovered  and,  if  you  believe  him, 
denounced  the  adultery  of  his  wife  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
the  guilty  paramour,  he  had  not  shown  any 
emotion  or  any  purpose  of  smiting  Mr.  Beecher— no 
touch  of  resentment  or  of  threat  about  that ;  but  when 
Mr.  Beecher,  after  telling  him  it  was  all  a  dream,  his  ac- 
cusation, and  that  Elizabeth  could  not  have  said  so  be- 
cause it  was  not  true,  had  gone  to  Elizabeth,  upon  the 
invitation  of  the  husband,  and  got  her  admission  that  it 
was  not  true,  and  so  Mr.  Tilton  had  been  got  into  that 
new  awkwardness,  then  Tilton  began  to  thi-eaten,  and 
what  was  the  threat  ? 

I  told  Mr.  Beecher  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  said  that  for 
the  offense  of  having  gone  to  his  wile  and  procured  that 
retraction  he  would  smite  him. 

And  after  Moulton  had  had  his  interview  and  obtained 
the  surrender  of  the  retraction  he  had  told  Mr.  Tilton  it 
would  have  been  foolish,  and  he  told  Mr.  Beecher  that  he 
had  told  him  that.  Now,  this  affair  of  January  1 1  caU  your 
attention  to.  In  a  manner  not  connected  with  the  main  in. 
terest  and  purpose  of  it,  or  with  this  written  letter,  as  It 
Is  called,  or  memorandum,  but  there  came  to  be,  on  Jan- 


uary 1,  somehow  or  at  some  time  in  the  interview, 
something  of  this  kind. 

Q.  Up  to  this  time  had  Mr.  Beecher  told  you  when 
those  relations  existing  between  himself  and  Mrs.  Tilton 
ceased  1   A.  He  told  me  that.  Sir,  on  January  1. 

Q.  W^hat  was  said  upon  that  subject  1  A.  He  said  that 
Elizabetli  Tilton  had  sent  for  him  to  come  to  her  house, 
and  told  him  that  she  believed  that  their  relations  were 
wrong,  and  he  told  me  that  he  said  to  her,  "  If  you  believe 
these  relations  wrong,  then  they  shall  be  terminated ;  '* 
and  he  told  me  that  he  prayed  with  her— prayed  to  God 
mth  her,  for  help  to  discontinue  their  sexual  relations. 

Well,  but  I  thought  that  on  the  husband's  theory  Eliza- 
beth didn't  think  it  was  wrong  at  all ;  that  it  had  never 
entered  into  her  head  that  there  was  anything  wrong  in 
it  except  under  the  inspiration  of  Catherine  Gaunt,  a 
year  after,  and  that  she  thought  she  never  had  violated 
her  marriage  vows  ;  but  now  we  see  that  as  soon  as  the 
idea  is  introduced  to  Mr.  Beecher's  mind  that  anybody 
could  think  there  was  anything  wrong  in  it  [laughter], 
why,  of  course,  he  would  not  wish  to  do  anything  that 
anybody  in  the  world  would  think  was  wrong,  and  then, 
with  that  piety  and  devotion  which  should  characterize  a 
clergyman  even  when  an  adulterer  [laughter],  he  pro- 
poses that  they  shall  seek  Divine  aid  in  terminating 
their  sexual  relations.  I  tried  to  get  from  Mr.  Moulton, 
on  a  cross-examination,  whether  this  specific  phrase 
"  sexual  relations,"  was  in  the  body  of  the  prayer,  or 
whether  it  was  only  sufficiently  referred  to  to  an  all- 
seeing  and  all-knowing  God  to  have  it  understood 
[laughter],  but  I  did  not  suc  ceed.  That  termination  by 
prayer,  he  thinks,  occurred  in  July,  1870.  Well,  now, 
that  shows  the  confusion  of  mind.  Why,  this  affair 
between  the  wife  and  the  husband,  this  communication, 
or  whatever  it  was,  about  the  priestly  interference  in 
their  household,  was  made  in  July,  and  in  the  very  tenns 
of  his  story  it  appears  that  all  these  relations  had  been 
terminated  a  considerable  time  before  that.  But  see  the 
confusion. 

THE  GETTING  OF  THE  CONTRITION  LETTER. 

Mr.  Beecher  had  said  to  Tilton,  or  Moulton, 
or  somebody,  at  some  time  or  otlier,  that  it  was  very  ex- 
traordinary that  there  should  be  this  story,  or  this  feel- 
ing, or  this  trouble  between  the  wife  and  the  husband, 
about  this  estrangement  and  about  his  interference  with, 
the  f amUy,  and  the  bringing  up  of  the  children,  and  all 
that,  and  that  that  should  have  been  in  July,  and  that  lie 
should  have  been  sent  for  by  Mrs.  Tilton  to  visit  her  in  her 
illness  in  August  when  he  had  visited  her  and  given  her 
such  advice  and  aid  as  the  suffering  of  her  mind  as  dis- 
closed to  him  required,  and  that  he  then  should  have 
prayed  with  her,  as  he  did,  as  her  pastor,  and  that,  11 
there  had  been  any  such  rupture  between  husband  and 
wife,  or  occasion  of  complaint  in  regard  to  his  relations 
and  influence  in  the  family,  she  never  should  have  men- 
tioned it ;  and  out*  of  that  slender  state  of  facts  Mr, 
Moulton  concludes  to  pat  his  oonstruction,  and  his  al>< 


748 


IHE   T1LT0N-BKE(]EEU  TBIAL. 


surd  and  mixed  and  Maspliemous  representa- 
tion of  the  dealing  of  this  preacher  and  of 
this  pious  woman  on  the  subject  of  adultery. 
On  cross-examination  Mr.  Moulton  says : 

I  said,  *•  Mr.  Beecher,  if  you  feel  in  this  way  toward 
Mr.  Tilton,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  you  would  so  express 
yourself  to  him  it  would  make  an  end  of  all  this  trouble 
[Trouble !]  ;  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  the  best 
thing  that  you  could  do  to  so  state  to  him." 

Now,  what  is  Mr.  Beeclier's  account  of  it  1 

Mr.  Moulton  said  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  set  against  me ; 
that  he  felt  that  I  was  his  enemy,  and  that  I  had  done 
wrong  to  hi  in,  both  in  his  business  relations  and  that  T 
had  sought  to  undermine  his  influence  in  the  community. 
It  was  the  harder  because  the  implication  was,  or  the 
statement  that  I  had  made  use  of  my  acquired  reputa- 
tion, and  my  position  as  the  head  of  a  great  churcli,  and 
my  relation  to  the  community— tliat  all  those,  aside  from 
my  mere  personal  action,  had  gone  to  overshadow  and  in- 
jui'e  him.  I  protested  against  any  such*  idea.  That  he 
liad  occasion  to  think  that  I  had  done  him  wrong  in  the 
matters  of  Mr.  Bo  wen,  I  was  ashamed  to  be  obliged  to  ad- 
mit. That  I  had  done  him  intentional  wrong  in  his  family, 
I  denied  ;  but  that  had  wronged  him  there,  it  was  very 
evident,  it  seemed  to  me,  from  the  present  condition  and 
action  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  WeU,  we  went  over  the  same  ground 

a  good  many  times  *  *  *  *     On  the  whole,  I   Mr. 

Moulton  was  far  less  severe  with  me  than  I  was  with  my- 
self, and  at  times,  as  it  were,  deprecated  my  own  strong 
language  against  myself,  and  said,  as  the  interview  drew 
toward  a  close,  that  if  TUton  could  only  hear  what  he 
had  heard,  he  was  satisfied  that  it  would  remove  from 
his  mind  animosity,  and  the  conviction  that  he  had  that 
I  was  seeking  his  ruin.  "  Well,"  said  I— I  said  to  him, 
"  state  what  you  see  and  hear ;  I  have  opened  my  heart 
to  you."  Said  he,  "Write— write  these  statements,  or 
some  of  them,  to  Mr.  Tilton."  Well,"  said  he, 

"  let  me  write  it,"  or  something  to  that  effect,  and  I  said, 
"  I  have  no  objection  to  your  writing  it,"  and  he  sat  down 
at  the  table,  but  the  conversation  didn't  stop.  I  ampli- 
fied and  went  on,  and  finally  he  said  to  me,  "  Well,  I  will 
say  so  and  so." 

And  then  lie  went  on  with  the  memorandum,  which  I 
will  for  the  moment  omit,  in  either  of  the  modes  of  stat- 
ing it ;  but  before  we  come  to  the  memorandum  I  called 
Mr.  Beecher's  attention  to  what  Mr.  Moulton  said  in  tliat 
conversation  in  regard  to  the  eouriition  of  misfortune 
and  disaster  in  which  Mr.  Tilton  and  his  affairs  were 
placed.  The  answer  was : 

He  spoke  of  Mr.  Tilton  as  being  a  man  of  great  ability 
and  of  great  reputation,  standing  among  the  highest  in 
the  land,  and  that  he  had  suddenly,  by  the  ill-will  or  the 
misconduct  of  Mr.  Bowen,  been  preciptated  from,  i)er- 
liaps,  the  proudest  position  a  literary  man  could  aspire 
to;  that  he  had  not  simply  lost  that  place,  but  lost  it 
under  circumstances  that  damaged  his  reputation,  and 
tliat  not  only  had  it,  the  means  of  his  reputation,  or, 
rather,  not  only  had  the  means  and  influence  gone  with 
liis  reputation,  but  that,  suddenly,  with  a  large  family  on 
his  hands,  or  expensive  family— some  word  to  that  effect 
—Ms  means  were  cut  off,  and  he  had  no  prospect  in  life 
except  to  rebuild,  but  all  the  accustomed  channels  were 
suddenly  shut  up  to  him.  He  then  said  that  the  man  had 
nohometo  which  he  could  fall  back;  that  there  was  dis- 
cord there  and  alienation,  and  that  he*  had  not  only  thus 
jost  all  public  position,  but  his  domestic  position  was  also 


stormed.  He  described  the  condition  of  his  family  and  ol 
the  little  children  piteously. 

Q.  During  this  interview,  was  anything  said  by  Mr. 
Moulton  as  to  your  blaming  yourself  more  than  you 
ouglit— anything  of  that  kind  ?  A.  Yes,  Sii* ;  on  several 
occasions  he  said  he  thought  I  was  putting  it  too  strongly ; 
that  the  matter  was  not  so  severe  as  I  had  laid  it 
upon  myself.  He  thought  that  the  family  relationship 
might  with  kindly  care  be  repaired. 

Q.  Did  he,  while  you  were  stating  to  him  what  you 
understood  to  be  the  fault  or  misfortune  from  your  con- 
nection with  his  family  affairs,  say  that  it  was  anything 
different  or  other  than  what  you  stated  it  ?  A.  No,  Sir ; 
no.  Sir;  he  did  not.  It  was  not  a  condemnatory  inter- 
view ;  it  was  a  sympathetic  and  most  friendly  interview 
between  him  and  me.  There  was  nothing  in  his  tone, 
nothing  in  his  manner,  nor  in  his  language  or  charges, 
that  savored  of  it. 

Q.  How  did  he  express  himself  as  regards  any  object, 
or  the  result  of  the  interview  1  A.  He  was  laboring  to 
bring  to  pass  such  a  reconciliation  between  Mr.  Tilton 
and  me— such  a  better  understanding,  each  of  the  other, 
as  should  avail  for  the  peace  of  that  family  and  the 
restoration  of  Mi'.  Tilton  to  prosperity  and  to  good  name. 

ME.  TILTON'S  THREAT  TO  MR.  WILKESON. 

Now,  compare  with  tMs  light  thrown  upon 
this  interview,  and  upon  this  situation,  and  upon  the  na- 
ture of  Mr.  TUton's  feelings  in  measuring  his  own  griev- 
ance, his  own  disaster,  and  the  relief  he  needed,  and  the 
resort  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  whatever  complaint  he  had  to 
make  in  regard  to  that  resort,  as  given  in  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Wilkeson,  and  you  see  at  once  how  the  moment 
you  get  outside  of  testimony  that  comes  from  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  you  get  at  confirmation  in  a 
manner  that  does  not  touch  discrepancies  of  language, 
but  determines  which  is  the  true  basis  upon  which  you 
are  to  pass  as  a  fact  in  determining  whether  or  no  there 
ever  was  any  fact  of  guilt  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr. 
Beecher,  or  any  grievance  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton  as 
toward  Mr.  Beecher  of  the  grave,  distinct,  unequivocal 
nature  of  the  ruin  of  a  wife,  and  the  husband's  and 
childi'en's  honor.  You  may  remember  that  Mr.  Tilton 
stroUed  into  Mr.  WUkeson's,  and  proposed  to  publish  an 
article,  to  wit,  The  Golden  Age  slip  article. 

I  asked  him  if  he  really  mtended  to  publish  that  article. 
He  said  he  did,  unless  justice  was  done  him  by  Mr. 
Beecher.  He  wanted  $7,000  from  Bowen.  I  remon- 
strated with  him  against  the  publication  of  that  arti- 
cle. I  told  him  that  it  would  be  enormously  mischiev- 
ous ;  that  it  would  produce  a  scandal  that  would  extend 
throughout  Christendom  ;  I  told  him  it  would  do  infinite 
wrong  and  work  infinite  mischief. 

Well,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Wilkeson  was  right  in  his 
forecast : 

He  said  that  It  was  his  purpose  to  publish  it  unless 
justice  was  done  him. 

Look  at  the  nature  of  the  man.  Unless  he  got  $7,000 
out  of  Bowen,  he  was  going  to  publish  to  the  world  what 
he  did  not  deny  would  be  an  infinite  mischief,  what  he 
did  not  deny  would  Involve  conflicting  opinions,  con- 
flicting comments,  conflicting  views,  divisions  in  society, 


SUMMIJSa    UF  BY  MB.  EVABTS. 


749 


argumeiits  against  religion  and  morality,  triumpli 
of  the  "wiclced,  predominance,  tov  tlie  time  toeing, 
ot  tlie  evil  influences  of  society,  and  hanging  the 
head  and  shame  on  the  part  of  the  good  that  believed  in 
the  elevation  of  human  nature  and  in  its  future  hopes. 
"  Well,  I  don't  care  for  all  that.  I  am  going  to  do  it  unless 
justice  is  done  to  me."  And  you  will  find  throughout 
that  to  Mr.  TUton  Mr.  Tilton  Is  the  central  figure  in  the 
universe,  and  interests  that  are  hounded  only  toy  Chris- 
tendom—in Mr.  Wilteson's  phrase— and  feelings  and  sen- 
timent that  touch  the  heart-strings  of  his  wife  and  the 
happiness  of  the  children,  have  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
"  I  am  going  to  putolish  it  unless  justice,  in  the  matter  of 
$7,000,  is  done  to  me."  That  is  what  he  is  going  to  do. 
"  Justice  shall  be  done  although  the  Heavens  fall."  That 
is,  justice  to  Tilton  shaU  be  done,  although  all  manner  of 
injustice  and  injury  come  to  all  the  rest  of  the  world. 
And  yet  he  has  told  you  that  at  the  outset  his  whole 
object  in  going  to  Mr.  Beecher  was  to  be  secure  that 
In  the  inflammation  of  the  calumnies  of  Bowen 
against  him,  and  the  publicity  and  discussion 
of  them,  there  might  come  some  side  wind,  and  he 
was  determined  to  protect  his  wife  and  children  that 
even  a  side  wind  should  not  visit  them  too  roughly. 
And  yet  he  says,  "I  will  inflame  that  fls:ht  between 
Bowen  and  Beecher ;  I  will  put  it  in  every  newspaper : 
I  will  make  the  war,  if  I  don't  get  $7,000." 

"  Then  he  went  on  to  speak  of  Mr.  Bowen  ;  he  said  that 
Mr.  Bowen  had  dismissed  him  from  his  employment  on  Ihe 
Independent,  and  on  The  GhrisUan  and  on  The  Brook- 
lyn Union,  and  that  he  had  violated  his  contracts  with 
him  to  render  editorial  services  for  certain  salaries  on 
each  paper;  that  he  had— that  Mr.  Bowen  had  deprived 
him  ot  his  income  ;  that  his  dismissal  from  those  papers 
had  ruined  his  reputation,  and  had  destroyed  him ;  and 
he  went  on  growing  m  excitement,  and  he  said  "—now 
this  is  the  share  Beecher  had  in  it—"  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  not  come  to  his  help;  that  he  was  a  man  of  such 
power  that  he  could  with  his  little  finger  have  lifted  him 
up  in  his  troubles;  but  that  as  he  laid  on  the  sidewalk  in 
Brooklyn,  crushed  and  ruined  by  Bowen's  treatment  of 
him,  and  by  the  consequences  of  his  loss  of  employment 
on  those  two  papers,  and  the  injury  done  to  his  reputa- 
tion, that  Mr.  Beecher.  who  with  his  little  finger  had  the 
power  to  Lift  him  up  and  reinstate  him,  had  passed  him 
by  indifferent,  and  had  not  helped  him,  had  left  him  lying 
there ;  and  moving  across  the  room  back  aud  forth,  in 
great  excitement,  he  said  he  would  pursue  Mr.  Beecher 
into  the  grave." 

—for  that.  Now,  what  a  flood  of  light  that  sheds  back 
on  the  grievance,  on  the  purposes  of  these  interviews,  in 
the  last  week  of  December,  on  the  truth  that  breaks  out 
from  Moulton,  that  Tilton  wanted  to  be  sure  that  Beecher 
did  not  hate  and  abhor,  and  did  not  mean  to  visit  upon 
him,  Tilton.  the  consequences  of  the  injuries  that  Tilton 
had  done  to  him.   Schullz  says  the  same  thing.   He  says : 

His  statements  [that  is,  Tilton'sj  then  were  that  Bowen 
had  committ(;d  a  great  wrong  to  him,  and  that  Mr. 
Beecher  had  failed  to  reach  out  his  hand  to  save  him,  as 


he  could  have  done ;  that  he  failed  to  manifest  that  inter- 
est in  him  which  he  had  a  right  to  expect. 

That  was  the  substance  of  his  statement.  And  Mr. 
Moulton  told  Mr.  Charles  Storrs  about  this  business,  and 
this  situation,  at  this  date: 

Mr.  Moulton  stated  it  was  all  wrong,  his  being  dis- 
charged, and  that  it  was  a  mistake,  and  that  he,  Tilton, 
should  be  reinstated;  he  said  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  the 
same  to  The  Independeyit  as  Mr.  Greeley  was  to  The 
New- York  Tiiibune,  and  that  he  should  see  Mr.  Bowen, 
to  have  him  reinstated. 

Now.  gentlemen,  Mr.  Tilton  was  brought  back  to  the 
stand  after  Mr.  Wilkeson  had  told  all  this  story,  and  he 
didn't  contradict  it.  Did  he  overlook  Mr.  Wilkeson's  tes- 
timony, or  bis  counsel  overlook  it  %  Oh,  no  !  He  was 
asked  to  contradict  one  passage  in  it,  and  if  he  contra- 
dicted it  at  all,  he  meant  to  contradict  it  in  a  way  that 
would  carry  conviction  to  yovu"  minds  that  Wilkeson  lied, 
and  that  he,  Tilton,  spoke  the  truth,  because  the  fact  was 
at  the  bottom  that  would  show  which  spoke  the  truth ; 
the  same  as  about  the  gray  hairs,  and  about  the  portrait 
at  Moulton 's  house,  when  Moulton  wanted  to  give  evi- 
dence that  he  spoke  the  truth  and  Mr.  Beecher  did  not. 
He  is  asked  about  a  conversation  that  Wilkeson  had 
given  as  occurring  about  the  y^ar  1865,  I  think,  at 
Wasliington,  in  which  Mr.  Wilkeson  had  described 
a  conversation  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  himself  at 
a  dinner  table  at  a  hotel  at  Washington,  when 
they  were  both  there,  and  when  Mr.  Tilton 
came  over  and  exhibited  to  Mr.  Wilkeson  the  portraits  of 
his  wife— Tilton's  wife— and  some  of  his  children,  such  as 
he  had,  I  suppose,  at  that  date,  and  that  he  made  some 
not  very  polite  comments,  Tilton  did,  about  his  wife ; 
that  Wilkeson  would  be  disappointed  about  her ;  that  she 
was  of  a  mean  appearance,  and  had  not  been  developed 
as  he  had  been  since  their  marriage  ;  but  stUl  he  spoke  of 
her  as  his  wife,  and,  of  com-se,  in  a  suitable  manner. 
Now,  Mr.  Tilton  wants  to  deny  all  that,  and  he  says  that 
he  had  an  interview,  tliat  if  he  should  state  it  exactly  as 
it  occurred,  it  would  be  a  personal  injury  to  Mr.  WUke- 
son.  We  have  had  a  great  many  suggestions  of  what 
infinite  mischief  would  come  from  telling  the  truth. 
Well,  he  was  not  tender  about  IVIi-.  Wilkeson  ;  because  in 
his  first  examination,  before  Mr.  Wilkeson  come  on  the 
stand,  he  said  Wilkeson  was  a  liar.  He  did  not  measui-e 
his  words.  He  propitiatei  your  attention  to  Mr.  Wilke- 
son's testimony,  if  he  should  happen  to  be  called  as  a  wit 
ness,  by  giving  you  his,  Tilton's,  opinion  that  Wilke- 
son was  a  liar.  So  this  delicacy  about  Wilke- 
son's feelings — Wilkeson  since  that  had  given 
this  testimony,  that  went  right  into  the  heart 
of  this  conspiracy,  and  exposed  the  whole, 
through  and  through  ;  and  he  has  done  it  purposely,  too, 
as  he  avowed,  that  he  was  determined  that  this  scheme 
of  unilateral  silence  should  not  be  kept  up  for  ever ;  that 
a  man  of  honor  and  of  conscience  scrupulously  keeping 
silent,  and  harrowed  in  his  feelings  lest  harm  sl:  )::^  1 


750 


THE   TlLTCm-BEECHEB  TRIAL, 


come  to  others,  should  not  be  continuously  kept  in  that 
position,  while  Moulton  and  Tilton  were  going  around, 
teUing  Victoria  WoodhuIL,  or  anybody  else,  and  having 
statements  in  the  newspapers.  "  No,"  he  says,  "  I  will 
have  a  stop  to  that ;  I  will  have  the  policy  of  silence 
broken  up.**  Now,  what  is  the  only  point  in  Wllkeson's 
evidence  that  Mr.  Tilton  corrects  I 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  about  your  wife  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  show  him  a  photograph  of  yom*  wife  %  A. 
No,  Sir.  I  showed  him  a  photograph  of  two  of  my  chil- 
dren, one  of  whom  he  mistook  for  my  wife,  and  he  made 
It  the  opportunity  to  make  some  incoherent  

Q.  Which  of  your  daughters  ?  A.  It  was  my  daughters 
Florence  and  Alice.  And  he  apostrophized  the  card  of 
Florence,  supposing  it  to  be  a  card  of  my  wife,  over  a 
glass  of  my  wine. 

And  Florence  was  a  little  girl  of  six  years  old  I  [Laugh- 
ter.] I  think  it  would  take  more  than  a  glass  of  wine, 
gentlemen,  to  confuse  as  clear  a  head  as  Samuel  Wilke- 
son's  into  a  notion  that  a  girl  six  years  old  was  the  wife 
of  this  Apollo.  [Laughter.] 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  imtil  2  p.  m. 

THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Evarts,  Mr.  Beach  has 
sent  word  that  he  is  not  quite  well  enough  to  be  here 
promptly,  and  may  not  be  able  to  come  at  all ;  and  he 
desires  you  to  proceed  without  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  regret  extremely,  if  your  Honor  please, 
that  my  learned  friend  should  suffer  any  inconvenience 
in  regard  to  health,  and  am  obliged  to  him  for  not  desir- 
ing the  protraction  of  the  cause  on  that  account. 

"We  are  now  in  a  position,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to 
judge  of  the  value,  the  proper  interpretation  and  the  im- 
port of  certain  papers  imputed  to  Mr.  Beecher  as  argu- 
mentative confession  of  guilt.  I  never  attached  much 
importance,  as  a  lawyer,  to  any  of  the  looser  reasonings 
by  which  mean  minds  have  been  turned  or  affected  by  a 
contemplation  in  that  light  of  expressions  of  grief,  self- 
reproach,  compunction,  or  remorse,  for  it  is  confessedly 
only  within  the  region  of  moral  reasoning  that  any  in- 
ferences, thus  remote  and  far-fetched,  can  be  adduced. 
When  the  law  bas  said  that  of  so  grave  a  crime,  there 
must  be  that  positive  evidence  that  leaves  no  hypothesis  of 
iunocence  consistent  with  the  proved  facts ;  when  the  law 
has  said  that  confessions  reported,  or  confessions  pro- 
duced in  writing,  are  ever  to  be  scrutinized  and  doubted, 
and  if  there  be  any  contradiction,  anything  that  saves 
them  from  being  substantially  evidence  of  confession 
before  the  Court  and  the  jury,  in  the  absence  of  the  proof 
of  the  adultery  as  an  occurrence  noticed  in  its  proximate 
steps,  in  Its  betrayed  vicious  purposes,  in  its  opportuni- 
ties, in  its  occasions,  as  equivalent  to  the  proof  of  the 
act,  such  an  occasion  as  you  had  your  attention  called  to 
iDCidentally  in  a  case  that  I  cited  of  a  confession  where, 
on  board  a  steamboat  of  the  North  River  a  state-room 
had  been  taken  by  the  alleged  paramour  in  the  name  oi: 


the  husband,  and  the  paramour  and  the  wife  had  occupied 
it ;  that  kind  of  f act— sometliing  of  that  kind— unless  you 
have  that  confirmation  you  withhold  your  verdict.  But, 
then,  when,  without  the  confessions,  you  have  a  situa- 
tion of  divided  opinions  and  views  as  to  what  the  facts 
are,  and  in  the  absence  of  controlling  evidence  that 
brings  facts  and  conduct  to  your  notice,  you  are  turned 
over  to  produce  a  measure,  and  form,  and  circumstance, 
and  date  of  guilt  out  of  emotional  aspirations  of  regret, 
and  pain,  and  mortification,  and  pity,  why  you  L,  v  ;  at 
once  all  the  region  upon  which  the  Court  and  juiy  can 
proceed  abandoned,  and  you  are  led  at  once  into  moral 
reasoning  to  supply  the  place,  either  of  ext  rnal  evidence 
or  of  explicit  confessions.  And  the  moral  reasoning  pro- 
ceeds upon  this  most  uncertain  and  untrustworthy  of  aU 
gTounds,  of  imputing  the  measure  and  form  of  actual 
guilt,  according  to  your  moral  estimate  of  what  is  the 
moral  result  of  a  man's  emotional  nature  and  his  emo- 
tional expression.  Where  before,  since  the  administrac 
tion  of  justice  began,  was  there  '  ever  the  notion  tha 
you  could  tell  whether  a  man  had  set  fire  to  a  barn  o 
a  dwelling-house,  or  had  robbed  a  bank,  or  had  co~ 
nutted  murder,  by  the  strength  of  his  feelings  at  some 
mischief  or  other  that  he  had  done,  without  the  body  of 
the  crime  being  proved  otherwise,  without  the  evidence 
that  he  had  said  it  was  a  buiglary,  or  an  embezzlement, 
or  an  arson,  or  a  robbery  that  you  are  to  measure, 
out  of  grief,  mortification,  concealment,  distress,  the 
proof  that  the  crime  was  committed,  that  he  referred  to 
that  crime,  and  that  he  committed  it  %    But  yet,  such  is 
the  nature  of  irresponsible  reasoning,  such  is  the  inatten- 
tion to  the  necessary  safeguard  of  practical  judgment, 
and  definite  and  important  consequences  of  pimishment, 
when  these  matters  are  dealt  with  in  the  piece-meal  dis- 
cussions (however  intelligent)  of  men  that  are  not 
brought  down  to  feeling  that  within  the  waUs  of  evideno 
and  under  the  rules  of  law  there  must  ever  be  som 
notion  that  there  may  have  been  this  or  that  degree  o 
guilt,  or  that  there  must  be  a  definite  conclusion  exclud 
ing  any  opposite  conclusion;  and   when  you  com 
to    that,    all    this    loose    region,    in    clouds,  o 
moral  reasoning  ceases  to  affect  men's  judgments. 
No  man  in  his  senses  wishes  when  the  verdict  strik( 
to  the  heart  a  woman  and  her  children,  and  destroy 
their  fame,  strikes  to  the  heart  an  honorable  repute  o 
the  alleged  paramour  and  involves  his  family  in  ruin  an 
disgrace— discarding,  for  the  moment,  any  of  the  graver 
responsibilities  that  grow  out  of  the  public  and  the  im- 
portant character  and  relations  of  this  defendant  and 
the  pftrticularly  pure  character  of  this  alleged  adulteress 
—leaving  all  that  out,  no  man  wishes  to  put  a  verdict,  and 
when  he  is  appealed  to  to  know  by  what  he  justifies  it— 
"  Did  anybody  ever  see  them  in  a  lewd  connection,  or 
treading  a  devious  path  from  the  proprieties  of  society 
for  a  single  instant  '\  "   "  No."   "  Did  anybody  bring  you 
a  conl'es.sion  of  the  fact i "  "No.  But  they  brought 


Sr21MISG    UP  BY  JJB.  £rAFTS. 


In  tlie  handTrriting,  if  you  please,  or  under 
the  report  bitten  under  dictation  of  tliis  or  that  expres- 
sion of  emotion  of  self-reproacli,  of  self-compunction,  and 
there  must  have  heen  something  behind  it,  and  ^ve 
thought  that  this  "vras  hehind  it"  And  then,  Tvhen  sud- 
denly hy  the  admission  of  falsehood,  or  "by  the  discovery 
•of  fact,  all  tliis  ruin  that  h.as  heen  ^vrought  by  hasty 
judcrment  is  sho^^  to  have  been  through  a  departure 
from  legal  OTidence  and  legal  reasoning  into  this  "^Id 
and  illimitable  region  of  moral  inference,  ho^  does  the 
conscience — hovrever  inuocent  at  the  time — feel  at  the 
recMessness  -svith  -vrhich  they  have  rushed  out  of  the  re- 
gion that  requires  proof  into  the  region  that  really  acts 
upon  suspicion. 

THE  SOURCE  OF  IME.  BEECHER'S  EEMOESE. 

Now,  I  have  introduced  a  consideration  of 
this  paper  of  the  1st  of  January,  and  of  some  other 
papers  that  I  may  need  to  call  attention  to,  not  because 
in  them  I  find,  nor  that  I  suppose  you  vrill  find,  any 
reason  of  distrust  for  what  seems  to  me,  upon  the  facts 
as  you  understand  them,  and  certainly  upon  the  theory 
of  these  facts  and  the  testimony  concerning  them,  as 
given  by  this  defendant  and  supported  by  our  vritnesses 
as  vrell  as  the  plaintiff's  a  sufficient  reason  and  support 
for  every  expression  to  vrhich  is  imputed  a  just  inference 
of  guilt  in  the  sense  of  an  adulterous  connection  beTween 
those  parties.  But  yet,  as  is  the  nature  of  all  judicial 
proceedings,  when  the  plaintiff,  selecting  his  evidence 
and  producing  it  with  that  attention  to  it  and 
Its  effect  and  concentration  upon  a  result  that 
he  desires,  proceeds  throusrh  long  weeks  of  his  evidence, 
and  the  defendant  is  not  heard  and  the  Ciuallfying 
shades,  the  cross  lights,  the  falsiflcarion,  the  perjuries 
that  have  been  practiced  and  the  corrections  of  the 
treacherous  memories  that  have  been  introduced  before 
you— when  they  all  have  been  made,  and  the  defendant's 


nesses,  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton,  to  displace  from  the 
scene  and  area  of  fact,  as  obtaining  at  this  interview  on 
the  1st  of  January,  all  ground  for  any  feeUng  or  any  ex- 
pression from  Mr.  Beecher  as  towards  Mr.  Tilton  and  his 
family,  or  in  respect  of  Mr.  Bcecher's  conduct,  except  the 
injury  to  that  family  from  his  relation  to  Mrs.  Tilton. 
That  left,  to  be  sure,  the  undisturbed,  the  entire, 
and  sulBcierit  basis,  in  our  judgment,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  in  yours,  of  almost  any  degree  of  se- 
verity, of  self-reproach,  ana  of  commensurate  expression 
of  grief  and  of  pity  from  the  admitted  situation 
of  chagrin  and  sorrow  and  self-mortiflcation.  on  Mr. 
Beecher's  part,  if  these  relarlons  between  him  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  in  the  sense  and  ^-iew  that  was  presented  to  him  of 
the  estrangement  of  affection  and  nothing  more,  and  of 
the  lamily  discord  and  the  break  and  ruin  of  the  imity  of 
that  household  had  been  the  real  view  of  his  relations. 
But,  gentlemen,  we  have  wholly  overpowered,  on  the 
proofs  of  this  case,  this  great  effort  of  the  plaintiff.  We 
have  shown  you  that  the  resort  of  the  wife  in  her  .flitrht 
from  the  cruelty  of  her  husband  and  from  the  broken 
home  to  Mr.  Beecher  and  his  wife's  intervention, 
was  a  real  fact,  the  gravity,  the  sincerity,  the  force  of 
which  is  as  gi'eat  as  it  is  possible  to  conceive  of  as  a 
ground  for  resentment  of  a  husband  against  such  inter- 
ference, and  as  a  groimd  for  self-reproach  on  the 
part  of  Mr.  Beecher  if  he  had  rashly  been  led 
into  that  by  slanderous  and  unsupported  representatioiws, 
if  he  had  trusted  in  his  simplicity  tu  the  necessarv  truth 
and  accuracy  of  the  representations  of  the  mother-in-law, 
and  of  the  wife,  and  of  Bessie  Turner,  that  had  been 
brought  to  him.  So,  too,  the  other  principal  fact  of 
whether  Mr.  Beecher  had  intervened,  had  espoused,  had 
acted  upon  and  in  reference  to  the  situation  between  Mr. 
Boweu  and  Mr.  Tilton  that  they  struggled  against,  and 
strove  to  represent  to  you  in  that  record  of  the  true 
relation  between  3Ir.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Bowen  to  have  been. 


ease  and  view  of  each  situaiion  is  put  in  your  power    up  to  the  end  of  this  interview  between  Mr.  Moulton  and 


for  comparison  with  the  plaintiff's,  then  you  are  in 
a  position,  for  the  first  time,  to  judge  upon  this  remote, 
this  unsubstantial,  and,  as  I  think,  frivolous  argument  to 
produce  anything  like  a  substantial  conclusion  of  guilt, 
even  against  a  character  of  an  unknown  or  of  a  sus- 
picious complexion,  much  less  against  a  man  in  regard  to 
whom  it  must  be  admitted,  that  if  there  be  truth  in  the 
charge  it  is  at  variance  with  every  repute  concerning 
him  that  either  those  who  knew  him  well  or  knew  him 
slightly  ever  entertained.  What  then— before 
we  take  what  professes  to  be  a  record 
of  Mr.  Beecher's  emotions  and  their  expression— what 
was  the  situation  in  his  own  mind  and  upon  the  facts  as 
lie  understood  them,  as  he  has  sworn  to  them  now,  and 
as  constitutes  the  basis  upon  which,  as  we  agree,  he  was 
expressing  himself,  if  you  can  only  get  accurately  at  his 
expression?  A  great  struggle  was  made  by  our  learned 
opponents,  in  which  they  had  every  aid  from  theri'  wit- 


Mr.  Beecher  on  the  31st  of  December  which  I  have  gone 
through  with,  up  to  that  time  of  sure  i"'osses- 
sion  of  his  power,  hi?  ^  authoritv,  his  income, 
his  credit,  his  prospects,  his  expectation— all  that 
has  disappeared,  and  we  have  proved,  not  only  that  3Ir. 
Beecher  and  r^Ir.  Bowen.  early  in  that  week,  did  act,  did 
talk,  did  confer,  and  that  :Mr.  Beecher's  influence  and 
representations  all  went  to  the  destruction  of  Mr.  Til- 
ton's  prospects  in  confirmation  of  Mr.  Bowen's  purposes. 
We  have  shown  all  that,  and  we  have  shown,  too,  that 
this  intervention  of  Mr.  Beecher  had  to  do,  not  merely 
with  the  displacement  of  :Mr.  Tilton,  not  merely  with  the 
break  of  his  then  employments  and  the  then  expected 
support  of  his  family,  but  went  on  a  ground,  to  wit,  his 
broken  character  and  his  profiigate  conduc  that  in  re- 
spect to  both,  to  family,  and  to  his  relations  to  society 
and  his  emplo}-ments,  were  a  final  break ;  that  the 
familv  could  not  he  restored  without  a  rebuilt  ohnracter 


752  lEE  TILTON-B 

in  domestic  affairs  on  Mr.  Tilton's  part,  and  that  his  re- 
lations to  society,  to  the  public,  to  his  vocation  as  an  ed- 
itor never  conld  he  renewed  except  by  the  obliteration  or 
correction  in  point  of  fact  of  the  charges  against  him  or  a 
reconsideration  of  its  downward  course,  ana  a  recon- 
struction of  his  moral  character  in  these  relations.  Now, 
then,  what  had  happened  in  reference  to  these  very  grave 
acts  and  very  grave  responsibilities  of  Mr.  Beecher  to- 
ward Mr.  Tilton  before  and  at  the  end  of  this  Interview 
on  Sunday,  the  1st  of  January  ?  Why,  Mr.  Beecher  had 
been  attended  by  IMr.  Moulton  as  the  friend  of  Mr.  Tilton 
to  call  his  attention  to  these  evil  surmises,  these  evil  sto- 
ries, both  touching  the  question  between  the  wife  and  the 
husband,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  family  unity  in 
which  Mr.  Beecher  had  acted  so  decisively,  and,  as  well, 
in  regard  to  the  imputations  of  Bowen  and  the  basis 
of  them,  which  had  been  laid  before  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
which  he  had  reenforced  in  tiu'n,  himself,  by  bringing  in 
the  scandals  of  the  household  and  the  stories  of  Bessie 
Turner.  And  that  friend  had  said  to  Mr.  Beecher,  "  Why 
did  you  accept  these  stories  so  rashly,  and  act  so 
definitely  and  yet  so  precipitately  %  Why  didn't 
you  ask  Mr.  TUton's  attention  to  these  things 
before  you  acted  ?  Why  did  you  suffer  Bowen 's 
maligmty  against  you,  that  had  brought  you 
that  letter  of  the  26th  of  December,  to  close  your 
heart,  and  shut  up  your  sympathies,  and  turn  you  into  a 
cooperative  aniniosity  in  persecution,  with  Bowen, 
against  Tilton  ?  Why  did  you  assume  that  Mrs.  Morse 
and  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Bessie  Turner,  in  the  domestic  nar- 
rative of  disaster  and  grievance,  and  of  fault,  were  ne- 
cessarily correct  %  I  tell  you  that  I  know  Mr.  Tilton  as  a 
familiar  friend,  as  a  man  of  the  world,  as  his  companion 
and  his  conflidant,  and  I  tell  you  that  all  these  stories  of 
his  immorality  are  unfounded,  and,  in  respect  of  Mr. 
Bowen'p  basis  of  complaint  against  Mr.  Tilton,  look  at  the 
catalogue  of  Mr.  Bowen's  charges  against  you, 
Mr.  Beecher,  which  he  made  on  the  forenoon 
of  the  26th  of  December  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  which  inflamed  Mr.  Tilton  into  his  espousal 
of  Mr.  Bowen's  animosity  to  you,  and  which  urged  and 
supported  him  in  sending  that  missive  of  the  26th  to  you 
to  be  backed  up  by  Bowen.  What  do  you  think  of  your 
hasty  credit  to  Bowen's  stories  about  Mrs.  Tilton,  when 
there  is  a  so  much  longer  and  more  grievous  catalogue  of 
imputations  made  by  him,  Bowen,  to  Tilton,  against  you, 
Beecher,  in  the  early  part  of  the  same  day  ?  And,  in  re- 
gard to  what  Mrs.  Tilton  has  said  about  her  husband  and 
her  resort  to  her  half-crazed  mother-in-law"  (which  was 
Moulton's  representation  of  that  combination)  "and  then 
Mrs.  Beecher's  well  known  and  recognized  aversion  to 
Mr.  Tilton  and  reprobation  of  him— how  do  you  justify 
that  when  Mr.  Tilton  has  brought  to  you,  under 
his  wife's  signature,  a  charge  against  you  of 
immoralities  in  design  and  in  invit.'ition  and  in  tempta- 
tion inside  of  her  family  of  the  grossest  character 


EEC  REE  TIUAL. 

]  a  charge,  you  will  see  at  once,  gentlemen,  that,  in  respect 
j  of  the  depravity  imputed  to  Mr,  Beecher,  of  the  enor- 
mity of  his  meditated  guilt,  his  perversion  of  his  trust  as 
pastor,  and  of  his  fidelity  as  friend,  in  respect  to  his  pur- 
pose of  corrupting  a  virtuous  woman,  a  design  to  com- 
mit this  grievous  iiyury  towards  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  this  grievous  sin  on  his  part,  had  all 
the  moral  qualities  of  a  consummated  guilt. 
And,  to  a  man  who,  like  Mr.  Beecher,  deals  in  moral 
reasoning  and  believes  that  the  view  and  tone  of  the 
Scripture  is  right  m  ascribing  to  wickedness  of  heart 
the  guilt,  and  not  making  it  depend  upon  the  opportuni- 
ties or  facilities,  or  prosperity  of  external  fact,  you  see, 
at  once,  that  that  imputation  carried  to  his  conscience, 
if  it  were  true,  and  alarmed  his  fears  if  it  were  false,  just 
as  much  as  if  it  had  been  of  the  crime  itself  and  not  of 
the  frustrated  piu-pose.  *•  And  now,"  says  Mr.  Moulton, 
"  see  what  you  have  done  upon  the  credit  of  a  combina- 
tion between  this  wife  and  her  mother-in-law  who  has  ma- 
ligned Tilton  for  years.  You  have  allowed  Mrs.  Beecher's 
judgment  of  Tilton  to  carry  you  into  a  rash  and  sudden 
maintenance  of  his  domestic  situation  (a  publication,  so 
far  as  you  are  concerned),  as  being  such  that  his  wife 
cannot  properly  remain  with  him  an  hour,  and  that  con- 
tinuance with  him  is  more  likely  to  breed  increased 
hatred  on  his  part  than  to  tend  to  restoration.  You  have 
permitted  yourself,  as  toward  Mr.  Bowen,  to  pour  into 
his  ears  against  Tilton,  and  urged  his  purposes  declared 
to  you  by  him  against  Mr.  TUton  to  their  absolute  and 
rapid  execution.  And  now,  look  at  the  misery  in  which 
this  family  is  placed.  Tilton,  who  stood  a  week  ago 
in  a  position  which,  if  you  take  his  own 
estimate  of  it,  as  declared  by  him  by  Mrs.  Putnam  (and 
testified  to  you  by  her)  was  a  prouder  position  than  that 
of  a  Senator  at  Washington,  or  an  ofiicer  in  the  Govern- 
ment, of  the  hisrhest  grade,  is  tumbled  from  that  throne, 
and  trampled  in  the  dust.  Tilton,  who  has  the  expensive 
tastes  and  careless  habits  which  have  made  him  run 
through  his  income,  however  liberal,  and  left  him  with- 
out accumulation  or  support,  that  supposed  himself 
secure  in  new  arrangement  that  gave  him  an  ample  as- 
surance of  independence,  and  of  luxurj^  even,  struck 
with  one  blow  penniless,  and  in  regard  to  his  f  :imily 
and  his  wife  in  this  disordered  state  by  which  this 
woman  fled  from  him  and  has  obtained  your 
vindication  of  her  course,  your  power,  your  credit,  your 
assurance  that  he  is  an  unfit  inmate  of  the  same  house 
in  which  she  should  live.  And  now  that  family  lies  not 
only  absolutely  destroyed  for  the  moment,  but  destroyed 
on  grounds,  on  reasons  which  forbid  the  hope  that  there 
can  be  any  restoration,  so  long  as  those  grounds  remain 
unchanged.  It  is  not  a  Winter  that  has  withered  the 
leaves  and  stripped  the  limbs,  but  it  is  the  fatal  thrust 
that  has  killed  the  root,  and  stopped  forever  the  flow  of 
the  sap." 

Well,  now,  when  Mr.  Beecher,  confessedly  a  man  of 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MR.  EVAETS. 


753 


iust  sympatliies,  of  the  most  exaggerated  sentiments  of 
dnty  and  fidelity,  finds  sucli  a  situation  displayed  before 
Mm,  and  then  finds  the  ground  of  his  reliance  for  his 
hasty  action  cut  from  under  him  by  these  two  principal 
facts,  "  that  if  you  believe  Bowen  against  Tilton,  by  the 
same  rule  you  must  believe  Bowen  against  Beecher  ;  and 
if  you  believe  Mrs.  Tilton  against  her  husband,  by  the 
same  rule  you  must  believe  Mrs.  Tilton  against  yourself," 
you  see  at  once  that  he  is  necessarily  in  a  situation  where 
he  must  reproacb  himself,  for  execution  has  taken 
place  upon  this  man  Tilton  and  his  family, 
and  nothing  but  the  slow  business  of  restora- 
tion to  life  and  happiness  can  be  hoped  for. 
But  look,  then,  at  the  bewilderment  now  of  what  must 
have  happened  through  some  fault  of  his,  if  it  be  true  that 
this  woman  whom  he  respected  and  admired  as  the  very 
embodiment  of  truth  and  Christian  virtue  and  gi'ace,  has 
come  to  a  situation  in  which  she  has  thus  charged  him 
falsely.  And,  it  has  not  relieved  that,  at  all,  for  him  to 
have  discovered  that  it  is  false,  and  that  she  has  retracted 
it.  The  misery,  the  overthrow  of  character  of  the  woman 
that  has  come  about  through  some  unhappy  influences  of 
his  intercourse,  and  the  unguarded  expressions  of  his  fa- 
miliarity, is  thereby  made  a  positive  fact.  That  a  woman 
should  have  such  relations  to  her  husband,  and  that  her 
husband  should  have  such  power  over  her,  and  that  the 
result  should  be  such  an  accusation,  seems  to  me  a  most 
sad  and  a  most  deplorable  exhibition,— I  mean  not  to  say 
to  a  deeply  or  exquisitely  sensitive  mind,  but  to  a  mind 
of  correct  moral  training,  and  a  heart  of  just  moral  sensi- 
bility, one  of  the  most  extraordinary  situations  that  could 
possibly  be  produced. 

MR.  TILTON'S  DISTEESS. 

And  now  when  a  man  who,  by  every  rule  of 
his  character,  whether  as  known  and  imderstood  and 
displayed  through  his  whole  life  to  everybody,  or  as  de- 
picted upon  this  evidence,  and  as  assured  and  described 
out  of  the  mouth  of  Mr.  Tilton  as  being  all  heart,  all 
magnanimity,  all  self-compunction,  all  self-reproach,  if 
you  can  once  touch  him  with  the  feeling  that  he  has  been 
in  complicity  with,  or  has  been  the  innocent  occasion, 
even,  of  injury  or  ruin  to  another— when  you  come  to  see 
how  a  man  wall  act  and  talk  with  these  impressions  upon 
him,  you  must,  of  course,  as  you  will  desire,  and  as  the 
commonest  principles  of  justice  require,  judge  him  in  h  is 
emotions,  and  in  his  expression  of  them,  and  in  his  esti- 
mate of  the  situation,  according  to  his  character,  moral 
and  intellectual- sensitive,  devotional,  open,  frank,  un- 
measured in  his  words.  You  have  then  before  you  only 
to  determine  whether  upon  these  facts,  and  this  estimate 
in  Mr.  Bee  Cher's  mind  of  the  mischief  a  nd  the  evil  that 
existed,  this  expression  of  feeling  was  natural  to  him. 

And  was  there  ever  a  more  deplorable  situation  of  a 
man  and  his  family  than  that  of  Mr.  Tilton  as  that  last 
day  of  the  year  1871,  or  one  more  sudden  in  its  culmina- 


tion, although  the  moral  causes  that  led  to  It  had  been^ 
long  and  inevitably  at  work  1  What  more  pitiable  ?  Why, 
take  his  own  description  of  it,  that  he  was  thrown  down 
and  trampled  upon  the  sidewalk,  and  Mr.  Beecher,  as  he 
represented,  did  not  come  to  his  aid,  when,  with  his 
enormous  power  and  influence,  he  could  have  lifted  him 
with  his  little  finger.  Don't  you  think  that  Mr.  Beecher 
is  a  man  that  would  feel  that  t  Why,  you  must  tliink 
so,  or  you  must  disbelieve  all  that  has  been 
said  by  these  witnesses,  and  especially  by  Mr. 
Tilton,  about  him,  that  the  way  to  make  Mm 
an  unmeasured  cooperative  agency  in  repairing  the  dis- 
aster  was  to  make  him  feel  that  he  had  some  measure  of 
responsibilitj^  for  its  occurrence.  Now  it  seems  to  me 
the  merest  folly  in  the  world,  when  you  approach  this  in 
the  light  in  which  the  facts  have  been  laid  now  open  be- 
fore you,  to  feel  the  least  difficulty  in  treating  this  memo- 
randum of  expressions,  even  if  you  accord  to  it  the  full 
trust  that  would  belong  to  a  paper  written  m  his  own 
name,  and  in  his  own  hand — even  if  you  accord  to  it  that, 
it  seems  to  me  the  merest  absurdity  in  the  world 
to  say  that  you  need  to  infer  bai-kward  from 
these  expressions  any  more  grave  occasions  of 
pity,  of  lamentation,  of  compunction,  of  self-reproach, 
than  upon  Mr.  Beecher's  own  testimony  and  upon  the 
facts  in  this  case,  as  is  conceded  to  have  been  the  light  of 
things  as  then  bearing  upon  his  mind.  For  you  will  ob- 
serve that  Mrs.  TUton  had  not,  in  that  Interview  at  her 
bed-side,  denied  the  entanglement  of  afi'ections,  and  the 
alienation  of  true  conformity  to  her  husband,  and  his, 
the  husband's,  resentments  on  that  account.  And  the 
representations  that  were  pressed  upon  Mr.  Beecher  by 
Moulton,  that  Mrs.  Tilton  loved  his  little  finger  more  than 
she  did  the  whole  body  of  her  husband,  remained  on  his 
mind  when  this  occurred,  for  it  was  at  that  interview 
that  Moulton  said  it ;  and  they  remained,  as  Mr.  Beecher 
has  told  you,  for  no  intercom-se  between  him  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  ever  was  renewed  to  any  extent,  or  in  any  sense 
of  formality,  or  confidential  conferences,  or  writing  of 
any  kind,  until  Mrs.  Tilton's  statement  to  the  Church. 
Committee  showed  that  this,  too,  had  been  an  imposition 
practiced  upon  Mr.  Beecher's  intelligence  in  introducing 
this  as  an  element  (and  it  was  the  gravest  element)  in 
procuring  his  magnanimous  devotion  to  Mr.  Tilton's 
restoration,  and  the  reparation  of  the  evil  he  had  done 
him.  That  statement  corrected  the  idea  in  Mr.  Beecher's 
mind  and  assured  him  that  it  was  an  imposition  upon 
him,  and  that  there  had  been  no  real  subti-action  of  the 
wife's  affections,  however  much  she,  to  please  her  hus- 
band, and  under  her  strange  system  of  self-sacrifice  and 
self-depreciation,  as  shown  in  her  letters,  had  professed^ 


754  l^E  TILJON-B 

NO    NEED    FOE    A  CONFESSION    BY  ME. 
BEECHER. 

Now,  gentlemen,  yon  will  see  at  once  that  on 
this  first  day  of  January  there  was  not  the  least  occasion 
for  making  a  confession  of  any  kind.  There  was  not  the 
least  occasion  for  conveying  the  least  information  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  or  Mr.  Moulton,  for  they  had  gone  through  all  their 
interviews  of  the  30th  and  the  31st  of  December ;  there 
was  not  any  occasion  for  making  any  record  of  the  disas- 
ter, or  the  injury,  or  the  disgrace,  of  this  family  of  TUton's, 
whatever  might  have  been  its  form  and  its  measure,  for 
the  whole  effort  and  purpose  of  all  that  had  passed  dur- 
ing the  previous  interview  had  been  to  secure  the  impos- 
sibility of  anybody's  ever  knowing  that  there  had  been 
any  such  disgraceful  conduct,  whether  you  treat  the  dis- 
graceful conduct  as  having  been  the  pollution  of  the 
wife,  or  as  being  the  husband's  false  accusation,  in  the 
wife's  name,  of  this  eminent  preacher,  Mr.  Beecher.  So 
there  was  not  any  need,  or  motive,  or  possibility,  of  a 
rational  impulse  to  convey,  information  in  the  way  of 
confession,  or  record  in  the  way  of  proof.  What  was 
there,  and  what  has  Mr.  Moulton  himself  stated 
there  was?  Having  displaced  the  feeling  in  Mr. 
Tilton's  mind  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  possession 
of  the  evidence  of  the  false  charge  and  would  use  it  for 
his,  Tilton's,  injury,  by  the  great  concession  that  Mr. 
Beecher  made  of  placing  it  in  deposit  with  Mr.  Moulton 
for  the  common  interest  of  all  concerned,  Mr.  Moulton 
then  renews  his  object,  which  is  carried  out  afterwards 
through  a  series  of  months,  to  satisfy  Mr.  Tilton  that  Mr. 
Beecher  will  cooperate  in  repairing  the  disasters  that 
have  overtaken  him,  and  that  he  does  not  harbor  resent- 
ment for  the  missive  of  the  26th  of  December,  or  the 
false  accusation  of  the  30th  of  December;  and  thus, 
when  they  find  that  Mr.  Beecher's  magnanimity  and  his 
simplicity  have  not  been  overestimated  by  Tilton,  and 
he  lias  yielded  to  this  impulse  of  his  nature,  then  they 
want  to  have  some  evidence  that  will  be  definite,  that  Mr. 
Beecher  feels  that  the  situation  in  which  he  is  placed  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  requires  him  by  the  necessary  impulse 
of  duty,  to  repair  what  he  feels  to  have  been  wrongs 
rashly  committed  by  himself. 

THE  ORIGINAL  PURPOSE  IN  GETTING  THE 
CONTRITION  LETTER. 
That  is  tlie  object  of  the  interview,  and  the 
only  way,  on  Mr.  Moulton's  own  statement,  that  there 
comes  to  be  in  existence  this  memorandum  at  all,  and 
now  you  are  asked  to  believe  that  it  is  not  a  memoran- 
dum of  expression  in  that  design,  recorded  and  reported 
to  {hat  end  and  for  that  purpose,  but  that  it  is  to  be 
treated  by  you  as  a  disguised,  argumentative,  remote 
moral  persuasion,  that  the  view  of  the  difiiculty  imputed 
to  him  by  these  coarse  charges,  and  not  the  estimate 
-  ^    7.  Tio  hirmself  felt,  was  the  occasion  of.  Mr.  Moulton 


<:eceeb  trial. 

tells  you  himself  that  he  said,  "  Why  won't  you  write  this 
to  Tilton,  to  satisfy  him  that  you  are  not  his  enemy  % " 
Good  heavens !— how  often  shall  I  repeat  it  ?— an  injured 
husband,  bringing  himself  into  relations  with  the 
paramour,  wants  to  feel  that  the  paramour 
won't  pursue  him,  the  husband  1  Nobody  can. 
understand  that.  No.  He  wanted  to  know,  to  be  as- 
sured, that  what  was  enough  to  inflame,  inspire,  inflate 
all  sentiments  in  an  ordinary  mind  of  animosity  and  of 
punishment,  by  reason  of  his  having  dared  to  send  that 
foolish  missive  of  the  25th  of  Docember,  and  then  to  use 
this  wretched  accusation  wrung  from  the  wife's  compli- 
ance on  the  30th,  had  not  soured  the  last  drop  of  the 
milk  of  human  kindness  in  the  breast  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  toward  him,  and  made  it  hopeless  for  him,  Tilton, 
to  expect  aid  from  that  quarter,  in  the  absolute  ruin  of 
his  affairs,  domestic  and  othei-,  and  the  hopeless  destruc- 
tion of  his  character  which  threatened  him,  un- 
less some  help  from  the  charitable  consider- 
ation of  Mr,  Beecher  could  be  gained. 
Well,  Mr.  Beecher  says :  "  Why  write  this?  You  tell  Til- 
ton. I  have  unbosomed  my  feelings  to  you— my  heart ; 
you  tell  him."  "  Well,  it  would  be  better  if  you  should 
write  him."  Well,  I  think  it  would  have  been  better  that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  written  him,  if  Moulton  was  to  be 
trusted  to  make,  and  continue,  and  preserve  a  report — 
not  stenographic— the  work  of  an  inexperienced  reporter 
— of  his  language  and  his  ideas. 


THE  CONTRITION  LETTER  ANALYZED. 

But  yet,  it  was  only  by  reducing  you  and 
the  truth  down  to  the  point  that  there  was  no  fact  on 
which  Mr.  Beecher's  mind  could  have  been  working 
when  he  thus  talked,  except  the  fact  of  the  imputed 
adultery— nothing  but  that,  for  which  they  had  so  long 
labored  in  a  series  of  falsifications,  that  could  have  ever 
made  their  argument  that  this  paper  carried  any  weight 
or  force  worthy  the  attention  even  of  an  irresponsible 
public,  much  less  of  a  responsible  jury. 

I  ask  through  you  Theodore  Tilton's  forgiveness,  and  I 
humble  myself  before  him  as  I  do  before  my  God. 

Well,  Mr.  Beecher  has  given  you  his  view  of  that  sen- 
tence, which  he  does  not  recognize  as  to  his  own  at  ^11. 
He  says  that  he  did  say  that  he  humbled  himself  before 
God  for  the  error  that  he  had  committed,  and  he  was 
willing  to  humble  himself  before  Mr.  Tilton.  or  to  ask  his 
forgiveness,  or  some  such  phrase.  And  he  was— he  felt 
it.   He  says  : 

He  would  have  been  a  better  man  in  my  circumstances 
than  I  have  been. 

What  did  he  mean  by  that  ?  for  he  says  he  did  say  so— 
substantially  that.  He  says  that  he  remembered,  and  it 
brought  tears  to  his  eyes,  how  even  in  a  slight,  but  which 
Mrs.  Beecher's  exaggerated  style  of  emotion  made  a 
grave  matter,  in  his  Son's  misfortune,  trivial  and  temi>;>- 
rary,  and  that  would  have  been  wiped  out  by  President 


SnMMMG    UF  BY  ME.  EVABTS. 


755 


Lincoln  and  all  his  Cabinet  at  a  moment's  suggestion  of 
anxiety  to  tMs  great  prop  and  supporter  of  tlie  policy 
and  the  principles  of  tiie  then  current  politics  of 
the  country— that  when  Mr.  Tilton  heard  of  it 
he  dropped  his  business,  went  to  "Washington  and  inter- 
vened, and  brought  back  promptly  to  him,  the  father, 
agitated  by  these  feelings,  information  that  the  pranks  of 
his  son  had  been  overlooked,  and  he  was  restored  to  his 
position  in  the  army.  He  remembered  that— and  I  don't 
think  he  ever  forgot  a  favor  done  him  in  the  world,  or 
ever  failed,  in  his  exaggeration  of  it,  to  make  it  an  occa- 
sion of  unending  gratitude,  of  unmeasured  affection.  He 
remembered  that,  and  he  said  to  himself :  Well,  now,  I 
have  not  returned  that  good  with  anything  but  evil ; 
when  they  came  to  me  with  these  stories,  whether  of  the 
domestic  difficulties  and  from  a  domestic  source,  or  of 
the  btisiness  ruin  that  was  to  follow  from  loose  imputa- 
tions, I  did  not  send  for  Tilton ;  I  did  not  say,  "  Now,  what 
can  I  do,  what  shall  I  dol  How  can  you  give 
me  the  means  of  helping  you,  of  aiding  you, 
and  explaining  these  things!"  But  I  assumed 
that  all  was  right,  and  true ;  and,  unhappily,  I  acted,  in 
the  last  case  of  my  interference,  under  the  irritation  of 
what  should  not  have  irritated  me,  this  demand  of  the 
26th  of  December.  I  believe  Theodore  Tilton  would  not 
have  acted  toward  me  as  I  have  acted  toward  him  in  this 
respect.  Well,  I  tMnk  it  was  a  charitable  view  of  Mr. 
Tilton ;  it  was  Mr.  Beecher's,  but  it  was  a  view  that  he 
would  never  have  taken  if  he  had  been  present  at  all  the 
private  consultations  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Tilton 
which  we  have  had  disclosed  to  us.  But  how  ludicrous 
it  seems,  if  you  are  to  impute  the  application  of  this 
proposition  to  the  condition  of  Mr.  Beecher's  iaterference 
with  the  piu-ity  of  a  wife  by  seduction  and  adultery—"  T 
think,  now,  in  reference'  to  the  seduction  of  a  wife 
and  prolonged  adultery  with  a  married  woman,  Mr.  Til- 
ton would  have  acted  better  toward  me  than  I  have 
acted  toward  him !"  The  absurdity  of  a  man  of  common 
sense  being  supposed  to  have  framed  any  of  these  com- 
punctions or  comparisons  upon  this  heinous  offense  as  it 
is  now  imputed  1  What  is  natural  and  easy  (although  it 
may  be  extravagant,  and  although  there  may  have  been 
considerable  imposition  to  have  induced  it)  iu  reference 
to  the  conduct  for  which  Mr.  Beeeher  supposed  himself 
to  be  actual!}"  responsible,  is  apparent  upon  the  reading. 
Well,  the  rest  is  very  general. 

I  can  ask  nothing  except  that  he  wm  remember  all  the 
other  hearts  that  would  ache.  I  will  not  plead  ior  my- 
self ;  I  even  wish  that  I  were  dead  ;  but  others  must  live 
and  suffer.  I  wlU  die  before  any  one  but  myself  shall  be 
inculpated.  AH  my  thoughts  are  running  toward  my 
friends,  toward  the  poor  child  lying  there  and  praying 
with  her  folded  hands. 

Now,  you  wiU.  perceive,  IMr.  Beecher  has  given  you 
{and  I  shall  refer  to  it)  his  views  of  how  much  of  this,  in 
form  or  in  substance,  in  respect  to  emotion,  or  in  regard 
to  fact,  is  justly  imputable  to  him.   All  I  ask  of  you  is  to 


understand  that  it  la  confessedly  a  report  by  Mi  Moulton 
of  emotional  expressions  intended,  on  ^SlouUon's  oicn  shoic- 
ing,  to  convince  Jlfr.  Tilton  that  JTr.  Beecher  did  not  hate 
him  and  would  like  to  aid  him.  That  Is  the  point,  and 
that  we  have  out  of  their  own  mouths.  Well,  well,  gen- 
tlemen, has  not  Mr.  Beecher  aU.  through  this  shown  (as 
I  shaU  demonstrate  to  you  at  the  various  stages 
where  he  has  resisted  this  policy  of  silence) 
that  he  has  been  ready  to  meet  |he  charge 
at  any  time,  if  others  cotdd  endure  it  ?  Has  he  not 
always  shown  that  he  saw  that  an  investigation  and  ex- 
posure of  the  state  of  things  in  that  family,  and  in  re- 
gard to  that  family,  that  had  been  laid  before  him  during 
that  week  and  during  the  preceding  weeks  of  December, 
and  on  the  -svif  e's  flight  and  complaint  to  him— that  an 
exposure  of  that  would  produce  a  great  degree  of  suffer- 
ing, and  injury,  and  mischief  to  the  Tilton  circle  and 
family  1  and  was  he  not  wise  in  his  forecast  of  the  results 
that  must  foUow  if  it  should  be  made  to  appear  that  a 
woman  of  repute  and  of  piety,  in  his  congregation,  of  his 
church,  had,  under  any  circumstances  that  women's 
minds  and  men's  minds,  women's  tongues  and  men's 
tongues,  would  differ  about,  made  a  charge  against  a 
Christian  teacher  that  he  had  made  improper  proposals 
to  corrupt  a  wife — a  charge  of  that  atrocious  quality  that, 
while  it  involves  every  degree  of  guilt,  if  it  be  true,  on 
the  part  of  the  person  charged,  furnishes  none  of  those 
guarantees  against  its  being  falsely  charged,  either  in 
respect  of  the  husband  or  of  the  wife,  and 
of  the  scrutiny  of  fact  and  truth,  that 
would  belong  to  a  charge  of  actual  adultery? 
Actual  adultery  charged  carries  the  guilt  and  shame  of 
the  wife  and  the  family  and  the  disgrace  of  the  husband, 
and  deals  with  a  fact  concerning  which  external  proof 
can  be  given  and  will  be  required;  but  how  can  you 
strike  at  the  heart  of  a  clergyman  so  conclusively  as  by 
charging,  not  a  fact  that  is  capable  of  scrutiny  and  of 
beinfr  turned  over  and  over  so  as  to  find  out  whether  it  is 
true  or  not,  but  a  charge  that  in  heart,  in  word,  in  wicked 
suggestion,  in  corrupting,  infamous  intent,  the  clergy- 
man has  made  the  approach,  while  the  wife's  honor  has 
been  saved  and  the  husband's  disgrace  does  not  exist  and 
the  children  are  not  involved  ?  Well  may  a  clergyman 
feel  dismayed  if  that  is  the  form  in  which  he  has  to  meet 
imputation.  It  is  not  a  ground  for  an  action  for  dam- 
ages, it  cannot  lead  to  a  judicial  inquiry,  audit  cannot  lead 
to  a  judicial  refutation.  It  is  the  most  terrible  form 
within  the  region  of  malicious  imputation,  impossible  of 
refutation,  except  by  the  generalities  of  opinion  whether 
it  is  possibly  compatible  with  his  character,  and  then 
they  say,  "  Well,  it  is  not  possibly  compatible  with  the 
character  of  a  good  woman  that  she  would  change  the 
charge;"  and  so  you  have,  all  through  Christendom,  the 
minds  and  the  tongues  of  men  and  women  loosened  upon 
the  cunning  malice  of  such  an  imputation.  Well  might 
Mr.  Beecher  feel  and  say,  how  many  hearts  will  suffer. 


756 


ItlE    TILIOJM-  BEEOHEH  lJUAL. 


vv^hat  immense  interests  will  be  imperiled,  if  this  strang:e 
inexplicable  emanation  from  this  ruined  bGuseboicl  is 
made  tbe  subject  of  public  discussion  !  And  tlien  Mr. 
Beecher  was  under  tlie  impression,  dou.btinglj", 
as  lie  lias  told  you,  yet  not  rejecting  the  idea, 
that  Mr,  Tilton  thought  that  the  wife's  charge 
was  honest,  and  that  he  might  beliere  it  himself.  That 
has  long  ago  been  abandoned ;  but  Mr.  Beecher  has  told 
you,  "  I  didn't  know  w^hat  to  believe ;  sometimes  I 
thought  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  honest  in  the  notion,  and 
wondered  how  the  wife  could  have  thus  originated  it 
herself,  and  sometimes  I  thought  that  he  did  not  believe 
it."  And  the  fact  that  the  wife  disclaimed  it,  didn't 
make  any  diflference  ;  the  same  woman  that  disclaimed 
was  the  woman  that  had  made  the  charge.  So  they  went 
on  and  on. 

She  is  guiltless,  sinned  against,  bearing  the  transgres- 
sions of  another. 

How  is  she  guiltless  if  it  was  not  the  situation  that  Mr. 
Beecher  recognized,  that  he  should  take  upon  himself  all 
the  blame,  because  his  superior  age  and  experience 
should  have  foreseen  the  disaster  of  an  injury  to  the  hus- 
band's supremacy  in  the  wife's  affections,  from  the  en- 
joyment of  this  iatercourse  between  a  clergyman  and  a 
parishioner,  chaste,  honest,  religious,  and  of  the  highest 
and  the  holiest  affections  ?  In  that  sense  he  was  right  in 
taking  all  the  blame  upon  himself,  and  that  satisfies  it ; 
but  in  any  other  view  how,  how,  can  anybody  be  guilt- 
less of  such  a  heinous  offense— married  woman  of  matm^e 
years,  and  with  a  family  around  her— unless  you  accept 
the  balderdash  of  "  innocent  adultery?" 

"  Her  forgiveness  I  have." 

How  had  he  her  forgiveness  ?  How  had  she  forgiven 
Mm?  Nothing  had  pjxssed  between  them  of  that  kind; 
nothing  whatever.  The  question  was  in  that  interview 
which  he  had  with  her,  of  accusation  to  her,  of  inquiry 
how  she  came  to  have  made  a  charge  against  him  when 
it  was  not  true,  and  of  her  withdrawal  of  it,  and  of  his 
final  leave-taking,  that  he  hoped  nothing  that 
he  said  (which  he  then  felt  might  have  been 
severe)  would  disturb  or  Interfere  with  her  peace, 
and,  as  I  have  read  to  you  from  her  letter,  written  only 
three  months  afterward,  she  wrote  to  him  expressing 
the  hope  that  he  forgave  her  while  he  forgot  her,  and 
closed  her  note  with  a  new  prayer  for  his  forgiveness. 
This  expression  Mr.  Beecher  denies,  of  course.  There 
was  no  fact  to  support  it. 

I  humbly  pray  to  God  that  He  may  put  it  ia  the  heart 
of  her  husband  to  forgive  me. 

Well,  that  is  entirely  consistent,  no  matter  whether  it 
was  stated  in  those  words  or  in  that  sense  or  not,  with 
the  situation  in  which  Mr.  Beecher  confessed  himself  in 
fault,  in  sorrow  and  in  chagrin,  mortification,  and  grief. 


THE  ALIASES  OF  THE  CONTEITION  LETTER. 

Now,  gentlemen,  how  was  this  paper  charac- 
terized ?  Nobody  ever  called  it  a  confession.  Lately  it 
has  been  spoken  of  as  a  "  Letter  of  Contrition."  Well, 
contrition  for  what?  That  is  the  question.  You  must 
draw  out  of  it,  as  retroactive  evidence,  some  definite 
guilt  its  contrition  iiroves — some  definite  crime.  Its  con- 
trition proves  onl;.*  what  I  have  stated  to  you,  its  own 
existence  upon  the  support  and  reasons  that  I  have  ex- 
posed, but  the  whole  tone  of  the  testimony  on  this  sub- 
ject has  shown  that  it  never  was  treated  as  a  confes- 
sion. Mr.  Tracy  testifies  that  Mr.  Moulton  said  the 
paper  was  a  memorandum  or  notes  of  a  conversation 
he  had  with  Mr.  Beecher. 

Mr.  Belcher,  Mr.  Wilkeson,  Mr.  Storrs,  and  Mr.  Claflin 
testified  to  its  being  always  spoken  of  by  Tilton  and 
Moulton  as  an  *'  apology."  And  the  letter  of  Mr.  Tilton 
to  Dr.  Bacon  characterizes  it  throughout  and  repeatedly 
as  an  "  apology." 

The  pastor  communicated  to  me  in  writing  an  apol- 
ogy signed  by  his  name. 

And  he  says,  as  a  justification  for  the  publicity  that  lie 
now  gives : 

Had  the  fair  spirit  which  I  had  a  right  to  expect  from 
Plymouth  Church,  at  least  lor  its  pastor's  sake,  been 
shown  toward  me,  I  would  have  continued  to  rest  in  si- 
lence on  Mr.  Beecher's  apology,  and  never  during  the  re- 
matuder  of  my  life  would  I  have  permitted  any  pubUo 
word  of  mrue  to  allude  to  the  offense  or  the  offender. 

And  another  phrase  in  whicli  this  Bacon  letter  refers  to 
this  memorandum  as  an  "  apology  "  is  this  : 

But  my  duty  to  continue  this  forbearance  ceased  when 
the  spirit  of  that  apology  was  violated  to  my  injury  by 
its  author  or  his  agents. 

Well,  the  spirit  of  an  apology  for  an  adultery,  if  you  can 
apply  in  the  first  instance,  without  contemptuous  derision 
to  him  who  uses  it,  the  phrase  of  an  "  apology  for  an 
adultery,"  and  that  enables  a  husband  and  paramour 
to  walk  down  thfe  street  afterward  together,  and 
to  be  friends  because  an  unintended  insult 
or  injury  has  been  met  by  a  suitable 
apology— you  cannot  understand  how  the  spirit 
of  apology  for  adultery  is  violated  by  some  depreciatory 
remarks  to  the  prejudice  of  the  injured  party,  that  have 
been  made  by  an  apologizing  person  or  his  friends.  So, 
too,  in  Mr.  TUton's  proposed  verdict  for  the  Church  Com- 
mittee : 

The  Committee  further  find  that  Mr.  Tilton,  in  his  relar 
tions  Avith  the  pastor,  had  a  just  cause  of  offense,  and  had 
received  a  voluntary  apology,  and  he  gives  as  one  of  his 
reasons  for  not  going  more  particularly  into  it,  that  the 
apology  was  designed  to  cover  a  complicated  transaction, 
its  details  difficult  of  exact  or  just  statement. 

Well,  now,  adultery  is  not  a  complicated  transaction. 
It  is  very  simple  and  intelligent  in  its  features ;  but  on  the 
view  of  what  this  paper  called  an  apology  was  to  meet 
you  see  at  once  the  truthfulness,  the  unconscious  trttthf 


SUMMING    UP  BY  ME.  EVABTS. 


757 


xulness  of  Mr.  Tilton's  characterization  of  it,  as  an  apol 
ogy  for  a  complicated  transaction  wiiicli  there  is  no  use 
of  going  more  fully  into. 

A  NEW  YEAR'S  GIFT  FOE  MR.  BOWEN. 
Now,  at  tMs  very  time  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  so 
anxious  to  remove  any  grounds  of  offense  or  animosity 
on  Mr.  Beecher's  part  toward  Mm  absolutely,  do  you 
suppose  that  there  is  any  sense  in  that  propositlou,  if  he 
had  the  power  of  compelling  Mr.  Beecherto  he  his  friend? 
But  at  the  very  time  he  was  trying  to  stir  up  the  emo- 
tions of  Mr.  Beecher's  heart  in  his  favor  and  to  displace 
the  ground  of  enmity  which  he  knew  Mr.  Beecher  might 
rightfully  feel  toward  him,  he  was  himself  writing  a  let- 
ter to  Bowen  setting  forth  in  detail  all  the  impu- 
tations against  Mr.  Beecher  that  Mr.  Bowen  had 
made,  according  to  Mr.  Tilton,  or  that  he  had 
not  made,  if  you  cannot  helieve  Mr.  Tilton,  in  perma- 
nent form,  with  a  view— for  it  is  a  strange  history  that 
that  letter  has— with  a  view  of  having  in  possession  and 
for  use  not  Mr.  Tilton's  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher,  not 
Mr,  Bowen's  charges  against  Mr.  Beecher,  but  Mr. 
Tilton's  statements  of  Mr.  Bowen's  charges,  and  not  in 
the  form  of  a  communication  to  the  public,  not  in  the 
form  of  a  communication  to  Mr.  Beecher,  but  in  the  form 
of  a  letter  to  Mr.  Bowen.  And  he  did  make  good  use  of 
it  afterward  for  definite  purposes  and  with  definite 
results. 

But  what  happened  to  that  letter  in  those  early  days 
nobody  can  tell.  Bow  en  says  it  was  not  shown  to  him. 
Beecher  says  it  was  not  shown  to  him,  though  its  contents 
and  its  preparation,  and  the  purpose  of  making  it  in- 
cluded a  record  of  the  Bowen  charges,  and  the  purpose 
in  reducing  it  to  writing  to  use  with  Bowen  to  make  him 
pay,  tor  fear  that  he,  Bowen,  should  be  exposed  as  hav- 
ing made  these  charges  against  Beecher.  Beecher  did 
not  care  anything  about  the  charges.  Of  course 
he  did  nc*?.  want  them  published  against 
him,  but  he  '^tld  these  people  in  regard  to 
Bowen,  "  I  navo  no  fear  of  him."  And  Mr.  Tilton  says 
in  his  slip— his  Golden  Age  slip  that  he  had  put  in  type 
and  then  broke  up  the  type  because  three  copies  was  all 
he  wanted  to  use— he  says  that  Mr.  Beecher  denied  every 
one  of  those  cliarges;  and  the  testimony  here  shows  that 
he  never  cared  a  straw,  in  any  of  his  conversations  with 
Mr,  Moultou  or  with  Mr.  Tilton,  about  those  charges  of 
Mr.  Bowen,  which  Mr.  Tilton  represented  Bowen  as 
having  made.  They  did  make  a  sort  of  stumbling  eflfort 
to  revive  the  enormous  wickedness  of  the  Proctor  scan- 
dal, that  has  been  exploded  in  a  neighboring  court,  and 
like  whipped  dogs  have  submitted  to  the  vengeance 
of  public  reprobation,  and  the  judgment  and  the  payment 
of  the  judgment  for  that  enormous  injury  of  the  fair  fame 
of  a  woman ;  but  Mr.  Beecher  denies  even  these  lame  and 
stumbling  propositions,  these  new  instances  of  "I  dare 
not"  waiting  upon  "I  would."  And  pray,  pray,  what 


was  this  letter  which  Mr.  Tilton  has  so  jauntily  charac- 
terized in  his  "  True  Story"  as  a  New  Year's  gift  that  he 
prepared  for  Bowen,  as  he  had  made  a  Christmas  gift  for 
Beecher  ?  It  was  to  put  in  the  form  of  writing,  under  his 
(Tilton's)  name,  a  recital  to  Bowen  of  what  he  (Tilton) 
said  Bowen  had  said,  and  thus  make  Mr.  Beecher  feel 
that  Bowen  had  been  the  author  of  tZiese  enoi-mous 
slenders,  which  Beecher  knew  had  no  foundation,  and 
which  Bowen  knew  had  no  foundation,  and  which  had 
been  faced  down  'by  Mr.  Beecher  so  far  as  they  ever  did 
come  from  Mr.  Bowen ;  for,  unluckily,  Mr.  Bowen  has 
not  been  brought  here  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  correct  his,  Mr. 
Tilton's,  view  of  Mr.  Bowen's  cLa  -acter  and  conduct — 
unluckily  for  Mr.  Bowen.  And  yet  this  malicious  paper 
is  brought  iuto  existence  in  order  to  affect  Beecher's 
mind,  and  in  order  to  affect  Bowen's  mind.  Bowen  says : 
"  Tt  was  not  shown  to  me  until  somewlicre  near  this  ar- 
bitration "—as  I  understand  the  evidence.  Beecher  says : 
"  I  did  not  see  it  at  that  time ;  they  talked 
about  it;  it  was  afterward  shown  to  me." 
Moulton,  to  be  sure,  and  Mr.  Tilton  both,  I 
think,  speak  of  the  text  itself  of  the  letter  as  hav- 
ing been  laid  before  Mr.  Beecher  some  time  that  Winter. 
Now,  you  see  that  the  effort  was  completely  disclosed  on 
this  evidence,  to  bring  Mr.  Beecher  back  to  feeling  that 
Bowen  was  the  injurious  and  malicious  contriver  of 
Tilton's  downfall,  as  he  had  been  the  injurious  and  mali- 
cious contriver  of  what  turned  out  to  be  sure  to  be  a  very 
harmless  assault  upon  Mr.  Beecher,  and  attempting  his 
downfall.  And  so  you  will  find  all  through  these  inter- 
views, that  run  along  on  the  3d  and  4th  of  January,  and 
then,  somewhere  between  the  7th  and  10th  of  January, 
all  along,  the  effort  and  the  purpose  to  enlist  and  con- 
firm Mr.  Beecher  in  cooperative  means  to  help  Mr.  Til- 
ton, and  in  a  constant  state  of  animosity  and  animadver- 
sion against  Mr.  Bowen  !  And  Mr.  Moulton  tells  you,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Beecher's  version,  and  the  truth  is  equally 
discoverable  in  his  own  statements,  that  all  through  that 
period  of  those  interviews  the  purpose  was  not  only  of 
getting  this  money,  if  that  should  be  proper,  but  of  rein- 
statement ta  Mr.  Bowen's  employment,  and  in  his  former 
contracts,  of  Mr.  Tilton ;  and  it  was  the  adherence  to 
this  higher  and  more  beneficial  purpose  that  led  to  Mr. 
Moulton 's  rejection  of  Mr.  Bowen's  desire  for  ar- 
bitration and  desire  for  peace,  an  arbitration  that 
as  Moulton  repeats,  and  as  TUton  repeats  at  this  early 
stage,  was  desired  by  Mr.  Bowen  to  cover  his  relations 
with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  get  out  of  that  difficulty  and  make 
peace  all  round,  though  they  afterward  deny  that  these 
facts  had  anything  to  do  with  the  arbitration.  And 
when  Mr.  Moulton  uses  what  Mr.  Beecher  had  given  him, 
showing  his,  Beecher's,  defiance  of  Bowen,  he  says: 
"  WTiy,  everything  has  been  settled;  it  is  business,  and 
nothing  else.  Here  are  the  heads.  There  is  Bowen's 
own  memorandiim  of  any  difficulties,  or  any  com- 
plaiats,  and  they  have  all  been  settled."    And  then 


7<58 


IHE   TLLIO^-BEECRMB  TRIAL. 


Moultun  says,  "  I  will  use  it  with  Bowen," 
and  tlien  liaving  drawn  from  Mr.  Beecher 
a  narrative  of  liow  Bowen,  after  liaving  made  tlie  peace, 
bad,  withiQ  a  very  short  time,  professed  to  have  some 
great  secret  that  would  destroy  Plymouth  Church,  and 
drive  him  away,  and  how  he  had  heen  brought  to  account, 
and  how  that  had  been  ended,  Moulton  says— at  least 
Mr.  Beecher  says  Mr.  Moulton  reported  to  him  that  Mr. 
Moulton  got  Mr.  Bowen  up  there  into  his  (Moulton's) 
house,  into  his  parlor,  and  there  attacked 
and  accused  him,  exposed  his  treachery  to 
Beecher,  his  malignity,  and  shook  the  paper  in 
his  hands  that  Beecher  had  given  to  him,  and 
made  Bowen  turn  white,  and  Bowen  says,  "  Oh !  how 
can  I  ever  look  that  man  (glancing  at  the  portrait)  in  the 
face  again?''  He  then  came  hack  to  Beecher  and  reported 
the  interview,  and  Beecher  said,  "  Why  didn't  you  nail 
him  on  the  spot,  and  make  him  pay  the  money  ?"  "  Oh," 
says  Moulton,  "  the  time  Jias  not  come  for  that ;  the 
point  is  to  get  him  to  take  Tilton  hack ;  not  pay  damages 
for  removing  him,  hut  get  him  hack  and  pay  him  the  sal- 
ary and  reinstate  liim."  And  then  Mr.  Moulton  is  brought 
back  to  the  stand,  and  all  this  statement  of  Mr. 
Beecher  concerning  his  action  with  Mr.  Bowen 
and  his  report  of  it  to  Mr.  Beecher,  involving 
the  interviews  in  which  Mr.  Bowen  had  laid  out  this 
apology  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  drawn  the  facts  from  him  to 
use  with  Bowen,  and  this  actual  interview  with  Bowen, 
and  his  report  to  Beecher— Mr.  Moulton  is  brought  back 
to  contradict  it,  and  he  contradicts  it  in  respect  to  the 
point  of  whether  Mr.  Beecher  looked  at  the  portrait  and 
said  he  could  never  look  that  man  in  the  face  again. 
Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Bowen. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Bowen— in  the  point  that  Mr.  Bowen 
looked  at  the  portrait  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  said,  "Oh! 
how  can  I  ever  look  that  man  in  the  face  again  1"  and  he 
puts  that  on  the  fact  that  there  was  not  any  portrait 
there. 

That  shows  how  the  memory  reposes  not  upon  what 
was  the  thing  to  be  remembered,  but  upon  the  question 
of  whether  it  was  accurately  stated  in  mode  and  form, 
and  then  a  conclusion  that  as  the  portrait  was  not  there 
that  mode  and  form  could  not  have  been  the  statement. 
That  is  another  instance  of  an  attempt  to  substitute  un- 
known facts  concerning  which  the  witness  supposes  his 
word  will  bo  the  say-so,  and  not  understanding  that  if 
facts  exist  there  is  very  probably  some  mode  of  prov- 
ing them ;  and  we  have  proved  by  the  landlord  that 
he  saw  It  there  ta  that  Winter,  and  by  Mr. 
Caldwell  that  when  he  watched  by  the  flickering  life  of 
Mr.  Moulton  for  15  hours  in  that  Winter  of  his  sickness, 
in  1871,  he  saw  it  there;  and  by  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Moulton  that  that  portrait  was  sent  there  in  the  Summer 
or  Autumn  of  1870 ;  and  the  evidence  is  clear  that  they 
did  not  go  to  Remsen-st.  untU  May,  1871 ;  that  there  is 
no  dispute  about.    Now,  where  was  the  portrait,  and 


why  did  not  Mr.  Bowen  say,  "  I  never  can  look  upon  that 
man's  face  again  ?"  If  he  did  not  say  it  it  was  not  be- 
cause that  portrait  was  not  there. 

THE  PTTTTING  OFF  OF  THE  PEW  RENTING. 
The  2d  of  January,  gentlemen,  is  spoken  of 
as  an  occasion  of  an  interview,  but  it  was  not  of  very 
much  importance.  Mr.  Beecher  says  there  was  none  ;  he 
was  occupied  with  his  callers  ;  and  Mr.  Moulton  makes  it 
an  occasion  of  some  talk  about  whether  the  pew-renting 
should  be  put  off,  "  whether,"  as  Mr.  Beecher  said  "  it 
would  be  safe  for  me  to  go  on  and  rent  my  pews. "  Well,  this 
is  for  argumentative  confession.  Of  course  when  you 
get  the  diverging  line  of  facts  set,  between  these  two 
opposite  theories,  why  whatever  is  consistent  with  Mr, 
Beecher's  view,  whatever  is  consistent  with  his  either 
self-reproaches  or  his  alarm  at  there  being  a  dan- 
ger of  an  explosion,  of  the  nature  which  he  understood 
is  just  as  ready  and  just  as  successful  a  mode  of  account- 
ing for  any  solicitudes  of  his,  provided  those  solicitudes 
comport  with  his  theory,  as  any  other  notion  of  their 
views.  All  that  happened  then  on  the  2d,  further,, 
was  that  Mr.  Bowen  called  and  mentioned  to  Mr.  Beecher 
the  fact  that  he  had  finally  and  absolutely  disposed  of 
Mr.  Tilton's  connection  with  The  Independent,  and  there- 
fore Mr.  Beecher's  letter  to  Mr.  Bowen,  written  on  the  2d 
day  of  January,  and  sent  and  promptly  received  toy  Mr. 
Bowen,  and  here  produced  by  him,  to  endeavor  to  avert 
the  blow  or  correct  any  impressions  toward  the  blow  that 
he,  Mr.  Beecher,  had  given,  came  too  late. 

THE  SECOND  MEETING  AT  MR.  MOULTON'S. 

Now  on  the  3d  of  January— on  the  3d  or 
4th  of  January,  for  there  is  some  difference  perhaps,  or 
doubt,  as  to  which  day  it  was— and  it  is  not  at  all  import- 
ant—there occiu?red  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house  what  is 
spoken  of  as  a  casual  meeting  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mr.  Tilton.  Well,  Mr.  Beecher  was  at  Mx'.  Moulton's 
house,  and  in  his  sick  room,  and  was  conversing  with  him 
always  in  this  interest  which  Mr.  Moulton  was  pursuing 
of  the  restoration  of  Mr.  Tilton's  fortunes,  when  Mr.  Til- 
ton came  in,  and  whether  it  was  casual  or  whether  it  was 
prearranged  that  Mr.  Tilton  should  come  there  is  probably 
a  matter  that  we  never  shall  know  except  from  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Tilton  or  Mr.  Moulton,  but  at  any  rate 
it  is  an  interview  professed  to  be  of  some  importance.  It 
was  an  interview  that  came  immediately  after  the  "Letr 
ter  of  Contrition,"  as  they  call  it,  the  memorandum  or 
notes  of  Mr.  Moulton,  as  we  describe  the  paper  which  I 
have  just  descanted  upon,  and  there  went  on  between 
Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  under  the  conservative  guid- 
ance of  Mi-.  Moulton,  of  reconciliation  in  form  and  feeling 
according  to  what  Mr.  Moulton  thought  was  the  neces- 
sary and  proper  gentlemanly  conduct  on  the 
part  of  Mr.  Tilton  towards  Mr.  Beecher,  which 
Mr.     Beecher's     attitude,     as     described    by  Ws 


scmmi:ng  uf  by  me,  eyabts. 


759 


feelings  and  their  expression  during  tlie  inter- 
view of  Simday  afternoon,  as  Mr,  Moulton  had  conveyed 
it  to  Mr.  Tilton,  was  suitable  and  proper.  Mr.  Moultou's 
account  of  that  interview  confirms  Mr.  Beecher's  much 
more  than  it  does  Mr.  Tilton's.  Mr.  Tilton  makes,  un- 
ioubtedly,  this  interview  a  vehicle  of  some  confessions, 
as  they  are  called,  hut  all  of  them  are  entirely  denied  by 
Mr.  Beeoher,  and  the  concurrent  evidence  of  the  conduct 
of  all  the  parties  shows  that  all  that  occiu-red  at  that 
interview  was  that  Mr.  Beecher,  meeting  Mr.  Tilton, 
readily  and  gladly  expressed  to  him  in  person 
the  feelings,  the  dispositions,  the  regrets,  the  grief,  the 
commiseration  of  his  affairs  which  he  had  expressed  to 
Mr.  Moulton  on  the  Sunday  preceding,  and  which  Mr. 
Moulton  had  undertaken  to  convey  to  Mr.  Tilton  in  the 
form  of  this  written  memorandum,  and  which  he  tells 
you  he  had  shown  Mr.  Tilton  on  that  very  Sunday  night 
after  he  had  gained  possession  of  that  memorandum. 
And  then  thereafter  everything  was  of  accord  between 
this  injured  husband  and  this  guilty  defendant,  if  he 
were  guilty,  and  Mr.  Tilton  accepted  and  desired,  through 
his  agent  and  friend  Mr.  Moulton,  cooperation  and  aid 
in  respect  to  his  reinstatement,  in  respect  to  the  collec- 
tion of  what  was  due,  and  what  was  denied  to  be  due 
by  Bowen,  and  every  degree  of  favor  and  aid  that  one 
man  would  accept  from  a  friend  was  accepted  by  Mr. 
Tilton  thereafter  from  Mr.  Beecher  and  from  Mr. 
Bee  Cher's  friends  down  to  the  time  when,  as  Mr.  Tilton 
says,  "these  friendly  relations  ended  by  Plymouth 
Church  undertaking  to  seize  me  (Tilton)  by  the  throat," 
a  period  that  certainly  carries  us  to  1873,  if  not  to  1874. 

JUDGE  NEILSON  WANTS  A  SPEEDY  END  OF 
THE  CASE. 
Judge  Neilson— Grentlemen  of  tlie  jury,  I 
find  occasion  to  appeal  to  you.  You  will  remember  that 
heretofore  when  I  sugg-ested  that  you  should  work  on 
Saturday,  I  assented  readily  to  your  suggestions  that  it 
was  not  desirable  to  work  on  Saturday ;  but  now  there 
are  very  pressing  reasons  which  I  feel  very  strongly. 
Some  of  you  have  been  iurors  in  this  court  here- 
tofore. You  know  that  on  the  first 
Monday  of  every  month,  except  July  and 
August,  we  have  a  calendar  of  250  or  300 
causes  to  be  tried,  and  that  two  of  the  judges  act  upon 
those  trials,  two  coui-ts  going  on  with  the  calendar  until 
exhausted,  and  we  have  such  a  calendar  for  next  Mon- 
day morning,  and  I  feel  a  strong  desire  to  be  back  to  my 
•  ordinary  duties,  inasmuch  as  my  associates  have  been 
burdened  these  last  five  months,  not  only  with  the  work 
appropriate  to  them,  but  with  the  work  which 
I  should  have  been  performing  with  them.  I 
wish  to  get  back  to  my  customary  labors 
as  soon  as  possible  and  relieve  them  from 
the  extra  burden.  And,  beyond  that,  gentlemen,  in  all 
cases  of  appeal  where  the  appeal  is  from  an  order  or 


judgment  of  mine,  my  associates  can  sit,  but  in  thos* 
cases  where  the  appeal  is  from  a  judgment  or  order  made 
by  one  of  them,  the  appeal  at  our  General  Term  awaits 
the  time  when  I  can  act  with  ono  of  the  other  two,  and 
we  have  a  large  mass  of  those  cases  lying 
in  arrears,  although  we  have  occasionally 
heard  a  case.  We  did  so  this  morning,  or 
rather  Judge  Reynolds  and  myself  heard  an  argument 
this  morning  in  a  case  of  that  kind,  but  the  attorneys 
need  a  week  or  two  notice  to  get  ready,  and  there  is  a 
large  amount  of  General  Term  business  lying  in  a  neg- 
lected state,, and  these  considerations,  as  well  as  the  gen- 
eral desire  of  all  of  us,  make  it  imperative  that  I  must  ask 
you  to  attend  to-morrow,  and  probably  you  will  cheerfully 
do  so. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  might,  if  your  Honor  please,  be  allowed 
to  say  a  word  on  that  subject  myself.  I  am  willing  to 
submit  to  any  necessary  instructions  of  your  Honor,  and 
shall  feel  the  greatest  desire  both  to  oblige  your  Honor  in 
these  interests  of  the  public,  and  the  jury  in  their  wishes^ 
which  I  have  no  doubt  are  very  considerable,  that  the 
argument  should  be  protracted  in  time  no  longer  than  is 
necessary.  But  I  confess  that  I  am  not  disposed  to  feel 
entirely  indifferent  upon  the  question  of  whether  after  four 
days  of  full  measure  of  oral  argument  and  the  pressure 
of  preparation  each  night  for  it,  when  I  have  come  to  the 
accustomed  period  of  adjom-nment,  I  should  feel  that 
I  could  retain  the  strength  for  the  argiunent  to-morrow, 
and  then  submit  to  the  necessity  of  going  on  without 
the  ordinary  tutervals  of  rest.  T  have  asked  very  few 
favors,  I  think,  on  my  own  account  in  respect  of  strength 
or  health,  and  I  have  gladly,  cheerfully,  and  spontane- 
ously met  any  suggestion  of  that  kind  from  our  oppo- 
nents. I  shall  submit  to  your  Honor's  direction  and  the. 
conclusion  of  the  jiuy. 

Mr.  Beach— If  I  understand  from  the  intimation  of  my 
learned  friend,  he  thinlis  it  would  be  oppressive  to  him 
to  contiuue  his  argument  to-morrow,  and  that  his  prepa- 
rations have  not  been  fully  made  and  cannot  be  fully 
made  without  imposing  upon  him  unusual  labor  for  that 
service  upon  to-morrow.  I  am  excessively  anxious^. 
Sir,  and  it  is  imperative  with  me  that  this  case,, 
so  far  as  I  am  connected  with  it,  should  be  speedily 
closed.  At  the  commencement  of  this  argument, 
it  was  intimated  by  our  learned  friends  that 
they  would  require  five  days  to  submit  what  they  pro- 
posed to  say  to  your  Honor  and  to  the  jury  It  was  said 
that  Mr.  Porter  would  probably  occupy  two  days  and  Mr. 
Evarts  three,  or  the  converse,  I  don't  know  which,  and 
when  it  was  found  that  Mr.  Porter  was  taking  all  the 
time  which  was  assigned  or  intimated  for  the  whole  argu- 
ment of  the  defense,  we  were  assured  that  it  would, 
not  lengthen  the  aggregate  period  which  they  would  oc- 
cupy, and  we  have  now  been  eleven  days.  Sir,  in  this  ar- 
gument, all  occupied  by  the  counsel  for  the  defense. 
Your  Honor  knows,  and  they  know,  that  there  is  to  be- 


lUI^   TlJ/ION-BinjJaBEE  IIUAL, 


'^ut  an  answer  from  one  counsel  upon  the  part  of  tlie 
plaintiil',  and  under  these  circumstances  I  appeal  to  yoiu" 
Honor  that  there  should  be  some  limitation  to  the  debate, 
iihat  we  shall  know  when  it  is  to  end  upon  the  part  of 
the  defense,  and  that  we  shall  not  drift  on  in  this  in- 
definite and  apparently  interminable  course  of  argument. 
I  certainly  do  not  mean,  Sir,  by  any  remark  to  criticise 
now  the  mode  of  argument  adopted  by  my  learned 
friend ;  that  will  be  more  appropriate  hereafter,  if  any 
exceptions  are  to  be  taken  to  it,  which  I  do  not  intimate. 
But  I  cannot,  Sir,  having  experienced  what  my  fi'iend 
properly  calls  the  voluntary  and  spontaneoiis  courtesy 
-which  he  has  extended  to  the  counsel  for  the  plaintiff 
under  peculiar  and  necessitous  circumstances,  notwith- 
standing all  my  desire  to  close  this  case,  and  the  oppres- 
sion which  I  feel  from  its  continuance,  I  cannot,  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  insist  that  my  friend  should  be 
called  upon  suddenly  to  continue  his  argiunent  to-mor- 
row. Certainly  four  days  of  continuous  labor,  speaking 
labor,  is  a  pretty  severe  tax  upon  any  gentleman, 
although  I  think  my  friend  talks  quite  easily  and  with 
but  little  personal  oppression;  and  besides  that,  it  is  un- 
expected, and  it  may  very  well  be  supposed  that, 
while  there  is  never  any  want  of  preparation  on 
the  part  of  my  learned  friend,  he  may  not  pre- 
cisely have  settled  the  line  of  argument  proper 
to  adopt  upon  a  succeeding  day.  I  do  not  know,  Sir, 
what  the  views  or  wishes  of  the  jury  may  be  ;  and  it  is 
only  because  I  have  heretofore  spoken  to  your  Honor 
about  my  desire  of  having  some  expression  either  fx-om 
the  Court  or  from  the  counsel,  of  the  additional  time  that 
they  will  require  to  conclude  their  argument  that  I  have 
interfered  at  all,  and  out  of  a  sense  of  grateful  courtesy  to 
the  action  heretofore  of  my  learned  friend.  So 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  therefore.  Sir,  and  on  the 
part  of  the  plaintiff,  I  trust  your  Honor  will  give  heed  to 
the  wishes  of  Mr.  Evarts  upon  the  subject ;  but  I  stUl  in- 
sist, Sir,  and  I  appeal  to  your  Honor  to  assign  some  limit 
to  this  debate,  that  I  may  know  when,  on  behalf  of  the 
plaintiff,  I  can  have  the  ear  of  this  Court  and  iury  for  the 
comparatively  brief  time  which  I  shall  ask  la  submitting 
the  case  of  the  plaintiff. 

Judge  Neilson— I  was  forgetful  of  these  considerations 
when  I  appealed  to  the  jury,  as  if  the  jury  only  were  to 
be  considered ;  I  did  not  at  the  moment  recall  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  learned  counsel  who  had  been  speak- 
iug  duiing  the  week  might  need  time  for  thought  and 
preparation,  or  even  for  rest,  we  having  adopted  the 
notion  that  he  was  the  only  one  of  our  whole  number 
that  did  not  need  any  rest,  and  as  to  the  time  when  prob- 
ably Mr.  Beach  will  have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  I 
have  no  doubt  counsel  will  consult  about  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  recognize  my  learned  friend's  kindness 
and  courtesy,  and  of  course  it  was  not  at  all  unexpected 
by  me.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury  and  your  Honor  and  my 
learned  friends  on  both  sides  may  see  that  there  is  every 


reason  why  I  should  wish  to  conclude  this  argument  as 
soon  as  my  sense  of  duty  to  my  client  will  permit,  and  I 
wiU  say  to  ray  learned  friend,  for  I  think  it  is  due  to  him, 
that  I  have  disposed  of,  in  my  judgment,  the  main 
iuterests  and  purposes  of  this  inquiry,  as  called 
for  from  mq,  in  addition  to  what  Mr.  Porter  has 
done,  and  that  I  have  not  the  least  expectation  of  going 
beyond  Tuesday  in  my  summing  up,  and  I  have  a  strong 
desire  to  be  able  to  close  by  recess  on  Tuesday ;  but  as 
my  learned  friend  is  only  concerned  that  I  should  have  a 
limit  that  I  won't  fall  short  of,  I  think  we  must  take 
Tuesday  night. 

The  Court  then  adjoui-ned  until  Monday,  June  7,  at  11 
a.  m. 

NINETY-EIGHTH   DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  DEFENDANT  NEARLY 
ENDED. 

INCREASED  INTEREST  IN  THE  SUMMING  UP  OP  MR. 
EVARTS— EVIDENCE  CONCERNING  MR.  TILTON'S 
CHARACTER  REVIEWED— MRS.  WOODHULL'S  PART 
IN  STIRRING  UP  THE  SCANDAL  NOTICED— THE 
ADMITTED  FALSE  STATEMENTS  OP  MR.  TILTON 
AND  MR.  MOULTON  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  CASE 
SEVERELY  COMMENTED  UPON— INTERVIEWS  BE- 
TWEEN THE  PLAINTIFF  AND  DEFENDANT  EX- 
AMINED—MR. TRACY'S  TESTIMONY  EMPHASIZED. 

Monday,  June  7,  1875. 
Mr.  E  varts's  historical  metliod  of  treating  his  case 
to-day  brought  him  to  a  range  of  topics  appa- 
rently less  important  than  those  which  he  had  be- 
fore considered,  but  still  sufficiently  interesting  to 
hold  the  attention  of  an  audience  somewhat 
larger  than  those  which  occupied  the  Court- 
room last  week.  The  orator  has  followed,  in  hia 
argiunent,  almost  the  regular  chronological  se- 
quence of  the  events  which  make  up  the  story  of  the 
scandal.  Mr.  Beach  still  seemed  to  feel  somewhat 
unwell,  and  he  carefully  avoided  sitting  in  a  draft  of 
air,  leaving  his  chair  and  seating  himself  at  the  side 
of  the  bench.  He  was  kept  away  in  the  afternoon  by 
a  case  in  another  court,  but  he  left  word  for  Mr. 
Evarts  to  go  on  with  the  argument,  notwithstanding 
his  absence. 

The  topics  covered  by  the  argument  to-day 
were  treated  more  briefly  than  those  that  have  gone 
before.  Mr.  Evarts  spoke,  much  of  the  time,  with 
unusual  rapidity.  He  reviewed  several  of  the  dec- 
larations of  Mr.  Tilton  about  Mr.  Beecher's  alleged 
statements,  considered  some  of  the  interviews  be- 
tween the  plaintiff  and  defendant,  referred  to  Mrs. 
Morse,    Mrs.    Davis,  and  Mrs.   H.  B.  Stantou, 


BUMMING   UP  BF  ME.  EVABTS. 


761 


enlarged  upon  the  relations  of  Mr.  Tilton  with  Mrs. 
Woodhull,  pointed  out  contradictions  of  Mr.  Tilton's 
evidence,  analyzed  the  testimony  of  Gen.  Tracy 
about  the  interview  between  himself  and  Messrs. 
Tilton  and  Moulton,  and  touched  upon  a  variety  of 
other  subjects.  There  were  several  stirring  passages 
in  the  address,  and  a  good  deal  of  humor,  which 
sometimes  depended  more  on  the  orator's  manner 
than  his  words. 

A  playful  allusion  to  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  aspirations 
to  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States  was 
hrought  out  by  the  orator  in  a  way  which 
set  the  audience  and  the  jurymen  laughing. 
Mr.  Moulton  received  another  thrust  from  the  ora- 
tor's wit.  Referring  to  Mr.  Moulton's  having  said 
that,  in  a  certain  case,  he  had  lied  for  IVIr.  Beecher, 
the  orator  exclaimed,  "  Well  gentlemen,  a  man  who 
lies  for  Beecher  will  lie  for  himself."  Then  turning 
toward  Mr.  Tilton,  he  pronounced  one  the  most 
striking  passages  in  the  day's  argument,  in  a  severe 
tone  of  voice,  and  with  stinging  sarcasm.  "  It 
may  be  a  hardship,"  he  said,  "  for  this  plaintiff 
that  he  has  no  witnesses  to  prove  his  case  but  men 
who,  like  himself,  and  as  himself  confessedly  out  of 
his  own  mouth,  and  as  Moulton  confessedly  out  of 
his  own  mouth,  have  lied,  and  lied,  and  lied  to  put 
Sl  wrong  face  on  this  matter." 

One  of  the  most  carefully  elaborated  por- 
tions of  the  argument  was  that  in  reference 
to  the  early  relations  of  Gen.  Tracy  to  the  case, 
and  his  interview  with  Messrs.  Moulton  and  Tilton. 
The  orator  asserted  that  Messrs.  Moulton  and  Tilton 
had  got  permission  from  Mr.  Beecher  to  tell  Gen. 
Tracy  the  facts,  and  that  they  must  either  say  that 
they  were  telling  Mr.  Tracy  a  series  of  lies,  or  they 
must  stand  upon  his  testimony,  if  the  jury  accepted 
It  as  true,  of  what  they  did  tell  him  as  the  truth. 
This  part  of  the  address  attracted  very  close  atten- 
tion from  the  audience,  and  it  was  delivered  with 
much  force  of  manner  and  clearness  of  statement. 


THE   PROCEEDINGS— YEKBATTM. 

MR.  BEECHEE'S   TESTIMONY   AGAINST  MR. 
TILTON'S. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  puisuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  does  not  accord  vritli  my  pm-pose,  gen- 
tlemen of  tlie  jmy,  nor  does  it  tit  witii  tlie  limitations  of 
time  wlilcli  my  own  sense  of  my  duty  to  you  imposes 
upon  me,  to  treat  of  all  the  random  and  scattered  inter- 
views tliat  are  thrown  in  here  and  there  during  the  years 
that  follow  this  important  and  decisive  period  between 


these  parties,  of  December,  1870,  and  .January,  1871.  I 
have  proposed  to  you  that  upon  the  occurrences  of  that 
week,  as  respects  charges  or  confessions,  that  week  in 
December,  the  line  was  set  between  these  people,  and 
that  thereafter,  in  any  view,  there  would  come  to  be  no 
new  expressions  or  renewals  either  of  accusation  or  of 
admission ;  and  in  that  view  I  pass  but  lightly  over  an 
interview  of  the  3d  of  January,  in  which  there  are  con- 
tained several  passages  that  perhaps  may  be  brought  to 
your  attention,  or  may  already  exist  in  your  memory; 
and  I  will  only  ask  your  attention  brieHy  to  them  that 
you  may  see  whether  or  no  I  am  correct  in  my  view,  that 
whatever  is  added  after  the  period  of  the  last  week  in 
December  is  of  no  importance,  whatever  view  you  shall 
take  of  what  occmred  during  that  week. 

Now,  Mr.  Moulton  having  insisted  upon  Mr.  Tilton, 
who  came  in,  treating  Mi*.  Beecher  with  respect  and  con- 
sideration and  com-tesy  in  his  house,  a  very  difficult 
proposition  to  accept,  if  you  believe  that  this  injured 
husband  and  this  paramour  stood  in  one  another's  pres- 
ence with  this  imputed  injury  still  existing  as  a  matter 
of  feeling  or  resentment  between  them ;  now,  after  Mr. 
Beecher  had  said,  as  I  have  stated  to  you,  that  the 
expressions  he  had  made  to  Mi-.  Moulton  were  sincere, 
and  that  ho  had  this  commiseration,  this  regard  for,  and 
this  desire  to  aid  Mr.  Tilton,  we  have,  according  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  this  fm-ther  statement.  He  says— tiiis  is  Mr. 
Tilton's  view : 

He  then  said,  "I  do  not  put  in  any  plea  for  myself,  but 
only  for  her.  Indeed,  if  you  wish  to  carry  out  the 
demand  which  was  communicated  to  me  in  your  letter  of 
Christmas  Day,  that  I  should  retire  from  my  pulpit,  you 
have  only  to  say  the  word  and  I  wHl  retire.  The  renting 
of  the  pews  shall  not  go  on." 

Now,  the  utter  impossibility  of  either  of  these  state- 
ments is  obvious  upon  the  undisouted  evidence.  In  the 
first  place,  how  could  Mr.  Beecher  say  to  IMr.  Tilton,  "  If 
you  wish  to  carry  out  the  demand  in  the  letter  made  ou 
Christmas  day  "—when  the  whole  agony  of  IMr.  Tilton  in 
the  interview^  of  the  30th  of  December  had  been  to 
obliterate  that  letter  and  that  charge,  and  to  conciliate 
Mr.  Beecher  to  the  point  of  not  resenting  it,  but  treating 
it  as  if  it  never  had  occurred  ?  And  how  could  Mr. 
Beecher,  on  the  3d  or  4th  of  January,  1871,  talk  of  the 
renting  of  the  pews  not  gomg  on,  whew  that  had  already 
happened  ? 

I  have  this  request  to  make— that  if  it  be  necessary  for 
you  to  make  a  public  recital  of  this  case  

What  an  extraordinary  idea  to  come  from  Mt.  Tilton's 
mouth,  when  the  solicitudes  of  his  wife,  as  he  says,  had 
prompted  him  to  resort  to  Mr.  Beecher  to  see  to  it  that 
by  chance  even,  from  any  exacerbations  between  Bowen 

and  Beecher,  nothing  could  possibly  come  out  

you  will  give  me  notice  in  advance  of  your  intention 
to  do  so,  in  order  that  I  may  either  go  out  of  the  world 
by  suicide,  or  else  escape  from  the  face  of  my  friends  by 
a  voyage  to  some  foreign  land.  And,  furthnrmore,  I  ask 
you  to  do  me  this  favor— that  whoever  else  in  the  wide 


763 


TEE   TlLTO:N-BEhir)HEB  TRIAL, 


woild  is  CO  be  informed  of  tlie  facts  of  this  case,  at  least 
my  wife  shall  never  know  anything  on  the  subject,  for 
filie  is  not  only  your  enemy,  but  may  very  readily  become 
mine.  If  you  can  spare  her  the  pang  of  having  these 
facts  communicated  to  her,  I  will  consider  that  it  is  an 
additional  occasion  of  gratitude. 

Now,  gentlemen,  look  at  the  absurdity  of  this.  The 
object  of  this  is  to  make  a  vehicle  of  narrative  that  may 
introduce  confessions ;  and  wherever  any  go-cart  can  be 
found  that  can  take  anything  of  that  commodity  in,  Mr. 
Tilton  always  drives  it  up,  in  season  and  out  of  season. 
But  the  absurdity  of  that  situation  between  them,  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  suggesting :  "  Well,  if  publicity  on  your 

account  "  which  TUton  had  been  struggling  against 

with  all  his  might  all  through  that  week,  and  urging  Mr. 
Beecher  not  to  permit  a  chance  of  publicity— he  says, 
•*  If  it  shall  become  necessary  for  your  purposes  to  give 
any  publicity  to  this,  why  give  me  notice,  in  order  that  I 
may  commit  suicide,  or  short  of  that,  that  I  may  retire 
to  Europe  ;  but  finally,  if  you  do  publish  it  in  New- York 
and  Brooklyn,  if  it  does  become  known  to  the  world  at 
large,  see  to  it  that  it  does  not  reach  Mrs.  Beecher,  be- 
cause that  would  be  an  additional  pang  to  me  that  you 
well  might  spare  me.  She  is  no  Mend  of  yours  now.  Mi'. 
Tilton,  and  she  might  become  an  enemy  of  mine  if  she 
heard  this  narrative." 

He  said  also  that  he  did  not  wish  me  to  understand 
that  he  solicited  any  mercy  for  himself  alone,  but  only 
for  his  family,  and  particularly  for  Ehzabeth.  He  said : 
"  I  do  not  beg  at  aU  for  myself,  but  for  her  ;  she  was  not 
to  blame ;  I  was  altogether  at  fault ;  my  sacred  ofBce 
and  my  years  should  have  combined  to  have  made  me 
her  guardian,  not  her  tempter." 

Now,  you  will  observe,  gentlemen,  that  some  conversa- 
tion might  arise  between  these  persons  concerning  the 
state  of  things  as  it  had  been  proposed  in  the  evening  of 
the  30th  of  December,  and  had  been  made  the  subject  of 
regret,  of  disorder,  of  feeling,  and  of  astonishment,  in  Mr. 
Beecher's  mind,  at  the  revelation  of  the  disaster  in  the 
household,  and  the  feelings  of  this  wife.  AU  that  is  con- 
sistent with  there  being  no  charge  and  no  confession  in 
the  sense  that  is  claimed  here.  But  that  I  have  suflB- 
ciently  insisl  1  upon.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  tn  all  future 
conversations  you  see  at  once  the  great  danger  of  having 
your  intelligence  imposed  upon  by  substituting  phrases 
that  seem  applicable  to  the  impossible  charge  of  adultery, 
instead  of  phrases  that  have  relation  to  this  disaster  tn 
the  family.  Mr.  Beecher  certainly  reproached  himself, 
too,  and  in  regard  to  which  he  expressed  himself  without 
measure. 

He  f;irthermore  told  me  that  the  relationship  which 
had  existed  between  himself  and  Elizabeth  had  not 
always  been  marked  by  sexual  intimacy ;  that  the  earlier 
years  of  it  were  free  from  any  such  talot  and  crime,  and 
f  liat  only  during  the  last  year,  or  a  little  more  than  a 
y  ear,  he  said,  and  that  year  shortened  by  a  country  vaca- 
tion, had  that  sexual  intimacy  existed.  He  fm'thermore 
*aid  that  he  did  not  know  how  he  could  offer  any  mitiga- 
tion or  excuse  for  hiruscll",  uTid  yet  lie  snid  he  wanted  me 
CO  believe,  for  Elizabeth's  sake  and  also  for  his  OAvn,  that 


he  had  never  sought  her  for  any  vulgar  end,  but  that  their 
sexual  conunerce  had  been  through  love,  and  not 
through  lust;  that  he  had  never  met  any  woman 
whom  he  had  loved  so  weU;  that  he  had 
sought  companionship  in  her  mind;  that  he  had 
taken  manuscripts  to  her  that  she  might  be  his  critic; 
and  that  the  blame— and  this  he  repeated  two  or 
three  times  over—"  the  blame,"  he  said,  "  belonged  to  me^ 
and  not  to  her."  And  he  added— and  when  he  did  so  the 
tears  came  into  his  eyes— he  added  some  words  like  these: 
"Tell  me,  before  you  go  away,  can  you  possibly  ever 
instate  Elizabeth  in  your  respect  and  love  9"  Then  ho 
said  "  that  he  was  in  great  grief  through  Mr.  Bowen's  ac- 
tion in  my  case,  the  termination  of  my  engagements  with 
Mr.  Bowen's  papers,  and  said  he  felt  that  Mr.  Bowen's 
suddenly  changed  mind  had  been  largely  due  to  state- 
ments which  Mrs.  Beecher  had  made  to  Mr.  Bowen  and 
to  statements  which  he  himself  had  made,  though  he  said 
that  Mrs.  Beecher  had  been  more  mischievous  in  her  ut- 
terances than  he.  He  mentioned  also  that  he  had  volun- 
tarily written  a  letter  to  Mr.  Bowen,  either  that  day  or 
the  day  before,  in  which  he  had  taken  back  some  of  the 
unkiud  references  or  Injurious  statements  which  he  had 
made  to  Mr.  Bowen  concerning  me." 

No  doubt  you  see  in  this  last  part  the  entire  conflrmar 
tion  of  the  idea  that  Mr.  Beecher  at  this  time  felt  and 
expressed  to  Mr.  Tilton— I  mean  at  this  period  from  the 
time  that  the  matter  was  brought  up  as  a  matter  of  dif- 
ference between  them  ia  the  misf ortimes  that  had  at- 
tended Mr.  Tilton— felt  and  so  expressed  himself  that  the 
mischief  of  Mrs.  Beecher's  and  of  his  own  intervention 
with  Mr.  Bowen  was  chargeable  in  some  degree  with  hi» 
disasters  in  a  pecuniary  point  of  view.  Now,  Mr. 
Beecher,  tn  his  evidence,  gives  substantially  this  view  of 
the  matter : 

I  turned  to  Mr.  Tilton,  and  with  far  more  words  than 
I  am  usiag  now— I  epitomize  now,  and  state  the  sub- 
stance—I turned  to  Mr.  Tilton,  and  spoke  to  him  of  the 
profound  regiets  that  I  felt  that  I  had  in  any  way  been  a 
party  or  subsidiary  to  the  injuries  inflicted  upon  him  by 
Mr.  Bowen ;  and  I  also  said  that  the  disturbance  in  his 
household  which  had  -been  occasioned  by  me,  was  with- 
out intention,  and  without  my  recognition  at  the  tirae^ 
but  that  I  did  regard  it  now  as  being  very  serious,  and 
that  I  had  the  most  profound  sorrow  for  the  distm-bance 
that  I  had  occasioned,  the  rupture  between  him  and  his 
family,  and  the  miseries  that  he  must  have  suffered ;  that 
I  asked  his  pardon  for  the  one,  and  for  the  other— 
that  I  felt  I  had  been  in  the  wrong,  and  that  I  ought  to 
ask  forgiveness  for  it. 

Now,  Mr.  Moulton's  statement  of  this  interview  agrees 
much  more  nearly  with  Mr.  Beecher's  than  it  does  with 
Mr.  Tilton's,  and  this  passage  that  I  have  now  read  ta 
you  is  not  denied  by  either  of  them.  Then  Mr.  Beecher, 
as  you  will  remember,  is  asked  dii  ectly  about  all  these 
odious  statements,  in  terms  specifically  that  I  have  read 
to  you,  as  forming  apart  of  this  interview  in  the  narra- 
tive of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  he  denies  them  entirely  and  with 
emphasis,  and  in  a  manner  and  with  a  sincerity  and  em- 
phasis which  you  all  recall.  You  wiU  see,  then,  that  this 
interview,  as  narrated  by  Mr.  Tilton,  and  the  expressions 
imputed  to  Mr.  Beecher,  are  all  a  rehash  and  reproduc- 
tion of  the  narrative  and  scheme  of  the  seduction  and  the 


SUMMING    UF  BY  ME.  EVAETS, 


763 


adultery  whlcli  Tilton,  in  its  perfect  form,  delivered 
to  you  as  the  narrative  of  tlie  "wife  to  tiimself  and  liis 
repetition  of  it  to  Mr.  Beeclier  on  tlie  30th  day  of  Decem- 
ber. Whatever  fate  befalls  that  interview  of  the  30th  of 
December,  in  your  judgment,  carries  with  it  necessarily 
these  subsequent  reproductions  of  the  same  ideas  and  of 
the  same  expressions. 

THE  INQUEST  ON  THE  PATERNITY  OF  THE 
CHILD  RALPH. 

There  comes  then  to  be  a  very  extraordinary- 
interview  as  stated  by  Mr.  Tilton,  to  which  your  atten- 
tion has  been  called  by  my  learned  associate,  Mr.  Porter, 
and  which  doubtless  lives  in  your  minds.  It  is  an  inter- 
view about  the  middle  of  Februai-y,  after  what  was  suj)- 
posed  to  be  a  very  full  accord  and  settlement  between 
these  parties,  of  the  grounds  and  racasm-es  of  complaint, 
of  the  groimdp  and  measures  of  reproach  and  apology  on 
Mr.  Beecher's  part,  made  up  in  a  circuit  of  letters  bear- 
ing date  the  7th  day  of  February ;  and  thereafter,  Mr. 
Tilton  says  that  he  invited  Mr.  Beecher  to  come  to  his 
house  for  an  interview,  a  house  at  which  he  should  find 
Mr.  Tilton  and  the  wife;  and  this  is  the  first  invitation  of 
Mr.  Beecher  to  his  house,  and  the  first  visit  to  the  house 
that  had  occurred.  He  tells  you  that  the  object  of  that 
was  to  relieve  his  mind  concerning  the  genuineness  or 
spuriousness  of  the  offspring  Ralph,  the  baby  of  the 
family  then,  I  think  something  like  a  year  and  a  half 
old,  nearly  two  years  old  perhaps.  Now.  gentlemen,  if 
this  interview  is  not  in  the  conception,  suggestion  and 
description  of  it  bj'  Mr.  Tilton  absurd,  it  is  not  in  the 
power  of  any  imagination  or  addition  to  make  it  so.  It 
proceeds  upon  nothing,  comes  to  nothing,  and  has  no 
possible  existence  in  the  nature  of  things.  The  object  of 
it  is  to  furnish  what  was  regarded  as  a  necessary,  and  if 
not  unimportant  link  in  evidence,  to  give  time  and  place 
to  these  amours  which  nobody  had  detected  or  suspected, 
and  which  no  evidence  could  ever  approach  even  with 
the  eye  of  jealous  suspicion,  and  furnish  a  single 
witness  or  a  single  hint  about  it.  And  that 
is  the  whole  Object  of  this  need  of  the  interview, 
but  not  this  evidence  that  is  produced  by  Mr.  Tilton. 
He  says,  after  they  have  gone  up  stairs  : 

I  have  called  you  hither  in  order  that  you  may  remove, 
if  you  can.  a  shadow  from  the  future  life  of  the  little  boy 
Ralph.  His  mother  has  assigned  to  me  a  date  at  which 
your  criminal  intimacy  with  her  began.  This  little  boy 
was  born  a  few  months  after  that. 

Well,  he  was  bom  about  eight  months  and  a  half, 
wasn't  it?  [To  Mr.  Abbott.  |  He  was  born  eight  months 
and  a  half  after  that— called  a  few  months  here,  to  make 
it  a  satisfying  result  to  him,  to  find  out  that  the  inter- 
course occiurred  at  a  date  that  he  suggested,  and  concern- 
ing which  he  seems,  as  he  thinks,  to  have  received  the 
doubting  assent  of  Mr.  Beecher.  Now,  that  was  the  date 
he  had  m  his  mind,  accordmg  to  his  own  story,  (where  he 
got  it  nobody  knows)  -the  iOth  October.  1868,  and  the 


child  was  born  the  20th  of  June  following,  and  he  wanted 
to  be  sure  that  this  intercourse  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
his  wife  was  on  the  10th  of  October  in  order  to  relieve 
him  of  all  uncertainty  as  to  whether  this  offspring  of  Ma 
was  genuine  or  not.  Now,  he  states  it  in  his  evidence,  **  a 
few  months  after,"  in  order  to  carry  (at  least  while  he  Is 
talking)  some  degree  of  probability  or  possibility  ia  wlia* 
he  is  going  to  say. 

If  the  date  which  his  mother  has  given  is  correct,  it 
will  save  a  dishonor  attaching  to  his  name.  I  want  you 
to  tell  me,  as  before  God,  whether  or  not  that  date  is 
right.  I  want,  if  possible,  to  shield  him  ;  but  I  want, 
more  than  that,  to  know  the  truth.  Tell  me  the  truth. 
Aud  he  told  me  on  his  word  of  honor,  as  before  God, 
that  the  date  which  Mrs.  Tilton  had  assigned  was  the 
correct  one.  At  that  moment  Mrs.  Tilton  herself,  who 
had  followed  me  up  stairs,  came  into  the  room,  and 
when  I  stated  to  her  the  point  of  conversation  she  burst 
iuto  tears. 

Q.  AYell,  now,  Mr.  Tilton,  state  whether  in  that  conver- 
sation that  morning  in  your  study  the  date  was  named  1 

Mr.  Fullerton  asks  him.  Now,  the  witness  having  had 
his  attention  called  to  the  fact  that  he  had  n't  named 
any  date  after  all,  left  it  a  few  months  before  the  birth  of 
the  child,  which  would  have  carried  it  somewhere  four  or 
five  months  (in  any  proper  sense  of  the  words  "  few 
months")  later  than  the  assigned  date— Mr.  Fullerton  is 
allowed  to  call  his  attention  to  whether  the  date  was 
named. 

A.  I  told  him  Elizabeth  had  named  as  the  date  at 
which  tiieir  criminal  intimacy  began  Oct.  10, 1868.  He 
replied  that  he  had  no  faculty  for  dates  and  had  made  no 
record,  but  he  believed  in  his  soul  that  she  had  told  me 
the  truth. 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  the  way  we  dispense  with  evi- 
dence of  any  act,  or  proximate  act,  and  get  out  of  this 
defendant's  mouth  a  corroboration,  or  support  of  the 
time  and  place  that  they  allege  for  the  first  prostitution 
of  the  wife.  Well,  gentlemen,  if  you  can  conceive  of  any 
such  interview,  and  if  the  circumstances  of  the  dates 
made  it  possible  that  there  could  be  any  reassuring  influ- 
ence on  the  mind  from  it,  and  therefore  the  whole  thing 
is  not  overthrown  by  this  proposition  of  the  plaintiff,  of 
the  object  of  the  interview,  it  would  be  overthi'own  by 
the  exquisite  absurdity  of  the  form  and  manner  in  whicli 
the  admission  or  corroboration  is  drawn  from  Mr. 
Beecher.  For,  you  must  take  it  as  he  says  it,  if 
you  take  it  at  all— as  Mr.  Tilton  gives  it,  that  Mr. 
Beecher  in  the  presence  of  this  husband  and  with 
the  wife  in  the  house,  and  with  the  wife  ap- 
parently coming  in  afterwards,  should  say  this,  that 
he  hadn't  a  good  memory  for  dates  and  that  he  had 
made  no  record  of  this  transaction,  and  with  all  gravity 
and  decorum,  but  that  he  could  upon  his  honor,  befor© 
God,  he  must  think  that  the  view  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had 
communicated  to  her  husband  most  be  the  correct  one. 
Now,  gentlemen,  you  must  compare  Mr.  Beecher's  state- 
ment of  this  interview,  and  see  which  comports  the  best 
with  the  relations  now  established  between  the  pai  ties. 


764  THE  TILION-B 

"With  the  views  tliat  you  take  of  tlie  preceding  evidence 
running  tlirough.  the  months  of  December  and  January ; 
the  final  settlement ;  or  friendly  relations  in  the  begin- 
ning of  February,  which  were  never  broken,  as  Tilton 
says,  until  Plymouth  Church  began  to  put  its  hand  on 
his  throat.  Now,  after  Mr.  Beecher  has  given  this  nar- 
rative, Mr.  Tilton  is  brought  back  to  the  stand  and  he 
denies  only  one  single  passage  in  it,  and  his  attention, 
therefore,  was  called  by  the  counsel  to  this  interview, 
and  what  he  could  deny  he  did  deny,  and  what  he  could 
not  deny  he  didn't ;  for  it  is  in  vain  to  say  that  this 
narrative  that  he  gives  in  the  bald  terms 
that  I  have  read  to  you  is  a  sub- 
stitution or  a  previous  placing  of  the  interview. 
Mr.  Beeoher's  interview  is  an  afl3rmative,  independent, 
wholly  unconnected  interview  with  anv  such  narra- 
tive, topic  or  sublect  as  that  of  the  paternity  of  the  child. 
Mr.  Beecher  denies,  as  you  remember,  and  with  indigna- 
tion, the  very  suggestion  that  any  such  topic  or  any  such 
conversation— any  such  on  Mr.  Tilton's  part,  any  such 
on  his  part— ever  took  place.  Now  see  what  Mr.  Beecher 
saj'-s,  which,  as  I  say,  remains  wholly  uncontradicted  by 
Mr.  Tilton.   He  found  them  at  breakfast : 

Mr.  Tilton  met  me  as  if  he  had  expected  me,  and  intro- 
duced his  conversation  by  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
we  were  to  act  harmoniously  togetner,  and  that  it  was 
necessary,  therefore,  for  a  more  perfect  effectuation  of 
that,  that  we  should  have  a  conversation  in  regard  both 
to  himself  and  myself.  There  was  a  renewal,  some  re- 
newal, of  the  conversation  in  respect  to  the  manner  in 
which  Mr.  Bowen  had  treated  him  in  a  business  point  of 
view ;  I  cannot  recall  that  very  distinctly.  The  other 
part  impressed  itself  more  upon  my  mind.  He  passed  on 
fi'om  the  statement  of  Mr.  Bowen's  having  slandered  me 
to  the  statement  that  he  himself  had  experienced  a  like 
treatment  at  the  hands  of  Mr.  Bowen.  He  proceeded  to 
Instance  the  stories  that  had  been  told  by  Mr.  Bowen,  if 
I  recollect  aright,  one  by  one. 

Q.  About  you  ?  A.  No,  about  himself.  It  was  an  inter- 
view far  more  clearing  himself  than  clearing  me.  He 
said  that  the  story  of  his  having  made  improper  ad- 
vances, &c.,  in  the  back  oflSce  of  The  Brooldyn  Union  was 
an  absolute  falsehood.  He  said  the  story  of  his  going 
with  a  woman  to  Winsted,  in  Connecticut,  was  absolutely 
false  and  had  no  foundation  in  fact,  and  that  he  could  not 
understand  how  it  should  have  started,  except  that  there 
W9S  another  Tilton  bearing  nearly  the  same  initials  as 
his,  who  was  a  dissolute  man,  and  an  intemperate  man, 
and  that  he  had  been  about  the  country,  and  that  this 
story  probably  was  true  of  him,  and  had  been  trans- 
ferred by  those  who  did  not  know  the  difference  of 
personality  to  him. 

Now,  this  last,  about  the  namesake  of  Mr.  Tilton,  is  the 
only  part  of  this  statement  of  Mr.  Beeoher's  to  which  Mr. 
Tilton's  attention  is  called  by  the  counsel,  and  the  only 
part  that  he  denies,  and  he  denies  that  (as  he  seeks  occa- 
sion always  to  deny  whatever  he  must  deny)  by  intro- 
ducing the  support  of  a  fact,  and  so  relieving  himself 
from  the  absolute  and  inventive  falsehood.  He  says, 
*'  I  did  not  say  this  about  Mr.  Tilton,  because  I  did  not 
know  then  about  his  immorality."   But  he  says  that  this 


EBCHKE  TIllAL. 

Mr.  Tilton  was  divorced  from  his  wife  in  the 
beginning  of  June,  1871;  that  is  in  his  tes- 
timony—he knew  the  day  and  he  gave  it  to  you,  that  he 
was  divorced  June  9,  1871,  and  Mr.  Morris  asks  him : 

Q.  And  about  the  Spring  of  1871  did  you  hear  any- 
thing concerning  Theodore  H.  Tilton  1  A.  Not  at  the 
time  Mr.  Beecher  mentions. 

Q.  No,  but  subsequently,  or  about  that  period?  A.  Yes; 
Mr.  Theodore  H.  Tilton  was  divorced  on  the  9th  of  June, 
1871. 

Well,  if  the  decree  of  divorce  had  come  on  the  9th  of 
June,  1871,  it  is  likely  some  knowledge  of  the  profligacy 
of  Theodore  H.  had  come  to  Theodore  during  the  preced- 
ing months  of  that  year.  And  thus  you  have  ready  in- 
vention, iustaseasy  of  discovery  and  conviction;  the 
whole  reason  that  he  falsifies  this  view  of  Mr.  Beecher  as 
to  his  explanation  about  Theodore  H.  Tilton  having  had 
sins  that  were  carried  to  Theodore's,  his  own,  charge  is, 
"  WeU,  I  didn't  know  about  it  then."  But  Theodore  H. 
Tilton  was  here,  of  Brooklyn  and  New- York,  and  identity 
of  name,  if  there  were  no  relationship  (I  don't  know  how 
that  is)  but  character,  profligacy,  all  the  traits  that 
made  it  natural  for  Theodore  to  pick  him  out  to  serve  as 
a  turn  to  hang  the  falsehood  on  applied,  and  he 
seeks  to  distm-b  that  by  telling  you  that  he  heard 
of  his  divorce :  that  his  divorce  took  place,  and  he  knew 
of  it  on  the  9th  of  June,  1871.  Well,  gentlemen,  you 
must  judge  whether  this  ready  escape  from  apparent 
falsehood  is  to  serve  his  turn  in  this  case,  any  more  than 
in  the  numerous  others  I  have  exposed.  It  must  be  held, 
then,  as  absolutely  true  that  this  interview  with  Mr. 
Beecher  was  in  order  to  contirm  the  good  dispositions, 
and  to  secui-e  the  good  offices  that  he  needed  from  Mr. 
Beecher.  And  here  he  threw  off  at  once,  upon  this 
scapegoat  of  Theodore  H.  Tilton,  all  his  sins,  especially 
those  connected  with  the  Winsted  affaii". 

He  said  the  stories  told  to  him  by  Mr.  Bowen  or  hinted 
in  respect  to  his  improprieties  in  the  West  and  North- 
west he  defied  anybody  to  prove ;  they  were  absolutely 
false.  He  then  went  on  to  say  that  my  wife  was  not  al- 
together guiltless  in  til e  matter  6f  propagating  stories; 
that  she  and  Mrs.  Morse  had  joined  hands  against  him ; 
that  Mrs.  Morse  had  repeated  stories  of  his  intemperance, 
and  of  his  improvidence,  and  of  his  neglect  of  his  family, 
and  one  by  one  he  gave  to  them  explicit  denial.  He 
stated  then  to  me,  in  regard  to  his  family,  that,  while  he 
acknowledged  that  perhaps  he  had  been  at  times  hasty  or 
inconsiderate,  or  something  to  that  effect,  he  had  never 
violated  his  marital  vows ;  he  declared  that  he  had  from 
his  youth  up  been  immaculate  in  chastity ;  he  narrated 
to  me  the  scene  that  took  place  between  him  and  his 
father  when  he  first  began  to  launch  out  alone  into  the 
city,  who  took  him  and  talked  with  him  about  the  great 
dangers  that  he  would  have  from  the  other  sex,  and 
from  an  undue  intercourse  with  them ;  there  was 
considerable  that  was  very  specific  in  that  coun- 
sel of  his  godly  and  patriarchal  father,  as  he  rep- 
resented to  me,  and  he  said  that  that  made  such  an  im- 
pression on  his  mind  at  that  time  that  it  had  held  him  up 
ever  since ;  he  stated  then  that  he  did  not  know  but  tliat 
his  life  had  come  to  a  premature  termination  ;  his  useful- 
ness seemed  clouded,  bis  opportunities  seemed  shut  up  ; 


SUMMII^G    UP  BY  MR,  EYABIS. 


765 


bis  ho'iseliold  seemed  desolate.  I  spoke  tlieii  words  of 
sympathy  and  words  of  courage  to  laim,  and  was  pro- 
foundly impressed  with  his  trutMuliiess,  and  I  felt  worse 
than  I  had  ever  felt  before,  that  I  had  lifted  my  hand 
against  a  man  who,  whatever  might  have  been  his  weak- 
nesses or  his  follies,  had  not  deserved  any  such  treat- 
ment, and  I  expressed  myself  so  to  him,  and  we  had  a 
kind  of  recognition  again  ;  and  he  said  that  in  view  of 
what  had  taken  place  through  the  kindly  offices  of  Mr. 
Moulton,  through  interviews  with  me.  that,  as  w^e  were 
to  co-operate  in  the  future,  he  wanted  to  have  this  con- 
versation to  say  what  he  had  said,  and  so  on,  and  he 
wanted  also  to  say  that  he  should  desire  me  to  visit  in 
his  family  again  just  as  I  had  done  in  former  days,  before 
any  of  these  troubles  arose.  This  was  not  said  just  as  I 
have  said  it— that  is  to  say,  it  was  much  more  largely 
opened  rhetorically,  and  yet  this  is  the  substance  of  it. 
We  left  the  study  and  went  down  stairs.  I  have  forgot- 
ten exactly  how  it  came  to  pass  that  I  found  myself  with 
him  in  the  bedroom  with  Mrs.  Tilton— in  the 
back  bedroom  on  the  south  side  of  the  house ; 
but  there  I  recollect  there  was  a  supplementary 
conversation  between  us  three,  or  rather 
there  was  a  supplementary  discourse  to  us  two,  in  which 
he  stated  again  to  his  wife  that  he  had  had  a  long  and 
satisfying  interview  with  me ;  he  said  that  he  did  not 
know  that  he  should  ever  again  be  put  in  such  prosperity 
as  he  had  lost,  and  spoke  tenderly  and  sadly  about  that, 
and  yet  terminated  with  a  kind  of  reassurance — he  was 
young  and  he  was  energetic,  and  he  meant  to  recover 
himself ;  he  spoke  also  in  respect  to  his  family;  he  said 
that  he  thought  it  only  right  to  say  to  Elizabeth,  address- 
ing himself  to  her,  that  "  Mr.  Beecher,  in  aU  this  diffi- 
culty, has  acted  the  part  of  a  man  of  honor  toward  you, 
and  he  has  taken  in  every  case  all  the  blame  to  himself ; 
and  I  feel  bound  also  to  say  to  you,  Sir,"  said  he,  "that 
Elizabeth  has  pursued  the  same  course  toward  you,"  and 
said,  "  If  there  is  any  blame,  it  is  mine,"  He  said,  then, 
that  he  did  not  know  that  he  should  ever  be  happy  agam; 
his  home  seemed  to  him  to  be  a  divided  and  a  desolate 
home,  but  he  did  not  know  but  out  of  this  very  condition 
of  things  there  would  spring  up  again  an  affection  that 
would  be  purer  and  stronger  than  if  it  had  not  been 
tried  by  these  difficulties ;  and  with  that — we  all  kissed 
each  other,  and  I  departed. 

Now,  gentlemen,  there  is  an  invention  by  Mr.  Beecher 
of  most  unblushing  efeontery,  or  it  is  a  true  narrative. 
You  must  compare  the  oaths,  the  characters,  of  these  two 
men.  You  must  apply  your  intelligence  and  yotir  com- 
mon sense  to  determine  whether  Mr.  Tilton's  statement 
of  that  interview  has  any  possibility  of  truth  in  it,  even 
if  it  were  supported  by  a  witness  that  yon  would  fully 
credit  and  was  uncontradicted ;  and  then  you  must  de- 
termine whether  you  believe  that  this  interview  that  I 
have  given  you  in  IVIr.  Beecher's  statement  of  it  does  or 
does  not  comport  with  the  objects  which  IVIr.  Tilton  had 
in  hand,  with  the  objects  which  he  had  been  pursuing, 
with  the  views  and  purposes  which  he  and  his  fi-iend 
Moulton  had  been  expressing  in  every  possible  way  to  Mr. 
Beecher  as  the  reasons  governing  their  conduct.  Now, 
when  Mr.  Tilton  says,  a^  he  does  in  his  interview,  that 
There  w^ere  some  things  said  that  he  does  not  remember, 
and  then  when  Mr.  Beecher  comes  and  gives  this  narra- 
tive, and  no  denial  either  of  the  principal  narrative  or  of 
the  cause  of  reconcUiation,  you  must  understand  that  it 


is  absolutely  proved  before  you  upon  every  rule  of  evi- 
dence, even  if  the  witnesses  stood  equal,  that  this  narra- 
five  of  Mr.  Beecher's  is  correct. 

OTHER  EVIDENCES  OF  RECONCILIATION. 

Now,  there  came  to  be  an  interview  in  May 
again,  and  this  was  at  Mr.  Tilton's  house  [reading]  : 

There  was  some— there  had  been  some,  either  they 
had  not  fulfilled  some  agreement,  or  there  was  some  kind 
of  dissatisfaction  with  me,  but  I  cannot  recall  it,  what  it 
was.  [He  was  sent  for  to  come  there.]  I  only  know 
that  when  I  went  in  Mr.  Tilton  received  me  moodily,  and 
then,  after  a  little  conversation  and  explanations  which 
took  place,  he  became  gracious,  and  we  fell  into  an  easy 
and  unbusiness-like  chat,  and  that  in  the  course  of  it,  sit- 
ting there  in  the  old-fashioned  way  in  his  house,  I  went 
up  and  argaed— sat  down  on  his  knee,  as  it  were,  to  make 
the  appeal  closer,  and  when  I  was  sitting  there  Mrs. 
TUton  came  into  the  room  and  burst  out  laughing.  I 
recollect  that  interview,  and  I  think  when  she  came  into 
the  room  she  came  up  and  kissed  me  very  cordially. 

Now,  this  is  followed  by  this  statement  of  Mr.  Beecher : 

Q.  During  this  Spring  and  up  to  this  time  that  you  have 
now  named,  the  latter  half  of  May,  did  you  understand 
that  the  Ul-feeliug  between  you  and  jMr.  Tilton,  or  misun- 
derstanding, was  removed  1  A.I  did ;  I  thought  the  diffi- 
culty was  all  dissipated,  and  that  the  only  thing  remain- 
ing was  the  performance  of  the  undertakings  in  which  we 
had  engaged. 

Now,  when  Mr.  Tilton  is  recalled  for  this  interview  in 
the  last  half  of  May,  concerning  which  he  had  girsn  no 
evidence  in  his  direct  testimony,  he  disposes  of  it  'oj 
saying  that  this  sitting  on  the  knee  he  thinks  occurred  ten 
years  before.  Well,  we  have  bis  say  so  far  that  he  doea 
not  connect  it  with  anything,  except  that  it  was  about 
some  book  that  he  had  written  ten  years  before.  But  he 
does  not  deny  the  cause  of  reconciliation,  although  he 
does  not  think  that  the  sitting  on  the  knee  occurred  at 
that  time.  But  he  shows  you  that  the  sitting  on  the  knee 
did  occur ;  the  fact  occurred,  and  therefore  you  have  only 
this  question  left.  He  does  not  dispute  the  character  of 
the  interview  ;  he  does  not  dispute  the,  harmony  and  the 
cause  of  the  reconciliation,  but  he  tries  to  dispose  of  the 
absolute  assurance  that  there  was  a  removal  of  all  ill- 
feeling  or  show  of  ill-feeling  in  the  harmony  between  him 
and  Mr.  Beecher,  and  in  the  renewed  purposes  of  co- 
operation for  the  improvement  of  Mr.  Tilton's  condition 
which  Mr.  Beecher  had  so  readily  acceded  to. 

MR.  BEECHER  NEVER  VERBALLY  ACCUSED 

OF  adlt:.tery. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  let  me  once  for  all  caU 
yom-  attention  to  a  final  question  which  was  put  by  the 
learned  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  both  to  Mr.  Tilton  when 
he  was  on  the  stand,  and  to  Sir.  Moulton  also,  and  that 
was  : 

During  all  these  interviews  (taking  them  in  a  body), 
did  Mr.  Beecher  ever  deny  the  adultery  % 

And  the  answer  is,  "  No,  he  never  lid,"— and  for  the 
best  of  reasons,  for  when  I  asked  Mr    Beecher,  not  only 


766  TEE  TILTON-BM 

displacing  one  by  one  all  the  supposed  admissious,  all 
tlie  implied  admissions,  all  tlie  recited  admissions,  I 
Mked  Mm — 

Mr.  Beeclier,  did  Mr.  Monlton,  did  Mrs.  Moulton,  did 
Mr.  Tilton  ever,  fi-om  the  beginning  of  this  matter  in 
December,  1870,  down  to  your  last  interviews  with  either 
of  them,  ever  accuse  you  of  adultery,  and  ever  impute 
carnal  connection,  ever  suggest  this  impurity  in  any 
form  or  degree  %  He  says  :  No  person  ever  did  m  my 
house,  in  either  of  the  houses,  from  the  lips  of  either  of 
these  persons. 

And  adds  that  the  first  word  of  that  kind  from  any  lips 
would  have  been  the  last  moment  of  any  intercourse  be- 
tween them.  So  you  see  how  easy  it  is  by  a  form  of  ques- 
tion and  answer  to  get  apparent  proof,  until  it  is  searched 
and  probed  and  shown  to  be  worthless.  Mr.  Beecher 
never  did  deny  adultery,  never  did  deny  carnal  connec- 
tion, never  was  accused  by  word,  by  hint,  by  suspicion 
indicated  in  any  form.  And  the  whole  course  of  this 
afiair  shows  the  utter  impossibility  of  Mr.  Beecher's  hav- 
ing submitted  to  any  of  this  intercourse  to  get  his  friend- 
ship, to  obtain  his  aid,  and  he  is  quite  justified  on  every 
principle  of  human  nature  when  he  says  to  you  in  his 
evidence: 

The  whole  course  of  my  interviews  with  all  these  par- 
ties—Mrs.  Moulton,  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  TUton— was  utterly 
inconsistent  with  there  being  an  idea  of  that  form  and 
degree  of  criminality,  without  imputing  the  utmost  in- 
famy to  all  of  them. 

And  we  recognize  that.  How  are  these  respectable 
people,  as  they  would  have  themselves  considered,  to  ex- 
plain this  long  continued  intercourse  and  effort  to  get 
the  services  either  in  money  or  in  aid,  in  help,  in  sup- 
port, in  reinstitution  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  employment,  or  in 
character,  or  in  credit— how  are  they  to  accommodate 
those  courses  of  conduct  to  and  with  him  on  their  part, 
with  anything  but  the  basest  compromise  and  money 
settlements  of  this  great  disgrace  % 

I  ask  your  Honor's  attention  to  the  case  of  Giles  agt, 
Giles  (6  Notes  of  Cases  in  Ecclesiastical  and  Maritime 
Courts,  p.  161) :  The  facts  were : 

A  witness,  a  gentleman  of  great  respectability,  who  had 
been  called  in  as  a  mediator,  testified  til  at  he  visited  the  hus- 
band and  communicated  to  him  the  charges  made  against 
him,  and  that  the  husband  in  effect  admitted  the  charges. 
The  witness  testified  that  he  considered  the  husband's 
conversation  to  be  an  admission  of  the  truth  of  the 
charge,  but  the  witness  also  stated  that,  before  leaving, 
he  took  wine  with  the  husband,  entered  into  general  con- 
versation, and  shook  hands  at  parting.  Held,  not  suf- 
ficient proof  of  guilt. 

*'  Now,  considerins:,"  the  Court  say,  "  the  nature  of  the 
expressions  said  to  have  been  made  use  of  by  Mr.  Giles, 
I  cannot  possibly  conceive  how  all  this  conduct  is  to  be 
reconciled  with  the  belief  that  he  was  guilty  of  the  of- 
fense imputed  to  him.  How  is  it  possible  to  conceive 
that  a  gentleman  in  Mr.  Hume's  situation,  having  re- 
ceived this  communication  from  Mrs.  Giles,  and  a  confes- 
sion fiom  Mr.  Giles,  could  sit  down  with  him,  drink  a 
glass  of  wine  with  him,  talk  with  him,  as  he  sa.ys  he  did, 
of  the  road  he  had  been  making  to  Qiaeen's  Chailfon, 
shake  hands  with  him  at  parting,  and  conduct  himself 


EORER  TlilAL. 

as  he  admits  he  would  not  have  done  if  Mr.  Giles  had 
been  convicted  of  the  offense?  The  belief  of  Mr.  Hume 
at  this  time  was  that  Mr.  Giles  was  not  only  guilty  of  the 
offense,  but  that  he  had  confessed  it,  and  where  Is  the 
difference  between  that  and  his  being  convicted  of  the 
offense  %  It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  evidence  of  Mr. 
Hume  with  his  conduct  upon  the  occasion.'* 

And  that  is  the  way  the  law  always  deals  with  words  of 
witnesses  when  they  are  confronted  and  compared  with 
their  conduct.  It  does  not  hesitate  to  say  of  Mr.  Hume, 
"  You  profess  to  be  a  respectable  gentleman ;  you  come 
here  to  report  after  information  from  the  wife  of  charges 
against  her  husband,  the  confessions  of  the  husband— and 
you  go  on  and  describe  the  interview  just  as  it  would  have 
gone  on  if  this  gentleman  had  had  no  guilt,  no  dishonor, 
no  criminality  that  he  was  avowing  before  you.  You  tell 
us  you  would  not  so  treat  a  man  if  he  had  been  convicted, 
and  yet  you  teU  us  that  the  wife  had  told  you,  and  the  hus- 
band had  assented."  Gentlemen,  the  law  says  people 
must  understand  that  here,  as  in  the  practical  intelli- 
gence of  mankind  actions  speak  louder  than  words," 
and,  even  in  a  matter  like  that,  where  Mr.  Hume  had  no 
relation  with  the  matter  except  that  interview  and  that 
conversation,  the  experienced  court  of  England  rejects 
his  evidence,  and  charges  "  That  is  no  confession  that  we 
can  believe  in,  for  your  conduct  shows  that  you 
could  not  have  believed  in  It ;  your  conduct 
shows  that  it  never  coiHd  have  happened." 
But  when  this  test,  thus  remorselessly  applied  agaiost 
a  mere  intervening  witness,  comes  to  be  applied  to  the 
conduct  of  the  parties,  to  the  social  relations  renewed, 
to  the  adulterer  reintroduced  iato  the  family  and  kissing 
the  wife  before  the  husband,  and  having  this  talk: 
"  Now,  this  misunderstanding  that  has  arisen,  this  degree 
of  difiiculty,  of  interference,  which  you,  Elizabeth,  have 
stated,  and  which  Mr.  Beecher  has  taken  blame  to 
himself  for— that  is  aU  over;  let  everything  be  as  it  was 
before ;  come  to  the  house  just  as  before ;  each  of  you  has 
honorably  said  that  for  all  this  beguilement,  this  irregu- 
larity in  these  affections,  each  was  to  blame,"  though 
Mrs.  TUton,  according  to  Mr.  Tilton,  on  the  very  act  of 
adultery  never  admitted  that  she  was  to  blame  at  all,  or 
that  there  had  been  any  sin  committed  by  any- 
body, but  insisted  that  it  was  all  pm-e  and  right 
and  justifiable,  but  now  it  is  exposed,  and  each  of  these 
parlies,  the  clergyman  and  the  parishioner,  feels  that 
this  never  should  have  occurred,  that  grounds  for  opin- 
ion, even,  on  the  part  of  the  husband,  and  much  more  in 
real  fact,  co  sustain  such  an  opinion  of  the  attraction  of 
the  wife's  allegiance  from  the  husband  and  its  implica- 
tion even  in  undue  affection  toward  the  clergyman,  never 
should  have  occurred,  that  the  wife  shoiild  have  pre- 
vented and  the  clergyman  should  have  prevented  it, 
each  exonerating  the  other  and  each  taking  blame  upon 
himself  or  herself— when,  I  say,  you  apply  this  test  to 
tbo  parties  themselves  instead  of  to  a  mere  Intervening 
witness,  how  nuich  more  forcibly  it  applies !   Now,  geo- 


SUMmNG    UP  BY  ME.  EYARTS. 


767 


^emen,  you  must  tliinlr  that  tlie  comraunitr  in  wliicli       l  HalU(Lar,Iamnotamemberof  yourcMircli.butiny  wtfels, 


live,  the  people  tliat  make  up  respectable  society  ^vitlL 
us,  are  upon  a  mucli  lower  level  of  integrity  of  conduct— 
■wMcli  must  comport  witti  alleged  conversations,  wliicli- 
jnust  sustain  -words,  or  else  tlie  word  must  fall— tlian 
tbese  people  in  England  are  ;  or  else  you  must  suppose 
tliat  this  whole  family  had  gone  mad  and  were  different 
irom  other  people,  or  else  that  your  judgment  and  that 
of  this  learned  Court  is  less  elevated,  less  penetrating, 
less  serene,  and  less  severe  than  that  of  the  English 
courts. 

THE   EENEWED   SOCIAL  RELATIONS. 

And  now  what  were  these  renewed  social 

relations  1  Take  them  as  they  show  themselves  in  un- 
disputed evidence.  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  were  re- 
peatedly together  at  Mr.  Moulton's  after  the  starting  of 
The  Golden  Age,  after  the  active  movement  that  was  ex- 
j?ected  to  elevate  Mr.  Tilton's  fortunes  and  restore  him 
to  influence  as  an  editor  and  to  credit  in  society.  Of  that 
there  is  no  dispute.  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  met  at 
Xhe  Golden  Age  oflBce  ;  Mr.  Tilton  endeavored  to  get, 
through  Mr.  Southwick,  Mr.  Beecher's  influence  on  Sir. 
Claflin,  Mr.  Southwick's  uncle  and  Mr.  Beecher's  parish- 
loner,  to  take  stock  ui  The  Golden  Age;  there  was  a 
yacht  excursion  in  which  they  both  took  part,  and  both 
by  the  invitation  of  Moulton,  and  perhaps  another  excur- 
jsion,  even,  besides — if  the  two  were  not  confoimded  by 
the  different  witnesses  when  really  there  was  but  one. 
You  find  them  dining  together  at  Moulton's  house  in  the 
Fall  of  1872  and  having  that  talk  about  the  prospects 
and  the  future  of  both,  and  the  Interest  in  the  political 
campaign,  and  the  speeches  that  each  of  them  was 
making  on  the  one  side  and  on  the  other ;  cordial  greet- 
ings—no  pretense  that  they  were  not  cordial— when  they 
jnet ;  the  kiss  at  Mr,  Moulton's,  about  which  the  only 
doubt  is  whether  Mr.  Beecher  kissed  IVtr.  Tilton  on  the 
forehead  or  on  the  Hps,  TUton  puttiag  it  on  the 
forehead,  so  as  to  escape  anything  like  participation,  I 
suppose,  except  that  of  a  passive  recipient,  but  Mr. 
Beecher  saying  of  the  kiss  that  what  Mr.  Tilton 
has  disclosed  Is  all  right  as  to  the  time  and 
place  of  its  occurrence,  but  that  it  was  on  the 
lips  and  not  on  the  forehead;  and  certainly  Mr. 
Beecher  would  have  needed  to  have  got  up  on  a  chair, 
or  Mr.  Tilton  must  have  surrendered  himself  to  this  em- 
brace much  more  decidedly  if  it  were  on  the  forehead 
than  if  it  were  on  the  lips ;  at  all  events  he  did  not  ap- 
parently repel  it.  Then,  after  Mr.  TUton's  return  from 
New-Hampshire,  after  this  scandal  had  burst  out,  there 
is  cordiality  and  shaking  of  hands  with  Mr.  Beecher  on 
his  return,  about  which  there  is  no  dispute ;  and  then 
you  have  what  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mrs.  Moulton  said  to  Mr. 
HalUday.  Mi-.  Moulton  said  to  Mi-.  Halliday,  when  he 
was  inquiring  about  this  affair  of  Mr.  Beecher,  or  this 
Wood  hull  charge  and  Mr.  Moulton's  knowlerlge  of  it,  "  3Ir. 


and  do  you  suppose,  if  Mr.  Beecher  were  a  bad  man,  I 
would  allow  him  to  come  and  sit  here  at  the  table  with 
my  wife  as  a  guest,  as  he  freq.uently  does  1"  That  is  not 
contradicted  by  Mr.  Moulton.  Now,  gentlemen,  you  see 
what  the  English  judge  saw— you  have  it  out  of 
Moulton's  own  mouth  that  he  said  to  Mr.  Halliday,  when 
Mr.  Halliday  wished  to  get  at  whether  Moulton  had  any 
foundation  for  these  stories,  or  whether  there  was  any- 
thing to  support  them  as  they  had  been  promulgated  by 
the  WoodhuUs,  "  Mr.  Halliday,  do  you  suppose  il  Mr, 
Beecher  were  a  bad  man  I  would  allow  him  to  come  and 
sit  here  at  the  table  with  my  wife  as  a  guest,  as  he  fre- 
guently  does  ?"  And  IMrs.  Moulton  said  to  the  same  gen- 
tleman: "Mr.  Halliday,  Mr.  Beecher  is  my  pastor  and 
has  been  from  my  childhood,  and  I  believe  in  him,  and 
there  is  nothing  that  they  can  say  that  wiU  affect  my 
confidence  la  him,  or  my  affection  for  him,  one  particle." 

Now,  when  Mrs.  Moulton  was  asked,  as  she  was  in  ad- 
vance before  we  called  ]SIr.  Halliday  upon  this  point, 
when  her  attention  is  called  to  the  evidence  proposed  to 
be  dravm  from  Mr.  Halliday,  how  does  she  negative  it  f 
Only  thus :  that  she  remembers  saying  to  Mr.  Halliday, 
"  Mr.  Beecher  is  my  pastor,  and  has  been  from  my  child- 
hood;" but  she  cannot  remember  that  she  used  the  latter 
part  of  these  expressions.  She  does  not  say  that  she  did 
not  use  them,  as  I  understand  it ;  and  what  under  heaven 
she  should  have  uttered  the  fii'st  proposition  for— that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  been  her  pastor  from  her  childhood— and 
there  stopped,  no  man  can  understand.  It  was  the  intro- 
duction of  the  asseveration:  "Talk  to  me  a«  to  whether 
there  is  any  truth  in  these  charges  against  Mr.  Beecher  ! 
Why,  I  have  known  him  since  my  childhood ;  he  has  been 
my  pastor ;  I  became  a  member  of  his  church  in  youth, 
and  I  have  known  him  ever  since,  and  nobody  can  make 
me  believe  evil  of  him."  And  this  is  not  contradicted 
when  Mr.  Halliday  says : 

I  never  saw  Mrs.  Moulton  at  the  church  except  she 
came  around  at  the  foot  of  the  pnlpit  stairs  where  I  used 
to  stand,  at  Mi*.  Beecher's  request,  at  the  close  of  the 
service— came  around,  and  if  Mr,  Beecher  was  not  where 
ho  could  shake  hands  and  speak  with  her  she  would  wait 
imtil  he  came  and  did  so  ;  and  I  think  T  invariably  shook 
hands  with  her  on  those  occasions ;  I  don't  think  that  the 
number  of  times  exceeded  six. 

Q.  On  every  one  of  these  occasions  did  she  shake  hands 
specially  with  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  think  invariably. 

Nobody  has  contradicted  that.  Now,  the  portrait.  The 
portrait  was  sent  from  Mr.  TUton's,  ru  the  Fall  of  1870, 
to  the  Clinton-st.  house  of  the  Moultons,  and  remained 
there  until  they  moved;  it  was  hung  in  their  parlor  in 
Clinton-st.,  and  hung  in  their  parlor  in  Remsen-st.,  in 
their  new  house  (the  house  which  they  at  present  occupy, 
I  suppose),  tmtil  it  was  taken  from  the  parlor  sometime 
duriajf  the  last  year  and  placed  up  stairs  in  one  of  the 
principal  bedrooms,  either  of  the  wife  or  of  the  husband, 
of  that  family.  Now,  gentlemen,  you  see  with  what  im- 


768  TRB  TILTON-BJE 

mense  force  these  facts  (wbich  a  jury  always  wants  to 
have)  of  the  conduct,  of  the  way  people  did,  hear  upon 
the  relations  of  these  parties,  in  connection  with  the 
views  of  a  sensible  court,  as  I  have  read  them  to  you  and 
to  his  Honor  from  the  case  in  the  English  Ecclesiastical 
Courts.  Now,  you  have  no  doubt  whatever  of  the  move- 
ments during  this  period  toward  a  newspaper,  in  which 
Mr.  Frank  Carpenter  was  made  the  agent  of  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  in  which  he  went  aroimd  seeing  Mr.  Beecher's 
friends,  and  seeing  Mr.  Tilton's  own  friends,  for 
Mr.  Schultz  was  his  friend,  Mr.  Southwick 
was  his  friend— Mr.  Claflin  was  Mr.  Beecher's 
friend,  if  you  please,  especially  the  interview  with  Mr. 
Charles  Storrs  and  with  Mr.  Schultz— all  these  efforts  in 
which  Mr.  Carpenter  was  active  in  Mr.  Tilton's  behalf, 
and  which  led  afterward  to  conversations  directly  be- 
tween these  parties  and  Mr.  Tilton,  in  which  Mr.  Tilton 
was  accused  of  attempting  to  build  himself  up  out  of  im- 
putations against  Mr.  Beecher,  and  of  blackmailing, 
when  he  knew  there  was  no  foundation  for  the  matter, 
and  he  denied  the  blackmailing,  and  they  had  a  club  arbi- 
tration, and  called  in  a  bystander,  Mr.  Bailey,  to  hear 
both  sides,  and  he  decided  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  a  black- 
mailer :  that  is,  that  this  proposition  of  his,  in  the  way 
that  he  put  it— of  getting  up  a  newspaper  in  which  Mr. 
Beecher  and  himself  were  to  be  coadjutors,  was  in  the 
nature  of  a  coercion  upon  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Beecher's 
friends,  upon  his  own,  Tilton's,  showing,  to  do  this  thing 
in  his,  Mr.  Beecher's  behalf,  not  on  the  merits,  not  on  the 
inducements  that  would  affect  Mr.  Beecher's  own  con- 
duct, but  on  the  ground  that  he,  Tilton,  had  some  story 
or  otber  against  Mr.  Beecher.  But  now  I  am  only  look- 
ing at  the  evidence  of  the  disposition  of  Mr.  Tilton,  as 
manifested  by  this  open  activity,  not  to  call  it  merely 
action— this  open  activity  on  his  part  to  promote  inter- 
com-se,  combination,  cooperation,  association,  in  the  res- 
toration of  his,  Mr.  Tilton's  fortunes,  between  Mr.  Beecher 
and  himself.  So,  too,  we  have  not  only  the  invited  restora- 
tion of  the  old  habits  of  intercouse,  but  we  have  a  course 
of  conduct  on  Mr,  Beecher's  part  of  great  discretion,  no 
doubt,  but  which  shows  clearly  that  no  such  relation  as 
the  plaintiff  pretends  existed— shows  it  in  the  notes  that 
passed  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  himself  on  occasions 
where  a  pastor  could  rightly  address  a  parishioner  (few 
in  number,  to  be  sure),  and  in  the  several  cases  in  which 
he  met  her  in  the  street,  once  or  twice  perhaps,  and  on  a 
visit  to  her  house  when  she  sought  his  aid  and  counsel  in 
the  difficulties  of  her  household,  and  when  Mr.  Beecher 
disposed  of  this  application  of  hers  in  a  manner  certainly 
extremely  creditable  to  him  and  most  effective.  When, 
after  hearing  from  her,  in  the  latter  part  of  1871,  her 
distresses  and  her  troubles  and  her  desire  to  have 
him  furnish  her  such  aid  as  a  religious  teacher 
should  furnish  to  a  woman  in  that  form  of  distress, 
he  heard  her,  and,  without  saying  another  word,  took  the 
Bible,  marked  a  passage  for  her  perusal,  and  left  the 


EtmnR  TBIAL. 

house.  Nobody  can  say  of  that  interview  that  he  had 
again  given  any  right  to  think  that  he  would  listen  to  (in 
the  sense  of  encouraging)  or  that  he  would  interfere  In 
(in  the  sense  of  promoting)  any  difficulties  between  the 
husband  and  the  wife.  This  was  the  passage  that  he 
marked,  this  was  his  suggestion,  in  the  language  of  the 
Apostle,  as  to  the  course  by  which  she  must  deal  with 
the  discomforts  and  the  disturbance  in  her  household 
which  she  experienced  at  the  hands  of  her  husband : 

Charity  suffereth  long,  and  is  kind;  charity  envieth 
not ;  charity  vaunteth  not  itself,  is  not  puffed  up. 

Doth  not  behave  itself  unseemly,  seeketh  not  her  own,, 
is  not  easily  provoked,  thinketh  no  evil ; 

Rejoiceth  not  in  iniiiuity,  but  rejoiceth  in  the  truth ; 

Beareth  all  things,  belie veth  all  things,  hopeth  all 
things,  endureth  all  things. 

THE  SOURCE  OF  MRS.  WOODHULL'S  IN- 
FORMATION. 
Now,  gentlemen,  a  particular  occurrence  took 
place,  which  I  will  briefly  advert  to.  In  the  Spring  of 
1871,  in  this  very  month  of  May  in  which  this  last  inter- 
view took  place  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  at 
his  house,  and  where  there  was  an  absolute  wiping  out 
of  ill-feeling,  of  evil  opinion,  of  evil  purpose,  ap- 
parently, within  a  week  after  that  there  was  published 
by  Mrs.  Woodhull  a  card  in  two  of  the  leading  morning 
papers  of  the  City  of  New-York,  in  which  what  must  be 
considered  as  a  very  open  reference  to  the  condition  of 
adulterous  intimacy  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr. 
Beecher,  continued  for  years,  was  clearly  made. .  The 
evidence,  as  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  clearly  shows 
that  this  publication  was  promoted  by  Mr.  Tilton  himself. 
On  this  evidence  it  is  impossible  to  douDt  that  the  source 
of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  information  was  Mr.  Tilton.  The 
scandal  proper  was  not  published  untU  November,  1872, 
but  this  card  was  published  on  the  22d  of  May,  1871,  and 
at  the  very  period  when,  apparently,  if  there  were 
any  sincerity  in  Mr.  Tilton,  if  there  were  any  pos- 
sible fidelity  on  his  part  to  the  duties  to  his 
wife  and  family  that  he  has  suggested,  any  possible 
honesty  in  his  relations  with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  any  pos- 
sible confidence  to  be  put  in  the  attitude  and  condiict  of 
Mr.  Moulton,  everything  was  at  an  end  when  everything 
had  been  explained,  and  when  it  was  perfectly  under- 
stood that  the  extent  to  which  Mrs.  Tilton  ever  had  gone— 
to  which  she  unhappily  had  been  brought  in  the  way  of 
accusation— was  of  that  written  slip  which  she  had  re- 
tracted the  next  day  after  she  gave  it,  there  comes  out 
this  direct  imputation  in  Mrs.  Woodhull's  card ;  and  this 
introduces  a  certain  episode,  so  to  speak,  in  the  course  of 
this  direct  narrative,  brought  in  by  the  plaintiff,  and 
made  to  serve  the  turn,  in  his  mode  of  showing  it,  of  in- 
culpation of  Mr.  Beecher,  as  requiring,  cr  at  least  de- 
siring, or  at  least  acquiescing  In  and  approving,  a  course 
of  action  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  and 
Mrs.  Moulton  of  association  with  Mrs.  Woodhu'l.  di>- 


SVMMING    UP  BY  ME.  EVAUTS, 


769 


reputable  to  tbem— that  is,  to  Tilton,  IMoulton  and 
Ms  wife— distasteful  to  them,  injuring  their  credit 
"With  the  community,  but  submitted  to  by  them 
as  the  willing  aids  and  helps  of  Mr.  Beecher  in 
a  course  of  concealment.  True,  Mr.  Tilton  professes  that 
a  zeal,  an  interest  to  keep  his  wife's  fame  from  exposure, 
and  the  disorders  of  his  family,  whatever  they  might  be, 
grave  or  less  serious,  from  publicity  and  comment,  fur- 
nished a  motive  also,  on  his  part,  for  this  odious  associa- 
tion that  he  maintained  for  more  than  a  year.  He  in- 
troduces it  upon  oath  in  this  way  :  That  he  was  sent  for 
by  Mrs.  Woodhull,  with  whom  he  had  no  previous 
acquaintance,  though  he  admits  he  had  seen  her  once  in 
some  promiscuous  company,  and  that  she  put  into  his 
hands  that  card,  and  he  read  it  with  astonishment  and 
kept  the  best  face  he  could,  and  tried  to  conceal  any  con- 
sciousness that  it  related  to  anybody  .that  he  was  con- 
cerned in  or  that  he  knew  anything  about,  and 
that  thereupon  Mrs.  Woodhull  informed  him  that 
it    related    to    his   wife    and    to    Mr.  Beecher. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  was  the  22d  of  May,  1871,  and, 
as  Mr.  Tilton  played  the  role  of  intimacy  on  his  own  show- 
ing, and  of  complete  intimacy  on  the  evidence  that  we 
have  adduced,  with  this  lady  for  certainly  a  period  of 
twelve  or  fifteen  months,  pnd  we  think  much  longer,  and 
at  some  time  or  other— to  wit,  in  November,  1872— there 
came  to  be  a  full  publication,  however  wild  and  exag- 
gerated and  extravagant,  for  the  purpose  of  cover  that 
was,  that  included  not  only  the  facts,  the  original  scan- 
dal as  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Beecher,  but  of  all 
the  maneuvers  between  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  the 
interviews,  the  secret  confidences  to  which  Mr.  Beecher, 
Mr.  Tilton,  and  Mr.  Moulton  alone  were  parties,  during 
the  week  in  December  and  the  early  part  of  January,  as 
finally  all  those  things  came  out,  Mr.  Tilton,  by  one  of 
those  judicious  falsifications  that  is  to  protect  himself 
against  a  necessary  implication,  begins  by  telling 
you  that  in  that  week,  in  May,  1871,  Mrs. 
•Woodhull  had  in  ner  knowledge,  and  detailed 
to  him  substantially,  all  that  she  published  in  December, 
1872.  Cunning  Mr.  Tilton!  To  get  rid  of  a  necessary 
imputation,  that  there  had  been  a  growth  of  the  woman's 
knowledge  during  her  association  with  him,  he  tells  you 
that  she  had  it  at  the  beginning  of  that  association.  Ah ! 
Mr.  Tilton  where  did  she  get  it  thus  early  ?  Well,  you 
may  remember  that  I  asked  him  if  he  thought  Mr.  Beecher 
had  told  her,  and  he  did  not  think  he  had.  If  Mr.  Moul- 
ton had  told  her  1  "Oh,  no!  it  astounded  me  when  she 
pointed  her  finger  at  that  paragraph  inher  card."  "Well, 
who  do  you  think  did  tell  her? "  And  then  I  called  his  at 
tention,  that  it  was  not  a  question  whether  some  of  the 
notions  of  the  scandal  itself  had  transpired  through  the 
whispering  galleries  of  his  malicious  heart,  accusations 
and  insinuations  against  Mr.  Beecher  and  his  wife  during 
the  preceding  year,  but  that  it  carried  knowledge  of  the 
Interview  between    him  and    Mrs.    Tilton,  and  Mr. 


Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  about  the  charge,  th& 
confession,  the  retraction,  the  wife's  action,, 
and  about  the  pistol,  and  the  resumption 
of  the  retraction,  and  all  the  narrative  of  the  private 
councils  which  had  for  their  sole  object  absolute  secrecy 
— "  where  did  all  that  get  into  this  woman's  head  in  the  * 
month  of  May,  1871,  at  the  time,  as  you  say,  when  you 
had  your  first  interview  with  her  1"  Well,  it  was  a  little 
troublesome,  no  doubt ;  no  doubt  of  that.  But  he  says, 
"  Well.  I  suppose  it  must  have  come  through  Mrs.  Morse." 
Whenever  any  trouble  in  the  Tilton  family  cannot  be 
imputed  to  anybody  else,  then  poor  Mrs.  Morse  has  to 
take  it.  [Laughter.  J  Mrs.  Morse,  the  mother-in-law  I 
"  Well,  Mr.  Tilton,  did  you  feel  at  liberty  to  mention  any 
of  these  matters  that  occurred  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
yourself,  or  between  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  dur- 
ing this  period  that  you  were  trying  to  arrange  to  dis- 
arm his  resentment  and  get  his  aid  ?  Was  it  not  your  ad- 
juration to  Mr.  Beecher  that  for  your  wife  and  children's 
sake  there  should  not  be  a  collateral  whisper  get  out 
when  he  was  fighting  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Bowen  fight- 
ing him,  if  they  should  have  a  fight  again?  Did  you 
then  feel  at  liberty  to  speak  to  anybody  about 
any  part  of  those  confidential  confidences!" 
WeU,  there  was  no  choice  between  a  direct  pouring  of 
it  himself  into  the  ears  of  Victoria  Woodhull  and  his  in- 
venting some  possible  channel,  however  much  he  was 
cornered  as  to  the  baseness  of  the  latter  by  my  questions 
and  his  answers.  "  Well,  I  did  speak  to  some  persons 
about  it,  and  I  said  some  things."  "  And  you  felt  at  lib- 
erty, did  you,  to  choose  to  whom  you  would  speak,  and 
to  say  as  tnuch  as  you  pleased  about  those  private  coun- 
sels when  you  started  with  the  proposition  that  secrecy 
for  your  wife's  and  family's  sake  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the 
whole  ?  "  "  Well,  I  did."  "And  so  you  told  Mrs.  Morse^ 
did  you  % "  "  Yes  ;  and  out  of  her  open  mouth  "— 
is  his  own  expression—"  came,  I  suppose,  these 
stories  of  these  confidential  Interviews  that  reached 
Victoria  Woodhull.  "  Now,  nobody  ever  pretends 
that  Mrs.  Morse  ever  saw  Victoria  Woodhull^ 
or  had  any  interviews  with  her,  and  I  said  to  him,  "  Well, 
when  you  told  Mrs.  Morse  yoii  knew  her  infirmity,  didn't 
you?"  "Yes,"  said  he,  "I  did."  And  there  the  poor 
man  was  in  the  condition,  for  immediate  purposes  of 
falsehood,  of  representing  himself  to  you  as  having  dur- 
iug  those  months  of  February  and  March,  1871,  made  a 
confidant  of  Mrs.  Morse,  when  one  of  his  most  important 
interviews  is  a  warning  to  Mr.  Beecher  to  be  careful  not 
to  allow  Mrs.  Morse  to  take  alfrout  even  at  her  letters 
not  being  answered,  for  fear  she  will,  by  some  mode  or 
other,  in  her  inventions  and  imaginations,  mingle  herself 
with  the  matter.  Well,  it  stood  so  until  the  next  morn- 
ing, and  you  had  for  half  a  day  a  possible  chance,  on  Mr. 
Tilton's  evidence,  that  what  Mrs.  Morse  knew  might  be- 
come known  to  other  people  and  might  have  reached 
Victoria  WoodhuU,  but  the  puzzle  was  if  Mrs.  Morse^ 


770  TEE  TlLrON-BE 

knew  it,  and  T^as  the  cliannel  hy  wWcli  Mrs. 
WoodTiull  knew  it,  and  only  by  the  open-mo vithed 
circulation  of  Mrs.  Morse's  ideas,  how  happened 
it  to  have  been  a  private  and  secret  communication  be- 
tween those  two  ladies  that  astounded  you  when  you 
read  it  1  That  is  not  easy  to  get  over.  But  the  enormity 
of  his  proposition  that  he  had  been  disclosing  hither  and 
thither  and  to  Mrs.  Morse  these  interviews  with  Mr. 
Beecher,  of  his  own,  and  of  Mr.  Moulton,  was  too  much 
lor  his  case,  and  the  next  morning  he  came  in  and  said 
that  he  wished  to  correct  his  evidence,  that  he  didn't 
liave  any  communication  of  any  kind  with  Mrs.  Morse 
after  the  month  of  December,  1870,  and  so  he  could  not 
have  told  her  (Mrs.  Morse)  anything  about  what  occurred 
between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton,  or  between  him 
(Tilton)  and  Beecher,  or  him  ^Tilton)  and  Moulton, 
or  between  him  (Tilton)  and  his  wife  in  respect  to 
the  retraction,  &c.  Now,  there  is  an  instance  of  the 
memory  that  comes  and  goes— comes  at  night  and  goes 
In  the  morning.  There  is  an  instance  of  the  memory  that 
the  necessities  of  counsel  fetch  and  carry,  and  yet  it  must 
be  natural,  as  they  said  in  "  The  School  for  Scandal  "  of 
Miss  Vermillion's  complexion.  Now,  let  me  show  you 
how  the  testimony  is  about  the  relations  of  this  gentle- 
man with  Mrs.  Woodhull.  Mr.  Andrews  comes  and  says  : 

At  Mr.  Tilton's  desire  I  brought  him  into  connection 
^ith  Mrs.  Woodhull  in  the  early  days  of  May,  1871. 

And  there  was  time  enough  during  the  running  of 
t3iOBe  weeks  of  May  before  the  22d  for  Mr.  Tilton  to  have 
told  this  story  as  he  pleased ;  enough  to  sustain  that 
eard,  and  Mr.  Tilton  had  not  yet  got  any  practical  proofs 
of  reinstitution;  he  had  not  collected  any  money  from 
Mr.  Bowen,  and  he  had  not  got  restored  to  The  Independ^ 
ewi,  and  he  had  nothing  but  the  contribution  of  respect- 
able gentlemen,  in  which  Mr.  Beecher  certainly  was  not 
a  participant,  nor  Mr.  Beecher's  friend,  Mr.  Clafliu,  in  the 
constitution  of  The  Golden  Age,  and  he  thought  it  was 
quite  as  well,  while  he  was  healing  the  wound  ostensibly, 
and  saving  his  family,  nevertheless  to  find  some  open 
mouth  of  irresponsible  imputation  that  should  keep  alive 
excitement  and  sustain  solicitudes.  There  you  have  the 
first  open  proposition  through  the  convenient  agency  of 
T'oodhuU  &  Claflin's  card  to  make  this  charge,  and  for 
fear  that  that  would  not  be  evidence  enough  to  show  that 
they  knew  anything  particular  about  it,  I  brought  you 
Mr.  Tilton's  testimony,  that  at  that  time  the  woman 
knew  all  that  she  published  in  the  Pall  of 
1872,  and  he  was  horror-struck  to  find  it 
out.  Now,  I  shut  Mrs.  Morse's  ears  by  his 
testimony,  if  I  have  not  shut  her  mouth. 
Now,  besides  this,  we  have  evidence,  entirely  trust- 
worthy, that,  although  Mr.  Andrews  has  given  us  three 
weeks'  start  nearly  of  acquaintance,  invited  by  Mr.  Til- 
ton, with  Mrs.  Moulton  before  the  publication  of  this 
card,  yet  from  our  witnesses,  Mrs.  Palmer,  Woodley  and 
Gray,  we  take  this  intimacy  between  the  Woodhull  lady 


iJKOEEB  TBIAL. 

and  Mr.  Tilton  into  the  late  Winter  or  early  Spring  of 
1871.  Now,  Mrs.  Palmer  says  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  read 
to  her  (Mrs.  Palmer)  that  card  of  the  22d  of  May,  1871, 
before  it  was  published. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  whether  before  she  read  the  card  to ' 
you  in  that  way  there  was  any  conversation  between  Mr. 
Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  on  the  subject  of  the  charge 
against  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  TUton  1  A.  Yes,  in  tho 
back  office.  Mrs.  Woodhull  was  speaking  of  this  charge 
against  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  Mr.  TUton 
started  up,  his  face  fiushed,  and  says,  "  Vickey,  that  is 
not  true  ;  my  wife  is  as  pure  as  snow,  and  no  such  rela- 
tion ever  existed  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  my  wife  ;  it 
is  false." 

Q,  Did  he  say  anything  about  never  having  told  her 
so  I  A.  He  said,  "  I  have  never  told  you  so.  You  may 
have  inferred  it  from  what  I  have  said." 

Q.  What  was  Mrs.  Woodhull's  reply  to  this  f  A.  Mrs. 
Woodhull  stepped  up  to  him  and  laid  both  her  hands  on 
his  shoulders,  facing  him,  and  said :  "  Theodore,  Theo- 
dore, you  know  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  things  that  a 
man  and  woman  should  be  thrown  together  as  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  were  and  have  nothing  of  that 
kind  take  place  between  them,"  and  he  soon  left  the 
room. 

Now,  when  Mr.  Tilton  is  recalled,  all  that  h«5  denies  la 
the  "Vicky."  He  says  he  never  called  this  woman 
Vicky.  Vi^ell,  that  doesn't  deny  a  cohversation.  That  may 
be  an  error  of  a  narrator,  or  it  may  be  true.  You  have 
the  oath  of  one  and  of  the  other  on  the  "  Vicky."  We 
have  conceded  "  Victoria"  and  "  Theodore"  as  the  or- 
dinary method  of  address  between  this  gentleman  and 
this  lady,  and  the  "  Vicky"  is  all  that  he  denies  of  that 
conversation. 

Now,  there  is  some  effort  to  make  out  a  sort  of  aUbi, 
but  that,  I  believe,  is  the  next  year— that  is  also  In  refer- 
ence to  some  statements  of  Mrs.  Palmer — or  1872.  Now, 
gentlemen,  Mrs.  Woodhull's  statement,  when  she  does 
finally  publish  it,  in  1872,  gives  two  persons  as  sources 
of  some  large  information  to  Mrs.  Woodhull  about  this 
matter,  but  she  gives  her  narrative,  and  bases  it  upon 
what  Mr.  Tilton  told  her.  Her  story,  therefore,  of  it  is 
that  Mr.  Tilton  told  her,  and  we  will  see  what  Mr.  TUtoil 
does  in  regard  to  the  pretensions  of  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull's  article,  that  Mrs.  Paulina  Wright  Davis,  a 
great  intimate  in  Mr.  Tilton's  family,  had  poured 
into  Mrs.  Woodhull's  ears  considerable  informa- 
tion, and  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stanton  had  had  a  long 
interview  with  her,  and  told  her  the  same,  or  the  rest. 
Mr.  Tilton  fui'uishes  this  refutation  of  both  of  those 
stories  of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  Information  in  the  publication 
which  he  makes  as  a  part  of  his  "  True  Story."  Fortu- 
nately this  part  was  preserved,  and  was  produced  from 
the  original  in  Mr.  Tilton's  own  hand.  It  is  the  tail-piece 
of  the  "  True  Story,"  of  which  we  furnished  the  introduc- 
tion. He  publishes  this  refutation  of  Mrs.  Paulina  Wright 
Davis's  share  in  it : 

Mrs.  Paulina  Wright  Davis  was  given  as  a  chief  witness 
in  Mrs.  Woodhull's  scandalous  Beecher-Tilton's  libel,  but 
in  a  note  just  received  from  her  in  Europe,  Mrs.  Davis 


SUMMISG    CF  BY  Mli.  EVAKIS, 


771 


thus  utterly  repudiates,  in  gross  and  in  detail,  the  state- 
ments concerning  lier  relation  to  the  ease,  and  gives  the 
most  damaging  direct  blow  to  the  whole  lihel  that  has  yet 
heen  rendered. 

And  then  CLUoted  from  lyirs.  Davis : 

In  relation  to  the  Tilton  agt.  Beecher  affair,  I  have 
only  this  to  say :  I  was  never  on  any  terms  of  intimacy 
with  the  families  of  either  party.  I  never  visited  the 
Tiltons  but  once  in  my  life,  and  that  was  ten  years  ago 
in  company  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Johnson.  A  year  or  two 
ago  I  called  at  Mr.  Tilton's  house  for  some  "boolis  which  I 
had  lent  to  T.  I  then  saw  Mr.  Tilton  for  ten  or  fifteen 
minutes.  I  have  met  Mrs.  Tilton  two  or  three  times  at 
the  houses  of  mutual  friends,  but  at  no  time  has  there 
been  the  slightest  approach  to  confidential  conversation 
between  us,  nor  have  I  insinuated  that  there  had  been. 
If  :Mrs.  T.  has  ever  in  my  presence  spoken  of  Mr.  Beecher 
it  has  been  in  terms  of  respect  as  a  man  of  honor  and  her 
pastor.  I  did  believe  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  was  going  to  do 
a  great  work  for  women.  I  am  grieved  that  she  has 
failed  in  what  she  gave  promise  of  doing. 

And  ZSIrs.  H.  B.  Stanton,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend  in  New- 
York,  which  Mr.  TJton  produces  as  a  voucher  that  Mrs. 
H.  B.  Stanton  didn't  communicate  anything  to  Mrs. 
WoodhuH,  writes: 

XOVEilBEE  5,  1872. 

I  have  had  a  great  time  visiting  friends  here,  hut  my 
pleasure  has  been  fearfully  marred  by  this  Woodhull 
paper.  I  thought  it  dead.  "  False  in  one  point,  false  in 
all"  is  a  good  old  Latin  motto. 

And  certainly  no  greater  authority  for  the  common 
law  in  this  State  has  lived  for  a  century  than  I^Irs.  H.  B. 
Stanton's  father,  Daniel  Cady,  a  great  lawyer. 

The  filthy  language  she  puts  iuto  my  mouth  is  utterly 
fal?e.  I  never  spoke  to  that  woman  but  once  on  the 
subject— about  five  minutes— fortunately  ia  the  presence 
of  one  witness,  a  gentleman,  and  simply  replied  in 
general  terms  to  a  question  that  I  had  heard  about 
this  rumor. 

Say  this  to  T.  T.,  and  tell  him  I  shall  stand  by  him  ia 
the  hour  of  need. 

Now,  Mr.  Andrews  tells  you  that  he  was  the  gentleman 
that  was  present  when  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stanton  had  her  inter- 
view with  Mrs.  Woodhttll,  and  nobody  has  undertaken  to 
j»roducethat  interview  as  covering  any  greater  length 
and  breadth  of  communication  than  is  given  in  this  letter 
of  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stanton's.  Now,  I  produce  this  statement  of 
PauliiiL-  Wright  Davis,  and  this  letter  of  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stan- 
ton, not  because  they  are  ia  themselves  evidence,  but 
hecause  they  are  made  evidence  by  Mr.  Tntons  producing 
them  as  a  correct  and  truthful  statement  of  the  connec- 
tion of  these  ladies  with  any  communication  co  Mrs. 
WoodhuU,  falsifying  the  proposition  that  either  of  them 
made  any  such  communication,  and  putting  it  as  a  part 
of  his  narrative,  under  his  own  hand,  that  precludes 
the  idea  that  either  of  them  had.  It  is  evi- 
dence agaiast  him,  and  it  is  true,  for  the 
letters  speak  for  themselves,  and  the  ladies 
are  not  impeached  in  character  or  ia  any  way.  WeU, 
now  you  see,  haviag  shut  :Mrs.  Morse's  ears,  I  have  now 
shutMi-s.  H.  B.  Stanton's  and  3Irs.  Paulina  Davrs's 
mouriis,  and  what  mouth  and  ear  was  there  thiit  could  i 


come  together  for  the  communication  of  this  scandal  but 
Mrs.  Triton  to  Mrs.  WoodhuU.  She  so  published  it  ia  her 
paper  that  he  told  her,  and  she  put  it  on  his  telling, 
although  she  had,  as  she  said,  these  previous  communi- 
cations from  these  ladies,  and  more  or  less  of  them.  But 
1  don't  put  much  upon  that. 
The  Court  here  adjourned  until  2  o'clock- 

THE  AFTEENOOX  SESSION. 
Tlie  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursnant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Evarts,  Mr.  Beach  has  a  case  in 
another  court,  and  requests  that  you  proceed  without 

"him, 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  yotir  Honor.  Mr.  Beach  mentioned  it 
to  me. 

You  will  perceive,  gentlemen,  very  readily,  that 
any  movements  or  disposition  either  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  or  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton,  or  on  the  part 
of  Mr.  Moulton,  as  the  friend  of  either,  to  prevent  pub- 
licity of  scandal,  carries  no  imputation  or  recognition  of 
fault  of  any  kind  ia  the  jtist  consideration  of  candid 
minds.  Who  does  not  wish  to  avoid  scandal  i  If  there 
ever  was  a  viadicettion  both  of  the  rectitude  of  such  a 
disposition,  and  of  the  solicitudes  that  rightly  may  be 
felt  and  of  the  sacrifices  that  rightly  should  he  made 
to  prevent  scandal  and  agitation  concern- 
ing reputations,  and  controversies  concerning 
neighborhoods  and  famiLLes  and  churches  and  sects,  de- 
nominations, divisions  of  society,  religious  opinions  and 
religious  connections,  the  experience  of  the  enormoua 
mischiefs  which,  by  persistently  maligned  influences, 
have  prevented  the  necessary  and  proper  desire  and  duty 
of  every  honest  man  connected  with  this  matter,  to  pre- 
vent scandal— this  history,  I  say,  will  exhibit  in  the 
strongest  light  the  propriety  of  such  dispositions  and  of 
all  such  eflbrts.  But  the  plaintiff  has  thought  it  neces- 
sary for  him,  in  the  failure  of  all  direct  proof  of  any  acta 
tending  to  support  his  charge,  and  ia  the  great  risks  of 
any  credulity  accepting  the  stories  of  confessional  con- 
versations, and  the  clear  knowledge  that  a  correct  read- 
ing, an  intelligent  and  honest  interpretation  of  the  writ- 
ings of  Mr.  Beecher,  so  far  from  giving  countenance  to  the 
idea  of  his  guilt,  are  the  strongest  evidence,  as  I 
shall  have  the  honor  to  impress  upon  you 
before  I  close  my  address,  of  his  innocence — has  tried 
even  the  more  remote  method  of  affixing  to  certain  lines 
of  conduct  an  argumentative  or  inferential  A'iew  of  guilt 
as  lying  at  the  bottom  of  those  lines  of  conduct.  And 
the  fact  of  this  intimacy  of  ^Ix.  Tilton  with  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull,  however  successful  they  might  have  hoped  to  be  in 
limiting  the  evidence  of  it  to  such  a  view  and  estimate  of 
it  as  might  suit  Mr.  Tilton's  purposes— that  fact  existing 
and  the  fact  of  this  warning  card,  in  May,  1871,  and  of 
the  final  promulgation  of  the  scandal,  and  all  the  mis- 
chiefs that  followed  therefrom  in  the  end  of  1372,  being 


772 


IHE  TILTON-BFjEOHEB  TBIAL. 


facts  that  could  not  be  displaced,  an  adventurous  scheme 
worthy  of  the  superficial  ingenuity  of  this  plaintiff,  that 
presents  a  very  good  view  of  things  until  the  cover  is 
lifted  and  the  feebleness  and  folly  of  the  contrivance  are 
exposed,  led  to  the  aflBrinative  introduction  of  the  theory 
on  his  part  that  all  this  association  and  operation  with 
Mrs.  WoodhuU,  was  to  be  set  down  as  a  con- 
tinuous and  impressive  condition  of  guilt, 
concealed  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher. 
Now,  as  I  have  said,  the  suppression  of  scandal  may 
worthily  be  imputed  as  a  motive  to  any  and  all  of  these 
parties  ;  and  Mr.  TUton  has  taken  pains  to  give  the  most 
direct  and  the  most  conclusive  evidence  that  that  was 
his  desire  and  his  purpose. 

MRS.  WOODHULL'S  RELATIONS  WITH  THE 
PRINCIPALS. 
Now,  we  come  to  take  up  the  challenge 

thrown  down  to  us,  that  this  intimacy  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and 
Mr.  Moulton,  and  Mrs.  Moulton  with  this  lady,  Mrs. 
WoodhuU,  is  a  concession  to  their  purpose  of  aiding  in 
protecting  from  public  gaze  the  faults,  errors,  crimes, 
guilt,  of  Mr.  Beecher.  We  then  probe  that  intimacy.  We 
lay  it  before  you  in  its  true  dimensions,  forcing,  step  by 
step,  this  plaintiff  from  every  cover  of  falsehood  with 
which  he  seeks  to  disguise  and  to  limit  it,  and  exhibit 
it  to  you  as  an  enthusiasm  of  his  for  Mrs.  Woodhull's 
principles,  and  an  infatuation  with  the  charms  of  her  so- 
ciety and  her  person.   We  show  you  in  various  ways  how 
completely  enraptured  he  was  with  her ;  his  life  of  her,  his 
letters  for  her  to  public  men,  his  presiding  at  her  meetings, 
his  personal  familiarities,  or  habitual  association  with 
her,  and  all  that  makes  up  the  intimate  association  of  a 
man  with  a  woman  of  whose  charms  of  mind  and  of 
person  he  feels  a  strong  impression.  Now,  with  regard 
to  this  lady,  never  suitably  to  be  brought  into  this  in- 
quiry, except  as.  it  was  forced  upon  her  attention  by  the 
course  of  the  plaintiff,  she  remained  a  vailed  priestess  to 
our  mortal  gaze  untU  the  very  last  days  of  the  trial ;  and 
I  am  sure,  whether  she  be  most  a  Pythoness,  or  a  Phryne, 
a  Sappho,  or  an  Aspasia,  through  the  long  com-se  of  dis- 
tant allusion  to  her  that  marks  the  course  of  this  testi- 
mony, it  would  be  very  difficult  for  any  one  to  determine ; 
but  yet  behind  all  there  seems  to  be  a  general  impression 
that  there  is  no  danger  of  her  being  misconstrued  or  mis- 
understood, that  with  her  great  and  public  repute  she  is 
one  of  those  persons  whose  character  evinces  itself, 
and    needs    not   to   be  explained,    or  commented 
upon.      All  I  can  say  of  any  personal  observation 
of  her    is  to  be  drawn  from  the  few  moments  in 
which,  for  the  first  time,  in  the  court-room,  I  set 
eyes  upon  her  ;  and  I  can  only  say  that  if  the  delicacy 
of  trust  and  of  honor  which  she  exhibited,  and  for  which 
she  should  have  fair  credit,  in  disclosing  to  the  public  the 
correspondence  which  had  only  the  implied  obligation  of 
privacy  because  it  occurred  between  a  gentleman  and  a 


lady— that  if  the  least  approach  to  that  sense  of  hono* 
and  of  duty  had  characterized  the  Sir  Philip  Sidney  of 
this  cause,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  this 
trial,  no  opportunity  for  these  long  perversions  of  truth, 
and  these  tangles  of  misrepresentation  and  falsehood. 
Now,  for  some  reason  or  other  Mr.  Tilton  found  it  neces- 
sary to  present  his  relations  with  this  lady  upon  the  nar- 
rowest possible  footing  of  personal  appreciation,  regard, 
and  familiarity  ;  as  if  his  character  somehow  was  to  lose 
by  every  touch  or  trait  in  this  intercoui'se.  I  do  not  see, 
from  anything  disclosed  on  this  trial,  how  Mrs.  WoodhtQl 
has  ever  deserved  any  such  treatment  at  his  hands,  or  at 
the  hands  of  Mr.  Moulton,  or  at  the  hands  of  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton. I  find  no  evidence  that  she  has  ever  courted  their 
favor,  and  I  see  abundant  evidence  that  she  had,  in 
large  measure,  that  favor  accorded  to  her  by  all  three  of 
these  persons.  Now,  we  have  shown  you  that  this  iati- 
macy  was  of  the  closest  character,  in  the  sense  of  habit- 
ual enjoyment  of  one  another's  society,  the  great  fre- 
quency of  Mr.  TUton's  resort  to  the  office,   and  the 
lunches  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  da  .  by  day ;  and  the  only  ob- 
jection to  the  truthfulness  and  accuracy  of  our  evidence 
in  that  behalf,  that  I  have  noticed,  is  the  production  of  a 
witness  who  proves  that  Mr.  Woodley,  the  colored  waiter 
and  clerk,  or  office  lad,  was  mistaken  in  thinking 
that  they  went  up   stairs  to  lunch   at  Delmonico's. 
And  Mr.  Longhi,  the  superintendent  of  that  house  of 
Delmonico's  now  for  years  and  years,  knowing  every- 
body in  the  world,  and  well  known  as  a  man  of  the  high- 
est character— he  comes  to  you  to  prove  the  fact  that  the 
second  floor,  now  used  as  a  restaurant,  was  not  then 
used,  but  he  proves  the  fact  that  you  had  to  ascend  a 
flight  of  steps  to  get  to  the  floor  that  was  used,  and  that 
there  was  near  by,  within  20  feet  of  it,  a  descent  into 
another  restaurant  beneath ;  and  Mr.  Longhi,  knowing 
Mr.  Tilton,  knowiag  Mrs.  Woodhull,  Miss  Claflin  and  Col. 
Blood,  his  near  neighbors,  having  habitually  resorted  to 
his  caf6,  was  not  asked  at  all  to  say  that  Mr.  Tilton  and 
Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflin  and  Col.  Blood  ('id  not 
limch  at  his  establishment  day  by  day,  as  Woodley  had 
stated  it.  You  learn  to  discover  how  feeble  and  foolish 
are  these  little  touches  of  appareut  contradiction,  to 
bring  into  doubt  accuracy  about  a  matter  in  which  ac- 
curacy is  of  the  least  account,  and  confirmation  of  the 
main  substance  of  the  story,  by  the  omission  to  contra- 
dict that.   So,  too,  there  was  not  any  reason  why  Mr. 
Tilton  should  deny  that  he  went  in  bathing  with  Mrs. 
Woodhull,  except  that  he  did  not  wish  to  have  the  fact 
appear,  and  he  thought  there  could  be  no  mode  of  prov- 
ing it  if  he  denied  it ;  and  that  step  simply  brings  him 
face  to  face  with  Mr.  Gallagher,  the  man  who  drove  them 
to  Coney  Island  as  a  resort  for  bathing,  took  their 
watches  from  them,  missed  them  from  his  cariiage  for  tbe 
time  that  would  be  taken  for  a  bath,  and  received  them, 
if  not  dripping  from  the    sea,  at   least    to  resume 
1  possession  of  their  watches  and  ride  home.     Wh^  this  i 


SUMMJJSTG    UP  I 

'what  is  its  value!  First,  as  slio^ving  the  particular  false- 
hood itself  ;  second,  as  showing  the  f  alsiflcation  in  pur- 
pose of  the  relations  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  this  lady,  as 
not  being  personal  and  of  Ms  own  choice,  and  with  his 
own  satisfaction ;  and  then  to  put  off  upon  Mr.  Beecher 
the  minimum  of  cessation  possible  on  Mr.  Tilton's  part  as 
ascribable  to  Mr.  Beecher.  Then,  when  we  come  to  the 
house :  "  "Were  you  about  the  house  up-stairs  1  A.  Never, 
except  once.  Mrs.  "WoodhuU  took  me  up  to  show  me  how 
empty  it  was  when  it  had  been  stripped  of  all  its  furni- 
ture, and  I  went  over  the  house  in  that  way,  and  that  is 
the  only  time."  "Well,  that  ends  it,  if  nobody 
can  contradict  him.  He  says  that  his  familiari- 
ties were  not  of  a  personal  character;  that  he 
was  up-stairs  only  by  chance,  to  have  the  nakedness  of 
the  house  exhibited  to  him.  But  the  witnesses  come— 
their  witnesses  and  our  witnesses.  Mr,  Andrews  re- 
peatedly saw  him  up-stairs,  repeatedly  sa-^-  Mm  in  the 
rooms  of  resort  up-stairs,  the  rooms  of  Mrs.  WoodhuU  and 
of  Col.  Blood— a  sort  of  library  bedi'oom,  as  I  imderstand 
it.  Cook  speaks  of  it  over  and  over  again,  gives  instances 
of  its  being  the  habit  of  Blr.  Tilton  to  be  familiarly  up- 
stairs, openly  up-stairs,  calling  to  him,  "  Tom,  wait  for 
me  till  I  come  down ;"  "  Tom,  are  you  going?  wait  for  me 
till  I  come  down,"  and  every  degree  of  familiarity,  of 
what  we  call  "  having  the  run"  of  a  house,  thus  brought 
home  to  Mr.  Tilton.  Then  Mr.  Cowley  comes,  and  de- 
scribes an  evening  there  in  one  of  these  salons 
that  Mrs.  "Woodhull  held,  in  which,  greater  than 
Madame  Roland,  she  had  guests  greater  than  the 
philosophers  of  France  ;  and  he  gives  you  a  conversation 
between  the  three,  himself,  Mr.  Tilton,  and  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull,  in  which  aU  this  scandal  about  Mr.  Beecher  is 
talked  about,  and  Mrs.  Tilton  is  talked  about,  and  Mr. 
Beecher's  mistresses  are  talked  about,  and  Mrs.  Tilton's 
relations  are  talked  about,  and  the  necessity  and  pui'pose 
of  bringing  Mr.  Beecher  to  the  maintenance  of  free  love 
doctrines  are  talked  about  ;  and  although  Mr.  Cowley, 
"being  rather  a  hard-headed  man,  a  practicing  lawyer  of 
twenty  years'  standing,  who  obviously  knew  very  well 
what  he  was  about,  undertook  to  represent  to  Mrs. 
Woodhull  that  if  she  would  put  her  logic  to  this  or  that 
statement,  she  would  see  that,  although  it  might  be  pos- 
sible that  a  leading  clergyman  should  have  a  liaison  with 
one  woman  in  the  congregation,  it  would  be  very  difficult 
to  keep  up  such  relations  with  two,  let  alone  a  dozen* 
But  we  have  the  narrative  of  this  intimacy,  and  the  char- 
acter of  it,  and  that  touching  little  dialogue  where  Mrs. 
Wo  >dhull  with  proper  delicacy  dropped  her  voice  so  that 
Mr  Tilton  shoidd  not  hear  it,  and  which  our  learned 
f  ricf  ds  insisted  upon  bringing  out  on  the  cross-exami- 
natirm,  because  the  rules  of  evidence  did  not  allow  us  to 
prov(»  it,  and  they  thought  that  our  feint  to  get  it  was 
only  a  feint,  and  they  might  discover  something;  they 
brought  out  this  interesting  little  colloquj'  that  Mrs. 
Woodhull  told  Mr.  Cowley  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  her 


ME.   UVAETS.  m 

very  ideal  of  a  man,  and  Mr.  Cowley  ventui-ed 
to  suggest  that  apparently  Mr.  Tilton  reciprocated  that 
sentiment  toward  her  as  a  woman,  and  she  replied  witis 
emphasis,  "  Indeed  he  does !"  Now,  there  isn't  any  im- 
propriety in  that.  Nothing  is  more  beautiful  than  that 
the  affections  should  be  cultivated,  even  under  glass,  so 
to  speak,  and  forced  a  little.  But  let  us  have  a  statement 
of  the  truth  about  it ;  don't  let  us  have  denial  of  all  these 
agreeable  indulgences,  and  put  upon  us  the  necessity  of 
proving  them.  And  then  that  letter  that  is  finally  un- 
earthed, which  Mr.  Tilton  writes  to  Mr.  Davis,  the  hus- 
band, isn't  he,  of  Paulina  

Mr.  Shearman— Andrew  Jackson  Davis. 

Mr.  Evarts— Oh,  Andrew  Jackson  Davis,  the  very  head, 
I  believe,  of  the  spiritualists,  more  spiritual  than  a  spirit- 
ualist, in  which  he  commends  to  his  attention  his,  Til- 
ton's, "  Life  of  "Victoria  Woodhull,"  and  desires  his  crit- 
icism upon  it,  Tilton  himself,  I  think,  expressing  a 
favorable  opinion  about  it : 

I  want  you  and  your  wife  to  read  carefully  my  narra- 
tive of  the  Uf  e  and  spii-itual  experiences  of  Mrs.  Woodhull, 
and  then  to  give  me  your  exact  impression  of  the  tale. 
Some  people  refuse  to  believe  what  is  so  marvelous,  but 
I  understated  rather  than  overstated  the  facts,  which 
were  originally  communicated  to  me  by— [I  suppose  it 
should  be  "her  authority;"  it  is  printed  "my  author- 
ity"]. Tell  IMrs.  Davis  to  write  more  for  The  Golden  Age. 
and  do  the  same  yourself.   Fraternally  yours, 

Theodore  Tilton. 

Now,  see  how  this  intimacy  had  progressed.  Mrs. 
Moulton  tells  you  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  was  at  least  a 
dozen  times  at  Mrs.  Moulton's  house  during  this  period 
of  intimacy.  Her  narratives  of  her  own  visits  to  Mrs. 
Woodhull's  I  shall  make  the  subject  of  particular  remark. 
But  all  this  is  the  true  exposition  of  the  relations  of  this 
plaintiff  and  of  Mr.  Moulton  and  of  Mrs.  Moulton,  to  thisi 
lady.  If  I  be  right  in  the  propositions  that  the 
first  knowledge  must  have  come  to  Xirs. 
Woodhull  from  Mr.  Tilton,  of  all  that 
part  of  her  publication,  all  that  pavt 
of  her  knowledge  which  she  possessed  in  May  as  to  what 
passed  in  the  end  of  December  in  the  private  rooms  of 
the  Moultons,  and  of  Mr.  Beecher's  house— if  I  be  right 
in  that  you  will  see  how  the  stream  of  the  same  purpose 
and  influence  ran  on  in  Mrs.  Tilton's  name  and  interest 
with  this  lady,  that  the  somewhat  irresponsible  publica- 
tions of  her  wild  rhapsodical  sheet  would  answer  the 
purpose  of  promoting  the  knowledge  of  the  scandal 
without  carrying  trace  or  responsibility  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  in  a  form  and  guise  that  would  enable  him  to  say 
such  wild,  extravagant  slanders— I  don't  remember  how 
opprobrious  his  terms  were,  but  he  certainly  coudemnet! 
them  in  the  severest  manner— how  all  that  could  be  com- 
patible on  his  part  with  the  publication  that  he  had  de- 
sired to  promote. 
I  Now,  gentlemen,  this  leads  mo  to  consider  what  is 
I  called  the  whole  policy  of  silence ;  and  before  taking  up 


774 


THE   TILTON-BEEOHEB  TEJAL. 


that  <reneral  head,  of  wliich  tliis  Woodhull  intimacy 
forms  a  part— suppression —let  me  call  your  attention  to 
llie  entire  abseace,  on  tae  part  of  Mr.  Tilton,  wheflh.  re- 
culied  to  tlie  stand,  of  any  contradiction  of  any  import- 
ance, of  eltlier  Woodley  or  Gray,  or  Lucy  Giles,  or  Tom 
Cook,  or  Cowley.  Not  one  word  of  Co^vley's  is  contra- 
dicted, nor  of  Mrs.  Palmer,  except  in  the  very  slight  in- 
Btance  to  which  I  have  called  your  attention.  It  must 
then  he  conceded  that,  in  the  first  place,  we  have  shown 
repeated  falsehoods  on  his  part  in  his  narrative; 
second,  systematic  and  purposed  falsehood  in 
the  character  that  he  has  sought  to  im- 
pose in  your  understandings,  and  in  your 
acceptance  of  that  intimacy.  The  degree  and  form  of 
t^iis  intimacy,  as  Imputed  hy  our  witnesses,  and  not  de- 
nied by  Mr.  TiUon  when  he  retvirned,  I  need  hut  lightly 
touch  upon.  They  are  the  familiarities  at  the  offlce,  the 
familiarities  at  the  house,  the  habitual  presence  in  the 
upper  story,  the  enjoyment  of  refreshments  late  at  night 
In  the  upper  rooms  of  the  house  in  regard  to  which  Mr. 
Tilton  says  that  he  never  took  refreshments  in  those  upper 
rooms  I  need  not  insist  further.  The  whole  matter 
comes  to  be  legitimate  in  this  case  only  as  meeting  a 
proposition  of  the  plaintiflPs,  introduced  in  his  testimony, 
that  his  relations  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  were  of  self-sacri- 
fice, and  in  respect  to  character,  convenience,  and  feel- 
ing, in  the  interests  of  Beecher,  and  perhaps  also  of  his 
wife.  _ 

THE  POLICY  OF  SIl^KNOE  CONSIDERED. 

Now,  the  "policy  of  silence,"  as  it  is  called, 

is  of  no  value  in  this  case  unless  to  carry  an  inference  or 
argument  that— because  Mr.  Beecher  knew  of,  and  con- 
curred in,  aided  in,  or  submitted  to  the  policj^  of  silence- 
therefore  it  is  an  evidence  of  guilt.  "Why,  gentlemen,  the 
whole  line  of  impression  of  such  an  argument  fails  when 
we  have  disclosed  to  you  the  misery  and  misfortune  of 
this  family,  the  disturbance  of  the  affections  betweeji  hus- 
band and  wife,  and  the  conceded  self-reproach  of  Mr. 
Beecher  in  regard  to  his  participation  in  those  results  as 
they  were  imiuited  to  hhn,  as  they  were  in  his  mind, 
made  the  subjects  of  impressiom  from  evidence  to  wliich 
he  trusted.  But  you  will  see,  and  have  seen,  that  all  this 
policy  of  silence  was  not  of  Mr.  Beecher's  choosing.  In- 
deed, there  is  no  disguise  on  the  part  of  this  plaintiff,  nor 
on  the  part  of  his  actor  and  friend,  Mr.  Moulton,  in  the 
presentation  to  you  directly  and  affirmatively  that  it 
was  his  policy  and  his  effort ;  and  the  anxiety  was  that 
Mr.  Beecher  should  not,  by  the  frankness  and  boldness  of 
his  nature,  inadvertently,  in  his  defiance  in  any  contro- 
versy that  Bowen  might  raise  against  him,  lead  to  pub- 
licity ;  for  nobody  had  seen  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
on  their  own  testimony,  any  desire  eo  keep  anythinsr 
quiet.  It  was  his  concurrence  in  the  light  and  duty  on 
his  part  to  preclude  scandal  in  its  gei^eral  mischiefs,  in 
\Xx,  ii^jury  to  himself  and  his  relations  to  society,  and  es- 


pecially to  the  fame  of  the  woman.  And  the  very  poiut 
of  the  thing  with  Mr.  Tilton  was,  "  Why,  here  I  am 
ruined  in  public  repute.  These  scandals  about 
my  profligacy,  about  my  vicious  indulgences, 
have  blasted  my  character,  and  anything  in  the  nature 
of  evidence  of  discord  between  Mrs,  Tilton  and  myself— 
of  a  break — of  a  flight  on  ner  part— a  separation  from 
me,  or  of  all  the  shades  and  degrees  as  a  basis  of  imputa- 
tions of  cruelty,  of  disorder  or  disaster  in  my  domestic 
affairs,  puts  the  final  and  destructive  plunge  into  irrecov- 
erable despair  of  my  personal,  my  family  fortimes."  And, 
under  that  influence,  the  policy  of  silence  is  accepted  and 
submitted  to.  And  now,  observe  how,  if  this  had  been 
an  honest  policy,  if  there  had  been  anything  in  it  on  the 
part  of  this  plaintiff  and  his  friend  Mr.  Moulton  except  a 
mode  of  holding  both  ends  of  this  matter  in  their  hands 
and  using  silence  or  disclosure  at  their  ple^isure,  a.s  they 
found  it  useful  in  their  purposes,  how  that  policy 
would  have  been  absolutely  and  completely  siiccessful. 
Here  were  three  persons  possessed  of  knowledge  of  what 
they  desired  to  be  kept  secret,  and  if  there  was  a  neces- 
sity of  bringing  Mr.  Moulton  in  as  a  fourth,  why,  then  his 
fidelity  could  be  trusted,  and  all  the  machinery  of  silence,, 
all  the  machinery  of  suppression  which  afterward  came 
into  such  active  operation,  had  no  place  whatever. 
These  elaborate  schemes  and  contrivances  came  into  play 
to  keep  up  that  dishonest  shifting  from  silence  to  pro- 
mulgation ;  and  that  was  the  policy  and  the  scheme  that 
actuated  the  movements  of  Tilton  and  Moulton  a,U 
through  from  that  time  forward.  "  See  to  it  that  you, 
Mr.  Beecher,  have  no  confidences  and  take  no  advice  but 
ours;  see  to  It  that  you  run  no  risks  of  promulga- 
tion, by  not  imparting  these  disturbed  relations 
to  the  confidence  even  of  your  wife.  We 
then  shall  be  able  to  manage  silence  on  our 
part,"  And  then,  see  what  a  ponderous  system  of  sup- 
pressions, of  disclosures,  camie  to  be  the  occasions  of 
solicitude  and  of  conference  when,  in  fact  and  in  truth, 
these  two  men  were  laughing  at  Mr.  Beecher  all  the 
while,  and  were  keeping  alive  or  reviving  rumors  and 
suspicions  whenever  the  natural  course  of  things  would 
have  buried  and  extiuguished  them. 

Now,  just  see  how  Mr.  Beecher  acted  when  this  whole 
matter  was  in  his  hands,  provided  you  believe  that 
there  is  one  word  of  truth  in  the  imputed  relations 
of  guilt  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  TiltOD. 
Now,  you  have  a  resort  of  the  wife  in  flight  from  an  exas- 
perated husband,  knowing  of  her  guilt,  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  Mr.  Beecher's  introduction  of  the  lady  to  the  keen 
search  of  his  wife's  scrutiny,  and  a  ready  and  prompt  re- 
sort to  Mr.  Bell,  and  a  proposal  for  his  deliberation  and 
conclusion  whether  aU  the  deaconesses  and  all  the  mar 
trons  of  Plymouth  Chiirch  should  not  be  made  confidants 
of  this  difficulty.  Now,  you  don't  see  any  disposition  of 
silence  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher.  And  yet,  to  say  that 
he,  conscious  of  the  guilt  of  himself  and  of  the  woman. 


SUMMING   UF  1 

conscious  of  tlie  fcno-^ledge  of  tlie  liusTDaiid  pf  the  guilt  of 
Mmself  and  of  tlie  ■woman,  understanding  tlie  na- 
ture of  Theodore  Tilton,  who  would  he  ex- 
asperated in  the  last  degree  hy  this 
final  blow,  this  final  disgrace,  that  this  woman 
who  adored  him,  and  whom  he  flattered  himself  he  could 
turn  as  wax  to  his  purposes  in  any  shape  he  chose,  had 
actually  found  him  insupportable,  had  actually  had  to 
choose  between  the  sacrifice  of  home  and  of  respectability, 
in  one  form,  or  the  sacrifice  of  honor  and  of  character 
and  the  submission  to  disgrace  in  the  other,  by  remain- 
ing at  that  home ;  then  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Beecher  was 
to  let  in,  first,  the  wicked  scope  of  the  unmeasured  malice 
of  Mr.  Tilton,  which  he  had  been  aware  of  in  his  whisper- 
ings for  years,  and  then  the  examinations  of  the  wife  and 
of  the  matrons  into  this  woman,  thus  putting  under  the 
microscopic  gaze  of  these  intelligent  and  yet  astonished 
companions  and  friends  of  hers,  the  fact  of  there  being  no 
ideal  home  at  all,  no  worship  and  protection  of  the 
wife  on  the  part  of  the  husband,  but  destruction  and  in- 
jury, and  then  the  inquiries,  "When  did  it  begin ^" 
How  did  It  arise  ?"  "  How  did  it  widen  itself  1"  "  What 
has  passed  between  you  and  your  husband?"  "  "^Tiat 
has  been  your  conduct  1"  "  Why  is  it  that  you  have  pre- 
served the  professions  of  this  idolatry  for  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  this  worship  of  the  hearthstone  at  which  he  sat  ?" 
All  that  you  are  to  believe  that  a  clergyman  invited, 
opened.  Ah !  no  wonder  our  learned  friends  tried  to 
keep  this  evidence  out  when  we  wanted  to  get  it  in.  But 
only  Divine  Providence  can  understand  why  they  intro- 
duced it  when  they  had  succeeded  in  shutting  our 
mouths.  But  there  it  is,  and  it  strikes  righu  down  into 
the  center  of  the  case,  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  the  con- 
sciousness that  made  silence  his  policy,  suppression 
and  its  interest  his  policy;  and  when  we  find  him,  alone, 
he  is  ready  to  scatter  it  to  the  winds,  and  when  we  find 
Uiem  dealing  with  the  same  suggestion  we  find  them  urg- 
ing him  to  save  Tilton  and  his  affairs,  and  save  the  wife 
from  this  exposure  of  the  broken  conditions  of  the  affec- 
tions of  that  family  and  of  this  false  charge  against  Mr. 
Beecher. 

Now  we  go  on  with  the  little  items  of  importance.  And 
first,  Bessie  Turner.  Well,  what  is  Bessie  Turner,  and 
what  turn  does  she  serve  in  this  matter  of  silence  ?  Why, 
Mr.  Moulton  says— for  I  believe  he  is  the  only  one  that 
speaks  of  it  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff— Mr.  Tilton  has 
nothing  to  say  about  it— Mr.  Moulton  says  that  one  day 
he  spoke  to  Mr.  Beecher  about  this  girl  being  a  person 
who  possessed  some  information,  and  was  a  dangerous 
person  to  have  about ;  that  she  was  what  Mr.  Tilton 
called  a  prattler,  and  knew  of  the  facts  as  between  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton.  [Reading.] 

And  I  said  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  I  thought  she  was  bet- 
ter out  of  the  way  than  here,  and  Mi*.  Beecher  said  he 
thought  so  too,  and  :^^rs.  Tilton  then  told  Mr.  Tilton— and 
T  told  Mr.  Beecher  that  Mr.  Tilton  could  not  afford  to 


Y  ME.  EYABTS.  775 

pay  her  expenses,  and  he  said  to  me,  "Well,  I  will  pay 
the  expenses,  or  I  will  do  anything  that  is  necessary  to 
keep  this  story  down,"  and  he  approved. 

Now,  gentlemen,  it  depends  altogether  upon  what 
the  interests  about  Bessie  Turner's  prattling  were. 
Mr.  Beecher  might  very  well  have  felt :  "  Well,  Bessie 
Turner  has  told  me  these  stories  about  Mr.  Tilton,  and  if 
the  restoration  of  Mr.  Tilton  is  to  be  expected,  if  there  is 
not  anything  in  those  stories,  as  you  have  assured  me, 
and  no  truth  m  them,  why,  nevertheless  the  girl,  for 
aught  I  know,  may  be  telling  them  over  again,  and  I  see 
that  it  is  important  for  Mr.  Tilton  and  the  plans  of  his 
restoration  that  she  should  be  properly  disposed  of,  and 
receive  a  good  education."  Now,  there  is  no  imputation 
upon  Mr.  Beecher  in  that.  The  question  is  only  of  his 
generosity  about  it.  But,  mark  the  way  that  Mr. 
Moulton  puts  it  to  him—"  I  think  she  ought  to  be  sent 
away,  and  I  don't  think  :Mr.  Tilton  can  afford  to 
do  it,  and  you  ought  to  assist  him  because  he  can't  afford 
it."  Well,  if  they  had  wanted  her  sent  away  on  Mr. 
Beecher's  accouut,  why  should  Mr.  Tilton  trouble  himself 
to  pay  that  expense  %  Why  should  it  be  put  in  this  cir- 
cuitous way  by  Mr.  Moulton  to  Mr.  Beecher,  that  "you 
ought  to  help  ^Ix.  Tilton  pay  a  debt,  bear  a  burden  that 
he  needs  on  his  ovm  account,  and  which  he  cannot  well 
pay  in  his  present  condition !  "  If  it  was  that  "  she  is  to 
be  sent  away  on  your  account,"  why  shouldn't  he  pay 
the  bill?  So  you  see  that  wherever  you  take  these  peo- 
ple there  is  a  hold  unconsciously  upon  them  that  while 
they  contrive,  and  shape,  or  modulate  a  story,  they  leave, 
nevertheless,  some  sign  of  truth  to  stick  up  and  give 
character  to  the  whole  figment.  But,  Mr.  Beecher  says, 
so  far  from  his  knowing  anything  about  sending  Bessie 
Turner  away  before  she  went,  or  being  consulted  as  to 
any  policy  in  sending  her  away,  all  he  knows  about  it 
is,  that  when  the  first  term  bills  came  in,  then  Mr. 
Moulton  says  to  him,  "Why,  here  are  these  bills  of  Bes- 
sie Turner.  I  am  making  a  good  many  pay- 
ments for  Mr.  Tilton ;  I  think  you  ought  to  help  here ; 
you  ought  to  bear  this  "—that  is,  bear  that  particular 
bill.  I>Ir.  Beecher  says,  "  Very  well,"  and  furnishes  the 
money.  But,  as  has  been  exposed  to  you,  the  decisive 
and  conclusive  disposition  of  this  matter  of  Bessie  Turner 
is  shown  in  the  guarantees  against  her  story  that  were 
taken  by  Mr.  Tilton  before  she  went  away,  and  they  were 
guarantees  against  the  stories  about  his,  Mr.  Tilton's 
irregularities  with  her,  and  nothing  else.  And  of  these 
two  letters,  in  respect  of  which  there  is  evidence  when 
Mr.  Tilton  is  recalled,  he  only  denies  dictating  the  short 
letter.  The  short  letter  is  :  "  The  story  that  Mr.  Tilton 
once  lifted  me  from  my  bed  and  carried  me  screaming  to 
his  own,  and  attempted  to  violate  my  person,  is  a  wicked 
lie."  He  denies  dictating  the  short  letter.  Bat  the  long  let- 
ter, which  is  the  one  that  he  did  dictate,  as  Bessie  Turner 
testifies,  he  does  not  deny  having  dictated.  That  letter 
confesses  the  facts  of  his  approaches  to  her,  but  gives 


776 


THE   TILTON-BEECBEB  TEIAL. 


them  an  honorable  character,  and  throws  off  upon  poor 
Mrs.  Morse  the  responsibility  for  having  made  Bessie 
think  that  there  was  any  wrong  intention  about  it. 

Well,  then  they  say  there  was  suppression  shown  in  the 
disposition  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  induced  to  make  of  a 
letter  that  Mrs.  Morse  wrote  to  him  in  the  end  of  Jan- 
uary, 1871.  Mr.  Beecher  was  induced  on  Mr,  Tilton's 
representations  to  write  what  seems  to  me  a  very  sensi- 
ble letter  on  his  part,  in  any  Tiew  of  the  case.  [Read- 
ing.] 

Mrs.  JuDGB  MOBSE— jlf2/  Dear  Madam  :  I  shovild  be 
very  sorry  to  have  you  think  I  have  no  interest  in  your 
troubles.  My  course  toward  you  hitherto  should  satisfy 
you  that  I  have  sympathized  in  your  distress.  But  Mrs. 
Beecher  and  I,  after  full  consideration,  are  of  one  mind, 
that  under  present  circumstances  the  greatest  kindness 
to  you,  and  to  all,  will  be,  in  so  far  as  you  are  concerned, 
to  leave  to  time  the  rectification  of  all  the  wrongs, 
whether  they  prove  real  or  imaginary. 

This,  you  may  remember,  is  the  letter  in  which  Mr. 
Moulton  called  Mr.  Tilton  to  account  before  Mr.  Beecher 
as  to  whether  he  had  told  twelve  persons  of  this  trouble 
that  had  taken  the  life  out  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  There  is  no 
other  description  of  the  matter  than  that,  and  certainly 
there  was  trouble  enough,  and  it  was  crushing  trouble, 
and  certainly  had  taken  the  life  out  of  her  character,  her 
force  and  control  of  her  conduct.  Well>  he  said,  he  hadn't 
told  twelve ;  he  had  told  quite  a  number  of  people  more 
or  less,  which  simply  means  that  he  had  whispered  in- 
sinuations against  Mr.  Beecher  in  his  relations  of 
improper  solicitations,  or  of  interference  with  the 
family,  without  much  care  for  what  he  had  done. 
But  the  point  was,  that  he  denied  that  this  was  true,  and 
that  Mrs.  Morse  could  not  be  credited  because  it  was  not 
true,  that  he  hadn't  money  enough  to  pay  for  his  break- 
fast, and  appealed  to  Mr.  Movdton  that  hs  had  a  balance 
at  bank.  "Well,  Mrs.  Tilton's  view  was  that  she  did  not 
have  money  enough  to  pay  for  breakfasts,  not  that  he  did 
not  have  money  in  bank.  But  that  is  the  way  these  people 
argue.  They  say,  "  Oh,  no  ;  there  can't  be  any  truth  in 
that,  because  that  is  wholly  untrue  that  I  had  not  any 
money.*  This  letter,  you  will  remember,  of  Mrs.  Morse 
was  brought  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr. 
TUton.  ^ 

WHEKE  THE  POLICY  OF  SILENCE  WAS  DIS- 
EEGAEDED. 

Now,  there  comes  a  letter  from.  Mr.  Perkins 
to  Mr.  Beecher,  in  which  he  tells  his  uncle : 

Mr.  Tilton  has  been  justifying  or  excusing  his  recent 
intrigues  with  women  by  alleging  that  you  have  been  de- 
tected in  the  like  adulteries,  the  same  having  been  hushed 
up  out  of  consideration  for  the  parties.  Ajid,  as  he  says, 
"  you  will  do  what  you  please ;  I  suppose  you  think  such 
talk  dies  out  because  unanswered."  And  then  he  puts  in 
a  postscript :  "  I  cannot  say  Mr.  Tilton  said  *  adulteries.' 

He  was  referring  to  his  late  intrigues  with  Mrs.  and 

others,  however  he  may  have  described  them.  What  I  am 
Informed  of  is  the  excuse  for  implicating  you  in  similar 
afiairs." 


Well,  now,  that  is  shown  to  Mr.  Moulton,  and  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  Mr.  Tilton  suggested  this  answer  for  Mr. 

Beecher  to  send  to  his  nephew  : 

My  Dear  Feiekd  :  Whatever  Mr.  Tilton  formerly  said 
against  me,  and  I  know  the  substance  of  it,  he  has  with- 
drawn, and  frankly  confessed  that  he  had  been  misled  by 
the  statements  of  one  who,  when  confronted,  backed 
down  from  his  charges. 

Now,  that  is  Mr.  Tilton's  meeting  of  Mr.  Fredericlc 
Perkins's  suggestion  that  the  stories  that  Mr.  Tilton  set 
forward  as  faults  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  cover  his  own,  TH- 
ton's,  admitted  profligacy.  But  I  find  I  am  mistaken, 
gentlemen.  Mr.  Tilton's  proposed  card  is  this  : 

An  enemy  of  mine,  as  I  now  learn,»poisoned  the  mind 
of  Theodore  Tilton  by  telling  him  stories  concerning  me. 
T.  T.  being  angered  against  me  because  I  had  quoted 
some  stories  against  him  which  I  had  heard  from  the 
same  party,  retaliated.  Theodore  and  I,  through  a  mu- 
tual friend,  were  brought  together  and  f  oimd,  upon  mutual 
explanations,  that  both  were  the  victims  of  the  same 
slanderer. 

It  is  a  little  more  fuU  and  explicit  in  this  regard  as  Mr. 
Tdton  proposes.  Now,  look  at  that,  gentlemen.  Here  in 
this  very  month  of  February,  when  Mr.  Beecher's  nephew, 
a  reputable  gentleman,  hears  of  these  insinuations— not 
a  great  observance  of  "the  policy  of  silence"  on  Mr. 
Tilton's  part^and  communicates  them  to  his  uncle,  Mr. 
Beecher  brings  it  to  Mr.  Tilton's  notice,  and  Mr.  Tilton 
says :  "  Send  him  as  an  answer  that  these  adulteries  are 
the  charges  of  Bowen— these  adulteries  that  have  been 
talked  of  are  the  charges  of  Bowen ;  send  him  that 
answer."  Mr.  Beecher  then  having,  so  far  as  Mr.  Tilton 
is  concerned,  that  form  of  answer,  does  proceed  to  writ© 
what  I  consider  a  very  proper  note  to  Mr.  Perkins  ; 

Mt  Deae  Fred  :  Whatever  Mr.  Tilton  formerly  said 
against  me— and  I  know  the  substance  of  it— he  has  with- 
drawn and  frankly  confessed  that  he  had  been  misled  by 
the  statements  of  one  who,  when  confronted,  backed  down 
from  his  charges. 

That  is  quite  within  the  permission  and  authority  ot 
Mr.  Tilton's  card. 

In  some  sense  I  am  In  part  to  blame  for  his  indignation, 
for  I  lent  a  credulous  ear  to  reports  about  him  which  I 
have  reason  to  believe  were  exaggerated  or  wholly  false. 
After  a  full  conference  and  explanation  there  remains  be- 
tween us  no  misunderstanding,  but  mutual  good-will  and 
reconciliation  have  taken  the  place  of  exasperation.  Of 
course  I  shall  not  chase  after  rumors  that  must  soon  run 
themselves  out  of  breath  if  left  alone.  If  my 
friends  will  put  their  foot  silently  on 
any  coal  or  hot  embers  and  crush  them 
out,  without  talking,  the  miserable  lies  will  be  as  dead  in 
New-York  in  a  little  time  as  they  are  in  Brooklyn.  [Thia 
was  only  in  February,  1871.]  But  I  do  not  any  the  less 
thank  you  for  your  affectionate  solicitude  and  for  your 
loyalty  to  my  good  name.  I  should  have  replied  earlier, 
but  your  letter  came  when  I  was  out  of  town,  i  had  to 
go  out  again  immediately.  If  the  papers  do  not  meddle, 
this  slander  will  fall  stiU-born— dead  as  Julius  Caesar.  If 
a  sensation  should  be  got  up,  of  course  there  are  enough 
little  enemies  to  fan  the  matter  and  create  annoyance, 
though  no  final  damage. 

Now,  you  see,  gentlemen,  how,  in  this  very  month  of 


SUMMING   UP  1 

Februarj,  Mr.  Tilton  -waa  maWng  these  imputationa 
against  Mr.  Beecber,  not  observing  the  policy  of  silence, 
and  when  they  are  hrought  to  Mr.  Beecher's  ear,  then 
Mr.  Tilton  says,  "  Oh !  well,  that  can  easily  he  answered; 
answer  it  so."  ]Mr.  Beecher  does  answer  it  in  a  truthful 
manner— in  a  suitable  manner,  and  takes  it  for  granted 
that  Mr.  Tilton  has  not  been  circulating  any  such  reports, 
but  that  these  are  only  echoes  of  some  older  rumors  that 
had  been  running  before  there  had  been  an  explanation. 
Well,  then,  you  see,  when  Mrs.  Woodhull's  card  in  May, 
let  alone,  had  not  produced  any  disturbance,  IVIr.  Tilton 
in  the  Fall,  in  November,  when  he  finds  that  things  are 
quiet,  and  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  is  not  moving  any  further, 
tindertakes  to  publish,  for  the  sake  of  the  poetry,  he 
flays,  with  no  motive  whatever,  but  the  same 
that  actuates  an  author  in  publishing  any  produc- 
tion, this  "  Sir  Marmaduke's  Musings,"  containing 
a  phrase  that  refers  to  "  a  woman's  breast,  who  proved, 
alas  !  she  too,  false  like  the  rest,"  a  vagiie  poetical  in- 
sinuation, equally  compatible  with  either  view  of  the 
*  case,  either  that  this  woman  to  whom  he  referred  (and 
he  admits  it  was  his  wife)  had  not  preserved  entire  fealty 
of  undivided  affection,  but  had  become  entangled  in  her 
relations  ;  and  he  therefore  pronounced  her  false,  too,  in 
the  absolute  devotion  that  he  had  expected— equally 
compatible  with  that  as  with  the  other  view  of  the  case, 
of  complete  violation  of  the  obligations  of  a  wife.  Well, 
now,  he  has  the  effrontery  to  tell  you  that  when  he  wrote 
that  poem  he  didn't  think  anybody  supposed  there  was 
In  it  any  reference  to  his  wife.  It  struck 
him  with  astonishment  when  Mr.  Beecher  said, 
**What  do  you  do  such  things  as  that  for  ?"  and  when 
Ms  wife  said,  "  What  do  you  do  such  things  as  that  for !" 
He  was  astonished  that  anybody  could  imagine  that 
there  could  be  the  least  reference  to  his  wife  ;  and  yet  he 
signed  the  poem  "  Theodore  Tilton,"  you  know;  and  it 
contained  a  biographical  sketch  of  his  downfall  in  other 
particulars  which  nobody  could  fail  to  recognize. 

Then  he  comes  along  and  writes  to  "  a  complaining 
friend."  That  is  at  the  end  of  1872.  Then  comes  what 
he  says  he  had  no  responsibility  for,  but  concerning 
which  we  have  given  you  considerable  evidence,  that  is 
the  publication  of  the  Woodhull  scandal  in  all  its  fla- 
grancy,  in  the  Fall  of  1872.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  think  the 
evidence  shows  this  as  the  true  theory  of  Mr.  Tilton's  re- 
lations to  that  scandal.  I  think  that  in  that  Spring  of 
1872,  there  was  within  the  meditations  of  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  and  Mr.  Tilton  a  very  effective  blow  of  some 
kind  to  the  proper,  natm^al  solicitudes  of  all  that  were 
concerned  to  prevent  public  Comment  upon  the  relations 
of  Mr.  Tilton  and  his  wife  and  the  situation  of-  that 
family,  and  a  purpose  of  resorting  then  to  a  full  publica- 
tion by  Mrs.  Woodhull ;  that  the  slips  were  then  brought 
Into  existence  in  that  Winter  and  Spring,  and  that  they 
were  shown,  as  the  witnesses  have  testified ;  and  if 
4he  eaginery  of  the  fortunate  visit  to  Mr.  Wilkeson  had 


T  MB.   JEVAETS.  777 

not  produced  the  effect  on  Mr.  Bo  wen  of  procuring  the 
payment  of  the  $7,000— if  that  sUp  of  his,  the  threatened 
publication  of  the  Bowen  letter,  had  not  brought  about 
the  results  aimed  at,  then  these  ships  that  were  in 
existence  of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  article  would  have 
been  resorted  to  as  a  more  powerful  engine  to  ac- 
complish the  same  result ;  and  then  you  would  see  the 
operation  of  cause  toward  effect,  of  motive  and  of  object. 
Now,  we  have  given  you  abundant  evidence  from  wit- 
nesses whose  truth  cannot  be  questioned,  that  these  slips 
were  in  existence ;  but  this  threatened  publication  of  the 
Bowen  letter  in  TTie  Golden  Age  slip,  answered  the  pur- 
pose and  secured  the  money ;  and  this  engine  could  be 
saved  for  some  futm-e  use.  But  then  there  came  into 
play  two  facts — one,  that  the  Woodhull  publication 
stopped  in  that  Spring  and  did  not  issue  a  single  paper 
until  the  end  of  October,  when  the  one  that  contained 
this  paper  of  Mr.  lllton's  was  published ;  and  second, 
the  fact  that  Mr.  Tilton  broke  his  friendship  with  Mrs. 
Woodhull.  Why  ?  There  was  the  same  need  of  keeping 
it  up  for  the  sake  of  suppression,  if  you  believe  that  he 
had  been  working  for  the  suppression  of  this  business  ; 
but  he  broke  it  when  Mrs.  Woodhull  placed  before  him  the 
slips  of  another  article  called  the  "  Tit  for  Tat  "  article, 
and  showed  that  if  Mr.  Tilton  could  expect  her  aid  in  the 
movements  of  publications  that  might  suit  his  interests, 
about  his,  Mr.  Tilton's  scandal  when  he  wanted  it  pro- 
mulgated, she  might  also  perhaps  use  the  the  same  fac- 
ulty and  independence  iu  promulgating  some  scandals 
that  he  did  not  want  to  have  published  ;  and  as  he  said  to 
you,  this  "  Tit  for  Tat  "  article— I  am  sure  I  know  noth- 
ing about  it  except  from  his  testimony,  and  I  would  not 
wish  to  have  Mrs.  Woodhull  harshly  judged  upon  Mr. 
Tilton's  testimony— this  article,  he  tells  you,  touched  the 
reputation  of  some  dozen  very  respectable  ladies,  prom- 
inent in  the  public  life  of  these  organizations, 
whatever  they  may  be ;  and  then  he  broke  with 
her;  and  then,  alas  for  ambitions,  ]Mr.  Tilton's 
devotion  to  Mrs.  Woodhull,  thus  unhappily  snapped 
asunder,  led  to  the  withdrawal  of  his  polit- 
ical supiiort  to  Mrs.  Woodhull's  expectations  of  the 
Presidency  of  the  United  States.  [Laughter.]  And  there 
occmTcd  one  of  those  great  movements  in  the  public 
affairs  of  the  country  which  wise  statesmen  deliberate 
and  speculate  about,  but  in  respect  to  which  they  never 
get  at  the  real  secret  history  ;  for  the  difference  between 
Mr.  Tilton's  support  of  Victoria  Woodhull  and  her 
loss  of  that  support,  who  can  estimate  in 
the  future  destinies  of  this  country  1  [Laughter,] 
It  was  this  Little  "  Tit  for  Tat  "  article,  a  wholly  private 
matter,  that  produced  these  immense  public  conse- 
quences, not  only  the  withdrawal  from  her,  but  his  ad- 
hesion to  the  fortimes  of  the  great  Democratic  party, 
with  which  he  had  not  before  been  in  unison ; 
and  we  should  have,  to  be  sure,  a  stronger  argument  for 
these  hypothetical  infiuences  upon  our  history,  if  Mr* 


778 


THE  TILTON-BEECRER  TEIAL. 


Greeley  had  been  any  more  fortunate  with  Ms  support 
than  Mrs.  Woodhull  was  without  it;  but,  nevertheless, 
who  can  tell  what  the  union  might  have  produced  in  the 
way  of  a  settlement  of  this  final  struggle  for  the  priority 
of  the  sexes  1  For  who,  in  this  country,  after  having  had 
the  experience  of  one  lady  for  a  President,  would  ever 
liave  been  impolite  or  rash  enough  to  desire  a  repetition 
of  the  experiments  which  have  been  constant  failures  on 
the  part  of  the  men  who  have  been  President !  [Laughter.  J 
But  it  was  all  broken  up,  you  see,  this  relation— and 
then  this  operation  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  comes  in  the  most 
inopportune  manner  and  at  a  time  when  it  serves  no  use- 
ful purpose  of  any  kind,  in  influencing  payments  of 
money  or  the  attainment  of  any  ultimate  purposes  ;  but 
this  lady  no  doubt  had  a  will  of  her  own,  and  what  had 
been  prepared  for  Mr.  Tilton's  use  in  the  Spring  of  1872, 
while  she  and  he  were  friends,  came  In  after  the  election, 
and  her  disappointment  at  that  election,  as  something 
in  the  nature  of  retaliation  for  his  desertion. 
Now,  the  actual  importance  of  all  that  is 
the  introduction  of  this  publicity  and  the  course 
of  things  which  followed,  in  determining  whether  or  no 
they  should  do  this,  that,  or  the  other  thing.  Mr.  Beecher 
never  had  any  doubts  or  difficulties  about  this  matter. 
He  never  had  any  occasion  to  think  it  worth  his  while  to 
make  contradictions  of  this  extravagant  and  wild  publi- 
cation. But  then  there  came  to  be  a  great  anxiety  in  the 
camp  of  Moulton  and  his  firm,  as  to  what  should  be  done 
about  it,  for  Mr.  Moulton  was  represented  as  being  an 
actor  in  one  of  the  scenes  portrayed  in  this  lady's  pub- 
lication, and  it  was  a  natural  imputation  that  it 
must  have  proceeded  from  him  or  she  could 
not  have  had  the  knowledge  of  it.  Then  there  was  a 
statement  direct  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  furnished  infor- 
mation out  of  which  the  staple  of  the  story  was  made, 
and  it  was  natural  enough  to  ask,  "  Well,  why  doesn't  Til- 
ton  say  something  about  it  1"  bt^t  as  nobody  had  accused 
Mr.  Beecher  of  being  the  source  of  anv  of  the  informa- 
tion of  this  lady,  why,  there  didn't  seem  to  be  any  actual 
call  upon  him.  The  consequence  was  that,  it  is  said,  Mr. 
Moulton's  partner,  Mr.  Franklin  Woodruff,  and  his 
other  partners  perhaps,  and  the  Produce  Ex- 
change people,  seemed  to  think  that  Mr.  Moulton 
ought  to  say  in  some  definite  manner  that  there  was 
some  truth  in  this,  or  that  it  was  all  false  and  he  had 
furnished  no  support  for  it  in  any  form ;  and  you  have 
heard  Mr.  Moulton's  statement  of  how  the  Produce 
Exchange  people,  its  prominent  men,  its  most  sagacious 
men,  its  most  respectable  men— I  don't  mean  all  of  them, 
but  these  gentlemen  seem  to  me  to  be  properly  included 
in  that  description;  there  are  plenty  at  the 
Produce  Exchange  of  the  same  character,  no  doubt- 
but  these  gentlemen  all  came  about  Mr.  Moulton, 
and  Mr.  Moulton  has  told  you  how,  sometimes  with 
Bolemnity  and  sometimes  with  indignation,  and  some- 
times with  an  oath  (I  suppose  according  to  the  tempera- 


ment of  the  people  that  were  talking  with  him)  he  put  Ma 
foot  on  the  scandal,  said  there  was  nothing  in  it,  and  ob« 
jiurgated  anybody  that  could  demand  of  a  man  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  life  and  character  any  refutation  of  any  such 
story.  A  familiar  form  with  him  seems  to  have  been, 
that  if  it  was  true  the  publication  was  infamous,  and  if 
it  was  false  it  was  diabolical.  Well,  we  have 
called  a  dozen  people  to  tell  you  what  he 
did  say,  and  they  put  it  in  a  much  more  explicit  and 
definite  form.  He  tells  you  that  he  was  lying  all  that 
time,  and  lying  for  Beecher.  Well,  gentlemen,  a  man  who 
lies  for  Beecher  will  lie  for  himself.  [Laughter.]  You 
may  rely  on  that.  I  think  so.  It  is  said  upon  the  best 
authority,  that  "  peradventure  for  a  good  man  one  will 
even  dare  to  die,"  but  it  is  not  said  that  he  will  even  dare 
to  lie  for  a  good  man ;  and  if  a  man  confesses  that  he  will 
lie,  lie,  lie,  on  a  motive  and  for  another,  he  will  lie 
on  a  motive  for  himself,  and  on  no  other  motive 
than  that  it  is  for  himself.  Ah  I  gentlemen,  it  may  be  a 
hardship  for  this  plaintiff  that  he  has  no  witnesses  to 
prove  his  case,  but  men,  who  like  himself,  confessedly 
out  of  his  own  mouth,  and  Moulton  confessedly  out  of 
his  own  mouth,  have  lied,  lied  to  put  a  wrong  face  on  this 
matter.  The  trouble  is  that  when  they  present  to  you 
the  various  circumstances  under  which  each  of  them 
teUs  his  present  story,  and  the  circumstances 
under  which  each  of  them  told  his  other  story, 
you  see  that  the  motives  for  falsification  then 
were  trivial  compared  with  the  motives  for 
falsification  now;  and  therefore  if  you  are  to 
judge  between  the  two  stories,  you  choose  their 
statements  as  they  first  made  them,  and  you  find  for  that 
the  additional  reason  that  every  written  scrap  of  paper 
that  is  produced  confirms  their  then  story  and  rejects 
their  present  one.  But  the  difficulty  is,  thai  when  you 
are  asked  to  give  a  judgment  against  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
you  only  have  the  word  of  these  two  men  as  to  which 
were  their  falsehoods  and  which  their  truths,  the  law 
and  common  sense  and  common  honesty  do  not 
allow  you  to  take  that  testimony  from  such  corrupt 
lips.  Well  might  they  laugh  at  you  for  believing  theiA 
now,  when  they  have  exposed  to  you  their  habit  of  falsi- 
fying when  and  as  they  chose  during  a  series  of  years. 
When  the  gravity  and  danger  of  trusting  to  these  con- 
fessedly lying  lips  come  to  be  brought  home  to  whoever 
has  trusted,  well  may  he  feel  that  he  has  no  refuge 
against  the  reproach :  "  Why  did  you  trust  a  man  who  in 
the  same  breath  told  you  that  in  the  same  matter  he  had 
told  exactly  the  opposite  story,  and  it  was  a  lie? " 

GEN.  TRACY'S  APPEARANCE  ON  THE  SCENE. 

These  gentlemen  then  got  to  think  that  the 
interests  of  Mr.  Moulton's  firm  required  something  to  be 
said  or  done  about  this  imputation  of  responsibility  on 
Mr.  Moulton's  part  for  this  scandal,  and  Mr.  Moulton 
says  to  Mr.  Beecher :  "  My  firm  think  that  we  ought  to 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MB.  EVABTS. 


779 


have  some  intelligent,  sagacious,  and  upright  counsel's 
advice  about  this  on  our  account,"  and  Mr.  Tracy  natu- 
rally suggested  Mmself,  as  lie  would  to  any  one  in  Brook- 
lyn, as  tlie  best  man  for  that  purpose.  "  But  in  talking 
with  Mr.  Tracy  as  to  what  we  should  do  about  this  scan- 
dal, its  refutation,  or  denial,  we  may  have  to  tell  him  the 
truth,  the  facts  of  your  case,  and  we  should  not  do  that 
without  your  consent."  Mr.  Beecher  has  no  objection  to 
the  facts  of  his  case  being  told;  of  course 
he  assumes  that  they  are  going  to  tell  the 
facts  of  his  case,  and  it  is  a  reasonable 
proposition.  There  Mr.  Beechers's  connection  with  this 
matter  begins  and  ends.  Now,  out  of  that  and  its  sequels 
grows  a  most  important  "result,  of  great  value  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  of  great  reliance  on  your  part,  as  to  getting 
at  the  truth.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  plaintiff,  de- 
sirous of  having  certain  advantages  from  what  he  ex- 
pected to  prove  through  the  interviews  with  Mr.  Tracy, 
of  complicity  by  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  "  policy  of  silence," 
and  even  in  justification  of  the  habit  of 
lying,  seeks  some  legal  basis  to  support  the 
evidence  of  conversations  between  Mr.  Tilton, 
Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  "Woodruff,  and  Mr.  Tracy. 
On  all  the  ordinary  relations  of  men,  of  course  talks  be- 
tween these  four  men,  including  Mr.  Tracy,  could  carry 
no  more  weight  against  you  or  me  or  ]Mr.  Beecher  than 
it  could  between  any  four  men,  and  there  was  found, 
therefore,  in  what  passed  between  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr. 
Beecher  of  the  character  that  I  have  stated,  a  basis  for 
the  proposition  that  Mr.  Beecher,  by  assenting  to  Mr. 
Tracy's  being  made  a  conferee  with  Mr.  Moiilton  about 
his  (Moulton's)  interests  and  his  firm's,  and  to  receive 
therefor  information  of  the  truth  about  which  Mr. 
Beecher's  affairs— remember  that  word— could  be  treated 
as  if  IMr.  Beecher  himself  formed  a  party  to 
these  conferences ;  and  the  evidence,  therefore, 
of  those  conferences  has  been  displayed  before 
you.  Now,  Mr.  Tracy,  without  representing  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  as  a  voluntary  witness  on  our  part,  might,  upon  all 
the  rules  of  evidence,  have  been  brought  as  our  witness 
against  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  (for  his  conversa- 
tions were  with  them),  and  we  didn't  need  any  aid  of  any 
artificial  rule  to  entitle  us  to  prove  these  conversations  ; 
but  by  that  proper  sense  which  restrains  our  profession 
from  giving  testimony  in  causes  in  which  they  are  coun- 
sel, unless  of  absolute  necessity,  this  plaintiff  might  very 
well  have  counted  upon  the  fact  that  Mr.  Tracy  would 
not  have  brought  into  view  these  conferences,  and  struck 
at  the  very  center  of  their  counsels  and  of  their  case. 
But  mark  how  the  designs  of  men  meant  for  evil  turns 
to  good.  This  devious  course  of  theirs,  which  they 
flattered  themselves  was  so  useful  to  them  in  trying  to 
make  out,  through  Mr.  Tracy's  acquiescence,  that  Mr. 
Beecher  acquiesced  in  separation,  and  even  patronized 
and  approved  lying,  leads  to  a  release  of  Mr.  Tracy  by 
aecessity  fiom  any  of  the  constraints  of  feeling  in  not 


coming  into  the  cause  with  his  proof  when  they  have  in- 
troduced the  proofs  upon  this  artificial  rule  as  treating 
him  as  Mr.  Beecher,  to  be  fired  at  in  conversation,  of 
necessity  he  come*  as  a  witness  to  tell  what  the  conver- 
sations were,  and  will  give  them  the  benefit,  on  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Tracy  and  their  own,  of  either  of  these  no- 
tions, that  Mr.  Beecher,  through  Mr.  Tracy  as  his  repre- 
sentative, favored  silence  or  that  he  favored 
lying;  but  you  must  take  It  on  the  evi- 
dence, and  on  that  it  comes  to  this,  according  to 
Mr.  Tracy,  according  to  them,  the  question 
then  to  be  disposed  of  was  what  publication  should  be 
made  denying  that  story,  and  Mr.  Tracy  thought  there 
should  be  publications  made,  insisted  on  it,  argued  it 
hour  after  hour  with  Mr.  Moulton  and  with  Mr.  TUton, 
that  this  scandal  in  the  WoodhuU  and  Claflin  paper 
could  be  strangled  at  once  by  Mr.  Moulton's  denying  the 
part  that  was  at  his  charge,  and  Mr.  Tilton  denying  the 
part  that  was  at  his  charge,  and  then  a  foolish,  circuitous 
argument  of  Mr.  TUton  and  of  Mr.  Moulton  of  the  abso- 
lute regard  for  truth  that  didn't  permit  them  to  deny 
the  great  falsehoods  which  they  both  protested  were  con- 
tained in  this  publication  of  the  Woodhulls  without  they 
purged  their  consciences  into  a  publicity  of  the  real  facts,, 
whatever  they  were.  Then  Mr.  Tracy  argues  with 
them,  and  they  said:  "Why,  that  would  be 
a  sort  of  lying  "—sort  of  lying  1—"  if  we  don't  go  on 
and  narrate  all  the  truth  of  this  diflSculty  in  Mr.  Tilton's 
household,  these  estranged  affections,  these  false  accusa- 
tions, this  retraction,  this  recantation  of  the  retraction,, 
in  other  words,  a  publication  of  the  whole  matter."  Mr. 
Tracy  then  argues :  **  Well,  I  don't  understand  the  right 
of  a  person,  by  making  a  false  charge  against  another,  to 
preclude  that  other  from  exposing  the  falsity  of  the 
charge  without  imposing  upon  the  other  the  necessity  of 
disclosing  the  truth  about  private  affairs.  If  you  call  it 
lying  to  do  that,  why,  make  the  most  of  it.  I  don't  call  * 
it  lying.  If  you  call  it  lying,  it  is  a  kind  of  lying  that  the 
circumstances  of  this  case,  in  my  judgment,  make  the 
duty  of  people  here ;"  that  is,  of  denying  these  falsehoods 
and  not  disclosing  private  complications  between  these 
parties  that  anybody  has  a  right  to  know. 

Now,  I  will  spend  no  more  time  upon  that  part  of  it. 
I  now  call  your  attention  to  what  constitutes  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Tracy  interview,  to  wit,  this  fact, 
that  Mr.  Moulton  got  permission  of  Mr.  Beecher 
to  tell  Mr.  Tracy  the  truth,  that  the  only 
possible  support  of  the  good  faith  toward  Mr. 
Tracy  and  their  interview  was,  and  is,  that  they 
did  tell  him  the  truth— are  they  going  to  stand  up  here 
now  and  tell  you  that  they  told  Mr.  Tracy  a  series  of  lies,, 
as  they  had  the  Produce  Exchange  people,  and  Mr.  TUton 
his  friends,  when  they  wanted  to  know  something  about 
this  matter  !  Now,  they  must  either  say  that,  that  they 
were  telling  Mr.  Tracy  a  series  of  lies  about  the 
facts    in    Mr.    Beecher's    case,    or    thoy  must 


780 


THE   TILTON-BEEOHEE  TELAL. 


stand  upon  his  evidence,  if  you  believe  liim,  as 
to  -what  tliey  did  tell  him,  tliat  tliat  was  the  truth.  And, 
when  you  find  that  what  the.y  thus  told  him  comports  in 
every  point  with  eA^ery  written  paper  in  this  case  from 
one  end  of  it  to  the  other  in  respect  to  the  charge,  the  re- 
traction, the  recantation,  the  narrative  of  the  "True 
Story,"  the  denials  of  impurity  both  on  the  part  of  the 
wife  and  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher  which  Mr. 
Tilton  has  incorporated  in  his  "  True  Story,"  and 
which  I  shall  read  to  you,  and  what  he  told  Mr.  Storrs, 
and  what  he  told  Mr.  Belcher,  and  what  he  told  Harman, 
and  Schultz,  and  McKelway,  and  Wilkeeon.  Ah,  gentle- 
men, you  have  now,  out  of  their  own  mouths,  In  an  inter- 
view that  they  sought  in  their  own  interests,  obtained 
npon  the  proposition  that  they  were  to  tell  the  truth  to 
Mr.  Tracy,  and  with  the  full  and  free  allowance  of 
Mr.  Beecher  that  they  should  do  so,  and  now 
we  will  see  what  they  did.  Now,  the  interview  was  held, 
and  we  must  either  stamp  Mr.  Tracy  as  a  perjured  wit- 
ness or  condemn  him  as  incompetent  to  understand  the 
nature  of  that  conference  and  the  character  of  the  state- 
ment that  he  heard,  and  which  he  repeats,  and  the  argu- 
ments that  were  made  there,  or  you  must  draw  out  of 
this  providential  admission  of  testimony,  out  of  the 
folly  and  contrivances  of  the  other  side  of  Mr.  Tracy's 
truth-discerning  and  truth-speaking  mind— you  must 
draw  what  is  an  absolute  right,  an  extorted  confession, 
an  exposed  conspiracy,  by  an  exhibition  of  what  in 
their  private  counsels,  when  they  had  driven  him  by 
necessity  and  under  motives  of  importance  to  them- 
selves, a  cool  judgment  and  an  honest  heart— you  must 
stamp  this  conspiracy  as  confessed  upon  the  statements 
of  what  occurred  that  night  between  Mr.  Tracy  and 
these  people. 

THE  PAPERS  SHOWN  TO  GEN.  TRACY. 
.  Now,  they  liad  there,  first,  Mr.  Moulton,  be- 
fore Mr.  Tilton  came  in,  and  the  first  thing  Mi-.  Moulton 
did,  in  order  to  make  a  good  impression  by  putting  the 
most  damaging  piece  of  evidence,  as  he  regarded  it,  for- 
ward, he  put  in  his  hands  this  "  Letter  of  Contrition,"  as 
it  is  called,  this  report  of  Sunday,  Jan.  1,  in  Mr.  Moulton's 
handwriting,  and  put  that  into  Mr.  Tracy's  hands  with- 
out note  or  comment  or  advice  as  to  its  origin  or  chaiac- 
ter,  and  Mr.  Tracy  takes  it  up,  and  says,  after  looking  it 
over : 

The  first  thing  that  attracted  my  attention  was  the 
character  of  the  handwriting,  and  I  said  to  him :  "  Mr. 
Moiilton,  is  this  Mr.  Beechev's  handwriting  1"  He  said, 
**No."  I  said,  "Whose  is  it?"  "It  is  mine."  I  went 
through  it  that  way  [turning  the  leaves  quickly.]  I  said, 
"  How  do  you  wi  ite  a  letter  to  yourself  ?"— it  begins  "  My 
Dear  Frank,"  you  know— and  at  that  time  I  went 
through  it  in  that  way  [turning  fl«  leaves  over.]  I  said 
qnick,  "It  is  not  signed." 

Because  Mr.  Tracy  looked  at  the  place  where  it  should 
be  signed,  on  the  right  hand  of  the  page,  and  as  he  held  it 
in  ihis  hand,  and  turned  it  over  so,  it  covered  this  part  of 


the  leaf  in,  and  he  looked  down  at  the  place  where  it 
ought  to  be  signed  and  said  : 

"  It  is  not  signed."  He  said :  "  Yes  it  is."  And  just  at 
that  instant  my  ej'e  caught  this  indorsement  or  mem- 
orandum at  the  toot  of  the  sheet,  not  seeing  it  as  I  looked 
at  them  first  in  that  way.  He  said,  "  Yes,  it  is  signed  by 
Mr.  Beecher  ;"andl  saw  the  form  of  the  signature  of  Mr. 
Beecher. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ?  A.  He  said,  in  that  connection, 
•*  It  is  a  memorandum,  or  notes  of  a  conversation  I  had 
with  Mr.  Beecher  1" 

Now,  this  clause  which  I  have  just  read  to  you,  Mr. 
Moulton  denies,  but  he  does  not  deny  the  question  that 
was  asked  him,  and  he  has  not  given  us  any  other  answer 
that  he  gave,  but  I  am  willing  to  put  Mr.  Tracy  against 
Mr.  Moiilton.  I  would  not  want  any  safer  conflict  of 
evidence,  if  I  had  got  to  stand  with  a  contradiction  of 
one  witness  by  another,  than  that  between  Mr.  Tracy  and 
Mr.  Moulton.  It  is  a  note  and  memorandum.  That  is 
proved  as  a  matter  of  fact.  The  only  question  is  how  ac- 
curate it  is,  and  he  described  it  properly. 

I  then  read  the  paper  over  sentence  by  sentence  and 
studied  it  for  some  minutes.  I  said,  "  I  don't  see  that 
this  paper  prevents  a  denial  of  the  Woodhull  publication. 
That  publication  charges  that  Mr.  Beecher  has  lived  a 
life  of  adultery  with  Mrs.  Tilton  for  years.  This  paper 
states,  I  see,  that '  she  is  innocent— sinned  against— bear- 
ing the  transgressions  of  another.  Her  forgiveness  I 
have.' "  Isaid,  "  It  seems  to  me  that  that  language  would 
not  be  used  by  the  woman  with  whom  a  man  had  lived 
in  adultery  for  years."  Mr.  Moulton  said  nothing.  He 
showed  niie  the  next  paper,  a  retraction.  I  read  that. 

And  then  he  showed  him  also  the  explanation  of  this  re- 
traction. 

Then  I  asked  Mr.  Moulton,  after  further  conversation, 
"  Well,  what  does  Mr.  Tilton  charge  Mr.  Beecher  with  3 
jJoes  he  now  charge  him  with  adultery  ?" 

For  he  struck  right  at  the  matter  without  regard  to 
these  papers,  and  all  of  these  matters. 

What  is  it  now  ?  Does  Mr.  Tilton  accuse  Mr.  Beooher 
with  adultery  with  his  wife  1"   He  said,  "  No." 
That  is,  Mr.  Moulton  said  "  No." 

Isaid,  "What  is  the  charge?"  He  said,  "  I  would 
rather  Mr.  Tilton  would  state  that  to  you  in  his  way, 
if  you  will  consent  to  hear  it." 

Now,  when  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  returned  to  the 
stand  they  don't  deny  this  conversation,  and  P.Ir.  Wood- 
rutr  doesn't  remember  about  it. 

Then  Mr.  Tilton  came  In. 

After,  you  will  observe,  Mr.  Tracy  had  been  put  in  pos- 
session of  the  principal  documents  that  are  now  relied 
upon  by  that  plaintiiF,  and  after  he  had  been  advised  by 
Mr.  Moulton  that  the  charge  of  Mr.  Tilton  against  Mr. 
Beecher  was  not  adultery,  and  he  was  to  come  in  to  tell 
whatit  was,  Mr.  Tilton,  coming  in  at  that  stage  of  the 
matter,  begins  by  asking,  as  he  was  about  to  make  a 
statement  of  his  case  against  Mr.  Beecher,  whether  the 
etiquette  of  the  profession  would  allow  Mi-.  Tracy  to  take 
up  against  him,  and  Mr.  Tracy  very  frankly  saya, 
without  considering  the  question  of  etiquette : 


SU3J311NG    VF  BY  ME.  EYAETS. 


•781 


I  shall  not  take  up  against  yoa,  Mr.  Tilton,  upon  a  case 
tliat  you  state  to  me  now. 

Then  Mr.  Tilton  goes  on  with  a  paper  which  was  of  con- 
siderable volume,  and  which  professed  to  he  a  narrative, 
with  the  documentary  pieces  either  in  it  or  spaces  left  for 
them,  and  which  Mr.  Tracy  understands  to  be  the  prelim- 
inary studies  if  not  the  actual  first  draft  of  the  *'  True 
Story,"  and  this  paper  came  in  this  form,  "  Exhibit  No. 
2,"  aud  Mr.  Tracy  says : 

I  know  that  Mr.  Tilton  either  read  or  spoke  in  connec- 
tion with  that  letter,  a  sentence  complimentary  to  his 
"Wife  for  having  resisted  the  amorous  pleas  of  her  pastor. 
I  remember  that  phrase.  I  heard  the  document  read  

This  true  story,  or  its  equivalent.  Then  Mr.  Tracy  said 
to  him : 

Well,  Mr.  Tilton,  what  is  your  object  in  drafting  such  a 
document  as  that  1  He  said  he  "was  trying  to  see  whether 
he  could  frame  a  successful  answer  to  the  Woodhull  pub- 
lication. I  asked,  "  With  a  view  of  publishing  it? " 
He  said  that  was  to  be  a  matter  for  consideration.  If  he 
could  frame  an  answer  satisfactory  to  himself,  he  pro- 
posed then  to  submit  it  to  Mr.  Beecher.  and  If  Mr. 
Beecher  would  be  satisfied  with  it,  to  publish  it.  "  Well," 
I  said,  "  do  you  think  Mr.  Beecher  will  be  satisfied  with 
such  a  publication  as  that  ?"  He  said  he  did  not  know  ; 
that  was  the  question.  "Well,"  I  said,  "I  don't  think 
he  will."  He  said:  He  will  have  to  be  satisfied  with 
what  is  true."  I  said,  "  Certainly  ;  but  the  question  is, 
whether  that  is  true.  Your  wife  says  in  her  retraction 
that  your  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  is  not  true." 

And  that  charge  was  of  improper  solicitations.  Now, 
you  have  it  fair  and  square,  face  to  face,  between  Mr. 
Tilton  and  Mr.  Tracy. 

Now,  the  question,  Mr.  Tilton,  is  what  is  the  truth  1 
You  have  read  to  me  a  charge  of  improper  solicitations 
as  the  sole  charge  made  by  your  wife  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  you  have  read  me  her  retraction,  in  which 
she  says  that  charge  is  not  true.  Well,  that  question  ex- 
cited :Mr.  Tnton.  and  he  spoke  vehemently  against 
Mr.  Beecher  for  having  obtained  that  paper 
from  his  wife.  He  said  it  was  a  mean  thing ; 
his  wife  was  sick,  unable  to  resist  his  demand ;  he  took 
advantage  of  her  weakened  condition  and  dictated  to 
her  that  answer  -with  her  signature  to  it.  His  wife  had 
taken  it  back.  Mr.  Beecher  had  admitted  that  the 
charge  which  he  had  made  against  Mr.  Beecher  was  true. 
I  asked,  "  Has  Mr.  Beecher  admitted  that  that  is  the 
charge  of  improper  advances—"  Why,  he  says  so  in  the 
letter  of  apology,  in  that  letter  or  paper."  I  said, 
"  3Ir.  Tilron,  I  don't  think  you  can  say  that 
Mr.  Beecher  has  made  any  such  admission  in  that  paper." 
I  then  took  up  the  paper  and  went  over  it  again,  and  I 
went  over  the  Letter  of  Apology  again  carefully,  and  I 
said  to  Ml-.  Tilton,  "  the  language  of  this  letter  or  this 
paper  is  so  general  I  do  not  see  that  you  can  apply  it  to 
anything  speciflcal,  and  your  wife  has  said  that  Mr. 
JBeecher  never  made  any  improper  solicitations  to  her." 
In  that  conversation,  while  he  was  excited  in  denouncing 
Mr.  Beecher,  he  said  Mr.  Beecher  was  an  adulterer  aud 
he  could  prove  it ;  and  I  said  to  him,  "  With  your  wife  1" 
and  he  said,  "No;  with  another  woman,"  or  "other 
women ;"  I  am  not  certain  which  phrase  he  used. 

Now,  Mr.  Woodriiff  confirms  the  first  part  of  this  busi- 
ness that  I  am  now  upon  ;  and  that  Mr.  Tilton,  in  using 
that  phrase,  "  was  an  adulterer,"  was  asked  the  question. 


but  he  doesn't  remember  that  Mr.  Tilton  said  "No;"  he 
doesn'tremember  that  he  said  anything  else  ;  and  neither 
Mr.  Tilton  nor  Mr.  Moulton  denies  this  ;  they  were  both 
present. 

After  he  had  finished  the  reading  of  this  paper,  I  said 
to  him  in  substance— I  don't  remember  the  phraseology— 
"  Yom-  statement,  Mr.  Tilton,  settles  one  thing,  that  you 
did  not  accuse  Mr.  Beecher  with  adultery." 

Not  that  "you  do  not  now,"  not  that  "  for  policy  you  do 
not  now,"  but  "you  did  not  charge  him."  "  That  was 
not  a  charge  you  had  against  him  !" 

He  said,  "  No ;  my  wife  is  a  pure  woman ;"  I  remember 
that  phrase  and  that  sentence  occurring. 

Then,  further  on  in  the  conversation,  Mr.  Tracy  then 
having  nothing  left  but  the  question  of  the  charge  of  im- 
proper proposals,  means  to  sift  that  to  the  bottom  and 
find  out  whether  there  is  any  proof  of  that,  or  any  opiu- 
ion  that  that  is  time.  He  has  the  charge  that  Mr.  Tilton 
has  made,  that  the  wife  it  is  said  has  made ;  but  then  she 
has  retracted  it,  and  Mr.  Tracy  says : 

I  asked  him  whether  he  didn't  think  there  may  have 
been  misconstruction  on  the  wife's  part,  or  his  part.  Mr, 
Tilton  contradicted  what  the  wife  said.  He  thought  not ; 
he  thought  there  was  no  mistake  about  it.  I  said,  "  Mr. 
Tilton,  do  you  want  to  say  that  Mrs.  Tilton,  in  the  lan- 
guage she  has  given  you,  quotes  precisely  the  language 
which  Mr.  Beecher  used  to  her  1" 

There  is  a  lawyer's  question,  and  a  sensible  man's 
question  :  "  You  say  that  youi'  wife  says  *  Mr.  Beecher 
made  proposals  to  me  to  he  his  wife,  with  all  that  that 
implies  1'  Do  you  mean  to  say,  Mr.  Tilton,  that  that  ia 
the  language  that  Mr.  Beecher  used  to  your  wife  ?'  •  Why, 
certainly,'  says  Mr.  TUton.  I  said,  '  Do  you  say  that 
Mr.  Beecher  said  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  "Mrs.  Tilron  I 
desii'e  you  to  be  a  wife  to  me  with  all  that 
that  implies,"  did  you  say  that  Mr.  Beecher  used  the 
phrase  "  with  all  that  that  implies  "  to  your  wife  ?  He 
said,  *  I  won't  say  that  he  used  these  precise  words  to 
her,  but  that  was  an  inference  from  the  suggestion  that 
she  was  to  be  a  wife  to  him.'"  Wei),  you  have  got 
rid  of  "  all  that  that  implies "  on  its  being 
an  inference  and  not  a  statement  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  so  you  have  got  it  reduced  down  to  this,  that 
Mr.  Beecher  asked  her  to  be  a  wife  to  him,  and  the  testi- 
mony went  on  the  inference  that  ^Ir.  Tilton  or  Mrs.  Tilton 
or  somebody  said,  "  with  all  that  that  implies."  Well,  it 
might  be  a  just  inference,  but  we  would  like  to  have  the 
words  if  we  are  to  be  judged  by  them.  "  Well,"  I  said 
"  if  that  is  an  inference,  Mr.  Tilton,  why  may  not  all  of  it 
be  by  inference  from  what  he  said  ?"  And  he  pressed 
that  consideration  with  a  proper  and  honest  and  just 
argumentation  of  it.  Now,  the  question  still  being 
pressed,  Mr.  Tracy  said,  "  You  want  to  deny  that  publica- 
tion, declare  it  to  be  a  lie  "—that  is,  the  Woodhull  publica- 
tion. 

"  And  destroy  the  document  that  yoa  have  here."  Mr. 
Tilton  at  that  remark  of  mine  turned  aud  said,  "  I  will 
not  permit  the  destruction  of  the  documents— these  doy- 


783 


lEE   TILTON-BEECHEB  TRIAL. 


uraents.  If  these  documents  were  destroyed,  Mr. 
Beecher  would  turn  and  rend  me."  I  said,  *'  Mr.  Tilton, 
I  can  conceive  no  possible  object  wbicli  Mr.  Beecher 
could  have  to  revive  this  scandal  or  this  story.  It  seems 
to  me  that  every  consideration  must  lead  him  to  wish  it 
buried,  and  buried  out  of  sight,  and  if  it  is  once  buried  I 
can  imagine  nothing  that  would  induce  him  to  revive  it 
for  the  purpose  of  spiting  you." 
That  seems  rational. 

Well,  he  said,  he  thought  he  would,  or  if  he  did  n't, 
members  of  Plymouth  Church  would.  I  said,  "What 
have  members  of  Plymouth  Church  got  against  you? 
What  motive  can  they  have  for  reviving  this  ?"  He  said 
that  the  members  of  Plymouth  Church  felt  that  he  had 
been  slandering  or  injuring  Mr.  Beecher ;  and  in  that 
connection  he  stated  that  in  1871, 1  think  it  was,  when 
this  thing  was  discovered,  he  had  spoken  harshly  of 
Mr.  Beecher— that  he  had  felt  harshly  toward  him,  and 
had  spoken  very  harshly  against  him,  and  members  of 
the  church  thought  that  he  had  been  slandering  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  it  was  these  documents— I  won't  say  that  he 
said  that— he  said  If  these  docrmients  were  out  of  the 
way  Mr.  Beecher  would  not  restrain  the  members  of 
Plymouth  Church  who  wanted  to  attack  him. 

The  Court  then  a(^oumed  imtil  11  o'clock  Tuesday. 


NINETY-NINTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

LAST  WORDS  FOR  THE  DEFENSE  SPOKEN. 

4N  IMMENSE  AUDIENCE  LISTEN  TO  MR.  EVARTS'S 
FINAL  ARGUMENT— THE  SESSION  OF  THE  COURT 
PROLONGED  TO  ENABLE  HIM  TO  FINISH— SOME 
OF  MR.  BEECHER'S  LETTERS  SCRUTINIZED— 
MRS.  MOULTON'S  TESTIMONY  WEIGHED— MR. 
BEECHER'S  ALIBI  ON  JUNE  2— MR.  MOULTON'S 
FINANCIAL  RELATIONS  WITH  THE  PLAINTIFF 
SIFTED— GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  CASE  RE- 
VIEWED. 

Tuesday,  June  8,  1875. 

The  close  of  tlie  defendant's  case  was  reached 
at  last  to-day,  and  the  result  of  the  great  suit 
against  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  left,  on  the  side  of 
the  defendant,  by  his  counsel,  to  the  judgment  of 
the  twelve  jurymen*  who,  for  nearly  half  a  year,  have 
patiently  listened  to  the  developments  of  this  extra- 
ordinary trial.  There  were  unusual  circumstances 
cctonected  with  the  close  of  the  long  argument  of 
the  senior  counsel  for  the  defendant.  An  immense 
audience  assembled  to  hear  it,  the  orator  exhibited 
a  power  of  reasoning  and  an  eloquence  that  stirred 
the  greatest  enthusiasm  among  his  hearers,  and  the 
session  of  the  court  was  protracted  far  beyond  the 
usual  hour  of  adjournment  in  order  to  permit  him  to 
complete  his  peroration.  The  argument  was  closed 
at  half-past  6  o'clock. 

Mr.  Evarts  exercised  the  same  power  over  his 
audience  to-day  which  he  showed  diiring  the  first 
few  days  of  his  argument.   Near  the  close  he  ex- 


cited an  interest  which  held  the  auditors  in  the 
perfect  silence  of  unbroken  attention,  while  his 
words  were  full  of  thrilling  earnestness  and  his  man- 
ner was  solemn  and  deliberate.  The  jurors  attended 
to  the  orator's  words  even  more  closely  than  the 
audience  did.  Mr.  'J  ilton  looked  thoughtful,  and 
Mr.  Beecher  and  his  friends  who  sat  near  him  wore 
looks  of  rapt  attention.  Once  or  twice,  when  the 
orator  spoke  in  praise  of  Mr.  Beecher,  a  muffled 
sound  of  applause  broke  out,  which  could  not  be  im- 
mediately suppressed  by  the  court  officers.  Tears 
sometimes  came  into  the  eyes  of  Mr.  Beeecher  and 
his  wife,  as  well  as  of  many  persons  in  the  audience. 

The  final  sketch  of  the  career  of  Mr.  Tilton  was 
given  with  solemnity  rather  than  severity,  and  it 
contained  no  violent  denunciation  of  the  plaintiff, 
and  none  of  the  keen  thrusts  of  sarcasm  which  dis- 
tinguished some  of  the  earlier  parts  of  the  address. 
The  alleged  egotism  of  the  plaintiff  was  dwelt  upon 
at  considerable  length,  and  pointed  out  as  the  source 
of  all  his  troubles.  The  parable  of  the  houses  built, 
one  on  the  rock,  and  the  other  on  the  sand,  was  ap- 
plied with  all  the  skill  in  analogy  for  which  Mr. 
Evarts's  address  has  been  remarkable,  to  the  con- 
trasted characters  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton. 
Into  his  final  words  Mr.  Evarts  seemed  to  throw 
all  the  earnest  feeling  of  his  nature.  He  spoke  in 
a  low  voice,  which  sometimes  could  not  have  been 
heard  in  the  distant  parts  of  the  court-room,  and  oc- 
casionally there  seemed  to  be  tears  in  his  eyes. 
Mr.  Evarts  addressed  himself  in  complimentary 
terms  to  Judge  Neilson  and  to  the  jurymen.  As  the 
last  words  dropped  from  his  lips,  the  audience,  unre- 
strained by  the  decorum  of  courts  of  justice,  or  the 
fear  of  the  officers  of  the  law,  broke  out  into  a  per- 
fect storm  of  applause  which  lasted  for  a  full  min- 
ute. Mr.  Beecher,  who  appeared  to  be  much  affected, 
arose  and  pressed  through  the  crowd  toward  Mr, 
Evarts,  who  was  warmly  congratulated  by  his 
friends. 

The  topics  covered  were  Gen.  Tracy's  relations 
with  the  plaintiff  and  Mr.  Moulton,  the  "  ragged 
edge  letter,"  the  financial  transactions  between  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  the  yellow  slip  of  paper 
that  was  alleged  to  have  accompanied  the  Bowen 
check,  the  proof  of  the  alibi  for  Mr.  Beecher  on  June 
2,  1872,  and  the  evidence  in  contradiction  of  it^  Mrs. 
Moultou's  testimony,  and  the  great  salient  feature* 
of  the  case. 


srjiJiiyG  CF  1 

THE  PROCE-EDIXGS-VERBATTM. 

GEN.  TRACrS    TESTIMONY    AGAIN'ST  THE 
PLAIXTIFFS. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
iournment. 

Mr.  Evarts — The  grave  importaBce,  tlie  convincing 
•weight,  the  natural  attraction  of  absolute  confidence  to 
the  testimony  of  iMr.  Tracy,  makes  this  point  of  our 
present  attention  more  thoroughly  conclusive  in  what- 
ever depends  upon  oral  statements,  than  whatever  views 
we  take  inre  gard  to  the  manifold  interviews  that  have  been 
gived  in  one  complexion  and  in  another  by  opposing  wit- 
nesses, could  reasonably  be  expected  for  them.  Now, 
the  only  remaining  question  is,  when,  if  this  scene  is  pro- 
duced to  you  correctly  it  ends  all  controversy,  in  what 
degree  is  it  reduced  or  disparaged  by  any  counter  proof 
on  the  other  side  1  In  the  first  place,  it  is  of  their  own 
showing  that  the  interview  was  invited  by  them,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  laying  out  the  strength  of  their  situation 
toward  the  public,  in  consequence  of  the  promulgation 
cl  the  Woodhull  publication,  and  that  that  situation 
pressed  upon  them  so  that  it  must  be  met  by  an  intimate 
inspection  and  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  whole  area 
of  this  scandal,  and  every  point  and  tittle  of 
its  proof;  and  as  this  interview  would  so  re- 
quire for  their  purposes,  why,  it  necessarily  involved 
a  free  and  honest  statement  of  Mr.  Beecher's  situation 
in  these  matters  ;  and  you  have  in  the  proposition  of  :Mr. 
Moulton  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  in  the  frankness  and  readi- 
ness with  which  Mr.  Beecher  conceded  the  exploration 
and  the  unbosoming  of  the  facts  of  the  case,  absolute  se- 
curity that  neither  Mr.  Moulton  nor  Mr,  Beecher  had  the 
least  idea  that  it  could  be  a  permitted  point  in  this  mere- 
ly incidental  and  external  dilemma  in  which  Moulton  and 
Tilton  were  placed  by  the  talk  of  the  streets,  to  have  a 
confidence  and  a  disclosure  of  the  wickedness  of  these 
many  years,  if  there  were  any  such  wickedness  in  them. 
It  is  like  a  man,  to  avoid  a  whipping  for  some  minor 
fault,  exposing  himself  by  his  excuses  and  disclosures  to 
be  hanged  for  a  murder.  Then  what  do  we  find  from 
these  witnesses,  at  any  stage  of  their  testimony,  in  dis- 
paragement or  reduction,  I  will  not  say  of  every  word  or 
phrase  of  the  conversation  as  detailed  by  Mr.  Tracy,  but 
of  every  substantial  trait  and  characteristic  of  it  ?  2^Ir. 
Woodraff  says  that  he  did  not  pay  much  attention; 
whether  he  was  asleep  more  or  less  of  the  time  did  not 
seem  clear  to  his  mind,  Mr.  Tilton  does  not  say  that  he 
communicated  to  Mr.  Tracy  any  fact  to  the  contrary  of 
anything  that  Mr.  Tracy  says.  Moulton  says  the  inter- 
view, after  Tilton  came  in,  commenced  by  Tilton's 
saying  to  Tracy,  "You  know  all  the  facts, 
and  have  seen  some  of  the  papers."  Now,  when 
Moulton,  Tnton.  and  Woodruff  are  recalled,  after  Mr. 
Tracy's  testimony  has  been  given,  they  deny  only  the 


r  J/if.   ETARIS.  783 

following  merely  fragmentr.ry  parts  of  his  testimony. 
Moulton  denies  calling  the  apology  "  notes  or  memoran- 
dums." Well,  that  might  be  a  denial  that  was  entirely 
consistent  with  his  having  used— I  mean  in  this  witness's 
fashion  of  telling  the  truth  on  the  stand — entirely  con- 
sistent with  Ms  having  said,  "  Why,  that  is  in  the  nature 
of  notes  or  memorandum,"  or,  "  That  is  the  statement  I 
made  from  Mr,  Beecher's  mouth,  as  he  said  it."  He  gave 
some  answer,  I  suppose,  to  the  question,  and  gave  some 
true  description  of  how  there  happened  to  be  a  paper  in 
his,  Moulton's,  handwriting,  addressed  to  himself,  un- 
signed by  any  letter  writer,  and  intrusted  to  him  in  con- 
fidence. Mr.  Moulton  denies  a  part  of  Mr.  Tracy's  ac- 
count of  his,  Tracy's,  interrogating  Tilton  on  the  precise 
language  of  the  charge  in  the  wife's  letter;  but  Mr.  Tilton 
does  not  deny  any  part  of  it.  They  both  deny  that  the 
"True  Story  "  was  read;  but  Tilton,  on  his  cross-exami- 
nation—his previous  cross-examination — stated  that  lie 
readevery  word  of  the  "True  Story"  to  Tracy  during 
this  same  period,  at  some  time  or  other, 
and  there  was  not  any  other  time  to  read  it 
but  this.  And  then  we  have  every  opportunity 
for  evasion  and  prevarication  between  the  "  True 
Story"  in  its  last  and  final  touch  and  finish,  and  the 
"  True  Story  "  in  its  study  or  meditations  which  occu- 
pied a  very  considerable  time,  the  object  being,  as  ZVIr. 
Tilton  has  said,  to  turn  it  over  and  over,  and  consult  with, 
this  and  that  friend,  great  men  or  small  men— men  who 
could  give  a  fair  index  of  what  public  opinion  would  be 
as  to  how  this  unpublished  manuscript  would  strike  the 
public,  whenever  it  should  be  put  in  print ;  and  under 
that  insidious  and  cowardly  mode,  Mr.  Tilton  was  poison- 
ing this  and  that  source  and  channel  of  public  opinion 
with  th.e  concealed  slanders  against  Mr.  Beecher,  that  in 
that  paper  are  contained.  And  they  do  not  deny  that  tie 
substance  of  it— the  charge  of  improper  proposals— was 
read  at  this  interview.  Mr.  Tilton  has  a  fashion  of 
thinking  that  the  absolut€ly  perfected  "True  Story  "  in- 
cluded the  letters  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  his  wife,  which 
form  its  close,  and  which  came  into  existence  in  the  end 
of  December ;  but  in  his  testimony  he  has  drawn  the 
distinction  between  the  "  True  Story  "  as  it  had  ad- 
vanced in  hifl  mind  and  in  his  composition,  up  to  that 
point,  and  how  that  termination  in  regard  to  the  re- 
corded denials  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  formed 
the  final  close  of  the  paper  ;  and  it  is  in  that  mere  pre- 
varication, a  "  True  Story "  as  a  completed  paper,  and 
"  True  Story  "  as  it  was  prepared  to  take  its  completion, 
that  the  changes  are  rung  and  the  excuses  are  found  for 
saying  the  "  True  Story  "  was  not  read  to  this  or  that 
man  when  it  answered  that  purpose,  or  it  was  read  to 
this  or  that  man  when  it  answers  that  ptirpose. 

Just  a*  in  respect  of  the  WoodhuU  scandal,  the  effort 
has  been  made— the  effort,  perhaps,  in  arg\iment,  before 
jow,  will  be  made— that  all  this  theory  of  the  Winter  and 
the  Spring  of  1372,  not  having  brought  into  existence  the 


784 


TEE    TlLTON-BKE(mER  TRIAL. 


"body  of  the  Woodlmll  scandal,  and  its  representations  in 
Blips  ready  for  publication,  then  in  the  needs  of  Tilton 
required,  is  answered  by  the  statement  of  Mr.  Pearl 
Andrews  that  he  did  the  final  editing  upon  the  paper  as  it 
appeared  in  Novenaher,  1872 ;  hut  on  his  own  statement 
you  see  the  disclosure  and  the  discovery  that  the  body— 
the  body  of  the  paper  exactly  as  it  was  printed— was 
ready,  and  that  was  handed  to  him  as  the  matter  on  which 
his  literary  and  philosophical  genius  were  to  operate  in 
making  a  head  and  a  tail  piece,  and  he  did  make  a  literary 
and  philosophical  head  and  tail  piece  to  it ;  but  the  body 
of  the  play  was  this  drama  as  it  had  been  in  existence  in 
slips  for  six  months,  and  it  was  only  the  prologue  and  the 
epilogue  of  literature  and  philosophy  that  came  into 
existence  in  October  of  that  year.  And  yet  by  such  feeble 
devices  as  that  the  prevarications  of  witnesses  are  to  be 
sustained  that  the  Woodhull  article  is  shown  not  to  have 
existed  prior  to  October,  1872,  because  Mr.  Andrews  put 
these  finishing  touches  to  it.  And  so  Mr.  Tilton  expects, 
when  occasion  needs,  to  impose  upon  you  that  the  "  True 
Story"  was  not  complete  at  this  or  that  stage,  be- 
cause the  final  letters  were  not  ready  to  be  inserted  as  its 
fit  conclusion  until  the  end  of  December.  But  Belcher 
makes  that  clear.  We  do  not  need  to  rest  upon  Mr. 
Tracy's  knowledge  and  memory  for  that.  Belcher  makes 
that  clear,  and  Belcher  makes  it  also  perfectly  clear  that 
any  attempt  to  impose  upon  you  that  the  reading  of  this 
passage :  "  My  friend  and  pastor  proposed  to  me  to  be 
his  wife  with  all  that  that  implies,"  comes  out  of  some 
other  piece  of  writing  than  this  original  accusation,  by 
picking  up  a  letter  prepared  under  the  husband's  eye  by 
the  wife,  and  used  with  Dr.  Storrs,  which  repeats  this  ac- 
cusation in  its  termis.  Any  attempt  to  impose  upon  your 
understanding  that  that  letter  was  the  matter,  in  his 
wife's  handwriting,  which  he  copied— it  would  not  help 
the  substance  of  his  case  at  all,  but  any  attempt  to  con- 
fuse your  minds  or  impose  upon  you  in  that  regard  must 
utterly  fail,  because  Mr.  Belcher  tells  you  that  in  his  in- 
terview, sought,  compelled  by  Mr.  Tilton,  when  the  whole 
documents  were  read  and  read,  and  when  Tilton  was 
questionad  and  questioned  about  this  slip  of  paper, 
whether  the  very  language  under  his  eye  was  in  his 
wife's  handwriting,  or  not,  and  the  answer  was :  "  No,  it 
is  in  Moulton's  possession,  the  original ;"  at  that  inter- 
view originated  the  idea  of  any  consultation  with  Dr. 
Btorrs.  The  question  was  asked  of  Mr.  Belcher  by  Mr. 
Tilton:  "Who  is  a  good  man  to  ask,  a  man  of  great 
authority,  of  great  credit,  a  man  of  level  jfidgment,  of 
sober,  ciscumspect  thought  T'  and  the  suggestion  ia 
made  to  Tilton  that  Dr.  Storrs  would  be  a  good  man ;  and 
out  of  that,  and  after  that,  comes  the  interview  with  Dr. 
Btorrs,  and  the  letter  prepared  to  introduce  that  inters 
view,  which  was  in  itself  the  reproduction  of  this  rilp 
that  was  in  the  *'  True  Story,"  and  that  had  formed  the 
gravamen  and  the  text  of  the  "wife's  accusation. 
Now,  Mr.  Moulton  does  deny,  on  his  rebutting  evidence, 


tliat  Mr.  Tracy  made  a  particular  remark  on  the  subje 
of  the  apology,  implying  an  unsuccessftil  attempt  on  Mrs 
Tilton's  virtue;  and  anotlier  as  to  the  best  mode  of 
terminating  all  controversy  as  to  the  facts,  and  as  to 
what  could  be  done  for  Mr.  Tilton— that  is,  about  going 
to  Europe,  &c. — but  on  the  main  substance,  that  Mr, 
Tilton  intelligently,  faithfully,  directly  undertook  hon- 
estly to  perform  the  duty,  give  the  service,  for  which  he 
understood  the  real  solicitudes  and  the  real  responsibUi* 
ties  of  these  parties  had  resorted  to  him  in  respect  of, 
and  that  in  that  he  dealt  as  you  would  do,  as  you  would 
do,  as  you  would  do,  as  any  man  of  common  sense  and 
clear  purpose  would  do,  pricking  all  these  bubbles  at 
once:  "  Well,  what  is  that  you  charge  Mr.  Beecher  of  l* 
—and  that  is  the  charge.  Well,  a  part  of  that  is  infer- 
ence. "  Oh !  no ;  no  part  of  it  is  inference."  "  Well,  but 
that  last  part, 'with  all  that  that  implies '—Mr.  Beecher 
certainly  did  not  say  to  the  woman,  •  I  want  you  to  be 
my  wife,  with  all  that  that  implies.'  "  "  Oh,  well,  that, 
to  be  sure."  "Well,  now,  what  is  your  purpose?  Do 
you  want  to  end  this  scandal,  or  do  you  want  to  keep  it 
alive?"  "I  want  to  end  it."  "  Well,  then,  the  way  to 
end  it  is  to  deny  what  the  Woodhull  publication  says 
about  your  communicating,  and  which  you  say  is  all 
false;  put  an  end  to  this  matter,  burn  up  all  these 
papers  and  have  it  closed."  Well,  why  should  not  that 
be  done?  But  it  could  not  be  done;  and  why?  Mr. 
Tracy  says,  "  Well,  why  can't  it  be  done,  if  you  want  to 
suppress  it?"  "WeU,  if  these  papers  were  destroyed,  I 
having  circulated  various  charges  against  Mr.  Beecher, 
he  would  turn  and  rend  me."  "  Well,"  Mr.  Tracy  says, 
*•  that  is  very  absurd.  Certainly,  Mr.  Beecher  has  no  ia- 
terest  in  having  these  matters  made  the  subject  of  pubUo 
discussion,  merely  for  the  satisfaction  of  pursuing  you 
as  a  slanderer."  "Well,  if  Mr.  Beecher  would  not  do  it 
his  church  would."  And  so  you  find  Mr.  Tilton,  for  the 
first  time  brought  face  to  face  with  an  intelligent,  an 
honest,  a  disinterested  scrutiny  about  the  matter,  is 
obliged  to  retreat  under  the  fog  of  a  desire  to  suppress, 
but  yet  an  unwillingness  to  give  up  the  means  of  contin- 
uing ;  and  that,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  has  been  the  dif- 
ficulty that  Mr.  Tilton  has  been  in.  He  wished,  indeed, 
never  to  be  brought  to  the  test  that  he  has  suffered  in  this 
trial  before  you.  He  never  wanted  the  resistance  of 
Beecher,  and  exploration,  and  weighing,  and  measuring 
of  this  matter  —  a  man  that  had  been  so  quiet  as 
he  tells  you,  under  all  the  load  of  these  injuries, 
imder  all  the  horrors  of  these  wounds  to  his 
pride,  his  feelings,  as  that  he  slept  undisturbed 
by  his  wife's  side  always ;  and  when  he  came  to  Beeoher'S 
face  wanted  always  only  to  be  sure  of  Beecher's  friend- 
ship. He  says,  when  at  a  later  stage  to  which  I  shall  call 
your  attention,  Mr.  Moulton  had  said  to  him:  "Now, 
Beecher  says  he  will  stand  secrecy  no  longer,  he  will  have 
no  more  of  this  policy  of  silence  in  your  behalf,  broken 
ever  by  your  promulgations  at  your  will.   Great  as  is 


SUMMING    VP  BY   MR.  EVAUTS. 


785 


Tihe  terror  and  the  evil  of  Bcandal  wliicli  a  man  feels  for 
the  manifold  complications  in  which  he  stands  to  others, 
and  which  he  feels  especially  in  the  relation  in  which  he 
stands  to  your,  Mr.  Tilton's,  famUy,  your  wife,  your  chil- 
dren, this  matter  he  will  stand  no  longer.  He  is  going 
to  put  himself  directly  at  issue  now,  and  by  throwing 
dov\Ti  the  challenge  for  facts,  and  stripping  himself  of  all 
impediments  of  the  interests,  the  feelings,  or  the  pride  of 
Plymouth  Church,  he  is  going  to  meet  you  as  man  to 
man."  Then  Mr.  Tilton  has  all  the  lion  roused  in  him, 
and  says :  "  If  he  does  that  I  wUl  shoot  him  in  the  street." 
Now,  that  is  a  time  for  shooting;  that  is  a  time  for 
spirit;  that  is  a  time  for  pride;  and  the  threat  that 
he  had  made— that  of  publication  that  TUton  had  made, 
expecting  that  Mr.  Beecher's  solicitude  for  his  (TUton's) 
family,  and  for  the  great  interests  that  surrounded  him— 
would  make  him  yield  to  some  accommodation  even  in 
that,  the  threat  to  publish  was  at  once  withdrawn,  and 
the  matter  came  to  an  end.  But  I  wHl  not  anticipate  the 
details  of  that  situation.  1  only  show  you  throughout 
that  Mr.  Tilton,  having  a  moderate  (immoderate  It  mighf 
seem  to  Mr.  Beecher)  cause  of  offense  and  accusation, 
was  always  outrunning  it  in  his  tongue,  outrunning  it  in 
his  written  letters,  outrunning  it  in  his  printed  slips,  con- 
tinually involving  himself  in  the  guUt  and  the  shame 
and  the  treachery  and  the  cowardice  of  these  malignant, 
secret  stabs  in  the  dark;  and  whenever  there  came  to  be 
a  question  of  disclosure  and  confronting  the  truth  and 
each  other  before  the  public,  then  there  was  always  a 
desire  to  have  some  concession  from  Mr.  Beecher  in  his 
magnanimity,  in  his  generosity,  in  his  sympathies,  that 
could  save  Mr.  Tilton  from  the  absolute  discredit  and  dis- 
grace of  the  discovery  of  his  arts.  Although  Mr.  Beecher 
did  not  know  or  suspect,  and  charitably  refused  to  admit 
aspersions  of  bad  faith,  of  whisperings  of  treachery,  yet 
Mr.  Tilton  knew  that  whenever,  under  any  examination, 
the  daylight  was  let  into  this  matter,  all  this  treachery  of 
Tilton  and  maneuvering  of  Moulton,  brought  in  front  of 
the  boldness  of  Beecher,  would  leave  no  doubt  in  men's 
minds  of  the  true  nature  of  what  had  been  going  on  for 
years. 

GEN.  TEACY  AGAIN  DEFENDED. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
comment  upon  some  parts  of  Gen.  Tracy's  testimony  in 
connection  with  wholly  independent  interviews  and 
events  in  the  year  1874.  But  now  it  becomes  me  to  say 
what,  I  am  quite  sure  after  what  has  fallen  from  his 
Honor,  the  Judge,  and  from  my  learned  brother.  Porter, 
will  be  quite  superfluous ;  yet  very  briefly  to  say  what  I 
say  with  great  pleasure  and  entire  frankness,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  an  imputation  sought  to  be  thrown  upon  Mr. 
Tracy  in  regard,  not  to  his  being  a  witness,  for  that 
everybody  concedes  was  forced  upon  him  by  the  course 
they  take  of  making  him  represent  Beecher  in  order  to 
be  admitted  themselves  as  witnesses  against  Mr.  Beecher 


— I  mean  his  professional  employment.  Now  you  wiU 
observe,  gentlemen,  that  the  trust  and  duty  of  our  pro- 
fession is  not  one  of  personal  inclination  or  choice.  In 
general  we  may  say  that  a  lawyer  is  somewhat  free  to 
take  or  declme  an  employment  as  his  convenience,  his 
emoluments,  his  comfort,  or  his  taste  may  indicate,  but 
always  upon  condition  that  that  refusal  shall  not  preju- 
dice the  client  who,  either  as  plaintiff  or  defendant, 
or  as  accused  before  the  criminal  bar  of  the  courts, 
has  a  right  to  the  services  of  our  profession. 
It  is,  then,  not  unfrequent  that  a  lawyer  in  manifold  en- 
gagements, and  In  a  constantly  changing  succession  of 
clients,  now  opposing  one,  and  now  acting  for  him  in 
another  case,  has  presented  to  him  inquiries  which  he  is 
not  at  liberty  to  discharge  on  the  careless  method  of 
"Well,  i  ^on't  propose  to  bother  myself.*  There  are 
rights  and  there  are  corresponding  duties,  and-  the  mo- 
ment these  flippant  commentators  on  the  duties  of  our 
profession  in  regard  to  the  espousal  and  maintenance 
either  of  plaintiffs'  or  defendants'  causes,  or  of  an  accu- 
rate observance  of  duty,  irrespective  of  possible  evil 
comment,  reduce  the  independence  and  intrepidity  of  the 
bar  to  that  standard,  the  administration  of  justice  will 
cease  to  be  what  it  must  and  should  be  in  a  free  country. 
For,  how  pitiable  the  condition  of  suitors  in  a  court  if 
their  lawyer  j  of  their  choice,  and  to  whose  service  they 
have  a  right,  are  either  to  be  taken  fi'om  them  by  any 
trivial  scruples,  or  torn  from  them  by  malicious  interfer- 
ence of  their  opponents !  And  now  look  in  the  face  of 
the  situation,  and  see  how  utterly  there  falls  to  the 
ground  any  suggestion  that  Mr.  Tracy  was  placed  in  any 
disability  or  relieved  from  any  duty  he  was  under 
In  respect  of  sharing  the  professional  responsibilities  for 
his  friend  and  this  client,  JMr.  Beecher.  "Why,  gentle- 
men, Mr.  Woodruff  approaches  him  with  the  idea  that  it 
is  not  a  professional  relation  that  he  is  to  be  called  into. 
And  Mr.  Tracy  begins  by  saying,  "  I  won't  go  even  into  a 
friendly  conference  of  advice  unless  it  is  understood  that 
I  go  there  as  I  am ;  that  1  go  there  as  I  am  in  fact  a 
friend  of  Mr.  Beecher,  only  to  a  conference  that  is  sup- 
posed to  be  without  hostility  to  him."  And  then,  when 
he  goes  there  imder  the  idea  of  having  the  truth  told  him, 
his  advice  given,  his  relations  determined  upon  the  good 
faith,  the  sincerity,  the  completeness  of  the  disclosures 
that  are  made  to  him,  he  is  accosted  at  the  outset,  "  Now, 
the  whole  truth  is  to  be  told  you  ;  if,  on  the  case  which 
you  are  to  have  the  whole  truth  about,  there  comes  to  be 
antagonism,  will  the  etiquette  of  your  profession  justify 
you  in  espousmg  Mr.  Beecher's  attack  upon  the  fidelltj 
of  the  truth  as  now  disclosed  to  you  ?  "  Mr.  Tracy  at 
once  says, "  Whatever  you  give  to  me  as  the  truth  of 
your  case  to-day,  without  reference  to  any  etiquette  of 
my  profession,  I  will  not  take  up  the  opposite 
for  a  client ; "  and  then  they  tell  him  the  truth ; 
tihey  are  under  every  obligation  as  towards  him  that  it 
should  be  the  truth.    What !  Are  you  going  to  engage 


786 


TRE  TILTON-BJEBCHUR  TEIAL, 


the  honest  and  responsible  friendly  advice  concerning 
the  situation  of  a  man  who  warns  you  in  advance  that  he 
will  hear  nothing  from  you  if  it  is  to  be  of  proposition  of 
hostility  against  Mr.  Beecher,  and  then,  when  that  truth 
all  being  told,  when  the  Bessie  Turner,  and  the  money, 
and  everything  that  could  make  a  fault  against  Mr. 
Beecher  if  It  could  make  »  fault  against  Mr.  Beecher 
should  have  been  told,  when  it  is  omitted,  because  there 
was  no  fault  in  it,  but  nothing  which  generosity  and  pity, 
and  when,  at  the  end,  Mr.  Tracy  sees  and  says,  **  Why, 
there  is  not  anything  here  that  can  be  made  the  subject 
of  a  litigation,  of  a  lawsuit,  of  an  accusation,"  and  dis- 
misses the  matter  from  his  mind  as  anything  that  came 
tmder  any  professional  exclusion  from  a  controversy 
that  had  these  dimensions,  then  when  in  1874  the  charge 
is  to  be  changed  and  is  changed,  and  notice  sent  by  Red- 
path,  "Don't  believe  if  we  go  into  covtrt  we  are 
going  into  a  libel  suit,  when  all  this  talk  of 
these  minor  difficulties  may  be  the  subject  of 
j.udicial  inquiry,  but  we  are  going  to  make  it  adultery 
and  when  Mr.  Tracy  Is  so  advised  then  he  originates  to 
Mr.  Tilton  the  proposition,  "  Well,  Mr.  Tilton,  you  must 
remember  that  if  I  gave  you  a  promise  concerning  the 
case  as  you  laid  it  before  me,  that  I  would  not  take  up 
the  opposite  side,  if  you  now  mean  to  say  that  what  you 
told  me  was  false  and  an  imposition,  and  ypu  are  going 
to  make  a  different  or  other  charge  in  which  my  profes- 
sional duty  and  the  rights  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  my  services 
If  he  chooses  to  ask  them  must  not  be  impaired,  I  wish 
you  to  understand  that  that  promise  does  not  cover  any 
opposite,  any  new  case  that  you  now  bring  into  the  light 
and  into  the  coui'ts." 

Now,  see  how  a  little  matter  discloses  a '  great  deal. 
The  narrative  is  complete,  undisputed,  and  imcon- 
tradicted  by  Mr.  Tilton,  for  it  occurred  in  the  pres- 
ence of  several  witnesses  before  the  Church  Committee. 
Mr.  Tilton,  instead  of  saying,  "  I  join  issue  with  you  on 
the  question  of  fact ;  this  is  the  case ;  it  was  the  charge 
of  adultery.  This  pretense  of  yours,  that  now  the  body 
and  offense  to  be  introduced  is  new,  an  afterthought,  an 
invention,  if  you  please,  is  all  subterfuge,  Mr.  Tracy.  In 
fact  that  interview  did  have  adultery  with  my  wife  as 
the  body  and  substance  of  it"— admits  that  the  interview 
and  the  inquiry  and  the  charge  were  different  then,  but 
says,  "  On  the  question  of  law  and  ethics  I  don't  think 
that  makes  any  difference  in  your  proposition."  What 
could  there  be  from  disinterested  witnesses  (for  it  does 
not  depend  upon  Mr.  Tracy's  testimony,  and  Mr.  Tilton 
don't  contradict  it— there  were  two  or  three  witnesses 
that  could  speak  of  it)  1  but  when  we  come  to  the  pre- 
Tious  statement  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Tracy  alone 
at  the  club,  why,  then,  Mr.  Tilton  contradicts  that ;  that 
Is  only  oath  against  oath.  Now,  gentlemen,  you  will  see 
at  once  that  Mr.  Tracy,  no  doubt  like  every  other  lawyer, 
regretting  that  there  should  be  a  situation  about  which 
men's    minds    should    differ,  yet,  with  that  clear- 


and  decision  which  characterizes  him,  said, 
"Well,  IVIr.  Tilton,  you  may  not  think  go; 
I  do.  You  called  me  into  a  scandal  and  said  you  told  me 
the  truth,  and  there  was  no  adultery  and  no  lawsuit  in 
it.  Now  you  are  getting  up  an  adultery  and  a  lawsuit. 
Now,  understand  that  nothing  that  you  told  me  there 
covered  anything  of  this  kind,  and  I  only  undertook  not 
to  engage  in  a  lawsuit  that  should  arise  upcn  the  case  as 
you  thus  solemnly  prefaced  your  purpose  of  making  a 
confidential  and  thorough  statement  of  it."  And  so  Mr. 
Tracy,  when  he  acts,  as  he  did,  for  the  Church  in  their 
inquiries,  merely  directing  with  a  sort  of  legal  lead  tho 
investigations  before  the  Committee,  comes  flnaDy  to 
reserve  the  question  of  whether  he  shall  act  as  counsel, 
and  submits  it  to  his  associates,  in  whom  he  had  confi- 
dence, whether  other  people  have  or  not ;  and  their 
answer  was  decisive :  "  This  entrapping,  this  delusion, 
this  deception,  this  holding  of  what  was,  as  they  now 
say,  not  their  case,  as  a  terror  and  a  confusion  over  you, 
in  your  professional  duty  and  in  the  rights  of  your  client 
in  respect  to  your  services,  must  not  be  tolerated  for  a 
moment."  Whenever  that  libel  suit  that  was  talked 
about  that  night,  that  istrs.  Woodhull  would  bring 
against  Mr.  Tilton  if  he  published  that  "  True 
Story,"  or  if  he  published  an  open  denial  — 
whenever  that  suit  should  have  been  brought 
into  court,  then  it  might  well  be  said  that  Mr.  Tracy 
should  not  take  up  for  Mrs.  Woodhull  against  Mr.  Tilton. 
And  so  that  matter,  which  has  no  other  relation  to  any  of 
the  merits  of  this  case  than  as  it  is  sought  to  be  an  occar 
sion  of  invidious  suggestion  m  respect  to  a  leader,  if  not 
the  leader  of  the  Brooklyn  bar,  your  fellow  citizen,  well 
known  to  all  of  you,  would  not  have  received  any  com- 
ment from  me,  as  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  clew  of 
the  merits  of  the  case. 

THE  EAGGED  EDGE  LETTEE. 
Now,  gentlemen,  there  came  to  be  a  very 
curious  and  very  curiously  proved  course  of  delicate 
maneuvers  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton, 
to  force  this  $7,000  out  of  Bowen.  And,  curiously 
enough,  we  have  in  one  of  Mr.  Beecher's  letters  that  on 
its  own  merits,  as  it  is  supposed,  has  been  treated  as  of 
very  grave  significance— we  have  in  that  letter  the  first 
underground  movement  toward  what  came  to  the  arbi- 
tration and  the  demand  of  $7,000,  first  disclosed.  The 
necessities  of  Mr.  Tilton  bad  then  become  complete. 
There  was  an  intei-view  in  the  cars  which  Mr.  Beecher 
regarded  as  a  friendly  one,  and  it  has  been  given  by  Mr. 
Beecher  and  by  Mr.  Tilton,  and  about  which  I  shall  not 
speak.  If  there  is  any  gravity  in  it,  it  has 
escaped  my  attention.  Whatever  Mr.  Beecher  has  said, 
whatever  Mr.  Tilton  has  said,  is  but  an  incidental  run- 
ning out  of  the  views  on  one  side  and  th»  other,  if  you 
ptease,  of  their  then  relations.  But  in  the  month  of 
February  Mr.  Beecher  spontaneously  writes  a  letter  to 


SUMMING    UF  BY  MR.  EYAETS, 


787 


Mr.  Moulton— tlie  letter  of  Feb.  5 — sometimes  called  tlie 
**  Eagged  Edge  Letter,"  whicti  iti  some  unaccountable  way 
In  men's  minds,  pardonable  perb.aps,  wMle  tlie  trutli  and 
facts  of  tliese  relations  were  undisclosed  as  they  are  now 
brought  to  light  by  the  evidence,  has  been  treated  as  evi- 
dence of  guilt.  But  my  present  purpose  is  to  show  you  how 
cunningly  Mr.  TOton  and  Mr.  Moulton  were  beginning  to 
operate  upon  the  sympathies  and  self-reproaches  of  Mr. 
Beecher  in  regard  to  his  feeling  of  compunction  and 
of  duty,  of  aid  and  reparation  in  respect  to 
Mr.  Tilton.  The  letter  shows  you  several  other 
things  besides  that  that  I  have  now  noted. 
It  shows  you  the  absolutely  restored  relations,  in  the 
open  knowledge  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  of  Mr.  :NIoulton,  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  so  far  as  he  thought  it  judicious  and  useful 
to  maintain  either  correspondence  by  letter  or  inter- 
com-se  by  visits  with  Mrs.  Tilton. 

Monday,  Feb.  5, 1872. 

I  omit  the  mere  introduction  [readingj  : 

About  three  weeks  ago  I  met  Tilton  in  the  cars  going  to 
Boston.  He  was  kind.  We  talked  much.  At  the  end  he 
told  me  to  go  on  with  my  work  without  the  least  anxiety 
in  so  far  as  his  feelings  and  actions  were  the  occasion  of 
apprehension. 

That  is  to  say,  "  Understand  that  the  diflaculties  are  all 
over ;  tmderstand  that  there  is  reparation  between  me 
and  my  wife  at  home ;  understand  that  my  affairs  are 
such  as  satisfy  me  in  the  hopes  and  prospects  before 
me." 

On  returning  home  from  New-Haven  I  found  a  note 
from  Elizabeth  saying  tliat  Tilton  felt  hard  toward  me, 
and  was  going  to  see  or  write  me  before  leaving  for 
the  West. 

Eight  after  this  pleasant  interview  in  the  cars  we  see  a 
prepared  ebullition  of  the  opposite  kmd. 

She  kindly  added:  "Do  not  be  cast  down.  I  bear  this 
almost  always— I  bear  the  moods  and  tempers  of  this 
man  almost  always— but  the  God  in  whom  we  trust  will 
deliver  us  all  safely.  I  know  you  do,  and  ai'e  willing 
abundantly  to  help  him." 

Now,  don't  you  see  what  the  trouble  was  I 

I  know  you  do,  and  are  willing  abundantly  to  help 
Mm,  and  I  also  know  your  embarrassments. 

WeU,  Tilton  wanted  help.  Tilton  indicated  at  home 
that  Beecher  was  not  doing  as  much  as  he  ought  to  do  to 
help  him,  and  that  he  felt  hard  to  him,  and  he  was  going 
to  sfie  him  before  he  went  off,  and  Mrs.  Tilton  writes  him, 
and  Mr.  Beecher  sits  down  and  copies  her  letter  to  Mr. 
Moulton,  and  there  you  have  the  whole  thing  disclosed  at 
the  very  beginning  of  the  ripple  that  swells  into  the 
stream  that  dislocates  the  bowlder  $7,000,  and  washes  it 
into  their  coffers.   Now,  Mr.  Beecher  proceeds : 

These  were  words  of  warning  but  also  of  consolation, 
for  I  believe  Elizabeth  is  beloved  of  God,  and  that  her 
prayers  for  me  are  sooner  heard  than  mine  for  myself  or 
for  her.  But  it  seems  that  a  change  has  come  to  T.  since 
I  saw  him  in  the  cars. 

Well,  now  that  shows  that  Mr.  Beecher's  view  of  that 
interview  in  the  cars  was  the  correct  one. 


Indeed,  ever  J«ince  he  has  felt  more  intensely  the  force 
of  feeling  in  society,  and  the  limitations  which  environ 
his  enterprise — that  is,  his  Golden  Age— he  has  growiiigly 
felt  that  I  had  a  power  to  help  which  I  did  not  develop, 
and  I  believe  ttuit  you  have  participated  la  this  feeliag. 
It  is  natural  you  should,  T.  is  dearer  to  you  than  I  oan 
be.  He  is  with  you.  All  his  trials  lie  open  to  your  eye 
daUy.  But  I  see  you  but  seldom,  and  my  personal  rela- 
tions, environments,  necessities.  Limitations,  dangers, 
and  perplexities  you  caimot  see  or  Imagine. 

Now,  that  is  the  only  part  of  the  letter  that  I  have 
occasion  to  refer  to  at  this  moment  and  in  this  connec- 
tion. Mr.  Beecher  testifies  the  reason  he  wrote  that 
letter,  was  that  he  had  observed  that  Mr.  Moulton,  in  the 
visits  he  made  to  him,  began  to  play  the  part  of  offishness, 
was  polite  but  not  cordial,  not  demanding  money,  not 
talking  about  money,  but  with  the  idea  which,  inspires 
what  Mr.  Beecher  says  to  him,  Moulton,  that  he  shared 
ui  these  feelings  tliat  he,  Beecher,  did  not  help  Tilton 
enough.  And  then  Mr.  Beecher  spontaneously  sits  down 
and  writes  this  long  letter,  full,  no  doubt,  of  strong 
feeling,  but  strong  feeling,  whenever  a  word  of  it  la 
probed,  that  shows  precisely  the  same  warmth 
of  sympathy  and  tenderness  of  heart,  unmeasured 
self-reproach  and  compunction  for  any  share  he 
had  in  these  misfortimes  and  these  disasters. 
Then  Mr.  Moulton  does  not  seem  to  answer  this  letter. 
We  have  not  seen  any  answer  to  it.  It  certamly  was  a 
letter  that,  if  there  were  any  sincerity  in  Mr.  Moulton's 
relations  to  Mr.  Beecher  at  that  time,  and  if  lie  were  not 
playing  th.e  part  of  getting  Mr.  Beecher  ready  to  be 
affected  in  this  generous  disposition  of  his  by  the  actual 
approach  for  money  when  it  should  be  made,  he  would 
have  answered ;  but  it  served  his  purposes  and  ]Nlr.  TU- 
Uon's  to  be  thus  frankly  informed  of  Mr.  Beecher's  feel- 
ings, and  then  they  were  ready  to  take  the  next  step, 
which  was  not  to  be  an  approach,  by  Mr.  Moulton  or  an 
approach  by  Mr.  Tilton,  but  this  circuitous  introduction 
of  the  subject  through  Mr.  WUkeson,  and  the  threat  of 
the  publication  of  the  slips,  and  all  that  narrative  which 
has  been  gone  through  with. 

:sm.  MOULTON'S  SHEEWD  FINANCIAL  POLICY. 

Now,  let  me  take  np  ]VIr.  Moulton'-s  relations 
to  money.  The  first  time  after  this  situation  which  he 
was  nursing  began,  the  first  time  he  introduced  the  sub- 
ject of  money  to  Mr.  Beecher  was  by  the  suggestion  tliat 
ilr.  Tilton  was  badly  situated,  and  that  he  thought  that 
the  secuiity  of  his  home  was  of  great  importance  to  him, 
and  that  the  mortgage  on  his  house  ought  to  be  paid  off, 
and  the  property  ought  to  be  settled  on  Elizabeth. 
"  Well,"  says  Mr.  Beecher,  "  I  am  ready  to  do  my  share." 
And  then  ]\Ir.  Moulton  dropped  the  subject,  and  you  will 
find  no  introduction  of  any  subject  of  money  aid  in  whicli 
Mr.  Moulton  was  to  do  his  share,  proposed  afterward  bj 
him  to  Mr.  Beecher,  with  one  single  exception,  and  then 
he  did  not  make  the  mistake  of  proposing  to  Mr.  Beeclier 


788 


TEE  TILTON-BFjKCRER  TULAL. 


o  do  his  share  if  Beecher  would  do  Ms ;  t»ut  he  brought 
the  Bessie  Turner  hills  and  said,  "  I  am  paying  a  good 
deal  for  Mr.  Tilton,  and  I  think  this  is  your  share." 

Now  this  $7,000  is  a  curious  affair.  I  douht  whether 
even  Mr.  Tilton  has  fairly  got  at  the  bottom  of  it,  and  at 
the  immense  disinterestedness  of  Mr.  Moulton  in  the 
business  ;  for  people  have  been  puzzling  their  minds  why 
this  princely  generosity  of  Mr.  Moulton's  should  be 
troubling  itself  about  little  matters  of  a  few  thousand 
dollars.  Have  n't  we  heard  that  magnificent  proposition 
of  his,  that  he  would  rather  pay  Mr.  Tilton  the  $7,000 
out  of  his  own  pocket  than  run  the  slightest  risk  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  being  disturbed  for  a  moment  by  any  agita- 
tions of  the  Bowen  matters.  But  he  knew  there  were  no 
agitations  of  the  Bowen  matters  that  Mr.  Beecher  cared  a 
snap  of  the  finger  for,  and  Mr.  Beecher's  answer  to  him 
was,  "  I  care  nothing  about  Mr.  Bowen's  charges,  or  his 
affairs  ;"  so  that  stands  as  the  magnificent  front,  nay,  the 
whole  body,  of  Mr.  Moulton's  generosity  to  Mr.  Tilton 
throughout  this  business.  "  Hypocrisy,"  says  Mr.  Burke, 
"  can  afford  to  be  magnificent  in  its  promises  ;  for,  never 
intending  to  go  beyond  promises,  it  costs  nothing."  Well, 
they  finally  forced  the  arbitration  to  cover  these  difii- 
culties  and  to  get  the  inoney,  and  they  got  it ;  and  Mr. 
Tilton  could  not  refrain  from  a  chuckle  over  the  matter, 
which  should  move  the  cockles  of  Mr.  Moulton's  heart 
to  laughter,  and,  as  he  was  not  in  his  presence,  he  wrote 
him  this  slip : 

'*  Spoils  from  'new  friends'  for  the  enrichment  of  old." 

And  there  are  the  check  and  the  tell-tale  pinholes  that 
tied  that  slip  to  that  paper,  and  Franklin  Woodruff  seems 
to  be  the  partner  in  that  concern  whose  careless  honesty, 
I  suppose,  brings  his  more  crafty  partners  into  trouble. 

Now,  .iust  look  what  a  heavy  fall  Mr.  Moulton  gave 
Theodore  with  this  $7,000,  and  how  the  spoils  from  the 
new  friends  did  go  to  the  enrichment  of  the  old. 
Mr.  Tilton  had  a  basis  of  capital  and  funds 
for  the  sui)port  of  his  Golden  Age  through  its 
contingencies  and  experiments,  which  was  just  the 
same  as  if  he  had  the  money  in  his  purse. 
There  had  been  a  subscription  of  $12,000— $3,000  by 
Moulton,  $3,000  by  Franklin  Woodruff,  $1,000  by  Jere- 
miah Robinson,  $2,000  by  a  Mr.  Mason,  $1,500  by  Mr. 
Schultz,  and  $1,500  by  Mr.  Southwick.  One-half,  $6,000, 
had  been  paid  and  was  spent,  and  the  concern  was  in 
want  of  money  and  this  strike  comes,  and  the  money  is 
got.  The  other  $6,000  of  the  $12,000  he  had  in  the  en- 
gagements of  these  responsible  parties  to  hand  him  the 
cash  whenever  he  wanted  it,  and  his  only  obligation  to 
them  was  to  return  it  if  he  was  ever  prosperous  or  able. 
The  Golden  Age  then  was  situated  with  this  $6,000  un- 
paid as  if  it  was  in  its  till,  and  the  moment  that  this 
$7,000  of  actual  cash  comes  into  Tilton's  hands,  then 
Moulton  and  Woodruff  seize  $6,000  of  it  at  once,  and 
leave  only  the  small  pittance  of  $1,000  for  his  share  of 
he  spoils.     It  must  have  gone  against  the  grain  a 


little,  that,  to  get  back  Moulton's  $1,500,  and  WoodruflPg 
$1,500,  and  Jeremiah  Robinsou's  $500,  which  was 
$3,500,  they  also  had  to  put  back  $2,500  into  the  pockets 
of  Mason,  and  Southwick,  and  Schultz,  whom  they  didn't 
care  anything  about ;  but  "  commercial  honor  requires 
that  we  shall  make  no  distinction  between  ourselves  and 
these  co-contributors,"  and,  so  that  the  dullest  under- 
standing might  appreciate  it  when  it  is  exposed,  Mr. 
Woodruff  says  to  Mr.  Southwick,  "  Well,  Johnny,  if  you 
lost  $750  by  going  in,  you  have  made  $750  by  coming 
out."  [Laughter.]  Now,  you  see  what  a  heavy  faU 
poor  Tilton  had  with  his  $7,000 ;  $6,000,  that  he  was  un- 
der no  obligation  to  return  unless  prosperity  wafted  his 
bark  to  the  haven  where  it  would  be  found,  taken  right 
out  of  him  bodUy,  before  his  eyes,  without  his  suspecting 
it,  and  he  left  to  tide  over  the  shoal,  when  he  came  to  it, 
as  best  he  might.  And  how  did  they  tide  him  over  it 
when  it  came,  and  these  notes  and  this  cash  that  he  could 
have  relied  upon,  had  been  swept  away,  and  they  had 
bagged  this  $7,000,  and  what  there  was  was  spent  ? 
Why,  then,  Mr.  Moulton  says  to  Mr.  Beecher,  "  See  what 
a  generous  spirit  can  contrive,  to  help  a  friend.  Look  at 
this  letter  !  look  at  these  notes !  look  a^t  this  cash  !  see 
what  it  is  to  be  a  friend  to  Tilton !  But  then,  alas,  the 
delicacy  of  this  being  accepted  at  the  hands  of  a  lady  will 
compel  Mr.  Tilton  to  decline  it,  and,  alas !  alas ! 
these  generous  pui-poses  will  be  of  no  real 
service;"  and  poor  Mr.  Beecher  goes  off, 
not  understanding  the  delicate  approaches  of 
Mr.  Moulton,  and  says  to  himself :  **  Well,  if  there  is  need 
of  this  money  to  save  the  concern  (as  Mr.  Moulton  had 
intimated),  if  all  is  going  to  destruction  for  want  of 
$5,000, 1  will  mortgage  my  house ;  "  and  he  brought  tiie 
$5,000  in  a  check,  which  it  was  thought  better  by  Mr. 
Moulton  should  be  in  bills ;  and  so  there  came,  out  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  generosity,  the  replacement  of  the  $5,000, 
as  far  as  it  went,  for  the  $6,000  that  Moulton  and  Wood- 
ruff and  Robmson  and  their  associates  had  subtracted 
from  the  Bowen  money.  Talk  to  me  about  generosity 
and  princely  friendship !  I  have  not  seen,  fi'om  the  be- 
ginning to  the  end,  any  such  liberality. 

These  original  subscriptions  for  Tlie  Golden  Age,  gener- 
ous if  you  please,  were  shared  by  comparative  strangers 
who  had  no  such  duty  and  no  such  closeness  of  relation 
to  Mr.  Tilton.  But,  then,  the  fertile  ingenuity  which 
should  thus  cunningly  subtract  from  Bowen's  $7,000, 
six  thousand  of  it,  and  then  cunningly  replace  it,  to  the 
amount  of  five  thousand,  by  this  overwhelming  gener- 
osity of  Mr.  Beecher,  certainly  deserves  admiration,  and 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  say.  Sir,  that  no  parallel  to  it  can  be 
found  in  the  admirable  career  of  the  original  Sir  Philip 
Sydney.  fLaughter.J 

THE  RAGGED  EDGE  LETTER  ANALYZED. 
Now,  gentlemen,  I  will  dispose  of  the  rest  of 
this  letter.  The  existence  of  this  letter,  the  existence  of 


SUMMING    UP  B 

other  letters  that  wHl  be  brought  to  your  attention,  so 
far  from  possibly  furnishing  evidence  of  consciousness  of 
guilt  in  any  sense  of  criminality  which  the  divine  and 
human  law  and  the  public  judgment  denounce  as  in- 
famous, and  the  knowledge  or  disclosure  of  which  would 
bring  defeat,  dishonor,  contempt,  upon  the  writer— the 
very  existence  of  these  letters  is  complete  evidence  that 
there  Is  no  consciousness  of  guilt,  and  that  they  are  not 
the  vehicle  of  expressions  of  guilt,  or  confessions  of 
gunt,  of  any  just  construction  that  could  connect  guilt 
with  them.  Observe,  they  are  written  spontaneously 
and  to  a  person  who  knew  what  the  length  and  breadth, 
what  the  alternative  measures  and  character  of  this 
matter  were,  and  written  to  him  on  a  purpose  and  with 
a  purpose,  to  wit,  the  explication  to  him  of 
the  utter  absence  of  any  just  self-reproach  in 
his  (Mr.  Beecher's)  mind  in  regard  to  selfishness, 
want  of  alacrity  or  want  of  effort  on  his  part,  to  help  the 
mls'fortunes  and  distresses  of  Mr.  Tilton,  as  he  had 
abundantly  professed  his  desire  to  do,  and  as  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  had  strenuously  labored  to  urge  hiin  to  do.  And 
then  the  whole  measure  of  this  letter  (and  it  is  quite  a 
long  one)  and  all  its  contents  have  for  their  scope  and 
purpose  nothing  but  the  representation  to  Mr.  Moulton 
(to  whom  he  undoubtedly  did  express  himself  as  he  would 
to  his  own  heart)  that  it  was  wrong  in  him,  Moultdn,  to 
have  this  unjust  suspicion;  that  it  was  wroug  in  Mr.  Til- 
ton  to  have  the  idea  that  Mr.  Beecher  did  not  desire  and 
was  not  trying  to  help  him ;  that  it  was  wrong  for  Mr. 
Tilton  to  Ladulge  the  feelings  which  afterward  and  in  a 
few  weeks,  at  the  end  of  March,^Mr.  TUton  expressed  to 
Mr.  wnkeson,  that  Mr.  Beecher,  who  could  lift  him  with 
his  little  finger,  had  not  shown  an  adequate  disposition 
to  help  him.  So  he  goes  on,  and  gives  all  his  engage- 
ments and  all  his  labors,  and  then  the  difiiculties  that 
attended  him,  the  impossibility,  if  this  policy  of  silence 
in  protection  of  Mr.  TUton's  secret,  in  protection  of  the 
wife's  secret,  in  protection  of  his  own,  IVIr.  Beecher's,  share 
in  the  misfortunes  which  he  reproached  himself  for— if 
that  policy  is  to  be  maintained  (for  all  the  while  poor 
Mr.  Beecher  thought  all  this  trouble  was  springing  out  of 
the  ground ;  he  did  n't  know  that  Tilton  was  scattering, 
as  a  tale-bearer,  these  mischievous  suspicions)— the  im- 
possibility, concurrently  with  that  policy,  of  using  what 
Mr.  Tilton  might  think  were  readj^  means  and  enginery 
at  hand,  to  wit,  the  impulse  and  suggestion  to  this  man, 
that  man,  and  the  other  man  to  aid  Mr.  Tilton — it  was  in 
explication  of  that  subject,  introduced  by  the  wife's 
letter,  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  think  he  was  helping  him 
enough,  promoted  by  Mr.  Moulton's  coldness  to  him,  as  if 
he,  Mr.  Beecher,  was  insincere,  neglectful,  inattentive  to 
his  duties  in  this  regard,  he  opens  the  whole  matter, 
and  after  laying  out  the  immense  burdens  of  his 
constant  occupations  he  then  comes  to  this  part  of 
1^  Vbioli  ia  considered,  I  believe,  as  an  indication  of 


r  ME.   EYABIS,  789 

My  vacation  was  profitable.  I  came  back  hoping  that 
the  bitterness  of  death  was  passed. 

Well,  that  is  an  epithet ;  he  didn't  convey  any  knowl- 
edge to  Mr.  Moulton  by  that ;  Moulton  knew  what  Mr. 
Beecher's  notions  of  the  bitt\irness  of  death  were,  and  ot 
the  occasion  of  them ;  for  he  had  poured  out  his  soul  to 
Moulton  on  that  Sunday  afteruoon.  This  gives  no  addi- 
tional information.  There  is  no  measuring  of  Mr.  Beech- 
er's forms  of  expression,  of  his  emotions  of  self-reproach, 
of  commiseration  for  others,  of  solicitude  that  the  mis- 
chief should  not,  by  scandal  and  by  brmt,  be  made  any 
more  than  it  was, 

"But  T.'s  troubles  brought  back  the  cloud  "  

Now,  what  is  the  cloud  ? 

For,  all  this  Fall  and  TVinter  I  have  felt  that  you  did 
not  feel  satisfied  with  me,  and  that  I  seemed,  both  to  you 
and  T.,  as  contenting  myself  with  a  cautious  or  sluggish 
policy,  willing  to  save  myself,  but  not  to  risk  anything 
for  T.— [that  is,  to  succumb  to  these  limitations,  and  not 
be  willing  to  exert  a  proper  activity,  and  thus  run  some 
risks. J 

I  have  again  and  again  probed  my  heart  to  see  whether 
I  was  truly  liable  to  such  feeling,  and  the  response  is  un- 
equivocal that  I  am  not. 

Then  he  goes  on  to  enlarge  on  the  difficulties  that 
would  show  anybody  that  what  seemed  to  them  this 
sluggish,  selfish  policy — this  selfish  consultation  for  him- 
self—was a  necessary  part  of  the  main  policy  urged  by 
Moulton,  pressed  by  Tilton,  insisted  upon  by  all  the 
moral  proprieties  of  the  situation,  that  there  should  not 
be  publicity  and  scandal ;  and  then,  in  the  graphic  lan- 
guage which  he  uses  on  all  occasions,  he  says : 

To  say  that  I  have  a  church  on  my  hands  is  simple 
enough— but  to  have  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  men 
pressing  me,  each  one  with  his  keen  suspicion,  or 
anxiety,  or  zeal ;  to  see  tendencies  which,  if  not  stopped, 
would  break  out  into  ruinous  defense  of  me  ;  to  stop 
them  without  seeming  to  do  it ;  to  prevent  any  one  ques- 
tioning me;  to  meet  and  allay  prejudices  against  T. 
which  had  their  beginning  years  before  this  ;  to  keep 
serene,  as  if  I  was  not  alarmed  or  disturbed  ;  to  be  cheer 
ful  at  home  and  among  friends  when  I  was  suffering  the 
torments  of  the  damned  ;  to  pass  sleepless  nights  often, 
and  yet  to  come  up  fresh  and  full  for  Sunday  ;— all  this 
may  be  talked  about,  but  the  real  thing  cannot  be  under- 
stood from  the  outside,  nor  its  wearing  and  grinding  on 
the  nervous  system. 

And  that  was  a  true  description  of  what  had  been  im- 
posed upon  him  as  the  "policy  of  silence  "  by  the  urgency 
and  entreaty  of  Tilton  and  the  pressure  of  Moulton. 
Now,  he  says,  "  When  you  say  that  I  am  not  as  helpful  as 
I  might  be,  and  that  the  channels  and  the  agencies  that 
with  my  little  finger  I  could  open  for  the  aid  of  Mr.  Til- 
ton are  not  opened,  just  consider  this,  that  I  am  under 
these  suspicions,  circulated  somehow,  God  only  knowl 
how,  and  I  obliged  to  maintain  this  situation."  The  let- 
ter proceeds : 

God  knows  that  I  have  put  mc^re  thought  and  Judg- 
ment and  earnest  desire  into  my  efforts  to  prepare  a  way 
for  T.  and  E.  than  ever  I  did  for  myself,  a  hnndred-fo] 


799 


THM   TILION-BEECHEB.  TBIAL. 


Then  he  saj'^s  that  lie  never  loses  an  opportunity  of  try- 
ing to  repair  the  evils,  and  with  increasing  success. 

But  tbe  roots  of  this  prejudice  are  long.  The  catastro- 
phe which  precipitated  him  from  his  place  only  disclosed 
feelings  that  had  existed  long.  Neither  he  nor  you  can  he 
aware  of  the  feelings  of  classes  in  society,  on  other 
grounds  than  late  rumors.  I  mention  this  to  explain  why 
I  Jcnoiv  with  absolute  certainty  that  no  mere  statement, 
letter,  testimony,  or  affirmation  will  reach  the  root  of 
affairs  and  reinstate  them.  Time  and  m^ork  will. 

If  Mr.  Tilton  goes  on  with  work— honorable,  honest 
work— time  and  his  work,  showing  his  worthiness,  will 
reinstate  him,  hut  nothing  else  can.  With  a  self-sacri- 
ficing .spirit,  he  says : 

If  my  destruction  would  place  him  all  right,  that  shall 
not  stand  in  the  way.  I  am  "willing  to  step  down  and 
out.  No  one  can  offer  more  than  that.  That  I  do  offer. 

Just  as  in  the  next  June,  when  the  matter  was  pressing 
on  him,  he  said,  "  Very  well ;  I  will  resign.  I  will  stand 
this  no  longer.  If  Mr.  Tilton  thinks  I  don't  do  all  in  my 
power  to  heli»  him  ;  if  I  don't  do  my  duty ;  if  he  desires 
to  terminate  the  policj^  of  silence,  and  have  the  truth 
known,  I  am  ready  for  it  at  any  moment." 

Sacrifice  me  without  hesitation,  if  you  can  clearly  see 
your  way  to  his  safety  and  happiness  thereby.  I  do  not 
think  that  anything  would  he  gained  hy  it.  I  should  he 
destroyed,  hut  he  would  not  he  saved.  E.  and  the  chil- 
dren would  hav6  their  future  clouded.  In  one  point  of 
Tiew  I  could  desire  the  sacrifice  on  my  part.  ***** 
I  look  ui>on  death  as  sweeter-faced  than  any  friend  I 
have  in  the  world.  Life  would  he  pleasant,  if  I  could  see 
that  rebuilt  which  is  shattered. 

There  his  anxiety  is  for  others,  wholly  for  this  family. 

But  to  live  on  the  sharp  and  ragged  edge  of  anxiety, 
remorse,  fear,  despair,  and  yet  to  put  on  all  the  appear- 
ance of  sincerity  and  happiness,  cannot  he  endured  much 
longer.  I  am  well-nigh  discouraged.  If  you,  too,  cease 
to  trust  me— to  love  me— I  am  alone ;  I  have  not  another 
person  in  the  world  to  whom  I  could  go. 

Well,  to  God  I  commit  all.  Whatever  it  may  he  here,  it 
shall  be  well  there.  With  sincere  gratitude  for  your  he- 
roic fiiendship,  and  with  sincere  affection,  even  though 
you  love  me  not,  I  am  yours,  though  unknown  to  you. 

H.  w.  B. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  can  very  easily  see  that  if  Mr. 
Beecher  had  had  the  consciousness  of  any  of  these  meas- 
ures of  guilt,  he  would  not  have  invited,  as  an  escape 
from  the  suspicions  and  coldness  of  Mr.  Moulton  and  of 
Mr.  Tilton,  and  of  this  great  oppression  to  him,  that  any 
body  should  charge  him  in  the  tenderest  point  with  the 
want  of  solicitude,  and  want  of  effort  to  restore  the  f  or- 
tunes  concerning  wbich  he  felt  himself  thus  to  be  re- 
proached. If  he  had  had  the  consciousness  that 
this  seduction  of  a  parishioner,  this  adultery 
with  a  communicant,  that  all  these  horrible  im- 
putations were  the  facts  that  were  to  come  out, 
do  you  think  he,  for  a  moment,  even  in  the  excitement  of 
feeling,  would  have  doubted  that  he  would  rather  have 
that  than  these  anxieties  and  these  suppressions  and 
these  appearances  of  •prevarication  and  equivocation'? 
By  no  means.   Why,  gentlemen,  you  may  hold  this  to  be 


a  fundamental  proposition  of  our  nature,  implanted  in  na 
not  less  deeply  than  any  other  form  and  duty  and  senti- 
ment of  self-preservation,  that  a  man  conscious  of  guilt 
never  makes  a  record  of  it,  never  voluntarily  writes  it, 
never  parades  it  through  strong  epithets  in  a  voluntary, 
spontaneous  repulse  of  mere  coldness  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Moulton,  and  feeling  of  Mr.  Tilton  that  Mr.  Beecher  was 
not  doing  enough  for  him.  Why,  gentlemen,  the  strongest 
selfish  impulses  that  are  likely  to  overpower  a  man  will 
not  brine:  him  to  confession  or  disclosure  even  in  the 
sacred  relation  of  penitent  and  priest,  or  in  the  necessary 
confidence  of  patient  and  surgeon  or  physician,  or  in  re- 
spect to  property  and  life  and  character  between  client 
and  lawyer,  until  the  law  puts  its  protection  over  those 
confessions,  and  for  the  good  of  the  soul  and  for  the  cure 
of  the  body,  and  for  the  preservation  and  defense  of 
property  assures  to  those  confidences  seclusion 
against  the  power  of  disclosure  before  the  law. 
The  penitent  that  would  seek  the  solace  of  absolution  or 
spiritual  consolation  will  keep  the  secret  to  the  grave 
rather  than  risk  it  to  disclosure  by  the  law.  The  wounded 
or  poisoned  man  will  carry  in  his  blood  and  bones  the 
venom,  or  the  secret  hemorrhage  that  will  take  away  his 
life,  before  he  will  disclose  to  the  surgeon  or  physician 
the  source  of  the  wounds  or  the  inflictions  that  are  to  be- 
tray him ;  and  the  client  will  keep  from  his  lawyer  even 
what  is  to  help  his  life  and  his  fortunes,  if  at  the  same 
time  it  is  a  confession  of  guilt  and  of  infamy  that  by  any 
possibility  could  he  disclosed  through  the  source  of  his 
confession ;  and  yet,  when  society,  recognizing  those 
deepest  principles  of  our  nature,  has  thus  covered  with 
its  protection  against  the  prying  eye  of  justice  and  its 
punishment  all  these  confidences,  we  are  told  that  this 
lavish  use  of  epithets  is  to  he  construed  as  con- 
fession of  guilt.  Why,  gentlemen,  we  all  know 
that  if  you  will  trust  men  to  portray  their 
feelings,  their  sympathies,  their  honest  and  cred- 
itable emotions,  there  is  no  limit  to  the  profuseness 
of  their  confidences,  and  the  strength  and  point  of 
their  reproaches  and  epithets  ;  and  all  this  letter,  honest 
indeed,  though  overwrought,  not  wise,  not  the  measure 
of  a  circumspect  and  careful  thinker,  but  the  outpouring 
of  the  unrepressed  self-reproach  that  he,  who  had  been 
working  under  impulses  for  the  good  of  others,  and  had 
borne  so  much  himself,  and  was  himself  so  much  im- 
pressed with  the  consciousness  of  fault  that  he  had  ex- 
pressed to  Mr,  Tilton,  and  expressed  to  Mr.  Moulton  that 
he,  knowing  that  he  was  not  open  to  these  reproaches 
shoiild  still  suffer  them,  of  coldness,  I  mean,  and  indiffer- 
ence, touched  him  to  the  very  heart,  and  without  a  call, 
without  the  least  occasion,  and  casting  all  these  pearls 
under  the  rude  feet  of  these  men  to  be  trampled  on,  and 
then  to  be  turned  on  and  ruined  by  them  by  this  evidence 
of  the  treasure  of  his  feelings,  that  indeed  is  a  hard  fate. 
You  will  see,  gentlemen,  that  if  Mr.  Beecher  is  to  suffer 
imder  the  average  judgiutents  of  men  it  wUl  be  beottttse 


SUMMING    UF  BY  MR,  EVABTS, 


791 


they  do  not  place  tlvemselves  upon  the  level  of  feeling,  o:^ 
discipline  of  mind  and  heart,  of  long,  long  study  of  love 
and  sympatliy  and  charity  as  the  hasis  of  our  religion, 
and  as  the  .  very  hope  and  duty  of  society. 
It  is  because  he  is  tenderer  in  conscience 
to  the  least  touch  of  self-compunction  that 
these  expressions  of  ovei-flowing  reproach,  pity,  and, 
if  you  please,  despair  at  his  inahility  to  repress  mischief 
which  he  has  unconsciously  done,  that  are  taken  up  hy 
other  judgments  and  made  the  measui-e  of  crimes,-  as  if 
they  had  been  uttered  by  hardened  and  wicked  men. 
But  hardened  and  wicked  men  don't  confess  at  all,  and, 
if  they  do  confess,  they  don't  dwell  on.  the  circumstances 
nor  exaggerate  the  fault,  but  yet  exaggeration  is  the 
truth  of  this  and  of  the  other  letters.  It  is  exaggeration 
of  feeling,  and  not  exaggeration  of  fault. 

MR.  BEECHEE  WRITES  AGAIN  m  A  HOPE- 
LESS STRAIN. 

Now,  there  are  two  other  letters  that  con- 
nect themselves.  When  the  movements  were  going  on 
which  ended  in  March  with  getting  the  money,  Mr. 
Beecher  writes  a  very  cheerful  letter,  apparently  to  Mr. 
Moulton  for  the  most  part,  but  it  contains  a  phrase  that 
has  been  thought  to  indicate  something  of  the  nature  of 
conf  ession  of  guilt. 

My  Dear  Priettd  :  I  sent  on  Friday  or  Saturday  the 
portrait  of  Titian  to  the  store  for  you.  I  hope  it  may  suit 
you. 

I  have  been  doing  ten  men's  work  this  Wmter  [this  was 
the  end  of  March] ,  partly  to  make  up  lost  time,  partly 
because  I  live  under  a  cloud,  feeling  every  month  that  I 
may  be  doing  my  last  work,  and  anxious  to  make  the 
most  of  it.  When  Esau  sold  his  birthright,  he  found  "  no 
place  for  repentance,  though  he  sought  it  carefully  with 
tears."  But  I  have  one  abiding  comfort.  I  have  known 
you,  and  found  in  you  one  who  has  given  a  new  meaning 
to  friendship.  As  soon  as  warm  days  come  I  want  you  to 
go  to  Peekskill  with  me. 

I  am  off  in  an  hour  for  Massachusetts,  to  be  gone  all  the 
week. 

I  am  urging  forward  my  second  volume  of  "  lAfe  of 
Christ,"  for  the  night  cometh  when  no  man  can  work  " 
fquottag  the  Scripture  text]. 

With  much  affection  and  admiration,  yours  truly, 

H.  W.  B. 

Xow.  you  will  observe  that  this  is  a  continuance  of  that 
same  feeling,  greatly  modified,  to  be  sure,  and  he  refers 
to  the  selfish  sorrows  of  Esau,  for  they  certainlv  were 
selfish  sorrows,  that  he  had  sold  his  birthright,  and  that 
he  did  not  find,  although  he  sought,  a  place  for  repent- 
ance— or  whatever  it  is — "  a  place  for  repentance,  though 
he  sought  it  carefully  aad  with  tears."  In  other  words, 
"  My  position,  my  fault,  my  misfortune  of  this  character, 
known  to  you,  known  to  me  "  (for  there  is  no  exi^anation 
about  it)  "is  one.  it  seems,  that  I  can't  expect  entire  re- 
lief from.  But  I,  too,  must  expect  to  have  this  sorrow 
attend  me,  and  to  perform  my  labolP  under  it."  But  it  is 
Bonow ;  it  is  not  crioie. 


We  have  afterward  letter  written  in  June.  1872, 
which  has  been  referred  to  but  really  has  no  connection, 
that  I  can  see,  with  this  matter  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Tilton, 
and  it  has  been  very  much  commented  upon.  Now,  it 
seems  that  Mr.  Bo  wen,  as  soon  as  he  had  got  his  "  Tri- 
partite Agreement"  and  unfortunately  had  to  pay  the 
money,  and  got  back  his  Woodstock  letter,  though  he 
seems  to  have  been  playing  the  same  part  that  he  did 
when  he  had  made  a  settlement  once  before  wif  i  Mr. 
Beecher  in  the  beginning  of  1870,  and  then  had  gone 
aroimd  talking  about  how  he  could  blow  the  roof  off  of 
Plymouth  Church  or  something  of  that  kind,  and  drive 
Mr.  Beecher  out  of  Brooklyn.  Mr.  Beecher  writes  to  Mr. 
Moulton  about  Mr.  Bowen  and  about;  his  affairs,  it  seems 
to  me,  entii'ely  : 

On  the  way  to  church  last  evening  I  met  Mr.  Claflin. 
He  says  that  Mr.  Bowen  denies  any  such  treacherous 
whisperings,  and  is  in  a  right  state. 

Moulton,  I  suppose,  had  heard  some  of  Mr.  Bowen's 
treacherous  whisperings,  or  what  is  supposed  to  be  his 
treacherous  whisperings,  and  mentioned  them  to  Mr. 
Beecher : 

I  mentioned  my  proposed  letter.  He  likes  the  idek.  I 
read  him  the  draft  of  it  (in  lecture-room).  He  drew 
back  and  said :  "  Better  send  it."  I  asked  if  B.  had  ever 
made  him  a  statement  of  the  very  bottom  facts  ;  if  there 
were  any  charges  T  did  not  know. 

Well,  now,  this  letter  has  always  been  quoted  as  if  those 
bottom  facts  that  Mr.  Beecher  showed  some  conscious- 
ness of  in  the  first  place  had  to  do  with  the  Tilton  mat- 
ter ;  but  you  see  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  that,  and 
it  was  not  any  bottom  fact  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  any 
consciousness  of,  in  regard  to  the  Bowen  slanders,  or 
their  basis,  that  he  is  talking  about.  "  I  asked  him  if 
Mr.  Bowen  had  ever  made  him  a  statement  of  the  very 
bottom  facts."  This  is  what  Mr.  Bowen  supposed  to  be, 
and  claimed  to  be,  the  bottom  facts,  for  he  repeats  the 
idea  in  this  phrase,  that  explains  it  at  once :  "  If  there 
were  any  charges  I  did  not  know."  Has  Mr.  Bowen 
got  to  the  bottom  of  his  charges  ?  Has  he  told  you  aU 
of  them,  or  are  there  some  that  I  have  not  heard  of  and 
don't  imagine  ?  Is  there  a  depth  in  Mr.  Bowen  which  is 
no  lower  depth  of  slander  and  imputation  1  That  is  the 
point.  Let  us  know  what  it  is,  because  what  is  the  use  of  , 
having  a  tripartite  agreement,  having  to  cover  up  every- 
thing, and  these  careful  words  of  friendship,  of  accord, 
of  withdrawal  of  charges,  and  then  have  Mr.  Bowen 
whispering  around  ?  Is  it  the  same  charges  or  are  there 
some  bottom  facts  in  Mr.  Bowen's  budget  that  nobody  yet 
has  ever  heard  of,  I  don't  yet  understand.  "  He  evaded 
and  intimated  that  if  he  had,  he  hardly  would  be  right  in 
telling  me.  I  think  he  would  be  right  in  telling  you." 
Mr.  Bowen  knew  of  nothing  to  conceal,  that  Is  his  captain 
would  not  be  left  to  tell  these  confidences  of  Mr.  Bowen, 
so  he  says,  "  Go  and  tell  Moulton  I  have  not  sent  any 
note,  and  destroyed  that  prepared."  WeU,  the  rest  does 
ru/.  -leem  to  be  of  any  importance.   This  last  letter  does 


792 


THE    TILION-BBECJIEE  lElAl.. 


not  seem  to  carry  a  date  of  its  own,  but  the  memorandum 
of  its  date  on  which  we  have  proceedt?d  and  noted  on  is 
June,  1872. 

ME.  WILKESON'S  HELPING  HAND. 

I  now  come,  gentlemen,  to  a  position  of  con- 
siderable interest  in  this  case,  though  I  am  quite  sure, 
upon  exploration,  it  will  cease  to  be  of  any  great  impor- 
tance—but of  considerable  interest  in  this  case,  because 
it  introduces  a  year  later  than  the  period  I  have  been 
Just  talking  about— the  situation  in  which  there  comes  to 
be,  for  the  first  time,  an  open  indication  to  Mr.  Tilton 
and  to  Mr.  Moulton  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  not  going  to  be 
kept  under  any  of  those  impositions  of  silence,  if,  as  was 
the  object  of  the  whole,  and  without  which  it  was  wholly 
unprosperous,  the  effect  of  silence  was  not  to  be  accom- 
plished, but  there  was  to  be  a  continual  threat,  or  fear, 
or  need,  of  some  publication  or  other  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Tilton.  I  mean  the  situation  that  showed  itself  about 
the  end  of  May  and  the  beginning  of  June,  1873— a  sit- 
uation important  and  interesting  in  itself,  and  also  made 
somewhat  fresh  by  its  introduction  of  a  new  witness  to 
speak  concerning  it  in  the  person  of  Mrs.  Moulton ; 
for  it  is  wholly  upon  that  point,  and  at  that 
date,  that  Mrs.  Moulton  comes  at  all  into  play. 
Now,  I  must  very  briefly  attract  your  attention,  and, 
perhaps,  with  some  fear  of  obscurity,  if  your  minds  do' 
not  recall  the  situation  as  clearly  as  mine  does,  to  what 
preceded  that  1st  of  June.  On  the  20th  of  May  Mr.  Til- 
ton had  procured,  permitted,  winked  at,  or  seen  the  pub- 
lication of  the  Bowen  letter,  or  The  Golden  Age  slip.  The 
20th  of  April  the  Bowen  letter,  or  Golden  Age  slip,  had 
got  into  print,  and  you  remember  the  testimony  given  by 
Mr.  McKelway  and  Mr.  Harmau  as  to  what  passed  in 
the  way  of  Mr.  Tilton's  intrusting  that  paper  to  their  dis- 
cretion in  some  sort  and  how  finally  it  got  Into  print. 
Then  there  came,  of  course,  from  this  publication  in  the 
papers  of  your  city  of  this  long  budget  of  in- 
famous accusations  against  Mr.  Beecher,  pnt  upon 
Mr.  Bowen  by  ,  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  form  of  a 
letter  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Bowen,  some 
certainly  quite  moderate  but  still  some  considerable  ex- 
citement. Somehow  or  other  Mr.  Bo  wen's  bwdget  of 
accusation  did  not  seem  to  have  attracted  public  confi- 
dence. If  Mr.  Tilton  states  them  correctly  they  are  very 
specific,  they  are  quite  numerous,  they  are  quite  heinous, 
and  they  ought  to  have  some  support  or  else  not  be 
charged.  But,  yet,  his  accusations  seem  readily  to  sink 
of  themselves,  and  don't  disturb  people's  confidence  or 
set  their  tongues  even  much  agoing.  But  there  it  was. 
Then,  in  the  end  of  May  following,  May  30,  Mr.  Wilke- 
son— a  pretty  intelligent  man,  one  of  the  most  benevolent 
men  that  Dr.  Nott  ever  educated,  and  one  of  the  most 
prominent  of  lawyers  and  of  public  men  if  he  hadn't  had 
the  misfortune  to  have  had  property — Mr.  Wilkeson  has 
learned  even  to    mark   the    course  of  a  serpent  on 


the  rock,  and  he  sees  in  this  trait  of  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr. 
Tilton  the  purpose  to  make  public,  while  they  are  shut- 
ting Mr.  Beecher's  mouth  under  obligations  of  privacy  in 
their  interests,  and  he  publishes  the  "  Tripartite  Agree- 
ment." Then,  what  does  Mr.  Tilton  do  i  He  was  quite 
easy  about  his  Golden  Age  slip  getting  published, 
although  he  had  used  it  to  get  the  $7,000,  and  it  was 
supposed  that  the  copy  in  the  custody  of  Mr.  Olaflin  was 
the  only  copy  preserved.  However,  that  didn't  disturb 
him ;  he  didn't  think  there  was  any  reason  for  trouble 
about  that;  but  when  the  "Tripartite  Agreement,"  to 
which  Mr.  Tilton  was  a  party,  was  published,  and  the 
newspapers  dared  to  comment  upon  him,  Tilton  (and  I 
would  like  to  know  who  they  don't  dare  to  comment  on), 
then  it  was  scandalum  magnatum,  a  thing  not  to  be  en- 
dured. The  safety  of  society  didn't  permit  that.  He 
could  not  bear  a  newspaper  paragraph  in  The  Express 
newspaper  about  him.  It  touched  his  honor.  There 
must  be  an  instant  refutation  of  this  idea  that  Mr.  Tilton 
had  received  any  favor  or  consideration  from  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  it  occurred  to  his  ingenious  mind  that  the 
best  way  to  heal  that  publication,  would  be  to  publish 
what  is  called  Mr.  Beecher's  "  Letter  of  Contrition"  or 
his  "  Apology,"  that  that,  would  be  an  admir  able  mode  of 
making  a  clear  statement  to  the  public.  If  there  was 
one  paper  that  could  do  that  it  would  be  this  Moulton 
memorandum  of  Mr.  Beecher's  conversation  on  Sunday, 
and  that  that  would  be  an  excellent  thing,  and  he  pre- 
pared a  card  on  the  31st,  and  had  the  effront- 
ery to  propose  it  to  Mr.  Beecher—"  I  am  going 
to  put  that  in  The  Eagle  this  afternoon."  What 
had  become  of  his  anxieties  about  his  wife  and 
children,  of  his  solicitude  lest  instantly  out  of  the  Bowen 
matter  there  might  arise  a  careless  introduction  of  the 
Tilton-Beecher  business  ?  It  was  all  Bowen  so  far,  was 
it  not  %  It  was  all  his  letter  to  Mr.  Bowen  that  had 
started  the  trouble,  and  that  was  about  the  Bowen 
budget,  and  the  "  Tripartite  Agreement  "  had  been  pub- 
lished to  meet  that,  and  there  was  not  any  imputation  of 
Mr.  Tilton  in  that  publication  at  all,  and  yet  he  says, 
"  My  answer  to  this  will  be  the  publication  of  that 
paper ;  "  and  then  Mr.  Beecher  says,  "  If  you  publish 
that,  that  is  what  I  am  going  to  publish.  I 
have  held  for  two  years  a  position  of  silence 
on  the  matter  of  this  calumny,  to  protect  the 
fair  fame  of  a  family.  I  now  resign  my  position  of 
pastor  of  Plymouth  Church  and  I  will  meet  it,"  and  Mr. 
Moulton  hurries  down  stairs  when  Mr.  Beecher  showa 
him  that  and  says,  "Why,  Mr.  Beecher  is  going  to  answer 
your  slanders,  your  seizure  of  confidence  and  betrayal  of 
it  in  this  paper  in  my  hands,  that  you  have  had  so  far  aa 
I  was  concerned,  the  means  of  publishing,  and  that  you 
are  going  to  publish ;  that  is  the  way  he  is  going  to 
answer  you.  The  game  is  up.  The  truth  must  come 
out.  Your  misfortunes,  your  troubles  will  be  re- 
duced   to    their  true    dimensions,  and  you  cannot 


SDMin^G    UF  1 

make  »  bullet-mold  of  your  mouth  any  longer  to 
make  weapons  to  assault  Mr.  Beecher.  All  mys- 
tery will  disappear.  Ttie  tenderness  of  Ws  heart, 
the  tenderness  of  his  conscience,  his  immeasured  self- 
reproach  will  he  shown  to  have  related  to  what  we  all 
know  it  relates  to,  and  no  longer  he  capable  of  being 
fashioned  into  deadly  weapons  of  destruction  at  your 
will.  "  Well,"  says  Mr.  Tilton,  "  I  won't  publish,"  and  he 
didn't  publish,  and  that  was  the  end  of  that.  That  threat 
came  to  an  end.  He  would  shoot  Mr.  Beecher  in  the 
street.  That  didn't  stop  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr.  Tilton  was 
the  man  that  stopped. 
The  Court  here  adjourned  until  2  o'clock. 

ME.  BEECHER'S  SPIRIT  AROUSJTD. 
The  Court  met  at  2  o'clock,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now,  gentlemen,  on  Saturday  night,  the 
3l8t  of  May,  M:r.  Beecher  having  confronted  the  situa- 
tion which  Mr.  Tilton  said  was  to  be  secured  by  his  print- 
ing something,  and  having  drawn  out  the  strange  threat 
that  if  he,  ]Mr.  Beecher,  published  anything  that  indicated 
that  the  policy  of  silence  had  grown  out  of  regard  for 
others  and  was  now  ended,  and  the  proposition  to  the 
public  of  Mr.  Beecher,  "  Now,  I  am  a  man,  free  of  all  in- 
terests so  dear  to  me,  so  dear  to  society,  so  dear  to  the 
world,"  Mr.  Tilton  at  once  saw  that  there  was  fiot  any 
necessity  for  his  publishmg  anything,  and  said,  if 
Mr.  Beecher  would  publish  something  that  would 
be  enough ;  and  the  miuimum  of  it  was  that, 
if  he  would  publish  something  that  would 
put  a  correct  and  truthful  view  upon  the  matter,  that  Mr. 
Tilton  was  not  to  be  regarded  in  the  matter  of  these 
slanders  that  had  now  become  published,  and  of  the  con- 
cession and  settlement  of  them  of  the  "  Tripartite  Agree- 
ment," as  necessarily  the  person  that  had  done  an  injury 
and  been  forgiven,  and  have  the  thing  rightly  put,  why 
Mr.  Moulton  thought  that  would  do.  But,  that  was  not 
settled  Sunday  night ;  and  finally  the  adjustment  of  the 
publication  on  the  forenoon  of  Monday,  the  2d  of  June  ; 
and  on  that  Sunday  there  passed  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Beec^ier  to  Mr.  Moulton,  and  a  reply  from  Mr.  Moulton, 
both  letters  undoubtedly  of  very  great  significance,  and 
they  follow  after  the  parting  on  Saturday  night  in  which 
Mr.  Beecher  had  said,  "  I  am  going  to  meet  this  matter  in 
this  way,"  and  the  interview  of  conatei^nation  between 
Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  from  that  announcement. 
Consternation,  I  say,  because  it  was  a  termination  of  this 
unilateral  policy  of  silence,  a  putting  of  an  end  to  a 
secret  and  malicious  circulation  of  slanders,  while  an 
honorable  and  upright  man's  mouth  was  closed  even 
against  confidence  with  anybody  else  but  themselves; 
and  Mr.  Beecher  writes  this  letter,  in  regard  to  which— 
although  I  understand  from  public  comments,  and  it  may 
be  expected  that  it  will  still  be  insisted  upon— may  be 
still  insisted  upon  before  you,  that  it  is  a  letter  carrying 


F  ME.    EVAETS.  793 

some  evidence  of  guilt— a  letter  which,  with  the  answer 
of  Mr.  Moulton  to  it,  written  then  immediately  and  sent, 
utterly  precludes  any  idea  that  there  was  in  the  common 
consciousness  of  those  two  men~Moulton  and  Beecher— 
any  other  state  of  facts,  any  other  situation  or 
occasion  of  chagrin,  mortification,  self-reproach  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher,  than  what,  in  every 
man's  mind  that  is  worthy  to  be  called  a  man, 
would  arise  upon  the  situation  and  the  truth 
as  Mr.  Beecher  then  conceived  it  to  be,  and  as  he  has  re- 
presented to  you  that  he  then  conceived  it  to  be.  Accept 
the  situation  of  Mr.  Beecher's  sentiments  concerning  his 
responsibility,  his  association,  his  share  in  the  troubles 
and  misfortunes  of  this  family,  and  all  you  need  is  to  give 
him  credit  for  being  a  gentleman,  a  man  of  honor,  a 
Christian,  and  affected  with  right  sentiments  as  to  his 
high  calling,  his  great  responsibility  for  the  mainteniSnce 
of  a  proper  relation  in  the  families  of  his  parish,  and  of 
himself  in  particular  in  his  special  attitude  toward  Mi*. 
Tilton,  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  their  family— all  you  need  is  to 
concede  the  one  situation  of  facts  as  Mr.  Beecher  then 
conceived  them,  and  to  concede  right  feeling,  proper 
character,  just  sentiments  of  a  man  of  honor  and  of  pure 
life,  and  you  fill  out  every  word  in  these  letters  with 
—I  will  not  say  a  justification  of  them,  but  with  an 
appreciative  applause  of  them  as  suitable  to  the  situation 
as  he  admits  it,  and  to  the  sentiments  that  he  ought  to 
have  felt.  I  have  always  wanted  to  have  Mr.  Beecher 
tried  outside  of  any  special  circumstance  of  his  position. 
I  have  desired  to  strip  him  as  a  defendant  from  any 
other  attitude  for  your  construction  than  what  belongs 
to  him  as  a  man,  standing  on  the  same  level  with  all  of 
us ;  but  by  saying  that,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  he 
should  be  judged  as  a  brute,  as  a  profligate,  as  a  selfish, 
sordid  character  that  cares  nothing  for  anybody  )ut 
liliuself  ;  I  mean  that  he  shall  be  judi^cd  as  .i  ui<ui,  ^vlrli 
the  culture  and  moral  sentiments,  the  experience  of  life, 
the  tenderness  for  others,  and  the  appreciation  of  the 
terrible  consequences  that  have  fallen  upon  that  family, 
and  for  which  he  was  to  blame,  and  of  the  more  terrible 
consequences  that  were  to  diffuse  themselves,  eating 
ever  deeper  and  deeper  into  the  heart  of  that  family,  and 
eating  also  into  the  heart  of  society,  if  publication  and 
promulgation  should  necessarily  be  brought  about.  Now, 
after  parting  on  Saturday  night,  Mr.  Beecher  originates 
this  letter ;  and  do  you  think  that  a  man  that  was  going 
to  dare  the  conflict,  and  have  the  dimensions  of  his  guilt 
known  and  ascertained,  and  that  chose  that  as  an  alterna- 
tive to  having  this  constant  picking  at  him,  this  constant 
oppression  about  him— do  you  think  that  he  on  that 
Sunday  morning  would  write  a  fresh  evidence  of  guilt,  in 
order  that  it  might  be  measured  against  him  as  the  guilt 
of  seduction  and  adviltery  ?  Do  you  think  a  man  would 
do  that  ?  And  yet  it  is  supposed  that  a  letter  written  that 
Sunday  morning  to  Mr.  Moulton  after  the  parting  Satur- 
day night,  which  had  defied,  them,  and  said,  "I  will 


794 


lEE  TILlON-BERCHJbJB  TRIAL, 


meet  it,"  that  tlicn  lie  set^  down  against  Mmselt  eyidence 
of  guilt.  Well,  tnere  is  n't  anything  said  in  any  of  these 
letters  al»out  guilt,  taut  they  say  that  in  setting  down  evi- 
dence of  your  appreciation  of  your  fault  you  have  set 
down  evidence  that  the  common  judgments  of  men  must 
estimate  as  an  appreciation  of  yoiu-  guilt  in  the  coarse 
and  heinous  form;  and  that  is  the  whole  argument. 
Ifow,  listen  to  the  letter.  Rememtaer  the  attitude  In 
which  the  parties  stood  when  they  parted  the  night 
before. 

Mt  Dear  Frank:  The  whole  earth  is  tranquil  and  the 
heaven  is  serene,  as  taellts  one  who  has  about  finished  his 
world-life.  I  could  do  nothing  on  Satirrday — ^my  head 
was  confused,  T3ut  a  good  sleep  has  made  it  like  crystal. 
I  have  determined  to  make  no  more  resistance.  Theo- 
dore's temperament  is  such  that  the  future,  even  if  tem- 
porarily earned,  would  be  absolutely  •  worthless,  filled 
with  abrupt  changes,  and  rendering  me  liable  at  any  hour 
or  day  to  be  obliged  to  stultify  all  the  deyices  by  which 
we  have  saved  ourselves. 

In  other  words,  "  I  am  going  to  have  this  matter  now 
brought  to  the  test.  I  deplore,  I  lament,  I  reproach  my- 
self to  the  quick  for  the  mischief  and  the  misfortune  that 
have  sprung  out  of  my  relations  to  this  family.  I  have, 
under  this  policy  of  silence,  submitted  to  what  I  regard- 
ed for  their  good,  and  for  the  good  of  everybody.  I  will 
persist  in  it  no  longer.  Whatever  injury,  whatever  pun- 
ishment comes  from  a  just  knowledge  of  what  I  am  re- 
sponsible for,  might  as  well  now  be  met  as  at  any  time. 
All  the  ideas  that  Mr.  Tilton  has  an  honest  purpose  of 
shielding  his  wife,  his  family,  and  preserving  from  the 
mischiefs  of  public  scandal  interests  so  dear  to  him,  how- 
ever there  may  be  a  temporary  feeling  in  his  mind,  are 
utterly  untrustworthy.  There  can  be,  there  is  no  assur- 
ance that  after  every  sacrifice  that  we  make,  intolerable 
to  feeling,  intolerable  to  pride,  and  accomplishing  noth- 
ing, we  are  not  every  moment  exposed  to  having  the 
game  caprice  of  his  involve  not  only  the  erplosion  of  the 
guilt  or  injury,  or  fault  or  injury— whatever  you  chose  to 
call  it— but  of  the  frustration  of  all  the  efforts  that  have 
been  made  m  this  supposed  great  interest,  an  interest,  I 
believe,  perfectly  honest  which  every  man  will  feel, 
which  no  man  will  be  reproached  for  feeling ;  and  all 
this  interest,  and  everj'thing,  will  be  at  an  end." 

It  is  only  fair  that  he  should  know  that  the  publication 
of  the  card  which  he  proposes  would  leave  him  far  worse 
off  than  before. 

That  is  the  card  that  contained  the  apology,  and  of 
course  set  everybody  to  talking  about  what  it  was  an 
apology  for. 

The  agreement  [that  is  the  tripartite  agreement]  was 
made  after  my  letter  through  you  was  written.  He  had 
had  it  a  year. 

That  is,  the  letter  he  was  going  to  publish ;  that  is  the 
memorandum,  whatever  you  choose  to  call  it ;  it  is  the 
Sunday  previous. 

He  had  condoned  his  wife's  fault.  He  had  enjoined 
upon  me  with  the  utmost  eai-neetness  and  solemnity  not 


to  betray  his  wife  or  leave  his  chijciren  to  a  blight.  I  had 
honestly  and  earnestly  joined  in  the  purpose. 

Now,  that  lays  the  situation  distinctly  before  you.  The 
fault  of  his  wife  he  had  passed  over.  Everything  had 
been  reconciled.  These  interviews  had  taken  place,  in 
which  there  was  a  restoration  "  of  the  relations  between 
me  and  his  wife  and  himself."  All  that  had  been  done, 
and  then  when  he  sees  in  print,  as  the  letter  proceeds  to 
say,  a  statement  or  publication  of  what  he  had  done  hlm- 
sell,  he  is  irritated,  offended,  and  inflamed  into  some  re- 
sponsibility to  the  natural  and  necessary  construction  of 
the  situation. 

Then  this  settlement  was  made  and  signed  by  him.  It 
was  not  my  making. 

And  you  will  observe  in  all  that  "  Tripartite  Agree- 
ment "  there  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  least  desire, 
or  activity,  or  spontaneous  movement  of  Mr.  Beecher  to- 
ward it ;  and  he  tells  Mr.  Moulton  here  : 

This  settlement  was  made  and  signed  by  him.  [That 
is  the  '•  Tripartite  Agreement.]  It  was  not  my  making. 
He  revised  his  part  so  it  should  wholly  suit  him,  and 
signed  it.  It  stood  unquestioned  and  unblamed  for  more 
than  a  year.  Then  it  was  published.  Nothing  but  that. 
That  which  he  did  in  private  when  made  public  excited 
him  to  fury,  and  he  charges  me  with  making  him  appear 
as  one  graciously  pardoned  by  me  I  It  was  his  own  de- 
liberate act,  with  which  he  was  perfectly  content  tiU 
others  saw  it,  and  then  he  charges  a  grievous  wrong  home 
on  me  I 

And  you  see  that  that  is  a  just  description  of  the  situa- 
tion given  by  Mr.  Beecher ;  this  irritable  man,  who  in  hia 
own  mind  is  always  the  subject  of  the  gaze  of  the  world, 
and  yet  he  has  not  become  accustomed  to  it.  One  v^ould 
suppose  that  imder  this  eternal  sunshine  he  might  have 
been  tanned  and  toughened  a  little,  but  he  has  not 
Touch  his  egotism,  touch  his  pride  and  pomp  before  the 
world,  and  he  feels  a  blow  at  his  heart,  but  debauoh  liiB 
wife  and  he  can  bear  it  with  the  utmost  patience. 

My  mind  is  clear.  I  am  not  in  haste.  I  shall  write  for 
the  public  a  statement  that  will  bear  the  Ught  of  the 
Judgment  Day.  God  will  take  care  of  me  and  mine. 
When  I  look  on  earth  it  is  a  deep  night.  When  I  look  to 
the  heavens  above  I  see  the  morning  breaking.  But,  ohl 
that  I  could  put  in  golden  letters  my  deep  sense  of  your 
faithful,  earnest,  undying  fidelity,  your  disinterested 
friendship.  Your  noble  wife,  too,  has  been  to  me  one  of 
God's  comforters.  It  is  such  as  she  that  renews  a  waning 
faith  in  womanhood.  Now,  Frank,  I  would  not  have  you 
waste  any  more  energy  on  a  hopeless  task.  With  such  a 
man  as  T.  T.  there  is  no  possible  salvation  fbr  any  that 
depend  upon  him.  With  a  strong  nature,  he  does  not 
know  how  to  govern  it.  With  generous  impulses,  the 
undercurrent  that  rules  him  is  self.  With  ardent  affec- 
tions, he  cannot  love  long  that  which  does  not  repay  him 
with  admiration  and  praise.  With  a  strong  theatric  na- 
ture, he  is  constantly  imposed  upon  with  the  idea  that  a 
position,  a  great  stroke,  a  coup  d'etat  is  the  way  to  suc- 
cess. 

Besides  these,  he  has  a  hundred  good  things  about  him, 
but  these  named  traits  make  him  absolutely  unreliable. 

Therefore,  there  is  no  use  in  further  trying,  I  have  a 
strong  feeling  upon  me,  and  it  brings  great  jteace  with  it 


SUMMISG    UP  1 

ttat I  am  spending:  my  1-ast  Sunday  and  preaching  my 
last  sermon. 

Dear,  good  God,  I  Tlian]i  thee  that  I  am  indeed  begta- 
ning  to  see  rest  and  triumph. 

Does  a  seducer  and  an  adulterer  feel  thus  at  the  ap- 
proach  of  death  ? 

The  pain  of  life  is  hut  a  moment ;  the  glory  of  everlast- 
ing emancipation  is  wordless,  ineoneeiYahle,  full  of  heck- 
oning  glory. 

Xow,  gentlemen,  what  do  you  find  of  guilt  in  that 
letter  1  He  was  going  to  \mte  a  statement  that  would 
bear  the  scrutiny  of  the  Judgment  Day.  When  they  had 
declared  their  purpose  to  put  biTn  to  the  trial  of  this 
grave  charge  of  adultery  and  seduction,  fixst  brought  up 
in  1874,  he  was  equally  undismayed-  He  said,  "  I  will 
write  a  statement  that  will  bear  the  light  of  the  Judg- 
ment Day.  I  will  declare  all  tilings  as  my  conscience 
affects  me  with  responsibility,  and  as  my  heart  feels  that 
It  should  bear  the  pangs  of  my  wrong,  of  my  fault." 

ME.   MOULTOX'S    CONFIDEXCE    IN  ME. 
BEECHEE-'S  CASE. 

And.  -^liat  did  Moulton  say  to  him,  wiiting 
him  bact  after  getting  that  letter.  "  My  Dear  Friend," 
he  starts  off  and  then  crosses  it  out. 

My  DeaPw  FEIE^-D :  You  know  I  hare  never  been  in 
sympathy  with  the  mood  out  of  which  you  have  oft^n 
spoken  as  you  have  written  this  morning. 

So  there  was  nothing  new  there ;  it  was  mood,  it  was 
the  oppression  on  Ms  feelings  and  the  determination 
that  what  was  so  contrary  to  his  nature  as  concealment 
should  be  ended,  and  the  truth  should  be  known. 

"  If  the  truth  must  be  spoken,"  Moulton  says,  "  let  it 
b£.  I  know  you  can  stand  if  the  whole  case  was  pub- 
lished to-morrow." 

Well,  now,  did  anybody  in  his  senses  suppose  that  in 
this  community  of  ours,  in  this  Christian  chm  ch  of  any 
denomination,  from  the  great  mother  Chuach  of  aU, 
through  all  the  dissensions  and  di'^lsions.  that  it  could  be 
said  that  if  the  whole  truth  were  published,  as  it  is 
claimed  the  ti-uth  is  and  has  been  proved,  and  as  your 
verdict  is  a>ke<l  fur  liy  this  plaintiff  to  make  it,  and  asked 
for  on  the  evidence  of  this  Moulton  that  wrote  that  let- 
ter—is there  a  man  in  his  senses  that  thinks  a  man  can 
et^'.nd  and  hold  up  his  head  in  the  streets  of  Brooklyn,  in 
the  Church  of  God,  in  Christendom,  even  among  those  of 
lower  estimates  of  manliness  and  honor,  if  the  truth  was 
seduction  and  adultery  ?  That  is  an  accusation,  then,  of 
our  boasted  society,  or  else  it  is  a  simple  sta  .>-menti  of 
the  fact. 

I  know  that  if  this  matter  is  brought  our  we  all 
know  the  facts  are,  you  can  stand  it,  and  stand  ro-mor- 
Tow  as  you  stand  to-day. 

But  he  says  : 

You  can  stand  if  the  whole  case  was  iMi'tlished  to- 
morrow, and  in  my  opinion  it  shows  a  selrisii  faith  in 
God  to — [and  then  he  stops  and  he  begins  .i^ain.]  My 
Dear  Fiiend :  Your  letter  makes  this  fir  st  Sabbath 
of  Summer  dark  and  cold  like  a  ^ault. 


>'r  MR.   EYAEIS.  795 

He  has  a  little  rhetoric  inst-ead  of  starting  right  off  at 
the  substance  of  the  thing  : 

You  have  never  inspired  me  with  courage  or  hope,  and 
if  I  had  listened  to  you  alone  my  hands  would  have 
dropped  helpless  long  ago. 

Yes,  they  would  have  dropped  helpless  long  ago  if  Mr. 
Beecher's  wishes,  il  his  desires,  if  his  conceptions  of  deal- 
tug  with  this  matter  had  been  adopted.  Moulton's  hands 
would  have  dropped  helpless  long  ago,  and  tliey  never 
would  have  got  into  Mr.  Beecher's  pockets.  [La  ighter.] 
Ah,  what  a  wretched  exhibition  and  play  upon  the  great 
heart  and  the  noble  nature  of  an  honest  man  I  And  ho-w 
there  is  disclosed  here  that  there  has  been  no  policy  of 
sUence,  and  no  disposition  to  cover  things  on  Mr.  Beech- 
er's part.  It  was  the  keeping  open  of  slander  and  the 
indefiniteness  of  imputation  that  kept  aUve  the  machme- 
ry  of  silence  accompanied  with  the  enginery  of  tale- 
bearing. 

You  do  not  begin,  to  be  in  the  danger  to-day  that  has 
faced  you  manj-  times  before. 

WeU,  I  think  that  ZMr.  Beecher  was  clearly  in  a  shape 
then  of  getting  out  of  aU  danger. 

If  you  only  look  it  square  in  the  eyes  It  will  cower  and 
slink  away  again. 

The  danger  was  that  TUton  was  going  to  publish  a 
card.  He  did  look  it  square  in  the  eyes  and  said  to  Mr. 
TUton :  "  Publish,  publish  ;  and  then  we  will  have  the 
whole  matter  published,  and  we  will  have  your  false  ac- 
cusation, and  the  dilapidated  morality  which  you  have 
infiLsed  into  your  family."  "  Look  it  square  in  the  eyes  ; 
it  will  cower  and  slink  away  again."  He  had  looked  it 
square  in  the  eyes  the  night  before  and  it  had  cowered 
and  slunk  away,  and  this  was  Moulton's  mode  of  telling 
him  thaf  fact  : 

You  know  that  I  have  never  been  in  sympathy  wT.th, 
Init  that  I  absolutely  abhor  the  unmanly  mood  out  of 
which  yoiir  letter  of  this  morning  came. 

Was  it  an  unmanly  mood  to  say  he  was  going  to  pub- 
lish the  whole  truth,  to  say  that  the  anguish  it  would  in- 
-  flict  upon  himself  and  upon  others  he  was  going  to  bear, 
and  that  he  was  going  to  appear  at  the  judgment  seat 
with  rest  and  triumph  ?  Does  that  mean  suicide  ?  Is 
that  the  way  a  man  affronts  by  taking  his  exit  from  the 
world  in  defiance  of  the  wiU  of  God  I  Ah,  no.  But  the 
mood  was  this,  this  oppression,  this  disaster,  this  peace, 
is  the  passing  away  of  earth  and  the  final  rest  of  heaven. 

This  mood  is  a  reservoir  of  mildew.  You  can 
stand  if  the  icTioU  case  were  published  to-morrow. 

"  Whole  case "  underscored  by  Moulton.  Yes;  that  ia 
exactly  what  Mr.  Beecher  was  going  to  stand.  Tilton 
wanted  to  publish  a  piece-meal  paper  for  insinuation  and 
for  comment ;  and  Beecher's  remedy  was  the  whole  case. 

In  my  opinion,  it  shows  only  a  selfish  faith  in  God  to  go 
whining  into  Heaven  if  you  could,  with  the  truth  that 
you  are  not  courageous  enough  with  God's  help  and  faith 
in  God  to  try  to  live  on  eai-th. 

"Live  on  earth,"  is  it?  "Truth"— well,  "with  the 
truth  that  you  are  not  courageous  enough  to  try  to  liv* 


796 


TaE    TILTO^-BEECHEB  TRIAL. 


on  earth  !"  Well,  tliat  is  bad  rlietoric  ;  but  still,  it  lias 
some  meaning,  doubtless. 

You  know  that  I  love  you ;  and  because  I  do  I  shall  try, 
and  try,  and  try,  as  in  the  past.  You  are  mistaken  when 
you  say  that  Theodore  charges  you  as  making  him  appear 
as  one  graciously  pardoned  by  you.  He  said  that  the 
form  in  which  it  was  published  in  some  of  the  papers 
made  it  so  appear,  and  it  was  fi'om  this  that  he  asked  re- 
lief. 

Just  as  it  was  about  the  Bacon  letter,  that  the  comments 
that  the  papers  made  touched  this  thin-skinned  man  so 
that  the  man  ruined  his  wife  and  family. 

I  don't  think  it  impossible  to  frame  a  letter  which  will 
cover  the  case.  May  God  bless  you ;  I  know  he  will  pro- 
tect you. 

ME.  BEECHER'S  LETTER  TO  THE  EDITOR  OF 
THE  EAGLE. 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  if  anybody  can  find 
evidence  of  a  guilty  appreciation  of  the  relation  of  Mr. 
Beecher  and  the  family  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  any  other  sense 
than  that  which  Mr.  Beecher  has  always  admitted  on  the 

stand  in  his  statements  to  the  jury  and  otherwise  . 

Let  us  see— Mr.  Beecher  made  no  answer  to  this  letter  of 
Moulton— he  left  the  thing  for  them  to  settle ;  and  the 
-way  that  that  night— Sunday  night— they  proposed  to  set- 
tle it  by  a  card  suggested,  which  Mr.  Beecher  took 
home  with  him  that  night,  and  which,  with  such  altera- 
tions as  he  made  in  consultation  with  Mr.  Kinsella  the 
next  forenoon  or  Monday,  was  actually  published.  I 
^ve  you  now  the  publication  on  Mr.  Beecher's  part  that 
took  the  place  of  the  necessity  of  Mr.  Tilton's  publication 
when  Mr.  Tilton  found  that  that  was  to  put  an  end  to  the 
property  he  had  in  unmeasured  and  undefined  imputa- 
tion with  the  public.  "  Dear  Kinsella  "  [this  is  proposed 
for  Mr.  Beecher] :  * 

I  have  maintained  sUence  under  the  continual  slanders 
that  have  for  some  time  followed  me.  I  do  not  now  pro- 
pose to  defend  myself.  The  recent  publication  of  a  doc- 
ument which  bears  my  name  among  others  was  made 
without  consultation  with  either  Theodore  Tilton  or  my- 
self or  our  authorization.  If  that  document  should  lead 
the  public  to  regard  Mr.  Tilton  as  the  author  of  the  cal- 
umnies to  which  it  alhidedv  or  any  other  slander  against 
me,  it  will  do  him  great  uajustice.  Mr.  Tilton's  course 
toward  me  has  been  that  of  a  man  of  honor  and  in- 
tegrity. 

Mr.  Abbott— That  is  Mr.  Tilton's  proposed  card. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  said  so  ;  that  is  what  he  proposed,  and 
you  will  see  whenever  Mr.  Tiltou  proposes  anything, 
either  beginning,  middle,  or  end,  there  will  be  some  cer- 
tificate to  his  honor.  [Laughter.]  Mr.  Beecher  did  n't 
publish  any  such  card.  And  now  I  read  you  from  the 
newspaper  in  evidence  what  he  did  publish.  It  is  in  the 
body  of  an  editorial  in  the  morning  edition,  printed  at 
12  o'clock — 1  o'clock — of  The  Broolzlipi  Eagle. 

Mr.  Morris— Two  o'clock. 

Mr.  Evarts— Printed  at  2  o'clock— that  is,  published  at 
2  o'clock  ;  issued  at  2. 
Mr.  Abbott— Yea, 


Mr.  Evarts— Issued  at  2  o'clock ;  but  th«  editorials,  &c., 
are  written  and  set  up  in  good  season  for  the  inside  page. 

In  a  recent  interview  between  the  editor  of  The  Eagle 
and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Beecher,  the  latter  gentleman  took 
occasion  to  regret,  etc.  In  vindication  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and 
in  confirmation  of  our  statement  of  Mr.  Beecher's  views, 
we  publish  the  following  note,  received  this  morning, 
from  the  pastor  of  Plymouth  Church:  "I  have  main- 
tained silence  respecting  the  slanders  which  have  for 
some  time  past  followed  me." 

He  takes  the  first  sentence  Mr.  Tilton  had  proposed 
to  him  to  say,  "  I  do  not  now  propose  to  defend  myself." 
That  Mr.  Beecher  does  not  say.  He  omits  it ;  he  sub- 
stitutes : 

I  should  not  speak  now  but  for  the  sake  of  relieving 
another  of  unjust  imputation.  The  document  which  was 
recently  published,  bearing  my  name,  with  others,  was 
published  without  consultation  either  with  me,  or  with 
Mr.  Tilton,  nor  with  any  authorization  from  us. 

That  is  a  simple  statement  in  fact,  and  follows  in  sub- 
stance, though  not  in  actual  words,  what  is  contained  in 
the  proposed  card. 

If  that  document  should  lead  the  public  to  regard  Mr. 
Tilton  as  the  author  of  the  calumnies  to  which  it  alludes 
it  wiU  do  him  great  injustice. 

But  Mr.  Tilton  had  proposed  that  he  should  say  : 

If  that  document  should  lead  the  public  to  regard  Mr. 
Tilton  as  the  author  of  the  calumnies  to  which  it  alludes, 
or  any  other  slander  against  me  " 

—and  that,  "  or  any  other  slander  against  me,"  Mr, 
Beecher  does  not  certify  to.  He  says,  "  If  reading  that 
*  Tripartite  Agreement '  makes  you  think  that  Tilton  is 
the  author  of  Bowen's  slanders  against  me  it  will  do  him 
great  injustice."  But  Tilton  wanted  a  certificate  from 
Mr.  Beecher  that  he,  Tilton,  had  not  uttered  any  other 
slanders  against  him,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher  refuses. 

I  am  unwilliug  that  he  should  even  seem  to  be  respon- 
sible for  injurious  statements  whose  force  was  derived 
wholly  from  others. 

That  is,  that  he  should  be  held  responsible  for  tha 
Bowen  slanders.  And  Mr.  Beecher  omitted  this  certifi- 
cate : 

Mr.  Tilton's  course  toward  me  has  been  that  of  a  man 
of  honor  and  integrity. 

And  yet  Mr.  TUton  had  to  be  satisfied,  because  he  had 
to  take  that  alternative  or  the  alternative  of  the  ex- 
posure of  the  whole  situation  and  of  his  complicity  in  the 
movements  and  operations,  which  to  be  sure  Mr.  Beecher 
knew  but.little  of,  but  which  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton 
knew  'a  great  deal  of,  and  knew  that  au  investigation 
such  as  we  have  had  here  would  expose. 


MR.  BEECHER'S  STATEMENT  TO  THE  COM- 
MITTEE. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  will  read  you  the  state- 
ment that  Mr.  Beecher  solemnly  described  then  in  June, 
187.J,  as  to  be  iirepared  by  him,  and  then  in  July,  1874,  as 
to  be  prepared  by  him  that  would  bear  the  light 
of  the  Judgment  Day,  and  which,  because  air.  BeeoUer 


suuAiiya  UP  by  me,  evarts. 


797 


refused  all  efforts  in  1874  to  have  any  further  ^^uppres- 
sion  against  an  absolute  investigation  and  publication,  he 
did  pr«ipare.  And  you,  gentlemen,  are  to  judge  upon  the 
evidence  of  this  cause  whether  this  is  not  such  a  state- 
ment as  will  bear  the  Judgment  Day  and  scrutiny  of  the 
All-Seeing  God,  if  it  is  not  a  statement  that  would  bear 
to  be  the  confession  in  the  closet.  And  having  heard  it, 
you  wiU  then  determine  whether  you  have  any  difficulty 
in  assigning  to  these  various  letters  of  Mr.  Beecher  that 
are  introduced  as  evidences  of  guilt  any  other  possible 
meaning  than  the  overflow  of  his  feelings  at  finding  him- 
self responsible  to  the  degree  of  responsibility  that  he  ex- 
presses in  this  statement  for  the  Judgment  Day. 

WEDifESDAY,  July  15, 1874. 
Deab  Beethken  :  When  at  length  the  time  came  that 
I  could  break  the  long  silence  of  four  years,  I  thought  it 
proper,  and  in  accordance  with  all  the  principles  which 
Plymouth  Church  has  defended,  that  I  should  speak  to 
you,  and  through  you  to  the  Church,  the  only  ecclesias- 
tical tribunal  whose  authority  I  recognize  as  binding 
upon  me.  I  asked  the  appointment  of  a  large  committee 
of  able  and  impartial  men,  because  though  my  own 
statement  was  to  be  in  my  judgment  the  chief  element, 
yet  there  were  many  incidental  and  collateral  questions 
which  I  desired  to  have  investigated  and  fijially  deter- 
mined. I  do  not  propose  to  enter  upon  the  details  of  a 
history  running  through  four  years.  I  shall  state  the 
facts  which  concern  the  original  troubles,  and  leave  alone 
the  tangled  seciuences. 

You  may  remember  that  the  Committee  had  asked 
from  the  clergyman,  as  a  preliminary  basis  of  their 
Inquiries  into  the  tangled  sequences,  or  whatever  else 
might  be  forced  upon  their  notice,  a  statement  from  him 
upon  the  simple  point  of  what  in  truth  and  in  fact  were 
the  relations  between  him  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  this  paper 
is  confined  to  that. 

My  acquaintance  with  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Tilton  dates 
!    from  her  childhood ;   my  intimacy  in  her  family  froni 
i    about  1862-3.   Her  nature  was  strongly  devotional.  She 
I   had  a  genius  of  religious  sentiment.   Had  she  lived  m 
j   other  days,  and  in  the  Catholic  Church,  she  has  always 
[    seemed  to  me  to   be  one  of  those  who  would  have 
'   inspirations  and  ecstatic  visions.   My  interest  in  her 
increased  and  she  deserved  the  respectful  afi'ection  which 
she  won  from  me.   I  loved  her  as  one  would  his  own 
chUd.  She  had  grown  up  under  my  teaching,  she  had 
never  known  any  other  religious  teacher,  and  she  had 
associated  with  my  name,  and  iUumined  it  by  her  imag- 
ination, whatever  was  worthy  of  affection  and  trust.  Nor 
did  I  dream  for  a  long  time  that  in  such  a  gentle  and  ap- 
preciative nature  my  admiration  might  beget  an  enthu- 
siasm which  would  mar  the  entii-ety  of  the  love  which  a 
wife  should  cherish  for  her  husband.    It  was  at  length 
the  sight  of  the  imhappiness  disclosed  in  the  family  and 
the  indignant  reproaches  of  the  husband,  that  aroused  in 
me  the  fuU  sense  of  the  wrong  done,  in  winning  any 
part  of  that  affection  which  belonged  to  her  hoiisehold. 
1   Leaving  to  others  the  unwelcome  task  of  refined  moral 
criticism  upon  this  gentle,  pure-minded  woman,  it  is  for 
me  explicitly  to  defend  her  from  any  charge  of  criminal- 
ity of  conduct,  and  to  dissipate  even  the  shadow  of  a  re- 
proach upon  her  untempted  honor,  and  to  join  with  her 
husband,  who  has  again  and  again,  with  loyal  aftection, 
and  with  justice,  defended  the  personal  purity  of  his  wife. 


Although  the  sincere  affection  which  grew  up  in  me 
for  Mrs.  Tilton  was  honorable  m  intent.  I  none  the  less 
condemn  myself  with  unsparing  "severity  for  bringing 
upon  the  most  sacred  of  human  institutions— the  house- 
hold—great harm  and  distress,  which  have  since  flowed 
like  a  river.  I  do  not  measure  the  blame  by  a  light 
standard.  That  our  relations  were  not  criminal  in 
the  ordinary  and  legal  sense  of  the  term  does 
not  exonerate  me  from  blame,  nor  does  it  re- 
lieve me  of  the  sharpest  pangs  of  sorrow. 
My  age,  my  experience,  my  knowledge  of  her 
sensitive  nature,  should  have  been  a  shield  to  her. 
When  the  full  realization  broke  upon  me  of  a  household 
deeply  wounded  by  my  imprudence,  of  possible  and 
threatened  divisions  and  scatterings,  and  the  long  train 
of  evUs  that  might  befall  father,  mother,  and  the  beauti- 
ful group  of  children,  and  that,  instead  of  happiness,  I 
had  brought  upon  two  persons,  with  whom  I  had  been 
on  the  most  affectionate  relations,  a  ton-eut  of  misery 
whose  influence  might  widen  indefinitely— my  distress 
passed  all  bounds.  To  a  mutual  friend  I  poui-ed  out  my 
soul  like  water.  I  did  not  measure  words.  I  took 
uix)n  myself  immeasurable  blame.  I  wished  him 
to  convey  to  Mr.  Tilton,  in  language  overcharged 
with  feeling,  my  profoimd  regrets,  and  apologies. 
The  apology  was  accepted,  a  reconciliation  was 
made,  and  kind  social  relations  were  for  a 
time  continued— and  would  have  continued  until  this  day, 
had  not  malign  external  influences  interfered,  in  various 
unlooked-for  ways,  and  spread  abroad  exaggerations, 
perversions,  and  falsehoods,  whose  dii'ect  evil  was  aimed 
at  me,  but  whose  indirect  influence  was  to  place  Mr.  Til- 
ton in  a  false  position,  as  one  attacking  me,  rather  than 
as  one  injured  by  me. 

Nor  can  any  one  who  only  looks  upon  affairs  at  the 
present  stage  of  development  be  in  a  situation  to  judge 
of  the  motives  and  influences  which  have  acted  at  vari- 
ous stages  of  a  history,  essentially  private  and  domestic, 
and  which,  for  the  sake  of  society,  of  the  family,  of  child- 
hood and  of  womanhood,  should  have  had  the  i>rivilege 
of  seclusion,  which  those  most  injured  most  earnestly 
sought.  The  policy  of  silence  has  failed.  But  it  was  the 
right  one,  and  ought  to  have  succeeded. 

I  was  called,  at  the  earliest  moment  in  this  history,  to 
determine  my  duty  in  other  relations.  I  was  pastor  of  a 
large  church,  the  editor  of  a  religious  journal,  and  waa 
engaged  in  important  literary  enterprises,  besides  the 
multifarious  public  and  private  duties  of  a  miscellaneous 
kind,  not  strictly  clerical,  which  fall  upon  clergymen  in 
our  day. 

Profoundly  suffering,  it  would  have  been  an  unspeak- 
able relief  if  I  could  have  laid  down  my  burdens.  It  waa 
not  honorable  or  right  to  others  to  seek  personal  relief  at 
their  expense.  I  therefore  determined  to  accept  my 
sorrow  as  a  schoolmaster  sent  of  God,  and  to  let  no  one 
know  that  I  carried  burdens,  but  to  rise  to  every 
emergency,  not  only,  but  to  grow  stronger  by  the  severe 
discipline  laid  upon  me. 

It  was  in  this  mood  that  I  wrote  the  "  Life  of  Christ," 
which  may  well  be  called  "  Benoni  "—child  of  my  sor- 
row. I  was  led  by  my  suttering  to  a  profounder  sense  of 
moral  evil,  to  a  pity  and  sympathy  for  those  doing 
wrong  that  I  had  never  before  kuown.  The  divine  na- 
tm-e,  in  its  compassion  and  in  its  healing  power,  which 
before  was  only  as  a  star,  has  grown  to  the 
orb  of  a  sun.  And  in  no  part  of  my  life  has 
my  ministry  sprung  from  so  profound  a  sense 
of  God's  merej',  nor  gone  forth  with  such  an  unspeaka'ble 
compassion  tor  the  sorrowing,  struggling  human  kind. 
It  does  not  berit  me  to  sneak  of  my  own  •i\-ork.  rT:  fa 


798 


THE   TILTOI^-BEECHEB  TRIAL. 


rigM  to  explain  wliy  I  continued  it  under  circumstances 
of  very  great  trouble.  I  did  not  think  tliat  because  I  bad 
done  wrong  I  ougbt  not  to  do  riglit. 

I  ought  also,  solemnly  and  gratefully,  to  bear  witness 
to  the  mercy  of  God.  Every  hour  of  anguish  has  opened 
at  length  into  peace.  The  strife  of  tongues,  the  sorrow 
for  others,  the  suffering  for  myself,  have  brought  to  me 
the  God  of  all  consolation,  and  he  has,  from  time  to  time, 
ministered  a  peace  which  passeth  all  understanding. 

In  conclusion,  I  am  yet  in  vigor  of  health,  with  powers 
unimpaired.  I  have  no  use  for  myself,  except  to  labor 
for  the  best  interests  of  my  country  and  my  kind.  If  it 
please  God,  I  shall  make  the  Autuirn  of  my  life  as  ener- 
getic as  my  earlier  years.  But  in  what  fields,  or  through 
what  channels,  I  leave  to  the  Divine  Providence. 

And  Divine  Providence  has  cared  and  will  care  for  the 
fields  and  the  channels  in  which  he  shall  fill  out  the  life 
tha  t  thus  far  is  distinguished  from  other  men's  life  only 
b.y  its  superiority,  and  never  more  than  by  its  superiority 
in  dealing  with  this  sorrow,  this  fault,  this  misery,  this 
self-reproach,  which,  while  it  would  have  crushed  most 
innocent  men  in  the  calamity  of  public  depreciation  and 
assault,  and  which,  if  there  had  been  one  sense  of  con- 
scious guilt  in  the  view  that  is  sought  to  be  impressed 
upon  you,  would  have  crushed  this  defendant  or  any  one 
else,  but  which  he  met  with  that  noble,  faithful  senti- 
ment to  the  Great  Master  of  his  life,  "  I  did  not  find  any 
warrant  in  the  fact  that  I  had  done  wrong,  that  I  should 
not  do  right." 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  need  to  criticise  the  language 
of  any  particular  letter ;  I  have  laid  before  you  in  the 
proof,  the  course,  the  conduct,  the  conscioiisness,  and 
the  sentiments  that  followed  from  that  course,  that  con- 
duct, and  that  consciousness.  If  you  believe  that  char- 
acter and  life  are  not  as  great,  as  truthful  a  product  as 
the  looms  of  Time  ever  wove,  you  may  think  that  this 
vile  patch  of  calumny  represents  a  part  of  the  woven 
tapestry  of  Hemy  Ward  Beecher's  life  ;  but  you  know, 
y«mknow,  you  know  ( addressing  individual  jurymen], 
and  I  know  that  if  there  is  anything  in  the  world  that 
transcends  all  truth  as  a  product  of  this  sublunary 
life,  it  is  the  truth  of  action,  of  conduct,  of  the  very  life 
itself  that  men  live,  and  when  you  are  asked  to  impose 
these  years  of  wickedness,  of  treachery,  of  baseness,  of 
misery,  of  trampling  upon  the  feelings  of  others,  defying 
the  law  of  Sinai,  and  taking  in  vain  all  the  solemnities  of 
our  common  religion— when  you  are  asked  to  impose  five 
or  six  years  of  that  wicked  life  upon  the  character  of 
Henry  Ward  Beeeher,  you  are  asked  for  a  credulty  that 
no  evidence  except  of  the  senses  could  ever  for  a  mo- 
ment force  into  the  mind  of  an  intelligent  and  upright 


MRS.  MOULTON'S  TESTIMONY. 
Now  it  is  said  that  on  Monday  morning,  when 
all  this  thing  is  over,  there  occurred  an  interview  be- 
tween Mr.  Beeeher  and  Mrs.  Moulton,  whose  external 
circumstances  and  limits  are  very  exactly  defined.  I  am 
Bui-e  I  should  be  very  glad  to  leave  the  matter  of  this 


lady's  testimony,  its  explanations,  charitable  or  severe, 
to  the  general  situation  of  a  wife  adduced  as  a  witness  in 
a  husband's  behalf,  and  in  great  part  that  does  explain 
the  whole  ;  but  yet,  I  am  reauired  to  search  this  testimony 
itself  and  expose  to  you  the  internal  traits  of  it,  which 
would  rob  it  of  all  credit,  and  to  show  you  the  external 
circumstances  that  make  its  occurrence  impossible. 
Now,  I  am  sure  everybody  would  have  been  glad  to  have 
welcomed  this  new  witness,  a  woman,  with  the  same 
hearty  acceptance  and  the  same  confident  reliance  with 
which  we  all  met  the  frank,  intelligent,  scrupulously 
upright  testimony  of  Mrs.  Ovington,  a  witness  in 
whose  face  you  saw  absolute  frankness,  and  in 
every  word  of  whose  testimony  you  heard  the  careful  ap- 
preciation of  the  solemnities  of  truth,  and  who,  besides 
this  noble  testimony  to  the  character  of  her  evidence, 
carries  off  the  palm  of  having  overpowered  the  lawyer  by 
a  single  phrase,  and  having  won  a  concession  that  we 
tried  and  practiced  advocates  and  cross-examiners  do  not 
often  make  to  a  witness— having  obtained  the  triumph 
of  making  him  lose  his  temper  and  give  her 
an  opportunity  of  more  radiantly  presenting  hers. 
Now,  Mrs.  Moulton  comes  here  with  closely  retentive 
lips  and  furtively  glancing  eyes,  and  she  has  many 
things  not  to  say,  and  she  has  more  things  to  say,  I 
think,  than  are  to  be  easily  explained,  except  by  the 
ready  substitution,  in  remote  occurrences,  of  images  for 
facts.  But  she  comes  here  with  an  interview  on  Mon- 
day, and  without,  apparently,  the  least  notion  on  her 
part,  or  upon  the  part  of  the  counsel 
who  called  her,  that  the  situation  of  Monday 
had  entirely  been  cleared  from  the  fears,  anxieties,  solici- 
tudes, that  occupied  Saturday  and  Sunday,  and  without 
the  least  appreciation  of  the  fact,  that  the  foe  had  been 
fronted,  and  looked  in  the  eyes  by  Mr.  Beeeher,  and  that 
he  had  slunk  and  cowered,  as  Moulton  said  he  would, 
and  that  this  simple,  bold  proposition  of  Mr. 
Beeeher  was  master  of  the  whole  affair,  and 
all  that  had  happened  was  that  what  had 
been  previously  arranged  and  completed,  except 
as  to  the  mere  phrase  of  the  letter,  which  was  finally 
composed  between  Mr.  Kinsella  and  Mr.  Beeeher  through 
the  forenoon  of  Monday— that  excepting  that,  all  solici- 
tudes were  gone,  all  notions  of  perplexity  or  trouble 
were  dispelled,  and  all  there  was  present  in  Mr. 
Beecher's  mind  or  in  the  mind  of  his  family  was 
that  the3'  were  to  get  their  pleasant  excuiv 
sion  to  Peekskill  and  their  fortnight's  vacation 
in  Boston  and  its  vicinity.  But  such  are  the  inexorable 
exactions  of  testimony  that  if  you  are  going  to  give  an 
interview  and  fill  it  with  a  long  series  of  conversations 
and  implied  or  conjectural  confessions,  some  time  and 
some  place  must  be  assigned  for  it,  and  so,  in  seeming 
forgetfulness  of  the  considerations  I  have  mentioned,  this 
first  Monday  of  June  was  poimced  upon  as  ap- 
parently   an    unoccupied     day,    one    where  thert 


SUMMING    UF  1 

might  be  an  opportunity  for  what  confessedly  never 
happened  but  once,  a  visit  made  by  Mr.  Beeoher  to  Mrs. 
Moulton  alone,  and  for  her  own  sake,  and  a  visit  long 
enough  to  bring  in  a  series  of  conversations  to  which 
there  could  be  imputed  the  meaning  of  implied  confes- 
sions, by  the  way  they  talked  together.  So  that  day  was 
fixed  upon.  Now,  you  will  notice  that  you  have  sub- 
gtantially  at  the  outset,  an  admission  from  this  lady  that 
during  the  previous  two  years  and  upward  of  the 
visits  of  Mr.  Beeoher  to  that  house,  he  had 
never  made  her  the  confidante  of  any  confession,  until 
that  2d  of  June,  1873,  and  why  imder  heaven  he  should 
begin  then,  nobody  can  understand.  Why  should  he  be- 
gin with  a  person  that  he  understood  knew  the  facts  of 
his  case  already,  unless  it  was  for  the  pleasnre  of  rolling 
this  subject  of  adultery  as  a  sweet  morsel  under  her 
tongue  and  his  ]  She  says  to  you  that,  either  in  the 
Spring  or  the  Fall  of  1871,  this  very  decor- 
ous and  proper  conversation  •  had  occurred 
between  Mr.  Beecher  and  herself :  that,  meeting  her  one 
morning,  I  think  it  was  in  the  parlor,  before  seeing  her 
husband  (which  was  the  object  of  his  errand),  he  said, 
when  she  shook  hands  with  him,  kindly :  "  Do  you  know 
of  this  great  sorrow  of  my  life  1"  Well,  that  is  a  very 
mild  form  to  describe  seduction  and  adultery.  She 
said  she  did.  Then  Mr.  Beecher  says  to  her, 
"  Frank  has  told  you  the  facts,  then  V  Now, 
Mr.  Beecher  knew  what  he  meant  by  tJie  facts, 
and  she  said  Frank  had  told  her  the  facts,  and  Mr. 
Beecher  therefore  supiiosed  that  Frank  had  told  her  the 
facts  as  Mr.  Beecher  knew  them,  and  as  Frank  knew 
them ;  and  I  suppose  he  had,  though  I  am  not  quite  sure 
of  the  construction  that  Mr.  Moulton  would  put  upon 
human  conduct  in  a  man  so  entirely  different  from  him- 
self, as  Mr.  Beecher  was.  Now,  you  will  observe  how 
that  interview  carries  no  impression  in  the  least  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  imagining  that  Mrs.  Moulton  ever  knew  or 
had  heard  of  any  other  than  the  facts  in  the  case  of  the 
great  sorrow  in  which  he,  Mr.  Beecher,  had  become  In- 
volved by  this  mischief  in  the  family  of  Mr.  TUton, 
growing  up  as  I  have  stated,  and  as  has  been  exposed 
to  you,  and  as  is  avowed  in  the  paper  that  was  prepared 
to     bear  the  light  of  the  Judgment  Day." 

ME.   BEECHEE'S  ALIBI. 
From  that  time  onward  until  June,  1873, 

there  is  not  any  profession  or  pretense  that  Mr.  Beecher 
sought,  or  that  Mrs.  Moulton  received,  any  statement  at 
all,  in  the  way  of  conversation  or  otherwise,  that  was 
in  the  nature  of  confession,  express  or  implied, 
or  that  any  conversation  was  assumed  as  exist- 
ing except  what  might  be  described  as  his 
"  great  sorrow,"  and  the  facts  as  Mr.  Beecher 
conceived  them  to  be.  Now,  you  will  see  that  a  great 
many  things  may  be  said  in  the  way  of  conversation  be- 
tween people,  one  of  whom,  years  afterwards,  under- 


r  MB.   EVAET8..  799 

takes  to  recollect  what  was  said  and  to  inrpute  to  words, 
not  remembered  of  course,  for  the  moment  a  witness 
says  he  remembers  every  word  in  a  conversation  ot 
which  no  memorandum  was  made  and  which  was 
not  treasured  up  you  discredit  him— to  im- 
pute to  the  conversatioa  a  meaning,  made 
out,  not  of  what  the  party  talking  said, 
but  of  what  the  party  hearing  imagined  or  supposed,  and 
what  her  mind  accepted  as  the  basis  of  the  conversation, 
and  if  you  accept  that  kind  of  testimony  you  are  involved 
at  once  in  the  midst  of  error.  In  the  case  of  Derby  agt 
Derby,  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  so  great  an  au- 
thority as  Chancellor  Zabriskie  says : 

The  whole  efi'ect  of  the  testimony  of  this  witness  de- 
pends upon  her  recollecting  the  words  used  by  the  de- 
fendant. If  she  afterward,  from  talking  with  Derby  and 
others,  drew  a  conclusion  as  to  what  the  affair  was,  she 
would  naturally  construe  this  conversation  to  support  it, 
and,  in  fault  of  recollecting  the  words,  would,  and  might 
honestly,  use  such  as  would  express  that  meaning. 

Now,  then,  this  lady  coming,  as  she  said,  after  the  re- 
sentments awakened  against  Mr.  Beecher  and  in  her  hus- 
band's behalf  by  the  declared  hostilities  of  1874,  under- 
takes in  1875  to  give  you  an  interview.  In  the  first 
place,  gentlemen,  it  is  proved  beyond  dispute,  I  think, 
that  no  interview  occurred  between  Mrs.  Moulton  and 
Mr.  Beecher  on  the  2d  day  of  June — certainly  no  inter- 
view of  the  dimensions,  the  beginning  and  the 
end,  that  she  assigns  to  it,  and  there  is  nothing 
firmer  in  her  testimony  than  her  assurance  that 
it  was  an  interview  begun  after  9  o'clock,  lasting  three 
or  four  hours,  and  ending  at  the  hour  of  lunch  ;  that 
point  is  made  firm  by  her  recollection  that  her  own  usual 
hour  of  lunch  had  arrived,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher  on  leav- 
ing said :  "  Mother  [that  is  his  wife  |  will  expect  me  at 
lunch,"  and  that  he  could  not  stay  and  lunch  with  her. 
So,  too,  we  have  an  idea  that  this  occurred  surely  after 
she  had  received  the  note  on  Sunday,  and  a  recollection 
that  it  occurred  Just  before  another  interview,  when  Mr. 
Beecher  came  back,  as  he  had  led  her  to  suppose  he 
would,  to  bring  her  some  mementoes,  you  remember 
before  he  finally  took  poison.  So,  that  you  have  got  fixed. 

This  is  the  occasion,  the  only  visit  to  herself  alone,  and 
purposed,  and  there  never  was  another,  assigned  that 
length  of  time  to  draw  out  these  long  conversations,  ar- 
guments, reproof,  advice,  confession,  expostulation ;  and 
we  find  that  the  evidence  shows  that  Mr.  Beecher  went 
in  the  2  o'clock  train  to  Peekskill,  and  therefore  he  was 
not  here  at  2  o'clock ;  that  he  must  have  left  here  at  12 
o'clock,  to  have  lunched  and  taken  the  2  o'clock  train ; 
and  so  there  go  two  hours  of  this  lady's  limit. 
Then  you  have  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Cleveland  that  Mr. 
Beecher  was  over  in  New- York  from  10^  to  settle  up 
the  aflairs  of  his  newspaper  for  his  expected  prolonged 
absence,  which  would  bring  it  to  10  o'clock  on  leaving 
this  side ;  and  then  his  own  statement  that 
he    was     not     out     of     the     house,    but  was 


800  THl^  TILTON-B 

occupied  all  tliat  morniiig  witli  Mr.  Kinsella 
in  deliberations  about  tMs  card ;  then  tlie  date,  and  Mr. 
Kinsella's  statement  tliat  I  liave  read  to  yon,  in  the 
newspaper,  to  that  effect,  in  the  publication  itself,  as  a 
part  of  the  publication  that  forenoon  after  conning  from 
Mr.  Beeeher ;  that  a  telegram  was  sent  off  at  half -past  8 ; 
that  there  were  no  servants  in  the  house,  and  that  there- 
fore Mrs.  Beeeher  took  the  telegraphic  message  to  the 
office,  Mr.  Beeeher  remaining  in  the  house— all  that 
makes  up  a  perfect  run  of  the  occupations  of  Mr.  Beeeher 
himself,  and  an  actual  alihi. 

But  when  you  come  to  look  at  the  situation  you  will  see 
that  the  moral  alibi  is  even  more  complete.  There  was 
no  place  or  chance  for  the  feelings  or  for  a  resort  to  their 
expression  on  that  Monday  morning  in  the  vein  and  tone 
that  Mrs.  Moulton  portrays  them  ;  and  then  when  I  come 
to  show  you  her  evidence  you  will  see  that,  upon  her  own 
showing,  it  is  impossible  that  her  narrative  of  the  time 
can  be  correct  by  its  own  reference  to  things  as  conjec- 
tural and  future  that  had  already  occurred.  Now, 
gentlemen,  against  this  aliU  the  only  evidence  adduced 
is,  first,  Mrs.  Eddy,  the  very  respectable  daughter  of  our 
most  excellent  frientt,  Judge  Sutherland  of  New- York, 
and  I  have  no  doubt  the  excellent  wife  of  a  very  respect- 
able bookkeeper  in  the  employment  of  the  Eobinsons. 
But  it  is  hard  on  Mrs.  Moulton  that  the  only  possible  wit- 
ness to  sustain  her  interview  with  Mr.  Beeeher  has 
to  part  with  three  hom-s  of  it  to  start  with. 
Mr.  Beeeher  was  coming  away  at  an  hour  quite  early  in 
the  morning,  as  she  says,  when  she  went  around  to  see 
her  friend,  according  to  her  custom ;  and  it  could  not 
have  been  later  than  11  o'clock,  upon  any  fair  estimate 
of  her  testimony,  that  Mr.  Beeeher  had  got  through  with 
that  interview.  Then,  we  have  another  witness  who  un- 
dertakes to  give  you  an  impression,  at  least,  of  a  possibility 
of  Mr.  Beeeher  having  gone  to  Mr.  Moulton's  house  on 
Monday  morning  ;  I  mean  this  young  Mr.  Janes,  who  re- 
members, as  he  thinks,  that  somewhere  about  or  after  9 
o'clock,  as  he  was  going  his  usual  route  to  take  a  ferry- 
boat—an every-day  occurrence— to  go  to  his  business  in 
New- York,  he  saw  the  side  of  Mr.  Beecher's 
face ;  and  though  they  passed  one  another  at  right 
angles,  and  were  never  in  any  other  attitude  while  near 
to  one  another  than  that,  and  although  Mr.  Janes  does 
not  seeaa  to  have  stopped  or  followed  Mr.  Beeeher,  but 
kept  right  on  to  the  descent  by  those  cavernous  stairs, 
that  nevertheless  he  did  have  time  to  slow  (as  they  say  of 
a  steamboat)  and  to  look  around ;  and,  seeing  around  the 
coiner  or  through  the  walls,  that  Mr.  Beeeher 
was  going  to  Remsen-st !  I  don't  think  that  Mr.  Janes 
really  exhibits  any  of  that  certainty  as  to  his  movements 
and  examination  before  his  descent  by  those  stairs  that 
were  to  hide  htm  from  the  possibility  otf  looking 
back,  even  of  that  wariness  with  which  a 
woodchuck  always  looks  around  before  he  pops 
Into    his   hole.    Now,    I    don't    think    Mr.  Janc^ 


EECHEB  TRIAL. 

came  here  for  anything  but  to  advertise  himself  and  the 
Butler  Health-Lift  Cure,  and  Mr.  Beeeher  as  a  patron  of 
it.  And  certainly  all  Christendom  knows  those  facts,  be- 
cause Mr.  Janes  (not  an  ill-meanmg  young  man),  when 
put  to  the  point,  has  no  means  of  association  except  that 
the  2d  of  June  was  his  wedding  day,  and  that  he,  in  pur- 
sjiit  of  a  celebration  of  it.  like  John  Gilpin : 
"  Although  he  on  pleasure  bent, 
Was  of  a  frugal  miud," 
and  he  lengthened  his  day  of  labor,  as  I  understand  It,  in 
order  to  make  the  celebration  satisfactory  to  himself  and 
his  wife.  He  went  over  an  hour  sooner  to  New-York, 
and  only  got  away  half  an  hour  earlier.  Well,  now,  the 
point  was  this  (as  you  saw  at  once),  that  there  was  a  week 
there ;  that  he  had  some  occasion  in  his  business,  runmng 
from  about  the  29th  of  May  (I  think,  he  says,  on  for 
a  week),  to  go  over  to  New-York  earlier  than  usual ;  and 
that  on  some  one  of  those  mornings  he  saw  Mr.  Beeeher. 
Well,  now,  Mr.  Beeeher  did  go  around  to  Mr.  Moulton's 
on  Saturday  morning,  as  everybody  knows,  as  Mr.  Moul- 
ton says,  and  as  he  says,  and  about  this  time.  So,  I  don't 
think  we  can  hang  much  on  Janes.  Well,  tl»tn,  Mrs.. 
Eddy,  though  sm^e  that  some  day  or  other,  at  11  o'clock 
about,  she  met  Mr.  Beeeher  coming  out  of  the  Moulton 
mansion,  has  no  mode  whatever  of  fixing  the  2d  of  June ; 
and  so  declares  to  you.  So  that  you  will  perceive  the 
external  alibi  is  wholly  unshaken  by  these  witnesses. 

Now  you  will  observe  that  on  Saturday  Mr.  Beeeher 
went  to  the  Moulton  house  about  nine  or  half -past  nine, 
or  somewhere  about  that— had  the  interview  with  Mr, 
Moulton— occupied  with  him— [To  Mr.  Abbott]— Was  Mr. 
Tilton  there? 

Mr.  Abbott— Mr.  TUton  was  down  stairs. 

Mr.  Evarts- Mr.  Tilton  was  down  stairs  when  they  had 
this  talk  about  the  threatened  publication,  though  Mrs. 
Moulton  formed  no  part  or  party  in  that  conversatiou. 
Yet,  the  external  facts  of  going  to  the  house  and  coming 
away  would  satisfy  Mr.  Janes  and  Mrs.  Eddy ;  and,  fot 
aught  we  know,  that  may  have  been  the  day  or  any  other 
day,  for  there  were  frequent  visits  to  that  house  by  Mr. 
Beeeher. 

THE  INTEEVIEW  OF  JUNE  2. 
Now,  gentlemen,  in  regard  to  Mrs.  Moulton's 
testimony  (which  I  must  be  pretty  brief  with),  she  gives 
you  to  understand  that  the  nature  of  this  interview  was 
of  this  kind : 

This  is  probably  my  last  convewiation  with  you.  I  feci 
that  if  Mr,  Tilton  publishes  my  letter  of  apology  it  is 
useless  for  me  to  try  any  longer  to  live  this  down. 

Well,  that  was  not  the  situation  on  Monday.  Mr,  Til- 
ton had  withdrawn  from  the  publication  of  the  "  Letter 
of  Apology"  when  he  was  advised  by  Mr.  Beeeher, 
through  Mr.  Moulton,  "the  moment  you  do  that  there  is 
an  end  of  the  policy  of  silence,  and  I  am  going  to  have 
the  whole  truth."  So  that  had  disappeared,  and  there  Us  * 
rv,"  first  moral  alibi  that  ou  «r  of  this  lady's  own  mouth 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MR.  EVARTS. 


801 


displaces  the  occasion  of  any  possible  future  talk  of  ttie 
tind  tliat  she  narrates.  Then  this  lady  says : 

There  is  something  better  for  you  to  do  than  that.  You 
miglit  as  well  go  out  of  life.  It  is  useless  trying  to  live  it 
down. 

I  think  she  seems  to  have  taken  it  as  a  deliberate  threat 
of  suicide,  in  that  mild  form  of  statement  that  "  it  would 
be  useless  to  live  it  down." 

I  think  that  would  be  a  verj-  cowardly  thing  for  you  to 
do.  Go  down  to  your  church  and  confess  your  crime. 
They  will  forgive  you. 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  if  the  crime,  as  this  phrase  in- 
terposed into  a  conversation  where  it  never  occurred— if 
the  crime  was  of  the  nature  that  Mr.  Beecher  has  dis- 
closed (and  that  you  must  find  upon  irrefragable  ev^ 
denceis  the  only  fault  he  committed),  you  can  under* 
Btand  how  a  lady  might  say  to  Mr.  Beecher  at  some  con- 
versation or  other  exactly  what  her  husband  had  said  in 
writing  on  the  1st  of  June :  "  If  the  whole  case  is 
made  known  you  can  stand."  Bring  out  the  pub- 
licity 1  Why,  that  is  the  very  thing  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  threatened  to  do  on  Saturday  night ;  and  that  was  a 
bombshell  in  the  camp  of  Messrs.  Tilton  and  Moulton. 
"  Well,  well,"  he  says  ;  "  no,  no  ;  it  would  make  trouble- 
could  not  stand  it."  "  Well,"  she  says,  "  you  could  write 
for  your  paper  ;  you  could  go  to  your  farm  and  write." 
And  when  Mr.  Beecher  deprecates  that,  and  says,  "  No  ; 
my  position  is  that  of  a  spiritual  and  moral  teacher  ;  if  I 
can  no  longer  hold  that  position,  then  there  is  nothing 
left  for  me."  Now,  he  comes  out  with  a  distinct  an- 
nouncement ; 

I  am  resolved  to  take  my  life ;  I  have  a  powder  at 
home  on  my  library  table,  which  I  have  prepared,  which 
I  shall  take,  and  I  shall  sink  quietly  off  as  if  going  to 
sleep,  without  a  struggle.  I  have  not  any  desire  to  live, 
I  have  nothing  to  live  for  ;  in  fact  I  pray  for  death  as  a 
happy  release  from  ail  my  trials  and  troubles. 

Did  he  pray  for  a  release,  by  his  own  hand  to  commit 
the  final  crime  of  impiety  to  God  and  of  cruelty  to  his 
family  ?  "And  I  feel  that  if  I  publish  now  a  card  in  TJie 
Eagle  "—if  I  publish  now  a  card  in  The  Eagle it  will 
only  be  a  temporary  release ;"  and  the  cferd  was  set  up 
and  in  print  already !  It  was  not  a  future  publication 
that  could  be  made  the  subject  of  conversation  in  the 
forenoon  of  the  2d  of  Jvme. 

"  Well,  I  felt  very  much  grieved ;  begged  him  to  go 
down  to  the  churclj." 

And  now,  see  how  this  lady  encouraged  this  clergyman : 

"  I  said,  '  Mr.  Moulton  will  still  stand  by  you;  and,  no 
matter  what  comes  to  you,  I  will  always  be  your  fiiend ; 
and  I  ata  convinced  that  the  only  way  out  of  this  trouble 
for  you  is  by  telling  the  truth." 

Well,  now,  that  is  rather  sensible.  If  the  truth  was  as 
It  is,  and  she  understood  it  to  be  so,  you  might  talk  in 
that  way.  1  think  there  is  a  little  inconsistency  in  this 
lady's  ideas  as  she  expounds  them  lierself.  Her  reason 
ing  is  a  little  bad,  and  gets  mixed  before  we  get  through 
the  interview,  because  here  she  eays  to  him :  "  The 


church  will  stand  by  you,  and,  if  they  don't, 
I  will— I  approve  of  you  ;  you  may  count  on  that ;  I 
will  stick  to  you  anyhow."  [Laughter.]  And,  then, 
afterwards,  she  says  :  "  Well,  now,  Mr.  Beecher,  it  may 
be  that  all  the  rest  of  your  church  will  stand  by  you,  as  I 
have  said  they  would,  but  as  for  me  I  cannot.  You  are 
like  an  open  grave  ito  me.  I  never  see  you  or  think  of 
you  without  hori'ors  and  terrors  and  disquietude t)f  mind; 
I  cannot  come  there  ;  I  cannot  take  the  communion  ;  I 
have  lost  my  faith  in  all  men,  because  I  have 
lost  it  in  you."  Now,  I  am  afraid  that  this  lady  does  not 
accurately  remember  the  course  of  reasoning  that  she 
pursued  throu^fh  those  long  hot  hours  of  June,  with  this 
gentleman  who  was  on  his  way  to  Peekskill.  Then,  in 
another  form,  she  says :  "  Well,  Mr.  Beechdi-,  the  only 
way  you  can  cover  this  matter,  is  to  go  and  make  con- 
fession of  it."  Well,  that  is  rather  a  mixed  expres- 
sion. The  only  way  you  can  cover  your  fault  is 
by  going  and  proclaiming  it,  and  don't  commit 
suicide ;  better  confess,  as  if  everybody  didn't  know,  at 
least  since  Mr.  Webster  said  in  the  famous  White  trial : 
"  For  guilt  there  are  no  alternatives  but  suicide  or  con- 
fession, and  suicide  is  confession."  The  only  way  suicide 
could  escape  the  construction  of  confession,  and  of  the 
most  enormous  guilt,  burying  Mr.  Beecher's  family 
and  church  and  everybody  else  in  terror  and 
confusion  would  have  been  by  a  resort  to 
this  subtile  poison  which,  if  unmolested  by  the 
children,  would  be  always  accessible  to  him,  that  he 
might  seem  to  have  died  a  natural  death ;  but  to  guard 
against  that  saving  of  his  reputation,  and  the  feelings  of 
his  family,  he  went  around  to  tell  Mrs.  Moulton  that  he 
was  going  to  take  the  powder  and  kill  himself  from  his 
grief  at  his  sins.  Well,  a.  nice  witness  Mrs.  Moulton 
would  have  made  at  the  Coroner's  inquest.  [Laughter.] 
Gentlemen,  there  is  but  one  inscription  suitable  to  the 
portals  of  this  evidence,  as  you  are  asked  to  believe 
it,  pot  only  from  this  witness,  but  from  Mr.  Tilton  and 
other  witnesses  of  the  plaintiff,  except  this :  "  All  ye  who 
enter  here  leave  common  sense  behind,"  and,  if  you  will 
only  do  that,  then  you  wUl  get  through  any  amount  of 
oral  statements  of  long-past  interviews  now  brought 
out  in  this  confused  manner.  Well,  I  won't  say  any  more 
about  this  interview. 

MRS.  MOTJLTON'S  CONVERSATIONS  HELD 
UNDER  A  MISAPPREHENSION. 

Now,  there  is  one  very  curious  thing  about 
this.  "  Now,  if  you  have  only  a  mind  to  take  this  case 
into  your  own  hand  you  can  settle  it  by  confession. 
Your  people  will  stand  by  you.  Tliey  believe  in  yon. 
TLey  will  forgive  this  one  crime  that  you  say  you  have 
committed  "—she  didn't  feel  entirely  sure,  you  know, 
that  he  had—"  which  you  say  you  have  sincerely  re- 
pented for,  and  you  believe  you  have  been  forgiven,  and 
you  feel  that  you  are  better  able  now  than  ever  before  to 


803  TEE  TlLrON'B 

do  great  good  in  tMa  world  if  you  can  only 
be  allowed  to  go  down  to  the  end  of 
your  life  without  all  the  particulars  of  this 
case  being  made  known."  Then  he  was  to  go  down 
and  confess  without  stating  the  facts.  Well,  gentleman, 
I  don't  know  that  I  can  insist  upon  asking  your  atten- 
tion, in  the  brief  period  in  which  I  can  be  allowed  or  tol- 
erated in  trespassing  upon  your  patience  beyond  the 
hour,  but  you  will  find  that  in  all  these  random  conversa- 
tiona  this  lady  tells  you  that  Mr.  Beecher  never  told  her 
the  facts  of  the  case.  She  was  talking  about 
some  facts  in  her  mind,  and  Mr.  Beecher 
naturally  supposed  they  were  the  same  facts  that  were 
in  his  mind,  and  it  is  odd  enough.  Now,  in  all  these  con- 
versations there  is  no  word  that  professes  to  be  a  state- 
ment of  any  particular  form  or  degree  of  crime  except 
one,  and  that  don't  come  out  of  Mr.  Beecher's  mouth,  but 
out  of  this  lady's,  and  I  ask  your  attention  particularly 
to  that.  "I  don't  see,"  she  said  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  "  how  you  can  stand  la  your  pulpit  and  preach 
to  the  young  men  against  the  sin  of  adultery 
when  you  are  implicated  in  it  so  deeply  yourself."  Woll, 
now,  gentlemen,  you  see  she  don't  say  to  him,  "  You  have 
been  guilty  of  adultery  with  Mrs.  TUton."  She  says: 
^'  How  can  you  preach  to  these  yoimg  men  against  these 
external  sins,  when,  according  to  your  own  showing, 
you  have  been  interfering  with  the  affections  of  wife  and 
husband,  and  have  produced  this  misery  ?"  or, 
tf  she  accepted  what  she  no  doubt  had  heard 
of,  the  wife's  accusation  of  Mr,  Beecher— if  she  had 
accepted  that  as  being  a  truthful  charge,  to  -wit,  that  Mr. 
Beecher  had  invited  a  wife  to  commit  adultery  with  him, 
that  would  sustain  every  word  of  what  Mrs.  Moulton  puts 
into  her  own  mouth  on  the  subject  of  adultery :  "  I  don't 
see  how  you  can  stand  in  your  pulpit  and  preach  to  young 
men  against  the  sin  of  adultery  when  you  are  implicated 
In  it  yourself,  to  the  extent  of  having  tried  to  get  a  woman 
to  commit  adultery  with  you  and  not  succeeded." 

So,  here,  as  everywhere  else,  when  you  undertake  to 
give  definite  form  and  pressure  to  these  couversations, 
from  whatever  mouth  they  are  rehearsed  here,  you  see  a 
fault  and  defect  which  belongs  to  anything  like  precision 
and  definiteness  and  weight  and  force. 

MRS.  TiLTON  ADVISED  BY  MKS.  MOULTON. 

Now,  there  are  in  regard  to  tliis  lady's  testi- 
mony but  two  other  matters  to  which  I  wish  to  direct 
your  attention,  though  a  fuller  exposition  would  more 
fuUy  satisfy  my  purpose.  One  is  a  very  peculiar  inter- 
view that  she  says  she  had  with  Mrs.  TiLton,  In  which,  as 
you  remember,  at  a  period  in  1873, 1  think  it  is; — 

Mr.  Abbott— In  the  Fall  of  1873. 

Mr.  Evarts— In  the  Fall  of  1873,  when  there  were  in- 
quiries about  an  investigation  into  Mr.  Tilton  by  the 
Ohurch  that  would  bring  up  this  matter,  and  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton had  an  idea  that  her  husband  and  Mr.  TUton 


Th^fJUEE  TRIAL, 

were  going  to  betray  Mr.  Beecher,  or,  as  she  does  not  ad- 
mit that  very  word,  they  were  going  to  make  public  cer- 
tain  charges  against  him,  and  she  felt  a  solicitude  to  know 
what  must  always  be  a  subject  of  anxious  incLUiry 
as  to  the  purposed  conduct  of  a  wife— she  wanted  to 
know  whether,  when  the  stress  came  of  public  investiga- 
tion, this  woman  who  had  accused  Mr.  Beecher  of  im- 
proper proposals,  and  had  retracted  that  accusation,  and 
had  explained  her  retraction,  and  had  undoubtedly 
placed  herself  in  this  position,  she  wanted  to  know  when 
the  stress  comes  of  adhering  to  the  truth,  "  Are  you 
going  to  stand  by  Mr.  Beecher  and  tell  the  truth,  or  are 
these  men,  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  going  to  make 
you  take  the  position  that  you  have  once  taken  of  being 
clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter  and  supporting  your  hus- 
band ;"  and  she  felt  deeply,  and  she  was  moved  to  tears, 
and  she  went  to  bed  and  to  pray,  and  to  urge 
Mrs.  Tilton  to  stand  by  Mr.  Beecher  with  the  truth, 
and  not  to  yield  to  the  position  of  a  wife  of  supporting 
her  husband,  and  now,  that  being  the  motive,  that  being 
the  occasion,  and  that  being  the  confession,  that  that 
was  her  purpose,  her  zeal,  her  interest,  her  desire,  that 
Mrs.  Tilton  in  any  threatened  investigation  by  the 
church  should  stand  by  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  truth, 
and  not  be  swerved  by  a  wife's  presumptive 
fealty  and  submission  to  the  interests  and  will  of  her 
husband,  she  goes  down  there  and  she  tells  you  the  story, 
true  enough,  intelligible  enough,  honest  enough,  honor- 
able enough,  if  you  wiU  treat  it  in  that  sense,  and  then 
'makes  her  errand  useless  by  what  she  would  have 
you  think  was  the  result  of  it,  by  what  was  equally 
useless  in  its  purpose  if  the  truth  would  not  sustain 
Mr.  Beecher.  What  did  she  go  down  to  Mrs.  Tilton's  for 
in  that  stress  between  a  wife's  duty  to  her  husband  and  a 
woman's  duty  to  truth,  if  she  did  n't  know  that  standing 
to  the  truth  on  Mrs.  Tilton's  part  would  uphold  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  and  when  she  goes  down  there  she  gives  you 
all  the  color  and  all  the  surroimdings  of  this  situation, 
admits  her  zeal,  admits  her  purpose,  admits  her 
tears,  and  admits  her  entreaties,  and  then  she  superadds 
to  Mrs.  Tilton's  statement  that  she  should  tell  the  whole 
truth,  "  deny  these  base  charges  against  Mr.  Beecher," 
and  that  though  it  brought  her  in  direct  hostility  to  her 
husband,  which,  in  a  woman's  natural  reasoning,  -vfas  a 
great  distrust  as  well  as  possibly  a  lack  of  fidelity 
to  her  husband,  yet  when  the  question  came  between 
fidelity  to  a  husband's  wishes  or  fidelity  to  truth,  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  to  the  Church,  to  the  interests  of  religion,  she,  a 
wife,  might  well  be  excused  for  opposing  her  Jiusband 
and  maintaining  the  proof,  and  when  that  manifestly 
was  the  whole  object,  and  zeal,  and  rational  explana- 
tion of  Mrs.  Moulton's  process,  she  then  tells 
you  this  impossible  story  that  Mrs.  Tilton  said 
to  her  that  she  should  deny  these  charges,  and  her  duty 
to  God,  to  the  Church,  to  the  truth  would  require  it,  and 
she  would  tell  a  Ue.  WeU,  now,  gemtlemeA,  you  must  not 


SUMMISG    VP   BY  MR.  EVART^. 


803 


lay  aside  your  conimon  sense ;  you  must  not  allow  tliis  ! 
■womaai,  Mrs.  Moulton,  under  any  strange  halluciua- 
tions  so  to  transform  and  stultify  tliat  intervlevr  as  to 
mate  her  presence  there,  her  entreaty  there,  her  desire  to 
protect  3Ir.  Beecher  ai)solutely  foolish,  and  to  make  Mi-s. 
Tilton,  this  excellent,  pious  -woman,  in  the  stress  of  her 
Inquiry  as  to  whether  her  duty  to  her  hushand  should 
override  her  duty  to  truth,  to  tell  Mrs.  Moulton  she  was 
going  to  adhere  to  3Ir.  Beeoher.  and  not  ohey  the  com- 
mands of  her  hushand,  and  then  add,  "  And  it  will  he 
all  a  lie."  Well,  now,  when  I  read  you  the  passage 
you  will  see  the  opportunity  for  escape  and  the  opportu- 
nity for  the  suhstitution  of  words.  But  take  it  in  the 
sense  that  the  woman  tells  it,  it  is  utterly  absurd,  what 
meant  to  save  Mr.  Beecher  and  meant  to  tell  this  Tvoman 
from  the  Moulton  house,  that  it  would  he  a  lie, 
that  would  help  Mr.  Beeoher  with  a  rengeance.  G-oing 
to  brave  a  husband  by  tellin.ir  the  truth  against 
his  importunities  and  his  interest  and  furnish  him,  in  ad- 
vance, evidence  that  it  was  aU  a  lie.  Xow,  I  don*t  pro- 
fess to  fcaow  much  about  the  recesses  of  the  female  heart — 

[A  juror  here  suggested  to  Mr.  Evarts  that  it  was  after 
4  o'clock.  Mr.  Evarts  replied  that  he  knew  it  was,  but  he 
"was  compelled  to  finish  Ms  argument  to-ulght.] 

Mr.  Evarts — I  don't  profess  to  know  much  about  the 
recesses  of  a  woman's  heart,  but  I  cannot  understand 
that  interview  between  Mrs.  Moulton  on  Mrs.  Tiltcn's 
version  of  it,  and  I  i^an  understand  it  if  you  leave  out 
one  interpolation  that  the  woman  makes  to  take  off  the 
terrible  force  against  her  husband  of  her  visit  and  this 
result,  if  the  truth  is  reported.  >row,  let  me  read  you. 
27ow,  all  this  came  out  on  the  cross-examination  of  Mrs. 
Moulton  by  me. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  that  interview  ? 

She  did.   She  told  it. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  asking  her  whether  she  would 
support  her  husband  in  a  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher, 
or  whether  she  would  not,  and  her  answer  being  made 
to  you,  that  if  there  ever  came  a  conttoversy  she  should 
speak  the  truth  ?   A.  2>ro,  Sir  ;  I  never  remember  that. 

Q.  [N'ow,  did  you  ursre  her  at  that  interview  as  to  what 
she  should  do  ?  A.  I  cannot  remember  that  I  urged  her. 
I  can  tell  what  I  said  to  her. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  her  on  the  question  of  which  side 
she  should  take  I   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  express  an  opinion  as  to  which  side  she 
ought  to  take  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  that  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  at  that  interview  very  much  excited  and 
di-tressedl   A.  I  think  I  was  ;  yes.  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  show  in  your  manner  great  distress  1  A. 
Yes,  Sir.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  And  weep  ?   A.  Very  likely.  Sir. 

Q.  2sow,  did  you  in  that  interview  express  to  "her 
great  distress  lest  Mr.  Beecher  should  be  betrayed  by  Mr. 
TEton  and  your  husband  ?  A.  Not  that  he  would  be  be- 
trayed by  them,  but  that  the  truth  would  be  known- 
made  public. 

Q.  And  by  them  \   A.  Oh  1  yes,  by  them. 

So  that  is  a  verbal  criticism  on  betray." 

Now,  did  you  i'a  thac  int*^r\*iew,       expressing  that  | 


!  opinion  of  what  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  would  do. 
beg  her  to  stand  by  Mr.  Beecher  ]  A.  So  long  as  she 
could  without  sacrificing  herselc  and  the  truth, 

Q.  Did  you  beg  her  to  stand  by  :Mr.  Beecher  t  A,  So 
long  as  she  could  without  sacrificing  the  truth. 

She  did  then  beg  her,  and  that  was  the  object,  to  stand 
by  Mr.  Beecher  and  tell  the  truth. 

Q.  And  did  she  not  then  tell  you  that  whenever  the 
inquiry  came  she  would  tell  the  truth  ?   A.  Xo,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  she  tell  you  that  she  should  not  tell  the  truth  1 
A.  She  told  me  distinctly  that  she  should  sacrifice  her 
husband— deny  everything  for  Mr.  Beecher. 

WeU,  now,  that  is  all  right.  That  is  exactly  what  Mrs. 
Moulton,  in  her  knowledge  of  the  truth,  wanted  to  be 
sure  that  she  was  going  to  deny  everything,  which  would 
be  standing  by  31r.  Beecher,  and  not  submit  to  the  con- 
trol of  her  husband,  and  then  she  says  this  lady  told  her, 
in  order  to  rob  what  she  said  of  any  importance,  that, 
under  the  circumstances,  she  would  be  justified  in  telling 
a  Lie. 

Q.  "2^ow,  madam,  are  you  quite  sure,  in  addition  to  say- 
ing she  would  sacrifice  her  husband  and  defend  Mr, 
Beecher,  that  she  added  she  would  tell  a  lie  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir;  lam.  I  cannot  say  as  to  the  words— that  she  used 
the  word  "lie,"  but  she  said  she  would  deny  everything. 

And  that  is  exactly  what  was  the  truth,  and  there  was 
the  very  point,  whether  she  was  going  to  deny  or 
whether  she  was  going  to  support  the  charges  of  the  hus- 
band, ^s'ow,  having  got  that,  then  I  wanted  to  find  out 
further. 

Q.  But  did  shf  add  that  she  should  lie  about  it  ?  A.  II 
she  didn't  use  the  word  lie,  she  said  "  falsehood," 

Q.  Did  she  say  that  she  would  tell  a  falsehood  ?  A- 
Yes,  Sii- ;  one  or  the  other. 

Q.  Did  she  flatly  tell  you  that  she  would  tell  a  lie,  or  a 
falsehood?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  your  house  satisfied  that  your  errand 
had  succeeded?  A.  I  have  never  felt  that  any  eftbrt  of 
mine  has  ever  been  successful. 

How  many  sorrows  in  her  memory  about  this  business 
does  that  expression  cover  ? 

Q.  In  this  business  ?  A.  :yo,  Sir ;  never  any  en-and  suo- 
ce>sful  in  this  business. 

MES.  MOULTON  CALLS  OX  MES.  WOODHIXL. 

Xow,  gerLtlemen,  tkLs  lady,  Tvhose  testimony 
of  the  character  that  I  have  given  to  you  is,  I  think,  to 
every  candid  mind  and  every  intelligent  mind,  robbed  of 
all  value,  is  placed  in  this  somewhat  singular  attitude  he- 
fore  you.  She  says  to  you  that  this  lady,  3Irs. 
WoodhuU.  was  a  frequent  visitor  at  her  house,  having 
been  there  at  leas*  a  dozen  times  during  the  period 
of  these  associations.  She  says— and  she  volunteered  it ; 
that  is,  her  own  counsel  brought  it  out— that  she  had 
been  as  many  as  three  or  four  times  to  Mrs.  Woodhull's 
house,  and  brought  her  to  hers.  She  then  tells  you  the 
particulars  of  three  of  those  visits,  and  presents  thia 
most  exTaordinary  s*^atement  of  the  condition  of  thing?. 
1  She  says  : 


804 


THE   TlLrON'BEECHER  TBlAh, 


I  went  to  that  house  three  times  and  brought  Mrs. 
Woodhull  to  mine  ! 

Do  you  remember  of  any  of  them  being  in  the  day- 
time ?  No.  All  may  have  been  in  the  night  ?  Yes.  What 
time  did  you  go— what  hour  did  you  return  %  I  cannot 
remember."  In  each  instance  she  suppresses  and  puts 
the  best  face  on  what  in  any  disclosure  she  would  have 
•felt  to  be  uncomfortable  In  the  fact,  but  it  stands 
thus  definitely  fixed  before  you,  that  three  times 
she  went  to  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  house  and  brought 
that  woman  in  the  night  time  for  conference 
with  Mr.  Tilton  and  her  husband,  lasting,  as  she  says, 
two  or  three  hours,  and  whether  she  (Mrs.  Moulton)  took 
Mrs.  Woodhull  back  or  not,  to  her  own  house,  she  does  not 
remember.  That  one  of  those  visits  was  made  with  her 
and  Mr.  Tilton.  in  the  night  season  in  a  close  hired  car- 
riage, running  from  Brooklyn  Hights  to  Thirty-fifth- 
et.,  and  making  a  visit  in  that  salon,  and  a  return  to- 
gether in  the  later  hours  in  the  same  close  carriage.  That 
at  another  time  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton,  both  being 
at  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  and  both  in  health  and  strength, 
sent  that  woman  on  the  errand  away  up  to  Thirty-fiith- 
st.  in  a  hired  carriage  to  bring  Mrs.  Woodhull  there,  and 
she  went  and  did  it,  taking  a  little  boy  of  nine  years  old 
for  an  escort,  and  on  another  occasion,  under  the  same 
behest  of  these  two  full-grown  men  staying  at  home  in 
Mr.  Moulton's  house,  she  went  again  in  the  night  time  to 
fetch  this  lady  in  the  night  time  for  another  three  hours' 
conference  with  Mr.  TUton  and  Mr.  Moulton,  and  that  she 
took  Mr.  Moulton's  mothtr  as  her  escort  then. 
Well,  now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  know  what 
domestic  life  in  this  city  is  in  reputable 
circles,  but  I  can  see  in  that  narrative  the  most  abject 
Bublugation  of  a  wife  to  a  husband,  and  a  most  defiant 
tyranny  of  a  husband  over  a  wife.  I  need  no  other  evi- 
dence than  that  to  understand  that  the  relation 
of  a  husband  and  wife  In  that  couple  had  as- 
sumed the  force  and  character  of  master  and 
elave.  Figure  to  yourself,  figure  to  yourself,  or 
yourself,  or  yourself,  a  dismissal  in  the  night  time  in  a 
close  carriage  of  your  wife  to  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  house  to 
bring  her  to  see  you— you  in  health  and  strength.  I  don't 
know  much  about  the  notions  on  Brooklyn  Hights  of 
starting  in  hired  close  carriages  a  married  lady 
In  th«  company  of  Mr.  Tilton  for  an  errand 
of  that  kind  at  the  behest  of  a  hus- 
band. I  know  that  this  plaintiff  and  his 
lawyers  would  give  a  e:ood  deal  for  a  drive  in  a 
close  carriage  in  the  night  time  between  Mr.  Beocher  and 
Mrs.  Tilton,  up  to  Mrs.  WoodhuU's  and  back,  I  was 
aghast  at  this  exposure,  and  I  placed  no  misconstruction 
—I  put  it  entirely  upon  the  coarse  and  brutal  selfish- 
ness of  this  man  that  treated  an  honest 
wile  In  that  manner.  Then,  when  I  have 
proved  these  intimate  facts  in  the  family  out  of  the 
mouth  of  the  -wife,  and  when  T  have  proved  out  of  the 


mouth  of  Mr.  Moulton,  the  husbancli,  in  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Armor,  that  he  would  make  it  hotter  than  hell  for 
anybody  that  testified  against  him,  I  don't  need 
any  further  specific  facts  to  lead  you  to  think 
that  the  story  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  is 
likely  to  show  itself  whenever  there  comes  to  be  that  at- 
titude that  the  wife  must  swear  for  the  husband  or  swear 
against  him  to  his  ruin,  and  live  with  him  afterward.  I 
might  be  satisfied  with  the  generalizations  by  which  our 
law  has  covered,  as  I  read  to  you,  this  relation  of  hus- 
band and  wife  with  the  common  sense  intelligence  that 
the  law  and  the  administration  of  justice  never  should 
bi*ing  husband  and  wife  into  that  terrible  dilemma  of 
being  against  husband  or  against  the  truth,  and  when  I 
have  shown  you,  in  this  particular  marriage,  the  subju- 
gation of  the  wife  to  be  an  errand-girl  in  the  night  time 
up  to  Thirty-flfth-st.  to  bring  Mrs.  Woodhull  for  a  three 
hours'  conference  with  these  grown  men,  Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Moulton,  at  her  house— a  private  conference 
from  which  she,  the  wife,  was  excluded— and  when  I 
have  shown  you  the  particular  disposition  of  this  partic- 
ular husband  to  make  it  hotter  than  heU  for  anybody 
that  testifleG  against  him,  I  have  at  once  evidenced  the 
wisdom  of  the  law  in  its  generalization,  and  I  have  given 
you  the  strongest  possible  instance  in  the  experience  of 
ife  for  its  being  the  rule,  if  it  never  had  been  before. 
Now,  gentlemen,  at  the  eod  1872  there 
comes  to  be,  in  the  most  solemn  form,  a  final  suppres- 
sion of  any  possible  imputation  that  a  charge  againat 
Mrs.  Tilton's  chastity  

THE  LONG-SUFFERING  JIJKY  INDIGNANT. 
Mr.  Carpenter  (foreman  of  the  jury)— Can 

you  give  us  this  in  the  morning  %  One  of  the  jurors  feeU 
unable  to  continue  any  longer. 

Mr.  Evarts— Of  course  I  would  prefer  to  take  half  an 
hour  or  an  hour  to  it  in  the  morning  myself. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  jury)— I  think  you  ought  to  sit 
until  it  closes. 

Mr.  Carpenter— Some  of  the  jurors  don't  feel  well 
enough  to  sit  any  longer. 

Mr.  Morris— Mr.  Beach  has  left  with  the  imderstandtng 
that  Mr.  Evarts  would  close  this  evening,  and  he  will  be 
disappointed  in  the  momtng  if  he  finds  Mr.  Evarts  ha« 
not  concluded.  T  think  it  would  be  putting  him  at  a  great 
disadvantage. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  jurorsj- You  can  take  an  Inteiv 
mission,  and  Mr.  Evarts  wUl  finish  perhaps  in  a  short 
time.  If  you  prefer  to  take  some  exercise  In  the  air  you 
can  do  so. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  am  submissive  to  your  Honor  and  the 
•jury.  The  jury  seem  to  indicate  a  strong  preference  to 
adjourn. 

Mr.  Carpenter— I  should  prefer  myself  to  wait  until  6 
o'clock,  if  necessary,  but  some  of  the  Jury  wish  to  retire 
for  a  few  minutes. 


SUMMIJSfG   UF  BY  ME.  EYARTS. 


805 


Mr.  Thayer  (a  jurors  to  the  foreman— If  you  prefer 
to  sit  until  6  o'clock,  why  did  n't  you  go  on  on  Saturday  ? 
We  adjourned  on  Saturday  to  accommodate  you.  I  am 
willing  to  go  on.  [To  Mr.  Evarts.l  Go  on,  if  it  takes  all 
night.  Go  on  as  long  as  it  lasts.  [To  the  foreman.]  I 
think  I  have  got  you  there  tight  enough. 

Judge  Neilson— It  may  not  be  necessary  to  take  a 
recess. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  can  limit  myself  quite  strictly  to-morrow, 
and  confine  myself  to  less  than  an  hour.  I  say  this  only 
in  reference  to  the  jury's  wish. 

Mr.  Morris— That  will  place  Mr.  Beach  at  a  very  great 

disadvantage. 

Mr.  Evarts— Settle  it  with  the  jury.  I  am  not  asking 
any  favor  to  myself,  hut  I  only  said  if  I  went  over  to  to- 
morrow I  would  take  less  than  an  hour. 

]\Ir.  Morris— The  jury  indicate  that  they  would  like  to 
step  out  for  a  few  moments. 

Mr.  McMurn  (a  juror) — Go  on,  if  you  have  to  go  on  all 
night  to  finish  it. 

Judge  Neilson— Suppose  you  take  a  recess  for  15 
minutes. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  for  these  gentlemen  to  determine, 
suhject  to  your  Honor's  direction.  I  am  not  a  party  to 
the  inquiry  at  all. 

Mr.  McMurn— Let  him  (Mr.  Evarts)  go  on  until  12 
o'clock. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  jury  can  very  patiently  hear 
you  out. 

Mr.  Taylor  (a  juror)— I  could  not  hear  you  to  any  ad- 
vantage to-night. 

Mr.  Evarts— A  juryiuan  puts  it  on  the  ground  that  his 
attention  cannot  he  commanded  any  further.  His  name 
is  Mr.  Taylor ;  he  has  just  said  so  to  me. 

Mr.  Morris— Your  Honor  can  see  that  if  Mr.  Beach  com- 
mences to-morrow,  after  a  short  speech  by  Mr.  Evarts,  it 
will  he  placing  him  at  a  great  disadvantage.  He  left 
with  the  distinct  imderstanding  that  the  case  was  to  be 
closed  to-night  before  he  left,  and  I  submit  it  would  be 
unfair.  Mr.  Beach  and  we  have  been  here  thirteen  days 
now,  listening  to  the  other  side,  and  he  has  gone 
away  with  the  distinct  imderstanding  and 
a  pledge  that  he  should  commence  to  have  the  ear  of  the 
Court  and  the  jury  in  the  morning,  and  I  submit  that  it 
would  be  unfair  not  to  close  to-night. 

Judge  Neilson  (to  the  iury)— You  see  how  that  is.  If 
you  want  an  intermission  of  15  minutes  I  will  give  it  to 
you  cheerfully. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  would  be  so  much  time  lost. 

Judge  Neilson  (to  the  jury)— You  ought  to  hear  him 
(Mr.  Evarts)  without  any  constraint  or  pressure  what- 
ever. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  don't  want  to  have  anything  to  say  in 
this;  fifteen  minutes  would  be  so  much  time  lost. 

Ml.  Fitter  la  iuror)— If  we  had  an  intermission  of  15 
minutes  I  thiitlr  we  oould  sit  an  hour. 


Mr.  Evarts— I  am  not  a  party  to  this.  I  am  trespassing 
on  your  patience  and  your  indulgence,  and  it  is  only  a 
question  for  you  to  determine,  to  which  I,  with  great 
repect,  shall  submit.  I  shall  submit  with  entire  personal 
comfort  to  any  disposition  you  make. 

Mr.  Morris— We  have,  I  submit  to  the  Court,  something 
to  say  in  this  matter. 

Judge  Neilson  (to  the  jury)— Gentlemen,  retire  with  an 
oflacer  for  15  minutes  and  take  the  air,  and  you  will  find 
yourselves  comfortable  when  you  come  back.  Take  a 
walk  arouud  the  block. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  do  you  want  that  15  minutes  fori 

Judge  Neilson— Those  that  wish  to  walkout  for  15 
minutes  will  walk  out,  and  those  that  don't  will  remain. 

Mr.  Evarts— Perhaps  the  jury  would  find  it  convenient 
to  begin  at  half -past  10  in  the  morning. 

Judge  Neilson— Then  we  will  let  it  go  until  then. 

Mr.  Morris— You  can  see  the  disadvantage  of  that. 

Judge  Neilson—  iTes.  If  the  jury  wish  a  recess  we  will 
take  it ;  if  they  do  not  we  won't.  If  they  wish  to  walk 
out  they  can. 

Mr.  Taylor  (a  juror)— I  will  walk  out  and  be  back  in  two 

minutes. 

Judge  Neilson— I  wish  the  audience  to  keep  still.  Gen- 
tlemen keep  their  seats.  [To  the  jury  | :  I  have  very  often 
worked  all  day  with  a  jury  an<l  kept  them  until  as  late  as 
9  o'clock  at  night  without  complaint.  I  think  this  deli- 
cacy of  not  being  able  to  hear  counsel  an  hour  or  two 
longer  without  complaint,  is  not  caUed  for  at  all. 

Mr.  Thayer— I  beg  your  Honor's  pardon.  I  have  given 
way  to  them  altogether.  We  gave  away  every 
Saturday,  when  this  young  man  and  I  would  willingly 
stop.  Every  Saturday  we  have  given  away  in  their  favor; 
In  fact  it  was  not  the  programme  on  my  part. 

Judge  Neilson— I  wish  those  gentlemen  who  can't  keep 
quiet  would  please  retire.  They  seem  to  think  that  it  is 
time  to  adjourn.  It  would  be  a  great  comfort  to  us  if  they 
would  retire,  and  go  home. 

After  an  intermission  of  about  15  minutes,  Mr.  Evarts 
proceeded  with  his  argument  as  follows. 

MR.  TILTON'S  "  TRUE  STORY." 
And  now,  gent[emen,  at  the  close  of  1872, 
as  the  final  conclusion  of  the  debates  then  held,  and  in 
which  Mr.  Tracy  figured  also,  when  there  was  this  double 
purpose  of  not  ending  the  power  of  malicious  impu- 
tation against  Mr.  Beecher,  ana  yet  of  keei>- 
ing  within  the  truth  and  preventing  being  forced  into 
the  false  accusation  that  has  now  finally  triumphed,  in 
their  purposes,  and  been  made  the  subject  of  this  inquiry, 
in  the  most  solemn  form  Mr.  Tilton  makes  a  narrative 
which,  by  a  singular  perversion,  from  his  intent 
in  its  preservation,  has  been  brought  to  your 
eyes ;  T  mean  what  is  called  the  **  True 
Story."  And  I  say  to  yon,  gentlemen,  that  on 
Mr.  Tilton's  narration  as  tbere  given,  and  on  Mr.  Beec^ 


806 


TR£J   nLTON'BEEiJHER  TRIAL. 


©IT'S  letter  of  the  15tii  of  July,  1874,  as  read  to  Ms  Church 
Committee  under  the  solemnities  of  his  pargation  of  his 
conscience,  as  before  God — on  those  two  instruments 
your  verdict  could  repose  with  absolute  assurance, 
and  no  verdict  can  be  given  that  contradicts  those  two 
papers,  without  assuming  an  imperfection  in  those  pieces 
of  evidence  themselves,  that  they  by  themselves  are  not 
subject  to  the  charge  of.  I  say  this  only  for  argument ; 
for  the  flood  of  testimony,  and  the  absence  of  any  testi- 
mony that  the  law  regards,  or  common  sense  r^ards,  as 
of  importance  in  maintaining  this  issue  for  the  plaintiff, 
I  do  not  pass  from  your  minds  or  from  my  own ;  but  I 
say  that  on  that  True  Statement,  made  and  read, 
proposed  to  Tracy  as  the  whole  truth,  exhibited 
by  Mr.  Tilton  as  the  whole  truth,  being  really  more  than 
the  truth  as  against  Mr.  Beecher,  though  he  gave  the  re- 
traction of  his  wife,  to  be  sure,  in  it,  and  left  people  to 
judge  whether  her  first  charge  was  with  or  without  foun- 
dation, on  that  paper  preserved  by  one  of  the  tricks  that 
Mr.  Tilton  took  to  have  it  published  irresponsibly, 
and  so  made  a  means  of  keeping  alive 
his  imputations  and  assaults  upon  Mr. 
Beecher  put  in  Redpath,  the  reporter's  hands — on  this 
truthful  statement,  and  honorable  statement  of  Mr.  Til- 
ton, "Well,  I  can't  give  it  to  you  to  publish,  but  you  can 
see  where  I  put  it,  and  you  ciiu  taks  it,  and  then  what 
you  do  won't  be  at  my  responsibility,  and  it  will  be  pub- 
lished, and  I  shan't  be  responsible  for  its  publication,  and 
I  would  like  to  have  it  published,  but  not  be  responsible 
for  its  publication."  Kedpatli  takes  it,  and  Redpath 
imdertakes  a  reproduction  of  it  by  the  rapid  process  of 
shorthand  writing,  until  he  gets  down  a  considerable 
length  in  it;  and  then,  he  being  a  pretty  shrewd,  com- 
mon sense  sort  of  a  man,  he  sees  that  there  is  not  mucli 
tn  it,  that  there  is  not  much  substance  in  this 
business  about  Mr.  Beecher,  and  he  stops,  and 
then  Mr.  Tilton— Mrs.  Tilton,  as  Mr.  Tilton  says, 
I  think— tears  up  the  greater  part  of  the  paper,  because 
even  in  this  form  it  was  not  true  ;  it  contained  her  false 
accusation  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  a  record  of  it,  to  wit,  of 
improper  proposals,  and  she  destroyed  all  but 
some  pages  which  seem  to  have  escaped  de- 
atruetion,  and  that  formed  the  close  of  that 
paper,  and  are  produced  here  upon  our 
call,  and  the  whole  is  put  in  evidence  by  us,  there  being  a 
gap  in  the  middle  which  Is  not  produced,  and  no  at- 
tempt has  been  made  to  supply  it  by  Mr.  Tilton's 
memory,  or  from    any   sources    of    its  reproduction. 

This  story  sets  forth  with  a  distinctness  as  if  the  slip 
were  produced  before  you  tha,t  was  used  that  night  of 
the  30th,  this  statement : 

In  the  Summer  of  1870,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton,  my 
wife,  made  to  me  a  communication  concerning  Mr. 
Beecher,  which  to  use  her  own  words,  lest  I  should  wrong 
him  by  u.slng  mine,  she  afterwards  noted  down  in  niemo- 
rantlum,  as  foUowa : 

**Sho  muilo  me  a  communication  in  July,  which  com- 


munication, made  in  July,  afterward  she  noted  in 
writing;"  not  "When  she  afterward  made  me  a  com- 
munication in  writing,"  but  "  She  made  me  a  communica- 
tion in  July,  which  afterward  she  noted  down  in  a, 
memoraudum,"  as  follows : 

Mr.  H.  W.  Beecher,  my  friend  and  pastor,  solicited  me 
to  be  a  wife  to  him,  together  with  all  that  this  implies. 
I  borrow  the  above  from  my  wife's  handwriting. 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  la  the  charge,  and  the  only  charge 
that  either  in  July,  if  you  believe  him,  or  ever,  was  the 
extent  of  this  imputation,  and  the  wife  withdrew  it  the 
next  day  after  she  had  made  the  writing,  and  noted  it  as 
what  she  had  said  in  July;  and  after  going  through  with 
the  whole  and  refuting  all  calumnies  against  his  wife's 
good  name,  and  his  own  honor,  in  the  publication  of  the 
Woodhulls,  Mr.  Tilton  closes  in  this  way. 

To  complete  the  chain  of  documents  belonging  to  this 
case,  T  now  Insert  the  two  of  chief  importance,  namely, 
the  direct  testimony  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
as  to  the  alleged  criminality  of  their  relations. 

"  To  close  forever  this  case  of  scandal  against  Mr. 
Beecher  and  against  Mrs.  Tilton,  having  shown  you  the 
charge,  its  retraction,  its  explanation,  and  the  various 
course  of  interviews  on  the  subject,  I  now  close  it  all  by 
giving  you  the  documents  of  chief  importance,  the  direct 
testimony  of  Mrs.  Tilton  and  of  Mr.  Beecher  as  to  the 
alleged  criminality  of  their  relations."  Mrs.  Tilton  says 
to  Mr.  Moulton : 

For  my  husband's  sake,  and  my  chUdi-en's,  I  hereby 
testify  with  all  my  woman's  soul,  that  I  am  innocent  of 
the  crime  of  impure  conduct  alleged  against  me.  I  have 
been  to  my  husband  a  true  wife.  Tn  his  love  I  wish  to 
live  and  die.  My  early  affection  for  him  stUl  burns  with 
its  maiden  flame,  all  the  more  for  what  he  has  borne  for 
my  sake,  both  private  and  public  wrongs.  His  plan  to 
keep  back  scandal,  long  ago  threatened  against  me,  I 
never  approved,  and  the  result  shows  it  unavailing. 

She  did  not  approve  of  this  policy  of  suppression  at 
one  hand  and  constant  publication  and  exaggeration  at 
the  other. 

But  few  would  have  risked  so  much  as  he  has  sacrificed 
for  others  ever  since  the  conspiracy  began  against  him 
two  years  ago.  Having  had  power  to  strike  others  he 
has  forborne  to  do  It,  and  allowed  himself  to  be  injured 
instead.  No  woimd  to  me  is  so  great  as  the  impression 
that  he  is  among  my  accusers.  I  bless  him  every  day  for 
his  faith  in  me,  which  swerves  not,  and  for  standing  my 
champion  against  all  adversaries. 

Elizabeth  R.  Tilton. 

And  the  husband  that  sets  forth  that  as  the  important 
and  direct  evidence  of  his  wife  on  the  subject  of  the  rela- 
tions, now  seeks  at  j'our  hands  a  verdict  that  there  is  no 
truth  in  her  statement.  And  Mr.  Beecher's  statement  he 
publishes  as  also  with  his  authority,  and  his  approval, 
and  with  his  wife's,  as  the  final  quietus  upon  this  scan- 
dal of  improper  relations.  Mr.  Beecher  says  to  Mr. 
Moulton : 

I  promptly  comply  with  your  suggestion  of  giving  an 
explicit  denial  of  the  stories  which  connected  my  name 
criiuiniUly  with  Mrs.  Tilton.   The  very  thought  of  beinjj 


8Vmmj:ng  vf  by  mil  j^vaets. 


807 


ofcliffedto  say  anytMng  to  clear  her  fair  fame  ^hocks  me, 
and  I  have  liitlierto  acted  under  advice  in  refraining. 
Very  truly,  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

Now  coma*  the  denial: 

Brooklyn,  Dec.  29, 1872. 
I  eolemnly  deny  the  scandalous  charges  made  against 
me  and  Mrs.  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton.  Especially  and  em- 
phatically I  deny  that  there  has  been  any  criminal  inter- 
course, or  any  color  of  a  reason  for  such  a  charge.  My 
acquaintance  with  Mrs.  Tilton  has  inspu'ed  me  with  the 
highest  esteem  for  her  modesty,  propriety,  ^.nd  womanly 
graces.  I  authorize  her,  or  her  husband  and  childi'esi,  to 
make  use  of  this  declaration,  and  I  desire  to  state,  in 
addition,  that  Mr.  Tilton,  during  the  whole  of  this  shame- 
ful scandal,  has  uniformly  spoken  in  the  highest  terms 
of  his  wife,  and  has  shown  to  me  the  highest  proofs  of 
friendship. 

Now  there  is  a  complete  denial,  and  you  will  find  that 
there  is  a  somewhat  frequent  use  in  the  covert  imputa- 
tions of  Mr.  Tilton,  of  a  phrase  not  known  to  the  law, 
and  not  known  to  any  definite  sense  of  imputation  of  un- 
chaste (in  the  sense  of  guiltj^)  sexual  relations ;  I  mean  a 
phrase,  "  criminal  intimacy."  Now,  "  criminal  re- 
lations," or  "criminal  conversation,"  or  "crimi- 
nal connection,"  or  *'  sexual  connection,"  we  all 
understand ;  but  "  criminal  intimacy "  admits  of 
a  solution  of  improprieties  of  intimacy,  unsuitable,  but 
not  of  the  character  covered  by  the  other  phi-ase.  And 
Chief-Justice  Coburn,  in  the  celebrated  case  of  Robinson 
and  Robinson,  in  the  Ist  of  Bwabey  &  Tristram,  361-398, 
draws  the  distinction: 

The  words  "criminal  intimacy"  are  often  used  to 
denote  a  culpable  intimacy  short  of  adultery,  and  in  con- 
tradistinction to  it 

And  yet  the  cunning  off  this  word-fanciei:  has  under- 
taken, as  in  the  West  charges,  in  his  commimieation  of 

criminalintimacy,"  to  cover  himself  if  he  is  to  be  ac- 
cused of  slander,  by  pointing  to  Chief -Justice  Cockbum, 
and  the  settled  doctrine  of  the  law,  that  criminal  inti- 
macy means  culpable  intimacy,  distinguished— not  mean- 
ing adultery,  and  used  in  contradistinction  to  it. 

THE  INTERVIEW  GEN.  TRACT  WAS  NOT 
ALLOWED  TO  DESCRIBE. 
Now,  gentlemen,  there  came  to  be  in  1874, 
the  final  determination  ;  after  the  submission  to  the  in- 
quiry of  the  Church  Committee  had  resulted  in  t3ie 
unanimous  and  full  vindication  of  Mr.  Beecher,  this  law- 
suit was  introduced ;  but  in  that  accusation  before  the 
Church  Committee  the  purpose  was  formed  of  enlarging 
the  accusation  to  adult*^rous  intercourse  and  se- 
duction ;  and  the  message  by  Redpath,  and 
the  admission  by  Tilton  in  not  contradicting 
Mr.  Tracy  when  Tracy  told  him  before  the  Church 
Committee,  "  When  you  changed  your  charge  I  was  lib- 
erated from  my  promise,"  indicated  to  you  distinctly  the 
point  of  time,  and  the  motives  under  which  this  final 
choice  or  alternative  of  siTbmitting  to  infamy  of  sland(|f- 
o-as,  and  calumnious  imputations— of  being  the  author  of 


slanderous  and  caltunnious  imputations  against  an  up- 
right and  respected  man  like  Mr.  Beecher,  or  having  an 
attempt,  at  least,  to  breast  a  fall  trial,  was  resorted  to. 
and  Mr.  Tracy  tells  you  that  he  had  a  conversation  with 
Mi's.  Moulton— as  Mrs.  Moulton  had  said  before  there 
was  a  conversation— and  Mr.  Tracy  said,  "  1  am  here  to 
give  evidence  only  on  matters  that  have  already  been 
introduced.  This  interview  has  not  been  fully  intro- 
duced. T  will  not  speak  to  it.  This  lady  had  a 
right  to  suppose  that  her  conversation  with 
him,  although  no  expression  of  its  being  con- 
fidential, was  that  between  a  gentleman  and  a  lady ;  I 
will  not  repeat  it."  And  the  counsel  for  the  plaintiff 
said:  "  Oh!  Mrs.  Moulton,  we  are  going  to  call  to  that." 
Mr.  Trac3^  says :  "  Very  well,  she  must  open  her  mouth 
first  about  that  conversation ;  I  will  not. "  And  it  passed, 
and  the  lady  was  not  called  to  that  conversation. 
She  never  was  brought  to  the  stand  on  that  conversa- 
tion. My  learned  friends  found  that  the  hasty  boast 
that  there  was  no  conversation  between  Mr.  Tracy  and 
Mrs.  Moulton  that  they  did  not  desire  exposed,  would 
not  bear  the  sober  discretion  of  an  inquiry  into  it,  and 
that  conversation  was  never  brought  to  your  notice 
again.  And  yet  the  lady  came  back  and  Ijalked 
about  the  interview  in  respect  to  the  alibi  part 
of  it,  to  help  along  Mrs.  Eddy's  testimony,  and 
she  was  withdrawn  then  with  the  statement  that  she  was 
coming  back  to  speak  definitely  in  important  parts  of  the 
case,  and  then  she  never  came  back  to  the  stand,  and  the 
only  thing  they  asked  to  put  in  as  if  she  were  present  was 
a  denial  that  she  had  told  Mr.  Beecher  at  the  time  she 
kissed  him  that  she  believed  him  to  be  a  good  man.  She 
had  admitted  before  that  she  said  she  believed  there  was  a 
good  deal  of  good  in  him,  enough  I  suppose  to  justify  a 
kiss,  and  there  did  not  seem  to  be  very  much  substance 
in  that  denial ;  and  when  Mr.  Beecher  had  given  a  full 
narrative,  which  you  remember,  of  the  course  of  his  in- 
terviews, and  his  conversation  with  Mrs.  Moulton, 
Mrs.  Moulton  does  not  come  back  to  the 
stand  either  to  contradict  him  or  to  intro- 
duce that  conversation  with  IVIr.  Tracy,  which  his 
deUcaoy  and  sense  of  what  belongs  even  to  implied  confi- 
dence in  a  conversation  between  a  woman  or  a  man  and 
another  person  alwaj's  cover,  unless  the  absolute  inter- 
ests of  justice  require  the  production  of  it. 

THE  TWO  IMPORTANT  WITNESSES  EX- 
CLUDED BY  THE  LAW. 
Now,  gentlemen,  there  have  been  two  per- 
sons whom  the  law  exchides  as  witnesses,  and  yet  who, 
from  their  relations  to  this  party  plaiatiff  as  wife,  and 
this  party  defendant  as  wife,  would,  no  doubt,  in  matters 
of  detail,  in  matters  of  substance,  perhaps,  be  possessed 
of  knowledge  that  would  disclose  truth  ;  but  the  law  in- 
exorably has  excluded  them  both,  Mr.  Beechei 
must  lo.*e  aU  the  confirmation  of  his  wife's  intioiat© 


808  THE  TILTON-BJ 

and  priviite  knowIed^Q,  as  tlie  practical  and  careful 
preserver  of  all  dates  and  facts  and  knowledge,  in  mem- 
ory, of  all  difficulties  attendant  upon  her  liusband,  to 
wMoh  she  could  be  a  witness;  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  ectually 
excluded  in  the  law,  is  under  even  a  greater  disability,  if 
the  absolute  exclusion  had  been  ov^rx-ridden  by 
statute,  as  in  respect  of  the  husband,  it  is 
supposed  to  hare  been  done — that  is,  the  exclusion 
of  all  matters  that  passed  by  confidence  between  hus- 
band and  wife.  And  yet  my  learned  friends,  entirely 
aware  of  both  of  these  rules  of  law,  first  the  absolute 
exclusion  of  the  wife,  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  second,  her  exclu- 
sion from  testifying  as  to  what  passed  privately  be- 
tween herself  and  her  husband  in  any  of  the 
long  intercourse  of  their  life,  have  chosen  to  put  them- 
selves upon  a  forensic  demonstration,  after  our  case  was 
closed,  that  if  we  wished  to  call  Mrs.  Tilton  to  make 
our  case  stronger  against  them,  they  would  not  object. 
Well,  gentlemen,  we  had  a  very  early  discxission  of  this 
subject  before  Mr.  Tilton  was  called,  and  of  the  absolute 
exclusion  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  her  necessary  excMsion  ; 
and  my  leained  friends  put  themselves  upon  the  laT7, 
and  insisted  upon  it  as  being  the  law,  but  that  it  did  not 
follow  that  Mr.  Tilton  might  not  be  a  witness  ;  and  they 
carried  their  point.  Now,  why  did  not  they 
then  say  something,  at  that  stage  of  the 
cause,  about  their  willingness  that  Mrs.  Tilton  should 
be  a  witness  ?  Why,  gentlemen,  they  did  not  want  Mrs. 
Tilton  to  be  a  witness,  but  they  wanted  to  say,  after  our 
cause  was  closed,  under  a  rule  of  law  that  made  it  impos- 
sible for  us  to  produce  her— they  wanted  then  to  say  that 
they  would  not  interpose  an  objection.  Well,  gentlemen, 
if  they  thought  that  Mrs.  Tilton's  evidence  would  be 
agreeable  to  them,  the  way  for  a  lawyer  to 
do,  an  honest,  straightforward  thing  in  that 
behalf  was  to  call  her  themselves,  and  put  upon 
us,  not  an  exhibitory  responsibility,  but  an  actual  re- 
sponsibility, of  saying  that  we  objected ;  and  she  was  the 
piaintiflfs  wife,  and  he  knows  all  about  her,  and  she,  if 
you  will  believe  him,  has  been  the  source,  and,  on  the 
evidence,  has  frequently  been  made  the  means  of 
making,  to  be  sure,  not  a  charge  of  adultery,  but  a 
charge  of  Improper  solicitations;  and  the  great 
proposition  which  public  policy  insists  upon,  and 
on  which  it  excludes  a  witness  in  that  conjugal 
relation,  irrespective  of  consent  of  any  kind,  to  wit,  that 
a  wife  shall  not  be  called  against  her  husband,  does  not 
apply  when  the  wife  is  called  for  the  husband,  for  then 
the  law  looks  upon  it  only  as  a  ground  of  objection  that 
Interest  concurs,  and  interest  is  an  objection  that  may  be 
waived  without  sacrificing  the  policy  of  the  law.  But, 
gentlemen,  I  pass  that  by.  You  understand  what 
the  law  is,  and  you  heard  the  form  of  the  prop- 
osition. But  on  our  part,  why,  we  have  an 
absolute  and  repeated  exhibition  by  this  plaintiff  of  this 
wife's  denial  of  there  being  any  truth  in  his  charge  ;  evi- 


'^JKGBER  TRIAL. 

dence  binding  on  him,  produced  by  him,  and  in  the  aol- 
enmest  forms,  one  of  which  I  liave  just  read  to  you,  given 
by  her,  and  indorsed  by  him  as  true  ;  and  through  a  mul- 
titude of  forms,  first,  in  the  retraction ;  second,  in  the 
letter  to  Dr.  Storrs  ;  next  in  the  solemn  and  truthful 
declaration  that  the  Woodhull  libel  was  preposterous  and 
a  wicked  slander;  next  in  the  letter  of  denial, 
known  as  the  Grifiith  Gaimt  letter  ;  and  I  might  bestow 
a  passijig  observation  on  the  4th  of  July  letter,  five  days 
afterward,  which  was  really  a  postscript  to  the  GritRth 
Gaunt  letter,  and  which  contains  the  phrase,  "  I  hope," 
referring  back  to  their  experience—"  T  hope  you  may  not 
be  misled  by  a  good  woman,  as  I  have  been  by  a  good 
man,"  having  in  the  Grifiith  Gaunt  letter  five  days  be- 
fore shown  exactly  the  extent  to  which  she  had 
been  misled,  and  which  was  not  of  impui'ity  of  person . 
but  of  divided  unity  of  affections,  as  is  the  plot  and  the 
character  of  the  Griffith  Gaunt  novel.  Tilton's  testi- 
mony that  she  denied  having  violated  her  marriage  vows; 
her  denial  to  Bessie  Turner,  testified  to  by  Bev^t^ie 
Turner  when  she  said  to  the  horrible  accusa^ 
fcions  about  Mrs.  Tilton's  adultery,  which  in  a 
sort  of  ' frenzy  Mr.  Tilton  made,  accusing  her  of  hav 
ing,  under  his  own  eyes,  repeatedly  consummated 
the  act,  and  with  three  or  four,  I  think,  different  persons, 
"  How  can  you  tell  this  girl  such  base  lies?"  her  solemn 
denial  to  Mrs.  Ovington  as  produced  in  the  faithful  testi- 
mony of  that  lady ;  her  denial  before  the  Committee : 
Mrs.  Bradshaw's  statement  in  her  letter,  which  they 
introduced,  which  says  in  the  end  of  1873  Mrs.  Tilton 
never  confessed  any  fault  to  her ;  and,  too,  Mrs.  Davis 
and  Mi"s.  H.  B.  Stanton's  denials,  published  by  this  plain- 
tiff and  read  to  you  yesterday,  in  which  they  had  not  con- 
fidences with  Mrs.  Tilton— all  these  things,  coupled  with 
the  fact  that  the  wife's  testimony,  given  on  the  6th  of 
July  before  this  Committee,  had  denied  the  whole 
and  that  the  husband  received  her  to  his  bosom  and  co- 
habited with  her  after  that,  and  she  was  as  happy  as  a 
queen  Tintil  the  coarse  and  violent  conduct  of  Mr.  Tilton 
about  her  to  the  Ovingtons  at  their  house  made  the  wife 
see  and  feel  that  there  was  no  trusting  this  treachery 
any  longer,  and  that  a  kiss  meant  nothing  with 
him  when  a  stab  comes  to  be  the  suggestion  of  his  chang- 
ing passions,  or  the  interest  of  the  moment.  And  then 
she  left,  and  she  stayed  away.  Now,  as  you  will  see,  be- 
yond this  there  was  nothing  that  the  wife's  testimony 
could  have  disclosed,  of  any  interest  to  you,  or  to  me,  ex- 
cept in  a  field  of  confidences  between  husband  and  wife, 
which  the  law  would  have  shut  out,  and  which  no  man 
respecting  the  law  ever  would  seek  to  contravene.  So 
much  for  that. 

MR.  BEECHEK'S  BEARING  UNDER  FIRE. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  survey  of  the  evidence, 
no  do u')t  more  cursory  in  some  topics  than  could  have 
been  desiied,  has  yet  brought  before  you,  as  I  trust  with 


entire  candor  on  my  part,  a  very  oonsideraljle  siirrey  of 
tlie  general  bulk  and  forc-e  ana  true  logical  effect,  as 
it  lias  iDeen  presented.  It  is,  of  course,  on  tke 
part  of  tlie  defendant.  a  defense  against 
charges  "^vidcli  are  to  be  proved  against 
Wm,  and  TrLieh  stand  for  naught  until  they 
aje  proved.  And  the  evidence  therefore  is  mainly  in  con- 
travening and  confuting  false  or  mistaken  evidence 
against  him,  or  such  substantive  facts  if  there  is  need  of 
explanatinn,  alvrays  adding  the  great  purgation  of  the 
defendant  by  his  ovm  month,  submitting  himself 
to  vour  observation,  your  criticism,  your  judg- 
ment, and  to  the  cross-examination  of  your 
learned  opponents  under  all  the  suggestions 
which  :5Ir.  Tilt  on  and  Mr.  Moult  on  can  furnish 
from  the  long  association  and  observation,  neither  honest 
nor  good-natured,  to  vrhich  they  have  subjected  him  for 
these  several  years.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that -^bat- 
ever  criticisms  may  be  made  against  incompleteness  of 
memory  or  misconception  of  isolated  and  inci- 
dental facts,  if  any  such  criticisms  can  be  made, 
that  the  cross-examination  does  not  reduce  the 
direct  examination,  and  that  the  direct  ex- 
amination is  a<  ample,  as  clear,  as  definite, 
a  denial  of  every  form  and  degree  of  impure  conduct 
vrith  this  ladr  as  it  is  possible  for  language  to  furnish. 
And  you  ino"vr  that  this  witness,  of  all  others,  knovrs 
what  the  truth  is,  and  he  knows  that  bis  st  try  is  not  un- 
challenired,  that  it  is  not  secret  against  the  misconstruc- 
tions of  men's  minds,  and  of  men's  tongues,  for  it  is  in 
the  face  not  of  vriinesses  who  know  the 
facts,  but  in  the  face  of  witnesses  who 
have  not  hesitated  to  present  to  you  out  of  3Ir. 
Beeeher's  mouth  what  they  call  contrary  statements  and 
confessions.  And  therefore  IJiave  presented  to  you  this 
man  of  great  intelligence,  of  an  absolute  integrity— save 
30  far  as  this  very  matter  is  tnciuired  nobody  questions  it, 
and  I  have  seen  no  evidence  of  double  dealing  or  of  pre- 
varication or  of  falsehood  in  any  of  the  acts  or  accLuies- 
cetoces  of  Mr.  Beecher  that  are  brought  in  evidence 
against  him.  And  here  he  stands  with  The  absolute  righT 
to  your  credit,  and  with  no  escape  from  that  credit  ex- 
cept your  absolute  conviction  of  him  as  a  perjurer  expos- 
ing himself  to  the  punishment  of  men.  Xow,  many  a 
man  has  been  frightened  from  the  truth  by  fearing  the 
falsehoods  of  people  against  him.  But  ^Mr.  Beecher 
has  stood  throughout  this  matter,  confident  in  his  con- 
science and  its  approval,  confident  in  his  faith  in  God, 
confident  in  truth,  and  ready  to  take  at  the  •hands  of 
false  witnesses,  if  need  be,  punishment  of  men,  but  not 
willing  to  tell  a  lie  to  his  own  conscience,  or  to  God,  or  to 
refrain  from  the  truth  in  any  respect.  And  when  a  man 
thus  presents  himself  as  the  sole  witness  knowing  or  the 
fticts  and  as  a  man  witli  imcLuestioned  character  for 
truth  and  duty  In  every  department  of  life  and  Through 
the  long  series  of  years  that  he  has  lived  in  the  notice  and 


?r  MB,    £  TAB  IS.  809 

I  under  The  burning  cririeism  ox  men,  there  is  noThlng  in 
I  our  trust  of  justice  if  that  does  not  end  as  maner  of  evi- 
j  dence,  this  case.  But,  when  we  find  against  him,  only, 
j  as  I  have  said  to  you,  evidence  not  of  a  physical  and 
I  direct  observation  of  The  senses,  bur  remote  moral  reason- 
higs  from  the  strength  of  the  phrases  in  his  letters, 
that  degrees  of  disquietude.  of  compunction, 
of  sell-seproach,  of  commiseration  of  distress,  are  t-o 
be  turned  into  evidences  of  definite  and  heinous  guilt, 
when  we  find  that  that  is  the  only  resource  and  only  pre- 
tense, why,  we  at  once  see  that  all  the  prolixity,  and  all 
the  ingenuity  of  argument  that  has  been  resorted  to  on 
our  part,  really  we  should  have  been  saved  ii'om,  when- 
ever it  came  to  be  admitted  that  there  was  no  evidence 
of  impropriety  of  conduct  between  these  people,  and 
that  there  was  nothing  in  the  direct  form  of  admission 
of  the  guilt  or  form  of  the  crime  charged.. 
It  is  iheir  flight  from  the  common  level  of 
common  sense  and  actual  evidence  into  this  re- 
mijTe  region  of  argument  of  a  moral  naTiire  which  The 
law  rejects,  That  has  led  us  in  this  long  I'lja-e  of  exposure 
which  has  satisried  your  m:n  'ind  the  m!nd-  wi  all  those 
who  iuTelligeiiTly  l.ave  vvat'jh-d  th  :•  coiu'se  of  this  trial, 
thar  The  Ti.ie  force  o:  mural  .:-v:rhmce  is  an  alisolure  ex- 
clusion of  The  P':'S-ibiliTy  of  gu'lT,  find  an  absolute  and 
definite  exalraTiou  of  the  character  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
as  a  man  of  these  senrimenrs  of  honor  and  of  duty  that 
have  filled  him  with  anguish,  that  has  embittered  life, 
that  he  should  have  been  led  into  an  exposure  and  an 
injury  of  the  happinc-ss  of  a  family  by  his  heedlessness 
and  inatTenrion. 

THE  LAST  PLEA  PGR  ME.  BEECHER. 
Xo^v,  gentlemen,   a   jiiir   brougliT  in  any 
doulitfiil  issue,  even,  or  balance  of  Te-Timony.  to  a  deter- 
1  mination  which  carries  a  verdict  for  one  side  or  the 
other,  and  If  it  be  a  verdict  that  earries  to  the  defeated 
party  an  injury  or  a  loss,  so  that  the  measure  of  benefit 
to  one  is  distinctly  measured  also  by  injury  or  loss,  or 
deprivation  to  the  other,  finds  itself  imder  some  stress. 
But  here  you  have  observed,  from  the  outset,  that  the 
ordinary  distraction  which  might  divide  the  sentiments 
and  feelings  of  a  jnry,  so  far  as  sentiments  and  feelings 
might  be  indulged  by  honest  men  in  regard  to  a  decision 
of  the  truth,  are  here  wholly  absent ;  for  in  giving  your 
verdict  for  the  defendant,  jLc.  Beecher,  you  gi^  e  a  verdict 
of  safety  and  of  honor  to  the  two  families  of  Mr.  Beecher 
and  of  3Ir.  Tilton.   You  uphold  the  wife,  you  save  the 
family  of  Mr.  Tilt-on,  and  yon  save  him  in  Ms  permanent 
i  and  definite  honor.  Alas!  you  cannot  save  htm  inhia 
I  truthfulness,  for  he  has  told  opposing  stories  on  every 
definite  and  important  fact  in  this  cause.  Your  ver- 
I  diet,  then,  for  the  defendant,  is  a  verdict  of  safety  and 
j  honor  to  everybody  whose  safety  and  honor  Lave  b<>ea 
!  involved  in  this  long  examination    Your  ve  diet  for  this 
1  plaintiff  strikes  into  the  heart  o-  his  wife,  and  to  ihn 


810  THM  TILION-JB 

destruction  of  Ms  cliildren;  breaks  the  heart  of  tliis 
noble  wife,  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  destroys  tbe  happiness 
and  honor  of  that  family ;  strikes  a  blow  at  the  credit 
of  our  communities;  brings  dishonor  upon  the  name 
of  our  common  Christian  religion,  however  we  may  be 
divided  in  sects,  or  sentiments,  or  creeds  ;  and,  in  fact,  is 
a  blow  at  the  dignity  and  credit  of  human  nature  and  the 
civilization  and  purity  .of  American  life.  And  you 
are  asked  to  do  that  in  the  absence  of  a  single 
item  of  proof  of  crime  committed,  upon  the  abso- 
lute and  direct  exhaustion  of  the  possibility 
of  his  guilt  by  the  only  person  who  knows 
all  about  it  that  the  law  permits  to  testify,  and  upon 
affirmative  evidence  shaken  and  reduced  both  in  the 
credit  of  the  witnesses,  Mr.  Moulton,  Mr.  Tilton,  and  the 
feeble  supporting  evidence  of  Mrs.  Moulton,  and  met  on 
great  facts,  not  only  by  the  discredit  of  the  speakers,  on 
their  side  of  the  testimony,  but  the  direct  refutation  of 
the  facts  themselves,  by  witnesses  who  are  obliged,  on 
deir  own  statement  of  the  matter,  to  confess  a 
line  of  statement  under  the  most  responsible  obligations 
to  speak  the  truth,  and  under  the  most  direct  forms  of 
asseveration  through  a  series  of  years,  that  there  is  not 
a  word  of  truth  in  the  present  charge,  and  of  course 
whatever  of  loose  and  vague  perplexity  or  obscurity 
might  be  left  in  the  mind  of  afiy  man  in  this 
jury  or  out  of  this  jury,  there  is  not  any  doubt 
of  what  the  duty  is  under  the  rules  of  law  that  require 
you  in  finding  an  affirmative  verdict  for  this  plaintiff,  a 
verdict  against  this  defendant,  to  put  it  upon  affirmative 
proof  that  excludes  from  yom-  mind  a  reasonable  doubt 
of  the  innocence  of  this  defendant..  And  in  that 
etate  of  duty  and  of  law,  and  on  this  state 
of  evidence  which  I  apprehend  must  necessarily 
command  from  you,  each  one  of  you,  an  absolute 
conviction  of  the  actual  and  complete  innocence 
of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  an  actual  conviction  (with  whatever 
charity  you  may  choose  to  cover  the  faults  of  the  accu- 
sers or  their  supporting  witnesses)  that  this  accusation 
and  this  support  of  it  in  your  case  is  in  the  nature  of  a 
conspiracy  growing,  and  growing,  and  growing,  having 
no  desperate  purposes  at  the  first  but  in  a  continual  dis- 
appointment of  the  objects  that  they  expected  to 
accomplish  by  their  frustration,  by  the  perversity  and 
lolly  of  Mr.  Tilton  has  finally  come  to  an  accusation 
against  the  honor  and  the  moral  life  of  this  great  man. 
You  cannot  doubt,  you  do  not  doubt,  but  if  any  one  of 
Tou  does  doubt,  that  doubt  itself  must  give  the  verdict 
for  Mr.  Beecher. 

And,  now,  gentlemen,  character  is  always  felt  to  be,  in 
difficult  and  uncertain  inquiries,  an  object  of  most  solic- 
itous interest  on  the  part  of  every  ju.dge,  and  every  trib- 
unal, and  every  juryman  that  has  to  pass  upon  it.  Ah  1 
How  sad  is  the  condition  of  a  stronger  and  a  fcreigner 
who  comes  to  be  brought  into  question  and  put  on  trial 
hi  .  i  i  -  1^  ^v'lK'rr' he  is  found  alone,  with  no  knowledge  of 


^JECEEE  TRIAL, 

his  past  character,  no  friend  to  judge  him  as  belongs 
to  his  people,  and  their  customs,  and  their 
nature!  And  how  benevolently  the  English  law 
provided  for  this  sad  condition  of  the  stranger  that  was 
put  on  trial,  by  giving  him  the  best  support  possible,  in 
filling  the  jury  one-half  with  men  of  Ms  own  country, 
that,  at  least,  he  might  not  be  judged  by  men  all  foreign- 
ers to  him,  and  he  might  have  in  the  knowledge  of  one- 
half  of  the  jury  some  means  of  restoring  what  he  missed 
by  being  put  on  trial  in  a  strange  land  wliere  nobody 
knew  him,  or  Ms  surroundings,  or  his  character. 
Now,  sometimes  character  is  spoken  of  as  a  mat- 
ter that  is  to  be  thrown  m  as  a  weight  in 
doubtful  situations.  I  prefer  to  find  in  character 
that  direct  means  of  "refuting  false  evidence  upon 
the  external  principles  of  truth  that  every  fact 
matches  every  other  fact ;  and  when  a  particular  course 
of  conduct  and  of  crime  is  imputed  against  a  sti'anger 
and  you  know  nothing  of  his  past  life— or  an  obscure  per- 
son —  and  nothing  can  be  learned,  how  solicit- 
ous a  jury  are  to  see  if  they  can  eke 
out  of  the  evidence  sometMng  that  will 
stand  instead  of  this  knowledge  that  they  miss, 
so  that  they  can  have  the  support  of  feeling  that 
the  conviction  that  they  feel  bound  to  give  is  not  at 
variance  and  not  at  violence  with  his  character.  It  is 
on  that  principle  that  character,  when  known  and 
understood,  and  not  open  to  mistake,  when 
the  vice  and  fault  is  of  the  heart  and  nature, 
when  it  goes  through  years  of  corruption 
and  depravity,,  as  tMs  charge  (if  there  be  any  truth  in  it) 
does  go  for  Mr.  Beecher,  that  you  want  to  know  wJiethei 
it  matches  Ms  character.  If  it  matches,  it 
will  fit  somewhere.  If  it  don't  .  fit  anj  where, 
it  does  not  match.  And  when  the  whole  case 
against  a  man  is  not  of  witnesses  who  have 
seen  a  murder,  or  seen  the  approaches  of 
adulterous  lewdness,  or  seen  the  opportunities  and  seen 
the  deviation  from  proprieties  and  secrecy,  tben  it  is  all 
moral  evidence  that  he  said  so,  or  that  it  is  to*be 
drawn  from  Ms  letters— the  question  is,  Does  it  match  ? 
"VMiy,  the  housewife,  when  she  wishes  to  match  a  gar- 
ment, either  in  color  or  in  texture,  has  no  difficulty  in 
determining  that  crimson  and  scarlet  do  not  match 
with  purple  or  with  white,  or  that  woolen  fiber  does  not 
show  itself  to  have  come  off  of  the  same  piece  with  the 
linen  textm-e.  And  when  you  have  this  character  woven 
in  lineaments  that  no  man  doubts  of,  and  this  life  in  its 
whole  p*iod  from  boyhood  to  the  present  day,  open  and 
public  and  generous  and  kind,  elevated,  noble,  and  true, 
you  do  not  need  to  spend  much  time  in  finding  out  that 
the  scarlet  gmlt  of  adultery,  and  the  coarse,  selfish  pur- 
suits of  seduction  do  not  match  with  the  generous  heart, 
the  loving  kindness,  and  the  nobility  of  Hemy  Ward 
Beecher.  [Applause.J  But  then  they  say,  too,  "Ah I 
but  all  this  long  association,  and  all  tMs  simplicity  of 


SUMMING   UF  1 

impositioB,  and  all  this  difficulty  of  extrication,  and  all 
tM8  entanglement  of  tlie  sequences— tliat  does  not  match 
■with  Mr.  Beecher's  intelligence."  Well,  gentlemen,  it 
matches  with  all  the  knowledge  that  you  have  of  him  in 
regard  to  his  worldly  wisdom,  or  his  suspicion  of  others, 
or  his  harhoring  evil  constructions  of  any  man.  Up  to 
the  very  end  of  his  testimony  he  overflows  with  Mad- 
ness toward  all  his  accusers,  and  with  charity  for 
every  evil  falsehood  they  have  spoken  about  him. 
Ah !  gentlemen,  it  does  match  with  Mr.  Beecher,  as  it  is 
apt  to  match,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  with  so  many  good  men 
when  they  come  into  the  toils  of  ill-disposed,  contriving, 
managing,  plotting  enemies.  Why,  if  your  Honor  please, 
it  long  ago  was  but  the  expression  in  an  epigram  of  this 
recognized  principle  of  human  nature : 

Tarn  scepe  nostrum  decipi  Fdbullum  quid  miraris,  Olle  ? 
Bonus  Twmo  semper  est  tyro. 

Why  do  you  wonder,  OUus,  that  the  excellent  Fabullus 
is  so  often  deceived  by  fraudulent  impositions  upon 
him  ?  The  good  man  is  always  a  schoolboy  to  the  arts  of 
fraud. 

And  such  is  the  expesience  of  human  nature.  And 
who  would  wish  to  lose  innocence  by  becoming  thus  the 
victim  of  impositions  till  he  had  lost  faith  in  human 
nature  ?  No,  Mr.  Beecher  will  be  a  school-boy  to  the  arts 
of  fraad,  hereafter  as  heretofore.  It  does  match  with  his 
nature,  which  all  men  know,  and  which  has  been  de- 
scribed in  a  single  word  by  witnesses  here,  **  that 
he  is  a  great  boy."  Now,  Mr.  Tilton,  gentlemen,  presents 
to  you  an  extraordinary  character  in  the  common  sphere 
of  the  everyday  life  to  which  we  are  accustomed.  And 
yet  nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  all  the  imputa- 
tions we  are  forced  to  make  against  him,  his  mo- 
tives, his  evidence,  are  quite  in  consonance  with  his 
character.  T\Tiile  Mr.  Beecher  has  gone  on  from  his  early 
marriage  and  his  early  labors  in  the  life  of  a  man  who 
has  oonstautly  worked,  and  worked  for  the  good  of  oth- 
ers, and  has  taken,  without  arrogance  and  without  pride, 
such  meed  of  popular  approval  or  the  enthusiasm  of  his 
friends  as  followed  from  his  conduct,  you  find  that 
Mr.  Tilton,  beginning  in  the  same  faith,  with  the  same 
piety,  started  upon  the  same  career  with  the  support  of 
that  most  usefnl  aid,  a  -wife  of  equal  or  greater 
piety,  wrapt  up  in  Christian  faith  and  Chris- 
tian duty  as  the  end  and  object  of  life, 
while  he  pursued  that  path  and  was  favored  by 
the  friendship,  by  the  earnest  and  enthusiastic  sup- 
port in  his  rising  career,  of  Mr.  Beecher,  that,  flu  ally,  he 
comes,  in  the  arrogance  of  his  nature,  and  extra  vaganee 
of  his  selfishness  and  egotism,  to  discard  all  these  princi- 
pal and  supporting  elements  of  useful  life,  to  reject  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  to  trample  upon  Christ  and  the  apostles, 
to  treat  with  equal  scorn  and  contumely  the  thunders  of 
Sinai  in  the  commandments  and  the  compassions  of 
Calvary  as  the  dependence  for  human  Jhope.  and  on  and 
on  in  what  is  regarded  by  feeble  intellects  as  an  exalta- 
tion of  indei'endc-nce  and  of  manhood,  and  it  ends  m 


Y  ME.   EYAET8,  811 

this  proud  career  which  reiects  priestcraft  and  religion 
and  the  bonds  of  society  and  the  duties  of 
life,  la  taking  out  his  tablets  in  the  salon  of  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull  to  record  the  revelations  made  in  a  mediumistic  fit  I 
Such,  gentlemen,  is  that  career.  And  whenever  the 
egoism  which  is  the  preference  of  one's  self  before  every- 
thing else,  which  is  defined  to  be  "a  passionate 
love  of  self,  leading  a  man  to  consider 
everything  as  connected  with  his  own  person, 
and  to  prefer  himself  to  everything  in  the 
world,"  when  a  man  becomes  thus  a  worshiper  of  him- 
self, when  he  has  rejected  faith  and  worship  of  a  Divrae 
Being,  when  he  degrades  himself  in  his  relations  to  so- 
ciety, he  puts  himself  almost  in  the  condition  of  one 
morally  insane,  and  he  never  is,  by  the  immutable 
laws  of  our  being,  left  to  stand  still  on  that 
plane  of  self-worship.  If  he  does  not  hold  on 
to  the  exaltations  of  the  spirit  he  drops  lower  and 
lower  in  the  degradations  of  the  body.  The  moral  gov- 
ernment of  this  wnrl'i  is  not  permitted  to  stand  upon  a 
defiance  of  the  sanctions  by  which  virtue  and  faith  and 
piety  have  their  place  in  that  moral  government,  and  as- 
sume and  preserve  for  every  coimter-piissiou  of  selfishness 
and  degi-adation  the  same  position  in  the  moral  world 
that  is  taken  for  the  good  and  the  faithful  and  the  true. 
And  thus  it  has  long  ago  been  noticed  by  those  who  study" 
the  exhibitions  of  human  nature  in  its  morbid  forms  that 
"  Egotism,  adopted  as  the  rule  and  the  guide,  depraves 
and  destroys  the  moral  nature." 

"  Notwithstanding  prejudices  to  the  contrary,"  says  a 
great  writer  on  this  moral  deformity,  "  there  is  a  disorder 
pf  mind  in  which,  without  illusion,  delusion,  or  hallucina- 
tion, the  symptoms  are  mainly  exhibited  in  a  perversion 
of  those  mental  faculties  which  are  usually  called  the 
active  and  moral  powers,  the  feelings,  affec- 
tions, propensities,  temper,  habits,  and  conduct. 
The  affective  life  of  the  individual  is  profoundly 
deranged,  and  this  derangement  shows  itself  in  what 
he  feels,  desires,  and  does.  He  has  no  capacity  of  true 
moral  feeling.  All  his  impulses  and  desires,  to  which  he 
yields  without  check,  are  egoistic.  His  conduct  appears 
to  be  governed  by  immoral  motives,  which  axe  cherished 
and  obeyed  without  any  evident  desire  to  resist 
them.  There  is  an  amazing  moral  insensibility. 
The  intelligence  is  often  acute  enough,  being 
not  affected  otherwise  than  in  being  tainted  by  the 
morbid  feelings,  under  the  influence  of  which  the  persons 
think  and  act.  Indeed,  they  often  display  an  extraordi- 
nary ingenuity  in  explaining,  excusing,  or  iustifying  their 
behavior,  exaggerating  this,  ignoring  that,  and  so  color- 
ing the  whole  as  to  make  themselves  appear  the  victims 
of  misrepresentation  and  persecution.  Theii-  mental  re- 
sources seem  to  be  greater  sometimes  than  when  they  were 
well,  and  they  reason  most  acutely,  apparently,  because 
all  their  intellectual  faculties  are  applied  to  the  justifica- 
tion and  gratiflcation  of  their  selfish  desires.  Moreover, 


812 


TEE   TILTON-BEEOHEB  TRIAL. 


tlie  reason  has  lost  control  over  tlie  passions  and 
actions,  so  that  the  person  can  neither  suMue  the 
former  nor  abstain  from  the  latter,  however  in- 
consistent they  may  be  with  the  duties  and 
obligations  of  his  relations  in  life,  however  disastrous 
to  himself  and  however  much  wrong  they  may  inflict 
upon  those  who  are  are  the  nearest  and  should  be  the 
dearest  to  him.  He  is  Incapable  of  following  a  regular 
pursuit  in  life,  of  recognizing  the  ordinary  rules  of  pru- 
dence and  self-interest,  of  appreciating  the  injury  to  him- 
self which  his  conduct  is.  He  is  as  distrustful  of  others 
as  he  is  untrustworthy  himself.  He  cannot  be  brought 
to  see  the  culpability  of  his  conduct,  which  he  persist- 
ently denies,  excuses,  or  justifies ;  has  no  sincere  wish 
to  do  better.  His  affective  nature  is  profoundly  deranged, 
and  its  aflBnities  are  for  such  evil  gratifications  as  must 
lead  to  further  degeneration  and  finally  render  him  a  dis- 
eased element  which  must  either  be  got  rid  of  out  of  the 
social  organization  or  be  sectuestrated  and  made  harmless 
in  it.  His  alienated  desires  betoken  a  real  alienation  of 
nature." 

ME.  EVARTS'S  PEROEATION. 

Now,  this  morbid  self -worship  with  which 
Mr.  Tilton  has  elevated  himself  above  the  restraints  of 
religion,  of  morality,  of  duty  to  wife  and  children,  and 
to  society,  wherever  there  was  put  in  competition  even 
the  infliction  of  a  pang  to  his  self-applause,  is  the  final 
and  conclusive  explication  of  how  what  seems  so  strange 
in  his  career  finds  in  it  the  natural  development  of  moral 
alienation  from  faith  and  duty,  which  finally  brings  con- 
fusion of' ideas  as  to  what  duty  and  morality  are,  and 
ends  in  the  evil  gratification  of  the  selfish  appetites,  re- 
gardless of  any  disaster  to  those  who  are  nearest, 
and,  in  the  language  of  this  writer,  should  be 
the  dearest  to  him.  And  now,  gentlemen,  there  is  noth- 
ing new  in  this,  if  we  will  only  admit  the  solemnity,  the 
sincerity,  the  Divine  authority,  of  the  great  oracles  of 
our  religion.  Mr.  Tilton  gratified  himself  by  sonorous 
verses  that  described  his  downfall,  but  there  is,  on  higher 
authority,  and  in  much  simpler  phrase,  a  beautiful  de- 
scription of  the  downfall,  accompanied  with  the  moral 
reason  why  it  exists  :  "  Now,  he  who  heareth  these  say- 
ings of  mine  and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken  to 
the  wise  man  that  built  his  house  uj*)n  a 
rock,  and  the  rain  descended  and  the  floods 
came  and  the  winds  blew  and  beat  upon  that  house,  and 
It  fell  not,  for  it  was  founded  upon  a  rock."  Did  ever 
the  rains  descend,  and  the  floods  come,  and  the  winds 
blow  about  the  fabric  of  a  man's  character  and  life  as 
now  for  these  four  years  upon  the  character  and  life  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher?  And  does  not  every  one 
know  that  the  reason  the  structure  did  not  fall 
was  that  it  was  built  upon  a  rock  of  faithful  belief  in  the 
sayings  of  the  Founder  of  our  religion  and  of  faithful 
adhesion  in  the  work  of  his  life,  to  those  sayings  ?   "  And 


he  that  heareth  these  sajangs  of  mine  and  doeth  them 
not,  I  wlU  liken  him  to  the  foolish  man  who  built  his 
house  upon  the  sand,  and  the  rain  descended,  and  the 
floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew  and  beat  upon  that 
house,  and  it  fell,  and  great  was  the  fall  thereof." 

Your  verdict,  as  all  things  true  must  match,  will  match 
that  decision,  made  for  all  such  men  for  all  time  and 
under  all  circumstances.  Indeed,  a  more  apt,  a  more  im- 
pressive instance  in  the  experience  of  human  life,  that 
He  who  said  these  words  needed  not  that  man  should 
testify  of  man,  for  He  knew  what  was  in  man,  was  never 
furnished  in  this  world  than  in  this  comparison  between 
this  defendant,  whose  life  and  character  were  buUt  upon 
a  rock  by  hearing  and  doing  the  sayings  of  Christ,  and 
this  life  and  character  [turning  to  Mr.  TiltonJ  that  dared 
to  try  the  experiment  of  hearing  the  sayings  and  doing 
them  not. 

And  now,  if  your  Honor  please,  we  must  acknowledge 
with  respectful  deference  the  disposition  and  the  ordex*  of 
this  solemn  trial,  so  interesting  to  these  parties,  to  this 
community,  to  aU  the  present  life  in  Christendom,  to  all 
the  future  of  history,  and  to  acknowledge  that  if  there  be 
any  miscarriage  of  justice,  your  skirts  wUl  be 
clear  of  it;  and  also  to  admit  that  i'n  tfte 
actual  experiences  of  the  course  of  things  in  the  trial, 
the  anxieties  and  solicitudes  that  made  us  so  urgent  to 
have  the  limits  secured  by  definite  orders  of  the  Court, 
under  the  assignment  of  particulars  of  the  charge,  have 
proved  to  be  unnecessary,  for  we  have  not  had  any  evi- 
dence at  all  of  any  time  or  place,  by  any  witnesses  going 
outside  of  the  charge,  and  none,  as  I  think,  within  it. 

And  you,  gentlemen,  have  done  your  duty  as  faithfully 
as  citizens  ever  do  it.  You  have  been  taken  from  your 
employments,  your  profits,  and  in  some  instances,  per- 
haps, in  some  degree  from  j^our  livelihoods,  and 
every  day  and  every  hour,  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end,  you  have  given  to  the  witnesses  and  to  the 
counsel  the  honor  of  your  patient,  interested,  indulgenfc 
attention ;  and  in  your  verdict  you  will  find,  and  we  shall 
find  with  joy,  that  touch  matches  all  'round,  and  your 
verdict  will  be  no  exception.   [Loud  applause.] 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  Wednesday  at  11  a.  m. 


SUMMING    UP  . 

Om  flUI^DREDTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDmGS, 

SUMMING  UP  FOR  THE  PLAINTIFF  BEGUN. 

MR.  BEACH  ENTERS  UPON  THE  CLOSING  ARGUMENT 
FOR  MR.  TILTON— INTEREST  AND  APPLaUSE  AT- 
TENDING THE  ORATOR'S  EFFORTS — MR.  BEACH'S 
ORATORY— INFLUENCE  IN  BEHALF  OF  THE  DE- 
FENDANT DENOUNCED— POINTS  IN  JUDGE  POR- 
TER'S ARGUMENT  ANSWERED— ALLEGED  MISREP- 
RESENTATIONS IN  BEHALF  OP  THE  PLAINTIFF 
TAKEN  UP. 

Wednesday,  June  9,  1875., 
The  beginning  of  the  summing  up  for  Mr.  Tilton 
by  Ms  senior  counsel,  Mr.  Beach,  drew  together 
to-day  in  the  court-room  one  of  the  largest  audi- 
ences that  has  been  seen  since  the  t»al  began.  Every 
part  of  the  room  was  filled  long  before  11  o'clock, 
and  hundreds  could  not  obtain  admission.  Some  of 
the  spectators  seized  upon  the  seats  reserved  for 
reporters  and  declined  to  give  them  up,  until  obliged 
by  the  court  officers  to  do  so.  A  remarltable 
feature  of  the  audience  was  the  great  number 
of  strange  faces  in  it.  The  plaintiff,  or  at 
least  his  counsel,  apparently  did  not  lack  friends  in 
the  court-room,  and  Mr.  Beach  and  Mr.  FuUerton 
were  loudly  applauded  when  they  entered.  Mr.  Ful- 
lerton  has  not  been  present  before  since  the  sum- 
ming up  began.  He  sat  facing  Mr.  Beach,  and 
hardly  allowed  his  attention  to  the  orator's  words  to 
flag  for  a  moment  during  the  day.  Several  times  he 
handed  Mr.  Beach  marked  passages  of  the  evidence. 

The  Plymouth  party  did  not  appear  to  be  as  large 
as  usual.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beecher  came  in  a  few  min- 
utes after  the  orator  began  speaking,  pushing  their 
way  through  the  crowded  aisles  with  some  difficulty. 
Mr.  Beecher  appeared  thoughtful  as  he  listened  to 
the  argument,  seldom  smiling  or  whispering  to  those 
around  him,  as  it  is  his  frequent  custom  to  do.  Mrs. 
Beecher  watched  the  orator  very  intently,  some- 
times smiling  derisively,  when  he  spoke  with  more 
than  ordinary  emphasis  of  manner  and  statement ; 
and  Mrs.  Stowe,  who  seemed  to  be  amused  as  well 
as  interested,  whispered  to  Mrs.  Beecher  and  others 
of  the  Plymouth  party. 

The  address  of  Mr.  Beach  was  eagerly  listened  to, 
and  several  times  he  was  applauded,  but  these  out- 
breaks of  feeling  were  promptly  suppressed.  Twice 
duiing  the  day  Judge  Neilson  found  occasion  to  re- 
buke the  audience  for  this  kind  of  disorder,  Mr. 
Beach  felt  somewhat  unwell  all  day,  and  he  was  un- 
able to  bear  the  least  draught  of  air  upon  the  back 
of  his  head,  so  that  the  windows  behind  him  had  to 


r  BE  AGE.  813 

be  closed.  Ete  was  suffering  from  neuralgia,  and  he 
sometimes  stopped  at  the  end  of  a  sentence,  aa  if  to 
conquer  pain.  He  was  also  slightly  hoarse,  but 
most  of  the  time  his  utterance  was  distinct, 
Mr.  Beach's  maimer  is  very  vigorous.  He  speaks 
loudly,  and  in  a  rotund  and  sonorous  voice,  which 
fills  the  room.  His  words  are  uttered  more  rapidly 
than  those  of  either  Mr.  Evarts  or  Judge  Porter, 
and  his  gestures  are  very  powerful  and  expressive. 
His  features  and  manner  are  stem,  while  his  piercing 
gray  eyes  give  great  severity  to  his  look,  when  speak- 
ing very  earnestly.  During  the  morning  session, 
when  the  air  was  close  and  warm  in  the  court-room, 
the  orator's  exertions  threw  him  into  a  profa.se 
perspiration,  and  his  eyelids  looked  red  and  swollen. 

The  oratory  of  Mr.  Triton's  senior  counsel  is  full 
of  stirring  passages,  which  are  delivered  in  a  manner 
that  seldom  fails  to  stir  enthusiastic  interest  among 
his  hearers.  His  notes  appear  to  be  very  brief,  al- 
though numerous,  and  his  address  is  evidently 
largely  extemporaneous.  He  often  throws  down  his 
notes,  and  seems  to  speak  on  the  ii»piratiou  of  the 
moment. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  portions  of  the  ad- 
dress was  an  eloquent  description  of  the  feelings 
of  a  husband  whose  wife's  honor  has  been  stolen 
away.  This  was  of  course  applied  to  Mr.  Tilton. 
The  manner  of  the  orator,  who  seemed  to  doncen- 
trate  all  his  powers  in  this  effort,  was  so  effective 
that  the  audience  clapped  their  hands  loudly,  and 
the  bewildered  court  officers  had  difficulty  in  re- 
storing order. 

There  was  also  a  stir  among  the  spectators  when, 
in  describing  the  support  which  Mr.  Beecher  has  re- 
ceived from  his  friends  during  the  trial,  the  orator 
cried  out  in  an  earnest  manner,  "  I  have  seen  the 
zealots  and  the  parasites  gathering  around  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  in  this  trial,  and  shedding  their  influ- 
ence both  in  and  out  of  this  Court  in  his  favor," 

The  opening  words  of  the  argument  were  remark- 
able. Addressing  the  foreman  of  the  jury,  Mr. 
Carpenter,  Mr,  Beach  referred  to  personal  appeals 
which  he  said  had  been  made  to  him  (the  foreman) 
by  the  counsel  for  the  defendant.  He  then  spoke  of 
Mr,  Carpenter's  having  stated  that  he  entertained 
opinions  favorable  to  the  defendant  at  the  time 
when  he  was  examined  for  a  place  on  the  jury.  An 
appeal  to  the  jury  to  decide  this  case  according  to 
their  oaths  followed. 

The  argument  proper  was  mostly  confined  to  an- 
swering Judge  Porter's  summing  up  for  Mr.  Beecher. 
Mr.  Tilton  was  praised,  but  the  orator  said  he  should 


814  IBM  TILTON-Bl 

not  indulge  in  denunciation  of  Mr.  Beecher.  The 
publication  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  letters  was  explained  in 
a  way  favorable  to  the  plaintiff,  and  various  points 
touched  upon  by  Judge  Porter  were  gone  over  in  de 
tail.  Mr.  Beecher  was  asserted  to  have  been  a  party 
to  the  "  policy  of  silence."  The  anticipations 
of  triumph  which  were  indulged  by  the  defendant's 
counsel,  called  out  sevQre  denunciation  from  Mr. 
Beach.  He  asserted  that  he  knew  what  means  they 
had  of  forecasting  a  verdict,  and  what  power  the 
party  of  the  defendant  possessed.  Mr.  Evarts,  he 
Baid,  had  more  than  the  hundred  eyes  of  Argus, 
which  he  had  wished  for,  more  than  the  hundred 
arms  of  Briareu??,  and  also  the  gold  of  Midas,  which 
had  been  placed  where  it  would  have  the  best  effect. 
Mr.  Evarts  seemed  to  be  much  amused  at  these 
assertions,  and  whispered  laughingly  to  his  fellow- 
counsel. 

THE  PROCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. 

MR.  BEACH'S  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  PLAIN- 
TIFF. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen  will  perceive  that  we  must 
have  perfect  quiet,  and  I  have  no  doubt  we  shall  he 
obliged  to-morrow  morning  to  lessen  tlie  number  of  per- 
sons in  attendance.  And  gentlemen  in  the  gallery  will 
find  it  quite  necessary  to  be  quiet,  otherwise  the  gallery 
will  be  closed  to-morrow  morning.  It  is  very  desirable 
that  citizens  should  hear  the  discussion  in  this  case. 

THE  VERDICT  OF  THE  CHURCH  COMMITTEE. 
Mr.  Beach  then  began  his  argument  for  Mr. 

Tilton  as  follows : 

Mat  it  Please  Your  Honor:  At  last,  gentlemen, 
Theodore  Tilton  has  tbe  opportunity  of  a  vindication  in  a 
court  of  law.  It  is  the  first  opportunity.  Environed  with 
difficulties,  and  beaten  upon  by  a  tempest  of  calumny 
and  reproach  uni)arallele(l  in  severity  and  in  efiect,  piir- 
eued  by  the  power  of  a  man  whom  the  genius  of  Samuel 
"Wilkeson  has  discoverert  to  be  the  greatest  man  on  all  the 
earth,  aidea  by  the  organized  persecution  of  a  great 
chm^ch,  Theodore  Tilton  was  hoimded  to  his  ruin.  The 
only  judgment  ever  passed  upon  his  case,  the  only  hear- 
ing ever  given  to  it,  was  before  a  tribunal  selected  from 
Plymouth  Chiu-oh  by  this  defendant,  with  great  care, 
with  great  perception,  with  great  regard  to  the 
quaUties  and  the  relations  of  those  judges;  and 
before  them  the  cause  of  Theodore  Tilton  was 
tried,  and  he  was  condemned.  And  it  was  imagined 
that  that  condemnation  would  be  the  permanent  ac- 
quittal of  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  It  was  supposed  that 


'JECMEE   mi  A  h, 

a  private  tribunal  thus  constituted  of  the  fiieads  of  the 
accused,  instr  ucted  and  guided  throughout  all  its  deUb- 
erations  by  the  counsel  of  the  accused— it  was  supposed 
that  that  judgment  would  be  decisive  and  permanent. 
But  every  one  saw  that  Theodore  Tilton  was  deprived  ol 
a  hearmg  before  that  Investigating  Committee,  his  evi- 
dence shvit  out,  the  testimony  of  important  witnesses 
evaded,  those  known  to  have  the  most  material  and  in- 
timate acquaintance  with  the  merits  of  that  controversy 
unsummoned,  a  hasty  and  a  snap  judgment  pronounced 
in  a  case  of  this  character,  and  becween  men  Uke  Hem'y 
Ward  Beecher  and  Theodore  Tilton. 

It  is  not  wonderful  that  public  judgment  was  unsatis- 
fied;  it  was  not  surprising  that  the  public  clamor  de- 
manded a  more  thorough  and  complete  investigation  of 
this  most  unfortunate  transaction;  and  the  result  has 
been,  gentlemen,  this  trial;  and  in  my  judgment  the 
great  and  important  question  upon  this  trial  is,  whether 
the  system  of  influence  and  denimciation  and  clamor 
which  for  a  year  has  invested  this  case,  is  to  In- 
trude itself  with  success  upon  the  dehberations  of 
a  com-t  and  a  jury.  The  question  is  whether 
here,  in  this,  what  is  called  the  temple  of  justice,  in 
the  presence  of  that  pm-e  spirit  of  right  and  equity 
which  is  supposed  to  prevail  in  this  presence— the  ques- 
tion is  whether  here  the  organized  power  of  Plymouth 
Church,  aided  by  the  ingenuity  and  the  eloquence  of 
counsel,  is  to  overcome  that  sense  of  fah  play  and  equity 
which  is  the  spirit  of  our  administration  of  the  law.  If 
this  cause  is  to  be  won,  gentlemen,  by  bold  assertion  and 
clamorous  appeal,  and  by  confident  and  insulting 
predictions,  I  yield  the  pahn  to  my  learned  adver- 
saries. If  the  judgments  of  this  jury  are  to  be 
controlled  by  a  stream  of  Invective  and  vituperation, 
by  a  repetition  of  scandalous  and  dishonor- 
ing epithets,  repeated  until  they  have  pained  the  ear  and 
surfeited  the  taste,  I  have  neither  hope  nor  care  to  influ- 
ence your  dehberations.  I  suppose  that  I  speak  to  men 
properly  estimating  the  prerogatives  and  responsibilities 
of  theh  position.  Believe  me,  gentlemen,  this  power  of 
judgment  is  a  great  and  responsible  power.  To-day  you 
hold  in  your  control,  as  my  friends  upon  the  other  side 
say,  the  destinies  of  the  greatest  preacher  in  all  the 
world.  To-day  you  hold  In  your  hands  the  destiny  and 
the  reputation  of  this  plaintilBT;  and  more  than  that,  you 
hold  in  yom-  hands  the  power  of  vindicating  the  witnesses 
produced  upon  this  witness  stand,  or  consigning  them  to 
imperishable  dishonor  and  infamy.  It  is  a  great  power; 
and  whence  do  you  derive  it  ?  Not  by  any  natural  right 
of  judgment.  What  enables  you  to  say  to  Theodore  Til- 
ton, to  Francis  Moulton,  to  Mrs.  Moidton,  "  You  are  per- 
jurers ;  "  to  the  two  first,  "  You  are  adulterers  and  in- 
famous. You  have  no  place  in  a  court  of  justice.  Al- 
though no  man  in  this  broad  community  has  impeached 
your  character  for  integrity  and  veracity;  although  you 
stand  among  the  most  reputable  and  honored  of  this 


SUMMING    UF  BY  MR.  BEAOH. 


815 


comTnttnlty,  yet  by  our  verdict  you  shall  be  scouted  from 
tliis  courb-room,  branded  with  our  judgment  of  infamy  ?  " 
A  fearful  responsibility  to  such  a  power. 

A  PEESONAIi   APPEAL   TO   FOREMAN  CAR- 
PENTER. 

The  law  has  selected  you  as  twelve  intelli- 
gent, honest  and  lawful  men,  to  decide  the  great  gues- 
tions  involved  m  this  controversy,  and  to  you  has  com- 
mitted this  caiise,  freighted  with  these  immense  and  per- 
manent interests.  You  have  been  appealed  to,  Mr.  Fore- 
man, personally  by  my  friend  Mr.  Porter.  He  has 
assumed  to  know  the  sentiments  of  this  juiy-box.  He 
lias  assumed  to  say  that  he  knows  what  the  verdict  of 
this  jury  will  be.  I  know  he  has  large  facilities  for  ob- 
taining that  information,  facilities  which  are  denied  to 
this  plaintiff ;  and  I  know  the  influences  which  have  sur- 
rounded this  trial.  I  have  seen  these  ominous  and  noisome 
sllipes  hovering  about  the  outskirts  of  this  investigation. 
I  know  the  power  and  the  influence  of  the  organization 
which  has  surrounded  this  defendant  during  this  trial. 
:My  friend  :\Ir.  Evarts  wished  for  the  hundred  eyes  of 
Argus;  he  has  them,  and  more,  too.  And  the  hun- 
dred arms  of  Briareus;  he  has  them,  and  has  had 
them,  and  more,  too.  And  there  was  no  need  of  his 
wishing  for  the  gold  of  Midas  ;  he  has  had  that  too,  dis- 
pensed with  great  liberaUty,  with  unbounded  generositj-, 
and  always  placed  where  it  will  have  the  best  effect.  But 
it  seems  to  me  a  most  astonishing  assumption  of  prophet- 
ic power  upon  the  part  of  my  learned  friend  that  in  a 
court  of  justice,  before  gentlemen  sworn  to  be  impartial 
and  true,  an  honored  and  distinguished  counselor,  before 
the  plaintiff  is  heard,  should  assume  to  say,  "  Gentlemen, 
I  know  what  your  verdict  will  be."  [To  j^Ir.  Carpenter.] 
Sir,  you  occupied  that  stand.  You  avowed  that  you  had 
formed  opinions  favorable  to  the  defendant  in  this  case, 
but  you  said,  in  the  presence  of  that  God  whom  you  wor- 
ship and  revere,  that  you  could  nevertheless  decide  this 
case  impartially  upon  the  evidence.  Are  you  to  prejudge 
it?  Is  there  any  counsel  in  this  case  who  can  appeal  to 
you  personally,  and  say  he  knows  what  the  verdict  of  this 
jury  will  be  1  Aye,  that  it  will  be  accLuittal  of  Mr.  Beech- 
er,  without  leaving  your  seats  1  By  what  authority  does 
the  gentleman  speak?  If  I  am  addressing  gentle- 
men of  that  character,  gentlemen  whose  judg- 
ments will  be  carried  by  epithet  and  ealiuu- 
ny  and  abuse,  unsupported  by  evidence ;  if 
the  eloquence  and  the  oratory  of  counsel  can  move  the 
conclusions  of  this  jury,  I  have  no  hope  of  success  be- 
fore you,  gentlemen.  I  am  not  an  orator  as  Brutus  is. 
I  have  no  calumnlc;»  to  utter  ;  I  have  no  epithets  to 
apply.  I  have  a  plain,  simple,  logical  argument  to  pre- 
sent to  you  upon  the  proof  in  this  case.  If  there  be  not 
evidence  enough,  if  there  be  not  proven  facts  enough 
under  the  ordinary  administration  of  the  rules  of  evi- 
dence, abiding  by  those  lessons  of  wisdom  and  of  truth 


come  to  us  from  the  past— if  there  be  not  enough  to  sat- 
isfy the  minds  and  the  consciences  of  twelve  impartial 
and  unprejudiced  men,  I  want  no  verdict  in  this  case. 
I  want  no  untruthful  judgment  against  Henry  Ward 
Beecher.  I  ask  for  no  perversion  of  the  law.  I  ask  for 
no  surrender  of  the  consciences  and  the  pure  and  intelli- 
gent judgment  of  this  jury.  But  if  I  bring  to  them 
those  proofs  approved  by  the  law,  justified  by  the  his- 
tory of  the  law,  those  evidences  which  the  law  pronounces 
as  su£Qcient  to  convict  even  of  guilt  in  the  presence  of  all 
the  charitable  presumptions  of  the  law,  then  in  the  name 
of  that  la  w,  and  its  justice,  I  demand  a  verdict.  And, 
gentlemen,  I  have  a  right  to  demand  it.  I  have  a  right 
to  ask  you,  before  Tilton  shall  be  disbelieved,  before 
Moulton  shall  he  discredited,  before  Mrs.  Moulton  shall 
be  defamed  by  your  verdict,  before  the  letters  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  shall  be  misconstrued,  before  the  confes- 
sion of  Mrs.  Tilton  shall  be  disregarded,  accepted  and  ap- 
proved as  it  was  by  the  defendant  in  this  case— before  all 
the  prominent  and  convincing  elements  of  this  proof 
shall  be  disregarded — I  have  a  right  to  ask  from  you  a 
consideration  far  more  elevated  and  truthful  than  has 
yet  been  given  to  these  evidences.  I  know  the  wonderful 
power  of  my  learned  friends  upon  the  other  side.  I  have 
felt  its  influence.  T  cannot  say  that  I  am  even  yet  re- 
lieved, with  all  the  firm  convictions  impressed  upon  my 
mind  in  regard  to  this  case— that  I  am  yet  relieved  from 
the  power  of  their  ingenuity  and  oratory. 

THE    CLOSING    AROmiENTS    FOR  IMR, 
BEECHER  CRITICISED. 

Why,  gentlemen,  in  the  history  of  the  jus- 
tice of  this  coimtry  has  there  ever  been  such  an  exhibi- 
tion as  has  been  presented  in  this  court-room  within  the 
last  13  days  ?  Have  you  ever  heard  such  a  storm  of  in- 
vective and  abuse  ?  Have  you  ever  heard  a  loftier  exhi- 
bition of  the  power  of  oratory  than  has  been  given  by 
hoth  my  learned  friends  ?  Have  there  ever  heen  in  any 
cause  efforts  so  extended  and  so  marvelous  1  And  yet 
my  learned  friends  say  to  you,  "  The  plaintiff  never  had 
any  case."  Why,  my  friend  Mr.  Evarts  says  to  you  there 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence*  in  this  cause  of  the  guilt  of 
Mr.  Beecher.  Why,  when  the  plaintiff  rested  he  ought  to 
have  been  turned  out  of  court ;  he  had  no  cause  ;  there 
was  no  proof ;  and  my  learned  friends  with  all  the  aita 
and  the  powers  of  oratory  have  spent  13  days  to  con- 
vince you  of  that,  gentlemen.  They  have  given  very  strong 
proof  of  their  sincerity ;  they  have  given  to  you  very 
strong  evidence  of  their  conception  of  this  case. 
With  a  skill  and  adroitness  unexampled  in  our  courts, 
they  have  endeavored  to  escape  the  consequences  of  that 
evidence.  They  have  resisted  it  by  but  one  witness,  and 
that  is  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  The  amazing  declaration 
was  made  by  my  learned  triend.  Mr.  Porter,  that  Tilton 
and  Moulton  were  contradicted  by  34  witnesses.  Why, 
gentlemen,  it  is  the  most  astonishing  declaration  which 


816 


IHE  ■  TILIOIS^-BEEOEEB  TRIAL, 


could  have  been  made  in  tMg  case.  And  it  can  be  met 
only  "by  a  clear  and  explicit  denial.  On  tlie  eontrary,  I 
hope  to  demonstrate  to  you  tliat  Tilton  and  Monlton,  upon 
any  of  the  material  facts  in  this  case,  have  been  contra- 
dieted  by  no  single  ^vitness  except  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 
Most  of  the  time  has  been  occupied  in  this  case  by  the 
examination  of  immaterial  and  unimportant  collateral 
questions.  It  is  said  that  we  have  occupied  your  time, 
when  you  must  recollect  that  all  this  long  investigation,  a 
hundred  of  days,  has  been  directed,  not  to  the  question  of 
the  guilt  or  the  innocence  of  Mr.  Beecher,  but  to  an  un- 
sustained  and  abusive  attack  upon  the  character  of  Tilton 
and  Moulton  and  the  other  witnesses  upon  the  part  of  the 
plaintiff. 

Gentlemen,  I  cannot  pass  to  the  consideration  of  this 
case  without  a  single  further  remark  upon  the  address  of 
my  friend  Mr.  Porter.  It  was  a  most  remarkable  effort. 
For  thirty  years  that  gentleman  and  myself  have  prac- 
ticed together  in  the  courts.  There  is  no  gentleman,  in 
or  out  of  the  profession,  for  whom  I  feel  a  more 
unfeigned  esteem  and  respect;  none  in  the  pro- 
fession whose  qualities  as  a  lawyer  I  more 
admire  and  respect  I  have  been  accustomed  to 
see  him  in  the  fore  rank  of  professional  controversy, 
claiming  and  maintaining  the  loftiest  honors  of  our  profes- 
sion. And  I  am  pained  and  grieved  that  upon  this  occa- 
sion he  lias  lost  that  position,  and  appears  here  as  a 
subordinate  and  secondary  adversary.  In  that  there  is 
no  humiliation,  gentlemen.  No  lawyer  of  our  profession, 
eminent  even  as  Mr.  Porter  is,  would  be  disgraced  by 
following  the  leadership  of  a  gentleman  as  eminent  as 
Mr.  Evarts.  It  is  not  that.  But  the  humiliation 
consists  in  the  ignoble  and  unworthy  service 
he  has  undertaken,  to  abuse  and  denounce  and 
calumniate,  and,  by  fierce  and  furious  epithets, 
to  drive  this  plaintiff  from  the  respect  of  this  jury,  and 
from  the  consideration  of  this  Court.  Mr.  Tilton  is  said 
to  be  theatric—"  hoUow  and  theatric,"  I  think,  was  the 
term ;  and  singularly  enough  that  accusation  comes  from 
my  friend  Mr.  Porter,  who  has  given  the  most  distin- 
^Tuished  evidences  of  the  possession  of  the  highest  his- 
trionic abUity.  Why,  you  remember,  gentlemen,  with 
what  display  of  theatrical  power,  with  what  violence  of 
gesture,  with  what  intemperance  of  speech  Mr.  Tilton 
was  assailed.  It  began  to  be  somewhat  alarming;  for, 
when  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Porter  was  flourishing  his 
fist  so  furiously  in  the  face  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  in  his 
sonorous  and  impressive  tones  crying  out, "  Down,  down, 
down  to  hell,  and  say  I  sent  thee  there,"  I  felt  some 
anxiety  for  the  safety  of  my  client  [laughter],  and  I 
looked  around  with  some  amazement  to  see  what  had 
become  of  him.  [Laughter.]  It  was  very  gratifying  to 
me  to  find  him  there  sitting  composed  and  unalarmed, 
rather  amused  at  the  grotesqueness  of  the  per- 
forxaance,  and  wondering  really  what  my  friend 
Porter    thought    of    himself.     Well,  Sir,    are  you 


to  determine  this  case  upon  such  arguments! 
Is  a  party  in  a  court  of  justice  appealing  to  the  Im- 
partiality and  equity  of  the  law,  asking  from  his  fellow 
men  a  legal  consideration  of  his  claims  and  his  rights,  to 
be  hunted  from  court  ?— and  by  epithets  and  denuncia- 
tion! What  sort  of  a  cause  is  it  which  demands  this 
advocacy?  And  how  happens  it  that  a  geutleinan  capa- 
ble of  the  loftiest  legal  efforts,  a  gentleman  claiming 
more  than  a  due  %hare  (and  deservedly  too)  of  pro- 
fessional renown,  instead  of  a  temperate,  logical  argu- 
ment uj,>on  the  evidence,  spends  five  days  in  a  violent 
assault  upon  the  opposite  party  and  his  witnesses? 
If  Hemy  Ward  Beecher  is  innocent  he  needs  no  such 
clamorous  and  foul  defense.  If  Theodore  Tilton  is  a 
perjurer  and  an  adulterer,  a  cold  and  shameless  de- 
bauchee, it  can  be  proven  from  the  evidence  ;  and  where 
is  it,  gentlemen  ?  I  shall  have  occasion  to  ask  you  more 
particularly  that  question.  But  let  your  recollec- 
tion run  over  this  proof ,  find  if  you  can  the 
evidence  which  thus  impeaches  the  moral 
character  of  Mr.  Tilton,  which,  in  the  presence  of  his 
demonstration  upon  the  stand  in  court,  can  stand  an  in- 
stant against  the  open  honor  and  honesty  of  his  charac- 
ter. But  it  is  the  necessity  of  this  defense.  Tilton  must 
be  destroyed,  Moulton  must  be  discredited,  Mrs.  Moulton 
must  be  struck  from  the  ranks  of  honorable  womanhood, 
Mrs.  Bradshaw  must  be  disbelieved,  Richards  must  be  ca- 
lumniated, and  all  the  others  who  have  uttered  a  syllable 
of  reproach  or  of  fact  against  the  character  or  standing  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  must  be  destroyed;  and  If  this  ia 
not  accomplished,  this  defense  falls,  and  my  friends  know 
it.  And  the  effort  of  both  of  them— with  persistent  elo- 
quence, with  an  ingenuity  almost  devilish  in  its  concep- 
tions, both  of  them  have  striven  for  13  days  not  to  dem- 
onstrate the  innocence  of  Mr.  Beecher,  but  to  destroy 
his  accusers,  and  from  that  demand  a  verdict  from  the 
hands  of  this  jury. 

Well,  there  is  a  singular  inconsistency  in  the  modes  of 
argument  and  in  the  conceptions  which  my  learned 
friends  indulge  in  regard  to  this  case.  Tilton  is  not  only 
a  perjurer  and  an  adulterer,  a  man  of  most  base  and  in- 
famous character,  the  seducer  of  a  young  girl  intrusted 
to  his  honor  and  care  by  his  wife,  but  according  to  Mr, 
Porter,  he  is  the  cunning,  adroit,  subtle  conspirator  wht» 
has  organized  this  deep-laid  and  long-prosecuted  con- 
spiracy against  the  pocket  and  the  character  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher.  And  my  friend  Mr.  Tracy,  on  the  con- 
tr.iry,  has  a  very  low  opinion  of  his  skill  and  sagacity  and 
forecast.  He  denounces  him  as  having  a  genius  for  blun- 
dering. All  admit  that  he  is  a  man  ef  intellect.  My 
learned  friends  agree  t^at  he  is  a  rhetorician  and  elocu- 
tionist. Henry  Ward  Beecher  praises  him  for  his  intel- 
lectual powers,  rather  commends  that  genius  which, 
early  in  life,  lifted  him  to  "  the  loftiest  editorial  chair  in 
America,"  as  Mr.  Beech<M*  says.  You  have.seeu  him  upon 
the  stand.   There  has  been  no  irritation,  no  malevolence. 


SUMMING    UF  BY  MB.  BBAOH, 


817 


tliere  has  been  no  departure  from  the  demeanor  wliicli 
becomes  a  man  of  intelligence  and  honesty.  I  undertake 
to  say,  Sir,  that  his  relation  of  his  life,  as  it  was  exam- 
ined by  the  searching  inquiries  of  counsel,  and  the  his- 
tory which  he  gave  of  that  life  and  oi"  this  episode 
In  it,  attracted  your  confidence  and  belief.  In  the 
whole  history  of  his  acts  with  reference  to  this  domestic 
tragedy,  he  has  never  uttered  a  word  of  reproach  or  of 
censure  against  the  woman  who  betrayed  him.  To  the 
honor  of  manhood,  to  the  honest  emotions  and  love  of 
his  own  nature  he  has  been  true,  even  under  the  tempta- 
tion of  this  case.  With  a  fidelity  unexampled,  with  ati 
exercise  of  Christian  magnanimity  and  forgiveness 
which  has  been  ridiculed  in  this  court  of  justice,  and 
before  Christian  men,  he  forgave  what  Henry  Ward 
Beeoher  swearg  he  believed  he  thought  was  the  grossest 
outrage  that  could  be  practiced  against  a  husband  and  a 
father.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  I  will  show  you  that  in 
all  the  emergencies  and  vicissitudes  of  this  strange  case. 
Theodore  Tilton  has  never  departed  from  his  manhood, 
from  the  sincerity  of  his  forgiveness,  as  toward  his  wife 
and  Mr.  Beecher ;  that  he  adhered  to  his  honor  and  his 
plighted  word  under  every  circumstance,  until  goaded 
and  driven  by  wrongs  which  could  not  be  endured,  to 
the  presentation  of  his  case  to  this  Court 
and  this  jury.  And  why  is  that  man  to 
be  slandered  as  he  has  been  slandered? 
Why  are  all  the  terms  of  the  vUest  vulgarity  and  abuse 
in  this  court  of  justice  heaped  upon  Theodore  Tilton  ? 
What  has  he  done?  Fabricated  a  charge;  organized  a 
conspiracy;  himself  sunk  into  the  lowest  depths  of  de- 
pravity, hoping  to  raise  himself  to  position  and  charac- 
ter by  the  destruction  of  Mr.  Beecher,  subsidizing  the 
honesty  of  his  friends,  corrupting  the  integrity  of  woman- 
hood, suborning  perjury,  marshaling  the  hosts  of  per- 
jurers into  this  court  of  justice,  with  devilish  skill  and 
unprincipled  purpose— this  is  Theodore  Tilton  according 
to  my  learned  friends.  Will  you  recall  the  letters  that 
have  been  read  to  you  of  Mr.  Beecher  ?  Will  you  remem- 
ber his  exclamations—'*  I  wonder  if  Elizabeth  knows  how 
generous  Theodore  has  been  1"  "Is  it  possible  that  we 
three  can  agaiu  be  reunited  1  Theodore  will  have  the 
worst  to  bear." 

Mr.  Fullerton— "  The  hardest  part." 

Mr.  Beach—"  The  hardest  part  to  bear."  And  through 
all  these  letters,  untU  with  the  fatuity  of  guilt  Mr. 
Beecher  reached  the  position  where  by  his  church  he 
was  driven  Into  active  hostility,  through  all  the  letters 
and  declarations  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  he  bore  truth- 
ful and  honorable  testimony  to  the  manhood  and  sincerity 
of  Theodore  Tilton.  Moulton— where,  in  the  whole  range 
of  friendship,  celebrated  as  it  has  been  by  the  noblest 
philosophers  and  poets,  can  you  find  anything  equal  to 
the  tributes  which  Henry  Ward  Beecher  has  paid  to 
Moulton?  I  shall  ask  your  attention  to  that  by  and  by 
particularly.  But  in  passing,  I  ask  you  to  consider  these 


testimonials  originating  from  Henry  Ward  Beeoher  in 
favor  of  the  men  and  women  whom  his  counsel  have  so 
bitterly  and  loudly  denounced.  Ah !  gentlemen,  there  is 
the  difiiculfcy  in  this  case.  It  is  just  the  difificulfcy  which 
originated  in  the  first  place  the  charge  of  blackmail.  I 
agree  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  is  a  great  man,  great  in 
intellect,  and  great  in  many  noble  and  distinguished 
qualities,  and  I  shall  not  attempt  at  all  to  reduce 
the  estimate  of  him  by  his  counsel,  by  this  jury, 
and  by  the  world,  except  that  when  my  learned 
friends  elevate  him  to  that  degree  of  perfection  that  he 
is  utterly  good  and  sinless,  I  take  exception  to  the  state- 
ment, and  I  shall  attempt  to  show  you  in  the  course  of 
the  argument  I  have  the  honor  to  present  to  you,  that 
there  are  some  exceptions  to  be  taken  to  the  character  of 
Mr.  Beecher.  For  however  great  and  good  he  may  be, 
he  is  not  yet  sinless  and  perfect,  and  the  whole  argument 
of  our  learned  friends  is  based  upon  that  proposition, 
and  that  proposition  alone,  that  he  is  too  elevated  and 
good,  his  life  too  pure  and  stataless,  the  law  of  his  nature 
too  pious  and  worthy  to  permit  the  imputation  of  sin  and 
offense.  But  this  man,  so  great,  so  good,  has  borne  in- 
variable testimony  to  the  integrity  and  fidelity  of  the 
persons  assailed  in  this  court  by  his  counsel.  And  the 
difficulty,  as  I  said,  has  been  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
suri  oimded  by  the  Influences  which  envelop  him,  gov 
erned  by  the  interests  which  control  him,  not  his  own, 
influenced  by  considerations  which  sprlag  not  from  his 
own  natui'e,  and  his  own  consciousness— the  difficulty  has 
been  that  those  who  were  interested  in  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  have  been  continually  fightrag  against  the 
generous  and  magnanimous  impulses  of  his  nature. 
Why,  you  remember  that  description  by  Mr.  Beecher  of 
the  controversy  between  him  and  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr. 
Shearman  upon  the  question  of  blackmail,  a  most  amus- 
ing but  an  illustrative  example  of  the  influences  which 
have  controlled  Mr.  Beecher,  in  the  first  place  in  his 
prosecution  of  Mr.  Tilton  before  the  Examining  Com- 
mittee, and  now  in  his  unworthy  and  insincere  defense 
against  this  action. 

HOW  MR.  BEECHER  OBSERVED  THE  POLICY 
OF  SILENCE. 
Grentlemen,  you  believe  me,  I  hope,  when  I 
say  that  the  task  I  have  to  perform  is  a  most  imweloome 
and  painful  one.  It  is  not  pleasant  to  speak  ill  of  others, 
especially  of  a  man  so  eminent  and  gifted  as  this  defend- 
ant. I  would  gladly  escape  the  necessity  of  this  discus- 
sion. The  subject  of  this  action  is  not  one  agreeable  to 
consider.  In  my  judgment,  it  is  one  which,  except  xmder 
the  most  imperious  necessity,  should  not  have  been  dis- 
closed to  the  public  ear.  It  belongs  to  the  domain  of 
private  social  life,  and  all  the  pstrties  to  this  case  so  con- 
sidered it,  and  for  years  so  acted  upon  it.  Tilton  and 
Beecher  and  Moulton  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  Tracy,  Woodruff— 
everybody  who  by  any  necessity  of  circumstances  became 


818 


TEE   TILTON-BEECMJEE  TELAL. 


acquainted  with  the  truth  of  this  scandal— all  agree  that 
it  should  have  been  preserved  within  the  strict- 
est possible  limits  of  silence  and  secrecy.  You 
will  perceive  that  when  Mrs.  Tilton  had 
made  communication  of  this  wrong,  not  to  her 
husband  alone,  but  to  others,  and  when  under 
circumstances  which  necessarily  required  the  interven- 
tion of  friends  under  the  seal  of  confidence,  the  same 
communication  was  made  by  Mr.  Tilton,  you  will  at  once 
perceive  that  there  were  sources  of  discovery  and  dis- 
closure which  could  not  be  controlled  by  either  of  the  im- 
mediate parties  to  tbis  controversy.  The  secret  necessa- 
rily leafeed  out.  But  yet  all  the  minds  interested  agreed 
npon  the  policy  of  silence.  Mr.  Evarts  ventured  the 
declaration  yesterday  or  the  day  before  that  Mr.  Beecher 
did  not  agree  to  this  policy ;  that  it  was  forced  upon  him ; 
that  he  saw  no  necessity  for  concealment  upon  Ms  part ; 
that  he  was  only  anxious  for  the  interests  of  the  family 
who  had  been  unconsciously,  unintentionally  disrupted  or 
disturbed  by  his  influence,  that  he  was  ready  at  any  time, 
except  for  that  consideration,  to  meet  the  issue  and  the 
consequences  of  this  secret.  Well,  it  is  pretty  evident 
from  the  testimony  that  when  in  January,  life?!,  immedi- 
diately  following  this  memorable  month  of  December, 
1870,  Mr.  Tilton  proposed  to  publish  his  letter  to 
Bowen— it  is  pretty  certain  from  the  testimony  that  Mr. 
Beecher  begged  then  for  silence.  It  is  pretty  certain  it  is 
uncontradicted.  It  appears  from  the  written  words  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  that  when  Mrs.  Morse  wrote  to 
Mr.  Beecher  that  Theodore  Tilton  had  told  twelve  per- 
sons, it  is  quite  certain  that  he  approved  the  policy  of 
silence,  and  begged  for  silence.  It  is  pretty  certain  that 
h.e  was  striving  for  concealment  when  he  sent  Mr. 
Bell  to  Mr.  Halliday  to  suppress  a  church  investigation. 
Mr.  Bell  is  a  gentleman  upon  whose  intelligence  and  in- 
tegrity both  of  these  parties  rely,  and  who  has  com- 
mended himself  to  you  by  an  exhibition  of  inteEigence 
and  of  candor  upon  the  stand  which  marks  him  as  an  en- 
tirely trustworthy  and  reliable  gentleman,  and  he  tells 
you  that  that  was  the  mission  imposed  upon  him  by  Mr. 
Beecher.  When,  in  reply  to  his  nephew,  Perkins,  Mr. 
Beecher  wrote  to  him  to  put  his  foot  upon  the  hot  embers 
of  scandal,  &c.,  he  advised  the  policy  of  silence.  WTien, 
In  that  letter  so  queerly  constrjed  by  my  friend  Mr. 
I^varts,  and  to  which  I  shall  ask  yom*  attention  by  and  by, 
called  "the  bottom  facts"  letter,  Mr.  Beecher  said  that 
the  real  poiat  was  to  avoid  an  appeal  to  church  and 
council.  Wh>,  asi.aredly  that  was  an  effort  for  silence 
and  for  concealment.  When,  in  that  letter  which  he 
wrote  to  Mrs.  Tilton  which  he  sent  by  the  hands  of  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  which  he  requested  to  have  returned  by  the 
hands  of  Mr.  Tilton  because  there  were  subjects  spoken 
of  in  it  and  facts  revealed  which  should  not 
run  any  risk  of  disclosure  by  miscarriage,  he 
evidently  looked  to  silence  and  concealment.  And  I  sup- 
pose the  execution  of  that  " Tripartite  Covenant"  was  a 


device  for  concealment,  for  the  suppression  of  this  scan- 
dal, for  its  limitation  within  the  immediate  circle  to 
which  it  had  already  been  communicated.  And  you  will 
remember  that  in  one  of  his  letters  Mr.  Beecher  uses  the 
e35)ression,  "If  the  papers  wlU  hold  oflf  for  a  month  we 
will  outride  the  gale,"  and  I  suppose,  gentlemen,  that 
when  he  wrote  that,  and  when  he  wrote  to  Theodore  Til- 
ton advising  him  to  resign  from  Plymouth  Church  for  the 
purpose  of  suppressing  the  pressure  of  the  West  charges 
and  avoiding  investigation,  Mr.  Beecher  was  striving  for 
concealment.  Well,  there  are  expressions  in  the  "  ragged 
edge  "  letter,  as  it  is  called,  when  he  aUudes  to  the  efforts 
he  makes  and  has  made  for  the  purpose  of  preventing: 
any  questioning  on  the  subject,  and  how  he  should  stop  a 
ruinous  defense  of  himself— it  reads  how  to  stop  "  a  ruin- 
ous defense  o/ me,"  and  I  noticed  that  yesterday  or  the 
day  before,  in  reading  it,  my  friend  Evarts  omitted  the 
words  "  of  me  "—I  suppose  that  in  iihat  letter  Mr. 
Beecher  was  contemplating  concealment.  There  is 
a  very  remarkable  letter,  too,  in  which  he 
speaks  of  "stultifying  all  the  devices  by  which  we 
have  saved  ourselves."  What  were  those  devices  f 
What  was  their  object,  f  not  concealment,  secrecy, 
suppression  ?  But  the  most  notable  instance  to  my  mind 
whereby  he  evinces  his  desire  to  conceal  and  to  suppress 
investigation  is  when  that  lady,  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  imder 
the  pressure  of  a  necessity  to  appear  as  a  witness  before 
a  Church  Committee,  writes  him,  and  his  answer  begs 
concealment,  advises  the  policy  of  silence,  and  refuses  to 
communicate  any  information  to  her,  upon  the  ground 
that  it  is  a  subject  that  should  not  be  disturbed.  And 
when,  gentlemen,  finally,  in  his  statement  before  the 
Committee,  he  declared  that  "  the  policy  of  sUence  ought 
to  have  succeeded,"  I  think  he  not  only  rendered  pretty 
emphatic  adherence  to  that  idea  of  silence  and  to  the 
propriety  of  that  policy,  but  made  a  confession  that  he 
was  a  party  to  that  scheme. 


ME.  BEECHER  NOT  ENTITLED  TO  THE  PRE- 
SUMPTION OF  INNOCENCE. 
Now,  gentlemen,  before  I  pursue  the  argu- 
ment which  I  design  to  submit  to  you,  and  which  I 
supposed  could  have  been  concluded  at  the  most  in  a 
couple  of  days,  it  becomes  necessary  for  me  to  consider 
some  of  the  assertions  and  some  of  the  propositions 
which  have  been  presented  in  their  very  able  arguments 
by  my  learned  friends.  If  your  Honor  please,  my  friend 
Mr.  Porter  has  advanced  the  proposition  that  the  jury  in 
charge  of  this  case  are  to  assume,  for  the  protection  of 
the  defendant,  the  presumption  of  innocence,  and  that 
they  are  to  extend  to  him  the  benefit  of  all  doubts  which 
may  arise  upon  the  proof.  I  think.  Sir.  my  learned 
friend  misapplies  a  doctrine  of  evidence  more 
appropriate  to  investigations  under  the  criminal 
law  than  to  a  civil  action  at  law  for  the  recovery 
of  damages.    I  know  there  are  oases,  such  as  Craud, 


SCMMjyG    UF  BY  MB.  BEACR. 


819 


*nd  ■^iiere,p€rliap3,  a  s  an  incidenr  in  title  c-ase,  great  "wrong  | 
or  cnmiaaliTy  is  inipared  to  a  party— I  know  that  in  ex-  j 
ceprional  avil  casea  of  that  cnaracter  tlie  presumption  is  ■ 
al30  kidnlged ;  bur  in  this,  ease  I  respectfullj-  sutomit  to  \ 
joxLT  Honor  the  doctrine  lias  no  applicatioc  Mr.  Beeclier  j 
is  entitled  to  no  presnmption  of  innocenee  no  more  than.  [ 
if  tin?  was  an  a  itlc-n  upon  a  contract  or  upon  a  promis-  I 
gory  note.   He  is  sued  for  seduction  in  an  action  for  I 
criminal  conversation.   To  "be  snre,  tlie  action  in  itself 
Imputes  personal  improprietj-,  moral  wrong,  yet,  I  sub- 
mit, not  of  that  character,  nor  of  that  degree  either,  Sir, 
■whlcli  jtLstifle«  the  application  of  tliis  presumption.  But 
If  it  were  so,  what  is  tiie  reeolt  wlien  evidence — satisfac- 
tory evidence — is  given  upon  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  of 
the  claim  which  he  presents  I  When  evidence  is  pre- 
•ented  to  your  Honor  which  you  pass  to  the  jury  as  prima 
acie  proof  of  the  oiicnse  charged  against  'blx.  Beecher, 
what  becomes  of  the  presumption  ?  It  is  overcome  ;  it  is 
destroyed- 

More  than  that,  your  Honor,  the  presumption  then 
changes.  Concede  that  in  the  commencement  of  this  in- 
vestigation we  start  with  the  presumption  of  innocence 
and  the  beneSt  of  doubt  shielding  and  encompassing  this 
defendant ;  when  that  shield  Is  broken  down  and  that 
defense  is  trampled  down  by  overpowering  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  the  eliarge  and  the  claim,  th.en  he  stands 
unon  his  defense,  and  h.e  lias  to  prove  by  satisfactory 
evidence  that  tie  claim  is  unfounded,  that  he  is  innocent 
of  tae  aocusation,  and  he  assumes  all  the  burden  of  the 
is  su  e .  0  w,  T  refer  your  Honor,  in  support  of  these  prop- 
ositlons,  to  "  1  Greenleaf  on  Evidence,"  wio  is  pro- 
nounc-ed  by  my  learned  friends  the  ablest  American  com- 
mentator upon  the  general  law  of  evidence  : 

In  civil  cases  where  the  miscMef  of  an  erroneous  con- 
clusion is  not  deemed  remediless,  it  is  not  necessary  that 
the  minds  of  the  jurors  be  free  fr«5m  all  doubt:  it  is  their 
duty  to  decide  in  favor  of  the  party  on  whose  side  the 
weight  of  evidence  preponderates,  and  accor<3ing  to 
the  reasonable  probability  of  trutlL  But  in  criminal 
cases,  because  of  the  more  serious  and  irreparable  nature 
of  the  consequences  of  a  wrong  decision,  the  jurors  are 
required  to  be  satisfled  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt  of 
the  guilt  of  the  accused,  or  it  is  their  duty  to  acquit  him. 
the  charge  not  being  proved  by  that  higher  degree  of  evi- 
dence which  the  law  demands.  In  civil  cases  it  is  suffi- 
cient if  the  evidence,  on  the  whole,  agrees  with  and.  sup- 
ports the  hypotliesis  which  it  is  adduced  to  pr-Dve ;  butin 
criminal  cases  it  must  exclude  every  other  hypothesis 
but  that  of  th  e  guilt  of  the  party.  In  botli  cases  a  verdict 
may  well  be  founded  on  circunistances  alone,  and  these  ; 
often  lead  to  a  conclusion  far  more  satisfactory  than  di-  '• 
rect  evidence  can  produce. 

In  the  case  of  The  People  agt,  Schriver  in  i2  iS'.  Y..  ; 
which  was  an  in<iicraient  and  trialiorlioinicide.  the  Court  j 
sav :  ! 

y  ow.  what  is  the  rule  of  evidence  as  to  the  burden  of 
proof,  not  in  a  case  where  the  prisoner  is  attempting  to 
ahow  that  the  homicide  is  manslaughter  instead  of  mur- 
der, but  in  a  case  where  he  is  attemi'ting  to  show  that  an 
admiued  homic'de  was  justifiable  under  the  statute  ?  In 


civil  cases  where  the  misohief  of  an  erroneous  conclusion 
is  not  deemed  remediless,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
minds  of  the  jurors  be  free  from  all  doubt ;  it  is  their  duty 
to  decide  in  favor  of  the  party  on  whose  side  the  weight 
of  evidence  prepi-nderates,  and  according  to  tlie  reason- 
able probability  of  irutlu 

And  them  Sir,  follows  the  remainder  of  the  doctrine 
which  I  have  recited  from  Mr.  Greenleaf— without  quota- 
tion marks,  cut  with  a  reference  to  Mr.  Greenleafs  work. 
It  is  the  rule  applicaWe  to  errmiaal  as  well  as  ciTil  trials : 

■'  I  ought  to  read,  if  your  Honor  will  pardon  me,  a  little 
before  that— "Eeasonable  doubt,  is  defined  by  Coief  Jus- 
tice Shaw,  in  ■  The  Commonwealth,  agt.  Webster.'  to  be 
that  state  of  the  case  which  after  the  entire  comparison 
and  consideration  of  a'J  the  evidence  leaves  the  minds  of 
the  jurors  in  that  condition  that  they  cannot  say  they 
feel  an  abiiiing  conviction,  to  a  moral  certainty,  of  the 
truth  of  the  charge.  This  degree  of  certainty  is  never 
required  in  civil  cases ;  but  is  required  in  criminal  cases 
by  reason  of  the  humane  regard  wbich  the  law  has  for 
the  life  and  liberty  of  persons  put  upon  trial  for  crimes. 
The  People,  in  every  case  of  bomicide,  must  prove  the 
corpus  delicti  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt:  and  if  the 
prisoner  claims  a  justiflcation,  he  must  take  upon  him- 
self th.e  burden  of  satisfying  the  lury  by  a  prepc>nder- 
ance  of  evidence ;  h.e  must  produce  the  same  deg:^ee  of 
proof  that  would  be  required  ir  the  blow  inflicted  ha^i 
not  produced  death,  and  he  had  been  sued  for  assault  and 
0  artery,  and  liad  set  up  a  justification,"  &c. 

2s ow,  Sir,  apply  that  rule  of  the  criminal  law  to  this 
ease.  When  in  a  criminal  case  the  corpus  delicti  is  proven, 
and  a  jasttncation  is  set  up,  the  burden  of  proof 
changes  ;  and  so,  in  a  crvD.  action  wlien  a  plaintiff  pro- 
duces evidence  to  maintain  the  Issue  on  Ms  part,  suiS- 
cient  to  carry  that  question  to  the  jury,  the  burden  of 
proof  changes,  every  presumption  changes,  aad  the  ques  - 
tion  then  becomes  a  general  one  upon  all  the  proof.  The 
iurors  must  exercise  their  reasonable  judgment  up<jn  the 
whole  of  the  evidence,  and  from  that  determine  not  be- 
yond a  reasonable  doubt,  not  with  that  certainty  re- 
quired in  a  crnninal  ease,  but  as  intelligent,  sensible  men 
judging  from  aH  the  probabiUnes  of  the  evidence, 
whether  the  plaintifi's  claitn,  x^n  the  whole,  is  estate 
lished-  ^ 

THE  pr:BLism>'G  or  the  tvite's  lettees, 

A  very  severe  philippic  was  uttered  by  ^li. 
Porter  and  in  substance  repeated,  but  not  with  the  same 
violence  of  language,  by  Mr.  ETarts,  against  Mr.  TUton 
for  the  pubUcanon  of  his  wife's  letters.  WeU,  I  don't 
know,  gentlemen,  that  you  or  I  would  be  willing  to  apply 
such  severe  terms  of  reprehension  to  a  husband  who 
found  occasion  to  publish  his  own  and  his  wire's  letters 
under  any  possible  circumstances.  I  am  quite  wining  to 
concede  that  without  a  real,  meritorious  cause  an  act  of 
that  character  would  be  indelicate.  It  would  be  reptil- 
sire  to  the  feeling  of  a  husband,  and  to  the  sense  of  every 
man  of  honor,  to  publish  a  letter  written  to  bi-m  either 
in  the  confidence  of  marital  intercourse,  or  even  in  that 
onndence  which  sometimes  attaches  to  a  commtmic^- 


820 


THE   TILIOI^-BEECHER  TRIAL. 


tion  as  between  business  gentlemen.  But  I  think  we  can 
conceive  of  emergencies  which  would  make  the  propriety 
of  the  publication  very  obvious ;  circumstances  under 
"vstfiich  neither  of  the  parties  to  the  correspondence  would 
feel  any  repugnance,  but,  yielding  to  the  necessities  of 
the  case,  each  would  approve  the  act.  What  were  the 
circumstances  under  which  this  publication  was  made, 
and  the  inducements  which  led  to  it?  Upon  the  cross- 
examination  of  Mr.  Tilton  he  was  led  to  speak  of  the  cir- 
cimistances  which  led  to  the  publication  ajid  of  the  man- 
ner of  it,  and  he  says : 

During  the  early  consultations  T  had  with  my  friend. 
Judge  Morris,  I  put  into  his  hands  the  papers.  He  read 
them  and  said,  "  These  letters  ought  to  be  published,  or 
at  least  liberal  and  copious  extracts  from  them."  I  said, 
"  No,  they  are  private  letters,  and  I  think  there  is  an  im- 
propriety in  publishing  them."  He  said,  on  the  contrary, 
the  case  was  of  such  seriousness  and  gravity,  and  had 
been  so  greatly  misrepresented  that  he  thought  justice 
required  that  they  should  be  published.  He  then  sug- 
gested that  good  taste,  perhaps,  would  lead  to  their  pub- 
lication, not  here  in  Brooklyn  in  either  of  the  local  pa- 
pers, but  at  some  distant  point ;  and  at  that  time  a  visit 
was  made  to  my  house  by  an  agent  of  TTie  Chicago  Trib- 
une; Judge  Morris  made  his  acquaintance,  and  commu- 
nicated to  this  agent  written  extracts  from  those  letters  ; 
and  in  that  way  they  were  published. 

Now,  they  were  published  at  a  time  when  Mr  Tilton 
was  pursued  by  misrepresentation  and  false  public  accu- 
sation. He  was  represented  as  a  brute  in  his  domestic 
relations;  he  was  charged  with  the  grossest  outrages 
upon  his  wife  and  family ;  the  most  flagrant  and  debas- 
mg  crimes  were  imputed  to  him,  and  the  charges  were 
circulated  in  all  the  papers  of  the  land.  The  only  weapon 
of  defense  he  had  was  the  testimony  of  his  wife,  in  her 
letters,  written  under  circumstances  which  gave  to  their 
contents  entire  veracity  and  verity.  His  lawyer  advised 
him  that  under  these  circumstances  it  was  justifiable  to 
use  and  publish  the  letters,  and  he  did  so  ;  and  he  is 
called  a  dastard,  and  a  villain,  outraging  the  confidence 
and  the  honorable  obligations  of  married  life  and  of  so- 
ciety. Well,  I  dissent  from  that  conclusion,  gentlemen. 
Under  those  circumstances  and  in  the  position  in  which 
this  man  and  wdfe  then  stood,  that  act  upon  the  part  of 
Theodore  Tilton,  if  she  was  true  to  him  as  she  then  pro- 
fessed, would  be  approved  by  her.  It  was  a  publication 
made  in  their  common  interest;  it  was  a  publication 
made  under  circumstances  by  no  means  dishonorable 
to  her,  and  communicating  to  the  public  a 
correspondence  which  in  none  of  its  character- 
istics reflected  upon  her  propriety  or  virtue ; 
and  when  this  man  was  thus  overpowered  by  adverse  in- 
fluences, when  he  was  helpless  and  hopeless  under  the 
circumstances,  was  there  any  impropriety  in  it,  and  will 
any  lady  or  gentleman,  under  such  circumstances,  con- 
demn him  as  an  indecorous  and  indelicate  violator  of  do- 
mestic secrets  1  But,  gentlemen,  the  astonishing  state- 
ment is  made  by  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Porter,  accom- 
panied with  the  most  severe  denunciation  against  Mr.  Til- 


ton, for  publishing  the  letter  of  J  an.  9,  1867.  You  will  re- 
member, gentlemen,  that  it  is  the  letter  which  spoke  of 
some  infirmities  and  sufferings  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  Mr.  Porter 
says  of  it : 

Why  was  that  published  ?  Can  you  imagine  anything 
more  indecent,  more  mean,  more  contemptible  than  to 
publish  in  the  newspapers  of  all  this  land  a  wife's  letters 
in  which  she  complains  of  her  felons,  her  eruptions,  her 
inflamed  eyes,  and  her  looseness  of  the  bowels.  This 
man's  greed  for  admiration,  his  unbounded  and  stilted 
egotism,  is  such  that  to  get  a  compliment  he  would  pub- 
lish anything. 

Well,  gentlemen,  it  turns  out  that  this  was  all  that  was 
published  of  that  letter. 

The  Ship's  Cabin,  My  Desk,  Jan.  9,  1867. 
My  Beloveb  :  It  it  quite  time  that  you  should  have  a 
little  insight  into  the  manner  in  which  I  am  using  your 
hard-wrought  earnings. 

And  then  there  are  points  indicating  an  omission. 

My  heart  is  sick  at  the  figures,  while  I  make  confession 
with  shame  and  sorrow  that  I  can  do  no  better  in  my 
situation. 

He  was  charged  witli  parsimony,  with  not  providing 
for  his  household. 

Once  more  I  would  bless  you  for  your  delicious  letters. 
They  will  be  a  legacy  to  my  children  when  I  no  longer 
live  to  preserve  them. 

I  wUl  try  to  take  care  better  of  my  wretched  self, 
because  the  best  man  In  all  the  woi'ld  loves  me. 

That  was  the  only  way  in  which  that  letter  was  pub- 
lished, and  my  friend  Mr.  Porter  must  have  known  it. 
No  allusion  to  any  personal  inconveniences  to  Mrs.  Tilton; 
nothing  disrespectful  to  her,  and  yet  taking  that  letter 
and  asserting  its  publication  by  Mr.  Tilton,  this  violent 
assault  is  made  upon  him. 

Well,  the  letter  of  January  28  of  that  same  year  is 
spoken  of  by  Mr.  Porter  in  like  terms,  and  the  letter  of 
March  8,  1868,  both  of  them  introduced  by  Mr.  Shearman 
on  this  trial  and  read  by  him.  Now,it»is  a  little  remarka- 
ble that  the  plan  of  assault,  the  system  of  attack,  the 
policy  of  vituperation  adopted  by  my  learned  friend, 
should  have  led  him  into  such  extravagance.  He  says 
that  the  egotism  of  Mr.  Tilton  is  so  enormous  that  he 
hesitates  at  nothing  to  gratify  his  vanity.  I  think  I  may 
say  that  the  vindictiveness  of  my  learned  friend  is  so 
enormous  that  he  hesitates  at  nothing  to  defame  his  ad- 
versary. Charges  of  this  character,  founded  upon  mis- 
statement, against  a  man  who  claims  the  ordinary  pro- 
tection of  a  party  in  a  coui-t  of  iustice,  shielded  by  the 
impartiality  of  the  law,  cannot  be  recklessly  indulged  by 
counsel.  Misrepresentations  of  this  character,  used  as 
the  foundation  of  calumnious  vituperation,  do  not  be- 
come the  eminent  gentlemen  who  represent  this  defense, 
and  I  will  show  you  instance  after  instance  in  the  course 
of  the  past  13  days  where  facts  have  been  as  clearly  dis- 
regarded for  the  purpose  of  opening  a  justification  for 
the  vileness  of  the  assault  made  upon  the  case  of  the 
I)laintift. 


SDMMII^G    UF  BY  ME,  BEAOU, 


821 


THE  ALLEGED   SHREWDNESS  IN  SELECT- 
ING DATES. 

Mr.  Porter  alluded  to  tlie  complaint  in  this  case, 
and  to  the  fact  tliat  the  place  or  places  of  this  adiQtery 
■were  very  artfully  and  carefully  selected.  Well,  of 
course,  gentlemen,  the  plaintiff  in  this  case  knew  nothing 
of  it.  We  had  no  evidence  of  actual  observation  of  the 
offense,  and  a  pleader  drawing  a  complaint  in  an  *  ac- 
tion of  this  kind  could  not  have  verified  the  places  where 
he  might  suppose  it  probable,  iinder  the  evidence,  that 
the  offense  could  have  been  committed.  Mr.  Morris,  in 
drawing  this  complaint,  says  : 

The  plaintiff,  complaining  of  the  defendant,  alleges 
that  on  the  2d  day  of  October,  1855,  in  the  City  of 
Brooklyn,  the  plaintiff  intermarried,  &c.;  that  the  de- 
fendant contriving  and  willfully  intending,  &c.,  hereto- 
fore on  or  about  the  10th  day  of  October.  1868,  and  on 
divers  other  days  and  times  after  that  day,  and  before 
the  commencement  of  this  action,  at  the  house  of  the  de- 
fendant, 124  Columbia-st.,  Cit^-  of  Brooklyn,  and  at  the 
house  of  the  pl^iintiff,  174  Livingston-st.,  City  of  Brook- 
lyn, wrongfully  and  wickedly,  «fec.,  carnally  knew,  &c. 

It  is  drawn  in  the  ordinary  form.  Well,  it  is  thought 
by  Mr.  Porter  exceedinglj'  surprising  that  we  should 
charge  in  this  complaint  seduction  and  adiiltery  at  the 
house  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  thinks  too  that  it  was 
very  adroit  to  have  laid  the  venue  upon  the  10th  and 
upon  the  17th  of  October,  because  no  aUbi  could  be 
proved ;  and  Mr.  Porter,  with  a  felicity  and  skill  pe- 
ciiliary  his  own,  has  taken  the  occasion  to  draw 
an  attractive  picture  of-  Jlr.  Hem*y  Ward 
Beecher  at  his  house  surrounded  by  his 
wife  and  his  children  and  his  grandchildi-en. 
The  description  of  the  felicities  and  the  sanctities  of 
home  life  which  at  once  touch  the  commonest  nature  and 
has  appealed  to  you  and  to  your  natural  emotions,  to  dis- 
credit the  idea  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  suvroimded  by 
these  affectionate  and  holy  influences  could  have  been 
guilt  J'  in  his  own  house,  to  his  heart  in  the  holy  of  holies, 
of  such  an  offense.  Why,  gentlemen,  we  didn't  charge  it 
in  the  ordinary  form  of  pleading,  ignorant  of  the  places 
where  the  alleged  seduction  was  obtained ;  we  give,  in 
the  general  language  of  ordmary  pleading,  a  de- 
scription of  place  and  circumstances,  making  it 
as  definite  as  we  can,  but,  nevertheless,  making 
it  as  comprehensive  as  possible,  so  that  there 
should  be  no  destructive  variance  as  between  the  alle- 
gation and  the  proof.  I  do  not  know,  gentlemen,  whether 
in  the  house  of  Mr.  Beecher,  or  in  the  house  of  Mr.  Tilton, 
or  where  this  seduction,  if  there  be  a  seduction,  was  ac- 
iBomplished.  There  is  no  right  or  contrivance  upon 
the  part  of  the  plaintiff  in  these  pleadings,  or  in  this  e  vi- 
dence,with  a  view  to  a  location  of  the  offense,  that  would 
be  probable  as  to  place  or  as  to  time  of  a  character  which 
would  interfere  with  exculpatory  proof  ou  the  part  of 
Ike  defendant.  These  places  are  alleged  from  an  alleged 
sommvtnication  from  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  to  Mr. 


Tilton  when  he  was  led  to  make  inquiries  in  regard  to  the 
time  and  place  of  the  occurrence,  and  upon  that  the 
simple  claim  is  whether  Mr.  Tilton  or  Mr.  Beecher, 
strengthened  as  either  may  be  by  the  other  evidence  and 
the  circumstances  of  this  case ,  is  to  be  credited. 

ALLEGED  MISINTERPRETATIONS  OF  TESTI- 
MONY IN  THE  ARGUMENTS. 
Mr.  Porter  has  fallen  into  another  mistake. 
He  states  that  Mr.  TUton  did  not  deny  the  fii'st  interview, 
the  first  visit  to  the  room  of  Bessie  Turner,  as  stated  in 
her  evidence.  Generally,  in  regard  to  the  allegations  of 
my  learned  friend,  that  when  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton 
and  Mrs.  Moulton  were  recalled  that  they  did  not  deny 
the  statements  which  were  made  upon  the  part  of  wit- 
nesses for  the  defense,  I  may  make  the  remark,  if'  it 
please  your  Honor,  that  the  question  was  presented, 
when  our  witnesees  were  recalled  to  the  stand,  to  your 
Honor's  discretion,  whether  it  was  proper  for  us,  where 
the  direct  evidence,  the  former  evidence  given  by  our 
witnesses,  was  in  conflict  with  the  allegations  made  by 
witnesses  subsequently  produced  upon  the  part  of  the  de- 
fense,—whether  it  was  necessary  for  us  to  reassert  and 
contradict  when  our  witnesses  were  recalled,  I  under- 
stood your  Honor  to  say  to  me  that  it  was  not  necessary 
or  proper,  and  that  Mr.  Evarts  had  very  promptly 
concurred  in  that  conclusion.  Now,  there  la 
not  an  instance  in  this  case,  gentlemen,  where 
any  adverse  testimony  with  reference  to  a 
single  witness,  or  either  as  to  declaration  or  any- 
thing else,  or  facts— not  a  single  instance  where  there  is 
a  want  of  contradiction  (and  I  make  the  declaration 
after  a  tolerably  careful  examination  of  the  proofs  in 
this  case),  and  relying  upon  the  instructions 
which  were  given  to  us  by  the  Judge,  we  did 
not  pass  through  with  all  the  evidence  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  for  instance,  or  of  Bessie  Turner,  or  of  Mrs. 
Ovington,  or  any  one  else,  where,  upon  direct  examina- 
tion of  our  witnesses,  they  had  sworn  to  facts,  to 
declarations  and  circumstances  which  stood  in  direct 
antagonism  to  the  assertions  of  the  witness  upon  the 
part  of  the  defense  ;  it  was  unnecessary.  Bat  in  regard 
to  this,  and  perhaps  one  or  two  other  matters,  I  ma^-  oc- 
cupy your  attention.  [Mr.  Beach  failed  to  find  a  page 
he  was  looking  for,  and  continued  as  follows  :J  I  musft 
pass  it,  gentlemen.  I  will  refer  to  the  page  upon  another 
point.  Mr.  Porter  stated  that  Mr.  Richards,  when  called 
to  contradict  Bessie  Turner  in  regard  to  the  allegation 
that  she  communicated  to  Mr.  Richards  at  his  office  at 
The  Evening  Post,  stated  that  Mr.  Richards  only  denied 
the  communication  asserted  to  have  been  made  by  Bessie 
Turner  to  him  at  that  place,  and  did  not 
deny  that  he  received  a  communication  from 
her  at  other  places  or  at  another  place. 
By  referring  to  ptige  80,  which  I  have  marked,  and  wbicli 
I  am  certain  cai.:i;)tl>e  a  mistake,  it  win  be  found  iluit 


,TEE   TlLTO:S-BEECHER  TEIAL, 


Mr.  Richards,  on  tlie  contrary,  denies  that  the  subject  of 
the  conversations  was  at  any  time  communicated  to  him 
there,  or  at  any  place,  hy  Miss  Bessie  Turner.  Great 
oomplaint  is  made,  gentlemen,  that  on  the  return  of  Mrs. 
Tiltonfrom  Marietta,  Ohio,  under  circumstances  and  witlf 
a  reception  which  certainly  indicated  no  want  of  atten- 
tion and  no  rudeness  on  the  part  of  her  hushand,  for  he 
met  her,  with  proper  attention  and  proper  affection,  with 
a  carriage  at  the  depot,  and  conducted  her  to  his  house. 
But  it  is  said  that  Miss  Ellen  Dennis  usurped  the  wife's 
place  at  the  tahle,  and  In  the  circumstances  which  sur- 
roundod  that  incident  there  was  great  cruelty  and  un- 
Mndness  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton.  Then,  gentlemen. 
Miss  Ellen  Dennis  was  a  cousin  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  a  some- 
what aged  maiden  lady,  who  had  been  the  friend  and 
attendant  of  Mrs.  Tilton  from  her  youth  up,  who,  Ui  the 
absence  of  Mrs.  TUton  from  her  home,  was  the  house- 
keeper, Mxe  active  and  convenient  manager  of  the  domes- 
tic ooncei-ns  of  the  household,  and  while  Mrs.  Tilton  was 
away,  Mr.  Tilton  receiving  his  guests  with  that  courtesy 
and  hospitality  which  at  one  time  distinguished  his  house. 
Miss  Dennis  superintended  his  domestic  affairs  and  pre- 
sided at  his  table,  performing  the  offices  of  his  wife  during 
her  absence,  and  on  the  morning  when  thej^  returned, 
and  at  dinner  that  day,  she  occupied  the  same 
position,  discharging  the  same  duties.  Was  there 
anything  indelicate  or  offensive  in  itf  Was 
there  anylihlng  which  should  have  offended  the  wifely 
feelings  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  if  they  were  offended,  and  was  it 
a  matter  over  which  Mr.  Tilton  exercised  any  control  ? 
Why,  you  remember  how  scornfully  and  almost  rudely 
he  repulsed  his  wife  at  another  time— related  by  Bessie 
Turner— when  she  made  Inquiries  of  him,  or  asked  advice 
about  the  servants  and  the  management  of  the  interior 
concerns  of  their  home.  Well,  it  may  not  have  been  gra- 
cious, in  your  idea  of  the  character  and  treatment  of  a 
husband ;  it  may  be  that  there  are  mental  ctuallties  about 
Theodore  Tilton,  that  there  is  a  devotion  and  a  spirit  to 
higher  mental  considerations  and  occupations  which  un- 
fit him  for  those  kindly  and  trivial  and  tender  offices  of 
domestic  life.  It  is  no  reproach  t©  him. 
The  noblest  moralists,  the  purest  Christians,  men 
of  the  highest  intellectual  attainments,  have  manifested 
a  severer  rudeness,  I  had  almost  said  a  bearishness,  in  re- 
gard to  trivial  matters  of  this  character.  What  were  the 
particular  circumstances  which  produced  a  mamfesta- 
tion  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Tilton  at  that  time  we 
cannot  see  from  the  evidence.  Certainly  there  was  no 
offense  offered  to  her,  no  rudeness  addressed  to  her,  no 
circumstances  which  should  have  offended  her  wifely 
dignity,  or  excited  the  jealousy  of  a  matron  in  the  con- 
trol of  her  own  household.  The  account  of  this  transac- 
tion by  Bessie  Turner  is  altogether  too  imperfect  to  ena- 
ble us  to  judge  correctly  of  that  transaction,  and  Miss 
.  Dennis  is  in  her  grave,  and  Miss  Bessie  Turner  speaks 
with  great  safety,  because  she  can  be  contradicted  by  no 


onehmtby  Mrs.  Tilton.  Now,  it  is  not  very  importanic, 
gentlemen,  in  regard  to  all  these  questions  of  kindred 
character— the  rudeness,  the  coldness,  the  solkiness,  the 
moodiness,  the  conduct  of  Theodore  Tilton  in  his  house- 
hold is  not  a  matter  of  imperative  concern  before  this  jury. 
He  may  have  been  all  that  Bessie  Tiu'ner  represents  him 
to  be.  In  the  restlessness  of  his  nature,  he  may  have 
wandered,  as  she  ridiculously  says,  from  bed  to  bed  to 
find  a  soft  place  on  which  to  rest.  He  may  be  ludicrous 
in  his  habits,  but,  nevertheless,  gentlemen,  before  a  court 
and  jury  he  may  assert  the  sanctity  of  that  home  thus 
disturbed  by  his  foibles,  if  it  be  so.  He  may  have  been 
harsh  and  cold  at  times  in  the  domestic  circle.  He  may 
have  been  stern  and  moody  toward  that  delicate  and 
sickly  wife,  if  Bessie  Turner  is  to  be  believed,  but  it  gave 
to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  no  license  to  trespass  upon  that 
household.  It  may  have  alienated  the  affections  of  the 
wife ;  it  may  have  cooled  the  fervor  of  her  affection;  it  may 
have  shaken  her  reverence  for  her  home  and  her  marriage 
tie,  but  it  gave  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  no  warrant  to  take 
advantage  of  those  circumstances.  It  Is  no  excuse  for 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  that  Theodore  Tilton  was  a  harsh 
and  unloving  husband,  if  it  be  true.  It  does  not  deny  the 
truth  of  this  accusation  that  that  was  a  disturbed  and 
discordant  household ;  it  may  be  true ;  that  we  will  see 
about.  It  may  have  been  an  encouragement  to  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  to  venture  upon  an  assault  upon  its  sacred 
purity,  but  it  is  no  justification  for  the  act.  And  so 
through  all  these  irrelevant  and  collateral  issues  which 
have  been  forced  upon  this  jury.  Grant  them  all ;  grant 
that  Theodore  TEton  was  the  adorer  of  Victoria  Wood- 
hull,  as  he  was  her  eulogist  in  her  biography ;  grant 
that  he  was  odious  and  debased  in  his  habits ;  grant 
that  he  trespassed  upon  the  proprieties  of  life ; 
grant  that  lie  was  less  than  a  man  and  \iler 
than  a  brute,  when  at  Winsted,  as  they  say,  he  seduced 
the  girl  intrusted  to  Ms  care— grant  all  this,  is  it  an 
answer  to  the  proof  in  this  case  1  Does  it  overturn  the 
condition  of  this  defendant  ?  Does  it  wipe  out  those 
stormy  and  emphatic  letters  over  which  my  learned 
friend  passes  delicately  and  lightly?  Does  it  destroy  the 
character  and  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses  who  reveal 
to  you,  the  history  of  his  three  years  of  penitence  and  re- 
morse ;  and  are  we  to  be  told,  when  evidence  of  this 
character  is  presented  in  a  com-t  of  law,  that  the  plaintiff 
is  an  immoral  and  degraded  libei'tine,  and  that  therefore 
the  sin  of  the  defendant  should  go  unpunished,  and  the 
vice  of  his  immorality  unrebuked  by  the  judgment  of  the 
law  and  the  jury. 
The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2:05  p.  m. 

THE  CHARGE  OF  GARBLING  THE  LETTERS. 
The  Court  met  at  2:05  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 

journmeiil, 

Mr.  Beach— In  respect  to  va^'ious  letters  and  doouments 
which  Mr.  Tilton,  in  the  couise  of  this  long  and  vexed 


9 


SUM  MIX  a  UF 

ContTOTersy.  heretofore  lia«  been  compelled  to  use,  lie 
has  been  charged  with  garbling.  In  respect  to  the  letter 
of  February,  1868,  which  :Mr.  Tilton  had  occasion  to  use 
in  his  sworn  statement,  submitted  to  the  Committee  of 
Investigation,  and  from  which  he  c[uoted,  Mr.  Porter,  re- 
ferring to  the  quotation  and  to  the  use  made  of  it  by  ivlr. 
Tilton.  says : 

And  yet  the  dastard  to  whom  th.at  letter  is  addressed 
published  it  in  a  form  which  was  garbled,  false,  and 
forged;  in  a  form  in  which  she  is  represented  as  con- 
fessing the  infamy  which  he  now  charges,  and  he  says, 
by  way  of  apology  for  it,  "  Well,  but  since  I  commenced 
this  suit  I  have  furnished  a  true  copy." 

The  form  in  which  the  quotation  from  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Tilton  was  reproduced  by  Tilton  is  this  : 

That  previous  to  the  aforesaid  criminal  intimacy  one  of 
the  reasons  which  Mrs.  Tilton  alleged  for  her  encourage- 
ment of  such  exceptional  attentions  from  the  Rev. 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  the  fact  that  she  had  been 
much  distressed  with  rumors  against  his  moral  purity, 
and  wished  to  convince  him  that  she  could  receive  his 
kindness  and  yet  resist  his  solicitations,  and  that  she 
could  inspii-e  in  hiia,  by  her  purity  and  fidelity,  an  in- 
creased respect  for  the  dignity  of  womanhood.  Pre- 
vious to  the  Autumn  of  1868  she  maintained  ^^-ith  Chris- 
tian firmness  toward  her  pastor  this  position  of  resist- 
ance, always  refusing  his  amorous  pleas,  which  were 
strung  and  oft-repeated ;  and  in.  a  letter  to  her  husband, 
dated  Feb.  3,  1868,  she  wrote  as  follows  :  "  To  love  is 
T.iTdse worthy,  but  to  abuse  the  gift  is  sin.  Here  I  am 
strong.  No  demonstrations  or  fascinations  could  cause 
me  to  yield  my  womanhood," 

And  :Mr.  Porter  alleges  that  tliat  is  garbled  and  forged 
and  false  m  its  sentiment,  intent,  and  effect. 

Here  I  am  strong.  No  demonstrations  or  fascinations 
could  cause  me  to  jaeld  my  womanhood. 

And  Mr.  TUton,  inquired  of  in  relation  to  the  motive 
which  induced  him  to  make  that  quotation  and  publica- 
tion, and  to  the  supposed  effect  of  it,  says : 

I  quoted  it  as  a  beautiful  illustration  of  her  own  sense 
of  the  dignity  of  her  sex,  and  of  herself  as  respecting  It. 
That  was  the  use  which  I  made  of  that  extract  in  my 
sworn  statement  to  certify  to  her  strength  of  character 
at  that  time. 

C''nnment  caimot  add,  gentlemen,  I  must  be  permitted 
to  say — with  what  my  friend  Imows  is  the  kindliest  feel- 
ing toward  him— nothing  can  be  added  by  way  of  com- 
ment to  the  unworthiness  of  such  an  attack.  In  that 
eta-tement  Mr.  Tilton,  in  pursuance  of  the  policy  which 
hsbd  governed  him  from  the  commencement  of  his  dis- 
covery of  his  wdfe'3  turpitude,  was  mod.ifying  the 
offense,  was  maintaining  her  integrity  of  character,  was 
professing  at  least,  and  believing,  as  I  think,  in  the 
purity  of  her  nature,  and  in  the  spotlessness  of  her  sin, 
under  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  committed, 
and  to  which  I  shall  advert  hereafter,  and  in  this  state- 
ment before  th"^  Committee  was  representing  with  what 
fidelity  to  her  womanhood  and  to  her  marriage  vow, 
with  what  adherence  to  the  policy  with  which  she 
ac^^epted  the  intimacy  of  Mr.  Beecher,  believing  in  his 
previous  moral  transgression,  as  I  will  show  you  by  and 


BY  MB.    BEACH.  823 

by.  and  yet  by  faith  In  her  own  womanhood,  and  by  i>e- 
lief  in  her  own  firm  integrity,  and  by  the  nature  of  the 
influence  which  she  knew  she  exerted  over  Mr.  Beecher, 
as  I  will  also  show  you.  Mr.  Tilton  was  expressing  the 
confident  belief,  and  quoted  this  letter  in  support  of  this 
belioif,  that  this  woman,  at  the  time  to  which  reference 
was  made,  wa^  maintaining  all  these  characteristics  and 
this  policy  of  action.  He  deserves  no  reproach,  gentle- 
men. There  is  no  misconception  or  misrepresentation  of 
the  letter  of  Mrs.  Tilton  in  this  quotation.  It  was  un- 
generous on  the  part  of  my  learned  friend.  Nay  it  was 
clearly  unjust  toward  his  adversary,  without  presenting 
to  you  the  character  of  the  quotation,  to  assume  that  it 
was  garbled  and  forged  and  misrepresented,  for  the  mere 
purpose  of  indulging  in  a  violent  expletive  against  Mr. 
Tilton. 

iME.  TILTON'S  PUBLIC  DEFE^TDEES. 

But  tlie  most  astonishing  tMng  to  mv  mind, 

the  most  remarkable  position  that  Mr.  Porirer  in  his  argu- 
ment assumed,  is  in  that  florid  display  of  the  friends  and 
the  influences  which  have  gathered  about  Mr.  Beecher  in 
the  cop.rse  of  this  trial,  and  the  absence  of  all  encoiu-age- 
ment  and  support  m  aid  of  Mr.  Tilton.  Well,  gentlemen, 
what  my  friend  said  so  eloquently,  with  immense  descrip- 
tive power,  upon  that  subject,  was  uttered  for  something. 
It  was  very  weU  to  describe  Mr.  Beecher  as  the  possessor 
of  all  the  manly  and  Christian  virtues  which  hare  been 
attaehed  to  h.is  character.  It  was  a  matter  of  policy  to 
boast  that  those  assumed  qualities  had  collected  about 
hiTn  all  the  piety  and  intelligence  and  resx>ectabiUty  of 
the  community ;  and  it  was  weU  hoped  that  an  assumi>- 
tionof  that  character  might  influence  the  conception 
which  this  jury  might  form  in  regard  to  Mr.  Beechev  and 
the  respective  merits  of  this  litigation.  I  amnot  espec^>Jly 
favorable  to  that  mode  of  argument.  Considerations  of  that 
character,  in  my  judgment,  are  not  legitimately  or  pro- 
fessionally addressed  to  the  intelligence  of  a  jury :  bf  t 
when  they  are  resorted  to  it  is  well  enough  to  learn 
whether  they  are  well  founded.  And  in  the  outset  my 
learned  friend  fi:ads  a  little  difficulty  upon  this  subject, 
because  the  leading  papers  that  were  daily  presented  to 
his  observation  at  once  satisfied  him  that  in  this  outei 
intelligence,  among  this  larger  jury  to  which  my  friend 
Porter  appealed,  there  were  some  who  were  bold,  and  my 
friend  thinks  unprincipled  enough,  to  advocate  the  claim 
of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  to  question  the  spotless,  pure  integrity 
of  Mr.  Beecher.  Well,  those  he  calls  the  effusions  of  Til- 
tonianism.  The  Sun,  Springfield  Jtepnhlican,  f'}iirar]o 
Tribune,  St  Louis  Democrat,  and  all  the  host  of  the  lead- 
ing newspapers  in  every  section  of  the  country, 
who  are,  with  a  keen  and  acute  intelligence  and 
logic  examining  this  case,  and  this  evidence, 
as  it  has  been  presented  to  this  jury,  and 
expressing  conclusions  which  did  not  meet  the  approba 
tion  of  my  learned  friend— why.  they  are  Tiltonianisms 


824 


THE   TILTON-BEhJOHJEE  TEIAL. 


intimating  tliat  they  are  written  by  Mr.  Tilton,  tliat  Mr. 
Tilton  coutrolo  the  presa  of  this  country,  and  that  the  al- 
most uniform  and  uniyersal  judgment  of  that  press  is  a 
iudgment  formed  hy  Mr.  Tilton  for  effect  upon  tills  jury. 
Well,  it  is  an  astonishing  proposition,  gentlemen.  But 
doos  my  fi-ieud  consider  the  moral  of  this  statement  % 
Does  my  friend  conijid«:'  that  the  highest  intellect  of  the 
country,  the  most  fearlessness  of  investigation,  is  col- 
lected upon  the  leading  daily  press  of  this  land,  that  in 
no  depaitment  of  science,  of  art,  of  learning,  of  business, 
is  there  such  an  association  of  cultivated  and  practical 
intellect  connected  with  the  most  astonishing,  marvelous- 
enterprise  as  ai-e  associated  in  the  conduct  of  the  daily 
press  of  this  land  ?  Is  he  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  press 
is  at  once  the  educator  and  the  representative  of  public 
sentiment,  and  when  he  talks  about  these  Tiltouianisms 
in  the  leading  newspapers  of  this  country  he  is  uttering 
the  public  condemnation  upon  the  cause  of  his  client  ? 
It  is  not  an  argument  to  control  the  int^ligenoe  and  the 
conscience  of  this  jury.  I  would  have  been  ashamed  to 
have  alluded  to  it,  but  for  the  incorrect  example  of  my 
learned  friend. 

MR.  BEECHEE'S   BROTHEE  CLERGYMEN 

AGAINST  HIM. 
But  tlien  all  society  gathers  about  Mr.  Beecher. 

The  revered  and  the  learned  of  every  denomination,  the 
Christian  of  every  sect,  according  to  my  friend  Porter, 
are  gathered  in  one  uniform  and  zealous  defense  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher.  Is  this  true?  Where  are  theyl  Where 
is  Dr.  Storrs,  one  of  the  jury  of  the  vicinage  ?  Where  is 
Dr.  Cuyler?  Where  is  Dr.  Budington?  Where  is  Dr. 
Talmagel  Where  is  Dr.  Daryea?  Where  is  Dr.  Van 
Dyke,  and  all  the  other  list  of  eminent  Christian  pastors? 
I  have  not  seen  them  with  ready  and  brotherly  hands 
supporting  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  I  have  seen  Plymouth 
Church  in  all  its  glory.  [Laug-hter.]  I  have  seen  the' 
zealots  and  the  parasites  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  gather- 
ing about  him  upon  this  trial,  and  shedding  all  their  in- 
fluence, in  and  out  of  coiu-t,  in  his  favor.  But  where 
ai-e,  beyond  the  walls  of  Plymouth  Church— where 
are  these  good  and  great  men  who  testify  their 
belief  in  the  integrity  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
and  their  devotion  to  Ids  defense  ?  They  are  not  here. 
And  their  absencels  no  evidence  of  guilt ;  but  when  my 
friend  undertakes  to  boast  of  the  prominence  of  his  cli- 
ent, of  the  respect  maintained  by  the  community  for  his 
character,  and  to  exalt  himself  upon  the  idea  that  there 
is  a  devoted  and  a  unanimous  rally  of  Christian  senti- 
ment about  this  fallen  preacher,  I  am  disposed  to  dispute 
the  position.  Quite  willing  would  I  be  to  submit  this 
cause  to  ffiie  judgment,  either  of  the  public  press,  the 
public  opinion,  or  the  Christian  sentiment  of  this  nation. 
But,  gentlemen,  these  are  foreign  and  improper  topics 
for  discussion  in  this  court-room.  We  stand  in  a  pres- 
nce,  ippealing  to  a  spirit  which  rejects  all  these  noxious 


and  improper  influences.  Each  of  you  may  well  say,  ia 
the  language,  but  not  in  the  spirit,  of  the  Jew,  "  An  oath, 
an  oath,  I  have  an  oath  in  heaven.  Shall  I  lay  perjury 
on  my  soul?"  And  the  moment  the  iudgment  of  this 
jury  departs  from  the  evidence  and  the  law,  the  moment 
it  listens  to  these  seductions  and  temptations  of  sophis- 
try and  oratory,  the  moment  it  is  influenced  by  these  im- 
pure approaches,  of  whatever  kind  or  character  they  may 
be,  they  are  treachertms  to  duty  and  false  to  their  oath. 
I  ask  no  influence  of  this  character.  I  do  not  ask  this 
jury,  intelligent  and  responsible  men,  performing  the 
most  solemn  and  serious  duty  of  their  Lives— I  do  not  ask 
them  to  surrender  their  judgment  to  the  bidtling  of  any 
man,  or  of  any  class,  whether  they  be  secular  or 
Christian,  whether  they  be  newspapers  or  pulpit  orators. 
And,  gentlemen,  when  I  am  led  to  the  discussion  of  these 
foreign  topics,  it  is  not  with  any  view  or  purpose  of  ap- 
proaching your  convictions  by  any  such  appeal,  but  to 
repress  what  I  think  the  dangerous  appeals  made  on  the 
part  of  my  learned  friend. 

Well,  gentlemen,  I  have  the  means,  if  I  thought  it 
either  necessary  or  entirely  appropriate,  to  satisfy  my 
learned fiiend,  Mr.  Porter,  that  he  greatly  errs  in  the  pro- 
fessional judgment  founded  upon  this  case.  And  what 
has  the  opinion  of  lawyers  to  do  with  this  case,  or  with 
this  jury,  except  the  opinion  which  proceeds  from  this 
bar,  and  so  far  as  it  is  entitled  to  the  approbation  of  this 
jury?  I  think  I  could  satisfy  my  learned  friend  very 
readily  that  his  conception  as  to  the  judgment  of  reflect- 
ing and  prominent  lawyers  upon  this  case  is  quite 
different  from  his  representation.  It  may  be,  perhaps,  a 
significant  fact,  but  I  do  not  choose  to  use  it  in  that  char- 
acter, that  the  two  leading  papers  of  the  old  home  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  Indianapolis,  will  furnish  some  very  instructive, 
if  not  entertaining  reading  to  my  learned  friend,  Mr. 
Porter,  upon  this  subject.  A  new  announcement  of 
emotion,  a  new  revelation  of  our  emotional  nature,  is 
made  in  the  speech  of  Mr.  Porter. 

MRS.  TILTON'S  RECENT  ATTITUDE  TOWARD 
HER  HUSBAND. 
I  had  occasion  to  say,  gentlemen,  in  the 
commencement  of  this  litigation,  that  it  would  be  the 
happiest  event  that  could  occur  in  the  history  of  this 
mournful  drama  if  Theodore  Tilton  and  his  advisers 
could  be  satisfied,  by  that  kind  of  proof  which  should 
satisfy  the  judgment  of  intelligent  men,  that  his  wife 
loved  him  with  her  early  devotion  and  with  her  early 
puiity.  No  consummation  of  this  case  could  be  more 
grateful  to  my  client,  and  to  those  who  aid  him  in  the 
assertion  of  his  rights  upon  this  trial.  But  Mr.  Porter 
gives  us  the  assurance  that  she  does  love  him, 
and  produces  the  singular  antithesis  expressed 
in  this  language:  "It  is  one  of  the  tuiuga 
which  seems  to  me  marvelous  in  the  sight  of 
man,  and  only  explainable    when  we  shall  be  able 


to  look  at  it  with  the  light  that  comes  from  Omniscience, 
that  woman"  [referring  to  Mrs.  Tilton],  "  loathing  this 
man  as  she  does"  [referring  to  Mr.  Tilton] ,  "  to  this  hour 
loves  Mm  as  I  have  never  seen  a  woman  love  a  man  yet. 
It  is  the  strangest  anomaly  that  I  have  ever  witnessed  in 
the  whole  course  of  my  life— the  most  idolatrous"  fl  sup- 
pose he  means  the  love]—"  the  most  idolati'ous  love  and 
most  ahjeet."  Well,  that  is  seemingly  an  irreconcilable 
inconsistency,  that  Mrs.  Tilton  should  at  once  love  and 
loath  her  husband.  That  that  love  and  loathing 
should  be  expressed  by  the  conduct  which  she 
has  pursued  and  by  the  position  which  she  has 
assumed  in  this  controversy,  and  that  any 
human  being  should  assert  to  intelligent  and 
feeling  men  that  that  woman  still  loves  the  husband 
of  her  earfy  yourh  and  the  father  of  her  children,  at  the 
same  time  confessing  that  she  loaths  him  with  a  bitter 
and  utter  loathing,  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  exhi- 
bitions I  have  ever  witnessed.  It  seems  to  me  if  this  lady 
had  been  left  to  the  impulses  and  instincts  of  her  better 
nature,  the  forgiveness  which  covered  her  sin  in  1870, 
and  the  love  and  chastity  which  took  her  again  to  the 
bosom  of  her  husband,  if  the  policv  of  protection  of  the 
wife  had  produced  its  just  and  legitimate  and  affection- 
ate influence  upon  her  nature,  if  she  had  been  true  to  the 
policy  of  forgiveness  and  silence  which  her  hus- 
band followed,  none  of  these  sad  consequence.s  would 
have  been  exhibited  to  this  jury  to-day.  It  was  only 
when,  misled  and  deceived,  after  all  this  life  of  charity 
and  love  toward  this  woman  upon  the  part  of  Theodore 
Tilton — it  was  only  when  she  was  seduced  from  the  home 
which  she  had  dishonored  but  which  her  husband  had  re- 
built, it  was  only  when  she  was  led  from  the  sanctity  and 
protection  of  a  husband's  love  and  a  husband's  home,  to 
appear  as  an  open  accuser  of  that  husband,  and  as  the 
defender  and  vindicator  of  her  seducer — it  was  only  then 
that  all  hope  of  concealment,  all  effort  at  silence,  all  de- 
sire to  keep  the  scandalous  mass  of  wrong  and 
gnilt  and  sin  and  lying  from  the  community  was 
given  up.  The  instant  Elizabeth  Tilton  passed  over  the 
threshold  of  her  house,  fugitive  from  it,  and  allied  her- 
self to  the  fortunes  of  Henry  "Ward  Beecher,  it  was  only 
then  that  the  policy  of  silence,  which  :Mr.  Beecher  says 
should  have  siioceeded,  failed.  Every  eye  saw,  every 
tongue  in  this  jury  of  the  vicinage,  confessed  that  there 
must  necessarily  be  an  iuvestigation — an  impartial, 
searching,  judicious  investigation.  The  moment  :Mrs. 
Tilton  forever  left  her  husband,  and  assumed  an  attitude 
of  antagonism  toward  him,  that  moment  conflict,  con- 
test, disclosure,  were  inevitable,  and  they  followed.  And 
who  is  responsible  for  it  ?  That  question  I  will  endeavor 
to  answer  hereafter.  But  whoever  is  responsible  has  a 
mighty  weight  of  responsibility  to  carry.  It  is  not  the 
loss  of  time,  though  that  may  be  serious  enough.  It  is 
not  the  interruption  to  your  ordinary  avocations,  or  to 
the  common  pursuits  of  this  court  of  justice.  It  isnot  that 


7  MB.  BE  ACE.  825 

that  accumulates  the  amount  of  sacrifice  ca-nsed  by  thi8 
trial.  It  is  the  demoralization  of  the  public  sense  ;  it  is  tho 
extended  and  profound  interest  which  is  felt  in  this  case 
and  in  all  its  unpromising  and  unattractive  features.  It 
is  that  the  Christian  ministry  is  defiled.  It  is  that  the 
wicked  scoff  at  Christianity  and  at  the  pulpit.  It  is  that, 
however  you  may  determine  this  case,  as  Mr.  Porter  says, 
there  is  a  jury  of  intelligence  equal  to  yours,  and  of  a 
power  beyond  yours,  sitting  on  this  case,  trying  you  and 
trying  this  court.  There  is  no  end  to  this  unfortunate 
trial.  There  is  no  end  to  or  any  modi  flcation  of  its  con- 
sequences. Even  if  Mr.  Beecher  be  innocent,  if  he  should 
be  declared  innocent,  he  never  can  take  his  stand  in  the 
pulpit  the  same  grand,  heroic  character  as  of  old.  He  is 
shorn  of  his  power  for  good  to  a  very  great  extent.  He 
is  sullied  and  damaired.  Thougli  you  pronounce  Mm 
giiilty,  though  you  viudieate  Mr.  Tilton.  it 
does  not  repair  the  injury  he  has  suffered. 
That  broken  home  cannot  be  reconstructed  and  re- 
united. The  stain  and  shame  which  have  settled  upon 
that  household  can  never  be  lifted.  Those  children,  pure 
and  innocent  and  attractive,  must  suffer  still.  And  I  re- 
peat, the  man,  who  in  his  folly,  or  in  his  recklessness, 
has  forced  this  issue  and  these  consequences,  to  the  com- 
munity and  to  the  individual,  has  assumed  a  mighty  re- 
sponsibility. 

And  you,  with  an  equal  responsibility  forced  upon  you, 
you  stand  in  an  attitude  of  equal  prominence  and  of 
equal  power  and  responsibility.  And  you  cannot,  gentle- 
men—whatever  my  friend  Porter  may  say  on  that  sub- 
ject, or  anybody  else— you  cannot  shift  that  responsibil- 
ity. Nor,  is  it  in  your  power,  however  faithful 
to  the  law  and  to  your  consciences,  and  to 
the  intelligence  of  this  case,  you  may  be, 
you  never  can  interrupt  the  light  which  the  evidence 
in  this  case  has  thrown  upon  the  public  mind  ;  nor  can 
you  ever  stay  the  judgment  to  which  that  light  will  lead. 
You  may  lead  men  to  criticise  your  motives  and  the  re- 
sults of  your  deliberations.  You  may  gather  arouu'l  the 
admimstration  of  justice  doubts  and  aspersions  of  its 
uprightness  and  integrity ;  you  may  attract  the  criticism 
of  the  press  and  public  opinion  ;  but  you  cannot  change 
it.  And  the  recousre  for  us,  engaged  in  a  manly  and  an 
intelligent  examination  of  this  case,  is  to  do  our  respect- 
ive duties  fairly  and  intelligently  and  honSstly,  and  leave 
consequences  to  themselves.  The  man  who  does  Ms  duty 
is  above  consequences.  Resting  upon  its  conscientious 
discharge,  he  is  fearless  in  the  light  of  all  criticism  or  ac- 
cusation. 

Well,  I  regret  that  my  learned  friend  had  not  given  us 
some  better  evidence  of  the  love  of  Mi's.  lllton.  I  am 
sorry  that  we  cannot  discern,  through  her  as-sociations 
with  this  case  on  its  trial— that  we  cannot  see  from  the 
attitude  which  she  assumes  in  regard  to  it,  the  tendency 
of  her  affections  ;  that  we  cannof  perceive  in  anything 
which  she  does,  in  an\  thing  which  sh^  suys,  in  any  re^ 


826 


THE   TILTON-BEECHEB  TRIAL, 


lation  \yliicli  slie  assumes  to  this  case,  tliat  there  is  any- 
tliing  else  but  the  most  idolatrous  devotion  to  Heury 
Ward  Beecher  and  his  cause.  Ah !  gentlemen,  it  throws 
light :  it  throws  light  upon  the  main  issues  you  are  to  de- 
cide. If  there  was  something  else  and  somebody 
else  beside  Bessie  Turner  to  contradict  all  the 
evideuces  and  testiiuonials  of  uprightness  and 
honesty  and  self-sacrifice  which  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
gives  to  Tilton  and  to  Moulton,  if,  upon  this  evidence, 
there  was  presented  any  adequate  cause  proceeding  from 
Theodore  Tilton,  in  cruelty,  in  outrage,  in  wrong  upon 
that  wife,  we  might  feel  an  inclination  to  forgive  the  po- 
sition she  now  takes.  But  where,  in  all  the  developments 
of  this  trial;  when,  through  the  series  of  years  through 
which  these  actors  have  been  pursuing  their  lines  of 
policy  before  the  community,  when  and  where  has 
Theodore  Tilton  ever  faltered  in  his  fidelity  to  his  wife 
and  his  family,  in  his  determined  devotion,  at  whatever 
sacrifice,  to  save  that  wife  and  family  from  the  taint  of 
this  accusation?  There  is  no  evidence  in  this  case  of  an 
act  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton  justifying  the  flight  of 
his  wife  from  the  home  of  her  husband. 

MR.  TILTON'S  GRAY  HAIRS. 
Well,  gentlemen,  both  my  learned  friends, 

with  a  sort  of  exultation  that  they  have  discovered  some- 
thing of  contradiction  between  somebody  and  Theodore 
Tilton,  some  contradiction  which  would  rest  upon  better 
and  more  satisfactory  authority  tlaan  Bessie  Turner, 
both  of  our  learned  friends  have  expatiated  largely  upon 
the  incident  of  the  gray  hairs,  Mr,  Tilton  when  he  was 
recalled  as  to  the  conversations  had  with  Bessie  Turner, 
made  the  incidental  remark  (it  was  not  called  for  by 
any  questjon)— but  made  a  remark,  at  any  rate,  testified 
to  the  fact  that  at  the  time  when  Miss  Turner  spoke  of 
these  conversations  wherein  she  represented  him  to  say, 
"  Oh !  Bessie,  my  gray  hairs  are  coming  with  sorrow  to 
the  grave  "—a  most  ridiculous  and  absurd  imputation  of 
remark— Mr.  Tilton  said:  "Why,  I  had  no  gray  hairs  at 
that  time ! " 

Mr.  Fullerton— He  denied  saying  so  at  first  and  then 
added  that. 

Mr.  Beach— He  denied  saying  so,  of  course,  first,  and 
then  added  the  remark  that  he  had  no  gray  hairs.  And 
Mr.  Porter  comtnents  upon  it  as  a  most  striking  evidence 
of  depravity.  Well,  suppose  Mr.  Tilton  made  a  mistake 
about  that.  He  was  referring  to  past  times  in  writing 
to  his  wife.  Suppose  he  had  said,  "Old  age  has  crept 
upon  us  since  then;"  suppose  he  had  said,  "  The  infirmi- 
ties of  years,  darling,  have  overtaken  us ;"  and  yet  he  is 
here,  stalwart  and  strong,  and  our  friends  would  have 
said  it  was  a  clear  Instance  of  deliberate  peijury. 
[Laughter.]  Why,  Mr.  Tilton  was  speaking,  as  we  some- 
times say,  I  believe  justifiably,  in  a  somewhat  poetical 
Bense.  You  see,  aecordin^g  to  our  learned  friends,  he  is  an 
jrropressjble  rhetorician.   When  he  gets  talking  or  writ- 


ing, why,  there  is  no  end  to  it— [turning  tx)  Mr. 
Evarts]— like  some  other  people  that  I  know 
of.  fLaughter.]  If  Mr.  Tilton  had  happened— these 
gray  hairs  being  few,  confessedly— they  are  not 
very  numerous,  now— if  he  had  happened  to  mistake  the 
time  when  they  appeared  it  would  not  have  been  any 
very  severe  condemnation  of  his  integrity  that  he  had 
made  a  mistake  on  that  subject.  And  it  is  a  little  re- 
markable that  two  such  eminent  gentlemen  as  Mr.  Por- 
ter and  Mr.  Evarts  should  make  so  much  of  a  circum- 
stance of  that  kind,  and  arraign  a  man  upon  a  subject  of 
that  character  as,  "  With  his  hand  upon  the  Bible,  in  the 
presence  of  Almighty  God,  testifying  to  such  a  godless 
lie  as  that."  [Laughter.]  They  must  be  in  great  extrem- 
ity for  material.  Now,  the  truth  is,  Mr.  Tilton  really  had 
no  gray  hairs  at  that  time.  And  suppose  you  imagine 
for  one  moment  that  his  wfe  being— [turning  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton], isn't  she  older  than  you?— his  wife  being  two 
years  older  than  he,  that  gray  hairs  had  overtaken  her 
a  little  the  soonest,  and  that  this  delicate  and  sickly 
woman  should  have  fo\md  gray  hairs  creeping  upon  her 
head  a  little  earlier  than  Mr.  Tilton,  and  that  in  this  let- 
ter-writing to  his  wife,  referring  to  old  times  and  events, 
and  to  the  passage  of  the  years  filled  with  their  incidents 
of  love  and  aff'ection,  with  children  gathering  about  them, 
suppose  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  said,  referring  to  his  wife's 
gray  hairs,  "  Why,  gray  hairs  have  come  upon  us  since 
then,"  would  it  be  any  very  great  offense  either  to  truth 
or  propriety  ?  And  that  is  just  the  fact.  This  letter  by 
no  means  asserts  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  gray  then.  What- 
ever events  came  over  that  household,  whatever  change 
in  condition  or  circumstance  affected  that  wife  or  that 
husband,  when  they  were  conferring  in  the  intimacy  of 
their  relations,  they  might  well  speak  of  any  change  or 
circumstance  in  the  one  as  belonging  to  the  two,  and  of 
that  circumstance  or  change  as  overtaking  them,  or  "  us." 

WHERE  THE  EXPRESSION  "TRUE  INWARD- 
NESS" ORIGINATED. 
Well,  my  friend,  Mr.  Porter,  has  a  terrible 

dislike  for  the  term  "true  inwardness,"  and  he  rejects 
the  idea  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  could  possibly  have 
been  the  author  of  any  such  phrase, -and  assumes  that  it 
was  taught  to  whoever  used  it  by  Mr.  Tilton. 

"  True  inwardness ! "  he  exclaims.  "  Where  did  she 
learn  this  phrase  1  My  friend.  Judge  Fullerton,  has 
brought  in  'Norwood,'  and  Hannah  AJore,  and  T  know 
not  what  besides,  in  order  to  teach  you  what  that  woman 
had  in  view  when  she  talked  of  '  true  inwardness.'  Why, 
she  had  been  under  the  teaching  of  a  nian  who  left  upon 
her  all  such  expressions  rooted  so  that  they  could  not 
but  spring  up  and  bear  fruit.  And  when  he  used  it  in  a 
high  and  noble  and  generous  sense,  he  yet  imputes  her 
adoption  of  the  phrase  to  the  vile  purposes  of  her  inward 
adultery." 

Well  now,  it  is  a  little  remarkable,  gentlemen,  with 
such  a  malediction  upon  that  term  "  true  inwardness," 
that  Mrs.  Tilton  did  not  use  it,  and  that  Mr.  Beecher  him- 


SUM31ING    VP  BY  ME.  BEACH. 


827 


lelf  used  it.  "The  blessing  of  God  rest  on  you,  etc.  If 
it  would  be  of  comfort  to  you,"  says  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  writing  to  Mrs.  Tilton— "  if  it  would  be  of  com- 
fort to  you  now  and  then  to  send  me  a  letter  of  true 
inwardness  (italicized),  the  outcome  of  your  inner  life, 
It  would  be  safe,  for  I  am  now  at  home  here  with  my 
sister,  and  .  it  is  permitted  to  you  (italicised), 
and  will  be  an  exceeding  refreshment  to  mo." 
Well,  Sir,  what  becomes  of  all  your  severity  toward 
Mr.  Tilton  as  the  author  of  this  phrase,  when  it  turns 
out  that  it  was  the  skillful  linguist,  the  unecjualed  elo- 
cutionist, the  master  of  the  English  language,  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  who  used  it  ?  I  transfer  all  those  stric- 
tures to  Mr.  Beecher.  fLaughter.]  You  must  pardon 
me,  gentlemen.  It  is  no  very  agreeable,  nor  is  it  a  very 
intellectual,  labor  to  expose  these  errors,  but  there  is 
such  a  mass— I  speak  it  not  offensively— of  misrepresen- 
tation and  misstatement,  I  do  not  say  coined,  but  used, 
for  purposes  of  bitter  malediction  upon  Mr.  Tilton  and 
others,  that  I  cannot  permit  the  imputations  to  go  unre- 
biilied. 

MR.  TILTON  ACTUATED  BY  EEYENGE. 
Now,  Mr.  Beecher  was  represented  by  Mr. 
Tilton,  when  he  was  asked  as  to  his  conception  of  his 
character,  as  "  big  boy,"  and  Mr.  Porter  says  that  in 
that  connection  Mr.  Tilton  imputed  to  him  craft  and 
want  of  ingenuousness.  Let  us  see.  Mr.  Evarts  was 
examining: 

Q.  Was  he  fMr.  Beecher]  a  man  of  mature  years  and 
settled  position  in  his  profession  and  before  the  public  ? 
A.  Well,  Sir,  when  I  knew  him  I  always  regarded  him  as 
a  big  boy  rather  than  a  man  at  all.  He  was  a  man  of 
large  fame,  and  had  a  great  church,  and  was  in  the  exer- 
cise of  very  manly  and  illustrious  powers. 

Well,  does  my  friend  desire  a  better  tribute  to  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  than  is  paid  by  Mr.  Tilton  ? 

Q.  Well,  in  what  sense  do  you  wish  to  be  understood 
that  he  seemed  to  you  like  a  big  boy  %  A.  Because  his 
manner  was  large,  and  hearty,  and  gay,  and  companion- 
able, and  winning. 

Q.  GuUeless  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  How?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Don't  that  come  within  the  description  of  "like  a 
boy?"  A.  Well,  Sir,  the  craftiest  people  I  know  of  are 
boys ;  newsboys,  for  instance. 

Q.  WeU,  do  you  not  use  this  phrase  "like  a  boy"  in  the 
sense  of  frankness  and  generosity  of  character  and  de- 
meanor? You  have  used  the  phrase;  now  I  suppose 
that  that  is  the  reasonable  sense  of  it?  A.  When  I  say 
that  Mr.  Beecher  in  his  earlier  years  was  like  a  l>ig  bOy,  I 
mean  to  say  that  there  was  a  certain  bouncing  character 
to  his  life  and  manner.  He  was  very  companionable, 
bale-fellow-well-met,  fond  of  a  joke  and  a  frolic,  fond  of 
the  things  which  boys  liked.  That  made  him  very  com- 
panionable to  us,  for  I  was  very  little  more  than  a  boy 
myself. 

Q.  And  all  the  other  young  people  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  I 
thought  he  was  the  most  charming  man  I  ever  saw. 

Q.  You  thought  so,  then  %   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  in  looking  back  you  think  so  of  that  period?  A. 
Do  I  think  now  that  that  was  my  thought  at  that  time  ? 


Q.  Yes,  Sir ;  iu  looking  back  upon  hiui  as  you  reiiu-mber 
him,  you  think  of  him  at  that  period  as  the  most  charm- 
ing man  you  ever  knew  1  A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  have  since  met 
men  who  in  all  those  qualities  I  think  excel  him  very 
greatly,  but  at  that  time,  ia  those  early  years,  Mr. 
Beecher  was  my  man  of  all  men.  I  had  not  seen  the 
world  so  extensively,  and  had  not  measured  him  with 
other  men. 

Now,  in  this  particular  instance  wherein  Mr,  Porter 
falls  into  so  grievous  an  error,  and  in  various  others,  the 
attempt  has  been  made,  upon  the  part  of  both  of  my 
learned  friends,  to  represent  Mr.  Tilton  as  entertaining 
the  most  bitter  and  malignant  feelings  toward  Mr. 
Beecher ;  and  yet  whenever  he  is  found  speaking  of  him 
in  the  revelations  of  this  evidence  he  has  given  him, 
justly,  a  high  and  distinguished  character.  I  do  not 
mean  to  say,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  Theodore  Tilton 
loves  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  or  that  he  did  love  him  an 
instant  after  that  .Tuly  in  1870,  when  his  wife  made  to 
him  ber  confession.  I  think  it  supernatural  tha*  a  human 
being  can  be  conscious  of  the  fact  that  another  man  has 
seduced  the  body  of  his  wife  or  of  his  child  and 
feel  no  emotions  of  anger  and  no  longing 
thirst  for  revenge.  You  Christians  may  condemn  it, 
if  you  please;  the  lesfeous  of  the  Scripture  and  the 
example  of  the  Master  may  teach  us  better ;  but  unless 
it  be  in  the  depravity  and  demoralization  of  the  lowest 
sinks  of  vice  and  life,  the  heart  beats  not  that  can  receive 
this  blow  without  bounding  with  angry  impetuosity.  I 
know  Theodore  Tilton  harbored  these  feelings,  and  I 
grant  you  that  at  times  when  he  saw,  or  thought  he  saw, 
that  they  could  be  gratified  without  injury  to  his  wife 
and  his  home,  they  broke  out  with  resistless  violence. 
If  they  had  not,  I  would  be  ashamed  to  stand  here  as  liis 
representative  and  advocate,  and  that,  to  me,  makes  his 
example  of  self-denial,  his  earnest  and  faithful  forgive- 
ness of  his  wife,  his  Christian  and  manly  charity  toward 
Mr,  Beecher— to  me  this  consideration  makes  this  ex 
hibition  of  his  character  most  noble  and  exalted.  The 
man  who  has  the  power  of  overcoming  passions  like 
these  and  resentment  like  this,  must  have  some  principle 
of  righteousness  and  justice  within  him  to 
strengthen  his  will  and  subdue  his  passions. 
Talk  about  the  unfriendliness  and  the  hate  of  Theodore 
Tilton  toward  Henry  Ward  Beecher  I  V»aiy,  if  it  be  true 
that  Mr.  Beecher,  the  chosen  and  the  invited  guest  of  his 
friend's  house,  who  was  duected  tJaere  by  the  husband  in 
times  of  his  absence,  the  glory  of  his  presence  being  the 
light  of  that  household— if  it  be  true  that  Henrj'^  Ward 
Beecher  debauched.its  mistress  and  stained  its  hearth- 
stone with  the  violence  of  his  lust,  why,  is  there  a  hus- 
band or  a  father  on  earth  who  will  wonder  t^^a^  Ti^oodorA 
Tilton  should  feel  indignation  ?  "  Oh ! "  says  my  mend, 
"this  suit  is  for  revenge."  No!  Not  all  that  you  can  do ; 
not  all  that  the  broad  jm-isdiction  of  this  cornet  can  do, 
will  satisfy  the  longings  of  that  revenge.  It  is 
an  imperishable  feeling,  and  will  be  an  unsatisfied 


828 


lEE   TILJON-BEECHUB  TEIAL. 


feeling  so  long  as  the  tempter  and  the  seducer 
of  the  wife  breathes  the  same  air  with  the  living  hus- 
band. I  do  not  seek  to  convince  you,  gentlemen,  that 
Theodore  Tiliton  has  not  the  feelings  of  a  man,  and  the 
resentment  and  the  passion  of  a  man  ;  but  I  think  I  will 
show  you  that  with  r.U  this  infirmity,  this  resistless 
temptation,  he  yet,  strengthened  by  his  love  for  his  wife 
and  his  children,  and  upheld  by  the  grace  of  his  God  and 
the  belief  in  his  name,  has  withheld  and  stayed  his 
hand  so  long  as  mortal  heart  could  bear  and  hold  back 
the  arm  destined  to  work  out  justice  and  truth.  [Ap- 
plause. I 

Judge  Neilson  [To  the  audience.]— Gentlemen,  this 
won't  do.  The  way  to  show  your  respect  for  the  speaker 
is  to  be  silent ;  then  you  don't  interrupt  him. 

THE  EARLY  STRUGGLE    IN  PLYMOUTH 
CHURCH. 

Mr.  Beach— My  friend,  Mr.  Porter,  then  re- 
lerred  to  Mr.  Tilton  as  assuming  great  glorification  to 
himself  from  having  overmatched  Mr.  Beecher  in  the 
church  controversy  as  to  the  disposition  to  be  made  of 
the  missioaary  funds  of  the  church.  Well,  gentlemen,  I 
want  to  show  you  how  Mr.  Tifton  was  driven  by  the 
course  of  examination— inveterate  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Evarts— to  make  any  comparison  at  all  as  between  him- 
self and  Mr.  Beecher  upon  that  oc«3asion.  Why, 
the  purpose  of  all  this  argument,  and  of  this 
reference  to  all  these  minute  circumstances,  was 
to  convince  you  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  a  man  of  intense  and 
remorseless  egotism  and  vanity,  selfish  in  all  his  nature, 
puffed  up,  vain,  full  of  wretched  conceit ;  that  there  was 
no  honesty,  no  sincerity,  no  manliness  in  his  make-up ; 
that  he  was  all  mean  and  detestable  from  head  to  foot — 
that  is  the  character  striven  to  be  given  to  M*  Tilton ; 
but  it  shall  not  be,  upon  the  strength  of  false  facts— I 
will  not  say  of  false  logic.  On  his  examination  by  Mr. 
Evarts,  he  was  asked : 

Q.  Do  you  remember  comparing  yourself  with  him  [Mr. 
Beecher]  upon  the  OQ^casion  of  your  discussions  about 
the  chiu'ch  missionary  appropriation,  if  that  describes 
the  occasion,  and  that  you  had  overmatched  him  in  that 
controversy  1  A.  That  speech  is  in  a  pamphlet,  Sir ;  it 
will  speak  for  itself ;  I  know  he  was  wrong  ;  it  is  very 
easy  to  beat  a  man  who  is  in  the  wrong. 

Q.  Well,  now,  rather  it  is  your  conclusions  and  con- 
sciousness about  It,  than  the  fact,  that  I  am  asking— 
whether  you  then  came  to  the  conclusion  that  you  had 
quite  overmatched  him  in  that  fight  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  if  I 
had  come  to  that  conclusion,  I  should  not  have  any  righi 
to  state  it  here. 

Q.  You  are  excused  from  any  immodesty  in  the  state- 
ment, for  it  IS  required  from  you  as  a  part  of  yoxa  testi- 
mony. A.  If  I  should  say  that  I  had  overmatched  him  in 
that  struggle,  it  would  be  immodest ;  if  I  should  say  that 
I  had  not,  I  should  lie. 

Well,  that  is  the  way  Mr.  Tilton  was  forced  into  ex- 
pressing an  opinion  as  to  the  right  or  wrong  of  the  posi- 
tion he  occupied  upon  that  question  as  against  Mr. 


Beecher.  *' I  overmatched  him."  said  Mr.  Tilton,  "  be- 
cause he  was  wrong,  and  truth  always  prevails."  There 
was  no  sel^gloriflcatio"! ;  there  was  no  comparison  of 
the  respective  efforts  made  by  these  two  men  upon  that 
occasion ;  but  when  forced  to  say  whether  he  was  in  the 
right  upon  that  question  and  whether  he  succeeded,  in 
his  own  judgment,  in  demonstrating  the  right,  why  of 
course  he  avows  his  conviction  of  the  truthfulness  and 
soundness  of  his  own  position. 

THE  TRUE  STORY. 

Very  much  has  been  said  in  this  case,  gen- 
tlemen, about  this  "  True  Story."  Its  essential  charac- 
teristics, and  the  use  made  of  it  upon  this  trial  and  be- 
fore, will  be  a  topic  for  consideration  hereafter ;  but  my 
friend,  Mr.  Porter,  asserts  that  when  Mr.  TUton  was  first 
examined  in  resrard  to  that  "  True  Story  "  he  pronounced 
it  true,  and  that  when,  to  use  his  language,  it  was  resur- 
rected through  Redpath,  then  Mr.  Tilton  pronounced  it 
untrue.  Well,  I  cannot,  gentlemen,  account  for  state- 
ments of  such  a  character  from  counsel  so  abJe,  and 
usually  so  accurate,  as  my  learned  friend.  Such  a  state- 
ment cannot  be  permitted  to  go  uncontradicted  if  it  is 
erroneous.  If  that  were  true,  that  when  that  "  True 
Story  "  was  first  spoken  of  in  his  evidence  by  Theodore 
TUtoSb  he  pronounced  it  to  be  true,  and  then  when  it  was 
produced,  representing  the  offense  upon  the  part  of  his 
wife  to  have  been  simply  the  reception  of  improper 
proposals,  he  pronounced  it  untrue,  I  coidd 
not  argue  against  such  a  demonstration  of 
his  want  of  memory  or  want  of  honesty.  We  must  see 
whether  that  imputation  is  true  or  not.  [Mr.  Beach  not 
finding  readiiy  the  part  of  the  testimony  he  wanted,  pro- 
ceeded] :  Well,  gentlemen,  I  have  fallen  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Tilton  where  he  speaks  of  the  submission  of 
the  "  True  Story"  to  Dr.  Storrs,  and  that  is  on  his  first  ex- 
amination before  Mr.  Redpath  was  sworn,  and  before  the 
"True  Story"  was  introduced.  On  page  636  Mr.  Tilton 
speaks  of  the  submission  of  what  is  called  the  "  True 
Story"  to  Dr.  Storrs.   He  says : 

I  read  the  paper,  and  Dr.  Storrs  turned  to  me  and  said : 
"  Mr.  Tilton,  before  I  can  consult  with  you  on  this  sub- 
ject or  give  you  any  adviee  worth  having,  you  must  an- 
swer me  one  question."  I  said:  "What  is  it?"  He  then 
said :  "  I  want  you  to  tell  me  whether  this  narrative 
which  you  have  read  is  the  plain  and  honest  trutli,  what 
is  called  in  a  court  the  whole  truth  and  iiotftiiig  but  the 
truth."  I  said :  "  I  will  answer  that  question  if  yon  will 
promise  not  to  ask  me  any  further  questions  on  th«  sub- 
ject." "  Well,"  said  he,  "  I  will  not  catechize  you  against 
your  will  or  wish."  I  then  said:  "Itiswo^the  whole 
truth;  it  is  only  a  part  of  the  truth ;  it  is  an  under  state,- 
ment,  but  it  is  all  I  am  wUliug  to  give  to  the  public." 
"  Then,"  he  said,  "I  advise  you  not  to  publish  it." 

Well,  it  is  in  the  face  of  that  evidence,  and  of  still 
stronger  evidence  if  I  could  find  it  at  this  moment,  where 
Mr.  Tilton  explains  the  eirciunstanc^s  and  the  necessity 
out  of  which  this  statement  arose,  and  which  led  to  it* 


SUMMING    UF  BY  ME.  BEACH. 


839 


being  written,  that  my  friend  makes  tMs  statement.  On 
page  429  Mr.  Tilton  ia  asked  wiiat  was  the  occaiion  or 
the  difficulty  at  that  time  which  called  forth  the  letter  to 
"  A  Complaining  Friend,"  and  he  explains  that,  and 
speake  of  the  '*  Tripartite  Covenant,"  and  then  the  ques- 
tion is  : 

And  arose  out  of  the  same  emergency  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir.  I 
will  also  say  that  during  that  month  of  December  I  pre- 
pared another  statement,  the  long  document,  which  has 
become  technieally  styled,  I  don't  know  why,  the  "  True 
Story,"  for  it  was  not  a  true  story,  it  was  a  false  one,  as 
Mr.  Beecher  said  he  could  not  bear  the  publication  of 
that,  that  it  would  kill  him,  and  as  the  card  to  "  The  Com- 
plaiiiing  Friend,"  as  he  expres:sed  it,  only  caused  the 
very  comment  wliich  I  sought  to  quell,  I  prepared  another 
statement,  a  bi'ief  letter  to  a  friend  out  West,  I  think — 
yes,  Sir ;  it  has  been  read  in  evidence.  It  bore  date,  I 
believe,  on  the  very  next  day,  perhaps  the  very  last  day 
of  the  year,  or  at  all  events  it  was  written  with  a  view 
to  herald  in  the  New- Year  season.  There  were  a  dozen 
different  devices— some  by  Mr.  Moulton,  some  by  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  some  by  me — in  that  month. 

Now,  how  does  my  filend  venture  to  say,  in  the  face  of 
that  direct  proof  upon  the  record,  for  the  purpose  of 
Impeaching  Mr.  Tilton  and  imputing  false  evidence  upon 
the  stand  to  him,  that  wLen  that  "  True  Story  "  was  first 
referred  to  in  the  evidence  of  jNIr.  Tilton  he  pronounced  it 
true,  but  when  it  was  unearthed  and  revealed  by  Red- 
path  he  swore  to  its  being  a  lie  ?  Why,  I  thought  John 
Milton  and  John  K.  Porter  said  that  Truth  needs  no 
policies  or  stratagems."  [Laughter.] 

WTiat  is  the  need  of  this  misrepresentation  1  and  what 
Is  The  policy  of  an  argiunent  founded  in  falsehood, 
to  support  a  theory  which  they  caU  the  truth? 
Another  instance  :  Mr.  Porter  says,  in  relation  to  the 
letter  to  the  friend  at  the  West,  that  it  was  not  intended 
for  the  public,  but  that  it  was  prepared  and  laid  away 
for  use.  He  charges  that  Mr.  Tilton,  with  the  subtle  fore- 
cast which  is  attribtited  to  him,  prepared  this  letter  to 
the  friend  at  the  W^est  and  laid  it  away  for  futtu'e  use  in 
the  line  of  his  conspii-acy  against  the  integrity  and  the 
pocket  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Well,  let  us  see  about 
that.  I  have  already  read  you  sufficient  upon  that  sub- 
ject. I  don't  know  but  I  ought  to  read  that  letter.  It 
strikes  me  as  a  very  ingenious  a^id  happy  and  well- 
directed  device  in  pursuit  of  the  line  of  policy  which  was 
adopted  by  all  the  parties  Interested  in  this  matter.  But 
yoti  remember  it,  perhaps.  On  page  429  the  question  is 
put  to  Mr.  Tilton  : 

Q.  WTiat  was  the  occasion  for  the  difficulty  at  that  time 
which  called  forth  the  letter  to  "  A  Complaining  Friend!" 
A.  Why,  Sir,  during  that  month  of  December,  1872,  the 
public  pressure  put  upon  me  to  do  something  in  regard 
to  Mrs.  Woodhull's  story  was  utterly  beyond  the  power 
of  any  language  to  describe.  Every  newspaper  through- 
out the  land  was  demanding  that  some  explanation 
should  be  made — demanding  that  Mr.  Beecher  should 
make  it,  demanding  that  Mr.  Bowen  should  make  it,  de- 
manding that  we  all  should  make  it,  and  there  was  a 
pressure  in  the  City  of  Brooklj-n,  and  there  was  a  pressure 


in  the  Church  and  everywhere — the  very  air  seemed  to 
rest  upon  us. 

Q.  Wh'4X  did  Mr.  Beecher  say  in  regard  to  that  state  of 
things,  as  to  the  necessity  of  doing  something  1  A.  I  have 
already  ment.oned  that,  about  a  fortnight  before  the  in- 
t-erview  I  have  just  given,  Mr.  Beecher  had  devised,  as  a 
plan  of  meeting  it,  that  we  should  out  the  tripartite  cov- 
enant in  two  and  take  out  Mr.  Bowen's  part,  and  charge 
him  with  all  the  slander,  and  make  him  bear  the  burden 
of  retracting  it. 

Q.  And  this  letter  to  "A  Complaining  Friend"  suc- 
ceeded That  ]   A,  Yes,  Sir ;  about  ten  or  15  days. 

Well,  it  would  seem  to  be  a  satisfactory  answer  to  aU. 
that  is  said  by  Mr.  Porter  upon  that  subject,  as  to  its 
being  laid  away  for  use,  that  it  was  published,  and  so  it 
was  intended,  I  supposed,  for  publication. 


ALLEGED  GAEBLING  OF  THE   LETTER  OP 
CONTRITION. 

The  next  accusation  aj^ainst  Mr.  Tilton  is 

that  he  quotes  in  the  Bacon  letter,  and  garbles  what  la 
called  the  "  Letter  of  Contrition,"  or  *'  Letter  of  Apol- 
ogy," and  fails  to  give  that  part  of  it  which  is  most  favor- 
able to  Mr.  Beecher.  Now,  this  is  a  serious  accusation, 
gentlemen.  Unless  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side 
deem  these  accusations  as  of  importance,  as  bearing  upon 
the  question  of  credibility  in  this  case,  why  they  would 
not  have  been  presented  at  stich  length  and  with  so 
much  earnestness  and  zeal  by  my  learned  friends,  and  I 
cannot  permit  them  to  stand  without  seeing  how  far  they 
are  justified,  and  whether  they  really  assail  the  essential 
Integrity  and  truth  of  Mr.  Tiltcn,  or  of  any  person  pro- 
duced as  a  witness  on  his  behalf.  Now,  in  this  Bacon  let- 
ter, so  much  of  the  "  Letter  of  Apology  "  is  published  as 
I  read : 

I  ask,  thi'ough  you,  Theodore  Til  ton's  forgiveness,  and 
I  humble  myself  before  him  as  I  do  before  my  God.  He 
would  have  been  a  better  man  in  my  circtimstances  than 
I  have  been.  I  can  ask  nothing  except  that  he  will  re- 
member aU  the  other  hearts  that  would  ache.  I  wiU  not 
plead  for  myself.   I  even  wish  that  I  were  dead. 

He>^ey  Waed  Beechee. 

Now^,  please  remember  the  situation,  gentlemen.  Dr. 
Bacon,  in  a  letter  of  great  severity,  had  impugned 
the  manliness  and  the  honor  of  Mr.  TUton ; 
had  represented  him  as  an  offender  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  as  a  knave  and  a  dog  who  was 
subsisting  upon  the  magnanimity  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  and  the  object  of  this  letter  to  Dr.  Bacon  (I  am 
sure  you  cannot  have  forgotten  It,  gentlemen,  and  I  wish 
it  were  not  too  much  of  an  infliction  upon  your  time  and 
strength  to  read  it) ;  but  it  was  intended  as  an  answer  to 
that  imputation,  and  nothing  more.  No  charge  is  made 
against  Mr.  Beeeher  in  that  letter.  Not  the  slightest  im- 
putation byword  or  suggestion  in  that  letter  of  any  impu- 
tation against  Mr.  Beecher,  and  I  beg  you  to 
remember  it,  gentlemen,  and  if  there  be  any 
hesitation  on  your  part  in  receiving  that  assertion  aa 
true  the  letter  shall  be  read.  I  assert  again,  there  ia  not 


830  IBM 

a  word,  there  is  not  a  suggestion  from  the  beginning  to 
tlie  end  of  tliat  niost  admirable  and  self-poised  document 
imputing  tlie  sligiitest  offense  to  Henry  Ward  Beecber, 
or  to  J^lizabetb  K.  Til  ton.  On  tlie  contrary,  it  sbields 
both,  it  defends  botb  ;  but  wlien  this  man  was  cliaracter- 
ized  by  a  lending  iii\ine  and  Christian  of  this  country  as 
a  knave  and  a  dog,  the  dei>endent  of  Henry  Ward 
}>echfr's  sufferance,  and  living  only  by  the  tolerance  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  was  Theodore  Tilton  to  be  still  ? 
Was  he  to  submit  to  this  imputation  ?— an  imputation  be- 
hind widcli  he  could  not  live  in  silence  ;  and  with  all  his 
grand  iiitellectual  power,  with  all  the  strength  of  that 
genius  which  had  once  carried  him  to  the 
pinnacle  of  renown,  he  could  not  have  held 
bis  head  in  this  community  above  the  pa  vement,  resting 
under  that  Imputation.  And  wb at  did  he  do  ?  Why,  by 
a  simple,  manly,  temperate  recital  of  facts,  without  pas- 
sion, without  accusation,  without  epithet,  he  told  the 
simple  relation  of  admitted  and  known  facts  in  regard  to 
his  dealings  with  the  church  and  the  West  charges,  cany- 
ing  no  imputation  against  anybody,  but  relieving  him 
from  all  imputation,  and  inserts  this  quotation  from 
Hf'nr\'  Ward  Beecher's  letter,  showing  that  Mr.  Tilton 
was  not  quite  so  base  and  hopeless  a  dependent  upon 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  as  Mr.  Bacon  chose  to  suppose  and 
to  charge.  And  what  part  of  it  did  he  omit  ?  Mr.  Portej' 
said  he  omitted  that  part  which  would  bear  most  in  favor 
of  Mr.  Beecher.  The  remaining  part  of  it  is  : 

But  others  must  live  and  suffer.  I  will  die  before  any- 
body but  myself  shall  be  inculpated.  All  my  thoughts 
are  running  toward  my  friends,  toward  the  poor  child 
lying  there,  praying,  with  her  folded  hands.  She  is  guilt- 
less, sinned  against,  bearing  the  transgressions  of  an- 
other. 

And  did  my  friend  want  Mr.  Tilton  to  publish  that  t 
Her  forgiveness  I  have.   I  humbly  pray  to  God  that 
He  will  put  it  into  the  heart  of  her  hdsband  to  forgive 
me.   I  have  trusted  this  to  Moulton  in  confidence. 

Now,  as  fair  men,  as  honorable  gentlemen,  I  appeal  to 
you  whether  there  was  an 3'  disingenuousness,  anyunfair- 
ness.in  the  quotation  from  that  letter  by  Mr.  Tilton, 
whether  the  quotation  was  not  conceived  in  the  most 
generous  spii'it  toward  Mr.  Beecher,  and  in  the  pursuit 
with  reference  to  his  wife  and  family,  and  that  policy 
npon  which  he  had  ever  acted  to  suppress  their  publica- 
tion, and  every  suggestion  of  impropriety  or  wrong  upon 
her  part.  Why,  what  would  have  been  the  effect  of  iti 
If  Mr.  Tilton  had  added  what  my  friend  says  he  was 
base  for  omitting,  that  the  offense  for  which  Mr.  Beecher 
apologized  to  him,  that  the  quotation  showing  that  Mr. 
Beecher  was  the  wrong-doer  and  not  Mr.  Tilton  the 
kiiav^e  and  the  dog,  if ,  in  addition  to  that,  he  had  pointed 
that  portion  of  this  letter  to  a  direct  connection  with 
Mrs.  Tilton,  showing  that  the  offense  which  he  admitted 
was  an  offense  against  her  purity  and  honor,  why,  what 
would  my  learned  friends  have  said  of  the  delicacj'  and 
manliness  and  affection  of  this  husband  toward  his  wife  ? 


TRIAL. 

THE  ANNOUNCEMENT  THAT  THE  CHARG 
WAS  ADULTERY. 
Both  these  learned  counsel  have  quite  inno 
cently  misrepresented  another  important  fact.  Bot 
have  said  that  Mr.  Tilton,  by  Mr.  Kedpath,  in  the  Sn- 
mer  of  1874,  sent  word  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  he  was  goin 
to  change  his  accusation— an  utter  mistake.  Hereafter 
shall  ask  your  attention  to  the  narrative  of  Mr.  Redpat' 
but  here  I  say  that  there  is  not  in  that  narrative  a  sing' 
word  justifying  the  use  of  that  phrase  by  these  two  di 
tinguished  counsel.  Mr.  Tilton  did  send  word  to  Mr. 
Beecher  by  Mr.  Redpath  that  he  was  going  to  charge 
adultery.  And,  why  did  he  do  it  ?  Why,  up  to  that  hoar 
these  men  had  been  working  with  a  common  interest,  and 
with  a  unity  of  effort  to  shield  Mrs.  Tilton.  It  was  not 
only  the  policy  of  silence,  but  it  was  the  i»olicy 
of  misrepresentation.  It  was  the  policy  of  de- 
vices, it  was  the  policy  of  concealment  to  which 
Mr.  Beecher  was  committed,  which  he  favored  and  aided 
and  in  the  pm^suit  of  that  policy  Mr.  Tilton  had  invariably 
represented  the  offense  of  Mr.  Beecher  toward  his  wire 
to  be  that  of  improper  solicitation,  and  it  is  remarkable, 
gentlemen — look  ttirough  the  evidence  and  you  will  not 
find  that  he  has  uttered  a  lie  upon  that  subject.  He 
has  said  his  wife  was  as  pure  as  an  angel,  as 
white  as  snow  ;  but  upon  this  record  you  will  not  find  a 
single  instance  where  Theodore  Tilton  has  said  distinctly 
and  definitely  of  his  wife's  offense  and  of  Mr.  Beeoher's 
crime  that  it  was  not  adultery.  That  is  unimportant.  It 
is  true  that,  thi-oughout  the  whole  of  these  efforts 
at  suppression,  Mr.  Tilton  has  persistently  do* 
Glared  that  his  wife  was  pure,  and 
that  Mr.  Beecher's  offense  was  improper  approaches. 
Nothing  more.  That  was  the  statement  in  all  these  docu- 
ments. What  was  there  in  the  Bacon  letter  to  excite  the 
ire  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  1  It  is  said  that  it 
was  a  hostile  attack.  Where  is  the  evidence 
of  the  hostility  1  Why,  Mr.  Beecher,  in  his 
statement  before  the  Committee,  eulogized  as  such 
a  wonderful  and  magnanimous  protection  on  the  part  of 
my  learned  friend— Mr.  Beecher,  in  that  statement,  ad- 
mits an  offense  and  wrong.  Why,  the  Bacon  letter 
charges  nothing  more,  imputes  nothing  more,  insinuates 
nothing  more.  What  is  there,  then,  in  that  to  justify  the 
ire  of  Mr.  Beecher  %  There  is  not  a  word  referring  to  him 
except  the  simple  production  of  that  quotation  from  his 
own  letter  of  contrition,  and  that  part  of  it  which  upon 
this  trial  he  admits  to  be  genuine.  Well,  I  shall  ask  you 
to  consider,  by  and  by,  what  justification  this  fiu-nished 
to  Mr.  Beecher  to  precipitate  this  controversy  upon  the 
public,  and  to  invite  and  press  an  examination  whicli 
must  necessarily  result  in  a  full  disclosure  and  examin- 
ation of  all  these  jtainful  circumstances. 


TIL  TON-B  EECHEB 


suMMiya  rp  by  mr.  beach. 


831 


MRS.  MOULTON'S  OPTNIOX  OF  ME.  TILTON. 

Well,  my  learned  friend  next  says,  why,  Mrs. 
Moulton  pronounced  Mr.  Tilton  a  traitor  and  a  villain, 
and  that  is  presented  \>j  counsel  as  tlie  judsTment  of  one 
of  our  witnesses  upon  the  party  who  produced  her.  Well, 
did  it  strike  my  friends  as  a  little  singular  when  they 
were  exposing  what  I  may  (adopting  the  language  of  my 
friend)  say  was  the  loathing  of  Mrs.  Moulton  towards 
Mr.  Tilton,  that  they  are  at  the  same  time  charging  her 
with  becoming  a  conspiratress  and  a  perjuress  to  sup- 
port the  interests  of  Mr.  Tilton?  That  this  lady, 
too,  as  my  friend  says,  although  she  pronounced  Mr. 
Tilton  a  traitor  and  a  villain,  yet,  says  my  friend,  she  ar- 
ranged that  she  should  be  a  witness  In  an  action  of  ciH,m. 
eon.,  and  pledged  herself  to  he  a  witness.  WeU,  there  is 
a  strange  incongruity  in  those  representations  of  the 
counsel.  It  is  utterly  impossible  that  Mrs.  Moulton  could 
have  maintained  these  conflicting  and  irreconcilable  at- 
titudes, positions,  and  purposes  with  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton 
and  his  crime.  But,  what  were  the  circumstances  imder 
which  Mrs.  Moulton  made  use  of  these  harsh  aecpressions  1 
I  would  like,  IE  I  can,  to  relieve  my  client  from  that  un- 
favorable and  unpleasant  attitude ;  at  least  to  modify 
somewhat  the  severity  of  the  judgment  which  my  learned 
friend  infers  from  these  expressions. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  an  interview  that  you  had  with 
Mr.  Tilton  at  your  house  during  some  of  these  years ;  in 
Jauuarj-,  1873,  do  you  remember  having  an  interview 
with  Mr.  Tilton  at  your  house,  in  which  you  told  him 
that  he  was  a  villain,  and  would  betray  your  husband  as 
he  had  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  I  think  I  remember  an  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Tilton  something  like  that. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  that  was  1  A.  Yes,  Sir ;  it 
was  last  July. 

Q.  Last  July  ?   A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember,  on  his  making  some  remark  in 
answer  to  this  statement  of  yours,  that  you  threatened 
to  send  for  a  policeman  and  have  him  put  out  of  the 
house?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  never  remember  the  policeman, 
nor  any  reference  to  any  policeman. 

Q.  What  did  you  further  teU  him?  A.  I  said  if  he  was 
unkind  to  Frank,  my  husband — if  he  turned  on  him  in 
any  way,  insomuch  as  by  a  look,  that  he  must  never  come 
into  our  house  again. 

Q.  Did  you,  on  the  occasion  of  any  interview  that  you 
had  with  Mr.  Beecher,  say  to  him  this,  or  words  equiva- 
lent to  it,  that  "  at  heart  Theodore  Tilton  is  treacherous, 
and  hates  you?"  A.  I  think  I  might  have  said  to  Mr. 
Beecher  that  Mr.  Tilton  hated  him  ;  I  think  he  had  good 
reason  to. 

Mr.  Evarts— Read  a  little  further. 
Mr.  Beach— [Reading] : 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  you  did  say  to  Mr,  Beecher, 
**At  heart  Theodore  Tilton  is  treacherous  and  hates 
you?"  A.  I  remember  repeatedly  saying  to  M^  Beecher 
that  I  thought  it  was  impossible  for  Mr.  Tilton  to  keep 
this  quiet.  I  might,  in  that  way,  have  said  that  I  thought 
he  was  treacherous. 

It  was  impossible  to  keep  him  quiet. 
Mr.  Evarts— It  goes  on  a  little  more  explicit.  However, 
I  don't  care. 


Mr.  Beach— [Reading.] 

Q.  Treacherous  in  regard  to  keeping  auiet  ?  A.  Yea, 
Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— She  says  she  don't  recollect  the  exact 
words. 

Mr.  Beach— Where  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— A  little  further  below. 

Mr.  Beach  -How  does  the  sentence  commence  f 

Mr.  Shearman— [Reading] : 

Q.  Well,  now.  Madam,  wiU  you  tell  me  whether  you 
ever  told  Mr.  Beecher,  in  terms,  that  Theodore  Tilton  at 
least  was  treacherous  and  hated  him  ?  A.  I  don't  recol- 
lect those  exact  words,  yet  I  think  I  might  have  said  so. 
******  ^  number  of  times  1  A.  Yes,  Sir,  I 
think  so. 

Mr.  Beach— And  the  way  she  said  it  was,  she  told  Mr 
Beecher  she  thought  it  was  impossible  for  Mr.  Tilton  to 
keep  this  quiet.  Further  on,  on  page  748,  Mr.  Evarts 
not  being  entirely  satisfied  with  the  pursuit  of  that  ques- 
tion, again  introduced  it,  I  think : 

Mr.  Evarts— You  had  a  conversation  with  him,  a  part  of 
which  was  that  if  he  turned  upon  your  husband  even  by 
a  look— what  led  you  to  think  of  his  tui-ning  upon  your 
husband  ?  A.  I  remember,  it  was  in  August  this  conver- 
sation took  place  ;  it  was  with  reference  to  Mr.  Moulton 
having  failed  to  make  his  statement  before  the  Commit- 
tee as  he  had  promised.  At  my  earnest  solicitation  a 
short  statement  was  prepared  for  Mr.  Moulton  and 
given  to  the  Committee  m  place  of  the 
long  statement,  as  I  said,  to  give  Mr. 
Beecher  another  chance  to  state  his  case  fairly.  Mr. 
Tilton  did  not  know  of  that ;  he  had  been  out  of  town. 
'When  he  came  home  in  the  evening  he  came  into  our 
house  with  Judge  Morris  and  said  :  "  Frank,  you  have 
broken  your  faith  with  the  public ;  your  reputation  will 
suffer ;  you  have  promised  faithfully  to  give  to-day  to  the 
Committee  your  statement ;  you  have  failed  to  do  it."  I 
listened  to  him  for  some  time ;  I  was  sitting  in  the  back 
room,  and  I  did  not  like  the  manner  or  the  way  in  which 
he  reproved  Frank  for  having  failed  to  make  his  state- 
ment, and  I  went  in  and  spoke  to  him.  My  exact  lan- 
guage I  do  not  remember ;  I  know  that  I  was  very  angry, 
and  reproved  him  very  severely  for  speaking  to  Mr. 
Moultoi.  in  the  way  in  which  he  did. 

Well,  that  is  the  whole  history  of  that  transaction.  II 
there  is  anj-fhing  of  solace  or  comfort  to  my  learned 
friends  or  to  Mr.  Beecher  out  of  that,  and  if  they  can 
draw  any  inference  from  that  that  Mrs.  Moulton  con- 
siders Mr.  Tilton  either  treacherous  or  dishonorable, 
why,  I  don't  begrudge  them  the  crumb.  This  lady 
speaks  of  a  suit  having  been  spoken  of.  She  says,  in 
answer  to  this  question : 

Q.  How,  then,  had  you  learned  all  the  things  that  you 
told  Mr.  Beecher  then  ?  A.  Because  I  had  heard  Mr. 
Tilton  say  that  he  would  take  his  case  into  the  courts  of 
justice,  where  he  would  be  fairly  dealt  with. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  testimony  of  this  lady  which 
justifies  the  imputation  of  Mr.  Porter  that  she  arranged 
to  be  a  witness  upon  the  trial  of  a  case  of  crim.  con.  to  be 
brour-ht  by  Mr.  Tilton,  or  pledged  herself  to  be  a  witness. 
When  asked  when  first  the  idea  of  her  being  a  witness  in 
this  or  any  other  case  was  presented  to  her  mind.  s]i« 


832 


THE   TlLrON-BhJKORER  TBJAL. 


mentioned  that  was  in  July  of  1874,  wlien  Mr.  Tilton, 
disbacifsfied  witti  tlie  couivse  ot  proceeding  before  the  Ex- 
aminiu^  Cooiuiittee,  threatened  to  bring  an  action ;  and 
the  remark  was  then  made  that  in  case  that  event  fol- 
lowed she  would  necessarily  be  a  witness  in  the  case. 

The  Court  here  a<^ourned  to  11  o'clocS:  Thursday  morn- 
ing.   _   

lOlST  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


SECOND  DAY'S  ARGUMENT  BY  MR.  BEACH. 

JUDGE  PORTER  ADDRESSES  THE  COURT  CONCERNING 
IMPUTATIONS  MADE  BY  MR.  BEACH— MR.  TILTON'S 
COUNSEL  EXPLAINS  THAT  HE  DID  NOT  CHARGE 
CORRUPTION — ALLEGED  EFFORTS  OF  THE  DEFEND- 
ANT'S SUPPORTERS  TO  HIDE  WITNESSES— OPENING 
STATOMENTS  OF  JUDGE  PORTER  AND  MR.  EVARTS 
REPLIED  TO— MR.  BEECHER's  CHARACTER  AS 
VIEWED  BY  THE  PLAINTIFF'S  COUNSEL  DE- 
SCRIBED —  AUTHORSHIP  OF  FAMOUS  SCANDAL 
PHRASES. 

Thursday,  June  10,  1875. 

The  crowding,  pushing,  and  scrambling  to  get 
into  the  court-room  to-day  were  even  greater 
than  on  the  day  before,  but  the  audience  was  no 
larger,  simplj^  because  not  another  person  could  find 
sittiug  or  standing  room  inside.  It  was  with  great 
difficulty  that  the  aisles  could  be  kept  sufficiently 
open  to  allow  the  counsel  and  reporters  to  pass. 
There  was  the  same  enthusiastic  element  in  the 
audience  that  had  manifested  its  presence  on  the 
previous  day,  and  Mr.  Beach  was  applauded,  not 
only  upon  his  entrance  into  the  court-room,  but 
several  times  while  he  was  speaking.  Mr.  Beach  ap- 
peared to  be  stronger  than  on  the  first  day  of  his  ar- 
gument. His  voice  was  unbroken,  and  his  manner 
easier. 

At  the  opening  of  the  morning  session  Judge 
Porter  addressed,  the  court  in  reference  to  the 
alleged  imputation  of  Mr.  Beach,  in  his  opening 
speech,  upon  the  jury  and  the  counsel  for  the  defend- 
ant. Mr.  Beach  replied  disclaiming  any  intention 
of  imputing  corruption  to  the  jury  or  any  member 
of  it.  Later  in  the  day  the  orator  asserted  that  it 
was  in  reference  to  procuring  of  witnesses  and  the 
other  machinery  of  the  trial  that  his  remarks  about 
the  eyes  and  arms  and  gold  possessed  by  the  defend- 
ant's counsel  were  applied. 

At  this  point  occurred  one  of  the  most  stirring  pas- 
sages in  the  day's  address.  Referring  to  the  asser- 
tion that  the  plaintiff  had  not  brought  the  servants 
m  Mr.  Tilton's  family  as  witnesses,  the  orator  ex- 
claimed: "  Servants  I  We  go  to  New- Jersey,  but  we 


find  Mrs.  Tilton  ahead  of  us !  We  go  to  the  various 
places  where  the  servants  scattered  from  this  house 
can  |)e  found,  and  welludtlie  lady  zealots  of  Plymouth 
Church  ahead  of  us!  When  the  gentlemen  tell  us 
that  we  do  not  produce  them,  I  tell  them  that  they 
have  hid  them!"  These  assertions,  delivered  with 
all  the  power  of  elocution  and  earnest  force  of  man- 
ner which  Mr.  Beach  possessed,  were  received  with 
a  slight  outbreak  of  applause. 

There  was  another  stir  among  the  auditors  when 
the  orator  announced  that  he  did  not  believe  that 
Mr  Beecher  had  given  his  narrative  under  the  solem- 
nity of  that  obligation  which  the  jury  might  have 
supposed  that  he  invoked,  and  that  he  meant  here- 
after to  maintain  this  proposition. 

The  course  of  the  summing  up  followed  the  same 
line  of  argument  with  which  the  orator  opened 
on  the  first  day.  Statements  and  arguments  of 
Judge  Porter  were  examined,  and  opposed  by  coun- 
ter statements  and  arguments.  The  phrases  "  par- 
oxysmal kiss,"  "  the  brink  of  a  moral  Niagara,"  &c.,. 
which  Judge  Porter  said  were  unlike  Mr.  Beecher's 
mode  of  expression,  were  reviewed,  and  the  orator 
read  numerous  extracts  fi'om  the  defendant's 
sermons  and  writings  containing  phrases  which 
he  considered  to  be  similar,  and  from  which 
he  argued  that  Mr.  Beecher  might  also  have 
been  the  author  of  those  in  question.  The  reading 
of  these  extracts,  and  the  orator's  remarks  upon 
them,  were  highly  enjoyed  by  the  audience,  and  Mr» 
Beecher  appeared  to  be  as  much  amused  as  any  one» 

The  opening  arguments  of  Mr.  Evarts  were  re- 
plied to  also.  Mr.  Beach  gave  instances  of  many 
cases  of  ministers,  and  other  men  of  supposed  high 
character,  who  had  been  guilty  of  debauchery  and 
crime.  From  expressions  used  in  the  defendant's 
works,  the  true  nature  and  disposition  of  Mr.  Beecher 
were  attempted  to  be  shown  in  the  light  in  which 
the  orator  regarded  him, 

THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

MR.  PORTER  DE^IES  WORDS  ATTRIBUTED 
TO  HIM. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  piusuant  to  ad- 
joummenJ:. 

Mr.  Porter— Before  proceedmg,  your  Honor,  I  desire  to 
say  in  behalf  of  my  associate,  Mr.  Evarts,  that  he  is  un- 
avoidably deprived  of  the  pleasure  of  hearing  the  argu- 
ment of  Mr.  Beach  to-day  by  a  necessary  engagement  at 
Washington,  and  that  he  expects  to  be  here  to-morrow. 
One  of  my  associates  has  suggested,  and  I  recognize  the 
propriety  of  the  suggestion,  that,  in  view  of  a  remark 


SUMMiya    CF  BY  ME.  BEACH. 


83B 


made  br  my  leanic-d  friend  yesterday  in  respect  to  tlie 
jury.  I  sliouid  say  tliat  we  can  appeal  to  every  member 
of  tbis  panel  in  regard  to  tbe  imputation  made  upon  tbem 
and  UTion  us.  It  was  undoubtedly  made  by  my  friend  in 
good  faith,  but  I  fear  it  was  made  upon  tbe  same  au- 
tbority  wita  tbe  charge  of  adultery  against  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  and  Eiizabeth  R.  Tilton.  i  appreciate 
fully,  your  Honor,  the  propriety  of  counsel 
representing  clients,  presenting  tbeir  own  views, 
as  well  of  tbe  evideuce  as  of  the  arguments.  It  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  in  a  triul  of  this  duration  any  hum:.n 
memory  could  carry  or  any  report  accurately  represent 
all  that  tran.-rpii'es.  I  .give  credit  to  my  friend  upon  tbe 
otber'side  for  entire  good  faith  iu  representations  of  lan- 
guage used  by  Mr.  Evarts  and  myself,  which  we  both  dis- 
claim ;  but  it  would  be  rude,  and  not  tending  to  the  order 
of  public  discussion,  if  we  were  to  interrupt  the  argu- 
ment as  it  proceeds.  There  is  a  single  point  upon  which 
my  friend— I  say  my  friend,  for  the  cords  that  have  been 
woven  by  thirty  years  of  attachment  are  not  easily 
brolien— my  friend  has,  in  the  com-se  of  his  argument  of 
ytr>terd TV.  imputed  to  me  a  specific  phrase  which  I  per- 
fectly understood,  but  which  is  misunderstood  by  others. 
As  a  matter  of  rhetorical  hyperbole,  and  intending  to 
characterize  what  I  did  say  by  something  which  I  did  not 
say,  my  learned  friend  said  yesterday  that  I  addressed  to 
Mr.  Tilton  language  like  this  :  "  Down,  down  to  hell,  and 
say  I  sent  thee  there." 

Judge  Xeilson— That  is  a  quotation  from  an  old  author. 

Mr.  Porter— It  was  a  quotation,  of  course,  vised  by  my 
friend,  but  whicli  as  published  would  appear,  contrary  I 
know  to  his  own  intent,  to  have  been  the  language  which 
I  literally  used  to  ^Ir.  Tilton.  I  certainly  should  not,  if  I 
were  to  make  a  quotation  from  Shakespeare  at  all,  either 
assume  myself  the  language  of  the  murderer  Gloster  be- 
tween the  two  stabs  he  inflicted  upon  a  fallen  king,  nor 
should  I  think  of  clothing  Mr.  Tilton  with  the  honors  of 
royalty  by  addressing  to  him  language  which  was  ad- 
dressed to  one  of  the  earlier  kings  of  England.  [Sensa- 
tion], 

ilE.  BEACH  RESUMES  HIS  ARGUMEXT. 
Mr.  Beacli — Your  Honor,  I  am  sure,  did  not 
understand  me,  in  any  remarks  which  I  submitted  yester- 
day, to  impute  any  impropriety,  much  less  any  corrup- 
tion, to  this  jury,  or  to  any  member  of  it.  I  certainly  dis- 
claim any  such  intention,  and  I  am  quite  sure  my  language 
bears  no  such  interpretation.  I  did  choose  to  comment. 
Sir,  upon  the  confidence  and  boldness  with  which  my 
learned  friend  assmned  to  know  the  sentiments  of  this 
jury,  and  assumed  to  predict  what  their  verdict  would 
be  ;  and  I  think  the  recollections  of  the  Court  and  the 
jury  will  sustain  me  in  the  imputation  of  language  con- 
veying that  import  and  meaning,  expressing  it  in  most 
distinct  and  unequivocal  terms,  which  I  imputed  to  my 
learned  friend* 


Well,  Sir,  in  imputing  to  the  severe,  violent,  and  furious 
language  which  was  addressed  by  my  learned  friend  to 
Mr.  Tilton,  I  did.  Sir,  indulge  in  an  addition  which  I  sup- 
posed expressed  the  intent  and  the  purpose  of  what  my 
learned  friend  really  did  say.  The  scene  will  not  be 
readily  foraotten.  Sir.  Its  impression  and  effect  upon  us 
will  not  be  readily  forgotten.  In  close  proximity  to  my 
client,  and  with  a  gesture  which  tmder  other  circum- 
stances would  indicate  the  intensest  hostility,  and  a 
most  furious  purpose  of  assault,  my  friend  did  cry  to 
him,  "  Down,  down,  down,"  and  I  supposed.  Sir,  that  he 
meant  to  consign  him  to  hell,  and  I  think  co  still.  [Laugh- 
ter and  applause,  j 

Mr.  Porter— It  i£  a  commentary  of  the  client  and  the 
counsel  upon  what  they  thought. 

Judge  ^'eilson— It  is  to  be  hoped  that  gentlemen  will 
show  their  respect  to  the  speaker  by  keeping  perfectly 
quiet.  Every  demonsuation  interrupts  him,  as  well  as 
distui'bs  the  Court. 

THE  POTEXCY  OF  ^OEDS. 

Mr.  Beach— Some  high  authority  has  sctid 

that  words  are  things  ;  and  undoubtedly  they  exercise  a 
great  and  most  important  influence  upon  the  world. 
They  stir  the  passions  which  upheave  the  elements  of 
society ;  they  suggest  ideas  which  revolutionize  the 
world  ;  they  are  potent  and  powerful  instruments  in 
affectinff  the  mind,  controlling  the  judgn;ent,  governing 
the  actions  of  the  race.  But  words  are  also  indicative  of 
individuals.  Particular  phrases,  forms  of  rhetoric,  of 
expression,  are,  almost  as  clearly  as  handwriting,  indica- 
tive of  the  person  who  uses  them.  If  you  should  see  a 
speech  of  my  friend  :Mr.  Evarts.  without  any  title  page,, 
with  his  singular  and  unequaled  command  of  language, 
and  the  peculiarities  of  its  use,  you  would  know  at  once 
that  that  was  a  speech  of  Mr.  Evarts. 

EXPRESSTOXS  DIPFTED   TO  MR.  BEECHER 
AXD  DENIED. 

Relying  upon  that  piinciple,  we  hare  allud- 
ed in  evidence,  and  in  discussion,  to  certain  phrases, 
words,  appearing  in  writing  and  verbal  exi^ressions,  given 
in  evidence  by  various  witnesses,  as  evidence  of  their  au- 
thorship, and  imputed  through  these  expressions  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  the  production  of  the  various  scenes  and  con- 
versations and  writings  in  which  they  occur.  With  the 
sagacity  which  distinguishes  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Por- 
ter, he  has  endeavored  to  disembarrass  ZVIr.  Beecher  from 
counection  with  these  particular  words  and  phrase*  He 
disclaims  them.  Elevating  him  as  a  pure  and  un defiled 
master  of  the  English  language,  as  the  clear,  precise,  and 
simple  rhetorician,  speaking  from  the  burning  Impulses 
of  his  own  heart  and  mind,  in  expressive  and  simple  lan- 
guage, he  has  advanced  the  idea  that  it  is  perfectly  im- 
possible that  such  a  man,  witi  such  refinement  and  cul- 


834 


IHE   TILION-BEECEEB  TRIAL, 


tui-e,  and  such  a  natuie,  could  by  possibility  employ  tlie 
exceptional  and  singular  words  whicli  are  imputed  to 
Mm  in  the  course  of  the  plaintiflf  s  evidence.  And  there- 
fore Mr.  Porter  says : 

You  remember  that  single  word  "  paroxysmal"  wMoh 
to  this  day  furnishes  occasion  for  those  who  are  unfavor- 
ably disposed  to  Mr.  Beecher  to  impute  to  him  a  base  and 
an  Infamous  crime,  and  yet  it  is  a  part  of  our  public 
history  that  that  "  paroxysmal  Msa"  was  never  heard  of 
from  the  lips  of  Mr.  Beecher  save  by  two  men,  Theo- 
dore Tilton  and  Francis  D.  Moulton.  In  the  first  place, 
the  expression  itself  is  absolute  nonsense,  and  one  of 
which  Mr.  Beecher  is  utterly  incapable. 

MR.   BEECHERS    USE    OF    THE  WORD 
"  PAROXYSMAL." 

I  do  not  agree  with  my  learned  friend  in 

Ms  estimate  of  the  force  and  expressiveness  of  that 
word.  Indeed,  it  has  been  adopted  into  legal  phrase- 
ology, and  has  thus  been  adopted  at  the  suggestion  of  one 
of  the  most  learned  of  our  professions.  We  have  the  term 
in  our  law  books,  our  elementary  works,  and  our  works 
on  judicature—"  paroxysmal  Insanity,"  indicating  that 
high  and  elevated  state  of  feeling,  that  sudden,  impul- 
sive, and  uncontrollable  action  wMch  springs  from  those 
«xoited  impulses ;  and  in  that  sense  the  term  "  paroxysmal 
Mss  "  was  used,  expressive  in  its  character,  perfectly 
consonant  with  the  state  of  feeling,  the  impulses  which 
at  the  moment  existed.  And  I  have  been  curious  to 
examine  the  works  of  Mi\  Beecher  to  see  whether  or  not 
he  indulges  in  phrases  of  that  character ;  because,  gen- 
tlemen, in  all  the  departments  of  tMs  case,  In  regard  to 
all  the  issues,  whether  of  fact  or  of  credibility,  which 
are  made  in  this  case,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  understand 
the  particular  characteristics,  the  idiosyncrasies  of  the 
person  whose  conduct  and  motives  we  are  examining, 
and  I  find  in  the  sermons  of  Mr.  Beecher,  in  the  first 
series,  in  a  commentary  wMch  he  was  making  upon 
some  excitement  in  regard  to  the  Water-st.  movement  in 
the  City  of  New-York,  this  expression  : 

The  Water-st.  movement  in  New- York  to-day  is  another 
such  movement,  a  kind  of  paroxysmal,  fanatical,  some 
call  it,  social,  impulsive  repentance. 

Well,  the  precise  word  is  used,  and  it  is  used  with  ad- 
ditional phrases  that  indicate  its  meaning,  and  the  in- 
tensity of  its  signification. 

That  impulsive,  ardent,  irrepressible  movement  wMch 
springs  from  some  overwrought  feeling  or  sentiment, 
either  of  love  or  of  indignation,  or  of  any  other  of  the 
passions  wMch  stir  the  human  heart. 

And  in  the  same  sermon  he  says : 

Communities  are  sometimes  possessed  for  short  periods 
with  a  paroxysm  of  contrition. 
And  again: 

The  paroxysms  of  cruelty  from  men  that  wreak  their 
vengeance  without  discrimination,  the  world  is  not  un- 
acquainted with. 

One  of  these  paroxysms,  one  of  those  revivals  of  per- 
sonal feeling  and  of  virtue. 


I  do  not  ask  you  to  wake  up  to  the  paroxysm  of  zeaL 
Mychildr(-n  were  dear  to  me  as  myself,  and  were  a 
part  of  mj  self,  and  mto  what  pai-oxysms  of  indignation 
would  I  have  been  thrown  if  any  man  had  played  experi- 
ments on  those  babes. 

I  tell  you  a  mother  in  the  paroxysm  of  love  looks 
splendidly. 

And  if  a  husband  and  father  was  looking  upon  a  mother 
in  such  a  splendid  paroxysm  of  love,  very  likely,  I 
think,  he  woiQd  dispose  upon  her  a  paroxysmal  kiss. 
[Laughter.  1 

I  think  that  a  man  struggling  against  Christianity  when 
under  conviction,  is  like  a  fractious  child  struggling 
against  a  dear  mother  when  she  reproves  and  punishes 
it,  untU  it  rushes  into  her  arms  and  kisses  her  with  a  par- 
oxysm. 

That  Is  very  much  like  a  paroxysmal  kiss.  It  is  not 
very  foreign  to  the  usual  expressions  and  the  habit  of 
rhetoric  which  belong  to  Mr.  Beecher.  And,  therefore, 
we  have  in  these  few  examples  drawn  promiscuously 
from  a  simple  observation  of  Ms  writings— we  have  Mr. 
Beecher  full  of  paroxysms,  paroxysms  of  repentance, 
paroxysms  of  contrition,  paroxysms  of  personal  feeling, 
paroxysms  of  virtue,  paroxysms  of  zeal,  paroxysms  of 
indignation,  paroxysms  of  cruelty,  paroxysms  of  love, 
paroxysms  of  Msses,  paroxysms  of  tears.  Now,  this  ex- 
Mbition  of  the  rhetoric  of  Mr.  Beecher,  it  seems  to  me, 
hardly  justifies  my  learned  friend,  either  in  pronouncing 
the  use  of  the  term  "  paroxysmal  kiss  "  as  foolishness 
and  absurd  ;  certainly  does  not  justify  him  in  the  exon- 
eration of  Mr.  Beecher  from  the  use  of  it. 

"THE  BRINK  OF  A  MORAL  NIAGARA." 

But  there  is  another  phrase  which  excites 
deeper  indignation  upon  the  part  of  my  learned  friend. 
Mr.  M  oTilton  in  his  testimony,  from  the  nervous  force  of 
the  expression  and  as  descriptive  of  the  sense  of  utter 
misery  and  desolation  expressed  by  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
felt  by  him,  at  the  time  of  the  interview  in  wMch  the  ex- 
pression was  used,  says  that  he  distinctly  remembers  Mr. 
Beecher  exclaiming,  in  substance,  "I  stand  upon  the 
brink  of  a  moral  Niagara,"  and  to  discredit  Mr.  Moulton, 
to  convince  tMs  jviry  and  the  public  that  Ms  history  of 
that  interview  was  a  simple  and  bald  invention,  my 
friend,  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher,  disclaims  the  possi- 
ble use  of  an  expression  of  that  character.  He  says, 
quoting  the  phrase : 

"  I  stand  on  the  brink  of  a  moral  Niagara."  Now,  that  Is 
Theodore  Tilton ;  it  is  not  Mr.  Beecher. 

[Turning  to  Mr.  Morris.]  Was  it  not  Moulton  who  used 
that? 

Mr.  Morris— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— He  attributes  it  to  Mr.  Tilton.  Well,  it  was 
a  phrase  testified  to  by  Mr.  Moulton,  and  not  by  Mr.  Til- 
ton. 

Now,  that  is  Theodore  Tilton ;  it  is  not  Henry  Ward 
Beecher.  Do  you  think  Heni-y  Ward  Beecher  would  talk 
About  a  moral  Niagara  any  more  than  he  would  about  a 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MR.  BE  A  OH. 


-moral  haystack  or  a  moral  swamp  1  It  is  not  the  man. 
With  him  words  have  meaning ;  they  are  alive  ;  there  is 
thought  in  them ;  there  is  significance  in  them ;  there  is 
coherence  in  them ;  but  with  Mr.  Tilton  the  brink  of  a 
moral  Niagara  brings  him  incongruous  ideas,  which  to 
him  have  a  rhetorical  charm,  and  they  are  put  into  the 
lips  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  as  his  language,  instead  of 
the  language  of  Theodore  Tilton. 

Well,  Mr.  Tilton  never  used  the  language  in  the  fiist 
place,  and  my  friend  fell  into  that  error  in  his  zeal  to 
Impute  it  to  Mr.  Tilton.  I  have  not  the  same  idea  of  that 
expression  as  is  entertained  by  my  friend.  A  great 
preacher,  a  man  distinguished  for  his  learning,  and 
folding,  as  they  claim,  the  highest  position  among  the 
pietists  and  the  elocutionists  of  the  age,  is  detected  in  the 
commission  of  an  infamous  moral  olfense.  The  victim  of 
Ma  impiety  and  sin  is  said  to  have  charged  him  with  it. 
He  is  brought  face  to  face  with  the  accusation,  and  he 
sees  aU  the  consequences  to  himself,  to  society, to  religion. 
He  is  overcome  with  anguish  and  remorse;  and  with  a 
flow  of  passionate  language,  which  stirs  the  heart  of 
every  reader  and  listener,  he  utters  his  repentance  and 
grief,  and  in  connection  with  that  utterance,  to  the 
ready  and  sympathetic  friend  who  has  stepped  forward 
to  aid  him  in  his  peril  and  exigency,  he  exclaimed,  "  I 
stand  on  the  brink  of  a  moral  Niagara."  And  what 
expression  in  the  English  language,  what  comparison 
or  similitude  could  more  forcibly  represent  the  position, 
assuming  the  accusation  to  be  ti-ue,  in  which  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  stood  a#  that  moment,  and  the  clearness 
and  the  jvistness  ?>i  the  perception  which  he  entertained 
of  that  position.  It  conveys  to  your  mind,  it  bears  to  my 
mind,  a  most  intense  descriptive  force,  and  it  presents 
the  real  and  the  actual  attitude  in  which  the  author  of  it 
stood  then,  and  in  which  he  stands  to-day,  before  the 
judgment  seat  of  this  jury  and  the  world.  He  does  stand 
upon  the  brink  of  a  moral  Niagara.  It  is  possible  that 
your  hands  may  rescue  him;  but  assuming  the  truth 
which  he  then  attached,  and  which  we  attach,  to  his 
position;  assuming  the  guiltiness  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
In  the  English  language  there  is  no  more  expressive  de- 
scription than  that.  Now,  it  is  important  for  us,  in  deter- 
mining whether  there  is  that  incongruity  between  the 
usual  language  and  common  rhetoric  of  Mr.  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  and  this  phrase — ^it  is  important 
ior  ns  to  know  how  this  gentleman  ordinarily  uses 
and  applies  language,  expressly  with  reference 
to  moral  conditions  and  moral  expressions, 
tf  Mr.  Beecher  had  said,  *'  I  stand  on  the  brink  of  a 
moral  precipice ;"  if  he  had  said,  "  I  stand  and  am  hover- 
ing over  the  brink  of  a  moral  abyss,  into  which  to  fall  is 
degradation  and  infamy  and  destruction  forever,"  would 
Tou  have  thought  it  inappropriate  to  his  imputed  condi- 
tion? My  friends  upon  the  other  side  have  referred  to 
the  sacred  poots,  and  you  remember  Mr.  Watts  in  one  of 
bis  most  expressive  and  touching  hymns  uses  the  phrase, 
'"Plunged  in  a  gulf  of  dark  despaii- ;"  and  no  one  has  ever 


yet  imputed  to  that  phrase  any  want  of  proper  rhetoric 
or  of  expressive  force.  Well,  in  looking  at  the  "  Life 
Thoughts"  of  Mr  Beecher,  I  find  that  he  uses  the  term 
"philosophic  anguish,"  and  he  speaks  of  a  man  to  whom 
**  pumpkins  were  apotheosized  !"  Well,  a  pretty  extravar 
gant  phrase.  The  man  who  will  use  that  phrase  as  ap- 
plicable to  pumpkins — "  apotheosized" — ought  not  to  be 
condemned  for  using  the  term  "moral  Niagara."  "A 
moral  eye-sight,"  moral  astronomy,"  "moral  anato- 
mist," and  even  "moral  cripples"— all  found  in  the 
works  of  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  But  in  his  "Life 
Thoughts"  he  uses  this  expression  : 

No  doctrine  is  good  enough  for  anything  that  does 
not  leave  behind  it  an  ethical  furrow  for  the  planting  of 
seeds  which  shall  spring  up  and  bear  abtmdant  harvests. 

Now,  we  all  understand  what  an  "  ethical  furrow  "  is  ; 
and  the  seizure  of  that  illustration  by  Mr.  Beecher  does 
not  seem  to  me  either  unapproved  or  unrhetorical.  It  is 
expressive— an  "  ethical  furrow  "  in  which  the  seeds  of 
truth  and  of  piety  are  to  be  planted.  And  an  "  ethical  fur- 
row," it  seems  to  me,would  justify  even  the  use  of  the  term 
of  my  learned  friend,  a  "  moral  haystack."  [Laughter.] 
Well,  with  that  humor  which  is  a  distinguishing  and  a 
happy  faculty  of  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  which  is 
one  of  his  chief  attractions  among  his  other  great  recom- 
mendations, he  uses,  in  his  work  entitled,  "  Eyes  and 
Ears,"  this  phrase  :  "  The  ghastly  corpse  of  an  appl&- 
pie."  And  yet  my  friend  thinks  a  gentleman  who  can 
use  this  illustrative  language,  an  extravagant  phrase  of 
this  character,  never  could  liave  been  guilty  of  using  the 
words,  "  I  stand  on  the  brink  of  a  moral  Niagara !  "  Well, 
it  happened,  unfortunately  to  Mr.  Beecher,  upon  one 
occasion,  that  the  plumbing  arrangements  of  his  house 
were  ou,t  of  order,  and  one  of  his  chambers  became  a 
little  diluted.   In  describing  it,  he  says  : 

One  of  the  pipes  was  stopped  up,  and  the  chamber,  &c., 
overflowed.  The  plumber  was  sent  for.  We  had  a  pocket 
ocean  up-stairs. 

Well,  now,  that  is  not  to  be  discredited,  nor  is  it  to  be 
condemned.  This  is  the  style  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 
Read  his  sermons  and  works  where  you  may  you  will 
find  these  original,  these  coined,  these  expressive  phrases 
standing  out  all  over  through  Ms  works.  I  have  many 
more  quotations ;  I  will  not  trouble  you  with  them.  But 
I  have  deemed  this  question  of  suflacient  importance,  be- 
cause although  it  may  not  seem  so  to  you,  yet  it  has  been 
used  by  my  learned  friends  constantly  tMoughout  their 
address  to  this  jury  and  the  public,  to  impress  upon  all 
minds  the  idea  that  In  the  relation,  by  Mr.  Tilton  and 
Mr.  Moulton,  of  interviews  with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  in  the 
documents  and  rostruments  wMoh  were  imputed  to  him, 
there  was  an  extravagance  and  impropriety  of  expression 
as  compared  with  the  cultivation  and  the  ordinary  habits 
of  expression  of  Mr.  Beecher,  to  produce  the  conviction 
that  Mr.  B(?echer  was  misrepresented  by  tMs  evidence^ 
In  the  "  Royal  Truths,"  a  work  published  by  Mr.  Beecher, 
I  find  this  expression ; 


836 


TUB   TILTOJS-BMBCHER  TElAJb, 


I  may  be  broken  up,  disintegrated,  comminuted,  ren- 
dered pulverulent,  and  thus  be  in  a  state  to  promote  bet- 
ter growth. 

Well,  when  my  friends  impute  to  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  a 
straining  after  rhetorical  effect,  the  coining  of  vain  and 
superficial  phrases,  I  commend  them  to  the  study  of  the 
works  of  their  client.  Without  imputing  to  Mr.  Beecher 
any  impropriety,  any  awkwardness,  any  rudeness  of  ex- 
pression, yet,  there  is  not  an  author  in  this  land  who  as- 
sumes more  liberties  with  the  English  language,  and 
coins  more  extravagant  and,  (notwithstanding  the  illus- 
tration of  Mr.  Evarts),  I  may  say,  transcendental  ex- 
pressions, than  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

In  my  own  experience  of  cases  that  I  have  most  despaired 
of  among  those  who  come  to  me  for  spiritual  help,  have 
been  persons  who  were  nervinely  sick.  They  must  come 
to  him  under  the  cover  of  some  apology  or  beneath  some 
umbrellaed  excuse  lest  the  clouds  should  break,  &e. 

Well,  the  idea  of  an  excuse  being  protected  by  an  um- 
brella—an  "  timbrellaed  excuse !"  Well,  this  awkward 
phrase,  "  a  wrinkled  foreheaded  man,"  "  business 
vaticinations,"  "realizing  centers,"  and  "  what  is  the 
average  impression  of  the  community  in  regard  to  re- 
ligion—that  it  is  beautiful  or  that  it  is  gawky  ?"  I  don't 
exactly  understand  this  term,  "  fictile  skill,"  "  typhoid 
conscience,"  "  fluxing  industries,"  and  "  a  hailstone 
teaching,"  and,  not  quite  as  simple  as  "  moral  Niagara," 
"  you  might  as  well  attempt  to  cure  volcanoes  with 
pills."  -  And  then,  in  his  work  entitled  "  Eyes  and  Ears," 
he  speaks  of  "  a  horse  rapture."  Well,  that  is  a  kind  of 
a  rapture  he  may  have  felt ;  I  never  have  understood. 
[Laughter  and  applause.]  "  Well,  for  her  friends  she  is  a 
contfnuous  garden,  for  her  not  friends  a  precipice." 
*•  ni-smelling  flowers  of  hati'ed,"  "  the  hilltop  of  cheer- 
fulness"—well,  I  think  a  beautiful  expression  and  de- 
scriptive of  that  frame  of  mind  which  Mr.  Beecher  usually 
possesses  and  indulges.  "  The  roots  and  branches  and 
leaves  of  morality  "—another  beautiful  idea  and  illustra- 
tion. "  A  bird  loves  a  kind  of  shy  familiarity— nesting  in 
the  dry  hay"—"  amorous  locusts."  Speaking  of  an  apple 
tree,  he  says,  "  In  the  month  of  May,  apple  trees  go 
courting.  It  is  a  homely,  sober,  matter  of  fact  tree.  May 
seems  to  stir  up  a  love-heat  in  its  veins.  You  must  not  con- 
demn a  "  moral  Niagara,"  I  submit,  gentlemen,  after  ex- 
pressions of  that  character.  Now,  these  express  not  only 
the  habit  of  thougjit,  but  the  modes  of  expression  of  that 
gentleman,  and  I  do  not  put  them  or  use  them  for  the 
inirpose  of  imputing  any  rhetorical  impropriety  or  any 
impurity  of  thought  to  jVIt.  Beecher.  He  uses  figurative 
language,  and  eacpresses  and  Illustrates  with  great 
beauty  and  force  ideas  and  sentiments ;  and  it  is  the 
jiTcat  attraction  of  iiis  i)i'caching.  It  is  that  which, 
every  day  of  the  week,  stirs  the  hearts  and  emotions  of 
his  audiences,  and  in  the  holy  temikle  of  God  leads  them 
t^;  lireak  out  in  rapturous  and  noisy  applause,  and  he 
•'iannot  disclaim  them.  They  are  indicative  of  the  indi- 
"^iduality  of  the  man.   And  when  you  fmu  in  tha  records 


of  his  conversations  and  declarations,  as  given  by  wit- 
nesses and  in  the  documents  presented  in  this  case,  these 
unusual  and  extravagant  expressions,  they  lead  to  the 
identity  of  the  author. 

"A  SECTION  OF  THE  DAY  OF  JUDGMENT." 
Now,  take  the  phrase,  "section  of  the  Day 

of  Judgment,"  in  the  conversation  had  with  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton.  Why,  my  fri:'ud  Mr.  Porter  says,  "  Mr,  Beecher 
could  not  have  used  that  expression.  He  does  not  divide 
the  Day  of  Judgment  into  sections."  Well,  he  and  I  will 
find,  I  am  afraid,  when  we  come  to  that  time  that  there  are, 
at  least  two  sections  to  that  Day  of  Judgment.  iLaughter.l 
This  lady,  Mrs.  Moulton,  was  continually  impressing  upon, 
him  the  idea  of  confession.  "  Submit  to  the  discipline  of 
the  Scripture ;  confess  your  sin ;  stand  no  more  in  this 
attitude  of  concealment  and  secrecy  and  duplicity.  Be 
the  man  you  profess  to  be— the  exalted  teacher  of  moral- 
ity, the  embassador  of  Christ.  Live  up  to  your  weekly 
teaching  in  the  pulpit.  Let  there  be  no  more  of  this  de- 
praved inconsistency  between  your  conduct  and  your 
teachings." 

And  is  it  surprising,  with  his  ardent  temperameni", 
with  his  impulsive  expression,  with  his  habit  of  rhetoric 
—would  it  have  been  surprising  under  these  circumstances 
that  Mr.  Beecher  should  say  to  Mrs.  Moulton,  "  Why, 
I  come  to  you  for  encouragement  and  for  rest,  for  cheer 
in  my  sorrows,  fo?  that  solace  which  can  only  come  from 
a  woman's  sympathy  and  a  woman's  hand,  and  yon  are 
forever  holding  up  to  me  the  terrors  of  this  offense  and 
impressing  upon  me  the  duty  of  confession  and  exposure. 
Why,  you  seem  to  me  like  a  section  of  the  Day  of  Judg- 
ment." Henry  Ward  Beecher  throughout !  And  I  adopt, 
gentlemen,  a  little  commentary  I  found  in  one  of  the 
prominent  papers  of  the  neighboring  city.  Speaking  of 
Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton,  this  paragraph  says  : 

He  comes  to  her  for  oomfoi't  and  consolation  as  man 
goes  to  woman  in  his  trouble.  She  is,  under  the  unhappy 
ciromnstances  of  his  case— unhappy  whatever  they  really 
have  been— the  only  woman  to  whom  he  can  go  to  be 
soothed  and  cheered.  And  what,  according  to  her 
account,  does  she  do  1  Day  after  day  she  says  to  him, 
"  Confess;  make  clean  your  breast  of  all  this,  and  be  for- 
given." But,  as  she  says,  rather  than  do  this  he  told  ber 
he  would  die.  And  yet  she  continued  to  lU'ge  upon  hiiu 
that  which  she  says  he  declared  was  worse  to  him  than 
death.  AVhat  wonder,  then,  that  he  should  break  oat 
upon  this  perverse  female  Baalam,  who  would  not  snv 
what  she  was  expected  to  say,  and  who  held  up  ever  ht- 
fore  him  the  vision  of  a  great  accounting  to  come,  and 
told  her  that  she  was  like  a  slice  of  the  Day  of  Judgmeutf 
How  graphic!  How  humorous!  How  perfectly  Beecher- 
like !  How  it  tells  of  the  disappointed  longing  of  a  soul' 
that  sought  consolation  and  found  threatening;  that 
thirsted  for  the  sweet  and  tasted  the  bitter  1  What  a 
warning  to  women  that  they  should  not  put  off  the  whitO' 
robes  of  mercy  and  don  the  ermine  of  justice !  And  what 
a  light  it  throws  upon  the  scene  as  the  witnesses  describP 
it!  That  worn  and  harassed  7nan.  lying  upon  the  sofa, 
looking  tor  the  soft  ministrations  from  woman,  which,, 
whether  they  touch  the  root  of  the  heart's  disease  or  not^ 


SUMMJSG   UF  1 

ire  balm  to  man's  -^ounaed  spirit,  and  lieaniig  only  tliat 
e^imsiant  Tvammg  coim?«el,  Confess"  —  longing  tor  a 
glimpse  of  hope,  and  seeing  only  a  slice  of  tlie  Day  of 
Judgment. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  commentary  expressed  pre- 
cisely the  situation,  the  position,  the  state  of  mind,  the 
character  of  thought,  feelinii  and  expression  belonging  to 
the  two  parties  of  that  intt- rview. 

MR.  TILTON'S  SPECULATIOXS  OX  THE  LIl^E 
OF  CHEIST. 
You  Trill  remember  that  Mr.  Tilton  wrote  to 

his  wife  a  letter,  in  -which  he  speculated  upon  certain 
oiicumstanees  and  possihle  eondiaons  in  the  life  of 
Christ.  My  friend,  -with  sevtsie  denunciation,  pronoimced 
it  to  he  a  gross  and  repulsive  sacrilege.  Mr.  Tilton 
indulged  a  vein  of  thought  and  speeulatiim  upon  the 
quesTion. -what  -would  have  been  the  eSect  upon  the 
estimation  of  the  -world,  upon  the  reception  of  the  char- 
acter and  teachings  and  influence  of  Christ,  if  he  had 
been  married,  if  he  had  loved  -with  a  -^-orldly  nftection 
and  been  the  husband  of  an  idolized  -wife  and  the  parent 
of  a  happy  household.  And  this  is  pronounced  as  blas- 
phemous. It  is  presented  to  you  as  a  revelation  of  the 
indurated  and  unreligious  sentiment  of  Mr.  Tilton.  Xo 
character  on  earth,  no  historic  personage  has  ever  drawn 
from  the  lips  of  the  learned  and  the  pious  more  specula- 
tion and  more  commentary  than  that  of  Christ.  The 
revelations  of  his  customary  and  ordinary  life  are 
not  very  full  or  complete.  There  is  room  enottgh  for 
speculative  thought.  There  is  room  enough  for  philo- 
sophical conjecture.  There  is  room  enough  for  the  indul- 
gence of  commentary,  and  for  the  derivation  of  various 
and  conflicting  opinions  in  regard  to  his  character  and 
his  relation  to  the  Trinity.  And  it  never  has  been 
thought  irreligious  or  sacrilegious  to  indulge  in  those 
reflections.  It  indicates  not  a  spirit  of  scoffing  and 
unbelief  when  respectfully  indulged,  -when  suggesting  a 
possible  condition  to  the  life  of  Cbrist,  which  might  have 
had  an  intimate  and  controlling  effect  upon  onr  concep- 
tions of  his  character,  and  our  receptions  of  his  iuterme- 
diary  agency  between  the  Father  and  ourselves.  I  have 
gathered  a  f  e-w  teachings  of  Mr.  Beecher  upon  this  subject, 
as  approving  this  sort  of  speculative  philosophy.  Mr. 
Beecher  regards  Christ  as  a  historical  character — of 
course  he  could  not  do  otherwise— as  a  character  of 
history,  independent  of  his  close  and  religious  relations 
to  every  human  heart,  -which  deserves  to  be  studied  and 
commented  upon.  It  is  a  character  in  its  relations.  In  its 
revelations,  -which  affords  the  -vridest  scope  for  the 
exercise  of  the  profoundest  learning  and  the  highest 
genius,  and  the  deepest  emotion,  and  Mr.  Beecher  so  re- 
gards it.   He  says  : 

'Phere  is  no  other  historic  name  that  has  shown,  and  is 
pho-wine.  suchapo-wer.  Christ's  name  is.  at  one  and  the 
eame  time,  not  only  the  name  of  a  historic;  personage 
who  had  his  wonderful-peculiarities,  but  a  name,  etc. 


3Y  mi.   BEACR.  837 

1  In  his  s^:-rm.ou  un  "  Soul  Building  "  he  speaks  of  "  ChriaC 
as  he  has  been  historically  developed  and  philosophically 
conceived."  He  says  of  Him,  "  He  represented  historic 
Judaism."  "  You  may  deal,"  he  says,  "  with  Christ  flrst, 
as  if  you  were  mcieiy  a  historic  critic.  You  may  sit  in 
judgment  upon  Him,  upon  His  life,  His  disposition,  His 
deeds,  His  faith,  &.c.  You  are  nbt  forbidden  to  go  into 
historic  investigations  ol' it."  And  -vs  hac  more  does  this 
letter  of  TiifcoJoio  T'  ■    :    "You  may  deal  wiih 

Christ,'' says  Mr.  B.l-::li_i,  ■  historical  critic.  Yua 

may  sit  in  judguient  upon  Him,  upon  His  life,  His  dispo- 
sition, His  deeds.  His  faith.  You  are  not  forbidden  tc  g'> 
into  historic  investigations  of  it.'"  Well,  an  ordli!.-.: / 
mind— I  don't  think  either  of  you  gentlemen— I  am  cer- 
tain as  to  myself— an  ordinary  mind  -would  not  have 
entered  into  that  Une  of  comment,  iuvestigatioi},  thought. 
Immersed  in  the  cares  of  the  -^'orld,  in  business,  and  in 
professional  life,  you  -would  not  think  to  philosophize 
upon  the  possible  condition  of  Christ's  having  been  a 
married  man  and  a  man  of  family.  We  accept  Him  as  He 
is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  "We  are  content  with  our 
kno-wledge  of  Him  as  derived  from  the  Scriptures.  You, 
-who  have  accepted  Him  as  your  faith  and  yoiu*  salvation, 
enter  into  no  doubts  or  speculations  in  regard  to  His  re- 
lation   to    the    Godhead    or   to    man.    You  build 

'  upon    Him,   lean    uiion    Him,  trust    in   Him,  hold 

;  to  Him  as  the  revealed  Savior,  as  the  Son  of 
the  Almighty  Father,  as  the  sufferer  upon  Calvary, 
and  as  yo-ar  Redeemer.  But  we  have  men  of  philosopieal 
minds,  of  speculative  learning,  men  who  investigate 
these  subjects— not  alone  Theodore  Tilton,  but  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  and  all  the  great  luminaries  not  only  of 
the  pulpit  but  of  science.  And  what  harm  is  there  in  it  \ 
If  we  may  be  governed  by  the  teachings  and  the  author- 
ity of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  it  is  commendable.  It  Indi- 
cates a  depth  of  interest  and  a  rauge  of  thought  which 
does  not  belong  to  the  eommoii  and  ordinary  imderstaud» 
ing.  And  that  letter  of  3Ir.  Tilton,  exi»resse<i  with  the 
finest  delicacy  of  language,  with  no  reflection  upon  the 
character  of  his  Lord,  suggesting  merely  the  effect  which 
would  have  been  produced  upon  the  world,  and  upon  the 
influence  of  Chi-ist  upon  the  hearts  of  men,  he  writes'  it 
with  no  indelicacy  of  speech,  with  no  rudeness  of  i>hrase, 
with  no  reflection  upon  the  holiness,  the  sanetit\-  of  the 
character  of  Christ. 

"Well,  how  does  Mr.  Beecher  deal  with  Christ  1  You  and 
I,  gentlemen,  were  taught  early  to  lisp  at  our  mother's 
knee  the  Lord's  Prayer,  which,  then  and  now,  appears  to 
us  as  the  most  solemn,  comprehensive,  and  expressive  in- 
vocation ever  invented,  to  our  God.  Christ  taught  it; 
Christ  gave  it  to  the  world  as  the  form  of  prayer  belong- 
ing to  fallen  souls  to  be  addressed  to  their  Maker,  their 
Protector,  and  their  Judge,  and  it  has  been  reverenced 
and  uttered  by  sincere  and  pious  lips  and  by  devoted 

!  hearts  fi'om  the  time  it  was  thus  dedicated  to  the  use 

i  man  to  this  hour.   And  no  man  evr? 


838 


TRE   TlLTON-BEEiJHER  TBIAL. 


lence  of  his  cliamber  without  feeliBg  a  fresli  and  a  stern 
impression  of  the  majesty  of  God  and  of  our  relationa  to 
his  law  and  Ms  government.  What  does  Mr.  Beecher  say 
about  if?  Speaking  of  this  Lord's  Prayer,  he  says : 

It  is  no  reproach,  and  it  takes  nothing  from  the  value 
of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  nor  from  this  whole  discourse  (the 
Bermon  on  the  Mount)  to  say  that  they  were  not  original 
■with  Christ,  that  they  were  not  then  first  invented,  when 
He  gave  them  to  His  disciples.  We  know  it  was  so  in 
respect  to  the  discourse  at  large. 

Well,  Mr.  Beecher  ti-eats  Christ  as  a  plagiarist — Christ 
whom  he  teaches  us  is  divine,  Christ  whom  he  teaches  us 
is  the  Lord,  co-equal  wi^h  the  Father,  one  of  that  re- 
splendent and  mysterious  Trinity  presented  to  us  hy  the 
revelation  of  the  Lord,  possessing  the  omnipotence, 
gifted  with  the  omniscience  of  the  Godhead— and  yet  he 
tells  us  that  that  divine  personage,  ruling  all  things, 
knowing  all  things,  was  not  capable  of  delivering  a  ser- 
mon or  dictating  a  prayer  to  fallen  man  1  Well,  that  is 
dealing  freely  and  liberally  with  the  character  and  the 
attributes  of  Christ,  and  the  counsel  of  a  man  who  does 
this  is  in  a  very  poor  condition  to  reproach  a  speculative, 
philosophic  thinker  who  ventures  to  suggest  what 
would  have  been  the  conditions  and  the  relations  of 
Christ  toward  fallen  humanity  if  it  had  happened  that  he 
had  hTbeu  the  subject  of  worldly  love,  the  husband  of  a 
wife  and  the  parent  of  children. 

"  Well,"  he  says,  "  1¥  you  measure  Christ,  Christ's  influ- 
ence upon  the  mass  of  his  countrymen,  it  was  null  and 
void." 

Indeed ! 

"  Neither  did  he  found  a  family." 

Why,  Mr.  Beecher  thinks  of  that !  He  can  Indulge 
thoughts  of  that  kind ! 

Men  are  born  to  love  and  marriage,  dec,  but  Christ  was 
not  born  to  any  .such  destiny.  Upon  no  one  did  He  ever 
bestow  His  heart's  treasured  affection  ;  He  never  knew 
the  sweet  relationships  of  husband  and  father  in  the 
household. 

Well,  if  Mr.  Beecher  can  deal  thus  with  the  character 
and  the  conditions  surrounding  the  life  of  the  Redeemer, 
what  is  there  in  this  letter  of  Mr.  Tilton  that  should  ox- 
cite  such  extieme  disapprobation  from  my  learned 
friend  1  Mr.  Beecher  says  further : 

When  it  is  said  that  Christ  was  tempted  in  all  points 
like  as  we  are,  we  are  not  to  understand  that  He  stood  in 
every  relation  in  which  we  stand.  He  was  not  a  husband 
or  a  father;  He  did  not  trade  or  traffic ;  so  that  there  are 
special  varieties  ot  external  history  which  befall  men  that 
did  not  come  to  Christ. 

Well,  a  very  proper  reflection;  but  yet  a  somewhat 
familiar  treatment  of  the  character  and  the  history  of  the 
Savior. 

I  believe  that  a  man  may  cro  wrong  a  great  way  i  n  his 
Intellectual  views  of  the  Savior.  I  believe  that  he  may 
err  much  in  reasoning  upon  Christ. 

The  propriety  of  reasoning  upon  Christ  is  admitted, 
thent 


I  believe  that  he  may  fall  into  innuiherable  mistakes  In 
fashioning  a  system  of  religious  truth,  and  yet  be  saved. 

Sound  doctrine  all  of  it,  I  think  you  will  conclude ;  but 
this  speciilation  of  Theodore  Tilton,  written,  gentlemen, 
to  his  wife,  not  uttered  upon  housetops,  not  published  aa 
a  theory  which  might  excite  ridicule  of  the  Master, 
nothing  which  would  di-aw  out  unfavorable  or  conflicting 
comment,  but  written,  in  the  fullness  of  the  confidence 
of  marital  correspondence,  to  his  wife— this  letter  is 
seized  upon  by  our  learned  friend  as  evidence  of  the 
religious  obliquity,  of  the  scoffing  religious  indifference, 
of  Mr.  Tilton.  It  deserves  no  such  comment,  and  Mr. 
Beecher  in  his  sermon  says  so. 

EPITHETS  APPLIED  BY  ME.  MOULTON  TO 
ME.  BEECHEE. 

Now  I  pass  from  all  these  subjects,  gentle- 
menu  Mr.  Porter  alluded  to  an  expression  used  by  Mr. 
Moulton  in  the  course  of  his  testimony,  which  he  thinks 
of  so  base  and  calumnious  a  character  as  to  be  utterly 
destructive  of  the  credibility  of  Mr.  Moulton.  He  says : 

Now,  the  testimony  of  Moulton  is  that  Beecher  is  a  liar 
and  a  libertine.  This  is  the  spirit  in  which  this  man 
comes  to  this  Court  to  swear  away  the  reputation  of  a 
pure  woman  and  a  pure  man.  There  is  his  photograph, 
made  by  himself  and  for  you.  The  man  who  uses  such 
foul,  base  language,  and  yet  pretends  that  all  this  while 
he  was  the  friend  of  the  man  in  fbspeot  to  whom  he  used 
it— can  you  trust  him  1 

Now,  I  have  no  hesitation,  gentlemen,  in  saying  that  I 
disapproved  the  expression ;  but  if  that  is  to  discredit 
Mr.  Moulton  when  he  appears  under  the  solemnity  of  an 
oath  as  a  witness,  what  are  you  to  think  of  the  impar- 
tiality and  sincerity  of  my  learned  friend  when  he  ap- 
plies not  only  to  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  but  to  a 
woman,  the  epithets  which  he  has  used  in  this  case. 
Why,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  if  Moulton  is  to  be  discred- 
ited, my  friend  Porter  is  not  to  be  believed ;  these  men 
are  not  so  bad  as  he  represents  them  to  be ;  he  is  not  a 
veracious  witness,  and  you  will  not  accept  the  character 
which  he  has  given  them. 

Bat  what  were  the  circu^nstances,  gentlemen  1  Not 
here  do  I  propose  to  review  or  comment  upon  the  con- 
duct of  Mr.  Moulton  m  his  association  with  Mr.  Beecher ; 
that  is  matter  for  future  consideration,  "  it  we  can 
glance  at  the  general  aspects  of  that  relation.  I  think 
none  of  you  will  hesitate  to  say,  from  yoirr  recollection 
of  the  evidence,  that  up  to  the  time  when  this  subject 
came  within  the  jurisdiction,  the  effective  jurisdiction, 
of  Plymouth  Church,  during  the  Investigating  Com- 
mittee, and,  as  I  shall  show  you,  after  that  period,  there 
was  no  service  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  Mr.  Moulton  could 
render,  within  the  limits  of  his  theory  and  effort,  that  ho 
did  not  perform.  He  has  been  called  a  traitor ;  with 
chosen  and  deliberate  language  he  has  been  pictured  as 
an  infamous  "Judas,"  but  my  learned  friends  hav« 
failed  to  show  that  up  to  that  period  he  faltered  for  an 


SUMMIXG    TIP  BY  BEACH, 


830 


toetant,  under  any  circumstances,  upoc  any  occasion,  in  ! 
Lis  devoted  fidelity  tc  Mr.  Beeclier,  But  when  was 
it  that  these  relations  were  changed,  and  how 
came  they  to  be  changed  ?  Not  hy  the 
simple  appointment  of  the  Investigating  Com- 
mittee (which  Mr.  Moulton  disapproved),  for  he  still 
labored  on,  as  I  will  show  you,  la  an  effort,  in  conjunction 
with  and  imder  the  approval  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  his  ad- 
visers, to  suppress  this  investigation.  It  was  when  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  In  his  statement  before  the  Committee, 
charged  this  true  and  unflinching  friend  with  attempting 
t^  blackmail  him,  it  was  when,  from  that  examination, 
that  statement,  the  hurricane  of  denunciation  went  out 
through  the  land  against  Mr.  Moulton,  under  which  his 
reputation  and  his  prospects,  I  confess,  have  suffered— 
It  was  then  that  these  relations  changed.  Now,  if  it  he 
true  that  up  to  that  hour  Mr.  Moulton  had  been  the  faith- 
ful and  devoted  fi-iend  of  Mr.  Beecher,  sacrificing  time, 
and  effort,  and  character,  and  morality,  if  you 
please,  to  save  him  from  the  consequences  of 
His  offense;  and  Mr.  Beecher,  under  the  con- 
ditions and  with  the  fact,  as  he  swears  to  It 
upon  this  stand,  made  against  him  the  false  and  calumni- 
ous charge  that  he  was  a  blackmailer,  some  extrava- 
gance of  expression  will  be  pardoned  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Moulton.  Mr.  Beecher  is  a  great  man;  he  is  revered  and 
trusted  by  many  souls ;  he  has  occupied  a  great  position 
in  the  eye  of  the  world ;  and  no  young  man,  like  Mr. 
Moulton— nay,  no  old  gray-headed  man— has  the  right, 
whatever  he  may  think  of  hl-^  purity  and  morality,  to  say, 
In  his  presence  and  to  his  face,  that  he  is  a  licir  and  a  lib- 
ertine. It  is  a  sacrifice  of  that  respect  which  belongs  to 
age,  culture,  dignity,  position— aye,  it  is  a  disrespect 
which  no  feeling  and  upright  man  will  offer  even  to  fallen 
greatness.  I  do  not  justify  it ;  I  do  not  approve  it ;  but 
this  man,  Mr.  Moulton,  is  of  an  ardent  and 
impulsive  nature,  and  he  has  exhibited  it  through  all  this 
complication  of  circumstances.  He  used  a  rash  and  in- 
temiterate  expression,  I  grant ;  but  does  that  prove  him 
dishonest  or  unfaithful  ?  does  that  justify  my  friend  in 
saying  that  he  entertained  these  sentiments  in  regard  to 
Mr.  Beecher  during  the  period  in  which  friendly  relations 
and  the  most  intimate  intercourse  existed  between  them  ? 
By  no  means— by  no  means.  Mr.  Moulton  never  uttered 
a  disrespectful  or  irreverent  expression  about  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  until  after  the  event  to  wli-  h  I  have  di- 
rected your  attention ;  and  if  he  has  pii.;ied,  he  has  sinned 
under  great  provocation.  If  he  wa.^  a  true  friend,  the  in- 
gratitude of  Mr.  Beecher  is  inexpressible.  If  Mr.  Moul- 
ton was  an  honest  and  trusty  friend,  I  must  be  permitted 
to  say  that  it  was  base  and  horrid  for  Mr.  Beecher  to  im- 
pute to  him  a  character  and  a  practice  which  rendered 
him,  if  it  was  true,  infamous  in  the  eyes  of  the  world. 
But  then  my  friend  says : 

The  man  who  said  that  [referring  to  an  expression  tos- 
lified  to  by  Mr.  Storrs]  was  the  same  man  who  went  out 


on  the  1st  of  January  to  make  two  calls,  one  on  a  woman 
and  the  other  on  a  clergyman,  and  cai-ried  a  pistol  for  his 
protection— I  am  wrong  as  to  the  date ;  it  was  the  day 
before,  Saturday— a  man  who  is  such  a  coward  that  he 
needs  a  pistol  in  his  pocket  to  walk  down  to  the  house  of 
Theodore  Tilton  in  order  to  get  from  his  wife  a  lerter  that 
would  enable  him  to  call  upon  Mr.  Beecher — such  a  cow- 
ard that  when  he  goes  to  Mr.  Beecher  he  wants  to  im- 
press him  with  a  sense  of  peril  by  showing  him  that  he 
has  a  pistol,  although  there  was  no  occasion  to  use  it— 
that  is  not  the  kind  of  man  that  had  better  talk  much 
about  whom  he  is  going  to  shoot  down. 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  in  the  light  of  the  evidence  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  was  there  ever  a  more  sophistical  perversion 
of  the  condition  of  things  than  that  statement?  You 
know  from  the  evidence  that  Mr.  Moulton,  by  reason  of 
the  conditions  of  his  business  and  the  necessity  of  being 
about  your  large  warehouses  and  docks,  among  rude  and 
violent  persons,  and  at  aU  hours  of  the  day  and  night, 
was  in  the  habit  of  carrying  a  pistol— a  habit  that  I  do 
not  approve,  a  habit  that  I  think  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances I  never  should  indulge  in,  a  habit  which  I  think 
produces  a  great  part  of  the  outrages  and  crimes  which 
afflict  the  community.  But  it  was  a  necessity  of  liis  busi- 
ness and  condition;  and  you  have  heard  ]yir.  Beecher's 
description  of  that  pistol  scene ;  and  you  know  from  Mr. 
Beecher's  evidence  that  that  pistol  was  not  carried  for 
any  such  purpose  as  that  imputed  by  Mr.  Porter,  and 
that  it  was  not  used  for  purposes*  of  intimidation.  But 
the  necessities  of  this  case,  the  determination  to  taUr  and 
abuse  these  men  out  of  court,  has  led  my  learned  friends 
to  indulge  (he  must  pardon  me  for  saying)  in  this  perver- 
sion of  fact,  and  in  this  uniust  reprehension  of  Mr. 
Moulton. 

WHY  ME.  CAEPENTER  WAS  NOT  PUT  ON  THE 
STAND. 

Well,  then,   my  friend  says :   **  Carpenter 

was  not  called and  he  says  there  was  a  promise  of 
that  in  the  opeaing  of  ]Mr.  Morris.  He  says  that,  ac- 
cording to  that  opening,  Mr.  Carpenter  was  to  be  called 
to  prove  the  confession  of  Mr.  Beecher  ;  and,  with  very 
great  emphasis  and  force,  he  inquires  why  that  evidence 
is  suppressed ;  and,  rf  it  were  true,  it  is  an  inquiry  which 
under  all  circimistances  can  be  addressed  to  a  party  who 
fails  to  produce  evidence  in  his  power,  and  the  omission  of 
it  is  significant  of  the  truth  that  its  production  would  have 
operated  unfavorably  to  the  party  suppressing  it.  But 
what  is  the  true  indication  given  by  IVIr.  Morris  upon  this 
subject  in  his  opening  1  On  page  45  Mr.  Morris  used  this 
language : 

On  tl^  evening  of  Jime  1  Mr.  Carpenter,  to  whom  I 

have  alluded,  attended  Plymouth  Chuich.  After  the 
service  was  over  Mr.  Beecher  called  Mr.  Curucni  r  aside 
and  said  to  him,  in  great  anxiety,  "  Ha-s'e  you  seeu  Theo- 
dore ?"  He  replied,  "  No ;"  and  then  Mr.  Beecher  said, 
"  He  is  going  to  publish  my  letter."  Mr.  Carpenter  re- 
plied, "  Well,  what  of  it  i"  The  answer  came,  "  It  will  be 
my  ruiu  and  his  too,  because  he  cannot  rise  on  my 
ruin." 


840 


THE   TILTON-BEEVHEB  TRIAL. 


That  is  wliat  Mr.  Moms  represented  would  be  the  tes- 
timony of  Mr.  Carpenter  in  relation  to  Ms  interview  witli 
Mr.  Beecher.  Subsequently  he  said : 

But,  gentlemen,  we  don't  rest  our  case  upon  tlie  testi- 
mony furnished  by  Mr.  Tilton  himself  alone.  We  go 
further  than  that.  We  will  put  upon  the  stand  Mr. 
Carpenter,  whose  veracity,  I  apprehend,  will  not  be 
questioned  in  this  court,  and  to  him,  we  mayjaay,  Mr. 
Eeecber  made  his  confession. 

Well,  liow  made  it  ?  Why,  in  the  language  of  the  de- 
tailed interview  wMch  Mr.  Morris  had  previously  given. 
It  was  never  pretended  by  Mr.  Morris  or  anybody  else 
that  Mr.  Beecher  had  confessed  the  offense  with  which 
he  was  charged  by  us  to  Mr.  Carpenter,  except  in  the 
particular  mode  of  the  conversation,  the  precise  details 
of  which  were  given  by  Mr.  Morris.  But  when  Mr. 
Beecher  comes  to  the  stand  upon  cross-examination,  we 
find  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  production  of  that 
evidence.  Mr.  Carpenter  was  withheld  for  the  purpose 
of  rebutting  any  testimony  that  Mr.  Beecher  might  give 
in  denial  of  the  alleged  interview  and  for  the  purpose  of 
answering  other  expected  circumstances  of  proof  upon 
the  part  of  the  defense ;  but  it  never  became  necessary 
to  introduce  him,  for  the  condition  of  the  proof  did  not 
require  his  introduction. 

A  TRIBUTE  TO  MR.  PORTER. 
Now,  tlien,  gentlemen,  so  far  as  the  exam- 
ination of  the  particular  propositions,  and  the  specific 
representations,  made  by  my  friend  Mr.  Porter  is  con- 
cerned, I  am  done  with  it.  In  nothing  that  I  have  said 
in  regard  to  that  gentleman  (I  am  provoked  to  say  by 
the  remarks  he  mji  de  to  the  ."'ourt  this  morning),  will  any 
one,  I  trust,  suppose  that  my  respect  and  affection  for 
him,  which  originated  long  ago,  and  has  grown  through 
thirty  years  of  most  intimate  and  personal  relationship 
and  friendship,  has  at  all  abated.  I  do  not  say  it  in  the 
vein  of  compliment,  but  I  have  always  regarded  him  as 
one  of  the  proudest  exemplars  of  our  profession,  and  in 
all  the  intercourse  between  us— what- is  somewhat  re- 
markable, I  think,  for  we  have  been  engaged  in  opposi- 
tion upon  exciting  questions  which  have  moved  the 
sternest  and  most  irritable  feelings  of  the  commimity— 
never  in  the  ardor  of  professional  debate  and  contest  has 
there  passed  between  us  a  ruffle  or  a  word  of  unldnduess. 
I  have  none  for  him  now,  and  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say,  though  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  indulg- 
ing very  much  in  compliments,  that  there  is  no 
gentleman  in  professional  or  in  social  life  to  wliom  my 
judgment,  my  intellect,  and  my  heart  tend  and  bound 
with  a  more  affectionate  respect  and  love.  I  have  been 
compelled,  in  the  discharge  of  my  duty  in  this  case,  to 
speak  of  him  in  terms  of,  I  trust  moderate  reprehension. 
I  believe  he  has  made  an  imworthy  assault  upon  the 
character  of  my  client  and  the  character  of  witnesses 
whom  I  am  bound  to  maintain  and  protect.  I  have  done 
ilt  in  kindness,  but  I  have  done  it  as  I  am  accustomed  to 


do,  in  plainness.  If  my  learned  friend  can  recoucile  to 
his  own  sense  of  professional  duty,  to  that  sense  of  the 
decorum  which  is  due  to  parties,  witnesses  and  adver- 
saries in  a  court  of  justice,  the  violent  assault  he  has 
made  upon  the  plaintiff  and  witnesses  here,  why,  I  cer- 
tainly shall  be  rejoiced  at  his  self-complacency.  I  do  not 
imagine— I  do  not  imagine,  that  he  wiU  justify  to  himself 
the  virulence  of  the  epithets  he  has  bestowed  upon  man 
and  woman  in  the  course  of  this  debate.  Epithets  do  not 
kill,  gentlemen.  Denunciation  does  not  destroy.  Vilili- 
eation  and  vituperation  are  not  argument ;  and 
when  I  have  exposed  to  you  the  errors  into  which  my 
learned  friend  has  fallen,  and  the  rank  injustice  he  ha8 
committed,  I  trust  it  will  lead  you  and  his  Honor  to  re- 
flect with  something  of  care  upon  the  argument  he  has 
submitted.  [Applause.] 

MR.  EVARTS'S  ARGUMENT  CONSIDERED. 

I,  of  course,  cannot  pass  the  elaborate, 
learned,  moralizing,  extended  address  of  my  friend  Mr. 
Evarts.  In  the  cast  of  characters  in  this  social  traged> , 
to  him  has  been  assigned  what  I  believe  they  call  the 
"  heavy"  part  of  the  performance.  [Laughter.]  My  friend 
Porter  was  to  do  the  denunciation  ;  he  was  to  dispose  of 
the  plaintiff  and  the  witnesses  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff, 
by  vilification  and  abuse  ;  and  my  friend  Evarts,  by  a 
system  of  moral  reflection,  by  the  promu.lgatio  j.  of  doc- 
trines of  morality  in  which  I  cannot  concur,  and  against 
which  I  shall  contend,  by  a  long  and  labored  application 
of  that  wonderful  power  of  language  and  rhetoric  pos- 
sessed by  that  gentleman,  has  attempted  to  control  the 
minds  and  judgments  of  this  jury  by  leading  you  fi'om  a 
fair  and  just  consideration  of  the  evidence  in  this  case,  of 
the  facts  upon  which  your  judgment  should  be  founded. 
He  has  endeavored  to  change  the  attitude  of  the  parties 
in  this  case,  to  turn  Mr.  Tilton  into  a  defendant,  to 
change  the  range  of  accusation  and  defense— sometimes 
a  skillful  mode  of  actual  as  well  as  argumentative  war- 
fare—to put  Mr.  Tilton  upon  his  defense,  and  Mr.  Moul- 
ton  and  Mrs.  Moulton  upon  their  defense,  and  then  he 
calls  upon  us  to  exc.dpate  ourselves  from  the  indict- 
ment which  he  presents,  instead  of  defending  Mr. 
Beecher  from  the  accusations  under  which  he  rests. 

THE  CASE  NO  ANOMALY. 
Now,  T  must  answer  the  best  way  I  can  the 
various  propositions  of  those  learned  gentlemen.  And 
the  first  is,  if  it  please  your  Honor,  that  this  action  is  an 
anomaly  m  the  judicature  of  this  State ;  that  it  never  had 
any  respectability,  and  in  a  court  of  law  one  oi"  the  lead- 
ing lawyers  of  our  State  has  the  boldness  to  say  to  a  court 
and  jury  that  a  right  of  action,  given  by  the  law,  com- 
mended by  the  law,  and  practiced  in  the  Ijivv,  is  an 
anomaly  and  disreputable.  There  is  no  right  of  action 
which  the  wisdom  and  the  justice  of  the  law  gives  to  an 
injured  citizen  wlilch  is  an  anomaly  in  a  court  of  justice 


SUMMiyG    UP  . 

or  disreputable  to  the  raau  who  presents  it.  It  is  a  re- 
fiection  and  a  slander  upon  the  wisdom  and  the  policy 
and  the  justice  of  law  and  societj.  No  man  is  to  be 
torned  from  a  court  of  justice  coming  in  search  of  justice 
under  the  authority  of  the  law,  bearing  with  him  its  ele- 
ments of  justice  and  its  power  of  redress.  Why,  think  of 
it,  gentlemen.  You  are  asked  to  discredit  this  action;  to 
confound  Mr.  TUton;  to  impute  to  him  l^aseness 
and  dishonor  because  he  resorts  to  the  law  for 
the  redress  of  an  alleged  grievance,  and  this 
is  presented  and  urged  by  those  who  affect  to  be  the 
leaders  of  the  profession.  What  shall  one  do  who  is  as- 
sailed in  his  dearest  interests  1  What  shall  be  done  to 
one  who  has  invaded  the  saoredness  of  the  family  rela- 
tioii,  of  that  relation  so  highly  and  beautifully  extolled 
by  the  learned  gentleman  who  pronounces  the  plaintiff 
infamous  to  produce  such  a  case  in  a  court  of  justice  ?  If 
It  be  true  that,  under  the  exasperating  and  aggravated 
circumstances  of  this  case,  Mi".  Beecher  did  invade  the 
liome  of  Theodore  Tilton  and  assail  the  chastity  and 
virtue  of  his  wife— if  all  the  deplorable  consequences 
which  have  followed  are  atti'ibutable  to  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  in  the  name  of  that  law  and  justice  which  you 
revere,  and  which  you  are  bound  to  admiuister,  what 
shall  be  done  to  him  1  Does  he  deserve  no  punishment  ? 
Is  there  no  redress  for  personal  dishonor,  and  for  personal 
and  long-lifed  sorrow  1  In  the  scheme  of  our  jimspru- 
dence  Is  there  no  punishment  for  the  seducer  ?  "  None," 
says  the  gentleman,  "  You  are  disreputable  if  you 
eome  into  a  court  of  justice  asserting  either  yoiir  own 
wrongs  and  rights,  or  indulging  any  vindictive 
spirit  of  revenge  toward  the  seducer."  Whv, 
gentlemen,  the  wisdom  of  our  law-givers,  the  policy 
of  oui'  social  relations,  gives  no  criminal  punishment  for 
seduction.  The  libertine  may  roam  through  your  homes 
and  families.  The  virrue  of  a  wife  and  daughter  may 
fall  before  his  arts— specious,  plausible,  effective.  The 
policy  of  family  and  its  protection  may  be  subverted. 
The  rest,  the  peace,  the  tranquillity,  the  virtue  of  family 
and  home  may  be  dissevered  and  broken  up  and  depraved, 
and  yet  our  law  affords  no  punishment  to  the  wrong- 
doer. There  is  no  way  of  vindication  or  of  punishment. 
This  institution  of  family  and  home  is  upheld  by  none  of 
the  crimmal  iustice  of  the  law.  What  is  to  be  done  ?  Why, 
it  has  followed  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  its  omission, 
as  I  think,  of  the  law — it  has  followed  as  a  neces- 
sary consequence  that  the  common  sense  of  mankind, 
and  the  common  sense  of  the  jury  box,  has  pro- 
tected and  shielded  husband  or  parent  who  has 
taken  vengeance  in  his  own  hands,  and  has  disregarded 
that  injunction  of  the  great  Law-giver:  "Vengeance  is 
mine;  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord."  When  has  there 
been  a  convlctioa  of  husband  or  parent  who  has  taken  in 
his  own  hand  the  awful  sense  and  act  of  judgment  and 
sent  the  seducer  to  his  last  and  long  account  1  And  you 
Are  asked,  when  a  husl)and  outraged,  wlipn  a  family 


y  ME.  BEACH.  841 

broken  and  dissevered,  when  children  blighted  and  dis- 
honored, when  the  family  institution  is  tainted  and  de- 
graded, and  the  husband,  head  and  representative  of  all, 
comes  into  a  court  of  law,  by  the  only  path  open  by  the 
law,  and  asks  his  fellow-men  to  strengthen  hi? 
morality,  his  religion,  his  sense  of  justice,  and 
to  stay  his  arm  from  vindictive  punishment, 
you  are  told  he  is  a  degraded  seekcL'  after  pelr, 
a  mercenary  and  selfish  litigant  for  gold , 
that  he  is  an  anomaly  in  a  court  of  Iustice ;  that  he  is 
disreputable  before  the  world,  Y'ou  may  adopc  this 
reasoning;  you  may  approve  that  seu?e  of  justice  which 
applauds  the  man  who  slays  the  invader  of  his  hono» 
and  his  home.  It  is  not  the  spirit  of  the  law.  In  a  gov- 
ernment of  laws  it  is  your  duty  to  teach  obedience  to  the 
law;  it  is  the  duty  of  tins  jury,  upon  this  occasion,  !o 
inculcate  a  sentiment  which  shall  uphold  wir  system  of 
laws,  however  defective  or  faulty  it  may  be.  You  m.ny, 
in  the  impulses  of  your  own  nature,  in  tliose  deep  and 
ii-repressible  emotions  which  stir  the  Imman  ti-.^me 
when  its  holiest  and  dearest  affections  and  hopes 
are  assailed— you  may  say  that  this  Christian 
forbearance,  that  this  steeling  of  tlie  heart  to 
endurance,  that  this  acceptance  of  contrition  ann 
remorse  in  the  indulgence  of  the  highest  love  and  the 
holiest  pity,  you  may  say  it  is  contemptible  ;  and  such,  in 
the  ways  of  the  world,  in  the  habits  of  society,  where  the 
wayward  passions  of  men  play  loose  and  revel  in  crime 
and  blood,  This  will  be  said,  and  has  been  said,  and  my 
client  sits  here  to-day  under  popular  condemnation  be- 
cause he  was  bold  and  bi-ave— aye,  and  I  say  Christian 
enough  to  forgive.  I  will  try  and  find  by  and  b\' the 
motives  which  lead  to  that  act,  I  will  try  and  see  by 
and  by  whether  there  is  anj  thing  in  the  character  of  this 
offender  which  justifies  this  indulgence  towards  an  eiring 
and  faulty  wife  and  a  hoary-headed  seducer.  [Applause,] 
And  I  hope  to  satisfy  you  from  the  evidence  that  Theodore 
Tilton,  instead  of  being  hounded  from  a  court  of  justice, 
libeled  and  calumniated  before  his  fellow-men,  is  entitled 
to  that  approbation  which  Christianity,  religion  and  mo- 
rality ascribes  to  him  who  governs  liis  passions,  and  sub- 
mits to  the  law  of  God  and  the  law  of  earth.  And  that 
man,  when  he  comes  in  the  ordinary  way  of  justice, 
under  circumstances  of  provocation  and  necessity  which 
justify  the  appeal,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  conse- 
quences, no  matter  who  may  be  trampled  upon,  in  the 
course  of  strict  and  stern  justice,  that  man  is  entitled  to 
your  applause  rather  than  vour  disapproval. 

HOW  CHARACTER  .SHOULD  BE  CONSIDERED 
IN  THE  CASE. 

But  my  leai  iied  friend  says  tliis  is  a  miracu- 
lous seduction,  and  herein  lies  the  germ,  the  kernel  of  the 
defense  in  this  case.  Now,  I  have  no  objection,  gentle- 
nieu,  I  tin*!  n.>  fault  with  tlie  extrava.,Mnt  L-i.  ririciition  of 


842 


TMJS    T1LT0:N~BEK(]HEE  TUIAL. 


Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beeclier  by  Lis  counsel.  Aside  from 
this,  question,  aside  from  wliat  I  think  I  can  show  lias 
t>een  his  conduct  in  the  matter  under  investigation,  they 
have  no  higlier  adiuiration  for  this  defendant  than  my- 
self ;  tbey  have  no  better  appreciation  of  his  great  and 
commending  ipialities  than  myself,  and  they  have  no 
more  readiness  iu  according  to  their  client  than  I  have 
the  meed  of  approbation  and  reverence.  But  when  from 
all  that  they  derive  a  principle:  when  upon  that  they 
erect  a  proposition,  either  of  fact  or  morally,  that  it  was 
impossible  for  Henry  Ward  Beecher  not  to  sin,  I  differ  with 
their  conclusion.  The  argument  prevailmg  through  all 
the  addresses  of  my  learned  friend  is:  "Why,  Mr. 
Beecher  is  a  good  man ;  he  has  been  a  serviceable  man  to 
the  world;  he  has  been  a  great  preacher,  a  great  author, 
and  distiijgi-'ished  in  the  lyceum  and  upon  the  platfor 
rendered  great  service  to  the  world;  he  is  a  great  man, 
and,  therefore,"  says  my  friend,  Mr.  Evai  ts,  "  it  is  im- 
possi ]jle  that  he  should  have  committed  this  offense.  It 
is  against  tlie  law  of  his  nature ;  it  is  against  all  the  im- 
pulses of  his  being ;  it  is  against  all  the  traiuiag  and  the 
discipline  of  his  life;  he  cannot  have  been  guilty ;  it  is  a 
miracle;  it  is  a  miracle  if  he  was  guilty;  and  you,  gen- 
tlemen, on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff.why  you  mnst  produce 
Butficieut  evidence  to  convince  the  i dry  that  a  miracle 
has  happened  iu  our  midst."  Well,  what  is  this  teach- 
ing, gentlemen?  Is  all  our  experience  of  life  to  be  dis- 
regarded? Are  we  to  have  a  new  version  of  the  Scriptures  ? 
Are  we  to  have  new  teachings  in  regard  to  the  nature 
and  the  fall  of  man  ?  Are  we  to  be  told  that  there  is  no 
sin  among  the  apparently  pure  and  great  l  That  there  is 
no  hypocrisy  in  the  world  ?  That  there  is  nobody  who 
steals  the  livery  of  heaven  to  serve  the  devil  in?  Is  that 
our  observation  of  the  world?  I  know  Mr,  Beecher  does 
not  believe  in  original  sin,  I  think ;  I  am  sure  he  does  not 
believe  in  total  depravity  ;  but  what  becomes,  under  this 
doctrine  of  Mr.  Evarts,  of  the  teachings  of  Scripture  that 
we  are  utterly  depraved,  that  none  of  us  are  good,  no  not 
one  ?  that  the  heart  is  deceiti'ul  aTio\'e  iill  things,  and 
desperately  wicked  ?  What  becomes  of  this  theory  of  the 
depravity  of  human  nature?  Was  there  a  fall,  and 
in  the  •  sin  of  Adam  did  ajl  men  sin  ?  Is 
it  the  teaching  of  inspiration  that  human 
nature  is  depraved,  dc( jeitiul  and  desperate  ? 
And  what  becomes  of  tbe  Atuuam-ut,  if  not  so?  ^Tiat 
necessity  was  there  for  the  suffering  of  a  God?  What 
becomes  of  the  asonj^  of  Gethsemane,  and  of  Calvary  ? 
Where  was  the  necessity  that  a  God  should  descend  and 
die  to  redeem  the  sms  of  humanity  ?  AU  this  is  to  be 
rewritten  if  it  is  a  miracle  that  good  men  apparently 
should  sin  with  all  this  leaven  of  unrighteousness,  with 
all  these  wicked  and  sinful  tendencies  of  the  nature, 
■when  it  requires  the  constant  guardianship  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  hold  the  redeemed  heart  true  to  its  faith  and 
professions  iu  it'  life.  If  these  things  are  true,  what  be- 
cnrnes  of  tbe  Uo,.trines  uf  my  learned  friend,  who  stands 


before  you  and  in  the  presence  of  direct  proof,  in  the 
presence  of  confessions  and  conferences  whicli 
could  only  be  produced  by  the  consciousness 
of  most  deep "  depravity,  who  yet  says  that 
this  man  is  pure  and  saintly  and  God-like,  and  that  never 
in  his  whole  life  has  his  gai*ment  been  stained  by  the 
smell  or  spot  of  sin  ?  Well,  gentlemen,  this  has  been  the 
theme  upon  which  the  most  pathetic  eloquence  and  the 
highest  utterances  of  the  greatest  oratory  have  been  dis- 
played for  thirteen  days  before  this  Jtiry  and  the  world. 
It  is  the  only  impressive,  stirt-ing,  moving  argument 
which  has  been  addressed  in  so  many  forms,  with  such 
powerful  ingenuity  by  my  learned  adversaries. 

I  deny  the  proposition.  Great  and  good  as  Mr.  Beecher 
may  have  been,  he  is  yet,  in  the  eye  of  God  and  in  the 
eye  of  men,  a  fallible  sinner.  There  is  no  one  perfect,  no, 
not  one.  I  know  the  value  of  character.  In  this  land  of 
om^s,  where  character  is  so  valuable  and  so  efficient, 
where,  aided  aloue  hj  a  good  character  and  an  honest 
life,  the  humblest  of  us  may  aspire  to  the  highest  honors 
of  society  said  State— I  know  the  value  of  character,  and 
esteem  it  properly,  and  give  it  its  due  weight.  I  don't 
know,  gentlemen,  but  I  may  say,  so  far  as  my  own  judg- 
ments and  convictions  are  concerned,  that  if  this  case 
depended  upon  oral  evidence  alone,  leaving  out  at 
least  one  witness,  Mrs.  Moulton,  tliat  I  would 
hesitate  long  before,  against  the  oath  and  charac- 
ter and  the  position  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  I  would  be- 
lieve this  offense,  although  imputed  to  him  by  men  who 
I  beiieve  to  be  as  honest  and  as  honorable  as  any  two 
who  have  ever  adorned  either  the  ranks  of  learning  oi" 
that  business  position  so  highly  extolled  by  ruy  learned 
friends.  [Applause.]  I  give  great  value  to  character,  I 
reverence  character,  and  specially  if  it  is  that  holy  chai^ 
acter  animated  by  sincere  piety,  by  worship  of  that  God 
whom,  if  I  do  not  adore  in  a  Christian  spirit,  I  yet  rev- 
erence and  fear ;  that  character  which,  under  such  im- 
pulses aud  with  such  devotion,  is  given  to  the  interests  of 
religion  and  of  men,  and  I  will  not  assail  it  lightly.  1 
will  not  be  the  organ  of  light  assault  upon  such  a  char- 
acter; but  when  it  forces  me  into  a  court  of  justice, 
challenges  investigation,  claims  entire  purity  and  excel- 
leuce;  when  it  seeks  to  overturn  the  reputations  of  men, 
if  not  as  holy,  yet  as  exemplary  as  himself,  reputa- 
tions as  dear  to  them  as  his  is  to  himself,  thea  I  ex- 
araiue  that  character  fearlessly,  and  I  shall  talk  of  it  as, 
iu  my  .i  udgment,  the  evidence  shall  justify.   [Applau  se. ] 

Judge  Neil  son— Officer  Rogers,  you  instruct  your  officer 
ui>  stairs  to  exact  from  the  people  in  the  gallery-  a 
promise  to  keep  silence,  otherwise  the  gallery  will  be 
closed.  I  am  quite  ashamed  of  the  gentlemen  on  this 
floor,  and  of  being  compelled  to  say  to  them  that  this 
applause  is  disrespectful  to  the  Court  and  disrespectful 
to  you.  Think  of  it  a  moment— if  it  had  been  any  single 
man  or  some  one  in  this  court  that  disturbed  a  speaker 
and  an  auditory  by  demonstrations  of  apidause  !   I  could 


SUjUlIXG    CP  Ul'  MU.  BEACH. 


84^ 


not 'beiieTe  it  but  for  tliis  c-xliibition.    [To  tiie  juiors.j 
Crentlemen.  return  at  2  o'clock. 
The  Court  tiien  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock, 

OUTSIDE   OPmOXS   OX  THE  CASE. 
The  Coiut  met  at  2  p,  lu.,  pursuant  to  ad- 

jourioneut. 

Mr.  Beach — :Mr.  Poiter  quoted  the  opraion  of  a  gentle- 
roan  of  very  considerable  prominence,  both  in  the  profes- 
sion to  -vrhich  Tve  belong  and  in  the  world  of  letters— Mr. 
Eartlett— and  declared  that  when  the  first  reTelations  of 
this  matter  became  public  Mr.  Bartlett  expressed  a  spon- 
taneous and  decided  opinion  that  it  was  a  case  of  black- 
mail. Whether  this  opinion  was  expressed  to  my  friend 
Mr.  Porter,  or  came  tK)  him  second  hand,  I  do  not  know. 
And  my  fiiend  indulged  the  expression  of  gxeat  regret 
that  a  gentleman  of  the  ability  and  renowTi  of  Mr.  Bart- 
lett was  prevented  by  other  engagements  fi-om  under 
taking  the  cause  of  this  defense.  I  certainly  am  not  in- 
clined to  detract  anythlngfrom  the  high  enconiimi  passed 
upon  Mr.  Bartlett;  it  is  undoubtedly  deserved.  But  >Ir. 
Bartlett,  in  addition  to  his  professional  labors,  is  in  a 
very  important  degree  connected  with  a  leading  news- 
paper institution  of  the  City  of  Xew-York,  and  the  refer- 
ence of  my  triend  Mr.  Porter  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Bart- 
lett. connected  with  the  fact  of  that  association,  justifies 
me,  I  think,  in  repeating  what  I  suppose  may  be  possibly 
an  expression  of  sentiment  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Bartlett, 
or  the  paper  with  which  he  is  so  intimately  connected, 
upon  the  particular  siibjeet  which  is  now  under  discus- 
sion. I  may  remark,  however,  that  of  whatever  value 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  Bartlett  may  have  been  In  the  early 
stages  of  this  coiatroversy,  and  however  clearly  he  may 
ha\-e  formed  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  this 
was  an  arrant  case  of  blackmail,  it  would 
be  difficult  for  him  or  any  other  gentleman  to  maintain 
that  conclusion  in  the  face  of  the  very  clear  and  decided 
evidence  given  upon  that  subject  by  Mr.  Beecher,  But 
speaking  upon  this  subject  of  prestimptlon  of  innocence, 
arising  fi-om  a  previous  good,  superficial  character,  with- 
out any  power— for  we  cannot  see  the  heart ;  we  cannot 
search  the  secret  recesses  of  human  nature ;  we  cannot 
explore  all  the  mysteries  of  personal  life ;  we  but  see  the 
superficial  character  in  the  public  acts  of  men ;  and,  it  is 
true,  from  those  developments  we  may,  with  reasonable 
safety,  form  a  conclusion  in  regard  to  their  essential 
merits.  But  yet  judgments  are  deceptive.  They  give  us 
no  clear  and  satisfactory  clew  to  the  true  In- 
wardness of  a  man.  We  do  not  get  at 
the  bottom  facts.  We  have  to  judge,  as 
well  as  we  can,  from  the  ordinary  manifestations  of  a 
man's  life,  unable  to  trace  his  aets  to  their  motives,  which 
mii.y  be  exculpatory,  or  condemning,  with  m>ne  of  that 
Tit) erring  infaUibility  with  which  we  are  each  to  be  judged 
hereafter ;  and  we  cannot  well  say  of  any  man,  even 
With  whom  we  are  personally  acquainted,  however  esti- 


mable may  be  ail  his  characteristics  an.'',  associations  and 
api>aronT  acts — ^we  cannot  after  all  say  to  him,  or  of  Mm, 
that  he  is  a  faultless  human  beia^ ;  and  the  error  of  this 
argumeHt  founded  u^on  a  mischievous  moral  proposition 
of  Mr.  Evarts  is  that  it  is  contrLidicted,  not  only  by  the 
teachings  of  iaspiration.  but  by  the  revelations  of  our 
daUy  lives;  and  it  is  well  expressed  and  exposed  in  a 
paragraph  or  two  which  I  adopt,  and  which  I  suppose 
Mr.  Bartlett,  if  he  had  had  the  happiness,  and  my  friend 
the  gratifleation  of  an  association  with  this  defense, 
woiiiil  have  very  readily  expressed  upon  the  trial : 

One  of  the  principal  arguments  in  behalf  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  innocence  is  his  alleged  incapableness  of  the 
crime  charged  upon  him. 

Incapableness  :  If  I  had  not  seen  that  as  coming  from 
3Ir.  Bartlett  or  The  Sim,  I  should  have  thought  it  was  a 
Beecherism,  [Xaughter,] 

His  counsel  in  the  court-room  and  his  friends  out  of  It 
are  never  weary  of  dwelling  up^  n  the  impossibility  of 
his  having  done  what  Mr.  Tilton  says  he  has  done.  The 
incident  of  his  lone  and  successfial  public  career,  his  lit- 
erary and  oratorical  achievements,  and  his  services  to 
the  Church,  the  nation,  and  to  humanitv  in  general,  are 
reeoimted  and  appealed  to  as  proofs  that  he  could  never 
have  yielded  to  temptation  and  fallen  into  sin.  In  a 
word,  the  effort  is  made  to  take  him  out  of  the  common 
categoj-y  of  the  human  race  and  place  him  by  the  side  of 
One  who  assuruedthe  weaknesses  of  our  nature  only  to 
resist  and  trittmph  over  them. 

If  there  is  anything  plainly  revealed  in  both  the  Old 
andtheXew  Testaments  it  is  that  all  men  are  more  or 
less  prone  to  all  crimes.  The  very  first  man  and  first 
woman  introduced  to  our  acquaintance  are  described  as 
guilty  of  ingratitude,  disobedience,  and  lying.  Their 
first-born  son  mmdered  his  brother,  and  their  posterity, 
in  a  few  centuries,  became  so  corrupt  that  they  were  all 
but  e5:teiTiiinat-ftd  by  their  Creator  off  the  face  of  the 
earth.  The  survivors  and  their  descendants  kept  on  in 
the  same  career,  and  their  history,  down  to  the  very 
latest  period,  is  one  long  tale  of  depra%  ity.  Drunkenness, 
treachery,  cmelty,  murder,  theft,  adultery,  incest,  and 
every  kind  of  wickeilaess  that  can  be  imagined  are 
charged  upon  them  with  pinless  precision  of  detaiL 
Abraham  repeatedly  showed  himself  capable  of 
cowardice  and  lying,  Jacob  cheated  his  father 
and  robbed  his  brother  of  his  birthright.  Joseph's 
brethren  only  refrained  from  murdering  him  that 
they  might  sell  him  into  slavery.  The  Hebrews  that  came 
out  of  Egypt  were  so  rebellious  and  ungrateful  that  they 
were  denied  entrance  into  the  Land  of  Canaan,  and  their 
childi-en  were  constantly  engaged  in  quarrels  and  civU 
wars  among  themselves.  David  committed  adultery  fii'st 
and  mm'der  afterward,  Solomon  was  a  voluptuary  and 
an  idolator.  The  records  of  the  kings  of  both  Israel  and 
Judah  show  them  to  have  been  almost  without  exemption 
cruel,  revengeful,  and  brutal  in  their  passions,  and  their 
subjects  apt  imitators  of  them,  <kc. 

ZSTor  are  the  early  Christians  represented  in  any  better 
light.  The  rival  factions  among  them  came,  at  times,  al- 
most to  blows.  The  converts  from  among  both  j-?--;  r^nd 
heathen  are  charged  by  the  apostles  with  aU  manner  of 
vices,  and  the  annals  of  the  Church  ever  since  have  been 
stained  with  lust,  bloodshed,  and  violence  on  the  part  of 
some  of  her  most  conspicuotis  servants.  It  is  no  wonder 
that  all  classes  of  theologians  agree  in  substance  with  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Eaith,  thut  we  ali  iulkerit  a 


844 


TUJ£   TILTON-BEECHEE  TRIAL. 


corrupt  iiatute  [quoting  the  coufessionj,  "wliereby  we 
are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil."  This  is  the  doc- 
trine of  all  orthodox  denominations,  and  even  infidels 
and  skeptics  sorrow/ully  admit  it  to  be  a  fact  which  they 
cannot  gainsay.  Yet  iu  the  face  of  all  this  testimony, 
and  their  own  professed  creed,  Plymouth  Church  and  its 
allies  ask  us  to  declare  on  the  evidence  of  a  merely  super- 
ficial character  and  reputation,  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
is  intrinsically  incapable  of  adultery  and  perjury  I 

What  makv-s  this  demand  the  more  absiu'd  is  that  Mr. 
Beecher's  career  hithjerto  is  very  far  from  raismg.  as  is 
claimed,  the  presumption  that  he  is  so  different  from 
m-n  in  general  as  to  be  unlike  them  in  ability  to  commit 
a  sin.  He  has  never  been  conspicuous  for  self-denial  and 
asceticism.  On  the  contrary,  he  has  consistently  prac- 
ticed as  he  has  preached- the  enjoyment  of  the  pleasures 
of  the  senses.  He  is  a  good  eater  and  drinker,  fond  of 
pictures,  music  and  poetry,  a  keen  admirer  of  horseflesh 
and  of  Alexander  Dumas,  and  last,  but  not  least,  an  epi- 
cui'e  m  kisses.  LLau-  hter.J  Not  one  word  in  his  sermons 
or  his  writings  reveals  auj^hingin  liis  character  opposed  to 
the  full  and  free  gratification  of  the  appetites  of  the  flesh ; 
and  every  lineament  of  his  features  declares  him  to  possess 
thos»  at)petites  in  a  marked  degree.  To  try  and  exalt  such 
a  man  into  a  saint  who  has  trampled  nnder  foot  the  inher- 
ited evils  of  human  nature,  and  particularly  to  claim  for 
him  an. exemption  fi-om  human  infirmity  which  is  the 
peculiar  grace  of  the  Savior  of  Mankind,  is  an  insult  alike 
to  religion  and  to  common  sense.  The  case  never  can  be 
settled  by  such  an  argument. 

So  much  for  Mr.  Bartlett,  who  is  a  very  high  authority 
in  the  estimation  of  my  learned  friend. 

Mr.  Porter-Do  you  say  Mr.  Bartlett  wrot«  that  1 

Mr.  Beach-I  say  Mr.  Bartlett  is  associated  with  The 
Sun,  in  which  this  article  appears^  and  makes  constant 
communications,  and  some  of  the  most  able  communica- 
tions appearing  in  the  columns  of  that  paper. 

exajviples  of  cleeical  depravity. 

But  let  us  come  to  a  few  more  definite  and 
explicit  instances  of  this  fallibility  of  human  natui-e,  as 
It  exists  in  the  pulpit  and  among  religionists. 

The  Rev.  Joy  H.  Fairchild,  a  leading  Congregational 
pastor  in  Boston,  after  honorable  service  iu  the  pulpit  for 
many  years,  became  involved  in  some  difficulties  with  his 
congregati(m  in  consequence  of  his  intercourse  with  its 
female  communicants.  He  left  Boston  and  was  settled 
at  Exeter,  probably  in  consequence  of  these  rumors,  and 
which  followed  him  to  that  place.  Pie  was  accused  of 
seduction,  and  on  trial  before  a  council  a  letter  was  read 
to  the  council  in  which  Mr,  Fairchild  admitted  that  he 
had  bound  the  girl  by  a  solemn  oath  to  deny 
that  she  ever  knew  him.  The  Council  were  inclined  and 
did  give  Mr.  Fairchild  the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  and  he 
was  not  convicted.  He  afterward  attempted  to  preach 
in  Ecston,  but  met  with  no  success,  was  there  openly 
charged  by  a  paper  with  the  crime,  the  offense  of  adul- 
tery, and  he  brought  an  action  of  libel  against  the  pub- 
lisher, and  was  defeated,  on  a  full  trial  of  all  the  circum- 
stances, upon  a  justification  of  the  alleged  libel,  and  upon 


the  proofs,  with  some  additions,  substantially  which  were 
presented  to  the  council  of  his  brethren,  and  who,  as  the 
report  says,  gave  him  the  benefit  of  theii-  doubts. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Fay,  who  was  a  pastor  of  the  first  church 
in  Charlestown,  near  Boston,  and  whom,  the  gentleman 
who  gives  me  these  minutes  states,  stood  as  eminent  and 
as  popular  in  Boston  as  Dr.  Storrs  in  Brooklyn— that  Mr. 
Beecher  never  stood  higher  iu  the  estimation,  even  of 
his  devoted  adherents  in  this  city,  than  did  this  gentle- 
man in  his  pastorate.  After  a  settlement  of  2.5  years, 
attended  with  great  popularity  and  with  gxeat  eflScacy 
in  the  effect  of  his  preaching,  rumors  of  adultery  and 
fornication  began  to  circulate,  and  he  denied  the  charge, 
and  took  an  oath  that  he  was  innocent.  He  was  arraigned 
and  put  on  trial,  and  he  was  so-  beloved  and  so  popular, 
the  case  at  the  time  attracted  such  intense  interest, 
that  all  the  prominent  citizens  of  all  the  professions 
became  involved  in  the  examination— the  Attorney- 
General  of  the  State— all  the  dignitaries  of  the  State. 
The  trial  was  protracted  long,  but  no  proof  of  the  diiect 
act  was  adduced,  no  proof  of  any  confession.  The  evi- 
dence depended  entirely  upon  rumors  and  slight  cir- 
cumstances, and  it  was  thought  insuflBcient  to  justify  a 
verdict  of  guilty;  and  a  committee  was  appointed  to 
bring  in  the  result  of  the  determination  of  the  church 
judicatory,  and  this  committee,  through  their  clerk,  who 
was  a  friend  of  Mr.  Fay,  as  he  was  awaiting  the  result  of 
the  deliberations  of  his  judges,  sent  that  clerk  to  Mr.  Fay 
with  the  direct  information  that  the  judgment  was  to  be 
favorable  to  him;  and  the  committee   determined  to 
recommend  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  and  they  did  so ;  l)ut 
in  their  report,  and  in  the  judgment  which  they  recom- 
mended for  adoption,  it  WHS  stated  that  the  Court  had 
examined  all   the  rumors    and  charges.    Well,  there 
were  conscientious  men  upon  the  tribunal,  and  one  of 
them  says,  "  I  cannot  sign  that  report    All  the  rumors 
and  charges  made  against  the  accused  have  not  been  ex- 
amined ;"  and  he  named  one.   "  Let  us  make  a  clear 
case,"  said  another.  "  Let  us  adjourn  and  have  this  speci- 
fication examined  and  looked  to,  and  then  we  can  consci- 
entiously sign  this  proposed  result."  Well,  Mr.  Fay  was 
then  notified  of  the  new  turn  which  the  thing  had  taken, 
and  he  sent  for  the  clerk  and  told  him  to  inform  the 
brethren  not  to  adjourn,  that  he  had  a  communication  to 
make ;  and  in  15  minutes  he  sent  tor  the  clerk  again  and 
handed  to  him  a  written  and  a  full  confession  of  the 
charge    that    was    made    against    him.    The  new 
matter,    it    turned    out,    which  Dr.    Hooker,  who 
dissented    from    signing    the    report    first  brougJit 
in  by  the  Commi,ttee,  would  have  disclosed  not  only  iiis 
turj»itude  but  would  have  exposed  him  to  a  criminal  in- 
dictment ;  and  he  had  heard  the  declaration  of  the  Attor- 
ney-General of  the  State  that  if  the  evidence  justified  it, 
before  the  church  judicatory,  he  would  see  that  he  waa 
indicted  by  the  State.   And  upon  that  confession,  under 
these  circumstances,  this  emiueut  divine,  justly  cele- 


SrJLMlXG    UP  BY  ME.  BEACH, 


«45 


ftrated  aiid  lielored— I  repeat  again,  as  poinilar  and 
cheristied  as  Henry  WardBeeclier,  and  ^tli  a  reputation, 
prior  to  this  circumstanee,  stainless,  and  ^vlio  had  taken 
oath  to  his  innocence  upon  his  own  confession,  after- 
5vard  rendered  under  these  circumstances,  was  deposed 
from  the  ministry. 

Tlif-  Rev.  Mr.  Starshurg,  vrho  was  settled— he  may  he 
within  the  recollection  of  my  learned  brother— who  was 
settled  over  the  First  Presbyterian  Chm-ch  at  Albany, 
with  a  large  congi'egation  of  the  influential  and  tht-  emi- 
nent men  connected  with  the  State  GoveiTiTnent  of  that 
city :  he  was  said  to  be  a  genius,  an  able  and  an  elo- 
(iueiit  preacher,  apparently  exemplary  in  all  the  rela- 
tions of  life,  and  it  is  said  bj'  my  informant  that  he  led 
the  cong^-egatiou's  and  the  public  sentiment,  to  adopt 
the  language  of  my  informant,  "  as  Beecher  and  Tal- 
mage  lead  the  sentiment  and  the  emotions  of  a  Brook- 
lyn audience."  Well,  he  was  accused  of  debauchery,  of 
herdins-  ^vith  negroes,  in  the  indulgence  of  the  lowest  de- 
bauchery. He  was  put  on  trial  and  he  was  deposed,  and 
never  was  his  eloquent  voice  again  heard  in  the  pulpit. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Southard,  the  son  of  the  Senator  Southard 
from  New-Jersey ;  he  was  the  founder  of  the  Calvary 
Protestant  Episcopal  Chui'ch  in  the  City  of  New-York. 
He  was  accused  of  immoralities,  but  as  the  information 
goes,  the  matter  was  hushed  up,  and  he  went  to  Newark 
and  founded  the  House  of  Praver,  but  he  could  not  re- 
main, and  went  South  and  divided  his  time  between  the 
pulpit  and  the  low  dens  of  Southem  cities,  and  he  died 
drunk  In  a  vih-  'ji-ftli-;!  in  New-Orleaus. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Reed  was  settled  at  Mrtlden,  Massachu- 
setts, over  a  Congrezational  Church.  "Well,  you  recollect 
—it  IS  not  needful  nnd  would  scarce! v  be  decorous  for  me 
to  state  the  crim'-s  ATliieh  A-ere  alb^.u^'^d  asaiiist  him  in 
connection  with  tb.- yontiis.  both  male  and  female,  the 
children  of  his  so-  ietv.  He  was  proved  guilty  of  this  dis- 
gusting and  repulsive  vice  -cind  crime,  and  was  deposed. 

'Six.  Charles  Rich  settled  over  a  chm-oh  in  Washiuiiton 
City  where  the  Rev.  Dr.  Sunderland  now  is.  He  took  a 
charge,  just  out  of  Boston,  and  he  was  accused  of  gross  in" 
decencies  and  imxaoralities ;  I  need  not  relate  them :  and 
he,  too,  escaped  the  indignation  of  a  mob  and  became  a 
fugitive.  He  was  deposed  from  the  ministry,  and  died 
upon  I;  farm. 

The  Rev.  ISlx.  Thompson  was  settled  over  a  Presbyte- 
rian church  at  Buffalo,  and  the  Arch  Street  Presbyterian 
Cliurch  at  Philadelphia.  He  was  charged  over  and  over 
again  with  adultery,  was  tried  several  times,  bxit  escaped. 
The  account  says  that  he  suffered,  as  he  must  necessarily 
have  suffered,  from  the  simple  accusation. 

Mr.  Pomeroy,  one  of  the  tnost  eminent  Congregational 
pastors  of  the  East,  was  for  twenty-five  years  the  pastor 
of  a  prominent  church  in  Bangor,  Maine.  He  was  made 
the  Secretary  of  the  American  Board — a  position,  as  you 
know,  of  high  honor  and  trust.  He  was  traced  to  houses 
of  ill  fame  in  Boston,  New-York  and  the  West.   He  denied 


his  guilt  to  the  last,  and  made  the  excuse  that  he  went  to 
these  resort^i  to  persuade  young  women  to  leave  their 
bad  lives.  He  was  charged,  eondenmed,  and  deposed; 
and  his  fate  was  what  you  can  very  well  imagine. 

Avery,  you  remember,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  He  murdered  his  \-ictim,  it  was  charged;  and  he 
met  the  same  fate  as  Fairchild. 

^Iv.  Johnson,  of  The  Evan^jelist,  a  great  reformer  and 
ulti-a  temperajice  man,  and  who  led  that  weli-knowa 
moral  reform  movement  at  one  time  ;  and  you  remember 
that  The  Evangelist  at  the  time  spoken  of  was  the  great 
organ  in  the  countiy  of  reform.  The  account  says : 
"  One  day  an  elder  in  Dr.  Skinner's  church  was  talking 
to  his  pastor  about  religion.  '  It  Is  all  a  >ham,'  he  said 
'  Before  you  talk  to  a  heathen  like  me  you  had  better 
convert  some  of  your  own  ministers.'  *  ^V\iy,  what  do 
you  mean?'  says  the  other.  '  I  mean  that  some  of  your 
most  eminent  pastors  and  editors  can  be  seen  any  night 
in  the  third  row  of  the  theatre,  sitting  with  prostitutes 
in  their  laps.  Go  with  me  to-night  and  I  will  show  you 
one.'  ."  The  pastor  said  he  would  go,  and  they  did  go, 
and  he  was  shown  Mr.  Johnson,  the  pious  editor  of 
The  EvfUHjeJist,  a  great  advocate  of  temperance  and  re- 
form generally,  a  distinguished  Christian— he  showed 
him  in  that  relation.  He  was  tried,  he  confessed,  and  he 
was  deposed. 

Well,  you  remember  the  case  of  Kalloch  of  Boston  (it 
must  bvi  within  your  recollection),  who  at  one  time  ex- 
cited so  much  attention  for  his  distinguished  oratoricaJ 
powers ;  and  you  remember  what  his  history  was.  Well, 
gentlemen,  I  have  a  great  many  instances  of  that  kind, 
furnished  to  me  by  gentlemen  Interested  in  the  subject  of 
this  examination,  giving  instances  of  the  infinnity  and 
the  fall  of  pastors  and  religionists  of  high  standing  in  the 
Chirrch,  and  of  high  reputation  in  the  community.  I  do 
not  care  to  present  them  all. 

You  remember  the  case  of  Dr.  Magoun,  to  whom  mr 
learned  friend  has  often  listened,  as  I  have,  with  gi-eat 
admiration.  He  Is  now  the  present  President  of  the 
Jones  College,  a  Congregational  institution.  He  was 
licentiovis.  He  was  deposed.  But  he  confessed  and  re- 
pented, and  he  was  restored;  and  now  he  is  a  leading 
minister  of  that  congregation. 

Well,  the  case  of  Horace  C.  Taylor,  one  of  the  chiefs  of 
Oberlin— he  was  guilty  of  seduction  ;  he  was  convicted  ; 
he  was  imprisoned  ;  but  he  was  released,  and  he  waa 
restored,  but  he  fell  again. 

I  am  just  now  furnished  with  a  memorandum  to  the 
effect  that  the  Rev.  Richard  Fink  of  Grand  R^pida, 
Mich.,  was  recently  foimd  guilty  of  adultery  with  a 
young  sister  of  the  church,  and  his  resignation  waa 
accepted.  He  was  a  very  popular  young  man,  and  waa 
termed  "  the  Beecher  of  the  West."  He,  however,  like  n 
man,  and  "  Alexander  Hamilton-like,"  as  the  memo- 
randum says,  confessed. 

Well,  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Augusttis  Doolittle  (or  St, 


846 


THJ^   TlLTON-BEECtiMR  TEIAL. 


Clair,  as  lie  cbanged  Ms  name  to),  wlio  did  not  l<.ng  iuain- 
tain  Jiis  connection  with  tlie  Baptist  Ciiuroii  ac  Hoosack 
Falls— I  had  not  looked  through  the  memorandum  when 
I  read  it,  or  I  would  not  have  alluded  to  that.  There  is  a 
little  inforniatiou  upon  this  subject  to  he  derived  from  a 
publication  which  has  undoubtedly  fallen  under  the  ob- 
servation of  my  learned  friends  upon  the  other  side,  by 
the  nev.  Mr.  Fairchild,  the  pastor  of  the  First  Congrega- 
tio.vial  Church,  in  Mausfleld,  Ohio.  I  am  not  proposing  to 
read,  gentlemen,  for  the  purpose  of  argument,  any  part 
of  t]iis  production  of  Mr.  Faii'child.  But  I  refer  to  it 
merely  for  the  puri>ose  of  the  history  which  it  contains 
upon  this  i>articular  subject. 

The  writer  of  these  pages  was  for  seventeen  years  as- 
sociated with  a  minister  in  college  work,  and  for  several 
years  of  that  time  associated  with  him  in  the  pastorate 
of  a  college  cliurch.  He  was  an  earnest  preacher,  and 
especially  gifted  in  prayer.  Three  years  ago  he  was 
accused,  upon  the  testimony  of  a  single  witness,  with 
criminal  intimacy  with  the  wife  of  one  of  the  deiioons  of 
his  church.  Although  at  times  for  years  there  had  been 
hints  of  scandal,  yet  not  one  in  a  hundred  gave  the  least 
credence  to  the  story  the  witness  told.  The  wit- 
ness was  maltreated  and  mobbed.  The  accused  denied  the 
charge  and  asserted  his  innocence  with  the  most  solemn 
asseverations  that  ever  fell  from  human  lips.  The  denials 
and  asseverations  were  repeated  day  after  day,  in  the 
most  solemn  manner,  for  three  weeks,  until,  at  length, 
the  "  horrors  of  hell  got  hold  upon  him ;"  for  he  believed 
m  a  future  judgment  and  future  retribution,  and  he  then 
confessed  that  the  charge  was  true,  declaring  that  noth- 
ing but  the  undoubting  belief  of  an  endless  hell  had  saved 
him  from  suicide,  or  induced  him  to  confess.  For  years 
and  years  this  criminal  intimacy  had  existed,  his  accom- 
plice sitting  before  him  every  Sabbath  and  her  husband, 
aii  unsuspecting,  receiving  from  Ms  hand,  each  two 
months,  the  bread  and  the  cup.  Such  is  the  mystery  of 
ini<iuity.  A  man  may  preach  with  fervor,  and  pray  like 
an  angel,  and  yet  live  like  a  reprobate. 

I  shall  not  read  further  of  its  personal  application  to 
Mr.  Beech  er. 

Well,  gentlemen,  is  not  the  whole  history,  then,  of  man- 
kind adverse  to  this  proposition  of  Mr.  Evarts,  and  is  not 
that  necessarily  an  overthrow  of  all  the  teachings  of  in- 
spiration as  well  as  of  experience  1  Lucifer,  the  great 
archangel,  fell.  Two  of  the  cMef  disciples  of  the  Lord, 
living  under  His  immediate  influence,  exalted  and  re- 
claimed and  controlled  by  His  example  and  the  out- 
pourings of  His  spirit  in  presence— two  of  them  fell  : 
one  denied  the  Master  and  the  other  betrayed  Him.  And 
so,  through  the  long  list  of  examples  proving  the  doctrine 
of  man's  depravity  and  his  proneness  to  sin,  through  all  the 
examples  of  social  life,  proving  that  the  highest,  the  most 
exalted,  and  honored,  are  not  only  subject  to  temptation, 
but  are  too  weak  to  resist  its  attack.  All  the  lessons  from 
wMch  we  can  derive  truth  in  regard  to  our  own  nature 
and  the  nature  of  our  fellows  are  opposed  to  this  uusuund 
and  corrupting  theory.  Why,  you  remejuber  the  case  of 
the  learned  doctor.  Prof .  Wc  j.-j.o:-.  of  Boston.  He  was 
connected  with  a  k-aJiug  inscitution  of  that  city, 
a    proud     rival     of     tiie      universities     of  the 


Oldon  World,  and  he  was  one  of  its  most  leameS 
and  eminent  professors,  exalted  in  the  estimation 
of  the  c;iltured  society  of  Boston.  Tempted  bj^  mer- 
cenary motives  he  murdered  Dr.  Parkman.  He  denied 
his  guilt.  He  was  put  upon  trial,  and  through  the  influ- 
ence of  his  gi-eat  character^  with  all  the  aid  derived  from 
the  host  of  attached  friends  who  gathered  about  Mm 
with  devoted  fidelity,  the  evidence  satisfied  the 
jury  of  his  guilt,  and  he  was  convicted 
and  executed.  And  the  argument  then  was, 
as  it  is  now,  that  "  This  man  so  learned  and  great,  so 
pure  in  all  his  past  life,  so  imbedded  in  the  affections  of 
the  commumty— why,  this  man  could  not  have  committed 
this  great  offense,"  No  eye  saw  the  crime.  No  ear  heard 
the  cry  of  the  murdered  victim.  With  deliberation  and 
theskUlof  an  anatomist  the  body  of  Parkman  was  dis- 
sected and  btirned,  and  it  was  upon  circumstantial  evi- 
dence alone  that  this  high  and  distinguished  character 
yielded  to  the  stern  judgment  of  the  law.  Well,  you  have 
noticed  in  the  papers  but  recently  the  case  of  Palmer, 
egually  eminent  in  religious  circles,  though  a  business 
man;  devoted  to  all  the  ceremonies  and  forms  and  duties 
of  religion,  so  respected  and  popular  that  he  became  the 
trustee  and  depositary  of  the  funds  of  the  widows  and 
orphans  of  that  community,  and  the  tale  comes  to  us  but 
now  that  with  $350,000  of  this  trust  money 
he  absconded,  and  but  a  day  or  two  since 
was  brought  back  by  the  hands  of  the  pidioe. 
Ah !  gentlemen,  need  you  goasfar  as  that  1  How  long  is  it 
since,  in  our  midst,  one  of  our  most  prominent  lawyers, 
the  friend  and  associate  of  the  gentlemen  upon  the  otl^er 
side,  as  well  as  myself;  who  stood  renowned  even  among 
a  noble  au  1  honorable  profession  for  integrity  and  honor 
and  honesty— how  long  is  it  since  he  was  found  to  be  a 
defaulter  and  Ms  head  is  hidden  in  shame  and  disgrace ! 
And  yet  we  are  to  be  told  that  because  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  is  great  and  has  rendered  noble  services  to  the 
cause  of  religion  and  humanity,  because  he  has  been 
cherished  hy  the  reverence  and  the  affection  of  the 
world,  we  are  yet  to  be  told  that  he  is  incapable  of  sin, 
and  when  he  is  accused  and  confronted  by 
criminatory  proof,  that  he  can  yet  stand 
upon  tMs  miserable  doctrine  of  incapacity  to  offense. 
If  you,  fearless  of  this  idea  of  the  immaculateness  of 
this  gentleman,  if,  as  Mr.  Evarts  says  you  must,  and  as  I 
agree,  judge  and  try  him  as  you  would  judge  and  try  any 
other  man  as  infected  with  the  infirmities  of  our  nature, 
as  bearing  witMn  him  if  not  the  inherited  and  original 
yet  the  actual  elements  and  seeds  of  sin,  if  you  apply 
the  evidence  in  this  case  to  the  parties  as  yoxi  would 
apply  it  in  any  f>th('r  cas<%  wliy  what  is  there  left  of  this 
defense?  If  the  \)o\ve;  of  Henry  Ward  Beccher's name 
and  supposicd  chiiracter  is  not  to  overcome  all  the  force  of 
testimony,  and  all  the  rules  of  evidence,  if  you  are  to  de- 
cide according  to  the  preponderance  of  proof,  whs  is 
there  any  hesitation  in  the  mind  of  intelligent  and 


8VMMING    UP  £1  ME.  BEACH. 


847 


reasoning  men  as  to  the  inevitable  re.suit  of  tlie  judgment 
of  tlie  law  upon  the  evidence  in  this  case  ?  And,  if  my. 
leamed  filends  loosen  themselves  for  one  moment  from 
this  theory  of  exalted  character  and  incapacity  for  sin; 
if  they  confess  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  is  mortal,  sub- 
ject to  temptation,  and  subject  to  fall,  will  they,  then, 
say  to  this  jury  that  they  know  what  the  verdict  will  be, 
and  wHl  they  say  to  this  jury  and  to  this  community  that 
there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  the  guilt  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  ?  _ 

MR.   BEECHER'S  TEMPERAIVIENT. 

In  the  article  whicli  I  read  you  the  physique 
of  Mr.  Beeclier  is  alluded  to.  But,  with  singular  mala- 
droitness,  I  think,  Mr.  Evarts  in.  his  argument  to  you, 
presented  the  same  consideration,  in  these  words.  Speak- 
ing of  the  condemnation  of  Mr.  Beecher  by  the  outside 
community,  he  says : 

Others  put  it  upon  what  they  understood  to  be  the 
robustness  of  Mr.  Beecher's  frame.  Well,  now,  that  is  a 
ground  to  put  it  upon  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  deal  witli, 
lor  we  cannot  deny  that  he  is  a  man,  as  he  presents  him- 
self before  you,  as  you  have  studied  his  face  and  seen  his 
figure.  And  yet,  over  and  over  again,  you  have  seen 
what  professed  to  be  rational  examinations  of  this  in- 
quiry that  are  all  made  to  depend,  when  put  to  the  true 
anaiysis  of  what  the  argument  means,  on  this  question  of 
physical  strength  and  temperament. 

Well,  you  will  get  the  idea,  I  suppose. 

"\i\Tiy,  to  be  sure,  that  overthrows  human  virtue,  human 
civilization,  education,  religion,  morality,  faith  in  men 
and  love  for  men,  faith,  in  God  and  love  to  God ;  it  over- 
throws them  all. 

Well,  when  those  terms  of  a  high  oratory  rolled  from 
the  lips  of  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Evarts,  they  were  o^'er- 
powering.  If  all  these  sources  of  human  hope  and 
ho  man  reliance  are  to  be  overturned  by  this  doctrine  tha  t 
men  ai'e  differently  constituted,  that  they  have  different 
force  of  appetites,  and  that  they  suffer  different  severi- 
ties of  temptation,  if  all  these  ideas  of  morality  and  re- 
ligion and  truth  and  honor  are  to  be  overthrown  by  that 
simple  sentiment,  why  it  is  terrific ;  we  must  abandon  it. 

Man  is  an  animal,  and  when  you  come  to  deal  with 
the  question  of  natural  propensities  you  must  treat  him 
as  an  animal. 

Well,  that  is  what  this  doctrine  of  robustness  doea. 

Tn  other  words,  gentlemen,  this  scandalous,  and  wicked, 
and,  when  stated,  ridiculous  and  monstrous  proposition 
is  made,  that  against  an  accusation  of  incontinence  there 
is  no  defense  in  our  state  of  society  except  the  proof  of 
impotency. 

Well,  gentlemen,  nobody  has  stated  that  proposition 
that  I  know  of  except  Mr.  Evarts.  Does  Mr.  Evarts 
mean  to  deny  that  there  are  varieties  of  human  tempera- 
ment; that  men  are  differently  constructed,  that  they 
have  different  propensities,  that  they  have  different  pas- 
sions, or  the  same  passions,  but  changed  in  each  in  inten- 
sity and  virulence  ?  Does  he  mean  to  say  that  all  men 
have  the  same  force  of  will  and  the  same  power  of  re- 
sistance to  temptation  t  Why,  he  must  say  that,  or  else 


he  must  admit  that,  in  the  varieties  of  hi-nan 
nature,  some  men  are  constituted  witl  a  p:  ;r.c- 
ness  to  particular  indulgences,  to  particular  viors, 
and  I  think  I  do  not  avow  a  doctrine  which  wnuhl 
dangerous  to  the  community  when  I  say  that  they  are 
infected  with  different  constitutional  tendencies,  leaving; 
them,  in  a  variety  of  cases,  to  the  perpetration  of  particii- 
lar  crimes.  Wliy,  in  medicine  and  in  experience  tliere  are 
persons  who,  without  any  motive,  without  any  sort  of 
temptation,  ladies  of  high  degree  in  everything  else,  ex- 
hibiting all  the  graces  of  a  true  womanhood,  wealthy, 
reputable,  distinguished  mati'ons  of  societj',  yet  who  can- 
not resist  the  tendency,  when  they  come  under  particular 
circumstances  in  the  presence  of  a  single  temptation, 
cannot  help  stealing.  They  do  steal.  The  instance-;  are 
numerous,  and  they  exist  now  in  the  City  of  New- York, 
and  the  works  of  oiu^  medical  authors  and 
the  acknowledged  opinion  of  medical  science  de- 
clare that  such  examples  of  human  infirmity 
do  exist.  And  then  in  the  tendency  to  arson,  to  burn,  in 
the  tendency  to  kill,  all  these  are  maintained  not  only 
philosophically— scientilically,  by  the  most  learned  men 
of  the  community,  but  they  are  sustained  by  the  clearest 
examples.  Now,  the  law  rejects,  of  course,  all  this,  whea 
it  is  interposed  as  a  shield  for  criminal  offense,  and  I  do 
not  dispute  by  any  means  the  policy  of  the  law.  '  That  is 
not  a  subject  for  our  discussion  here.  I  only  illustrate 
by  that  determination  of  science,  and  by  that  evidence  of 
examples  in  addition  to  others  which  I  have  given  you, 
that  all  this  theory  of  Mi".  Evarts  in  regard  to  the  com- 
mon plane  of  humanity,  to  the  common  rule  of  passional 
excitement,  and  the  common  level  of  controlling  will  and 
judgment,  is  illusory  and  vain.  But  what  does  Mr. 
Beecher  think  about  it  1  He  is  a  better  judge  than  I  am. 
Mr.  Beticher  says  : 

I  car'v'  not  to  have  men  come  to  me  and  state  their 
secret  courses.  I  could  read  it  in  the  skin  and  in  the  eye. 
There  is  no  one  single  appetite  or  passion  that  has  not  its 
natural  language,  and  every  undue  indulgence  of  that 
appetite  or  passion  leaves  that  natural  language  more  i:ir 
less  stamped  upon  the  skin,  upon  the  features,  upon  the 
expression  of  the  face,  on  the  carriage  of  the  body.  Pride 
h.as  its  natural  language,  mirthfulness  has,  goodness  has. 
Nobody  doubts  this.  So  have  the  passions  their  natural 
language.  Men  think  that  if  they  commit  their  wicked- 
ness in  secret  places  or  in  the  night  that  it  is  not  known. 
It  is  known,  although  no  man  ever  say  to  him,  "  Thou  art 
guilty."  And  again,  "  There  are  very  many  men  so  or- 
ganized that  their  appetites  and  their  passions  predom- 
inate with  terrific  force." 

Ah !  Mr.  Evarts,  if  we  say  to  you  that  there  is  a  certain 
form  of  constitution,  that  there  is  the  possession  of  cer- 
tain passions  and  certain  appetites  as  manifested  by  the 
exterior  development  of  the  man,  which  are  strong  and 
terrific  in  their  impulse  toward  sin  and  indulgence,  do  we 
say  that  the  charge  of  incontinence  can  only  be  met  by 
the  proof  of  impotency  \   Mr.  Beecher  says  no. 

After  you  have  been  leading  a  Christian  life  for  25 
years  or  for  30  years,  if  you  had  the  strong  1,  :;  .le.i-j;  3 


848  IBM  TILTO^-B 

organized  in  you  at  the  beginning,  they  will  be  there  still. 
Ni(  p  J  vver  will  eradicate  them  where  they  once  existed ; 
they  are  ineradicable. 

And  it  is  true  philosophy,  founded  upon  the  known 
constitution  of  man,  upon  the  inherited  tendencies  of 
human  nature,  upon  the  experience  of  the  world.  That 
is  from  the  "Plymouth  Church  Pulpit,"  Seventh  Series 
of  Sermons,  page  145,  and  tne  first  one  was  in  the  11th 
volume,  at  page  330.   Again  Mr.  Beecher  says  : 

The  intellectual  and  the  moral  faculties  are  certainly 
stronger  to-day  than  ever  they  were  before,  but  the 
animal  passions  of  the  race  do  not  seem  to  have  lost  any 
force,  nor  do  they  seem  to  be  under  any  greater  control 
than  they  were  a  thousand  or  two  thousand  years  ago. 

Ah !  yes,  gentlemen,  Mr.  Beecher  recognizes  the  truth 
of  the  existence  of  those  animal  passions  developed  in 
the  external  form,  which  exist  in  all  their  original  and 
terrific  power,  neither  abated  in  force  nor  better  governed 
than  when  man  was  more  an  animal  than  now.  (6th 
Series,  161.)  Again: 

Men  utter  a  vast  amount  of  slander  against  their  physi- 
cal nature,  and  attempt  to  repair  deficient  virtue  by 
maiming  their  animal  passions.  These  are  to  be  trained, 
guided,  restrained,  but  never  crucified  or  exterminated. 

I  do  not  exactly  agree  in  the  application  of  that  term 
"crucified."  They  should  be  crucified,  perhaps,  never 
exterminated. 

"  The  lecherous  imagination  goes  to  and  fro,  a  robber 
of  purity  throughout  the  universe."  And  then  he  speaks 
of  "  these  great,  swollen,  bull-necked  men."  "  Find  me 
prelates  and  bishops  that  have  made  the  world  richer 
than  they  found  it,  and  I  will  also  find  in  them  a  mixture 
of  dross."  "  The  malign  passions  rise  and  dominate  over 
the  higher  faculties.  Th*re  is  nothing  else  that  begins 
to  compare  in  cruelty  with  the  human  race.  Sharks  are 
merciful,  and  lions  and  serpents  are  angelic  compared 
with  men.  Man  is  the  chief  monster  that  the  earth  ever 
bred."  And  he  says  of  himself,  with  great  candor  and 
propriety  :  "  I  am  a  man  of  passions  like  your  omti.  I 
know  my  own  estate  and  my  own  weaknesses.  1  shall 
labor  among  you  with  these  weaknesses  in  the  time  to 
come." 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  should  not  have  alluded  to  this  sub- 
ject but  for  its  discussion  by  Mr.  Evarts.  I  am  not  going 
to  argue  or  urge  against  this  defendant  one  single  propo- 
sition or  idea  that  I  do  not  believe  to  be  just  and  sound. 
Whatever  may  be  the  constitution  of  this  defendant, 
whatever  others  may  say  about  his  physical  development 
and  the  indications  which  his  external  form  gives  of  the 
possession  of  high  and  intense  passions,  or  of  particular 
appetites,  I  do  not  urge  it  as  an  argument  in  this  court  of 
justice.  I  believe  it  would  be  a  disgrace  to  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  law  to  charge  a  man  for  an  in- 
stant with  the  idea  of  incontinence  or  adul- 
tery upon  the  theory  of  his  physical  constitution. 
No  matter  how  fierce  an4  torrid  the  passions  of  men  may 
be;    no    matter  what  may  be    the  tendencies  of 


l]Kf]HEE  TRIAL. 

their  appetites,  yet,  in  a  man  of  high  chai' 
acter  and  high  culture,  fierce  as  these  temp- 
tations may  be,  goadtuif  as  these  appetites  may  be,  there 
is  nevertheless  a  God-given  power  of  resistance  equal  to 
the  force  of  the  temptation.  And  if  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
is  assailed  by  any  of  these  forms  of  constitutional  devel- 
opment, or  by  the  overdue  strength  of  any  of  these  appe- 
tites, I  give  him  the  same  credit  as  I  claim  for  myself,  or 
for  you,  or  any  other  gentleman,  of  being  able  to  govern 
himself  according  to  the  power  and  the  grace  which 
is  given  to  men  in  the  ordinary  situations 
of  life.  I  say,  judge  him  as  you  would  judge 
any  other  man  and  in  no  other  wise. 
You  will  judge  him,  you  will  judge  all  the  characters  that 
have  been  introduced  into  this  cas^e,  by  a  proper  examina- 
tion of  their  peculiarities,  their  characteristics,  their 
tendencies ;  and  when  you  are  asked  by  either  side  to 
impute  a  certain  motive  and  to  trace  a  certain  result  from 
that  motive,  or  to  rake  a  certain  consequence  and  reason 
back  to  the  probable  motive,  you  wiU  look  at  the  particu- 
lai'  people  to  whom  the  motive  is  imputed  and  from  whom 
the  act  proceeds,  and,  with  your  clear  and  decisive  knowl- 
edge of  the  qualities  of  the  act  and  of  the  parties,  you 
will  form  a  wise  and  a  lust  conclusion. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  UTTERANCES  ABOUT  LOVE. 

Well,  I  have  been  furnished  with  some  quo- 
tations from  the  writings  of  Mr.  Beecher  directed  to  an 
expression  of  his  commendable  ideas  upon  the  subject  oi 
love.  I  do  not  see  any  impropriety  in  presenting  them  to 
your  consideration,  though  for  myself  I  do  not  reason  very 
strongly  iTom  any  hypothesis  in  regard  to  the  specula- 
tions or  ideas  or  notions  of  Mr.  Beecher  upon  that  sub- 
ject. He  says :  "  To  love  I  must  have  something  that  I 
can  put  my  arms  around."  [Laughter.] 

Judge  Neilson— Wait  a  moment,  Mr.  Beach.  Qentle- 
men.  Is  this  to  be  repeated  I  If  it  is  we  shall  adjourn. 
Please  to  understand  that. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  gentlemen,  what  I  think  is  an  im- 
proper construction  is  given  to  that  remark  of  Mr» 
Beecher.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  bear  any  vulgar  in- 
terpretation. I  do  not  suppose  that  he  meant  to  incul- 
cate the  idea  that  to  love  he  must  actually  embrace  the 
object.  Why,  he  loves  his  God  and  his  Savior,  and  he 
embraces  Him  only  in  a  spirit  embrace.  It  is  an  imag- 
inative, figurative  expression,  expressing  the  idea  of  the 
closeness  of  love,  the  idea  that  love  seeks  to  cherish  and 
to  fondle  and  embrace.  I  see  nothing  bad  in  that;  I 
agree  to  it.  But  it  shows  that  the  man  has  a 
perfect  idea  of  the  emotion.  Again,  speaking  of  the  oc- 
cupation of  a  chair  once  by  a  man  of  eminent  and  apos- 
tolic piety,  he  says— and  it  is  illustrative  of  the  intense 
and  peculiar  mode  of  expression  and  feeling  belonging  to 
the  man— *  It  would  have  made  my  loins  tingle  to  have 
sat  where  he  did."  Well,  that  is  an  extreme  expression. 
Very  likely  it  is  true  that  it  would  have  done  &o.  There 


SUMmXG    UF  . 

is  an  intensity  in  some  natures,  an  extravagance  of  sensi- 
fcility,  an  outbreak  of  feeling — physical,  animal  feeling — 
under  circumstances  wMcli  excite  tlie  peculiar  cliaracter- 
istics  of  tke  man,  wMch  are  unexplainable  to 
ThoBe  of  a  more  ordinary  and  less  intense  and 
expressive  temperament.  And  tliis,  perliaps,  expresses  tlie 
jovial,  jolly,  companionable  nature  of  tlie  man,  wlien  lie 
says  :  "  There  was  a  time-honored  business,  handed  down 
to  us  without  a  break  from  the  Garden  of  Eden,  of  court- 
ing and  Idssing,  and  that  -was  one  of  its  ordinances." 
Well,  he  didn't  cpeate  any  break  in  the  habit.  [Laughter.] 
Then  Mr.  Beecher  says  :  "  There  is  no  religion  without 
passion  ;"  and  I  think  that  is  true.  "  Look,"  he  says,  "  at 
the  objections  which  are  made  to  our  hymn-books. 
Xearly  all  of  our  best  hymns  were  thrown  out  be- 
cause they  were  so  amorous."  Well,  that  was  a 
poor  objectior  to  them,  for  the  love  was  directed  to  a 
high  object ;  it  was  spiritual  love  and  spiritnal  adoration. 
"  One  of  the  delicacies  in  tliis  world  is  that  when  two 
souls  come  together  and  unite  with  each  other,  no  one 
has  a  right  to  meddle  with  them.  They  are  to  be  left 
alone."  "VMiat  ?  TMiat?  "When  two  souls  come 
together  and  unite  with  each  other,  no  one 
has  a  right  to  meddle  with  them.  They  are  to  be 
left  alone."  That  sounds  a  little  Woodliullish. 
[Laughter].  There  is  the  essence  of  free  love  in 
it— free  love  as  it  is  understood,  not  by  popu- 
lar acceptation,  but  free  love  as  it  is  taught 
by  the  teachers  of  that  school ;  free  love  ns  Theodore 
Tilion  understands  it,  and  free  love  as  Theodore 
Tiiton  is  not  ashamed  to-day  to  communicate  it.  Kot 
that  gross  and  sensual  idea  of  free  love  which,  teaches 
the  promiscuous  intercom-se  of  the  sexes  ;  not  that  free 
love,  or  that  system  of  marriage  and  divorce  which  in- 
culcates the  right  of  abandonment  of  children,  and  the 
separation  cf  those  holy  ties,  and  the  rejection  of  those 
imperishable  duties  which  grow  out  of  the  fact  of  parent- 
age. That  we  will  talk  about  hereafter.  But,  "two  souls 
once  united  to  each  other,  no  one  has  a  right  to  meddle 
with.  They  are  to  be  left  alone."  WeU,  Mr.  Beecher  un- 
doubtedly meant  it  in  its  true  sense. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  have  the  nature  of  this  man, 
you  have  his  habit  of  thought,  you  have  his  tone  of  ex- 
pressiuu,  you  have  his  style  of  rhetoric,  you  see  the  man 
in  his  writings,  you  estimate  him  not  by  the  picture  that 
the  imaginations  of  my  learned  fi-iends  di-aw,  but  by  his 
own  expressions  and  revelations  of  character  ;  and  with 
this  in  your  hands  and  in  your  minds,  you  can  ap- 
proach the  examination  of  this  evidence  understanding 
that  character,  and  able  to  judge  of  the  probability  of 
that  evidence. 

THE    EVIDENCE    AGAINST    ^lE.  TILTON'S 
CHAEACTEE. 
Another  point.  I  think  it  is  a  pitiful  consid- 
eration to  talk  about  to  this  jury  in  a  case  ©f  this  charac- 


37   Mi:.   BEACR.  m 

I  ter,  but  the  charge  is  so  remarkable  and  so  unjust,  and 
!  the  subject  has  been  introduced  by  our  friends  ui>on  the 
other  side  so  repeatedly,  that  I  think  a  suggestion  should 
be  made  in  regard  to  it.  My  friend  Porter  in  the  opening 
of  nis  address  was  pleased  to  say  that  one  hunired,  or 
one  liundred  and  thii-ty-five  days,  whatever  it  may  have 
been,  of  your  time  had  been  dr-uwn  from  your  busi- 
ness and  yoiu'  ordinary  avocations,  by  3Ir.  Tiltou.  Well, 
gentlem;  n,  you  cannot  but  remember  the  course  and  the 
character  of  the  management  of  this  case  in  the  produc- 
tion of  evidence  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff,  presenting 
the  documentary  proof,  giving  some  evidence  in  regard 
to  the  dL-L-laiatious  of  Mi'.  Beecher,  and  the  decimations 
of  :>Irs.  Tiltun,  communicated  to  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  sub- 
ject of  tnis  case,  and  then  gi\^g  you  some  proof 
of  some  schemes  and  devices  which  were  re- 
sorted to  by  the  parties  interested  for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  a  full  and  a  scandalous  development 
of  this  difficulty.  It  was  very  legitimate  proof.  It 
bore  directly  upoa  the  issue  in  this  case,  and  for  long 
and  weary  days  and  months  the  answer  given  to  that 
proof  ^^as  the  incriminating  of  the  character  and  the 
conduct  of  Tiiton  and  Moulton.  Witness  after  witness 
was  produced  to  show  the  supposed  indecency  and  dis- 
honorable connections  of  Mr.  Tiiton  with  3Irs.  Woodhull. 
Days  and  days  were  occupied  in  proving  that  Tiiton  and 
Moulton  had  made  declarations  inconsistent  with  their 
testimonj-  upon  the  stand  ;  proof  which  we  admitted, 
facts  which  Tiiton  had  declared  and  Moulton  had 
declared  in  their  evidence  upon  the  stand.  There 
was  no  concealment,  no  denial  of  those  declarations  ; 
.they  were  explained  and  avoided  by  the  accompanying 
circumstances.  But  our  friends  could  not  be  satisfied ; 
they  must  be  proven  in  aU  their  detail  by  the  production 
of  the  witnesses,  honorable  and  eminent  gentlemen,  be- 
cause it  was  supposed  that  their  production  upon  the 
stand,  conveying  the  influence  of  their  charact-er,  might 
produce  a  more  effectual  influence  upon  the  jury  than  the 
mere  admissions  of  Tiiton  and  Moulton  that  they  had 
made  to  those  various  gentlemen  these  statements. 

And  so,  the  life  of  Jlr.  Tiiton  for  years,  in  his  lecture 
courses,  in  his  associations,  in  his  business  efforts,  was 
all  traced  with  the  utmost  vigilance  and  particularity,, 
for  the  purpose  of  spreading  before  this  jury  and  com- 
munity everything  that  was  thought  to  be  unfriendly  to 
his  standing  as  a  man  and  a  gentleman.  And  in  these 
examinations  my  friends  have  occupied,  as  th^yhave 
occupied  iu  the  final  discussion  of  this  case,  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  time  of  this  Court.  We  submitted  to  what 
we  considered  irrelevant  examinations  without  a  mur- 
mur. "^^'e  have  never  tnteriiosed  any  obstacle  to  the 
fullest  and  the  ueepe-^t  examination  of  this  ease.. 
Although  we  have  not  unnecessarily  or  improperly  occu- 
pied the  time  of  this  Court,  nor  to  any  extent  in 
comparison  with  our  friends  upon  the  defense, 
yet    we    have    been    ever    ua-gent  for  opening  the 


£30  TUE  TILTO^-B 

grates  of  evidence,  for  anclosiug  every  aveaue  of  thought, 
for  introducins  every  topic  which  would  lead  to  the  eu- 
liglitemneut  of  this  obsciu-e  and  interesting  question. 
Aud  we  are  reproached  with  it.  Well,  you  can  judge, 
genfiemen,  of  the  merit  of  that  reproach. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  MEMORY  C03HPARED  WITH 
MR.  MOULTON'S 

Then,  it  is  said,  to  the  discredit  of  Mr. 
Moulton,  that  he  had  a  very  failing  and  imperfect  mem- 
ory. My  learned  friend,  Mr.  Tracy,  set  the  example  of 
having  counted  the  number  of  instances  in  which  Mr. 
Moulton,  emulative  of  the  jockey  of  Non  mi  ricordo 
memory  on  the  trial  of  Queen  Caroline,  had  answered  to 
their  questions  "  I  don't  know,"  or  "  I  don't  remember." 
Well,  now,  I  have  been  handed  this  little  paper.  I  said 
to  you  when  I  commenced  this  line  of  remark  that  I  did 
not  regard  this  as  a  very  Important  consideration  to  be 
addressed  to  the  jury  in  a  case  like  this  or  in  any  other 
case ;  but  some  gentlemen  in  the  oflace  of  my  friend. 
Judge  Morris,  in  imitation  of  Mr.  Tracy,  have  examined 
in  the  same  way  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Beecher.  It  was  not 
as  long  as  that  of  Mr.  Moulton,  you  know  ;  and  yet  it 
proves  that  Mr.  Beecher,  in  the  course  of  his  evidence, 
answer-id,  "  I  can't  recollect,"  "  I  don't  recollect,"  or  "I 
can't  say,"  583  times.  [Laughter.  ]  WeU,  I  believe  the 
grand  result  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Moulton  waa 
some  three  hundred  and  over.  But,  then,  in  addition  to 
that,  there  are  245  instances  in  which  Mr.  Beecher  says, 
"  I  think,"  "  I  presume,"  "  I  suppose,"  "  I  don't  think ;  " 
and  then  there  are  57  instances  in  which  he  says  dis- 
tinctly "  I  don't  know ; "  and  the  aggregate  is  894  to 
Moulton's  305  !  Well,  gentlemen,  it  was  deemed  a  sort 
of  an  argument  against  Mr.  Moulton,  of  importance 
enough  to  be  presented  in  a  written  opening, 
the  product  of  many  minds,  [laughter],  and 
reproduced  in  a  pamphlet  edition  of  100,000 
copies  to  be  circulated  thi-oughout  the  United  States  ; 
and  if  it  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  demand  a  con- 
sideration of  that  character,  I  think  I  shall  be  justitied  in 
presenting  to  you  what  would  otherwise  be  a  clear  trivi- 
alty;  though,  when  you  come  to  consider  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Beecher  hereafter,  when  you  recall  with  what  pre- 
cision Mr.  Beecher  recounted  in  detail  and  fullness  the 
conversations  and  the  ooeurrenoes  at  the  critical  periods 
of  this  transaction,  and  how  utterly  forgetful  and 
incompetent  he  was  when  he  came  to  the 
detail  of  the  other  events  and  transaotioos 
of  this  defense,  this  failure  an*  conflict  of 
recollection  excites  some  surprise.  There  is  a  tl:«)d  and 
immutable  theory  of  this  defense,  and  able  as  they  are, 
it  does  nort  spring  from  the  advisors  of  Henry  Ward 
Beeoher.  It  was  organized  by  him ;  every  element  of  it 
Is  shadowed  in  the  statement  he  made  before  the  Investi- 
gating Committee,  and  in  .Tuly,  1874,  with  his  large  wis- 
dom, with  his  vast  learning   aud   deep  peneti-ation 


EECREE  TRIAL. 

and  knowledge  of  human  character,  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  devised  the  theory  of  his  excuse 
and  defense,  and  in  this  trial  everythiug 
has  been  bent  to  conformity  with  that  theory.  Mr, 
Beecher  has  come  into  this  court-room  with  a  perfect  un- 
derstanding not  only  of  the  theory,  but  of  the  mode  by 
which  it  was  to  be  supported  by  his  evidence  upon  tliis 
stand— evidence,  I  say,  by  his  narration  upon  the  stand, 
for  I  do  not  believe,  gentlemen — and  I  mean  to  mainiaiu 
that  declaration  hereafter— I  do  not  believe  that 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  has  given  his  narrative 
of  this  transaction  under  the  solemnity  of  that 
obligation  which  you  may  have  supposed  he 
invoked.  Well,  we  are  responsible  for  the  evidence 
which  has  been  given  in  regard  to  whax  is,  called  the 
Winsted  scandal.  I  don't  know  what  you  think  of  human 
nature ;  I  don't  know  what  you  think  of  Tlieodore  Tilton 
as  he  has  impressed  you  by  his  presense,  his  bearing,  and 
his  testimony  upon  this  trial ;  I  don't  know  what  you 
think  of  him  as  you  read  him  through  his  former  life  as 
developed  by  the  parole  evidence,  and  by  the  productions 
of  his  own  heart  or  brain  ;  but  if  there  is  a  man  on  this 
jury,  under  the  evidence  in  this  case.who  can  believe  that 
Theodore  TEton,  whatever  he  may  think  of  him,  seduced 
and  betrayed  the  young  girl,  then  17  or  18  years  of  age, 
who  in  reverent  admiration  desired  to  hear  one  of  nis 
lectures,  and  was  intrusted  to  his  care  by  his  wife — if 
there  is  one  man  upon  this  jury  or  in  the  whole  earth  that 
believes  that,  I  do  not  envy  him  his  nature  or  his  charac- 
ter, because  that  judgment  must  be  formed  upon  the  in- 
herent baseness  of  the  man  who  forms  it.  There  is  no 
evidence  to  justify  it.  There  is  no  presumption  to  uphold 
it.  Everything  in  the  circumstances,  in  the  proof,  in  the 
nature  of  the  parties — everything  surrounding  the  whole 
transaction  rejects  the  impure  and  the  indecent  suspicion. 

THE  ABSENCE  OF  LOVE  LETTERS. 
"But,"  says  my  friend,  Mr.  Evarts,  "you 
have  not  got  any  love  letters  here.  How  do  vou  prove 
seduction  by  Henry  Ward  Beecher  of  Mrs.  TUton  without 
producing  love  letters  1  They,"  says  Mr.  Evarts,  "  are 
the  usual  accompaniments  of  these  offenses.  Lovers 
always  write  love  letters."  Well,  gentlemen,  where  have 
you  ever  found  them  submitted  as  evidence  in  a  case  of 
crim.con.f  Where  have  you  ever  found  them  evidence 
in  a  case  of  that  character  where  the  parties  were  situ- 
ated under  such  circumstances  that  they  had  free  com- 
munication and  the  fullest  opportunity  for  the  gratifica- 
tion of  their  most  Intense  love  and  desires  without 
any  written  expression  of  love  1  Mr.  Beecher 
was  admitted  Into  the  freest  intimacy  of  Mr.  Tilton's 
household.  Why,  it  is  made  a  cause  of  accusation  and 
crimination,  almost,  against  Mr.  Tilton,  that  he  invited 
Mr.  Beecher  to  visit  his  house ;  ta.it  he  and  his  wife  felt 
honored  and  elevated  by  the  association  and  countenance 
of  Mr.  Beecher  ;  and  my  frienda  speak  of  it  as  tf  thaD 


SUMMING   UF  . 

were  a  sort  of  excuse  for  the  wrong  Mr.  Beecher  subse- 
quently did.  "Why,"  says  Mr.  Evarts,  "Mr.  Tilton 
knew  what  he  was.  He  had  heard  these  charges  against 
his  integrity  years  before,"  and  you  see  from  the  letters 
of  Mrs.  Tilton  that  she  knew ;  she  knew  that  there  had 
been  rumors  against  the  moral  integrity  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  for  she  writes  it  in  her  letters 
to  her  husband,  and  says  to  her  husband,  in  sub- 
stance, Cannot  we  uplift  this  degi-adation  of  the  nature 
of  the  man  ?  Can  we  not  be  a  solace,  and  a  comfort,  and  a 
strength  to  him  ?  Can  we  not  unite  in  restoring  that  sac- 
rificed manhood,  and,  if  we  can,  is  it  not  our  duty  to  do 
it  1  And  although  in  our  estimation,  by  his  known  prac- 
tices to  us,  this  man  has  been  divested  of  his  moral 
grandeur,  yet  he  is  a  great  and  a  good  man, 
and  deserves  support  and  countenance."  and  it  was 
with  this  knowledge  of  the  man,  and  with  this  theory, 
this  perfect  comprehension  of  the  character  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  that  this  intimacy  was  introduced  and  oc- 
curred, and  which  forms  one  of  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances which  seem  to  unlock  and  disclose  the  mysterious 
operations  of  this  passion,  and  the  singular  and  exalted 
conceptions  which  both  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton  in- 
dulged in  in  regard  to  this  course  and  its  effect  upon  the 
mutual  parties.  But  why  should  there  be  any  love  let- 
ters 1 

A  CHAKGE  THAT  THE  TILTON  SERVANTS 
HAVE  BEEN  HID. 

"Oh,  you  do  n't  introduce  the  servants, 
either."  Well,  the  experience  we  have  had  through  poor 
Kate  Carey  was  quite  enough,  because  she  has  been  as- 
sailed with  a  torrent  of  vituperation— I  will  scarcely  say 
that — she  is  set  aside  at  once  as  a  liar  and  a  perjurer 
without  any  consideration  whatever,  and  yet  you  re- 
member the  circumstances  under  which  her  testimony 
became  known,  as  described  by  herself,  to  this  plaintiff, 
and  the  circumstances  under  which  she  has  been  pro- 
duced, to  be  alluded  to  hereafter.  But,  servants !  We 
go  to  New-Jersey,  but  we  find  Mrs.  Tilton  ahead 
of  us.  We  go  to  the  various  places  where  the  serv- 
ants scattered  from  this  house  can  be  found,  and 
we  find  the  lady  zealots  of  Plymouth  Church  ahead  of  us. 
No  servant  is  to  be  got ;  no  servant  is  to  be  found.  They 
are  in  foreign  States,  beyond  our  reach,  and  secluded 
from  our  control,  and  we  are  reproached  with  their  ab- 
sence, and  when  the  gentlemen  tell  us  that  we  do  not 
produce  them,  I  tell  them  they  have  hid  them,  and  you 
can  well  enough  conceive  that  with  this  multitude  of 
arms  and  this  myriad  of  eyes  which  Mr.  Evarts  wished 
for  and  found,  and  with  those  hands  and  their  pockets 
full  of  gold,  it  is  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world  to  suppress 
evidence ;  and  we  have  had  no  such  power  and  no  such 
mfluences  and  no  such  aids  iu  the  marshaling  and  pro- 
duction of  this  plaintiff's  case,  and  my  friends  know  it. 


r  MR.   BEAGtl.  Sol 
THE  AS;5ERTI0N  THAT  THE  PLAINTIFF  HAS 
NO  PROOF. 

Well,  my  friend,  Mr.  Evarts,  says :   "  You 

have  no  proof  of  circumstances  ;  you  have  none  of  those 
developments  —  those  practical  developments  which 
usually  accompany  a  coiu'se  of  intrigue  and  ultimate 
sin."  Well,  that  of  course  dispenses  with  Kate  Carey ; 
that,  of  course,  disposes  of  all  the  minute  circumstances, 
perhaps  inconsiderable  iu  their  separation  and  Indi- 
viduality, but,  collected  and  concrete,  furnish  a  power  of 
eviaence  and  a  strength  of  conviction  which  always 
attends  the  combination  of  circumstances  testifying  all 
to  the  same  result.  This  declaration  of  Mr.  Evarts  dis- 
poses of  all  of  them.  Well,  "  you  have  got  no  evidence." 
Well,  the  confession  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  or  the  accusation  of 
Mrs.  Tilton,  whatever  you  may  call  it,  accepted,  acted 
upon,  answered  by  crushing  remorse  and  despair,  by  the 
most  pathetic  outbursts  of  regret  and  penitence  upon 
the  part  of  Mr.  Be  ^cher,  why,  they  amount  to  nothing. 
There  is  no  evidence.  And  when  we  get  a  letter  of  apol- 
ogy, breathing  all  over,  in  every  line  and 
every  word,  the  odor  of  guilt,  fastened  upon 
Mr.  Beecher  by  evidences  of  authorship  and 
indi\4duality  unanswerable,  and  by  oral  proof  not  con- 
tradicted by  him,  "you  have  got  no  proof,"  says  Mr. 
Evarts.  When  we  produce  evidence  of  improper 
proximity ;  of  circumstances  which  indicate  improper 
association ;  when  we  find  Mr.  Beecher,  by  uncontra- 
dicted evidence,  in  the  house  of  Theodore  Tilton  in  his 
absence,  secluded  in  the  parlor  of  that  house  in  dangerous 
proximity,  with  confessed  love,  with  free  opportunity 
and  the  woman  blushing,  and  scarlet  and  red  as  the 
woman  described  by  Hawthorne,  "you  have  got  no 
evidence,  nothing  upon  which  a  iury  can  act. 
Confessions  are  nothing.  The  law  won't  listen 
to  confessions.  The  sanctity  and  the  honor  of  the  family 
and  household  cannot  be  sacrificed  upon  confessions,  and 
there  is  no  proof  in  this  case.  There  is  nothing  upon 
which  a  jury  can  deliberate.  We  were  all  wrong,  all 
wrong  in  entering  upon  our  defense,  and  spending  13 
days  in  maintaining  it.  We  ought  to  have  dismissed  this 
case  when  the  plaintiff's  evidence  was  concluded."  Well, 
of  course  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  examine  all  these 
branches  of  evidence,  to  test  by  authority  the  notions  of 
my  learned  friend  in  regard  to  the  power  of  the 
different  species  of  proof  which  we  have  Introduced, 
to  examine,  to  detect,  to  criticise  these  documents  in  the 
light  of  experience,  and  taught  by  our  knowledge  of 
human  natiu'e,  and  judging  them  by  the  grreatness  an4 
the  skill  of  their  author,  and  see  whether  there  is  nothing 
to  be  found  in  all  these  accumulated  varieties  of  proor 
which  shall  not  only  justify  you  in  an  examination  of 
this  case,  but  demand  from  you  a  verdict  in  favor  of 
their  verity. 

Mr.  Porter —If  youi-  Honor  please,  my  friend  now  pro- 


652 


THE   TILTON-BUBCHER  TRIAL. 


poses  to  enter  upon  another  brancli  of  tlie  argument, 
and  perhaps  it  would  be  convenient  to  take  an  adjourn- 
in  ent  now. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Beacli,  would  it  be  agreeable  to  you 
to  adjourn  now  ? 

Mr.  Beacli— If  your  Honor  please,  Sir.  It  is  quite  im- 
material to  me  ;  I  am  quite  ready  to  go  on. 

Tbe  Court  thereupon  adjourned  until  Friday  at  11 
o'clock. 

102D  DAY'S  PROCEEDmGS. 

CONTimiATIOJf  OF  MR.  BEACH'S  ARGUMENT. 

THE  DAY  LARGELY  DEVOTED  TO  REPLIES  TO  POINTS 
MADE  BY  JUDGE  PORTER  AND  MR.  EVARTS— AN 
EXCITED  COLLOQUY  WITH  JUDGE  PORTER  CON- 
CERNING THE  TREATMENT  OF  THE  CHARGE  OF 
IMPROPER  PROPOSALS— THE  INTERVIEW  OF 
DEC.  30  CONSIDERED — MR.  BOWEN'S  RELATIONS 
TO  THE  CASE  REVIEWED— AN  APPEAL  TO  THE 
JURY  FOR  CONSIDERATE  ATTENTION  AND  IM- 
PARTIAL JUDGMENT— ENERGY  OF  MR.  BEACH- 
CONTINUED  INTEREST  IN  THE  HUMMING  UP.  " 

Friday,  June  11,  1875. 
The  address  of  the  senior  counsel  for  Mr.  Tilton 
continues  to  attract  a  large  sha«e  of  public  atten- 
tion. Ever  since  he  began  to  speak,  the  court-room 
lias  been  crowded  with  people,  and  the  corridors 
leading  to  it  have  been  rendered  almost  impassable 
by  the  throngs  that  could  not  get  admission  to  the 
court-room.  The  "Plymouth  party"  has  been,  in 
a  measure,  a  distinct  portion  of  the  audience 
ever  since  the  trial  began,  but  only  since 
Mr.  Beach  opened  his  argument  has  there 
been  a  so-called  "Tilton  party."  Now,  how- 
ever, a  habit  has  grown  up  among  reporters  and 
others  of  calling  those  who  sit  near  the  plaintiff 
and  his  counsel  by  that  name,  and  the  number  of 
visitors  who,  merely  by  their  proximity  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton  and  his  lawyers,  come  under  this  designation 
has  been  very  much  increased  within  the  last  three 
days. 

The  tendency  to  applaud  the  orator  was  as  marked 
to-day  as  at  any  previous  time,  notwithstanding 
the  grave  rebukes  which  Judge  Neilson  has  several 
times  administered  to  the  offenders  against  good 
order.  When  Mr.  Beach  came  in  there  was,  as 
usual,  a  loud  clapping  of  hands,  and  the  same 
demonstration  greeted  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Pryor, 
who  was  present,  during  the  morning  session,  for 
the  first  time  since  the  taking  of  testimony  was 
closed. 

Mr.  Beecher  appeared  in  court  only  during  the 


morning  session,  staying  away  in  the  afternoon,  as^ 
he  has  done  ever  since  the  summing  up  for  the  plain- 
tiff began.  Mrs.  Beecher,  however,  is  always  pres- 
ent, and  apparently  attentive  to  every  word  that  the 
orator  utters. 

Mr.  Tilton's  demeanor  is  unchanged.  He  sits 
further  back  among  the  spectators  than  he  formerly 
did,  and  seems  to  have  surrendered  his  work  of 
searching  evidence  and  supplying  references  to  Mr. 
Fullerton. 

Mr.  Beach  was  somewhat  hoarse  to-day,  and  he 
evidently  felt  the  heat  severely.  So  aie  portions  of 
his  address  were  delivered  with  a  vigor  and  energy 
of  voice  and  gesture  that  caused  the  perspiration  to 
stream  from  his  face,  while  they  aroused  the  liveliest 
interest  in  the  audience.  Once  in  a  severe  and  earnest 
tone  he  addressed  the  jury — seendngly  intending  the 
larger  part  of  his  remarks  to  apply  to  the  foreman, 
Mr.  Carpenter— in  terms  of  reproach,  because  he  had 
perceived  what  he  considered  an  incredulous  smile 
on  the  lips  of  one  or  more  of  them  at  some  of  his 
statements.  He  asserted  his  claim  on  the  respect 
and  attention  of  the  jurymen.  These  remarks  of  Mr, 
Beach  to  the  members  of  the  jury,  when  considered 
together  with  those  which  he  addressed  to  them  on 
Wednesday,  excited  a  good  deal  of  comment,  and 
there  was  much  speculation  as  to  the  motive  which 
the  orator  had  in  making  them. 

Near  the  close  of  the  afternoon  session  occurred  a 
curious  scene,  which  excited  the  audience  to  the 
highest  degree,  both  of  enthusiasm  and  astonish- 
ment. The  orator  made  some  assertions  about  the 
manner  in  which  the  defendant's  counsel  had  treated 
the  charge  of  improper  proposals  against  Mr. 
Beecher.  Judge  Porter,  understanding  the  as- 
sertion to  be  that  that  charge  had  been  ad- 
mitted by  them,  arose  and  interrupted  Mr.  Beac' 
asserting  that  it  was  not  true  that  the  char 
had  been  admitted.  A  burst  of  applause  followed 
this  interruption.  Mr.  Beach  excitedly  replied  that 
the  chords  of  30  years  of  friendship  betwe,en  him- 
self and  Judge  Porter  would  not  admit  a 
charge  of  falsehood  in  open  court.  This  repi, 
received  another  demonstration  of  applause 
and  the  aroused  audience  and  the  jury 
men  looked  on  in  surprise,  while  the  tw 
lawyers  continued  to  address  each  other  in  an  ex- 
cited manner.  Finally,  Judge  Neilson  succeeded  in 
quieting  the  storm  by  pointing  out  what  he  con- 
ceived to  be  the  cause  of  the  misunderstanding,  that 
Judge  Porter  thought  Mr.  Beach  meant  that  the 
charge  of  improper  solicitations  had  been  admitted. 


SUMMING    UF  BY  ME.  BEACH, 


853 


wliereas  ids  real  meaning  was  that  it  had  not  been 
denied  by  the  defendant's  counsel.  Mr.  Beach  said 
that  he  did  not  mean  that  it  had  been  admitted,  and 
after  some  further  remarks  resumed  his  argument. 

PKOMINENT  PARTS  OF  MR.  BEACH'S  ARGU- 
MENT. 

The  argument  to-day  covered  a  great  variety 
of  topics,  but  it  was  of  the  nature  of  a  defense 
against  the  arguments  and  accusations  of  the  de- 
fendant's counsel.  The  affirmative  presfnt;ition  of 
the  plaintiff's  case  appears  to  have  not  yet  been 
reached.  Mr.  Moulton's  conduct  was  first  defended 
by  the  orator,  and  the  subject  of  the  proposal  to 
burn  the  papers  was  discussed.  The  Bowen  award, 
and  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bowen,  were  considered. 
Referring  to  Mr.  Bowen's  appearance  as  a  witness, 
Mr.  Beach  said,  "He  is  no  friend  of  ours;  he  was 
not  called  as  a  friend  of  ours." 

At  this  point  Mr.  Beach  made  one  of  the  most  fully 
appreciated  oratorical  hits  of  the  day's  address. 
Speaking  of  Mr.  Bowen's  testimony,  he  exclaimed, 
amid  a  burst  of  merriment,  in  which  Mr.  Evarts 
joined,  "  If  he  could  have  contradicted  Theodore 
Tilton's  relation,  oh !  how  that  Latin  maxim  would 
have  rolled  from  his  mouth"  (indicating  Mr.  Evarts), 
"  Falsus  in  uno  f  alsus  in  omnibus." 

Again  referring  to  Mr.  Evarts  having  said  that  Mr. 
Beecher's  guilt  would  be  a  miracle,  the  orator  re- 
lated a  laughable  story  about  an  irishman  in  illus- 
tration of  the  meaning  of  a  miracle,  concluding  with 
a  personal  application  to  the  senior  counsel  for  the 
defendant,  which  set  the  audience  and  the  jurymen 
laughing  heartily. 

The  interview  of  Dec.  30  and  the  alleged  confes- 
sion of  Mrs.  Tiltou,  which  was  destroyed,  were  also 
brought  under  consideration.  Mrs.  Tilton's  letter, 
Mr.  Beach  said,  was  not  a  confession,  for  she  had 
confessed  six  mouths  before.  Various  other  points 
of  the  summing  up  for  the  defense  were 
replied  to.  One  of  the  arguments,  used 
1)y  the  orator,  which  attracted  unusual  attention 
and  comment,  was  in  reference  to  peculiar  doctrines 
about  sin  advanced  by  Master  TonipMns  in  Scott's 
novel  of  "Woodstock."  These  doctrines  were  as- 
serted to  contain  the  very  sentiment  attributed  to 
Henry  "Ward  Beecher,  as  having  been  used  to  cor- 
rupt the  virtue  of  Mrs.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Evarts's  remark  about  the  manner  in  which  a 
verdict  against  Mr.  Beecher  would  be  received  ia 
England  called  from  the  orator  a  reply  full  of  orator- 
ical force,  which  was  greeted  with  applause.  Sc»ne 


remarks  about  Mr.  Evarts  having  too  mu<Oi  respect 
for  English  opinion,  and  about  the  time  he  nad  spent 
at  Geneva  and  Paris,  attracted  attention  and  caused 
remark. 

The  Court  adjourned  until  Monday  morning  at  11 
o'clock. 

THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 


THE  REQUEST  TO  BURN  THE  PAPERS. 

The  Court  opened  at  11  o'clock,  and  Mr. 
Beach  resumed  liis  argximent  as  follows: 

Mr.  Beach— Very  much  time  and  a  very  large  degree  of 
indiguation  was  expended  upon  the  theory  that  Mi\  Moul- 
ton  had  been  guilty  of  dishouorable  and  faithless  conducfc 
in  his  failure  to  hum  the  papers  relating  to  this  scandal, 
as  it  was  assumed  that  that  was  one  of  the  condl- 
tious  of  the  award  made  by  the  arbitrators,  to  which  Mr. 
Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  assented.  But  the  fouudationjs 
of  the  especial  comments,  severe  and  reprehensible,  upon 
the  part  of  Mr.  Evarts,  was  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Storra 
relating  a  conversation  some  ten  days  subsequent  to  the 
arbitration  and  award.  It  is  my  duty,  gentlemen,  to 
draw  your  attention  to  tliat  topic.  Mr.  Storrs  says  that 
Mr.  Moulton,  in  the  conversation  of  which  he  spoke, 

Said  that  Sam  Wilkeson,  as  he  called  him,  had  either 
seen  him  or  written  to  him,  and  requested  him  particu- 
larly to  burn  Mr.  Beecher's  "  apology"  and  the  papers, 
and  Mr.  Moulton  said :  "  Oh,  yes ;  I  have  burned  the  pa- 
pers," and  laughed  ;  and  he  says,  "  Mr.  Beecher  thinks  I 
have.'*  Then  he  remarked :  "If  Sam  Wilkeson  thinks  I 
have  bm'ued  all  these  papers,  he  is  mistaken.  What  would 
Theodore  do  in  case  of  trouble?" 

Mr.  Evarts—"  With  his  trouble,"  I  think  it  is. 

Mr.  Beach— I  believe  I  can  read.  Sir,  with  the  print  be- 
fore me. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  Beach — He  sa.v  s  again,  on  cross-examination : 

Well,  this  Avas  the  conversation,  as  I  said.  It  com- 
menced about  the  tinpartite  settlement,  as  far  as  I  now 
remember.  I  had  not  any  talk  with  him  before,  and  I 
was  telling  him  that  Mr.  Bowen  felt  that  we  brought  in 
too  large  a  sum,  and  tiiat  his  sons  felt  aggrieved,  and 
then  Mr.  Moulton  during  this  con  v  ersation— Mr.  Moulton 
said  that  Sam  Wilkeson  had  either  seen  him  or  written 
him  — I  wouldn't  be  positive  which  — that  Sam 
Wilkeson  had  seen  him,  or  written  him,  that  he 
wanted  me  to  burn— to  be  sure  to  burn  Mr. 
Beecher's  apology  and  all  the  papers,  and  Mr.  Moulton 
says:  "Of  course,"  says  he,  "  I  haA'^e  burned  all  the  pa- 
pers," and  laughed ;  and  he  says,  "  Mr.  Beecher  thinks  I 
have ;"  and  then  he  says,  "  If  Sam  Wilkeson  thinks  I 
have  bm^ned  all  the  papers,  he  is  mistakeu.  What  would 
Theodore  do  with  his  trouble  V 

I  then  handed  to  Mr.  Storrs  the  letter  of  Mr.  Wilkeson 
—he,  as  you  perceive,  representing  that  Moulton  stated 
that  this  request  to  burn  the  papers  had  come  from  Mr. 
Sam  Wilkeson ;  and  there  is  no  intimation  in  this  ooneer* 
sation  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Moulton  or  M*.  Storra  that  til© 
duty  of  burning  the  papers,  or  that  the  req  i<  s-t  to  hm'n 


854 


1HE   TILTON-BEECHEB  TRIAL. 


the  papers  was  connected  witli,  or  arose  iu  any  degree 
out  of  tlie  arbitration  and  award,  Mr.  Storrs  does  not 
here  pretend  that  the  conversation  had  any  connection 
with  the  arbitration  and  award,  hut  says  that  it  arose  out 
of  the  Tripartite  Agreement,  with  which,  as  you  remem- 
ber, Mr.  Samuel  Wilkeson  was  intimately  connected,  he 
having  no  connection  whatever  with  the  arbitration  and 
award,  and  Mr.  Wilkeson,  after  the  Tripartite  Agreement 
had  been  executed,  and  that  act  of  composure  and 
friendliness  had  been  completed  as  between  the  par- 
ties, then  addresses  this  letter  to  Mr.  Moulton,  which 
I  read  you : 

My  Dear  Moulton  :  Now  for  the  closing  act  of  jus- 
tice and  duty. 

Let  Theodore  pass  into  your  hands  the  written  apology 
which  he  holds  for  the  improper  advances,  and  do  you 
pass  it  into  the  flames  of  the  friendly  flre  in  your  room  of 
Reconciliation. 

Then  let  Theodore  talk  to  Oliver  Johnson. 

I  hear  that  he  and  Carpenter,  the  artist,  have  made 
this  whole  affair  the  subject  of  conversation  in  the  clubs. 
Sincerely  yours,  Samuel  Wilkeson. 

Now,  two  things  result  from  that  letter— first,  that  it 
did  not  originate  from  the  arbitration  and  the  award,  and 
second  that  there  was  no  request  or  demand,  or  intima- 
tion that  it  was  the  duty  of  Mr.  Moulton  to  burn  all 
the  papers.  It  was  confined  to  the  "  Letter  of  Apology," 
the  so-called  Letter  of  Contrition."  Well,  when  I 
handed  that  letter  to  Mr.  Storrs,  and  when  he  repeated 
the  conversation,  that  Mr.  Moulton  attributed  the  re- 
quest to  burn  the  papers  to  the  letter  of  Mr.  Wilkeson 
arising  out  of  the  Tripartite  Covenant,  he  was,  of  course, 
somewhat  confounded.  And  it  is  perfectly  evident,  gen- 
tlemen, that  Mr.  Storrs,  in  the  relation  of  this  conversa- 
tion, was  wholly  mistaken  in  the  allusion  which  was 
made  by  Mr.  Moulton  to  the  papers. 

You  will  remember  the  lessons  which  our  learned 
friends  have  given  to  us  in  regard  to  the  fallible  nature 
of  evidence  as  to  conversations,  confessions.  My  learned 
friend,  Mr.  Porter,  read  us  a  very  able,  instructive,  and 
truthful  essay  upon  that  subject,  in  every  word  of  which 
I  concur.  It  is  one  of  the  most  diflScult  efforts  of  the 
human  memory  to  recall  and  repeat  a  conversation,  and 
it  is,  I  admit,  ahazai-dous  species  of  evidence,  to  be  scru- 
tinized and  criticised  and  taken  with  proper  degrees  of 
allowance ;  and  I  am  quite  content  that  that  rule  of  law 
should  be  applied  to  the  evidence  on  the  part  of  the 
plaintiff,  but  I  insist  that  the  same  application  should  be 
made  of  it  to  the  evidence  upon  the  part  of  the  defense. 

Another  thing  is  obvious  from  this  letter,  that  there 
was  no  assertion  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Wilkeson— there 
never  has  been  a  pretense  so  far  as  this  evidence  is  con- 
cerned, of  any  demand  or  suggestion  to  Mr.  Tilton  or  Mr. 
Moulton  that  the  papers,  or  any  paper  connected  with 
this  transaction,  was  to  be  burned,  founded  upon  any 
idea  either  of  an  express  agreement  to  do  it  or  of  any  ob- 
lii^ntion  arising  out  of  any  proceedings  before  arbitrators 


or  otherwise.  Mr.  Wilkeson  had  just  completed  that  act 
of  amnesty  and  conciliation,  the    Tripartite  Covenant," 
and  then  he  appeals  to  Moulton,  or  to  Tilton  through 
Moulton,  as  an  act  of  clemency  and  of  duty  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, to  burn  the  apology,  and  nothing  else.  What 
if  there  had  been,  gentlemen,  such  a  promise  upon  the 
part  of  Mr.  Moulton?    Suppose  in  the  exuberance  of 
friendly  feeling  which  controlled  and  followed  the  "  Tri- 
partite Covenant,"  TUton  and  Moulton  had  said  that  they 
would  burn  all  the  papers  connected  with  this  scandal ; 
that,  after  reflection,  considering  the  possibilities  of 
the  future,  there    being    no    imperative  obligation 
assumed,  there  being  no  duty  by  any  authority  imposed 
upon  these  parties  to  burn  the  papers,  there  never  hav- 
ing come  from  Mr.  Beecher  a  single  request,  or  intima- 
tion, that  he  desired  any  papers  to  be  burned,  what  if 
they  had  changed  their  purpose,  and  determined  to  pre- 
serve these  documents  to  meet  any  possible  exigency 
that  might  arise  in  the  future  1  I  do  not  see  any  par- 
ticular dishonor  in  it.   I  do  not  see  why  Mr.  Moulton 
should  be  excoriated  as  a  faithless  and  treacherous  maii, 
either  to  his  word  or  to  his  duty,  and  I  see  no  obligation 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Moulton  acting  as  the  friend  of  both 
these  parties,  the  custodian  of  the  papers  belonging  to 
each,  and  the  representative  of  the  interests  of  each. 
I  see  no  obligation  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Moulton  to  fol- 
low the  requests    or  pursue  the  line  of  duty  or  of 
obligation  suggested  by  Mr.    Samuel  Wilkeson,  and 
without     any     concurrence     upon     the     part  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  without  any  request    upon  the  part 
of  Mr.  Tilton  or  of  Sir.  Beecher  to  burn  papers  which 
were  intrusted  to  his  custody  and  confidence.   What  has 
it  to  do  with  this  case,  gentlemen?   We  have  spent  days 
in  the  consideration  of  this  question.   How  does  it  throw 
any  light  upon  the  real  intrinsic  issae  of  this  case  ?  The 
papers  are  here.  They  are  unchanged  ;  they  are  unmu- 
tilated ;  they  speak  for  themselves  in  the  same  language 
of  trutli  as  if  this  agreement  (if  there  were  any  agree- 
ment) did  not  exist.   The  fact  that  Mr.  Moulton  or  Mr. 
Tilton  may  have  pledged  themselves  to  their  destruction 
does  not  reflect  any  light  upon  the  construction  of  the.Sf 
papers  or  change  a  syllable  or  the  significance  of  a  single 
word.  And  what  has  all  this  denunciation  and  all  this 
waste  of  time  and  ingenuity  over  this  question  of  pro- 
priety   or    honor    to    do    with     the  examination 
or    decision    of    this    case  ?    And    in    this  way, 
throughout    the    whole    of    this    trial,  iipon  the 
part  of  the  defense,  we  have  been  led  into  side  and  col- 
lateral issues,  the  only  effect  of  which  has  been  to  em- 
barrass our  miuds  and  our  consideration  of  this  case,  and 
to  cover  up  the  true  question  which  is  to  be  presented 
for  your  deliberations  and  decision.   WcU,  my  friends  say 
it  reflects  upon  the  integrity  of  Mr.  Moulton ;  it  destroys 
his  credibility  as  a  witness.  A  party  to  no  proceeding,  dis- 
connected in  interest  with  the  arbitration,  entering  into 
no  obligation  to  destroy  these  papers,  although  requested 


SUM31ING  VF 

to  do  90  by  Mr.  Wilkeson.  Tvitliout  any  promise  to  that 
effect,  and  althougii  belieying  that  Mr.  Beeoher 
sunpo^ed  the  papers  were  to  be,  or  -were, 
burned,  this  gentleman  yet  preserves  them,  and 
what  obligation  or  duty  has  he  violated  ?  What 
pledge  has  he  assumed  or  broken?  And  why  is  he 
vilified,  because,  with  a  view  to  the  whole  relations  of 
rhese  parties  and  the  possible  conditions  of  this  scandal, 
then  bruited  about  the  country  as  a  matter  of  gossii), 
within  this  city  and  abroad— what  if  he  did  determine  to 
preserve  them  ?  I  repeat  again  it  is  no  reflection  upon 
his  character  for  sincerity  or  honor.  "  Ah  !  but,"  says 
the  gentleman,  3Ir.  Moulton  indulged  in  the  exclama- 
tion :  '  What  will  Theodore  do  in  case  of  trouble  V  or 
*  What  will  Theodore  do  with  Ms  trouble  V  " 


ME.  BEECHER"S  AFFaIES  XOT  BEOUGHT  BE- 
FOEE  THE  AEBITEATOES. 

Each  of  these  expressions  is  accurate.  The 
X  reference  of  ray  learned  friend  seems  to  ten^tothe 
latter.  What  trouble  was  there  then?  The  affairs  with 
Mr.  Bowen  had  just  at  that  instant  been  concluded,  the 
arbitration  had  been  held,  and  the  award  had  been  made. 
All  the  difficulties  with  Mr.  Bowen  were  composed ;  Til- 
ton  had  received  his  $7,000,  putting  him  in  compara- 
tively easy  circumstances  and  relieving  him  from  all  his 
pecuniary  distress  and  difficulties.  He  was  then  pros- 
ecuting the  enterprise  of  The  Golden  Age.  What  was  the 
trouble  to  which  jMr.  Moulton  alluded,  and  in  reference 
to  which  these  papers  might  perhaps  be  useful  ?  The 
gentleman  has  not  told  us  that.  Is  there  anything  in 
this  evidence  indicating  any  circumstances  of  difficulty, 
any  possible  trouble  which  was  apprehended  by  Mrs. 
Moulton  except  that  growing  out  of  this  very  scandal 
which  we  are  now  investigatmg  ?  And  Mr.  Moulton, 
standing  in  the  attitude  in  which  he  is  represented  by 
the  evidence,  and  which  is  conceded  in  anticipation,  not- 
withstanding the  arbitration  and  award,  notwithstand- 
ing the  "  Tripartite  Covenant,"  knowing  all  the  surround- 
ing circumstances  and  the  knowledge  which  others  pos- 
sessed of  this  scandal,  3Ir.  Moulton  under  these  circum- 
stances says :  "  These  papers  ought  not  to  be,  and  shall 
not  be,  destroyed  unless  both  parties  request  their  de- 
struction. This  is  a  pernicious  and  a  babbling  secret. 
It  never  has  been  stilL  It  never  will  be  at 
rest.  It  is  a  secret  confided  to  too  many 
mouths:  it  is  a  secret  reaching  too  many  interests ;  it  is 
a  secret  of  too  grave  and  troublous  character  to  be  trusted 
to  the  hazard  of  examination  hereafter,  except  upon  the 
truthful  records  and  the  evidences  in  these  documents 
which  I  possess  and  hold  as  the  representatives  of  these 
parties,  and  I  will  hold  them." 

Now,  it  is  to  my  mind  of  very  considerable  significance, 
gentlemen.  It  has  been  said  all  along  by  our  learned 
friends  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  worried  and  excited  and 
spurred  by  his  necessities  and  hie  difficulties  with  Bowen. 


J  MB.   BEACH.  855 

He  had  fallen  from  a  high  position  :  his  resources  had 
been  reduced;  he  was  in  pei-pleiity  and  want.  Tue, 
Golden  Age  was  embarrassed  and  a  failure,  and  he  was 
irritable  and  restless  and  forever  stirring  the  hot  em'oers 
of  tMs  ^t'andal.  Why,  all  these  things  had  then  been 
pacified  and  silenced.  There  was  no  more  trouble,  I  re- 
peat, with  Bowen  ;  there  was  no  more  irritation  from 
business  difficulties  ;  there  were  none  of  those  perplexi- 
ties arising  from  a  straitened  income  and  resources.  The 
man  was  relieved  and  at  last  stood  erect,  able  to  pursue 
his  enterprise  without  any  embarrassment  or  fear. 
What  was  the  trouble  which  then  disturbed  the 
mind  of  Moulton,  and  in  view  of  which  he  deter- 
mined to  preserve  these  evidences  bearing  significantly 
upon  it,  whatever  it  was  1  It  was  this  difficulty  with 
Beecher.  It  was  this  secret  in  regard  to  Beecher.  And 
it  was  in  view  of  that  that  he  came  to  this  determination 
and  acted  in  the  manner  he  did.  And  yet  the  gentlemen 
would  have  us  believe  by  the  testimony  of  these  arbitra- 
tors that  all  this  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton 
had  been  composed  by  submission  to  these  gentlemen, 
and  by  their  award.  It  seems  to  me  one  of  the  boldest 
and  most  astounding  propositions  connected  with  this 
case  that  the  difficulties  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr. 
Beecher  formed  a  portion  of  the  subject  matter  of  that 
arbitration.  The  submission  to  arbitration  is  produced. 
Mr.  Bowen  testifies;  Sir.  Tilton  testifies;  Mr.  Moulton 
testifies ;  the  written  record,  so  far  as  there  was  any 
record — there  being  no  written  award — ^the  written 
record  is  produced.  It  shows  what  was  submitted.  A 
suit  had  been  commenced  by  3Ir.  TUton  against  Bowen ; 
the  friends  of  the  parties  interpose,  an  arbitration 
is  agreed  upon,  a  written  submission  is  made, 
a  meeting  is  had  before  the  arbitrators,  the 
parties  relate  their  differences  and  claims,  an  award  is 
made  of  a  money  verdict,  it  is  paid  on  the  iustanr  and 
the  matter  is  closed-  And,  now,  when  a  difficulty  arises 
between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton,  it  is  pretended  that 
that  diffictilty  was  submitted  to  this  arbitration !  Where 
was  Mr.  Beecher!  Who  represented  himi  Who  pre 
sented  his  defense  1  Why  was  Tilton  silent  ?  Or  was 
there  no  representation  of  his  claims  and  his  complaint 
as  against  ]vir.  Beecher  before  these  arbitrators?  Why. 
can  a  right  of  action  and  a  cause  of  complaint,  by  the 
mere  will  of  arbitrators  chosen  for  another  purpose, 
without  any  appf^arance  of  the  parties,  or  any  submission 
of  the  catise  of  difficulty,  be  disposed  of  as  to  the  right!*  of 
parties  1  The  testimony  upon  all  sides  by  the  arbitrators 
is  that  the  only  matter  discussed  by  the  only  parties 
appearing  before  the  arbitrators  was  in  relation  to 
the  claim  of  ^Ir.  Tilton  against  Mr.  Bowen. 
^To  allusion  to  Mr.  Beecher,  he  having  no  connection  with 
that  affair.  And  the  arbitrators  say  that  in  their  con- 
sultations something  concerning  this  difficulty  was  sug- 
gested as  between  themselves ;  that  it  ought  to  be  settled,- 
and  Mr.  Stores  tells  you  that  after  the  award  was  an- 


856 


THE   TlLrON-BEECHEB  TEIAL. 


noanced,  and  not  till  some  time  after  that,  it  was  then 
said  tliat  tlie  papers  relating  to  this  scandal  ought  to  be 
burned.  Well,  the  gentlemen,  arbitrators,  were  members 
of  Plymouth  Church.  They  were  the  ardent  and  devoted 
friends  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  then  and  to-day,  and  it 
may  very  well  be  that  they  felt  a  great  anxiety  to 
end  these  dlfBculties,  and  they  judged  wisely  in  my 
opinion.  They  ought  to  have  been  composed  then ;  they 
ought  to  have  been  composed  before.  There  ought  to 
have  been  quiet  in  the  ranks  of  Plymouth  Church,  and 
the  friends  of  Plymouth  Church  and  the  friends  of  that 
arbitration  were  the  persons  who  felt  most  keenly  and 
most  sensibly  the  necessity  of  composing  this  difiBcuIty. 
Day  after  day  it  was  fermenting  in  the  midst  of  their  mem- 
bership, creating  distraction  and  contention,  and  disturb- 
ing the  comfort  and  peace,  not  only  of  the  pastor,  but  the 
congregation,  lind  it  may  well  have  been  a  subject  con- 
stantly pressing  upon  their  thoughts  and  their  anxieties, 
and  very  likely  when  considering  this  question  as  between 
Bowen  and  Tilton,  these  suggestions  passed  as  between 
themselves,  and  that  suggestion  in  regard  to  the  burn- 
ing of  the  papers,  after  the  announcement  of  the  award, 
may  very  likely  have  been  made  by  them.  But  the  point 
is,  gentlemen,  was  there  any  submission  of  this  difficulty, 
any  of  that  formal  and  solemn  appearance  before  a  quasi 
judicial  tribunal  which  should  conclude  parties  and  bind 
them  to  the  conditions  of  the  award  ?  Well,  why  didn't 
my  learned  friends  interpose  it  as  a  barl 

We  have  had  no  plea  of  that  kind— no  such  defense  in 
these  pleadings ;  and  my  learned  friends  have  not  had 
the  boldness  of  arguing  that  that  arbitration  and  award 
was  an  estoppel  upon  this  right  of  action.  But  if  it  were 
submitted;  if  there  was  any  authority  upon  the  part  of 
that  arbitration  to  pass  upon  the  interests  and  control 
the  rights  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  or  Theodore  TUton, 
and  to  make  an  award  that  those  papers  should  be 
burned,  or  that  the  difficulties  as  between  those  two  par- 
ties should  be  held  settled  and  satisfied  by  that  arbitra- 
tion, why  don't  my  friends  present  that  as  a  bar  and  an 
estoppel  upon  this  prosecution,  as  it  would  have  been 
had  any  such  circumstances  occurred?  Well,  I  asked 
Mr.  Storrs  questions  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  in 
the  determination  which  these  arbitrators  advanced  no 
consideration  whatever  of  the  claims  or  the  rights,  as 
between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  were  considered  by 
them. 

Mr.  Storrs,  was  this  $7,000  awarded  by  you  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  in  your  judgment  and  to  your  conscience,  a  just 
and  a  true  amount  due  to  him  ?  Yes. 

Mr.  Tilton,  through  all  this  difficulty,  had  been 
insisting  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  been  guilty  of  an 
offense  toward  him.  Mr.  Beecher  himself  had  confessed 
it.  I  mean,  not  now,  by  the  general  evidence,  to  which  I 
shall  allude  hereafter,  to  prove  the  truth  of  this  accusa- 
tion ;  but  in  his  statement  to  his  own  packed  Committee 
he  admitted  an  offense.  Theodore  Tilton  had  been  de- 
nounced throughout  the  whole  leuicth  and  breadth  of 


this  land  as  the  oaiumniator  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
Everywhere  he  had  been  denounced  as  the  assailant  of 
the  proudest  pastor  of  the  greatest  pulpit  of  the  land. 
And,  did  Theodore  Tilton  submit  to  those  arbitrators 
this  question  affecting  his  integrity  and  honor  and  fame 
without  claiming  a  single  word  of  justification  in  the 
award;  without,  at  least,  demanding  that  the  of- 
ense  to  which  Henry  Ward  Beecher  confessed,  how 
ever  limited  it  may  be,  and  whatever  may  have  been 
its  character,  should  have  been  declared  by  these  arbi- 
trators, that  he  might  hold  it  up  as  his  Justification 
against  these  foul  and  destructive  assaults  upon  his 
honor  and  fame  ?  Why,  gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  one 
of  the  most  preposterous  proposals  that  could  be  ad- 
vanced, and  it  is  only  done  for  the  purpose  of  reviling- 
and  calumniating  a  gentleman  who,  up  to  that  day,, 
stood  unchallenged  and  unrebuked  by  Mr.  Beecher,  or 
by  any  friend  of  Mr.  Beecher,  as  the  most  honorable  and 
truest  friend  sent  by  the  express  providence  of  God,  as 
Mr.  Beecher  says,  for  his  protection  and  defense.  Then 
there  was  no  suspicion  of  Mr,  Moulton.  Then  there  were 
no  degrading  accusations  against  Mr.  Moulton.  Then 
there  were  no  revilings  and  mutterings  from  Plymouth 
Church.  Moulton  was  then  the  staff  upon  which  Beecher 
leaned,  and  leaned  with  entire  confidence  and  trust. 
There  was  not  an  act  performed  by  Mr.  Beecher  at  that 
period  with  reference  to  any  of  the  complications  which 
surrounded  him  (and  there  were  many  involving  him  in 
difficulty) ;  he  could  not  even  receive  a  letter  from  Vic- 
toria Woodhull  without  sending  to  Moulton  to  know 
whether  he  should  answer  it,  and  how  he  should 
answer  it.  And  in  every  step  in  all  his  perplexities 
Moulton  was  the  man  to  whom  he  resorted,  and  in  whom 
he  trusted.  Gentlemen,  why  all  this  uproar  about  the 
non-destruction  of  papers?  When  one  is  destroyed,  why, 
there  is  a  clamorous  outcry ;  and  when  they  are  kept 
there  are  ferocious  complaints.  If  those  papers  reveal 
any  wrong,  if  they  are  consistent  with  the  interest  and 
the  integrity  of  Mr.  Beecher,  if  the  theory  and  the  con- 
struction of  my  learned  friends  are  all  correct  and  sound, 
what  is  the  cause  of  this  disturbance?  Why  do  my  learned 
friends  complain  that  we  have  kept  other  papers,  their 
own  writing,  and  produced  them  when  they  wanted  them 
for  use  ?  The  papers,  gentlemen,  do  not  disturb  them  if 
their  contents  are  so  frivolous  and  so  easily  reconciled 
with  the  integrity  and  the  innocence  of  Mr.  Beecher. 
What  is  the  trouble,  gentlemen  ?  Take  your  paper ;  be 
judged  by  this.  Construe  your  own  writings;  and 
if  they  acquit  you,  why,  bless  God  and 
thank  us  that  they  were  preserved.  [Applause.] 
The  difficulty  is,  gentlemen,  that  these  papers  are  full  of 
a  deep  significance  which  disturb  the  conscience  and  ex- 
cite the  fears  of  their  author  and  his  advocates.  They 
cannot  be  satisfied  that  they  are  kept,  that  they  speak 
loud-mouthed  with  a  clear  and  unerring  voice  of  truth 
upon  the  subject  of  this  scaadaL 


SCMmSG    UF  J 

MR.  BOWEN'S  COre^CTIOX  WITH  THE  CASE. 

I  do  not  tMnk  I  am  called  npou  in  this  case  to 
enter  upon  any  defense  of  Heni-y  C.  Bo  wen.  I  know  if 
the  testimony  of  Mr.  Tilton  is  true,  and  I  think  I  will 
satisfy  you  by-and-by  that  it  Is  veracious — I  know  that 
Mr.  Bowen  acted  an  unfriendly  part,  to  say  the  least,  to- 
ward Air.  Tilton.  I  know  that  when  he  refused  to  hoth 
sides,  both  our  learned  friends  and  ourselves,  all  informa- 
tion in  regard  to  the  facts  within  his  knowledge,  all 
revelation  as  regards  the  testimony  he  would  give 
upon  this  stand,  that  we  called  him  as  a  wit- 
ness, and  that  relation  usually  imposes  upon  a 
iawyer  aji  honorable  duty  of  protection,  so  far  as 
protection  is  justice.  He  was  called,  gentlemen,  as  yous 
well  know,  in  answer  to  a  demand.  You  felt  the  propri- 
ety and  necessity  of  hearing  fi-om  Henry  G.  Bowen  what 
he  had  to  say  upon  this  subject.  Theodore  Tilton  had 
sworn  that  on  the  26th  of  December  Henry  C.  Bowen  had 
revealed  to  him  disgi-aceful  charges  against  ^Vir.  Beecher. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  the  details  of  those  charges. 
They  were  of  such  a  grave  and  serious  charact-er,  accord- 
ing to  ZVIr.  Tilton,  as  to  lead  Henry  C.  Bowen  to  say  that 
he  was  unhi  to  hold  his  exalted  position  as  a  pastor  and 
instructor  in  the  truth.  They  were  suiflcienL  to  authorize 
HemTC.  Bowen,  in  liis  judgment,  to  say  that  the  pro- 
mulgation of  those  charges  would  drive  ilr.  Beecher  from 
his  pulpit  and  fi'om  Brooklyn  in  twelve  days. 

Mr.  Evarts— Twelve  hom-s. 

:«Ir.  Beach— Twelve  hom's.  Mr.  Tilton  then  gives  a 
partial  revelation  of  his  own  diflB.culties  with  Mr.  Beecher. 
Mr.  Bowen  says  to  him  in  the  Spring  of  this  year  :  "  Xr. 
Beecher  and  myself  settled  oiir  business  difficulties,  and 
I  cannot  well  be  the  principal  in  any  accusation  against 
him.  But  you,  TUton,  write  a  demand  upon  Mr.  Beecher 
for  his  resignation  of  his  pastoral  charge  and  his  depart- 
ure from  the  City  of  Brooklyn  and  I  will  support  you  in 
the  charge.  It  is  not  necessary  to  specify  the  causes  in 
the  demand.  Say  to  Mr.  Beecher,  '  for  reasons  which  you 
explicitly  understand,' the  demand  is  made.  I  will  fur- 
nish the  evidence  ;  I  will  support  you  in  the  accusation  ; 
I  will  justify  you  in  this  imperious  and  insolent  demand 
upon  this  preacher  in  the  lai'gest — to  the  largest  congre- 
gation and  in  the  gfeatest  pulpit  of  the  country."  Mr. 
TUton  does  it.  And  why  he  did  it  and  why  he  withdrew 
from  it  hereafter  I  shall  submit  to  you.  But  he  does  it, 
and  he  sends  that  demand  by  the  hands  of  his  coadjutor 
and  principal  in  the  name  and  upon  the  authority  of 
whom  he  is  acting.  He  bears  it,  and  then  is  found- 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  himself— 
,then  is  found  cooperating  and  confederating  with  :Mr. 
Beecher.  And  Mr.  Tilton,  under  those  circumstances,  is 
*left  betrayed  and  forsaken  by  the  man  who  had  stimu- 
lated the  charge,  undertaken  to  furnish  evidence,  and  we 
have  no  explanations  of  the  reasons  or  circumstances 
which  lead  to  that  sudden  confederacy.  Mr.  Bowen  Is 
on  the  stand;  my  friends  do  not  ask  him  whether  Theo- 


Y  J/i?.   BE  ACE.  857 

dore  Tilt  en's  relation  of  the  proceedings  between  him  and 
Mr.  Bowen  of  the  26th  of  December  were  truthfully  told 
by  Mr.  Tilton.  My  friends  did  not  ask  Mr.  Bowen 
wliether  or  not  on  the  26th  of  December  he  did  tell  Theo- 
dore Tilton  to  present  this  demand  and  he  would  back 
him  up  in  it.  My  friends  did  not  ask  him  to  tell  you  how 
and  why,  if  he  did  this,  if  in  the  name  of  truth  and 
morality  and  upon  the  evidence  he  held  in  his  own  hands, 
he  had  undertaken  to  pronounce  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
an  unfit  occupant  of  the  sacred  pulpit — they  don't  ask 
him  how  he  came  to  change  his  views  and  purpose,  and 
to  betray  the  ally  who  on  the  26th  of  December  he  had 
taken  to  his  confidence  and  trust.  My  friend  (Mr. 
Evarts)  smUes  ironically.  I  would  be  happy  to  give 
him  an  opportunity  now  to  explam  why  he  did  'nt  ask 
these  questions  of  Mr.  Bowen.  We  could  not  do  it,  and 
he  knew  it.  We  could  not  ask  as  to  a  conversation 
between  Mr.  TUton  and  Mr.  Bowen,  but  that  gentleman 
had  the  whole  range  of  the  inquiry,  and  if  he  could  have 
contradicted  the  relation  of  Theodore  Tilton,  oh  I  how 
the  Latin  maxim  would  have  rolled  from  his  mouth,  Falsus 
in  uno  falsus  in  omnibus.  [Laughter.]  There  would 
have  been  then  a  contradiction  upon  some  material  point, 
something  which  touched  the  heart  and  the  merits  of 
this  controversy,  and  not  a  fighting  about  the  outskirts 
and  skirmishing  among  the  patrols  of  this  conflict.  The 
gentleman  then  would  have  come  to  the  citadel  in  this 
case.  He  dare  not,  he  has  not  advanced  to  it.  It  is  a 
somewhat  significant  confession,  and  I  will  show  you  by 
and  by,  when  we  come  to  that  "Tripartite  Covenant," 
how  it  is  and  why  it  is  that  upon  the  documentary  evi- 
ence  of  this  case  Theodore  Tilton  stands  so  exalted  and 
truthful  and  supported  that  my  friend  dare  not  assail 
him  in  any  essential  point  of  his  evidence 
except  by  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  Bessie  Turner. 
But  when  we  get  an  apparently  truthful  and  independent 
man,  a  man  who,  from  his  position,  is  adverse  to  Mr. 
Tilton— because  not  even  in  tbe  speeches  of  my  learned 
friends  is  there  so  severe  a  philippic,  so  unsparing  and 
crushing  a  'denunciation,  as  stands  in  this  evidence, 
uttered  ia  writing  by  Theodore  Tilton,  upon  Henry  C. 
Bowen.  He  is  no  friend  of  ours.  He  was  not  called  as  a 
friend  of  ours.  He  was  caUed  upon  the  same  principle 
and  with  the  same  motives  as  have  induced  the  manage- 
ment of  the  case  of  this  plaintiff,  as  I  asserted  before,  to 
open  every  avenue  of  proof,  to  present  every  possible 
witness  whom  we  cotdd  control,  who,  from  his  relation 
to  this  transaction  or  to  Plymouth  Church  could  give 
any  light  upon  this  extraordinary  and  world-wide  con- 
troversy. 

MR.  TILTON^S  YERSIOy  OF  THE  INTERVIEW 
OF  DEC.  30. 

But  Mr.  Evam  proceeded  '.o  comment  npou 

the  relation  by  Mr.  TUton  to  ilr.  Beecher  in  their  first  in- 
terview on  the  30rh  of  December,  of  the  aUeged  confe* 


858 


THE   TILTON-BBhrUIEE    2  RIAL. 


sion  of  his  wife;  and  my  friend  tlien  indulged  in  a  most 
extraordinary  vein  of  exultation.  Oh,  he  knew !  he 
knew  he  had  Theodore  Tilton  then.  You  will  never  for- 
get the  unction  with  which  my  learned  friend  made  that 
declaration,  as  if  he  held  the  destinies  of  this  case  and  of 
all  this  earth  in  his  hand.  "  I  knew  I  had  him  then," 
saya  the  counsel.  "  I  did  not  interrupt  his  narration  ;  I 
did  not  try  to  change  a  word  of  what  he  said.,  It  was  so 
absurd,  so  improbahle,  so  contrary  to  the  law  of  nature," 
that  it  was  one  of  those  miracles  the  counsel  spoke  of. 
And,  by  the  way,  an  Ii-ish  friend  of  mine  insists 
that  Mr.  Evarts  and  Punch  are  plagiarists  upon  Irish 
humor  and  wit ;  that  long  before  Punch  thought  of  it  or 
Mr.  Evarts  adopted  it  there  was  a  better  illustration  in 
Irish  history  of  the  definition  and  character  of  a  miracle. 
I  never  could  tell  a  story,  gentlemen  ;  I  shall  probably 
break  down  before  I  get  through  with  it ;  but  I  have 
faith  in  my  informant— a  gentleman  who  favors  us  with 
his  presence  very  often  here,  and  enlivens  us  with  his 
witticisms  in  the  course  of  this  trial.  His  story 
is  that  an  Irish  priest  was  delivering  a  sermon  upon  the 
subject  of  miracles,  and  giving  a  definition  of  a  miracle 
entirely  satisfactory  to  himself,  as  I  suppose  ;  but  one 
of  his  rustic  hearers  was  a  little  confused  and  uncertain 
about  it ;  the  definition  was  too  learned,  it  was  not 
practical  enough,  he  did  not  understand  it ;  and  there- 
fore at  the  end  of  the  services,  at  the  door,  he  addresses 
the  priest  and  says  :  "  Your  Rivirence,  I  didn't  quite  un- 
derstand your  definition  of  a  miracle  and  your  expla- 
nation of  a  miracle ;  won't  you  make  it  a  little  more 
plain  and  satisfactory  to  me  ?"  "  Oh,  yes,  Pat,"  says  the 
priest ;  "  turn  around."  And  there  was  a  spasmodic 
lengthy  effort  of  the  external  muscles  of  the  lower  limbs  of 
the  priest,  which  disturbed  somewhat  the  perpendicular- 
ity of  Pat.  But  he  got  together  and  started  out ;  and  the 
priest  said  to  him:  **Well,  Pat,  did  that  hurt  yonl" 
"  Oh,  yes,  your  Rivirence ;  it  hurt  me  badly."  "  WeU," 
said  he,  "  Pat,  if  it  hadn't,  it  would  have  been  a  miracle, 
and  now  you  know  what  a  miracle  is."  And  if  my  learned 
friend  (turning  to  Mr.  Evarts)  has  any  uncertainty  upon 
that  subject,  if  he  will  submit  to  a  practical  illustration, 
I  will  promise  that  he  will  have  a  more  forcible  idea  of  a 
miracle  than  he  ever  had  before.  Now,  you  see  you  must 
remember,  because  Mr.  Evarts  must  be  consistent  in  his 
argument— you  must  remember  that  Mr.  Tilton  is  a 
stilted  rhetorician,  a  vainglorious,  lofty,  famous  utterer 
of  big  words.  He  must  do  everything  with  a  strut  and  a 
ceremony ;  every  word  must  be  rolled  out  with  the  ut- 
most dignity.  That  is  the  man  who  is  talking,  and  we 
must  know  about  him  to  see  how  reasonable  and  truthful 
the  story  is  that  he  tells.  That  is  what  Mr.  Evarts  says 
about  him. 

Well,  Mr.  Evarts  says  this  is  a  most  astonishing  relation. 
Mr.  Tilton,  fresh  from  the  discovery  of  the  seduction  of 
Ms  wife,  just  learning  of  the  commission  of  this  adultery, 
raging  and  terrible,  for  he  quotes  the  Scriptures  and 


says,  "  Jealousy  is  the  rage  of  man,"  repeating  the  con* 
fesaion  or  the  statement  of  a  woman  reeking  with  the 
stains  of  adultery,  why  he  delivers  that  formal  and  set 
address  to  Mi\  Beecher.  Well,  it  would  have  been  aston- 
ishing, even  giving  to  Mr.  Tilton  the  character  he  is  rep- 
resented to  possess,  of  a  hasty  and  formal  and  ceremoni- 
ous talker— it  would  have  been  astonishing,  but  when  was 
it?  It  was  on  the  30th  of  December.  The  confession  of 
his  wife  had  been  made  in  July  previous.  It  was  that 
confession  he  was  relating.  For  six  months  he  had 
stayed  his  hand,  and  bound  his  impulses  by 
the  strong  motive  and  constraint  that  pressed 
upon  his  heart  and  his  conscience.  He  came  to 
that  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher  restramed,  manacled, 
bound,  and  with  the  stormy  rage  of  a  wronged  man 
burning  within  him ;  he  was  yet  under  the  promise  and 
the  pledge  to  talk  to  this  man  in  terms  of  friendship  ; 
he  was  sent  by  his  wife  for  that  purpose;  she  had  learned 
of  this  demand;  she  had  learned  of  the  combination 
which  had  been  formed  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr. 
Bowen  for  the  persecution  of  Mr.  Beecher,  if  you  call  it 
persecution.  She  was  alarmed  and  anxious;  she  en- 
treated her  husband;  pressed  upon  his  conscience  the 
promise  he  made  at  the  time  her  confession  in  July  had 
been  given.  And  that  woman  who,  Mr.  Moulton  said  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  could  turn  this  strong  and  robust  and 
proud  man  with  a  wave  of  her  finger,  or  a  lisp  of  her  voice, 
that  man  was  submissive.  He  yielded  to  the  entreaties 
of  that  wife  whom  he  still  loved  and  adored.  He  did 
go  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  do  you  suppose  that  upon  that 
occasion,  for  the  first  time  since  the  confession  of  his  wife 
had  been  made,  seen  face  to  face  by  Theodore  Tilton— at 
the  first  interview  between  the  seducer  and  the  wronged 
husband  under  the  chaius  and  manacles  of  affection  and 
reserve,  and  holding  the  impulses  of  his  nature  in  strong 
constraint  and  control— do  you  suppose  that  he  spoke  in 
the  composed  and  the  natural  language  of  the  conversa- 
tionalist, or  the  rhetorician,  and  is  he  to  be  judged  by 
such  a  standard  ?  Do  you  not  perceive  that  every  word 
that  Theodore  Tilton  uttered  upon  that  occasion  must 
have  been  a  word  struggling  through  impetuous  feeling 
and  passion,  and  that  the  man  was  holding  himself  with 
a  tight  rein  from  an  outburst  which  would  have  been 
perfectly  natural  under  the  circumstances  ?  Well,  look 
at  the  narrative.  Speaking  of  Mr.  Beecher— I  suppose  I 
should  commence  the  interview— Mr.  Tilton  begins  the 
relation  by  saying : 

The  conversation  that  took  place  I  cannot  undertake  to 
repeat  accurately,  that  is  to  say  I  will  not  attempt  to 
give  the  words,  except  at  certain  points,  because  what 
was  said  was  mostly  said  by  me,  and  I  have  no  special 
gift  at  recalling  words.  I  can  better  recall  what  he  said 
thaia  what  I  said.  I  beg:m,  as  t  remember,  somewhat  in 
this  way— I  thvnk  I  am  entirely  accvirate  as  to  the  first 
words  spoken,  and  thoy  were  these.  I  said  :  "  I  presume, 
Sir,  that  you  received  from  me  a  few  days  ago,  through 
Mr.  Bowcu,  a  letter  demanding  your  retirement  from  yom- 
pulpit  and  from  the  City  of  Brooklyn."  He  said,  "  I  did." 


SCrMMl^G    VP  BT  ME.  BEACH, 


859 


I  then  said  to  him,  "  I  have  called  you  here  to-night  in 
order  to  say  to  you  that  you  may  consider  that  letter  im- 
written—unsent— blotted  out— no  longer  in  existence." 
He  then  said"  o  me,  bowing  his  head,  "  I  thank  you."  I 
replied  to  that,  "  Your  thanks  should  not  go  to  me,  but  to 
Elizabeth.  It  is  in  her  behalf  that  I  hold  this  interview, 
and  whatever  I  shall  say  here,  or  in  consequence  of  this 
meeting,  is  not  for  your  sake,  nor  for  my  sake,  but  for 
her  sake."  I  then  asked  him  whether  Mr.  Moulton  had 
shown  to  him  a  statement  which  Elizabeth  had  written. 

Now,  Mr.  Evarts  says  he  never  interposes  any  objeo- 
ticjn,  or  attempts  to  change  any  narration,  but  he  here 
says : 

Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  interpose  an  objection, 
that  on  the  witness's  own  statement,  this  was  an  inter- 
view held  in  the  confidence  of  the  wife,  and  in  her  be- 
half, and  he  cannot  avoid  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  cannot  "  reveal  "  the  statement. 

Mr.  Beach—Yes.  Well,  that  was  overruled  and  Mr. 
Evarts  took  an  exception,  although  he  was  delighted, 
—you  perceive,  according  to  his  argument,  with  the 
whole  conversation. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  not  heard  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  yes,  you  heard  some  of  it.  [Reading  :] 
He  said  to  me  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  shown  him  no 
statement.  I  then  said :  "  Do  you  not  then  understand 
the  object  of  this  interview  "  I  do,"  said  he,  "  in  gene- 
ral terms."  I  then  replied :  "  You  should  tmderstand  it 
more  specifically.  I  will  read  to  you  a  statement  which 
Elizabeth  has  made.  Mr.  Moulton  has  the  original ;  T 
have  a  copy ;  I  will  read  to  you  the  copy."  I  then  put 
my  hand  into  my  pocket,  took  out  some  papers,  and  while 
searching  for  the  copy  wliich  I  had  made  of  Mrs.  Tilton's 
paper,  he  said  to  me :  "  Before  reading  that,  Theodore,  I 
wish  you  would  tell  me  what  Mr.  Bbwen  has  been  saying 
against  me."  I  replied  to  him  that  I  had  not  summoned 
him  to  the  interview  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  with 
him  Mr.  Bowen's  affairs,  but  that  he  should  go  to  Mr. 
Bo  wen  himself .  Nevertheless,  as  he  asked  me  the  ques- 
tion, I  would  say  that  Mr.  Bowen.  in  an  interview  with  me 
on  the  preceding  day,  had  made  the  statement  that  "  you 
have  been  guilty  of  adulteries  with  numerous  members  of 
your  congregation  ever  since  your  Indianapolis  pastorate, 
all  down  through  these  25  years  ;  that  you  are  not  a  safe 
man  to  dwell  in  a  Christian  community  ;  that  he  knows 
numerous  cases  where  you  have  shipwrecked  the  happi- 
ness of  Christian  homes  ;  that  he  is  determined  you  shall 
no  longer  edit  The  Christian  Union  ;  that  you  shall  no 
longer  speak  in  Plymouth  Church,  and  he  says  distinctly 
that  you  are  a  wolf  in  the  fold,  and  that  you  should  be 
extirpated !  Mr.  Beecher  said  it  was  a  matter  of  amaze- 
ment to  him  that  ]\Ir.  Bowen  should  have  so  spoken. 
"  For,"  he  said,  "  when  Mr.  Bowen  delivered  tome  your 
letter  demanding  my  retirement  from  the  pulpit,  he  ap- 
peared to  be  friendly,  and  he  offered  me  his  friendly 
services  in  the  matter."  I  then  said  to  himtluit  I  had 
joined  with  Mr.  Bowen  at  the  beginning  of  the  week  in 
making  that  demand  upon  him  to  retire;  thiit  I  had 
written  that  letter  at  Mr.  Bowen's  suggestion  ;  that  Mr. 
Bowen  had  requested  that  such  a  letter  should  be  writ- 
ten, and  had  said  that  the  reason  why  he  could  not  write 
it  himseK  was  that  in  the  preceding  February— that  is, 
February,  1870— he  (Bowen)  had  hud  a  recon- 
ciliation with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  that  yu-.  Beecher 
had  begged  his  pardon  and  had  bent 
himself  on  the  floor  and  wept,  and  Mr.  Bowen  had  freely 
grantedhim  forgiveness  for  the-crimes  which  he  had  coin-  I 


mitted,  and  that  Mr.  Bowen  said  in  view  of  having  grant- 
ed that  forgiveness  he  could  not  initiate  proceedings 
against  Mr.  Beecher,  but  that  if  I  would  initiate  them  by 
sending  such  a  challenge,  he  [Bowen]  would  sustain  that 
demand,  and  in  the  interest  of  morality  and  religion 
expel  Mr.  Beecher  from  his  pulpit  and  from  the  city. 
That  he  furthermore  had  said  that  he  [Bowen]  had  it  in 
his  power  at  any  time  to  drive  Mr.  Beecher  out  of  Brook- 
lyn within  twelve  hours.  IMr.  Beecher  again  spoke  of  his 
astonishment  that  Mr.  Bowen  should  have  said  such 
things  to  him  or  to  me  on  Monday,  and  then  have  ex- 
pressed himself  in  a  friendly  way,  as  Mr.  Beecher  de- 
scribed it,  on  the  occasion  of  delivering  him  the  letter.  I 
then  told  Mr.  Beecher  that  after  I  had  had  this  interview 
with  Mr.  Bowen  I  had  narrated  the  substance  of  it  to  my 
wife ;  that  my  wife  was  ill,  and  that  this  intelligence 
filled  her  with  profound  distress,  and  that  she  had  in- 
stantly said  to  me  that  it  was  a  violation  of  my 
pledge  and  promise  to  her,  made  in  the  preceding  Sum- 
mer, that  I  would  never  do  the  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
any  harm,  or  ever  assist  in  any  exposure  of  his  secret  to 
the  public.  She  said  to  me :  "  If  IVIi-.  Bowen  makes  a 
war  upon  Mr.  Beeeher,  and  if  you  [that  is  myself  J  join 
in  it,  and  if  Mr.  Beecher  retires  from  his  pulpit,  as  he 
must  under  such  an  attack,  everybody  will,  sooner  or 
hiter,  know  the  reason  why,  and  that,"  said  she  to  'me, 
"  will  be  to  my  shame  and  to  the  children's  shame,  and  I 
cannot  endure  it." 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  I  again  recall  to  your  attention 
with  this  specific  statement  on  the  part  of  Theodore  Til- 
ton,  under  oath,  as  to  what  Mr.  Bowen  on  Monday,  the 
26th,  had  told  to  Mr.  Tilton  in  regard  to  the  character 
and  the  adulteries  of  Mr.  Beecher.  If  that  statement 
was  false ;  if  no  such  communication  and  charge  had 
been  made  by  Henry  C.  Bowen  to  IVIr.  Tilton,  and  if  he 
had  not  undertaken  to  Mr.  Tilton,  as  Mr.  Tilton  swears 
he  had,  why  did  they  not  ask  Henry  C.  Bowen  as  to  the 
truth  of  this  narrative  ?  They  had  the  means  of  then 
overturning  it  by  the  evidence  of  our  own  witness,  called 
and  certified,  and  certified  too  by  the  fact  that  we  called 
him  to  the  stand,  above  any  impeachment  on  our  part; 
a  witness  whom  they  say  by  this  very  relation  of  Mr. 
Tilton  was  an  adversary  witness  to  us  ;  a  witness  whom 
we  said  had  betrayed  us,  had  been  dishonorable  in  his 
engagements  toward  us  ;  they  had  the  means,  by  one 
question  to  that  witness,  of  stamping  upon  Theo- 
dore Tilton  the  disgrace  of  falsehood  and  per- 
jm-y.  They  dared  not,  and  they  did  not,  accept 
the  challenge.  It  is  to  be  taken  as  true,  because 
they  didn't  contradict  it  when  they  had  the 
means  of  contradicting  it.  And  is  the  gentleman,  under 
those  circumstances,  by  his  keen  raillery  and  his  Attic  wit 
and  his  false  construction  of  this  language  and  its  senti- 
ment— is  he,  under  these  circumstances,  to  throw  out  the 
sworn  evidence  of  an  unimpeached  witness  1  Oh.  there 
is  wonderful  aud  witching  power  in  the  tone  of  my 
learned  fi-iend  !  He  is  skilled  in  all  the  devices  of  ora- 
tory ;  he  knows  how  to  touch  all  the  springs  of  the  human 
heart ;  hwt  will  the  law  pennit  sworn  evidence  from  a 
witness  to  be  blotted  out,  whom  they  have  not  dared  to 
I  assail  by  the  ordinary  and  the  proper  modes  of  la-^. 


860 


TEE   TILTON-BEEOHEE  TELAR. 


tlirougli  an  impeacliment  of  his  character  I  Is  it  to  be 
erased  from  the  record  by  tlie  mere  breath  of  counsel, 
and  is  that  the  mood  in  which,  in  a  great  case,  before  a 
learned  Court,  ju8«ce  is  to  be  administered  between  the 
citizens  of  your  State  ?  Now,  Mr.  Evarts— he  had  got  a 
good  way  in  the  narrative  then,  and  Mr.  Evarts  must 
have  understood  something  about  it— he  was  delighted 
with  it  all  the  time.  His  clutch  upon  Mr.  Tilton  was  get- 
ting stronger  and  closer  every  instant,  every  word  he 
uttered.  But  Mr.  Evarts  says  : 

Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  this  indicates  the  nature  of 
the  communication  concerning  which  my  objection  ap- 
plies. I  am  understood,  of  course,  as  objecting  distinctly 
to  every  branch  of  this.   "  Of  course,"  says  the  Judge. 

Delighted  he  was  with  this  narrative.  "  Oh,.  I  have  got 
this  gentleman  now.  I  can,  with  my  use  of  rhetoric, 
with  my  analytical  sMll,  with  my  touches  of  oratory  and 
raillery  here  and  there^  I  can  destroy  this  man  now ;  I 
can  carry  this  jury ;  I  have  got  the  matter  all  in  my  hand 
now."  Well,  the  witness  proceeds : 

Mr.  Beecher  then  asked  me  what  I  meant  by  speaking 
in  that  way  of  Elizabeth  and  her  shame ;  so  I  then  read 
to  him  the  copy  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  confession— a  copy  which 
I  had  made  in  the  early  part  of  the  evening,  the  original 
of  which  was  in  Mr.  Moulton's  possession,  etc. 

Well,  here  a  long  argument  ensued,  very  skillfva  and 
able  on  the  part  of  my  learned  friend,  and  all  directed  to 
closing  the  mouths,  and  shutting  out  the  evidence,  and 
obstructing  the  facts.  It  was  a  policy  and  a  stratagem 
which  my  friend  Porter  condemns.  This  was  so  long  an 
argimient  that  

Mr.  Shearman— Page  396. 

Mi\  Beach— Thank  you.  *•  I  told  Mr.  Beecher  that  in 
the  early  part  of  July,  previous  to  that  interview."  And 
please  remark  it,  gentlemen,  that  he  had  read  the  state- 
ment to  Mr.  Beecher  given  to  him  by  his  wife,  which  was 
as  a  mere  introduction  to  the  subject  of  discussion  as  be- 
tween the  two;  Mr.  Tilton  insisting  that  it  would  be 
derogatory  to  his  honor  and  his  dignity  to  seek  Mr.  Beecher 
and  say  to  him  that  he  withdrew  the  demand  which  he 
had  made  on  the  Monday  previous  for  his  resignation, 
and  his  plan  for  removing  their  diflSculty  by  writing  a 
short  statement,  about  which  we  will  talk  hereafter,  for 
the  purpose  of  forming  an  introduction  to  the  matter  of 
their  designed  conversation. 

I  told  Mr.  Beecher  that  in  the  early  part  of  July,  pre- 
vious to  that  interview,  Mrs.  Tilton  had  come  home  tm- 
expectedly  from  the  country,  and  had  said  to  me  that  the 
object  of  her  return  was  to  communicate  to  me  a  secret, 
which  had  long  been  on  her  miad  like  a  burden,  which 
she  wished  to  throw  off;  that  she  had  on  several  previous 
occasions  come  almost  to  the  point  of  making  such  a 
statement  to  me,  and  once  in  particular,  while  on  a  sick 
bed,  but  that  she  had  never  until  then,  having  been  re- 
scorcd  to  licaltii,  been  brought  quite  to  the  point  of  cour- 
age to  make  the  disclosure. 

Oh,  gent^.cmen,  when  you  read  those  letters  of  self-de- 
preciation and  self-condemnation  written  by  Mrs.  Tilton, 
when  she  speaks  of  the  sorrows  she  has  caused  her  hus- 


band, of  her  temper  and  her  infirmities  betraying  her 
into  wrongful  conduct  in  her  household  ;  when,  in  that 
notable  letter  to  which  I  will  ask  yo  ir  attention,  she 
speaks  of  the  sorrow  that  is  soon  to  break  upon  the  head 
of  her  husband,  cannot  you  see  how  this  deadly  secret 
was  rankling  in  the  heart  of  this  woman,  how  it  was 
struggling  for  utterance,  how  she  loathed  the  condition 
of  duplicity  and  deceit  in  which  she  was  placed,  and  how 
with  her  high  Christian  character  (which  we  will  talk  of 
by-and-by),  she  felt  that  the  utterance  of  this  secret  was 
due  to  her  faith  as  a  Christian  woman,  to  her  duty  as  a 
Christian  wife  ?   [Reading :] 

That  before  she  would  announce  to  me  what  the  secret 
was,  she  exacted  from  me  a  pledge  that  I  would  do  no 
harm  to  the  person  concerning  whom  the  secret  was  to 
be  told,  and  furthermore  that  I  would  not  communicate 
to  that  person  the  fact  that  she  had  made  such  a  revela- 
tion to  me,  because,  as  she  said,  she  wished  to  inform 
him  of  that  revelation  herself.  , 

Well,  that  I  think  is  the  first  incongruity  that  my 
learned  friend  discovered  in  this  narrative.  The  idea 
that  a  wife  having  confessed  her  adultery  to  her  husband, 
bound  him  to  silence  aiMi  restraint  by  a  solemn  pledge, 
and  with  all  the  earnestness  of  a  suffering  and  beloved 
woman,  at  all  times  insisting  upon  the  performance  of 
the  pledge— that  such  a  woman  should  insist  upon  her 
herself  making  the  communication  to  her  betrayer  that 
she  had  made  this  confession  to  her  husband  was,  in  the 
eyes  of  my  learned  friend,  an  unparalleled  atrocity— a 
miracle,  if  it  was  true.  Well,  I  have  said  to  you  two  or 
three  times,  gentlemen,  that  in  construing  the  acts  of 
these  parties  (and  the  necessity  will  become  more  ap- 
parent to  you  hereafter),  we  must  consider  the  peculiar 
characteristics,  circumstances,  and  conditions  of  these 
various  parties.  One  thing  you  know,  that  Elizabeth 
R.  Tilton  loved,  adored,  worshiped  Henry  Ward 
Beecher.  That  is  confessed  on  all  hands.  Her  char- 
acter as  a  Christian  devotee,  her  temperament, 
as  a  delicate,  excitable,  spiritual— aye,  as  Mr,  Beecher 
says,  "  inspirational "  woman  has  been  given  to  you. 
I  shall  hereafter  show  you,  I  think,  the  circumstances, 
the  mental  condition  under  which  this  woman  was  led  to 
submit  to  the  wishes  ot  Mr.  Beecher.  But  she  was  a 
peculiar  lady,  of  deep  emotional  character,  of  somewhat 
strange,  eccentric  thoughts  and  feelings.  IVIr.  Beecher 
was  a  great  preacher,  her  pastor,  loved  still ;  for  at  that 
time  the  conviction  of  her  sin  had  not  fallen  on  her 
conscience  ;  the  delusion  bj-  which  she  had  been  betrayed 
had  not  then  been  dissipated.  She  then  recognized  no 
wrong  in  the  act,  and  culpable  only  in  the  system  of 
deceit  in  the  life  of  duplicity  which  she  was  liviug.  Now, 
if  this  "be  the  character  of  the  woman  and  the  relation  of 
the  parties,  there  is  nothing  strange  or  inconsistant  in 
the  idea  that  Mrs,  Tilton  should  desire  to  make  the  first 
communication  to  Mr,  Beecher  that  she  had  revealed  to, 
her  husband  the  character  and  extent  of  their  intercourse. 
As  between  ordinary  minds  and  men,  iu  the  practice  of 


SUMMING    UF  I 

the  vulgar  ancl  obscene  adulteries  of  the  time,  why  it  is 
possible  the  criticisms  of  my  leai^ned  friend  would  be 
true.  There  would  be  nothing  of  that  delicacy  of  senti- 
ment, there  would  be  nothing  of  that  elevation  of  leeimg 
and  emotion,  there  would  be  nothing  of  that  spiritualized 
idea  of  the  intercourse  given  to  this  by  these  parties  (as 
I  will  show  you),  to  modify  their  action,  or  to  relive  it  from 
the  seusuousness  and  the  vulgarity  of  a  lustful  inter- 
course and  elevate  it  to  that  Mght  which  my  learned 
Mend  expresses  when  he  concedes  it  to  have  been  intro- 
duced by  prayer  and  ended  with  a  benediction  [read- 
ing] : 

That  I  had  given  to  her  this  pledge,  my  word  of  honor, 
that  I  would  neither  disclose  her  secret,  whatever  it 
might  be,  nor  would  I  iuiure  the  person  concerning  whom 
the  secret  was  to  be  told  ;  that  she  then  said  to  me  that  it 
was  a  secret  between  herself  and  the  Rev.  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  her  pastor  ;  that,  as  I  was  well  aware,  there  had 
been,  during  a  long  course  of  years,  a  friendship  between 
herself  and  her  pastor  ;  that  this  friendship,  contrary  to 
my  expectation  or  belief,  had  been  in  later  years  more 
than  friendship,  it  had  been  love  ;  that  it  had  been  more 
than  love,  it  had  been  sexual  intimacr. 

And  this  is  criticised  by  my  learned  friend.  "Well,  would 
there  have  been  anything  astonishing  if  Mrs.  Tilton,  in 
making  this  confession,  had  used  that  precise  language — 
"Why,  you  know  my  husband  that  we  have  been  inti- 
mate with  Mr.  Beecher  for  years ;  our  friendship  has  been 
close  and  conflding ;  it  grew  into  love,  and  from  love  it 
progressed  to  sexual  intimacy"— if  the  woman  herself,  in 
making  a  confession  under  such  circumstances,  had  said 
that,  would  it  be  very  strange  1  But  you  see  that  Mr. 
Tilton  is  not  reproducing  the  exact  language  of  his  wife ; 
he  is  not  repeating  her  exact  words  of  confession  ;  he  is 
reproducing  it  according  to  his  own  habit  of  thought,  and 
his  own  style  of  expression ;  through  his  own  rhetoric  he 
is  expressing  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  the  truths  which 
were  confided  to  him  by  his  wife,  and  the  burning  im- 
pression which  they  made  upon  his  mind  and  heart  at 
the  time.  How  unjust  it  is  then,  in  the  criticism  of  this 
narrative,  to  represent  it  as  the  statement,  in  her  own 
words,  of  the  wife,  or  as  imputing  to  her  the  style  of  ex- 
pression, or  even  the  tenor  of  communication,  which 
was  then  made  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Beecher  freading] : 

That  this  sexual  intimacy  had  begun  shortly  after  the 
death  of  her  son  Paul ;  that  she  had  been  in  a  tender 
frame  of  mind,  consequent  upon  that  bereavement ;  that 
she  had  received  much  consolation  dirring  that  shadow 
on  our  house  from  her  pastor  ;  that  she  had  made  a  visit 
tc  his  house  while  she  was  still  suffering  fi-om  that  sor- 
row, and  that  there,  on  the  10th  of  October,  1868,  she 
had  siu-rendered  her  body  to  him  in  sexual  embrace. 

Now,  does  anybody  suppose  that  Mrs,  Tilton  used  that 
precise  phiaseology  in  the  communication  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
aud  chat  he  is  pretending  to  reproduce  it  in  precise 
form  ?  [reading]  : 

That  she  had  repeated  such  an  act  on  the  following 
Saturday  evening  at  her  own  residence,  174  Living-ston- 
st.;  that  she  had,  consequent  upon  those  two  occa- 
lions,  repeated  such  acta   at    various  times,  at  his 


r  MR.   BEACH,  861 

residence  and  at  hers,  and  at  other  places— such  acts  of 
sexual  intercourse  continuing  from  the  Fall  of  1868  to 
the  Spring  of  1870  ;  that  in  July,  1870,  she  had  made  to 
me  a  confession  in  detail  of  those  acts ;  that  she  had 
given  to  me  also  during  that  recital  many  of  the  reason- 
ings by  her  pastor,  communicated  to  her  to  change  what 
were  her  original  scruples  against  such  sexual  intimacy. 

Now,  I  have  pursued  this  long  enough,  gentlemen,  to 
show  you  the  general  character  of  the  narrative  made  at 
that  time  by  Mr.  TUton,  and  I  have  done  it  for  the  pur- 
pose of  illustrating  the  proposition  I  made,  that  this  was 
not  a  revelation  of  a  mortal  wrong  done  by  Mr.  Beecher 
to  Mr.  TUton,  from  the  pressure  of  which  upon  his  heart 
and  soul  Theodore  Tilton  was  then  burning  and  raging. 
It  was  a  narrative  of  a  preceding  transaction  six  months 
'before;  it  was  a  narrative  made  necessary  by  certain  im- 
mediate circumstances  in  which  Theodore  Tilton  had 
committed,  according  to  his  wife,  an  error  of  judgment 
with  reference  to  their  domestic  condition  and  their  re- 
lations to  Mr.  Beecher.  He  was  called  upon  to  have  this 
interview  with  a  man  against  whom  I  (in  my  judgment 
properly)  admit  he  felt  in  his  heart  a  sentiment  of  resent- 
ment and  hostility,  which  was  only  governed  and  con- 
trolled by  his  own  Christian  resolution  and  the  restraint* 
of  his  wife  and  her  love. 

FOREMAN      CARPENTER     REBUKED  FOR 
SMIJLING. 

Yon  may  not  believe  it,  Sir.  [Addi-essing 
Mr.  Carpenter,  the  foreman  of  the  jury,  who  was  smiling.] 
It  may  excite  incredulity  in.  your  mind;  it  may  excite  a 
smile  of  ironical  disbelief.  But  you  are  bound  to  judge 
from  this  evidence.  You.  are  not  to  adopt  the  pre- 
judices of  counsel ;  you  are  not  to  adopt  misrepre- 
tations  of  counsel.  You  have  sworn  to  decide  this  case 
upon  the  evidence  and  according  to  the  law ;  and  I  am 
entitled  to  a  respectful  hearing  from  this  jury 
and  from  each  and  every  member  of  it.  [Applause. [ 
I  am  asking  the  intelligence  of  this  jury  in  its  highest 
and  best  exercise,  and  with  its  most  impartial  and  justest 
judgment,  to  consider  the  arguments  which,  in  answer 
to  13  days. of  appeal,  I  am  attempting  to  make  to  the 
judgment  and  consciences  of  this  jury.  [Applause.] 

MRS.  TILTON'S  LOVE  OF  MR.  BEECHER. 

Well,  my  friend  spolie  of  tlie  comment  made, 
according  to  Mr.  Tilton's  representation  of  this  interview, 
upon  the  earlier  moral  condition  of  Mr.  Beecher  ;  and 
mocked  at  it.  He  could  not  do  otherwise.  Having  ex- 
alted the  character  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  the  standard  of  in- 
fallible purity,  having  clothed  it  with  a  white  robe,  un- 
soiled  bj'  sin,  through  all  his  career,  he  could  not  of 
course  admit  that  in  any  portion  of  it  there  was  ever  any 
doubt  of  his  exalted  morality  and  purity  of  conduct.  But 
accordin.g  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  Mrs.  Tilton  is  a  truth- 
ful woman.  Again  and  again,  asked  upon  the  gtand  if 
certain  things  were  true,  as  ctmn^'^-^-^  1  a- ^"!  ^   ;  > 


862  THE  TlLrON-BE 

of  Mrs.  Tilton,  lie  answered,  "  I  don't  recollect,  l3ut  if 
Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  said  so,  it  is  true.*'  Now,  wliat  did 
she  say  of  Mr.  Beeclier  ?  Writing  on  the  25tli  of  January, 
1867,  she  says  : 

Four  letters  from  you  reached  me  to-day,  my  own  dear 
husband,  including  one  of  Mrs.  Desmond  and  Oliver's 
letter  to  you.  I  did  not  go  to  Mrs.  D.'s  wedding  as  it  was 
celebrated  at  Mrs.  Merriam's,  iu  Springfield.  Mother 
went  on  and  has  not  yet  returned.  I  will  forward  your 
letter.  *  *  i  think  in  reference  to  Oliver's  [that  is  Oli- 
ver Johnson's j  opinion  of  Mr.  B.  [that  is  Mr.  Beecher],  as 
his  remarks  were  made  to  Mr.  Bowen,  and  they  are  em- 
bittered toward  one  another,  that  what  Mr.  B.  said  of 
you  may  appear  very  different  through  the  coloring  Mr. 
Bowen  may  give  it.  Oh,  how  my  soul  yearns  over  you 
two  dear  men. !  You,  my  beloved,  are  higher  up  than  he ; 
this  I  believe.  Will  you  not  ioin  me  in  prayer  that  God 
would  keep  hiin  as  he  is  keeping  us  ?  Oh,  let  us  pray  for 
him.  You  are  not  willing  to  leave  him  to  the  evil  influ- 
ences which  surround  him.  He  is  In  delusion 
with  regard  to  himself,  and  pitifniUy  mistaken 
in  his  opinion  of  you.  I  can  never  rest 
satisfied  until  you  both  see  eye  to  eye,  and  love  one 
another  as  you  once  did.  This  will  not  come  to  pass  as 
quickly  by  estrangement.  But,  with  all  the  earnestness 
of  my  being,  I  commit  you  both  to  God's  love.  He  has 
Signally  blessed  you  both,  and  He  will  keep  His  own  be- 
loved. Why  I  so  mysteriously  was  brought  in  as  actor  in 
this  friendship,  I  know  not  Yet  no  experience  of  all  my 
life  has  yiade  my  soul  ache  so  keenly  as  the  apparent 
lack  of  Christian  manliness  in  this  beloved  man.  Mattie 
[that  is,  Mrs.  Bradshaw]  feels  as  I  do.   I  saw  her  to-day. 

The  "  lack  of  Christian  manliness !"  There  is  another 
letter  from  which  I  intended  to  read  which  I  have  not  at 
hand  at  present,  but  I  will  find  it  and  read  it  to  you  here- 
after. I  will  now  read  an  extract  from  a  letter,  bearing 
date  a  year  earlier— in  1866  : 

But  to  return  to  Mr.  B.  He  has  been  the  guide  of  our 
youth,  and  until  the  three  last  dreadful  years,  when  our 
confidence  was  shaken  in  him,  we  trusted  him  as  no 
other  human  being. 

This  was  in  1866 ;  and  for  the  three  preceding  years 
something  had  occurred  in  the  history  of  Mr.  Beecher 
which  had  shaken  the  confidence  of  this  woman  in  his 
integrity ;  and  yet  she  appeals  to  her  husband  to  gather 
about  him  all  the  influences  of  their  friendship  and  all  its 
sweet  restoring  solace.  You  see  how  she  yearned  over 
these  two  men,  whom  she  united  in  her  affection,  around 
whom  her  heart  clustered  its  tenderest  affections  and 
sympathies,  for  both  of  whom  she  was  struggling  always 
to  elevate  them  to  a  higher  plane  of  moral  perception 
and  conduct.  But  yet,  after  all,  this  woman,  with  her 
keen  spiritual  perceptions,  had  found  for  three  years 
prior  to  1866  something  in  the  life  and  character  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  which  had  shaken  her  trust  and 
confidence  in  one  whom  she  called  the  guide  of  her  youth 
and  the  father  of  her  religious  faith. 

THE  GRANBEUE  OF  WRITING  THE  LETTER 
OF  DEC.  26. 
Wcl\,  Mr.  Tilton  ventured  to  say,  in  the 
course  of  this  narrative  I  believe,  or  somewher<>  else. 


KCBER  TRIAL. 

where  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Evarts,  found  it:  "It  was 
a  grand  thing  to  write  that  letter  of  demand,  but  it 
would  have  been  grander  not  to  have  done  it."  The  op- 
portunity for  a  witticism  could  not  be  passed  by  my 
learned  friend,  and  he  always  does  such  things  so  beauti- 
fully that  he  is  pardonable,  even  if  he  does  misrepresent 
both  philosophy  and  morality.  [Laughter.]  "  This  is  a 
queer  thing,"  says  the  counsel ;  "  a  man  speaks,  and  it  ie 
grand;  but  if  he  had  held  his  mouth  it  would  have  been 
grander!"  Well,  it  was  a  very  pert  and  witty  thing,  and 
an  easy  way  of  disposing  of  that  sentiment  of  Mr. 
Tilton.  But  let  us  look  at  it  a  little  more 
philosophically,  and  with  a  juster  regard  to  morality. 
Mr.  Tilton  had  learned  from  Mr.  Bowen  to  say  nothing 
of  his  own  experience,  that  this  man,  so  noble  and  proud 
and  exalted,  was  but  a  whited  sepulcher,  that  he  was  oc- 
cupying the  grandest  pulpit  position  on  earth,  and  that 
he  was  an  unworthy  man ;  and  prompted— assume  that 
he  was  prompted— by  a  regard  for  religion,  morality, 
truth,  honesty,  he  says,  "  This  man  shall  no  longer  de- 
file the  Church  of  his  God ;  he  shall  no  longer  preach  in 
the  robes  of  his  hypocrisy  to  trusting  souls ;  he  shall  re- 
sign—ignominiously  resign."  Well,  that  was  grand;  it 
was  pretty  brave ;  it  was  pretty  insolent.  The  man  who 
could  assume  the  hardihood  to  say  that  to  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  in  the  position  which  he  occupied, 
with  the  grand  qualities  which  he  pos- 
sessed—aye, and  surrounded  by  these  3,000 
redeemed  souls  with  uplifted  hands  and  open  hearts  to 
sustain  him— the  man  who  did  that,  did  a  grand  thing,  in 
itf-  bravery.  But  when  he  came  to  look  about  upon  that 
familr  deoolatiou,  when  he  remembered  the  wife  of  his 
youtli,  around  whom  the  fresh  tendrils  of  his  heart  had 
gathered  with  a  clasp  that  no  subsequent  act  had  broken, 
when  he  thought  of  the  peace  of  that  household,  of  those 
children  whom  he  loved,  although  the  counsel,  I  had 
almost  said  basely,  alleges  that  he  bastardizes  them  with 
his  breath— when  thinldng  of  all  the  consequences,  the 
ignominy,  the  sorrow,  the  disgrace  which  would  follow  to 
that  household,  and  guided  and  uplifted  by  the  precepts 
of  his  Master,  he  stood  up  in  an  attitude  of  Christian 
manliness  and  faith  and  said,  "  I  will  not  make  tbis 
assault,  unworthy  as  Henry  Ward  Beecher  may  be ; 
deadly  as  has  been  the  stab  he  has  inflicted 
upon  my  honor  and  my  peace,  nevertheless 
I  will  forgive  him,  and  stay  the  hand  of  my  vengeance"— 
oh,  was  not  that  grander.  Sir  ?  In  the  light  of  Christi- 
anity, guided  by  the  example  of  the  Master,  clinging  hard 
and  close  to  His  teaching  and  His  promises  and  His  com- 
mands, is  it  not  one  of  the  grandest  sights,  the  highest 
exaltation  of  moral  grandeur,  to  see  human  infirmity 
lifting  itself  above  its  tendencies  and  jjassiona.  and  living 
close  to  the  heart  and  the  faith  of  the  Redeemer  1  Grand ! 
oh !  no ;  it  is  a  Art  subject  for  a  witticism  and  a  jest  on  the 
part  of  my  learned  friend.  And  it  Is  by  such  treatment 
of  the  moral  attitudes  of  this  case  and  these  parties,  it  i« 


SUMMI^'G    UP  BY  ME.  BEACH, 


863 


•by  such  ridicule  and  calamny  upon  the  holy,  truths  of 
this  case,  that  my  friends  expect  to  control  the  judgment 
of  this  jury.  ^ 

THE  PAPER  READ  AT  THE  INTERVIEW. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  am  not  at  this  moment 

Intending  to  make  an  examination,  for  the  purpose  of 
application,  of  this  so-called  "  confession  "  of  Mrs.  TU- 
ton,  presented,  at  the  time  «f  this  interview,  to  Mr. 
Beecher.  There  is  a  total  misconception  upon  the  part  of 
my  learned  friends  in  regard  to  the  character  of  that 
paper.  It  was  not  a  confession,  though  that  term  has 
been  applied  to  it.  It  was  written  on  the  29th  of  Decem- 
ber. The  circumstances  under  which  it  was  produced, 
the  motives  under  which  it  was  written,  are  all  explained 
to  you  on  the  evidence.  It  was  not  to  be  preserved  as  a 
muniment  of  this  transaction ;  it  was  not  intended,  nor 
did  it  purpose,  to  be  a.  confession.  The  confession  had 
been  made  six  months  before,  in  fuU.  It  had  been  told 
to  others  before  this  by  both  the  parties— in  proof  and 
■uncontradicted.  The  charge  of  adultery  had  been  made 
before  this— not  to  Mr.  Beecher,  but  yet  tmder  circum- 
stances to  which  we  will  refer  hereafter,  justifying,  de- 
manding the  communication.  This  was  not  the  confession. 
It  was  a  mere  statement,  or  writing,  or  memorandum, 
given  by  Mrs.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Tilton  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
ducing him,  and  as  an  introduction,  to  a  conversation  in 
•which  he  should  scatter  the  peril  which  she  felt  hung 
over  her  and  her  children  through  the  combination  which 
liad  been  made  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  ]^Ir.  Tilton  to 
egect  Mr.  Beecher  from  his  pulpit,  and  which  she  knew 
and  felt  would  in  the  end  produce  a  revelation  disastrous 
to  herself  and  to  hers.  Nobody  disputes  this.  If  any- 
thing is  to  be  believed  in  this  case,  that  is  to  be  believed. 
If  you  reject  all  our  evidence,  if  Tilton  and  Moulton  and 
Mrs.  Moult  on,  and  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  and  Woodruff  cannot 
be  believed,  say  so,  and  send  all  these  people,  upon  the 
mere  declaration  of  Hemy  Ward  Beecher  and  the  breath 
of  his  counsel,  from  this  court-room,  dishonored  by 
a  verdict,  that  they  are  entitled  to  no  credit,  even 
upon  matters  wherein  they  are  not  at  all  disputed. 
If  there  is  anything  in  this  matter,  if  it  is  not  all  a  myth 
and  a  shadow,  if  Plymouth  Chui-ch  has  been  convulsed 
with  nothing,  if  the  whole  world  has  been  disturbed,  and 
half  of  it,  if  you  please,  believing  In  the  guilt  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  without  any  evidence  and  without  any 
fact,  and  without  any  reality  in  it  all,  why,  let  us  learn 
it.  and  learn  it  by  a  bold,  franli  declaration  upon  the  part 
of  the  jiu-y  that  there  is  nothing  of  truth  in  what  four 
witnesses  swear  to. 

Now,  you  will  remember  that  we  were  not  permitted 
to  prove  what  this  statement  made  on  the  29th  of  De- 
cember by  Mrs.  Tilton  was.  We  offered  that  proof.  We 
conld  have  proved  it  by  two  witnesses.  The  cotmsel  ob- 
jected, and  the  Court  ruled  it  out.  We  struggled  as  best 
we  could  for  the  admission  of  the  evidence.   We  desired 


that  you  should  hear  what  these  two  witnesses,  Tilton 
and  Moulton,  would  say  upon  that  subject ;  wa 
wished  to  give  you  the  opportimity,  the  privi- 
lege, of  judging  whether  they  were  to  be 
credited  or  whether  they  were  to  be  rejected. 
If  you  disbelieved  them,  why  the  plaintiff's  case  failed, 
and  their  statement  of  what  this  writing  of  Mrs.  Tilton 
contained  of  course  would  be  discredited  and  disbelieved. ; 
but  my  learned  friends  would  not  have  it.  These  wit- 
nesses would  have  told  you,  according  to  their  best  recol- 
lection, I  presume,  and  upon  their  consciences  and  oaths, 
just  what  was  in  that  writing.  Why  it  was  destroyed  we 
wHl  talk  of  by  and  by ;  but  I  repeat,  our  friends  on  the 
other  side  would  not  have  it.  And  who  is  to  be  blamed  ? 
Mr.  Tilton  read  it  to  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr.  Beecher,  if  there 
is  any  truth  in  Mr.  TUton,  must  have  understood  what  it 
was.  He  says  that  the  charge  was  improper  solicita- 
tions.  Mr.  Tilton  says  it  was  sexual  intimacy. 

Mr.  Shearmua— No ;  he  has  never  said  so. 

Mr.  Beach — ^Never  said  so  i 

Mr.  Shearman— Never. 

:Mr.  Evarts— Not  in  this  case.   I  don't  know  what  ho 
said  anywhere  else. 
Mr.  Morris— Distinctly. 

Mr.  Shearman— You  are  talking  about  the  contents  of 
the  paper. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  talking  about  Mr.  Tilton's  statement. 
Mr.  Evaits— Oh !  the  oral  part. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  that  is  just  what  I  am  talking  about. 
I  said  that  Mr.  Beecher  testified  that  the  charge  made 
upon  that  occasion  was  improper  solicitations  and  that 
Mr.  Tilton  swears  it  was  sexual  intimacy.  Well,  gen- 
tlemen, if  j^Ir.  TUton  and  Mr.  Moulton  could  have  sworn 
as  to  the  contents  of  the  statement  that  Mrs.  Tilton  made, 
and  which  was  communicated  to  Mr.  Beecher  at  that 
time,  then  whether  it  would  have  enlightened  us  or  not 
would  have  depended  upon  the  credibility  to  be  attached 
to  the  statements  of  Moulton  and  Tilton  in  regard  to  its 
contents. 

The  Court  here  took  the  tisual  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

MR.  EVARTS'S  COMMENTS  ON  THE  ^^^TE'S 
CONFESSION. 

After  recess  the  argument  for  the  plaintiff 
was  continued  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Evarts  criticised  the  relation  given  by 
Mr.  Tilton  of  the  confession  of  his  wife  on  account  of  the 
particularity,  the  circumstantiality  of  the  statement ; 
that  it  was  too  pj'eci^e  and  formal ;  that  one  spealclng 
under  the  circumstances  m  which  a  wife  was  supposed 
to  be  situated,  making  a  relation  of  this  character  to  the 
husband,  could  not  by  any  posaibtlity  have  so  controlled 
her  emotions  and  their  effect  upon  her  mental  operations 
as  to  descend  to  the  mintitiae  of  detail — that  is,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  commission  of  this  offense,  to  say  that  it  was 
committed  at  174  Livingston-st.   Well.  I  suppose  a  very 


864 


THE   TILION-BEECHEB  TRIAL. 


reasocable  explanation  of  tliat  phraseology  would  toe 
that  they  had  resided  at  two  places  in  Livln^ston-st.,  one 
48  and  the  other  174,  and  in  giving  the  account  to 
her  husband  of  the  circumstances  connected  with  her 
dishonor  she  says  they  occurred  at  the  place  where  they 
resided.  She  undoubtedly  did  not  use  the  term  174  Liv- 
insston-st.,  but  Mr.  Tilton  in  coramimicating  the  infor- 
mation which  he  had  received  from  his  wife,  clothed  it 
with  those  specifications— with  that  language. 

WeU,  then,  Mr.  Evarts  contends  that  it  is  incredible 
that  Mrs.  Tilton  should  have  used  the  language,  •*  My 
pastor,  Mr.  Beecher,"  when  identifying  the  person 
against  whom  this  charge  was  to  be  made.  Well  I  am 
not  able  to  appreciate  the  force  of  that  criticism  T  con- 
fess, and  I  am  referred  to  a  memorable  example  which,  I 
suppose,  will  not  be  doubted  ia  its  authenticity,  which 
would  equally  excite  the  credulous  criticisms  of  my 
learned  friend.  When  Jacob  asked  Labanfor  his  daughter 
he  says :  *'  I  wiU  serve  thee  seven  years  for  Rachel, 
thy  younger  daughter."  Well,  the  Scriptures  are  thought 
to  be  tolerably  good  rhetoric,  a  pretty  reliable  standard 
for  the  use  of  language,  and  if  Jacob  in  addressing  a 
father,  in  addition  to  naming  the  daughter  for  whom  he 
was  willing  to  serve  seven  years  by  her  name,  should 
specify  her  also  as  his  youngest  daughter,  it  seems  to  be 
admissible  for  Mrs.  Tilton,  speaking  of  Mr.  Beecher,  to 
speak  of  him  as  Mr.  Beecher,  her  pastor.  And,  perhaps, 
there  was  an  implication  in  that  form  of  expres- 
sion a  little  beyond  the  especial  object  of  the  commu- 
nication. It  implies  something  of  intensity  and  possibly 
rebuke—"  The  man  who  did  this  was  not  only  Mr.  Beecher 
but  he  was  my  pastor,"  and  there  is  a  wonderf  ul  deal  of 
implication  in  that  term  as  we  shaU  find  when  we  con- 
nect it  with  the  different  steps  in  the  progress  of  this  se- 
duction. Mr.  Evarts  says,  in  answer  to  the  idea  which 
seems  to  grow  out  of  the  testimony  of  both  the  principal 
parties  in  this  transaction,  that  this  woman  so  exalted 
and  spiritual  in  her  nature,  and  so  devoted  in  her  Christi- 
anity as  she  is  represented  to  be,  could  not  have  fallen, 
unless  through  some  specious  sophistry,  some  spiritual 
delusion  operating  upon  her  senses  and  her  inclinations. 
Mr.  Evarts  says :  "  Why,  no  man  in  the  history  of  all  the 
world  has  used  any  such  arguments  to  persuade  the  vir- 
tue of  a  woman  as  are  attributed  to  Mr.  Beecher ;  that 
the  indulgence  of  love  is  innocent;  th^t  we  cannot  con- 
trol the  passions  and  emotions  of  our  nature ;  we  cannot 
shut  our  eyes  to  beauty  and  loveliness ;  we  cannot  close 
our  hearts  to  the  approach  of  tenderness  and  affection 
for  those  who  are  lovable  and  attractive ;  therefore,  it 
is  justifiable  to  love,  and  if  that  be  justifiable  by  the 
ordinary  forms  and  expressions  through  and  by  which 
love  is  manifested  and  love  is  intensified,  they  must  be 
innocent.  Nobody  could  use  such  language  and  argu- 
tnent." 

Walter  Scott  1b  supposed  to  have  been  a  tolerably  good 
scholar  in  human  nature.  No  writer  has  ever  pictured  so 


gi-aphicaUy  and  beautifully  all  the  manifestations  of  our 
nature  in  its  highest  and  best  developments.  No  mAa 
has  studied  mo*e  persistently  the  character  of  man  as 
expressed  in  his  history  and  in  his  actions,  and  he  has 
been  considered  as  the  great  master  of  human  passion,  as 
the  great  printer  of  human  nature.  In  "Woodstock," 
which  I  hope  some  of  you  have  read,  a  historic  romance 
which  develops  to  a  great  extent  the  wonderful  career  of 
Cromwell  and  his  redoubtable  "  Ironsides,"  one  of  them 
was  a  Master  Tompkins,  a  man  who  fought  with  the 
Bible  on  his  lips.  He  was  an  Independent  preacher— as 
independent  as  Plymouth  Church,  a  law  unto  itself,  judg- 
ing for  itself,  acknowledgtag  no  allegiance  to  Presbyte- 
ries and  Councils  and  Synods,  but  standing  upon  its  own 
law,  yielding  no  submission  to  any  higher  authority. 
Well,  these  "  Ironsides  "  who  preached  at  every  interval 
between  the  battles,  and  who  fought  with  the  courage  of 
religious  zealotry,  were  very  remarkable  characters. 
This  Master  Tompkins,  as  he  is  called,  was  a  famous  ex- 
horter  of  the  Cromwellian  legions;  and  yet  he  was 
touched  witi?  the  softness  of  human  nature,  and  even  the 
sternness  of  his  bigotry  and  the  rigidity  of  his  religion 
could  not  entirely  exclude  the  temptations  of  the  fiesh. 
And  while  they  were  occupying  the  old  ruins  of  Wood- 
stock, the  old  but  somewhat  demolished  home  of  a  roy- 
alist, he  came  into  contact  with  the  daughter,  as  it  is  said, 
of  a  bold  forester,  named  Phoebe,  while  she  was  drawing 
water  at  the  weU,  and  attempted  to  introduce  familiarity 
with  her  by  offering  to  carry  her  pitcher.  Well,  she  re- 
sented this;  and  he  says  to  her: 

"Stand  up,  foolish  maiden,  and  listen,"  said  the  Inde- 
pendent, sternly,  "and  know  in  one  word  that  sin  for 
which  the  spirit  of  man  is  punished  with  the  vengeance 
of  heaven  lieth  not  in  the  corporal  act,  but  in  the  thought 
of  the  sioner.  Believe,  lovely  Phoebe,  that  to  the  pure 
all  acts  are  pure,  and  that  sin  is  in  our  thought,  not  in 
our  actions,  even  as  the  radiance  of  the  day  is  dark  to  a 
blind  man,  but  seen  and  efyoyed  by  him  whose  eyes  re- 
ceive it.  To  him  who  is  but  a  novice  in  the  things  of  the 
spirit  much  is  enjoined,  much  is  prohibited,  and  he  is  fed 
with  milk  fit  for  babes.  For  him  are  ordinances,  pro- 
hibitions, and  commands.  But  the  saint  is  above  these 
ordinances  and  restraints.  To  him,  as  to  the  chosen 
chUd  of  the  house,  is  given  the  pass-key  to  open  all  locks 
which  withhold  him  fiom  the  en,ioyment  of  his  heart's 
desire.  Into  such  pleasant  paths  will  I  guide  thee,  lovely 
Phoebe,  as  shall  unite  in  joy,  in  innocent  freedom,  pleasures 
which  to  the  unprivileged  are  sinful  and  prohibited." 

Well,  here  ia  the  very  sentiment  which  is  attribued  to 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  by  the  mouths  of  two  or  three- 
three  witnesses.  It  is  the  mode  in  which  he  is  alleged  to 
have  addressed  this  lady,  united  with  all  the  other  influ- 
ences which  clustered  around  him  as  a  great  genius  and 
a  distinguished  preacher.  And  we  find,  under  the  treat- 
ment of  a  great  novelist,  of  a  va.^n  versed  in  aU  the  iatrio- 
acies  of  human  knowledge  and  human  experience,  trac- 
ing out  the  operations  of  human  nature  as  a  romancer  but 
yet  with  fidelity  to  nature,  the  same  idea  suggested, 
Well,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  has  read  that  undoubtedlJ^ 


8U31M1NG    UP  1 

Aman-^rlio  reads  Dumas  will  not  neglect  Walter  Scotr. 
And  very  many,  as  is  the  case  witli  all  of  ug— very  many 
of  the  brightest  and  highest  conceptions  of  our  o"wn 
miads  are  derived  from  these  sonrccis  of  information,  be- 
cause there  is  very  little  originality  in  the  world.  There 
are  original  forms  of  expression  ;  but  it  "would  be  difficult 
to  indicate  a  thought,  a  sentiment,  a  principle  of  morality, 
or  nature,  or  science,  that  has  not  been  long  ago  dreamed 
of  and  developed.  And  it  is  not  very  surprisiug,  if 
it  be  true,  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was,  in 
his  intercourse  Tvitn  this  lady,  governed  by  his 
lust,  or  if,  under  the  |||>rceness  of  temptation, 
he  yielded  to  the  attraction  and  the  opportnnities  (<  the 
situation,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Mr.  Beecher  should 
have  used  arguments  of  this  character  and  addressed  to 
this  woman  this  sort  of  sentiment.  Another  great  man, 
great  as  Beecher,  as  lofty  in  all  the  paths  of  knowledge, 
as  consecrated  in  the  hearts  of  the  world  as  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  puts  into  the  mouth  of  one  of  his  characters 
and  gives  the  authenticity  of  his  name  to  sentiments  and 
arguments  of  like  kind.  And  when  :Mr.  Evarts  says  that 
no  man  of  intellect  ever  dreamed  of  arguments  of  this 
character  addressed  under  such  circumstances  to  the  se- 
duction of  virtue,  I  present  him  the  example  as  delin- 
eated by  Walter  Scott, 

If  your  Honor  please,  a  legal  principle  or  two  upon 
the  subject  of  confessions,  fortified  by  authorities,  have 
been  submitted  to  your  H-nor.  I  have  no  occasion,  Sir, 
to  contend  with  them.  I  admit  every  proposition  of  my 
learned  friends  upon  the  subiect.  I  maintain  the  same 
doctrine.  But  don't  my  friends  see  that,  when  they  are 
claiming  the  benefit  of  their  propositions  for  their 
own  witnesses,  they  operate  with  equal  force  and  effi- 
ciency in  favor  of  their  adversary  I  It  is  said  that  the 
confession  of  jVIrs.  Tnton  is  no  evidence  against  this  de- 
fendant. Granted,  Sir.  Your  Honor  has  over  and  over 
again  ruled  it,  and  we  again  and  again  acceded  to  the 
proposition.  It  is  only  when  that  confession  is  detailed 
to  the  party  whom  it  implicates,  when  with  precision 
and  with  emphasis,  under  all  the  possible  solemnities  of  a 
communication  of  that  character,  it  was  made  to  jVIt. 
Beecher.  and  he  guailedand  wavered  beneath  the  charge, 
and  gave  the  confession  of  silence,  sinking  and  tottering 
from  the  presence  of  his  accuser,  and  exclaiming,  "  This 
will  kill  me"— it  is  only  then  that  the  confession 
of  Elizabeth  R  Tilton  becomes  significant  and  important. 
"Well,"  says  my  friend,  "it  was  a  forced  confession." 
Ah  I  there  is  the  mistake  of  my  friends'  argument.  There 
is  the  great  error  of  their  position.  They  assume  that  the 
docTunent  of  December  29  was  the  confession,  and  that 
That  was  extorted  from  Jlrs.  Tilton.  Ah !  gentlemen,  the 
confession  which  was  related  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
atud  which  then  in  the  moment  of  detection  he  dared  not 
stand  up  and  deny,  like  a  brave  and  an  innocent  man, 
wae  the  confession  made  six  months  before.  That  was 
the  narrative  submitted  to  him  containing  the  accusa- 


3Y  MR.   BEACH.  865 

]  tion  made  against  his  honor  and  virtue :  and  it  was  the 
manner  In  which  he  received  that,  the  silence,  and  sub- 
mission, and  broken-heartednees  with  which  he  listened 
to  that,  that  gives  to  that  confession  and  to  its  statement 
the  force  of  convincing,  denouncing  proof.  Now,  I  care 
not,  for  the  purpose  of  this  case,  whether  tbe  statement 
given  by  Mrs.  TUton  to  her  husband  on  the  29th  of  De- 
cember was  won  from  her  by  importunities  and  solici- 
tations. The  situation  of  things,  the  condition 
in  which  the  parties  were  then  placed,  the  purpose  for 
which  this  writing  was  to  be  used.  I  submit  to  you,  con- 
tradicts any  such  supposition.  Theodore  Tilton  did  not 
want  to  use  it  as  a  confession.  He  did  not  use 
it  as  a  confession.  He  did  not  want  to  use  it 
for  the  purpose  of  making  an  accusation.  He  did  not  use 
it  for  the  purpose  of  making  an  accusation.  For,  in  the 
very  instant  when  he  presented  and  read  it  to  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  he  professed  to  him  silence.  He  withdrew 
the  demand  which  four  days  before  he  had  made  upon 
Mr.  Beecher  to  vacate  his  pulpit  and  abandon  Brooklyn. 
What  did  he  want  of  a  confession,  so  far  as  the  idea  of 
crimination,  or  accusation,  or  hostility  was  concerned  1 
T\Tiy,  under  the  teaching  and  influence  of  his  wife  he  was 
throwing  off  his  armor;  he  was  withdi-awing  the 
assault  made  upon  Mr.  Beecher  ;  he  was  telling  him  that 
for  his  wife's  sake,  not  for  his  (Beecher's)  sake,  or  his 
(Tilton's)  own  sake,  but  for  the  take  of  that  woman — 
weary  and  sick,  and  fearful  and  trembling,  and  anxious, 
"  I  spare  you  ;  I  withdraw  this  demand ;  consider  it 
blotted  out  forever."  And  then  he  tells  him  of  the  con- 
fession made  to  him  by  his  wife,  for  the  first  time  lets 
him  know  that  that  secret  between  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  and  Elizabeth  B.  Tilton  for  six  months  had. 
been  held  and  hoarded  in  the  heart  of  hearts 
of  this  plaintiff.  Fow,  what  of  that  state- 
ment 1  Of  what  importance  is  it,  and  who 
cares  what  becomes  of  it  1  It  is  not  the  foundation  of 
this  accusation;  it  was  not  the  confession  of  Mra.  Tilton. 
It  bore  the  character,  originated  in  the  motive,  produced 
the  effect  which  I  have  described  to  you.  WeU,  I  shall 
come  to  the  examination  of  that  by  and  by.  My  friend 
says  that  Mr.  TUton  does  not  deny  that  it  was  a  forced 
confession.  Well,  surely  that  was  a  thoughtless  expres- 
sion upon  the  part  of  the  gentleman,  because  Mr.  Tilton 
tells  you  just  the  circumstances  under  which  it  orig- 
inated. He  explains  to  you  that  it  was  volunteered  by 
the  wife  for  the  purpose  of  smoothing  the  interview,  or 
the  approach  to  the  interview,  between  himself  and  Mr. 
Beecher.  WeU,  is  not  that  a  denial  of  any  imputation 
that  it  was  forced  from  ]Mrs.  Tiiton  by  Mr.  Tilton  ?  And 
under  the  instructions  given  to  us  by  the  Court,  vere  we 
not  justified  in  passing  through  all  these  details  of  con- 
flict upon  these  nunor  and  immaterial  circumstances  by 
reexaminmg  when  it  was  perfectly  evident  that  there 
was  an  trreconciLable  conflict  In  th©  testimony  as  it  then 
stood  I 


866 


THE   TILTON-BEEOEEB  TRIAL. 


WHERE  MEMORY  IS  STRONG. 

But  what  effect,  if  your  Honor  please,  does 
tMs  doctrine,  which  I  concede,  have  upon  other  circum- 
stances and  relationa  in  this  case  ?  Mf  friends  produced 
to  you  an  authority  (Stiles  agt.  Stiles,  I  think)  where  a 
divorce  was  sought  by  the  husband  upon  the  ground  of 
the  confessions  of  the  wife.  Well,  the  case  does  not 
doubt,  I  apprehend,  that  upon  confessions  fortified  by 
circumstances,  however  forcible  or  trivial,  the  Court 
could  propei'ly  decree  a  divorce.  But  it  turned  out  that 
these  confessions  were  made  by  the  wife  to  quiet  and 
control  the  lunacy  of  the  husband,  and  to  restrain  its  out- 
bursts and  its  violence.  Well,  the  Court  says : 

There  is  a  motive  in  the  confessions ;  they  were  made 
with  a  specific  object,  not*with  reference  to  the  truth  of 
the  particular  asseverations  made  by  them,  but  were 
made  for  a  laudable  and  commendable  purpose,  and  not 
with  any  Intention  to  confess  adultery.  Therefore,  we 
will  disregard  the  confession. 

Your-  Honor,  I  thinir,  will  approve  that  idea  of  the  au- 
thority and  the  principle.  But,  gentlemen,  in  the  same 
breath,  our  friends  say  to  Mr.  Moiilton  and  Mr.  Tilton, 
**  Why,  for  three  years,  all  through  this  land,  by  solemn 
declarations  of  mouth,  by  written  asseverations,  by  let- 
ter, by  reports,  under  aU.  circumstances,  you  have  been 
persistently  declaring  that  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  was  in- 
nocent, and  that  the  only  offense  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
was  improper  solicitations."  And  yet  we  prove  to  you,  by 
the  only  proof  that  by  possibility  can  be  given,  these  decla- 
rations were  made  with  the  specific  purpose  of  protecting 
Elizabeth  E.  Tilton  and  her  family,  and  concealing  from 
the  pubUo  the  guilt  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Well,  now, 
we  cannot  prove  this  to  you  by  the  persons  to  whom 
these  declarations  were  made.  Mr.  Tilton  would  not 
have  gone  to  these  various  in(^viduals  and  said  ;  "  Sir, 
my  wife  is  as  white  as  snow,  and  Mr.  Beecher  has  only 
attempted  to  seduce  her,  but  for  that  she  repulsed  him 
with  indignant  scorn.  But  I  tell  you  this  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  concealing  the  fact  that  she  was  seduced." 
We  cannot  prove  it  in  that  way.  No  such  declarations  as 
that  would  have  been  made,  because  it  would  have 
counteracted  the  very  purpose  of  the  assertion. 
But  we  prove  by  Tilton  and  by  Moulton  that  those  de- 
clarations which  they  made  were  made  for  that  specific 
pm^pose,  with  the  approval  and  concurrence  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  and  by  the  professional  advice  of  Benjamin 
F.  Tracy,  and  repeated  in  every  form  to  meet  every  exi- 
gency and  emergency  which  arose  in  this  case.  And  still 
under  the  light  of  their  own  theory  and  the  authorities 
which  they  produce,  they  still  insist,  **  You  are  to  be  con- 
cluded by  the  declarations  which  you  made." 

Now,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  does  not  deny  that  this  was 
the  policy.  He  says  it  was,  and  more  than  that,  in  his 
statement  given  in  evidence  before  the  Examining  Com- 
mittee he  says  that  that  policy  ought  to  have  succeeded. 
In  the  treatment  of  WoodhuU,  in  the  treatment  of  everj- 


inquirer,  in  the  attempted  circulation  of  sonw  modified 
explanation  of  these  outbreaks  and  these  diflBiculties 
which  were  constantly  bringing  up,  through  the  uneasi- 
ness and  the  suspicions  of  Plymouth  Church  and  some  of 
its  members,  these  stories  were  circulated  that  the  public 
might  have  something  to  which  they  could  apply  all  these 
outbreaks  and  belclungs  forth  of  this  fiery  secret,  and 
that  those  who  were  struggling  to  conceal  it  might  have 
some  plausible  pretense  and  ground  upon  which  they  could 
maintain  the  actual  integrity  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  the  entire 
purity  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  Do  younot  see  it,  gentlemen]  Are  we 
to  be  misled  by  the  theory  of  the  other  side  that  we  are 
concluded  by  these  statements  and  representations  made 
under  these  circumstances  ?  Why  it  is  not  only  contrary 
to  the  teachings  of  the  law,  but  it  is  contrary  to  common 
sense.  No  man  disputes,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  does  not 
dispute  it,  that  from  the  first  it  was  the  resolve  of  Mr. 
Tilton  to  protect  the  reputation  and  the  integrity  of  his 
wife.  Every  statement  made  by  him  under  every  con- 
ceivable circumstance  in  which  they  appear  is  traceable 
to  that  purpose,  not  only  entertained,  but  upon  every  oc- 
casion avowed,  and  by  his  oath  upon  this  trial  every  such 
statement  and  averment  upon  his  part  is  applied  to  the 
particular  object  with  which,  not  the  conspiracy, 
but  the  league  between  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
and  Tilton  and  Moulton  was  formed  in  the 
first  outbreak  of  this  difficulty.  But  my  friend 
says  Mr.  Beecher,  in  the  very  representation 
given  by  Moulton  of  his  declarations,  denied  this.  In  the 
account  of  one  of  the  interviews,  Mr.  Moulton  represents 
that  in  answer  to  the  relation  of  the  charge,  or  the  cir- 
cumstances of  his  offense,  Mr.  Beecher  says,  "  If  he  had 
fallen,  he  had  fallen  through  love  and  not  through  lust, " 
Well,  my  friend  argues  that  that  shows  a  doubt  at  least, 
a  hesitating  uucertainty  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher 
whether  he  had  been  guilty  or  not  of  adultery.  Well, 
that  is  not  the  language.  It  does  not  profess  to  give  the 
language  of  Mr. "Beecher.  "  If  he  had  fallen,"  he  said,  "if 
he  had  fallen,  he  had  fallen  through  love  and  not  through 
lust."  What  vvould  have  been  the  language  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  as  derived  and  rendered,  and  from  this  phrase  as 
given  ]  Why,  he  would  have  said,  "Well,  if  I  have  fallen,  I 
have  faUen  through  love  and  not  through  lust."  Well,  a 
man  comes  to  you,  to  me,  and  charges  me  with  sinfulness, 
and  I,  conscious  of  my  wrong,  but  believing  that  there 
was  some  redeeming  quality  to  it  nevertheless,  that,  al- 
though to  human  experience  I  had  been  gross  and  sen- 
sual and  devilish,  yet  that,  nevertheless,  there  was  some 
palliation  for  the  offense,  that  I  felt  that  I  had  not  been 
so  brutally  offensive  to  morals  and  to  society  as  was 
represented,  and  I  say,  "  Very  true.  Sir,  I  have  fallen, 
but  I  have  not  fallen  through  lust  but  through  love."  Is 
that  a  denial  ?  And  is  the  conclusion  that  that  is  a  denial 
a  fair  mode  of  argument,  or  a  fair  deduction  from  the 
language  or  the  cii  cuiustances  to  which  it  is  appUedl 
Why,  uo  ;  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  no  such  thing  was  in- 


SUMMING   UP  J 

tended  to  be  represented  by  Mr.  Moulton,  and  that  the 
expression  wbicb  my  friend  has  seized  upon  in  his  hyper- 
criticism  does  not  lead  to  any  such  conclusion.  T>ot% 
any  one  doubt  that  Mr.  Moulton  meant  to  testify  in  that 
very  conversation— you  remember  its  connections  prob- 
ably—that Mr.  Beecher  was  sensible  of  his  guilt,  and  con- 
fessed his  guilt  ?  Why,  he  states  it  in  that  very  narra- 
tive, and  do  you  suppose  that  Mr.  Moulton,  swearing  dis- 
tinctly to  the  charge  and  the  admission  of  sexual  inter- 
course in  that  very  conversation,  yet  imputes  a  phrase 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  which  would  contradict  the 
whole  story  he  had  been  telling  %  That  is  not  the  sense 
in  which  It  was  used;  it  is  not  the  way  in  which 
evidence  is  to  be  criticised.  Why,  your  Honor  surely 
will  instruct  this  jury  that  it  is  their  duty  to  reconcile 
evidence,  to  consider  the  whole  testimony,  to  draw  ra- 
tional and  common-sense  conclusions  by  a  comparison  of 
the  whole  of  it.  We  are  not  searching  here  to-day  for 
the  purpose  of  condemning  the  character  and  the  repu- 
tation of  witnesses ;  we  ^e  seeking  for  the  truth  through 
human  infirmity  and  weakness,  through  the  errors  and 
frailties  of  memories,  through  the  cloud  of  passion  and 
prejudice,  doing  the  best  we  can  to  reach  the  truth— be- 
lieve me,  gentlemen,  it  is  all  I  seek  in  this  case,  and  my 
only  purpose  is  to  present  to  you  what  I  confess  to  be  a 
professional  and  logical  argument  upon  this  case  to  aid 
you  in  your  effort  to  ascertain  the  true  character  of  this 
case. 

Now,  I  agree  that  human  memory  is  imperfect.  I  be- 
believe  that  there  is  more  iuvolimtary  perjirry  committed 
in  a  court  of  justice  than  you  and  I  can  conceive,  with 
perfect  innocence,  and  merely  through  our  inevitable 
frailties.  But  we  are  not  to  condemn  men  upon  mere 
surmise  and  conjecture.  No  man  can  detail  the  facts  of  a 
given  occurrence  happening  years  ago.  It  is  not  in  the 
power  of  human  frailties  to  retain  the  recollection  of 
them,  and  you  remember  the  illustration  of  my  learned 
friend,  where  different  parties  are  looking  upon 
the  same  transaction,  viewing  it  from  differ- 
ent standpoints,  impressed  differently  by  its 
different  phases  each  and  every  one  retains, 
occurring  three  years  ago.  Mr.  Tilton,  you  come  here 
likewise.  Mr.  Beecher,  you  are  in  the  same  predicament. 
Bessie  Turner,  you  are  still  worse  off  [laughter],  and  so 
you  go  through  and  apply  this  lesson— all  just,  gentle- 
men. I  don't  believe  there  has  a  witness  been  sworn  in 
this  case,  relating  conversations,  transactions,  which 
^occurred  three,  four  years  ago,  or  one  year  ago,  who  has 
given  a  precise  and  accurate  narrative,  a  particular 
memory  of  distinct  and  separate  parts,  and  they  differ  in 
their  relation  of  that  transaction,  and  it  is  the  best  evi- 
dence of  their  truthfulness  that  they  do  so,  because 
[then  there  is  no  evidence  of  manufacture,  there  is  none 
jOf  that  comparison  and  agreement  which  suggest  con- 
versations and  interviews  and  arrangement.  Well, 
you    will    apply    that    all     around  in  this  case. 


BY  MR.   BEACH.  867 

I  Mr.  Moulton,  you  came  here  telling  conversations 
j  of  that  whole  transaction.  It  would  be  to  my  mind  im- 
possible ;  it  would  be  one  of  Mr.  Evarts's  mii-acles  if  he 
did  it,  and  contrary  to  the  law  of  the  human  mind  and 
the  experience  of  the  world.  But  suppose,  four  years 
ago,  five  years  ago,  upon  a  certain  occasion  I  suddenly 
broke  upon  yoiu-  attention  and  said  to  you,  "  Sir,  I  have 
just  killed  a  man,"  and  I  relate  the  circumstances,  the 
motive,  with  a  long  detail,  and  I  beg  you  for  silence,  and 
you  believe  that  there  are  palliating  circumstances  about 
my  guilt,  that  although  justice  cries  out  for  my  blood, 
although  the  law  commands  you  to  reveal  my  guilt,  that, 
nevertheless,  those  modifying  crrcumstauces  entitle 
mc  to  your  commiseration  and  silence.  Years 
pass  along.  The  murder  is  at  last  out,  and  I 
am  charged  with  it,  and  you  are  brought 
forward  as  a  witness  to  tSe  fact  that  I  made  confession 
of  ft,  and  you  give  a  relation  of  that  confession,  of  all 
the  palliating  circumstances  which  I  stated,  of  all  the 
surrounding  relationships  of  the  transaction.  Well,  a 
skillful  examiner  like  Mr.  Porter,  or  Mr.  Evarts,  gets 
hold  of  you,  and  he  involves  you  in  some  verbal  contra- 
dictions, some  rhetorical  extravagances,  some  improb- 
able circumstances,  some  inconsistency  of  detail.  Well, 
that  is  all  well.  Yovi  may  have  been  mistaken  in  regard 
to  those ;  but  could  yon  ever  forget  the  central,  vivifying, 
vital  fact  of  what  I  confessed,  that  I  had  killed  a  man  i 
You  may  err  in  everything  else.  Memory  is  de- 
fective. There  are  a  thousijnd  things  to  betray  it 
in  our  nature,  and  influences  from  without.  But, 
I  repeat,  can  the  fact  ever  be  eradicated  from 
your  mind  that  T  confessed  that  I  killed  that  man  J 
Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  Mrs.  Moulton,  all  the  rest 
may  err  in  the  circumstances  and  the  details  of  their 
narration,  but  when  Heriry  Ward  Beecher,  with  quiver- 
ing lip  and  a  moistenet*  eye,  and  bowing  his  head  in 
shame  and  agony,  admitted  the  fact  of  seduction  of  Mrs. 
TUton,  there  is  no  human  being  on  earth  would  let  go 
that  circumstance,  and  the  ineffaceable  impression  which 
it  would  make  upon  the  human  mind. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  appeal  to  you,  granting  all  that  my 
learned  friends  say,  conceding  all  these  results  of 
forgetf ulness  and  frailty  from  whatever  cause,  there  is 
no  possibility  that  these  witnesses  could  have  forgotten 
the  fact  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  so  grand,  so  noble 
and  exalted  in  his  high  position,  when  the  accusation  of 
seduction  of  Mrs.  Tilton  was  made  against  him,  in  pro- 
found sorrow  and  remorse  admitted  his  guilt.  Mr.  Evarts 
was  just  about  this  time  in  his  speech  making  his  as- 
sault upon  Mr.  Moulton,  and  he  found  it  neces- 
sary to  say,  to  give  strength  and  possibility 
to  it,  that  this  man  Moulton,  who  relates  with 
so  much  precision  and  particularity,  could  not  even  re- 
member at  the  time  of  his  visiting  Mrs.  TUton,  upon  the 
29th  or  30th— whenever  it  was— of  Decem- 
ber,   1870,     whether    she     was    sick.      Well,  my 


868 


IHB   TILTON-BF^ECHEB  TBIAL. 


friend  gpent  some  sonorous  words  on  that  prop- 
osition. What  did  Mr.  Moiilton  say  about  it?  Not 
of  very  great  importance,  gentlemen— only  as  it  illus- 
trates the  method  and  the  manner  of  attack  which  these 
gentlemen  upon  the  defense  have  heen  constantly  malnng 
upon  our  case— the  plaintiff  and  his  witnesses. 

Judge  Neilson— He  said  she  was  ill,  I  think. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— And  I  had  occasion  to  remark  that  a 
layman  visiting  a  lady,  and  saying  she  was  ill,  I  think, 
was  saying  all  a  man  could  say  on  such  a  subject. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  yes.  Sir ;  yet  it  suited  the  purpose  of 
Mr.  Evarts,  addressing  this  jury,  to  say  that  Mr.  Moulton 
could  not  tell,  when  he  was  examined  by  him  to  that 
point,  whether  or  not  Mrs.  Tilton  was  sick.  Well,  now, 
I  have  exposed  

Mr.  Shearman— He  could  riftt  tell  whether  she  was  in 
bed. 

Mr.  Beach— He  said  he  could  not  tell  whether  she  was 
sick.  Yet,  if  I  make  any  misstatement  I  am  quite  willing 
the  gentleman  should  correct  me.  I  say  that  was  the 
allegation.  Well,  it  seems  to  be  settled  by  the  remark  of 
the  Judge. 

THE  ALLEGED  MUTILATION  OF  THE  CATHE- 
RINE GAUNT  LETTER. 

I  should  have  read  the  evidence  from  the 

page,  that  he  did  testify  upon  that  subject,  but  then  the 
fierce  savagery  of  Mr.  Evarts  was  excited  at  the  charged 
mutilation  by  Theodore  Tilton  of  the  Griffith  Gaunt 
tetter.  You  remember  the  letter,  and  I  remember  the 
fcerrible  expressions  of  disgust  and  condemnation  ex- 
pressed by  Mr.  Evarts  over  the  charge  that  Theodore 
rilton  had  mutilated  that  letter  for  the  purpose  of  imput- 
ing to  his  wife  disgrace  and  dishonor,  and  his  character 
and  his  name  were  held  up  by  the  counsel  to  the  con- 
tempt and  the  disgust  of  the  world  for  that,  and  his  elo- 
q^uent  words  of  invective  will  ring  in  the  ears  and  hearts 
of  the"  world  to  come.  Now,  what  is  the  truth  about  it  1 
The  same  charge  was  made  on  the  trial,  on  the  examin- 
ation of  the  witnesses.  Mr.  Evarts  says,  the  subject  hav 
tng  been  introduced  by  Mr.  FuUerton  in  these  words  : 

Mr.  Fullerton— There  is  one  question  here  in  reference 
to  the  publication  in  The  Graphic.  You  asked  whether 
There  was  not  an  omission  in  the  Catherine  Gaunt  letter. 
You  spoke  of  The  Graphic.  I  find  The  Graphic  here,  and 
ft^e  part  which  was  omitted  is  lithographed.  I  think  the 
wi'tness  ought  to  answer  the  whole  question. 

The  Witness— I  respectfully  ask  the  Court  that  Mr. 
Evarts  may  do  me  justice  in  respect  to  the  Catherine 
Gaunt  letter. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  not  necessary ;  I  stated  that  when  the 
publication  in  The  Graphic  was  produced  it  would  of 
course  sroak  for  itself. 

The  vmness— T  desire  also,  Mr.  Evarts,  that  it  shall 
speak  for  me.  Be  kind  enough  to  inform  the  jury  that  it 
was  there  lithographed  as  it  was  written  exactly.  I 
would  do  the  same  for  you  under  the  same  circmu- 
stances. 


Mr.  Evarts— I  will  do  exactly  as  I  saad  x  would,  that 
when  The  Graphic  was  produced  with  it  in  I  would  pre- 
sent it.   That  I  will  do. 

The  Witness— Thank  you. 

Mr.  Evarts— But  I  look  over  what  appear  to  be  a  repro- 
duction of  The  Graphic— vfhat  do  you  call  them  1 

The  Witness — Fac  similes  ;  it  is  an  exact  one. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  the  Catherine  Gaunt  letter  is  n«t 
amoufr  them  in  this  book. 

Mr.  Pullerton—That  is  the  difficulty.  That  book  no  one 
seems  to  be  responsible  for ;  it  is  nullius  filius. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  I  agree  to.  I  do  not  want  to  hold 
any  one  responsible  for  it ;  it  was  the  only  material  we 
had. 

Mr,  Evarts— Now,  this  is  The  Graphic  of  Sept.  18, 1874, 
and  that  was  the  first,  perhaps  the  only  issue  of  this  1  A. 
That  is  the  only  time  I  ever  published  the  Catherine 
Gaunt  letter,  and  that  publication  is  correct. 

Q.  Now,  look  at  that  paper  and  aay  whether  it  is  the  is- 
sue of  The  Graphic  in  which  the  publication— the  litho- 
graphic publication  or  fac  simile  publication  of  certain 
letters  was  made  by  you  and  at  your  request  I  A.  It  is, 
Sir. 

».      *      *      *      *      *  ***** 

Q.  And  this  is  the  only  publication  of  /oe  similes  in 
connection  with  your  statement  that  you  made?  A. 
Yes,  Sir ;  this  is  the  only  time  that  I  published  the  Cath- 
erine Gaunt  letter,  and  I  published  it  exactly  correct. 

Q.  That  speaks  for  itself.  But  my  point  is  this— 
whether  you  made  any  other  publication  of  fac  similes 
except  what  is  found  in  this  number  of  The  Graphic  ?  A. 
I  never  made  any  other  publication  of  this  letter  in  fae 
simile  or  any  other  way  but  that  which  is  in  your  hands. 

Then  he  goes  on  to  other  matters. 

Q.  I  do  not  confine  myself  to  the  Catharine  Gaunt 
letter.  Did  you  publish  any  statement  or  number  of /ac 
similes  ot  any  of  the  documents  or  papers  except  what 
are  on  these  sheets  which  I  now  hold  ?  A.  No,  Sir ;  the 
other  statements  were  published  by  Mr.  Moulton. 

Mr.  Evarts— Now  I  have  it.  Now,  the  letter,  as  here  fac 
similed,  contains  the  omitted  passage  and  the  omitted 
word  "  any,"  and  it  answers  entirely,  I  presume,  to  the 
original  letter.  This  is  The  Graphic  of  September  18, 1874. 

Well,  now,  of  course  this  must  have  escaped  the  recol- 
lection of  Mr.  Evarts,  but  it  is  unfortunate.  This  dishon- 
orable charge  against  Mr.  Tilton  goes  out  to  the  world. 
The  sanction  of  the  authority  and  the  high  name  of  Mi*.  , 
Evarts  and  the  humble  defense  which  is  made  for  Mr. 
Tilton  will  never  reach  the  circulation  or  the  extent  of 
the  original  charge.  Is  it  not  unfortunate,  gentle- 
men, that  Mr.  Tilton,  even  by  the  forgetfulness, 
the  indiscretion,  the  recklessness  of  counsel,  should 
be  subjected  to  these  dishonoring  reflections  upon  his 
character.  My  friend  Mr.  Porter  begins  with  the  charge 
of  publishing  a  letter  which  reveals  the  delicate  physical 
condition  of  his  wife.  It  turns  out  that  the  charge  la 
unfounded.  Mr.  Evarts  follows  it  by  charging  mutila- 
tions of  this  letter.  We  refer  to  the  proof.  We  find  that 
when  the  charge  was  originally  made,  in  the  evidence,  it 
was  refuted  as  a  false  charge,  and  Mr.  Evarte 
very  properly  acknowledging  the  refuting  proof,  and 
yet,  on  submitting  his  case  to  the  jury,  he  makes  a  fierce 
attack  upon  Theodore  Tilton  for  the  very  act  which  he 
first  charged  and  then  withdrew.   I  don't  know,  I  do  not 


SUMMING   UP  BY  ME,  BEACH, 


m 


believe,  whatever  your  oonelusion  may  l>e,  altliougli  you 
Bliould  give  the  fullest  testimonial  in  favor  of  the  integ- 
rity and  the  truth  and  honor  of  Theodore  Tilton— 
I  do  not  believe  in  the  years  to  oome  he 
will  ever  recover  from  the  damage  of  these 
accusations.  They  have  been  made  too  long,  they  oome 
from  sources  too  high,  and  powerful,  and  grand  as  I 
think  him  to  be  in  many  of  the  attributes  of  manhood, 
learned,  cultivated,  industrious,  truthful  and  honorable 
as  you  may  believe  him  to  be,  yet  he  has  upon  him  a 
weight  of  calumny  and  suspicion  which  even 
the  broad  strength  of  his  character  must  be  bravely 
exerted  to  lift.  What  panacea  will  ever  reach  the  circula- 
tion of  the  opening  in  this  case  %  How  will  the  defense 
which  is  made  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Tilton,  in  its  corrections 
of  the  errors  and  its  repulse  of  the  assault  made  upon 
Theodore  Tilton,  ever  reach  with  an  antidote  the  wide 
circulation  and  the  powerful  impression  which  such  lan- 
guage as  that  uttered  by  Mr.  Porter  and  Mr.  Evarts  will 
produce  %  You  cannot  repair  the  injury ,  gentlemen.  You 
can  do  something  toward  justice. 

MB.  BEECHER'S  CONQUESTS  IN  ENGLAND. 

But  another  sing  alar  arg  ument  was  used  by 
the  learned  counsel,  Mr.  Evarts.  He  alluded  with  be- 
coming pride  to  the  efforts  of  Henrv  Ward  Beecher 
among  the  population  of  England.  It  was  at  a  great  crisis 
in  our  history,  A  great  struggle  between  the  different  sec- 
tions of  this  commonwealth  was  waging.  The  q^uestion 
of  liberty  or  slavery,  the  questioa  of  union  or  division, 
was  balanctag  fearfully  in  the  scale  of  events. 
There  were  many  brave  and  true-hearted  patriots 
who  disbelieved  in  the  power  of  the  North 
and  the  strength  of  the  Union  to  maintain  it  indivisible, 
and  it  was  in  that  exigency  that  the  animosity  of  En- 
gland, in  its  aid  to  the  South  and  in  its  cold  countenance 
to  the  North,  was  sustaining  the  audacious  rebellion.  As 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  believed,  as  many  great  men  of  this 
country  believed,  with  false  ideas  in  regard  to  the  issue 
of  that  great  conflict,  in  regard  to  the  cardinal  principle 
which  laid  at  the  root  of  the  hostility  and  the  fight,  they 
knew  and  .  believed  that  the  great  question 
was  one  of  servitude  or  freedom  for  the 
slave,  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher  undertook  to  perform, 
'  Dobly  and  gloriously,  the  task  of  disabusing  the  mind  of 
England  and  reaching  the  hearts  of  the  middle  classes, 
and  of  her  yeomanry,  those  classes  Avhich  after  all  control 
and' are  beginning  more  and  more  to  control  the  des- 
tinies of  the  whole  country,  and  he  was  met  with  derision 
and  scorn.  He  was  assaulted  at  his  meetings, 
where  addresses  were  to  be  delivered  upon  this 
subject,  with  storms  of  obloquy  and  hisses  and 
interruptions;  but  he  was  a  brave  man  thtn. 
Nerved  by  the  purity  and  the  spirit  of  his  case,  there  was 
no  conscious  weight  of  error  or  sin  bearing  upon 
his  heart,  and     was  a  man  in  all  the  majesty  of  a  great 


asd  glorious  creation,  and  he  sustained  the  cause  of  his 
country-,  and  I  need  not  imitate  or  repeat  the  language 
of  my  learned  and  eloquent  friend  in  telling  you  how 
successful  and  how  noble  that  effort  was.  I  agree  with 
him  wholly,  unreservedly,  in  my  reverential  estimate  of 
the  motive,  the  ability,  and  the  success  of  that  grand 
performance  on  the  part  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

But,  then,  my  learned  friend  says  to  you :  "  Are  you 
going  to  convict  Henry  Ward  Beecher  of  adultery  1  Are 
you  going  to  allow  proud  and  envious  England  to  say, 
why,  in  that  great  crisis,  you  sent  us  your  greatest  man« 
and  he  pressed  and  overcame  us,  and  after  all,  after  all, 
are  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,"  says  Mr.  Evarts,  "  agoing 
to  convict  that  man,  so  that  England  may  say  he  was  a 
frail  and  faulty  man  after  alii"  Listen  to  this : 

You  will  understand  that  this  is  an  issue  in  which  the 
question  is  whether  Mr.  Beecher,  who  stood  by  this 
whole  country  in  the  hight  and  extremity  of  her  perils 
and  disasters  against  all  England,  and  stood  alone,  and 
faced  the  frowns  and  jeers  and  cat-calls  and  scoffs  of 
great  crowds  of  English  gentlemen  of  the  better  classes, 
and  faced  them  down  in  the  name  of  the  United  States, 
alone  in  England,  and  aroused,  encouraged,  de- 
veloped, amassed  a  power  in  our  favor  that  no 
single  man  or  voice  did  for  a  nation  since  the  world 
began,  whether  he  is  of  the  base,  low,  coarse,  lewd  fiber 
of  soul  and  grossness  of  body  that  will  allow  the  aristo- 
cratic society  of  England  to  return  the  triumph  that  they 
had  to  submit  to  by  saying:  "You  sent  us  the  noblest, 
the  strongest,  most  courageous,  most  adequate  man  to 
subdue  us ;  but  you  have  discovered  that  his  courage  was 
not  of  the  soul  and  purity  from  faith,  from  love,  from 
duty,  but  from  the  effrontery  of  a  voluptuary  and  an 
adulterer." 

And  that  is  an  argument  which  the  great  advocate  of 
the  age  addresses  to  an  American  jury  sitting  in  a  case 
which  has  disturbed  the  world,  which  that  advocate  says 
is  the  greatest  case  that  was  ever  tried  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice. I  differ  from  him  very  largely  in  that,  but  he  says 
so,  and  it  must  be  so— that  is  an  argument  which  such  an 
advocate,  in  a  case  like  this,  addresses  with  flashing  eye 
and  personal  individuality  to  this  jury  to  convince  them 
of  Mr.  Beecher's  innocence.  "  Oh,  you  must  not  convict 
him;  England  will  laugh  at  us.  You  must  'not  by  your 
A^erdict  send  to  England  the  announcement  that  the  great 
and  gifted,  the  brave  and  succeseful  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  who  subdued  all  your  hostility  and  won  all 
your  convictions,  has  any  human  infirmity.  You  must 
not  tell  England  that  he  has  seduced  a  woman,  because 
England  will  laugh  at  you.  Her  aristocracy  will  meet 
you  with  contempt  and  raillery."  Ah,  my  friend  has  had 
too  much  to  do  with  England.  [Laughter.]  He  hafia  too 
high  a  respect  for  English  sentiment  and  English  aristoc- 
racy ;  and  if  we  have  got  so  low,  if  the  administration  of 
iusticeisso  groveling  and  bo  debased  in  this  free  Gov- _ 
emment  of  laws  that  we  cannot  pronounce  justice  as 
against  our  great  and  noble  men,  for  fear  of  the  scoffs  of 
the  aristocracy  of  England,  then  Gk)d  help  juatioe  and 
American  InstitutionB.  [Applause.] 


870  THE  TILTOJSl-B. 

Judffe  Neilson— I  wish  you  would  be  silent. 

Mr.  Beach— Ah,  my  friend  Evarts  was  too  long  at 
Geneva.  [Tui-ning  to  Mn  Evarts.]  You  associated  too 
much  with  those  Englishmen;  you  played  away  too 
much  of  your  time  at  Paris ;  you  have  lost  the  simple 
grandeur  of  American  independence  and  individuality ; 
and  do  you  expect  to  carry  and  control  a  jury  of  this 
country  by  that  sort  of  argument,  by  that  low  appeal  to 
the  vulgarest  passions  of  our  nature?  Whom  do  you 
think  you  are  addressing  1  What  sort  of  men,  and  what 
hearts,  are  you  speaking  to,  in  a  case  in- 
volving the  dearest  questions  which  can  attach  to  our 
society  ;md  our  persons,  when  important  interests  are  at 
stake,  when  far-reaching  and  terrible  consequences  may 
follow  your  action,  is  it  hoped  that  you  will  descend  to 
the  debasement  of  such  considerations  as,  what  may  be 
the  judgment  of  England,  or  of  anybody  else 
upon  your  verdict?  You  are  men  responsible  in 
this  case.  No  ntatter  what  other  people  may 
think,  or  other  people  may  say,  you  are 
pledged  to  a  higher  authority  than  public  opinion 
or  foreign  judgments,  and  your  consciences  are  bound  by 
an  oath  to  the  Judgment  Seat ;  and  we  must  have  from 
you  in  this  case  the  clear,  honest,  independent  convic- 
tions of  your  own  judgments,  and  we  will  have  them. 
The  counsel  mistakes  if  he  supposes  I  mistrust  this  jury. 
Whatever  I  may  know  in  regard  to  the  influences  sur- 
rounding tliis  case,  and  the  means  which  have  been  re- 
sorted to,  full  well  I  know  and  believe  that 
taey  fall  aimless  and  powerless  before  the  independence 
and  the  truth  of  each  member  of  this  jury ;  and  by  no 
word,  by  no  hint,  by  no  insinuation  have  I  ever,  or  will 
I  ever,  assail  the  personal  integrity  of  the  gentlemen 
I  address.  Yes,  England  will  laugh  at  you.  Well,  I 
fancy  that  there  are  people  in  England  who  are  looking 
with  considerable  anxiety  to  the  progress  and  watching 
the  result  of  this  case.  Indeed,  I  know  they  are,  having 
positive,  personal  information  to  that  effect.  And  no 
one  has  a  deeper  respect  for  the  civilization,  the  intelli- 
gence of  England  than  I  have.  To  say  that  I  have  a 
respect  for  her  institutions,  the  mode  of  their  operation 
within  the  sphere  and  limit  of  their  application,  is  quite 
another  thing. '  But  she  has  great  men  and 
and  learned  men,  and  a  great  many  unjust  ones. 
But  I  do  not  fear  what  England  may  say,  and  I  don't 
believe  that  England,  even  with  all  her  reverence  for 
potentates  and  dignitaries  and  hierarchies— I  don't  be- 
lieve that  England  will  stop  to  consider  the  question  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  conviction  or  acquittal  with  reference  to 
any  association  he  may  have  had  In  former  times  with 
her  Government  or  her  population.  England  is  not  very 
^apt  to  laugh  at  American  justice  or  American  effort.  In- 
deed, we  have  grown  so  fast,  that  even  in  the  domain 
of  law,  in  the  commentaries  of  our  distinguished 
civilians  and  jurists,  we  have  gained  the  respect 
of  England,  and  in  her  courts  our  authorities  and  ad- 


EbJCHEB  IBIAL. 

judications  are  received  and  listened  to  with  as  mucli 
respect  as  that  with  which  we  accept  the  teachings  of 
her  great  lawyers  and  jurists  of  old.  England  will  not 
laugh  at  whatever  verdict  you  may  pronounce.  She  wiU 
have  no  occasion  to ;  and  she  has  had  no  occasion  to 
laugh  at  America  ever  that  I  have  known.  Indeed  her 
association*  with  this  country  have  rather  frequently 
produced  serious  emotions  upon  the  part  of  England. 
[Laughter.] 

Then  the  gentleman  quotes  a  denunciation  from  the 
Scriptures :  Woe  to  him  that  calls  evil  good  and  good 
evil.  Well,  what  is  the  application  of  that  sentiment  ? 
Nobody  disputes  the  propriety  of  it  or  the  authenticity  of 
it.  God  says  :  Woe  to  him  who  calls  evU  good  and  good 
evil.  We  agree  to  the  sentiment.  But  we  had  a  long 
essay  from  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Evarts,  upon  that  sub- 
ject, which  led  me  to  think  that  there  was  some 
terrible  doom  about  to  fall  upon  some  of  us— T 
didn't  know  whom  !t  was  going  to  hit.  [Laughter.] 
Who  is  it  that  calls  evil  good,  and  good  evil  ?  Is  it  Tilton  ? 
Is  it  Moulton  ?  Is  it  myself  i  Against  whom  is  the  woe 
denounced,  and  to  whom  is  it  applied  in  this  case  ?  This 
learned  gentleman  and  great  advocate  ought  to  have 
some  application  for  his  theories  and  his  moral  lessons. 
Why,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  tells  us  that  he  was  charged 
with  improper  solicitation.  Benjamin  F.  Tracy  tells  us,  in 
his  world-wide  opening,  that  the  real  point  in  issue  in  this 
case  is  whether  the  offense  was  improper  solicitations  or 
adultery.  Mrs.  Tilton  over  and  over  again  says  it  is 
improper  solicitations.  They  do  not  deny  it.  They  make 
that  the  test  issue  in  this  case. 

A  STOEMY  SCENE   BETWEEN  MR.  PORTER 
AND  MR.  BEACH. 

Well,  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beeclier,  whom  your 

friend,  Mr.  Wilkeson,  pronounces  the  greatest  man  in  all 
the  earth,  whom  everybody  admits  is  the  greatest  man  in 
the  pulpit  of  the  country,  if  you  have  been  guilty  of  im- 
proper solicitations  addressed  to  one  of  your  parishioners 
who  worshiped  you  as  her  God,  how  comes  it  that  this 
gentleman,  Mr.  Tracy,  aided  by  all  the  rest,  Mr.  Porter 
and  Mr.  Evarts,  piiint  you  as  a  demigod,  upon  whom  the 
stain  of  sin  has  never  rested?  Who  is  making  good  evil, 
and  evil  good  ?  Can  the  pastor  of  a  great  church  address 
to  his  parishioner  solicitations  of  lustful  evil,  imdenied 
by  his  counsel  in  court,  and  then  be  represented  to  the 
American  community  and  the  world  as  a  demigod  iuet 
descended  from  heaven  ? 

Mr.  Porter— One  moment.  I  cannot  permit  the  counsel 
to  make  a  statement,  the  falsehood  of  which  is  known  to 
the  Court  and  to  every  luror.  When  have  we  admitted 
that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  made  improper  advances  to 
her? 

Mr.  Beach  [to  Mr.  Morris]— Will  you  nnd  the  place 
there  in  the  opening  where  Mr.  Tracy  states  that  the 
^ssue  is  between  improper  solicitations  and  adult*  ijr  ' 


SCrMMIXG  VP 

fTuming  to  Mr.  Porter.]  Mr  learned  friend  forgets  tum- 
eelf.  Tnose  "  chords  of  affection"  whicli  liave  been 
"  growing  for  30  years"  between  us  will  not  stand  ttie 
tension  of  an  accusation  of  falsebood.    [Applause.  ] 

Mr.  Porter— Xor  will  any  chu.d  of  fi-iendsliip  permit 
me  to  hear  a  statement  made  in  open  coui't  tliat  we  ad- 
mit a  charge  wMch  Henry  Ward  Beecher  lias  denied  on 
oath,  and  against  which  each  of  the  covmsel  in  this  case 
has  argued.  [Applause.]  The  question  whether  the 
charge  was  improper  solicitations  or  adultery  is  another 
thing ;  but  as  to  the  fact,  I  am  amazed  that  my  friend 
should  claim  that  either  of  us  has,  on  any  occasion,  ad- 
mitted that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  made  improper  ad- 
vances to  this  lady. 

Judge  Xeilson— Xo  doubt  the  interruption  on  the  part 
of  Mr.  Porter  was,  in  his  judgment,  called  for  and  proper. 
Srill,  I  think  there  ia  a  misapprehension.  I  did  not  un- 
derstand Mr.  Beach  to  say  that  you  had  admitted  it.  I 
understood  hmi  to  say,  in  the  course  of  his  rapid  enun- 
ciation, that  the  charge  of  improper  advances  had  not 
been  denied— that  you  had  made  it  the  test  CLuestion— 
tbatis,  that  you  had  not  in  terms  denied  it  when  it  was 
the  subject  of  discussion.  I  did  not  think  that  he  said 
you  even  admitted  it.   I  may  have  misunderstood  him. 

Mr.  Beach— Everybody  understands,  may  it  please  your 
Honor,  and  none  better  than  the  counsel,  that  in  discuss- 
ing this  case,  and  the  course  of  counsel,  I  am  reasoning 
according  to  my  best  judgment  and  understanding  of  the 
case.  There  is  no  one  more  likely  than  I  am  to  fall  into 
error,  but  it  is  not  intentional  error.  I  now  assert,  accord- 
ing to  my  best  recollection  and  my  fairest  deductions  from 
the  arguments  of  the  learned  counsel,  that  not  one  word 
was  said  by  Mr.  Porter  or  Mr.  Evarts  in  denial  of  the 
charge  of  improper  solicitations. 

Judge  NeUson— That  is  as  I  understood  your  expres- 
sion. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir.  [Applause.] 

Judge  XeUson— It  is  quite  impossible,  gentlemen,  that 
we  can  go  on  with  these  interruptions. 

Mr.  Beach— And  I  repeat  the  assertion  that  Mr.  Tracy 
in  his  opening  in  this  case  presented  the  issue,  telling  the 
jury  that  the  real  and  the  true  issue  in  this  case  was 
whether  the  charge  and  the  offense  was  improper  solici- 
tations or  adultery. 

Mr.  Tracy— The  chrircjc,  Mr.  Beach  1 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir.  [Applause.] 

Judge  XeUson— I  wish  you  would  not  compel  me  to 
adjourn,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Tracy— I  said  that  the  question  was  whether  Tilton 
charged  him  with  improper  solicitations  or  adultery. 

Judge  Xeilsou— I  imderstaud  that.  :Mr.  Porter  misun- 
derstood you,  Mr.  Beach.  You  did  not  intend  to  say  that 
they  admitted  the  offense. 

Mr.  B<?ach— No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  he  misunderstood  3-ou. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  whether  he  misunders^"Ood  me  or 


BY  mi.    Bt'ACE,  871 

not,  no  gentleman  has  a  right  to  rise  in  this  court  and 
state  that  I  have  uttered  a  falsehood. 

Judge  Neilson — He  did  n't  say  that. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir;  he  did. 

Judge  Neilson- No,  he  said  that  there  had  been  a  mis- 
apprehension. 

^Ir.  Beach — No,  Sir;  I  cannot  be  mistaken  when  my 
personal  honor  '  j  assailed;  and  I  am  sorry  that  the  gen- 
tleman said  it,  because  he  certainly  knows  that  I  did  not 
mean  to  assert  falsely. 

Mr.  Porter— I  certainly  did  not  suppose  so ;  and  when 
the  gentleman  lirst  made  the  assertion  I  waited  in  sur- 
prise for  the  explanation,  but  when  I  understood  him  to 
renew  the  charge  that  that  was  the  admission,  that  we 
recognized  it,  and  had  not  denied  it,  why  then  most 
certainly  I  had  to  take  him  at  his  word ;  and  no  one  can 
be  more  surprised  than  he  himself  is,  or  will  be,  when  he 
comes  to  read  what  he  uttered  here.  I  accept  of  course 
his  statement  as  to  his  iutention ;  but  he  would  be  very 
much  surprised  if  I  were  to  rise  and  say  that  he  admitted 
that  Mr.  Beecher  was  iunocent,  and  I  am  equally  so 
when  he  asserts  that  we  have  admitted  that  he  was 
guilty  of  improper  solicitations. 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  exposed  the  misrepresentations,  of 
both  these  counsel  in  regard  to  material  facts,  by  refer- 
ence to  the  proof  ;  but  I  have  not  ventured  to  say,  and 
God  forbid  I  ever  should  say  to  my  learned  friend,  imder 
whatever  provocation,  that  he  has  stated  a  falsebood  ; 
and  he  has  no  right  to  say  it  to  me.  He  knows  it  is  not 
true;  as  I  believe  that  these  misstatements  of  the  coun- 
sel on  the  other  side  arise  entirely  from  misconcep- 
tion of  proof  and  without  any  uitentiou  to 
mislead  the  jury  or  to  do  wrong  to  any  hu- 
man being.  I  know  that  in  the  ar^or  of  advocacy 
we  are  sometimes  betrayed  into  intemperate  assertions. 
We  are  led  into  errors  and  mistakes  by  our  very  zeal  and 
by  the  honesty  of  our  purpose,  but  we  are  not  deceivers, 
gentlemen,  intentionally  :  neither  my  learned  friend  nor 
myself  utters  falsehood  to  you  intentionally ;  and  no  one 
can  submit  with  a  more  obliging  grace  than  myself  to 
any  correction  which  may  be  made  of  any  error  into 
which  I  may  fall;  but  I  tell  that  gentleman  again  he 
must  not  charge  me  with  falsehood. 

Mr.  Porter— Then  the  gentleman  must  not  charge  me 
with  admitting  away  the  case  of  my  client. 

Mr.  FuUerton- 1  insist  upon  it,  your  Honor,  that  my 
colleague  shall  be  permitted  to  go  on  now  without 
interruption. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  let  him  proceed. 

THE  DRIFT  OF  PUBLIC   OPINION  OX  THE 
CASE. 

Mr.  Beach— Who  is  it,  then,  to  whom  and 

upon  whom  this  woe  is  denounced  ?  What  is  the  applica- 
tion of  the  pretentious  philosophy  of  Mr.  Evarts  I 
Whereui  have  we  called  good  evil  ?   Whereia  have  we 


872  TEE  TILTON-B 

sought  to  cover  th%  heinous  and  the  hideous  of  wrong  J 
Who  is  laboring  to  cover  up  sin  1  Who  is  toiling  hy  every 
device  and  ingenuity  of  outside  influence  and  of  inner 
effort  Mo  cover  up  the  truth,  to  conceal  the  hideousness  of 
guilt  ?  Not  we.  We  do  not  call  evil  go«d  or  good  evil. 

"  Ah,"  says  Mr.  Evarts,  "  you  are  not  only  evil 
and  evil  continually,  but  you  have  got  all  the 
profligate  classes  on  your  side;  respectable  men 
don't  believe  this  charge.  When  a  scandal  is  pro- 
mulguted,  then  at  once  there  is  a  vast  class  of 
the  community  tlkat  give  it  ready  and  a  free  acceptance," 
and  then  (quoting  some  Latin,  which  I  beg  the  privilege 
of  skipping)  he  says ;  "  The  idle  profligates  of  New- York 
believe  it,  and  of  all  these  neighboring  towns,  and  so  in 
every  quarter  where  the  wicked  classes  make  their  meet- 
ings and  hold  their  gossips,  with  a  sneer  and  smile  the 
scandal  is  accepted." 

Indeed  1  And  how  did  the  gentleman  find  out  that  ? 
What  sort  of  association  does  he  keep  to  make  that  dis- 
covery ?  [Laughter.")  Does  he  learn  it  from  the  declara- 
tions of  nine-tenths  of  the  press  of  the  country  ?  Why, 
there  are  some  few  who  seem  to  believe  it  in  the  audi- 
ence. Do  they  belong  to  the  profligate  classes  ?  Do 
they  honor  us  with  their  attendance  out  of  love 
for  sin  and  debauchery?  Are  they  giving  to 
this  trial  the  countenance  of ,  their  .  presence 
because  of  their  profligacy  and  abandonment  ? 
Is  Fairfield  a  profligate  ?  Is  Judge  Lord,  who  gave  a 
public  opinion  upon  this  question  in  Massachusetts,  a 
profligate  ?  Are  the  various  eminent  divines  who  declare 
their  conviction  by  their  absence,  and  who  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  declare  it  otherwise,  are  they  profligates  ?  And 
the  "jury  of  the  vicinage,"  to  which  my  learned  friend 
appeals— is  this  the  jury  from  the  vicinage,  and  are  they 
holding  up  their  hands  in  acclaim  in  honor  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher?  No,  gentlemen ;  the  cause  of  this  plaintiff  cannot 
be  disgraced  by  any  such  association.  Hear  what  the 
oracle  of  my  learned  friend's  friend,  Mr.  Bartlett,  says 
upon  this  subject.  Quoting  this  phrase  of  Mr.  Evarts, 
"  The  idle  profligates  of  New-York  believe  the  scandal," 
it  says,  "  Mr.  Evarts  is  mistaken.  The  profligate  classes 
are  on  Mr.  Beecher's  side,  and  those  who  most  fear  that 
he  is  guilty  are  the  religious,  respectable  people."  And  it 
is  true.  I  know,  gentlemen,  that  there  is  a  large  class  in 
this  community,  pious  and  moral  men,  who  long  and 
pray  that  Mr.  Beeoher  may  be  proven  to  be  innocent  ; 
and  at  the  outset  of  this  investigation  there  was  scarcely 
b  respectable  man  in  the  whole  community  who  did  not 
pray  and  hope  with  all  the  fervor  of  his  spirit  that  this 
would  turn  out  to  be  a  mistaken  and  a  false  accusation. 
But  the  times  are  changed.  The  developments  of  this 
trial  have  wrought  their  legitimate  and  inevitable 
effect.  From  every  section  of  the  country  come 
up  the  acknowledgements  of  that  effect.  Ah,  my 
fiiend  (Mr.  Tracy)  laughs,  but  I  have  quoted  the  papers  ; 
I  can  refer  to  the  articles ;  and  although  he  opened  that 
great  opening  of  his  with  the  declaration  that  he  was 
ustained  by  the  sympathy  of  the  world,  I  think  my 


^^ECUEE  TUIAL. 

fiiend  feels  now  a  little  shorn  of  ma  supports.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  is  all  aside  from  the  true  merits 
of  this  case,  I  grant  you,  but  I  am  not  introducing  these 
topics.  I  have  resorted,  and  shall  resort  to  no  such  de- 
vices to  wiu  the  favor  of  this  jury.  My  case  does  not  de- 
mand it ;  my  own  sense  of  justice  does  not  approve  it. 
I  have  no  animosity  to  this  defendant  which  would  lead 
me  to  resort  to  any  such  contrivance;  but  when  these  gen- 
tlemen flourish  in  such  a  magniflcent  manner,  claimmg  all 
the  purity,  and  the  elevation,  and  the  digmty  of  the  com- 
munity in  favor  of  their  client,  and  assigning  us  to  the 
most  ignominious  association  with  the  profligate  classes, 
why,  gentlemen,  we  are  bound  to  make  some  little  de- 
fense. 

THE  ARGUMENT  THAT  MR.  BEECHER  HAD 
NOT  TIME  TO  SIN. 
WeU,  Mr.  Beecher  is  a  busy  man.  He  had  no 
time  to  commit  sin !  That  is  actually  an  argument  made 
to  you  by  the  Geneva  advocate  [laughter],  Mr.  Evarta, 
the  man  who  represented,  and  ably  represented — for  I 
mean  no  sliglit  upon  Mr.  Evarts— the  man  who  ably  rej)- 
resented  the  interests  of  his  country  in  the  settlement  of 
the  Alabama  claims.  But  it  is  really  an  argument  made 
to  this  jury,  in  favor  of  the  innocence  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
that  he  was  too  busy  a  man  to  find  leisure 
for  the  commission  of  this  offense!  Well,  that 
same  busy  man  tells  us  that  with  all  the  wonderful 
products  of  his  industry  and  genius,  his  work  is  all  done 
by  10  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  he  has  all  the  rest  of 
the  day  for  recreation  and  exercise.  Now,  that  is  rather 
more  than  you  or  I  can  claim.  Then  he  tells  us  also  that  he 
takes  Saturday  as  a  holiday— every  Saturday;  and  it  turns 
out  that  these  di  faculties  in  whichhe  got  involved  occurred 
on  a  Saturday  [laughter],  one  of  his  holidays.  He  had 
time  enough  to  visit,  too.  Although  he  was  not  much  of 
a  pastoral  visitor,  yet  he  did  find  time  to  visit  Mrs.  Til- 
ton,  and  in  the  absence  of  her  husband.  That  was  all 
right ;  Mr.  Tilton  solicited  it,  and  it  was  very  proper.  He 
did  find  time,  also,  to  put  the  babies  to  sleep.  [Laughter.] 
Not  only  that,  but  he  engaged  himself  for  that  service  in 
future ;  and  requested  Mrs.  Tilton  whenever  the  babies 
were  uneasy  to  send  around  for  him,  and  he  would  put 
them  to  rest.  [Laughter.]  There  can't  be  any  dispute 
about  that;  because  Mrs.  Tilton  writes  it,  [renewed 
laughter,]  and  he  acknowledged  it.  He  could  find  time, 
too,  to  take  Mrs.  Tilton  out  riding.  Well,  there  is  no  im- 
propriety in  that.  He  could  find  time  to  be  out  walking 
with  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  to  visit  a  sculptor's  studio,  I  believe, 
and  photographic  galleries.  Well,  now,  gentlemen,  how 
pitiful  an  argument  this  is,  under  such  circumstances, 
and  in  what  a  desperate  strait  must,  a  fruitful  and  ingeni- 
ous minded  lawyer  be  to  resort  to- an  appeal  of  that  char- 
acter under  the  proof  in  this  case ! 
And  so  with  the  statement  of  the  learned  gentleman 


SUMMING    UP  BY  ME.  BEACH. 


873 


tliat  Mr.  Beecher's  person  was  so  well-known  that  he 
could  not  move  anywhere  without  being  an  object  of  ob- 
servation. What  if  it  is  so  ?  Was  there  no  uoportunity 
for  him  to  have  intercourse  with  Mrs.  Tilton,  of  whatever 
Mnd  that  intercourse  may  have  been?  Didn't  he  visit 
her?  Didn't  he  see  her,  and  see  her  alone  where  there 
was  opportunity,  if  opportunity  was  desired  ?  What  ar- 
rant nonsense  it  is,  with  known  circumstances  admitted 
by  Mr.  Beeoher  himself,  to  argue  that  he  was  too 
busy  and  too  veil  known  to  commit  adultery  I 

MR.  TILTON  NOT  A  CRUEL  HUSBAND. 

There  is  one  subject  which,  in  passing,  I 
desire  t-o  speak  of,  because  I  would  be  glad  to  disabuse 
every  mind  of  the  idea  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  a  cruel  and 
brutal  husband.  I  Icnow  Bessie  Turner  calls  him  so,  but 
she  is  the  only  witness  in  this  case  who  imputes  any  such 
conduct  to  Theodore  Tilton.  If  we  may  judge  from  his 
letters,  if  we  may  judge  from  Mrs.  Tilton's  letters,  if  we 
may  judge  from  the  evidence  of  the  man,  from  his  de- 
meanor upon  the  stand,  from  every  revelation  of  his 
inmost  character  which  he  has  given,  from  the 
sentiments  he  has  expressed,  from  the  doctrines  he  has 
avowed,  from  every  act  of  his,  so  far  as  it  Is  proven  by 
any  other  human  bei:ig  except  Bessie  Turner,  why  he  is 
a  man  who  would  revolt  at  any  indecency  or  ovitrage 
toward  his  wife.  Ah !  gentlemen,  except  as  you  get  it 
from  the  lips  of  Bessie  Turner,  where  and  when  has 
Theodore  Tilton  ever  breathed  a  lisp  against  the  peace 
and  the  honor  of  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  ?  When  has  he  ever 
professed  anything  but  love  and  reverence  and  duty  ? 

He  may  have  sinned;  I  don't  know;  you  may  believe 
it  from  the  evidence.  But  so  far  as  we  can  trace  the 
character  and  the  career  of  the  man,  from  his  writings 
and  declarations  and  publications,  it  has  been  a  life  of 
unswerving  loyalty  and  of  imlimited  devotion  to  this 
woman  ;  and  even  when  he  comes  upon  the  stand  and 
swears  that  she  confessed  to  him  her  impurities  with 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  his  adoration  for  that  wife  was 
still  so  profound,  his  belief  in  her  spiritual  integrity  so 
immovable,  that  he  yet,  in  the  presence  of  his  God,  avows 
his  belief  that  she  is  pure  in  soul  and  white  as  snow. 
Now,  can  you  conceive  that  that  man,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances of  temptation,  ii  he  be  the  base  conspirator 
and  adulterer  charged  by  my  learned  friends,  and  .  when 
there  were  no  scruples  of  conscience,  and  no  seductions 
of  interest  to  lead  him  to  the  declaration  of  that  belief  in 
the  white  purity  of  his  wife,  can  you  conceive  that  the 
villain  he  is  represented  to  be  would  have  made  that 
declaration  1  I  shall  comment  upon  it  by  and  by.  But  it 
strikes  every  man  as  being  an  open  avowal  of  a  condition 
of  spirituality  and  character  utterly  at  war  and 
inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  this  defense.  But  Theo- 
dore Tilton  believed  it ;  I  think  he  believes  it  still ;  and 
he  had  the  honest  manliness  to  avow  it,  and  not  only  to 
avow  it,  but,  without  (xuestiou  or  interrogation,  to  volun- 


teer it.  Nobody  asked  him  a  question  calling  for  it ;  but, 
in  the  impiilsive  tuUnoss  of  his  nature,  and  in  his  desire 
to  tell  the  whole  truth,  in  his  love  and  consecration  to 
that  woman  who  has  deserted  him,  he  did  make  an 
open  and  an  uncaDed  for  avowal  of  this  belief. 
And  yet  that  man  is  represented  aa  a  cun- 
ning, subtle  schemer  and  conspirator,  planning  a 
long  arranged  and  studiously  developed  conspiracy 
against  the  pocket  and  the  honor  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher ;  and  he  is  held  up  to  you,  in  the  denunciations 
of  counsel,  as  a  reckless  profligate  an?f  a  remorseless  de- 
bauchee, preying  vy;>on  virtae  and  integrity,  setting  at 
naught  all  the  civilities  and  proprieties  of  social  life, 
fallen  from  his  old  Christian  grace,  regardless  of  his 
early  education  and  teachings,  and  with  all  his  powers 
and  faculties  misleading  the  morality  of  the 
age!  It  all  exists  in  the  imagination  of 
the  counsel.  Wliy  was  not  some  one 
else  from  that  household  produced  to  prove  this  baseness 
and  brutality  ?  Why  not  some  of  .the  members  of  Plym- 
outh Church,  who,  three  or  four  years  ago,  were  intimate 
and  familiar  with  the  hospitality  of  that  household  I 
Why  not  some  of  the  numerous  ladies  attached  to  Plym- 
outh Church  and  still  clinging  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
who  again  and  again  have  been  beneath  that  roof,  and 
who  knew  all  the  conditions  of  the  household  ? 

If  Theodore  Tilton  was  the  monster  he  is  represented 
to  be,  why  does  this  defense  rest  upon  the  pert  and  puerile 
Bessie  Tiu-ner  1  And  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  testi- 
mony borne  by  Joseph  Richards,  by  Kate  Carey,  by 
Catharine  McDonald,  by  Mrs.  Mitchell,  by  Mrs.  Bradshaw 
by  Mr.  Maverick,  all  witnesses  pronouncing  it  a  harmon 
ious  and  a  happy  household,  a  bloving,  cultured  an<> 
beatific  home  ? 

Mr.  Beecher  himself,  too,  bears  testimony  to  it.  And 
yet  with  this  evidence,  upon  the  .simple  testimony  ol 
this  girl,  Bessie  Turner,  with  no  better  proof  than  that, 
and  in  the  face  of  this  exculpatory  evidence,  this  Court- 
house has  rung  for  days,  and  the  echoes  of  the  voices  of 
my  learned  friends  are  still  traveling  all  over  the  world 
in  bitter  and  disgraceful  denunciations  of  the 
conduct  of  Theodore  Tilton  in  his  family.  Well,  that  may 
be  iustice,  gentlemen.  That  may  be  the  sort  of  proof 
which  conscientious  and  intelligent  men  require  upon 
which  to  rest  their  consciences  in  determining  a  great 
question ;  but  if  so,  I  am  mistaken  in  the  judgment  and 
in  the  character  of  this  tribunal.  I  know  you  are  preju- 
diced against  Theodore  Tilton.  There  is  not  a  man  about 
me,  I  fancy— not  a  man  about  me  who.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  storm  which  has  beaten  upon  him, 
the  thunders  of  which  were  closed  but  a  day  or  two  ago, 
and  the  echoes  of  which  stlU  linger  in  the  arches  of  this 
court-room— not  a  man  who  has  not  been  influenced 
against  him  by  this,  and  because  he  is  a  fearless  and  self- 
sustained  independent  man,  who  will  crawl  at  the  foot  of 
no  human  being  and  court  the  confidence  or  the  applause 


874 


THE   TILTOI^-BEECHEB  TRIAL. 


of  no  member  of  this  jury,  or  of  this  community,  with  any 
degrading  sycophancy,  a  man  who  stands  up  in 
his  own  single  and  independent  manhood  and  de- 
mands in  a  court  of  law  justice  founded  upon 
the  evidence.  And  he  will  get  it.  Sometime  and  some- 
where he  will  get  it  if  it  Is  denied  him  by  this  jury.  If  there 
be  a  Providence  which  overrules  the  destinies  of  men  as 
well  as  of  nations  ;  if  there  be  a  retributive  justice  which 
in  the  end  overtakes  sin  and  transgression,  Theodore 
Tilton  will  get  vindication  and  justice  and  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  will  meet  Ms  due  reward.   [Loud  applause.] 

The  hour  of  4  having  arrived,  the  Court  adjourned 
until  Monday  at  11  o'clock. 


103D  DAY'S  PROCEEDmGS. 

OPENING  OF  THE  TWENTY-FOURTH  WEEK. 

FOURTH  DAY  OF  MR.  BEACH'S  SUMMING  UP— COUN- 
SEL REFERS  TO  PUBLISHED  STATEMENTS  OF  AL- 
LEGED NEW  EVIDENCE— MR.  TILTON'S  LAWYERS 
DECIDE  TO  TAKE  NO  ACTION  CONCERNING  THEM 
— CORRECTIONS  AND  EXPLANATIONS  FROM  MR. 
BEACH— THE  MISUNDERSTANDING  ABOUT  THE 
defendant's  POSITION  IN  REGARD  TO  IM- 
PROPER PROPOSALS— ANSWERING  OF  ARGUMENTS 
MADE  BY  MR.  BEECHER's  LAWYERS  CONTINUED 
—CORRESPONDENCE  OF  MR.  AND  MRS.  TILTON 
CONSIDERED— MR.  TILTON  DECLARED  NOT  TO 
HAVE  PROMPTED  THE  WOODHULL  &CANDAL— 
MR.  BOWEN'S  CHECK  TO  MR.  TILTON— CHRIS- 
TIANITY AND  THE  TRIAL. 

Monday,  June  14,  1875. 
The  twenty-foTirtli  week  of  the  Tilton-Beecher 
case  was  opened  to-day,  with  a  continuation  of 
the  argument  of  Mr.  Beach  in  summing  up  for  the 
plaintiff.  Replying  to  the  arguments  of  opposing 
counsel  and  taking  up  questions  of  probability  in 
the  affirmative  presentment  of  the  plaintiff's  case 
comprised  the  main  features  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  daj^. 

A  tribute  of  respect,  given  by  the  orator  to  Mrs. 
Beecher's  character,  as  shown  by  her  undeviating 
faith  in  her  husband  and  by  her  acting  as  a  minister- 
ing angel  to  him  in  his  hour  of  suffering  and  sorrow, 
called  forth  applause. 

One  of  the  most  oratorical  efforts  of  the  day  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  Beach  was  his  word-picture  of  jus- 
tice, which,  given  in  his  most  earnest  and  deliberate 
tones,  excited  the  deepest  attention  and  interest. 
This  was  succeeded  by  another  outburst  from  the 
orator,  in  which  he  paid  a  glowing  tribute  to  the 
majesty  and  dignity  of  law,  both  natural  and  mu- 
nicipal. 


About  half  of  the  session  of  to-day— the  fourth 
day  of  the  summing  up  for  the  plaintiff— was  con- 
sumed by  the  orator  in  replj^ing  to  the  arguments  of 
the  opposing  counsel.  After  the  making  of  correc- 
tions and  explanations  in  regard  to  the  misun- 
derstanding about  the  concession  of  the 
truth  of  the  charge  of  improper  proposals, 
and  about  the  authorship  of  the  articles 
in  The  iSun  attributed  to  William  O.  Bartlett,  and 
also  the  correcting  of  the  statements  with  regard  to 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Southard,  Mr.  Beach  went  on  to  criti- 
cise further  the  strictures  made  by  defendant's  coun- 
sel against  the  characters  of  Mr.  Richards  and  Mr. 
Martin^  The  latter's  testimony,  said  Mr.  Beach,  was 
inadvertently  false  where  it  was  asserted  that  the 
porch  behind  Mr.  Tilton's  house  was  shaded  from 
the  sun  bj^  a  wall,  The  wall  was  not  there,  but 
there  was  a  large  tree  and  an  umbrageous  grape  vine 
which  answered  the  same  purpose  and  afforded  shade. 
In  reviewing  Mr.  Mouiton's  connection  with  the 
Proctor  libel  suit,  the  orator  said  that  the  assertion 
in  Mr.  Mouiton's  statement  in  regard  to  Miss  Proctor 
was  put  there  by  advice  of  counsel.  Furthermore, 
Mr.  Moulton  did  not  assert  the  truth  of  the  statement 
and  paid  the  damages  awarded.  The  speaker  then 
took  up  and  discussed  the  Woodhull  publica- 
tion, which  he  said  was  not  prompted 
by  Mr.  Tilton,  nor  did  the  information 
therein  contained  come  from  Mr.  Tilton. 
Concerning  Mr.  Tilton' s  connection  with  Mrs.  Wood- 
hull,  Mr.  Beach  said  he  knew  of  no  evidence  in  the 
case  which  tended  to  show  that  Mrs.  Woodhull's 
character  was  so  bad  as  to  make  all  association  with, 
her  disreputable.  The  slip  of  paper  accompanying 
the  $7,000  check  from  Mr.  Bowen  to  Mr. 
Tilton  was  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Beach,  who 
declared  that  it  was  a  bald  misstatement  on  the 
part  of  defendant's  counsel  to  assert  that  Wood- 
ruff &  Robinson  kept  $6,000  of  the  amount. 
In  beginning  the  atlfirmative  portion  of  his  argr- 
ment,  the  orator  referred  to  the  many  influences 
which  had  been  at  work  in  the  court-room,  to  the 
alleged  theatric  exhibitions  and  displays  on  the  part 
of  Plymouth  Church,  all  designed,  said  counsel,  to 
influence  in  an  indirect  and  insidious  mode  the  con- 
clusions of  the  court.  Mr.  Beach  censured  the  at- 
tendance in  court  of  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mrs.  Beecher 
as  being  part  of  the  display.  If  Mr.  Beecher  were 
innocent,  declared  the  orator,  he  needs  no  such  trap- 
pings, no  such  aid,  but  he  could  have  bravely  met  the 
accusations  without  any  of  these  policies  or  strata- 
gems. The  letters  of  Mrs.  Tilton  to  her  husband  we^e 


SDMMWG    UP  J 

considered,  their  expressions  analyzed,  aud  their  bear- 
ing on  the  relations  of  the  parties  to  the  suit  shown. 
Mr.  Beach  then  struclt  the  keynote  of  his  argu- 
ment, which  he  based  on  his  and  the  jury's  knowl- 
edge of  human  nature  after  a  consideration  of  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case.  Mr.  Beecher's 
address  on  '*  The  Seducer was  then  taken  up  twd  a 
portion  of  it  read.  "  How  Mr.  Beecher  succeeded  in 
seducing  Mrs.  Tilton,"  said  the  speaker,  "only 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  can  tell."  The  counsel  scouted 
the  notion  that  Christianity  was  in  any  way  at  stake 
in  the  trial.  There  need  be  no  fear,  said  he,  of  the 
consequences,  from  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  fall,  upon 
the  progress  of  Christian  civilization  or  Christian 
influence. 


THE  PKOCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. 


MUTUAL  EXPLANATIONS  AND  CONCESSIONS 
BY  COUNSEL. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  please,  a  publication  in  The 
Herald  of  this  morning  has  possibly  fallen  under  your 
Honor's  notice.  Its  character  seems  to  demand  that  some 
application  should  be  made  to  the  Court  founded  upon 
the  facts  stated  in  it,  but  before  making  any  application 
to  your  Honor  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  article, 
I  would  be  glad  to  have  a  consultation  with  my  associ- 
ate, Mr.  Fullerton,  who  has  not  yet  arrived,  and  I  do  not 
wish  to  appear  to  be  guilty  of  any  delay  in  making  what- 
ever suggestions  may  seem  to  us  important  to  the  Court, 
and  if  your  Honor  will  permit  me  at  the  opening  of  court 
after  recess  to  say  whatever  may  be  needful  to  eay,  I  shall 
be  very  much  obliged,  Sir. 

Following  the  example,  Sir,  of  my  learned  friend  in 
his  allusion  to  Mr.  WUlard  O.  Bartlett,  I  quoted,  in  the 
course  of  the  remarks  I  had  the  honor  to  submit  to  your- 
self and  the  jury  the  other  day,  from  an  article  in  The 
Sun,  a  paper  witli  whicb  he  is  connected,  and  inferen- 
tially,  though  not  by  assertion,  perbaps,  imputed  to  him 
the  authorship  or  some  connection  with  that  article.  Mr. 
Bartlett  has  addressed  a  note  to  my  friend,  Mr.  Porter, 
disclaiming  all  eonnection  with  the  article  in  The  Sun, 
and  I  deem  it  proper,  therefore,  that  I  should  make  that 
announcement  to  your  Honor. 

My  friend  Porter  has  also  been  kind  enough  to  say  to 
me,  Sir,  that  in  the  course  of  my  argument  I  attributed 
to  him  a  neglect  in  regard  to  a  supposed  assertion,  not 
directly  made,  but,  as  I  supposed,  by  silence,  in  the  ar- 
gument of  my  learned  friend,  that  Mr.  Beecher  or  the 
defense  substantially  conceded  the  fact  of  improper 
solicitations  addressed  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mrs.  Tilton, 


Y  MB.   BEACH.  875 

He  has  assured  me  that  I  misconceived  entirely  the 
character  of  his  allusion  in  his  address  to  the  Court  and 
jury  upon  that  subject,  from  examination  made ;  and  I  am 
quite  satisfied.  Sir,  that  he  is  correct,  and  that  I  miscon- 
ceived the  nature  of  his  remarks  upon  that  point.  And 
it  has  been  a  matter  of  gratification  to  me  also.  Sir,  to 
have  had  a  brief  conversation  with  Mr.  Porter,  in  which 
I  learn  that  he  was  unconscious  of  the  severity  of  the 
terms  which  he  applied  to  my  apparent  misstatement; 
and  it  affords  me  great  pleasure  to  say.  Sir,  that  any  tem-> 
porary  misconception  which  may  have  existed  between 
us  has  been  very  happily  and  cordially  removed. 

Mr.  Evarts — I  may  be  allowed,  if  your  Honor  please,  to 
say  a  single  word.  It  was  a  matter  of  great  surprise  to 
us  that  the  distinction  which  we  supposed  was  so  mani- 
fest in  the  discussions  as  to  whether  or  no  Mr.  Tilton's 
charge  was  adultery,  as  now,  or  whether  it  was  of  im- 
proper advances,  of  improper  proposals,  seemed  to  be 
confounded  by  the  course  of  the  discussion  of  our  friend 
Mr.  Beach  with  the  consideration  of  the  fact  as  to  whether 
the  fault  of  this  defendant  was  of  one  kind  or  the  other. 
As  for  the  charge,  it  no  doubt  was  conceded  that  there 
was  a  charge  made  of  one  kind  or  the  other — of  a  certain 
kind,  which  we  discussed.  It  is  also  apparent  that  it  was 
withdrawn  by  the  wife  the  same  night,  and  then  it  was 
explained,  <fec.,  and  we  did  not  think  of  there  being  any 
confusion  about  the  point  that  we  were  discussing.  That 
was  our  view  of  the  matter. 

Mr.  Porter— Perhaps  I  ought  to  say  a  single  word  to 
your  Honor.  My  friend's  statement  the  other  day  was 
undoubtedly  broader  than  he  intended  to  make  it,  and  I 
perfectly  appreciate  the  fact  that  we  are  all  of  us  very 
liable  to  fall  into  them  in  the  heat  and  fervor  of  argu- 
ment. Unquestionably  in  my  reply  I  evinced  ^mething 
of  the  same  degree  of  heat  which  would  naturally  arise 
upon  a  qaestion  of  so  much  importance.  I  wish,  how- 
ever, that  the  Court  may  be  corrected  in  the  misappre- 
hension that  the  charge  of  undue  proposals  was  not  em- 
phatically denied.  It  was  denied,  your  Honor  will  re- 
member, in  the  first  place  by  Mr.  Beecher  on  oath.  In 
the  next  place,  we  claimed,  though  my  friends  don't  con- 
cede it,  that  Mr.  Tilton  in  the  "  True  Story "  admitted 
that  Mr.  Beecher  denied  the  charge.  We  claimed  that  it 
was  retracted  by  Mrs.  Tilton.  Gen.  Tracy  argued  upon 
the  various  aspects  of  the  ease,  but  at  no  time  conceded 
in  the  slightest  degree  that  the  charge  of  improper  r»ro 
posals  was  true.  In  various  portions  of  my  argument 
I  took  occasion  to  advert  to  that  as  a  charge  entirely  un- 
warranted in  the  evidence  and  entirely  untrue,  aud  my 
friend  Mr.  Evarts  did  also.  My  friend  Mr.  Beach,  though, 
in  the  heat  of  argument,  evidently  misled  by  an  errone- 
ous recollection  of  the  language  of  Mr.  Tracy,  assumed 
that  this  was  a  point  which  we  conceded.  It  would  not 
answer  for  us  to  allow  such  a  statement  as  that  to  go  uii> 
corrected. 


876  .      TEE  TILTON-BEECHEB 

MR.  BEACHES  AEGUMENT  CONTINUED. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  there  is  enough  said  about 
it.  lUustiating  by  examples  the  fallacy  of  Mr.  Evarts's 
proposition,  that  it  was  unnatural  and  impossible  for  Mr. 
Beecher  to  be  guilty  of  sin,  reasoning  from  his  high 
character  and  his  supposed  reputation,  I  referred  to  the 
case  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Southard  of  New-Jersey. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Beach,  will  you  allow  me  one  mo- 
ment ? 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Officer,  go  in  the  other  court-room  and 
bring  a  chair  for  that  lady.  [Referring  to  a  lady  who  was 
standing  in  the  audience.] 

Mr.  Beach— Since  then  a  collateral  relative  of  Mr. 
Southard,  a  gentleman  of  very  distinguished  lineage  and 
of  high  personal  merit  and  distinction,  has  corrected  the 
information  upon  which  I  made  the  original  statement  to 
the  jury.  It  is  represented  to  me  that  Mr.  Southard  was 
a  gentleman  of  brilliant  genius  and  promise ;  that  he  was 
of  a  highly  delicate  and  sensitive  organization,  and  suf- 
fered during  his  Ufe  from  an  exceedingly  painful  dis- 
ease ;  and  either  from  his  constitutional  predisposition, 
possibly,  or  from  the  great  anguish  which  he  daily  en- 
dured, that  he  fell  into  some  excesses  in  the  use  of 
stimulants,  either  narcotic  or  otherwise,  but  that  he 
never  was  charged  in  any  responsible  or  authentic  form, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  gossip  of  the  neighborhood 
upon  that  subject,  with  licentious  conduct  ;  nor,  I  am 
assured,  is  it  true  that  his  last  hours  were  spent  in  any 
degrading  or  ignominious  condition  ;  and  it  of  course  is 
my  duty,  as  it  is  my  pleasure,  to  render  to  the  sur- 
vivors of  Mr.  Southard  every  reparation  in  my 
power  for  a  statement  which  seems  to  have  been  entirely 
Inaccurate.  I  of  course  recognize  the  delicacy  of  my  po- 
sition in  aUuding  either  to  living  or  departed  gentlemen, 
who  were  supposed  to  have  fallen  from  their  high  position, 
and  I  endeavored  to  render  as  authentic  as  possible  the 
information  upon  which  I  ventured  to  aUude  to  any  such 
subject.  It  seemedto  be  necessary,  arising  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  evidence  in  this  case,  and  the  character  of  this 
defendant,  and  I  can  only  express  my  deep  regret  and 
grief  that  I  should  have  made  use  of  any  statement  in  re- 
gard to  that  gentleman  which  will  mortify  or  pain  those 
who  naturaUy  cherish  his  memory  with  affection  and  with 
pride. 


TBIAL. 


STRICTURES  UPON  MR.  RICHARDS  ANSWERED. 
Pursuing,  gentlemen,  the  line  of  argument 

which  I  have  hitherto  followed,  of  answering  so  far  as  I 
might  the  propositions  advanced  by  the  learned  counsel 
for  the  defense  in  their  arguments  to  the  Court  and  jury, 
I  have  one  or  two  references  further  to  make  to  their  ad- 
dresses. It  is  an  unfortunate  feature  of  this  case— per- 
haps I  may  say  it  is  one  of  the  unfortunate  necessities  of 
this  ease— that  it  has  been  thought  desirable  to  make  se- 
vere and  harsh  comments  upon  the  character  of  many  of 


the  witnesses  who  have  been  introduced  to  the  court  and 
jury,  witnesses  who  have  not  been  assailed  by  any  of  the 
ordinary  means  of  impeachment,  and  who  have  not  been 
attacked  through  the  mode  of  general  reputation  or  char- 
acter, who  at  least  have  occupied  that  position  in  the 
commimity  where  they  have  earned  the  respect  and  the 
confidence  of  their  fellow-men,  and  if  they  are  guilty  of 
any  errors,  of  any  conduct  which  should  detract  from 
their  credibility  as  witnesses,  their  misdeeds  at  least 
have    not     been     so     public     and     notorious  as 
to    impair    their    standing     in     the  community. 
In  the  course  of  those  criticisms,  especially  upon  the  part 
of  my  friena  Mr.  Porter,  and  imitated,  though  not  with 
so  much  of  severe  reprehension,  by  Mr.  Evarts,  Mr.  Rich- 
ards was  attacked.   It  is  not  my  purpose  just  now  to  dis- 
cuss the  force  and  the  weight  of  his  evidence.   That  will 
more  properly  occur  in  a  future  stage  of  this  discussion; 
but  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  justify  me,  I  think,  in 
saying  that  Mr.  Richards  is  a  gentleman  of  the  highest 
personal  character  and  merit.  Connected  with  various 
institutions,  "  charged  in  various  situations  with  the 
highest  duties  of  trust  and  confidence,  he  has  performed 
all  the  obligations  resting  upon  him  as  a  Christian  man 
and  a  man  of  honor,  with  fidelity  and  signal  success. 
Attached  to  the  largest  Christian  persuasion  of  this  coun- 
try, one  of  the  largest  in  numbers,  one  of  the  most  emi- 
nent in  all  deeds  of  Christian  charity  and  benevolence,  he 
has  maintained  a  rank  in  that  denomination  which  has 
secured  him  the  confidence  and  respect  of  all  with  whom 
he  has  come  in  contact ;  and,  indeed,  in  the  City  of  New- 
York,  if  it  were  desirable  to  select  a  lay  member  of  the 
Methodist  denomination  who  best  illustrated  the  princi- 
ples and  the  piety  of  that  sect,  Mr.  Richards  would  be 
selected  as  that  individual.    The  strictures  upon  him 
have  been  founded  upon  the  simple  circumstance  that 
he  appears  here  as  a  witness,  the  brother  of  Mrs.  Tilton, 
to  testify  to  his  knowledge  in  regard  to  her  association 
with  Mr.  Beecher.  After  what  occurred  upon  the  stand 
it  surely  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  say  that  he  is  here  as 
an  involuntary  witness,  brought  here  after  great  reluct- 
ance and  repeated  efforts,  under  the  mandate  of  the  pro- 
cess of  this  Court,  which  it  was  not  possible  for  him  to 
resist.   It  is  not  therefore  a  subject  of  complaint  as 
against  him  that  in  this  public  position  he  has  been 
called  upon  to  utter  facts  or  words  of  reproach  against  a 
sister.  You  and  I  properly  estimate  the  delicacy  and  the 
pain  of  the  position  in  which  he  was  placed,  but  reflecting 
upon  his  duty, upon  the  emotions  which  might  with  great 
propriety  have  influenced  him,  it  has  seemed  to  me  that 
if  Mr.  Richards  had  voluntarily  appeared  as  a  witness  in 
this  case,  however  distressing  and  agonizing  the  per- 
formance of  that  dutj^  may  have  been,  that  he  would  yet 
in  that  position  and  under  those  circumstances  have  ex- 
hibited a  proper  degree,  a  proper  sense  of  the  obJigationa 
of  his  position. 
I  do  not  know  how  a  brother  might  feel  with  the 


sujrmxG  UP  by  me.  beach. 


8T7 


tao^rledge  that  a  sister  had  been  corrupted  bv  The  arts 
of  a  seducer.  Xeither  you  nor  I  can  properly  estimate 
the  c^^ndition  of  hivS  feeling.  But  you  will  remember  that 
when  Mr.  Richards  is  presented  as  a  witness  in  this  case 
the  fact  of  the  fall  of  his  sister  had  become  notorious.  It 
was  bruited  through  the  whole  community;  the  dis- 
closure of  her  sin  had  been  made  public  ;  and  -whether 
under  such  circumstances  a  brother  would  feel  that  there 
was  an  imperative  duty  owing  to  the  law  and  to  society, 
whether  he  would  cherish  any  of  those  natural  resent- 
ments against  the  WTong-doer,  is  a  question  which  might 
be  differently  decided  aeeording  to  different  tempera- 
ments and  to  the  different  ideas  which  every  gentleman 
might  indulge  In  regard  to  those  obligations.  I  can 
imagine,  though  I  by  no  means  assert,  that  that  was  the 
condition  of  feeling  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Richards ;  but 
I  can  very  well  imagine  when  he  looked  upon  the  distress 
and  the  anguish  of  that  sister,  upon  her  broken  relations, 
upon  her  severed  household,  upon  her  condition  of  dis- 
grace and  suffering,  it  might  very  well  be  that  there  were 
sentiments  of  indignation  and  resentment  which,  when 
her  seducer  was  called  to  an  account,  would  lead  him  to 
become  one  of  his  principal  accusers.  But  it 
Is  sufficient  to  say  that  from  the  manifestations 
of  Mr.  Richards  upon  the  stand,  it  is  perfectly  apparent 
that  he  was  an  nnwilling  and  reluctant  witness ;  and 
when  you  come  to  examine  his  testimony,  I  think  you 
will  concede  to  us,  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  an  exceed- 
ing delicacy  and  reserve  in  the  extent  of  the  evidence 
which  we  sought  to  produce  from  him.  He  was  not 
pressed  by  close  and  urgent  questions.  He  was  per- 
mitted m  his  own  way  and  according  to  his  own  dis- 
cretion to  reveal  just  so  much  as  he  pleased  of  the  sight 
which  he  viewed  upon  that  occasion,  when  he  ventured 
into  the  parlor  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  found  Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mrs.  Tilton  in  the  attitude  which  he  stated.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  if  there  had  been  a  more  critical  examina- 
tion there  might  have  been  more  detail  in  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Richards  which  would  have  been  more  afflicting  to 
his  feelings,  and  perhaps  more  detrimental  to  the  char- 
acter of  his  sister.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  he  was  not 
pressed  beyond  the  most  general  statement  of  the  circum-  j 
stances  falling  under  his  observation.  The  attack  upon 
Mr.  Richards  produced  from  Dr.  Currie  of  The  Christian 
Arfirocoie  some  comments,  all  of  which  I  do  not  deem  it 
proper  to  state  to  the  Court  and  to  the  jury,  but  a  portion 
of  which,  representing  the  position  and  the  character  of 
Mr.  Richards,  I  propose  to  adopt  as  my  own. 

Some  ten  days  since  the  papers  told  of  the  appearance 
of  a  new  ^vitne3s  in  the  notorious  Tilton-Beecher  case, 
Mr.  Joseph  H.  Richards,  a  brother  of  the  inculpated 
woman.  He  began  his  statement  upon  the  witness  stand 
with  deprecation  of  his  most  painful  position,  and  made 
an  appeal  to  the  consideration  due  to  bim  in  view  of  it. 
This  the  Com-t  recognized  with  great  delicacy,  but  not  so 
the  counsel  for  the  defense,  :Mr.  Evarts,  who,  suiting  his 
manner  to  his  words,  remarked,  with  mingled  scorn  and 
defiance  in  his  tone,  "  We  know  your  position,  and  we 


will  show  you  what  it  is  before  we  are  through  with  you." 
To  us  this  seemed,  when  we  first  read  it,  too  brutal  to 
have  been  as  it  appeared,  but  later  developnit^nts  do  not 
at  all  relieve  the  matter.  In  opening  the  case  for  the  de- 
fense, a  few  days  later,  another  of  the  attorneys  at  the 
very  beginning  made  a  cruel  and  wicked  attack  ui>on  Mr. 
Richards,  presenting  him  to  the  Court  and  to  the  jury, 
and  to  aU  who  read  or  hear  of  the  case,  as  virtually  a 
conspirator  with  tUuse  who  were  seeking  to  blast  his  sis- 
ter's good  name,  going  there  voluntarily  to  make  a  speech 
from  the  witness  stand,  and  connect  it  with  such  wit- 
nesses as  Kate  Car.^y.  One  must  know  something  of  the 
outside  facts  in  this  case  to  properly  estimate  the 
measure  of  this  brutality  on  the  part  of  the 
coimsel,  and  our  relations  to  the  assailed  seem 
to  make  it  our  duty  to  state  them.  Mr. 
Richards  is  a  man  in  middle  life,  brought 
up  in  this  city,  where  during  his  entire  manhood  he  has 
been  engaged  in  honorable  business,  residiui:  for  several 
years  in  Brooklyn,  and  for  the  last  seven  or  eight  years 
in  2s  ew- York.  He  has  been  aU.  these  years  an  honored 
and  eminent  member  of  the  Methodist  Eiiiscopal  Church, 
and  neither  in  business  nor  in  society,  nor  in  the  church, 
has  there  ever  been  a  shadow  cast  upon  his  reputation. 
But  it  was  his  misfortune,  while  casually  calling  at  his 
sister's  house  some  years  ago,  to  be  personally  cognizant 
of  something  between  her  and  Mr.  Beecher,  the  knowl- 
edge of  which  made  him  unhappy.  He  told  the  story  to 
only  two  persons,  hi>  wife  and  lier  brother,  and  with 
them  it  remains  a  secret  stiil,  except  as  partially  told 
upon  the  witnes-  stand.  Neither  the  plaintiff  nor  the 
counsel  knew  ^^  ii;tr  hi>  testimony  would  be  until  they 
heard  it,  but  su-iM  cting  that  he  would  testify  something 
to  their  advantage,  they  iiruught  it  forward,  <fce. 

Yet  in  the  face  of  these  faets  Mr.  Tracy  holds  him  up 
as  a  miscreant  of  the  vilest  typ^,  cunspiringto  blacken  the 
name  of  his  own  sister  ;  and  for  what  I  If  the  other  wit 
nesses  in  this  ease  against  whom  equally  severe  things 
are  said,  are  as  woriiiy  of  credence  as  we  know  Mr 
Richards  to  be,  then  we  are  prepared  to  indorse  them  aa 
incapable  of  bearing  false  witness.  Xor  do  we  believe 
that  he  would  suspect  the  harm  that  he  did,  without 
what  seemed  to  him  to  be  incapable  of  any  other  con- 
struction. 

I  do  not  read  the  further  comments.  But  my  learned 
friend,  Mr.  Porter,  has  appealed  to  the  jui-y  of  the 
victaage.  In  the  louir  residence  of  INIr.  Richards  in  this 
city  he  has  occupied  positions  of  trust ;  he  has  been 
engaged  in  works  of  the  highest  Christian  charity  and 
j  benevolence ;  and  I  may  with  great  confidence  appeal  to 
j  the  reputation  which  he  bears  in  this  community,  to 
vindicate  him  from  what  I  deem  to  be  the  unfounded  and 
outrageous  attacks  of  counsel. 


A.   B.   MAETIN  DEFENDED. 

Another  witness  fell  under  the  vituperation 
of  my  learned  friends.  It  was  Mr.  A.  B.  Martin,  another 
Christian  man,  known  by  the  jury  of  the  vicinage,  as  it 
is  called:  whose  works  in  the  ways  of  piety  and  of  hu- 
manity have  been  and  are  remarkable ;  a  gentleman 
who  has  devoted  himself  with  zeal  and  piety  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  religion  and  of  the  culture  of  those  msti- 
tutions  which  daily  and  hourly  dift'use  their  blessings 
throughout  society.  And  he  has  been  denoun'-  !f!  a.^.  t'>e 


878 


IRE  TILTO^-BEECHER  TRIAL. 


spy  of  Mr.  Tilton,  from  the  circumstance  that  lie  happens 
to  he  an  inmate  of  his  dwelling,  and  in  the  face  of  his 
imcontradicted  evidence,  that  he  was  in  the  daily  habit 
of  visiting  Mrs.  Tilton  during  her  stay  at  Mrs.  Ovington's, 
and  rendering  to  her  those  services  which  a  brother  in 
her  unfortunate  situation  might  perform.  Was  that 
true  I  Was  he  thus  devoted  to  this  lady  in  her  perilous 
and  straitened  circumstances  1  Did  he  daily  give  to  her 
the  consolation  of  his  presence,  and  his  aid,  and  his  ser- 
vice in  whatever  line  or  department  she  might  choose  1 
Mrs.  Ovington  was  upon  the  stand ;  if  his  representa- 
tion in  that  respect  had  been  unfoimded  it  was  very  easy 
for  my  learned  friends  to  have  contradicted  it.  If  he 
was  imfriendly  in  spirit ;  if  he  was  uncharitable  in  com- 
ment ;  if  he  was  undutiful  in  the  respect  and  the  service 
which  he  rendered  to  Mrs.  Tilton  under  those  circum- 
Btances,  Mrs.  Ovington  had  the  fullest  knowledge  and  the 
amplest  opportunity  to  expose  his  hypocrisy  and  treach- 
ery. But  that  lady  was  silent,  and  it  stands  as  an  ad- 
mitted and  uncontradicted  fact  upon  this  record  that  all 
the  sympathies  of  this  Christian  man,  and  all  the  kind- 
ness of  his  charitable  nature,  were  expended  In  rendering 
the  best  and  the  highest  service  he  could  render  to  this 
lady.  Under  these  circumstances  it  seems  to  be  rather 
hard  that  he  should  be  denounced  as  the  spy  of  Mr. 
Tilton,  hanging  about  this  lady  in  her  misfortunes  for 
the  purpose  of  gathering  whatever  he  might  collect  to 
her  disadvantage,  and  appearing  upon  this  stand  as  a 
witness  to  publish  it  to  the  world.  Has  he  spoken  any- 
thing unfavorable  to  Mrs.  Tilton  1  Has  he  endeavored 
to  prejudice  her  character,  her  position,  her  relation  to 
this  unfortunate  transaction— not  a  word  of  disrespect 
or  condemnation— not  a  syllable.  And  he  stands 
now  as  he  did  before  his  appearance  upon  the 
etand  as  the  truest  and  the  best  friend  she  has  had  in  all 
her  complications  with  this  affair.  But  then  it  is  said 
that  he  has  fabricated  the  condition  of  things  under 
which,  visiting  Mrs.  Tilton,  he  was  accidentally  brought 
to  the  information  that  Mr.  Tracy  and  Bessie  Turner, 
Just  before  her  appearance  before  the  Committee  on  the 
same  afternoon,  were  in  long  and  earnest  consultation. 
The  subject  he  did  not  understand— the  matter  of  discus- 
sion he  did  not  hear.  He  did  not  pretend  to  state,  to 
make  any  representations  in  regard  to  any  influence 
which  Mr.  Tracy  might  have  thought  fit  to  exercise  over 
the  memory  and  the  mind  and  disposition  of  Bessie 
Turner.  But  Bessie  Turner  Tiad  represented  that  that 
interview  was  limited  to.  ten  minutes.  Mr.  Tracy  had 
extended  that  interview  by  his  evidence  to  an  hour,  and 
it  was  in  confirmation  of  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Tracy, 
Bomewhat  enlargicg  the  time,  that  Mr.  Martin  was  pro- 
duced as  a  witness.  His  narration  was  that  upon  a  hot 
Bummer's  day,  visiting  Mrs.  Tilton  in  her  room, 
the  heat  was  oppressive,  and  that  she  and 
himself  went  upon  the  back  piazza  of  Mr. 
Ovineton's  house  for  the  purpose  of  enjoying  a  chat. 


And  we  have  had  evidence  presented  here  to  show  that 
when  Mr.  Martin  on  his  cross-examination  represented 
that  that  piazza  was  shaded,  that  the  heat  was  not  op- 
pressive, that  there  was  a  freer  circulation  of  air  and 
more  convenience  and  comfort  upon  the  piazza  than  in 
the  room  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  he  was  guilty  of  misrepresenta- 
tion. Ui)on  cross-examination  he  was  led  to  state,  with- 
out any  particular  observation  or  reflection,  but  with  the 
knowledge  that  the  place  was  by  some  means  shaded— 
he  was  led  to  state  that  the  walls  of  one  of  the  adjoining 
houses  projected  beyond  the  residence  of  Mr.  Ovington 
and  cast  a  shade  upon  this  piazza.  Well,  he  was  mis- 
taken in  this  that  the  next  adjoining  house  did  not  itself 
project,  but  that  one  of  the  other  houses  more  distant 
did.  And  when  we  came  to  send  down  our  surveyor  to 
examine  into  the  condition  of  the  thing,  we  found  t'jat 
there  was  a  large  tree  in  an  adjoining  garden,  and  that 
there  was  a  large  grape  vine  upon  a  rack,  extending 
nearly  the  whole  length  of  the  piazza,  which  afforded  the 
shade  which  Mr.  Martin  erroneously  attributed  to  the 
projecting  wall  of  a  neighboring  house,  and  to  this  day, 
this  jury  and  my  frionds  would  find,  if  they  observed, 
that  that  grape  vine  Is  in  full  bloom  and 
foliage,  and  affords  just  the  protection  of  which  Mr. 
Martin  spoke.  Well,  gentlemen,  if  it  seems  consistent  to 
my  learned  friends,  under  these  circumstances,  to  charge 
an  unimpeached  witness  with  willful  misrepresentation 
in  regard  to  circumstances  of  this  character,  in  which  a 
witness  might  readily  be  m  error,  the  principal  fact  on 
which  his  mind  is  fixed  being  true  and  demonstrably  true 
—if  they  think  that  the  necessities  of  their  case  demand 
that  an  honorable  and  Christian  and  respectable  gentle- 
man shall  be  charged  with  perjury  and  falsification  upon 
such  slight  circumstances,  why  it  is  not  for  me  to  ques- 
tion the  good  taste  or  the  propriety  of  such  an  accusa- 
tion It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  recommend  itself  to  the 
acceptance  of  fair-mindea  and  intelligent  gentlemen, 

MR.     MOULTON'S    REFLECTIONS    ON  MISS 
PROCTOR. 

Something  was  said — intimated  rather  than 
expressed— by  ray  friend,  Mr.  Porter,  in  regard  to  the 
controversy  arising  out  of  the  statement  of  Mr.  Moulton 
before  the  Investigating  Committee  connected  with  a 
reflection  in  that  statement  upon  the  cbr  racter  of  Miss 
Proctor.  I  believe  my  learned  fi-iend  said  that  it  cost 
Mr.  Moulton  $5,000.  It  is  proper  for  me  to  say,  in 
answer,  that,  in  the  statement  to  which  my  friend  al- 
luded, reference  was  made  unfavorable  to  Miss  Proctor. 
No  accusation  was  made  against  her  reputation  by  Mr. 
Moulton.  But  he  was  guilty  of  the  inei:cu9able  indis- 
cretion of  relating  in  that  statement  a  communication  in 
regard  to  that  lady,  which  he  averred  was  made  to  him 
by  Mr.  Beecher,  of  occurrences  between  that  gentleman 
and  that  lady.  It  appeared  that  that  reference  was  made 
under  the  advice  of  counsel  and  against  the  wish  of  Mr. 


SUMMING    UP  . 

Moulton.  Mls8  Proctor  brought  an  action.  The  friends 
of  the  parties,  looking  at  the  statement,  inquiring  into 
the  motives  and  circumstances  which  induced  its  publica- 
tion, counseled  the  withdrawal  of  that  action  from  court, 
and  its  submission  to  a  gentleman  of  high  legal  attain- 
ments and  position  in  this  city.  The  publication  of  Mr. 
Moulton  was  unquestionably  actionable,  founded,  as  I 
have  said,  upon  the  representation  made  by  Mr.  Beecher, 
reflecting  directly  and  personalty  not  at  all  upon  the 
character  of  Miss  Proctor.  Miss  Proctor  disclaimed  any 
desii-e  for  damages,  and  without  full  examination  of  the 
case,  without  an  examination  of  the  question  whether  or 
not  Mr.  Beecher  did  make  the  communication  to  Mr. 
Moulton  which  was  charged  upon  him  in  that  state- 
ment, upon  a  general  and  informal  submission  of  the 
case  to  the  gentleman,  arbitrator,  he  awarded,  as  against 
Mr.  Moulton,  the  payment  of  the  expenses  and  the  coun- 
sel fees  of  the  action,  and  that  payment  was  made,  and 
that  is  the  history  in  general  of  that  transaction.  It  is  re- 
sorted to  here  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  the  impression 
that  Mr.  Moulton  is  a  habitual  libeller,  that  he  is  accus- 
tomed to  misrepresent  and  to  slander  his  fellows  and  his 
lady  acquaintances,  that  he  is  possessed  of  that  degi'aded 
:.nd  vulgar  spirit  which  leads  him  into  the  publication  of 
offensive  slanders  of  this  character  against  others ;  and 
this  statement  will  remove  any  apprehension  of  that  kind. 

THE  TROUBLE  BETWEEN  MR.  MOULTON'S 
FIRM  AND  THE  GOVERNMENT. 
Anotlier  allusion,  wMch  I  may  as  well  notice 
here,  was  made  to  I\Ir.  Moulton,  that  he  and  his  firm  had 
been  in  unfortunate  conflict  with  the  Government  of  this 
country  in  consequence  of  some  violation,  I  believe,  of 
the  Internal  Revenue  laws,  in  which  litigation  Mr.  Tracy 
was  the  adviser  of  Mr.  Moulton.  We  know  nothing  of  the 
details  of  that  transaction,  gentlemen.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain, that  it  is  apparent  fx'om  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Moulton 
that  there  was  nothing  personally  dishonorable  to  him  or 
to  his  firm  in  those  details,  and  it  is  quite  certain  that  no 
judgment  was  ever  entered,  or  any  conclusion  ever 
reached  which  reflected,  in  the  remotest  degree, 
upon  the  integi-ity  of  that  firm  or  its  individual  mem.- 
bers.  If  I  was  disposed  to  imitate  the  spirit  that 
led  my  learned  Mend  to  obtrude  a  subject  of  that 
character  into  the  discussion  of  this  case,  it  might  be  pos- 
sible for  me  to  retaliate  with  something  of  severity  and 
justice,  founded  upon  better  data  than  those  upon  which 
my  learned  friend  spoke.  I  shaU  not  indulge  it,  gentle- 
men. I  mean  no  reflection  upon  any  one  when  I  say  I 
would  not  be  guilty  of  the  unworthiness  of  making  such 
disreputable  allusions  to  the  conduct  or  situation  of  any 
party  or  witness  in  any  case  in  which  I  may  be  engaged, 
unless  upon  the  evidence  that  party  or  that  witness  had 
been  permitted  to  present  his  iustiflcation  and  reveal  to 
the  court  and  jury  all  the  circumstances  connected  with 
the  supposed  transaction. 


Y  MR.   BEACH.  879 

THE    PUBLICATION    OF    THE  WOODHULL 
SCANDAL. 

Very  much  of  your  attention  in  this  case, 
gentlemen,  has  been,  it  seems  to  me,  without  any  es.^en- 
tial  pertinency  to  this  action,bestowed  upon  the  ckaracter 
and  career  of  Mrs.  Victoria  C.  Woodhull,  and  Mr.  Tilton'? 
connection  with  that  lady.  My  friends  have  endeavored, 
with  great  pertinacity  and  at  great  length  of  proof,  to 
attribute  to  Mr.  Tilton  the  publication  of  what  is  called 
the  "  Woodhull  Scandal,"  and  it  has  been  said  substan- 
tially by  my  friend,  Mr.  Evarts,  that  that  scandal  embod- 
ied all  the  truths  as  revealed  by  the  evidence  of  its  con- 
dition and  progress,  while  the  truth  is  that  none  of  the 
essential  features  developed  by  the  proof  in  this  case, 
none  of  the  pregnant,  and,  as  we  maintain,  conclusive 
evidence  upon  which  the  plaiQtift^s  right  of  action  is 
founded  was  ever  hinted  at  in  that  scandal. 
There  was  a  charge  of  adultery  as  against 
Mr.  Beecher  with  Mrs.  Tilton.  But  the 
proofs,  the  circumstances,  the  details  of  their  connection 
as  exhibited  by  this  record  are  entirely  absent  from  the 
statement  in  that  paper.  And  in  that  paper  I  am  justi- 
fied in  sayiag,  from  the  allusion  made  to  it  by  my  friends 
upon  the  other  side,  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  states  that  in 
Washington,  m  the  Winter  of  1871,  she  learned  from 
Mrs.  Hooker  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  in  the  habit  of  preach- 
ing to  twenty  of  his  mistresses,  and  that  there  she  got  the 
fli-st  information  upon  that  subject. 

Mr.  Evarts— Do  you  think  that  is  in  the  article  I 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  only  ask  it  you  think  it  was  in  the 
article  1 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir,  I  said  it  is  ia  the  article,  and  it  is 
in  answer  to  yoiu'  general  statement  that  it  contained 
all  the  features  presented  ia  this  trial. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  only  ask  you,  as  matter  of  fact,  whethei 
you  thiak  that  is  in  the  article  1 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir.  [To  Mr.  Pullerton.]  Is  it  not— in 
company  with  JVIrs.  Hooker  f 

Mr.  Fullerton— Stated  in  her  presence. 

Mr.  Beach— In  her  presence.  Perhaps  it  may  be  erro- 
neous to  say  that  she  learned  it  from  Mrs.  Hooker,  but 
she  learned,  in  company  with  Mrs.  Hooker,  that  fact. 
That  article  contains  the  statement,  also,  that  Mrs.  Pau- 
lina Wright  Davis  told  her  of  the  criminality  between 
Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  that  is  before  the  date- 
both  these  circumstances  before  the  date  of  Mr.  Tilton'3 
acquaintance  with  Mrs.  Woodhull.  She  next  states  that 
in  the  Spring  of  1871  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stanton  told  her  the 
same  story,  also  before  their  acquaint-ance.  And  she 
states,  as  her  authoritv  for  making  the  publication  of 
May  20, 1871,  before  her  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Tilton 
was  commenced,  and  as  its  basis,  the  statements  derived 
from  Mrs.  Hooker,  Mrs.  Davis,  and  Mrs.  H,  B.  Stanton. 
She  does  state  undoubtedly,  and  it  is  but  candor  for  me 
to  avow  it,  that  after  that  she  had  conversation  both 


880  THE  TILTON-P. 

with  Mr.  Tilton  and  with  Mr  Moulton  upon  tlie  subject. 
But  side  also  states  that  the  most  important  information 
which  she  derived  upon  that  subject  was  in  conversations 
with  the  Rev.  Henry  "Ward  Beecher  himself.  And  tn  the 
columns  of  that  scandal  she  makes  Mr.  Beecher  confess 
to  her  the  particulars  which  it  contains.  Now, 
Mr.  Tilton  might  with  great  propriety  say 
that  that  statement  was  a  lie.  He  might 
with  great  truth  say  that  in  its  circumstantial  de- 
tails it  was  all  false,  as  he  did  repeatedly  say,  and  he  says 
now,  not  in  the  material  averment,  the  essential  and  cen- 
tral fact  which  it  states,  but  in  the  surroundings  of  her 
narrative,  in  all  its  details,  as  connected  with  that  prin- 
cipal fact,  it  is  erroneous  and  false.  But,  gentlemen,  this 
statement  of  Mrs.  Woodhull  is  most  remarkable  for  its 
omissions.  The  "  Letter  of  Apology,"  or  the  "  Letter  of 
Contrition,"  of  January,  1871,  given  by  Mr.  Beecher  was 
not  alluded  to  in  the  statement.  Theodore  Tilton's  letter 
to  Bowen  of  January,  1871,  was  not  alluded  to ;  the  let- 
ter of  Mr.  Beecher  of  Feb.  7, 1871,  where  he  speaks  of 
Mr.  Moulton  as  having  "  tied  up  the  storm  ready  to  burst 
ui)on  us"— there  is  no  allusion  to  that  in  the  statement. 
The  "Nest-Hiding"  letter  of  Mrs.  Tilton  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  statement.  The  letters  of  Mrs.  Morse  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  met 
those  letters,  are  not  mentioned  in  the 
statement.  What  is  called  the  "Ragged  Edge 
Letter"  was  not  mentioned  in  the  statement. 
The  Tripartite  Covenant  was  not  mentioned  in  the 
statement.  And  all  these  essential  and  material 
facts  which,  if  Mr.  Tilton  had  been  the  author  of  that 
statement,  would  have  necessarily  been  contained  in  it, 
have  no  appearance  there.  Now,  is  it  possible  if  Mr.  Til- 
ton was  the  informant  upon  whom  Mrs.  Woodhull  made 
her  communication  to  the  public,  possessed  of  all  this 
information,  if  he  was  instigating  the  assault  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull  upon  Mr.  Beecher  for  any  purpose,  for  black- 
mail or  for  revenge,  if  he  stood  behind  this  woman' in  this 
brutal  public  attack  upon  Mr.  Beecher  and  the  reputa- 
tion of  Mrs.  Tilton,  would  these  matters,  so  pregnant,  so 
conclusive,  have  been  omitted  from  that  statement !  It 
is  perfectly  apparent,  aside  from  the  other  evidence  in 
this  case,  studying  the  characteristics  of  the  paper,  and 
the  motives  and  pui-poses  which  are  attributed  to  Mr. 
Tilton,  it  is  perfectly  apparent  that  he  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  authorship  of  that  instrument,  or  with  |:s  publi- 
cation. If  he  desii-ed  any  public  statement  of  that  charac- 
ter, he  would  of  course  have  made  it  in  a  form  of  au- 
thenticity, and  founded  it  upon  that  evidence  which  he 
presents  to  this  Court  and  jury  to-day  as  evidence  of  the 
truth  of  his  accusation.  It  would  not  have  contained 
falsehood  in  detail,  misstatement  Id  regard  to  facts,  but 
would  have  presented,  in  the  form,  and  mode,  and  style 
of  the  logic  of  argument  of  Theodore  Tilton,  this,  the  first 
serious  accusation  publicly  made,  founded  upon  these  dis- 
ci osmes  of  the  relations  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mrs.  Tilton. 


ECHER  TRIAL. 

MRS.  WOODHULL 
I  don't  know  but  I  may  as  well  here,  gen- 
tlemen, say  a  word  in  regard  to  Mrs.  Woodhull.  I  am  not 
here  as  the  apologist  or  the  advocate  of  Mrs.  Woodhull.  I 
have  neither  studied  her  doctrines,  nor  do  I  know  any- 
thing of  her  personal  character.  I  do  not  choose  to  de- 
fend any  of  the  dogmas  belonging  to  the  school  to  which 
she  is  attached ;  and  yet  the  course  of  examination  of 
some  of  the  witnesses  who  have  been  produced  upon  the 
part  of  the  defense  has  revealed  features  of  the  tenets  of 
that  school  which  may  very  properly  be  the  subject  of 
discussion  and  consideration.  But  I  have  been  at  a  loss 
to  know  how  it  i&  assumed  in  the  course  of  this  trial  that 
Mrs.  Woodhull  is  a  lady  of  depraved  and  obnoxious  char- 
acter. What  do  you  know  of  her  doctrines  %  What  do 
you  know  of  her  life  I  What  do  you  know  of  the  princi- 
ples of  morality  or  Christianity  which  govern  that  life  % 
and  upon  what  principle  is  it  that  you  are  to  assume  that 
association  with  Mrs.  Woodhull  is  disgraceful  to  an  intel- 
ligent gentleman  ?  There  has  been  no  proof  given  of  it, 
but  you  are  asked,  upon  vague  rumor,  upon  irresponsible 
gossip,  and  upon  the  assumptions  of  counsel,  to  denounce 
that  woman  as  discreditable,  and  all  association  with 
her  as  damaging.  Is  that  the  way  you  have  assumed 
under  your  oaths  and  in  your  responsible  position,  to  de- 
termine the  character  and  the  rights  of  parties  ?  and 
is  Mr.  Tilton  in  this  case  to  be  denounced  as  corrupt  and 
vicious,  as  lewd  and  debauched,  because,  forsooth,  he 
has  had  communication,  intercourse,  association  with 
Mrs.  Woodhull  %  putting  out  of  sight  entirely  the  motives 
which  led  to  the  intercourse,  the  inducements  which  led 
to  that  acquaintance,  and  pronouncing  simply  upon  the 
character  of  the  woman,  and,  without  any  evidence 
whates^er,  pronouncing  her  infamous  and  her  associates 
discreditable-  WTiat  does  Mr.  Wilkeson  say  about  it  ?— 
this  man  of  genius,  as  properly  represented  by  my 
learned  friend.  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stanton,  a  lady  whose  char- 
acteristics of  womanhood,  whose  high  intelligence  and 
purity  of  life  lift  her  above  the  suspicion  of  improper 
associations,  was  not  only  the  acquaintance  of  Mrs. 
Woodhull,  but  her  visitor.  Miss  Anthony,  a  lady 
much  belied  and  ri-licnled  by  the  pubHc  press,  but  yet  a 
woman  of  high  ladyhood  and  accomplishments,  cherished 
in  the  society  where  she  li^es,  at  Rochester,  was  an 
acquaintance  and,  an  associate  of  Mrs.  Woodhull.  You 
have  heard  from  indubitable  proof  that  what  are  called 
advanced  minds,  those  speculative  thinkers  who  deal 
with  the  great  pi;oblems  of  society,  who  are  called  re- 
formers, who  seem  to  be  in  advance  of  their  age,  and 
therefore  are  always  scouted  by  the  public 
thought,  were  accustomed  to  collect  at  the  house 
of  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  there  indulge  in  discussions 
upon  the  themes  which  occupied  their  daily  attention. 
You  have  seen  Mr.  Pearl  Andrews.  He  has  been  referred 
to  somewhat  slightingly  sometimes  in  the  course  of  this 
diecusBlon,  but  does  he  impress  you  with  an  Idea  of  hli 


8UMMIXG   VP  1 

depravity  or  Ms  looseness  of  principle  1  I  kno-vr  "he  is 
spoken  of  vnth.  somettung  of  raillery  as  a  "  Pantarch," 
and  as  dealing  in  theories  and  doctrines  wMcli  fail  to 
attract  public  attention  or  confidence ;  but  lie  is  a  man  of 
education,  of  learning,  of  character.  He  was  long  a  resi- 
dent, witli  his  wife,  in  the  house  of  Mrs.  Woodhull ;  he 
was  accustomed  to  meet  there,  in  daily  and  friendly  con- 
verse, the  polished  and  cultivated  thinkers  of  the  day, 
and  he  ventured  to  say— which  has  again  excited  some- 
what of  ridicule— that  the  gatherings  at  her  house  re- 
sembled the  coteries  which  were  wont  to  collect  in  the 
salon  of  Madame  Eoland  in  the  exciting  days  of  French 
history.  Well,  was  not  the  comparison  deserved? 
Where  else  more  prominently  and  remarkably  than  in 
the  house  of  Victoria  C.  Woodhull  were  those  gathermgs 
accustomed  to  congregate,  where  these  subjects  of  high 
and  liberal  thought  were  wont  to  be  discussed  ?  Now,  I 
repeat,  I  know  nothing  of  ]Mrs.  Woodhull,  of  her  prin- 
ciples, her  doctrines,  or  her  character,  except  as  they  are 
revealed  upon  this  stand  ;  but  I  say  it  is  an  outrage  on 
tbe  foi"ms  of  justice,  it  is  a  disgrace  to  this  tribunal,  that 
a  lady  who  has  not  been  assailed  bv  proof,  who  stands 
thus  represented  in  the  evidence,  should  be  decried  and 
dishonored  by  the  flippant  references  and  smiles  and 
jeers  of  counsel.  I  shall  have  occasion  hereafter,  in  con- 
sidering the  tenets  which  have  from  time  to  time  been 
advanced  by  Mr.  Tilton,  to  refer  more  particularly  to  the 
notions  of  marriage  and  divorce,  and  what  is  called 
"  free  love,"  which  are  attributed  to  him.  and  the  prin- 
ciples which  we  have,  through  Mr.  Pearl  Andi'ews,  de- 
veloped in  the  proof. 

TO  WHOM  ME.  BOWEN'S  $7,000  WENT. 
There  is  but  one  other  subject,  gentlemen,  to 

which  I  desire  to  ask  your  attention  as  especially  con- 
nected with  the  argument  of  Mr.  Evarts  ;  and  I  listened 
to  what  he  said  upon  that  subject  with  as  much  amaze- 
ment as  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  heard  what  ap- 
pears to  be  my  mistake  m  regard  to  their  views  concem- 
inar  improper  solicitations  from  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mrs.  TU- 
ton— the  truth  of  those  solicitations  we  will  discuss  by 
and  by.  Mr.  Evarts  made  the  astonishing  declaration 
that  the  $7,000  which  was  received  from  Mr.  Bowen  by 
Mr.  Tilton  was  at  onc«  passed  into  the  hands  of  Woodruff 
&  Robinson,  and  that  $6,000  of  it  was  at  once  taken  by 
Woodruff  &  Robinson — or  the  "  old  friends  "  of  Mr.  Tilton 
—for  the  purpose  of  repaying  his  arrearages  to  them. 

Mr.  Evarts— They  and  the  other  subscribers  took  the 
$6,000— Southwick,  Schultz,  and  the  others. 

:Mr.  Beach— Why,  gentlemen,  upon  what  proof  in  this 
ca^e  was  that  assertion  founded  ?  Will  anybody  refer 
me  to  any  evidence  looking,  even  distantly,  to  such  a 
conclusion  ?  This  assertion  is  made  in  the  face  ot  the 
books  of  Woodruff  &  Robinson,  or  of  an  account  tran- 
scribed from  them  and  produced  here.  In  which  it 
appears  that  the  $7fD00  was  placed  immediately  to  the 


r  ME.   BEACH.  881 

credit  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  from  him  and  by  him.  from 
time  to  time,  drawn  out  at  his  pleasure  and  to  meet  his 
own  wants.  There  is  no  disputing  the  proof.  It  appears, 
not  only  by  the  account,  the  record,  but  it  appears  by 
the  testimony,  in  perfect  conformity  with  the  record, 
that  every  dollar  of  that  money  passed  at  once  into  the 
hands  and  to  the  credit  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  was  by  him 
appropriated  to  his  own  purposes;  yet,  in  the  face  of 
this  conclusive  evidence,  the  astounding  proposition 
is  submitted  by  the  counsel  that  $6,000  of  that  money 
was  seized  and  appropriated  by  Woodruff  &  Robinson 
and  the  other  subscribers  to  The  Golden  Age.  I  repeat, 
gentlemen,  there  is  not  a  particle  of  proof  in  this  case  to 
sustam  that  allegation ;  and  [turning  to  Mr.  Evarts]  I 
will  very  readily  give  my  learned  friend  an  opportunitv 
to  refer  to  any  such  evidence.  It  is  a  bald  misstate- 
ment—I  suppose  uttered  unconsciously ;  but  it  has  a 
most  mischievous  effect  upon  Mr.  Tilton  and  upon  the 
question  in  this  case  of  a  conspiracy  to  blackmail  Mr. 
Bowen  and  everybody  else  connected  with  this  affair. 
Well,  it  seemed  necessary  for  the  learned  gentleman  to 
resort  to  this  misapprehension  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
a  construction,  an  application,  a  meaning,  to  the  little 
scrap  of  yellow  paper  which  was  presented  by  Mr.  Part- 
ridge :  "  Spoils  from  new  friends  for  the  enrichment  of 
old."  Well,  it  requires  a  pretty  strong  imagination  to 
give  any  unfavorable  effect  to  that  paper.  Mr.  Partridge 
does  not  say  that  the  paper  was  in  any  way  connected 
with  the  check  when  it  was  delivered  to  him.  It  proba- 
bly was  not ;  from  the  fact  that  Mr.  Partridge  thought  it 
consistent  with  his  duty  as  cashier  of  the  firm  of  Wood- 
ruff &  Robinson  to  put  the  memorandum  in  a  different 
place  from  the  check.  I  do  not  care  to  speak,  gentlemen, 
of  Mr.  Partridge  with  any  sort  of  incivility  or  unkiud- 
ness ;  but  the  circumstances  under  which  that  memo- 
randum was  withdrawn  from  the  custody  of  the  firm  by 
vriiich  he  was  employed,  and  of  the  production  of  ic  here, 
would,.I  tliink,  give  just  opportunity  for  some  strictures 
upon  Mr.  Partridge's  views  of  the  duty  of 
an  agent  toward  a  principal,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances. But  I  have  no  taste  for  reflections  of  that 
character,  and  I  do  not  deem  them  either  beneficial  or 
influential.  But  look  at  the  contents  of  this  paper,  and 
let  us  see  whether  it  has  any  rational  connection  with 
that  check  or  with  the  affair  out  of  which  it  originated. 
"  Spoils  from  new  friends  for  the  enrichment  oi  old." 
Well,  the  spoils  came  from  Bowen.  He  was  not  a  "  new 
friend."  For  fifteen  years  the  most  intimate  association 
had  existed  between  him  and  Mr.  Tilton.  "For  the  en- 
richment of  old."  Why,  Woodruff  Kobiuson  and  the 
other  gentlemen  connected  wiui  the  contributions  to 
The  Golden  Age  were  not  old  friends  "—not  so  old  as 
Bowen.  There  was  no  significance,  there  is  no  signifi- 
cance, attached  to  the  paper  in  connection  with  this 
che^k  ;  and  every  other  person  associated  with  the  affair 
professes  entire  ignorance  in  regard  to  the  connecticn  of 


883  THE  TILTON-B 

that  paper  with  that  check,  in  any  form.  It  has  passed 
entirely  from  the  recollection  of  Mr.  Tilton.  Mr.  Wood- 
ruflF  has  no  memorj'  of  it ;  he  says  the  check  was  deliv- 
i:vf'<\  to  him,  hut  he  has  no  recollection  of  |this  paper— 
soiuewhat  remarkable  in  its  appearance,  and,  if  con- 
nected with  the  check,  more  singular  in  the  possible 
significance  which  might  have  )>een  attached  to  it. 
AVell,  it  w  as  uot  for  the  enrichment  of  old  friends,  because 
if  anybody  was  enriched  by  it,  it  was  Mr.  Tilton  exclu- 
sively ;  but  my  friend,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  an  appli- 
cation, a  jneaning  to  this  paper,  chose  to  say  that  these 
*' old  friends"  referred  to  at  once  apppropriated  $6,000 
of  the  fund. 

[Mr.  Evarts  here  gave  an  assenting  nod.] 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  my  friend  may  nod  his  head,  and  I 
8U])i>ose  there  is  a  good  deal  in  it.  [Laughter.]  But  I 
cballenge  him  to  the  production  of  any  proof  which  will 
furnish  the  shadow  of  justification  for  the  statement  he 
made. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  gave  all  the  circumstances  and  all  the 
proof,  and  I  argued  the  matter  to  my  satisfaction,  andj\l 
presume,  t(^  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes.  Well,  gentlemen,  he  gave  no  proof 
upon  the  subject ;  he  stated  no  circumstances  upon  the 
subject  (for  the  extract  from  his  speech  is  before  me), 
except  the  simple  statement  that  when  the  money  was 
passed  over,  $6,000  of  it  was  grabbed  for  the  benefit  of 
the^ubscribers  to  The  Golden  Age. 

COMMENTS  ON  "THE  PLYMOUTH  SECTION." 

Now,  gentlemen,  thus  far  in  my  argument  I 
liave  endeavored  to  follow  and  answer  as  well  as  T  might 
the  various  suggestion*  which  were  made  by  my  learned 
friends  in  their  submission  of  this  cause.  I  have  antici- 
pated a  very  considerable  part  of  the  argument  I  in- 
tended to  submit  to  you  in  the  outset,  and  I  hope  not  to 
be  tediously  lengthy  in  the  remainder  of  the  observations 
which  I  ask  you  patiently  to  hear. 

There  are  one  or  two  attendant  circumstances  con- 
nected with  this  trial  which  seem  to  me  to  merit  a  pass- 
ing notice.  You  cannot  but  have  observed  the  rmusual 
features  with  which  this  trial  was  introduced  to  your 
notice,  and  which  have  attracted  something  of  public 
comment.  It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  determine  whether 
or  not  Henry  Ward  Beecher  is  the  real  defendant  in  this 
case.  The  management  of  it  has  been  apparently  as- 
sumed by  Plymouth  Church,  and  my  friends  have  taken 
great  credit  to  the  defense  and  to  Mr.  Beecher,  that  upon 
this  occasion  he  appears  surrounded  by  a  multitude  of 
earnest  and  devoted  adherents.  You  remember  the  cir- 
cumstances ushering  the  triol.  The  procession  daily  of 
the  members  of  Plymouth  Church  s  in  rounding  this  bar  and 
this  jury,  and  by  their  presence  and  their  countenance  and 
their  action,  endeavoring  to  influence  the  deliberations 
of  this  court.  Not  an  accidental  gatnering  of  spontaneous 
friendship,  but  an  organized  array  under  the  lead  of  their 


DECREE  TRIAL, 

gallant  usher  [laughter],  who  has  assumed,  or  for  a  tim* 

did  assume,  the  apparent  control  of  this  court-room ;  and 
throughout  the  whole  trial,  in  the  presence  of  the  jury, 
and  as  I  say,  for  the  purpose  of  overawing  justice,  this 
unusual  gathering  of  Plymouth  Chiirch  has  been  collected 
about  this  court  and  jury.  And  the  influence  has  not 
been  silent  or  repressed.  Every  mode  by  which  it  could 
operate,  every  avenue  by  which  it  could  reach,  insensibly 
and  unconsciously,  the  court  and  jury  and  influence  them, 
has  been  most  freely  and  unscrupulously  employed.  I 
have  a  great  respect  for  Plymouth  Church.  It  is  a  great 
church;  it  is  a  wealthy  and  influential  church.  It  em- 
braces three  thousand  communicants,  it  is  said, 
from  the  midst  of  this  societj^  embodying  char- 
acter, position.  Influence,  wealth  I  admit;  and  that 
is  the  "jury  of  vicinage"  to  which  my  friend  Porter 
would  be  glad  to  appeal.  One  appeal  has  been  made  to 
it,  through  the  Committee  of  Investigation,  and  I  don't 
think  that  either  the  parties  interested  or  the  pubUc 
would  be  gratified  by  any  repetition  of  that  proceeding. 
But  Plymouth  Church,  as  I  have  said  to  you,  is  an  inde- 
pendent church,  standing  upon  its  owin  strength  and 
its  own  merits— very  properly  for  aught  I  know. 
But  they  are  an  aggressive  church ;  and  they  come  into 
this  court-room  as  if  this  trial  were  a  sort  of  gala  day. 
For  the  first  days  of  this  trial— nay,  for  the  tirst  weeks  of 
this  trial— we  were  delighted  with  the  floral  displays 
made  by  Plymouth  Church.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was 
decorated  not  only  with  the  devotion  and  the  idolatry  of 
his  communicants,  but  around  this  trial  was  thrown  a 
scene  and  a  spirit  of  lightness  and  joy,  as  if  all  that  was 
to  be  done  was  for  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  with  his 
Plymouth  Church  at  his  heels,  to  appear  in  a  court  of 
justice  and  demand  the  confidence  and  the  verdict  of  a 
court  and  a  jury.  They  reminded  me  of  the  words  of  the 
satirist  poet  as  belonging  to  the  church  militant : 

"  Who  found  their  faith  upon 
The  holy  text  of  pike  and  gun. 
And  prove  their  doctrines  orthodox 
By  apostolic  blows  and  knocks.'* 

It  was  not  perfectly  safe  for  any  gentleman  who  was 
not  in  entire  sympathy  with  Plymouth  Church  and  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  to  make  his  appearance  around  this  bar. 
Why,  I  remember,  but  a  few  daysjago,  that  estimable  and 
pious  lady,  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  attracted  by  the  eloquence  of 
my  learned  friend,  ventured  to  come  into  this  court-room ; 
but  she  had  been  upon  the  stand  adversely  to  Mr.  Beecher 
and  she  was  frozen  by  the  chilliness  of  Plymouth  Church. 
Why,  the  stately  Caldwell— [laughter] —towering,  as  Mr. 
Phillips  says  of  Napoleon,  above  Mrs.  Bradshaw  "like 
some  ancient  ruin  whose  frown  terrified  the  glance  his 
magnificence  attracted"— [laughter]— stood  over  her,  and 
the  poor  lady  was  in  terrible  alarm.  And  there  was  my 
friend  Mr.  Murray,  the  downy-cheeked  Apollo  of  Plymouth 
Church— [laughter]— why,  when  he  saw  Mrs. 
Bradshaw     venturing     into     this     court-room  his 


SUJlJIiyG    UP   BY  MR.  BEACH. 


883 


OOTinteuanee  assumed  the  fierce  ruggedness  of 
Mars,  in  Ms  worst  aspe-et .  [Laucliter.]  And  so.  -vrhenevfr 
any  one — any  one  wtio  ^vaa  nor  submissive  entirely  to  tlie 
dictation  of  Plymourli  Churcli— made  ins  appearance  in 
this  bar,  iie  Tvas  displaced  to  accommodate  tlie  ptialanx 
whlcli  VTRG  brought  bere  to  support  Henry  Wai*d  Beecber 
—and  for  what  ?  Cannot  Henry  Vard  Beecber  stand 
alone  ?  Must  be  be  bolstered  up  by  bis  adherents,  and 
must  these  influences  be  pressed  upon  a  court  and  jury 
to  control  the  deliberations  in  a  court  of  justice  ■?  It  ^^v-as 
not  long,  gentlemen,  not  long,  before  these  other  displays 
gave  place  to  the  rmpre^sion  of  seriousness  and  a-sve  which 
belong  to  a  place  like  this.  Gentlemen  soon  found  that 
we  were  in  the  presence  of  the  law,  in  the  presence  of  a 
court  and  a  jury  administering  justice  under  the  forms  of 
the  law,  and  a  little  more  of  SMiirieTy,  a  little  more  of  de- 
cency, of  absence  of  floral  displays,  ond  exulting  in  an- 
ticipated triumph,  came  over  the  representatlres  of 
Plymouth  Church. 

Another  circumstance  alluded  to  also  by  Mr.  Evarts— 
and  I  make  no  allusion  to  it  with  any  sort  of  disrespect 
to  the  lady  to  whom  I  refer.  In  a  case  of  this  character, 
necessarily  involving  imputations  upon  her  husband,  de- 
velopments which  must  pierce  the  sensitiveness  of  her 
woman  heart,  Mrs.  Beecber  has  been  a  constant  attend- 
ant at  this  trial.  I  do  not  except  to  it,  gentlemen.  It  is 
but  another  evidence  of  a  woman's  trust  and  a  woman's 
fidelity,  but  it  seems  to  me  a  little  singular  that  a  lady 
like  Mrs.  Beecber  should  have  been  forced  into  constant 
attendanc-ir  upon  a  trial  involving  such  an  investigation, 
listening  day  by  day  to  the  revolting  evidence  of  her 
husband's  unfaithfulness,  whether  true  or  not,  and  she,  I 
presume— I  assume  does  not  believe  it;  it  is  a  little  sin- 
gular that  she  should  be  forced  to  what  must  be  a  sacri- 
fice of  her  womanly  and  wifely  feeling  through  a  pro- 
tracted investigation  of  six  months.  She  exhibits  the 
best  aspects  of  the  poet's  language  when  he  exclaims  : 
•'  Oh  :  woman,  in  our  hours  of  ease. 
Uncertain,  coy,  and  hard  to  please. 
And  variable  as  the  shade 
By  the  light  quivering  aspen  made ; 
When  paiu  and  anguish  wring  the  bow, 
A  ministering  angel  thotu" 
Doubtless  she  has  been,  but  yet  it  seems  to  me  that 
there  is  an  air— I  will  say,  adopting  the  languaire  of  my 
friend — a  theatric  air  about  the  arrangement.  I  ■^%'illnot 
say  that  this  gentle  and  venerable  matron  has  been  forced 
iQto  this  unseemly  place  for  the  purpose  of  awaking  the 
sympathies  of  the  jury;  I  have  no  objection  to  your  in- 
dulging rhem,  gentlemen.  I  have  no  objection  that  this 
Jnrv  should  consider  all  the  serious  consequences  which 
may  result  to  Mr.  Beecber  and  to  this  connection  with 
him  by  this  trial.  They  are  a  proper  consideration  for 
you.  Not  to  exonerate  him  against  evidence,  not  to  di- 
minish by  a  feather's  weight  the  proof  in  this  case,  not  to 
allow  sympathy  to  overcome  a  sense  of  justice,  but  to 
Impress  upon  each  of  your  minds  the  solemnity  of  the 


dnty  and  the  responsibnity  which  rests  upon  you.  yo 
judgment  should  be  pronounced  in  this  case  with'  * u"  a 
•  careful  consideration  of  all  its  results,  and  without  i 
proi)€r  regard  to  the  immense  interest  which  may  depend 
upon  your  conclusion;  and  yet  I  must  say,  as  a  duty  to 
this  case,  that  it  seems  to  me  as  if  there  had  been  an  or- 
ganized idan  of  defense,  an  array  imposing  in  its  extent 
and  ia  its  charaereristics  in  this  court-room,  to  influence, 
by  the  ■  iadireet  and  insidious  modes,  the  conclusions  of 
this  Court. 

There  has  been  another  appearance  iu  this  court-room  : 
another  lady  was  forced  early  into  this  arena  where  her 
virtue  was  the  foot-ball  of  contention :  where  she  day 
after  day,  upon  her  own  confessions,  upon  inculpating 
evidence  of  others,  was  exhibited  as  a  woman  who  had 
fallen  from  the  virtue  and  the  grace  and  the  dignity  of 
her  character.  She  came  here  not  as  the  friend  or  the 
aUy  of  her  husband,  this  plaintiff,  but  she  came  here  as 
the  adherent  of  this  defendant,  who  had  enticed  her  from 
her  home,  who  had  produced  her  before  his  packed  com- 
mittee, who  had  led  her  into  an  attitude  of  hostility  to 
her  husband,  home,  and  children  ;  and  she  is  brought 
here  to  listen  to  the  details  of  her  sin,  an  hear  the  jeers 
and  the  mockery  of  an  insulting  crowd.  Do  you  doubt 
Tinder  what  influences  she  came  ?  When  she  was  first 
enticed  from  her  home,  Frank  Moulton,  anticipating  all 
the  consequences  which  have  followed  from  that  most 
injudicious  act  npon  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecber,  reproached 
him  with  it,  and  says  : 

I  told  Mr.  Beecber  that  Mr.  Tilton  never  would  have 
written  that  card  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  publication  of 
his  correspondence  with  the  Committee  and  the  deser- 
tion of  his  wife,  and  I  said  to  Mr*  Beecber  at  that  inter- 
view :  "  Don't  you  know  that  you  are  doing  yoiu-sclf,  or 
are  liable  to  do  yoiu'self  a  great  hurt  by  keeping  Eliza- 
beth away  from  Theodore  ?  Don't  you  know  perfectly 
well  the  influence  that  that  woman  lias  had  over  him  ! 
If  you  keep  her  away  from  him  it  will  only  incense  him. 
!  and  you  ought  to  send  her  back  to  him,"  and  he  said : 
•■That  can  be  arranged  if  this  other  matter  is  fixed  up 
properly." 

[To  3Ir.  Follerton.]— He  didn't  contradict  him.  did  he. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Xo,  Sir. 
;  Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Beecber  was  on  the  stand.  That  accu- 
I  sation  of  withdra^Ting  Mrs.  Tilton  from  her  husband  and 
her  home  stood  upon  the  record  under  the  evidence  of 
Mr.  Moulton  against  Henry  Ward  Beecber,  and  he  uttered 
not  a  word  of  denial— not  a  word  of  denial.  And  you  re- 
member with  what  particularity  my  learned  friend  cari  ied 
him  through  the  relations  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  :Mr.  Moulton 
as  to  matters  which  he  considered  important,  and  which 
were  possibly  subject  to  denial  by  Mr.  Beecber,  and  this 
most  pregnant  circumstance  was  omitted.  And  there  is 
nothing  in  the  general  testimony  of  Mr.  Beecber,  nothing 
in  his  relation  of  circumstances  or  iutercourse  which  con- 
tradicts this  allegation  of  Mr.  Moulton.  It  stands  uncon- 
tradicted that  this  woman  had  thus  withdrawn  from  hei 
home,  and  for  the  purposes  of  production  before  the  la- 


884 


TEE  tilton~b:ekchee  trial. 


vestjgating  Committee,  giving  evidence  wMch  I  shall 
comment  upon  hereafter;  that  she  is  permanently 
eeduced  from  her  home ;  that  Mrs.  Ovington,  who  is 
pronounced  one  of  the  princesses  of  the  earth, 
was  the  agent  by  which  this  act  was  accomplished. 
She  became  suddenly  and  at  once  intensely  interested  in 
Mrs.  Tilton,  taMng  her  out  on  rides,  inviting  her  to  the 
hospitalities  of  her  house,  intimating  to  her  that  when  it 
became  necessary  her  house  might  be  made  her  perma- 
nent refuge.  You  remember  the  note  addressed  to  the  In- 
vestigating Committee  to  know  whether  Mr.  Tilton  was 
upon  the  stand,  and  whether  any  necessity  was  aiising 
for  any  movement  upon  the  part  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  You 
remember  how  Mrs.  Ovington  visited  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
how  Mr.  Tracy  came  as  the  agent  of  Mr.  Beecher  in  to 
the  operation,  and  through  the  evidence  you  see  the  ma- 
chinery by  which  this  woman  was  brought  to  leave  home 
and  children,  and  to  accept  a  residence  with  Mrs.  Oving- 
ton, and  that  woman  a  widow  though  a  wife,  homeless 
though  a  mother,  who  is  now  wandering,  subject  to  the 
control  of  Mr.  Beecher  and  Plymouth  Church,  supported 
by  Plymouth  Church,  or  by  money  derived  from  its  ad- 
herents ;  she  is  brought  into  this  court-room,  and  along 
the  first  days  of  this  trial,  how  unctuous,  how  expressive 
were  the  greetings  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Til- 
ton—shaking  of  hands,  smiles  of  welcome,  and  exhibi- 
tions of  that  character  between  a  charged  seducer,  whose 
guilt  was  under  examination,  and  the  refugee  wife,  the 
^^ictim  of  his  arts,  made  in  the  presence  of  a  court  and 
Jury,  and  continued  until  the  expressions  of  public  dis- 
ar»probation  satisfied  these  gentlemen  that  their  play 
could  not  be  conducted  ^n  all  its  parts  without  reproba- 
tion. 

Oh,  gentlemen,  Plymouth  Church  may,  if  it  pleases, 
support  a  guilty  pastor ;  the  wife  of  Mr.  Beecher,  with 
flinging  and  devoted  fidelity,  may  adhere  to  him  during 
all  the  phases  of  this  most  remarkable  trial ;  but  what 
an  indecency  it  is  and  it  was  to  parade  Mrs.  Tilton  in 
this  court-room,  and  under  these  circumstances,  to  stand 
up  by  the  side  of  Mr.  Beecher,  to  hold  him  up  in  his  trial 
with  justice,  and  all  these  things  I  submit  to  you  are  but 
confessions  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher.  If  he  is  innocent 
he  needs  no  such  trappings,  no  such  aid.  The  righteous 
are  bold  as  a  lion.  Like  any  other  man,  he  could  have 
appeared  before  this  tribunal,  an^l  with  manly  brav^y 
and  defiance  meet  this  accusation  without  resorting  to 
these  poiieies  and  stratagems  to  protect  himself  from  the 
truth.  I  do  not  object— T  do  not  object  that  the  friends 
of  an  accused  man  should  manifest  their  interest,  their 
friendliness  in  his  trial,  but  I  insist  it  should  be  doiwB 
with  a  decent  regard  to  the  proprieties  of  a  court-room, 
and  with  ordinary  respect  to  the  proprieties  of  life. 

My  friend  has  said  again  and  again,  and  I  most  heartily 
join  in  that  declaration,  that  Mr.  Beecher  is  to  be  judged 
like  any  other  man.  The  law  is  no  respecter  of  persons  ; 
the  law  do«8  not  respect  high  position  and  exalted 


talents;  the  law  makes  no  dis  jinction  between  the  ricii 
and  the  poor,  the  high  and  the  low.  You  remember  ita 
symbol.  That  does  not  represent  it  fully.  It  is  the 
statue  of  justice,  stony,  holding  out  its  scales  with  an 
unquivering  and  unsympathetic  arm;  no  hea*J,-beat  dis- 
turbs  its  rigor  or  its  sternness ;  its  eyes  are  bandaged ;  it 
sees  not  litigants  before  it;  it  is  intellectual  wholly,  un- 
sympathetic wholly.  It  regards  only  the  evidence  with 
a  clear  and  unmoved,  unwavering  ju<|gment,  criticising 
proof,  giving  judgment  unswayed  by  those  tumultuous 
passions  which  control  the  judgment  of  men  outside  of 
her  temple.  It  is  thus  that  the  law  is  administered. 
It  is  thus  that  justice  is  to  be  applied,  and  yet,  gentlemen, 
how  often  in  the  course  of  this  trial  have  you  been  moved 
by  your  sympathies  t  How  often,  when  looking  upon  this 
defendant,  grand  and  noble  in  his  nature,  testifying  in 
this  case,  now  quivering  with  anguish  and  tears  starting 
in  his  eyes  and  appealing  to  JBEeaven,  and  anon  changing 
to  all  the  various  moods  and  tempers  of  the  human  mind, 
youdafflnot  look  upon  that  spectacle  unmoved.  You 
could  not  but  see  the  man  in  all  the  grandeur  of  his 
nature,  and  you  could  not  but  look  beyond  his  present 
position  to  that  to  which  by  the  force  of  your  verdict  he 
may  possibly  come.  But  is  that  justice,  justice  in  her 
spirit,  justice  In  her  truth,  justice  in  that  impartiality 
and  stern  vigor,  with  which  her  penalties  are  adminis- 
tered to  the  wrong-doer?  Why,  gentlemen,  have  yon 
ever  considered  the  character,  the  power,  the  uni- 
versality, the  necessity  of  law ;  how  everything  under 
the  heavens  and  above  the  heavens  is  regulated 
by  Immovable,  fixed,  unchangeable  law,  applied 
to  all  the  departments  of  creation  and 
life?  How  every  atom  in  this  vast  universe 
is  subject  to  law— law  established  by  Omniscience,  and 
that  Omnipotence  which  will  uphold  it  to  the  end.  From 
this  great  o'erhanging  canopy,  this  majestical  roof,  fretted 
with  golden  fire,  down  to  the  humblest  flower  which 
blooms  at  your  feet,  there  is  not  an  atom  that  moves  not 
in  obedience  to  the  law  of  God ;  and  suspend  but  for  one 
instant  the  operations  of  that  law,  and  all  this  magnifi- 
cent creation  would  rush  at  once  into  darkened  chaos. 
And  so  it  is  with  the  law  of  our  bodies.  Violate  it,  depart 
but  for  one  instant  from  that  fixed  and  regulated  law 
established  by  the  Creator,  and  you  suffer ;  you  are  dis- 
eased ;  pain,  anguish,  and  death  come.  Violate  the  law 
of  society  under  which  you  sit,  and  which  you  are  to-day 
administering,  and  the  same  consequences,  though  possi- 
bly not  in  immediate  perceptible  effect,  but  the  same 
consequences  follow.  The  purity  and  the  integrity, 
($ie  immobility  of  the  law  must  be  preserved. 
If  you  violate  it  to-day  you  establish  a  precedent  which 
operates  upon  the  future.  Nay^  gentlemen,  you  do  harm 
to  your  own  conscience,  to  your  own  sense  of  right ;  you 
disorganize  society,  you  unsettle  the  principles  estab- 
lished for  its  government,  you  introduce  a  series  of  Irreg- 
ularities and  mischievous  results  which  will  have  their 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MB,  BEACH. 


885 


effect  sometime  and  somewhere— I  cannot  tell  you  wlien— 
but  every  violation  of  law  is  as  sure  to  be  punished  as 
that  God  reigns  above  us.  This  life  is  a  life  of  compensa- 
tions. Whether  it  be  true  that  sin  and  error  shall  be  pun- 
ished by  its  own  consetiuences  ;  whether  it  be  true  that 
sin  carries  within  itself  the  ingredient  of  its  own  punish- 
ment, or  whether  God  Almighty,  by  a  special  interposi- 
tion of  His  providence,  interferes  to  control  and  punish,  I 
cannot  say ;  but  this  I  do  know,  if  there  is  truth  in  God, 
and  truth  in  Scriptures,  that  no  man  can  violate  any  law 
of  God,  that  no  man  can  violate  any  municipal  law  for  the 
government  of  society, without  imposing  upon  himself  and 
upon  the  others  the  certain  pvmishing  consequences  of 
that  violation. 

Now,  what  have  all  these  things  to  do  with  the 
deliberations  of  this  jury  ?  What  heed  are  you  to  pay  to 
this  array  of  imposing  and  seductive  influences  which 
are  brought  to  bear  upon  your  judgments  and  sym- 
pathies when  you  stand  up  before  your  Creator  and  be- 
fore the  world,  and  avow  your  ability  to  determine  tills 
case  upon  the  law  and  the  evidence,  and  give  to  your 
declaration  the  most  solemn  sanction  that  can  be  applied 
to  the  conscience  of  man,  that  you  will  thus  exert  your 
prerogative  and  discharge  your  duty— what  have  you  to 
do  with  all  those  overlying  tafluences  ?  I  can  but  ex- 
hort you,  gentlemen,  in  the  spirit  of  your  oaths,  in  the 
spirit  of  justice,  and  with  a  conscientious  regard  to 
your  duty  to  God  and  to  man^  to  disregard  all  foreign 
and  outlying  circumstances  of  this  case,  and  to  give  heed 
OBly  to  the  instructions  of  law  you  shall  receive  from  hi8 
Honor,  and  to  the  evidence  to  which  your  consideration 
will  be  asked. 

"THE  TILTON  SECTION.'' 

And  consider,  if  you  please,  for  one  moment, 
the  dijfference„in  the  conduct  of  this  brutal  and  depraved 
husband,  this  debauched  and  cruel  libertine,  toward  a 
wife  who  left  him  without  any  new  cause  at  least,  with- 
out any  immediate  offense  at  least,  who  left  home  and 
chUdxen— contrast  his  treatment  in  its  delicacy,  its  rev- 
erence, its  contiaual  and  out-mouthed  testimonial  in 
favor  of  that  woman,  with  the  conduct  of  the  man  who 
has  thus  exhibited  her  in  a  court  of  justice  to  the  scorn 
and  derision  of  the  world.  I  ask  you  again,  when  has 
Theodore  Tilton  ever  exhibited  the  brutality  of  his  na- 
ture in  any  apousation  against  his  wife,  in  any  persecu- 
tion of  her  honor,  her  virtue,  or  her  peace  ?  When  has  he 
ever  exposed  her  to  misrepresentation  or  wrong,  or  ever 
failed,  with  a  manly  fidelity  and  with  a  proud  defiance, 
in  maintataing  her  purity  and  excellence  everywhere 
and  before  every  man  1  Theodore  Tilton  uses  none  of 
these  audacious  influences.  He  resorts  to  no  shabby 
stratagems.  He  has  not  gathered  influences  about  this 
court-room.  In  plaii^  manliness  he  has  met  the  duty  of 
this  hour.  He  has  no  troops  of  friends  around 
him     to     bolster      Mm      up,      and     to  cheer 


and  encourage  him  ;  he  w  alone  and  desolate,  a  scarred 
man,  and  in  the  nobility  of  Ms  nature,  standing  up  upon 
the  truth  of  his  case,  and  demanding  only  a  considerate 
and  a  fair  judgment  from  this  jury.  If  he  cannot  gain  it  in 
the  old  and  organized  ways  of  the  law,  if  he  cannot  win 
it  by  a  lawful  and  a  just  appeal  to  the  judgment  and 
consciences  of  his  tiiers,  why,  he  will  relapse  back  into 
the  ignominy  and  shame  which  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and 
Plymouth  Church  have  succeeded  in  fastening  upon  hla 
name.  But  not  until  then,  not  until  that  judgment  shall 
be  pronounced  by  this  jury,  wiU  Theodore  TUton  ever 
falter  in  his  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  the  law  and  the 
jury  box.  [Applause,] 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  my  learned  friend, 
in  citiug  from  Mr.  Moulton's  testimony  on  the  subject  of 
Mr.  Beeeher's  connection  with  leading  Mrs.  Tilton  awBy 
from  her  husband,  spoke  of  it  as  a  statement  made  by  Mr. 
Moulton  and  not  contradicted  by  Mr.  Beecher.  My 
learned  friend,  by  referring  to  the  second  column  of  page 
894,  will  see  how  entirely  he  is  mistaken  in  that  matter. 

Mr.  Beach— I  was  in  error ;  it  is  eontradicteo. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  contradicted  in  every  point,  and  in 
every  circumstance. 

Mr.  Beach — Yes,  Sir ;  no  such  conversation  occurred.  I 
was  in  error.  Sir. 

The  Court  here^took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 

THE  POWEKFIJL  INFLUENCE  OF  A  GREAT 
INTELLECT. 

The  Court  met  at  2  j).  m.  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Beach— There  are  a  few  sentences  in  Maoaulay's 
Miscellanies,  in  an  essay  reviewing  Basil  Montagu's  Life 
of  Lord  Bacon,  which  seem  to  me,  gentlemen,  exceed- 
higly  appropriate  and  expressive  to  this  inclination  on 
the  part  of  aU  of  us  kindly  and  intelligently  to  consider 
the  faults  or  the  vices  of  those  who  have -ministered  to 
our  intellectual  enjoyment,  either  as  authors,  or  as 
statesmen,  or  as  orators,  and  these  suggestions  of  Mr. 
Macaulay  meet  very  many  of  the  sentiments  which  I  have 
felt  m  regard  to  this  case,  in  regard  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
in  regard  to  other  distinguished,  prominent  men,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  will  find  a  response  in  your  own  emo- 
tions connected  with  that  topic.   Mr.  Macaulay  says  : 

Our  estimate  of  a  character  always  depends  much  on 
the  manner  in  which  that  character  affects  oui'  own  in- 
terests and  passions.  We  find  it  difficult  to  think  well 
of  those  by  whom  we  are  thwarted  or  depressed,  and  we 
are  ready  to  admit  every  excuse  for  the  vices  of  those 
who  are  useful  or  agreeable  to  us.  This  is,  we  believe, 
one  of  those  illusions  to  wbich  the  "v^hole  human  race 
is  subject,  and  which  experi^ce  and  reflection  can 
only  partially  remove.  It  is,  ii^he  phraseology  of  Bacon, 
one  of  the  idola  tribus.  Whence  it  is  that  the  moral  char- 
acter of  the  most  eminent  in  letters  or  in  the  fine  arts  is 
treated — often  by  cotemporaries,  almost  always  by  pos- 
terity— with  extraordinary  tenderness.  The  world  de- 
rives pleasure  and  advantage  fiom  the  performances  of 


886 


lEB   TILTON-BF^ECHEB  TEIAL, 


sucli  a  man.  The  numlber  of  those  who  suffer  lay  his  per- 
sonal vices  is  small,  even  in  Ms  own  time,  when  com- 
pared with  the  number  of  those  to  whom  his  talents 
are  a  source  of  gratification.  In  a  few  years  all  those 
whom  he  has  injured  disapj[)car,  but  his  works  remain  and 
are  a  source  of  delight  to  millions.  The  genius  of  Sallust 
is  still  with  us,  but  the  Numidians  whom  he  plundered,  and 
the  unfortunate  husbands  who  caught  him  in  their  houses 
at  unseasonable  hours,  are  forgotten.  We  suffer  our- 
selves to  be  delighted  by  the  keenness  of  Clarendon's  ob- 
servation, and  by  the  sober  majesty  of  his  style  till  we 
forget  the  oppression  and  the  bigot  in  the  historian.  Fal- 
ftaff  and  Tom  Jones  have  survived  the  gamekeeper 
"Wliom  Shakespeare  cudgeled,  and  the  landlady  whom 
Field  Hiked.  A  great  writer  is  frecLuently  the  benefac- 
tor of  his  readers;  and  they  cannot  but  judge  of  him  un- 
der the  deluding  influence  of  friendship  and  gratitude. 
We  all  know  how  unwilling  we  are  to  admit  the  truth  of 
any  disgraceful  story  about  a  person  whose  society  we 
Uke,  and  from  whom  we  have  received  favors,  how 
we  struggle  against  evidence,  how  fondly,  when 
the  facts  cannot  be  disputed,  we  cling  to 
the  hope  that  there  may  be  some  explanation  or 
some  extenuating  circumstance  with  which  we  are  unac- 
quainted. Just  such  is  the  feeling  which  a  man  of  liberal 
education  naturally  entertains  toward  the  great  minds  of 
former  ages.  The  debt  which  he  owes  to  them  is  incalcu- 
lable. They  have  guided  him  to  truth.  They  have  filled 
his  mind  with  noble  and  graceful  images.  They  have 
stood  by  him  in  all  vicissituaes,  comforters  in  sorrow, 
nupees  in  sickness,  companions  in  solitude.  These  friend- 
ships are  exposed  to  no  danger  from  the  occurrences  by 
which  other  attachments  are  weakened  or  dissolved. 
Time  glides  by;  fortune  is  Inconstant;  tempers  are 
soured;  bonds  which  seemed  indissoluble  are  daily  sun- 
dered by  interest,  by  emulation,  or  by  caprice,  but  no 
such  cause  can  affect  the  silent  converse  which  we  hold 
with  the  highest  of  human  intellects,  &c. 

That  extract  suggests  a  thought,  gentlemen,  as  appli- 
cable to  Mr.  Beecher.  All  of  us  have  been  delighted  with 
his  intellectual  efforts.  All  of  us  have  been  in- 
structed by  his  sermons.  All  of  us  have  admired 
his  efforts  in  the  way  of  patriotism,  statesmanship,  poli- 
tics. We  know  that  he  has  been  a  great  force  in  many  of 
the  crises  of  our  history.  We  recognize  him  as  a  great 
preacher,  as  one  who  has  exercised  immense  influence 
over  the  moralities  and  the  Christianity  of  the  age ;  and 
it  is  hard  to  attach  to  such  a  man,  and  to  such  a  name,  the 
idea  of  degrading  sin.  It  is  repulsive  to  our  sympathies, 
to  our  nature,  you  feel  it.  A  great  many  say,  in  veiy 
homely  language,  "  He  is  too  big  a  man  to  be  killed." 
Isovr,  these  are  generous  and  exalted  sentiments  in  one 
Aspect,  in  the  idea  of  the  recognition  of  intellectual  great- 
ness, and  gratitude  for  pleasure,  intellectual  and  moral 
and  instructive,  conveyed  to  us.  It  is  an  honorable 
consideration  in  private  and  social  life,  to  be  extended  to 
the  faults  and  failings  of  real  greatness.  But,  gentle- 
men, I  desire  to  impress  upon  you,  if  I  can,  the  utter  im- 
propriety of  any  such  sentiment  in  a  court  of  justice. 
My  friends  have  appealed  to  us ;  it  is  the  staple  of  their 
argument.  Their  strong  appeals  to  this  jury  are  founded 
upon  the  idea  of  the  services  Mr.  Beecher  has  rendered  to 
the  world  in  the  past,  upon  the  assumption  that  those 


services,  those  efforts,  those  manifestations  of  personal 
character  could  not  by  any  possibility  be  associated  with 
sinful  tendencies  or  corrupt  actions ;  and  upon  this  the- 
ory and  this  assumption  they  have  reasoned,  I  have  no 
doubt  with  strong  influence  upon  the  hearts  and  sympa- 
thies of  this  jury.  Well,  it  is  very  obvious,  if  such 
considerations  are  to  control  us  in  the  positions 
which  we  now  occ  p  ,  if  I  am  to  be  restrained  in  speak- 
ing of  Mr.  Beecher  upon  this  evidence  as  I  conceive  him 
to  be  in  the  light  of  the  proof ,  and  if  you  are  to  judge 
him  from  considerations  of  this  character  instead  of  by 
the  teachings  of  the  evidence,  it  is  obvious  we  shall  not 
reach  a  just  and  legal  result,  nor  shall  we  reach  that  con- 
clusion which  the  intelligent  mind  of  the  world  will  form 
upon  a  consideration  of  this  evidence.  Conceding  all  the 
great  services  rendered  by  Mr.  Beecher,  conceding  all  the 
remarkable  qualities  of  his  character,  upon  what  conclu- 
sion i?  it  tha'  o  r  learned  friends  reach  the  proposition 
that  Mr.  Beecher  has  been  in  the  past  so  pure  and  spot- 
less as  they  assume  in  his  habits  of  life?  The  Court  will 
mstruct  you,  my  learned  friends  well  understand,  that 
we  could  not  assaU  the  private  life  of  Mr.  Beecher  except 
m  connection  with  this  charged  offense.  If  we  had  had 
our  hands  full  of  evidence  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  been 
licentious  in  his  private  life;  if  we  could  have  produced 
proof  of  numerous  examples  where  he  had  been  guUty  of 
the  especial  offense  now  charged  against  him,  it  was  im- 
possible for  us  to  prove  it.  Evidence  to  that  effect  would 
be  inadmissible.  We  could  not  prove  special  acts  of  sin- 
fulness ;  and,  like  every  other  man,  as  a  party  or  as  a 
witness,  he  is  to  be  judged  only  by  the  public  character 
which  he  has  won  by  the  exhibition  of  his  life  to  public 
observation.  True,  as  Mr.  Evarts  insinuated,  we  could 
have  asked  ]Mr.  Beecher;  but  then  it  would  have  been 
presented  as  a  question  to  the  Court  whether  even  a 
party  or  a  witness  was  compelled  to  expose  himself  to 
infamy  or  disgrace  by  answering  such  a  question.  In  a 
recent  case  tried  tn  England,  in  which  the  Piince  of 
Wales  was  inculpated,  a  high  dignitary  of  the 
bench  announced  in  that  case  that  the  witness 
was  not  bound  to  answer  to  the  question  whether 
or  not  he  had  been  guilty  of  adultery.  But  we  were  not 
comi>elled  to  rest  this  question  of  private  life  and  of 
private  morals  upon  a  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
the  man  who  was  sought  to  be  iuculpated.  Now,  the 
law,  in  view  of  this  condition  of  tilings,  presumes  that 
every  man,  whether  standing  as  a  party  or  as  a  witness, 
is  presumed  to  possess  an  ordinary  good  character,  and 
nothing  more.  He  is  placed  upon  the  same  level,  in  the 
aspect  of  the  law— where  he  stands  unassailed  by  dii-ect 
proof— he  stands  precisely  as  the  ordinary  examples  of 
life  and  character  surrounding  him,  and  you  have  no 
right  in  considering  this  case— you  have  no  right  to  pre- 
sume that  up  to  this  charged  intercoiu'se  with  Mrs.  Tilton, 
Mr.  Beecher  had  been  a  man  entirely  relieved  from  any 
suspicions  of  a  like  or  previous  offense.   We  know,  we 


SUMMING    UF  BY   MR.  BEACH. 


887 


know  that  "he  was  accused  of  it,  whatever  may  have  been 
the  fact  of  the  accusation ;  whether  under  any 
influence  or  control  those  accusations  were  withdrawn. 
To  what  extent  by  the  Tripartite  Covenant  they  may 
have  been  abandoned  we  will  see  by-and-by ;  but  that  he 
had  been  suspected,  that  he  had  been  charged,  appears 
upon  the  record ;  and  in  the  face  of  that  evidence,  as 
well  as  under  the  injunction  of  the  law,  our  friends  upon 
the  other  side  have  no  authority  in  assuming  that  the 
life  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  has  been  so  exemplary  and 
80  unistuspicious  as  they  chose  to  present  it  in  their  argu- 
ment to  this  jury.  I  do  not  say  that  he  ever  has  been 
guilty  of  any  such  sia  ;  far  be  it  from  me ;  but  I  say  the 
only  consideration  which  is  to  be  given  to  this  iaea  of 
good  character  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher  is  no  more 
extensive  or  emphatic  than  would  be  given  to  any 
other  gentleman  standing  in  a  like  position  in  a  court  of 
justice, 

DR.  E.  B.  FAIRFIELD  ON  PLYMOUTH  CHURCH. 

Before  I  pass  from  this  topic  I  submit  to  t1ie 
Plymouth  Church  a  few  words  of  plain  advice,  which  is 
given  to  it  and  its  members  by  Mr.  Fairfield,  in  the 
pamphlet  to  which  I  before  alluded : 

But  how  about  the  defense  of  him  by  Plymouth 
Church?  Now,  if  they  do  not  know  how  the  outside 
world  looks  at  the  matter  they  ought  to.  Everybody 
outside  of  that  church  and  its  immediate  friends,  sees 
that  thei/  have  every  earthly  motive  for  defendijlg  this  man 
to  the  very  last. 

1.  Their  friendship  for  Mr.  Beecher.  I  know  the 
strength  of  that  motive  myself.  It  is  hard  to  resist  it, 
and  see  the  truth  when  it  militates  against  those  whom 
we  have  loved,  admired,  and  believed  in.  I  have  heard 
more  than  one  man  say  :  "If  this  man  is  guilty,  I  don't 
want  to  know  it !  "  It  has  been  publicly  stated  that  at 
least  one  of  the  Committee  of  Six  said  that  very  thing. 
It  is  natural.  All  this  power  of  personal  friendship 
presses  upon  Plymouth  Chm'ch  to  make  them  shut  their 
eyes  to  facts.  And  "  none  are  so  blind  as  those  who  will 
not  see." 

2.  Their  prejudice  against  Mr.  Tilton.  [Prejudice.]  It 
has  been  very  strong  in  Plymouth  Church  for  years.  He 
is  known  to  have  denounced  Mr.  Beecher,  and  many  of 
their  church  liave  been  for  a  long  time  fostering  theii- 
prejudices  against  this  man,  as  Mr.  Beecher's  chief  ac- 
cuser. This  is  a  very  strong  motive  to  explain  the  wrong 
action  of  the  Committee,  and  of  the  chm-ch  generally. 

3.  AU  their  church  pride  has  been  against  a  fair  ti'ial  of 
their  pastor.  And  such  pride  is  hard  to  conquer.  They 
have  been  the  most  noted  chm'ch  in  America.  It  is  very 
hard  to  overcome  such  pride,  and  see  the  truth  in  spite 
of  it. 

4.  They  have  been  financially  a  very  successful  church. 
Their  income  has  been  without  a  parallel. 

And  thus  everybody  sees  that  in  defending  Mr.  Beecher, 
friendship,  prejudice,  pride,  and  self-interest  conspire  to 
blind  their  judgment.  The  strongest  of  all  earthly  mo- 
tives press  upon  them  to  lead  them  to  a  wrong  decision, 
in  upholding  and  vindicating  him  in  spite  of  the  clearest 
proof  of  guilt. 

It  is  well-known  that  in  a  court  of  law  any  one  of  these 
lour  considerations  would  exclude  a  man  from  serving 


on  a  common  jury.  A  blood  relation  of  the  accused— 
—even  through  there  be  no  proof  of  friendship— is  ex- 
cluded, because  his  family  pride  would  stand  in  the  way 
of  a  fair  verdict.  Their  family  pride  in  their  pastor,  and 
their  uatm^al  vanity  and  ambition  as  the  most  popular, 
church  on  the  continent,  is  a  motive  quite  as  strong  as 
either  of  the  other  three.  And  everybody  knows  that 
special  friendship  for  the  defendant,  special  prejudice 
against  the  plaintiff,  and  pecuniary  mterest  in  the  re- 
sult, are  everj-where  in  courts  of  law  deemed  valid 
reasons  for  excluding  any  one  from  a  jury. 

Wlieu,  therefore,  gentlemen,  these  strong  appeals  are 
made,  as  they  have  been  by  each  of  the  counsel  who  have 
addressed  you  upon  the  part  of  the  defense,  and  the  cir- 
cumstance that  this  large  congregation  gather  with  idol- 
atrous unanimity  about  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  you  must 
remember  the  motives  and  the  influences  which  may 
blind  and  mislead  their  judgment,  and  lead  them  to  this 
inconsiderate  action  toward  this  defendant.  I  think  I 
had  occasion  in  the  course  of  the  discussion  upon  some 
interlocutory  point  in  this  cause,  to  state  that  a  gentle- 
man for  whom  I  have  the  most  profound  respect,  one  of 
the  coimsel  for  the  defense  in  this  case,  before  this 
judge,  in  this  court,  in  substance  stated  that  whatever 
might  be  the  verdict  of  a  jury  in  this  case, 
he  would  till  believe  in  and  adhere  to  Mr.  Beecher. 
Well,  I  take  no  exception  to  that  expression.  It  is  an  in- 
dication of  the  most  extraordinary  fidelity,  but  yet  that 
gentleman  has  stood  in  very  close  and  confidential  rela- 
tions to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  he  may  prefer  to  use  his  own 
judgment,  from  his  own  knowledge  of  the  character  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  rather  than  accept  the  regular  and  legal- 
ized mode  of  judgment  to  be  expressed  by  your  verdict. 
But  it  evinces  the  devotion  of  that  church,  and  it  is  a 
striking  ill astrati on  of  the  great  pow*,r  and  magnetism 
of  the  character  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  I  have  not  the 
slightest  hesitation  in  giving  him  the  fullest  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  possession  of  abilities  which  eminently  con- 
trol human  nature  and  attach  to  himself  human  aftection. 


MRS.  TILTON. 
The  most  remarkable  feature  about  this 
trial,  one  which  has  attracted  the  most  observation,  one 
upon  which  my  learned  friends  found  one  of  their 
strongest  appeals  to  the  jii5"y,  is  that  a  husband,  com- 
plaining of  the  adultery  of  his  wife,  and  the  accused 
adulterer,  both  unite  in  ascribing  to  the  woman  an  ex- 
alted and  perfect  character.  In  judging  of  the  probabil- 
ity of  the  relations  existing  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
INIi-s.  Tilton,  in  considering  this  extraordinary  testimony 
upon  the  part  of  both  these  parties  to  the  purity  and  ex- 
altation of  this  wrtman's  character,  in  construing  their 
actions  in  the  difterent  exigencies  which  have 
arisen  in  the  course  of  this  transaction,  we  must 
accept  this  conchision  that,  so  far  as  these 
two  men  are  to  be  judged  and  their  acts  are  to  be  con- 
strued, we  must  assume  that  each  of  them  sincerely 
entertams  that  idea  of  the  character  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  be- 


888  THE  TILTON-B 

cause,  of  course,  without  doing  so  we  never  can  arrive  at 
a  just  construction  of  tlietr  motives  of  action,  or  of  the 
character  of  that  action.  Mr.  Beecher,  throughout  the 
whole  of  this  association,  would  consider  and  treat  Mrs. 
Tilton  as  he  describes  her,  as  a  religious  enthusiast,  as  a 
woman  of  such  exalted  and  spiritualized  piety  that  in 
another  age  and  under  other  circumstances  she  would  he 
inspirational  and  of  religious  ecstasies.  And  so  with  Mr. 
Tilton ;  in  construmg  his  acts  and  his  declarations  we 
must  conceive  so  far  as  we  can,  whatever  may  he  our 
views,  that  Mr.  Tilton  has  acted  under  the  idea 
to  which  he  has  testified,  that  his  wife  was  a 
pure  and  white-souled  woman.  I  do  not  agi-ee 
with  that  conclusion.  It  is  not  possible  for  me  to  con- 
ceive any  such  condition  of  womanhood  I  cannot  im- 
agine any  idolatry  of  a  Christian  minister,  any  holiness 
attached  to  association  with  him,  anything  in  the  pos- 
sible influences  of  that  association  upon  the  weal  of  the 
Church  and  Christianity,  which  would  lead  me  to  eou- 
clude  that  an  intelligent  and  pious  woman  could  submit 
to  personal  degradation  without  a  conception  of  the 
impurity  of  the  act.  But,  geutlemeji,  I  have  not  the 
means  of  forming  as  accurate  a  judgment  as  either  Mr. 
Beecher  or  Mr.  Tilton.  Unfortunately,  I  have  had  none 
of  those  experiences  which  enable  me  to  judge  of  the 
possible  effect  upon  human  comluct,  and  the  rea- 
soning of  the  human  conscience  upon  a  par- 
ticular line  of  conduct  such  as  Mr.  Beecher 
with  his  moods  and  alternations  of  exaltation  and 
depression,  and  as  Mr.  Tilton,  with  what  is  called  the 
moods  of  his  genius.  I  do  not  understand  it ;  I  judge  like 
an  ordinary  man — a  common  sinner — and  I  have  no  such 
conception  of  the  character  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  But,  I  repeat, 
when  I  am  judging  these  two  men  and  reasoning  upon 
their  conduct,  their  acts,  their  opinions,  I  judge  them 
from  their  own  standpoints,  and  we  must  assume,  with 
reference  to  both,  that  Mrs.  Tilton  was  a  lady  of  this 
most  exemplary  piety,  of  this  sublimated,  etherealized, 
spiritualized  religious  character  which  fitted  her  for  those 
conditions  of  mind,  for  those  states  of  emotion,  for  that 
devotion  to  church  and  religion  which  overcame  all  the 
scruples  of  womanhood,  and^all  the  instincts  of  a  lady  in 
reference  to  the  idea  of  personal  Impurity. 

We  are  to  see,  gentlemen,  whether  with  this  under- 
standing of  the  character  of  this  lady,  if  there  is  any 
possibility  for  the  idea  that  she  was  seduced  by  Mr. 
Henry  AVard  Beecher,  and  that  she,  with  reference  to  the 
character  of  the  man,  the  holiness  with  which  she  in- 
vested him,  the  idolatxy  which  she  extended  to  hira,  with 
her  devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  church,  this  woman 
may  have  fallen  under  the  delusion  that  she  was  rather 
rendering  a  service  to  God  and  the  Church  than  defaming 
her  owa  womanhood.  I  have  said  that  nobody  disputes 
the  great  love  which  Mrs.  Tilton  bore  to  Mr.  Beecher. 
But  yet  it  is  necessary  that  I  should  draw  your  attention 
to  some  of  its  expressions,  and  I  think  we  can  gather 


^JFJm'EB  TRIAL. 

from  the  written  professions  of  this  lady  something  tn 
regard  to  the  peculiar  nature  of  her  religious  tempera- 
ment and  sentiments,  as  weU  as  pretty  clear  indications 
of  the  devotion  she  Jelt  and  expressed  toward  Mr. 
Beecher  [reading] : 

About  11  o'clock  to-day  Mr.  Beecher  called  [Mr.  B.]. 
Now,  beloved,  let  not  even  the  shadow  of  a  shadotv  fall 
on  your  dear  heart  because  of  this  now,  henceforth,  or 
forever.  He  cannot  by  any  possibility  be  much  to  me, 
since  I  have  known  you.  I  implore  you  to  believe  it,  and 
look  at  me  as  in  the  Day  of  Judgment  I  shall  be  revealed 
to  you.  Do  not  think  it  audacious  in  me  to  say  I  am  to 
him  a  good  deal,  a  rest ;  and  can  you  understand  it,  I  ap- 
pear even  cheerful  and  helpful  to  him. 

Well,  now  you  recollect  the  temperament  of  Mr. 
Beecher  as  it  was  described  by  himself,  exalted  in  certain 
conditions  of  mind,  so  that  when  looking  out  upon  the 
bay  glistening  in  the  moonlight,  and  upon  the  Orange 
hills,  and  the  sleeping  city,  he  seems  to  be  exalted  until 
he  could  clasp  the  gates  of  Heaven;  and  then,  again,  he 
is  down— dismayed,  depressed,  hopeless,  despairing. 
In  these  moods  he  goes  to  this  woman,  as  he  did  to  Mrs. 
Moulton,  bearing  about  him  in  every  liaeament  and  ex- 
pressing in  every  word  the  depression  and  despondency 
which  afflicted  him  He  appealed  at  once  to  the  warmest, 
most  sympathizing  feelings  of  a  woman's  nature.  He 
scarce  seemed  an  ordinaiy  man.  Invested  with  all  the 
greatness  of  his  reputation  and  position,  sutteriug  these 
extreme  agonies  and  sorrows,  no  woman  of  ordinary 
sensibility  could  resist  the  appeal  made  to  her  affection 
and  tenderness.  And  you  find  this  num  in  every  rela- 
tion, and  toward  everybody,  exerting  that  sort  of  attrac- 
tive influence,  the  power  of  a  great  emotional  nature, 
the  magnetism  of  a  strong  character,  a  will  bending  to  him 
every  heart  and  every  mind,  and  wheiever  he  has  moved 
throughout  society,  in  whatever  relation,  in  whatever 
position,  this  has  been  the  commanding  and  controlling 
influence  of  the  man — one  of  the  most  wonderful  charac- 
ters whom  we  have  ever  seen — I  mean  wonderful  in  all 
the  deiaartments  of  human  character,  not  only  in  intel- 
lect, in  emotional  nature,  in  physical  constitution,  but  in 
all  those  graceftd  and  winning  attributes  which  at  once 
attract  the  reverence  and  the  affection  of  every  acquaint- 
ance. Again,  she  says,  in  the  same  letter,  speaking  of 
Mr.  Beecher : 

You  once  told  me  you  did  not  believe  iliat  I  gave  you  a 
correct  account  of  his  visits,  and  you  always  felt  that  I 
repressed  much.  Sweet,  do  you  still  believe  this '«  I 
strive  in  my  poor  word-painting  to  give  you  the  spirit 
and  impression  which  I  give  him  and  he  to  me.  It  would 
be  my  supi'eme  wish  and  delight  to  have  you  always 
with  me.    This  irinity  oi'  friendship  I  pray  for  always. 

Ah!  yes,  there  was  the  idea  of  that  trinity  of  associa- 
tion between  herself  and  these  two  men,  Tilton  and 
Beecher.  It  implies  unity — community.  And  this 
woman  had  invested  this  association  of  herself  with 
•these  two  men  with  the  iaea  of  a  trinity,  of  a  connection 
as  between  the  three,  identity  of  interest,  identity  of  all 
considerations  constituting  the  substance  of  a  trinity. 


SU3miNG    UP  BY  MR.  BEAOR, 


889 


This  letter  was  written  on  the  1st  of  February,  1868. 
What  meant  these  expressions  directed  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
apparently  to  satisfy  some  uneasiness  which  at  that  time 
he  seems  to  have  felt  in  regard  to  the  association  be- 
tween jVIr.  Beecher  and  his  wife  1 

Now,  beloved,  let  not  the  shadow  of  a  shadow  fall  on 
your  dear  heart  because  of  this,  now,  henceforth,  or  for- 
ever. 

Was  it  any  expression  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton,  any 
manifestation  of  uneasiness  or  jealousy  on  his  part,  or 
was  it  in  February,  1868,  before  the  October  of  that  year, 
from  the  consciousness  of  this  woman  herself,  from  the 
feeling,  the  sentiment  that  there  was  growing  up  between 
lier  and  Mr.  Beecher  a  dangerous  element  in  their  inter- 
course, that  she  was  loving  him  too  much,  that  he  was 
loving  her  too  much?  Was  it  a  prescience  of  the  coming 
evil,  a  f oresh-adowing  of  that  spirit  and  act  which  wonld 
lead  to  the  consummation  which  we  are  examining  ?  In 
an  earlier  letter  of  the  date  of  Jan.  28, 1867,  she  says : 

Mr.  B.  [Beecner]  called  Saturday.  He  came  tired  and 
gloomy.  But  he  said  I  had  the  most  calming  and  peace- 
ful influence  over  him— more  so  than  any  one  he  ever 
knew. 

Now,  it  is  very  important,  gentlemen,  this  feature  of 
the  intercourse  between  these  two  people.  Mr.  Beecher, 
a  grand  man,  appeals  to  this  woman  for  comfort  and 
rest.  He  is  a  great  worker  in  the  vineyard.  For  thirty 
years  the  energies  of  Ms  whole  being  have  been  devoted 
to  the  public  offices  of  benevolence  and  charity,  of 
Christianity.  He  is  the  leader  of  a  church,  the  pastor  of 
this  woman.  Every  week  she  listens  to  the  mspiring 
tones  of  his  eloquence.  Every  week  she  feels  the  power 
of  his  public  character.  She  sees  his  identity  with  the 
interesTfc  o.'  the  church.  She  sees  how  much  depends 
upon  his  position  and  efforts,  and  this  man,  so  great  and 
atti-active,  comes  to  her,  a  delicate  and  feeble  woman, 
and  professes  to  her  that  she  is  the  deepest  inspiration 
and  rest  he  finds  in  the  whole  earth.  Well  now,  with 
this  is  associated  all  these  connections  of  greatness  of 
character,  of  extent,  of  influence,  of  necessity,  of  pres- 
ervation, of  the  man  and  his  abilities  to  the  cause  to 
which  they  are  devoted.  Speaking  of  Mrs.  Bradshaw, 
Mrs.  Tilton  writes  in  February  again,  1868  : 

I  think  she  feels  a  little  sore  that  Mr.  B.  visits  here. 
See  how  great  a  power  he  and  your  dear  self  have  over 
the  heart.  She  said :  "  Lib,  I  heard  through  Mrs.  Mor- 
rill that  Mr.  B.  called  on  you  Wednesday.  I  believe  he 
likes  you  ever  so  much."  Now,  my  darling,  I  have  often 
urged  him  to  visit  Mattie,  believing  he  would  find  her 
more  comforting  and  restful  than  I  can  be.  STie  would 
be  refreshed  and  cheered,  while  for  me— I  who  am  rich 
in  the  fullness  of  your  delicious  love,  have  no  need  save 
for  his  sake.  I  am  gratified  if  I  may  minister,  and  thank 
God  the  while. 

I  do  not  quite  understand  that  expression.  In  a  letter 
bearing  date  January  25,  1867,  which  I  think  I  read  to 
you  in  another  connection,  she  says  : 

I  think  in  reference  to  Oliver's  opinion  of  Mr.  B.— as 
his  remarks  were  made  to  Mr.  Bowen,  and  they  are  em- 


bittered toward  one  another,  that  what  Mr.  B.  said  of 
you  may  appear  very  different  through  the  coloring 
that  Mr.  Bowen  may  give  of  it.  Oh  I  now  my  soul  vearna 
over  you  two  dear  men.  You,  my  darling,  are  higher  up 
than  he ;  this  I  believe.  Will  you  not  join  me  in  prayer 
that  God  would  keep  him  as  He  is  keeping  us  f  Oh,  let 
us  pray  for  him !  You  are  not  willing  to  leave  him  to  the 
evil  influences  which  surround  him.  He  Is  in  a  delusion 
with  regai'd  to  himself,  and  pitifully  mistaken  in  his  opin 
ion  of  you.  I  can  never  rest  satisfied  until  you  both  see  eye 
to  eye,  and  love  one  another  as  you  once  did.  This  will 
not  come  to  pass  as  quickly  by  estrangement.  But  with 
all  the  earnestness  of  my  being,  I  commend  you  both  to 
God's  love.  He  has  signally  blessed  you  both,  and  he  will 
keep  His  own  beloved.  Whj^  I  was  so  mj'steriously 
brought  in  as  actor  to  this  friendship  I  know  not,  yet  no 
experience  of  all  my  life  has  made  my  soul  ache  so  verily 
as  the  apparent  lack  of  Christian  manliness  in  this  be- 
loved man.  Mattie  feels  as  I  do.  I  saw  her  to-day.  She 
said  she  received  two  letters  from  you  to-day.  I  do  love 
him  very  dearly,  and  I  do  love  j-ou  supremelj',  utterly— 
believe  it.  Perhaps,  if  I  by  God's  grace  [and  she  needed 
it]  keep  myself  white,  I  may  bless  you  both.  I  am 
striving.  God  bless  this  trinity. 

Well,  it  is  a  very  dangerous  position  when  a  womon 
gets  into  that  condition  of  mind  and  affection  that  she 
can  identify  in  her  love,  in  her  prayers,  and  in  her 
hope,  another  man  with  her  husband,  and  when  she  can 
associate  herself  with  them  in  the  idea  of  a  unified  trinity, 
and  when  she  is  in  that  condition  of  apparent  self-pos- 
session and  control,  that  while  acknowledging  her  deep 
love  for  a  man  like  Mr.  Beecher  to  her  husband,  she  can 
yet  hope  for  a  continuance  of  an  association  which  will 
be  likely  to  deepen  the  attection— the  sentiment. 

Mr.  Beecher  called.  He  is  in  fine  spirits  making  calls. 
He  devotes  Wednesdays  and  Thursdays,  "  till  further 
notice  ;"  has  300  to  make ;  made  20  to-day ;  enjoys  it  in>- 
mensely.  Called  on  the  YVlieelocks  to-day  and  kissed 
them  all  round,  Lizzie  Wood  included,  he  said. 

It  only  shows  that  the  demonstrations  of  feeling  on  t  je 
part  of  Mr.  Beecher  of  whate  ver  kind  they  are,  are  not 
altogether  reserved.  On  the  28th  of  December,  1866,  she 
writes  thus : 

My  Beloved  :  I  have  been  thinking  of  my  love  for  Mr. 
B.  [Beecher I  considerably  of  late,  an*"!  those  thoughts 
you  shall  have.  I  remember  Hannah  More  says  :  My 
heart  in  its  new  sympathy  for  one  abounds  towards  all." 
Now,  I  think  I  have  lived  a  richer,  happier  life  since  I 
have  known  him.  And  have  you  not  loved  nie  more  ar- 
dently since  you  saw  another  high  nature  appreciated 
me  ?  Certain  it  is  that  I  never,  in  all  my  life,  had  such 
rapture  of  enthusiasm  in  my  love  for  you— something 
akin  to  the  birth  of  another  babe— a  new  fountain  was 
opened,  enriching  all — especially  toward  you,  the  one 
being  supreme  in  my  soul.  "  I  love  thee  with  the  breaths, 
smiles,  tears,  of  all  my  life !  And  if  God  choose,  I  shall 
but  love  thee  better  after  death."  *  *  *  But  to  return 
to  Mr.  Beecher.  He  has  been  the  guide  of  our  youth,  and 
until  the  three  last  dreadful  years  when  our  confidence 
was  shaken  in  him— we  trusted  him  as  no  other  human 
being.  During  these  early  years  the  mention  of  his  name, 
to  meet  him  in  the  street,  or,  better  still,  a  visit  from 
him,  my  cheek  would  flush  with  pleesuie— an  e2Lpericuce 
common  to  all  liis  parishioners  of  both  sexes. 

Well,  that  I  believe. 


890  THE  TILION-B 

It  is  not  strange,  then,  darling,  that,  on  a  more  intimate 
acquaintance,  my  deligM  and  pleasure  should  increase. 
Of  course  I  realize  -what  attracts  you  hoth  to  me  is  a 
supposed  purity  of  soul  you  find  in  me.  Therefore  it  is 
that  never  before  have  I  had  such  wrestling  with  God 
that  He  would  reveal  Himself  to  me,  and  ever  in  ray  ears 
I  hear,  "  The  pure  or  heart  shall  see  God."  Oh  !  fiiltill 
this  promise  to  me,  my  Lord  and  my  God.  Darling  hus- 
loand,  I  have  endeavored  to  express  to  you,  without  cant 
or  any  such  thing,  my  true  feelings  as  they  appear  to 
me.  It  is  true  that  I  live  in  an  a.gony  of  soul  daily.  Nev- 
ertheless I  am  profoundly  happy  in  my  privileges,  oppor- 
tunities, and  blessings. 

Ah  !  there  was  in  this  woman's  heart  at  that  day  some 
little  misgiving  in  regard  to  the  character  of  her  love  to- 
ward Mr.  Beecher,  in  regard  to  the  manifestations  pro- 
ceeding toward  her  from  Mr.  Beecher.  What  were  the 
communings  of  these  two  spirits  in  those  hom-s  when 
Mr.  Beecher  went  to  her  moody,  and  restless,  and  de- 
pressed; what  were  the  kindly  and  womanly  services, 
under  this  appeal  to  her  pity,  w^hich  Mrs.  Tilton  made 
upon  those  occasions,  we  are  not  permitted  to  know  ex- 
cept by  the  declaration  of  Mr.  Beecher  that,  under  no 
circumstances  was  there  any  conduct  as  between  himself 
and  Mrs.  Tilton  which  would  deserve  the  reprehension  of 
the  most  pure  and  most  exemplary.  Well,  there  is  a  re- 
markable letter,  gentlemen,  written  on  the  20th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1868  : 

My  Beloved  :  I  am  so  lonesome  and  heartsick  for  your 
companionship  to.-night  that  I  hesitate  to  write  lest  my 
mood  may  depress  you.   Yet  I  cannot  wish  you  home. 

Longing,  lingering  for  the  association  of  her  husband  : 
Yet,  I  cannot  wish  you  home,  for  I  am  pursuaded  you 
are  happier  where  you  are.  WJiile  I  long  to  be  with  you 
I  am  haunted  continually  with  fears  that  your  cheery 
face  will  soon  be  shadowed,  and  your  dear  head  will  drop. 
This  thought  is  agony  to  me,  and  I  have  spent  many 
lioui's  since  your  absence  weeping  because  of  it. 

What  was  It  that  led  this  woman,  in  this  language,  to 
say  to  her  husband  that  he  was  happier  where  he  was, 
and  though  she  was  longing  for  his  presence  she  did  not 
wish  him  home  ?  Why  that  apprehension  resting  upon 
her  mind  that  soon  his  dear  head  would  drop  and  his 
heart  be  agonized?  In  October,  1868,  after  these  long 
years  of  love  toward  Mr.  Beecher,  after  Mr.  Beecher's 
continupus  resort  to  her  house  for  cheeriness  and  encour- 
agement, for  the  lifting  up  of  the  moodiness  and  depres- 
sion of  his  spirit— after  these  years  of  womanly  office  and 
"kindness  extended  to  Mr.  Beecher  in  the  privacy  of 
her  home,  what  was  it  that  rested  with  this  oppressive 
fear  upon  the  heart  of  this  woman,  and  led  her  to  say  that 
she  apprehended  full  soon  the  disaster  which  would 
"break  upon  the  heart  of  Theodore  Tilton  and  the  happi- 
ness of  his  home  ?  I  don't  know,  gentlemen,  but  it  seems 
to  me  that  those  instincts  of  womanhood  which  are  never 
absent  from  the  heart  of  a.  woman  were  telling  her,  whis- 
pering to  her  of  the  danger  of  her  position  ;  that  during 
all  this  time,  while,  as  we  see,  Mr.  Beecher  was  pressing 
hlR  fl-'signs  against  her  chastity,  she  resisting,  that 


^JEOHEB  TBIAL, 

!  nevertheless  she  saw  what  the  consummation  must  be, 
and  she  was  living  in  an  agony  of  prayer  to  her  God 
that  that  time  might  be  averted. 

MRS.  TILTON'S  TEMPTATION. 

Now,  gentlemen,  it  was  under  these  circum- 
stances, with  a  woman  so  refined  and  spiritualized,  with 
a  devotion  to  church  and  minister  and  God  which  over- 
powered every  other  affection,  and  controlled  every  other 
consideration,  it  was  upon  this  woman  who  had  poured 
out  upon  this  man,  Mr.  Beecher,  her  love  for  j  ears,  and 
these  offices  of  kindness,  that  Mr.  Beecher  wrought  his 
will.  From  our  knowledge  of  human  nature;  nay,  gen- 
tlemen, iudging  from  our  own  sell-knowledge,  is  it  won- 
derful that  under  these  circumstances  what  we 
charge  against  Mr.  Beecher  happened?  With  his  own 
descriptions  of  his  character  and  tendencies;  with  his 
own  conviction  of  the  power  of  his  own  api»etites  and 
passions,  with  this  knowledge  of  the  predominance  of  this 
strong  and  powerful  spirit  over  this  weak  and  loving  and 
trembling  woman,  with  abundant  opportunities,  with  a 
temptation  irresistible  upon  a  man  of  his  passions  and  Ms 
temperament,  is  it  surprising  that  these  people  felt,  and 
is  it  surprising  that  Mrs.  Tilton  should  attribute  to  that 
Intercourse,  under  the  ideas  which  you  see  she  main- 
tained in  regard  to  this  man,  her  association  with  him, 
and  her  influence  upon  him,  that  she  should  attribute  to 
this  intercourse  a  spirit  of  self-devotion  and  self-sacriflce  of 
piety?  Why,  gentlemen,  a  woman  does  not  fall  from  mere 
carnal  appetite.  It  is  the  ennobling  and  the  absorbing  love 
of  womanhood ;  it  is  because  her  devotion  to  its  ol>ieot  is 
etherealized  and  pure  in  it,  in  whatever  sacrifice  it 
demands  she  sees  nothing  but  a  cheerful  duty  rendered, 
and  disassociates  from  it  all  idea  of  impurity  or  hist. 
Wliy,  gentlemen,  if  the  history  of  these  pitiful  creatures 
who  sell  their  bodies  for  gold  could  be  traced  to  the  first 
sin,  it  would  not  be  found  a  sin  of  carnality  and  lust,  but 
a  sin  of  pure,  devoted,  trusting  love,  and  I  can  well  con- 
ceive that  a  woman  of  the  character  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  as 
given  to  her  by  both  these  persons  who  best  know  her, 
that  this  woman  may  have  surrounded  her  yielding  to 
the  solicitations  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  with  an  atmos- 
phere of  exaltation  and  purity  not  at  all  consistent  with 
her  character  and  her  devotion  to  the  man  and  to  the 
interest  to  which  he  was  consecrated. 

And  what  were  the  reasonings  addressed  by  this  man  to 
this  woman  ?  I  have  shown  you  that  they  were  not  of  so 
extraordinary  a  character  as  not  to  have  been  thought  of 
before  they  were  expressed  by  Mr.  Beecher.  But  what 
are  they,  as  testified  to  by  witnesses,  denied,  it  is  true,  by 
Mr.  Beecher?  In  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Tilton,  on  page 
396,  in  the  detail  of  the  interview  had  with  Mr.  Beecher, 
Mr.  Tilton  swears  that  he  communicated  to  Mr.  Beecher 
the  representation  of  his  wife  as  to  the  argument  and  per- 
suasions which  were  used  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  overcome  her 
scruples. 


SCfMMiyG    UP  BY  ME,  BEACH. 


891 


That  she  had  done  so  in  her  own  thought,  until  finally 
she  had  been  persuaded  by  him  that  as  their  lore  "was 
proper  and  not  wrong,  therefore  it  followed  that  any 
expression  of  that  love,  whether  by  the  shake  of  the 
hand,  or  the  Mss  of  the  lips,  or  even  bodily  intercourse, 
since  it  aU  was  the  expression  of  that  which  in  itself  was 
not  wrong,  therefore  that  bodily  intercourse  was  not 
wrong.  That  she  had  said  to  me  that  Mr.  Beecher  had 
professed  to  her  a  greater  love  than  he  had  ever  shown 
to  any  woman  in  his  life,  &c. 

Mrs.  Moulton  also  says  at  page  188 : 

And  Mr.  Beecher  had  said  to  me,  with  great  sorrow, 
weeping,  that  he  had  loved  Elizabeth  Tilton  very  much, 
that  thi'ough  his  love  for  her.  if  he  had  fallen  at  all,  he  had 
fallen,  and  that  the  expression,  the  sexual  expression 
that  love  was  just  as  natural  in  his  opinion — he  then 
thought  it— as  the  language  he  had  used  to  her ;  that  if  he 
had  f aUeu  at  all  he  had  fallen  in  that  way,  through  love 
and  not  through  lust,  or  words  to  that  effect. 

I  have  already  commented  upon  that  expression,  if  he 
had  fallen  at  all  ho  had  fallen  in  that  way,  and  it  is  not 
necessary  to  refer  to  it  again,  though  1  see  It  disturbs  the 
quietude  of  my  learned  fiiend  (Mr.  Evarts).  In  another 
part  of  his  testimony  jNIr.  Tilton  says  : 

She  always  used  to  say,  Sir,  she  was  not  to  be  judged 
either  by  her  mother  or  by  me.  but  by  God.  She  believed 
that  God  would  judge  her  tenderly.  She  said  she  loved 
God,  and  she  did  not  believe  that  God  would  have  per- 
mitted her  to  enter  into  those  relations  if  they  had  been 
sinful,  and  she  said  particularly  that  neither  her  mother 
nor  I  had  made  it  the  business  of  our  lives  to 
understand  what  was  right  and  wrong,  as 
Mr.  Beecher  did.  Mr.  Beecher  was  a  clergyman, 
that  he  was  a  great  and  holy  man,  that  he 
had  repeatedly  assured  her  that  their  relationship 
was  not  sinful,  and  she  did  not  see  how  it  could  be  sinful. 
That  he  told  her  that  love  justitied  all  things,  that  love 
had  various  expressions,  that  one  expression  was  the 
shake  of  the  hand,  another  expression  was  the  kiss  of  the 
lips,  another  expression  was  sexual  intercourse,  and  it 
made  very  little  diflerence  what  the  expression  was  if 
that  love  was  right ;  that  love  itself  madj  rightful  or 
justified  all  the  various  expressions  of  it,  and  that  she 
■believed  i)efore  God  that  her  love  for  Mr.  Beecher  was 
right,  and  his  for  her  was  right,  and  therefore  she  did 
not  see  how  any  of  the  varioiis  expressions  of  it  could  be 
sinful.  She  said  she  rested  on  Mr.  Beecher's  authority  for 
it.  That  he  had  told  her  so  over  and  over  again. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  see  the  trust  of  this  woman  in  the 
man,  and  you  see  that  that  illimitable  trust,  that  unhes- 
itating confidence  in  wliat  Mr.  Beecher  taught  and  said 
was  not  at  all  irrational  in  view  of  the  feeling  that  this 
woman  entertained  toward  Mr.  Beecher,  in  view  of  her 
conception  of  his  character  and  of  the  great  position 
which  she  thought  he  was  destined  to  fulfill  in  tliis  world. 
And  it  was  upon  this  woman,  so  ductile  and  impressible, 
80  subject  to  his  will,  so  entirely  under  his  control  that 
Mr.  Beecher  exerted  his  power,  and  through  the  venera- 
tion as  well  as  the  adoration  which  she  felt  toward  him, 
he  impressed  these  lessons  of  criminal  sophistry  which 
are  thus  related  by  the  witnesses. 

One  other  aspect  of  this  case  will  close  my  consideration 
of  this  topic.  It  is  in  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Moulton. 


Speaking  of  a  conversation  that  she  had  with  Mrs.  Tilton, 
the  question  was  put  to  her : 

State,  if  you  please,  what  it  wa«  ?  A.  I  think  that  was 
at  the  time  when  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton  appeared 
down  at  the  church  that  I  called  to  see  Elizabeth,  and 
said,  "  If  you  are  called  before  the  church,  what  are  you 
going  to  do  to  save  Mr.  Beecher?"  She  said,  "  I  shall 
sacrifice  my  husband,  and  deny  everj-thing."  I  said, 
"  Will  you  allow  your  husband  to  go  down  with  the 
truth  ?"  She  said :  "  I  think  I  shall  be  justified  in  stating 
a  falsehood  imder  the  circtunstances.  I  think,  for  the 
sake  of  Mr.  Beecher,  for  the  sake  of  the  influence  on  the 
world,  for  my  own  position,  for  my  children,  I  think  it  is 
my  duty  to  deny  it." 

And  upon  her  cross-examination  the  question  was  put 
to  her : 

Did  she  tell  you  that  she  should  not  t€ll  the  truth  ?  A. 
She  told  me  distinctly  that  she  should  sacrifice  her  hus- 
band and  deny  everything  for  Mr.  Beecher  ;  that  she  felt, 
under  the  circumstances,  that  she  would  be  justifiable  in 
telling  a  lie. 

"Well,  gentlemen,  I  assume  for  the  present  that  you  will 
believe  the  testimony  of  IVIrs.  Moulton.  Whether  she  is 
entitled  to  credit  we  will  discuss  hereafter,  after  we  have 
discussed  whatis  called  the  "  GrifSth  Gaimt  Letter,"  after 
the  disclosure  of  the  sin  of  Mrs.  Tilton  had  been  made, 
after  she  had  confessed.  It  was  when  this  matter 
was  assuming  an  attitude  of  public  investigation  that 
this  woman,  then  awakened  to  a  knowledge  of  the  wrong- 
fulness of  her  act,  as  I  suppose,  deliberately  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  character  of  Mr.  Beecher,  his  connec- 
tion with  the  great  interests  of  humanity,  the  possible 
eftect  of  her  wrong  upon  her  children  and  hcrseif.  all 
justified  her  in  denj"ing  her  former  confession  and  delib- 
erately falsifying  the  truth  to  save  tbese  interests,  and 
Mr.  Beecher  among  them.  Tt  is  the  usual  and  the  ordi- 
nary result  of  associations  of  this  character.  It  is  very 
rarely  you  have  seen  in  the  history  of  human  natm'e 
(my  friend  says  it  is  unexampled)  of  a  seduced  woman 
being  received  again  to  the  confidence  and  the  trust  of 
an  abused  husband.  That  this  woman  should  lie  for  Mr. 
Beecher,  that  this  woman  should  follow  the  fortunes 
of  Mr.  Beecher,  that  she  should  forsake  husband 
and  children  was  just  as  natural  and  as  in- 
evitable as  that  she  should  sacrifice  to  him 
her  chastity,  the  honor  of  her  womanhood.  You 
always  find  the  adulteress  with  the  adulterer,  and  I 
agree  with  the  learned  counsel  that  there  are  very  rare 
examples  where  any  other  result  has  followed.  It  is  not 
altogether  uniiaralleled,  because  my  learned  fiiend  will 
remember  the  case  of  Gen.  Sickles.  Gen.  Sickles,  who 
murdered  the  adulterer,  and  after  trial  was  acquitted, 
again  took  his  wife  to  his  bosom  and  his  home.  G^n. 
SicMes  was  subsequently  honored  by  the  Government  of 
the  country.  It  was  not  thought  disgraceful  to  him. 
There  were  modifying  circumstances  connected  with  her 
offense  which  the  world  saw  and  Gen.  Sickles  appreci- 
ateti.  He  loved  her  with  unstinted  devotion,  and  he  was 
not  condemned,  because,  as  my  learned  friend  says,  or. 


893 


THE   TILTON-BEEGEEB  TRIAL. 


as  Mr.  Beecher  originated  the  expression,  because 
he  condoned  Ms  wife's  fault.  But  I  say  it  is 
the  most  natural  conclusion,  as  evidenced  by  the 
nature  of  the  association  and  the  passions  moving  the 
partj^,  as  well  as  demonstrated  by  the  history  of  liasons 
of  this  character,  it  was  the  natural  almost  mevitable  con- 
clusion that  Mrs.  Tilton  should  associate  her  fortunes  with 
Mr.  Beecher  after  they  had  become  imited  in  the  investi- 
gations and  judgment  of  the  public.  I  cannot  tell  you  how 
this  woman  was  overcome ;  I  cannot  tell  you  how  this 
skilled  man  of  the  world,  this  master  of  human  nature 
and  of  men's  passions,  worked  upon  the  weakness  and 
spirituality  of  this  woman,  but  I  can  tell  you  what  Mr. 
Beecher  says  about  it : 

The  seducer  !  Playing  upon  the  most  sacred  passions, 
he  betrays  innocence. 

Howi 

By  the  tenderest  faculties,  by  its  truest  but  its  un- 
suspecting faith,  by  its  honor.  The  victim  often 
and  often  is  not  the  accomplice  so  much  as  the  sufferer. 
Betrayed  by  an  exorcism  which  bewitched  her  noblest 
affections  and  became  the  suicide  of  her  virtue.  The 
betrayer,  for  the  most  intense  selfishness,  without  one 
noble  motive,  without  one  pretense  of  houor,  by  lies,  by 
a  devilish  jugglery  of  thought,  by  blinding  the  eye, 
c<mfusing  the  conscience,  misleading  the  judgment,  and 
instilling  the  dew  of  sorcery  upon  every  flower  of  sweet 
affection,  deliberately,  heartlessly  damns  the  confiding 
victim.  Is  there  one  shade  of  good  intention,  one  glim- 
mering trace  of  light  ?  Not  one.  There  was  not  the 
most  shadowy,  tremulous  intention  of  honor.  It  was 
sheer,  premeditated,  wholesale  ruin  from  beginning  to 
end. 

This  is  the  mode  by  which  he  accomplished  it,  and  he 
alone  could  describe  it.  Says  the  preacher,  "  There  are 
three  things  too  wonderful  for  me ;  nay,  four,  which  I 
know  not  of— the  way  of  an  eagle  in  the  air;  the  way  of 
a  serpent  on  a  rock ;  the  way  of  a  ship  in  the  midst 
of  the  seas;  the  way  of  a  minister  with  a  maid." 
[Laughter.]  By  what  devilish  jugglery  of  fraud,  by 
what  imposition  upon  the  pious  nature  of  this 
woman,  by  what  appeals  to  her  pity,  by  what 
insidious  approaches  to  her  affections,  he  not  only  con- 
trolled her  body  but  exalted  her  spirit  to  the  belief 
that  submission  to  him  was  not  sin,  no  one  but 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  can  describe.  That  the  thing 
was  done,  human  evidence  is  to  be  credited,  if  the 
injunctions  of  the  law  to  which  I  shall  by  and  by 
direct  your  attention  are  to  be  obeyed,  if  we  may  reason 
from  the  character  of  the  persons  involved,  from  their  re- 
lations to  each  other,  from  their  disposition,  from  their  in- 
trinsic character— if  by  any  of  the  modes  by  which  truth 
upon  subjects  of  this  kind  is  ascertained  we  can  be  gov- 
erned, there  is  no  reasonable  earthly  doubt  that  this 
woman  was  made  the  victim  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher's 
lust. 


MR.  BEECHER  NOT  TOO  GREAT  TO  FALL. 

Another  topic  has  been  alluded  to  which 
comes  properly  in  the  line  of  my  observations.  It  waa 
an  element  of  reflection  in  the  minds  of  aU  thinking  men 
when  this  accusation  was  made  against  Mr.  Beecher, 
that  the  influence  of  his  conviction  would  be  pernicioua 
to  the  interests  of  Christianity.  It  was  one  of  the  argu- 
ments used  to  excite  sympathy  and  consideration  for  Mr. 
Beecher:  "  he  is  too  great  to  be  lost ;  his  position  and  hi8 
influence  are  too  important  for  the  interests  of  religion 
and  Christianity  that  he  should  fall."  Well,  it  never  yet 
has  been  the  teaching  of  inspiration  or  of  human  piety, 
it  never  yet  has  been  the  lesson  of  the  experience  of  the 
world,  that  Christianity  or  the  interests  of  religion  have 
been  advanced  by  indulgences  to  impuinty  and  sin.  I  do 
not  believe  that  the  fate  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
in  any  sensible  degree  involves  the  condition  of 
Christianity.  That  does  not  depend  upon  Henry  Ward 
Beecher.  Christianity,  with  divine  energy,  has  its  mis- 
sion to  fulfill,  and  it  will  fulfill  it.  It  has  stood  a  great 
many  worse  catastrophes  than  the  loss  of  a  man  like 
Henry  Ward  Beecher.  The  disasters  of  sects,  of  conflict- 
.  ing  dogmas,  of  hypocrisy,  of  ii-religion,  of  the  assaults 
and  sneers  of  the  outer  world — all  the  obstacles  of  sin 
and  Satan  have  been  interposed  in  its  progress  toward 
the  evangelization  of  the  world ;  and  Christianity  has 
survived  them  aU.  Through  barbarism  and  through  ef- 
feminacy and  the  dark  ages  of  the  world ;  through  all 
corfvulsions  of  society  and  of  nations,  the  march 
of  Christianity  has  been  still  onward,  never 
stayed.  The  white  banner  of  the  cross  has  been 
borne  on  triumphing,  and  it  wiH  continue  to 
triumph  until  every  knee  shall  bow  and  every  tongue 
confess  that  God  is  the  Lord.  [Applause.] 

That  is  not  the  importance  of  this  ease.  There  is  no 
fear  from  the  fall  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  for  the  pro 
gress  of  Christian  civilization  and  Christian  influence. 
The  Church  will  survive.  AU  its  influences  will  be  just  as 
extensive,  Just  as  reforming  as  ever.  But  the  great  ques- 
tion which  attracts  the  interest  of  men,  the  great  ques- 
tion which  Involves  the  duty  and  the  responsibifity  of 
this  hour,  is  whether  the  wealth  and  the  influence  of 
Plymouth  Church,  and  the  power  of  a  great  name, 
shall  overcome  the  force  of  proof,  the  les- 
sons of  the  law,  and  the  instincts  of  justice. 
It  is  whether  this  jury  can  lift  itself  above  these  degrad- 
ing and  destructive  considerations,  and,  in  the  spirit  of 
that  justice  which  it  is  called  upon  to  administer,  do  jus- 
tice to  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  You  know  how  difficult  it 
is,  and  so  do  I.  On  behalf  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  an  ap- 
peal is  made  to  our  sympathies  and  iudgra«iits  by  hin 
very  greatness,  by  the  magnitude  of  the  man,  and  by  bis 
intimate  connection  with  the  interests  of  society ;  and  it 
is  hard  to  judge  such  a  man  ;  it  is  hard  to  condemn  such 
a  man ;  and  it  needs  upon  the  part  of  every 
one     called    upon    responsibly     to    examine  thla 


SUMMlSa    UP  BY  ME,  BEAOH, 


893 


(iuestion  tlie  exertion  of  a  vast  degree  of  cir- 
cumspection in  the  discharge  of  Ms  duty. 
And  tlie  interest  of  the  puTjlic  in  this  case  now  is,  gentle- 
men, alloTv  me  to  assure  you,  that  very  anxiety,  that  very 
interest,  to  Jinow  whether  the  law  and  justice  are  strong 
enough  to  overcome  the  power  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher's 
character  and  position,  reenforced  hy  the  vigor  and  devo- 
tion of  Plymouth  Church.  You  may  not,  perhaps,  per- 
ceive the  importance  of  this  interest.  You  may  not,  per- 
haps, understand  what  are  the  expectations  and  the  in- 
terests which  every  grood  man  feels,  which  every  intelli- 
gent and  honest  man  feels,  in  regard  to  the  manner  in 
which  this  cause  shall  he  considered  and  determined,  be- 
cause you  have  not  heen  permitted  hy  the  court  to  have 
access  W  the  usual  and  ordinary  means  of  in- 
formation. But  we  know  and  you  know  the 
sympathy  and  the  excitement  which  for  many 
months  before  you  were  impaneled  in  this  case 
had  convulsed  the  community.  Y''ou  know  the  efforts 
which  were  made  to  maintain  the  integrity  and  the  in- 
nocence of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  the  universal  sym- 
pathy which  all  men  felt  with  those  efforts.  Christian 
iearnlnir,  Christian  zeal.  Christian  faith,  were  all  exer- 
cised lor  his  vindication.  It  was  the  natural  impiilsive 
sentiment  of  the  Christian  mmd  throughout  the  world, 
that  it  would  be  tor  the  interests  of  humanity  that 
Henry  TVard  Beecher  should  he  proved  innocent,  and  all 
legitimate  means,  at  least,  were  exercised  to  prove  his 
innocence.  But,  gentlemen,  the  developments  of  this 
trial,  as  I  have  said  to  you,  have  worked  their  legitimate 
results,  and  one  has  been  that  pamphlet  fi'om  which  I 
have  read.  Another  has  been  the  different  manifesta- 
tions to  which  I  have  alluded,  and,  whether  you  believe 
it  or  not,  your  verdict  has  been  anticipated 
by  the  judgment  of  the  world,  and  It  makes  but  little 
upon  the  interests  of  society— beyond  the  immediate  in- 
terests of  these  parties  it  is  of  but  little  consequence, 
what  your  conclusion  may  be.  You  cannot  reverse  the 
judgment  of  the  world.  It  is  said  that  the  voice  of  the 
people  is  the  voice  of  God,  and  when  you  get  the  gathered 
sentiment  of  the  conscience  of  a  whole  nation  upon  a 
subject  of  this  character,  you  do  get  something  akin  to 
the  solemnity  and  the  certainty  of  God's  judgment.  It  is 
not  for  you  to  consider  it,  but  you  are  to  consider  the 
question  whether  or  not  this  case  is  to  be  determined  in 
conformity  to  those  rules  and  precepts  given  to  us  in 
wisdom  for  our  guidance. 

THE  WEST  CHAEGES. 
What  liaye  been  called  crises  and  emergen- 
cies in  this  case  have  from  time  to  time  arisen,  and  there 
has  been  a  strenuous  effort  upon  the  pai"t  of  my  learned 
friends  to  force  upon  Theodoire  Tdton  the  responsibility 
for  those  agitations.  I  have  not  been  able  to  perceive 
the  importance  of  those  subjects,  except  that  through 
this  effort  of  counsel  they  attempt  to  impute  to  Mr.  Til- 


ton  and  to  Mr.  Moulton  and  to  various  other  actors  in 
this  transaction,  a  conspiracy  to  blackmail  Mr.  Beecher, 
or  in  some  way  to  elevate  Mr.  Tilton  upon  the  strengtli 
of  Mr.  Beecber's  generosity  and  magnanimity,  or  upon  hia 
ruin.  The  first  of  these  efforts  after  December  30,  1870, 
was  the  publication  of  the  Woodhull  card  on  the  22d  of 
May,  1871.  Well,  certainly  Mr.  Tilton  had  nothing  to  do 
with  that.  That  is  not  pretended.  That  was  before  his 
acciuaintance  >»-ith  Mrs.  Woodhull. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  oui'  view  of  it. 

iN/r.  Beach— Xot  your  viewt 

Mr.  E^rts— Xo. 

Mr.  Morris— It  is  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  spent  a  considerable  time  in  onr  ar^- 
ment  to  the  jury  showing  them  that  she  knew  bim  and 
he  knew  her  before  that. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  there  is  no  evidence  of  it  In  this  caae. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Andrews,  your  witness,  swears  to  it. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Andrews  does  not  swear  to  it 

Mr.  Shearman— He  does  swear  to  it. 

Mr.  Beach— What  ?  before  May  22,  1872 1 

Mr.  Evarts— Before  May  22— yes,  three  weeks  before. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  confess  I  am  astonished  at  that 
declaration.  [To  Mr.  Morris.]  Will  you  please  look  at 
the  evidence  on  that  point?  [To  the  jnry.]  I  wUl  ex- 
amme  that  question  of  evidence,  gentlemen,  for  I  am 
very  free  to  say- 
Mr.  Evarts— Our  witnesses  make  it  several  months  ear- 
lier, but  your  own  witness  makes  it  early  enough. 

31r.  Beach— Well,  Mr.  Andrews  introduced  Mr.  Tilton 
to  Mrs.  Woodhull,  and  I  am  certain— I  may  be  mistaken, 
but  I  feel  certain — that  that  was  subsequent  to  the  22d 
of  May,  1871.  WeU,  we  will  see  about  that,  gentlemen, 
we  wiU  see  about  that.  I  do  not  now  recall  that  evi- 
dence. The  gentleman  asserts  it  with  entire  confidence ; 
perhaps  he  will  be  kind  enough  to  mention  the  witnesses 
who  show  that  there  was  any  acquaintance  between  Mr. 
Tilton  and  Mrs.  Woodhull  two  or  three  months  before 
that. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mrs.  Palmer,  Mr.  Woodley,  and  Mr, 
Gray. 

Mr.  Beach— Xot  Mr.  Woodley,  certainly. 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes. 

iVIr.  Beach— Does  he  antedate  it  % 

Mr.  Shearman — February,  1871. 

]\Ir.  Beach— Well,  I  supposed,  gentlemen,  that  when  we 
brought  an  inmate  of  Mrs.  Woodhull's  house  connected 
with  her  busintss  enterpri.-e>,  of  respectability,  who  tes- 
tified that  he  introduced  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mrs.  WoodhuU, 

I  and  when  we  have  the  evidence  of  3Ir.  Tilton  and  of  Mr. 
Mouiton  as  to  the  circuiastances  that  induced  the  ao- 
quaintance,  arising  out  of  this  card  of  May  22,  1871,  and 
the  positive  oath  of  Mr.  Tilton  that  he  did 
not  know  Mrs.  Woodhull  prior  to  that — I 
had     supposed     that  that     made     that  question 

.  sufficiently  clear  ;  and  if  Woodley— without  saying  an- 


894 


THJ^   TILTON-BEECREB  TRIAL. 


other  word  in  regard  to  Mm — or  if  Mrs.  Palmer — without 
Baying  another  word  in  regard  to  her— in  your  judgment 
overcome  this  evidence,  why,  then,  you  may  date  the  ac- 
quaintance between  them  prior  to  the  publication  of  that 
card. 

I  shall  speak  of  Mr.  Beecher's  connection  with  the  pol- 
icy which  induced  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  to  seek 
that  acquaintance,  by  and  by.  Well,  certainly,  the  "  Tri- 
partite Covenant,"  which  followed  next  in  the  way  of 
publication,  was  not  the  act  of  Mr.  Tilton. 
There  was,  in  the  commencement  of  the  exam- 
ination of  witnesses,  a  land  of  tendency  toward  an 
imputation  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  responsible  for  that, 
but  it  very  soon  turned  out  that  he  had  no  iConneotion 
with  its  publication.  Mr.  Beecher,  by  his  card,  settled 
that  Question,  as  a  matter  of  course,  and,  if  not,  it  was 
pretty  definitely  determined  by  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Wilkeson.  That  publication,  that  "Tripartite  Cove- 
nant," whatever  was  published  of  it,  was  published  by 
Mr.  Wilkeson.  Then  there  was  this  church  diflSculty, 
this  uneasy  and  unsettled  feeling  among  the  members  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  own  church,  which  commenced  festering  and 
bubbling  and  rising  constantly  in  the  year  1871,  and  con- 
tinued throughout  the  succeeding  year.  I  wish  you  to 
have  something  of  an  idea  of  that  difficulty.  Mr.  West, 
who,  you  remember,  was  a  deacon  of  the  church  from 
1870  to  1873,  testified  in  regard  to  it: 

I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  what  occurred  in  the 
Autumn  of  1871,  after  the  publication  of  what  is  known 
as  the  Woodhull  biography— if  there  was  any  action 
taken  in  regard  to  that  matter,  and,  if  so,  what  was  it  % 
Mr.  Evarts  interfered,  and  finally  the  question  was  put  : 
What  occurred  between  you  and  Mr.  Beecher,  if  any- 
thing, in  reference  to  the  Woodhull  biography  ?  A.  Mr. 
Beecher  made  a  request  of  the  Examining  Committee,  of 
which  I  was  then  a  member,  that  he  should  be  apjtointed 
as  a  Committee  of  one  to  confer  with  Mr.  Tilton  "'vith  re- 
gard to  it. 

Q.  What  action  was  taken  in  pursuance  of  that  re- 
quest? A.  The  Examining  Committee  appointed  Mr. 
Beecher  such  a  Committee. 

Q.  Were  any  instructions  given  to  the  Committee  after 
he  was  appointed,  and,  if  so,  what  were  they  ? 

Q.  Was  the  object  of  appointing  a  Committee  stated  at 
the  time  of  the  appointment  ?  A.  It  was  ;  the  Commit- 
tee was  to  confer  with  Mr.  Tilton  with  reference  to  the 
Beverance  of  his  relations  with  the  chm-ch ;  it  was 
thought  by  the  Committee— 

*  *  *  **'*  »  * 

The  Witness— Mr.  Beecher  reported  to  the  Committee 
that  he  had  seen  Mr.  Tilton ;  that  he  was  in  a  very  crit- 
ical position.  I  am  not  repeating  Mr.  Beecher's  words 
now.  I  took  no  memorandum  of  tliem  at  the  time ;  I  am 
simply  giving  from  memory  the  substance  of  tlie  report ; 
if  there  is  anything  incorrect  with  reference  to  it,  the 
books  of  the  Committee  will  show  where  my  memory 
fails  me.  Mr.  Beecher  reported  that  he  had  seen  Mr. 
Tilton  ;  that  Mr.  Tilton  at  that  time  was  in  a  very  critical 
position;  that  he  had  many  troubles,  pecuniary  and 
otherwise;  that  he  had  been  surrounded  by  bad  in- 
fluenxies,  and  that  he  thought  it  would  be  better  to  leave 
Mr.  Tilton  to  the  influence  of  his  friends,  and  for  The 


church  to  take  no  action,  or  for  the  Committee,  rather, 
to  take  no  action  with  reference  t;i  his  severing  his  rela- 
tions with  the  church.  "Hiat  report  was  adopted  and  no 
action  taken. 

*********** 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  Mr.  Beecher  in  reference  to 
what  Halliday  had  communicated  to  the  Committee  %  A. 
I  called  upon  Mr.  Beecher  at  his  house  ;  I  cannot  fix  the 
date  exactly ;  it  was  in  November — the  early  part  of 
November,  1872— and  informed  him  that  he  had  been 
appointed  by  the  Examining  Committee  a  member  of 
a  Sub-Committee,  to  confer  with  Mr.  Tilton  in  regard  to 
his  position  in  relation  to  the  Woodhull  scandal. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  at  whose  request  the  Committee 
was  appointed  %  A.  This  Committee  was  appointed  on 
my  motion. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  so  1  A.  I  told  Mr.  Beecher  so. 

Q.  What  was  Mr.  Beecher's  reply  to  that  information  ! 
A.  Mr.  Beecher  told  me  that  he  thought  it  would  be  better 
to  meet  this  whole  scandal  by  silence — to  make  no  effort  to 
investigate  it ;  and  I  replied  to  him  that  I  thought  that 
was  mistaken  policy ;  that  the  church  was  suffering  very 
much  from  the  scandal ;  that  I  thought  that  the  only 
way  to  meet  the  scandal  was  to  strike  it  down  and  ut- 
terly destroy  it.  I  told  him  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church,  as  I  understood  it;  that  he  was  named 
by  Mrs.  Woodhull  as  her  autiiority  for  the 
scandal;  that  I  thought  Mr.  Tilton  should  be 
called  upon  to  explain  his  position  in  the 
matter.  Mr.  Beecher  replied  that  there  wa!s  some  force  in 
what  I  said,  and  he  said  that  he  would  jnect  with  the 
Committee,  but  he  was  veiT  busy  at  that  time  ;  that  it 
would  be  two  or  three  weeks  before  he  could  find  time  to 
meet  witb  the  Committee.  I  replied  to  that  that  the 
church  was  sufteriug  very  miicli  ;  tha  t  I  tbou?ihr  a  meet- 
ing should  be  held  at  once.  We  were  iiileirupted  at  that 
stage  of  tl^  conversation  au'.l  went  to  tbc  other  room. 
This  conversation  had  taken  plar-e  in  Mr.  Beecher's 
study.  We  then  went  into  the  front  parlor,  and  Mr. 
Beecher  resumed  the  eonversatiou  there  by  isayiug  that 
this  whole  story  rested  solely  upon  the  asser- 
tions of  two  prostitutes;  that  if  he  should  pay 
I  any  attention  to  it,  that  no  prominent  man 
I  in  the  country  woiild  be  safe  from  their  attacks ;  but  he 
said  that  if  any  person  of  responsibility  would  make  such 
an  attack  upon  him  that  I  would  see  how  quickly  he 
would  repl.v  to  it.  I  told  him  that  it  seemed  to  me  tbat 
Mr.  TiltOR  was  a  responsible  person ;  that  he  was  named 
as  the  autlior— the  originator  of  the  scandal ;  that  I 
thought  it  was  his  duty  to  deny  the  assertions  made  by 
Mrs.  Woodhull ;  and  if  he  did  not  do  that  that  the  church 
should  take  the  matter  up;  and  if  he  did  not  explain  his 
position  satisfactorily  that  he  should  be  dismissed  from 
the  chm-ch;  and,  as  the  result  of  this  conversation,  Mr. 
Beecher  named  a  day  when  he  would  meet  witli  the  Com- 
mittee at  his  house,  some  two  weeks  after  that  time. 

Well,  the  Committee  did  meet  at  his  house  in  the  latter 
part  of  November,  or  the  early  part  of  December,  and 
the  witness  says : 

Mr.  Beecher  told  the  Committee  that  ho  had  seen  Theo- 
dore with  regard  to  this  matter ;  that  Theodore  had  ex- 
pressed to  him  his  great  grief  and  sorrow  at  the  publica- 
tion by  Mrs.  Woodhull,  and  had  offered  to  do  anything  in 
his  power  to  neutralize  it.  He  spoke  of  the  friendship 
which  existed  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  himself,  and  said 
that  he  did  not  think  Mr.  Tilton  had  Intentionally  done 
anything  to  in,iure  him;  that  he  thought  Mr.  Tilton 
would  to  a  short  time— before  the  first  ot  January 
succeeding— publish  in  The  Golden  Age  a.  card  in  which 


he  woiild  denounce  Mrs.  Woodliull,  an(1  in  wliicli  lie 
■would  denr  the  trutti  of  lier  ^tory  ;  and  lie  advi.sed  Tliat 
tbe  Committee  should  take  no  actio u.  tliat  tliey  should 
await  the  publication  of  the  card.  The  Committee  de- 
cided to  do  this — that  is,  to  recommend  such  action  to 
the  Examining  Committee  ;  hut  also  to  recommend,  at 
the  same  time,  that  this  Suh-Committee  should  he  con- 
tinued, in  order  that  if  Mr.  Tilton  did  not  publish  such  a 
card  he  might  he  waited  upon  hy  the  Committee  after- 
ward. 

That  was  in  1872. 

The  hour  of  4  o'clock  having  arrived,  the  Court  ad- 
journed until  Tuesday  at  11  a.  m. 


104TH  MF'S  PROCEEDmGS. 

PROGEESS    OF    MR.   BEACH'S  ARGUMENT. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ME.  WEST  AND  THE  WEST  CHARGES 
GONE  OVER— ATXEGEB  EVIDENCE  OF  MR. 
BEECHER'S  EFFORTS  TO  SUPPRESS  THE  SCAN- 
DAI.— THE  ACCUSATIONS  OF  BLACKMAIL  ANA- 
LYZED— A  CONSPIRACY  AGAINST  MR.  BEECHER 
DECLARED  TO  BE  IMPOSSIBLE  ON  ACCOUNT  OF 
LACK  OF  MOTIVES — EVIPORTANCE  OF  MRS.  TIL- 
TON'S  ALLEGED  CONFESSION— MR.  BEECHER'S 
DENIAL  OF  GUILT  ASSERTED  TO  BE  UNSUP- 
PORTED—THE CONFRONTING  TESTLMONY  OF 
THREE  WITNESSES  AND  OF  CIRCUMSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE. 

Tuesday,  June  15,  1875. 

In  the  suit  of  Theodore  Tilton  against  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  to-day  Mr.  Beach  continued  his  summing 
up  for  the  plaintiff.  The  counsel  descrihed  and  com- 
pared the  actions  of  plaintiff  and  defendant  toward 
the  publication  of  the  scandal,  and  argued  against 
the  theories  of  conspiracy  and  hlackmail  alleged  by 
the  defendant. 

Mr.  Beach,  in  opening  his  argument  for  the  day, 
hriefly  recalled  to  the  jury  the  evidence  of  Mr.  West 
as  evincing  the  uneasiness  and  disturbances  in 
Plymouth  Church  during  1871,  1872,  1873,  and 
1874,  which  it  was  claimed  greatly  annoyed  and 
excited  th^'  fears  of  Mr.  Beecher.  He  then  glanced 
at  the  histoiy  of  the  \Yest  charges,  and  showed  their 
connection  with  the  case. 

ilr.  Beecher's  action  in  the  matter  of  the  Congre- 
gational Council,  the  sipeaker  argued,  was  only  an 
instance  of  his  whole  course  of  action  in  endeavoring 
to  suppress  all  mvestigation  into  the  subject  of  his 
relations  w^th  the  family  of  Theodore  Tilton. 

The  counsel  nex,t  read  various  portions  of  the  tes- 
timony of  the  case,  as  showing  the  circumstances 
which  called  forth  the  Bacon  letter.  He  also  read 
the  history  of  the  InvestigattQg  Committee,  claim- 
ing that  Mr.  Tilton  was  not  responsible  for  its  crea- 


Y  MR.   BE  AGE.  805 

tion,  and  that  Tilton  and  Moiilton,  in  partial  con- 
junction with  ]Mr.  Beecher,  labored  to  control  the 
Committee's  deliberations  and  prevent  it  from  un- 
covering the  scandal  to  the  public  gaze. 

Mr.Tilton's  letter  to  Bo  wen  and  the  Tripartite  Cov- 
enant were  then  touched  upon,  after  which  the 
speaker  recurred  to  the  subject  of  the  Investigating 
Committee  of  Plymouth  Church,  who,  he  said,  were 
"  organized  to  acquit  Beecher  and  convict  Tilton."' 
He  thought  that,  considering  the  means  of  inquiry 
which  they  adopted,  it  was  "not  surprising  that 
their  report  should  have  received  the  scorn  and  de- 
nunciation of  the  world." 

^h.  Beach  then  addressed  the  Court,  citing  numer- 
ous cases,  mainly  from  the  English  Ecclesiastical 
reports,  on  one  of  the  legal  aspects  of  the  case.  He 
claimed  that  ^Mrs.  Tilton's  "  confession,"  acciuieseed 
in  by  Mr.  Beecher,  was  sufficient  of  itself,  in  a 
case  of  this  character,  to  justify  a  verdict.  The 
speaker  further  said  that  the  issue  of  the  case  was 
an  action  by  a  husband  alleging  himself  to  have 
been  wronged  in  his  dearest  relations,  against  the 
alleged  wrong-doer.  They  did  not  ask  for  damages, 
as  "  Theodore  Tilton  disdains  the  idea  of  touching 
the  gold  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher." 

The  charge  of  conspiracy  was  next  referred  to  by 
jVIr.  Beach.  The  very  first  step  in  the  alleged  con- 
spiracy, he  said,  brought  them  to  the  figure  of  Mrs. 
Tilton  whether  they  believed  her  "white  as  the 
snow  though  fallen  like  the  snow"— no  matter  whai 
they  thought  of  her— how  could  they  imagine  hei 
with  her  devotions  conspiring  against  her  lover  ? 
Theodore  Tilton's  condition  at  the  time  of  the  be- 
ginning of  the  alleged  conspiracy  was  referred  to, 
and  Sir.  Beach  scouted  tbe  notion  of  liis  conspirin.  ? 
without  any  motive.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Moulton's  alleged 
absence  of  motive  was  also  commented  on.  The 
speaker  then  went  on  to  argue  the  impossibility  of 
the  creation  of  so  vile  a  conspiracy  where  no  motive 
could  be  shown  on  the  part  of  the  participants. 

The  theory  of  blackmail  was  then  discussed,  Mr. 
Beach  arguing  that  all  the  evidence  and  probabili- 
ties were  against  such  a  hypothesis.  He  referred 
to  Mr.  Beecher's  testimony  as  showing  that  he  had 
not  entertained  the  theory  untU  persuaded  by  his 
counsel,  "  and"  continued  the  speaker,  "  I  wish  ha 
had  done  nothing  worse  under  their  advice." 

In  taking  up  the  suggestions  of  defendant's  conn- 
sel  to  4he  effect  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  envious  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  fame,  and  wished  to  rise  above  its  ruin. 
Beach  said  that  ilr.* Beecher  was  no  obstruction  to 
ilr.  Tilton's  path  of  fame.  Again  recurring  to  tlie 


896 


THE   TILTOA^-BEECHEE  TRIAL. 


eonspiracy,  he  claimed  that  that  idea  had  been  ex- 
ploded by  Mr.  Beecher  himself.  The  vital  question 
of  the  case  was  whether  Mr.  Beecher's  sole  denial, 
ansupported  by  other  proof,  should  be  deemed  suffi- 
cient to  overcome  the  testimony  of  three  witnesses, 
and  the  accumulated  force  of  such  circumstances  as 
had  been  shown,  and  against  which  the  character  of 
a  saint  would  be  no  protection. 

The  alleged  confession  of  Mrs.  Tilton  to  her  hus- 
band was  then  touched  upon  and  its  importance  in 
the  case  noted.  The  letter  of  recantation  was  also 
spoken  of,  Mr.  Beach  claiming  that  it  was  written 
at  Mr.  Beecher's  dictation,  while  at  the  time  of  the 
alleged  confession  Mrs.  Tilton  was  not  under  her 
husband's  coercion. 


THE   PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

MR.   BEACH'S  ARGUMENT  CONTINUED. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.  pursuant  to  ad- 
journinent. 

Mr.  Beacli — T  purposed,  gentlemen,  to  reproduce  to  you 
tlie  evidence  of  Mr.  West  in  regard  to  the  uneasiness  and 
disturbance  wMcli,  througli  the  years  1871-'2-'3  and  '4 
in  Plymouth  Cburch,  greatly  annoyed,  excited  the  fears, 
and  exasperated  Mr.  Beecher.  It  is  inexpressibly  weary- 
ing to  me  to  do  it,  and  it  must  be  tedious  to  you,  and  T 
am  fearful  if  I  piu'sue  that  line  of  argument  it  will  result 
in  an  uncomfortable  protraction  of  the  argument  I  am 
bound  to  submit  to  you,  and  I  therefore  omit  it.  You 
will  recall  at  ontee  to  your  minds  the  circumstances  de- 
tailed by  Mr.  West,  how  persistently  he  pursued  the  idea 
of  presenting  charges  against  Mr.  Tilton  for  slander  of 
his  pastor,  and  how  vigorously  and  indignantly  Mr. 
Beecher  endeavored  to  influence  Mr,  West  to  their  sup- 
pression, and  I  pass  therefore  that  particular  crisis 
which  was  supposed  to  have  exerted  an  influence  upon 
the  mind  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  accomplish  the  imagined  pur- 
poses of  this  alleged  conspiracy.  Certainly  INIr.  Tilton, 
nor  any  friend  of  his,  was  not  at  all  responsible  for  the 
agitation  of  that  topic  in  Plymouth  Church,  and  that 
could  not  have  been  one  of  the  means  resorted  to  by  him 
for  the  purpose  of  furthering  any  attributed  purpose  of 
influencing  Mr.  Beecher. 

THE  COUNCIL. 
Then  followed  the  council  of  the  churches, 
which  you  will  remember,  and  with  that  Mr.  Tilton  had 
no  possible  connection.  You  remember  that  Mr.  Beecher 
"7ery  earnestly  requested  Mr.  Tilton  not  to  mingle  with 
the  proceedings  of  that  council,  or  by  any  appear- 
ance of  his  before  that  tribunal  to  complicate  the  diffi- 
culties in  which  Mr.  Beecher  and  the  Plymouth  Church, 
through  that  judicatory,  were  involved.  But  there  is  a 
very  remarkable  letter  upon  that  subject  written  by  Mr. 


Beecher  to  Moulton,  to  which  a  moment's  attention  may 
not  be  uninstruetive.  It  was  written  as  late  as  March 
25, 1874,  indorsed  "  Confidential :" 

My  Dear  Fkank:  lam  indignant  beyond  expression. 
Storrs's  coin^se  [referring  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Storrs  of  this 
city")  has  been  an  unspeakable  outrage.  After  his  pre- 
tended sympathy  and  friendship  for  Theodore  he  has 
turned  against  him  in  the  most  venomous  manner—and  it 
is  not  sincere.  His  professions  of  faith  and  affection  for  me 
are  hollow  and  faithless.  They  are  merely  tactical.  His 
object  is  plain.  He  is  determined  to  force  a  conflict  and 
to  use  one  of  us  to  destroy  the  other  if  possible.  [That  is, 
referring  to  Mr.  Tilton  and  himself.]  Tnat  is  his  game. 
By  stinging  Theodore  he  believes  that  he  will  be  driven 
into  a  course  which  he  hopes  will  ruin  me.  If  ever  a  man 
betrayed  another,  he  has.  I  am  in  hopes  that  Theodore,  who 
has  borne  so  much,  will  be  unwilling  to  be  a  flail  in  Storrs's 
hand  to  strike  at  a  friend.  There  are  one  or  two  reasons, 
emphatic,  for  toaiting  until  the  end  of  the  Coimcil  before 
taking  any  action. 

And  then,  giving  those  reasons,  he  proceeds  to  say: 
At  any  rate,  while  the  fury  rages  in  council.  It  is  not 
wise  to  make  any  move  that  would  be  one  among  so 
many,  as  to  lose  eflect  in  a  degree,  and  after  the  battle  is 
over  one  can  more  exactly  see  what  ought  to  be  done. 
Meantime  I  o^m.  patient,  as  I  know  how  to  be,  but  pretty 
nearly  used  up  with  inward  excitement,  and  must  run 
away  for  a  day  or  two  and  hide  and  sleep,  or  there  will 
be  a  funeral.  Cordially  and  trustingly  yours,  h.  w.  b. 
March  25, 1874. 

No  one  can  tell  imder  flrst  impressions  what  the  effect 
of  such  a  speech  will  be.   It  ougJd  to  damn  Storrs. 

Now,  that  letter  betraj's  to  you,  gentlemen,  the  state  of 
mind  under  which  Mr.  Beecher  was  laboring  with  refer- 
ence to  his  difficulties  with  Mr.  Tilton,  as  late  as  March, 
1874.  It  shows  you  the  sort  of  appeal  which  he  made  to 
the  consideration  and  charity  of  Mr.  Tilton,  not  to  per- 
mit laiinself  to  be  used  by  a  supposed  adversary  in  the 
person  of  Mr.  Storrs,  as  a  flail  with  which  to  attack  Mr. 
Beecher.  Now,  review  the  attitude  of  Mr.  Beecher  as 
represented  by  himself  upon  the  stand,  toward  Mr.  Til- 
ton, and  toward  this  case  and  Mrs.  Tilton.  What  was  the 
appi-ehension  weighing  upon  the  mind  of  Mr.  Beecher  1 
Why  did  he  deprecate  the  appearance  of  Theodore  Tilton 
before  the  Council,  defending  himself  against  a  wi-ong 
imputation?  for  I  will  show  you  by-and-by  what  it  was. 
Whj^  should  Mr.  Beecher  have  been  anxious  to  preve: 
the  presentation  by  Mr.  Tilton  of  a  just  vindicatio 
against  an  attack  by  Mr.  Storrs,  as  Mr.  Beecher  repr 
sents,  detrimental  to  the  character  and  the  honor  of 
Tilton  ?  What  was  there  in  all  Mr.  Beecher's  conneotio 
with  this  aff"air  which  should  lead  bim  to  dread  the  ou 
spoken  and  manly  defense  and  revelation  which  Mr.  T' 
ton  might  have  made  upon  the  occasion  of  his  api>€' 
ance  before  the  Council  ?  Now,  these  are  suggestive  i 
quiries,  and  they  will  become  more  signiflcant  and  i 
portant  as  you  trace  along  throng^  the  evidence  th" 
other  indications  of  the  anxiety  and  trepidation  of  ' 
Beecher,  and  the  efforts  he  was  constantly  making 
suppress  not  only  the  West  charges,  involving  this  ver 
accusation  against  him,  but  every  other  movement  an 


SUMMING    VP  BY  MB.  BEAfJH, 


897 


ftgritation  wliich  by  any  possibility  could  lead  to  an  in- 
vestigation of  Ms  relations  toward  tbe  family  of  Mr. 
Tilton. 

Now,  of  this  Council,  of  all  its  proceedings,  of  every 
effort  to  turn  it  into  the  means  of  an  accusation  against 
Mr.  Beecher,  Mr.  Tilton  is  entirely  innocent.  Listening 
to  this  appeal  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  willing  to  submit  to  in- 
justice before  precipitating  any  examination  that  would 
lead  to  unfortunate  revelations,  lie  submits  to  the  impu- 
tation made  by  Mr,  Storrs  upon  Ms  manliness  and  honor, 
in  Ms  speech  before  the  Council.  Well,  gentlemen,  I  have 
spoken  to  you  in  regard  to  the  Bacon  letter,  and  I  must 
read  to  you  a  few  words  of  the  evidence  for  the  purpose 
of  more  fully  explaining  the  origin  and  purpose  of  that 
letter.  It  is  contained  in  the  cross-examination  of  Mr. 
Tilton  by  Mr.  Evarts. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  regard  your  letter  to  Dr.  Bacon  as 
disclosing  an  imputation  against  the  honor  of  your  wife 
and  your  cMldren?  A.  I  did  not,  Sir;  on  the  contrary,  I 
took  particular  pains  in  framing  my  letter  to  Dr.  Bacon 
to  speak  in  complimentary  phrase  of  my  wife  ;  and  I  in- 
tended that  letter,  while  vindicating  me,  should  also  vin- 
dicate her. 

Q.  You  did  not  then  consider  that  letter  as  carrying 
any  imputation  upon  the  honor  of  your  wife  or  of  your 
family  ?  A.  I  did  not.  Sir ;  on  the  contrary  I  considered 
it  carried  her  vindication  and  mine  also,  and  I  think,  if 
you  refer  to  the  letter,  you  will  see  that  it  does. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  your  view  of  it.  As  I  imderstand  you, 
the  object  of  writing  that  letter  was  j  our  own  vindica- 
tion ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Against  the  imputations  that  had  been  thrown  upon 
you  in  the  various  ways  that  you  have  suggested  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  regard  Mr.  Beecher  as  in  any  way  responsi- 
ble for  this  council  that  had  been  got  up  against  his 
church  ?  A.  The  CouncU.  was  got  up  with  reference  to 
actions  in  Plymouth  Church  wMch  he  might  have  con- 
trolled and  suppressed. 

Q.  And  which  you  think  he  did  not,  when  he  might  1 
A.  Yes,  Sir;  I  think  he  did  not. 

Q.  And  in  that  way,  then,  you  think  he  is  responsible 
for  the  Council  "J  A.  Oh!  I  don't  know  how  to  trace  re- 
sponsibility for  a  public  body  to  an  individual  man. 

Q.  Do  you  think  Mr.  Beecher  was  responsible  for  any 
of  Dr.  Bacon's  speeches  or  articles  in  The  Independent  ? 
A.  Mr.  Beecher  had  given  the  occasions  concerning 
which  Dr,  Bacon  wrote  them,  and  in  that  degree  he  was 
responsible. 

Q.  Kow  do  you  mean  the  occasions?  A.  Mr.  Beecher's 
affairs  ;  Mr.  Beecher's  crime ;  Mr.  peecher's  measures 
agaiast  me  in  the  ehurch ;  Mr.  Beeel^-'s  defense  before 
the  Council,  wMch  was  to  my  detriment— all  those 
together  were  the  text  of  Dr.  Bacon's  articles. 

Q.  What  measures  against  you  in  the  church  had  Mr. 
Beecher  taken?  A.  Mr.  Beecher,  as  I  have  just  said,  was 
arraigned  before  the  Council — practically,  morally— and 
his  defense  was  a  paper  presented  before  the  Committee, 
the  essence  of  wMch  was  that  my  retirement  from  the 
church  should  not  fling  a  shadow  on  the  church,  because 
I  had  brought  dishonor  on  the  CMistian  name  *  *  *  * 
If  you  will  read  the  documents  sent  by  Plymouth  Church 
to  the  CouncU  you  will  see  Mr.  Beecher  vindicated  him- 
self at  my  expense. 

Q.  Where  is  tMs  paper  of  tbe  church,  as  you  say,  or  of 


Mr.  Beecher,  that  takes  any  such  grounds  as  that?  A. 
I  presume  it  is  in  Mr.  Shearman's  tin  box. 

Q.  Are  you  speaking  of  the  action  of  the  Council  ?  A. 
No,  Sir ;  I  am  speaking  of  the  documents  which  Plymouth 
Chm-ch  itself  sent  to  the  Council  to  be  its  own  vindica- 
tion in  that  body.  It  was  an  unmanly  vindication  by 
striking  me. 

Q.  Very  well;  you  thought,  then,  that  this  vindication 
of  Plymouth  Church  before  the  Council  carried  an  impu- 
tation upon  you  ?   A.  I  know  it  did,  Sir. 

Q.  That  was  your  opinion  at  the  time  ?  A.  No,  Sir ; 
Dr.  Bacon  took  it  up  and  quoted  it  in  his  letter,  and 
threw  it  at  me  as  straight  as  an  arrow  to  a  mark.  Dr. 
Bacon  said,  in  so  many  terms,  that  Plymouth  Church  ao- 
cused  me  of  bringing  dishonor  on  the  Cnristian  name. 

Q.  Then  you  don't  impute,  or  didn't  impute,  in  your 
opimon,  any  design  on  Ms  part  in  this  relation,  but  ina- 
bility or  want  of  couraire  to  exercise  a  will  that  he  might 
have  exercised  ?  A.  I  think  in  the  year  1871  and  1872  it 
was  a  mere  lack  of  courage ;  I  think  that  later  Mr. 
Beecher  felt  that,  as  soon  as  the  opportunity  was  safe 
in  which  he  could  turn  upon  me  and  strike  me  down,  he 
meant  to  do  so.  That  is  my  judgment.  I  submit  it  witli 
defeit;nce. 

Q.  How  early  did  you  come  to  that  latter  conclusion  1 
A.  I  came  to  that  conclusion  after  my  last  interview  with 
Mr.  Beecher,  in  IVIr.  Moulton's  study,  in  which  I  gave 
him  the  opportunity  to  rectify  the  mischief  which  the 
Council  had  done,  and  wMch  Dr.  Bacon  had  done,  and 
which  the  church  had  done ;  and  during  the  three  months 
which  followed,  when  he  did  nothing,  I  came  to  that  con- 
clusion—that Mr.  Beecher  was  going  to  turn  upon  me,  to 
strike  me,  and  I  then  said  to  myself :  "  The  time  has  come 
In  which  I  must  defend  myself  against  him  and  the 
Chiu'ch;"  and  hence  the  Bacon  letter. 

Q.  And  you  then  resolved.,  did  you  not,  that  you  would 
vindicate  yourself,  no  matter  what  happened  about  the 
scandal  or  your  wife  and  family?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  then  re- 
solved that  I  woula  vindicate  myself,  and  I  sought  my 
wife's  vindication  in  mine ;  and  the  Bacon  letter  includes 
my  wife's  vindication  in  mine,  like  a  jewel  set  in  a  ring, 
with  honor  and  praise.  I  never  sought  any  vindication 
at  the  expense  of  Elizabeth, 

THE  EFFECT   OF  DR.   BACON'S  ARTICLES. 

Now  you  perceive,  gentlemen,  under  what 
circumstances  this  Bacon  letter  originated.  I  have 
spoken  of  the  vile  attack— in  language,  I  mean— laade  in 
the  article  of  Dr.  Bacon  upon  Theodore  TUtou.  He  3 
the  text  of  those  epithets  wMch  have  been  so  free'/ 
scattered  upon  this  trial.  Tilton  was  a  knave  and  a  do:;, 
subsisting  at  the  mercy  of  Mr.  Beecher,  who  was  repre- 
sented as  a  man  of  great  magnanimity  and  forbearance. 
The  reputation  of  Mr.  Theodore  TUton  was  suffering,  and 
could  not  but  suffer  under  the  attack  of  a  gentleman  so 
eminent  as  Dr.  Bacon.  He  applies  to  Mr.  Beecher  and 
calls  upon  him  to  vindicate  Mm,  to  repel  this  assault, 
to  state  to  Dr.  Bacon  and  the  community,  that  Mr.  Tilton 
instead  of  being  the  offender  was  himself  the  sufferer  ; 
instead  of  being  a  knave  and  a  dog,  as  the  letters  of  Mr. 
Beecher  give  ample  testimony,  and  in  this  last  one 
directed  to  Moulton  in  regard  to  Storrs,  he  was  acting 
with  magnanimity  and  generosity  toward  Mr.  Beecher. 


898  1BE  TILTON-B 

Again  and  again  Beecber  exclaims,  *'  How  generous  tlie 
man  lias  been  ;  he  is  the  man  that  must  suffer  most  in 
this  policy  which  we  are  pursuing  for  the  purpose  of 
suppressing  this  scandal,  and  in  every  effort  which 
shall  he  made  for  the  purpose  of  reuniting  this 
dissevered  family  and  restoring  its  lost  peace 
and  honor."  Was  that  appeal  unjust  ?  Could  not 
Mr.  Beecher  have  stated  then  what  he  stated  afterward 
in  his  formal  submission  of  the  facts  to  his  examining, 
investigating  committee  1  Could  he  not  have  said,  "  I 
have  been  guilty  of  an  offense  against  Mr.  Tilton.  He  is 
no  knave  or  dog  ;  he  has  been  generous  and  indulgent, 
trusty  and  faithful,  to  the  honor  and  the  interests  of  his 
wife  and  his  household.  He  has  suffered  misrepresenta- 
tion, and  you,  Dr.  Bacon,  have  misrepresented  his  rela- 
tions to  me"?"  If  there  had  been  any  manly  courage 
about  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  if  there  had  been  any  proper 
conception  of  his  duty  to  the  man  whom  he  had  wronged, 
and  who  had  been  thus  maligned,  if  he  felt  any  of  the 
conscious  penitence  and  remorse  of  which  he  has  spoken 
so  volubly  and  feelingly  upon  the  stand,  the  natural  im- 
pulses of  an  honest  man  would  have  been  at  once  to  have 
revealed  the  true  condition  of  his  relations  to  himself  in, 
at  least,  the  modified  form  in  which  he  subsequently  sub- 
mitted them  to  the  public  ;  and  what  would  have  been 
the  result  if  that  had  been  done  ?  There  would  have 
been  no  Bacon  letter  ;  there  would  have  been  no  future 
disturbance;  there  would  have  been  no  appeal  to  the  com- 
munity on  the  behalf  of  Theodore  Tilton,  and  no  attempt 
to  vindicate  his  aspersed  name  ;  and  all  these  mischiev- 
ous consequences  which  have  flowed  from  that  moment 
of  weakness,  and  irresolution,  and  cowardice  on  the  part 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher— all  these  unfortunate 
results  that  have  followed..  And  what  was  there  in  the 
Bacon  letter,  gentlemen  1  I  repeat,  there  was  no  accu- 
sation against  Mr.  Beecher,  no  charge  of  criminality, 
nothing  'vhich  should  have  stirred  his  resentment.  A 
portion  of  his  own  letter  was  copied  into  that  produc- 
tion :  its  most  offensive  and  abusive  parts  omitted,  with 
^rreat  discretion  and  intelligence  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Tilton.  And  why  this  fiery  indignation  t  Did  Mr. 
Beecher  then  suppose  that  things  were  culminating  to  a 
point  where  he  had  Theodore  Tilton  in  his  power,  and 
where,  in  the  strength  and  power  of  his  position,  aided 
by  his  influential  and  numerous  friends,  he  could  vindi- 
cate himself,  and  at  the  aame  time  crush,  inexorably  and 
hopelessly,  his  adversary  1  But  this  Bacon  letter  con- 
tained—[consulting  with  couusel]— I  was  about  to  state, 
gentlemen,  under  a  misapprehension,  that  this  Bacon 
letter  contained,  also,  a  quotation  from  the  Bowen  letter, 
In  which  I  was  mistaken. 

THE  INVESTIGATING  COMMITTEE. 
Then  followed,  gentlemen,  the  Investigating 
Committee,  called  by  Mr.  Beecher  in  June,  1874,  soon 
after  the  publication  of  the  Bacon  letter,  the  precise  date 


mCMJm  TRIAL, 

of  which  I  do  not  now  recall.  Well,  most  certainly  Mr. 
Tilton  is  not  responsible  for  that  proceeding.  Most  cer^ 
tainly  both  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton  labored  with 
great  assiduity,  in  partial  conjunction  with  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  with  a  limited  concurrence  and  effort  on  his  part,  for 
the  purpose  of  controlling  the  action  of  that  Committee, 
and  preventing  such  an  investigation  as  would  result  in 
exposing  to  the  public  the  scandal.  May  I  ask  your  at- 
tention to  a  word  or  two  ?  There  was  a  statement  pre- 
pared, which  is  described  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moul- 
ton, for  Mr.  Beecher  to  submit,  upon  the  submis- 
sion of  which  neither  Moulton  nor  Tilton  would 
make  any  efforts  before  the  Committee  toward 
a  thorough  examination  of  this  ditflculty.  It 
was  prepared  for  Mr.  Beecher.  The  question  is  put  to 
him: 

And  what  was  it  ?  A.  The  substance  of  it  was  that  ne 
took  upon  himself  great  blame  for  his  conduct  toward 
Theodore  Tilton  and  his  family,  and  exonerated  Theo- 
dore Tilton  from  aU  blame  so  far  as  concerned  Tilton's 
action  toward  himself.  And  I  said  to  him,  "  Mr.  Beecher, 
I  think  that  I  may  be  able  to  induce  Theodore  Tilton  not 
to  write  the  statement  which  he  is  writing,  if  I  express 
to  him  fully  the  ground  that  you  take  with  regard  to  him, 
because  I  cannot  see  that  you  can  do  anything  more  un- 
less you  confess  absolutely  to  the  Committee  the  crime 
which  you  have  committed  against  him  and  his  family ; 
and  I  will  try  to  influence  Mr.  Tilton  upon  the  basis  of 
what  you  have  told  me ;"  and  he  said,  "  I  hope  you  will 
succeed  in  doing  that ;  if  Theodore  publishes  the  fact,  as 
he  has  threatened  to,  of  my  relations  with  Mrs.  Tilton,  it 
will  ruin  me,  but  it  will  kill  him and  he  wept  in  ex- 
pressing to  me  at  that  time  his  sorrow  for  the  crime  that 
he  had  committed ;  and  I,  Sir,  was  deeply  affected  with 
the  presentation  of  his  contrition,  and  I  went  to  Theo- 
dore Tilton  and  told  him  that  I  thought  he  should  not 
write  the  document  which  he  was  preparing  if  he  in- 
tended in  that  document  to  state,  as  he  said  he  had,  in 
The  Argus  newspaper,  the  facts ;  that  he  ought  not  to  do 
itf  etc. 

Then  followed,  as  you  remember,  gentlemen,  two  re- 
ports which  were  prepared  by  Mr.  Tilton  to  be  presented 
by  the  Committee  as  the  couclusioii  of  their  investiga- 
tion ;  and  they  were  to  be  founded  upon  an  appearance 
of  the  several  parties— Beecher,  Moulton  and  Tilton— 
before  the  Committee;  and  making  such  a  reserved 
statement  of  the  difficvLlties  between  Beecher  and  Tilton, 
an  admission  of  a  qualified  offense  upon  the  part  of 
Beecher  toward  Tilton  and  his  family,  so  that  while  the 
report  should  exonerate  'Mr.  Tilton,  vindicate  Mrs. 
Tilton,  and  at  the  same  time  relieve  Mr.  Beecher  from 
the  odium  of  a  harsh  and  dishonoring  imputation,  all  this 
matter  upon  the  strength  of  the  apology  which  had  been 
ottered  and  received  in  full  as  between  Beecher  and  Til- 
ton, this  whole  matter  could  have  been  ended  and  sup- 
pressed, and  all  these  unfortunate  consequences  avoided. 
Well,  now,  gentlemen,  this  does  not  show  much  vin- 
dictiveness  upon  the  part  either  of  Mr.  Tilton  or  of  Mr. 
Moulton.  The  prevailing  desire,  followed  by  appropriate 
action  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton,  was  to  protect  the  honor 


SUMMISG    UP    BY  MR.  BEACH. 


899 


of  Ms  family,  hi*  ';vife  and  hi?  cMLdren.  And  I  TMut  I 
ah  all  be  able  to  satisfy"  you  that  in  no  instance  lias  lie  de- 
parted from  tliat  policy  or  seriously  for  any  length  of 
time  forgotten,  his  devotion,  loyal,  true,  unswerving,  to 
the  wife  whom  he  honored  and  loved  notwithstanding 
her  fall,  and  to  the  children  it  was  his  duty  to  protect. 


THE  BOWEX  LETTER. 

Jsovr  we  come,  gentlemen,  to  tMs  Bowen 
letter ;  and  ta  connection  with  the  course  of  evidence 
wlilch  has  been  pursued  upon  the  part  of  the  defense  In 
this  case  it  is  a  letter  of  great  slgntflcance.  Recollect, 
for  a  moment,  the  circumstances  which  prodace»iiii: — Til- 
ton  asserting  that  ilr.  Bowen  had  made  to  him  infamous 
revelations  reganiing  the  conduct  and  character  of  :Mr. 
Beecher  upon  which  the  letter  of  demand  was  presented 
by  Bowen,  at  his  instigation,  to  Beecher,  he,  Bowen, 
pledgtae  himself  to  TUton  to  support  that  demand  by 
abmidant  evidence. 

ilr.  Hfvp.v  C.  Bowe>"— Si'r  .■  I  received  last  evening 
your  sudden  notice  breaking  my  two  contracis .:  one,  with 
The  Indepercdent ;  and  the  other,  with  The  BrooTdyn 
Union— 

And  this  bears  date  of  Jan.  1.  1S71. 

With  reference  to  this  act  o-  7-  :  ir-  I  will  make  a  plain 
statement  of  facts.  It  was  du_:r.^- early  part  of  the 
rebellion,  if  I  recollect  aright,  when  you  first  intimated  to 
me  that  the  Eev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  committed 
acts  of  adultery  for  which,  if  you  should  expose  him,  he 
would  be  driven  from  his  pulpit.  From  that  time  onward 
your  references  to  this  subject  were  frequent,  and  always 
accompanied  with  the  exhibition  of  a  deep-seated,  injury 
to  yomr  heart.  In  a  letter  which  you  addressed  to  me 
from  Woodstock,  Jime  16,  1863,  referring  to  this  subject, 
you  said  :  "  I  sometimes  feel  that  I  must  break  silence, 
t*at  I  must  no  longer  suffer  as  a  dumb^man  and  be  made 
to  bear  a  load  of  grief  most  unjustly.  One  word  from  me 
would  make  a  revolution  throughout  Christendom,  and,  I 
had  almost  said,  '  and  you  know  it.' " 

This  was  addressed  to  Tiltom 

You  have  just  a  little  of  the  evidence  from  the  great 
volume  in  my  possession.  I  am  not  pursuing  a  phantom, 
but  solemnly  brooding  over  an  awful  reality.  The  under- 
scoiings  in  this  extract  are  your  own.  Subsequently  to 
the  date  of  this  letter,  and  at  frequent  intervals,  from 
then  till  now.  you  have  repeated  the  statement  that  you 
could  at  any  moment  expel  Henry  Ward  Belcher  from 
Brooklyn.  You  have  repeated  the  same  thing  not  only 
to  me  but  to  others.  Moreover  during  the  year  just 
closed  your  allusions  to  the  subject  were  uttered  with 
more  feeling  than  heretofore,  and  were  not  unfrequently 
coupled  with  your  emphatic  declarations  that  Mr. 
Beecher  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  occupy  a  public 
position  as  a  Christian  preacher  and  teacher.  On  the 
26th  of  December,  1370,  at  an  interview  in  your  house, 
at  which  Mr.  Oliver  Johnson  and  I  were  present,  you 
spoke  freely  iind  indignantly  against  ^Mr.  Beecher  as  an 
unsafe  visitor  among  the  families  of  his  congregation- 
Mark  that,  gentlemen— in  the  presence  of  Oliver 
Johason. 

You  aUuded  by  name  to  a  womatw  now  a  widow,  wnose 
husband's  death  you  had  no  doubt  was  hastened  by  his 
knowledge  that  Mr.  Bcreoher  had  maintained  with  her 


an  improper  intimacy.  You  avowed  your  knonrtedgeof 
several  cases  of  Mr.  Beecher' s  adultery.  Moreover,  aa 
if  to  leave  no  doubt  on  the  mind  of  either  Mr.  Johnson 
or  mj  self,  you  informed  us  that  ^Ir.  Beecher  had  made 
to  you  a  confession  of  his  guHt.  and  with  tears  implored 
your  forgiveness. 

A  further  part  of  the  letter  was  read  by  25lr.  FuliertoD, 
omitting  some  portions. 

During  yotu:  recital  of  the  tale  you  were  full  of  angei 
toward  Mr.  Beecher.  You  said,  with  terrible  emphasis, 
that  he  ought  not  to  remain  a  week  longer  m  his  pulpit- 
You  imme.iiately  suggested  that  a  demand  should  be 
made  upon  biTn  to  quit  his  sacred  oflSce.  You  voluntc-er-rd 
to  bear  to  bim  such  a  demand  in  the  form  of  an  oi>en 
letter  which  you  would  present  to  him  ^v-ith  your  own 
hand,  and  you  pledged  yourself  to  sustain  the  demand 
which  this  letter  should  make,  namely,  that  he  should, 
for  reasons  which  he  explicitly  knew,  immediately  c-ease 
from  his  ministry  of  Plymouth  Church  and  retire  from 
Brooklyn.  The  first  draft  of  the  letter  did  not  contain 
the  phrase  "  for  reasons  which  he  explicitly  knew,'*  and 
these  words,  or  words  to  this  effect,  were  incorporated  in 
a  second  at  your  motion.  You  urged,  furthermore,  and 
very  emphatically,  that  the  letter  should  demand  not 
only  Mr.  Beecher' s  abdication  of  his  pulpit  but  cessation 
of  his  writing  for  The  Christian  Tnion,  a  point  on  which 
you  were  overruled.  This  letter  you  presented  to  M:  . 
Beecher  at  Mr.  Freeland's  house. 

And  what  becomes  of  all  this  controversy  upon  the 
evidence  in  regard  to  the  place  where  the  meeting  wa  s 
held  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen,  when  tnls 
record  is  made,  immediately  after,  on  the  1st  <iay  ot 
January? 

Shortly  after  its  presentation  you  sought  an  interview 
with  me  in  the  editorial  office  of  The  Brooklyn  Tnion. 
during  which,  with  unaccormtable  emotion  in  yom-  man- 
ner, your  face  livid  with  rage,  you  threatened,  with  a 
loud  voice,  that  if  I  ever  should  inform  Mr.  Beecher  of 
the  statements  which  you  had  made  concerning  his  adul- 
tery, or  should  compel  you  to  adduce  the  evidence  on 
which  you  agreed  to  sustain  the  demand  for  Mr.  Beech- 
er's  withdrawal  from  Brooklyn,  you  would  immediateLy 
deprive  me  of  my  engagements  to  write  for  The  Inde- 
pendent  and  to  edit  The  Brooklyn  Vnion,  and  that,  in  case 
I  should  ever  attempt  to  enter  the  office  of  these  journals, 
you  would  have  me  ejected  by  force.  I  t^ld  you  that  I 
should  inform  Mr.  Beecher,  or  anybody  else,  according  to 
the  dictates  of  my  judgment,  uninfluenced  by  any  threats 
from  my  employer.  You  then  excitedly  retired  from  my 
presence.  Hardly  had  your  violent  words  ceased  ringing 
in  my  ears  when  I  received  your  summary  notice  break- 
ing my  contracts  with  Th^  Indejiendent  and  The  Brooklyn 
Vnion.  To  the  foregoing  narrative  of  facts  I  have  only 
to  add  my  surprise  and  regret  at  the  sudden  interruption, 
by  your  own  act,  of  what  has  been,  on  my  part  towanl 
you,  a  faithful  friendship  of  fifteen  years, 

^?ow,  gentlemen,  consider  that  letter.  Consider  the 
charges  which  it  makes,  that  3Ir.  Bowen  as  early  as  tL 
year  1S60  had  commenced  with  his  accusations  again-: 
Mr.  Beecher  of  adultery  with  various  persons,  and  con- 
necting himself  with  those  a«ts.  Consider  that  that  re- 
lation was  made,  not  alone  in  the  presence  of  Theodore 
Tllron,  but  of  Oliver  Johnson,  the  prominent  and  trusted 
friend  and  witness  01  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Ah  :  how 
iuiporeant  it  was.  geafiemen,  If  this  wju-  an  unrruthfnl 


900  TEE  TILTOI^-B 

Btatement  upon  t"he  part  of  Mr.  Tilton,  if  a  single  repre- 
sentation in  that  narrative  wa«  untrue,  if  Henry  C. 
Bowen  was  not  tlie  public  and  the  open  accuser  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  if  Theodore  Tilton  was  not  stimulated  to 
this  arrogant  demand  upon  Mr.  Beecher— how  important 
it  was  for  my  learned  friends  to  contradict  that  formal 
and  recorded  statement  by  Mr.  Tilton.  And  how  easy  it 
would  have  been,  if  it  was  false,  to  have  involved  Mr. 
Tilton  in  a  series  of  deliberate  and  atrocious  falsehoods, 
both  as  against  Mr.  Bowen  and  as  against  Mr.  Beecher, 
which  would  have  destroyed  his  credibility  before  this 
Court  and  this  jury.  We  put  Mr.  Bowen  upon  the  stand 
withthatletter  standing  upon  this  record.  Theodore  Tilton 
defied  all  contradiction.  Standing  upon  his  own  truth 
and  integrity,  and  knowing  of  the  necessary  hostility  of 
Mr,  Bowen  toward  him,  he  yet  put  him  as  a  witness,  and 
siil»ieeted  him  to  the  cross-examination  of  my  learned  ad- 
versaries. Why  didn't  they  examine  him  %  Why  not  ask 
Mr.  Bowen  whether  these  lojurious  charges  were  made 
by  him  against  Mr.  Beecher  %  Whether  he  was  the  author 
of  the  demand  for  resignation  and  retirement?  Whether 
he  pledged  evidence  and  action  on  his  part  to  maintain 
that  demand  ?  Whether  he  did  afterward,  in  his  commu- 
iiicrttion  with  Mr.  Beecher,  promise  to  be  the  friend  of 
Mr.  Beecher,  and,  in  a  towering  rage,  threaten  Theodore 
Tiltou  if  he  alluded  to  the  revelations  he,  Bowen,  had 
'uade  to  him  concemuig  Mr.  Beecher  %  Why  was  not 
Oliver  Johnson  examined  upon  that  subject  ?  The  allega- 
tion of  that  letter  is,  with  a  fearlessness  which  defied  aU 
c  mtradictlon,  that  Johnson,  the  friend  and  the  witness  of 
B  '.echer,  was  present  at  that  communication.  Here 
again  Mr.  Tilton  exposed  himself  to  possible  contradic- 
tion. You  have  no  doubt  of  the  disposition  of  Oliver 
Johnson  in  regard  both  to  TUton  and  to  Beecher.  And  I 
press  it,  gentlemen,  upon  your  intelligence  and  convic- 
tions that  this  omission  on  the  i)art  of  this  defense  either 
to  examine  Bowen  or  to  examine  Johnson,  their  own  wit- 
ness, in  contradiction  of  Tilton,  is  the  highest  testimonial 
which  can  be  given  to  his  truth  and  integrity. 

But  that  is  not  all  gentlemen ;  that  very  letter  was  in- 
corporated in  the  "  Tripartite  Covenant"  between  Henry 
C.  Bowen,  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  Theodore  Tilton. 
Why,  think  of  the  amazing  fact  that  the  charge  of  Theo- 
dore Tnton  against  Bowen  of  these  charges  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  when  this  settlement  of  the  diflaculties  of  these 
ithree  parties  was  made,  in  a  document  intended  to  be 
private  and  confidential,  and  which  never  has  been  pub- 
lished in  full  until  this  trial,  these  three  men,  incorpora- 
ted these  dishonoring  charges  against  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
not  a  single  word  of  disclaimer  or  denial  on  the  part  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  in  that  instrument.  I  deem  this, 
gentlemen,  a  matter  so  essential  that,  at  the  risk  of 
wearying  you,  I  must  ask  your  attention  to  this  ''Tri- 
partite Covenant"  that  you  may  see  all  its  significance. 
How  it  answers  in  the  mfost  authentic  and  authoritative 
form,  the  idea,  upon  which  this  defense  rests,  that  Henry 


t:WCHER  TllLAL. 

Ward  Beecher  has  been  too  elevated  and  pure  in  charAC- 
ter  and  life,  ever  to  have  been  suspected  or  to  now  be 
believed  to  have  sinned. 

We  three  men.  earnestly  desiring  to  remove  all  causes 
of  otfense  exi  jting  between  us,  real  or  fancied,  and  to 
make  Christian  reparation  for  injuries  done  or  su^)posed 
to  be  done,  and  to  efface  the  disturbed  past,  and  to  pro- 
vide concord,  good-will,  and  love  for  tte  future,  do  de- 
clare and  covenant  each  with  the  others,  as  follows  :  I. 
T,  Henry  C.  Bowen,  having  given  credit,  perhaps  without 
due  consideration,  to  tales  and  innuendoes  affecting  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  and  being  influenced  by  them,  as  was  natu- 
ral to  a  man  who  received  impressions  suddenly,  to  the 
extent  of  repeating  them  (guacdedly,  however,  and  with- 
in limitations,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  him,  but 
strictly  in  the  confidence  of  consultation),  now  feel  that 
therein  I  did  him  wrong.  Therefore  I  disavow  all  the 
charges  and  imputations  that  have  been  attributed  to 
me  as  having  been  made  by  me  against  Henry  Ward 
Beecher ;  and  I  declare,  fullv  and  without  reserve,  that 
I  know  nothing  which  should  prevent  me  from  extend- 
ing to  him  my  most  cordial  friendship,  confidence,  and 
christian  fellowship.  And  I  expressly  withdraw  all  the 
charges,  imputations,  and  innuendoes  imputed  as  having 
been  made  and  uttered  by  me,  and  set  forth  in  a  letter 
written  by  me  to  Theodore  Tilton,  on  the  first  of  Ja  mary, 
1871,  (a  copy  of  which  letter  is  hereto  annexed)  and  I 
sincerely  regret  having  made  any  imputations,  charges 
or  innuendoes  unfavorable  to  the  christian  character  of 
Mr.  Beecher.  And  I  covenant  and  promise  that  for  all 
futui-e  time  I  will  never,  by  word  or  deed,  recur  to,  re- 
peat, or  allude  to  any,  or  either  of  said  charges,  imputa- 
tions, and  innuendoes. 

There  is  no  denial  here  of  the  truth  of  these  charges. 
There  is  a  disavowal.  There  is  a  tender  of  Christian  for- 
giveness and  fellowship.  But  this  declaration  of  Mr. 
Bowen  is  very  carefully  and  scrupulously  worded.  While 
he  does  not  deny  that  in  the  letter  of  Jan.  1,  1871,  he 
made  these  charges  against  Mr.  Beecher,  and  as  to  a  por- 
tion of  them  made  them  upon  his  alleged  personal 
knowledge,  he  does  not  in  this  "Tripartite  Covenant" 
declare  that  those  accusations  are  untrue  or  unfounded. 
But  under  the  influences  which  were  then  brought  to  bear 
upon  these  three  men,  with  the  hope  upon  the  part  of 
their  friends  in  Plymouth  Church  that  this  whole  matter 
could  be  suppressed,  and  that  all  danger  of  future  agita- 
tion could  be  avoided,  they  enter  into  this  covenant, 
making,  so  far  as  their  consciences  would  pei'mit,  and 
their  charity  indulge,  the  most  favorable  declarations  in 
regard  to  each  other. 

II.  And  I,  Theodore  Tilton.  do,  of  my  free  will  and- 
friendly  spirit  toward  Henry  C.  Bowen  and  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  hereby  covenant  and  agree  that  I  will  never 
again  repeat,  by  word  of  mouth  or  otherwise,  any  of  the 
allegations,  or  imputations,  or  inuendoes,  contained  in 
my  letters  hereunto  annexed  [i.  e.,  the  Bowen  letters] 
or  any  other  injurious  imputations  or  allegations  sug- 
gested by  or  growing  out  6t  these,  and  that  I  will  never 
again  bring  up  or  hint  at  any  cause  of  difference  or  ground 
of  complaint  heretofore  existing  between  the  said  Henry 
C.  Bowen  and  myself,  or  the  said  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

You  wUl  perceive  that  the  undertaking  of  Mr.  Tilton 
was  limited  entirely  to  these  injurious  charges  origin- 
i  ating,  proceeding  from  Mr.  Henry  C.  Bowen. 


SCTMMIXG    VP  BY  MR.  BEACR, 


901 


in.  And  I.  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  put  tlie  past  forever 
out  of  siglit  and  out  of  memory. 

All.  tliat  is  a  very  pleasant  declaration  in  print. 
WTietlier  it  can  ever  1)6  fulfilled  in  Ms  experience  i.«  quite 
another  question. 

I  deeply  regret  the  causes  for  suspicion,  jealousy,  and 
estrangement  wMch  have  come  between  us.  Itisajoy 
to  me  to  have  my  old  regard  for  Heniy  C.  Bowen  and 
Theodore  Tilton  restored,  and  a  happiness  to  me  to  re- 
sume the  old  relations  of  love,  respect,  and  reliance  to 
ea<}h  and  both  of  them.  If  I  have  said  anjrthing  injuiious 
to  the  reputation  of  either,  or  have  detracted  from  their 
standing  and  fame  as  Christian  gentlemen  and  members 
of  my  church,  I  revoke  if  all,  and  heartily  covenant  to 
repair  and  reinstate  them  to  the  extent  of  my  power. 

Then,  gentlemen,  there  is  an  addendum  to  that  instru- 
ment which  contains  a  very  severe  accusation  by  Mr. 
TUton  against  Mr.  Bowen.  I  believe  it  has  never  been 
read  to  you.   I  do  not  care  to  read  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  was  a  part  of  the  slip  that  was  intro- 
duced. 

Mr.  Beach— It  was  a  part  of  the  "  Tripartite  Covenant," 
I  know. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  was  a  part  of  the  threatened  publication 
by  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Bea<3h— That  is  a  question  I  am  not  just  now  dis- 
cussing. I  am  discussing  the  contents  of  the  "  Tripartite 
Covenant." 

Mr.  Evarts— But  vou  were  speaking  of  it  as  if  it  were  a 
part  of  the  "  Tripartite  Agi'eement." 

Mr.  Beach— I  do  speak  of  it,  Sir,  as  a  part  of  the  "  Tri- 
partite Agreement." 

Mr.  Evarts — And  in  that  I  was  endeavoring  to  correct 
you. 

Mr.  Beach— Wasn't  it  a  part  of  the  "  Tripartite  Cove- 
nant ?" 

Mr.  Evarts— It  was  a  part  of  The  Golden  Age  slip  that 
was  threatened  to  be  published- 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  what  of  that,  Sir  1  I  am  saying  it 
was  adopted  by  the  "  Tripartite  Covenant." 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— By  the  action  of  fhese  three  parties. 


THE  JUSTIFICATIOX  FOR  THE  BOWEN  LET- 
TEE. 

But,  gentlemen,  a  word  further  ought  to  be 
said,  perhaps,  in  regard  to  the  object  of  this  Bowen  letter. 
Mr.  Tilton,  ten  days  before  that  letter,  had  surrendered 
fhe  position  of  editor  of  The  Independent,  and  had  en- 
tered into  two  contracts  with  Mr.  Bowen,  one  as  editor  of 
r^e  Brooklyn  Union  and  the  other  as  a  contributor  to  The 
Independent;  and  Mr.  Bowen  on  that  change  of  relations 
between  Mr.  Tilton  and  himself  had  published  a  very 
3ompllmentary  notice*of  Mr.  TUton  in  The  Independent. 
It  is  described  by  Mr.  Tilton  in  this  way  : 

This  letter  of  Mr.  Bowen  was  read  to  Mr.  Beecher.  Mi\ 
VIoulton  read  the  letter  aloud.  He  told  31r.  Beecher  that 
-  had  written  it,  feeling  that  I  must  make  some  explana- 


tion to  the  public  tor  the  sudden  cessation  of  my  relation- 
ship with  J/i^  Independent  nnd  The  Chrlstinn  Union.  I 
say  Mr.  Moultou  stated  that — possibly  it  was  I  who  stated 
that— I  am  not  clear  as  to  that ;  at  all  e-^nts,  after  Mr. 
Moulruu  or  myself— and  on  second  thought  lam  rather 
iiK-iiued  to  thinly  it  w:!*  I  who  said  my  relationship  with 
Mr.  Bowen  ha  l  been  suddenly  termin.Tted  in  a  manner 
to  excite  public  comment,  namely,  that  the  last  copy  of 
The  Independent  or  the  one  next  to  the  last  in  December, 
1670,  had  LiuuuLmced  to  the  public  that  I  was  to  be  no 
long(  r  the  (.-aitor  of  that  paper,  but  its  special  contribu- 
tor, Ftnd  that  I  was  t(»  be  five  years  the  editor  of  I%« 
Brooklyn  Union.  I  said  that  the  announcement  had  been 
made  in  The  Independent,  Avith  a  great  flourish  of  trump- 
ets, aud  wich  uiueh  ealo_y  and  glowing  refert^nce  to  my- 
self. th:;t  I  wa-^  to  i»  ■  \\<-v  after  the  editor  of  a  ditily  paper, 
and  to  be  a  special  contributor  to  The  Independent,  that 
Mr.  Bowen  had  put  forth  the  announcement  in  a  very 
complimentary  manner  to  myself;  and  that  the 
nest  intimation  which  the  public  had  concerning 
me  through  the  pres.-  at  large  was  that  these  eontracts 
had  been  suddenly  terminated,  that  I  was  not  to  be  a 
contriiaitor  to  The  Independent;  that  I  was  not  to  be  ed- 
itor of  The  Brooklyn  Union  ton  five  years  ;  and  no  rea- 
sons were  given  ;  and  I  said  that  in  view  of  the  extraor- 
dinary announcement,  and  m  view  of  the  stidden  cessa- 
tion of  the  promis:;d  engagement,  some  explanation  was 
due  by  me  to  the  public  to  account  for  that  event,  and 
that  the  explanation  which  I  designed  to  make  to  the 
public  was  a  plain  aud  simple  recital  of  the  exact  facts 
narrated  by  Mr.  Bowen  in  an  interview  with  me  on  the 
26th  of  December;  also  the  exact  facts  that  occurred  be- 
tween him  and  me  two  or  three  days  after  that  interview 
when  he  grew  angry  and  violent ;  also  the  exact  facts  of 
Lis  terminating  my  eugagement  with  these  two  papers  a 
day  or  two  after  that  interview  ;  that  I  felt  that  duty  to 
myself  required  a  plain  statement  of  the  facts  in  the 
case ;  that,  accordingly,  under  that  sense  of  duty,  I  had 
written  a  letter  to  Mr.  Bowen  reciting  all  the  facts ;  that 
I  had  written  it  very  careiuily,  taking  the  advice  of  Jere- 
miah P.  R  jbinson,  of  Mr.  Moultou,  and  of  Mr.  Gordon  L. 
Ford ;  that,  acting  uijon  their  advice,  and  particularly 
upon  the  advice  of  the  oldest  of  those  gentlemen,  Mr. 
Eobinson,  I  had  studiously  kept  out  of  this  letter  all 
ground  of  trouble  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  myseK. 

Xow,  was  not  some  explanation  upon  the  part  of  Mr. 
Tiltoujustifled under  these  circumstances?  First  honor- 
ably mentioned  with  reference  to  his  past  connection 
with  The  lyidependent  aud  The  Christian  Union ;  eulo- 
gized for  his  faithfulness  and  ability  ;  then  announced  as 
the  editor  of  The  Union  and  a  special  contributor  to 
The  Independent;  and  then,  in  ten  days,  the  pubUo 
advised  that  he  had  been  dismissed  from  his  position* 
without  any  explanation,  without  the  statement  of  any 
cause  ;  leading  Mm  open  to  the  imputation  of  dishonor- 
able conduct ;  leaving  tbte  public  at  liberty  to  speculate 
on  tfee  possible  causes  which  might  have  produced  this 
degradation  ;  the  fa«t  itself,  as  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton  was 
then  a  prominent  man  in  the  literature  of  the  day, 
attracting  necessarily  the  observation  of  the  community, 
and  they  speculating  upon  the  possible  causes  of  his 
downfall.  Was  there  any  impropriety  gentlemen— la 
your  good  sense  and  fairness  will  you  say  that  that  letter 
thus  prepared  for  that  object  by  Mr.  Tilton  deserves  anj 
reprobation  from  counsel  or  from  yourselves  ?   It  was  aa 


903 


THE   TIJ/rON-BJ^J^JOHEE  IRIAL. 


act  of  self-justice ;  it  was  an  act  of  tliat  self-defense  which 
a  consciouHly  true  Q/nd  manly  person  will  always  make 
when  an  accusation  unjust  and  dishonoring  is  brought 
against  him.  It  is  not  Mr.  Beecher's  way  of  dealing  with 
tilings ;  tout  it  is  the  direct,  prompt,  ready  answer  which 
Theodore  Til  ton  then  made,  and  always  has  made,  except 
when  governed  and  restrained  by  tlie  motives  and  princi- 
ples to  which  I  have  alluded,  to  every  attack  upon  his 
honor  and  fame. 

Now,  I  had  noted  "Sir  Marmadake's  Musings,"  the 
"Letter to  a  Complaining  Friend,"  the  "Letter  to  a 
Friend  in  the  West,"  and  the  "  True  Story"  for  comment, 
tout  enough  has  toeen  said,  it  seems  to  me,  upon  that  sub- 
ject, as  to  the  motive  which  induced  those  publications 
upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Tilton,  they,  in  every  instance,  be- 
ing preceded  by  an  adequate  cause,  which  called  upon 
him  as  an  honorable  gentleman,  either  for  the  vindica- 
tion of  himself  or  of  his  wife,  to  make  some  stateuxent  to 
the  public.  The  Bowen  letter  was  never  made  public  ; 
Moulton  controlled  hi iti,  Elizabeth  K  Tilton  controlled 
Mm ;  and  when  Mr.  Tilton  revealed  to  her  the  fact  that 
he  had  entered  into  this  league  with  Bowen,  and  that 
this  demand  had  been  made,  he,  upon  her  protestation 
and  her  tears,  at  once  went  to  Mr.  Beecher  and  withdrew 
the  accusation;  and  everywhere,  upon  evry  occa- 
sion, and  in  every  place  where  Mr.  Tii  ton  has  contem- 
plated any  action  seeming  to  him  to  be  just  for  his  own 
protection,  he  has  yielded  to  the  influence  of  those  speci- 
fic motives  and  the  policies  which  have  been  adopted  bj- 
Mrs.  Tilton,  by  Mr.  Moulton,  and  by  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
acquiesced  in  by  himself,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  all 
agitation  of  this  subject. 

THE     INVESTIGATING     COMMITTEE  CEIT- 
ICISED. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  submit  to  you  tliat  it 
was  the  Investigating  Committee— no  other  proceed- 
ing, no  other  act,  no  other  temptation— which  produced 
this  controversy.  You  have  seen  how  Mr.  Moulton 
struggled  to  avoid  the  consequences  of  that  intemperate 
and  unwise  act  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher.  You  have 
seen  how  Mr.  Tilton,  cooperating  with  Mr.  Moulton  in 
the  acceptance  of  the  proposed  card  of  Mr.  Beecher,  in 
suggesting  the  form  of  the  report  for  the  Committee 
which,  while  exonerating"  him,  would  yet  protect  this 
man  from  revelation— how  they  struggled;  how  Mrs. 
Tilton  everywhere  and  always  has  besought  and  en- 
treated Moulton  and  Tilton  and  Beecher  to  avoid  all 
agitation  and  disturbance  of  this  scandal.  But  Mr. 
Beecher,  without  the  advice  of  Mr.  Moulton,  whom  he 
had  trusted  until  that  hour  and  act,  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  Tilton  (for  he  was  not  aware  of  the  calling  of  the 
Investigating  Committee  until  his  wife  had  toeen  before 
that  body),  without  any  consultation  with  any  of 
the  parties  interested,  unless  it  was  with  Mrs. 
Tilton,    without    consulting    the    interests    of  any- 


body but  himself— Mr.  Beecher  organizes  a  Committee 
from  the  chosen  members  of  his  own  church.  Ah  I  it  is 
said  this  Avas  for  the  purpose  of  impartial  and  independ- 
ent investigation ;  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  bold,  brave,  and* 
defiant ;  that  he  had  borne  as  long  as  he  could  the  bur- 
den of  the  opprobrium  of  the  policy  of  silence,  in  %hich 
for  three  years  he  had  acquiesced.  Well,  was  it  a  noble 
and  a  just  means  of  sclf-vindicationto  select  a  committee 
as  this  Examining  Committee  was  chosen  by  Mr. 
Beecher  ?  How  arduous  and  anxious  were  the  delibera- 
tions with  which  that  selection  was  made !  The  efforts 
between  Tracy,  and  Shearman,  and  Beecher,  and  Cleve- 
land, speculatiag  upon  the  qualities  and  relations  of  each 
member  of  the  Committee ;  with  the  astute  aid  of  these 
two  gentlemen,  discussing  the  probable  tendencies  of 
each  member  of  the  Committee ;  selecting  as  a  member 
of  that  Committee  a  gentleman  who  had  expressed  him- 
self to  Mr.  Beecher  in  terms  of  decided  and  manifest  hos- 
tility to  Mr.  Tilton ;  In  homely  but  expressive  phrase, 
pacJcing  a  court  organized  to  acquit  Beecher 
and  convict  Tilton;  and  then  parading  be- 
fore the  world  the  noble  and  magnanimous 
courage  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  in  throwing  off  the 
shackles  of  restraint  and  braving  at  once  a  public  and 
notorious  examination  !  How  comical  and  laughable  it 
is  !  This  man  putting  on  the  aspect  of  nobility,  of  brav- 
ery, under  such  circumstances  ;  gathering  six  of  his  most 
intimate  and  devoted  friends  and  adherents,  whose  influ- 
ence was  known,  whose  fidelity  and  attachment  were 
trusted,  who  had  the  interests  specified  by  Fairfield  in 
the  maintenance  of  the  position  and  the  character  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  the  protection  of  the 
purity  and  the  position  of  Plymouth  Church, 
to  sit  in  an  investigation  and  decision  of  the 
controversy  between  Beecher,  the  pastor,  and  TUton, 
the  odious  and  therefore  persecuted  enemy  of  the  church ! 
Did  not  that  Committee  know,  and  did  not  every  man  on 
it  during  its  sittings  already  know,  that  this  was  a  con- 
troversy for  life  or  death  between  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
and  Theodore  Tilton  ?  Did  any  man  ever  doubt  that 
while  that  pretended  to  be  a  Committee  for  the  investi- 
gation of  the  conduct  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  it  was 
really  for  the  purpose  of  accusation  against  Mr.  Tilton  '? 
And  how  was  the  investigation  conducted  ?  Was  the  ac- 
cused man  permitted  an  open  appearance  by  counsel  and 
an  opportunity  to  cross-examine  witnesses  ?  Was  there 
the  obligation  of  an  oath  upon  the  consciences  of  the  wit- 
nesses? Were  there  any  of  those  accompaniments  of  a 
fair  trial  which  are  the  essence  of  justice  and  a  protection 
of  the  rights  of  parties  t  Nothing  of  the  kind.  It  was  a 
Star-Chamber  investigation;  it  was  held  with  closed 
doors.  The  wife  of  Theodore  Tilton,  enticed  from  his 
home  and  a  witness  before  that  Committee  without  his 
knowledge,  then  making  a  favorable  declaration  toward 
her  husband,  speaking  of  him  in  such  terms  of  coinmendfv- 
tion  and  respect  and  love  as  at  once  modifled  the  indignar 


SUMmXG    UP  J 

tion  Le  felt  Trhen  lie  found  tliat  Ms  wife 
had  ''been  at'stracted  from  Ms  house  and  "vras  g-iv- 
Ing  evidence  Defore  a  Committee  of  that  cha^HCter; 
again  appearing  before  the  Committee,  and  implicating 
that  husband  by  accusations  and  charges  "^hich,  if  true, 
woulcT  render  him  infamous;  and  then,  through  influ- 
ences to  which  T  have  alluded,  withdrawn  entirely  from 
the  protection  of  that  husband  and  her  home,  and  now 
living,  a  wanderer,  upon  the  charity  of  Plymouth 
Church.  Is  that  the  kind  of  trib-mal,  and  are  those  the 
forms  and  ceremouies  of  justice,  through  which  the 
honor,  the  character,  the  reputation  of  a  citizen  shall  be 
defamed  and  condemned  ?  Why,  think  of  it  1  This  trilni- 
nal  thus  invest: f/ating  a  great  and  important  question 
between  two  distinguished  men,  involving  the  fame  and 
the  position  of  each,  refusing  to  receive  the  statement 
and  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Moulton,  after  he  had  made  Ms 
firs*  statement  before  that  Committee,  with  the  view  and 
for  the  purpose  expressed  by  him,  declining  to  tell  what 
he  knew,  informing  that  Committee  that  he  did  know 
more,  but  that  the  relations  between  the  parties,  the 
apo'osry  which  had  passed,  the  interests  of  the  families 
involved,  public  interests,  all  demanded  that  there 
should  be  no  further  investigation  ;  and  when  he  sends  a 
respectful  recpiest,  after  Henry  "Ward  Beecher  had 
made  against  him  the  infamous,  and  now  pro- 
nounced by  him  the  untrue,  imputation  of 
blackmail,  desiring  an  opporttmity  to  appear  again  before 
the  Committee,  this  honorable  management  refused  the 
request,  because  their  report  had  been  mostly  if  not 
entii-ely prepared!  Where  were  the  several  witnesses, 
Mrs.  Bradshaw,  Mrs.  Morse,  and  others,  ia  regard  to 
whom  the  Committee  were  informed,  and  who,  they 
knew,  possessed  information  wMch  If  presented  before 
them  woMd  illustrate  the  true  condition  of  the  matter 
which  was  submitted  to  them  for  adjudication?  Why 
was  their  evidence  .suppressed?  Why  no  attempt  to  get 
them  1  Why  no  revelation  from  all  these  parties  who  had 
public  connection  with  tMs  scandal,  and  who  have  ap- 
peared upon  this  stand  and  made  their  statements  1  This 
is  not  the  course  of  thorough  and  fair  investigaticn.  I 
must  be  permitted,  to  say  that  it  is  not  the  conduct  of 
honorable  gentlemen  in  a  responsible  position,  asstuning 
to  do  impartially  and  faithfully  a  great  public  duty.  That 
Committee  answered  the  purposes  of  their  organization  ; 
they  fulfilled  the  object  for  which  they  had  been  selected, 
but  they  did  not  answer  the  demands  of  justice  or  of 
honor,  and  it  ft  not  surprising  that  the  report  wMch  they 
made  tinder  such  circumstances  should  have  rec-eived  the 
scorn  and  denunciation  of  the  world. 

Another  feature.  I  have  said  that  the  first  statement 
of  Mrs.  Tilton.  as  is  proven  by  Tracy  and  Moulton  and 
others,  was  favorable  and  complimentary  to  her  hus- 
band. How  happened  it  that  she  changed  that  state- 
ment? and  when  was  it  that  the  remarkable  change  oc- 
curred, so  that  tMs  lady  first  goes  before  the  same  gen- 


3F  MB.   BEACH,  903 

tlemen  forming  tMs  Committee  and  honors  and  exalts 
tbe  character  of  her  husband,  and  then,  witMn  six  days, 
appears  again  before  the  same  gentlemen  with  her  de- 
nunciations and  condemnations  ?  What  were  the  in- 
fluences operating  upon  this  lady  ?  Ah  !  she  had  been 
then  attracted  by  some  means,  or  some  impulse,  from  her 
home.  She  was  under  the  influence  of  the  Ovingtons  and 
the  friends  and  the  habitu6s  of  the  Ovingtons  and  their 
house.  She  was  brought  under  tofluences  which  were 
favorable  to  Mr.  Beecher.  Why,  gentlemen,  conceive  it— 
a  wife  on  Tuesday  offering  a  voluntary  tribute  to  the 
character  of  her  husband,  and  within  five  days  leaving 
her  home,  without  any  new  cause,  without  any  fresh  out- 
break of  family  difliculty— in  five  days  deserting  her 
home  under  influences  confessedly  inimical  to  her  hus- 
band, and  again  appearing  before  that  Examining  Com- 
mittee and  reversing  entirely  her  previous  testimony. 
How  is  it  explainable  ?  What  sanction  attaches  to  the 
declarations  of  this  woman,  thus  contradictory  1  and 
what  influence  extorted  this  denunciation  of  her  hus 
band?  Are  you  in  doubt?  Tracing  the  conduct,  the  in- 
terference of  Mrs.  Oviiigton,  her  fresh  and  tender  com- 
miseratinntor  Mrs.  Tilton,  carrying  her  upon  rides,  press- 
ing upon  her  the  hospitalities  of  her  house,  offering  her 
a  permanent  asylum  from  her  husband  and  her  home  : 
Tracy.  Beecher,  and  all  in  open  and  admitted  communi- 
cation at  the  house  of  Mr.  Ovington— all  these  collected 
influences  bearing  upon  this  woman,  fi\ail  and  delicate 
as  .she  is  represented  to  be,  and  adoiing  her  pa-tor  as  we 
know  she  did— are  you  in  doubt  ?  And  do  you  blame 
Theodore  Tilton  under  these  circumstances  for  standing 
np,  solitary  and  alone,  in  self-defense !  Must  he  be  openly 
accused  before  a  partial  and  packed  triininal  of  the 
friends  of  Mr,  Beecher,  men  of  p^-rscnal  position,  of  ex- 
cellence of  reputation  and  character,  whose  determina- 
tion, unless  it  was  infected  by  apparent  impropriety  and 
favoritism,  would  produce  an  immense  influence  upon 
the  public  mind,  his  household  disrupted,  his  wife  a 
fugitive  from  his  bed  and  his  home,  public  dishonor  rest- 
j  ing  upon  him  from  that  simple  circumstance,  a  brute  in 
the  estimation  of  the  eommumty,  from  whose  violence 
and  abuse  it  was  necessary  for  his  wife  to 
flee,  represented  as  he  was  by  Bessie  Turner 
in  Ms  conduct  and  action  in  Ms  family  relatictns 
— was  this  man  to  sit  quiet  and  silent,  with  no 
voice  raised  in  his  behalf  ?  Feeling  the  injustice  of  his 
position  and  the  falsity  of  the  accusations  against  him, 
was  he  to  be  sileut  for  fear  it  should  be  said  that  he 
sought  his  o^vu  vindication  at  the  hazard  of  family  honor 
and  pride  ?  Why,  what  had  become  of  family 
honor  and  pride?  "S^Tiere  did  Mrs.  Tilton 
stand  in  the  estimation  of  the  world  ? 
Wliat  graver  rebuke  in  the  judgment  of  the  public  could 
have  been  uttered  against  the  lady  than  the  fact,  as  we 
know,  that,  without  any  new  cause  of  offense,  she  had 
suddenly  left  home  and  children  and  was  colleaguing  and 


904 


THE    TlLTOJV-REF.fJHEE  TRIAL, 


consorting  witli  the  open  nnd  accusing  enemy  of  her  hua- 
band  I  Now,  I  am  aslnng  yon  what  Mr.  Tilton  should  do 
under  those  circumstances.  I  don't  know  what  you  might 
do^  gentlemen.  I  don't  know  how  much  of  long  suflferlng 
aiid  forgiveness  you  as  husbands  and  fathers  might  exer- 
cise upon  an  occasion  of  that  character.  If  it  had  been 
possible  for  Mr.  Tilton  to  reclaim  his  wife,  to  restore  his 
broken  household,  to  reunite  a  dissevered  family  and  to 
induce  that  wife  of  his  to  return  again  to  his  forgiving 
and  adoring  arms,  he  would  have  done  it ;  but  he  knew, 
as  every  man  on  this  jury  knows,  that  Elizabeth  K.  Til- 
ton had  left  his  home  and  his  children  forever.  The  cause 
of  Mr.  Beecher  could  not  triumph  unless  that  weak  and 
feeble  woman  stood  beside  him  upholding  it  in  its  vile- 
ness  and  wrong.  "When  Mrs.  Tilton  had  made 
that  first  exculpatory  statement,  evincing  her  wifely 
trust,  evincing  the  truth  of  her  nature,  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  knew  that  his  case  even  before  his  chosen  Com- 
mittee could  not  triumph.  That  representation  must  be 
changed;  the  wife  must  accuse  the  husband.  She  must 
do  something  to  remove  the  effect  and  the  impressions 
of  her  past  declarations  and  her  past  associations  with 
Theodore  Tilton.  She  must  appear  as  the  friend  of  Mr. 
Beecher  and  the  accuser  of  her  husband,  or  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  would  fall.  Hence  the  intervention  of  the 
Ovingtons  ;  hence  the  letter  to  the  Committee  ;  hence 
the  notice  to  Mrs.  Tilton ;  hence  the  sudden  and  the 
secret  flight  of  Mrs.  Tilton  from  her  home.  Whatever 
you  may  say  or  think,  gentlemen,  sure  I  am  that  in  the 
judgment  of  weak  and  fallible  man  Mr.  TUton  was  en- 
tirely justified  in  his  declaration  that  the  justice  denied 
him  before  that  Committee  should  be  sought  before  a 
tribunal  where  justice  is  supposed  to  be  impartial; 
where  the  forms  of  law  enable  every  citizen  to  produce 
by  witnef  s,  by  appeals  to  the  intelligence  and  the  justice 
of  the  law,  protection,  vindication,  security  to  right. 
No  hazard,  no  consequence  has  come  or  wUl  come  fi'om 
this  suit  and  this  investigation  that  had  not 
fallen  upon  Theodore  Tilton,  his  wife,  his  chil- 
dren, and  his  home  before  even  this  investigation  was 
undertaken.  Their  fate  was  settled.  There  was  no  re- 
demption. When  Henry  Ward  Beecher  pressed  that 
Committee  of  Investigation  to  a  report  condemning  The- 
odore Tilton,  aye,  and  reflecting  most  dishonorably  and 
ignominiously  upon  the  wife  of  Theodore  Tilton,  when 
everything  was  sacrlflced  to  the  preservation  and  the 
safety  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  there  was  no  redemption 
for  Mr.  Tilton  and  his  family,  and  you  can  give  none. 
You  can,  it  is  true,  vindicate  the  character,  the  conduct 
of  Theodore  Tilton,  but  all  will  not  redeem  him.  Once 
from  obscurity  and  poverty,  through  the  energies  of  his 
genius  and  industry  and  charftcter,  he  has  struggled  up 
to  a  noble  position,  and  he  has  been  struck  inexorably 
down ;  and  there  is  no  other  retrieve,  he  can  march  up 
the  glittering  ascent  in  no  other  way  than  by  a  long 
course  of  toil  and  struggle,  aided  by  the  same  faculties  , 


which  prompted  him  at  first.  He  will  do  it.  My  friend 
may  talk  about  dissecting  and  burying  him,  about  the 
strained  and  battered  hulk  rotting  upon  the  shores  of 
life,  but  he  never  will  dissect  the  intellectual  or  moral 
character  of  Theodore  Tilton.  His  knowledge 
of  intellectual  anatomy  will  be  greatly  en- 
larged if  he  ever  succeeds  in  doing  it.  [Applause.] 
And  he  is  not  the  sexton  who  is  to  bury  a  man  like  Theo- 
dore Tilton.  He  will  yet  emerge  from  those  shadows 
and  obscurations.  It  is  the  spirit  and  the  essence  of 
great  qualities  to  overcome  unmerited  shame  and  heaped 
obstacles;  and,  although  he  may  never  again  have  a 
happy  home  to  cheer  him,  or  a  loving  wife  upon  whom 
he  can  rest  in  his  sorrows  and  tribulations,  yet,  believe 
me,  Theodore  TUton,  by  the  energy  of  his  character  and 
his  genius,  will  redeem  himself  in  the  eyes  of  the  world, 
and  prove  liimself  tl>e  noble  and  honored  man  to  whom 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  rendered  his  repeated  tributes. 
[Applause.] 

THE  LAW  BEARING  ON  THE  CASE. 

Now  it  would  be  desirable,  I  tbiok,  may  it 
please  your  Honor,  that  before  addressing  ourselves  more 
especially  to  the  evidence  in  this  case  bearing  directly 
and  briefly  upon  the  plaintiff's  claim  of  action,  to  learn, 
if  we  can,  what  are  the  principles  of  law  in  regard  to  the 
evidence  appropriate  to  such  an  examination  as  this,  and, 
more  especially,  to  ascertain  if  the  proposition  of  my 
learned  friend,  Mr.  Evarts,  is  to  be  supported  by  the  in- 
struction of  your  Honor  to  the  jury.  I  understand  him 
to  say,  Sir,  ttiat  in  a  case  of  this  character  it  is  im- 
possible for  a  court  or  a  jury  to  convict— and  I  use  that 
term  with  the  idea  of  a  criminal  offense— upon  the  mere 
confession  of  the  accused  party.  We  have,  if  the  proof 
is  to  be  credited,  the  confession  of  both  of  them— I  have 
already  said  to  your  Honor  that  I  claim  no  force  for  the 
confession  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  except  so  far  as  it 
has  been  ratified,  authenticated,  acknowledged  by  the 
action  of  Mr.  Beecher  when  communicated  to  him ;  but 
for  the  confession  of  Mr.  Beecher  I  claim  its 
full  capacity,  without  any  other  proof,  without 
any  evidence  of  connecting  circumstances  —  its 
full  capacity,  to  justify  a  verdict  in  a  case  of  this  char- 
acter ;  and  I  ask  yom'  Honor's  attention,  in  the  first 
place,  to  the  case  of  Harris  agt.  Harris.  2  Haggard,  pago 
410,  and  I  draw  attention  merely  to  the  syllabus  of  the 
case  as  stating  the  principle  adjudicated  in  his  decision  : 

When  a  wife  is  charged  with  adultery,  her  conduct  and 
declarations  on  a  confession  of  guilt  by  the  alleged  j)arti- 
ceps  criminis  being  coram unicn  ted  to  her  are  admissible 
evidence  on  behalf  of  the  defendant. 

Well,  your  Honor  has  already  ruled  that ;  but  I  thought 
it,  perhaps,  desirable  to  furnish  an  authority  to  show  that 
in  the  Consistory  Courts  of  England  a  confession  of  an 
alleged  paramour  communicated  to  the  other,  and  ad- 
mitted by  that  other,  either  by  conduct  or  declarations, 


SUMMiya    UP  BY  MR.  BEACH. 


905 


was  competent  evidence  upon  which  even  a  decree  of 
divorce  could  be  pronounced. 

I  also  call  youi-  Htxior's  attention  to  the  case  of  Mortimer 
agt.  Mortimer,  in  the  same  volume,  2  Haggard,  page  310. 
It  is  sometimes  difacult,  Sir,  to  find  these  references,  be- 
cause the  Ecclesiastieal  and  Consistory  Reports  are  in 
different  volumes  and  partially  in  the  same  volume.  His 
Honor,  Sir  William  Scott,  in  speaking  upon  the  subject  of 
confessions  says : 

Now,  I  need  not  observe  that  confession  generally 
ranks  high,  or  I  should  say  highest  in  the  scale  of  evi- 
dence. What  is  taken  pro  confesso  is  taken  as  indubitable 
truth.  The  plea  of  guilt  by  the  party  accused  shuts  out 
all  further  inquiry.  Hdbemus  tonfitentem  reton  is  dem- 
onsu-ation  Tinless  direct  mo  lives  can  be  assigned  to  it. 
This  confessioQ,  however,  does  not  admit,  either  in  its 
own  immediate  circumstances  or  in  any  conduct  of  the 
party,  the  possibility  of  any  such  motives.  It  is  wrung 
from  her  by  the  strong  emotions  of  her  own  mind  in 
articulo  mortis,  at  a  moment  when  her  declaration,  made 
even  against  others,  much  more  against  herself,  would 
be  received  upon  the  footing  of  sworn  testimony.  It  is 
ma4e  to  the  party  injured  for  the  exoneration  of  a  loaded 
conscience.  It  is  confli-med,  at  her  own  desire,  by  the 
mosr  solemn  act  of  her  religion.  It  is  repeated,  some 
time  afterward,  to  another  person  interested  in  know- 
ing it,  and  with  a  reference  to  circumstances  within  the 
knowledge  of  that  person  which  had  occurred  on  Ithe 
very  day  to  which  the  confession  carried  back  the  crim- 
inal act. 

I  read  this  for  the  purpose  of  fairly  presenting  to  your 
Honor  the  solemnity  which  attended  the  confession  in 
this  case. 

Two  objections,  however,  are  taken  ;  first,  that  confes- 
sions alone  will  not  support  a  charge  of  adultery,  though 
they  would  support  charges  of  the  highest  nature,  such 
as  treason,  murder,  <fcc.;  and  it  is  certainly  true  that 
such  is  the  letter  of  the  canon  which  guides  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  court,  and  such  is  the  interpretation  which  it 
has  received.  The  more  rational  doctrine  is  that  contes- 
sion,  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  to  be  per- 
fectly free  from  all  suspicion  of  a  collusive  purpose, 
might  be  sufficient  to  found  a  prayer  for  mere  separa- 
tion a  mensa  et  thoro,  though  not  pro  dirimendo  matri- 
monii vinculo,  so  as  to  enable  a  party  to  fly  to  other  con- 
nections. The  distinction  is  the  more  rational  here  ;  for 
it  certainly  would  be  a  pretty  harsh  injunction  of  law  to 
compel  a  man,  whether  he  would  or  no,  to 
live  with  a  wife  who  had  acknowledged  her 
infidelity  to  his  bed.  And  so  the  ancient 
canon  law  appears  to  have  considered  it, 
by  re<iognizing  a  difference  of  rule  in  the  two  different 
eases  of  absolute  divorce,  and  of  mere  separation.  Such, 
likewise,  is  the  distinction  taken  in  the  more  ancient 
canon  in  this  country.  But  the  canon  now  established, 
and  as  enforced  by  interpretations  too  literal  and  too 
numerous  to  be  shaken  at  this  time  of  day  by  any  con- 
siderations of  hardship  (however  justly  urged)  certainly 
has  overlooked  the  distinction,  and  applied  the  rule  in- 
discriminately to  both  cases;  though  Oughton  (an 
authority  of  no  mean  consideration,  in  matters  of  prac- 
tice, in  this  court)  very  reluctantly,  if  at  all,  submits  to 
the  consideration ;  and  appears  to  hold  out,  that  if  the 
court,  after  all  circumspection  used,  is  satisfied  of  the 
Bincerity  of  the  confession,  it  ought  to  rest  upon  it  as 
proof.   In  the  present  case  the  sincerity  can  be  no  matter 


of  question.  No  motive  of  a  desire  advol<ire  ad  altera* 
nuptias  can  be  sti3i>ecte<i.  She  resists  a  separation  at  the 
very  time ;  and  what  is  she  now  attempting  but  to  re- 
establish her  rights  in  this  very  marriage  ?  However,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  pursue  the  matter  further  upon  this 
objection ;  for  the  party,  in  this  case,  does  not  rest  his 
demand  upon  a  confession  alone. 

Xow,  your  Honor  will  perceive  that  tinder  the  rules  of 
the  canon  law  established  for  the  government  of  the 
courts  of  England  in  matters  of  this  character,  confes- 
t  sion  alone,  according  at  least  to  the  early  canons  and 
their  construction,  would  not  justify  an  absolute  divorce 
unless  accompanied  by  circumstances  of  more  or  less 
degree  of  inculpation.  But  even  in  England,  in  the  prac- 
tice of  the  court  it  appears,  I  think,  by  the  intimation  of 
this  opinion,  it  is  the  more  modern  rule  to  disregard  that 
"iianon,  and  where  it  appears  that  the  confession  is  with- 
:jut  any  collusion  between  the  parties,  free  from  all  sus- 
picion of  fraud  or  contrivance,  for  the  court  to  rely  upon 
confession  alone,  as  I  will  show  your  Honor  more  fully. 

In  the  case  of  Burgess  agt.  Burgess,  in  '2d  Haggard's 
Consistory  Reports,  529,  the  same  Judge,  Sir  William 
Scott,  after  commenting  upon  the  evidence,  says : 

In  considering  the  legal  effect  of  this  evidence  I  must 
proceed  on  the  established  doctrine  of  this  Court,  as  it 
has  been  laid  down  in  various  cases ;  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  prove  the  fact  of  adultery  at  any  certain  time  or 
place,  modo  et  forma,  loco  et  tempore.  It  will  be  suflicient. 
if  the  Coiut  can  infer  that  conclusion,  as  it  has  often 
done  between  persons  liviBg  in  the  same  house,  thoush 
not  seen  in  the  same  bed,  or  in  any  equivocal  situation. 

I  may,  perhaps,  properly  remark  here  that  Mr.  Evarts 
has  endeavored  to  apply  to  this  case  the  rule  regulating 
the  force  and  power  of  circumstantial  evidence  as  de- 
monstrated and  applied  in  criminal  cases.  I  sul>mit  to 
your  Honor  that  it  is  an  error.  He  insists  tliat  where 
ctrctmistances  of  suspicion,  containing  a  possible  impii- 
cation  of  guilt,  do  not  necessarily  lead  to  that  result,  if 
they  may  be  answered  upon  the  hypothesis  of  innocence, 
why,  then,  they  are  of  no  effect.  Such  is  not  the  rule  ap- 
plied, as  your  Honor  will  perceive,  I  think,  in  the  divorce 
court : 

It  will  be  sufiicient  if  the  Court  can  infer  that  conclu- 
sion, as  it  has  often  done  between  persons  living  in  the 
same  house,  though  not  seen  in  the  same  bed  or  in 
any  equivocal  situation.  To  prevent,  however,  the  possi- 
bility of  being  misled  by  equivocal  appearances,  the 
Court  will  always  travel  to  this  conclusion  with  e^'ery 
necessary  caution  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  will  be 
careful  not  to  suffer  the  object  of  the  law  to  be  eluded  by 
any  combining  of  parties  to  keep  without  the  reach  of 
direct  and  positive  proof.  If,  then,  pn)of  of  a  specific 
act  is  not  necessary,  it  is  equally  unnecessary  that  a  con- 
fession, if  confession  there  be,  should  apply  to  a  par. 
ticular  time  and  place.  The  confi^ssion,  if  general,  will 
apply  to  all  times  and  places  at  which  it^mighc  appear 
probable  in  proof  that  the  fact  might  have  taken  place. 
Another  principle  is  equally  clear,  that  confession 
alone  cannot  be  received— so  says  the  canon  (Canon 
105) — for  without  this  restriction  there  would  be  no 
check  upon  the  collusion  and  imposition  that  might  be 
practiced  upon  tiic  CourD.  Here,  however,  there  is  no 
suck  danger.  The  suit  commenced  in  the  first  instance 


906 


THE   TlLTOli'-BEEGEEE  TEIAL. 


for  a  restitution  of  coiilugal  rights,  and  the  confessions 
are  strongly  opposed  to  sucli  a  clause.  They  appear 
confessions  rung  from  a  heart  against  its  inclination,  and 
though  I  will  not  say  that  the3-  are  not  within  the  gen- 
eral rale,  they  do  not  fall  within  the  particular  scope 
of  it.  Under  this  observation  I  shall  proceed  to  consider 
the  evidence  as  to  adultery. 

Now,  your  Honor  will  peiceive  that  the  rule  of  the 
canon  excluding  confessions  is  sufficient  us  it  was  deter- 
mined, to  justify  a  decree  as  loiinded  upon  the  suspicion 
of  a  possible  connivance,  collusion,  as  between  husband 
and  wife,  and  that  where  the  reason  of  the  rule  does  not 
apply  the  Court  with  some  hesitation  intimate  that  the 
rule  itseli  would  not  give  the  degree  of  credibility  and 
force  which  the  Court  would  eA.iend  to  a  confession ;  and 
you  will  see,  1  think.  Sir,  how  the  teudenc}'  of  the  courts 
has  progressed  in  that  direction. 

I  refer  also  to  the  case  oi  Billings  agt.  Billings,  in  11 
Pickering,  401.    'ihe  syllabus  of  the  case  is : 

A  divorce  a  vinculo  for  the  ^ause  of  adultery  was  de- 
creed where  the  only  evidence  of  the  crime  was  the  con- 
fession of  the  guilty  party,  there  being  no  reason  to  sus- 
pect collusion. 

Martin,  J.,  before  whom  the  trial  tbok  place,  said  he 
had  advised  with  the  otherjudgesonthe  question  whether 
the  libellee's  confessions  of  adultery  were  alone  sufficient 
to  authorize  the  decree  of  divorce,  and  then  i>roceeds  to 
eay : 

That  the  reason,  for  relinquishing  other  evidence  is  in 
general  to  prevent  collusion;  that  the  circumstances 
here  proved  by  other  evidence  than  the  confessions 
showed  that  there  could  be  no  collusion ;  and  that  all  the 
Court  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  proof  or  the  adultery 
was  suffi.cient. 

I  refer  your  Honor  also  and  my  friends  to  the  case  of 
Lovedon  agt.  Lovedon,  2d  Haggard,  page  1.  But,  Sir, 
I  have  not  the  particular  paragraph  marked  to  which  I 
wish  to  draw  your  Honor's  attention,  and  I  must,  there- 
fore, ormit  it. 

I  read,  Sir,  from  the  case  of  Bramwell  agt.  Bramwell, 
in  3d  Haggard,  page  G18,  a  short  paragraph,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  that  where  an  attachment  exists— 
properly  called,  I  suppose,  a  criminal  attachment,  where 
it  exists  between  parties  who  have  no  right  to  indulge  it 
—where  an  attachment  exists,  and  there  are  clear  and 
frequent  opportunities  for  its  gratification,  that  the 
Court  will,  from  those  circumstances  alone,  infer  tliat 
the  desired  appetite  has  been  indulged. 

It  is  then  in  evidence  that  not  merely  was  there  a  crim- 
inal attachment,  but  also  that  this  attachment  Avas  not 
rejected.  That  JeflVy  admitted  his  familiarity— received 
his  correspondence— that  opportunities  were  constant; 
and  there  is  nothing  to  show  on  her  part  resistance  nor 
repudiation,  nor  that  she  at  all  discountenanced  his  pas- 
Bion.  To  doubt  from  such  circumstances  that  the  con- 
summation followed  would  be  to  presume  that  effect  was 
not  consequent  on  the  natuval  cause,  and  that  this  was  a 
case  of  extraordinary  exception  and  siugular  innocence 
[approav  hing  very  near  Mr.  E  vart  s's  idea  of  a  mLracle] ; 
nut  the  safer  rule  is  to  come  to  a  decision  in  unison  with 


the  rest  of  the  evidence,  and  I  can  entertain  no  reason- 
able doubt  that  adultery  had  been  committed. 

I  refer  now.  Sir,  to  the  case  of  Burgess  agt.  Burgess,  in 
2d  Haggard,  page  534  : 

With  reference  to  the  confessions,  they  hare  been  de- 
scribed as  if  it  was  common  for  pei'sons  circunistniK  ed  as 
Mrs.  Burgess  was  to  run  from  one  extreme  to  anothf^r  ; 
that  after  strongly  denying  guilt  at  one  time,  yec  atiev- 
ward,  feeling  conscious  of  some  little  improprieties,  they, 
in  an  agony  of  repentance,  would  confess  more  than  was 
true.  This  is  a  hypothesis  to  which  the  Court  cannot 
accede,  as  being  contrary  to  its  own  experience  (not  per- 
sonal experience]  which  has  generally  found  persons 
l»rone  to  extenuate  their  faults,  and  willing,  alwaj-s,  to 
take  a  lesser  rather  than  a  greater  share  of  guilt  tban 
might  be  due  to  them.  Again,  it  has  been  said  that  the 
confessions  were  made  under  promises  of  forgiveness, 
and  in  the  hope  of  inducing  Mr.  Burgess,  bv  her  repent- 
ance, to  receive  her  again  ;  but  of  this  there  is  no  proof 
whatever,  for,  though  the  husband  continued  to  live  with 
her  till  the  7th  of  January,  it  was  not  till  that  time  that 
he  had  proof  of  her  actual  guilt,  when  he  ha'd  her  confes- 
sion and  that  of  Mr.  Lane;  and  a  man  cannot  act  on  mere 
suspicion  as  he  would  on  full  proof,  &c. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  Mr.  Beach]— We  will  hear  you  further 
after  the  intermission. 

Mr.  Beach— Very  well.  Sir ;  I  will  endeavor  to  get  these 
authorities  in  a  little  better  shape  by  that  time. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 

THE  AFTERXOON  SESSION. 
The  Coiirfc  met  at  2,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  but  one  other  authority.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— The  counsel  are  not  in.  There  is  a  case 
in  Barbour  upon  the  question  of  admissions  in  a  divorce 
case.   Have  you  got  that  1 

Mr.  Beach— No,  I  have  not,  Sir. 

Judge  Neil.«on— It  was  cited  before  me  in  a  case  here 
with  some  effect,  some  time  ago.  |To  the  Clerk. J  Send 
an  officer  over  to  Judge  Troy  with  a  request  that  he 
.  furnish  that  case  ;  a  divorce  case  which  he  had  before  me. 

[After  waiting  several  minutes  Mr.  Porter  arrived.] 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  very  glad  to  see  you  Judge  Porter. 
There  have  been  very  anxious  inquiries  about  you. 

Mr.  Porter— Judge  Fullerton  and  Mr.  Evarts  are  com- 
ing. 

Judge  Neilson— Proceed,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach — I  shall  present  to  your  Honor  but  one  other 
authority  designed  to  counteract  the  idea  of  Mr.  Evarts 
that  the  circumstances  must  be  incapable  of  any  other 
construction  than  of  guilt ;  unsusceptible  of  any  other 
hypothesis  to  justify  conviction  upon  them.  It  is  con- 
tained in  the  case  of  Day  agt.  D.;y,  in  the  3d  of  Green, 
New-Jersey  Equity  Reports.  Quoting  from  the  case  of 
Williams  agt.  Williams,  in  the  Ist  of  Haggard,  Consistory 
Reports. 

In  Williams  agt..  Williams,  Lord  Stowell  said,  "  It  is  a 
fundamental  rule  of  evidence  on  this  subject  that  it  i-  not 
uf  cessary  to  prove  the  direct  f.ict  of  aduUery,  bee.iuse  if 


SUMMIXG    UP  . 

It  'vere  oThervrise,  there  is  not  one  case  in  -.r  liur.ireu 
where  tb.it  case  would  be  attainaliie."' 

Judge  Neilson— Thxit  appears  in  Greenleaf  i 

Mr.  Eeaeh— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Xeilson— The  only  objection  I  see  to  that  is  that 
It  says  "not  one  casein  a  hundred."  It  looks  rather 
speculative. 

Mr.  Beach~[F.eading.] 

It  is  very  rarely  indeed  that  tlie  parties  are  surpri.sed 

in  the  direct  fact  of  adultery.  In  every  r-ase  almost  the 
fact  is  inr\^r;  ed  from  circumstances  that  lead  to  it  hy 
fair  inference,  as  a  necessary  conclu>;ion,  tmd  unless  this 
were  so  held,  no  protection  wliatever  could  he  given  to 
marital  rights. 

The  only  general  rule  to  be  laid  down  is  tliat  the  clr- 
cumstauces  must  be  such  as  to  lead  th.e  guarded  discretion 
ol  u  reasonable  and  just  man  to  the  conclusion  ;  for  it  is 
not  to  lead  a  rash,  iurcuiperare  judgment,  moving  upon 
appearances,  th.ar  are  equally  capable  of  two  interpreta- 
tions :  neither  is  it  to  oe  a  matter  of  artiJiciai  reasoning, 
judging  uiton  such  things  diUerently  from  wbat  would 
strii:e  the  carefvd  and  cautious  consideration  of  a  discreet 
man. 

Xow,  these  are  th.e  rules,  Sii",  which,  arc  establislied 
with  reference  to  action  for  divorce,  directly  affecting 
the  matrimonial  relation  and  disturbing  the  policy  of  tlie 
government  in  the  protection  of  the  family  and  the  home. 
But  what  application.  Sir,  have  they  to  a  case  of  tJiis 
character  I  This  is  a  civil,  private  action  between 
strangers  in  the  law,  to  recover  for  an  alleged  wrong 
against  this  def-udant ;  and  what  is  there  in  the  nature 
of  the  action,  in  its  possible  relation  to  or  effect  upon  the 
family  relation,  that  can  at  all  chauire  the  rules  of  evi- 
dence ordinarily  applicable  to  action?  between  parties? 

I  have  had  occasion  to  sav,  Sir.  in  the  course  of  in- 
terlocutory discussions,  that  the  interests  of  Mrs.  Til- 
ton  are  not  in  a  legal  sense  in  any  degrca  involved  in 
this  action.  She  is  not  a  pai'ty  to  it.  Her  status  is  not 
changed.  Wliatever  judsrmeur  inav  be  reuderecl  in  this 
case  her  rights  and  her  interests  are  not  at  all  implicated 
by  it.  She  is  an  independent  party,  and  whenever  she 
shall  have  occasion,  or  whenever  any  occasion  shall 
arise,  where  her  rights  or  interests  are  involved,  the  de- 
termination of  this  action  will  have  no  effect  as  an 
estoppel,  or  any  other  sense,  upon  the  litigation  which 
may  ensue.  Very  great  effort  has  been  made.  Sir.  by 
the  counsel,  Mr.  Evarts,  to  attach  to  this  trial  and  action 
the  significance  of  an  assault  upon  the  matrimonial  re- 
lation of  these  parties,  and  upon  the  public  policy  which 
has  been  so  freiiuently  alluded  to.  But  I  submit  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  your  Honor  to  instruct  this  jury,  as  I 
think  you  have  repeatedly  in  the  course  of  this  trial,  that 
that  view  of  the  case  is  tmsound  and  erroneous,  and 
tnis  jirry,  if  they  shall  be  diverted  by  the  force  of  the 
appeal  which  has  been  so  repeatedly  and  urgently  made 
to  them,  founded  ui>on  that  idea,  would  depart  from 
those  principles  of  evidence  and  those  rules  of  policy 
which  should  govern  thetr  deliberations  and  verdict. 


3Y  MB.   BEACH.  907 

I  THE   EEAL   ISSUE  DEFINED. 

I  And  now,  gentlemen,  what  is  the  issue  in 
this  case?  From  intimations  that  Lave  from  time  to 
time  proceeded  from  our  adversaries  we  might  suppose 
there  was  a  great  variety  of  propositions.  Mr.  Tracy  tells 
us  that  Mrs.  Tilton  is  the  true  party  defendant  here. 
Gentlemen  all  tell  us  that  this  is  an  assault  by  Theodore 
Triton  upon  his  wife.  Sometimes  they  have  told  us  that 
this  action  is  mercenary,  that  Theodore  Tilton  is  seeking 
enrichment  from  the  gold  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  ;  and 
sometimes  they  tell  us  it  is  the  mere  reckless  indulgence 
of  vindictive  sentiments  toward  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 
Then  they  tell  us  that  Theodore  Tiiton  is  simk  into  an 
abyss  of  infamy,  as  represented  by  Mr.  Tracy,  and  is 
endeavoring  to  pull  this  angel.  Mr.  Beecher,  down,  that 
he  may  reinstate  himself  upon  his  ruin.  And  all  these 
various  motives  are  assigned  to  this  a<'tlon  by  the  counsel 
upon  the  other  side  ;  and  after  all  it  is  a  simple  action  by 
a  husband,  alleging  himself  to  have  been  wronged  in  his 
dearest  relations,  against  the  suspected  wrong  doer,  to 
seciu"e  an  adjudication  of  his  rights  and  to  punish  the 
offender  against  the  law  of  virtue.  The  idea  that  we 
are  seeking  money  has  been  disposed  of  long  ago. 
With  what  voluljUity  and  force  my  friend  ]Mr.  Evarts 
opened  upon  that  topic  you  remember ;  and  yet,  as  I  said 
before,  his  Honor  knows,  and  my  friends  upon  the  de- 
fense know,  that  we  have  again  and  again  waived  any 
claim  to  dam ".re^  in  this  case,  and  I  repeat  again  that 
Theodore  Tilton  disdains  the  id?a  of  toviching  the  gold  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Again  and  again  has  that  senti- 
ment been  uttered  by  him,  and  it  is  proven  from  the  tes- 
timony that  the  only  object  of  this  action  was  to  obtain 
that  fair  tiial,  that  decent  and  impartial  hearing  which 
was  refused  him  before  the  chosen  tribunal  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher.  We  ask  no  judgment  for  money,  except 
merely  nominally.  We  ask  no  judgment  against  our 
wife,  and  no  judgment  you  can  give  ^viii  affect  her.  We 

1  arepm-suing  Henry  Ward  Eeecher.  We  are  pursuing 
him  because  he  is  a  wrongdoer,  and  has  been  faithless  to 
his  pledges  and  the  confidence  we  have  reposed  in  him. 
We  pursue  him  because  he,  in  the  recklessness  of  his 
power  and  his  exjjcctation  to  crush  all  adversa- 
ries in  this  contest— he  has  exposed  Tilrt)n 
and  his  relations  to  public  disgrace  and 
infamy.  This  action  never  was  brought,  more  tlian  all 
it  was  never  brought  to  trial,  until  the  ruin  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  wrought  had  fallen  upon  Tilton  and  his  house- 
hold. There  was  no  further  disgrace— the  ultimate  deg- 
radation had  been  reached;  and  in  this  condition  of 
extremity,  -with  no  hope  of  extrication,  with  no  relief 
except  a  pursuit  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  we  have  fol- 
lowed, although  we  knew  that  the  condition  of  our  wife 
and  family  wovQd  become  a  subject  of  public  specu- 
lation. 

The  chaige  is  seduction ;  and  what  is  the  answer  ?  Cton- 
spiraoy,  blackmail,  perfect  innocence  on  the  part  of 


THE   T1LT0N'BEE(]RER  TRIAL. 


Henry  Ward  Beeclier,  aud  a  coml)iiiatiou  entered  into  bc- 
tvv'.  '11  the  apparently  respectable  people,  people  oceu- 
pyiHg  positions  in  society  which  would  seem  to  protect 
them  from  such  a  suspicion ;  a  conspiracy  without  the 
least  shadow  of  foundation  (for  that  is  the  extent  of  the 
defense),  to  extort  money  from  Mr.  Beecher,  to  huild  up 
the  broken  fortunes  and  fame  of  Theodore  Tilton  upon 
his  prostration  and  ruin,  and  all  for  the  benefit  of  this  one 
man,  Theodore  Tilton.  Now,  gentlemen,  upon  your  con- 
sciences as  jurors,  and  honor  as  men,  you  are  to  examine 
this  idea  of  a  conspiracy,  and  see  upon  what  it  is 
founded,  and  how  it  may  be  supported  or  resisted  by  the 
probabilities  or  proof  in  the  case ;  and  in  your  examina- 
tion the  first  step  you  take  in  this  direction  you 
confront  the  figure  of  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton, 
Elizabeth  K.  Tilton  as  she  is  represented  to 
be,  as  she  is  sworn  to  be  by  botb  the  parties  to  tliis  ac- 
tion, and  most  emphatically  and  feelingly  by  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  himself,  and  you  are  to  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  in  December  or  July,  1870,  lov- 
ing Hemy  Ward  Beecher  as  she  confessed  that  she  did, 
as  Beecher  swears  he  believes  she  did ;  Elizabeth  R.  Til- 
ton, proving  her  devotion  to  Beeclier  by  her  present  po- 
sition, adhering  to  him  when  the  final  struggle  between 
husband  and  lover  came,  and  with  scandalous  impudence 
appearing  in  a  couit  of  justice  upon  this  trial  to  give  her 
countenance  to  her  seducer — Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  is  tbe 
first  and  principal  figure  in  this  conspiracy ;  and  with 
these  feelings  and  these  devotions  you  are  asked  to 
believe  that  she  has  certified  to  a  falsehood,  confessed  to 
a  lie,  against  aU  the  impulses  of  her  nature  and  against 
all  the  emotions  of  her  heart,  and  you  are  to  adopt  this 
incredible  theory  that  a  wife  and  a  mother— I  do  not  care 
how  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  may  be  regarded,  whether  as 
a  saint,  pure  as  an  angel,  white  as  the  snow, 
though  fallen  like  the  snow,  or  whether  you  regard  her 
in  a  dishonorable  character  and  relation,  yet  the  idea 
that  she,  a  wife  and  a  mother,  at  the  mere  bidding  of  her 
liusband,  should  conspire  with  him  to  confess  to  a  lie 
against  the  most  prominent  man  in  the  commu.nlty,  and 
he  a  pastor,  her  pastor,  is  one  of  those  unnatui-al  and  in- 
credible propositions  that  are  at  once  rejected  by  com- 
mon intelligence.  Why,  in  the  name  of  all  that  belongs 
to  womanhood,  to  motherhood,  to  parentage,  in  the  name 
of  all  that  is  decent  In  oui-  conceptions  of  each  other, 
and  of  the  female  character,  how  is  it  possible  that  this 
woman,  under  these  or  any  circumstances,  would  com- 
bine to  allege  her  own  shame,  to  confess  to  her  own  in- 
famy, to  the  dishonor  and  blight  of  her  children,  for  any 
of  the  purposes  assigned  to  this  alleged  conspiracy 'J 
Upon  that  alone,  if  there  were  no  other  consideration 
connected  with  that  question — upon  that  alone,  the  im- 
propriety, the  incredibility  that  Mrs.  Tilton  would  make 
herself  a  consenting  party  to  such  a  conspiracy,  for  the 
objects  alleged,  is  so  at  war  with  all  the  instincts  of  ov.v 
ttJature,  and  with  all  the  probabilities  of  Imman  aotioii, 


that  no  just  and  intelligsni  man  can  accept  it  as  a  poasi. 
ble  theory, 

THE  CHARGE  OF  CONSPIEACY. 

Well,  you  may  think  Theodore  Tilton  base, 
debauched,  and  degraded,  if  you  please  ;  but  he  was  a 
husband,  he  was  a  father,  and  I  thinli  I  may  assume  that 
the  demonstrations  of  his  character  made  in  this  court- 
room repel  the  idea  that  he  was  essentially  corrupted, 
unprincipled,  that  he  was  base  enough,  however  low  in 
his  degradation  of  circumstance  or  of  character — that ' 
he  was  base  enough  to  descend  to  the  infamy  of  con- 
ceiving and  carrying  on  such  a  conspiracy  against 
his  own  honor,  and  family  peace,  family  hope,  family 
future,  and  asserting  the  infamy  of  his  wife,  as  the  means 
of  replenislilng  his  fallen  fortunes  or  restoring  his  lost 
position.  Because,  remember,  gentlemen,  that  at  the 
time  when  this  conspiracy  is  alleged  to  have  originated 
and  culminated,  when  the  first  decisive  step  was  taken 
by  these  supposed  conspirators,  in  what  condition  was 
Theodore  Tilton  1  Tracy  says  the  conspiracy  originated 
on  the  26tli  of  December.  Certainly  it  did  before  the  30th 
of  December,  or  before  the  29th  of  December.  Why,  Mr. 
Tilton  then  was  honored  as  a  citizen.  He  had  then  not 
been  displaced  by  Mr.  Bow  en.  He  was  editor  of  The 
Union,  special  contributor  to  The  Independent,  with  his 
salary  of  $10,000  or  $15,000  a  year,  in  prosperous  cir- 
cumstances, no  fall,  no  degradation,  not  till  after  the  pe- 
riod when  they  say  this  conspiracy  originated  and  must 
have  originated,  if  it  ever  existed.  Well,  what  was 
there  to  tempt  this  gentleman  under  those  circumstances  1 
Money  1  He  wanted  none.  He  was  living  in  compara- 
tive luxury  upon  the  resources  of  his  intellectual  labor. 
Fame  1  He  wanted  none.  He  was  famous,  still  famous, 
holding  the  elevated  positions  which  he  had  acciuired  by 
his  own  merit  and  desert,  standing  as  a  lecturer,  as  an 
orator,  as  a  literateur  above — as  my  friends  admit— above 
the  ordiaary  rank  even  of  the  aspiring  minds  of  that  day. 
What  was  there  then  to  tempt  him  on  the  26th  or  the 
29th  of  December,  to  get  this  false  written  charge  from 
his  wife  ?  Least  of  all,  what  was  there  to  tempt  him  and 
her  in  the  month  of  July  previous,  six  months  before  her 
written  accusation— what  was  there  to  tempt  these  people 
then,  she  to  make  and  he  to  receive  this  confession,  an 
as  the  necessity  arose,  to  private  and  confidential  f  lien 
each  of  them  making  communication  of  the  fact  th 
that  confession  Sad  been  given,  and  that  the  adulter 
had  been  committed  ?  Why,  how  perfectly  senseless  it  is 
gentlemen,  how  perfectly  inconsistent  with  all  oi 
known  rules  and  motives  to  human  action.  But,  the 
Mr.  Moulton  is  a  party  to  this  conspiracy.  Nay, 
Tracy  contends  that  he  is  the  organizer,  the  exeoutiv 
and  administx-ative  power  that  carried  on  this  oo" 
t;piracy. 

And  >rliat  iiKcrcst  had  Moultou  in  it  1    What  motive 

L  .  :  '(.,■>:  -li   o.ispir-)  %   For  tiireo  years,  four  years  nearly 


SUMMING    UF   BY  MR.  BEACH. 


909 


flnbsequent  to  Decern  oet,  1370,  tMs  man  labored  for  tlie 
suppression  of  tliia  scandal.  There  is  no  denying  it ;  it 
appears  in  the  reports  ;  it  la  proven  by  the  evidence  of 
Mr.  Beecher  and  aU  the  proof  in  the  case.  Well,  in  De- 
cember, 1870,  when  this  conspiracy  is  charged  to  have 
originated,  what  motive  had  Moulton  then  to  enter  into 
such  a  league  agamst  the  friends  who  were  afterward 
sustained  with  fidelity  and  honor  1  Ah  !  Mr.  Moulton 
had  not  then  been  charged  as  a  blackmailer  ;  not  then- 
even  according  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Beecher— not 
then  had  Mr.  Moulton  faltered  in  his  professions  of 
friendsjiip  and  services  toward  Henry  "Ward  Beecher. 
There  was  no  friend,  as  Henry  Ward  Beecher  again  and 
again  testitied,  so  true,  and  faithful,  and  self-sacrificing 
as  Moulton  ;  and  yet  if  you  sustain  this  idea  of  a  conspir- 
acy, you  must  find  that  in  December,  1870,  Moalton  de- 
liberately entered  into  this  conspiracy  of  wrong  and 
<;rune  as  against  Beecher. 

And,  gentlemen,  what  motive  had  Mrs.  Moulton  1  Her 
husband  then  had  fallen  mto  no  disrepute.  No  accusa- 
tion had  been  made  against  him.  There  was  nothing  to 
tempt  wifely  honor  and  wifely  truth  through  wifely  af- 
fection. She  w^as  not  called  upon  to  sustain  the  as- 
sailed virtue  or  honor  of  her  husband.  What  motive  was 
there  for  these  people  thus  to  abandon  all  the  principles 
of  their  education,  all  the  obligations  of  their  position, 
all  the  instincts  of  their  educated  and  cultivated,  nature, 
all  the  influence  which,  as  respectable  citizens  of  society, 
sirrround  them,  and  enter  into  an  utterly  baseless  and 
false  conspiracy  against  a  man  who  stood  high  and  lofty 
in  the  estimation  of  the  community,  and  proud  of  his 
commanding  influence  I  Why,  it  is  one  of  those  prepos- 
terous conceptions  into  which  the  necessity  of  desperate 
guilt  is  sometimes  driven.  And  what  says  the  law  upon 
this  question  of  motive  J 

Presumptions,  and  strong  ones,  are  continually  founded 
upon  knowledge  of  the  human  character,  and  of  the 
motives,  passions  and  feelings  hy  which  the  mind  is 
usually  influenced.  Experience  and  ohservation  show 
that  the  conduct  of  mankind  is  governed  by  general  laws, 
which  operate  under  similar  cii"cumstances,  with  about 
as  much  regularity  and  uniformity  as  the  mechanical 
laws  of  nature  themselves.  The  effect  of  particular 
motives  upon  human  conduct  is  the  subject  of  every 
man's  observation  and  experience  to  greater  or  less 
extent ;  and  in  proportion  to  his  attention,  means  of 
observation  and  acuteness,  every  one  becomes  a  judge  of 
the  human  character,  and  can  conjecture  on  the  one 
hand,  what  would  be  the  effect  and  influence  of  motives 
upon  any  individual  under  particular  circumstances, 
and  on  the  other  hand  is  able  to  presume  and  infer  the 
motive  by  which  an  agent  was  actuated  from  the  par- 
ticular course  of  conduct  which  he  adopted,  &c. 

Where  a  heinous  crime  has  been  committed,  as  for  in- 
stance murder  by  means  of  poison,  and  where  it  is  obvi- 
ous that  theft  was  not  the  ohject  of  the  guilty  party,  it 
is  essential  to  inquire  whether  the  accused  was  influenced 
by  any  motive  to  commit  such  an  offense.  The  absence 
of  ;iU  motive,  whether  of  avarice  or  revenge,  affords  us 
strong  presumption  of  innocence,  where  the  fact  is  in 
other  respects  doubtful,  becaaise  experience  of  human  na- 


ture shows  that  men  do  not  commit  mischief  wantonly 
and  gratuitously  without  any  prospect  of  advantage,  &c. 

Now,  find  for  me  a  motive  in  all  the  conditions  sur- 
rounding this  transaction  adequate  to  lead  even  the 
most  depraved  and  desperate  man  into  an  enterprise  so 
bold  and  audacious  as  this  conspiracy  would  have  been. 
Sometimes  in  the  history  of  human  nature  there  have  oc- 
cur»ed  circumstances  of  equal  seU-degredation  and  de- 
pravity as  such  a  condition  of  things  and  course  of  action 
upon  the  part  of  Mrs.  Tilton  and  her  adjunct  in  this  con- 
spiracy would  have  exhibited,  if  it  were  true; 
hut  it  is  only  where  a  long  course  of  debauchery  and  atn 
have  led  to  the  utter  and  complete  degradation  of  the 
party,  it  is  only  where  the  natural  instincts  and  impulses 
of  virtue  and  chastity  have  been  erased  by  the  vilest  de- 
bauchery and  the  longest  indulgence  that  ever  such  an 
example  occurs,  and  not  in  the  ranks  of  respectability  and 
culture.  And  consider  then,  gentlemen,  that  aU  these 
witnesses,  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  Mr.  Woodruff,  every  witness 
"Who  has  testitied  to  circumstances  and  conditions  of 
knowledge  and  concealment,  must  have  been  implicated 
in  this  conspii-acy.  And  this  conspiracy  does 
not  end  there.  Suppose  it  had  existed,  that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  been  squeezed  to  the  utmost 
power  of  these  conspirators,  and  at  last  he 
had  stood  up  in  defiance  and  resisted.  You 
are  then  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Tilton,  the  arch-conspirator, 
brings  his  action,  forces  a  trial,  and  that  he,  and  all  his 
co-conspirators  have  appeared  in  a  court  of  justice— and 
for  what?  What  is  the  object  to  be  attained]  What 
benefit  is  to  come  from  it  1  How  is  Moulton  to  be  ad- 
vantaged?—how  Mrs.  Moulton  to  be  benefited?  And  is 
it  possible  that  all  these  parties,  without  any  interest, 
without  any  adequate  object  to  be  reached,  have  not 
only  entered  upon  this  «onspiracy,  but  have  forced  it  into 
a  public  trial  where  they  must  necessarily  be  guilty  of 
deliberate  and  corrupt  perjury  ? 

And  this,  gentlemen,  is  the  violent  conclusion,  over- 
turning all  our  ideas  of  nature  and  right,  all  instincts  of 
purity  and  manhood,  regardless  of  those  motives  which 
usually  operate  upon  human  action ;  to  this  conclusion 
you  are  to  come  in  the  face  of  these  circumstances.  And 
you  find  these  conspirators,  for  nearly  four  years,  strug- 
gling with  every  ettbrt  to  suppress  all  allusion  and  agita- 
tion of  the  means,  the  instruments,  the  appliances  by 
which  they  enforce  the  object  of  their  consiiuacy,  and 
you  have  Mr.  Moulton,  the  principal  actor  in  the  pursuit 
of  this  conspiracy ;  you  have  him  telling  its  object,  Mr. 
Beecher,  not  to  be  afraid:  "Why,  you  can  stand  if 
everything  which  is  said  against  you  is  true."  Think 
of  it.  Moulton,  prominent  conspirator,  Beecher  the  ob- 
ject and  victim,  as  our  friends  sa^-;  this  charge  of 
adultery,  or  of  impure  proposals,  being  agitated 
at  every  moment ;  when  there  was  any  neces- 
sity to  benefit  Mi-.  Tilton,  Mr.  Moulton  going 
to  the  party  who  is  to  be  blackmailed  according  to  tiiia 


910 


TUB   TILTON-BEFJUHER  TRIAL.. 


theory,  and  saying  to  Mm,  "  Don't  be  afraid,  Mr.  Beecher ; 
you  can't  be  hurt.  Plymouth  Church  will  stand  by  you 
a,nd  uphold  you  if  all  the  facts  connected  with  this 
matter  are  disclosed.  True,  I  am  a  consi»irator ;  I  am  a 
conspirator  to  blackmail  you ;  I  am  a  conspirator  to  ruin 
you  for  the  elevation  of  Theodore  Tilton  ;  but  don't  be 
alarmed ;  nothing  can  hurt  you.  You  are  armed  with  the 
confidence  and  devotion  of  Plymouth  Church,  and  even 
If  you  should  go  and  confess  the  very  facts  which  are 
alleged  against  you  by  these  conspirators,  It  could  not 
hurt  you," 

How  perfectly  nonsensical  this  all  is,  gentlemen!  And 
for  whom — for  whom  was  this  to  be  done?  Why,  for 
Theodore  Tilton,  and  nobody  else.  Moulton  and  Mrs. 
Moulton,  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  all  peril  their  souls  by  a  false 
oath,  commit  a  crime  by  forming  a  conspiracy  for  the  sole 
object  of  helping  and  aiding  Theodore  Tilton  !  And  Mrs. 
Moulton,  who,  my  friends  say,  pronounced  Tilton  treach- 
erous, faithless,  a  villain,  she  enters  into  the  conspiracy 
and  sacrifices  herself  for  the  same  object.  It  is  possible 
that  there  may  be  minds  so  prejudiced  and  corrupted  by 
that  prejudice  that  they  can  believe  momentarily  in  the 
idea  that  a  conspiracy  of  this  natiu-e  was  formed,  and 
that  the  present  condition  of  things  is  the  result  of  it. 
But  I  can  hardly  conceive,  under  the  evidence  in  this 
case,  that  there  can  be  any  such  intellectual  blindness. 

THE  DIRECT  CHARGE  OF  BLACKMAIL. 

Why,  one  fact,  gentlemen,  is  disclosed  by 
the  evidence  of  Mr.  Beecher  himself — if  these  men  were 
blackmailing  Mr.  Beecher,  when  Tilton  was  in  such  dis- 
tressed circumstances;  when  Moulton  represented  to  him 
the  existence  of  the  mortgage  upon  Tilton's  house  and 
the  idea  that  his  friends  should  raise  it,  Mr.  Beecher  at 
once  cheerfully  and  readily  offered  to  contribute.  The 
contribution  never  was  sought.  If  there  was  any  mer- 
cenary object  on  the  part  of  Tilton  or  Moulton,  or  any- 
body else,  why  was  it,  when  there  w.is  an  opportunity 
t^-ndered  for  realizing  the  object  of  the  conspiracy— why 
did  they  not  avail  them  selves  at  once  of  it  %  But,  again, 
Mr.  Beecher  avers  that  he  became  suspicious  of  some 
form  or  movement  of  blackmail  by  an  appeal  to  his 
generosity  ana  kindly  impulses  after  the  $2,000  was 
paid.  Now,  if  there  was  any  idea  of  blackmail  about  it, 
it  then  occurred  to  Mr.  Beecher  as  he  swears,  and  yet, 
after  that,  he  contributed  the  $5,000  which  he  afterward 
gave,  and,  after  these  suspicions,  he  continued  Moulton, 
the  active,  practical  blackmailer,  in  his  confidence  and 
trust,  and  lavished  upon  him,  after  that  period,  all  the 
richness  of  hie  friendship  and  gratitude. 

What  has  struck  my  mind  as  the  most  decisive  circum- 
stance am  >ng  the  many  which  repudiate  utterly  this  idea 
of  blackmail  is  the  fact  that  Mr.  Beecher  testifies  that,  in 
Ms  belief,  at  the  time  Theodore  Tilton  made  the  accusa- 
tion against  him  he  did  on  vhe  30th  of  December,  that  he 
was  hones;  in  hie  belief  that  they  were  true.   It  was  with 


some  difficulty  that  Wv.  Beecher  was  brought  to  this 
avowal.  But,  when  he  was  pressed  by  the  searching 
questions  of  my  colleague,  and  brought  strictly  to  the 
issue,  whether  in  that  inte.-view  on  the  30th  of  Decem- 
ber he  believed  Theodore  T.lton  to  be  dishonest  or  hon- 
est, whether  he  believed  that  Theodore  Tilton  then 
trusted  in  the  truth  of  the  accusation  he  made  against 
him,  Beecher,  he  was  forced  to  admit  that  he  believed 
him  sincere.  Well,  if  that  is  so,  if  that  is  so,  why  it  is  ut- 
terly impossible  that  there  could  have  been 
any  conspiracy  originating  on  the  26th,  or  acting 
on  the  30th.  Now,  if  Tilton  believed  in  the  accusation  he 
made  on  the  30th  against  Beecher,  how  can  you,  or 
Beecher,  or  anybody  else  impute  to  Tilton  any  bad  faiths 
any  conspiracy,  any  design  to  extort  as  against  Mr. 
Beecher'}  The  two  things  are  utterly  irreconcilable. 
They  are  the  two  parts  of  a  contradiction  which  cannot 
be  imited.  And,  when  Mr.  Beecher  made  that  admission 
he  made  an  admission'  which  stamped  this  idea  of  con- 
spiracy and  blackmail  with  absurdity.  I  am  reminded 
that  not  only  did  Mr.  Beecher  make  this  offer  to  contrib- 
ute to  the  discharge  of  the  mortgage  upon  Mr.  Tilton's 
house,  but  when  it  was  not  accepted  he  reproached  Mr. 
Moulton  for  not  having  availed  himself  of  his  proffer.  On 
the  2d  of  May,  1874,  Theodore  Tilton  wrote  these  manly 
words  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  . 

The  Golden  Age,  May  2, 1874. 

Henr  y  Ward  Beecher— Sir  :  I  have  just  this  morning 
learned,  to  my  surprise  and  sorrow,  that  Mr.  F.  B.  Carpen- 
ter, whose  good-will  toward  both  you  and  me  is  unques- 
tionable, has  consulted  you  concerning  the  use  of  your 
money,  Influence,  and  good  oflSces  for  the  enlargement  of 
the  capital  of  The  Golden  Age.  ■  Sir.  Carpenter  mentions 
to  me  also  your  saying  to  him  that  imder  certain  condi- 
tions involving  certain  disavowals  by  me,  a  sum  of  money 
would,  or  could  be  raised,  to  send  me  with  my  family  to 
Europe  for  a  term  of  years. 

Of  course  you  need  no  assurance  that  such  an  applica- 
tion or  suggestion  is  wholly  unauthorized  by  me,  and  is 
inexpressibly  repugnant  to  my  feelings.  The  occasion 
compels  me  to  state  explicitly,  that  so  long  as  life  and 
self-respect  continue  to  exist  together  in  luy  breast,  I 
shall  be  debarred  from  receiving,  either  directly  or  in- 
directly, any  pecuniary  or  other  favor  at  your  hands. 
The  reason  tor  this  feeling  ou  my  part  you  know  so  weU 
that  I  spare  you  the  statement  of  it.   Truly  youi"s. 

The  )D0re  Tilton. 

And  the  man  thui^  writing,  thus  rcyecting  not  only 
pecuniary  aid,  but  any  favor  from  the  hands  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  is  still  insisted  upon  before  you  by  counsel,  and 
beforethe  world,  by  every  influence  and  species  of  en- 
ginery ^yhich  can  be  used  to  affect  public  sentiment,  as  a 
deliberate  conspirator,  blackmailer,  and  perjurer?  In 
May,  1874,  this  was  written.  If  he  sought  for  money,  if 
he  wanted  encouragement  and  aid  fi-om  the  strong  arm 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  then,  when  The  Golden  Age  was 
struggling  under  adversity  and  misfortune,  as  my  friends 
say;  if  he  was  oppressed  by  the  imblic  sentiment  of  the 
world ;  if  Theodore  Tilton  possessed  that  degraded  and 
infinitely    mean    spirit    attributed    to    him,   I  ask 


SUJLMIXG-    UP  , 

you,  Sir,  in  all  coafldence  and  honor,  %vhj- 
did  lie  -^rite  a  letter  like  tills  ?  Hott 
ean  you  account  for  it  ?  Conspirators  do  not,  very  often, 
where  there  is  a  proffer  of  the  very  object  at  which  they 
are  aiming,  when  it  is  within  their  grasp,  and  needs  only 
acceptance  to  be  secured— conspirators  are  not  very 
often  inclined  to  resiji-n  the  spoil.  "The  reason  for  this 
feeling  on  my  part  you  know  so  well  that  I  spare  you  the 
stateraent  of  it."  T\T.iat  answer  did  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
make  to  that  ]  TVhen  Xr.  Tilton  disclaimed  the  friendly 
efforts  of  Mr.  Carpenter  in  his  behalf,  efforts  upon 
another  occasion  and  in  another  direction  in  the  City  of 
Xew-York,  which  have  given  ray  learned  friends  an  occa- 
sion and  topic  fur  chariiing  further  blackmail— when  Mr. 
Tilri.n  rlin-  disclaimed  the  efforts  of  his  fi^iends,  and  re- 
jected aid  trom  Hc^iiry  Ward  Beecher,  he  implying  that 
there  were  circum.-tances  in  his  conduct,  .and  in  his 
treatment,  which  would  make  it  a  degradation  it^r  Theo- 
dore Tilt^n  TO  receive  any  favor  fi'om  his  hands— why,  if 
he  wu.-  iiiiji'eeiit  ;.ud  uuconseious  of  offen.-e,  was  he  silent  ] 
It  is  sworn  tu  by  Mr.  Moulton  in  detailing  a  conversa- 
tion 

TLarLp.  ^Ir.  Beecher,  >aid  he  hoped  TliL-odrire  would 
be  >ucce>-ful  in  the  enterprise  (that  was  The  Golden  Age). 
and  he  said  he  would  like  to  aid  if  he  could  in  estabiish- 
mg  the  paper,  and  I  told  Theodore  of  that,  and  Theudure 
said  to  me  lie  onuld  not  receive  any  aid  from  Mr.  Bet^cher 
in  e<Tablishui£r  the  paper  ;  and  so  I  told  Mr.  Beecher — I 
said  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  was  what  Mr.  Tilton  .-aid. 

But,  it  is  said  that  ZVIr.  Tilton  has  received  the  beneiit 
of -^o. 000— indeed  $7,000  from  3Ir.  Beecher.  Well,  gen- 
tlemen, if  anything  is  sure  ki  this  case,  if  we  ean  rely 
upon  human  evidence  at  all,  unless  we  are  to  assume 
that  Moulton  and  Tilton  are  thoroughly  corrupt  and  bas'^ 
and  that  nothing  can  he  trusted  that  they  aver,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  Mr.  Tilton  knew  nothinir  of  the 
source  from  which  this  money  came  be- 
yond Mr.  Moulton.  Moulton  swears  to  it ;  lilton 
swears  to  it ;  and  you  find  contirmati'jn  in  the 
testimony  of  WoodruJf  and  of  Tracy — 'N."hen  Aloulcon  was 
indignant  that  anything  should  be  said  in  regard  to  this 
money,  this  .$5,000,  from  whence  it  came  or  how  applied. 
Moulton  knew  that  Tilton  would  never  accept  it  had  he 
known  of  its  source.  He  contributed  it  to  Mr.  Tilton  as  a 
loan,  or  in  whatever  form  was  understood  "between  them. 
Mr.  Tilton  swears  to  an  indebtedness  of  six  or  seven 
thousand  dollars,  as  he  supposed.  But  these  gentlemen 
were  intimate  friends.  Xow,  there  is  in  the  minds  of 
some  the  sentiment,  and  it  has  been  expressed  by  my 
learned  friends,  that  Mr.  Moulton  was  availing  himself  of 
this  fund  furnished  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  gain  for  himself  a 
reputation  of  friendly  generosity  in  his  dealing  with  Mr. 
Tilton.  Well,  that  I  care  nothing  about.  It  is  not  im- 
portant for  me  to  defend  Mr.  Moulton  in  that  respect. 
You  will  believe  it  or  not.  It  is  enough  for  me  that,  by 
the  oath  of  these  two  gentlemen,  it  is  certainly  true  that 
Mr.  Tilton  had  no  idea  that  he  was  receiving  benefaction, 


3T'  MP.   BE  ACE.  911 

or  alms,  or  loans  from  Mr.  Beecher,  or  that  he  wag 
placing  himself  in  any  position  of  obligation  or  gratituda 
as  toward  him. 

Imagine,  gentlemen,   a  conspirax^y  between  men  as 
noted  and  as  strong,  M  you  please,  as  Theodore  TQton 
and  Francis  D.  Moulton— a  conspiracy  to  blackmail 
Henry  Ward  Beecher.   Imagine  that  first  movement  of 
aggression  against  Henry  Ward  Beecher  in  the  pursuit  of 
that  consx)iracy,  and  believe,  if  you  can  for  a  mom-nt, 
that  Hemy  Ward  Beecher  was  innocent.    How  would 
that  atrocious  accusation  against  him  have  been  met  \ 
Knowing  Henry  Ward  Beecher  as  you  do,  tracing  him  in 
all  his  history,  viewing  him  upon  those  great  occasions 
when  he  stood  up,  their  master  and  lord,  when  he  cowed 
an  angry  mob  ;  when  he  threw  all  the  power  of  his  uanie 
and  his  influence  iuto  the  troubles  of  Kansas,  and  blessed 
the  Sharpe  riflles  which  he  sent  there  ic  support  of  free- 
dom—read his  character  through  all  its  manifestations— 
what  would  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  if  innocent,  have  done 
when  the  charge  of  even  foul  approaches  by  him   as  a 
pastor  upon  his  jiure  and  innocent  parishioner  was  made? 
Would  he  have  cowed  and  trembled  like  a  guilty  cul- 
j  prit  ?     Would    he     have     begged     for  forgiveness 
I  and   charity  ?      Would    he    have  resorted    to  con- 
!  tinual      and      repeated      devices    to    suppress  the 
j  accusation?   Would  he  have  yielded  to  the  extortion  of 
I  a  conspiracy  ]    Oh.  no  !   He  would  have  tirrned  upon  his 
j  assailant  and  accuser  with  a  proud  disdain,  and  trampled 
1  the  accusation  in  the  dust.   The  fierce  scorn  of  his  brave 
and  nolde  nLiture  would  h-'ve  scorched  the  intriguer  and 
liar  who  dared  to  beard  him  in  the  loftiness  of  his  inno- 
cence and  position.   Do  you  doubt  it  ?   Is  it  such  men  as 
i  Henry  Ward  Bee('her,  surrounded  and  sustained  as  they 
j  are,  against  whom  the  united  power  of  a  community  can- 
I  not  stauil.  whose  resolute  and  proud  courageous  po.sition 
j  aAVp-^  xW  pulilic  mind,   and  restrains  or  prompts  to 
i  violence  at  its  will— is  that  the  man  to  cower  in  weakness 
.  and  slavering  idiocy  and  whimpering  disgrace  before  aix 
\  accusation  like  this  \   Xo  \   You  don't  believe  it.   It  Is 
contrary  to  our  notions  of  the  man,  it  is  contrary  to  our 
belief  in  the  real  dignity  and  bravery  of  his  nature.  And 
itisperfeetlyaniazing.it  Mr.  Beecher  was  innocent,  if 
these  accusations  were  made — it  is  perfectly  amazing 
that  this  man  should  go  on  fondling  and  fostering  the 
blackmailers  and  conspirators,  and  day  after  day  utter- 
i  ing  the  heartiest  and  noblest  tributes  to  their  character 
and  conduct. 

And  is  it  not  perceptible— do  not  our  friends  see  that 
when  they  charge  a  conspiracy  of  this  nature  for  the 
purpose  of  blackmail  that  they  confess  that  there  was  a 
foundation  upon  which  the  extortion  could  rest  ?  But 
there  is  a  new  theory  started.  When  ^Mr.  Beecher  by  his 
testimony  put  an  end  to  the  idea  of  blackmail- 1  do  not 
stop  to  read  it,  gentlemen— you  remember  how  he 
silenced  that  idea  entli-ely  by  ins  evidence ;  that  it  was 
Shearman  and  Tracy  who  were  struggling  to  hold  him  'ip 


912 


THE   TlLION-BJh]M<jaEB  TRIAL. 


to  the  idea  of  a  consp.iacy  whicli  never  entered  the  mind 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  until  these  astute  counsel  sug- 
gested it,  and  then  the  intrepid  honesty  of  the  man  could 
not  be  kept  in  the  false  position.  He  was  constantly 
f alhng  back  from  the  theory.  He  would  not  accept  it. 
His  own  conscience  told  him  it  was  untrue,  but  Tracy 
and  Shearman  would  again  hold  up  his  convictions  and 
his  judgment  to  the  idea  of  blackmaU,  and  so 
he  vibrated  day  after  day— when  in  their  pres- 
ence and  under  their  influence,  acceding  to  their 
propositions  of  blackmail,  and  as  soon  as  left  to  his  own 
honest  and  truthful  impulses  rejecting  it  as  absurd.  And 
I  wish  he  had  never  done  anything  worse  under  their  ad- 
vice. But  there  is  a  new  theory  started.  Not  for  money 
— "  you  have  refused  money,  Mr.  Tilton,  when  you  could 
have  realized  it.  Why,  Harman  told  you  how  you  could 
miake  out  of  the  ♦  True  Story  '  $50,000,  and  offered  you 
$5,000  for  the  copyright,  but,  you  blackmailer,  you 
wouldn't  take  that  money.  [Applause.]  Mr.  Beecher  of- 
fered you  money,  but  you  would  not  receive  it.  But  you 
had  fallen  from  your  high  position;  as  Mr.  Beecher 
says,  you  had  fallen  from  *the  grandest  edi- 
torial chair'  in  America.  You  had  reached  for 
your  age  the  most  brilliant  position  ever  at- 
tained by  a  young  aspiriug  literary  man,"  as  our 
friends  say,  "  and  from  that  you  had  fallen."  Mr.  Tracy 
represents  you  as  lying  flat  and  dishonored  at  the  depth 
of  an  abyss,  and  looking  up  and  seeing  Beecher  in  his 
grandness  and  glory,  honored  and  prosperous,  and  you 
were  enemies.  "  You  wanted  to  destroy  Beecher,  that 
you  might  elevate  yourself.  You  had  the  hope,  dishon- 
ored and  disgraced  as  we  represent  you— you  had  the  hope 
that  if  you  could  destroy  Beecher  you  could  assume  your 
old,  honorable  position  through  that  destruction."  Why, 
gentlemen,  is  there  any  sense  in  that  proposition  ?  Was 
there  any  rivalry  as  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton  ? 
Why,  my  friend  has  tried  to  get  it  up  through  the  mission- 
ary discussion,  and  the  Cleveland  letter.  But  you  per- 
ceive that  the  paths  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  were 
as  independent  and  separate  as  can  be  conceived. 
If  Tilton  destroyed  Beecher  he  gained  nothing 
for  himself.  There  was  no  career  of  honor  or  ambition 
opened  by  that  view  to  Mr.  TUton.  It  was  true,  as  Mr. 
Beecher  had  again  and  again  told  him,  that  he  could  not 
elevate  himself  upon  his  ruin,  and  the  idea  so  eloquently 
suggested,  especially  in  the  opening  of  this  case,  that  Mr. 
Tilton  was  to  redeem  his  misfortunes  by  the  destruction 
of  Mr.  Beecher,  through  Itois  conspiracy,  and  through  the 
aid  of  Moulton  and  Mrs.  Moultou  and  Mrs.  Bradshaw,  is 
one  of  the  absurdest  propositions  this  case  has  given 
birth  to,  and  it  has  been  fecund  of  many.  Mr.  Beecher 
does  not  monopolize  all  the  glory  and  honor  of  this  world. 
He  does  not  occupy  all  the  avenues  to  renown  and  to 
tame.  There  are  many  paths  up  that  steep  and  troublous 
mount  •*  Where  Fame's  proud  temple  shines  alar."  Mr. 
Dftecber  does  not  occupy  them  alL   There  axe  many  footr 


sore  and  weary  toilers  glorious  in  their  ambition  and 
efforts  who  do  not  conflict  or  contend  with  Mr.  Beecher. 
The  way  is  open  for  Mr.  Tilton,  and  Beecher  is  no  obstruc- 
tion, so  far  as  his  position  or  his  honor  and  fame,  are  con- 
cerned. Why,  you  might  just  as  well  accuse  Mr.  Tilton 
of  desiring  to  destroy  my  friend  Mr.  Evarts,  for  fear  Mr. 
Evarts  would  interfere  with  the  career  of  Theodore 
Tilton,  or  Charles  O'Conor,  or  any  of  the  literary  men 
who  occupy  honorable  and  prominent  positions  before 
the  community. 

Now,  then,  gentlemen,  in  the  further  discussion  of  this 
case,  am  I  not  warranted  in  assuming  that  there  is  not  the 
least  pretense  of  a  conspiracy  or  combination  %  May  I 
not  say,  upon  the  proof  of  Mr.  Beecher  liimself,  the 
avowals  he  makes  as  to  the  motives,  as  to  the  belief  ot 
Mr.  Tilton,  as  to  the  motives  which  operated  upon  his 
conduct  and  action — may  I  not  be  permitted  to  assume 
that  the  idea  of  a  conspiracy  in  this  case  is  exploded  by 
Mr.  Beecher  himself?  Then  the  issue  of  seduction  is 
left.  Ah,  gentlemen,  that  is  not  all.  Mr.  Beecher  has 
made  an  issue  for  us  in  this  action  by  which  I  propose  to 
test  his  honesty  and  innocence.  He  avows  that  iu  the 
whole  history  of  his  intercourse  with  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton 
there  was  not  a  single  act  or  word  unbecoming  a  gentle- 
man and  a  pastor ;  he  swears  to  you  that  there  is  not  a 
taint  upon  his  garments,  or  a  stain  upon  his  conscience. 
While  attributing  to  that  lady  an  improper  devotion  to 
himself,  he  yet  maintains  his  own  excellent  puiity, 
and  swears  that  he  was  unconscious  of  her  devotion  imtU 
the  time  when  it  was  revealed  to  him  on  the  30  th  of 
December,  1870.  That  is  the  issue.  If  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  is  not  to  be  believed,  if  he  is  a  false  witness 
(under  any  mental  reservations,  upon  any  ideas  of  obliga- 
tion under  which  he  may  have  acted  and  about  which  we 
will  talk  by  and  by)  if  he  has  faltered,  in  his  testimony, 
as  to  truth,  then  this  case  is  clear,  as  you  will  agree.  If 
there  is  not  a  truthful,  reliable  denial  iipon  this  record 
by  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  of  this  charge  of  adultery,  then 
he  is  a  guilty  man,  and  if  he  has  sworn  untruly  to  you  in 
regard  to  the  extent  or  character  of  his  association  with 
Elizabeth  R.  Tilton,  1?hea  according  to  the  maxim  which 
my  friend  has  so  often  quoted,  the  truth  of  which  I  do 
not  dispute  in  its  application  to  this  case,  he  is.  not  to  be 
believed  by  this  jury. 

And,  hard  as  that  conclusion  may  be,  repulsive  as  it 
may  be  to  all  our  sentiments  and  sympathies,  yet,  gen- 
tlemen, there  are  reputations  depending,  in  this  case, 
upon  your  conclusions,  iust  as  dear  to  their  posse.*?sors  as 
Henry  Ward  Beecher's  is  to  him.  There  are  just  as  many 
hearts  to  suffer  by  your  erroneous  or  unjust  judgment 
upon  the  question  of  veracity  and  credibility  on  the  part 
of  this  plaintiff  as  upon  the  part  of  the  defense.  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  have  each  an  equal  right  with 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  demand  impartial  consideration ; 
and  that  lady,  Mrs.  Moulton,  so  foully  and  basely,  and 
untruly,  assailed,  as  I  will  convin(  e  you— a  lady  exalted 


t^UMMING    UP  J 

by  the  eulogy  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  Mmself ,  a  lady 
whom  Henry  Ward  Beeeher,  even  when  he  is  testifying 
in  a  cau«e  whose  balance  holds  his  mortal  it  not  his  im- 
mortal interests,  dare  not  asperse  or  assail  [applause], 
that  lady  may  appeal  to  you,  as  men  as  well  as  jurors,  to 
jfive  her  a  fair  hearitis  hefore  you  sully  her  fair  fame  by 
Che  assertion  that  she  is  not  worthy  of  belief. 

MKS.  TiL'j^ON'S  CONFESSION. 

Now,  what  >Yas  the  confession  of  Mrs. 
TiltoB?  I  don't  icean  the  confession  made  in  July,  for 
that  is  prover  Vyond  dispute— that  is,  so  far  as  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Tilton  is  concerned  as  to  its  character,  it  is 
beyond  disij'.te. 

Mr.  E\ pros— He  provea  what  was  stated  to  Mr. 
Beeeher.'  ljut  it  is  not  proved  that  she  said  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Bo<inh— Ts  it  not  1 

Mr.  "B-^^arts— It  is  not  proved  that  she  said  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes ;  it  is  proved  that  she  said  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Evarts— How  is  it  proved?  It  could  not  be  proved. 
It  is  proved  that  that  is  what  he  said  to  Mr.  Beeeher ; 
that  is  all  that  Is  proved. 

Mr.  Beach- Is  it  all  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  all. 

Mr.  Beach— Is  that  all  1 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  let  ue  see.  Mr.  Tilton  says  to  Mr. 
Beeeher:  " My  wife,  in  July,  made  a  confession  to  me  of 
this  character."  Mr.  Beeeher,  if  Mr.  Tilton  is  to  be  be- 
lieved—and I  am  reasoning  upon  that  theory— Mr. 
Beeeher  admits,  by  his  conduct  and  his  action,  that  the 
charge  is  true. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  your  argument  about  IVIr.  Beecher's 
confession. 

Mr.  Morris — I  submit  that  these  interruptions  are  not 
proper. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  there  is  no  objection  to  them. 
Mr.  Fullerton  [in  an  undertone]— No;  the  more  the 
better. 

Mr.  Beach— The  question  between  my  learned  friend 
and  myself  is  whether  there  is  any  proof  in  this  case  that 
Mrs.  Tilton  made  that  confession.  Why,  I  have  read  to 
the  Court  an  authority  wherein  it  is  ruled  that  a  confes- 
sion made  by  one  paramoiu',  which  is  reported  to  the 
other  and  by  conduct  or  declaration  acquiesced  in,  is 
proof  upon  which  a  decree  can  pass ;  and  yet  the  counsel 
tell  me  that  that  is  no  evidence  of  a  confession  ;  that  it 
does  not  prove  where  it  is  repeated  to  the  party  int^resred 
and  that  party  recognizes  the  truth  contained  in  the  con- 
fession ;  that  that  does  not  prove  that  t.he  confession  was 
made  !  How  did  Mr.  Tilton  get  it  1  Where  did  it.  come 
from  ?  How  could  Mr.  Tilton  have  made  any  representa- 
tion to  Mr.  Beeeher  in  regard  to  the  confession  if  he  had 
not  received  it  from  Mrs.  Tilton  1  And  when  Mr. 
Beeeher  recognizes  it  as  a  statement  made  by  Mrs.  Tilton 
and  actnowledges  the  truti  of  it,  does  my  learned  friend 


r  ME,   BEACH.  913 

want  any  better  evidence  of  the  fact  that  Mrs.  Tilton  did 
make  it  than  that  1  In  a  case  in  6G  Barbour,  whieii  I  sup- 
pose is  the  one  referred  to  by  your  Honor,  it  is  said  that 

The  foundation  of  the  rule  which  forbids  granting  a 
decree  of  divorce  on  the  unsupported  confession  of  a 
party,  is  the  fear  of  collusion  and  imposition  on  the 
Court.  When,  however,  the  reason  of  the  rule  fails,  the 
rule  itself  ceases.  Hence,  when  the  confessions  are  made 
under  circumstances  which  entirely  preclude  suspicion 
of  collusion  or  imposition,  the  confessions  will  be  received 
and  a  decree  granted  thereon  withcat  further  evidence. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  is.  Mi-.  Beecher's  confession  is  good 
against  him,  but  Mr.  Tilton's  confessions  

Mr,  Beach— Well,  I  will  suspend  my  argument  and  al- 
low the  gentleman  to  finish  his,  if  he  chooses. 

[Mr.  Beach  here  paused  and  held  a  very  brief  whis- 
pered conversation  with  Mr.  Evarts.] 

Mr.  Beach— I  therefore  assume,  gentlemen,  that  so  far  as 
the  actual  confession  of  July,  1870,  is  concerned,  there  is 
no  question  in  regard  to  its  having  been  made,  if  our 
evidence  is  credible.  Mr.  Beeeher  at  least  assumes  that 
there  was  a  confession  or  a  statement  to  a  certain  extent; 
Mr.  Beeeher  admits  that  the  charge  by  Mrs.  Tilton  was 
of  improper  advances,  and  he  goes  right  to  Mrs.  Tilton, 
according  to  his  own  evidence,  and  asks  her  how  she 
couldby  possibility  make  a  false  charge  of  that  charac- 
ter. It  is  perfectly  certain,  therefore,  that  the  paper 
executed  on  the  29th  of  December  contained  some  im- 
putation, a  charge  of  some  character,  against 
Mr.  Beeeher.  Mr.  Tilton  swears,  and  the  evidence 
of  Mv.  Moulton  supports  him,  that  it  was 
a  charge  of  sexual  intimacy.  All  their  inter- 
course with  Mr.  Beeeher,  according  to  their  narra- 
tive of  it— all  their  intercourse  with  Mr.  Beeeher  was 
founded  upon  the  theory  that  the  charge  was  adultery. 
True,  Mr. Beeeher  denies  this;  and  we  are  now  driven  zo 
the  question  of  determining  as  between  the  evidence  on 
the  part  of  the  plaintitf,  consisting  of  Mr.  Tilton,  Mr, 
Moulton.  Mrs.  Moulton,  and  Mrs.  Eradsuaw,  ot  circum- 
stances to  which  I  shall  allude,  and  ol  riie  letters  of  ilr. 
Beeeher — between  this  and  the  sole  denial  of  Henry  Ward 
Beeeher  himself.  And  the  question  is,  genilemen, 
whether  that  sole  denial,  unsupported  by  a  single  syl- 
lable of  other  proof,  shall  overcome  the  testimony,  posi- 
tive and  direct,  of  turee  witnesses  and  the  accumulated 
force  of  circumstances  against  which  the  reputation  of  a 
saint  could  not  stand,  and  the  accamulated  force  of  the 
confessions  contained  in  Mr.  Beecher's  own  letters. 

That  is  the  point :  that  is  the  issue.  Not  whether  Theo- 
dore Tilton  was  enamored  of  Victoria  C.  WoodhuU ;  not 
whether  he  committed  the  base  outrage  imputed  to  him, 
at  Winsted ;  not  whether  he  was  a  cold,  cruel,  heartless 
husband ;  not  whether  he  had  sacrificed  his  name,  his 
character  and  his  fortune  to  the  profession  of  free  love 
doctrines  and  to  vile  associations.  The  question  Is 
whether  H^ry  Ward  Beeeher,  proven  guilty  of  adultery 
by  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses  and  these  circum- 


914 


THE   TILION-BEEOEEE  TBIAL, 


eitauces  and  tliese  letters,  shall  be  permitted  to  eome 
upon  the  stand  in  a  court  of  justice  and  by  his  own  oath, 
unsupported,  overturn  this  weight  of  evidence. 

The  confession  in  July  I  shall  therefore  assume  to  be 
established.  I  have  said  to  you  that  our  adversaries 
would  not  permit  us  to  prove  the  precise  contents  of  the 
paper  which  was  given  by  Mrs.  Tilton  on  the  20th  of  De- 
cember to  her  husband  to  facilitate  his  interview  with 
Mr.  Beecher  in  the  accomplishment  of  her  desire  to  break 
Tip  the  arrangement  between  Tilton  and  Bowen,  and  to 
Induce  her  husband  to  withdraw  that  demand  for  the  res- 
ignation of  Mr.  Beecher.  But  its  contents  substantially 
were  stated  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  in  the  form  in  which  the 
evidence  was  given  we  get  at  the  sworn  assertion  of  both 
Moulton  and  Tilton  of  the  contents  of  that  instrument. 
But  it  is  not  important,  gentlemen  ;  it  is  not  important.  I 
consider  that  paper  as  a  very  secondary  matter.  What 
was  the  object?  To  induce  Mr.  Tilton  to  see  Mr. 
Beecher  and  withdraw  the  demand  for  his  resignation, 
and  to  induce  Mr.  Moulton  also  to  see  Mr.  Beecher.  Now, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  argue  that  in  that  paper  Mrs.  Til- 
ton made  a  direct  and  positive  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher. 
She  had  confessed  to  her  husband  in  July,  and  resti-ained 
him  by  a  sacred  obligatory  promise.  He,  with  his  con- 
ception of  her  character  and  her  relations  with  Mr. 
Ueecher,  had  forgiven  her  offense ;  yet  he  had  entered 
into  a  conspiracy  and  an  attack  against  Mr,  Beecher,  to 
drive  him  from  the  pulpit ;  and  when  that  becomes 
known,  on  the  29th  of  December,  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  she  is 
anguished  and  heart-broken.  She  appeals  to  her  hus- 
band, upon  the  strength  of  his  pledge  when  the  revela- 
tion was  made  in  the  July  previous,  to  induce  him  to 
hove  this  interview.  Now,  what  necessity  was  there  in 
writing  a  letter  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  the  pride 
and  the  manliness  of  Mr.  Tilton,  who  said,  "  I  will  have 
no  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher  unless  it  can  be  intro- 
duced in  a  form  which  will  save  my  self-respect.' 
What  necessity  was  there  in  any  note  which  Mrs.  Tilton. 
might,  under  these  circumstances,  send  to  Mr.  Beecher 
advising  him  of  the  fact  that  she  had  made  a  confession 
to  her  husband,  which,  as  is  stated,  was  not  communi- 
cated to  him  before ;  what  necessity  was  there  to  make 
any  charge  of  adultery  in  that  letter  ?  She  appealed  to 
the  consciousness  of  Mr.  Beecher.  I  don't  know  whether 
there  was  it  that  note  any  direct  specification  of  the  ex- 
tent of  the  criminality  between  these  two  persons.  You 
were  not  permitted  to  kno\v  it  from  direct  testimony.  I 
infer  from  the  other  evidence  in  the  case  that  there  was. 
And  that  is  the  motive  with  which  we  introduced  these 
other  documents  and  tbi"  other  evidence;  because  if  that 
paper  had  made  a  direct  charjxe  against  Mr.  Beecher  that 
he  had  seduced  Mrs.  Tilton,  if  you  can  suppose  that  it 
was  made  in  any  such  form  as  that  and  accepted  and 
acquiesced  in  by  Mr.  Beecher  as  true,  why,  we  would  not 
■want  to  travel  very  much  farther  in  the  investigation  of 
■  liis  r-a  so.   But  on  that  night  she  writes  this : 


December  30,  1870. 
Wearied  with  importunity  and  weakened  by  sickness, 
I  .gave  a  letter  inculpating  my  friend  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  under  assurances  that  that  would  remove  all 
difficulties  between  me  and  my  husband.  That  letter  I 
now  revoke.  I  was  persuaded  to  it,  almost  forced,  when 
I  was  in  a  weakened  state  of  mind.  I  regret  it,  and  re- 
call all  its  statements. 

Now,  that  is  pretty  clear  evidence  that  there  were 
statements  in  that  letter  inculpating  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  imputing  to  him  offense,  crime  in  the  eye  of 
morality,  because  she  says  it  in  that  very  paper  which 
Mr.  Beecher  obtains  on  the  night  of  the  30th.  In  that 
paper  she  asserts,  and  he  accepts  the  assertion,  that  in 
that  destroyed  paper  she  did  inculpate  Mr.  Beecher,  and 
she  withdrew  the  statements  to  that  effect,  that  that 
letter  contained.  The  letter  that  I  have  read  to  you  is 
signed  E.  R.  Tilton.  There  is  this  postscript : 

I  desire  to  say  explicitly  Mr.  Beecher  has  never  offered 
any  improper  solicitation,  but  has  always  treated  me  in 
a  manner  becoming  a  Christian  and  a  gentleman. 

Now,  it  is  falsely  argued,  your  Honor,  in  construing 
this  instrument,  that  that  postscript  necessarily  implies 
that  the  original  paper  to  which  it  refers  was  simply  a 
charge  of  improper  solicitations.  That  is  not  the  legal 
rendition  of  this  instrument ;  that  is  not  its  proper  con- 
struction. The  body  of  the  paper  says :  "  I  gave  a  paper 
inculpating  Mr.  Beecher.  I  withdraw  the  statements  in 
that  paper."  Then  in  the  postscript  is  added  a  certificate 
that  Mr.  Beecher  never  addressed  to  her  any  improper 
solicitations,  or  any  conduct  unbecoming  a  gentleman. 
Now,  it  is  idle  to  say,  Sii%  that  that  maintains  the- idea 
that  the  paper  destroyed,  the  previous  paper,  was  one 
charging  merely  impure  advances.  But,  on  the  same 
night,  at  midnight,  she  writes  : 

My  Dear  Husband  :  I  desire  to  leave  with  you  before 
going  to  sleep  a  statement  that  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
has  been  to  me  this  evening,  asked  me  if  I  would  defend 
him  against  any  accusation  in  a  council  of  ministers  ; 
and  I  replied  solemnly  that  I  would  in  case  the  accuser 
was  any  other  than  my  husband. 

Mr.  Beecher  asking  this  lady  if  she  would  defend  him 
against  any  accusation  in  a  council  of  ministers  ! 

He  (H.  W.  B.)  dictated  a  letter,  which  I  copied  as  my 
own,  to  be  used  as  against  any  other  accuser  except  my 
husband.  This  letter  was  designed  to  vindicate  Mr. 
Beecher  against  all  other  persons  save  only  yourself,  I 
was  ready  to  give  him  this  letter,  because  he  said  with 
pain  that  my  letter  in  your  hands,  addressed  to  him, 
dated  December  29,  had  struck  him  dead,  and  ended  his 
usefulness.  You  and  I  are  both  pledged  to  do  oui-  best  to 
avoid  publicity.  God  grant  a  speedy  end  to  all  further 
anxieties.  Affectionfrt««Jj,  Elizabeth. 

Now  the  first  question  is,  did  Mr.  Beecher  dictate  tbe 
first  instrument  I  have  read  1  Is  it  true  1  Mrs.  Tilton 
asserts  it  on  the  very  night  when  it  was  written.  But  it 
is  said  that  she  was  under  the  dominion  of  her  husband. 
Under  the  dominion  of  her  husband,  and  giving  to  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  a  certificate  in  defiance  of  the  wiU  of  her 
husband !  If  she  was  under  the  control  of  Theodore  TU- 


SUMMING    UP  BT  MR,  BEACH, 


915 


ton  she  -w^as  acting  as  a  conspiratress,  making  false  aceu- 
flatlons  ;  and  tlie  arguments  of  my  learned  friends  are 
euicidal.  If  she  was  a  conspiratress,  subiect  to  the  con- 
trol and  dictation  of  her  husband,  how  came  she  to  give 
this  letter  of  recantation,  as  it  is  called,  to  Mr.  Beeoher  ? 
and  how  are  the  two  ideas  consistent  1  If  the  one  be  true, 
the  other  is  fal^e.  But  was  she  subject  to  her  husband  ? 
It  may  be,  gentlemen,  that  she  loved  him  with  a  qualified 
aflfection.  It  may  be  that  she  had  considera- 
tion for  her  own  respectability  and  the 
honor  and  character  of  her  household;  but  where 
has  been  the  occasion  or  emergency,  when  the  interests 
of  her  husband  and  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  have  come  in 
direct  collision,  when  has  been  the  occasion  when  that 
woman  has  adhered  to  her  loyalry  to  her  husband,  in  op- 
position to  the  wishes  and  the  demands  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  ?  Name  the  instance  in  your  own  recollection, 
if  you  can.  Tell  me  when  or  where  this  lady  has  suD- 
jected  herself  to  any  domination  by  her  husband.  Where 
she  has  ever  sacrificed  her  will  to  the  wish  of  her  hus- 
band ?  I  belie  re— I  believe  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  affection 
lor  Mr.  Tilton ;  but  I  believe  that  the  supreme  devotion 
of  her  soul  was  dedicated  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  There 
could  not  have  been  between  two  such  beings  as  Theo- 
dore Tiltou  and  Lis  wife  an  intercourse  of  years,  a  love 
originating  in  the  purity  and  simplicity  of  child- 
hood, cherished  among  all  the  struggles  of  this 
man  for  fame  and  position,  a  union  at  last  upon  the 
pinnacle  of  that  fame— all  these  things  could  not  have 
been  without  leaving  sweet  traces  upon  the  neart  and 
the  memory.  This  woman  had  beautiful  recollections  of 
that  old  intercourse.  Oh,  those  sweet  memories  of  child- 
hood and  of  purity,  which  come  over  us  in  later  days, 
how  they  renovate  and  cheer  the  heart !  And  however 
much  we  have  strayed,  however  wildly  we  have  been 
deluded  by  the  temptations  and  the  sorceries  of  the  world 
^nd  of  life,  yet  they  come  upon  us  at  times 
with  a  freshening  and  humanizing  influence  which 
seems  to  restore  all  our  childishness  and  virtue. 
And  there  are  times  even  now,  under  the  deluding  and 
darkening  influences  which  surround  that  woman— even 
now,  the  memory  of  those  days  and  those  affections,  con- 
nected with  ideas  and  memories  of  parentage  and  chil- 
dren, do  soften,  I  doubt  not,  the  feelings  of  that  erring 
wife  and  mother.  But,  to  tell  me,  when  she  stands  in  the 
attitude  she  now  occupies,  and  when  we  Imow  that  when 
the  crisis  came— the  crisis  of  the  contest  as  between  her 
husband  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher— nay,  when  the  crisis 
of  her  own  fate  came— she  abandoned  her  husband  and  ad- 
hered to  the  man  she  adored— to  tell  me  that  woman  was 
under  the  control  and  subject  to  the  will  of  the  husband 
whom  she  deserted,  is  a  falsity  in  principle,  and  repug- 
nant to  all  our  ideas  and  notions  of  human  motives  and 
human  character.  These  instruments  were  not  extorted, 
except  by  that  just  and  proper  appeal  to  the  truthfulness 
4nd  the  affection  of  the  woman's  nature,  and  to  her  judg- 


ment as  to  the  occasion  upon  which  they  were  to  be  used, 
and  the  motives  of  their  production,  which  were  entirely 
proper  and  innocent.  Was  it  oppressive  upon  the  part  of 
Mr.  Tilton  to  ask  this  woman  for  a  written  statement,  if 
he  asked  it,  to  be  presented  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
advising  Mr.  Beecher  that  he  had  received  a  con- 
fession and  statement  of  his  guilt  from  his  wife  1 
And  when  Mr.  Beecher,  abusing  the  confidence  of  Tilton, 
and  appropriating  the  occasion  to  exert  his  power  over 
this  woman  as  soon  as  he  gets  in  her  presence,  she  lying 
white  and  pale,  as  he  says,  with  folded  hands,  an  efiigy 
of  death— when  he  takes  that  occasion  to  exert  his  will 
and  his  power,  and  get  from  her  a  contradiction  of  the 
document  she  had  willingly  given  to  her  husband  but  the 
day  before,  is  it  to  be  said  that  her  husband,  when  learn- 
ing that  fact,  asking  her  to  give  a  statement  of  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  it  was  done,  is  guilty  of  force 
and  tyranny  i 
pir.  FuUerton  here  whispered  to  Mr.  Beach.  \ 
Mr.  Beach — It  is  stiggested  by  my  friend,  Mr.  Fullerton, 
that  the  first  sentence  of  this  reiteration  to  her  hifsband 
implies  most  distinctly  that  it  was  written  in  the  absence 
of  her  husband,  and  before  he  had  returned  from  Mr. 
Moulton's. 

"  I  desire  to  leave  with  you,  before  going  to  sleep,  a 
statement  that  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher,"  &c.,  "  called." 

But,  gentlemen,  I  am  dealing  with  this  question  rather 
generally,  with  a  large  consideration  of  it.  looking  at  the 
broadest  relations  between  these  three  people,  endeavor- 
ing to  estimate  as  wisely  and  clearly  as  I  can  whether 
there  is  a  probability  that  this  woman,  in  regard  to  these 
documents,  was  controlled  by  Tilton,  or  moved  by  the 
will  of  Mr.  Beecher ;  and  I  insist  that  you  must  look  not 
only  to  the  particular  circumstances  surrounding  that 
occasion,  but  trace  the  manifestations  of  this  woman's 
natm-e  and  heart  through  the  intervening  years,  and  see 
now  where  she  stands,  and  judge  from  that  what  was  her 
condition  and  position  in  December,  1870.  And  remember, 
gentlemen,  remember  those  letters  read  to  you,  indicating 
the  state  of  feeling  entertained  by  this  lady  toward  Mr. 
Beecher,  the  idea  of  support  and  rest.  Fancy  this  man 
standing  in  this  close  relation  to  this  lady,  saying  to  her 
that  the  statement  she  had  made  to  her  hu^and  was 
his  death,  and  a  ruin  to  his  life-hope  and  work  ;  telling 
her  of  a  council  of  ministers  in  1870,  before  any  such 
thing,  so  far  as  appears,  was  dreamed  of ;  deluding  her 
with  the  sophistry  that  she  was  to  be  his  defender  before 
a  council  of  ministers.  "  Ah,  I  have  come  to  you  again 
and  again,  when  sorrow  and  depression  and  discomfort 
weighed  upon  me,  and  you  have  been  to  me  a  rest  and  a 
cheer.  Your  soft  hands  and  gentle  voice  would  comfort 
me.  Now  you  have  struck  me  down  to  death  and  ruin. 
WiU  you  defend  me  1 "  Is  this  statement  to  her  husband 
all  the  imagination  of  Tilton  1  How  could  TUton  have 
thought  of  an  argument  of  this  kind  addressed 
by    Mr.    Beecher  to  Mrs.   Tilton  J     Did  he  invent 


I 


916 


THE   TILTON-BREOEEB  TRIAL. 


fiiat  letter  ?  Was  he  apprised  by  any  means  of  any 
of  tlie  details  of  the  interview  between  Beeeher  and 
Mrs.  Tilton,  except  hy  the  declaration  and  confession  of 
Mrs.  Tilton?  How  did  he  know  thatBeeoher  had  ad- 
dressed these  argnments  to  her  %  How  did  he  know  that 
the  letter  that  Beeeher  got  was  dictated  hy  him,  as  Mrs. 
Tilton  declares  ?  How  did  he  know  that  Beeeher  in  the 
prostration  and  humiliation  of  that  occasion— broken, 
disheartened,  crushed  as  he  was  when  he  left  the  door  of 
Moulton— how  did  Tilton  know  that  Beeeher  had  said  to 
his  wife :  "  Your  letter  or  statement  has  ruined  me ;  my 
life-work  is  ended."  Yet,  gentlemen,  rou  are  to  believe 
tills.  You  are  to  believe  that  that  reassertion,  so  damag- 
ing to  Beeeher,  so  destructive  In  its  implicatitKis  upon 
him  and  his  offense ;  you  are  asked  to  believe  that  that 
was  written  by  this  lady  at  the  dictation  and  compulsion 
of  her  husband,  rather  than  being  the  spontaneous  out- 
break of  her  regret  that  the  personal  irfluence  of  Beeeher 
should  have  led  her  to  the  indiscretion  of  her  former  note. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  until  Wednesday  morning 
at  11  ^'clock. 

105TH  DAY'S  PROCEEDmGS. 


CONTINUATION  OF  ME.  BEACH'S  ARGUMENT. 

THE  DOCUMENTARY  EVmENCE  UNDER  CONSIDERA- 
TION—MR. BEECHER  DICTATED  THE  "  LETTER  OF 
EETRACTION"  as  well  as  the  "LETTER  OF 
CONTRITION  "—SIMILAR  PHRASES  IN  BOTH  DOCU- 
MENTS —  "  PAROXYSMAL  MOMENTS  "  AN  EX- 
PRESSION TRACED  TO  MR.  BEECHER  IN  EARLY 
WORKS — MR.  BEACH  TO  CONCLUDE  ON  FRIDAY 
AND  THE  JUDGE  TO  CHARGE  THE  JURY  EARLY 
NEXT  WEEK. 

Wednesday.  June  16,  1875. 
Mr.  Beach,  in  his  argument  to-day,  started  out, 
as  he  said,  with  the  assumption  that  the  "  Letter  of 
Retraction"  was  obtained  from  Mrs.  Tilton  through 
Mr.  Beecher's  influence.  The  phrases  in  the  letter, 
he  thought,  betrayed  their  origin  as  coming  from 
Mr.  Beeeher.  The  word  "  inculpating  "  occurring  in 
the  letter  was  declared  not  to  be  "  a  woman's  word." 
A  similar  phrase  to  that  in  which  it  occurs  appears  in 
the  "Letter  of  Contrition,"  and  counsel  hinted  that 
the  similarity  of  expression  suggested  the  possibility 
of  Mr.  Beecher's  having  dictated  the  retraction.  The 
counsel  further  argued  that  Mrs.  TUton,  on  the  very 
evening  after  giving  the  retraction,  made  a  voluntary 
statement  to  her  husband,  in  order  to  protect  him 
from  its  consequences,  and  this  statement  explained 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  retraction  had 
been  obtained.  The  fact  of  Mr.  Beecher's  going 
aJon^,  without  a  witness,  to  see  Mrs.  Tilton  on  that 
occasion  was  commented  on  by  the  sp^^aker,  as  were 


also  the  alleged  inconsistencies  in  Mr.  Beecher's  con- 
duct with  reference  to  this  matter. 

Mrs.  Tilton's  letter  to  her  husband,  telling  him 
that  she  hoped  he  would  not  be  *'  misled  by  a  good 
woman  as  I  have  been  by  a  good  man"  drew  fortfh 
the  mquiry,  "  How  misled  ?"  which  Mr.  Beach  pro- 
ceeded to  answer  according  to  the  theory  of  the 
plaintifPs  case.  The  **  Griffith  Gaunt"  letter  was 
read  and  expounded  in  this  connection,  the  influence 
of  the  romance  of  Charles  Reade  on  the  feelings  and 
character  of  Mrs.  Tilton  was  defined,  and  the  power 
of  conscience  shown.  Alleged  contradictions  be- 
tween the  terms  of  the  letter  and  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Beeeher  were  also  pointed  out. 

The  destruction  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  original  statement 
and  its  assumed  importance  were  then  discussed, 
the  speaker  claiming  that  the  charge  was  not  of  im- 
portance, and  that  its  destruction  was  not  remarka- 
ble under  the  circumstances.  The  confession  and 
retraction,  he  urged,  were  to  be  kept  together,  yet 
the  confession  was  destroyed  and  the  retraction  pre- 
served. This,  Mr.  Beach  thought,  showed  Moulton 
not  to  have  been  so  unfriendly  and  faithless  to  Mr, 
Beeeher  as  had  been  insisted  on  by  the  opposing 
counsel. 

Mr.  Beecher's  action  in  regard  to  the  "West  charges 
was  again  alluded  to,  and  the  bearing  of  the  de- 
fendant's conduct  in  this  matter  as  affecting  the 
question  of  his  guilt  or  innocence  commented  on. 
Mr.  Beecher's  silence  and  his  alleged  efforts  to  stifle 
investigation  were  the  actions  of  a  guilty  man  with 
the  motives  of  a  fugitive  criminal. 

The  offer  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff's  counsel  to 
allow  Mrs.  Tilton  to  take  the  stand  as  a  witness  was 
next  discussed,  and  legal  authorities  were  quoted 
tending  to  show  that  her  testimony  was  admissible 
if  both  parties  consented  to  its  production.  The 
speaker  said  he  was  in  favor  of  the  fullest  investiga- 
tion, and  in  consonance  with  that  idea  he  would 
have  been  glad  to  have  seen  both  Mrs.  Tilton  and 
Mrs.  Beeeher  as  witnesses.  He  thought  it  absurd, 
however,  for  the  defendant's  counsel  to  ask  the 
counsel  f  o^  Mr.  Tilton  to  call  the  ladies. 

The  "Letter  of  Contrition  "or  "Apology,"  "intrust 
with  F.  D.  Moulton,"  was  then  analyzed,  and  its  ex- 
pressions commented  on,  with  the  view  of  showing 
that  it  must  have  been  written  by  Mr.  Beeeher.  The 
speaker  was  unable  to  see  the  want  of  good  diction 
in  its  expressions  which  had  been  alluded  to  by  Mr, 
Porter.  He  quoted  from  Mr.  Beecher's  "Lecture- 
room  Talks"  to  show  that  he  had  there  declared 
that  when  the  feelings  of   persons  are  aroused 


SUMMISG    FF  j 

and  excited,  their  espressioiis  are  apt  to  over- 
leap the  boimds  of  grammatical  and  rhetorical  rules. 
The  speaker  also  read  from  ^Mr.  Beecher's  testimony, 
in  -^hich,  as  he  claimed,  ilr.  Beecher  had  admitted 
the  anthorship  of  the  letter.  Confession  of  crime, 
Too,  Tvas  not  such  an  anomaly  in  human  experience, 
he  thought,  as  ilr.  Evarts  -svould  have  the  jury  he- 
he  ve.  Mr.  Beecher's  declared  intention  "  to  step 
do^vn  and  out"  if  by  so  doing  he  could  benefit  Mr. 
Tilton  and  his  family,  was  also  made  the  subject  of 
ext-ended  comment  unfavorable  to  Mr.  Beecher. 
The  "Eagged  Edge"  letter  was  then  read  and  its 
extreme  expressions  noted.  The  word  "re- 
morse"' came  in  for  a  good  share  of  the  oratoi-^s 
redections,  he  contending  that  its  legitimate 
meaning  was  a  sorrow  for  crime  committed. 
David's  treatment  of  Uriah,  as  mentioned  in  the 
benptures,  was  declared  to  be  in  many  respects  sim- 
ilar to  Mr.  Beecher's  conduct  in  the  present  case, 
and  the  32d  Psalm— as  showing  the  effect  of  remorse 
upon  the  human  conscience — ^was  said  to  have  been 
written  with  the  same  feeUngs  of  agony  with  which 
Mr.  Beecher  wrote  the  "pitiful  words  of  renorse" 
contained  in  the  letter  under  consideration.  Mr. 
Beecher's  conduct  differed  from  David's,  according 
to  the  speaker,  in  the  fact  that  David  confessed  his 
fin  before  men,  and  Mr.  Beecher  did  not. 

The  argument  was  concluded  for  the  day  with  the 
reading  of  selections  from  B\Ton's  "  Giaoui-'' and 
Hawthorne's  "Scarlet  Letter,"'  and  comments  on  the 
same  by  the  speaker.  The  scenes  read  were  de- 
scribed to  be  typical  of  the  agonized  condition  of  a 
giiiltj"  and  despairing  soul  which  knows  its  own 
baseness,  but  which  must  keep  it  hidden  from  mortal 
sight.  This  was  declared  to  be  the  condition  of  Mr. 
Beecher.  

THE  PEOCEEDlXGS-VEPvBATBl 

MRS.  TILTOX'S  PETRACTIOX. 
The  Court  met  at  11  pursuant  to  adjoum- 
nient. 

Mr.  Beacli— :m:at  it  Please  tour  Hoxoe:  I  assume, 
gentlemen,  tliat  tlie  retraction  we  are  considering  was 
ot»tained  from  Mrs.  Tilton  ttirougli  ttie  influence  of  Mr. 
Beeclier,  and  was  dictated  by  liim.  Slie  asserts  it  in  the 
docmnent  wliicli  slie  executed  tlie  same  evening,  and  slie 
reiterates  that  declaration,  as  you  will  remember,  in  the 
letter  she  subsequently  addressed  to  Dr.  Storrs,  at  the 
solicitation,  as  it  declares,  of  Mr.  Carjjenter.  There  are 
sonae  peculiarities  about  the  document  itself  which  would 
stem  pretty  clearly  to  indicate  its  origin. 

Wearied  with  impoKtrmity,  and  weakened  by  sickness, 
I  gave  a  letter  inculpating  my  friend  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 


3Y  MR.   BEACH.  917 

]  That  word  "  inculpating  "  is  not  a  woman's  word.  It  is 
rather  an  rmusual  phrase.  It  is  more  commonly  used 
among  professional  men,  although  by  no  means  inappro- 
priate or  unused  by  cultivated  men  under  all  clrcum- 
stauees ;  but  it  does  not  belong  to  the  phraseology  of  the 
household,  and  to  the  ordinary  style  of  expression  of 
womanhood  ;  and  when  we  find  in  the  "  Letter  of  Con- 
trition," as  it  is  called,  of  Mr.  Beecher  a  somewhat  sim- 
ilar phi'ase  used,  it  rather  suggests  the  probability  that 
Mr.  Beecher  had  something  to  do  in  framing  this  retrac- 
tion. Mr.  Beecher  in  that  Letter  of  Contrition  "  lues 
this  expression : 

Bat  others  must  live  and  suffer,  I  -will  die  before  any 
one  but  myself  shall  be  inculpated. 

Mrs.  Tilton  writes : 

I  gave  a  letter  inculpating  my  friend  Henry  Ward 
Beecher. 

Well,  that  is  rather  a  singular  coincidence.  I  said  to 
you  a  while  ago  that  we  identify  persons  as  much  by  their 
style  of  rhetoric,  their  ordinary  form  of  expression,  as 
we  do  by  their  handwriting,  and  Mr.  Beecher  has  some 
peculiarities  of  language,  as  I  think  I  have  shown  you ; 
and  when  we  find  in  one  document  the  use  of  a  word  un- 
common on  female  lips  and  in  another  document  attrib- 
uted to  Mr.  Beecher  the  use  of  the  same  phrase,  it 
rather  supports,  I  think,  the  declaration  of  Mrs.  Tilton 
that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  dictat-edthat  document.  In  the 
reassertion  of  her  original  declaration  :Mrs.  Tilton  says  : 
He,  H.  W.  Beecher,  dictated  a  letter  which  I  copied  as 
my  ovrn,  to  be  used  against  any  other  accuser  except 
my  husband, 
j     In  the  Storrs  letter  she  says  : 

j  Late  the  same  evening  Mr.  B.  came  to  me,  lying  very 
'  sick  at  the  time,  and  flUed  me  with  distress,  saying  I  had 
ruined  him,  and  wanting  to  know  if  I  meant  to  appear 
against  him.  This  I  certainly  did  not  mean  to  do,  and 
the  thought  was  agonizing  to  me.  I  then  signed  a  paper 
which  he  wrote  to  clear  him  in  case  of  trial. 

Now,  :Mr.  Beecher  testifies  that  Mi's.  Tilton  wrote  this 
paper  with  her  own  hands.  She  did,  tmdoubtedly ;  but 
Mr.  Beeclier,  she  says,  was  the  author  at  it,  and  she  de- 
clares that  it  was  written  by  Mr.  Beecher  and  then  copied 
by  her.  This  suggestion  has  been  made  to  me  by  a  gen- 
tleman of  Intelligence,  and  I  present  it  to  you  as  one 
worthy  of  considerable  reflection  iu  connection  with  the 
production  of  these  papers.  It  is  in  proof  by  Mi*.  Beecher 
himself,  that  when  he  returned  from  Mr.  TUton's  to 
Moulton's  he  communicated  to  nobody  that  he  ha4  ob- 
tained this  retraction.  That  is  certain.  How  was  It  that 
on  that  same  night,  on  Mr.  TUton's  return  to  his  house, 
he  learned  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  given  that  retraction  I 
Moulton  did  not  know  it.  Beecher  had  not  communi- 
cated it  to  either  Moalton  or  TUton;  and  yet  we  And  on 
that  same  night  this  woman,  as  is  said  by  the 
other  side,  under  the  domination  and  control  of  her  hus- 
I  ban<l,  making  a  reassertion  of  the  original  acousatioa. 
I  Now,  the  force  of  this  consideration  Is  not  to  be  avoided- 
1  We  must  a-s«»ime  as  certain  that  Mr.  Beecher  gave  no  in- 


918 


IHE   TILTON-BEECREB  TBIAL. 


itormation  of  the  paper,  and  there  was  no  other  source 
through  which  Mr.  Tilton  could  learn  of  its  existence 
except  Mr.  Beecher  or  Mrs.  Tilton.  None  of  the  inmates 
of  the  house  were  present  at  the  interview  between  them, 
for  you  remem)3er  how  the  apartment  was  deserted  by- 
Mrs.  Mitehel,  and  left  in  the  occupiincy  of  Mrs.  Tilton 
and  Beecher  alone.  Is  it  not  perfectly  obvious,  gentle- 
men, that  when  Mr.  Tilton  on  that  night  returned  to  his 
house,  the  wife  communicated  to  him  the  fact  that  at  the 
visit  of  Mr.  Beecher,  Mr.  Beecher  had  extracted  from  her 
the  retraction  %  Is  it  not  perfectly  clear  that  Mrs.  Tilton 
acted  upon  her  own  voluntary  impulse?  In  giving  to 
her  husband,  making  this  communication  of  what  trans- 
pired at  her  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher,  she  made  a 
voluntary  statement  to  her  husband  to  protect  him 
from  the  consequences  of  that  retraction,  and  as  ex- 
planatory of  the  circumstances  under  which  she  had 
made  it. 

Well,  it  seems  to  me  somewhat  singular  that  Mr, 
Beecher  should  have  gone  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Tilton 
under  the  circumstances,  without  insisting  that  some 
third  person  should  accompany  him.  Take  his  picture  of 
the  interview  between  him  and  Tilton ;  accept  his  theory 
that  he  was  perfectly  innocent — that  there  had  been  no 
act  upon  his  part  consciously  which  produ  'od  any  dis- 
turbance in  the  household  of  Mr.  Tilton,  or  which,  accord- 
ing to  his  impression,  tended  in  any  degree  to  alienate  the 
afFections  of  Mrs.  Tilton  fi*om  her  husband.  Well,  what 
would  have  been  your  conduct,  either  of  you  gentlemen, 
under  such  circumstances?  Accused  of  a  vile  and  de- 
grading offense,  over  the  signature  of  a  lady  upon  whom 
his  artifices  were  said  to  have  been  exerted,  he,  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  husband  holding  the  confession  of 
the  wife,  and  he,  the  man  who  is  represented  to 
be  frank  and  noble  and  brave,  and  armed  at 
the  same  time  with  conscious  innocence — would 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  judging  by  your  own  observation 
and  experience  under  these  circumstances,  have  gone 
privately  and  alone  to  the  bed-chamber  of  this  sick  lady, 
and  held  with  her  a  private  interview,  and  gained  from 
her  a  private  writing  exonerating  him,  and  held  it  secret 
from  the  very  parties  with  whom  an  hour  before  he  had 
beon  in  conveisation  upon  the  very  subject?  What  would 
have  been  the  impulse  of  a  man  of  like  character,  and 
conscious  of  his  entire  purity?  Why,  he  would  have  said 
to  this  husband :  "  This  is  a  most  grievous  and  lamenta- 
ble mistake.  This  lady  is  suffering  under  some  hallucina- 
tion. I  have  never  been  guilty  of  this  wrong.  It  is  shock- 
ing and  terrible.  Go  with  me,  Sir,  to  the  presence  of 
your  wife ;  let  us  have  an  interview ;  let  us  probe  and 
examine  the  motives  to  this  declaration ;  let  us  see  what 
are  the  influences,  if  there  be  any,  unworthy  and  im- 
proper, what  is  the  misconception  under  which  this 
woman  labors,  inducing  her  to  make  this  false  accusa- 
tion." Why,  this  would  have  been  the  Ian, cruatre  and  the 
conduct  of  a  great  and  a  noble  and  an  honorable  man,  as 


Mr.  Beecher  is  represented  to  be,  if  he  had  been  an  inno- 
cent man. 

And  after  he  had  thus  sought  a  private  interview,  and 
gained  this  retraction,  a  full  exoneration  of  the  charge 
made  against  him,  if  he  was  consciously  innocent,  if  the 
deep  load  of  mortification,  astonishment,  and  apprehen- 
sion which  the  accusation  but  an  hour  before 
had  thrown  upon  him  had  been  lifted,  why  how 
gladly  and  cheerfully  would  he  have  gone  into  the 
presence  of  Theodore  Tilton  and  presented  to  him 
that  retraction.  "Here,  Sir,  is  the  declaration  of 
your  wife.  You  have  charged  me  with  an  infamous  of- 
fense. I  believed  that  you  were  honest  in  making  the 
charge,  and  that  yo»i  trusted  the  evidence  furrdshed  to 
you  by  your  wife,  and  with  your  permission  I  have  seen 
her,  I  have  appealed  to  her  justice,  her  integrity,  her  re- 
gard for  my  position  and  character.  And  'this  is  the  re- 
sult—a full  and  a  complete  vindication ;  and  I  ask  you,  Sir, 
to  believe  that  I  am  innocent,  and  to  retract  the  charge 
you  have  made."  Xow,  is  there  any  doubt,  gentlemen, 
judging  of  an  ordinary  man,  and  according  to  our  ordi- 
nary conceptions  of  character  and  action,  is  there  any 
d(mbt,  if  Mr.  Beecher  had  been  the  character  he  is  I'epre- 
sented  to  be,  and  had  pursued  the  inn')c?nt  and  honora- 
ble conduct  he  claims  to  have  followed— is  there  any 
doubt  that  that  wouhl  have  been  the  prompt  and  the 
ready  response  which  Mr.  Beecher  would  that  night 
have  made  to  Theodore  Tilton  ?  I  have  referred 
you  to  the  testimony  of  Mr^  Moulton  and  Mr. 
Tilton,  without  reading  it,  so  far  as  to  the 
character  of  this  confession.  There  was  some  misunder- 
standing between  Mr.  Evarts  and  myself  in  regard  to  the 
force  of  that  evidence- he  contending  that  there  was  no 
proof  that  the  confession  which  was  read  by  Mr.  Tilton 
to  Mr.  Beecher  on  that  night  was  accompanied  by  any 
declaration  or  representation  as  to  the  character  of  the 
offense  it  charged.  In  the  interv'ew  between  Mr.  Moulton 
and  Mr.  Beecher,  Mr.  Moulton  testified  to  this  (Mr. 
Moulton  was  not  present,  you  know,  at  the  interview 
between  Tilton  and  Beecher) : 

Mr.  Beecher  told  me  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  told  him  that 
Elizabeth  had  confessed,  and  had  read  to  him  what 
either  was  a  confession,  or  a  copy  of  a  confession,  by 
Elizabeth,  of  sexual  intercourse  between  them. 

There  will  be  but  little  doubt  now,  I  think,  as  to  what 
the  character  of  the  confession  was. 

And  he  told  me  that  Theodore  had  told  him  of  the  rea- 
sons for  sending  to  him  the  letter  through  Mr.  Bowen. 

Independent,  therefore,  of  all  other  evidence,  except  as 
derived  from  the  intrinsic  character  of  the  writing  itself, 
and  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moulton,  it  would  seem  quite 
clear  that  the  paper  which  was  presented  to  Mr.  Beecher 
through  the  mouth  of  Mr.  Tilton  contained  the  direct 
charge  of  an  offense  which  she  had  confessed  in  the  July 
previous  to  her  husband. 


SUMMING    UF  1 

OTHER   ALLEGED    CONFESSIONS    BY    THE  , 
WIFE.  I 

I  have  submitted  to  you  several  of  the  let-  , 
ters  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  There  is  a  single  expression  in  a  letter  | 
bearing  date  July  4, 1871,  addressed  to  her  husband,  in 
which  this  expression  occurs  : 

Oh,  my  dear  husband,  may  you  not  need  the  further 
discipline  by  being  misled  by^a  good  woman  as  I  have 
been  by  a  good  man. 

Ah !  Mrs.  Tilton  making  this  declaration  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  who  stands  before  you  with  the  proud  assertion 
that  he  never  did  an  act  or  uttered  a  word  to  or  toward 
Mrs.  Tilton  unbecoming  a  Christian  gentleman  and  pas- 
tor! And  yet,  in  July  of  1871,  si  J  months  after  the 
charge  made  against  Beecher,  this  woman,  in  the  peni- 
tence and  sorrow  of  her  spirit,  writing  to  her  husband 
that  she  had  been  misled  by  a  good  man.  How  misled  ? 
What  had  baen  tlie  error  of  her  life  in  connection  with 
Mr.  Bceclier  \  Are  not  the  evidences  pregnant  through 
ail  this  cas3  as  to  its  characcer,  not  only  of  error  on  her 
pare,  but  of  temptation  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher?  Have 
you  any  doubt  as  to  the  influence  he  exerted  over  her, 
and  as  the  consequence  of  that  influence?  The  Grifflth 
Gamit  letter  has  been  partially  commented  upon.  That 
was  written  June  20,  1871. 

Mr.  Evarts— 29th. 

Mr.  Beach— 29th,  is  it  1  Yes,  June  29,  1871. 

My  Dear  Theodore  :  To-day,  through  the  ministry  of 
Catherine  Gaunt,  a  character  of  fiction,  my  eyes  have 
been  opened  for  the  first  time  in  my  experience,  so  that 
I  see  clearly  my  sin. 

And  this  woman  is  represented  as  sufltering,  and  tor- 
tured, undex*  the  infamous  character  and  the  brutality  of 
her  husband.  Faulty,  no  doubt,  he  was;  changeable, 
moody,  capricious,  if  you  please ;  whimsical  he  may  have 
been ;  but  no  woman  writes  a  sentence  like  this  without 
a  consciousness  that  in  her  own  life  there  has  been  a 
grievous  fault,  confession  of  which  and  reparation  for 
which  is  due  to  her  husband,  whatever  his  character  or 
treatment  may  have  been.  My  learned  friend  has 
alluded  to  the  character  of  that  romance,  Griflath  Gaunt, 
a  powerful  work.  Through  the  imagery  of  fiction,  and 
through  the  word-painting  of  a  great  author,  the  danger 
and  the  sin  of  perverted  aftection,  improperly  bestowed 
upon  a  priest  of  God,  are  depicted  with  a  power  that 
touches  the  heart  of  the  ordinary  readei*,  whether  or  no 
he  makes  a  personal  application  to  him  or  hei-self,  or  not. 
This  woman  read  it ;  and  her  conscience  was  distm-bed ; 
until  then  imder  that  spiritual  delusion  by 
which  her  senses  and  her  judgment  were  trammeled. 
Where  by  the  force  of  her  character  and  her  imagination, 
she  had  invested  her  relation  to  Mr.  Beecher  with  an 
impassable  puiity,  in  seeing  even  in  a  limited  degree  in  | 
this  portraiture  in  Griffith  Gaunt,  the  horrid  offense  and 
consequences  of  such  a  departure  from  fidelity  and 
lionor,  this  woman  was  led  to  make  the  expression,  to 


?r  MR.   BEACH.  919 

declare  the  confession,  that  at  last  she  had  come  to  a 
realization  of  her  misconception  of  herself  and  of  Mr. 
Beecher.  Now,  it  was  not  necessary,  for  the  puriH^s-.-  of 
awakening  any  such  reflections,  arousing  the  conscience 
to  the  tme  conception  of  moral  ofl^ense,  that  the  particu- 
lar crime  or  sin  of  which  she  had  been  guilty  was  por- 
trayed in  this  work  brought  under  her  knowledge.  A'.  ^ 
gentlemen,  this  conscience  of  ours  acts  xtrry  singularly 
sometimes,  hardened,  covered,  screened  as  it  may  be,  by 
thedelusions  of  a  mistaken  casuistry,  or  by  false  principles 
of  morality  or  virtue,  yet  it  is  sure  to  speak  out  at  some 
time;  and  you  have  seen,  nay,  gentlemen,  you  who  are 
Christians  in  practice  and  act,  as  well  as  profession,  you 
Jmow  by  what  slight  and  inconsiderable  circumstances 
the  consciousness  of  the  sinner  is  awakened  to  the  enor- 
mity of  his  offense.  The  prattle  of  a  child,  a  single  sen- 
tence casually  read,  the  merest  circumstance  will  some- 
times stir  the  convictions  of  the  conscience  and  produce 
that  change  of  heart  and  character,  and  that  reformation, 
which  constitutes  conversion.  You  know  this  to  be  so. 
It  is  the  common  history  of  our  kind,  and  it  is  the  means 
by  which  that  still,  small  voice,  an  echo  of  God's  spirit, 
speaks  its  lessons  to  the  soul  of  man. 

It  was  when  I  knew  that  I  was  loved  to  sulfer  it  to 
grow  into  a  passion. 

Ah!  Mr.  Beecher  says  he  extended  to  this  lady  only 
parental  affection  or  respect;  that  by  no  art,  no  seduc- 
tion, by  no  manifestation  of  undue  affection  did  he  ever 
seek  to  control  the  heart  of  this  woman ;  and  yet  she 
declares. 

It  was  when  I  knew  that  I  was  loved,  to  suflter  it  to 
grow  into  a  passion.  A  virtuous  woman  should  check  in- 
stantly an  absoi-bing  love  ;  but  it  appeared  to  me  in  such 
a  false  light  that  the  love  I  felt  and  received  [received !] 
could  harm  no  one,  not  even  you,  I  have  believed  un- 
falteringly imtil  4  o'clock  this  afternoon,  when  the  heav- 
enly vision  dawned  upon  me.  I  see  now  as  never  before 
the  wrong  I  have  done  you,  and  I  hasten  immediately  to 
ask  your  pardon,  with  a  penitence  so  sincere  that  hence- 
forth you  may  trust  me  implicitly. 

Now,  see  how  it  confirms  the  narrative  of  Mr.  Tilton  ; 
that  Mrs.  Tilton,  while  making  a  confession  of  her  sin 
with  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  yet  In  the  very  act  of  con- 
fession maintained  her  purity,  telling  him  that  Beecher 
was  a  grand  man,  a  godly  man ;  that  he  understood  bet- 
ter the  principles  of  morality  and  virtue,  and  that  he 
taught  her  that  there  was  no  sin  oi  Impurity  in  the  act ; 
it  was  but  a  natural  expression  of  the  love  which  they 
innocently  bore  to  each  other  ;  the  expression  upon  her 
part  that  her  offense  existed  not  in  the  act  itself,  but  in 
the  concealment  of  the  act.  in  that  life  of  duplicity  and 
deception  which  she  was  living  as  toward  her  husband. 
She  thought  there  was  no  sin  in  this  trinity,  imitation 
and  reflection  of  the  God-head.  She  indulged  the  strange 
notion  that  these  three  persons  could  be  united  by  an 
identity  of  interest  and  feeling  and  communion,  exalted 
to  that  spiritual  eminence  above  earthly  passion  and 
carnal  pollution,  and  indulge  all  their  identical,  common. 


920 


TRE   TILTON-BEECHEE  TRIAL. 


and  spontaneous  desires  without  any  iuiTingenient  of  the 
liiw  of  God  or  the  law  of  mor'ality.  Bat  the  painting  of  a 
Eeade — Charles  Reade — opened  her  mind  and  her  con- 
science, and  she  conies,  in  this  letter  of  June,  '71,  to 
declare,  that  a  heavenly  vision  has  dawned  upon  hoi- ; 
that  the  sentiments  and  convictions  implanted  in  her 
mind  had  come  to  appear  to  her  in  their  just  and  com- 
mon repugnance ;  and  she  confesses  to  her  husband 
again,  not  only  her  sin,  but  the  delusion,  from  which  she 
had  but  lust  recovered  in  regard  to  it. 

—and  hasten  immediately  to  ask  your  pardon,  with  a 
penitence  so  sincere,  that  henceforth,  if  reason  remains, 
you  may  trust  me  implicitly.  O  1  my  dear  Theo.,  though 
your  opinions  are  not  restful  or  congenial  to  my  soul, 
yet  my  own  integrity  and  puiity  are  a  sacred  and  holy 
thing  to  me. 

I  will  preserve  them  in  the  future.  I  have  sacrificed 
them  in  the  past,  misled  by  a  good  man,  falsely  taught 
by  his  deceptive  and  solemn  casuistry  and  teachings ; 
but  at  last  I  am  awakened.  I  confess  my  sin.  In  peni- 
tence and  sorrow  I  make  the  confession,  and  with  the 
true  devotion  of  a  woman's  heart  hereafter  I  will  be  true 
to  you. 

Bless  God  with  me  for  Catherine  Gaunt,  and  for  all  the 
sure  leadings  of  an  all-wise  and  loving  Providence.  Yes, 
now  I  feel  quite  prepared  to  renew  my  marriage  vow 
with  you— to  keep  it  as  the  Savior  requireth,  who  looketh 
at  the  eye  and  the  heart. 

Renew  the  marriage  vow !  And  keep  it  as  the  Savior 
require th— in  the  heart,  with  integrity  and  purity  ;  not 
alone  by  outward  devotion,  but  by  a  consecration  of 
spirit  and  body  to  the  husband  to  whom  that  vow  was 
originally  given ! 

I  recur  again  for  a  single  moment,  gentlemen,  to  this 
letter  to  Dr.  Storrs.  We  are  not  now  examining  alone  the 
question  of  adultery,  sexual  intercourse.  We  are  also  in- 
quiring whether  Henry  Ward  Beecher  in  his  relation  of 
his  connection  with  this  woman  was  a  truthful  man.  He 
denied  all  impropriety.  He  not  only  denied  impure  so- 
licitation but  he  purged  himself  of  the  shadow  of  taint. 
He  was  the  pious  and  exalted  pastor,  never  wavering 
from  his  duty— never  under  any  temptation  indulging 
the  slightest  sensuality— never  striving  to  win  the  love  of 
this  woman.  He  says  she  was  pure ;  that  she  had  con- 
ceived, to  be  sure,  an  extravagant  and  improper  affection 
for  him,  as  he  thought  at  first ;  but  on  the  stand  he  didn't 
believe  even  that.  He  repulses  the  latter  the- 
ory. He  says  he  was  artfully  and  insidiously 
led  into  the  false  conviction  that  Mrs.  Til- 
ton  had  bestowed  her  affections  upon  him.  For 
three  or  four  years,  he  admits  that  he  labored  under  that 
mistaken  opinion ;  but,  after  all,  it  was  a  delusion,  and 
the  affections  of  this  woman,  according  to  his  professions, 
never  wandered  from  the  person  of  her  husband  What 
does  she  say  about  it  ?  This  woman,  exalted  in  her  Chris- 
tian character  by  Henry  Ward  Beecher  heie— he,  per- 
fectly familiar  with  all  her  qualities  of  mind  and  heart ; 
he,  seeing  the  contradictions  into  which  he  betrayed 
her ;  he,  knowing  the  weakness  of  her  resolution  in  his 


presence;  he,  yet,  declares  that  she  is  a  lady  in  whose 
conscience  and  in  whose  trust  this  jury  may  confide.  I 
present  her  as  a  witness  against  him  upon  that  important 
issue  which  he  has  made,  of  his  entire  purity  and  free- 
dom from  offense : 

In  July,  1870,  prompted  by  my  duty,  I  informed  my 
husband  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  my  friend  and  pas- 
tor, had  solicited  me  to  be  a  wife  to  him,  together  with 
all  that  this  implies. 

Who  is  to  be  believed  then  1  Mrs.  Tilton,  making  this 
declaration  against  her  pastor  and  the  man  she  confes- 
sedly adored,  or  is  it  Mr.  Beecher,  testifying  under  all  the 
circumstances,  under  all  the  operation,  under  all  the 
temptation  which  surrounds  him  upon  this  trial? 

Six  months  afterward  my  husband  felt  impelled  by 
the  circumstances  of  a  conspiracy  against  him  in  which 
Mrs.  Beecher  had  taken  part,  to  have  an  interview  with 
Mr.  Beecher.  In  order  that  Mr.  B.  (Beecher)  might  know 
exactly  what  I  had  said  to  my  husband  E  wrote  a  brief 
statement,  I  have  forgotten  in  what  form,  which  my 
husbaud  showed  to  Mr.  Beecher. 

Then  follows  : 

Late  the  same  evening  Mr.  Beecher  came,  &c.,  as  I 
have  read  to  you. 

In  this  instance  as  in  most  others,  when  disturbed  by 
one  great  interest  or  feeling,  the  harmony  of  my  mind  is 
entirely  disturbed,  and  I  foimd,  on  reflection,  that  this 
paper  was  so  di-awn  as  to  place  me  most  unjus'Jy  aga?nst 
myhr.sband,  and  on  the  side  of  Mr.  Beecher.  So,  in 
order  to  repair  so  cruel  a  wrong  to  my  long  suffering 
husband,  I  wrote  an  explanation  of  the  first  paper,  and 
my  signature.  Mi-.  Moulton  procured  from  Mr.  Beecher 
the  statement  which  I  gave  to  him  in  my  agitation  and 
excitement,  and  now  holds  it.  This  ends  my  connection 
with  the  case.  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton. 

P.  S.— This  statement  is  made  at  the  request  of  Mr. 
Carpenter,  that  it  may  be  shown  confidentially  to  Dr 
Storrs  and  other  friends  with  whom  my  husband  and  I  are 
consulting. 

MRS.  TILTON'S  DENIAL  TO  MR.  MOULTON. 

The  denial  of  Mrs.  Tilton  has  been  com- 
mented upon.  In  December,  1872,  just  after  the  Storrs 
letter— 

Mr.  Moulton— Jlf//  Dear  Friend:  For  my  husband's 
sake  and  my  children's  I  hereby  testify,  with  all  my 
woman's  soul,  that  I  am  innocent  of  the  crime  of  impure 
conduct  alleged  against  me.  I  have  been  to  my  husband 
a  true  wife,  and  in  his  love  I  wish  to  live  and  die.  My 
early  afiection  fur  him  still  burns  with  its  maiden  flame, 
aU  the  more  for  what  he  has  borne  for  my  sake,  both 
public  and  private  wrongs. 

While  making  this  declaration,  still  admitting  the 
wrongs  her  husband  had  suffered. 

His  plan  to  keep  back  scandals  long  ago  threatened 
against  me,  I  never  approved,  and  the  result  shows  it 
unavailing.  But  few  would  have  risked  so  much  as  he 
has  sacrificed  for  others  ever  since  the  conspiracy  began 
against  him  two  years  ago.  Having  had  the  power  to 
strike  others,  he  has  forborne  to  use  it  and  allowed  him- 
self to  be  injured  instead.  No  wound  is  so  great  to  me  as 
the  imputation  that  he  is  among  my  accusers.  I  bless 
him  every  day  for  his  faith  in  uie  which  swerved  not,  and 
for  standing  my  champion  against  all  accusers. 


SUMMIXG    UF  BY  MR.   BE  AGE. 


What  Tva?  tne  faith  of  Theodore  Tilton  ?  For  t^vo  years 
th-en  he  had  been  as  against  Beecher  making  these  accu- 
sations openlv — 30  far  as  made  openly,  a  charge  of  Im- 
pure solicitation,  but  Tvhenever  the  voic€  of  Intimate 
friendship  and  trust  appealed  to  him,  and  put  him  upon 
Ms  truth  and  honor,  always  saying  that  that  Tvas  not  a 
full  revelation  ;  that  he  could  not  tell  the  whole  truth. 
What  a  testimony  this  is  to  the  sirfforing  patience,  to  the 
heroic  advocacy  by  Theodore  Tilton  of  Ms  wife!  And 
how  it  opens  a  light  wMch  breaks  upon  the  whole  narra- 
tive tMs  man  gives  of  Ms  course  and  conduct  in  regard 
to  his  wife  and  Mr.  Beecher— in  its  Mdden  and  implied 
sentiment,  in  its  suggestion,  meeting  at  every  iK)int  the 
theory  presented  by  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Tilton.  And, 
oh,  how  emphatically  and  lovingly  it  rejects  the  imputa- 
tion that  he  was  conspiring  against  Ms  friend  and  former 
pastor,  and,  through  a  shameless  and  brutal  conspiracy, 
endeavoring  to  destroy  the  man  he  honored  still  and  re- 
spected : 

MR.  BEECHER'S  TTRITTEX  DE^^IAL. 
Well,  there  was  another  denial  from  Mr. 

Beecher  at  the  same  time. 

I  solemnly  deny  the  scandalous  charges  made  against 
me  and  Mrs.  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton.  Especially  and  em- 
phatically I  deny  that  there  has  been  any  criuiiual  iater- 
course  or  any  color  of  a  reason  for  such  a  charge.  My 
p_eq',m;"!tauee  with  Mrs.  Tilton  has  inspired  me  with  tlio 
Mghest  esteem  for  her  modesty,  propriety,  and  womanly 
graces.  I  authorize  her,  or  her  husband  and  cliiklreu,  to 
make  use  of  this  declaration,  and  I  desire  to  state  in  ad- 
dition that  Mr.  Tilton,  during  the  whole  of  tMs  shameful 
scandal,  has  uniformly  spoken  in  the  highest  terms  of  his 
wife,  and  has  shown  to  me  the  higlaest  proofs  of  friend- 
fiiiip. 

Written  December  29, 1872.  And  this  is  the  man  now 
scandalized  and  abused ;  Mr.  Beecher  in  one  breath  ad- 
mittiag  th.at  wh.en  he  first  made  the  charge  against  him 
he  made  it  honestly  and  sincerely,  and  in  the  next  charg- 
ing him  as  a  conspirator,  perjurer,  and  blackmailer  I 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  DENIALS. 

Now,  what  originated  these? 

I  told  Mr.  Beecher  the  reason  why  I  had  published  it 
[that  is.  the  letter  to  a  "  Complaining  Friend,"  of  wMch 
he  says  that  it  was  got  up  in  conjunction  with  3Irs.  Til- 
ton for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  charges  wliich  were 
then  afloat,  but  that  on  its  publication  it  excited  what  he 
says  were  ugly  comments  in  the  papers,  and  afflicted 
Mrs.  Tilton]— I  told  him,  Mr.  Beecher,  the  reason  why  I 
had  published  it.  tMnking  it  would  conduce  to  peace,  but 
that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  been  so  greatly  distm-bed  by  the 
comments  which  that  card  elicited  that  she  asked  me 
whether  it  would  not  be  possible  to  deny  the  whole  story 
out  and  out,  and  she  suggested,  and  tMs  I  communicated  to 
:Mr.  Beecher,  that  the  ti'ue  j)olicy  ought  to  have  been  in  the 
beginning  to  have  denied  tli.'  story ;  that  we  were  all 
foolish  for  not  having  denied  it,  and  that,  though 
time  had  elapsed,  it  was  not  yet  too  lat*?  to  deny  it,  and 
she  wanted  to  write  a  denial  on  her  own  account,  and 
wanted  Mr.  B-iecher  to  cooperate  in  that  demal.  I  told 
\qx  that  anything  that  she  wanted  done  she  might  do  on 


her  own  responsibility.  And  I  think  on  the  28th  of 
December  

Mr.  Evarts— You  related  all  this  to  Mr.  Beecher  as  what 
you  had  told  her  ? 

The  Witness— Yes,  Sir.  On  the  28th  or  29th  of  Decem- 
ber she  wrote  a  card  wMch  I  produced  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
and,  in  producing  it,  I  said  to  Mm  that  it  was  hor  request 
that  he  should  write  a  similar  card  of  denial.  This  in- 
terview was  at  Moulton'8  house,  I  think,  &c. 

And  that  was  the  origin  of  these  cards- -a  denial,  pro- 
duced as  a  matter  of  policy,  for  the  purpose  of  stifling  tbe 
agitation  of  this  scandal  wMch  unexpectedly  had  been 
aroused  tMough  the  publication  of  the  letter  to  the 
"  Complaining  Friend."   And  you  perceive,  gentlemen, 
these  denials  were  only  ten  day:  after  the  statement  or 
j  letter  which  Mrs.  Tilton  had  written  to  Dr.  Storrs  for  the 
I  purpose  of  appealing  to  the  judgment  and  advice  of  that 
i  gentleman    under    the    miserable    circumstances  in 
which  tMs  family  was  situated. 


THE  DESTRUCTION  OF  MRS.  TILTON'S  CON- 
FESSION. 

YociferoTis  cor^plaint  has  been  made  that 
this  paper,  the  original  statement  cf  Mrs.  Tilton,  was  de- 
!  stroyed.  The  gentlemen  tell  us  that  if  that  paper  was 
I  present,  to  speak  for  itself,  why,  it  would  tMow  an  im- 
j  mense  flood  of  light  upon  this  controversy.  How  more 
i  lierht  tiian  we  have  now  ?  If  it  had  not  made  the  charge 
of  adultery  it  would  throw  neither  light  nor  darkness  upon 
this  case,  because  I  have  endeavored  to  maintain  to  you 
that  it  was  not  an  occasion  which  necessarily  required  a 
specification  of  the  precise  offense,  being  merely  a  letter, 
in  a  sense,  of  introduction.  But,  if  it  was  here  and  con- 
tained the  charge  of  adiiltery  how  much  better  would  we 
be  off  ?  The  same  charge  would  be  made ;  of  subjection  to 
the  husband,  and  intimidation  and  control  upon  Ms  part. 
The  Investigating  Committee,  and  my  friends  upon  the 
other  side,  would  make  the  same  imputations  upon  this 
la  ly  as  they  have  made.  Xo  declarations  of  hers  would 
reflect  any  greater  light  upon  tMs  case  and  its  issue  than 
the  numerous  declarations  and  the  accumulated 
evidence  wMch  is  presented.  But  was  it  unreasonable 
that  that  paper  should  be  destroyed  by  Mrs.  Tilton  ! 
You  remember  next  day,  or  a  day  or  two  after,  she  wrote 
to  Moiilton  beseeching  that  that  and  the  subsequent  in- 
strument which  she  gave  shotdd  be  destroyed.  And  is  it 
wonderful  that  a  woman  makmg  a  charge  against  herself, 
under  the  circumstances  wMch  accompanied  this  charge, 
should  be  desirous  to  suppress  it  1  And  if  it  only  made 
the  charge  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  addressed  to 
her  improper  solicitations  wMch  she  had  rejected  and 
repulsed,  what  was  the  occasion  of  her  great  anxiety  for 
its  return  and  destruction  ?  That  was  honorable  to  her— 
she,  a  frail  woman,  confessing  her  love  to  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  when  he,  in  b^s  imperious  and 
majestio  power,  endeavored  tMough  his  solicita- 
tions  to   lead   her   to   baseness   and   impunty,  she 


923  IHE  TILTON-B 

rejected  them,  and,  firm  in  lier  womanly  dignity,  with- 
Ktood  the  allui-ements  of  the  tempter.  Why  should  she 
want  such  a  paper  destroyed,  and  why  should  she  destroy 
it  with  her  own  hands  1  But,  if  it  contained  what  it  is 
alleged  to  have  contained,  what  Beecher  according  to  the 
testimony  of  Moulton  declared  it  contained,  you  can  well 
conceive  that  it  would  he  an  agony  to  this  woman  that 
that  paper  should  be  perpetuated  hereafter  under  circum- 
stances which  she  could  not  anticipate ;  perhaps  when 
she  was  resting  quietly  in  her  grave  it  would  he 
revived  and  reproduced  to  the  dishonor  of  her 
memory  and  to  the  shame  of  her  children. 
What  harm  did  it  do  to  Mr.  Beecher  ?  Admit  that  Moul- 
ton promised  to  keep  them  together.  He  did  keep  them 
until  immediately  after  the  "  Tripartite  Covenant  "—that 
covenant  to  which  these  letters  of  Theodore  Tilton  were 
attached  under  the  certificate  of  Bowen  and  Beecher  and 
Tilton,  for  the  very  purpose  of  perpetuating  the  charges 
which  had  been  made  by  Bowen  against  Beeclier.  But 
when  that  instrument — designed  to  be  private  and  secret, 
never  intended  for  publication  or  circulation— was  en- 
tered into  under  the  peculiar  and  solemn  circumstances 
which  accompanied  its  execution ;  when  it  seemed  to  be 
a  pacification  of  all  the  difficulties  between 
these  men  except  this  single  trouble  between 
Beecher  and  Tilton,  which  stood  unaifected  by  it— 
when  there  was  an  apparent  declaration  of  confidence 
and  friendship  between  all  these  men,  and  the  clouds  of 
disgrace  and  infamy  seemed  to  be  scattering,  was  not  the 
situation  chanared?  Might  not  Mr.  Moulton,  with  great 
propriety,  surrender  this  confession  to  the  importunities 
ofMrs.  TUton?  Ought  he  not  to  have  considered  her 
womanly  anxiety  and  fear  ]  Was  there  any  need  of  pre- 
serving it  under  these  new  circumstances  of  happy  con- 
ciliation and  friendship  ?  And  what  harm  did  it  do  to 
Mr.  Beecher  1  This  confession  and  his  confession  were  to 
he  kept  together,  as  they  say  and  as  we  agree.  The  con- 
fession of  Mrs.  Tilton  was  surrendered  to  her,  and  de- 
stroyed, and  Mr.  Moulton  preserved  the  retraction.  It 
was  the  retraction  and  confession  which  were  to  be  kept 
together. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  paper  destroyed  and  the  retraction. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  the  paper  destroyed  and  bhe  retraction 
were  the  papers  that  were  to  be  kept  together.  Why  did 
Moulton  act  unfairly  in  Iceeping  the  retraction,  keeping 
the  paper  which  Beecher  said  was  the  instrument  which 
was  to  form  his  defense  and  protection,  and  producing  it 
here  for  his  use  t  Was  he  unfriendly  and  faithless  to 
Beecher  I  If  he  intended  to  destroy  evidence,  to  expose 
Mr.  Beecher  to  the  hazard  of  unprotected  assault,  would 
he  not  have  destroyed  tbe  retraction  1  What  means  this 
outcry  of  my  friends  upon  the  other  side  against  Moulton 
for  surrendering  this  paper,  which  was  the  paper  of  ac- 
cusation, and  preserving  the  contradictory  instrument, 
which  was  a  retraction  of  the  cliarge  and  a  full 
vindication  of  Mr.   Beecher,  if  it  was  to  be  taken 


iJFJCHJiJB  TRIAL. 

in  its  full  scope  and  effect.  There  was  no  dishonor  in  it, 
gentlemen.  There  was  no  want  of  fidelity  on  th<i  part  of 
Mr.  Moulton  to  Mr.  Beecher.  There  was  no't  the  slightest 
taint  of  unfairness  about  it.  It  was  a  duty  rendered  to 
a  woman  under  circumstances  which  demanded  from  an 
honorable  man  its  performance,  and,  in  doing  it,  he  was 
careful  to  preserve  his  integrity  and  faithfulness  as  to- 
ward Mr.  Beecher.  It  proves,  gentlemen,  that  the  adul- 
tery which  was  confessed  by  Mrs.  Tilton  to  her  husband 
in  July,  1870,  was  disclosed  to  Mrs.  Bradshaw  some  30 
days  after,  in  August,  1870,  as  appears  from  the  charges 
of  Mr.  West.  The  third  specification  of  the  charges  pre- 
sented against  Bowen  and  against  Tilton  for  an  assault 
ui)on  the  character  of  Mr.  Beecher  is  in  these  words  : 

3d.  At  an  interview  with  Mrs.  Andrew  Bradshaw  Ln 
Thompson's  dining-rooms,  in  Clinton-st.,  on  or  about  the 
3d  of  August,  1870,  Theodore  Tilton  stated  that  he  had 
discovered  that  a  criminal  intimacy  existed  between  Ins 
wife  and  Mr.  Beecher.  Afterward,  in  November,  1872, 
referring  to  the  iibove  conversation,  Mr.  Tilton  said  to 
Mrs.  Bradshaw  tha:  he  retracted  none  of  the  accusations 
which  he  had  formerly  made  aijainst  Mr.  Beecher. 

This  was  a  charge  presented  to  the  proper  officials  of 
Mr.  Beecher's  church.  Mr.  West— in  1871,  I  think— 
directed  to  Mr.  Beecher  a  letter,  in  which  he  apprised 
Mr.  Beecher  that  scandalous  charges  had  beeu  made 
against  him  by  Tilton  and  Bowen,  and  he,  as  a  Christian 
commmiicant  and  a  deacon  of  that  church,  deemed  it 
his  duty  to  present  chai-ges  against  those  persons. 
This  subject  convulsed  Plymouth  Church.  There  was 
no  peace,  there  has  been  no  peace,  m  Plymouth  Chm  ch 
from  that  hour  to  this. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  ALLEGED  EFFORTS  AT  SUP- 
PRESSION. 

And  it  is  the  excuse  which  Mr.  Beecher  gives 
for  ultimately,  in  June  or  July,  1874,  bringing  the  whole 
matter  before  an  investigating  committee.  But  then  from 
the  very  monient  that  Mr.  West  presented  these  charges 
until  June,  1874,  Mr.  Beecher  persistently  and  laborious- 
ly resisted  their  investigation.  Theodore  Tilton  stood 
upon  the  record  as  having  made  against  him  the  charge 
of  adultery,  and  to  a  worthy  and  pious  communicant  of 
his  own  church.  Sincere  and  honest  Christians  in  that 
church  saw  the  necessity  of  vindication.  Bowen  then  a 
commu-uicant,  Bowen  now  a  commimicant;  Theodore 
Tilton  ostensibly  connected  with  the  church;  and  yet 
these  two  men  thus  arraigned  by  a  responsible  mem- 
ber of  the  church,  aul  upon  an  explicit  charge 
of  this  character,  are  sheltered  by  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
and  every  movement  toward  investigation  is  suppressed 
by  his  great  power.  And  he  innocent;  he  under  no  rela- 
tions of  especial  friendship  or  obligations  toward  Mr. 
Bowen  or  toward  Mr.  Tilton;  he  knowing  that  these 
scandalous  charges  were  rife  in  the  com:nunity,  and  wem 
soiling  his  Christian  character  and  reducing  his  pastoral 
influence ;  he  unconscious  of  offense— any,  proud  anci 


SUMMING    UP  BY  ME.  BEACR. 


933 


grand  in  his  asserted  innocence  ;  he  gathering  about  liim 
the  power  and  influence  of  a  devoted  congregation,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few  who  Gould  not  submit  to  these 
scandalous  imputations;  he  seeing  all  the  pernicious 
conseqiuences  flowing  and  to  flow  from  uncontra- 
dicted imputations  of  this  character,  and  sensi- 
ble of  his  own  innocence,  never  i)rosecuting  the 
inquiry,  but  stamping  it  under  his  feet.  Well,  it 
requires  a  great  stretch  of  human  credulity,  it  demands 
from  us  a  reversal  of  the  principles  and  instincts  of  our 
common  nature  and  of  all  the  motives  of  human  action  to 
believe  that  this  man,  under  the  circumstances,  could  have 
rested  quietly  imder  these  dishonoring  charges.  There 
was  something  beneath  this  accusation ;  there  was  some 
influence,  some  torturing  apprehension,  some  secret  con- 
viction of  guilt,  which  bade  this  man  be  still  and  suffer  ; 
which  led  htm  to  bear  all  the  darkness  and  the  shadow 
which  was  gathering  around  his  great  and  fair  name. 
Can  you  account  for  it  otherwise  ?  Can  you  give  to  the 
law  and  to  the  great  world  a  reason  why  Henry  "Ward 
Beecher  was  not  only  silent  then,  but  scheming  and  con- 
triving and  laboring  to  stifle  investigation  ?  You  must 
accoimt  for  it.  We  are  to  judge  this  man  according  to 
our  knowledge  of  men  and  our  knowledge  of  his  own 
character,  his  own  position  ;  and  when  we  find  him  act- 
ing the  part  of  a  guilty  contriver  and  schemer  against 
the  investigation  of  a  disgraceful  charge  against  hims«lf , 
shrinking  and  slinking  from  the  light  of  proof  and  of 
truth,  we  must  impute  to  him  the  ordinary  motives  which 
apply  to  the  fugitive  criminal. 

Well,  this  was  told,  too,  as  I  have  said,  to  Oliver  John- 
eon,  and  when  he  was  on  the  stand  no  question  was  put  to 
him,  though  a  witness  for  the  defendant  upon  the  sub- 
ject. And  the  same  Summer  it  was  eommimicated  to 
Mrs.  Morse,  as  the  evidence  shows.  Tn  1870  it  was  com- 
municated to  Mr.  Joseph  H.  Richards,  the  brother  of  this 
•woman— a  direct,  unqualified  charge  made  to  her  brother, 
a  Christian  man  and  gentleman,  of  a  confession  made  by 
his  sister  of  adultery  with  Hcury  Ward  Beecher ;  and  yet 
we  are  told  that  that  man  when  he  appeared  before  the  In- 
vestigating Committee  refused  to  speak  upon  the  subject. 
Theodore  Tiltun  proves  the  communication  to  Mr.  Rich- 
ards, and  when  he  is  on  the  stand  our  friends  upon  the 
other  side  have  no  inclination  to  ask  him  the  question 
whether  in  the  year  1870  that  charge  against  his  sister 
was  made  to  him.  We  could  not  ask  it ;  our  mouths  were 
closed.  But,  if  Tilton  be  this  conspirator  and  liar  and 
base  calumniator  of  his  wife  and  his  pastor,  wlien  that 
reliable  gentleman  was  on  the  stand,  governed  as  he  was 
by  every  motive  that  could  animate  a  brother's  heart  to 
speak  in  vindication  of  his  sister  and  to  contradict  the 
slanderer  of  her  name,  why  didn't  they  ask  him  1  And, 
if  he  could  bear  favorable  testimony,  why  was  his  mouth 
ihut  before  the  In vet^ligating  Committee  ?  Xo  antagonist 
to  appear  agic  u  t  him,  before  a  favorable  tribunal— the 
chosen  Mends  oL  Mr.  Beecher— why  should  he  hesitate,  if 


he  could,  to  give  a  brother's  testimony  in  favor  of  a  sis- 
ter's slandered  fame  ?  Why,  gentlemen,  are  all  these  con- 
siderations to  be  overlooked'?  Are  the  imblushing 
confidence  and  bold  assertion  and  flippant  oratory  of 
my  learned  adversaries  to  overcome  all  these  evidences  1 
This  gathering  of  circumstances— aye,  these  circum- 
stances which  the  Providence  of  God  ever  scatters 
around  the  path  of  the  guilty— are  these  evidences  and 
circumstances  to  be  all  disregarded!  And  is  this  man, 
in  his  borrowed  robes  of  purity  and  innocence,  from  hig 
great  position— this  potentate  of  the  pulpit — is  he  to 
overturn  our  judgments  and  all  the  rules  by  which  they 
are  to  be  guided  under  the  law  1  [Applause.] 

If  this  confession  was  harmless,  if  it  imputed  no  guilt, 
it  is  a  little  remarkable  that  Mrs.  Tilton,  as  I  have  said, 
should  be  so  anxious  to  destroy  it ;  and  it  is  a  little  sin- 
gular—a little  singular  that  these  persons  implicated 
should  not  at  once  have  been  ready  with  a  prompt  denial 
of  the  accusation. 

HOW  MRS.  TILTON  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN  MADE 
A  WITNESS. 
If  your  Honor  please,  an  allusion  lias  been 

made  to  the  ofl'er  submitted  to  our  friends  on  the  other 
side  and  to  your  Honor,  by  which  we  consented  that  Mrs. 
Tilton  should  appear  as  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  defense, 
if  they  chose  to  call  her— withdrawing  all  objections 
upon  our  part.  It  is  contended  by  Mr.  Evarts,  as  follows : 
Now,  gentlemen,  there  have  been  two  persons  whom 
the  law  excludes  as  witnesses,  and  yet  who,  from  their 
relations  to  this  pai*ty  plaintiff  as  wife,  and  this  party 
defendant  as  wife,  would,  no  doubt,  in  matters  of  detail, 
in  matters  of  substance,  perhaps,  be  possessed  of  knowl- 
edge that  would  disclose  truth ;  but  the  law  inexorably 
iMis  excluded  them  both.  Mr.  Beecher  must  lose  aU  the 
confirmation  of  his  wife's  intimate  and  private  knowl- 
edge, as  the  practical  and  careftil  preserver  of  all  dares 
and  facts  and  knowledge,  in  memory,  of  all  diflicultiea 
attendant  upon  her  husband,  to  which  she  could  be  a 
witness;  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  equally  excluded  in  the  law, 
is  under  even  a  greater  disability,  if  the  absolute  exclu- 
sion had  been  overridden  by  statute,  as  in  respect  of  the 
husband,  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  done— that  is,  the 
exclusion  of  all  matters  that  passed  by  con- 
fidence between  husband  and  wife.  And  yet  my 
learned  friends,  entirely  aware  of  both  these  rules  of  law, 
first  the  absolute  exclusion  of  the  wife,  Mrs.  Tilton,  and 
second,  her  exclusion  from  testifying  as  to  what  passed 
privately  between  herself  and  her  husband  in  any  of  the 
long  intercourse  of  theti  life,  have  chosen  to  put  them- 
selves upon  a  forensic  demonstration,  after  our  case  was 
closed,  that  if  we  wished  to  call  Mrs.  Tilton  to  make  our 
case  stronger  against  them  they  would  not  object. 
*****  Well,  gentlemen,  if  they  thought  that  Mrs. 
Tilton's  evidence  would  be  agreeable  to  them,  the  way 
for  a  lawyer  to  do  an  honest,  straightforward  thing  in 
that  behalf  was  to  call  her  themselves,  and  put  upon  us, 
not  an  exhibitory  responsil5ility,  but  an  actual  responsi- 
bility, of  saying  that  we  objected;  and  she  was  the 
plaintiff's  wLfc,  and  he  knoAVs  all  about  her,  and  .<h  ,  if 
you  will  believe  him,  has  been  the  source,  and,  on  the 
evidence,  has  frequently  been  m^de  the  means  of  making, 
to  be  sxire  riot  a  charge  of  adultery,,  but  a  charge  of  im« 
proper  solicitations* 


934 


TEE   TILTON-BEECHJEJB  TEIAL. 


Now,  we  are  very  well  aware,  your  Honor,  that  a  stat- 
ute removing  tlie  disability  of  witnesses,  an  enabling 
statute  in  all  its  provisions,  making  the  wife  and  hus- 
band competent  to  testify  for  and  against  each  other,  ex- 
cludes the  operation  of  the  statute  in  specified  cases,  in- 
cluding a  case  of  this  character,  on  action  of  crim.  con. 
There  is  no  absolute  declaration  of  disability  in  this  stat- 
ute. The  disability  exists  at  common  law,  and  not  by  ex- 
press statutory  provision,  as  I  think  my  friend  improperly 
assumes.  We  admit  that  by  the  common  law  Mrs.  Tilton 
was  an  incompetent  witness  in  this  case,  either  for  or 
against  her  husband ;  but  I  insist  to  your  Honor  that 
that  is  an  incapacity  which  may  be  waived  by 
the  parties.  I  insist  that  there  is  no  dis- 
ability attaching  to  any  witness  under  any  circmnstanoes 
which,  in  a  civil  case  between  parties,  cannot  be  waived. 
Why,  Sir,  we  are  taught  that  statutory  rights  may  be 
waived  by  a  party;  we  are  taught  that  constitutional 
privileges  may  be  waived  in  a  civil  action,  either  by  an 
express  act  or  by  a  failure,  in  the  ordinary  line  of  the 
administration  of  justice,  to  object,  to  claim  the  privilege, 
to  assert  the  right.  And  what  is  there  in  the  condition  of 
these  parties,  in  the  attitude  of  this  question  of  capacity 
—what  is  there  to  prevent  this  lady  from  being  a  witness 
it  both  the  parties  consent  that  she  shall  be  ?  The  ques- 
tion of  evidence  is  not  under  the  control  of  the  Court, 
except  under  the  objection  and  insistance  of  parties. 
We  may  present  a  concession,  we  may  give  a  stipulation 
to  the  opposite  party  admitting  facts,  or  they  to  us, 
without  violation  of  any  of  the  rules  of  evidence, 
formed,  it  is  true,  for  the  ascertainment  of  truth, 
but  the  ascertainment  of  truth  with  reference  to 
the  particular  parties  to  whom,  against  whom,  and 
for  whom  the  investigation  is  pi'oduced.  And  if  the 
husband  and  Mr.  Beecher  should  agree  that  the  wives  of 
both  might  beproducedupon  this  stand  there  is  no  power 
In  the  Court  or  in  the  law  to  exclude  them.  Why,  it  is 
ruled.  Sir,  that  although  it  is  the  policy  of  the  law  to  ex 
chide  confidential  communications  as  between  husband 
and  wife,  yet  they  may  be  introduced  by  the  consent  of 
the  parties  to  be  affected.  In  the  conduct  of  a  private 
action  involving  private  rights,  and  private  rights  alone, 
public  policy  does  not  interfere  to  control  the  manner  of 
its  conduct.  Every  party  has  a  right  to  assert  or  to 
waive  his  claim  and  his  privilege,  and  whenever  and  how- 
ever he  pleases,  and  the  law  cannot  command  his  course. 

Now,  Sir,  in  the  case  of  The  People  agt.  Sanders,  in 
3  Hun.  16,  which  was  the  case  of  a  common  law  certiorari 
to  review  a  conviction  against  a  defendant  as  being  a 
disorderly  person,  it  appeared  that  upon  the  trial  of  the 
relator  upon  that  charge  his  wife  was  examined  as  a 
wituess  against  him,  and  that  was  made  one  of  the 
giouaiis  upon  which  he  attempted,  through  this  process, 
to  reverse  the  conviction. 

Judge  Neilson— The  objectiou  not  having  been  taken 
below,  ^ 


Mr.  Beach— The  objection  not  having  been  taken  below. 
And  the  Court  held  that  it  furnished  no  reason  for  the 
reversal  of  the  conviction.  Now ,  Sir,  if  the  arguments  of 
the  learned  gentlemen  are  sound,  if  the  disability  rests 
exclusively  upon  the  idea  of  public  policy,  upon  a  declara- 
tion or  rule,  whether  by  statute  or  at  common  law,  so 
positive  and  expUoit  that  it  cannot  be  disregarded  by  the 
will  of  the  parties,  it  is  perfectly  apparent  that  this  de- 
cision must  have  been  otherwise.  If  the  law  says  abso- 
lutely and  inexorably,  as  the  counsel  says  it  does,  that 
the  wife  shaU  not  be  a  witness  for  or  against  her  husband, 
why,  then,  if  she  ia  introduced  and  it  is  a  violation  of 
public  policy,  which  is  the  wrong,  of  course  the  Court, 
upholding  public  policy,  protecting  public  interest 
and  guarding  it  from  the  concessions  and 
privileges  of  parties,  would  declare  against 
any  judgment  founded  upon  such  a  violation. 
But,  says  the  gentleman,  this  was  a  "  forensic  exhibition." 
If  your  Honor  please.  It  was  at  the  close  of  the  case  of 
the  defendant  that  the  offer  to  consent  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  Mrs.  Tilton  was  made.  We  were  not  certain 
whether  or  not  she  would  be  offered  before  we  made  the 
proposition.  Indeed,  I  may  say  truthfully,  that  we  ex- 
pected—expec<cc^,  after  all  the  declamation  whicb  had 
been  made  as  to  the  hardship  of  her  exclusion,  and  when 
they  ventured  to  claim  that  she  was  the  real  party  m 
interest  in  this  case,  why  we  supposed,  we  expected 
that  they  would  offer  her  in  vindication  of  her 
own  rights,  in  defense  of  her  own  interest  and 
name.  If  she  was  substantially  a  party,  if  her 
rights  were  to  be  at  all  affected  by  this  judgment,  there 
was  great  plausibility  and  appearance  of  right  and  iustice 
iu  the  claim  that  she  should  be  a  witness.  We  waited 
patiently,  untU  they  concluded  their  case,  and  then 
made  the  proposition,  which  they  rejected,  to  receive  h.  r 
as  a  witness  if  they  chose  to  present  her.  Ah !  but  sayn 
the  gentleman,  "if  you  had  acted  in  an  honest  and  an 
honorable  way  you  would  have  produced  her  your 
selves."  Well,  that,  your  Honor,  is  altogether  too  unrea- 
sonable and  absurd  for  comment.  With  this  lady  stand- 
ing in  the  relation  she  did.  consorting  with  those  with 
whom  she  did,  evincing  her  tendencies  and  her  feelings 
as  she  did,  it  is  certamly  somewhat  unrea- 
sonable to  ask  that  Mr.  Tilton  should  have 
introduced  her  as  a  wituess,  and  thus  put  himscif  in  a 
position  where  he  could  not,  by  cross-examination  or  con- 
tradiction, test  the  truth  and  the  sincerity  of  her  testi- 
mony, governed,  as  we  suppose  it  would  be,  by  the  same 
influences  and  the  same  sentiments  which  have  with- 
drawn her  from  oui*  protection  and  association. 

Again,  the  gentleman  says  it  is  a  great  hardship  that 
Mrs.  Beecher  should  be  excluded.  Well,  why  did  n't  they 
offer  her  1  The  question  never  was  presented  to  us.  My 
own  judgment.  Sir,  would  have  been,  if  the  question  had 
been  presented,  to  allow  that  lady  to  take  the  stand.  T 
1  am  in  lavor,  Sir,  in  this  case,  of  a  full  investigation  :  I 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MR.  BEACIL 


925 


have  no  professioTial  zeal  in  this  case  which  leads  me  to 
corer  up  the  truth ;  I  have  no  desire  for  a  result  in  this 
case  "Which  would  govern  any  decision  which  I  might 
make  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  evidence  offered. 
It  is  perfectly  plain  that,  so  far  as  the  materialities  of 
this  case  are  concerned,  the  evidence  of  Mrs.  Beeoher 
could  be  of  no  essential  moment,  yet  I  -vv^ould  have  been 
very  glad  to  have  heard  what  she,  under  a  cross-examina- 
tion, might  have  said  in  regard  to  various  of  the  aspects 
of  this  investigation. 

Why  was  not  Mrs.  Tilton  called  1  You  must  consider 
that  question.  They  were  free  to  caU  her.  With  our  con- 
sent the  law  permitted  It.  She  is  a  glorious  spirit,  In  the 
estimation  of  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Pure  and  white, 
as  these  two  men  believe  and  swear,  we  thinlr— that  is, 
my  client  thinks— that  she  sinned  without  fault.  Mr. 
Beecher  believes  that  she  never  had  a  temptation  to  sin, 
much  less  a  fall  beneath  it.  She  knows  the  truth.  If  she 
be  innocent,  if  her  written  and  oral  declarations  are  lies, 
If  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  never  did  address  to  her 
base  and  improper  solicitations,  aye,  if  he  did  not  defile 
her  body,  that  woman  thus  exalted  upon  that  stand,  with 
a  voice  that  would  have  penetrated  the  conscience  of  .the 
•world,  could  have  declared  his  and  her  tanocenee.  [Ap- 
plause.] 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  this  won't  do. 

Mr.  Beach— Gentlemen,  there  is  no  escape  from  this  ar- 
gument. The  subtle  sophistry  and  the  legal  errors  of  my 
learned  friend  cannot  diminish  its  moral  force,  and  I  re- 
peat again  with  emphasis,  in  the  hope  that  it  will  be  im- 
pressed f.pon  the  judgment  and  conscience  of  each  of 
these  jurymen ;  why  was  not  Elizabeth  E.  Tilton  per- 
mitted to  teU  you  all  that  her  conscience  would  permit 
her  to  say  ? 

Now,  let  me  read  to  you,  gentlemen,  what  the  teaching 
of  the  law  is  upon  that  subject : 

The  conduct  of  a  party  in  omitting  to  produce  that  evi- 
dence in  elucidation  of  the  subject  matter  in  dispute 
which  is  within  his  power,  and  which  rests  peculiarly 
witliin  -his  own  knowledge,  frefiu  ■  atly  affords  occasion 
for  presumptions  against  him,  since  it  raises  a  srvoug  sus- 
picion that  such  evidence,  if  adduced,  would  operate  to 
his  prejudice. 

"WTiere  a  party,  being  apprised  of  the  evidence  to  be 
adduced  against  him,  has  the  means  of  explanation  or 
reii^'tation  in  his  power,  if  the  charge  or  claim  against 
him  be  unfounded,  and  does  not  explain  or  refute  that 
evidence,  the  strongest  presumption  arises  that  the 
char-e  is  true  or  the  claim  well  founded.  It  would  be 
comrary  to  all  experience  of  hirman  nature  and  conduct 
to  come  to  any  other  conclusion. 

Xow,  consider  the  condition  of  things.  Tilton  swearing 
tiitit  his  ^\ale  confessed  adultery  to  him  with  Mr.  Henry 
Ward  Beecher;  swearing  that  on  the  30th  of  December 
lie  coiniimnic;ited  to  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  the  fact  of 
that  confession  charging  adultery  ;  Mr.  Beecher  denying 
it  and  limiting  it  to  improper  solicitations,  and  Mrs.  Til- 
ton mil  de  a  competent  witness  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  to  contradict  the  fact  either  that  she  made 


any  such  confession,  or  that  there  was  any  criminality  be- 
tween herself  and  Mr.  Beecher,  and  they  fa:lingto  present 
her,  you  would  not  call  upon  us  to  do  it.  We  were  ac- 
cusing ;  we  were  asserting ;  we  had  given  proof  of  our 
accusation  and  assertion.  It  rested  upon  them  to  con- 
tradict. They  strove  to  do  it  by  their  client.  They  failed 
to  do  it  by  a  witness  whose  testimony  would  have  exerted 
a  profound,  if  not  a  conclusive,  influence  upon  that 
issue.  Ah,  gentlemen,  can  you  not  see  the 
reason,  when  you  find  upon  this  evidence  the 
proof  that  the  fact  of  this  confession  had 
been  communicated  to  various  parties,  to  Richards,  to 
Bradshaw,  to  Mrs.  Emma  Moulton,  and  to  others,  to 
Florence  TUton— I  don't  know  whether  that  is  in  evi- 
dence—but  when  you  see  from  the  proof  that  the  fact  of 
that  confession  had  been  thus  commimicated  to  various 
respectable  and  responsible  persons,  do  you  not  see  the 
reason  whj'  Elizabeth  R.  Tilton  was  not  produced  as  a 
witness,  and  why,  in  the  presence  of  the  solemnity  of 
this  occasion  and  with  the  sanction  of  an  appeal  to  her 
Maker,  she  dared  not  stand  as  a  witness  and  deny  what 
she  had  so  often  solemnly  asserted?  T  assume,  gentle- 
men, that  under  this  rather  brief  and  hasty  considera- 
tion of  the  confession  of  Mrs.  Tilton  you  will  believe 
that  it  was  one  of  adultery,  and  a  confession  of  adultery 
commimicated  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  deriving  its  force  and 
significance  from  the  recognition  and  verity  which  he 
gave  it,  _ 

MR.  BEECHER'S  COXFESSIOXS. 

Next,  we  are  to  consider  the  confession  of 
Mr.  Beecher.  [To  M r.  Morris.]  Have  you  got  that  here, 
Mr.  Morris  ? 

Mr.  Moi  ris— Not  here. 

Mr.  Beach— Not  here  ! 

Mr.  Morris— No  ;  it  is  printed. 

Mr.  Beach— I  know  it  is  printed.  Never  mind.  Sir,  it 
is  of  no  consequence.  We  assert,  then,  b\-  a  \  arlerj  of 
oral  and  written  declarations,  by  a  course  of  conduct 
inexplicable  except  upon  that  assumption,  Mr.  E-^echer 
has  over  and  over  again  admitted  the  fact  of  his  im- 
proper connection  with  Mrs.  Illton.  We  do  not  rest  it 
alone  upon  oral  testimony.  We  confirm  it  by  the  ordi- 
nary evidences  of  a  written  confession  and  declaration, 
and  these  two  sources  of  evidence  mutually  support 
each  other.  Neither  of  them  is  to  be  considered  indc 
pendently  and  separately.  They  are  cooperating 
meaus  of  proof.  They  are  difterent  sources  of  light 
conjoining  to  one  focus  and  one  poiut.  If  yoM 
choose  to  call  them  in  one  department  they  are  cii'cum- 
stances  surro;inding  positive  and  direct  proof  and  sus- 
taining it,  upholding  them.  We  must  consider  them  not 
onlj'  in  their  respective  but  in  their  collective  characcer, 
and,  as  I  have  again  and  again  said,  we  must  consider 
them  as  coming  from  a  man  with  the  peculiarities  of  Mr. 
Henry  Ward  Beecher.   We  must  try  him  by  himself,  by 


THE    TILTCm-BfJKCHJiJR  JJUAL. 


aclrnowiedged  (loalitieg,  by  his  teitipcrament,  liis  dis- 
position, his  impulses,  his  inwardness.  Now,  Tilton  niid 
Moult  on  and  Mrs.  Moulton  swear  that  Mr.  Beecher  com- 
mitted adultery.  Woodruff  and  Moulton  and  Tilton 
8wear  that  adultery  was  the  charge  made  to  Tracy,  who 
assumed  to  represent  Mr.  Beecher.  I  do  not  stop  now  to 
read  the  evidence.  If  either  of  these  witnesses,  Tilton  or 
Moulton  or  Mrs.  Moulton,  is  to  be  credited  in  this  case, 
if  their  collective  evidence  fortifying  each  other,  and 
every  part  of  it,  is  to  be  received  as  true  by  this  jiu-y,  Mr. 
Beecher  is  a  guilty  and  forsworn  man.  And  it  is  neces- 
sary, in  the  first  place,  passing  over  the  oral  evidence,  to 
examine  this  "  Letter  of  Apology,"  or  "  Contrition,"  as  it 
is  called. 

It  is  suggested,  if  your  Honor  please,  that  I  should  be 
in  the  midst  of  cousidei'ing  this  instrument  if  I  were  to 
continue  my  argument  now. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well.  [To  the  jurors."!  The  jury 
will  return  at  2  o'clock. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 

THE  LETTER  OF  CONTRITION. 
Tlie  Comt  met  at  2  p.  m.  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

Mr.  Beech— In  commenting  iipon  this  "  Letter  of 
Apology,"  or  "Contrition,"  whatever  designation  may 
be  given  to  it,  Mr.  Evarts  remarked  that  it  was  originally 
called  a  "  Letter  of  Apology,"  and  that  in  the  Bacon 
Letter  and  elsewhere,  Mr.  Tilton  had  spoken  of  it  as  a 
'*  "L-etter  of  Apology."  In  my  judgment  no  signiflcance  is 
due  to  the  particular  appellation  attached  to  this  paper  ; 
whetlierit  is  called  a  "  Letter  of  Apology"  or  a  "  Letter 
of  Contrition,"  its  value  and  effect  are  to  be  determined 
by  its  contents.  It  might  very  properly  be  called 
either.  Mr.  Shearman,  when  this  instrument  was 
produced,  ventured  to  intimate  that  it  had  been 
prepared  with  different  ink,  rather  conveying  the  im- 
putation that  it  had  been  an  entirely  fabricated  document, 
and  written  under  circumstances,  from  the  fact  of  the 
difference  in  ink  and  the  style  of  punctu.ation,  which 
would  suggest  the  idea  of  fraudulent  fabrication.  That 
has  not  been  continued  by  the  arguments  of  either  of  my 
learned  friends.  It  could  not  be,  because  it  is  very  ap- 
parent that  those  differences  in  the  ink  were  caused  by 
the  exhaustion  of  the  pen  or  by  circumstances  which 
very  often  occur  in  tlie  course  of  writing.  It  is  pretty 
plain  tliat  Mr.  Moulton  did  not  have  either  a  very  good 
pen  or  very  fluent  ink,  rather  thick  and  dark ;  but  there 
is  no  pretense  of  any  such  characteristic  now  about  this 
document. 

The  important  question  arising  upon  the  evidence  re- 
garding this  paper  is,  whether  it  is  the  production  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  whether  it  really  expressed  his  sentiments  at 
the  time  it  was  drawn  by  Mr.  Moulton.  And  you  remem- 
"ber  the  general  circumstances  as  narrated  by  both  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton  under  which  it  was  written. 


By  the  statement  of  both,  Mr.  Beecher  profoundly  m:)ve«3 
fi-om  some  cause  or  other,  not  important  just  now  to  con- 
sider, his  wiiole  being  was  distmbed  and  agitated.  He 
was  expressing  himself  in  the  most  emotional  manner  , 
he  was  grieving  and  sorrowing  over  something,  and  hig 
heart  was  unreservedly  poured  out  in  the  extremest 
language  of  regret,  if  not  of  penitence.  He  represents 
that  Mr.  Moulton  was  making  a  memorandum  of  the  con- 
versation,- or  of  his  utterances,  for  the  purpose  of  sub- 
mitting, communicated  in  some  form,  to  Mr.  Tilton,  as 
expressive  of  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of  Mr.  Beecher 
toward  Tilton,  and  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  some 
character  which  was  disturbing  these  parties. 
Mr.  Moulton  swears  to  you  that  he  di-afted  this  writing 
from  the  expressions  made  by  Mr.  Beecher  at  the  time, 
inditing  his  language,  writing  it  under  his  dictation. 
Well,  there  is  no  serious  disparity  between  the  two  wit- 
nesses in  this  respect.  Whether  this  was  written  in  the 
strict  sense  of  dictation,  that  is,  word  by  word,  as  it  fell 
immediately  from  the  Hps  of  Mr.  Beecher,  or  whether  it 
wac  an  accurate  reiiresentatlon  of  his  language  as  it  was 
caught  by  Mr.  Moulton  at  the  time,  is  not  of  any  very  , 
great  importance.  The  (inestion  Is,  is  it  the  language 
of  Mr.  Beecher  1 

It  is  said  that  thi3  paper  is  not  good  English;  that  a 
great  master  of  language,  a  perfect  linguist  like  Mr. 
Beecher,  would  not  have  produced  a  do,  ument  of  that 
character.  Well,  this  paper  has  excited  very  extensive 
comments  here,  not  only,  but  elsewhere.  In  imitation  of 
my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Porter,  I  may  say  that  when  that 
instrument,  or  its  copy,  was  read  to  one  of  the  most  cul- 
tivated and  distinguished  of  the  editors  of  the  Citj'  of 
New-York,  he  broke  out  with  the  exclamation,  "  That's 
Beecher,  that's  Beecher  all  over.  Shakespeare  might  ua 
well  deny  the  authorship  of  the  soliloqiay  of  Hamlet  as 
Beecher  to  deny  that  paper."  Well,  now  we  have  differ- 
ent conceptions,  all  of  us,  of  the  power  and  grace  of  lan- 
guage. Mr.  Porter  thinks  it  an  awkward,  un-English 
document,  neither  lofty  in  sentiment  nor  i)owerful  in  ex- 
pression. WeU,  personally  I  differ  with  him,  and  I  think 
I  have  the  opinion  of  the  educated  world  with  me  upon 
that  subject.   I  want  your  opinion  if  I  can  get  it. 

I  ask,  through  you,  Theodore  Tilton's  forgiveness,  and 
I  humble  myself  before  him  as  I  do  before  my  God. 

Well,  there  is  not  much  Moultonism  in  that.  [Laugh- 
ter.] This  man,  who  is  represented  as  an  egregious  sinner, 
this  heathen,  as  they  say,  not  only  in  profession  but  in 
practice,  if  lie  was  originating  a  document  of  this  char- 
acter, it  is  not  very  probable  that  he  would  open  it  with 
such  an  expression  of  intense  sorrow  and  humility. 

I  ask,  through  you,  Theodore  Tilton's  forgiveness,  and 
I  humble  myself  before  him  as  I  do  before  my  God.  He 
would  have  been  a  better  uian  in  my  circu;iist..:K  «'-'  tl.;in 
I  have  been. 

Well,  that  Mr.  Beecher  admits.  He  adopt.'*  that  ex- 
pression, and  he  says  that  he  undoubtedly  expressed  hie 


SUMMiyG    UP  BT   MR.  BEACR, 


927 


eorroT,  and  undoubtedly  in  some  form  expressed  a 
desire  for  the  forgiveness  of  Mr.  Tilton,  So  the  3ut>stanee 
of  this  instrument  so  far  is  Mr.  Beecher's. 

I  can  ask  nothing  except  that  he  will  rememher  all  tlie 
other  hearts  that  "would  ache. 


Well,  that  is  not  denied  by  Mr.  Beecher. 

I  even  wish  that  I 


were 


I  will  not  plead  for  myself, 
dead. 

Well,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  Mr.  Beecher  also  admitted 
that  he  might  have  used  that  expression— a  wish  for 
death. 

But  others  must  live  and  suffer.    I  will  die  before  any 
one  but  myself  shall  be  inculpated. 
Inculpated  I 

All  my  thoughts  are  running-  toward  my  friends,  toward 
the  poor  child  lying  there  and  prayiug  with  her  folded 
hands.  She  is  guiltless,  simied  against,  bearing  the  trans- 
gressions of  another.  Iler  forgiveness  I  have.  I  humbly 
pray  to  God  that  He  luay  put  it  in  the  heart  of  her  hus- 
band to  forgive  me. 

I  have  trusted  this  to  Morilton  in  confidence. 

Now,  imagine  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  oppressed  with  a 
sense  of  guilt,  accused  and  conscious  of  an  offense  against 
his  nature  and  character,  and  expressing  all  the  emo- 
tions which  would  be  awakened  in  a  nature  like  his  when 
contemplating  the  baseness  of  his  offense  and  the  conse- 
quences which  had  followed  upon  the  heel  of  discovery 
and  publicity.  Can  you  conceive,  is  there  a  man  in  this 
assembly  who  can  conceive  a  more  appropriate  and  ex- 
pressive declaration  to  be  addressed  to  the  man  he  had 
wronged  than  that  "  Letter  of  Contrition,"  more  naturaliu 
its  sentiment,  more  forcible  in  every  word,  in  every 
phrase  and  sentence,  than  that  paper  ?  No  man  need  be 
ashamed  of  it.  And  if  Moulton  is  the  literary  sham  and 
pretender  he  is  represented  to  be  by  Mr.  Porter,  is  it  con- 
ceis-able  that  he  could  originally  draft  a  document  of 
that  character  ?  Giving  him  his  true  qualities  as  a  culti- 
vated gentleman,  as  Mr.  Beecher  swears  he  was,  a  man  of 
literary  taste,  yet  he  was  an  active  man  of  business,  not 
accustomed  to  literary  writing  or  literary  address.  He 
was  not,  at  least,  a  prayerful  man.  He  was  a  little  pro- 
fane in  his  expressions,  according  to  the  evidence.  He 
was  a  bold,  active,  aggressive  worker  In  the  affairs  and 
struggles  of  life.  Woiud  he  have  written  such  a  docu- 
ment as  that  in  his  best  estate  ?  Would  it  not  have  been 
more  concise,  business-like,  practical,  not  dealing  in  that 
exalted  sentiment  and  that  force  of  religious  expression 
and  thought  which  breathes  from  every  paragraph  of  that 
doctiment  ? 

Well,  if,  too,  Moulton  be  a  conspirator;  if  that  letter 
never  was  siibmitted  to  the  inspection  of  Mr.  Beecher  or 
read  by  him;  if  in  careless  confidence  he  attached  to  it 
the  certificate  of  his  name,  under  the  declaration  that  it 
was  delivered  iu  trust  to  Moulton,  and  there  being  plenty 
of  room  between  the  writing  of  the  body  of  the  instru- 
ment and  iNIr.  Beecher's  name ;  if  Moulton  be  so  depraved 
and  arrant  a  scoundrel,  so   faithless  and  malignant 


toward  Jrr.  Beecher.  why  didn't  he  put  into  the  letter 
something  more  equivocal  and  distinct  and  explicit! 
Why  didn't  he  so  fashion  it  as  to  meet  these  imputed  pur- 
poses and  to  gratify  this  imputed  spirit  of  rascality  and 
meanness]  And  so  you  see,  looking  at  the  cir- 
cumstances surrounding  the  paper,  judging  from  its 
conception,  from  its  style  of  thought,  its  mode  of 
expression,  from  the  probabilities  arising  from  the  char- 
acter of  the  two  parties,  you  perceive  that  that  was 
obviously  the  thought,  sentiment,  and  expression  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher.  It  is  said  it  is  badly  punctuated. 
Well,  whose  fault  was  that  1  Not  Mr.  Beecher's.  Mr. 
Beecher  didn't  know  it.  Nobody  pretends  that.  If 
badly  punctuated,  if  there  is  a  comma  where  there 
shoitld  be  a  period,  why,  it  is  the  fault  of  Moulton.  It 
didn't  result  from  the  dictation  of  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr. 
Beecher  didn't  tell  Mr.  Moulton,  put  a  comma  here  or  put 
a  period  there.  In  the  overflow  of  his  swollen  heart  and 
feelings  he  was  bursting  out  with  these  expressions  of 
sorrow,  these  declarations  of  kindness  and  purpose ;  lie 
didn't  stop  to  give  any  directions  to  Moulton  except  by 
this  outpouring  of  his  feelings,  and  in  the  haste  of  trans- 
ferring the  language  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  writing  it  is  not 
sing-ular  at  all  that  Mr.  Moitlton  should  even  have  for- 
gotten, if  he  knew,  the  rules  of  punctuation. 

"  Oh,  well,"  savs  Mr.  Porter,  "  there  is  a  change,  an 
alteration  in  it."  The  word  '*  cnn't,"  I  believe,  was  writ- 
ten where  it  should  be  "can."  A  "t"  is  improperly 
attached  to  the  word.  Well,  that  is  not  the  fault 
of  Mr.  Beecher.  It  Is  an  error  of  the  writer. 
Mr.  Beecher  says  that  ho  is  a  difficult  man  to 
report.  Well,  Mr.  Moulton  probably,  therefore,  was 
pretty  busily  engaged  in  reducing  this  instrument  to 
writing,  and  in  the  hurry,  in  the  possible  agitation  of  the 
moment,  in  this  outburst  of  feeling  upon  the  part  of  Sir. 
Beecher,  these  errors  are  by  no  means  sing-ular;  they 
don't  detract  at  all  from  the  force  of  the  declara- 
tion of  3klr.  Moulton  that  it  was  written  from  the 
dictfition  of  Mr.  Beecher.  Well,  Mr.  Porter  says  again: 
"  It  is  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  epistolatory  corre- 
spondence that  a  gentleman  has  directed  a  letter  to  him- 
self." He  thinks  it  a  striking  singularity,  improbabDity, 
that  Mr.  Moulton ,  writing  at  the  dictation  of  3Ir.  Beecher, 
shoitld  have  headed  this  letter  with  an  address,  "  To  my 
dear  friend  Moulton."  Well,  it  did  not  strike  my  learned 
friend  that  that  was  an  argument  that  could  be  retorted 
upon  him  with  considerable  force.  If  this  was  not  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Beecher  addressed  to  Mr.  Moulton,  if  it  was 
the  letter  of  Mr.  INIoulton  to  himself,  or  a  memorandum, 
would  Moulton  have  been  guUty  of  the  foRy  of  address- 
ing it  to  himself  1  Indulge  the  suspicions  of  my 
learned  friend,  and  the  accusations  against  Mr. 
Moulton  that  this  in  any  sense  or  for  any  purpose 
is  a  fabricated  document,  the  authorship  of  which  did 
not  belong  to  Mr.  BeechCT,  would  Mr.  Moulton  have 
headed  it  with  an  address  to  himself  1  But,  regarding  it 


938 


TEE    TlLTON-BEKrEER  TRIAL, 


as  he  represents  it  to  be,  as  a  production  of  liis  own,  in- 
tended to  influence  the  heart  and  the  tendencies  ot  Theo- 
dore Tilton,  addressed  through  Moulton,  to  be  submitted 
to  Tilton,  the  opening  of  the  letter  is  appropriate  and 
proper,  and  accords  with  that  situation  of  things  : 

In  trust  with  F.  D.  Moulton— I  have  trusted  this  to 
Moulton  in  confidence. 

Why,  what  have  you  eciven  to  Moulton  in  confidence, 
Mr.  Be<^cher  ?  His  memorandum,  made  at  his  own  sug- 
gestion, for  his  own  purpose,  not  your  words,  not  your 
production,  nothing  you  are  responsible  fori  If  it  be 
true,  as  you  say,  that  you  told  Moulton  that  he  cotvld 
make  a  memorandum  for  himself,  and  use  it  for 
himself,  why  does  Mr.  Beecher  assume  to  say : 
*'  This  paper,  with  its  writing,  with  its  sentiment 
and  thoughts,  I  trust  to  you,  Moulton,  in  confidence  1"  and 
can  he  now  disclaim  the  proprietorship  of  the  instru- 
ment ?  Can  he  say,  •*  It  is  not  my  paper,  I  disown  it," 
after  making  this  solemn  declaration  that  he  intrusted  it 
as  belonging  to  himself,  as  something  which  he  gave  of 
Ms  own  right  and  by  Ms  own  property  title  to  Moulton 
in  confidence  1  And  for  what !  To  keep  1  For  whom  1 
For  Mr.  Beecher  t 

And  the  stupid  proposition  is  made  that  Mr.  Beecher 
confides  to  Mr.  Moulton  a  hasty  and  unauthoritative  mem- 
orandum Moulton  himself  makes,  which  belongs  to  Mm, 
and  wMch  he  has  the  power  and  the  right  to  use  as  he 
chooses.  Mr.  Beeiiher  assumes  to  commit  it  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton in  confidence  as  Ms,  Beecher's,  paper  to  be  i^eserved 
for  him  (his  title  not  being  disputed  to  it).  I  do  not  per- 
ceive that  this  paper  is  at  all  ungrammatical  in  its  ex- 
pressions, in  the  construction  of  its  sentences.  It  is  sug- 
gested by  my  associate  that  that  accusation  was  brought 
against  it ;  but  I  have  read  it  to  you.  I  don't  know  how 
I  can  repil  that  idea  fmy  more  forcibly  than  by  simply 
reading  the  document.  There  is  no  inaccuracy  of  ex- 
pression ;  there  is  no  violation  of  any  rule  of  grammar 
with  which  I  am  acquainted  and  wMch  I  can  perceive. 

I  am  handed  an  extract  from  the  "  Lecture  Boom 
Talks"  of  Mr.  Beecher,  in  wMch  he  speaks  of  certain  con- 
ditions of  the  mind  and  the  emotions  wMch  lead  to 
extravagant  and  hasty  (sometimes  unconsidered)  ex- 
pressions. He  quotes  from  the  Bible  the  language  of  an 
ancient  patriarch : 

Is  it  right  for  us  to  go  to  God  with  that  spirit  wMch 
Jacob  exhibited  when  he  wrestled  with  the  angel  and 
said,  "  I  wiU  not  let  thee  go  except  thou  bless  me  1"  That 
is  not  the  language  of  every  day.  It  was  the  crisis  of 
the  patriarch's  life,  and  he  was  kindled  to  an  ecstacy  of 
feeling.  When  the  mind  is  roused  up  it  chooses  its  own  lan- 
guage. There  are  crises  in  every  man's  life,  of  ^saster 
and  of  ecstatic  desire,  in  wMch  the  soul  mounts  up  and 
employs  language  that  could  not  ordinarily  be  employed. 
And  when  the  feeling  justifies  it,  there  is  nothing  that 
the  soul  may  not  use.  When  the  soul  is  in  battle  it  seizes 
anytMng  for  a  shaft  and  lets  it  fly.  And  when  a  man  is 
in  anguish  and  agony,  and  is  impleading  God,  he  does 
not  stand  on  grammar  or  words.  But,  when  a  man  in 
liie  ordinary  key  of  feeling  brinies  down  tiiiis  lan^aage  of 


I  paroxysmal  moments  [that  word  occurring  again !} 
this  language  of  paroxysmal  moments  and  employs  it,, 
it  is  wrong,  of  coiu  se. 

OTHER  MARKS  OF  IDENTITY  ABOUT  THE 
LETTER. 

That  was  just  the  condition  of  mind  in 

which  Mr.  Beecher  was  at  the  time,  so  graphically  de- 
scribed by  him  in  this  quotation.  And  therq  Is  an  ex- 
travagance and  au  intensity  of  language  and  expression 
in  tMs  document  which  mark  it  not  only  as  Ms  own, 
conforming  to  his  style  and  expression,  but  as  appro- 
priate to  the  particular  condition  in  wMch  he  happened 
at  the  time  to  be.  There  are  cei-tain  other  iadications  m 
tMs  paper  which  appear  to  identify  it : 

All  my  thoughts  are  running  toward  my  friends, 
'  toward  the  poor  child  lying  there  and  praying  with  her 
folded  hands. 

In  the  statement  of  Mr.  Beecher  describing  the  scene 
he  uses  language,  I  think,  still  more  expressive  and 
pathetic : 

Mrs  Tilton  lay  upon  her  bed,  white  as  marble,  with 
closed  eyes,  as  in  a  trance,  and  with  her  hands  on  her 
bosom,  palm  to  palm,  like  one  in  prayer. 

Is  there  any  doubt  the  same  lips  uttered  those  sen- 
tences? The  identity  of  idea,  the  characteristics  of  ex- 
pression, showing  the  same  conception  of  the  condition 
and  appearance  of  Mrs.  Tilton  at  the  time  he  visited  her. 
[To  Mr.  Morris.]  Can  you  not  fui-nish  me  with  page  893 
of  the  second  volume  of  the  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Evarts  [handiag  the  book  to  Mr.  Beach]— Here 
it  is. 

Mr.  Beach— Thank  you.  Sir ;  I  am  very  mi>ch  obliged.  I 
propose  to  refer  you  to  a  declaration  of  Mr.  Beecher  in  his 
statement  made  before  the  Committee,  given  in  evidence, 
wMch  recognizes  this  letter  of  apology.  Speaking  of  the 
interview  between  Moulton  and  himself,  he  says : 

To  a  mutual  friend  I  poured  out  my  soul  like  water.  I 
did  not  measure  words.  I  took  upon  myself  immeasur- 
able blame.  I  wished  him  to  convey  to  Tilton,  in  lan- 
guage overcharged  with  feeling,  my  profound  regrets 
and  apologies.  The  apology  was  accepted.  Reconcilia- 
tion was  made.  Kind  and  social  relations  were  for  a  time 
continued. 

Now,  that,  I  submit,  is  a  substantial  adoption  of  this 
instrument,  of  the  existence  of  which  Mr.  Beecher  cer- 
tainly was  informed,  and  he  regards  it  as  the  apology 
which  he  made  through  Mr.  Moulton  to  IMi".  Tliton. 
Then,  again,  in  this  letter  of  June  1,  1873,  which  is  ad- 
dressed to  Mr.  Moulton,  alluding  to  the  "  Tripartite 
Agreement,"  he  savs  : 

The  agreement  was  made  after  my  letter  through  you 
was  written. 

He  had  had  it  a  year.  Well,  that  is  this  letter  of  Jan. 
1,  confessedly.  There  is  no  othgr.  Mr.  Beecher  asserts 
that  it  is  k.  s  letter  through  Mr.  Moulton  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
and  at  that  date,  1873,  Mr.  Beecher  did  not  pretend  to 
dispute  the  authorship  of  this  letter.  He  recognized  it  aa 
his  own,  asserted  it  as  his  own,  vested  upon  it  as  the  ex- 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MR.  BEACH. 


939 


pression  of  Ms  own  fotling  to^ward  Mr.  Tilton,  and  "wliicli. 
in  the  aspect  in  \rhicli  lie  was  here  regarding  it,  should 
have  been  and  was  satisfactory  to  Mr.  Tilton.  Again,  in 
the  evidence  of  Mrs.  Moiilton : 

After  he  (Moulton)  had  left  the  room  I  said:  "Mr. 
Beecher,  do  you  knowwhat  Mr.  Tilton  has  promised  in 
The  Eagle  of  to-night?"  He  said:  "No,  I  do  not."  I 
said:  "He  has  promised  to  give  to  the  public  a  state- 
ment of  the  facts  in  this  case  in  10  days.  If  he  publishes 
that  statement  it  will  ruin  you."  He  said  :  "I  think 
not."  "  But,"  I  said,  "  he  will  publish  your  letter  ox  con- 
trition." He  said:  "I  have  never  made  any  confession 
in  writing."  I  said :  "  That  letter  given  to  Moulton  in 
coniidence."  "Well,"  he  said,  "if  that  letter  is  pub- 
lieL.ed  it  is  a  breach  of  confidence  on  the  part  of  Frank,  if 
he  publishes  that  letter." 

Still  regarded  and  accepted  by  Mr.  Beecher  as  his  own 
letter.  In  the  testimony  of  Mi\  Tilton  he  represents  Mr. 
Beecher  to  have  said  to  him,  when  the  project  of  pub- 
lisiiing  cards  was  suggested  ; 

But,  '«aid  he :  "  It  will  be  id'e,  for  me  to  deny  this 
story,  leaving  you  at  liberty  at  any  time  to  publish  my 
letter  through  Moulton." 

And  I  can  refer  you  to  other  passages  in  the  evidence, 
and  other  occasions  upon  which  this  Letter  has  been 
adopted  by  Mr.  Beecher  as  his  own. 

Mr.  Evarts  ridicules  the  idea  of  confession.  He  says 
criminals  never  confess.  It  is  against  nature  to  make  a 
confession.  He  recognizes  none  of  the  influences  and  the 
operations  of  the  human  conscience.  He  disregards  the 
experience  of  the  world.  In  answer  to  his  argument,  it 
might  be  sufficient  to  say  that  this  was  not  a  voluntary 
confession,  a  first  and  primary  disclosure  of  his  own  guilt 
by  Mr.  Beecher.  He  was  confronted  with  evidence 
against  which  he  could  not  stand.  What  was  his  policy  ? 
Why,  confession;  appeal  to  charity  and  forgiveness. 
It  was  not  a  manful  denial  of  innocence,  but  it  was  the 
effort  of  a  consciously  guilty  man,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  accusation,  to  pacify  the  accuser 
amd  avoid  the  charge.  But,  gentlemen,  how 
often  is  it,  how  often  is  it  in  our  observance 
of  human  nature,  as  connected  with  confessed  criminals, 
that  they  are  driven  by  the  harrowing  anxiety  and  agony 
of  theii'  own  hearts  to  pour  out  a  confession  of  guilt  ? 
Who  shall  control  the  operations  of  conscience  1  Who 
Sliall  comprehend  all  the  mysteries  of  Divine  Prov- 
idence 1  Who  shall  tell  how  His  spirit  works  upon  the 
guilty  heart,  bringiag  to  it  conviction  of  sin,  and  driving 
it  by  the  piercing  tortures  of  remorse  and  sorrow  to  open 
confession  %  Mr.  Webster,  in  the  speech  referred  to  by 
my  learned  friends,  in  a  quotation  from  it  in  the  trial  of 
Knapp  for  the  murder  of  Capt.  Joseph  White,  graphically 
speaks  of  the  operation  and  power  of  conscience,  de- 
scribing the  movements,  the  writhiugs,  the  distortions  of 
the  c]>iminal  under  the  power  and  force  of  his  own  con- 
viotions  and  the  dread  of  discovery.  Of  course  it  is 
addressed,  applicable  as  in  this  case,  to  the  example  of  a 
man  charged  with  murder.     After  speaking  of  the 


direction  of  every  eye  ?-nd  every  thought  upon  the 
occasion  of  a  murder  to  the  detection  of  the  offender, 
he  says : 

Meantime  the  guilty  soul  cannot  keep  its  own  secret. 
It  is  false  to  itself,  or,  rather,  it  feels  an  irresistible  im- 
pulse of  conscience  to  be  true  to  itself.  It  labors  under 
its  guilty  possession,  and  knows  not  what  to  do  with  it. 
The  human  heart  was  not  made  for  the  residence  of  such 
an  inhabitant.  It  finds  itself  preyed  upon  by  a  torment 
which  it  dare  not  acknowledge  to  God  or  to  man.  A  vul- 
ture is  devoui'ing  it,  and  it  can  ask  no  sympathy  or  assist- 
ance either  from  heaven  or  earth.  The  secret  which  the 
murderer  possesses  soon  comes  to  possess  him,  and,  like 
the  evil  spirits  of  which  we  read,  it  overcomes  him,  and 
leads  him  whithersoever  it  will.  He  feels  it  beatin-r  at 
his  heart,  risrag  to  hiis  throat,  and  demauding  disclosure. 
He  thinks  the  whole  world  sees  it  in  his  face,  reads 
it  in  his  eyes,  and  almost  hears  its  workings  in  the  very 
silence  of  his  thoughts.  It  has  become  his  master.  It 
betrays  his  discretion,  breaks  down  his  courage.  It  con- 
quers his  prudence.  When  suspicions  from  without 
begin  to  embarrass  him,  and  the  net  of  circumstances  to 
entangle  him,  the  fatal  secret  struggles  with  still  greater 
violence  to  burst  forth.  It  must  be  confessed  ;  it  will  be 
confessed.  There  is  no  refuge  from  confession  but 
suicide,  and  suicide  is  confession. 

Well,  how.  does  the  doctrine  of  my  learned  friend 
Evarts  stand  against  this  portraiture  of  nature  by  the 
great  orator  of  America,  and  founded  upon  his  vast 
knowledge  of  human  nature  1  We  have  some  prominent 
teachings  from  a  higher  source  than  Webster  in  regard  to 
the  tendencies  atkd  operations  of  the  human  conscience. 
St.  Paul  recommends  confession.  "  Confess  your  faults,"  is 
his  injunction,  and  did  he  misapprehend  human  nature ! 
Did  he  think,  with  Mr.  Evarts.  that  it  is  contrary  not 
only  to  human  nature,  but  to  human  experience,  for  men 
to  confess  their  faults  or  crimes  ?  And  in  that  parable  of 
the  prodigal  son,  intended  to  express  the  duty  of  repent- 
ance and  reform,  the  contrite  and  wandering  sou  is  made 
to  say :  "  I  wiU  arise  and  go  to  my  father,  and  say, 
'Father,  I  have  sinned  before  heaven  and  in  thy 
sight.' "  It  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture ;  it  is 
the  teaching  of  nature;  it  is  the  teaching  of 
human  experience.  But,  gentlemen,  I  recall  your 
thoughts  again  to  the  idea  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  not 
making  a  sudden  and  a  new  confession  of  his  fault.  He 
was  doing  it  not  only  in  the  presence  of  accusation,  but 
in  the  presence  of  conclusiv,e  evidence.  It  was  the  nat- 
ural result,  sequence,  of  the  transactions  of  Dec.  30.  It 
was  the  obvious  thing  the  man  was  bound  to  do  for  his 
own  protection,  for  the  salvation  of  the  family  he  would 
have  otherwise  destroyed.  Look  at  the  condition  of 
things.  See  what  was  the  obvious  policy  which  an  hon- 
orable and  a  wise  man  woiild  adopt  under  such  circum- 
stances. Mrs.  Tilton  declaring  to  her  husliaud,  "  We  are 
both  pledged  to  the  avoidance  of  publicity."  Mr. 
Beecher,  bowed  and  suffering  beneath  the  discovery  of 
his  offense,  tendering  to  the  wronged  husband  his  contri- 
tion and  his  remorse,  and  his  prayer  for  forgiveness  ; 
confessing,  without  reserve,  the  whole  extent  of  his  sin. 


930 


THE   TILION-BEFAJEEB  TBIAL. 


yet  appealing  to  Ms  charity,  cunningly  suggesting  that 
there  are  other  hearts  that  mnst  suffer,  that  it  is  the  sick 
and  the  afflicted  and  the  wronged  wife,  lying 
with  her  folded  hands,  white  as  marble,  as 
if  in  a  trance,  that  she,  too,  must  suffer.  These 
three  spirits,  all  conciu'ring  in  the  idea  of  silence, 
what  should  the  offender  do  but  make  just  such  a  decla- 
ration of  his  sin,  of  his  contrition— just  such  an  appeal  as 
this,  not  only  to  the  interests,  but  to  the  Christianity,  to 
the  magnanimity  of  the  man  he  had  hurt  ? 


ME.  BEECFER'S  GRATITUDE  FOR  MR.  MOUL- 
TON'S  SERVICES. 

And  this  is  done,  gentlemen,  this  is  done 
under  the  promise  made  by  the  most  intimate  friend  of  the 
parties,  that  that  would  secure  the  forgiveness  and  the 
kindness  of  Theodore  Tilton.  That  is  the  plea  addressed 
by  Moulton  to  Beecher  at  the  time  this  instrument  was 
dictated,  addressed  to  an  angry  husband,  when,  as  Mr. 
Beecher  says  in  his  statement,  he  supposed  and  believed 
fiom  the  tempestuous  anger  of  Mr.  Tilton  that  the  accu- 
sation was  to  be  pressed,  and  he  was  to  be  chased  to  a 
public  exposure.  Now,  it  concurs  with  aU  these  circum- 
stances, it  harmonizes  with  the  condition  of  things  and 
the  condition  of  the  parties  at  the  time.  See  how  this  con- 
struction is  confirmed  by  other  productions  of  Mr.  Beecher 
—in  the  letter  of  Feb.  7,  1871— the  two  letters,  one  to 
Moulton,  and  the  other  to  Mrs.  Tilton  of  that  date  : 

Mt  Dear  Mr.  Moulton  :  I  am  glad  to  send  you  a  book 
which  you  will  relish,  or  which  a  man  on  a  sick  bed 
ought  to  relish.  I  wish  I  had  more  like  it,  and  that  I 
could  send  you  one  every  day,  not  as  a  repayment  of 
your  great  kindness  to  me,  for  that  can  never  be  repaid— 
jiot  even  by  love,  which  I  give  you  freely. 

Many,  many  friends  has  God  raised  up  to  me,  but  to  no 
one  of  them  has  he  ever  given  the  opportunity  and  the 
wisdom  so  to  serve  me  as  you  have.  My  trust  in  you  is 
Implicit.  You  have  also  proved  yourself  Theodore's 
friend  and  Elizabeth's.  Does  God  look  down  from 
lieaven  on  three  unhappy  creatures  that  more  need  a 
friend  than  these  ? 

Is  it  not  an  intimation  of  God's  intent  of  mercy  to  all, 
that  each  one  of  these  has  in  you  a  tried  and  proved 
friend  1  But  only  in  you  are  we  three  united.  Would  to 
God,  who  orders  all  hearts,  that  by  your  kind  mediation, 
Theodore,  Elizabeth,  and  I  could  be  made  friends  again. 
Theodore  will  have  the  hardest  task  in  such  a  case ;  but 
has  he  not  proved  himself  capable  of  the  noblest  things  ? 

I  wonder  if  Elizabeth  knows  how  generously  he  has  car- 
ried himself  toward  me  %  Of  course,  I  can  never  speak 
with  her  again,  except  with  his  permission,  and  I  do  not 
know  that,  even  then,  it  would  be  best.  My  earnest  long- 
ing is  to  see  her  m  the  fuU  sympathy  of  her  nature  at  rest 
In  him,  and  to  see  him  once  more  trusting  her,  and  loving 
her  with  even  a  better  than  the  old  love.  I  am  always 
sad  in  such  thoughts.  Is  there  any  way  out  of  this  night  ? 
May  not  a  day-star  arise  ? 

Truly  yours  always,  with  trust  and  love, 

Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

Then  the  letter  to  Mrs.  Tilton. 

When  I  saw  you  last  I  did  not  expect  ever  to  see  you 
again  or  to  be  alive  many  daya>.   God  was  kinder  to  me 


than  were  my  own  thoughts.  The  friend  ^  hom  God  ?pn| 
to  me  (Mr,  Moulton)  has  proved,  above  all  friends  that 
ever  I  had,  able  and  willing  to  help  me  in  this  terrible 
emergency  ot  my  lile. 

Mr.  Beecher  had  been  guilty  of  no  offense  according  to 
his  own  consciousness  and  oath.  What  was  there  to 
harm  Mr.  Beecher  1  Why  did  he  fear  church  investiga- 
tion ?  What  was  there  in  all  the  surroundings  of  this 
transaction,  its  possibilities,  that  could  trouble  Mr. 
Beecher,  if  he  was  so  purely  innocent  as  he  represents 
himself  to  be  1  True,  according  to  his  idea,  he  had  un- 
consciously won  the  affection  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  but  nothing 
had  come  from  it.  There  had  been  nothing  but  the  most 
ordinary  and  friendly  intimacy,  according  to  Mr.  Beecher. 
There  had  been  no  vulgar  relations  between  them.  There 
had  not  been  anything  beyond  those  ordinary  civilities 
of  friendship  and  pastoral  regard  which  Mr.  Beecher  was 
accustomed  to  tender  to  members  of  his  church.  What 
created  this  most  terrible  emergency  in  the  life  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  why  does  he  write  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  the 
alleged  victim  of  his  lust,  that  Moulton  had  been  to  him 
his  best  and  ablest  and  most  willing  friend  to  help 
him  in  this  most  terrible  emergency  of  his  lite  I 
Now,  gentlemen,  please  consider  this  voluntary  and  free 
expression  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  contrast  It  with  the  self- 
representation  he  gives.  "  His  hand  it  was  that  tied  up 
the  storm  that  was  ready  to  burst  upon  our  heads."  This 
is  written  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  not  to  Mr.  Tilton.  "  It  is  a 
storm,"  says  he  to  that  woman,  "  arising  in  this  most  ter- 
rible emergency  of  my  life ;  it  is  a  storm  Moulton  has  tied 
up,  which  was  ready  to  burst  on  your  head  and  mine." 
That  is  the  sense  of  this  letter.  That  is  its  expression  in 
substance.  Why  does  Mr.  Beecher,  on  the  7th  of  Febru- 
ary, 1871,  immediately  after  these  interviews  of  Decem- 
ber, 1870,  and  the  apology  of  January  1, 1870— pray 
answer  me,  gentlemen,  in  all  the  solemnity  and  with  all 
the  candor  of  your  judgments,  what  was  it  at  that  date 
which  induced  Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  write  that  confes- 
sion of  his  peril  and  that  gratitude  to  the  friend  who  had 
protected  him  and  his  confederate  from  the  storm  ready 
to  burst  on  them  %  Who  was  it  that  tied  it  up  ?  Who  was 
It  that  Intervened  1  Who  was  it  that  suppressed  all  these 
tendencies  to  evil  ?  It  was  Francis  D.  Moulton,  and  lie 
tells  you  what  the  storm  was,  what  the  emergency  was, 
which  extracted  from  this  great  soul  this  expression  at 
once  of  fear  and  gratitude. 

I  am  not  less  disposed  to  trust  him  since  finding  that 
he  has  your  welfare  most  deeply  and  tenderly  at  heart. 
You  have  no  friend,  Theodore  excepted,  who  has  it  in  his 
power  to  serve  you  so  vitally,  and  who  will  do  it  with  so 
much  delicacy  and  honor.  I  beseech  of  you,  if  my  wlshet 
have  yet  any  Infiuence,  let  my  deliberate  judgment  in 
this  matter  weigh  with  you,  &c.  *  *  *  In  him  we  have 
a  common  gTound.  You  and  I  may  meet  in  him.  The 
past  is  ended.  But  is  there  no  futui'c— no  wiser,  higher, 
holier  future  ?  May  not  this  friend  stand  as  a  priest  in 
the  new  sanctiiary  ot  reconciliation  to  mediate,  to  bless 
you,  Theodore,  and  my  most  unhappy  self*  Do  not  l.'t 
uiy  euruoiditneos  iiiil  of  Its  end;  you  believe  in  my  judg- 


Sr^lMISG    CP  BY  JIB.  BEACH. 


931 


ment;  I  have  put  mrseU  -wholly  and  gla-dly  in  Mo  niton's 
hands,  and  There  I  must  meet  vou.  This  is  sent  -witl? 
Theodore's  cuu.^ent,  bur  he  has  not  read  it,'  Will  you  re- 
turn U  to  me  hy  his  hands  ?  I  am  very  earnest  in  tliis 
wish,  for  all  our  sakes,  as  such  a  letter  ought  not  be  sub- 
ject to  even  a  chance  of  miscarriage. 

Well,  TThv  nut  ?  Why  did  Beecher  say  that  a  letter  like 
this,  addi-essed  to  Mrs.  Tilton  ought  to  be  returned  to  him 
and  not  be  subject  to  a  chance  of  miscarriage  1  If  there 
Tras  no  hidden  meaning,  if  there  was  no  implied  confes- 
sion, if  it  expressed  no  improper,  no  unjust  sentiment, 
vrhy  should  Mr.  Beecher  in  this  single  instance  be  desir- 
ous of  suppressing  his  own  declaration  \  Exerything 
about  this  letter,  gentlemen,  speaks  the  condition  of  the 
man  and  is  eloguent  In  declarations  of  the  character  of 
his  offense. 

THE  "EAGGED  EDGE  LETTEE.''' 
We  come  down  to  February  of  1872.   I  will 

not  trouble  you  with  the  reading,  just  now,  of  this  enrire 
letter  ;  but  there  are  expressions  in  it  which  reveal  the 
true  condition  of  things  : 

My  vacation  was  profitable.  I  came  back  hoping  that 
the  bitterness  of  death  was  passed.  But  T.'s  troubles 
brought  back  the  cloud  with  even  severer  suffering.  But 
chronic  evils  require  chronic  remedies.  If  my  destruc- 
tion would  place  him  (Theodore)  all  right,  that  shall  not 
stand  in  the  way.  I  am  willing  to  step  down  and  out. 
ZSTo  one  can  offer  more  than  that ;  that  I  do  offer.  Sacri- 
fice me  without  hesitation,  if  you  can  clearly  see  your 
way  to  his  safety  and  happiness  thereby.  I  don't  think 
that  anything  would  be  gained  by  it.  I  should  be  de- 
stroyed, but  he  would  not  be  saved.  E.  (Elizabeth)  and 
the  children  would  have  their  future  clouded.  In  one 
point  of  view  I  could  desire  the  sacrifice  on  my  part. 

I  have  constantly  to  call  your  attention  to  the  chai'ac- 
ter  of  this  man,  and  his  position  in  connection  with  de- 
clarations of  this  character,  and  of  similar  import.  Why 
did  Mr.  Beecher,  in  1872,  declare  thai  he  was  willing  to 
be  sacrificed  for  the  benefit  of  Theodore  Tilton  ?— that  he 
was  willing  to  step  dovm  and  out  from  his  high  position, 
-and  his  pulpit,  if  Moulton  could  see  that  that  was  to  pro- 
duce safety  to  >Ir.  Ti'.ton  and  his  family  1  Assuming  :Mr. 
Beecher  to  be  the  man  that  he  declares  himself  to  be, 
conscious  of  no  offense,  never  addi'essrng  an  impure 
thought  or  proposition  to  the  wife  of  Ms  friend,  yet 
dwelling  in  this  bitterness  of  death,  with  the  hor- 
ror of  great  darkness  brooding  over  him,  willing 
to  step  down  from  his  glorious  attitude  as  the 
leading  preacher  of  the  day,  conscious  of  all  Ms 
great  powers  and  Ms  ennobling  influences,  feeling 
past  achievements  and  their  glory  and  benefit,  and  con- 
scious that  the  future  was  full  of  the  same  career  of 
glory  and  of  benefaction  to  his  fellow-men— that  man 
offering  to  st^p  down  from  his  pulpit,  abandon  Ms  great 
mission,  offer  himself  as  a  ready  aitd  a  willing  sacrifice  if 
Theodore  Tilton  can  be  helped,  Elizabetli  can  be  saved, 
and  her  children  protected  from  a  dishonoring  and  a 
withering  blight  I  I  cannot,  gentlemen,  elaborate  a  topic 
of  this  character.   I  canuot  make  it  more  emphatic,  more 


'  appealing  to  all  the  sympathies  and  the  sentiments  of 
'  our  being  than  the  mere  expression  itself,  connected  with 
I  your  recollection  of  the  character  of  tMs  defendant  and 
I  the  circumstances  by  wMch  he  was   surrounded.  I 
shall  come  to  epeak,  by  and  by,  of  the  idea  wMch  he 
presents    of    interference    in    the    famUy  relation 
of  advice,  and  of  an  unconscious  winning  of  the  affections 
of  :Mrs.  Tilton.   Suppose  it  all  to  be  true,  what  was  there 
'  in  it  that  caused  this  great  preacher  to  tender  himself  as 
I  a  sacrifice  for  the  woman  who  had,  unsought,  bestowed 
her  affections  upon  Mm,  to  satisfy  the  wrongs  of  advicQ. 
i  to  a  separation  wMeh  was  never  followed,  and  to  repair 
j  the  injuries  produced  by  advice  to  Bowen,  which  came 
]  after  the  injury  had  been  produced.   And  tMs  is  the  oMy 
apology  in  the  case  wMch  is  presented  for  this  solemn 
offer  of  sacrifice  by  Mr.  Beecher.   He  proceeds  : 

Nothing  can  possibly  be  so  bad  as  the  horror  of  great 
darkness,  in  wMch  I  spend  much  of  my  time.  I  look 
upon  death  as  sweeter-faced  than  any  friend  I  have  in 
the  world.  Life  would  be  pleasant  if  I  could  see  that  re- 
built wMch  is  shattered.  But  to  live  on  the  sharp  and 
ragged  edge  of  anxiety,  remorse,  fear,  despair,  and  yet 
to  put  on  all  the  appearance  of  seremty  and  happiness 
cannot  be  endured  much  longer. 

Bemorse  I  Despair!  The  horror  of  great  darkness; 
the  bitterness  of  death  !— in  tMs  condition  this  man  was 
dwelling  and  suff'ermg.  And  yet  he  says  there  was  no 
adec^uate  cause  for  it — "  I  have  done  nothing.  It  was 
true  when  I  looked  up  to  Mrs.  Moulton  and  said  to  her, 
'  Mrs.  Moulton,  I  am  a  good  man.'"  Is  it  conceivable, 
gentlemen  ?  Ai-e  we  to  adopt  any  such  theory  in  regard 
to  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  these  declarations 
coming  from  a  great  minister,  from  a  master  of  our  lan- 
guage, from  a  teacher  in  all  the  ways  of  human  nature, 
of  30  years'  experience  in  the  discipline  and  control  of 
the  human  mind,  and  the  culture  of  the  human  heart; 
this  man  dwelling  in  darkness  of  spirit,  on  the  ragged 
edge  of  despau-  and  remorse,  and  yet  sialess  ?  Why,  did 
you  ever  consider  the  force  of  that  expression  ? 

But  to  live  on  the  sharp  and  ragged  edge  of  anxiety, 
remorse,  fear,  despair,  and  yet  to  put  on  an  appearance 
of  serenity  and  happiness  cannot  be  endured  much 
longer. 

Xever  was  there  a  more  emphatic  or  appealing  descrip 
tion  of  human  sorrow  and  human  spirit  sufferlDgl  It 
was  an  excess  of  feeling,  a  prostration  of  soul,  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  bitter  angmsh  and  emotion,  never 
uttered  by  a  human  heart  in  words  of  more  appealing 
and  significant  power.  And  yet  they  mean  nothing! 
Uttered  in  the  progress  of  tMs  transaction,  expres- 
sive of  his  condition,  jS^eseriptive  of  the  rela- 
tions of  these  parties  it,  characteristic  of 
what  it  was,  we  are  yet  to  be  told,  when 
we  come  to  an  examination  of  it,  that  it  is  senseless  and 
unmeaning.  Mr.  Webster  defines  remorse  to  be  '"the 
keen  patu  or  anguish  excited  by  a  sense  of  guilt ;  com- 
punction of  conscience  for  a  crime  committed  " — quite 
different  in  its  signification  from  regret.    We  are  sorry 


932 


TEB   TlLTOy-BmJCHER  TBIAL. 


for  and  regret  a  wrong  committed  against  another  that 
has  not  the  qualities  and  the  consequences  of  crime  in  its 
moral  character  and  its  intensity.  But  when  we  speak  of 
remorse,  we  speak  of  It  as  sorrow  for  crime.  Philoso- 
phers, poets,  orators,  preachers,  all  use  it  in  that  sense. 
Such  is  the  legitimate  meaning.  And  it  is  used  hy  a 
sMUful  scholar,  by  an  acknowledged  master  in  the  use  of 
terms. 

I  think  I  have  had  at  least,  gentlemen,  a  half  a  dozen 
letters  from  prominent  persons  from  all  sections  of  the 
land  desiring  me  to  draw  attention  to  a  similarity,  a 
parallel  supposed  to  exist  between  the  case  of  David,  in 
his  treatment  of  Uriah  and  his  wife,  and  the  expression 
of  his  penitence,  the  manner  In  which  his  confession  was 
made,  and  the  poetic  and  expressive  song  of  David  over 
this  his  oflfense,  in  his  Psalms.  And  just  here,  gentle- 
men, allow  me  to  say  that  I  am  endeavoring  to  shorten 
and  abridge  my  argument.  It  has  been  most  enor- 
mously expanded,  and  very  unexpectedly  to  me,  and  I 
feel  painfully  that  I  am  trespassing  very  considerably 
upon  the  time  of  the  Court,  and  against  the  ideas  which 
I  entertained  as  to  the  character  of  the  argument  which 
should  be  submitted  to  vou  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff. 
I  hoped  and  believed  that  in  the  course  of  a 
couple,  or,  possibly,  three  days,  I  might  have 
presented  to  you  that  argument.  But  I  have  this 
apology,  that  the  able  and  learned  addresses  of  my  ad- 
versaries presented  so  many  topics  for  consideration, 
which  it  was  concluded  I  could  not,  without  disrespect 
for  them,  and,  possibly,  injury  to  my  cause,  omit  to  con"- 
Bider,  that  I  have  been  led  into  a  line  and  extent  of  dis- 
cussion that  is  aflSicting  to  me,  and  I  am  very  certain  it 
is  oppressive  to  you.  But  I  am  urged  by  my  associates, 
and  my  client,  not  by  an  abridgment  of  my  scheme  of 
argument,  to  lessen  what  may  and  does  appear  to  them 
its  force.  And,  although  I  am  determined  not  to  follow 
out  to  the  extent  of  their  wishes  the  course  of  thought 
which  had  occurred  to  me  originally,  yet  you  must  par- 
don me  for  troubling  you  with  a  little  of  detail  upon 
topics  which  we  suppose  to  be  important.  Because,  gen- 
tlemen, so  much  time  was  spent  by  me  in  the  attempt  to 
answer  the  addresses  of  my  learned  friends, 
that  I  have  reserved  but  little  time  to  myself  for  the 
presentation  of  suggestions  which  appeared  to  me  to  be 
pertinent  in  the  first  instance. 

EXAMPLES  DRAWN  FROM  THE  BIBLE. 
Therefore  I  read  David,  or  Samuel  [langli- 
terj,  and  it  is  done  to  gratify  Christian  ministers  and 
Christian  men.  They  think— the  Christian  mind  of  this 
country  thinks— that  someting  should  be  said  in  this  case, 
and  that  what  should  be  s?^  should  be  exemplified  by 
some  proof  derived  from  the  writings  and  teachings  of 
Mr.  Beecher.  The  Christian  world,  I  believe,  think  that 
something  should  be  said  to  disabuse  all  minds  of  the 
'dea   that   this   man,  however   grand    and  great  in 


his  intellectual  attributes,  is  not  a  useful  or  a 
distinguished  public  teacher  of  morals  and  religion, 
and  I  am  determmed  to  say  it.  However  unwillingly, 
and  however  disagreeable  it  may  be  to  my  own  personal 
feeling,  yet  it  is  due  to  the  character  of  this  case  that  this 
man,  who  appears  upon  the  witness-stand  in  single  and 
open  defiance  of  the  oaths  of  three  respectable  witnesses, 
and  in  opposition  to  his  own  declarations  and  confes- 
sions, and  to  all  the  circumstances  which  surround  this 
transaction— that  this  man  should  be  taught  that  no 
pride  of  place,  that  no  conspicuousness  of  character,  that 
no  grand  or  great  intellectual  or  physical  qualities  can 
enable  him  to  overturn  the  rules  of  law  and  evidence,  and 
to  consign  to  infamy  several  of  our  most  respectable 
citizens.  Now,  Samuel  says : 

And  it  came  to  pass,  after  the  year  was  expired,  at  the 
time  when  kings  go  forth  to  battle,  that  David  sent  Joab, 
and  his  servants  vsrith  him,  and  all  Israel ;  and  they  de- 
stroyed the  children  of  Ammon,  and  besieged  Kabbath. 
But  David  tarried  still  at  Jerusalem. 

And  it  came  to  pass,  in  an  eveningtide,  that  David 
arose  from  off  his  bed,  and  walked  upon  the  roof  of  the 
King's  house  ;  and  from  the  roof  he  saw  a  woman  wash- 
ing herself  ;  and  the  woman  was  very  beautiful  to  look 
upon. 

And  David  sent  and  inquired  after  the  woman. 
And  one  said.  Is  not  this  Bath-sheba,  the  daughter  of 
Eliam,  the  wife  of  Uriah  the  Hittite  ? 

And  David  sent  messengers,  and  took  her  ;  and  she 
came  in  unto  him,  and  he  lay  with  her  ;  for  she  was  puri- 
fied from  her  imoleanness ;  and  she  returned  unto  her 
house. 

Then  Joab  was  out  against  the  Ammonites,  and  Uriah, 
the  husband  of  Bath-sheba  was  in  the  army. 

And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  morning,  that  David  wrote  a 
letter  to  Joab,  and  sent  it  by  the  hand  of  Uriah. 

And  he  wrote  in  the  letter,  saying,  let  ye  Uriah  in  the 
forefront  of  the  hottest  battle,  and  retire  ye  from  him, 
that  he  may  be  smitten,  and  die. 

And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Joab  observed  the  city,  that 
he  assigned  Uriah  unto  a  place  where  he  knew  that 
valiant  men  were. 

And  the  men  of  the  city  went  out,  and  fought  with 
Joab :  and  there  feU  some  of  the  people  of  the  servants 
of  David ;  and  Uriah  the  Hittite  died  also. 

Then  Joab  sent  and  told  David  all  the  things  concern- 
ing the  war ; 

And  charged  the  messenger,  saying.  When  thou  hast 
made  an  end  of  teUing  the  matters  of  the  war  unto  the 
king. 

And  if  so  be  that  the  King's  wrath  arise,  and  he  say 
unto  thee.  Wherefore  approached  ye  so  nigh  unto  the 
city  when  ye  did  tight  ?  knew  ye  not  that  they  would 
shoot  from  the  wall? 

Who  smote  Atoimelech  the  son  of  Jerubbesheth  ?  did 
not  a  woman  cast  a  piece  of  a  millstone  upon  him  from 
the  wall,  that  he  died  in  Tliebeg  ?  why  went  ye  nigh  the 
wall  ?  then  say  thou.  Thy  servant  Uriah  the  Hittite  is 
dead  also. 

So  the  messenger  went,  and  came  and  shewed  David 
all  that  Joab  had  sent  him  for. 

And  the  messenger  said  unto  David,  Surely  the  men 
prevailed  against  us,  and  dame  out  unto  us  into  the  field, 
and  we  were  upon  them  even  imto  the  entering  of  the 
gate. 

And  the  shooters  shot  from  off  the  wall  uiK)n  thy  serv- 


SUMMING   UP  BY  MB.  BEACH. 


933 


ants ;  and  some  of  the  Kind's  servants  be  dead,  and  tliy 
servant  Uriali  the  Hittite  is  dead  also. 

Then  David  said  unto  the  messenger,  Thus  shalt  thou 
say  unto  Joah,  Let  not  this  thing  displease  thee,  for  the 
B-word  devoureth  one  as  well  as  another :  make  thy  hat- 
tie  more  strong  against  the  city,  and  overthrow  it ;  and 
encourage  thou  him. 

And  -when  the  wife  of  Uriah  heard  that  Uriah  her  hus- 
band was  dead,  she  mourned  for  her  husband. 

And  when  the  mourning  was  past,  David  sent  and 
fetched  her  to  his  house,  and  she  became  his  wife,  and 
bare  him  a  son.  But  the  thing  that  David  had  done  dis- 
pleased the  Lord. 

Now,  in  the  XXXIId  Psalm,  David  speaks  of  the  effect 
of  remorse,  not  any  more  poetically  or  expressively,  I 
think,  than  Mr.  Beecher  does : 

Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  not 
iniquity,  and  in  whose  spirit  there  is  no  guile. 

When  I  kept  silence,  my  bones  waxed  old  through  my 
roaring  aU  the  day  long. 

For  day  and  night  thy  hand  was  heavy  upon  me ;  my 
moisture  is  turned  into  the  drought  of  Summer. 

And  in  the  List  Psalm,  David  expresses  his  remorse 
and  contrition  in  a  prayer  addressed  to  God.  In  the 
heading  to  the  psalm,  it  is  said  that  it  is  addressed  "  to 
the  chief  Musician,  A  Psalm  of  David,  when  Nathan  the 
prophet  came  unto  him,  after  he  had  gone  in  to  Bath- 
sheba."  Nathan  the  prophet  reproached  him  with  his 
sin,  and  imprecated  Divine  vengeance  upon  it : 

Havamercy  upname,  O  God,  according  to  Thy  loving 
kindness:  according  unto  the  multitude  of  Thy  tender 
mercies  blot  out  my  ti-ansgressions. 

Wash  mo  thoroughly  from  mine  iniquity,  and  cleanse 
me  from  my  sin. 

For  I  acknowledge  my  transgression,  and  my  sin  is  ever 
before  me. 

Against  Thee,  Thee  only,  have  I  sinned,  and  done  this 
evil  in  Thy  sight,  that  Thou  mightest  be  justified  when 
Thou  speakest,  and  be  clear  when  Thou  judgest. 

Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my 
mother  conceive  me. 

Behold,  Thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts,  and  in 
the  hidden  part  Thou  shalt  make  me  to  know  wisdom. 

Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean ;  wash  me, 
and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow. 

Make  me  to  hear  ioy  and  gladness,  that  the  bones 
which  Thou  hast  broken  may  r^ioice. 

Hide  Thy  face  from  my  sins,  and  blot  out  all  mine 
Iniquities. 

Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a  right 
spirit  within  me. 

Cast  me  not  away  from  Thy  presence,  and  take  not  Thy 
holy  spirit  from  me. 

Restore  unto  me  the  joy  of  Thy  salvation,  and  uphold 
me  with  Thy  fi-ee  spirit. 

Then  wiU  I  teach  transgressors  Thy  ways,  and  sinners 
shall  be  converted  unto  Thee. 

Mr.  Beecher  was  familiar  with  that.  He  knew  the  his- 
tory of  David  and  Uriah  and  Bathsheba;  he  had  of  ten 
ifcad  with  admiration  this  Psalm  of  David,  so  beautifully 
expressive  of  a  godly  rei>entance— of  that  contrition  of 
goul  which  recognizes  its  own  impurity  and  stretches  out 


its  hands  to  God  for  forgiveness,  mercj ,  and  love.  Again 
and  again  he  had  preached  from  that  psalm,  and  euforced 
the  duties  taught  by  it,  and  pressed  upon  humanity  the 
exami)le  of  David.  It  was  in  the  same  spirit,  I  believe, 
gentlemen,  it  was  with  the  same  sense  of  contrite  and  re- 
pentant guilt  that  Mr.  Beecher  wrote  those  words  of  piti- 
ful agony  and  remorse  that  I  have  read  to  you.   He  did 
not    use     them    unmeaniugly.     He    was  speaking 
in  that  condition  of  feeling  which    disregards  ex- 
pression, yet  uttering,    in    the  intensest  language, 
the  emotions,    burning  and    boiling  and  scorching, 
in    the     awakened     nature    of    a    guilty    man ; 
and  he  cries  out  in  the  bitterness  of  death,  looking 
through  the  "  horror  of  a  great  darkuess"  to  the  paci- 
fied and  forgiving  countenance  of  God,  and  confessing 
to  Him  not  only  his  sufferings,  but  his  despair  and  re- 
morse—which ever  accompany  the  outspoken  heart  of 
the  convicted  and  contrite  sinner.   Oh  I  have  you  not 
seen  a  heart  like  that,  wi'ithiug  in  the  first  conviction  of 
sin,  struggle  with  its  consciousness,  its  despair,  and  re- 
morse ;  and  have  you  not  seen  it  when  the  forgiveness  of 
God  has  beamed  upon  it,  with  smiles  lighting  up  tbe  m- 
expressible  joy  of  a  redeemed  and  forgiven  soul  ?  Yes, 
Sir,  you  have ;  and  so  have  we  all.   This  experience  Mr. 
Beecher  passed  through,  and  it  explains  the  despair  and 
remorse  he  felt  when  the  greatness  of  his  offense  was 
first  made  apparent  to  him,  and  when  its  pitiful  andlonff 
train  of  consequences  was  opened  to  his  sensibility.  But 
by-and-by  you  will  see  him,  with  the  load  lifted  from  hla 
heart,  rising  up  in  the  joy  and  gladness  of  a  forgiven 
man,  and  appearing  here,  and  appearing  there,  and  ap- 
pearing yonder,  Sunday  after  Sunday,  the  blithest  and 
gladdest  man  in    all    creation.    But  there  is  this 
difference  between  David  and  Mr.  Beecher.   It  was  not 
enough  that  David  was  penitent  toward  his  Redeemer. 
It  was  not  enough  that  he  confessed  his  sin  to  his  Father 
and  Judge ;  he  confessed  it  before  men ;  and  I  think 
that  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  an  honest  and  an  effective 
confession  and  repentance ;  for  the  guilty  and  convicted 
sinner,  who  dares  not  confess  his  sin  before  men,  has  not 
risen  to  that  exaltation  of  being  which  entitles  him  to  the 
forgiveness  of  his  Maker.  There  is  the  fault.   That  is 
what  this  pure  Christian  spirit,  Mrs.  Moulton,  pressed 
upon  him—"  I  believe  you  have  repented,  Mr.  Beecher  ; 
I  believe  you  have  reformed  :  but  your  duty  to  God  and 
to  humanity  is  to  confess  to  your  church.   Hide  not  your 
sin  I  Live  not  in  this  duplicity  and  deceit !   Confess,  and 
you  shall  be  forgiven ;  and  even  in  the  eye  of  men  you 
shall  be  redeemed  from  the  filthiuess  of  your  offense.** 

VIVID  PICTURES  OF  REMOESE. 
A  brief  qnotation  from  Byron's  poem  of 
"The  Giaour"  will  convey  to  you,  genllemen,  I  think,  a 
more  vivid  idea  of  that  feeling  of  remorse  which  Mr. 
Beecher  expresses,  than  almost  anything  els«  in  the  En- 
glish language  J 


934 


UiK    TILTON-BEECRER  TRIAL. 


Tlic  mind  that  broods  o'er  guilly  vrcja 
Is  like  the  scorpion  girt  hy  tire, 
In  circle  narrowing  as  it  slows, 
The  flames  around  their  captive  close 
Till  mly  searched  by  thousand  throes 
And  maddening  in  her  ire. 
One  sad  and  sole  relief  she  knows. 
The  sting  she  nourished  for  her  toes, 
Whose  venom  never  yet  was  vain, 
Gives  but  one  pang  and  cures  all  pairi 
And  darts  into  her  desperate  brain . 
,  So  do  the  dark  in  soul  expire 

Or  live  like  scorpion  girt  by  fire ; 
So  writhes  the  mind  remorse  hath  riven, 
Unfit  for  earth,  undoomed  for  heaven ; 
Darkness  above,  despair  beneath ; 
Around  it,  flame ;  within  it,  death ! 

This  was  the  condition  of  Henry  Ward  Beeoher.  It  is 
not  overpainted— a  little  more  poetic  in  its  rhythm  and 
expression,  and  yet  no  more  intense  or  descriptive  than 
the  language  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  himself. 

Very  many  of  you  probably,  and  all  of  my  learned 
friends,  have  read  Hawthorne's  "  Scarlet  Letter,"  which 
describes  a  seduction  by  a  minister  of  a  member  of  his 
congregation  and  the  judgment  passed  upon  her  in  the 
early  Puritanic  days  by  the  elders  and  deacons  of  the 
church ;  and  the  beautiful  language  of  Mr.  Hawthorne, 
describing  the  feeling  of  that  conscientious  and  godly 
minister— in  all  outward  appearance— yes,  conscientious 
and  godly,  although  he  had  sinned,  for  he  had  repented— 
seems  to  me  exceedingly  appropriate  to  the  condition  of 
Mr.  Beecher: 

WhUe  thus  suffering  under  bodily  disease  and  gnawed 
and  tortured  by  some  black  trouble  of  the  soul,  and 
given  over  to  the  machinations  of  Ms  deadliest  enemy, 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Dimmesdale  had  achieved  a  brilliant  pop- 
ularity in  his  sacred  oflBce.  He  won  it,  indeed,  in  great 
part  by  his  sorrows.  His  intellectual  gifts,  his  moral 
perceptions,  his  power  of  experiencing  and  communica- 
ting emotion  were  kept  in  a  state  of  preternatural  ac- 
tivity by  the  priclc  and  anguish  of  his  daily  life.  His 
fame,  though  still  on  its  upward  slope,  already  over- 
shadowed the  soberer  reputations  of  his  fel- 
low clergymen,  eminent  as  several  of 
tUem  were.  There  were  scholars  among  them 
who  had  spent  more  years  in  acquiring  abstruse  lore 
connected  with  the  Divine  profession  than  Mr.  Diuunes- 
dale  had  lived,  and  who  might,  therefore,  be  more  pro- 
foundly versed  In  such  solid  and  valuable  attainments 
than  their  youthful  brother.  There  were  men  of  a  stur- 
dier texture  of  mind  than  his,  and  endowed  with  a  far 
greater  share  of  shrewd,  hard,  iron,  or  granite  under- 
standing ;  which,  duly  mingled  with  a  fair  proportion  of 
doctrinal  ingredient,  constituted  a  highly  respectable, 
efficacious,  unamiable  variety  of  the  clerical  <gpecies. 
There  were  others  again,  true  saintly  fathers,  whose  fac- 
ulties had  been  elaborated  by  weary  toil  among  their 
books  and  by  patient  thought,  and  etherialized,  moreover, 
by  spiritual  communications  with  the  better  world  into 
which  their  purity  of  life  had  almost  introduced  these 
holy  personages  with  their  garments  of  mortality  still 
clinging  to  them.  All  that  they  lacked  was  the  gift  that 
descended  upon  tho  chosen  disciples  at  Pentecost  in 
tongues  of  flame ;  symbols,  it  would  seem,  not  the  power 
of  speech  in  forcisu  and  unknown  languases,  but  that  of 


addressing  the  whole  human  brotherhood  in  the  heart's 
native  language. 

And  he  goes  on  depicting,  I  think,  very  clearly  and  ac- 
curately, the  intellectual  character  and  the  eminent  pro- 
fessional position  of  Mr.  Beecher.  But  there  was  an  in- 
terview between  this  man,  so  gifted  and  so  sad,  and 
Hestor  Prynne,  his  victim  : 

After  a  while  the  minister  fixed  his  eyes  on  Hester 
Prynne's. 

"  Hester,"  said  he,  "  hast  thou  found  peace  ?" 

She  smiled  drearily,  looking  dov/u  upon  her  bosom, 
which  contained  the  scarlet  letter  "  A,"  signifying  "Adul- 
teress," which,  by  the  sentence  of  the  church,  she  was 
always  to  keep  exposed  prominently  upon  her  bosom. 

She  smiled  drearily,  looking  down  upon  her  bosom. 
"  Hast  thou  ?"  she  asked. 

" None— nothing  but  despair!"  he  answered.  "What 
else  could  I  look  for,  beinc  what  I  am,  and  leading  such  a 
life  as  mine  ?  Were  I  an  atheist,  a  man  devoid  of  con- 
science, a  wretch  with  coarse  and  brutal  instincts,  I 
might  have  found  peace  long  ere  now.  Naj^  I  never 
should  have  lost  it !  But  as  matters  stand  with  my  soul, 
whatever  of  good  capacity  there  originally  was  in  me,  all 
of  God's  gifts  that  were  the  choicest,  have  become  the 
ministers  of  spiritual  torment.  Hester.  I  am  most  mis- 
erable." 

"  The  people  reverence  thee,"  said  Hester,  "  and  surely 
thou  workest  good  among  them.  Doth  this  bring  thee  no 
comfort  ?" 

"More  misery,  Hester!  only  the  more  misery,"  an- 
swered the  clergyman,  with  a  bitter  smile.  "  As  concerns 
the  good  which  I  may  appear  to  do,  I  have  no  faith  in  it. 
It  must  needs  be  a  delusion.  Wliat  can  a  ruined  so\ll  like 
mine  efl'ect  toward  the  redemption  of  other  souls  ?— a 
polluted  soul  toward  their  purification  1  And  as  for  tht 
people's  reverence,  would  that  it  were  turned  to  scorn 
and  hatred !  Canst  thou  deem  it,  Hester,  a  consolatior 
that  I  must  stand  up  m  my  pulpit  and  meet  so  man,> 
eyes  turned  upward  to  my  face  as  if  the  light  of  heaven 
were  beaming  from  it?— must  see  my  flock,  hungry, 
hungry  for  the  truth,  and  listening  to  my  words  as  if  a 
tongue  of  Pentecost  were  speaking ! — and  then  look  in- 
ward and  discern  the  black  reality  of  what  they  idolize  1 
I  have  laughed  in  bitterness  and  agony  of  heart  at  the 
contrast  between  wljat  I  seem  and  what  I  am!  And 
Satan  laughs  at  it!" 

"  You  wrong  yourself  in  this,"  said  Hester,  gently. 
"  You  have  deeply  and  sorely  repented.  Your  sin  is  left 
behind  you  in  the  days  long  passed.  Yoiu*  present  life  is 
not  less  holy,  in  very  truth,  than  it  seems  in  people's  eyes. 
Is  there  no  reality  in  the  penitence  thus  sealed  and  wit- 
nessed by  good  works  1  And  wherefore  should  it  not 
bring  you  peace  ?" 

"No,  Hester,  no,"  replied  the  clergyman,  "there  is  no 
substance  in  it.  It  is  cold  and  dead  and  can  do  nothing 
for  me  !  Of  penanc^"  I  have  had  enough !  of  penitence 
there  has  been  none !  else  I  should  long  ago  have  thrown 
off  these  garments  of  mock  holiness  and  have  shown  my- 
self to  mankind  as  they  will  see  me  at  the  Judgment  Seat. 
Happy  are  you,  Hester,  that  wear  the  scarlet  letter 
openly  on  your  bosom.  Mine  burns  in  secret !  Thou  lit- 
tle knowest  what  a  relief  it  is,  after  the  torment  of  a 
seven  years'  cheat,  to  look  into  an  eye  that  recognizes  me 
for  what  I  am!" 

Aye,  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher  saw  it  when  he  looked 
into  the  eye  of  Emma  Moulton. 
"  Had  I  one  friend— or  were  it  my  worst  enemy— to 


^^ojnnyG  up  by  mil  beach. 


935 


wtom,  "when  sickened  vrith  tlie  praises  of  all  otlier  men, 
I  could  daily  l)etake  myself  and  be  known  as  tlie  vilest 
of  all  sinners,  mettiinks  my  soul  might  keep  its  life  ttiere- 
loy.  Even  thus  much  of  truth  would  save  me  !  But 
now  it  is  ail  falsehood  !  all  emptiness  1  all  death  !" 

And  that  is  just  the  difference  between  the  repentance 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  that  of  David ;  penitent  and 
repentant  toward  God,  hut  timid  and  defiant  and  lying 
toward  men.  That  is  not  the  penitence  that  saves.  It 
may  cheat  and  delude  the  heart  upon  which  it  operates ; 
it  may  soothe  it  into  temporary  peace  ;  hut  it  is  not 
that  sort  of  tranciuillity  which  springs  from  a  deep  and 
soul-felt  contrition,  from  an  outspoken  and  ii'repressihle 
sense  of  anguish,  born  of  guilt,  and  created  by  a  truthful 
repentance  toward  God.  This,  then,  is  the  remorse 
Henry  Ward  Eeecher  felt,  and  it  does  seem  as  if.,  with 
the  prophetic  eye  of  genius,  Hawthorne  had  described  the 
actual  experience  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  Ah,  yes,  friends 
may  sa*f  to  him,  "  The  people  reverence  thee,  hast  thou 
not  repented  1  Art  not  thou  reclaiming  wandering  souls  V 
And  his  answer,  in  the  language  of  his  letter,  is  :  "Ah,  I 
have  repented ;  I  am  great ;  I  stand  before  the  world, 
magnificent  in  my  great  qualities,  and  my  great  achieve- 
ments, but  after  all  it  is  all  emptiness  and  bitterness  and 
death ;  the  bitterness  of  death  is  on  me ;  the  horror  of 
great  darkness  envelops  my  soul ;  my  whole  being  is  tor- 
tured upon  the  ragged  edge  of  remorse  and  despair." 
And  we,  when  this  great  man,  so  gifted  and  so  glorious 
in  all  the  outer  attributes  of  manhood,  is  forced  to  break 
out  into  this  cry  of  a  penitent  and  convicted  soul — ^we  are 
to  attribute  to  it  no  significance!  We  are  to  believe  it 
founded  on  no  self-consciousness,  but  the  mere  emotional 
and  hysterical  outbreak  of  an  uneven  and  badly  balanced 
nature  !  And  a  jury  and  a  court  and  the  world  are  to 
hold  the  great  man  and  great  minister  who  utters  such 
words  of  contrition  and  remorse,  and  addresses  such 
prayers  for  mercy  to  his  God  and  to  the  man  he  has 
offended,  as  still  innocent,  guiltless ! 

The  hour  of  4  o'clock  having  arrived,  the  court  ad- 
journed until  Thursday  at  11  o'clock. 


106TH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

CONTINUATION  OF  MR.  BEACH'S  AEGUMENT. 

MR.  beach's  speech  ALREADY  LONGER  THAN  THAT 
OF  MR.  EVARTS— MR.  BEECHER'S  DUTY  TO  HAVE 
CONFESSED  BIS  SIN  AND  ASKED  FORGIVENESS  OF 
PLYMOUTH  CHURCH  AND  THE  CHRISTIAN  WORLD 
—BURNS  AND  SCOTT  CITED  IN  THE  CASE. 

Thursday,  June  17,  1875. 
It  was  hardly  anticipated,  though  it  had  been 
stated,  that  ^L:  Beach  would  finish  his  argument  to- 
day. At  the  close  of  the  proceedings  for  the  day  Judge 
Neilson  said  that  after  a  consultation  had  by  him 
with  two  of  the  jurymen,  he  thought  it  "  desirable 


not  to  sit  to-morrow."  He  was  not  feeling  w^ell,  and 
the  j  my  men  needed  the  relaxation.  Mr.  Evarts 
thought  that  tbe  jurymen's  convenience  in  the  mat- 
ter should  be  consulted,  and  Mr.  Beach  declared,  in 
reply  to  an  observation  of  the  Court,  that  he  did  not 
wonder  that  one  of  the  jurymen  was  sick.  Judge 
Neilson's  remark  that  the  juryman  did  not  ascribe 
the  cause  of  his  sickness  to  Mr.  Beach  provoked  a 
general  smile.  The  Court  was  finally  adjourned 
until  Monday. 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mr.  Moulton  m  regard 
to  the  opposition  of  Dr.  Storrs,  which  stated  the 
latter's  desire  to  arouse  enmity  between  Mr.  Tilton 
and  Mr.  Beecher,  was  first  taken  np  and  its  expres- 
sions were  analyzed.  The  speaker  alleged  that  Mr. 
Beecher,  by  this  letter,  was  attempting  to  exercise 
an  influence  to  restrain  Mr.  Tilton  from  any  effort 
at  self -vindication,  as  such  effort  would  involve  Mr. 
Beecher's  exposure.  IVIr.  Beecher's  motives  and  ap- 
prehensions were  declared  to  be  those  of  a  guilty 
man  seeking  to  avoid  detection. 

Mr.  Beecher's  alleged  inconsistency  in  commend- 
ing Mr.  Tilton  in  his  own  paper,  while  believing  him 
infamous  in  character,  was  next  commented  on. 
The  speaker  denounced  Mr.  Beecher  as  one  who  had 
for  three  years  practiced  imposition  and  fraud.  Mr. 
Beecher's  silence  during  the  progress  of  the  scandal 
was  also  touched  upon. 

The  speaker  then  brought  up  the  point  raised 
by  Mr.  Porter  to  the  effect  that,  as  regards  alleged 
confession,  Mr.  Beecher  did  not  therein  confess  to 
any  specific  offense.  The  evidence  of  Mr.  Moulton,  Mrs. 
Moulton  and  JVIr.  Tilton  was  declared  to  show  that  the 
charge  was  one  of  criminal  intimacy,  and  that  the 
confession  was  of  that  offense.  The  charge,  he 
clatmed,  was  so  perfectly  understood  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  name  it  specifically.  Mr.  Beach  took 
occasion  to  speak  of  the  defendant  as  one  "whose 
priestly  robes  were  smeared  with  blasphemous 
lust." 

The  jury  were  urged  not  to  be  deluded  by  the  idea 
that  this  man  was  too  great  or  too  noble  to  sin. 
The  mistaken  advice  given  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mrs. 
Tilton  had  been  declared  to  be  the  cause  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  anguish.  But  Mr.  Beecher  had  not  advised 
separation  at  the  time.  Airs.  Tilton  was  then  away 
from  her  husband's  home,  and  living  with  her 
mother.  She  desired  a  separation  from  her  husband. 
Mr.  Beecher,  as  he  says,  advised  her  to  that  course, 
and  so  did  his  Avife,  "the  leading  matron  in 
Plymouth  Church."  Why  did  she  not  follow  the 
advice  f  asked  the  speaker.    Again,  if  Mr.  Beecher's 


936 


TEE   TILTON-BEEGHEB  TBIAL. 


story  be  trae,  what  occasion  was  there  for  Mm  to 
regret  his  advice,  if  it  were  given  ? 

Mr.  Beecher's  declarations  of  the  nature  of  his  re- 
lations with  Mrs.  Tilton  were  said  by  the  speaker  to 
be  inconsistent  with  his  alleged  efforts  to  suppress 
investigation  into  the  subject.  If  Mr.  Beecher  had 
accepted  a  church  investigation  at  the  time  of  the 
making  of  the  West  charges— had  he  then  proved 
what  he  asserted  on  the  witness-stand  in  court,  the 
speaker  thought  that  his  action  would  have  excited 
a  "  burst  of  sympathy  and  admiration  through  the 
land."  The  Investigation,  if  Mr.  Beecher's  story 
were  true,  could  not  have  hurt  Mr.  or  Mrs.  Tilton. 
No  harm  could  have  come  from  it.  Yet  why  did  Mr. 
Beecher  suppress  it  unless  he  was  a  guilty  man  ? 

Burns's  "  Epistle  to  a  Young  Man,"  commented  on 
by  Mr.  Evarts,  received  a  new  interpretation  at 
Mr.  Beach's  hands,  in  accordance  with  a  suggestion 
received  by  him  from  a  lady  correspondent  at  Bing- 
hamton.  The  illicit  love  which  "hardens  a'  within 
and  petrifies  the  feeling"  was  declared  to  have 
manifested  itself  in  this  way  on  Mr.  Beecher's 
character  and  conduct. 

Mr.  Beecher's  letter  to  Moulton  in  which  he 
speaks  of  writing  for  the  public  "  a  statement  that 
will  bear  the  light  of  the  Judgment  Day,"  was  de- 
clared not  to  be,  as  had  been  asserted,  a  letter  of 
defiance  and  evincing  a  determination  on  the  part  of 
the  defendant  to  meet  the  issue  boldly.  Had  Mr. 
Beecher  only  followed  Mrs.  Moulton's  advice  and 
confessed  his  sin,  not  only  his  own  church,  but  the 
whole  Christian  world  would  have  forgiven  him.  In 
this  way  Mr.  Beecher  could  have  given  the  world 
the  example  of  a  great  mind  and  a  great  heart  fall- 
ing beneath  temptation,  but  yet  rising  up  again  in 
its  exalted  faith.  In  this  way  Mr.  Beecher  would 
have  honored  his  own  nature  and  exalted  his  own 
name.  This  was  the  meaning  of  the  letter  from 
Mr.  Moulton  m  which  he  tells  Mr.  Beecher  "  you  can 
stand  if  all  the  facts  were  published  to-morrow." 
In  taking  up  the  question  of  suicide  the  speaker 
urged,  though  it  was  difficult  to  believe  that  Mr. 
Beecher  contemplated  self-destruction,  yet  that  pur- 
pose was  avowed  in  several  of  his  letters,  and  in  his 
talk  with  Mrs.  Moulton,  and  must  be  considered  as 
established. 

Mr.  Beach  then  told  the  story,  in  his  own  words, 
of  EffieDeans'ssadfate,  as  depicted  in  Scott's  "  Heart 
of  Mid-Lothian."  Jeanie  Deans  asks  Butler  about 
>er  sistei-'s  guilt  in  having  destroyed  her  babe,  and 
he  impatiently  replies,  "  She  is  guiltless  of  all  save 
trusting  a  villain."   The  narrative  of  Paulina,  as 


told  by  Josephus,  was  also  read,  Mr.  Beach  asking 
the  jury  if  they  could  not  discern  the  analogy  be- 
tween these  stories  and  the  case  they  were  consider- 
ing. Considering  the  circumstances  under  which 
Mrs.  Tilton  was  misled,  "  Well  might  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  say,  '  She  is  guiltless,  bearing  the  trans- 
gressions of  another.' " 


THE  PROCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  CRITICISM  OF  DR.  STORRS. 

The  Court  met  at  11  o'clock,  pursuant  to  ad- 
jo  m-nment. 

Mr.  Beach— Please  oblige  me,  gentlemen,  by  recurring 
lor  a  brief  moment  to  tlie  letter  of  Mr.  Beeclier  criticising 
the  com-se  of  Dr.  Storrs  in  connection  with  the  condition 
of  things  out  of  which  it  originated,  and  the  object  it 
obviously  sought  to  accomplish.  You  will  remember 
that  at  that  time  a  council  of  ministers  were  sitting  in- 
quiring into  the  discipline  and  aclion  of  Plymouth 
Church,  possibly  among  other  things  with  reference  to 
Mr.  Tilton.  That  inquiry  necessarily  involved  the  very 
matters  which  are  under  our  consideration.  The  West 
charges  were  before  or  had  been  before  the  church  judi- 
catory, and  the  inquiiy  before  the  Council  involved  the 
question  of  the  regularity  of  the  action  of  Plymouth 
Church  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton.  Under  these  circumstances 
Mr.  Beecher  addresses  this  letter  to  Mr.  Moulton,  of 
course  intended  to  influence  Mr.  Tilton,  after  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Storrs  had  made  an  address  upon  the  subject  matter 
pending  before  the  Council,  to  that  body,  in  which,  I 
judge  from  the  letter  of  Mr.  Beecher,  he  commented  with 
very  considerable  severity  upon  the  attitude  and  action 
of  Mr.  Tilton  toward  Mr.  Beecher  and  Plymouth  Chiuch. 
Mr.  Beecher  is  indignant,  as  he  says,  at  the  expression  of 
Mr.  Storrs  asserting  that,  pretending  sympathy  and 
friendship  for  Mr.  Tilton,  he  had  turned  against  him  in 
the  most  venomous  manner  and  with  insincerity,  charg- 
ing this  clergyman  with  a  public  assault  in  a  judicial, 
quasi  judicial  body,  upon  a  prominent  citizen,  venomous 
in  its  character  and  insincere  in  its  purpose.  He 
cliai'sres  that  all  the  professions  of  faith  and 
aflfection  of  Mr.  Storrs  for  Mr.  Beecher  are 
hollow  and  faithless.  Then,  "His  object  is  plain,"  says 
Mr.  Beecher  ;  "he  is  determined  to  force  a  conflict,"  be- 
tween you  and  me.  "That  is  his  game.  By  stinging 
Theodore  he  believes  that  he  will  be  driven  into  a  course 
which  he  hopes  will  ruin  me.  If  ever  a  man  betrayed 
another,  he  has.  I  am  in  hopes  that  Theodore,  who  has 
borne  so  much,  will  be  unwilling  to  be  a  flail  in  Stoi-rs's 
hand  to  strike  at  a  friend,"  and  ending  with  the  Itali- 
cized expression,  referring  to  the  speech,  "  It  ought  to 
damn  Storrs." 

This  letter  is  written  under  these  circumstances  by  Mr. 
Beecher  concerning  a  clerical  friend  of  25  years,  between 
whom  and  Mr.  Beecher  there  had  existed  the  most  inti- 


SUMltING    UF  BY  MB.  BEACR. 


937 


mate  religious  association  and  apparent  sympathy,  and 
the  most  friendly  expressions  and  acts  of  general  regard. 
It  was  written  obviously  in  apprehension  that  tlie  sub- 
ject about  whicb  Mr.  Storrs  was  speaking  and  acting, 
Involving  the  relation  of  Mr.  Tilton  to  Plymouth  Cburcli, 
would  bring  under  consideration  all  the  complications 
whicb  surrounded  Mr.  Beecher  in  liis  difficulties  with. 
Mr.  Tilton  and  his  family.  It  is  perfectly  evident  that 
Mr.  Beecher,  through  this  letter,  was  attempting  to  exer- 
cise an  influence  which  would  restrain  Mr.  Tilton  from 
any  attempt  at  self -vindication,  from  any  effort  by  an 
exposure  of  any  truth,  by  the  exhibition  of  the  letters 
and  documents  which  are  presented  to  this  jury,  fi'om 
vindicating  himself  in  that  mode  before  that  Council. 
Mr.  Beecher  saw  that  it  would  mevitably  involve  his  ex- 
posure, as  full,  as  complete,  as  derogatory  as  is  made 
through  the  evidence  in  this  case.  And  he  does  not  hes- 
itate, to  use  his  own  language,  in  this  venomous  and 
implacable  manner,  to  condemn  this  friend  and  feUow- 
pastor,  charging  him  with  insincerity  and  charging  his 
speech  made  in  the  performance  of  his  duty  in  a  Church 
Council,  as  an  ebullition  that  ought  to  damn  him.  What 
must  have  been  the  motive  driving  Mr.  Beecher  to  this 
malediction  upon  an  honored  pastor  and  gentleman  1  He 
was  not  only  a  friend  of  25  years,  but  he  was  eminent 
in  his  profession,  a  learned  scholar,  an  eloguent  orator,  a 
piire  and  pious  gentleman,  renowned  for  his  sound 
and  solid  wisdom,  maintaining  that  character  in 
this  community,  as  the  man  to  whom  other  men  in  their 
soiTOw  and  afllictions  go  for  advice  and  comfort.  He 
was  the  man  who  a  little  while  ago,  in  the  City  of  New- 
York,  delivered  an  oration  at  an  anniversary  of  the  New- 
York  Historical  Society  so  grand  in  its  historic  knowledge, 
80  perfect,  accomplished,  and  complete  that  William  Cul- 
len  Bryant  moved  a  vote  of  thanks,  and  my  learned  friend 
Mr.  Evarts,  with  his  accustomed  eloquence  and  urbanity, 
seconded  it.  What  must  we  think  of  a  Christian  pastor 
under  these  circiimstances,  all  imiting  to  suppress  even 
just  indignation,  moved  and  influenced  by  the  inter- 
course of  25  years  of  respectful  friendship  and  at- 
tachment, speaking  of  such  a  man  as  Dr. 
Storrs,  indulging,  to  such  a  man  as  they  say 
Moulton  is,  and  such  a  man  as  they  say  Tilton  is,  in  these 
vile  expressions  of  condemnation?  What  influence  will 
conduct  like  this  have  upon  the  standing  of  the  clerical 
profession?  How  much  will  it  promote  Christianity, 
Christian  example,  worldly  respect  ?— how  much  will  it 
elevate  the  members  of  the  clerical  profession?  And 
what  must  have  been  the  necessity,  I  repeat,  under  which 
a  course  of.  this  character  was  adopted  by  Mr.  Beecher  ? 
Did  he  fear  that  it  would  transpire  in  that  examination 
that  he  had  advised  Mr.  Bowen  to  dismiss  from  his  ser- 
vice a  man  whom  he  believed  to  be  corrupt,  and,  so  far 
as  the  world  was  co|noerned,  notoriously  profligate  and 
debauched?  Did  he  fear  that,  imder  the  advice 
3f    his    wife     and     Mr.    Bell,    when     he  had 


counseled  Mrs.  Tilton  to  a  separation,  did 
he  fear  that  it  would  be  revealed  in  the  threat- 
ened investigation  before  that  Council,  that  he  had  un- 
consciously attracted  the  love  of  Mrs.  Tilton?  A?* intel- 
ligent men,  observers  of  life  and  the  world,  would  such  a 
man  as  IMi*.  Beecher  utter  such  language  concerning  such 
a  man  as  Dr.  Storrs,  from  motives  of  that  character,  and 
under  a  goading  apprehension  of  that  limited  extent! 
Is  it  not  apparent,  if  this  stood  alone,  disconnected  with 
his  otheT"  utterances,  unassociated  with  that  deep  and 
passionate  feeling  of  desnair  and  remorse,  could  sensible 
men  hesitate  as  to  the  application  and  meaning  to  be  at- 
tached to  a  letter  of  that  character  ?  Another  circum- 
stance in  connection  with  this  inquiry  as  to  the  motives 
and  apprehensions  whichinfluencedthe.se  declarations  and 
outpourings  of  Mr.  Beecher,  on  the  night  of  Dec.  30, 1 870, 
if  Mr.  Beecher  is  credible,  and,  as  is  apparent  from  all  the 
evidence,  Mr.  Beecher  learned  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  forced 
his  wife  to  make  a  false  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher— a 
charge  dishonoring  to  him  as  a  man  and  a  friend  of  Theo- 
dore Tilton,  disgraceful  to  his  personal  character,  a  viola- 
tion of  all  his  obligations  to  God,  society,  the  church  and 
this  family.  If  he  was  sincere  he  believed  that  Theodore 
Tilton  had  done  this  with  a  base  purpose,  with  a  malig- 
nant design  against  himself.  And  yet,  from  that  inter- 
view, impressed  with  this  conviction,  he  comes  to  Theo- 
dore Tilton  and  for  three  years  bears  the  continual  and 
constant  testimony  of  his  admiration  and  respect.  Not 
only  does  he  accept  him  with  professions  of  friendship 
and  the  most  earnest  commendations  for  his  long-suffering 
and  patience  and  generosity,  teaching  to  the  wife  whom  he 
had  forced  to  a  lie  that  her  husband  was  the  most  generous 
of  mortals,  wondering  if  Elizabeth  knew  how  noble  and 
magnanimous  Theodore  Tilton  had  been ;  and  this  man,  a 
high  priest  of  the  Lord,  bound  to  rebuke  sin,  bound  to 
disrobe  hypocrisy,  bound  to  denounce  the  false  calum- 
niator—in  his  own  manliness  and  dignity  bound  to  resent 
the  false  and  atrocious  charges  which  this  man.  through 
the  agency  of  a  compelled  wife,  had  manufactured 
against  him.  And  we  are  to  believe,  with  oui-  knowledge 
of  motive,  of  nature,  with  our  experience  of  the  world, 
we  are  to  believe  that  Mr.  Beecher  under  those  circum- 
stances not  only  was  quiet  and  submissive  under  dis- 
honoring complaint,  but  that  he  took  the  liar  and  the  libeler 
to  his  heart  and  confidence !  Aye,  and  not  only  that,  but 
over  his  own  name  published  his  reliance  in  his  nobility 
and  honesty  of  character;  in  his  own  paper  permitted  a 
eulogy  to  be  written  by  his  friend,  Samuel 
Wilkeson,  commending  this  man,  so  corrupt  and 
infamous,  to  the  confidence  of  the  Christian  world. 
How  long  will  Cliristianity  stand,  how  long  will  the 
Church  be  honored  and  respected,  how  long  will  her  min- 
isters be  reverenced  if  this  man,  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  m 
the  greatest  chur(;h  of  the  land,  can  stand  up  bearing  this 
false  and  hypocritical  testimony  to  a  liar  and  a  slan- 
derer? [Applause.] 


m  IH^  TILTON-B 

Aye,  and  when  Tilton  was  dismissed  from  The  Indepen- 
dent, as  Mr.  Beeclier  says  under  liis  advice,  because  Ms 
toucli  was  pollution  to  a  Christ  ran  paper,  and  wlien  his 
reputation  was  5^o  infauious  that  Mr.  Beecher  considered 
it  not  only  impolitic  but  disgracef  ul  that  he  should  be  at 
■;he  head  of  such  a  publication— nay,  when  Mr.  Beecher 
believed  that  Theodore  Tilton  had  been  led  astray  by  tJie 
fascinations  and  the  teachings  of  Victoria  C.  Woodhull, 
and  was  a  free-lover  in  fitith,  in  teaching,  and  in  practice, 
Henry  Wai  d  Beecher  comes  forward  with  $5,000  to  es- 
tabiisTi  an  03-gan  through  which  corruption  may  be  prop- 
agated in  the  land,  and  to  sustain  the  man  who,  he 
had  believed,  was  of  the  character  he  describes. 
And  this  is  the  man,  the  grand  oracle  of  Christianity,  the 
pure  and  un defiled  priest  of  God,  the  teacher  on  whose 
lips  human  souls  must  hang  and  trust  for  their  ultimate 
redemx>tion,  confessedly^  standing  a  hypocrite  before  the 
world,  a  practical  teacher  of  false  morals,  sustaining  and 
pi-opagating  imposition  and  fraud  upon  the  Christianity 
of  the  day !  And  can  this  be  consistent  with  Christian 
character?  Does  it  become  us  to  exalt  and  praise  the 
man  who  confessedly  upon  this  record  occupied  that 
position  for  three  years,  and  spoke,  as  he  says,  the  truth 
only  when  the  pressure  of  the  Christian  souls  in  his 
chuich  drove  him  to  an  extremity  where  he  must  tight  or 
fall?  You  may  be  deluded,  gentlemen,  by  those  claims  of 
dignitj'  and  religion  for  this  defendant.  You,  taught  in 
the  precepts  and  inspired  by  the  feeling  of  your  Master, 
may  think  this  man  is  too  high  and  reverend,  too  needful 
to  the  cause  of  your  God  to  be  judged,  truly  judged, 
fearlessly  judged,  and  to  weigh  as  against  him  under  the 
glamom'  of  this  impression  and  faith  lightly 
and  carelessly  these  proofs  of  sin  and  guilt. 
But  not  thus,  not  thus  will  be  the  judgment  of  Him  who 
looks  into  the  heart ;  nay,  not  thus  will  be  the  judgment 
of  those  who,  with  a  clear  and  unbiassed  intelligence, 
and  a,  fearless  intrepidity  of  thought  and  examination, 
look  at  this  man  as  he  is,  and  tear  from  him  the  outer 
covering,  and  gaze  in  upon  the  sepulcher  beneath. 

But  it  is  said,  gentlemen,  that  these  confessions  or  ex- 
pressions of  Mr.  Beecher  are  but  the  extravagant  and 
whimsical  outbreaks  of  an  impulsive  and  ardent  natm-e 
and  temperament,  that  this  man  is  morbid  in  his  moods, 
that  lie  has  a  susceptible  and  tender  conscience,  and  the 
slightest  sin  leads  him  to  the  most  extravagant  contri- 
tion and  remorse.  Well,  you  ai'e  to  think  of  him,  gen- 
tlemen, and  weigh  him,  as  he  has  for  25  years  appeared 
before  this  community,  and  as  we  all  agree  in  represent- 
ing him,  his  commanding  intellectual  and  physical 
Qualities.  You  are  to  think  of  him  as  a  great  and  exi>e  ■ 
rienced  teacher,  disciplining  the  nature  and  the  lives  of 
his  parishioners,  and  teaching  all  the  gi-and  truths  of  his 
mission.  He  is  not  only  that,  but  a  learned  scholar  ;  not 
only  that,  he  is  a  statesman  and  politician.  In 
many  of  the  grand  epochs  of  our  iiat:o)ial  history 
he  lias  stood  forward,  a  leader  and  a  champion  of  the 


'iJECEEB  TRIAL. 

opinion  of  the  nation.  Not  only  that,  he  is  a  man  of  the 
world,  mixed  in  all  scenes  and  with  all  classes  of  society. 
He  is  a  humorist,  a  wit,  a  very  Yorick  of  the  dinner- 
table.  There  is  no  phase  of  nature,  there  is  no  variety  of 
character,  there  is  no  manifestation  of  passion  with 
which  Henry  Ward  Beecher  is  not  entirely  familiar. 
And  yet  we  are  told  that  this  man,  fulfilling  so  admir- 
ably Shakespeare's  description  of  a  man,  "  How  noble  in 
reason,  how  infinite  in  faculty,  in  form  and  moving,  how 
express  and  admirable,  in  action  like  an  angel,  in  appre- 
hension like  a  god." 

THE  LACK  OF  DENIALS  BY  ME.  BEECHER. 

Tliat  this  man,  so  brave,  so  accomplished  and 
experienced,  could  not  utter  the  simple  truth  when  he 
was  accused  of  a  shameful  and  disgraceful  sin ;  nay,  that 
he  could  not  properly  estimate  his  relations  to  others ; 
that  he  could  not  accui-ately  judge  of  his  moral  responsi- 
bilities ;  that  when  men  charged  him  with  being  a  so- 
licitor of  his  parishioner  to  adultery  and  sin,  he  was  so 
overcome  with  the  idea  that  he  had  given  bad  advice  to 
Bowen  and  to  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  had  most  unconsciously 
and  Innocently  won  her  love,  that  he  could  not  deny  that 
he  was  guilty  of  the  baseness  charged  against  him. 

From  the  night  of  December  30  until  the  hour  when 
Ml.  Beecher  appeared  before  his  Investigating  Com- 
mittee, or  organized  it,  there  is  no  proof  of  a  single  de- 
nial from  his  lips  of  the  accusation,  except  in  those  pub- 
lic denials  which,  by  arrangement  between  the  par- 
ties, and  in  connection  with  Mrs.  Tilton, 
were  made  for  popular  effect,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  restraining  investigation  and  agitation.  Why 
should  not  he  have  denied  it  1  Grant  that  he  had  been 
faulty  in  all  these  particulars  of  which  he  speaks ;  and 
grant  that  they  had  produced  dissension  and  disturbance 
in  the  family  of  Mr.  Tilton;  did  that  render  it  obligatory 
upon  Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  rest  calmly  under  a  charge 
such  as  was  made  against  him?  Why,  gentlemen,  we 
can  judge  only  by  our  observation  of  men  and  things,  and 
by  the  instincts  of  our  own  nature.  Place  yourselves  in  the 
condition  of  Mr.  Beecher.  Test  him  by  yonv  own  con- 
sciousness, and  answer  whether,  under  such  conditions, 
you  would  have  rested  peaceful  an  instant  with- 
out an  indignant  denial,  and  a  promi>t  and  ready 
exposure  of  tne  parties  making  the  false  accusation. 
Now  I  knoAV  that  Mr.  Beecher  asserts  that  there  was  at 
some  time,  earlier  lliau  that  which  lindicatc,  a  resistance 
of  this  accusation.  He  is  contradicted  by  overwhelming 
evidence,  not  only  oral  but  by  necessaiy  inferences  and 
conclusions  drawn  from  his  own  written  delaratious ;  and 
you  are  to  credit  that  this  man  was  of  a  simplicity  and 
gentleness  so  exquisite  that  he  could  not  defend  his  honor 
as  a  man  ai.d  his  character  and  integrity  as  a  Christian. 
Mr.  Beecher  cannot  so  stuitity  himself,  gentlemen.  He 
cannot  so  abnegate  his  great  qualities.  He  must  be 
j-udged,  in  the  language  of  my  friend,  as  other  men  are 


SUMMIXG    UP  . 

Judged,  upon  the  same  priuciples  of  law  iind  justice,  and 
by  the  same  standard  of  human  nature,  exalted,  as  In  Ms 
case  it  is,  by  Ms  great  acaMrements  and  large  experience. 

MR.   BEECHER'S   OFFENSE  NOT  UNXA^IED. 

But  my  friend  Mr.  Porter  says :  "  This  is  an 
indefimte,  unnamed  offense.  Mr.  Beecber  In  Ms  writings 
does  not  contess  to  the  specified  sin  of  adultery.  True, 
Ms  expressions  are  extravagant,  Ms  sorrow  and  remorse 
are  inflmte;  but  after  all  be  has  not  named  Ms  sin." 
Three  witnesses  fix  a  name  upon  Mm,  Tilt  on,  and  Moul- 
ton,  and  Mrs.  Moulton ;  the  writiugs,  the  other  evidence, 
to  wMeh  I  shall  allude  by  and  by,  they  all  declare  that 
Hemy  Ward  Beecher  was  charged  with  criminal  inti- 
macy, and  by  act  and  conduct  admitted  the  charge;  and 
was  it  necessary  to  be  repeated  when  he  wi-ot«  Ms  "  Let- 
ter of  Apology  "  to  Theodore  Tilton,  after  the  communi- 
cations between  them— was  it  necessary  for  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  to  say,  "  I  am  an  adulterer ;  I  have  seduced  your 
wife  1 "  When  he  was  breathing  out  those  pathetic 
expressions  of  angmsh  and  suffering  and  con- 
trition, was  it  necessary  for  htm  to  say,  "All  this 
is  because  of  my  adultery  ? "  Was  it  not 
perfectly  understood;  nay,  does  not  every  line  of  his 
letters  utter  a  name  1  Doesn't  every  word  and  act  in  con- 
nection with  this  tragical  affair  speak  a  name  ?  Is  not 
his  whole  life  for  four  years  blazoned  with  names— se- 
ducer, libertine,  false  priest,  adulterer'?  These  are  names 
by  all  these  instruments  of  utterance  .gi-aven  on  his  fore- 
head. All  the  waters  of  Siloam's  pool  cannot  wash  them 
away.  None  but  the  Angel  of  Mercy  can  wipe  them  out, 
with  the  hot  tears  of  an  honest  repentance.  He  is  a  sac- 
rilegious adulterer ;  he  has  sinned  at  the  very  altar.  His 
priestly  robes  are  besmeared  with  blasphemous  lust,  and 
he  cannot  wipe  the  stain  away  with  brilliant  rhetoric  and 
glittering  sophistries,  nor  can  all  the  shouts  of  godly 
sycophants  still  the  accusing  voice  of  his  God  or  interrupt 
the  current  of  pure  and  imdefiled  justice. 

Henry  Ward  Beecher  must  meet  his  deserved  doom,  or 
else  all  men,  the  spirit  of  justice,  nay,  the  bending  spirit 
of  Heaven's  justice,  looMng  with  anxiety  to-day  to  see 
how  well  a  juror's  oath  will  be  redeemed,  all  will  cry  out 
against  the  infamy  of  his  accLuittal.  Harsh  words  to 
speak,  gentlemen  ;  but  are  they  not  borne  out  by  this 
proof,  and  is  this  a  time  and  an  occasion  when  the  tongue 
shall  be  silent  and  the  truth  too  hard  and  unpleasant  to 
be  told]  Are  these  tMngs  to  be  whitewashed  by  the  gilt 
of  eloquence  and  by  the  acting  of  an  accomplished  cul- 
prit upon  the  witness  stand?  Are  we  to  be  deluded  oy 
this  idea  that  this  man  is  too  noble  and  great  and  pure  to 
sin,  and  be  afiaidto  handle  the  elements  of  Ms  dishonor 
and  to  apply  its  proofs,  as  the  law  and  justice  demand  ? 

But  is  it  true  that  all  this  repentant  sorrow  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  was  on  account  of  mistaken  and  iniu- 
dicious  advice  to  Mrs.  Tilton  to  separate  ?  You  re- 
member how  Henry  Ward  Beecher  declined  personally 


Y  2fB.   BEACR.  039 

to  act  in  this  matter  with  Jklrs.  Tilton,  how  he  referred  it. 
to  the  more  becoming,  I  admit,  and  proper  management 
of  Ms  wife.  What  was  the  motive  that  induced  him  to 
do  It  is  another  question.  And  when  Ms  wife,  and  when 
Mr.  Bell,  both  shrewd  and  good  advisers,  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  unfit  for  INIrs.  Tilton  longer  to  en- 
dui-e  the  shameful  abuse  and  vulgarity  and  depravity  of 
her  husband,  Hemy  Ward  Beecher  did  not  assume  the 
responsibility  of  giving  the  advice.  He  writes  a  little 
note  to  his  wife  :  *'  I  rather  tMnk— I  rather  think 
it  is  advisable  that  there  should  be  separation, 
with  provision  for  the  support  of  wife  and  children.'* 
That  severe  and  upright  matron  had  no  hesitation  about 
it.  Mr.  Bell  had  no  misgiving  in  regard  to  it.  "  It  is 
impossible,"  says  that  gentleman,  "that  Mrs.  Tilton 
should  continue  in  this  connection  ;  there  must  be  a  sep- 
aration." But  what  was  the  actual  ad\^ce  given  by  ]SIr. 
Beecher  1  Of  com'se  we  cannot  penetrate  it  fully.  We 
do  not  know  what  communication  was  had  between  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  upon  this  subject  at  this  partic- 
ular time.  [To  Mr.  Morris. J  Can  you  refer  me  to  the 
evidence — 723,  second  volume.  But  we  know  that  there 
were  means  of  communication  between  them,  and  that 
that  was  had  whenever  it  was  thought  necessary  or  de- 
sirable that  it  should  occur.  We  know  that  the  judg- 
ment of  jNIr.  Beecher  was  that  there  should  be 
no  separation.  He  admits  that,  through  Mrs.  Moulton, 
Ms  adviee  to  IVIrs.  TUton  was  patience,  sufferance,  active 
persuasive  love  and  affection.  That  was  necessary  for 
Ms  theory  now.  [Referring  to  the  testimony]— Xo,  that 
is  n't  it.  You  remember,  gentlemen — my  references  are 
confused  and  wrong— you  remember  the  testimony  of 
iNIrs.  Moulton,  wMch  is  substantially  acqmesced  in  by 
Mr.  Beecher,  that  he  sent  word  to  Mrs.  Tilton  to  be  for- 
bearing, and  cultivate  a  kindlier  condition  of  tMngs  in 
their  household.  That  was  in  the  year  1873, 1  think ;  yes. 
That  was  the  judgment  of  !Mr.  Beecher ;  that  was  Ms 
conviction.  He  saw  no  necessity  for  separation.  Did  he 
advise  it  at  this  time,  and  if  he  did  advise  it,  gentlemen, 
how  is  the  enigma  to  be  solved  that  although  the 
wife  was  eager,  as  they  say,  Ul-treated  and  des- 
perate, fleeing  to  her  mother's  roof,  weeping  and, 
wailing  in  agony  daily  under  the  brutality  of  her  hus- 
band, and  Mr.  Beecher,  her  honorsd  and  adored  pastor,, 
recommending  separation,  how  happens  it  it  did  not 
come  1  When  this  recommendation  is  said  to  have  gone- 
from  Beecher,  Mrs.  TUton  was  then  in  her  mother's 
house,  won  back  to  the  affoction  of  her  husband  under 
the  circumstances  detailed  by  Bessie  Turner.  What  were 
the  entreaties  and  plea<3ings,  what  were  the  inferences 
that  passed  betwe«*a  those  two  souls,  in  that  interview  in 
Mrs.  Morse's  parlor,  you  can  imagine ;  I  cannot  describe. 
SufS'j<i  it  to  say  that  that  woman,  whatever  was  her  mo- 
tive in  leaving  for  a  night  or  a  day  her  house  and  home, 
to  commune  with  her  mother,  that  woman  was  readily 
won  by  the  affection  other  husband  to  a  return  to  her 


m 


TRE   TILTOJS-BEECHEE  TELAL. 


loyalty,  and  from  tliat  time  until  it  became  ne  cessary  for 
tlie  vindication  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  before  Ms 
Examining  Committee— from  that  time  to  that  hour  she 
lived  in  constant  communion  with  her  husband  ;  no  evi- 
dence of  a  disturbed  household,  of  a  dissentient  family ; 
content  and  satisfied,  so  far  as  this  evidence  discloses, 
until  the  machinations  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
and  his  emissaries  stole  into  that  home  and 
separated  and  disgraced  its  members.  Why  was 
it,  gentlemen,  if  the  "wile  desired  separation,  if 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  advised  it,  if  that  advice  was  con- 
firmed by  the  judicious  counsel  of  the  leading  matron  of 
the  Plymouth  Congregation,  why  did  not  separation  fol- 
low? Through  1871,  '72,  '73,  till  July,  '74,  this  wife  re- 
mained true  to  her  allegiance.  And  yet  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  bemoans  so  agonizingly  his  advice  toward  a 
separation.  He  saw  such  horrible  dissensions,  and 
^sasters,  and  suflfering  in  the  household  of  Theodore 
Tilton  that  his  gentle  heart  was  broken,  and  he  was  suf- 
fering upon  this  ragged  edge  of  r  ^.morse  the  torments  of 
the  damned,  in  the  midst  of  utter  darkness.  But  again, 
gentlemen,  suppose  there  had  been  a  separation,  was 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  at  all  to  blame  1  Was  there 
any  occasion  for  him  to  regret  the  advice?  Theodore  Til- 
ton  by  him  is  painted  to-day  as  he  was  accepted  by  him 
in  December,  1870,  or  November,  when  this  advice  was 
given.  There  has  been  no  change  in  his  character.  He 
has  seen  him  just  as  he  was.  He  was  told  by  Bessie  Tur- 
ner—aye, and  through  his  wife— he  must  have  been  told 
by  his  wife,  Mrs.  Beecher,  what  were  the  complaints  of 
Mrs.  Tilton  against  Tilton.  If  they  justified  the  advice 
of  Mrs.  Beecher,  if  Mrs.  Beecher  received  them  directly 
from  Mrs.  Tilton  in  that  long  interview  they  had,  from 
which  Mr.  Beecher  slunk  away,  what  reason  was  there 
for  any  misgiving  or  regret  upon  the  part  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher?  Did  he  believe  the  charge  of  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  Did 
he  accept  the  character  of  TUton  as  given  by  Bessie  Tur- 
ner? Yes;  it  was  upon  the  strength  of  that  informa- 
tion his  advice  was  given.  And  what  is  his 
answer?  We  say  to  him:  "If  you  believed 
Theodore  Tilton  to  be  the  man  he  was  represented  to  be ; 
If  his  life  was  a  contiuued  course  of  brutality  at  home,  of 
debauchery  abroad ;  if  the  story  of  Bessie  Turner  is  true, 
and  Tilton  made  the  base  assault  she  asserts,  upon  her 
sleeping  innocence,  does  Henry  Ward  Beecher  regret  that 
he  advised  a  virtuous.  Christian  woman  to  desert  the 
scoundrel  and  the  villain  he  then  believed  Theodore  Til- 
ton to  be  ? "  Oh,  this  is  a  dUemma  from  which  Mr. 
Beecher  must  escape ;  and  how  1  "  Oh,  Mr.  Moulton— Mr. 
Moulton  came  to  me ;  Mr.  Moulton  represented  to  me  that 
all  these  accusations  against  Mr.  Tilton  were  exagger- 
ated; that  he  was  not  a  vicious  and  bad  man;  that  he 
had  not  attempted  the  virtue  of  Bessie  Turner ; 
that  there  was  no  unwise,  improper  association  between 
him  and  Victoria  Woodhull:"  and  the  suspicions,  the 
convictions  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  were  at  once  ap- 


peased. Bessie  Turner  had  come  from  the  household  with 
the  simple  story  of  a  young,  outraged  maiden ;  Mrs.  Til- 
ton, the  suffering  and  crushed  wife,  had  made  her  revela- 
tions to  Mi-s.  Beecher ;  and  yet  Henry  Ward  Beecher  is 
at  once  convinced— convinced  by  the  persuasive  sophis- 
try and  falsehood  of  Francis  D.  Moulton,  that  Bessie  was 
a  liar,  that  Mrs.  Tilton  could  not  be  trusted ;  and  at  once 
his  soul  was  overwhelmed  with  this  vast  remorse,  and  the 
horrors  of  that  great  darkness  gather  at  once,  with  the 
bitterness  of  death,  upon  his  soul. 

And  that  Is  the  story  this  great  and  wise  and  virtuous 
man  tells  to  an  intelligent  court  and  commimity !  And 
you  are  expected  to  aflSrm  it  by  your  verdict!  What 
force  do  you  attach,  gentlemen,  to  the  undeniable  cir- 
cumstance that,  from  the  night  of  Dec.  30,  1870,  up  to 
the  very  sitttag  of  the  Investigating  Committee,  Mr. 
Beecher  in  company  with  Mr.  Moulton  and  with  Mr.  TU- 
ton have  been  exerting  their  utmost  ingenuity  and  effort 
in  divers  schemes  and  contrivances  to  suppress  this 
scandal  I  cannot  read  the  evidence  exhibiting  all  of 
them;  but  you  will  remember  that  in  his  letter  of  June 
1, 1873,  he  indulges  this  expression : 

Theodore's  temperament  is  such  that  the  future,  even  if 
temporarily  earned,  would  be  absolutely  worthless. 
Filled  with  abrupt  changes  and  rendering  me  liable  at 
any  hour  or  day  to  be  obliged  to  stultify  all  the  devices 
by  which  we  have  saved  ourselves. 

This  is  in  June,  1873.  A  long  time,  a  long  time  for  a 
priest  to  resort  to  devices  and  duplicity  to  conceal  a 
secret— a  secret  which  threatened  to  destroy  him,  as  he 
again  and  again  alleges.  Again,  tho  evidence  of  Mr. 
Halliday  has  shown  the  application  of  this  short  note  of 
Mr.  Beecher's : 

Sunday,  a.  m. 
Mt  Dear  Friend:  Halliday  called  last  night.  T.'s 
interview  with  him  did  not  satisfy,  but  disturbed.  It 
was  the  same  with  Bell,  who  was  present.  It  tended 
directly  to  unsettling.  Your  interview  last  night  was 
very  beneficial,  and  gave  confidence. 

You  remember  what  that  interview  was.  gentlemen, 
as  related  by  Mr.  Moulton,  when  he  made  some  false 
statements  which  they  say  are  contradictions  which 
should  discredit  his  testimony  here.  It  is  in  regard  to 
those  statements  that  Mr.  Beecher  says : 

Your  Interview  last  night  was  very  beneficial,  and  gave 
confidence.  This  must  be  looked  after.  It  is  vain  to 
build  if  the  foundations  sink  under  every  effort.  I  shall 
see  you  at  10:30  this  morning,  if  you  return  by  way  of 
No,  49  Remsen-st, 

Then  again,  this  little  note 

My  Dear  Friend  ;  The  Eagle  ought  to  have  nothing 
to-night.  It  is  that  meddling  which  stirs  up  our  folks. 
Neither  you  nor  Theodore  ought  to  be  troubled  by  the 
side  which  you  serve  so  faithfully  in  politics. 

The  deacons'  meeting,  I  think,  is  adjourned,  I  saw  BeU. 
It  was  a  friendly  movement.  The  only  near  next  danger 
is  the  women — Morrill,  Bradshaw,  and  the  poor  d>^•l^ 
child,  [Laughter,]  If  the  papers  will  hold  oft'  a  n^onth, 
we  can  ride  out  the  gale  and  make  safe  anchorage,  and 
then,  when  once  we  are  in  deep,  trauiiuil  waters,  we  will 


SUMMING   VP  . 

ftlljoin  hands  in  a  profound  and  genuine  Laus  Deo,  for 
tlirougli  sueli  a  •wilderness  only  a  Divine  Providence 
could  have  led  us,  undevoured  by  open-moutlied  beasts 
tliat  lay  in  wait  lor  our  lives. 

Now,  tMs  is  a  specimen  ot  tlie  continual  and  persistent 
course  of  conduct  ■whlcti  Mr.  Beecher,  in  company  witb 
Ms  two  allies,  Tilton  and  Moulton,  pursued  durmg  these 
long  years,  flgbtlng  off  attack,  putting  away  tlie  evil  day, 
suppressing  these  outbreaks  and  these  disturbing  influ- 
ences ;  Mr.  Beecher  all  the  while  clutching  Plymouth 
Church  by  the  throat  and  holding  it  still,  through  the 
influence  of  his  friends.  AU  done  for  what  1  Why,  there 
was  no  danger  of  the  love  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  unworthily  be- 
stowed upon  him,  being  exposed.  Nobody  knew  of  that ; 
never  a  whisper  of  that ;  never  a  suggestion  of  that.  Oh, 
it  was  such  an  inexpressive  love,  so  devoid  of  manifesta- 
tion, so  shrinking,  cowering  in  her  heart,  that  the  inno- 
cent and  sinful  Henry  Ward  Beecher  didn't  find  it  out  for 
four  years  1  That  is  the  love  which  afflicted  him.  That 
is  the  love  which  he  pretends  was  breaking  up  the  amity 
and  harmony  of  Theodore  Tilton's  home.  How  ridicu- 
lous a  pretense  I  Did  he  fear  the  revelation  of  his  advice 
to  Bowen  ?  Did  he  fear  the  revelation  of  that  unhappy  ad- 
vice to  separate,  which  ha<i  had  no  effect  upon  the  Tilton 
family  circle,  which  the  wife  disregarded— aye,  and  in 
regard  to  which,  as  Mr.  Tracy  says  in  his  opening,  she 
wrote  a  letter  denying  that  she  had  ever  desired  a  sepa- 
ration—a letter  that  we  had  not,  a  letter  not  iu  evidence 
here,  but  a  letter  with  which  they  are  acauainted 
and  which  they  did  not  choose  to  produce. 
What  was  the  danger  ?  Is  it  to  be  attributed— is  this  dis- 
graceful and  sinful  action  of  a  great  minister  to  be  ex- 
cused upon  the  idea  that  he  was  oppressed  with  remorse 
for  the  causes  which  he  has  assigned  1  Are  they  ade- 
qi-iate  %  Wni  they  justify  these  schemes  and  devices  to 
smother  the  truth  and  still  inguiry  1  Let  us  see,  gentle- 
men. Suppose  an  uivestigation  had  been  had,  and  it  had 
turned  out  that  these  specifications  of  Mr.  West  were 
untrue,  that  they  were  not  supported  by  any  proof,  that 
the  only  offense  Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  committed  was 
to  advise  that  this  profligate  should  be  reduced  from  the 
head  of  the  leading  Christian  newspaper  of  the  land  ; 
that  he  had  advised  the  wife  of  Tilton  to  separate 
from  him,  but  that  this  advice  had  been  en- 
tirely unproductive  of  result,  and  that  the  family 
relations  of  the  TUtons  were  continued  unbroken 
and  no  different  from  the  time  when  that  advice  was 
given ;  how  would  Henry  Ward  Beecher  have  stood  be- 
fore his  church  and  before  the  world  1  Defended,  excul- 
pated, clad  again  iu  a  robe  of  righteousness !  Think  of 
the  charges  in  public  against  him !  Think  that  the  woman 
Woodhull  had  published  her  accusation  of  concubinage, 
including  adultery  and  fornication  in  its  signification. 
That  was  published  iu  May,  1871.  It  is  iu  that  publica- 
tion iliat  the  charge  of  concubinage  is  contained,  carrying 
u  jlear  and  definite  intimation  and  accusation  to  the 


'Y  ME.  BE  ACE,  941 

whole  world,  in  its  app]loati>a  t6  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 
And  in  these  circles,  among  ttis  "jury  of  the  viciuage" 
spoken  of  by  my  friend  Porter,  these  whisperings  of  evil 
on  the  part  of  this  defendant;  Mrs.  Morse,  Mrs. 
Bradshaw,  Mr.  Richards,  Mr.  Johnson,  and  others  of 
the  reliable  ai»d  leading  people  of  this  city,  aware 
of  that  accusation,  and  every  time  the  sun  per- 
formed its  diurnal  circle  that  circle  of  knowledge 
widening  and  widening;  the  Churcu  dissatisfied  and  dis- 
contented ;  prominent  members  pressing  investigation— 
in  the  language  of  Mr.  West,  saying  to  Mr.  Beecher, 
"  The  Church  suffers  ;  Christianity  suffers  ;  we  all  sufter; 
we  believe  these  charges  to  be  false,  and  we  call  upon 
you  to  vindicate  ^our  integrity  and  to  punish  these 
odious  assailants.  * 

Thus  was  Henxy  Ward  Beecher  stirrounded,  encom- 
passed, goaded.'  Had  he  then  accepted  a  Church  inves- 
tigation and  proved  there  what  by  his  assertion  he  proves 
here,  that  he  had  never  sinned  against  chastity  or  honor, 
but  that,  misjed  by  bad  advice,  he  had  unwisely  coun- 
seled Mrs.  latonand  Mr.  Bowen;  oh,  what  a  burst  of 
holy  enthusiasm  and  rejoicing  would  have  resounded 
through  tne  land.  "This  man  around  whom  our 
sympathies  and  our  admii-ation  clustered,  whom  we 
longed  to  believe  mnocent  and  pure,  although 
he  had  slumbered  and  rested  during  long  and 
weary  months  under  dishonoring  accusation,  he  at 
last  lifted  himself  in  his  majesty  and  glory 
and  shook  off  the  vile  accusers  and  the  false  taint  of  their 
accusation. 

ME.  BEECHEE'S   OBSEEYANCE   OF  THE 
POLICY   OF  SILENCE. 

Why,  then,  when  everything  urged  him  to 
an  investigation ;  when,  if  his  story  be  true,  he  had  the 
consciousness  of  innocence  and  the  power  of  demon- 
strating it,  why  was  he  silent  ?  Would  it  have  hurt  Til- 
ton ?  Would  it  have  hurt  ISIrs.  Tilton  ?  Why,  she  stood 
in  an  equal  degree  of  degradation  and  impurity  with  that 
which,  under  the  clamors  of  the  world's  gossip,  weighed 
down  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  She  too  would  have  been  re- 
deemed. The  dishonored  fugitive  from  her  home  would 
have  stood  to-day  beneath  her  own  roof-tree  a  virtuous 
and  honored  matron,  purified  and  redeemed  from  the 
taint  of  sin  and  accusation.  No  reproach  could  have 
fallen  upon  a  human  being  except  Theodore  Tilton.  And 
would  he  have  been  harmed  1  Wotdd  he  have  suffered 
any  more  than  he  did  suffer  ?  Would  his  condition  have 
been  any  worse  than  it  was  then  ?  Nay,  would  it  not 
have  been  modified  and  improved  1  Because,  if  Mr. 
Beecher  came  to  tl^  conclusion  that  his  advice  was  un- 
wise and  injudicious,  in  so  far  he  could  have  borne  testi- 
mony in  favor  of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  he  could  have  been 
saved— saved  from  the  controversy  with  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  and  Plymouth  Church  ;  not  saved  from  the  con- 
troversy with  the  world  and  society.  That  salvataon 


942 


THE   TILTON-BEEOHER  TRIAL, 


must  be  worked  out  by  himself,  and  by  himself  alone. 
If  lie  has  wroujE^ed  bis  true  nature  and  bis  great  gifts  by 
unwise  or  improper  association  with  any  school  or  sect, 
Ijropagating  pernicious  doctrines;  if  he  has  been  indis- 
creet in  his  admiration  of  Victoria  Woodhull  or  anybody 
else ;  if  that  false  and  infamous  Winsted  story  had  the 
least  color  of  a  foundation— against  all  these,  with  a  re- 
deemed nobility,  with  the  exalted  dignity  of  his  true 
nature,  he  must  work  out  his  own  salvation,  and  "  with 
fear  and  trembling." 

Now,  what  harm  would  have  come  from  an  investiga- 
tion if  these  things  told  by  Henry  Ward  Beecher  are 
true  ?  Gentlemen,  I  have  said  to  you  again  and  again 
that  you  must  weigh,  as  fair  and  unconscious  men,  these 
considerations.  You  must  reconcile  them.  No  matter  if 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  does  stand  in  the  way,  if  the  course 
of  justice  leads  risht  over  him,  it  must  not  vary  one 
jot  or  tittle  from  truth  and  right.  We  must 
fearlessly  examine  these  arguments  and  these  con- 
siderations and  do  as  the  obligations  of  our  con- 
sciences and  our  duty  to  God  and  man  require — 
freely  and  fearlessly  execute  the  justice  of  the  law.  Did 
this  minister  of  the  truth  advise  or  countenance  false- 
hood.? He  says  he  knew  of  the  course  of  policy  and  ac- 
tion which  Tilton  and  Moulton  were  pursuing  with  Vic- 
toria Woodhull.  He  did  not  discountenance  it.  He  ad- 
mits that,  by  his  own  testimony.  They  say  he  colleagued 
Avith  them  and  cooperated  m  their  efforts.  Did  he  con- 
sent to  suppress  investigation  before  the  Church  Com- 
mittee %  Did  he  agree  to  a  report  varnishing  over  and 
concealing  the  truth  ?  Did  he  make  a  statement  putting 
himself  upon  the  ground  that  the  difference  between  him 
and  Mr.  Tilton  and  his  family  had  been  arranged  by  a 
p  tisf  actory  apology  ?  Did  he  state  that  in  his  letter  ? 
Why,  gentlemen,  all  this  is  not  to  be  denied.  This  record 
is  rife  with  the  proof  not  only  of  his  acquiesceuGe,  but  of 
his  active  participation  in  this  "  policy  of  silence."  He 
says  he  did.  He  swears  he  recommended  that  policy. 
And,  gentlemen,  it  was  not  a  recommendation  of  that 
policy  with  reference  to  the  supposed  injuries  he  had  in- 
flicted upon  Mr.  Tilton  alone ;  because  there  the  charge  of 
filthy  approach  stood  against  him.  It  stood  in  the  declara- 
tion of  Elizabeth  E.  Tilton ;  not  the  one  she  destroyed,  but 
in  the  letter  to  Dr.  Storrs,  communicated  to  that  pure  and 
upright  gentlema,n,  known  of  all  men,  Tracy  knowing  it, 
everybody  connected  in  interest  or  action  with 
these  parties  knowing  it,  and  this  man  was  scheming, 
according  to  his  own  statement,  to  stifle  any  agitation 
which  would  bring  to  the  surface  that  accusation,  and 
lead  him,  by  the  assertion  of  his  own  innocence,  to  re- 
sist and  destroy  it.  He  was  then  practicing  deception. 
He  was  an  accomplice  in  a  series  of  lies,  and  it  was  de- 
liberately done,  not  alone,  I  repeat,  to  protect  Tilton  or 
Mrs.  Tilton,  but  to  save  himself.  You  are  to  say,  gentle- 
men, whether  that  is  consistent  with  the  idea  of  purity 
and  integrity  claimed  for  this  defendant. 


It  is  singular  how  the  reflections  of  different  minds 
draw  different  lessons  and  applications  from  the  same 
words  and  thoughts.  My  learned  friend,  Mr.  Evarts,  has 
alluded  to  and  quoted  from  the  poem  of  Burns  addressed, 
under  the  title  of  an  "  Epistle  to  a  Young  Friend,"  adAas- 
ing  him  against  improper  indulgences,  and  has  someb  ow 
made  that  applicable  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Beecher,  as.  an 
argument  to  prove  that  this  charge  against  him  is  base- 
less and  unfounded;  and  yet,  in  January,  1875, 1  was 
favored  with  a  communication  from  a  lady  in  Bingham- 
ton  making  the  same  quotation,  and  asking  me  to  read  it 
to  the  jury,  and  drawing  from  it  quite  a  different  infer- 
ence from  that  derived  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Judge  Beach  :  In  your  speech  or  summing  up,  will  you 
please  quote  or  introduce  Burns's  celebrated  protest 
against  that  particular  sin,  as  recorded  in  the  sixth  stanza 
of  his  "  Epistle  to  a  Young  Friend,"  where  after  warning 
his  young  friend  against  illicit  indulgence,  he  says  : 

"  I  waive  the  quantum  o'  the  sin, 

Ths  hazard  of  concealing  ; 
But  oh  !  it  hardens  a'  within. 

And  petrifies  the  feeling ! " 

Which  it  has  surely  and  fearfully  done  in  this  case.  The 
recuiTing  acted  falsehoods,  including  many  sins  immeas- 
urably worse  than  the  recurring  verbal  falsehoods  and 
perjuries  ;  the  latter  involving  only  the  ruin  of  the  per- 
jurer, the  former  the  ruir-  and  the  wretchedness  of  others, 
reaching  far  into  the  future. 

Do  you  notice  here  the  occurrence  of  that  word  "  per- 
iury?"  And  this  lady,  utterly  disconnected  with  this 
transaction,  gives  as  the  conduct  and  character  and 
treatment  of  this  subject  by  Mr.  Beecher  the  same  appel- 
lation that  Mrs.  Moulton  bestowed  upon  it,  and  which 
seemed  to  strike  my  learned  friend  with  so  much  incom- 
patibility, that  Mrs.  Moulton  should  call  this  duplicity 
and  this  continual  system  of  lying  perjury,  and  yet  it 
seems  that  the  female  nature  does  not  differ  veiy  much- 
in  their  conceptions  of  propriety.  Neither  of  these  ladies 
knew  what  was  the  technical  definition  of  perjury,  but 
they  knew  that  there  was  moral  perj  ury  about  it ;  they 
knew  that  there  was  the  soul's  degradation  about  it ; 
they  knew  that  the  minister  of  truth  who  could  descend 
to  these  acted  lies  fell  under  the  description  of  that  verse 
of  Burns's : 

But  oh  1  it  hardens  a'  within, 

And  petrifies'the  feeling. 
Read  that  letter  in  1871  so  full  of  penitence  and  re- 
morse, written  when  the  shadow  of  his  great  sin  and  sor- 
row was  thick  and  black  upon  him.  When  the  softness  of 
his  contrition  had  melted  his  nature  before  the  long 
course  of  concealment  spoken  of  by  Bums  had  hardened 
all  within  and  petrified  all  the  feelings.  And  contrast  it, 
his  actions  and  his  expressions  then,  with  the  lofty  and 
contemptuous  and  frivolous  manner  of  the  man  upon  the 
stand,  who  can  joke  and  jest  and  utter  his  witticisms 
while  his  fame  and  character,  and  the  honor  of  the  Chui'ch 
and  religion,  are  trembling  in  the  balance.  When  from 
the  spot  where  he  sat  he  could  see  the  deluded 
victim    of    his     lust,     and     in     his  imagination 


:S[I]\1MI^G    UP  B 

can  look  at  that  liouseliold,  once  happy  and  hon- 
ored,, which  he  has  unroofed  and  desolated ; 
•where  he  could  see  its  mistress,  the  wife  of  his  old  friend 
and  companion  and  pupil,  following  him  ahout  the  streets 
of  your  city  and  into  the  sacred  presence  of  this  Court, 
and  flaimt  her  love  and  devotion  in  the  face  of  this  jury. 
Oh !  how  hardened,  petrified,  brutalized,  the  heart  of  this 
man  has  become  ere  it  could  exhibit  such  a  change!  Could 
you  believe  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  as  he  appeared  to 
you  upon  this  stand  as  a  witness,  speaking  of  the  same 
subject,  dealing  with  the  same  characters,  surrounded 
by  the  same  grave  interests,  that  that  man,  so  jocund  and 
gay  and  wicked,  could  ever  have  written  upon  the  same 
topic  those  words  of  anguish  and  agony  ?  Ah,  did  not  this 
lady  well  estimate  the  condition  of  his  soul,  and  properly 
apply  the  forecasting  language  of  the  great  poet  ? 

THE  "JUDGMENT  DAY  LETTER." 
I  must  ask  your  attention,  gentlemen,  to  the 
letter  of  June  1, 1873,  not  only  because  of  its  intrinsic 
importance,  but  because  a  new  character,  revelation,  is 
given  to  it.  It  is  claimed  that  this  was  a  declaration  of 
hostilities  by  Mr.  Beecher,  that  at  last  his  patience  was 
exhausted  and  he  strips  for  a  fight,  threatens  to  resign, 
be  rid  of  the  incumbrance  of  the  church  and  the  possibil- 
ity of  harm  to  it,  and  meet  his  accusers  openly  and 
boldly.  Does  this  letter  bear  any  such  interpretation, 
either  in  its  own  language  or  by  connection  with  sur- 
roundiag  succeeding  events?  • 

The  whole  earth  is  tranquil  and  the  heaven  is  serene, 
as  befits  one  who  has  about  finished  his  world-life.  I 
could  do  nothing  on  Saturday— my  head  was  confused, 
but  a  good  sleep  has  made  it  like  crystal.  I  have  deter- 
mined to  make  no  more  resistance. 

And  yet,  say  my  friends,  why,  he  was  preparing  him- 
self for  resistance  unto  death.  "  I  have  struggled  for 
four  years  with  Tilton  and  Moulton  to  cover  up  our 
secret.  You  (Moulton)  have  tied  up  the  storm  which 
threatened  to  eugulfus.  Your  trusty  friendship  has 
saved  us  again  and  again,  but  Theodore  is  mu-eliable,  his 
temperament  is  of  such  a  character  that  he  is  imstable 
and  untrusty,  moved  by  circumstances,  and  I  will  make 
no  more  resistance.  Let  the  worst  come.  I  will  not 
fight,  but  I  wiU  make  a  statement  which  shall  bear  the 
light  of  the  Judgment  Day."  Well- 
It  is  only  fair  that  he  (Theodore)  should  know  that  the 
publication  of  the  card  which  he  proposes  would  leave 
him  worse  off  than  before, 

"  I  am  going  to  fight,"  say  the  coimsel,  "  but  I  tell  my 
adversary  if  he  >  s  his  weapons  he  is  unwise ;  it  will 
only  expose  things  more ;  it  will  make  him  worse  oft' 
than  he  was  before,"  and  this  said  by  a  man  who 
had  been  driven  to  desperation  and  was 
determined  at  last  to  turn,  as  my  friend  Porter 
says,  like  a  stag  at  bay  and  gore  his  adversaries, 
iS"ot  very  consistent  with  that  idea.  Why  should  he 
ieprecate  the  publication  of  a  card  by  Tilton,  if  he  had 


Y  MR.   BEACH.  943 

detCMuined  to  resign  his  pastorship  and  to  arm  himself 
with  a  statement  which  would  bear  the  light  of  the 
Judgment  Day  in  defiance  of  his  pursuers  ?  Utterly 
inconsistent.  The  theory  and  the  declaration  cannot  be 
reconciled: 

The  agreement  was  made  after  my  letter  through  you 
was  written.  He  had  it  a  year,  and  he  condoned  his 
wife's  fault. 

Why  is  he  pleading  thus  with  Moulton  and  Tilton? 
Gentlemen,  all  your  devices  are  at  an  end.  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  the  gifted  pastor  of  Plymouth  Church,  is  be- 
come a  private  man,  and  for  the  simple  purpose  of  meet- 
ing you  in  hostility,  unincumbered  by  any  embarrass 
ment.  "  And  yet,  Theodore  Tilton,  you  made  an  agree- 
ment with  me  but  a  year  ago— made  it  upon  the  strength 
of  a  letter,  which  I  wrote  to  you,  of  apology  ;  and  you 
condoned  your  wife's  fault." 

Then  this  settlement  was  made  and  signed  by  him.  It 
was  not  my  making.  He  revised  his  part  so  it  should 
wholly  suit  him,  and  signed  it.  It  stood  unquestioned 
andunblamed  for  more  than  a  year  Then  it  was  puJ)- 
lished. 

Never,  but  parts  of  it.  Those  portions  of  that  "  Tri- 
partite Agreement"  which  exonerated  Theodore  Tilton, 
justified  his  every  act  in  connection  with  Mr.  Bow  en  and 
with  Mr.  Beecher,  were  suppressed ;  and  hence  the  storm 
oi  indignation  raised  by  Samuel  Wilkeson. 

Nothing  but  that.  That  which  he  did  in  private  when 
made  public  excited  him  to  fury ;  and  he  charges  me  with 
making  him  a}wear  as  one  graciously  pardoned  me ! 
It  was  his  own  deliberate  act,  with  which  he  was  per- 
fectly content  till  others  saw  it,  and  then  he  charges  a 
grievous  wrong  home  on  me. 

But,  there  was  the  fault  of  the  publication,  that  it  was 
not  f  uU. 

My  mind  is  clear.  I  am  not  in  haste.  1  shall  write  for 
the  public  a  statement  that  will  bear  the  light  of  the 
Judgment  Day.   God  wUl  take  care  of  me  and  mine. 

Why,  what  did  he  want  any  special  interposition  of  God 
to  take  care  of  him  and  his  if  he  was  going  to  write  a 
statement  which  would  justify  him,  pui-ge  him  before  the 
world  ?  If  he  was  innocent,  and  he  knew  it,  pursued  by 
a  false  accusation,  and  was  going,  to  declai'e  his  inno- 
cence, why  appeal  to  the  protection  of  God  in  this  sor- 
rowful, pitiful  way  1 

"  When  I  look  on  earth  it  is  a  deep  night." 

Why,  what  should  darken  the  earth  to  an  innocent 
man  who  was  at  last  in  the  presence  of  his  God  to  make 
a  statement  which  should  clear  him  fcom  every  accusa- 
tion, if  he  was  going  to  fight  and  had  hope  of  winning 
the  battle  ? 

When  I  look  to  the  heavens  above  I  see  the  morning 
breaking.  But  oh  !  that  I  could  put  in  golden  letters  my 
deep  sense  of  your  faithful,  earnest,  undying  fidelity— 
your  disinterested  friendship.  Your  noble  wife,  too,  has 
been  to  me  one  of  God's  comforters.  It  is  such  as  she 
that  renews  a  waning  faith  in  womanhood. 

Please  remember  that  by  and  by. 

Now,  Frank,  I  would  not  have  you  waste  anymore 

energy  on  a  hopeless  task. 


944  THE  TILION-B 

What  was  it  %  What  task  was  it  that  had  become  hope- 
less ?  What  was  Frank  Moulton  ?  What  is  the  trusty 
and  undying  friend  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  doing,  and 
what  had  he  been  doing  for  three  years  ?  Why,  trying  to 
stifle  and  suppress  this  scandal  against  Mr.  Beecher.  And 
Mr.  Beecher  says  to  him,  "  Frank,  it  is  a  hopeless  task. 
Trusty  and  faithful  friend  as  you  have  been,  untiring, 
self-sacrificing,  yet  it  is  a  hopeless  task." 

With  such  a  man  as  T.  T.  there  is  no  possible  salvation 
for  any  that  depend  upon  him. 

Salvation  for  Mr.  Beecher !  You  say  there  is  no  salva- 
tion for  you  in  dependence  upon  Theodore  Tilton.  Why, 
what  was  he  to  be  saved  from  ?  What  was  the  depend- 
ence upon  Theodore  TUton  ? 

With  generous  impulses,  the  undercurrent  that  rules 
him  is  self.  With  ardent  affections,  he  cannot  love  long 
that  which  does  not  repay  him  with  admiration  and 
praise.  With  a  strong  theatric  nature— [ah,  there  is  the 
origin  of  that  word  "  theatric "]— he  is  constantly  im- 
posed upon  with  the  idea  that  a  position,  a  great  stroke,  a 
coup  d'etat  is  the  way  to  success.  Besides  these,  he  has 
a  hundred  good  things  about  him ;  but  these  named  traits 
make  him  absolutely  unreliable.  Therefore,  there  is  no 
use  in  further  trying.  I  have  a  strong  feeling  upon  me, 
and  it  brings  peace  with  it,  that  I  am  spending  my  last 
Sunday  and  preaching  my  last  sermon.  Dear,  good  God, 
I  thank  Thee  I  am  indeed  beginning  to  see  rest  and  tri- 
umph. The  pain  of  life  is  but  a  moment ;  the  glory  of 
everlasting  emancipation  is  worldless,  inconceivable,  full 
of  beckoning  glory.  Oh !  beloved  Frank,  I  shall  know 
you  there,  and  forever  hold  friendship  with  you,  and  look 
back  and  smile  at  the  past.  Your  loving,  h.  w.  b. 

And  this,  my  friends  say,  is  the  expression  and  the 
feeling  of  an  innocent  and  noble  gentleman,  encompassed 
by  clouds  and  doubtful  circumstances,  who  at  last  feels 
that  he  could  stand  upon  his  manhood  and  innocence  and 
justify  himself  before  his  God  and  the  world.  Does  the 
tone  of  his  letter,  is  there  a  sentiment  .in  it,  is  there  a 
smgle  expression  or  reflection  of  that  exhilaration  and 
pride  which  would  come  from  one  like  Mr.  Beecher 
freed  from  turmoils,  and  at  last  at  liberty  to  vindicate  his 
Christian  and  manly  honor  ?  Oh,  then,  how  idle  it  is. 
gentlemen,  to  talk  about  that  letter  being  a  challenge, 
how  idle  the  pretense  that  this  man  intended  to  separate 
himself  from  his  pastorship  for  the  purpose  of  entering 
upon  this  contest  1  Why  should  he  do  that  %  If  you  are 
innocent,  Mr.  Beecher,  if  you  mean  to  publish  a  state- 
ment which  shall  exhibit  that  innocence,  what 
need  of  resigning  your  pastorship  ?  Plym- 
outh Church  believes  in  you.  You  say  you 
hold  it  in  the  hollow  of  your  hand.  There  are  some  dis- 
turbing elements.  Not  suspicious  of  you ;  never  ques- 
tioning by  a  wandering  thought  your  ministerial  purity, 
only  desiring  to  get  rid  of  this  firebrand  and  poUutionlst 
from  the  congregation  and  church.  All  its  members  will 
raUy  around  you  with  adoring  imanimity,  as  you  know 
it,  Mr.  Beecher  ;  and  if  you  intend  to  send  out  your  state- 
ment to  the  world,  what  fitter  place  to  do  it  than  from 
the  pulpit  of  Plymouth  Church,  which  you  have  erected 


EEGHER  TRIAL. 

and  lifted  to  an  exaltation  of  honor  and  glory  unparal- 
leled in  Church  history  ?  Why  should  you  resign  1  Other 
parties  would  be  created.  These  parties  would  spring 
up.  There  would  be  dissension,  there  would  be  contest. 
Why,  what  would  make  contest  in  Plymouth  Church  t 
Are  there  any  there  who  would  distrust  your  statement  t 
Is  there  a  member  of  that  congregation  who  would  disbe- 
lieve your  word  ?  When,  in  the  language  of  that  letter, 
you  should  make  *  statement  which  you  should  declare 
would  "  bear  the  light  of  the  Judgment  Day,"  is  there  a 
bold  and  hardened  disbeliever  in  Plymouth  Church  who 
would  falter  from  your  side  and  distrust  your  assertion  ? 
What  is  to  make  contests  ?  Upon  what  principle  will  par- 
ties separate  and  be  formed  1 

Oh,  idle  and  foolish  pretense  1  The  place  for  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  to  assert  his  innocence,  to  pm-ify  his  name, 
to  sweep  the  dust  and  the  stain  from  the  pulpit  which  he 
had  occupied  for  25  years,  was  there,  where  he  stood  in 
his  regal  pomp  and  glory,  the  monarch  of  the  minds  of 
his  congregation.  Resign !  Strip  ofi'  his  strongest  and 
brightest  armor,  and  for  the  purpose  of  contest !  Ah,  no ; 
but  if  he  contemplated  a  statement  which  should  im- 
pugn his  honor  as  a  clergyman ;  if  with  the  statement  he 
threatened  their  connection,  contest,  fight,  dispute^ 
wrangling  dissension,  weU  and  good;  but  if  it  was  the 
truth-bearing  testimony  to  his  innocence,  there  was 
no  necessity  for  Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  re- 
treat from  the  citadel  of  his  strength.  No^ 
gentlemen,  when  the  very  next  day  he  publishes  a  card 
vindicating  Theodore  Tilton  from  a  lengthy  charge  made 
against  him  in  the  public  ear,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  did 
not  contemplate  contest.  Even  his  magnanimous  gen- 
erosity, if  he  was  preparing  for  a  fight  with  Theodore 
Tilton,  would  not  have  armed  his  adversary  with  a  new 
and  a  strong  weapon  against  himself ;  and  then  from  the 
very  hour  that  letter  was  written  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
entered  again  into  his  system  of  deception  and  imtruth^ 
commenced  again  his  schemes  for  secresy  and  silence, 
took  up  again  the  policy  of  sUence  which  he  admits  he 
entered  mto,  if  he  did  not  originate,  and  goes  coutinu 
ously  and  steadily  on  in  these  triune  efforts  to  suppress 
these  scandals,  imtil  at  last,  driven  to  desperation,  when 
no  longer  the  upbraidings  and  uprising  of  his  church 
could  be  quelled,  when  there  must  be  revelation,  truth 
breaking  out  from  the  darkness,  then  at  last  he  adopts 
the  course  which  he  pursued  through  the  Investigating 
Committee. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 


THE  DAItTGER  TO  BE  AVERTED. 
The  Court  met  at  2  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Beach— There  is  one  statement  in  this  letter  which 
has  excited  much  comment,  and  I  confess  it  is  difficulty 
although  aided  by  all  the  surrounding  circumstances, 
and  guided  by  what,  I  think,  are  are  very  strong  iudica^ 


SrMMISG    CF  BY  JUL  BLEACH, 


945 


tioDS  of  the  condition  of  mind  in  \rhicli  Mr.  Beecher 
■vrrote  it.  to  gi^e  an  entirely  satisfactory  solution  of  it. 

I  shall  -vrrite  for  the  puhlic  a  statement  that  will  bear 
the  light  of  the  Judgment  Day. 

I  have  endeavored  to  indicate,  in  contesting  the  idea 
that  this  "^as  a  preparation  for  controversy,  and  a 
declaration  of  defiance  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher,  to 
suggest  that  the  mood  of  mind  and  feeling  out  of  vrhich 
this  declaration  arose  was  one  of  contrition,  repentance 
and  determination  to  make  a  full  and  a  complete  revela- 
tion and  confession,  and  thus  secure  the  acquitting  and 
composing  pardon  of  both  God  and  man.  It  corresponds 
with  the  other  expressions  contained,  in  this  most  re- 
markable document.  The  whole  letter,  with  the 
exception  of  the  first  paragraph,  is  full  of  de- 
pression, sorrow,  gloomy  forecast ;  the  earth  all  dark  ; 
but  yet,  when  looking  up  to  Heaven  a  gleam  of  brightness 
and  peace  breaking  through  the  darkness :  THiat  does  it 
mean  ?  Does  it  mean  innocence,  or  a  broken  spirit 
awakened  at  last  to  a  true  conception  of  those  early  and 
holy  aspirations  which  first  lifted  his  soul  to  bis  God  ?  If 
we  are  to  judge  by  what  has  gone  before,  if  we  are  to 
trust  to  the  revelations  of  human  lips  under  the  most 
solemn  sanction;  if  we  are  to  repose  with  any  confidence 
upon  our  own  intelligence  and  judgment,  studying  the 
expressions  of  this  man  under  other  circumstances;  if 
we  can  draw  any  rational  inference  from  fu.s-itire  efforts 
at  concealments,  from  practices  of  duplicity  and  fraud 
by  a  great  and  religious  teacher,  why  there  can  be  no 
doubt  about  the  construction  of  this  letter.  The  appeals 
of  Mrs.  Moulton,  strengthened  by  those  whisperings 
which  break  down  from  heaven  upon  the  heart,  had 
touched  the  sensibilities  and  the  conscience  of  this 
defendant.  And,  in  the  spirit  of  the  prodigal, 
he  had  determined  to  rise  up  and  go  to 
his  father  and  confess,  "  Father,  I  have  sinned 
in  thy  sight,"  and  receive  the  benedictions  of  parental 
forgiveness.  This  is  the  construction  to  be  put  upon  this 
document;  and  we  are  to  inquire,  according  to  our  own 
judgment,  whether  if  guilty— if  he  had  been  betrayed  by 
severe  t-emptation.  by  the  singular  and  uix^eut  tendencies 
of  his  temperament  and  physical  life — if,  notwithstand- 
ing all  the  teachings  of  his  better  nature,  and  all  the  re- 
sti'aints  of  his  religious  belief  and  position— if,  notwith- 
standing all  this,  Mr.  Beecher  had  fallen  into  offense,  his 
own  faith,  his  own  principles,  the  doctrines  which  he 
taught  to  his  congregation  constantly  and  familiarly, 
prompted  him  in  the  manner  God  directs,  throi%'h  the 
process  His  Providence  leads  the  repentant  sinner,  to 
confess— is  there  anything  repulsive  in  that  idea  to  the 
Christian  mind  1  1  know  what  the  heathen  and  the  sin- 
ner would  do.  But  we  are  canvassing  the  probabilities 
of  action  as  applied  to  a  man  who  has  borne  the  charac- 
tM-  of  a  saint  and  a  teacher ;  who  has  great  capacities  of 
being;  whose  spirit,  according  to  the  ideas  of  my  learned 
.friends,  is  a-s  exalted  and  aspiring  as  his  intellect,  and 


we  must  expand  our  notions ;  we  must  lift  ourselves  out 
of  our  own  conscious  conceptions,  and  get  as  near  to  this 
man,  in  all  his  qualities  and  all  his  impulses,  as  we  can. 
And  I  ask  the  Cliristian  hearts  upon  this  jury,  who  know 
something  of  experimental  religion,  and  who  know,  if  it 
is  humiliating  and  crashing  to  kneel  at  the  confessional 
in  a  spirit  of  godly  contrition,  that  when  the  answer  of 
peace  and  forgiveness  comes,  there  is  ample  remunera- 
tion in  the  joy  of  it-s  receptioiL  It  seems  to  me  if  the 
world  needed  a  lesson— and  it  has  had  teachings  enough 
of  the  weekness  and  infirmities  of  human  nature — but  if 
it  needed  a  grand  example  of  a  great  mind  and  a  great 
heartf  ailing  beneath  the  fierceness  of  temptation,  but  yet, 
in  the  grandeur  of  its  nature,  and  in  the  aspiring  and 
exalted  purity  of  religious  faith,  rising  up  before  man 
and  God  and  confessing  its  fall,  and  pledging  itself  to  a 
renewed  and  more  perfect  life,  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
could  have  given  that  example  and  honored  his 
own  nature,  and  exalted  his  own  name,  feancti- 
fled  the  church  to  which  he  belonged,  and  shed 
a  more  glorious  light  even  around  the  doctrines  he 
weekly  taught.  WeU.  it  seems  to  me  to  conform  to  that 
interview  between  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Beecher  and  to 
that  letter  of  Moulton  in  which  Mr.  Moulton  says  to  him 
in  substance :  "  Confess  ;  if  all  the  facts  are  revealed  you 
can  yet  stand."  Something  has  beeu  said  about  the  dif- 
ferent commencements  of  these  two  letters.  I  have 
studied  them  with  some  care,  and  I  see  no  difference  in 
the  sentiment — only  in  the  form  of  expression,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  attacliing  to  the  same  expression  which 
he  uses  in  the  corrected  letter,  a  sentiment  in  this  lan- 
guage— 

Your  letter  makes  this  first  Sabbath  of  Summer  dark 
and  cold  like  a  vault.  You  have  never  inspu-ed  me  with 
courage  or  hope  ;  and  if  I  had  listened  to  you  aloije  my 
hands  would  have  diopped  helpless  long  ago.  You  do 
not  begin  to  be  in  the  danger  that  has  faced  you  many 
times  before.  If  you  now  look  it  square  in  the  eyes  it 
will  cower  and  shrink  away  again. 

"WeU,  what  was  this  danger,  gentlemen?  Was  it  meie 
danger  from  the  causes  which  have  been  assigned  by  Mr. 
Beecher?  Was  there  any  danger  to  come  fjom  the  fact 
that  Mrs.  Tilton  had  fallen  in  love  with  Mr.  Beecher ! 
Why,  clearly  not.  Mr.  Tilton  never  suggested  any  such 
idea,  never  threatened  anv  such  revelation  as  that. 
There  never  was  any  such  danger  that  had  theretofore 
threatened  Mr.  Beecher.  Well,  there  was  no  danger 
springing  from  the  other  circumstances  impending  over 
:Mr.  Beecher.  The  advice  to  Bowen,  the  advice  to  a  sepa- 
ration created  no  perU  to  Mr.  Beecher.  Now,  this  is  not 
a  mere  sentiment.  This  refers  to  threatened  peril.  Why, 
Mr.  Beecher  says  that  he  was  oppressed  with  remorse 
and  sorrow  and  aU  that,  looked  with  great  afifliction  upon 
the  mischief  which  Mrs.  TUton'g  love  for  him  had 
wrought.  That  is  all  very  well.  But  we  are  now  coming 
to  a  charge,  an  assumption  acquiesced  in  by  him,  that 
there  had  been,  again  and  again,  peril  assailing  liira,  and 


946 


THE   riLTON-BEECEJEB  TBIAL. 


-when  he  had  looked  it  square  in  the  face  in  the  mode 
which  had  been  described  by  himself,  as  weU  as  by  other 
livitnesses,  why  it  cowered  and  shrunk  away.  "Well,  now, 
this  implies  sin ;  it  assumes  error.  No  such  words  as 
those  could  have  been  written  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  if 
Ms  own  story  of  his  innocence  is  true,  because  he  was 
exposed  to  no  peril. 

You  know  that  I  never  have  been  in  sympathy  with, 
Tjut  that  I  absolutely  abhor  the  unmanly  mood  out  of 
which  youi'  letter  of  this  morning  came.  This  mood  is  a 
reservoir  of  mildew.  You  can  stand  if  the  whole  thing 
were  published  to-morrow.  In  my  opinion  it  shows  only 
a  seltish  faith  in  God  to  go  whining  into  heaven,  if  you 
could,  with  a  truth  that  you  are  not  courageous  enough, 
with  God's  help  aud  faith  in  God,  to  try  to  live  on  earth. 

Now,  what  did  that  mean,  gentlemen,  in  connection 
with  the  declarations  in  his  letters  that  he  had  a  strong 
belief  that  he  was  preaching  his  last  sermon  and  living 
hislctst  Sunday— in  connection  with  the  testimony  of 
Mrs.  Moulton,  and  with  other  parts  to  which  I  may  pos- 
sibly draw  your  attention,  where  the  same  design  of 
suicide  is  shadowed  forth?  Why  does  Mr.  Moulton, 
writing  to  Mr.  Beecher,  say  • 

It  shows  only  a  selfish  faith  in  God  to  go  whining  into 
HeaTeu  i1:  you  could,  with  a  truth  that  you  are  not  cour- 
ageous enough,  with  God's  help  and  faith  in  God,  to  try 
to  live  on  eartli.  You  know  that  I  love  you ;  and  be- 
•cause  I  do  I  shall  try  aud  try,  as  in  the  past.  You  are 
mistaken  when  you  say  that  Theodore  charges  you  with 
making  him  appear  as  one  graciously  pardoned  by  you. 
He  said  the  form  iu  which  he  was  abused  in  some  of  the 
papers  made  it  so  api»ear,  and  it  was  from  this  that  he 
disked  relief.  I  don't  think  it  impossible  to  fi'ame  a  letter 
which  will  cover  the  case.  May  God  bless  you.  I  know 
he  will  protect  you. 

Speaking  of  this  letter  Mr.  Moulton  says: 

Mr.  Beecher  came  to  my  house  on  the  evening  of  the 
Sunday  on  which  this  letter  was  written,  and  I  said  to 
Mr.  Beecher :  "  You  never  give  me  any  strength  at  all. 
If  I  was  to  follow  you  my  hands  would  drop  useless.  You 
give  me  no  courage ;  you  give  me  no  hope.  Whenever 
there  is  an  emergency  to  face  in  the  matter,  whether  it  is 
easy  or  whether  it  is  hard  to  meet,  you  di'op ;  you  don't 
suggest  the  way  out.  Now,  if  you  were  to  express  to 
your  congregation  the  contrition  which  you  have  ex- 
pressed to  me  in  consequence  of  your  intercourse  with 
Mrs.  Tilton,  they,  in  my  opinion,  would  forgive  you,  and 
you  could  stand.  I  don't  see  any  necessity  for  the  hope- 
lessness of  your  letter  this  morning.  It  is  nothing  but 
discouragement ;"  and  that  is  what  I  meant  by  the  ex- 
pression, "  You  can  stand  if  the  whole  case  were  known." 

Now,  it  is  perfectly  apparent,  whatever  might  be  the 
construction  we  might  give  to  these  letters  or  to  this 
letter,  without  the  aid  of  any  testimony,  it  is  perfectly 
certain  that  that  declaration  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Moulton 
was  founded  upon  the  theory  that  a  frank  confession  by 
Mr.  Beecher  to  his  church  would  not  displace  him,  would 
not  tiisrobe  him.  If  the  Father  in  Heaven  forgives  may 
not  man  forgive  7  Is  the  Church  holier  than  God,  its 
fonrder  and  master i  If  coming  with  penitence  and 
godlj  sorrow  the  deepest  dyed  smner  may  claim  for- 
firlvfnpKs.  mipht  iiot  yenry  Ward  Beecher,  in  human 


judgment  so  full  of  merit  and  deserving,  tempted  and 
fallen  once,  but  yet  repentant  and  redeemed,  nobly  con- 
fessing and  retrieving  error,  living  in  a  spirit  of  repent- 
ance and  reform  1  What  is  there  in  this  at  all  repulsive  ? 
We  are  all  sinners.  "  There  is  none  perfect;  no,  not  one." 
The  best  of  us  are  at  fault,  and  the  teachings  of  God  to 
us  are  to  confess,  and  the  promises  of  God  to  us  are,  on 
confession,  cheering  and  strengthening. 

I  submit  to  you  that  this  letter  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
in  all  its  spirit  declares  that  sentiment  and  that  purpose. 
It  has  been  suggested— I  don't  know— it  is  h.ard  to 
imagine  that  a  man  like  Henry  Ward  Beecher  should 
have  contemplated  the  purpose  of  self-destruction.  But 
in  this  letter— in  other  letters  to  Moulton,  to  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton that  purpose  was  avowed. 

HOW  OPEN  CONFESSION  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN 
RECEIVED. 

And  when  we  look  at  what  is  called  this 

"  ragged  edge  letter"  and  sec  what  was  the  condition  of 
this  man,  how  it  accumulates  in  its  expressions  the  in- 
tensest  exhibitions  and  revelations  of  anguish,  all  those 
conditions  of  the  human  soul  which  would  lead  to  de- 
spair and  to  the  fatal  act  of  self-destruction,  it  does  not 
seem  so  very  wonderful.  In  this  letter  he  describes 
the  environments,  the  necessities,  the  dangers, 
the  perplexities  which  sm-round  him.  He  says 
his  nights  are  sleepless;  he  says  that  the 
wearing  and  grinding  upon  the  nervous  system 
cannot  long  be  endured,  that  he  is  tortured  on  the  ragged 
edge  of  anxiety,  remorse,  fear,  despair  ;  that  the  horror 
of  a  great  darkness  is  around  him,  that  the  bitterness  of 
death  is  upon  him,  that  he  is  continually  suflFering  the 
torments  of  the  damned,  and  all  this  accumulation  of 
pictured  horrors,  representing  the  condition  of  his  own 
soul,  are  crowded  into  this  one  letter  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher.  Why,  it  is  a  painful  and  pitiful  appeal  to  the 
sympathy  of  the  man  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  It  is 
telling  him  how  hard,  and  hopeless,  and  desperate 
life  is. 

It  cannot  be  endured  muoli  longer.  I  am  well-nigh 
discouraged.  If  you,  too,  cease  to  trust  me,  to  love  me,  I 
am  alone.  I  have  not  another  person  in  the  world  to 
whom  I  could  go. 

February  5,  1872,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  addresses  to 
Mr.  Moulton  language  of  this  character,  and  containing 
these  disconsolate  and  despairing  representations  of 
himself.  Why,  who  would  want  to  live  ?  I  look  arouud 
me,  and  the  earth  is  all  dark  ;  but  I  look  into  the  future 
and  I  am  lifted  in  the  hope  to  come.  True,  true,  it  was 
violating  the  command  of  his  God.  True,  it  was  a  dark 
and  desperate  sin ;  but  think  of  this  man  as  he 
pictures  himself,  so  full  of  diverse  moods,  so  sen- 
sitive, excitable  in  his  nature,  glad  and  hopeful 
now.  and  anon  sunken  and  depressed,  until 
«,<^ery thing  is  gloomy  and  repulsive.    He   Is  Just— 


SUMMING  VP 

if  he  truthfully  represents  himself —he  is  just  one  of  those 
delicate  and  sensitive  natures  which  under  these  strong 
influences  of  passion  would  be  very  likely  to  be  betrayed 
into  the  intemperate  act  of  self-destruction.  When  he 
declares  it  over  and  over  again,  when  he  shadows  it  in 
his  writings,  we  cannot  reject  the  suspicion,  if  not  the 
conviction,  that  his  great  agony  was  a  temptation  he 
could  but  poorly  resist,  to  self-destruction.  Well,  some 
think  that  is  the  theory,  that  he  intended  to  make  a  full 
confession  and  die.  Some  contend  that  these  desponding 
and  depressing  expressions  in  this  very  letter  of  June  1, 
1873,  are  indicative  of  that  purpose,  when  everything 
looked  so  black  and  unpromising  around  him  on  earth, 
and  yet  the  serene  and  tranquil  joy  with  which  he  con- 
templates the  escape  from  sorrow  here  to  peace  and 
serenity  hereafter.  That  is  one  theory  of  this.  There  is 
another.  It  Is  apparent  from  the  evidence  that  Mr. 
Beecher,  Mr.  Tracy,  Mrs.  Tilton,  were  laboring  under 
the  idea  that  all  these  documents  had  been  destroyed. 
Tracy  declares  it  in  his  opening.  Beecher  declares  it  in 
his  statements,  part  of  them  ;  Mrs.  TOton  in  hers.  It 
may  be  that,  relying  upon  that  impression,  feeling  the 
strength  of  his  position,  confident  without  the  production 
of  these  writings,  that  by  his  own  strength,  aided  by  the 
power  and  the  influence  of  Plymouth  Church,  he  could 
overcome  aU  adversaries— it  may  be  that  he  had  deter- 
mined to  deny  what  these  letters,  in  aid  of  p'  lo 
evidence,  would  convict  him  of.  I  don't  know,  gentle- 
men ;  it  is  not  consonant  with  my  ideas  of  the  true  con- 
struction of  these  instruments,  or  of  the  character  of  IVIr. 
Beecher,  or  his  purposes.  I  can  imagine  how  Mr.  Beecher, 
with  a  conviction  that  there  were  no  documents  in  ex- 
istence implicating  htm,  might  with  great  confidence  say 
to  "Victoria  Woodhull,  and  to  everybody  else— challenge 
the  wliole  world  to  produce  any  of  his  letters  or  any 
evidence  containing  accusations  against  him. 

It  is  not  my  idea. '  You  must  attach  such  a  construction, 
and  make  such  an  application  of  this  declaration  in  this 
letter  as  wiU  commend  itself  to  your  own  judgments. 
That  it  was  a  declaration  of  intended  contest  it  seems  to 
me  repugnant  to  all  the  surrounding  circumstances,  and 
to  the  future,  the  then  future  conduct  of  Mr.  Beecher.  I 
suppose  Mr.  Francis  Moulton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  in  the  de- 
velopments of  the  last  few  months,  might  with  sxeoX  con- 
fidence have  counted  upon  the  forgiveness,  by  Plymouth 
Church,  of  any  olfense  of  which  Mr.  Beecher  may  have 
been  guilty.  When  we  hear  people  say,  "  If  he  is  guilty, 
I  don't  want  to  know  it ;  he  is  too  great  a  man  to  fall ; 
he  has  too  many  interests  involved,  in  his  posi- 
tion and  success,"  and  when  I  see  Plymouth 
Church  rolling  about  Mm  with  so  much  unanimity 
and  zeal,  neither  you  nor  I  can  doubt  that  if 
Jlr.  Beecher  had  assumed  this  attitude  of  truth  and 
manliness,  he  would  have  been  supported  not  only  by 
that  church,  but,  I  think,  gentlemen,  he  would  hare  been 
sustained  by  1»iie  Christian  world.  Why,  I  read  you  the 


BY   MR.   BEACH.  947 

h  er  day  examples  where,  for  licentiousness,  high 
divines  had  been  deposed  and  restored.  What  is  there  in 
this  idea  of  hvuman  justice  which  forbids  the  idea  of 
restoration — ^which  for  sm  condemns  inexorably,  beyond 
redemption  ?  It  seems  to  me  humanity  is  assuming  very 
much  to  itself  when  it  discards  the  Divine  attributes  of 
mercy  and  forgiveness.  Men  will  s^n,  but  if  they  repent 
and  reform  it  is  your  duty  and  mine  to  accept  them  as 
chastened  and  purified.  If  not,  we  reflect  upon  the 
scheme  of  Divine  redemption  and  upon  the  character  ol 
our  Creator.  And  in  the  letter  of  Jan.  1,  1871,  is  con- 
tained an  expression  which  has  also  been  construed  favor- 
ably to  Mr.  Beecher,  as  exonerating  him,  even  under  the 
lap.nuage  of  this  Letter  of  Contrition,  from  guUt : 

I  will  die  before  any  one  but  myself  shall  be  inculpated. 
AU  my  thoughts  are  running  toward  my  friends,  toward 
the  poor  child  lying  there  and  praying  with  her  folded 
hands.  She  is  guiltless,  siuned  against,  bearing  the  trans- 
gressions of  another. 

Well,  it  is  quite  obvious,  both  in  its  own  significance 
and  in  its  association,  that  it  does  not  bear  any  such  con- 
struction as  I  have  alluded  to.  "  She  is  guiltless,  without 
sin,  bearing  the  ti-ansgressions  of  another."  Well,  tu  the 
novel  of  Walter  Scott,  "  The  Heart  of  Midlothian,"  he 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  Butler,  the  seducer  of  Effie  Deans, 
the  same  words.  Butler  applied  to  Jeanie,  the  sister  of 
Eifie,  to  give  false  evidence  in  regard  to  the  still-birth  of 
1  the  child,  to  save  her  sister  from  the  extreme  penalty  of 
Scottish  law.  She  stood  firm  and  imtempted,  and  to  save 
a  sister's  life  would  not  take  a  false  oath  or  give  false 
evidence.  Butler  threatened,  with  a  pistol  at  the  head  of 
the  trembling  girl,  and  yet  she  was  true  to  her 
truth,  and  in  the  course  of  the  colloquy, 
when  Jeanie  appealed  to  him  to  know  whether 
or  not  her  sister  was  the  murderess  of  her 
young  babe,  to  know  how  far  she  was  guilty,  Butler 
breaks  out  into  the  impulsive,  impatient  exclamation: 
"  She  is  guiltless,  guiltless  of  all  except  trusting  a  vil- 
lain." Mr.  Beejsher  was  familiar  with  that,  because  in 
one  of  his  sermons  you  will  find  an  allusion  to  the  sin  and 
the  character  of  EflSe. 


PASSAGES  FROM  JOSEPHUS  EEAD. 
There  is,  gentlemen,  a  very  singular  narra- 
tive which  I  think  may  perhaps  interest  as  well  as  in- 
struct you,  in  the  works  of  Josephus  on  the  Antiquities  of 
the  Jews,  and  I  am  sure  you  will  be  grateful  to  me  for 
readmg  it : 

There  was  at  Rome  a  woman  whose  name  was  Paulina ; 
one  who,  on  account  of  the  dignity  of  her  ancestors  and 
by  the  regular  conduct  of  her  virtuous  life,  had  a  great 
reputation. '  She  was  also  very  rich,  and  although  she 
were  of  a  beautiful  countenance,  and  in  thatfiower  of  her 
age  wherein  women  are  the  most  gay,  yet  did  she  lead  a 
life  of  great  modesty.  She  was  married  to  Saturninus, 
one  that  was  every  way  answerable  to  her  in  an  excel- 
lent character.  Decius  Mundus  fell  in  love  with  this 
woman,  who  was  a  man  very  high  in  the  equestrian  order  ; 
and  as  she  was  of  too  great  dignity  to  be  caught  by 


948 


TEE   TILTON-BEKCHUE  2E1AL. 


presents,  and  had  already  rejected  them,  though  they  had 
been  sent  in  great  albundance,  he  was  still  more 
Inflamed  with  love  to  her,  in  so  much 
that  he  promised  to  give  her  200,000  attic  dzachmse  for 
one  night's  lodging ;  and  when  this  would  not  prevail 
upon  her,  and  he  was  not  able  to  hear  this  misfortune  in 
his  amours,  he  thought  it  the  best  way  to  famish  himself 
to  death  for  want  of  food,  on  account  of  Paulina's  sad 
refusal ;  and  he  determined  with  himself  to  die  after  such 
a  manner,  and  he  went  on  with  his  purpose  accordingly. 
Now,  Mundus  had  a  freed  woman,  who  had  been  made 
free  by  his  father,  whose  name  was  Ide,  one  skillful  in  all 
sorts  of  mischief.  This  woman  was  very  much  grieved 
at  the  young  man's  resolution  to  kill  himself 
(for  he  did  not  conceal  his  tateutions  to  de- 
stroy himself  from  others),  and  came  to  him, 
and  encouraged  him  by  her  discourse,  and  made  him  to 
hope  by  some  promises  she  gave  him,  that  he  might  ob- 
tain a  night's  lodging  with  Paulina  ;  and  when  he  joy- 
fully hearkened  to  her  entreaty,  she  said  she  wanted  no 
more  than  50,000  drachmae  for  tlie  entrapping  of 
the  woman.  So  when  she  had  encouraged  the  young 
man,  and  gotten  as  much  as  she  required,  she  did 
not  take  the  same  method  as  had  beeu  taken  before, 
because  she  perceived  that  the  woman  was  by  no  means 
to  be  tempted  by  money,  but  as  she  knew  that  she 
was  much  given  to  the  worship  of  the  Goddess  Isis 
she  devised  the  following  stratagem :  She  went 
to  some  of  the  Isis's  priests,  and  upon  the  strong- 
est assurances  [of  concealment]  she  persuaded 
them  by  words,  but  chiefly  by  the  offer  of  money,  of 
25,000  drachmsB  in  hand,  and  as  much  more  when  the 
thing  had  taken  effect,  and  told  them  the  passion  of  the 
young  man,  and  persuaded  them  to  use  all  means  possible 
to  beguile  the  woman.  So  they  were  drawn  into  the 
promise  so  to  do,  by  that  large  sum  of  gold  they  were  to 
have.  Accordingly  the  oldest  of  them  followed  her  to 
Paulina,  and  upon  his  admittance,  he  desired  to  speak 
with  her  by  herself.  When  that  was  granted  him,  he  told 
her  that  "  he  was  sent  by  the  god  Anubis,  who  was 
fallen  in  love  with  her,  and  enjoined  her  to 
come  to  him."  Upon  this  she  took  the  message 
very  kindly,  and  valued  herself  greatly  upon  this 
condescension  of  Anubis,  and  told  her  husband  tbat  she 
had  a  message  sent  her,  and  was  to  sup  and  to  lie  with 
Anubis ;  so  he  agreed  to  her  acceptance  of  the  offer,  as 
fully  satisfied  with  the  chastity  of  his  wife.  Accordingly 
she  went  to  the  temple,  and  after  she  had  supped  there, 
and  it  was  the  hour  to  go  to  sleep,  the  priests  shut  the 
doors  of  the  temple,  when,  in  the  holy  part  of  it,  the  lights 
were  also  put  out.  Then  did  Mundus  leap  out  (for  he  was 
hidden  therein),  and  did  not  fail  of  enjoying  her,  who  was 
at  his  service  all  the  night  long,  as  supposing  he  was  the 
god;  and  when  he  was  gone  away,  which  was  before 
those  priests,  who  knew  nothing  of  this  stratagem, 
were  stirring,  Paulina  came  early  to  her  husband,  and 
told  how  the  God  Anubis  had  appeared  to  her.  Among 
her  friends  also  she  declared  how  great  a  value  she  put 
upon  this  favor,  who  partly  disbelieved  the  thing  when 
they  reflected  on  its  nature ;  and  partly  were  amazed  at 
it,  as  having  ho  pretense  for  not  believing  it,  when  they 
considered  the  modesty  and  the  dignity  of  the  pereo^. 
But  now  on  the  third  day  after  what  had  been  done,  Mun- 
dus met  Paulina,  and  said,  '*  I^y.'^Paulina,  thou  hast 
saved  me  200,000  drachmse,  which  sum  thou  might 
have  added  to  thy  own  family;  yet  hast  thou  not 
failed  to  be  at  my  service  in  the  manner  I  invited 
thee.  As  for  the  reproaches  thou  hast  laid  upon 
Mundus,  I  value  not  the  business  of  name® ; 
tout  I  rejoice  in  the   pleasure   I  reaped  by  what 


I  did,  while  I  took  to  myself  the  name  of  Anubis.**  When 
he  had  said  this  he  went  his  way.  But  now  she  began  t» 
come  to  the  sense  of  the  grossness  of  what  she  had  done, 
and  rent  her  garments  and  told  her  husband  of  the  hor- 
rid nature  of  this  wicked  contrivance,  and  prayed  him 
not  to  neglect  to  assist  her  In  this  case.  So  he  discovered 
the  fact  to  the  Emperor,  whereupon  Tiberius  Inquired 
into  the  matter  thoroughly  by  examining  the  priests 
about  it,  and  ordered  them  to  be  crucified,  as  well  as  Ide, 
who  was  the  occasion  of  their  perdition  and  who  had  con- 
trived the  whole  matter  which  was  so  injurious  to  the 
woman.  He  also  demolished  the  temple  of  Isis  and  gave 
order  that  her  statue  should  be  thrown  into  the  River 
Tiber,  while  he  only  banished  Mundus,  but  did  no  more 
to  him,  because  he  supposed  that  what  crime  he  had  com- 
mitted was  done  out  of  the  passion  of  love.  And  these 
were  the  circumstances  which  surrounded  the  Temple  of 
Isis  and  the  injuries  occasioned  by  her  priests. 

Do  you  detect  no  analogy,  gentlemen,  between  that 
story  and  the  tragedy  of  to-day— a  noble  woman  of  the 
Jews,  strictly  moral  and  religious,  above  gross  and 
earthly  temptations,  rejecting  the  approaches  of  the  Jew 
Mundus,  and  yet  submitting  herself  to  the  embraces  of 
a  fancied  god,  whom  she  believed  to  be  God,  and  with 
her  husband  believing  that  that  was  no  sacrilege  to  her 
honor— believing  nevertheless  that  she  was  a  chaste  and 
a  virtuous  matron  1  How  different  is  it  from  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  in  the  majesty  of  his  nature,  and  with 
the  love  and  reverence  which  Mrs.  Tilton  felt  toward 
him,  coming  to  her  as  the  god  Anubis,  teaching  her  that 
the  indulgence  of  love  was  no  impurity,  she  trusting  to 
his  teachings,  and  believing  his  word  as  sacred  and  as 
truthful  as  if  it  were  a  direct  revelation  from  Hea-v;en. 
Ah !  Mr.  Beecher  was  to  her  soul  the  Anubis  of  Paulina. 
It  is  the  same  spii-it  and  principle,  it  is  the 
same  influence,  and  well  might  Hemy  Ward 
Beecher,  knowing  how  he  had  tempted  and  over^ 
come  the  nature  of  this  woman— well  might  he  say: 
"  She  is  guiltless,  bearing  the  transgressions  of  another." 
Well  might  he  say,  "  I  will  die  before  she  shall  be  incul- 
pated." And  I  honor  him,  I  honor  hi'ra  for  those  words. 
If  there  was  guilt  about  it,  as  in  my  judgment  there  was, 
deep  and  profound,  it  attaches  all  to  him,  and  it  always 
does.  Where  a  virtuous  woman  first  falls,  the  guilt 
always  belongs  to  the  tempter,  and  the  punishment 
should  all  be  his.  And  yet  strange  are  the  ways  of  the 
world.  The  weak  and  deluded  woman,  falling  through 
the  very  power  aud  exaltations  of  her  best  affections,  is 
damned  La  the  estimation  of  the  world,  and  he  who 
.  should  bear  all  the  guilt  here,  as  he  wiU  hereafter— he  is 
accepted  in  the  ranks  of  men  as  an  acceptable  associate' 
of  pure  and  uprighfrmen. 

FRANOiS  D.  MOULTON. 
I  come  now,  gentlemen,  to  the  consideration 
at  the  testimony  of  Francis  D.  Moulton.  In  the  course  of 
my  reference  to  the  evidecice  I  have  reafd  numerous  para- 
graphs from  Mr.  Beecher  bearing  the  hierhest  testimony 
to  the  integrity  and  fidelity  of  Mr.  Moulton.   Will  you  not 


iSCTMMING    UF  BY  MB.  -BEACH. 


949 


l)eiinit  me,  as  they  are  collected  liere  in  very  short  ex- 
pression, and  it  will  take  but  a  moment,  to  read  them  : 

Many,  many  friends  has  God  raised  up  to  me,  but  to  no 
one  of  them  has  He  ever  given  the  opportunity  and  tlie 
wisdom  80  to  serve  me  as  you  have.  My  trust  in  you  is 
Implicit. 

That  was  on  the  7th  of  February,  1871.  On  the  same 

date : 

The  friend  whom  God  has  sent  to  me  (Moulton)  has 
proved,  above  all  friends  that  ever  I  had,  able  and  will- 
iag  to  relieve  me  in  this  terrible  emergency  of  my  life. 
His  hand  it  was  that  tied  up  the  storm  that  was  ready  to 
burst  upon  our  heads. 

On  Sept.  30  of  the  same  year,  he  says  : 

My  heart  warms  to  you,  and  you  might  have  known 
that  I  should  be  here,  if  you  loved  me  as  much  as  I  do 
you.  I  am,  my  dear  Frank,  truly  and  gratefully  j^ours. 

February  5,  1872. 

During  all  this  time  you  are  literally  ail  my  stay  and 
comfort.  I  should  have  fallen  on  the  way  but  for  the 
courage  you  inspired,  and  the  hope  which  you  breathed. 
I  am  well  nigh  discouraged.  If  you,  too,  cease  to  trust, 
to  love  me,  I  am  alone.  I  have  not  another  person  in  the 
world  to  whom  I  could  go.  With  sincere  gratitude  for 
your  heroic  fi'iendship,  and  with  sincere  friendship,  even 
if  you  love  me  not,  I  am  yours,  though  unknown. 

Feb.  16,  1873.— Should  any  incident  befall,  remember 
how  deeply  I  feel  your  fidelity  and  friendship,  jo\\x  long- 
continued  kindness  and  your  affection.  I  confide  ev&ry- 
thing  to  your  wisdom,  as  I  always  have,  with  such  success 
hitherto,  that  I  fully  trust  for  the  future. 

June  1,  1873.— The  pain  of  life  is  but  a  moment ;  the 
glory  of  everlasting  emancipation  is  worldless,  incon- 
ceivable, fuU  of  beckoning  glory.  Oh,  my  beloved  Frank ! 
I  shall  know  you  there  and  forever  hold  fellowship  with 
you,  and  look  back  and  smile  at  the  past. 

July  7,  1873.— My  dear  Frank:  The  coiuitry  is  beauti- 
ful, the  birds  as  good  to  me  as  David's  harp.  I  only  need 
some  one  to  talk  to,  and  that  one  is  you. 

July  14,  1873.— My  dear  Frank :  For  a  thousand  en- 
couragements, for  services  that  none  can  appreciate  who 
has  not  been  as  sore-hearted  as  I  have  been,  for  your  hon- 
orablc  delicacy,  for  your  confidence  and  affection,  I  owe 
you  so  much  that  I  can  neither  express  nor  pay  it. 

My  Dear  Frank  :  I  have  this  morning  got  back,  and 
want  to  send  my  love  to  you  and  yours.  God  bless  you, 
my  dear  old  fellow. 

December,  1873.— This  will  be  handed  to  you  bv  rhy 
friend,  Frank  D.  Moulton,  whom  I  believe  to  be  high- 
minded  and  honest,  and  whose  statements  should  be  re- 
ceived by  all  who  know  him  with  impUcit  confidence. 

Dec.  3, 1873.— I  believe  him  to  be  honest  to  the  core. 
I  would  trust  him  with  life  and  property,  without 
scruple, 

Dec.  30, 1873.— M*  Frank  Moulton  I  have  known  for 
years,  and  I  should  as  soon  believe  thg.t  I  myself  had  set 
on  foot  stealings  and  cheatinga  asthat  he  had,  or  had 
had  the  slightest  suspicion  of  it. 

This  collection  of  these  ntterances  does  not  bring  the 
testimonial  up  to  as  late  a  period  as  I  desire  ;  but,  per- 
haps, one  in  addition  will  be  suflacient.  On  the  10th  of 
July,  1874,  Mr.  Beecher  addressed  to  Mr.  Moulton  that 
letter  with  reference  to  Mr.  Halliday  and  Moulton's  in- 
terview with  him,  which  I  read  to  you  this  morning  in 


another  sonnection,  in  which  Mr.  Beecher  addresses  Mr. 
Moulton  as  his  "  dear  friend,"  refers  to  and  approves 
and  applauds  his  interview  with  Halliday  the  night  be- 
fore, and  then  arranges  with  him  for  the  purpose  of 
"looking  after"  the  future  conduct  of  this  difficulty. 
WeU,  that  date,  July  10, 1  suppose  was  after  the  calling 
of  the  Investigating  Committee,  according  to  the  evi- 
dence. 

Mr.  Morris— About  two  weeks  after. 
Mr.  Beach— About  two  weeks  after  the  call  of  the  Com- 
mittee 1 
Mr.  Morris — Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  then,  I  will  bring  it  up  later.  On 
July  24  Mr.  Beecher  writes,  addressing  Mr.  Moulton  as 
"  My  dear  Moulton,"  and  asks  for  papers,  through  Mr. 
Tracy,  and  for  the  "  Heads  of  Difficulty,"  of  Bowen,  and 
says  : 

I  heard  you  were  sick.  Are  you  about  again  1  God 
grant  you  to  see  peaceful  times.   Yours  gratefully, 

Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

Then,  on  the  28th  of  July,  he  writes : 

My  Dear  Friend  :  The  Committee  of  Investigation  are 
waiting  mainly  for  you  before  closing  their  labors,  &c. 

Then  followed  the  correspondence  in  regard  to  the  de- 
livery of  papers,  or  copies,  which  has  been  read  to  you ; 
and  then  the  break.  So  that,  not  until  Angust,  after  the 
call  of  the  Investigating  Committee,  was  there  any 
breach  whatever  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton ; 
no  abatement  of  Mr.  Beecher's  confidence,  but  a  perfect 
stream  of  enthusiastic  commendation  and  acknowledg- 
ments of  gratitude. 

THE  BREAK  BETWEEN  BEECHER  AND  MOUL- 
TON. 

Now,  suddenly  this  man  became  transformed. 

Immediately  after  Mr.  Moulton's  declination  to  furnish 
to  Mr.  Beecher  the  documents  or  copies  of  them  in  his 
possession  (which  we  may  talk  of  a  little  by  and  by),  Mr. 
Beecher  became  his  reviler.  He  then  makes  against 
him,  before  the  Investigating  Committee,  the  charge  ©f 
blackmail,  and  the  charge  springs  into  full  life  and 
activity  at  once  under  the  cultaire  of  Plymouth  Chui-ch. 
The  whole  land  is  flooded  with  it.  Mr.  Moulton  is  beaten 
down  as  by  the  force  of  a  tempest ;  and  no  man,  however 
sturdy  and  strong  in  this  community,  could  have 
stood  before  that  hurricane,  with  the  charge  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  supported  by  all  Blymouth  Church 
against  him,  of  a  false  and  outrageous  conspiracy  to 
blackmail  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Why,  the  withering  in- 
dignation of  the  wortd  would  blast  the  accused.  Now, 
gentremen,  are  we  to  judge  Mr.  Moulton  by  this  after  and 
interested  judgment  1  ^'rue,  Mr.  Beecher,  whesi  forced, 
upon  the  stand,  and  in  defiance  of  all  the  nudges  and  ia- 
structions  of  Shearman  and  Tracy,  confesses  that  there 
was  no  blackmail ;  but  yet,  an  odium  deep  and  me*CLless 
was  created  against  Mr.  Moulton,  under  which  he  ajn 


950 


IBE    TlLTON-BEFAmEB  TEIAL. 


peared  on  tlie  witness  stand  before  you.  Now,  what  does 
the  law  say  t  I  will  read  you  from  tlie  opinion  of  Mr. 
Comstook,  delivered  in  the  case  of.  "  Stacy  agt.  Graham  " 
(14  N.  Y.  Reports).  This  was  a  case  where  a  witness  was 
sought  to  be  discredited  by  proof  of  contradictory 
declarations.  Through  Mr.  Comstock,  who,  in  connec- 
tion with  hia  colleagues,  has  just  obtained  the  most  dis- 
tinguished professional  triumph  in  modern  days,  and 
who  is  a  profound  thinker,  an  accomplished  logician,  and 
an  able  lawyer,  and  was  a  useful  judge,  the  Court  say  : 

The  only  remaining  question  which  has  been  argued 
relates  to  the  admissibility  in  evidence  of  the  defend- 
ant's letters  dated  the  6th  of  April  and  4th  of  May,  1853. 
These  were  offered,  as  the  case  states,  to  show  the  esti- 
mation in  which  the  defendant  held  the  witness,  Adams, 
and  they  certainly  had  no  relation  to  the  issue  on 
the  trial.  The  attempt  to  Impeach  the  credit  of 
the  witness  by  proving  his  declarations,  as  we  have 
seen,  has  been  overruled,  but  his  cross-examination  was 
evidently  conducted  with  reference  to  that  object.  This 
rendered  it  competent  for  the  plaintiffs  to  sustain  him,  if 
they  could,  by  proving  any  conduct  or  declarations  of  the 
defendant  evincing  that  he  held  the  witness  in  estima- 
tion as  an  honest  and  worthy  man.  The  letters  in  ques- 
tion were  written  to  the  witness  himself  several  months 
after  he  had  been  examined  in  this  suit,  and  given,  as 
was  claimed,  a  false  and  perjured  account  of  the  transac- 
tion. They  have  some  tendency  to  show  that  the  de- 
fendant considered  him  to  be  a  person  worthy  of  confi- 
dence. Indeed,  it  is  diflacult  to  account  for  the  corre- 
spondence at  all,  if  we  assume  that  the  defendant  then 
regarded  the  witness  and  his  testimony,  alike,  false,  as 
he  afterward  found  it  necessary  to  insist  at  the  trial. 

Now,  we  have  these  testimonials  in  favor  of  Mr.  Moul- 
tonby  this  defendant.  Why,  gentlemen,  we  have  the 
testimonial  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  upon  this  stand,  In 
favor  of  Mr.  Moulton;  that  is,  to  his  fidelity  in  friendship, 
his  faithfulness.  Mr.  Moulton  gave  "a  new  idea  of 
friendship"  to  Mr.  Beecher ;  and  the  learned  counsel  re- 
peats that  as  a  sarcasm,  while  Mr.  Beecher  spoke  of 
Moulton's  elevatiug  his  sense  of  the  purity  and  devotion 
of  manly  friendship.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  up  to 
August,  1874,  after  the  organization  of  this  Investigattag 
Committee,  Mr.  Beecher  trusted  and  commended  Mr. 
Moulton  as  his  earnest  and  devoted  friend.  And  yet  no 
man  ever  entered  a  court  of  justice,  as  aparty  or  a  witness, 
who  was  abused  and  vUifled  with  more  continuous  and 
increasing  asperity  than  Francis  D.  Moulton.  Well, 
what  has  he  done,  gentlemen  i  He  is  called  a  traitor. 
Will  you  tell  me  where  he  was  treacherous 
to  Mr.  Beecher  1  Was  it  at  the  Woodhull  outbreak  ?  Nay, 
was  it  when  Tilton  was  the  accuser,  and  at  the  first  ori- 
gin of  the  friendship  between  Mr,  Moulton  and  Mr. 
Beecher  t  Was  it  at  the  times  of  these  various  publica- 
tions, or  threatened  publications,  by  Tilton?  Did  he  fo- 
ment them,  ,or  did  he  restrain  them  1  Was  he  an  agitator 
and  conspirator,  disturbing  the  tranquillity  and  exciting 
the  sensibilities  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  promote  the 
welfare  and  the  interest  of  his  friends  ?  or  did  he  sup- 
press on  the  i)art  of  Tilton  every  document,  until  Mr.  Til- 


ton  was  so  exasperated  that  no  human  power  could  re- 
strain him  1  Did  he  soften  and  modify  expressions  1  Did 
he  suggest  shifts  and  evasions,  and  carry  them  into  suc- 
cessful operation  and  effect  ?  And  did  he  ever  intermit 
his  exertions  until  Mr.  Beecher,  before  his  Committee  and 
in  the  correspondence  in  regard  to  furnishing  the  papers, 
imputed  to  him  dishonor  and  dishonesty  ?  Now,  if  a 
thing  has  happened  in  the  experience  of  a  man,  he  can 
tell  when  and  how  it  happened ;  and  I  want  some  intelli- 
gent gentleman  to  tell  me,  in  the  four  years'  history  of 
this  affair,  when  and  where  it  was  that  Francis  D.  Moul- 
ton was  treacherous  to  the  interests  or  false  in  the  service 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  [Applause.] 

It  is  very  easy,  gentlemen,  to  denounce  and  revile- 
very  easy  to  call  men  names.  It  is  very  easy  for  a 
power  like  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  Plymouth  Church 
to  scout  any  man  in  this  community  from  respectable 
presence  and  reception.  Francis  D.  Moulton  has  felt  this 
power.  A  young  man  but  just  starting  upon  the  journey 
—the  practical  journey— of  life;  just  mixing  in  the  great 
struggle  which  disciplines  and  develops  our  nature  and 
leads  us  to  honor  and  success— ah,  he  thought  it  was  a 
noble  and  honorable  association  between  him  and  Mr. 
Beecher;  he,  the  young,  tLo  unnoticed,  the  unfamed 
"  heathen,"  welcomed  to  the  .great  heart  and  friendship  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher ;  bearing  in  his  hands  the  fate  of 
the  greatest  preacher  of  the  age;  in  daily  conference 
with  him— aye,  and  when  sickness  and  disability  overtook 
him,  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  following  Mm  to 
his  bedside,  as  if  he  were  his  only  savior  and  trust, 
as  Mr.  Beecher  declared  he  was.  Well,  this  was  rather  a 
flattering  and  deceptive  association.  It  might  well  be  that 
even  Christian  honor.  Christian  Integrity,  might  have 
been  tempted  to  lie  under  such  circumstances.  Even 
without  the  necessity  which  overshadowed  his  boyhood's 
friend,  and  his  famUy,  Mr.  Moulton  might  well  be  willing 
to  sacrifice  at  least  his  formal  veracity  to  protect  the 
name  and  fame  of  so  great  a  man.  Well,  gentlemen,  if 
you  pursue  the  history  of  this  association  later,  you  will 
see  how  true  this  man  continued.  He  made  one  state- 
ment before  the  Committee.  He  says  to  Mr.  Beecher  : 
"  I  think  this  is  a  great  mistake ;  I  don't  think  this  Inves- 
tigating Committee  ought  ever  to  have  been  called,  but  T 
guess  we  can  manage  it  yet."  Then  came  a  series  of  opera- 
tions for  the  purpose  of  devising  some  form  of  state- 
ment, by  Beecher,  by  Moulton,  by  Tilton,  which  would 
be  acceptable  to  the  Committee,  and  enable  them  to 
make  a  report  which,  while  imputing  a  venial  offense  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  would  protect  Mr.  Tilton  and  avoid  the  dis- 
graceful revelations  which  might  otherwise  become  nec- 
essary. 

MR.  MOULTON'S  SHORT  STATEMENT. 

Mr.  Beeclier  makes  a  statement  sustaining 
this  theory  ;  Mr.  Moulton  mitkes  a  statement  sustaining 
this  theory,  and  Mr.  Tilton  draws  a  report  for  the  Com- 


SUMMING    UP  BY  ME.  BEACH, 


951 


mittee  to  whicli  I  shall  ask  your  attention  for  a  moment. 
And  see,  gentlemen,  what  this  statement  was  on  the  13th 
of  July,  1874 : 

Gentlemek  of  the  Com:mittee  :  I  appear  before  you, 
at  your  invitation,  to  make  a  statement  which  I  have 
read  to  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  which  both  deem 
honorable,  and  in  the  fairness  and  propriety  of  which,  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  they  both  concur.  The  parties  in 
this  case  are  personal  friends  of  mine,  In  whose  behalf  I 
have  endeavored  to  act  as  the  umpire  and  peacemaker 
for  the  last  four  years,  with  a  conscientious  regard  for 
all  the  interests  involved. 

1  regret  for  your  sakes  the  responsibility  imposed  on 
me  of  appearing  here  to-night.  If  I  say  anything,  I  must 
speak  the  truth.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  simple  curios- 
ity of  the  world  at  large,  or  even  of  this  Committee, 
ought  to  be  gratified  through  any  recitation  by  me  of  the 
facts  which  are  in  my  possession,  necessarily  in  confi- 
dence, through  my  relations  to  the  parties.  The  personal 
differences  of  which  I  am  aware,  as  the  chosen  arbitrator, 
have  once  been  settled  honorably  between  the  parties, 
and  would  never  have  been  revived  except  on  account  of 
recent  attacks,  both  in  and  out  of  Plymouth  Church, 
made  upon  the  character  of  Theodore  Tilton,  to  which 
he  thought  a  reply  necessary.  If  the  present  issue  is  to 
be  settled,  it  must  be,  in  my  opinion,  by  the  parties  them- 
selves, either  together  or  separately,  before  your  Com- 
mittee, each  taking  the  responsibility  of  his  own  utter- 
ance. As  I  am  fully  conversant  with  the  facts  and  evi- 
dences, I  shall,  as  between  these  parties,  if  necessarj-, 
deem  it  my  duty  to  state  the  truth,  in  order  to  final  set- 
tlement, and  that  the  world  may  be  well  informed  before 
pronouncing  its  judgment  with  reference  to  either.  I 
therefore  suggest  to  you  that  the»parties  first  be  heard; 
that  if  then  j^ou  deem  it  necessary  that  I  should  appear 
before  you,  I  will  do  so,  to  speak  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  I  hold 
to-night,  as  I  have  held  hitherto,  the  opinion  that  Mr. 
Beecher  should  frankly  state  that  he  had  committed  an 
offense  against  Mr.  Tilton  for  which  it  was  necessary  to 
apologize,  and  for  which  he  did  apologize  in  the  language 
of  the  letter,  part  of  which  has  been  quoted;  that 
he  should  have  stated  frankly  that  he  deemed  it 
necessary  for  Mr.  Tilton  to  have  made  the  defense  against 
Dr.  Leonard  Bacon  which  he  did  made,  and  that  he  (Mr. 
Beecher)  should  refuse  to  be  a  party  to  the  reopening  of 
this  painful  subject.  If  he  had  made  this  statement  he 
would  have  stated  no  more  than  the  truth,  and  it  would 
have  saved  him  and  you  the  responsibility  of  a  further 
in»iuiry.  It  is  better  now  that  the  Committee  should  not 
report,  and  in  place  of  a  report  Mr.  Beecher  himself 
should  make  the  statement  which  I  suggested,  or  that,  if 
the  Committee  does  report,  the  report  should  be  a  recom- 
mendation to  Mr.  Beecher  to  make  such  a  statement. 

Was  there  vaj  treachery  to  Mr.  Beecher  in  that  ?  Was 
there  any  want  of  fidelity  ?  Is  it  true,  as  Mr.  Beecher 
gives  as  an  excuse,  that,  after  the  Bacon  Letter,  Moulton 
had  no  devices,  no  plans,  made  no  efforts  %  What  became 
of  the  conferences,  and  what  was  the  cause  of  them  be- 
tween Moulton  and  Tracy  and  Butler  ?  Long  after  the 
Bacon  Letter,  after  the  Investigating  Committee  was 
called,  what  was  the  cause  of  these  reports?  Who 
brought  about  the  condition  of  things  which  led  to  them— 
the  long  and  the  short  report  % 

A  conversation  is  related  by  Mr.  Moulton  with  Mr. 
Beecher,  resulting  in  the  first  short  report,  as  it  is  called : 


I  said  to  ;Mr.  Beecher  that  after  Mrs.  Tilton  had  made 
her  statement  to  the  Committee,  Mr.  Tilton  was  very- 
much  incensed,  and  that  Mr.  Tracy,  in  a  subsequent  in- 
terview with  him— in  an  interview  subsequent  to  Mrs. 
Tilton's  report  to  the  Committee,  or  statement  to  the 
Committee,  had  so  presented  to  hi  it  the  influence  w^hich 
her  statement  had  had  upon  the  Committee  that  it 
melted  the  anger  all  out  of  Theodore  Tilton,  and  he  was 
perfectly  walling  to  make  a  statement  to  the  Committee 
which  should  not  contain  the  fact  of  adultery  between 
Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs-  Tilton;  that  he  was  perfectly  will- 
ing if  Mr.  Beecher  would  take  great  blame  upon  himself, 
and  exonerate  Theodore  Tilton  from  dishonorable  con- 
duct toward  him— from  any  injustice  toward  him— that  he, 
Theodore  Tilton,  was  perfectly  willing  to  settle  the  mat- 
ter without  makinganj'  accusation  before  that  Committee, 
and  that  he  had  prepared  such  a  report  for  the  Commit- 
tee to  make,  and  that  he  had  shown  it  to  Gen.  Tracy, 
and  Gen.  Tracy  had  said  to  him,  on  the  night  of  the  con- 
versation to  which  I  refer,  that  the  Committee  seemed 
now  to  be  of  opinion  that  there  was  an  offense,  and  that 
he  thought  it  would  not  be  hard  to  get  from  that  Com- 
mittee a  report  (unfavorable,  it  is  true,  to  Mr.  Beecher) 
on  the  ground  of  the  often^e,  but  which  would  really 
settle  the  whole  business,  and  save  aU  the  parties  con- 
cerned from  dishonor  in  consequence  of  crime ;  that  is 
all. 

And  that  was  the  report. 

MR.  TILTON'S   SHORT   REPORT  FOR  THE 
COMMITTEE. 

My  friend  has  ventured  to  say  that  Theo- 
dore TUton  never  uttered  anything  or  drew  anything 
which  did  not  contain  some  high-flown  commendation  of 
himself.  Well,  there  is  the  simple  report  which  Tilton 
proposed,  was  willing  to  accept,  and  which  would  have 
ended  this  disgTaceful  difficulty  : 

The  Committee  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  offense 
and  apology  by  Mr.  Beecher,  alluded  to  in  Mr.  Tilton's 
letter  to  Dr.  Bacon,  respectfully  report  that,  after  exami- 
nation, they  find  that  an  offense  of  grave  character  was 
committed  by  Mr.  Beecher  against  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Theo- 
dore Tilton,  for  which  he  made  a  suitable  apology  to  both 
parties,  receiving  in  turn  their  forgiveness  and  good- will. 
The  Committee  further  report  that  this  seems  to  them  a 
most  eminently  Christian  way  for  the  settlement  of  diffi- 
culties, and  reflects  honor  on  all  the  parties  concerned. 

[Mr.  Beach  then  read  the  following  without  comment :] 

Q.  You  have  now  identified  a  proposed  report  that  Mr. 
Tilton  prepared  for  the  Committee  to  make  1  A.  Yes, 
Sif.  Q.  And  you  showed  it  to  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  did.  Q. 
And  he  asked  you  if  Tilton  would  be  satisfied  with  it  I 
A.  Yes,  Sir.  Q.  Upon  what  or  of  what  was  that  pro- 
posed report  to  be  predicated?  A.  In  the  shape  of  a 
statement  of  the  parties. 

And  then  it  follows  that  they  were  to  arrange— 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  the  short  report. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  perfectly  well  aware  of  that.  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— But  not  the  one  you  have  been  reading  t 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir,  that  is  the  short  report.  I  have 
been  reading  the  short  one,  unless  I  am  under  a  very 
grave  error. 

Mr.  Shearman— You  are  right. 

Mr.  Beach— No  man  has  ever  paid  any  attention  to  the 


952  TFLE  T1LT0N-E2 

progress  and  the  revelations  of  tliis  controYersy  without 
the  clearest  sense  that  it  never  ought,  under  all  the  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  it,  to  have  heen  exhibited  to 
the  public  gaze  and  examination.  Was  not  Moulton, 
when  he  was  devising  and  attempting  to  carry  into  effect 
this  mode  of  quieting  and  settling  this  whole  diflBculty, 
acting  in  the  interest  of  the  parties  and  of  public  moral- 
ity 1  And  if  he  had  been  successful,  would  not  every  man 
familiar  with  the  circumstances  have  accorded  to  him  his 
earnest  gratitude  if  he  could  have  foreseen  the  conse- 
quences which  followed  his  failure  1  Gentlemen,  I  ask 
you  again,  following  up  this  idea  of  settlement  and  sup- 
pression, carrying  out  the  original  theory  on  which  Moul- 
ton commenced  to  act  in  conjunction  with  Beecher  and  Til- 
ton,  laboring  to  the  last  moment  with  unflinching  courage, 
with  unhesitating  personal  sacrifice,  what  is  there  Francis 
D.  Moulton  did  which  subjected  him  to  the  treatment  he 
has  received  and  to  the  scorn  and  condemnation  of  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  1  Suppose,  for  one  moment,  that  Moulton 
was  the  unprincipled  and  untrusty  knave  he  is  repre- 
sented to  be,  that  he  is  a  man  of  the  world  and  a  heathen, 
subject  to  all  the  temptations  of  the  world  and  a  heathen, 
bad,  really  bad  la  all  his  qualities  and  spirit,  why  was  it, 
when  Theodore  TUton  was  lost,  when  Tracy  had  got  him 
at  the  bottom  of  that  abysmal  depth  which 
only  the  imagination  of  a  Tracy  could  reach, 
[laughter]  when  he  was  damned  beyond  aU 
rescue,  when  Beecher  had  called  his  Committee  and  got  it 
all  nicely  dovetailed  and  arranged,  when  he  had  got  the 
possession  of  Tilton's  household,  and  his  wife  had  de- 
serted him,  with  Mrs.  Morse  as  an  ally,  with  Bessie 
Turner  as  a  flying  scout,  [laughter]  with  all  his 
other  retainers  and  satellites,  with  Mrs.  Ovington, 
with  the  contributions  of  money — after  Moulton  had  done 
all  for  and  got  all  from  Theodore  Tilton  he  could  possi- 
bly acquire,  if  he  was  this  ingrained  and  arrant  knave, 
why  didn't  he  desert  Tilton  and  adhere  to  Beecher  ?  You 
see  these  soldiers  of  fortune  f oEow  their  interest,  these 
men  who  are  regulated  by  no  moral  principle,  who  have- 
no  aspirations  above  a  bag  of  gold,  who  rather  revel  in 
filth  and  vulgarity,  why,  these  men  will  follow  the  scent 
of  profit  and  advantage ;  and  why  did  Moulton  stick  to 
the  failing  cause  ?  Can  you  answer  consistently  with  his 
imputed  character  ?  "When  he  saw  the  tempest  gather- 
ing about  him,  when  apparently  his  business  prospects 
were  ruined,  when  it  seemed  as  if  there  was  no  salvation 
from  ruin,  why  did  he  not  turn  to  Henry  "Ward  Beecher  1 
There  lay  wealth,  the  smiles  of  fashion  and  fortune  and 
religion.  Why  Francis  D.  Moulton  could  have  been  the 
best  petted  and  the  best  pampered  man  in  the  City  of 
Brooklyn  if  he  would  have  been  false  to  his  truth  and  to 
his  friend.  [Applause.]  Everybody  knows  it.  And  yet, 
in  the  face  of  demxnciation  and  disaster,  never  for  one 
instant  faltering  in  his  manliness,  Francis  D.  Moulton 
lias  pursued  the  even  tenor  of  his  way,  and  even  now,  in 
the  honest  sense  and  appreciation  of  an  American  com- 


ECHER  TBIAL. 

munity,  he  stands  disenthralled  and  redeemed.  [Ap* 
plause.]  These  epithets  and  denunciations  of  my  learned 
friend  have  not,  they  will  not,  crush  him ;  because,  how- 
ever passionate  and  intemperate  and  faulty  he  may  be, 
he  is  yet  true  to  his  honor,  faithful  in  his  friendship ;  and 
that  man,  gifted  with  the  intellectual  qualities  which 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  ascribes  to  him,  nay,  clothed  with 
those  moral  attributes  which  Henry  Ward  Beecher  con- 
cedes to  him,  Francis  D.  Moulton  will  fully  redeem  him- 
self and  his  fortunes,  and  all  the  power  of  Beecher  and  hia 
minions  cannot  trample  him  to  the  dust.  ILoud  Applause.] 
Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  this  won't  do.  I  ha  ve  to  re- 
quest that  there  will  be  no  such  demonstration  again.  It 
is  uncalled  for. 

AN  ADJOURNMENT  TO  MONDAY. 

Mr.  Fullerton— K  your  Honor  please,  my 
associate  could  not  complete  another  topic  before  ad- 
joiu'nment  if  he  should  undertake  it. 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  to  suggest  to  counsel  that,  on  a 
conference  with  one  or  two  of  the  jurymen,  it  is  thought 
desirable  not  to  sit  to-morrow.  It  is  a  question  of  con- 
venience and  health,  in  which  I  myself  share ;  and  if  the 
counsel  should  be  able,  by  continuing,  to  close  his  argu- 
ment to-morrow  or  the  next  morning,  there  wotild  still 
be  an  un suitableness  in  giving  it  to  the  jury  at  the  end  of 
the  week.  I  make  this  suggestion  to  the  counsel  to  see 
what  their  convenience  is. 

Mr.  Evarts— For  us,  of  course,  to  object  to  the  jury's 
convenience  and  wishes  —for  they  have  deserved  every- 
thing at  our  hands,  on  both  sides,  as  well  as  fi'om  the 
commimity  and  your  Honor— and  if  their  situation  is 
such  as  makes  it  desirable  for  them  that  the  Court  should 
not  sit  to-morrow,  it  is  not  for  us  to  interfere  with  that 
view.  We  should  prefer,  of  course,  to  make  the  progi-ess 
of  another  day  this  week  if  we  could  do  so. 

Mr.  Beach— That  would  b  ■  my  personal  preference ;  but 
I  quite  cordially  agree  with  the  gentleman  that  there  is 
no  sacrifice  or  indulgence  we  can  reasonably  make  for 
the  convenience  and  accommodation  of  the  jury  that 
ought  to  be  refused;  and,  besides  that,  I  tmderstand  your 
Honor  to  intimate  that  you  are  in  a  physical  condition 
which  requires  relaxation,  and  with  that  accumulated 
evidence  I  should  have  no  hesitation  whatever  in  acced 
ing  to  any  order  your  Honor  may  make. 

Mr.  Carpenter— (The  foreman  of  the  jury.)— I  would  say 
in  behalf  of  the  jury,  that  they  are  unanimous  in  desiring 
that,  when  you  adjourn  the  Court,  it  be  adjourned  until 
Monday.   Some  of  our  number  are  quite  feeble. 

Judge  Neilson— One  of  the  jurymen  was  complaining 
yesterday,  but  suppressed  his  wish  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  don't  wonder  he  is  sick,  Sir. 

Judore  Neilson— He  did  not  ascribe  to  you  tbe  cause, 
however. 

The  Coiu't  then  adTonnied  to  Monday  morning  at  11 
o'clock. 


SUMMIXG    UP  BY  MB.  BEACH. 


953 


107TH  DAY'S  PROCEEDmGS. 

GOOD  FAITH  OF  THE  JUEY  QUESTIONED. 

MR,  BEACH  DECLARES  THAT  HE  HAS  ETLDEXCE  THAT 
JTJRY:MEN  HAVE  BEEX  IMPROPERLY  APPROACHED 
—ASSERTIONS  THAT  BIASED  OPINIONS  HAVE  BEEX 
EXPRESSED  BY  PERSONS  ON  THE  JTRY— A  DAY 
ASKED  FOR  THE  PRODUCTION  OF  EVIDENCE  CON- 
CERNING THESE  POINTS  —  DENIALS  FROM  MR. 
BEECHER'S  counsel— HARDSHIPS  OF  THE  JURY 
DETAILED  BY  ONE  OF  THEIR  NUMBER— HE  DENIES 
THAT  THEY  HAVE  BEEN  TAMPERED  WITH— AN 
EXCITING  SCENE  IN  COURT  -CHARACTERISTICS 
OP  MR.  beach's  ARGUMENT  TO-DAY  —  MR. 
BEECHER'S      alleged      CONFESSION     TO  MRS. 

moulton  dwelt  upon— the  value  of  mrs. 
moulton's  testimony. 

Monday,  Jnne  21,  1875. 

The  twenty-fifth  week  of  the  suit  of  Theodore  Til- 
ton  against  Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  opened  to- 
day by  the  continuation  of  the  argument  of  Mr. 
Beach  in  his  summing  np  for  the  plaintiff.  The 
speaker  confined  himself  for  the  most  part'  to  a  con- 
sideration of  the  alleged  confession  of  Mr.  Beecher 
to  ]Mrs.  Moulton. 

The  interruptions  on  the  part  of  the  defendant's 
counsel  were  noticeable.  They  were  m  general 
to  the  effect  that  ]Mr.  Beach  was  not  accurate  in 
his  representations  regarding  the  import  of  the 
testimony  of  various  witnesses.  The  remarks  on 
their  part  called  forth  remonstrance  from  Mr.  Morris 
of  the  plaintiff's  counsel. 

The  most  exciting  scene  of  the  latter  days  of  the 
trial  occurred  at  the  time  of  the  adjournment  of  the 
Court  in  the  afternoon.  The  rumors  of  charges 
of  bribery  against  certain  jurors  which  have  been 
afloat,  and  which  were  by  many  deemed  to  have 
been  referred  to  by  Mr.  Beach  just  after  the  begin- 
ning of  his  argument,  culminated  in  an  outburst  and 
remonstrance  from  the  jury,  which  the  speaker  at 
once  proceeded  to  combat.  After  Mr.  Beach  had 
concluded  his  argument  for  the  day,  Mr.  Hull,  one 
of  the  jurors,  arose  and  proceeded  to  address  the 
Court,  speaking  for  the  jurors  collectively  in  the 
strain  of  one  who  had  been  injured  and  who  desired 
better  treatment.  He  said  that  Mr.  Beach  had  taken 
occasion  to  reflect  on  the  jury  and  make  insinuations 
against  them.  It  was  not  the  first  nor  the  second 
time  that  they  had  been  compelled  to  listen  to  such 
insinuations.  ]SIr.  Hull  then  referred  to  the  jury- 
men's grievances  in  being  forced  to  follow  carefully 
theluugand  tedious  proceedings  in  the  case,  in  being 


obliged  to  neglect  their  vocations,  and  to  disregard 
the  ties  of  family  and  of  home,  with  no  other  com- 
pensation than  the  pittance  they  were  receiving. 
All  these  things  were  sufficiently  grievous  to  them 
without  their  being  obliged  to  listen  to  damaging 
insinuations,  hinting  at  their  being  approached  by 
influences  which  were  to  sway  them  from  an  honest 
consideration  of  the  case.  The  only  way  in  which 
the}-  had  been  approached  was  by  haA-iug  sent  to 
them  in  envelopes  slips  cut  from  The  Sun  newspaper. 

Judge  Neilson  said  that  he  thought  the  jury  had 
misimderstood  the  utterances  of  the  speaker.  Allow- 
ances should  be  made  for  counsel  speaking  rapidly 
and  in  the  heat  of  debate. 

Mr.  Beach  said  that  his  Honor's  explanation  might 
have  been  urged  by  him  in  excuse,  but  he  would  not 
otter  it.  He  had  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  jury 
had  been  approached  by  emissaries  of  the  defendant. 
His  evidence  in  the  matter  was  pretty  good,  and  he, 
perhaps,  would  present  it  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Court  before  the  case  was  ended.  He  would  show 
that  members  of  the  jui-y  had  given  vent  to  opinions 
as  to  what  they  would  do  on  various  occasions,  and 
that  they  had  been  approached. 

Mr.  Abbott  of  counsel  for  the  defendant  said,  ad- 
dressing the  Court  for  the  first  time  since  the  open- 
ing of  the  trial,  that  such  remarks  were  out  of  order 
unless  made  with  a  sense  of  professional  responsi- 
bility. 

Mr.  Shearman  asked  the  plaintiff's  counsel  to  pro- 
duce their  evidence  immediately.  He  said  ho 
stamped  the  assertions  made  by  counsel  as  utterly 
untrue.  There  was  not  one  dollar  of  money  which 
had  been  expended  in  the  case  which  had  come  from 
any  source  except  the  pockets  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  and  himself.  He  was  ready  for  his  own 
part  to  take  the  responsibility  as  to  how  the  money 
had  been  expended. 

Mr.  Beach  in  reply  suggested  that  Mr.  Shearman 
should  not  make  statements  of  circumstances  and 
matters  outside  of  his  knowledge.  He  had  made  no 
charges  against  the  jury  until  they  were  called  out 
by  the  jury's  remonstrances.  He  had  been  called  on 
to  produce  his  proof ;  he  would  take  his  own  time 
and  consult  his  own  pleasure  as  to  proving  the 
charges  made  to  the  Court.  He  shoald  be  son  y  if 
anything  he  had  sr^idwoiild  tend  to  pToJudico  thfj 
jury  against  his  client— a  thing  wliich  he  us  counsel 
had  no  right  to  do. 

^li.  Hull,  agaiu  addi'essing  the  Court,  said  that  the 
jurymen  had  no  prejudice  in  the  matter  at;  all,  and 
he  accepted  the  gentleman's  apology. 


954 


THE    TlLTOls-BEECEEE  TlllAh. 


Mr.  Beach  requested  Judge  Neilsou  to  appoint  a 
time  for  the  hearing  of  the  evidence  on  this  matter. 

Judge  Neilson  in  reply  suggested  that  that  was  not 
the  proper  time  to  hring  the  question  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Court.  If  the  plaintiff 's  counsel  desired 
to  be  heard,  they  could  bring  the  matter  before  him 
by  application  made  after  the  close  of  the  trial. 

THE  DRIFT   OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 

Mr.  Beach  in  beginning  his  argument  for  the  day 
referred  to  an  error  made  by  him  in  the  course  of  his 
speaking  on  Thursday  last,  when  he  referred  to  the 
persons  in  the  story  of  Paulina  in  Josephus  as  being 
of  the  Jewish  faith.  They  were  not  Hebrews.  The 
alleged  faithlessness  of  Mr.  Moulton  in  refusing  to 
Mr.  Beecher  access  to  the  originals  or  permission  to 
take  copies  of  the  documents  in  the  possession 
of  the  former  was  then  commented  on,  the 
speaker  urging  that  Mr.  Moulton  had  acted  in  the 
only  way  in  which  he  honestly  could  act.  Mr. 
Moulton's  position  at  the  time  of  the  demand  on  Mr. 
Beecher's  part  was  then  explained  by  the  speaker  by 
references  to  the  correspondence  which  passed  on 
the  subject  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton. 
AH  attempts  at  a  suppression  of  the  scandal  had 
come  to  an  end,  and  Mr.  Moulton  could  not  in  justice 
to  the  other  side,  to  whom  he  owed  a  duty,  give 
copies  of  the  papers  to  Mr.  Beecher.  ' '  Moulton  would 
not  be  very  severely  condemned  for  following  that 
*  policy  of  silence'  which  the  interests  of  both 
parties  demanded."  At  this  point  the  speaker  de- 
fended Mr.  Moulton  from  the  charge  of  being  a 
heathen  and  one  destitute  of  moral  sensibilities. 
Mr.  Tracy's  invectives  against  Mr.  Moulton's  charac- 
ter were  severely  reprehended,  the  speaker  saying,  in 
concluding  the  topic,  "  The  worst  of  it  is,  it  is  not 
even  original  with  himself." 

In  taking  up  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Moulton  Mr. 
Tilton's  counsel  said  that  the  only  question  for  the 
jury  to  decide  in  regard  to  it  Avas,  whether  or  not 
she  is  to  be  believed.  Mr.  Tilton,  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Moulton  had  given  testimony  to  the  same  point. 
These  three  witnesses  must  be  convicted  of  perjury 


before  Henry  Ward  Bee 


cfin  be  adjuged  inno- 


cent. With  reference  to  Mv'i.  Moulton's  character 
Mr.  B-acli  rco*!  solocti'^as  lioni  Mr.  Beecher's  letters 
shov/ing  what  Cotimatv;  he  ha^^.  made  of  it. 

The  speaker  then  v.  cut  on  to  urge  the  impossibil- 
ity of  Mrs.  Moulton's  having  invented  the  interview 
of  June  2,  1873.  Mrs.  Moulton  had  told  the  jury 
that  her  advice  to  Mr.  Beecher  on  that  occasion  had 
•y.r,f,^-  ^  ^  to  go  down  to  his  church  and  con- 


fess. The  improbability  of  her  having  given  such 
advice  was  made  a  point  in  the  argument  for  the  de- 
fendant. "  Well,"  said  Mr.  Beach,  "it  was  Chris- 
tian advice,  gentlemen." 

Again  it  had  been  alleged  that  it  was  improbable 
that  Mr.  Beecher,  if  guilty,  should  urge  Mrs.  Tilton, 
as  he  did,  to  separate  from  her  husband.  This  advice 
was  given,  however,  before  Mr.  Beecher  knew  of 
Mrs.  Tilton's  confession,  and  when  "separation 
would  rather  facilitate  Mr.  Beecher's  purposes  "  than 
otherwise.  Aftei  December,  1870,  Mr.  Beecher  al- 
ways advised  Mrs.  Tilton  to  continue  to  live  with 
her  husband. 

The  difficulty  of  inventing  such  an  interview  as 
the  one  with  Mrs.  Moulton  was  again  insisted  on  by 
the  speaker,  and  the  improbability  of  maintaining  it 
if  false  under  so  strict  a  cross-examination  as  that  to 
which,  she  had  been  subjected,  was  urged.  The 
terms  "  section  of  the  day  of  judgment,"  &c.,  used 
at  the  interview  were  Mr.  Beecher's  words. 
.  Mr.  Beach  then  claimed  that  no  alibi  had  been 
properly  proved  in  regard  to  the  interview.  Mr. 
Beecher  had  accounted  for  certain  hours  of  the  day, 
but  had  not  done  so  satisfactorily  in  respect  to  the 
time  between  9  a.  m.  and  the  hour  when  he  went 
over  to  The  Christian  Union  office.  Mr.  Kinsella,  it 
was  claimed,  would  have  been  able  to  prove  the  alibi. 
Yet,  said  Mr.  Beach,  he  had  not  been  called,  and  the 
presumption  was  that  if  called  he  would  not  have 
aided  the  defendant's  case  by  his  testimony.  The 
evidence  of  Mr.  Janes,  as  corroborating  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton's statements,  was  here  referred  to,  as  was  also 
the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Eddy.  This  part  of  the  argu- 
ment was  concluded  with  an  earnest  appeal  to  the 
manhood  of  the  jury  not  to  condemn  Mrs.  Moulton 
to  infamy  as  a  perjurer. 

Mr.  Tilton's  religious  opinions  were  glanced  at  by 
the  speaker,  who  put  him  in  the  same  class  of  think- 
ers as  Dr.  Channing,  Theodore  Parker,  Charles 
Sumner,  and  Edward  Everett.  Mr.  Beach  then 
aimed  to  show  that  Mr.  Tilton,  believing  as  he  did 
in  his  wife's  purity,  had  acted  rightly  in  receiving 
back  his  wife.  It  was  not  in  the  nature  of  manhood 
to  resist  an  appeal  like  that  of  Mrs.  Tilton's  to  her 
husband.  This  closed  the  speaker's  references  to 
the  direct  testimony  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Beach  then  took  up  the  circumstances  which 
he  said  were  notable  as  affecting  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  accused.  Mrs.  Hooker's  alleged  threat 
to  expose  Mr.  Beecher's  sin  from  the  pulpit  of 
Plymouth  Church,  and  Mr.  Beecher's  correspondence 
with  Mrs.  Bradshaw  in  regard  to  her  offer  to  tea- 


SUJdmyG    VP  BY  MB.  BEACE. 


955 


tify  before  tlie  Investigating  Committee,  were  two 
of  the  topics  tonched  on. 


THE  PROCEEDIXGS-YERBATTM. 

MR.  BEACH  RESUMES  HIS  ARGETMEXT. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Beacli— Speaking,  gentlemen,  in  regard  to  the  Ciuo- 
tation  I  read  you  from  Josephus,  referring  to  tlie  story  of 
Paulina  and  Mundus,  I  very  hastily  and  inaccurately 
designat-ed  those  tvro  characters  as  belonging  to  the  Jew- 
ish faith.  A  moment's  reflection  npon  the  tenets  of  that 
persuasion  "wonld  have  shown  me  the  error  of  the  remark. 
I  have  been  addressed  hy  a  very  learned  and  accomplished 
gentleman  belonging  to  that  faith  correctiiig  that  error, 
and  he  says: 

Dear  Sie  :  In  your  address  reported  this  morning, 
bearing  date  June  IS,  is  a  citation  from  Josephus  which 
seems  singularly  apposite  to  the  theory  advanced  by  Mr. 
Tilton.  You  are,  I  apprehend,  in  error  in  classing  Pau- 
lina and  Mundus  amona:  the  Jews.  Xo  Jewess  could  have 
entertained  the  belief  that  God  wonld  appear  in  carnal 
form.  It  is  in  direct  antagonism  lo  the  fundamental 
principle  of  Judaism.  There  is  only  one  instance  on 
record  that  can  be  cited  against  my  position,  and  that  is 
the  alleged  Immaculate  Conception. 

I  make  the  correction  with  acknowledgments  of  the 
service  the  gentleman  has  rendered. 

MR.  MOULTON  AS  THE  CUSTODIAN  OF  THE 
PAPERS. 

I  cannot  well  pass  from  the  consideration  of 

the  relation  of  Mr.  Moulton  to  this  trial  without  alluding 
to  a  very  serious  accusation  advanced  agaiust  him  by  my 
learned  friends,  charging  him  with  faithlessness  to  Mr. 
Beecher  m  refusing  to  him  either  the  originals  or  the 
copies  of  the  documents  which  have  from  time  to  time 
been  deposited  in  his  hands.  I  cannot  better  explain  the 
position  which  Mr.  Moulton  occupied,  or  Ms  sense  of  the 
obligation  which  controlled  his  action,  than  by  alluding 
to  the  correspondence  upon  that  subject  between  him 
and  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr.  Beecher  opened  it  by  making  an 
application,  on  July  28,  1S74,  for  the  papers.  On  Aug. 
4  Mr.  Moulton  answered  it  substantially  in  these  words  • 

My  Dear  Me.  Beececee  :  I  received  your  note  of  July 
24.  informing  me  that  you  are  making  a  statement  and 
need  the  letters  and  papers  in  my  hands,  and  asking  me 
to  send  them  to  you  for  the  purpose  of  having  -  x  tracts  or 
copies  made  from  them,  as  the  case  may  be,  That  you 
may  use  them  in  your  controversy  with  ^Ir.  Tilton. 

I  should  be  very  glad  to  do  anything  that  I  may  do, 
consistent  with  my  sense  of  what  is  due  to  justice 
and  right,  to  aid  you;  but  if  you  will  reflect  that  I  hold 
aU  the  important  papers  intrusted  to  me  at  the  desire 
and  request,  and  iu  the  confidence,  of  both  parties  to  this 
unhappy  affair,  you  will  see  that  I  cannot  in  honor  give 
them,  or  any  of  them,  to  either  party  to  aid  him  as 
agamst  the  other.  I  have  not  given  or  sho\vn  to  Mr. 
Tilton  any  documeots  or  papers  relatmg  to  your  affair's 


since  the  renewal  of  your  controversy  prhich  had  been 
once  adjusted. 

I  need  not  tell  you  how  deeply  I  regret  your  position  as 
foes,  each  to  the  other,  after  my  lonsr  and,  as  you,  I  have 
no  doubt,  fully  believe,  honest  and  faithful,  effort  to  have 
you  otherwise. 

I  will  sacredly  hold  aU  the  papers  and  information  I 
have  until  both  parties  shall  request  me  to  make  them 
public,  or  to  deliver  them  into  the  hands  of  either  or 
both,  or  to  lay  them  before  the  Committee,  or  I  am  com- 
pelled iu  a  court  of  justice  to  produce  them,  if  I  can  be  so 
OompL-Ued. 

So  the  m.atter  rested  until  the  afternoon,  I  suppose,  of 
the  Slime  day,  when  ;Mr.  Beecher  addressed  to  Mr.  Moul- 
ton a  letter  which  has  been  read  to  you,  and  then  fol- 
lowed the  communication  of  Aug.  o  by  Mr.  ^Moulton  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  as  follows  : 

My  De-ve  Sie:  In  all  our  acciuamtance  and  friendship  I 
have  never  received  from  you  a  letter  of  the  tone  of 
yours  of  August  4.  It  seems  unlike  yourself,  and  to  have 
been  inspired  by  the  same  iU-advisers  who  have  so 
lamentably  carried  your  private  affairs  before  a  Com- 
mittee of  your  Church,  and  thence  before  the  public. 

In  reply,  let  me  remind  you  that  during  the  whole  of 
the  past  four  years  an  the  documents,  notes,  and  mem- 
oi-anda  which  you  and  2.1r.  Tilton  have  inti'usted  to  me 
have  been  so  intrusted  because  they  had  a  reference  to 
your  mutual  differences.  I  hold  no  papers,  either  of 
vours  or  his,  except  such  as  bear  on  this  case.  Yon 
speak  of  "  memoranda  of  affairs  not  immediately  con- 
nected with  Mr.  Tilton's  matter."  You  probably  allude 
here  to  the  memoranda  of  vour  difTieulties  with  :^Ir. 
Bowen;  but  these  have  a  dii-ect  reference  to  your  pres- 
ent case  with  Mr.  Tilton,  and  were  deposited  with  me  by 
you  because  of  such  reference.  You  speak  also  of  a  let- 
ter or  two  from  your  brother  and  sister ;  and  I  am  sure 
you  have  not  forgotten  the  apprehension  which  was  en- 
tertained lest  Mrs.  Hooker  should  fulfill  a  design  which 
she  foreshadowed  to  invade  your  pulpit,  and  read  to  your 
congregation  a  confession  of  your  intimacy  with  Mrs. 
Tilton. 

You  speak  of  other  papers,  which  I  hold  "  suliject  to 
your  wishes."  I  hold  none  such,  nor  do  I  hold  any  sub- 
ject to  Mr.  Tilton's  wishes.  The  papers  which  I  hold,  both 
yours  and  liis,  were  not  given  to  me  to  be  suoject  to  the 
wishes  of  either  of  the  parties.  But  the  very  object  of 
my  holding  them  has  been,  and  still  is,  to  prevent  the 
wish  of  one  party  from  beinginjuriously  exercised  against 
the  other. 

*  *  *  In  closing  your  letter  you  say, 
"  I  do  not  ask  you  to  place  before  the  Committee 
any  papers  which  Mr.  Tilton  may  have  given  you ;  but  I 
do  demand  that  you  forthwith  place  before  the  Committee 
every  paper  which  I  have  written  or  deposited  with  you." 
In  reply  I  can  only  say  that  I  cannot  justly  place  before 
the  Committee  the  papers  of  one  of  the  parties  without 
doing  the  same  with  the  papers  of  the  other,  and  I  cannot 
do  this  honorably  except  either  by  legal  process  compel- 
ling me,  or  else  by  consent,  in  writing,  not  only  of  your- 
self, but  of  Mr.  Tilton,  with  whom  I  shall  confer  on  the 
subject  as  speedily  as  possible. 

And  you  will  recollect  that  Mr.  Moulton,  immediately 
after  getting  the  mutual  consent  which  he  recLuired,  did 
apnear  before  the  Committee,  and  did  present  the  papers, 
so  far  as  they  had  been  referred  to  ta  the  previous  pro- 
ceedings before  the  Committee,  but  withholding  all 
others  which  were  not  demanded  by  the  necessities  of  thfr 


956 


THE    TILTOJS'BEFAJUEB  TRIAL. 


then  position  of  the  case  before  the  Committee,  and 
which  were  withheld,  as  you  remember,  under  the  advice 
and  request  of  Mr.  Tracy,  assuming  to  represent  Mr. 
Beecher  at  tlie  interview  at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel 
between  him  and  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Butler. 

GEN.  TRACY'S  REMARKS  ABOUT  MR.  MOUL- 
TON. 

It  is  my  duty  to  refer,  g-entlemen,  I  think, 
for  a  moment  to  the  terms  iu  which  Mr.  Moulton  is  charac- 
terized in  the  opening  address  of  llv.  Tracy.  I  pass  from 
all  other  consideration  of  his  evidence  and  relation  to 
this  case,  because  I  am  satisfied  that  you  will  believe  that 
up  to  the  time  of  this  demand  for  the  papers,  and  the 
answers  which  1  have  read  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Moulton, 
that  he  faithfully  labored  for  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton 
in  carrying  out  the  policy  of  silence  upon  which  these 
several  parties  had  agreed ;  and  that  his  refusal  to  furnish 
the  papers  to  Mr.  Beecher,  or,  as  he  says,  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
for  the  purpose  of  being  used  by  the  one  in  hostility  to 
the  other,  was  at  a  time  when  all  hopes  of  eupyressing  this 
scandal  had  not  been  abandoned,  and  when  there  were 
active  consultations  for  the  purpose  of  devising  some 
means,  by  an  appearance  of  the  parties  before  the  Com- 
mittee, and  by  a  report  imputing  a  modified  oflfense  to 
Mr.  Beecher  and  exonerating  Mr.  Tilton.  It  is  of  this 
gentleman,  thus  laboring  for  the  interests  of  these  par- 
ties, having  no  interest  whatever  in  what  might  be  the 
restdt  of  his  efforts,  except  an  earnest  and  an  honorable 
regard  for  the  interests  of  the  family  of  Mr.  Tilton  and 
the  interests  of  Mr.  Beecher.  It  is  complained  in  the 
opening  of  Mr.  Tracy  that  this  was  an  imworthy  effort ; 
that  Mr.  Moulton,  as  an  honorable  gentleman  of  the 
world,  without  any  regard  to  those  influences  which 
might  be  exerted  over  him  by  his  conscientiousness, 
sense  of  right,  duty  to  the  Church  and  religion— that,  as 
a  man  of  the  world,  becoming  acquainted  with  the 
offense  of  Mr.  Beecher,  it  was  his  duty  at  once 
to  publish  it  and  bring  him  to  a  public  account. 
There  may  be  a  variety  of  opinions  in  regard  to  the 
course  demanded  of  the  citizen  by  morality  and  truth 
tinder  such  circumstances.  But  with  the  views  enter- 
tained by  Mr.  Beecher  and  by  Mr.  Tilton  of  the  character 
of  Mi's.  Tilton,  of  the  influences  which  led  her  to  a  sacri- 
fice of  her  personal  honor,  with  tlie  views  that  have  been 
very  generally  entertained  by  the  community  in  regard 
to  the  disadvantage  upon  the  cause  of  morality  and  reli- 
gion, of  an  examination  into  this  scandal,  Mr.  Moulton,  I 
fancy,  wUl  not  be  very  seriously  condemned  for  adopting 
that  policy  of  silence  which  was  approved  by  the  imme- 
diate parties  to  the  transaction,  and  which  seemed  to  be 
demanded  by  all  the  great  interests  which  depended 
upon  it.  At  any  rate,  it  Is  not  for  the  advocate 
of  Mr.  Beecher  to  censuie  Mr.  Moulton.  Whatever  char- 
acter it  may  please  Mr.  Tracy  to  confer  upon  Mr.  Moul- 
ton, he  was  yet  vastly  inferior  in  intellectual  power  and 


in  position  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  when  Mr. 
Beecher  appealed  to  him  as  a  friend  for  salvation  from 
the  publicity  of  this  accusation ;  when  Mr.  Beecher,  with 
the  power  of  his  great  character,  advised  and  cooperated 
with  the  policy  of  silence^  and  made  Mr.  Moulton  the 
chief  and  reliable  instrument  to  promote  it,  it 
does  not  become  either  Mr.  Beecher  or  his 
counsel,  Mr.  Tracy,  to  impute  to  Mr.  Moulton 
any  dereliction  of  morality  or  duty.  I  have  no  hesitation 
in  averring  that  my  judgment  concurs  with  the  conclti- 
sion  which  these  gentlemen  then  formed— that  it  would 
have  been  vastly  better  for  the  interests  of  society,  of 
morality,  of  the  Church,  believing  that  this  wrong  had 
been  sincerely  repented  of  by  Mr.  Beecher,  that  thia 
whole  matter  should  have  been  kept  in  perfect,  entire 
silence.  All  the  disastrous  consequences  which  have  fol- 
lowed the  proceedings  before  the  Comniittee,  the  inves- 
tigations of  this  trial,  would  have  been  escaped.  It 
would  have  been  a  sin  concealed,  it  is  true,  from  the 
knowledge  of  the  world ;  but  it  was  of  that  character, 
not  being  criminal  in  its  nature,  not  calling  for  the  in- 
vestigation and  the  punishment  of  the  law  ;  it  was  ol 
that  character  affecting  only  social  and  domestic  morali 
which  might  well  be  concealed  from  the  public.  Says 
Mr.  Tracy,  speaking  of  this  gentleman  : 

It  is  hardly  necessary  that  I  should  occupy  much  time 
in  describing  the  character  of  Francis  D.  Moulton,  or  in 
explaining  the  motives  which  have  actuated  him  through 
out  this  controversy.  He  has  been  in  your  presence  foi 
ten  days.  You  have  seen  and  heard  him.  No  man  in 
this  court-room  could  fail  to  be  satisfied  that  Mr.  Moulton 
was  a  person  well  chosen  by  the  plaintiff  to  play  the 
desperate  part  required  of  the  mutual  friend. 

Chosen  by  the  plaintiff !— when  Mr.  Beecher  tells  you 
lie  was  chosen  by  himself — when  Mr.  Beecher  in  repeated 
appeals  of  deep  pathos  and  of  unlimited  confidence,  says 
to  Francis  D.  Moulton,  "  You  are  the  only  fi-iend  I  have 
in  the  world  upon  wheaa  I  can  rely,  and  if  you  cease  to 
love  me  I  am  lost  "—Mr.  Moulton  represented  as  the  ex- 
clusive friend  of  Tilton,  intriguing  and  conspiring  against 
Beecher,  when  for  four  years,  by  night  and  by  day,  there 
was  not  an  occasion  when  the  reputation,  the  interest  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  threatened,  that  Mr.  Moulton 
was  not  ready,  at  hand,  to  interpose  the  zealous  service 
of  his  friendship  and  effort. 

Cool,  fearless,  plaiisible,  of  cultured  tastes,  not  desti- 
tute of  literary  ability,  gifted  with  a  quick  perception  of 
human  character,  of  tremendous  energy,  and  totally 
destitute  of  any  belief  in  conscience,  in  inunortality, 
or  in  God,  this  man  was  well  qualified,  like 
his  great  archetype,  to  deceive  the  very  elect. 
He  has  told  you  under  the  solemnity  of  an  oath  that  ho 
was  a  heathen,  and  by  that  you  know  what  he  means  ; 
not  a  heathen  like  Socrates  or  Plato,  not  a  heathen  Uko 
those  men  of  old,  who  walked  in  darkness  socking  tor 
the  light,  and  to  whom  the  great  poet  of  the  Catholic 
Church  has  assigned  a  place  in  that  other  world  free 
from  pain,  though  far  from  heaven,  but  such  a  heathen 
as  only  can  be  found  in  the  midst  of  Christian  civiliza- 
tion—a  man  who  despises  the  idea  of  personal  rcvspousi- 


SCUMMING    UP  J3Y  ME.  BEACH, 


95? 


billty,  who  scoffs  at  the  idea  of  future  aceountMbility, 
who  laughs  in  his  sleeve  at  the  credulity  of  those  who 
read  the  solemn  words  of  Scripture,  or  who  listen  to  the 
instructions  of  the  Church,  and  whose  only  idea  of  a  God 
is  a  convenient  name  for  sounding:  an  oath  or  enf orcin^r 
an  execration. 

And  this  "Waa  written,  gentlemen^  after  Mr.  Moulton 
had  been  examined  in  regard  to  his  religious  faith  or  his 
idea  of  the  presence  and  overruling  providence  of  a  God, 
of  the  immortality  of  the  human  soul,  and  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments.  We 
have  only  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Moulton  from  which  we 
can  judge  as  to  his  religious  belief  or  faith,  and  every 
word  of  that  phillipic  studied,  wwtc^n,  read  by  Mr. 
Tracy  Is  in  direct  contradiction  of  evoty  portion  of  the 
evidence  given  by  Mr.  Moulton,  is  in  direct  contradiction 
of  his  whole  character  as  exhibited  through  his  testimony 
upon  the  stand  or  through  any  of  the  other  evidence  in 
this  case.  It  is  a  direct,  unqualified  untruth. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Beach,  do  I  understand  you  to  say 
that  Mr.  Moulton  has  given  any  evidence  of  his  belief  at 
all? 

Mr.  Beach— What  do  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Do  I  understand  you  to  assert  that  Mr. 
Moulton  has  given  any  evidence  of  his  belief  in  a  God ! 
He  has  not,  as  I  understand  it. 

Mr.  Beach — Well,  I  think  that  Mr.  Moulton  was  asked 
the  question ;  I  am  not  clear  in  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Shearman— No,  he  was  not  asked  at  all  except  

Mr.  Full erton— Well,  my  friend  Mr.  Shearman  is  mis- 
taken upon  that  subject. 

Judge  Neilsou— Well,  then  it  will  be  assumed  that  he 
stands  in  that  respect  as  the  rest  of  us  stand. 

Mr.  Beach — I  suppose  so,  your  Honor,  but  I  have  a 
recollection  that  that  question  was  put,  at  my  suggestion, 
to  Mr.  Moulton.  I  am  not  able  to  refer  to  all  the  points 
of  this  voluminous  testimony. 

Mr.  Shearman— My  recollection  is  different. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  your  recollection  is  wrong.  His 
testimony  was  very  explicit  upon  that  subject. 

Mr.  Morris— I  submit  that  these  interruptions  are  not 
proper. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh !  if  I  fall  into  an  error,  I  should  cer- 
tainly hope  to  be  corrected  as  I  go  along,  for  I  design  to 
make  no  misrepresentation.  Suppose  he  had  not  spoken 
upon  that  subject,  gentlemen,  is  any  reputable  gentle- 
man who  comes  upon  the  stand,  as  a  wit- 
ness, without  evidence,  to  be  assailed  in  this  oppro- 
brious language  by  a  counselor  of  this  court  ? 
Have  we  such  a  license  with  the  reputation  of  parties 
and  witnesses  %  Is  there  no  decorum,  no  sense  of  pro- 
priety attaching  to  our  profession,  standing  in  the  face  of 
men  as  reputable  and  honorable  as  ourselves  1  And  will 
the  necessities  of  any  case,  or  will  the  malice  of  any 
counsel  justify  him  in  thus  assailing  a  respectable  gen- 
tleman, standing  under  the  presumption  of  the  law,  and 


forced  by  the  law  to  assume  a  position  where  he  cannot 
protect  himself  I  Are  coimsel  to  be  tolerated  in  not  only 
ungenerous  but  scandalous  and  false  attacks  upon  wit- 
nesses and  pa.-ties  in  such  positions  1  I  have  not  so  un- 
derstood either  the  right  or  the  privilege  of  our  profes- 
sion. But,  says  this  gentleman  again  of  Mr.  Moulton  : 

To  promote  the  interests  of  that  Christianity  in  which 
he  did  not  believe,  and  to  honor  that  God  whose  name  he 
never  used  except  as  a  byword,  he  tells  you  now  that  he 
told  hundreds  of  lies,  that  he  invented  all  manner  of 
schemes,  that  he  belied  some  men,  that  he  accused  oth- 
ers, that  he  made  .his  own  wife  the  associate  and  com- 
panion of  prostitutes,  and  divided  her  lips  between  his 
own  kiss  and  the  kiss  of  Victoria  Woodhull.  You  must 
not  imagine  that  the  man  who  would  gladly  associate 
with  prostitutes  and  take  pleasure  in  seeing  them  kiss 
his  wife,  all  for  the  sake  of  the  honor  of  the  Church  and 
the  good  of  society,  would  dream  of  associating  with 
prostitutes  for  his  own  pleasuie. 

An  attack  of  this  character,  gentlemen,  requirei  no 
comment.  It  cannot  be  approved  by  the  decencies  of  a 
court  of  justice  nor  by  the  proprieties  which  attach  to 
the  practice  of  our  just  and  honorable  profession.  No 
man  who  can  make  it,  under  the  privilege  of  a  counsel,  is 
entitled  to  the  respect  which  applies  to  an  honorable 
member  of  that  profession.  He  has  not  a  proper  sense  of 
honorable  obligation ;  he  has  not  a  due  regard  for  the 
reputation  and  the  rights  of  his  fellow-men;  he  is 
governed  by  loose  principles,  and  a  looser  morality ;  he 
evinces  it  in  every  word  of  the  indecorous  language 
which  he  sees  fit  to  apply  imder  these  circumstances  to 
Francis D.  Moulton;  and  the  worst  of  is  that  it  is  not 
even  original  with  himself  [laughter] ;  that  he  must  get 
the  aid— to  gratify  his  malice— he  must  get  the  aid  of 
keener  brains  than  his  own,  and  must  stand  here  reading 
the  production  of  others  in  the  tone  of  a  schoolboy  who 
has  but  imperfectly  learned  his  lesson.  And  this,  this  is 
the  man  who  but  a  few  months  ago  pledged  his  word  and 
honor  to  the  men  whom  he  assails  that  he  would  hold 
their  secrets,  and  would  never  appear  in  opposition 
to  their  interest.  And  this  a  ssault  upon  gentlemen  whose 
honor  he  should  have  respected,  at  least,  has  •  been 
printed  and  circulated  throughout  this  commimity, 
throughout  this  country,  bearing  in  every  quarter  this 
reputation  of  a  gentleman  whom  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
trusted  for  four  years,  against  whom  he  has  never 
brought  an  accusation  except  that  he  did  not  render  to 
him  his  papers  and  letters  when  demanded,  and  who  cer- 
tifies upon  this  stand  that  in  his  devotion  to  his  service 
he  gave  him  a  new  character  of  the  word  friendship,  not 
spoken  in  the  satirical  manner  in  which  my  learned 
friend  has  alluded  to  it,  but  as  a  brave  and  honest  testi- 
monial from  the  heart  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  the 
fidelity  and  truth  and  courage  of  Francis  D.  Moulton.  I 
pass  from  him,  gentlemen. 


958 


THE   TILTOJS'-JBEECHER  TRIAL. 


MRS.  MOULTON'S  TESTIMONY. 
There  is  but  one  other  witness  who  testifies 
directly  to  tlie  confessions  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and 
tlie  most  important  witness  in  this  case.  Slie  lias  no 
earthly  ambitions  to  gratify ;  she  has  no  greed  to  satisfy. 
She  comes  here  from  the  quiet  of  a  cultured  and  comfort- 
able home,  a  lady  in  the  truest  sense  of  the  word,  a  lady 
whom  Henry  Ward  Beecher  upon  the  stand  and  in  his 
letters  has  eulogized  almost  as  a  paragon,  in  her  simple 
and  sincere  sense  of  duty  and  of  truth,  and  in  those  vir- 
tues of  hospitality  which  commemorate  her  history  in 
this  case.  And  the  question  is  whether  she  is  to  be  be- 
lieved, whether  she  is  to  meet  the  universal  condemnation 
which  our  friends  upon  the  other  side  have  extended  to 
every  witness  and  every  character  who  has  appeared  in 
support  of  the  plaintilPs  case.  You  will  see  by  the  allu- 
sion of  Mr.  Tracy,  and  the  relations  of  that  household, 
but  if  you  will  recall  more  distinctly,  you  will  see  by  ttie 
grievous  charges  which  were  made  against  this  lady 
by  Mr.  Porter,  how  she  has  been  exhibited  to  the 
world.  She  is  not  only  a  conspiratress,  she  is 
not  only  a  perjurer,  but  according  to  Mr.  Porter  she 
has  surrendered  her  house  as  a  resort  not  only 
for  the  parties  to  tlie  conspiracy  but  for  those  base  and 
infamous  agents  (as  they  say)  whom  it  has  suited  the  pur« 
pose  of  the  conspii-ators  to  employ.  She  is  charged  with 
consorting  with  public  prostitutes.  Nay,  my  friend  Mr. 
Porter  could  not  spare  that  unmanly  blow  against  the 
heart  of  a  mother,  when  he  charged  her  with  exposing 
her  only  son  to  the  influence  of  such  association.  It  was 
not  enough  to  heap  odium  upon  her  character  for  truth 
and  personal  chastity,  but  the  instincts  of  maternal  love 
and  solicitude  must  be  outraged  to  gratify  the  purposes 
of  this  defense.  Gentlemen,  it  is  a  very  serious  question 
which  you  are  called  upon  to  determine.  It  is  no  com- 
mon responsibility  which  rests  upon  this  jury  when  they 
are  called  upon  not  only  to  disbelieve  and  defame  Tilton 
and  Moulton,  the  husband  and  the  father,  but  to  include 
the  mother  in  the  infamy.  It  may  seem  a  light  and 
trifling  

Mr.  Porter— My  friend  is  entirely  in  error  if  he  thinks 
that  I  used  either  of  the  epithets  which  he  has  applied  to 
Mrs.  Moulton,  that  I  spoke  of  her  either  as  a  perjurer — a 
word  I  never  used  and  certainly  never  connected  with 
her  name— or  that  I  cast  any  imputation  upon  her  chas- 
tity, or  that  I  used  the  word  "  conspiratress." 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  very  happy  to  hear  the  explana- 
tion. The  counsel  was  mistaken. 

Mr.  B -ach— No,  Sir,  I  am  not  mistaken.  [Laughter.l 
I  certainly  did  not  say  or  intend  to  say  that  either  of 
those  epithets  of  "  conspirator,"  or  "  perjiu-er,"  or 
"  prostitute"  was  apjilied  to  Mrs.  Moulton.  I  said  no 
such  thing. 

Judge  Neilson— Certainly  not. 

Mr.  Porter — I  understood  you  so. 

Judge  Neilson— I  want  to  say  to  this  audience  that  we 


must  have  quiet,  and  if  a  happy  word  is  said  by  counsel 
it  is  not  at  all  essential  that  it  should  be  commended,  and 
a  decent  respect  for  the  place  and  the  counsel  and  the 
jury,  who  want  to  hear,  would  indicate  to  persons  fit  to 
be  here  that  silence  becomes  them  best. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  speakini;-,  gentlemen,  of  the  effect  of 
the  argument,  and  of  the  defense  in  this  case.  If  Heniy 
Ward  Beecher  is  to  be  believed,  and  to  be  successful  m 
this  action,  Mrs.  Moulton  is  a  perjurer,  Mrs.  Moulton  is  a 
conspirator ;  and  if  Mr.  Benjamin  F.  Tracy  is  to  bo 
credited,  to  her  belongs  those  other  disgraceful  appella- 
tions and  associations  to  which  I  have  directed  your  at- 
tention. Do  my  friends  shrink  from  this  consequence? 
Does  not  my  friend  Porter  charge  that  Mrs.  Moulton  is  a 
perjurer,  that  she  is  not  to  be  believed  ?  Does  not  he 
claim  that  she  is  a  co-conspiratress  %  Do  they  admit  the 
truth  of  her  testimony  1  Well  may  they  shrink  back  from 
that  issue.  Have  they  not  given  evidence  here  to  prove, 
through  an  alibi,  that  her  testimony  was  all  false  ;  and  is 
there  any  means  by  which  Henry  Ward  Beecher  can  be 
lustifled  but  by  the  condemnation  of  Mrs.  Moulton  ?  Most 
clearly  not,  gentlemen.  That  issue  must  be  met. 
These  three  witnesses,  upon  the  single  oath 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  must  be  condemned 
for  perjury,  or  Henry  Ward  Beecher  is  guilty 
It  is  irreconcilable,  the  conflict  between  these  witnesses. 
They  accord  with  the  other  evidence :  they  harmonize 
with  the  writings  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  There  is  not 
a  single  point  of  opposition  or  inconsistency  between  any 
other  portion  of  this  evidence,  except  Henry  Ward 
Beecher's  and  the  testimony  of  these  three  witnesses. 
But  a  very  serious  charge  is  brought  in  the  outset  against 
Mrs.  Moulton,  originating  in  the  flrst  place  with  my  friend 
Mr.  Shearman.  He  states  as  a  matter  of  accusation  that 
she  did  not  once,  while  she  was  upon  the  stand,  look  into 
the  face  of  Mr.  Evarts ;  and  Mr.  Evarts  a  little  more 
delicately  puts  It  by  charging  her  with  being  fur- 
tive in  her  manner. 

Mr.  Evarts— "  Furtively  glancing." 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  "  furtively  glancing;"  that  is  a  little 
more  eloquent  than  mine,  but  still  it  is  "  furtive."  [Laugh- 
ter.] Well,  gentlemen,  it  is  not,  T  think,  very  surprising 
that  a  lady  who  never  before  appeared  upon  the  witness 
stand  should  be  a  little  embarrassed  and  dashed  by  being 
placed  upon  a  pedestal  to  be  gazed  at  by  several  hundred 
people  during  several  hours  of  a  tedious  examination,  f 
suppose  if  she  had  had  the  freedom  and  the  frolicsomeness 
of  Bessie  Turner,  if  she  could  have  acted  out  wit]  i  the 
spirit  of  that  young  lady  all  the  phases  of  her  testimony, 
why,  she  would  have  recommended  herself  as  far  more 
agreeable  to  Mr.  Evarts  and  his  learned  associates,  and 
to  Plymouth  Church  and  their  gallant  ushers.  [Laugh- 
ter.l She  is  not  precisely  of  that  character.  She  is  not 
accustomed  to  these  public  a^Jitearances.  She  has  not 
that  dramatic  instinct  which  belongs  in  unison  to  Bessie 
Turner  and  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  .some  of  his  dis- 


SUMJUXG    UF  BY  JIB.   BE  ACE. 


959 


taTignistLed  friends.  She  delivered  lier  evidence  "with,  pro- 
priety, vritli  modesty,  and  vritli  reserve,  and  yet  -witli  the 
clearness  and  candor  of  an  intelligent  lady,  speaMng 
from  a  clear  memory.  But  there  may  be,  possihly,  some 
other  solution  to  this  drfficulty.  It  is  barely  possible  that 
Mrs.  Moulton  sa'vr  m  >thing  particularly  attractive  in  the 
appearance  of  my  friend  ilr.  Evarts.  [Laughter.] 

Judge  ZSTeilson— Mr.  Beach,  I  sympathize  vrith  you,  but 
I  don'ti-ee  hovr  you  can  go  on.  This  audience  seems  de- 
termined to  interrupt  you  ;  and  if  you  say  a  happy  thing, 
it  i-  to  be  drovrned  in  the  noise.  It  is  hardly  vrorth  while 
to  proceed. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  I  think  I  vrill  get  along  vrithout 
difuculty.  I  am  Surry  that  an^-thing  I  should  happen  to 
say.  Sir,  should  excite  any  impropriety  in  the  court-room, 
and  I  a^iUie  yuur  Honor  that  it  is  no  particular  pleasure 
to  me— 

Judge  Xeilson — ZSTo,  it  is  no  pleasure  to  you. 

Mr.  Beach  [continuing]— to  excite  such  demonstrations. 

Judge  Xeilson — And  you  ought  to  be  free  from  any 
restraint  in  any  vray.  Mr.  Eogers,  see  if  you  can  dis- 
cover ^ho  it  is  vrho  interrupts  the  proceedings. 

2.1r.  Beach— But  if  Mrs.  Moulton  could  by  possibility 
have  ventured  to  observe  my  learned  fileud  when  he  vras 
so  stem  and  severe  in  his  cross-examination.  I  am  per- 
fectly certain  if  her  eye  had  glanced  beyond  him  and 
seen  the  phalanx  of  Plymouth  Church,  all  arrayed  and 
embattled  before  her,  she  vrould  have  cas-^  dovm  her  eyes 
very  certainly.  It  vras  very  troublesome  for  any  one  to 
face  the  apparent  cond'-r-mnation  and  the  frowning  hos- 
tility of  the  various  interests  which  appeared  at  once 
before  them  when  they  ventured  to  look  abroad,  and  it 
was  tolerably  discreet,  I  think,  and  a  sensible  exhibition 
of  vromanly  modesty  and  reserve  for  ]\Irs.  Moulton  to 
"furtively  glance  "  if  she  had  any  curiosity. 

ME.  BEECHEE'S  ESTEEM  FOE  MES.  MOULTOX. 

You  rememlDcr  the  attack  yrhicli  yras  made 
by  Air.  Tracy  upon  this  lady.  I  do  not  propose  to  repro- 
duce it,  but  to  oppose  to  it  two  or  three  brief  extracts 
of  the  estimate  expressed  from  time  to  time  by  Mr. 
Beecher  in  regard  to  this  lady.  In  the  remarkable  let- 
ter of  June  1,  1873,  2ylr.  Beecher  says  : 

But,  oh,  that  I  could  put  in  golden  letters  my  deep 
sense  of  your  faithful,  earnest,  und^'ing  fidelity,  yoiu"  dis- 
interested friendship.  Your  noble  vrife.  too.  has  been  to 
me  one  of  God's  comforters.  It  is  such  as  she  that  re- 
news a  waning  faith  in  womanhood.  For  a  thousand  en- 
couragements, for  services  that  no  one  can  appreciate 
who  has  not  been  as  sore-hearted  as  I  have  been,  for  youj 
honorable  delicacy,  for  confidence  and  aflection.  I  owe 
you  so  much  that  I  can  neither  express  nor  pay  it,  Xot 
the  least  has  been  the  great-hearted  kin 'Iness  and  trusr 
Avhich  your  noble  wift-  has  shown,  and  which  has  lifted 
me  out  of  despondenc><^s  often,  though  sometimes  her 
clear  truthfulness  has  laid  me  flat.  ' 

And  afterwards  writnig,  he  sends  kindest  remembrance  I 
to  Mrs.  Moulton.   That  was  written  July  14,  1S73.   That  \ 


was  written  after,  according  to  the  theory  of  my  learned 
friends,  this  clerical  gladiator  had  strii^ped  himself  for 
the  fight  and  was  determined  to  resist;  it  was  after  hi3 
memorable  resignation,  or  prepared  i^esignation ;  it  was 
after  he  had  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  he  had  been 
imposed  upon  and  deceived  by  the?e  other  parties;  it 
was  when  he  had  given  up  all  hopes  founded  upon  any 
attempted  suppression  of  this  scandal-  it  was  after  he 
had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  w;^«  bo  safety  for 
him  but  in  revelation  and  contest,  thar  he  bears  this 
tribute  to  the  character  of  the  two  pe'^sons  whom  he 
is  said,  in  June,  1S73,  to  have  considered  his  opponents. 

MES.  MOULTOX'S  COXTEADIOTIOXS. 

At  the  hazard  of  being  somewhat  tedious, 
gentlemen.  I  must  reproduce — and  I  take  it  as  more  brief 
from  the  cross-examination  mostly— a  portion  of  the  tes- 
timony of  this  lady,  bearing,  as  it  does,  upon  several 
points.  Under  the  examination  of  Mr.  Evarts  this  ques- 
tion Ls  put  : 

Q.  Xow,  won't  you  tell  us  what  Mr.  Beecher  said,  the 
language  that  he  used,  as  you  remember  it,  and  go 
through  the  whole  interview  in  that  form  of  what  he  said 
and  of  what  you  said,  if  you  know  what  it  is?  A.  Well, 
he  began  by  saying  that  he  was  depressed  and  discour 
aged  

Q.  Was  this  after  your  husband  went  away  i 
********* 

A.  He  expressed  great  sorrowfor  the  misery  that  he  had 
brought  upon  himself  and  Aii-s.  Tilton,  upon  everybody 
connected  with  the  case,  but  said  that  he  felt  that  he  had 
thoroughly  repented,  and  thai  he  had  been  forgiven,  and 
that  he  was  better  fitted  now  to  preach  than  ever  before ; 
he  expressed  to  me  his  love  for  Elizabeth,  and  his  great 
remorse  and  sorrow  that  she  should  have  ever  confessed 

to  her  husband ;  that  it  had  brought  nothing  but  ;  it 

would  bring  only  ruin  in  the  end  to  all ;  after  lying  on 
the  sofa  a  little  while  he  got  up  and  walked  up  and  down 
the  room  in  a  very  excited  manner,  with  the  tears  stream- 
ing down  his  cheeks,  and  said  that  he  thought  it  was 
very  hard,  after  a  Life  of  usefulness,  that  he  should  be 
brought  to  this  fearful  end,  and  I  said  that  I  thought  it 
was — it  was  very  hard,  and  there  was  only  one  way  out 
of  it  for  him,  there  was  only  one  chance 
for  him  left,  and  that  was  by  confessing  it 
after  walking  up  and  down  for  some  time 
he  sat  down  in  the  chair.  I  stood  behind  nim  and  put  my 
band  on  his  shoulder,  and  I  said:  "Mi-,  Beecher,  if  you 
^vill  only  go  down  to  the  church,  Frank  will  go  with  you ; 
he  will  stand  by  you  through  everything;  it  does  not 
matter  what  comes  to  you,  he  will  always  be  your  friend, 
and,  no  matter  what  comes,  I  will  always  be  yom-  friend 
if  you  will  only  go  down  to  the  church  and  confess,  be- 
cause that  is  the  only  way  out  for  you.  I  am  convinced 
of  that ;  you  can  never  cover  such  a  crime  as  this  and 
continue  in  the  pulpit,  except  through  a  confession  on 
your  ovm  part.  You  have  been  guilty  of  crime,  and  you 
have  got  to  take  the  responsibility  upon  yourself  and 
suffer  the  penalty." 
Now,  it  is  said,  this  is  very  extraordinary  language  for  a 
I  hidy  to  hold  to  a  pa-t  ^r  lilce  >!r.  Beecher,  and  it  would  be 
[  in  the  coolness  of  ordin;-,ry  conversation  and  intercourse  ; 
i  but  you  must  remember  that  a  great  secret  had  been  con« 


960 


lilE  TILTON-BEFAJHEE  TRIAL. 


fided  to  this  lady  concerning  this  great  man.  You  must 
remember  that  her  husband,  in  whose  judgment  she  re- 
lied, was  striving  to  conceal  that  secret  and  protect  Mr. 
Beecher  from  its  consequences.  You  must  remember 
that,  at  this  very  interview,  Mr.  Beecher  was  before  her, 
an  agonized  and  prostrate  man  in  spirit,  confessing  his 
error,  professing  that  he  had  confessed  and  repented  in 
his  private  relations  with  his  Maker  and  Redeemer ;  that 
here  was  a  great  spirit  writhing  axid  tortured  with  the 
remorse  he  felt  for  his  offense;  that  this  lady  was  the 
only  woman  on  earth,  as  he  said,  to  whom  he  could  go 
for  comfort  and  consolation.  This  is  not  a  pretense,  gen- 
tlemen ;  it  appears  in  the  letters  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 
He  acknowledges  the  great  comfort  which  this  woman 
gave  him,  as  a  substitute  for  that  which  in  olden  times 
he  derived  from  Mrs.  Tilton,  but  of  a  different  character 
and  plane.  Under  these  circumstances,  in  a  scene  of 
such  intense  interest,  you  are  not  to  expect,  as  I  have 
before  said  to  you,  that  the  distinctions  and  qualifica- 
tions between  rank  and  station  or  qualities  are 
preserved.  There  is  freedom  not  only  of  expres- 
sion, but  freedom  of  sentiment  and  of  feeling. 
Great  sorrow,  great  excitement  of  any  kind,  associates 
and  equalizes  human  minds  and  hearts :  and  this  woman, 
evincing  precisely  that  faculty  of  which  Mr.  Beecher 
spoke  in  his  letter,  and  which  so  "  often  laid  him  flat"— 
this  woman,  In  the  sincerity  of  her  Christian  spirit  and 
womanly  sympathy,  and  with  the  clearness  of  percep- 
tion which  accompanied  her  through  the  whole  of  her 
eonnection  with  these  transactions,  saw  and  said  that  the 
only  escape  was  by  confession.  Not  simply  repentance 
in  the  closet  and  in  the  prayer,  but  confession  to  his 
church— a  confession  which  would  still  all  the  disturbing 
elements  of  that  congregation ;  a  confession  which  would 
give  peace  and  quiet  to  the  stormy  elements  of  their  com- 
mittees and  their  deacons— which  would  still  West,  which 
would  satisfy  HalUday  and  Bell  and  all  the  others  who 
were  distrustful  or  uneasy  at  the  situation  between  Mr. 
Beecher,  this  scandal  and  the  congregation.  And  this  ad- 
vice of  this  lady  appealed  to  the  j  udgment  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
as  expressed  in  his  cooler  and  better  moments.  Iti  one  of 
Lis  sermons  he  says: 

The  man  who  has  been  wallowing  in  li^st,  the  man  who 
has  been  on  fire  in  his  passions,  and  y^o  by  God's  great 
goodness  has  been  brought  to  an  hour  and  a  moment 
when,  with  the  lurid  light  of  revelation,  his  monstrous 
wickedness  stands  disclosed  to  him,  and  all  excuses  are 
swept  away,  and  the  impulsejto  reform  is  at  last  g^- 
erated  in  him— that  i^an  ought  not  to  wait  so  long  as  fhe 
drawing  of  his  breath.  Wherever  he  is,  no  matter  how 
decorous  his  audience  may  be,  if  he  does  the  thing  that  i^ 
safest  and  best  he  will  rise  in  hi^lac©  and  make  confes- 
sion. Though  it  be  in  the  church,  and  it  bi'eak  the  order 
and  routine  of  service,  he  will  stand  up  and  say,  "  Here  I 
am,  a  sinner,  and  I  confess  my  sin,  and  I  oall  on 
God  to  witness  my  determination  from  fhis  hour 
to  turn  away  from  it."  That  Is  the  wise  course, 
ai)d  you  would  thiiik  so  if  it  was  anybody  but 
yourself. 


Gentlemen,  that  sermon  was  delivered  on  the  20th  day 
of  December,  1868. 
Mrs.  Moulton  proceeds: 

And  he  said :  "  Well,  I  never  gather  much  comfort  from 
you ;  you  are  always  to  me  like  a  section  of  the  Day  of 
Judgment."  And  I  said :  "  Well,  I  feel  great  sympathy 
for  you ;  but  I  do  n't  see  how  you  can  continue  in  this 
sort  of  life— living  a  lie;  going  into  your  pulpit  and 
preaching  Sunday  after  Sunday."  I  said :  "  I  have  never 
heard  you  preach  since  I  knew  the  truth  that  I  haven't 
felt  that  I  was  standing  by  an  open  grave ;  I  cannot  ex- 
press to  you  the  anguish  and  the  sorrow  that  it  bag 
caused  me  to  know  what  I  have  of  your  life.  I  believed 
in  you  since  I  was  a  girl— believed  you  were  the  only 
good  man  in  this  world.  Now  it  has  destroyed  my  faith 
in  human  nature.  I  don't  believe  m  anybody;  I  do  n't 
go  to  church— all  my  interest  in  the  church  and  in  you  is 
gone,  and  I  am  sure  I  cannot  respect  you  unless  you 
manifest  to  me  that  you  are  sincerely  re- 
pentant, by  going  down  to  the  church  and 
confessing  your  crime.  It  is  very  hard  for 
Mr.  Tilton  to  be  abused  by  your  friends,  and  to  be 
charged  with  treating  his  family  ill— his  unkindness  to 
his  wife— while  he  feels  that  you  are  principally  the 
cause  of  all  his  trouble.  It  is  very  hard  for  him ;  it  is 
very  hard  for  all  concerned.  If  you  are  only  a  mind  to 
take  this  case  into  your  own  hands,  you  can  settle  it  by 
confession.  Your  people  will  stand  by  you ;  they  believe 
in  you ;  they  will  forgive  this  one  crime  that  you  say 
you  have  committed,  and  which  you  have— which  you 
say  you  have— sincerely  repented  for,  and  you  believe 
you  have  been  forgiven,  and  you  feel  that  you  are  better 
able  now  than  ever  before  to  do  great  good  in  this  world, 
if  you  can  only  be  allowed  to  go  on  to  the  end  of  your 
life  without  all  the  particulars  of  this  case  being  made 
known ;  that  is  all  that  you  ask ;  and  if  the  facts  are  to 
come  out  you  want  to  go  out  of  life ;  that  you  cannot 
live;  that  you  cannot  endure  it  any  longer ;  physically 
and  mentally  you  are  worn  out,  and  it  is  only  with  the 
greatest  care  that  you  have  been  able  to  preach  Sunday 
after  Sunday." 

Mr.  Evarts  interrupted  the  witness  and  finally  says : 

My  inquiry,  if  your  Honor  please,  was  whether  this 
last  was  what  she  said  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  was  in  the 
form  of  what  she  advised  him  to  say  to  his  people. 

The  Witness— I  don't  know  that  I  ever  stated  to  him 
what  the  confession  should  be  to  the  church.  I  simi)ly 
left— I  left  that  to  him.  He  knew  what  his  confession  to 
the  church  could  be  better  than  I  could— how  much  he 
was  to  confess. 

Q.  I  understand  your  form  of  expression  in  this  latter 
part  to  have  been  of  what  you  told  him  he  should  tell  his 
people.  A.  This  was  my  conversation  with  him ;  I  sim- 
ply said  to  him  that  I  thought  he  should  make  a  confes- 
sion to  his  people. 

Now,  a  great  deal  has  been  said  about  the  improbabil 
ity  of  the  idea  tjiat  this  lady  should  make  this  suggestion 
that  Mr.  Beecher  should  go  to  his  church  and  make  a  bold 
and  naked  confession  of  'all  the  details,  thetdisgusting 
particulars  of  his  offense,  and  it  is  said  that  it  was  im- 
probable advice  for  any  lady  or  anybody  else  to  give  to 
this  pastor.  Well,  it  i«  Christia^n  advice,  gentlemen.  It 
is  such  advice  as  Henry  Ward  Bcdcher  gave  In  Decem- 
ber, 1868,  in  a  public  sermon.  It  is  *be  only  way  of  ob- 
taining forgiveness  for  siii  and  a  l  econciliatiou  with  an 


SmmflNG    UP  BY  JlF.  BFACR, 


961 


offended  law-giver.  It  is  what  this  woman  had  "been 
taught,  and  she,  in  the  sincerity  and  earnestness  of  her 
sympathy  and  aflfection  for  this  man.  said  to  him  what 
every  Christian,  stirred  to  his  or  her  heart's  core  hy  an 
exhibition  of  such  suffering  and  penitence  on  the  part  of 
a  great  spirit,  would  at  once  and  instinctively  have  said  : 
"You  are  struggling  Avith  the  world,  :Mr.  Beecher  ;  you 
have  committed  a  great  sin,  and  by  penitence  and  con- 
fession to  God  you  have  obtained,  as  you  say,  his  for- 
giveness ;  but  yoii  are  involved  in  a  whirlpool 
of  secular  difficulties— your  church  is  distracted, 
you  are  preaching  a  falsehood  by  your  appearance  in 
the  pulpit  with  this  unconfessed  sin  and  with 
the  semblance  of  purity,  before  your  congregation;  you 
are  giving  cause  of  offense;  you  are  scandalizing  the 
pulpit;  you  are  dissevering  your  congregation;  you  are 
fomenting  and  continuing  this  scandal,  which  is  festering 
into  the  morality  .of  the  community.  The  only  escape, 
the  only  way  of  relieving  and  extricating  yoiirself  from 
this  trouble  is  to  make  some  confession  a  truthful  con- 
f  essiob,  not  necessarily  aggravated  by  details  or  by  vul- 
garities, but  confess  your  sin,  plead  the  forgiveness  of 
your  God,  and  your  willingness  and  your  ability  and  yoiu' 
resolution  to  serve  Him  truly,  sincerely,  and  without 
hypocrisy.  That  is  peace;  that  is  obedience  to  God;  and 
it  is  the  only  salvation  for  you.  Far  better,  far  better 
than  to  contemplate  the  possibility  of  rashly  fleeing  from 
your  responsibility  here  to  meet  the  dread  responsibility 
of  a  hereafter." 

Very  well;  you  can  go  on  now.  A.  Mr.  Beecher  then 
spoke  to  me  of  coming  some  time,  either  the  next  day— 
to  bring  me  some  mementoes  which  he  wished  to  give  to 
his  fi-iends— something  to  Mrs.  Tilt  on— asked  me  always 
to  respect  and  care  for  her,  and  be  kind  to  her ;  that  she 
was  not  a  bad  woman  at  heart;  that  she  had  sinned 
through  her  affections. 

Q.  Well  ?  A.  I  only  remember  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  in 
a  very  excited  condition  of  mind  on  that  day ;  that  he 
told  me  very  positively  that  he  should  take  his  life,  and 
I  i)elieved  him  when  he  said  so. 

Q.  You  did  believe  him  ?  A.  I  believed  him  at  that 
time. 

Q.  Yes ;  well  ?  A.  And  I  rebuked  him  and  told  him  of 
how  much  I  regretted  that  he  had  committed  this  sin, 
because  I  had  believed  in  him  ;  how  it  had  destroyed  all 
my  faith  in  human  nature ;  his  only  reply  was  that  he 
had  repented  and  he  believed  that  he  had  been  forgiven  ; 
still  he  suffered  greatly,  fearing  it  would  come  to  light ; 
that  the  truth  would  all  be  made  known  ;  that  he  suffered 
first  for  the  sake  of  the  woman  who  had  given  her  love 
to  him,  for  the  sake  of  his  children  ;  he  said  that  he 
would — ^that  his  children,  of  course,  would  despise  him  ; 
that  he  could  never  go  baek  to  his  house,  and  then  I  said : 
"  You  could  go  up  to  your  farm,"  &c. 

*  *  *  *  Hr  *  * 

Q;  Well,  did  he  come  anywhere  near  that  time  and 
have  a  further  talk  witlj  yon  on  the  subject  1  A.  He 
came  soon  after  ;  referred  to  this  depression  on  that  day, 
but  said  that  he  felt  more  hopeful ;  that  h6  thought  that 
his  card  in  The  Bagle  was  only  temporary  relief ;  he  was 
livjiiiT  in  a  fear  of— a  constant  fear  and  anxiety,  not 
kno^^-i»g  at  what  time  Mr.  Tilion  might  break  out  with 


And  then  she  speaks  of  the  time  of  day  when  he  came 
on  the  2d  of  June,  which  was  early  in  the  morning. 

Q.  Now,  where  did  any  inteiview  occur  in  which  he 
sent  any  messages  by  you  to  Mrs.  Tilton.  and  how  did  it 
come  about  J  A.  He  always  askea  me  to  bear  his  love  to 
her? 

Q.  He  what  ?  A.  To  take  his  love  to  her  % 
Q.  Do  you  say  ahvays?   A.  I  think  nearly  always  sent 
liis  love  to  her. 

Q.  Well?  A.  Wanted  me  to  find  out  if  there  was  any- 
thing she  was  in  need  of— any  luxury,  any  little  comforts 
she  needed;  if  so,  to  let  him  know,  and  after  I  had  re- 
peated to  him  a  conversation  I  had  had  with  Mrs.  Tilton 
when  she  felt  that  she  could  not  live  with  Mr.  Tilton  any 
longer,  and  was  going  to  live  with  her  mother,  he  told 
me  expressly  to  see  her  and  say  to  her  from  him  that, 
for  his  sake,  if  not  for  her  own,  she  must  remain  with 
]VIr.  Tilton;  she  must  be  to  him  a  good  and  true  wife  ;  to 
make  his  home  as  happy  as  she  could. 

MK.   BEECHEE'S  ADVICE   OF  SEPARATION. 

Now,  it  ha^  been  argued  in  this  case,  gentle- 
men, that  it  was  highly  improbaljle  that  Mr.  Beecher,  an 
adulterer,  should  have  advised  Mrs.  Tilton  to  separate 
from  her  husband ;  but  you  will  remember  that  from  the 
time  of  the  confession  in  July,  1870,  until  the  latter  part 
of  December,  IS 70,  Mr.  Beecher  had  no  information  or 
suspicion  that  there  had  been  any  revelation  by  Mrs. 
Tilton  in  regard  to  their  intercourse.  During  that  inter- 
vening six  months,  Mr.  Beecher  felt  as  perfectly  safe, 
and  conflflent,  in  his  trust  in  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  in  his  reli- 
ance upon  her  discretion,  as  he  had  felt  in  the  preceding 
period  from  October,  1868.  Well,  then  there  was  no  in- 
consistency or  improbability  in  liis  so  advising  during 
that  period;  which  was  the  period  in  which  he  advised 
separation,  if  he  advised  it  at  all.  His  advice  wa«,  ac- 
cording to  the  little  note  he  wrote,  separation  with  pro- 
vision for  the  support  of  Mrs.  Tilton  by  her  hiLsband. 
How  did  that  embarrass  Mr.  Beecher  1  How  did  that  in- 
terfere with  his  schemes  of  indulgence,  if  he  had  any  1 
How  did  that  tend  to  his  exposure  t  Not  at  all.  Separa- 
tion would  rather  facilitate  his  piu-poses,  would  rather 
tend  to  concealment,  and  if,  after  his  wife  had  left  his 
home  and  protection,  Theodore  Tilton  had  made  any 
complaint  of  this  character,  why  it  would  have  been  at 
once  attributed  to  iriltation  and  revenge,  springing 
out  of  the  separation  produced  by  this  advice. 
It  was  therefore  in  this  condition  of  ignorance  that  he 
gave  whatever  qualified  advice  he  did  give  toward  a 
separation;  but  after  Decemb^,  1870,  when  Mrs.  Tilton 
complained,  spoke  of  any  design  or  inclination  to 
separate  from  her  husband,  this  injunction  from  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  was  sent  to  her,  to  continue  to  live  with 
her  husband,  and  to  make  the  home  peaceful  and  happy 
which  he  had  invaded.  More  of  that  you  wall  see : 
-  Qi  JDid  you  ever  carry  any  message's  from  him  to  her  t 
A.''  Sil*.  Q.  And  from  her  to  him  i^f  so,  state  what 
those  messages  wer^l  A.I  repeated  to  Mr.  Beecher  a 
conversation  which  I  had  with  Mrs.  Tilton  ;  she  said  she 
fcfit  very  sorry  for  me.  even  more  sympathy  for  me  than 


963 


THE   TILTON-BEEGHEB  TBIAL, 


for  herself,  because  that  I  had  lost  faith  in  Mr.  Beecher  ; 
because  I  was  unable  any  longer  to  attend  the  church;  sho 
begged  me  to  go  back  to  the  chui'ch  and  believe  in  Mr. 
Beecher;  and  I  said,  "  Elizabeth,  how  can  you  ask  me  to  go 
back  to  the  church?  how  can  you  ask  me  to  take  the  com- 
munion from  his  hands,  knowing  what  I  do  of  his  life  ? " 
and  she  said,  "  I  want  you  to  belie  ve  in  him ;  he  is  a  good 
man ;  it  was  not  his  fault ;  he  is  not  responsible  for  the 
crime ;  I  am  the  one  that  is  to  blame ;  I  invited  it ;  "  and 
I  said,  "I  think  that  I  might  hear  Mr.  Beecher  preach, 
and  perhaps  derive  some  benefit  from  his  sermons  ;  but 
I  can  never  go  back  to  the  chui-ch  with  the  same  faith 
that  I  had  in  him  years  ago." 

Q.  Did  you  report  this  conversation  to  Mr.  Beecher  % 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  soon  after  the  conversation  occurred  1  A.  Per- 
haps a  day  or  two  after ;  I  don't  exactly  remember  how 
soon. 

Q.  Now,  had  you  any  further  conversation  with  Eliza- 
Ijeth  that  you  reported  to  Mr.  Beecher  ?  A.  I  had. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  what  it  was?  A.  I  think  it  was 
at  the  time  that  Mr.  Beecher  was— Mr.  Tilton  appeared 
down  at  the  church— that  I  called  to  see  Elizabeth,  and  I 
said :  "If  you  are  called  before  the  church,  what  are  you 
going  to  do  to  save  Mr.  Beecher?"  She  said:  "I  shall 
sacrifice  my  husband,  and  deny  everything."  I  said  : 
*'  Will  you  allow  your  husband  to  go  down  with  the 
truth?"  She  said:  "I  think  I  should  be  .iustifled  in 
stating  falsely  under  the  circumstances ;  I  think  for  the 
sake  of  Mr.  Beecher,  for  the  sake  of  the  influence  on  the 
world,  for  my  own  position,  for  my  children,  I  think  it  is 
my  duty  to  deny  it." 

Q.  And  did  you  report  this  to  Mr.  Beecher  1  A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  reply,  if  any,  did  he  make  ?  A.  He  said : 
^*  Poor  child,  she  is  trying  to  repair  the  wrong  she  has 
done  in  confessing  it— in  confessing  her  sin.  But  it  is  too 
late."  *     *  * 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  what  that  message  was?  A.  T 
once  repeated  to  Mr.  Beecher  a  conversation  that  I  had 
had  with  Mrs.  Tilton  when  she  felt  that  she  could  no 
longer  remain  with  Mr.  Tilton ;  that  he  was  continually 
referring  to  this  sin  which  she  had  committed ;  that  he 
would  not  let  it  die  out ;  that  he  would  not  give  her  an 
opportunity- 
Mr.  Evarts— Mrs.  Moulton,  is  this  what  you  said  t©  Mr. 
Beecher  ? 

Mr.  FuUerton— So  she  states. 

The  Witness— And  that  she  felt  she  could  not  live  with 
him  any  longer,  tnat  she  was  going  home  to  live  with  her 
mother.  Mr.  Beecher  said  :  "  Tell  Elizabeth  for  me  that 
for  my  sake  she  must  continue  to  live  with  Theodore,  to 
be  to  him  a  good  wife,  to  make  his  home  happy  and  as 
attractive  as  possible.  I  know  it  is  hard  ;  I  know  she 
has  much  to  endure  ;  but  she  must  do  it  for  my  sake,  for 
her  own,  and  for  the  children.  I  have  a  family  ;  she  has 
nothing  to  hope  with  me,  and  the  only  way  in  which  she 
can  ever  see  me  is  by  living  with  Theodore,  and  living  to 
him  a  good  and  true  wife." 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  again,  what  reasons  she  gave  for 
wishing  to  leave  her  husband.  A.  Because  Mr.  Tilton 
was  referring  to  this  sin  which  she  had  committed. 

Q,  And  would  not  permit  her  to  do  what  ?  A.  He 
would  not  permit  her  to  live  a  better  life  with  him." 

A  single  word  more,  gentlemen. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  asking  her  whether  she  should 
support  her  husband  in  a  charge  against  Mr.  Beecher,  or 
if  she  should  not,  and  her  answer  being  made,  to  you, 
lli.it  if  there  ever  came  a  controversy,  she  should  speak 
t       -  til  ^   A,  No,  sir  ;  T  Tiever  remember  that. 


Q.  You  don't  remember  that  1  A.  No,  Sir. 

This  is  on  the  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Evarts  : 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  her  on  the  tiuestion  of  which  side 
she  should  take  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  express  an  opinion  as  to  which  side  she 
ought  to  take  ?  A.  I  don't  remember  that  I  did.  *  *  * 

Q.  And  did  she  not  then  tell  you  that  whenever  the  in- 
quiry came  she  would  teU  the  truth  ?  A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  she  tell  you  that  she  should  not  tell  the  truth  I 
A.  She  told  me  distinctly  that  she  should  sacrifice  hei 
husband  and  deny  everything  for  Mr.  Beecher ;  that  she 
believed,  under  the  circumstances,  that  she  would  be 
justified  in  telling  a  lie. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  reproduced  this  evidence  to 
you  so  that  you  might  have  it  in  mind  and  might  judge 
of  the  propriety  and  force  of  the  argimient  submitted 
upon  the  part  of  my  learned  friends  with  reference  to  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  narrative  which  this  lady  gives 
What  I  have  read  to  you  is  pronounced  by  Henry  War^ 
Beecher  an  entire  fabrication.  He  takes  the  stand  and; 
in  face  of  all  the  other  evidence,  denies  that  the  state- 
ment of  the  lady,  in  any  of  its  essential  particulars,  is 
true,  and  you  are  to  come  to  the  conclusion,  if  Mr. 
Beecher  is  to  be  credited,  that  the  lady,  either  spontane- 
ously or  at  the  prompting  of  somebody  else,  has  invented 
the  whole  of  this  relation.  Well,  it  requires  some  little 
ingenuity  to  accomplish  such  a  feat.  It  would  be  difficult 
for  even  as  keen  and  shrewd  a  mind  as  Henry  Ward 
Beecher's,  to  invent  and  successfully  maintain,  under  a 
rigid  and  close  cross-examination  without  any  of  those 
evidences  which  show  a  manufacture  and  arrangement, 
a  story  of  this  complex  character.  If  this  lady  on 
her  cross-examination  had  repeated  in  exact  and 
precise  form  the  conversations  as  she  gave  them 
in  her  direct  examination,  one  might  well  have 
had  some  suspicions  in  regard  to  her  candor 
and  truth ;  but  evidently  she  speaks  impulsively— 
she  speaks  from  impressions  received  from  some  source, 
and  indelibly  imprinted  on  her  mind.  There  is  no  ar- 
rangement ;  there  is  no  mechanism  ;  there  is  no  formality 
She  gives  in  different  arrangement  and  in  different  form, 
upon  her  two  examinatious,  the  same  substantial  facts; 
she  gives  all  the  evidences  of  purity  and  truth  so  far  as  we 
can  judge  by  those  rules  given  to  us  by  the  wisdom  of  the 
law.  Do  you  believe  that  that  lady  invented  the  language, 
"  I  never  gather  much  comfort  from  you  ;  "  "  You  lay  me 
flat,"  "  You  seem  to  be  a  section  of  the  day  of  judgment  ? " 
Did  Mrs.  Moulton  eve»  conceive  an  expression  of  that 
character  ?  And  if  this  narrative  had  been  of  her  own 
manufacture  would  she,  a  lady,  unversed  in  expressions 
of  that  kind,  would  she  have  placed  in  that  narrative  such 
au  expression  ?  Who  doubts  that  it  was  the  utterance  of 
Mr.  Beecher  ?  Entirely  consistent  with  his  habit  of  rhet- 
oric, and  his  modes  of  expression,  and  utterly  unlike  the 
mode  of  thought  ar  of  speech  of  a  woman  of  domestic 
character  1  You  probably  have  not  forgotten  an  incident 
which  occurred  in  the  course  of  her  examination. 
While    she    was    detailing,    upon  cross-examination. 


SUM3nNG    UP  BY  MB.  BEACH. 


963 


•Q    Intervle-w    with     Mr.     Beeclier,    Mr.     Beecher  | 
leans    over    and     suggests     to     liis     counsel     tlie  1 
question    whether   Mrs.    Moulton  did    not  kiss  him.  j 
She  admits  she  did ;  that  while  he  sat  weeping  and  moan- 
ing and  grieving  in  his  chair  she,  under  the  deep  excite- 
ment of  that  moment,  leaned  over  his  shoulder  and  im- 
printed a  Mss  on  his  forehead.  What  was  the  object  of 
that  suggestion  1 

Mr.  Evart5— My  object  was  to  show  she  kissed  him 
whenever  she  met  him,  as  Mr.  Beecher  testified. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir,  Mr.  Beecher  had  not  then  testified. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  hut  he  did  testify  afterwards.  j 

Mr.  Beach— No  matter  what  your  object  was,  we  know 
what  the  question  was. 

Mr.  Evarts— My  question  was  that. 

Mr.  Beach — And  we  know  how  it  came  in. 

Mr.  Evarta — My  question  was  that. 

Mr.  Beach— Your  question  was  what  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— As  to  his  mode  of  salutation. 

Mr.  Beach— You  asked  her  whether  she  did  not  Mss  him. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Then. 

Mr.  Evarts— Not  a  word  of  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  made  the  suggestion  myself  to  Mr. 
Evar+s. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  question  will  show  for  itself. 
Mr.  Shearman— The  whole  idea  of.  that  is  nonsense,  in 
my  opinion. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  an  interruption  for  correction  I 
have  not  the  slightest  objection  to  submitting  to,  and  I 
rather  court  it,  for  I  don't  wish  to  reason  upon  a  false 
premise,  but  when  counsel  take  that  occasion  to  say 
that  Mr.  Beecher  did  n't  make  that  suggestion  when  he 
swore  that  he  did,  and  that  he,  Mr.  Shearman,  made  it 
himself,  it  is  over-stepping  the  bounds  of  professional 
right  and  endurance.  [Applause.] 

Judge  Neil  son— Officer  Eogers,  you  will  see  that  these 
demonstrations  are  not  repeated.  You  will  arrest  any 
one  that  does  it. 

Mr.  Fullerton— I  think  it  was  the  whole  audience. 

Judge  Neilson— I  have  tried  to  reason  with  this  audi- 
ence until  I  see  it  is  perfectly  idle  to  do  so.  The  other 
officers  will  also  pay  attention  strictly  to  discovering  who 
are  the  disturbers. 

Mr.  Morris— It  grows  out  of  these  interruptions. 

ME.  BEECBER'S  ALIBI. 

Mr.  Beach — But,  jsrentlemen,  the  whole  credi- 
bility of  this  lady  is  placed  upon  one  issue,  and  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  meeting  that  issue.  She  puts  this  inter\iew 
on  the  2d  of  June,  1873.  Mr.  Beecher  swears  he  was  nat 
at  the  house  of  Mr.  Moiilton  upon  that  occasion.  Mr. 
Tracy  in  his  opening  thus  speaks  of  it : 

But,  gentlemen,  there  remains  a  srraver  fact  than  any 
to  which  I  have  yet  referred.  You  will  observe  that  :Mrs. 
Moulton  fixed  the  principal  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher 
upon  Monday,  the  2d  of  June,  1S73.  She  has  identified 
that  day  with  great  particularity,  and  left  no  room  for 


misapprehension  as  to  date.  She  has  also  fixed  the 
length  of  that  interview  at  four  hours,  by  reference  to 
circumstances  which  cannot  now  be  explained  away. 
The  motive  for  naming  this  day  is  obvious.  There  were 
but  two  days  on  which,  even  according  to  the  plaintiflTs 
theory,  the  idea  of  suicide  could  possibly  have  been 
talked  about,  namely,  May  31  and  June  2,  1873.  And 
Mrs.  Moulton  was  required  to  confirm  her  husband's 
story  of  Mr.  Beecher's  contemplated  suicide  on  May  31, 
which  was  Saturday.  The  testimony  of  'Mr.  Moulton  has 
left  no  room  for  a  four  hour's'  inteiwiew  between  his  wife 
and  Mr.  Beecher.  The  next  Monday  was  therefore 
chosen  as  the  only  available  day,  and  it  has  been  speci- 
fied, I  repeat,  with  the  utmost  particularity.  The  subject 
of  this  pretended  conversation,  and  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  had,  are  such  as  to  make  it  certain 
that  it  either  took  place  on  June  2.  1873,  or  never  took 
place  at  all. 

Gentlemen,  in  aU  this  the  interposition  of  Divine  Provi- 
dence is  most  siugularly  manifest.  For,  upon  that  very 
morning  of  June  2, 1873,  Mr.  Beecher  was  detained  at 
his  own  house  in  consultation  with  a  gentleman  weU 
known  to  you  all ;  and  at  the  verv  time  at  which,  accord- 
ing to  Mrs.  Moulton,  she  was  tucMng  him  up  on  her  sofa, 
and  encouraging  him  to  confess,  he  was  seated  by  the 
side  of  his  own  wife,  and  speeding  his  way  to  Peekskill ! 

Mr.  Beecher  sustained  by  his  oath  the  theory  of  the 
opening,  and  the  question  is,  whether  tmder  this  evi- 
dence they  have  sustained  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr.  Tracy,  you 
know,  in  his  opening,  predicted  that  after  this  evidence 
should  be  given,  it  would  be  so  satisfactory  and  convinc- 
iug  that  Mrs.  Moulton  would  at  once  come  back  upon  the 
stand  and  attribute  another  venue  to  the  conversation- 
place  it  upon  another  day.  On  the  contrary,  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton came  on  the  stand  and  adhered  to  her  original  state- 
ment. I  think  I  may  as  well,  if  your  Honor  please,  ask 
your  attention  at  this  point  to  an  authority  or  two  upon 
the  evidence  requisite  to  maintain  an  alibi.  In  one  sense, 
perhaps,  not  its  usual  and  ordinary  one,  this  is  a  defense 
of  alibi. 

Wharton  on  Homicide,  in  the  note  at  Section  652,  quot- 
ing from  Mr.  Webster's  case,  says:  "This is  a  defense 
often  attempted  by  contrivance  —  subornation  and 
perjury.  The  proof,  therefore,  offered  to  sustain  it  is  to  be 
subjected  to  a  rigid  scrutiny,  because  without  attempting 
to  control  or  rebut  the  evidence  of  facts  sustaining  the 
charge,  it  attempts  to  prove  affirmatively  and  in  part 
wholly  inconsistent  with  it— and  this  defense  is  equally 
available,  if  satisfactorily  established,  to  avoid  the  force 
of  positive,  as  of  circumstantial  evidence." 

Judge  Neilson— And  mainly  applies  to  identity. 

:Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir.  Not  that  exactly.  It  is  for  the 
purpose  of  showing,  where  an  offense  is  attributed  to  an 
individual,  the  possibility  of  his  committing  it,  and  the 
fact  that  at  the  time  he  was  at  another  place.  The  princi- 
ple applies  here. 

Mr.  Allison,  in  the  second  volume  of  his  treatise  on  the 
criminal  law  of  Scotland,  says : 

One  of  the  most  ordinary  pleas  resorted  to  by  a  panel- 
that  is,  an  accused— is  that  of  alibi,  and  doubtless  when 
duly  qualified  and  fully  proved  it  is  among  the  most 
effectual  of  any— but  it  requires  to  be  carefully  scrutinized 
both  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  and  the  tofer- 
ence  to  be  drawn  from  the  fa^ts  if  fuUy  proved,  be- 


964 


THE   TILTON-BEECREB  TRIAL. 


cause  the  plea  is  not  conclusive  unless  the  alibi  is  circum- 
Btaoced  and  qualified  in  such  a  manner  as  makes  it  not 
only  unlikely,  but  impossible,  that  the  panel  could  have 
done  the  deed  as  the  time  and  place  libeled.  The  proof 
of  alibi  is  in  most  cases  a  direct  impeachment  of  the 
veracity  of  the  prosecutor's  witnesses  which  is  not  to  be 
admitted  on  higher  grounds,  and  because  it  is  a  plea  of 
that  short  and  simiile  sort,  with  respect  to  which  the 
panel's  witnesses  can  easily  contrive  an  uniform  and 
false  story,  such  as  the  prosecutor  can  or  will  disprove, 
as  he  can  cite  no  new  witnesses  in  reply. 

That  must  be  under  the  law  of  Scotland. 

Indeed,  as  the  circumstances  may  be  true  and  the  false- 
hood lie  only  in  applying  them  to  a  different  day  or  hour 
from  that  on  which  they  actually  occurred,  and  it  is  by 
that  contrivance  that  pleas  of  alibi  are  in  general  rendered 
so  difficult  to  disprove. 

Now,  Sir,  with  your  permission,  I  will  adopt,  as  the 
most  concise  and  accurate  argument  I  can  present  upon 
the  two  branches  of  this  defense  of  alibi,  an  article  which 
I  obeerved  in  a  New-York  journal  of  April  5, 1875,  as  it 
is  a  strict  consideration  of  the  two  questions  whether 
there  may  not  be  a  variation  as  to  time  and  place  and 
yet  the  evidence  assailed  be  true,  notwithstanding  an 
aliM  may  be  proved  as  of  the  precise  time  and  place 
about  which  the  conversation  is  often  located,  and  then 
as  to  the  character  of  the  alibi  itself : 

All  those  who  have  read  the  examinations  and  cross- 
examinations  of  witnesses  on  this  trial,  must  have  been 
impressed  with  the  apparently  imdue  importance  given 
by  both  sides  to  the  memory  of  the  exact  date  of  an  event 
which  occurred  between  three  and  six  years  ago.  And 
now,  as  readers  know,  there  is  said  to  be  expectation  of 
a  great  point  in  favor  of  Mr.  Beeoher,  by  showing  that  as 
he  was  elsewhere  on  the  2d  day  of  June,  1873,  he  could 
not  have  been  with  Mrs.  Moulton  on  that  day,  when  she 
testified  that  he  made  certain  confessions  to  her.  That, 
of  course,  is  clear  enough.  If  Mr.  Beecher  were  at  Peeks- 
kill  or  in  the  office  of  The  Christian  Union  all  that  day, 
the  interview,  as  alleged,  could  not  have  taken  place. 
But  as  far  as  the  public  judgment  goes,  tliis  is  a  compara- 
tively small  matter.  The  svibstance  of  that  allegation, 
the  gravamen  of  that  evidence,  was  not  that  the  inter- 
view happened  on  the  2d  of  June,  but  that  Mr.  Beecher 
made,  about  that  time,  certain  admissions  to  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton. Now,  we  all  know  that  a  mistake  in  a  date  is  the 
easiest  of  all  mistakes  to  make,  and  such  a  mistake 
does  not  at  all  invalidate,  in  the  general  judgment, 
the  testimony  of  an  otherwise  truthful-seeming 
witness  who  makes  it.  Which  of  us,  undertaking  to  de- 
scribe an  interview  so  interesting  to  us  that  we  remember 
the  minutest  particulars  of  it,  would  be  sure  about  the 
date,  perhaps  within  a  week,  even  if  it  happened  six 
months  ago.  Mr.  Beecher's  advisers  may  be  sijire  that 
they  cannot  lead  the  public  to  set  aside  such  testimony 
as  Mrs.  Moulton's  by  this  plea  of  alibi. 

The  plea  of  alibi  is  a  good  defense,  the  very<t>e8t,  when 
it  can  be  thoroughly  well  sustained,  and  when  it  is  appli- 
cable. But  in  the  very  nature  of  thiAgs  it  is  applicable 
only  to  events  the  date  of  the  occurrence  of  which  is  un- 
mistakable. 

This  portion  of  this  argument  I  think  very  sagaciou-^; 
and  so«nd. 

In  cases  of  murder,  robbery,  assault,  arson,  and  the 
like,  the  date  is  fixed.  It  is  an  absolute  factor  in  the 
problem.   We  know  that  at  such  au  hour,  or  within  a  very 


few  hours,  the  man  was  killed,  the  robbery  committed, 
the  house  fired.  In  such  cases,  to  show  satisfactorily  that 
a  man  charged  with  the  crime  was  in  another  place,  alibis 
than  that  in  which  it  was  committed,  at  the  time  witbin 
which  it  must  have  been  committed,  is  an  all-sufficient 
defense.  But  this  does  not  apply  in  common  sense,  how- 
ever it  may  in  law,  to  an  interview  with  a  woman  which 
happened  nearly  two  years  ago.  For  the  absolute  factor 
in  the  problem  is  wanting.  It  is  quite  irapossible,  for 
instance,  that  Mrs.  Moulton  could  make  any  mistake  as 
to  the  nature  of  a  certain  interview  which  she  alleges  she 
had  with  Mr.  Beecher,  or  as  to  the  substance  of  what  she 
alleges  that  he  then  said  to  her— quite  impossible,  with- 
out deliberate  perjury  on  her  part.  But  nothing  is  more 
possible  than  that  she  might  mistake  the  date  of  that  in- 
terview by  some  days— nothing,  hardly,  more  probable 
than  that  she  should  do  so,  after  such  a  length  of  time» 
even  with  the  best  effort  of  recollection,  and  with 
all  the  means  of  so  doing  accessible  to  her^ 
This  all  reasonable  men  and  women  well  know,  and  they 
wiU  not  be  ready  to  believe  that  Mrs.  Moulton  invented 
that  remarkable  interview  which  she  described  so  clearly, 
and  yet  with  such  modest  reserve,  merely  because  she 
may  have  been  wrong,  although  positive,  as  to 
a  date.  They  will  be  far  readier  to  believe  that 
she  might  forget  whether  a  certain  day  was  num- 
bered (invisibly)  1,  2,  3,  or  4,  tiian  that  she  could  invent 
such  a  Beecherism,  and  one  so  appropriate  to  the  alleged 
situation,  as  styling  her  "  a  slice  of  the  day  of  judgment."^ 
Mr.  Beecher's  advisers  must  not  lead  him  to  rest  too 
strongly  on  his  alibi. 

And  I  see  the  author  of  that  article,  in  quoting  the  ex- 
pression which  it  seems,  to  wit,  to  him  a  very  clear  Beech- 
erism, has  made  the  mistake  of  calling  it  "  a  slice  of  the 
day  of  judgment,"  probably  having  in  recollection  that 
Coleridge,  in  one  of  his  letters,  uses  the  term,  "  a  huge 
slice  of  eternity."  Now,  those  remarks  are  sensible  j 
they  are  lawyerlike  as  weU  as  practical.  But  I  do  not 
adopt  that  theory.  If  I  was  satisfied  that  Mrs.  Moulton; 
was  wrong  in  fixing  this  conversation  on  the  2d  day  of 
June,  I  should  submit  to  you  with  great  eaniestness  the 
principle  of  that  discussion.  But  she  is  not  wrong,  gen- 
tlemen. Mr.  Beecher  swears  that  on  the  morning  of  the 
2d  day  of  June,  between  9  and  10  o'clock,  I  think  (and  I 
hope  to  be  corrected  as  to  horns  if  I  mistake),  between  9 
and  10  o'clock  Mr.  Beechier  swears  that  he  was  at  his 
house  in  consultation  with  Mr.  Kinsella  as  to  the  form  of 
the  card  which  was  published  at  2  o'clock  of  that  day. 
In  the  iirst  place,  there  was  no  necessity  for  a  prolonged 
interview  between  two  such  ready  writers  as  Mr.  BtM^ciipr 
and  Mr.  Kinsella  in  regard  to  the  form  of  a  little  card  of 
fifteen  or  twenty  lines  which  had  been  substantially  pre- 
pared, and  which  imderwent  but  a  slight  degree  of  alter- 
ation. That  could  have  been  done  in  a  very  few  moments 
at  the  office  of  Mr.  Kinsella  or  at  the  house  of  Mr. 
Be^eher;  an*a  as  Mr.  Beecher  is  a  notoriously  efrly  riser, 
doing  all  \m  laborious  work  for  his  sermons  and  publica- 
tions liefore  lO  o'clock,  ifcls  quite  easy  to  be  believed  that 
whatever  intercourse  there  was  between  Mr.  Kinsella 
and  him  upon  that  subject  was  prior  to  the  hour  of  9 
o'clock,  about  which  time  Mrs.  Moulton  thinks  he  came 
to  her  house.   Then  Mr;  Be :^chtr,  according  to  his  te»- 


SUMMING    UP  BY  MB.  BEACH. 


965 


tmiony,  passed  over  to  The  Christian  Union  office 
in  New- York,  and  from  thence  totlie  railroad,  taking  pas- 
sage for  Peekskill.  It  is  <iuite  as  easy,  I  think,  to  believe 
that  Mr.  Beecher,  or  any  other  gentleman  who  has  spoken 
in  regard  to  seeing  him  on  the  2d  of  June,  might  have 
been  so  mistaken  as  to  suppose  that  the  witnesses  who 
spoke  of  his  presence  at  Mrs.  Moulton's  on  the  2d  of  June 
were  mistaken.  But,  passing  that,  the  question  is  where 
was  Mr.  Beecher  from  9  o'clock  until  the  period,  what- 
ever it  was,  that  he  went  over  to  The  Christian  Union 
office  on  his  way  to  Peekskill.  I  do  not  stop  to  consider 
at  any  length  the  question  as  to  the  time  exhausted  in 
this  interview  with  Mrs.  Moulton.  She  thinks  it  con- 
tinued until  her  lunch  time,  at  12,  or  1,  or  2  o'clock, 
whenever  it  was.  She  speaks  of  those  hours,  and  is  of  the 
impression  that  it  was  2  o'clock,  but  speaks  o?  it  with  no 
confidence  as  being  that  hour  exactly  ;  she  sa/s  "about." 
[Mr.  Evarts  here  spoke  to  Mr.  Beach  in  an  undertone.] 

AI.LEGED  AVAILABLE   TESTLMOXY  NOl 

PEODUCED.  I 
Mr.  Beach. — I  say  slie  does  not  speak  witli  any 
confidence  or  attempt  ajt  accuracy  as  to  that  hour,  and 

I  read  her  evidence  with  x.eference  to  that  point.  I 
will  listen  to  any  reading  Oj.  the  evidence  which  may 
correct  me,  but  not  to  a  mere  assertion.  I  attach  no  sig- 
nificance whatever  to  that.  An  interview  of  two  hours 
under  such  circumstances,  involving  such  intense  in- 
ttrests,  might  well  have  been  enlarged  by  Mrs.  Moulton 
to  three  or  four  hours,  and  she  might  have  very  well 
imagined,  when  Mr.  Beecher  got  up  to  leave  under  those 
circumstances,  that  the  hour  of  lunch  had  come,  and 
ask  him  to  stay  and  take  lunch.  There  were 
no  indications  ox  it,  as  she  says,  and 
there  was  no  truth  in  the  lunch ;  it  is  a 
mere  impression  as  to  the  continuance  of  an  absorbing 
communication  which  left  its  distressing  marks  upon  her 
a  ppearance,  as  is  proven  by  other  evidence.  But  the 
question  returns  :  Where  was  Mr.  Beecher  between  9  and 

II  or  between  11  and  12  o'clock  ?  He  says  that  one  hour 
at  least  of  that  was  exhausted  in  company  with  INIr.  Kin- 
sella.  Where  is  Mr.  Kinsella  ?  Mrs.  Moulton  and  Mr. 
Beecher  stand  in  direct  and  unqualified  contradiction- 
upon  that  one  point  as  to  the  whereabouts  of  Mr. 
Beecher  between  9  and  10  or  11  o'clock.  Mr.  Beecher 
says  he  was  at  home  in  consultation  with  Mr.  Kinsella. 
Mrs.  Moulton  says  she  was  in  her  parlor  under  the  cir- 
cumstances she  describes.  Mr.  KinseUa  is  in  this  city, 
the  editor  of  a  partisan  journal  in  favor  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
though  conducting  it  with  great  propriety,  and 
against  him  or  his  we  have  no  complaint 
to  make ;  but  he  was  an  accessible  wit- 
ness, the  friend  of  Mr.  Beecher,  a  competent,  reliable, 
and  trusty  gentleman,  whose  appearance  upon  that 
stand  by  his  oath  confirming  the  evidence  of  Henry 
Waid  Beeeher  would  have  been  destructive  of  the  propo-  I 


sition  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  at  Mrs.  Moulton's  on  the  2d 
of  June,  1873.  He  is  in  this  city,  I  repeat,  accessible  to 
his  friend,  Mr.  Beecher.  He  is  not  produced  as  a  witness. 
And,  do  you  remember  the  presumption  of  law  as  I  read 
it  to  you  the  other  day  ?  The  presumption  is  as  against 
Mr.  Beecher,  when  this  issue  is  fairly  made  between  him 
and  Mrs.  Moulton,  and  he  has  a  friendly  and  trusty  wit- 
ness by  whom  he  can  prove  his  alibi,  and  tails  to  produce 
him,  that  if  produced  he  would  not  confirm  his  theory. 
It  is  the  judgment  of  common  sense.  If  Mr.  Kin- 
sella would  have  supported  Mr.  Beecher  and  contradicted 
Mrs.  Moulton,  no  man  supposes  for  a  moment  that  the 
counsel  of  Mr.  Beecher  would  have  failed  to  produce  him. 
And  what.  Sir,  does  my  learned  and  distinguished  adver- 
sary, Mr.  Evarts,  do?  Instead  of  producing  INIr.  Kinsella, 
he  produces  his  paper,  and  ventures  to  read  a  portion  of 
his  editorial  as  proof  that  Mr.  Kinsella  was  with  Mr. 
Beecher— as  my  friends  know,  no  evidence  in  this  case; 
as  my  friends  know,  no  proof  of  any  statement  which 
may  be  contained  in  it— and  we  have  the  argument 
I  against  them  not  only  that  they  suppress  evidence,  but 
that  a  learned  counselor,  against  his  duty  and  his  right, 
attempts  to  substitute  an  editorial  written  by  Mr.  Kin- 
sella or  somebody  else,  we  don't  know  who,  for 
-the  evidence  which  he  ought  to  have  presented. 
Now,  what  says  Mr.  Janes  on  this  subject? 

Did  you  see  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  2d  of  June,  1873 1  A. 
1  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  And  where  did  you  see  Wm?  A.  I  saw  him  first  as 
he  was  about  stepping  from  a  little  bridge  crossing  tlie 
roadway — carriage  roadway,  which  leads  down  to  Wall 
Street  Ferry  at  Montague-terrace. 

Q.  From  which  direction  was  he  coming  ?  A.  Prom  the 
dh^ection  of  Columbia  Hights. 

Q.  Theri^  is  whei*e  Mr.  Beecher  resides  1  A.  I  under- 
stand so. 

Q.  No.  121  Columbia  Hights  ?  The  resi&enee  has  been 
given.   A.  I  don't  knovr  the  number. 

Q.  And  when  he  passed  the  bridge  which  direction  did 
he  take  ?  A.  He  took  the  direction  leading  toward  Rem- 
sen-st. 

Q.  Montague-terrace  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir,  crossing  Montague- 
terrace. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  turn  in  Remsen-st.  ?  A.  He  turned 
toward  Court-st. 

Q.  And  that  is  toward  Mr.  Moulton's  house  1  A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Toward  69  Remsen-st.  !   A.  49  Remsen-st. 
Q.  49  [  should  say.  Now,  about  what  hoiir  in  the  morn- 
ing was  that  ?   A.  As  accurately  as  I  can  fix  it,  it  was 
shortly  before  9  o'clock  ;  I  think  not  after  that. 

Q.  How  far  is  Mr.  Moulton's  residence  from  Montague- 
st.  where  you  saw  him  turn  ? 
Mr.  Beach— From  that  comer. 
Mr.  Morris— From  that  corner. 

The  Witness— I  am  unable  to  fix  it  accurately,  but  I 
should  think  a  few  houses — four  or  five  houses. 

Q.  In  that  block  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  it  is  in  that  first  bloolc, 
if  I  recollect  correctly. 

Q.  From  124  Columbia  Hights  to  Mr.  Moulton's  resi- 
dence, that  would  be  the  most  direct  route  to  go,  wouldn't 
i^?  A.  I  should  judge  so. 
I     Q.  About  how  far  is  124  Columbia  Hights  from  Mr, 


966 


THE   TILTON-BEECIIEE  TBLAL. 


y'oviltoii's  ?  A.  I  very  seldom  pass  througli  Columbia 
Hi^lits,  and  I  am  unable  to  say,  Sir ;  I  should  think  it 
would  be  about  ten  minutes'  walk,  if  you  want  a  guess- 
possibly  more. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  get  it  by  somebody  else. 

Mr.  Morris — Yes ;  I  wiU  get  that  by  some  person  who 
knows  better  than  jou.  Now,  then,  state  the  circum- 
stance, if  any  there  was,  in  your  meeting  Mr.  Beecher 
that  morning  that  impressed  it  upon  your  mind?  A.  In 
order  to  explain  that  I  shall  have  to  explain  my  state  of 
feeling 

Q.  Well,  explain  that.  A.  [Continuing]  When 
I  staarfced  oat  of  the  house.  The  2d  of  June  is  a  very 
pleasant  anniversary  to  me.  My  custom  is  always,  if 
possible,  when  business  permits,  to  make  a  semi-holiday 
of  it.  On  that  occasion  I  was— felt  obliged  to  go  over  to 
New- York  at  an  earlier  hour  than  usual;  I  usually 
reached  my  New- York  rooms  in  the  vicinity  of  half -past 
ten,  but  on  that  morning— after  a  few  days  about  that 
time  1  was  obliged  to  go  earlier,  and  I  left  the  house  with 
the  intention  of  returning,  if  possible,  ea^rlier  than  uonal, 
and  making  a  sort  of  holiday  of  it,  and  with  a  very— in  a 
very  pleasant  mood  of  mind.  On  seeing  Mr.  Beecher  I 
recognized  him  at  once,  and,  perhai)s  egotistically, 
thought  that  he  would  recognize  me  when  we  met,  as  we 
did  very  nearly.  But  as  I  came  nearer  to  him  I  saw  his 
countenance  indicated  a  person  who  was  troubled. 

Mr.  Evarts — Well,  it  is  no  matter  about  the  indication 
of  his  countenance. 

Mr.  Beach— It  is  some  matter  to  us. 

The  Witness — His  head  was  cast  down.  He  appeared 
to  be  in  trouble,  and  it  produced  a  change  of  my  state  of 
mind  that  fixed  itself  upon  my  memory,  and  upon  re- 
tiu^ning  home  at  night  I  repeated  the  incident  to  my  wife. 

Q.  And  how  near  were  you  to  Mr.  Beecher— how  near 
did  you  nass  by  him  ?  A.  I  should  think  nearer,  or  as 
near  as  I  am  to  him  now. 

Q.  He  did  not  recognize  you  %  A.  He  did  not  appear  to 
recognize  me.  I  don't  think  from  his  appearance  he 
would  have  recognized  any  one. 

That  is  struck  out.  Now,  that  is  the  substance  of  Mr. 
Janes' s  testimony. 

■Judge Neilson  (to  Mr.  BeaehJ — Can  you  suspend  now, 
Sir? 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  your  Honor ;  I  had  no  idea  it  was  1 
o'clock. 

The  Court  then  took  a  recess  until  2  p.  m. 

THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  o'clock,  pursuant  to  ad- 

journTnent. 

Mr.  Beach— Of  course  it  is  possible  that  any  gentlemen 
speaking  to  an  incident  which  happened  two  years  ago, 
or  a  year  ago,  may  be  mistaken  in  regard  to  a  particular 
date  or  hour.  It  is  one  of  those  topics  upon  which  the 
memory  is  particularly  defective,  and  especially  apt  to  be 
in  error — mistaken.  For  instance,  Mr.  Cleveland,  who 
speaks  of  Mr.  Beecher  having  been  at  The  Christian  Union 
office  on  the  2d  of  June  between  11  and  12  o'clock,  hav- 
ing no  particular  circumstance,  no  memorandum  or  data 
to  direct  and  fix  and  facten  his  recollection,  undoubtedly 
is  subject  to  mistake,  however  upright  and  honest  ho  may 
be  in  his  statement,  and  so  it  is  with  Dr.  .lanes.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  he  is  just  as  liable  to  error  as  other  gentlemen, 


but  it  would  seem  as  if  the  circumstances  which 
attracted  Mr.  Janes's  attention  could  not  very  well  mi^ 
lead  him.  The  2d  of  June  was  the  anniversary  of  his 
wedding  day,  to  which  he  was  acoustomel  to  attach 
some  significance ;  an  occasion,  at  any  rate,  upon  which 
his  mind  reverted  to  hi'^  marriage  relations  and  his  home. 
He  remembers  that  upon  that  day  he  saw  Mr.  Beecher, 
and  it  was  not  a  mere  casual  observation.  There  was 
something  in  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Beecher  which  im- 
pressed itself  upon  the  mind  of  Mr.  Janes,  as  he  swears, 
and  that  connected  it  in  his  memory  with  th  rt  anniver- 
sary of  his  marriage.  Of  course,  being  acanainted  with 
Mr.  Beecher,  and  having  served  him  in  the  course  of  his 
professional  business,  Mr.  Beecher  being  accustomed 
graciously  to  notice  Mm,  the  fact  of  his  passing  near  ?.Tr. 
Beecher  without  any  recognition  from  him,  considering 
the  relative  positions  of  the  two  gentlemen,  would  be 
a  circumstance  which  would  attract  his  attention 
—fix  his  attention.  He  might  have  felt  a  little 
chagrined,  mortified.  But  he  noticed  upon  Mr.  Beecher' s 
countenance,  usually  so  cheerful  and  radiant,  into  whose 
eye  to  look  in  his  moods  of  ease  and  comfort  is  to  be  at 
once  inspired  with  cheerfulness  and  mirth— he  noticed  an 
unusual  depression.  He  was  sorrowful  and  moody,  his 
head  cast  down,  none  of  the  stately  and  tow- 
eriufir  characteristics  of  Mr.  Beecher  about  the 
man.  He  turned  into  Rem3en-st.  without  noticing 
this  gentleman.  It  was  at  the  time,  gentle- 
men, jon  remember,  wlien  the  "  Tripartite  Covenant  " 
was  published  in  part,  when  Theodore  Tilton  was  de- 
manding from  him  defense,  correction,  righteousness,  and 
threatenlag  if  he  did  not  receive  it  to  publish  the  letter 
which  he  had  prepared  containing  Mr.  Beecher's  own  Let- 
ter of  Contrition.  It  is  true  that  the  horror  of  a  great 
darkness  was  then  around  him.  He  felt  that  a  crisis  had 
approached,  and  he  saw  no  rational  escape  from  it.  He 
feared  that  the  revelation  against  which  he  had  been 
contending  with  the  aid  of  Mr.  Moulton  was  inevitable, 
and  it  is  not  wonderful  that  he  should  have  been  cast 
down.  At  any  rate,  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Janes  upon  that 
point  is  not  to  be  discredited.  [To  Mr.  Morris.]  Mr. 
Beecher  was  not  recalled,  was  he  1 
Mr.  Morris— No,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Beecher  was  not  recalled  after  the  tes- 
timony of  Mr.  .Janes  to  modify  any  statement  made  by 
that  gentleman,  and  it  stands,  therefore,  uncontradicted 
upon  this  record  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  met  by  Dr.  Janes 
under  the  circumstances  to  which  that  gentleman  testi- 
fies. Now,  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Janes  is  pa  ssed  off  by  my 
learned  fnend,  Mr.  Evarts,  with  a  jest,  hardly  worthy 
the  seriousness  of  the  topic.  Substantially  all  he  says 
about  this  gentleman  is  that  he  appears  to  ha  ve  seen  Mr. 
Beecher  through  a  stone  wall.  T*iat  is  not,  iumyjudg 
ment,  tlie  mode  in  which  evidence  upon  a  point  so  central 
and  so  sii^niflcant  as  this  should  be  met  and  answered.  I 
grant  you  the  possibility  of  error,  but  wl  .on  a  gentleman 


SUMMING    UP  J 

of  respectabiliry  fortifies  Mmself  with  sacli  circumstances 
sustaining  the  accuracy  of  his  recollection,  and  when  his 
testimony  harmonizes  and  connects  itself  with  the  gene- 
ral fabric  of  the  proof,  something  more  must  be  urged 
against  him  than  a  witticism.  It  was  not  through  a  stone 
waU  that  Mr.  Janes  saw  Mr.  Beecher.  It  was  with  full 
opDortunity  to  see,  in  full  view,  and  there 
can  be  no  mistiike  in  regard  to  the  con- 
dition of  Mr.  Beecher,  which  was  entirely 
conformable  with  the  spirit  with  which  Mrs.  Moulton 
invests  him  wlien  he  reaches  her  house,  was  entirely  con- 
formable with  the  condition  of  mind  in  which  *Mr. 
Beecher  on  that  2d  of  June  would  naturally  have  been. 
Now.  this  evidence  we  gave,  and  I  repeat  to  you  again, 
when  Mr.  Beecher  had  been  then  overcome  by  the  testi- 
mony of  Mrs.  Moulton,  strengthened  by  the  evi- 
dence of  Dr.  Janes,  where  was  Mr.  Kinsella  % 
If  Mr.  Beecher  on  that  2d  of  June  was  in 
Montague-place  and  turned  into  Remsen-st.,  but  four  or 
five  doors  from  Mrs.  Mou.lton's,  then  he  could  not  have 
been  hi  comi>any  with  Mr.  Kiasella  at  his  house  at  that 
period.  Quite  possibly  he  may  have  seen  Mr.  Kinsella 
prior  to  this,  but  at  that  particular  time,  about  9  o'cloclr, 
lie  was  in  the  vicinity  of  the  very  spot  where  Mrs.  Moul- 
ton says  he  was  holding  this  memorable  interview  with 
her. 

But,  gentlemen,  Mrs.  Moulton  says  that  she  related 
that  story  to  George  C.  Robinson  and  Jeremiah  P.  Robin- 
eon.  On  the  night  of  the  2d  of  June  she  says  she  told  it 
to  her  husband,  and  my  impression  is  that  on  the  next 
day,  or  at  least  within  a  day  or  two  subsequently,  told  it 
to  George  C.  Robinson  and  Jeremiah  P.  Robinson— to 
both  these  gentlemen.  George  C,  a  pleasant  and  worthy 
member  of  Plymouth  Church,  one  of  the  lights  of  that  in- 
stitution—nay, itis  saidby  our  adversaries,a  member  of  the 
firm  of  "Woodruff  &  Robiuson,  from  which  Mr.  Moulton, 
in  conseciuence  of  his  connection  with  this  iavestigation, 
was  excluded.  Why  do  not  my  friends  produce  George 
C.  Robinson  1  If  within  a  day  or  two  of  that  period,  or  a 
recent  time  of  that  period,  Mrs.  Moulton  eommimicated 
that  story  to  George  C.  Robiuson,  it  must  have  been 
true,  li  she  didn't,  and  my  fiiends  could  have 
proved  that  she  did  not,  Mrs.  Moulton  would 
have  been  discredited  and  overthrown.  There  is  no 
avoidiag  that  issue,  gentlemen.  Accordiag  to  the  law  as 
I  have  read  it  to  you,  according  to  your  own  sentiments 
of  justice  and  right  and  common  sense,  if  George  C.  Rob- 
inson could  have  contradicted  Mrs.  Moulton  upon  that 
vital  proposition  of  her  testimony,  he  would  have  been 
placed  upon  the  stand,  and  so  would  Jeremiah  P.  Robin- 
son have  been  asked  when  he  was  upon  the  stand. 

Agaia,  if  Mrs.  Moulton  had  fabricated  this  story ;  if 
the  hostility  and  unfriendliness  of  Mr.  Beecher  in  the 
month  of  August,  when  he  made  his  statement  before  the 
Committee,  had  exasperated  this  woman  ;  if  she  saw  the 
reputation  of  her  husband   assailed  so  that  all  her 


I  ME.   BEACH,  967 

Christian  principles,  all  her  regard  for  truth  and  integrity 
was  lost,  swallowed  up  iu  the  desire  to  support  her  hus- 
band, would  she  have  testified,  without  necessity,  that 
she  made  a  revelation,  a  repetition  of  this  interview  with 
Mr.  Beecher,  to  Mr.  Robinson,  furuisMDg  the  ready 
means  by  which  she  could  have  been  destroyed  if  it  was 
untrue,  giving  to  Mr.  Beecher  the  surest  means 
of  annihilating  her  integrity  and  her  testi- 
mony? Is  that  the  way  that  conspirators,  perjui'ers, 
act?  Consider  upon  this  point  of  alibi  the  testimony 
of  Mrs.  Eddy.  Mrs.  Eddy  met  Mr.  Beecher  at  some  time 
coming  out  of  the  house  of  Mrs.  Moulton  about  the  time 
she  specifies,  depressed,  gloomy,  head  down,  and  noticing 
nobody.  Aiady  acguaiutance  meets  him  upon  the  stoop, 
and  so  absorbed  is  he  upon  the  subject  which  has  been 
writhing  heart  and  soul  that  he  passed  out  without  ex- 
tending to  her  anj'  notice  whatever,  and  Mrs.  Eddy  goes 
directly  into  the  house,  being  admitted  by  Mrs.  Moulton, 
and  finds  Mrs.  Moulton  in  agitation  and  tears,  and  I  be- 
lieve Mrs.  Moulton  testifies  that  it  was  upon  that  second 
day  of  Jime  that  Mrs.  Eddy  so  came  into  her  house. 
Mr.  Fullerton— Certainly. 

Mr.  Beach— My  friends  have  justly  eulogized  Mrs.  Eddy 
as  a  lady  of  respectability,  and  the  daughter  of  the 
respected  Judge  Sutherland.  Is  that  allegation  of  Mi-s. 
Moulton  true  ?  Was  it  on  the  second  day  of  June  that  she 
met  Mr.  Beecher  comiag  out?  Why  did  my  learned 
friends  object  when  we  offered  to  prove  by  Mrs.  Eddy 
that  upon  that  occasion  of  which  she  speaks,  the  date  of 
which  she  could  not  fix,  when  she  found  Mrs.  Moulton 
in  this  condition,  Mrs.  Moulton  revealed  to  her  this  very 
story  ?  We  supposed  we  had  a  legal  right  to  prove  it,  un- 
der the  circumstances.  Our  learned  friends  objected,  and 
his  Honor  differed  from  us ;  but  with  a  lady  of  that  un- 
impeachable character,  unsuspected  by  our  friends  upon 
the  other  side,  when  we  had  the  means  through  her  of 
determining  certainly  whether  this  conversation  oc- 
curred on  the  2d  of  June  with  Mr.  Beecher,  they 
reject,  they  close  all  the  avenues  of  proof;  they 
will  not  examine  the  witnesses  in  their  control,  at  their 
command,  and  they  wUl  not  permit  us  to  prove  the  truth 
of  Mrs.  Moulton's  allegation  by  those  witnesses  whom 
we  can  command.  Is  there  any  question  upon  this  evi 
dence,  not  only  upon  the  proof  affirmative,  but 
by  the  suppression  of  evidence  upon  which 
the  law  raises  a  condemning  presumption- 
is  there  any  doubt  that  this  interview  occurred  on  the 
2d?  Would  Mr.  Kinsella  be  suppressed?  Would  Mr. 
Robinson,  both  of  them,  be  withheld  1  Would  Mrs.  Eddy 
besUenced?  Would  this  man,  who  has  stripped  himself 
for  the  fight  and  defies  from  every  source  the  production 
of  evidence  against  him,  have  thus  conducted  hvjaself  if 
there  was  any  belief,  real,  sincere  belief,  that  the  story  of 
Mrs.  Moulton  was  untrue?  It  is  true,  gentlemen ;  true 
from  the  intrinsic  evidence  it  bears ;  true  from  the  force 
and  power  of  her  oath,  betrayed  by  no  interest,  misled  by 


968 


THE    TlLTON-BEECHEn  TRIAL. 


no  passion,  bavins:  notbing  to  lose  except  her  own  con- 
sciousness of  right  and  of  honor;  oonflrmed  as 
it  is  by  these  circumstances  concerning  the  evidence 
produced  in  this  case,  her  story  is  true,  and  I 
am  guilty  of  no  improper  assumption  when  I  say  that 
the  conscience  of  every  juryman  pronounces  it  true.  Not 
the  juryman  who  will  say  that  Mr.  Beecher  is  too  vir- 
tuous and  eminent  a  man  to  be  convicted,  not  the  jury- 
man who  shuts  his  heart  and  his  conscience  to  the 
appeal  of  evidence,  and  looks  only  to  the  grand- 
eur of  this  defendant's  supposed  character, 
and  would  uphold  him  under  the  mistaken  idea  that  he  is 
maintaining  Christianity  and  the  Church,  when  he  defiles 
the  pulpit  and  the  temple.  And  this  lady,  by  the  judg- 
ment of  men,  of  husbands,  of  brothers,  is  not  to  be 
turned  from  this  court-house  upon  reasoning  of  this  char- 
acter and  stamped  with  the  infamous  brand  of  periury. 
In  the  name  of  manhood,  pleading  for  virtuous,  helpless 
womanhood ;  in  the  name  of  that  instinctive  principle 
to  which  my  friend  Porter  appealed,  and  which  he  recog- 
nized and  which  he  practices,  appealing  to  you 
for  a  conscientious  and  sincere  construction 
and  application  of  the  evidence  in  regard  to 
this  lady,  I  may  demand  fi-om  this  jury  that  she  shall  be 
sustained  upon  her  own  oommf)n  sense  and  common 
reason,  upon  the  instruction  and  the  judgment  of  the 
law.  Nay,  gentlemen,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  must  be 
stricken  down.  If  every  stone  in  the  foundation  of 
Plymouth  Church  must  be  razed  to  the  ground,  let  it 
come,  before  one  lady,  supported  as  this  lady  is,  shall  be 
condemned  to  disgrace  by  a  jury  of  men  in  a  court 
of  law.  [Applause.J  What  is  in  store  for  that  lady  I 
don't  know.  I  don't  know  but  there  may  be  found  a  jury 
in  a  Christian  land  which,  under  these  circumstances, 
will  leave  a  record  which  would  teach  that  only  child  of 
hers  the  infamy  of  his  mother.  For  the  father,  he  is  a 
man  and  can  take  care  of  himself,  and  wUl  work  out 
his  own  true  manhood  in  its  natural  in- 
stincts and  impulses  and  results.  But  this  woman 
has  a  right  to  appeal  to  you  from  that  witness  stand. 
She  has  a  right  to  beg  you,  for  her  own  honor  and  for  the 
honor  of  her  child,  that  you  do  her  no  injustice.  And 
strong  as  I  know  are  the  influences  which  are  appealing 
to  some  of  this  jury,  while  I  know  the  sympathies  which 
move  every  generous  man  toward  Mr.  Beecher,  yet,  when 
all  these  considerations  are  confronted  with  honor  and 
iustice  as  toward  a  woman,  they  should  have  no  standing 
in  a  manly  heart. 

MR.  TILTON'S  RELIGIOUS  CREED. 
I  have  next  to  convsider  Mr.  Tilton,  and  I 
"have  made  pretty  extensive  notes  for  that 
pttrposc.  I  am  not  going  to  use  them,  gentlemen. 
Whether  Mr.  Tilton  is  a  Deist,  whether  he  is  a  free  lover, 
whether  he  is  oflfensively  a  woman  suflfragist,  are  matters 
which  to  him,  in  his  reputation  before  the  world,  are  of 


considerable  consequence  ;  and  if  Iliad  not  trespassed 
upon  the  time  of  this  jury  a  great  deal  longer  than  I  had 
anticipated,  and  unendurably,  I  should  not  pass  these 
subjects  without  discussion.  I  maintain  that  upon  no 
evidence  in  this  case,  upon  no  utterance  which  has  been 
made  by  Mr.  Tilton,  does  he  deserve  either  character. 
He  is  a  Unitarian.  He  does  not  believe  that  Christ  was 
God.  He  has  an  unsettled,  indistinct  idea,  such  as  Mr. 
Beecher  presents  in  regard  to  the  divinity  of  man,  as  to 
the  divinity  of  Christ.  Well,  gentlemen,  a  very  large  part 
of  the  intelligence  of  the  Christian  world— a  very  consid- 
erable part  both  in  numbers  and  in  intelligence  enter- 
tain the  same  belief— the  whole  body  of  Unitarians.  Mr. 
Tilton  is  simply  a  Unitarian.  Mr.  Beecher,  whatever 
may  be  his  precise  dogma  in  regard  to  that  matter,  in  one 
of  his  sermons,  speaking  of  the  name  of  Jesus,  says  : 

They  Avho  theologically  disown  it  morally  receive  it, 
and  call  it  transcendent.  They  who  deny  divinity  and 
claim  that  Jesus  was  but  an  extraordinary  man,  a  moral 
genius,  readily  and  willingly  advance  him  to  the  fore- 
front. 

And  that  i3  true  of  Mr.  Tilton.  Again,  he  says : 
If  Chiist  is  to  you  so  much  divine  that  He  comes  to  you 
an  object  of  imitation,  of  absolute  trust,  of  faith,  and  of 
all  the  affection  that  your  heart  is  susceptible  of  feeling ; 
if  He  is  in  such  a  sense  your  moral  model  and  leader 
that  you  are  willing  to  commit  to  Him  all  that  you  have 
to  commit  to  any  one,  you  cannot  rise  higher  than  that. 
But,  while  you  may  not,  thoologically  and  technically, 
accept  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  emotively  and  practically 
you  do  accept  him  so  far  as  you  could  if  you  crowned 
him  with  the  name  of  Divme. 

So  that  it  does  not  seem  to  be  entirely  essential  to  piety, 
to  religion,  to  salvation,  in  the  view  of  Mr.  Beecher,  that 
men  should  believe  Christ  to  be  divine.  Again,  Mr. 
Beecher  says : 

The  deepest  natured,  the  deepest  minded  men  of  every 
age  have  always  been  the  most  skeptical. 

Mr.  Beecher  allows  veiy  fi-ee  speculation  upon  these 
subjects.  There  is  no  man  who  is  more  accustomed  to  it 
than  himself,  and  he  recognizes  the,  fact  that  the  largest 
ramded  men,  they  of  the  broadest  capacities,  are  tbe 
most  lilrclj^  to  indulge  in  these  philosophical  and  religious 
speculations  and  thoughts.   Again,  Mr.  Beecher  says  : 

I  declare  that  Christ  was  the  first  and  the  sublime  radi- 
cal. 

Well,  if  Mr.  Tilton  had  uttered  a  sentiment  of  that 
kind,  dealing  so  freely  and  lightly  with  the  idea— thought 
of  Christ,  there  would  have  been  no  end  to  the  denuncia- 
tions for  his  Irreligion,  sacrilege.  But  it  is  enough  to 
say  that  upon  that  subject,  of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  Mr. 
Tilton  is  in  accord  with  some  of  the  most  learned  and  re- 
ligious men  of  this  and  the  past  age.  I  am  not  familiar 
enough  with  the  history  of  denominations  to  name  them. 
I  remember  some  great  names  of  Boston,  some 
of  whom  were  Unitarians,  and  some  far  beyond 
them  in  their  skeptical  notions  concerning  religion. 
There  was  Dr.  Channing  for  one,  I  remember,  a  leading 
Unitarian,  and  in  no  degree  below  Mr.  Beecher  in  all 


SUMMI^'G    UP  1 

that  consltutes  greatness  and  genius.  There  was  Theo- 
dore Parker,  far  more  radical  in  his  notions ;  and  there 
■was  Charles  Sumner,  a  Unitarian,  Edward  Everett,  both 
names  sanctified  in  tne  history  of  this  country  not  only 
for  learning  and  statesmanship  and  patriotism,  hut  for 
all  those  virtues  which  constitute  the  true  citizen  and  the 
man  of  piety.  These  men  entertained  the  same  belief  as 
Mr.  Tilton,  and  it  is  no  disgrace  to  them  or  to  Mr.  Tilton. 
It  is  no  reason  in  the  law  or  in  common  sense  and  our 
own  practice  and  belief  for  discrediting  them.  I  don't 
know  that  I  ought,  gentlemen,  to  pass  this  subject  with- 
out reading  to  you  somewhat  of  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Tilton  in  regard  to  his  belief.  But  T  shall  venture' to 
pass  it. 

ME.  TILTON'S  FORGIVENESS  OF  HIS  WIFE. 

There  is  oue  subject  connected  Tvith  this, 
gentlemen  (perhaps  two),  which  need  a  remark  or  two. 
No  precise  proposition  has  been  presented  by  our  learned 
adversaries  upon  the  fact  tliat  Mr.  Tilton  forgave  the 
error  of  liis  wife.  In  the  language  of  Mr.  Beecher  upon 
two  occasions,  used  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  his 
supposition  that  Mr.  Tilton  had  thus  condoned  awaj'  his 
right  of  action  with  his  condonation  of  his  wife's  fault, 
lias  been  found  th.e  text  for  a  severe  reprobation  of 
Mr.  Tilton.  and  a  circumstance  upon  which  our 
learned  fi'iends  insist  as  evidence  that  this 
Idea  of  a  seduction  is  wholly  unfounded.  I 
have  said  something  upon  that  subject  before. 
T  do  Dot  intend  to  repeat  those  ideas.  But  will  you  be 
kind  enough,  gentlemen,  to  consider  what  Mr.  Tilton 
could  have  done  under  the  circumstances,  other  than  he 
did  do  ?  Certainly  he  was  justified  in  concealing  the  cir- 
cumstances of  his  household.  If  he  sincerely  and  hon- 
estly believed,  with  Mr.  Belcher,  that  his  wife  was  guilt- 
less, it  was  just  as  much  his  duty  to  pardon  her  and  to 
accept  her  to  his  love  and  his  respect  as  if  she  had  been 
outraged  by  violence.  If  Mr.  Tilton  believed  that  by  the 
course  of  sophistry  and  of  casuistry  suggested  by  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  by  the  power  of  his  influence  over  this 
woman,  he  had  fascinated  her  mind  as  well  as  her  heart 
and  had  imbued  her  with  the  conviction  that  it  was  her 
duty  to  him,  to  the  church,  and  to  religion,  to  accept  his 
teachings  as  true  in  the  same  spirit  and  for  the  same  rea- 
son that  sh.e  would  lie  to  save  him  from  disgrace,  then  it 
was  the  duty  of  Mr.  Tilton  to  accept  her  as  he  did.  But, 
without  reasoning  on  that  question,  what,  as  Christians, 
do  J  ou  say  a  man  should  do  when  he  believes  that  the  sin 
of  a  woman  does  not  proceed  from  a  corrupt  and  carnal 
vulgarity— when  he  believes  that,  notwithstanding  the 
error,  the  mind  and  tlie  heart  of  the  woman  are  not  de- 
based? As  a  Christian  man,  what,  under  those  circum- 
stances, are  you  bound  to  do,  in  imitation  of  the  example 
of  Him  who  said  to  tlie  woman  brought  by  the  Scribes 
and  the  Pharisees  before  Him,  caueht  in  the  act  of  adultery, 
**  Go  and  sin  no  more  'J"   In  the  light  of  his  treatment  of 


y   MR.   BEACH.  969 

that  name  which  is  synonymous  for  woman's  degradation 
Mary  Magdalene,  she  who  was  last  at  the  cross  and  first 
at  the  sepulcher,  what  are  we  to  do  xmder  such  circum- 
stances of  present  penitence  and  sorrow,  but  more  still 
where  the  sin  has  been  under  a  mental  illusion,  where 
the  power  of  a  great  and  a  pious  man,  standing  in  the  eye 
of  the  sinner  next  to  his  God,  and  believed  in  as  God  ; 
where  such  a  man  has  overspread  a  human  heart,  a  weak 
and  a  frail  woman,  with  hallucination,  fascination,  sub- 
dued every  principle  of  her  nature  and  being,  won  every 
passion  and  emotion,  to  whom  the  woman  looks,  and  in 
whom  the  woman  trusts  1  What  will  you  do  with  a  woman 
who,  under  such  circumstances,  has  sinned,  but 
has  redeemed  her  sin  by  confession,  has  at  last 
awakened  to  its  enormity,  and  done  all  that 
an  erring  and  a  sinful  heart  can  do,  and  with 
all  the  plaintive  appeal  of  a  woman's  nature,  of 
a  wife's  renewed  affection,  of  a  mother's  love,  appeals  to 
you  for  forgiveness,  and,  as  this  woman  did,  professes 
that  the  delusion  had  passed  away,  and  that  her  inner 
nature  had  woke  up  to  all  the  enormity  of  her  fault,  and 
that  she  could  be  a  true  and  a  loving  wife  to  tlie  end  I 
Oh:  whatever,  whatever,  may  be  the  repulsive  emociaus 
a  husband  may  feel  at  the  desecration  of  his  wife's  body, 
yet  if  he  can  adopt  this  belief  in  regard  to  the  intrinsic 
purity  of  ber  being,  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  manhood  to 
reject  such  an  appeal.  But  do  not  my  friends  see— did 
not  Mr.  Beecher  see  when  Mrs.  Moulton  told  him 
that  Mr.  Tilton  intended  to  publish  the  evidence  he  had 
against  him,  he  said,  "  He  has  no  case  ;  he  has  condoned 
his  wife's  fault."  Did  not  Mr.  Beecher  see  that  there 
must  be  sin  before  there  can  be  condonation— that  there 
must  be  error  before  there  can  be  forgiveness  J  What 
was  it  that  Mr.  Beecher  meant  was  condoned  by  the 
husband  1  Not  wandering  affection  ;  not  desire  to  sepa- 
rate. There  was  some  more  radical,  intrinsic  offense. 
Condonation  does  not  apply  to  any  such  error.  Condona- 
tion is  the  forgiveness  of  guilt.  In  that  sense  it  was 
understood— in  that  s^se  used  as  between  Mrs.  Moulton 
and  Mr.  Beecher.  So  it  is  used  in  his  letters  when  Mr. 
Tilton  stood  up  prepared  to  make  accusation.  When 
it  was  understood  what  that  accusation  w^ould  be  and 
had  been,  then  it  was  in  answer  to  that  that  Mr.  Beecher 
says,  "  He  has  no  case  ;  he  has  condoned."  It  is  a  con- 
fession of  guilt.  The  woman  or  the  man  accused  ol 
adultery  who  sets  up  condonation  in  answer  to  it  con- 
fesses the  sin  ;  and  that  is  just  the  attitude  in  which 
these  gentlemen  have  placed  themselves  and  their  client. 

MR.  TILTON'S  SELF-ESTEEM. 
Well,  gentlemen,  I  cannot  speak  of  the  im- 
putations upon  Mr.  TUton  of  being,  in  the  language  of 
Mr.  Tracy,  "moved  by  an  all-dominating  selfish  ego- 
tism"—"infected  with  constitutional  vanity"— "  tramp- 
ling upon  wife  and  family  to  reach  the  applause  of  the 
world."  Queer  way  to  reach  the  applause  of  the  world. 


970 


THE  tilto:N'BEeceee  trial. 


But  where  has  Mr.  Tilton  exhibited  these  qualities  ?  Where 
has  he  ever  failed  in  rendering  to  Mr.  Beecher  the  highest 
meed  of  respect  and  honor?  Wherein  has  he  failed 
HI  his  reverence  for  virtue,  and  greatness,  and 
position  wherever  it  has  made  itself  manifest? 
Certainly  he  has  conducted  himself  with  great  propriety 
and  modesty  in  his  appearance  before  you,  both  as  a  wit- 
ness and  as  a  party.  He  has  not  offended  your  good 
sense.  He  certainly  has  not  obtruded  any  selfishness  or 
egotism  upon  your  attention.  His  constitutional  vanity 
has  not  been  very  prominent  certainly.  And  upon  what 
is  it  that  our  learned  friends  make  these  severe  accusa- 
tions against  the  man  ?  Why  cannot  he  have  decent,  fair 
play  before  this  jury  and  in  this  community?  Well,  T 
could  answer  my  own  question  very  easily  if  I  chose  to. 
It  is  not  because  of  the  want  of  any  merit  in  Theodore 
Tiiton,  I  am  certain. 

THE  CHARGE  OF  IMPROPER  PROPOSALS. 

Well,  it  is  said,  in  conclusion,  upon  that 
matter,  that  Mr.  Tilton  has,  over  and  over  again,  declared 
that  the  only  offense  which  he  charged  against  Mr. 
Beecher  was  making  undue  solicitations,  improper  pro- 
posals to  his  wife.  I  have  said  all  that  I  care  to  say  upon 
that,  except  to  recall  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
while  IVlr.  Tilton  was  making  these  statements  for  the 
public,  alleging  a  modified  offense  as  against  Mr.  Beecher, 
yet,  whenever  the  question  came  to  an  issue  before  any 
private  party  he  uniformly  declared,  and  declared  early 
in  the  history  of  the  matter,  that  that  was  not  the  whole 
of  it.  You  remember  the  interview  with  Dr.  Storrs.  You 
remember  Mr.  George  A.  Bell  as  to  the  interview  with 
Halliday.  You  cannot  have  forgotten  how  earnestly  Mr. 
Bell  insisted  to  Mr.  Tilton  that  there  was  nothing  that 
should  prevent  him  from  denying  this  whole  matter; 
that  it  was  his  duty  to  himself,  to  his  family,  to  the 
church,  to  Mr  Beecher,  to  everybody,  that  there  should 
be  at  once  a  public  and  a  distinct  denial  of  any 
crime,  that  it  was  nothing  but  an  undue  solici- 
tation, and  when  Mr.  Tilton,  again  and  again,  told  him 
he  coxild  not  do  it,  Mr.  BeU.  forced  him  to  the  declaration 
that  that  was  not'the  whole  truth,  that  there  was  still 
more.  So  it  was  with  Mr.  John  W.  Harman,  and  so  it  was 
with  Mr.  Redpath,  whose  significant  evidence  on  that 
point  you  will  not  have  forgotten.  So  that,  wMle  what 
they  call  these  inconsistent  declarations  were  being  made, 
not  only  was  there  a  reason  for  them,  explaining  them, 
but  at  those  very  times  there  were  secret  and  unaffected 
declarations  made  by  Mr.  Tilton  in  regard  to  these  modi- 
fied statements,  that  they  did  not  reach  the  whole  truth. 

Mr.  Evarts— Mr.  Beach,  we  think  you  are  wrong  about 
this  statement  to  Mr.  Bell,  and  Mr.  Harman,  and  these 
people. 

Mr.  Beach— L»o  you  think  so  t 

Mi-.  Kvarts— I  do  not  imderstand  there  is  any  sucli  tes- 
timony. 


Mr.  Beach— Don't  you  ?  Well,  I  must  try  then  and  show- 
it  to  be  so.  Mr.  Bell  in  his  testimony  says — with  permis 
sion  I  won't  read  it  all  over— Mr.  BeU  says : 

IVIr.  Tilton,  if  that  is  all  there  is  of  this  matter,  your  duty 
to  your  wife,  to  Mr.  Beecher,  to  your  pastor,  to  the 
chiu-ch,  and  your  duty  to  yourself,  all  demand  that  you 
shoiild  come  out  and  make  a  denial  of  this  scandal.  He 
said  in  answer  to  that  that  he  could  not  do  it ;  I  said  very 
pointedly  and  emphatically,  "  That  is  absurd."  Of  course 
I  am  not  repeating  the  exact  words ;  I  am  merely  giving- 
my  memory  of  a  very  long  conversation.  I  said  to  1dm, 
"  That  is  absurd.  Who  is  suffering  by  this  ?  Mr.  Beecher,. 
youi"  own  wife,  yourself,  all  your  friends,  and  the  church 
—they  are  all  suffering",  and  there  is  no  reason  whatever 
that  should  prevent  your  coming  out  and  denying  thi.-f 
thing."  Then  I  made  some  remarks  about  tbe  gentleman 
who  had  told  him  these  stories,  &c.  *  *  *  *  He  said, 
"  Mr.  Bell,  I  cannot  make  that  denial."  I  said,  "Why 
not?"  " Because,"  he  said,  " there  is  something  in  this 
thing  which  prevents  me."  I  said,  "  What  is  it  ?"  At 
this  point  of  the  interview  I  think  I  remember  that  I  took 
almost  the  control  of  the  conversation.  He  then  narrated 
circumstances  or  impressions,  opinions  of  his  in  regard 
to  Mr.  Beecher's  conduct  toward  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  when 
he  was  through  with  that,  I  said,  "  Why,  even  then — even 
now  I  cannot  see  why  you  should  not  come  out  and  con- 
tradict this  matter."  He  said,  "  I  cannot  do  so,  it  would 
be— there  is  an  underlying  truth  in  this  story  told  by 
these  women,  which  would  make  it  worse  for  Mr.  Beecher 
if  I  were  to  come  out  and  contradict  it  than  if  I  were  to 
let  it  alone." 

That,  I  think,  sustains  my  representation  in  regard  to 
Mr.  BeU. 

Mr.  Shearman— Excuse  me  Mr.  Beach,  Mr.  Tilton  had 
not  told  Mr.  Bell  previous  to  that  of  any  offense  nW. 
It  turns  out  from  Mr.  Halliday's  testimony  that  he  told 
him  finally  of  the  improper  soUcitations,  and  said  that 
was  

Mr.  Evarts— That  was  the  thing  that,  he  thought,  ought 
not  to  be  told. 
Mr.  Beach— What  ?  Who  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— That  Mr.  TUton  said  that  the  improper 
solicitations  ought  not  to  be  told. 

3Ir.  Beach— No,  by  no  means. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  you  wiU  find  out. 

Mr.  Beach— Weil,  it  is  easy  to  say  you  will  find  it  so^ 
show  it  so. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  have  the  testimony  

Mr.  Beach— This  gentleman  says : 

He  said  he  had  called  there  at  the  request  of  Mr.. 
Moulton,  who  had  told  him  that  Mr.  Beecher  had  been  to 
see  him  the  previous  night,  after  service,  informing  him 
that  there  was  to  be  action  taken  by  the  deacons  of  the 
church  or  by  the  Examining  Committee ;  that  Mr. 
Beecher  had  suggested  to  Mr.  Moulton  that  he  should  see 
Mr.  Tilton  and  teU  him  to  come  down  ,'ind  see  Mr. 
HaUiday,  and  make  some  explanation  to  him 
which  would  make  it  unnecessary  for  the  deacons 
to  have  their  meeting.  He  then  went  into  a 
long  history  of  the  scandal  prior  to  the  WoodhuU  and 
Claflin  publication,  which  had  then  taken  place  but 
about  a  fortnight,  or  three  weeks  or  four  weeks,  com- 
mencing with  the  affairs  of  the  publisher  of  TJie  Itide- 
pendent,  and  what  the  publisher  had  stated  to  him  ;  he 


SUMMIXG   U£  BY  MB.  BEAGE. 


971 


Baid  to  us  tliat  these  matters  he  gave  to  us  in  the  strict- 
est confidence,  not  to  be  mentioned  hy  us  to  any  one  ; 
after  he  had  done  that  I  thinli  he  paused,  and  I  said  to 
him.  "  Why  don't  you  deny  ?"  &c. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is,  he  told  Mr.  Bell  the  Bowen 
stories. 

Mr.  Beach— Oh  I  I  don't  want  you  to  reason  ahout  it ;  if 
you  have  got  any  evidence  to  produce,  read  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  told  him  ahout  the  affairs  of  The  Iiv- 
dependent  and  what  the  publisher  had  stated  to  him. 

31r.  Morris— I  submit  that  these  continual  interrui>- 
tions  are  out  of  order. 

itr.  Beach— Why,  what  was  it.  Sir  1 

I  said  to  him  "  That  is  absurd.  ^Tio  is  suffering  by 
this  thin?  ?  Mr.  Beecher,  your  own  wife,  yourself,  all 
your  f  vieuds,  and  the  church — they  are  all  suffering,  and 
there  is  up  reason  whatever  that  should  prevent  your 
coming  out  and  denying  this  thing." 

After  the  publication  of  the  "Woodhull  scandal,  who 
doubts  as  to  what  they  were  talking  about,  and  as  to 
what  communications  Mr.  Tilton  made  to  them  1 

He  then  narrated  circumstances  or  impressions,  opin- 
ions of  his  in  regard  to  Mr.  Beecher's  conduct  toward 
Mi's.  Tilton,  and  when  he  was  through  with  that  I  said  : 
"  '^Tiy,  even  then — even  now  I  cannot  see  why  you  should 
not  come  out  and  contradict  this  matter."  He  said  :  "  I 
cannot  do  so  ;  it  would  be — there  is  an  underlying  truth 
in  this  story  told  by  these  women  which  would  make  it 
worse  for  Mr.  Beecher  if  I  were  to  come  out  and  contra- 
dict it  than  ii  it  were  let  alone." 

Well,  I  am  forced,  gentlemen,  to  refer  to  Dr.  Storrs,  to 
whom  the  "True  Story"  was  read.  That  imputed  im- 
proper solicitations.  No  doubt  about  that,  I  think. 

]Mi\  Shearman— That  is  conceded;  that  is  conceded. 

Mr.  Morris— Never  mind,  Mr.  Shearman. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  can  take  care  of  myself. 

Mr.  Morris— May  be  you  can. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  conceded  that  he  told  Dr.  Storrs 
so.  It  is  only  about  Mr.  Bell  and— 
Mr.  Beach— Only  about  whom  ? 
Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Bell  and  Mr.  Halliday. 
Mr.  Evarts— And  Mr.  Harman. 
Mr.  Shearman— And  Mr.  Harman. 
Mr.  Beach  [reading]  : 

Dr.  Storrs  turned  to  me  and  said,  "  Mr.  Tilton,  before  I 
can  consult  with  you  on  this  subject,  or  give  you  any  ad- 
vice worth  anythmg,  you  must  answer  me  one  ques- 
tion." I  said,  "  What  is  it  ]"  He  then  said,  "  I  want  you 
to  tell  me  whether  this  narrative  which  you  have  read 
is  the  plain  and  honest  truth — what  is  called  in  a  court 
the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth." 
I  said,  "  I  will  answer  that  question  if  you  wiU  promise 
not  to  ask  me  any  further  questions  on  the  subject." 
"  Well,"  saj's  he,  "  I  will  not  catechise  you  against  your 
will  or  wish."  I  then  said,  *'  It  is  not  the  whole  truth  ; 
it  is  only  a  part  of  the  truth  ;  it  is  an  understatement, 
but  it  is  all  I  am  willing  to  give  to  the  public."  "  Then," 
he  said,  "  I  advise  you  not  to  publish  it." 

Mr.  Morris— Your  first  statement  was  correct. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  the  "  True  Story."  [Applause.]  Mr. 
Harman  had  alio  the  "■  True  Story"  submitted  to  him — 


the  "  True  Story"  containing  the  charge  of  improper  so- 
licitations, and  he  says: 

I  said  to  him,  "  I  am  very  glad  to  meet  you,  because  I 
have  been  wanting  to  see  you  for  several  days,"  and  I 
said,  '*  Have  you  seen  this  monstrous  story  of  the  Wood- 
huUs  1"  I  think  he  said  to  me  that  he  had  just  returned 
to  the  city ;  I  don't  know  whether  he  said  he  saw  it  or 
not.  I  told  him  what  it  recited,  and  said,  "Xow,  Theo- 
dore, for  God's  sake  and  your  family's  contradict  it,  give 
it  a  broad  denial,  because,  I  take  it,  you  can  ?"  He  stood 
there,  and  he  says,  "  But  suppose  I  can't  1"  "  Well,"  I 
said,  "  I  assume  that  you  can ;  you  have  never  charged 
any  such  offense  agatost  your  wife  as  that,  and  your  first 
duty  is  to  your  wife  and  children,  and  I  think  that 
you  ought  to  lose  no  time  in  coming  out  to 
contradict  the  monstrous  story."  "  Well,"  he  said,  "  I 
don't  know  :  suppose  I  can't  1  "  I  think  he  repeated  that 
again  ;  and  he  said  Elizabeth— he  always  called  her 
Elizabeth— was  opposed  to  sayiug  anything  about  it ;  she 
was  willing  to  suffer  herself  if  she  cotild  only  save  the 
church  ;  her  theory  seemed  to  be — he  said  she  was  fanati- 
cal ;  either  on  that  or  some  other  occasion  he  said  that 
she  was  fanatical,  and  she  seemed  to  think  her  duty  was 
to  save  the  church,  although  she  might  suffer  herself 
and  might  go  down  ;  and  the  policy,  her  policy,  -eemed 
to  be  to  say  nothing  about  it ;  I  said,  "  If  I  were  you  I 
should  contradict  the  story,  as  I  believe  you  can- as  I 
think  you  can,"  or  "  understand  you  can  ;"  something  to 
that  effect. 

This  is  a  witness  of  their  own,  Mr.  Harman ;  and  he 
says  that  Mr.  Tilton,  when  he  was  pressed,  said  substan- 
tially that  he  could  not  contradict  the  story  ;  and  there  is 
no  dispute  about  Eedpath ;  and  so,  while  this  gentlemaTi 
was  consistently  putting  forth  these  statements  and  let- 
tej-s  and  representations,  reducing  the  character  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  offense,  and  holding  his  wife  pure  and  spotless 
and  free  from  all  reproach,  yet  whenever  he  was  forced 
to  make  a  declaration  as  to  the  truth  of  these  evasions 
and  excuses,  he  at  once  put  himself  (without  then  de- 
claring the  w)»ole  truth)  upon  the  groimd  that  he 
coulu  not  maie  a  full  revelation.  And,  gentlemen, 
I  make  this  remark  to  you  that  you  may  reflect 
upon  it,  that  never,  according  to  the  evidence  in  this 
case,  has  Mr.  Tilton  pronounced  one  single  imtruth  in 
regard  to  the  character  of  this  offense.  He  has  qualified, 
stated,  represented,  related,  invented,  modified,  offenses 
and  excuses  and  qtialiflcations,  but  he  never  has  made  an 
assertion  of  a  falsehood  upon  that  subject  in  the  whole 
history  of  aU  he  has  written  and  said  about  it. 

I  pass  Mr.  Tilton  with  this  very  cursory  examination. 
There  are  subjects  connected  with  these  imputations  to 
him  of  creed  and  doctrine  which  I  atould  find 
some  pleasuje  in  discussing  with  any  gentleman,  though 
not  by  any  means  qualified  to  hold  a  contest  upon 
theological  subjects  with  anybod^>' — but.there  are  some 
topic-s  in  regard  to  social  science,  in  regard  to  marriage 
and  divorce,  which  naturally  possess  interest  for  any  re- 
flecting mind.  I  do  not  entirely,  by  any  means,  agree 
with  the  notion  of  Mr.  Tilton,  if  he  carries  it  so  far  as  to 
maintain  the  right  of  separation  of  husband  and  wife  at 
their  mere  volition,  under  State  regulation  and  as  to  the 


973 


TRB   TlLTON-SEEaRER  TBIAL. 


disposition  of  property  and  the  support  of  cMl- 
dren,  and  all  that— if  he  goes  to  that  ex- 
tent I,  by  no  means,  agree  with  him ; 
but  I  maintain  that  that  is  not  the  extent  of  his  doctrine 
upon  that  subject.  That  is  the  true  free  love  doctrine  as 
Lt  is  taught  m  the  school  of  the  day.  It  is  not  for  me  to 
justify  or  excuse  that,  or  support,  or  condemn  it.  I 
have  nothing  to  say  about  it.  But  I  do  say,  that  a  just 
and  fair  examination  of  the  creed  of  Mr.  Tilton  in  regard 
to  religion,  and  in  regard  to  social  science,  will  exhibit 
him  as  a  reflecting,  thoughtful,  and  judicious  public  man. 

MR.  TILTON'S  CHALLENGE  TO  MR.  BEECHER 
IN  PLYMOUTH  CHURCH. 
That  closes  the  discussion  of  the  direct  evi- 
dence in  this  case,  as  founded  upon  the  testimony  of  Til- 
ton,  Moulton,  and  Mrs.  Moulton,  the  testimony  derived 
from  Beecher's  letters  and  all  that  mass  of  moral  evidence 
which  springs  out  of  the  particular  sublects  we 
have  hitherto  been  considering.  May  I  now 
ask  your  attention  to  a  few  circumstances? 
It  was  a  somewhat  notable  event,  gentlemen,  when  Mr. 
Tilton  appeared  in  Plymouth  Church,  upon  an  occasion 
when  the  gLuestion  was  whether  or  not  he  had  slandered 
its  pastor,  and,  in  the  face  of  the  congregation,  and  of  the 
pastof,  defied  and  challenged  investigation.  Now,  re- 
member the  circumstances.  The  West  charges  were 
under  consideration,  the  third  specification  of  which 
charged  upon  Mr.  Tilton  the  declaration  to  Mrs.  Brad- 
shaw  of  sexual  intimacy  as  between  Mr.  Beecher 
and  Mrs.  Tilton.  It  was  upon  the  records  of 
Plymouth  Church  ;  and  the  questioQ  was  whether  in  that 
allegation  Mr.  Tilton  had  slandered  Henry  Ward  Beecher. 
Mr.  TUton  offered  himself  to  investigation.  You  remem- 
ber thg  letter  which  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Belcher.  Hearing 
that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  Committee  of  the  church 
to  charge  that  he  had  withdrawn  himself  from  investiga- 
tion and  claimed  immunity  because  he  was  not  a  member 
of  the  church,  he  went  down  with  that  letter  of  Belcher, 
waiving  that  immunity,  tendering  himself,  as  a 
member  of  that  church,  to  its  jurisdiction,  and 
saying  to  the  pastor  in  the  face  of  his 
congregation,  and  with  these  charges  pending  upon  the 
records  of  the  church  :  "  If  you  have  any  complaint  to 
make  against  mo— against  me,  who  have  charged  you,  as 
your  records  show,  with  adultery  with  my  wife,  I  am 
here  to  answer  it.  I  do  not  deny  what  I  said"— and  there 
is  no  declaration  in  all  that  Theodore  Tilton  has  written 
upon  that  subject,  wherein  he  denies  the  fact  that  he  did 
charge  adultery—"  I  don't  deny  having  made  the  accusa- 
tion ;  I  am  ready  to  meet  everything  that  I  have  said  and 
to  redeem  all  that  I  have  declared."  Well,  we  would 
suppose  that  when  that  church  was  convulsed 
with  this  difficulty,  when  Mr.  West  and  other  conscien- 
tious gentlemen  of  that  congregation  had  for  nearly  three 
years  been  pressing  investigation— it  would  seem  when 


the  judicatories  of  that  church  had  Mr.  TiltDn  before 
them,  submitting  to  their  jurisdiction,  and  when  every- 
body saw  that  it  was  for  tiie  interests  of  the  church 
to  wipe  from  Henry  Ward  Beecher  the  stain  of 
this  scandal  and  to  condemn  his  audacious  slanderer ; 
it  would  seem  that  then  was  the  time  when  injured  inno 
cence  and  indignant  virtue  would  have  stood  up,  in 
the  person  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  would  have  de- 
nounced his  libeler,  cleared  himself  and  his  elmrch  from 
the  infamy  of  this  scandal,  and  stilled  the  dis- 
quiet and  discontent  which  were  disturbing  the 
peade  of  his  congregation.  Woidd  he  not 
have  done  so  if  innocent?  The  only  ques- 
tion involved  there  was  whether  Mr.  Tilton  had 
falsely  charged  Henry  Ward  Beecher  with  adultery  with 
his  wife ;  no  other  question.  And  Mr.  Beecher,  he  who 
is  so  proud  and  confident  to-day,  when,  in  that  open 
court  in  the  temple  of  his  God  and  before  the  world  The- 
odore Tilton  declared  that  he  had  uttered  no  untruth 
against  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  challenged  him  to  the 
issue— he  slunk  from  the  issue.  "I  have  no  charge 
to  make,"  says  Mr.  Beecher.  And  why  not?  When 
everything  was  crowding  thus  to  the  investigation,  when 
every  interest  demanded  it,  when  he  had  the  power  and 
the  control  of  the  tribunal  which  was  to  examine  and  to 
pronounce  upon  it— Why  not?  It  must  be  answered, 
gentlemen.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  Mr,  Beecher  was 
fearful  about  the  influence  on  Tilton's  family.  It  will  not 
do  to  say  that  he  understood  that  Mrs.  Tilton  had,  un- 
sought, conferred  upon  him  her  affections.  The  inquiry 
involved  no  such  issue,  no  such  question.  No  necessity, 
no  necessity  for  referring  to  it ;  and  up  to  that  time  no- 
body had  ever  suggested  it,  so  far  as  we  can  hear. 

MRS.  HOOKER'S  THREAT  TO  INYADE  HER 
BROTHER'S  PULPIT. 

Why  was  it  that  this  matter  was  not  then 
examined  and  disposed  of ,  under  circumstances  eminently 
favorable  for  a  disposition  of  it  satisfactory  to  truth  and 
to  the  interests  involved?  It  appears  from  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Tilton  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Beecher  came  into  Moulton's  house  about  the  time 
I  have  mentioned,  I  think  it  was  between  the  death  and 
the  burial  of  Mr.  Greeley,  saying,  with  a  good  deal  of  ex- 
citement of  manner  and  holding  out  some  papers  in  his 
hands  which  he  had  received  from  his  sister,  Mrs. 
Hooker— he  said  that  his  sister  had  threatened  to  come 
down  to  Brooklyn  and  to  invade  his  pulpit  and  to  read 
from  the  desk  the  confession  of  his  relations 
with  Mrs.  Triton  to  the  entire  congregation;  and 
said  he,  "  What  shall  I  do  ?"  and  he  showed  Mr.  Moulton 
and  me  the  letters.  Mr.  Moulton  read  them ;  I  read 
them.  Mr.  Beecher  said :  "  What  do  you  think  of  the  con- 
dition of  a  man  who  gets  such  letters  as  this  from  a  mem- 
ber of  his  own  family  ?"  and  he  expressed  profound  grief 
and  great  agitation  and  excitement,  and  he  repeatedly 
asked,  "  What  is  to  be  done ;  is  there  no  end  of  trouble  or 
complication  ?"  Mr.  Moulton  asked  me  what  I  thought 
ought  to  be  done,  and  after  some  reflection  I  said,  "  Give 


SUMMlJSa    UP  BY  JIB.  BEACU. 


me  thp  letters,  and  I  go  and  see  Mrs.  Hooiier  ;  I  will 
stop  this  nuscliiet and  I  took  tlie  letters,  and  I  saw 
Mrs.  Hooker,  and  I  stopped  the  misx'liief. 

And  a  report  of  tte  result  was  made,  I  beHeve,  and  he 
-says :  , 

The  substance  of  what  Mr.  Beeclier  said  was  that  he 
was  profoundly  thankful  that  he  had  escaped  a  great 
danger  which  menaced  him  from  a  member  of  his  own 
family. 

That  is  not  contradicted  bv  Mr.  Beecher.  Will  you 
please  reflect  upon  it  a  moment,  gentlemen.  A  sister 
writes  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  she  will  come  down,  and,  in 
his  pulpit  in  Plymouth  Church,  read  a  confession 
of  his  connection  with  Mrs.  Tilton,  Now,  there  is 
no  dispute  that  such  a  letter  was  written ;  there  is  no 
dispute  that  Mr.  Beecher  called  to  his  aid  the  services  of 
Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton;  there  is  no  dispute  that  Mr. 
"Tilton  s  w  Mrs.  Hooker  and  (iuieted  the  mischief  ;  and 
yet  that  man,  with  that  admitted,  tells  you  upon  the 
stand  that  he  never  was  guilty  of  the  slightest  impropri- 
ety toward  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  you  are  asked  to  believe  it ! 
"Mr.  Beecher  did  your  sister  threaten  to  do  this 
thing,  from  your  pulpit,  expose  an  improper  con- 
nection between  you  and  Mrs.  Tilton  1"  Mr.  Beecher 
is  silent.  "  Did  you  give  her  letters  to  Mr,  TUton  and  per- 
mit him  to  interview  your  sister  for  the  pui-pose  of  quiet- 
ing her  threat  and  averting  the  graat  danger  brooding 
over  you  1"  No  answer  from  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  It 
is  true  then.  The  threat  was  luade.  Mr.  Beecher  con- 
cedes the  force  of  the  threat,  and  instead 
of  meeting  defiantly  and  like  an  innocent 
man,  all  demands  and  threats  of  that  character, 
he  allowed  it  to  be  settled  by  the  intervention  of  Mr. 
Tilton !  Well,  iu  the  name  of  all  that  is  credible  and 
credulous  are  we  to  disregard  such  evidence,  and  are  we 
to  believe  such  a  theory  as  Mr.  Beecher  presents  ?  It  is 
not  the  simple  question  of  adultery.  If  Mi\  Beecher  has 
falsely  represented  in  regard  to  his  associations  with  Mrs. 
Tilton,  has  denied  Improper  solicitations  when  the 
improper  solicitations  were  made — \f  you  believe 
upon  this  evidence  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  did  unduly 
and  basely  solicit  his  parishioner,  Mrs.  Tilton,  then  it 
destroys  his  evidence  utterly ;  the  solemn  and  oracular 
sentence  of  my  learned  adversary,  Mr.  Evarts,  condemns 
him—"  false  in  one,  false  iu  all."  If  you  did  basely  ap- 
proach this  woman,  Mr.  Beecher,  and  have  dared  to 
deny  it  as  a  witness,  you  are  not  to  be  credited,  and  the 
full  weight  of  the  evidence  of  Moulton  and  Tilton  and 
Mrs.  Moulton,  and  of  the  argument  to  be  derived  fxom 
your  own  letters,  is  uncontradicted,  and  there  must  be 
judgment  according  to  it.  That  was  a  subject  that  was 
not  thought  of  auflaoient  consequence  by  my  learned 
friends  to  receive  special  comment. 

MRS.  BRADSHAWS  LETTER  TO  MR.  BEECHER. 
There  was  another  that  seemed  to  escape 

their  attention.   I  believe  all  concede  that  Mrs.  Brad- 


973 

shaw  is  an  estimable  and  pious  lady.  Certainly  every- 
thing we  have  seen  of  her,  iu  her  appearance  in  court 
and  in  the  letter  to  Mi*.  Beeclier,  which  I  am  about  to 
read,  commends  her  not  only  to  our  confidence  but  to  our 
respect,  because,  when  she  was  speaking  in  regard  to 
Mrs.  Tilton,  when  she  knew  of  the  charge  which  3Ir.  rU- 
ton  himself  had  made,  but  before  she  had  re- 
ceived a  confession  from  other  sources,  she  still 
spoke  of  Mrs.  Tilton  with  the  utmost  affection  and  com- 
mendation; and,  notwithstanding,  as  we  saw,  she  had 
the  means  of  apprehending  perfectly  the  relations  be- 
tween Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton,  she  could  not — con- 
fiiming  our  theory  and  Mr.  Beecher's  and  Mr. 
Tilton's  opinion  in  rerrard  to  Mrs.  Tilton's 
character— she  could  not  but  bear  testimony  to 
the  character  of  Mrs.  Tilton  for  piety,  lady-like 
decorum  and  purity.  Well,  these  West  charges  were 
pending.  IMi-s.  l&radshaw  was  a  witness ;  it  was  to  her 
that  Mr.  Tilton  had  made  the  declarations  contained  In 
the  third  specification.  This  woman,  for  twenty 
years  a  devoted  and  serviceable  member  of  Mr.  Beecher's 
chui'ch,  thus  addressed  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  4th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1873 : 

Mr.  Beecher— Dear  Friend :  I  want  very  much,  if  you 
are  willing,  to  have  a  few  words  with  you  in  regard  to 
the  statement  which  I,  in  good  faith,  consented  to  make 
before  the  Chiu-ch  Committee  in  your  behalf  and  Eliza- 
beth's, for  I  felt  that  my  intimacy  with  her  and  my  love 
for  her  and  for  you  gave  me  a  right  to  speak  in  her  vin- 
dication. I  could  not  and  would  not  believe  that  you  had 
been  otherwise  than  basely  calumniated.  Now,  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Tilton  come  and  warn  me  not  to  do  it,  if  I  value 
your  welfare,  and  refer  me  to  you  for  advice  in  the  matter 
I  shall  be  governed  entirely  by  what  you  say,  for  I  would 
part  with  my  right  hand  sooner  than  to  destroy  the  love 
and  confidence  which  is  imi)osed  in  you  all  over  the 
world.  WiU  you  see  me  for  a  few  moments  here  or 
wherever  you  may  appoint.  Or  must  I  accept  Theodore's 
awful  story  for  truth  \  Do  mitigate  it,  be  it  ever  so  little, 
if  you  can.  Elizabeth  has  never  made  any  confessions  to 
me. 

She  had  not  at  that  time. 

God  knows  that  I  do  not  seek  an  interview  from  any 
motives  of  morbid  curiosity ;  the  subject  is  too  painful 
for  that.  Believe  me,  you  have  no  sinoerer  fiiend  than 
M.  A.  Bradshaw.  Please  do  not  send  a  verbal  answer  by 
Mr.  HaUlday,  to  whom  I  intrust  this  note,  because  I  do 
not  wish  to  iutrude  at  youi-  house.  Of  course  I  do  not 
wish  to  see  you  if  you  prefer  otherwise,  but  send  me  a 
line  in  reply  if  you  do  not  come,  that  I  may  know  what 
to  do,  for  I  cannot  take  the  word  of  any  other  person  in 
this  matter.  M.  A.  B. 

Now,  take  ta  the  whole  condition,  gentlemen,  of  things, 
then;  the  source  from  which  this  appeal  came;  the  piti- 
ful anxiety  of  the  appeal  on  the  part  of  a  devoted  Christ- 
ian woman  who  wanted  to  do  right,  who  wanted  to  pro- 
tect Mr.  Beecher,  who  would  not,  as  she  says,  for  her 
right  hand,  reduce  the  respect  with  which  he  was  re- 
garded throughout  the  world.  "  Oh !  Mr.  Beecher,  Mr. 
and  Mi  s.  Tilton  come  to  me  and  tell  me  I  had  better  not 
defend  you.  They  refer  me  to  you— must  I  believe  the 


974 


IBM    JlL'rON-BEEVMER  TRIAL. 


Infamous  stones  tliat  TiitoH  iias  told  me  against  you  ? 
Oli,  do  modify  them,  if  it  only  be  a  little."  And  wLal  is 
tLe  reply  1 

Mt  Dkar  Friend  :  I  thank  you  for  yoru*  cordial  and 
ejTnpatliizing  note,  and  accept  your  expressions  of  con- 
tidence  and  affection ;  and  I  need  not  say  to  you  how  sin- 
cerely I  reciprocate  them.  In  regard  to  the  matter  of 
whieli  3'ou  speak,  let  me  say  frankly  that  I  thmk  you 
■^ill  do  the  greatest  good  to  all  parties  concerned  hy  pur- 
suing the  course  which  I  have  done  from  the  first, 
namely :  refusing  to  allow  the  public  to  meddle  with 
donjestic  and  private  affairs.  It  is  imi>ossltale  ever  to 
bri^g  domestic  matters,  complicated  by  elements  which 
cannot  be  stated  or  understood,  and  without  which  all 
exi>lanatlons  will  be  barren,  into  public  without  doing  a 
deal  more  harm  than  good.  To  be  let  absolutely  alone  is 
the  sure  and  safe  remedy ;  and,  in  this  case,  whatever 
dltfloulties  have  arisen  have  been  amicably  ad- 
justed by  those  most  deeply  concerned.  I  know 
very  well  that  the  impulse  of  affection  leads 
a  generous  nature  to  wish  to  fly  to  a  friend's  succor ;  and 
I  am  sure  that  you  would  not  spare  yourself  any  pains  to 
help  those  who  need  yo\x.  But,  happily,  the  best  help 
you  can  give  is  to  continue  to  love  and  trust  those  whom 
you  liave  always  trusted,  and  to  reftise  to  have  any  hand 
in  giving  mischievous  publicity  to  private  affairs,  even 
by  allowing  them  to  be  discussed  in  your  presence.  With 
sincere  affection,  old  and  new,  I  remain,  very  truly  yours, 
Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

"  Oh  !  Mr.  Beecher,  js  that  awful  sorrow  told  by  Theo- 
dore Tilton  the  truth  %  Do  mitigate  it,  be  it  ever  so  little, 
if  you  can."  Do  you  believe  that  reply  under  those  cir 
cumstaiices  was  written  by  a  man  who  could  stand  up  in 
the  presence  of  his  fellow-men  and  declare  that  there  was 
not  a  single  shadow  of  offense  upon  his  heart ;  that  he  had 
never  offered  evcM  an  incivility  to  Mrs.  Tilton.  When 
this  pure  and  devoted  woman  was  appealing  to  him  for  a 
contradiction  of  the  awful  sorrow,  as  she  calls  it,  told  by 
Mr.  Tilton  gainst  him.  It  appearing  that  that  sorrow,  by 
the  records  of  his  church,  was  a  charge  of  adultery  with 
Mrs.  Tilton,  would  this  man,  if  innocent,  treat  this  es 
timable  and  trusting  lady  with  an  evasion  of  this  char- 
acter? What  was  the  difficulty  iu  his  saying,  "This 
story  is  not  true  ?"  When  the  appeal  came  to  him  from 
this  lady  to  mitigate  it,  could  not  he  have  given  a  denial  ? 
He  knew  the  truth  of  the  story,  and  he  knew  more,  too, 
that  it  was  not  safe  for  him,  to  Elizabeth  Bradshaw,  who 
had  received  this  communication,  as  is  proven,  through 
Theodore  Tilton— it  was  not  safe  for  Mr.  Beecher  to  lay 
Mr.  Tilton  in  the  lie.  At  any  rate,  instead  of  relie  ring 
the  anxiety  of  this  woman,  instead  of  tendering  a  denial, 
which  would  have  been  received  by  her  implicitly,  he  re- 
fuses all  explanation,  and  she  refuses  to  go  before  the 
Church  Committee. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  OFFER  TO  RESIGN. 
It  is  admitted  that  Mr.  Beecher  prepared  a 
resignation.  In  his  letter  he  declares  that  he  is  willing 
to  sacrifice  himself  for  Tilton ;  I  will  not  read  it  again ; 
that  he  is  willing  to  step  down  and  out  if  it  will  pacify 
the  difficulty.  Wliy,  please,  geutlemen,  what  a  spectacle 


that  is  for  an  innocent  man  who  had  never  done  any- 
thiug  wrong ;  whose  conscience  was  free  and  clear,  say- 
ing to  Theodore  Tilton  and  his  wife^  who  had  made  a 
false  charge  against  him  of  improper  solicitations  ;  who 
had  retracted  and  repeated  that  charge ;  who  had  not 
only    done    that,  but    had    sent  a    letter    to  Mr, 
Storis,  whom  he  had  consigned  to  daihnation,  reit- 
erating the  same  charge,    and   making    it  in  thus 
far  public,  this  man  in  1873,  after  he  had  come  to  the 
conclusion  upon  the  payment  of  $2,000  that  there  was 
blackmail  somewhere  hidden  in  the  transaction,  he  say- 
ing to  the  people  whom  he  thus  condemned  and  dishon- 
ored, "  If  it  will  relieve  you,  if  it  will  be  of  any  service  to 
you,  I'll    step    down  and  out,  I'll  leave    my  pul- 
pit,   consecrated    to    the     service     of     my  God, 
which    for    25    years    I   have    followed    with  de- 
votion and  diligence,  bearing  up  the  great  interests 
of  Plymouth  Chm-ch  and  of  universal  religion ;  yet,  you 
conspirators  and  blackmailers— you  woman  who  have 
charged  me  with  improper  solicitation  against  your  vir- 
tue—you, my  parishioner,  who  makes  this  false  charge 
against  me— O,  I  will  resign,  I  wiU  step  down  and  out,  if 
you  desire.   All  you  have  got  to  say  is  *  Do  it,'  and  I  will 
sacrifice  myself  for  you."  Why,  m  the  name  of  all  that 
is  wonderful,  that    is    an  argument,  a  proposition 
addressed  to  twelve  sensible  men,  and  an  intelligent 
community,  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher  could  do  that 
thtug  without  a  taint  of  guilt  upon  his  heart.   Why  what 
for  ?   What  could  Mr.  Beecher  sacrifice  himself  for  ?  You 
see  it  is  in  his  writing,  it  is  in  Mr.  Beecher 's  own  letter, 
above  his  own  signature,  and  he  can't  deny  it.  There  is 
no  talking  here  now  about  resignation  for  tlie  purpose  of 
fights;  there  is  no  squaring  off  for  an  encounter;  no 
shaking  off  of  impediments.  The  man  is  willing  to  step 
down  from  his  pulpit  and  to  sacrifice  himself  and  all  the 
gi-eat  interests  which  hung  around  him  ;  and  for  what  % 
If  he  was  innocent  and  pure,  if  he  had  done  no  wrong  to 
Tilton  and  his  wife,  why  at  their  demand  should  he  step 
down  from  his  pulpit,  and  lay  down  his  honor  and  his 
duty?  Why,  gentlemen,  you  must  answer  this.  What 
reason  have  my  friends  given  %  By  what  argument  or 
explanation  do  they  meet  this  concession  ?  Could  there  be 
a  deeper,  clearer  confession?  By  any  word  or  act  could 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  more  humbly  and  penitently  declare 
Ms  sin  ?   Gentlemen,  that  is  a  fact  written  by  Mr.  Beecher, 
which  can't  be  erased  from  this  record.   It  appeals 
directly  to  your  sound  sense  and  good  judgment,  and  it 
is  a  fact  that  must  be  conscientiously  disposed  of.  When 
we  find  that  fact  conspiring  with  the  other  evidence 
in    the    case    to    prove    adultery,  it    cannot  be 
pushed    aside    with    inattention ;  you    must  think 
of    it,    you    must     dispose     of     it,  .   as  logical 
and      truth-loving     men ;      and,      if      you  can 
do  it  consistently  with  the  entire  innocence  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  why  you  have  a  power  of  logic  and  ingenuity 
inconceivable  to  me.  Now,  I  am  not  going  to  stop  to 


sr^nnyG  uf  by  JdB.  beach. 


975 


reason  iipou  the  readiness  Tvitli  wMcli  Mr.  Beeclier  gave 
up  liis  idea  of  resignation  when  Mr.  TUron  threatened 
violence  if  it  -w-as  tendered.  I  do  not  conceive  it  of  im- 
portance enongli.  The  other  fact  lifts  itself  so  immeas- 
avablv  above  any  such  consideration,  and  overshadows 
trifling  circumstances  and  inferences  so  grandly,  that  I 
do  not  propose  to  waste  its  efl'ect. 

THE  CLAXDESTiyE  LETTERS. 

On  fhe  7tli  of  February,  1871,  Mr.  Beeclier 
wrote  to  Mrs.  Tilton  a  letter,  which  has  been  r^ad  I  bi- 
lieve  several  times,  commencing  with  : 

My  Dear  Mr^.  TrLTOX  :  When  I  saw  you  last  I  did  not 
expect  ever  to  see  you  again  or  to  be  alive  many  days. 
God  was  kinder  to  me  than  were  my  own  thoughts. 

And  he  commended  in  that  letter  Mr.  Monlton  to  Mrs. 
Tilton. 

You  liave  ni'  friend,  Theodore  excepted,  who  has  it  in 
his  power  to  serve  you  so  vitally,  and  who  will  do  it  with 
so  much  delicacy  and  honor.  I  beseech  V'ju.  if  my  wishes 
have  yet  any  influence,  let  my  deliberate-  judgment  in  this 
matter  weigh  with  you.  It  does  my  sore  heart  srood  to 
see  in  Mr.  Moulron  au  unfeigned  respect  and  honor  for 
you.  It  v\-ould  kill  lue  if  he  thought  it  otherwise.  He  will 
be  as  true  :>  friend  TO  your  honor  and  happiness  as  a 
brother  could  ije  to  a  sister's. 

A  true  friend  to  Mrs.  Tilton's  honor !  How  was  her 
honor  involved  ?  Why  did  her  honor  need  a  friend,  ami 
a  true  and  devoted  friend  ?  What  had  she  done  by  which 
her  honor  was  assailed  so  that  it  needed  a  fiiend  to  de- 
fend and  uphold  it  ? 

In  him  we  have  a  coumion  groimd.  You  and  I  may 
meet  in  him.  The  past  is  ended,  but  is  there  no  futur"^. 
no  wiser,  higher,  holier  fiirure  ?  May  not  this  friejid 
stand  as  a  priest  in  the  new  sanetaary  of  reconciliation, 
and  mciiiatc  and  bles.s  you.  Theodore,  and  my  most  un- 
happy Self  1 

This  is  written  after,  acco:  ding  to  Mr.  Beecher's  testi- 
mony, he  was  forbidden,  as  he  understood,  by  Tilton,  to 
enter  his  house,  after  Mr.  Beecherhad  wnritten  in  another 
letter  that  he  could  not  visit  Mr.  Tilton's  a^ain  without 
The.  idore's  consent,  and  he  did  not  think  it  would  be  wise 
r^i  d  1- with  that ;  after  :Mr.  Beecher,  according  to  his 
present  evidence,  had,  to  his  great  astonishment,  learned 
that  the  wife  of  his  friend  had,  unsought,  bestowed  upon 
him  her  idolatry,  so  that  it  had  disturbed  their 
family  relations,  ruptured  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  Theodore  Triton's  household,  made  this  woman 
restless  and  uneasy,  uncheerful  and  repulsive ;  it  is 
then  that  Mr.  Beecher  undertakes  to  write  and  cor- 
respond with  ilr.  Tilton.  They  are  called  clandestine 
letters.  I  oare  nothing  about  that.  The  point  is  that  3Ir. 
B'^echer,  under  these  circumstances,  believing,  if  he  did 
believe,  that  this  woman  was  devoted  to  him,  that  she 
hsbd  strayed  from  the  love  of  her  youth,  should  dare  to 
send  appeals  such  as  those  lie  did  make,  as  I  will  show 
you,  to  that  woman,  fomenting  her  passion,  appealing  to 
her  affection,  craving  from  her  the  tenderness  and  the 
affection  which  woirld  restore  his  own  blighted  and  suffer- 


ing nature,  daring  in  the  face  of  the  theory  he  presents  in 
this  court,  imputing  to  this  woman  the  indelicacy  of  loving 
him  without  solicitation,  when  it  was  aU  revealed  to  him, 
when  he  had  this  great  sorrow  and  suffering  upon  him. 
Aye,  it  was  at  that  very  time  when  the  darkness  of  death 
was  gathering  around  him,  the  horror  of  great  darkness  ^ 
the  piercing  thrust  of  those  ragged  edges  of  remoi-se  and 
despair;  it  was  then,  as  he  pretends,  that  this  man  sent 
these  inflammable  epistles  of  his,  full  of  his  own  love, 
and  of  solicitation  for  hers ;  nay,  nay,  suggesting  oppor- 
tunities of  meeting,  exerting  all  his  influence  to  wean 
this  woman  from  the  love  of  home  and  children,  and  to 
hold  her  still  in  the  hands  of  the  delusion 
through  which  she  had  sacriflced  herself  to  him.  ^liy, 
if  there  was  nothing  else  in  this  case,  upon  his  own 
I  theory,  to  .show  the  conduct  of  the  man,  to  prove  that  he 
i  was  baiTen  and  rotten  at  the  heart,  it  would  be  these  let- 
ters. Instead  of  admonishing  that  woman  as  a  holy 
priest  should  do,  of  the  impropriety  and  siui olness  of 
her  strayed  affection,  instead  of  pointing  her  to  husband 
and  children  and  home,  and  to  the  precepts  of  her  Re- 
deemer, he  addresses  her  in  terms  of  affection  and  de- 
I  sire,  and  suggests  to  her  considerations  that  are  calcu- 
I  lated  widely,  and  more  widely,  to  separate  her  love  from 
her  husband,  and  her  soul  from  her  God. 

Ju^lire  Neilson— Gentlemen  keep  their  seats  until  the 
jury  retire. 

JUEOR    HULL    DE>TES  BIPUTATIOXS 
I  THE  JURY. 

Mr.  Hull  Lone  of  the  jurors] — If  your  Honor 
please,  I  would  like  to  say  one  word.  The  gentleman  has 
taken  occasion  this  afternoon  to  reflect— possibly  to  make 

two  reflections  on  the  jury.  It  is  not  the  first  time  

Judge  XeUson  [To  the  audience]— SUence  I   [To  Mr. 

HuU]  "  The  first  time  " 

I     Air.  Hull— It  is  not  the  fl-rst  time,  nor  the  second,  nor  the 
:  thii'.l.  nor  the  fo.irth,  nor  the  fifth,  that  we  have  been 
cm'.'rlled  to  listen  to  those  reflections  durine  the  last 
i  eight  days  of   the    court  session.     Is  it  not  enough 
!  that  we  are  compelled  to  sit  here  day  in  and  day  out, 
j  week  in  and  week  out,  month  in  and  month  out,  for  the 
I  last  six  months,  deprived  of  all  means  of  following  our 
1  usual  avocations,  and  deprived  of  the  means  of  labor 
I  which  makes  our  home  happy  and  comfortable,  sul> 
mitring  to  the  bare  pittance  of  nine  dollars  a  week, 
without  submitting  to  the  insinuations  and  reflections  of 
coimsel?  I  can  safely  say,  your  Honor,  I  beUeve  this 
jury  has  not  been  approached  with  undue  influences,  ex- 
cept throusrh  the  means  of  these  envelopes  [producing  a 
document  from  his  pocket-bookj,  which  inclose  a  slip  cut 
from  The  Xeic-YorJc  Sun,  which  was  sent  through  the 
Xew-York  and  Brooklyn  Post-Offices  to  us.   I  hope  your 
Honor  wiU  instruct  the  gentleman  to  be  kind  enough  to 
refrain  from  such  reflections  on  the  jury.  [Applause.] 
Judge  Neilson— I  have        Silence  I  Can't  we  have  iiuiet 


97G 


THE   TILTON-BEECEEB  TRIAL. 


one  single  minute  ?  I  must  say  to  the  juror  that  I  think— 
while  I  appreciate  what  he  says— I  think  he  utterly  mis- 
understands the  counsel.  I  do  not  think  the  counsel  in- 
tended to  make  a  reflection,  or  to  make  any  suggestion 
that  the  jury  have  been  approached.  Some  allowance 
must  be  made  for  counsel  speaking  rapidly,  and  often 
under  excitement.  Very  few  of  us  speaking  thus  fail  to 
fall  into  an  occasional  remark  that  is  not  intended,  or 
which  may  lead  to  a  misapprehension. 
Mr.  Hull— It  is  very  hard,  your  Honor,  to  submit. 

THE  DEFENSE  CHAEGED  WITH  TAMPERING 
WITH  JURORS. 

Mr.  Beach— It  may  be  hard  for  that  gentle- 
man ;  and  it  may  be,  your  Honor,  that  it  would  be  politic 
for  me  to  accept  the  excuse  of  hurried  debate,  which  your 
Honor  makes ;  but  I  have  good  reason  to  believe.  Sir, 
that  this  jury  has  been  approached,  members  of  it.  I 
have  got  pretty  clear  and  satisfactory  evidence  of  it, 
Sir,  and  it  may  not  be  impossible  that  I  may  pre- 
sent it  to  your  Honor  for  consideration  before  this 
case  is  ended.  [Applause.]  I  do  not  make  any  imputa- 
tion against  any  person  upon  this  jury,  but  that  mem- 
bers of  this  jury  have  made  most  improper  declarations 
in  regard  to  their  opinions  and  purposes  in  this  case  I 
have  the  means  of  proving ;  and  that  they  have'been  ap- 
proached by  the  emissaries  of  the  defendant  I  have  the 
means  of  proving. 

Mr.  Abbott— If  your  Honor  please  

Judge  Neilson— Wijl  the  audience  keep  still  ?  Allow 
me,  Mr.  Abbott,  to  remark  

Mr.  Abbott— Win  your  Honor  allow  me  to  state  that 
such  remarks  are  out  of  place  unless  in  connection  with 
some  serious  application  to  your  Honor  made  upon  pro- 
fessional responsibility,  which  will  give  at  once  signifi- 
cance and  the  opportunity  of  meeting  them.  We  submit 
that  such  remarks  are  not  called  for  in  this  connection. 

Mr.  Shearman— If  your  Honor  please  

Judge  Neilson— One  moment,  Mr.  Shearman. 

MR.  SHEARMAN  DENIES  THE  ACCUSATION. 

Mr.  Shearman  [continuing]— We  respectfully 
demand  that  he  should  produce  the  evidence  here  and 
now ;  and  as  far  as  the  defendant  is  (deemed  I  pro- 
nounce all  these  assertions,  if  they  are  intended  to  reflect 
upon  any  one  representing  the  defendant  qt  his  counsel, 
or  having,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  slightest  authority 
from  them,  as  utterly  untrue. 

Judge  Neilson— He  doesn't  pretend  to  say  they  do  come 
from  them, 

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  no,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— Your  Honor,  there  was  a  charge  made 
early  in  this  case,  and  made  against  the  defemdaKit  and 
his  counsel,  of  some  tampering  with  their  witnesses,  or 
something  of  that  Mnd,  which  T  pronounced 
utterly  untrue.  Very  early  in  the  opening  reference 


was  made  to  money  having  b3en  used,  an^l 
money  used  by  Plymouth  Church.  And  now.  Sir,  I  desire 
to  say  to  my  friend — and  he  has  known  me  five  years,  if 
not  30,  and  knows  intimately  my  character— I  desire  to 
say  that  I  wUl  take  the  responsibility  of  any  tampering,  if 
there  has  been  any,  for  there  has  not  been  one  dollar  of 
money  used  in  this  case  which  has  not  come  out  of 
my  personal  pocket,  and  there  is  no  human  being  that 
has  contributed  to  the  expense  of  this  suit  except  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  and  myself,  from  personal,  private  funds. 

Judge  Neilson— I  desire  that  this  subject  end  here.  I 
am  very  sorry  that  the  remarks  were  made. 

Mr.  Beach — One  moment.  Sir ;  one  moment.  Sir.  The 
assertions  of  counsel  are  evidently  beyond  his  knowl- 
edge, because  it  is  very  possible  that  parties  interested 
in  this  litigation,  in  sympathy  with  the  defendant,  could 
very  easily  use  means  and  for  purposes  which  were  not 
known  to  Mr.  Shearman;  and  however  ready 
he  may  be  to  take  the  responsibility  of 
all  the  mischief  which  may  have  been  done 
on  the  part  of  the  defense,  he  certainly  cannot  speak 
with  a  full  knowledge  in  regard  to  it.  Now,  Sir,  it  would 
have  been  exceedingly  improper  that  anytliing  of  this 
kind  should  have  been  said,  if  I  had  not  been  arraigned 
by  one  of  the  jurymen. 

Judge  Neilson— I  regret  it  very  miich,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  not  made  any  charge,  Sir,  against 
this  jury.  I  beg  to  repeat,  Sir,  I  have  not  made  any 
charge  against  this  jury,  until  I  was  called  out  by  this 
appealof  the  juryman.  I  have  said  that  there  were  no- 
torious and  prominent  influences  surrounding  this  court 
aindthis  case,  and  everybody  sees  it  and  knows  it,  with- 
out imputing  any  corrupting  influence.  And  when  the 
gentlemen  calls  upon  me  to  sustain  what  I  may  say  in  an 
argument  to  your  Honor  upon  this  question,  why,  I 
shall  take  my  own  time  and  consult  my  own  pleas- 
ure as  to  the  mode  in  which  I  shall  do  it.  And  T 
shall  be  very  sorry,  Sir,  if  anything  which  I  have  said 
has  been  offensive  to  the  juryman  who  has  taken  occar 
sion  to  address  you,  because  I  should  very  much  regret 
if  I  should  do  anything  to  sacrifice  the  respect  of  that 
juryman ;  and,  niOre  than  all,  It  I  should  do  anything 
imprudent,  to  injure  the  cause  of  my  client.  I  have  no 
right  to  do  that,  and  I^o  not  wish  to  do  it ;  and  I  hope 
that  that  gentleman  Vlll  not  be  induced  to  any  feeling  of 
projudice  in  consequence  of  anything  which  I  may  have 
1  said. 

JUROR  HULL  ACCEPTS  MR.    BEACH'S  EX- 
PLANATION. 

Mr.  Hull— I  would  state,  your  Honor,  that 

there  is  no  prejudice  iu  th-  matter.  It  was  merely  a  re 
quest  on  my  part  that  the  gentleman  would  relraiu  from 
easting  any  reflection,  as  it  appeared  to  me  ho  had  done 
before  in  his  argument,  without  any  prejudice  eitlner  one 


SUMMING    UF  J 

•way  or  the  other.  I  accept  the  gentleman's  apology, 
with  all  due  deference  and  respect.  [LaughterJ 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  as  this  subject  has  now  heeu  sug- 
gested, we  request  your  Honor  to  appoint  a  time  when 
you  will  hear  us  in  regard  to  these  approaches. 

Judge  Neilson— Tf  any  question  of  that  kind  is  to  he 
considered,  let  it  he  after  the  case  is  all  over,  when 
some  person  ought  to  he  appointed.    That  is  the  appro- 
priate time. 
Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir- 
Judge  Neilson— In  my  opinion,  I  think  it  is. 
Mr.  Pullerton— Well,  Sir,  the  challenge  came  from  Mr. 
Shearman  to  do  it  now.   If   "now"  means  during  the 
progress  of  the  trial,  we  will  accept  the  challenge. 
Mr.  Shearman- J  will  accept  it. 

Judge  Neilson— It  would  not  be  orderly,  I  think,  now. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  we  want  to  manifest  a  disposition 
to  meet  the  o/icption  on  the  other  side,  and  to  show  what 
we  have  got.  because  he  will  tind  that  there  have  a  great 
manj*  things  probably  taken  place  during  the  progress  of 
this  trial  that  he  doesn't  know  anything  about. 

Judge  Neilson— Gejjtlemen  will  keep  their  seats  until 
the  jury  retire.  Eleven  o'clock  to-morrow  morning 
gentlemen. 

The  C^urt  then  stood  adiourned  to  Tuesday  morning. 


108TH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


MR.  BEACH  DRAWING  NEAR  A  CONCLUSION. 

THE  QUKSTIOX  OF  IMPROPER  APPROACHES  TO 
THE  JURY  AGAIN  DISCUSSED— MR.  FULLERTON 
DECLARES  THAT  HE  POSSESSES  AFFIDAVITS  IN 
PROOF — COMMENTS  FROM  MR.  EVARTS— CONTIN- 
UATION OF  MR.  BEACH'S  ARGUMENT— THE  INTI- 
MACY BETWEEN  MR.  BEECHER  AND  MRS.  TIL- 
TON— WHY  WAS  NOT  MRS.  MORSE  CALLED  AS  A 
WITNESS?— MR.  BEECHER'S  ALLEG1:D  INCLINA- 
TION TOWARD  SUICIDE  —  TESTIMONY  OF  3IR. 
WILKESON  AND  MR.  BELCHER  CONSTDEREp— 
MISS  turner's  EVIDENCE  AS  BEARING  ON  THE 
CHARGE  OF  ADULTERY— THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  AL- 
LEGED CONSPIRACY  AGAINST  MR.  BEECHER— THE 
DEFENDANT  DIRECTLY  CHARGED  WITH  PERJURY 
—HOW  HE  MIGHT  HAVE  JUSTIFIED  THE  ALLEGED 
CRIME  TO  HIMSELF— WANT  OF  ORTHODOXY  IN 
MR.  BEECHER'S  SERMONS. 

Tuesday,  June  22,  1875. 
At  the  continuation  of  the  suit  of  Tlieodore  Til- 
ton  agt.  Henry  Ward  Beeoher  to-day  Mr.  Beacla  re- 
sumed his  argument  in  the  summing  up  for  the 
plaintiff.  The  "notahle  circumstances"  of  the 
case,  as  they  were  called,  were  first  discussed,  and 
following  them  came  an  examination  of  the  testi- 


r  ME.   BEACH.  977 

mony  of  Bessie  Turner  and  that  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher. 

Mr.  Beach's  manner  of  speaking  continues  un- 
changed. Hit5  voice  is  somewhat  husky,  hut  his 
tones  have  a  deliberate  earnestness  that  gives  full 
eliect  to  his  vigorous  words.  Several  attempts  at 
satire  were  made  by  him.  One  of  these  tliat 
was  greeted  with  a  laugh  by  the  supporters  of 
both  parties  to  the  controversy,  had  reference  to  an 
extract  from  Mr.  Beecher's  sermon  on  "  the  nobility 
of  confession,"  preached  Oct.  4,  1868.  Mr.  Beecher 
says  that  a  person  should  take  counsel,  wise  counsel, 
before  confessing ;  '*  counsel  like  Shearman  and 
Tracy,"  said  Mr.  Beach. 

It  was  with  a  little  more  than  ordinary  interest 
depicted  on  their  countenances  that  the  audience, 
counsel,  and  parties  to  the  suit  reassembled  in 
the  court-room  this  morning.  The  spirited  remon- 
strance from  the  jury  agakist  the  alleged  insinua- 
tions of  counsel  had  excited  comment,  and  it  was 
generally  believed  that  further  reference  to  the 
topic  was  exceedingly  probable.  The  popular  an- 
ticipation in  the  matter  was  speedily  gr.i  tilled. 
Shortly  after  the  opening  of  court.  Judge  Neilson 
introduced  the  subject  by  referring  to  a  conversa- 
tion had  by  him  with  the  jury  in  reference  to  it» 
He  thought  the  jury  still  labored  under  a  misappre- 
hension in  regard  to  the  charges  made  by  the 
counsel. 

Mr.  Fullerton  hinted  in  reply  at  the  number  of 
communications  which  were  received  by  the  plain- 
tiff's counsel,  and  to  which  they  could  not  turn  a 
deaf  ear.  It  wo s!  Id  be  a  surprise  to  his  Honor  and 
the  jury  if  they  could  know  of  this  information. 

Judge  Neilson  caught  at  the  suggestion  contained 
in  Mr.  Fullerton's  remarks  as  to  the  surprise  which 
the  jury  would  experience  in  hearing  of  the  informa- 
tion. This  implied,  said  he,  that  the  jury  were  not 
parties  to  it.  He  was  ready  to  accept  this  sugges- 
tion. 

jMr.  Fullerton.  who  bore  the  brunt  of  the  discus- 
sion on  the  plaintiff's,  side,  said  that  counsel  had 
affidavits  in  their  possession  from  persons  *'  purport- 
ing what  men  have  heard  and  what  communications 
have  been  made  to  them  by  jurors."  He  did  not 
know  whether  these  were  true  or  not. 

Mr.  EvartS)  speaking  for  the  first  time  on  the  sub- 
ject, regretted  his  absence  on  the  preceding  day 
when  the  topic  was  broached.  Mr.  Beecher  and  his 
counsel,  he  remarked,  met  there  before  his  Honor 
and  the  jury  whatever  was  alleged  agatust  them  in 
any  respect,  whenever  it  was  presented  in  a  shape 


978  THE  TILTON-Bi 

that  tb©  law  made  it  possible  for  them  to 
meet  it.  Continuing,  he  said :  *'  Yet  it  seems  an 
awkward  thing  that  the  defendant,  in  the  very 
stress  of  his  life,  that  presents  himself  here  in  court 
and  by  counsel,  to  meet  whatever  the  justice  of  this 
country  has  to  relate  against  him,  should  also  ha  ve 
to  meet  what  the  justice  of  his  country  has  not  to 
allege  against  him  in  the  shape  of  published  evi- 
dence after  the  proofs  are  closed  and  in  the  shape  of 
suggestions  about  what  has  gone  wrong  or  rumored 
to  have  gone  wrong."  The  difficulty  was  finally 
smoothed  over  for  the  present,  and  Mr.  Beach  al- 
lowed to  proceed  with  his  argument. 

PROGEESS  OF  MR.  BEACH'S  ARGUMENT. 

Mr.  Beach  began  by  referring  to  Mrs.  Tilton's  let- 
ter of  March  8,  1S71,  and  Mr.  Beecher's  reply  there- 
to, and  he  called  attention  to  the  fact,  which  he  con- 
sidered surprising,  that  Mr.  Beecher,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, should  resort  to  Mrs.  Tilton  for  cheer 
and  comfort.  The  letter  of  Mr.  Beecher  he  re- 
garded as  an  appeal  to  Mrs.  Tilton  to  pour  on  him 
her  sympathies. 

Mrs.  Tilton's  letter  of  May  3,  1871,  iu  which  the 
phrase  "nest-hiding"  is  found,  was  then  taken  up 
and  analyzed.  The  speaker  said  the  plaintiff  had 
never  given  to  the  expression  "nest-hiding"  the  sig- 
nification of  adultery.  It  meant  concealment  of  Mrs. 
Tilton's  love  for  Mr.  Beecher.  This  meanin.fr  at  once 
attached  to  the  phrase  after  a  consideration  of  its 
origin.  The  letter  was  significant  as  being  the  first 
communication  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher 
after  the  memorable  interview  of  December,  1870. 

Mr.  Beecher's  alleged  inclination  toward  the  com- 
mission of  suicide  was  then  referred  to,  the  speaker 
confining  himself  to  the  readmg  of  passages  from 
the  letters  of  Mr.  Beecher,  which  he  said  expressed 
that  inclination,  and  on  which  he  would  not  com- 
ment. 

The  familiarity  of  the  relations  of  Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mrs.  Tilton  was  the  next  topic  discussed  by  the 
speaker.  This  familiarity  was  evinced  by  the  cir- 
cumstances given  in  Kate  Carey's  testimony  and 
the  evidence  of  Mrs.  Mitchell  in  regard  to  Mr.  Beech- 
er's visit  to  Mrs.  Tilton  when  the  latter  was  on  her 
sick  bed.  Mr,  Richards's  testimony  was  also  re- 
ferred to,  and  it  was  urgred  that  this  was  extremely 
probable. 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Redpath  was  then  consid- 
ered, especial  emphasis  being  laid  on  Mr.  Beecher's 
alleged  determination  "  to  make  a  clean  breast  of 
it"  and  "  vindicate  Theodore  and  Elizabeth."  Stress 


ECHEB  TBIAL. 

was  laid  also  on  the  fact  that  Mr.  Beecher  made  to 
Mr.  Redpath  no  denial  of  the  charge  of  adultery. 
The  speaker  thought  that  the  community  would 
have  been  spared  the  infliction  of  the  scandal  had 
Mr.  Beecher  only  followed  the  promptings  of  his 
own  generous  nature,  and  not  have  listened  to  the 
promptings  of  his  lawyers. 

Mrs.  Morse's  letter  to  Mr.  Beecher,  in  which  she 
addresses  him  as  "  my  son,"  was  commented  on,  and 
the  question  asked,  "  Why  Was  she  not  called  as  a 
witness  ?"  The  alleged  interview  at  Mr.  Freeland's 
house  on  the  occasion  of  Mr.  Bo  wen's  presenting  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Tilton  to  Mr.  Beecher  was  also  referred 
to.  Mr.  Tilton  demanded  Mr.  Beecher's  retirement 
from  Plymouth  Church  and  from  Brooklyn. 
"An  insolent  demand,"  thought  the  speaker,  "if 
Mr.  Beecher  were  innocent."  Yet  Mr.  Beecher 
had  nothing  to  say.  He  put  the  note  in  his 
pocket,  and  it  was  not  until  Mr.  iBowen  asked 
him  as  to  its  import  that  he  said  anything.  This 
bearing  of  Mr.  Beecher  was  contrasted  with  what 
Avould  "  have  been  the  natural  impulse  of  an  out- 
raged minister  under  the  circumstances,"  and  infer- 
ences drawn  unfavorable  to  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr. 
Bowen's  alleged  "  treachery"  on  that  occasion  was 
referred  to  by  Mr.  Beach.  "By  it"  he  thought  " Mr. 
Beecher  had  secured  a  useful  ally,  and  had  silenced 
a  dangerous  tongue." 

The  speaker  then  recapitulated  the  facts  in  what 
he  called  "  the  affirmative  part  of  the  case."  There 
had  been  sustained  by  three  witnesses  the  "  confes- 
sion "  on  Mr.  Beecher's  part,  and  this  testimony  was 
itself  sustained  by  Mr.  Beecher's  written  communi- 
cations—he might  call  them  "  confessions." 

The  blackmail  theory  was  combated  as  not  being 
entertained  even  by  Mr.  Beecher  himself,  and  as 
being  the  fruition  of  the  instructions  of  his  lawyera 

The  testimony  of  Wilkeson,  of  Belcher,  and  others 
as  well  as  that  of  Bessie  Turner  was  declared  to  be 
immaterial  so  far  as  the  vital  point  of  the  case  was 
concerned,  and  as  affecting  only  the  question  of 
damages.  Damages,  however,  were  not  claimed  by 
the  plaintiff.  Again,  Bessie  Turner's  testimony  was 
intrinsically  incredible.  AJter  referring  to  some  of 
its  features,  Mr.  Beach  declared  that  the  jury  "  were 
not  called  on  to  believe  ridiculous  travesties  of  that 
character."  This  remark  had  reference  to  the 
"  knocking  down  "  scene  and  the  story  of  Miss  Tur- 
ner's haviug  been  carried  from  her  bed  to  that  of 
Mr.  Tilton.  One  thing  material,  however,  thought 
the  counsel,  was  revealed  in  Miss  Turner's  testimony. 
This  was  that  Mr.  Tilton  as  early  as  December  14, 


SUMMING    UP  1 

1870,  liad  made  charges  of  adultery  against  Mr. 
Beecher.  Again,  :Mr.  Tracy  had  said  that  the  con- 
spiracy began  on  December  26,  1870.  What  became 
of  this  idea  in  the  face  of  this  evidence  ? 

1  he  la-st  topic  touched  on  by  the  orator  was  the 
consideration  of  the  evidence  and  character  of  Mr. 
Beecher.  There  was  no  alternative  for  the  defend- 
ant, Mr.  Beach  thought,  except  a  brave  and  a  bold 
denial  "  fortified  by  his  character  and  supported  by 
his  church  and  congregacion."  That  Mr.  Beecher 
had  committed  perjury  was  declared  to  be  "just  as 
certain  as  the  course  of  human  evidence,"  and  the 
speaker  went  on  to  give  a  theory  on  which  he  be- 
lieved Mr.  Beecher  had  justified  his  course.  This 
wavS  the  doctrine  of  the  casuists  who  thought  and 
avowed  that  "under  certain  circumstances  it  is  not 
only  the  privilege  but  the  duty  of  a  man  to  lie." 
Eeferences  were  made  by  Mr.  Beach  to  a  letter  of 
Thomas  K.  Beecher,  to  the  writings  of  Prof. 
Wilkinson,  to  Mr.  Beeeher's  sermons  and  other 
sources,  to  show  that  tl:is  opinion  had  been  enter- 
tained by  many  theologians. 

Mr.  Beeeher's  orthodoxy  in  matters  of  belief  was 
also  touched  ou.  Mr.  Tiltou  had  been  declared  hetero- 
dox. How  n;^nr  was  Mr.  Beecher  to  orthodoxy  in 
his  creed?  ^Ir.  Beach  read  selections  from  Mr. 
Beechei-'s  sermons  to  show  the  opinions  of  the  Ply- 
mouth pastor  in  regard  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
■Scriptures  and  the  divinity  of  Christ.  "  Then  the 
Bible  theory  of  the  atonement  is  a  false  philosophy," 
was  ]yir.  Beach's  comment.  The  speaker  claimed 
that  Mr.  Beecher  had  set  aside  the  Church,  and  put 
it  in  the  same  class  with  literary  institutions.  He 
had  brought  the  Church  into  disrepute,  and  sought  to 
bring  its  ministers  to  the  same  level.  He  had  under- 
"valued  the  sacredness  of  the  Sabbath  day,  and  ven- 
tured to  dispute  the  condition  of  Adam  and  Eve  in 
Paradise.  This  part  of  the  argument  was  illustrated 
wdth  Scriptural  citations  and  a  reading  of  the  hymn 
"  Eock  of  Ages." 

THE   PEOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

NO  EEQUEhTS  TO  CHAEGE  YET  J^IADE. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
ioumment. 

Judge  Neilaon— I  wish  to  make  an  observation,  and  it 
is  the  first  time,  in  a  sense  in  my  own  behalf.  I  have  not 
at  any  time  thought  it  proper  to  waste  a  moment  here  by 
Tef erring  to  anything  stated  about  myself,  and  should 
not  do  80  except  that  I  find  in  an  article  in  an  evening 
paper.  In  the  midst  of  compUments  to  which  I  am  not 
entitled— an  article  written  in  a  spmt  of  great  kintlness 


Y  ME.   BEACH.  979 

—the  statement  of  a  fact  or  supposed  fact,  which  mig:ht 
lead  to  a  misapprehension.  It  is  said  that  the  papsrs, 
nieuTiing  some  of  the  newspapers  

The  papers,  not  so  well  "posted"  as  the  lawA'ers,  have, 
I'rom  usage  rather  than  information,  concluded  that  part 
of  a  day  at  least  will  oe  occupied  with  requests  for  the 
Judge  to  charge  on.  Those  requests  have  already  been 
handed  in.  The  Chief- Justice  got  them  a  month  ago  pri- 
vately;  and  has  woven  such  of  them  as  he  approves  of 
into  his  chare-e,  which  is  not  wiltten  out. 

It  would  be  a  blissful  state  of  affairs  if  that  were  so, 
because  in  that  case  I  should  not  have  been  working  last 
evening  and  untU  2  o'clock  this  morning,  and  almost 
hourly  calling  upon  my  friend  ]Mr.  Bigelow,  a  sworn  offi- 
cer of  this  Court,  for  not  copying  memoranda  as  prompt- 
ly as  I  could  wish.  This  might  lead  the  gentlemen  con- 
cerned on  each  side  of  the  case  to  suppose  that  I  received 
from  the  other  side  certain  papers.  No  requests  what- 
ever on  either  side  have  been  handed  to  me,  and  if  any 
had  been  handed  to  me  I  should  at  once  have  delivered 
them  to  the  attorney  on  the  other  side  for  examination. 
I  think  that  is  due  to  myself  in  view  of  the  possibility 
that  there  might  be  misapprehension. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Your  Honor  will  recollect  that  it  was 
the  understanding  at  an  early  day  that  the  requests  to 
charge  should  be  handed  in  by  the  respective  parties,  to 
your  Honor,  and  there  shoiUd  be  an  interchange  of  re- 
quests, so  that  we  might  deal  with  the  matter  intelli- 
gently. 

Judge  Neilson — Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton — T  suppose  it  has  been  overlooked,  and  I 
call  attention  to  the  fact  now— 

.Judge  2s  eilson— StiU  that  was  not  done. 

Mr.  Fhllerton  (continuing)- In  the  hope  that  it  may  bo 
done  without  any  further  delay. 

Judge  ZSTeilson — My  hope  is  that  for  once  a  Judge  might 
be  found  who  could  deliver  a  charge  so  entirely  fair  on 
each  side  that  coimsel  might  do  him  the  compliment  of 
making  no  requests.  I  should  like  very  much  the  oppor- 
tunity of  trying  that  expsriment.  Still,  if  requests  are 
necessary  they  will,  of  course,  be  made. 

Mr.  Fullerton- We  shall  very  cheerfully  acquiesce  In 
that  suggestion  so  far  as  we  are  concerned. 

THE     CHAEGE      OF     TA]MPEEING  WITH 
JUEORS. 

Judge  Neilson— I  ought  to  say,  too,  although 

I  did  HOt  mtend  to,  that  the  gentlemen  of  the  iury  were 
in  my  room  this  morning  conversing  about  the  occur- 
rence of  last  night,  and  they  still  are  under  what  I  thpu 
regarded  and  still  regard  as  something  of  a  misapprehen- 
sion. I  said  to  them  this  morning,  as  I  felt  upon  recon- 
sideration, and  was  inclined  to  feel  last  night,  that  the 
learned  counsel,  in  the  rapid  oonrse  of  utterance  and  in 
making  some  remarks  about  what  he  supposed  to  be  ad- 
vcBse  influence,  intended  to  charact-^rize  and  complain 
of  that ;  but.  as  I  think,  I  was  justified  this  momiug  in 


980  IBE  TILTON-B 

assui'ing  tlie  gentlemen  of  tlie  jury  that  counsel  had  no 
intention  to  reflect  upon  them  as  having  actually  recog- 
nized approaches,  or  as  having  allowed  any  person  to 
approach  them,  or  as  having  done  anything  that  at  all 
impaired  their  character  as  jurors  or  citizens  here  in  the 
discharge  of  their  duty.  I  hope  the  thing  may  be  so  re- 
garded, if  my  view  of  it  is  correct. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Well,  it  is  a  very  unfortunate  state  of 
things,  undoubtedly,  but  they  are  not  under  our  con- 
trol. Your  Honor  would  be  surprised,  and  the  jury  would 
be-  surprised,  if  they  could  know  what  information 
reaches  us  constantly,  not  only  by  written  communica- 
tions, but  by  oral  communications  as  well,  and  these 
communications  purport  to  state  facts  within  the  knowl- 
edge of  those  who  communicate  them.  As  a  matter  of 
course  we  cannot  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  these  things, 
although  we  make  great  allowances,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  and  fearing  that  there  is  some  truth  in  what 
has  been  stated  to  us,  we,  as  a  matter  of  course,  have 
been  more  or  less  excited  by  it,  and  have  spoken  of  it. 
Under  the  intimation  of  your  Honor  yesterdaj^  the  time 
will  come  when  your  Honor  will  be  put  in  possession  of 
what  is  now  in  our  possession  upon  this  subject. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  Mr.  Fullerton,  when  you  say  that 
the  jury  would  be  surprised  if  they  knew  what  have 
come  to  you  in  the  form  of  information,  you  utterly  ex- 
onerate them  from  being  parties  to  it,  because  if  they 
were  parties  to  it  they  could  not  be  surprised.  I  accept 
that  suggestion. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Why,  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  they 
communicate  the  facts  themselves,  or  that  they  had  any 
instrumentality  in  them ;  of  course  not. 

Judge  Neilson—That  is  all  that  the  jury  desire,  then,  in 
the  way  of  satisfaction  to  them. 

Mr.  Fullerton— But  parties  have  gone  so  far  as  to  place 
in  our  hands  aflBdavits  upon  this  subject.  Sir,  purporting 
to  state  what  men  have  heard  and  what  communica- 
tions have  been  made  to  them  by  jurors.  There  is  no 
use  of  concealing  the  fact  at  all.  Whether  true  or  false 
I  do  not  know,  but  such  is  the  fact. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  an  important  en- 
gagement, that  it  was  desirable  I  should  be  able  to 
keep  punctually,  carried  me  out  of  the  court-room  about 
15  minutes  before  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  B 'aeh,  would 
have  reached  the  natural  close  of  his  remarks,  and  the 
time  that  he  did  reach  them,  I  spoke  to  my  friend,  Mr. 
Fullerton,  that  I  hoped  it  would  not  be  regarded  as  impolite 
in  me  to  go,  because  I  had  really  the  necessity,  and  he 
concurred  with  me  in  that  view  ;  and  T  regret  that  I  hap- 
pened tx)  be  absent  when,  perhaps,  some  attention  t<  >  thts 
cause  on  the  part  of  our  client— my  clieut— might  make 
it  desirable  that  all  his  counsel  should  he  present  Now, 
I  have  a  word  to  say  about  this  matter.  Mr.  Beefier  i.^ 
a  defendant  in  this  action,  before  the  tribunals  of  his 
country,  for  which  tribunals,  in  aR  the  functions  and  in 
bU  the  opportunities  of  the  admijiistration  of  justice,  he 


EFAJiWR  TRIAL, 

has  entire  respect.  He  and  his  counsel  meet  here  before 
your  Honor,  and  in  the  face  of  this  jury,  whatever  is 
alleged  against  them— against  Mr.  Beecher— whatever  is 
alleged  against  Mr.  Beecher  in  any  respect,  and  against 
his  counsel  in  any  respect,  we  meet  whenever  it  is  pre- 
sented in  a  shape  that  the  law  makes  it  possible  for  us  to 
meet  it.  Now,  when  -my  learned  friend.  Judge  Fullerton, 
savs  that  people  would  be  surprised  at  this,  that  and  the 
other  thing,  and  that  it  has  gone  so  far  as  that  affidavits 
are  in  existence  and  in  their  possession,  he  does  nothing 
that  does  not  seem  to  him  suitable,  but  really  your  Honor 
sees  that  we  cannot  meet  any  suggestions  of  that  kind  in 
any  definite  form  of  responsibility.  We  must  hear  these 
things  stated— must  see  these  things  stated  in  newspa- 
pers, or  we  must  hear  them  mentioned.  Whether  they 
are  solid  or  not,  whether  an  experiment  of  justice  upon 
them,  and  an  answer  to  them,  would  leave  anything  of 
importance  we  cannot  say ;  we  know  nothing  about  that ; 
and  yet  it  seems  a  very  awkward  thing  that  the  defend- 
ant, in  the  very  stress  of  his  life,  that  presents  himself 
here  in  court  and  by  counsel,  to  meet  whatever  the  jus- 
tice of  this  country  has  to  relate  against  him,  should  alsa 
have  to  meet  what  the  justice  of  his  country  has  not 
to  allege  against  him,  in  the  shape  of  published 
evidence,  after  the  proofs  are  closed,  and  in  the 
shape  of  suggestions  about  what  has  gouo  vrrong,  or  ru- 
mored to  have  gone  wrong,  here  and  there,  yet  that  is  a 
part  of  this  defendant's  position  which  he  must  bear,  and 
which  we  must  bear  as  well  as  we  can.  I  rise  onlj-  to 
suggest,  what  there  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion 
about,  that  as  yet  nothing  has  been  presented  for  Mr. 
Beecher  or  his  counsel  to  meet  except  what  has  been  pro- 
duced on  the  witness-stand,  and  has  been  made  in  the 
arguments  of  counsel.  Now,  I  observe  that  one  of  the 
papers  this  morning  speaks  of  Mr.  Hull  as  being  a  Ger- 
man, and  not  understaudiug  the  English  language,  and 
as  being  the  gentleman  that  1  objected  to  when  the  panel 
was  being  formed  because  lie  did  not  understand  En- 
glish. Now,  I  don't  kn>>w— we  might  just  as  well  say 
*  that  your  Honor  was  a  German,  or  any  of  the  counsel  are 
Germans. 

Judge  Neilson— My  gi-andfather  was  a  German.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr.  Evarts— Well,  then,  there  is,  perhaps,  even  more 
color  than  there  may  be  in  ?,rr.  Hull's  case.  But  it  looks 
as  if  there  was  a  sort  of  desire  to  produce  an  impression 
that  Mr.  Hull  had  not  undci-stood  tilings  because  he  did 
not  understand  nnv  language.   That  seems  an  injustice 
to  Mr.  Hull,  and  it  is  certainly  an  injustice  to  say  that  ho 
was  the  gcntleraa^i  that  I  objected  to  because  he  did  not 
understjmd  English,  because  the  gentleman  that  I  did 
objrct  to,  your  Honor  will  remember,  was  set  a.^ide. 
Judge  Neilson— I  remember  that  pei-fcctly,  and  I  also 
i  recognize  the  fact  that  during  the  last  four  months  or 
j  more  of  intercourse,  and  very*  free  intercourse,  I  am 
I  happy  to  say,  with  this  jvu-y,  I  have  got,  I  think,  quite  in- 


SUMMJSG    CP    BY  MR.  BEACR. 


981 


timately  acquainted  vriVx  eacli  of  them,  and  have  got  a 
Ittrotherly  regard  for  each  of  tliem  and  perfect  confidence 
in  them.  And  as  to  ilr.  Hull,  he  had  impressed  himself 
ui-on  me,  not  only  as  a  gentleman  imderstanding  the 
English  language,  hut  apprehensive  and  sagacious  in 
every  sense. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Well,  your  Honor  -^vill  bear  in  mind  that 
-v\-hat  I  have  said  this  morning  was  not  voluntaiy.  It 
was  called  out  by  the  existing  state  of  things,  and  I  am 
very  happy  to  learu  that  my  friend  upon  the  other  side  is 
in  a  somewhat  similar  situation,  because  it  seems  that 
something  has  been  said  or  published  to  which  he  has 
called  the  attention  of  the  Court,  and  against  which  he 
makes  objection  also. 

Judge  Xeilson— Well,  I  hope  we  will  proceed  now 
pleasantly. 

Mr.  Evarts— Tn  regard  to  the  matter  of  requests  to 
charge,  if  your  Honor  please,  we  shall  endeavor  to  do 
what  seems  suitable  to  your  Honor's  wishes,  and  if  we 
shall  liud  they  concur  with  what  we  thinlr  is  our  duty- 
Judge  Neilson— It  is  understood,  then,  that  after  what 
I  have  said  to  the  jtuy,  which  I  felt  called  upon  to  say, 
the  counsel  will  feel  at  liberty  to  present  any  requests 
which  they  may  see  occasion  to. 

:Mr.  Evarts— That  I  understood ;  but  I  wished  to  reserve 
the  consideration  whether  we  may  find  some  portion  of 
our  request  only  suitable  to  be  laid  before  yotL 
Judge  Neilson— Yes. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  wiU  confer  with  your  Honor  upon 
that. 

Mr.  Fullerton— We  shall  desire  some  information  if  that 
com'se  is  taken  by  the  other  side. 
Mr.  Evarts— Of  course. 

ME.  BEACH  CONTESTJES  HIS  AEGIBIENT. 
Ml.  Beacli— On  the  8tli  day  of  March,  1871 

—the  letter  which  I  last  read  of  Mr.  Beecher  bearing  date 
Teb.  7, 1871— ]Mi-s.  TUton  writes  this  communication  to 
Mr.  Beecher: 

Wedxesdat. 

Dear  Fbiend  :  Does  your  heart  bound  towards  all  as  it 
used. 

•Ehe  words  "  towards  aU,"  italicized,  seeming  to  indi- 
cate an  intention  under  that  general  phrase  to  make  a 
personal  application  to  herself. 

So  does  mine !  I  am  myself  again.  I  did  not  dare  to 
tell  you  until  I  was  sure ;  but  the  bird  has  sung  in  my 
he- art  these /owr  weeks,  and  he  ha?  covenanted  witt  me 
never  agara  to  leave.  "  Spring  has  come."  Because  I 
th(niffht  it  'A  .>uld  gladden  you  to  know  this  and  not  to 
trouble  or  embarrass  you  in  any  way  I  now  wi-lte.  Of 
course  I  should  like  to  share  with  you  my  joy,  but  can 
wait  for  the  Beyond ! 

Whpu  dear  Prank  says  I  may  once  again  go  to  old  Plym- 
outh I  will  thank  the  dear  Father. 

Following  that  Mr.  Beecher  writes  this  letter  to  hcv  : 

The  Dlessing  of  God  rest  upon  you.  Every  spark  ©f 
life  and  warmth  in  your  own  house  will  be  a  star  aud  a 
buu  in  my  dwelUng.   Your  note  broke  like  Spring  upon 


j  Winter,  and  gave  me  an  inward  rebound  to  life.  Xo  one 
can  f-ver  know,  none  biat  God,  through  what  a  dreary 
wilderness  I  have  wandered.  There  was  Mt.  Sinai,  there 
was  tbe  barren  sand,  and  there  was  the  alternation  of 
hope  aud  despair  that  marked  tae  pilgiimage  of  old.  If 
only  it  might  lead  to  the  Promised  Land — or,  like  Moses, 
shall  I  die  on  the  border  ?  Your  hope  and  courage  are 
like  medicine.  Should  God  inspire  you  to  restore  and 
rebuild  at  home,  and  while  doing  it  to  cheer  and  sustain 
outside  of  it  another  who  sorely  needs  help  in  heart  and 
spirit,  it  will  prove  a  life  so  noble  as  few  are  able  to  live, 
and  in  another  world  the  emancipated  soul  may  utter 
thanks. 

THE    '-  TRUE    IN^'AEDXESS"  LETTER. 

It  is  a  little  surprising,  it  seems  to  ine,  that  Mr. 
Beecher  should  flndoccasion  under  these  circumstances  to 
resortto^Irs.  Tilt  on  to  be  cheered  and  sustained,  professing 
that  he  sorely  needed  help  in  heart  and  spirit.  And  Why  t 
If  Mr.  Beecher  was  so  eutively  free  from  any  sentiment 
toward  this  lady  that  was  not  justified  by  their  relation, 
and  his  character  and  position,  if  he  was  so  entirely 
cheerful  and  comfortable  and  innocent  in  all  his  con- 
science with  reference  to  associations  with  this  lady,  why 
is  it  that  he  should  need  from  her  cheer  and  comfoi-t  I  It 
was  a  cheer  and  comfort  to  be  rendered  to  him  in  addi- 
tion to  the  rebuilding  and  reinstatement  of  her  own 
home  and  position.  It  was  a  personal  appeal  to  this 
lady  to  pour  upon  him  her  sympathies  and  affections,  to 
cheer  and  console  him  in  the  desolation  of  his  life  outside 
of  her  association.  No  other  construction  can  be  given 
to  it. 

If  it  would  be  a  comfort  to  you  [the  "  you  "  italicized], 
now  and  then,  to  send  me  a  letter  of  true  imoardness 
["inwardness"  italicized]— the  outcome  of  your  iuuci- 
life — ^it  would  be  safe,  for  I  am  now  at  home  here  with  my 
sister  ;  and  it  is  permitted  to  you  ["  pei-mitted  to  you  " 
italicized],  and  will  be  an  exceeding  refreshment  to  me. 
for  youi-  heait  erperiences  are  often  like  bread  from 
heaven  to  the^L  .^gry.  God  has  enriched  your  moral 
nature.   May  not  others  partake  1 

"  If  it  would  be  a  comfort  to  you  to  send  me  a  letter  of 
ttue  inwardness,  it  would  be  safe."  If  this  phrase  re- 
ferred only  to  that  permissible  and  proper  commimica- 
tion  which  should  pass  between  an  afflicted  and  spirit- 
broken  woman  and  her  considerate  andcaref^il  pastor,  of 
i  course  no  exception  could  be  taken  to  it.   But  why  was 
I  it  n  ;-ce>s;iry  to  give  assurance  to  Mrs.  Tilton  that  such  a 
\  communication  would  be  safe  ?   What  hazard  was  there 
i  about  communion  of  that  sort?   Why  was  it  that  the 
pastor  and  parishioner  should  feel  that  there  was  a  haz- 
ard or  peril  in  the  permissible  intercourse!  Why  should 
!  Mr-.  Tilttjn  need  the  encouragement  or  the- assurance 
that  it  would  be  safe  for  her  to  pour  out  her  true  inward- 
B  ->5  upon  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  who  appeared,  not  as 
the  Chilstian  comforter,  as  the  solacer  in  affliction,  but 
:  as  the  beggar  at  her  heart,  to  be  cheered  and  comforted 
j  by  her:  not  rendering  pastoral  service,  not  solacing  her 
!  with  prayer  and  with  precept,  but  bending  hia  liead  is 
I  afiliction  at  her  side,  and  praying  the  f  nr>=m-.t^---  ,^M.^r 


982  TEE  LILTON-BE. 

couutenance.  "  Ail  this  will  be  safe,  Mrs.  Tilton.  It  is 
permitted  to  you,  for  I  am  now  at  home  with  my  sister." 
What  does  that  mean,  gentlemen  ?  It  is  written  toy 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  to  this  l:idy,  all  communication 
with  whom  he  but  a  few  days  before  pronounced  as  un- 
wise and  improj>er.  Why  does  he  tell  her  that  she  may 
communicate  her  inward  thoughts  to  him  l)ecause  he  is 
alone  with  his  sister,  his  wife  absent  1  Some  significance 
miist  be  given  to  this  language.  It  must  be  construed  in 
connection  with  the  other  circumstances  in  this  case.  It 
must  be  made  rational  with  reference  to  the  proven  in- 
tercourse between  these  parties.  It  communicated  some 
idea,  it  presented  some  request  to  the  mind  of  Mrs. 
Tilton,  and  was  it  an  idea  or  request  which  would  be 
likely  to  soothe  and  quiet  the  distm'bance  of  her  own 
heart,  as  Mr.  Beecher  describes  it,  or  the  uneasiness 
which,  existed  in  her  own  home,  as  he  represents  it  Was 
it  a  letter  to  be  addressed  under  these  circumstances  by 
a  pastor  professing  the  condition  of  things  Mr.  Beecher 
states  upon  this  stand  1 

THE  TEEM  "NEST-HIDING." 

Then  comes  the  letter  of  May  3,  1871,  which, 
BO  far  as  we  Imow,  closed  the  correspondence. 

Mr.  Bkechee  :  My  future,  either  for  life  or  death, 
■would  be  happier  could  I  but  feel  that  you  forgave  me 
while  you  forget  me. 

This  is  the  lady,  you  will  observe,  who  in  her  conversa- 
tion with  Mrs.  Moulton  took  upon  herself  all  the  blame, 
and  declared  that  she  invited  the  sin  wliich  was  prac- 
ticed. 

In  aU  the  sad  complications  of  the  past  years,  my  en- 
deavor was  entirely  to  keep  fiom  you  all  suffering,  to 
bear  myself  alone,  lea  ving  you  forever  ignorant  of  it.  My 
weapons  were  love,  a  larger  untiring  generosity  and  nest- 
hiding. 

Very  considerable  speculation  has  been  spent  upon  that 
term  "  nest-hiding,"  and  the  learned  counsel  upon  the 
other  side  states  that  according  to  our  construction  of  it, 
it  means  adultery.  We  have  never  given  to  it  any  such 
signification,  and  do  not  suppose  that  it  bears  it.  Counsel 
reads  it  as  if  it  were :  "  My  weapons  were  love,  a  larger, 
untiring  generosity  and  adultery,"  adding  to  it  "adul- 
'tery."  That  is  not  its  signification.  It  means 
concealment  of  something.  "My  weapons  were 
love,  a  larger,  untiring  generosity'  and  concealment." 
It  would  be  very  easy  to  reason  to  a  conclusion  that  that 
meant  concealment  of  sin ;  and,  looking  at  the  very  obvi- 
ous origin  of  that  phrase,  as  given  by  Mr.  Beecher,  that 
would  be  the  meaning  which  would  at  once  be  attached 
to  it.  SpeaWng  of  the  romance  "  Norwood,"  written  by 
Mr.  Beeoher,  he  was  asked  if  he  recollected  describing 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Wentworth,  and  especially  the  peculiarities 
of  the  lady,  in  that  book.   "  No,  I  had  forgotten  it.  '* 

Q.  Do  you  remember  using  this  language  :  "It  would 
seem  as  if,  while  her  whole  life  centered  upon  his  love, 
she  would  hide  the  precious  secret  by  flinging  over  it 
*1ne»  and  flowers,  by  mirth  and  raillery,  as  a  bird  hides 


KCHER  miAL. 

its  nest  under  tufts  of  grass  and  behind  leaves  and  vines 
as  a  fence  against  prying  eyes." 

Now,  a  delicate  lady  concealing  her  love  is  likened  by 
Mr.  Beecher  to  a  bird  hiding  its  nest  under  flowers  and 
leaves  and  tufts  of  grass.  This  chapter  of  "  Norwood  " 
containing  this  sentence  had  been  a  short  time  previous, 
or  a  time  previous,  submitted  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mrs. 
Tilton,  and  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  an  idea  of  that 
character,  beautifully  expressed  as  this  is,  would  strike 
at  once  the  imagination  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  and  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  "nest-hiding"  was  adopted  from  that 
figure,  and  that,  as  used  by  Mrs.  Tilton,  the  term  means 
simply  a  hiding  of  her  love.  Very  little  signiflcanee  is  to 
be  attached  to  all  this,  because  the  force  and  application 
of  these  letters  consist  in  the  circumstance  that  they 
were  written  by  such  a  man  to  such  a  lady  under  such 
circumstances  that  they  were  soliciting  an  imprudence 
at  least.  That  they  were  indecorous  and  indelicate  under 
the  circumstances  no  gentleman,  I  think,  will  hesitate 
to  say.  That  they  were  unwise  with  reference  to  the 
complications  which  existed  between  these  parties, 
according  to  the  admission  of  Mr.  Beecher  himself  ;  that 
they  were  well  calculated,  if  not  designed,  to  perpetuate 
the  emotional  delusion  under  which  this  lady  suffered  ; 
that  they  not  only  provoked  but  suggested  communica- 
tions of  her  true  inwardness  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  solicited 
from  her  that  consolation  and  sympathy  she  had  been 
accustomed  to  render  to  him,  is  perfectly  clear.  And  it 
is  suggested  that  this  which  I  have  read  of  Mrs.  Tilton  is 
the  first  communication  which  was  made  by  Mrs.  Tilton 
to  Mr.  Beecher  after  the  meeting  of  Dec.  30,  when  the 
charge  was  made  against  the  latter.  If  that  was  a  false 
charge,  if  Mrs.  Tilton  had  untruly  communicated  to  her 
husband  whatever  she  did  commimicate  and  upon  the 
faith  of  which  he  acted,  would  she  have  addressed,  in 
three  months  afterward,  a  note  of  that  character  to  Mr. 
Beecher?  A  private,  unsigned  communication,  true, 
with  proper  frankness,  delivered  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  Mr. 
Moulton,  but  yet  proceeding  from  Mrs.  Tilton  under  the 
belief  of  entire  secrecy. 

MR.   BEECHER'S    ALLEGED   THOUGHTS  OF 
SUICIDE. 

It  is  thought  proper,  gentlemen,  that  I 
should  very  briefly  direct  your  attention  to  those  pas- 
sages in  the  letters  of  Mr.  Beecher,  and  in  the  evidence, 
which  tadicate  a  purpose  to  commit  self-destruction.  I 
am  not  intending  to  comment  at  all  upon  that  featui-e  of 
this  case ;  and  permit  me  to  say  here  that  I  am  purposing 
to  hurry  with  great  rapidity  through  the  several  thoughts 
which  I  desire  to  submit  to  you  without  any  amplifica- 
tion, and  for  the  purpose,  if  possible,  of  concluding  my 
argument  this  afternoon.  The  first  is  in  a  letter  which  I 
read  yesterday : 

My  Dear  Mrs.  Tilton  :  When  I  saw  you  last  1  did  not 
expect  ever  to  see  you  again  or  to  be  alive  luauy  days. 
God  was  kinder  to  me  than  my  owu  thouglits  


SUMMIXG  UP 

in  the  memorable  letter  of  June  1. 1873,  lie  says 

I  liave  a  strong  feeling  upon  me,  and  it  brings  great 

peace  witli  it,  that  I  am  spending  my  last  Sunday  and 

preachuig  my  laet  sermon. 

The  letter,  you  remember,  opens  with  the  sentence, 
"  The  whole  earth  is  tranquil  and  the  Heaven  is  sef  ene, 
a«  befits  one  who  has  about  to  finish  his  world  life."  In 
the  evidence  of  Mr.  Tilton  you  remember  the  interview 
In  which  he  says  that  Mr.  Beesher  desired  him  to  give 
him  notice  of  any  intention  to  publish  the  confession,  as 
it  is  called,  by  Mr.  Beecher,  "  in  order  that  he  might 
either  go  out  of  the  world  by  suicide,  or  else  escape  from 
the  f aoe  of  his  friends  by  a  voyage  to  some  foreign  land." 
In  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Moulton  you  remember  that  he 
declared  that  he  was  determiaed  to  take  his  life,  and 
with  the  circumstances  which  are  detailed  by  her  evi- 
dence. I  believe  that  is  substantially  the  evidence  upon 
that  point,  gentlemen,  and  you  must  give  it  such  con- 
eideration  as  you  choose. 

MRS.  KATE  CAREY'S  TESTIMONY. 
We  have  got  some  testimony  concerning  the 

intercourse  and  its  familiarity  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
Mrs.  Tilton.  You  remember  the  detail  of  circumstances 
through  which  we  became  accLuainted  with  Kate  Carey. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  read  her  evidence.  She  describes  a 
situation  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton  that,  in 
connection  with  the  avowed  affection  between  these  par- 
ties—at least  the  aclmowledged  love  of  Mrs.  Tilton  for 
Ml-.  Beecher— gives  rise  to  very  unkindly  surmises,  to  say 
the  least.  She  is  a  very  hximble  person ;  she  is  an  im- 
fortunate  person;  she  is  addicted  to  a  habit  which  neces- 
sarily deforms  and  degrades  womanhood.  Yet  it  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  possession  of  truthfulness,  and 
there  is  no  evidence  that  this  vice  was  so  extreme  and 
degrading  as  entirely  to  stifle  the  instincts  and  the  pro- 
prieties of  her  sex  and  nature.  An  attempt  has  been 
made  to  impeach  her,  and  his  Honor  will  tell  you  that 
that,  if  he  sees  fit  to  consider  the  subject  at  all,  entirely 
failed.  It  was  but  the  gossip  of  a  particular  family 
with  which  she  was  residing,  and  was  not  that  general 
reputation  which  the  law  requires  to  impeach  a 
witness  under  oath.  Y^ou  must  give,  gentle- 
men, to  her  evidence  such  regard  as  appears  to  be  proper. 
It  is  pretty  hard,  even  in  the  case  of  a  woman  of  her  sta- 
tion and  position,  where  i:  is  perfectly  evident  that  no 
influences  have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  her,  where  the 
discovery  of  her  narrativi^  and  knowledge  was  purely 
accidental,  it  is  pretty  hard  to  impute  to  her  a  deliberate 
manufacture  of  the  cireuinstur.ces  which  she  relates.  It 
is  difficult  to  assign  any  motive  for  any  such  wrong,  and 
the  circumstance  that  this  woman  can  surroimd  and  sup- 
port herself  by  liigh  station  and  notorious  x^especta-bility 
where  thert  has  been  no  successful  effort  to  impeach  her 
general  character  for  morality  or  for  truth,  ought  not  to 
we:gh  against  h.  r  erefabi^ity.   There  is  a  slight  cireum- 


Y  MR.    BEACH.  9S3 

stance  appearing  in  the  testimony  of  5Irs.  Mitchell  which 
would  seem  to  support  the  imputation  from  the  evidence 
of  Kate  Carey.  ]Mrs.  Mitchell  had  been  vei'y  solicitous,  as 
you  recollect,  to  protect  Mrs.  Tilton  from  disturbance  on 
this  night  of  the  30th  of  December,  and  (mr  learned 
friends  had  exhibited  ^yixh  great  particularity 
the  inopportune  call  of  Mr.  Moulton  and  of 
Mr.  Tilton  and  their  unwise  and  disturbing 
interference  with  the  quiet  and  repose  of  Mrs. 
Tilton,  who  was  then,  although  convalescent— 
her  doctor  having  left  her  the  morning  of  that  day — yet 
suffering  undoubtedly  from  debility  and  prostration. 
But  this  lady  who  complains  so  greatly  against  Mr.  Til- 
ton and  Mr.  Moulton  admits  Mr.  Beecher  at  once  to  the 
room  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  and,  without  any  caution  to  him, 
without  any  protest  against  disturbance  of  that  lady  so 
suffering  an-l  so  weak,  so  far  as  she  can  remember,  with- 
out any  direction  or  intimation  from  any  source,  this 
prudent  and  careful  nurse  at  once,  without  any  question, 
admits  Mr.  Beecher,  leaves  the  room,  him  with  her 
patient,  goes  down  stairs,  and  is  ab>;ent  about  an 
hour  until  Mr.  Beecher  has  finished  his  interview. 
It  was,  at  least,  in  view  of  the  impression  which  he 
had  sought  to  give,  of  the  inhumanity,  unkindness  at 
least,  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Moulton ;  it  was  a  very 
singular  circumstance.  The  lady  was  not  able  to  explain 
it ;  how  she  should  have  forgotten  her  care  and  sympathy 
for  Mrs.  Tilton,  how  she  should  have  waived  her  pru- 
dence and  admitted,  not  the  husband  of  Mrs.  Tilton, 
but  the  pastor  of  Mrs.  Tilton  to  a  private 
disturbing  interview  with  her,  and  that  after  she  had 
retii'ed  for  the  night,  is  a  circtmistance  that  will  excite 
some  disagreeable  surmise.  It  is  one  of  those  slight  cir- 
cumstances, gentlemen,  which,  if  you  will  remember  the 
authorities  I  read  to  you  from  the  English  Consistory 
Court — one  of  those  slighi:  circumstances  which,  in  con- 
nection with  an  acknowledged  improper  affection,  an  oi>- 
portunitA-  is  all  that  the  law  requires  to  satisfy  its  judg- 
ment upon  the  presence  of  a  charired  oftVnse. 


JOSEPH    RICHARDS'S  TESTIMONY. 

I  must  trouble  you  Avith  a  few  words  from 
the  testiiuom-  of  Mr.  Richards.  In  answer  to  a  question 
in  regard  to  what  he  had  observed  as  to  the  conduct  of 
Mr.  Beecher  and  his  sister,  he  says  : 

Well,  Sir,  on  this  occasion  I  spoke  of  seeing  them  in  the 
morning,  this  one  occasion.  I  called  at  the  house  and  was 
in  the  upper  story,  the  second  story  I  think  ;  I  descended 
to  the  parlor  floor  and  opened  the  door  of  the  parlor, 
which  was  closed,  and  I  saw  Mr.  Beecher  seated  in  the 
front  room  and  Mrs.  Tilton  making  a  very  hasty  motion, 
and  with  a  highly  flushed  face,  away  from  the  position 
that  Iklr.  Beecher  occupied.  It  was  such  a  situation  as 
left  an  indelible  impression  on  my  mind.  T\iat  is  aU,  Sir 
—in  relation  to  other  matters— 

Q.  And  how  far  was  Mrs.  Tilton  from  Mr.  Beecher  when 
your  eye  rested  upon  them  1  A.  Well,  she  was  not  far. 


984 


THE   TILTON-BEECHmi  lUlAL. 


Sir— in  tlie  act  of  moving  as  I  opened  the  door ;  there  was 
a  moving  away  from  the  position.  • 

You  may  not  give  us  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  credit 
for  any  delicacy  of  sentiment  in  regard  to  this  gentleman 
and  Mrs.  Tilton.  You  may  suppose  that  we  did  not  feel 
the  horror  of  that  necessity  which  coiiipelled  us  to  put  a 
brother  upon  the  stand  to  testify  in  regard  to  the  chastity 
of  the  sister,  and  may  perhaps  wonder  that  when  we 
asked  that  gentleman  how  near  were  they  together— 
what  was  the  position— when  he  evidently  evaded  a  cii- 
cumstantial  description  of  it,  that  we  did  not  press  with 
more  tenacity  a  direct  and  full  answer  to  the  Interroga- 
tory. But  it  was  enough  for  our  purpose— it  is  enough 
according  to  the  judgment  of  the  law.  Remember  what 
Mr.  Beecher  then  supposed.  Remember  what  is  clear 
from  all  the  evidence  in  regai-d  to  Mrs.  Tilton  that  she 
had  an  absorbing  love  for  Mr.  Beecher.  Remember,  as 
we  say,  as  is  expressed  in  every  line  and  in  every  action 
of  the  word  and  deed  of  Mr.  Beecher,  that  he 
had  at  least  a  tender  aiid  close  affection  for 
this  lady.  Remember  all  these  circumstances  reflecting 
alike  upon  the  disposition,*  the  emotions  of  these  two 
people,  one  toward  the  other,  and  then  find  them  in  the 
condition  described  by  Mr.  Richards— Mr  Beecher  on  a 
chair,  the  door  suddenly  opened,  and  tiiis  woman  spring- 
ing irom  a  position,  with  a  burning  cheek,  under  circum- 
stances leaving  an  indelible  and  agonizing  impression 
upon  the  heart  of  that  brother.  What  meant  it?  Is  that 
man  pure  and  innocent  as  he  represents  himself  to  be, 
with  no  suspicion  of  wrong  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Tilton. 
and  no  indulgence  of  sinful  emotion  on  his  part  ?  Ah,  he 
tells  us  that  in  those  interviews  he  prayed  with  this 
afflictedlady,  that  he  breathed  into  her  soul  the  consola- 
tion of  his  own  exalted  spiritual  nature.  This  was  not 
the  attitude  of  prayer.  This  woman  was  fleeing  from 
dangerous  proximity  to  this  pastor.  She  was  conscious 
of  sin,  for  Conscience  burned  a  confession  upon  her  face. 
*' But,"  says  the  gentleman,  "what  did  Mr.  Richards 
think  of  it  ?  He  went  forward  and  shook  handa  with  his 
sister."  Well,  what,  what  should  a  brother  have  done 
imder  those  circumstances  ?  Should  he  have  raised  an 
uproar;  shwild  he  have  assaulted  Mr.  Beecher;  should 
he  have  upbraided  his  sister,  or  should  he  maintain  the 
address  and  the  character  of  a  gentleman,  and  leave  the 
solution  of  the  circumstance  to  a  deliberate  and  proper 
consideration  which  would  protect  the  reputation 
of  his  sister,  and  the  honor  of  her  children  1 
It  is  suggested  that  in  the  embarrassment  of  that  mo- 
ment Mrs.  Tilton  did  not,  as  would  have  been  the  natural 
impulse  of  an  undisturbed  lady,  advance  to  her  brother 
to  meet  his  salutation,  and  render  her  own,  but  she 
passed  to  the  window  away  from  the  brother,  ta  appear- 
ance, in  action,  giving  the  sense  of  conscious  impropriety. 
T  suppose  Mr.  Richards  is  to  be  believed.  Upon  that  sub- 
ject (his  credibility)  I  have  said  sufficient  heretofore.  It 
is  one  of  the  dire  necessities  of  this  defense  that  when- 


ever we  reach  an  issue  material  and  important  in  this 
case,  every  witness,  all  evidence,  on  the  part  of  the  plain- 
tiff to  maintain  it,  is  to  be  discredited.  There  is  corrup- 
tion and  perjury.  No  matter  how  pure  the  life,  how 
eminent  the  character,  how  unassnil^l  the  reputation, 
still  It  is  necessary  to  travel  over  all,  ani  to  consign  every 
gentleman,  every  lady,  at  once  to  unlimited  condemna- 
tion. 

MR.  REDPATH'S  TESTIMONY. 

What  shall  be  done,  gentlemen,  with  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Redpath  ?  He  is  a  witness  for  the  de- 
fendant. Mr.  Beecher  has  given  him  a  certificate  of 
character  by  putting  him  upon  this  stand.  Then*  is  no 
testimony  in  this  case  which  reflects  so  signiflcantly, 
both  upon  the  conduct  and  character  of  Theodore  Tilton 
and  Henry  Ward  Beecher  as  the  narrative  of  Mr.  Red- 
path,  and  you  must  pardon  me  for  reading  it  in  brief. 
He  relates  an  interview  at  Mr.  Tilton's  house  with  him. 

One  day  I  went  over  early  in  the  forenoon,  and  as  t 
was— as  I  passed  up  stairs  I  passed  Elizabeth  in  the  en- 
try—in the  passage,  up  stairs,  comiag  out  of  one  room  on 
the  right  hand  side ;  she  had  an  expression  of  extraordi- 
nary determination  and  resolution  in  her  face  that  I  had 
never  seen  there  before,  and  I  thought  there  had  been 
some  domestic  row.  I  went  into  Theodore's  room ;  be 
was  lying  on  the  bed  stretched  out,  I  think  with  a  cover- 
lid over  him,  without  his  coat  or  vest;  I  thmk  his  panta- 
loons were  on ;  and  he  had  a  look  of  extreme  sorrow,  as 
if  he  had  been  stricken  by  some  terrible  blow.  I  wa,a 
startled  at  the  expression  on  his  face,  there  was  so  much 
sorrow  on  it,  and  I  went  forward,  and  he  had  the  roll  of 
the  "  True  Story"  lying  this  way.  [Illustrating.] 

Q.  Open?  A.  I  think  it  was  open.  I  said,  "Theodore, 
what  is  the  matter  with  you  this  morning  V  He  said,  I 
have  had  a  talk  "  — or  "  conversation."  He  did  not  use 
the  word  "  talk ;"  he  used  some  work  like  *'  controversy  " 
— "  with  Elizabeth."  He  said  it  was  wonderful,  the  amount 
of  resolution  that  that  little  woman  had.  "  Well,"  I  said, 
**  what  is  the  matter  1"  During  this  I  was  observing  his 
face  very  closely,  and  was  very  much  pained  by  the  look  of 
almost  agony  that  there  was  on  the  face;  I  had  never  seen 
it  there  before.  He  said,  "  Elizabeth  threatens,  if  I  pub- 
lish it,  or  if  it  is  published,  I  am  not  sure  which— I  think, 
*  if  it  is  published '—that  she  will  come  out  and  deny  it." 
I  said  suddenly,  "  Theodore  Tilton,  you  have  not  told  me 
the  whole  truth  in  this  case,  have  you  ?"  He  dropped 
his  eyes  and  said,  "  No."  I  said,  "  My  God."  I  went  for- 
ward and  put  my  hand  on  his  head,  stroked  his  hair.  I 
found  that  his  head  was  burning,  his  temple  throbbing. 
I  sat  with  him.  I  think  neither  of  us  said  much— pos- 
sibly ten  minutes  or  a  quarter  of  an  hour— passing  my 
hand  over  his  head,  and  I  thought  then  that  the  extrei>ie 
mental  strain  that  was  on  him  was  going  to  render  him 
insane.  Now,  I  had  no  cause  for  thinking  that  from  any- 
thing he  said,  but  simply  fi-om  knowing  his  face  well,  and 
from  watching  its  expression  then.  Well,  I  acted  on  that 
belief  for  one  whole  week  afterward.  He  said, 
either  there  or  down  stairs,  "It  ought  to  be 
pubUshed."  By  and  by  after,  he  very  soon 
became  quieted,  when  I  sat  with  him  for  a  while,  and  I 
asked  him  to  rise  and  go  out  and  have  a  walk. 
I  got  him  down  stairs  as  soon  as  I  could,  coaxing 
him  to  hurry  up,  and  that  sort  of  thins:,  and  went  down 
stuirs  with  him.   We  went  over  to  Boston— to  New-York 


SUMMISG    TP  BY   MR.  BEACR. 


together,  and  during— in  going  over  the  ferry,  and  in  the 
distracted  manner  that  he  had,  my  impression  Tvas  con- 
firmed that  this  thing — that  he  was  either  in  a  fever  or 
Avas  going  to  become  insane  ;  he  said  in  going— ot  course 
vre  talked  a  good  deal ;  T  am  only  saying  now  all  that  I 
am  able  to  recall,  because  I  have  tried  to  think  of  it  for 
the  past  few  weeks ;  he  said  he  was  going— I  think  it  was 
that  same  day,  or  the  next  day,  perhaps— he  was  going 
on  some  lecture  engagement,  I  think  in  Indiana  or  Ken- 
tucky, as  nearly  as  I  remember,  and  he  said  that  he  was 
in  such  a  state,  his  head— he  was  feeling  so  badly  or  his 
head  was  in  such  a  state,  that  he  did  not  think  he  would 
go ;  I  went  over,  and  I  think  he  spoke  to  Mr.  Clark  about 
it— Mr.  Clark,  the  editor  of  The  Golden  Age, 

That  description  given  by  :Mi'.  Redpath  of  the  condition 
Ml  which  Mr.  Tilton  was,  I  think,  quite  as  forcibly  as  any 
other  evidence  in  this  case,  exhibits  the  true  condition  of 
Mr.  Tilton,  the  intense  and  extreme  feeling  he  had  upon 
this  subject,  and  is  a  revelation  of  his  soul  that  has  been 
given  by  no  other  narrative  in  this  long  trial.  That  there 
was  something  bearing  upon  his  soul— something  that 
stirred  the  deepest  emotions  of  his  nature,  something 
which  bi'oke  down  heart  and  brain  when  the  full  force 
and  significance  of  it  were  presented  to  them,  can  hardly 
be  questioned  under  the  testimony  of  such  a  witness  as 
Mr.  Redpath.  But  he  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher. 
Before  passing  to  that,  however,  I  will  read  a  single  para- 
graph further  from  his  testimony  referring  to  the  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Tilton  : 

Q,  Well,  what  did  you  say  upon  that  subject,  Mr.  Bed- 
path— what  did  you  say  to  Mr.  Tilton  in  regard  to  his 
having  told  you  .the  whole  truth?  A.  I  said,  standing, 
looking  at  his  face  (that  being  the  first  time  that  I  had 
any  idea  that  he  had  any  other  theory  of  the  "  True 
Story"),  I  said:  "Theodore,  you  havn't  told  me  the 
whole  truth?"  I  said  it  as  a  question.  *  *  He  dropped 
his  eyes,  and  said  in  a  low  tone,  "  No." 

Q.  Did  he  teU  you  at  that  time  what  the  whole  truth 
WHS  ?  A.  He  said  no  more ;  I  did  not  ask  any  more. 

Then  he  says  that  in  the  "  True  Story  "  the  accusation 
against  Mr.  Beecher  was  of  improper  proposals;  and, 
upon  the  basis  of  the  "  True  Story,"  Mr.  Redpath  says  to 
Tilton  :  "  You  have  not  told  me  the  whole  trtfth;"  and 
he  ans\^ers,  "  ifo." 

Now  to  the  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher;  passing  all 
further  description,  but  reading,  so  that  you  may  have  in 
your  minds  vrhat,  upon  another  occasion  was  said  by  Mr. 
Moulton  in  connection  with  :Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Redpath : 

Theodore  was  Ij  ing  on  the  lounge,  Frank  was  sitting 
near  the  fire-place,  and  I  was  sitting  at  the  end  of  the 
lotinge.  Theodore  said,  "Redpath  is  going  up  to  Mr. 
Beecher's  to  see  Mr.  Beecher  to-morrow."  Frank  said 
"Is  he?  What  are  you  going  up  about?"  to  me.  I  said 
that  I  was  going  lo  try  to  get  Mr.  Beeciier  to  arrange 
dates  for  lectiuiug.  Theo.lore  said,  "Tell  him  that 
I  am  going  to  charge  adultery."  Frank  raid,  "No,  don't, 
Redpath."  I  said.  "  I  am  not  a  fool,  Frank  ;  that  would 
"be  a  pretty  way  of  introducing  a  business  conversation ; 
I  have  no  intention  of  telling  him  that."  Theodore  said, 
"  Yes,  you  had  b>-tt:er  tell  hiiu."  At  this  time  Frank  had 
risen  and  was  walking  uneasily  ateout  the  room,  and  sud- 
denly he  stopped  before  tlie — before  us,  and  said,  "  Theo- 
■dore  was  mad  at  me  yesterday  for  saying  that  I  loved  i 


Mr.  Beecher  more  than"— then  he  stopped— "  as  much  aa 
I  love  you.  I  don't  care  a  damn,  but  much  as  I  love  both 
of  them,  Redpath,  I  would  smite  either  of  them  to  the 
earth,"  or  "to  the  ground,  if  either  one  of  them  at 
tempted  to  crucify  the  other.  TeU  Mr.  Beecher  that." 
*•  No,  I  won't,"  I  said,  "  You  seem— yes,  you  better,  you 
better  tell  him."  He  said,  "Take  that  message  ttom 
me."  I  said,  "  Frank,  you  seem  to  forget  that  although 
Mr.  Beecher  " 

Here  he  was  interrupted  by  Mr.  Evarts,  and  then  he 
said  further : 

Then  Frank  said— I  said,  "  You  seem  to  forget  that  I 
have  never  spoken  to  Mr.  Beecher  on  that  subject,  and  I 
certainly  should  not  introduce  it."  He  said.  "  You  will 
find  him  ready  enough  to  talk."  That  is  all  I  remember 
of  now. 

Mr.  Redpath  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Beecher,  which 
it  is  not  necessary  to  read,  and  in  answer  to  the  question, 
"  Did  you  see  Mr.  Beecher  ?"  he  says : 

At  his  suggestion  and  Mr.  Cleveland's,  I  went  to  see  Mr. 
Beecher  at  his  house;  1,  went  there,  I  think,  about  3 
o'clock ;  I  didn't  see  him  for  an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a 
half  afterward ;  he  was  up-stairs  asleep  ;  then  we  went 
down — then  we  went  down  to  tea.  Oh,  I  asked  in  the 
parlor— I  asked  liim  if  nothing  could  be  done  to  stop  this 
yet.  He  placed  his  hand  on  niy  knee  and  said,  "  O,  that 
is  all  right  now,"  or  some  expression  like  that ;  "  I  have 
made  up  my  mind ;"  we  went  down  to  tea,  and  after  tea 
he  took  me  into  the  garden  or  yard,  and  wejit  to  the 
front  part  and  talked  a  little  about  the  cellars  a  minute, 
or  the  vaults  underneath,  and  in  going  back  he  said— I 
forget  the  remark  I  made  that  led  to  it— he  said,  "  I  was 
with  some  of  my  friends  until  2  o'clock  this  morning,  and 
my  mind  was  not  clear." 

Mr.  FuUerton— Speak  a  little  louder,  if  you  please. 

The  Witness— "But  when  I  awoke  this  morning  I  saw  my 
way  clear ;  I  shall  make  a  clean  breast  of  it ;  I  shall  tell 
the  whole  truth;  I  shall  take  the  whole  blame  on  myself; 
I  shall  vindicate  Theodore  and  Elizabeth."  I  said,  "Well, 
Mr.  Beecher,  without  any  reference  whatever— 
without  any  reference  to  what  the  tinith  is, 
I  am  very  glad  of  it.'-'  Then  he  asked  me  something 
about  what  the  eflect— what  eftect  the  scandal  would 
have  on  the  lectuiing.  I  don't  know  how  the  question 
was  phrased.  I  think  it  was  then  that  I  replied,  "That 
without  any  reference  to  what  the  truth  was  he  would 
find  a  stronger  and  better  class  of  friends  arovmd  him 
than  he  ever  had  before." 

Now,  3Ir.  Redpath  had  communicated  to  Mr.  Beecher 
the  message  of  Jlr.  Tilton  that  he  was  going  to  charge 
Mr.  Beecher  with  adultery,  and  after  that  3Ir.  Beecher 
says  to  ISIr.  Redpath,  "  My  mind  is  clear ;  I  am  deter- 
mined to  tell  the  whole  truth  ;  I  am  determined  to  vindi- 
cate Theodore  and  Elizabeth."  How  vindicate  Theodore, 
who  was  charging  him  with  adultery,  who  had  charged 
him  to  Redpath  with  adultery,  who  had  charged  him  to 
others  with  adultery— how  was  Mr.  Beecher  going  to  vin- 
dicate Theodore  Tilton  ?  This  was  in  July,  1874,  after 
the  Investigating  Committee  had  been  called,  and  with  a 
full  knowledge  of  the  extreme  character  of  the  charge. 
Knowing  aU  that  Theodore  Tilton  in  the  past  three  years 
had  done,  knowing  what  the  charge  of  IMis.  Tilton  was, 
which  he  pronounces  to-day  false,  which  was  reiterated 


986 


IRE   TILTO^'-BI:K(:HEE  TRIAL. 


by  lier  in  tlie  letter  to  Dr.  Storrs ;  ready,  as  my  learned 
fi'iends  say,  then,  for  coutest  and  for  fight ;  this  gentle- 
man, to  his  intimate  friend  and  his  witness,  declares  that 
he  will  make  a  clean  breast  of  it  and  vindicate  Theodore 
Tilton  and  Mrs.  Tilton.  Was  there  any  denial  to  Kedpath 
of  the  charge  of  adultery  %  Did  he  disabuse  the  mind  of 
Redpath  as  to  the  truth  of  the  accusation  which  Mr. 
Tilton  threatened  then  to  present  ?  Was  there  anj^  of  the 
indignation,  was  there  any  of  the  fearlesness  of  innocence, 
the  determination  to  throw  off  the  weight  and  the  stain  of 
this  scandal,  and  by  demonstration  of  his  own  purity, 
confront  the  alleged  conspirators  against  his  honor  and 
fame,  and  relieve  his  chnrch  and  the  world  from  the 
dread  of  the  accusation  made  against  him,  founded  upon 
this  scandal  %  But  I  return  again  to  the  iaquiry,  gentle- 
men, how  was  Mr.  Beecher  to  vindicate  either  Theodore 
Tilton  or  Mrs.  Tilton  ?  If  his  position  to-day  be  true,  if 
Theodore  Tilton  is  the  depraved  and  abandoned  profligate 
the  defense  represents,  if  he  h^d  been  circulating  these 
false  and  dishonoring  rumors  against  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  how  was  he  to  be  vindicated  consistently  with 
the  innocence  of  Mr.  Beecher  %  There  is  no  way,  gentle- 
men, in  which  human  ingenuity  can  reconcile  these  two 
contrasting  conditions  of  the  mind  of  this  gentleman. 
Then  he  was  determined  to  do  what  his  conscience  taught 
him,  and  what  his  duty  to  Theodore  Tilton  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  taught  him— to  tell  the  truth  so  far  as  the  truth 
was  necessary  and  proper  in  their  vindication.  Whatever 
he  might  choose  to  communicate  in  regard  to  Mrs.  Tilton, 
be  sure  it  would  be  that  which  would  protect  her  fame, 
which  would  take  to  himself  all  the  responsibility  for  the 
difficulties  which  had  sprung  up  in  the  household  of  Mr. 
Tilton,  and  which  would  rationally  account  for  the 
rumors  which  had  afflicted  and  corrupted  the  ear  of  the 
public.  What  that  confession  was,  what  that  statement 
was,  which  would  thus  carry  with  it  the  vindication  of 
those  he  had  ruined,  and  how  far  it  would  impute  guilt 
and  dishonor  to  himself,  is  not  for  me  to  say,  nor  for  you 
to  say.  It  is'  sufficient  that  then,  on  the  14th  of  July, 
1874,  this  man  had  made  up  his  mind  to  make  such  a 
statement  as  would  produce  that  desixed  result. 

But,  gentlemen,  the  result  in  this  instance  was  precisely 
as  Mr.  Beecher  represents  that  it  was  in  regard  to  his 
changing  and  conflicting  opinions  about  the  charge  of 
blackmail.  The  instant  that  Mr.  Beecher  fell  under  the 
control  of  his  two  lawyers,  Tracy  and  Shearman,  their  in- 
fluence, aided  and  strengthened  by  the  interests  and  the 
influence  of  Plymouth  Church,  or  the  leaders  of  that 
church— that  instant  the  better  instiucts,  the  purer  im- 
pulses of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  were  sacrificed  and  lost, 
and  he  was  persuaded  to  do  what  the  interests  of  those 
eurrounding  him,  and  the  views  of  his  supporters  in  re- 
gard to  the  great  interests  depending  upon  his  character, 
le<l  them  to  advise.  I  do  not  believe  that  this  contest  is 
from  the  promptings,  Ox  is  the  natural  result  of  the  noble 
and  generous  natui-e  of  this  defendant.    Long  ago,  if  he 


had  been  left  fxee  from  the  snares  and  influences  which 
sun-ounded  him,  to  act  out  his  better  part,  the  commu- 
nity would  have  been  saved  this  scandal.  It  speaks  out 
in  every  letter,  in  every  word,  in  every  act  of  Mr.  Beecher 
when  he  was  speaking  and  acting  his  own  self. 

MRS.  MORSE'S  LETTERS. 
I  must  direct  your  attention  for  a  moment  to 

another  significant  piece  of  evidence : 

Mr.  Beechee  :  As  you  have  not  seen  fit  to  pay  any  at- 
tention to  the  request  I  left  at  your  house,  now  over  two 
weeks  since,  I  will  take  this  method  to  inform  you  of  the 
state  of  things  in  Livingston-st.  The  remark  you  made 
to  me  at  your  own  door  was  an  enigma  at  the  time,  and 
every  day  adds  to  the  mystery:  "Mrs.  Beecher  has 
adopted  the  oMld!"  "What  child  I"  I  asked;  "Eliza^ 
beth." 

Well,  that  was  something  of  an  enigma.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising that  it  should  have  puzzled  Mrs.  Morse,  her 
mother. 

Now,  I  ask  what  earthly  sense  was  there  in  that  re- 
mark? 

I  believe  Mr.  Porter  represents  Mrs.  Morse  as  being  in  a 
dangerous  condition  of  mind,  and.  as  half  demented— 
without  any  proof;  but  she  shows  considerable  good 
sense  in  this  communication: 

Neither  Mrs.  B.,  yourself,  nor  I  can  have  done  anything 
to  ameliorate  her  condition.  She  has  been  for  the  last 
three  weeKs  with  one  very  indifferent  girl.  T.  has  sent 
*  *  *  with  the  others  away,  leaving  my  sick  and  dis- 
tracted child  to  care  for  all  four  children  night  and  day^ 
without  fire  in  the  furnace,  or  anything  Uke  comfort  or 
nourishment  in  the  house.  She  has  not  seen  any  one.. 
He  says,  "  She  is  mourning  for  her  sin."  If  this  be  so, 
one  24  hours  under  his  shot,  I  think,  is  enough  to  atone 
for  a  life-long  sin,  however  heinous. 

******** 

I  don't  believe  if  his  honest  debts  were  paid  he  would 
have  enough  to  buy  their  breakfast.  This  she  could  en- 
dure and  thrive  under,  but  the  publicity  he  has  given  to 
this  recent  and  most  crushing  of  all  trouble  is  what's 
taking  the  life  out  of  her. 

Why,  what  had  Mr.  Tilton  given  puolicity  to  ?  It  was 
not  improper  solicitations  alone;  it  was  the  sin  of  his 
wife.  He  had  communicated  to  Mrs.  Morse  tlie  charge  of 
adultery,  and  she  says  he  had  communicated  1+  to  twelve 
other  persons— a  mistake  in  number,  though  he  had  to 
some.  It  is  with  regard  to  that  that  Mrs.  Morse  says ; 

This  recent  and  most  crushing  of  all  troubles  is  what, 
is  taking  the  life  out  of  her.  I  know  of  twelve  persons! 
whom  he  has  told,  and  they  in  turn  have  told  others.  T 
had  thought  we  had  as  much  as  we  could  live  under  \m 
neglect  and  ungovernable  temper.  But  this  is  a  death- 
blow to  us  both,  and  I  doubt  not  Florence  has  hers. 

Why,  what  means  this  terrible  calamity  which  had 
overtaken  the  daughter  of  the  writer  of  this  letter  and 
the  granddaughter  of  the  writer  of  this  letter,  which  was 
crushing  the  life  out  of  them  1 

Do  you  know  \\  hen  I  hear  of  you  cracking  your  jokes 
fi  om  Sunday  to  Simday,  and  thmk  of  the  misery  yon 
have  brought  upon  us,  I  think  with  the  Psalmist,  "  Ther<- 
iis  no  God  ?" 


SUMMISG    CF  J3Y  MU.  BEACIL 


987 


■'AJhl  this  sin,  this  crustdng  Trouble,  this  devastating 
iniserr :  wiien  I  tlitak  of  -wliat  vou  liare  brought  upon  us, 
Mr.  Beeeher,  and  remember  the  ga-yety  and  friTolity  of 
ronr  jests  and  jokes  in  the  sacred  pulpit,  I  think  there  is 
no  God,"  That  is  the  substance  of  this  commimication  to 
Mr.  Beecher.   How  tioe<  he  answer  it? 

Mt  Deae  Mada  ■  :  ,-hould  be  very  sorrv  to  have  you 
think  I  had  no  inteixsc  in  your  troubles.  My  course  to- 
ward you  hitherto  should  satisfy  you  that  T  have  sympa- 
thized with  your  distress.  But  Mrs.  Beecher  and  I,  after 
full  consideration,  are  of  one  mind— that,  imder  present 
circumstances,  the  .greatest  kindness  to  you  and  to  all 
will  be,  in  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  to  leave  to  time 
the  rectification  of  all  the  wrongs,  whether  they  prove 
real  or  imaginary. 

In  answer  to  a  communication  of  the  character  I  have 
state:!  to  you  pointing  painfully,  tearfully,  impressively, 
the  condition  of  her  daughter,  mournmg  for  her  sin, 
crushed  to  the  earth  by  a  heart-breakiuir  sorrow,  and 
charging  that  misery  upon  Henry  "Ward  Beecher,  he,  in 
his  considered  reply,  after  consuliarion  with  Ms  wife, 
says  not  one  word  in  answer  to  the  accusation,  makes  no 
inquiry  of  this  complaining  mother,  does  not 
say  to  her,  "  Madam,  what  do  you  mean  by  charging 
the  sin  of  your  daughter  or  the  misery  iinder  which  your 
daughter  and  her  household  are  siiffering  to  me,  and  say- 
ing to  me  that  my  ministrations  in  my  pulpit  are  so 
revolting  and  horrid  to  your  conception  of  my  character, 
that  you  think  there  is  no  Grod  of  justice  and  retribu- 
tion ?"  TVhat  would  :Mr.  Beecher,  innocent,  have  said  ? 
Why.  on  The  mstant,  not  by  written  word,  not  by  formal 
writing,  but  with  a  hasty  foot,  he  would  have  speeded  to 
the  presence  of  that  woman.  He  had  been  to  her ;  he 
had  consulted  her  about  the  troubles  between  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Tilton ;  he  had  heard  all  the  tales  of  her  fierce  and 
vindictive  animosity  toward  ajj.  Tilton.  Why  did  he  not 
at  once  go  to  this  lady  and  demand  of  her  an  explanation 
of  language  like  this  addressed  to  him,  pur©  and  upri^-ht 
as  he  says  he  was  in  his  conscience,  never  having  done 
an  act.  or  whispered  a  word,  in  the  presence  of  Mrs.  Til- 
ton. that  should  disturb  the  entire  purity  of  her  nature. 
Why,  gentlemen,  can  these  things  be  so  ?  Can  this  man 
be  consciously  innocent  and  submit  to  imputa- 
tions of  this  character  without  a  word  of  re- 
monstrance, without  a  single  flash  of  indignation  I 
If  he  can,  he  belongs  not  to  that  nature  which  you  and  I 
inherit 

Well,  this  lady  in  October  of  that  year  addr.  sses  this 
gentleman  r.uother  commimication.  You  see  in  the  first 
she  had  wondered  at  the  notion  of  Mr.  Bee»-lier  that  he 
and  Mrs.  Beecher  had  adopted  her  daughter,  but  after 
thpt.  as  Ml'.  Beecher  did  not  deny  ir.  she  assumed  it,  I 
suppose,  to  be  e<^rnest  and  sincere,  and  she  at  once  falls 
intt'  the  new  relation.  In  October  she  addresses  Mr. 
Beecher  as  My  de^r  love."  By  a  mother  to  a  man  who 
is  charged  with  the  seduction  of  lier  daught-r  by  the 
iiusband  of  that  daughter.   After  the  correspondence 


;  which  I  have  read  to  you  l:.etween  them,  and  the  infer- 
I  enees  to  be  drawn  from  it,  she,  months  after,  writing  to 
I  that  same  person  Tinder  the  address  of  "  My  (J^ear  love," 
'■■  and  applying  to  him  for  help  : 

Can  you  help  me  in  any  way  by  the  1st  of  November  ? 
j  I  am  stiU  alone,  with  no  prospect  of  any  one.  with  a  rent 
j  of  SI, 500,  and  an  income  of  $1,000,  &c. 
;     Then  she  depicts  the  straitened  circumstances  of  her 
.  daughter,  and  says  to  '^Ir.  Beecher : 

j     Do  come  and  see  me.   I  will  promise  that  the  secret  of 
her  hfe.  as  she  calls  it.  shall  not  be  mentioned. 

Why  not  ?  Unless  Mr.  Beecher  was  very  responsibly  in- 
volved in  that  secret,  unless  the  mention  of  it  would  be 
a  source  of  inconvenience  and  irritation  to  him,  why 
I  doH>  she  think  it  necessary  to  say  to  him  the  secret  of  her 
I  lile  shall  not  be  mentioned  ?     You  shall  not  be  disturbed 
j  with  it.   Truly  I  did  reproach  you  with  the  misery  yon 
j  had  brous-ht  upon  us  ;  I  did  teU  you  that  your  conduct 
!  led  me  to  distrust  the  mercy  and  the  justice  of  Provi- 
i  (lence.   I  will  trouble  yoti  with  no  more  of  these  re- 
proaclies.   Come  and  see  me." 

I  will  promise  that  the  secret  of  her  life,  as  she  calls  it, 
shall  not  be  mentioned.  I  know  it  is  hard  to  bring  it  up, 
as  you  must  have  suffered  intensely,  and  we  all  will.  I 
fear,  till  released  by  death.  Do  you  pray  for  me  ?  If 
not,  pray  do.  I  never  felt  more  rebellious  than  now, 
more  in  need  of  God's  and  human  help.  Do  you  know  I 
think  it  strange  you  should  ask  me  to  call  you  son? 
Wlien  I  have  told,  darling,  I  felt  if  you  could  in  safety  to 
yourself  and  all  concerned,  you  would  be  to  me  all  this 
endearine:  name.   Am  I  mistaken  ? — Mother. 

I 

And  yet  Mr.  Beecher,  according  to  his  view  of  his  con- 
duct, has  never  done  anything  which  should  either  expose 
him  to  reproach  from  Mrs.  Tilton,  or  anybody  else,  ex- 
cept indulge  the  exuberance  of  his  nature,  and  the  kindly 
and  generous  and  attractive  faculties  which  belong  to 
him.  He  has  never  done  anything  which  should  induce 
Mrs.  Morse  to  recognize  him  as  her  son  :  he  has  never  had 
any  ultimate  association  with  her  daughter  which  identi- 
fied him  with  her  in  the  affections  and  relations  of  this 
mother.  What  does  it  all  mean  1  Ah!  gentlemen,  why 
was  not  Mrs.  ?  Torse  put  upon  that  stand  to  tell  us  what  it 
all  means  ?  There  is  what  she  wrote.  It  was  entirely 
competent  for  her  to  have  taken  this  stand, 
and  to  have  explained  every  word  of  those 
most  remarkable  communications.  WTiy  was  it  that 
Mrs.  Morse  was  thought  a  dangerous  waman  ?  Why  was 
it  that  Taton  and  Moulton  and  Beecher  and  aU  are  agreed 
that  there  was  peril  in  the  knowledge  that  she  had  ac- 
quired ?  Why  were  these  letters  held  by  Moulton  with- 
out the  slightest  explanation  in  regard  to  them,  and  why 
are  they  represented  here  to-day,  and  Beecher  unable 
to  give  you  the  slightest  explanatitm  in  regard  to  them  t 
And- why  is  this  mystery  left  to  be  covered  up  in  this 
aetion  without  a  single  explanation  I  Those  letters  ai-e 
intelligent  and  sensible.  There  is  no  evidence  of  a  wan- 
dering intellect.  My  karned  friend.  Mr.  Porter,  saw  the 
force  of  the  inqrJry  which  he  knew  would  be  put  to  thi*- 


^88 


1HJ£   TILION-BEECREE  TBIAL. 


7tiiy:  "  Wliy  was  Mrs.  MoMe  not  prodaced  as  a  wit- 
ness] "  and  lie  seeks  to  avoid  it  by  the  sug- 
gestion, without  proof,  that  lier  sorrows  and  misfortunes 
had  disturbed  her  mind.  A  suggestion,  gentlemen,  en- 
titled to  not  the  least  consideration.  A  suggestion  en- 
tirely unfounded.  You  will  apply  to  this,  of  course,  the 
legal  doctrine  which  I  read  to  you  the  other  day.  It  was 
the  duty  of  these  gentlemen  to  produce  that  lady  if  she 
<50uld  have  given  you  any  satisfactory  explanation  of 
these  communications,  or  any  defense  of  Mr.  Beecher  for 
his  silence  under  the  accusation  which  they  made. 

Mr.  Morris,  will  you  refer  me  to  Bowen's  statement 
that  he  could  turn  him  in  12  days  out  of  his  chiu-ch  1 
However,  I  will  pass  it.   It  is  not  of  much  consequence. 

THE  DEMAND  THAT  MR.  BEECHER  RESIGN. 

Some  consequence,  to  my  mind,  is  to  be  at- 
tached to  the  meeting  which  was  held  on  the  26th  of 
Dec  mber  at  Mr.  Freeland's  house  between  Mr.  Beecher 
and  Mr.  Bo  wen.  It  was  an  extraordinary  interview,  cal- 
culated to  produce  a  very  profound  impression  upon  the 
minds  of  the  parties.  A  bold  and  audacious  demand  was 
made  upon  Mr.  Beecher.  It  was  insolent  if  it  had  no 
foundation.  How  did  Mr.  Beecher  meet  it  1  Mr.  Bowen 
comes  to  him  with  a  sealed  letter,  no  intimation  that  he 
was  aware  of  the  contents  of  the  communication.  He 
delivers  it  to  Mr.  Beecher.  It  is  seen  to  be  a  demand 
from  Theodore"  Tilton  upon  Mr.  Beecher  to  leave  the 
pulpit  and  quit  Brooklyn.  What  is  the  first  impulse  1 
What  does  Mr.  Beecher  do  1  He  puts  it  is  his  pocket  and 
says  nothing,  makes  no  answer  to  the  impudent  demand 
until  Mr.  Bowen  says  to  him,  "  Well,  Mr.  Beecher,  what 
have  you  to  say  about  it  ? "  Does  Mr.  Beecher  say  to 
Mr.  Bowen  in  answer,  "  What  havp  you  to  say  about  it, 
Sir  ?  Do  you  make  yourself  a  party  to  this  insolent  de- 
mand upon  me  1  Do  you  dare  to  come  into  my  presence 
and  require  me,  for  reasons  which  I  understand,  not  ex- 
pressed, to  leave  my  pulpit  and  leave  Brooklyn?"  Would 
not  that  have  been  the  natural  impulse  of  an  outraged 
minister  conscious  of  no  wrong,  undaunted  and  de- 
fiant in  his  iauocence  ?  Would  he  have  permitted  any 
living  man  to  come  into  his  house  and  on  behalf  of  an- 
other make  such  a  demand,  without  calling  that  messen- 
ger to  account,  asking  Mm  if  he  took  the  responsibility 
of  the  audacious  outrage  1  Oh !  no,  no.  But  he  sees 
the  necessity;  he  does  not  inquire  of  Mr.  Bowen  his 
connection  with  it.  his  reasons  for  associating  with  It, 
but  with  an  humble  and  a  timid  appeal  asks  Mr.  Bowen  if 
lie  is  his  friend.  What  are  the  reasons  hinted  at  in  this 
letter  \  Does  he  ask  "  for  what  reason  does  this  man 
demand  this  absurdity  of  me  ?"  "  For  reasons 
which  I  explicitly  understand— what  does  •  that 
mean,  Sir  1  What  ha  \  e  you  to  charge 
against  me,  or  Theodore  Tilton  to  charge,  that 
Justifies  such  a  request?"  Would  he  not  have  felt  some 
curiosity  to  know  what  it  was  ?    Was  it  because  Mr. 


Beecher  had  wen,  unsolicited,  the  love  of  Mrs.  Tilton, 
that  he  had  advised  a  separation  when  no  separation 
followed,  that  he  had  not  then  advised  Bowen  or  influ- 
enced Bowen  to  discharge  Tilton  ?  And  I  am  reminded 
by  my  friend  that  at  that  time  he  had  no  suspicion  of  the 
love  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  What  was  it,  then,  that  induced  this 
man,  instead  of  resisting  this  aggression  upon  his  char- 
acter and  his  position,  instead  of  inquii'Lng  the  causes 
and  the  foundations  of  this  demand,  to  act  with  conscious 
knowledge,  and  appeal  to  the  friendship  of  Bowen  ?  I 
repeat,  gentlemen,  he  saw  the  necessity  of  detaching 
Bowen  from  this  association  with  Theodore  Tilton.  That 
Bowen  had  made  the  revelations  upon  which  Tilton 
wrote  this  demand  for  a  resignation  is  approved  by  the 
"  Tripartite  Agreement,"  where,  in  detail,  Triton  nar- 
rates the  whole  of  the  interviews  between  Bowen  and 
himself,  and  upbraids  in  most  severe  and  bitter  terms 
the  treachery  of  the  man  who,  after  inciting  him  to  this 
demand,  could  at  once  enter  into  a  league  offensive  and 
defensive  with  Mr.  Beecher;  and  Mr.  Beecher  took  the 
true  course  to  do  it.  What  were  the  influences  1  By 
what  spell  Bowen  was  quieted  we  know  not,  but  that  on 
that  26th  of  December  he  did  pledge  himself  to  Theodore 
Tilton  is  certain,  and  that  on  the  same  day  he  did  turn 
his  coat  and  pledge  himself  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  is 
equally  clear,  and  Mr.  Beecher  was  satisfled  with  the  re- 
sult. He  had  secured  a  successful  ally.  He  had  silenced 
a  dangerous  tongue.  Was  it  not  dangerous  1  In  the 
Spring  of  1870  there  had  been  a  settlement  of  the  difii- 
culties  between  Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Bowen,  by  which 
JVIr.  Bowen  acquired  some  special  advantages,  according 
to  Mr.  Beecher's  statement  

Mr.  Evarts— That  is  not  In  evidence. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir,  it  is  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  that  is  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Shearman— He  said  January,  1870. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  was  only  referring  to  what  you  alluded 
to. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  that  is  in  evidence,  Mr.  Evarts. 
Mr.  Morris— Correct. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  after  stating  the  adjustment  between 
them,  the  memorandum  of  Mr.  Beecher  prpceeds  to  say : 

Then  it  was  that  without  any  provocation  he  (Mr. 
Bowen)  told  Mr.  Howard  that  this  reconciliation  did  not 
include  one  matter  that  he  (Bowen)  "knew  about  Mr. 
Beecher,  which,  if  he  should  speak  it,  would  drive  Mr. 
Beecher  out  of  Brooklyn."  Mr.  Howard  protested  with 
horror  against  such  a  statement,  saying,  "Mr.  Bowen, 
this  is  terrible.  No  man  should  make  such  a  statement 
unless  he  had  the  most  positive  evidence."  To  this  Mr. 
Bowen  replied  that  he  had  this  evidence,  and  said,  point- 
edly, that  he  (Howard)  might  go  to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  thai 
Beecher  would  never  give  his  consent  that  he  (Bowen) 
should  teU  Mr.  Howard  this  secret. 

To  Mr.  Morris— That  was  the  Spring  of  1870  ? 

Mr.  Morris— Yes. 

Mr.  Fullerton— Yes. 

Ml".  Beach— That  was  in  the  Spring. 


ISCniMI^G    UP  BY  ME.  BEACH. 


989 


Mr.  Shearman— Will  you  refer  me  to  the  page  wbere  it 
Js  im  evidence  % 

Mr.  Beach — I  waut  to  be  right  about  tliis  matter.  [To 
Mr.  Morris.]    Am  I  wrong  ? 

Mr.  Morris — No ;  you  are  not  wrong.  It  is  correct.  It 
is  in  evidence.   You  are  right.    It  is  in  evidence. 

Mr.  EA'arts  [To  Mr.  Morris] — WiU  you  show  it  to  ns, 
Judg<^  Morris  ] 

Mr.  Morris— Yes ;  I  wiU. 

Mr.  Beach— If  I  am  wrong  I  will  make  a  humble  and 
becoming  apology,  for  I  did  not  intend  to  be  wrona:. 
Mr.  Morris— You  are  right ;  I  put  it  in  myself. 
Mr.  Beach— I  recollect  It, 

Mr.  Bvarts— I  don't  say  anything ;  I  only  want  to  be  re- 
ferred to  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I  understand  yon.  Now,  it  was  to  this  man 
^ho,  on  the  heel  of  a  friendly  settlement  of  business  diifi- 
oulties,  made  this  declaration  to  the  intimate  friend  of 
Mr.  Be«cher,  that  he  knew  a  secret  In  regard  to  Mr. 
Beecher  which,  if  told,  would  drive  him  from  his  pulpit 
and  from  Brooklyn— it  was  to  this  man  bringing  this  de- 
mand, after  this  threat,  known  and  regarded  by  Mr. 
Beecher,  that  Mr.  Beecher  exhibits  this  hnmble,  suppli- 
oattng  attitude  of  a  culprit,  appealing  to  him  for  friendly 
protection;  and  yet  you  are  to  believe,  gentlemen,  that 
this  was  a  pure  and  spotless  character.  In  1870  Mr. 
Beecher  knew  that  Mr.  Bowen  made  this  charge  to  a 
prominent  member  of  his  congregation,  and  he  sat  sUent 
under  it ;  made  to  one  to  whom  he  broke  the 
sacrificial  bread  and  poured  out  the  blood 
of  his  Redeemer.  To  him  who  sat  meekly  under 
his  ministrations  Bowen  had  made  this  accusation,  and 
Beecher  sits  silent,  contented,  received  at  the  same  com- 
munion table,  and  breaks  the  same  emblematical  bread 
to  the  man  who  had  made  this  charge  against  him  in  the 
bosom  of  his  church ;  and  to  this  hour,  to  this  hour,  he  is 
an  accepted  communicant,  and  has  never  been  called  to  a 
responsibility  for  the  foul  accusation.  What  are  we  to  do 
with  these  things,  gentlemen,  as  practical  men, 
honest  and  true  to  our  fellow  men?  How  are 
^e  to  account  for  this  submission  of  a  great  man, 
stayed  and  supported  by  the  adoration  of  a  great 
church,  in  the  face  of  such  a  dishonoring  charge? 
Does  it  not  throw  upon '  that  transaction,  on  the  26th  of 
December,  such  a  gleam  of  light  that  you  can  look 
through  it  into  the  heart  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  see 
how  conscious  it  was  of  error,  how  timid  it  was  in  the 
presence  of  guilt,  and  how  tremblingly  that  solicitation 
to  Hemy  C.  Bowen  to  be  his  friend  fell  from  his  lips  on 
that  interesting  interview  ?  [To  Mr.  Evartsl— It  wUl  be 
found  here  on  page  194. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  heading  connected  with  the  paper  is 
diflferent. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir ;  I  was  quite  certain  of  it. 
Well,  you  see  from  the  whole  of  this  paper  that  the  way 
that  settlement  was  made,  the  liifficulty  was  made,  and 


that  was  at  an  interview  at  Mr.  Freeland's  house  (that  is 
a  notable  house,  that  house  of  Freeland's)  *'  about  Feb- 
ruary, 1870,  at  a  long  interview  at  Mr.  Freeland's  house, 
for  the  purpose  of  having  a  full  and  final  reconciliation 
between  Bowen  and  Beecher,  Mr.  Bowen  stated  his 
grievances,  which  were  all  either  of  a  business  nature,  or 
of  my  tresLtment  ot  Mm  personally"—''  him  per'soiia II ' 
italicized  (as  per  memorandum  in  his  writing).  "  Well, 
the  terms  were,  first,  that  Bowen  got  the  priv- 
ilege of  reporting  and  publishing  the  sermons 
and  lecture-room  talks  of  Mr.  Beecher.'* 
"  Second,  New  edition  of  Plymouth  Collection,  and 
Freeland's  interest "— "  Freeland's  interest  "—I  don't 
know  what  that  was.  "  Third,  Explanations  to  Church 
and,  "  Fourth,  Write  me  a  letter ;"  and  the  "  Fifth,  Re- 
tract ia  every  quarter  what  has  been  said  to  my  injury." 
Now,  see  the  peculiar  phraseology  of  that.  "  Bowen's 
grievances,  which  were  aW"— [italicized]— "  either  of  a 
business  nature,  or  of  my  treatment  of  him  personally  " 
and  immediately  after  it,  Bowen  saying  that  he  didn't 
include  one  matter ;  that  there  was  one  secret  he  held  in 
regard  to  Henry  Ward  Beecher  which  IE  revealed  would 
blast  him.  That  is  all  in  the  handwiting  of  Bowen;  and 
of  course  there  is  no  dispute  about  it. 
The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 


THE  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
The  Court  met  at  2  o'clock  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Beach— I  pass  some  minor  topics,  gentlemen,  sim- 
ply making  an  allusion  to  the  circumstance  that  in  A.u« 
gust,  1870,  at  the  request  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  Mr.  Beecaer  left 
his  Summer  residence  at  Peekskill  and  came  to  this  city, 
had  an  interview  with  her  upon  one  day,  and  an  upp  oint- 
ment for  the  next,  and  on  calling  to  fulfill  that  appoint- 
ment Mrs.  Tilton  declined  to  see  him,  sending  him  a  mes- 
sage that  it  was  better  that  she  should  not  see  him;  ia 
connection  with  the  fact  that  from  that  time  until  the 
interview  of  December,  1870,  there  was  no  meeting  be- 
tween Mr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Tilton.  This  August,  you 
will  observe,  was  one  month  after  the  communication 
was  made  by  Mrs.  Tilton  to  her  husband  of  the  relations 
between  herself  and  Mr.  Beecher.  Mr.  Beecher  says  in  his 
evidence  that  Mrs.  Tilton  was  sick,  and  therefore  sent  for 
him.  It  is  hardly  consistent,  that  explanation,  with  the 
message  and  refusal  of  the  next  day.  If  Mrs.  Tilton 
desired  to  see  Mr.  Beecher  only  for  spiritual  consolation, 
by  reason  of  her  illness,  it  is  inconceivable  that  after  the 
interview  on  the  first  day  of  his  arrival,  and  an  appoint- 
ment for  one  upon  the  succeeding  day,  she  should  send 
hira  a  message  of  that  character,  that  it  was  not  best  for 
her  to  see  him.  It  is  one  of  those  circmnstances  lying  in 
the  track  of  this  history  which  combines,  coalesces  with 
the  theory  of  the  plaintiff,  and  is  in  harmony  with  the 
assertion  that  there  was  some  corroding  and  disturbing 
secret  between  Mrs.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher  th^t  tvi,<^ 


990 


THE   TILlOA'-Bt'ECHEK  TllLAL. 


operating  upon  botJi  their  lives,  and  made  him  the  snb- 
eervient  and  submissive  lustrument  of  any  person  who 
held  the  control  of  that  secret. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  TESTIMONY  ABOUT  THE 
BLACKMAIL. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  is  tlie  affirmative  case 
on  the  part  of  this  plaintiff.  You  will  see  that  it  is  sus- 
tained by  three  witnesses,  testifying  positively  to  a  con- 
fession on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher  of  illicit  intercourse 
with  Mrs.  Til  ton.  It  is  sustained  by  his  written  declara- 
tions—I  may  with  propriety  use  the  term  confessions- 
carrying  such  a  revelation  of  a  smitten  conscience  and  a 
profound  and  agonized  remorse,  that  it  is  impossible  to 
satisfy  them  by  any  ordinary,  venial,  excusable  trans- 
gression, considering  the  character  of  the  man  and  the 
nature  of  the  language  he  used,  and  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  used,  of  an  accusation,  as  three  wit- 
nesses say,  of  adultery ;  supported,  too,  by  his  tendered 
resignation,  his  declaration  that  he  was  willing  to  stop 
down  and  out  of  the  noble  life  he  had  been  pursuing ;  of 
his  tender  of  himself  as  a  volvmtary  sacrifice  to  the  good 
of  Mr.  TUton;  by  his  craven  fear  of  a  sister's 
threatened  accusation  from  his  pulpit;  by  the  unan- 
swered appeal  of  JNIrs.  Bradshaw  xmder  the  circumstances 
I  have  detailed ;  by  the  upbraiding  of  Mrs.  Morse  ;  by 
the  declaration  to  Redpath,  and  by  all  this  accumulated 
weight  of  circumstance,  all  falling  in  with  the  accusation 
of  seduction,  and  opposed  only  by  the  single  testimony  of 
Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  I  cannot  pursue  my  original 
purpose  of  examining  in  detail  the  testimony  of  the  nu- 
merous witnesses  presented  on  the  part  of  the  defense. 
They  relate  only  to  the  question  of  conspiracy  and  black- 
mail, and  the  contradictory  declarations  which  have  been 
suflaciently  explained.  If  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Beecher  is 
not  sufficient  to  dispose  of  the  theory  of  conspiracy  and 
blackmail,  no  argument  of  mine  can  convince  the  intelli- 
gence of  this  jury.  You  would  not  believe  though  one 
should  rise  from  the  dead.  Mr.  Beecher  says,  after  re- 
lating all  the  variations  of  Ms  mind,  all  the  fluctuations 
from  his  own  unbiased  impressions  of  the  integrity,  hon- 
esty of  Mr.  Moulton,  and  fidelity,  and  his  account  of  the 
influence  which  was  used  over  him  by  his  professional  ad- 
visers—the question  is  put  to  him  : 

Q.  Mr.  Beecher,  your  answer  to  the  question  that  I  put  to 
you,  whether  you  now  believe  that  Mr.  Moulton  intended 
to  levy  blaclrmail  upon  you,  has  not  been  answered  satis- 
factorily to  some  of  my  associates,  and  I  put  it  to  you 
again  as  to  your  present  belief  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  if  you  mean 
by  blackmail  that  he  levied  contributions  for  his  own  ad- 
vantage on  me,  I  don't  think  it,  but  if  you  mean  

Mr.  Fullerton — That  is  

The  Witness  [continuing]— But  if  you  mean  that  he 
levied  money  upon  me,  using  my  generous  foelings  as  the 
Instruiiieut,  for  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Tilton,  I  think  he  did. 

Now%  you  perceive  that  is  an  entire  surrender  of  the 
idea  that  there  was  any  such  thing  as  blackmail  through 
Intimidation,  through  threat.  Well,  all— I  say  all— nearly 


all  the  v>^iruessos  upon  the  part  of  the  defendant  hav& 
been  sworn  to  support  the  theory  that  Moulton  and 
Tilton  were  constautly  hol  liug  over  Mr.  Beecher  the 
threat  of  this  accusation  to  extort  money  from  him,  or 
service  from  him,  ia  some  w  iy,  in  aid  of  Mr.  Tilton  and 
his  restoration  to  prosperity.  This  is  all  abandoned  by^ 
the  evidence  of  Mr.  Baechor.  His  own  uneducated,  un- 
directed conviction  was  that  there  was  nothing  of  the 
kind;  and  when  aided  and  instructed  by  his  lawyers,  he 
comes  only  to  the  coaclusion  tliat  the  only  blackmail 
used,  or  influence  used,  was  an  appeal  by  Mr. 
Moulton  to  his  generous  inclinations  and  kind- 
ness toward  Mr.  Tilton.  Well,  that  of  course, 
gentleman,  is  of  no  importance  in  this  case. 
W^en  Mr.  Beecher  concedes  that  no  terror  was  ex- 
erted, that  no  threat  was  uttered,  that  all  the  benefac- 
tions which  were  secured  through  Mr.  Moulton  were  by 
appeals  to  his  generosity  and  kindness,  why  then  the  the- 
ory of  the  defense  fails  utterly.  There  is  no  sin  in  that ; 
there  is  no  compulsion  in  that ;  there  is  no  extortion  in 
that ;  there  is  no  imagination  and  manufacture  of  a  false 
story  and  an  unfouuled  accusation  in  that.  There  is 
nothing  in  it  which  impeaches  in  any  deirree  the  force  of 
the  testimony  which  we  offer,  or  aids  to  any  extent  the 
theory  of  this  defense. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  DEFENSE  RAPIDLY 
REVIEWED. 
Now,  what  need  is  there,  gentlemen,  of  an. 

examination  of  this  mass  Oi  proofs?  Take  the  testimony 
of  Mrs.  Ovington,  Mr.  Ovangcon,  of  Mis.  Putnam,  of  Au- 
gusta Moore,  of  these  Wiusted  witnesses,  of  Belcher,. 
Wilkeson,  Cowley,  all  of  them— what  do  they  amount  to ; 
to  what  point  are  they  directed,  except  to  show  that  Til- 
ton and  Moulton  on  various  occasions  represeuted  the 
offense  of  Mr.  Beecher  as  impure  proposals,  as  they 
admit  that,  and  gave  a  reason  for  it ;  and  theh  to  support 
the  theory  as  through  Mr.  Wilkeson  that  Mr.  Tilton  was 
using  this  charge,  whatever  it  was,  for  the  purpose  of 
coercing  soma  benefaction  of  som3  charaoter  out  of  Mr. 
Beecher.  Well,  all  that  is  necess  uy  to  be  said  about  it, 
in  my  judgment,  is  that  when  Mr.  Beecher  makes  the  ac- 
knowledgment he  does,  under  oath,  and  when  we  confess 
and  avoid,  or  allege  contradictory  declarations,  all  the 
materiality  and  power  of  this  evidence  is  lost.  Now,  I 
may  say  in  regard  to  Mr.  Wilkeson  that  when  he  at- 
tributes to  Ml'.  Tilton  the  declaration  on  the  morning  of 
the  2d,  I  think— it  was  the  morning,  at  any  rate,  of  the 
day  of  the  arbitration— when  Mr.  Wilkeson  attributes  to 
Tilton  the  declaration  that  he  would  publish  certain  alle- 
gations, that  he  was  not  going  to  get  his  mon  'y,  and  that 
tije  suit  would  have  to  go  on,  why,  he  is  plainly  mistaken,, 
because  at  that  very  moment  there  was  an  arbitration 
agreed  upon,  and  there  was  no  interruption  to  the  pur- 
pose of  the  parties,  as  all  agree,  and  on  the  night  of  that 
very   day,    the    arbitration    was    consummated,  the 


SUMMiyG    UP  J 

award  made,  and  the  money  paid.  It  is  perfecrly 
plain,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Wilke>on  has  been  he- 
trayed  uato  a  misrecollection.  and  it  is  not  at  all 
iurprising  that  it  should  he  so.  And  there  are  criticisms 
of  that  character  which  might  be  indulged,  not  onlvTvith 
reference  to  Mr.  Wilkeson,  hut  to  erery  witness  on  hoth 
sides  who  have  heen  sworn,  hecause  undoubteLlly  a  great 
many,  if  not  all  of  them,  have  fallen  into  involuntary 
errors  of  that  cliaracter. 

"VVell,  of  what  conseiiuenee  is  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Ed- 
ward Eggleston  ?  He  was  called  upon  the  second  occa- 
sion to  contradict  Mr.  Bowen  ;  and  no  contradiction  at 
all.  Mr.  Bowen  says  to  Eggleston,  '*  Why,  Mr.  Beecher 
revealed  to  me  hoiTihle  stories  against  Mr.  Tilton,"  and 
Mr.  Bowen  made  the  same  statement,  that  Mr.  Beecher 
did  retail  and  rehearse  to  him  these  imputation^ 
commnnicated  to  him  hy  Bessie  Turner, 
and  perhaps  others,  in  regard  to  Mr.  Tilton. 
Well,  in  regard  to  the  original  evidence  of  Mr.  Eggleston 
concerning  the  conduct  of  ;Mr.  Tilton  with  some  lady — I 
don't  know  whether  it  was  Mrs.  Woodhull ;  some  lady  at 
any  rate,  at  his  house,  upon  a  certain  gathering — it  is 
only  necessary  to  say  that  it  was  a  little  indelicate  in  Mr. 
Eggleston  accepting  the  hospitality  of  :Mr.  Tilton  and 
leaving  it  for  the  purpose  of  gossiping  in  regard  to  his 
treatment  of  his  lady  guests,  especially  when  nohody  else 
hut  Mr.  Eggleston  and  his  wife  noticed  any  such  supposed 
impropriety. 

Judge  Z^eilson— Mr.  Beach,  Mr.  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews 
stated  that  lady  to  he  his  wife. 
Mr.  Beach — Yes. 

Mr.  Shearman — It  was  another  occasion. 

Judge  Xeilson — "Was  Andrews  not  present  on  the  occa- 
sion that  Mr.  Eggleston  speaks  of  ? 

Mr.  SheaiTQan— Xo.  Sir ;  the  occasion  Mr.  Andrews 
speaks  of  was  in  IS 73. 

Judge  Xeilson— That  was  the  occasion  when  Miss  Moore 
•was  present. 

Mr.  Shearman— Yes.  Sir. 

BESSIE  TUEXER. 
Mr.  Beach — ^^^ell,  gentlemen,  snppose  yon 
accept  the  whole  relation  of  Bessie  Turner  as  true,  what 
does  it  affect,  so  far  as  the  main  and  material  Issue  in 
this  case  is  concerned?  Why,  nothing  at  all.  It  does  not 
tend  to  contradict  the  idea  of  Impropriety  as  between  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mrs.  Tilton.  On  the  contrary,  if  her  story 
13  to  he  believed,  why,  Mr.  Tilton  was  vociferously 
charging  adultery  with  everybody.  According  to  Bessii^ 
Tiu'uer.  Mi-s.  Tilton,  eulogized  as  she  has  been  by  Henry 
Ward  Beecher,  and  by  the  oath  of  her  htLsband— why, 
]Mrs.  Tilton  was  infamous  in  her  debauchery.  All  this 
goes  to  the  tiuestion  of  damages,  and  nothing  else.  It 
does  not  tend  to  contradict  the  main  allegation,  but  it 
shows— if  true — it  shows  this  man,  the  plaintiff,  to  be  of 
\  character  not  commending  him  to  the  favor  of  a 


r   MR.   BEACH.  991 

eomt  and  jury  for  a  reward  for  injured  sensibil- 
ities. Well,  as  we  never  have  asked  damages,  and  have 
always  waived  and  disclaimed  them,  and  refused  to  re- 
ceive any,  it  is  not  very  important  that  evidence  directed 
to  that  point  should  be  severely  contested  or  considered 
by  us.  It  is  only  important  with  reference  to  the  gen- 
ci-al  impression,  opiniim,  in  regard  to  the  character  of 
:Mr.  Tilton,  which  may  be  made  by  proof  of  this  kind  ; 
and  therefore  it  would  have  been  desirable,  if  I  had  time, 
without  Wearying  the  patience  of  the  Court  and  jury,  for 
the  defense  and  vindication  of  Mr.  Tilton,  to  have  exam- 
ined the  testimony  of  these  witnesses.  I  submit  to  you, 
however,  that  the  evidence  of  Bessie  Turner  is  intrinsi- 
cally incredible.  I  will  not  go  through  it  and  read  it, 
but  consider  for  a  moment  the  relation  she  gives 
of  the  conduct  of  Mi'.  Tilton  in  connection  with 
all  the  manifestations  of  respect,  intimacy,  or 
reverence,  as  well  as  love,  that  gentleman  has  given 
not  only  before  the  alleged  confession  of  Ms  wife,  but 
after  that  confes^.ion.  Suppose  it  to  be  true,  for  one  mo- 
mt-nr,  thai  Tilton  was  the  brute  he  is  represented  to  be; 
that  he  did  make  these  atrocious  charges  against  his  wife 
in  the  presence  of  Bessie  Turner,  and  committed  all  these 
atrocities  imputed  to  him.  In  the  name  of  aU  that  is 
wonderful,  what  was  this  man  holding  this  woman  to  his 
heart  for,  and  protecting  her  by  every  device,  and  every 
publication,  and  every  effort  within  his  power  ?  It  is 
utterly  impossible  that  this  man  could,  in  the  presence  of 
Bessie  Tui-ner,  charge  that  his  wife,  upon  the  sofa  upon 
which  she  sat,  had  again  and  again,  in  his  sight,  been 
guilty  of  lewdness  with  five  or  six  different  persons ;  and 
then,  after  that,  taking  tliis  young  girl  into  a  room  upon 
the  second  story  of  his  dwelling,  and  rehearsing  the 
same  story  over  again ;  and  not  satisfied  with  that,  soon 
after  again  calling  her  to  an  interview,  where  he  repeated 
over  and  over  again  the  infamous  vulgarity.  Why,  what 
motive  could  Theodore  Tilton  have  had  ?  If  it  were  true, 
if  it  were  at  all  consistent  with  his  general  conduct, 
about  which  there  can  be  no  dispute,  why,  what  motive 
could  he  have  had,  fii-st,  in  making  the  charge  in  the 
presence  of  this  girl,  whom  he  had  treated,  as  she  says, 
as  a  child,  one  f)f  his  own  children,  and  then  taking  her 
up  to  the  long,  double  interview,  to  repeat  into  the  ears 
of  this  child  the  story  of  his  wife's  infidelities, 
and  then  that  this  great,  tall,  and  stalwart  mau,  when 
this  young  girl  interfered  between  Ms  violence  and  abuse 
and  his  wife,  striking  tMs  girl  until  she  fell  to  the  floor  or 
against  the  side  of  the  hotise ;  and  then,  as  she  repre- 
sents it,  tripping  up  to  her  saying,  "Why,  Bessy,  my 
dear,  you  stumbled,  did  n't  you?"  and  she,  straightening 
up  her  little  form  in  front  of  this  man  and  threatening 
dire  slaughter  if  he  did  not  cease  his  abuse  of  Ms  wife, 
exclaiming  to  Mm,  '*  Theodore  Tilton,  are  you  crazy,  or 
do  you  think  me  crazy  ?"  or  sometMng  of  that  character. 
Well,  gentlemen,  we  are  not  called  upon  to  believe  rldio* 
ulous  travesties  of  that  character.  Beeanae  Bessie  Tur 


992  ,  TEE  TILTON-B 

iicr  testifies  to  it  we  are  not  bound  to  accredit  it ;  nor  am 
I  disposed  to  say  that  that  young  lady  has  deliberately 
falsified.    That  there  may  be  some  foundation  for 
this  I  can    very    well    believe,    in    view    of  the 
evidence  of  Mrs.    Moulton,  because  you  remember 
what  Mrs.  Tilton  said  to  her,  that  Theodore  would  not 
let  this  matter  sleep,  that  he  was  continually  harping 
upon  it,  and  it  disturbed  her,  and  she  could  not  live  with 
him.  I  have  no  doubt  about  that,  gentlemen.  However 
much  he  may  have  loved  this  woman,  however  tenderly 
he  may  generally  have  treated  her,  yet  I  have  no  doubt 
that  there  were  times,  and  many  times,  when  the  mem- 
ory of  that  offense  came  up  and  irritated  and  festered  his 
feeling;  I  have  no  doubt  of  it  at  all.   But  that  he  was 
guilty  of  the  vulgar  baseness  of  charging  it,  or  any  other 
offense  of  like  character,  upon  the  woman  to-day  (how- 
ever mistakenly)  he  pronounces  pure,  is  one  of  those  in- 
credible ideas  which,  common  sense  cannot  accept.  And 
then,  the  story  this  girl  tells  of  being  taten  from  her  bed 
in  the  night-time  and  carried  to  another  room  across  the 
hall,  sleeping,  unconscious,by  Theodore  Tilton,and  Horace 
Greeley  sleepiQg  the  next  door  to  her,  the  next  room  to 
her !   Why,  you  ask  at  once,    What  did  Theodore  Tilton 
rim  this  risk  for  ? "  If  he  had  uny  impure  design  would 
he  have  chosen  the  time  when  this  young  and  virtuous 
girl  was  sleeping  within  ear-shot  of  Horace  Greeley?— 
when  a  single  cry  from  her  lip  would  bave  revealed  his 
base  design  and  called  a  champion  to  the  side  of  out- 
raged innocence  and  girlhood  ?   Well,  if  he  had  any  such 
purpose,  what  was  the  necessity  of  carrying  the  girl 
away?   Why  didn't  he  pursue  his  design  there?  Why 
create  all  the  fuss  and  dlstm'bance  of  a  movement  of  this 
girl  from  the  bed  in  which  she  lay  where,  so  far  as  she 
could    be    under     these     circumstances,    she  was 
helplessly    at   his    mercy?     Whether    he  designed 
mere  solicitation  and  fondling,  or  whether  he  contem- 
plated an  unmanly  outrage  attributed  to  him,  whatever 
the  design  you  please,  how  can  you  account  rationally 
for  the  story  that  she  was,  sleeping,  carried  from  one 
room,  one  bed,  to  another  ?  I  am  corrected  by  my  learned 
associate  in  the  fact  that  where  she  was  originally  she 
was  further  separated  from  the  room  of  Mr.  Greeley  than 
when  she  was  taken  to  that  of  Mr.  Tilton,  wliioh  was  the 
next  room  to  Mr.  Greeley's.  Well,  it  turns  out,  gentle- 
men, that  Mr.  Greeley  was  not  there  then.   That  would 
have  made  her  story  a  little  more  probable ;  but  it  shows 
an  error  into  which  she  fell.   And  there  are  eight  dis- 
tinct, prominent  facts  upon  which  she  contradicts  the 
statement  she  gave  before  the  Examining  Committee, 
and  acknowledges  the  contradiction.  She  pretends  that 
she  was  but  ten  minutes   in    conference    with  Mr. 
Tracy.    Mr.    Tracy    testifies    that    it    was    an  in- 
terview   of    an    hour,  and  Mr.    Moulton  enlarges 
it    to    two    hours.    But    I    don't    care  to  piu'sue 
it ;  and  I  have  been  betrayed  into  a  longer  comment  upon 
fcfc  than  I  intended.   I  can  well  see  how  a  disposition  //ke 


'^JKdEER  TRIAL. 

this  young  lady,  a  vivid  and  creative  fancy— and,  il  my 
friends  will  permit  me  to  use  their  word— a  lady  who  d©« 
velops  so  amazingly  upon  the  stand  a  theatric  turn,  may 
in  her  tendency  to  exaggerate,  in  the  pruriency  of  lier 
imagination  and  descriptive  power,  describe  by  words  as 
extravagantly  as  she  does  by  action.  I  don't  care  to  im- 
pute to  her  designed  misrepresentation.  Nor  will  I  will- 
ingly do  it  against  anybody.  But  that  she  has  exagger- 
ated and  overdrawn  the  picture  is  very  apparent,  It 
seems  to  me,  from  the  extravagance  and  ridiculousness 
of  her  narrative,  as  well  as  from  her  manner  and  de- 
meanor upon  the  stand. 

But  there  is  one  thing,  gentlemen,  stie  reveals,  which  is 
somewhat  important,  and  that  is  that,  as  early  as  Decem- 
ber 14, 1870,  Mr.  Tilton  did  make  the  charge  of  adultery 
against  his  wife,  and  that  on  that  day,  although  Bessie 
Turner  denies  it,  Mrs.  Bradshaw  swears  that  Bessie  Tuiv 
ner  communicated  that  fact  to  ber.  Well,  what  becomes 
til  en  of  the  idea  of  a  conspiracy,  our  friends  saying— Mr. 
Tracy  saying  in.  his  opening  that  the  conspiracy  dated 
from  the  26th  of  December,  1870— Mr.  Tracy  contending- 
that  in  his  intercourse  with  Tilton  and  Moulton,  and 
Woodruff,  the  idea  of  adultery  was  never  lisped  ;  that  it 
was  improper  solicitations  ;  but  yet  Bessie  Turner,  their 
own  witness,  revealing  that  as  early  as  the  i4th  of  De- 
cember, before  tbe  date  of  tbe  conspiracy,  before  th© 
interviews  with  Tracy,  the  charge  of  adultery  was  made? 

Well,  I  don't  care  to  comment  on  the  evidence  of  Mr. 
South  wick.  Admit  it  to  be  all  true,  and  you  cannot  per- 
ceive any  relation— important  relation— it  has  to  any  issue 
in  this  case.  Everything  may  have  transpired  j ust  as  Mr. 
Southwick  relates,  and  yet  Mr.  Beecher  have  committed 
the  offense  with  wbich  he  is  charged. 

Mr.  Schultz  also,  whose  recollection  clearly  does  not 
accord  with  that  of  Mr.  Woodruff  in  two  particulars- 
Mr.  Schultz  imagines  that  after  Tilton  and  Wood- 
ruil"  called  at  bis  house  Mr.  Woodruff  left- 
was  not  present  at  the  interview ;  whereas  Tilton 
and  Woodruff  both  testify  that  he  was  there  at  the 
whole  interview,  and  although  JNIr.  Schultz  admits  that 
Mr.  Tilton  said  enough  to  convey  to  him  the  possible  idea 
that  Mr.  Tilton  would  not  accept  any  benefits  or  advant 
ages  from  the  hands  of  Mr.  Beecher,  yet  Mr.  Tilton  and 
Mr.  Woodruff  both  testify  that  Mr.  Tilton  was  outsi)oken 
upon  that  subject,  and  utterly  refused— applj'in.i?  then  to 
Mr.  Schultz  for  aid  in  regard  to  The  Golden  Age—nttevly 
refused  any  cooperation  or  association  upon  the  part  of 
Mr.  Beecher.  And  so  I  might  run  tlirough,  gentlemen^ 
this  proof.   But  I  will  leave  it. 

MR.  BEECHER'S  TESTIMONY. 
Mr.  Beecher  remains  Avith  his  evidence  to  be 
examined,  and  I  cannot  pass  it  so  lightly.  It  was  a  mat- 
ter of  deep  interest  and  speculation  when  it  was  obvious 
that  this  issue  was  to  be  tried.  What  would  be  the  atti- 
tude assumed  by  Mr.  Beecher  ?  What  explanation  would 


SUMMING    UP  BI  MR.  BEACH, 


he  give  to  these  extraordinary  productions  of  Ills?  How 
would  lie  reconcile  his  letters  consistently  with  his  inno- 
cence ?  To  reflecting  and  especially  to  legal  minds  there 
was  but  one  conclusion.  It  was  ai;  necessity  forced  upon 
Mr.  Beecher  the  instant  that  this  issue  was  pressed  to  an 
investigation ;  it  was  the  necessity  of  denial.  No  matter 
what  might  he  the  proof  against  him— no  matter  how  hard 
and  heavily  the  circumstances  might  encompass  him  until 
he  seemed  like  Bjaon's  Scorpion,'  girt  with  fire,  yet  there 
was  no  alternative  for  him  but  denial,  a  brave  and 
a  bold  denial,  fortified  by  his  charaeter  and  the  supports 
of  his  church  and  congregation.  Is  it  a  naked  cas©  of 
perjury?  Can  it  be  possible  that  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
not  only  denies  the  offense  imputed  to  him,  but  in  a  court 
of  justice,  and  before  the  world,  sustains  that  denial' 
with  a  false  oath?  Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  the  hor- 
ror that  is  pressing  upon  some  of  your  minds— 
the  difBcHlty  of  believing  that  such  a  man  with 
Buch  a  character,  with  such  noble  qualities,  no 
matter  how  pushed,  no  matter  what  may  be  the 
catastrophe  before  him,  that  such  a  man  can  outrage  his 
own  consciousness,  the  law  of  his  God  and  of  his  fellow- 
man  by  committing  perjury.  That  he  has  done  it,  in 
form,  in  seeming,  is  just  as  certain  as  the  force  of  human 
evidence.  The  issue  cannot  be  avoided.  The  proof  on 
the  part  of  this  plaintiff— three  witnesses  must  be  con- 
■\^cted  of  deliberate  perjury,  not  of  simple  denial,  but  of 
inventing  and  accusation  against  a  pure  man,  and  sup- 
porting it  by  a  false  oath,  or  else  Mr.  Beecher  by  some 
means  quieted  his  conscience  consistently^  with  the  denial 
upon  the  lorm  Of  an  oath  in  this  court. 

I  propose,  gentlemen,  to  suggest  to  you,  if  I  can,  some 
theory  upon  which  Mr.  Beecher  has  reached  that  deter- 
mination, because  I  find,  very  much  to  my  own  surprise, 
in  looking  at  the  teachings  of  philosophers  and  writers  of 
the  highest  repute,  of  all  denominations.  Protestant  and 
Catholic,  that  there  is  a  singular  principle,  or  doctrine,  or 
casuistry  prevailing  among  these  gentlemen,  that  it  is 
taught  and  avowed  that,  under  certain  circumstances,  it 
Is  not  only  the  privilege  but  the  duty  of  a  man  to  lie ; 
that  the  commandment  does  not  apply  to  any  misstate- 
ment or  falsehood  except  that  which  operates  to  the  in- 
jury of  others,  and  that  every  falsehood  innocuous  in  its 
effects  and  tending  to  the  preservation  and  to  the  advant- 
age of  others  is  not  sinful.  I  was  led  to  this  line  of  in- 
quiry by  a  letter  received  from  a  gentleman  obviously  of 
culture  and  intelligence,  it  being  however  without  signa- 
ture, in  which  he  says  to  me : 

All  admit  that  the  code  of  honor  held  by  men  of  the 
vrorld  imperatively  demands  that  if  a  gentleman  has 
committed  adultery  or  forniealion  with  a  lady,  he  is 
bound  to  protect  her  character,  by  perjui-y  if  necessary 
The  colonel  of  an  Austrian  regiment  had  carried  on  an 
intri.i^rue  with  a  lady,  unmarried,  of  high  rank.  This  lady 
married  an  oflBcer  in  the  colonel's  regiment.  After  the 
iiiiiTriitge  the  husband  first  learned  what  had  been  a 
matter  of  public  notoriety.  He  went  to  his  colonel  and 
asked  him,  if  the  story  was  true.   The  colonel  denied  it  on 


his  word  of  honor  as  an  officer  and  a  gentleman.  Having 
thus  lied,  the  colonel  called  his  officers  together 
and  told  them  what  he  had  done.  They  unani- 
mously justified  his  action.  Among  no  class 
of  men  is  the  sentiment  of  honor  more  rigid  and  delicate 
than  among  the  officers  of  the  Austrian  service.  So  much 
for  the  sentiment  of  honor  among  men  of  the  world* 
What  is  the  Christian  code  under  similar  circumstances? 
To  answer  this  question  we  must  consult  the  casuists. 
The  question  is  not  so  simple  as  it  may  seem  at  first.  The 
casuists  hold  that  the  essence  of  a  lie  is  malice.  When 
nwJjce  is  absent,  a.  deviation  from  the  strict  tj-^th  is  not 
only  justifiable  in  itself,  but,  moreover,  may  become  a 
duty.  Here  comes  in  the  doctrine  of  probabilities.  St. 
Alphonsus  Liguori  teaches  that  a  woman  who  has  com- 
mitted adultery  or  fornication,  and  who  can,  by  denying 
it,  save  her  reputation,  that  of  her  family,  and  the  peace 
of  mind  of  her  husband,  is  justified  in  denying  her  guilt ; 
nay,  that  it  is  her  duty  to  deny  it.  St.  Alphonsus  Liguor  i 
is  in  bad  repute  as  a  moralist  among  Protestants,  but  is 
held  in  the  highest  esteem  among  Roman  Catholics,  and 
his  works  are  used  as  a  text-book  in  their  seminaries. 

And  then  he  proceeds  to  consider  the  Protestant  writers 
and  refers  to  Father  Newman,  or  Professor  Newman,  and 
I  will  read  an  extract  or  two  from  the  references  which 
lie  makes.  This  [the  book  in  hand]  you  will  remember  is 
a  work  issued  in  his  own  defense  by  Father  Newman,  who 
was  once  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  con- 
nected himself  with  the  Catholic  Church  some  20  odd 
years  ago  and  was  very  bitterly  assailed,  very  considerable 
public  controversy"  growing  out  of  his  defection  from  the 
Church  of  England,  and,  among  other  things,  Mr.  Kings- 
ley  accused  him  of  lying,  which  led  Dr.  Newman  to  ex- 
amine the  teachings  of  writers  upon  the  subject.  After 
referring  to  the  Catholic  teachers  he  says : 

Now,  to  come  to  Anglican  authorities.  Taylor. 
"  Whether  it  can  in  any  case  be  lawful  to  t-eU  a  lie  ?  To 
this  I  answer  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  do  definitely  and  severely  forbid  lying  " 
—referring  to  Proverbs  and  Psalms.  Beyond  these 
things  nothing  can  be  said  in  condemnation  of  lying. 
But  then  lying  is  to  be  understood  to  be  something  said 
or  written  to  the  hurt  of  our  neighbor,  which  cannot  be 
understood  otherwise  than  to  differ  fi-om  the  mind  of  him 
that  speaks.  A  lie  is  petulantly,  or  from  a  desire 
of  hurting,  to  say  one  thing,  or  to  signify 
It  by  gesture,  and  to  think  auotner  thmg.  So  Malancthon 
says :  *'  To  lie  is  to  deceive  our  neighbor  to  his  hmt.  For 
in  this  sense  a  lie  is  naturally  or  intrinsically  evil—that 
is,  to  speak  a  lie  to  om-  neighbor  is  naturally  evil,  not  be- 
cause it  is  different  from  an  eternal  truth.  A  lie  is  an  in- 
jury to  om-  neighbor.  If  a  lie  be  unjust,  it  can  never  be- 
come lawful.  But  if  it  can  be  separate  from  iiyustice, 
then  it  may  be  innocent." 

And  he  further  quotes  from  Taylor : 

Thus,  he  says,  Milton  says,  "  Veracity  is  a  virtue  by 
which  we  speak  true  things  to  him  to  whom  it  is  equita- 
ble, and  concerning  what  things  it  is  suitable  for  the  good 
cf  our  neighbor.  All  dissimulation  is  not  wrong,  for  it  is 
not  necessary  for  us  always  openly  to  bring  out  the  truth. 
That  only  is  blamed  which  is  malicious.  I  do  not  see  why 
that  cannot  be  said  of  lying  which  may  be  said  of  homi- 
cide and  other  matters  which  are  not  weighed  so  much  by 
the  deed  as  by  the  object  and  end  of  acting."  And  so  he 
considers  Paley,  who  says,  "  There  are  falsehoods  which 


THE   TILION-BEECEEE  TBIAL, 


are  not  lies ;  that  is,  wMcli  are  not  criminal  when  no  one 
is  to  be  deceived,  &c.** 

And  Dr.  Johnson  is  also  cited  as  sustaining  the  same 
philosophy,  the  same  doctrine  of  casuistry  that  there  are 
circumstances  and  dilficulties  where  it  is  admissible  for  a 
man  to  Ue,  and  not  only  admissible,  but  where  it  becomes 
his  imperative  duty  to  do  it.  He  refers  also  to  Bishop 
Butler  as  sustaining  the  same  doctrine. 

There  is  another  authority :  "  Perjury,  for  good  rea- 
sons is,  with  advanced  thinkers,  no  sin."  It  is  a  very 
terse,  emphatic  sentiment ;  very  clear  in  its  declaration. 
That  was  written  November  5,  1872,  by  Thomas  K. 
Beecher,  the  brother  of  the  defendant. 

Mr.  Shearman— And  with  reference  to  Mr.  Tilton. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  very  glad  the  gentleman  makes  that 
remark.  I  will  show  you  what  it  was  with  reference  to. 

Mr.  Fullerton— You  put  your  foot  in  it  this  time,  Shear- 
man, 

Mr.  Beach — 

I  imseal  my  letter  to  inclose  print  and  add :  You  have 
no  proof  as  yet  of  any  offense  on  Henrv's  part.  Your  tes- 
timony would  not  be  allowed  in  any  opurt.  Tilton,  wife, 
Moulton  &  Co.  are  witnesses.  Even  Mrs.  Stanton  can 
only  declare  hearsay.  So,  if  you  move,  remember  that 
you  are  standing  on  uncertain  information,  and  we  shall 
not  probably  ever  get  the  facts,  and  I'm  glad  of  it.  If 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Tilton  are  brought  into  court  nothing  wiU 
be  revealed.  Perjury  for  good  reasons  is,  with  advanced 
thinkers,  no  sin.  [Applause.J 

Now,  in  the  great  case  which  has  been  the  study  of  my 
learned  friend  Shearman,  as  well  as  all  of  us,  and  in 
which  is  abundant  subject  for  the  closest  study  of  the 
best  minds,  Denman,  subsequently  Chief-Justice  of  En- 
gland, was  the  counsel  for  Queen  Caroline ;  and  this  is  an 
extract  from  his  speech  delivered  upon  the  occasion  of 
that  trial,  explaining  the  reason  why  the  defense  omitted 
to  call  Bergami,  who  was  the  alleged  paramour  of  the 
Queen.  Mr.  Denman  said : 

From  the  beginning  of  the  world  no  instance  is  to  be 
found  where  an  individual  charged  with  adultery  has 
been  called  to  disprove  it.  Yet,  for  the  first  time  we  are 
to  be  compelled  to  put  him  on  his  oath  !  The  answer  is 
in  a  word :  There  is  either  a  case  against  us,  or  there  is 
no  case.  If  there  is  no  case,  there  is  no  occasion  for  us 
to  call  a  witness ;  and  if  there  be  a  case,  no  man  would 
believe  the  supposed  adulterer  when  he  was  put  forward 
to  deny  the  fact.  On  this  subject  the  nicest  casuists 
might,  perhaps,  dispute  with  a  prospect  of  success  on 
cither  side  of  the  proposition;  but  I  firmly 
believe  that  the  feelings  of  mankind  would  partly 
triumph  over  the  strictness  ol  morality,  and  that  a  wit- 
ness so  situated  would  be  held  more  excusable  to  deny 
upon  his  oath  so  dear  a  confidence,  than  to  betray  the 
partner  of  his  guilt.  Even  perjury  would  be  thought  a 
venial  crime  compared  with  the  exposure  of  the  victim  of 
his  adultery. 

Now,  this  declaration  of  one  of  the  most  eminent  law- 
yers of  England  at  the  time  the  declaration  was  made, 
in  the  face  of  the  assembled  learning  and  wisdom  of  that 
nation,  and  who  afterward  occupied  upon  the  bench 
the  seat  of  the  Chief-Justice  of  that  country,  declaring 


that  to  that  day  there  had  been  no  recorded  case  of  aa 
adulterer  produced  to  deny  the  accusation,  and 
that  the  sentunent  of  mankind  would  uphold  him 
in  denying  the  fact  of  adultery.  Prof.  Wilkinson  of  the 
Rochester  Theological  University  thus  presents  the 
proposition  in  a  very  clear  and  distinct  form,  and  I  do 
not  mean  by  the  extract  which  I  read  from  his  long  ar- 
ticle to  represent  that  gentleman,  by  any  means,  aa  justi- 
fying perjury.  You  will  see  what  the  sentiment  is  from 
the  extract  which  I  shaR  read.  I  read  it  because  it  places 
the  command  of  the  Decalogue  in  a  light  which  at  once 
strikes  om-  attention. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  paper  do  you  read  from  ? 

Mr.  Beach— I  read.  Sir,  from  The  Independent  of  Sept. 
17, 1874 : 

Now,  it  is  one  thing  to  lie  against  another,  and  a  quite 
different  thing  to  lie  for  him.  This  distinction  is  plainly 
enough  implied  in  the  form  of  the  command  forbidding 
falsehood  in  the  Decalogue,  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
command  is  not  simply  and  comprehensively,  "  Thou 
Shalt  not  lie ;"  it  is,  instead,  "Thou  shalt  not  bear  false 
witness  against  thy  neighbor." 

Moulton's  scheme  of  conduct  did  not  contemplate  any 
transgression  of  this  command.  He  did  not  propose  to 
himself  to  lie  against  anybody. 

His  falsehood,  his  prevarication,  if  he  foresaw  the  preg- 
nant necessity  for  it  in  the  first  choice  of  his  course,  was 
all  to  be  practiced  in  favor  of  people,  &c.  To  be  sure,  there 
is  a  large,  a  real  sense,  in  which  all  untruth  is  ultimately 
to  the  disadvantage  of  the  whole  imlverse  of  souls  ;  but 
except  in  this  somewhat  transcendental  sense,  Mr.  Moul- 
ton's deception  was  likely,  all  of  it,  to  be  exercised  to  the 
apparent  advantage  of  others.  Everybody  concerned 
was  to  be  benefited  by  concealment.  Almost  all  casuists 
concede  that  there  are  justifiable  cases  of  falsehood.  It 
is  not  incredible,  nor  altogether  condemnable,  that  a 
self-confessed  •*  heathen"  should  imagine  that  there  was 
such  a  case. 

You  perceive  that  this  article  was  directed  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  attitude  of  Moulton,  and  was  directed 
entirely  to  the  discussion  of  a  simple  lie,  without  the 
sanction  of  an  oath  and  a  court  of  justice,  and  it  is  proper 
for  me  to  say  that  a  subsequent  article  upon  this  subject 
in  the  same  paper,  explanatory  somewhat  of  the  personal 
views  of  Prof.  Wilkinson  upon  that  subject,  was  pub- 
lished. [To  Mr.  Morris.]  Mr.  Morris,  can  you  refer  me 
to  that  confession  of  Mr.  Beecher  ? 

Mr.  Evarts— Is  that  article  signed  by  any  one  1  How 
does  it  come  to  be  known  1 

Mr.  Beach—"  The  Ethics  of  Mutual  Friendship,  by  Prof. 
William  C.  Wilkinson." 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  avowed  in  the  paper  1 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir ;  I  have  no  obieotion  to  your 
looking  at  it. 

Mr.  Evarts— I  have  not  the  least  desire  to  see  it. 

Mr.  Beach— I  was  speaking  to  Mr.  Shearman,  who  has 
some  cuiiosity. 


s[nniiyG  up  by  bejcpj. 


995 


im.  BEE  CHER  OX  CO>"FESSJOX. 

In  a  sermon  on  the  nohility  of  confession, 
delivered  on  Tlie  4tli  of  October,  1S63,  a  ratter  interest- 
ing  period,  for  ttie  consideration  of  suoli  a  anestion— 

'*  Nor,"  says  ^Ir.  Beecher,  "  are  vre  commanded  to  con- 
fess every  act  before  men.  So  little  has  there  been 
taugM  in  tMs  matter,  and  so  little  discrimination  bas  re- 
sulted from  reflection  or  from  conduct  in  tbis  matter, 
tbat  consciences  -^vbicb  in  tbe  first  place  lay  dormant 
tbrongh  years  and  vears,  not  noting  sin,  not  bolding 
back  tbeir  possessors  from  trans.gression,  vrben 
at  last  they  become  tremendonsly  stimulated 
are  very  apt  to  go  to  the  other  extreme.  And  having 
slept  vrhen  they  should  have  ^vatched,  they  bark  im- 
mensely vrhen  they  should  be  silent.  Conscience,  there- 
fore, freriuently  leads  men  to  make  injudicious  confes- 
fiions,  and  to  make  them  t-o  the  most  injudicious  persons. 
I  do  not  think  we  are  bound  to  confess  crimes  in  such 
a  -way  that  they  will  overtake  us,  and  fill 
us  with  dismay  and  confusion  and  destruction— and  not 
only  us,  but  those  who  are  socially  connected  with  us. 
If  your  conscience  is  aroused,  and  you  have  committed  a 
Clime,  your  first  step  is  to  cleanse  your  hands  and  feet 
from  all  participation  in  any  wrong.  And  before  con- 
fessing the  act  itself  you  should  take  counsel,  and  find 
out  wise  counsel." 

It  means  Shearman  and  Tracy.  [Laughter.] 

It  l3  often  better  that  past  crimes  .should  slumber,  ao 
far  as  the  communiryis  concerned.  And  that  which  is 
true  of  crimes  is  e'lually  true  of  vices.  There  may  be 
many  thirigs  that  are  great  sins,  and  grievous  and 
wounding,  which  having  been  committed,  the  conscience 
■of  the  actor  leads  him  to  feel  that  there  is  a  kind 
Gi  expaniation,  or,  at  any  rate,  a  justice  which  requires 
that  he  should  with  open  mouth  confess  that  wliich  has 
IJrherto  been  ser-ret.  Forsake,  sure-ly;  to  God  confess; 
but  it  doe-  not  fallow,  especially  when  youi'  confession 
TTould  entail  misery  and  suftering  upon  all  that  are  con- 
nected "^rith  you,  that  you  should  make  confession  merely 
for  the  sake  of  relieving  yoiu'  conscience. 

"Well,  this  is  the  teaching  of  :Mr.  Beecher  himself.  The 
que.=;tion  is  whether  he  has  acted  upon  his  own  theory ; 
whether,  ir  i'i  r  rlie  circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed, 
and  coi!-:>l  liug  all  the  elements  of  sacrifice  and  sorrow 
which  would  proceed  from  a  frank  and  truthful  revela- 
tion of  hLs  offense,  he  has  confessed  his  own  mind  and 
conscience  that  This  is  a  case  -where  the  great  interests 
involved  demand  that  he  should  commit  what, 
under  other  cn-cuTn stances,  would  be  a  grievous  and 
unpardonable  sin,  and  whether  there  are  any  means  by 
which  he  has  satisfied  his  conscience  that  he  can  escape 
all  the  terrors  of  the  law  and  all  the  retribution  of  his 
Maker  if  he  tells  a  deliberate  and  well-conned  falsehood. 
If  he  exerts  all  the  ingenuity  and  power  of  his  great 
mind  to  devise  some  sophistry  which,  in  connection  with 
that  power  of  his  assertion,  will  deceive  the  intelligence 
of  the  world,  surely  no  man  was  ever  placed  in  a  situa- 
tion where  he  was  pressed  with  a  direr  necessity.  If  we 
are  to  believe  all  that  my  learned  friends  predict,  if  the 
conseci.uence3  which  are  anticipated  from  the  fall  of 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  are  rational  and  probable,  then  no 
man  was  ever  impelled  by  stronger  motives  of  self- 


interest,  of  philanthropy,  of  devotion  to  the  interests  of 
the  chiu'ch  and  society,  to  conceal  his  wrong-doing.  Am 
I  mistaken  in  this,  gentlemen  3  Can  you  conceive  any 
exigency  which  could  more  clearly  and  forcibly  appeal  to 
the  duty  and  the  honor  of  a  man  than  that  occupied  by 
Mr.  Beecher,  or  a  position  where  there  was  a  more  forcible 
appeal  upon  the  grotmd  of  public  morality  and  public 
advantage  than  this  ease  presents  to  his  mind  ? 
Z>Ii'.  Beecher,  upon  various  occasions,  has  presented  the 
tendencies  which  beset  men  to  lie.   Thus  he  says : 

The  most  miserable  pettifogging  in  the  world  is  that  of 
a  man  in  the  court  of  his  own  conscience.  He  will  lie  to 
himself.  He  will  deceive  his  conscience.  He  will  petti- 
fog with  his  conscience. 

Well,  we  all  of  us  speak  somewhat  from  our  experience 
when  we  utter  moral  teachings  of  this  character,  and  it 
is  very  possible  that  that  teaching  could  be  verified  by 
the  experience  of  most  of  us 

Great  lies  are  less  hurtful  than  little  ones.  Men  think 
that  a  great  black  lie  is  very  horrible.  I  suppose  it  is, 
but,  after  all,  these  little  hes  are  more  dangerous.  The 
habit  of  employm?  them  wears  the  character  more  than 
the  great,  rousing  Ue  told  six  times  a  year  would  do. 

Well,  he  understands,  then,  the  difference  between  the 
different  degrees  and  grades  of  lying,  and  of  course 
knows  how  to  tell  a  rousing  lie  if  ever  he  should  feel  him- 
self justified  in  doing  so. 

This  great  fact  of  the  generic  sinfulness  in  which  all 
men  are  alike,  the  confession  of  which  does  not  separate 
one  man  from  another,  men  confess  freely.  But  the  par- 
ticular actions  which  spiing  up  under  this  universal  sin- 
fulne.^s,  the  infidelity  to  honor,  violation  of  truth,  the  soil 
and  stain  of  illicit  pleasure,  all  these  men  steadily  refuse 
to  confess.  They  are  far  more  likely  to  deny  them.  If 
pressed  with  the  evidence  of  their  existence?  they  cast  up 
intrenchmenrs  and  defend  themselves  as  against  an 
enemy.  There  are  not  anywhere  else  so  many  ways  of 
trickery,  so  many  false  lights,  so  many  vails,  so  many 
guises,  so  many  illicit  deceits  as  are  practiced  in  every 
man's  conscience,  in  respect  to  his  own  motives,  his  own 
thoughts  and  feelings,  his  ovvn  conduct,  and,  for  that 
matter,  his  own  character.  The  exaggerations,  the  over- 
coloring,  the  misrepresentation,  the  lies,  for  "we  all  lie 
contmuaUy  when  we  are  speaking  about  ouiselves,  what 
•must  be  their  influence  upon  the  world  ?  I  do  not  maiwel 
that  there  is  so  much  falsity  ;  I  only  marvel  that  there  is 
so  little  of  it. 

Well,  these  are  the  teachings  of  Mr.  Beecher,  fortifying 
by  the  tendencies  of  our  nature  thus  portrayed  gi  aphic- 
ally  and  in  various  forms  by  him  the  possibility  that 
when  placed  under  circumstances  forcing  him  either  to 
ruin  or  to  falsehood,  that  Mr.  Beecher  chose  the  latter. 
This  is  not  dependent  upon  mere  reasoning  from  the 
character  of  the  man,  or  from  the  language  of  his  pubUo 
works,  because  we  are  called  upon,  if  we  can,  to  ascer- 
tain where  lies  tbe  truth  as  between  the  mass  of  evidence 
to  which  I  have  aUuded  and  the  verity  op  wiokedneas  at 
Henry  Ward  Beecher. 


996 


THE    TILTO^-PEKCHEB  TRIAL, 


MR.   BEECHER'S  ORTHODOXY. 

It  may  not  be  unprofitable,  gsntlemen,  to 
refer  to  some  other  productions  and  teachings  of  Mr. 
Beeclier,  to  see  what  is  the  general  character  of  the  in- 
structions and  teachings  which  he  communicates  to  the 
world,  and  how  true  he  is  to  the  orthodox  creed  and 
faith,  who  assumes  to  stigmatize  his  adversary  with 
heresy  and  heterodoxy  ;  to  see  if  we  can  find  something 
of  the  general  character  of  the  man,  something- which 
will  enlighten  us  in  our  search  after  the  truth  as  between 
him  and  the  witnesses  opposed  to  him,  because  he  stands 
upon  his  character,  he  stands  upon  his  prestige  as  a  great 
minister  and  a  profound  and  philanthropic  teacher. 
Before  reading  the  extracts  which  I  propose 
to  submit,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  will  direct 
your  attention  to  the  case  of  "  Stuyvesant  agt.  Boran"  in 
3  Abbott's  Practice  Reports,  where  the  question  in  regard 
to  the  probability  or  impvobabilty  of  a  man  confessing  or 
denying  a  charge  of  this  nature  is  considered  by  Mr. 
Justice  Van  Vorst.  It  was  on  a  motion  to  reduce  the 
bail,  under  an  order  of  arrest,  in  an  action  of  erim  eon. 
like  this ;  and  after  I'eferring  to  the  particular  allega- 
tions of  the  aflBdavits  the  Court  says : 

The  counsel  for  the  defendant  earnestly  claim  that 
there  is  not  sufficient  proof  contained  in  the  affidavits 
produced  by  plaintiff,  of  the  commission  of  the  offense  by 
the  defendant,  and  that  the  positive  denial  of  the  defen- 
dant should  avail  to  overcome  the  effect  of  the  affidavit 
of  Sullivan  ;  that  the  statements  of  Sullivan  are  so  im. 
probable  that  the  defendant's  denial,  in  connection  with 
other  circimistanees,  entitles  him  to  be  discharged  from 
arrest,  or,  in  any  event,  to  have  an  order  reducing  tha 
amount  of  bail.  Offenses  of  the  character  charged 
in  the  cdlnplaint  are  always  difficult  to  be 
established  by  complete  and  overwhelming  proof.  Still 
there  should  always  be  such  evidence  adduced  as  to  sat- 
isfy the  court  that  the  defendant  is  guilty.  The  evidence, 
while  it  points  out  the  offense,  ^ould  be  credible.  That 
the  circumstances  are  improbable,  however,  is  no  answer 
to  a  sworn  statement  of  an  occurrence,  made  by  a  person 
claiming  to  be  an  eye-witness,  whose  testimony  is  unim- 
peiached.  Many  improbable  things  do  actually  occur  in 
life  within  the  experience  of  all,  and  the  force  of  testi- 
mony is  not  to  be  avoided  by  an  argument  based  only  on  ♦ 
the  seeming  improbability  of  the  statements.  Nor  can 
much  weight  be  given  to  a  mere  denial  of  the  charge 
made  by  the  defendant.  If  capable  of  committing  this 
offense,  and  that,  too,  under  the  roof  of  the  brother  of 
his  own  deceased  wife,  he  would  be  quite  likely  to  deny 
it. 

Well,  Mr.  Beecher  seems  to  be  conscious  that  among 
theologians  there  exists  some  doubt  in  regard  to  his  or- 
thodoxy, because  he  says  that  other  chm-ches  seem  to  re- 
gard him  as  a  "  speckled  devil,"  to  use  his  own  language. 

In  a  sermon  i)reached  on  the  22d'*Df  June,  1873,  speaking 
of  the  qualifications  of  church  membership,  Mr.  Beecher 
says : 

If  one  says  to  me,  suppose  a  man  does  not  believe  In 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bibie^  J  reply,  that  word  is  a  fog. 
There  are  twenty  inspirations,  almost,  or  theories  in  re- 
gard to  it ;  which  of  them  do  you  mean  1   Suppose  that  a 


man  says  that  the  Bible  is  just  like  any  other  book,, 
would  you  take  him  into  the  Church  ?  That  would  de- 
pend very  much  on  whether  I  thought  God  had  received 
him  into  his  personal  confidence.  But  suppose  a  man 
does  not  believe  in  the  Trinity ;  would  you  receive  him 
into  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  ?  It  would  depend  upon, 
whether  he  gave  evidence  of  being  a  Christian  or  not. 

Something  has  been  said  about  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr. 
Moulton  in  regard  to  their  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  nothing  has  been  drawn  from  them  which 
hints  quite  so  strongly  as  this  sermon  of  Mr.  Beecher's 
does,  at  a  disregard  upon  the  question  of  orthodoxy,  of 
the  point  of  belief  either  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  or  in 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

Christians  generally,  I  believe,  attach  considerable  im- 
porcance  to  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement.  If  there  is 
one  feature  of  Christianity  which  exhibits  more  intensely 
the  anger  of  God  at  sin,  or  appeals  more  affectionately 
and  tenderly  to  the  sentiments  of  our  nature,  it  is  the 
scheme  of  the  atonement.  The  idea  of  the  suffering  of  a 
God  for  the  redemption  of  a  world;  the  idea  that  Christ, 
sinless,  one  of  the  God-head,  should  have  (Je;  cended  to 
earth  and  become  like  unto  us,  tempted  and  tried  as  we 
are,  and  at  last  submitting  to  the  ignominy  and 
the  sufferings  of  Calvary,  is  an  idea  which 
always  and  everywhere  has  melted  human  nature 
and    broken    it    into    contrition    and  repentance. 

Well,  Mr.  Beecher  says  : 

I  know  that  many  persons  are  converted  wltthout 
feeling  the  need  of  the  blood  of  atonement.  Thousands 
of  men  feel  the  need  of  Christ  who  do  not  feel  the  need 
of  blood.  I  do  not  feel  the  need  of  it. 

In  a  sermon  on  Jehovah  and  His  mercy,  he  says  : 

This  does  away  in  a  moment  with  the  old  reasoning 
that  God,  the  Father,  could  not  forgive  until  some  plan 
of  atonement  was  arranged,  and  that  He  gave  His  Son 
to  come  and  die  in  order  tliat  He  might  forgive.  It  takes 
away  all  that  machinery  of  false  philosophy. 

Then  the  Bible  theory  of  the  atonement  is  false  philos- 
ophy. Then  the  account  of  original  sin  coming  through 
the  fall  of  man,  and  the  neces^ty  of  a  Savior's  sufferings, 
is  all  a  sham  and  a  myth  !  What  becomes  of  the  Divinity 
of  Christ  1  What  becomes  of  the  Bible  history  of  His 
sufferings  1  What  becomes  of  the  tomb,  the  resurrection, 
the  miraculous  ascension,  in  the  face  of  the  teaching  of 
Henry  Ward  Beechi^r  that  no  atonement  was  necessary, 
that  all  the  Bible  teaching  upon  that  subject  is  false  philos- 
ophy, and  that  men  need  not  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  "I  do 
not  need  itl"  says  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  The  inspl ra- 
tion of  the  Scripjtfires !  Henry  Ward  Beecher  believe  in 
that,  and  teach  th^t,  when  he  strikes  out  the  fundamen- 
tal corner-stone  of  the  whole  edifice  of  Christian  truth 
and  man's  redemption  and  salvation,  which  the  Scrip- 
tm'es  teach  I   Says  Saint  Paul : 

We  have  redemption  through  His  blood. 

Ha  viiv-;-  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  His  Cross. 

Havinu  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to  enter  into  the 
holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus. 

The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  Hie  Sou  cleanseth  us  from  all 
sin. 


SUMMiyG   TIF  : 

TJuto  Him  tliat  hath  loved  us  and  washed  us  from  our 
sins  in  His  own  Mood,  to  Him  he  glory  and  dominion  for- 
ever and  ever. 

Ranning  through  to  Revelations,  all  teaching  that  sal- 
vation is  reached  by  fallen  humanity  through  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ's  blood.  And  this  is,  in  so  many  words, 
denoimced  by  Mr.  Beecher  as  a  "  false  philosophy,"  and 
he  rejects  the  cleansing  touch  of  the  blood  of  his  Re- 
deemer; and  yet  we  are  to  be  told,  in  the  language  of  that 
opening  of  Tracy's,  that  Moulton  is  a  heathen  and  a  dis- 
believer, andTilton  a  reprobate,  unworthy  of  countenance 
in  this  court,  and,  more  than  all,  that  they  are  both  un- 
worthy of  credit  when  they  testify  upon  the  Gospels  of 
Che  God  in  whom  they  profess  to  believe  ;  and  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  is  advanced  as  the  leading  and  unassail- 
able man  of  the  age,  as  the  pure  and  perfect  Christian 
chara  cter,  whom  it  is  impious  for  the  world  to  assail  or 
for  a  iury  to  condemn !  *'  Rock  of  Ages"— how  often  has 
Mr.  Beecher  given  out  this  hymn — 

Rock  of  Ages,  cleft  for  me, 
Let  me  hide  myself  in  Thee. 
Let  the  water  and  the  blood 
From  Thy  riven  side  which  flowed 
Be  of  sin  the  double  cure- 
Cleanse  me,  Lord,  and  keep  me  pure. 
Well,  having  rejected  the  blood  of  the  atonement  and 
called  that  doctrine  a  false  philosophy,  he  denies  that  the 
Christian  Church  has  a  divine  foimdation. 

I  do  not  believe,  he  says,  there  is  any  pattern  what- 
soever laid  down  in  the  New  Testament  according  to 
which  church.^s  should  be  orgauized.  I  believe 
that  chui'ches  stand  on  the  same  ground  that 
common  schools  and  literary-  institutions  do.  In 
the  Apostolic  writings,  nowhere  do  I  find  a  specific  com- 
mand to  organize  a  chui'ch,  nor  any  command  as  to  how 
it  is  to  be  organized,  nor  one  single  hint  that  there  is  an 
external  legal  obligation  on  that  subject.  In  regard  to 
churches,  ordinances,  sftid  govermnents,  I  take  the 
broadest  ground,  and  say  they  are  useful,  but  there  is  no 
one  of  them  that  is  obligatory  as  having  any  warrant  in 
Scripture. 

Churches,  ordinances,  governments  may  be  useful,  but 
they  have  no  warrant  in  Scripture.  Mr.  Beecher  has  suc- 
ceeded in  setting  aside  the  ^od  of  Christ,  the  atone- 
ment. He  now  disposes  of  the  Church.  That  is  a  mere 
institution  of  policy,  I  had  supposed  that  Christ  taught 
that  the  earthly  Church  was  His  Bride ;  that  His  Spirit 
attended  % ;  that  the  promise  was,  *'  Wh?re  two  or  three 
are  gathered  together  in  My  name,  there  am  I  in  the 
midst  of  them ; "  that  it  was  not  merely  a  cfuestion  of 
policy,  of  sociai  government,  but  that  the  Church  was  a 
divine  institution,  divine  in  its  origin,  divine  in  its  influ- 
ence, saving  in  its  operation  upon  the  world. 

And  the  ordinances  of  btiptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
there  is  no  obligation,  says  Mr.  Beecher,  to  practice  them  ; 
they  have  no  warrant  in  Scripture  ;  all  useful,  to  be  used 
as  instrumentalities  ;  but,  as  evidence  of  our  devotion  to 
God,  as  saving  ordinances  by  which  we  sanctify  and  hold 
ourselves  ;  there  is  no  warrant  in  Scripture  for  them,  no 
obligation  in  regard  to  them. 


Y   MR.   BEACR.  99? 

I  say  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  obligatory  in  the 
same  sense  that  High  Church  people  think  it  is. 

And  when  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  in  Plymouth  Church, 
gives  out  the  invitation  to  brother  religionists  to  partake 
of  the  communion,  this  1«  the  form  of  it :  "  Soclnians, 
Shakers,  Mormons,  Baptists,  and  Ana-Baprists,  you  are 
all  invited  to  sit  down  with  the  PI}-mouth  Church 
brethren  at  their  table." 

Mr.  Shearman— Do  you  mean  to  say  that  any  such  lan- 
guage was  ever  used. 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  would  like  to  know  where  it  was  used 
to  have  a  reference  to  the  place. 

Mr.  Bea<}h— On  Sunday,  March  9,  1873.  You  will  find 
it  published. 

Mr.  Shearman- Ah!  published ;  but  I  would  Uke  to  have 
a  reference  to  the  book. 

Mr.  Morris— We  could  not  quote  it  here  if  it  had  not 
been  published. 

Mr.  Evarts— Taken  oar  of  a  newspaper. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  was  there  that  morning  

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  Sir  I 

Ml.  FuUerton— We  will  give  you  a  reference  to  every 
extract  that  we  read  here. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  I  would  like  to  have  it,  but  I  do 
not  want  to  iuterrupt  the  counsel. 

Mr.  Beach— Mr.  Beecher  used  the  ceremony  of  baptism, 
but  he  says  in  regard  to  it : 

I  use  it  not  because  it  is  commanded,  but  because  of 
the  value  I  see  in  it.  I  use  it  not  because  of  any  au- 
thority which  makes  it  binding,  but  because  it  is  a  help 
to  men  in  iheir  religious  life. 

The  Head  of  the  Church  said  : 

He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved. 

Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  yupu,  in  the  name  of  Jl'Sus  Christ. 

Here  baptism  is  pat  upon  the  same  footing  with  re- 
pentance. When  Saul,  on  his  Avay  to  Damascus,  was 
struck  blind,  the  command  given  to  him  was,  "Arise !  and 
be  baptized."  It  is  made  obligatory  by  the  command 
of  the  New  Tastament,  the  command  of  the  Master.  Yet 
Mr.  Beecher  says  there  is  no  obligation  in  it.  He  uses  it 
because  it  is  a  help  and  a  strength  to  th"  converted  s<uil. 
Well,  it  would  naturally  follow  that  when  Mr.  Beecher 
takes  away  from  the  Church  of  God  its  divine  character, 
and  robs  it  of  the  promised  presence  of  His  spii-it,  he 
should  reduce  the  character  of  the  ministry  and  bring  it 
to  the  same  level  of  worldly  relation  and  worldly  prepara- 
tion. 

There  is  no  more  virtue  required  of  a  man  who  becomes 
a  life-long  preacher  of  the  Gospel  than  of  a  man  who  be- 
comes a  lawyer,  a  physician,  a  teacher,  an  engineer. 

Indeed !  Now,  in  a  general  sense.  God  requires  no 
more  virtue  of  one  man  than  of  another,  but  I  had  sujh 
posed  that  when  a  man  was  chosen  to  the  holy  ministry, 
dedicated  himself  to  the  service  of  his  God,  to  the  teach- 
ing of  his  fellow-men,  erected  himself  as  a  ll^ht  set  uiKm 


098 


THE   JILTOJ^-BFjECHER  IBIAL, 


R  liill  to  be  seen  of  all  men — I  had  tLouglit  that  there  was 
more  of  purity,  more  of  devotion,  more  of  virtue, 
demanded  of  that  map  than  of  a  lawj'^er  or  engineer ; 
that  there  was  some  obligation  arising  out  of  the 
position  and  its  responsibilities  and  duties. 
No  more  virtue  required  of  a  minister  than  of  a  lawyer 
or  an  engineer,  and  a  minister  permitted  to  act  before  the 
world  as  a  lawyer  might  act  or  as  an  engineer  might  act ! 
In  one  sense  this  teaching  of  Mr.  Beeeher 
may  be  wholly  excusable  and  just,  but  yet 
it  Is  the  common  sense  of  the  world  that 
something  more  of  virtue  and  propriety  is  demanded 
of  a  lawyer  or  an  engineer.  Well,  with  this  looseness  of 
sentiment,  this  attack  upon  the  teachings  of  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  sacraments  ordained  by  God,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  his  Sabbath  day  should  be  a  little  under- 
valued by  this  minister. 

Almost  every  mention  of  the  Sabbath  day  in  which 
Christ  expresses  any  opinion  respecting  it,  was  seem- 
ingly adverse  to  its  sacredness. 

And  I  believe  if  my  recollection  serves  me  rightly  that 
Mr.  Beeeher  has  advocated  the  practice  of  freedom  to 
theaters  upon  Sunday,  and  that  although  such  actors  as 
Lester  Wallack  and  Dion  Boueicault  have  protested 
against  the  opening  of  theaters  upon  Sunday.  Well,  I 
had  stipposed  that  there  was  a  command  which  rested 
upon  Henry  Ward  Beeeher  as  well  as  on  the  rest  of  us  : 
"Remember  the  Sabbath  Day  to  keep  it  holy!"  and 
why  does  tliis  preacher  say  that  Christ  scarcely 
ever  mentioned  the  Holy  Day  without  detracting 
from  its  sacredness?  The  orthodox  view  of  the  creation 
of  onr  first  parents  I  have  always  supposed  was  that  they 
were  made  perfect  in  the  image  of  God,  vitalized  by  the 
breath  of  His  spirit ;  and  that,  perfect  and  pure,  they 
were  placed  in  what  is  called  a  Paradise— the  Garden  of 
Eden.  Whether  that  is  merely  typical  and  figurative  is 
not  for  me  to  say ;  but  they  were  placed  in  a  holy  condi- 
tion. The  orthodox  teaching  is  that  they  sinned  and  fell, 
and  through  their  fall  gmlt  is  inherited  and  imputed  to 
all.  But  the  theory  of  Mr.  Beeeher  is  that  our  first 
parents  were  of  the  lowest  order  of  creation.  He  says : 

The  world  was  uever  so  low  as  at  the  creation.  God 
created  man  at  the  lowest  point. 

Well,  if  that  be  so,  Mr.  Beeeher  must  believe  in  Darwin- 
ism, that  man  has  grown  up  from  the  lowest  order  of 
nature— grown  up  from  brutes,  monkeys,  and  tadpoles. 

Judge  Neilson — ^Would  it  be  convenient  to  suspend  your 
argument  at  this  point,  Mr.  Beach  ? 

Mr.  Beach — Certainly,  Sir,  at  any  time. 

The  Court  thereupon  adjoumed  until  11  o'clook  on 
Wednesday  morning. 


109TH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


CONCLUSION  OF  THE  SUMMING-UP. 

NUMEROUS  REQUESTS  TO  CHARGE  BY  THE  DEFEND- 
ANT'S COUNSEI^OBJECTIONS  FROM  MR.  TILTON'S 
LAWYERS — NO  REQUESTS  TO  CHARGE  ON  BEHALF 
OF  THE  PLAINTLFF— MR.  BEACH  MAKES  AN  AP- 
PLICATION TO  RE0PP:N  the  case  TO  INTRODUCE 
NEWLY-DISCOVERED  EVIDENCE— JUDGE  NEILSON 
ASSIGNS  THE  HEARING  ON  THE  APPLICAIION  | 
TO  CHAMBERS— FINAL  WORDS  OF  THE  SUMMING- 
UP— EXTRACTS  FROM  MR.  BEECHEB's  SERMONS- 
MR.  BEECHER  ACCUSED  OF  HETERODOXY— HIS 
OPINIONS  ON  MIRACLES  AND  THE  LORD's  SUP- 
PER TAKEN  UP— HE  IS  DECLARED  TO  BE  NOT  TOO 
GOOD  NOR  TOO  GREAT  TO  SIN— MR.  TRACY'S 
COURSE  CENSURED— MR.  BEACH'S  RESPECTS  UL 
REGRET  AT  PARTING  WITH  THE  JURY— TRIBUTES 
TO  JUDGE  NEILSON  AND  TO  MR.  BEECHER. 

Wednesday,  .Tune  23,  1875 
At  no  time  in  the  whole  history  of  the  scandal  surt 
was  more  interest  manifested  than  during  the  pro- 
ceedings of  to-day.  The  court-room  was  crowded 
almost  to  suffocation  by  the  great  number  of  persons 
who  managed  to  pass  the  scrutiny  of  the  officers  on 
duty  at  the  entrances. 

There  were  some  spirited  scenes  in  court  and  some 
laughable  episodes  also.  When  Mr.  Shearman  dis- 
sented from  Mr.  Beach's  statement  as  to  the  laughter 
and  applause  excited  by  one  of  Mr.  Beecher's  ser- 
mons, Mr.  Beach  replied  in  a  matter  of  fact  way, 
"  Oh  yes,  you  were  there  and  were  the  loudest  clap- 
per in  the  congregation."  At  another  time  a  quota- 
tion from  a  Hartford  journal,  supposed  to  ha^  e  been 
referred  to  by  Mr.  Beach,  provoked  Mr.  Shearman's 
wTath,  and  he  Inveighed  in  rathers  strong  terms 
against  permitting  such  a  citation  as  an 
authority.  Mr.  Beach  retorted  m  a  cool  manner, 
and  for  several  minutes  the  counsel  stood  less  than  a 
foot  apart  in  very  vehement  discussion.  The  ab- 
surdity of  the  scene  seemed  to  strike  ail  present,  and 
caused  much  merriment,  in  which  Mr.  Beach  joined. 
During  the  scene  a  woman  in  the  court-room  inter- 
jected the  remark :    "He  ought  to  be  "  Just  at 

this  point,  when  she  had  succeeded  in  drawing  at- 
tention to  herself,  she  was  silenced  by  one  of  the 
court  officers. 

Great  opposition  was  made  on  the  part  of  the  de- 
feiulant's  counsel  to  the  course  adopted  by  Mr. 
Bench  in  reading  selections  from  sermons  by  Mr. 
B<  .M  i MM- which  had  not  been  put  in  evidence,  and 
tlic  assertion  was  made  that  Mr.  Beach  h:id  not  read 


SiWMlNG  VP 

the  selections  correctly.  Mr.  Beach  himself  voluu- 
tanly  corrected  one  of  the  statements  he  had 
attributed  to  Mr.  Beecher  in  inviting  non-communi- 
cants of  his  church  to  share  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

J udge  Neilson  ruled  that  the  counsel  could  read 
the  s»6lections,  hut  not  as  evidence.  They  were  to  be 
used  merely  as  an  argument  or  as  illustrations.  The 
counsel  for  the  defendant  were  finally  content  with 
having  an  exception  noted  in  their  favor  as  to  the 
reading  of  each  of  the  selections. 

The  audience  were  in  rather  excitable  mood  yes- 
terday, and  gave  way  to  manifestations  of  applause 
very  frequently,  in  spite  of  the  numerous  injunctions 
of  the  Court.  Mr.  Beach's  manner  of  speaking  diu-- 
iug  the  day  was  very  effective.  His  changes  of  voice, 
gesture  and  tone  were  frequent  and  impressive,  and 
his  own  manifestations  of  sympathy  were  marked, 
especially  when  speaking  of  the  associations  clus- 
tered around  the  trial  and  the  character  of  the  de- 
fendant. 

On  concluding  his  argument,  Mr.  Beach  was 
greatly  applauded,  and  shortly  after  was  warmly 
congratulated  by  Mr.  Evarts.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Beecher 
were  present  during  the  day,  both  listening  with  in- 
terest to  the  efforts  of  the  orator.  The  speaker's 
references  to  Mr.  Beecher's  pulpit  utterances  caused 
a  smile  to  flit  across  the  defendant's  countenance  0:1 
several  occasions. 

Mr.  Beach  in  resuming  his  argument  continued  hi. 
discussion  of  Mr.  Beecher's  alleged  want  of  ortho- 
doxy in  belief.  Extracts  were  read  from  a  sermon 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  which  the  idea  was  ad- 
vanced that  a  man  could  administer  the  sacrament  to 
himself.  This,  in  the  speaker's  opinion,  "  deprives 
it  of  all  its  holy  aud  sacramental  character  and  in- 
fluence," and  "  is  a  desecration  of  that  sacrament." 
Concerning  Mr.  Beecher's  belief  and  that  of  his 
church,  Mr.  Beach  thought  it  sufficient  to  say  that 
"  Oliver  Johnson  with  all  his  moods  and  tenses 
belief  is  yet  considered  a  satisfactory  comjaunicaiit 
of  Plymouth  Church." 

Mr.  Beecher's  expressed  opinion  of  the  miracles 
was  then  considered.  According  to  the  view  of  the 
orator,  Mr.  Beecher  had  cast  discredit  on  their 
probability,  and  he  asked,  "  Why  not  strike  out  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  Trans- 
flgurs-tToij,  and  the  Apocalypse  on  Patmos,  as  well  as 
the  miracles  ?"  Again,  he  thought  that  Mr.  Beecher 
had  some  singular  notions  about  a  future  life  ;  that 
he  had  put  a  purgatory  "  between  ihe  doath-bed 
and  the  bosom  of  the  Father  ;"  and  that  he  had 
"substantially    abolished  hell."    Anutlier  poiu. 


BY  MR.    BEACH.  999 

taken  up  was  Mr.  Beecher's  alleged  declaration  in 
regard  to  tL»e  Saybrook  platform  as  being  a  "  pro- 
duction immortally  infamous." 

The  defendant's  alleged  leaning  toward  Darwin- 
ism and  disregard  for  "  rich  and  orthodox  churches," 
as  weU  as  the  "  quaint  and  extravagant  expressions 
in  his  sermons,"  were  also  touched  upon.  After  re- 
capitulating Mr.  Beecher's  alleged  departures  from 
orthodoxy,  Mr.  Beach  said  it  was  a  mistake  to  sup- 
pose that  he  had  recited  these  instances  for  the  pur- 
pose of  misrepresenting  Mr.  Beecher's  character,  or 
of  scandalizing  his  motives,  or  of  operating  on  pub- 
lic sentiment  to  Mr.  Beecher's  detriment.  He  com- 
bated the  "doctrine  that  Mr.  Beecher  was  too 
great  and  too  good  to  sin."  "  Lookiug  at  the  tenden- 
cies of  Mr.  Beecher's  thought  and  sentiment,  consid- 
ering the  impulses  of  his  nature,  is  he  deserving  of 
the  high  encomiums  he  has  received  ?"  asked  the 
speaker. 

Mr.  Beecher's  continuance  in  the  performance  of 
his  arduous  duties  during  the  perplexities  of  the  past 
three  years  was  declared  to  be  due  to  his  excellent 
organization  of  mind,  heart,  and  body,  which  ena- 
bled him  to  do  his  work  when  men  less  strong  would 
have  failed.  He  was  to  be  judged  as  other  men  are 
by  the  judgment  of  the  practical  worldly  common, 
sense,  on  the  circumstances  of  the  case  and  the  ele- 
ments of  his  character. 

The  counsel  then  glanced  hastily  over  the  main 
features  of  the  case,  arguing  the  impossibility  of  the  ^ 
defendant's  theory. 

Mr.  Beach  then  dwelt  upon  the  course  of  Mr. 
Tracy,  whom  he  severely  condemned  for  his  alleged 
improprieties,  both  as  counsel  and  as  a  man  of  honor. 
The  speaker,  however,  disclaimed  all  personal  feel- 
ing in  the  matter,  and  said  tha  t  he  wa  ,  not  inspired 
by  any  animosity  or  unfriendliness  toward  Mr.  Tracy. 
He  read  citations  of  authorities  to  show  that  it  was 
an  uuprofessioiial  thing  for  a  lawyer  to  appear  as  a 
witness  in  the  case  for  either  partj"  where  he  himself 
was  an  advocate  of  one.  The  consideration  of  Mr. 
Tracy's  conduct  concluded  the  argument,  and  Mr. 
Beach  then  went  on  to  speak  of  the  interests  at 
stake  and  the  importance  of  a  verdict  in  the  case. 
He  referred  to  his  own  weakness  as  compared  with 
the  keenness  and  strength  of  his  adversaries, 
but  said  that  "  weakness  is  strong  in  the 
energy  of  truth."  He  parted  with  the  jury, 
he  said,  with  respectful  regret.  His  inter- 
course with  them  had  impressed  him  with 
sympathy  for  them.  The  struggle  was  between  the 
laws  and  a  great  character  and  a  great  church,  and 


1000  TEE  TILTON-BM 

"woe  unto  him  wlio  calls  evil  good  and  good  evil." 
A  hearty  tribute  to  Judge  Neilson  and  to  the  spoak- 
ei's  associates  followed,  after  which  Mr.  Beach  gave 
a  generous  meed  of  praise  to  Mr.  Beecher's  character. 
Macaulay's  reference  to  Lord  Bacon's  character  and 
a  selection  from  Whittier's  "Ichabod"  were  read  at 
this  point.  The  address  was  concluded  with  the 
reading  of  an  extract  from  Daniel  Webster's  works. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Beach's  argument,  Mr. 
Abbott  of  counsel  for  the  defendant  rose,  and,  after 
discovering  that  the  plaintiff's  counsel  had  no  re- 
quests to  charge,  proceeded  to  offer  a  large  number 
on  behalf  of  the  defendant.  Prior  to  this,  however, 
he  read  from  several  aiithorities,  showing  that  in 
this  State  an  attomtiy  is  allowed  to  testify 
in  certain  cases  where  through  necessity  it 
may  be  even  an  imperative  duty.  More  than 
40  requests  to  charge  were  read  by  Mr. 
Abbott,  and  about  200  cases  cited  in  support  of  them. 
Mr.  Beach  protested  against  the  reading,  claiming 
that  the  defendant's  counsel  were  in  this  way  en- 
deavoring to  reargue  the  case  under  cover  of  the  re- 
quests to  charge.  Concerning  most  of  the  cases 
cited,  Judge  Neilson  said  that  they  were  divorce 
cases,  and  that  he  had  examined  the:?* , 

As  soon  as  the  requests  had  been  read,  Mr,  Beach 
said  he  desired  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the 
Court  another  subject.  This  was  in  regard  to  the 
newly  discovered  evidence  which  the  plaintiff's  law- 
yers proposed  to  offer.  He  made  application  for  a 
reopening  of  the  case  so  far  as  to  admit  the  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson  said  that  the  counsel  would  have 
to  present  their  affidavits  at  Chambers.  The  coun- 
sel for  the  plaintiff,  after  a  short  discussion,  handed 
up  affidavits  to  Judge  Neilson  in  regard  to  this  evi- 
dence, and  said  that  they  would  make  the  applica- 
tion for  the  reopening  of  the  case  on  the  affidavits 
thus  submitted. 

THE  PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. 

MR.  BEACH  RESUMES  HIS  ARGUMENT. 
The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  in  pursuance  of  your 
Honor's  suggestions  made  yesterday  in  regard  to  the  re- 
quests to  charge,  we  have  revised  the  list  that  we  had 
prepared,  and  though  we  shall  find  it  necessary,  as  we 
think,  to  present  some  to  your  Honor  before  your  Honor's 
charge  is  given,  we  shall  reserve  all  matters  that  wo 
tliink  can  thus  he  suitably  reserved,  and  very  Ukely  may 
not  have  to  present  them  to  your  Honor  at  last. 

Judge  Neilson— Do  not  let  what  I  said  restrain  you. 


IKCRER  TEIAL. 

Mr.  Evarts— And  your  Honor  is  aware  that  our  learnoA 
friend  very  properly  has  presented  some  authorities,  and 
we  may  present  one  or  two.  Mr.  Abbott  wiU  present 
them  to  your  Honor,  and  with  as  little  delay  and  con- 
sumption of  time  as  possible. 

Mr.  Beach— You  will  see,  gentlemen,  from  the  pro- 
tracted length  of  this  case  and  the  multitude  of  matters 
that  were  to  be  examined,  the  propriety  of  my  relying, 
in  the  various  quotations  I  have  made  from  the  puDlished 
works  of  Mr.  Beecher,  upon  extracts  furnished,  at  my 
desire,  by  others  to  whom  I  have  applied.  It  has  not 
been  possible  for  me  personally  to  verify  all  of  them, 
although  very  many  of  them  I  have  examined.  The 
statement  I  made  in  regard  to  the  invitation  which  was 
extended  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  other  persons  to  unite  with 
Plymouth  Church  in  commemoration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  given  to  you  from  a  memorandum  f  m'uished 
to  me  by  an  orthodox  clergyman,  whose  name  it  is  not 
necessary  to  mention,  in  which  he  specified  some  of  the 
invitations  usual  as  given  by  Mr.  Beecher,  and  tben  gen- 
eralized or  paraphrased  those  invitations  in  the  language 
which  I  gave  to  you,  and  inadvertently,  I  suppose,  at- 
tached to  that  paraphrase  quotation  marks,  and  I  was 
led,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  that  was  the  precise  lan- 
guage used  by  Mr.  Beecher.  It  appears  on  a  closer  ex- 
amination that  the  actual  invitation  given  by  Mr. 
Beecher  was  at  the  close  of  a  sermon  to  be  found  in  the 
sixth  series  of  his  published  works,  at  page  365,  in  the 
following  words : 

All  those  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity 
and  truth,  whether  they  belong  to  any  church  or  not.  are 
invited  to  tarry. 

And,  at  the  close  of  a  sermon  hi  the  10th  series,  at  page 
17,  the  invitation  is  qualified  with  the  addition. 

Without  regard  to  their  church  connections  or  special 
beliefs. 

And  therefore  the  gentleman  who  furnished  me  the 
statement  from  which  I  spoke,  giving  what  he  supposed 
was  the  essence  and  conclusion  to  be  derived  from  those 
invitations,  used  the  expression,  "  Socinians,  Quakers, 
Mormons,  Baptized  and  Unbaptized,"  &c.  The  invita- 
tion from  Mr.  Beecher  was  in  principle  just  what  my  in- 
formant concluded  it  to  be.  It  was  an  invitation  to  all 
who  professed  to  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  without  re- 
gard to  their  church  connections ;  that  is,  whether  they 
were  members  or  not  of  any  church  organization,  and 
without  regard  to  their  special  beliefs,  no  matter  what 
might  be  the  character  of  those  beliefs.  All  that  they 
had  to  do,  to  entitle  themselves  to  communion  and  fel- 
lowship with  Plymouth  Church,  was  to  proress  love  for 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Now,  you  are  aware  that  it 
is  the  custom  of  a  1,  or  nearly  all,  churches  and  ministers 
to  invite  all  members  of  other  chnrches— I  e  v<>ry  fre- 
quently heard  the  addition,  "  in  godl  r^ii.iuding  wirt  h  other 
churches  "—to  partake  in  the  communion.  Mr.  Beecher's 
habit,  on  the  contrary,  is  to  invite  all,  without  regard  to 


SUMMING    UP  . 

tlif  ir  church  connections  or  their  special  belief.  But  I 
was  in  a  formal  error,  aiid  perhaps  you  may  think  it  a 
substantial  error  (quite  an  unconscions  one)  inattritouting 
to  Mr.  Beeoher  tlie  precise  language  I  did.        ' '    *  -  • 

.MR.  BEACH'S  QUOTATIONS  7R0M  SERMONS 
DECLARED  INCORRECT. 

Mr.  Sliearman — If  your  Honor  please,  I  de- 
sire at  this  point  to  say  a  few  words.  I  informed  my 
learned  friend  that  I  desired  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
court  to  this  error,  and  to  some  other  errors. 

Mr.  Beach— That  will  not  do.  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— And  now,  your  Honor,  I  rise  for  the 
purpose  of  objecting  to  any  quotations  from  alleged  ser- 
mons or  speeches  of  Mr.  Beecher,  upon  the  ground  that 
these  sermons  have  not  been  put  in  evidence;  that  we, 
npon  our  part,  have  quoted  nothing  against  Mr.  Tilton  on 
the  summing  up  which  was  not  put  in  evidence ;  and  tliat, 
as  all  my  associates  are  of  the  opinion,  it  is  entirely  out 
of  order,  and  not  permissible  in  a  court  of  justice  to  qnote 
in  the  summing  up  any  language  of  a  party  which  has 
not  been  regularly  put  in  evidence.  My  learned  friend 
'expressed,  and  indeed  insisted  upon  his  right  to  make  an 
explanation  of  his  error  in  language,  but  I  must  respect- 
fully submit  that  he  has  not  sufficiently  covered  the 
ground,  and  I  have  a  right  to  state  the  objection  in  order 
to  enforce  the  short  argument  which  I  make  against  his 
continuance  in  this  line  of  quotation. 

Judge  Neilson— That  you  can  do  after  Mr.  Beach  closes, 
and  perhaps  he  is  through  with  those  quotations. 

Mr.  Beach— I  am  not  through.  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— I  think  the  counsel  in  argument  can,  as 
mere  argument,  use  any  paper. 

Mr.  Shearman— And  impute  it  to  the  defendant  I 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  that  is  a  question. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  I  should  think  it  was,  Sir.  I 
should  think  it  was  the  most  extraordinary  proposition 
that  I  ever  heard  advanced.  I  don't  think  that  the  coun- 
sel will  advance  it. 

Judge  Neilson— No  one  says  it  is  evideiice. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yotir  Honor  will  remember  that  in  regard 
to  certain  writings  of  Mr.  Tilton's,  about  which  I  have 
nothing  further  to  say  than  that  we  put  them  in  evi- 
dence, and  his  counsel  very  properly  examined  him  under 
your  Honor's  authority  and  permission  and  the  rules  of 
law,  which  made  it  very  proper  as  to  what  he  meant  by 
this,  that,  or  the  other  thing.  Now,  if  the  writings  of 
parties  who  have  had  the  vocation  of  writers  or  preach- 
ers or  speakers  can  be  brought  in  as  evidence  of  their 
own  acts,  without  being  brought  in  in  the  shape  that  per- 
mits the  act  to  be  scrutinized  and  qualified,  or  explained, 
as  may  be,  why,  it  is  very  plain  that  parties  are  very 
much  exposed — very  much,  indeed.  Now,  no  doubt  Mr. 
Boecher's  public  sermons  are  in  a  certain  sense  litera- 
ture, accessible ;  but,  nevertheless,  where  the  party— the 


T  ME.   PEACH.  1001 

writer— is  himself  a  party  to  the  litigation,  and  the  mat 
t^rs  adduced  are  supposed  to  have  weight— and  the 
learned  counsel  of  course  would  not  bring  them  unless 
he  thought  they  had  weight^there  seems  to  be  some 
little  awkwardness  in  confounding  the  evidence  in  a 
cause  with  the  argument  in  a  cause. 

Mr,  Beach— Both  of  my  learned  friends.  Sir,  Indulged 
very  great  license  in  their  reference  to  matters  outsi  le  of 
the  evidence,  and,  in  one  or  two  instances,  used  writings, 
print,  declarations  of  others  which  were  not  in  evidence ; 
but  your  Honor  will  remember  that  during  the  whole  of 
the  addresses  of  my  learned  friends,  principles,  motives, 
sentiments  were  attributed  to  Mr.  Beecher  of  which  no 
evidence  was  given  in  this  case,  and  which  could  not  be 
founded  upon  anything  but  the  assumed  knowledge  of  my 
learned  friends  of  the  public  life  and  ministerial  charac- 
ter of  Mr.  Beecher ;  and  I  supposed  that  in  answer  to  that 
line  ot  argument,  that  assumption  of  special  character 
and  quality  in  favor  of  their  client,  justifies  me  in  exam- 
ining, as  a  matter  of  literature  and  Church  and  minis- 
terial history,  the  publications  authorized  bv  that  gentle- 
man, of  his  own  views  and  declarations  from  the  pulpit ; 
and  I  make  them.  Sir,  these  quotations,  not  a/  evidence 
in  this  case,  but  as»  argumentative  illustrations  of  the 
contrary  theory  which  is  presented  upon  the  part  of  the 
plaintiff. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  if  your  Honor  please,  T  respect- 
fully insist  upon  our  objection  to  this  course.  I  have  taken 
pains  to  examine  these  citations,  so  far  as  any  oppor- 
tunity was  given  by  reference  in  the  learned  counsel's 
speech,  and  in  every  instance  I  have  found  these  quota- 
tions to  be  incorrect.   I  foimd  

Mr.  Beach— One  moment.  Sir.  I  object  to  the  gentle- 
man's interrupting  me  with  a  statement  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  am  raising  a  qr  estion  of  law. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  a  question  of  law. 

Judge  Neilson— I  wiU  be  happy  to  hear  you  after  the 
counsel  is  through. 

Mr.  Shearman— But,  your  Honor,  I  am  objecting  to 
anything  further  in  this  line ;  and  I  object  to  it  on  the 
ground  that  the  statements  already  are  so  entirely  incor- 
rect as  to  justify  the  strict  enforcement  of  that  nile, 
which  other v.'i  e  we  might  have  waived;  and  we 
respectfully  object  to  any  fui'ther  reading  or  statement 
purporting  to  be  correct,  upon  the  ground  that  the  law 
does  not  permit  it,  and  upon  the  practical  ground  that 
thus  far  they  are  entirely  incorrect,  or  unfounded. 

Judge  Neilson— Of  course  the  paper,  whatever  it  may 
be,  book,  newspaper,  or  letter,  can  only  be  read  by  way 
of  illustration,  and  as  helping  an  argument.  If  it  is  the 
paper,  or  book,  or  publicat  o  i  of  a  partj-  to  the  suit,  there 
is  great  danger  that  the  juiy  may  confound  the  illustra- 
tion with  the  actual  evidence. 

Mr.  Morris— They  object  to  their  o-.vn  medicine ;  that 
is  alL 


1002 


TEB   TILTON-BEECHEB  TBIAL. 


Mr.  Beach— Why,  the  gentleman  assumes  to  say  that 
the  quotations  T  have  made  from  the  sermons  of  Mr. 
Beeoher  are  in  every  instance  incorrect. 

Mr.  Shearman— So  far  as  I  have  noticed. 

Mr.  Beach— And  upon  what  authority  he  assumes  to 
say  it  I  am  unable  to  conceive. 

Mr.  Evarts— Every  instance  which  he  has  examined. 

Mr.  Beach— Every  instance  he  has  examined!  I  don't 
know  how  far  he  has  examined,  Sir.  There  is,  Sir,  the 
"Drinted  extracts  from  my  argument  fexhibiting  some 
papers]  giving  the  several  quotations  given  by  me,  and 
the  reference  to  the  sermon,  or  book,  and  the  page  from 
which  each  is  taken,  and  I  challenge  the  gentleman  to 
show  any  error  in  either  of  the  quotations. 

Mr.  Shearman— Very  good,  your  Honor. 

Mr.  Beach— And  this  is  at  his  service,  if  he  wishes  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  accept  the  challenge  so  far  as  any 
references  have  thus  far  been  given. 

Mr.  Beach- Well,  go  on. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  first  one  is  this  invitation  to  the 
communion,  which  in  justice  ought  to  be  read  in  full. 

Mr.  Beach— That,  Sir,  I  have  explained,  and  I  object  to 
the  gentleman  reading  the  quotation  in  full.  My  argu- 
ment is  not  to  be  interrupted,  Sir,  by  this  sort  of  injection 
of  a  speech  on  the  part  of  the  defendant. 

Judge  Neilson— Will  the  audience  please  keep  silent  1 

Mr.  Fullerton— Point  out  the  mistakes. 

Judge  Neilson— The  learned  counsel,  I  suppose,  misun- 
derstood you,  Mr.  Beach.  I  have  suggested  that  they  have 
this  opportunity  after  your  argument  is  closed,  and  you 
made  an  observation  which  wotQd  be  understood  as  indi- 
cating that  he  might  do  it  now. 

Mr.  Beach— He  may  point  out  any  error  now  that  I  have 
fallen  into,  and  any  misquotation.  But  all  else  I  ob- 
ject to. 

Mr.  Shearman— If  the  gentleman  allows  me,  then  I  pro- 
pose to  go  on. 

Mr.  Beach— I  propose  that  the  gentleman  shall  do  it 
properly  and  in  order,  Sir :  that  ne  shall  not  read  long  ex- 
tracts from  the  sermons  of  Mr.  Beecher  which  I  did  not 
read  or  pretend  to  read.  The  question  is  whether  I  read 
anythmg  from  the  sermons  of  Mr.  Beecher  inaccurately 
or  falsely. 

Judge  Neiison— After  you  are  through  he  will  have  a 
free  opportimity  to  correct  any  error  you  fall  into.  It 
would  not  be  quite  proper  to  allow  him  to  extend  a  quo- 
tation, introducing  a  new  sentence. 

Mr.  Shearman— What  I  desire  to  know,  your  Honor,  is 
whether  the  gentleman  extends  his  challenge  to  me  now, 
or  whether  he  prefers  that  I  should  wait  until  after  he  is 
through. 

Judge  Neiison— I  think  the  appropriate  time  is  after  he 
ifi  through. 

Mr.  Shearman— Does  the  gentleman  withdraw  the  chal- 
lenge to  do  it  now  1  [Laughter.]  If  he  does  not,  I  i>ro- 
pose  to  go  on. 


Mr.  Beach— I  am  not  so  ten-ified  about  it,  Sir.  I  think  I 
shall  stick  to  my  challenge. 

Mr.  Shearman— What  does  your  Honor  decide  1  Will 
you  allow  me  to  accept  the  challenge,  or  will  you  not  % 

Judge  Neiison— I  think  the  proper  time  is  after  he  is 
through. 

Mr.  Shearman— Very  good.  I  submit  to  your  Honor's 
ruling.  The  gentleman  will  excuse  ms  if  I  interrupt  at 
any  other  occasion,  because  we  shall  make  this  the  point 
of  an  exception  if  the  gentleman  goes  on  reading  quota- 
tions that  are  not  in  evidence. 

Mr.  F  illoi  ton— So  did  you  read  quotations. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  have  not  read  anything  that  is  not 
in  evidence. 

Mr.  Fullerton— They  read  from  Mr.  Kinsella's  paper  an 
editorial  which  was  not  in  evidence. 
Mr.  Shearman— It  was  in  evidence. 
Mr.  Fullerton- It  was  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— Your  Honor  knows  it  was  in  evidence, 
and  it  was  marked  in  evidence,  in  full. 

Mr.  Morris— Your  Honor  knows  it  was  not  in  evidence. 

Judge  Neiison— It  was  not;  unless  it  was  written  by 
the  plaintiff  I  could  not  receive  it  i?^  evidence. 

Mr.  Shearman— The  learned  gentlemen  did  not  object 
to  its  being  receive(^  in  evidence,  and  wo  did  not  give  it 
in  evidence.   It  is  too  late  for  them  to  strike  it  out. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  so. 

Judge  Neiison— Will  you  proceed  with  yourargument  ? 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir ;  after  I  have  asked  yon  Honor 
kindly  to  consider  whether  the  intimation  Wi  ich  you 
have  given  that  Mr.  Shearman,  or  any  other  gejucxeman 
upon  the  part  j>f  the  defense,  may  at  the  proper  time  be 
heard  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  any  errors  in  fact, 
will  justify  a  renewed  argument  upon  the  part  of  the  de- 
fense. 

Judge  Neiison— Oh,  no.  Sir ;  not  any  further  quotation 
even. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  I  wish  your  Honor  to  consider 
before  you  state  that,  because  the  correct  quotations 
must  be  given  to  correct  the  incorrect  ones,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Beach— Not  additional  quotations,  I  suppose,  Sir. 

Judge  Neiison— Oh,  yes ;  that  is  what  I  mean— not  ad- 
ditional. 


MR.  BEECHER  ON  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 
Mr.  Beach — Upon  this  question  as  to  the 

sacreduess  and  solemnity  attached  by  Mr.  Beecher  to  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  I  read  an  extract  from 
sermons  called  the  "Second  Series,"  froju  page  169. 

Mr.  Shearman— Your  Honor  will  please  note  tliat  we 
object  to  the  reading  of  this  extract,  not  in  evidence, 
and  entirely  incompetent,  and  intended  to  influence  the 
iury  without  being  put  in  evidence,  and  giving  the  oppo» 
tunity  of  explanation. 

Judge  Neiison— It  will  be  noted  that  in  each  instance 


8rM3liyG    UF  BY  MB.  BEACH. 


1003 


TTliere  lie  reads  anything,  Mr.  Shearman,  you  have  an  ex- 
ception 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir. 

Jud^e  Neilson— At  the  same  time  it  is  understood  it  is 
not  evidence ;  it  is  a  mere  illustration. 

Mr.  Shearman— Your  Honor  will  please  note  an  excep- 
tion in  each  instance. 

Judge  Neilson— In  each  instance ;  yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— [Reading]— 

The  Lord's  Supper,  if  it  be  administered  by  a  Pope,  is 
good  enough;  if  it  be  administered  by  a  Cardinal,  it  is 
good  enough ;  if  it  be  administered  by  a  priest  or  minis- 
ter, it  is  good  enough;  if  it  be  administered  by  the 
father  in  the  family,  it  is  good  enough ;  and  if  there 
is  no  one  else  to  administer  it,  and  you  administer  it  to 
yourself,  it  is  just  as  good. 

I  understand  this  Sacrament  of  the  Communion  to  be  m 
commemoration  of  the  Last  Supper  betTveen  Christ  and 
his  Disciples,  at  which  he  broke  bread  and  presented  it 
to  them,  saying,  "This  is  my  body;"  and  poured  out  the 
wine,  saying,  "  This  is  ray  blood ;"  that  it  symbolized  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ's  body  and  his  blood,  offered  for  the 
redemption  of  mankind ;  and  that  it  derives  all  its  holi- 
ness, and  whatever  of  saving  character  or  strengthenmg 
character  it  may  possess,  from  the  fact  that  it  was  admin- 
istered by  God  Himself,  and  in  latter  days  was  adminis- 
tered by  His  Apostles,  and  by  those  who  succeeded  them, 
"Whether  in  direct  and  apostolic  succession  or  not.  In  the 
ministry  of  the  Gospel.  And  this  idea  that  a  man  may 
administer  the  Lord's  Supper  to  himself,  deprives  it  of  all 
its  holy  and  sacramentai  character  and  influence.  You 
have  but  to  sit  down  at  your  breakfast  table  of  a  morn- 
ing and  bless  the  food  before  you,  and  declare  it  Chrlst'ff 
body  and  blood,  and  you  are  in  sacramental  communion 
at  once  with  Christ,  eating  the  symbols  of  his  body  and 
blood.  That  is  not  the  orthodox  idea  of  that  sacrament. 
It  is  a  desecration  of  that  sacrament.  But  enough  upon 
that  subject.  As  an  illustration  perhaps,  pr%ctica.lly,  of 
the  course  of  worship  and  communion  m  Plymouth 
Church,  it  might  be  suificient  to  say  that  Oliver  Johnson, 
in  all  the  moods  and  tenses  of  his  belief  and  life,  was  yet 
considered  a  satisfactory  communicant  at  Plymouth 
Church.  ^ 

MR.  BEECHER  ON  THE  MIRACLES. 

Mr.  Beecher  speaking  of  tlie  miracles  of  Christ 
when  on  earth  1800  years  ago,  deprives  them  of  all  contin- 
uous,living  influence  upon  the  character  and  morals  of 
succeeding  generations.  He  says  : 

There  are  many  parts  of  the  New  Testament  which 
have  grown  old.  The  miracles  have.  They  ai  e  meant  to 
be  local  and  temporal.  Their  power  was  substantially 
expended  on  the  day  they  were  performed. 

That  extract  is  to  be  found  in  volume  I.,  page  403,  of 
Mr.  Harper's  edition  of  his  sermons.  Now  if  you  can 
strike  out,  as  perennial  and  constant  influence  upon  the 
faith  and  the  worship  of  men,  the  miracles  of  Christ,  why 
can  you  not  strike  out  any  other  sublime  evidences  of  his 


God-head  and  mad esty?  Why  not  strike  out  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  Transfiguration,, 
the  Apocalypse  on  Patmos  ?  Christian  believers,  T  had 
supposed,  were  accustomed  to  regard  Christ  in  his  double 
character,  ae  the  man,  participating  in  their  sorrows  and 
acguainted  with  their  griefs,  and  from  the  sympathy 
of  humanity  associating  with  all  their  afflictions;  and 
in  the  other  character  of  the  mighty  God,  evincing  his 
majesty  and  power  by  the  miracles  he  wrought,  touching 
the  eye  of  the  blind  that  they  saw  and  opening  the  ears  of 
the  deaf,  making  the  lame  to  walk,  casting  out  devils,  burst- 
ing the  cerements  of  the  grave  and  leading  death  captive. 
Do  you  not  as  a  Christian  believer  in  the  divinity  of 
Christ — do  you  not  cherish  these  wondrous  works  of  His 
I  as  He  passed  through  His  short  but  eventful  life 
upon  the  earth?  And  when  scoffers  and  sneer- 
ers  doubt  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible  and 
the  Di^nne  character  of  Chi'ist,  do  you  not 
with  a  Christian's  triuraith  point  to  the  miracles  He 
wrought;  and  are  they  a  dead  I  'tter  in  the  Scriptures  i 
Nay,  is  the  declaration  true  that  any  part  of  the  New 
Testament  has  become  old?  Ah,  gentlemen,  that  is  its 
wondei*ful  character,  that  in  every  nge,  and  in  every 
clime,  to  every  heart,  cultivated  or  humble,  in  every 
emergency  of  life,  in  sorrow  mid  in  jov,  in  life  and  in 
death,  the  Scriptures  come  to  tlie  hearts  and  souls  of 
men  with  a  fresh,  living,  in  -nirins-  energv,  and  he  wh© 
blots  out  a  word  of  the  holy  inspiration,  insults  his  God. 

MR.   BEECHER  ON  THE   FUTURE  LFFE. 

Mr.  Beeclier  lias  some  singula)  notions  in 
regard  to  a  xutm'e  life,  and  the  condition  of  men  in  tlfet 
futurity. 

Mr.  Shearman.  [Sotto  voce.  To  the  stenographer] — 
Note  ai>  exception,  plea^>e. 

INIi-.  Fullerton.  \_Sottc  voce.  To  the  stenographer]— 
Mr.  Shearman  excepts  to  a  future  life: 

Mr.  Beach.  [Contiiiumg]— On  that  memorable  1st  of 
June,  1873,  ynd  I  speak  not  now  from  any  published 
sermons  of  jVIt.  Beecher,  for  I  have  not  been  able  to  ob- 
tain the  produotion  to  which  I  refer,  but  from  general 
recollection  ol  my  own  and  from  information  derived 
from  othei's,  Mr.  Beecher  on  that  day  published  a  sermon 
in  which  he  substantially  abolished  hell.   He  said  in  it : 

If  one  sinner  ig  admitted  [that  is.  to  Heaven,  I  sup- 
pose] why  not  the  second,  who  is  lower  in  attainment  ? 
If  the  second,  why  not  the  third?  And  so  on  until  the 
last?  Why  not  the  bottom  one  of  all?  I  do  not  believe 
that  there  is  a  living  soul  on  the  earth  to-day  upon  whom 
the  face  of  the  gospel  has  shone,  in  whom  there  is  some 
indication  that  God's  grace  has  not  entirely  died  out, 
who  will  not  by  the  grace  of  G  jd  find  au  entrance,  and 
that  that  soul  will  find  itself  transplanted  there. 

Well,  that  points  pretty  decisively  to  the  idea  of  a  uni- 
versal salvation.  If  the  Christian,  redeemed  according 
to  the  Bible's  scheme  of  salvation,  is  admitted  to  Heaven, 
and  then  the  man,  the  soul  a  little  lower  in  its  attain- 


i004 


IHE   TILTON-BEEGHEB  TBlAh, 


ments,  you  keep  traveling  down  in  the  degree  of  attain- 
ment until  you  reach  the  bottom  one  of  all,  there  is  uni- 
versal salvation.  And  in  a  commentary  made  in  a  lead- 
ing and  friendly  paper  it  was  said  that  the  spiritualists 
claim  that  Mr.  Beecher's  theory  of  future  punishment, 
future  ultimate  salvation,  was  akin  to  their  own;  and 
tJais  sermon,  1  rememhesr,  excited  very  extensive  comment 
and  criticism  throughout  the  Christian  and  secular  press 
of  the  country.  It  was  considered  as  a  denial  of  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  that  place  or  condition  of  future 
punishment  which  in  the  Bible  is  denominated  hell.  Well, 
Mr.  Beecher,  speaking  of  a  sermon  delivered  by  Jonathan 
Edwards  upon  the  text,  "Sinners  in  the  hands  of  an 
angry  God,"  says : 

I  could  never  read  that  sermon  at  one  sitting.  I  think 
a  person  of  moral  sensibility,  alone,  at  midnight,  reading 
that  awful  discourse,  would  well  nigh  go  crazy. 

Well,  it  would  be  intrusive  and  disrespectful  for  me  to 
Intimate  how  far  I  might  agree  with  or  dissent  from  the 
doctrines  of  Mr.  Beecher.  I  am  endeavoring  to  show 
that  the  man  who  arraigns  Mr.  Tilton  and  others  for 
heresy  and  heterodoxy  should  look  well  to  his  own 
doctrine  and  position  before  he  opens  the  assault.  This 
last  paragraph  I  read  was  from  the  work  "  Eyes  and 
Ears,"  page  111.   Well,  as  to  Heaven,  Mr.  Beecher  says  : 

It  does  not  seem  to  me,  as  I  look  at  men  in  the  whole 
roimd  of  their  condition,  and  stage  of  their  development, 
that  on  dying  they  can  be  expected  to  enter  upon  a  per- 
fected state. 

Well,  what  becomes  of  the  emancipated  spirit  at  death  1 
Is  there  an  intermediate  sta  te  and  con.  i^on  ?  Is  there  a 
new  probation,  a  new  state  of  disciplit^  between  the 
dteath-bed  and  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  and  is  that  the 
teaching  of  the  Scriptures  ?  Must  the  hope  of  the  Chris- 
tian, sustaining  him  when  the  eye  grows  dim  and  the 
breath  falters  and  fails,  be  a  delusion  and  a  mockery  1 
Can  the  dying  saint  no  longer  chant  the  song,  "  Oh, 
death,  where  is  thy  sting ;  Oh,  grave,  where  is  thy  vic- 
tory!"  and  must  he  look  forward  to  another  state  of  ex- 
istence, to  a  purgatory  and  a  new  expiation  ?  Have  the 
blood  of  Christ  and  the  sacrifice  of  Calvary  lost  their 
efficiency  %  Is  the  scheme  of  scriptural  redemption  all 
false,  and  may  n.>t  he  who  dies  believing,  who  dies  in  the 
hope  and  the  faith  of  a  Christian,  anticipate  that  when  the 
agonies  of  death  are  past  and  the  last  convulsion  of  that 
mysterious  separation  of  the  spirit  and  the  body,  that  he 
Is  transplanted  at  once  to  th*  Heaven  of  his  hope  and 
promise  ?  And  what  will  you  do,  if  this  be  the  doctrine, 
with  that  announced  in  the  Westminster  collection, 
^here  it  is  said  that  "  the  souls  of  Christian  believers  set 
free  on  earth  do  pass  immediately  into  glory  ?"  A  stand- 
ard authority  of  Christian  belief  and  doctrine.  Ah,  what 
will  you  do,  gentlemen,  with  that  cheering  assurance 
given  by  Chi'ist  to  the  thief  on  the  cross,  "  This  day  shalt 
thou  be  with  Me  in  Paradise?"  These  doctrines  and 
(leclaratious  are  disuensed  with  and  discarded  by  Mr. 
(Beecher.   He  calls  the  Saybrook  Platform  immortally 


infamous.  [To  Mr.  Shearman.]  It  is  the  Eighth  Sferies, 
page  105.  I  have  no  notions  of  my  own  to  advance  upon 
the  subject  of  election,  foreordination,  and  future  pun- 
ishment, and  It  may  very  weU  be  that  many  gentlemen 
of  intelligence  and  thought  wiU  quite  agree  with  the 
sentiments  of  Mr.  Beecher.  He  says : 

What  could  be  thought  of  the  sovereign  who  organized 
pain,  not  as  a  sanction  of  government,  but  who  created 
beings  for  infinite  pain  in  order  to  bring  out  some  quality 
of  himself  caUed,  by  what  eternal  transmutation  of  words 
I  know  not,  justice  and  glory  I  If  the  astounding  views 
of  God  prevail  that  are  contained  in  this  immortally  in- 
famous chapter  [referring  to  a  chapter  from  the  Say- 
brook  Platform],  and  which  deeply  color  the  preaching 
of  those  that  would  give  them  the  kindliest  signiflcance, 
then  we  must  believe  that  the  world  is  continued  in  ex- 
istence to  pour  an  incessant  fiood  of  souls  into  that  eter- 
nal anguish  for  which  they  were  expressly  foreordained. 

And  in  words  of  masterly  force  and  imagination  he 
paints  the  consequences  that  doctrine  which  seems  to 
him  so  horrid  and  repulsive;  yet  it  is  an  imputation 
upon  the  orthodoxy  of  the  church  to  which  he  belongs, 
to  which  his  forefathers  belonged,  to  which  his  own  hon- 
ored father  belonged. 

In  a  pamphlet  edition  of  a  sermon  of  Mr.  Beecher's, 
preached  on  the  7th  of  June,  1874, 1  find  this  teaching  : 

The  parable  of  the  Garden  of  Eden,  of  the  Pali  of  Man, 
and  the  Universal  Sinfulness  of  Men,  as  derived  from 
their  involuntary  connection  with  the  great  unknown 
head,  strangely  enough  has  formed  the  basis  of  the  most 
enduring  and  the  most  universal  theory,  a  theory,  how- 
ever, which  is  also  the  most  oppressive,  and  the  most 
inconsistent  with  every  one  of  those  feelings  whicti 
spring  up  under  a  religious  education  in  the  ethical  prin- 
ciples of  the  Gospel. 

MR.  BEECHER  ON  THE   ORIGIN  OF  MAN. 
And  on  page  299  I  find: 

The  modern  school  of  astronomers  do  not  admit  that 
there  were  six  literal  days  of  creation.  When  the  geolo- 
gists of  England  fli'st  began  to  develop  the  fact  of  the 
ages  of  creation,  as  indicated  in  that  other  book,  that 
revelation  which  men  had  tramped  on  and  had  n't  read, 
another  theory  was  set  on  foot,  and  by  and  by  the  force 
of  facts,  as  developed  in  scientific  schools,  compelled 
men  of  reason  to  admit  that  time  and  the  world  were 
right  in  the  way  of  the  theory  of  the  absolute  creation  in 
six  days  of  24  hours  each.  Here  and  there  you  will  find 
a  man  yet  who  holds  that  the  world  was  created  in  six 
days,  by  a  direct  flat  of  the  Divine  will.  Such  a  man  is 
twin  brother  of  the  oldest  mummy  in  the  tombs  of  Egypt, 
and  I  think  the  mummy  is  the  better  of  the  two.  But 
then  it  was  said  that  the  Scriptures  taught  it,  and 
the  difficulty  was  evaded  by  saying  again  that 
the  Scriptures  were  designed  to  teach,  not  bow 
the  world  came  into  existence,  but  how  men 
were  to  get  out  of  it,  ;ind  be  saved.  In  tbe  same  way 
the  whole  Levitical  system  was  necessarily  drop]<ed  out 
of  Christian ecclesiasticism,  because  it  was  not  adapted  to 
modem  times  and  ways.  Then,  more  Intf^ly,  liiivc  com(^ 
the  psychological  and  ethnoloirical  invc^sri^ations,  in- 
quiries into  the  history  of  the  race,  by  whieli  is  to  bo  de- 
termined how  men  came  into  this  world  ;  and  it  looks  as 
though  it  were  going  to  be  shown  tbat  men  did  not  coma 
according  to  the  literal  statements  concerning  the  Gardri 


SUMMING    UF  BY  MB.  BEACH. 


1005 


t)f  Eden— that  they  did  not  come  from  the  loins  of  the  one 
man,  Adam.  All  the  facts  disclosed  by  scientific  in- 
vestigation point  to  the  development  of  man  from  the 
iowes*  forms  of  savage  life  hy  continuous  gradations, 
runnlns'  through  aU  ages. 
Darwinism,  very  t>.»arly. 

Bat,  say  men,  if  you  take  that  view  you  will  d««troy 
th**  Bible.  And  they  have  said  that  at  every  single  step 
iB  which  science  has  set  forth  the  facts  of  God,  as  they 
are  revealed  in  the  immutable  testimony  of  nature. 
First,  the  priest  has  run  his  head  against  it,  and  the  fact 
has  not  been  destroyed  in  any  case. 

Of  course  it  was  the  priest  that  was  destroyed. 

Now,  if  it  be  determined  by  the  analogy  of  nature,  by 
the  study  of  customs  and  of  governments,  by  tracing  the 
peculiarities  of  judicial  systems,  by  examining  into 
ethnic  ideas ;  the  history  of  law  being  studiea,  and  the 
history  of  schools  being  studied,  and  the  history  of  the 
moral  sense  of  mankind  being  studied— if  it  be  deter- 
mined as  a  fact  that  these  things  all  converge  toward 
one  central  teaching  of  the  past ;  the  time  is  eommg 
when  you  will  do  in  this  case  what  you  ^.id  m  the  case  of 
geology  and  astronomy  and  the  Levitical  system,  admit 
the  fact  as  incontrovertible ;  and  you  must  see  to  it,  if 
the  fact  is  universal,  and  belongs  to  the  divine  economy, 
and  is  a  part  of  the  structure  of  God's  creation,  and  is  a 
revelation  of  God,  that  it  is  reconciled  with  the  other 
divine  revelation.  It  is  assumed  that  the  revelation  of 
the  letter  on  paper  is  superior  to  a  revelation  of  fact  in 
nature.  T  shall  not  discuss  that  question.  I  only  say 
this,  that  the  revelation  of  fact  exterior  to  the  Bible,  in- 
variably carries  the  day,  and  will,  must,  ought  to. 

Now,  as  a  logician  and  man  of  the  world,  I  cannot  say 
that  I  dissent  from  that  system  of  reasoning.  Not  hav- 
ing a  Christian's  faith  in  the  origin  and  the  revelations 
of  the  Scriptiires,  accepting  them  speculatively  as  God's 
inspiration,  if  Mr.  Beecher  tells  me  that  there  is  a  fact  in 
nature,  that  that  is  a  practical  revelation  from  God,  and 
that  it  must  be  believed  when  it  contradicts  the  inspired 
word  of  God.  why,  of  course,  I  must  accept  hia  teaching ; 
I  cannot  controvert  It.   He  says  again  : 

It  seems  to  me  that  all  thinking  men  who  have  taken 
the  trouble  to  mform  themselves  about  these  facts  [that 
is,  the  facts  of  nature]  believe  in  the  theory  of  evolution. 

Which  is  the  Darwinian  theory.  That  is  from  the  sixth 
series  of  his  sermons,  at  page  184.  In  the  same  sermon 
lie  says : 

If  all  the  theories  of  Mr.  Darwin,  or  half  of  them, 
shall  be  foimd  true,  will  it  not  ratify  the  steadfast  tes- 
timony of  the  whole  Word  of  God  as  respects  the 
essentially  animal,  secular,  worldly  nature  of  man  ? 

In  the  seveath  series,  page  201,  he  says  : 

I  do  not  care  if  one  man  came  from  monkeys,  another 
from  alligators,  another  from  lizards,  and  another  from 
anything  you  please. 

Well,  that  is  clearly  a  direct  avowal  of  admissible  dis- 
belief in  the  Scriptural  representation  of  the  origin  and 
descent  of  man,  but  it  necessarily  destroys  our  sinful 
connection  with  the  error  of  our  first  parents. 


MR.  BEECHER  ON  ORTHODOX  CHURCHES. 

And  Mr.  Beecher  has  not  a  very  high  re- 
gard for  the  orthodox  churches  of  the  land.  In  his  "  Life 
Thoughts"  he  says : 

The  most  dangei  ous  infidelity  of  the  day  is  the  infidelity 
of  rich  and  orthodox  churches. 

Well,  we  have  a  great  many  of  that  description  in  oui 
vicinity,  and  perhaps  some  might  imagine  that  the  de- 
nunciation of  the  infidelity  of  rich  and  orthodox 
churches— barring  the  orthodoxy— might  possibly  apply 
to  Plymouth  Church.  But  in  this  mode  Mr.  Beecher 
denounces,  as  filled  with  practical  infidelity,  the 
churches  in  which  you  are  accustomed  to  worship  in 
this  neighborhood — Dr.  Storrs's,  Dr.  Talmage's,  Dr. 
Cuyler's,  Dr.  Van  Dyke's,  Dr.  Budiugton's,  Dr.  Duryea's, 
and  the  great  chiu-ches  la  the  City  of  New-York.  They 
are  rich  and  orthodox  ;  and  the  most  dangerous  infidelity 
of  the  day  and  the  largest  amount  of  it,  according  to 
Mr.  Beecher,  is  to  be  found  in  those  orthodox  churches. 
It  may  possibly  be  the  effect  of  their  pure  and  strict  or- 
thodoxy. 

Uponthes-ibject  of  the  thoughts  and  doctrines  which 
belong  to  a  tiferistian  church,  and  the  style  of  teaching 
and  discipline  appropriate  to  their  sacred  and  solemn 
character  and  object,  Mr.  Beecher  has  very  free  and 
liberal  notions.  He  says,  in  the  first  volume  of  his  "  Ser- 
mons," at  page  406  : 

It  has  been  said  that  the  pulpit  ought  not  to  be  turned 
into  a  lyceum  for  the  discussion  of  customs  and  policies 
and  such  like  topics.  Anything  that  is  right  to  talk 
about  at  aU,  it  is  right  to  talk  about  in  the  pulpit. 

WeU,  the  church  is  not,  then,  a  holy  and  sacred  temple, 
isolated  from  the  practices  and  the  thoughts  and  the  dis- 
cussions of  the  world,  dedicated  to  the  worship  of  the 
Master,  to  holy  reflection,  to  serious  thought,  to  self-ex- 
amination and  discipline.  It  is  a  place  where  every 
worldly  topic  may  be  considered,  and  treated  appropri- 
ately to  the  nature  of  the  subject.  It  is  not  Christ,  God, 
man's  sinfulness,  man's  repentance,  faith,  redemption, 
that  are  to  be  taught  there ;  no ;  it  is  all  the  vast  variety 
of  selfish  and  lu'n-cenary  and  temporary  topics  which 
agitate  society,  and  which  may  properly  be  introduced 
into  the  pulpit  and  discussed  by  the  anointed  minister  of 
God.  And  I  may  be  permitted  to  say  without  ofl^ense, 
that  the  practice  of  jNIr.  Beecher  has  very  fully  accorded 
with  his  theory ;  and  the  result  which  you  would  expect 
to  follow  the  desecration  of  God's  sanctuary  has  followed 
in  Plymouth  Church.  It  is  not  an  orderly,  spirit-broken, 
prayerful  worship ;  it  is  not  a  service  which  holds  up 
Christ  and  Him  crucified;  but  it  is  a  performance  which 
exhibits  Beecher  and  him  glorified.  Throughout  all  his 
sermons  are  scattered  minutes  of  noisy  applause  and 
.  laughter.  During  this  month  I  noticed  (June  14)  a  report 
of  Mr.  Beeeher's  sermon  in  which  there  were  eighteen  no- 
tices of  laughter  during  the  delivery  of  Ms  sermon. 

Mr.  FuUerton— Laughter  and  appla"  ~ 


1006  laE  TILTON-J^ 

Mr.  Beach— Yes ;  laugliter  and  r.pplaiise. 
Mr.  Shearman— There  was  i.o:  any  applause. 
Mr.  Beach— What  t 

Mr.  Fallerton— Brother  Shearman  was  asleep  probably, 
and  didn't  hear  it.  [Laxighter.] 
Mr.  Shearman— I  was  there. 

Mr.  Beach— Of  course  my  friend  Shearman  was  there, 
and  he  was  the  loudest  clapper  in  the  congregation. 
'Laughter.] 

Mr.  Shearman— That  is  perfectly  true. 

Mr.  Beacli—Well,  I  know  it  is  true ;  or  I  would  not  say  it. 

Mr.  Shearman— Because  I  didn't  do  anything  of  that 
tind,  nor  did  anybody  else. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  gentlemen,  it  is  the  easiest  thing  in 
the  world  for  Mr.  Beecher  to  excite  any  passion  or  emo- 
tion of  our  nature,  no  matter  what  it  is.  He  may  make 
himself  the  feeling,  impressive  teacher  of  the  great 
doctrines  and  truths  of  our  religion ;  he  may  make  him- 
self the  most  perfect  humorist,  wit,  and  comedian.  All 
the  varieties  of  human  nature  are  open  to  his  touch,  and 
he  guides  them  with  a  masterly  hand.  But  it  is  a  matter 
oi  somewhat  serious  consideration,  whether  this  exhibi- 
tion of  the  various  characteristics  of  a  great  man,  in- 
ducing to  amusement  and  frivolity  in  the  church  of  God, 
rather  than  to  the  cultivation  of  that  reverence  and 
worship  which  belong  to  that  sacred  place,  is  appropriate 
to  a  character  so  great  and  magnificent  as  his  is  repre- 
sented to  be. 

MR.  BEECHEE'S  CURIOUS  EXPRESSIONS. 
Well,  I  have  been  furnished  with  a  few  of 
the  quaint  and  extravagant  expressions  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
perhaps  not  worth  particular  notice,  yet  one  or  two  of 
them  may  not  be  uninteresting.  In  his  "Life  Thouguts" 
—the  particular  occasion  is  not  given  to  me— he  says,  at 
page  178 : 

I  could  have  killed  old  Jeremiah,  it  I  could  have  got  at 
his  ribs.  [Laughter.] 

Then,  In  Ms  "  Talks,"  page  133,  he  says  he  thinks 
*'  that  men  overeat  their  prayers."  So  do  I.  That  is  in 
the  "  Seventh  Series"  of  his  **  Sermons,"  page  160.  This 
is  from  the  "  Talks,"  page  133 : 

I  pray  on  the  principle  that  wine  knocks  the  cork  out 
of  the  bottle. 

Well,  it  is  a  good  principle,  it  is  praying  from  the 
heart ;  the  wine  of  the  spirit  starting  the  cork  and  open- 
ing the  mouth.  | Laughter.]  In  his  "Life  Thoughts," 
page  241.  he  says  he  thinks  "the  elect  are  whosoever 
wUl,  and  the  non-elect  whosoever  won't."  Rather  too 
much  flippancy,  rather  too  frivolous,  for  the  considera- 
tion of  that  great  and  interesting  topic  of  Election.  Some 
of  his  forefathers  believed  in  that  doctrine,  I  fancy. 
Some  of  the  great  lights  of  Christianity  believe  in  it.  Of 
course,  I  am  not  competent  to  enter  into  a  theological  dis- 
cussion upon  that  subject;  but  I  remember,  in  my 
younger  and  better  days,  to  have  heard  that  doctrine 


EEGRER  TRIAL. 

taught  by  many  who  wore  revered  as  the  chosen  lead?-ra 
and  teachers  of  Christianity.  I  have  copied  from  the 
print  a  very  interesting  and  forcible  extract  from  a  ser- 
mon by  Mr.  Beecher  on  the  Prodigal  Son.   He  says : 

There  are  thousands  of  bad  men  who,  like  hira  (the 
Prodigal  Son  J,  have  good  aspirations  and  honorable  in- 
stincts. They  are  longing  to  ascend  by  the  path  that  has 
led  them  down  to  ruin.  Every  man  has  an  eciuator.  All 
below  that  line  is  animal,  and  all  above  it  is  himself. 
Many  a  man  lives  entirely  in  his  lower  nature  rmtil,. 
through  wild  indulgence  of  it,  the  door  is  opened  to  that 
which  is  above. 

Well,  that  is  a  new  idea,  to  me  at  least,  that 
the  ffood  and  the  evil  in  our  natures  are  sepa- 
rated by  au  equatorial  line,  and  are  unmingled 
and  distinct.  I  had  thought  that  ^  om*  emotions, 
our  passions,  our  inclinations,  proceeded  from  the 
same  attributes  and  organs;  that  we  were  a  mingled 
mass  of  good  and  evil  between  the  two  equalities  a  close 
and  continual  conflict  forever  waging;  that  we  did  not 
live  entirely  bad,  "  below  the  equator,"  altogether  in  our 
animal  passions;  nor  ever  live  wholly  in  the  higher 
atmosphere  above  it,  in  oiu-  best  spiritual  nature. 

Trouble  brought  t]ic  prodigal  son  to  himself.  He  was 
alone  and  starving.  He  had  time,  nniong  his  grunting 
charge,  to  repent.  He  did  not  say,  "  I  will  go  to  my 
father"  and  "  strite  the  circumstances."  He  called  it  sin. 
He  attempted  no  excuse  or  palliation.  The  man  whose 
soul  evinces  higher  aspirations  has  partly  reformed 
already.  He  knows  how  to  go  down  and  how  to  go  up. 
The  son  returned  with  a  good  orthodox  confession  

Yes.  It  is  a  pity  other  prodigal  sons  do  not  return 
with  a  like  confession. 

—and  found  himself  embraced  and  forgiven.  Oirr 
Father  in  heaven,  art  thou  meaner  than  the  fatliers  of 
earth  1  There  was  another  son.  He  heard  the  singing 
and  the  dancing,  and  he  was  angry  and  would  not  go  in. 
His  father  came  out  and  entreated  him.  Now,  I  had 
rather  have  been  the  prodi<;al  son  than  his  brother. 

That  is,  I  had  rather  have  been  the  erring  and  the  sin- 
ning child  of  God  than  the  obedient,  loving,  faithful  son 
of  the  father!  And  why?  Mr.  Beeeher  gives  us  the 
reason  for  las  preference. 

He  fsp caking  of  the  other  son,  not  the  px'odigalj,  was 
too  stingy  to  get  drunk  [laughter] ;  he  was  too  cautious* 
too  unsympathetic  to  sin  lasciviously. 

Ah !  I  would  rather  be  such  a  inau — I  would  rather  be 
the  liberal,  generous  fellow  who  does  not  hesitate  to 
get  drunk;  I  would  rather  be  the  free,  the  incautious,  the 
sympathizing  soul  who  can  sin  lasciviously  ! 

"  He  was  lean,  and  mean,  and  stiff,  and  proper." 

Ah !  you  rigid  Christian,  you  true  model  believer,  yon 
are  lean,  and  mean,  and  stifl",  and  proper ;  you  don't 
mingle  with  the  jollities  of  life  ;  you  don't  get  drunk ;  you 
are  not  lascivious ;  you  don't  live  a  generous  and  a  free 
life ;  you  are  stingy  and  mean ;  you  are  too  good ! 


SUM31ING    UP  1 

A  HOT  DISPUTE  OVER  ME.  BEACH'S  QUOTA- 
TIONS. 

Mr.  Porter— May  I  ask  fiom  what  print  you 

copied  that,  Mr.  Beaoli  ? 
Mr.  Beacli  [to  Mr.  Morris]— Have  we  got  it  here  1 
Mr.  Fullerton— That  Is  copied  from  a  paper. 
Mr.  Shearman— Moat  of  it  is  your  own,  I  believe. 
Mr.  Beach— Most  of  what  1 
Mr.  FuUerton— No,  Sir. 
Mr,  Beach— What  1 

lilr.  Shearman — What  you  have  been  saying  1 
[Mr.  Morris  here  passed  a  newspaper  slip  to  Mr.  Shear- 
man.] 

Mr.  Beach— Why,  every  word  that  I  have  been  reading, 
as  quotation,  is  Mr.  Beecher's. 

Mr.  Porter — It  is  from  a  newspaper. 

Mr.  Beach— Certainly.  Well,  Mr.  Beecher's  sermons 
are  reported  in  the  newspapers,  by  a  regular  hired  re- 
porter. 

Judge  Neilson— We  do  not  know  that. 
Mr.  Shearman— I  respectfully  protest  against  this  as  an 
outrage. 

Mr.  Beaoli— Why,  they  have  said  it,  Sli';  they  have  said 
It  in  tbis  case. 

Mr.  Shearman  [referring  to  the  slip  handed  to  him]— 
This  is  taken  from  an  anonymous  newspaper;  not  even  a 
newspaper  in  New-York.  I  take  it  to  be  from  a  Hart- 
lord  paper.  It  is  absolutely  incorrect ;  and  the  learned 
gentleman  did  add  a  great  many  of  his  own  remarks, 
without  making  any  distinction  between  them  and  Mr. 
Beecher's  words. 

Judge  Neilson— We  have  no  assurance  tbat  it  is  a  cor- 
Teot  report. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  if  this  Court  and  jury  are  so  un- 
intelligent that  when  I  read  from  a  paper,  and  then  com- 
ment upon  what  I  x*ead,  they  cannot  distinguish  between 
the  two,  why  I  will  recommend  Mr.  Shearman  to  them 
as  an  interpreter. 

Judge  Neilson— The  jury  can  distinguish. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  impossible  for  me  to  distinguish, 
your  Honor,  utterly  impossible  to  distinguish  the  quota- 
tions from  the  comments ;  and  I  do  not  find  that  one- 
third  of  what  he  has  put  in  is  here  at  all. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  distinguish  or  not,  it  is  a  mere 
matter  of  illustration— a  mere  matter  of  illustration. 

Mr.  Shearman— WeU,  il  your  Honor  please,  I  submit 
that  it  is  utterly  unprecedented  to  allow  counsel,  by  way 
of  illustration,  to  make  alleged  quotations  from  a  de- 
fendant's speeches,  intended  to  prejudice  him  with  the 
jury  and  to  scandalize  htm  before  the  public,  for  it  is  per- 
fectly obylons  that  this  is  all  for  the  outside  public ;  and 
I  respectfully  except. 

Judge  Neilaon— If  the  counsel  thought  proper  to  read, 
by  way  of  illustration,  I  think  it  is  allowable. 

Mr.  Beach— WeU,  Sir,  when  Mr.  Beecher  was  eulogized 


r   MR.    BE  A  (JR.  1007 

as  the  great  preacher  of  the  time,  as  the  great  orthodox 
teacher  in  the  pulpit,  and  held  up  as  pure  and  true  and 
sinless,  I  suppose  that,  too,  was  all  addressed  to  the  out- 
side public— to  that  outside  juiy  to  which  my  friend,  Mr. 
Porter,  referred.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Shearman- If  your  Honor  will  permit  me  one 
word,  Mr.  Evarts,  in  the  examination  of  Mr.  Beecher, 
inquired  fully  into  the  course  of  his  life,  and  no  one  will 
find,  either  in  the  speech  of  Mr.  Porter  or  of  Mr.  Evarts, 
one  word — I  will  not  say  one  word,  but  I  will  undertake 
to  say  that  no  one  will  find  one  entire  sentence  which  is 
founded  on  the  assumption  of  any  fact  not  stated  in  the 
evidence,  and  upon  which  they  had  not  perfect  liberty 
and  opportunity  to  cross-examine.  But  here  we  are 
loaded  down  with  extracts,  some  of  them  coming  from 
utterly  imtrustworthy  sources,  utterly  incorrect  

Mr.  Beach— That  is  not  true. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  true.  It  is  true  In  this  case. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  is  true  in  this  case ;  and  I  have  undeiv 
taken  to  say  on  my  professional  responsibility  that  there 
are  at  least  three  cases,  one  of  which  he  has  acknowledged, 
where  the  gentleman  has  made  entire  perversion  of  Mr. 
Beecher's  statements.  We  have  had  here,  through  these 
two  days,  language  imputed  to  Mr.  Beecher  which  he 
never  did  utter ;  we  have  had  misquotntions  and  perver- 
sions of  his  language ;  we  have  had  partial  quotations, 
no  more  giving  a  correct  idea  of  what  Mr.  Beecher  did 
say  than  if  I  were  to  say  that  the  Apostle  Paul  said : 
"  God  be  thanked  for  that  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin." 
Is  it  justice  to  the  Apostle  to  quote  that  and  leave  it  to 
stand  as  a  quotation  from  him  without  the  context?  It 
is  no  more  justice  to  Mr.  Beecher  to  treat  him  in  this  way. 

Judge  Neilson — We  have  no  assurance,  of  com'se,  that 
.  these  reports  are  correct.  We  do  not  know  that ;  we 
have  no  more  assurance  of  it  in  this  case  than  if  it  wei  e 
copied  from  any  other  paper.  Still,  I  have  no  doubt 
myself  that  if  counsel  thought  it  expedien  t  they  could, 
by  way  of  illustration— not  an  argument,  read  from  a 
newspaper,  or  from  a  book,  something  there  stated  bet- 
ter than  they  could  state  it ;  whether  that  book  was  Mr. 
Beecher's  or  Mr.  Smith's  or  anybody's  else.  But  still  it  is 
not  evidence,  nor  to  be  received  as  such.  The  jury  are 
to  view  it  as  simply  an  illustration,  which  at  the  bottom 
may  be  correct  or  may  not  be. 

Mr.  Beach— We  had  the  annoimcement  from  the  gen- 
tleman upon  the  other  side  that  Mr.  Beecher's  sermons 
were  gathered  up  weekly  and  reported  in  all  the  leading 
presses  in  the  coimtiy ;  and  it  is  a  fact  that  we  Imow,  in- 
dependent of  their  declaration.  It  will  be  an  astonish- 
ment to  a  great  many,  Sir,  when  our  learned  friends 
have  declared  that  the  weekly  publications,  thoughts  and 
teachings  of  Mr.  Beecher  which,  in  their  blessed  influ- 
ence, are  spread  all  over  the  world— it  will  be  an  aston- 
ishment to  mauj^  to  know  that  they  are  not  correct  rep- 
resentations of  his  thoughts  and  teachings,  and  it  wUl  be 


1008 

n  gTatification  to  maxy,  8ir,  to  telie^e  tliat  ti  e  dti  irl 
true. 

Judge  Neilsou— Mr.  Beacli,  you  have  observed,  by  expe- 
rience in  this  trial,  that  you  are  not  always  correctly  re- 
ported yourself. 

Mr.  Bsacli— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— And  yet  you  are  remarkably  clear  and 
distinct  in  your  utterance. 
Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— There  have  been  instances  where  you 
have  not  been  correctly  reported,  and  I  have  no  doubt 
that  your  thoughts,  in  a  mangled  form,  are  now  traveling 
throughout  the  world. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neil8on-;-It  is  but  an  illustrati  on,  after  all. 
Ml'.  Porter— Very  differently  reported  in  different  news- 
papers. 
Judge  Neilson— Yes, 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  the  consequence.  Sir,  of  the  natm-al 
imperfection  of  things.  I  have  got  to  be  judged  by  the 
manner  in  which  I  am  reported  ;  and  when  the  reports 
of  Mr.  Beecher's  utterance  come  out  in  this  authorized 
form  [holding  up  a  bound  volume  of  Mr.  Beecher's  ser- 
mons], and  are  circulated  as  his  sermons— we  are  to  sup- 
pose under  the  ordinary  correction  of  the  author— and 
when  he  himself  has  sworn  that  he  has  published  thirty 
volumes  of  sermons,  or  what  not,  I  think  I  am  justified. 
Sir,  in  making  extracts  from  that  authentic  aM  author- 
ized publication  of  Mr.  Henry  Ward  Beech  er. 

Judge  Neilson— Coming  from  that  source,  there  would 
be  a  presumption  that  the  quotation  would  be  correct,  no 
doubt. 

Mr.  Beach— Yes.  Well,  almost  every  quotation  I  have 
made  has  been  from  these  books. 

Judge  Neilson— But  coming  from  the  newspapers,  that 
presumption  fades  out  very  much.  And  wheii  you  get 
down  as  far  as  Hartford,  I  am  reminded  of  the  fact  that  I 
have  received  anonymous  letters  with  extracts  from — 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  made  no  quotation  from  any  paper 
at  Hartford,  Sir. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  beg  the  gentleman's  pardon.  E|p 
has— 

Mr.  Fullerton— He  has  not  read  a  word  from  it. 
Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir,  I  have  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— [excitedly]— Why,  you  are— | laughter] 
—you  read  that  very  passage ;  you  said  you  copied  it 
fi'om  that. 

Mr.  Beach— No,  Sir,  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  what  did  the  gentleman  mean  by 
handing  me  that  as  his  authority. 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  not  handed  you  anything  as  my  au- 
thority. 

Mr.  Morris — That  is  a  comment  upon  it. 

Mr.  Shearman — Am  I  responsible  for  the  gentleman's 
blunders^  We  have  had  ten  thoiisand  of  them,  and  more. 
A  gentleman  that  cannot  quote  correctly— a  gentleiaan 


THE   TILTON-BEEGEEB  TRIAL. 


is 


lio  quotes  so  incorrectly  that  when  a  clergyman  mvites 
"  those  who  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus"  to  the  communion 
table,  he  must  quote  it  as  "  Socinians,  Shakers,  Mormons," 
Ac— is  it  for  him  to  reproach  me  for  relying  upon  his 
quotations  1 

Mr.  Beach  [good  humoredly]— I  have  not  reproached 
you,  my  irascible  friend.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  then,  don't.  This  is  the  paper 
that  the  geutlemau  handed. 

Mr.  Beach— E  did  not  hand  that. 

Mr.  Shearman— Then  I  challenge — - 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  now,  do  subside.   [Great  laughter.] 

Mr.  Shearman— I  will ;  I  will.  [Laughter.] 

J udge  Neilson— Proceed  with  your  argument,  Mr.  Beach. 

Mr.  Beach — Yes,  Sir,  as  soon  as  I  can  get  an  opportu- 
nity. 

Mr.  Shearman— I  ask  now  for  a  proper  reference  to 
what  the  gentleman  was  just  reading. 

Mr.  Beach  [addressing  the  Court] — Now,  Sir,  a  publica- 
tion— a  slip — containing  every  word  that  I  quoted  from 
the  sermon  on  the  Prodigal  Son,  wa^  handed  to  me  by  a 
gentleman,  who  said  that  he  wanted  to  preserve  it,  and  I 
copied  it.   It  was  not  this  slip. 

Judge  Neil  son—I  recollect  that  sermon  very  well. 
Your  statement  of  the  Prodigal  Son  sermon  was  correct. 
My  wife  takes  The  ChHstian  Union,  and  I  read  it  in  that. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  Shearman — Part  of  it  was  correct. 

Judge  Neilson — I  recollect  very  well  that  I  adopted  the 
notioa  that  the  repentant  son  was  the  better  of  the  two 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  Porter— I  beg  leave  to  except  to  this  statement  by 
your  Hunor ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  I  beg  leave  to  ask  if 
your  Honor  says  that  m  a  sermon  published  by  Mr 
Beecher  

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  say  so. 

Mr.  Porter  [continuing] —The  language  was  used  in 
relation  to  lasciviousness,  which  the  gentleman  has 
quoted. 

Judge  Neilson— I  do  not  say  that. 

Mr.  Shearman  [excitedly]— That  is  the  very  point,  your 
Honor.  [Laughter.] 

Judge  Neilson— I  spoke  as  to  the  general  fact. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  I  beg  to  say  that  the  gentleman 
has  undertaken  to  attribute  to  Mr.  Beecher  language 
which  Mr. •Beecher  never  uttered. 

Judge  Neilson — Very  well,  Mr.  Shearman;  you  have 
the  right  reserved  to  UMike  con-ections. 

Mr.  Shearman— Corrections,  your  Honor!  Are  we  to 
put  in  evidence  agairB^  Is  the  case  to  be  reopened,  and 
are  we  to  make  correcti^ms  l 

Mr.  Beach— Ah  I  there  will  be  no  "  corrections  "  made. 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  then,  I  denounce  this  whole  thing 
as  a  perfect  outrage  upon  justice,  aad  as  making  a  farce 
of  a  court  of  justice  by  introducing  evidence  at  the  close 


SDMMU  G    UF  J 

mthont  givinc:  us  an  opportunity  to  meet  it  and  to  cor- 
rect it. 

Judge  Xeilson— I  have  said,  Mr.  Shearman,  again  and 
again,  that  this  is  not  e^'ldence. 

Mr.  Shearman— It  cannot  but  have  the  effect  upon  the 
iury  

Judge  Xeilson— I  have  said  again  and  again  that  this  is 
not  evidence,  hut  merely  illustration. 

Mr.  Shearman— Except  that  I  don't  believe  that  it  wUl 
have  any  effect  at  all.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Morris— It  seems  to  affect  you  considerably.  [Re- 
newed laughter.] 

Judge  Neilsou — This  conversation  is  not  proper,  gentle- 
men, and  it  does  not  becoii-  c  Hsel  to  say  that  proceed- 
ings here  at  the  instance  o:  ix  oiime'L  of  very  large  learn- 
ing and  great  experience  are  an  outrage  upon  justice. 
Mr.  Beach,  you  will  proceed  in  order  as  far  as  you  can 
possibly. 

Mr.  Shearman— Ah,  that  is  asking  too  much. 

Mr.  Beach— I  will.  Sir.  In  regard  to  this  quotation 
from  the  sermon  on  the  Prodigal  Son,  I  will  endeavor  to 
obtain  during  the  recess  the  numlier  of  Mr.  Beecher's  pa- 
per containing  it,  and  will  submit  it  to  your  Honor. 

Judge  Xeilson— I  recollect  the  general  fact  in  regard  to 
that  sermon ;  but  I  do  not  remember  the  exact  words. 

Mr.  Shearman— Except  that  he  did  not  have  the  lan- 
guage the  gentleman  has  used. 

Mr.  Beach,  [to  the  Court]— I  profess,  Sir,  to  be  a  very 
good-natured  gentleman  and  desirous  of  being  corrected 
when  I  am  in  error,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  my  friend, 
Mr.  Shearman,  is  getting  too  much  excited  upon  this  sub- 
iect,  apd  is  brealdng  in  too  large  ly  upon  the  order  of  my 
argument. 

Judge  XeUson- "Well,  I  don't  wonder  at  Mr.  Shearman 
being  very  earnest  about  it;  I  appreciate  that. 

Mr.  Beach— Nor  I  either.  Sir.  I  think  I  should  be  earn- 
est if  I  was  in  his  place. 

THE  AEGU3IE>;T  EESUIMED. 

Mr  Beach—But  

Judge  Neilson— Be  quiet,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  gentlemen,  in  a  quiet  way,  let  us,  by 
way  of  recapitulation,  see  what  is  the  attitude  of  Mr. 
Beecher  as  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel,  and  how  well  l^e  de- 
serves the  encomium  that  he  is  the  greatest  man  in  the 
M»orld,  as  pronounced  by  Mr.  Wilkeson,  or  is  th.?  leading 
pulpit  orator  of  the  age,  as  represented  by  liis  counsel. 
And  "vrhat  great  principle,  wliat  fundamental  doctrine  of 
orthodoxy  has  not  Mr.  Beedlier  in  svme  way  assailed— 
either  impeached  and  discarded  or  modified  and  changed 
in  its  influence  and  character?  He  has  denied,  in  the 
first  place,  the  condition  of  our  fli-st  pijrents,  the  integrity 
and  purity  of  their  original  creation.  He  has  placed 
them  at  the  lowest  point  of  animal  existence,  abolishing 
the  whole  idea  of  original  sin  and  the  faU, 
of  man,  and  substitute?  the  Darwinian  doctrine  of  evolu- 


MR.   BEACH.  1009 

tion.  He  has  denied  the  blood  of  the  atonement,  in  de' 
fiance  of  the  declaration  of  the  Scriptures  that,  without 
the  shedding  of  blood,  there  is  no  remission.  He  has 
secularized  the  Christian  Church.  Instejid  of  a  Divine 
institution,  where  Christ  meets  His  children  and  exerts 
the  influence  of  His  Holy  Spirit  through  its  ministra- 
tions, it  is  a  mere  institution  of  the  world,  a  mere  corpo- 
rate institution,  secular  in  its  character,  useful  in  its 
oflice,  but  bearing  about  it  none  of  the  odors  of  sanctity. 
It  is  like  70ur  theaters,  your  railroads,  your  committee- 
rooms,  or  any  of  the  other  of  the  gatherings  of  men  m 
the  ordinary  pursuits  of  their  life.  And  he  has  degraded 
the  highest  and  most  exalted  office  in  life— the 
ministry  of  the  Church— by  declaring  that  no 
qualification  is  necessary  to  it  more  than  belongs 
to  a  lawyer  or  an  engineer.  No  delegation  of  authority 
from  Christ,  no  embassadorship  from  Heaven,  no  anoint- 
ing grace,  spiritual  or  otherwise,  fi'oni  the  Father,  but 
every  man  moved  by  the  impulse  maA-  assume  tlie  sacred 
cliaractcr  and  dignity  of  a  teacher  of  the  Gospel.  He 
treats  with  derision  the  ordinauoes,  the  saoraments  of  re- 
ligion, baptism,  aud  tlu-  Lord's  Supyrr.  He  rejects  the 
teacliings  of  all  tht'  givat  leaders  of  the  orthodox  faith  iu 
all  past  time,  and  the  honored  creed  of  his  owu  denomina- 
tion he  denoimces  as  wicked  and  flagitious.  He  practi- 
cally does  away  with  the  wrath  to  come,  with  the  threat- 
ened hell,  with  that  denoimc.ed  vengmmce  of  God  upon 
the  sinner.  He  detracts  from  the  heinousut-ss  of  sin,  re-^ 
jectiug  the  atonement,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  He  tlicn 
maintains  that  by  some  process  of  God's  mercy  man  ulti- 
mately will  be  universally  redeemed  and  saved.  And  I 
think,  with  a  practically  equal  injurious  infiuence  upon 
the  world,  he  lias  desecrated  the  temiAe  of  his  God  ;  he 
has  made  it  the  scene  of  his  witticisms,  and  jests,  and 
humor,  and  buffoonery,  which  has  made  it  more  like  to  a 
theater  than  to  a  church. 

I  pass  some  other  topics,  gentlemen.  If  anybody  sup- 
poses that  I  have  made  these  references  from  any  senti- 
ment of  disrespect  to  Mr.  Beecher,  for  the  purpose  of  mis- 
representing or  scandalizing  his  character,  he  greatly 
misjudges  my  motive.  And  if  the  gentleman  supposes 
that  I  have  done  this  thing  with  a  view  to  operate  upon 
public  sentiment  to  the  disadvantage  of  Mr.  Beecher,  for- 
getting my  professional  duty  as  the  representative  of  a 
party  in  a  court  of  justice,  he  equally  mi^adges  my  mo- 
tive* Mr.  Beecher  has  been  represented  in  language 
almost  as  imaginative  and  glowing  and  forcible  as  his  own 
by  his  counsel,  as  the  great  and  leading  divine  in  the 
Christianity  of  this  age.  He  has  been  represented  as  a 
pm-e,  orthodox  teacher  of  the  inspired  religion  of  the 
Scriptures.  He  has  been  incased  iu  the  bright  and  shin- 
ing armor  of  unsullied  purity  and  virtue.  It  has  been  th© 
fimdamental,the  central  argument  of  my  learned  friends, 
and  it  bears  to-day  upon  the  sentiments  of  this 
jury  with  imperative  force.  The  doctrine  was  that  he 
was  too  great  and  too  good  to  sin,  and  upon  that,  assum- 


1010  IBM  TILTON-B. 

ing  his  virtue,  they  liave  reasoned  the  Impossihility  of 
error.  I  have  presented  all  these  indications  of  the  essen- 
tial and  inward  character  and  doctrines  of  this  man  in 
opposition  to  that  theory.  It  is  a  logical  and  professional 
answer  to  the  argument,  and  I  liiive  not  demeaned  my- 
self in  any  allusion  to  this  gentleman,  in  any  attempted 
revelations  of  his  character,  from  my  true  professional 
standard  of  confining  myself  to  the  issues  before  this 
jury,  and  presenting  only  those  arguments  which  were 
properly  directed  to  them,  and  I  am  not  willing  to  part 
with  this  court  and  jury  under  the  imputation  that  I 
have  perverted  my  professional  position  for  the  purpose 
of  reflecting  upon  a  man  who,  with  all  his  faults  and 
failings,  whatever  they  may  be,  I  admire  and  reverence. 

MR.  BEECHER^S  SERENITY  WHILE  UNDER 
FIRE. 

And  now  gentlemen,   considering  what  I 

think  the  rather  erratic  and  extravagant  career  of  Mr. 
Beecher  as  a  teacher,  looking  at  the  tendencies  of  his 
thought  and  sentiments  as  delineated  in  his  spoken 
words,  considering  the  impulses  of  his  nature,  as  we  read 
them  through  his  utterances,  is  he  deserving  of  the  high 
encomiums  he  has  received,  and  is  he  a  man  who,  when 
lie  stands  confronted  by  evidence  against  which  no  other 
human  being  could  stand  for  an  instant— is  he,  by  the 
simple  authority  of  his  character  and  his  word  to  over- 
turn the  power  of  demonstrative  proof  2  Has  he,  through 
the  moods  of  his  counsel,  the  right  to  arrogate  to  himself 
this  supreme  position,  this  infallibility  of  character,  and 
to  laud  it  over  his  fellows  as  the  leading  di- 
vine of  the  age?  That  is  a  questiim  which  is  to  be 
sincerely  and  deliberately  auswered  by  this  jury  — 
answered  under  those  solemnities  which  pertain  to  a 
court  of  justice,  and  governed  by  those  principles  which, 
according  to  the  oaths  of  a  juror,  or  jurors,  are  to  be  re- 
ceived from  the  In.structiona  of  the  court.  It  has  been  a 
mar  vel  to  the  Christian  world ;  it  is  one  of  the  most  as- 
tonishing developments  of  the  character  and  the  power 
of  Mr.  Beecher,  that  even  while  this  trial  was  progress- 
ing he  should  yet  be  competent  to  pursue  the  duties  of 
his  ministerial  otBce  apparently  unaffected,  sermonizing 
and  praying  with  all  the  intelligence,  and  the  power,  and 
the  unction  of  his  earlier  life ;  that  through  these  four 
years  of  prostrating  sorrow  and  agony,  tortured  daily 
and  nightly  by  the  anxiety  and  fear  of  discovery, 
and  the  remorse  of  guilt,  that  nevertheless 
this  man  In  his  majesty  and  greatness 
has  stood  up,  the  admired  of  all  observers. 
Gentlemen,  you  do  not  comprehend  the  greatness  of  this 
man's  character.  He  is  not  only  great  in  mind,  great  in 
learnhig,  a  great  teacher,  a  great  scholar,  but  he  has  that 
wonderful  combination  which  makes  man  in  all  his  mar- 
velous greatness.  He  has  the  brain,  he  has  tlie  heart,  he 
'has  the  physical  conformation  in  orke  hiumonious  and 


^ECMEE  TRIAL. 

powerful  combination,  giving  to  humar,  n  it ure  its  high- 
est dignity  and  its  greatest  strength ;  and  he  himself,  it 
one  of  his  memorable  letters,  exhibits  the  qualities  by 
which  he  is  thus  enabled  to  trample  upon  adversity,  to 
resist  all  the  passions  which  stir  the  sinner's  conscience, 
and,  in  the  face  of    the  world  and    in    the  face 
of  his  God,  exhibits  only  those  attractive  and  grand 
qualities  which  make  him  a  great  preacher  and  teacher. 
See  how  he  depicts  himself :  "  To  say  that  I  have  a  chui  eh 
on  my  hands  is  simple  enough,  but  to  have  the  hundreds 
and  thousands  of  men  watching  me,  each  one  with  his 
own  suspicions  or  anxieties  or  zeal ;  to  see  tendencies 
which,  if  not  stopped,  would  break  out  into  ruinous  de 
fense  of  me ;  to  stop  them  without  seeming  to  do  it ;  to 
prevent  any  one  questioning  me ;  to  meet  and  allay 
prejudices  against  Tilton  which  hr  d  their  beginnings 
years  before  this ;  to  keep  serene  as  if  I  was  not  alarmed 
or  disturbed;  to  be  cheerful  at  home  and  among  friends, 
when  I  was  suffering  the  tortures  of  the  damned ;  to  pass 
sleepless  nights  even,  and  yet  to  come  up  fresh  and  full 
for  Sunday— all  this  may  be  talked  about,  but  the  real 
thing  cannot  be    understood  from  the  outside,  nor 
its    wearing    and    grinding    on   the   nervous  sys- 
tem."   And  then,    in  a  previous    portion    of  th« 
same    letter,    he    says :     "If    I    had    not  gone 
through  these  great  years  of  soitow  I  would  not  have 
believed  that  any  one  could  pass  through  my  experience 
and  be  alive  or  sane."  And  this  is  the  picture  not  only 
of  Mr.  Beecher's  sufferings  and  trials  and  agonies,  but  it 
is  the  picture  of  his  great  and  iron  will  which  sustained 
him  through  all,  and  through  all  the  perplexities  and  dis- 
couragements of  this  trial  has  sustained  him.   True,  it 
was  a  necessity ;  and,  true  again,  he  was  addressing  him- 
self in  his  church  not  to  an  angry  and  hostile  audience, 
but  to  a  congregation  of  sympathizing  and  loving  souls. 
It  is  not  wonderful  when  we  consider  the  ch:iracter  of  the 
man.  Discarding,  gentlemen,  for  one  moment,  all  the 
evidence  in  this  case,  except  Mr.  Beecher's,  with  our 
knowledge  of  his  character,  and  divesting  that  evidence 
of  all  its  figures  and  descriptions,  by  a  close  and  rigid 
analysis    reducing  it  to  its  elements,  and  judging 
from    that    of    the    probability    of     his  offense, 
what     would     be     the     conclusion    of  practical, 
worldly  common  sense  ?   His  representation,  his  theory 
of  this  whole  case  is  that  upon  a  certain  day  he  was 
approached  by  an  inmate  of  Mr.  Tilton's  house,  Bessie 
Turner,  who  made  foul  revelations  to  him  concerning  the 
personal  character  of  Mr.  Tilton,  who  made  distressing 
communications  to  him  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  Mr. 
Tilton's  household.  These  representations  concerned;  a 
man  who  had  been  a  life-long  friend  of  Mr.  Be^ljiie^l 
man  whom  in  his  boyhood  Mr.  Beecher  loved,  and'  in 
whom  in  tliose  early  years  he  detected  the  elements  of 
that  intellectual  and  moral  character  which  he  saw 
i  would  raise  him  to  the  moral  and  intellectual  elevatioo 
1  he  afterward  obtained,  and  from  that  time  onwari  these 


SU3IM1NG  UP 

two  men  had  lived  in  the  closest  bonds  of  friendship  and 
intimacy.  They  resided  in  the  same  city,  day  by  day 
they  saw  each  other,  and  yet  Henry  Ward  Beecher  tells 
you  that  when  these  discrediting  stories  came  to  his  ears, 
without  any  consultation  with  the  friend  who  was 
accused,  without  appealing  to  him  whom  he  had 
loved  and  trusted  for  years,  as  to  the  truth  of 
the  accusation,  without  any  effort  at  kindly 
remonstrance,  if  on  inquiry  there  was  foundation  ;  for- 
getting all  the  duties  of  friendship  and  manhood,  Henry 
"Ward  Beecher  at  once  advised,  as  he  says,  a  separation. 
Then  after  an  interval  comes  a  charge  made  by  this  same 
friend  against  Mr.  Beecher— a  charge  of  unchristian,  in- 
human treatment  of  the  wife  of  that  friend.  Mr.  Beecher 
learns,  as  he  says,  and  bCiieves,  that  that  charge  was 
extorted  from  the  wife  the  importunity  and  the 
scheming  violence  of  the  husband,  and  yet  Mr.  Beecher, 
in  a  public  card  in  his  paper,  eulogizes  this  conspirator 
and  ruffian  against  his  wife's  honor  ana  peace.  For  three 
years  he  praised  him.  In  his  written  words  he  commends 
him  tor  his  kind  and  generous  treatment.  This  man  who, 
as  Mr.  Beecher  affects  to  believe,  had  committed,  not  this 
wrong  against  him  by  an  audacious  charge,  but  had 
made  his  wife  the  accomplice  of  the  outrage,  and  then 
through  the  entreaties  and  persuasive  explanations  of 
Mr.  3Ioulton  alone,  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  he 
had  done  all  wrong,  that  he  ought  not  to  have  advised 
separation,  or  have  advised  Bo  wen.  He  suddenly 
makes  up  his  mind  that  he  has  won,  imcon- 
sciousl3%  the  affections  of  Mrs.  TUton,  and  for  three 
long  years  he  is  surrounaed  by  this  horror  of  a  great 
darkness,  and  lives  upon  the  ragged  edge  of  despair  and 
remorse,  and  during  it  all  he  never  makes  a  single  in- 
quiry ro  learn  whether  it  be  true  or  not  that  he  has  won 
these  affections  of  the  wife,  or  that  he  has  thereby  intro- 
duced dissension  and  discord  and  imhappiness  into  the 
household  of  his  friend.  In  constant  communication 
with  tlie  parties,  free  to  learn  from  ]Mrs.  Tilton  whether 
or  not  his  suspicions  and  belief  were  true,  he  yet  lingers 
in  these  protracted  agonies  f  >r  these  three  years  

Judge  Neilson  [to  Mr.  Beach]— "Will  you  suspend  your 
argument  now,  Mr.  Beach  ? 

Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  will  pardon  me  but  a  single 
word,  which  will  conclude  what  I  have  to  say, 
somewhat  brealring  in  upon  it  ;  but  take 
that  story  even  in  its  imperfect  out- 
line, as  I  have  given  it,  and  is  it  credible— does  it  conform 
to  the  ordinary  rules  of  human  action,  to  the  instincts  of 
our  nature  ?  If  we  should  judge  this  man  as  we  would 
judge  ourselves,  or  our  fellow  men  generally,  by  the  prob- 
ability of  hia  theory  and  the  statements  of  his  defense, 
are  they  acceptable  to  the  intelligence  of  this  jury  %  I 
submit  to  you  that  in  themselves  they  are  intrinsically 
faulty  and  incredible.  It  is  upon  this  theory  alone  that  Mr. 
Beecher  founds  his  defense,  and  if  it  fails  he  falls,  and  if 
you  bring  to  the  test  of  it  your  ordinary  reason  and  judg- 


BY  MR.   BEACH.  1011 

ment,  it  seems  to  me  you  cannot  fail  to  detect  its  fallacy 
and  sophistry,  and  see  in  it  the  necessitous  creation  of  a 
great  and  ingenious  mind  driven  to  desperation  and  de- 
spair. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

GEN.  TRACY  CRITICISED. 
After  recess  the  proceedings  were  continued 
as  follows : 

Mr.  Beach— If  your  Honor  please,  I  have  requested  the 
policeman  several  times  to  keep  those  blinds  closed,  and 
he  disregards  my  request.  I  cannot  stand  here  and  speak 
in  this  draught. 

Judge  Neilson— The  officer  will  arrange  them  to  suit 
you. 

A  Juror— I  asked  him  to  open  them, 
Mr.  Beach  [to  the  officer  who  was   about  closing 
them.]— No,  Sir ;  never  mind,  let  it  be.  When  I  get  a  lit- 
tle warmer  I  shaU  pass  it  over.  Let  it  be,  if  you  please. 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  sorry  that  the  jury  should  not 
agree  with  the  counsel. 

]Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  hope  we  wdl  come  to  a  better  un- 
derstanding. Sir,  before  we  part,  though  that  parting  is 
very  close,  gentlemen,  for  I  have  but  one  more  duty  to 
perform  in  this  case,  and  it  is  not  the  least  of  the  many 
disagreeable  obligations  my  position  has  imposed  upon 
me.  I  am  to  speak  of  a  professional  brother,  and  there 
is  no  service  which  a  lawyer  renders  in  the  discharge 
of  the  obligations  of  his  profession  more  repulsive  and 
unpleasant  than  that.  The  profession  of  the  law,  I 
think,  is  peculiar  in  some  of  its  features  of  association, 
and,  I  think,  superior  to  all  other  classes  of  men  and  pro- 
fessions. There  is  none  of  the  mean  spirit  of  envy  and 
jealousy  ;  there  is  none  of  the  carping  and  backbiting 
which  too  often  disfigure  the  character  of  other 
professions.  We  acknowledge  the  attainments  and 
the  merits  of  our  fellows.  We  cheerfully  accord 
to  the  great  leaders  of  our  profession  •  their 
well-earned  and  deserved  position.  Nobody  disputes  the 
well-founded  and  meritorious  claims  of  my  learned  ad- 
versaries. No  man  feels  any  humiliation  when  he  wit- 
nesses a  great  professional  effort,  but  every  lawyer 
rather  feels  pride,  and  cheerfully  accords  the  deserved 
approbation.  AU  of  us  with  cheerful  accord  acknowl- 
edge, for  illustration,  Mr.  Charles  O'CoBor  as  the  leader 
of  OUT  profession,  its  great  master  and  exemplar;  nor 
does  any  other  of  his  distinguished  fellows  ever  honor 
himself  by  a  great  display  of  legal  learning  and  genius, 
or  by  a  great  and  successfid  effort  in  some  holy  cause, 
without  directing  to  himself  at  once  the  admiring  and 
grateful  reverence  of  his  professional  brethren. 

And  it  comes  to  be,  therefore,  quite  uncommon  that 
there  should  happen  any  such  occasion  as  public  animad- 
version of  the  professional  conduct  of  a  respected 
brother.  For  Mr.  Beniamin  F.  Tracy  I  have  no  feeling 
but  that  of  the  utmost  kindnesa,  and  I  speak  nothing  in 


1012  THE  T1LT0N-P2 

regard  to  his  attitude  and  counections  in  and  with  tLis 
case  trom  any  unfriendliness,  from  any  desii'e  to  injure 
his  feelings,  and  if  Mr.  Tracy  had  been  content  with  the 
simple  advocacy  of  the  cause  of  his  present  client,  I 
should  not  have  deemed  it  within  the  line  of  my  duty  to 
advert  at  all  to  his  position,  because  it  was  not  necessary 
to  the  proper  and  fearless  discussion  of  the  cause  I  repre- 
sent. It  was  without  the  line  of  the  evidence,  and  what- 
ever his  professional  taste  or  principle  may  have  led  him 
to  do  with  reference  to  his  double  obligation  to  the 
parties  in  this  case  was  immaterial  to  the  determination 
of  its  actual  merits.  But  when  Mr.  Tracy  chooses  to 
place  himself  upon  the  witness  stand  and  assail  the 
witnesses  who  have  been  produced  on  behalf  of  my 
client,  and  to  contradict  unequivocally  and  un- 
avoidably three  of  those  witnesses,  I  have 
no  choice  —  I  must  examine  his  pretensions 
as  a  witness,  and,  in  that  connection,  his  attitude  to  this 
case  as  a  lawyer.  I  beg  leave  further  to  premise,  gentle- 
men, that  the  relations  between  that  gentleman  and  my- 
self have  been  entirely  cordial,  and  nothing  that  has 
happened  or  shall  happen,  in  this  case,  will  intei-rupt  on 
my  part  that  friendliness  of  sentiment.  I  think  he  has 
erred ;  I  think  he  has  committed  a  professional  and  per- 
sonal error,  but  I  know  that  he  has  done  it  against  my 
sanction,  and  it  certainly  will  not  dimmish  the  feeling 
that  I  have  hitherto  entertained  for  that  gentleman. 
And  I  trust  that  nothing  I  shall  say  will  embitter  the 
sentiment  of  that  gentleman  toward  myself,  because  he 
must  know  that  my  utterances  are  extorted  by  my 
position.  I  repeat  that  Mr.  Tracy  offers  himself  as  a 
witness  in  this  case  in  direct  and  unwarrantable  contra- 
diction upon  a  material  issue  iu  the  case  to  three  wit- 
nesses—namely, Mr.  Tilton,  Mr.  Moulton,  and  Franklin 
Woodruff.  Whatever  you  may  say  or  think  in  regard  to 
Mr.  Tilton  or  Mr.  Moulton,  I  think  I  may  point 
to  the  character  and  reputation  of  Franklin 
Woodruff  as  entirely  unassailable  and  estimable- 
occupying  a  position  in  this  community  as  one  of  those 
honorable  and  enterprising  merchants  so  highly  lauded 
by  my  friend  Mr.  Porter,  as  a  gentleman  of  public  spirit, 
of  personal  purity  and  morality,  of  respectability  of  sta- 
tion, and  of  conduct  which  exalts  him  above  all  unkindly 
criticism.  Mr.  Tracy,  after  those  three  witnesses  had 
testified  that  Theodore  Tilton  in  the  interview  with  him 
did  charge  the  offense  of  adultery  against  Mr.  Beeoher— 
after  those  three  witnesses  had  deliberately  and  directly 
testified  that  Mr.  Tracy  had  counseled  under  the  circum- 
stances a  policy  of  silence  and  falsehood,  chooses  to  be- 
come a  witness  in  contradiction  of  their  statements.  The 
connection  of  Mi\  Tracy  with  all  this  transaction  in  its 
irregular  beginnings,  and  in  its  more  methodized  litiga- 
tion, is  not,  it  seems  to  me,  very  complimentary.  He  has 
a  facile  and  versatile  character,  peforming  several  parts 
in  this  drama,  and  performing  all  of  them  with  equal  zeal 
and  abandonment.   He  is,  first,  the  chosen  friend  and 


E(]HER  TRIAL. 

counselor,  through  Mr.  Moulton,  of  Theodore  Tilton.  He 
meets  the  two  in  company  with  their  friend  Woodruff  as 
adviser  upon  a  question  of  very  great  importance  to -Mr. 
Tilton,  and  he  receives  from  them  a  full  and  a  free  com- 
munication of  all  their  secrets  relating  to  that  particular 
transaction.  There  was  some  scruple  about  the  con- 
fidence which  was  thus  bestowed  upon  Mr.  Tracy.  Theo- 
dore Tilton  was  un willing  that  the  facts  affecting  the 
character  of  his  wife  and  his  family,  and  disclosing  the 
full  nature  of  the  association  between  Mr.  Beecher  and 
them,  should  be  communicated  to  a  third  party- to  Mr. 
Tracy.  And  with  that  prudence  which  generally  charac- 
terized Mr.  Tilton  iu  regard  to  his  relations  concerning 
this  affair,  he  exacted  from  Mr.  Tracy  his  pledge  of  word 
and  honor  that  he  would  not,  under  any  circumstances, 
thereafter  become  the  counsel  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
in  antagonism  to  Theodore  Tilton.  Mr.  Tracy  does  not 
deny  the  pledge,  either  in  spirit  or  in  terms.  And  yet 
we  see  him  next,  after  having  possessed  himself  of  the  se- 
crets of  Mr.  Tilton,  and  received  his  views  and  his 
declarations  in  regard  to  this  lamentable  affair,  imder 
this  pledge.  In  close  consultation  with  Mr.  Beecher  and 
his  other  advisers  in  regard  to  the  organization  of  a 
committee  which  is  to  judge  as  between  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  and  Theodore  TUton.  And,  after  organizing 
that  committee,  he  appears  as  the  counsel  opposed  to  the 
interests  of  Mr.  TUton  before  that  body,  and  as  the  lead- 
ing and  controlling  spirit  of  those  proceedings.  And 
then  he  appears  in  this  action,  active,  indefatigable,  ma- 
lignant, engaging  in  the  cross-examination  of  witnesses, 
bearing  his  full  part  and  responsibility  in  the  discharge 
of  professional  duty ;  and  then  as  the  deliberate  sponsor 
of  the  opening  address  for  the  defense  in  this  case,  fuU 
of  animosity,  of  denunciation,  of  untruth,  representing 
his  former  friends  and  confltTants  in  the  most  odious  of 
all  lights,  and  in  the  most  severe  and  reprehensible  lan- 
guage. And,  not  content  with  this,  when  his  mastier  is 
overborne  by  three  witnesses,  by  all  the  evidence  to 
which  I  have,  from  time  to  time,  alluded  in  this  case, 
when  the  stress  of  this  controversy  bears  apparently  with 
crushing  power  upon  this  defense,  Mr.  Tracy  leaps  in  the 
breach,  or  rather  into  the  gulf,  and  sacrifices  himself  for 
the  defense  of  his  client.  The  question  is  whether 
this  position  in  its  professional  and  moral  aspects 
justifies  the  hope  which  could  alone  have  prompted 
the  action,  that  the  word  of  Mr.  Tracy,  like  the 
word  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  is  to  overbear 
the  honor  and  oath  and  testimony  of  three  men  equally 
as  credible  as  themselves,  and  to  whom  honor  and  rep- 
utation and  fame  are  as  dear  as  to  Mr.  Tracy  or  Mr. 
Beecher.  My  learned  friends  announced  that  it  was  un- 
d«r  their  suggestion  and  with  their  approval  that  this 
course  was  pursued  by  Mr.  Tracy.  Both  these  gentlemen 
know  that  iu  the  ranks  of  professional  or  social  life  there 
are  no  two  gentlemen  to  whom  my  respectful  affection  is 
more  freely  and  liberally  tendered  than  to  them.  But  I 


SUMMING   UF  J 

differ  witli  them.  I  differ  -witti  tlieni  in  regard  to  the 
question  of  professional  propriety  and  of  personal  honor 
and  manliness.  And  it  is  to  me  a  matter  of  great  pain  and 
surprise  that  they  should  have  approved  or  counseled 
6uch  an  exhibition  of  what  I  conceive  professional  treach- 
ery and  personal  dishonor.  [Applause.] 

Judge  NeUson— One  moment ;  Mr.  Rogers,  spread  youi- 
oflScers  ahout  this  court-room  and  arrest  the  first  person 
you  see  maldng  a  noise.  I  will  submit  to  no  such  treat- 
ment from  any  person. 

Mr.  Beach— I  should  not  have  ventured  to  disagree  with 
gentlemen  so  eminent  and  respected  upon  my  own  ideas 
of  right.  But  I  had  been  instructed  for  long  years  that 
the  life  and  the  honor  of  our  profession  consisted  in  its 
fidelity  to  its  cause  and  its  client.  I  had  been  taught  to 
believe  that  the  pledge  of  a  man  and  ct  gentiemaii  was  to 
be  redeemed  under  all  conceiv  able  circumstances,  and  I 
had  been  taught  by  the  element^  as  well  as  by  the  judi- 
cature of  our  profession  that  no  lawyer  who,  under  the 
privilege  attaching  to  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client, 
had  received  a  communication  of  the  secrets  of  that  client 
could,  in  law,  or  in  justice,  anywhere,  without  the  per- 
mission of  that  client,  make  a  disclosure  of  them; 
that  the  power  of  the  law,  which  overreaches 
and  treads  down  mere  sentiments  and  sym- 
pathies, and  looks  only  to  the  administration  of 
justice  according  to  its  known  principle  that  the  law 
could  not  extract  from  the  houor  of  the  profession  the 
secrets  of  the  client. 

If  your  Honor  please,  the  principles  and  the  privilege 
to  which  I  allude  have  the  approbation  of  the  earliest 
authorities  and  sentiments  of  our  profession.  Justinian 
declared  in  his  Digest  of  the  Roman  Law,  Mandatis 
caviatur  ut  prcesicles,  ne  patroni  tn  caicsaciii  patrocinium 
prcestiterunt  testimonium  dicant  "—as  rendered,  "  It  is 
prescribed  in  the  rules  that  the  presiding  justices  are  to 
see  to  It  that  advocates  do  not  bear  testimony  in  any 
case  in  which  they  are  engaged."  The  most  distinguished 
French  jurist  of  the  last  century,  M.  Pothier,  comment- 
ing upon  this  in  his  incomparable  work  on  Obligations 
says  : 

Upon  the  same  foundation,  of  a  suspicion  of  falsehood, 
the  evidence  of  the  procurer  of  either  party  ought  not  to 
be  admitted.  Their  testimony  would  be  liable  to  the  sus- 
picion of  partiality  if  they  were  witnesses  in  favor  of 
their  parties,  and  there  would  be  an  indecency  in  admit- 
ting them  as  witnesses  as  against  them. 

And  our  own  standard  autQor,  Prof.  Greenleaf,  states 
ill  his  work  on  evidence  : 

It  has  in  England  l^'^en  held  a  very  objectionable  pro- 
ceeding on  the  part  of  an  attorney  to  give  evidence  w'len 
acting  as  advocate  in  the  cause,  and  a  suflflcient  ground 
for  a  new  trial.  But  in  the  United  States  no  case  has 
been  found  to  proceed  to  that  extent,  and  the  fact  is 
hardly  ever  known  to  occur.  But,  on  grounds  of  public 
policy,  and  for  the  purer  administration  of  justice,  the 
relation  of  lawyer  and  client  is  so  far  regarded  by  the 
rules  of  practice  in  some  courts,  as  that  the  lawyer  is  not 


3Y  ME.   BE  ACE,  1013 

permitted  to  be  both  advocate  and  witness  for  his  (.lieut 
in  the  same  cause.  Thus,  the  23d  of  the  Reyulce  Generates 
of  the  Supreme  Coiu't  of  Judicature  of  the  State  of  New- 
Hampshire  is,  "  No  atioruey  or  counsel  shall  be  permitted 
to  take  any  part  in  the  conduct  of  any  cause  before  a 
j  ury  after  he  shall  have  testified  for  his  client  in  the  same 
cause." 

And  some  authorities  are  referred  to.  In  Stone  agt. 
Byron,  to  be  foimd  in  Cowlings  and  Lowndes's  Practice 
Cases  at  page  393,  and  decided  in  1846,  the  plaiutift''s 
counsel  made  a  speech  tn  reply,  and  then  proposed  to  call 
himself  as  a  witness  to  contradict  the  defense  set  up. 
This  was  objected  to  by  the  defendant's  counsel,  but 
overruledby  the  Under-Sheriff  and  the  evidence  was  re- 
ceived. The  counsel  for  the  defendant  declined  to  cross- 
examine  him.  Upon  the  argument  after  the  rule  to  set 
aside  the  verdict,  it  was  contended  that,  however  im- 
proper and  inconvenient  such  a  course  might  be,  it  was 
no  sufficient  ground,  alone,  for  the  Court  to  grant  a  new 
trial,  since  the  Court  would  never  grant  a  new  trial 
where  the  result  would  be  the  same  which  it  would 
be  here,  as,  upon  a  new  trial,  the  plaintiff's 
attorney  might  become  competent  as  a  witness  by 
ceasing  to  act  as  advocate.  In  support  of  the  rule  it  was 
successfully  argued  it  would  be  a  practice  attended  with 
the  most  mischievous  consectuences  if  an  attorney,  or 
any  other  person,  acting  as  the  advocate  of  a  party, 
could  afterward  present  himself  before  the  jury  as  a  wit- 
ness in  support  of  those  statements  he  had  been  making 
in  the  course  of  his  speech.  The  characters  of  an  advo- 
cate and  a  witness  should  be  sedulously  kept  apart. 
The  one  was  ti  person  zealously  and  warmly  espousing 
the  interests  of  his  client;  the  other  a  person  sworn 
faithfully  and  impartially,  without  bias  or  favor  to  either 
party,  to  tell  the  truth  of  what  he  had  witnessed  or  heard. 
The  jurv  might  have  considerable  difficulty  in  separating 
those  statements  which  they  had  heard  from  a  person  as 
advocate,  from  those  which  they  had  heard  from  the 
same  person  as  witness.  Patterson,  Justice,  pronouncing 
the  opinion,  said : 

Here  the  attorney  for  the  plaintiff  makes  a  speech  and 
conducts  the  cause  as  his  advocate,  and  examines  the 
witnesses  and  addresses  the  jury  in  reply  to  the  defend- 
ant's counsel,  and  afterward  calls  himself  as  a  witness. 
I  must  say  that  I  do  not  think  such  a  course  of  i)roceed- 
ing  is  proper  or  consistent  with  the  due  administration  of 
justice.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  his  evidence 
ought  not  to  have  been  received,  and,  having  been  re- 
ceived, that  there  ought  to  be  a  new  trial. 

In  Dunn  agt.  Packwood,  to  be  found  in  the  11th  Jurist 
at  242,  the  verdict  given  after  the  attomey  of  the  plain- 
tiff had  given  e^adence  in  the  case  was  set  aside,  without 
counsel  being  called  upon  to  support  the  rule  nisi.  Earle, 
Justice,  said : 

I  must  make  the  rule  absolute  for  a  new  trial  on  the 
first  ground.  I  think  it  a  very  objectionable  proceeding 
on  the  part  of  an  attorney  to  give  evidence  when  acting 
as  advocate  in  the  cause,  and  a  rule  absolute  lor  a  new 
trial  was  granted. 

In  Cobbett  agt.  Hudson,  in  Ellis  and  Blackburn,  Mr. 


1014  im  TILTON-B 

Chief-Justice  Campbell  delivering  the  judgment  of  the 
Court  of  Queen's  Bench,  Campbell,  Coleridge,  Whlteman, 
and  Earle,  being  associate  justices,  Campbell,  Chief-Jus- 
tice, expressed  the  strong  disapprobation  of  sucb  a  prac- 
tice, as  permitting  a  party  to  act  alternately  as  advocate 
and  witness,  and  further  said : 

We  may  hope  that  without  any  positive  rule  against 
a  party  addressing  the  jury  and  being  examine^  as  a  wit- 
ness ou  oath,  on  his  own  behalf,  a  practice  so  objection- 
able is  not  likely  to  spring  up  for  it  is  not  only  contrary 
to  good  taste  and  good  feeling,  but,  as  it  must  be  revolt- 
ing to  the  minds  of  the  jury,  it  will  generally  be  injurious 
to  those  who  attempt  it.  In  such  a  case  as  the  present 
there  is  not  the  smallest  color  for  resorting  to  it,  for  the 
plaintiff  suing  in  forma  pmiperis  had  counsel  assigned  to 
"him  who  must  be  supposed  to  have  been  ready  to  support 
at  the  trial  the  certificate  he  had  given  that  the  plaintiff 
had  a  good  cause  of  action. 

But,  your  Houor,  in  those  States  where  the  law  does  not 
extend  to  the  limit  of  the  English  practice,  so  far  as  to 
grant  new  trials  for  an  impropriety  of  that  character, 
the  practice  is  most  seriously  condemned ;  and  I  think 
there  is  no  precedeat  to  be  found  in  the  books  where  a 
lawyer  has  ever  testified  in  the  cause  in  which  he  was 
employed,  to  a  material  question  at  issue,  and  has  con- 
tinued after  his  evidence,  connected  with  the  case,  has 
ever  met  the  approval  of  a  coiu-t ;  though  some  of  the 
decisions  do  recognize  a  possible  emergency  in  which  a 
lawyer  may  properly  be  called  to  testify  for  his  client, 
but  in  such  case  uniformly  recommend  and  require  that 
he  shoiild  at  once  sever  his  connection  as  counsel  with 
the  particular  cause. 

In  Potter  agt.  Ware,  in  Ist  Cushing's  Reports,  Mass., 
Metcalf,  Justice,  said : 

In  most  cases  counsel  cannot  testify  for  their  clients 
-without  subjecting  themselves  to  just  reprehension.  But 
there  may  be  cases  in  which  they  can  do  it,  not  only 
without  dishonor,  but  in  which  it  is  their  duty  to  do  it. 
Such  cases,  however,  are  rare,  and  whenever  they  occur 
they  necessarily  cause  great  pain  to  counsel  of  the  right 
spirit. 

In  Reid  agt.  Calcock,  1st  Nott  &  McCord,  Johnson, 
Justice,  says : 

It  is  a  matter  of  much  delicacy,  and  one  which  the  pro- 
fession ought,  and  do,  much  to  their  credit,  usually  avoid 
when  it  is  not  indispensably  necessary. 

In  The  State  agt.  Woodside,  9th  Iredell,  Nash  says  that 
it  was  the  practice  to  receive  such  testimony  in  the  courts 
of  North  Carolina,  but  added  : 

It  is  a  practice  not  to  be  encouraged,  and  in  most  cases 
has,  we  believe,  been  accompanied  by  a  surrender  on  the 
part  of  the  attorney  of  his  brief  in  the  case. 

In  Little  agt.  McKeon,  1st  Sandford,  of  our  own  courts, 
Sandford,  Justice,  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Court, 
animadverted  strongly  upon  "  the  degradation  of  the 
ch-,ic'.-,lor  of  the  bar,  and  the  probable  injury  to  the 
cau-o  oi  truth  and  justice,  *****  by  means  of  at- 
torneys and  counselors  testifying  in  the  suits  which  they 
were  conducting,"  and  he  said  : 

Wc  tLink  the  evil  will  work  its  own  cure.  Attorneys 


fJEGMBB  TRIAL, 

as  well  as  counselors  of  standing  and  character  will 
never,  except  in  extreme  cases,  present  themselves  be- 
fore a  jury  as  witnesses  in  their  own  causes,  on  litigated 
questions,  and  in  such  cases  only  because  of  some  unfore- 
seen necessi.ty.  Those  gentlemen  who  habitually  suffer ' 
themselves  to  be  used  as  witnesses  for  their  clients  soon 
become  marked  both  by  their  associates  and  by  the 
courts,  and  forfeit  in  character  more  than  ever  wiU  be 
compensated  to  them  by  success  in  such  clients'  contro- 
versies. 

Moreover,  testimony  by  an  attornej^  of  such  admissions 
made  to  him  by  the  opposite  party,  are  always  regarded 
with  extreme  suspicion  and  distrust  by  both  courts  and 
juries. 

The  same  learned  judge,  in  the  same  case,  referred  ap- 
provingly to  an  article  in  the  Penn.  Law  Journal,"  sixth 
volume,  page  405,  entitled  "  Lawyers  no  witnesses  in 
their  own  cases."  I  have  read  so  much  from  this.  Sir,' 
that  I  omit  quotations  from  this  article  in  the  "Penn.  Jour- 
nal," only  a  portion  of  which  I  intended  to  read,  as  it  is 
very  lengthy  and  exhaustive  upon  the  subject,  in  the  re- 
view both  of  authorities  and  the  discussion  of 
principle.  And  I  beg  leave,  also,  to  refer 
your  Honor  -to  the  case  of  Tell  agt.  Tread- 
well,  to  be  found  at  5th  Wendell,  676. 
That  is  the  judgment  of  the  courts  upon  the  propriety 
of  such  an  exhibition  as  we  have  had  from  Mr.  Tracy. 
But  there  is  another  element  in  that  position  which  did 
not  appear  in  the  cases  in  which  these  learned  judges  ex- 
pressed their  opinions,  and  the  judgment  of  the  law  upon 
it.  Mr.  Tracy  was  not  simply  the  advocate  of  Mr. 
Beechcr,  and  a  witness  on  his  behalf,  but  he  had  given  a 
pledge  under  the  circumstances  to  which  I  have  referred, 
that  he  would  occupy  no  such  position.  The  circum- 
stances are  intensified  and  more  deeply  characterized  by 
the  circumstance  that  Mv.  Tracy  was  appearing  in  oppo- 
sition to  that  pledge,  to  the  assurance  under  which  he 
had  received  from  Mr.  Tilton  his  confidence.  Now,  re- 
member, gentlemen,  that  Mr.  Tracy  testified  upon  the 
stand  that  he  was  still  connected  professionally  with 
this  cause,  and  with  Mr.  Beecher,  that  ha 
had  not  thought  it  due  to  the  delicacy  of 
liis  position  that  he  should  retire  and  relieve 
himself  from  this  double  and  suspicious  character,  and 
he  has  appeared  in  the  subsequent  stages  of  the  case,  fol- 
lowing his  evidence,  actively  in  that  character.  What  la 
the  excuse  given  for  it  1  Why,  Mr.  Tracy  saj^s,  "  Mr.  Til- 
ton,  you  changed  your  ground ;  you  altered  your  com- 
plaint ;  and  therefore  I  am  relieved  and  discharged  from 
my  personal  and  professional  obligation  to  you.  You 
charged"— this,  in  substance,  he  says— "you  charged  to 
me  that  there  was  no  offense  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher 
except  a  base  solicitation  to  your  wife  to  impm"ity,  and 
now  you  have  changed  that  accusation  to  adultery." 
Suppose  that  to  be  true,  did  that  justify  Mr.  Tracy  in  re- 
vealing and  swearing  to  the  transactions  and  declara- 
tions made  by  Mr.  Moulton  to  him,  under  the  influence  of 
his  pledge  to  secrecy?   Mr,  Tracy  might  have  said,  per- 


SVMMIXG    UF  BY  MB,  BEACH, 


1015 


liaps,  •vvitli  entire  propriety,  "Mr.  Tilton,  you  liave 
dianged  your  accusation  against  Mr.  Beeclier ,  I  can  no 
longer  serve  you ;  you  must  employ  other  counsel."  But 
could  lie  take  a  single  step  beyond  that  consistently  with 
propriety  and  honorable  obligation,  and  reveal  to  Mr. 
Beecher,  or  anybody  else,  the  secrets  extorted  from  Til- 
t-on by  the  relation  and  the  pledge  in  which  he  stood,  and 
which  he  voluntarily  gave  to  him,  and  which  Mr.  Tilton 
refused  to  confide  to  him  imtil  he  had  given  the  pledge  ? 
Will  any  gentleman  of  right  principle,  of  true  spiilt  and 
manliness,  justify  that  revelation  %  He  may  approve  the 
action  of  :\Ir.  Tracy  in  separating  himself  from  a  cause 
which  he  believed  to  be  dishonest  and  unfair,  if  he  did 
§0  believe ;  from  a  caiise  which  was  changing  its  aspect 
accordmg  to  the  necessities  of  circumstances ;  but  will 
any  gentleman  of  sound  mai^y  principle  uphold  a  lawyer 
in  revealing  the  secrets  of  the  cause  which  he  deserts, 
obtained  under  not  an  implied  but  an  expressed  and  posi- 
tive pledge  of  fidelity  to  the  cause.  But,  gentlemen,  is  it 
true  that  Mr.  Tilton  did  change  his  ground  ?  I  do  not  stop 
to  refer  to  the  evidence  ol  either  Tilton  or  Moulton,  or 
Mr.  Woodruff,  except  perhaps  a  word  or  two  from  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Woodrufi  upon  that  preposition.  It  is 
suflBcient  for  me  to  say,  and  if  cLuestioned  we  will  refer  to 
the  record,  that  these  three  witnesses  all  afllrm  that  the 
charge  made  by  Mr.  Tilton  was  in  express  terms  criminal 
intimacy,  or  adultery,  in  unmistakable  language. 

AXOTHER  DISPUTE. 

Mr.  Shearman— We  do  question  that,  Mr. 
Beach. 

Mr.  Beach— In  what  particular  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— We  deny  tliat  Mr.  Tilton  ever  alleged  so 
in  the  evidence,  and  we  deny  that  Mr.  Moulton  has  ever 
BO  alleged,  except  that  Mr.  3Ioulton  says  he  told  Mr. 
Beecher  so  ;  but  Mr.  Moulton  has  never  taken  the  respon- 
sibility of  swearing  that  he  told  Mr.  Tracy  so  in  direct 
terms.   Mr.  Tilton's  evidence  

Mr.  Morris— You  need  n't  argue  it. 

Mr.  Sheannan— I  am  answering  ilr.  Beach. 

Mr.  Morris— No,  you  are  not  answering  him  ;  you  are 
arguing. 

Mr.  Shearman— Mr.  Tilton's  evidence  does  not  cover 
the  point  at  all,  either  the  direct  or  rebuttal. 

Mr.  Beach— I  cannot  refer  to  Tilton.  Mr.  Moulton 
swears— 

I  said  to  Mr.  Beecher,  "  I  told  Mr.  Tracy  the  truth  of 
the  matter.  I  told  him  the  fact  in  the  case  as  it  was,  that 
you  had  been  guilty  of  sexual  intercourse  with  Mrs. 
Elizabeth  Tilton,  and  he  said,  in  the  presence  of  my  part- 
ner, that  if  that  was  true  it  must  be  concealed  at  all 
hazards." 

And  then  folio  \vs  a  general  relation  of  the  interview. 

I  also  informed  Mr.  Boecher  afterward,  and  said  to  him 
that  we  had  a  consultation  at  our  house— at  my  house,  in 
my  study,  between  Grcn.  Tracy,  Mr.  Woodruff,  and  my- 
eelf,  and  between  Gen.  Tracy,  Mr.  Woodruff,  and  Mr. 


Tilton  au.d  myself,  and  that  at  that  interview  I  told  Mr 
Tracy  again  the  truth. 

Mr.  Shearman— Will  you  permit  me  to  say  a  word  f 

Mr.  Beach— What  ? 

Mr.  Shearman— Will  you  permit  me  to  »ay  a  word  % 
Mr.  Beach— Certainly. 

Mr.  Shearman— With  Mr.  Beach's  permission  I  would  call 
his  attention  to  the  fact  that  although  Mr.  Moulton  on  hla 
original  examination-in-chief  was  not  permitted  to  testify 
what  was  the  actual  fact  of  the  conversation  betweea 
himself  and  Mr.  Tracy,  but  was  required  to  confine  him- 
self to  the  conversation  between  himself  and  Mr. 
Beecher,  yet  Mr.  Tracy  being  called  after  Mr.  Woodruff 
had  been  called,  Mr.  Woodruff  testifying  to  what  the  con- 
versation was,  and  Mr.  Tracy  contradicting  that,  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton  were  both  recalled  and  neither  of 
them  undertook  to  contradict  Gen.  Tracy  upon  that  vital 
point,  and  neither  INIr.  Moulton  nor  Mr.  Tilton  has  affirma- 
tively sworn  that  ilr.  Tilton  on  that  occasion  told  Mr. 
Tracy  that  the  charge  was  adultery. 

Mr.  Beach— Moulton  and  Tilton  and  Woodruff  were  not 
reexamined  upon  those  points,  becau.se  your  Honor  said 
where  there  was  irreconcilable  conflict  between  the 
former  evidence  of  these  :^arties  and  that  given  by  Mr. 
Tracy,  or  any  other  person,  it  was  utterly  unnecessary 
and  inadmissible  to  recall  those  witnesses. 

Mr.  Shearman— One  moment,  with  your  permission. 
One  word— Mi-.  Beach  kindly  permits  me  to  say  a  word. 
The  point  of  it  is  this,  your  Honor,  that  Mr.  Moulton  and 
Mr.  Tilton  had  neither  of  them  sworn  on  their  direct 
original  evidence-in-chief  that  the  charge  mad©  to  Mr. 
Tracy  was  adultery ;  therefore  Mr.  Tracy  was  not  contra- 
dicting Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Tilton,  and  when  they  were 
recalled  they  would  have  conti-adicted  Mr.  Tracy  upon 
that  new  issue  as  to  them,  which  they  did  not  do. 

]V[r.  Morris— Mr.  Beecher  contradicted  :Mr.  Moulton. 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  read,  Sir,  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Moul- 
ton, andlE  that  is  not  a  clear  affirmance  of  a  communi- 
cation to  Mr.  Tracy  of  the  charge  of  adultery,  why  I  am 
tmable  to  imderstand  its  force  and  effect ;  and  if  hy  any 
sophistry  or  equi vocation  my  learned  friends  can  avoid 
the  force  of  that  proof,  we  will  refer  for  a  moment— no,  I 
will  not,  gentlemen— to  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Woodruff,  be- 
cause it  is  conceded,  you  remember,  that  he  swore  that 
before  the  communication  between  the  three,  at  Moul- 
ton's  house,  in  a  private  interview  between  Mr.  Tracy 
and  Mr.  Woodruff,  Mr.  Woodruff  then  informed  Mr.  Tracy 
that  the  charge  was  adultery. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  Mi-.  Woodruff  did,  but  Mr.  Wood- 
ruff does  not  swear  that  Mr.  Tilton  did ;  no  one  has  sworn 
that. 

]VIr.  Beach— Well,  is  it  necessary,  my  friend,  to  repeat 
what  you  have  said  so  emphatically  several  times! 
[Laughter.l  Any  reasonable  interruption  I  am  willing  to 
submit  to.  But  is  this  theory  of  professional  conduct,  and 
of  a  client's  privilege,  upon  which  the  excuse  of  Mr.  Tracy 


1016 


THE   TILTON-BEECHEB  TRIAL. 


is  founded,  commendable  or  admissible  ?  If  Mr.  Tracy  is 
employed  by  a  man  who  is  accused  of  manslaughter,  and 
his  client  reveals  to  him  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
transaction  npon  which  the  indictment  rests,  and  it  hap- 
pens (as  it  has  frequently  happened)  that  that  indict- 
ment is  withdrawn,  and  a  new  one  for  homicide  pre- 
sented, would  Mr.  Tracy  feel  himself  at  liberty  to 
testify  against  his  client  and  reveal  what  had  been 
communicated  to  him  while  he  was  defending  him  for 
the  lesser  oflfense  1  And  so,  if  you  reverse  the  proposi- 
tion, and  if  a  client  (as  very  often  bappens  to  be  the  case) 
misrepresents  the  facts  of  his  cause  to  his  lawyer,  they 
turn  out  to  be  different,  if  he  has  any  consciousness  of 
weakness  and  wrong,  and  conceals  the  truth  of  his  case, 
and  the  lawyer  discovers  it,  can  he  abandon  his  client's 
cause  and  testify  to  what  his  cUent  told  him  while  the  re- 
lation of  attorney  and  client  exists  1 

Mr.  Shearman— WeU,  Mr.  Beach  

Mr.  Beach— Well,  in  the  name  o\  heaven,  talk  until  you 
get  tired ! 

Mr.  Shearman— Well,  if  your  Honor  please,  it  is  a  mat- 
ter in  which  I  am  sure  Mr.  Beach  will  bear  with  me  on 
account  of  the  relations  involved.  I  think  my  learned 
friend  is  entirely  mistaken  in  assuming  for  a  moment 
that  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  was  even  claimed 
to  exist  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Tracy. 

Mr.  Beach— I  did  not  assume  it,  and  I  have  not  dis- 
cussed it  upon  that  ground. 

Mr.  Shearman — I  was  going  to  say  one  thing  more. 

Mr.  Beach— Well. 

Mr.  Shearman— That  the  decision  of  your  Honor  admit- 
ting the  evidence  of  Mr.  Woodruff— [confusion  in  the  au- 
dience] I  should  like  to  know,  your  Honor,  whether  the 
gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  are  to  be  allowed  to  speak 
and  your  Honor  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  hear  me.  The 
audience  seem  to  think  that  they  are  the  best  judges  of 
when  you  should  hear  the  counsel  and  when  not.  I  was 
going  to  say,  your  Honor,  that  you  were  asked  to  decide 
that  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Woodruff  was  admissible  upon 
the  express  gi^ound  that  in  this  interview  Mr.  Tracy  rep- 
resented Mr.  Beecher,  and  came  there  as  Mr.  Beecher's 
representative  and  attorney ;  and  on  that  ground  the  evi- 
dence was  admitted,  and  that  alone. 

Mr.  Morris — Are  you  through,  now  I 

Mr.  Shearman— Therefore  Mr.  Tracy  was,  from  the  be- 
ginuing,  Mr.  Beecher's  representative  and  attorney,  and 
not  Mr.  Tilton's. 

Mr.  Morris— Are  you  through  now  1 

Mr.  Shearman— I  am  through. 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  not  argued.  Sir— I  think  I  have  too 
much  good  sense  to  argue  that  this  evidence  shows  any 
such  relation  as  that  of  attorney  and  client  between  Mr. 
Tracy  and  Mr.  Tilton.  But,  does  Mr.  Tracy  place  him- 
self upon  that  narrow  and  finj  distinction?  Does  the 
lawyer  who  comes  Into  the  presence  of  an  adversary 
^arty  and  pledgee  to  that  party  his  word  and  honor  that 


he  will  not  be  engaged  in  any  future  litigation  b&tween 
the  contesting  parties  against  the  one  with  whom  he  con- 
sults— can  he  receive  the  commimication  of  the  secrets 
of  that  opposite  party,  and  afterward  disclose  them, 
without  a  depth  of  personal  disgrace  and  professional 
infamy  against  which  the  highest  in  the  land  could  not 
stand,  against  an  indignant  and  outraged  profession  ? 
[Applause.] 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen,  you  must  be  quiet. 

THE  ARGUMENT  AGAIN  RESUMED. 
Mr.  Beach— Tliat  pledge  was  given.  The 

principle,  the  sentiment  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
the  privilege  which  shelters  the  client  fi'om  the  treachery 
of  his  counsel  is  involved  in  the  actual  and  precise  rela- 
tion existing  between  Tracy  and  Tilton.  That  sentiment 
which  makes  a  man  a  gentleman  is  involved  in  that  rela- 
tion. Mr.  Tracy,  or  his  advocates,  may  skulk  behind  the 
distinction  that  he  was  not  technically  an  attorney  when 
he,  appealed  to,  upon  the  ground  of  professional  relation 
and  duty,  assumed  to  place  it  and  his  obligation  and  his 
pledge  upon  that  relation.  Do  you  forget  that  Mr.  Tilton 
said  to  him :  "  Why,  I  do  not  understand  the  etiquette  of 
your  prof ession ;  but  I  wish  to  know,  if  I  make  communi- 
cations to  you  here  and  now,  whether  you  can  hereafter 
appear  in  antagonism  to  me."  Do  you  forget  the  answer 
of  Tracy :  "No  matter,  Mr.  Tilton,  about  the  etiquette  of 
our  profession ;  but  the  communications  you  make  to  m© 
will  be  sacred." 

Mr.  Tracy  must  meet  this  question  upon  its  principle, 
unhidden  by  any  technicalities.  He  has  challenged  the 
position  and  the  discussion.  My  learned  friends  have 
done  it ;  and  it  is  a  question  which  must  be  decided  in  the 
judgment  of  the  profession  and  the  community,  or  else 
the  idea  of  privilege  as  between  attorney  and  client  is  a 
legal  mockery  ;  it  is  a  legal  pitfall.  And  if  the  profession 
wiU  countenance,  under  these  cii'cumstances,  a  treacher- 
ous revelation  of  facts  thus  obtained,  the  profession  will 
become,  and  it  ought  to  become,  a  by- word  and  a  scorn. 
At  the  end  of  Ram  on  "  Pacts  "  is  a  collection  of  50  reso- 
lutions in  regard  to  professional  deportment,  taken  from 
Hoffman's  course  of  legal  study— an  authority  upon  the 
question  of  professional  deportment  that  1  think  will 
scarcely  be  questioned  by  any.  The  eighth  of  those  reso- 
lutions adopted  by  that  distinguished  gentleman  is  this  : 

If  I  have  ever  had  any  connection  with  a  cause,  I  never 
will  permit  myself,  when  that  connection  is  for  any  rea- 
son severed,  to  be  engaged  on  the  side  of  my  former  an- 
tagonist ;  nor  shall  any  change  in  the  formal  aspect  of 
the  cause  induce  me  to  regard  it  as  a  ground  of  excep- 
tion. It  is  a  poor  apology  for  being  found  on  the  op- 
posite side  that  the  present  is  but  the  ghost  of  the  former 
case. 

I  will  not  pursue,  gentlemen,  this  line  of  rem  irk.  I 
have  said  all  that  I  think  my  duty  to  my  cause  requires, 
and  I  leave  that  subject  with  a  regret  that  I  was  cniu- 
pelled  to  say  anything.  The  subject  will  pass  to  the  judg- 


SUMMING    UP  . 

ment  of  otliers,  and  that  judgment  I  have  no  doubt  will 
be  discreet  and  wise,  and  so  emphatic  that  there  will  be 
little  doubt  hereafter  in  regard  to  the  proprieties  which 
we  have  been  discussing. 

MR.  BEACH'S  PERORATION. 
My  argument  now,  gentlemen,  is  finished. 

All  these  disagreeable  topics  have  passed,  and  I  am  re- 
joiced that  I  am  relieved.  I  hope  forever,  from  them  ;  but 
please  suffer  me  a  few  words  in  conclusion.  We  have 
communed  together  a  long  time  upon  great  themes,  lift- 
ing us  above  the  littleness  of  common  controversy. 
They  are  associated  with  the  highest  interests  of  human- 
ity. They  affect  the  civilization  of  the  age.  Truth, 
morality,  religion,  divine  and  human  law,  all  the  great 
topics  which  stir  the  enthusiasm  of  our  nature,  have 
mingled  with  our  deliberations.  It  is  impossible  that  we 
should  not  feel  something  of  their  purifying  inspiration. 
The  selfish  and  petty  struggles  of  ordinary  life  often 
trammel  and  debase  our  thought,  chaining  our  souls  to 
mercenaiy  calculation  and  sordid  desire. 

If  anj-thing  can  exalt  us  to  a  higher  spirituality,  to  a 
nobler  conception  of  truth  and  duty,  it  Is  a  scene  like 
this,  so  full  of  dignified  interest  and  weighty  responsibil- 
ity. We  must  rise  to  this  great  occasion  or  we  belittle 
ourselves  and  dishonor  our  own  nature.  Most  sensibly 
have  I  felt  my  inability  worthily  to  meet  the  duty  of  my 
position,  and  struggle  with  the  perplexities  of  this  wide 
debate,  in  the  face  of  adversaries  so  cunning  of  defense, 
80  powerful  and  skUlea  as  my  eminent  friends.  But 
the  race  la  not  always  to  the  swift  nor  the 
battle  to  the  strong.  The  sling  of  the  shepherd  very 
often  vanquishes  the  might  of  the  giant.  Weakness  is 
strong  in  the  energy  of  truth.  I  have  no  faith  in  my  own 
skill,  but  I  have  abiding  hope  in  the  supreme  justice 
-which  governs  the  world,  marking  the  sparrow  as  it 
falls.  On  the  great  seal  of  your  city  is  engraved  the 
noble  motto,  "  Right  makes  might,"  and  on  any  day  of 
public  celebration  it  shines  upon  the  flag"  which  Is 
flung  out  from  the  dome  of  your  C?lty  Hall.  It  is 
the  sentiment  which  encourages  and  strengthens 
weakness  in  its  contests  with  arrogant  strength.  It  is 
the  sentiment  which  has  sustained  my  client  in  all  the 
diffloulties  and  discouragements  of  this  contest,  and  it 
will  sustain  and  eventually,  I  trust,  redeem  him,  because 
It  bears  the  promise  of  Him  whose  words  shall  never  fail. 
Wearied  and  worn  with  this  trial,  gentlemen,  I  shall  part 
from  you  with  respectful  regret.  Our  long  association, 
bringmg  us  Into  daily  intimacy,  Impresses  me  with 
"kindly  sympathies  and  interest  for  each  of  you.  We 
have  stood  together  before  this  community  animated  by 
a  common  object,  seeking  after  the  right  in  honest  sin- 
cerity. The  distempered  plea  of  turbulent  passions  has 
been  against  the  altar  at  which  we  serve.  The  boister- 
ous interests  and  sympathies  of  an  Interested  people 
Jiave  tried  the  firm  f  oimdation  of  this  temple,  but  th  e 


7  ME.   BEACH.  1017 

spirit  of  justice  sees  nothing  of  the  tumult,  hears  nothing 
of  the  nproar.  Calm  and  confident,  she  leans  trustingly 
upon  a  juror's  oath.  Your  consciences  uphold  the  shaking 
temple  and  the  tottering  altar.  If  they  weaken  and  fail, 
if  the  strong  pillars  of  honesty  and  truth  give  way,  tem- 
ple and  altar  and  God  sink  to  a  common  ruin.  The  strug- 
gle this  day  is  between  the  law  and  a  great  character  and 
a  great  church.  If  the  latter  triumph,  nnd  the  law  is 
trodden  down,  woe  unto  him  who  calls  evil  good,  and 
good  evU. 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  it  needs  not  that  I  should 
express  the  common  sentiment  of  my  associates  and 
myself,  as  we  recall  the  intelligent  dignity  and  fearless 
learning  with  which  you  have  guided  us  through  the 
tangled  mazes  of  this  trial.  You  can  receive  no  nobler 
tribute  than  that  offered  by  our  adversaries.  Contesting 
every  position  with  animated  zeal,  and  sprinkling 
this  record  with  objections,  they  acknowledge 
with  inimitable  candor  the  entire  accuracy 
of  your  numerous  decisions.  Your  Honor,  therefore, 
has  the  gi-atifi  cation  to  know  that  you  have  worked  no 
Injustice  to  this  defendant.  Sir,  I  indtQge  the  hope  that 
the  friendly  regard  with  which  you  have  honored  me, 
like  my  own  warm  respect  for  youi'self ,  will  be  deepened 
by  the  remembrance  of  those  toilsome  but  pleasant 
days. 

I  cannot  part,  Sir,  with  this  occasion  without  acknowl- 
edging my  obligations  to  my  noble  and  tried  associates. 
If  any  merit  has  attended  my  efforts  it  is  due  to  their 
sagacity  and  wise  promptings.  Posting  me  in  the  front 
of  this  battle,  they  have  yet  stood  its  true  leaders  and 
champions.  It  has  been  a  regret  and  a  loss  that  unavoid- 
able circumstances  have  withdrawn  my  very  learned  and 
accomplished  friend,  Mr.  Pryor,  so-much  fi-om  our  side. 
If  he  has  not  struck  so  many  blows  in  the  field,  he  has 
nevertheless  been  the  wisdom  of  our  cabinet.  Deeply 
are  we  all  indebted,  and  especially  myself,  to  his  ready 
and  large  learning  and  judicious  counsel. 

You  will  credit  me,  Sir,  when  I  again  declare  that  the 
duty  I  have  performed  has  been  most  unwelcome  and 
painful.  I  have  not  spoken  aught  in  malice.  I  leave 
this  case  without  the  slightest  asperity  of  feeling  toward 
any,  filled  with  unaffected  admiration  for  the  transcend- 
ent qualities  and  generous  comtesies  of  my  distinguished 
antagonists.  No  man  venerates  more  profoundly  than 
myself  the  magnificent  genius  of  this  defendant.  His 
large  contributions  to  the  literature  of  the  times  excite 
the  sentiment  of  which  Macaulay  spoke  in  his  essay  on 
the  Life  of  Bacon.  Eichashelsln  mental  endowments, 
prodigal  as  his  labors  have  been,  they  can  shelter  no 
offense  against  the  law. 

Genius  as  lofty,  learning  more  rare  and  profound, 
could  not  save  Bacon.  He  sinned  and  fell.  Upon  his 
memory  history  has  written  the  epitaph,  "  The  greatest 
and  the  meanest  of  mankind."    Toward  great  men  in 


1018 


TEE   TlLTON-BEJiJCEEB  TRIAL. 


disgrace,  like  those  who  fall,  Whittier,  New-England's 
gifted  poet,  writes  La  his  poem  entitled  **  Ichabod :" 

So  fallen !  so  lost  I  the  light  withdraw!* 

Which  once  he  wore  ! 
The  glory  from  his  gray  hairs  gone 

Forevermore ! 
Eevile  him  not— the  Tempter  hath 

A  snare  for  all, 
And  pitying  tears,  not  scorn  and  wrath, 

Befit  his  fall  I 
O,  dumb  he  passion's  stormy  rage, 

When  he  who  might 
Have  lifted  up  and  led  his  age 

Falls  back  in  night. 
Bcorn !  would  the  angels  laugh  to  mark 

A  bright  soul  driven, 
Fiend-goaded,  down  the  endless  dark, 

From  hope  and  heaven  I 
Let  not  the  land  once  proud  of  him 

Insult  him  now. 
Nor  brand  with  deeper  shame  his  dim, 

Dishonored  brow. 
But  let  its  humbled  sons  instead, 

From  sea  to  lake, 
A  long  lament,  as  for  the  dead, 

In  sadness  make. 
Of  all  we  loved  and  honored,  naught 

Save  power  I'emains — 
A  fallen  angel's  pride  of  thought, 

Still  strong  in  chains. 
AH  else  is  gone ;  from  tUose  great  eyes 

The  soul  has  fled : 
When  faith  is  lost,  when  honor  dies, 

The  man  is  dead  ! 
Then,  pay  the  reverence  of  old  days 

To  his  dead  fame ; 
Walk  backward,  with  averted  gaze, 

And  hide  the  shame  ! 

Gentlemen,  I  commit  this  case  to  you  in  the  sublime 
language  of  the  great  orator  who  speaks  to  you  from  his 
grave  at  Marshfield  : 

With  conscience  satisfied  with  the  discharge  of  duty, 
no  consequences  cau  harm  you.  There  is  no  evil  that  we 
cannot  either  face  or  fly  from  but  the  consciousness  of 
duty  disregarded.  A  sense  of  duty  pursues  us  ever.  It 
Is  omnipresent,  like  the  Deity.  If  we  take  to  ourselves 
the  wings  of  the  morning  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth,  duty  performed  or  duty 
violated  is  still  with  us  for  our  happiness  or  misery,  and 
if  we  say  darkness  shall  cover  us,  in  darkness  as  in  th« 
light  our  obli.^fXtions  are  yet  with  us.  We  cannot  escape 
their  power  nor  Ay  from  their  presence.  They  are  with 
US  in  this  life,  will  be  with  us  at  its  close,  and  in  that 
sense  inconceivable  solemnity  which  lies  yet  further  on- 
ward we  shall  still  find  ourselves  surrounded  by  the  con- 
sciousness of  duty  to  pain  us  wherever  it  has  been  vio- 
lated, and  to  console  us  so  far  as  God  may  have  given  us 
grace  to  perform  it.    T Applause. J 

REQUESTS  TO  CHARGE  BY  THE  DEFENSE. 

Mr.  Abbott — If  your  Honor  please,  as  inti- 
mated, we  desire  to  present  some  requests  to  charge  on 
behalf  of  the  defendant.  Perhaps  our  learned  fi'iends 
may  have  some  which  they  desire  to  submit,  and,  if  that 


be  the  case,  after  they  have  had  an  opportunity  to  do  so, 
we  should  like  a  like  opportunity. 

Mr.  Beach— We  have  no  requests  to  make. 

Judge  Neilson— I  wiU  hear  you  now,  Mr.  Abbott,  if  it 
suits  you. 

Mr.  Abbott— Before  proceeding,  I  think  my  learned 
friend  will  bear  with  me  in  saying,  in  regard  to  the  au- 
thorities which  he  has  quoted  in  reference  to  the  propri- 
ety of  counsel  testifying  in  their  own  cause,  that  the  au- 
thorities which  he  has  read  recognize  that  wherever  (as 
is  the  case  in  most  of  the  States  of  the  Union) 
an  attorney  or  coimselor  is  competent  as  wit- 
ness in  the  case  in  which  he  represents  a 
party,  there  may  be  a  necessity  which  makes 
it  an  imperative  duty ;  and  I  refer  your  Honor  to  Robin- 
son agt.  Dauchy  in  the  3d  Bar,  as  well  as  the  case  of 
Little  agt.  McKeon,  which  our  friends  mentioned  as  set- 
tling the  question  that  in  this  State  the  counsel  is  com- 
petent, and  I  have  only  to  add  that,  in  oui- judgment,  the 
testimony  given  in  behalf  of  the  plaintiff  and  the  chal- 
lenge interposed  during  the  opening,  made  a  clear  case  of 
that  necessity  which  the  law  regards  as  imposing  the 
duty  upon  the  counsel. 

Tbe  first  proposition  which  I  wish  to  submit  to  your 
Honor  is  that : 

I.  Irrespective  of  the  question  whether  defendant  ever 
committed  adultery  with  plaintifl"'s  wife,  and  without  the 
jury's  passing  upon  that  disputed  question  of  fact,  de- 
fendant is  entitled  to  their  verdict  upon  each  of  the  fol- 
lowing grounds : 

Mr.  Morris — I  understood,  of  course,  if  your  Honor 
please,  that  the  requests  would  be  handed  to  your  Honor 
and  that  your  Honox  would  pass  upon  them  without  ar- 
gument. 

Judge  Neilson— There  is  to  be  no  argument.   1  said  to 
Mr.  Abbott  I  would  hear  him  now.   It  wont  take  long. 
Mr.  Abbott: 

1.  There  is  no  evidence  in  support  of  plaintiffs  alle- 
gation that  by  reason  of  any  such  adultery  the  plaintiA 
ever  lost  the  comfort,  society,  aid  or  assistance  of  his 
wife. 

2.  He  continued  to  cohabit  with  his  wife  for  years  after 
the  time  of  the  alleged  communication  to  him  of  the 
charge. 

3.  After  such  alleged  communication,  upon  consider- 
ation of  satisfactory  explanations  as  to  the  alleged 
injury,  aud  oi  protection  of  his  wife,  his  children,  and 
himself  from  a  public  contestation  in  respect  of  the 
same,  the  iflnintiff  and  defendant  concurred  in  the  pur- 
l>ose  of  roeoneiliatiou  and  iii  the  surrender  of  further 
controversy,  aud  such  settlement  was  an  accord  and 
satLslactiou  and  conlpromise  between  the  parties,  andthe 
lilalDtiff  is  thereby  estopped  from  maintaining  this  action 
in  rei>udiation  of  such  settlement. 

The  second  proposition  to  which  I  shall  call  your 
Honor's  attention  is  that : 

IT.  Upon  the  whole  evidence  upon  the  principal  issues 
in  the  cause  there  is  not  sufficient  proof  to  sustain  a  ver- 
dict for  the  plaimtiff.  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  jury  to 
render  a  verdict  for  the  defendant. 


EliQUESTS   TO  CRARG 


E   BY  THE  BEFEXSE. 


1019 


If  your  nonor,  in  tlie  exercise  of  the  jud^ent  and  dis- 
cretion which  hy  the  law  is  vested  in  you,  should  see  fit 
to  decline  these  two  requests,  we  shall  scarcely  regi^et  it. 
At  the  same  time,  we  unanimously  feel  that  the  law 
would  entitle  us  and  does  entitle  us  to  these  directions, 
and  we  desire  distinctly  to  make  the  requests. 
The  next  proposition  which  we  would  submit  is  that : 
ni.  The  defendant  is  not  required  to  prove  his  inno- 
cence ;  he  is  to  he  presumed  innocent  until  his  guilt  is 
affirmatively  established  by  a  clear  preponderence  of  evi- 
dence. 

On  this  point  I  would  refer  your  Honor  to  the  case  of 
Bentley  agt.  Bentley,  7  Cow.,  701,  which  holds  that : 

This  principle  is  equally  applicable  in  civil  and  crimi- 
nal cases ;  and  it  malies  no  difference  that  the  fact  al- 
leged is  a  matter  peculiarly  within  defendant's  knowl- 
edge. 

Even  a  negative  allegation,  if  it  involves  a  charge  of 
tort,  or  of  criminal  conduct  or  neglect,  must  be  clearly 
proved  by  the  plaintiff.  [People  ex  reL  Smith  agt.  Pease, 
27  N.  Y.,  45 ;  aflTg  30  Barb.,  588.] 

And  the  principle  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  a  charge 
of  adultery.  The  defendant  "  is  entitled  to  rest  on  the 
defect  of  proof,  and  is  not  botmd  to  disprove  the  case." 
[King  agt.  King,  4  Scotch  Sess.  Cas.,  2d  Series,  582.  Opin. 
by  Ld.  Moncrieff.] 

THE    READING  OF   AUTHORITIES  FOR 
REQUESTS  OBJECTED  TO.  ' 

Mr.  Morris — One  moment.  This  is  entirely 
out  of  order.  I  understand  your  Honor  has  permitted 
coimsel  to  have  the  right  to  submit  their  simple  requests, 
not  to  argue  and  cite  your  Honor  to  authorities  and  sub- 
mit an  argument.  That  is  certainly  out  of  order.  It  is 
not  proper.  If  your  Honor  permits  this,  I  submit,  in- 
stead of  handing  up,  as  was  agreed  upon,  their  proposi- 
tions in  open  court,  in  this  way,  in  the  presence  of  the 
niy,  we  submit  that  they  have  no  right  to  make  an  argu- 
ment and  cite  authorities  in  respect  to  the  propositions 
they  submit  to  the  Court. 

Mr.  Abbott — I  would  not  be  out  of  order. 

Judge  NeUson— JVIr.  Morris,  take  the  case  that  we  had 
In  respect  to  the  steamboat  case,  where  Mr.  Beach  was 
counsel  as  opposed  to  you,  and  where  on  Mr.  Beach's 
part  64  requests  were  handed  up.  After  my  charge  I  had 
occasion  to  read  them  one  by  one  to  the  jury;  it 
a«ioimted  to  the  same  thing  as  this.  Thus  far  I  am  pre- 
pared to  answer  the  requests,  and  want  to  do  so-.  I  think 
it  wili  come  to  the  same  conclusion. 

Mr.  Morris— Yes,  Sir,  but  in  that  case  your  Honor  will 
recoliect  where  there  were  36  requests  handed  up  there 
was  no  argument  presented  in  the  presence  of  the  jury, 
nor  were  citations  from  authorities  made.  The  counsel 
le  proceeding  now  to  make  a  legal  argument. 

Judge  Neilson— I  hardly  think  he  intends  to  argue  these 
cited  cases. 

Mr.  Morris— I  submit  this  is  not  permissible  in  submit- 
ting the  requests  to  your  Honor  to  charge. 
Judge  Xeilson— It  will  do  no  harm.  I  am  familiar  with 


the  cases.  We  will  soon  be  through  with  it.  I  think  he 
can  go  on.  ' 

Mr.  Abbott— T  have  simply  quoted  the  language  of  one 
or  two  cases  in  support  of  the  propositions.  I  submit,  that 
your  Honor  may  see  the  significance  of  the  authorities  : 

The  defendant  is  entitled  to  rest  on  the  defect  of  proofs 
and  is  not  bound  to  disprove  the  case.  [King  agt.  King, 
4  Scotch  Sess.,  Cas.,  2d  Series,  582.  Opin.  by  Ld.  Mon- 
crieff.] And  even  when  the  defendant  in  an  action  of 
erim.  con.  does  not  testify  in  his  own  behalf,  the  omi.*;>5ion 
does  not  raise  any  inference  against  him.  [Lowe  agt. 
Massey,  62  Illinois,  Freem.  47.] 

As  stated  by  Merrick,  J.,  in  Dalton  agt.  Dalton  (Su- 
preme Court  of  Massachusetts,  1857) :  It  is  not  necessary 
that  you  should  affirm  the  innocence  of  the  respondent  in. 
order  to  entitle  her  to  a  verdict.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
you  should  find  affirmatively,  upon  the  evidence  that  has 
been  submitted  to  you,  that  she  is  not  guilty,  that  she  did 
not  commit  the  act,  so  that  you  can  affirm  it  as  a  truth 
proved ;  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  to  that  extent  to  entitle 
her  to  a  verdict;  but  if,  upon  the  whole  evidence  in  the 
case,  the  state  of  your  minds  is  this — a  good  deal  of  evi- 
dence to  show  that  she  might  have  been  guilty,  a  good 
deal  of  probability  that  she  might  have  been  guilty,  but 
an  uncertainty  whether  she  was  guilty  or  not— then  the 
libel  is  not  proved  ;  and  though  you  cannot  say,  on  the 
contrary,  that  you  are  fully  satisfied  and  clear  in  your 
own  minds  that  she  is  innocent,  she  is  entitled  to  your 
verdict ;  that  is,  if  the  libellant  has  not  proved  that 
which  it  is  essential  for  him  to  prove  to  entitle  him  to 
your  verdi(!t,  then  you  must  find  for  the  respondent." 

Mr.  Beach — If  your  Honor  please,  I  must  protest  against 
this  reading  of  authorities.  If  your  Honor  takes  a  cita- 
tion of  authorities,  well  and  good;  I  have  no  objection  to 
it  in  connection  with  the  requests  to  charge.  But  that 
I  now,  without  any  notice  to  us  or  reference  of  authorities 
to  us,  they  should  be  permitted  to  read  those  authorities, 
and  through  them  present  an  argument  to  the  Court  and 
the  jury,  it  seems  to  me  a  perversion  of  the  right  of 
making  requests  to  charge  in  open  court. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Abbott,  won't  it  answer  your  pur- 
pose to  state  your  requests  1 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  I  think  my  learned 
friend  who  has  just  addressed  you  has  overlooked  the 
fact — as  well  as  the  ordinary  occurrence  at  the  close  of 
the  summing  up — overlooked  the  fact  that  in  his  final 
argument  (and  very  pi^operly  and  as  part  of  it),  he  in- 
cluded the  presentation  of  authorities  which  were  new 
to  us  then,  and  are  now  for  the  first  time  to  be  consid- 
ered by  us,  and  we  pi-esent  authorities  upon  the  points 
concerning  which  he  has  presented  them.  We  would 
limit  ourselves  to  that,  not  wishing  to  impose  on  the  case 
in  point  of  argument. 

THE  SUBMISSION  OF  REQUESTS  RESUMED. 

Mr.  Abbott — The  f oiu-tli  proposition  is  : 

The  plaintiff  cannot  recover  unless  the  jury  are  satis- 
fied, by  affirmative  evidence,  that  defendant  actually  had 
carnal  connection  with  plaintiff's  wife. 

2?^0TE.— Wtnsmore  agt.  Greenbank,  Willes,  577,  581. 

The  language  of  the  case  is: 

The  Court  must  be  satisfied  that  there  ha-s  been  a  sur- 


1020  THE  TILTON-BB 


render  not  only  of  th©  mind,  but  of  the  person.  (Hamer- 
lon  ae:t.  Hamerton,  2  Hagg.  Ecc,  8;  Robinson  agt.  Robin- 
son, 1  Swabey  &  Tr.,  362 ;  Davidson  agt.  Davidson,  1 
Deaue,  Eng.  Ecc,  132;  Hunt  agt.  Hunt,  1  Id.,  121,  129; 
Simmons  agt.  Simmons,  1  Robertson,  Eng.  Ecc,  566 ;  S. 
C,  more  fully  reported  5  Notes  of  Cas.  324,  aifirmedin 
6  Notes  of  Cas.  578;  Caton  agt.  Caton,  7  Notes  of  Cas., 
16;  and  see  Wilson  agt.  Wilson,  1  Wright,  Cb.  (Ohio)  128. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  a  citation  of  a  number  of  authori- 
ties to  a  proposition  -which  never  has  been  discussed  in 
this  case,  to  which  I  certainly  submitted  no  authorities. 

Judge  Neilson— Very  well. 

Mr.  Abbott—"  V.  The  jury  must  And  " 

Mr.  Beach— I  insist  this  right  shall  be  strictly  and  prop- 
erly pursued. 

Judge  NeUson— Very  well. 

Mr.  Abbott— [Reading] : 

V.  The  jury  must  find  for  the  defendant  unless  con- 
vinced, by  the  proofs,  of  the  actual  adultery,  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt. 

NOTE.— In  Berckmans  agt.  Berckmans  (Court  of  Error  and 
Appeals,  1864,  opinion  by  Van  I)yke,  J.,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  (2  C.  E. 
Green),  453  ;  affirming,  1(6  id.,  122),  tbe  rule  was  laid  down  as 
follows:  "The  complainant  is  under  the  necessity,  not  only  of 
placing  a  decided  preponderance  of  testimony  in  favor  of  the 
charge,  hut  of  proving  it  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Court,  be- 
yond a  reasonable  doubt.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  it  must  be 
done  by  such  an  amount  of  overwhelming  and  unmistakable 
evidence  as  to  render  it  impossible  to  be  otherwise,  but  the 
evidence  must  be  such  as  to  satisfy  the  human  mind,  and  leave 
the  careful  and  guarded  judgment  of  the  Court  free  from  any 
conscientious  and  perplexing  doubts  as  to  whether  the  charge 
be  proved  or  not." 

If  after  a  careful  examination  of  aU  the  competent  testimony 
inch  doubts  remain  immovable,  it  is  clearly  our  duty  to  give 
the  defendant  the  benefit  of  such  doubt. 

Eollowed  in  Freeman  agt.  Freeman,  31  Wise.  235. 

In  both  these  cases  the  decree  or  verdict  was  set  aside  tor 
Tiolation  of  this  rule. 

To  the  same  effect.  Anonymous,  17  Abb.  Pr.,  48;  and  see 
Green  agt;  Green,  26  Mich.  437. 

Dillon  agt.  DUlon,  1.  Notes  of  Ecc.  and  Mar.  Cases,  415,  442. 
(Consistory  Ct.  1842,  Dr.  Lushington.)  Suit  against  wife  for 
divorce  by  r  ason  of  adultery.  Held,  that  this  is  as  concerns 
the  wife,  not  a  civil,  but  in  effect  a  criminaL  proceeding  if 
there  be  any  doubt,  she  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  it.  Even  If 
the  ev  idence  in  support  of  the  charge  preponderates,  yet  if  the 
Court  cannot  say  that  the  proof  Is  free  from  reasonable  doubt 
the  charge  is  not  sustained. 

Stone  agt.  Stone,  3  Notes  of  Ecc.  and  Mar.  Cases,  278,  304. 
Consistory,  Conn.,  1 844,  Dr.  Lushington.)  Suit  for  divorce 
or  adultery.  The  Court  say:  "  I  must  remembe;^'  that  I  am 
considering  not  whether  adultery  did  take  place,  for  the  abso- 
lute truth  cannot  be  known  to  a  human  judge,  but  wlietlier  the 
evidence  with  ordinary  certainty  establishes  the  fact.  I  must 
not  give  way  to  suspicion  or  surmise ;  I  must  be  governed  by 
the  legitimate  results  of  legal  evidence." 

Dr.  Lushington  in  Eaussett  agt.  Eaussett,  7  Notes  of  Cas.  94, 
says  the  question  of  adultery  is  a  question  of  guilty  or  not 
guilty  of  a  crime. 

An  action  of  crim.  con.  is  properly  subject  to  the  rules  as  to 
strictness  of  proof  which  are  applied  on  an  indictment  for 
crime.  Morris  vs.  Miller,  4  Burr.  2,057.  (Ld.  Mansfield, 
1,767).  S.  P.  in  a  civil  action  for  an  assault  with  attempt  to 
ravish.   Grossman  vs.  Bradley,  53  Barb.  125. 

Judge  Neilson— I  would  rather  you  would  give  me  the 
points  without  the  authorities.   Consider  them  cited. 

Mr.  Abbott— It  your  Honor  please,  I  conceive  that  it  is 
a  matter  of  right  on  the  behalf  of  the  defendant,  within 
sucb  limit  of  brevity  as  your  Honor's  discretion  may  im- 
jpose,  and  which  I  shall  not  transcend,  to  give  you,  with 
the  propositions  which  we  desire  to  have  your  Honor 
consider,  the  authorities  upon  which  they  are  sus- 
tained. 

Mr.  Beach— I  submit  to  your  Honor  it  is  unprecedented 
to  have  a  discussion  of  this  character  at  the  close  of  the 
argument.  While  I  concede  the  propriety  and  the  right 
of  counsel  to  make  requests  in  open  court  to  charge  and 
to  cite  yom-  Honor  to  authorities  if  he  please,  I  do  insist 


ECHER  IJUAL. 

that  that  shall  not  be  made  the  cover  of  a  reargument  of 
the  case  on  the  part  of  the  defendant. 

Mr.  Evarts— That  we  agree  to. 

Mr.  Abbott— That  we  agree  to. 

Mr.  Beach— That  they  don't  agree  to  at  all,  in  practice. 
Mr.  Evarts — Yes,  we  do. 

Mr.  Beach— That  is  a  matter  about  which  we  differ, 
that  is  aU.  I  think  they  do  not,  and  I  think  your  Honor 
should  protect  us  in  this  right. 

Mr.  Abbott  [Reading] : 

VI.  The  verdict  must  be  for  the  defendant,  unless  the 
result  of  the  whole  evidence  on  both  sides  be  such  as  to 
produce  in  the  deliberate  conclusion  of  the  jury  a  legal 
certainty  of  guilt. 

NOTE.— In  Caton  agt.  Caton,  7  Notes  of  Cas.,  16,  21,  Dr. 
Lushington  says  :  "  I  must  have  adequate  legal  proof  *  *  * 
Many  cases  have  occurred,  and  must  occur,  in  which  moral 
opinion  may  be  one  way,  but  judicial  decision  another." 

lu  Clare  agt.  Clare,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  (4  C.  E.  Green)  37,  Chan- 
cellor Zabriskie  says  that  proof  of  adultery  must  not  only  be 
clear  and  direct,  but  it  must  be  entitled  to,  and  command,  be- 
lief. 

Cooper  agt.  Cooper,  10  La.  (O.  S.)  249  (Supreme  Ct.  opin.  by 
BuUard,  J.  :  Held,  that  in  an  action  for  divorce  on  the 
ground  of  adultery,  the  fact  of  adultery  must  be  fully  proved. 
It  will  not  be  sufficient  that  the  circumstances  are  extremely 
suspicious. 

VII.  The  charge  of  adultery  is  one  that  not  merely  in- 
volves a  pecuniary  claim  against  the  defendant,  but 
criminates  the  plaintiff's  wife,  and  teuds  to  disgrace  her 
children,  and  threatens  the  marriage  relation  itself  ;  and 
it  is  proper  for  the  jury  to  consider  these  ordinary  and 
natural  consequences  of  a  conviction,  in  scrutinizing  the 
evidence,  and  exacting  adequate  proof  to  establish  an  ac- 
cusation involving  such  grave,  permanent  and  remediless 
consequences  to  others. 

VIII.  If,  on  weighing  the  evidence  on  both  sides,  there 
remains  in  the  mind  of  the  jury  doubt  or  perplexity  as 
to  the  actual  adultery,  they  must  find  for  the  defendant. 

Note.— Berckmans  agt.  Berckmans,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  (2  C.  E. 
Green),  453,  aff'g  16  id.,  122  ;  Freeman  agt.  Ereeman,  31 
Wise,  235,  above  ciied. 

IX.  The  higher  the  crime,  or  the  graver  the  wrong 

sought  to  be  established,  the  more  stringently  the  rules 

of  evidence  should  oe  enforced;  and  a  charge  of  criminal 

conversation  is  not  to  be  fixed  upon  a  person  but  by  the 

highest  evidence. 

NOTE.— Blackburn  agt.  Beall,  21  Md.,  208.  Purcell  agt. 
Puicell,  4  Henn.  &  M.,  511. 

X.  If  there  were  any  evidence  in  the  case  pointing  to 
adultery  at  any  specific  time  and  place,  the  defendant 
might  have  some  means  of  supporting,  by  other  wit- 
nesses, his  own  testimony  to  his  innocence;  but  upon 
the  evidence  adduced  by  the  plaintiff,  the  defendant  is 
the  only  witness  who  has  any  actual  knowledge  of  what 
the  relations  between  himself  and  Mrs.  Tilton  were ;  and 
is  the  only  person  whom  the  law  permits  to  speak  as  a 
witness  as  to  those  relations. 

Mr.  Beach— Now,  I  submit,  youi*  Honor,  that  that  ia 
more  argument. 
Judge  Neilson — Certainly. 
Mr.  Abbott— That  is  a  request. 
Mr.  Beach— And  I  protest  against  it. 
Mr.  Evarts— It  is  a  request  to  charge. 
Mr.  Beach— It  is  not  a  request. 
Mr.  Evarts— We  will  see. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  Sir,  I  submit  that  the  counsel  has  no 
right  under  color  of  a  request,  to  submit  an  argument  of 
this  character. 


REQUESTS   TO  CHARG 

Judge  Neilson— That  is  an  argumentative  proposition, 
xindoul)tedly. 

Mr.  Abbott— The  next  proposition  is  : 

XI.  Circumstantial  evidence  to  establish  guilt  must  be 
such  as  to  exclude  to  a  moral  certainty  every  hypothesis 
but  that  of  guilt ;  in  other  words,  the  facts  proved,  must 
not  only  all  be  consistent  vrith  and  point  to  guilt,  but 
they  must  be  inconsistent  with  innocence. 

XOTE.— In  People  agt.  Bennett,  49  X.  Y.,  137,  144,  the 
Court  in  an  opinion  by  Church,  Ch.  J.,  say  :  "  In  det'Cnnining  a 
question  oi  fact  from  circumstantial  evidence,  there  are  two 
general  rules  to  be  observed. 

Mr.  Beach— That,  Sir,  is  in  a  criminal  case. 

jMr.  Evart«— You  have  a  right  to  make  your  request, 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  a  right  to  make  a  remark,  too. 

Mr.  Evarts — Oh,  no. 

Mr  Abbott— [reading]  : 

1.  The  hjTpothesis  of  deUnquencv  or  gnilt  should  flow  nat- 
urally from  the  facts  proved,  and  be  consistent  with  them  all. 

2.  Tbe  evidence  must  be  such  as  to  exclude  to  a  moral  cer- 
tainty, every  hypothesis  bnt  that  of  gniU  of  the  offense  im- 
puted ;  or,  in  other  vrords,  the  facts  pruviMl  must  all  be  con- 
sistent Avith,  and  point  to,  guilt,  not  only,  but  they  must  be 
ioconsi'^tent  ^"ith  innocence. 

This  rule  is  applicable  to  thi-  charge  of  adulterr.  (Charge  of 
Merrick,  J.,  in  Dalton  agt  Dalton,  above  cited.)  " 

XIII.  The  law  does  not  dispense  with  direct  proof  of 
the  sexual  act,  and  accept  circumstantial  evidence  in 
lieu  thereof,  unless  there  is  actual  proof  of  conduct  of 
the  parties  deviating  from  open  and  honorable  adher- 
ence to  the  proprieties  of  chaste  society,  and  showing  a 
lustful  disposition  and  pm'pose  on  their  parr,  and  the  oi)- 
portunity,  by  their  resort  to  seclusion  aud  sectirity. 

Mr.  Morris— They  are  arguing,  and  I  submit  that  your 
Honor  has  ruled  that  that  is  not  permitted. 

Judge  Xeilson— [To  Mr.  Abbott.]  Have  you  a  copy  of 
those  requests  that  I  comd  take  i 

Mr.  Abbott— Yes,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Have  you  an  extra  cony,  I  mean  ? 
Mr.  Abbott— Yes,  Sir. 

Mr.  Beach— I  .•submit,  Sir,  that  you  should  require  that 
the  copy  should  be  handed  up  and  submitted  to  your 
Honor. 

Judge  Neilson — I  wish  to  answer  each  one  In  turn. 
Have  you  got  a  copy,  gentlemen,  that  you  can  hand  me 
now,  that  I  may  look  at  the  requests  as  you  read  1 

Mr.  Evarts— We  will  hand  one  to  your  Honor  as  soon  as 
we  can  get  it  ready. 

Judge  Neilson—I  would  like  to  answer  each  one  as  we 
go  along,  and  not  have  to  go  over  the  whole  ground  again. 

Mr.  Abbott  [reading] : 

XOTE. — In  cases  of  this  class,  the  law,  in  calling  for  proof  of 
familiarities,  requires  such  familiarities  as  disclose  a  sensual 
and  lustful  purpose  ;  and,  in  calling  for  proof  of  opporttmlty,  it 
requires  such  seclusion  and  security  as  indicate  design  to'  in- 
dulge the  lustful  purpose. 

In  Stone  agt.  Stone,  3  Xotes  of  JEcc.  ct  Mar.  Cas.,  278,  304 
(Consistory  Ct.,  1844,  Dr.  Lushington,  suit  for  divorce  for 
adultery),  the  Court  says:  "I  have  hot  lost  sight  of  the  con- 
sideration that  in  the  conduct  and  conversation  of  ZSIr.  Stone 
there  are  matters  deposed  to  which  tend  to  throw  susi^icion 
upon  him  ;  but  more  is  necessary  than  I  find  here,  even  with 
that  cause  for  suspicion.  There' is  an  entire  absence  of  that 
which  would  have  converted  all  other  doubtful  circitmstanees 
into  proof  of  the  fact;  there  is  not  one  act  of  indecent  fa-'nil- 
iarity  clearlj-  and  distinctly  proved.  Had  a  criminal  inter- 
course subsisted  between  the  parties  for  this  long  period  of 
time,  I  remain  convinced  that  there  musT.  in  all  human  proba- 
bility, have  been  more  direct  evidence  of  it,  and  I  must,  under 
these  circumstances,  pronoimce  that  this  charge  of  adultery  is 
not  proved.  ' 

In  this  same  case,  where  the  meetings  relied  upon  as  oppor- 
tun it V,  viz.— the  alleged  paramour  coming  into  the  ante-room 
of  tJie  bed-room  of  the  person  accused— held,  that  as  they  might 


BY   TEE  DEFENSE,  1021 


have  occurred  for  ptirposes  consistent  with  perfect  innocence, 
the  Court  could  not  infer  guilt. 

The  following  cases  fairly  illustrate  these  rules  : 

Great  intimacy,  and  opportunity  without  proof  of  indej-ent 
familiarities— held  not  proof.  (Fausett  agt.  Faussett,  7  Notes 
of  Fee.     Mar.  Cas.,  88.1 

Clandestinitvand  opportunitv,  without  indecent  familiaritv— 
not  proof.   (Stone  agt.  Stone,  3  id.  278,  304.) 

Kissing,  the  possession  of  letters,  and  opportunitv— not  proof. 
(Hamertbu  agt.  Hamerton,  2  Hagg.,  Ecc,  8.) 

Intimacy,  indecorous  freedom,  without  indecent  familiarities, 
but  with  opportunitv— not  proof.  (Caton  agt.  Catou,  7  Notes 
of  Ecc.  <t  Mar.  Cas.,' 16.) 

Willing  receipt  of  letters  of  solicitation ;  suspicious  inti- 
macy, and  opportunity— not  proof.  Hamerton  agt.  Hamerton 
(above  cited.) 

Evidence  of  criminal  disposition,  and  attempt  to  gain  oppor- 
tunity—not proof.   Caton  a2-t.  Caton  (above  cited). 

Opportunity  alone  not  proof.  Hammerton  agt.  Hammerton 
(above  cited):  Simmons  as-t.  Simmons,  1  Robt.  Ecc,  566,  s.  c. 
more  fully  reported  in  5  Notes  of  Cas.,  32^. 

Opportunitv  unconnected  with  proof  of  design— not  proof. 
Mayt-r  agt.  Mayer.  21  N.  J.  Eq.  (6  C.  E.  Green),  216. 

Iiidf-oent  faniiliarities;  clandestine  interviews  ;  love-letters 
exiiressing  desire :  followed  bv  opportunity— held  proof.  Grant 
agt.  Grant.  2  Curt.  Ecc.  Ct.,  16. 

Indecent  famiharities ;  the  receipt  and  keeping  of  love-letters 
of  a  gross  kind;  and  opportunity— consisting  of  remaining  at 
night  at  the  same  inn— held  proof.  Bramwell  agt.  BramweU,  3 
Hagg.,  Ecc,  618. 

XTV.  The  circumstances  must  be  such  as  would  lead 
the  guarded  discretion  of  a  reasonable  and  just  man  to 
the  conclusion  of  actual  guilt.  For  it  is  not  to  lead  a 
harsh  and  intemperate  jtidgment,  moving  upon  appear- 
ances that  are  equally  capable  of  two  interpretations  ; 
neither  is  it  to  be  a  matter  of  artilicial  reasoning,  judging 
upon  such  things  differently  from  what  would  strike  the 
careful  and  cautious  consideration  of  a  discreet  man. 

Ferguson  agt.  Fergtison,  3  Sandf.  3<i7  ;  Loveden  agt.  Love- 
den,  2  Hagg.  Consist.,  1 ;  Thayer  agt.  Thayer,  101  Mass.,  Ill- 
Mr.  Beach— The  very  authority  that  I  read  to  the  Court 
and  jtiry. 

[The  coimsel  for  the  defense  here  handed  a  printed 
copy  of  requests  to  Judge  Xeilson.] 
Judge  Xellson  [to  Mr.  Abbott]— What  number  are  you 

at? 

3Ir.  Shearman— Request  No.  15,  on  page  16. 

Mr.  Abbott— Your  Honor  will  see  that  these  are  not  in 
strict  order,  as  I  have  made  a  selection,  and  do  not  pro- 
pose to  submit  them  all.    [Reading :] 

XY.  The  proximate  acts  relied  on  must  lead,  by  a  fair 
inference,  ^o  a  conclusion  so  far  inevitable  as  that  the 
supposition  of  innocence  cannot  by  any  just  course  of 
reasoning  be  reconciled  with  it. 

Note.— -Anon^Tiious,  17  Abb.  Pr.,  48,  5-5,  and  cases  cited. 

Circumstances  si  .  ^ceptible  of  a  reasonable  interpretation  con- 
sistent with  innocence,  and  which  ilo  not  lead  to  guilt  bv  a  fair 
inference  as  a  nece^>--aiy  conclusion,  are  insufficient  to  "ju.-^tify 
the  inference  that  adulterv  w.is  committed.  Moser  ast.  Moser 
(2y  Ala.,  313) :  Inskeep  asjt.  Inskeep  o  Clarke  (Iowa) ;  Fergu- 
son agt.  Ferguson  (3  Sandf.  307). 

XYI.  Mere  proof  of  opportunity  to  commit  adultery  is 
no  evidence  whatever  of  guilt ;  there  must  be  coupled 
with  it  evidenc"  of  circumstances  at  the  same  time, 
which  cannot  reasonably  be  explained  except  by  criminal 
disi)ositL()n  and  design. 

NOTK.— Mayer  agt.  Afayer,  21  N.  J.  Eq.  (6  C.  E.  Green)  246 
(cases  in  Chancery,  1870,  opinion  by  Zabriskie,  Chan.)  Where 
there  was  proof  that  tlie  affections  of  the  defendant  (tlie  wife) 
were  estranged  from  her  husband  during  tlie  last  part  of  the 
time  thev  lived  together,  and  that  at  the  same  time  she  was  on 
sood  and  intimate  terms  with  the  alleged  paramour,  but  only 
in  a  way  in  which  they  might  be  so  in  their  relative  situations 
Avithou't  criminality,  and  there  were  no  doubt  occasions 
when  they  could  haVe  committed  adulterv— held,  that  it  is  not 
sutiicient  to  convict  parties  who  may  be  supposed  willing  to  com- 
mit adulterv,  to  ])rove  that  they  were  in  a  position  that  it  was 
possible  to'  commit  it.  It  must  be  shown  that  they  were 
together  under  suspicious  circumstances,  which  cannot  be 
easily  accounted  for  unless  they  had  that  desifim,  or  which 
could  not  well  be  explained  without  it.   Bill  dismissed. 

See  also  Stone  agt.  Stone,  cited  above.  3  Notes  of  Ecc.  &  M». 
Cas.,  273. 

XYIII.  When,  in  addition  to  the  open  relation  o:'  inti- 
mate friendship,  there  is  superadded  the  pastoral  rela« 


1022 


THE   TlL'nW-BEKdtlEU  TRIAL. 


tion,  no  mtendment  against  tho  chastity  or  propriety  of 
that  iDteicoiir.se  can  be  drawn,  except  upon  proof  of 
actual  lustful  deviations  from  the  intercourse  of  society 
appropriate  to  such  relations. 

Note.— Visits  hy  a  clergyman  at  suitable  times  and  con- 
ducted with  the  decency  to  he  expected,  especially  of  one 
recommended  to  her  by  her  husband,  may  not,  however  pri- 
vate, attord  any  ground  to  infer  illicit  intercourse,  even  in  the 
case  of  a  wife  living  alone  with  a  servant  in  the  absence  of  her 
husband.   (King  agt.  King,  4  Scotch  Sess.  Cas.,  2d  series,  583.) 

Where  the  parties  sustain  the  relation  of  clergyman  and 
parishioner,  a  carnal  intercourse  will  be  less  readuy  inferred. 
(2  Bishop,  Marr&  D.,  631.) 

XXI.  No  charge  or  confession  on  the  part  of  the 
plaintiffs  wife  is  evidence  against  the  defendant. 

NOTE.— Baker  agt.  Morley,  Buller  N.  P.,  28.  McVey  agt. 
Blair,  17  Ind.,  590.  Montgomery  agt.  Montgomery,  3  Barber 
Ch.,  133,  Jinkings  agt.  Jinkings,  L.  R.,  1  Pr.  &  D.,  330  ;  s.  c, 
36  Law  Jom-.,  Mat.  Cas.,  48.  Robinson  agt.  Robinson,  1 
Sw  abey  &  Tr.,  562.  ■ 

XXIV.  None  of  the  letters  and  writings  of  Mrs.  Tilton 
put  in  evidence,  apou  their  face,  as  matter  of  law,  import 
a  confession  of  adultery  or  sexual  indelicacy,  or  furnish 
any  proof  of  either  by  themselves. 

XXX.  Where  a  party  has  destroyed  a  paper  material 
to  his  case  and  the  contents  of  the  paper  are  disputed, 
the  presumption  arises  that,  if  it  had  been  produced,  it 
would  have  been  against  his  interest,  or  in  some  essen- 
tial particular  unfavorable  to  his  representation  of  its 
contents. 

Count  JoanncKS  agt.  Bennett,  5  AUen  (Mass.),  169.  Dalnot 
agt.  Cotesworth,  1  P.  wnUams,  731. 

XXXII.  [f  the  jury  believe  that  the  "True  Story,"  as 

it  is  called,  substantially  as  put  in  evidence,  is  the  work 

of  this  plaintiff,  they  must  find  a  verdict  for-the  defendant. 

Note. — In  the  absence  of  full  and  satisfactory  expLiuation, 
the  plaintiff '9  written  statement  is  conclusive  against  liim. 
Boyd  agt.  Colt,  20  Kow.  Pr.,  384.  No  explanation  of  this  True 
Storj'has  been  given  by  the  plaintiff,  altlioagh  lie  has  been  on 
the  stand  since  it  was  put  to  evidence. 

[At  this  point  an  attendant  brought  in  a  pile  of  printed 
sheets  and  laid  them  down  beside  Mr.  Abljott.]  Mr.  Mor- 
ris—I  suggest  to  your  Honor  that  we  had  better  adjourn 
and  fix  a  day.  It  is  evident  from  the  volume  that  the 
counsel  has  here  that  it  will  take  at  least  a  day  to  present 
his  requests. 

Mr.  Evarts— What  is  the  proposition  1 

Mr.  Abbott— To  adjourn  ? 

Mr.  Morris— I  think  it  would  facilitate  the  court  if  your 
Honor  should  adjourn  and  look  over  the  requests  in  the 
mean  time. 

Mr.  Abbott— I  am  near  the  end,  your  Honor,  but  I  will 
submit  to  your  Honor's  wish  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  Morris— I  was  judging  from  the  pile  of  manuscript 
that  the  counsel  has  by  him. 

Mr.  Beach— If  we  can  finish  within  reasonable  time  I 
think  it  woukl  be  desirable  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Evarts— Certainly,  unless  it  would  be  inconvenient 
to  the  jury. 

Mr.  Morris— If  he  has  that  pile  to  go  through  it  will 
take  some  time. 

Mr.  Beach— I  take  his  statement  that  he  is  nearly  at  the 
end. 

Mr.  Abbott  |  reading] : 

XXXIII.  The  letters  of  Mrs.  Tilton  to  the  defendant, 
which  have  been  put  in  evid-ence,  do  not  as  matter  of  law 
upon  their  face  bear  any  indecent  or  illicit  signification ; 
and  the  fact  that  defendant,  instead  of  destroying  or  se- 
creting these  letters  of  Mrs.  Tilton,  volimtarily  disclosed 
them,  and  handed  them  over  to  Mr.  Moulton,  is  a  cogent 


confirmation  of  the  defendant's  testimony  that  he  did  not 
understand  them  in  any  indecent  or  illicit  sense. 

Mr.  Morris— Is  that  a  proposition  of  law  \ 

Mr.  Abbott  fcontinoing] : 

No  jK.— Caton  agt.  Caton,  7  Notes  of  Case,  16  (Consistory 
Ct.,  1849,  Dr.  Lushington).  The  fact  that  the  wife  and  the  al- 
leged paramour  lent  their  aid  to  the  husband  in  getting  posses- 
sion from  the  Post-office  of  a  letter  which  it  had  been  discov- 
ered she  had  written  to  the  paramour— Held,  a  circumstance 
rather  in  the  wife's  favor  on  the  construction  of  the  letter  ;  for^ 
if  it  had  contained,  according  to  her  or  his  apprehension,  an 
admission  of  adultery,  they  would  not  so  reathly  have  con- 
sented to  it  behig  given  up. 

XXXIV.  No  letters  or  writings  of  any  other  person 
than  the  defendant,  although  communicated  to  him,  are 
any  evidence  whatever  against  him,  except  of  the  fact 
that  their  contents  were  brought  to  his  notice. 

Judge  Neilson— That  has  been  ruled  several  times  dur- 
ing the  progress  of  the  case. 

XXXV.  The  letters  and  oral  statem-ents  that  have 
been  adduced,  as  m  the  nature  of  confessions,  are  to  be 
considered  in  their  entirety,  and  as  together  covering  a 
long  period  of  years ;  and  the  jury  are  to  consider  whether 
it  is  credible  that  the  defendant  could  have  made  such 
oral  statements  of  guilt  as  are  attributed  to  him  and  de- 
nied by  him,  and  whether  it  is  credible  that  such  letters 
could  have  been  written  by  him  with  reference  to  guilt  of 
adultery. 

NOTE.— Testimony  of  witnesses  to  confessions  that,  if  real, 
would  be  gross  and  monstrous,  may  be  discredited  on  thai 
ground  alone.   (Lyon  agt.  Lyon,  62  Barb.,  l38.) 

XXXVI.  The  expressions  of  compunction  and  remorse 
in  the  defendant's  writings  and  alleged  conversations  be- 
long to  tke  class  of  merely  moral  evidence,  and  neither- 
tendto  support,  nor  are  capable  of  supporting,  any  legal 
certainty  as  to  the  fact,  nature  or  degree  of  imputed  culp- 
ability. 

XXXVII.  Testimony  of  witnesses  that  a  party  charged 
in  conversation  admitted  his  guilt  of  adultery  is  the 
weakest  and  most  dangerous  evidence  that  is  received  by 
the  law. 

NOTE.— Greenleaf  on  Evid.,  by  Redf.,  229,  Sec.  200,  approved 
in  Dreher  agt.  Town  of  Fitchburg,  '_'2  Wise,  675  ;  Malin  agt. 
Malin,  1  Wend.,  625,  652  ;  Law  agt.  Merrills,  6  Wend.,  268, 
rev'g  9  Cow.,  65  ;  Earle  agt.  Picken,  5  Carr.  <fe  P.  542,  n  ; 
Meyers  agt.  Baker,  Hardin,  544  ;  Stone  agt.  Ramsey,  4  Mon- 
roe  (Ky.),  237  ;  Cam  agt.  State,  18  Tex.,  387  ;  Horner  agt. 
Speed,  2  Patt.  &  H.  616. 

XXXVIII.  The  testimony  of  witnesses  (even  if  fuUy 

credited)  that  the  defendant  in  conversation  admitted 

that  he  iiad  committed  adultery,  being  met  by  his  sworn 

denial  ui)on  the  trial,  is  not  sufficient  proof  of  his  guilt, 

unless  the  alleged  confessions  are  corroborated  by  other 

satisfactory  and  consistent  testimony. 

NOTE.— It  is  a  settled  rule  in  this  State  that  wMle  the  con- 
fessions of  the  party  are  admissible  on  a  charge  of  adultery,  if 
supported  bv  other  proof ;  yet  unless  corroborated  by  other 
evidence  and  circumstances,  they  are  not  sufficient  grounds- 
for  a  decree.  So  clear  a  cii'cumstance  as  defendjint's  ha^^ng 
been  seen  once  or  twice  in  a  hoiise  of  ill-fame  (not,  however, 
staying  long,  nor  being  seen  alone  with  any  woman,  &c.),  was 
held  too  slight  to  serve  as  corroboration,  even  where  there  was 
evidence  of  two  distinct  confessions.  Betts  agt.  Betts,  1  .Tohns, 
Clu,  197  (1814,  Kent,  Chan.),  approved  in  Sawyer  agt.  Sawyer, 
Walk.  Ch.,  52.  To  the  same  effect  Baxter  agt.  Baxter,  1  Mass., 

To  the  same  effect  is  a  dictum  in  Corbln  agt.  Jackson,  14 
Wend.,  621. 

Tlie  followiuc:  cases  substantiate  the  rule  that,  to  prove 
adulterv,  a  confession,  not  connected  with  other  proof,  is  not 
even  competent,  and  cannot  be  admitted. 

Doe  atrt.  Jloe,  1  Johns.  Cas.,  25  (Supreme  Ct.,  1799,  opinion  by 
Radcliff,  J.,  Kent  and  Benson.  J.  J.,  concurring  ;  and  the  other 
iuriges  liolding  that,  even  with  corroboration,  the  confession 
'wa.s  UMt  admissible). 

Searle  agt.  Price.  2  Hagg.  Consist.,  180  ;  Sheffield  agt.  Shef- 
field, 3  Tex.,  79 .  Evans  agt.  Evans,  41  Cal.,  103,  holds  the  con- 
fessions  competent,  independent  of  corroboration,  but  not  suf- 
ficient. 

It  is  the  settled  law  in  this  State  that  a  confession  alone,, 
made,  not  in  open  court.,  nor  on  Q?:amination  betoro  a  magis- 
trate, but  to  an  individual,  and  uncorroborated  by  circum. 
stances,  will  not  Justify  a  conviction.  There  must  he  some  in- 


BEQCESTS   TO  CHABGJ 


E  BY  THE  DEFENSE. 


1023 


•dependent  evidence  tliat  the  crime  was  committed,  though, 
•when  that  is  shown,  a  confession  out  of  court  mav  he  enougli 
to  C'vu3ect  the  prisiirer  wiili  it.  Pt-ople  -asX.  Heuuessr,  1.5 
"WeniL,  174  iSuureme  Ct.,  16oo,  opiu.  hv  -ravage,  C.  J.)  ;  People 
agt.  Bailgler,  16  Id.,  53  (..-Supreme  Ct.,  1836.  opin.  by  :N  el3on, 
C.  J.) 

The  dictum  in  Peoja-e  agt.  Bennett,  37  X.  T.,  117,  134  ;  S.  C, 
4  Ahh.  Pr.,  N.  S.,  89,  is  not  sanctioned  hy  other  authorities  in 
this  State. 

The  rule  in  criminal  cases  is  to  he  applied  in  an  action  of 
orim.  con.   Morris  agt.  MiUer,  4  Burr.,  2,057. 

[Unn limbered.]  The  corroborating  evidence  "wMcli  tbe 
law  requires  in  aid  of  proof  of  confessions  of  adultery  is 
evidence  directly  tending  to  prove  the  alleged  adultery. 

Note.— Lyon  agt.  Lyon,  62  Barh..  138. 

I  "wiU  cite  also,  as  authorities  upon  that  proposition, 
Winscomb  agt.  Winscomb  and  Billangs  agt.  BiUings,  the 
case  cited  by  our  learned  friends,  wliere  tbe  corrobora- 
tion was  that  tbe  accused  had  four  or  five  cMldren  by  an- 
other woman  tban  Ms  wife. 

Mr.  Morris  [ironically]— I  tate  it  your  Honor  will  ex- 
amine all  these  authorities  this  evening. 

Judae  Xeilson— All  tbose  are  divorce  cases.  I  am  per- 
fectly familiar  with  them,  and  tbe  principle  upon  wMcb 
tbey  are  read.  They  are  all  divorce  cases,  every  one  of 
tbem. 

Mr.  Morri3— He  migbt  as  well  attacb  the  Law  Library 
to  bis  points. 
Mr.  Evarts — He  won't  argue  it. 
Mr.  Abbott — The  next  proposition  is ; 

XXXTX.  Where  a  person  is  cbarged  witb  immoral 
conduct,  under  sucb  circumstances  tbat  be  has  no  legal 
direct  evidence  of  bis  innocence  otber  than  bis  own  oath, 
tbe  fact  tbat  be  endeavored  to  prevent  publicity  or  to 
avoid  public  controversy  is  no  evidence  of  guilt. 

XL.  In  considering  wbetber  tbe  testimony  of  tbe  al- 
leged verbal  admissions  is  corroborated,  tb#  jury  must 
look  at  the  wbole  course  of  conduct  of  tlie  plaintili  and 
Ms  witnesses,  in  tbelr  intercourse  witb  tbe  defendant 
since  tbe  charge  was  first  made,  and  consider  wbetber  it 
is  possible  or  probable  tbat  this  conduct  and  social  inter- 
course could  bave  taken  place,  if  tbe  defendant  was 
cbarged  or  believed  by  tbem  to  be  an  adulterer. 

NOTE,— There  is  "a  practical  Inconsistency"  between  the 
testimony  of  a  husband  to  the  paramour's  guilt,  and  liis  con- 
tinned  cohabitation  with  his  wiie,  which  tends  to  throw  dis- 
credit on  his  testimony.  State  agt.  Mar\-ln,  35  X.  H.  22.  To 
the  same  effect  is  Harris  agt.  Eupel,  14  Ind.,  209.  So  the  testi- 
monr  of  a  mutual  friend  to  confessions  is  discredited  bv  his 
admission  of  social  intercourse  with  the  allesed  guilty  party. 
GeUs  agt.  G^ils,  6  Notes  of  Ecc.  &  Mar.  Cas.,  97,  161. 

3Ir.  Morris— You  didn't  cite  tbe  authorities  on  the  last 

point. 

Mr.  Abbott— No.  The  next  proposition  is : 
XLI.  Tbe  plaiattfifs  wiitten  statement,  that  the  im- 
puted offense  of  tbe  defendant  was  the  making  of  im- 
proper proposals,  and  that  defendant  denied  the  charge, 
might  be  overthrown  by  direct  lu-oof  of  tbe  act  of  adul- 
tery, but  it  cannot  be  overthrown  by  oral  testimony  of  a 
different  oral  charge  and  admission. 

XLIL  As  matter  of  law,  the  paper  of  January  1,  1871, 
called  the  Apology  or  Letter  of  Contrition  (ExMbit  No.  2), 
does  not  on  its  face  import  any  act  of  adultery  or  of 
sexual  indelicacy,  and  is  no  proof  of  either. 

Note.— See  Grant  agt.  Grant,  2  Cnrteis'  Ecc.  16.  Grover  agt. 
Grover,  5  Notes  of  Cas.,  263. 

Mr.  Beaeh— Mr.  Abbott,  I  wish  to  be  informed  candidly 

how  long  a  time  you  are  goiug  to  occupy.   I  don't  want 

to  stay  here  untU  dark. 


Mr.  Abbott— I  think  I  have  about  four  or  six  more. 
[Reading] : 

XLITE.  None  of  tbe  defendant's  letters  and  writings 
put  Lh  evidence,  upon  their  face  as  matter  of  law,  import 
adultery  or  sexual  indelicacy,  or  furnish  any  proof  ol 
either,  by  themselves.  The  fact  of  either  must  be  sup- 
plied by  otber  legitimate  proof,  before  the  law  allows  the 
inference  tbat  such  fact  prompted  tbe  expressions  of  the 
letters  and  writings. 

I  have  not  cited  the  authorities,  but  they  are  to  the 
effect  tbat— 

Mr.  Morris— Never  mind  the  argument,  Mr.  Abbott. 

Mr.  Abbott  [continuLugl— "  Condonation"  does  not 
necessarily  imply  adultery,  being  oftener  used  of  other 
matters ;  and  that  "  fault"  is  a  word  never  used  in  the 
books,  of  adultery.  [Roading.] 

XLIV.  None  of  the  defendant's  letters  or  writings  put 
in  evidence  ascertain  or  declare  the  fact  of  adult t-ry. 
They  only  declare  and  express  the  emotions  of  the-  defen 
.dant,  of  commiseration  and  self-reproach  at  the  broken 
fortunes  of  tbe  plaintiff  and  domestic  unhappiness  of  bis 
family,  as  presented  to  the  defendant's  appreciation  and 
detailed  by  himself. 

XLY.  If  tbe  jury  find  tbat  tbe  plaintiff's  wife  left  bim 
in  December,  1870,  on  accoimt  of  Ms  treatment  and  con- 
duct, and  with  a  view  to  separating  from  Mm,  and  that 
tbe  defendant  in  December,  1870,  gave  information  of 
tbe  facts  to  Ms  wife  and  to  an  oflacer  of  Ms  church,  aud 
to  tbe  plaintrfl/s  employer,  and  advised  a  separatiou  ut 
the  wife  from  her  husband,  these  facts  must  be  considered 
by  the  jury  as  corroborating  tbe  defendant's  testimony, 
and  discrediting  tbat  of  the  plaintiff  on  the  main  issue. 

XLYI.  The  fact  tbat  the  plaintiff  continited  to  cohabit 
witb  Ms  wife,  after  ber  alleged  commtmication  to  bim  of 
tbe  charge,  and  up  to  July,  1874,  is  cogent  evidence 
against  tbe  trittb  of  the  present  charge. 

NOTE.— State  asrt.  Marvin,  35  N.  H.,  22 :  Harris  agt.  Rupel, 
14  Ind.,  209  ;  Dillon  agt.  DUlon,  1  Notes  of  Cases,  415,  439  ; 
Houliston  agt.  Smyth,  3  BLng.,  127. 

XLYn.  Tbe  silence  of  the  plaintiff  toward  the  defend- 
ant for  nearly  six  months  after  he  says  he  was  in  possession 
of  tbe  fact  that  adultery  had  been  committed,  is  cogent 
evidence  against  the  truth  of  the  present  charge. 

NOTE.— Delay  to  sue  shows  either  insincerity  in  the  charge 
or  acquiescence  or  condonation.  Dillon  agt.  Dillon,  1  Notes  of 
Cases,  4 15;  Mortimer  agt.  Mortimer,  2  iJagg.  Consist.  313. 
Boultine  agt.  Boulttas,  3  Swabey  &  Tr.,  336;  Cunmiuigs  agt. 
CumminjiS,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  (2  ^fcCarter),  138. 

It  is  in  the  last  degree  important  that  courts  of  justice 
should  look  with  the  utiaost  .suspicion  on  the  conduct  of  parties 
who  intentionallv  keep  secret  matters  at  a  time  when  they 
misht  be  explained,  in  order  to  divulge  them  only  when  lapse 
of  years  mav  have  made  contradiction  or  explanation  impos- 
sible.  Per  'Lord  Cranworth,  Campbell  agt.  Campbell.  L.  R. 

1  Sc.  &  D.,  Ap.,  182  (1867).   S.  P.  in  case  of  adultery,  B  n 

agt.  B  n,  1  Spiuks,  248,  251 ;  s.  c,  2  Eobt.  Eng.  Ecc,  580, 

5§6. 

XLYHI.  Tbe  testimony  of  the  plaintiff  that  he  first 
disclosed  any  charge  agaiat  the  defendant,  to  Ms  own 
employer,  in  connection  with  business  arrangements, 
and  united  with  Mm  in  an  effort  to  drive  defendant  from 
Brooklyn,  and  thai  he  made  no  disclosure  of  the  charge 
to  tbe  defendant  imtil  tMs  effort  failed,  is  cogent  evidence 
against  the  truth  of  tbe  present  charge. 

XLIX.  The  facts  that  after  making  tbe  charge,  and 
learmng  that  it  was  retracted  by  Ms  wife,  the  plaintiff 
became  reconciled  with  the  defendatit,  and  restored  the 
social  relations  of  himself  and  wife  with  Mm,  is  cogent 
evidence  against  tbe  truth  of  the  present  charge. 

NOTE. — Reconciliation  raises  a  prestunption  of  belief  ta  Inno- 
cence  of  adulferv.  Caton  agt.  Caton,  7  Notes  of  Cas.,  16.  S.  P 
Geils  agt.  Geils,  6  Notes  of  Ecc  and  Mar.  Cases,  97-161 
Arches  "Ct.,  1348,  Sir  H,  J.  Fust. 


1024 


THJ^   TimON-Bl^JECEER  TRIAL, 


If.  The  four  years'  delay  of  tlie  plaintiff  in  making  any 
open  charge  of  adultery  against  tlie  defendant,  and  the 
bringing  of  such  open  charge  only  in  consequence  of  irri- 
tations and  resentments  proceeding  from  other  causes, 
are  cogent  evidence  against  the  truthfulness  and  good 
faith  of  the  present  charge. 

jSTote.— During  doubt,  forbearance  is  laudable.  Bvxt  when  a 
husband  holds  in  his  liands  what  he  claims  to  be  pi'oof  of  his 
wife's  adultery,  Ms  delay  to  file  a  bill  is  strong  evidence  in  Ms 
wife's  favor.  Berckmans  agt.  Berckmans,  1  C.  E.  Green,  16  N. 
J.  Eq.,  122 ;  afift'd  in  17  id.,  435  (Ct.  of  Err.  and  App.,  1864, 
Opin.  by  Van  Dyke,  J.) 

In  Mortimer  agt.  Mortimer  (2  Consist.,  313,  in  1820),  Sir 
Wm.  Scott  says  the  first  thing  which  the  Court  looks  to  "  when 
a  charge  of  adultery  is  preferred,  is  the  date  of  the  charge  rela- 
tively to  the  date  of  the  criminal  fact  and  knowledge  of  it  by 
the  party ;  because  if  the  interval  be  very  long  between  the 
date  and  knowledge  of  the  facts  and  the  exhibition  of  them  to 
tMs  Court,  it  will  be  inchsposed  to  reUeve  a  party  who  appears 
to  have  slumbered  in  sufficient  comfort  over  them,  and  it  will 
be  IncUned  to  infer  either  an  insincerity  in  the  complaint  or  an 
acquiescence  in  the  injury,  whether  real  or  supposed,  or  a  con- 
donation of  it.  It  therefore  demands  a  full  and  satisfactory  ex- 
planation of  this  delay  in  order  to  take  it  out  of  the  reach  of 
such  interpretations." 

To  which  the  Judge  Ordinary  adds,  in  quoting  this,  in  Boult- 
ing  agt.  Boulting,  3  Sw.  <fe  Tr,,  336  (in  1863)  :  "  Thus,  though 
delay  of  itself  goes  for  httle,  the  conclusion  to  which  it  may 
give" rise  may  go  to  the  fuU  length  of  barring  the  remedy." 

In  Cummings  agt.  Cummings,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  (2  McCarter), 
138  (1862,  Greene,  Chan.),  the  rule  laid  down  by  Sir  William* 
Scott,  in  Mortimer  agt.  Mortimer,  as  to  delay,  was  approved 
and  apphed  against  the  husband  ;  and  it  was  remarked  that 
the  excuse  for  delay  by  reason  of  hope  of  reconciliation,  or 
from  natural  aversion  to  publicity  or  involving  children,  is 
available  to  the  wife  but  not  to  the  husband.  Citing  1  Hagg, 
Consist.,  130. 

LI.  Where,  on  a  material  question  of  fact,  the  plain- 
tiff swears  one  way  and  the  defendant  directly  adverse, 
and  the  defendant  puts  in  evidence  a  written  statement 
made  hy  the  plaintiff  before  the  action  was  commenced, 
and  flatly  contradicting  his  testimony,  the  jury  are  bound 
to  consider  his  testimony  on  the  point  as  conclusively 
discredited. 

That  is  substantially  the  language  of  Boyd  agt.  Colt, 
20  How,  Pr.  384. 
Mr.  Beach— A  very  different  case. 

LII.  The  unequivocal  admissions  of  the  plaintiff  himself 
and  of  Mr.  Moulton,  that  they  have  deliberately  and  sys- 
tematically represented  the  facts  involved  in  this  present 
charge  in  a  manner  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  present 
charge,  and,  in  maintenance  of  the  defendant's  and  Mrs. 
Tilton's  innocence,  discredits  their  testimonj^  to  the  con- 
trary now  given,  and  requires  its  rejection  by  the  jury  as 
•wholly  untrustworthy. 

LIU.  If  the  jury  believe  that  the  plaintiff  or  any  other 
witness  of  his  has  willfully  sworn  falsely  on  a  material 
point,  they  should  disregard  the  whole  testimony  of  such 
witness. 

NOTE.— People  agt.  Evans,  40  N.  Y.,  1  (1869.  opinion  by 
Mason,  J.;  Grover,  Woodruff,  Murray,  and  Daniels,  JJ.,  con- 
curring). The  general  rule  that  the  question  of  the  credibility 
of  a  witness  belongs  to  the  jury  cannot  exist  in  every  case 
consistent  with  another  rule  of  evidence  which  has  become  a 
maxim  of  the  law  of  evidence,  viz.,  that  if  the  jury  find  that 
the  witness  has  sworn  corruptly  false  in  one  material  thing, 
they  shall  pronounce  him  false  in  his  whole  testimony,  and 
utterly  disregard  it. 

The  maxim  of  the  law  in  tMs  respect  Is  falsus  in  uno,  falsus 
in  omnibus  ;  false  in  one  thing,  false  in  all  things.  And  it  was 
said  by  Cowen,  J.,  in  People  agt.  Davis,  15  Wend.,  607,  that 
this  is  a  maxim  which  does  not  stop  at  nisi  prim.  (See  also 
the  other  authorities  there  cited.) 

LIV.  When  a  witness  testifies  to  a  conversation  of  the 
defendant,  at  which  no  other  person  was  present,  there 
are  no  means  of  direct  contradiction  except  by  the  oath 
of  the  defendant.  If  the  jury  find  a  train  of  circum- 
stances inconsistent  with  the  alleged  conversation,  and 
the  conversation  is  fully  denied  by  the  defendant,  they 
may  reject  the  testimony  to  such  alleged  conversation. 

Note.— Charge  of  Oakley,  Ch.  J.,  in  Forrest  agt.  Forrest. 

Mr.  Abbott— I  have  omitted  quite  a  number  of  the 
«erie8  of  propositions,  so  that  these  numbers  do  not  run 


in  order,  and  there  are  not  so  many  as  there  would  seem 
to  be  from  the  numbering. 

Judge  Neilson— I  will  trouble  you,  Mr.  Abbott,  to  take 
this  copy  ana  note  the  ones  that  you  have  read. 

Mr.  Abbott— I  have  read  aU  that  are  there,  except  the 
last  one. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  will  mark  that  copy,  as  your  Honor 
has  suggested. 

MR.  BEACH  MOVES  TO  REOPEN  THE  CASE. 

Mr.  Beach— There  is  a  subject,  your  Honor, 
which  we  proposed  to  present  to  your  Honor's  attention 
before  this  case  was  finally  submitted  to  the  jury.  It  is 
in  regard  to  new  evidence  which  we  propose  to  offer,  I 
understood  your  Honor  to  say  that  the  motion  should  be 
deferred  until  the  argument  was  concluded,  and  then 
should  be  presented  to  your  Honor  at  chambers,  in  the 
absence  of  the  jury.  We  have  no  desire  to  spread  the 
matters  before  the  jury,  but  we  wish  to  make  to  your 
Honor  an  application,  founded  upon  aflldavits,  presenting 
the  newly-discovered  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— The  coimsel  will  have  to  agree  among 
themselves  about  the  time. 

Mr.  Evarts— We  can  be  no  party,  if  your  Honor  please, 
to  any  agreement.  We  have  no  knowledge  of  this  matter. 

Mr.  Beach— I  have  no  objection.  Sir,  to  presenting  the 
affidavits  and  reading  them  here. 

Judge  Neilson— I  should  not  allow  that  to  be  done.  I 
remember  now  Intimating  that  if  there  was  any  motion 
to  be  made,  I  should  not  hear  it  here  in  the  presence  of 
the  jury.  • 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir ;  I  suppose  that  is  regular,  if  your 
Honor  please. 

Mr.  Beach— What  is  regular  1 

Mr.  Evarts— To  present  it  elsewhere. 

Mr.  Beach— Well,  I  think  it  Is  perfectly  regular  to  pre- 
sent it  here ;  but,  still,  I  do  not  desire  to. 

Mr.  Morris— We  will  present  it  at  the  adjournment  of 
the  Court,  Sir,  if  it  meets  your  Honor's  judgment.  It 
ought  to  be  disposed  of  to-night.  We  desire  to  know,  so 
that  we  can  govern  ourselves  accordingly. 

Mr.  Evarts— It  is  a  little  awkward  to  suppose  that  we 
are  to  proceed  to-night.  We  have  no  notice  of  what  you 
are  going  to  do.   We  are  entitled  to  notice. 

Mr.  Beach— I  think  not.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— After  hearing  what  you  lay  before  the 
Court,  then  it  will  be  proper  for  us  

Mr.  Beach— Oh,  no.  Sir ;  oh,  no,  Sir.  This  does  not  take 
the  formalities  of  an  ordinary  motion.  It  is  an  applica 
tion  to  the  Court,  during  the  pendency  of  the  trial,  to 
open  the  evidence ;  which  is  made  upon  the  instant,  In 
the  course  of  the  trial,  without  notice  or  the  service  of 
papers. 

Judge  Neilson— My  suggestion  was  based  upon  tJio  con- 
sideration that  if  new  matter  was  spread  out  here  in  the 
hearing  of  the  jury  


JUDGE  NEILSOS'S  CHARGE, 


Mr.  Morris— "We  do  not  desire  it. 

Judge  Neilson  feontiniiing]— tliey  might  confound  it 
"with  the  testimony  already  in  the  ease. 

Mr.  Morris— We  do  n't  desire  it,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes.  "Well,  I  will  do  anything  that  the 
counsel  agree  upon. 

Mr.  Beach — "Well,  Sir,  we  propose  now,  without  read- 
ing them,  to  offer  the  affidavits  to  your  Honor— to  hand 
them  up,  and  make  the  motion. 

]Mr.  Evarts— Then  his  Honor  will  let  us  know  what  he 
wishes  us  to  say  or  do  about  it. 

Judge  Neilson— I  wish  the  counsel  would  consider  the 
convenience  of  each  other. 

Mr.  Beach— "We  have  no  argument  to  make  upon  the 
Bubject.  We  wish  to  submit  the  papers  to  your  Honor 
and  make  the  motion,  and  then  whatever  course  your 
Honor  and  the  gentlemen  may  choose  to  pursue  in  regard 
to  the  f  utui'e  consideration  of  it  is  quite  immaterial  to  us. 

Mr.  Evarts— Have  you  a  copy  to  hand  to  us  1 

Mr.  Morris— No,  I  have  not,  Mr.  Evarts. 

Mr.  Beach— We  will  hand  up  the  originals. 

Judge  Neilson  [to  the  Juryl— Gentlemen,  please  get 
ready  to  retire.  I  would  recommend  you,  if  you  receive 
any  letters  whatever  that  do  not  to  all  appearance 
indicate  business,  you  will  do  well  to  lay  them  aside  until 
the  case  is  over.  I  have  found  it  convenient  to  pursue 
that  course  for  this  last  week. 

The  Court  here  adjourned  until  11  o'clock  on  Thm-sday 
morning. 


IIOTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDmGS. 


JUDGE  XEILSON'S  CHARGE. 

FINAL  SCENES  OF  THE  TRIAL— THE  JUDGE  DENIES  THE 
APPLICATION  TO  REOPEN  THE  CASE— THE  AFFI- 
DAVITS PRESENTED  BY  THE  PLAINTIFF'S  LAWYERS 
PUT  IN  THE  CUSTODY  OF  THE  CLERK  OF  THE 
COURT-  - JUDGE  XEILSON's  CHARGE  BRIEF  — NA- 
TURE AND  RULES  OF  EVIDENCE— CHARACTER  AND 
CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  WITNESSES  —  RULES  FOR 
THE  GUIDANCE  OF  THE  JURY— THE  BLACKMAIL 
THEORY  UNSUPPORTED  BY  EVIDENCE  AND  OF 
NO  ACCOUNT— THE  DEFENT)ANT's  CHARACTER. 

Thursday,  June  24,  1875. 

At  the  coutinuatioii  of  the  suit  of  Theodore  Tilton 
against  Henry  Ward  Beecher  to-day  Judge  Neil- 
son denied  the  application  to  reopen  the  case  and 
delivered  his  charge  to  the  jury.  After  the  as- 
sembling of  the  court,  Judge  Neilson  ruled  adversely 
to  the  application  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  asking 
for  a  reopening  of  the  case.  The  Judge  said  that  he 
would  file  the  affidavits  with  the  Clerk  of  the  Court. 

Judge  Neilson  afterward  began  to  charge  the  jury. 
He  read  from  manuscript  before  him  in  slow  and 


1025 

deliberate  tones,  which  were  distinctly  audible  in 
all  parts  of  the  room.  The  delivery  of  the  charge 
occupied  about  one  hour  and  twenty  minutes,  and 
seemed  to  command  the  earnest  attention  of  the 
jurors.  The  reading  of  the  charge  was  finished  at 
12:25  p.  m.,  after  which  the  Judge  proceeded  to 
pass  ftpon  the  requests  to  charge  which  had  been 
submitted  by  defendant's  counsel.  At  1:07  p.  m. 
the  case  was  given  to  the  jury,  who  at  once  retired 
to  their  deliberations  after  the  Judge  had  given 
orders  for  dinner  to  be  sent  them.  Officers  Spauld- 
ing,  Doyle,  and  Clare  were  sworn  in  to  guard  the 
jury  room. 

Just  before  retiring  the  fifth  juror  rose  and,  ad- 
dressing the  Court,  asked  if  the  jurors  could  have 
access  to  certain  of  the  original  documents  of  the 
case.  After  a  momentary  discussion  this  request 
was  disallowed,  Judge  Neilson  suggesting  that  if  the 
jury  were  at  any  time  during  their  deliberations  de- 
sirous of  information  about  any  particular  paper 
they  would  receive  that  information  from  him. 

Judge  Neilson  began  his  charge  j'esterday  hy  refer- 
ing  to  the  gratitication  and  relief  felt  by  the  jurors  in 
getting  to  the  end  of  the  case,  and  in  being  enabled 
to  return  to  their  usual  avocations.  He  would  re- 
frain from  giving  his  opinion  on  controverted  ques- 
tions of  fact,  believing  these  to  lie  within  the 
province  of  the  jury.  He  would  also  not  detain 
them  by  going  over  the  testimony  of  the 
111  witnesses  in  the  case.  The  charge  of 
adultery  lay  at  the  ioundation  of  the  action.  The 
burden  of  proving  it  rested  on  the  plaintiff,  and  the 
evidence  should  be  such  as  to  carry  conviction  to 
the  mind  of  a  prudent  and  discreet  man.  At  this 
point  Judge  Neilson  touched  upon  the  difificulty  of 
obtaining  direct  proof  in  such  a  case,  and  explained 
the  difference  between  direct,  circumstantial,  and 
presumptive  evidence. 

The  evidence  bearing  on  the  principal  charge  was 
treated  of  under  four  division :  First,  as  to  the 
writings ;  second,  as  to  the  oral  admissions  ;  third, 
as  to  the  tacit  or  implied  admissions ;  and  fourth,  as 
to  the  conduct  of  the  defendant. 

The  evidence  bearing  on  the  credit  due  to  the  wit- 
nesses was  briefly  considered,  the  Judge  contenting 
himself  with  laying  down  the  law  on  the  subject. 
The  jury  were  told  to  aecept  suggestions  of  perjury 
with  great  reluctance.  The  evidence  touching  the 
measure  of  damages  to  be  awarded  was  Alfo  touched 
on. 

In  regard  to  the  weight  of  established  character 
Judge  Neilson  said  :  "We  are  wont  to  say  that  all 


1026 


TEE   TlLTON-BfJEOEEB  TRIAL. 


suitors  are  treated  alike,  and  in  most  respects  they 
are ;  but  yet  in  a  case  of  this  character  a  man  grown 
old  in  prayer  and  pious  service  has  prima  fade  the 
"benefit  of  a  presumption  which  the  mere  man  of  the 
world  has  not."  The  theory  of  conspiracy  and  black- 
mail was  declared  to  have  no  evidence  to  support  it, 
and  to  be  of  no  consequence  whether  proved  or  not. 

Tlie  charge  ended  with  the  following  words : 
**  You  will  retire  to  your  deliberations  with  an  im- 
partial and  earnest  purpose  to  be  just  to  the  wit- 
nesses, just  to  the  parties,  and  to  render  a  verdict 
which  you  may  think  of  hereafter  with  satisfaction 
as  a  duty  honestlj'  performed  in  the  presence  of  God 
and  of  men." 

The  charge  was  received  with  an  outburst  of  ap- 
plause. 

THE   PEOCEEDINGS— VEEBATTM. 

THE  APPEAL  T^O  REOPEN  THE  CASE  DENIED. 

The  Court  met  at  11  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  ad- 
^om-nTiient. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Morris,  altliorgli  your  affidavits,  I 
think,  contain  wliat  might  under  otlier  circumstances  be 
sufficient  by  way  of  excuse  for  any  delay,  yet,  imder 
all  tlie  circumstances,  I  ought  not  to  entertain  this  appli- 
<;ation. 

Mr,  Beach— Do  I  understand  yom*  Honor  to  return  the 
affldayits  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Morris  can  withdraw  them. 
Mr.  Beach--I  do  not  propose  to  w  ithdraw  them.  Sir. 
Judge  Neilson— "Well,  I  will  file  them  with  the  Clei'k. 
Mr.  Beach— Yes. 
•Judge  Nei  ]  s  on— Ye  s . 

Mr.  Evarts— If  your  Honor  please,  we  have  not  seen,  as 
your  Honor  is  aware,  the  affidavits,  and  we  understand 
there  were  no  copies  of  them,  and  that  the  originals  were 
handed  to  your  Honor.  We  find  them  published  in  a 
moi  iiing  print  in  the  City  of  New-Yoi'k  this  morning. 

Judge  Neilson— T  can  only  say  that  I  was  applied  to  by 
perhaps  a  dozen  reporters  ;  some  of  the  gentlemen  came 
to  my  house  in  the  evening,  and  I  not  ouly  declined  to 
ihow  tlie  papers  but  to  state  what  they  were— uttei'ly 
declined. 

Mr.  Evarts— Of  course  yom^  Honor  understood  that  I 
did  not  suppose  they  came  from  the  copy  which  your 
Honor  had. 

Judge  Neilson— No ;  but  it  is  a  relief  to  me  to  be  able  to 
mention  it. 
Mr.  Evarts— Yes. 

Mr.  Beach— I  don't  know,  Sir,  how  these  affidavits  came 
tn  print ;  yet  they  were  made  and  filed  with  your  Honor, 
on  a  motion  for  the  admission  of  the  new  evidence  which 
tlx  •  M  -  lose.  They  became  a  part  of  the  record  of  the 


cause  fi-om  that  instant,  and  ought  to  have  appeared  In 
the  official  report  of  the  cause. 

Judge  Neilson— Well,  they  have  been  in  my  possession 
ever  since  they  Svere  handed  to  me ;  no  person  whatever 
has  seen  them. 

Mr.  Evarts — If  that  were  so,  we  shoidd  have  had  a 
right  to  notice  of  them,  and  to  have  been  heard  upon 
them,  and  to  have  met  them  by  evidence. 

Judge  Neilson— I  don't  know  how  far  you  might  need 
to  save  your  rights  in  that  direction. 

Mr.  Evarts— Your  Honor  has  disposed  of  the  matter  as 
the  application  has  been  made  to  you.  If  it  ever  became 
a  subject  for  us  to  meet  we  should  have  no  difficulty  in 
meeting  it. 

JUDGE  NEILSON'S  CHARGE  TO  THE  JURY. 

Judge  Neilson— Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  you 

will  find  it  fatiguing  to  stand  up,  and  you  will  please  to 
retain  your  seats. 

Your  term  of  service,  gentlemen,  here  is  drawing  to  a 
close.  You  must  find  relief  in  the  expectation  of  retm-n- 
lug  to  your  daily  avocations,  to  the  unrestrained  habits 
of  daily  life.  You  may  also  be  grateful  for  having  been 
able  to  give  such  attention  to  the  case  as  prepares  you 
for  the  duty  yet  to  be  discharged. 

I  have  a  sense  of  the  importance  of  that  duty,  and  mean 
to  give  you  all  the  aid  I  consistently  can.  But  I  must  do 
so  within  limitations  imposed  by  my  habits  and  convic- 
tions, with  especial  reference  to  the  influence  which  a 
Judge  may  properly  seek  to  have  with  a  jury.  I  have 
i)ersistently,  and  upon  principle,  refrained  from  stating 
to  juries  my  opinions  upon  controverted  questions  of  fact. 
The  exceptions  to  this  course  have  been  as  to  points  of 
slight  importance,  ^s  an  illustration  of  my  general 
method,  and  as  helping  you  to  a  proper  estimate  of  your 
position,  I  turn  to  the  13th  of  Abbott's  Reports,  page 
343,  and  read  a  few  words  from  my  charge  given  at 
length  in  the  report  of  a  case  in  this  court.  What  I 
saidtothatjury  Inowsay  to  you:  "It  is  your  duty  to 
accept  fully,  and  without  a  shade  of  mental  reservation, 
the  rules  of  law  stated.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  I  wish 
to  pay  a  like  degree  of  respect  to  yom-  great  office.  You 
are  the  sole  judges  of  the  weight  of  the  testimony  and  of 
the  credibility  of  the  witnesses.  A  sense  of  this  restrains 
me  from  commenting  upon  the  proofs  at  large,  and  from 
indicating  to  you  what  my  own  opinions  may  be  on  the 
questions  of  fact  involved."  Your  recognition  of  that  as 
youi  relation  to  the  court,  and  to  the  cause,  is  due  to 
these  parties  as  well  as  to  j'ourselves.  My  recocrnition  of 
it  is  due  not  only  to  you  but  to  these  parties,  as  the  moral 
force  of  a  verdict  depends  largely  on  the  fact  that  it  is 
the  unbiased  judgment  of  the  twelve  men  selected  from 
the  body  of  our  citizens,  and,  in  the  most  solemn  form 
known  to  our  laws,  consecrated  to  the  service.  But, 
without  intruding  upon  your  province,  I  shall  be  able  to 


JUDGE  SEILSO 

assist  you  materially,  and  as  the  exigencies  of  the  case 
require. 

The  learned  counsel  hare  repeated  and  dwelt  upon  the 
evidence,  in  your  hearing,  so  fully,  that  I  need  not  detain 
you  hy  going  over  these  volumes  of  testimony.    A  repe- 
tition now,  in  any  form,  of  what  you  have  heard  from 
the  111  witnesses,  would  send  yoii  to  your  deliberations, 
days  hence,  weary  and  perplexed.   That  I  may  not  be 
performing  a  fruitless  service,  I  must  assist  you  to  so  ar- 
range and  classify  the  evidence  that  you  can  grasp  and 
apply  it.  That  I  may  not  leave  your  minds  troubled  by 
the  conflicting  authorities  you  have  heard  cited,  I  must 
state  the  rules  of  law  according  to  our  present  concep- 
tion of  them.  If  I  can  help  you  to  a  clear  apprehensiou 
of  the  precise  questions  you  are  to  consider,  and  of  the 
character  of  the  evidence,  and  the  rules  and  principles 
applicable  to  each  of  those  questions,  you  may  be  pre- 
pared to  pass  hy  a  rational  process  through  the  several 
stages  of  inquiry  to  a  ^e3^^1t.  That  great  body  of  testi- 
mony caa  only  he  resolved  by  a  proper  arrangement  and 
distribution.  Some  of  it  relates  to  the  priacipal  question 
in  issue,  some  of  it  to  the  credit  due  to  certain  witnesses, 
some  of  it  to  the  mere  question  of  damages.   The  plead- 
ings have  been  stated  ia  your  hearing,  and  you  perceive 
that  the  charge  of  adultery,  denied  by  the  answer,  lies  at 
the  ioimdation  of  the  case.  Upon  the  issue  thus  jotaed  the 
burden  of  proof  rests  on  the  plaintiff.  You  are  also  to  im- 
derstaud  that  the  evidence  should  be  such  as  to  carry  con- 
victiou  to  the  minds  of  just  and  prudent  men ;  should 
point  to  the  actual  guilt  more  directly  than  to  any  other 
reasonable  hypothesis.  The  wrong  charged  ia  this  com- 
plaint might  be  proved  by  dii-ect  or  by  circumstantial 
erideace.  But  such  a  charge  is  not  usually  proved,  or 
indeed  provable,  by  direct  and  positive  evidence.  The 
reason  is  obvious.  In  most  instances  where,  under  social 
restraiats,  an  apparently  proper  intimacy  degenerates 
into  licentious  acts,  the  evil  intent  and  life  put  on  the 
garb  of  innocence.  To  such  cases,  to  aU  eases  of  doubt 
and  difficulty,  the  law  of  evidence,  searching  and  flexible, 
applies  peculiar  tests— presumptions  and  inferences 
drawn  from  facts  and  from  conduct,  according  to  the 
dictates  of  experience,  so  that,  finally,  the  question  of 
guilt  or  innocence  may  be  determined  by  the  iui'y  ia  the 
light  reflected  by  the  surrounding  circumstances.   A  few 
simple  illustrations,  stated  with  reference  to  a  case  of 
this  character,  may  enable  you  to  understand,  sufficlently 
lor  our  present  purpose,  the  difl:erence  between  direct, 
circumstantial,  and  presumptive  evidence.   If  a  witness 
should  testify  that  he  had  seen  the  actual  commission  of 
the  sexual  act  charged,  that  would  be  what  is  called 
direct  and  positive  evidence.   If  a  witness  should  testify 
that  the  wife  and  the  paramour,  defendant,  had  occupied 
the    same    room    all    niaht    in    such     manner  as 
tended  to  the  conclusion  that  they  had  slept  together, 
or   if    he    had  admitted  his  guilt,  that  would  he 
circumstantial  evidence.  If ,  to  a  letter  received  by  the 


LV'.S   CHAEGF.  1027 

defendant  explicitly  charging  him  with  the  adultery,  he 
had  answered,  simply  saying,  "  I  am  sorry,  and  hope  to 
be  forgiven,"  or  if,  on  being  thus  charged  in  a  conversa- 
tion, by  one  having  an  interest  in  the  matter,  he  had  made 
no  answer  whatever,  that,  by  a  natural  process  of  reason- 
ing, would  be  prestmaptive  evidence.  In  acting  on  cir- 
cumstantial or  on  presumptive  evidence,  a  jnry  should 
exercise  great  care,  proceed  cautiously,  as  men  are  wont 
to  do  when  traveling  in  dim  twilight  on  imfamiliar  roads, 
and  must  distinguish  the  notion  arising  on  suspicion  or 
conjecture  from  the  relation  existing  between  the  ob- 
served and  the  inferred  facts. 

THE  WEITINGS  OF  THE  CASE. 

Within  the  spirit  and  terms  of  the  illustra- 
tions stated,  you  will  have  occasion  to  consider  the  exist- 
ing facts  and  the  inferences  that  may  justly  be  drawn 
from  them.  The  inferences  must  have  a  healthy  growth* 
spring  from  the  facts  naturally,  as  fruit  from  the  vine, 
and,  although  you  cannot  trace  the  connection  as  you 
could  feel  the  links  of  the  chain  which  binds  material  ob- 
jects together,  yet,  to  satisfy  the  rule,  you  should  perceive 
and  be  fully  convinced  that  the  connection  does  exist. 
The  evidence  bearing  on  the  principal  question — that  of 
adultery— may  be  taken  up  in  its  order  thus :  First,  as  to 
the  wi'itlngs  referred  to ;  secondly,  as  to  the  oral  admis- 
sions ;  thirdly,  as  to  the  tacit  or  implied  admissions ;  and 
fourthly,  as  to  the  general  conduct  of  the  defendant.  I 
purpose  briefly  to  call  your  attention  to  some  of  the  more 
important  matters  faUing  under  each  of  those  heads. 
Yonr  conclusions,  however,  mtist  not  be  drawn  from  one 
of  these  classes  of  evidence,  but  from  all  the  testimony 
on  this  branch  of  the  case  combined. 

In  taking  up  the  writings  referred  to,  you  will  observe 
that  the  plaintitTs  letter  of  the  26th  of  December,  1870, 
demanding  that  the  defendant  shoidd  leave  his  pulpit 
and  the  city,  was  the  first  open  act  of  hostility.  That 
demand  was  withdrawn  at  the  interview  had  by  the 
parties  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house  on  the  evening  of  Decem- 
ber 30, 1870.  The  plaintiff  claims  that  that  was  in  defer- 
ence to  the  wishes  of  his  wife.  At  that  time  a  paper 
wiitten  by  Mrs.  Tilton  in  respect  to  her  relations  to  the 
defendant  was  held  by  Mr.  Moulton.  The  copy  of  it 
which  the  plaintiff  had  was  torn  up  after  having  been 
read  or  stated  to  the  defendant,  and  the  original  was  also 
torn  up  afterward  by  Mrs.  Tilton,  with  her  husband's 
assent.  Proof  of  the  contents  of  that  paper  was  ruled 
out,  because  the  writing  was  a  confidential  communica- 
tion by  the  wife  to  the  husband,  and  because  he  was  a 
party  to  its  destruction.  But  that  ruling  was  no  depriva- 
tion, as  no  charge  written  by  Mrs.  Tilton  could  have  been 
evidence  against  the  defendant.  That  same  evening, 
Mr.  Beecher,  with  tlie  assent  of  the  husband,  called  on 
Mrs.  TUton.  He  then  obtained  the  paper,  commonly 
ealled  "  The  Retraction,"  afterward  surrendered  to  Mr. 
Moulton. 


1028  TEE  TlLTOIi-B 

The  next  paper  in  order  is  tliat  of  January  1, 1871.  It 
is  in  Mr.  Mo ulton's  writing,  except  the  line  at  thehottom, 
and  the  signature,  written  by  Mr.  Beecher.  A  question 
of  fact  in  dispute  as  to  this  paper  deserves  your  atten- 
tion. Mr.  Moulton  says  that  it  was  dictated  to  him,  sen- 
tence by  sentence,  and  that  it  was  read  over.  Mr. 
Beecher  denies  that  dictation  and  that  reading.  As  to 
the  degree  of  credit  to  which  these  witnesses,  thus  in 
conflict,  may  he  relatively  entitled,  you  are  to  remember 
that  they  speak  of  what  occurred  at  a  time  of  great  ex- 
citement. They  may  not  have  be^n  equally  affected,  but 
while  the  one  was  pouring  out  his  thoughts  in  the  agony 
of  self-depreciation,  the  other  may  well  have  been  moved 
In  sympathy.  The  law  has  tender  consideration  for  au 
inflimity  of  memory  thus  ioherited :  the  witness  is  not 
expected  to  speak  of  events  with  the  clearness  and  cer- 
tainty that  he  might  under  other  circumstances.  As  to 
the  subject  thus  spoken  to  by  those  witnesses,  you  should 
be  prudent  in  reference  to  mere  probabilities.  You  are 
not  to  indulge  in  speculations,  or  lightly  consider  a  mat- 
ter which  has  been  afiirmed  because  it  may  not  seem  rea- 
sonable. If  you  were  asked  to  determine  a  question  from 
the  character,  thought,  or  style  of  one  well  known,  you 
would  hesitate,  because  no  one  is  always  temperate  or 
master  of  himself.  Our  moods  and  freaks  of  temper  mar 
the  harmony  of  thought  and  utterance.  Your 
neighbor  may  usually  have  a  staid  quality  of 
speech,  which  so  well  comports  with  his  char- 
acter that  you  recognize  him  by  it.  But  the  same  man, 
when  unduly  moved,  may  have  quite  another  method, 
and  surprise  you  by  the  incongruity.  You  will,  there- 
fore, seek  to  be  guided  by  the  evidence  as  given.  You 
take,  first,  this  paper,  with  whatever  of  latent  and  ap- 
parent quality  may  tend  to  support  or  impeach  it ; 
secondly,  the  statements,  explanations,  and  denials,  and 
the  fact  that  the  paper  was  to  be  used  in  correcting  the 
plaintiffs  impressions.  While  Mr.  Beecher  was  speaking, 
Mr.  Moulton  was  writing,  and  with  his  assent.  It  max- 
well be  that  in  the  absence  of  a  deliberate  course  of  dic- 
tation he  could  only  note,  in  a  hurried  and  imperfect 
manner,  detached  and  striking  expressions.  You  will 
consider  whether  he  did  so  in  good  faith  or  not,  and  with 
what  degree  of  success.  But,  if  the  circumstances  were 
not  favorable  to  the  making  of  a  correct  report,  had  the 
writer  wished  to  make  it,  neither  were  they  favorable  to 
the  invention  of  what  was  written.  You  are  to  consider 
how  this  paper,  read  often  and  criticised  freely  in  your 
hearing,  is  to  be  regarded,  with  especial  reference  to  the 
controverted  question  of  fact  to  which  I  have  called  your 
attention. 

The  other  papers  belonging  to  this  class  of  evidence,  in 
which  the  defendant  takes  blame  to  himself,  have  been 
read  several  times,  and  need,  in  this  connection,  no 
8|>ecial  treatment.  As  a  general  rule  it  is  the  province  of 
the  Court  to  instruct  the  jury  as  to  the  import  of  a  writ- 
ing in  evidence.    That  is  more  especially  so  ag  to  oon 


ECHEE  TRIAL. 

tracts.  But  if  the  writings  arc  ambiguous,  the  circum- 
stances under  which  they  were  prepared  may  be  resorted 
to,  and  the  question  of  intent  and  meaning  be  left  to  the 
jury.  If  it  does  not  appear  that  words  were  used  in  a 
special  sense,  you  will  assume  that  they  were  used  in 
their  ordinary  sense.  It  appears  from  the  papers  before 
you,  that  of  Jan.  1, 1871,  if  you  adopt  it,  and  the  defend- 
ant's letters  written  later,  that  he  was  conscious  of  hav- 
ing committed  some  wrong  or  offense  affecting  the  plain- 
tiff and  his  family.  With  that  ofeservation  as  to  the 
import  of  the  papers,  I  submit  them  to  your  considera- 
tion, that  you  may,  taking  them  in  connection  with  the 
proofs  at  large,  determine  what  that  wrong  or  offense 
was. 

THE  OEAL  ADMISSIONS. 

Passing  to  the  second  branch  of  the  evidence 
as  to  the  principal  charge  in  the  order  stated,  I  call  your 
attention  to  the  alleged  oral  adjnissions.  The  confessions 
of*  a  party  made  deliberately  against  his  own  interest,  as 
to  facts  known  to  and  understood  by  him,  if  clearly 
proved,  are  regarded  as  of  a  high  class  of  evidence,  and 
deservedly  so,  because  it  is  contrary  to  experience  for 
men  to  admit  what  hurts  them,  if  not  true.  Experience 
proves,  rather,  that  men  evade  or  deny  the  truth  when 
the  truth  hurts.  Testimony  to  prove  oral  admisBions 
should  be  carefully  scrutinized.  The  jury  should  be  sat- 
isfied that  the  witness  clearly  understood,  correctly  re- 
membered, and  fairly  repeated  what  was  said.  But  the 
caution  against  relying  on  such  testimony  too  implicitly 
snould  find  its  counterpoise  in  the  caution  against  the  too 
ready  reiection  of  it.  It  may  be  well  to  remember 
that  many  contracts  made  orally  are  enforced  in  courts  of 
justice,  that  engagements  to  marry,. and,  with  us,  marriage 
itself,  after  its  consummation,  may  be  shown  by  proof  of 
words  spoken;  that,  in  the  absence  of  all  possible  collu- 
sion, a  defendant's  confession  that  he  or  she  was  actually 
guilty  of  the  act  of  adultery  charged,  will  support  an 
action  for  a  divorce.  You  are  also  to  remember  that 
most  witnesses  find  it  difficult  to  recall  the  words  heard, 
and,  from  necessity,  are  allowed  to  state  the  substance  of 
a  conversation.  But,  in  some  instances,*  greater  precision 
may  be  necessary ;  a  single  word  may  be  vital  to  identify 
the  sublect,  and  determine  the  effect  and  application  of 
an  admission.  The  testimony  as  to  actual  admission 
of  guilt  by  the  defendant  was  given  by  the  plaintiff  and 
by  Francis  D.  Moulton  and  by  Emma  C.  Moulton,  his 
wife.  That  testimony  has  been  contradicted  by  the  de- 
fendant. _ 

THE   IMPLIED  ADMISSIONS. 

The  third  class  of  evidence  in  the  arrange- 
ment stated,  is  as  to  tacit  or  implied  admissions.  In 
theory  it  appeals  to  a  principle  peculiar  to  presumptive 
evidence.  It  is  assumed  that,  on  suitable  occasions,  most 
men  have  such  regard  for  their  own  interests  thai,  on  be- 


JUDGE  NJEILSON'S  CRAEGE. 


1029 


lug  unjustly  charged  or  maligned,  they  will  speak  out  in 
denial  or  justiflcatioR.  Hence  it  is  that  silence  may  often 
1)6  regarded  as  confession.  The  most  obvious  diflaculty 
in  applying  this  doctrine  arises  from  the  consideration 
that  all  men  may  not  act  alike  intlie  same  circumstances, 
and  that  the  jury  may  possibly  ascribe  to  a  sense  of  guilt 
what  really  was  due  to  mere  surprise,  or  to  some  un- 
known restraint.  But,  as  commonly  applied,  the  doc- 
trine seems  quite  reasonable.  Is  it  not  consistent  with 
our  experience,  a  iust  inference,  that  a  man  asked  to  pay 
money  not  due  wDl  deny  his  indebtedness  that  if  un- 
justly accused  lie  will  assert  his  innocence  ?  It  is  of  the 
essence  of  tLe  presumption  arising  fi'om  mere  silence 
that  the  accusation  or  charge  be  made  in  express  terms. 
When  the  testimony  appears  to  come  within  the  rule,  the 
inference,  if  any,  to  be  drawn  from,  and  the  excuse  for, 
silence  are  to  he  considered  by  the  jiuy.  The  testimony 
of  the  plaintiff,  and  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Moulton,  is  as  to  two 
forms  of  admission :  the  one  oral,  previously  noticed ;  the 
other  tacit  or  Implied,  now  under  consideration.  You 
may  not  find  the  application  of  some  of  that  testimony  to 
one  topic,  and  some  of  it  to  another,  difficult.  But  some 
specific  directions  may  be  useful. 

In  considering  those  portions  of  that  testimony  which 
relate  to  the  defendant's  actual  admissions  of  guilt,  you 
will  recaU  the  doctrine  stated  under  a  former  head,  to 
the  effect  that  a  reasonable  doubt  as  to  a  want  of  appre- 
hension, or  of  memory,  or  of  fairness,  in  the  witness 
proving  such  admissions  imposes  upon  the  jury  the  exer- 
cise of  great  caution.  Upon  the  testimony  you  will  in- 
quire whether  the  witnesses  are  correct  in  their  state- 
ments, or  whether  the  defendant  was  misunderstood  by 
them.  In  considering  the  other  portions  of  their  testi- 
mony as  to  implied  admissions,  also  contradicted  by  the 
defendant,  you  inquii-e  whether  in  the  conversations  had 
by  him  with  the  witnesses  his  adultery  with  the  plain- 
tiff's wife  was  spoken  of  in  clear  and  express  terms.  If 
you  find  that  he  was  thus  charged,  so  that,  acting  on  the 
impulse  common  to  innocent  men,  he  would  have  denied 
it,  if  without  foundation,  you  will  consider  the  inference 
to  be  diawn  from,  and  any  apparent  excuse  for,  his 
silence. 

THE  DEFENDANT'S  CONDUCT. 

The  remaining  class  of  evidence  as  to  the 
principal  question  in  issue  relates  to  the  conduct  of  the 
defendant.  In  the  first  place,  you  will  consider  his  con- 
duct in  his  intercourse  with  Mrs.  Tilton,  as  proved  by 
Joseph  H.  Richards  and  Kate  Carey.  The  circumstances* 
stated  by  them  are  claimed  to  disclose  an  undue  famil- 
iarity. Your  attention  has  been  called  to  a  series  of 
events,  to  the  reasons  which  may  have  led  to  certain 
modes  of  action,  of  acquiescence,  of  restraint ;  to  occar 
Bional  distiu'bances,  apprehensions,  and  resentments, 
lapsing  into  seasons  of  peace  and  patient  endurance.  The 
learned  counsel  have  given  you  their  views  as  to  the  sig- 


nificance of  each  fact  and  circumstance.  But,  in  and 
through  it  all,  the  vital  and  absorbing  question  remains, 
not  whether  the  defendant  acted  wisely  and  well,  but  as 
he  would  not  have  acted  if  innocent  of  this  paiticular 
charge. 

I  recur  to  the  letter  of  the  26th  of  December,  delivered 
by  Ml-.  Bowen,  in  which  the  plaintiff  said  to  the  defend- 
ant, "  I  demand  that,  for  reasons  which  you  explicitly 
understand,  you  immediately  cease  fi'om  the  ministry  of 
Plymouth  Church,  and  that  you  quit  the  City  of  Brooklj-n 
as  a  residence."  The  question  is  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  this  demand  was  received.  The  plaintiff's  theory 
seems  to  have  been  that,  as  the  offense  charged  in  this 
complaint  had  been  perpetrated,  the  reasons,  thus  gener- 
ally referred  to,  would  be  apprehended.  On  reading  the 
letter,  the  defendant  said :  "  This  man  is  crazy."  It  is  for 
you  to  consider  whether  that  remark  was  or  was  not  in 
the  nature  of  a  suggestion,  that  there  were  no  sensible 
reasons  for  making  that  demand,  and  whether,  in  conver- 
sation, or  in  tone  and  manner,  the  defendant  betrayed 
any  consciousness  of  guilt. 

It  may  be  observed,  also,  in  reference  to  the  interview 
of  Deo.  30, 1870,  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house,  when  the  copy 
of  the  paper  called  "  The  Confession  "  was  torn  up,  that 
the  oral  presentation  of  the  subject,  whether  in  the  exact 
terms  of  the  written  paper  or  not,  may  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  awaken  the  apprehensions  of  the  defendant,  and 
to  enable  you  to  judge,  upon  the  evidence,  of  his  manner. 

The  policy  of  silence  or  suppression,  as  it  has  been 
called,  deserves  notice  with  reference  to  the  motives 
which  led  the  defendant  to  act  upon  it.  It  was  adopted 
upon  conference,  at  an  early  stage  of  the  trouble,  initi- 
ated a  system  of  management,  and  led  to  many  devices. 
In  some  aspects  it  may  have  been  prudential;  in  other 
aspects  unwise.  But,  whatever  the  "  ufly  circumstance" 
underlying  it  may  have  been,  the  parties  sought  peace  in 
that  way,  and  we  have  no  occasion  to  condemn  the  effort. 
Like  many  artificial  expedients,  however,  it  failed.  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Mr.  Moulton  held  to  that  coiu'se  until  the 
committee  of  investigation  was  appointed.  Mr.  Tilton 
was  not  equal  to  such  strict  adherence,  though  it  is 
claimed  that,  fitfully  it  may  be,  like  one  troubled  in 
spirit,  he  performed  some  service  in  that  cause  imtil 
scx'vice  became  hopeless.  But  there  were  uncharitable 
whisperings  in  the  public  ear,  their  source  or  origin  not 
now  material,  and  finally  actual  denunciation  came. 

Your  attention  has  been  called  to  the  meetings  held  by 
Mr.  Beecher,  Mr.  Moulton,  and  others,  to  the  discussions 
had,  to  the  papers  prepared  or  proposed,  to  the  neglect 
to  make  early  answer  to  the  Woodhull  card  as  published, 
and  to  the  so-called  "  Woodhull  Scandal,"  to  the  alleged 
disfavor  with  which  the  West  charges  were  met  and 
finally  suppressed,  to  the  spirit  of  timidity,  vaeilla- 
tion  and  mystery  which  characterized  the  period.  Mr. 
Beecher's  course  throughout  is  tohe  carefully  scrutinized. 
Soni^  of  the  events  claimed  to  have  occurred  under  that 


1030 


THE   TILTON-BEECRER  TRIAL, 


arrangement  are  in  dispute.  You  -will  inquire  whether 
attentions  were  paid  to  Mrs.  Woodhull  to  conciliate  her 
at  the  instance,  or  with  the  approbation  of  the  defend- 
ant ;  whether  before  Miss  Turner  was  sent  off  to  school 
he  favored  that  as  a  precautionary  measure,  or  con- 
tributed money  in  that  view ;  and  whether  lie  repressed 
the  presentation  and  prosecution  of  the  West  cliarges. 
If  you  find  that  Mr.  Beecher  did  not  thus  act,  those  ques- 
tions will  give  you  no  trouble.  But  if  you  find  that  he 
took  such  part  in  those  transactions,  or  any  of  them,  then 
you  will  inquire  whether  lie  did  so  in  the  apprehension 
that  his  sexual  intercourse  with  Mrs.  Tilton  might  be  ex- 
posed, or  from  some  other  and  independent  cause. 

You  will  also  inquire  whether  the  defendant  refrained 
from  publishing  a  denial  or  refutation  of  the  allegations 
contained  in  the  paper  known  as  the  Woodhull  Scandal ; 
from  answering  the  particular  inquiry  made  by  Mrs. 
Bradshaw  in  her  letter  to  which  he  sent  a  reply ;  or  was 
held  in  the  bondage  of  fear  to  Mrs.  Morse  from  a  sense  of 
the  guilt  now  charged.  You  will  remember,  in  this  con- 
nection, that,  as  to  the  several  acts  of  repression  admitted 
by  the  defendant  on  his  examination,  two  views,  as  mo- 
tives of  action,  are  put  forth,  the  one,  that  having  agreed 
with  Mr.  Moulton,  to  whose  sagacity  be  deferred,  that 
silence  should  be  observed,  he  merely  acted  on  that ;  the 
other,  that  in  those  instances  be  was  governed  by  sympa- 
thy for  the  plaintiff  and  Ms  family.  The  learned  counsel 
Bougbt  to  qualify  somewhat  the  pressure  resting  upon 
the  defendant  from  this  policy  of  silence,  as  applied  to 
the  Woodhull  scandal,  by  showing  that  the  church  shared 
that  view.  I  thought  that  due  to  the  defendant,  and  it 
appeared  that  at  a  stated  meeting  of  the  official  represen- 
tatives of  the  church,  beld  soon  after  the  publication,  the 
subject  was  mentioned,  and  the  sense  of  those  present 
was  that  no  action  sbould  be  taken.  It  also  appeared 
tbat  such  had  been  the  opinion  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Halliday,  a  gentleman  entitled  to  great  consideration  in 
his  relations  to  the  church.  You  have  before  you  the 
evidence  as  to  what  was  done  and  suffered  by  the  de- 
fendant under  tbe  policy  of  silence  and  suppression,  and 
the  question  is  as  to  Ms  motives.  The  inference  you 
might  be  justified  in  drawing  could  be  readily  applied  if 
the  wrong  he  was  conscious  of  having  committed,  and 
wMch  he  sought  to  conceal,  was  so  clearly  identified  as 
to  exclude  the  idea  of  •  any  other  wrong.  But  if  there 
were  a  series  of  wrongs  other  than  that  now  charged,  as 
to  some  one  or  more  of  wMch  be  might  court  conceal- 
ment, the  application  of  the  principle  requires  serious  at- 
tention. If  a  person  to  whom  several  crimes  are  imputed 
be  guilty  of  one  offense,  and,  sensible  of  that,  seeks  to  es- 
cape and  avoid  arrest,  it  would  be  a  perversion  if  the 
Inference  or  suspicion  which  would  attach  were  used  to 
eke  out  the  circumstantial  evidence,  to  convict  Mm  of 
one  of  the  other  crimes  imputed.  You  might  wish  to 
punish  a  meretricious  lover  who,  on  visiting  his  mistress, 
Is  caught  at  night  hiding  under  a  bed,  but  you  would  not. 


because  offenders  are  often  caught  thus  concealed,  con- 
vict him  of  burglary  with  intent  to  steal.  These  sugges- 
tions may  indicate  the  care  with  which  the  real  question 
before  us  should  be  considered.  They  are  the  more 
proper  because,  in  any  view  of  the  case,  you  may  be  dis- 
posed to  ask  why  Mr.  Beecher,  if  innocent,  should  have 
garnered  up  in  Ms  heart  all  that  pain  and  fear  so  long, 
when  he  might  have  made  proclamation  to  the  world  and 
trampled  out  the  scandal  as  with  iron  boots. 

But,  gentlemen,  the  spirit  wMch  characterizes  and 
chastens  a  judicial  investigation  should  be  distinguished 
from  that  which  prevails  in  other  forms  of  public  inquiry 
and  debate.  Notwithstanding  all  the  appeals  you  have 
heard  to  the  common  experience  of  life,  you  should  not 
adopt  opinions  as  freely,  or  reach  conclusions  as  readily 
as  in  your  ordinary  business  affairs.  When  you  make  a 
bad  bargain,  you  repent  and  make  up  the  loss.  If  we 
negligently  commit  an  error  here  we  may  repent,  but  the 
wrong  remains  irreparable.  The  question,  upon  aU  the 
proofs,  is,  whether  the  defendant  understood  that  he  was 
charged  with  the  adultery,  and  spoke,  wi'ote,  acted,  and 
suffered  from,  and  in  consequence  of  that ;  or,  whether 
laying  that  out  of  view,  he  understood  the  charges  to  be 
that  he  had  made  the  improper  proposals  or  advances, 
and  had  robbed  the  plaintiff  of  a  rich  inheritance  in  the 
love  of  Ms  wife;  and  whetber,  coupled  with  those 
charges,  he  believed  that  be  had  wronged  the  plaintift"  by 
favoring  a  family  separation  and  the  dismissal  by  Mr. 
Bowen,  and,  for  those  reasons,  spoke,  wrote,  acted,  and 
suffered  as  described.  If  the  wrong  was  the 
adultery,  the  solution  of  what  followed  is  easy. 
But,  if  the  wrongs  or  offenses,  actual  or  imputed, 
were  of  the  other  character  stated,  then,  a  just 
apprebension  of  the  relation  between  the  defend 
ant's  state  of  mind  and  Ms  conduct  involves  several  con- 
siderations. What  was  his  personal  estimate  of  his  rela- 
tion to  the  church,  to  the  world,  to  literature,  and  of  the 
reputation  he  should  leave  behind  Mm  ? — wh5,t  his  con- 
ception of  the  nature  and  gravity  of  the  charge  of  impure 
solicitations,  of  alienating  a  woman's  love  from  her 
husband,  and  of  the  effect  of  such  accusations,  if  publicly 
made?— what  Ms  notion  of  the  extent  to  which  Mr. 
Tilton  had  been  injured  as  a  journalist,  in  his  family,  and 
as  to  their  means  of  subsistence?  The  learned  ooimsel 
claims  that,  upon  the  evidence,  Mr.  Beecher  had  no  occa- 
sion for  grief,  as  Ms  advice  that  Mrs.  Tilton  should  sep- 
arate from  her  husband  was  not  followed,  or  as  to  Mr. 
Bo  wen's  action,  as  that  was  not  influenced  by  Mr. 
Beecher.  You  will  consider  the  evidence  and  that  view. 
But  did  the  defendant,  under  a  misapprehension,  believe 
that  he  had  been  instrumental  in  inflicting  those  injuries 
upon  the  plaintiff";  and  what,  if  any,  effect  had  that  upon 
liis  conduct  i 


JUDGE  NEILS 

STATEMENTS  OF  WITNESSES. 
I  make  these  suegestions  that  you  may  give 
them  sucli  consideration  as  you  tMnk  they  deserve.  Thus 
much  2t&  to  the  principal  question  in  issue.  I  have  now 
to  ca]l  your  attention  to  a  question  which,  as  I  have  said, 
belongs  exclusively  to  you,  namely,  the  credit  due  to  wit- 
nesses. The  statements  of  witnesses  are  to  he  considered 
and  weighed  with  a  due  regard  to  their  relation  to  the 
case,  as  in  interest,  to  the  bias  or  prejudice  they  may  have 
in  respect  to  the  parties  or  the  suhject-matter  under  in- 
vestigation, to  contradictions,  previous  inconsistent 
statements,  to  their  knowledge  of  facts,  and  the  apparent 
disposition  to  make  just  and  true  disclosures,  and  to  their 
known  or  ascertained  characters,  A  good  degree  of  re- 
spect and  confidence  is  due  to  every  citizen  who  has  occa- 
sion to  speak  under  oath,  in  a  coiu't  of  justice  as  to  his 
own  rights  or  the  rights  of  others.  But  a  certain  degree 
of  infirmity  may,  and  often  does,  attach;  the  memory 
may  he  defective,  dates  and  events  be  confounded.  Wit- 
nesses, simple-minded  and  honest,  contradict  themselves 
and  each  other.  On  a  trial  some  months  ago  I  remember 
to  have  been  much  impressed  by  the  testimony  of  a 
worthy  man,  the  president  of  an  insurance  company, 
who,  while  the  case  was  still  on,  came  back  from 
the  City  of  Xew-York  to  acknowledge  his  error 
and  make  a  correction.  He  was  as  honest  in  his 
first  as  in  his  last  affirmation;  there  was 
no  actual  perjurj'  iu  either.  This  offense,  as  such,  is  the 
fruit  of  a  wicked  inteut.  of  a  willful  perversion  of  known 
facts,  to  work  an  injmy  to  another.  The  legislation  of 
this  State  has  borne  striking  testimony  to  the  virtue  of 
our  people,  in  allowing  parties  to  be  witnesses  in  their 
own  behalf ;  even  the  prisoner  on  trial  for  a  crime,  to  tes- 
tify to  Ms  innocence.  But  while  I  believe  that  perjury  is 
of  less  common  occm-rence  than  is  imputed  by  the  popu- 
lar view,  it  is  a  crime  of  the  gravest  magnitude,  is  not 
qualified  by  the  special  circumstances  leadiag  to  its  per- 
petration. He  who,  upon  any  mere  theory  of  honor, 
•would  be  guilty' of  it,  might,  if  heliad  the  temptation, 
commit  any  other  crime.  It  has  been  said,  and  upon  high 
authority,  that  there  is  a  distraction  between  a  mere 
falsehood  and  a  lie:  the  former  an  imtrue  statement, 
made  without  guile  and  without  knowledge  of  its  want 
of  truth;  the  latter  a  statement  of  what  is  known  to  be 
false,  and  witii  intent  to  injure  another.  .  I  am  disposed 
to  respect  the  distinction.  So,  too,  a  modem  dramatist 
has  said.  "  The  truth  always,  when  it  is  proper  to  be 
spoken,"  a  theory  of  value  as  applied  to  mere  social  inter- 
course. But  good  men  have  stood  for  the  truth  though  it 
cost  their  lives.  So,  good  men  have  uttered  falsehoods 
when  only  their  own  interests  were  concerned.  Walter 
Scott,  a«  long  as  he  thought  proper,  denied  that  he  was 
the  author  of  the  Waverley  Novels ;  it  was  his  secret.  It 
Is  the  duty  of  a  jxrry,  when  witnesses  contradict  each 
other,  to  seek  to  reconcile  the  conflictiug  statements,  to 
make  alio wancea  for  honest  errors,  and  to  accept  tLe 


)^'S  CHARGE.  1031 

suggestion  of  perjury  reluctantly  and  from  necessity. 
All  testimony,  as  I  have  intimated,  is  at  the  risk  of  im 
perfect  knowledge  and  imi>erfect  memory.  Witnesses, 
who  appear  equally  entitled  to  credit,  may  give  different 
accounts  of  the  same  transaction ;  the  difference  going 
to  the  substance  and  effect,  or  only  to  the  immaterial  de- 
tails. In  such  cases  you  have  substantial  identity  with 
circumstantial  variety.  Too  much  importance  should 
not  be  attributed  to  such  differences,  to  the  discredit  of 
witnesses.  You  may  believe  that  they  intended  to  teU 
the  truth,  tmless  the  contrary  is  reasonaoly  clear,  and,  as 
far  as  you  can,  seek  to  harmonize  their  testimony  and 
discover  the  substantial  truth. 

It  is  proper  to  refer,  in  less  general  terms,  to  one  or  two 
witnesses.  Mr.  Moulton  seems  to  have  intervened  as  the 
open  and  avowed  friend  of  Mr.  Tllton.  He  appciirs  to 
have  undertaken  to  mediate  between  the  parties,  to 
reconcile  them,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  to  prevent  the 
specific  character  of  their  differences  from  obtaining 
publicity.  He  states  that  such  was  the  real  piu-pose  and 
character  of  his  intervention,  and  the  defendant,  in  his 
letters  and  otherwise,  has  borne  large  and  generous  tes- 
timony to  that  effect.  Yet  Mr.  Moulton  on  various  occa- 
sions, as  he  himself  testifies,  and  as  other  witnesses  state, 
declared  that  the  defendant  was  not  guilty  of  the  sexual 
intercourse  which  he  now  says  had  been  admitted.  It  is 
for  you  to  consider  how  far  the  inconsistency  in  his  state- 
ments goes  to  discredit  him.  If  you  shall  be  of  opinion 
that  he  intended  to  state  the  truth  in  his  examination 
here,  and  that  his  previous  declarations  were  inspired  by 
a  spirit  of  loyalty  to  the  defendant's  reputation,  and  to 
that  of  Mrs.  Tilton.  and  from  an  earnest  wish  to  divert 
the  minds  of  others  from  the  subject,  in  carrying  out 
the  policy  of  suppression  adopted,  you  are  at  Uber  ty  to 
make  such  allowance  for  that  as  shall  seem  proper. 

As  to  Mr.  Tilton,  you  will  consider  whether  his  testi- 
mony to  the  confession  of  the  defendant's  guilt  can  be 
reconciled  with  his  previous  declarations  that  his  wife 
was  innocent.  The  peculiar  theory  which  he  has  explained 
to  you,  has  been  sufficiently  illustrated  by  counsel,  and 
may  be  accepted  as  far  as  you  think  proper.  If  his  pur- 
pose waste  protect  the  fame  of  his  wife,  and  not  to  injure 
imduly  or  maliciously  another— if  in  the  fitfrd  conflicts 
and  emotions  which  may  have  possessed  him,  you  discover 
a  moral  piirpose  as  contrasted  with  a  depraved  spirit — 
you  will  give  him  the  benefit  of  that  view. 

The  general  riQe  as  to  persons  who  have  willfully  testi- 
fied, under  oath,  to  what  is  false,  on  any  material  point, 
is  that  their  testimony  is  discredited.  You  are  not  bound 
to  disregardit  all  The  witness,  to  be  entirely  discredited, 
must  have  given  the  false  testimony  with  referenoe  to  a 
fa<}t  as  to  which  he  could  not  be  presume<l  liable  to  mis- 
take, and  given  it  with  knowledge  that  it  was  false.  You 
are  to  apply  the  rule  cautiously  and  discreetly.  The 
maxim,  willfully  false  in  oae  thing,  false  ia  all,  is  sound. 


1033  IHB  TILTON-Bi 

subject  to  the  caution  atated,  and  to  your  right  to  decide 
how  much  credit  you  will  give  the  witness. 

The  testimony  of  Emma  C.  Moulton  is  sought  to  be  dis 
credited  on  quite  different  ground.  It  is  claimed  that 
there  is  an  inherent  improbability  in  the  supposition  that 
a  lady  of  her  confessed  refinement  and  delicacy  would 
have  conversed  so  freely  with  the  defendant  as  to  his 
adultery,  or  undertaken  to  advise  him  on  that  subject. 
It  is  also  said  that  on  the  occasion  when  she  claims  to 
have  had  an  important  interview  with  the  defendant,  he 
was  not  at  her  house.  You  will  consider  and  apply  the 
proof  which  stands  in  conflict  and  in  corroboration.  The 
question,  gentlemen,  rests  with  you.  Two  other  observa- 
tions may  be  proper.  Had  Mrs.  Moulton  got  the  impres- 
sion that  the  defendant's  guilt  was  adultery,  and  m  her 
conversation  regarded  that  as  the  subject  in  his  mind  as 
it  was  in  her  mind  %  Do  you  believe  that,  whether  mis- 
taken or  not,  she  testified  honestly  ?  Her  manner  on  the 
stand,  and  the  opinion  which  the  defendant  himself  had 
of  her  moral  character  and  worth,  as  stated  in  his  letters, 
commend  her  to  your  respect. 

I  had  occasion  to  state  in  your  hearing  my  view  of  the 
suggestion  that  this  witness  testified  at  the  will  or  on  the 
Instruction  of  the  husband.  I  still  hold  to  the  opinion 
then  expressed.  There  is  no  proof  of  artifice,  or 
coercion,  or  undue  influence.  The  fact,  however,  remains 
that  her  husband  is  deeply  concerned  La  this  controversy, 
and  that  her  testimony,  without  repeating,  concurs  with 
Ms,  and  that  is  to  be  considered  on  the  mere  question  of 
bias.  In  sustaining  the  plaintiff's  cause,  she  is  sustaining 
her  hushand  as  a  witness. 

As  to  another  witness,  Benjamin  F.  Tracy,  two  sugges- 
tions have  been  made ;  the.flrst,  that  having  acted  as 
counsel  for  the  defendant  he  should  not  have  been  called 
as  a  witness  for  him  in  the  case  ;  the  second,  that  owing 
to  an  arrangement  with  or  promise  to  the  plaintiff  he 
should  not  have  acted  as  such  counsel.  It  appears  from 
the  testimony  that  before  he  accepted  the  relation  of 
counsel  for  the  defendant  he  consulted  the  other  distin- 
guished gentlemen,  who  had  been  retained  and  have 
since  acted  with  him  in  the  cause,  as  to  the  proper  course 
to  he  pursued  by  him,  and  that  he  has  acted  on  their  ad- 
vice. It  also-  appears  that  when  cii'cumstances  seemed 
to  make  his  testimony  necessary  on  the  trial,  he  sub- 
mitted the  question  to  his  associate  counsel^  and  acted 
on  their  advice  in  coming  forward  to  testify.  The 
matter,  m  both  aspects,  is  thus  strongly  contrasted 
with  those  cases  where  professional  men,  acting 
upon  their  own  notions,  enter  into  improper  relations. 
The  principle  which  restrains  an  attorney  or  counsel 
from  acting  in  a  litigation  against  one  by  whom  he  had 
been  consulted,  and  from  being  a  witness  for  his  client  on 
the  trial  of  a  cause  is  salutary,  and  should  be  respected. 
But  In  cases  where  the  practice  of  acting  in  the  double 
capacity  of  counsel  and  witness  on  the  trial  of  a  cause 
has  been  most  strongly  reprobated,  an  exception  to  the 


ECREB  TEIAL, 

rule  has  often  been  recognised.  Had  such  an  exception 
arisen  in  this  instance  1  The  conversation  which  took 
place  between  himself  and  others  in  an  interview  at  Mr. 
Moulton's  house,  having  been  received  in  evidence,  that 
fact  may  well  have  imposed  upon  him  the  duty  of 
becoming  a  witness.  If  that  was  his  view,  and  was  the 
opinion  of  his  associates  to  whom  he  deferred,  you  will 
not  readily  perceive  any  substantial  ground  of  criticism. 
The  other  suggestion,  as  to  his  not  being  at  liberty  to  act 
as  counsel  for  the  defendant,  assumes  that  he  had  been  in 
professional  relations  to  the  plaintiff,  or  in  their  confi- 
dential intercourse  had  learned  his  secrets  or  obtained  in- 
formation which  gave  an  advantage  to  the  party  after- 
wards represented  by  him.  No  such  relation  existed ; 
Mr.  Tracy  had  not  heen  the  attorney  or  counsel  or  ad- 
viser of  this  plaintiff.  At  the  interview  at  Mr.  Moulton'a 
house,  the  paper  dated  Jan.  1, 1871,  and  called  the  "  Let- 
ter of  Contrition,"  written  hy  Mr.  Moulton,  except  a  line 
or  two,  was  shown  to  and  examined  by  Mr.  Tracy.  After 
that,  Mr.  Tilton  was  called  in,  and  before  pro- 
ceeding further,  asked  Mr.  Tracy  whether,  if  diflGlculty 
should  arise  between  him  and  Mr.  Beecher,  he  would  act 
for  the  latter,  and  Mr.  Tracy  said  that  he  would  not.  Mr. 
Tilton  then  made  explanations.  Did  he  communicate  to 
Mr.  Tracy,  and  the  other  persons  present,  any  matter  not 
previously  known,  and  that  would  enable  him  to  serve 
Mr.  Beecher  better  than  he  could  otherwise  have  done  ? 
In  testifjTn^  to  conversations  with  the  defendant,  and 
thus  what  through  him  Mr.  Tracy  had  known,  Mr.  Moul- 
ton stated  to  Mr.  Beecher  that  he  had  told  Mr.  Tracy 
"  the  truth  of  the  matter;  told  him  the  fact  of  the  case  as 
it  was."  "  Theodore  Tilrtoii  had  denounced  me  for  so 
doing,  and  had  said  to  me  that  ITiad  no  business  to  reveal 
the  guilt  of  Elizabeth  to  Mr.  Tracy  without  his  consent." 
You  will  therefore  observe  that,  before  the  promise  made 
by  Mr.  Tracy,  he  had,  according  to  Mr.  Moulton,  become 
possessed  of  the  case,  of  what  Mr.  Moulton  ealls  the  fact, 
and  that  Mr.  Tilton  censured  Mr.  Moulton  for  making  the 
commimications.  What  confidential  communication 
could  Mr.  Tilton  have  made  beyond  the  Information 
which  Mr.  Moulton  had  already  given  ?  You  may  also 
consider,  now  that  the  whole  case  is  before  you,  whether 
any  fact  or  secret  that  Mr.  Tilton  would  have  withheld 
was  transferred  over  as  a  benefit  to  Mr.  Beecher.  More- 
over, at  that  interview,  as  Mr.  Tracy  understood  the  con- 
versation, Mr.  Tilton's  charge  was  of  an  inferior  grade, 
and  one  that  could  not  become  the  subject  of  litigation  in 
court. 

You  will  observe,  gentlemen,  that  I  have  paid  what 
you  may  think  undue  attention  to  this  evidence.  The 
testimony  as  to  the  interview  at  Mr.  Moulton's  house 
when  Mr.  Woodruff  was  present,  and  when  this  promise 
was  made,  was  received  at  an  early  stage  of  the  c;is'\ 
and  with  a  view  to  the  evidence  as  it  then  stood  befori^ 
me.  Other  evidence  has  since  been  received,  and  if,  con- 
necting what  has  since  been  received  with  what  was  bo- 


JUDGE  NEILSON^S  CHARGE. 


1033 


fore  me  when  I  m  ade  that  decision,  you  should  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  Mr,  Beecher  had  not  agreed  upon  Mr. 
Tracy  as  the  person  to  speak  and  act  for  him  on  that  oc- 
casion, then  you  will  exclude  all  that  testimony,  be- 
cause in  order  to  make  it  admissible  here,  Mr.  Beecher 
shoiild  have  been  present  or  some  person  representing 
him  been  present.  And  the  testimony  was  receired,  not 
on  the  theory  that  Mr.  Tracy  was  confidentially  related 
to  Mr.  Tilton,  but  that  he  was  thus  or  otherwise  related 
to  Mr.  Beecher,  and  then  and  there  represented  him, 
and  therefore  the  testimony  was  received  as  though  Mr. 
Beecher  was  there.  And  yet  after  all  you  are  not  at  lib- 
erty to  try  this  witness  in  respect  to  the  Ijne  of  profes- 
sional duty  unless  you  think  it  impairs  the  force  of  his 
testimony  and  shows  such  bias  or  prejudice  as 
would  require  you  in  the  just  interpretation  of 
it  to  make  allowance  for  his  feeling  of 
pregudice.  Mr.  Tracy's  position  in  respect  to  being 
counsel  in  the  cause  and  in  respect  to  being  a  witness 
afterwards  when  an  emergency  was  supposed  to  have 
arisen,  would  appear  to  have  been  attended  with  a  good 
deal  of  deUcacy ;  and  of  all  persons  to  whose  judgment  he 
could  properly  have  referred,  the  learned  coimsel  con- 
cerned with  him  in  the  case,  or  who  were  in  the  case 
before  he  consented  to  come  in  at  all,  were  wise  advisers. 
They  might  err,  and  so  might  he,  but  when  a  man  takes 
all  the  precaixtion  that  the  circumstances  about  him  will 
permit,  you  make  allowances  for  him,  as  one  who  intends 
to  discharge  his  duty. 

As  to  the  witness  Kate  Carey,  it  is  proper  to  state  that 
persons  called  to  prove  any  alleged  bad  character  for 
truth  and  veracity  should  have  the  general  knowledge  to 
be  fairly  derived  from  the  opinions  expressed  by  the 
people  who  knew  the  witness.  Such  lmi>eachment  is 
weak  in  proportion  as  the  circle  in  which  the  unfavorable 
opinion  prevails  is  narrow,  and  as  that  opinion  can  be 
traced  to  special  difficulties. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  DAMAGES. 
The  third  brancli  of  the  general  division  of 
evidence  relates  to  damages.  I  call  your  attention  to 
this  simply  that  you  may  recognize  the  place  or  the 
liead  under  which  a  large  amount  of  testimony  before  us 
belongs.  'The  gist  of  the  action  being  the  loss  of  the 
Bociety,  comfort  and  assistance  of  his  wife,  evidence  as 
to  their  condition  of  love  and  harmony,  or  the  contrary, 
becomes  material.  The  letters  of  the  wife,  written  be- 
fore the  alleged  offense,  have  been  read.  I  mention  this 
that  you  may  understand  why  the  voluminous  corre- 
spondence between  the  plaintiff  and  his  wife  was  re- 
ceived. A  defendant  could  put  in  evidence  the  letters  of 
the  plaintiff,  as  he  could  any  other  declarations  of  his 
couching  a  matter  tn  dispute.  But  neither  party  could 
use  the  letters  of  the  wife,  except  as  to  this  question  of 
damages,  and  this  question  of  damages  having  relation 
CO  the  state  or  condition  of  the  household,  and  of  their 


mental  harmony  or  alienation.  Ton  perceive  that 
the  rule  is  founded  in  good  sense.  The  ac- 
tion is  not  to  punish  the  defendant,  but 
to  indemnify  the  plaintiff.  If  the  wife,  loving 
and  worthy,  be  misled,  the  home,  in  comfort  and  har- 
mony, be  invaded,  the  loss  of  the  plaintiff  is  greater  than 
under  less  favorable  conditions.  So,  too,  to  reduce  the 
amount  of  recovery,  the  defendant  may  show  that  the 
plaintiff  was  unfaithful  to  his  marriage  vows,  the  theory 
being  that  the  husband  consorting  with  lewd  women  suf- 
fers from  the  invasion  of  his  own  household  less  than  he 
would  have  suffered  if  pure  in  heart  and  life.  But  the 
impure  association  of  the  plaintiff  with  other  women  is 
no  defense  to  the  action.  It  was  held,  as  early  as  1801, 
by  Lord  Kenyon,  that  such  conduct  went  to  the  hus- 
band's right  of  action;  but, in  1803,  Lord  Alvanley  ruled 
otherwise,  and  his  view  has  since  prevailed.  But,  with- 
out pursuing  the  subject,  you  will  perceive  that  we  have 
here  a  large  amount  of  evidence,  including  the  plaintiff's 
alleged  misconduct,  at  home  and  abroad,  peculiar  to  this 
mere  question  of  damages. 

Some  further  features  of  the  case  remain  to  be  noticed. 
Upon  principle  and  authority,  and  also  with  reference  to 
OTU'  accepted  rules  of  social  order,  the  intimacy  and  inter- 
course which  is  allowed  between  a  married  woman  and 
her  legal  adviser,  physician,  or  pastor  is  greater  than  that 
which  would  be  considered  proper  or  becoming  between 
the  woman  and  a  man  holding  no  such  special  relation. 
That  principle  applies  here,  and  the  defendant  is  entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  it.  Lord  Brougham,  in  considering  a 
case  where  a  clergyman  was  concerned,  and  in  repelling 
the  imputation  of  want  of  chastity  in  him,  applied  the 
term  "  extreme  improbability."  That  learned  jurist  was 
given  to  strong  expressions,  and  the  term  thiis  used  was 
extravagant.  What  can  be  claimed  is  a  mere  presump- 
tion of  innocence.  In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  ob- 
serve that  after  many  years  spent  in  religious  teaching 
and  intellectual  service,  the  defendant  comes  into  conx  t 
with  a  character  which,  until  proof  given  against  him, 
offers  a  shield  of  protection.  We  are  wont  to  say  that  all 
suitors  are  treated  alike,  and  in  most  respects  they  are ; 
but  yet  in  a  case  of  this  character,  a  man  grown  old  in 
prayer  and  pious  service,  has  prima  facie  the  benefit 
of  a  presumption  which  the  mere  man  of  the  world  ha3 
not. 

THE  CHAEGE  OF  BLACKMAIL. 

Mr.  Beecher's  advances  of  money,  which, 
through  Mr.  Moulton,  went  to  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Tilton 
and  family,  appear  to  have  been  mere  acts  of  generosity. 
That  money  was  not  extorted  by  Mr.  Moulton,  nor  does 
it  appear  to  have  been  the  fruit  of  any  improper  artifices. 
Although  it  is  of  no  special  moment,  I  think  it  proper 
to  say  that  the  uncontradicted  evidence  shows  that  Mr. 
Tilton  did  not  know  that  he  was  thus  benefited  by  Mr, 
Beecher.    I  said,  early  in  my  remarks,  that,  except  on 


1034 


TUB   IlLTON-BEEOEEB  TEIAL. 


points  of  slight  importance,  I  "was  not  in  the  liat)it  ot  ex 
pressing  opinions  to  jurors  upon  controverted  questions 
of  f  act--points  of  slight  importance  being  the  exception. 
I  regard  the  conspiracy  and  attempts  to  blackmail  su^'- 
gested  as  of  that  character,  and  feel  therefore  at  liberty 
to  indicate  to  you  what  my  opinion  is.  Those  are  crimes 
punishable  as  such,  not  to  be  predicated  on  mere  suspi- 
cion. We  have  before  us  no  evidence  which  could  sup- 
port such  charges,  and  if  we  had,  the  defendant's  posi- 
tion would  remain  precisely  the  same?  because,  if  inno- 
cent, he  is  to  be  so  declared  independently  of  the 
question  whether  there  were  such  artifices  or  not. 
The  nearest  approach  to  blackmail  would  seem  to  have 
arisen  between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Bowen,  if  the  former 
did  threaten  to  publish  a  card  ii\)urious  to  the  latter  un- 
less the  money  were  paid.  But  we  have  no  interest  in 
that  question.  Moreover,  he  did  not  publish  the  card, 
nor  was  he  paid  until  after  investigation.  It  seems  that 
the  covenant  between  Mr.  Bowen  and  Mr.  Tilton  in  re- 
spect to  compensation  for  services  and  the  term  of  em- 
ployment in  the  two  newspapers,  contained  certain  pro- 
visions for  damages,  or  payment,  on  a  sudden  termina- 
■  tion  of  the  arrangement,  and  that  those  claims  in  dispute 
should  be  determined  by  arbitrators.  In  the  notices  of 
dismissal  put  in  evidence,  Mr.  Bowen  proposed  that  mode 
of  adjustment,  one  as  to  T7ie  Indej)endent,  one  as  to  The 
Union,  as  to  each  of  which  he  proposed  an  arbitration 
which  might  have  taken  place  at  once,  so  far  as  has  ap- 
peared. He  had  a  legal  right  to  stand  on  that,  under  a 
very  recent  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  giving  what 
has  been  thought  by  some  to  be  a  novel  interpretation  of 
the  effect  of  the  covenant— of  the  clause  \.\  .le  covenant 
to  arbitrate.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  Bowen  might 
have  enforced  that  covenant,  that  it  should  be  settled  by 
arbitration.  At  any  rate,  he  proposed  that.  An  arbitrar 
tion  was  had.  The  gentlemen  acting  as  arbitrators— men 
of  character  and  integrity— found  that  $7,000  was  due, 
and  that  was  paid.  No  special  purpose,  intrigue,  desire 
to  get  a  "  Tripartite  Covenant "  to  settle  outside  difficul- 
ties, to  prevent  incoming  complications— no  consider- 
ation of  extraneous  matter  of  that  kind  would  have  led 
those  three  arbitrators  to  have  found  that  $7,000  was 
due,  unless,  in  their  judgment,  it  was  actually  due. 


TESTIMONT  UNWORTHY  OF  CONSIDERATION. 

I  do  not  stop,  gentlemen,  to  caution  you,  or 
even  to  assist  you  to  push  aside  many  considerations 
that  are  of  small  moment  and  that  have  occupied  your 
attention  more  or  less,  as  for  example  the  Rossel  proces- 
sion on  the  Sunday  afternoon  when  it  was  supposed  that 
Mr.  TUton  had  walked  in  the  crowd  with  Mrs.  Woodhull 
and  Miss  Claflin.  The  evidence  was  received  when  we 
were  busy  with  the  question  as  to  Mr.  Tilton's  associa- 
tion with  Mrs.  Woodhull.  He  had  stated  that  he  had 
sought  her  acquaintance  on  an  understanding  between 
iiimself  and  the  defendant,  or  Mr.  Moulton  had  ;  and  this 


'  was  an  attempt  to  show  that  that  was  carried  to  a  large 
degree  of  familiarity,  even  to  such  an  extent  that  on  Sun- 
day afternoon,  in  this  procession,  he  walks  with  her  in 
the  street,  helps  to  carry  a  banner.  Quite  a  number  of 
witnesses  Tiave  been  called  on  that  question— the  only 
possible  materiality  all  the  time  being,  under  this  ques- 
tion of  damages,  to  show  that  this  plaintiff,  instead  of 
being  the  tender-hearted  husband,  as  plaintiffs  sometimes 
are,  and  therefore  entitled  to  great  consideration  and  a 
large  amount  of  damages,  was  in  fact  seeking  the  associa- 
tion, intirbacy,  and  public  connection,  known  connection 
with  persons  supposed  to  be  subject  to  criticism,  like 
Mrs.  Woodhull.  She  may,  for  aught  I  know,  be  a  proper 
subject  of  criticism  ;  or  she  may,  for  aught  we  know,  be 
to  a  large  degree  a  merely  intellectual  woman,  carried 
away  by  some  freaks  of  extravagance,  if  not  insanity. 
The  testimony  as  to  that  procession,  you  will  perceive, 
therefore  does  not  deserve  your  consideration,  especially 
if  it  belongs  in  the  particular  class  of  evidence  to  which 
I  have  assigned  it. 

THE  INVESTIGATING  COMMITTEE. 
Then  also,  gentlemen,  without  further  speci- 
fication, here  are  two  matters  of  considerable  import  in 
local  history  which  have  been  placed  before  you,  not  in 
full  or  directly,  but  sufHciently  to  impress  your  minds,  as 
to  both  of  which  it  is  my  duty  to  caution  you  to  avoid 
being  influenced.  The  first  is  the  investigation  of  the 
Church  Committee  appointed.  That  was  a  proceeding 
affecting  the  pastor  in  his  relation  to  the  church,  and  the 
church  in  connection  with  him.  It  was  their  business, 
therefore  natural  and  proper,  that  the  persons  charged 
with  that  investigation  should  have  been  selected  from 
the  church.  There  was  no  incongruity  in  their  being 
selected  by  the  pastor  himself.  They  had  that  investiga- 
tion, received  such  evidence  as  they  thought  proper, 
made  such  report— made  a  report  which  has  been  stated, 
in  substance  and  in  fact,  to  you,  a  report  favorable  to  the 
defendant.  I  nave  simply  to  say  that  you  should  not 
allow  that  to  influence  you,  for  a  moment  even.  In  hi* 
favor.  ^ 

THE  CHURCH  COUNCIL. 
The  other  event,  of  some  public  importance, 
however,  grows  out  of  the  council  held  toy  the 
churches  as  suggested  before  you.  The  charges 
by  Mr.  West  having  been  presented,  and  not 
having  been  prosecuted  by  the  Plymouth  Church, 
the  charge  being  against  Mr.  Tilton  for  lying 
about  the  pastor,  and  Mr.  Tilton  haviag  been  dropped— 
his  name  having  been  dropped  from  the  roll  without  cen- 
sure, two  of  the  leading  churches  in  this  city,  consider- 
ing, it  would  seem,  that  that  was  not  proper  regard  to 
the  church  discipline  or  polity,  brought  the  subject  to  the 
notice  of  other  churches,  and  this  advisory  council  was 
held  here.  That  was  not  a  proceeding  against  Mr. 
Beecher,  directly  or  indirectly,  and  I  should  take  great 


JUDGE  NEILl 

grief  to  myself  if  I  alloTved  you  to  rerire  under  tlie  pos- 
Bittle  impression  tliat  Mr.  Beecher  liad  be^n  pursued  "by 
tliese  two  great  cliurelies,  or  by  tbat  councD..  So  you  "will 
pleas*  dismiss  that  from  your  mind  except  as  you  cannot 
dismiss  "«-liat  interests  you  in  Cbirrcli  or  State  tdstory. 
I  submit  it  to  your  minds  as  a  matter  not  at  all  to  in- 
fluence you  in  respect  to  tMs  iuTestigation. 

Gentlemen,  the  case  is  novr  submitted  to  you.  It  is  of 
a  nature  to  call  for  the  exercise  of  your  highest  intelli- 
gence and  most  scrupulous  care.  You  -wRl  retire  to  your 
deliberations  with  an  impartial  and  earnest  purpose  to 
be  just  to  the  witnesses,  just  to  the  parties,  and  to  render 
a  verdict  which  you  may  think  of  hereafter  with  satis- 
faction, as  a  duty  honestly  performed  in  the  presence  of 
God  and  of  men.  [Applause.] 

THE   REQn:STS   TO  CHAEGE. 

I  will  ask  Toiu-  patience  a  few  moments, 
gentlemen,  iu  respect  to  these  requesrs  which  Mr.  Abbott 
handed  up  last  night,  and  which  were  read  in  your  hear- 
ing.  I  will  make  some  suggestions  ia  respect  ■'■q  them. 

]Mr.  Spauldiug,  step  down  to  Parker's  and  see  if  they 
"Will  send  a  dinner  for  the  jurors  up  here  into  one  of  the 
rooms. 

The  third  of  those  rectuests  is : 

The  defendant  is  not  required  to  prove  his  innocence; 
he  is  to  be  presumed  Innocent  until  his  guilt  is  affirma- 
tively established  by  a  clear  preponderence  of  evidence. 

I  have  thus  charged. 

IV.  Plaintiff  cannot  recover  unless  the  jury  are  satis- 
fied, by  affirmative  evidence,  that  defendant  actually  had 
carnal  coimection  with  plaintiff's  wife. 

That  is  so ;  my  charge  contains  that. 

Y.  The  jury  must  find  for  the  defendant  unless  con- 
vinced, by  the  proofs  of  the  actual  adultery,  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt. 

I  decline  to  modify  the  charge  ia  that  respect.  What  I 
have  said  as  to  proving  a  thing  aetually  to  the  satisfac- 
faction  of  just  and  prudent  men,  whether  by  direct  or  by 
circumstantial  or  presumptive  evidence,  in  order  to  see 
•where  the  truth  reaUy  lies,  covers  whatever  direction 
really  might  be  necessary  as  to  a  rule  of  evidence  in  a 
civil  case,  this  being  an  action  for  damages,  a  civil  action. 
This  proposition  of  the  thing  being  proved  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt  is  peculiar  to  a  criminal  case,  and,  as 
our  books  show,  does  not  apply  here.  I  do  not  conceive 
it  to  be  of  any  real  moment. 

VT.  The  verdict  must  be  for  the  defendant,  unless  the 
result  of  the  whole  eviQ.ence  on  both  sides  be  such  as  to 
produce  in  the  deliberate  conclusion  of  the  jury  a  legal 
c«rtaiaty  of  guUt. 

Well,  a  reasonable  certainty  means  a  legal  certainty,  I 
suppose,  and  in  that  view  I  accept  that. 

VII.  The  charge  of  adultery  is  one  that  not  merely  iu- 
voivcs  a  pecuniary  claim  against  the  defendant,  but 
criminates  the  plaintiff's  wife,  and  tends  to  disgra<?e  her 
children,  and  threatens  the  marriage  relation  itself :  and 
4t  is  proper  for  the  jury  to  consider  these  ordtnaiy  and 
natural  consequences  of  a  conviction,  in  scrutinizing  the 


^Oy'S  CHARGE,  1035 

evidence,  and  exacting  adequate  proof  to  establish  an  a<5- 
cusation  involving  such  irrave,  permanent  and  remediless 
consequences  to  others. 

We  are  not  tiying  the  others,  gentlemen.  Very  early  in 
the  case,  and  when,  perhaps,  I  had  not  got  reconciled  to 
the  deliberation  and  patience  with  which  we  afterward, 
for  a  month  or  two  proceeded,  I  threw  out  some  sugges- 
tions now  and  then  about  its  being  a  question  between 
the  plaiattff  and  the  defendant,  not  having  regard  to  Mrs. 
Tilton  upon  this  trial,  although  in  a  certain  sense,  of 
course,  we  know  that  the  effect  of  the  determination  does 
lap  over  and  reflect  upon  her.  But,  still,  that  is  too  re- 
mote for  us  to  be  guided  by  The  charge  of  adultery  as 
affecting  this  defendant  is  one,  I  say  to  you,  that  involves 
a  pecimiary  claim,  and  also  does  involve  grave  moral 
considerations  affecting  him.  That  is  the  extent  to 
which  I  think  I  am  called  upon  to  say  anything  in  regard 
to  that  question. 

VTII.  If,  on  weighing  the  evidence  on  both  sides,  there 
remains  in  the  mind  of  the  jury  doubt  or  perplexity  as  to 
the  actual  adultery,  they  must  find  for  the  def eudant. 

Well,  if  that  means  that,  after  considering  and  weigh- 
ing all  the  testimony,  you  are  not,  as  reasonable  and  pru- 
dent men,  satisfied  in  heart  and  conscience  that  the  adul- 
tery was  committed  you  should  find  for  the  defendant, 
then  it  is  correct.  Thus  intei^preted  I  charge  it. 

IX.  The  higher  the  crime,  or  the  graver  the  wrong 
sought  to  be  established,  the  more  stringently  the  rules 
of  evidence  should  be  enforced;  and  a  charge  of  criminal 
conversation  is  not  to  be  fixed  upon  a  person  but  by  the 
highest  evidence. 

That  is  correct,  gentlemen.  We  are  not  dealing  with 
evidence  here  as  if  it  were  an  action  on  a  promissory 
note,  or  as  it  were  even  an  action  of  slander,  one  gentle- 
man calling  another  a  liar. 

X.  If  there  were  any  evidence  in  the  case  pointing  to 
adultery  at  any  specific  time  and  place,  the  defendant 
might  have  some  means  of  supporting,  by  other  witnesses, 
his  own  testimony  to  his  innocence. 

Doubtless  that  is  so. 

But  upon  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  plaintiff,  the  de- 
pendant is  the  only  witness  who  has  any  actual  knowl- 
edge of  what  the  relations  between  himself  and  Mrs. 
Tilton  were,  and  is  the  only  person  whom  the  law  permita 
to  speak  as  a  witness  as  to  those  relations.  - 

That  is  so,  gentlemen. 

XI.  Circumstantial  evidence  to  establish  guilt  must  be 
such  as  to  exclude  to  a  moral  certainty  every  hypothesis 
but  that  of  guilt :  in  other  words,  the  facts  proved  must 
not  all  be  consistent  with  and  point  to  guilt,  but  they 
must  be  inconsistent  with  innocence. 

In  a  sense  that  is  true,  gentlemen  ;  but  I  think  I  have 
stated  in  my  general  charge  the  true  doctrine,  and  see  no 
occasion  to  change  it. 

Xm.  The  law  does  not  dispense  with  direct  proof  of 
the  sexual  act,  and  accept  circumstantial  evidence  in 
lieu  thereof  

Circumstantial  evidence  of  mei-e  intimacy,  of  course,, 
would  not  be  substituted  in  place  of  actual  evidence, 

 tmiess  there  is  actual  proof  of  conduct  of  the  pa^ 


1036 


IHE  TILTON-BEECHER  TRIAL. 


ties  deviating  from  open  and  honorable  adherence  to  the 
proprieties  of  chaste  society,  and  showing  a  lustful  dis- 
position, 

I  do  not  conceive  that  there  is  any  suhstance,  however, 
in  this  request,  because  I  have  already  said,  iu  the  gen- 
eral charge,  that  an  offense  of  this  character  is  not  usu- 
ally proved,  or  indeed  provable  by  direct  evidence,  and 
may  be  proved,  from  necessity,  in  any  other  way  that 
will  be  satisfactory  to  the  minds  and  conscience  of  the 
jury,  and  have  the  certainty  proper  to  a  question  of  such 
importance. 

XIV.  The  circumstances  mvist  be  such  as  would  lead 
the  guarded  discretion  of  a  reasonable  and  just  man  

I  had  the  words  "  reasonable  and  prudent  man I 
suppose  it  is  about  the  same  thing  

 to  the  conclusion  of  actual  guilt. 

Well,  "  to  the  conclusion  of  guilt,"  I  put  it ;  because 
"  guilt "  is  "  actual  guilt,"  and  whenever  you  have  a 
question  of  guilt,  or  the  fact  of  guilt,  it  is  not  well  to  load 
it  down  with  adjectives  and  expletives.  It  is  a  ques- 
tion of  guilt  or  innocence  that  is,  of  course,  for  you.  **  For 
it  is  not  to  lead  a  harsh  and  intemperate  judgment,  mov- 
ing upon  appearances  that  are  equally  capable  of  two  in- 
terpretations " — I  have  tried  to  illustrate  that  idea — 
"  neither  is  it  to  be  a  matter  of  artificial  reasoning,  judg- 
ing upon  such  things  differently  from  what  would  strike 
the  careful  and  cautious  consideration  of  a  discreet 
man."  Well,  that  is  matter  of  illustration  and  argument 
which  is  sensible ;  but  I  think  it  does  not  call  for  any- 
thing in  addition  to  what  I  have  said  in  the  general 
charge. 

XV.  The  proximate  acts  relied  on  must  lead,  by  a  fair 
inference,  to  a  conclusion  so  far  Inevitable  as  that  the 
supposition  of  innocence  cannot  by  any  just  course  of 
reasomng  be  reconciled  with  it. 

That  is  a  logical  proposition. 

XVI.  Mere  proof  of  opportunity  to  oommit  adultery  is 
no  evidence  whatever  of  guilt ;  there  mujst  be  coupled 
with  it  evidence  of  circumstances  at  the  same  time, 
which  cannot  reasonably  be  explained  except  by  crim- 
inal disposition  and  design. 

This  proposition  is  not  very  clearly  worded,  and  some- 
liow  there  is  a  special  property  in  it  which  I  do  not  quite 
approve,  *'  Mere  proof  of  opportunity  to  commit  adul- 
tery is  no  evidence  whatever  of  guilt  "—certainly  you 
don't  need  to  be  told  that.  I  have  told  you  that.  "  There 
must  be  coupled  with  it  evidence  of  circumstances  at  the 
same  time  "—now,  suppose  I  should  say  to  you,  there 
must  be  evidence  of  circumstances  affecting  that  ques- 
tion %  It  would  not  be  precisely  the  same  in  form,  but  I 
tlainlr  it  would  be  in  substance ;  and  in  either  view  it 
ought  to  reasonably  explain  the  conduct  and  reasonably 
satisfy  the  jury.  When,  in  addition  to  the  open  rela- 
tion of  intimate  friendship,  there  is  superadded  the  pas- 
toral relation  "—I  have  explained  to  you  the  theory  of 
that. 

XXI.  No  charge  or  confession  on  the  part  of  the  plain- 
tiff's wife  is  evidence  against  the  defendant. 


That  IS  so. 

None  of  the  letters  and  writings  of  Mrs.  Tilton  put  in 
evidence,  upon  their  face,  as  matter  of  law,  import  a  con- 
fession of  adultery. 

Well,  of  course  I  have  given  you  to  understand  the  con- 
trary. If  they  were  in  evidence  before  you,  and  imported 
ever  so  much  or  ever  so  little,  it  would  be  a  question  of 
fact  for  you  to  apply. 

XXX.  Where  a  party  has  destroyed  a  paper  material 
to  his  case,  and  the  contents  of  the  paper  are  disputed, 
the  presumption  arises  that,  if  it  had  been  produced,  it 
would  have  been  against  his  interest,  or  in  some  essential 
particular  imfavorable  to  Ms  representation  of  its  con- 
tents. 

Now,  you  see  how  sensible  that  is  ;  if  you  have  a  con- 
troversy with  respect  to  dealings  or  contracts  with  your 
neighbor,  and  on  the  eve  of  a  lawsuit,  or  of  bringing  one, 
or  when  it  is  certain  there  will  be  litigation,  you,  having 
the  only  copy  of  the  contract,  deem  it  expedient  to  tear 
it  up,  and  afterward  introduce  evidence  as  to  its  terms, 
there  the  law  is  very  jealous  in  excluding  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  party  thus  tearing  the  paper  up.  But  we  have 
before  us  a  case  to  which  that  principle  does  not  quite 
apply,  because  here  is  a  paper  which  Mrs.  Tilton,  from 
the  correspondence  put  in,  was  desirous  of  reclaiming. 
She  writes  Mr.  Beecher  to  use  his  influence  with  "  dear 
Frank"  to  have  the  papers  somehow  destroyed,  and  also 
makes  an  application  to  Mr.  Moulton  himself.  Finally, 
on  what  would  appear  from  indications  to  be  her  impor- 
tunity in  respect  to  it,  the  paper  was  torn  up,  and  if  you 
should  think  that  was  done  at  a  time  when  there  was  no 
lawsuit  in  contemplation,  and  without  preparation  for 
substituted  evidence  in  regard  to  the  contents  of  that 
paper,  you  could  not  apply  the  suggestion  under  this 
proposition  which  I  have  read  to  you. 

XXXI.  Upon  the  evidence  in  the  plaintiff's  own  case 
there  is  no  proof  to  the  jury  that  tbe  original  of  the  writ- 
ten charge  or  accusation  by  Mrs.  Tilton  was  a  charge  of 
adultery,  and  all  the  presumptions  are  against  it.  The 
original  was  never  shown  to  the  defendant,  and  the  plain- 
tiff himself  destroyed,  or  caused  to  be  destroyed  

Well,  upon  the  evidence  in  the  plaintiff's  own  case,  and 
otherwise,  it  is  a  question  for  you  whether  the  charge 
was  of  one  kind  or  of  the  other  kind,  and  if  it  came  into 
existence  first  in  a  very  indefinite  way,  and  then  why, 
and  when,  and  by  whom,  and  for  what  purpose  its  com- 
plexion was  afterward  changed ;  all  that  is  a  considera- 
tion for  you. 

XXXII.  If  thejury  believe  that  the  "  True  Story,"  as 
it  is  called,  substantially  as  put  in  evidence,  is  the  work 
of  this  plaintiff,  they  must  find  a  verdict  for  the  defend- 
ant. 

If  you  believe  the  "  True  Story"  was  the  work  of  the 
plaintiff,  that  his  statement  was  what  it  claimed,  then 
you  will  apply  it  as  matter  of  evidence,  and  give  it.  such 
weight  and  such  construction  in  connection  with  his 
conduct  as  you  think  just  and  proper.  It  is  not  a  fair 
subject  for  a  legal  proposition  to  be  stated  by  me. 


JUDGE  SELL^oy'S  CHABGE. 


1037 


XXXIV.  yo  letters  or  citing's  of  any  otlier  person  ' 
than  the  defen  ci.int,  although  eommimieated  to  him,  are 
any  evidence  whatever  against  him.  except  of  The  fact  ' 
that  their  contents  ^vere  brought  to  his  notice.  ■ 

That  is  correct,  as  far  as  it  goes.  T  did  say,  and  I  have  \ 
said  before,  that  nothing  that  Mrs.  Morse  and  those  other 
persons  might  write  would  be  evidence  against  the 
defendant.  I  mean  to  say  so  in  reference  to  the  letters 
of  Elizabeth  Turner  put  in  evidence.  But  the  reason 
why  any  letters,  like  INIrs.  Morse's,  for  example,  like  the 
letter  delivered  by  Mr.  Bowen,  is  received  in  evidence,  is 
to  give  point  and  character  to  the  oniluot  of  the  defend- 
ant, showing  in  what  spirit  and  with  what  consciousness 
he  received  the  communication  at  the  time.  And  the 
motion  is  that,  under  favorable  cireumstam-es,  a  person 
who  is  guilty  may  thus  be  taken  off  his  guaril  and  dis- 
close a  sense  of  his  guilt,  when  he  Unds  himself  -iidilt-nly 
confi'onted  with  a  verbal  accusation  or  with  a  communi- 
cation which  exttacts  from  him  some  expre-sion  of  his 
manner  and  spirit.  That  observation  w-as  made  by  one  ! 
of  the  learned  counsel  at  the  time  one  of  Mrs.  Morse's 
letters  was  received  in  evidence.  I  think  Mi\  Evarts 
assented  to  that,  or  stated  that  proposition. 

XXX Y.  The  letters  and  oral  statements  that  have  been 
addttced,  as  in  the  nature  of  confessions,  are  to  be  con- 
sidered in  their  entirety,  and  as  iou-erh>-r  covering  a 
long  period  of  years:  aii.l  the  jury  are  tn  rijnsider  whether 
it  is  credible  that  the  deftjiidaut  rould  liavr  inadt  such 
oral  statements  of  guilt  as  nre  attributed  to  hiiii  aud  d*^- 
nied  by  him,  and  whether  it  i>  crediblt-  that  sueh  letters  . 
could  have  been  written  by  him  with  refereuee  to  gaiilt  of 
adultery. 

That  Ciuite  corresponds,  I  think,  with  the  iustructions  I 
have  given  you;  it  is  covered  bj  the  cDarge.  I 

XXXVI.  The  expressions  of  compunction  aud  ivmorse  ' 
in  the  defendant's  writings  and  alleged  conversarlons  be- 
long to  the  class  of  merely  moral  evidt-nce.  and  neither 
tend  to  support,  nor  are  capable  of  supporting,  any  legal 
certainty  as  to  the  fact,  nature  or  degree  of  imputed 
culpability. 

I  have  had  occasion  to  speak  on  this  subject.  Moral 
evidence  is  of  great  value,  especially  when  you  have  to 
deal  with  intellectual  questions,  with  emotions,  with  a 
man's  consciousness  of  guilt.  A  man  suddenly  charged, 
accused,  or  confronted  with  something  that  brings  up  be- 
fore him  any  offense  that  he  has  been  guilty  of,  has  his 
moral  emotions  and  sensibilities  excited,  and  thus  makes 
revelations,  and  thus  you  get  at  sometimes  real  evidence 
of  "wkat  otherwise  you  could  not  have  discovered.  But 
tliey  belong  undoubtedly  to  a  class  of  moral  evidence, 
and  tlie  question  whetlier.  tbey  tend  to  support  or  are 
capable  of  supporting  any  legal  certainty,  as  to  the  fa«t, 
nature,  or  degree  of  culpability,  is  a  subject  discussed  in 
the  charge,  and  is  there  stated,  T  think,  correctly. 

XXXYIT.  Testimony  of  witnesses  that  a  party  charged 
in  conversation  admitted  his  guilt  of  adulter^   is  the 
"weaiest  and  most  dangerous  evidence  that  is  received  by  I 
the  law. 

I  stated  to  you  the  proposition  as  to  the  degree  of  care  I 


and  scrutiny  with  which  that  kind  of  evidence  is  re- 
ceived, and  I  think  I  have  said  sufficient  on  the  subject. 

XXXVIII.  The  testimony  of  witnesses  (even  if  fully 
credited)  that  the  defendant  in  conversation  admitted 
that  he  had  committed  adultery,  being  met  by  his  sworn 
denial  upon  the  trial,  is  not  sufficient  proof  of  his  guilt, 
unless  the  alleged  confessions  are  corroborated  by  other 
satisfactory  and  consistent  testimony. 

On  the  character  of  the  charge,  that  is  a  question  of 
fact  for  you  to  decide  in  resi>ect  to  it.  I  do  not  consider 
it  material.  It  is  a  proposition  of  law  and  not  of  fact. 

XXXIX.  "When  a  person  is  charged  -with  immoral 
conduct,  under  such  circumstances  that  he  has  no  legal 
dii-ect  evidence  of  his  innocence  other  than  his  own  oath, 
the  fact  that  he  endeavored  to  prevent  publicity  or  to 
avoid  public  controversy  is  no  evidence  of  guilt. 

I  think  I  have  explained  that  quite  fuUy.  I  Have  ad- 
monished you  to  consider  the  motive  which  led  to  a  sup- 
pression, and  also  indicated  the  party  appivh^-nding  an- 
noyance and  distress  from  publicity,  and  whether  inno- 
cent or  not  he  might  well  wish  to  avoid  that  publicity. 

XL.  In  consideriug  whether  the  tfstimony  of  the  al- 
leged verbal  admissions  is  corroborated,  the  jury  must 
look  at  the  whole  course  of  conduct  of  the  plauitiff  and 
his  witnesses,  in  th.^ir  intercourse  with  the  defendant 
since  the  charge  was  first  made,  aud  consider  whether  it 
is  p)ossible  or  probable  that  this  oouduet  and  social  iuter- 
com-se  could  have  taken  place,  if  the  defendant  was 
charged  or  believed  by  them  to  be  an  adulterer. 

That  is  a  ciuestion  ot  fact  for  you  to  take  into  consider- 
ation. 

XLT.  The  plaintifl^s  written  statement,  that  the  im- 
puted offense  of  the  defendant  was  the  making  of  im- 
proper proposals,  and  that  defendant  denied  the  charcre, 
might  be  overthrown  by  direct  proof  of  the  act  of  adul- 
tery, bur  it  cannot  be  overthrown  by  oral  testimony  of  a 
different  oral  charge  and  admission, 

I  think  I  have  said  enough  to  you  about  the  question  of 
improper  proposals  or  advances  in  connection  with  the 
question  whether  the  defendant  was  conscious  of  having 
been  thus  charged,  and  whether  that  led  to  his  emotion 
and  sorrow  and  trouble,  and  tended  to  lead  him  to  the 
expression,  verbal  or  written,  which  he  finally  made. 

XLII.  As  matter  of  law,  the  paper  of  Jan.  1,  IS 71, 
called  the  Apology  or  Letter  of  Contrition  (Exhibit  No.  2), 
does  not  on  its  face  import  any  act  of  adultery  or  of  sex- 
ual indelicacy,  and  is  no  proof  of  either. 

That  is  so.  It  is  for  you  to  determine,  as  I  said  before, 
wbat  it  does  refer  to  in  connection  with  other  circum- 
stances. 

XLIII.  Xone  of  the  defendant's  letters  and  writinga 
put  in  evidence,  upon  their  face  as  matter  of  law,  import 
adultery  or  sexual  mdellcacy,  or  furnish  any  proof  of 
either,  by  tieraselves.  The  fact  of  either  must  be  sup- 
plied by  other  legitimate  proof,  before  the  law  allows  the 
inference  that  such  fact  prompted  the  expressions  of  the 
letters  and  writings. 

I  have  put  that  to  you,  gentlemen,  in  the  charge  aa  a 
question  of  fact.  This  letter,  like  the  other  paper,  called 
the  "  Letter  of  Contrition,"  does  not  specify  the  act  or 
wrnng,  real  or  supposed,  which  was  had  in  view.  It 
makes  it  a  matter  of  fact  for  you  to  determine. 


1038 


THE   TlLTOI^-BEEdHER  TBIAL. 


XLIV.  None  of  the  defendant's  letters  or  writings 
put  in  evidence  ascertain  or  declare  the  fact  of  adultery. 
Certainly  not. 

They  only  declare  and  express  the  emotions  of  the  de- 
fendant, of  commiseration  and  self-reproach  at  the 
broken  fortunes  of  the  plaintiff  and  domestic  unhappi- 
ness  of  his  family,  as  presented  to  the  defendant's  ap- 
preciation and  detailed  by  himself. 

Well,  I  say  to  you  they  only  declare  and  express  the 
emotions  of  the  defendant,  and  I  have  submitted  to  you 
the  question  what  those  emotions  were,  and  by  what 
they  were  excited,  colored  or  distorted. 

XLV.  If  the  jury  find  that  the  plaintiff's  wife  left  him 
in  December,  1870,  on  account  of  his  treatment  and  con- 
duct, and  with  a  view  of  separating  from  him,  and  that 
the  defendant  in  December,  1870,  gave  information  of 
the  facts  to  his  wife  and  to  an  officer  of  his  church,  and 
to  the  plaintiff's  employer,  and  advised  a  separation  of 
the  wife  from  her  husband,  these  facts  must  be  consid- 
ered by  the  jury  as  corroborating  the  defendant's  testi- 
mony, and  discrediting  that  of  the  plaintiff  on  the  main 
issue. 

I  have  said  to  you,  in  effect,  those  facts  must  be  con- 
sidered by  you  in  interpreting,  and  as  you  may  interpret, 
in  corroborating  or  disproving,  the  defendant's  declara- 
tions, or  illustrating  what  he  may  have  said.  That  is  all 
I  thtcLk  I  ought  to  say  on  the  subject.  It  is  a  matter  for 
you. 

XL VI.  The  fact  that  the  plaintiff  continued  to  cohabit 
with  his  wife,  after  her  alleged  communication  to  him  of 
the  charge,  and  up  to  July,  1874,  is  cogent  evidence 
against  the  truth  of  the  present  charge. 

Several  cases  are  cited  in  support  of  that  proposition, 
and  in  actions  for  divorce  on  the  ground  of  adultery, 
where  the  wife  is  a  plaintiff  or  defen  dant,  being  a  ques- 
tion  between  the  husband  and  wife,  that  proposition  is 
correct ;  it  is  a  sound  rule.  The  fact  that  a  plaintiff  in 
an  action  seeking  a  divorce  continued  to  cohabit  with 
his  wife  after,  or  long  after  her  guilt  had  been  commu- 
nicated to  him,  is  a  proper  matter  peculiar  to  such  an 
action,  because  it  is  in  that  action  that  the  husband  may 
be  charged  with  having  condoned  his  wife's  offense ;  pe- 
eause,  also,  the  man  who  finally  comes  into  court  and 
eeeks  a  divorce  is  the  same  man  whose  conduct  in  living 
with  his  wife  after  the  knowledge  of  her  guilt  Involves 
an  incongruity*  The  same  spirit  that  leads  him  to  bring 
flis  action  for  divorce  would  lead  him  to  a  separation 
from  his  wife  as  soon  as  he  learned  she  was  guilty.  But 
in  this  action  that  principle  does  not  apply.  I  do  not 
think  it  is  of  any  moment  whatever. 

XLVII.  The  silence  of  the  plaintiff  toward  the  defend- 
ant for  nearly  six  months  after  he  says  he  was  in  posses- 
Bion  of  the  fact  that  adultery  had  been  committed,  is 
cogent  evidence  against  the  truth  of  the  present  charge. 

Upon  the  mere  face  of  the  proposition  that  would  be  so, 
and  it  is  so  here  unless  you  take  into  consideration,  as 
you  should,  the  question  whether  upon  the  confession  of 
that  by  the  wife,  if  she  did  confess,  or  taking  into  view 
the  conduct  of  the  plaintiff  on  the  assumption  of  a  con- 
iefe-sioij,  did  the  wife  influence  him  to  silence— peace,  and 


did  he  yield  to  that  influence  ?  Does  that  account  for  the 
circumstance  that  not  until  so  long  after  the  supposed  or 
alleged  confessions  did  he  make  any  distinct  avowal  of  his 
grievance  ?  That  is  for  you  to  consider,  gentlemen,  and 
I  think  you  ought  to  look  at  it  In  that  Ught,  either  to  ao- 
oept  or  reject  the  suggestion : 

XLVIII.  The  testimony  of  the  plaintiff  that  he  first 
disclosed  any  charge  against  the  defendant,  to  his  own 
employer,  in  connection  with  business  arrangements, 
and  united  with  him  in  an  effort  to  drive  defendant  from 
Brooklyn,  and  that  he  made  no  disclosure  of  the  charge 
to  the  defendant  until  this  effort  failed,  is  cogent  evi- 
dence against  the  truth  of  the  present  charge. 

Taken  in  connection  with  the  next  one ; 

XLIX.  The  facts  that  after  making  the  charge,  and 
learning  that  it  was  retracted  by  his  wife,  the  plaintiff 
became  reconciled  with  the  defendant,  and  restored  the 
social  relations  of  himself  and  wife  with  him,  is  cogent 
evidence  against  the  truth  of  the  present  charge. 

That  is  cogent  evidence  to  the  like  effect.  As  to  each  of 
those  propositions,  gentle  m  en,  they  are  all  questions  of 
fact  for  you  to  con  sider,  and,  according  as  you  may  in- 
terpret the  acts  and  condu  ct  of  the  party,  the  evidence 
win  be  more  or  less  strong,  in  a  large  degree  circum  stantial 
or  presumptive,  and  falling  with  in  your  province  entirely. 
I  am  indisposed  to  speak  of  the  evidence  as  to  what  you 
may  draw  or  not  draw  as  being  cogent.  You  wUl  consider 
the  subject  in  its  various  aspects,  and  satisfy  yourselves 
as  to  the  motive  which  led  the  plaintiff  to  first  disclose 
the  facts  to  Mr.  Bowen,  if  he  did  do  so,  and  led  him  to 
remain  in  association  with  his  wife,  led  him  to  renew  the 
friendly  intercourse  wiih  the  defendant,  or  led  him  to 
whatever  characterized  his  conduct  and  course  in  any 
degree  in  a  peculiar  way. 

LI.  Where,  on  a  material  question  of  fact,  the  plaintiff 
swears  one  way  and  the  defendant  directly  adverse,  and 
the  defendant  puts  in  evidence  a  written  statement  made 
by  the  plaintiff  before  the  action  was  commenced  

No  matter  whether  it  was  before  the  action  had  cont- 
menced  or  not 

And  flatly  contr  adicting  his  testimony,  the  jury  are 
boimd  to  consider  his  testimony  on  the  point  as  conclu- 
sively discredited. 

That  is  true  if  properly  applied.  If  A  brings  an  action 
against  B  on  a  claim  resting  in  parole,  a  claim  for  work 
and  labor  or  money  lent',  and  now  being  allowed  to  be  a 
witness,  testifies  on  the  trial  to  the  fact  that  the  defend- 
ant was  indebted,  and  denies  that  he  has  been  paid,  and 
the  defendant  should  produce  a  letter  written  by  him 
(the  plaintiff)  to  the  defendant,  or  to  any  one  else,  stating 
that  that  claim  had  been  settled  and  paid,  that  would  be 
conclusive  of  course  in  connection  with  the  defendant's 
evidence  denying  that  the  indebtedness  remained.  That 
is  the  application  of  that  proposition.  I  have  explained 
to  you  already  how  you  should  consider  previous  incon- 
sistent declarations  which  you  may  find  have  been  made 
by  the  plaintiff,  whether  before  the  action  was  com- 
menced or  afterward,  characterizing  or  affecting  hi» 


JUDGE  NEILSOB'S  CHARGE, 


1039 


testimony  here,  and  you  are  to  interpret  and  apply  it.  I 
think  it  la  a  matter  of  fact  for  you. 

LII.  The  unequivocal  admissions  of  the  plaintiff  himself 
and  of  Mr.  Moulton,  that  they  have  deliberately  and  sys- 
tematically represented  the  facts  involved  in  this  present 
charge  in  a  manner  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  present 
charge,  and,  in  maintenance  of  the  defendant's  and  Mrs. 
Tilton's  innocence,  discredits  their  testimony  to  the  con- 
trary now  given,  and  requires  its  rejection  by  the  jui-y  as 
•wholly  untrustworthy. 

I  explained  to  you,  gentlemen,  the  theory  and  duty 
"Which  I  suppose  that  you  would  respect  in  that  regard, 
and  admonished  you  to  consider  how  far,  if  at  all,  Mr. 
Moulton's  previous  contradictory  statements  could  be 
ascribed  to  an  honorable  pui-pose  to  suppress  scandal, 
protect  the  defendant,  and  to  protect  Elizabeth  and  carry 
out  the  doctrine  of  suppression.  The  same  suggestion 
applies  to  Mr.  Tilton,  and  you  are  at  liberty  to  consider, 
and  should  consider,  the  motive  which  led  them  to  do 
one  thing  or  to  do  the  other,  and  whether  they  did  so 
with  a  moral  puii)ose  or  an  immoral  pui-pose,  honestly  or 
dishonestly,  and  then  determine  the  effect  either  in  large 
or  less  degree,  or  no  degree  whatever,  as  prejudicial  to 
their  testimony. 

Lni.  If  the  jury  believe  that  the  plaintiff  or  any  other 
■witness  of  his  has  willfully  sworn  falsely  on  a  material 
point,  they  should  disregard  the  whole  testimony  of  such 
"Witness. 

I  have  stated  the  rule  on  that.  That  is  a  general  rule, 
but  is  not  imperative  where  any  part  of  the  testimony  of 
the  witness  thus  affected  is  corroborated. 

LIV.  When  a  witness  testifies  to  a  conversation  of  the 
defendant,  at  which  no  other  person  was  present,  there 
are  no  means  of  direct  contradiction  except  by  the  oath 
of  the  defendant.  If  the  jmy  find  a  train  of  circum- 
stances inconsistent  with  the  alleged  conversation,  and 
the  conversation  is  fully  denied  by  the  defendant,  they 
may  reject  the  testimony  to  such  alleged  conversation. 

Certainly  you  may,  because  the  Whole  matter  belongs 
to  you,  and  this  is  one  of  the  incidents  that  should  on 
your  part  secure  patieiit  attention.  [To  counsel.]  Gen- 
tlemen, are  you  content  ? 

Mr.  Beach— We  are,  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— Yes,  Sir. 

THE  JURY  RETIRE  TO  DELIBERATE. 

Judge  Neilson— Mr.  Spaiilding  !  [Turning  to 
Mr.  Mallison.]   Who  are  the  officers  ? 

Mr.  Mallison— Officers  Doyle,  Spaulding,  and  Thayer. 

Judge  Neilson— Come  forward  here. 

A  Juror— If  the  Court  please,  will  your  Honor  allow  us 
access  to  the  original  records  or  papers,  if  we  require 
them  1  We  only  require  a  few. 

Judge  Neilson— It  is  not  usual  for  the  jury  to  take  out 
any  papers,  but  the  question  in  any  particular  instance 
rests  with  the  counsel. 

A  Juror— We  assume  that  we  would  only  re<iuire  two 
Or  three. 

Judge  Neilson— What  t 


A  Juror— We  assume  that  we  would  omy  require  two  or 
three. 

Mr.  Beach— We  have  no  objection  on  our  part.  Sir. 

Mr.  Evarts— The  difficulty  In  such  cases,  if  your  Honor 
please,  and  without  reference  to  this  particular  case,  is  in 
determining  what  are  and  what  are  not  within  a  nroper 
allowance,  what  the  jury  may  have  in  their  mind.  Some 
papers  may  not  be  in  existence  and  others  may  be  in  ex- 
istence, and  those  not  in  existence  are  produced  in  evi- 
dence. We  cannot  send  up  those  that  are  not  in  exist- 
ence. That  is  the  difficulty. 

Judge  Neilson— No,  there  Is  an  embarrassment  about  it, 
I  think  if,  in  your  deliberations,  any  specific  question 
should  arise  as  to  any  particular  paper,  you  can  send 
down  full  information  and  we  will  give  it  to  you  as  far 
as  we  are  able. 

Mr.  Beach— That  may  produce  some  inconvenience, 
your  Honor,  in  the  absence  of  parties  and  of  counsel. 

Judge  Neilson— I  should  not  do  it  in  the  absence  of  coun- 
sel— never  answer  any  question  sent  down  by  the  jury. 

Mr.  Beach— I  do  not  understand  the  jirrors  to  request 
that  papers  should  be  handed  to  them  which  are  not  in 
existence,  but  there  are  two  or  three  I  understand  it 
would  be  desirable  for  them  to  have.  It  seems  to  me 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  objection  to  the  submission  of 
original  papers  of  that  character.  For  instance,  Sir,  in  re- 
gard to  the  "  Letter  of  Apology,"  as  it  is  called,  where  some 
question  has  been  made  upon  the  appearance  of  the  in- 
stiaimeut  itself,  that  the  jury  should  have  that  to  look  at 
seems  to  me  proper. 

Judge  Neilson— Will  you  have  the  kindness,  Mr.  Abbott, 
to  look  and  see  if  there  is  any  particular  paper  which  you 
wish  to  give  to  the  jury  1  I  have  no  suggestion  to  make 
on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Morris— We  are  willing  they  should  take  all,  so  far 
as  we  are  concerned. 

Mr.  Mallison  (the  Clerk)  then  administered  the  follow- 
ing oath  to  the  three  officers  having  the  jury  in  charge  : 

You  shall  well  and  truly  keep  every  person  sworn  on 
this  jury  in  some  private  and  convenient  place,  without 
meat  or  drink,  water  excepted ;  you  shaR  not  suffer  any 
person  to  speak  to  them,  nor  speak  to  them  yourself 
without  leave  of  the  Court,  except  it  be  to  ask  them 
vs^hether  they  have  agreed  on  their  verdict,  until  they 
have  agreed  on  their  verdict,  so  help  you  God, 

Mr.  Morris — I  understand  your  Honor  has  dii'eeted  the 
jurors'  dinner  to  be  served  to  them.   That  is  excepted. 

Judge  Neilson— Are  there  refreshments  up  stairs  1 

Officer  Spaulding— No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— There  will  De. 

Officer  Spaulding— When  we  get  the  jortjrs''  orders,  so 
as  to  take  them  up. 

Judge  Neilson— Give  a  general  comprehensive  order. 
At  any  rate,  have  it  brought  t&ere.  [To  the  jurors]— 
Please  retire  with  the  ofR*:<irs,  gentlemen. 

The  jury  then  retired. 


1040 


THE    TILTON-BEECEEB  TRIAL. 


IIITH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

THE  BEECHES  JUEY  DECLARE  IT  IMPOS- 
SIBLE TO  AGREE. 

REFERENCE  OF  THE  JUDGE  TO  THE  LOADER  AND 
PRICE  AFFIDAVITS — THE  CONFESSIONS  OF  THE 
PERJURERS  NOT  ALLUDED  TO. 

Thursday,  July  1,  1875. 

The  City  Court  resumed  the  session  shortly  after 
10  o'clock  to-day,  Judge  Neilson  taking  his  seat 
on  the  bench  for  the  trial  of  a  case  without  a  jury, 
the  trial  term  of  the  Court  having  expired  on  Wed- 
nesday. The  room  was  almost  deserted,  only  the 
officers  and  a  few  persons  interested  in  the  case 
hef  ore  the  court  occupying  the  seats  on  the  floor. 

About  half-past  10  this  monotoliy  was  relieved 
and  the  excitement  increased  by  the  appearance  of 
Officer  Spaulding,  one  of  those  in  charge  of  the  jury, 
with  a  note  which  he  handed  up  to  the  Judge.  It 
was  the  first  direct  communication  from  the  jury  as 
a  body  which  had  been  made  during  the  entire  seven 
days  during  which  they  have  been  out.  It  was  brief 
and  to  the  point,  conveying  the  painful  confirmation 
of  the  rumors  of  disagreement.   It  read  as  follows  : 

May  it  please  the  Court :  We  think  there  is  no  pos- 
sibility of  our  agreeing  on  a  verdict,  and  we  respect- 
fully ask  to  be  discharged. 

Chester  Carpenter,     A.  R.  Case, 
Griffin  B.  Halstead,     Edward  Whelan, 
Henry  Thyer,  William  T.  Jeffrey, 

George  Hull,  John  McMurn, 

Christopher  Fitter,     Wm.  H.  Davis. 
Samuel  Flate, 

It  was  accompanied  by  a  second  communica,tion 
from  Juryman  Taylor,  which  explained  the  absence 
of  his  name  from  the  list.   His  note  read : 

May  it  please  the  Court :  I  don't  think  we  ought  to 
be  discharged  just  yet.  We  are  still  discussing  the 
evidence,  and  I  think  we  could  profitably  stay  out 
longer.  John  F.  Taylor. 

THE  JURY  IN  COURT. 

The  Court  waited  less  than  five  minutes  for  the 
coming  of  the  jury.  At  exactly  1:35  p.  m.  they  filed 
slowly  into  the  room,  Mr.  Carpenter  leading,  and 
followed  by  Mr,  Jeffrey.  Mr.  Carpenter  at  once  re- 
sumed his  old  seat,  thus  dissipating  the  rumors  that 
there  had  been  dissensions  in  the  jury-room  as  to  the 
election  of  a  foreman. 

The  court  was  soon  brought  to  complete  order  and 
stillness  by  the  Judge,  who  requested  the  audience 
to  keep  perfect  quiet,  and  directed  the  Clerk  to  call 
the  jury.   When  he  had  done  so,  and  the  jurors  had 


answered  to  their  names,  the  following  conversation 
ensued : 

Judge  Neilson — I  learn  from  a  coinmunication  received 
that  you  do  not  agree  as  yet  upon  a  verdict. 

Mr.  Carpenter  [the  foreman]— No,  Sir. 

Judge  Neilson— And  is  ttie  difference  between  you  as  to 
a  matter  of  fact,  or  some  legal  matter  in  respect  to  wMcli 
I  could  lielp  you  ? 

Mr.  Carpenter— There  are  several  points.  I  think,  Sir, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  this  jury  to  agree;  I  regret  it 
very  much.  That  is  my  opinion,  and  it  is  the  opinion  of 
the  jiu'y,  all  except  one.  He  would  yet  like  to  hold  out 
longer,  but  I  think  it  is  without  any  hope. 

Judge  NeUson— Are  the  points  to  which  you  refer  mat- 
ters of  fact,  or  of  law  % 

Mr.  Carpenter— Facts. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes,  Sir.  You  will  perceive,  gentle- 
men, the  embarrassment  the  Court  is  under  in  a  trial 
occupying  several  months  before  a  jury  of  great  apparent 
devotion  and  promptness  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty» 
and  in  attending  to  the  evidence,  and  with  the  evidence 
fully,  very  fully  discussed  by  counsel,  then  given  to  the 
jury.  Although  this  is  the  sixth  or  seventh  day  that  you 
have  been  out,  I  received  to-day  the  first  sug- 
gestion from  the  jury  that  they  were  not  likely 
to  agree,  or  cannot  agree.  With  the  consent  of 
counsel  I  should  have  put  myself  in  commmiication  with 
the  jm?y  before,  by  way  of  inquiry  whether  you  were 
likely  to  agree,  except  for  my  own  conviction,  concm-red 
in  by  some  of  the  counsel,  that  it  was  not  proper  to  in- 
terrupt the  jury  when  in  the  midst  of  their  deliberations, 
and  when  they  make  no  request  of  the  Court.  My  own 
impression  was  that  you,  itt  your  place,  had  the  right  to 
remaia  and  continue  your  inquiries  without  intrusion, 
even  from  the  Court,  until  you  requested  assistance. 

As  to  the  papers  sent  up  to  you,  I  think  you  understand 
that  I  could  not  send  anything  up  without  consent  of  the 
counsel  on  both  sides,  and  I  believe  all  that  you  have  re- 
quested in  that  respect  was  finally  supplied.  We  have 
waited  with  great  respect  and  confidence,  believing  that 
the  iury,  thus  continuing  their  deliberations  without 
making  inquiries  of  the  Court,  were  doing  all  that  could 
be  done  toward  an  agreement,  and  not  doubting  your 
ability  to  agree,  because  inability  to  agree  often  depends 
upon  the  disposition  or  indisposition  to  agree.  Of 
course,  without  quoting  the  counsel,  or  assuming  to 
know  what  they  would  say  if  they  were  at  lib- 
erty to  speak  on  the  subject,  I  assume  that 
in  the  view  and  estimate  of  all  of  us  and  of  all  persons 
connected  with  the  case,  uowevor remotely,  that  the  wish 
is  very  strong  that  there  should  be  an  agreement,  that 
th^e  should  be  a  verdict.  The  mere  humiliation  on  the 
part  of  the  court,  so  far  as  I  represent  it,  to  spend  some 
months  without  getting  a  verdict  one  way  or  the  other,  I 
shall  pass  over.  Still  there  is  a  deeper  interest  than  that 
—one  affecting  the  public,  one  affecting  the  parties  so 


TEE  JURY  DISAGREE  AXD  ARE  VLSCRARGEB. 


1041 


that  perliaps  it  -would  be  difficiilt  to  find  any  case 
wliere  an  agreement  by  a  jury  would  be  so 
desirable ;  so  unperatire,  if  I  might  apply  that  word.  In 
our  embarrassments,  while  you  have  been  silent  at  your 
work,  various  considerations  have  been  pressed  upon  our 
attention  and  the  attention  of  counsel ;  and  perhaps  there 
is  one  subject  to  which  I  may  refer  without  at  all  reflect- 
ing upon  your  intelligence,  or  having  you  suppose  that 
on  my  part  I  infer  that  you  need  any  instruction  what- 
ever. Attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that,  after 
the  argument  and  before  the  charge,  some  papers  were 
handed  up  to  me,  understood,  and,  I  think,  stated  here, 
to  be  on  an  application  to  receive  further  evidence,  and 
during  the  evening  I  examined  those  papers,  as  it  was 
assumed  I  would,  and  next  morning  denied  that  applica- 
tion. It  was  very  informal ;  counsel  were  not  heard  ; 
even  the  subject  matter  of  the  proposed  evidence  was 
not  stated  in  your  hearing  as  it  was  stated  to  me,  nor 
stated  to  the  counsel  for  the  defendant.  I  thought  proper 
to  deny  that  application,  and  assumed  from  that  moment 
that  the  jury  would  forget  that  circumstance  ;  that  a 
jury  sworn  to  decide  according  to  the  evidence  actually 
before  them  would'  not  allow  themselves  for  a 
moment  to  remember  that  there  had  been  some 
suggestion  about  putting  in  more  evidence.  And 
yet,  the  minds  of  many  have  been  disturbed  upon  that 
,  subject,  as  if  by  possibility  there  might  be  lingering  in 
the  mind  of  some  one  of  your  number  some  thought  that 
there  had  been  further  evidence  and  an  application  for 
its  submission.  I  would  like  to  feel,  gentlemen,  that  that 
is  not  so,  and  I  would  like  also  to  feel  that  you  do  not 
take  it  ill  that  I  call  yo\ir  attention  to  the  subject.  Of 
course,  it  is  a  matter  that  you  ought  not  to  think  of,  nor 
remember;  it  is  not  before  you.  Although  it  came  up 
incidentally  in  \  he  form  I  have  suggested,  I  think  I  may 
assume  that  you  have  not  allowed  yourselves  to  think  of 
that. 

Mr.  Carpenter— We  have  not ;  it  has  not  been  men- 
tioned m  the  jury-room  to  my  knowledge. 

Judge  Neilson— Yes.  Now,  would  it  be  suitable  or  con- 
venient, gentlemen,  to  state  to  me  some  question  that 
savors  of  the  questions  of  law  upon  which  I  can  instruct 
you  ;  or  is  it  simply  and  solely  a  question  of  fact ! 

Mr.  Carpenter— It  is  a  question  of  fact,  a  question  of 
the  veracity  of  witnesses  on  which  we  do  not  agree,  your 
Honor,  and  I  would  say  I  think  there  is  not  a  possibility 
of  an  agreement  in  this  jury.  I  have  come  to  that  con- 
elusion  very  reluctantly,  done  all  that  I  could,  and  with 
the  rest  ot  us— we  have  all  worked  hard  to  compare  our 
views  and  the  evidence,  but  it  cannot  be  done.  If  we 
were  there  one  month,  in  my  opinion,  we  should  come  no 
nearer  to  it  than  we  are  to-day. 

Judge  Neilson— You  speak  for  all  the  jury  in  that 
matter  ? 

Mr.  Carpenter— I  speak  for  the  whole  of  them  except 
one. 


Judge  Neilson— I  have  had  a  note  from  that  one.  He 
thinks  that  further  examination  of  the  testimony  ought 
to  be  made,  and  I  am  disposed  myself  to  feel  that  very 
strongly— whether  you  seem  to  think  that  by  further  ex- 
amination of  the  testimony,  possibly  you  might  get  over 
some  of  the  difficulty  that  you  have. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  will  you,  appreciating  what  I 
have  said  to  you  as  to  the  importance  of  the  case,  also  re, 
membering  what  very  often  occurs  in  courts,  that  a  jury 
are  sometimes  requested  to  return  to  their  deliberations 
after  they  have  announced  that  they  cannot  asrree  (so 
that  this  proceeding  is  not  peculiar  at  all)— wlU  you,  car- 
rytug  the  sympathy  and  good  wishes  of  the  Court  with 
you,  retire  to  your  rooms  and  give  this  subject  further 
consideration,  and  commimicate  with  me  at  about  4 
o'clock  this  afternoon.  In  your  further  consideration  of 
the  subject  I  assume  you  will  take  it  up  as  brethren,  and 
try  if  you  cannot  see  in  the  volumes  of  the  testimony  you 
have  before  you  something  to  obviate  the  trouble. 

Mr.  Carpenter— Shall  this  be  a  written  communication, 
your  Honor  ? 

Judge  Neilson— Send  in  the  fact  and  I  will  send  for  you. 

Mr.  Carpenter— Yes,  Sir. 

The  jury  were  then  directed  to  retire. 


112TH   DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 


THE  JURY  DISCHARGED. 

STATEMEJCT  FEOM  THE  JURY  OF  THEIR  IXABTLITY 
TO  AGREE— THE  JUDGE'S  ADDRESS  TO  THE  JURY 
—  THEY  ARE  DISCHARGED. 

Friday,  July  2,  1875. 
The  jury  in  the  Tilton-Beecher  case  finally  de- 
cided that  they  could  not  agree,  and  early  this 
morning  sent  word  to  that  eftect  to  Judge  Neilson. 
They  were  called  into  Court  a  little  after  11  o'clock, 
and,  after  a  few  words  of  explanation,  were  dis- 
charged. Mr.  Carpenter,  the  foreman,  had  written 
to  Judge  Neilson  very  early  in  the  morning,  to  the 
eftect  that  an  agreement  was  impossible.  In  this 
view  the  whole  12  jurors  coincided,  and  all  united 
in  the  application  to  be  discharged.  Judge  Neil- 
son had  no  alternative  but  to  consent,  and  returned 
an  answer  to  the  effect  that  they  would  be  sent  for 
as  soon  as  the  lawyers  and  the  others  interested  in 
the  case  could  be  summoned  to  receive  them.  The 
jurors  marched  slowly  into  court,  the  foreman  lead- 
ing, followed  immediately  by  Mr.  Case,  all  eyes 
were,  of  course,  turned  upon  them,  and  complete 
silence  reigned.  Air.  Mallison  permitted  no  delay, 
but,  after  the  formal  roll-call,  asked,  in  a  loud  voice, 
"  Gentlemen,  have  you  agreed  on  a  verdict '?" 


1042  THE  TILTON-B. 

Mr.  Carpenter  (the  foreman)— We  liave  not.  We 
very  mucli  regret  that  we  find  it  impossible  to  agree, 
and  ask  for  a  discharge  from  the  Court. 

Judge  Neilson  rising  slowly  addressed  the  jury  as 
follows : 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  learn  by  a  note  received 
±:om  your  foreman  very  early  thla  morning  that,  in  your 
opinion,  you  should  be  discharged,  and  that  some  of  your 
number  are  suffering  In  their  health.  I  have  felt  the 
force  of  that  apnlication  very  strongly,  and  have  called 
you  in  now  at  the  earliest  moment  when  I  could  feel  as- 
sured that  the  persons  in  interest,  and  the  counsel,  so 
far  as  they  wished  to  attend,  should  have  an  opportunity 
of  being  present. 

As  we  are  now  about  to  separate,  gentlemen,  I  would 
like  to  have  you  carry  away  with  you  a  kindly  recollec- 
tion as  far  as  you  can,  tending  to  qualify  somewhat  what- 
ever of  oppression  you  may  have  felt  from  being  de- 
taiued  so  long,  and  it  is  perhaps  my  privilege  in  that 
view  to  ask  you  to  recall  the  fact,  and  have  it  in  mind, 
that  not  until  yesterday  had  we  any  suggestion 
from  you  that  you  could  not  agree.  That  suggestion 
came  in  the  form  of  a  very  explicit  letter,  signed  by 
eleven  of  your  number,  accompanied  by  a  note  written 
by  another  of  your  number  objectmg  to  the  discharge  of 
the  jury  and  stating  that,  in  his  opinion,  further  atten- 
tion should  be  given  to  the  evidence.  While  I  had,  of 
course,  perfect  confidence  in  the  suggestion  made  by  the 
eleven  of  your  number,  and  in  the  explanation 
made  by  the  foreman,  I  felt  that  something  was 
due  to  the  opinion  of  the  twelfth  juryman  who 
sent  his  own  note  objecting  to  the  discharge. 
I  had  the  same  thing  in  mind  at  4  o'clock  when  I  sent 
word  to  you  last.  I  thought  it  proper  to  allow  that  jury- 
man, Mr.  Taylor,  to  devote  his  time,  so  far  as  he  could, 
to  such  explanations  as  in  his  opinion  his  co-jurymen 
might  be  profited  by,  and  I  assume  now  he  has  had  for 
that  purpose  a  full  and  fair  opportimity. 

I  learn  from  the  note  just  sent  in  from  the  jury  that  you 
are,  as  stated  now  by  the  foreman,  imable  to  agree ;  also 
that  the  disagreement  is  in  reference  to  the  weight  of 
testimony  and  the  credibility  of  some  of  the  witnesses. 
Well,  as  indicated  yesterday,  gentlemen,  and  as  every 
person  conversant  with  the  trial  of  causes  well  knows,  it 
is  utterly  impossible  for  me  to  help  you  by  any  argument, 


EECRER  TRIAL. 

illustration,  or  suggestion  in  reference  to  the  weight  of 
!  testimony,  or  in  reference  to  the  credibility  of 
I  some  of  the  witnesses;  and  if  I  had  sought 
I  to  do  so,  by  any  method  within  my  power, 
now  or  in  the  charge  itself,  I  should  have  found  no  means 
of  assisting  you  upon  such  questions.  The  course  pur- 
sued by  judges  ta  such  instances  is  well  settled  and  uni- 
form. We  all  concede  titiat  the  weight  of  testimony  rests 
with  the  jury,  and  it  is  for  their  consideration,  and  that 
it  is  for  the  jury  to  say  what  witnesses  they  can  believe 
and  what  they  cannot,  and  that  the  Court  has  no  right 
or  power  to  interfere  with  these  questions.  I  then  have 
the  satisfaction  of  inferring  from  this  ground  on  which 
you  put  your  disagreement  that  it  is  not  from  any  want 
of  attention  on  my  part,  either  in  committing  the  case  to 
you  in  the  first  place  or  anything  I  may  have  said  smce, 
because  those  are  points  upon  which  I  could  do  nothing. 

There  is  another  matter,  gentlemen,  that  has  excited 
some  public  attention,  in  regard  to  which  I  thought  I 
had  satisfied  myself  yesterday.  I  would  like  to  learn 
from  the  jury,  now  and  explicitly,  that  the  suggestion  of 
new  evidence,  or  the  application  made  in  your  hearing  to 
take  further  testimony,  has  not  m  any  way  clouded  your 
vision,  or  occupied  your  thoughts  directly  or  indirectly 
during  your  deliberations.  Am  1  correct  in  that  ? 

Mr.  Carpenter— You  are.  I  would  say  that  I  have  con- 
versed with  many  of  the  jurors  since  yesterday  on  that 
subject  and  asked  them  if  they  have  heard  it.  Not  one  of 
them  has  said  that  he  has  heard  it  mentioned  in  the 
iury-box,  or  since  we  went  out. 

Judge  Neilson— It  has  not  been  In  yom'  mind  9 

Mr.  Carpenter— It  has  not  been  in  my  mind. 

Judge  Neilson— I  am  gratified  to  learn  that,  gentlemen. 
It  only  remains  for  me  to  accept  the  suggestion  that  you 
make,  that  you  are  not  able  to  agree,  on  the  ground  men- 
tioned—to wit,the  weight  of  testimony  and  the  credibility 
of  certain  witnesses.  You  will  also  accept  the  sugges- 
tion that  in  respect  to  the  health  of  some  of  you,  it  would 
be  cruel  to  ask  you  to  remain  longer,  and  therefore  I  will 
discharge  you  from  the  further  consideration  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Carpenter— Thank  you. 

Clerk  MaUison— Gentlemen,  you  are  now  discharged. 
Any  day  after  next  Monday  you  oan  get  your  fees  at  the 
County  Treasurer's  olBoe. 


END  OF  VOLUME  THREE, 


PAPERS 

BEAD  BBFO££  THX 

Medico-Legal  Society  of  New  York, 

From  its  Organization  in  1868. 
PRIOE-Sheep,     -      -     $5.00.  Cloth,     -      -  $4.60. 


Rarely  have  we  had  presented  to  our  consideration  a  work  of  more  practical  utility 
khan  this  volume.  Besides  a  brief  Introduction,  giving  an  account  of  the  Society,  and 
an  Appendix,  giving  the  Constitution  and  By-Laws,  it  comprehends  tweuty-fom-  papers 
ou  Medico-Legal  questions — ^not  by  any  means  confined  to  the  mere  professioual  inter- 
est of  the  two  professions  which  constitute  the  Society,  but  of  extensive  practical 
utility  to  the  public.  B'^ers  on  the  management  of  the  Insane  ;  Inebriate  Asylums  ; 
the  Sale  of  Poisons ;  Cc9  jsiderationa  upon  Alcoholism  ;  The  Moral  and  Criminal  Respon- 
sibility of  Inebriates  ;  The  influence  of  Epilepsy  upon  Criminal  ResponsibiUty ;  Heredi- 
tary Influences,  and  others  of  like  value,  and  almost  without  exception,  papers  of  pro- 
found research  and  thorough  study  make  up  the  volume. 

The  pubUshers  deserve  well,  not  only  of  the  medical  and  legal  professions,  but  of  the 
public,  for  the  good  work  they  have  done  in  bringing  out  this  volume,  and  we  are  glad 
to  learn  that  if  their  action  meets  with  anything  like  the  encouragement  it  deserves,  a 
Second  Series  will  speedily  follow— T/ie  Sanitarian. 

This  book  is  the  first  one  of  its  kind  ever  printed  in  the  English  language.  It  there- 
fore deserves  special  attention.  The  Medico-Legal  Society  of  New  York  has  the  honor  of 
being  the  first  Society  of  the  kind  ever  organized. 

The  publication  of  all  the  papers  read  before  this  Society  had  for  many  years  been  dis- 
cussed, and  proposed  in  many  forms.  At  the  meeting  of  the  Society  in  December,  1872, 
the  President  was  authorized  to  name  a  committee  of  three  to  propose  a  plan,  and  to 
ascertain  all  the  details  relating  to  such  publication,  and  to  make  a  report  thereupon. 
This  committee  consisted  of  William  A.  Hammond,  M.  D.,  R.  S.  Guernsey,  Esq.,  and 
Stephen  Rodgers,  M.  D. 

At  the  following  January  meeting  of  the  executive  oomnuttee  of  the  Society,  Mr.  R. 
S.  Guernsey,  chairman  ofjthe  publication  committee,  reported  the  plan,  which  was  unan- 
imously adopted,  under  which  this  volume  now  appears.  The  papers  were  all  col- 
lected and  are  arranged  in  chronological  order,  as  read  before  the  Society,  and  some  of 
them  are  now  pubUshed  for  the  first  time. 

Each  of  the  papers  contained  in  this  volume  has  been  revised  by  the  individual  author 
of  it  expressly  for  this  publication,  which  renders  this  collection  one  of  increased  value; 
and,  while  it  will  be  found  particularly  useful  to  the  legal  and  medical  professions,  it 
cannot  fail  to  be  of  interest  to  the  general  pubUc.  There  are  twenty-four  papers  in  this 
volume,  and  it  has  an  excellent  index,  and  the  introduction  has  a  history  of  the  Medico- 
Legal  Society.   The  mechanical  work  is  excellent. — Daily  Begisier. 

A  collection  of  valuable  papers,  including  many  of  more  or  less  value  to  the  Insur- 
Burance  fraternity.  "  The  law  in  Reference  to  Suicide  and  Intemperence  in  Life  Insur- 
ance," the  papers  on  "  The  Influence  of  Methomania  (AlcohoUsm)  upon  Business  and 
Criminal  Responsibility,"  "On  Hereditary  Diseases,"  on  "  Mental  Insanity,"  on  "  Suicide 
and  Intemperance,"  on  "  The  Provisions  of  Life  Insurance  PoUcies,"  on  *'  Sanity  and 
Insanity,"  and  other  important  topics,  are  not  only  extremely  interesting,  but  extremely 
valuable.  We  commend  the  book  to  the  attention  of  the  profession  at  large.— 
Irmuranoe  Monitor. 

MoDIVITT,  CAMPBELL  &  CO., 

Law  and  Medical  Book  Publishers, 

79  Nassau  Street,  New  York, 


BOOKS  PUBLISHED 

BY 

McDivitt,  Campbell  &  Co., 


79  IfASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK. 


National  Bswikruptcy  Reg-ister  Reports. 

Pablishfcd  in  numbers  at  $5  per  Volume.  Bound  Volume  $6.00.  Voi- 
urae  10  now  ready.  Volumes  1,  2,  3,  4,  octavo,  second  edition,  $7.50  per 
volume. 

KTational  Bankruptcy  Register  Digest. 

Containing  a  full  digest  of  all  the  cases  reported  in  the  ten  volumes  of 
National  Bankruptcy  Register  Reports.    Price  $7.50.    (In  press.) 

Papers  read  before  the  Medico-Legal  Society  of  New  York. 

First  series,  oue  volume.    Price,  Sheep,  $5.00.    Cloth,  $4.50. 
Living  Authors  at  the  New  York  Bar. 

Extra  paper,  $1.00.    Cloth,  ^i.50.  . 

Psychological  and  Medico-Legal  Journal. 

Issued  iMoinhly,  $5.00  per  annum.  Edited  by  William  A.  Ham- 
mond, M.D.,  assisted  by  T.  M.  B.  CROSS;  M.D. 

Amendments  to  the  Bankrupt  Law. 

Price  25  cents. 

Trial  of  Fanny  Hyde. 

Price  75  cents. 

Reports  of  Celebrated  Cases  of  Doubtful  Mental  Condition. 

Rendered  in  the  Criminal  Courts  of  Germany.  Edited  and  annotated 
for  the  Medical  and  Legal  Profession  by  Carl  Liman,  M.D.,  Professor  at 
the  University  and  Physician  to  the  city  of  Berlin.  Translated  by  A. 
0.  Kellogg,  M.D.,  of  the  Hudson  River  State  Hospital,  Poughkeepsie, 
N.  Y.    (In  press.) 

R.  S.  Guernsey  on  Municipal  Law  and  its  Relations  to  the  Constitution 
of  Man. 

Price  25  cents. 

Juries  and  Physicians  on  Cluestions  of  Insanity. 

Price  25  cents. 

On  Sects  in  Medicine.  - 

By  John  C.  Peters,  M.D.    Price  25  cents. 

The  Legitimate  Influence  of  Epilepsy  upon  Criminal  Responsibility. 
By  Meredith  Clymer,  M.D.    Price  25  Cents. 


}\t  fcgcl|oIo0icHl  and  |[^dko-fegal  Jaunral, 


A  MONTHLY  REVIEW  OF 

PiSBASES  OF  THE  JAWD  AND   j^ERVOUS  ^YSTEM   AND  OF 

^EDiCAL  Jurisprudence. 


CONDUCTED  BY 


WILLIAM    A     HAMMOND,  M.D. 


ASSISTED  BT 


T.  M.  B.   CROSS,  M.D. 


With  the  above  title,  and  under  its  former  editor,  Dr.  William  A.. 
Hammond,  the  undersigned  has  re-established  the  Journal  of  Psycho- 
I.OGICAL  Medicine.    The  second  volume  begins  with  January,  ISTo. 

The  previous  publishers,  Messrs.  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  have  kindly 
presented  the  former  list  of  subscribers,  and  have  also  signified  their 
concurrence  in  the  re-p\iblication. 

This  new  series  is  issued  on  the  1st  day  of  every  month,  each  number 
consisting  of  64  pages,  8vo,  well  printed  on  excellent  paper. 

The  nature  of  the  subjects  to  be  discussed  in  its  pages  cannot  fall 
to  render  the  Psychological  and  Medico-Legal  Journal  of  great 
interest  and  importance  to  members  of  both  the  learned  professions  of 
Law  and  Medicine. 

It  is  the  organ  of  the  New  York  Neurological  Society,  also  of  the 
New  York  Medico-Legal  Society,  and  will,  same  as  before,  publish  all 
their  memoirs  and  discussions. 

The  subscription  price  will  be  $5.00  a  year,  or  $2.50  for  six  months  ; 
single  numbers,  50  cenis.  The  postage  -svill,  in  future,  be  paid  by  the 
publishers. 

All  subscriptions,  books  for  review,  and  all  letters  relating  to  the 
business  of  the  JOURNAL.,  should  be  addressed  to  the  Publishers. 


Communications  for  the  Editorial  Department  to  Dr.  William  A. 
Hammond,  43  West  54th  Street,  New  York. 


McDlVITT,  CAMPBELL  &  CO., 


Zaw  atid  Medical  ^ook  Publishers ^ 

111  Nassau  Street,  NEW  YOSK, 


GOLDEN  AGE  PUBLISHING  CO. 

CAPITAL    STOCK,  $100,000. 


41  l^^IMS:  ROW,  TIMES  UTTl  LT> J^VO, 

NEW  YORK. 


Enlargement  of  Circulation !     Improvement  in  Form ! 

Increase  of  Attractions ! 


On  the  first  of  January  the  financial  and  business  management  of  the  Golden  Agb  passed  into  the  hands 
of  the  GrOLDBN  Aqe  Publishing  Company,  which  is  composed  of  enterprising  and  energetic  gentlemen  of 
experience,  who  will  spare  no  pains  to  extend  its  circulation,  and  give  it  a  leading  place  among  the  weekly 
journals  of  the  country. 

The  Golden  Age  will  be  the  organ  of  no  man,  party  or  sect,  but  a  broad,  progressive,  undenominational 
paper,  representing  the  most  advanced  thought  of  the  age,  devoted  to  politics,  science,  religion  and  society. 

WILLIAM  T.  CLARKE,  its  Editor-in-Chief,  is  widely  and  favorably  known  as  one  of  the  most 
able,  brilliant  and  forcible  writers  in  the  country.  Mr.  Clarke  will  be  assisted  by  a  corps  of  famous  contributors, 
and  the  literary  department  of  the  Golden  Age  will  be  of  such  a  character  as  to  insure  its  careful  perusal  by 
wide-awake  readers,  well-to-do  families,  and  enterprising  business  men. 


We  offer  to  subscribers  the  two  elegant  Chromes, 

"The  Falls  of  Minnehaha,"  and  "The  Gorges  of  the  To-Semite," 

or  the  handsome  "  FIjO°W1EIR  PI£C£/'    The  best  Chromos  ever  produced. 


TERMS  or  THE  GOLDEN  AGE,  POST-PAID: 

The  Golden  Age,  1  year,  including  the  Flower  Piece,  or  both  the  Landscape  Chromos, 

unmounted  $3.00 

The  Golden  Age,  1  year,  including  mounted  Chromos  $3.50 


THE  GOLDEN  AGE  CIRCULATES 

Among  People  wlio  read  and  thinkf  People  of  enterprise  and  liberality, 

People  who  are  **  alive,    and  want  what  is  new  and  excellent, 
People  who  are  progressive, 

and  it  has  an  exclusive  constituency  not  reached  by  any  other  medium.  Among  such  readers  advertising  pays 
an  hundred  fold. 

THE  BEST  ADVERTISERS, 

and  the  most  experienced  and  successful  merchants  in  the  country,  advertise  freely  in  the  Golden  Age, 

among  whom  are 

A.  T.  STEWART  &  CO.  HARPER  &  BROTHERS, 
WHEELER  &  WILSON,  J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT  &  CO. 

B.  RIDLEY  &  SON,  0.  DITSON  &  CO. 

JEREMIAH  CURTIS  &  SONS,  JOHN  F.  HENRY,  CURRAN  &  CO. 

lYISON,  BLAKEMAN,  TAYLOR  &  CO.  DECKER  BROTHERS, 

and  hundreds  of  other  prominent  firms. 
Letters  should  be  addressed  as  follows: 

GOLDEN  AGE  PUBLISHING  CO., 
AGENTS  WANTED.  Box  2848,  New  York  City. 


m 


TiLTGN 

vs. 


